Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Subracialism

  1. #1
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post The importance of Subraces in Racialism

    It is time to discuss what the Subraces of our Race mean for us Racialists and how we deal with them in regards to Racialism. Here are some questions :

    How do we incorporate our Subracial differences in our Racialism and how should we deal with the different Subraces?
    What should be the policy of the Racialist Movement in regards to Subraces and Subracial differences?
    What should the position be of those Racialists who are a mix of Subraces in regards to Subraces?

    These are just some of the questions I can recall at this moment, I am sure there will be more as the discussion progresses.

    In my opinion the Subraces are an important aspect of our Race. These Subraces create distinctiveness within our Race and should be preserved in a relatively pure form through Eugenics and perhaps even Genetic Engineering, also these Subraces need to be improved upon and not simply conserved as some sort of Subracial Museum. In the case of Subracial Mixing I think that this should not be promoted but I do not think it should be restricted by any legal means (in case we have Legislative power). I think that a Eugenics program should perhaps go against Subracial Mixing.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: The importance of Subraces in Racialism

    Thank you for opening this discussion.
    We are referring here ONLY to the subracial variants of the White Race, of course.
    I agree with some of your poisitions, but vehemently disagree with others.
    If I may respond point by point;

    Nazzjonalist [NAZZ]:How do we incorporate our Subracial differences in our Racialism and how should we deal with the different Subraces?

    MOODY: I see the subraces as an expression of two things;

    1) Historically, they are the result of;
    a) the evolutionary diaspora of the Aryan Race once it began to spread out of its original Homeland.
    The laws of evolution suggest that as a Race branches out, then certain of its once insignificant inherent 'differences' become exaggerated as they are separated out from the original breeding stock and Homeland enviroment [these differences occur due to Nature's tendency to create small variations in breeding - we are not 'clones'], and
    b) the blending of these Aryan tribes with pre-Aryan Caucasians in some of the areas they spread to.
    It is important to add here that I think the Aryans drew the line when it came to non-Caucasian non-Aryans as it seems they practiced a caste system [see references to the Aryan rejection of the dark races in the ancient Rig Veda, and the Laws of Manu. The Sanskrit word for caste was 'Varna', which literally means 'colour'].

    Such blending of Old European pre-Aryan with Aryan is of Racial Value.

    2) Spiritually, I see the subraces as an expression of the Cultural Idea. In other words, the Great Race expressed itself in creative genius; part of that Genius was Racial, where a specific Racial type was elevated as the supreme desideratum [note that this type was not necessarily a 'pure' subrace, but a judicious blend of selected subraces].
    The obvious example is found amongst the Hellenes who have left a record of it in their incomparable sculpture.

    In General, I see the subraces as a musician would view his scales and arpeggios.
    A song based on one note or one chord would be boring and Low Culture; Aryanism utilises the full range of Caucasian man to create his varied symphonies in Blood.
    Each movement, whether in a dark minor key, or in a bright blond major key is recognisable INSTANTLY as being from the Aryan Stock.

    Aryanism does not use the wild chromatic multiracialism of the Modern World; it rather constucts a very disciplined Order of Rank, where each subrace fulfills its own Destiny and contributes to the Greatness of the Whole. As in music, the combination of some subraces with others creates harmony and variety, and is needful for Tonality in general.
    This subracial Destiny rejects the non-White Races just as a composer rejects certain tonalities which are offensive to his ear.
    There is also the question of racial rhythm, but I fear that I will stretch the metaphor too far.

    The subraces are NECESSARY.

    NAZZ:What should be the policy of the Racialist Movement in regards to Subraces and Subracial differences?

    MOODY: Subraces should be praised to the high heavens!
    The genius of our Nords, Meds, Alpines, Dinarics, Baltics etc., must be constantly explicated to the White Youth of this World.
    Let each subrace know he has an exemplar in Pericles, Alexander, Caesar, Alfred the Great, Bonaparte, Hitler etc., etc.,
    Let us praise the Great Race in all its range, both in its subracial components and in its overall Totality.
    Race is FLUID.

    NAZZ: What should the position be of those Racialists who are a mix of Subraces in regards to Subraces?

    MOODY: I would aver that all of us are a BLEND of subraces, with one or more subrace predominating. This is based on the view that we are THE SUM TOTAL of our heritage, and that a little research would turn up subracial variants in all White ancestry.
    So, for one subrace to disrespect another is a form of ancestor hatred, and abominable.

    I agree with the points you make under "in my opinion", but where I strongly disagree with you is here;

    NAZZ: In the case of Subracial Mixing I think that this should not be promoted but I do not think it should be restricted by any legal means (in case we have Legislative power). I think that a Eugenics program should perhaps go against Subracial Mixing.

    MOODY: This idea is wrong, in my opinion.
    I'll tell you for why. Nietzsche is not the only great thinker to have pointed out that those CONSPICUOUSLY mixed types are often the Great Men of Our Race.
    In other words, a special Blood fusion between certain subracial blends tends to make fireworks. This is similar to the Aryan idea that life exists in polarities which constantly interact within one entity - the entity being the White Race in toto - [dark and light, good and bad, male and female etc.,].
    In the Norse Sagas we have Fire and Ice, and the marriage between the Aesir and Vanir. In paganism generally, we have the notion of humans who are "half god", half man.

    In other words, subracial blending has been, and still is, the spur of our Race.

    I say then that "subracial separatism" is anti-eugenic, anti-cultural, anti-historical, and ANTI-ARYAN; because if the Aryans had been subracial separatists they would never have left their Homeland.
    Last edited by Moody; Tuesday, February 4th, 2003 at 05:48 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Do you imply that Subracial Mixing is actually beneficial to our Race? All forms of Mixing is destructive of the original forms and should be discouraged, eventually Subracial Mixing destroys the distinct Subraces and creates a blend in its stead. Now some blends could eventually even become a newer Subrace if sufficient blends of the same original forms occur, so in this instance there has been a creative process, yet the destruction of distinctiveness is much higher.

    I say then that "subracial separatism" is anti-eugenic, anti-cultural, anti-historical, and ANTI-ARYAN;
    Define Subracial Separatism. Is it similar to Racialism but on a Subracial level? Why is it anti-Eugenic (A greater discussion of Eugenics should be needed), anti-Cultural, anti-Historical, and most importantly anti-Aryan?

  4. #4
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Subracial Schismatics

    NAZZ:Do you imply that Subracial Mixing is actually beneficial to our Race?

    MOODY: I am not implying this, I am stating it categorically - with examples!
    I use the word 'blend' rather than 'mixing' in this context for reasons that will become clear.

    Aryan culture FLOURISHED after the Aryan invasions and migrations; when the 'Aesir and the Vanir' blent, then did Nordic culture ascend to genius; only then could the mythical world of Wagner's Ring [or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings] be possible.

    Only when the Hellenic subrace was hammered into perfection from a blend of Nords and Meds could the highest culture on earth come into being.
    Only when Julius Caesar brought Gaul into the Roman Empire was the present concept of Europe born - EUROPE, THAT GREAT BLEND OF NORD, ALPINE, MED, BALT, DINAR!
    Caesar - himself a subracial mix, just as was Napoleon, just as was Hitler!

    Therefore, the original Aryan diaspora created the subraces, and world History in the last four millennia has utilised these subraces in a BLENDING to create High Culture.
    I call that "beneficial".

    NAZZ:All forms of Mixing is destructive of the original forms and should be discouraged, eventually Subracial Mixing destroys the distinct Subraces and creates a blend in its stead. Now some blends could eventually even become a newer Subrace if sufficient blends of the same original forms occur, so in this instance there has been a creative process, yet the destruction of distinctiveness is much higher.

    MOODY: I disagree; it has long been recognised that CROSS-BREEDING, or Race Mixing is detrimental.
    But we are not talking about that; Meds and Nords are NOT different Races!
    Races should not be Mixed - subraces are only Meant to be Blent!
    So subracial blending is not cross-breeding or race-mixing, but the Will of Nature.

    What then is subracialism?
    A Race is a subspecies; within a Race is subraces.

    The subrace is of a different order to that of a Race.

    Subrace is a close classification of the natural FLUIDITY within a Race. I have mentioned elsewhere that Tacitus describes the Germans of the First century AD as being pre-dominantly RED-haired; this cannot be said today [there is more red-hair in the British Isles today than in Germany]. Therefore there is always a certain amount of fluidity in subracial types.

    There is a constant Heraclitean flux in life - ultimately, nothing is fixed; all is movement.
    Fixity is rather a matter of degree, and a matter of level.
    The Great Race is relatively fixed [although present dangers suggest my thesis is correct even here], while subracial shades are relatively fleeting.
    As some subraces disappear, others are thrown up; some alter, while others revisit past types.

    Man is arrogant when he thinks he can ABSOLUTELY control such things - Nature knows best, and to use such terms as "discouragement" smacks of Victorianism.
    Nature only recognises power and survival.

    NAZZ:Define Subracial Separatism. Is it similar to Racialism but on a Subracial level? Why is it anti-Eugenic (A greater discussion of Eugenics should be needed), anti-Cultural, anti-Historical, and most importantly anti-Aryan?

    MOODY: You defined it yourself above, when you said that "Subracial Mixing"(sic.) should be "discouraged"(?).

    You must differentiate between things.

    A Race is not the same as a subrace, therefore Racial Separation is not the same as subracial separation, just as Race Mixing is not the same as subracial blending.
    To make the differentiation, I will say subracial schism, rather than subracial separation.
    I oppose subracial schism, and I "encourage" [as if I could make any difference!] subracial blending.

    Taking the word 'eugenic' to mean 'good-breeding' [from its Greek root], then I have stated already, with examples, that subracial blending is good for the breeding of the White Race. That makes it Eugenic.

    As I have shown, all White High Culture is derived from subracial blending, and OUR DISASTERS HAVE ALL BEEN DUE TO SUBRACIAL SCHISMS! Look at WWI/II! - Those subracial schismatic wars were hugely detrimental to Aryan Culture.

    A Subracial Schismatic position flies in the face of White History, as I have suggested.
    It also is against the very ethos of Aryanism which is POLYTHEISTIC.
    Subracial Schismatics is like a form of insane Monotheism.

    That's why.
    Last edited by Moody; Tuesday, February 4th, 2003 at 06:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,269
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Subracial Schismatics

    Originally posted by Moody Lawless
    NAZZo you imply that Subracial Mixing is actually beneficial to our Race?

    MOODY: I am not implying this, I am stating it categorically - with examples!
    I use the word 'blend' rather than 'mixing' in this context for reasons that will become clear.
    I shall accept this change in Semantics by your side, as I know what is being implied.


    Therefore, the original Aryan diaspora created the subraces, and world History in the last four millennia has utilised these subraces in a BLENDING to create High Culture.
    I call that "beneficial".
    Can the creation of such High Culture be directly attributable to Subracial Blending as you imply? Is it beneficial to the Subraces if through Blending they disappear as Subracial Archetypes?


    NAZZ:All forms of Mixing is destructive of the original forms and should be discouraged, eventually Subracial Mixing destroys the distinct Subraces and creates a blend in its stead. Now some blends could eventually even become a newer Subrace if sufficient blends of the same original forms occur, so in this instance there has been a creative process, yet the destruction of distinctiveness is much higher.

    MOODY: I disagree; it has long been recognised that CROSS-BREEDING, or Race Mixing is detrimental.
    But we are not talking about that; Meds and Nords are NOT different Races!
    Races should not be Mixed - subraces are only Meant to be Blent!
    So subracial blending is not cross-breeding or race-mixing, but the Will of Nature.
    How is Miscegenation on a Racial level detrimental while Miscegenation on a Subracial level is not detrimental? And how is Subracial Blending the Will of Nature while Racial Miscegenation is not? Isn't the basis of Race Mixing and Subracial Blending equivalent to two (or more) distinct types getting joined together through reproductive channels, the only difference being the level of categorisation and also a distinctiveness of some sort in genetics (Most probably there is a distinctivenss in genetics if the distinctiveness is apparent)?


    Subrace is a close classification of the natural FLUIDITY within a Race.
    Is this fluidity mixing or as you term it blending? How is this of benefit to the Subraces as distinctive types?


    As some subraces disappear, others are thrown up; some alter, while others revisit past types.
    Is not this against the existance of Subraces, you claimed that they disappear and that they alter, this is equal to their destruction through Subracial Mixing/Blending. What do you mean by "thrown up" and "others revisit past types"?


    Man is arrogant when he thinks he can ABSOLUTELY control such things - Nature knows best, and to use such terms as "discouragement" smacks of Victorianism.
    Nature only recognises power and survival.
    How does this not apply to Interracial Miscegenation while it applies to Subracial Blending?


    A Race is not the same as a subrace, therefore Racial Separation is not the same as subracial separation, just as Race Mixing is not the same as subracial blending.
    To make the differentiation, I will say subracial schism, rather than subracial separation.
    I oppose subracial schism, and I "encourage" [as if I could make any difference!] subracial blending.
    Therefore you are against Subracial Distinctiveness and Preservation?


    Taking the word 'eugenic' to mean 'good-breeding' [from its Greek root], then I have stated already, with examples, that subracial blending is good for the breeding of the White Race. That makes it Eugenic.
    That could be true, but you are directly attributing the improvement of the White Race with Subracial Blending, which I do not find as a satisfactory explanation.


    As I have shown, all White High Culture is derived from subracial blending, and OUR DISASTERS HAVE ALL BEEN DUE TO SUBRACIAL SCHISMS! Look at WWI/II! - Those subracial schismatic wars were hugely detrimental to Aryan Culture.
    WW1/2 were not Subratial Schisms as you term them, but rather wars related to Nationality and not Subrace. I doubt that White High Culture is directly attributable to Subracial Blending.

    It also is against the very ethos of Aryanism which is POLYTHEISTIC.
    Subracial Schismatics is like a form of insane Monotheism.
    I did not understand this correlation and analogy.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Poly- or Mono- ?

    1
    NAZZ:I shall accept this change in Semantics [between 'mix' and 'blend'] by your side, as I know what is being implied.

    MOODY: It is not semantics, but rather a matter of nuance; 'mix' is suggestive of change, so that red mixed with yellow creates a new thing - orange.
    Red and yellow are now lost, and only orange exists.
    And this is at the root of your diversity argument: you would rather have two things - red and yellow, rather than the resultant one thing derived from mixing [and therefore 'obliterating' of the two ingredients], viz., orange.

    So the Race-Mixers put forward the horrid 'coffee-coloured' world scenario, where all Races are put in an imaginary 'melting pot', and coffee-coloured people are the result.

    That latter is the joy of multi-culturalists [some of whom are even Aryan], and the fear of White Nationalists.

    However, this is all based on a misconception, and my use of the word 'blend' instead of 'mix' adverts to this.
    Genes are DISCREET elements; that means they are not 'mixed', but they are 'blent'.
    Like the pixels on your TV screen, they COMBINE, and create a synthesis via blending, which does not vitiate their integrity.
    So when red and yellow combine, they create orange, but their redness and yellowness remain.

    I am talking within the sphere of subraces which make up one Race just as one object is composed of atoms.
    When Races CROSS, then as we have seen, the White is obliterated, and this is genocide.
    That's why we call cross-breeding Race-MIXING, because a mixing does occur [and 'miscegenation' means literally Race-Mixing].

    However, subracial blending does NOT spoil subracial stocks, but rather revivifies them - it is their very food.
    Indeed, subracial blending is a name given to the natural fluxions which occur within a Race due to self-replicators not reproducing characteristics in the exact same manner.
    By keeping the integrity of the Race intact, then a healthy panopoly of kaliedoscopic subracial blends and combinations is perfectly natural, and yes, beneficial.

    I have never advocated the reduction of the White Race to One UNDIFFERENTIATED Race. I have always said that there are different levels; the Race predominates, but it is NECESSARILY composed of an Eternally shifting fluidity of subraces.

    2
    NAZZ: Can the creation of High Culture be directly attributable to Subracial Blending as you imply? Is it beneficial to the Subraces if through Blending they disappear as Subracial Archetypes?

    MOODY: We know nothing of the Aryan Culture when the Aryans were wholly in their Homeland. We only see the evolution of Aryan Culture when the Aryans BRANCHED OUT.

    The Proto-Aryan Culture/Homeland can only be guessed at; only when they made contact with other peoples do we see the articulation of a High Culture [beginning with the Rig Veda, and flowering into the Homeric Age].
    Greek Philosophy begins with the Greeks who had settled in Asia-Minor on the one hand, and in southern Italy on the other [Mileseans and Pythagoreans].

    It is when Aryan Man follows his FAUSTIAN WILL and spreads out into other lands and other peoples that he creates High Culture.
    He does this as a MASTER RACE.
    How can he be a Master Race if there are no other Races to master; or if there is no hierarchy of Races and subraces?

    I would say that this process of branching out both creates subraces [by the genetic drift caused by one part of the Race moving away from another - surely you don't deny the science of this?], and also leads to the blending of subraces under the press of invasions.

    The latter occurs for example, when waves of Aryans spread out creating the subraces, and then they are joined many generations later by successive waves of their kin.
    Sometimes, the subracial distance means that the later invaders are not aware that the 'natives' are their distant kin!
    But when such subraces blend, they create another kind subracial culture on top of the previous strata.
    There is no doubt that the great subraces are the products of such processes - it is the basic dynamic of Aryanism.

    Look how the four basic castes of the Vedas multiplied into a countless and dizzying array of multiple castes in India.

    Now subraces will disappear in history because life is about struggle and the expansion of Power. The various branches of the Goths have been submerged, and the type of Mediterraneanid seen in the Hellenes seems also to have disappeared; but that is the process of history: all is in cycles of birth, youth, maturity, senility and death.

    Yes, such subraces had out-lived their purpose; perhaps it is beneficial that they retired from the world-stage to give others a chance - that is the nature of evolution.

    That things die off is no doubt a cause of regret to some, but life is just as much about death as it is about living. I have little time for Judaeo-Christian sentimentality in such things. Would you cry if the Jewish subraces disappeared off the face of the earth?
    But you should, by your own account, as this would lead to a lack of diversity!

    No, let the Great White Race exert its Will to Power, and within its mighty form will the myriad subracial elements buck and fizz - one era the Nords have it, the next the Meds, at another the Alps and so on, with all possible combinations in between!
    Aesir and Vanir, Olympus and Hades, Heaven and Hell, Parallel Universes and Multiverses!
    This is Aryan!
    Not weeping over dead subraces!
    If something is about to fall, let us push it!

    3
    NAZZ: How is Miscegenation on a Racial level detrimental while Miscegenation on a Subracial level is not detrimental? And how is Subracial Blending the Will of Nature while Racial Miscegenation is not? Isn't the basis of Race Mixing and Subracial Blending equivalent to two (or more) distinct types getting joined together through reproductive channels, the only difference being the level of categorisation and also a distinctiveness of some sort in genetics (Most probably there is a distinctivenss in genetics if the distinctiveness is apparent)?

    MOODY: I have already made the distinction between Mixing [Misce (mix) - genation] and blending.
    Subracialism works WITHIN the integral Race classification, and is, as I have said, but the play of atomic particles within the object which is the Race.
    Mixing is a compromising of the integrity of the Race by Mixing it with another, alien Race, and therefore obliterating the distinct characteristics of the integral Race.

    I think the inability of some to accept this point comes from the materialistic view of Race; Race as biology and biology only.
    Because of this is view, you see the differences between humans only on a relative basis.

    To you there is only matter of degree between one Race and another, which equates to the distance between subraces. Taking this logic further, then the distance between families is akin to that between Races; eventually you are pushed back to the conclusion that only INCEST is beneficial.
    But incest is NOT beneficial [although our extreme Nordicists would like to think so].
    The family, the tribe, the clan, the nation, the subrace, the Race, the genera, the species etc., are all of a DIFFERENT ORDER.

    Race is not just biological, it is just as much a Spiritual/Cultural concept - indeed, it is PRIMARILY SO.
    This is because a Culture CREATES a Race or subrace;

    "World-history is the history of the great Cultures, and peoples are but the symbolic forms and vessels in which the men of these Cultures fulfill their Destinies".
    ['The Decline of the West'(abridgement), Spengler, page 262]

    So just as Nature puts barriers to Race-Mixing [by natural repulsion, disease, geography], so does human Culture [by religious, political intolerance etc.,].

    Those subraces [within the same Race] who adhere to the same culture are able to blend quite easily, and usually to good effect. Even those subraces [within the same Race] of differing Cultures are able to blend well.
    But different Races of different Cultures attempting to mix are a recipe for disaster - see the history of post-war immigration into Britain for examples of both types.

    4
    NAZZ: Is this fluidity mixing or as you term it blending? How is this of benefit to the Subraces as distinctive types?

    MOODY: Yes to the first part (see above for details); as for the second part;
    The subraces SERVE the Race, just as the Individual Ego SERVES the Race; I wonder that a subtle Individualism is not at work in subracial schismatics?

    5
    NAZZ:Is not this against the existance of Subraces, you claimed that they disappear and that they alter, this is equal to their destruction through Subracial Mixing/Blending. What do you mean by "thrown up" and "others revisit past types"?

    MOODY: It has become clear to me that your mistake lay in RAISING THE SUBRACE ABOVE THE RACE.
    The Race is the most important thing as it is the vessel in which the subraces sail as they reach new shores, whether it is the discovery of 'America', or the colonisation of Space.
    Because my view is Heraclitean - 'Nature is a Everliving Fire', I see the subraces as the creative swirl within the Great Race; it is the LATTER which must be preserved at all costs.
    Subraces may revisit the glories of past subraces, just as unique subraces may surprisingly emerge - and others may die out forever; this is based on a conception of Life which sees it as a matter of Will, and of Eternal Cycles.

    So yes, we may even sacrifice a subrace so that the Race as a whole will survive.

    6
    NAZZ: You say that 'Man alone cannot control subracial blending'. How does this not apply to Interracial Miscegenation while it applies to Subracial Blending?

    MOODY: In the prevention and control of Race-Mixing, man has Nature on his side, for the biological and Cultural reasons given.
    An anti-Race-mixing policy is Natural as it is merely a reinforcement of Nature's Way. However, Aryan man's history shows that the free-play of subracial types is part of Aryan-nature.
    Anyone attempting to prevent subracial blending would be working against Nature, and would deprive the White future of another blended type like Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler et al.,

    7
    NAZZ: [Are you] against Subracial Distinctiveness and Preservation?

    MOODY: Not against the first or the last as they are both the natural products of Aryan Expansion.

    Again, I am not arguing a reductionism, but the opposite.
    The free-play of subraces creates other subraces by their interaction!
    I am arguing for a polysubracialism within the impregnable fortress of the Race.

    However, I am against Subracial Schism and Subracial Sentimentalism which HARM the Race.

    The Race is ALL; subracial diversity serves the Race NATURALLY. But artificial schisms which are veiled expressions of Individualism and the will to incest, - or else a sentimentalism which would make the Race a Museum exhibit - these things I strongly oppose.

    8
    NAZZ: You are directly attributing the improvement of the White Race with Subracial Blending, which I do not find as a satisfactory explanation.

    MOODY: Well, I have provided mounds of evidence, which include the history of the Aryan Race [deeply involved as it is with the creation of subraces and their numerous blendings], as well as mention of subracially blent Aryan Leaders, Thinkers and Artists.

    It is not enough for you to say that this exposition of ARYANISM is "unsatisfactory"; and unless you can provide a counter-argument, this exchange is going to get repetitive [I don't mind, as I shall enjoy expanding on my thesis ad infinitum].

    9
    NAZZ:WW1/2 were not Subracial Schisms as you term them, but rather wars related to Nationality and not Subrace. I doubt that White High Culture is directly attributable to Subracial Blending.

    MOODY: When subrace fights against subrace - under whatever pretext, that is subracial schismatics and is therefore deplorable.
    Even worse is when a subrace is divided WITHIN itself [again, under whatever pretext]; all this is detrimental to the Race as a Unity.

