A debate on the usefulness of Physical Anthropology in the making of a society

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Among other differences between Nordids and [Northern] Cromagnids there is pigmentation.

Speaking of which, how could anyone view Cromagnoids as anything progressive?

Take this individual as an example..

... and think of the joke of speaking of progressiveness when this is what you get in a certain camp.

Well, he doesnt look primitive nor really infantile, dont know anything about him and to make one point clear: Degenerated individuals being present in all groups and types. Its always easier to downgrade something than to get peak types. What matters is how many peak types certain variants produce and what their average is.

In theory, the taller and broader should be more adapted to cold weather. But with a higher body volume internal body heat also dissipates faster.

A tall linear body can be advantageous to a certain degree, but then it changes to high mass, then to high mass and very short extremities absolutely. We can speak of different turning points on that matter.

People who are found dead after falling overboard in the sea do not die drawned but from cold. A first thing to do is to hold yourself in phoetal position to try to prevent your body heat from dissipating.

Approaching a spherical shape - likey the extreme cold adapted variants.

"if you find that you get more depressed during winter, it may be that you are affected by the lack of natural light. SAD has been recognised only relatively recently in this country. In Scandinavia and places such as Alaska, where the suicide rates rise alarmingly during the long winter months with little or no sunlight, people have been using 'artificial sun' lamps to help boost moods with very good results."
http://www.backpain.org/pages/t_pages/tb-blues.php

"One "modern" disease that may not affect indigenous people is seasonal affective disorder, or SAD, caused by low levels of light during the winter. Says Bjerregaard, "The problems among indigenous people are so vast . . . that nobody in Greenland takes an interest in SAD." Yet among newcomers, SAD can be a problem. In Alaska, a study found that 35% of nonnatives had indications of SAD's sleep and mood disturbances. Lawrence Duffy, an Arctic health researcher at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, suspects that changes in melatonin and other hormone levels associated with SAD could explain high rates of depression and suicide in the Arctic."
http://www.ehponline.org/qa/106-2focus/focus.html

Interesting. Like with acclimatisation one would have to compare lets say Europids living there since birth with local Arctic groups, since that people not being used to this will have greater problems despite genetic strengths or weaknesses on that matter.

With a non-developed potential one can only speculate about the real potential.

Or testing it. If people which the traits X and Y managed to do A under circumstances B, one could imagine people with the traits X and Y having the ability, whereas its not sure for those lacking it, especially if they had a lower performance under circumstances B.

Other than that, Feudalism was a stratified system which by no means can be seen as counterselective. If something, the opposite.

It was, because the higher elements had not enough children, there was no strict group selection and those with potential from the lower classes had less chances to climb up the ladder.

Compare this system with a clan based society in favourable areas of Europe in the Bronze Age and you will surely see the difference. Stratification in itself, if not based on biological differences and without elements securing the higher reproduction of positive traits is contraselective. In a herder-warrior group there was not too much room for degenerated individuals nor negative traits, every member and the group as a whole had to be effective and in competition with other herder clans only those which worked as individuals and AS A GROUP more effective won. What you see in Feudalism is that the elite often eliminated itself or degenerated, whereas the lower levels starved into degenerations and were pushed in it by a social system which partly even systematically eliminated progressive variants - since they were the first to stand up against exploitation or a lack of chances. The progressive variants par excellence are not being made for being dependent peasants, suffering from hunger and diseases, menials for a small minority. They can be very valuable as followers, but one has to convince them for that. Otherwise they just duck down as long as its absolutely inevitable and will hit harder the next time.

Under you scheme, all those skinheads and other marginal inadaptive elements would be perfect candidates for eugenics. And surely under my scheme too.

Since I know some I say: You find both, higher level individuals from the working class as well as low level ones. Usually the motivation and way of expressing oneself in detail is much more important than the exact subculture or political spectrum if evaluating a personality. The lower elements being often there just because they want to play "great man", being violent, compensating very directly and without higher sublimation for clear insufficiencies, whereas others no matter where coming from develop themselves, sometimes begin as simple "skinheads" and evolve on, being true idealists or at least decent followers out of the working class culture quite often. So what I dont like is to trivialise superficial differences.
To make that clear, since some could accuse me of just defending skindheads which I dont, even under the Punks are excellent individuals and its a tragedy they landed there in our current asocial society which knows no true community and collective, group oriented spirit, in which many of them would have excelled many others. So they defend false ideals, fight againt their own group and often go down the social ladder because they simply can't accept this superficial, corrupted and decadent society - their subculture is just an understandable flight out of this false bourgeois facades. Many, not all of them, need just a stronger social cohesion, group orientation and clear identity to use their potential for the group whereas some others which just "live on" are in fact the ones with a much lower potential, since they will be always just half-hearted nominal members of anything and Idealism of any sort, even more so higher Idealism is foreign to them.

No, I don't know. In Baden-Wurtembert and Baviera I didn't see many Nordids. Also, you forget that I don't need to travel to Germany to see Germans on a daily basis. In fact the classical stereotype of the German is precisely that of a "flat, square head".

Dinarids are another matter. How often saw you pure-typical shorter-stocky and broad-round headed and faced individuals? There are a lot of Nordids and especially the higher social strata being even much more Nordid, Cromagnoid and Dinarid than anything else, like almost everywhere in Germany.

What characterizes that "Prussian spirit" is social discipline, which you just defined as counter-selective.

Its a tool, an effective tool, but who uses it, thats the crucial question! In Liberalcapitalism its contraselective because it makes it even easier for the system to use the potential of the most progressive individuals, whereas in a folk state or at least collectivist order things would be very different since measures to prevent contraselection could be done rational and effective as would the whole group be in many respects.

Modern life as such is contraselective without a social order and medical-biological measures to prevent it.

In the end it is a matter of caste, really. The same applies to social classes, only that in this case it is more realistic. Thus, unless that you are willing to be politically correct and biased at the same time, applying the benefits of this sui generis affirmative action to only a few and not globally, by the same rule of thumb you will have to admit the differences in social classes and the inconvenience of inferior (read lower) castes (or social classes) to live next to superior (read upper) castes (or social classes).

The problem with this is that different systems can produce different higher and lower social classes. F.e. a physically weak constant liar and traitor which would have betrayed anyone and everything wouldnt have made it to the top in a herder-warrior group too often and if he would have been sooner or later eliminated without too much harm being done in most cases - in the worst cases he would have ruined one clan, but thousands others would have lived on. But now such a sociopath might be on top, under him an army of highly effective individuals no longer working for themselves and their kind.
So the homogenity of the herder-warrior type "society" or better community was an excellent breeding ground, because every success they had was a success for "their race" - for progressive racial types in the temperate climate areas as a rule.

Who makes it to the top in Capitalism? So even those being in the higher social classes might not be better or higher, though they must have some minimal qualities in some respects - and even that must not be the case if they inherited their fortune. Many poor farmers had in fact much higher potential than the speculant of the city and as soon as his children had the education and chance they showed the potential their ancestors had and in contrary to the speculant which didnt belonged to the same kind, he was more likely to develop even in the higher levels higher idealism and a sense of kinship with those which stood behind on the countryside or had not as much luck socially if being an individual of higher value.

And, believe me, at this point the expansion of these inferior castes is more dangerous. Although I'm sure that there was no need to tell you this for you to know. Now, under your scheme, a programme of eugenics should apply here to avoid these inferior castes to continue their expansion, to stop breeding and subsequently downbreeding the group.. although, aren't they just as well a part of the group? They are, but only in a caste system.

To me its clear that I would give everyone a chance - the chance to get screened and tested, to prove the potential of himself and/or his relatives.
Why should I prefer someone who is in a higher social class because of luck before a farmer's boy which has all the genetic potential one needs? If I speak of racial potential, I'm not only meaning a certain racial type, but characteristics important for all of humanity, those lacking it might come from noble bloodline and having certain physical characteristics, but if its really genetical, they lack "racial potential" from a certain perspective.

An intelligent, gifted and idealistic schizothymic individual with a progressive and versatile physique will always be more "noble" than someone which ancestors might be XY but has nothing of that. Therefore I can't agree with castes or classes inside of a population other than those being biologically and socially - from the needs of the group-collectiv - determined. And every individual with the necessary potential must have the chance to climb up the social ladder. The clan based society doesnt work for modernity, what we need is a social order in which the progressive elements work for the group and further higher development of it - this will benefit themselves and those which dont have the same level, but show good will. On the long run the level should be elevated step by step with human Eugenic measures.

I hope that you realize of the consequences derived from this on the very same people for who you would demand Social Justice.

Social justice to me means to give everybody the same chance to prove his potential and a just and decent life for all which are of minimal good will as members of the group as long as its possible, and with possible I mean really all situations beside catastrophies.

The most flawed part of it, as I have argued earlier, is that it stems clearly from the product of an inferiority complex. Even that would be admittable if it was the product of a general consensus among the said people. However, the truth is that Nordo-Germanicism (i.e. the complex among an identifiable sub-group) is projected onto other groups as if in an attempt to make themselves feel better.

If it goes clearly or even ONLY in this direction its obviously negative, but finally its about results and if a group produces more individuals with an excellent, versatile physique and positive psychic traits, which group as such and the evolutionary trend as such is more valuable than those which produce less peak types and a lower average. Furthermore its a poor argument, used by Liberals and leftists against any pride and confidence in the own people, nation, group or ability of a special kind of people before others. They can only accept individuals being superior in the near future probably, which helps them even to justify Liberalcapitalism, but they must keep any kind of group identity down.

Nordic Racism at extreme is negative, but there is a true behind since its clear that there numbers decreased mostly in contraselective situations (which could have been seen as such no matter which players played in the game) and increased in situations in which high positive selective pressures worked on populations. The problem I see in some old explanations is that they focussed too much on other types rather than the systemic failures and negative biological developments themselve. Günther wasnt that bad on that neither - in contrast to some others which just looked at "mixture" and the non-Nordic element rather than asking why this could have happened since the decrease couldnt be explained by mixture alone but only associated contraselection. Since if the positive selective pressures under favourable natural conditions would have worked, a "Nordisation" of an Nordid-Alpinoid population would have happened and not vice versa.

In the end, and most important, it adds nothing to political solutions or directions in the realms of reality, while it introduces a much unnecessary added havoc of unforseen consequences. Some of which already there.

Do you mean strict Nordicism now or any sort of biological evaluation of racial variants, or even more neutral: Racial characteristics. Or even any sort of Eugenicist view?
Strict Nordicism is indeed no great benefit me thinks, but the rest is not just acceptable but the core, without that there will be no true understanding nor true development of our groups nor mankind. First Europeans and then, if nothing will be done, the whole species will just rather sooner than later go down the drain...

[Savage]

Artic variants of many animals are often smaller than their relatives in more temperated and fruitful ares.

Do not need so much energy input, you see?

Like cars...

Exept of polar beers of course....

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Thore Hund

Artic variants of many animals are often smaller than their relatives in more temperated and fruitful ares.

From another board a similar discussion:

Originally Posted by Agrippa

What one can say for sure is that they have an element and tendency which is not clearly Europid. They are a contact race ("pure-typical" Lappids) with Mongoloids, but they are still more on the Europoid side, but very Borealised, infantilised-reduced and part-Mongolised with direct admixture being involved too.

Originally Posted by Blacksmith

Why the constant association of Infantilisation with cold-adaption. Mongols, Siberians and other northern types are anything but 'infantile'.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Borealisation per se must not lead to infantilisation, thats correct. In fact a tropical, wet-hot environment is much more likely to lead to a infantile reduction, thats many SEA forms being much more infantile than most EA ones.
In the cold its always a pyknomorphic infantilisation, in the hot areas it can be a rather leptomorphic one too (compare with Bushmen, Sanids). Both are mainly the result of a lack of energy and positive selective pressures. The small-pyknomorphic variant is just cheaper than the bigger, better performing but also more expensive f.e. Cromagnoid variants. The small is a defensive strategy (keeping heat, dont using as much energy), whereas the big is an offensive and progressive stragegy (larger mass to keep heat, using much energy for higher performance to gain or keep territory against human competitors, being more effective in hunting etc.).

Whats typical for large parts of Eastern Europe is that the massive reduction-infantilisation began relatively late and in dependent, sedentary farmer societies rather than the hunter gatherers, mobile herders and farmers. In those which had just to endure an unfavourable life rather than being really active themselves. Same in many parts of the world.

Infantilisation being just the cheaper and more secure (will survive "somehow") variant for the cold - so it came up in many areas on the long run, especially with civilisational influences, though in general cold adaptation and Borealisation doesnt have to mean infantilisation.

From

Do not need so much energy input, you see?

You need more energy in the cold. In the past people of the North had constantly higher caloric intakes than those in warm regions.

[Savage]

Small items, do not need so much energy input, hi tech, do not pollute either.
Compo menthis.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Thore Hund

Small items, do not need so much energy input, hi tech, do not pollute either.
Compo menthis.

Ever thought about how much energy our "high tech" items need nowadays? Or why the use of energy can be more efficient? It doesnt have anything to do with the topic anyway...

I would rather compare it with a small and canny car with less "versatile" character. This care can't compete without a street, it can't compete on a street, it is just cheaper and more frugal, if there is not enough place left any more, it can even park in a small niche. Thats what the reduction is about. It doesnt make any group more effective, just more frugal and in the case of having already lost the fight for more favourable environments, able to survive in areas of retreat, ecological niches under less favourable conditions.

What groups being pushed by others into areas of retreat after having lost the group selection?

Some examples, most living in forests, islands, isolated areas, the tropics, extreme cold and are almost always still hunter and gatherers or farmers on a low level:
Bambutids (African Pygmies)
Negritids (Asian Pygmies, Negritos)
Sanids (Bushmen)
Reduced Weddoid groups in India
etc.
The most striking feature of all of them is that they are extremely short for modern sapiens standards.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

I would rather compare it with a small and canny car with less "versatile" character. This care can't compete without a street,

Wrong, these vehicles drives on paths

Thats what the reduction is about. It doesnt make any group more effective, just more frugal and in the case of having already lost the fight for more favourable environments, able to survive in areas of retreat, ecological niches under less favourable conditions.

What you call "reduction, my firend, are adaption, but as you call it "reduction" it has a negative association.
The same is with "lower". I would like to drink a glass or five with you, and continue our discussions.

Also hunting after small game as I have invited especially you to before.

I am sure some of my Sami friends will grant us the best hunting territories available, for free

In Finnmark, of course...

[Agrippa]

Wrong, these vehicles drives on paths

Where would the Samis be today without state protection?
Imagine: No Christianity, no state, just Vikings needing land and ressources...the point is, they were already in a very defensive position, close to a dead end, thats obvious.

What you call "reduction, my firend, are adaption, but as you call it "reduction" it has a negative association.

Again I want to give you an example:
Triplets, orphans, one had bad luck, lost his leg and is now a sick and depressive beggar in a dirty and poor city - but survived "somehow". The second had more luck, got a job in a factory, works 11 hours a day and will die with 42 because of the damages of his health the work has done to his body. The third managed to get a proper education, studied, is now a scientist, will live 80 years in a clean and relatively healthy environment in which he can follow his propensities.
Well, all three survived at least to their 40's and "adapted somehow", still from a general human perspective, the 1st lost everything and his line will die out, no matter what he will do, from this point on its over. The 2nd did better but couldnt use his potential really and died an unnecessary death for the profit of others. Only the third could use the potential he had to a certain degree for the better of himself and others.

I might compare that really with evolution, since humans had a path and will have a path, thats what will happen no matter what we do, just which one...
The question is just, will they exist in 2000 years any more at all? How will they look? Will they still be in their majority small-thinking and sooner or later suffering objects rather than subjects in a world they dont really understand, not even in its beginnings? Will they be even lower than they are today? Will they have more diseases, being uglier, dumber, more greedy and corruptible than they are already?

If we compare the biological potential of an average Bronze Age group in the centres of development of Europe with that of todays people, we can hardly say that anything became better biologically, even on the contrary. If we look in the cairns and look at the upper class of that time, we will see the peak of today - there was no improvement until now, but the numbers of progressive traits in the population rather decreased.
What does reduction mean? It means decrease and its no option for the centres of mankind.

Remind you, it doesnt matter if such variants live on the fringes or if they are a minority in the population, but they never should become the standard nor the traits being disseminted further and further, that would be just degeneration even if an reduced individual itself must be not degenerated. The human potential rests not on one sided adaptations to extreme or unfavourable environments, but the constant enhancement of the versatile potential, both if looking at physical and psychic traits.

The same is with "lower". I would like to drink a glass or five with you, and continue our discussions.

Also hunting after small game as I have invited especially you to before.

I am sure some of my Sami friends will grant us the best hunting territories available, for free

In Finnmark, of course...

Well, I dont know how to interpret your sentences

However, I have no problems with the Sami people and if I had the chance I would visit them, probably even hunt there, drink with them, discuss with them in a friendly way as far as possible etc.
To put it simple: I dont see them as something particularly negative, but I dont want larger parts of Europeans being like they are, both by race and culture, and thats for sure. This doesnt mean that I deny any value of their culture or that its possible to learn something from "each other", no, but still...

[Savage]

Where would the Samis be today without state protection?

Rather insinuating? And this should I waste time and effort on, instead of fighting the real enemy that sneaks into Europe.?

Sami has never had any "state protection!"
asshole
This is "friendly fire", please direct your weapons at the enemy.

No more discussions on that.

I got some immigrants to resist, mooslems, jews, USA, and you, you run in my, and our feet with your racial p...referances, and even fireing at me??? Us???

OK, I am savage, now please focus at what threathens Europe.

[Menydh]

I'll try to be brief and summarize a little this time..

If by Northern peoples we understand the farthest North, then these peoples are the so-called Arctic peoples. I.e. the Saami, Inuit, Aleuts, Nenet and others. As it appears they are not only physically better adapted to extreme cold weather and a lack of UV but also psychically.

One must not think only of the tourist visit to an extreme region but also think what it is like living there on a daily basis and one year after another. And then, more in the past than today, surviving under such extreme conditions.

Whatever traits may be desirable for one region may be of no use for other regions where survival is measured up differently.

But the central issue here is the Saami in relation with Nordic Scandinavians. In my view there is more than one part to this.

One would be the supposed threat that they represent to Nordic Scandinavians. By expansion? Their numbers are low and have always been low. Besides, having lived for hundred of years side by side, the incidence of one group over the other has been higher on the Saami than on the Nordics. Judging by the pictures I would say that much higher as nearly every Saami shows traits of Nordic blood in them.

Not the same with Northern and Sub-Saharan Africans, Pakistanis, and whatever other non European immigrants have been in Scandaniavian countries for some decades.

How would it be consequent to want the preservation of some ethnic groups and not of others? We must not forget that Europe is not only a racial environment but also a geopolitical space. And the Saami are geopolitically native to that region of the far North of Europe.

I've been educated in the protection of those who are weaker than me. There lies THE spirit. A spirit that needs no adjectivation of Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine or else. It is the spirit legated by those who hundreds of years ago, even thousands of years ago arouse among the group as leaders because they protected the weaker elements of the group. It doesn't have to be just in the inner group. If I saw 5 guys kicking the head of one guy I would almost instinctively jump to defend the one guy. I can say this with confidence because it's happened to me on a few occasions, including one when I ended up being the victim alone. Neither does it have to be in the group.. as it was not one night in the underground of London when the victim was an English harassed by three Jamaicans. By the way, I said almost instinctively because I believe it to be more a matter of education than of inherited instincts.

You don't need to tell me that you can get hurt by doing so. And I'm sure that you will be much tempted to translate the physical hurt on an individual to the hurt on a group. But think for a moment, what is there to preserve if we lose our best values? Some physical traits over which we can make tonns of speculations?

From online conversations that I've had with you I can say that I know you much better than most other people here. Not that I absolutely know you. But enough to say that in my humblest opinion you mean well and that you are good natured. And also important, you are a much intelligent individual. However, there are flaws in your theories as flaws are expected in theories. One such flaw is that they are formulated in absolute material terms. We need a balance, we need broader views, and we need to cultivate the best of ourselves.

You asked me to explain and to expand on a comment on another post. Your answer is there above.


Only one more thing. The best eugenics programme possible is education. Usually overlooked in favour of shortcuts which can be more or less effective in real terms.. or not.


P.S. why is it that whenever I start by saying that I'll be brief, I am not? It is probably subconscious.

[Agrippa]

Good you edited parts of your text, your sexual allusions are disgusting and have zero to do with the topic anyway.

Originally Posted by Thore Hund

Historyless ignorant!

Rather insinuating? And this should i waste time and effort on, instead of fighting the real enemy that sneaks into Europe.?

Samis lived had a wider habitat - something you said yourself, their area was shrinking.
You began a discussion I wouldnt have used to so much time for myself neither.

Sami has never had any "state protection!"

So Viking bands and clans could move freely up to the North and if Samis caused problems to them (subjectively) they could kill them without any authority to fear? Samies experiences a lot of injustice, I dont want to euphemise it, and without the state it would have needed much longer time, but in the end they would have been ousted, would have live on just in mixtures here and there, like it happened in various provinces. However, you are right, thats speculative.

This is "friendly fire", please direct your weapons at the enemy.

The primary 'enemy' for me is the Liberalcapitalist, secondary the Leftist. That has, at least to me, not much to do with race or ethnic groups primarily. And even under those are decent individuals, as are under almost all ethnic groups.

Furthermore my prime concern are for sure Norwegians and Swedes rather than Sami, though I can repeat that I have nothing against them as such.

However, who causes problems with his views. To begin with I quote a sentence of yours:

Originally Posted by Thore Hund

There is use of nature, and there is abuse of nature. The latter is what we see on the continent, raping and polluting of nature, war fetisjism, bloodfeed capitalism, and culture crushing imperialism. According to my measures, the way the "white man" uses nature are rather primitive, because it in greed destroys it., here Sami are faaar superior and has much to teach you.

Thats exactly the attitude we dont need in Europe to "face the enemy", not because we shouldnt question our own behaviour and culture, to learn and to correct past mistakes, preventing future ones, but the way you telling this. Its another "indoctrination with guilt". Thats the same problem I have with the "Holocaust" about which I rarely ever discuss, namely if being instrumentalised. Samis being instrumentalised too.
How often did I hear that Germans or Europeans did this and that, are here bad and there worse, probably even deserve being erradicated, bred out by immigrants, or why one should care at all?
Then there are this typical associations of minorities with hyper-sensitive leftists of the majority, which can play their "moral superior" card by showing "great respect and understanding for the needs of the minority". It doesnt even matter which one. F.e. I have nothing against Croats, but the Croats in Burgenland, especially their representatives, constantly work together with anti-German and anti-European leftists.

In the case of Lapps it might be even worse, since they are no real Europeans in the narrowest sense at least and can now refer to their "history of oppression" and how bad Scandinavian Germanics were to them - and "to nature", the Jews, the Gypsies, the disabled, the little elks and tiny squirrels...

So tell me whats the great benefit in making Samis bigger than life, bigger than they really are for Europeans? Again, they should live in peace in their areas, the mixtures being nothing positive but not THAT negative neither, everything fine - sure they are not the most important "problem" Europeans and mankind has to face.

That was a theoretical discussion which practical value lies in the understanding of basic relations and developments. For the practical policy it means a better racial understanding and a fix direction of long term developments in the best case, nothing concrete now - for me.

How many Sami organisations fight for European racial and cultural preservation and against foreign mass immigration? Or at least for Norwegian-Germanic one? Any alliances with truly nationalist and racially aware groups? Could they do that all since they being protected primarily by the Liberals and leftists? Questions you should ask yourself too if talking about "friendly fire" after saying such sentences like the above and constantly insulting my person as well as Europeans actually caring for their own racial and cultural heritage - and, which is their good right, for the preservation of the Nordid type in its core areas.

I got som immigrants to resists, mooslems, jews, USA, and you run in my , our feet with your racial p...referances, and firing at me?

I just stated some facts and my opinion on them. Nothing personal as long as you dont get personal, but oh well, thats something you didnt manage from the beginning. In comparison I did well I guess, even if that might sound inflated, its true since I had "my moments" when reading some sentences of yours.

OK, I am savage, now please focus at what threathens Europe.

I rarely use "savage", even if I use primitive I just mean more original, lower organisational, differentiation etc. Even primitive must not always mean worse. To focus on what threatens Europe one has to face certain facts and premises, which means to deal with racial issues, its inevitable on the long run, even if one tries to ignore it - like I did for a certain time - it will come back on you in this system which allows zero Biologism nor group orientation at all.