This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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 Teutonic » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:00 pm

Les wrote:Somebody correct me if I am mistaken, but all males of ancient Sparta were always (or almost always) naked, so their bodies were hardened by natural elements (cold weather for example), were fierce warriors, and pure white.


You are correct.

The Greek Stoics emphasized wearing only as much clothing as was necessary so as to build one's tolerance for harsh climates.

The Spartans wore little clothing to make them tougher warriors, not because they were not advanced enough (as is the case with the Zulu spearchuckers in Africa).
Duty, Honour, Sacrifice.
User avatar
Teutonic
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:38 pm
Location: Weimar America

Re: Slavs

Postby Fenwick » Mon Nov 14, 2016 4:20 pm

EzraLB wrote:The Czechs also had comparatively more stable borders, historically, than the Poles, who were sandwiched between two superpowers--Germany and Russia--which made it more difficult for the Poles to develop a stronger national identity.

The Czechs did only gain their independence from Austria-Hungary in 1918 though. Although they had spent a fair bit of the intervening years being the centre of the empire, rather than Poland's permanent vassal status.

The Czechs even held a world fair in 1891.
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:07 pm

Thanks all for responses so far. I have plenty to consider going forward, especially when reading ancient historians. Just some thoughts on the matter at this point:

Let's assume that the original peoples of the Slavs were White, which seems to be the prevailing opinion (not to say either that in my wording I am implying that my believe is the contrary). There definitely are Slavs who are actually mongrels, so where does this mongrel element come from? Is it just the jewish dirt in their genetics or is there some other cause in addition to jews?

It would be interesting to get a separate opinion on Russians as well. I've read in many places that they have strong Asiatic influence but I think it was Fenwick who said that this isn't true. To what extent are Russians mongrels?

Also I don't think it's simply good enough anymore to say that a population "looks White". I remember Bill saying that Maria Sharapova is a mongrel, but she would definitely have fooled me. Sometimes they are so damn close it's uncanny. I have seen many such examples and the more the uncannily White types mix without too much genetic mud added, the more they look like White people.

Regarding Hitler, I don't think it's fair to simply say that his regard for non-German elements was purely political. If you read his books it is clear that he holds that same regard for Americans and British. It is hard to deny his logic when he says that German elements have been more productive in history. I personally think it would be unwise to think that even among White people that everyone is equal, or that populations collectively are equal. We do after all have the prophecies to each tribe and there are dominant tribes like Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh at the top so to speak. One must then consider whether a population is simply from a tribe with a less fabulous blessing or whether they are simply void of the Aryan spirit and Israelite blessings. With this in mind there could be some merit to the argument -- from a spiritual standpoint -- that a prolonged effect of communism and jewry might deflate a group's achievements because they are under chastisement. As an added tidbit, I'm surprised and intrigued to hear about Czech achievements.

Les wrote:I never read enough about them to know how advanced they were (culturally/technically), but since they were tied in with Greece, would you also consider them the equivalent to "Zulus"?


If they were nomads with no culture, no impressive achievement to speak of combined with those factors then I would consider such a description to be one which might as well be describing Zulus. You could literally describe Zulus as javelin throwing nomads who only covered their genitals with clothing and amounted to nothing.

Asking me whether the Spartans, who we know for a fact were Israelites, are "equivalent to 'Zulus'", seems to be taking the rhetoric a little far, don't you think? To me the bigger picture of what I'm saying in my quote in the OP seems pretty obvious. If the description of those people is true, all factors being considered together, then one might be concerned about those specific people's racial integrity.

I'm guessing by your rhetoric that is was somewhat emotionally inspired. As I say, I'm not going to pay respect to feelings when it comes to my race. If someone is offended by honest inquiry on the matter of race, then that is not my problem. If in the process by I learn I have been wrong by ignorance or flawed logic, then I have won. If by my inquiry others have learned about race, then they have won. I hope everyone would feel the same way. If I'm wrong in my assessment of your rhetoric, then please excuse me.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby CIman » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:05 pm

EzraLB wrote:This is an excellent point--I would hardly use any of Hitler's--or Alfred Rosenberg's--opinions of who the Slavs are--or were--they clearly had an agenda. Hitler was a German Nationalist, not an Identity Christian who understood the true origins of the European Race. While he certainly could see the devastating effect that his jewish population had had on the German nation, he could not see those effects on the Slavic peoples who suffered much worse...

Germany's jewish population prior to WWII was only 0.75% of the population; yet they almost completely ran the country into the ground. Poland, on the other hand, bore a much worse burden with over 15 times as many jews. Czechoslovakia had over 5 times as many jews as Germany. No wonder these countries were held in a perpetual state of under-development. And then, after the war, these countries were rewarded with living under the boot heel of jewish communism. Those points, I think, go a long way to explaining why you see such a disparity of development between Germany and its immediate eastern neighbors.

Poland and Czechoslovakia did not reap the benefits of the Protestant Reformation, which undermined the hegemonic power of the Catholic Church in those countries. With the Reformation came economic development--as any Protestant will tell you, they believed that economic prosperity here on Earth was a sign of God's grace. The Catholics emphasized that the meek and downtrodden would inherit the Kingdom to come.

The jews in Poland and Czechoslovakia were in bed with the nobility, conspiring to keep the farmers in a perpetual state of debt, using alcohol as a tool to cheat the farmers out of their property and crops. An excellent book on the subject is Yankel's Tavern: Jews, Liquor, and Life in the Kingdom of Poland by Glenn Dynner.

Prior to WWII, you'd be hard-pressed to see the difference between eastern Germany and western Poland, which was highly germanicized. Even today, many towns in Poland, which weren't devastated by the war, look almost indistinguishable, architecturally, from German towns. To suggest that these were somehow completely different peoples--genetically--doesn't hold water. As Staro's photos of Czechoslovakia show, there is advanced civilization "east of Berlin".

I should also point out that the term "Slav" is a linguistic designation, not a racial one. I've read quite a bit about the history of Central Europe in the pre-Christian era, and the constant waves of migration and resettlement were unlike anything you can imagine today with our stable nation-states. These early White tribes battled and mixed with each other for over 1,000 years. It wasn't nearly as cut and dry along "ethnic" lines as the British Israel-tards would like to believe.

As Bill pointed out, the eastern provinces of Germany were highly influenced by the Slavs--and I would suspect that the Germans from those regions all carry some "slavic" blood--as do many of the English, as those germanized-Slavs were part of the Danelaw invasion of England, along with the "Vikings".

As Matthew Raphael Johnson's work makes clear, the Slavic people produced many great intellects, but few have been translated into English, which creates a bias against them in the West. Also, with the fall of communism, new archeological finds from Central Europe are now revealing a lot of evidence of both Celtic and Scythian settlements in that area. Over time, I think we'll see that these so-called profound differences between White Europeans aren't so great after all.


Excellent post, Ezra. Just downloaded that book and I'm going to start reading it later.

Suicidal and dictatorial catholicism, jewry in "noble" places, communism, "forced" alcoholism, and "noble" poverty didn't really fare that well in many Slavic countries. And it's good to remember that almost all Eastern European countries--even to this day--are very rural in nature and still bare their scars from the jewish communist rule.

One only has to read a little bit of history to see that jews have had far, far greater positions of power in for example Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary (not a Slavic country though), Balkans, etc. In these countries they often bribed the nobility and ultimately exerted their power by either slaughtering or starving the populations (and especially, as Ezra said, the farmers).. whereas in many Germanic and British countries they simply never got the chance to gain that kind of power or become communist rulers. Still to this day they have proverbs for the evil nature of jews in these countries.

Jews hate rural living and farmers.. but at the same time they have also always had an easier time to bribe kings/rulers in very rural countries so that they could steal the "dumb" peasants supplies and starve them to death (or promote alcoholism and other destructive vices).

It's very depressing to read about jewrys history in Eastern Europe

And yes, I think it's pretty evident that "Slavs" intermixed with Germans and other Whites. Even during the Austria-Hungary era many "Nordics" "intermixed" with Slavs. If Slavs were so racially alien, then why did so many "Nordic" people "intermix" with them?

To me Nordicism is just a fraud.

Nayto wrote:Thanks all for responses so far. I have plenty to consider going forward, especially when reading ancient historians. Just some thoughts on the matter at this point:

Let's assume that the original peoples of the Slavs were White, which seems to be the prevailing opinion (not to say either that in my wording I am implying that my believe is the contrary). There definitely are Slavs who are actually mongrels, so where does this mongrel element come from? Is it just the jewish dirt in their genetics or is there some other cause in addition to jews?


What Slavs? You need to define what population you are talking about before you call all "Slavs" mongrels. Do you mean Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Serbians, Bosnians, Croatians, Russians, Bulgarians, etc? Define what you mean.

If you're talking about Russians or Ukrainians, then yes, many Russian and Ukranians have some minor asiatic element from mongrelization. I you're talking about Bulgarians I would also suspect that many of them carry either Gypsy or Turkish blood. But if you're point is about Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Serbians, Croatians, etc, I would say no.. they are definitely White to me.

