[Menydh]

Lutiferre, you are resorting to name calling. I would suggest you to use a different tactic.

What I do not confuse is raciology (anthropology, whatever) with racism. The -ism suffix implies an activity around the root, race. And that is clearly what you are confusing, raciology and racism.

Furthermore, it is surely more than merely coincidential that the issue of race is being discussed in a forum for politics.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

First of all - lets get the taxonomy straight. One race is not the same as a sub-race. A sub-species of the human race is not the same as a sub-race

From the moment that you call humans a race, you are not getting anything straight in taxonomy.

Even when what defines a race is subjective and allows a degree of discussion, this does not hold for humankind, which is a species and not a race.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

Nevertheless, I dont think sub-races are significant. No one in the general population distinguishes between them, whereas the general population can grasp and see the visible differences between entire human races. The approach of judging after the visible is also why physical anthropology is largely abolished in understanding human differences. The racial differences go under our skin and bones.

Whatever anyone thinks as of significant. Significance is not the keyword here, but relevance. So sub-racial differences can be significant, yet not be relevant in depending with context.

But I agree that [not necessarily 'racial'] differences go beneath the skin and bones. Which in fact I could argue that this is what makes me different to you. Now, I think of this in terms of ethnicity and you misunderstand it in terms of sub-race. But that's your problem, not mine.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I disagree that its possible. What evidence and practical examples do you have to support this claim, that its possible in a modern context to make a racist doctrine based on the differences Aurignacoids and Cromagnoids? All I see is claims, and no evidence.

You don't see what you don't want to see. The fact is that if you construct your ideas around the concept of "race", then you leave the door opened to anyone else to do the same, around the concept of "sub-race".

It doesn't take an amateur anthropologist to notice how some characters are related to peoples with a certain physical characteristics. This is the case in the more robust derivatives of the Cromagnoid race vs de more gracile derivatives of the Aurignacoid race. Now, this does not tell anything in terms of negative vs positive. And it certainlyk does tell nothing in terms of ethnicity, since nations are made up of different types/sub-types.

This primitivist idea of defining a political idea in terms of sub-races is not different to your primitivist idea of defining them in terms of races. At least for those of us who work around the idea of evolution and ethnicity.

My elaborated take on your opinion that Europe is still to this day bi-racial is here: European Race or European Races

There, you are not answering me. You take two small lines from my text and then elaborate on something altogether different, pretending that what you write is an answer to what I've said.

And you do so because the idea of a two different race origin is a problem for you, since you are not an ethnic nationalist but a racist. Simple and plain. That idea does not pose any problem to me, so I can discuss it without problems and without it being traumatic.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I believe we should, but on sub-racialism, such as that of yours. Its like a plague for nationalist forums like these, that people put too much emphasis on racial taxonomy and typology. Its okay for the anthropology forum, but the political exploitation of sub-races is childish.

You will have to excuse me here, but I take no lessons from someone who has done nothing that we know of for nationalism, and yet he pretends that what others have done it is changed to suit his views, with insults and ad hominem disqualifications.

I have worked a lot to create this community on the basis of ethnic preservationism and of inter-ethnic cooperation among Nationalists from around Europe, while your colleagues up there entertained (and still do it) with sub-racial and racial disrespect and thuggery, provoking a hostility that is not going to be forgotten by many (and it shouldn't be) and which has left a profound feeling of distrust.

And those who have brought that up are the same that you are trying to cover up here, with your dishonest accusations against me of being a sub-racialist.

I already told you in private to make sure that you point into the right direction, before you make any such accusation. If only for the sake of honesty. And that means that you have to look closer to you than you would probably like to admit.