Nordicism

[DarkZarathustra]

Nordicism vs Pan-Aryanism, and Preservationism

There's no question that Indo-European self-interest is gaining momentum. Thanks to multiculturalism, Indo-Europeans (Caucasians, "whites," Euripids) now realize they are a minority targetted by other groups who desire the perceived greater wealth and ability of people of European descent. That a change will happen in this direction is not a question, to a broader observer of history. No one who has read a meaningful breadth of history is surprised at the authoritarian moves of the Bush administration; authoritarianism is how one deals with a divided society at the end of its cycle, like our own spoiled and fat and directionless one - whether it's Bush or not is a different question. Similarly, since we know a resurgence of nationalism is going to inevitably occur, it's time to pick the most sensible form of nationalism possible.

In many ways, this issue is similar to the different approaches of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Hitler to Christianity. Nietzsche said, in effect, "Christianity is sick and Jewish; let us destroy it." The more contemplative and pessimistic Schopenhauer said simply, let us pick the best form of Christianity - and, as astute philologicians know, he was thinking of his early influence Meister Eckhardt. Hitler, being of exclusively a practical mind, essentially took Schopenhauer a step further: let us decide what is a sensible religion, and make Christianity into it. These three thinkers all knew the problems with Christianity, and took different paths to a solution, but the end result of these paths - which are but a means to an end - would be the same, whether it were labelled Christianity, Hinduism, Nazism or New Age. It isn't the label on it that matters, but the structure of the thoughts (philosophy) inside of it.

When we look at Nationalism today, the people who watch too much TV, buy too many movies and download too much mainstream music from SoulSeek will recoil in horror and say, "Nationalism is fascist and racist; let us destroy it." The hardcore clubhouse neo-Nazi types will harrumph and proclaim it "not extreme enough." The level-headed thinkers, whether we are inclined toward nationalism or not, will decide that regardless of label, this could be a way to adopt sensible values into an insensible society, and thus move ourselves from a diseased time forward. At that level of thought, whether or not our future is nationalist does not matter - outside of the primary statement of nationalism, which is grouping of peoples into political entities by both ethnicity and culture (and not politics, as is the case in patriotism), there are many more issues which fit together to form a philosophy. The question incumbent upon us is what that philosophy might be, and how to pick the best one so that our reform extends beyond questions of nationality alone.

To those who observe dying civilizations, it is clear that the primary trait is a loss of goal, or shared values, and when that occurs, money and personal pretense ("rights" and "freedoms" to do whatever freaky, self-destructive, or cancerously degenerate thing one desires) fill in the void. Replacing a monetarist civilization, or one in which the primary goal is economic competition as a means of giving the individual power, requires we find a higher value than money - that we return to a healthier stage of society, when there was a bigger motivation than personal wealth. For this reason, there should be reason for all to take heart at the adoption of nationalism; it means we are ever-so-slowly moving on from the low point in human history where "it's profitable" was the only justification we sought or needed. Yet as mentioned above, the concept "nationalism" is only one aspect of complete political worldview, although nationalism has been throughout history associated with other values as well.

The broader historical view suggests that we view this not as much as a political change, but a philosophical one: we're moving on from issue-based politics, materialism and individualism, and we're heading toward organic collectivism. The remaining question for a nationalist society involves how it designates ethnic-cultural groups, and how then it decides to structure society to support them.

In current politics, Nationalism is roughly divided into several camps. One of the most prominent are the Nordicists, who argue that the Nordic (and some will say, as Hitler did, the "Nordic-Germanic") strain is the closest we have to the original ethnic-cultural group that emerged from Northern Europe to establish the societies of Greece, India, Rome, Egypt, and so forth. Most historical data supports this assumption, although it's fair to note that, at least according to linguistic derivation, that original group fragmented and diversified rapidly, although retained its core values and beliefs. Nordicists argue that Nordics must be preserved from admixture by (a) other races and (b) other Indo-European ethnic-cultural groups. They do not harbor ill-will toward those other groups, but wish them to each exist as their own nationality, refining themselves through positive breeding as best they can. This is the oldest tradition in nationalism, and it essentially states that the tribes should be separated and work together for common goals, but each must rule itself.

Radically contrasted to the Nordicists are the "Pan-Aryanists" or "White Nationalists," who believe that all things white should exist on the same stratum, and thus we should combine white races and tribes to produce a universal "white culture" which we can then breed toward a higher level. This belief is the most modern form of nationalism, and comes almost exclusively from countries in which a high degree of inter-tribal mixing has already occurred, such as in the United States, Canada, Russia and the UK. The Pan-Aryanists think that anyone of partial Nordic-Germanic-"Aryan" heritage should be included in one giant tribe, and that tribe can approximate its culture from that mix. Admittedly, this is the most pragmatic view in mixed cultures, because to divide the United States, for example, into tribal groups would be easy in some areas (mainly the South) but impossible in others (such as New York, where almost every "white" person is Irish-English-German-Slavic-Italian or some variant thereof). For this reason, American and English neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups almost exclusively adhere to this belief.

For the sake of convenience, I will call these views Tribalism and Demographicism, respectively. The first is called tribal because it believes in the division of tribes, and the second demographic, as it looks practically at how people self-identify in mixed cultures. It's important to note that both are nationalism, although tribalism divides on the basis of race and tribe, where demographicism divides only on the basis of the largest part of ethnic heritage. Tribalists tend to shy away from the idea of mixing relatively pure tribes (Germans, Scandinavians) with tribes already displaying admixture, and there's a good amount of historical data to suggest that their point is valid: once mixed, always mixed, or so history dictates; mixing creates a local culture that cannot return to its original state. Where demographicists have the advantage, of course, is in a modern democracy; if you can unite people by the fact of being "white," it's easier than trying to address individual tribes and then getting them to cooperate.

Also, as is impossible to miss, it's essential that some form of demographicist nationalism exist for those Polish-French-Irish-German-Spanish hybrids in America, the UK, and Canada (as well as the corresponding Germanic-Baltid-Slavic-Mongol hybrids in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Semitic hybrids of the Mediterranean and UK). Without this demographicism, they have the unsteady participation in nationalism of being identified as new mixes, such as "American" or "English," that do not directly describe a single bloodline. But for those who are mostly unmixed, does it make sense to blend their bloodline, especially with hybrids that include non-Indo-European races?

Clearly this is where the Nordicists make the most sense: if you're going to preserve a race, do so by starting with that which is less mixed and work outward toward other strata. For this reason, I'd like to propose a new vision of nationalism, called "Preservationism."

Preservationism not only formulates a more sensible grouping of Nationalists, but also, associates with nationalism a general agenda that not only supports the political needs of nationalism, but the philosophy that allows people to appreciate it. Preservationism includes a form of nationalism, but is not limited to it; however, for practical political purposes, we can call it a type of nationalism. Where Preservation differs from Nordicism is that it is willing to create a Pan-Indo-European group and call it, for lack of a better term, "English"; this applies to all mixed-tribal white people, and separates them from those of relatively pure (3/4 or more) tribal heritage. It differs from Pan-Aryanism/White Nationalism in that it believes in preservation of those relatively unmixed Indo-European groups, and their separation from others.

The reason for this is inherent in the name: unlike most neo-Nazi or White Nationalist groups, Preservationists do not seek to prove that other races are inferior or unfit. They seek instead to assert that their own group needs to be preserved, and the only way to preserve it is through nationalism, including exclusion of all other races and tribes. Further, Preservationists seek to, in the same way the Nazis championed "Blood and Soil," establish a communitarian principle of government; this means, for you who are familiar with leftist language, an impulse toward localization and permanent association of ethnic groups with ancestral land. The reason for this is also derived from the name: Preservationists seek to continue what nature started, and to act in concert with both natural order and Tradition, in the Julius Evola-Rene Guenon-F.W. Nietzsche sense. They recognize that the "progressive" vision of society is Utopian delusion, and seek to restore the only working form of society that has existed, and that is one where humans see themselves and nature as participants in a cosmic order, and thus work toward "ideals," or designs of a higher evolutionary nature - not "new" and "empowering" ideas in government, or politics, or art, but better versions of the eternal philosophical concept that unifies them all.

Preservationists are simultaneously Green, Nationalist, and Localist - this is the essence of communitarian, or community-based, government. A local community defines itself by its land, its culture, and its heritage, in this view. Unlike Pan-Aryanist/White Nationalist views, Preservationism is detached from the implement of modern society - large centralized bureaucracies - and returns to an order by which civilizations develop independently with allegiances only against common enemies. In this, it allows a return of Traditionalist values to Indo-European culture, with these including, among other things, a reverence for cosmic order including the system of karma, by which one moves from a least-evolved state to a highest state of evolution. As karma is conveyed through the vehicle of evolutionary breeding, it is not only a racial hierarchy, but one of castes and individual abilities as well. Unlike Judeo-Christian morality, karma does not posit good or evil, but says that if one lives according to higher ideals, one steadily moves up through the caste system from lowest to highest. This happens over many lives, and could as easily describe the process of selective breeding as some kind of reincarnation. For those who believe that the design of their bodies, including minds, creates their consciousness, the two are roughly convertible concepts.

We cannot undo history. The division of the Indo-European peoples has happened; our technology running roughshod over the world and destroying much has happened; our political failures have occurred and cannot be taken back. What we can do is to start working on what we have now, and to take it to a Traditional state, including caste systems. This requires we take a clue from the Nordicists and, for unmixed tribes of whites, breed them into better versions of what they are: Germans, Scandinavians, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Irish. Mixing the unmixed is destructive, and will accomplish the same destruction of heritage toward which modern society aims. As each group carries in its collective genetic memory the recollection of events and decisions made in the karmic cycle to reach its current position, mixing would obliterate that past and start the entire race of white people off at a lower level. However, for those who are already mixed, giving them a cultural identity - English - and encouraging through selective breeding the refinement of that ideal, will produce - much as it has in Slavs, Irish, Italians - a local culture which will steadily move upward toward greatness.

Furthermore, by associating each group to a local community, we remove the braindead system of centralized bureaucracy and replace it with localization, including environmental protection, as who would poison the land of their ancestors which their children will inherit? This also allows diversification, and the rise of those who are more capable and of better moral character, without lumping us all together and standardizing us to a single level in the same way modernity accomplishes all of its political aims. Pan-Aryanism is modernity; Nordicism is too limited; Preservationism is right. As democracy collapses, and individualism reveals itself to be unfettered selfishness, fascism and nationalism are coming - if we inform ourselves to the degree that we can understand why Preservationism makes sense, we can make nationalism an enduring success instead of another stage in a lugubrious decline.


Sourse (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/preservation/)

[Freomæg]

Ahhh.... ANUS! I had a strong suspicion whilst reading this that it had been penned by the guy from ANUS. I'm familiar with his writings and postings elsewhere on the Internet and his arrogance never ceases to amaze me. He always promotes the same concepts - Nordicism, Environmentalism, Romanticism, Anti-Modernism. Some points I strongly agree with whilst others adhere to his narrow view of reality. Regarding this particular article:

I agree with:
- "Preservationists do not seek to prove that other races are inferior or unfit"
- "permanent association of ethnic groups with ancestral land"

I disagree with (and find to be nonsense, largely):
- The anti-British bias. Since when did Englishmen consist of the "Semitic hybrids of the Mediterranean and UK"?
- The notion that anything non-(pure)Nordid must be due to distant interracial mixture.
- "This is the oldest tradition in nationalism, and it essentially states that the tribes should be separated and work together for common goals, but each must rule itself." - Really?! It's the oldest tradition? I thought the oldest tradition of nationalism was, well, nationalism. If the oldest tradition of nationalism is tribalism, then England (and many European countries) can never claim any kind of nationalist movement due to its ethnic makeup consisting of multiple tribes at the time of the nation's birth. I can't think of one European country that consists of a 100% subracially homogeneous people. If tribes are to be divided along subracial lines then how does this guy expect nationalism to come about? And if he doesn't, does he realise that tribalism is not a workable political ideology?

[Vargtand]

Now why on earth does he want to introduce Karma? Seriously sounds like a new-age nationalist or some such. There are some fine pointers but I could never accept such an alien system as a basis of how we are ruled..

To my limited knowledge we do not have re-birth in our old culture... why should we have the concept now?

[Manifest Destiny]

I'm a preservationist who happens to believe that both Nordicism and Pan-Aryanism are dangerous to people of European descent.

Nordicism is bad because it essentially excludes people who are clearly white (just not blond-haired and blue eyed) and Pan-Aryanism is bad because it includes people who clearly aren't white.

[SuuT]

I'm a preservationist who happens to believe that both Nordicism and Pan-Aryanism are dangerous to people of European descent.

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.


Nordicism is bad because it essentially excludes people who are clearly white (just not blond-haired and blue eyed)

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.


...and Pan-Aryanism is bad because it includes people who clearly aren't white.

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.

[Osweo]

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.
Give over SuuT. Out of India is pure drivel, made up to make Indians feel better about themselves. Indic languages are new to India, there's tons of Munda and Dravidian substrate, and there are traces of Indic in the ancient Euxine region. Case closed.

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.
Give over again. Europe was never so simple racially. I don't come from Africa. Not in 11,000 years' recency, anyroad. People like me have been here since forever.

[SuuT]

Give over SuuT. Out of India is pure drivel, made up to make Indians feel better about themselves. Indic languages are new to India, there's tons of Munda and Dravidian substrate, and there are traces of Indic in the ancient Euxine region. Case closed.

Yet again, we are in agreement, and I seem to be the only one to realise it. My English is not so bad, is it?


Give over again. Europe was never so simple racially....

Yeah, Woo, it was (With the exception of Indigenous Kelts [who may have been a fair-haired Race prior to Corded Ware Kultural influx/Racial admixture]). It is common knowledge that prior to Moorish/Arab invasions in the south, that even Sicily and Southern Italy was (at the least) goverened by a fair ruling Caste.

Even MODERN ACEDEMICIANS are in accord with this, for the gods sake.


I don't come from Africa. Not in 11,000 years' recency, anyroad.

Correct. As a Kelt, you are a product of Racial and Evolutionary procession occurring since the last Glacial Maximisation.




People like me have been here since forever.

Oh yeah?:rolleyes:

[SuuT]

...(SuuT desperatley attempts to block-out the ambient/avric noise of those neurotically searching the internet in an attempt to figure-out who to push the "thanks" Icon for...):rolleyes:

[Bloodeagle]

Out of the Ukraine is where these "Aryans originate"! Just because the Dravidians named them such does not make them Indian.
The horse is what got these "Aryans" around, from Europe to China.


There is an ongoing dispute as to when the horse was domesticated. Marija Gimbutas and others maintain that the Old European cultures never used the horse as anything but food, and certainly did not domesticate it prior to the arrival of the Kurgans. Gimbutas also contends that the Kurgans didn't domesticate the horse until about 5500 BC.

The elegantly carved ivory horse above was found in a cave in Germany and is dated at about the same time as the mammoth paintings of Vallon Pont D'arc cave in France, 30,000 BC. This horse figurine certainly gives one the feeling that the artist knew her well.
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/Azillian_HorseswithBridles.JPG


The bone and antler horses pictured here all carbon-date to the Magdalenian age, 14,000 BC to 9,500 BC. Dozens of such carvings that have been found in the caves of Southwestern France. Clearly they have bridles and straps -- indicating that humans had horses under their control. In the beginning horses might have been used for pulling. Horses could have been used to pull the weighty mammoth bones to the locations where mammothbone houses were built. Reindeer and cattle seem to have been ridden as well. Maybe even mammoth. Though very few would go so far as to believe that possible. I personally think it highly possible.

If I may be so bold I would like to say that it seems possible to me that somehow Marija Gimbutas for some reason never heard about the Magdalenian horses with straps and bridles that were found in the caves of France and Spain. Because they really do speak for themselves. As much as I appreciate and admire the work of Marija Gimbutas, it does seem evident that the horse was domesticated long before 5500 BC. If we had to give a date to it 20,000 BC would not be out of reason, since many of the mammoth bone huts date that far back. Each structure was built from the bones of one hundred or so huge creatures which had to be brought somehow from whereever each one was killed to the site of the mammoth house being constructed. What an enormous amount of human work it would have been to bring each 200+ pound piece so far over hills and streams and rivers. Especially when it was a fresh kill because each tendon would need to be cut and each joint separated to get to a single bone. Short of that they would have to bring several pieces still connected together but that would certainly be more weight than they could manage. If they left the bones to sit and let the weather take its course another tribe might come along and take them for their own huts. So the smartest thing to do would be to get the entire mammoth home as quickly as possible, that means all the meat, all the hide, and all the tusks and bones. Duh! How long would it take a party of six hunters to carry all that sixty miles? --Times 90 mammoths for one house! But with a horse or mammoth to do the work the problem would be solved easily.

Much has been written about the evolution of lithic technologies in ancient man, but it seems to me that very little has been written about the corresponding advancement of cordage technologies. Arrowheads and spearheads had to be lashed to wood. Anyone who has ever tied a simple knot expecting it to hold, that didn't hold at all, will vouch for the necessity of fastening cordage in such a way that it functions well. The cordage must be strong enough so as not to break, and the wrapping and tying must not loosen or fall apart. Certainly these skills evolved simultaneously to flint knapping with Neanderthal and Cro Magnon man. Pierced beads would need to be strung on strands of fiber. Many stone and ivory ornaments have holes in them. Cordage technology then would be a huge working of knowledge among these ancients. They would constantly be seeking improved wrappings and knots. They would use sinew and they would use mammoth wool and horse tail and whatever else seemed likely to work well. They would NOT simply use this technology to fasten stone points to wooden shafts. They would use it to tie all kinds of things together. Hides would be wrapped around legs and feet with thongs. Scaffolds of wood would be tied together in caves to allow artists to reach high places for their paintings. And most important to our focus here, cordage would allow ancient man to bridal a living animal from capture in its infancy and force the creature to walk beside him towing or carrying heavy burdens. Ancient man possessed this cordage technology. If he could lash a flint spearpoint to a staff he could loop a cord around the neck of a colt or even a baby mammoth and lead him anywhere he desired.

So, with their knowledge of cordage they were completely able to tie up any living animal they came across, to capture it and take it with them. So why wouldn't they do it? If they killed a mare for food and the mare's tiny colt stood there looking at them on wobbly legs unable to run away, why would they have to kill it then and there? It wasn't going to escape. They had enough meat from the mare to feed them. They didn't need to kill the little colt too, did they? So the colt would live. And probably even follow them. They had the cordage knowledge to tether it. They would require no great stretch of imagination to put a cord around the colt's neck and lead it along with them. Or a baby mammoth the same. In short order these animals would not need tethers. They would be part of their human family. And sometimes the mother would take the child off her shoulders and set it on the back of the colt or the baby mammoth and let them carry it. It simply is illogical to believe that humans of the Magdalenian age never had horses or mammoths with them as they followed the herds. And it was probably even far older than that. Because orphaned baby animals will easily follow any human that is kind to it. Maybe not always, but sometimes. So this sort of thing would have been happening since the dawn of time and would have been the most natural thing in the world. -- And it would have been happening regardless of all the scientists today who say humans did not domesticate the horse until 2500BC.

***

When the last great ice age was at its peak the mammoths especially loved the tall grasslands that existed near to the edge of the glacier and this is where many of them roamed. And horses too. With humans following. They could and did roam these grasslands from the easternmost part of the continent to the westernmost part of the continent. They had no limitations other than natural boundaries of mountains or lakes which they eventually found some way through or around. The way language works, a language is uniform to a people within the context of their boundaries. So if a group of people live sendentarily within the area of a certain river valley their language will form in its own way separate and different from all other communities. But the boundaries of the mammoth people were the vastest area that a single language has ever stretched. They were a people with a common purpose, to follow the herds that roamed the glacier grasslands. They did so generation after generation after generation as milleniums passed, roaming east to west and west to east with no boundaries. And speaking elemental words that were uniformly understood whereever they went. I think so.

And this went on for thousands upon thousands of years until some unpassable boundaries formed which the mammoth people could not pass. And then the single language was divided. The boundaries formed when the weather warmed and the glacier began to melt. This great change didn't happen overnight, but gradually over a period of ten thousand years. Incrementally: an average increase in temperature of a thousandth of a degree hotter every year than the year before. Not very noticible in the lifespan of a man. But over the generations the increasing warmth changed their world. Immense rivers rushed forth that no humans could cross. These 30 mile wide hellish rivers remained uncrossable for thousands of years. These rivers not only divided the mammoth people, they also divided language development. One group of mammoth hunters in particular were affected. The people that Marija Giimbutas has named the Kurgan people. They lived east of the 30 mile wide Volga River which flowed from the Northern Glacier to the Caspian Sea. The vast Eurasiatic Steppe extends east to Mongolia. Herds of horses and mammoths roamed this grassy world, just as they always had. But with the difference that they could no longer go to the western lands.
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/Mammothsites_KurganCultureRoots.JPG


The Kurgans lived on the western edge of the vast area known as Siberia. This map shows many of the archeological mammoth finds in Asia. Notice that the finds are mostly along rivers or the arctic shoreline. Much of this area was glacier free during the ice age. Mammoths are thought to have followed the rivers south in the fall and north in the spring. Whereever the mammoths went the human hunters followed. Primitive man was capable of traveling long distances. Notice the distance between France and the Black Sea on this map and think about the Danubian hunters who migrated along the Danube and Rhine. That distance is hardly anything compared to the vast Russian steppes. To cover the great distances in Siberia humans needed to ride animals. The red dot furthest to the right, is Wrangle Island where mammoths lived until about 4000 years ago. A mammoth from the southern Kolima River has been carbon-dated to around 9000 BC. So it is a safe guess that a few mammoths may have survived on the mainland as recently as 8000 BC. Notice the mammoth sites on the southern Ob River.

The map on the lower right shows the locations of paleolithic human sites in Siberia. Here along the rivers are found many of the characteristic round homes of the mammoth hunters with the 200 pound jawbones interlocked together. For ten thousand years these solid mammothbone huts wore into their brains and hearts and traditions. Nothing quite gave them the sense of home and timelessness than these 20 ton mammothbone huts. Their mammothbone drums were inside the huts, their whistles and flutes, their flint knives, their carnelian agates, their flint knives and axes, their amber jewelry -- all the precious memories of their culture for more than ten thousand years were in their hearts in the form of a gleaming white home of ivory. Perhaps this is why it was that milleniums later when their direct descendants died they preferred to be buried in round tumulus graves, heavy stones and clay topped with an earthen mound. And inside with them were all the things that were precious to them in life. These tumulus burials have come to be called "kurgans" from the Turkish word for "barrow" or "tumulus". These are the Kurgan people -- the descendants of the mammoth hunters.

The area between the Enisey/Ob Rivers and the Volga River are the land of Kurgan roots. These were mammoth hunters until the mega-fauna vanished. Afterwards horses and cattle were their mainstay. Paleoanthropologists believe that the herding of cattle, the ownership of herds, created the concept of property. And since it was easier to steal grown cattle than to raise them this led to pillaging and warfare. The Kurgan people rode and herded horses. From these circumstances evolved the ruthless far-wandering Kurgan horseman.

[IMG]http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/4500bc_Kurgans.JPG


During the final centuries of the ice age these people lived in a land of rushing torrential rivers and the largest freshwater lakes that have ever been on earth. The lake that covered most of what is now Siberia was at one time over 1500 miles wide. The Volga was a churning vision of hell.

The mighty Ob flows north to the Arctic. Blocked by the icecap the entire Ob valley formed a huge lake which no human could cross, unless perhaps on the back of a swimming mammoth -- or on a log being towed by a mammoth... Look at the maps above and notice that the human sites on the Ob coincide with the mammoth sites. They lived close together. Which indicates to me once again that humans had domesticated the mammoth. This domestication would have led quickly to the mammoth's extinction, because packaderms have poor eyesight and hunters easily invade to the center of wild herds on the backs of their domesticated mammoth. Horses also could have been ridden into mammoth herds, or to chase an isolated mammoth until it was exhausted. Add to all this the incredible advancement of lithic technology. The flint blades were the most effective killing tools that had ever been known. A single stroke of flint spearpoint at the soft underbellie of a mammoth would spill its innards to the ground in an instant. And so it happened that mammoths went extinct in this age. And not only mammoths, but all the megafauna on earth.

There must have been vast numbers of people who gazed upon that end of the mammoths with horror. Because it is natural for humans to see God in everything, and especially in a beautiful wild creature like a buffalo. And surely it was even moreso with the mammoth. For the mammoth was a huge thing, a sensitive creature who shared with humans the clear capacity to love. They lived in herds and protected each other, and watched over their young. They could be fierce, but overall they were gentle creatures. 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.

http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/WesternSiberianIceLake_10000BC.JPG
You will notice Omsk on the maps. Here in the area of Omsk we find both mammoths and ancient man. Close by is the ancient village of Petropavlosk, perhaps the most ancient Kurgan site we know of today. Over 100,000 horsebones have been discovered near Petropavlosk dating back to around 5500 BC. One cannot help but wonder when the last mammoth was seen in the area of Omsk and Petropavlosk... Of all the animal bones found in the area horse bones constitute ninety percent. So we see from this that the Kurgan people were not nearly as interested in deer or cattle or sheep or goats as they were in horses. Another early Kurgan site is the Samara culture on the Volga river dating to around 5000 BC. Horse figurines, carved of bone and worn as pendants have been found here. And after a person was buried a fire was built atop his mound and a horse was sacrificed and burned there.

To the west of the Volga we find great rivers which flow west and northwest out of the Black Sea towards the Baltic, The Danube, Dneister, Dneiper and others; and other great rivers which start in the mountains and flow into the Atlantic or Baltic, the Rhine, Elbe, Oder, and Vistula. In this land of rivers there developed a boat people we now call The Maglemosian Culture. They traveled in dugout canoes. The oldest one, found in the Netherlands carbon-dates to 8000 BC. Another from NW Britain is equally as old. Still another from the Netherlands carbon-dates to 6300 BC. Archeologists have discovered that some of the trade items of these boat people originate from as far away as the Tigris-Eurphrates Valley, which of course is the location where Sumer came into existance. The Maglemosian Culture existed from about 8000 BC to 5700 BC. Considering once again that the extent of a language is determined by its range of social contact we may consider that the Proto Uralic language was dominant throughout this entire area.

The mammoths were all gone by the time the Volga had returned to the proportions we know of today and the Kurgans were finally able to cross. One wonders how the first meetings went between the Kurgan people and the people of the Black Sea.

"Hmmmph! Who are YOU??!!" "Where did YOU come from???" "Where did you get such pretty and unusual jewelry???" "Are all your daughters THIS BEAUTIFUL???" "Who is the mightiest warrier between you and me?" "How about a game of chance?" "So you are hungry are you? Well -- I will give you four cattle and one bull for the girl with the red hair." "Go away quickly with your strange language and funny ways! We are tired of you people. You annoy us and make trouble. Go back to your own land before we have a war between us..."

Except they could not speak each other's language. Because the uncrossable iceage Volga had separated their language development. The language spoken by the Kurgan peoples was the Proto-PIE language. And the language of the people west of the Volga and the Black Sea was the non-IndoEuropean, Proto Uralic language. The only way the two cultures had of communicating was by drawing pictures in the sand, or in clay. And so, is it possible that this was how and why the first pictographs came into being? Because the earliest symbols scratched on clay pots from archeological digs near the Black Sea have been carbon-dated to between 6 and 7 thousand BC. Which is about when the Kurgans would have finally been able to cross the Volga to enter the lands of the Black Sea people.
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/4wheelcartmotif_FunnelBeakerCulture_b.JPG
The Sacred Huts

I wonder if we might have failed to realize the impression the primordial mammoth huts made upon the descendants of the people who built them. Mesolithic hunter/gatherers in their wanderings would certainly come upon mammoth hut ruins time after time after time. There were so many of these mammoth bone huts, gleaming white in the sun, spread all over the best hunting grounds of Poland and the Ukraine, sinking deeper and deeper into the earth as each century passed. Weighing many tons each the huts would not be moved by storm or even earthquake. They would just sit there and glow like ivory moonlight on the earth. They would be reverred. Think of it. A thousand years after the last mammoth had died there would still remain these mammoth bone huts for all to see. Two thousand years. Three thousand years. Still standing. Hunters who knew animals well, knew bones, would see these huge bones and be dumbstruck. What sort of creature had such huge bones? And then the realization would come to them that it was their ancestors who had hunted the great beasts and built the huts. The mammoth bone huts would be sacred to them, would represent their ancestors. And their awe would build and build with each generation as the milleniums passed between 20,000 BC and the time of the kurgans, 5000 BC. The mammothbone hut would be featured in their oral traditions passed on from grandfather to father to son down through the ages. As the centuries and milleniums passed the earth and grass would rise higher and higher around the mammoth bones until finally all that would be left would be a mound of earth -- and still their oral traditions would tell them the bones of their noble ancestors lay beneath that mound. This shining ivory mausoleum vision and the round mound of earth were embedded in their psyches. They would come to these huts as if to a temple and sit inside and observe the moonlight upon the ivory and listen to the wind and they would tap at the bones with their stone tools. This was their sacred ivory moonlight xylophone temple.
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/SythianBurialMounds.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/UkraineMammothboneHome.JPG
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/ClavaTomb2000BC.JPG
Songs and chants and genealogies sung solemnly by their ancient men and women and listened to with awe-struck ears by wide-eyed children would bridge the ages long gap between the builders of the mammoth huts and the people of the Kurgan burial mounds.

In the oldest of the old Irish tales there is often a line that is a curse upon any ollamh that changes so much as a single word of a sacred song. Songs had to memorized and passed on to the next generation exact. Genealogies in particular. Every name had to be remembered. Oral genealogies went back a thousand years or more that we know of. The genealogies of the Bible were oral memories before they were first written down. Genealogies contained not only names, but the great deeds of men and women. In addition to genealogies, great migrations were remembered, great wars, great heroics, great possessions, great personalities, as wisemen and genealogists.... Caesar said the druids studied for 20 years in Britain before they came to Gaul. Wise men everywhere, in all cultures, were responsible for the oral memories of their people. And it is certain that each word of each song had to be remembered exact. Or penalties could be exacted. The tradition was severe.

Ten thousand years seems a long time to us today. We live in an age of top forty radio hits where the top song on the hit parade today is lost and forgotten by the next generation, if not by the next year. Memorization is so neglected that it is possible that the human mind has actually lost a great ability that it once possessed. Young Jewish scholars are still required to memorize entire books of the Bible. But few other cultures strengthen the mind in these ways. So there is the bridge. Keen and exceedingly rigorous oral tradition. Kurgan children learning to sing exactly the same songs that their great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfathers sang. Telling exactly the same stories. Learning the sacredness of retelling the story exactly the way they heard it. Sometimes even down to the syllables. Sometimes, so much so, that the song is in an ancient religion that isn't even spoken by the people anymore, and isn't even understood by anyone in the clan except the priest. Sacred Priest languages exist in many cultures. My grandmother taught me the words of an old Norwegian song when I was a little boy. I still remember the words. But I don't know their exact meaning.

We would think it weird today for anyone to have only oral tradition knowledge and no books, no television, no libraries. Only a family campfire that goes back a hundred thousand years and more. But this ancient family campfire was also the cultural library and school of the people. To such people as these the white boned huts disappearing into the earth on the family hunting grounds would be among their most sacred focal points. The huge gleaming ivory bones of creatures that no longer exist... What stories might they have that held more power than this?

[Psychonaut]

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.

I'm curious. Is this point regarding the theory that R1a1 has it's origins around present day Poland?

[SuuT]

I'm curious. Is this point regarding the theory that R1a1 has it's origins around present day Poland?

Well, it is at the least refreshing to hear of a question as opposed to the obtuse coninuance of pretense.


My answer:

Science has - and will always have (roughly) a 300 year lag behind philosophical minds. I do not expect anyone to understand this. - ; however, I do expect an investigation as to what I am saying.


The originem of 'Caucasion' Man, is well enough documented that I need not suffer the throes of ignorance.

[Freomæg]

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.
This was a commonly-used argument over at Skadi and whilst I have no reason to dispute what you're saying SuuT - particularly in light of your near-immaculate input on forums I've frequented - I do feel that while those displaying Nordid traits can quite easily say that non-Nordids carry a resentment about not being pure, it is equally as easy for non-Nordids to put forward the argument that Nordids only promote this notion because they themselves happen to be Nordid... if that made any sense at all ;).

I've personally not seen adequate evidence to suggest that Nordids built the pyramids - though I think there is evidence to suggest that white Europeans were in contact with cultures worldwide during prehistory.

[Bloodeagle]

Well, it is at the least refreshing to hear of a question as opposed to the obtuse coninuance of pretense.


My answer:

Science has - and will always have (roughly) a 300 year lag behind philosophical minds. I do not expect anyone to understand this. - ; however, I do expect an investigation as to what I am saying.


The originem of 'Caucasion' Man, is well enough documented that I need not suffer the throes of ignorance.

Yes, these R1a1, "Aryans" set up the spice trade routes 1000's of years before scientists had even arrived in India to read the Vedas.

[SuuT]

This was a commonly-used argument over at Skadi and whilst I have no reason to dispute what you're saying SuuT - particularly in light of your near-immaculate input on forums I've frequented - I do feel that while those displaying Nordid traits can quite easily say that non-Nordids carry a resentment about not being pure, it is equally as easy for non-Nordids to put forward the argument that Nordids only promote this notion because they themselves happen to be Nordid... if that made any sense at all ;).

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.



This is not a matter of sublimation. This is not a matter of projection (in the Fruedian vein).

This is a matter of Etiological and Archeaological fact (verifiable).


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



I've personally not seen adequate evidence to suggest that Nordids built the pyramids - though I think there is evidence to suggest that white Europeans were in contact with cultures worldwide during prehistory.


Contradictio en Adjectio, mein Freund.

[Vargtand]

Yet again, we are in agreement, and I seem to be the only one to realise it. My English is not so bad, is it?



Yeah, Woo, it was (With the exception of Indigenous Kelts [who may have been a fair-haired Race prior to Corded Ware Kultural influx/Racial admixture]). It is common knowledge that prior to Moorish/Arab invasions in the south, that even Sicily and Southern Italy was (at the least) goverened by a fair ruling Caste.

Even MODERN ACEDEMICIANS are in accord with this, for the gods sake.



Correct. As a Kelt, you are a product of Racial and Evolutionary procession occurring since the last Glacial Maximisation.





Oh yeah?:rolleyes:

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


A qoute for you:


Prodest et sapo, Galliarum hoc inventum rutilandis capillis. Fit ex sebo et cinere, optimus fagino et caprino, duobus modis, spissus ac liquidus, uterque apud Germanos maiore in usu viris quam feminis.

Soap is the invention of the Gauls and this is used to redden the hair. It is made from fat and ashes -- the best is beech wood ash and goat fat, the two combined, thick and clear. Many among the Germans use it, the men more than the women.
(Pliny the Elder Historia Naturalis)

[Osweo]

I don't know SuuT, we're probably arguing at cross purposes as usual, but I'll slog thru it, regardless...

Yet again, we are in agreement, and I seem to be the only one to realise it. My English is not so bad, is it?
As I read it, you seemed to be saying that Out Of India was as well evidenced as Into, no? 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'?

A Danubian Urheimat is most persuasive to me. I'm talking of IE bringers here, and not necessarily bringers of too drastic subracial change. The Danube is not too far from northern and northwestern Europe to merit too much talk of strange new physical types coming in to lord it over stunted swarthy natives.

Yeah, Woo, it was (With the exception of Indigenous Kelts
Big bloody exception!

But what the hell are you talking about? :confused: 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.

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. 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.

[who may have been a fair-haired Race prior to Corded Ware Kultural influx/Racial admixture]).
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.

It is common knowledge that prior to Moorish/Arab invasions in the south, that even Sicily and Southern Italy was (at the least) goverened by a fair ruling Caste.
Fairness from Norman, Gothic, Langobardic, and even early Italic invaders from the north. Probably a few others in prehistory too. These are all still incomers, and will not have shoved aside earlier, slightly darker, types - types which are still 'European'.

Correct. As a Kelt, you are a product of Racial and Evolutionary procession occurring since the last Glacial Maximisation.
What does that mean?

I'm dark haired, with dark eyes. You say Europe was all 'fairish' at one time. Therefore I'm what? The result of metisation with Black Africans or something?

...(SuuT desperatley attempts to block-out the ambient/avric noise of those neurotically searching the internet in an attempt to figure-out who to push the "thanks" Icon for...):rolleyes:
:D

Out of the Ukraine is where these "Aryans originate"!
It's not quite so settled as that. More western hypotheses are still proffered. I'd say the Ruthenian/Galician area, taken together with the eastern parts of the Pannonian Basin.

The horse is what got these "Aryans" around, from Europe to China.
I'd say that this domestication occured in a few places at once. Around the Bug and Dnestr, and in the southern Urals. The latter area should be seen as more an Ugric domain than 'Aryan'.

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

(By the way, I was at the Clava Cairns near Culloden a few months ago. Comparing them with mammoth huts is a joke!)

This is not a matter of sublimation. This is not a matter of projection (in the Fruedian vein).

This is a matter of Etiological and Archeaological fact (verifiable).

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

I challenge not only you, but all others who believe me wrong, to state their individual arguments.
Let's go back to the simple stuff and we can figure out where I'm misunderstanding you if that's the case : - I say that darkies like me have lived in western Europe since ages. You say Europe was all light before this. I need to hear from you now, where the devil I came from!

[Bloodeagle]

I'd say that this domestication occured in a few places at once. Around the Bug and Dnestr, and in the southern Urals. The latter area should be seen as more an Ugric domain than 'Aryan'.

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

(By the way, I was at the Clava Cairns near Culloden a few months ago. Comparing them with mammoth huts is a joke!)
I am referring to the burial mounds my friend! The analogy between the Mammoth hut, the Kurgan burial and the Clava Cairns!
I realize that these people all had there various names but they shared the same ancestry.
I was trying to unify these people under the name Aryan given by the Dravidians.
I might call them redheaded trouser wearing horsemen who stormed the world and set up trade routes over a 3000 mile steppe and let us not forget establish their language in a good chunk of the world! :D

[Osweo]

I am referring to the burial mounds my friend! The analogy between the Mammoth hut, the Kurgan burial and the Clava Cairns!
Ah, but it's an extremely tenuous link you're arguing for there!
The Inverness cairns long predate the arrival of any secondary impulse from the Kurgan world upon our shores.
If you've got a load of stones or earth, or mammoth bones, and no mortar, you're gunnae get a mound, wherever or whoever you are!

I was trying to unify these people under the name Aryan given by the Dravidians.
The name is not Dravidian. It was used in Persia, where there weren't Dravidians as such, and it was used in both India and Iran to distinguish IE incomers from earlier autochthonous groups.
It has cognates in western languages, there's no need to bring Dravidians into the etymology.

I might call them redheaded trouser wearing horsemen who stormed the world and set up trade routes over a 3000 mile steppe and let us not forget establish their language in a good chunk of the world!
The people you are talking about were IndoIranian and Tocharian speakers. Already long removed from our common ancestors with them; the IEan speakers.

Just trying to clear up what I see as misapprehensions!

By the bye, in response to the Rep, I'm most likely R1b, though I've not won the Lottery yet, so won't be wasting cash on finding out for sure!

[Bloodeagle]

According to Marija Gimbutas: Around 4400 BC the Kurgan horsemen began to move west forcing their way through the ancient matristic cultures which stood in their way. This was roughly 2 thousand years before the Clava Cairn was built.
http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/FirstKurganWave_sm.JPG

:D


By the bye, in response to the Rep, I'm most likely R1b, though I've not won the Lottery yet, so won't be wasting cash on finding out for sure! A Neolithic Europoid but a distand cousin nonetheless! :thumbs up

[Osweo]

According to Marija Gimbutas: Around 4400 BC the Kurgan horsemen began to move west forcing their way through the ancient matristic cultures which stood in their way. This was roughly 2 thousand years before the Clava Cairn was built.

And you think you get all the way from the Steppe to the Scottish Highlands in what? A generation or so? And weren't the Clava Cairns (there's a good five of them in a small place) in use over a very long time, beginning earlier than you imply? And wasn't the stress in the rite there utterly different to that in the barrows of these Steppe fellers? Collectivism over individual celebration, no?

Look at that 'matristic' word, by the way. Marusya was an awful pigheaded feminist, and dreamt up all sorts of nonsense about Old Europe that barely bears reading about. She bears an absurd male version of her surname too. Only male Balts should have the nominative ending '-as' on their name. :rolleyes:

The Kurgan thing was just a returning ebb of a wave that had already spread out from east-central Europe in the first place, in my version. We don't need wicked male chauvinists bursting out of the east, destroying good nice girly Utopia to explain the evidence.

A Neolithic Europoid but a distand cousin nonetheless! :thumbs up
Er, Palaeolithic, more like! We're probably far closer related than you think.

[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/news/uk/article735078.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/othernews/080131_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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl#Heyerdahl.27s_theory_of_Polynesian_ origins)
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?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Mongol_Empire_map_2.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan#Birth)

[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 :D

[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? :confused: 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.

:confused: - 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?

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


:D

Ya know? :rolleyes:




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/news/uk/article735078.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/othernews/080131_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.



:confused: - 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".



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



Ya know? :rolleyes:





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?

[SuuT]

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.

My apologies, then. It's just that it reminds me black Africans calling each other nigger with the same tounge-in-cheek facetiousness.


Okay. If it were proven true that Nordids...

I have to stop you, here. An '-id' is not an '-oid' and I have not used any Nordicist clap-trap. Again, here is what I did say:


SuuT: 11.000 years ago, present day Europe was - by and large - populated by a majority of Blond(e)/ Auburn haired, pail-eyed Cromagnoid/Nordoids,

I also apparently have to add (not because of you, per se) that 50.1%, by definition, constitutes a majority.

With that said, I would not be saying much were I to proceed from flawed premises



[...] that Nordids once ruled all of Europe and beyond. Help me to consider this.

As soon as you can help yourself piece together a post that actuates a retort based upon what I have said, then we will be able to proceed to helping one another's considerations.


What are your reasons for believing it?

Believing what?


In fact, what do you believe?

About what?


Did Nordids build the pyramids?


No, silly. That was the aliens from the Pleiades.

[Freomæg]

I'm satisfied SuuT that there's nothing for me to contest. I think it would be reasonable to suggest that Europe was once >50.1% fair due to the recessive nature of blonde genes and the vast number of generations that 11,000 years represents - and this point is a valued confirmation of your perspective.

[Osweo]

SuuT: 11.000 years ago, present day Europe was - by and large - populated by a majority of Blond(e)/ Auburn haired, pail-eyed Cromagnoid/Nordoids,
How did it get that way?
What happened since?
What was it like before?
Who were the 49.9 percent, were they concentrated anywhere in particular, and what was their relationship with the 50.1 (genetic and 'political'?)

[Bloodeagle]

What of the theory that the Europeans physical features lightened as a result of moving from a sunny warm Southern Europe to dark and cold Northern Europe. A physical response to a vitamin D deficiency.
An overall lightening of the flesh and extreme lightening of the cheeks and noses, areas left exposed when covered in winter clothing.
Due to the Europeans pastoral lifestyle, they did not consume foods high in vitamin D.
This explains why the Eskimo's are not white. They ate a diet very high in vitamin D containing seal oil and such.
And for the final blow to darker Europeans in the far north, infanticide was a common practice amongst the Scandinavians.
Darker children were often set in the snow to die, because their parents knew that the lighter children grew stronger and healthier than their darker siblings in their given environment.

[Vargtand]

And for the final blow to darker Europeans in the far north, infanticide was a common practice amongst the Scandinavians.
Darker children were often set in the snow to die, because their parents knew that the lighter children grew stronger and healthier than their darker siblings in their given environment.

And what is the source of this? That the fathers slew their children yes, but what sagas or archaeological data do you possibly have to back up this claim that it was because of some wide held knowledge back then that darker children grew weaker... seriously when saying it was or was not this or that use a source.

[Bridie]

Whoever wrote that "article" - Nordicism vs Pan-Aryanism and Preservationism - is seriously lacking in the ol' head department. :crazy:

Pure drivel.

Strange how he doesn't mention ethnic nationalism at all either... I suppose such a concept is too sensible for him.

[SuuT]

How did it get that way?
What happened since?
What was it like before?
Who were the 49.9 percent, were they concentrated anywhere in particular, and what was their relationship with the 50.1 (genetic and 'political'?)


I know your chosen University discipline, and that you have continued on with that theme in the ambit of your personal interests and professional life.

With that said, you know as well (if not better) than I do that you've not asked a single question, here, that would not require a 20 page response to adequately answer to. Which is not to say that they are 'bad' questions: I just don't have the time or inclination to go into that depth, and I doubt you do either.

However, I think we can touch on the thing, and allow people to do their own research.


First. This entire issue is - and must be - wrapped in a skin of extrapolation, deduction, and induction.

So, here you are, then: I give you the first 'European':

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-the-face--of-the-first-european-1678537.html

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4143&highlight=European&page=3

Interesting, yes? - Inside of 35,000 years, we go from that thing, to you, and me, and Ben fucking Afleck, and Foxie, and Varg, and, Hors, and Lyfing and the Mrs.; we go from that, to the Physiogony, Morphology, Phenotypic predominance of Europid Man within verifiable geographic boundaries.

Now. As "Rhobot" has already pointed out, based on dating of a mutation in the MCR1 gene that codes for hair colour, this occured bewteen 14,000 and 11,000 years ago.

And, de-pigmented eyes owing to a mutation in the OCA2 gene that apparently occurred around the same time that light-eyed Caucasoids throughout Europe experienced said mutation, the Physiognomic advent of these characteristics were recognised, and not only for the reasonable (and, yes, verifiable/sourceable rationale) statements provided by BloodEagle; but, and also, because they were recognised, from an extant mythos of what would come (you are not a spiritual man, so these may require some extensive explication on my behalf - which I may or may not be willing to perform), as the only individuals who could declare, "Ich bin Göttlichsten" ("I am of Godly Race" [yes, Woo, I've put it in German for closer, and greater comprehension: I don't think too many here speak P.O.N./'*P.G.']). Ergo, we have a compelling impetus for Sexual Selection. In Norse mythology, both the goddess Sif (wife of Thor) and the goddess Freyja are described as blonde. In the Poetic Edda poem Rígsþula, the blonde man Jarl was considered to be the ancestor of the dominant warrior class. In Northern European folklore, fairies value blonde hair in humans. Blond(e) babies are more likely to be stolen and replaced with changelings, and young blonde women are more likely to be lured away to the land of the fairies.

In European fairy tales, blonde hair was commonly ascribed to the heroes and heroines. This may occur in the text, as in Madame d'Aulnoy's La Belle aux cheveux d'or or The Story of Pretty Goldilocks (The Beauty with Golden Hair), or in illustrations depicting the scenes. One notable exception is Snow White who, because of her mother's wish for a child "as red as blood, as white as snow, as black as ebony," has dark hair. This tendency appears also in more formal literature: in Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote the ideal beauty Dulcinea's "hairs are gold"; in Milton's poem Paradise Lost the noble and innocent Adam and Eve have "golden tresses", the protagonist-womaniser in Guy de Maupassant's novel Bel Ami who "recalled the hero of the popular romances" has "slightly reddish chestnut blond hair", while near the end of J. R. R. Tolkien's work The Lord of the Rings, the especially favourable year following the War of the Ring was signified in the Shire by the birth of an exceptional number of blonde-haired children.



Continuing, (and you will correct me if I am being obtuse) 35,000 - (minus) 11.000 = 23,000 years. Twenty-three THOUSAND years - to go from that thing I posted, above, to a modern day Eurpoean poulation that is, to this day, predominately fair: (see attached thumbnail).

[Freomæg]

Just to comment on one thing, SuuT. Naturally, the Germanic domain was very blonde - particularly more isolated areas. I don't think either myself or Oswiu would be interested in disputing that (though he may - I won't speak for him). But Europe wasn't all Germanic and I'm certain I've read about plenty of Celtic heroes with dark or even black hair. If I have some time later I'll pull up some examples. Likewise Greek and Roman heroes/warriors were often depicted with dark hair.

[SuuT]

[...] Naturally, the Germanic domain was very blonde - particularly more isolated areas.

And the recessivity radiated (assuming your implied assertion that fair-ness [which is not islolated strictly to blond(e)s, but includes triats such as ruddy-ness, amongst many others] is correct.


[...] But Europe wasn't all Germanic [...]

A 'Germanic' does not a blond(e) make, though: this is one of the greatest problems with 'Nordicism'. - It does not accurately account for Convergent or Divergent Evolution as they relate to aquired morphological characteristics.


Likewise Greek and Roman heroes/warriors were often depicted with dark hair.


Of course:



I will tell of Dionysos, the son of glorious Semele, how he appeared on a jutting headland by the shore of the fruitless sea, seeming like a stripling in the first flush of manhood: his rich, dark hair was waving about him, and on his strong shoulders he wore a purple robe. Presently there came swiftly over the sparkling sea Tyrsenoi pirates on a well- decked ship - a miserable doom led them on. When they saw him they made signs to one another and sprang out quickly, and seizing him straightway, put him on board their ship exultingly; for they thought him the son of heaven-nurtured kings. They sought to bind him with rude bonds, but the bonds would not hold him, and the withes fell far away from his hands and feet: and he sat with a smile in his dark eyes. Then the helmsman understood all and cried out at once to his fellows and said: `Madmen! What god is this whom you have taken and bind, strong that he is? Not even the well-built ship can carry him. Surely this is either Zeus or Apollon who has the silver bow, or Poseidon, for he looks not like mortal men but like the gods who dwell on Olympos. Come, then, let us set him free upon the dark shore at once: do not lay hands on him, lest he grow angry and stir up dangerous winds and heavy squalls.'
So said he: but the master chided him with taunting words: `Madman, mark the wind and help hoist sail on the ship: catch all the sheets. As for this fellow we men will see to him: I reckon he is bound for Aigyptos (Egypt) or for Kypros or to the Hyperboreoi or further still. But in the end he will speak out and tell us his friends and all his wealth and his brothers, now that providence has thrown him in our way.'

When he had said this, he had mast and sail hoisted on the ship, and the wind filled the sail and the crew hauled taut the sheets on either side. But soon strange things were seen among them. First of all sweet, fragrant wine ran streaming throughout all the black ship and a heavenly smell arose, so that all the seamen were seized with amazement when they saw it. And all at once a vine spread out both ways along the top of the sail with many clusters hanging down from it, and a dark ivy-plant twined about the mast, blossoming with flowers, and with rich berries growing on it; and all the thole-pins were covered with garlands. When the pirates saw all this, then at last they bade the helmsman to put the ship to land. But the god changed into a dreadful lion there on the ship, in the bows, and roared loudly: amidships also he showed his wonders and created a shaggy bear which stood up ravening, while on the forepeak was the lion glaring fiercely with scowling brows. And so the sailors fled into the stern and crowded bemused about the right-minded helmsman, until suddenly the lion sprang upon the master and seized him; and when the sailors saw it they leapt out overboard one and all into the bright sea, escaping from a miserable fate, and were changed into dolphins. But on the helmsman Dionysos had mercy and held him back and made him altogether happy, saying to him: `Take courage, good [text missing]; you have found favour with my heart. I am loud-crying Dionysos Eribromos (loud-cyring) whom Kadmos' daughter Semele bare of union with Zeus.' Hail, child of fair-faced Semele! (Homeric Hymn 7 to Dionysos).


:DLOL. I sort of have to laugh, here: I just realised that I have no idea how I dragged myself into this thread. I am not a 'Nordicist' and very few people even know what 'Pan-Aryanism' even means.

My common-law wife is a (North Atlantid) Scot (by way of the Ulster Preserve), and she and I have hazel-eyed, brown haired children. :)


Anyway, Europe has experienced a progressive, and overall, darkening since the fair-making mutations reahed their zenith roughly 4-5.000 years ago - especially over the blink of recorded history. And I suppose that is my bottom line on the matter.

[Lenny]

is it only a co-incidence that the mega-fauna died off
as the oxygen content of the atmosphere
dropped to the current level?
It seems pretty clear that the Megafauna of North America was exterminated by "those Siberian hunting bands".

[Bloodeagle]

It seems pretty clear that the Megafauna of North America was exterminated by "those Siberian hunting bands".

Eighteen-thousand years ago, while New York and Chicago were silent under tons of glacial ice, the grasslands of Alaska echoed with the roar of the American lion. In those days, a vast, dry belt wrapped the northern part of the globe, providing a home for lions, bison, and woolly mammoths. Stretching from France to Whitehorse, the only apparent interruption in that belt was near Alaska.

Dale Guthrie has spent much of his professional life studying the animals that lived in that ice-free zone, also known as the Mammoth Steppe. Guthrie is a retired biology professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. In the late 1970s, Guthrie excavated and preserved a 36,000-year-old bison from Walter Roman's Fairbanks mining claim. That bison, known as Blue Babe, is now one of the star attractions of the University of Alaska Museum.

The Mammoth Steppe that stretched over the northern part of the globe was dry, cold, and rich with grasses, sedges, forbs and sages. According to fossils found in Europe, Siberia, and Alaska, this landscape supported a curious mix of large animals, including rhinos, bison, lions, reindeer, and muskoxen. Guthrie compares the Mammoth Steppe of the ancient northland to shortgrass prairies that exist today near Minot, North Dakota, and northern Montana.

The Mammoth Steppe was so dry that few lakes existed and rivers were more like streams. Perhaps the only variation in the climate of the Mammoth Steppe was on the Bering Land Bridge‹the area where scientists say western Alaska and eastern Russia were connected when sea level was lower thousands of years ago. That swath of land that connected the Old and New worlds was perhaps 500 miles wide, Guthrie said, much more narrow than the continents to the east and west where the bulk of the Mammoth Steppe existed. Bordered by ocean on two sides, the Bering Land Bridge may have been cloudier and wetter than most of the Mammoth Steppe, factors that may have interrupted a few species of animals and plants from migrating east or west, Guthrie said.

Guthrie calls this area the "buckle" on the belt of the Mammoth Steppe that may have prevented some Old World species from crossing to the New World, and vice versa. Other researchers found that regions near what is now Bering Strait were moister and included more tundra vegetation than areas farther east.

Few animals can survive eating tundra plants, and Guthrie said the Bering Land Bridge probably had a mix of tundra and grasses, enough to allow many species, such as the saiga antelope and woolly mammoth, to thrive. But the mix of tundra may have been too much for other species that depended on dry-loving plants. Those animals included the woolly rhino, the remains of which have been found at the headwaters of Russia's Anadyr River but not farther east. Animals whose fossils are found in Alaska but not in Russia include American camels, giant short-faced bears, giant muskoxen, and badgers. Other scientists have found that weevils and ground beetles adapted to the Mammoth Steppe in Asia have eastern ranges that stop at the land bridge.

Lions, bison, mammoths and other creatures of the Mammoth Steppe roamed Alaska until the landscape began to change about 13,000 years ago, and the dry plants gave way to birch, poplar, and other trees. Soon to follow the exotic animals were even stranger creatures from the east, the first humans to cross the Bering Land Bridge.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Both that article and an earlier one on this thread mention a glacier-free zone in the far north, north of the glaciers. How did this happen, that the far north was glacier free while thick and heavy glaciers lay further south? Perhaps Hyperborea really did exist, if people were able to live in this region thousands of years ago and the signs of civilization long since destroyed by glaciers and rising sea levels.

[Freomæg]

Both that article and an earlier one on this thread mention a glacier-free zone in the far north, north of the glaciers. How did this happen, that the far north was glacier free while thick and heavy glaciers lay further south? Perhaps Hyperborea really did exist, if people were able to live in this region thousands of years ago and the signs of civilization long since destroyed by glaciers and rising sea levels.
If that was the case I'd suggest it was due to earth crust displacement.

[Skandi]

If that was the case I'd suggest it was due to earth crust displacement.

I'm confused what do you mean by that?

I would have thought a lack of glaciers would have had to do with a combination of a lack of mountains, and dry spots.

[SuuT]

Yeah. I think I prematurely ethankulated.

Are you talking about tectonics, Cythraul?

[Freomæg]

Are you talking about tectonics, Cythraul?
A theory I once read about came to mind. From memory, the Earth's crust, theoretically, can slide around the planet much like the skin of an orange could if disconnected from the fruit inside. The obliquity of the ecliptic (Earth's tilt) is currently 23.5° and some theorise that it hasn't always been at this angle. Some say a catastrophic event in antiquity might have a) changed the Earth's tilt and/or b) caused an Earth crust displacement. Either way, the landmass known as Arctica would not have been at the pole as it currently is. From my reading, the consensus seems to have been that Antarctica would have been further north and the dry lands around the equator (European latitude) would have also been further north and more fertile. Thus perhaps the glacial regions at the poles may have been shifted away from the poles leaving a temporary iceless region.

I've never read up on the theory in great detail, more seen it referenced in books and papers about related concepts.

Hapgood's Theory (http://www.crystalinks.com/crustal.html)

[Skandi]

A theory I once read about came to mind. From memory, the Earth's crust, theoretically, can slide around the planet much like the skin of an orange could if disconnected from the fruit inside. The obliquity of the ecliptic (Earth's tilt) is currently 23.5° and some theorise that it hasn't always been at this angle. Some say a catastrophic event in antiquity might have a) changed the Earth's tilt and/or b) caused an Earth crust displacement. Either way, the landmass known as Arctica would not have been at the pole as it currently is. From my reading, the consensus seems to have been that Antarctica would have been further north and the dry lands around the equator (European latitude) would have also been further north and more fertile. Thus perhaps the glacial regions at the poles may have been shifted away from the poles leaving a temporary iceless region.

I've never read up on the theory in great detail, more seen it referenced in books and papers about related concepts.

Hapgood's Theory

The continental plates have walked all over the earth, but the movement in the time between the last ice age and now is very little,
http://i.livescience.com/images/050414_pangea_globe_02.jpg
Pangea formed 300 million years ago and broke up about 180 million years ago.
Gondwana existed about 400 million years ago
http://www.geodynamics.no/Platemotions/500-400/420MA.jpg
About 420million years ago

you can see that the amount of movement that occured in the 240 million years between these two maps is not enough to cause enough movement in the few thousand years since the last ice age, to move the positions of glaciers.

[Freomæg]

you can see that the amount of movement that occured in the 240 million years between these two maps is not enough to cause enough movement in the few thousand years since the last ice age, to move the positions of glaciers.
Unless there was some kind of recent catastrophe which knocked the entire Earth's crust (not just parts of it) into a different position. This would be the catastrophe that relates the flood myths (Noah, Gilgamesh, perhaps Atlantis, etc).

[lei.talk]

I would have thought a lack of glaciers
would have had to do with a combination of a lack of mountains,
and dry spots.

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate" - William of Ockham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)

[Osweo]

Unless there was some kind of recent catastrophe which knocked the entire Earth's crust (not just parts of it) into a different position.
Starting all over again from scratch from the three or four bacteria who survived something as drastic as THAT, I doubt much of a coherent narrative tradition would make it to the stage when a sentient tool-using organism had re-evolved... :p

This would be the catastrophe that relates the flood myths (Noah, Gilgamesh, perhaps Atlantis, etc).
The Sunda Shelf Collapse and Black Sea Event are QUITE enough to account for these, were a historic even even needed to prompt a tale that fed on the natural anxieties of any people that had witnessed the power of the Sea, or even a landlocked tribe whose thinkers had mused on the Waters, both Above and Below!

[Paleo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U3NCuOuY_w&feature=quicklist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPn45p8HBUw

[Beorn]

<nobr></nobr>
<nobr>1. Introduction

</nobr> <nobr>Human hair and eye color is unusually diverse in a geographic area centered on the East</nobr>
<nobr>Baltic and covering northern and eastern Europe (Figs. 1 and 2 (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#2)) (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#2). Within this area, eyes are not</nobr>
<nobr>only brown but also blue, gray, hazel, or green, while hair is not only black but also brown,</nobr>
<nobr>flaxen, golden, or red (Beals & Hoijer, 1965 (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#15), pp. 212–214). As one moves outward from this</nobr>
<nobr>area, color diversity declines markedly with eyes becoming uniformly brown and hair</nobr>
<nobr>uniformly black.</nobr>
<nobr>Is this diversity due to chance? In particular, could it reflect founder effects during the</nobr>
<nobr>repeopling of glaciated Europe 15,000 to 10,000 years ago? When a founder group breaks off</nobr>
<nobr>from its parent population, such bsamplingQ may indeed increase the frequency of a variant</nobr>
<nobr>hair- or eye-color allele. It is less probable that two alleles of the same gene would become </nobr><nobr>more frequent,
and this probability would decline exponentially with each additional allele.</nobr><nobr>Yet the hair-color gene,
MC1R, has at least seven phenotypically distinct alleles that exist</nobr> <nobr>only in Europe (Box et al., 1997; Harding et al., 2000; Rana et al., 1999 (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#15)). Furthermore, eye-</nobr>
<nobr>color diversity results from another set of alleles at a locus that is at best weakly linked to hair</nobr>
<nobr>color (Eiberg & Mohr, 1987 (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#16)).</nobr>
<nobr>Is this diversity due to relaxation of selection and a resulting accumulation of variant</nobr>
<nobr>alleles? Harding et al. (2000) (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#16)have investigated this evolutionary scenario and found that the</nobr>
<nobr>time to the most recent common ancestral hair color would be about a million years, with the</nobr>
<nobr>redhead alleles alone being approximately 80,000 years old. Templeton (2002) (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#19)has come to a</nobr>
<nobr>similar conclusion: If the cause were relaxation of selection, the current level of hair-color</nobr>
<nobr>diversity would have taken 850,000 years to develop. Yet modern humans have been in</nobr>
<nobr>Europe for approximately 35,000 years</nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr>
<nobr></nobr>
Cont. at source (http://www.femininebeauty.info/peter.frost.pdf)


And the quote of the day:

<nobr></nobr>
<nobr>Finally, Ellis (1928, pp. 182–183) (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:ruZR9CQWBRUJ:www.femininebeauty.inf o/peter.frost.pdf+green+eye+frequency+in+europe&cd=29&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk#16)noted less preference for blonde women in England than in</nobr> <nobr>France, which he ascribed to the higher prevalence of blondness among the English.</nobr><nobr></nobr><nobr></nobr>

:D

[Luern]

Finally, Ellis (1928, pp. 182–183) noted less preference for blonde women in England than in France, which he ascribed to the higher prevalence of blondness among the English.

More preference for blondes in France? I just wonder how he came to this conclusion.

Anyway, surely things must have changed since then, with all the chocolate men hanging around in England and chasing blondies.

[Brännvin]

The study is old in some way, blondism has nothing to do with sexual selection, more like a human adaptation.

[Jarl]

The study is old in some way, blondism has nothing to do with sexual selection, more like a human adaptation.

Or maybe more like neutral genetic drift? ;)

[Útrám]

Wasn't it vitamin-d deficiency?

[Inese]

The study is old in some way, blondism has nothing to do with sexual selection, more like a human adaptation.
It is both --- it has to do with adoption to northern lands , Vitamin D production and sexual preference because blonde people are special and brown or black hairs are common. That it is was i was teached, i can read in texts and see in my life!! :wink

[Brännvin]

It is both --- it has to do with adoption to northern lands , Vitamin D production and sexual preference because blonde people are special and brown or black hairs are common.

However many of these speculations are based on modern standards built.

Of course, this theory of a reproductive preference for blonde cannot be proven; modern biological science can only provide an approximate date for the first appearance of the proliferation of the recessive, blonde mutation.

The blonde (proper blond) hair mutation is about 11,000 years old (Baltic area).

[Angantyr]

The study is old in some way, blondism has nothing to do with sexual selection, more like a human adaptation.

Anecdotally, I have chosen women based on hair colour...although I will not say what hair colour that may be. :embarrassed

[lei.talk]

...although I will not say what hair colour that may be. :embarrassedthere is no need (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69234#post69234). :swl

[Tabiti]

There are lots of factors to determinate who is more sexual preferred than others and hair and eyes color aren't the most important. Most is called "trend" and "stereotype".

[Tony]

I must confess I find sexier the brunette because the contrast between a pale skin and dark hair stands the whiteness of skin out more.
As regard the evolution issue I've to add 2 more theories , the Nordic Alien one and the Christian Identity one.

Accordin to the first:


Nordic aliens (Aryan aliens) is a name given to what are said to be a group of humanoid extraterrestrials. They are so named because they are said to resemble Nordic, Scandinavian, or Aryan racial images.
...
they are sometimes known as Pleiadeans or Errans, and are said to be from the Pleiades star cluster in the constellation of Taurus
...
Nordic aliens are said to be extremely human-like in appearance, with pale white skin, colorless lips, and hair that is either light blond or white.[5] Some accounts describe them as having "remarkable"[6] (sometimes pale[5]) blue eyes,[6] although they have also been described as having pink,[6] red, yellow, or green eyes
...
Most accounts say that they are tall; either 6–8 ft tall or 18–24[citation needed] ft tall, statuesque, and attractive.[citation needed] It is more common for them to be reported as being male than female.
...


The Christian Identity speculation has it that whiteness and the general lightness of features such as hair and eyes were first popped up with the Adam , the first white man ever and that mutation has spread all over the world since then.
Read the articles by Henry Millard on NewNation about ithttp://www.newnation.org/Millard/index.html.

[Inese]

Anecdotally, I have chosen women based on hair colour...although I will not say what hair colour that may be. :embarrassed
I know it i know it!! :D ^_^

[Murphy]

N0RDICISM PHAILS!

Regards,
Eóin.

[The Lawspeaker]

Nordicism vs Pan-Aryanism, and Preservationism (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/preservation/)


There's no question that Indo-European self-interest is gaining momentum. Thanks to multiculturalism, Indo-Europeans (Caucasians, "whites," Euripids) now realize they are a minority targetted by other groups who desire the perceived greater wealth and ability of people of European descent. That a change will happen in this direction is not a question, to a broader observer of history. No one who has read a meaningful breadth of history is surprised at the authoritarian moves of the Bush administration; authoritarianism is how one deals with a divided society at the end of its cycle, like our own spoiled and fat and directionless one - whether it's Bush or not is a different question. Similarly, since we know a resurgence of nationalism is going to inevitably occur, it's time to pick the most sensible form of nationalism possible.


In many ways, this issue is similar to the different approaches of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Hitler to Christianity. Nietzsche said, in effect, "Christianity is sick and Jewish; let us destroy it." The more contemplative and pessimistic Schopenhauer said simply, let us pick the best form of Christianity - and, as astute philologicians know, he was thinking of his early influence Meister Eckhardt. Hitler, being of exclusively a practical mind, essentially took Schopenhauer a step further: let us decide what is a sensible religion, and make Christianity into it. These three thinkers all knew the problems with Christianity, and took different paths to a solution, but the end result of these paths - which are but a means to an end - would be the same, whether it were labelled Christianity, Hinduism, Nazism or New Age. It isn't the label on it that matters, but the structure of the thoughts (philosophy) inside of it.


When we look at Nationalism today, the people who watch too much TV, buy too many movies and download too much mainstream music from SoulSeek will recoil in horror and say, "Nationalism is fascist and racist; let us destroy it." The hardcore clubhouse neo-Nazi types will harrumph and proclaim it "not extreme enough." The level-headed thinkers, whether we are inclined toward nationalism or not, will decide that regardless of label, this could be a way to adopt sensible values into an insensible society, and thus move ourselves from a diseased time forward. At that level of thought, whether or not our future is nationalist does not matter - outside of the primary statement of nationalism, which is grouping of peoples into political entities by both ethnicity and culture (and not politics, as is the case in patriotism), there are many more issues which fit together to form a philosophy. The question incumbent upon us is what that philosophy might be, and how to pick the best one so that our reform extends beyond questions of nationality alone.


To those who observe dying civilizations, it is clear that the primary trait is a loss of goal, or shared values, and when that occurs, money and personal pretense ("rights" and "freedoms" to do whatever freaky, self-destructive, or cancerously degenerate thing one desires) fill in the void. Replacing a monetarist civilization, or one in which the primary goal is economic competition as a means of giving the individual power, requires we find a higher value than money - that we return to a healthier stage of society, when there was a bigger motivation than personal wealth. For this reason, there should be reason for all to take heart at the adoption of nationalism; it means we are ever-so-slowly moving on from the low point in human history where "it's profitable" was the only justification we sought or needed. Yet as mentioned above, the concept "nationalism" is only one aspect of complete political worldview, although nationalism has been throughout history associated with other values as well.


The broader historical view suggests that we view this not as much as a political change, but a philosophical one: we're moving on from issue-based politics, materialism and individualism, and we're heading toward organic collectivism. The remaining question for a nationalist society involves how it designates ethnic-cultural groups, and how then it decides to structure society to support them.


In current politics, Nationalism is roughly divided into several camps. One of the most prominent are the Nordicists, who argue that the Nordic (and some will say, as Hitler did, the "Nordic-Germanic") strain is the closest we have to the original ethnic-cultural group that emerged from Northern Europe to establish the societies of Greece, India, Rome, Egypt, and so forth. Most historical data supports this assumption, although it's fair to note that, at least according to linguistic derivation, that original group fragmented and diversified rapidly, although retained its core values and beliefs. Nordicists argue that Nordics must be preserved from admixture by (a) other races and (b) other Indo-European ethnic-cultural groups. They do not harbor ill-will toward those other groups, but wish them to each exist as their own nationality, refining themselves through positive breeding as best they can. This is the oldest tradition in nationalism, and it essentially states that the tribes should be separated and work together for common goals, but each must rule itself.


Radically contrasted to the Nordicists are the "Pan-Aryanists" or "White Nationalists," who believe that all things white should exist on the same stratum, and thus we should combine white races and tribes to produce a universal "white culture" which we can then breed toward a higher level. This belief is the most modern form of nationalism, and comes almost exclusively from countries in which a high degree of inter-tribal mixing has already occurred, such as in the United States, Canada, Russia and the UK. The Pan-Aryanists think that anyone of partial Nordic-Germanic-"Aryan" heritage should be included in one giant tribe, and that tribe can approximate its culture from that mix. Admittedly, this is the most pragmatic view in mixed cultures, because to divide the United States, for example, into tribal groups would be easy in some areas (mainly the South) but impossible in others (such as New York, where almost every "white" person is Irish-English-German-Slavic-Italian or some variant thereof). For this reason, American and English neo-Nazi and white nationalist groups almost exclusively adhere to this belief.


For the sake of convenience, I will call these views Tribalism and Demographicism, respectively. The first is called tribal because it believes in the division of tribes, and the second demographic, as it looks practically at how people self-identify in mixed cultures. It's important to note that both are nationalism, although tribalism divides on the basis of race and tribe, where demographicism divides only on the basis of the largest part of ethnic heritage. Tribalists tend to shy away from the idea of mixing relatively pure tribes (Germans, Scandinavians) with tribes already displaying admixture, and there's a good amount of historical data to suggest that their point is valid: once mixed, always mixed, or so history dictates; mixing creates a local culture that cannot return to its original state. Where demographicists have the advantage, of course, is in a modern democracy; if you can unite people by the fact of being "white," it's easier than trying to address individual tribes and then getting them to cooperate.


Also, as is impossible to miss, it's essential that some form of demographicist nationalism exist for those Polish-French-Irish-German-Spanish hybrids in America, the UK, and Canada (as well as the corresponding Germanic-Baltid-Slavic-Mongol hybrids in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Semitic hybrids of the Mediterranean and UK). Without this demographicism, they have the unsteady participation in nationalism of being identified as new mixes, such as "American" or "English," that do not directly describe a single bloodline. But for those who are mostly unmixed, does it make sense to blend their bloodline, especially with hybrids that include non-Indo-European races?


Clearly this is where the Nordicists make the most sense: if you're going to preserve a race, do so by starting with that which is less mixed and work outward toward other strata. For this reason, I'd like to propose a new vision of nationalism, called "Preservationism."


Preservationism not only formulates a more sensible grouping of Nationalists, but also, associates with nationalism a general agenda that not only supports the political needs of nationalism, but the philosophy that allows people to appreciate it. Preservationism includes a form of nationalism, but is not limited to it; however, for practical political purposes, we can call it a type of nationalism. Where Preservation differs from Nordicism is that it is willing to create a Pan-Indo-European group and call it, for lack of a better term, "English"; this applies to all mixed-tribal white people, and separates them from those of relatively pure (3/4 or more) tribal heritage. It differs from Pan-Aryanism/White Nationalism in that it believes in preservation of those relatively unmixed Indo-European groups, and their separation from others.


The reason for this is inherent in the name: unlike most neo-Nazi or White Nationalist groups, Preservationists do not seek to prove that other races are inferior or unfit. They seek instead to assert that their own group needs to be preserved, and the only way to preserve it is through nationalism, including exclusion of all other races and tribes. Further, Preservationists seek to, in the same way the Nazis championed "Blood and Soil," establish a communitarian principle of government; this means, for you who are familiar with leftist language, an impulse toward localization and permanent association of ethnic groups with ancestral land. The reason for this is also derived from the name: Preservationists seek to continue what nature started, and to act in concert with both natural order and Tradition, in the Julius Evola-Rene Guenon-F.W. Nietzsche sense. They recognize that the "progressive" vision of society is Utopian delusion, and seek to restore the only working form of society that has existed, and that is one where humans see themselves and nature as participants in a cosmic order, and thus work toward "ideals," or designs of a higher evolutionary nature - not "new" and "empowering" ideas in government, or politics, or art, but better versions of the eternal philosophical concept that unifies them all.


Preservationists are simultaneously Green, Nationalist, and Localist - this is the essence of communitarian, or community-based, government. A local community defines itself by its land, its culture, and its heritage, in this view. Unlike Pan-Aryanist/White Nationalist views, Preservationism is detached from the implement of modern society - large centralized bureaucracies - and returns to an order by which civilizations develop independently with allegiances only against common enemies. In this, it allows a return of Traditionalist values to Indo-European culture, with these including, among other things, a reverence for cosmic order including the system of karma, by which one moves from a least-evolved state to a highest state of evolution. As karma is conveyed through the vehicle of evolutionary breeding, it is not only a racial hierarchy, but one of castes and individual abilities as well. Unlike Judeo-Christian morality, karma does not posit good or evil, but says that if one lives according to higher ideals, one steadily moves up through the caste system from lowest to highest. This happens over many lives, and could as easily describe the process of selective breeding as some kind of reincarnation. For those who believe that the design of their bodies, including minds, creates their consciousness, the two are roughly convertible concepts.


We cannot undo history. The division of the Indo-European peoples has happened; our technology running roughshod over the world and destroying much has happened; our political failures have occurred and cannot be taken back. What we can do is to start working on what we have now, and to take it to a Traditional state, including caste systems. This requires we take a clue from the Nordicists and, for unmixed tribes of whites, breed them into better versions of what they are: Germans, Scandinavians, Mediterraneans, Slavs, Irish. Mixing the unmixed is destructive, and will accomplish the same destruction of heritage toward which modern society aims. As each group carries in its collective genetic memory the recollection of events and decisions made in the karmic cycle to reach its current position, mixing would obliterate that past and start the entire race of white people off at a lower level. However, for those who are already mixed, giving them a cultural identity - English - and encouraging through selective breeding the refinement of that ideal, will produce - much as it has in Slavs, Irish, Italians - a local culture which will steadily move upward toward greatness.


Furthermore, by associating each group to a local community, we remove the braindead system of centralized bureaucracy and replace it with localization, including environmental protection, as who would poison the land of their ancestors which their children will inherit? This also allows diversification, and the rise of those who are more capable and of better moral character, without lumping us all together and standardizing us to a single level in the same way modernity accomplishes all of its political aims. Pan-Aryanism is modernity; Nordicism is too limited; Preservationism is right. As democracy collapses, and individualism reveals itself to be unfettered selfishness, fascism and nationalism are coming - if we inform ourselves to the degree that we can understand why Preservationism makes sense, we can make nationalism an enduring success instead of another stage in a lugubrious decline.

June 29, 2005
Copyright © 1988-2009 mock Him productions (http://www.anus.com/mock) | Site map (http://www.anus.com/zine/sitemap)

[Crimson Guard]

Preservationism is maybe somewhat more feasible but realistically Europeans(like all humans) outside of the internet(even on forums they infight,lol) unfortunately rarely get along, even amongst eachother within their own nation. The idea of an Aryanism is certainly not the idea of the Nazis. It was primarily put forward as early as in the middle of the 19th century by the French writer and diplomat, Arthur de Gobineau, in his work in four volumes, "Dissertation on the Inequality of the Human Races". That work rapidly became very popular among the German national romantics who made its doctrines a part of the foundation of Aryanism, German Nationalism and Nordicism. However, it was not before the work of the English-German philosopher, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, "The Foundation of the 19th Century", that was published in 1899, that the Aryan idea got the meaning which usually is associated with the German Nazism.


Orientalist and Pan-Germanicist-Aryanist, Arthur de Gobineau is a good example of a deranged person, whom the Nazi's partially copied from:

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/e/eb/Asian_Race_Arthur_de_Gobineau_Race_Definitions.JPG

Green-White Race
Black-Degenerate Races
Blue-Yellow Race
Yellow-Black Race

Under his definitions via his map there, the people of Spain, southern France, parts of Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and a sizable part of Britain, consist of a degenerative race arising from miscegenation, while the rest of Europe(or rather Eurasia is White including Turks).

Gobineau even saw the Jews as being both White and of the Elite Racial types, wheras the Nazi's and most Aryanist or Nordicists of the day did not.



Many Germans or Germanists were some of the worlds leading Orientalists back in the 18th-early 20th century and they didnt all have one unanimous conclusion,lol. John Baker in his book "Race" goes into some detail of the works of some of the authors like Nietzsche, de Gobineau, Grant, de Lapouge, Chamberlain and some others.

Arthur de Gobineau is a good example of a deranged person, whom the Nazi's partially copied from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_de_Gobineau

Aryanism of Nazi Germany was rather strange as well:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/neger.jpg

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/thChiang2.jpg

[Bari]

Aryanism of Nazi Germany was rather strange as well:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/neger.jpg

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/thChiang2.jpg

- Cannon fodder? According to the national-socialist ideology the semitic and African races were not Aryans, although they were obviously accepted to strenghten the German war machine in the middle-east and Africa(?). Much of this co-operation can partly be owed to Haj Amin al-Husseini. The criteria for the Waffen SS and other military groupings became less strict towards the end of the war as well one might add. Besides making Japanese "honorary Aryans" i don't think they softened their views upon other races?

[Zyklop]

Aryanism of Nazi Germany was rather strange as well:

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/neger.jpg

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/thChiang2.jpg
Maybe because it wasn't taken as seriously as Hollywood propaganda wants to make us believe? Here a pic of 'French' POVs that my grand-uncle photographed during WW2:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/Zyklop/WW2/NEGER.jpg

None of them were mistreated or even executed. They were put in French POV camps and received no worse treatment than their French comrades.

[Damião de Góis]

Orientalist and Pan-Germanicist-Aryanist, Arthur de Gobineau is a good example of a deranged person, whom the Nazi's partially copied from:

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/e/eb/Asian_Race_Arthur_de_Gobineau_Race_Definitions.JPG

Green-White Race
Black-Degenerate Races
Blue-Yellow Race
Yellow-Black Race

Under his definitions via his map there, the people of Spain, southern France, parts of Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and a sizable part of Britain, consist of a degenerative race arising from miscegenation, while the rest of Europe(or rather Eurasia is White including Turks).



Do you have a bigger version of the map? I can't see it in detail even if i zoom it.

[Treffie]

Any links to ANUS.com must be taken seriously :rolleyes: :p

[The Lawspeaker]

Any links to ANUS.com must be taken seriously :rolleyes: :p
Hahaha :D I found the article by accident and I thought that it was an interesting read.

[Poltergeist]

Any links to ANUS.com must be taken seriously :rolleyes: :p

Its name says it all.

[Crimson Guard]

Unfortunately no on the map, its from answers.com page on Arthur de Gobineau which I saved a number of years back.

You can argue canon fodder, but then again, Hitler had good relations with Islam. The Waffen SS had Bosnian and Albanian Muslim SS soldiers(granted they sucked though in combat). The Muslim SS soldiers were served food without pork and could pray according to Islamic precept.



http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/arabia2_small.jpg

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/mufti.jpg

http://www.ummofiles.com/POMAGALSKY/illustrations/grand_mufti1.jpg

[Bari]

Unfortunately no on the map, its from answers.com page on Arthur de Gobineau which I saved a number of years back.

You can argue canon fodder, but then again, Hitler had good relations with Islam. The Waffen SS had Bosnian and Albanian Muslim SS soldiers(granted they sucked though in combat). The Muslim SS soldiers were served food without pork and could pray according to Islamic precept.



http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/arabia2_small.jpg

http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu253/Tyranos/mufti.jpg

http://www.ummofiles.com/POMAGALSKY/illustrations/grand_mufti1.jpg

- Anyway interesting reading, regardless of how the Nazis perceived Asians/Africans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7GdviIsjQ

[Stefan]

Hello everybody. I just want to explain how you can become and stay pure white by stating 10 facts. You can mention your own, though they must be correct or you aren't pure white.

1. Germanics are always Nordic/White. The ones that don't look Nordic are a product of miscegenation with the lesser races of Iberia, Greece, and Turkey.

2. Italy is the most southern Nordic/White country. Here is a map of it. That is if you never heard of it, and if you haven't then you probably aren't pure white and evil. Toward the south of the map there is some mix racing with the South Italians(who are part greek by the way and it isn't part of italy), but they don't count. Italy is still Nordic.

http://www.pasta-recipes-made-easy.com/images/Northern_Italy_Map.gif

3. Southern France isn't as Nordic as Northern France. I'll tell you why in the next part.

4. The reason why Southern France is less pure white and less Nordic than Northern France is because they mixed with those nasty swarthy Hispanics. The Hispanics are evil swarths that eat the souls of the pure whites. Don't go near them. Blonde Hispanics cause car accidents, and are extremely dangerous. They may look blonde and pale on the outside, but inside they are Negros. Actually they are worse than Negros. Oh maybe I should take "Negro" out of my vocabulary, it is a hispanic word after all.....

It is easy to stay away from Blonde hispanics because there is only 10 of them.

5. Some non pure whites may try to trick you by mentioning that Nordic is a geographical description of a certain area of Northern Europe, and not a people, but they are just trying to mix with you so they can be pure White. Ignore their pleads.

6. Most European-Americans(Doesn't include the lesser races) are by default pure white. It doesn't matter if they are swarthier than every European lesser race alive, they automatically count as pure-white or in better words Nordic.

7. Native Americans if mixed with a White are also pure white( or at least whiter than the lesser races of Hispania, Greece, and Turkey.) If somebody tells you they are partially or fully mongoloid, they are probably not pure white and want to mix with you so they can be pure white.

8. Mixing with one of the lesser races is the equivalent of mixing with a Negro. In some cases even worse. If you do mix with them, you forfeit your pure whiteness.

9. All of the lesser races wish they were pure white, so they will try to mix with you. Do NOT let them. You'll taint your genes. They might try to pull of some trickery by showing you genetic tests that prove them as European, but the people that find the results are probably not pure white themselves.

10. In some cases mixing with a lesser race is worse than mixing with a Jew. Jews a lot of the time look Nordic so they are probably pure white. It doesn't matter if they have some ancestors from the middle east, they are white because their skin is white and their eyes are blue and their hair blonde. Sephardic jews don't count here, because they mixed with Spaniards.


So there it is. Follow these rules, and maybe you can be as pure white as Americans/Germans or even better Italians(excluding Western Greece- Lesser Races try to make it part of Italy, but clearly from the map they aren't part of Italy).



This is a parody and exaggeration on a few things I've read/heard from various people and sources, not all of them on this forum. Don't take it seriously.

[Psychonaut]

*sniff sniff*

Is that some Nordish envy I smell?

[Stefan]

*sniff sniff*

Is that some Nordish envy I smell?

Envy? Of course. How can you not be envious when discussing the greatest people to ever live -- pure Whites. If only my Paternal Grandparents weren't half Spanish. I could have been pure too. :( No matter how hard I try though, I will never be White. I'm just a mix bred swarthy.

[Sol Invictus]

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3235&stc=1&d=1259480563

[Wulfhere]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Queen Gertrude, Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2.

[Fred]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Queen Gertrude, Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2.Queen Gertrude, are you sure that the shoe is on the right foot, per your reference?

[lei.talk]

Originally Posted by Ontological Cartographer http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145457#post145457)
*sniff sniff*

Is that some Nordish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race) envy I smell?

Originally Posted by s993 http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145464#post145464)
Envy? Of course.
How can one not be envious when discussing the greatest people to ever live -- pure Whites.
If only my Paternal Grandparents weren't half Spanish. I could have been pure too. :(
No matter how hard I try though, I will never be White.
I'm just a mix bred swarthy.your life need not be meaningless:
live for the future!


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Backcrossing_mice_from_chimera.svg/450px-Backcrossing_mice_from_chimera.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcrossing#Animals)


with several generations of care-full up-breeding,
your descendants could be admissible
in to the march of the titans (http://www.white-history.com/).

:nod:

[Stefan]

[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="4"][FONT="Arial"]the march of the titans (http://www.white-history.com/).

:nod:[/right]

See that link confirms that the Spanish(and Portuguese) population is all a mix bred moorland who hide under the facade of Christianity. How dare my Moorish father mix with my Nordic mother. Only lesser raced people(like myself) would say that they are similar racially and have the same pigmentation.

http://www.white-history.com/hwr22.htm

Teaches you everything you need to know about the Iberians. Remember, Genetic data that says otherwise doesn't count because it is the lesser races that find this data. Genetic data that proves this point right though, is true, because how could it not be?

Edit:

Moor mixed Spaniard

http://www.white-history.com/hwr22_files/95b.jpeg

Pure White Royal Spaniard
http://www.white-history.com/hwr22_files/95a.jpeg

As you can see, the population is mixed and all Iberians used to be that White. Today the whole Iberian population with the exception of a few hundred look like that first mix bred guy.

[Amapola]

Envy? how can a parody of this dimension result in a "this is envy" instead of "what a bunch of twats and chauvinistic ignorant white-nordicists are". :D

For God's sake!

[Stefan]

Maybe this thread would have had a better effect if I changed my name, profile picture, and deleted my ancestry. :D

[Comte Arnau]

Because thinking others are envious of you is part of every decent supremacist feeling.

[Amapola]

The thread will have a good effect for those whose brains still have a few neurons working ;)

[Anthropos]

Envy? how can a parody of this dimension result in a "this is envy" instead of "what a bunch of twats and chauvinistic ignorant white-nordicists are". :D

For God's sake!

"You completely forgot that God is just an invention of Abraham, the Semite :shakefist and Monotheistic :grumpy: philosopher , whose descendants have corrupted the Superbly Intelligent Polytheists' minds with Universalism :(, which is the cause of the Racial Tragedy." :lie:

[Absinthe]

Maybe this thread would have had a better effect if I changed my name, profile picture, and deleted my ancestry. :D
Actually if you posted this as Arthur Kemp I'm pretty sure that most would buy it as his own ;)

[Loki]

The thread will have a good effect for those whose brains still have a few neurons working ;)

The best part of it all is that some wouldn't be able to recognise it's a parody. ;)

[chap]

There's white, then very white, then there's Bill Gates

http://i48.tinypic.com/2q3durq.jpg

[Kadu]

The best part of it all is that some wouldn't be able to recognise it's a parody. ;)


No, no, the best part is that they're not even "Nordish".:cool:

[Cato]

Uhh...

[Stefan]

Uhh...

Did I miss something? :D Like I said, you guys can add to the rules. :P

Edit: Maybe I should make a group for "pure whites" only. Of course right after I make the group I would have to get kicked out because I'm not pure. :D

[Amapola]

I think "pure white" would be a collocation in English language from now on ;)

[Jamt]

The swartzis are restless

[Inese]

Hm very funny Stefan:blah: Do you think it is good to make fun of the views of other people?? Or is it your coping method to get along with the unattractive and mixed visage you have to see every day in your mirrors Mister Germanic-Celtic-Iberian-Romance-What ever with hook nose?? :rolleyes2:

[Falkata]

Hm very funny Stefan:blah: Do you think it is good to make fun of the views of other people?? Or is it your coping method to get along with the unattractive and mixed visage you have to see every day in your mirrors Mister Germanic-Celtic-Iberian-Romance-What ever with hook nose?? :rolleyes2:

Insult members in the forum because of their looks is very unrespectful in my opinion.
I dont know about his supposed "hooked nose" , but if you want some info

" The nasal profiles of some 120,000 Spaniards are convex in 15 per cent of cases, straight in 72 per cent, and concave in 13 per cent." (Coon, The races of Europe 1939)

[Bari]

....
2. Italy is the most southern Nordic/White country. Here is a map of it. That is if you never heard of it, and if you haven't then you probably aren't pure white and evil. Toward the south of the map there is some mix racing with the South Italians(who are part greek by the way and it isn't part of italy), but they don't count. Italy is still Nordic.


- Wrong, Stefan! Albania is the most nordic country of Southern Europe. We are like Scandinavians compared to other southerners.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5219/20071107114802iglitare.jpg
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7813/img01su.jpg
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/168/vajzatekuqesized.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1158/matildamecini2vi.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2848/3432523.jpg

We mostly have to dye our hair darker and wear contacts to avoid envy from our neighbour countries:(

Hair color in Albania:

Blond/light brown/red: 75%
medium brown: 20%
Dark Brown/Black: 5%

Eye Color:

Blue/Green: 55%
Hazel/mixed: 29%
Brown: 16%

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4746/3523534342343.jpg

:cool:

[Anthropos]

Actually if you posted this as Arthur Kemp I'm pretty sure that most would buy it as his own ;)

:icon_yell: "Yes, despite the fact that this is a fraud, it has become valuable in its own right. Let's make use of it. There's no such thing as 'truth' anyway. 'Truth' is only the invention of Abraham, the Semite and Monotheistic philosopher , who infiltrated Europe and spread the cancer of Universalism, the cause of the Racial Tragedy and the Antithesis of Preservation, among the Superbly Intelligent Pure Nordic Polytheists."

[Horka Ozul]

This is the biggest load of crap I read in a long time. What's with all this clowning on Apricity?

[Cato]

Hm very funny Stefan:blah: Do you think it is good to make fun of the views of other people?? Or is it your coping method to get along with the unattractive and mixed visage you have to see every day in your mirrors Mister Germanic-Celtic-Iberian-Romance-What ever with hook nose?? :rolleyes2:

I'm sorry that we all can't be pure Hyperboreans like you my dear... :( I feel very bad about having a short skull (rather than a long Nordid skull) when I see my face in the mirror each day as I shave my stout face with its short nose, jowls and heavy brow.

http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/english_bulldog.jpg
Woof.

[Absinthe]

This is the biggest load of crap I read in a long time. What's with all this clowning on Apricity?
I believe the little dude was being humorous. We all need to lighten up a bit :eyes

[Eldritch]

I believe the little dude was being humorous. We all need to lighten up a bit :eyes

Haven't people read his disclaimer?

[Absinthe]

Haven't people read his disclaimer?
Maybe people are always reading what they want to read? :p

[Henry]

Hm very funny Stefan:blah: Do you think it is good to make fun of the views of other people?? Or is it your coping method to get along with the unattractive and mixed visage you have to see every day in your mirrors Mister Germanic-Celtic-Iberian-Romance-What ever with hook nose?? :rolleyes2:

I agree. I think they're using "humor" to try and mask their disappointment because they know its futile to keep denying whats so true and obvious. They realize its all a lost cause so might as well make a joke out of it to lessen their disappointed feelings about it.

[Stefan]

Hm very funny Stefan:blah: Do you think it is good to make fun of the views of other people?? Or is it your coping method to get along with the unattractive and mixed visage you have to see every day in your mirrors Mister Germanic-Celtic-Iberian-Romance-What ever with hook nose?? :rolleyes2:

You know I don't have a problem with Nordicism at all. I think if people want to preserve Nordish races I'm fine with it. What I do have a problem with is people making up lies and finding wrong information to support their cause, and a lot of the time that is the case with what I would called "Whitists". I say "Whitist" because they focus more on pigmentation, while a Nordicist would focus on the whole set, including facial features. Also, I found some double standards where some countries in Southern Europe were "White" or "Nordic" while others were not. Basically though, this was all good fun, and please don't take it seriously.

As for my nose, let me just tell you that it isn't from my Southern European ancestry. My Father ,the swarthy quarter-moor :P, has a wide Berid/Cro-Magnoid nose as does my Aunt and Grandmother. My Grandfather has a straight nose that is common among Meds and Nordids. So it definitely comes from my Mom's side which has quite a bit of high bridged convexed noses. Even then, I wouldn't consider my nose to be specifically "hooked". Actually if I go find that picture comparing all the features of each individual race, it was most similar(in shape) to Western-Nordics(Keltic Nordic). :P

I believe that picture is in this thread, but it isn't showing up for some reason.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4045



I agree. I think they're using "humor" to try and mask their disappointment because they know its futile to keep denying whats so true and obvious. They realize its all a lost cause so might as well make a joke out of it to lessen their disappointed feelings about it.

It is futile, but not for the reason you've posted.

[Cato]

Nordid ad naseum? What the fuck are you people talking about anyways? Do you all have taxonomy books that you pour over when you look at yourself in the mirror and say (after seeing a pretty picture), "OH SHIT THIS TALL, LONG-LIMBED STATUESQUE BLONDE WITH THE BLUE EYES, LONG SKULL AND STRAIGHT NOSE IS SO ME!"

Then you'll see someone that doesn't quite measure up to your standards of PURE WHITE and say, basically but in a roundabout manner, that he's a burr-headed, big-lipped swarthy sambo. LOL!

Sorry, I just think it's putridly funny how people try to classify themselves in a broad context beyond SELF.

[Lars]

WTF is going on here? Nordic Italians? Nordic Jews?

Oh, it's comedy.

The Hispanics are evil swarths that eat the souls of the pure whites. Don't go near them. Blonde Hispanics cause car accidents, and are extremely dangerous


5. Some non pure whites may try to trick you by mentioning that Nordic is a geographical description of a certain area of Northern Europe, and not a people, but they are just trying to mix with you so they can be pure White. Ignore their pleads.

It is a certain area of Northern Europe. Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Being racial it's Scandinavia and people who lives close to the Baltic Sea. Northen Germany, Poland. Estland, Latvia and Lithuania.

[Falkata]

WTF is going on here? Nordic Italians? Nordic Jews?

Oh, it's comedy.




It is a certain area of Northern Europe. Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Being racial it's Scandinavia and people who lives close to the Baltic Sea. Northen Germany, Poland. Estland, Latvia and Lithuania.

Poland Nordic? :eek: Have you ever been there?

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6751/poland21024x768.jpg

[Stefan]

WTF is going on here? Nordic Italians? Nordic Jews?

Oh, it's comedy.

While it is comedy, there is a basis for it. While these people are not as drastic about these ideas that I made it sound, there are those who do think this, but to a much lesser degree, or at least I hope. :D



It is a certain area of Northern Europe. Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Being racial it's Scandinavia and people who lives close to the Baltic Sea. Northen Germany, Poland. Estland, Latvia and Lithuania.

Yep, just a little part of my joke as well. I'm sure most people do know what the Nordic countries are. It seems many people want to be Nordid racially though, for whatever reason......


Poland Nordic? :eek: Have you ever been there?


From the heavy diaspora where I live -- 9/10 people who live here are at least partially polish -- it seems that there are many groups including Nordid of the Eastern form. I've seen the most common groups to be Norids and Sub-Nordids though. Pigmentation-wise most people have medium colored eyes(green/light brown) and light-medium brown hair.

[Lars]

Poland Nordic? :eek: Have you ever been there?

Yes. I think the northen part of Poland to Estland basically everyone have narrow noses, blue(many green) eyes and blond hair.

[Falkata]

From the heavy diaspora where I live -- 9/10 people who live here are at least partially polish -- it seems that there are many groups including Nordid of the Eastern form. I've seen the most common to groups be Norids and Sub-Nordids though.

From what I´ve seen in Cracow, Warsaw and Poznan and also the ones that i know living in my city, the majority of them are medium brown haired- light eyed and round faces are very common. It´s true that there are an important representation of nordish types too, norids and subnordids specially as you say.
I wouldn´t call Poland a nordic country at all

[Henry]

Poland Nordic? :eek: Have you ever been there?

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6751/poland21024x768.jpg

There you again Falkata. Jealously trying to drag Europeans who are more pure white than you down to your level. You just cant stand to see other Europeans being more pure white than Spaniards can you?

[Falkata]

There you again Falkata. Jealously trying to drag Europeans who are more pure white than you down to your level. You just cant stand to see other Europeans being more pure white than Spaniards can you?

Post your pic like the others who are talking here. If not, move away retarded

[Stefan]

There you again Falkata. Jealously trying to drag Europeans who are more pure white than you down to your level. You just cant stand to see other Europeans being more pure white than Spaniards can you?

You need to read the OP again. Hispanics are vicious, stay away from them, or they will warp your mind into thinking they are pure. :P

[Henry]

Post your pic like the others who are talking here. If not, move away retarded

Swarthy Spaniard, it doesnt say anywhere in the forum rules that everyone has to post their pic on here

[Falkata]

Yes. I think the northen part of Poland to Estland basically everyone have narrow noses, blue(many green) eyes and blond hair.

In my opinion, and based on what I´ve seen, Netherlands is way nordic (and "blonder" too) than Poland by far and i think you didnt mention it

[Falkata]

Swarthy Spaniard, it doesnt say anywhere in the forum rules that everyone has to post their pic on here

That´s because you are far from being nordic and you are ashamed of yourself. Dont worry, the whole forum already know about your inferiority complex. But stay in your thread and dont fuck the rest of the forum , retarded ;)

[Henry]

That´s because you are far from being nordic and you are ashamed of yourself. Dont worry, the whole forum already know about your inferiority complex. But stay in your thread and dont fuck the rest of the forum , retarded ;)

And theres a thread for you, the one about minarets. You should know all about minarets since Spain was occupied by Muslims for 700 years.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/Islam%20map1.jpg

[Falkata]

And theres a thread for you, the one about minarets. You should know all about minarets since Spain was occupied by Muslims for 700 years.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/Islam%20map1.jpg

I´m not that old, I was born in 1985 :(

[Stefan]

Henry, this isn't " Are Iberians as white as other Europeans" II. You already have a thread for that. This is discussing the rules on being White for (y)our White Nationalism, and White Empire . =} Hispanics aren't pure white here, so don't argue about that. :P

[Lars]

In my opinion, and based on what I´ve seen, Netherlands is way nordic (and "blonder" too) than Poland by far and i think you didnt mention it

Yeah. Also, those three cities are located in the central or south in Poland. I meant around the Baltic sea. Closer to the coast line.

[Falkata]

Yeah. Also, those three cities are located in the central or south in Poland. I meant around the Baltic sea. Closer to the coast line.

Ok, you have a point here. I wasn´t there and i dont know people from that area

[Svipdag]

Inese is a German. One thing which you will discover about Germans, the more of them you get to know, is that few of them have a sense of humour.
I must hasten to add that those few are delightful.

However, altogether too many Germans are grimly serious and take everything seriously, to such an extent that they do not recognise humour when they see it or understand it, if they chance to realise that it is intended to be amusing.

As to whether, as Inese inquired, it is good to make fun of other people's views, YES, it surely is, if their views are ignorant and/or stupid. Not that I think that you will, but, don't for a moment let her intimidate you.

I have enjoyed all of your posts. BRAVO ! and keep up the good work.

[Cato]

This thread isn't serious? ;)

[Stefan]

Too bad I can't sing this song. I'm not pure enough. :cry2

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QwdqlkVNfSU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QwdqlkVNfSU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

:P

[Amapola]

Swarthy Spaniard, it doesnt say anywhere in the forum rules that everyone has to post their pic on here

Stop calling swarthy "someone who is probable whiter than you".
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/1816/n7682261361540326706979.jpg

:lol00002:

[Amapola]

There you again Falkata. Jealously trying to drag Europeans who are more pure white than you down to your level. You just cant stand to see other Europeans being more pure white than Spaniards can you?

Nahhh... you are talking to yourself, and you know that very well. :D

[Amapola]

Hm very funny Stefan:blah:
Hmmm, indeed ad funny as the another thread, ;)


Do you think it is good to make fun of the views of other people??
It could be, in case they were opinions instead of nonsense stated as absolute.


Or is it your coping method to get along with the unattractive and mixed visage you have to see every day in your mirrors Mister Germanic-Celtic-Iberian-Romance-What ever with hook nose?? :rolleyes2:

Apparently, your racial pride doesn't seem to make you very emotionally stable given you have to reinforce yourself by insulting others. Bad, bad... I would not like to be in your place. what is wrong there?

[Stefan]

Apparently, your racial pride doesn't seem to make you very emotionally stable given you have to reinforce yourself by insulting others. Bad, bad... I would not like to be in your place. what is wrong there?

Don't worry, Arawn has it covered.
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=146343#post146343

It made me lol considering her criticism of my nose earlier as well as something I could see somebody obssesive over these things doing, though not with an 'iron' of course.

[Majar]

Nordics aren't more "pure," than anyone else. They're just rare & very beautiful mutants. :wink

[Wulfhere]

I agree totally. Just because one race is more intelligent, attractive and civilised than another doesn't make it "better" in an abstract, philosophical sense.

[Jäger]

This thread is a good presentation of the insecurities of Americans, and their success in infecting Europeans with this as well.
I couldn't care less if Americans or Poles, etc. think Germany is a swarthy Negro mix, I know my people, and I do not see any point in proving their worth to foreigners.

[Cato]

This thread is a good presentation of the insecurities of Americans, and their success in infecting Europeans with this as well. I couldn't care less if Americans or Poles, etc. think Germany is a swarthy Negro mix, I know my people, and I do not see any point in proving their worth to foreigners.

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/worried-1.jpg

This is so me when I post on the forum.

[Jäger]

This is so me when I post on the forum.
Luckily you have me to transform you into this:
http://www.informationen-bilder.de/der-herr-der-ringe/frodo-auenland.jpg

[Allenson]

This thread is a good presentation of the insecurities of Americans, and their success in infecting Europeans with this as well.

Oh really? After reading this comment, I went through the whole thread and focused on the Americans posting in it.

Myself included, there have been seven Americans who've posted in this thread--only one of whom seems to display some racial insecurity. The original poster started the thread in jest and the others have followed suit.

Yawn.

:coffee:

[Jäger]

Oh really?
Yes, really.


After reading this comment, I went through the whole thread and focused on the Americans posting in it.
I did not reduce these insecurities to Americans. However, the whole concept of being "white" is traditionally of less concern to Europeans.


.. one of whom seems to display some racial insecurity.
You are the second with your reaction to my remark :D

[Brynhild]

Oh really? After reading this comment, I went through the whole thread and focused on the Americans posting in it.

Myself included, there have been seven Americans who've posted in this thread--only one of whom seems to display some racial insecurity. The original poster started the thread in jest and the others have followed suit.

Yawn.

:coffee:

Reminds me of the below quote:


One thing which you will discover about Germans, the more of them you get to know, is that few of them have a sense of humour.
I must hasten to add that those few are delightful.

However, altogether too many Germans are grimly serious and take everything seriously, to such an extent that they do not recognise humour when they see it or understand it, if they chance to realise that it is intended to be amusing.

Some people need to grow a spine, along with a sense of humour. From the moment I read Stefan's opening line, I knew it was in jest. If we can't take the piss out of ourselves, we have no right to take the piss out of anybody else! Some people also need to stop dumping their inferiority complex baggage onto the rest of us!

[Stefan]

How to trick people into thinking you are pure White, using the mixed breed that is me as an example:

Step 1: Exfoliate my skin(with a knife :eek:) until I'm as pink as I was when I was a baby. No tanned skin should be left. If it doesn't work then I think I will have to turn to bleach or skin whitening products from the Indians down the street. If I want to look especially American then I need to get a spray on orange tan so it looks like I can't really tan and therefore I'm not a mixed breed.

Step 2: Dye my hair to light brown or blonde. Try to make it look as natural as possible. If that doesn't work, shave my head bald.

Step 3: Get that eye surgery that was discussed about in one of the recent threads. Either that, or just use color contacts, but I have to make sure they don't fall out and nobody sees me without them. That means risking damage or infection to my eyes, but who cares I'll be White even if I am blind. :D

Step 5: Adopt my maternal Grandfather's surname. I want people to think I'm uber-germanic. :P My first name(also my username) is already Germanic in deviation so that is good.

The final product, if it goes well, is a peripherial Norid type or maybe Keltic Nordid if my features become more defined as I grow older - since my subrace is Dinarid. Plastic surgery is also an option. ;)

If it doesn't go well(I.E Michael Jackson), then I guess I will have to commit suicide. :eek: I'm dedicated here, fail(ure) isn't an option. :cool:

Also, if it does work, I can only wait until there is a way to choose what genes are passed on to have children or don't have any. That way I can be certain any "Blonde-Blue eyed super duper pure white" genes I may pass on are used in my children and all moor-swarth genes are left out. :P

*This differs depending on the person's original appearance. For some it is easy, and for other's who differ too much it is almost imposible. You must have at least mostly White ancestry which only comes from Northern Europe(everywhere in Europe excluding Iberia, Greece, West Greece[southern italy], and a few other countries)



Edit: My envy for pure whites runs deep. That is just my nature as a mix breed though.

[lei.talk]

Quoth Det Nordiske Råd™approved Nordic http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/kiddo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145639#post145639)

the march of the titans (http://www.white-history.com/)

Quoth the aspirant mongrel http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/kiddo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=145749#post145749)
See! That link confirms that the Spanish(and Portuguese) population is all a mix bred moorland who hide under the facade of Christianity. How dare my Moorish father mix with my Nordic mother. Only lesser raced people(like myself) would say that they are similar racially and have the same pigmentation.

Genetic Evidence of Racial Mixing in Spain (http://www.white-history.com/spain.htm) [Fixed!]

Genetic Evidence of Racial Mixing in Portugal (http://www.white-history.com/portugal.htm) [Fixed!]

Teaches you everything you need to know about the Iberians. Remember, Genetic data that says otherwise doesn't count because it is the lesser races that find this data. Genetic data that proves this point right though, is true, because how could it not be?

Edit:

Moor mixed Spaniard

http://www.white-history.com/hwr22_files/95b.jpeg

Pure White Royal Spaniard
http://www.white-history.com/hwr22_files/95a.jpeg

As you can see, the population is mixed and all Iberians used to be that White. Today the whole Iberian population with the exception of a few hundred look like that first mix bred guy.


Haven't people read his disclaimer?

Caveat:
It is important to bear in mind that these results
do not imply that all modern Spanish/Portuguese are of mixed origin.

- Arthur Kemp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kemp)
*

[Loki]

I hope you are joking lei.talk. Arthur Kemp is as much an authority on Iberian history as Britney Spears is on quantum theory.

[Kadu]

I hope you are joking lei.talk. Arthur Kemp is as much an authority on Iberian history as Britney Spears is on quantum theory.

BTW, have i ever told you that Arthur Kemp looks quite Iberian.:D

[Inese]

Inese is a German. One thing which you will discover about Germans, the more of them you get to know, is that few of them have a sense of humour.
I must hasten to add that those few are delightful.
Sorry but hello!?? :confused: I am not German, i am Latvian. I am only 1/4 German and live in Germany now :nod

However, altogether too many Germans are grimly serious and take everything seriously, to such an extent that they do not recognise humour when they see it or understand it, if they chance to realise that it is intended to be amusing.
German people have humor but it is not like British humor. You know, very many German comedians are on the TV and Mario Barth fills halls with 50.000 or more people!!

As to whether, as Inese inquired, it is good to make fun of other people's views, YES, it surely is, if their views are ignorant and/or stupid.
What is wrong or ignorant or stupid is different for every person. I think that people who make fun of Nordicism are ignorant and wrong

[Wulfhere]

German people have humor

:lol00002::lol00002::lol00002:

[Treffie]

German people have humor but it is not like British humor. You know, very many German comedians are on the TV and Mario Barth fills halls with 50.000 or more people!!


Yes, full of Germans most probably. I think Germans are quite funny for not having the same sense of humour as us, so I don't think it's the fact that Germans don't have a sense of humour at all.

@ Stefan, most of us here are laughing with you and not at you for posting this hilarious thread - all that matters is that you could be accepted as a native in western Europe - who needs America anyway? :p

[Jäger]

My envy for pure whites runs deep.
"If I want to be funny I speak the truth" (George Bernard Shaw)

[Stefan]

Yes, full of Germans most probably. I think Germans are quite funny for not having the same sense of humour as us, so I don't think it's the fact that Germans don't have a sense of humour at all.

@ Stefan, most of us here are laughing with you and not at you for posting this hilarious thread - all that matters is that you could be accepted as a native in western Europe - who needs America anyway? :p

Well you know, according to one of my rules if you are part Native Amerindian you are more pure than a lesser race. Some people think I'm partially Amerindian on here and that I look it so I might be closer to pure White than I thought. :D Though I think I should revise the rule, you are only allowed to be pure White if that amerindian ancestry comes from the United States. :rolleyes:

[Stefan]

"If I want to be funny I speak the truth" (George Bernard Shaw)

I like that quote. It fits the post you quoted very well. I'm just trying to hide my true intentions by joking about them so everybody doesn't take me seriously but in reality I am really jealous of the Pure Whites and this thread is just bitter evidence of that. I mean how can you not be jealous of pure whites? They a pure and white and pale and stuff. \ I look at my mom and her family all the time and think "why did she mix with my Moorish father to create another mix breed like me." After that I go to sleep so I forget everything so I don't commit suicide. Then when a person tells me that I am part Amerindian I feel happy because maybe just maybe this allows my Moor ancestry to be replaced by Amerindian. Because you know Amerindians are more White according to the official rules. Being 1/16th Cherokee is better than being 1/16th Spaniard, Greek, or West Greek. Didn't you know?

[Brännvin]

Southern Europeans are Wogs, get it and live with it the rest are loads of bullshitt!

[Eldritch]

Southern Europeans are Wogs, get it and live with it the rest are loads of bullshitt!

Oh come on now Bränn, what was the point of this outburst? :rolleyes:

http://ingar.blogg.no/images/kvalitet_fra_sverige_1153249857.jpg

[Brynhild]

Southern Europeans are Wogs, get it and live with it the rest are loads of bullshitt!

LOL you're telling us something that we already know!

[MarcvSS]

Oh come on now Bränn, what was the point of this outburst? :rolleyes:

http://ingar.blogg.no/images/kvalitet_fra_sverige_1153249857.jpg

I dont now what wog means, but I've got an idea what is means. If my assumption is correct I agree with Bränn...

[Eldritch]

I dont now what wog means, but I've got an idea what is means. If my assumption is correct I agree with Bränn...

Basically, it means any non-European, especially Asian, person.

Or, if you ask certain English people, anyone to the east and south of Calais. :p

[MarcvSS]

Basically, it means any non-European, especially Asian, person.

Or, if you ask certain English people, anyone to the east and south of Calais. :pThen my assumption was correct...

[Brännvin]

Wogs are dark skinned southern Europeans and middle eastern people :P :D. In some cases, Negroes also are include.

[Stefan]

Southern Europeans are Wogs, get it and live with it the rest are loads of bullshitt!

Well not all Southern Europeans. Actually only Iberians, Western Greeks, non displaced Greeks, and Turks. Everybody else is more white. :p

[lei.talk]

I hope you are joking (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=146667#post146667) lei.talk.

Arthur Kemp is as much an authority on Iberian history
as Britney Spears is on quantum theory.need britney spears be "an authority" on the subject
as long as she can copy&paste relevant information
from peer-reviewed journals to the topic

with the understanding that she originated none of the details
and is presenting the research and discoveries of others
who are - in fact - truly authorities on the subject?
*

[Loki]

need britney spears be "an authority" on the subject
as long as she can copy&paste relevant information
from peer-reviewed journals to the topic


Yes I think so ... the right information in the wrong hands can be very misleading. Anyone can obtain snippets from peer-reviewed journals and selectively quote them out of context in order to push an agenda. Britney Spears is likely to be a big "fail". ;)

[Phil75231]

Oh, don't worry about your lack of pure whiteness, Stefan :D

When you start feeling obligated to look up to pure Nordics who look down on you for the simple reason that you have non-Nordic blood in you and they don't

OR

You truly believe that only the idiotic, moronoic, retarded faction of non-whites or non-pure whites (barring nordic-amerind mixes, as you said) would NOT burn with jealousy toward pure nordic whites (as in to the point of spontaneous self-combustion) ...

Just remember the immortal words of Dr. Leonard Jefferies, head of New York University's African American Studies Department:

"Whites are The Ice People! Savage and violent because of their lack of skin melanin".
"Whites are cold and logical, Blacks are warm and intuitive"

So yes, it's true! There IS a direct causal connection between the type and density of skin melanin and the neurological architecture of the brain. Therefore, be proud that you're not one of the Savage, violent, cold, logical "Ice People".

But unfortunately, YOU aren't peaceful, civilized, warm, and intuitive enough to be a truly dignified person, Stefan :( . You have too much of that nordic blood in you.

[Stefan]

But unfortunately, YOU aren't peaceful, civilized, warm, and intuitive enough to be a truly dignified person, Stefan :( . You have too much of that nordic blood in you.

As is the hindrance of a mixed-racial. ;) Now I wish I wasn't such a savage "like-whitey" and that I was African!!!!:tongue

[Tabiti]

Stefan, why are you so obsessed with that "pure whiteness" idea?
You don't look "pure white" to certain people, so what? You would never convince them in the opposite as they can't change your ancestry.

[The Ripper]

"White" is a pretty useless label.

Those who debate on the 'pureness' or 'whiteness' of people are generally racial materialists and modernists who suffer from the same disease as other egalitarians.

[Stefan]

Stefan, why are you so obsessed with that "pure whiteness" idea?
You don't look "pure white" to certain people, so what? You would never convince them in the opposite as they can't change your ancestry.

Obsessed? :( Is that what I was coming off as. I should reconstruct my writing style and topic frequency then as that is definitely not what I am going for. As for caring about what other's think about my ancestry or "whiteness" I'm long past that stage as I really don't find any appeal in being "White" nor do I really care what people who can't go out of their way to educate themselves, on a matter they feel like speaking about, think. That is their problem and most surely not mine, as I know what I am and what I am not. I do agree I sure can't convince them, and they sure can't change my ancestry.

[SuuT]

*Subscribed in expectation of profound douchebaggery.

[Lars]

Stefan must be unsure of his own parentage or ashamed of it as he tries to appear more Nordic or 'white'.
This thread is sad and silly.

[Stefan]

Stefan must be unsure of his own parentage or ashamed of it as he tries to appear more Nordic or 'white'.
This thread is sad and silly.

:confused::confused: Really I didn't know I thought like that? Maybe a subconscious thought? :D



Some interesting opinions or rather observations(whether they are deviant from the truth or not) are coming out after this thread was bumped. I don't know how it turned out to be a thread about me wanting to be Nordic or White.

[Brännvin]

Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself...

[Northern_Paladin]

Lebensborn (Fount of Life, in antiquated German) was a Nazi organization set up by SS leader Heinrich Himmler, which provided maternity homes and financial assistance to the wives of SS members and to unmarried mothers, and which also ran orphanages and relocation programmes for children.

Initially set up in Germany in 1935, Lebensborn expanded into occupied countries in western and northern Europe during the Second World War. In line with the racial and eugenic policies of Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn programme was restricted to individuals who were deemed to be "biologically fit" and "racially pure", "Aryans", and to SS members. In occupied countries, thousands of women facing social ostracism because they were in relationships with German soldiers and had become pregnant, had few alternatives other than applying for help with Lebensborn.

After World War II it was reported that Lebensborn was a breeding programme. While individuals were not forced to have sex with selected partners[1], the programme did aim to promote the growth of "superior" Aryan populations through providing excellent health care and by restricting access to the programme with medical selections that applied eugenic and "race" criteria.

During the war, Lebensborn also processed the adoptions by German families of children from occupied northern and eastern Europe, mostly orphans. At the Nuremberg Trials no evidence was found of direct involvement by the Lebensborn organisation in the kidnapping of thousands of Polish children who were subjected to "Germanisation" by sending them to re-education camps and fostering them out to German families. This project, also directed by Himmler, was carried out by other segments of the Nazi bureaucracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

[Jarl]

Plus it was a cunning way of facilitating mass-breeding of German males to Norwegian, Danish and Dutch women on occupied territories.

[W. R.]

Heinrich, not Heinreich! Grammar Nazis are in deep dudgeon.

[Tabiti]

As what I heard Lebensborn was in fact a program for carrying pregnant women, not breeding one.

[Jarl]

Yeah. They did not literally breed in there like some animals. But Lebensborn facilitated breedings of Germans to women from occupied countries.

[Svanhild]

Plus it was a cunning way of facilitating mass-breeding of German males to Norwegian, Danish and Dutch women on occupied territories.
The attendance was voluntary. Interested women could submit an application but the decision of permit or refusal was in the hands of Lebensborn senior staff.

[Jarl]

Was invasion, occupation and shipment of horny German men also "voluntary"? ;)


could submit an application

Would you fill one in.... with me? :love_4: :P

[Svanhild]

Would you fill one in.... with me? :love_4: :P
Poles were only needed as back staff for agriculture and industry works. :cool:

[Jarl]

Poles were only needed as back staff for agriculture and industry works. :cool:

yeah, thats what Im talking about! lets make an agricultural experiment! ...you know... bess and flowers... :p

[W. R.]

Poles were only needed as back staff for agriculture and industry works. :cool:But Mr. Himmler was fond of the idea of assimilating Nordids of other nations by Germans, wasn't he? :mmmm:

[Jarl]

But Mr. Himmler was fond of the idea of assimilating Nordids of other nations by Germans, wasn't he? :mmmm:

Yeah!


Svanhild...




..."assimilate" me please! haha! :D

[W. R.]

yeah, thats what Im talking about! lets make an agricultural experiment! ...you know... bess and flowers... :pThe most romantic agricultural thing is soft hay in my humble opinion, not flowers. :icon_ask:

[Jarl]

The most romantic agricultural thing is soft hay in my humble opinion, not flowers. :icon_ask:

Nah! That's too rustic! A night in a hot summer ryefield at full moon is more romantic :P

[Sarmata]

But Mr. Himmler was fond of the idea of assimilating Nordids of other nations by Germans, wasn't he? :mmmm:

How about fact that his wife Margarete Boden (Concerzowa) had Polish ancestry:confused:

[W. R.]

How about fact that his wife Margarete Boden (Concerzowa) had Polish ancestry:confused:So what? The Nazi ideology seemed to be dim and flexible enough to find an excuse for that. :) Actually Polish citizens of the Third Reich (unlike Jews) weren't persecuted having more or less the same rights as Germans had, were they?

[Svanhild]

Yeah!
Svanhild...
..."assimilate" me please! haha! :D
Let me get this right, you're a Pole residing in England and you love to make continuous agonizing approaches to German women like Klärchen or me? So much about your Polish pride.

I'm sorry to say that I don't flirt with clownish and doubtful characters, and if you labour under the misapprehension that your demeanor is funny in any way, shape or form: It's not. Be a good Pole, return to your home country and hook up with girls of your nationality and class.

[Jarl]

Let me get this right, you're a Pole residing in England and you love to make continuous agonizing approaches to German women like Klärchen or me?

Oi! Klärchen is partly Polish.

Klärchen... :fdgd:


So much about your Polish pride.

Haha! My pride is enormous! :P


I'm sorry to say that I don't flirt with clownish and doubtful characters, and if you labour under the misapprehension that your demeanor is funny in any way, shape or form: It's not.

:( oh...


Be a good Pole, return to your home country and hook up with girls of your nationality and class.

Mmm! Anything else you would like me to do on my way back home??? :D

[Majar]

Would Heinrich Himmler (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heinrich_Himmler) have been acceptable by the Lebensborn organization's criteria? His relatives look quite strange (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1969-056-19,_Familie_Himmler.jpg), his mother in particular looks like a Creole. They certainly do not look like they have any Nordic traits at all, perhaps his father but he looks more or less East Baltic.


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/14/lge_Himmler_070914024329366_wideweb__300x300.jpg
Heinrich Himmler (center) as a child, with his brothers Gebhard and Ernst

Ironically Himmler was the man looking over everyone's SS and Lebensborn photos with a magnifying glass, searching for the slightest racial defects. I wonder how he must have felt visiting the 'untermenschen' in Russia or concentration camps, and seeing inmates looking more Nordic than himself. Himmler was a fascinating person for all his eccentricities. Perhaps he was driven to extreme Nordicism by his own feelings of racial inadequacy.

[Jäger]

Perhaps he was driven to extreme Nordicism by his own feelings of racial inadequacy.
The very idea that being not Nordic is a racial inadequacy is only promoted by Americans, and their foreign pupils, which lack a complete understanding of NS racial politics.
They mostly feel like they found a weak spot when posting pictures of non-Nordic NS officials, while in truth simply exposing their idiotism in regard to history and group science.
Much like those whites who think they are better than any other Nigger out there just because they are white, this is just a complete misinterpretation of group science.

You should read this as well: http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=990031&postcount=13 :D

[Tabiti]

Would Heinrich Himmler (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Heinrich_Himmler) have been acceptable by the Lebensborn organization's criteria? His relatives look quite strange (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1969-056-19,_Familie_Himmler.jpg), his mother in particular looks like a Creole. They certainly do not look like they have any Nordic traits at all, perhaps his father but he looks more or less East Baltic.


http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/14/lge_Himmler_070914024329366_wideweb__300x300.jpg
Heinrich Himmler (center) as a child, with his brothers Gebhard and Ernst

Ironically Himmler was the man looking over everyone's SS and Lebensborn photos with a magnifying glass, searching for the slightest racial defects. I wonder how he must have felt visiting the 'untermenschen' in Russia or concentration camps, and seeing inmates looking more Nordic than himself. Himmler was a fascinating person for all his eccentricities. Perhaps he was driven to extreme Nordicism by his own feelings of racial inadequacy.
To be honest, I don't know any extremely devoted Nordicist who is an example of the Nordic ideal. In fact often extreme views are caused by deep personal complexes and insecurity in our own possibilities.
Give such persons power and they'd become perfect dictators.

P.S. I'm not against Nordicism as an idea of preserving certain traits and nations as long as it doesn't turn into paranoia and weapon against others.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

To be honest, I don't know any extremely devoted Nordicist who is an example of the Nordic ideal. In fact often extreme views are caused by deep personal complexes and insecurity in our own possibilities.
Give such persons power and they'd become perfect dictators.

P.S. I'm not against Nordicism as an idea of preserving certain traits and nations as long as it doesn't turn into paranoia and weapon against others.

Agreed. Anyway one does not need to be a horse in order to breed purebreds.

[Falkata]

It´s not only that he is 0% nordic looking, but he looks even exotic for an european with that chinkyness. I dont know how somebody like him could decide about who is "aryan" or not, I´d buy him a mirror for his birthday. His father looks average, but his mother looks really weird for a german,as Majar said

[Tabiti]

Agreed. Anyway one does not need to be a horse in order to breed purebreds.
Indeed. People are not animals, no matter some may act like animals or at least like what we accept as an animal behaviour. Viewing the human person as a monkey with larger brain is one of the biggest mistakes of humanity.
"Master" race could only be created by intellectually and spiritually higher people, not only those with perfect physical genes. Master race needs strong family relations and master race babies should be make with love. For creating various cattle breeds with better characteristics we have Zootechics and Genetic Engineering.
At least that is how I accept it.

[Majar]

The very idea that being not Nordic is a racial inadequacy is only promoted by Americans, and their foreign pupils, which lack a complete understanding of NS racial politics. They mostly feel like they found a weak spot when posting pictures of non-Nordic NS officials, while in truth simply exposing their idiotism in regard to history and group science.

Nordicism wasn't an obsession of the entire NS regime, but it was a personal obsession of Heinrich Himmler. The SS organization was based around a core ideal of "Nordic blood." Ideals are ideals, a person does not have to be an embodiment of an ideal to hold that ideal but it is always going to be a point of discussion when they are not.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

Nordicism wasn't an obsession of the entire NS regime, but it was a personal obsession of Heinrich Himmler. The SS organization was based around a core ideal of "Nordic blood." Ideals are ideals, a person does not have to be an embodiment of an ideal to hold that ideal but it is always going to be a point of discussion when they are not.

Well the Nordic ideal was quite commonplace actually. You have to choose a paradigm of perfection, a mobilizing myth, and the Nordic model was deemed the most attractive and meaningful. One has just to look at NS art and propaganda.

[Anthropos]

Nordicism wasn't an obsession of the entire NS regime, but it was a personal obsession of Heinrich Himmler. The SS organization was based around a core ideal of "Nordic blood." Ideals are ideals, a person does not have to be an embodiment of an ideal to hold that ideal but it is always going to be a point of discussion when they are not.

A meaningless discussion, since the 'ideal' in question is a phantastic lie. But of course, if Himmler propagated it, then it is of some relevance when he is the subject of discussion. The question is not, however, if by his racial characteristics he reached high enough to match the 'ideal'. It's just that sometimes, especially when spurious ideas are under consideration, it is interesting to note how they reflected or compensated for something in the individual who made them up.

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

A meaningless discussion, since the 'ideal' in question is a phantastic lie. But of course, if Himmler propagated it, then it is of some relevance when he is the subject of discussion. The question is not, however, if by his racial characteristics he reached high enough to match the 'ideal'. It's just that sometimes, especially when spurious ideas are under consideration, it is interesting to note how they reflected or compensated for something in the individual who made them up.

The unique civilizational role of the Nordic race may be something historically inaccurate. An ideal however is never a lie. It's something you like or not.

[Anthropos]

The unique civilizational role of the Nordic race may be something historically inaccurate. An ideal however is never a lie. It's something you like or not.

Of course an ideal can be a lie, as soon as you take it to have any bearing at all on reality, that is.

[Guapo]

To be honest, I don't know any extremely devoted Nordicist who is an example of the Nordic ideal. In fact often extreme views are caused by deep personal complexes and insecurity in our own possibilities.
Give such persons power and they'd become perfect dictators.

P.S. I'm not against Nordicism as an idea of preserving certain traits and nations as long as it doesn't turn into paranoia and weapon against others.

Same here. Blondes are beautiful and so are Brunettes :D It's obvious Himmler wasn't a pure nordid. His father looks like a fat Bavarian and his mother looks like a Magyar midget. It's always those ones who have complexes about their background that are staunch chauvinists/nationalists/h8ers whatever.

[Guapo]

Well the Nordic ideal was quite commonplace actually. You have to choose a paradigm of perfection, a mobilizing myth, and the Nordic model was deemed the most attractive and meaningful. One has just to look at NS art and propaganda.

I wish they drew more women :confused:

http://mikecane.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/morequeernazisb.jpg?w=450


http://mikecane.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/queernazisb.jpg?w=450

[Eins Zwei Polizei]

I wish they drew more women :confused:

lol well hardly you can accuse them of being gay friendly (at least after the SA purge). You may refer to the famous Himmler's speech of 18 February 1937, which apparently can't be found on the Net in an English translation.

[lei.talk]

https://i.imgur.com/7le5A5A.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler)https://i.imgur.com/sktZRK0.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels)https://i.imgur.com/tYdZx63.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler)https://i.imgur.com/zwr7mGm.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring)https://i.imgur.com/ln5KZTM.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kemp)


Originally Posted by a plethora of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Types_of_ad_hominems)ists http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15006)
It's always the non-Nordics who are Nordicists.
Nordics themselves never seem to give a shit.
δικαιον φυσικον - the melanochroi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_race) worship the xanthochroi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_race):
turning to one's superior for guidance is healthy - it is ius naturale.

in contrast, the pathologically envious
(lacking any demonstrable individual achievement) mock their betters
and seek solace in the mass-accomplishments of ancestors
from centuries past.

more pity-able are those who might be giants:
the nordics (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/rg-main.htm) of scandinavia
that have been indoctrinated (from birth)
in to those two de-vitalisers - socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism) and multi-culturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism).



an other fact-deficient smirker http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/jagohan/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=88820#post88820)
He is a Nordicist? Have ya seen his pic, he ain't anywhere near Nordic.
Reminds me of that funny video of the blind Negro who was a white supremacist.


https://i.imgur.com/1l40wI8.jpg (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/7nnosh/chappelle-s-show--frontline----clayton-bigsby-pt--1---uncensored)


https://i.imgur.com/xOhgqfz.jpg (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ga0sc4/chappelle-s-show--frontline----clayton-bigsby-pt--2---uncensored)


"If you have hate in your heart - let it out!
Open up your heart and let that hate out!"
:pound: Clayton Bigsby (https://web.archive.org/web/20100303003810/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chappelle's_Show_skits) :pound:
*

[Truth Seeker]

On the Evolution of Blondness

This is my tentative theory on the evolution of hair depigmentation in humans. Hair acts as a frame for the face, in the same way as a frame for a painting. If the frame is light-colored, then it draws attention away from the face (*). Now, most women do not have exceptionally beautiful features; indeed, the uglier one's features, the more one would like to draw attention away from them, and this can be achieved via light-colored hair (+).
On the other hand, beautiful women want the opposite effect, i.e., to present their features in the most striking way possible. For such women dark hair is an advantage, since it contrasts with the light skin (of Caucasoid women ($)). This is why beautiful brunettes retain their dark hair, which they know to be an advantage.
Beautiful women of course look beautiful whether blondes or brunettes. This is why there is no great need for hair darkening, which adds little value to an already beautiful face. On the other hand, an ugly face is enhanced via hair lightening: hence the observed differential in hair lightening/darkening product usage.
One would have to make a special investigation to determine the level of facial beauty of women who experiment with either lighter or darker hair colors. I present the hypothesis, based on observation, that uglier women lighten their hair to beautify themselves via the "absence of frame" effect, while beautiful women are more likely to use a darker shade, because they can afford to, since showing off their beautiful features is not a problem for them and indeed is desirable.
Now, let's examine the situation of men, where darker hair is preferred. First, I note that men look darker than women (both naturally, and also due to artificial blonde women). Therefore, dark men are more likely to be next to blonde women, simply because there are many artificial blonde women.
Second, most men wear their hair short. Thus, hair does not act as a frame as much, and hence any advantages/disadvantages of hair dyeing are not visible.
Third, there is a cultural taboo against men altering their appearance. Even when this was practiced, it was always seen as effeminate, at least in most non-primitive cultures.
The main reason why dark hair is preferred in men, is that unlike women, who want to have a "soft" appearance which is more feminine (due to sexual dimorphism), men want to have a "hard" appearance which enhances angles/contrasts, etc. For example, a projecting nose may be undesirable for women -who try to draw attention from it in any way possible-, while for men it is a desirable trait. For this reason, men enhance their masculinity via their dark hair.
It is interesting to note also how hair pigmentation co-evolved with facial morphology, at least in Caucasoids, where there is significant variation in hair pigmentation (#). Excess of bone is considered a "masculine" trait, while gracility is a more "feminine" trait.
Skeletal gracilization occurred mainly as the result of human domestication immediately before and after the advent of the Neolithic economy. This occurred in different times in northern Eurasia and in the Fertile Crescent origin and adjacent areas. As a result, northern Europeoids are generally taller and bonier than southern ones.
For this reason, Northern Europeoid women have generally "harder" features, unlike Southern Europeoid women whose features are more refined. My theory predicts that women with "hard" features will tend to have more light hair, because light hair draws attention away from these features. The opposite is the case for southern Europeoid women, whose refined features are enhanced by dark hair acting as a frame.

(*)
a. This is incidentally why dark frames are usually preferred in paintings, since the goal is to separate the painting from the environment and focus attention on the painting itself.
b. The same principle applies to eyes as well, which are enhanced via dark eyeliner and shade.
(+) Incidentally, this is achieved to some degree by any kind of hair, although to a greater degree by light hair. This is also why women wear their hair long. One can easily notice that it is usually beautiful women who wear their hair very short, i.e., the ones who are comfortable with their facial features.
($) One can readily observe that light hair looks "weird" or even "ugly" in e.g., purely Negroid women. This is because as I have explained, it is not the "lightness" of the hair that has an effect, but rather its function as a 'frame'. In Negroid women, light hair acts in the same way as dark hair acts in Caucasoid women.
(#) I must note that hair depigmentation may be partially due to natural selection, because it is likely that genes affecting skin pigmentation may have some effect on hair pigmentation as well.
Update:
Here are some pictures of ordinary Norwegian women (http://www.skadi.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3577&highlight=Norwegian) posted over at the skadi.net forum, exhibiting the excess of bone that I hinted at above. A non-extreme example:
http://lundeneset.vgs.no/img/bilder/personer/0203/02_3p_2.jpg
Posted by Dienekes at August 13, 2003 01:09 AM | PermaLink (http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000334.html)What do you thihk about Dienekes' theory?

[The Lawspeaker]

That he is a nutcase.

