PDA

View Full Version : On Racial Primitivism and Progressivism


Loki
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 07:52 PM
What is your definition of "racial quality"?
Put a 2m tall, blond, blue-eyed Norwegian scientist next to a pitch-black, illiterate and unprincipled Negroid hunter-gatherer from the Congo, and there you have a stark contrast of what different racial qualities embody. In some cases, it is not as visually apparent as in this example. But then you look at advancement in culture, character, IQ, achievement, humanism, aesthetics, relative prosperity, etc and you will see the difference.

Glenlivet
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 08:58 PM
Can you post some?

Have you also ever heard of Zmejevka (which is also called Gammalsvenskby). People there are descended from a Swedish farmer population from Dagö in western Estonia whom emigrated to southern Ukraine. The colony was built in 1782. The village is called Starosjvedskaja in Russian and Alt–Schwedendorf in German. I'm also looking for pictures of Volksdeutschen from Odessa and Bessarabia. Do you know any good site?

The link below is to a nice website with passport photos of the Swedes whom travelled to Sweden in 1929. The photos are too small though.

http://www.svenskbyborna.com/Historia/PASSFOTON/


Nordic Ukrainians? ;)

Triglav
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 11:23 PM
Put a 2m tall, blond, blue-eyed Norwegian scientist

:icon_surp

Few Norwegians are 2m tall, and even less of those are blue-eyed and scientists. What is the percentage of Norwegians who fit that description?


next to a pitch-black,

Hopefully. We don't want him to be a mulatto, after all...

illiterate

Literacy is not their cup of tea. That is a European standard. If you're in favour of a cultural assimilation of Africans, then you are a great menace to Nordics and generally Europeans alike.

and unprincipled Negroid hunter-gatherer from the Congo, and there you have a stark contrast of what different racial qualities embody.

I think I'm in the worng movie here... They're supposed to be different. You don't want the Negro to be like the European (or Nordid for that matter), otherwise his chances of interbreeding with our women will skyrocket. Standards, values and culture are not universal. They are specific, and thus subjective. In plain English, what is good for us, isn't good for them. That which is desirable to us, can by the same token be alien to them.
They don't teach us what is good or bad or cool, and neither do we teach them. We all mind our own business, further and take care of our own culture, cherish our own values, perfect them, and they will do likewise with theirs. There's no comparison, therefore no juxtaposition and evaluation and no standards of superiority or inferiority. They can choose to follow their own evolutionary course, while we will evolve in a different way - just like we have so far.
Yet, there are always some insecure individuals in one group or another who think they must hide behind collective achievement and boost their egos by ridiculing others who are not comparable to them in the first place. It's deplorable.

In some cases, it is not as visually apparent as in this example.

You don't say? ;)

But then you look at advancement in culture, character, IQ, achievement, humanism, aesthetics, relative prosperity, etc and you will see the difference.

I can see that difference, alright. But the standards you're setting are arbitrary and, as lg properly named them, subjective. What makes your standards absolute?

The only thing such a view does is persuading Negroes into believeing that these are the standards they should go by and that these standards are absolute, which will make him imitate "whitey". Next thing you know, the Negro will speak a European language and bed a white (or Nordic) "hoe".

This worldview is what got us into this mess in the first place - white colonisers foisting the view that their ways, values and culture are superior to any other on others and thereby setting the standard for what is "proper" and "superior" for the members of other races. I already mentioned what that brought about...

Loki
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 11:38 PM
Literacy is not their cup of tea. That is a European standard. If you're in favour of a cultural assimilation of Africans, then you are a great menace to Nordics and generally Europeans alike.
On the contrary. I am altogether against assimilation between races. Me pointing out obvious differences does not mean I want them to get to our level. How do you deduce that?

I think I'm in the worng movie here... They're supposed to be different. You don't want the Negro to be like the European (or Nordid for that matter), otherwise his chances of interbreeding with our women will skyrocket. Standards, values and culture are not universal. They are specific, and thus subjective. In plain English, what is good for us, isn't good for them. That which is desirable to us, can by the same token be alien to them.
They don't teach us what is good or bad or cool, and neither do we teach them. We all mind our own business, further and take care of our own culture, cherish our own values, perfect them, and they will do likewise with theirs. There's no comparison, therefore no juxtaposition and evaluation and no standards of superiority or inferiority. They can choose to follow their own evolutionary course, while we will evolve in a different way - just like we have so far.
They are different, and that is my point. I can't see what difference it would make to appease the negroes, and tell them they are of equal racial quality to us. They are what they are, and we might as well be honest about that. They are inferior to us.

Yet, there are always some insecure individuals in one group or another who think they must hide behind collective achievement and boost their egos by ridiculing others who are not comparable to them in the first place. It's deplorable.
I am feeling insecure about the future of my race, because egalitarians are attempting to bury the truth that the white race is superior, and thus opening a wide door of possibilities regarding assimilation, integration and miscegenation. Collective achievement of a race or population is noteworthy, and one can draw conclusions from that. Everything does not revolve around the individual. We are talking about gene pools here.

I can see that difference, alright. But the standards you're setting are arbitrary and, as lg properly named them, subjective. What makes your standards absolute?
Racial standards are reality. They are not my standards, but the standards of the ages of evolution.

