Inter-European breeding [European nation]

[DarkZarathustra]

I would like to discuss the theme of marriage between native European nation's. How do you look at situation that one parent would be Franch and other German or Russian and Norwegian or any other nation. Would be it useful or not for preserviation of Europe? Have you any prejudements against some meta-ethnical group?

I myself incline to inter-European breeding becouse it can be the way to new Europe as new European ethnicity. That's my two cent's so your turn - :wink


P.S. If it's wrong forum - mods, move to a proper one.

[Útrám]

Against it, in the long run it would bring Europe's diversity to a demise.

[DarkZarathustra]

Against it, in the long run it would bring Europe's diversity to a demise.
Maybe there is some way's to avoid such effect, possibly one mixture of blood more preferable than other? What I mean...

[Skandi]

My grandmother is Welsh and my grandfather Norwegian/Swedish my father is Welsh, So I am already rather mixed, but I would rather that people didn't mix too much, I see that a Southern French person and a Spanish one or a Sweed and a Fin are not huge differences, as there is extended history already, but somone of Irish decent and an Italian for example, should be avoided.

This brings up the question of whether it is better to mix in this way than partner with a person from your country who is opposed to your views.

[The Lawspeaker]

That's a very good question. It happens very often here in the borderlands that Flemish marry Dutch (we are kin) or Dutch marry Germans and Flemish marry Walloons.
It shouldn't be so harmful if it were to happen in moderation but there is the problem: people are traveling so much and meeting foreigners that it could well delude our diversity.
An Englishman and a Dutchwoman would make a fine couple as their cultures are alike- but what will their offspring be: will it be English, will it be Dutch, will it be both ?
Also when cultures are similar can it create a demise of an identity but genetically speaking I should have nothing against it but when it happens on a large scale the problems would be the same as with real race mixing.

But sometimes people can't find a mate in their own country or fall in love with a foreigner.. My cousin married an Italian and they have a son (14) and only got divorced after 14 years. That's a lot more then the average Dutch family nowadays lol.

[Bloodeagle]

It seems that most Europeans are already related, so what's the big deal with Euro-interrelation ism?
I personally have mixed with French people and Greek people!

[sturmwalkure]

In moderation sure - hey, at least it's better than marrying non-whites.

[Sol Invictus]

Exactly. I don't think we should be worrying about our differences so much since there's too much we all have in common between European blood. Keep it within the European groups and we'll be doing an enormously good thing our people.

[Psychonaut]

Sticking to your specific ethnic group is great, but I think it's preferable to find a mate who is of a different ethnicity (within your meta-ethnic group) and is emotionally compatible than to chase some elusive creature that might not exist. My perspective is, of course, that of a North American, and I can't say if any of that is appropriate for those living in Europe. In my case, the only Acadian women in my city were my family; and there was no way that I was going to pass up someone as amazing as my wife simply because she wasn't Acadian.

[Tabiti]

The worst thing about that is nations can merge and disappear, so Europe would be like USA. Nothing against Americans, but Europe is diverse and should stay like that.

On personal side, never been with foreigner and I don't know how would I act if I met someone to have feelings with. Sex/relationship is not a problem, but when it comes for family and children I really don't know, since the question is complicated. As Bulgarian nationalist I want Bulgarian children, with Bulgarian names, speaking Bulgarian language. On other hand, think there should be love and understanding in family and it may happen that your "other part" is not from your nationality...
Anyway, I won't think such a dilema is going to happen with me, only imaging situations.

P.S. I prefer not to mess with Balkanities and Slavs as a whole (not because "nonwhiteness", but disagreements) . Same with Southern Italians and Southern Spaniards.

[Loki]

Many of these cultural boundaries are superficial. However, it is preferable for the preservation of culture if relations can be at least within the same meta-ethnic group. But then again, someone from a different meta-ethnic group, but similar subracial make-up, can be more suitable a partner than someone from the same ethnic group but very different subrace.

In any case, this is not something on which I or anyone else here can make a judgement. People must decide for themselves who to mate with. They do have to take into consideration the social consequences, and responsibility to society as a whole (is there such a thing?). I myself do not particularly feel obliged to conform to any kind of rigid guideline set by someone else. But then again I've always been a rebel.

I must however make it abundantly clear that I vehemently oppose Latvian-German miscegenation. :lightbul: ;)

[DarkZarathustra]

But then again, someone from a different meta-ethnic group, but similar subracial make-up, can be more suitable a partner than someone from the same ethnic group but very different subrace.

That is what I wanted to imply when starting the thread.


In any case, this is not something on which I or anyone else here can make a judgement. People must decide for themselves who to mate with. They do have to take into consideration the social consequences, and responsibility to society as a whole (is there such a thing?). I myself do not particularly feel obliged to conform to any kind of rigid guideline set by someone else.
Agree.


I must however make it abundantly clear that I vehemently oppose Latvian-German miscegenation. :lightbul: ;)
:D :thumb001:

[SwordoftheVistula]

Not a problem when between near nations, more of a problem if they are from opposite corners of the continent

[Svarog]

It depends man, when it comes to inter-national mixing I guess it can't be helped and in generally, I'd rather see Swedish and a French than German and a Somalian, when Europe is degraded on this level we have today our priorities are unfortunately drastically lowered, 100 years ago we would have better arguments as then mixing was rather rare, only extreme cases and mostly between neighboring nations, today all changes, we have loads of nonwhites around, also homosexuality is some kind of a sport so when your daughter or a son says he will bring a bf/gf home all you hope it is different sex and same race or a religion, in the age of ultimate decadence it is really hard to discuss this thread.

And even tho I am not a hard core opposition of marrying other nationalities and think it may be good sometimes I still think some boundaries should be followed, such is, I have nothing against a Serb marrying a Swede but that marriage is almost destined not to last for long due to many differences, when it comes to a Serb marrying a Croatian it is a different thing due to cultural closeness, temperament etc so even if you marry different nationality I think that at least it should aim for the ones closer to you. The last thing we need is every second marriage to end up in divorce.

Some extremes works out sometimes, my sister is married to a Dutch and they work fine, they met in France and crazy guy flied to Belgrade few weeks after without knowing where to search or anything, had just like a name and surname, took him several weeks so they tried dating and it worked out so they got married and have kids, not on my delight but if they love each other and he was foolish enough to do that, who am I to judge after all

Do I support mass offspring between Europeans, certainly not as single cases which are still rare are fine but following European Union with one state bullshit where each culture is pretty much lost is what I truly despise, I just wholeheartedly hope Serbia won't enter EU ever, well, what I hope more is EU to collapse sooner rather than later and it will collapse for sure.

[Jarl]

Many of these cultural boundaries are superficial. However, it is preferable for the preservation of culture if relations can be at least within the same meta-ethnic group. But then again, someone from a different meta-ethnic group, but similar subracial make-up, can be more suitable a partner than someone from the same ethnic group but very different subrace.

In any case, this is not something on which I or anyone else here can make a judgement. People must decide for themselves who to mate with. They do have to take into consideration the social consequences, and responsibility to society as a whole (is there such a thing?). I myself do not particularly feel obliged to conform to any kind of rigid guideline set by someone else. But then again I've always been a rebel.

I must however make it abundantly clear that I vehemently oppose Latvian-German miscegenation. :lightbul: ;)


I am not sure about that, it seems like a potent mix to me!

Take a Latvian...

...add a bit of German... looks like we have found our ultimate ubermensch recipe!


We have to let Stormfront, WHO and Agrippa know about this.



Not a problem when between near nations, more of a problem if they are from opposite corners of the continent

While I do not think we should value language and culture more than the human being that forms it, I think it should be avoided. As long as the languages are unintelligible the family poses an issue of either conversion or a split... or further dilution which makes it even harder to hold on to traditions and heritage.

[DarkZarathustra]

We have to let Stormfront, WHO and Agrippa know about this.
Reasonable.

[Svarog]

Nah, Stormfront is cool, you can always buy a bride from whichever nationality you prefer over at Don Black's, so if you're feeling adventurous and is to nonwhite or shy for something like that, SF is the place to start looking, they don't mind either :D

[SwordoftheVistula]

While I do not think we should value language and culture more than the human being that forms it, I think it should be avoided. As long as the languages are unintelligible the family poses an issue of either conversion or a split... or further dilution which makes it even harder to hold on to traditions and heritage.

I don't think that is as much of a problem in western Europe. All the Celtic peoples speak English as a primary language. Most people in Europe now speak 2 or more languages. If people didn't speak a mutual language, it is unlikely they would hook up in the first place.

[Loyalist]

Any type of mixing, whether it's ethnic or racial, runs contradictory to European preservation. Even in the case of the former, the distinctions and unique attributes between different European peoples are diluted or erased entirely when an individual opts for a partner outside of their group. I realize I'm not in the best position to comment on this issue, as I both live outside of Europe and am myself a mix, being of predominantly British Isles origin, but with distant German, Dutch, French, and Norwegian ancestry from Colonial times. That said, if mixing is going to occur, it is much less destructive between similar meta-ethnic groups; for instance, Celts and Germanics have been co-habiting the same regions and inter-marrying for a millenia, with much of the population of England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Iceland, and other nations being derived from Celtic-Germanic unions. That trend continues today in the Colonies, where the base population of most English-speaking nations descends from the aforementioned. While I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about other peoples, the various Slavic groups seem relatively compatible, as do the Romance nations, both sharing a similar culture, language, and ethnic origin.

[Jarl]

I don't think that is as much of a problem in western Europe. All the Celtic peoples speak English as a primary language. Most people in Europe now speak 2 or more languages. If people didn't speak a mutual language, it is unlikely they would hook up in the first place.

Then you really mean the British Isles, rather than whole Western Europe. I have been living in the West for years, and I do not see any major difference here. A French-German, or a British-German family faces exactly the same conversion/split problem just like a Polish-British family.

You and Loyalist pointed to the Saxon-Celtic example, here:


Any type of mixing, whether it's ethnic or racial, runs contradictory to European preservation. Even in the case of the former, the distinctions and unique attributes between different European peoples are diluted or erased entirely when an individual opts for a partner outside of their group. I realize I'm not in the best position to comment on this issue, as I both live outside of Europe and am myself a mix, being of predominantly British Isles origin, but with distant German, Dutch, French, and Norwegian ancestry from Colonial times. That said, if mixing is going to occur, it is much less destructive between similar meta-ethnic groups; for instance, Celts and Germanics have been co-habiting the same regions and inter-marrying for a millenia, with much of the population of England, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Iceland, and other nations being derived from Celtic-Germanic unions.

Then let me reiterate - what is the ultimate effect of such unions, observable today? Gaelic has been eradicated and restricted to several tiny Gaeltecht communities in Ireland, and Hebrides in Scotland. Cornish? Dead. Manx? Dead. Only Wales managed to retain a vialbe Welsh-speaking community. Definitely long-lasting neighbourhood and common English language makes such unions more feasible today - but it is only because it occured at the expense of the Celtic part of these unions in first place. And loss of ones mother tongue is a great expense. The price for the ease or uniformity of Celtic-Saxon unions today has been a partial nation-wide conversion, inevitably equating to partial loss of the Celtic heritage. It is a paradox which you seem to have overlooked.

[Treffie]

Then let me reiterate - what is the ultimate effect of such unions, observable today? Gaelic has been eradicated and restricted to several tiny Gaeltecht communities in Ireland, and Hebrides in Scotland. Cornish? Dead. Manx? Dead. Only Wales managed to retain a vialbe Welsh-speaking community. Definitely long-lasting neighbourhood and common English language makes such unions more feasible today - but it is only because it occured at the expense of the Celtic part of these unions in first place. And loss of ones mother tongue is a great expense. The price for the ease or uniformity of Celtic-Saxon unions today has been a partial nation-wide conversion, inevitably equating to partial loss of the Celtic heritage. It is a paradox which you seem to have overlooked.

Just as a side note, there are still a few thousand Welsh only speakers in Wales, mainly the very old in the west and north west. ;)

[Lenny]

We all have our biases and favorites, don't we.

There are certain ethnolinguistic/ethnocultural groupings I would want to avoid "mingling genetics with" in the form of children. This includes all nonEuropeans as a matter of course and a large number of even groups native to Europe.


In final analysis, free intermarriage of Europeans would cause a general decline in European quality.(IMO).

[Äike]

I do not support inter-European breeding. That would destroy our unique genetic makeup. Mixing is always bad, even between different sub-groups of Europeans.

[Barreldriver]

For Americans of European blood it is difficult due to many Americans of Euro ancestry having significant Euro mixes, I'd say though in mainland Europe and the Isle's mixing between each other should be kept a minimum. No need to be copying the U.S. lol :D I figure that this way Europe can remain a glimpse of the past for many while the U.S. remains a symbol of what goes wrong when traditional borders are broken and various European tribes mix unchecked.

The biggest issue in the U.S. caused by this mixing is an identity crisis, let the U.S. remain an example of what went wrong and will go wrong if limits are not set.

[sturmwalkure]

I do not support inter-European breeding. That would destroy our unique genetic makeup. Mixing is always bad, even between different sub-groups of Europeans.

I'm already so mixed as an American, and I would prefer not to taint the gene pool of an ethnically unmixed European - but since I am half-Italian it may not be so harmful if I married a full Italian, or even if I married a Pole, Czech, English, Scottish, Portuguese, German, or French since all of these nationalities are in my heritage. At least I'd prefer if I find a husband within one (or two, or three or more) of the nationalities in my heritage but really it boils down to him being White.

[Lahtari]

In final analysis, free intermarriage of Europeans would cause a general decline in European quality.(IMO).

Isn't that exactly what you white Americans are a result of? :p

[Lenny]

Isn't that exactly what you white Americans are a result of? :p<Points to the quality of America.> :eek:


edit: Do not misconstrue my post. I think the elements that formed the American genepool were generally of decent quality. The point of the post to which Lahtari replied was that not all racial elements native to Europe are equal in quality. So it's not that mixing as such causes a decline, but that the European norm is not very high if you tossed everyone together.

[Lenny]

I'm already so mixed as an American, and I would prefer not to taint the gene pool of an ethnically unmixed European - but since I am half-Italian it may not be so harmful if I married a full Italian, or even if I married a Pole, Czech, English, Scottish, Portuguese, German, or French since all of these nationalities are in my heritage.
There is a danger in thinking like this.

Ethnicities are always in flux.
Example: According to Guenther, 15% of Germany's genepool can be said to be Dinaric strains today. 2,000yrs ago it would've been more like 1.5% (at most); Same with the metrically-Nordic type in Germania: today 8%, 2,000yrs ago probably 30% at very least.


The real question is quality of the person and physical characteristics of the individual, not pure descent from a single nationality as such (= largely artificial creations anyway).

[Lahtari]

I myself incline to inter-European breeding becouse it can be the way to new Europe as new European ethnicity.

Do you mean that you support inter-European mixing because you think it would be good if Europeans would comprise a single nation? Why?

I think that would just lead to inflation of national identity and the rise of extreme individualism and subcultures.

I don't think there's any problem with mixed marriages between Europeans, as long as the vast majority marries inside their own nation.

[Tabiti]

Mixing between European nations is not a crime, however should not become something trendy or popular. Although who happened to meet his/her perfect partner from other nationality should not feel guilty or commit suicide.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Then let me reiterate - what is the ultimate effect of such unions, observable today? Gaelic has been eradicated and restricted to several tiny Gaeltecht communities in Ireland, and Hebrides in Scotland. Cornish? Dead. Manx? Dead. Only Wales managed to retain a vialbe Welsh-speaking community. Definitely long-lasting neighbourhood and common English language makes such unions more feasible today - but it is only because it occured at the expense of the Celtic part of these unions in first place. And loss of ones mother tongue is a great expense. The price for the ease or uniformity of Celtic-Saxon unions today has been a partial nation-wide conversion, inevitably equating to partial loss of the Celtic heritage. It is a paradox which you seem to have overlooked.

The language change happened long before inter-ethnic marriages became common, in particular Irish Catholic/English protestant marriages did not become common until towards the end of the 20th century. As to their heritage, they have done a better job of retaining their heritage than most other European countries

[Freomæg]

An Englishman and a Dutchwoman would make a fine couple as their cultures are alike- but what will their offspring be: will it be English, will it be Dutch, will it be both ?
Are you using me as your case-study Lawspeaker? :D

What gives me the confidence to oppose race-mixing is the fact that I'm ethnically-mixed myself (genetically speaking). Fortunately, England and the Netherlands are both predominantly Germanic, geographically close, and culturally compatible. I consider myself an Englishman because I was born here, raised here, subjected to British culture and I believe England and the Netherlands to be genetically compatible.

Still, I've had to overcome a small identity-crisis, despite the ineffectual extent of my mixed-ancestry, so I can only imagine how difficult it would be for someone who is genuinely mixed-race to establish their ethnic identity. I truly pity such people. All-in-all, I'm very lucky that I'm mixed to such a mild, non-destructive degree.

My view is that I do not consider myself to have 'white' heritage but, rather, English - or perhaps British. I am not a white nationalist, or a European nationalist - I am a British nationalist. Inter-European mixing of compatible types is somewhat acceptable, but not preferable. This is why I intend to have children with my very English fiance (though she has slight Scottish ancestry).

[Phlegethon]

It seems that most Europeans are already related, so what's the big deal with Euro-interrelation ism?

It is something Americans will never understand.

[Atlas]

I don't see this as our biggest issue but still can understand those who wish the different people of Europe to remain the same. Indeed America has become a wonderful mish-mash of people half british, 1/4 german, 1/8 french etc. There is one nation that is similar to America in Europe, France of course, we have known all kind of immigration since the end of WWII, poles, italians, spaniards, portuguese, and now africans and arabs.

[Phlegethon]

If people didn't speak a mutual language, it is unlikely they would hook up in the first place.

Hey, I always considered that to be the secret behind every successful marriage. At least the guy has an excuse not to answer the notorious "Do you love me?", "What are you thinking?" and "Do I look fat in this?" traps. ;)

[Lenny]

Do you mean that you support inter-European mixing because you think it would be good if Europeans would comprise a single nation? Why?

I think that would just lead to inflation of national identity and the rise of extreme individualism and subcultures.
That's true.



I don't think the European Norm is particularly light, either.

Those with nordicist sympathies are most likely to oppose European mixing; Catholic-Mediterranean types are most likely to favor One-Europe-ism.

[Phlegethon]

Catholic-Mediterranean types are most likely to favor One-Europe-ism.

Bullshit, most mixed (even racially) marriages are in Protestant countries like Scandinavia. Just try marrying a Protestant in southern or southeastern Europe and find out what happens next.

[Osweo]

It's a hard one. All too easy to give the theoretical answer, for its verysound reasons, but to deal with the practicalities of it... Eee.

It's happening more and more with the more educated and successful of our countries. Legislation against it is not too likely coming, and if it did, it would be far too late anyway. Social opinions can be changed, but there's no consensus even among the ethnically aware as to which direction this should be pushed. Some favour subracial emphasis, and would even push it WITHIN nations. Others demand blanket bans. Others cite the metaethnic aspect, yet individuals argue over the precise bounds to these wider groups...

I don't take great delight in it, even though I'm involved myself. It does seem something of a near fait accompli, though. It is occuring now, and will continue to do so for some time. I am unsure of the extent of it in the masses though, and one thing that nobody's brought up so far, is the danger of greater estrangement between SOCIAL layers in our nations. Ethnic differences in constituency could be added here.

The language change happened long before inter-ethnic marriages became common, in particular Irish Catholic/English protestant marriages did not become common until towards the end of the 20th century.
Actually, though one major example of this took place in my family around 30 years ago (:wink), both partners had elements of the other's majority ethnicity in their family tree. We've been mixing on some level since the early Nineteenth Century in my family.

Mixing between European nations is not a crime, however should not become something trendy or popular. Although who happened to meet his/her perfect partner from other nationality should not feel guilty or commit suicide.
Near enough my position. People should be doing it for good reasons - true compatibility of mind and soul. Ethnicity is not nothing in this, but it is not EVERYthing either.

What I HATE is those relationships that have an unpleasant power-imbalance. Where Russian girls seek out English men because they have some stupid inferiority complex and spit on their own culture, and the man knows next to nothing about his wife's heritage. When economic considerations have played a role. puke It reflects VERY badly on both partners there. Sordid, even.

I suppose that bilingualism should be necessary in both partners to demonstratively avoid this sort of thing. Children should perhaps be given the possibility to join either nation. :strokebeard:

What gives me the confidence to oppose race-mixing is the fact that I'm ethnically-mixed myself (genetically speaking).
I can echo that in some respect from the other direction. We know what we're talking about. We were made to consider it at times when others were blindly ignorant of such aspects.

I consider myself an Englishman because I was born here, raised here, subjected to British culture and I believe England and the Netherlands to be genetically compatible.
I want to tell you off a little bit. :p You're an Englishman because you have thousands of English ancestors, whose input into you has not been eclipsed by a greater proportion of Other. You're an Englishman because you were never really socialised as a Dutchman. Whether the Dutch element were replaced by something a little more exotic, like Ukrainian, I doubt it would make a major diffeerence, no? And I know plenty of Tomchuks and so on in your position.

My view is that I do not consider myself to have 'white' heritage but, rather, English - or perhaps British.
Interesting that you say the latter, when you have less personal need to do so than I. Where does this come from? How does it differ from English?

This is why I intend to have children with my very English fiance (though she has slight Scottish ancestry).
:thumbs up

Bullshit, most mixed (even racially) marriages are in Protestant countries like Scandinavia. Just try marrying a Protestant in southern or southeastern Europe and find out what happens next.
There is something in that, but will it really apply so much in ten years' time?

[Jägerstaffel]

I won't be marrying any of those swarthy Canadians if that's what you're asking.


Keep 'em ABOVE my borders, THANK you.

[Aemma]

I won't be marrying any of those swarthy Canadians if that's what you're asking.


Keep 'em ABOVE my borders, THANK you.

:pound: :tongue1: :clap

[Gooding]

Maybe mixing ethnicities would be bad for Europeans, maybe it wouldn't. As an American of mixed European blood, I can only point to hybrid vigor and strengthening the gene pool, the better for us to adapt to our enviornment and of course, to eliminate the undesireable side effects of possible inbreeding.Both my daughter's mother and my wife are genetically compatible with me to the point that they both have a lot of Colonial blood, a healthy bit of French, less than I have, but they still do have a French heritage. Maybe mixing helped to mold us Americans and Canadians as a people and maybe it would be detrimental to European societies.Who knows? Different nations have different standards.:thumb001:

[Osweo]

hybrid vigor and strengthening the gene pool,
Isn't that, in actual fact, meaningless nonsense?

to eliminate the undesireable side effects of possible inbreeding.
'Inbreeding' in a population of tens of millions for the average European nation? :rolleyes:

How many people lived here in the middle ages? A couple of million? We did well enough anyway. Inbreeding is an exaggerated bugbear. It's the normal way of life in small communities - the natural form of human life for the last two million years.

Even between first cousins is probably not too bad.

[Spaniard_Truth]

Isn't that, in actual fact, meaningless nonsense?

'Inbreeding' in a population of tens of millions for the average European nation? :rolleyes:

How many people lived here in the middle ages? A couple of million? We did well enough anyway. Inbreeding is an exaggerated bugbear. It's the normal way of life in small communities - the natural form of human life for the last two million years.

Even between first cousins is probably not too bad.

Exactly. It is important to remember that for the greater part of human history, gene pools have been restricted to small bands of hunter gatherers. Fresh genetic input would have occurred very seldom.

Internationalists like to emphasize the need for disparate nations to mix to prevent everyone from becoming a deformed mutant cannibal, but the truth is that mixing on the scale seen today has never been observed, never been possible in history. So much for it being 'essential' to a race's survival. It's never really even been a factor.

But for those who aren't convinced, the unprecedented level of internal migration in most nations today is perfectly sufficient to stir up the genetic nest, so to speak, so that additions from Bosnia aren't required.

And to take a glance at America, Brazil etc. I see no evidence of hybrid vigor. Americans are no more or less healthy, no more or less intelligent than Europeans (although the Euro average varies). Moreover, homogeneous Japan has the world's highest life expectancy.

[Discover]

Let those who marry across meta-ethnicity give their children the weight of holding two nations ideals and traditions simultaneously. If culture was not an issue, Europeans from Europe would not think of America the way they do.

Ethnicity is obviously more important. But it is greatly sustained by the ideals of like minded people. I want to see the inspiration of these individual cultures shine brighter by people giving more to them, admixture causes a weakening of the spirit of culture. Each should be growing for their own.

I am sadly an antipodean diaspora, I will keep to my own, and try my best to breath life into what it is to be one of me for my future children.

[Tabiti]

As an American of mixed European blood, I can only point to hybrid vigor and strengthening the gene pool, the better for us to adapt to our enviornment and of course, to eliminate the undesireable side effects of possible inbreeding
That is the main theory used by "race-mixing" supporters, according to which the more homogenous is one society, the more genetic diseases could be found. This is certainly not true as long as there are no marriages between near relatives.

[Psychonaut]

Isn't that, in actual fact, meaningless nonsense?

While I do agree with you for the most part, there are instances where extreme homogenity within a gene pool of a very limited size has resulted in problems. A perfect case study would be my own ethnic group. Cajuns are one of the most homogenous ethnic groups in the US, with nearly every single one of us being related within ten or eleven generations. This degree of relatedness has allowed a particular genetic disorder, Tay-Sachs disease, to spread to a larger percentage of the Cajun population than it would have if we'd not been so endogamous.

[Gooding]

Isn't that, in actual fact, meaningless nonsense? . No, not really. Not for the Americans, at any rate.As far as hybrid vigor and strengthening the gene pool goes, I can only point to my nation's position of power in the world today.I did also say(which of course remained unquoted:rolleyes:) that what's good for one nation may not be good for another. Obviously, in our history, people dispersed and married in to other people of similar heritage, occassionally the heritage was dissimilar, but never outside the general race.As a result, we tend to be a little less rooted and a bit more nomadic in our habits.So, as a member of a European people with diverse roots, I'm rather of the opinion that we did okay. The isolated populations that do inbreed here are generally targets of humor ( "nothing spells lovin' like marryin' your cousin"). Yeah, I'm pretty sure that while you lot do fine with your practice, we're pretty decent with sticking to our own kind without making our family tree a family stump.


'Inbreeding' in a population of tens of millions for the average European nation? :rolleyes:

How many people lived here in the middle ages? A couple of million? We did well enough anyway. Inbreeding is an exaggerated bugbear. It's the normal way of life in small communities - the natural form of human life for the last two million years.

Even between first cousins is probably not too bad.

Small communities, certainly. Again, a European qualification that doesn't have a damned thing to do with us.

[Lahtari]

While I do agree with you for the most part, there are instances where extreme homogenity within a gene pool of a very limited size has resulted in problems. A perfect case study would be my own ethnic group. Cajuns are one of the most homogenous ethnic groups in the US, with nearly every single one of us being related within ten or eleven generations. This degree of relatedness has allowed a particular genetic disorder, Tay-Sachs disease, to spread to a larger percentage of the Cajun population than it would have if we'd not been so endogamous.

And the chances are that you are also missing many of the other genetic diseases.

As for 'hybrid vigour', I think it exists but it's also a double-edged sword. When you mix two different populations, an individual from the resulting population may get, for example, all the genes increasing intelligence from both of the populations. But the individual may as well get all the genes causing hereditary sickness or other less favourable traits. Furthermore, some genes from different races are known of incompability, at least the increased level of heart disease in American black population is thought to be a result of having a certain European gene within otherwise African DNA. And in America, the ones who are reporting themselves as of mixed-race in surveys are also reporting more health problems. But this is not likely to be a major problem in European mixes because we're from the same gene pool and essentially of similar specialization.

[Phlegethon]

While I do agree with you for the most part, there are instances where extreme homogenity within a gene pool of a very limited size has resulted in problems.

Let's call it what it is: an incest problem. Also very common among Jews.

[Vulpix]

As for 'hybrid vigour', I think it exists but it's also a double-edged sword. When you mix two different populations, an individual from the resulting population may get, for example, all the genes increasing intelligence from both of the populations. But the individual may as well get all the genes causing hereditary sickness or other less favourable traits. Furthermore, some genes from different races are known of incompability, at least the increased level of heart disease in American black population is thought to be a result of having a certain European gene within otherwise African DNA. And in America, the ones who are reporting themselves as of mixed-race in surveys are also reporting more health problems. But this is not likely to be a major problem in European mixes because we're from the same gene pool and essentially of similar specialization.

The other dark side of "hybrid vigor" is dihybrid crossing. It affects the offspring (F2) of the first generation of hybrids (F1).

A quote from Skadi (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=944958#post944958) that I think sums it up nicely:


The problem with the intermarrying of vastly divergent genotypes is that the union can lead to dihybrid crossing. This sometimes results in the combining of incompatible alleles, which creates a number of genetic disorders. The children of such a union are very healthy due the phenomena of "hybrid vigor. However, the grandchildren of such a union can manifest all manner of genetic problems.

To use an anaolgy, suppose you have a hybrid tomato plant. If you take the seeds of that plat and plant the seeds, you will get all kinds of weird-looking tomatoes, or plants with no fruit. This is because the alleles of the parent plants came from widely divergent genotypes. The 2nd generation tomatoes are filled with incompatible alleles.

The problems of dihybrid crossing is much more severe when actual different races mix. This is an ugly secret that geneticists never talk about.

[sturmwalkure]

////////

[Phlegethon]

In the end I'd rather see Flemish/Croatian, Danish/Irish, etc marriages than Congolese/Austrian, Iraqi/Latvian etc marriages.

It is not about what we like. Flemish/Croatian may work because both are predominantly Catholic but Danish/Irish do not fit together in amy way.

[Psychonaut]

Let's call it what it is: an incest problem. Also very common among Jews.

There are a few marriages between first and second cousins in my family tree. Regardless, the course that we Cajuns took up until the early 20th century was far preferable to the course of miscegenation that the Louisiana Creoles engaged in. A little outbreeding probably would've benefited us a century ago, but if your only choices for a mate are between your cousin in your village and a negro in the shanty town across the bayou, there's really only one choice, and we made the right one. ;)

[sturmwalkure]

It is not about what we like. Flemish/Croatian may work because both are predominantly Catholic but Danish/Irish do not fit together in amy way.

True. But what about the total loss of phenotypical and genetic diversity in Europe? I'm already very ethnically mixed myself but I sometimes wish I was of one ethnicity, or two very similar ones but I have Northern, Southern, Eastern, Western and Central European roots. What I meant to elaborate on is the loss of phenotypical diversity as I said. The Dinarids/Pontids, etc in the Balkans, the Nordids/Baltids, etc in Scandinavia and the Baltic states, the Faelids, Alpinids, etc of Central Europe. What if we all became one stabilized blend? If there was no phenotypical diversity from country to country? Has anyone considered that possibility? There is still plenty of phenotypical diversity and some genetic diversity within European nations alone. I have identity issues sometimes. I settled on identifying as Italian-American but I still am part Polish, part Czech, part French, part English, part Scottish, part Portuguese and part German. But like I said in my previous post, inter-European breeding is far more desirable than interracial breeding. Also, as I said it's fine in moderation but what if we were all as mixed as I am?

[Barreldriver]

I have identity issues sometimes. I settled on identifying as Italian-American but I still am part Polish, part Czech, part French, part English, part Scottish, part Portuguese and part German. But like I said in my previous post, inter-European breeding is far more desirable than interracial breeding. Also, as I said it's fine in moderation but what if we were all as mixed as I am?

I hear ya there, I often switch between Anglo-American, Anglo-Ulster-American, and Anglo-German-American. Anglo is always present due to it's predominance obviously, however there is significant Ulster and German heritage as well, and I'm torn between which to identify more with, my father's kin being more drawn to the Ulster heritage, my mother's more to their German blood. I've often contemplating going and creating a new ethnicity, however I never seem to follow through with a plan that works, so I just continue to flip flop. :( The other ethnicity's in my genealogy are so minute and distant that it would be absurd for me to identify with them in any reasonable level.

[Gooding]

I identify with France because my great grandmother's family was the most recent to come to these shores and my grandmother and mother grew up with French sensibilities. I identify with Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland and Ulster)because a lot of my heritage hails from those countries.I also home in on Germany and Switzerland because my forebears from those regions showed up shortly before the colonies became the United States, although the German and Swiss German quantum is small. My Swedish and traceable Dutch/Flemish blood is smaller yet, but those ancestors participated in the life of New Sweden and New Netherland before going to TN to be absorbed by the Cecil family, who's scion, Phariba Cecil, married my great great grandfather Newton McDonald.LOL, I like to think I see all of those aspects of my heritage in my face when I wake up in the morning.:D;)

[Amarantine]

hm, I am "pure" ethnically speaking, but mixing among the Eoropean ethnicities happen for centuries, so it's quite hard to say is it wrong or bad. In medical way, I think genetic mixing is always very good, and ethnicity matter is (similar with religion feelings) primarely connected with emotions. Children from mixed marriages usually decide emotionally one side as their ethnic identity.

[Angantyr]

I am Quebecois, so my ethnicity would best be described as Norman French. Culturally, my language is French and my favourite food is tourtiere. However, I currently do not live in Quebec and girls of my ethnicity and culture are few and far between.

In the Ukraine, people usually guess me to be Lithuanian, either because of my tall, pale-skinned and blue-eyed appearance or because of my accent when speaking Russian. In these circumstances, I have chosen my future bride on the basis of genetics and phenotype. (I am simplifying. Obviously, I also took into consideration personality.) She is pale-skinned, blue-eyed and redheaded. My desire is to produce redheaded children and thus make the world a better place. (My grandmother and older sister are redheads, along with many other less immediate family members, although I am not.)

I think that I am a better match for my future wife because of our phenotypic similarities than would be a man who was Ukrainian ethnically and culturally, but who had swarthy features, as some Ukrainians do. That would drown out the already rare and elusive ginger gene.

Perhaps the question should not be one of inter-ethnic European breeding, but inter-phenotypic European breeding. I am more concerned about the latter than the former.

[Vulpix]

Perhaps the question should not be one of inter-ethnic European breeding, but inter-phenotypic European breeding. I am more concerned about the latter than the former.

Why?

[Útrám]

Perhaps the question should not be one of inter-ethnic European breeding, but inter-phenotypic European breeding. I am more concerned about the latter than the former.

Such preservation is impossible considering how all European peoples consist of phenotypes who are territorially synonymous with each other but seemingly unrelated.

[Tabiti]

Dark haired, light eyed Pontid males searched!

P.S. In which way it's better to marry a foreign person with the same subrace, than with different type from your own country? We are not dogs to create and preserve different breeds with definite features. Almost all phenotypes got mixed within every European country and people with certain characteristics from certain subrace are still born besides that fact.
Your best match is your spiritual, not subracial one (of course as long as it belongs to your race)...

[Phlegethon]

Your best match is your spiritual, not subracial one (of course as long as it belongs to your race)...

Well, I'd guess even if it does not. But that is an insight that may come with growing age.

[sturmwalkure]

I'm wondering if I said something wrong, or worded something wrong since I am getting a very uneasy air from some users towards me since my last posts in this thread. What I mean is, I don't think it'd be a desirable result if everyone in Europe was totally mixed, you know like everyone having a Northern-European grandparent, a Southern-European great-grandparent, an Eastern-European grandparent, etc. Which is why I said in moderation it's good. Look at how mixed my family is!!!! But I'd rather have eight different European ethnicities in me than, Black, Asian, Amerindian plus European. In the end really, it doesn't matter which European ethnicities mix, as long as they only mix with fellow Europeans. Does that clear any misunderstanding? I never spoke out against it, just not at too large of a scale. Is that reasonable? Or not?

[Angantyr]

Why?

Because I have a near obsessive need to conitnue the trait of pale white skin and bright red hair in my family. If people with the ginger gene faiied to marry and propagate this trait, it would be a great tragedy.

Of course, the most important factor in a relationship is that the man and the woman love and respect each other. However, it must also be admitted that men are inexorably drawn to that which they deem beautiful and sexually attractive. For all of us, that is different.

I am fully cognizant of my own lunacy. I am not saying thay my position should be the position of all European preservationist. But, I would prefer to marry a Russian with pale white skin and bright red hair than another Quebecois with tan skin and black hair.

[Tabiti]

But, I would prefer to marry a Russian with pale white skin and bright red hair than another Quebecois with tan skin and black hair.
Well, that sounds reasonable with people with already mixed European heritage, but not so useful within "pure bred" Europeans.

[Luern]

I don't see this as our biggest issue but still can understand those who wish the different people of Europe to remain the same. Indeed America has become a wonderful mish-mash of people half british, 1/4 german, 1/8 french etc. There is one nation that is similar to America in Europe, France of course, we have known all kind of immigration since the end of WWII, poles, italians, spaniards, portuguese, and now africans and arabs.

This is quite exaggerated IMO, those "mixed" French are most of the time a blend of two European ethnicities (they may have one grand parent of Iberian, Italian or Polish origin), not 3, 4, 5, or more ethnicities as you can see in America. Beside that, they do know what they are talking about when they are referring to their foreign side.

[Cail]

I'm pro-mixing (Inter-European ofcourse). Historically wise, Europe has been mixing with itself for millenias; national borders, or just ethnoses and tribes move here and there, assimilate, dissociate, mix and whatever.. and nothing bad happened :). Ofcourse distinct groups should be preserved, but some degree of mixing is nice. Just for fun and diversity :).

[The Lawspeaker]

I'm pro-mixing (Inter-European ofcourse). Historically wise, Europe has been mixing with itself for millenias; national borders, or just ethnoses and tribes move here and there, assimilate, dissociate, mix and whatever.. and nothing bad happened :). Ofcourse distinct groups should be preserved, but some degree of mixing is nice. Just for fun and diversity :).
I am sorry but this diversity will lead to less real diversity (it will delude the blood of the actual nations of Europe) . This "diversity" is the problem we are dealing with.

Compare it to a rich wine: if you keep deluding it with water (race mixing) then nothing will remain. And if you will delude it with other rich wines (inner-European mixing) then it will also not enhance the quality.

Inter-European marriages are less dangerous then race mixing but when does en masse it will have the same devastating effect- with the only benefit that the people will still be white but without a real heritage.

[Cail]

I am sorry but this diversity will lead to less real diversity (it will delude the blood of the actual nations of Europe) .
Actually Europe has been mixing for 2000 years and more. And no deluding of blood of actual nations happened, on contrary - many new nations appeared.


Compare it to a rich wine: if you keep deluding it with water then nothing will remain. But if you will delude it with other rich wines then it also not enhance the quality.
Following your analogy, i prefer to think of it as of having a liquor cabinet with various drinks - i can drink pure ethalons, but i can also make a cocktail! On the other hand, i would (not) want vinegar or oil (=non-european) in my cocktails...

[The Lawspeaker]

Actually Europe has been mixing for 2000 years and more. And no deluding of blood of actual nations happened, on contrary - many new nations appeared.
Exactly. And preservation is about preserving those nations and peoples.:thumb001:



Following your analogy, i prefer to think of it as of having a liquor cabinet with various drinks - i can drink pure ethalons, but i can also make a cocktail!
But cocktails are never as good as the real thing. Many of us here would prefer to stick to their own brew.



On the other hand, i would want vinegar or oil (=non-european) in my cocktails...
Then you would have come to the wrong pub :thumb001:

[Kempenzoon]

I am sorry but this diversity will lead to less real diversity (it will delude the blood of the actual nations of Europe) . This "diversity" is the problem we are dealing with.

I do'nt think it will delude the blood of the nations of Europe, since our blood is already mixed anyway. How far back can you trace your family? If you're lucky maybe until the 17th-18th century. Further back than that though?

But I do agree that mass-scale mixing of Europeans will destroy the diversity of Europe. However, I'm talking of the cultural diversity then. I dated a Finnish girl for a while, and before that a Spanish girl. It never bothered me that my kids wouldn't be genetically purely Flemish. It never bothered me either that they might look a bit more tanned, or a bit paler, or whatever.

What did bother me ... what will these kids be spiritually? They don't in anywhere culturally. While I lived in Finland I met a half-Flemish/half-Finnish person (Turns out his Flemish side even comes from my hometown. Shows what a small place the world is ;) )

The problem isn't that he is genetically "impure" or "inferior" or anything. But that culturally he was neither Finnish nor Flemish. He was stuck in a grey zone without real meaning to his life.

For Europeans living in the colonies this obviously matters less, since they already exchanged their traditional European cultures for a mixed culture a long time ago. But for real Europeans a mass-scale interbreeding will just advance the tearing down of the traditional pillars of society.

[The Lawspeaker]

I do'nt think it will delude the blood of the nations of Europe, since our blood is already mixed anyway. How far back can you trace your family? If you're lucky maybe until the 17th-18th century. Further back than that though?
Actually further then that but it can perhaps be disputed. A source in our family history book mentions a man of our name in Bruges as far as 1298.
And some notes about people of our family name working for a abbey in the area around The Hague in 1405.

So this kind of makes me wonder why my family left for the north rather then staying in Flanders.

[Loki]

LOL:

http://club3g.com/forum/lounge/125888-racist-not.html

[Cail]

Then you would have come to the wrong pub :thumb001:
That was irony ofcourse :). Who would actually want to drink vinegar oO.

[Kempenzoon]

Actually further then that but it can perhaps be disputed. A source in our family history book mentions a man of our name in Bruges as far as 1298.
And some notes about people of our family name working for a abbey in the area around The Hague in 1405.

So this kind of makes me wonder why my family left for the north rather then staying in Flanders.

Pretty cool when you can trace it back that far. But can you go back that far without any holes in the genealogy tree? Who's to say that sometime between 1298 and 1405 the family didn't have an Englishman or a German somewhere?

Not meaning to attack your personal family history. I just have questions when people in Europe claim blood purity. I can easily trace my family back without any holes in it until the early 18th century, and (in a direct line) it's all entirely Flemish. But I still don't consider myself a pure-blood. What pure-blood would I be anyway? From the Ancient Belgae? Those were genocided by Caesar, so no chance really. From the Ingveones? Maybe, but is there any certainty?

[Kempenzoon]

LOL:

http://club3g.com/forum/lounge/125888-racist-not.html

What forum is that? I'm a bit too lazy to spend a lot of time there, but at first sight I can't really find a mission statement at least.

[Loki]

What forum is that? I'm a bit too lazy to spend a lot of time there, but at first sight I can't really find a mission statement at least.

No idea, I just saw the link referrer in the stats. They probably found our link on reddit or something.

[Angantyr]

What forum is that? I'm a bit too lazy to spend a lot of time there, but at first sight I can't really find a mission statement at least.

That forum seems to be about automobiles. This thread did not generate much interest there. Nevertheless, it is quite strange that it found its way there.

[Foxy]

I am in favour becouse if you mix only with genetically related people you run in the risk to produce children with some desease.
That's why I look for a partner who is genetically and phisically different from me, but my prerogative remains that he has to be white.
Europeans are almost all very related to each others, becouse before we were an only people (indo-europeans), but enough different to secure healthy children.

[Osweo]

I am in favour becouse if you mix only with genetically related people you run in the risk to produce children with some desease.
But isn't this a very dangerous and unfounded MYTH?

Most of our ancestors grew up in one village, and married people from the next handful of villages. And humanity survived quite well. :rolleyes:
It is MOST natural to breed in a relatively limited stock, indeed.

What is the origin of this myth, that breeding with your own countrymen is a risk?!?!? It seems subversive at the very least, and yet I hear it more and more. :(

Our ancestors' genepool was mostly that of but a small region of our present nations, and yet kids are now being persuaded that even the nation isn't sufficient, biologically, for the simple purpose of reproduction. There is NO scientific basis to this at al, hardly, unless your nation is a tiny one from a limited founder population, like the Amish in America. Technically speaking, even the odd cousin marriage isn't going to be a horrendous threat to a group's 'genetic health'.

Europeans are almost all very related to each others, becouse before we were an only people (indo-europeans), but enough different to secure healthy children.
The Indo-European speakers are only one founding population of present day Europeans. Proto-IE was only spoken in one smallish part of the continent in the beginning, and the rest of it was already populated, even quite thickly in some places. Do you have no Etruscan ancestors, for instance? In Iberia you have several non-IE language families in ancient times, and these are still fully Europid people, just as in the far north and east there were and are Finnic speakers. PIE speakers were related to all these and others in many ways, of course.

[Bridie]

But isn't this a very dangerous and unfounded MYTH?

Most of our ancestors grew up in one village, and married people from the next handful of villages. And humanity survived quite well. :rolleyes:
It is MOST natural to breed in a relatively limited stock, indeed.

What is the origin of this myth, that breeding with your own countrymen is a risk?!?!? It seems subversive at the very least, and yet I hear it more and more. :(
I have wondered about this. Perhaps it comes from a somewhat irrational fear of bearing loonies after people witnessed what became of certain European aristocrats due to longterm inbreeding within such a limited gene pool rife with recessive, congenital conditions.

In any case, interbreeding amongst relatives only becomes a danger when recessive genetic conditions are present in them.

[Osweo]

I have wondered about this. Perhaps it comes from a somewhat irrational fear of bearing loonies after people witnessed what became of certain European aristocrats due to longterm inbreeding within such a limited gene pool rife with recessive, congenital conditions.
The aristocrat thing is even part of the myth! HAve you met many? They seem quite healthy and vigorous to me, indeed.

What are the real cases that support this myth? No more than you find anywhere else, I bet. All I can think of off the top of my head is haemophilia in the descendants of Queen Victoria. Hardly debilitating.

In any case, interbreeding amongst relatives only becomes a danger when recessive genetic conditions are present in them.
yep. :thumb001:

[Treffie]

But isn't this a very dangerous and unfounded MYTH?

Most of our ancestors grew up in one village, and married people from the next handful of villages. And humanity survived quite well. :rolleyes:
It is MOST natural to breed in a relatively limited stock, indeed.



They didn't have 2 heads? Post pics to prove it please! :p

[Aramis]

If you want to keep the European diversity, no. If not, go ahead and mix.

In case your (or any other) national identity isn't of importance to you, I can't see why to keep it even intra-european in the first place. I might as well mix with an African woman then. That is, only if I'm no white nationalist, wich I am not.

[Osweo]

If you want to keep the European diversity, no. If not, go ahead and mix.
It always happened to some extent though. I'd be interested to see any serious attempt to demonstrate its greater frequency now, however.

In case your (or any other) national identity isn't of importance to you, I can't see why to keep it even intra-european in the first place. I might as well mix with an African woman then. That is, only if I'm no white nationalist, wich I am not.
You don't have to be a 'white nationalist'. As I see it, a nation is like a big family. Your obligations to it are much like those to your relatives, on a wider scale. Now, if we look beyond the nation, to humanity as a whole, we can see that it is made up of nations, sure, but they themselves can be grouped into subsets. There's your meta-ethnoses, your regional blocs, your biological clines, your civilisational macro-regions.

You can be a regional separatist, only mixing with a section of your fellow nationals. You can be nationalist in your marriage patterns. But you can also apply the same sort of instint to the wider categories. There's no inherent contradiction, just a difference in priorities and evaluations.

Europe/Christendom/Europids is such a wider category. And it is quite coherent to limit your behaviour accordingly.

[Osweo]

I have wondered about this. Perhaps it comes from a somewhat irrational fear of bearing loonies after people witnessed what became of certain European aristocrats due to longterm inbreeding within such a limited gene pool rife with recessive, congenital conditions.


On reflection, is this just a myth propagated by the left to make the masses mock the old elites, thereby rendering them politically harmless?

I often wondered about the money that was made in my region in the 1800s, and how none of the old elite are left there now. What happened? First, I used to blame the elite for abandoning us, and letting cultural standards slip accordingly, so that now my kin wallow in the worst subhuma cultural filth imaginable, even without the immigrants. Now however, I'm wondering if the elites had much of a choice in the matter; had the rabble rousing 'socialists' turned the impressionable masses so against them that had little option but to leave us to it? Mocking people as 'inbred' is a very powerful weapon, perhaps..

[Pallantides]

I have no problem with it personally

In 1702 ca. 40% of Trondheim's population was German.

[The Ripper]

The interbreeding myth is clearly used as a propaganda weapon by the left and the liberals, and basically anyone advocating "one human race". We constantly hear how Finns are so inbred, but we never hear this of African tribes and rarely Muslim/South Asian marriage pattern, never mind Jewish inbreeding. The way it is used in "public discourse" is definately propagandistic.

[Osweo]

The way it is used in "public discourse" is definately propagandistic.

How do we best defeat it?

[Tyrrhenoi]

What did bother me ... what will these kids be spiritually? They don't in anywhere culturally. While I lived in Finland I met a half-Flemish/half-Finnish person (Turns out his Flemish side even comes from my hometown. Shows what a small place the world is ;) )

The problem isn't that he is genetically "impure" or "inferior" or anything. But that culturally he was neither Finnish nor Flemish. He was stuck in a grey zone without real meaning to his life..

Pure Flemish?:confused: Flemish is already a mix between germanics an francs.:wink

I am a mix blooded european :) I am not in a grey zone :D haha
Culture would go lost of europeans mix? What do the flemish have for a culture? Dutch of French? please tell me

[Aramis]

It always happened to some extent though. I'd be interested to see any serious attempt to demonstrate its greater frequency now, however.

It did happen in history too, indeed, yet always with the same intent as nowdays. Personal, over familiar or national interests. It's an individual issue.

You forget the main differences though. Technological achievements of our age wich enable us to travel faster over large distances, and the consumerist society we are living in where profit and progress are the only known "values".

Intermixing on a racial level always happaned as well, but you see where it got us now.


You don't have to be a 'white nationalist'. As I see it, a nation is like a big family. Your obligations to it are much like those to your relatives, on a wider scale. Now, if we look beyond the nation, to humanity as a whole, we can see that it is made up of nations, sure, but they themselves can be grouped into subsets. There's your meta-ethnoses, your regional blocs, your biological clines, your civilisational macro-regions.

You can be a regional separatist, only mixing with a section of your fellow nationals. You can be nationalist in your marriage patterns. But you can also apply the same sort of instint to the wider categories. There's no inherent contradiction, just a difference in priorities and evaluations.

True, it depands on your own identity and goals. But I thought this was clear from my former post.

As for the categories you mentiond, I am not interested in them. The reason for pointing out white nationalist is solely to clear up any misunderstandings, because some forum members see themselves as such.


Europe/Christendom/Europids is such a wider category. And it is quite coherent to limit your behaviour accordingly.

No Europe for me, just my nation, if I am to adhere any community, as an ideal concept, at all. Even humankind seems suspicious.

It may be due to the fact that modern western Europeans are brought up under different circumstances and athmosphere then south-east Europeans, but here even the intermixing among the closest ethnic groups is considered as multi-culturalism among nationalist and a taboo.

[Radojica]

It may be due to the fact that modern western Europeans are brought up under different circumstances and athmosphere then south-east Europeans, but here even the intermixing among the closest ethnic groups is considered as multi-culturalism among nationalist and a taboo.

And yet, you can still see this is happening all the time, ever after everything which happened among different nations. Djordje Balasevic explained that the best in this song

LtqJpJeQM8M

Do you know the story of Vasa Ladachki (it's a name).

I heard it just a while ago
Once he didn't come out of tavern for 9 days,
he is said to be of a strange kind.


His father was "commoner",

'he was feeding 7 hungry mouths'.
His mother was blond,quiet,gentle,
She died in hers 30-es...
They had a couple of acres of land,
little house at the end of alley
On the table there's "always" bread,
just as much as it was needed
But Vasa wanted much more...


He wanted "good" horses on the field playful
he wanted a golden watch and granges...
he wanted productive fields,rich vineyards
, but he couldn't have them
He loved a beautiful but poor lady,
he would "take" her only if he had known:

you love only once in your life,rich or poor one,
it doesn't choose your mind,it does you heart...


He hoped love will fade.He went from that town forever
He didn't ever write to anybody,
he got married with the "rich girl"
the only daughter of some "boss"...
He got "good" horses on the field playful
golden watch and granges
he got productive fields,rich vineyards
.ha had it all,but he had nothing.
He got drunk,it didn't pass much time,
he sold his soul to the devil
he is known to all drinkers,
he searched the salvation in the glass
but he couldn't find it...


He was young,they say,when he died,
at the center of tavern, of a heart attack
his head fainted,like he's napping,like he's sleeping
and they still remember his last words...


It's not worth of "good" horses on the field playful,
it's not worth of golden watch and granges...
it's not worth of productive fields,rich vineyards
it's not worth of ????????????....

When I'm not with one that I love,
when I'm not with one that I love
when I'm not with one that I love
Oh,when I'm not with one that I love

Do you know the story about Vasa Ladachki?

I heard it just a while ago.
even those similar to him,
when they think about everything
they say he was of a strange kind.


:thumb001:

[Aramis]

And yet, you can still see this is happening all the time, ever after everything which happened among different nations. Djordje Balasevic explained that the best in this song

Yes, but such individuals are not nationalist. Most of them identify as "Yugoslavians" and alike.

[Saruman]

Yes, but such individuals are not nationalist. Most of them identify as "Yugoslavians" and alike.

True, not quite in my case, I'm an extreme pragmatist, and I don't belong to failed past fantasy groups that cannot be reenacted. Personally, I would gladly belong to for ex. Bosniak ethnicity, even overlooking some assaults they made on me in the past, however their allegiance to Islam and importantly the fact that aside from islamic identity they have no nationalist built conscience, really makes me simply to reject being one of them. With Islam, well after some study basically wahhabi one is the true form, and really those people are the last people on this planet with whom I would side.

Though I can be Serb but I'm somewhat hesitant too, it is fair to say that "balkan" groups are due to many circumstances a "lost cause". You know even Tito was frustrated once I think I heard about that, that he was a ruler of small Yugoslavia. The problem is that folk in balkan is so often religious, and not only that in the whole eastern/southern europe, for ex., I have seen attempts of eastern Slavs trying to build some pagan identity, but the mythology is gone unlike the germanic mythology. And generally in germanic lands pragmatism and reason rules, I think partly due to their prevalent physical and psychological makeup.

[Radojica]

Yes, but such individuals are not nationalist. Most of them identify as "Yugoslavians" and alike.

The thing i wrote could be applied in every part of the world. I bet in one roasted pork (cirka 20kg) that in case you meet some pretty Serbian girl and fall in love, the last thing which will be on your mind is nationalism :p

[Foxy]

But isn't this a very dangerous and unfounded MYTH?

Most of our ancestors grew up in one village, and married people from the next handful of villages. And humanity survived quite well. :rolleyes:
It is MOST natural to breed in a relatively limited stock, indeed.

What is the origin of this myth, that breeding with your own countrymen is a risk?!?!? It seems subversive at the very least, and yet I hear it more and more. :(

Our ancestors' genepool was mostly that of but a small region of our present nations, and yet kids are now being persuaded that even the nation isn't sufficient, biologically, for the simple purpose of reproduction. There is NO scientific basis to this at al, hardly, unless your nation is a tiny one from a limited founder population, like the Amish in America. Technically speaking, even the odd cousin marriage isn't going to be a horrendous threat to a group's 'genetic health'.

The Indo-European speakers are only one founding population of present day Europeans. Proto-IE was only spoken in one smallish part of the continent in the beginning, and the rest of it was already populated, even quite thickly in some places. Do you have no Etruscan ancestors, for instance? In Iberia you have several non-IE language families in ancient times, and these are still fully Europid people, just as in the far north and east there were and are Finnic speakers. PIE speakers were related to all these and others in many ways, of course.

I was going to attempt the faculty of biology so I think I know of what I am speaking about. Europeans have always inter-breeded, before Indo-europeans mixed with local people, then Roman espansionism brought new genes in Mitteleuropa and in Eastern Europe, then German invasion brought new genes in southern Europe, and so on.
On the contrary in very restricted tribes, like some of the Polinesia, it has been prooved that entire peoples could, de facto, don't see colours, only black and whites (sorry for my bad english), due to genetic deseases.
The most frequent consequences of a very restricted group to marry with are:

-syndrom of down
-mediterranean anemy (frequent in the little mediterranean villages)
-syndrom of Turner
-emophilia
and others very seriouse diseases. So, before promoting a strictly inter-marriages anylize everything.

On the other hand I consider blacks less intelligent (sorry for my assertivism but so do I) and think that a mixage with them will led to a lower IQ into the neo-European people. But some waves of new genes are important, most of all in small villages.
This doesn't mean that original peoples have to disappear, but only that some inter-whites migratory fluxes are necessary.

[Aramis]

The problem is that folk in balkan is so often religious, and not only that in the whole eastern/southern europe, for ex., I have seen attempts of eastern Slavs trying to build some pagan identity, but the mythology is gone unlike the germanic mythology. And generally in germanic lands pragmatism and reason rules, I think partly due to their prevalent physical and psychological makeup.

You still have to show me this exact link between religion and a low life standard.
Austria, Bavaria, Ireland, but also Italy, Spain, Croatia, Slovenia etc. All of them are inhabited by (some more some less) religious Catholics. Not to be forgoten is the US of A, with their puritanical Calvinists. I believe there is a great deal of religious individuals in the Baltic countries too.

I wouldn't know what fuels the reasoned character of Germanics (although I believe it is a product of many circumstances), but I disagree on religion being any (major) problem in southeastern Europe. It is rather our agressive, greedy and hypocritical character. Religious fundamentalism and superstitions do not help the case, but I see them rather as tools, not the cause.
Take Bosniaks for example. The increasing Islamism among them (it's rather neo-Ottomanism though) is the collateral product of their weak national consciousness, wich on the other hand didn't develop due to constant conflicst and a mostly servile history, enclosed from European intellectual achievements.

Or allowe me to put it short: We are not inefficient as a result of being religious, but we became religious because of our inefficiency.

[Saruman]

You still have to show me this exact link between religion and a low life standard.
True but what kind of religion? Pragmatic (Protestant) or dogmatic (Catholicism, Islam, Orthodoxy etc.)?

Austria, Bavaria, Ireland, but also Italy, Spain, Croatia, Slovenia etc. All of them are inhabited by (some more some less) religious Catholics. Not to be forgoten is the US of A, with their puritanical Calvinists. I believe there is a great deal of religious individuals in the Baltic countries too.
Still Scandinavia comes out best probably. But again I want to make a distinction between religious forms which do and do not(or to a lesser extent) "enchain" the reason.


I wouldn't know what fuels the reasoned character of Germanics (although I believe it is a product of many circumstances), but I disagree on religion being any (major) problem in southeastern Europe. It is rather our agressive, greedy and hypocritical character. Religious fundamentalism and superstitions do not help the case, but I see them rather as tools, not the cause.
Take Bosniaks for example. The increasing Islamism among them (it's rather neo-Ottomanism though) is the collateral product of their weak national consciousness, wich on the other hand didn't develop due to constant conflicst and a mostly servile history, enclosed from European intellectual achievements.
In the balkan the religiosity is connected I think with physical types and circumstances, most are actually not sincerely religious, it's more of "inat/spite religion", where one group counters the other in increasing extremism, a product of extremely rebellious vain nature of mountain Dinarid people combined with mountain isolation and "small scale thinking".
Well Bosniaks might be more religious than Serbs but still all of these peoples are ethno-religious groups, do you know a catholic Serb, or an orthodox Croat, if a Serb converts to catholicism he becomes a Croat basically.
I think more reduced types are more into the dogmatic religion sincerely.
http://www.zupa-svkriz.hr/kalendar/novi/opisi/toma_akvinski.jpg
One writer from Serbia Milos Bogdanovic wrote on that and he made some good points.


Or allowe me to put it short: We are not inefficient as a result of being religious, but we became religious because of our inefficiency.

Yes, again mountain terrain, isolation, there is potential but it's being totally mislead, so a radical action would be necessary to reverse the trend.

[Don]

Osweo... I don't know how to ask you this but...


Have you any sister?



NO!!!!


NO! forget it. Don't answer me.
...

[Aramis]

Osweo... I don't know how to ask you this but...


Have you any sister?



NO!!!!


NO! forget it. Don't answer me.
...

Ok, but I will answer you. He has!

[Don]

CLoned

[Don]

Ok, but I will answer you. He has!

http://cms7.blogia.com/blogs/k/ky/kyr/kyrasdream/upload/20060319165829-ojos-tapados.jpg

Err sorry I couldn't read your words...!

[Osweo]

On the contrary in very restricted tribes, like some of the Polinesia, it has been prooved that entire peoples could, de facto, don't see colours, only black and whites (sorry for my bad english), due to genetic deseases.
Tiny islands, only relatively recently populated. Tiny populations with incredible distances to others. Incomparable with Europe.

-emophilia
;)

On the other hand I consider blacks less intelligent (sorry for my assertivism but so do I) and think that a mixage with them will led to a lower IQ into the neo-European people.
No need to be coy about it, I agree. :thumb001:

But some waves of new genes are important, most of all in small villages.
Only from a slightly wider area. A handful of villages is sufficient. I was told at university (in a course on Hunter Gatherers) that a population of about 500 would be enough.

This doesn't mean that original peoples have to disappear, but only that some inter-whites migratory fluxes are necessary.
Our modern nations are mostly several millions strong. That is a huge genetic reservoir. Outbreeding on a national scale is not necessary.

Osweo... I don't know how to ask you this but...


Have you any sister?
...
:....



:suomut:



:strokebeard:



:chin:


THat..... depends.

AHem, how many goats do you have? How many acres of pasturage...?

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10613
(the thread title was a little joke... :p)

[Bridie]

How do we best defeat it?There's only one way to create a new public discourse... talk, talk, talk! :)

[Don]

I told you not to answer me.

Forget it. :)

[The Ripper]

Pure Flemish?:confused: Flemish is already a mix between germanics an francs.:wink

I am a mix blooded european :) I am not in a grey zone :D haha
Culture would go lost of europeans mix? What do the flemish have for a culture? Dutch of French? please tell me

Such a thing as a pure ethnicity does not exist, because all ethnicities are the result of ethnogenesis involving several components. Ethnicity, and by extension nationalism, is about community, not some mythical purity of blood.

[Tyrrhenoi]

Such a thing as a pure ethnicity does not exist, because all ethnicities are the result of ethnogenesis involving several components. Ethnicity, and by extension nationalism, is about community, not some mythical purity of blood.

Yes, and if these european communities mix, the cultures would go lost?
European people will assimilate in the environment they live in.. I whas raised in a ltalian culture, but I assimilated and participate in the Dutch culture. I am half Dutch so it whas not so difficult for mee....

Culture would not go lost due to assimilation and participation....:)

[The Ripper]

How do we best defeat it?

Since no alternative opposition, nationalist or otherwise, has the resources to counter this propaganda to the same extent, its a difficult question. I suppose its just up to us individuals, for now, to call into question the argument and show that it is a tool utilized for specific political ends.

[Cail]

I myself am a result of heavy inter-euro mixing (Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, probably some Finnic somewhere down the line), and i see no problem in that. I feel connected to all these cultures, and to other European ones too (i feel like i'm an Italian born on the Baltic shore :D).

[Inese]

:mad:
I am in favour becouse if you mix only with genetically related people you run in the risk to produce children with some desease.
:rolleyes2: What a stupid opinion, it is total wrong!! You should not mix with near family members ---- it is incest and it leads to genetic defects! But in a village of 100 different people of same ethnicity it is no problem if you mix with the daughter or son of the other familys over many centurys. You know, Latvia had not many strangers and many village children mixed with partners of the same village for a long time and we have no desease.

I am glad if northern people mix with the same kind and the southern people should mix with other southern people. Mixing is bad and dis-harmonous.

[Treffie]

:mad:
:rolleyes2: What a stupid opinion, it is total wrong!! You should not mix with near family members ---- it is incest and it leads to genetic defects!
.

Read it again Inese, before you put your foot in your mouth :p


I am in favour becouse if you mix only with genetically related people you run in the risk to produce children with some desease

[Bridie]

Read it again Inese, before you put your foot in your mouth I think it was Inese's "But...." afterward that carried her message. :p


But in a village of 100 different people of same ethnicity it is no problem if you mix with the daughter or son of the other familys over many centurys. You know, Latvia had not many strangers and many village children mixed with partners of the same village for a long time and we have no desease.

[Foxy]

Read it again Inese, before you put your foot in your mouth :p

Well, as Italians have the highest IQ of Europe together with Germany, Austria and The Netherlands I could also be in favour toward a not-intermarriage, I will laugh when Luxemburgeses, Cypriotes and Montenegrans should do the same. In few generations they will be all related.
(To don't talk about Saint Marino and Andorra XD)

[Tyrrhenoi]

In few generations they will be all related.

Yes indeed, in a few generations we will all speak arabic and we will be an islamic people:D In particolare l'Italia con tutti sti extracommunitari :D

[Wotan88]

Yes indeed, in a few generations we will all speak arabic and we will be an islamic people:D In particolare l'Italia con tutti sti extracommunitari :D

Poland will have border with Turkey for a second time. This time in the west. ;)

[Don]

Well, as Italians have the highest IQ of Europe together with Germany, Austria and The Netherlands


Eiiinn???¿!! Me non undesten beri wel!


Vut spanis han the biggenst valls!!

http://www.ganaderoslidia.com/webroot/images/torero.jpg

[Foxy]

Yes indeed, in a few generations we will all speak arabic and we will be an islamic people:D In particolare l'Italia con tutti sti extracommunitari :D

Islamic Italy? Yak... If it happens I will move to live into the Bermuda Triangula with my (white) family.:D

[Don]

Islamic Italy? Yak... If it happens I will move to live into the Bermuda Triangula with my (white) family.:D

Then you don't deserve my respects.

Neither inhabit those lands.

If my lineages acted like that, Spain or Europe would be nowadays Islamic.
...


What a preserver and defender of the land...

[Tyrrhenoi]

Islamic Italy? Yak... If it happens I will move to live into the Bermuda Triangula with my (white) family.:D

Yes... Islamic Europe :) I ment... by mass-immigration:coffee:
This subject is off topic by the way :p

[boredva]

I am a huge euro mix, my dads family is northwestern european and scandinavian while my moms family is southeastern european. But I personally think there is nothing wrong with it. Just remember, IF IT AINT WHITE, IT AINT RIGHT!!!! :thumbs up

[Lithium]

I preffer to create familly with a 100% pure bulgarian woman, because we are already disappearing...

[Oinakos Growion]

In principle I have no objection to Inter-European breeding. If it's European, then it's fine. It won't provoke any sort of "rejection" to me like other mixes do.
If there's children involved then the parents will have a dilemma as for where the kids are from, or where/how they're going to be raised, etc. But I see that as a different issue to be dealt with later, something for the parents to discuss and decide.

[Osweo]

I preffer to create familly with a 100% pure bulgarian woman, because we are already disappearing...

If you refer to low birth rates, then you are not disappearing, just getting smaller. And how many Bulgars were there in your Golden Age? I bet much less than half your present number.

Shrinking is only a problem when other groups, within and without your borders, are growing. And yes, I'm afraid we all have a problem here. But get married and give us a good handful of little B'lgarins and B'lgarkas, and there's always a chance! :cheers:

[Gamera]

Me, my siblings and pretty much 80% of the Argentinian nation is the result of that European inter-breeding (with predominantly Mediterranean admixture). I'm not against it at all.

[Sahson]

That's a very good question. It happens very often here in the borderlands that Flemish marry Dutch (we are kin) or Dutch marry Germans and Flemish marry Walloons.
It shouldn't be so harmful if it were to happen in moderation but there is the problem: people are traveling so much and meeting foreigners that it could well delude our diversity.
An Englishman and a Dutchwoman would make a fine couple as their cultures are alike- but what will their offspring be: will it be English, will it be Dutch, will it be both ?
Also when cultures are similar can it create a demise of an identity but genetically speaking I should have nothing against it but when it happens on a large scale the problems would be the same as with real race mixing.

But sometimes people can't find a mate in their own country or fall in love with a foreigner.. My cousin married an Italian and they have a son (14) and only got divorced after 14 years. That's a lot more then the average Dutch family nowadays lol.

I agree, I also think if a lot of this happened, it could merged the dutch, and english as one culture...

[Юbermensch]

I'm against any kind of international mixing.
Each nation is unique. There are races, racial groups, racial types but each nation has it's own typical physical features, it's own mentality, it's own culture and history.
Even when nations are very simillar and belong to the same racial group (for example Italians and Greeks or Dutch and English) they are separate nations and must not mix, that's the point for their existance - to preserve their uniquity.

[jerney]

I guess I'd be a hypocrite if I said it should never happen, but I really wouldn't support it becoming common place

[Aramis]

I guess I'd be a hypocrite if I said it should never happen, but I really wouldn't support it becoming common place

Doesn't all of humankind have the right for a bit of Greek joy? Just you, really?

[jerney]

Doesn't all of humankind have the right for a bit of Greek joy? Just you, really?

I guess anyone can have all the Greek joy they want, just not my Greek joy :thumb001:

[Simonsson]

Well, I don't condemn having different sorts of ancestors to an acceptable extent (the measure of acceptable obviously depends on the viewer), but as has been stated earlier, it'd be better if they're ethnic groups from the same regions (I have Estonian blood, Swedish blood, I'm pretty sure I have German and I might have Danish ancestry, and I don't really see it as anything despicable from any angle, I suppose I like all those cultures.)

[Hess]

I guess I'd be a hypocrite if I said it should never happen, but I really wouldn't support it becoming common place

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with it. Europe is already a mixture of different tribes, and it's already been happening for years places like Kaliningrad, Strasbourg, Marseille (Spanish, Italian, French) and many others.

[Bakura]

I'm against extra massive multi ethnic mixing but If two persons love each other, why not? Of course, if they both are white Christians.

[Niegosław Paprocki]

Should not be done. That will only weaken us. Slavs should be extra mindful when picking mates especially, because among other things we need to start a eugenics program to breed out the Asiatic and Turkic admixtures we have. We need not become more mixed. We need to use the good blood we have to create a Slavic master race.

[Siberyak]

A huge amount of white Americans are interbreed europeans.

[The Lawspeaker]

A huge amount of white Americans are interbreed europeans.
Most of them are. They are Dutch/German/French/Italian/English Swedes with maybe a bit of Cherokee. :D

They are in that respect "more European" then we Europeans are in the sense they are of everything a bit and nothing of anything.

[Albion]

Inter-European breeding is fine on a small scale so long as it doesn't get excessive. We don't want our cultures and genes destroyed.
But there's always been some movement within the continent and we're pretty inter-related on many levels.

Mixing is less negative when it is between already related ethnicities and regions such as between English and Irish or French and Swiss.

Mixing with other races is a different story.

Personally I'd prefer to have British Islander partner. There's a subtle social stigma to even marrying other Western Europeans and when someone marries someone from Eastern Europe that person is "Polish" (which may as well be Eurasia to some people :D ) and its because they can't get a woman in Britain so they have to get a desperate Eastern Euro.

[sturmwalkure]

Over the past couple years I have obviously refined and revised my views on this. On a small scale this is absolutely fine. It is 1000% preferable to interracial mixing. I would not object to any inter European breeding, any combination thereof. At least it is not race-mixing which is treason.

Someone who has roots from six (maybe seven) European nations in her blood. ;)

[Norb]

Are we talking about ethnicity or countries? What if an Englishman was to meet a Dutch Lady for example.. but both were Nordic by Blood and Phenotype?

[Babak]

Are we talking about ethnicity or countries? What if an Englishman was to meet a Dutch Lady for example.. but both were Nordic by Blood and Phenotype?

you guys are homogeneous anyway so it wouldnt matter