[Eldritch]

This is my tentative theory on the evolution of hair depigmentation in humans. Hair acts as a frame for the face, in the same way as a frame for a painting. If the frame is light-colored, then it draws attention away from the face. Now, most women do not have exceptionally beautiful features; indeed, the uglier one's features, the more one would like to draw attention away from them, and this can be achieved via light-colored hair.

Unfortunately, evolution does not take orders from women's vanity. :coffee:

[Tabiti]

One BIG LOL...
Well,...Dienekes :D

[Loki]

I wouldn't take anything serious that guy says, he obviously has an agenda as a (lacking in self worth?) Med supremacist.

[Lithium]

I preffer blondes, so they are not ugly, heh :D

[Vulpix]

I'm so ugly I went darker :D

[Tabiti]

This is why beautiful brunettes retain their dark hair, which they know to be an advantage.
No, just don't want to be bottle blond like many "minorities" here;)

[Matritensis]

Who's that Dienekes guy? A Nobel prize?

[Saruman]

Well, I think he harbors "some" animosity towards northerners, he's quite wrong definitely, especially considering that the dyed blondes I think outnumber dyed brunettes.:)

[Lulletje Rozewater]

That he is a nutcase.


from the article:On the other hand, beautiful women want the opposite effect, i.e., to present their features in the most striking way possible. For such women dark hair is an advantageAin't she beautiful:D:D:D


http://faculty.dwc.edu/wellman/cattlegirl.jpg

[Pallantides]

To bad I can't see the Norwegian examples he posted
brunettes and dark blondes are far more common than light blondes in Norway anyway...

[Agrippa]

To bad I can't see the Norwegian examples he posted
brunettes and dark blondes are far more common than light blondes in Norway anyway...

He posted quite unattractive archaic Cromagnoids for the most part, the photos were made in a very unfavourable way too of course, bad lighting, very bad mugshot style.

His theory is, in my opinion, right, but not in the sense of blonds being less attractive, but how it might have evolved, I doubt it was just climatic, but also sexual and social selection in an environment in which such a light coloration of the skin was advantageous and the light pigmentation of the hair possible.

In the Ice Age especially among Europeans the selective pressures on women must have been very high, higher than in other times, because they were, especially when pregnant, fully dependent on the male support, with gathering you couldn't do too much then, energy through meat they needed.

At the same time there was a selection for the cold and robust bones, so even with a slightly stronger dimorphism than we have it today, the females must have been fairly robust and in this regard not to pleasing too.

For such hard features, blond hair really softens the appearance significantly. Especially if looking at Eastbaltids, they often look much more Pseudomongoloid and coarse with dark hair.

Thats different for Nordid and more progressive Cromagnid forms, because they have generally attractive physical traits, but for the coarse-archaic and part Mongoliform Cromagnoids-Eastbaltids it is noticeable in my opinion.

So my idea would be that during the Ice Age, among rather archaic Cromagnoids, higher rates of blondism appeared the first time.

When more progressive elements followed in the areas in which those lived, they mixed of course and over time the selective trend to the softer, more useful appearance due to lighter hair and a possible social selection, once a certain level in the population was reached, might have favoured hair blondism.

For the more progressive Northern elements it's rather an additional enhancement, but for certain coarse elements of the Norse, its really apparent that they "need it", because it's sometimes their last resort so to say, especially in comparison to more fine featured Europids.

Also, the contrast being greatest if the skin is very light and the hair is very dark, this means, if the selective pressures (UV-intensity + nutrition based on low Vitamin D) favoured very light skin, the pressures for getting lighter hair should be higher if that light hair has no disadvantage in the region but the sexual selection is strong.

This means the contrast for a black skinned person is actually even lower than for a Nordid - especially if the Nordid is tanned the contrast increases again.
Nordid males need a tan often more than the females for an attractive appearance, if they don't wear a beard at least, because of the higher contrast. If you are just pale + pale, contrast being lost and this looks unhealthy.

Here some examples for the pattern described.

Normal Negrid coloration, note their appearance and how certain archaic traits being "masked" by the low contrasts and dark skin:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4873&stc=1&d=1275309435

Now a white skinned Negrid Albino for comparison:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4874&stc=1&d=1275309487

It is really wrong to say Negrids are less attractive because they are dark skinned - unless you really find dark skin disgusting of course - but if that is not the case, they are more often less attractive because of their morphology, proportions and hair form, which being all even more pronounced if they are light skinned with unchanged morphology.

Now the maximal contrast in a Nordatlantid woman, she looks absolutely great but note how perfect her facial features must be if the contrast is so high:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4875&stc=1&d=1275309590

Also how much more Mongoliform Osteuropids look (Finnish girl) if having dark hair:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4876&stc=1&d=1275309658

Mongolids too have a higher contrast and developed, at least those which were under more balanced and higher sexual selection, certain facial traits to enhance the features, getting quite Neotenic in a progressive way or Infantile.

Obviously everything "unfeminine", coarse or archaic will be the most visible if the skin is very light, the hair very dark. In such cases hair blondism is particularly needed, but can also attract attention and enhance in those which have a good and progressive morphology of course. Its also male vs. female in this regard - probably with the exception of the males having extremely "strong" features so that they too could need a little bit of reduced dominance-contrast in the sexual and social selection.

Very light hair and a strongly tanned skin produce "the reverted" contrast in comparison to the typical Nordatlantid - this being actually the typical "Skandonordid in summer" skin tone:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4877&stc=1&d=1275309974

Because with the salt water and sun the hair gets lighter, skin darker tanned and more coloration if being active too (blood under the thin skin).

Obviously that doesn't damage the Nordid appearance neither, even on the contrary. Yet strong contrasts can look less appealing in this case for the same reasons as described above:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1121/1154360914_35204ae093.jpg

Such fat free, hypermasculine and deformed faces need no stronger contrast of course...

Strongly tanned, higher contrast due to light colored hair:
http://u1.ipernity.com/7/91/09/2709109.0117dc98.560.jpg

Same in a male (found no extreme image ad hoc):
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4878&stc=1&d=1275312167

Natural appearance of beautiful pred. Nordeuropid girls:
http://images.travelpod.com/users/roopd/singapore-01.1081840860.sentosa_x5x.jpg

Nordeuropid males look "wildest" when having light hair and a light beard with a tanned skin - unless the hair and beard is darker or more reddish of course.

In any case, darker pigmented people get less contrast by tanning, very light haired people get more contrast by tanning, thats also worth to note.

[Äike]

Nordid males need a tan often more than the females for an attractive appearance, if they don't wear a beard at least, because of the higher contrast. If you are just pale + pale, contrast being lost and this looks unhealthy.

My hairdresser said exactly the same thing, I don't look good with my pale skin and blond hair and I need to get a tan. So you must be right.

In some topics, you still don't cease to amaze me.

[Agrippa]

That you post in this thread is a good thing also because of your avatar and signature picture. Because in those you can see a higher but still moderate contrast in pred. Nordoid females which have very beautiful and refined facial features. So they too can serve as an example for facial features in light-blond individuals which "wouldn't need it", but attract even more attention by the blond signal color.

[Tabiti]

It's a matter of taste. I prefer only people with their natural tan, no matter pale or darker.

Blond + tan = blah!

[Agrippa]

It's a matter of taste. I prefer only people with their natural tan, no matter pale or darker.

Blond + tan = blah!

Whats a natural tan? To me too much is too much ;)

But to tan is just natural, because people were never supposed to be always in rooms or fully protected from the sun, that's no natural conditions rather actually.

Even the very light pigmented individuals often get a certain Vitamin D deficiency in the winter months in certain parts of Europe, so obviously the light skin is there for being able to use all the UV-rays available, especially in the winter months of course.

Too much tan can damage the skin and let it become older and wrinklier earlier in life, so I wouldn't recommend that, especially not for Nordeuropids, especially not for females.

But a healthy tan is just a beautiful thing which makes a person more attractive and does no harm - unless we deal with the samll minority of those who can't tan, which are usually more on the reddish side of things and have a different skin color too anyway.

Too much is too much of course, like the stereotype being presented in "There's something about Mary":
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hxdnntF5Nso/SPwMZqb-EDI/AAAAAAAAAT4/1HFLCItG5LQ/s400/magdaAnniston101808.jpg

;)

[Tabiti]

I mean natural "city" skin tone.

It's not true that blond people look unhealthy. Looking unhealthy is liked with certain yellowish, grayish or greenish skin tone, not with just whiter one. I'm the perfect example of that, for instance.

[Murphy]

Entirely subjective.

[Agrippa]

I mean natural "city" skin tone.

It's not true that blond people look unhealthy. Looking unhealthy is liked with certain yellowish, grayish or greenish skin tone, not with just whiter one. I'm the perfect example of that, for instance.

If I remember right you are rather Pontid. Pontids are together with Nordatlantid-Atlantid among those which have a good contrast and can look fine if having good facial features.

Some of those even tan not better than Nordid proper, some even worse actually, speaking about Nordatlantid.

Though even those might look better with a light tan at least. The pale black haired is a specialty.

Kyle MacLachlan:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Kyle_MacLachlan.jpg

Sean Young:
http://kafee.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bladerunner-rachael1.png?w=459&h=352

Or are you blond?

I think it is a special skin which can look really good, especially in females, if being rather paler, the "milk and blood" skin-face:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4879&stc=1&d=1275317825

[Ibericus]

That you post in this thread is a good thing also because of your avatar and signature picture. Because in those you can see a higher but still moderate contrast in pred. Nordoid females which have very beautiful and refined facial features. So they too can serve as an example for facial features in light-blond individuals which "wouldn't need it", but attract even more attention by the blond signal color.

Those are fake blondes with a fake tan. Horrible. They look like barbies.

[Tabiti]

No, I'm with yellowish skin tone, which makes me look very anemic, although I'm not. Natural very dark hair doesn't help in the case, so I claim that healthy look strongly depends on other characteristics, rather than just hair colour.

[Agrippa]

Those are fake blondes with a fake tan. Horrible. They look like barbies.

I can imagine worse in females than looking like a barbie ;)

They went too far indeed, but still look good, because they have good features. And fake blond only insofar, as the made their hair lighter, because their natural hair color should be around a darker blond I guess.


No, I'm with yellowish skin tone, which makes me look very anemic, although I'm not. Natural very dark hair doesn't help in the case, so I claim that healthy look strongly depends on other characteristics, rather than just hair colour.

Obviously yes, but hair color might SUPPORT this or that look and must usually fit together with the skin tone, since a darker skin tone with fake blond hair looks often unnatural, so do overtanned blond people...

[lei.talk]

"The Persian archers are so numerous that their arrows will block out the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_of_Fire)."


Διηνέκης http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/kiddo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dienekes) Good. Then we will fight in the shade.



Who is Dienekes Pontikos (http://www.white-history.com/whois.htm)?
*

[Svanhild]

I'm proud to be ugly then. :wink Envious people can skid down my back.

[Loki]

I'm proud to be ugly then. :wink Envious people can skid down my back.

That, they certainly are. These kind of claims almost always arise from deep inferiority complexes, and the need to elevate themselves by denigrating others. It's in essence what racism is all about.

[Tabiti]

Thinking that others are envious too often is also a sign of complex, however this is another topic:)

BTW, I don't mean ANY of you in that particular case.
Some people are just dull, blind radicals (like extreme Nordicists, Medicists, Afrocentrists and so), not envious.

[Solwyn]

Is that the fellow with the anthropology blog? It was the first result on Google. Whoever he is, he's a complete and total fucktard with issues toward women. I wonder if the first girl who dumped him was a tall, blonde, beautiful Swede. Someone else said it quite well earlier on in the thread, that nature doesn't take orders based on vanity:)

[antonio]

What do you thihk about Dienekes' theory?

I think that If you see uglier a blonde one that a brunette because of the poor contrast of her lighter tones on a sunny day...maybe you're not so long ago seing all dark with your blind eyes. Consult your physician as soon as possible.:D

[Majar]

Ok, test his theory:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/ditavonteeseSPL_900x756.jpg

Is she better looking in her natural form or fake?

Women who bleach their hair are trying to make up for some physical flaw by adopting a sought-after and rare (at least in the wider world) trait to increase their desirability. I say this as someone who has used hair bleach twice...

Bleached hair looks bad on most women, I don't think it enhances anyone's appearance to be a fake blonde. I think only if one has lighter colored eyes, not too dark eyebrows and the right skintone (not too pale, with golden undertone), they can pull off the bleached blonde look. Most Playboy bunnies fit that description.

Older women who have gone gray often bleach their hair for practical reasons, because it is easier than covering the gray with color dye. The gray roots don't stand out as much on blonded hair, so you need less upkeep.

[antonio]

Ok, test his theory:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/ditavonteeseSPL_900x756.jpg

Is she better looking in her natural form or fake?

Women who bleach their hair are trying to make up for some physical flaw by adopting a sought-after and rare (at least in the wider world) trait to increase their desirability. I say this as someone who has used hair bleach twice...

Bleached hair looks bad on most women, I don't think it enhances anyone's appearance to be a fake blonde. I think only if one has lighter colored eyes, not too dark eyebrows and the right skintone (not too pale, with golden undertone), they can pull off the bleached blonde look. Most Playboy bunnies fit that description.

Older women who have gone gray often bleach their hair for practical reasons, because it is easier than covering the gray with color dye. The gray roots don't stand out as much on blonded hair, so you need less upkeep.

This is not a fair comparison: left pic she was a known with a cheap make-up while at right one she was a famous starlette with an expensive one. But what you said is true: fake blondes are usually just worsening the original, this is an undeniable truth. But, here are not talking about true blondes vs brunettes?

PS. Im not a make-up expert at all, but it's amazing the how much my "comales" let starsystems and spectacle industries lied their own eyes with layers and layers of paint and hours and hours of photoshop. I never, never would say a famous women is prettier than a one saught by my own eyes.

[Tabiti]

Women who tend to change their look completely and very often (in older age) usually have personal problems and try to escape them with their new appearance.

[Treffie]

Older women who have gone gray often bleach their hair for practical reasons, because it is easier than covering the gray with color dye. The gray roots don't stand out as much on blonded hair, so you need less upkeep.

Not only that, but I've noticed that women of a certain age who have dark hair, tend to dye their hair a lighter colour, mainly because their skin colour has changed.

[Falkata]

We swarthies are beautiful, well said Lineker or whoever :eyes

[Absinthe]

Dienekes is a psycho whose Magnum Opus is to refute Arthur Kemp :rolleyes:

I mean, if Arthur Kemp is an idiot then spending all your energy in trying to prove him wrong makes you twice the idiot.

Oh wait; three times an idiot! Because your blatant, vehement Medicism is equally as biased and short-sighted as the Nordicism you are condemning as bullshit supremacy. :no000000:

[Ibericus]

I like Dienekes. He speaks the truth, a very uncomfortable truth.

[Matritensis]

...and natural blondes just look great,let's face it.;)

[Matritensis]

I like Dienekes. He speaks the truth, a very uncomfortable truth.

Et tu,Brute?

[Aviane]

Well I don't think Blonde women are any uglier than any other women.

To me a woman has to be attractive in her face apart from just hair colour, as for perference it would be better for her to be a natural blonde.

[Truth Seeker]

Women who tend to change their look completely and very often (in older age) usually have personal problems and try to escape them with their new appearance.

I agree with this. I can understand the jealousy of the ugly women that cover up their ugliness.

[Breedingvariety]

The frame theory seems reasonable to me. Take Scarlett Johansson for example. I'm not saying she is ugly, but she looks better with blond hair. And it seems to me that popularity of dying hair blond in Lithuania is to disguise rough features.

[Aramis]

I dislike Scarlett Johansson. I am more a Charlize Theron lover type.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oL1Yo_2x1tc/RtShqc2TcAI/AAAAAAAAAFA/HVCLfwYPfh4/s1600/Copy%2Bof%2B115338201.jpg

Btw, Liv Tyler (http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/livtyler/liv_tyler_50.jpg) and Monica Belluci (http://www.xarj.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/monica-bellucci6.jpg) FTW!

[Wulfhere]

Ok, test his theory:

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_01/ditavonteeseSPL_900x756.jpg

Is she better looking in her natural form or fake?

Women who bleach their hair are trying to make up for some physical flaw by adopting a sought-after and rare (at least in the wider world) trait to increase their desirability. I say this as someone who has used hair bleach twice...

Bleached hair looks bad on most women, I don't think it enhances anyone's appearance to be a fake blonde. I think only if one has lighter colored eyes, not too dark eyebrows and the right skintone (not too pale, with golden undertone), they can pull off the bleached blonde look. Most Playboy bunnies fit that description.

Older women who have gone gray often bleach their hair for practical reasons, because it is easier than covering the gray with color dye. The gray roots don't stand out as much on blonded hair, so you need less upkeep.

The pic on the left is infinitely better. The one on the right looks like a painted trollop.

[jerney]

The frame theory seems reasonable to me. Take Scarlett Johansson for example. I'm not saying she is ugly, but she looks better with blond hair. And it seems to me that popularity of dying hair blond in Lithuania is to disguise rough features.

She's ugly either way

[Falkata]

The frame theory seems reasonable to me. Take Scarlett Johansson for example. I'm not saying she is ugly, but she looks better with blond hair. And it seems to me that popularity of dying hair blond in Lithuania is to disguise rough features.

I´ve never understood this obsession with Johansson actually. Appart from having big boobs, what is that beautiful about her? She looks a bit like a pig actually, i think she is very average looking. I agree with you that she looks better with blond hair, you pay less attention to some weird features like her nose.

[SuuT]

Beautiful women of course look beautiful whether blondes or brunettes.

/Blog.


The rest is bullshit, ladies, for the exact same reason why we can't remember what colour your eyes are after 5 weeks of dating you.

[Faith]

The frame theory seems reasonable to me. Take Scarlett Johansson for example. I'm not saying she is ugly, but she looks better with blond hair. And it seems to me that popularity of dying hair blond in Lithuania is to disguise rough features.
She does not look natural as a blonde.

Charlize Theron on the other hand looks better as blonde than dark hair. (imo)

She's ugly either way

I´ve never understood this obsession with Johansson actually. Appart from having big boobs, what is that beautiful about her? She looks a bit like a pig actually, i think she is very average looking. I agree with you that she looks better with blond hair, you pay less attention to some weird features like her nose.
I don't think men are really looking at her face, LOL. She does have quite a figure though.

[Murphy]

Oh wait; three times an idiot! Because your blatant, vehement Medicism is equally as biased and short-sighted as the Nordicism you are condemning as bullshit supremacy. :no000000:

This is why everyone should come to JPism. I am naturally superior and to be a part of me makes you superior by extension.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I agree with this. I can understand the jealousy of the ugly women that cover up their ugliness.

No European white woman is ugly.
There is always something beautiful in these women

[Cato]

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/failed_troll.jpg

[Bloodeagle]

This is not a fair comparison: left pic she was a known with a cheap make-up while at right one she was a famous starlette with an expensive one. But what you said is true: fake blondes are usually just worsening the original, this is an undeniable truth. But, here are not talking about true blondes vs brunettes?

PS. Im not a make-up expert at all, but it's amazing the how much my "comales" let starsystems and spectacle industries lied their own eyes with layers and layers of paint and hours and hours of photoshop. I never, never would say a famous women is prettier than a one saught by my own eyes.

I think that Majar meant that the woman in the second photo looked like a clown when compared to her natural appearance shown in the first photo.