|
Post by galvez on Mar 9, 2004 1:25:54 GMT -5
An interesting article by National Vanguard, written by a Nick Griffin (of the BNP?), in the November-December issue of 1995. Nick Griffin believes that classical civilization was brought by Nordic invaders who conquered various Mediterranean aboriginal populations, and that classical civilization went through decay as a result of admixture. He also rails against the diffusionist theory of the spread of Indo-European cultures and languages, arguing that these changes were brought by the displacement of ruling elites through conquest rather than by large-scale emulation. Some excerpts of the article The Celts: On the other hand, it is clear that this time did see the widespread disruption of the eastern Mediterranean by "pirates from the north." Around 1,200 B.C. the Mycenaean and Hittite civilizations, both already in decay as their rulers mixed with the non-Aryan natives, were devastated by the blonde invaders with their newfound superiority in warfare. The folk from the north who swept into Greece at this time were known as the Xanthoi --the Golden Ones--a name which reflected their ideals of nobility and greatness as well as their appearance. This wave of fresh Nordic blood laid the foundations of classical Hellenic civilization, particularly its Dorian branch, which was later to reach a peak in the city-state of Sparta. It was also at this time that the Egyptians recorded incursions of bands of tall, fair-haired warriors from across the sea.
[...]
Hellenic civilization was by now fading rapidly, owing to widespread race-mixing between the Indo-European masters and their aboriginal slaves.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 3:01:29 GMT -5
Nick Griffin believes that classical civilization was brought by Nordic invaders who conquered various Mediterranean aboriginal populations, and that classical civilization went through decay as a result of admixture. While I don't see classical civilisations as "Nordic". I do remember that Coon named early Romans as Nordid. I'm sure that this is supported by linguistics (Latin is related to Celtic or Germanic languages). Therefore Latin would have beeeen broougght by Nordics who conquered and assimilated into a local population. The "pirates of the north" refers to Hellenes and Anatolians, with other elements such as a people with horned helmets who may be megalithic Sardinians. The Tyrrhenians probably settled in Italy at around this time. [ This is probably a reference to the Libyan component which attacked Egypt under Ramesses the 3rd.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Mar 9, 2004 6:23:05 GMT -5
While I don't see classical civilisations as "Nordic". I do remember that Coon named early Romans as Nordid. I'm sure that this is supported by linguistics (Latin is related to Celtic or Germanic languages). Therefore Latin would have beeeen broougght by Nordics who conquered and assimilated into a local population. Those "early Romans" would have to be earlier than the foundation of the City, and therefore not Romans but Latin Italics. They were Indo-Europeans, but that does not equate to Nordics. They lived side by side with an already existing Mediterranean culture which was dominant, the Etrurians, from which they assimilated, together with a Hellenic influence, in a process which would lead to the birth and development of their culture and civilisation, Rome. At the time Rome was founded, Romans were no longer Latins but a mixture of Etruscans and Latins. The Indo-European language dominated (though surely much influenced by the Etruscan language), but most of the cultural baggage would come from Etruscans.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Mar 9, 2004 6:28:30 GMT -5
Gálvez, don't quote me on this but I believe that Nick Griffin is ex-BNP (after a purge) and he's now with something called WNP or some such.
As for a comment, what can I say? yet another enlightened... and the list keeps growing.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 7:05:05 GMT -5
Those "early Romans" would have to be earlier than the foundation of the City, and therefore not Romans but Latin Italics. They were Indo-Europeans, but that does not equate to Nordics. Coon identifies the presence of a specifically Nordic type among Romans. (EDIT - I wrote that "They were, specifically, Nordic" as a response to the last sentence Mynydd wrote. But it wasn't clear what I meant. I am sorry.)
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 7:07:50 GMT -5
Gálvez, don't quote me on this but I believe that Nick Griffin is ex-BNP (after a purge) and he's now with something called WNP or some such. As for a comment, what can I say? yet another enlightened... and the list keeps growing. He leads the BNP and has been criticised for his attempt to make it more inclusive. He has taken it in a more positive direction.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 9, 2004 8:04:39 GMT -5
I accept that Latin and ancient Keltic are closely related. Neither is closely related to German tongues and neither has any connection to Nordics or to other Northern peoples.
As for the Romans being some Nordic hierarchy controlling a large Med populace, if that's what you want to believe go ahead. I see absolutely no proof to substantiate that. The statues of Augustus, Caligula or Nero show men who look anything other than Nordic. As for them being blond, I doubt it. The ancients like the Kelts and the Romans loved to bleach their hair just like the ancient Egyptians loved wearing highly coloured wigs over their hairless heads. They were well off, vain and liked to show off. Otherwise they wouldn't have left their names on stelae, buildings etc.