Regarding Hitler, I don't think it's fair to simply say that his regard for non-German elements was purely political. If you read his books it is clear that he holds that same regard for Americans and British. It is hard to deny his logic when he says that German elements have been more productive in history. I personally think it would be unwise to think that even among White people that everyone is equal, or that populations collectively are equal. We do after all have the prophecies to each tribe and there are dominant tribes like Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh at the top so to speak. One must then consider whether a population is simply from a tribe with a less fabulous blessing or whether they are simply void of the Aryan spirit and Israelite blessings. With this in mind there could be some merit to the argument -- from a spiritual standpoint -- that a prolonged effect of communism and jewry might deflate a group's achievements because they are under chastisement. As an added tidbit, I'm surprised and intrigued to hear about Czech achievements.


Of course it was political. Do you think that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union with as much vehement that he did before the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? And later he also allowed niggers, gooks, mongrels, etc to "fight" for Germany against the "imperial colonial" Allies. Would you consider gooks, negroes, mongrels and jews to be "honourary Aryans"? During the war he even allowed some brown Indians within their "nobility" to marry Aryan women for the benefits it would gain him in fighting the British colonial powers in India.

Hitler was forced to compromise on certain issues (especially during the final stages of the war) to further his agenda.. and he certainly was no expert on race (he definitely thought that the OT was "jewish" too).

So why the obsession with Hitlers views on this?
Last edited by CIman on Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
CIman
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: Slavs

Postby wmfinck » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:19 pm

My ruddy foot and Melissa's pale foot side by side this morning.
Attachments
tmp_32121-IMG_20161114_143817456-1683531353.jpg
tmp_32121-IMG_20161114_143817456-1683531353.jpg (5.55 MiB) Viewed 3519 times
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 EzraLB » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:30 pm

Nayto wrote:I personally think it would be unwise to think that even among White people that everyone is equal, or that populations collectively are equal. We do after all have the prophecies to each tribe and there are dominant tribes like Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh at the top so to speak.


I kind of look at it along these lines you mentioned--that each Tribe served (or will serve) a purpose in Yahweh's large plans, in a similar fashion that different members in a CI community bring different talents. He chose Germany to rise up against the jew to warn the world, but He also allowed them to be defeated because their defeat also served a purpose.

Seeing the rise of White consciousness in central and eastern Europe right now, at a time when the formerly dominate western nations are literally laying down and inviting invaders in with open arms, leads me to consider the possibility that the Slavic nations may serve a future purpose that we perhaps have over looked.

I would also point out that if it is indeed part of Yahweh's plan that these different Tribes were to join together in America, then it must also be part of the plan that the different Tribes would inter-marry, and in doing so, those distinctions would disappear over time. It's hard to imagine that you could put millions of White people together in the same country of different European "ethnicities" and still expect them to remain completely separate. I know of very few White Americans at this point who are still purely one European background.

And, Nayto, I haven't gotten a sense from any of the responses to your inquiry here that anybody is offended by the questions you bring up--it's a subject that we all have wrestled with, and I think there's much more to say on the subject.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:30 am

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?

CIman wrote:To me Nordicism is just a fraud.


No one has pushed a Nordicist agenda. Even using such loaded words doesn't belong in an honest discussion. It seems like you have a chip on your shoulder in this topic.

CIman wrote:What Slavs? You need to define what population you are talking about before you call all "Slavs" mongrels. Do you mean Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Serbians, Bosnians, Croatians, Russians, Bulgarians, etc? Define what you mean.


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.

CIman wrote:Of course it was political. Do you think that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union with as much vehement that he did before the so called Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? And later he also allowed niggers, gooks, mongrels, etc to "fight" for Germany against the "imperial colonial" Allies. Would you consider gooks, negroes, mongrels and jews to be "honourary Aryans"? During the war he even allowed some brown Indians within their "nobility" to marry Aryan women for the benefits it would gain him in fighting the British colonial powers in India.

Hitler was forced to compromise on certain issues (especially during the final stages of the war) to further his agenda.. and he certainly was no expert on race (he definitely thought that the OT was "jewish" too).

So why the obsession with Hitlers views on this?


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.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:49 am

I'm using my phone so please excuse my double post.

EzraLB wrote:I would also point out that if it is indeed part of Yahweh's plan that these different Tribes were to join together in America, then it must also be part of the plan that the different Tribes would inter-marry, and in doing so, those distinctions would disappear over time. It's hard to imagine that you could put millions of White people together in the same country of different European "ethnicities" and still expect them to remain completely separate. I know of very few White Americans at this point who are still purely one European background.


