On Nordo-Germanic supremacism (comments)

[Menydh]

[A follow-up discussion to the thread "Classify eternal enemies: Hannibal and Scipio"]

With regards to the classification of Scipio, some would point to the Götta type as a gracile Nordic sub-type, and therefore taxonomically similar to the Gracile-Mediterranean type.

In the lights of it, confusion is highly possible. Apparently, some say that it is not rare to tell the difference from just the crania.

In such cases there are three possible solutions to the problem:

• to use a Mediterraneanist approach and classify the sample as Mediterranean in absolute terms
• to use a Nordicist approach and classify the sample as Nordic in absolute terms
• to apply common sense or better, to use a Catalan word, seny (roughly translates to "good and common sense").

Now, what common sense tells us is that if someone was to classify an ancient bust found in Norway, and if this bust showed the characteristics that are being discussed here (Nordid/Mediterranid gracile type), in case of doubt no one would dare classify the bust as Mediterranean. Even when there exists the possibility of Atlanto-Mediterranean seafarers arriving to the coasts of Norway in the Antiquity.

The discussion on how similar it is to a given Nordid type, however, would be perfectly within rational parameters.

Likewise, it is far from being rational to classify as Nordid a type bust from the Ancient Mediterranean world, which shows Mediterranean traits of the type shared between Nordics and Mediterraneans. I would expand more here, but I don't think it necessary.

Therefore, it is absolutely mandatory that people realize that, even if not done with intentionality (Nordicist or Mediterraneanist),
such bizarre and dare I say outrageous classifications are sensed as offensive by the groups of people native to the type in question.

We must also not forget that Günther was a Nordicist, and not just but among the worse in his kind. Consequently, if we give up to such ideologies which are the product of an aggressive, nonsensical and dare I say anti-European Nordo-Germanic supremacism, we (we as the non Nordo-Germanic Europeans) might as well realize of the need to accept the challenge (or, to use Castilian bullfight jargon, entrar al trapo, lit.: "to enter in the cloth (cape)", i.e. "to fall into the trick") and to realize that there exists a real conflict with the Nordo-Germanic world.

A conflict which I would identify as of a similar magnitude to the threat of non European immigration invasion. Thus, not being enough with the conflict of immigration, we are faced with the conflict of an agressive ideology from the past, which is Nordo-Germanic supremacism, or simply Nordo-Germanicism.

Stirpes was founded because of the need to provide a safe haven against Nordo-Germanic supremacism for true Nationalist Preservationists in Europe. At the time there was Skadi forum which advertised as for the European spiritual, cultural, racial, etc. preservation. However a mask for the most infamous kind of Nordicism in its version of Nordo-Germanicism.

Their alleged European external image attracted a number of other Europeans apart from the Germans, and many American White Trash tourists. The first victim of this Nordo-Germanic supremacism were the Eastern Europeans. Under the promotion of the owner of Skadi, some Germanic Europeans and many Americans (only God knows what they really are, but allegedly Germanics), targeted the Slavs first.

Not an agressiveness that has remained in the past as a stupid mistake, as some will remember that Skadi's owner was not long along on Stirpes performing a personal and sick slander of the Slavs.

Soon they focused on another group, the Southern Europeans. The agressiveness escalated until reaching points of true madness.

The wounds that this agressive Nordo-Germanic supremacism provoked are still much alive in the mind of many. And although nowadays Skadi Nordo-Germanic supremacists restrain themselves (leaving their true being for the forum Free Speech, hidden from the public view), they are still much alive. Suffice to show this comment from a long-serving European Germanic member of Skadi (on Skadi thread "Isn\'t this a Germanic site?"):

"Some (controversial?) opinions on the "Germanic" issue. When I registered, Skadi was a "European preservation" forum, dedicated not only to the Germanic, but to all European cultures and subraces, in Europe as well as in the colonies. Personally I prefer to see the change of policy as more of a practical issue than an ideological one -- namely, that of avoiding bloody ethnical conflicts among moderators (I think Thorburn wrote about this earlier). Accordingly, perhaps the present policy should be considered as a matter of Germanic rule and sovereignity, for the sake of peace and order (we do not lack historical parallels! ), rather than as an exlusively Germanic focus of the discussion."


Nordo-Germanic supremacism is, without a hint of doubt, a real threat to a Europe of Free Nations. While no one has the right to object to a separation of the Germanic nations if they so wish, there exists an inalienable right to oppose the agression in whichever form it comes.

So the question is who are our enemies.

[Savage]

I had never heard of "nordicism" until I approched the retard forums Nordish portal and Skadi.

But I have just lived a mans age in Norden, so what do I know?

I know, there are no such things as "Nordicists" in Norway.

What I have discovered of socalled "nordicists", are on the "europid" culture forums, and are mainly english and american retards, with one and other uncritical german ****** ********** wannabe "nordics" hollowing with.

A good thing are that these poison pits breeds internal nervous breakedowns on a regular basic.

Any "Nordicist" visiting or residing in Oslo are welcome to contact me, to get real "Nordicism" demonstrated.

[Agrippa]

Its known that the Italics seem to have come from the North, bringing Nordoid elements with them, so the chances might not be very high but there. In the case of people for which pigmentation is known too, its makes the decision easier. F.e. someone who approximates Nordoid morphology whose hairs and eyes were following contemporary sources light, was most likely predominantely Nordid. Furthermore its well known that light pigmentation is recessive, so it almost disappears, at least the numbers are going down even in a 50 : 50 mixed population (light : dark). Finally busts are indeed bad to classify and especially for robust Mediterranids and Nordids classification is extremely difficult without knowing anything about pigmentation.
Its easier to distinguish other types, but Nordo-Mediterranid spectrum is just very close knit.

For such cases in which pigmentation is not know and the classification unclear I would suggest to use Atlantid or Nordomediterranid, to make the possible relations to both ends of the spectrum clear without making an unjustified categorisation. Particulary for those groups or areas for which both elements being proven. Its not as easy to describe its as Nordicism, since the distinction of Nordid and (robust-large) Mediterranid skulls was always a problem in physical anthropology described by many with the border being fluent.

By the way, in some parts of Scandinavia Mediterranid strains being really present...

One might criticise Günther, but just compare with this depictions of Etruscans:

The woman left-above looks in this depiction just Nordid (lighter pigmentation considered), one can could question that being for sure, but at least if going after that painting its clear, the one right-above Mediterranid like Cretans, the one left-bottom Alpinoid. Günther just stated the obvious.

Again a side of his works:


Its reasonable to see at least Nordoid influences in the skull, though I would rather describe it as being "Irano-Nordoid", so of a generalised form closer to Nordoid than Mediterranoid (standard), than just Nordid without knowing anything about the soft parts or exact origin. The male on the right is obviously not Nordid, but pred. Mediterranid, nobody could question that.
There are just clear and unclear cases, even on such simple depictions as well as on the skulls.

A good example would be Cato:

In his Life of Cato the Elder, Plutarch states that the Censor had red hair and blue eyes

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/nordic_italy.htm

This was a comment by a Nordicist, but what does that mean, that he must be wrong? Of course not. If one would want to try to deny what Earlson wrote here, one would have to prove that Cato wasnt light pigmented, what would mean together with his anatomical type a lot. Though I think he has obvious and strong Dinaroid influences in any case, the second and dominant element should be Nordid if going after that.

Facts stay facts no matter who states it, to prove the opposite one has to prove that the premises were wrong, and thats especially for Italy in which to this time Nordid being obviously present very difficult. Individual cases can be settled down more or less others never can without more informations about them which are hard or impossible to get...

[Laocoon]

What about the second man's race (bottom right) (nordera?atischer)?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Duchemin

What about the second man's race (bottom right) (nordera?atischer)?

Its an Etruscan man, according to Günther Armenoid, I'd say he might be Armenoid, but could be as well Orientalid, hard to determine without profile picture. Considering the racial make up of Etruscans and the depiction Armenoid is indeed the most likely. It means "vorderasiatisch" ~ "Near Eastern" - "vorderasiatische Rasse" = Armenoid.
So one can see a lot of variation in the Etruscan population, though Mediterranid was dominant, but there were own threads about that...
But if even in the non-Indoeuropean Etruscans the Nordid element could be proven (not saying they assimilated no IE whats likely), its reasonable to assume it was present in all of Italy - especially Northern Italy and Romans for which it was definitely proven by unbiased sources.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Its known that the Italics seem to have come from the North, bringing Nordoid elements with them, so the chances might not be very high but there.

Romans being a mixed population composed mostly of Mediterranean, Dinaric and perhaps Alpine, and not being straightforward clear the difference between some Mediterraneans and some Nordics, Ockam's razor applies.

However, I would not argue against if people made a fair comparison and presented it as alternative probabilities, though still applying good and common sense at all time.

This was a comment by a Nordicist, but what does that mean, that he must be wrong? Of course not. If one would want to try to deny what Earlson wrote here, one would have to prove that Cato wasnt light pigmented, what would mean together with his anatomical type a lot. Though I think he has obvious and strong Dinaroid influences in any case, the second and dominant element should be Nordid if going after that.

I'm afraid that you fail to see why the argument has been brought into discussion.

If Nationalists' little resources and few time must be wasted in disproving each and every of these claims, we might as well stop here and go home, sit next to the window and look how the next group of North Africans, Sub-Saharans, Asians, Turks or Amerindians disembarks and take a few meters more of the streets of our cities.

In other words, someone who brings up such issues especially in these times is a complete retard. Alternatively he might be just a vulgar swindler making money from a number of retards through selling that nonsense first on a book form and next on a [cheaper to produce] CD.

If the intended retarded target to steal from are Americans, I wouldn't give a monkey's foot. But it changes when it is another European with who we have to make a common cause if we want to survive. Whether I like them or not. Although it makes it easier if I don't dislike them (no need to like them, not absolutely everyone is necessary to build in the future).

And that's been the case in forums like Stormfront or Skadi. I don't see how helping create and spread a trash under-culture is the right thing to do.

Facts stay facts no matter who states it, to prove the opposite one has to prove that the premises were wrong, and thats especially for Italy in which to this time Nordid being obviously present very difficult. Individual cases can be settled down more or less others never can without more informations about them which are hard or impossible to get...

Refer to above.


Just today we had a lunch (it's July 18th ). On our way to the place, we had a talk on these and other issues as I've been trying to find an information which I read long time ago.

I think it was in the XVth century that during some council the Swedes reclaimed the Gothic heroic heritage as theirs on the grounds of Gothland and the remaining Goths in Scandinavia. The answer of the Spanish delegation was clear, that those left behind were the lazy Goths, and that the blood of the heroic Goths was to be found in the Spanish.

Then, someone has recalled that Julius Evola argued along the same lines, pointing to the difference between the Nordic spirit and the Nordic phenotype. So if you understand me, the wheel turns. But, would it be of any use that I now made of it a central issue?

I might decide to have some fun with this in the near future.


P.S. There are more --and more important-- concerns raised with my first post, and which should not be dodged as they are central to the main issue.

[Agrippa]

To me its just about facts and conclusions should be based on them. As you know I wouldnt consider myself being a Nordicist, but I see the great potential of this type and consider it "the benchmark" for progressive standards in living mankind. The difference to some real Nordicists is, that I dont think that the crucial progressive qualities being just present in Nordids nor ever were.
So its not necessary to explain every cultural achievement or great heroism in prehistory and history with a Nordid presence. Like I said elsewhere: There is no type above Nordids, many below, still a lot close. Absolutely superior they are mainly in their climatic zone, qualities they have in a higher frequency which were, are and will be more important than those of other types. If other types are as good its only in their climatic zone and with similar independent qualities - f.e. the same frequency of versatile-progressive physical types and intelligent schizothymes.

In fact to support Nordicism to a certain degree at least, one has not even know about it, would be enough to support Eugenic measures which want to reach certain goals, at least a better Nordid survival than now and an increasing number would be guaranteed with or without looking at certain "physical details" which are not important for generally progressive traits, a versatile physique, classic Europid traits, elegant attractiveness, higher frequency of intelligent and schizothymic individuals etc.
For Northern, Northern Central and Eastern Europe they are just (together with Cromagnids) the dominant standard form without deviations and degeneration of Europids, Southern Spain, Arabia, Northern India etc. are another matter, there are other progressive types which are better adapted for those regions, as are Nordsinids for China etc.

Europe without Nordids? Germanics without the Nordid type? Unthinkable. Thats likeSpain or Sardinia without Mediterranids and Northern India without the Nordindid type or China without the Nordsinid, they are all the dominant and progressive form of the respective regions. One can discuss if they are generally on the same level, but for their areas they all have certain clear adaptive advantages.

[Menydh]

Agrippa, I can't see how your post addresses my last post. Instead, it seems to move far away from the issue and in circles as if it was something to be avoided.

In any case it is not like if it was directed to you, so it is not that you have to answer it. I just feel it strange how you are moving in circles.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Agrippa, I can't see how your post addresses my last post. Instead, it seems to move far away from the issue and in circles as if it was something to be avoided.

In any case it is not like if it was directed to you, so it is not that you have to answer it. I just feel it strange how you are moving in circles.

To me thats not moving in circles, I just said my opinion to the Nordicist issue and if its about the Nordid racial type in general and its position as well as preservation. Thats my main interest, I leave the rest of the discussion to others. But I dont think I moved in circles at all.

[Menydh]

I must say that I'm a little deceptioned this time.

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

I must say that I'm a little deceptioned this time.

I think you mean "disappointed" because decepcionado = disappointed while deceptioned = fooled, mistaken by other.

[Menydh]

Of course you are right. Sorry for the mistake.

[Truth-Finder]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Its known that the Italics seem to have come from the North, bringing Nordoid elements with them, so the chances might not be very high but there. In the case of people for which pigmentation is known too, its makes the decision easier. F.e. someone who approximates Nordoid morphology whose hairs and eyes were following contemporary sources light, was most likely predominantely Nordid. Furthermore its well known that light pigmentation is recessive, so it almost disappears, at least the numbers are going down even in a 50 : 50 mixed population (light : dark). Finally busts are indeed bad to classify and especially for robust Mediterranids and Nordids classification is extremely difficult without knowing anything about pigmentation.
Its easier to distinguish other types, but Nordo-Mediterranid spectrum is just very close knit.

For such cases in which pigmentation is not know and the classification unclear I would suggest to use Atlantid or Nordomediterranid, to make the possible relations to both ends of the spectrum clear without making an unjustified categorisation. Particulary for those groups or areas for which both elements being proven. Its not as easy to describe its as Nordicism, since the distinction of Nordid and (robust-large) Mediterranid skulls was always a problem in physical anthropology described by many with the border being fluent.

By the way, in some parts of Scandinavia Mediterranid strains being really present...

One might criticise Günther, but just compare with this depictions of Etruscans:

The woman left-above looks in this depiction just Nordid (lighter pigmentation considered), one can could question that being for sure, but at least if going after that painting its clear, the one right-above Mediterranid like Cretans, the one left-bottom Alpinoid. Günther just stated the obvious.

Again a side of his works:


Its reasonable to see at least Nordoid influences in the skull, though I would rather describe it as being "Irano-Nordoid", so of a generalised form closer to Nordoid than Mediterranoid (standard), than just Nordid without knowing anything about the soft parts or exact origin. The male on the right is obviously not Nordid, but pred. Mediterranid, nobody could question that.
There are just clear and unclear cases, even on such simple depictions as well as on the skulls.

A good example would be Cato:

http://www.white-history.com/earlson/nordic_italy.htm

This was a comment by a Nordicist, but what does that mean, that he must be wrong? Of course not. If one would want to try to deny what Earlson wrote here, one would have to prove that Cato wasnt light pigmented, what would mean together with his anatomical type a lot. Though I think he has obvious and strong Dinaroid influences in any case, the second and dominant element should be Nordid if going after that.

Facts stay facts no matter who states it, to prove the opposite one has to prove that the premises were wrong, and thats especially for Italy in which to this time Nordid being obviously present very difficult. Individual cases can be settled down more or less others never can without more informations about them which are hard or impossible to get...

I actually think that it has been much exaggerated about receciveness of light pigmentation genes.
BTW one most keep in mind that it is always hazardous to classify on the basis of pigmentation only.
I've got the feeling that people like Günther or Earlson as soon as they lern that a given person from the antiquity had light pigmentation (let's take the case of Cato the Elder for instance)they immediatly found nordic features in their busts (in other way, they get influenced by the fact that they learn of someone was light pigmented and from that moment on they begin to imagine nordoid morphological features in them...)

Morover and back to Cato the elder redhead ins't a cromagnonid more than a nordid trait?

------------

Ramses II is said to have been redhead? does it suffice to put him as "nordic" as Earlson or Kemp Estate???