The only thing such a view does is persuading Negroes into believeing that these are the standards they should go by and that these standards are absolute, which will make him imitate "whitey". Next thing you know, the Negro will speak a European language and bed a white (or Nordic) "hoe".
Nonsense. The negro can never reach the level of the white man. That is why we have affirmative action in place everywhere in society, and the dumbing down of school curriculums in order to accommodate them. The real problem is white people trying to stoop down to the negro's level.

This worldview is what got us into this mess in the first place - white colonisers foisting the view that their ways, values and culture are superior to any other on others and thereby setting the standard for what is "proper" and "superior" for the members of other races. I already mentioned what that brought about...
I strongly disagree.

Triglav
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 11:53 PM
On the contrary. I am altogether against assimilation between races. Me pointing out obvious differences does not mean I want them to get to our level. How do you deduce that?

Your last answer seems to contradict that.


They are different, and that is my point. I can't see what difference it would make to appease the negroes, and tell them they are of equal racial quality to us. They are what they are, and we might as well be honest about that. They are inferior to us.

That which is not comparable to us can not be inferior to us.


I am feeling insecure about the future of my race, because egalitarians are attempting to bury the truth that the white race is superior, and thus opening a wide door of possibilities regarding assimilation, integration and miscegenation. Collective achievement of a race or population is noteworthy, and one can draw conclusions from that. Everything does not revolve around the individual. We are talking about gene pools here.

There is no inherent superiority. By setting the same standards for all races, you are just lumping them all together.


Racial standards are reality. They are not my standards, but the standards of the ages of evolution.

Everyone evolved in their own way.

Speaking of racial standards, Congoids seem to be better off than Europids. They are more aggressive, they have higher levels of testosterone and they bed our women. Survival is the only tangible standard for evolutionary (racial) superiority - if there is one - and we don't seem to be those who are gaining the upper hand.

Nonsense. The negro can never reach the level of the white man.

Nor can the white man ever surpass the Congoid in his specific qualities.

That is why we have affirmative action in place everywhere in society, and the dumbing down of school curriculums in order to accommodate them.

More proof that we are not comparable in the first place.

The real problem is white people trying to stoop down to the negro's level.

That's even a minor problem.


I strongly disagree.

If non-whites didn't imitate us, they could hardly be assimilated in the first place.

Loki
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 12:05 AM
Your last answer seems to contradict that. Explain.

That which is not comparable to us can not be inferior to us. Everything is comparable. Humans can be compared to chimpanzees too. And humans are superior to chimpanzees in evolutionary development, especially of the intellectual capabilities. It is all about intelligence.

There is no inherent superiority. By setting the same standards for all races, you are just lumping them all together. I don't understand your logic. Everything can be compared, and there are degrees of evolutionary advancement. Just as Homo sapiens is intellectually superior to Homo erectus, so the white race is intellectually superior to negroes. Only truth-denying anti-racists would reject this. Don't tell me "there is no inherent superiority". That is just anti-natural egalitarian bullshit.

Everyone evolved in their own way.
Well, duh.

Speaking of racial standards, Congoids seem to be better off than Europids. They are more aggressive, they have higher levels of testosterone and they bed our women. You are grasping straws. If Congoids are so much better off, why is Africa in such a mess? And Haiti? The Congoids cannot even help themselves. Which country is better off - Norway or Congo? You decide.

Survival is the only tangible standard for evolutionary (racial) superiority - if there is one - and we don't seem to be those who are gaining the upper hand. You are viewing 50 years of history, whereas you should view at least 2,000 years of history. You cannot draw superiority/inferiority conclusions by looking at a few decades worth of political influence after a major war was lost/won. Even so, white people have most power in the world still, even though they are a small minority already.

Nor can the white man ever surpass the Congoid in his specific qualities. The white man doesn't need to run fast. He has a brain.

Evolved
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 01:02 AM
You do not need to compare your race to others to appreciate its qualities. You do not need to label people "low quality" or "inferior" because they look different from yourself. I was just wondering how someone can tell from a picture a person is "low racial quality" when you can't deduce anything about the person's intelligence or personality.

"High racial quality" is subjective. Your 2 meter tall, pale-skinned, lean and lanky Norwegian would be bad breeding material North of the Arctic Circle or south of the Equator.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:09 AM
Too bad you aren't one, huh? ;)

I'm a Cosmotheist, thus, I am doing the work of the Creator. What I am racially is not important. I am ready to sacrifice myself for something higher than myself. I said Nordids are the pinnacle of man. Even they are only a stepping stone to the Superman.

cosmocreator
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:18 AM
What is your definition of "racial quality"?


A racial quality is an attribute of a race. A strong chin is superior to a receding one. Long legs are superior to short ones. Creative is superior to uncreative. High intelligence is superior to low intelligence. A long high bridged nose is superior to a wide flat one.

Loki
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 06:57 AM
You do not need to compare your race to others to appreciate its qualities. You do not need to label people "low quality" or "inferior" because they look different from yourself. I was just wondering how someone can tell from a picture a person is "low racial quality" when you can't deduce anything about the person's intelligence or personality.
It is possible to tell from a picture whether someone is of low or high racial quality. Can you, for example, tell from a picture whether a Homo sapiens and a Homo erectus is more intelligent? Sure you can...

