A Serious Poll About Racial Purity: Which is Most Important?

[Razmig]

For some time I've researched racial classifications, anthropology, DNA marks haplotypes and genetic mutations and traits in humans, it's come to be a hobbie for me. However I have a serious question regarding the members here at Skadi (not necissarily speaking for all Nationalists, Racialists, since each individual seemingly has their own agenda). Quite often I've heard people referring to attractive mixed race people and commenting "can it be accepted? is it acceptable admixture." For me, this doesn't make much sence, as the purpose of Skadi (on the logo) is for European Cultural, Racial and Spiritual Preservation. Considering there are many mixed race people who have long inhabited regions of Europe, I take it this refers to the Europid race on the continent of Europe (not including Asian Europids, and most specifically of white western/northern Europe). So why is it that so many people interested in anthropology constantly assume that an attractive human is therefor "acceptable" and more "caucasoid", when there are plenty of hag-ugly "pure nordics" ?? Isnt the goal preservation of a race, rather than physical appearance? (stated by Coon himself). It seems to be that most people on Skadi have been consuming too much that the media feeds them, and often times can never tell the difference between a natural or bottle head blonde. So I ask you, which is more important?

Racial purity (creating seemingly ugly offspring, or even beautiful ones), or admixture, be it of any race (with beautiful features, and desired Nordic-like pigmentation)?

I tend to observe people a lot (it's my way of obtaining knowledge of the world around me), especially at school (UCLA is predominately Asians however a large amount of whites attend), and it seems in all people, beauty seems to be the image created by the media, targeted groups (majority groups: white americans) are usually portrayed in most adds as the most extreme types (extremely blonde: most the time bleached haired models, with clear fair skin and light eyes). However very often there are mixed race people with these desired depigmentations, and often times they are considered "better" than other people, simply because they are more attractive to most people. In my opinion, these desired elements of depigmentation, like Galvez has stated, seem to be a way for those who inherit them as a way to put themselves above others, simply because of being born with them. The same goes with physical beauty, as they are always claimed by these same groups, and groups of people.

[Gesta Bellica]

I voted for the first option.
I think we gotta preserve our identity regardless the attractiveness of people.
It makes me really angry to hear people say stupid things like: "well the blacks (or arabs or whoever) can have our ugly women, who cares about them"
Surely those "ugly white europeans" are daughters, sisters or mothers of somebody.
I am strongly for not leaving a single limb of white skin to non-white intruders

[Razmig]

I voted for the first option.
I think we gotta preserve our identity regardless the attractiveness of people.
It makes me really angry to hear people say stupid things like: "well the blacks (or arabs or whoever) can have our ugly women, who cares about them"
Surely those "ugly white europeans" are daughters, sisters or mothers of somebody.
I am strongly for not leaving a single limb of white skin to non-white intruders

Too much emphasis on the media and models in my opinion, not enough actual researching goes on here on Skadi (no offence guys). Not to say a lot of people here have done their homework, rather than blurt stupid shit out their ass.

Racial purity is most important in all people, and it does not put one human over another by default (in my opinion). However, on a sidenot, Europeans and Europids have given the world just about everything, and it seems theyre being deprived of just about everything.

[Scoob]

"Physical beauty" is just the idea humans invent to articulate their feeling of attraction for a type. So if a group of people thinks a type is beautiful, that demonstrates their willingness to assimilate it.

As for preservation of types? The types that exist and are common are different from the types that exist and are common in Europe at the moment. I think pure Nordics can be very beautiful, but I see very, very few of these in the USA. I see some Europeans who are this type.

Consider the cast of 90210 or some similar show. They are all sort of blond by American standards - yet take a close look. None of them are what you could call a Nordic proper. "Keltic Nordic" is about as close as any common type comes in the USA. Or, as you say, bottle blond.

The situation is more marked in Latin America: someone who has what I'd consider a medium brown shade of hair is considered a "blond" there. I think some new more-or-less types are in the process of formation in the USA, and they are not equivalent to Coon's classification system. Non-white admixture will change the situation as well. There are a lot of people on the West Coast of the USA who are white mixed with some Asian. Are they white? Well, is Keanu Reeves white? Is Dean Cain white? To the man on the street - yes. And that's whose opinion really counts.

I don't see any big movement for white racial preservationism in the USA, except some people who want to stay "white." I think the main historical trend though is towards assimilation. People vote with their reproductive organs when it comes to racial matters.

It doesn't really matter what us computer nerds think about it, unless someone actually does something. Not that this stuff isn't a lot of fun to talk about!

[Louky]

There's no option for eugenics. I'm for instituting a social system that encourages the best of our kind to breed. It's not just what we are now, but what we have the potential for becoming.

[Razmig]

Scoob, any advice for people seeking to block out personal opinion when attempting to classify (be it that of beauty or anything else)?

[Razmig]

There's no option for eugenics. I'm for instituting a social system that encourages the best of our kind to breed. It's not just what we are now, but what we have the potential for becoming.

Are you speaking about European Europids or humans as a whole? Wasn't the original idea behind preservation to "respect our ancestors and all they have done?" Wouldn't a mixed breed go against such beleifs?

Does outward appearance always = better? What about intelligence (not determined by pheonotype or race, rather upbringing), and the potential for bettering the human race (technology and sciences). Wouldn't that be more beneficial to society?

[Scoob]

Scoob, any advice for people seeking to block out personal opinion when attempting to classify (be it that of beauty or anything else)?

Agrippa posted some very interesting observations about beauty of different types, and he included the idea of "progressive" types being considered beautiful in both genders. That's an interesting and teleological idea.

Also, I know that physical symmetry is considered an objective standard of beauty.

The way to do things "more" objectively is to make measurable standards. But even those standards have an element of subjectivity - they are only objective because a large number of people agree upon them. But in general I think that there is very little objective about the physical world - the closest we can come is shared subjectivity according to precise and reproducible methods (science)!

And as for intelligence, intelligence is simply mental aptitude. One must decide *which kind* of intelligence to value if a society is going to eugenically select for intelligence. A lot of highly intelligent people in modern society are social dropouts! Intelligence to invent and, more importantly, imitate is very important for civilization and society. But people smarter or dumber than the group average don't tend to conform, and that makes a big problem for society. Kids who are smarter than their teachers or peers tend to become somewhat anti-social.

[Krautwurst]

Are you speaking about European Europids or humans as a whole? Wasn't the original idea behind preservation to "respect our ancestors and all they have done?" Wouldn't a mixed breed go against such beleifs?

Well, I looked back at the home page, and the first concept is to CULTURAL preservation, not racial. Seeming the history of the European contenant (sp?) I would have to consider that RACE would not be important...
The mongolian invaders across the stepps of Russia....
The Teutonic ancestors, becoming the Goths, Visigoths, and thier intermixing with the Huns...
The invasions by Grandfather and Grandson Alaxander...
The intermixing of the Egyptians and the Greeks....
The lighter skinned Njordic people, the Celtic people, the South and Western Latin people (and the Italians are darker)
Currently, the influx from the Turks (and thier earlier influx)...
THIS sounds like Cultural mix, which is what would preserve the race - many different view points aiding to the whole, making everyone better because of the "out of the box" thinking of one group compared to another.
I am extremely proud of my German heritage, especially the Cultural aspects I encountered when I visited family in Germany and Denmark. But I also have French (Cajun, actually), and Native American within 4 generations past. My last name is actually Scottish from relatives hundreds of years ago...
and I am PROUD OF ALL OF IT!

So I guess, to answer the question that has been going on behind the scenes, yes I believe in preserving the race, no matter how they look. For all I see is the HUMAN race! (besides, there is no country called Caucus - so I CANT be Caucasion!!!!)