This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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.

Slavs

The attempted jewish destruction of the White race.

Re: Slavs

Postby wmfinck » Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:38 am

Wow, there are really a few threads going on in here at once. We were out Sunday evening and all day yesterday, so the foot picture was posted from my cellphone form the place where we had lunch, just on a whim.

Ruddy is a subjective term, but I would never use it to describe dark skin. I would never call an Arab ruddy. I think the idea that ruddy can reply to dark skin is a Jewish one, where they try to confound terms used to describe people in the Bible. Historically the term ruddy was used to describe Whites who had a rosier hue because the blood shows more easily through the skin. By comparison, other Whites are pale, fair, etc.

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

There are challenges reading the Classics and trying to determine the ethnicity of people. Tacitus thought that the Sarmatians had an ugly countenance, but I wonder if he ever saw the busts of Socrates, who might have been one of the Sarmatians he was describing.

In a White world, the perspectives and boundaries for what is ruddy, fair, blond, brunette, etc. are probably very different from the mongrel world in which we live.

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. Neither are the lines between Scythians and Thracians, or Scythians and other groups who were in parts of Europe before the Germanic migrations.

While I do believe that there are plenty of White Russians, the lines between Russian and Jew and Russian and Tartar have been blurred over the past dozen decades.

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.

In America, many "Russians" can be found in the resort areas. This is true of the stretch from Panama City Beach to Destin, and also of Myrtle Beach, as I have observed it in these places myself. These "Russian" girls can be found mostly working in tiki bars or beach shops, the kind that have very large, well-lit buildings and sell a lot of junk clothing and bathing suits and stuff for the beach like chairs and rafts, all at inflated prices (pun intended). Most of these "Russian" girls, however, while they look White at a glance, I am convinced have asiatic and/or Jewish admixtures. They are typically short of stature, often have asiatic eyes (Anna Kournikova eyes), and are sometimes even misshapen, such as having heads too big for their bodies, or bodies too long for their legs, etc. So our opinions of certain countries can be biased by bad examples, but I would never think of most of these girls as typical Russians.

Not that I want to pick on Russians. Practically every nation in Europe, as well as the U.S. with what we call the Pocahontas syndrome, has its challenges concerning purity of ethnicity. [Many Americans for various reasons claim to be of American Indian descent, but only some truly are.] The Arabs in Italy, France, Greece and Iberia have confounded the true meaning of the term brunette . Some Germans and other Western Europeans have what may be considered "asiatic-looking" eyes, so what if the feature was inherent among some Whites? In Scandinavia, there is the Lapp problem, especially in Finland. Discussing this a few years ago, we lost at least one Forum member who became offended. Then there is the so-called "black" Irish, for which there are many postulations based on false assumptions. The list goes on...
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:49 pm

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.


As I said earlier in the thread, I partially regret using the word "Slavs". It seems to be too loaded a word to start a discussion with. Regardless, I fully realize this fact, however my intent for the thread was the discussion of "Slavs" in general and by that I am referring to the inhabitants of the modern geopolitical entities we know as Slavic nations today. If someone has insight to offer an some ancient or modern aspect of what makes up those people today and would like to drill down on some specific area, there's nothing wrong with that.

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"?


More White than blonde? Careful EzraLB, you're being a Nordicist. :roll:

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to base such discussions off of obviously mongrel historians though.

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.


I obviously wouldn't consider that. The rhetoric seems moot except that there were many White peoples in the area who mixed.

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.


I'm not sure why you would use a term like "ethnic chauvinism", as if we are all equal even within our race. We obviously aren't equal and neither were/are tribes of Israel by divine decree.

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?


Well that's a good point, but they certainly don't get a free pass and no one is saying that there is no mongrel element within Austria. I often wonder about that German forced integration myself and what effect it had. It's certainly worthy of discussion at some point. Regardless, the fact that there were asiatic hordes around Austria as well doesn't imply that we should not discuss what impact those hordes had on Slavic peoples (or specific sub-groups which were affected). Each case should be taken and investigated separately.

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?


So you're saying that occupation is a prerequisite for mixing. Yes, it definitely is and in the cases of those countries you mentioned it exactly applies. However it is not the only prerequisite. In Scripture we have examples of simple proximity, mongrel wanderers who weren't kept out and also the occupiers being compromised by the occupied.

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.


Hah, I think I probably mixed the two up being that my tennis knowledge isn't great. Apologies. Suffice to say that there are those, some who I've even met in person, who would fool a person by looking White.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby CIman » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:07 pm

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?


I didn't say you're doing that either.. But it's usually Nordicists who consider everybody else except Scandinavians and Germans to be "White".

It seems like you have a chip on your shoulder in this topic.


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.

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.


Well they are all considered to be "Slavs" by "modern definitions". You need to clarify what nationalities or "Slavs" you are referring to.

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?

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.


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.

I think that Hitlers views on the "Slavs" are pretty irrelevant because he obviously had an agenda and his views were often driven by conflicts and compromises.

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.


Speaking of the devil (no pun intended).. did you know that many White South Africans have negro admixture?

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/


Many South African "Whites" are, at least in my opinion, mongrels.
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Slavs

Postby Teutonic » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:14 pm

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



Speaking of brunettes, 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. Supposedly, because when can never know for sure, and 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, and that when in doubt we will know them by their fruits.

My question is, does 'by their fruits' mean whether or not they display Aryan traits such as honesty, fairness, nobility of mind, hard working, etc? Because I have a few individuals in my life that I simply have no idea whether they're Israelites or not, I mentioned them here: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=8891
Duty, Honour, Sacrifice.
User avatar
Teutonic
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Weimar America

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:48 pm

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.


As I've said more than once in this thread, I partially regret using the word "Slavs" from the beginning. Suffice to say that I'd like to discuss all of the peoples currently inhabiting those modern geopolitical entities known as "Slavic" today. I don't want to limit the discussion on anyone specific as it has become clear to me that there are indeed many aspects to the situation.

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?


In that case of course they are (just kidding). Probably the original aspect of my opinion as expressed in the OP is my desire to understand in the origins of the Slavic peoples whether there is mongrelization. Of course I'm somewhat affected by the myriads of opinions I've read in my years as CI and I've come to the point where I'm tired of not knowing for certain. I don't want to come to the people here and simply say, "Well, what do you guys think about Slavs?" If my job and life has shown me anything it's that in order to best elicit an opinion, one must provide one's own opinion first. It's funny how people work in that another opinion gives them reference and context with which to give their own. I hope that is some consolation to you in that I'm not trying to prove that all Slavs are mongrels. I have no agenda here, which is why I left that final line in the OP.

By the same token, as I've said, I believe that CI should not get offended on matters of race. I've learned a lot in this thread and have many points of reference to run with, none of which would have happened if I was afraid of offending someone. In this way that old epistemological problem, "you can't know what you don't know", is combated and I don't engage in research which simply reinforces the original idea. This problem is especially prevalent in a lot of academia where they all seem to misrepresent each other because they don't truly understand one another.

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.


I shortened the sentiment "you have an "obsession" with Hitlers views on this topic" to "You've called me obsessed" ;) I have no obsession with Hitler, but I thought his views were worth addressing given his colossal early success. Presenting another's views doesn't make one obsessed with that person. Such an accusation in this context is overly dramatic, especially when you still have not address my original argument. It was based on the comparative efficacy of populations and what that might say about their racial purity. There is no real need to address it specifically anymore because others have offered some valid arguments against what Hitler said. I still need to continue that line of the discussion at some point.

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.


You are preaching to the choir. It is especially true for those near to the old Cape colony. It's exactly why the Voortrekkers left the Cape colony to form what was later the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Afrikaans speaking White people in Pretoria and Johannesburg these days look far more White than those near Cape Town and around the Western Cape province, because those from the North East are the product of rebellion against forced integration. There still are many White Afrikaans speakers in the Cape though, but there are definitely proportionately less than those in the Transvaal area.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Staropramen » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:53 pm

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
"If God is a Jew then the only thing left for us to do is commit suicide"
-Dr. Wesley A. Swift
Historical Recordings of interest to Christians;
http://historicalrecordings.net/
User avatar
Staropramen
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Slavs

Postby Teutonic » Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:55 pm

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


Wow, Wikipedia didnt mention it at all...guess I was right!
Duty, Honour, Sacrifice.
User avatar
Teutonic
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Weimar America

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:15 pm

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. Anyway, Bill are you still of the opinion that only Christ will be separating the wheat from the tares?

Teutonic wrote:Wow, Wikipedia didnt mention it at all...guess I was right!


Haha, I went through the same process! Glad to see I was right originally.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:51 pm



When I started listening to this just now it immediately jogged my memory. We had a discussion on this some time back for anyone who is interested in reading it. I still stand by everything I said back then: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=5172&p=13039#p13039

The context of that discussion is different to this though. I fully agree with what Bill says in it in the context of this thread, which is to say that brunettes and brown-eyes White people are still White. The context of that discussion is still one I think needs to be addressed in its broader scope, of which this thread is just a sub-section. Some other thread though, for the sake of staying focused...
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Teutonic » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:26 pm

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.


Its one of the lengthier podcasts but they cover alot of topics, one of which was the real meaning of 'blond' & 'brunette,' which as Bill said is more than merely hair color, but includes skin hue and eye color as well. Pop culture leads to believe that a blonde is simply someone with blonde hair, or that a brunette is only brown hair, thus when we see a person with brown hair and eyes with darker skin we automatically assume they're mixed whereas they could actually be 100% white. Myself being a blond ive always been more attracted to brunette women, i suppose opposites attract- so long as they're both white of course!
Duty, Honour, Sacrifice.
User avatar
Teutonic
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Weimar America

PreviousNext

Return to Diversity or Deception?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron