|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 13:36:33 GMT -5
By the way, my own racial type is Mediterranid, I wonder if that makes our resident Medicists look like idiots, or makes me a "race traitor".
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 9, 2004 13:43:35 GMT -5
Caucasoid It is not the same to say "there were nordic elements in..." that "they were, especifically, nordic". In fact, it is just the opposite. I don`t know what are the grounds of Coon to say that, I was asking about any archeological research which mentions any large population movement between 1000BC and 200BC into the Italian peninsula. And remember the Gauls that defeated the Romans in the 3rd century BC were NOT true Romans at all, but rather barbarians to Roman eyes. As to the "medicists", I think it is a complete mistake to take "nordicists" too seriously. And it is absolutely unacceptable to take the so-called theories of certain "enlightened" people as an excuse to bash a whole race. I am ashamed of my former post. By the way, Caucasoid, as for myself, I am a liberal, and wouldn`t give a damn if I found out that I come from a family of black slaves who suffered some sort of mutation and became whites two generations ago. Really, I don`t care. But I feel quite pissed off when Afrocentrists or their Nordic counterparts try to rewrite history for their political agenda
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 9, 2004 14:47:08 GMT -5
Caucasoid It is not the same to say "there were nordic elements in..." that "they were, especifically, nordic". I said that Coon cited someone else, who found a specifically Nordic type among early Romans. I thought it was clear that I was not saying that Romans, were mainly or entirely Nordic. Well, I do remember a passage in Coon which did deal with this. I wouldn't really mind either, although I have racialist views because I'm not a racial materialist. But while I don't mind racialism, my point was that I don't see why I should respect hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Mar 9, 2004 18:09:50 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.We are extremely privileged in witnessing the final touches in the creation of the New Nordic Mythology. This is the Mythology that will encourage our Nordic Race, steel its resolve and deflate the morale of inferior races to resist. This is the Mythology that will justify our future actions and possessions in the process of smashing all inferior and corrupt civilizations. All civilizations are the creation of our master race and have been denigrated by the inferior mongrels that inherited them. Mythology is what we need. History sucks and science is Jewish. PS. Do not believe any racially compromised Greek mongrel if he tells you Xanthoi does not mean Golden. What does he know about our mythical Norse language?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Mar 9, 2004 18:22:41 GMT -5
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? Some Roman theatre masks. Sorry, I do not have any pictures of the Roman superstars, their agents have been dead 2,000 years, these will have to do. I suspect when Coon found a week Nordic element in Romans and Greeks, it was the bones of some better than average fed Meds (because of social position) who had grown an inch taller.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Mar 10, 2004 7:15:38 GMT -5
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. a) name the study and provide a link b) what standards does the study use to determine the distance between Italics and Germanics, and how these standards compare distances between Italic, Germans and other groups? You said it here: They were, specifically, Nordic. You did not say there was a component. The Latin language is as close as it is distant to the Germanic languages, all depending what other languages are we using for comparisons. In terms of Indo-European languages the distances will be shorter. In terms of Nordic languages, there is an abyss. Yes, there was a blonde, nordic element among the ancient Celts. Just as there were other elements. Celts are not a racial group, they are a cultural group. In fact, in some areas they assimilated the older substrata, and in other they were assimilated by the older substrata. This comment of yours is childish and and gratuitous. It doesn't constitute any kind of answer to what Graeme said and it is absolutely out of context. I suspect that a product of a sudden anger and rage you're experiencing for being contradicted. You were very clear when you stated specifically nordic. That is not a mere reference to anything, it is quite categorical in itself. Whatever your reasons to be enraged are, do not take people for fools that easily. And I couldn't care less if Coon was a racist, a liberal, or a homosexual. He is ages obsolete and he also said such things as Nordics being depigmented Mediterraneans. Mediterraneans, not Latins. So go figure what the relationship between a Mediterranean Berber and a Nordic Scandinavian should be. Now that's more like it. Let's see if you can tell us what that element was. The whole thing is so vague as you put it. It is not a matter of what his personal beliefs were, it is simply a matter of knowing if he was right or wrong, or where he was right and where wrong. You can't take a work which is today so outdated as if it were a holy scripture. Well, not really. It is more based on facts and reality than the other two. Also, different to the others, it doesn't need to claim foreign cultures for itself. What you see is simply biased and provoked by your own rage. Whatever your reasons. Neither of both. It makes a fool of yourself for presuming that it is of any importance and for suggesting that we might be idiots. Besides, what you claim to be is only your word that we have to believe, and so far you have been either lying or contradicting yourself enough for us not to give you any credibility. No, you did not say that Coon cited anyone else. You are saying it now. You don't care much for your credibility, do you? Yes, so clear. Most of all when you first say one thing and then another different. a) quote it or provide a link b) tell us why we should rely on a work that: 1) is years old obsolete; 2) it has been proved wrong in many issues. c) tell us why we should take it as an absolute truth against evidences Else, tell us why we should take your word as the ultimate truth. That makes a lot of sense. A lot. I suggest you look for a good definition on the meaning of hypocresy before you ever use that word again. What I don't know is why we should pay any attention, let alone respect, to ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Mar 10, 2004 8:53:34 GMT -5
