Alexander, Jesus, the Greeks were they Nordic Aryans? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Theories and happenings too odd for the main forums.
#14718602
I simply cannot understand why some in the English speaking world think that Russians are "Mongoloid". Where did they get this idea? There is no genetic basis for this theory. I'd be quite interested in knowing how someone like lord George Curzon could literally say that the Russian conquest of Central Asia was the conquest of "orientals" by other "orientals". It was pure racism.

It may have been because these sorts of people had no real contact with real Asia and so they could label exotic European cultures as simply "oriental".
#14718607
Potemkin wrote:Mainly because no-one gives a fuck about them. After all, from the West's perspective, they were "mongoloid Russians" killing other "mongoloid Russians". Why should the American or the British elite have cared about this? The Nazi atrocities were played up because we were physically fighting them during WWII and the people they were killing were, by and large, our allies in that war. Of course we were going to care about it, and use it as grist for our propaganda mill. The Soviet massacres, on the other hand, were regarded as an internal matter for the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 40s, and were never widely publicised during the Cold War because of anti-Slavic racism and because the Cold War never went 'hot'. Moral of the story: if you're going to commit genocide, then make sure you only massacre people whom no-one gives a damn about. It has nothing to do with a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to conceal the truth, as you seem to be implying. :eh:


According to your post the war goes on, and mow all Europeans are "Germans".
BTW, the Poles were also Slavs', and Jews were fleeing from Poland to Germany before WWII.
Think about it!
#14718660
ArtAllm wrote:I have provided a better scientific work that quotes ancient documents that confirm that the first "ethnic male Greeks" who settled in Egypt married local women.


No you haven't, and even if Greeks had sex with foreign women, their offspring would not have been considered a legal citizen in any ancient Greek state whether in Greece or Egypt or Persia.

Citizenship Greeks wrote:An important aspect of polis citizenship was exclusivity. Polis meant both the political assembly as well as the entire society.[16] Inequality of status was widely accepted. Citizens had a higher status than non-citizens, such as women, slaves or barbarians.[7][17] For example, women were believed to be irrational and incapable of political participation, although a few writers, most notably Plato, disagreed. Methods used to determine whether someone could be a citizen or not could be based on wealth, identified by the amount of taxes one paid, or political participation, or heritage if both parents were citizens of the polis. The first form of citizenship was based on the way people lived in the ancient Greek times, in small-scale organic communities of the polis. Citizenship was not seen as a separate activity from the private life of the individual person, in the sense that there was not a distinction between public and private life. The obligations of citizenship were deeply connected into one’s everyday life in the polis.


BTW, the Mestizos in South America also define themselves as Castellanos and they segregate themselves from Amerindians.


Btw, the western Nordic world has had far less restrictions on citizenship and marriage than ancient Greeks and they still have not turned brown. And there is plenty of evidence of modern Germans and English people marrying Arabs and others.

So "ethnocentrism" and "isolationism" does not prove anything.


Of course it does, when the state tells you that your child will not have civil rights unless you marry a Greek then you don't actually turn your children into second-class non-citizens.

This Armenia guy could be easily blackmailed , too, he owned a lot to people that saved him from prision!


So all the historians that point out German complicity in the Armenian genocide have all been bought by the Jews to tarnish the Germans, :lol: when it is a fact that the Germans organised the Turkish army and commanded it in several occasions during the massacres.

The comedy never stops with you, does it? The funny thing is that you brought this upon yourself when you started blaming the Brits, of course forgetting that the Germans were official Turkish allies.
#14718697
noemon wrote:No you haven't...


Here more:

Certainly one of the most telling indicators in this matter was the prevalence of intermarriage. Intermarriage was even more common out in the countryside and among the military where there was not as much of a wealth and status difference between the Egyptians and Greeks. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that in almost every case the documentation shows a Greek or Macedonian man marrying an Egyptian woman and seldom an Egyptian man marrying a Greek woman. The law seems to have been that the children inherited their ethnic identification through the father. A Greek woman marrying an Egyptian man would probably be losing her status (“marrying down”). However, in the end run, Egyptian culture was always more tolerant in its outlook than the Greek.

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ ... gypt_4.htm



noemon wrote:... and even if Greeks had sex with foreign women, their offspring would not have been considered a legal citizen in any ancient Greek state whether in Greece or Egypt or Persia.


To have sex and to marry are different things. A Greek man could marry any women he wanted, and the children were considered Greek. With Greek women it was different.




noemon wrote:Btw, the western Nordic world has had far less restrictions on citizenship and marriage than ancient Greeks and they still have not turned brown.


They were isolated by natural barriers in North Europe. BTW, the Goth and Vandals that conquered Tunisia and other African countries could not leave any traces, they disappeared and the sea of brown people.



noemon wrote:And there is plenty of evidence of modern Germans and English people marrying Arabs and others.


Yes, and their descendants are brown, because the racial traits of North Europeans are recessive traits.


noemon wrote:So all the historians that point out German complicity in the Armenian genocide ...


All? You were able to name a couple of historians, and what do you mean with "German complicity"? Was it the official policy of the Kaiserreich?
If yes, how could it be possible that German officers reported about this genocide?
If some German officers just decided to close an eye on the crimes of their allies, how can you call this "German complicity"?
According to your logic there was a Jewish complicity, because Jews were over represented among the Young Turks.

noemon wrote: The funny thing is that you brought this upon yourself when you started blaming the Brits, of course forgetting that the Germans were official Turkish allies.


Well, the Kaiserreich did not have any long-term strategic plans, considering the Turkey, it just happened that the Ottomans were allies of the Kaiserreich.

What to Zionists, they had long-term strategic plans about the Osman Empire, because Palestine was a province of this Empire.

In 1851, correspondence between Lord Stanley, whose father became British Prime Minister the following year, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him, records Disraeli's proto-Zionist views: "He then unfolded a plan of restoring the nation to Palestine—said the country was admirably suited for them—the financiers all over Europe might help—the Porte is weak—the Turks/holders of property could be bought out—this, he said, was the object of his life...." Coningsby was merely a feelermy views were not fully developed at that time—since then all I have written has been for one purpose. The man who should restore the Hebrew race to their country would be the Messiah—the real saviour of prophecy!" He did not add formally that he aspired to play this part, but it was evidently implied. He thought very highly of the capabilities of the country, and hinted that his chief object in acquiring power here would be to promote the return".[20][21] 26 years later, Disraeli wrote in his article entitled "The Jewish Question is the Oriental Quest" (1877) that within fifty years, a nation of one million Jews would reside in Palestine under the guidance of the British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism


And here some other Jewish sources:

In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war. Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them. Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout churchgoers who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland.

The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his protracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, which became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition. Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking. For these reasons, the Balfour Declaration was widely criticized throughout the Arab world, and especially in Palestine, as contrary to the spirit of British pledges contained in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence.

On December 9, 1917, five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, British troops led by General Sir Edmund Allenby took Jerusalem from the Turks; Turkish forces in Syria were subsequently defeated; an armistice was concluded with Turkey on October 31, 1918; and all of Palestine came under British military rule.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... y/ww1.html



How Herzl Sold Out the Armenians
He supported the brutal Ottoman sultan against them, believing this would get the sultan to sell Palestine to the Jews.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.654393


And now use your brain and think about the history of the 20th century.

How could the dream of Disraeli become true, if in the history of the 20th century something went not as it was planned?
#14718700
The depths to which racism will take an impressive intellect. Is Ombrageux really arguing - based on what? Vague feeling? - that that painting of Alexander was once blonde but has magically turned brown?
#14718702
ArtAllm wrote:A Greek man could marry any women he wanted, and the children were considered Greek. With Greek women it was different.


A mixed child did not have citizenship rights in any Greek state in the antiquity. Greek ethnicity was extremely exclusive and predicated on both your parents being Greek and that is why all the people assuming otherwise including your latest link never provide any actual sources. Pretending that the Greeks were inclusive when all ancient sources and the actual academia are very clear on the matter is yet another "liberal" attempt to rewrite history so that they show-off the Greeks as non-racists when they in fact were the very definition of it and culturally and institutionally.

It was Rome and Christianity that changed the rules and permitted for institutional intermarriage and that distinction is very clear legally, culturally & philosophically.

One would think that someone like you would have already picked up on that, especially when your sources never cite any actual sources.

They were isolated by natural barriers in North Europe. BTW, the Goth and Vandals that conquered Tunisia and other African countries could not leave any traces, they disappeared and the sea of brown people.


You have more than 2 centuries of Europeans being able to legally marry foreigners and the foreigners offspring becoming a real Englishman or a real German, a privilege never granted to anyone in the Greek world, yet we have not seen any transformation even when the bar is far lower than it were.

And now use your brain and think about the history of the 20th century.


It's clear that you do not even realise how ridiculous you sound. The Germans were official allies of the Turks, you blame the Brits for siding with the Muslims, when the Germans were in fact their official allies, you blame the Brits for the Christian Genocide in Turkey when in fact Germans organised and commanded the Turkish army that conducted the christian massacres and you throw in some Jewish sauce because Zionists have interests in the Middle-East and the British siding with them against the Muslims, somehow proves for you that Brits & Zionists were anti-western pro-Turkish more than the Germans who were officially pro-Turkish and helping them conduct their Christian Genocide. :lol:

Your denial is mind-boggling.

History records a lot of the Roman emperors as blonde and blue-eyed. The aristocracy didn't necessarily mix with the plebs, so it is quite possible. http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm


blackjack21 wrote:History records a lot of the Roman emperors as blonde and blue-eyed. The aristocracy didn't necessarily mix with the plebs, so it is quite possible. http://www.theapricity.com/earlson/history/emperors.htm


From all the Emperor's in your source which only looks at a tiny number of Emperors focusing only on the tiny number of those with fair-hair, none is described as blue-eyed, or did you fail to notice? grey eyes are widespread in the Med and it is also my eye-colour as well.

And also you are confused about Plebeians:

Marius and Cicero are notable examples of novi homines in the late Republic, when many of Rome's richest and most powerful men—such as Lucullus, Crassus, and Pompeius—were plebeian nobles. Some or perhaps many noble plebeians, including Cicero and Lucullus, aligned their political interests with the faction of optimates, conservatives who sought to preserve senatorial prerogatives.


The assumption that the original and natural state of the Greeks and Romans were Nordic and that they looking brown is the result of inter-marriage is absolute and total non-sense without any evidence but purely "just-because" and "just-because" is not an actual argument. The fact is that the Greeks and Romans are described by themselves as darker than Goths, Vandals and Hyperboreans, they are painted darker in everything we have and they were conscious of being physically different to Northern Barbarians as well as Egyptians, Ethiopians(Africans) and Asians. Their greatest superstition which is the evil-eye explicitly makes the case that people with blue-eyes are evil witches and that goes back to Homer and extends well into the present-day.
#14718710
The Roman empire was routinely invaded by Celtic tribal armies in the pre-Christian days, many of whom came from Germanic areas. It stands to reason that they would leave their genetic imprint behind. Similarly they invaded the various Greek city states and traded extensively with them.

Thulian conspiracies are fun in Indiana Jones type stories. They usually posit that angelic beings interbred with humans, giving rise to a superrace of blond-haired beings with superior intellect, strength, etc. Their civilization collapsed (Atlantis) leaving behind mystical artefacts. Usually the Thulian conspirators are stopped before they can use these doomsday artefacts to take over the world.
#14718717
The Sabbaticus wrote:The Roman empire was routinely invaded by Celtic tribal armies in the pre-Christian days, many of whom came from Germanic areas. It stands to reason that they would leave their genetic imprint behind. Similarly they invaded the various Greek city states and traded extensively with them.


That is not entirely true and leaving behind genetic imprint is very relative from case to case. First of all Celts have nothing to do with Germanics and Goths, they are completely different people, second simply looting a city and enslaving its population does not make for interbreeding, these are not conditions where interbreeding becomes large enough to be significant, barbarians started getting integrated into the Roman Empire slowly at first through an active Roman policy of giving away citizenship to noble barbarians( .ie those who were strong enough that could not be exterminated and also strong enough to provide soldiers for the Empire) that started happening prior to official Christianity but still in the post-A.D. and then Constantinian Christianity made it possible for the Empire to integrate more barbarians at a more extensive rate by creating institutions for exactly that purpose, still however, mixing with Arians(even if Christians which includes the majority of Goths and Egyptians) still remained banned, so a Roman still had to think on what he is getting married into and whether he will lose his civil-rights as a result. In the Greek world this was even more exclusive.

Imagine that in the modern world we have institutions that enable and actively promote interbreeding and it is still not happening at rates that people in here believe it happened in the ancient world when in the ancient world it was not only discouraged & stigmatised but it resulted to the loss of civil rights as well. I do not think people grasp this simple thing at all and the extent of the difference.

In the ancient world if your city fell, you were exterminated and wiped off the face of the earth, it were the Romans who first created the Greco-Roman man were institutions were created in Rome and Greece for Greeks and Romans to inter-marry and retain citizenship both in Rome and in the Greek city-states, and then the Christian man.
#14718721
Except that the Celts aren't a singular group, instead they're many tribal groups, inhabiting a vast area, including Germany, the Alps, etc. Secondly, invasion go hand-in-hand with rapes, especially when the Romans were defeated. And slavery tends to result in bastard children. The cornerstone of the Roman economy was slavery, and slaves were acquired - amongst other ways - through warfare.
#14718723
Secondly, invasion go hand-in-hand with rapes, especially when the Romans were defeated. And slavery tends to result in bastard children.


First of all, between the Roman world and the barbarians if anyone was doing the raping that were the Romans if you put into a time line that was for 99,9% of the time and for many many centuries, your argument that the 0.1% managed to change the Romans instead of vice-versa is not a serious argument), not the barbarians, second the important thing is what happens to these children, the results of rapes and slavery. Somehow you assume that these children manage to integrate and become Romans themselves when this did not happen if the rapist were Roman let alone if he were a barbarian.
#14718736
There was a period of several hundreds years until the Romans finally developed an effective military strategy to deal with the Celtic invasions (and migratory movements). At one point they sacked Rome. And the citizenship legalities are irrelevant, as these bastard children didn't just die off and disappear. At one point either they became citizens, or their children did.
#14718740
There was a period of several hundreds years until the Romans finally developed an effective military strategy to deal with the Celtic invasions (and migratory movements).


You are confused. It is the other way around, there were several hundreds of years that any barbarian could not withstand the Roman juggernaut. The only Celts who managed to come into the Greco-Roman world in the BC were the Galatians but they were beaten so many times by Greeks and Romans and eventually forced to settle in central Turkey to act as cannon-fodder against the Persians with the result of eventually being wiped off the map. Aside from these Celts who hardly left any trace, it was much later when Goths, Vandals and Huns made incursions into the Roman Empire and all these incursions were simply vandalism and looting, not staying there to integrate with the exception that I mentioned before and that was in the post-Christian era.

And the citizenship legalities are irrelevant, as these bastard children didn't just die off and disappear. At one point either they became citizens, or their children did.


These are not at all irrelevant, slaves and bastards did not just eventually become Romans & Greeks, they were commodities, they could at any point end up wherever their masters felt like, not citizens, the level of separation between the 2 was massive and I highly doubt people in this stage of the modern world can comprehend the extent of humiliation and cruelty that was ripe in the ancient world. In the post-christian world perhaps but again it would be a difficult & troublesome process to undertake, not in the BC.

You don't need to go too far to realise the error of your ways just look at South-Africa and the US some decades ago, where are the mixed people under much better cultural and institutional conditions than the ones in the ancient world? Have the whites turned brown?
#14718743
The sack of Rome (BC) wasn't an isolated incident, it was the pinnacle of many military successes of the invading Celtic forces. The Romans eventually devised a new military system, complete with new weaponry and armour in order to beat the Celts. As for the slave issue, these slaves bred and added their genes to the regional gene pool. This is indisputable. The legality issues address the reality of this fact. And slaves were capable of becoming freemen.
#14718750
The sack of Rome in 387 BC happened before the Roman Empire when Rome was at infant stages yet and it took 800 years for anyone to come near Rome again. You must be really desperate to make this argument and I take it that is why you forgot to mention these details. And how do you imagine it happened, these guys came in stole all the jewellery and then were driven back to their forests and in this case very quickly as well.

As for the slave issue, these slaves bred and added their genes to the regional gene pool. This is indisputable. The legality issues address the reality of this fact. And slaves were capable of becoming freemen.


You are confused of Classical History.

a) Foreign slaves could never become citizens, neither they nor their children. Ethnic-kin that had been enslaved by debt could become free and regain citizenship, a citizenship that was once had and lost, not the ones that never had it. Slaves producing offspring was an exception for them not something that simply goes without say not only out of legal reason but out of practical reasons as well(.ie how can a slave realistically make a family, ofc there were types of slaves that should be better be called serfs that were community slaves like the Helots in Sparta and they had homes, families and so on, but these types of slaves could not be bought or sold and they were property of the state not individuals and they were Greeks). There was a huge variety of types of slaves, not all the defeated were enslaved, it depended on the deal that followed and there were several categories in people heads, creating an onion, was the slave from the city-state? was the slave Greek or Roman? was he the type of slave that was allowed to reproduce? was he the type that could buy his freedom? was he the type of slave that after buying his freedom could become a citizen? what kind of social mobility are you seriously expecting here? And what kind of a foreign % do you believe that eventually made it? What kind of a racially foreign % do you think made it? You are saying that people who were institutionally forbidden to mix with people from other cities in the same country speaking the same language somehow managed to mix not only with linguistic foreigners but with racially different foreigners as well. When today you can mix freely and it is still not happening. :eh:
b) The vast majority of Greek and Roman slaves in the antiquity were in fact Greeks and Italians.
c) Barbarians were routinely exterminated, scattered & resettled in the fringes.
d) There is a very clear process of Hellenisation & Romanisation in the antiquity and that process is very well-documented and it is as I have described it. This process did not happen just like that with the snap of a finger every time some barbarian sacked a city and was then summarily exterminated. Christianity itself is the culmination of that process and the groups that were eventually allowed to join in were specific also.
#14718774
noemon wrote:A mixed child did not have citizenship rights in any Greek state in the antiquity.


I do not know what antiquity you are talking about, but in the Empire of Alexander it was a common thing, and there are a lot of documents that prove that.

Since the Greeks largely came into the country as soldiers, the men amongst them must have been very much more numerous than women. Many of them, we know from the papyri, had European wives, but the supply of European wives can hardly have gone round. Many Greeks and Macedonians married natives. From this continual mixture of blood, the racial difference in Ptolemaic Egypt grew less and less with succeeding generations. Large numbers of people later on who called themselves Greeks were mainly Egyptian in blood.
...
From about 150 B.C. it becomes common in the papyri to p87find people who bear both a Greek and an Egyptian name. For instance, we find at the end of the 2nd century a Greek called Dryton, whose daughters (no doubt by an Egyptian mother) in one papyrus have Greek names, in another have Egyptian names side by side with their Greek names, and in a third their Egyptian names only.10 A Hermocles has three sons, of whom the eldest is called Heraclides and the two others have the Egyptian names of Nechutes and Psechons. In a list of Greek cultivators (about 112 B.C.) we find Harmiysis son of Harmiysis, Harphaesis son of Petosiris, etc.11 Probably few Greeks of pure blood took Egyptian names. On the other hand, many pure Egyptians may have assumed Greek names. In any case it becomes impossible after the middle of the 2d century to tell by the name alone whether a man or woman is Greek or Egyptian.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/G ... P/4A*.html



noemon wrote:...Brits & Zionists were anti-western pro-Turkish more than the Germans who were officially pro-Turkish and helping them conduct their Christian Genocide.


Here is what a German general wrote:

Major General Otto von Lossow, acting military attaché and head of the German Military Plenipotentiary in the Ottoman Empire, spoke to Ottoman intentions in a conference held in Batum in 1918:


The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia ... The aim of Turkish policy is, as I have reiterated, the taking of possession of Armenian districts and the extermination of the Armenians. Talaat's government wants to destroy all Armenians, not just in Turkey but also outside Turkey. On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now.[41]:349

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide


How crazy must this conspiracy theory about Germans aiding Turks in the genocide against Armenians be, when the head of the German Military Plenipotentiary in the Ottoman Empire openly spoke about the Ottoman intentions in a conference in 1918?

Does that make any sense? Was Lossow fighting his own Kaiser or exposing the crimes of the own government?

Do you really not understand what the game was about and how it was played?

The Sultan was not ready to give Palestine to the Zionists, so this Empire had to go.

The Young Turks were subverting the Ottoman Empire, they hated Armenians, and they were ready to give the former province Palestine to the Zionists.

That is why these guys got so much support from the Zionists, why Jews were over-represented in this movement, and why they got money from the French branch of Rothschilds.

And the Armenians were just an exchange coin for Zionists in the big play of to get Palestine. Besides that, there was Oil in Baku, and the Young Turks could not tolerate the Armenian rivalry in this region, nor could the Rothschilds and other western bankers, who were owners of the oil companies:

In 1903, 12 English companies with capital of 60 million rubles were functioning in Baku region. In 1912, Anglo-Dutch Shell obtained 80% of the shares of the Caspian-Black Sea Society "Mazut", which had belonged to De Rothschild Frères.

Other British firms purchased oil operations from Hajji Zeynalabdin Taghiyev.
In 1898, the Russian oil industry produced more than the U.S. oil production level. At that time, approximately 8 million tons were being produced (160,000 barrels (25,000 m3) of oil per day). By 1901, Baku produced more than half of the world's oil (11 million tons or 212,000 barrels (33,700 m3) of oil per day), and 55% of all Russian oil. Approximately 1.2 million tons of Baku kerosene were also sold abroad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum ... Azerbaijan


As we see, no German companies or bakners were involved in Baku, why should it be in the interests of Germany to cleanse the region from Armenians?


Here are historical facts that prove that the Armenians were just an exchange coin for Zionists in the big play of to get Palestine.


Herzl went to London to meet Avetis Nazarbekian, the leader of the Henshags, the Armenian Social-Revolutionaries. The Zionist told their go-between:

I want to make it clear to this revolutionary that the Armenians should now make their peace with the Sultan, without prejudice to their later claims when Turkey is partitioned. [4]

On 13 July Herzl met the Armenian:

I promised I would try to get the Sultan to stop the massacres and new arrests, as a token of his good will. But he would hardly release the prisoners in advance, as Nazarbek desired. I explained to him in vain that, after all, the revolutionaries could watch the course of the peace negotiations without disarming, with their guns at their feet. [5]

...

Herzl’s failure with the Armenians did not discourage him. On 17 April 1897, Turkey went to war with Greece in retaliation for Athens having backed the liberation struggle of their co-nationals on Crete. He jumped at the chance to publicly show the Porte that Zionism could be of assistance to Turkey. He wrote to Mahmud Nedim Pasha on 28 April:

I beg to congratulate Your Excellency on the splendid victories of Turkish arms. The desire of several Jewish students to attach themselves voluntarily to the armed forces of His Majesty the Sultan is a small token of the friendship and gratitude which we Jews feel for Turkey. Herr and in several other places I have organized committees to initiate collections of money for wounded Turkish soldiers. [6]

Herzl was wasting his time. Nothing could convince the Turks to give him Palestine, but officially Herzl maintained his open pro-Sultan policy.


https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/d ... onstan.htm
#14718782
ArtAllm wrote:I do not know what antiquity you are talking about, but in the Empire of Alexander it was a common thing, and there are a lot of documents that prove that.


Your author which you quoted but you forgot to paste that bit....is telling you explicitly that Greek states banned intermarriage for their citizen-body(this is quite a well-known fact) and in Egypt it was the same as well.

your source part which you left off wrote:In the three Greek cities in Egypt, indeed, it was probably illegal for the members of the citizen-body to contact marriages with natives, and the citizens of these cities may be thought of as retaining their pure Hellenic stock through the Ptolemaic period. But it was otherwise with the multitude of Greeks resident in Egypt, who did not belong to the citizen-body of one of the three cities, whether they were domiciled in the cities or had their homes in some Egyptian town or village.


The author here jumps from assumption to assumption, even for the Greeks who did not live in one of the 3 cities, they were citizens of either these cities or other Greek cities, a citizenship which granted them privilege, a privilege which I and many others assume that they wished to retain for their children as well.

He has the example of 2 people probably mixing and he goes to make assumptions besides your author is from 1927 when today it is widely accepted that there was in effect a very extreme form of apartheid in Ptolemaic Egypt as we have already seen by contemporary researchers.

Here is what a German general wrote in 1918:


At the end of the War. :lol:

You can't be serious really can you?

Germans organised and commanded the army that massacred the Armenians, you cannot escape from that fact by pointing at Jews pursuing their own agenda.

Jewish philo-Turkish and anti-Greek emotions are no secret either, but they are ultimately irrelevant to our conversation and as your own sources testify the result of political considerations.
#14718786
The Sabbaticus wrote:Except that the Celts aren't a singular group, instead they're many tribal groups, inhabiting a vast area, including Germany, the Alps, etc.


This, alone, should be enough to undercut your own argument. "I can't say what these Celts looked like, but we can imagine some of them might have had blonde hair, thus Aryan Supermen created civilization because people with black hair can't."

The people that live in the areas now that you're speaking about are largely the result of invasion.

The people that lived there back then are more of a mystery, though if we are going to look at, "Celts," as problematic as that term is, we're best looking at the Basque as representative people:

Image

And, again, the Irish who are generally regarded as a grouping of Celts (again, as problematic as this is) are mostly related to the Basque in the Western regions where there were fewer Vikings and other raiders coming in. These people tend to be Black Irish. Here is someone that is Black Irish that sin't Colin Ferrell:

Image

The lighting's not really fair on that, but here he is again:

Image

Not really nordic supermen.
#14718843
The Immortal Goon wrote:This, alone, should be enough to undercut your own argument. "I can't say what these Celts looked like, but we can imagine some of them might have had blonde hair, thus Aryan Supermen created civilization because people with black hair can't."

The people that live in the areas now that you're speaking about are largely the result of invasion.


There was an overlap with Northern Europe, which has a higher prevalence of blond hair. This Celtic area held many groups and was only loosely defined as a singular culture. It wasn't a genetic line that held to a 'black hair and brown eyes' purist ideology. Also, the blond hair gene might have migrated in earlier migratory periods.

And Thulian conspiracies are just that.

The people that lived there back then are more of a mystery, though if we are going to look at, "Celts," as problematic as that term is, we're best looking at the Basque as representative people:

Image

And, again, the Irish who are generally regarded as a grouping of Celts (again, as problematic as this is) are mostly related to the Basque in the Western regions where there were fewer Vikings and other raiders coming in. These people tend to be Black Irish. Here is someone that is Black Irish that sin't Colin Ferrell:

Image

The lighting's not really fair on that, but here he is again:

Image

Not really nordic supermen.


Groups intermingle. If they linger in a given region for thousands of years, the intermingling tends to be pervasive.

Incidentally:

According to Diodorus Siculus:

The Gauls are tall of body with rippling muscles and white of skin and their hair is blond, and not only naturally so for they also make it their practice by artificial means to increase the distinguishing colour which nature has given it. For they are always washing their hair in limewater and they pull it back from the forehead to the nape of the neck, with the result that their appearance is like that of Satyrs and Pans since the treatment of their hair makes it so heavy and coarse that it differs in no respect from the mane of horses. Some of them shave the beard but others let it grow a little; and the nobles shave their cheeks but they let the moustache grow until it covers the mouth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts


:lol:

I see nothing special in blond hair from a civilizational standpoint, but it does hold certain aesthetic qualities which have been praised and sought after since ancient times. And now-a-days hold quite an allure for North African immigrants living in Nordic countries.


noemon wrote:The sack of Rome in 387 BC happened before the Roman Empire when Rome was at infant stages yet and it took 800 years for anyone to come near Rome again. You must be really desperate to make this argument and I take it that is why you forgot to mention these details. And how do you imagine it happened, these guys came in stole all the jewellery and then were driven back to their forests and in this case very quickly as well.


Hence them holding the city for months, all the while raping and pillaging. And no, my argument isn't weak, as the Celtic invasions shaped the course of history and made the Roman empire what it ultimately became. Not to mention that the Romans were fielding armies in the tens of thousands in order to defeat numerically larger forces.




a) Foreign slaves could never become citizens, neither they nor their children. Ethnic-kin that had been enslaved by debt could become free and regain citizenship, a citizenship that was once had and lost, not the ones that never had it. Slaves producing offspring was an exception for them not something that simply goes without say not only out of legal reason but out of practical reasons as well(.ie how can a slave realistically make a family, ofc there were types of slaves that should be better be called serfs that were community slaves like the Helots in Sparta and they had homes, families and so on, but these types of slaves could not be bought or sold and they were property of the state not individuals and they were Greeks). There was a huge variety of types of slaves, not all the defeated were enslaved, it depended on the deal that followed and there were several categories in people heads, creating an onion, was the slave from the city-state? was the slave Greek or Roman? was he the type of slave that was allowed to reproduce? was he the type that could buy his freedom? was he the type of slave that after buying his freedom could become a citizen? what kind of social mobility are you seriously expecting here? And what kind of a foreign % do you believe that eventually made it? What kind of a racially foreign % do you think made it? You are saying that people who were institutionally forbidden to mix with people from other cities in the same country speaking the same language somehow managed to mix not only with linguistic foreigners but with racially different foreigners as well. When today you can mix freely and it is still not happening. :eh:

Where there are people, there are children. No book of law will change this fact.

b) The vast majority of Greek and Roman slaves in the antiquity were in fact Greeks and Italians.
c) Barbarians were routinely exterminated, scattered & resettled in the fringes.
d) There is a very clear process of Hellenisation & Romanisation in the antiquity and that process is very well-documented and it is as I have described it. This process did not happen just like that with the snap of a finger every time some barbarian sacked a city and was then summarily exterminated. Christianity itself is the culmination of that process and the groups that were eventually allowed to join in were specific also.


Romanisation of conquered groups would indicate gradual expansion and incorporation of other ethnic groups into Roman civilization.
#14718857
And no, my argument isn't weak, as the Celtic invasions


Why are you talking in plural? The one Celtic loot is not even a pebble in the historical record. Romans were doing that for the course of 20 centuries not a couple of months. What is your argument again that Nordic Celts imbued the Romans with their Nordic supergenes?

Where there are people, there are children. No book of law will change this fact.


There are non-American people in the US for many centuries as there also many non-British people in Britain for quite a few centuries, there are also many non-Dutch people in Holland for many centuries under regimes far less brutal, elitist & cruel than the Greeks & Romans. Where is your book of law that suggests that the Dutch have been racially transformed by the foreigners among them? The people are there, are they not? And they are having children for quite a while now and someone can easily find examples of mixed people, and they can have rights too, there are no barriers, yet you are stuck with societies that had several layers of barriers that prevented that to happen, yet somehow you are under the impression that it happened more and quicker than it has been happening now, in the course of a couple of months as well? :lol:

Romanisation of conquered groups would indicate gradual expansion and incorporation of other ethnic groups into Roman civilization.


Americanisation has incorporated huge numbers of Black people in the US too and has convinced them they are Americans. Britishisation has done the same to huge numbers of Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Indians.

The Romans did that too but not in the BC, they did that through Christianity for those groups that accepted Constantinian Christianity and these groups are the ones I mentioned. The Greeks exported their culture but unlike the Romans they never extended citizenship to foreigners, not even half-Greeks. The only people the Greeks extended citizenship to were the Romans and this was reciprocal and a system of dual-citizenship existed for Greeks and Romans, this was quite unique and this characterised the early stages of the Roman Empire.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Propaganda works

On a scale of 1 to 10 how scared are you? If yo[…]

Bisexuality among African migrant men may be a con[…]

Because they are a market economy, it's not a Com[…]

Pence is probably the most competent person in th[…]