East-Baltids and the alleged Lappoid/Mongoloid admixture

[Agrippa]

If two groups are genetically close it follows that they *have to* be close racially. Nevertheless, if two groups are genetically distant they can be on some occasions racially close.

Not really, because its possible that the minor differences present are the result of purposive selection f.e., like its the case sometimes, between a herder ethnosocial group and the peasantry. They have similar sources, mix occasionally, but still the basic variants being different on a significant level because of the constantly different selective pressures. Its even possible that the respective herder group could be racially closer to otherwise, genetically, more distant groups than the peasantry of the same area.

F.e. in Kurdish groups of the past this could be proven, in which the semi-nomadic herder-warrior Kurds were most of the time very different (progressive-mature Iranids) from the peasantry and city dwellers of the same ethnicity (statistically at least).

However, I have observed that Baltid tendencies are strongly present also in Sweden:

Thats correct, it comes mostly from non-Germanic sources and is weaker though, and like in Finland different from North to South.

These Finnish boys are from Helsinki area:

Clear predominance of progressive (rather East-) Nordid variants, but even though I consider the South of Finland being quite Nordoid overall, those might be a selection both because they are in a sport club, but even more so because they are taller than average. Height being positively correlated to Nordid and Cromagnid in most Northern and Northern-Central European areas, even more so if the combination is tall and rangy which is more exclusively Nordoid in the North.

Maybe but do compare their progressiveness with that mulatto in the center. It simply doesn't matter whether they are perfect or not when they are contrasted with something hideous.

Agreed, even though this individual doesnt look that primitive nor infantile neither for Negroid standards (East African rather than mulatto?), its a different sort of people foreign to us in general and for sure non-integrable, whereas Eastbaltids belong to the (at least North Eastern) indigenous variation and are regionally adapted.

Skin tone and intelligence are much more important traits than facial features.

Skin tone is only of regional importance, otherwise unimportant, intelligence is of course a primary trait and quality, still it shouldnt be looked at independently.
For real racial relations facial traits are of course more important than skin tone which is in Europids quite flexible and adapts simply to the respective climate and region relatively fast (thats a Europoid quality even, a relatively wide skin tone variation which can be altered relatively fast).

The average IQ of Iran is 85, much lower than that of European nations with similar GDP like Bulgaria. Thus, in that regard Iranians are equal to American Negroes. A population with that kind of average IQ can produce very few individuals qualified for academic education.

I would suggest to look at what Mynydd and I already wrote again. Persians proved their value in the past and even if they might have gone somewhat down the drain like many other populations in the last 2000 years, they have still a great potential.

What is the proportion of Iranids in Iran?

I can't be sure about, but from what I estimate they make up the majority of the population but being often mixed (mainly with Armenoid, Asian Alpinoids, Eastmediterranid, Pamirid, Indid, Weddoid, Aralid-Mongoloid and Nordoid - in the most likely order of importance).

How do they relate to Iran's different ethnic groups (Persians, Azeri Turks, Kurds etc.)?

They are strong in all those groups, but as I said, especially from older studies its known that f.e. Kurdish nomads and herders (old core of the group, warrior elite) were more Iranid (and Nordoid for that matter) than the sedentary groups.

Iranians who can pass for Europeans are something exceptional in my opinion.

Agreed, European Europid phenotypes are rather rare, but still they are Europid (=Caucasoid) in their vast majority and Iranids if classic ones.

And what's the proportion of Turks you consider Europids?

All this is just my own opinion:
European Europid phenotypes make up (one has to consider most are mixed and might have deviating traits recessively) probably around 10 percent, Europid are more than 95 percent, with the rest being Mongoloid. In Turkey there just those two major races, Europid and Mongolid, with the first being clearly dominant - and they always were. More Armenoid (Anadolid and Armenid), Asian Alpinoid, Iranid (especially Kurds) and Aralids (Turanids with Mongoloid mixed).

Compare about Kurds:
Racial Types of the Kurds
Plates: Kurds & Armenians

The later link shows a good comparison of Iranid vs. Armenoid with the Iranid variants being part-Nordiform and Cromagniform in my opinion.

The pigmentation of Iranids is brownish and that alone with their Arabid-influenced appearance excludes them from membership in the White race:

Depends on your definition of "white race", but in general white race refers to Europid = Caucasoid and Arabids which are not mixed with Negroids, Weddoids or Mongoloids are clearly Europid as well.

Just look at this Arabid example with classic Europid/Caucasoid traits:

South Arabian females:




Orientalid/Arabid examples (from L.F. Clauß):



Those Iranians posted look partly Indo-Weddoid influenced, so Gypsies are indeed close - but one should also mention, that if not being strongly Weddoid influenced, Gypsies are Europid too.

But why do you think that e.g. weak chin jaws are a non-progressive trait? Strong chin was necessary to primitive humans who had to consume less processed food but it is not an evolutionary advantage anymore and thus it is perhaps becomes weaker. I remember reading about a recent study in which a scientist predicted that the Brown race of the future will be characterized by weak chins.

Well, if they say so - if it would be the case, it would be a degeneration. Just compare the thread posted, I brought examples of chin-jaw development with illustrations.

