Originally Posted by Odin

DOH, I can't believe I forgot the Finno-Ugrians!

Interestingly there is very little of the origin Siberian/"Mongoloid" element left in most Finno-Ugrian groups west of the Urals, the main exception being the Y-Chromosome of men with Y-DNA Haplotype N. IIRC the Finns are the blondest people in the world.

Yeah, population genetics and language are only loosely connected. As you well know, the Hungarians might speak a language with roots far removed from most in Europe, but they're genetically indistinguishable from their neighbors. There's been little large scale population replacement since the Indo-Europeans first came in from the steppe.



I mean, you're basically right. There were the Ice Age hunter gatherers, who expanded from Spain to the Urals once the glaciers receded. There were the first farmers who came into the continent (who appear to be the origin of the genes that fix skin color in most "white people) from Anatolia. And there were the Indo-Europeans. The PIE, though, appear themselves to have been a hybrid of the North Eurasian hunter gatherers, who were genetically different from the West European ones with gene flow from North Asia, and another Middle Eastern group that arrived onto the steppes from over the Caucasus. The North Eurasian group, that can be broadly associated with Uralic peoples, is really interesting in the sense that there are people in Scandinavia today who might be blonde and speak a Germanic language like Swedish or Norwegian, and yet have certain genetic traits that have more in common with Chinese people than they do the rest of Europe.



Thanks, btw. This is one of those subjects I rarely get to geek out on.

Edited to add a piece I apparently left out.

Normal, welcome back. I agree with most of what you said above. The whole liberal/conservative thing we use here in the states does not really map onto the the attitudes of Europeans at all, particularly when you exclude the effects of American cultural hegemony, which I have anecdotally found to be strongest in Euro Boomers. One of the things I think is relevant to understanding European attitudes is that it is ethically/linguistically unconsolidated in a way that is very different from the rest of the world. Those local identifies are very well established and line up with political and cultural institutions that have been hard fought for over centuries. To be honest, I don't think EU integration and mass immigration were ever particularly likely to succeed in such an environment, and as we can see the least stress brings all the old divisions and enmities to the forefront.

Originally Posted by Normal

This is an incredible thread. Frankly, I hate most threads on this forum, but this is a good one.

Ksim, I don't agree with all of your ideas (certainly not your interpretation of the turnings), but I think you are offering some interesting viewpoints and insight and it's always good to challenge what people think they know.

There is SO much to dissect in this thread, and I'm just going to try my best not to go into a long-winded diatribe.............but if I could very briefly sum up how I feel about Europeans, it's this - well, they may be progressive when it comes to bike lanes and wind mills, but it doesn't mean they can't be nationalist or downright racist. As bad as the racism is here in the U.S., I hear about some of the stuff that Arabs and black Africans put up with in Europe and it actually makes me glad that I live here and not there.

No, Europe is not too good or too enlightened to devolve into another sweeping tide of fascism like it did in the 1930s and 1940s. The same seeds that were planted then are planted now - an economic crisis that grips almost the entire continent, hatred towards a religious / cultural / ethnic minority (not just Muslims - anti-Semitism is back on the rise in Western Europe as well although to be fair, some of that is propagated by Muslims), the rise of right-wing nationalism, etc. I don't see how it is not more obvious that Europe is headed down the exact same road it was headed down in the 1930s.

I'm just hoping and praying that 10 years from now you guys don't produce another Hitler who tries his hardest to exterminate all of the Muslims in Europe. You are headed down that path.

For centuries now, many European societies (particularly Western Europe) have held some notion or idea that they are superior to all other non-white, non-European people around the world. It's white privilege and white supremacy amplified - after all, as KSim pointed out, Europe is the indigenous home of white people. You can't play the "but you killed all the Indians!" card over there like you can here.

Maybe Angela Merkel is right - maybe multiculturalism doesn't work in Europe. But if that's the case, it will be just as much native Europeans fault (if not more so) than the new immigrants. As a person of color living in the United States, it's hard to believe that there is a place (especially in the developed world) that actually makes America look good in terms of race relations, cultural understanding and tolerance, etc. but Western Europe seems to be that place.

Odin said it best early on the thread - you guys simply suck at assimilating minorities into your societies. Maybe it's because you haven't had as much practice doing so as we have. Maybe it's because you never went through a tumultuous 1960s style civil rights movement like we did here in the U.S. I don't know what it is, but Europe scares me. Nationalism, and even fascism, can most certainly return to Europe any day now.

I remember hearing a news story about Italians throwing bananas at a black soccer player during a soccer match. That would not happen here in the US.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Normal, welcome back. I agree with most of what you said above. The whole liberal/conservative thing we use here in the states does not really map onto the the attitudes of Europeans at all, particularly when you exclude the effects of American cultural hegemony, which I have anecdotally found to be strongest in Euro Boomers. One of the things I think is relevant to understanding European attitudes is that it is ethically/linguistically unconsolidated in a way that is very different from the rest of the world. Those local identifies are very well established and line up with political and cultural institutions that have been hard fought for over centuries. To be honest, I don't think EU integration and mass immigration were ever particularly likely to succeed in such an environment, and as we can see the least stress brings all the old divisions and enmities to the forefront.

It's like the Greek city states, they suicidally fought among themselves against themselves, peace came only because Rome imposed it on them.

Originally Posted by TnT

Really? I've not experienced a hierarchical "white" kind of discrimination. Maybe a bit, during my two-year exile in Pennsylvania, but I'm interested ... how does it work in Great Britain?

Easy joke: Considering you're a Silent, I'd have thought the answer would have been in your memories.

As for Pennsylvania, it's the legacy of bad English/German relations which were only made worse when a Massachusetts-born import wrote something like this:

Originally Posted by A 1751 publication

[ S ]ince detachments of English horn Britain sent to America, will have their places at home so soon supplied and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?

Which leads me to add one remark: That the number of purely white people in the world is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.

And then later founded a college with the intention of Anglifying German children, that still exists to this day, I should note.

The Scot-Irish and Germans banded together to form Pennsyltucky to do battle with English/Welsh Pennsylvania. And as my "Location" answer mentions... I'm a child of both worlds who can somehow make the transition between both worlds, oddly enough.

So to answer your question... how do the English "do" "White racism"? By considering everyone who isn't Anglo-Saxon to be non-white... at least traditionally speaking.

It was a belief also held in America until the end of WWII actually--and the reason behind all the discrimination against Irish Catholics, Jewish, Italians, Polish, etc. Why at the turn of the last century, the KKK wouldn't accept any members who weren't WASP-y (but now will accept anyone who simply has white skin... that's definitely a sign of progress, when even the racists become more inclusive ). We even still have remnants of the old beliefs as you hardly find an "Italian" character in a TV show who isn't noticeably tanner than the rest of his cast. WWII and more specifically the GI Bill after the war changed all that.

The same was true of how Germans were treated in America before the Civil War and after the Civil War & the Homestead Act changed things.

It's apparently how America goes about expanding the definition of what is considered to be "White".

~Chas'88

Bananas ... it took me a while to get that one.
How about throwing tweets instead?

"Racist comments proliferated on social media networks Thursday after Montreal Canadiens defenceman P.K. Subban scored the winning goal in a double-overtime match against the Boston Bruins.
On Twitter, unhappy Bruins fans tweeted comments like 'That stupid n----r doesn’t belong in hockey #whitesonly.'"
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/mont...-win-1.2629759

Assimilation? I'm not so sure about that one either.
From what I've seen, Indian immigrants largely stick to themselves these days, and encourage their kids to do the same.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Bananas ... it took me a while to get that one.

FWIW, me too.

Originally Posted by nm

How about throwing tweets instead?

"Racist comments proliferated on social media networks Thursday after Montreal Canadiens defenceman P.K. Subban scored the winning goal in a double-overtime match against the Boston Bruins.
On Twitter, unhappy Bruins fans tweeted comments like 'That stupid n----r doesn’t belong in hockey #whitesonly.'"
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/mont...-win-1.2629759

Are you trying to fire me up?
(ya gotta just love that 'hashtag')

Ok. I'm gonna make a rare(a very rare) stand here and get on a soapbox.

To everybody:

IMO, this crap happens on the internet because people are able to maintain their anonymity.
But if this shit happens out in the open, I implore you, at least consider calling them out on it.
It's easy to say that they're full of shit, and really not worth the trouble, but if somebody doesn't
do, it'll probably continue, IMO(btw, I'll add here that false claims of rascism are not helping things,
and are actually seriously getting in the way). Now, I'm not saying that you won't get your ass
kicked; You might(and these young people get kinda freaky nowadays), but pick your battles, and
if you feel reasonably safe, I'm saying: do it. It's your call, but at least consider being that person.
Do it. Be that person.

End rant, and thank you for your consideration.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by nm

Assimilation? I'm not so sure about that one either.
From what I've seen, Indian immigrants largely stick to themselves these days, and encourage their kids to do the same.

