This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.
EzraLB wrote:Let me repeat an important point I made earlier--the term "Slav" is a linguistic designation, not a racial one.
wmfinck wrote:EzraLB is right, that "Slavic" is really a linguistic term, rather than a racial one, especially since (as I think I said earlier) the lines between Scythian and Sarmatian tribes is not entirely clear.
EzraLB wrote:Around the time that Poland was converted to Christianity, c. 900, the Persian-Muslim historian Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadani, while describing the skin tone of the typical Iraqi, specifically references the Slavs--not the Saxons--as an example of a White-skinned people:
"A man of discernment said: The people of Iraq ... do not come out with something between blonde, buff and blanched coloring, such as the infants dropped from the wombs of the women of the Slavs and others of similar light complexion..."
He doesn't use the ambiguous term "ruddy" here; though I've read other arabic historical accounts of Slavs that do use that term. How much more White can you get than "blonde, buff (i.e. shiny), and blanched"?
EzraLB wrote:Perhaps you would consider this proof that this would make them "gray", not White, but all these groups were White. Mix White with White, you get White.
EzraLB wrote:So where does this "mongrel" element that you speak of come from? According to legend--spurred on by obvious ethnic chauvinism--the Slavic people were mongrelized by plundering asiatic invaders from the east.
EzraLB wrote:Funny, we know that these asiatic hordes were at the gates of Vienna as late as 1680; yet, no one accuses the Austrians of being "mongrelized". Millions of German women were raped by the asiatic Soviet army during and after WWII; yet no one now claims that today's Germans are mongrels. Why do they get a free pass?
EzraLB wrote:Common sense should tell you that for any significant admixture to take place, a country not only must be invaded--it must be occupied for a sustained period of time. We surely see that in the history of Spain, southern Italy, Greece, Portugal, but we don't see it in central Europe, unless I've missed something. Yes, there has been mixing in eastern Europe, but central Europe?
wmfinck wrote:I may have questioned the ethnicity of Maria Sharapova at some point, I do not really remember. But I think that rather, it is Anna Kournikova who I said was definitely a mongrel, and I am still convinced of that. Ana Ivanovic is pretty dark, but her features are very White, so it may be that she is a classic brunette. But I would bet that she, being a Serbian, would be called a mongrel by many "Nordicists" who would in turn accept an Anna Kournikova simply because she is fair with blond hair.
Nayto wrote:Nice foot Bill, LOL. How do these historians distinguish between ruddy as in red and a darker skin? How do they describe each in contrast to one another?
It seems like you have a chip on your shoulder in this topic.
You are referring to geopolitical entities, which might limit the discussion. The situation may or may not go further back than the formation of these entities. However if you have some insight to offer more specifically on these modern entities, then I'm all ears.
You've called me obsessed without actually addressing my argument. You've completely sidestepped it bringing in your own laundry list against Hitler. Points you raised would be an interesting discussion in my Lessons from the Third Reich thread. I would encourage you to please elaborate there. Over here, please read my argument again and think it over.
There is a big difference. I am not and did not say they are backward. Some people made the argument that communism and jewry have had this effect, which is a great point. The same can be said of Whites of South Africa, of which I am a part. They are responsible for some wonderful innovations, but after 1994 are unexceptional.
Basically I have heard through the grapevine that something on the genomewide patterns of Afrikaners would be published “soon” in the fall of 2012, but that hasn’t happened. So a few weeks ago I went looking in the Family Tree DNA database, and extracted individuals who stated that both parents were born in South Africa. Twelve of those had more than 90 percent European ancestry. So it is likely that these individuals are either Afrikaner or non-Afrikaner South African whites. I’ll hold off on the admixture results until the Family Tree post, but visual inspection made it clear that most of them they had non-European ancestry. American whites and Europeans generally have no non-West Eurasian/North African ancestry, with the exception of some Spaniards, who have small Sub-Saharan segments, probably mediated through the Moors. Many of these individuals had affinities at low levels to Khoisan, South Asians, Southeast Asians, and West Africans. These are as it happens the non-European groups who contributed ancestry to the Cape Coloureds.
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/admixture-in-so ... frikaners/
wmfinck wrote:
Brunette is also a subjective term. Not all White people cleanly fit into preconceived blond or brunette categories, but these things originally described more than merely hair color. I did an open forum about this once, in response to this very argument concerning certain individuals.
http://archive.christogenea.org/content/christogenea-forum-call-11-01-10
CIman wrote:Not necessarily. All subjects should be discussed with an open mind and we should follow the historical facts and evidence. But you haven't even defined what you mean by "Slavs" or even what populations you are talking about.
You are very vague here.
CIman wrote:Are you referring to the Eastern European "Slavs" or Southern European "Slavs"? Keep in mind also that many, many Germans and Austrians are mixed with "Slavic" blood since ancient times and the Austrian-Hungarian empire.. are they mongrels too?
CIman wrote:No.. I said you have an "obsession" with Hitlers views on this topic (even in the OP you mentioned what he thought about the "Slavs"). You were the one who first brought up Hitler, not me.
CIman wrote:Speaking of the devil.. did you know that many White South africans have negro admixture?
CIman wrote:Many South African "Whites" are, at least in my opinion, mongrels.
Teutonic wrote:I recently saw the new Jason Bourne movie and the main actress, Alicia Vikander, had me almost 100% convinced she had some kind of non-white ancestry...come to find out she's 3/4 swedish and 1/4 Finnish.
Staropramen wrote:Teutonic wrote:I recently saw the new Jason Bourne movie and the main actress, Alicia Vikander, had me almost 100% convinced she had some kind of non-white ancestry...come to find out she's 3/4 swedish and 1/4 Finnish.
My wife and I both like the Bourne movies. Reading your post I thought to myself "hmm, I thought my wife told me that the female lead in the new one is a kike".
This bio lists her religion as kike;
http://articlebio.com/amanda-alicia-vikander
According to a Zetaboards forum post there was a reference to her being jewish on fashionphobia.org but that link is dead.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/si ... &t=4849450
Teutonic wrote:
...as you pointed out in the audio file above Bill, its ultimately not up to us to seperate the wheat from the tares, only Christ can do that...
Teutonic wrote:Wow, Wikipedia didnt mention it at all...guess I was right!
Nayto wrote:Teutonic wrote:
...as you pointed out in the audio file above Bill, its ultimately not up to us to seperate the wheat from the tares, only Christ can do that...
I wish I had time to fully listen to this podcast tonight, damn.
Return to Diversity or Deception?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests