[Menydh]

Originally Posted by ogenoct

BIOPOLITICS VERSUS GEOPOLITICS

by Constantin von Hoffmeister


Geopolitics might be temporarily important, but biopolitics is ALWAYS important. BLOOD before SOIL!

Despite sharing the suffix -politics, there is no direct relation between one and the other.

Famous geopolitician Alexander Dugin is not opposed to race-mixing. For him, continents are the pets that need to be fed with the mob of deracinated peoples. In an interview that I conducted with him, Dugin argued that the Tartar admixture in the Russian gene pool was a positive aspect since it created a new kind of "Slavic" man.

To use a Spanish popular figure of speech, Dugin is confusing bacon with speed.

While it is a fact that positive traits can be acquired through hybridisation, this works too for negative traits. So in the end the quality of the output depends on the input, and thus it cannot be generalized.

In any case, Duguin (by the way a National Bolschevik) with those words seems to be implying a generalized Tatar admixture in the Russian genetic pool --which is not true. Often such comments are geared to propagate the agenda that it is alright to continue mixing as admixture is already there.

He also argued that he would not mind if a Mongol would mate with a pure-blooded Russian as long as their offspring would adopt one tradition from either one of the parents. This is like saying that tradition creates race as opposed to the reality of races being the basis of all cultures.

Or rather an offspring who does not belong to either group. Which is more likely.

Dugin also worships the Zionists. He views Zionism as a "legitimate" expression of Jewish tradition.

Funny because Jewish tradition tells that the Jewish people are condemned by Yaveh to wander, not to return to Palestine to create there a White Nationalist movement.

Continents are secondary. Race is the all-pervasive factor that should influence policy-making and settlement issues. If the White race is able to overcome its internal corrosiveness and unite into one whole, then it can start to look beyond the oceans into the infinity of space above.

Now you speak like a Yankee.

Race is a primitive concept. Nation is the evolutive form.

Famous Russian racial scientist Vladimir Avdeyev argues that the Nordic race is the core of the White race. This is obviously true.

It may be for you, and only because you wish it to be true.

Among Europeans, blonde hair and blue eyes have always been viewed as the ideal physical aspects of a true racial overman.

Wrong. To some that is exotic, and exoticness bears a degree of attraction. Just as elements from other races are viewed as exotic and exotically attractive.

To others it is preferable. And to others it is not.

This does by no means mean that other Europids (such as Mediterraneans) are worth any less than Nordics. It simply means that pure (emphasis here) Nordics are the epitomical vanguard of the White race's resistance to amalgamation into the brown swamp of degeneration.

That is rich considering that it is more usual to find a Black man with a Blonde woman than with a Brunette woman.

I must warn you here that if you turn this in the Germano-Nordicist circus that is Skadi, I'll put you under moderation. You must understand that the logical answer to such nonsense may perfectly be considered as an agression (in fact a counter-agression).

This was true two millennia ago when the Germanic warriors resisted the forced multiculturalization process (and subsequent cultural enslavement) by the Romans and it was true in the middle of the 20th century when the Germanic units of the Waffen-SS spearheaded the first pan-European army.

The Germanic warriors that were the Vandals mixed ALL of them with North African Mulattoes. Earlier, other Germanic warriors mixed with the HUNS.

But most important to the case, apparently they resisted "Roman multiculturization" only to expand southwards and bring their own "Germanic multiculturization" to all Western European peoples (and consequently to themselves).

If we are to quote history, let us do it properly and not just quote bits and pieces to try to make them fit with any given agenda, shall we?