"35%-55% Ashkenazis are of European Descent"

[GeistFaust]

'Dark Ages' is a turn of phrase referring to the pre-Renaissance era. Perhaps I just like to see the good in humanity, but I don't consider ignorance and fanaticism to be 'business as usual'.

Ashkenazis are a European ethnic group. I was born in England, so I could be called 'English', though I am not of English descent. I was simply born here. Neither my mother nor my father are English. My mother is Romanian and my father is French. Therefore I am of Romanian and French descent.

This is the problem with the way the public defines the identity of a people in a specific country. Its based more on just having citizenship, which completely runs in contradiction with how people have identified themselves over the age. This is because liberals and other scumbags have reduced the identity of a people to merely a social construct, instead of realizing it as a self-conscious and intrinsic value.


The Self-Conscious and Intrinsic value of a people's identity lies in the race-consciousness, which resonates and reflects itself from and towards the language and culture of a people. If one shares a similarity in language, culture, and ethnic background with only a margin of difference they share a similar self-conscious identity.


That said today's borders do not reflect this self-conscious identity which exists among certain peoples. Civic Nationalism is not a viable solution to identify someone's background, but only an illegitimate classification which the elitists and intellectuals of previous generations and this generation advocate for.


This was all done to open up the boundaries of nations to a global economy, which would be runned by powerful Plutocrats and Businessmen, who want to make as much money off this open-ended idea regarding national identity.


The ignorance and Fanaticism does not have to do with people who are merely speaking the truth, but those who wish to deny it by saying they are something when they are not. Most people do not realize that their identity is now open ended and can be liberally interpreted due to the fact that powerful and greedy men want to use you as an instrument for their money flow and power.


They in retrospect want to deride your true and authentic identity, and to undermine it by re-constructing it around a civic nationalism, which does not account for self-conscious or instrinsic meaning. You are not only advocating for an idea that runs contradictory with who you are, it negates a part of you, which is inclusively essential to your being.


The extent to which it is is unknown to me, but you can not state one side of the story and forget another. You are affirming the A is now B, when you have to affirm A as not equaling B, and thus only containing a part of B. It might be better off if you never mentioned that they are Jews, and just list them Europeans.


The term Ashkernazi seems to be of no use or meaning if they are already Europeans by default due to their partial European ancestry, linguistic ties, and cultural assimilation.


Jews are Jews and Europeans are Europeans, and if they are mixed then they are partially both to some extent or another. But A is not B if its only partially itself and B, and you can use the partial inclusion of B as an excuse to negate the A portion contained by B and within it.

[PetiteParisienne]

I don't think its up for questioning at all. I think a person can not be considered truly European if they are not European in both genetic orientation, mode of conduct(Which includes traditions, cultural rituals and practices, and religious practices), mentality(Which is shaped by the former), and finally language.


Language probably plays the most essential role at a substratum level, but its mutually inclusive as being an important matter along with the previous criteria. If you are Muslim you are not submitting your mode of conduct to the nature of your genetic orientation, which should coincide in possessing a certain European mentality.


A mentality which is extremely hard to form when one acts, believes, and thinks like a Muslim. If anything it is contradictory in its very nature to adhere to Muslim beliefs, and to incorporate it in a European culture by European peoples. This is because Islam was a religion practiced by Non-European peoples in situ.


This means the mentality and language which shaped and constructed the mode of conduct relating to the Islam religion is not European whatsoever. I think that it is resonable enough to say that if a genetic European practices an Eastern religion can not be considered truly European.


A person who practices Christianity though, although it originally takes its root in a Semitic thought and mentality can be considered European. This is because Christianity was structured, integrated and grounded in European cultures going back for almost a 2 whole Milleniums.


It was used as a tool for political, militaristic, cultural, and social affairs. It was shaped by people of largely European descent, at least its core dogma, laws, and doctrine. Its mentality and mode of conduct reflects linguistic nature of the people, which coincides and arose with a people of a certain genetic orientation, namely the European peoples.


I think its quite simple when you think of it, and Pagans and Agnostic/Atheists/Pagans can be considered European as well if they are at least of European origins in a genetic sense. Its impossible to be Jewish, Islam, or Buddisht and to act and be a truly European person if you are one.


