Nordicism

[Rhobot]

It depends on the source, though. In other words, there is equal evidence (Archaeological, Genetic, and Etiological) that the 'Aryan' movement was North to South as it was South (from the Indic region) to North.

'We', as Moderns, tend to equate writing systems and documentation with truth. Equally, we tend to dismiss oral traditions as antiquated and unreliable.

This is a through and through Modern notion.

The incessant obfuscation of terminological distinctions on the internet amongst the not yet educated enough to utilise the terms does not help, either. Anyone (and yes, I am utilising an Absolute, here) who is not aware that 11.000 years ago, present day Europe was - by and large - populated by a majority of Blond(e)/ Auburn haired, pail-eyed Cromagnoid/Nordoids, is - quite simply - naive.

It is an all-too-Human trait to define 'White' based on current (Modern) circumstance. I think - and believe - in my heart of Hearts, that this stems from a remarkable self-loathing that is the Natural result of the intermingling of particular sub-Racial types. Although I expect very little agreement on this, I don't care: what I care about, is that if we take 'Modernity' and Modern circumstance to its logical conclusions, we've no reason to not accept Aremenoids, Sunoids, Bambutoids (etc., etc.) into the European fold, even though they be not Europid.

To go off nothing other than skin colour, is to trivialise Race to the point of absolute absurdity.

It is truly dissapointing that there is not a greater knowledge of such things represented in this forum, especially given that the SNPA is now fused with this forum.

Bambutoids (I assume you mean Pygmies) aren't native to Europe, and haven't even immigrated there, so they can't be European.
I have no idea what Sunoids are- enlighten me there.
Never heard of "Aremenoids"- I assume you mean "Armenoids." While I don't buy into the Coon typology approach (WAY outdated/obsolete in the age of DNA), I know what he says. And he says that type is most common in the Near East rather than Europe, but he also claims it is not uncommon in Greece or south Italy.

And we have NO idea what the Cro-Magnons looked like. They may well not have been blond- or blue-eyed, even in Northern Europe. Scientists have suggested that blond hair originated about 10-11,000 years ago, at the very end of the Ice Age, based on dating of a mutation in the MCR1 gene that codes for hair color
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle735078.ece
And blue eyes may be fairly recent as well, owing to a mutation in the OCA2 gene that apparently occurred around the same time that blue-eyed Caucasoids throughout Europe and the Near East share.
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...1_blueeyes.htm

[lei.talk]

And you think you get all the way from the Steppe to the Scottish Highlands in what?

A generation or so?

hikers delight in shocking non-hikers
by demonstrating with a calculator
that one can walk
from the southern-most tip of africa
to the southern-most tip of america

in fifteen years.

sailing a small boat is much faster.

the trip was considerably shorter
when the sea-level was a few hundred feet lower.

sailors understand things in the real world
that linguists and other specialists do not.

how long would it take to walk and eat
one's way across the steppes
to the west coast of the eur-asian land-mass?

[Freomæg]

And I shall begin by saying that you are to be respected if for no other reason that by challenging me by way of your standard and noble pretense.

With that said, I will continue via mine own standard, and will shall see who wins the day - as dictated by Lady Reason.

To make my point more concise - A 'darkie' would prefer not to think that he is the result of significant interracial mixing, but I put forth that a Nordicist would likewise prefer to think that they represent the pinnacle of purity. When the argument of emotional-interjection is put forth, it works both ways (or can work both ways) so there's no use in Nordicists suggesting that opponents to their argument are plagued by emotional concerns, for then they concede that they too might be influenced by emotional concerns.

But as you say, what's important is the evidence. With the above paragraph I merely wanted to address the specific point of 'feelings'.

I challenge not only you, but all others who believe me wrong, to state their individual arguments.

I think this argument is better left to those in possession of evidence , so I'll sit it out and learn.

Contradictio en Adjectio, mein Freund.

I made that particular point terribly. What I meant is that whilst I believe in prehistoric interaction and knowledge-sharing, I don't necessarily believe that it was absolute- that Nordids built the pyramids, or that Ethiopians built Angkor Wat, or that Eskimos built Palenque . I believe it was a more passive, hands-off sharing-of-knowledge that worked both ways. I'm very much open to unorthadox interpretations of ancient history so if you have any proof that Nordids ruled/built south of the Mediterranean and east of the Black Sea before the Vikings, I'll certainly be open to it. There was a long thread on Skadi and whilst there were interesting points and photos put forward, nothing that proved it for me.

[Treffie]

I think this argument is better left to those in possession of evidence , so I'll sit it out and learn.

Yes, same here, but I've yet to see evidence from SuuT either. SuuT, do you have any sources to back up your opinion? If so, I'd be very interested to read them.

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's certainly a plausible theory. If anyone watches the 'Life After People' series which is on Tuesdays on the History Channel, they show how even after a few hundred years very few remnants of modern society would remain visible-thus there could very well have existed an advanced civilization in the distant past, and after thousands of years most traces of this were removed, especially if they used wood and some kind of plaster as primary building materials, existing buildings were later torn down in order to reuse their materials (a common pattern throughout history) and if they built cities along the coast (probable) and the sea levels have risen since then (they have) then few if any traces of this civilization would have remained.

A couple points to nitpick on that article, like was mentioned earlier, a structure with a wide base narrowing to a point at the top is a natural and common building pattern and thus not necessarily.

My other problem is with this:

There must have been vast numbers of people who gazed upon that end of the mammoths with horror...With horror most of the human race watched their demise. And this event affected the spiritual development of the human race in ways that are quite subconscious now, since it happened so many thousands of years ago. But the affects are there, nonetheless, down deep inside us. This same terrible deed also affected the mammoth hunters themselves, the ones who killed the last mammoths. For they could not do this without losing some of their own human sensitivity. They had to de-sensitize themselves. They had to numb themselves to what they were doing. They had to learn to rationalize the huge fact that they knew they were killing the last of a magnificent species of animal, and that when they were gone they would never return again. It is no wonder that these Kurgan people would eventually run rampant across the western lands of Old Europe, murdering and massacring and raping and pillaging.

I don't know where the author is going with this, but it is projecting very modern thought patterns on the ancient past. The extreme empathy of humans towards animals is a luxury of the extreme material comfort (comparatively) of modern humanity, and the network of factory farming and food processing and urbanization which removes most people from any interaction whatsoever with raising animals for food or much of any interaction with animals at all except for pets, zoos, and nature preserves. The theory that the die-off of mammoths (assuming it was both human caused and the humans of the time were aware of this) would have a massive impact on the psyche people of that time equivalent to the self-flagellation modern Germans have regarding 'the holocaust' and extending over many generations is completely absurd.

[lei.talk]

The theory that the die-off of mammoths
(assuming it was both human caused...

is it only a co-incidence that the mega-fauna died off
as the oxygen content of the atmosphere
dropped to the current level?

[SwordoftheVistula]

is it only a co-incidence that the mega-fauna died off
as the oxygen content of the atmosphere
dropped to the current level?

No doubt a result of the Kurgans driving SUVs

[SuuT]

Umm are you suggesting that we darkhaired people are a result of arabic admixture?

No, Varg. Per usual (and I have attempted to cut this bullshit off 'at the pass', as it were, in a previous post) there are always individuals who step forward, and read things into what has been stated. By definition, this is projection.

The "pale-isation'' of Northern European/Europid Man is traced to a mutation occuring aproximately 11,000 years ago. Some did, and some did not, as evinced in modern populations, receive such recessive traits. But, were highly valued as Göttlichkeit characteristics that show themselves not only in the deeds of these people; but, also in the colour system heirarchy that appears in ALL IndoEuropean mythos - from Persia, to Scandinavia.

As I read it, you seemed to be saying that Out Of India was as well evidenced as Into, no?

Oswiu, quote me ONE modern acedemician that does not place the Sanskrit 'spread' as a prior, and birthing, wrting system for Northern Europe: Every one of them consider the I.E. advancement as out-of-'India'.

You called it 'South to North' from 'Indic' regions. You didn't say 'former' Indic regions, which would bring us on to interesting things like the Yamnaya culture and so on, for a Pontic homeland - which I don't support but is still a better bet than things southeastward. Or did you mean 'Turkestan' by your 'Indic regions'?

I mean the totality of the thing. Frankly, (and I feel comfortable saying this as you and I have not only a mutual respect for one another; but also, because we value one another's minds) it would be a futile attempt for me to go the way of debating your self-evident intellectual constipation by way of what was crammed into your psyche at University, it must be said that your penchant for Emipricism (as dictated by the motive [whether they know it or no] of the Academicians who have decided your path of perpetual inquiry, limiting you to theory 'x' and theory 'y' on this matter), especially at your age, and your given stubborn-ness (which I value ) as a Kelt, I must conclude (after 4-5 years of discourse) that there are definate boundaries - in your thought process - that cannot be overcome or exceeded.

...new physical types coming in to lord it over stunted swarthy natives.

Why do people (especially swarthy Brits) engage in such self-deprication?:confused2: : the coin, as already implied by those that read well, between the Kelt and the Germanic, is SO very thin.

Big bloody exception!

But what the hell are you talking about? There weren't Celtic speakers till around 3000 and a bit years ago. I thought we should be concernede here with what was going on 20,000 years ago.

Do not mistake my 'diplomacy' and delicacy with respect to this matter as something to be mis-understood: For you, it is a linguistic issue; for me, it is a Racial issue.

In short, it is not so difficult to consider pre-Aryan invaders as a group. I have called this group 'Kelts', in accord with Acedamia. - Should we wish to particularise things to the point of non-sense, confusion, and obfuscation - I would bow-out.

Talking of 'indigenes' and 'non-blonde' types, you would be speaking of the non-IE speakers who form the mass of ancestors of modern Celtic speakers (and myself in all likelihood), and so now we're talking of lads who've been around a good 10,000 years.

Yes, we are. What it is that you are not considering is the afore mutation; as well as, the imposition of a Social (Patriachal/waring Sky gods) structure upon the pre- I.E. population of Evropa (a name conjured by the Greeks, for all who do not know). Moreover, the autochthonous, pre-Aryan settlers of the soil, were bred-out, reamining in Tribal pockets, such as Wales.

We shouldn't be using recent names like 'Kelt' for these. As far as I can tell, darker types would have been common enough here then, but still far from preponderating.

- Are we agreeing, here?

Do you see Corded people as the first IE bringers into our lands? I view them as more a later incoming branch of IE in relation to already IE speaking peoples in the future Germany.

My delicacy is at an end, Woo. You think that Cordeds are/were isolated to fucking 'future' Germany??????????? - come on, man.

... slightly darker, types - types which are still 'European'.

I, have never, not once, said that "slightly darker types" ARE NOT 'EUROPEAN'. (Odd that you use this word so much considering that the overwhelming majority of Brits mutually exclude themselves from the continent.)

I'm dark haired, with dark eyes. You say Europe was all 'fairish' at one time.

No, I did not.

Therefore I'm what?

You are Europid. "BrunnoAtlandishy".

The result of metisation with Black Africans or something?

No. your subracial type arrived by way of BOAT, from the Mediterranean.

Ya know?

But this is all about language. SuuT was talking more about physical types.

What an arrogant statement, Woo. Again with the intellectual constipation. - This is NOT "all about [fucking] language (emphasis and additional expliative, mine). : Man, as part of a greater biological whole, constructs things as his biology dictates.

Please, SuuT, talk English when I'm around, or else you're wasting your breath.

Unfortunatley (even though my spelling is often awful), my English tends to be superior to your own. I've no doubt, that this is the root of many of our disputes.

[...] - I say that darkies like me

You've no need to self-depricate. I am not a 'Nordicist'. Indeed, as you (should) already know, I value the union of Kelt and Germanic: England (second only to America) represents, in the finest fasion, the creation of an Elite Cadre of sub-Racial admixture.

[...] You say Europe was all light before this.

No. I have not.

I need to hear from you now, where the devil I came from!

The Mediaterranian. By way of Boat.

Bambutoids (I assume you mean Pygmies) aren't native to Europe, and haven't even immigrated there, so they can't be European.

Ughh......

Anyone with Citezenship, in a Evropean country, is - by definition - "European".

Race is not considered.

I have no idea what Sunoids are- enlighten me there.

My pleasure. They are Progressive Asiatics. - Largely from NordChina, as well as Japan (and other Asiatic Nation States).

Never heard of "Aremenoids"- I assume you mean "Armenoids."

If all you have to quibble on is my lack-lustre spelling, you might bow-out and just listen.

And we have NO idea what the Cro-Magnons looked like...

Ughh........

They may well not have been blond- or blue-eyed, even in Northern Europe. Scientists have suggested that blond hair originated about 10-11,000 years ago, at the very end of the Ice Age, based on dating of a mutation in the MCR1 gene that codes for hair color
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle735078.ece
And blue eyes may be fairly recent as well, owing to a mutation in the OCA2 gene that apparently occurred around the same time that blue-eyed Caucasoids throughout Europe and the Near East share.
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...1_blueeyes.htm

Thanks for proving my point.

To make my point more concise - A 'darkie'...

I don't get this self-deprication. And, I can't say it enough. :mmmm:

...would prefer not to think that he is the result of significant interracial mixing, but I put forth that a Nordicist would likewise prefer to think that they represent the pinnacle of purity. When the argument of emotional-interjection is put forth, it works both ways (or can work both ways) so there's no use in Nordicists suggesting that opponents to their argument are plagued by emotional concerns, for then they concede that they too might be influenced by emotional concerns.

Thanks for the clarification: which certainly falls into the orbit of greater understanding.

At this point, however, (for all those who are able to read) I have proven myself not to be a 'Nordicist'; although, the Racial facts of Archaic Evropa remain.

think this argument is better left to those in possession of evidence , so I'll sit it out and learn.

I would suggest that you contemplate the nature of "evidence" should this thread proceed, in a productive fasion.

Yes, same here, but I've yet to see evidence from SuuT either. SuuT, do you have any sources to back up your opinion? If so, I'd be very interested to read them.

Again, it would be wise, to contemplate such terms as "truth" and "proof". Do I have any...? - Indeed, I do.

It's certainly a plausible theory. If anyone watches the 'Life After People' series which is on Tuesdays on the History Channel, they show how even after a few hundred years very few remnants of modern society would remain visible-thus there could very well have existed an advanced civilization in the distant past, and after thousands of years most traces of this were removed, especially if they used wood and some kind of plaster as primary building materials, existing buildings were later torn down in order to reuse their materials (a common pattern throughout history) and if they built cities along the coast (probable) and the sea levels have risen since then (they have) then few if any traces of this civilization would have remained.

A couple points to nitpick on that article, like was mentioned earlier, a structure with a wide base narrowing to a point at the top is a natural and common building pattern and thus not necessarily.

My other problem is with this:



I don't know where the author is going with this, but it is projecting very modern thought patterns on the ancient past. The extreme empathy of humans towards animals is a luxury of the extreme material comfort (comparatively) of modern humanity, and the network of factory farming and food processing and urbanization which removes most people from any interaction whatsoever with raising animals for food or much of any interaction with animals at all except for pets, zoos, and nature preserves. The theory that the die-off of mammoths (assuming it was both human caused and the humans of the time were aware of this) would have a massive impact on the psyche people of that time equivalent to the self-flagellation modern Germans have regarding 'the holocaust' and extending over many generations is completely absurd.

An excellent, and extra-ordinary critique.

[Rhobot]

No, Varg. Per usual (and I have attempted to cut this bullshit off 'at the pass', as it were, in a previous post) there are always individuals who step forward, and read things into what has been stated. By definition, this is projection.

The "pale-isation'' of Northern European/Europid Man is traced to a mutation occuring aproximately 11,000 years ago. Some did, and some did not, as evinced in modern populations, receive such recessive traits. But, were highly valued as Göttlichkeit characteristics that show themselves not only in the deeds of these people; but, also in the colour system heirarchy that appears in ALL IndoEuropean mythos - from Persia, to Scandinavia.

Oswiu, quote me ONE modern acedemician that does not place the Sanskrit 'spread' as a prior, and birthing, wrting system for Northern Europe: Every one of them consider the I.E. advancement as out-of-'India'.


I mean the totality of the thing. Frankly, (and I feel comfortable saying this as you and I have not only a mutual respect for one another; but also, because we value one another's minds) it would be a futile attempt for me to go the way of debating your self-evident intellectual constipation by way of what was crammed into your psyche at University, it must be said that your penchant for Emipricism (as dictated by the motive [whether they know it or no] of the Academicians who have decided your path of perpetual inquiry, limiting you to theory 'x' and theory 'y' on this matter), especially at your age, and your given stubborn-ness (which I value ) as a Kelt, I must conclude (after 4-5 years of discourse) that there are definate boundaries - in your thought process - that cannot be overcome or exceeded.




Why do people (especially swarthy Brits) engage in such self-deprication?:confused2: : the coin, as already implied by those that read well, between the Kelt and the Germanic, is SO very thin.

Do not mistake my 'diplomacy' and delicacy with respect to this matter as something to be mis-understood: For you, it is a linguistic issue; for me, it is a Racial issue.

In short, it is not so difficult to consider pre-Aryan invaders as a group. I have called this group 'Kelts', in accord with Acedamia. - Should we wish to particularise things to the point of non-sense, confusion, and obfuscation - I would bow-out.

Yes, we are. What it is that you are not considering is the afore mutation; as well as, the imposition of a Social (Patriachal/waring Sky gods) structure upon the pre- I.E. population of Evropa (a name conjured by the Greeks, for all who do not know). Moreover, the autochthonous, pre-Aryan settlers of the soil, were bred-out, reamining in Tribal pockets, such as Wales.



- Are we agreeing, here?



My delicacy is at an end, Woo. You think that Cordeds are/were isolated to fucking 'future' Germany??????????? - come on, man.



I, have never, not once, said that "slightly darker types" ARE NOT 'EUROPEAN'. (Odd that you use this word so much considering that the overwhelming majority of Brits mutually exclude themselves from the continent.)




No, I did not.



You are Europid. "BrunnoAtlandishy".



No. your subracial type arrived by way of BOAT, from the Mediterranean.



Ya know?





What an arrogant statement, Woo. Again with the intellectual constipation. - This is NOT "all about [fucking] language (emphasis and additional expliative, mine). : Man, as part of a greater biological whole, constructs things as his biology dictates.





Unfortunatley (even though my spelling is often awful), my English tends to be superior to your own. I've no doubt, that this is the root of many of our disputes.



You've no need to self-depricate. I am not a 'Nordicist'. Indeed, as you (should) already know, I value the union of Kelt and Germanic: England (second only to America) represents, in the finest fasion, the creation of an Elite Cadre of sub-Racial admixture.



No. I have not.



The Mediaterranian. By way of Boat.






Ughh......

Anyone with Citezenship, in a Evropean country, is - by definition - "European".

Race is not considered.




My pleasure. They are Progressive Asiatics. - Largely from NordChina, as well as Japan (and other Asiatic Nation States).




If all you have to quibble on is my lack-lustre spelling, you might bow-out and just listen.



Ughh........



Thanks for proving my point.





I don't get this self-deprication. And, I can't say it enough. :mmmm:



Thanks for the clarification: which certainly falls into the orbit of greater understanding.

At this point, however, (for all those who are able to read) I have proven myself not to be a 'Nordicist'; although, the Racial facts of Archaic Evropa remain.



I would suggest that you contemplate the nature of "evidence" should this thread proceed, in a productive fasion.




Again, it would be wise, to contemplate such terms as "truth" and "proof". Do I have any...? - Indeed, I do.




An excellent, and extra-ordinary critique.

What I said is that the northern European traits of blond hair and blue eyes arose AFTER the last glaciation.
And Armenoids, unlike Pygmies or East Asians, are a Caucasoid type. They are more common outside of Europe, but they are hardly unusual in parts of southern Europe.

[Freomæg]

I don't get this self-deprication. And, I can't say it enough. :mmmm:

Relax my friend. Oswiu and I, I'm sure, are both using the term "darkie" with our tongues firmly pressed against our cheeks . Were we genuinely insecure about our appearance I don't think we'd be discussing this openly. We're all inferior to someone in some way. I'm not worried.

At this point, however, (for all those who are able to read) I have proven myself not to be a 'Nordicist'; although, the Racial facts of Archaic Evropa remain.

Okay. If it were proven true that Nordids predominated across Europe and had significant influence elsewhere, proponents would be merely "truth-ists", not "Nordicists". However, I think that until evidence is presented - which the majority of thinkers approve of - "Nordicist" is still a reasonable term. You must understand that from my current point of view, you are promoting a "Nordicist" ideal. From your perspective there is nothing idealistic about this proposition, it is just history - but it's not a perspective we all share yet.

I would suggest that you contemplate the nature of "evidence" should this thread proceed, in a productive fasion.

Good point. My own metaphysical contemplations regularly rely on gut instincts due to the questions I ponder being unprovable one way or another. I'm willing to apply this same approach to the subject of ancient history. As I stated before, I believe some things which the wider community would consider me a 'crackpot' for. But as it stands, I have no proof, evidence, insinuations, gut feelings or even considerations that Nordids once ruled all of Europe and beyond. Help me to consider this. What are your reasons for believing it? In fact, what do you believe? Did Nordids build the pyramids?