Likewise, why don't you consider the thin lips of Nordids a non-progressive trait as full lips are usually preferred in sexual selection? Just look at the pictures of female models. The most progressive type isn't an "ultra-Nordid" but some kind of blend.

Some anthropologists (f.e. Knußmann) considered fuller lips being more progressive and I agree with that, though its a trait of low importance and it depends on proportions - nothing out of proportions obviously.

One doesnt need to be "ultra-Nordid" to be progressive, but people being "ultra-Nordid" are, so it goes that way...

Furthermore, are physically frail/infantile "nerd" types more or less intelligent than progressive "jock" types or are the observed differences between them just cultural?

It depends, but usually they occupy different positions in the social field, I wrote about my ideas on that in other threads, dont want to bring it at length now. Just read especially my threads about progressive traits and constitutional types/variation.

I understand but why are we opposing Third World immigration then? Obviously, the mass does matter as a people requires large numbers of people of reasonably good standard to produce exceptional individuals.

I agree. Another reason is that we lose our core areas and territories to other variants which are in no way more evolved, even on the contrary. So it makes no sense for our societies and people, nor for our kinship and race, nor for the species and mankind as a whole, its just destructive and only in the interests of the plutocratic oligarchy which wants a defenceless and individualised mass of bastards which will be easy to control and manipulate.

Is there any conclusive information of the mental abilities of various sub-races?

Not that I know of beside high levels being the rule in Nordo-Cromagnoid groups (currently without distinguishing nature vs. nurture) and the ideas of Günther (who made a rank list which placed Dinarids quite high intellectually (after Nordoids), whereas by culture bearing qualities he mainly accepted Nordoids and Mediterranoids). But he had no real studies and statistically significant material at hands, but rather spoke about his impressions and the rough informations he had.

Eastbaltids were more common under the immigrating Poles which came into the Ruhrgebiet and stood longer in the lower social strata there. This was something which was often observed.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Not really, because its possible that the minor differences present are the result of purposive selection f.e., like its the case sometimes, between a herder ethnosocial group and the peasantry. They have similar sources, mix occasionally, but still the basic variants being different on a significant level because of the constantly different selective pressures. Its even possible that the respective herder group could be racially closer to otherwise, genetically, more distant groups than the peasantry of the same area.

F.e. in Kurdish groups of the past this could be proven, in which the semi-nomadic herder-warrior Kurds were most of the time very different (progressive-mature Iranids) from the peasantry and city dwellers of the same ethnicity (statistically at least).

The problem is that you view race as a collection of phenotypical traits. However, the real significance of race is in biological relatedness, i.e. race as is a natural extension to family. Love for your race and people stems from kinship and common blood. In modern terms nationalism is validated by a sociobiological concept of ethnic genetic interests. (Look in Google for explanation if you are not familiar with the term)

That's why I've questioned the validity of sub-racial classifications altogether:
http://forum.stirpes.net/genetics-hu...dentities.html

Please comment to that thread.

In European countries different European races have not been in reproductive isolation and they have become mixed. For example, it is plain that virtually all Nordic people in e.g. Denmark have Baltic ancestors and virtually all Baltic people have Nordic ancestors. Siblings belong to different subraces in some cases. These races are actually random recombinations of some physical traits.

Thus, it is not relevant if the people of Iran has developed some progressive traits characteristic to Nordics in Europe separately.

I would suggest to look at what Mynydd and I already wrote again. Persians proved their value in the past and even if they might have gone somewhat down the drain like many other populations in the last 2000 years, they have still a great potential.

Persians of yore are not Persians of today. Today, the evidence of non-Europid admixture is plain in their racial identity.

Look what Kemp says of the subject:

INDIAN DEPICTIONS OF PERSIANS AS NORDICS AND MIXED RACIAL TYPES

At the time when the Greek writer Xenophon praised what he called "tall beautiful Persian women" (during the 6th century BC), the Persian envoys to India were depicted in still existent paintings in the Ajanta caves outside Bombay as light skinned, blue eyed and blond, or dark skinned and blue eyed with a fair beard. (Ujflvy, L'Anthropologie, vol. ii., 1900). This is the first tangible sign that the Indo-European Persians had started mixing with the darker natives of their land.

By the Fourth Century, this process had spread dramatically to where only a very few of the ruling class could still claim pure Indo-European ancestry. Finally the already largely mixed race Persians were to be overrun by the new White force in the region: the Indo-European Macedonians under Alexander the Great in a series of battles between 334 and 331 BC.

I can't be sure about, but from what I estimate they make up the majority of the population but being often mixed (mainly with Armenoid, Asian Alpinoids, Eastmediterranid, Pamirid, Indid, Weddoid, Aralid-Mongoloid and Nordoid - in the most likely order of importance).

Individuals with detectable non-Europid ancestry cannot be considered White.

East-Baltids are a racial type that has developed in Europe without influence from non-Europid/non-Caucasian races.