    That Hitler wanted friendship with fellow subracial Germanic nations such as the Anglo-Saxons is on record.
    It was British propaganda to call a fellow Germanic nation the 'Huns'! [callous example of subracial schismatics].
    For an Anglo-Saxon to kill a German-Saxon - as happened in WWI/II is an example of inner subracial schism.
    Also the propaganda generated on the Eastern Front saw Aryans on both sides pit subrace against subrace.
    Generally speaking, WWI/II were CIVIL WARS; The White Race fought among itself for the good of the Judaised Ideologies of International Capital/Communism.

    If the notion of the Race as PARAMOUNT had been adopted, then those Wars would not have happened, and Britain, Germany and Russia would have joined together to rule the World, as was their Destiny.
    However, the outer-European forces used European petty-nationalism to create subracial civil-war between Aryans and so deprive Europe of her rightful position in the World.

    10
    NAZZ: You said Aryanism is 'polytheistic', and not Monotheistic; - I did not understand this correlation and analogy.

    MOODY: You will notice that Aryan Culture is Polytheistic and expansive. Look at the pagan religions as well as at the tendency to create and blend subraces.
    This tendency to multiplicity is an Aryan characteristic noticeable always; whether in today's modern science, the culture of the Renaissance, the Romantics, the great Explorers, or the polytheism of the Greco-Romans or the Vedas.
    This is of a kind with subracialism.

    In comparison, Semitism tends to be Monotheistic and puritan.
    It tends to want to reduce everything to One God, One Almighty Prophet/Last Prophet. It tends to decry the proliferation of Imagery - look at the contrast and conflict between the Muslims and the Hindus in India for an example.
    Note also that the Muslims for example, do not believe in Race, let alone subrace or Nation. Note that the Jews think there is only ONE Chosen People [themselves], and regard the rest as cattle.
    The Will to Simplistic Separation is NOT Aryan - it is Semitic!
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, February 5th, 2003 at 08:40 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 23rd, 2003 @ 11:31 PM
    Location
    Portsmouth Newhampshire USA
    Gender
    Age
    34
    Politics
    White Nationalist
    Posts
    129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    OK, I think that all Aryans should share the same land, and live together. Sub racial mixing, I dont know what to think of it really. I honestly dont see too much wrong with it. I think purity should be preserved. But I wouldnt flip out over 2 different subraces mixing as I would a nordic copulating with a negro of course. You can only get so picky. I will think about it, and return later.
    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004 at 05:37 PM. Reason: removed expletive

  8. #8
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post The Subgroupings

    'Subracial separatism' is a crude tribalism of low culture; it is nothing more than a rude throw-back which exists only as a cult in modern liberal society - indeed, it is a PRODUCT of individualistic liberalism, along with punk-rock, rap and the gang phenomena in general.
    It has NOTHING to do with Racial Nationalism.

    I think the phrase "subracial mixing" prejudices the case.
    I notice from perusing Arthur Kemp's useful work that he prefers to coin the phrase "subgroup", instead of "subrace";

    "A subgrouping is a branch of a particular race which exhibits slightly different physical characteristics, but still shares enough of a common genetic inheritance with other subgroupings to be included in a broad racial category".
    ['March of the Titans', Kemp]

    This is sensible, because the "subrace" is not a Race; it is in fact, the "subgroup" of A race, just as races are subdivisions of a species.

    But even on this last point, we mustn't think that the step from species to race is of the same order as the step from race to subgroup.
    Kemp mentions the gulf which separates the Black and White races as found in genetics;

    "The research found that the English differ from the Danes, Germans and French by a mere 21-25 (twenty one - twenty five) points of genetic distance, whereas they differ from ... Black Africans by 2, 288 (two thousand, two hundred and eighty eight) points .."
    [ib.,]

    So subgroups within a race are close kin, while races are SEPARATE.

    John R. Baker, in his comprehensive book on race, says of those two subgroups thought by 'subracial schismatists' to be so distant, that;

    "The Nordids ... are in fact rather closely related to the Mediterranids".
    ['Race', Baker, page 50]

    "The Nordid and Mediterranid subraces are close to one another in morphological characters, much more so than either is to the Alpinids".
    [ib., p.219]

    As I have said above, I regard the two world wars as 'subgroup schisms'. The great writer on racial issues, Lothrop Stoddard wrote this after World War ONE;

    "One of the Great War's most deplorable results has been an unprecedented weakening of White solidarity which, if not repaired, may produce the most disasterous consequences".
    ['The Rising Tide of Color', Stoddard, 1924, page 198]

    Unfortunately, Stoddard's words were not heeded and more disaster did indeed follow - whither White Solidarity, let alone White Supremacy, now?
    Last edited by Moody; Friday, February 7th, 2003 at 05:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Old Europa

    I have said that I regard national socialism/fascism as being the natural expression of subgroup blendings.

    In particular I see this racial nationalistic political movement as an atavistic urge deriving from the Old European subgroups who were originally subjugated by the last Aryan invaders.

    It is from this indigenous Old European stock that we get the call of the Soil, and the deep love for the Motherland.
    This, blent with the Aryan call of the Blood and Fatherland, results in the synthesis of National Socialism.

    Why does Old Europe and its subgroups continue to re-assert itself?
    Spengler may have the answer;

    "A race has roots.
    Race and landscape belong together.
    Where a plant takes root, there it dies also ...
    The race adheres permanently to this home with some of its most essential characters of body and soul.
    If in that home the race cannot now be found, this means that the race has ceased to exist.
    A race does not migrate, Men migrate, and the successive generations are born in ever-changing landscapes; but the landscape exercises a secret force upon the plant-nature in them, and eventually the race-expression is completely transformed by the extinction of the old and the appearance of the new one".
    [The Decline of the West, Spengler]

    This is why so many of the leaders of National Socialism have Old European, pre-Aryan characteristics; this is especially noticeable amongst Fascist leaders and activists.

    This movement has one main goal; an instinctive, atavistic, goal which it only discovers in itself in times of storm and stress.

    And that goal is the unity of Europa.

    A goal initiated by Julius Caesar's brilliant conquest of Gaul where the 'fascist movement' itself begins in historical terms.
    This prey has been stalked again and again throughout history.

    Listen to the late reflections of Napoleon;

    "I wanted to prepare the fusion of the great interests of Europe, as I had accomplished that of the parties.
    I concerned myself little with the passing rancour of the peoples, for I was sure that the results would lead them irresistably back to me.
    Europe would in this way have become in truth a united nation, and everyone would have been, no matter where he traveled, in the Fatherland.
    This fusion will accomplish itself sooner or later through the pressure of the facts; the impulse has been given which, since my downfall and the disappearance of my system, will make the restoration of balance possible in Europe only by merger and fusion of the great nations".
    [Napoleon, quoted in 'Imperium', page 245]
    Last edited by Moody; Friday, February 7th, 2003 at 06:37 PM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post More Thoughts on 'Subracial Separatism'

    Extreme 'Subracial Separatism' is the kind of lunacy that can only proliferate on the 'net.

    Why? - because on the 'net, anyone can pretend to be ... anyone.

    This is why I have refused to be drawn, despite the most gross provocation, into the sort of 'subracial' one-up-manship that has NO meaning on a virtual forum.

    The net is not only a paedophile's paradise, it is a liar's paradise too; and so no personal boast [or self-deprecation] has any value here.

    Political Thought Necessitates the lifting of things out of the 'petty personal', and those faceless ones [and we are ALL faceless on the 'net] who claim to be holier-than-thou representatives of this or that subgroup, are really only mocking Racial Nationalism.

    I'm sure the Anti-Racists look at the Race/Anthropology Forum here, and have a good laugh at some of its self-serving twaddle [the best one was 'Wolf-Rudiger Hess as Jew'!]

    This kind of Forum only has value as an exchange of ideas; only then is progress made.

    I have made progress here.

    Would it be realistic to attempt to carry out a wrestling contest [or a beauty contest] by an exchange of letters?
    No - such things must done in the flesh; a completely different medium.

    But, as history has shown, since Plato's own letters; the contest of ideas can be carried out very effectively by exchange of missives - and the 'net facilitates this to an exponential degree.

    So why this phobia against Ideas here?

    Am I right to say that 'Subracial Separatism' is an idiot bastard-child of the Internet?

    I think I am.

    Racial Nationalism in its healthiest forms has ALWAYS worked towards Racial Unity.
    It takes a political mind to understand this.

    The Subgroup SERVES the Race.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •