|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 17, 2004 9:14:04 GMT -5
Regarding the pseudo-Aryanism, I may be mistaken but are you making reference to the French "nouvelle-droite" ideas that emerged in the 1970s, which placed an emphasis on Europe´s "indo-european" character? These ideas have been adopted by some people in Portugal and Spain who believe they are being very modern by following foreign trends and reciting things they read in foreign manuals. It is not a matter of being «more modern»: it is a matter of knowing more than some political imperialist tendencies wanted to make believe, in order to link Portugal to it's overseas colonies. No, it does not. Our origins are full of central Indo-European elements. That does not prove anything about any ancient link between Iberia and Northern Africa. Such type of cultural elements can pass from one side to another at any time in History - including with the Portuguese presence in Northern Africa, for instances.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 17, 2004 9:19:33 GMT -5
I also met once an Iranian married to an English woman, who claimed that her daughter was much Aryan both from her Persian and English sides. This Aryan madness is like a joke. What's mad about stating one's own identity? Or the problem is just the Aryan issue? Is it better to claim an «ethnic» identity generally labeled «Mediterranean», which means next to nothing in what concerns language and real ethnic identity?
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 17, 2004 9:22:12 GMT -5
But, IE languages weren't introduced in the entire Europe at some unknown anceint times or the neolithic. That is still not known. The Etruscans were not in all the area of Italy. There are theories stating that the first wave of Indo-Europeans entered Iberia in 1000 a.c. or even before.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 17, 2004 9:37:39 GMT -5
Actually to this day it’s still not decided whether the Cantabrians were Celtic speakers or not. K, you are right, there are growing doubts about the genetic composition of most (if not all) "Celtic" and so-called "Celto-Iberian" groups of ancient Hispania. Time over again, history tells us that invasions and migrations do not have an effect of genetic replacement, but mutual assimilation and aculturization. The Mediterraneans came first (1) at a time when the peninsula was not largely inhabited (or so it is thought), so the case would have been slightly different and they would have succeeded in being the predominant genetic components. By the time that the early Indo-European migrations came in, the numbers in population of the Mediterranean people would be large and significant. So, many suggest that the degree of "celticization" would have been different in the different areas and even absorbed into the Mediterranean substrata. Furthermore, it can be argued that what we know as Keltic culture is much influenced by Mediterranean cultures. Wherever you go in the so-called Celtic Nations you find that there is still a significant component of Mediterranean genes (Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, and former Celtic Britania [modern England]). I wonder if there are any findings among the Celts of La Tene which suggest and influence in later (Gaul, Gaelic, Brythonic) Celts. I think not. And, Celt is used as a cultural term rather than racial. For the above mentioned reasons. (1)The Sahara migration theory suggests that they would come in large numbers, and probably during a large period of time due to the advancing process of desertization which forced them to leave a large area. Ah... Tautalos, speaking of Celts... tell that Latin University teacher that it is a well known fact that many Celtic words are borrowed from Latin. No doubt Latin will have borrowed a few from Celts, but it is more often all the way round.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 17, 2004 9:59:31 GMT -5
Tautalos, You are 100% Indo-European, you are one of the chosen Aryans (see bottom note), UPs already spoke Portuguese with the same syntax grammar as today's, and no, the Etruscans did not cover all of Italy (I guess that the names of other groups won't tell you anything anyway). And, not to be forgotten, I think you are the same guy who time ago claimed on StormFront that modern Spaniards were immigrants in the Iberian peninsula since they were descendants of the Roman immigrants (yes, Roman immigrants such as Traianus or Seneca). There really cannot be two people with that same particularly style of yours... same style even when doing a fool of yourself and stating those are arguments. I told you then and I tell you now, I pity you. And not to be forgotten, William Pierce (whose organization, according to Silveira's info, published the infamous pamphlet The Black Man's Gift to Portugal) had good intentions and was just misinformed about Portugal... according to your words. NOTE: Yes, mentally speaking, you are a real PROLET-ARYAN.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 18, 2004 6:11:19 GMT -5
Ah... Tautalos, speaking of Celts... tell that Latin University teacher that it is a well known fact that many Celtic words are borrowed from Latin. No doubt Latin will have borrowed a few from Celts, but it is more often all the way round. Of course. What that Latin teacher said was that many if not most of the Latin words for weapons were of either Celtic or Germanic origin - Celtic Gladius, Germanic Spata.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 18, 2004 6:29:41 GMT -5
Not having arguments at all, and being dismissed in everything that he said, Mynydd lost his temper and resorted to name calling, thus showing either his incompetence and his lack of dignity.
He haves a personal vendetta against the Aryans, and tries his best (oh well...) to demonstrate that Southern Europeans have nothing to do with the hated Aryans, since it is a well known fact that Portugal, Castela, Catalunia, France, Italy, Greece, Romania, they all speak Mediterranean languages coming from northern Africa, that's right, it is Etruscan-Basque-Iberian-Minoan, it's all the same, it is his ill-constructed Mediterranean folk, that'e right, Iberians, Basques, Etruscans, Minoans and other Mediterraneans that might exist, were all the same, even if no historian knows that except Mynydd, that is how he feels good, so, it must be true.
Also, he speaks about someone who told him something about the Spaniards at the Stormfront... well, I was there more than an year ago, but I might return, just to see how is Mynydd being «unauthorized» by the other guy....
About William Pierce, he wanted the best for the white race. His opinion about Portugal was misguided. Mynydd, in his despair, decided to mention the subject, in order of proving something that he could not demonstrate when he believed to be an Historian (others, in psychiatric hospitals, believe to be Napoleon, cars or popes, etc...).
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 18, 2004 14:11:28 GMT -5
Well Tautalos, my arguments are taken from a genetic researcher and a Historian on the one hand, further reading and comprehension of History as an amateur, and some common sense. Which is more than what we can say of your argumentation of "I am an Aryan... despite being a Portuguese... I am an Aryan... the undeniable and only truth no matter what". Which is why I told you long ago on this thread that further discussions with you were pointless. I say let's leave it since no part is going to concede that the other has any arguments... for obvious reasons. And, as I told you long before on s****f**** (when you claimed Spaniards were the descendants of the Italian immigrants [aka the Romans]... remember that even one Portuguese denied your delusive words?)... oh well, let's leave what I said for later and let's provide fow now a link to your post instead, it's more fun: www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=617559&postcount=41There is much more, and I suggest people to read through the thread, which degenerated further after his intervention (the first in degenerating it was Kemp with his intervention). Please, compare his words with those of other Portuguese people with the name of Cruz de Cristo and Rekkared. A world class difference. Here is the entire thread: www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=79670It's a bit longish, but it's worth to read most of his interventions and notice his "argumentations". Above all, do not miss a dot or comma of his claims. (By the way, there is something I say there which, after the arguments given to me by another Portuguese (Silveira, on another forum), I strongly suspect I was wrong. That is saying that the Portuguese language derives from the Northern language of Galicians. It was a presumption based on some historical facts, but which ignored other facts about the Romance spoken by the Lusitanian Mozarabs before the area being reconquered. I now can see that there is a reason to speak of Galaico-Portuguese, or Luso-Galego, languages and from which both Portuguese and Galician would have derive, and not one from another as I wrongly though). Tautalos, Lusitano or whatever else you want to name yourself (I was alpha3 there), I have no personal vendetta against the Aryans (whoever they are), but I like to look at things from a rational perspective. If someone shows that the Indo-Europeans were first in ancient Hispania, or that their genetic print is stronger than that of the Mediterraneans, I will gladly accept it. And, of course, if anyone could show beyond any reasonable doubt that those Indo-Europeans were actually the Aryans, I would accept it too. I have no problem whatsoever with that... if it was the truth. But until proven, it is not... and not just History, but also Genetics are proving that the old Mediterranean genetics have prevailed. Now let's go back to what I told you on s****f****. If your style of argumentations is writing that I have said that Portugal, Castilla, Catalunya, France, Italy, Greece, Romania, ... all speak Mediterranean languages coming from Northern Africa, you are wrong thinking that people won't read my words and see you have a big problem or are a liar. And that is what I told you on s****f**** long ago... the entire thread is here for all to read, and I cannot understand why you make such a fool of yourself... for the second time. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, but Portuguese (just as Catalan or Castilian and other Romance languages in the peninsula) are derived from the Indo-European branch of Latin, which only means it was imposed as a language... and gladly so (in case you throw a new "argument" saying I hate Latin too). But that's all about it, and it doesn't imply that we are most of all Indo-Europeans (it should have been enough with the other times I said this on earlier posts... but you still don't get it). Of course I don't believe to be an Historian, since I am not one. I just enjoy History and I prefer it over deluded, to the point of fanatic, beliefs. Farewell.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Feb 18, 2004 14:21:51 GMT -5
s****f****? What's that supposed to mean?
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 18, 2004 14:25:41 GMT -5
stormfront... like s*** and other bad words it is esthetically correct to fill them with *'s
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Feb 18, 2004 14:40:12 GMT -5
About the term "Aryan": it's one of the most misused words in race forums. Lots of racialists believe they are descended from ancient warriors who came from Asia or the Caucasus. This belief is common among prison inmates who join groups such as Aryan Brotherhood. The term "Aryan" is meaningless unless it is used to describe the few who have retained actual vestiges of Aryan culture. Such individuals exist in India, Iran, and perhaps a few other parts. About William Pierce, he wanted the best for the white race. His opinion about Portugal was misguided. William Pierce, like the more intelligent White Nationalist leaders, calculated that he could best attain his goals as chairman of the National Alliance by broadening the definition of "White" to include Mediterraneans, who are numerous in the United States. This is a strategic decision having nothing to do with actual love and respect for Mediterranean peoples. William Pierce simply wanted to inflate numbers in his organization. It is a fact that without the support of Mediterraneans, White Nationalism is headed nowhere: the Census (2000) reports that there are 26 million Americans with at least some Italian heritage. This doesn't include other Mediterraneans. The last thing White Nationalists need is tens of millions added onto their opposition. Think about it. If there is one group that can make or break White Nationalism, it is Mediterraneans. Mediterraneans thus can play the role of spoiler, ensuring that these ideologues meet numerous defeats as they attempt to grow in numbers and influence during hard times. Mediterraneans must rememeber that it's not difficult for people who hate Jews and Arabs and even other Northern Europeans to transfer their hatreds toward Southern Europeans. Southern Europeans would naturally be the next target for these degenerates. It's important that Southern Europeans recognize if and when they are being used. Whatever emoluments White Nationalists may offer to some traitorous Meds, Meds must remember that no political movement -- from the right or left -- can ever compensate for the richness of their history and cultures. Lots of Judases will come along the way -- hopefully, when the 'Day of the Rope' comes, it will be these Meds as the targets.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 18, 2004 15:42:19 GMT -5
Gálvez, it is the misuse of the term Aryan by Mediterraneans that most bothers me. It is taken as if it was an asset and a means "to be accepted", which in turn is a sign of weakness and, needless to say, deep ignorance. Besides, it is too obvious why one would be proud of having a heritage which is shared by the ancient Mediterranean Civilizations. It is not that obvious to have that great heritage and instead wish to be linked to a "strange" heritage which claims of greatness are dubious or, at the very least, widely arguable.
On the White Nationalism comment, your exposition is good enough for me. If not for anything else, because I don't have a first hand knowledge of how things in North America really are. And, let's not forget it, the term WN and its ideas (if any other than radical racism) was coined in North America and it is pretty worthless in Europe.
But I am a racialist in the sense of preservationist, and there we might clash. The will to preserve my national identity and culture is of no use unless I preserve the ethnic society to which they belong to. And, as things stand now, I am afraid that it includes opposing, by any means, to the mass immigration tide which we are suffering. But that does not include an irrational racial hatred.
To put you an example, while in South Africa with an Afrikaner girl she told me she couldn't stand kaffirs (negroes) there, though she felt that those in Europe were different, better somehow. I argued because I felt the other way round. I found those negroes in Africa quite nice (not that I treated them much, but in general... ), but I couldn't stand negroes in Europe. Her reasons to prefer ones over the others was that those in Europe dressed "westerned" and were, externally, "westernized". Uhm... well, the point is that I didn't hate negroes per se, I hated the fact that they were an active part of the degrading of my society. Then as now.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 18, 2004 15:51:49 GMT -5
Oh.. and in case it is not clear by now, I do not equate Aryan and Indo-European. I do acknowledge that modern Mediterraneans have a share of Indo-Europeans, though I consider it has been genetically assimilated. And I also believe that what made "Nothern Indo-Europeans" and "Southern Indo-Europeans" so different in ancient times lies in the Mediterranean strain. And not just Southern, but also Western.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 19, 2004 6:45:59 GMT -5
Mynydd, you do not have neither good common sense, nor enough knowledge about this subject to discuss anything, as was shown more than once. Also, beside being motivated by a political agenda based on sheer ignorance and anti-Aryan prejudices, you gave another proof of your close-mindedness and lack of education, by insisting that I wrote that message that you referred at Stormfront. You had already demonstrated your total absence of capacity to present valid arguments, even to discuss, with someone that does not agree with you when we were speaking about religions, in the Religion forum, and now you just confirmed your incompetence.
Like many other ignorants, you insist on saying that the Southern European are not Aryans because they aren't, that' all, because the Germanics claim to be Aryans, and the Slavs do the same, as well as the Iranians, and so, in your close-minded view, the Southern Europeans can't do the same because you do not want it, because you have a personal vendetta against the nordicists because some of them considered you as not being Aryan and as being inferior.
But now that you mention it, I will go to that thread and say something in favour of Lusitano, who spoke quite well about the subject of Galiza-Portugal (one nation divided by the Castillian power).
It is not about being «first», it is about being central. As far as is known, the folks who inhabitted most of central, northern and western Iberia, by the time that the Romans arrived, were Indo-European.
Before those Indo-Europeans - Celtici, Lusitani, Galaici, Vettoni, Vaccei, Asturi, Celtiberi, Lusones, etc. - we know nothing about the people who existed in those areas: no sign of nations, and no knowledge about languages or religion. Nothing.
You claim that most of Hispanics were and are Mediterranean because of the blood. But what blood? You put all the non-Indo-European folks of Western Europe in the same bag - as if, for instances, Iberians, Tartessians, Basques and Etruscans were all the same, which is quite far from being proved - and hope to make an identity out of it. This racial (because it is based on biological race alone) idiocy is what you call «arguments» and «common sense».<br>
It is nice to read this, because, given the fact that you did it first when you implied that I said that I was a pure Aryan, this only show how you must be considered, according your own words.
Yes, it does, because not only or language, but many if not most of our traditions are from Indo-European origin. That is what makes an ethnicity. The biological argument of yours means nothing, because you gather many Mediterranean elements with no special link between them and use to say that we are «Mediterranean» which, in this case, means «non-Aryan», and that is utter ridiculous and baseless.
Plus, take this lesson of dignity: try to argue against the arguments that I presented here and not with the arguments that you wish that I had presented in another place - again, you are trying to create an easier opponent, since you do not have any capacity to face the real obstacles to your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 19, 2004 6:51:52 GMT -5
Galvez, the intentions that you attribute to the White Nationalists are on your mind and not in theirs. Many of those White Nationalists are of Southern European origin - I doubt that the surname «Scutari» can sound as Swedish - and so what you say about the issue is of no validity at all.
Because, in fact, Southern Europeans are both White and Aryan, or Indo-European (the issue about the word «Aryan» is just a pathetic tool that some anti-Nationalists try to use in order to create confusion). And so, the Southern Europeans who march against the White Nationalism are nothing more than racial traitors.
Racial traitors.
|
|