It is interesting to note how a US court denied citizenship to a racially pure member of Irano-Afghan race from Afghanistan:

It was not necessary to consult scientific evidence, the judge noted in his brief decision, for "[w]hat ethnologists, anthropologists, and other so-called scientists may speculate and conjecture in respect to races and origins may interest the curious and convince the credulous, but is of no moment in arriving at the intent of Congress in the statute aforesaid.

Another case was that of Bhagat Singh Thind, a racially pure North-Indid from Punjab:

What we now hold is that the words "free white persons" are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word "Caucasian" only as that word is popularly understood. As so understood and used, whatever may be the speculations of the ethnologist, it does not include the body of people to whom the appellee belongs. It is a matter of familiar observation and knowledge that the physical group characteristics of the Hindus render them readily distinguishable from the various groups of persons in this country commonly recognized as white. The children of English, French, German, Italian, Scandinavian, and other European parentage, quickly merge into the mass of our population and lose the distinctive hallmarks of their European origin. On the other hand, it cannot be doubted that the children born in this country of Hindu parents would retain indefinitely the clear evidence of their ancestry. It is very far from our thought to suggest the slightest question of racial superiority or inferiority. What we suggest is merely racial difference, and it is of such character and extent that the great body of our people instinctively recognize it and reject the thought of assimilation.

It is not without significance in this connection that Congress, by the Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, §3, 39 Stat. 874, has now excluded from admission into this country all natives of Asia within designated limits of latitude and longitude, including the whole of India. This not only constitutes conclusive evidence of the congressional attitude of opposition to Asiatic immigration generally, but is persuasive of a similar attitude toward Asiatic naturalization as well, since it is not likely that Congress would be willing to accept as citizens a class of persons whom it rejects as immigrants.

PBS - Roots in the Sand - Bhagat Singh Thind

Here you can find information what kind of people were historically classified as White:
The Racial Classification Cases

The opinion of US Supreme Court is relevant because it interpreted the age-old concept of "White" as used in common speech by Europeans to describe themselves.

According to its legal praxis, Arabs are not White:

Who is white?

Agreed, European Europid phenotypes are rather rare, but still they are Europid (=Caucasoid) in their vast majority and Iranids if classic ones.

Only people who are phenotypically European Europids are Whites. I still don't understand your statement how Iranids could be more Europid than East-Baltids.

White is after all an attribute Europeans have attached to themselves, describing traits characteristic to themselves. The concept of "Europid" must characterize these traits.

European peoples have always regarded the racially East-Baltid members of their nations as their fellow compatriots.

All this is just my own opinion:
European Europid phenotypes make up (one has to consider most are mixed and might have deviating traits recessively) probably around 10 percent, Europid are more than 95 percent, with the rest being Mongoloid. In Turkey there just those two major races, Europid and Mongolid, with the first being clearly dominant - and they always were. More Armenoid (Anadolid and Armenid), Asian Alpinoid, Iranid (especially Kurds) and Aralids (Turanids with Mongoloid mixed).

So do you have a problem with Germans intermarrying with Turks?

Compare about Kurds:
Racial Types of the Kurds
Plates: Kurds & Armenians

The later link shows a good comparison of Iranid vs. Armenoid with the Iranid variants being part-Nordiform and Cromagniform in my opinion.

Depends on your definition of "white race", but in general white race refers to Europid = Caucasoid and Arabids which are not mixed with Negroids, Weddoids or Mongoloids are clearly Europid as well.

How can you determine whether a given Arab has Negroid admixture. Are Yasser Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi and Gamal Abdel Nasser of un-mixed descent?

The Negroid admixture in a typical Arab is at the level of 2% which is not phenotypically relevant. Why is it sufficient in the case of Iranids that they are predominantly Europid despite their non-Europid, non-Negroid admixture although you are concerned of the Negroid admixture of North Africans?

Just look at this Arabid example with classic Europid/Caucasoid traits:

South Arabian females:

Orientalid/Arabid examples (from L.F. Clauß):

Those Iranians posted look partly Indo-Weddoid influenced, so Gypsies are indeed close - but one should also mention, that if not being strongly Weddoid influenced, Gypsies are Europid too.

I define "Europid" a little differently. For me all racial types native to Europe are fully and equally Europid, presuming that they haven't developed as a result of non-Caucasian admixture which is the case for are major races, including East-Baltids. "Europid" can be considered to describe a person who represents any of these racial types and shows no signs of non-Caucasian admixture. It's true that some European racial types are more progressive than others but these differences are trivial compared to the compelling public interest to preserve Europe European. It is the meaning of the term "White" that the term Europid must conceptualize.

The main racial element of European Jews is Europid and they can be accepted as a whole because of their small population, the progressiviness of Orientalids and the long-standing consensus that they are White.

Well, if they say so - if it would be the case, it would be a degeneration. Just compare the thread posted, I brought examples of chin-jaw development with illustrations.

Some anthropologists (f.e. Knußmann) considered fuller lips being more progressive and I agree with that, though its a trait of low importance and it depends on proportions - nothing out of proportions obviously.

One doesnt need to be "ultra-Nordid" to be progressive, but people being "ultra-Nordid" are, so it goes that way...

I regard that kind of physical traits as important because of developments in plastic surgery and future developments in germinal choice technology. Why should we care about old-fashioned eugenics that is slow and plagued with ethical problems when we are soon able to customize the appearance of our offspring?

I might post a thread about this.

I agree. Another reason is that we lose our core areas and territories to other variants which are in no way more evolved, even on the contrary. So it makes no sense for our societies and people, nor for our kinship and race, nor for the species and mankind as a whole, its just destructive and only in the interests of the plutocratic oligarchy which wants a defenceless and individualised mass of bastards which will be easy to control and manipulate.

Exactly.

Not that I know of beside high levels being the rule in Nordo-Cromagnoid groups (currently without distinguishing nature vs. nurture) and the ideas of Günther (who made a rank list which placed Dinarids quite high intellectually (after Nordoids), whereas by culture bearing qualities he mainly accepted Nordoids and Mediterranoids). But he had no real studies and statistically significant material at hands, but rather spoke about his impressions and the rough informations he had.

Eastbaltids were more common under the immigrating Poles which came into the Ruhrgebiet and stood longer in the lower social strata there. This was something which was often observed.

What is the proportion of Eastbaltids in Poland? 5% and approximately the same as in Germany.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Geographically, Scandinavia is a peninsula which includes only Norway and Sweden. The word is often used in a wider sense to include the part of the Jutland Peninsula that is Denmark. Historically and culturally, however, there is a loose tie between Sweden and Finland which has been refered as to Fenno-Scandinavia.

Nordic is an ethno-racial term which excludes the Finns at large. The naming of the Nordic Council creates confusion here as it not only includes Finland, but also Greenland.

Not true. There is a significant Skando-Nordid racial element in Finland and the Finnish culture is very similar to the Swedish culture.

Neither do I. I was assuming that, since you were suggesting such a difference for Dinarics, it might just as well be extensive to others.

I just pointed out that for the argument about the inferiority of Baltids to other European races (incl. Dinarics) there is not even a shred of evidence.

Without disputing the claim, a given economic status at a given point in history is insufficient to make such an assertion.

The fact that Negroes have never been able to advance to any level beyond the primitive proves that indefinitely.

I had a suspicion from where that figure might come, so I checked.

You shouldn't rely your knowledge on the fantasies of a yankee. One thing that makes a big difference between Europeans and Americans is culture. McCulloch is a prophet of White Trash Americans, a sign of the times.

What's the real percentage of Dinarics in Austria then?

None. I would never support such a abhorrence.

When analyzing complex events, one must do so with a scientific mentality. All factors must be carefully analyzed in isolation and then again in combination.

In order to analyze societies, race is just but one factor out of many. There are many other factors, some simpler and others more complex. Environment, for example. Contact with other neighbouring peoples too.

The theory of progressivness can be interesting and even entertaining. But it is flawed. Among other things because it presumes that some characteristics are vital for evolutionary society while others are not.

This is an oversimplified vision into what is complex per se, the formation and evolution of societies.

Maybe.

[Agrippa]

The problem is that you view race as a collection of phenotypical traits.

Of course, though I consider genetic relationship and this genetic relatedness being usually, though not always, recognisable through phenotypical trait combinations, which have a priority. Might I remind you that phenotype doesnt just refer to morphological characteristics, but all traits being realised in the individual, so f.e. physical performance, immunological and mental characteristics.

However, the real significance of race is in biological relatedness, i.e. race as is a natural extension to family. Love for your race and people stems from kinship and common blood.

Well, that would be the case if dealing with "pure" racial types and lines, but that is rarely the case. Now we have two aspects: The racial specialisation, though being based often, not always, on genetic relations, often blurred genetically, and the population, i.e. the group of reproduction, usually ethnolinguistic and cultural units.

Racial types are inheritable trait combination, which usually represent a certain specialisation, evolutionary tendency. Just compare:
What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

In prehistoric times, lets say if looking at a typical early Corded group which represented a quite specific racial type, we dealt with the unity of ethnocultural and racial units sometimes, but even then, its possible that this groups had different sources, so being genetically mixed, but crucial was, there happened a selective harmonisation, a certain racial type was bred out of the mixture. This didnt happened in most large populations of today, they still are the result of a mixture and variation in which such a harmonisation didnt took place and the old racial elements are still clearly recognisable. Thats good for having a wider variation and social stratification, but its clear that we deal with very different types especially in some areas, with one of the greatest antagonism possible in the whole Europid (=Caucasoid) spectrum being visible if comparing Skandonordid with Lappid and to a lesser degree but still Eastbaltid.

In modern terms nationalism is validated by a sociobiological concept of ethnic genetic interests.

Extended kinship is a concept I use myself and believe in, mentioned it on various occasions. Its of course not based typological constructs alone and for Europe all members of the 6-race spectrum (just compare with the link above) belong to the European genetic and racial variation. But of course, that doesnt mean I dont distinguish nor that the differences are unimportant especially if dealing with progressive vs. infantile or primitive traits f.e.

In European countries different European races have not been in reproductive isolation and they have become mixed. For example, it is plain that virtually all Nordic people in e.g. Denmark have Baltic ancestors and virtually all Baltic people have Nordic ancestors. Siblings belong to different subraces in some cases. These races are actually random recombinations of some physical traits.

Thus, it is not relevant if the people of Iran has developed some progressive traits characteristic to Nordics in Europe separately.

If separately or not, well, hard to tell, but it doesnt change the fact. Namely if you would breed Baltid phenotypes or Nordid ones, in just a few generations (like it happened in some families randomly even) you have a quite typical racial type again who will be "pure" insofar as, without mixture, all his descendents will inherit the same racial characteristics. Thats how racial "purity" is reasonably defined: Pure are those which have all typical traits and inherit (if excluding mixture or pathological developments, new mutations) in their offspring only this trait combination again.

If you mix Europids with Negrids, you get mulattoes, but oh well, still its clear that this or that traits came from this or that group and there are mixed people which go more in this or that direction and that it would be even possible, to breed back one of those two types out of a mixed population if just knowing what traits should be targeted to reach the racial specialisation of the original parental group. Therefore mixture, neither between Europid racial types nor beyond, doesnt in any way neglect the existence of this racial forms, which should be quite logical actually, but is an often used leftist argument.
That would be like saying brown bears and polar bears dont exist (though being considered even different species!) because they interbreed (!). It doesnt matter how mixed groups are, and if there would be no single "genetically pure individual", the only thing that does matter is that the original trait combinations are still recognisable and being more often inherited together, so out of the mixed people one can still distinguish the (f.e. 2 extremes if comparing Nordid and Osteuropid) which are the base of variation in the mixed population.

Individuals with detectable non-Europid ancestry cannot be considered White.

Can be discussed, but in this case some Finns and Lapps even more so could be considered "non-White" too. I dont think that way, if the admixture is very low and doesnt seriously distort the racial type, one can be (compare with the definition above) still be considered "racially pure". The main problem is we still can't detect all traits to analyse when a phenotype being altered and when not. Crucial is for me on that "negatively altered" and in a way which makes them unfit, not fitting into the given European variation, even if dealing with the wider (tolerable) variation.

However, seriously, going after that some Iranians (in certain areas) would be more "white" than some Finns, because in some areas Mongoloid and Weddoid influences are virtually absent. The Weddoid status is difficult too, some Weddoid forms are borderline Europoid...

East-Baltids are a racial type that has developed in Europe without influence from non-Europid/non-Caucasian races.

Well, the forms being described here:
Racial Types of Finno-Ugrians, Baltisation and Eastbaltids

which influenced Eastbaltids, were at least borderline and partially Mongoliform, therefore in every case less Europid.
Just compare the classic Europids (of Cromagnid and Aurignacoid character) and those which were found in North Eastern Europe in prehistoric times. The difference is obvious.

Here you can find information what kind of people were historically classified as White:

I use the same definition (fits into the European racial variation) but call it "European Europids", since at least in German anthropology "white race" = Europid = Caucasoid and there is no "brown race" which would be from the viewpoint of racial science and anthropology idiotical, but only Europid, Mongolid, Negrid as the main races of modern mankind as well as old, archaic and deviating racial types (Australo-Melanesid, Khoisanid etc.). This are the races, everything below that is typological variation, subrace, variaty or like you want and I described in the "basic typology" thread.

Its clear that non-European are individuals which dont belong to an European ethnocultural unity and are not of European Europid racial type. We just discuss about a definition and are otherwise in concordance on that matter.

Only people who are phenotypically European Europids are Whites. I still don't understand your statement how Iranids could be more Europid than East-Baltids.

Because even though Eastbaltids are European Europids, they deviate stronger from the Europid standard which existed since Palaeolithic times than the Iranid type which fully fits in. A simple comparison of the racial history and trait combination of the latter makes that clear. Eastbaltids deviate, Iranids not. They are simply an non-European but Europid racial type, whereas Eastbaltid are an European Europid type, but with traits deviating (partly even strongly) from the Europid race, standard racial forms.

The concept of "Europid" must characterize these traits.

Not in European anthropolgy, the usual meaning of the term which is simply Europid = Caucasoid as opposed to Mongoloid and Negroid, not a designation for European Europids, though I know some use it that way. Its better to speak of the latter as of what they are, namely European Europids or European Caucasoids (6-race-type-scheme).

So do you have a problem with Germans intermarrying with Turks?

They are no Germans, not Germanic, not European, Muslims, Turkic, belong in their vast majority to racial types I consider non-integrable or at least of secondary level. So of course, I dont want Germans to intermarry with Turks, especially not those which come to Germany and are mostly Anatolians of Armenoid and Asian Alpinoid racial type.

So the fact that they are Europid/Caucasoid makes the idea of them intermarrying with Germans not unproblematic, even though from a racial standpoint its obviously a huge difference if looking a Nordid-Iranid or Nordid-Sudanid mixed individual, since the latter is at least racially close, the latter in no way.

How can you determine whether a given Arab has Negroid admixture.

Thats a theoretical problem since Arabs are in either way no Europeans and shouldnt immigrate, at least not en masse. Furthermore racially pure and negative mixture I define in the above mentioned way.

You have to distinguish between the theoretical aspect of original Arabids being a CLEARLY Europid type and many modern Arabs being mixed.

Yasser Arafat, Muammar Gaddafi and Gamal Abdel Nasser of un-mixed descent?

Furthermore those people mentioned are pred. Europid but not Arabid by the way, with Nasser having, like many Egyptians, in my opinion low level Negroid influences.

I define "Europid" a little differently. For me all racial types native to Europe are fully and equally Europid, presuming that they haven't developed as a result of non-Caucasian admixture which is the case for are major races, including East-Baltids. "Europid" can be considered to describe a person who represents any of these racial types and shows no signs of non-Caucasian admixture. It's true that some European racial types are more progressive than others but these differences are trivial compared to the compelling public interest to preserve Europe European. It is the meaning of the term "White" that the term Europid must conceptualize.

The main racial element of European Jews is Europid and they can be accepted as a whole because of their small population, the progressiviness of Orientalids and the long-standing consensus that they are White.

You're mixing things up. "White" can be defined in different ways and your comment on Jews - well, others might comment it.

I just repeat: There are European (like Nordid, Dinarid etc.) and extra-European Europids/Caucasoids (like Orientalid, Indid etc.).

What is the proportion of Eastbaltids in Poland? 5% and approximately the same as in Germany.

Its definitely significantly higher in Poland than in Germany. Because true Eastbaltids (not just Baltid proper) are a rare discovery.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Of course, though I consider genetic relationship and this genetic relatedness being usually, though not always, recognisable through phenotypical trait combinations, which have a priority. Might I remind you that phenotype doesnt just refer to morphological characteristics, but all traits being realised in the individual, so f.e. physical performance, immunological and mental characteristics.

I agree.

Well, that would be the case if dealing with "pure" racial types and lines, but that is rarely the case. Now we have two aspects: The racial specialisation, though being based often, not always, on genetic relations, often blurred genetically, and the population, i.e. the group of reproduction, usually ethnolinguistic and cultural units.

Racial types are inheritable trait combination, which usually represent a certain specialisation, evolutionary tendency. Just compare:
What does a basic racial typology describe in Europe?

In prehistoric times, lets say if looking at a typical early Corded group which represented a quite specific racial type, we dealt with the unity of ethnocultural and racial units sometimes, but even then, its possible that this groups had different sources, so being genetically mixed, but crucial was, there happened a selective harmonisation, a certain racial type was bred out of the mixture. This didnt happened in most large populations of today, they still are the result of a mixture and variation in which such a harmonisation didnt took place and the old racial elements are still clearly recognisable. Thats good for having a wider variation and social stratification, but its clear that we deal with very different types especially in some areas, with one of the greatest antagonism possible in the whole Europid (=Caucasoid) spectrum being visible if comparing Skandonordid with Lappid and to a lesser degree but still Eastbaltid.

East-Baltids are characteristically high-skulled, which is definitely an important progressive trait. However, you haven't proved that Eastbaltid is transitory to Lappid.

According to Lundborg and Linders (1926) 8.7% of Swedes are pure East-Baltids, BTW.

If separately or not, well, hard to tell, but it doesnt change the fact. Namely if you would breed Baltid phenotypes or Nordid ones, in just a few generations (like it happened in some families randomly even) you have a quite typical racial type again who will be "pure" insofar as, without mixture, all his descendents will inherit the same racial characteristics. Thats how racial "purity" is reasonably defined: Pure are those which have all typical traits and inherit (if excluding mixture or pathological developments, new mutations) in their offspring only this trait combination again.

If you mix Europids with Negrids, you get mulattoes, but oh well, still its clear that this or that traits came from this or that group and there are mixed people which go more in this or that direction and that it would be even possible, to breed back one of those two types out of a mixed population if just knowing what traits should be targeted to reach the racial specialisation of the original parental group. Therefore mixture, neither between Europid racial types nor beyond, doesnt in any way neglect the existence of this racial forms, which should be quite logical actually, but is an often used leftist argument.
That would be like saying brown bears and polar bears dont exist (though being considered even different species!) because they interbreed (!). It doesnt matter how mixed groups are, and if there would be no single "genetically pure individual", the only thing that does matter is that the original trait combinations are still recognisable and being more often inherited together, so out of the mixed people one can still distinguish the (f.e. 2 extremes if comparing Nordid and Osteuropid) which are the base of variation in the mixed population.

As you said yourself race is not only about morphological characteristics. Mental traits and appearance are not inherited together or are they?

Thus, in that mulatto example a Caucasian-looking individual bred back from mulatto parents could still have Negroid mental traits (low IQ etc.) if you didn't control for them.

Because different racial types have interbred freely in European countries for thousands of years the mental traits the races originally possessed have largely become mixed. Thus, race is of little importance in assessing the mental character of a European individual.

Can be discussed, but in this case some Finns and Lapps even more so could be considered "non-White" too.

I remind you that you haven't proved that either Finns or Lapps have Mongoloid ancestry. This is seriously disputed by many anthropologists.

Even if Lapps have Mongoloid ancestry, which is likely in my opinion, you haven't proved that the Finnish gene pool has Lappish or other Mongoloid admixture. I also doubt that Lapps are predominantly Mongoloid and they are most probably of ancient European origin, related to East-Alpines.

What do you think of East-Alpines, anyway? Their faces can be characterized as infantile and they are definitely less progressive than East-Baltids who are somewhat protomorphic at best.

I dont think that way, if the admixture is very low and doesnt seriously distort the racial type, one can be (compare with the definition above) still be considered "racially pure". The main problem is we still can't detect all traits to analyse when a phenotype being altered and when not. Crucial is for me on that "negatively altered" and in a way which makes them unfit, not fitting into the given European variation, even if dealing with the wider (tolerable) variation.

However, seriously, going after that some Iranians (in certain areas) would be more "white" than some Finns, because in some areas Mongoloid and Weddoid influences are virtually absent. The Weddoid status is difficult too, some Weddoid forms are borderline Europoid...

In my point of view East-Baltids are by definition "White" as I specifically define the concept so that it includes East-Baltids. This is in accordance of the historical understanding of the meaning of the term and is supported by actual genetic relations and feelings of shared peoplehood among European nationalists.

Anthropological textbooks also simply state that East-Baltids (and even Lapps!) belong to the White race.

I know that "Europid" is usually used as a synonyme of the Caucasian (White)
but this definition renders the whole term obsolete. "Caucasian" is a term derived from the aim of dividing mankind into races. I don't deny that it has real, scientific value but as it includes people whose skin color is deep brown and even black such as Tuaregs, Bejas, Somali, and a few other Eastern Hamites it's clear that another anthropological term describing White Europeans is required.

Thus, I define races which populate European nations as Europids. I exclude Lapps in this definition as they have historically existed outside European ethno-cultural community.

Iranians, Lapps, Arabs and other Caucasian non-Europeans are White only insofar they are within the variation of these Europid races. Some Iranians do fit to the variation of European Europids and they are the only Iranians, Lapps and Arabs consider fully White. According to my personal experience Lapps meet this criteria more often than Arabs, for instance.

Some Caucasian non-Europid races are more progressive than others and some of them may even be more progressive than some Europid races. However, the theory of "progressiveness" must not be confused with the concept of "Europoidness."

Well, the forms being described here:
Racial Types of Finno-Ugrians, Baltisation and Eastbaltids

which influenced Eastbaltids, were at least borderline and partially Mongoliform, therefore in every case less Europid.
Just compare the classic Europids (of Cromagnid and Aurignacoid character) and those which were found in North Eastern Europe in prehistoric times. The difference is obvious.

What I am arguing is that those traits you call Mongoliform have not actually developed as a result of Mongoloid admixture but separately (as blondism in Australian Aborigines).

Thats a theoretical problem since Arabs are in either way no Europeans and shouldnt immigrate, at least not en masse.

What is your objection to the mass immigration of secular Arabs or Iranians vis-a-vis your views on the immigration of East-Baltids or predominantly East-Baltid peoples to e.g. Germany?

Furthermore racially pure and negative mixture I define in the above mentioned way.

You have to distinguish between the theoretical aspect of original Arabids being a CLEARLY Europid type and many modern Arabs being mixed.

I do make that distinction but the measured levels of Negroid admixture which are low or non-existent in the case of Middle-Eastern Arabs don't explain their racial features.

How do e.g. Iraqis deviate from the original Arab type?

A typical Iraqi man:

Furthermore those people mentioned are pred. Europid but not Arabid by the way, with Nasser having, like many Egyptians, in my opinion low level Negroid influences.

They are ethnical Arabs. How would you classify Gaddafi and Arafat?

You're mixing things up. "White" can be defined in different ways and your comment on Jews - well, others might comment it.

I just repeat: There are European (like Nordid, Dinarid etc.) and extra-European Europids/Caucasoids (like Orientalid, Indid etc.).

I am not too convinced of those "Indids". Some Indids like many of those Bollywood actors can be classified as un-mixed Caucasians but even in the high Brahmin caste of Indians many mixed individuals are found.
Or what do you think of Mahatma Gandhi?

[Agrippa]

East-Baltids are characteristically high-skulled, which is definitely an important progressive trait. However, you haven't proved that Eastbaltid is transitory to Lappid.

They were influenced by the same sources, just look at the thread linked above.

According to Lundborg and Linders (1926) 8.7% of Swedes are pure East-Baltids, BTW.

I assume their basic definition of East-Baltid was Osteuropid, so including all proper Baltid and Baltised variants, even if not being Lappoid influenced like the variants I referred to above. Just remind you on the examples of Schwidetzky and Knußmann.

As you said yourself race is not only about morphological characteristics. Mental traits and appearance are not inherited together or are they?

It depends. Usually we just deal with probabilities, with the exception of those psychological characteristics which are directly related to the basic consitutional and hormonal variants.

Thus, in that mulatto example a Caucasian-looking individual bred back from mulatto parents could still have Negroid mental traits (low IQ etc.) if you didn't control for them.

Exactly. Of course a Caucasoid can be less intelligent without admixture as well, but its true, if you dont control for the trait, it can be combined in every possible way.

Because different racial types have interbred freely in European countries for thousands of years the mental traits the races originally possessed have largely become mixed. Thus, race is of little importance in assessing the mental character of a European individual.

I agree for intelligence mostly, but not for certain other traits, neither do I think that the physical appearance and performance is unimportant. However, thats the job of human Eugenics as I said in other threads, and this Eugenic programs would at best target racial types indirectly (f.e. if medium and taller height being preferred as well as more rangy-mature proportions, which would be just logical for a variety of reasons).

Even if Lapps have Mongoloid ancestry, which is likely in my opinion, you haven't proved that the Finnish gene pool has Lappish or other Mongoloid admixture. I also doubt that Lapps are predominantly Mongoloid and they are most probably of ancient European origin, related to East-Alpines.

Lappids are not that homogenous, but the basic type is definitely more Europoid than anything else.

What do you think of East-Alpines, anyway? Their faces can be characterized as infantile and they are definitely less progressive than East-Baltids who are somewhat protomorphic at best.

It depends, but in general Eastalpinids dont strike me as being more infantile and protomorphic/primitive than Eastbaltids on average, though being often somewhat more reduced-gracile in comparison.

In my point of view East-Baltids are by definition "White" as I specifically define the concept so that it includes East-Baltids. This is in accordance of the historical understanding of the meaning of the term and is supported by actual genetic relations and feelings of shared peoplehood among European nationalists.

Anthropological textbooks also simply state that East-Baltids (and even Lapps!) belong to the White race.

Agreed. Said nothing else above, though they are less typical Europids/Caucasoids than the classic types.

I know that "Europid" is usually used as a synonyme of the Caucasian (White)
but this definition renders the whole term obsolete. "Caucasian" is a term derived from the aim of dividing mankind into races. I don't deny that it has real, scientific value but as it includes people whose skin color is deep brown and even black such as Tuaregs, Bejas, Somali, and a few other Eastern Hamites it's clear that another anthropological term describing White Europeans is required.

As I said, pigmentation is, especially in Europids, very flexible and changed fast if the selective pressures needed it. Whats typical for Europids is really their fast adaptation by skin pigmentation change to different environments, a high mutative potential on that trait. So if an otherwise perfectly Europid Indid is darker, this doesnt mean he is really non-Europid but just a member of an Europid branch (if no other traits deviate) which specialised for South Asia and a more UV-intense area.

Thus, I define races which populate European nations as Europids. I exclude Lapps in this definition as they have historically existed outside European ethno-cultural community.

Just say European Europid and its fine with me

Some Caucasian non-Europid races are more progressive than others and some of them may even be more progressive than some Europid races. However, the theory of "progressiveness" must not be confused with the concept of "Europoidness."

Beside terminology, terms and definitions, I can just agree with you. The term Europid was in German and European anthropology in general reserved for Caucasoid long time before we discussed it by great anthropologists, I see no reason to change that and make up my own definition if there is no clear advantage in it. You mean European Europids? Just say so, because people like f.e. Vogel, Knußmann, etc. did the same

What I am arguing is that those traits you call Mongoliform have not actually developed as a result of Mongoloid admixture but separately (as blondism in Australian Aborigines).

Could be debated.

What is your objection to the mass immigration of secular Arabs or Iranians vis-a-vis your views on the immigration of East-Baltids or predominantly East-Baltid peoples to e.g. Germany?

In general I would always prefer European Europids, but of course, it depends on the individual as well. As a rule I wouldnt want a mass immigration of neither of them.

How do e.g. Iraqis deviate from the original Arab type?

Actually I think Saddam Hussein is more typical.

They are ethnical Arabs. How would you classify Gaddafi and Arafat?

Alone that all those people are considered "Arabs" ethnically means that this term means relatively useless for racial considerations, since one could find Nordoid "Arabs" too. Ethnocultural and religious units are one thing, race another.

However, Gaddafi is mostly a dark Southern Cromagnoid (Berberid) variant, Arafat is more Armenid than anything else but mixed.

I am not too convinced of those "Indids". Some Indids like many of those Bollywood actors can be classified as un-mixed Caucasians but even in the high Brahmin caste of Indians many mixed individuals are found.
Or what do you think of Mahatma Gandhi?

Gandhi is no typical Indid, for sure not Nordindid, but not even fully Gracilmediterranid.

More typical for the Europid Indid variation are people like Nehru who has a classic Europid/Caucasoid morphology:





If he would be somewhat lighter, he would be very close to the Nordid and Mediterranid variation obviously. So no doubt here. He was of higher caste than Gandhi btw, though caste alone means little, since whole regions made up their own system long after Dravidians (who were Europids too) and Aryans came.

Compare:
Racial Types of South Asia

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

T
I assume their basic definition of East-Baltid was Osteuropid, so including all proper Baltid and Baltised variants, even if not being Lappoid influenced like the variants I referred to above. Just remind you on the examples of Schwidetzky and Knußmann.

Yes but the problem is that the proportion East-Baltids is rather unclear in Finland and in other countries if we use your classification system.

At least in Finland and Sweden anthropologists have typically classified the Baltic/Osteuropid proportion of the population just as Eas