"High racial quality" is subjective. Your 2 meter tall, pale-skinned, lean and lanky Norwegian would be bad breeding material North of the Arctic Circle or south of the Equator.
I disagree. Intelligent Norwegians make for better Arctic explorers than Inuits ever were. It is in the brain.

Perun
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 04:33 PM
I really like how this thread has drifted......... :scratch:

Triglav
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 07:58 PM
I really like how this thread has drifted......... :scratch:

Indeed. It should be split.

Triglav
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 08:09 PM
What I am racially is not important.

Isn't that in contradiction with this forum's raison d'être?

I am ready to sacrifice myself for something higher than myself.

Be my guest. ;)

I said Nordids are the pinnacle of man. Even they are only a stepping stone to the Superman.

Nordids have many regressive traits as well - prognathy, mesocephaly/dolichocephaly and relatively small cranial capacity compared to UPs, comparatively low percentage of blondism, etc.

Triglav
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 08:58 PM
Explain.

Everything is comparable. Humans can be compared to chimpanzees too. And humans are superior to chimpanzees in evolutionary development, especially of the intellectual capabilities. It is all about intelligence.

In a jungle, fast legs are superior to intelligence. It's all relative and environmentally conditioned.

I don't understand your logic. Everything can be compared, and there are degrees of evolutionary advancement.

My point exactly. Congoids ( if we avail ourselves with our initial example) evolved in a way which the environment they lived in demanded.

Just as Homo sapiens is intellectually superior to Homo erectus, so the white race is intellectually superior to negroes.

The mere comparison of whites and Congoids is a sacrilege.

Only truth-denying anti-racists would reject this. Don't tell me "there is no inherent superiority". That is just anti-natural egalitarian bullshit.

:biggrin:

Says someone who considers whites and Congoids to be comparable in the first place?

;)


You are grasping straws. If Congoids are so much better off, why is Africa in such a mess? And Haiti? The Congoids cannot even help themselves. Which country is better off - Norway or Congo? You decide.

You cannot draw superiority/inferiority conclusions by looking at a few decades worth of political influence after a major war was lost/won. Even so, white people have most power in the world still, even though they are a small minority already.

You are viewing 50 years of history, whereas you should view at least 2,000 years of history.


1. I was just stating the obvious. You could have gathered from my post that I am of the view that there is no such thing as absolute superiority.
2. I am worried about the preservation of Europe. Who has the greater chance of racial surval - Africa or Europe?

Intelligence is just a means to an end. It's not the be-all and end-all. It developed due to envoronmental pressures to ensure survival. If we don't survive, we'll be at the short end of the stick and our higher intelligence will mean little. Moreover, intelligence is a European standard - adapted to the intellectual advantages of Euros. I'm sure other races would excel at other kinds of intellectual tasks, but I don't care much about the specifics of other races, really. Also, East Asians have a higher average IQ.



The white man doesn't need to run fast. He has a brain.

Exactly. And the opposite is true for the Negro. Both are best suited to their own environment. Can you imagine whites in Central Africa?

Loki
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004, 11:35 PM
In a jungle, fast legs are superior to intelligence. It's all relative and environmentally conditioned. No they are not. Cheetahs are much faster than human beings, and gorillas can easily outrun humans in the jungle. Yet, the human being's intelligence is far more powerful than speed. They can hunt gorillas in the jungle at will, with the implements they made through superior intellectual abilities.

The mere comparison of whites and Congoids is a sacrilege. Only if you're religious. I am not.

1. I was just stating the obvious. You could have gathered from my post that I am of the view that there is no such thing as absolute superiority. Yes. I also gathered that you are very confused.

2. I am worried about the preservation of Europe. Who has the greater chance of racial surval - Africa or Europe? Europe.

Intelligence is just a means to an end. It's not the be-all and end-all. It developed due to envoronmental pressures to ensure survival. If we don't survive, we'll be at the short end of the stick and our higher intelligence will mean little. Moreover, intelligence is a European standard - adapted to the intellectual advantages of Euros. I'm sure other races would excel at other kinds of intellectual tasks, but I don't care much about the specifics of other races, really. Also, East Asians have a higher average IQ. You are wrong. Intelligence is what made [white] mankind rule nature - not their speed, long limbs or rhythm. :biggrin:

Exactly. And the opposite is true for the Negro. Both are best suited to their own environment. Can you imagine whites in Central Africa?I can. Whites are actually more successful in Africa than negroes. Ask me, I grew up there.

Triglav
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 12:22 AM
No they are not. Cheetahs are much faster than human beings, and gorillas can easily outrun humans in the jungle. Yet, the human being's intelligence is far more powerful than speed. They can hunt gorillas in the jungle at will, with the implements they made through superior intellectual abilities.

Congoids don't need all that. It's our distinctive feature.


Only if you're religious. I am not.

Neither am I. The difference between your view and mine is that you see Congoids closer to Europeans (or their perticular subtypes) than I do.

One never compares Europeans to Apes. They are different as chalk and cheese. The same goes for Congoids.


Yes. I also gathered that you are very confused.

I also have my own impressions of individuals and their posts, but for some reason I've always managed to keep a civil tone towards others.


Europe.

I like your optimism. Yet, for the sake of curiosity, I wonder why you said several times that you think Britain (perhaps even Scandinavia if I remember well?) is doomed and will miscegenate into oblivion?



You are wrong. Intelligence is what made [white] mankind rule nature

... which can be his undoing. Nature is in a bad way because of the excessive industrialisation. One should be able to admit his own mistakes.


I can. Whites are actually more successful in Africa than negroes. Ask me, I grew up there.

Central Africa - without changing the environment. Not South Africa.

cosmocreator
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 02:18 AM
A racial quality is an attribute of a race. A strong chin is superior to a receding one. Long legs are superior to short ones. Creative is superior to uncreative. High intelligence is superior to low intelligence. A long high bridged nose is superior to a wide flat one.


Perhaps superior wasn't the right word. By superior, I mean fartherest from the ape form. I mean it in the context of human relative to primates.

Triglav
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 02:23 AM
Perhaps superior wasn't the right word. By superior, I mean fartherest from the ape form. I mean it in the context of human relative to primates.

Yes, I see where you're coming from. Yet, as I pointed out, Nordids have retained some primitive traits.

cosmocreator
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 02:26 AM
Yes, I see where you're coming from. Yet, as I pointed out, Nordids have retained some primitive traits.


Less than Negroes and Mongoloids. And I might add, the least of any human. As I said, Nordids themselves are only a stepping stone to the Superman.

Loki
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 06:58 AM
Neither am I. The difference between your view and mine is that you see Congoids closer to Europeans (or their perticular subtypes) than I do.
This is a joke, right?

I like your optimism. Yet, for the sake of curiosity, I wonder why you said several times that you think Britain (perhaps even Scandinavia if I remember well?) is doomed and will miscegenate into oblivion?
Because that's what will more likely than not happen.

Central Africa - without changing the environment. Not South Africa.
The Belgians did a better job in Congo than the locals are currently achieving.

Triglav
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 11:36 AM
Less than Negroes and Mongoloids. And I might add, the least of any human. As I said, Nordids themselves are only a stepping stone to the Superman.

Well, I was actually referring to other Europids, but I see your point.

Triglav
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 11:41 AM
This is a joke, right?

No, not at all. I consider Europeans to be beyond comparison - or any othr race as incomparably different. Haven't you noticed yet? ;)


Because that's what will more likely than not happen.

Even though its sad enough to speculate, what makes you believe that Europeans (or Nordish nations if those are the ones you're referring to) have a better chance of surviving than Africans? I'm certain you didn't mistake my "European" for a purely geographic designation.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 04:23 PM
The long - and narrow-faced Nordids are often referred to as progressive and the robuster and broader-faced forms proto-morphic (look at the Phalian mouth, nose, eye sockets, cheekbones and browridges). Lundman thought that Eickstedt's division between Teuto - and Phalian Nordid is fairly meaningless, especially if one wish to put a deeper meaning to it than the pure phenotypical-morphological. As an example he mentioned the both very narrow-faced and and low-skulled western Swedes and many similar types in England and also Friesland. Thus, his conclusion was that the facial shape of different Nordid groups is not related to the Height-Length Index. One does not even know if the high-skulled southeast Nordids were significantly narrower-faced than the from Cro-Magnoids derived groups in west (Lundman in Ymer 1945). You wrote, "comparatively low percentage of blondism" among Nordids, well, certainly not in the Southwest Scandinavian folk stock where the Göta type predominate, that make up a population that is lean, long-headed, narrow-faced and low-skulled, ash-blonde haired and very pure blue eyed.



Nordids have many regressive traits as well - prognathy, mesocephaly/dolichocephaly and relatively small cranial capacity compared to UPs, comparatively low percentage of blondism, etc.

Triglav
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 08:01 PM
The long - and narrow-faced Nordids are often referred to as progressive and the robuster and broader-faced forms proto-morphic (look at the Phalian mouth, nose, eye sockets, cheekbones and browridges).

That doesn't make the individual traits I listed more progressive.

Lundman thought that Eickstedt's division between Teuto - and Phalian Nordid is fairly meaningless, especially if one wish to put a deeper meaning to it than the pure phenotypical-morphological. As an example he mentioned the both very narrow-faced and and low-skulled western Swedes and many similar types in England and also Friesland. Thus, his conclusion was that the facial shape of different Nordid groups is not related to the Height-Length Index. One does not even know if the high-skulled southeast Nordids were significantly narrower-faced than the from Cro-Magnoids derived groups in west (Lundman in Ymer 1945).

Makes sense.


You wrote, "comparatively low percentage of blondism" among Nordids, well, certainly not in the Southwest Scandinavian folk stock where the Göta type predominate, that make up a population that is lean, long-headed, narrow-faced and low-skulled, ash-blonde haired and very pure blue eyed.

I'm not saying they're not blond, but as far as I know, Baltids are blonder than Nordids. Are you saying it's different?

