What are your views on non-Jew and non-Arab Semites of polytheistic faiths? I ask this question because it seems to be a blind spot for many so-called preservationists who have a flair for historical revisionism about religion and politics.

What of the Chaldeans? Abraham, father of both Jews and Arabs, was from the City of Ur, the Chaldean capital. Abraham would therefore appear to be a rebel of some sort, or perhaps an original thinker--there not being monotheism among the Semitic peoples outside his circle, which grew to a substantial size. Anyway, the Chaldeans remained polytheistic despite Abraham's defection and self-imposed exile. All of them were nomadic, though, which made them undesirables to the Assyrians and Babylonians, and thenceforth were absorbed by the Persians. Persians were of Aryan stock (indeed, more or less the namesake) but apparently not hostile to the monotheists, probably because it was unsettling to the former powers under their dominion, and divide and conquer is the way of imperialism.

It seems like the many attempts by Mesopotamian empires to get larger was unsettling to the Phoenicians, who founded a thalassocracy alongside the Greeks in a general westward movement. In the process, apparently contemporary to the rise of Persia, there was as much interaction by Phoenicians and Greeks (and Romans, with Carthage) in the Mediterranean as there was between the Persians with the Assyro-Babylonian world. Then, of course, the Hittites, Medians, Phrygians, and Scythians (not to mention Trojans!), were all also Indo-European peoples creolized into their Near Eastern surroundings relative to the predominantly Semitic social environment. Egypt would be another case for consideration. The Galatians, Vandals, and Alans also moved into the region. I have not discussed the Indian Subcontinent issues respective of Dravidians, etc, but that has probably already been answered anyway elsewhere. The Indians are considered to be miscegenated beyond salvaging by Nazis, although British Imperialism tried to make brown skinned Englishmen of them.

Naturally, preservationists would cheer on the Indo-Europeans in their quest for power over the Semites in such cases, but I never come across sentiments of "good riddance" to the other Semitic peoples which have had participation in our world, only antipathy to the monotheists among them. Obviously, those polytheistic peoples do not even really exist now, so it may simply be moot. On the other hand, I have never seen any anti-Semitic viewpoints of history concerned with these peoples relative to Indo-European heritage, for better or for worse.

How would card-carrying anti-Semites interpret such influences? Perhaps something like revulsion that Indo-Europeans are now almost universally monotheist as a result of Semitic influence, save for Indian Hindus? This has me link up the theories with a bit of confusion...Do card-carrying anti-Semites view the people of India as closer to Germans than Ashkenazi Jews? Why are these issues more pertinent to German preservationists than others of Indo-European origin, and how do you factor in the Uralo-Altaic peoples that have come into contact with Indo-Europeans, compared with the Hamito-Semitic? I figure most here would be indifferent on the Basques and Caucasians as European language family identity isolates.