I am sure the Kelts, the ancient ones, probably did have a tendency to blondism as do all Meds, Alpinids etc. It is not a big deal. However, I do not accept they, the Kelts, were of the same stock as Northwest Europeans. All we have are subjective descriptions which may be exaggerated or skeletal remains which don't indicate colouring. The Halstaat people were Kelts yet are always grouped with Nords. Why? Because of their high cultural achievements. Think of the artifacts found in bogs in North Europe - they are all Keltic in origin not Germanic or whatever you want to call them.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 10, 2004 9:34:50 GMT -5
a) name the study and provide a link b) what standards does the study use to determine the distance between Italics and Germanics, and how these standards compare distances between Italic, Germans and other groups? All I know is that Coon said this. www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VI4.htm"We know comparatively little about the racial composition of the early Italic people in pre-Roman times. Two crania from Remedello 47 are both those of dolichocephals of moderate size; one of them, which is certainly a male, has a stature of 168 cm. Two early Romans 48 were likewise dolichocephals of the same size and proportions as many of the Nordic groups north of the Alps; while a third, from the pre-Republican cemetery of Corneto Tarquinia, which can be more accurately defined, resembles a small male series of eight Christian Roman skulls, dating from the first to fourth centuries A.D. 49 These nine male crania are identical metrically with the means for the La Tène Kelts in Bohemia, and the Gauls and Gallo-Romans of the Marne. The same mesocephalic, leptorrhine form is found in each case." Yes, Coon indeed noted some Roman skulls as being of a specifically Nordic type. This means that there was a specifically Nordid component. There are no such things as Nordic languages. Nordic is not a language family. However Italic languages are a part of a group that is within Indo-European, and includes Celtic and Germanic as well as Italic. Celtic and Germanic are associated with a Nordic racial type, so it is reasonable that Italic languages were brought to Italy from north of the Alps by people of this racial type. But less gratituous and childish that assuming I'm a Nordicist, just because what I said isn't good for Medicism. Of course it is an answer. He has the same double standard as the Jews living in predominantly European countries. He wants to claim whiteness while behaving as an "oppressed" minority. He says he hates being a Med in Australia but he doesn't emigrate to a Med country. Hed rather agitate like a Black Panther who refuses.to live in Africa. THe reason they refuse is because Black Panthers know the truth about Africa, and Graeme knows the economic gap between Australia and southern Europe. He is constantly claiming to be anti-racist. He accuses Nordicists of "racism" even as he calls Mongoloids ugly, and gets angry atthe suggestion that he mignt be descended from Negroids. Do you have any idea how hilarious it sounds? Can you, or any militant Med, give me one non-racist reason, why you are so offended at the idea of having black genes? You see I find it strange that you hate this idea so much, but you claim not to be racist. You're like those blacks who hate people of other races, but deny that they are racists, because only white people are "racist". You havent actually shown him to be wrong yet, thats why you wanted to see the passage. And I think that, for Graeme, it DOES matter what Coon's beliefs because he has repeatedly called Coon a "racist". Medicists do claim other cultures for themselves. How many Medicists claim to that Meds invented western culture. Spengler disproved this. Classical civilisation had no "Faustian" character like modern western civilisation. It was something different. What the north of Europe inherited from the south was a religion, Classical philosophy and a few things which the Germanics could have invented themselves as the Chinese and Mayans did, like an alphabet. (Note that the alphabet used by Greeks and Romans was originally Semitic, and so was the religion. So if the south "civilised" the north, the Semites "civilised" the Greeks and the Romans. But I can just imagine how Medicists would react to that suggestion.) And speaking of non-European Meds, (European) Medicists seem to like bashing the achievements of Islam as well, by claiming that Arabs just copied things from Classical civilisation too. It is of importance because it confirms that Nick Griffin was right about one of the things that he said, that there was a Nordic invasion into Italy. I certainly don't say that Medicists are idiots because lLike the Black or Jewish "anti-racists", your type are very cunning. Many people would not catch onto the double standard of these rants about racism. There cannot be such thing as any anti racism, because anti-racism is just one group promoting their own race by attacking another race. Do you think that there is a conspiracy of people pretendidng to be Mediterranid, to discredit Medicism?
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 10, 2004 13:22:32 GMT -5
What the north of Europe inherited from the south was a religion, Classical philosophy and a few things which the Germanics could have invented themselves as the Chinese and Mayans did, like an alphabet. This is a lie. Northern Europe inherited from Southern Europe the scientific tradition, mathematics (e.g., Euclidean geometry), architecture and art (e.g., the Renaissance, a revival of classical culture) -- the foundations of what constitutes Western civilization. Without Galileo's contributions to the development of the scientific method and physics, and the general wealth of information which came from the South to the North, Newton may not have been the "great" scientist he is considered today (he stood on the shoulders of giants, as he said); and without the developments of the Renaissance and the rebirth of classical culture which includes literature, Shakespeare would have probably been somewhat less polished or plainly different. Obviously there was a "late Winter" for the Northern peoples, and their achievements in modern times are something to be proud of, but to say that everything the Northerners got from the Southerners could have been developed by the Northerners is just plain historical ignorance and unsupported by evidence. It's obvious that Northern Europeans are not dumb and have contributed immensely to culture, but they inherited much more than philosophy and religion.
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 10, 2004 13:52:58 GMT -5
Can you, or any militant Med, give me one non-racist reason, why you are so offended at the idea of having black genes? You see I find it strange that you hate this idea so much, but you claim not to be racist. Because, if you had read a little more history, you'd know that the "Black Legend" has been used to diminish Mediterranean achievements. The Protestant countries used this against the Spaniards -- even when Spain was a superpower -- as a way to undermine the spread of Catholicism by portraying the Spaniards as racially decadent. There is nothing wrong with Black genes, tho. If a modern genetic test showed I have .5% Black ancestry, it wouldn't impact me the slightest. Those in the White Nationalist movement, who are paranoid about racial mixing, would probably have their self-esteem shattered and require counseling or some type of therapy. Pushkin was a far better man than any avowed White Nationalist in existence today.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 10, 2004 14:41:50 GMT -5
This is a lie. Northern Europe inherited from Southern Europe the scientific tradition, mathematics (e.g., Euclidean geometry), architecture and art (e.g., the Renaissance, a revival of classical culture) -- the foundations of what constitutes Western civilization. I believe that there is no such thing as a "western civilisation", just as there is no "European race". I don't want to deny the achievements of Classical (or pre-Classical) Meds - but I do not believe that Medieval civilisation was simply inherited from the south. It had its own independant character, as did Classical civilisation from its neighbours. I accept that cultural borrowings are real, but they are determined by the environment of the reciever. If Germanics accepted foreign ideas, they were willing to accept them only because they were ready for them. This would be true of writing. which is neccessary for large urban societies. Runic was already in use by Germanics and could have become a native script since the population pressures were there. This would have been the same principle as in China where Chinese writing evolved from a form of divination. The north does have an inheritence from Southern Europe, but it is still only equivalent to the borrowings of Classical civilisation from the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. I accept tat cultural borrowings must be respected but they do not create a civilisation. I believe that the foundations of our present technologically oriented society were not laid in the Italian Renaissance but in the Middle Ages of northern Europe. There was an agricultural revolution, and a technological one, at this time. These were not Mediterranean borrowings but a native cultural development. The northern inheritence from the Classical civilisations was real, but it had to be suited to the needs of the north or it wouldn't have been accepted. I believe that anything which had a practical use (technologies, science or political ideals but not styles of painting or religion or architecture), would probably have arose anyway because it had happened independantly, in other parts of the world. I apologise if I was myself apearing rude to southern Europeans. But I believe that the character of the north is essentially Germanic and Frankish.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Mar 10, 2004 14:54:33 GMT -5
All I know is that Coon said this. www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VI4.htm"We know comparatively little about the racial composition of the early Italic people in pre-Roman times. Two crania from Remedello 47 are both those of dolichocephals of moderate size; one of them, which is certainly a male, has a stature of 168 cm. Two early Romans 48 were likewise dolichocephals of the same size and proportions as many of the Nordic groups north of the Alps; while a third, from the pre-Republican cemetery of Corneto Tarquinia, which can be more accurately defined, resembles a small male series of eight Christian Roman skulls, dating from the first to fourth centuries A.D. 49 These nine male crania are identical metrically with the means for the La Tène Kelts in Bohemia, and the Gauls and Gallo-Romans of the Marne. The same mesocephalic, leptorrhine form is found in each case." Whatever he says here, dolichocephalia is also a Mediterranean characteristic. But I agree with him in that "We know comparatively little about the racial composition of the early Italic people in pre-Roman times." Let's see more quotes from the same text: Ah... not what I claimed that Romans were a mixture with Mediterraneans, but before then Latins were mixed with the Etruscan Mediterraneans (and probably other Meds too). Unless you now claim that Mediterranean traits are recessive before Nordic, I don't know how you will maintain that Romans were Nordics, but I'm sure you will. Ah.. then the Romans were probably Nordics but of the specific Negro-Nordic sub-sub-type? Confusing. No, he says he finds similarities with La Tene Kelts. Despite all other things he says, some of which I quoted above. Try to conceal it with the fact that Celt does not represent one unique racial type, and that it is a cultural denomination. I have not assumed that you are a nordicist, in fact nowhere have I called you by such a name. Look for excuses somewhere else. Whatever I presume you are, I'll keep it for myself. Did you come with that idiocy on your own or did someone else cheat it to you? The loony zealot type is becoming more of a fashion on these days and on these boards. Relax. I can't since I am not a non-racist, so ask one. I am only offended with the idea of having to argue with someone who is assuming things that are wrong, presuming too much, and knowing nothing. Stop your rage, even a 3 y/o with Down's Syndrome could see that I am a racist. The moment you stop spitting foam from your mouth and stop your rabies, the moment you might get to realize that you are making a fool of yourself. See above. I don't have to prove him wrong, it is you who is wrong and it is you who has to prove him right. I am simply not going to take as a reliable text in 2004 something that was written in the early 1900's and which quoted authors from the late 1800's. But, for all I care, you can do of yourself whatever you wish. You've got a rabid fixation with Graeme. Really? Show one text in print or in digital where some Mediterraneanist does such claims. Or stop speaking nonsense. Yes, of course, I'm impressed by such a proof. And not that it matters that Spengler was a Germanicist with claims on the Western Civilisation. Oh yes, they could, but they didn't. As the Negroes did not. Don't take it for granted. It's still to be seen if Phoenicians were Semites... or Nords. Are you trying to prove your fantasy of the Nordic Romans or simply raging on Mediterraneans because of some reason I ignore? Aha... so that you claim to be a Mediterranid (not that it means that you are a Mediterranean... it's like being a human and a humanoid, right?), confirms that Griffin was right in that there was a Nordic invasion into Italy... and, since we are feeling generous today, we'll concede that it also confirms that you were right in that Romans were Nordics. You need help, and quick. Yes, and you are not paranoid, we are after you and we'll get you. I admit it, not many people would. But you are one of the few who does. I know how you feel, it's like when you say you've been abducted and people think you are nuts. Terrible feeling, hey? There you are again, with conspiracies, little meds after you... who knows, green men too? No, I think there are a few trolls around, and a few loonies. But I don't think they are connected between themselves. But who knows, they might be in the same therapy group.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoid on Mar 10, 2004 14:59:40 GMT -5
Because, if you had read a little more history, you'd know that the "Black Legend" has been used to diminish Mediterranean achievements. The Protestant countries used this against the Spaniards -- even when Spain was a superpower -- as a way to undermine the spread of Catholicism by portraying the Spaniards as racially decadent. Do you have a reference for this? I am curious about this claim that the English accused the Spanish of being part negroid. I don't see how would have associated Negroids with the Mediterranean or why they would have seen such mixing as "racially decadent" back then. I suspect that you are talking about a folk explanation for the darker skin of the Spanish.
|
|
|
Post by eufrenio on Mar 10, 2004 15:13:28 GMT -5
Galvez: "Because, if you had read a little more history, you'd know that the "Black Legend" has been used to diminish Mediterranean achievements. The Protestant countries used this against the Spaniards -- even when Spain was a superpower -- as a way to undermine the spread of Catholicism by portraying the Spaniards as racially decadent. "
Galvez, the historical "Black Legend" that Spain´s enemies spread had to do with the Spanish Inquisition, the backwardness and obscurantism, the alleged extermination of Amerindians, the slave trade and so forth. Spain was seen as an evil empire. It was anti-catholic propaganda by protestant countries. There are serious studies on the black legend, and the racial component was not a part of it. "Black" was used in the intended meaning of "dark, evil".I only found out about this racial version of the black legend in Internet forums. It´s probably a modern version. ;-)
It was in many ways similar to the current anti-USA propaganda: no matter what the USA do, they are always wrong, cunning, materialistic, ruthless and so forth. All powerful countries have their own black legend. We Spaniards referred to the UK as " la pérfida Albión".
|
|
|
Post by galvez on Mar 10, 2004 15:19:02 GMT -5
Do you have a reference for this? I am curious about this claim that the English accused the Spanish of being part negroid. I don't see how would have associated Negroids with the Mediterranean or why they would have seen such mixing as "racially decadent" back then. I suspect that you are talking about a folk explanation for the darker skin of the Spanish. The idea that the Spanish were racially tainted due to "Moorish" admixture was spread by historians and writers of Protestant countries. This is in Geoffrey Parker's Philip II. It was more than "folk explanation."
|
|