Just like its contradictory to be Jewish, and to not believe in the Jewish religion. That said this might be too conservative of a viewpoint, since definitions are expanding in response to the dynamic changes in the social and cultural orientation of European and Jewish peoples in the modern era.

I absolutely agree with you that language is hugely indicative of a person's cultural mindset. Hasidic Jews speak Yiddish, and I would not consider them to be white or European. Most practicing Jews keep kosher. That is also markedly un-European. My personal take on how a person can be 'Jewish' without practicing Judaism is because Judaism is also an ethnic subgroup. This is precisely why I identify as having Jewish heritage. I'm sorry that this response was extremely brief, but I'm tired and need to go to bed. I will try to respond in full tomorrow.

[Albion]

I'll say that historically England has seen the Continent as the source of trouble

Joe, you're absolutely right. Just look at how the English view the EU for a start.

and the English speaking peoples as their solution.

Indeed, America is the close ally, Australia is the alternative life and Canada and NZ are the kin.

There is also the problems with France, and the English often associate Europe with France and the French have tried to say the English are not really European in outlook.

Agreed. Some of the older, less well-informed folks will blame anything the EU does on the French.
Then they go and holiday there.

Some of it is based in Anglo supremacism (we're too good for them, they'll say). Some of it is based in many Continentals themselves not seeing the English as Europeans.

Western Euros have an inferiority complex towards America and the Anglosphere. They just see the Anglosphere as Britain craving America's attention instead of a cultural entity.
Britain seeking to remove itself from European affairs must mean that it is sneaking off to Washington.

Ashkenazis are a European ethnic group. I was born in England, so I could be called 'English', though I am not of English descent. I was simply born here. Neither my mother nor my father are English. My mother is Romanian and my father is French. Therefore I am of Romanian and French descent.

Maybe Jews are best treated as a distinct identity that transcends borders like the Aromanians or the much less welcome Roma.

There's arguments either way. Damn, Jews are confusing.

Closer to Mediterranean Europeans than Georgians!!

It shows the whole Israel thing is probably a lie as far as the Ashkenazi are concerned, they must be largely Khazar converts.

Sicilians, Southern Italians, and Cypriots - Semitic (and a bit North African too, me thinks) admixed Europeans

They prefer the term "Neolithic farmers". Some people say R1b and a arrived off the steppes, so should we be "Iranian Nomads"?
And I is related to J distantly too.

Insulting Rumanians, French AND English now. Nice one.

In what way?

[Portukalos]

Closer to Mediterranean Europeans than Georgians!!

Not surprising considering that Ashkenazim entered Europe via Italy and Greece before and all the tralala Greek-Roman-Jewish dramas stories of I love you and me neither that happenned in Antiquity . The Map doesn't even include Balkans and South Italy who bridge the gap you see between Tuscans , Romanians and Jews.

[Osweo]

This is precisely why I identify as having Jewish heritage.

Do you only HAVE something? Are you unable or unwilling to BE!?! Why the bizarre word games? You are, at the end of the day, a Jewess, no?

[Albion]

Were the Cypriots ever Europeans proper, or just natives of that island next-door to Israel who just happen to speak Greek? I heard many different things from the Greeks on the forum in that other thread, so I'm not really sure what they are.

(I also agree about the Sicilians, I've seen some very racially questionable half-Arab types among them.)

Well no one would call the Greeks European if they hadn't have founded the civilisation. South East Europe shows a lot of Neolithic genes derived from the Middle East but it is unfair to label the people as "Middle Eastern".
They've mixed with other European groups and have European culture and traits. If you labelled Greeks as Middle Eastern then you'd have to label all the other neolithic farming haplogroups in Europe as the same, so you'd get Middle Easterners at more than 10% in Germany for instance.

To be fair though, many of the subclades of these haplogroups show version specific to Europe and to certain regions of Europe. These subclades are barely ever found in the Middle East.

Just look at R1b and R1a - would you say that Slavs are Afghans because both have R1a although the subclades are totally different?
What about R1b in Ireland and Turkey?

[PetiteParisienne]

This is the problem with the way the public defines the identity of a people in a specific country. Its based more on just having citizenship, which completely runs in contradiction with how people have identified themselves over the age. This is because liberals and other scumbags have reduced the identity of a people to merely a social construct, instead of realizing it as a self-conscious and intrinsic value.


The Self-Conscious and Intrinsic value of a people's identity lies in the race-consciousness, which resonates and reflects itself from and towards the language and culture of a people. If one shares a similarity in language, culture, and ethnic background with only a margin of difference they share a similar self-conscious identity.


That said today's borders do not reflect this self-conscious identity which exists among certain peoples. Civic Nationalism is not a viable solution to identify someone's background, but only an illegitimate classification which the elitists and intellectuals of previous generations and this generation advocate for.


This was all done to open up the boundaries of nations to a global economy, which would be runned by powerful Plutocrats and Businessmen, who want to make as much money off this open-ended idea regarding national identity.


The ignorance and Fanaticism does not have to do with people who are merely speaking the truth, but those who wish to deny it by saying they are something when they are not. Most people do not realize that their identity is now open ended and can be liberally interpreted due to the fact that powerful and greedy men want to use you as an instrument for their money flow and power.


They in retrospect want to deride your true and authentic identity, and to undermine it by re-constructing it around a civic nationalism, which does not account for self-conscious or instrinsic meaning. You are not only advocating for an idea that runs contradictory with who you are, it negates a part of you, which is inclusively essential to your being.


The extent to which it is is unknown to me, but you can not state one side of the story and forget another. You are affirming the A is now B, when you have to affirm A as not equaling B, and thus only containing a part of B. It might be better off if you never mentioned that they are Jews, and just list them Europeans.


The term Ashkernazi seems to be of no use or meaning if they are already Europeans by default due to their partial European ancestry, linguistic ties, and cultural assimilation.


Jews are Jews and Europeans are Europeans, and if they are mixed then they are partially both to some extent or another. But A is not B if its only partially itself and B, and you can use the partial inclusion of B as an excuse to negate the A portion contained by B and within it.

Again, apologies for the brief reply to your wonderfully thoughtful post.

I have mentioned my Jewish heritage because I know that it is a significant point of contention to racially and ethnically minded people. If it came down to war, I stand with Europe now and forever.

[GeistFaust]

I absolutely agree with you that language is hugely indicative of a person's cultural mindset. Hasidic Jews speak Yiddish, and I would not consider them to be white or European. Most practicing Jews keep kosher. That is also markedly un-European. My personal take on how a person can be 'Jewish' without practicing Judaism is because Judaism is also an ethnic subgroup. This is precisely why I identify as having Jewish heritage. I'm sorry that this response was extremely brief, but I'm tired and need to go to bed. I will try to respond in full tomorrow.

I think if you have a certain heritage this does not negate the possibility of adopting a different language or culture, which is European in nature. That said even if you have only partial European ancestry you can not negate the fact you are part Jewish.

A Jew who takes on a different language and culture is still a Jew, especially the closer they are from diverging and abandoning the language, modes of conduct, and mentality which makes them truly Jewish.

The longer the duration of time they have separated themselves from Jewish languages, modes of conduct, and mentality does not negate their Jewish background, especially if they remain a pure blood more or less.


They still are Non-Indo-European even though they believe in creeds, practice traditions, and speak a code of communication which coincides and has arisen out of Indo-European peoples.

[Thunor]

I mostly agree with Anachronistic about teh J00s. They're at the blurry limit between European and Semitic, and some are more of the former while others are more of the latter. The majority of Ashkenazim can pass as white in the racial sense. Are they culturally European? That's up for debate.

Just look at R1b and R1a - would you say that Slavs are Afghans because both have R1a although the subclades are totally different? What about R1b in Ireland and Turkey?

Well, the fact that the Irish and Turks share some haplogroups (dating back to ancient times) doesn't make them the same race. We can talk about haplogroups and genetic links all we want - at the end of the day, my eyes and common sense can judge who is European and who's not.

[PetiteParisienne]

Do you only HAVE something? Are you unable or unwilling to BE!?! Why the bizarre word games? You are, at the end of the day, a Jewess, no?

I do not practice the Jewish faith. I am a pagan. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. I cannot BE a fraction.