As someone who respects the cultural achievements of the Kelts and their virtues, I resent the misappropriation of these ancients by people trying to prove silly racist scuttlebutt. The Kelts and Latins were Indo-Europeans with nothing in common ethnically or racially with the Germanics/Teutons/Nordics.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 9, 2004 8:14:44 GMT -5
Germanics are Indo-European.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 9, 2004 9:55:25 GMT -5
Yes everyone using this forum knows that. Languages do not indicated genetic similarity just indicate a possibility of some connection in the remote past. I speak English, Awar speaks English, Marina speaks English, but none of us is closely related genetically. The Romance group of IE languages are closer to ancient Keltic or modern Keltic languages than Germanic languages are to either. The Grimms provided some knowledge of how Germanic languages have moved away from the Latin derived languages and Keltic.
It is most likely that the physical differences between Europeans were formed before IE languages drifted in from the East. The foundation was UP and later modified by Neolithic farmers and that those two groups are the founders of the various Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Mar 9, 2004 12:32:32 GMT -5
They were, specifically, Nordic. Yes, we know that any man, woman or people who has make it into History has to be Nordic. Especially when it was so long ago that no one outlived him/her. Of course Ghenghis Khan was Nordic, and so were Shaka Zulu and Atahualpa. But the funniest thing is that the only real Nordic foreman in old times, Erik the Red, is known to us only because Nords keep naming him everytime they see a chance. Otherwise no one would have bothered to add his entry in an Encyclopaedia.
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 9, 2004 12:52:54 GMT -5
>>They were, specifically, Nordic.
Says who?
Do norcicists have some ground for their statements, other than their blind prejudice? I mean, is there ANY archeological finding that might remotely link Micaeans, Egiptians, Phoenicians and Romans with the hunter-gatherers that dwelled the Nordic fatherland between 2000 BC - 500 BC? Do these "experts" know a word about the former developments of South European cultures? About the copper mining, and the Standing stone monuments, thousands of years before the foundation of Rome? Did they know that Mediterranean civilizations are the outcome of a long, slow evolution, lasting thousands of years, and that savages in the north didn`t know a word on it? Have they seen the colourful depictions of Roman citizens in Pompeya? The portraits in the late Egypcian sarcophagus? Does any of those portraits look "Nordic" to you? I am just a mixed Atlanto-Med chimp, but I think my inferior would-be brain can follow the "reasoning" of Griffin, Kemp and other super-human, civilization-bearer nords: 1-Nords are superior 2-Since they are superior, any form of culture surely was unfolded by Nords 3-Whenever a civilization was developed away from Nordic fatherland, it surely was Nords who carried it there (carried from WHERE? From soil-thatched huts in a frozen marsh?) 4-If facts don`t support the former points, then facts must be defeated with faith. Facts are Jewish, they conspire to bash the glorious past of Nords. 5-Uhh... but wait, how about if we don`t have any ground for these theories? - Who needs ground? Make your theories out of air!
The invention of alphabet was a long process, starting in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Then the Phoenicians created the syllabic alphabet, which spread across the sea to Etruria and Southern Spain. Then Greeks and Romans improved the idea, and adapted the alphabet to their languages. The funny thing is, in the meanwhile, the hunter-gatherer tribes from the north of Europe had managed to learn to read the outdated Etrurian alphabet. It was something so much beyond their imagination that they regarded it something magic, and gave writing a magical meaning, a mean of clairvoyance. That is the way runes were born...and remained unchanged until the days of sagas, when Med missioners eventually taught Nords to read and write in latin alphabet. As to the figures...some day I will tell you which kind of "Nordic Supermen" invented our dear 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 9. Especially 0. Dienekes is right, these assholes are the same as Afrocentrists, they lack a history of their own and simply can`t bear it. Pathetical.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 9, 2004 13:03:15 GMT -5
Ah, but caucasoid is not just another mindless 'Nordic troll'. I wonder what he ( she? ) has to say about this.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 13:12:19 GMT -5
I accept that Latin and ancient Keltic are closely related. Neither is closely related to German tongues and neither has any connection to Nordics or to other Northern peoples. One recent study did suggest that Italic is the closest to Germanic, but if Celtic is closest to Italic it doesn't disprove my point. Where did I say this? I just said that there was a nordic component in Latins, which I believe is associated with the spread on northern European languages similar to Celtic or Germanic into Italy. Are you trying to suggest that there was not a blonde element among the ancient Celts? It's funny how people who react so angrily at any suggestion that they have Negroid DNA, turn "anti-racist" when it suits them.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 13:27:21 GMT -5
Yes, we know that any man, woman or people who has make it into History has to be Nordic. Especially when it was so long ago that no one outlived him/her. I merely referred to a passage from Coon which I remember (but I remember now, Coon is racist. Why is Coon racist, when he went on civil rights marches? Oh I know, "Medicists" don't like what he said about them not being racially pure)
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 13:33:29 GMT -5
I remember that Coon mentioned a specifically Nordic element among early Latins. But Coon wasn't a Nordicist, he was an anti-racist liberal who believed in racial differences. He was unbiased regarding Meds. As we can see from Mynydd and Graeme, "Medicism" is the same as Nordicism and Afrocentrism.
|
|