|
Post by dalonord on Mar 31, 2004 17:05:31 GMT -5
Your comments were certainly more credible than those of Nordicists who are swarthier than you, but unfortunately for you they are not as credible as those of Slavs who are far more Nordic than you, (and taller) even if you are an exception among Nordicists. I don't care any longer for the Meds vs. Nords feud. It's time for people to grow up. I've never cared for it. How do you know how tall I am? LOL...
|
|
|
Post by dalonord on Mar 31, 2004 17:12:34 GMT -5
However, I do take offense at Celts who wish to be Germanic and at swarthy modern Germanics who think they are more Nordic than the Slavs whom they stole babies from. Do us all a favor: if you are a Nordicist, please have lighter eyes than the Meds, be taller (unfortunately for them they generally don't measure up to Mynydd's level), and be as intelligent (the stray Nord taller than Mynydd is likely to be of a mediocre intellect). Well, I'm not a Nordicist in the sense of believing that all others are 'subhuman' or something ridiculous like that. However, I am blond, I have blue/green eyes, 6' tall, dolichocephalic, leptorhine, long-faced, florid skin tone and a strawberry colored beard. Do I qualify?
|
|
|
Post by dalonord on Mar 31, 2004 17:25:14 GMT -5
Except Dalonord is not a "true Teuton." In his own words: He-he, I'm a white American so how can I not be at least part Irish?!
Most of my Irish lineage comes via my maternal grandmother. Her ancestors came from Ireland and settled in Prince Edward Island, Canada in the 1830s. Some are still there but my direct line migrated from there down to Boston by the turn of the century. Some originally came from Ballyheige in the SW and others from County Westmeath in the east of Ireland.
Family names include Conlon, Dalton (although this sounds rather English and usually means dale (valley) + town), O'Brien, Hogan, Roach and a few others that I can't remember now.If there is one thing more despicable than Slavs who asskiss and make alliances with the Nazis (who are generally swarthier than them), it is Celts or part-Celts who pretend to be Germans or exaggerate their Germanic ancestry. No exaggeration whatsoever. If you'll read more closely, you'll see that I said most of my Irish lineage comes through my maternal grandmother--or somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%. The remainder of my heritage is Dutch (50% +), German, English and a smidge of Dane thrown in.
|
|
|
Post by dalonord on Mar 31, 2004 18:10:06 GMT -5
You do love yourself, don't you? You guys use the same approach as gypsies. I tell you that I'm amazed by this striking similarity and I've been tempted to tell about it on more than one occasion. After many attacks, attempts to discredit, heritage robbery, and all kind of both veiled and open insults to Meds, when you are confronted you whine just like gypsies when the people turn against them. They too cry unfairness, in much a similar way as you do. I don't find it ironic, I find it something different. We don't fear going anywhere and confronting others. We do not have the need to hide behind a pack and can confront others in the open or even in their own field. I think that's a great Mediterraneanist characteristic. You prefer the fake sense of safety that the pack gives you... fair, but don't try to make it view as a sign of civil behaviour. If you and your friends think that skadi is a Nordicist board, then you should be consequent and not allow the existance of non-Nordic forums in it. That's a big lie. I can point you to tons of Nordicist BS which only purpose is to bash and diminish other groups. Of course you will deny that you or your fellow in the pack stand behind it. But again, I could point you to a good bunch of comments by your pack fellows which clearly show you do. I really don't know if what you say is out of a shameless hipocrisy or simply a naïve mindness, perhaps the product of your isolation in your small world and subsequent alienation with reality. Edit: have -> do not have Call it a healthy self-confidence. Look, I realize that there has been much propaganda put forth over the years espousing Nordic surpremacy and frankly, I've never bought it. My beef is with those who find it offensive that a partiular group wishes for self-preservation. What the hell is wrong with that? You see, it all started a few years back when a few of us were discussing Physical Anthropology on an obscure Yahoo message board. This forum was dedicated to discussing issues concerning the racial history of northern Europe and advocating a racial awareness amongst the current population of this region and their kin in the Colonies. Frankly, we were minding our own business. Slowly but surely, others came in--many taking exception to the exclusion of their particular race or ethnicity. Some of these people had excellent points--points that I personally, was willing to accept--such as the misclassification of many Slavic populations by biased anthropologists in the past. Sure, there were some raging Nordicists who were still hooked on Gunther, Hitler, and the whole crew. However, by and large, most of us were (are) perfectly willing to see other points of view. But no, the board was dragged down and anyone remotely interested in the racial history of NW Europe and the preservation of the native populations of this region suddenly became fanatical Nordicists who had it all wrong and who had no business talking amongst themselves. Evil people of NW Euro heritage!! But instead of employing their minds and faculties for their own interests and their own affairs, they had to wage a campaign in an effort to destroy all notions of any form of North European identity and unity. (Although here I will certainly give credit to Mr. Pontikos for his energetic efforts in creating his websites, blogs, etc.) Ever since then, it has been a battle to recognize one's own NW origins without being branded a Nazi Nordicist. Oh and Mynydd....speak nothing about either my reality and my world or my personal independence....for you know naught of these things. I need no "pack" to protect me. I've protected myself just fine for all these years and I have the experience, intelligence and wisdom to stand alone. Again, the yeoman's way.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Mar 31, 2004 18:57:05 GMT -5
My beef is with those who find it offensive that a partiular group wishes for self-preservation. What the hell is wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that. The problem is that Nordicism has become synonimous to anti-med and anti-slav propaganda, thanks to some trolls who are (for some mysterious reason) well respected in Nordicist circles. Kick out the extremists who denigrate all non-nords, and you'll have a well respected Nordicist group. You can thank Gunther and Hitler for that, accompanied by clowns like Kemp. How can you keep a discussion at a respectable level, when the board is full of idiots who constantly exclaim stupidities like: " meds only desire in life is to mate with nordic women ". or " You're not assimilable! " ( pointed to someone who came in for an honest classification. ) As many others, I know where I'm from. I came in for an honest classification, and I was surprised to see replies like: " You're not assimilable!" ... assimilable to WHAT?.... I wondered, until someone explained to me that means 'assimilable to northern European races'.... Of course, the broad generalizations started against me. Since I said I was from Montenegro, I was automatically labeled as a Turk, as "olive-skinned", noisy med, swarthy etc. Soon I was labeled as Mongoloid/Capoid etc. All of this was done by ( self-proclaimed ) Nordicists, I didn't get a single insult from anyone else. I'm well aware that these individuals are not representatives of Nordicists and northern Europeans as a whole, but they are the most vocal. The posts that reflect the fair and correct spirit of Celts and Germans such as yourself, Agrippa, Frans and others I have much respect for are quickly overshadowed by two or three trolls who can't hold back from making snide remarks.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Mar 31, 2004 19:03:48 GMT -5
Yes Irish and Scottish people are very light eyed. Almost as light as Scandinavia. By the way : the irish and scottish people are uniquely light skinned. Scandinavia is the blondest part of Europe but not the lightest skinned. Ireland is the lightest skinned. irish skin is known for often freckling and almost always getting red in the sun. Scandinavians on the other hand tan more easy. Have you never heard of this? This has everything to do with the Irish being 98% palaeolithic... direct descendants of people who settled Europe a couple of dozen millenia ago. They've had the most time to become depigmented.
|
|
|
Post by dalonord on Mar 31, 2004 19:26:17 GMT -5
Nothing is wrong with that. The problem is that Nordicism has become synonimous to anti-med and anti-slav propaganda, thanks to some trolls who are (for some mysterious reason) well respected in Nordicist circles. Kick out the extremists who denigrate all non-nords, and you'll have a well respected Nordicist group. You can thank Gunther and Hitler for that, accompanied by clowns like Kemp. How can you keep a discussion at a respectable level, when the board is full of idiots who constantly exclaim stupidities like: " meds only desire in life is to mate with nordic women ". or " You're not assimilable! " ( pointed to someone who came in for an honest classification. ) As many others, I know where I'm from. I came in for an honest classification, and I was surprised to see replies like: " You're not assimilable!" ... assimilable to WHAT?.... I wondered, until someone explained to me that means 'assimilable to northern European races'.... Of course, the broad generalizations started against me. Since I said I was from Montenegro, I was automatically labeled as a Turk, as "olive-skinned", noisy med, swarthy etc. Soon I was labeled as Mongoloid/Capoid etc. All of this was done by ( self-proclaimed ) Nordicists, I didn't get a single insult from anyone else. I'm well aware that these individuals are not representatives of Nordicists and northern Europeans as a whole, but they are the most vocal. The posts that reflect the fair and correct spirit of Celts and Germans such as yourself, Agrippa, Frans and others I have much respect for are quickly overshadowed by two or three trolls who can't hold back from making snide remarks. Good points AWAR. I thank you for your post. There are surely those who make a bad name for any group--be they Slavic folk, Mediterraneans, Germanics, etc. Perhaps that is the lesson in all of this; that being, that a few vocal & more extreme indivuals are not at all representative of an entire group and we shouldn't found our judgements on said groups based on these individuals. cheers
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Mar 31, 2004 20:27:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to repair the image of N. Europeans on Dodona and wherever else I can, just to set things straight.
|
|
skord
Full Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by skord on Mar 31, 2004 21:54:50 GMT -5
I think some of you are being too harsh towrds dalonord.He is one of the few unbiased classifiers along with Frans,Triglav and Agrippa on skadi that has no political agenda towards any ethnic group.