Can you blame them?

EtG's naive utopian globalism is a prescription for disaster, because it results in wide spread unfocused intervention and presents the worst face of "The Ugly American" to the world. It angers the tribal peoples and meanwhile gives organized anti Western nations states fodder for their Anti Anglo Saxon agitprop.

However, Ksim's version of supposed "Nationalism" is no better. It leads to the path of isolationism, appeasement of the Anti Western Fiends (and in some cases, outright recruitment by them, against all Anglospheric notions and interests), and eventually, being unprepared for the inevitable Crisis Total War.

A realist falls into neither of these camps, and prepares for World War.

Originally Posted by Ksim

What we have to remember about Europeans is that ultimately they actually descended from the Caucasus Mountains. Hence the term for white people, 'Caucasian". Sure, there was some limited Middle Eastern ancestry in Europeans but overall it was extremely limited. The vast majority came from the Caucasus and settled into Europe thousands of years ago. If we look at the ancestors of Europeans, we can quite easily see it in the rather European looking Circassians/Ossetians/Karbadians etc, still native peoples (and nationalists too) to the area. In Biblical times and still even today in some circles, Europeans have always been identified as the Sons of Japheth. To the ancient Hebrews, the Sons of Japheth were in the North, primarily around the Caucasus and Europe. If we look at the DNA and linguistic patterns, it actually makes sense. Europeans are more related to each other then other racial groups. An Englishman is more related to a Russian then he is to a Subsaharan African in terms of genetic distance. Hence the Japhethite theory actually fits in. History matches up and there is a brotherhood between European nations, just as there is between the Asian and African countries.

When it comes to the Middle East, Jews and Arabs are actually blood brothers. Makes sense considering that Jews and Arabs in the Bible and other historical documents actually descended from Jacob and Ishmael respectively, from the same forefather Abraham yet split off by two sons. Genetics and linguistic wise, there is very much a strong connection between the Arabs and the Jews. Quite amazing really and they were regarded as the original "Sons of Shem".

So there is an ethno-linguistic blood line present and I found it amazing to find the correlations when reading about race.

As for immigrants - it depends. America I think could potentially although it will take a century or so due to the mass migration. Race and culture will be redefined in America. For now though I see it splitting off. As for Europe - not quite so. We have had black and South Asian immigration into Britain for decades yet they have not "assimilated" compared to the white Slavs we had in the 50s and today. Rather, they wanted to maintain their own racial make up and preferred to create their own communities with their own traditions. This itself had led to a balkanised UK in many regards. Where as the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, etc, etc just melted in without no question and became British. People could not tell the difference.

Hence I tend to find there is a racial bias for assimilation. When other races assimilate, they tend to adopt more the culture yet remain relatively seperate due to their own desires for preservation where as immigrants of the same race naturally assimilate with little difficulty. Although it isn't pleasant to be racially observant in this view, it is very much the truth. I have seen people know who is a black man even if he was born here yet not know who is a Pole despite them having a Polish parent. Race unfortunately does exist and there is what I term a more comfortable immigration with people and a more fractious one.

That said, we should help the Middle East, I agree. We should help them but I'd prefer more the Friendship of Nations approach, not bring everyone in and allow them to permanently stay forever.



Depends really. There is a huge divide between nationalism and fascists. Fascists seek to stop free speech, impose their world view on everyone else and even march to the drums of imperialism. A nationalist is more or less proud of his own homeland and wishes to preserve it yet isn't against working with others. To be honest, you get idiots in all movements. You do get intelligent nationalists though just like you get retarded leftists. Thats just the way the world works sunshine.

Sorry, but the above post if full of absolute rubbish. That is not what the gene mapping tells us.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

EtG's naive utopian globalism is a prescription for disaster, because it results in wide spread unfocused intervention and presents the worst face of "The Ugly American" to the world. It angers the tribal peoples and meanwhile gives organized anti Western nations states fodder for their Anti Anglo Saxon agitprop.

No, not at all; realist globalism (not utopian) leads to exactly the opposite, because it's about recognizing our unity within diversity and respect for all people, not intervention with the intent of making people the same as us. That was George W Bush. Liberals are the opposite. If we stop supporting dictators (or otherwise imposing our will) in these countries for our own benefit and security, then Americans will no longer be ugly.

However, Ksim's version of supposed "Nationalism" is no better. It leads to the path of isolationism, appeasement of the Anti Western Fiends (and in some cases, outright recruitment by them, against all Anglospheric notions and interests), and eventually, being unprepared for the inevitable Crisis Total War.

A realist falls into neither of these camps, and prepares for World War.

A realist recognizes the irreversible facts of global civilization, and seeks to find a balance with local powers and cultures, rather than a monoculture and imperialist domination. Expect peace, but stay prepared for defense (let's not call it "war", because the realist will start no wars).

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...

Are you trying to fire me up?
(ya gotta just love that 'hashtag')

#FireItUp



End rant, and thank you for your consideration.

#IIlikeFires


Prince

PS:

Can you blame them?

meh.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

EtG's naive utopian globalism is a prescription for disaster, because it results in wide spread unfocused intervention and presents the worst face of "The Ugly American" to the world. It angers the tribal peoples and meanwhile gives organized anti Western nations states fodder for their Anti Anglo Saxon agitprop.

However, Ksim's version of supposed "Nationalism" is no better. It leads to the path of isolationism, appeasement of the Anti Western Fiends (and in some cases, outright recruitment by them, against all Anglospheric notions and interests), and eventually, being unprepared for the inevitable Crisis Total War.

A realist falls into neither of these camps, and prepares for World War.

A realist doesn't use terms like "anti-Western fiends"...

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

<snipped vid>

#IIlikeFires

<chuckle!>

Yeah, me too.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by Rags

I hear you, Brother-Man.
(I refuse to even 'text'.)

Originally Posted by Odin

A realist doesn't use terms like "anti-Western fiends"...

LOL!


Prince

PS: And only like 1% of the US Population uses the term: Plutocrat.
(or '1%/99%-ers', for that matter! )

Oh, man.

Well, folks. Looks like we've got a new one.
(they're just popping-up all over the place! )

Neo-Confederates.
(Hey, that actually sounds kinda cool! )

People sure do seem to go a long way to try to
paint their perceived 'whatevers' as 'whatevers'.


Prince

PS: I'll try and come-up with some when I get a chance,
but Jordan's already got the trademark on 'sea-fascists'!

It's alright, man, I'm all for fair use. Let your sea-fascist flag fly.

Originally Posted by Normal

I don't see how it is not more obvious that Europe is headed down the exact same road it was headed down in the 1930s.

So I thought in the nineties. Looking more and more likely all the time.

I'm just hoping and praying that 10 years from now you guys don't produce another Hitler who tries his hardest to exterminate all of the Muslims in Europe. You are headed down that path.

Nah. I ruled that out in the nineties. Haven't changed my mind. Hitler and the Fascists are superstructure, the manifestation of underlying social forces that you are picking up on. Outward manifestations are different. There will be no Hitler in Europe because this cycles's version of Germany isn't in Europe. Europe's days as the center of Western Civilization are over.

In population and wealth the center of the modern West in in the Western hemisphere, not just in North America, but South America too. We Anglos tend the see "Western" as Northern Europe and it outposts, because of the cultural dominance of England and the Netherlands before it. But the was an era of South European dominance, when Western Art reached a peak that will probably never be surpassed. Also the birthplace of the modern West was in 10th cent France. The heirs to the South European branch of the West is Latin America. Spengler notwithstanding, I don't think the West is quite done.

For centuries now, many European societies (particularly Western Europe) have held some notion or idea that they are superior to all other non-white, non-European people around the world.

Yes race was invented to justify slavery in the New World. European participation in slavery ended about two centuries ago, but the idea was kept strong as long as colonialism persisted. It hasn't even been a lifetime since the end of European colonialism, and de jure White Supremacy in the US lasted into my own lifetime while de facto continues on.

As a person of color living in the United States, it's hard to believe that there is a place (especially in the developed world) that actually makes America look good in terms of race relations, cultural understanding and tolerance, etc. but Western Europe seems to be that place.

And East Asia, and the Muslim world. and ... you get the point.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

It's alright, man, I'm all for fair use. Let your sea-fascist flag fly. <snipped ultra-smiley>

<chuckle!>

You know Jordan, that is really funny(ie: kinda true).
(and I must say, I like the 'cut of your jib', sir. )

'Piracy' is all kinda a matter of perspective, IMO.
I figure "they" probably see me as some sorta U-boat
captain disrupting Allied Shipping(*Gasp-ee* 'Nazis'!),
but I just see it as a simple act of 'privateer'-ing.


Prince

PS: I mean, when they go too far i/r/t 'taking The Liberty',
IME, it's a sure 'signal' there's gonna be 'hell to pay'. !

Originally Posted by Ksim

They (liberals) believe in interfering in global affairs whenever possible in order to impose their own world view.

Conservatives are on board the war wagon too.

Yet when it comes to the 'Red Conservatives', I tend to find this group not only the ones that are sympathetic to nationalist ideas when it comes to Europeans but also the only group that wants the U.S to pull out from its international duties on the world stage and adopt a more isolationist stance.

True of Paleoconservatives and some libertarians, who comprised a small portion of American conservatives. The vast majority of modern-day American conservatives are so-called movement conservatives, who hold opinions on war/peace that are the opposite of what conservatives in the last 4T held. Sure Rand Paul sort of talks a good game on the foreign intervention thing, but he is only one of a very large number of Republican leaders, the rest of whom are beating the drums for war with Iran, and ISIS, and al Qaeda and whoever catches their attention this week.

Raising the minimum wage to $12 or $15 an hour would have a positive impact on low-wage working folks and it is hugely popular across the American political spectrum. It would also likely have a side effect of substantially reducing illegal immigration, something most conservatives say they want. But do they? Would Republicans actually back a plan like this? Not in a million years. This idea comes from that same tiny fraction of Republicans who don't belong to the War of the Month Club.

Conservatives and Liberals on the Right tend to hold the pro-intervention position. To find the opposite you have to look on the Left, and there's hardly any of those left in this country. Many of what today are called "left liberals" i.e. supporters of gay marriage and transgendered rights, militant atheists, etc. stand with the Right on economic issues like free trade and US intervention, even if they don't exactly see it this way. It's kind of like the "what's the matter with Kansas" phenomenon except on the other side.

Look at some recent things in the news. There was one about college students trying to squelch debate because of emotional triggers. And then there are religious conservatives blowing a gasket about the this gay marriage thingy in Indiana. Both groups are doing the same thing, getting all working about nonsense, and ignoring important things, all which simply furthers the agenda of the ruling class (i.e. the Right).

And then there is all the shit about Iran, ISIS, Syria Libya (Bengaziiiii!), Iraq, Saddam, Afghanistan, etc. All to distract us with BS while the country slowly slips into the abyss.

Mikebert,
All of which goes back to my point from the other thread that it is wrong to speak of truly competing belief systems in this country, except on the fringes. There are only minor doctrinal squabbles within the ruling ideology of Liberalism, which at present is dissolving the last vestiges of communitarianism in American political life (succeeding economically on the "right" and socially on the "left"). There seems to be little real and effective effort on either side to change trajectory domestically, but even it gets locked-in this turning it will eventually be toppled. The actual content of Spengler's book, as opposed to just riffing on the title, is actually instructive in this regard.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Mikebert,
All of which goes back to my point from the other thread that it is wrong to speak of truly competing belief systems in this country, except on the fringes. There are only minor doctrinal squabbles within the ruling ideology of Liberalism, which at present is dissolving the last vestiges of communitarianism in American political life (succeeding economically on the "right" and socially on the "left"). There seems to be little real and effective effort on either side to change trajectory domestically, but even it gets locked-in this turning it will eventually be toppled. The actual content of Spengler's book, as opposed to just riffing on the title, is actually instructive in this regard.

Were Spengler still around, I suspect he'd retrospectively deem what happened during the 1930s and 1940s as a warning wave and what appears to be unfolding now the real deal.

PBS show Frontline covers conflict in Yemen:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ght-for-yemen/

Bottom line is, the people featured in the story are pissed and will keep killing each other regardless of what the United States tries to do about it.
So why don't we stay the hell out of it instead of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong and thus making ourselves a target?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

PBS show Frontline covers conflict in Yemen:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ght-for-yemen/

Bottom line is, the people featured in the story are pissed and will keep killing each other regardless of what the United States tries to do about it.
So why don't we stay the hell out of it instead of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong and thus making ourselves a target?

Because it is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That is bad, bad mojo. If it can be contained, it should be contained. If we fail to contain it, world war might result.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Because it is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That is bad, bad mojo. If it can be contained, it should be contained. If we fail to contain it, world war might result.

So what? You think a realist prepares for world war anyway.
All we do by butting in is add fuel to the fire and make these idiots want to blow us up in our own country. We don't need that shit.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

PBS show Frontline covers conflict in Yemen:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ght-for-yemen/

Bottom line is, the people featured in the story are pissed and will keep killing each other regardless of what the United States tries to do about it.
So why don't we stay the hell out of it instead of sticking our nose where it doesn't belong and thus making ourselves a target?

I don't see why we need to get into that fight either.