Perun
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2004, 11:13 PM
Can this thread please be splitted?

cosmocreator
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 03:11 AM
Well, I was actually referring to other Europids, but I see your point.


What other Europids have fewer ape like traits than the Nordic type?

Evolved
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 01:35 PM
I don't think it is possible to divide races into superior or inferior using "difference from the apes" as a guideline. For example:

Negroids are taller on average than Nordics and have longer legs.

The most extreme dolichocephaly belongs to Negroids, not Nordics:

http://www.peacelink.it/images/nuboy.jpg

Caucasoids are hairy. Apes and monkeys are hairy. Negroids and Mongoloids have little body hair.

Upper Paleolithic European body types are thick and able to develop fuller musculature, gorillas are also thick muscled. Whereas Negroid and Mongoloids develop only small amount of lean musculature.

Apes have variation in hair, skin and eye color, just as Caucasoids do.

Mongoloids have the largest cranial capacity and the highest average IQs, despite being the most brachycephalic.

Sloping foreheads and brow-ridges are considered archaic characteristics. Some Nordic types have these characteristics. Baltic, Alpinid, Mongoloid types generally do not.

There are Negroid types showing progressive features. (see attached images) I don't think it is a coincidence that the most progressive racial types of indigenous black Africans belong to the Ethiopians and Ethiopid race, the most intelligent, cultured and inventive black people.

The longest, highest bridged noses belong to Armenoids and Irano-Afghans. Likewise there are Nordish types having shorter, lower bridged noses (East Baltics).

Racial preservation isn't about labelling other people inferior. It is about having respect for who you are and where you come from.

Loki
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 01:40 PM
There are Negroid types showing progressive features. (see attached images) I don't think it is a coincidence that the most progressive racial types of indigenous black Africans belong to the Ethiopians and Ethiopid race, the most intelligent, cultured and inventive black people.

Invalid example, since Ethiopids are a very old hybrid Caucasoid/Negroid population.

Evolved
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Well the point is Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Negroids are each similar to apes in some ways and different from apes in other ways. You can compare the traits of different human races and subraces to a lot of animals, but it doesn't make sense as a means to judge whether a race is progressive or archaic. Saying "cats have green eyes, so green-eyed people are a lower species" or "orangutans are red-haired, so red-haired people are primitive" are the kind of conclusions not even a child would make.

Glenlivet
Thursday, November 4th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Yes, I am, it is like that if we compare populations in norther Europe. I'm talking about the Nordic countries, not somewhere in central or southeastern Europe. The blonder Finnish East Baltid stock, in Tavastland, does not have a blonder population than the SW Scandinavian folk stock. The shade of blondism differ somewhat. The true Finnish stock in the eastern parts of the country called Savolax, the one with little to none of North Germanic strains in the population, got mostly darker shades of cendré. The strong blondism in Nyland is also because of direct Swedish emigration from central Svealand. They have intermarried with Finns in more modern times.

Nordid blondism is just different, you will never find as many pure blue eyed and flaxen or ashen haired individuals in any East Baltid population. The East-Baltid hair is also not really ashen as the Göta (e.g. in SE Scotland, NE England, NW Germany, S Jylland and SW Sweden), but more greyish-yellowish. Blue eyes (although mostly with medium brown hair) in the Baltic (as well as SW Finland, and maybe alså Åland) countries is most likely of Corded inspiration.

This should be quite obvious for anyone who took a short trip to central parts of Finland and then to Jylland or Schleswig-Holstein.




I'm not saying they're not blond, but as far as I know, Baltids are blonder than Nordids. Are you saying it's different?

cosmocreator
Friday, November 5th, 2004, 03:43 AM
I don't think it is possible to divide races into superior or inferior using "difference from the apes" as a guideline.

It's not only differences from the ape but the degree (or distance) from the ape form in total.

For example:

Negroids are taller on average than Nordics and have longer legs.

The shape of their legs are different. Nordic legs are straighter. Bowed legs are a primitive characteristic. I believe the spinal curvature is different among races as well.

Negroes are human. No one is denying that. So of course they are not going to have all ape like features.

The most extreme dolichocephaly belongs to Negroids, not Nordics:

I'm not sure which is better, dolichocepahlic, brachycephalic or mesopcephalic. I'm not sure what is found among the various ape forms.

Negroes tend to prognathism, flat wide nose, and large teeth.

Caucasoids are hairy. Apes and monkeys are hairy. Negroids and Mongoloids have little body hair.

Caucasoids vary in amount of body hair.

Upper Paleolithic European body types are thick and able to develop fuller musculature, gorillas are also thick muscled. Whereas Negroid and Mongoloids develop only small amount of lean musculature.

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison but I do think there are differences in muscle tissue.

Apes have variation in hair, skin and eye color, just as Caucasoids do.

Caucasoids are not the only ones with variation in color.

Mongoloids have the largest cranial capacity and the highest average IQs, despite being the most brachycephalic.

Neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity. And at the time they lived probably had a high IQ too. I think all this determines is that primitive looking people can have a high IQ.

Sloping foreheads and brow-ridges are considered archaic characteristics. Some Nordic types have these characteristics. Baltic, Alpinid, Mongoloid types generally do not.

There are Negroid types showing progressive features. (see attached images) I don't think it is a coincidence that the most progressive racial types of indigenous black Africans belong to the Ethiopians and Ethiopid race, the most intelligent, cultured and inventive black people.

The longest, highest bridged noses belong to Armenoids and Irano-Afghans. Likewise there are Nordish types having shorter, lower bridged noses (East Baltics).

Racial preservation isn't about labelling other people inferior. It is about having respect for who you are and where you come from.


I don't think anyone is saying that Nordics are complete removed from having some ape like characteristics. They just have fewer.

Northern Paladin
Friday, November 19th, 2010, 03:40 PM
Sorry if this is a bit of topic, but I once read somewhere that the Nordid race is a hybrid race. What does that mean? And a hybrid of what?

Gray
Thursday, June 30th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Well, some scientists claim that all caucasoid peoples have some small degree of Neanderthal DNA.

svartleby
Friday, December 23rd, 2011, 03:51 PM
Put a 2m tall, blond, blue-eyed Norwegian scientist next to a pitch-black, illiterate and unprincipled Negroid hunter-gatherer from the Congo, and there you have a stark contrast of what different racial qualities embody. In some cases, it is not as visually apparent as in this example. But then you look at advancement in culture, character, IQ, achievement, humanism, aesthetics, relative prosperity, etc and you will see the difference.

There is no debate that we should be proud to be Germanic and of the physical qualities that entails. Saying that genetic qualities express themselves through morality and culture is flawed on several levels.

1)In science there are no morals, the statement unprincipled has no meaning. Morality, like character, aesthetics, and prosperity are all relative to who is asking and what they view as a measure of these things.

2) The statement is clearly biased with no support for that bias. For the bulk of our history we Germanics were the savages. Remember the Roman descriptions of the Germanic tribesmen, however in awe of them their physical prowess they were, they still viewed us as primitive, lesser beings. Look at the Arabs during our dark ages. They were a Semitic people that advanced science and retained the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans while we Europeans were torching libraries. How about the Chinese, who invented and forgot the use of torpedoes and mechanical clocks before us Europeans could even formulate the ideas for those inventions.

In closing, anthropology is a science. What you're talking about here, I'm sorry to say, is not science.;)

Vectis
Friday, December 23rd, 2011, 04:47 PM
But the Chinese may have got all their knowledge from the Tocharians who were white and europid according to mummies that have been found, and the Arabs gained most of their knowledge from the christian lands in the near east they conquered. Greeks and Romans were similar people to us before they started breeding with their Arab slaves but as a result mainly of living in an easier climate they were able to develop a more advanced society. Negroes don't seem to be able to sustain a civilisation.
Germanics look paler because it helped them in cloudy cold conditions,and their larger frames were better for hunting large animals. It is purely subjective to say germanics/nordics are superior or more attractive than other white races but that seems to be the consensus.

svartleby
Friday, December 23rd, 2011, 07:47 PM
But the Chinese may have got all their knowledge from the Tocharians who were white and europid according to mummies that have been found, and the Arabs gained most of their knowledge from the christian lands in the near east they conquered. Greeks and Romans were similar people to us before they started breeding with their Arab slaves but as a result mainly of living in an easier climate they were able to develop a more advanced society. Negroes don't seem to be able to sustain a civilisation.
Germanics look paler because it helped them in cloudy cold conditions,and their larger frames were better for hunting large animals. It is purely subjective to say germanics/nordics are superior or more attractive than other white races but that seems to be the consensus.

How many Tocharian clocks have been found? Tocharian treatises on gun powder? Where is the evidence that these people were ever scientifically advanced or (and this is really subjective) socially advanced? What about the water powered machines we've found from the time of Shi Huang Di?

And-
What about the Arab advancements in astronomy? Medicine? Clockwork?
Yes they preserved the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans, but they also did quite a bit to build on it.

I'm not saying we Germanics are not great, but I think it goes beyond fallacious to say that there is any evidence showing that we are predisposed to scientific advancement.

The only reason we gained dominance during the more recent parts of history is because while other nations with the same mineral wealth as us were generally in stable societies with strong traditions we Europeans existed as a series of bickering principalities in which stagnation was a death sentence.
As toward African civilizations, the lack of them has less to do with African genetics than it does with the longitudinal orientation of the African continent.Civilization, at least as we define it requires a surplus of food and labor. That has only been achieved thus far by agriculture. Advancements like agriculture and domesticated animals were not able to spread over great distances in Africa because rather than spreading along the same latitude as in Europe and Asia new crops and farm animals, and thus the civilizations they could support were cut off by intervening tropical and arid zones, and so, to this day some peoples in Africa do not participate in any but the most basic forms of agriculture. Lack of efficient, viable agriculture=no surplus labor= no time for scientific advancement.

This also accounts for the amount of time it took our own ancestors to create a modern state structure. Agriculture had to spread northwards rather than west or eastwards from its western hearth in Mesopotamia

If you're curious about where these ideas are coming from I suggest a great book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

Stanley
Saturday, December 24th, 2011, 05:30 AM
I'm not saying we Germanics are not great, but I think it goes beyond fallacious to say that there is any evidence showing that we are predisposed to scientific advancement.

The only reason we gained dominance during the more recent parts of history is because while other nations with the same mineral wealth as us were generally in stable societies with strong traditions we Europeans existed as a series of bickering principalities in which stagnation was a death sentence.
As toward African civilizations, the lack of them has less to do with African genetics than it does with the longitudinal orientation of the African continent.Civilization, at least as we define it requires a surplus of food and labor. That has only been achieved thus far by agriculture. Advancements like agriculture and domesticated animals were not able to spread over great distances in Africa because rather than spreading along the same latitude as in Europe and Asia new crops and farm animals, and thus the civilizations they could support were cut off by intervening tropical and arid zones, and so, to this day some peoples in Africa do not participate in any but the most basic forms of agriculture. Lack of efficient, viable agriculture=no surplus labor= no time for scientific advancement.

This also accounts for the amount of time it took our own ancestors to create a modern state structure. Agriculture had to spread northwards rather than west or eastwards from its western hearth in Mesopotamia

If you're curious about where these ideas are coming from I suggest a great book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

Sure, the sub-populations of Homo sapiens that by chance occupied the right environmental regions were destined to become the dominant civilizations.

That however doesn't mean all human populations are the same today. The genetic divergence that occurred as these sub-populations grew into different degrees of social complexity still must be taken into account; yet, Diamond, in his narrow, race-denying view of biogeography as the sole differentiator of human populations, fails to acknowledge the reality that genetic changes would undoubtedly have arisen between the "civilized" and "primitive" populations. Traits better suited for life in an increasingly socially complex society would have been selected for in Europe and Asia, in contrast to the relatively stagnant social structure of, e.g., African hunter-gatherers. The former would become racially progressive, the latter, in comparison, would be racially primitive.

I'm not a Nordicist by any means, but I don't buy into Diamond's egalitarian nonsense.

svartleby
Saturday, December 24th, 2011, 06:28 AM
Sure, the sub-populations of Homo sapiens that by chance occupied the right environmental regions were destined to become the dominant civilizations.

That however doesn't mean all human populations are the same today. The genetic divergence that occurred as these sub-populations grew into different degrees of social complexity still must be taken into account; yet, Diamond, in his narrow, race-denying view of biogeography as the sole differentiator of human populations, fails to acknowledge the reality that genetic changes would undoubtedly have arisen between the "civilized" and "primitive" populations. Traits better suited for life in an increasingly socially complex society would have been selected for in Europe and Asia, in contrast to the relatively stagnant social structure of, e.g., African hunter-gatherers. The former would become racially progressive, the latter, in comparison, would be racially primitive.

I'm not a Nordicist by any means, but I don't buy into Diamond's egalitarian nonsense.

Actually the trend as of now is leaning towards civilization as something of a nullification of evolution. Except in times of hardship, it allows all but the most misshapen constituents of a society a more or less equal chance to reproduce, where as in traditional hunter gatherer societies the stock is a bit more "threaded".

I agree with you, some differentiation has most definitely occurred, however given the amount of effort it takes to pass on our genes here in the first world, as compared with in the lowlands of Papua New Guinea this has probably not occurred in a way that is very flattering to us.

I also have to ask you what constitutes a socially complex society? By whose standards?

Stanley
Saturday, December 24th, 2011, 05:39 PM
Actually the trend as of now is leaning towards civilization as something of a nullification of evolution. Except in times of hardship, it allows all but the most misshapen constituents of a society a more or less equal chance to reproduce, where as in traditional hunter gatherer societies the stock is a bit more "threaded".

I agree with you, some differentiation has most definitely occurred, however given the amount of effort it takes to pass on our genes here in the first world, as compared with in the lowlands of Papua New Guinea this has probably not occurred in a way that is very flattering to us.

I also have to ask you what constitutes a socially complex society? By whose standards?

Yes, it's probably true that evolution in modern times, if anything, has been a detriment to us because pretty much anyone can reproduce, but this has only been for the last few generations.

I can't say what a socially complex society is per se, but a more socially complex society would be one in which greater numbers of people serve as the collective societal whole, with social stratification, occupational specialization, and all the other stuff necessitated by a large community. I think it's obvious that there's a grade of social complexity, with hunter-gatherer bands < early agricultural communities < civilization, with many steps in between of course.

In any case, the social changes Europe and Asia underwent would require different traits/behaviors/adaptations, and as such European and Asian populations were under selective pressure to refine these things. Diamond overlooks the genetic impact this had; in fact, he even ignores evolutionary biology as a whole. He doesn't consider how things like the environment or sexual selection would have genetically altered the separated sub-populations of humans. This stuff is basic speciation.

Diamond is a race-denier, which is why he gets so much publicity. Marxists and liberals love him. I've read a few things by him, and he's consistently shown an unscientific, biased perspective on anthropology. A lot of his Guns, Germs, and Steel is right on, but his dismissal of the interplay between biology and civilization is shocking. My honest impression is that he has an agenda to devalue Western advancement. His tone reads, "You Europeans are nothing special--you were just in the right place at the right time." I've posted this in another thread, but here's what he had to say on the subject of race in his essay "Race Without Color":

There are many different, equally valid procedures for defining races, and those different procedures yield very different classifications. One such procedure would group Italians and Greeks with most African blacks. It would classify Xhosas--the South African "black" group to which President Nelson Mandela belongs--with Swedes rather than Nigerians. Another equally valid procedure would place Swedes with Fulani (a Nigerian "black" group) and not with Italians, who would again be grouped with most other African blacks. Still another procedure would keep Swedes and Italians separate from all African blacks but would throw the Swedes and Italians into the same race as New Guineans and American Indians. Faced with such differing classifications, many anthropologists today conclude that one cannot recognize any human races at all.

As someone interested in anthropology as a science, this excerpt should disgust you. Diamond argues that Swedes would be grouped with Xhosas rather than Greeks and Italians on the basis of lacking antimalarial genes, and he uses this to conclude there are no human races. But that's like saying there are no species of animals because you can classify whales and flamingos together because they are both filter feeders. The whole idea that there is a phenotypically distinct group called the Swedes and one called the Xhosas implies a phylogenetic relationship among human groups to begin with.

So, basically, my point is that Jared Diamond has no credibility when talking about the science of anthropology, and his ideas cannot be used to conclude that there is no genetic basis for our achievements.

As for a properly scientific anthropology experiment, imagine that all European infants in, say, the year 1700 were replaced with an equal amount of African infants, and for every time a European baby would have been born, it was replaced with an African baby. The only variable that is changed is the genetic constitution of civilization's inheritors. What would 1900 Europe then look like? I have a hard time saying it would look in any way similar, and that would be precisely due to their, what is termed, "primitive" racial characteristics.

svartleby
Saturday, December 24th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Yes, it's probably true that evolution in modern times, if anything, has been a detriment to us because pretty much anyone can reproduce, but this has only been for the last few generations.

I can't say what a socially complex society is per se, but a more socially complex society would be one in which greater numbers of people serve as the collective societal whole, with social stratification, occupational specialization, and all the other stuff necessitated by a large community. I think it's obvious that there's a grade of social complexity, with hunter-gatherer bands < early agricultural communities < civilization, with many steps in between of course.

In any case, the social changes Europe and Asia underwent would require different traits/behaviors/adaptations, and as such European and Asian populations were under selective pressure to refine these things. Diamond overlooks the genetic impact this had; in fact, he even ignores evolutionary biology as a whole. He doesn't consider how things like the environment or sexual selection would have genetically altered the separated sub-populations of humans. This stuff is basic speciation.

Diamond is a race-denier, which is why he gets so much publicity. Marxists and liberals love him. I've read a few things by him, and he's consistently shown an unscientific, biased perspective on anthropology. A lot of his Guns, Germs, and Steel is right on, but his dismissal of the interplay between biology and civilization is shocking. My honest impression is that he has an agenda to devalue Western advancement. His tone reads, "You Europeans are nothing special--you were just in the right place at the right time." I've posted this in another thread, but here's what he had to say on the subject of race in his essay "Race Without Color":



As someone interested in anthropology as a science, this excerpt should disgust you. Diamond argues that Swedes would be grouped with Xhosas rather than Greeks and Italians on the basis of lacking antimalarial genes, and he uses this to conclude there are no human races. But that's like saying there are no species of animals because you can classify whales and flamingos together because they are both filter feeders. The whole idea that there is a phenotypically distinct group called the Swedes and one called the Xhosas implies a phylogenetic relationship among human groups to begin with.

So, basically, my point is that Jared Diamond has no credibility when talking about the science of anthropology, and his ideas cannot be used to conclude that there is no genetic basis for our achievements.

As for a properly scientific anthropology experiment, imagine that all European infants in, say, the year 1700 were replaced with an equal amount of African infants, and for every time a European baby would have been born, it was replaced with an African baby. The only variable that is changed is the genetic constitution of civilization's inheritors. What would 1900 Europe then look like? I have a hard time saying it would look in any way similar, and that would be precisely due to their, what is termed, "primitive" racial characteristics.

But the point that Diamond is making here is that most racial classifications as we know them are cultural designations, with little basis in actual physiology. Do you, or anyone else have any idea which specific genes would predispose blacks to a lack of civilization? More specifically, what genetic markers can you name that would mark someone as black? Where is the line for what is more or less black? Is this line based on qualitative looks? There is simply not enough hard science in that area (not informed by cultural bias) to accurately divide humans into any concrete races. Are these divisions possible to make? Probably, there's too much variation for something not to be going on there. But do these differences have any effect on behavior? (And this goes back to your hypothetical experiment) that question is ultimately impossible to answer. But if we take a look at the adoption of non-native members into other cultures we get a strong lean towards no. Numerous times whites have been fully adopted into other "lesser" cultures and vice versa. Culture it appears would be arbitrarily based on environment.

As far as the social changes of Europe and Asia requiring different adaptive traits, I have yet to see anyone create a concrete list of what those adaptations are and then prove that they are not universally human to begin with. Might they be out there? Maybe. What we have found so far in terms of neurobiology (and since we're talking about behavior that's where we'd ought to look) has been very minor. Things along the lines of a slightly enlarged visual processing center in Scandinavians to cope with dim Winters.