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Mar 31, 2004 22:13:44 GMT -5
I agree. Dalonord has always been a gentleman, one of the people I respect at Skadi. (I posted at Skadi a few times a few months ago and have been a lurker for a while).
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Mar 31, 2004 22:41:04 GMT -5
I agree that most of the people there are racist but there are a few who are there because they are non-racists interested in the subject of racism.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Mar 31, 2004 22:53:06 GMT -5
I agree that most of the people there are racist but there are a few who are there because they are non-racists interested in the subject of racism. Actually, I wouldn't say 'most are racists' since it's not the correct term, as well as the truth being that at least half the members don't have extreme views.
|
|
Scoob
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by Scoob on Apr 1, 2004 0:43:53 GMT -5
Good points AWAR. I thank you for your post. There are surely those who make a bad name for any group--be they Slavic folk, Mediterraneans, Germanics, etc. Perhaps that is the lesson in all of this; that being, that a few vocal & more extreme indivuals are not at all representative of an entire group and we shouldn't found our judgements on said groups based on these individuals.cheers Well, until the time when computers come equipped with gas chambers that can be activated remotely via Internet fora... it's all just people's opinions. I like chatting with all kinds of people. I like hearing all kinds of opinions, including opinions of people who hate my guts. So long as they say what they have to say in a civil manner - that is, not ad-hom. I'm happy to hear people's sincere feelings and points of view - it's great! That's different from ad-hom arguments. Let me offer a definition here: Ad Hominem 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument. I find the second meaning most essential.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Apr 1, 2004 2:42:14 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that I haven't used any 'ad hominem' attacks. If something, my words could be considered as 'at "homo"' observations. ;D For those who are unaware of the reason why I'm using Scoob as a pet, here are the links and comments to where and how it all started: Razmig's thoughts on IslamAnd a few quotes: So, according to Scoob we Meds are sexual obsessed people, our sexuality is corrupted, we treat women as imbecils and sexual slaves (but only by our own nature, thank you), and we look like queers (faggots) and engage quite a bit in ass taking activities. To end it all, he *states* that for all these alleged characteristics we have a highly degenerate behaviour. The funny thing is that after I respond to him accordingly, for which I use and evindential analysis instead of his mere and gratuitious speculations, he whines and cries that I'm using an ad hominem attack. I.e. an 'attack on the man', a personal attack. You little hypocrite, you bear the mark of your kind. Nooooo, you are not attacking Meds. You are just releasing your personal frustrations, for which you thought we could provide you with a nice and easy target. After all the diatribe of insults (oh, facts out of observation according to him), the guy dismisses Gesta Bellica's responses as vitriolic, but will favour factual points... if exposed, of course. Uhm... Gesta Bellica took it personally? Doesn't this imply an ad hominem attack? And what about saying that Gesta is 'knee-jerk reacting without any honest reflection'? Is that not an ad hominem attack too? I'll remind the readers that so far I have not intervened here, so there goes the first ad hominem attack, which is actually worse, as it is an ad gentem attack. Not an attack towards/against 'one man' but towards/against 'a family, a people (in the sense of race), a lineage'. But since our dear Scoob re-read his posts and he didn't find them polemical, I must be overreacting? Scoob, you want to be part, judge and executor. Isn't that a bit too much when you can't even take the heat of a simple debate? And from this point on I start debating with good old Scoob. I suggest the readers to go to the thread and see the full discussion. After all the diatribe of insults against the Gens Mediterranea, he feels sooooo offended (sorry Scoob, no purplish/pinky colours available on this board for you) becuase I unveil his own sexual orientations (actually deviations), which I suspect is the cause of his frustration. But I, differently to him, do not speculate but simply analyze his words and sources to come to a very logical conclusion. And it is then that dear old Scoob goes all hysterical and accuses me of launching ad hominem attacks. Well Scoob, if you can't take it you should have simply not started it. Be nice and people will be nice to you. Be a bitch and you'll get screwed and dumped as one.
|
|
Scoob
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by Scoob on Apr 1, 2004 2:58:44 GMT -5
I think some of the inflammatory language I used was pretty vitriolic, and a little out of line. So that was my goof.
But point remains: none of my main arguments were ad hom. Discussing peeves and even expressing strong opinions is different from redirecting arguments from the subject at hand to the speakers in the conversation.
And my opinion is my opinion. I know what I know, and I see what I see. Call me what you want, that won't change until someone presents sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Winning arguments isn't about who shouts the loudest, at least not in my book.
An example of ad-hom is the behavior of certain American mafia guys on trial that I saw on TV once: they ridiculed the judge (using the same kinds of things you say, lots of sexual puns), the prosecutor, the process, made sexual jokes out of wording in the proceedings, and in general made a mockery of the court. It was an attempt at psychological warfare, but underlined the point that they didn't really have any case to make within the accepted parameters of judicial proceedings.
|
|