VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:33:39 11/12/05 Sat
Author: Heat
Subject: Re: New Orleans
In reply to: Matthew Villani 's message, "Re: New Orleans" on 16:58:55 11/12/05 Sat

I haven't been on here for a while. Traffic sure is quite slow still. Anyhow, I've been monotoring this whole debate and I'd like to add my two cents.

>>Why not? Sure inter-ethnic mixing has been going on
>>for millennia, but even today, the trend for most
>>ethnic groups is STILL to stick to and marry one of
>>their own. It's certainly feasible because
>>preservation of ethnic bloodlines is still being done
>>uncousciously.
>
>I think before we can focus in sub-racial preservation
>in the old world we should focus on racial
>preservation. I'm not opposed to someone wanting to
>stick to their own ethnicity, however, I am opposed to
>the idea of breaking up White-on-White unions.
>
>>I disagree. If you read accounts from Julius Caesar or
>>even Tacitus, they report Celts as being very
>>homogeneous, with their tall, ruddy, and muscular
>>statures. This also held true for the ancient
>>inhabitants of Germania, and we both know those traits
>>are typical of your common Nord as well.
>
>There are small amounts of Atlanto-Med admixture,
>however it is, as I said, small. Most of the
>Atlanto-Meds are confined to the southern part of the
>British Isles.

That isn't too surprising, many of the original British and Irish Celts has ancestors who came from annceitn Iberia. there's legent about a King caledd Milesus, who fathered many children, who would go on to thrive and prosper.
Hence the reason for the Irish today being known as Milesians, as well as Gaels, Celts, and Paddies.

>
>>Not all, but a significant majority are.
>>Your typical med is much shorter, has a smaller
>>skeletal structure, darker, and has that "greasy"
>>look.
>
>A lot of that has to do with the typical med diet. In
>the US, the average height of meds is taller than in
>the old world. But regardless, there are going to be
>some height differences between different subraces.
>Compare the Bantu to your average Negro for example.

But the avergae Med is still much shorter than your average Celt or Nordic. Diet does play a role, but it's still the genetics that counts.

>
>>An example of a true Med that could be related
>>to Nords would be the blonde haired, blue eyed
>>Northern Italians or Northern Spaniards.
>
>Actually, those are mixtures of Meds and Nords.
>However, those areas still have a strong Med presence,
>but not as strong as in the southern regions of those
>countries.
>
Agreed. The Lombards did invade Italy as the Roman Empire was collapsing. There was A_LOT of mixing with the indigenous Latins. This accounts for the high prescence of tall, pasty white, blonde hair, and blue or green eyed Italians in Northern and Central Italy. This isn't to say that that Southern Italy and Sicily don't have Nordic looking types either.

>>In fact, you
>>should do some reserach on the region of Caledonia in
>>Spain. You would think you're in Ireland if you went
>>there and saw the people - tall, pale skinned,
>>blue/green eyes, blonde/bropwn/red hair. The works.
>
>Will do.

It's true. The climate and soil in Caledonia are even like that of Ireland, or Scotland for that matter. Cool skies, fairly frequent rain, and moist soil.
>
>>So my point is, it really isn't all that un-feasible
>>to encourage ethnic preservation, it's still being
>>done. Yes I know it would be boring to just stick to
>>one particular ethnicity after a while and that's why
>>I would approve of Celtic types mixing with Germanic
>>types with Baltic/Slavonic types. Not only does
>>(phenotype play a role, but culture as well. NW
>>European peoples have a different culture than Meds
>
>That wasn't really that true a hundred years ago or
>so. The modern nordic culture really isn't White
>culture at all. Modern NW European culture is that
>"tolerance" bullshit. The best solution would be to
>return to a culture similar to the one before the Jew
>invasion and go from there, after kicking out the NW
>Somolians and Pakis.

Disagree there. The ancient Nordics did have a culture of their own. But they have been unfortunately been stigmatized as unruley and brainless barbarians. Their were developing just fine without any sort of Roman oppression. They had, and still do have a proud culture.
The Vikings were pretty savage, no doubt, but their technology was very impressive. The most obvious example would be their longships, which traversed the North Sea and even the Atlantic, all the way to North America.
I'm not even going to get into their weapons and warfare tactics, they speak for themselves.

>
>>(frankly I think a lot of Meds today just have big
>>mouths)and their ways of thinking are different.
>
>The same could be said of any ethnicity, really. Every
>type of ethnicity has its loudmouth boasters.

Some more than others. I have to agree with Truthfully, Meds tend to have bigger mouths than many others.
>
>>It's best if people who share similar phenotypic,
>>cultural, and attitude traits come together.
>>Bloodlines are better preserved.
>>However, This isn't to say that different European
>>ethnics shouldn't mix at all. But I wouldn't encourage
>>too much of it. The we wouldn't know who's who.
>
>Believe it or not, there are quite a few that share
>that view, however, although I agree partially with
>it, like I said, it shouldn't be to the extent that it
>breaks apart White-on-White relationships, and I think
>it can only be applied to the Old World.
>
>>I spend some time on Amren. Their views are pretty
>>similar to mine when it comes to sub-racial
>>preservation.
>>Let's face it, if we mixed ALL Whites together, it
>>would be really fucking boring. Think of it like this:
>>"Hey what are you?" The reply: "Well let's see, I'm
>>Irish, German, Italians, Ukrainian, Russian,
>>Hungarian, Greek, Swedish, etc." That's NOT what I
>>want to see, and I know plenty of people who share my
>>views.
>
>Believe me, I'm NOT looking to establish some White
>superstate of mixing all Whites into one single
>ethnicity. However, in the US, the example you
>provided is pretty much true for a lot of American
>Whites. I just recognize that the situation in the new
>world and Australia is different from Europe, North
>Africa, and the Middle East.
>
>>I don't hate anyone who comes from multiple
>>backgrounds, I just want to see bloodlines preserved
>>and continue.
>
>That can be arranged in the old world once the jewish
>and NW problems are all solved and the gliberal
>establishments are crushed for all time.
>
>>About what you said about the Celts, if only all the
>>Celts scattered across mainland Europe would come
>>together and unitw with Ireland, Scotland, and Wales,
>>they could have a sort of a re-birth of the power they
>>enjoyed millennia ago. Just having them being
>>scattered all over doesn't sit well with me. I'd like
>>to see them together again, putting factional
>>differences aside, procreating, and thriving. After
>>all, the Celts did rule Europe for centuries before
>>the Romans came on the scene. Sadly, Celtic infighting
>>did them in more than the Roman invasions did. But
>>that's another story for another time.
>
>I'd say what really needs to happen is that the Celts
>in Ireland need to kick out all of the Negroes and
>Pakis, and start having more kids per family, and then
>whatever problems there were would then be solved. I
>like the idea personally of a widespread Celtic
>presence. Despite my Italian surname, I have as much
>or more Irish than Italian blood in me, so I
>definately sympathize with matters concerning the
>Irish as well as Italian. I'm what you might call a
>Heinz 57 (I have 10 or more ethnicities).

Yeah it's true. Celtic intertribal warfare had ALWAYS been the bane of Celtic peoples throughout history. Asking the Romans for help against the invading Germanics under Arivistus gave Caesar the excuse he needed to invade Gaul.
In doing so, he killed roughly a million Celts (including women and children), sold hundreds of thoudands more into slavery, and subjugated the whole of Gaul. Thereby, ending Celtic dominance in Europe permanently. What's really sad is that many Celts even joined Caesar.
Despite their civility, the ancient Romans were even more savage than the barbarians they liked to look down on. No Celt, German, or Viking ever built a coloseum designed specifically for raping women, throwing slaves to hungry lions, and murdering POW's in cold blood. No "barbarian" ever ordered their troops to burn down entire villages of civilians after they had surrendered, dash little childrens' heads open with swords, or rape innocent girls as their mother and entire village were forced to watch (on the latter, look up queen Bouddica).
Secondly, it was the Britsh Celt Vortigern who asked the Germanics for help that led to the Angle, Saxon, and Jute invasion and conquest of Britain. Centuries later, a deposed Irish king would flee to Britain to ask the Anglo Saxons for help against Rory O'Connor, the Irish High King.That would result in the Anglo Saxon invasion of Ireland.
And today, you have Irish Celts hating on Scottish Celts in Northern Ireland. Tha latter were removed from their lands in the days of Anglo imperialism and placed in Northern Ireland, and is the main cause of the hatred between Irish Catholics and Scotch-Irish Protestants in the region. Wales is detached from either country, and the Celts scattered across Europe have country of their own.
If only Ireland and Northern Ireland could put aside their religious differences, and realize how similiar their culture, gentics, and history are, THEN it would be the start of a Celtic revival. They could even include Welsh Celts, Caledonians, and all Celts spread out on mainland Europe. Only time will tell.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

  • Re: New Orleans -- Truthfully, 11:06:15 11/13/05 Sun
  • Re: New Orleans -- Pete, 13:05:18 11/13/05 Sun
    Post a message:
    This forum requires an account to post.
    [ Create Account ]
    [ Login ]
    [ Contact Forum Admin ]

    Forum timezone: GMT-8
    VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
    Before posting please read our privacy policy.
    VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
    Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.