[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

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".

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.

I dont define my political ideas in terms of race. In fact, I define them in terms of culture and cultural roots. But I will never deny that I think race is significant, and that race has a meaning. When I say I define my ideas in terms of culture, race still has a place - the place, that I believe the meaning of the cultural roots are vapourised in the hypothetical scenario that every member somehow involved in the cultural context suddenly changed into a sub-Saharan African, but I dont care about subjective anthropological sub-racial classifications, and the fact is, there are already members of every sub-race in the cultural context of every European nation. When it comes to race, I just dont think it should be the center of our attention, and as you expressed, I dont think we should waste our time with such beliefs.

I may emphasize the broadness of the term racism too much. However, what I said about it being used as a means of stigmatization for the political merit of being able to socially influence people away from either nationalism or any idea that ascribes significance or reality to race, still holds. And I think too, that "racism" is still a broad term, which is being used in a narrow down sense today, and this meaning has been installed by people that have political gain from it.

.. your primitivist idea of defining them in terms of races ..

As I said - that is not my idea.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

You are correct. However, race can be used in several different ways, and aside from the taxonomic biological context, in which it describes a sub-species, it can also describe almost every kind of people, tribe, etc.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

Ethnicity does not imply any biological factor that goes under the skin, racial or not. It implies human identity and kinship, which is a sociological factor dependent on environment and human interactions.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

I wouldnt disagree, the only place I disagree is that this somehow has political significance in any scenario. As you say, there are both derivates of both types in all nations. That is one of the reasons

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

It is. It was more than that, a challenge.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

I am not an ethnic nationalist, however, that does not inherently imply my ideas are centered around racial issues. I am indeed a racist, because it is my belief that racial differences are real - but I am not a "racial centrist". By that definition of racist, most people on this site are indeed racists, which is attested in just about every discussion about racial differences here. But if one uses another, different definition, one could disqualify as racist.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

You take no lesson from me - and you have your reasons. That is indeed, also, an ad hominem disqualification. But I believe we always come across them, whether we intend it or not. All of us. As long as they dont pose the main part of our argumentation, it is not a major issue, and that is not the case here, and not in the case of my argumentation either.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

What is that, argumentational meta-ethno-collectivism?
My colleagues, that have left a feeling of distrust, I see. Guilty by association. I can not answer for them. But the observation that they have lessened my status and level of acceptance on this site is indeed undeniably true.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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 am not trying to pull an accusation here. However, I wanted to clarify what you meant with your argumentation in favor of the significance of sub-races. And I believe I did so. Forget the "sub-racialist"-label, that was simply a means of concluding what I had already said, not anything of high significance.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

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.

I point to what I find is the right direction. However, if this means you dont believe in the political significance/implications of sub-races or parent races of Europids, in modern Europe, that indeed disqualifies you as a "sub-racialist", and it is always completely up to yourself, not me, whether to confine in such a beliefs. And if that is the case, then I apologize for falsely labeling you as such.