European, or not?

[HawkR]

How much "outwashed/mixed" can a person be, and still call himself a european?

[Adalwulf]

It depends on what they are mixed with.

A Syrian could probably be higher than a Negro, as example.

[SuuT]

How much "outwashed/mixed" can a person be, and still call himself a european?

I don't think we know enough about genes/genetics yet to be able to answer that; but I'm sure some intrepid soul will be willing to shoot you a percentage.

[Mesrine]

You don't need to be Europoid to be European.

[Atlas]

It depends on what they are mixed with.

A Syrian could probably be higher than a Negro, as example.

The correct answer, yes.

Someone who is 1/32 persian (the rest being European) can consider himself as such.

Half Nigerian, half Swede, nope.

[Sabinae]

I think I would judge a person from different points of view: according to genes, cultural background and citizenship. I would say whether one is European or not, from different aspects, but I dont think I'd be able to draw a "on the whole" conclusion. I mean... genetics is one thing... cultural background is another. And there are different terms indeed to name what you are aiming to name: Europoid vs. European.

[Tabiti]

Persian could be 100% Europeid in race and genetics, but not European. I accept European more as a geographical and cultural aspect, not racial. However, the Europeid race with its variations is the only one met on the continent, so a "true European" must belong to it.

[Svarog]

Persian could be 100% Europeid in race and genetics, but not European. I accept European more as a geographical and cultural aspect, not racial. However, the Europeid race with its variations is the only one met on the continent, so a "true European" must belong to it.

Exactly, personally, I don't even consider pure Persians to be of any different race than we are.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I don't think we know enough about genes/genetics yet to be able to answer that; but I'm sure some intrepid soul will be willing to shoot you a percentage.

I yearn for the day when we do know enough to at least try to answer the question, just so that we can shut up all the would-be arbiters of 'whiteness'.

[Scyldwulf]

Out of interest, and I don't see the point in making a new thread - It's entirely relevant to this one: how would, for arguments sake, having a Jew in your ancestry effect your claim to being European? Using an Ashkenazi as an example, with them being somewhat mixed with Europeans already, I believe.

I ask simply because a Jew would not consider someone ethnicaly Jewish unless they had a Jewish mother, and they would not be allowed citizenship in wherever unless they had a matrilineal Jewish ancestor less than 4 generations ago... Where as some European folk would not consider someone as being white if they have a Jew anywhere in their ancestry (Stormfront :p)... Leaving a blank in the middle, where one extreme would not consider you, and nor would the other extreme...

Going by that, how would having a Jew somewhere between 5 and 10 generations back affect someones claim to being European, in your opinion? I'm using this as an example because It's easiest to be put into context, with having a black person or Asian person in your recent ancestry affecting your appearance more so than having a Jewish person.



I've probably just came across as a complete divvi, but It's a hypothetical question of curiosity - and certainly not a racial purist incitement of hatred :laugh:

[Agrippa]

In an ideal case, the race is just the precondition, not the end. Which means only predominantely European Europid persons can be true Europeans, yet that alone doesnt make them European, because non-European European Europid individuals exist, with other ethnocultural and religious backgrounds etc.

As for me, I'm not that sure about making a strict border for every single case without further considerations. In the end, its about what Europeans can tolerate or even accept in their population, both racially and culturally, and what not.

Honestly, if we would have just 1000 Negrids in Europe, procreating with Europeans, who could really care? Their genes would be swallowed by the vast majority, imagine Eugenic programs too, and only possible advantages would survive, everything not advantageous to us Europeans disappear with 100 percent certainty.

But uncontrolled influx of millions, thats a very different story...

Even if I would accept a non-European person living and having offspring in Europe because of its fantastic traits and exceptional case - again, no mass immigration - I would never consider him European.

If its a closely related Europid racial form, a half-caste could be considered European in some cases, but thats just an acceptable case, not fully European or not.

So regardless of distance, only a person with a predominance of European Europid genes can be considered European. In cases of non-Europid admixture, again, there might be individual cases which can be tolerated or accepted and others not, but European they are never before they have minimum of 75 percent Europid gens and no clearly foreign racial traits to me. The more strict definition would be no traits in the phenotype and no genes being passed on to the offspring which are of clearly foreign character.

But as I said, a real European must be predominantely and clearly racially of European Europid and ethnoculturally occidental-Indoeuropean character. The European Finno-Ugrians are to me assimilated, Basques not deviating than by language and an old European people, the Lapps are no true Europeans but a tolerated borderline minority, which is no problem case however.

Basically everything not present ethnoracially in Europe since ancient times is, as a rule of thumb, foreign and can be only considered assimilated or not, depending on their adaptation to the European standards. Hungarians f.e. are very clearly European by all standards despite their original core group being borderline, whereas Gypsies and Kalmyks are no real Europeans no matter how long they lived on the continent, because they were and still are racially and culturally foreign.

[Äike]

The European Finno-Ugrians are to be assimilated,

Why should the native original Europid population of Europe be assimilated by immigrants(Indo-Europeans)?

[Agrippa]

Why should the native original Europid population of Europe be assimilated by immigrants(Indo-Europeans)?

You misquoted me. They dont have to be, they are already besides their language and some folklore, specific ethnic identity, similar to the Indoeuropean ethnic groups of the European continent, so no problem.

But to give another example, which makes my stance clear, if Neandertals would still exist in a pure form, they would be no Europeans neither, but just a tolerated species in some reservations.

There is a difference between superior immigrants, which have objective qualities making them more successful on the long run, biologically and culturally and those just abusing a political-cultural phase of weakness, an ideological deficit, without being in any way better suited or generally more adaptive and progressive than the current inhabitants.

Since what Europeans are is not determined by the land, but by the traits they developed (largely in it). If Europeans live outside of Europe or the same people would live outside of the geographical borders - what some did, but now just few do from the autochthonous, so its mostly about the Neo-Europeans worldwide, in the colonies so to say, the geographical borders would be irrelevant either.

Without the Indoeuropeans, the European inhabitants would have a completely different makeup and character, therefore wouldnt be the same as what they are and what they are is what it is about. Not just because its indigenous, but its good and has a position, an unique quality not just for us, but for all of mankind if looking at things from the bigger perspective, both at the racial-biological as well as the cultural achievements.

I might also add, its not that clear where the Indoeuropeans finally came from, but in any case, the real Indoeuropeans, their European branches at least, came all up in Europe and being if not fully at least to a large part of indigenous character anyway.
Without those Indoeuropean people the cultural and racial development of Europe wouldnt have been the same, so they did a large part for making Europe the special place it is and added to the achievements Europeans made in many ways.
The modern European nations, all of them, wouldnt exist without these people and their ethnic, linguistic, other cultural and racial ingredients.

[Osweo]

I ask simply because a Jew would not consider someone ethnicaly Jewish unless they had a Jewish mother,
I think that old chestnut is a little overhyped. Whatever rabbinical guidelines might say, it's not quite so straight forward in real life. We know that this 'rule' was broken in the past, just from looking at the mitochondrial evidence.

Leaving a blank in the middle, where one extreme would not consider you, and nor would the other extreme...
Little piece of trivia:
Russian historian Lev Gumilyov theorised that the Karaim Jews of the Crimea had come into being in exactly this way. In the Khazar Khanate on the lower Volga once upon a time, Turkic nomads interbred with Jews. The Turks were patrilineal and the Jews matrilineal. Jew mam + Khazar dad = lucky fellow, equally accepted by whatever people he chose to be a part of. Jew dad + Turk mam = you're *&%$ed, go and live with the other unlucky buggers, setting up your own new ethnic group! :p

Going by that, how would having a Jew somewhere between 5 and 10 generations back affect someones claim to being European, in your opinion?
1 of 32 ?!? 1 of 1024 ??? Honestly, who even would KNOW???!!! Pointless theorising. 25 x 10 is 250 = the year 1759. I for one don't know the name of a single ancestor from back then. And people of different religious backgrounds were FAR less likely to mix then anyway.

I'm using this as an example because It's easiest to be put into context, with having a black person or Asian person in your recent ancestry affecting your appearance more so than having a Jewish person.
Now now, it's not about looks so much as loyalties. It can cloud a person's otherwise straightforward judgement, if their ancestry is used to make them view some actions as ever so slightly hypocritical. That's far more dangerous in the long run than a hooked nose.

[Scyldwulf]

Thanks Osweo. With what Agrippa mentioned up there, my question was pretty much anwsered anyway - but that brings things into further context.
I'm quite new to alot of ideas put forward on this forum (with that being my initial prompt to join - the quest for knowledge) so I'm just trying to get my head around things.
I simply used the Ashkenazi Jewish people as an example because I couldn't think of anything else. Just lurking on this thread for a short while would have probably anwsered my questions without me even posting them anyway.
:D

[Stefan]

I think it is all up for an individual case. It can't be summed up in fractions or percentages.

For me, as long as you don't have any significant admixture(depends on what this mixture is and how much of it you have), and you have a look that would fit in Europe(or European based non-European countries i.e America Canada), as well as fitting the cultural description of said country, then you are just as European as the next person.

Again, I must make it clear, that each person is different, and you really can't make a general rule.

[The Khagan]

I agree with others who state being European is a more geographic and cultural connotation, rather than a racial one. Both those being fairly ambiguous anyway. Racially "white" however still ambiguous is probably better here, at least for us Americans.

Who knows, would you consider me white? Someone of mostly Scandinavian (roughly 50), Irish, and Spanish with a smattering of Lakota Native American (10%)? It's pretty subjective. People would never guess I was Lakota if they weren't told.

[Hulda.Kin]

That's a good question Scyldwulf, I have wondered that too as from some study of WW2 I noted that some 'Jews' pictured had blonde hair and blue eyes but because they were practising Jews they were treated as such. I guess what we really want to know is what constitutes 'whiteness' or nicely put, 'European-ness'. I think on some dna genealogy groups there is some difference in Y dna results, so that makes it seems like there isn't just one dna lineage back to Yahweh the maker of the Jews. What about a conversion of a people to the religion of Judaism 1000 years ago, they are of European ancestry but follow the Judaic religion, so they are not racially Jewish. Is there a Jewish race, if there is then how are the ashkenazi looked at, are they 'Jewish' racially or 'Jewish' spiritually? What if a European Ashkenazi jew converted to Christianity and henceforth their descendants practised Christianity, would they then be no longer Jewish and same for their descendants.
I know Christianity is a religion that came from the Jewish one but for now we will call it the European form.

If Stormfronters want to be true to their 'blood' then they should probably all convert back to Heathenry :-)

[Cail]

I personally think that Ashkenazi Jews are already European, let alone mixes with them, so the question is redundant. They are both racially and culturally (except for the cases of orthodox Judaism) European, and have contributed a lot to European culture. And by the way, Jews are our allies, even those who live in Israel. They are a part of our civilization and share most of our values, as opposed to our enemies, which i divide in two groups - savages (negroes, muslims et cetera) and dangerous aliens (chinese for example). Speaking in fantasy/sci-fi terms, first are orcs and the second are martians :D.

[December]

That's a good question Scyldwulf, I have wondered that too as from some study of WW2 I noted that some 'Jews' pictured had blonde hair and blue eyes but because they were practising Jews they were treated as such. I guess what we really want to know is what constitutes 'whiteness' or nicely put, 'European-ness'. I think on some dna genealogy groups there is some difference in Y dna results, so that makes it seems like there isn't just one dna lineage back to Yahweh the maker of the Jews. What about a conversion of a people to the religion of Judaism 1000 years ago, they are of European ancestry but follow the Judaic religion, so they are not racially Jewish. Is there a Jewish race, if there is then how are the ashkenazi looked at, are they 'Jewish' racially or 'Jewish' spiritually? What if a European Ashkenazi jew converted to Christianity and henceforth their descendants practised Christianity, would they then be no longer Jewish and same for their descendants.
I know Christianity is a religion that came from the Jewish one but for now we will call it the European form.

If Stormfronters want to be true to their 'blood' then they should probably all convert back to Heathenry :-)
Allow me:

As for the Jews of the Iberian Peninsula (so-called Sephardites), even when they were converted by will alone or by force, they would be considered New Christians (Cristãos-Novos in Portuguese / Cristianos Nuevos in Spanish), and the distinction forever made between them and the natives - Old Christians (Cristãos-Velhos / Cristianos Viejos). ¹

The New Christians were tolerated to some point, but the Cleansings of Blood took place as the clash of civilizations was inevitable.

Wikipedia has a couple of good articles about it:


After the end of the Reconquista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista) and the expulsion or conversion of Sephardim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardim) (Jews) and Mudejars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudejar) (Muslims), the population of Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal) and Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) was all nominally Christian. However, the ruling class and much of the populace distrusted the recently-converted "New Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Christians)," referring to them as conversos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converso) or marranos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano) if they were baptized Jews or descended from them, or Moriscos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco) if they were baptized Muslims or descended from them. A commonly-leveled accusation was that the New Christians were false converts, secretly practicing their former religion as Crypto-Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Jew) or Crypto-Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Muslim). Nevertheless, the concept of cleanliness of blood came to be more focused on ancestry than of personal religion. The first statute of purity of blood appeared in Toledo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain), 1449, where an anti-Converso riot succeeded in obtaining a ban on Conversos from most official positions. Initially these statutes were condemned by the monarchy and the Church. In 1496, Alexander VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI) approved a purity statute for the Hieronymite Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymites).

This stratification meant that the Old Christian commoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commoner) could assert a right to honor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor) even if they were not in the nobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobility). The religious and military orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order), guilds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild) and other organizations incorporated in their bylaws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bylaw) clauses demanding proof of cleanliness of blood. Upwardly mobile New Christian families had to either contend with their plight, or bribe and falsify documents attesting generations of good Christian ancestry. The Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)Portuguese Inquisitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition) were more concerned with repressing the New Christians and heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy) than chasing witches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft), which was considered to be more a psychological than a religious issue, or Protestantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism), which was promptly suffocated.
The point being that by those times, anti-xenophilia was normal and accepted. Only late 18th and 19th century Liberalism and revolutionary ideals halted what was a common practice. Until recently, having a child out of marriage would be considered a grave offence. Marrying an alien would be considered a disgrace.

Of course marriages happened. It was of great interest for Jews to integrate and infiltrate in order to survive. Being a parasite people, it was of great interest to absorb local traits and be assimilated. They usually managed to do this by letting a daughter marry a native "goy". Their siblings, according to the Jewish law of matriarchal lineage (their best stunt), would be considered jews, and because the native husband would be somewhat shunned by the local community, he would dilute himself in that jewish family or return to the Christian community one day. Regardless of his future he would have already been of great "usefulness". It was in this the way that Jews assimilated local traits. It happened all over Europe.

Just look at Gwyneth Paltrow(itch) or Tzipi Livni. Do they look the textbook Jews? No they don't. They look "über-white" and all. That's why I give 0 credit to "whiteness". The Jewish race as a genotype/phenotype does not properly exist anymore. The only phenotype I have not yet seen in a Jew is a Far-Eastern or an Australian aboriginal. Judaism is a spiritual/social race. It's also a mindset which has infiltrated and even undermined the deepest cultural roots of Europe. Their mindset rules the world. Their logic has championed the cornerstones of social development. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's the truth. They were smarter and they won.

Bottom line:
The Jews of today are not the Jews of 2000 years ago. Maybe some lost and secluded communities in Iran or Iraq may look like them. Would I consider a jewish group converted to Christianity as European? The Spaniards have a good saying that goes like "The worst Jew is the converted one". I have no interest in New-Christians no matter how European they may look or be. And those who think that Israelis are an example of Nationalism are deeply wrong. I have much more respect by the Neturei Karta Jews than all the others.

Now the other way around:
Would I consider an European group who had converted to Judaism as European? Never, unless I mix Ethnology with biological classification. Did Christianity stemmed from Judaism? Complex question. The European Homo Sapiens Sapiens also derived from an African one, but that does not make us all Africans. European non-protestant Christianity is rich in Pagan customs and deeply-rooted traditions that have thrived well for 2 millennia. Our folklore is more endangered now than it ever was under centuries of Inquisition, plagues and wars.

My 2 cents. Regards :)

¹During the Islamic rule, the opposite also happened. Natives were still considered "Mozarabs" even if they had converted to Islam.

[Agrippa]

I personally think that Ashkenazi Jews are already European, let alone mixes with them, so the question is redundant. They are both racially and culturally (except for the cases of orthodox Judaism) European, and have contributed a lot to European culture. And by the way, Jews are our allies, even those who live in Israel. They are a part of our civilization and share most of our values, as opposed to our enemies

Just tell that those Jews which have a big influence on the high finance, mass media, political parties and institutions, as well as those in the academic fields.

If they act anti-European, against the very basic and vital insterests of the European people, they are a problem on their own right, not primarily because I have something against Jews in general, because I dont, I just consider them being no real Europeans, but because very important Jewish people and organisations harm my people.

Look at the US system, who has a disproportionate influence on the finance system, mass media and political organisations, so who is to blame - at least with thier fair share - for the current Western situation, for its weakness, racial and social decline, the corrupted political structures, the economic exploitation and downgrading, the development towards a plutocratic Oligarchy which forms an dictatorial power over the people, in the end over all of mankind.

Of course, many of those plutocrats and their supporters are no Jews and not all Jews are involved or supporters, those are another cup of tea, yet again, the percentage is disproportionate and the fact so important, one cannot ignore it. Even more important, without the Jewish and Jewish cultural influence, even if they wouldnt become the leading element in the plutocratic Oligarchy, especially not with a religious-ethnic impetus, whats at least possible, without their "work" things wouldnt have gone so far.

So if you consider Jews an Ally of the Europeans against the rest of the world, you just ate the dish the plutocratic propaganda machine served you.

We wouldnt have a problem with so many non-Europeans, mass immigration and the like, if society wouldnt have changed to the mess we have now, which wouldnt have happened without the Plutocratic Oligarchy and a lot of Jews working for it, because they connected their own ethno-religious interests with those of the protecting Jewish and non-Jewish Plutocratic Oligarchy, since without this protection, their influence would have never been that great, their privileges non-existent.

[December]

many of those plutocrats and their supporters are no Jews

Some random people come to my mind...

[December]

Some random people come to my mind...
Sorry to spam, but one dilemma popped out in my mind:

Does that hat make any person win elections, or do elections make any person win that hat?

[Cail]

(Visiting Israel)

http://s52.radikal.ru/i136/0811/a8/512ec2821755.jpg

So what, also a Jew :D? That's just a polite gesture.

[December]

(Visiting Israel)

http://s52.radikal.ru/i136/0811/a8/512ec2821755.jpg

So what, also a Jew :D? That's just a polite gesture.

Ahhh... make no mistake. Putin wearing that magical hat is yet another story. He's smarter than all those 5 above, not an easy puppet in the hands of plutocrats. ;)

(not that I sympathize with him, but I have to admit he is cunning as a fox)

[Agrippa]

One of the most important and destructive Plutocratic clans is that of the Rockefellers and were/are the Morgans, which are, so far I know, no Jews and have at least no proven Jewish ancestry.

There are Euro-Christian clans which intermarry regularly and there are Jewish clans. They both work together and Jews or not, they all do the same harm to the people.

They form some sort of new plutocratic Aristocracy and my personal opinion is, that if necessary, they would drop Israel and leave it to annihilation too, because if its about their major strategy, common people of all ethnic groups are more or less just chessmen. Some more important than others, but still...

[December]

Indeed the Israelo-Palestinian conflict draws too many attentions from the socio-economical manoeuvres that these "clans" (well put) perform.

This gentleman abridges quite well the subject in 3 videos of 10 minutes each:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy43zYo33Dg