http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/blond_austral.html

These pictures are just another of the many evidences available that prove beyond any doubt how obsolete and backward Madison Grant's theories and observations were, even 100 years ago. None of the australoid or negroid individuals present in those pictures has their blond hair on account of Nordic admixture. If you happen to believe that they did, please try to remember how many truly blonde Aframs you ever saw with a similar skin colour.

[QUOTE=SpanishWarrior85]http://www.geocities.com/refuting_kemp/blond_austral.html
[/QUOTE]

Wonder if they sport blonde pubes?

Those morons either have no idea how heredity works or they are lying about it.

See

http://www.celticnz.co.nz/mnz_pt1.html

for suppressed information about Aryan settlement of New Zealand and Australia before modern history. The Aryans were overrun, as we will be if we don't exterminate the traitors first.

It is as ugly as a blond jew.

You should have followed that post with instructions on how to take your eyes out and wash them after viewing that hideous monstrosity.

How could someone find that attractive?

Cant anyone see that they dont have blond roots?

Its probably a result of birdshit they smear on their heads in some ritual.

Either that, or a mutation. But I still think it's possible that there are some real aryan women involved in the bloodline, stolen by the ape originals. This also happened with viking women captured by injuns or bought as slaves by kikes. That explains at least some blonde jews.

But as Hitler said, a jew with some aryan features is particularly ugly.

That site's written by a freak. Kemp isn't a nordicist, and the many attacks on him that I have witnessed on the Net confirms the fact that it's the dark-pigmented ones who fuss and fret - and make up the straw-(haired) man of 'Nordicism.'
Mustard-headed tribesmen aren't fair-haired in the sense of the Caucasoid race, except the first pic, which looks sufficiently un-kinked. Euro-Asiatic blond hair almost certainly originated in the Baltic rim (or do 'part-nigger genes' from Australia bestow it upon Europeans? lol), which has fuck-all to do with the 'Hallstatt Nordic race' except by geographical coincidence. Enough fat-assed, ruddy-cheeked, yellow-headed weightlifters left over from the Cro-magnons ought at least to prove that point. But these races live in Northern Europe - hence 'Nordic.'

It's a piss-poor attempt by hyper-sensitive tit-sucklers - or what is the same: Medicists - to discredit the fact of the abundance of Indo-European heroes, gods, and goddesses which have fair hair in both northern and southern European (and Asiatic) myths. Okay, so 'red-haired Menelaus' might've been a one-off, but how then do we explain away Athena/Minerva, Rhadamanthys, Aphrodite/Venus, Apollo, Sulla, Caesar Augustus (two dictators of dark-haired Rome), et al. without sounding desperate?

Juvenal writes of Moors bedding down with Roman ladies in his satires, and in addition of the mass influx of Greeks (satire III) and Syrian Orontes (Ibid.) into Rome. Refuting RM and all those other bed-wetters ought at least to start on someone who actually saw what was going on before laying into 'Nordicists' for crimes echoed in the ancients themselves.

And Pontikos is a fucking cock who laughably 'knows' that the aristocracy of Britain is 'overwhelmingly dark-haired,' as if to 'prove' that fair shades of hair make one inferior, offended as he is by the long-held imputation that nobility in Indo-European cultures has tended to be more blond than average. Naturally, his Greek ugliness, (and I'm backed up on this particular observation by William Burroughs), needed to be consoled with claims to the opposite - that fair-haired and fair-skinned people are the conquered classes, conquered - naturally - by the rampaging nigger-follicled Indo-European beast.

Here're those blue-blooded 'darkies':

http://www.freep.com/art/photogal/diana/0906_sideroyal.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/280000/images/_280398_duke150.jpg
http://everythingroyal.com/sarah.jpg
http://www.saigonnet.vn/vanhoa/chuyende/50nguoidep/zara_phillips.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/media/World/images/earl_spencer_020827_n.jpg
http://www.disabilities-trust.org.uk/media/Duke-of-York.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1948219_prince_edward.jpg
http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/Insight_Sept03_Gallery_CW_meningitistrust_large.jpg

Another "white' med satiating his inferiority complex.

[QUOTE=Old White Goat]Cant anyone see that they dont have blond roots?

Its probably a result of birdshit they smear on their heads in some ritual.[/QUOTE]

Or the shampoo they use..


http://derhenker.front.ru/shampoo.jpg

[QUOTE=Angle]That site's written by a freak. Kemp isn't a nordicist, and the many attacks on him that I have witnessed on the Net confirms the fact that it's the dark-pigmented ones who fuss and fret - and make up the straw-(haired) man of 'Nordicism.'
Mustard-headed tribesmen aren't fair-haired in the sense of the Caucasoid race, except the first pic, which looks sufficiently un-kinked. Euro-Asiatic blond hair almost certainly originated in the Baltic rim (or do 'part-nigger genes' from Australia bestow it upon Europeans? lol), which has fuck-all to do with the 'Hallstatt Nordic race' except by geographical coincidence. Enough fat-assed, ruddy-cheeked, yellow-headed weightlifters left over from the Cro-magnons ought at least to prove that point. But these races live in Northern Europe - hence 'Nordic.'

It's a piss-poor attempt by hyper-sensitive tit-sucklers - or what is the same: Medicists - to discredit the fact of the abundance of Indo-European heroes, gods, and goddesses which have fair hair in both northern and southern European (and Asiatic) myths. Okay, so 'red-haired Menelaus' might've been a one-off, but how then do we explain away Athena/Minerva, Rhadamanthys, Aphrodite/Venus, Apollo, Sulla, Caesar Augustus (two dictators of dark-haired Rome), et al. without sounding desperate?

Juvenal writes of Moors bedding down with Roman ladies in his satires, and in addition of the mass influx of Greeks (satire III) and Syrian Orontes (Ibid.) into Rome. Refuting RM and all those other bed-wetters ought at least to start on someone who actually saw what was going on before laying into 'Nordicists' for crimes echoed in the ancients themselves.

And Pontikos is a fucking cock who laughably 'knows' that the aristocracy of Britain is 'overwhelmingly dark-haired,' as if to 'prove' that fair shades of hair make one inferior, offended as he is by the long-held imputation that nobility in Indo-European cultures has tended to be more blond than average. Naturally, his Greek ugliness, (and I'm backed up on this particular observation by William Burroughs), needed to be consoled with claims to the opposite - that fair-haired and fair-skinned people are the conquered classes, conquered - naturally - by the rampaging nigger-follicled Indo-European beast.

Here're those blue-blooded 'darkies':

http://www.freep.com/art/photogal/diana/0906_sideroyal.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/280000/images/_280398_duke150.jpg
http://everythingroyal.com/sarah.jpg
http://www.saigonnet.vn/vanhoa/chuyende/50nguoidep/zara_phillips.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/media/World/images/earl_spencer_020827_n.jpg
http://www.disabilities-trust.org.uk/media/Duke-of-York.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1948219_prince_edward.jpg
http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/Insight_Sept03_Gallery_CW_meningitistrust_large.jpg[/QUOTE]

Actually, I find both sides to be rediculous and it's funny to see the two sides go at it.

However, Angle how do you explain such Royals as these ?

William II :

http://www.british-towns.net/britain/history/monarchs/stuart/william2.jpg

Charles II:

http://www.british-towns.net/britain/history/monarchs/stuart/charles2.jpg

William III :

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/museum/images/pictures/past4_1_big.jpg

James II

http://www.joergs-british-autographs.de/james-II-pic.jpg

Elizabeth II:

http://i.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/archive/photohistory/images/elizabeth.jpg

[QUOTE=Angle]That site's written by a freak. Kemp isn't a nordicist, and the many attacks on him that I have witnessed on the Net confirms the fact that it's the dark-pigmented ones who fuss and fret - and make up the straw-(haired) man of 'Nordicism.'
Mustard-headed tribesmen aren't fair-haired in the sense of the Caucasoid race, except the first pic, which looks sufficiently un-kinked. Euro-Asiatic blond hair almost certainly originated in the Baltic rim (or do 'part-nigger genes' from Australia bestow it upon Europeans? lol), which has fuck-all to do with the 'Hallstatt Nordic race' except by geographical coincidence. Enough fat-assed, ruddy-cheeked, yellow-headed weightlifters left over from the Cro-magnons ought at least to prove that point. But these races live in Northern Europe - hence 'Nordic.'

It's a piss-poor attempt by hyper-sensitive tit-sucklers - or what is the same: Medicists - to discredit the fact of the abundance of Indo-European heroes, gods, and goddesses which have fair hair in both northern and southern European (and Asiatic) myths. Okay, so 'red-haired Menelaus' might've been a one-off, but how then do we explain away Athena/Minerva, Rhadamanthys, Aphrodite/Venus, Apollo, Sulla, Caesar Augustus (two dictators of dark-haired Rome), et al. without sounding desperate?

Juvenal writes of Moors bedding down with Roman ladies in his satires, and in addition of the mass influx of Greeks (satire III) and Syrian Orontes (Ibid.) into Rome. Refuting RM and all those other bed-wetters ought at least to start on someone who actually saw what was going on before laying into 'Nordicists' for crimes echoed in the ancients themselves.

And Pontikos is a fucking cock who laughably 'knows' that the aristocracy of Britain is 'overwhelmingly dark-haired,' as if to 'prove' that fair shades of hair make one inferior, offended as he is by the long-held imputation that nobility in Indo-European cultures has tended to be more blond than average. Naturally, his Greek ugliness, (and I'm backed up on this particular observation by William Burroughs), needed to be consoled with claims to the opposite - that fair-haired and fair-skinned people are the conquered classes, conquered - naturally - by the rampaging nigger-follicled Indo-European beast.

Here're those blue-blooded 'darkies':

http://www.freep.com/art/photogal/diana/0906_sideroyal.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/280000/images/_280398_duke150.jpg
http://everythingroyal.com/sarah.jpg
http://www.saigonnet.vn/vanhoa/chuyende/50nguoidep/zara_phillips.jpg
http://a.abcnews.com/media/World/images/earl_spencer_020827_n.jpg
http://www.disabilities-trust.org.uk/media/Duke-of-York.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1948219_prince_edward.jpg
http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/Insight_Sept03_Gallery_CW_meningitistrust_large.jpg[/QUOTE]

The problem with Kemp isn't that he is a nordicist so much as that he is a nordicist who gives a Mcdonald's grade revision of history in a nutshell. His history lesson is like fast food junk compared to a real college education in history.

The Stuarts were trannies, pussies, and wankers - one got his head chopped off and caused the only interregnum in English/British history. Plus, the bastards caused all that Jacobin shit which plagued the British isles for over a hundred years.

But calculating by weight of numbers the 'superiority' of a pigment is stupid - which goes some way to explaining why Pontikos indulges in it. The point is - that the blond ideal won. Over Greece/Rome. Over the Gauls. Over the Germans. Over the Balts/Slavs. The not-unreasonable conclusion from this is that the originators of this ideal possessed the traits which they lauded. A Greek coon can argue all he wants about the inferiority of fair-haired people, and praise the darkness of the original Indo-Europeans - but the blond ideal won out over his ugly, hirsuite anti-ideal.
'Tha oreejinal Indo-Europeans were dark-pigmented, had one eyebrow, monkey-wide mouths, and faces that appear to have been twatted by frying pans - JUS' LIKE ME!' says the Greek amateur anthro-apologist. If this kind of specimen is what a great civilization has to look forward to producing after a couple millennia of decline, then we're best salting the fucking earth beneath our feet when the West gets nigged under in the not-too distant future than let congenital amoebas like Pontikos inheret the earth and spoil it for the wildlife and what by that stage remains of humanity.

[QUOTE=Angle]The Stuarts were trannies, pussies, and wankers - one got his head chopped off and caused the only interregnum in English/British history. Plus, the bastards caused all that Jacobin shit which plagued the British isles for over a hundred years.

But calculating by weight of numbers the 'superiority' of a pigment is stupid - which goes some way to explaining why Pontikos indulges in it. The point is - that the blond ideal won. Over Greece/Rome. Over the Gauls. Over the Germans. Over the Balts/Slavs. The not-unreasonable conclusion from this is that the originators of this ideal possessed the traits which they lauded. A Greek coon can argue all he wants about the inferiority of fair-haired people, and praise the darkness of the original Indo-Europeans - but the blond ideal won out over his ugly, hirsuite anti-ideal.
'Tha oreejinal Indo-Europeans were dark-pigmented, had one eyebrow, monkey-wide mouths, and faces that appear to have been twatted by frying pans - JUS' LIKE ME!' says the Greek amateur anthro-apologist. If this kind of specimen is what a great civilization has to look forward to producing after a couple millennia of decline, then we're best salting the fucking earth beneath our feet when the West gets nigged under in the not-too distant future than let congenital amoebas like Pontikos inheret the earth and spoil it for the wildlife and what by that stage remains of humanity.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is stupid to argue over pigment.

Well it's obvious why the Greek Pontikos indulges himself in it: he's a Greek. I find Greeks to be genetically dirty and little better than Jews.

The blond ideal won ? Well, yes, certainly in women in the very least. ;)

However, reading hardcore stuff like the Scottish Thomas Carlyle who was of viking Danish ancestry makes no sense to me. Carlyle rants and raves about his superiority over his darker haired celt neighbors (not all celts are dark haired of course) -- yet he was ultimately inferior to the celtic Scottish inventor Alexander Graham Bell in my opinion.

Thomas Carlyle :

http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/carlyle-thomas.jpg

Versus

Alexander Graham Bell :

http://www.gardenofpraise.com/images/agbell.jpg



Haha, to me the rants of Thomas Carlyle and Medicists versus Nordicists are some of the most rediculous things I've ever seen.

None of it measures up to reality.

[QUOTE=Angle]T
'That the oreejinal Indo-Europeans were dark-pigmented, had one eyebrow, monkey-wide mouths, and faces that appear to have been twatted by frying pans - JUS' LIKE ME!' says the Greek amateur anthro-apologist. If this kind of specimen is what a great civilization has to look forward to producing after a couple millennia of decline, then we're best salting the fucking earth beneath our feet when the West gets nigged under in the not-too distant future than let congenital amoebas like Pontikos inheret the earth and spoil it for the wildlife and what by that stage remains of humanity.[/QUOTE]


If pure nordic countries are so superior how do you explain that Sweden never had empire or accomplished much of anything compared to Rome, Britain, France and Germany ?

If pure nordics are the most superior race on earth then explain Sweden's failure as a nation compared to other occidental European nations.

I'm not supporting Pontikos either. I dislike Greeks greatly. They are filthy genetically.

[QUOTE=Angle]The Stuarts were trannies, pussies, and wankers - one got his head chopped off and caused the only interregnum in English/British history. Plus, the bastards caused all that Jacobin shit which plagued the British isles for over a hundred years.
.......[/QUOTE]

Cromwell was a fucking kike-loving piece of shit who took Menasseh Bin Israel's money to let the kikes back into England from whence they had been banned since 1274. Then he and his fanatics imposed their nutty utopian blue laws on England and finally had themselves rejected when they took their nutty assed judaizing egalitarian ideas to America and laid the seed of
the abolitionism which later teamed up with again with negroids and jews for the "snivel rights movement."

I'd have preferred the Stuarts kept their heads and Cromwell had remained a solider instead of the chief Judaizer of Anglo-American history.

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]Cromwell was a fucking kike-loving piece of shit who took Menasseh Bin Israel's money to let the kikes back into England from whence they had been banned since 1274. Then he and his fanatics imposed their nutty utopian blue laws on England and finally had themselves rejected when they took their nutty assed judaizing egalitarian ideas to America and laid the seed of
the abolitionism which later teamed up with again with negroids and jews for the "snivel rights movement."

I'd have preferred the Stuarts kept their heads and Cromwell had remained a solider instead of the chief Judaizer of Anglo-American history.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, good points and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Abraham Lincoln was Judaized by such doctrine to a slight degree.

Anyway, the only things that makes sense to me in white nationalism are :

1.) Niggers are dumb and should be sterilized so they can't breed.

2.) Jews are a major pain in the ass but aren't as dumb as negroes and some people think they should be expulsed or ghettoized.

It's easier to make the former case but harder for the latter.


Stuff like Thomas Carlyle and other things don't stand up to empirical historical research I find. As seen in that little microcosm of Scotland in Alexander Graham Bell versus Thomas Carlyle.


Hence, anything beyond points 1 and 2 will ultimately be a waste of my time. I also find the writings Thomas Carlyle a bit insulting as someone of Celto-Teutonic genetic background that is as generally dark as Alexander Graham Bell or Sheena Easton in appearence.

[QUOTE=Et_En_Arcadia_Ego]........2.) Jews are a major pain in the ass but aren't as dumb as negroes and some people think they should be expulsed or ghettoized
.[/QUOTE]

that's "putting it mildly."

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]that's "putting it mildly."[/QUOTE]

Oh, well what can I say other than that I don't feel like putting money into the coffers of the ADL today by playing a stereotypical nutcase media propasphere created WN ?

:)

[QUOTE=Et_En_Arcadia_Ego]Actually, I find both sides to be rediculous and it's funny to see the two sides go at it.
James II

http://www.joergs-british-autographs.de/james-II-pic.jpg

Elizabeth II:

http://i.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/archive/photohistory/images/elizabeth.jpg[/QUOTE]
Get a load of Jimmie 2's limp wrist and pretty hair. I'll bet he's got softer skin than Queen Elizabeth had at the time the photo was taken

[quote=Et_En_Arcadia_Ego]If pure nordic countries are so superior how do you explain that Sweden never had empire or accomplished much of anything compared to Rome, Britain, France and Germany ?[/quote]


Who said anything about 'superiority'? You say that you denounce judging on pigments, yet you revert to an attack on Sweden. Clearly Carlyle's hit on some home truth best left unsaid. And comparing completely unrelated individuals on matters of pigmentation and alleged achievement is barbaric stuff - akin to claiming that different sums are 'better' than others, or that 'mass' is superior to 'energy.' That shit's for dilenttantes.



[quote=Et_En_Arcadia_Ego]If pure nordics are the most superior race on earth then explain Sweden's failure as a nation compared to other occidental European nations.[/quote]


That must be the 'other' Sweden - the one that didn't own the Baltic and nearly conquer the Russian empire in the early eighteenth century with a population of a few million. What have your precious Swiss ever done but make clocks and lend mercenaries to the armies of Europe?

[QUOTE=Angle]Who said anything about 'superiority'? You say that you denounce judging on pigments, yet you revert to an attack on Sweden. Clearly Carlyle's hit on some home truth best left unsaid. And comparing completely unrelated individuals on matters of pigmentation and alleged achievement is barbaric stuff - akin to claiming that different sums are 'better' than others, or that 'mass' is superior to 'energy.' That shit's for dilenttantes.[/Quote]

I'm not judging on phenotype. I'm merely refuting Carlyle.

Really I find it appropriate given the fact of what Thomas Carlyle postulated. Carlyle said "was it not a blessing not to have been born not a celt?" He says many things about his celtic neighbors. Well, was Alexander Graham Bell not a Scottish celtic neighbor of the type he so thoroughly railed against ?

I don't think it would have been appropriate to have compared the blonde Anglo Saxon inventor Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Graham Bell. You act as if I made such a ludicrous comparison. It wouldn't have followed any logical syllogism. I find my analysis is quite logical. You claim that I am grabbing at straws like a barbarian -- please it was/is related if you are familiar with Carlyle's iconoclasms.

I've said it before and I'll say it again I have no problem with people who are as light as northern Germany, as dark as southern France (yet no where darker) or anywhere in between. You think that means I am railing about the holy sancity of Frogs. However, I'm not . It's simply my personal preference for occidental Europe over the --->> Swedish-Finnish, Polish, Russian-Eastern corridor.




That must be the 'other' Sweden - the one that didn't own the Baltic and nearly conquer the Russian empire in the early eighteenth century with a population of a few million. What have your precious Swiss ever done but make clocks and lend mercenaries to the armies of Europe?

Well, Switzerland's national policy means they have to remain neutral. I think it would be better to use parts of the Netherlands, parts of Northern/middle Frankish France, Belgium, Scotland and parts of Western England as markers for Keltic success. I'm not bashing the Swedish I just don't think they should automatically be put on a pedastal except for the fact that they are unique in phenotype.

Yes, so the Western nordic Swedes conquered the inferior East ? What is your point ? I compared Sweden to the rest of occidental Europe. How well would that same Swedish army have faired against Napoleon, Desaix, Schweitzer and Klebe ?

The Swiss ? Well again they are neutral now but what about the Swiss confederation -- the cantons of Uri and Schwyz (I'm part Schweizerdeutsch btw) ? In 1231/1291 they formed and then they defeated the Hapsburgs (Jewish European black nobility) at the battle of Sempach in 1386.

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/yonge/deeds/sempach.html

My ultimate point is not to bash Scandinavians it's simply to say if we are to Judge light phenotypes as the sole marker for European man's superiority then slavics (Estonians, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Fins, Czechs etc.. etc..) would be far superior to occidental Europeans.

My main point is simply that the Swedish-Finnish, Polish, Russian Eastern corridor is lighter in phenotype on average than occidental Europe. Since occidental Europe is a mix of nordic and non-nordic old European strains. However, the East are far from superior.

How is Sweden conquering Russia and the Baltic related to the occident other than the fact that the Swedes are superior to slavics ? I consider Swedes to be Western European.

If one was to judge by phenotype alone then Estonians and Czechs would be superior to occidental Europeans. That is just rediculous.

The East would be superior to the West.

I say (claim) the West is superior to the East.

[QUOTE=Et_En_Arcadia_Ego]I'm not judging on phenotype. I'm merely refuting Carlyle.
Hardly.

Really I find it appropriate given the fact of what Thomas Carlyle postulated. Carlyle said "was it not a blessing not to have been born not a celt?" He says many things about his celtic neighbors. Well, was Alexander Graham Bell not a Scottish celtic neighbor of the type he so thoroughly railed against ?
Inductive logic only goes so far. A single example from a group is not a convincing way to prove a generalization. It would be like concluding that Negroes are desirable neighbors because Keystone likes his.
Speak to the recent news of the Irish having such low IQs relative to the rest of Western Europe.

I don't think it would have been appropriate to have compared the blonde Anglo Saxon inventor Benjamin Franklin to Alexander Graham Bell. You act as if I made such a ludicrous comparison. It wouldn't have followed any logical syllogism. I find my analysis is quite logical. You claim that I am grabbing at straws like a barbarian -- please it was/is related if you are familiar with Carlyle's iconoclasms.
It is ludicrous to select one single person who was born in Scotland to make a point about the relative value of Celts compared to Germanics (Nords, if you prefer). Besides, you don't know that Bell didn't descend largely from the Vikings who were a significant genetic source in Scotland.

I've said it before and I'll say it again I have no problem with people who are as light as northern Germany, as dark as southern France (yet no where darker) or anywhere in between. You think that means I am railing about the holy sancity of Frogs. However, I'm not .
No, self-centered as ever, you are once again expressing your personal preference for people who look just like you... and Sheena Easton, of course.


It's simply my personal preference for occidental Europe over the --->> Swedish-Finnish, Polish, Russian-Eastern corridor.

So, that's a corridor, huh?



Well, Switzerland's national policy means they have to remain neutral. I think it would be better to use parts of the Netherlands, parts of Northern/middle Frankish France, Belgium, Scotland and parts of Eastern England as markers for Keltic success. I'm not bashing the Swedish I just don't think they should automatically be put on a pedastal except for the fact that they are unique in phenotype.
Eastern England? That portion of Celtic Britain that was most over-run by waves of Germanic folk; Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Danes and Normans?

Yes, so the Western nordic Swedes conquered the inferior East ? What is your point ? I compared Sweden to the rest of occidental Europe. How well would that same Swedish army have faired against Napoleon, Desaix, Schweitzer and Klebe ?
What is YOUR point with such a moot comparison and question?



My ultimate point is not to bash Scandinavians it's simply to say if we are to Judge light phenotypes as the sole marker for European man's superiority then slavics (Estonians, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Fins, Czechs etc.. etc..) would be far superior to occidental Europeans.
You got 50% correct. That doesn't enhance your credibility.

My main point is simply that the Swedish-Finnish, Polish, Russian Eastern corridor is lighter in phenotype on average than occidental Europe. Since occidental Europe is a mix of nordic and non-nordic old European strains. However, the East are far from superior.
Sweden is not Eastern no matter the "corridors" you contrive.

Inductive logic only goes so far. A single example from a group is not a convincing way to prove a generalization. It would be like concluding that Negroes are desirable neighbors because Keystone likes his.
Speak to the recent news of the Irish having such low IQs relative to the rest of Western Europe.




How is Ireland the premier Keltic nordic society like me you moron ? Ireland is only 30% Keltic nordic. How they claim to be the only true Celtics is beyond my comprehension and you are a moron. Only 30% of Ireland is like myself.




It is ludicrous to select one single person who was born in Scotland to make a point about the relative value of Celts compared to Germanics (Nords, if you prefer). Besides, you don't know that Bell didn't descend largely from the Vikings who were a significant genetic source in Scotland.



Really ? The Bell family has a high incidence of bloogroup B which is Asian in origin and more commonly found in slavic countries.. It could be from vikings, Non-white Samartians (sp?) mercernaries used by the Romans or the Normans. It's in ulster Ireland too and my father has it. It's only 8-12% frequency of the British isles depending on the demographic.

see this link :

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnareivers.htm

You prove it was from viking rather than Norman or Roman mercenaries (could be all three) or shutup.

He doesn't look viking to me.



No, self-centered as ever, you are once again expressing your personal preference for people who look just like you... and Sheena Easton, of course.


True.




So, that's a corridor, huh?



Yeah, Sweden-Finland and Poland are definitely corridors are you braindamaged ?



Eastern England? That portion of Celtic Britain that was most over-run by waves of Germanic folk; Saxons, Jutes, Angles, Danes and Normans?



Yes, humans are prone to mistakes and are noteriously bad for sweating the details : Western England rather.


What is YOUR point with such a moot comparison and question?



That's a subjective opinion.




You got 50% correct. That doesn't enhance your credibility.

[quote]
Sweden is not Eastern no matter the "corridors" you contrive.

I never claimed Sweden is Eastern. You are putting words in my mouth. I claimed Sweden was Western in that post and you just blithely ignore it. There is a Swedish-Finnish corridor into the east though.

Originally posted by MOMUS:It is ludicrous to select one single person who was born in Scotland to make a point about the relative value of Celts compared to Germanics (Nords, if you prefer). Besides, you don't know that Bell didn't descend largely from the Vikings who were a significant genetic source in Scotland.

So what you are saying is someone who has Norman, Teutonic etc.. traces on their DNA is not Keltic even if they meet the anthropometric dimorphic and phenotypic range ?

So you are saying genes are seperate from anthropometric dimorphic measurements ?

So, say, Olivia Newton John who is Welsh and German actually isn't a keltic nordic in her evolutionary state and neither am I for having Germanic like ancestors? You're the most brain damaged person I've ever spoken too. You are one of the least intelligent and boring people here.

[QUOTE=Et_En_Arcadia_Ego]How is Ireland the premier Keltic nordic society like me you moron ? Ireland is only 30% Keltic nordic. How they claim to be the true Celtics is beyond my comprehension and you are a moron.
So, if the Irish aren't Celtic then tell me what they are.



[ QUOTE]
Really ? The Bell family has a high incidence of bloogroup B which is Asian in origin and more commonly found in slavic countries.. It could be from vikings, Non-white Samartians (sp?) mercernaries used or the Normans. It's in ulster Ireland too and my father has it. It's only 8-12% frequency of the British isles depending on the demographic.

see this link :

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnareivers.htm

You prove it was from viking rather than Normans or Roman mercenaries (could be all three) or shutup.
[/QUOTE]Jackass, which Bell family? You don't know Alexander Graham's blood type any more than you know his pedigree, you lying retard. That site says nothing about either. And it has nothing to do with the weakness of your inductive reasoning. I shall shut up for I lack the patience to put up with your gibberish any further.







Yeah, Sweden-Finland and Poland are definitely corridors are you braindamaged ?Then there are corridors all over Europe, nitwit, and stringing states together into a made-up corridor doesn't give them racial continuity or significence. By that logic Morrocco is related to Belgium by way of the Spanish French "corridor". Moron.



Yes, humans are prone to mistakes and are noteriously bad for sweating the details : Eastern England rather.



That's a subjective opinion.




You got 50% correct. That doesn't enhance your credibility.




I never claimed Sweden is Eastern. You are putting words in my mouth. I claimed Sweden was Western in that post and you just blithely ignore it. There is a Swedish-Finnish corridor into the east though.I now put those words back in your mouth by direct quote;
My main point is simply that the Swedish-Finnish, Polish, Russian Eastern corridor is lighter in phenotype on average than occidental Europe. Since occidental Europe is a mix of nordic and non-nordic old European strains. However, the East are far from superior.
Here is where you describe Finno-Ugrics and balts as being Slavic:
My ultimate point is not to bash Scandinavians it's simply to say if we are to Judge light phenotypes as the sole marker for European man's superiority then slavics (Estonians, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Fins, Czechs etc.. etc..) would be far superior to occidental Europeans.
Listen, I don't need your name-calling or argument twists. I know better than to "argue" with a schizo. See ya round.

[QUOTE=MOMUS]Jackass, which Bell family? You don't know Alexander Graham's blood type any more than you know his pedigree, you lying retard. That site says nothing about either. And it has nothing to do with the weakness of your inductive reasoning. I shall shut up for I lack the patience to put up with your gibberish any further. [/quote]

Yeah, I can guarantee almost with 100% accuracy that the Bell families and Kerrs of Scotland have ancestors with the B phenotype active in the locus if it was not in themselves at that point in time (i.e I don't know that Alexander Graham Bell was B for sure but I do know he carried the genes for it if he did not phenotypically SHOW it). Also, since Ulster Ireland and Scotland share gene flow it ended up in Donegal Ireland too in certain demographics.

The biggest evidence for it being of viking ancestry is in the Kerrs. That doesn't prove that it's not an isolated phenomenon or combined one or three different axis's in a compositer; or both.

It's not my fault you are mentally inferior to me.




Then there are corridors all over Europe, nitwit, and stringing states together into a made-up corridor doesn't give them racial continuity or significence. By that logic Morrocco is related to Belgium by way of the Spanish French "corridor". Moron.


There are no racial affinities between the Polish and the East Baltics of Germany? No affinities between eastern Swedes/Fins/ and Russians that runs like a gradient into the East ? Yes, why race exists in a vacuum and it's not a natural cline or gradient. My you are the sharpest tool in the shed aren't you ?

Norway has a 98 IQ average it is superior ! Even though Keltic nordic Belgium has a 100 IQ average. Switzerland and the Netherlands even higher.





I now put those words back in your mouth by direct quote;
Here is where you describe Finno-Ugrics and balts as being Slavic:

Listen, I don't need your name-calling or argument twists. I know better than to "argue" with a schizo. See ya round.

How about the quote where I claim the Swedes defeated the slavics because the Swedes are Western ? Ah, yes I forgot that is because everyone except geniuses resort to banal chicanery -- it's the basis for the mass of humanity. You do not want to uncover the truth. That isn't your modus operandi. Your modus operandi is that of an animal. See my quote directly below.


originally posted by Et_En_Arcadia_Ego

How is Sweden conquering Russia and the Baltic related to the occident other than the fact that the Swedes are superior to slavics ? I consider Swedes to be Western European.

You lie like a schizophrenic jew. See you in the funny-pages, shitbrain.

Dude, bro. I'm like totally a Norwegian, Northern German, and Swedish nordicist. I rewrite history like the afrocentrists to calm my inferiority complexes. Ja, I claim all of Roman, French, Keltic society achievements to be my own ! By George are you blind ? Alexander Graham Bell was a blonde haired or red haired viking ! How do you question us ?

Hell, didn't you know Raphael, Michaelangelo , and Da Vinci where really blonde haired Swedes ? Dude, like Macchievelli was totally Prussian ! So was Paglioli. Sarpi was totally Norwegian bro. You see these Italians trick themselves .. they aren't really Italians they are Swedish nords !

Dude, Hans Holbein was totally blonde man and so was Richard the III. Bro, Francesco Mazolla the painter ? Swede !

The Capetian kings of France ? All blonde dude.

Dude, Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves where totally blonde ! So was Catherine Parr. Dude, Charles V of Spain totally nordic bro ... gnarly !

Francis the I of France ? Dude a totally gnarly blonde Swede man. Henry II too man.

The Heugenouts, Charles Villiers, and Catherine De Medici too ! Totally gnarly blonde Swedes man.

So was Sir Walter Raleigh man. Mathias too !

Richilieu one of the greatest statesmen of all time ? Dude, he was really a Norwegian but he didn't know ! Bummer man ! Someone forgot to tell him.

King Louis XIII yeah he was totally Swedish man and not dark haired at all man.

Prince Rupert too at Edgehill was really blonde !. So was queen Christina man daughter of Gustavus Adolphus.


Francis Bacon ? Totally gnarly blonde haired Swede dude. Descartes as well as John Donne.

Kepler ? Blonde Swede man.

Barbara Villiers , Louise De Keroaille, and Nell Gwynn ? Totally bodacious blondes like Baywatch man.

Thomas Paine ? Totally swedish man. Mirabeau too.

Marat , Danton, Robespierre ? Totally swedish man. Marshal Bernadotte too !

Jean Jacques Rousea ? Totally Norwegian man. Montesquieu too.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Robert Burns and Edgar Allen Poe ? Totally Swedish bro.

John Locke. Von Weber, Schubert etc.. ? Totally nordic dude.

Lord Byron as well !

Alexander Dumas ? Blonde like Edgar Allen Poe.

Dude, and like none of these people had dark hair or eyes. Someone just forgot to tell them they where really blonde Swedes !

Everyone in the history of Europe is a fucking blonde swede really !

All those people where really Swedes and Norwegians

I'm totally not like a Afrocentrist ! Nordics are superior !

Ah, finally someone who fully grasps the complex intricacies of that which even the majority of purported geniuses would term the garbled and meaningless trivia of historical obliquity! A king indeed!

Mr. Ego, what a towering genius. Even his attempts at sarcasm are over-played and heavy-handed. One should expect such from a wet-brain who thinks David Icke's Jewish space-lizards riff describes himself, the heir to the Merovingian throne.

Why Your Excellency, I'm surprised at you! You would taint yourself thus? Remember your place, sir.

His Majesty, Emperor Ego, is less than amusing when one makes the mistake of "debating" with the slippery psychopathic liar. Yes, some of his recent emissions of forum flatulence lured me to offer comment and the result was the usual frustration one feels when "arguing" with a mendacious schizoid.
Next time I'll go fishing for jellyfish instead, or try to shovel fleas across a barnyard with a pitchfork.
It is amusing to read his textual droolings but not to be involved in them.

[QUOTE=Nordblod]Why Your Excellency, I'm surprised at you! You would taint yourself thus? Remember your place, sir.[/QUOTE]