One could also argue that the USA is Manasseh, a separate tribe in itself. Also the intermarrying of tribes doesnt destroy tribes. They continue through patriarchal lines. With the power of God and prophecy over the tribes, I dont think it is at all hard to imagine that tribes stay separate. If we assume they are to marry into some grey mass of tribelessness, then we have to assume the prophecies on each tribe are made in vain, or that those prophecies are all fulfilled.

EzraLB wrote:And, Nayto, I haven't gotten a sense from any of the responses to your inquiry here that anybody is offended by the questions you bring up--it's a subject that we all have wrestled with, and I think there's much more to say on the subject.


I appreciate you saying that. When I see someone say something that can only be interpreted as either obtuse or antagonistic, then I have to assume hackles are raised, lol. I dont think there are obtuse people here so...

There is so much more that needs to be said on the topic. We need to take this race thing seriously and there is a wealth of information in everyone's minds here, but that information like pieces of a puzzle which hasn't yet been solved. We need to build that puzzle and the discussion is a great start.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Slavs

Postby EzraLB » Tue Nov 15, 2016 7:40 am

Nayto wrote:I know from some of Bill's work that he sees Slavs as the Sarmations (http://christogenea.org/essays/race-genesis-10), but it seems that these "Slavs" mentioned above assimilated the Sarmatians and many other peoples around that area....If this is a people who mingled into much of Eastern Europe and Asia, then surely many, if not most Slavs are not White? If we consider the Slavs today there is nothing very exceptional about them in terms of character or intelligence.


Let me repeat an important point I made earlier--the term "Slav" is a linguistic designation, not a racial one. Read about St. Cyril (c. 9th Century) and his brother Methodius who brought Christianity specifically to the "Slavic" peoples of Europe. There is no indication whatsoever in his writings that he intended to--or indeed did--bring Christianity to non-Whites. He translated the latin Scripture into their "native" languages. I think it's safe to say that originally these peoples were White.

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"?

The archeological evidence so far shows that at one time or another Poland was occupied by Mycenaeans, Scythians, Huns, and Celts--and, yes, Sarmatians, as Bill pointed out. All White people. If you look at where Poland is situated on a map, it is at a crossroads--Whites migrating west went through that region: some stayed, others moved on further west. 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.

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. 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?

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?

If the Slavs are such an "unexceptional" and "unintelligent" people, how did they produce the greatest scientist the world has ever known: Nikola Tesla the Serb? Wasn't Copernicus as Pole? Chopin? Alphonse Mucha a Czech? As I pointed out previously, most of the great Slavic intellects have never been translated into western European languages thanks to the jews, who control the publishing industry. No wonder you can make that statement with a straight face.

If you are truly interested in understanding the achievements of Slavic culture, you need to study the work of Matthew Raphael Johnson. After doing so, I'd find it hard to believe that you would still hold such views about the backwardness of this people.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Slavs

Postby Nayto » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:46 am

Ezra some interesting points raised which I will elaborate on later when I have more time.

EzraLB wrote: If the Slavs are such an "unexceptional" and "unintelligent" people, how did they produce the greatest scientist the world has ever known: Nikola Tesla the Serb? Wasn't Copernicus as Pole? Chopin? Alphonse Mucha a Czech? As I pointed out previously, most of the great Slavic intellects have never been translated into western European languages thanks to the jews, who control the publishing industry. No wonder you can make that statement with a straight face.

If you are truly interested in understanding the achievements of Slavic culture, you need to study the work of Matthew Raphael Johnson. After doing so, I'd find it hard to believe that you would still hold such views about the backwardness of this people.


See, this is what I'm talking about. You have falsely put the word "unintelligent" in my mouth which colors everything in your statement going forward. You then say "if you are truly interested", as if I am not interested and only on a crusade against Slavs. If I wasn't interested I wouldn't have made this thread. Obviously I'm interested and that interest in not dependent on these conditions set by yourself. You then postulate that I hold views of Slavs being backwards, which I never did. I sit here thinking, "Is he that thick or is he actually purposefully being dishonest in his representation?" I know you're not thick, so surely there is only one alternative?

To clarify, I was saying their intelligence and character is unexceptional. I am not saying they are unintelligent. 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.

I also specifically said that citing exceptions is useless, because it is up to the net effect of a population. I'm not about to show Elon Musk and say how wonderful White South African intelligence is. Maybe you disagree on that point, in which case I'd love to hear your reasoning.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

PreviousNext

Return to Diversity or Deception?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron