Alexander, Jesus, the Greeks were they Nordic Aryans? - Page 6 - 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.
#14718863
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.


Your source is from half a millennium later. It should also be pointed out that you were the one trying to make an affirmative argument based on this.

From what we know, as my map showed in previous pages, there is no reason to believe Celts had blonde hair. This is not to say it's impossible, but your argument is not only that they did have blonde hair despite evidence to the contrary; but that they then raped at such a prolific amount that it made the Romans and Greek Celts (who are actually Nordic Aryan supermen) and that then the Greeks and Italians ceased to be Nordic supermen for some reason, and the surviving Celts from that era ceased to be Nordic supermen for no apparent reason at all because a guy that thought the Iliad was literally true wrote a history hundreds of years later that had one word translated into English on Wikipedia as "blonde."

This all seems very silly.
#14718900
noemon wrote: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?


Probably because there were numerous Celtic invasions into Italy in the BC era? Also, that isn't my argument. I'm talking about the spread of blonde hair. And as you will read in my original post in this thread (only a couple of posts back), I specifically mentioned Indiana Jones-type fictional stories involving Thulian conspiracies, that may or may not involve Nordic supermen. Note the operative word: fiction.

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:


The migratory patterns across the European continent would indeed indicate successive waves of colonization and intermingling by differing ethnic groups in the area now known as The Netherlands. Iberian ethnic groups have left their trace as well, notably during the Spanish war.

This is how the world works. E.g. Ashkenashi Jews being mostly of German genetic stock after two millennia.


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.


Romanization of Celtic groups in the BC era is a fact. E.g. the most notable example being Caesar conquering them in the last century of the BC era.


The Immortal Goon wrote:Your source is from half a millennium later. It should also be pointed out that you were the one trying to make an affirmative argument based on this.


No, I posted the excerpt in jest, laughing at the absurdity of your argument. On the one hand there are neo-Thulian conspiracy proponents advocating their cause in this thread and on the other end of the spectrum we have your 'negro-Irish' theory, which apparently involves a rigid interpretation of genetic migratory patterns, in such a manner that the Irish (of all people) were mostly black haired and the Celts (not a singular ethnic group) could not possess blonde hair in various incidence rates. ( :excited: )

From what we know, as my map showed in previous pages, there is no reason to believe Celts had blonde hair. This is not to say it's impossible, but your argument is not only that they did have blonde hair despite evidence to the contrary; but that they then raped at such a prolific amount that it made the Romans and Greek Celts (who are actually Nordic Aryan supermen) and that then the Greeks and Italians ceased to be Nordic supermen for some reason, and the surviving Celts from that era ceased to be Nordic supermen for no apparent reason at all because a guy that thought the Iliad was literally true wrote a history hundreds of years later that had one word translated into English on Wikipedia as "blonde."

This all seems very silly.


Yes, it does. Notably because that deformed monstrosity isn't my argument. :lol:
#14718902
noemon wrote:
He has the example of 2 people probably mixing ...


No, most documents show that people who called themselves Greeks in Egypt were in reality of mixed origins.

You cannot ban intermarriage if there are no physical borders and sexual intercourse is possible. Besides the marriages there was a lot of adultery, and the racial traits of Greeks could not survive in the sea of oriental people.

Jews are another prove that apartheid and laws, prohibiting marriage with non- Jew,s does not work, that is why Ethiopian Jews are black, and Lithuanian Jews are blond and blue eyed.

noemon wrote:At the end of the War.  :lol:


The Brits persecuted people who pointed out that the Katyn massacre was committed not by the Wehrmacht, but by the ally of Brits, the bloody Uncle Joe, even during the Cold War, when the SU was a real threat to GB.

Why?  Because the British elite was really complicit in this massacre.

The Brits presumably started WWII to help the Poles, but they did not mind Stalin invading Poland and enslaving the Poles after WWII, and they did not mind when Stalin eliminated the Polish elite, that was the reason why the Brits tried to keep this dirty secret as long as possible, and the "Rudolf Hess" file, including his strange death, are still top secret.

The Brits had to admit the truth only after Gorbachev presented the secret documents.

That is a good example of a real conspiracy, and you can understand this conspiracy only if you understand how GB is ruled and how it was possible that the government of GB acted not in the interests of the majority of Brits, but in the interests of the British financial elite. 

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


Wow!

Was the Ottoman Empire a colony of the Kaiserreich?

:D

Even the Armenian guy who molested American students thinks that the only "crime", that the Kaiserreich committed, was its passivity, and that a few German officers did not mind the plans of Young Turks and said mean things about Armenians.

Should they have declared war to their ally?

Did the Brits declare war to Stalin, after he invaded Poland (he was not even an ally at this time) or after he killed the Polish elite in Katyn?

No, they tried to hide the atrocities of Stalin!

Well, already on the 30. April 1915 Hans von Wagenheim, the German ambassador of Kaiser Wilhelm, wrote a very detailed report to Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg about the plight of Armenians.

Do you really assume that the German ambassador did not know about the presumed plans of his own state, to kill Armenians?

If the Kaiserreich was the mastermind of this genocide, why would the German ambassador try to prevent this genocide, exposing the planned crimes of Talaat Bey, who openly told to the l Ambassador about his genocidal intentions?

All documents of the German foreign office are available in the Internet, if you can read German, you can find hundreds of documents that confirm that Germans were the first who infirmed the world about the planned crimes against Christians in the Ottoman Empire, and they tried to prevent this crime.

All German documents about WWI were public immediately after WWI.

Many British, Russian and American documents about WWII are still secret.

So who is afraid of the truth?

noemon wrote: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.


And here we go again!

The allies of the bloody Uncle Joe knew about the crimes, committed by the Commies, but they actively tried to hide the facts even during the Cold War, when the SU was a real threat to them, but they are still innocent, they did this because of "political considerations".

Zionists knew about the crimes of the Young Turks, but they tried to do what was in their perceived interests.

Leading Zionists actively cooperated with the NS in the Third Reich (Judenräte, Judenpolizei), they were responsible for selecting Jews for deportation, but they are still innocent, because they were afraid of persecution.

But ordinary Germans are morally responsible, because they did not actively prevent the deportation of Jews.

And because some German officers said mean things about Armenians and did not actively fight against the policy of their ally, now Germans are complicit in the Armenian genocide.

But people who created and supported the Young Turk movement and profited from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, which resulted in the Genocide against Armenians, are totally innocent.

The Zionists were more indifferent to the plight of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, than Germans, they hated the Russians more, than the Germans, who were fighting the Russian Tsar, who allegedly supported pogroms, and Armenians were seen as the allies of the Tsar.


During the first decade of the last century, the orientation of almost the entire Zionist leadership and activist groups (such as the `Hashomer,' the `Gidonites' and the `Tel Aviv-Jaffa Group') were pro-Turkish. (Many of the same leaders would also be pro-German during World War I.)


Herzl, who tended to view the entire non-Jewish world as hostile, focused on creating ties with the sultan. His offer to mediate for the Armenians was insincere, because it was not motivated by a search for justice but for the Zionist cause alone. In seeking to preserve the wholeness of the Ottoman Empire, he hoped to achieve Zionism's goals.
...
Auron maintains that Zionist and pre-state Yishuv historiography does not even touch upon the Armenian question, although he allows that `We have no way of knowing what people said in private, intimate conversation or in secret discussions,' and he gives prominence to the roles of members of the Nili - important figures such as Avshalom Feinberg, Alexander Aaronsohn and his sister, Sarah, an eyewitness to the Armenian horror, as was Eitan Belkind as an officer in the Turkish army.

Auron points out in the course of his checks and balances that `Nili was an exception to the general attitude of the Yishuv toward the Armenian massacre
...

Other groups, individuals, and public personalities were, for the most part, silent about the massacres apart from an expression of concern lest a similar fate befall the Jews or personal expressions of shock at the mass murders...'
...
Any Zionist who spoke out against Jewish moral reticence was shouted down abusively. Such was the case in 1909 over the editorial in the Hebrew daily Hatzvi titled `We,' written by Itamar Ben Avi, which blamed the Jews for indifference to Turkish atrocities committed against the Armenians even before the full eruption of the genocide.

His prose rang loudly with righteous passion:

...

We did nothing, because we were timid, because the matter did not affect us directly, utterly. Unfortunately we had covert sympathy for the enemy of the Turkish Parliament, Abd al_Hamid II. Sympathy because we believed that Abd al_Hamid would always be our friend, our generous and merciful supporter. That is why we stood aside; that is why we chose to be, in the words of the wise commander, the rearguard; that is why we continue today, two weeks after the revolution and a week after the victory of the `Young Turks' to be indifferent. We are watching from the side and waiting. We are a peculiar people.
...
When a Holocaust conference was to be held in Israel, the Turkish government objected to the inclusion of material on the Armenian slaughter.

Fisk expands on his theme: Incredibly, Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel withdrew from the conference after the Israeli foreign ministry said that it might damage Israeli-Turkish relations.

http://www.atour.com/~aahgn/news/20010619b.html



https://www.amazon.com/Banality-Indiffe ... 0765808811

Israel is afraid to insult Turkey, that will not be good for the interest of Zionists, that is why they do not recognize this historical event as a genocide.

But some ignorant people, like Rich, asks why Palestinians do not recognize the mentioned historical event as a genocide.

Now some "historians"  found a solution: let's blame the Germans for it,  not the Young Turks and their sponsors, the Zionists. Doing so we will not insult the Turks and kill two flies with one swat. The innocent Turks just did what Germans told them go do!

:D

Netanyaho also invented an interesting theory about the Muslim Mufti giving orders to Hitler.

According to this theory Mufti told to Hitler in November 1941:

"If you expell them, they will all come to Palestine".

"What should I do with them?", asked Hitler.

"Burn them!", commanded the Mufti.

And here is what Wiki says about the Madagascar-Plan, a plan to relocate Jewish population of the occupied European countries to this island:


Hitler continued to mention the plan until February 1942, when the idea was permanently shelved.[32]

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


As we see, the NS plans to relocate the Jews was not abandoned after the meeting between the Mufi and Hitler.

Any conspiracy theories can be checked with facts, if there are no legal limitations to do this... 
#14718947
The Sabbaticus wrote:Romanization of Celtic groups in the BC era is a fact. E.g. the most notable example being Caesar conquering them in the last century of the BC era.


The first Celtic group to be granted Roman citizenship were the Insumbres at 49 B.C. Romanisation happened in the A.D., not in the BC.

ArtAllm wrote:No, most documents show that people who called themselves Greeks in Egypt were in reality of mixed origins.


False:

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.


That there were and still are a lot of Hellenistic people, .ie people who wanted and want to be Greek and Roman that is a fact, notably the Germans called themselves Romans for several centuries, you are another example you are so convinced you are a Greco-Roman that you are twisting history to prove to yourself some blood relation.

ArtAllm wrote:Why? Because the British elite was really complicit in this massacre.


Exactly, like you are doing with the Armenians right now. ;)

ArtAllm wrote:Should they have declared war to their ally?


So you finally come to your senses, initially you claimed that it was the British fault that Constantinople is not Christian today, at least now you accept that Germans were Ottoman allies during the effort to capture Constantinople for the Christian world.
#14719600
noemon wrote:False:


You have lost the track of our discussion, were are talking about Egyptian mummies. What you have quoted supports my thesis that the mummies were of mixed origin.

noemon wrote:So you finally come to your senses, initially you claimed that it was the British fault that Constantinople is not Christian today, at least now you accept that Germans were Ottoman allies during the effort to capture Constantinople for the Christian world.


Are you American?
I have already had a discussion with an American about the Crimean War, but he was talking about a totally different historical period, he did not know the history of Crimea.

You have mixed in your head different historical epochs, the WWI was not about reconquering Constantinople, neither Russia nor Germany had at this period any power to do that. In fact, during WWI Christianity was destroyed in Russia, how could the Anti-Christian Bolshevik Russia be interested in helping the Christians in the Ottoman Empire?

But about 90 years earlier Germans were de facto the Russian elite, and the Russian Tsar Nicholas I had more German blood, than Russian blood. There was no unified Germany yet, and no rivalry between Germans and Russians.

BTW, if you want to have a discussion about this subject, maybe we should move these post to a separate thread about the history Ottoman Empire?
#14719606
ArtAllm wrote:You have lost the track of our discussion, were are talking about Egyptian mummies. What you have quoted supports my thesis that the mummies were of mixed origin.


No, it doesn't.

It is commonly accepted that the Faiyum portraits represent Greek settlers in Egypt.[15][16] Victor J. Katz notes that "most modern studies conclude that the Greek & Egyptian communities coexisted with little mutual influence".[17] Anthony Lowsted has written extensively on the scope of Apartheid that separated the 2 communities during the Hellenistic, Roman & Byzantine period. [18]


You have mixed in your head different historical epochs, the WWI was not about reconquering Constantinople, neither Russia nor Germany had at this period any power to do that. In fact, during WWI Christianity was destroyed in Russia, how could the Anti-Christian Bolshevik Russia be interested in helping the Christians in the Ottoman Empire?


The only fact that matters is that Constantinople was captured by the Christian world only at WW1 when the Germans were fighting on the Muslims side. It appears that you have mixed things up in your head.
#14719618
noemon wrote:No, it doesn't.


Do you read what you are quoting?

It is commonly accepted that the Faiyum portraits represent Greek settlers in Egypt.[15][16] Victor J. Katz notes that "most modern studies conclude that the Greek & Egyptian communities coexisted with little mutual influence".[17] Anthony Lowsted has written extensively on the scope of Apartheid that separated the 2 communities during the Hellenistic, Roman & Byzantine period. [18]


I have already addressed that. Black Ethiopian Jews are also segregated from other black Ethiopians. Does that mean that there was no race mixing?


noemon wrote:The only fact that matters is that Constantinople was captured by the Christian world only at WW1 when the Germans were fighting on the Muslims side.


The "Christian World" was already subverted at WWI, the Rothschilds had already earned their big money in the Napoleonic Wars.

As Yuri Slezkine pointed out, the 20th century was THE JEWISH CENTURY, not the Christian century. Russia was still an independent Christian country before WW1, but not at the end of WW1.

However, in the early 19th century, the Rothschild family of Naples built up close relations with the Vatican Bank, and the association between the family and the Vatican continued into the 20th century. In 1832, when Pope Gregory XVI was seen meeting Carl von Rothschild, observers were shocked that Rothschild was not required to kiss the Pope's feet, as was then required for all other visitors to the Pope, including monarchs.[39] The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia described the Rothschilds as "the guardians of the papal treasure".[40]

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



During WWI the Christianity was destroyed in Russia, too. So what "Christian world" are you talking about?

In 1853 the situation was different, Russia was a Christian country that could re-conquer Constantinople.
#14719619
ArtAllm wrote:Do you read what you are quoting?


History does not match your biased rationalisations.

I have already addressed that. Black Ethiopian Jews are also segregated from other black Ethiopians. Does that mean that there was no race mixing?


I don't care what you think or say about the Jews, you are making several claims.

That the Greeks who were forbidden to mix, mixed not only slightly but to the point of transforming from A to B, when you have no evidence that Greeks were A to begin with and without any evidence that they became B.

For people to racially transform on a massive scale it requires massive interbreeding, people can mix freely now and we do not observe any such massive transformation. Your entire theory is non-sense and goes against the academic consensus which is well aware of the apartheid policies of the ancient world. And to claim what exactly that Greeks were not as described by themselves and painted by their own artists, but that they were instead Nordic Germans? :lol:

The "Christian World" was already subverted at WWI, the Rothschilds had already earned their big money in the Napoleonic Wars.


Yawn, more Jewish conspiracy theory, to deny what that Constantinople was captured by the Christians in 1918?
To deny that the German were fighting on the side of the Muslims? You can't escape from these facts no matter how much Jewish conspiracy non-sense you post.
#14719700
noemon wrote:I don't care what you think or say about the Jews, you are making several claims.


Jews are only a prominent example, the black Jews segregate themselves from their black cousins, the white Jews segregate themselves from their white cousins, and they even prostitute the science to find out that black and white Jews are genetically more related to each others, than to their racial cousins.

There are a lot of people who believe that they are "special" and segregate themselves from their cousins, like the Latinos in South America, who segregate themselves from their Amerindian cousins. The case with the Egyptian mummies is just another example of how people intermix with their neighbours and still claim that they are special, because they later, after they had established communities, segregate themselves from the environment.

I have already provided all the facts that confirm my thesis.

noemon wrote:For people to racially transform on a massive scale it requires massive interbreeding...


And there was a massive interbreeding of Jews in Ethiopia or Lithuania, the Jewish males married local women, only after that they segregated themselves.
The same was the case with the Spaniards in South America or the Greeks in Egypt. After the first generation the communities were established, and the descendants married only people from their community, but it is idiotic to believe in the racial purity of the mentioned communities.

noemon wrote:Yawn, more Jewish conspiracy theory...


I am reading Yuri Slezkine at the moment, he is a Jew and an American professor, he wrote a good book about the "Jewish conspiracy", he called his book "The Jewish Century".

:D

Jews brag in their own publications about their achievements in the 20th century and their power, but when a goy quotes them, he is just a "wicked anti-Semite", talking about "conspiracy theories", though these theories are already supported with facts, speak they are not theories any more.
#14719701
Once again,

I don't care what you think or say about the Jews, you are making several claims.

That the Greeks who were forbidden to mix by losing their civil rights, mixed not only slightly but to the point of transforming from A to B, when you have no evidence that Greeks were A to begin with and without any evidence that they became B.

For people to racially transform on a massive scale it requires massive interbreeding, people can mix freely now and we do not observe any such massive transformation. Your entire theory is non-sense and goes against the academic consensus which is well aware of the apartheid policies of the ancient world. And to claim what exactly? that Greeks were not as described by themselves and painted by their own artists, but that they were instead Nordic Germans?

It is as ridiculous as the rest of your white-supremacist theories.
#14719744
@noemon,

I have provided all the facts, and do not forget that we are talking about a process that went on for many centuries.

How can you compare this to what only recently became a trend in Europe? North Europe was segregated not due to a political decision, but mainly due to geographical barriers.

Greek soldiers married local women in  Egypt, so their descendants were at least 50℅ non-Greek, and they still were a minority in the big sea of oriental people, and they lived there for centuries.

Race is mainly defined by the shape of the scull, there are white Mongolians and swarthy Caucasians, and the ancient Greeks had Caucasian scull shapes and noses.

Latinos speak Spanish, they believe that they are a separate race, La Raza, they are racists, but they are not Spaniards.

Segregation in the Hellenistic world was mainly a political thing, you just define your own group on the basis of a "creation myth", and that is enough.

Who cares if the national mythology is crazy, as long as the interests of others are not violated?

English kings believed that they are descendants of David, because this was "cool" due to their religion.

And it was "cool" for the people who spoke Greek in Egypt to believe that they are pure blooded descendants of Greeks.

The same with Zionists, who recently created the "Jewish people".

The Jews read their holy books, that is why they believe that they are descendants of Hebrews. That is why they are segregating themselves from the true descendants of Hebrews, who call themselves Palestinians. 

White Russians are welcomed in Israel, especially blond Russian girls. Jews love North Europeans more, than Semites.

Jewish girls bleach their hair and do a "nose nob", speak rectify their noses, because they hate what was left in their mixed genome from their no-European ancestors, they want to look even more European than they do.

If the trend continues, then Israel will become the only white country, and Europe and other western countries will be populated by swarthy Semites.

But Zionists will still whine about "anti-Semitism" and "white supremacy", but at the same time try to segregate themselves more and more from true Palestinian Semites, and do eugenics to make Israel whiter.

BTW, the few black Jews that were moved to Israel, were treated with Depo Provera there to prevent them from getting children in Israel.

As we see, there is a crazy hate/love relation between white Christians and Jews, and you have to be a shrink to understand the issue.
  
:D
#14719781
How can you compare this to what only recently became a trend in Europe? North Europe was segregated not due to a political decision, but mainly due to geographical barriers.


This is the other way around, you are claiming that Greeks transformed within a period of a couple of centuries which is a very short time period without having such a trend, while you fail to understand that there has been such a trend in the western world for longer.

Segregation in the Hellenistic world was mainly a political thing, you just define your own group on the basis of a "creation myth", and that is enough.


You keep confusing Hellenism with Judaism and comparing Greeks to Jews which is rather ridiculous coming from someone like you. Greeks would lose their civil rights if they mixed with foreigners and that has severity and is not based on any 'creation myth', it is the plain reality, in a cruel and brutal world I very much doubt that anyone in is right mind would abandon the privilege just because, it could happen and it most likely did but not on any massive scale that you imagine.
#14719909
noemon wrote:This is the other way around, you are claiming that Greeks transformed within a period of a couple of centuries which is a very short time period ...


Let's recapitulate.
You claimed that the oriental looking people from Faiyum (Egypt) are pure blooded Greeks, and you claimed that all Greeks looked like these guys.
I could provide evidence that these guys were descendants of Greek males (soldiers) and local Egyptian females.

The Faiyum portraits were created in 70-250 CE.
Alexander died in 323 before CE.

So the people who are on the portraits lived 300-500 years after the Greeks conquered Egypt and created Greek colonies.
Let's assume that the first Greek soldiers settled in Egypt in say 350 before CE.
One generation can be estimated with 30 years. 300 years are more than 10 generations, 500 years -about 20 generations, it is obvious that in this period more local genes drifted into the genome of the mixed descendants of Greeks and Egyptians (adultery, assimilation, rape, etc).

This is a very long time!

And you dare to say that all ancient Greeks looked like the guys on the Fayum portraits, because these guys were presumably pure blooded Greeks!
Sorry, but this is ridiculous!

If you are so afraid to talk about Jews, stick to the example with Latinos who speak Spanish.

A Latino in South America would also lose their privilege, if he married an Amerindian, though he himself was of a mixed Spanish-Amerindian origin.
As already said, that had something to do with cultural segregation, not with blood.
#14719930
ArtAllm wrote:Let's recapitulate.
You claimed that the oriental looking people from Faiyum (Egypt) are pure blooded Greeks, and you claimed that all Greeks looked like these guys.
I could provide evidence that these guys were descendants of Greek males (soldiers) and local Egyptian females.


You claim that the rich upper-class Greek people are mixed because they do not look like Nordic Germans, you have not provided any evidence to that effect and the only thing your source told you is that only Greek people who did not have citizenship to a Greek city mixed with foreigners, the Greeks who did have citizenship, did not. This effectively means that only a small number of Greek people would entertain admixture granted they were not already biased and racist on their own and from that % a near-0% would eventually manage to become rich and upper-class.

The Faiyum portraits were created in 70-250 CE.
Alexander died in 323 before CE.
So the people who are on the portraits lived 300-500 years after the Greeks conquered Egypt and created Greek colonies.
Let's assume that the first Greek soldiers settled in Egypt in say 350 before CE.
One generation can be estimated with 30 years. 300 years are more than 10 generations, 500 years -about 20 generations, it is obvious that in this period more local genes drifted into the genome of the mixed descendants of Greeks and Egyptians (adultery, assimilation, rape, etc).


How many generations that the Black people are in the US? The Indians in the UK? A lot more generations than that under regimes far more lenient that the ancients. Yes your theory is ridiculous and it is not only ridiculous but disrespectful and pathetic to the people in the portraits, it would be the same as someone like you seeing my picture some years away from now and saying "oh that guy was mixed, Greeks did not look like him, they looked like me instead". How insecure with your own self do you need to be to do that?

And you dare to say that all ancient Greeks looked like the guys on the Fayum portraits, because these guys were presumably pure blooded Greeks!
Sorry, but this is ridiculous!


:lol: Greeks did look like the people in the portraits and the Romans did look like the people in the portraits and contrary to your pathetic Nordic supremacy, they did not look like you.

If you are so afraid to talk about Jews, stick to the example with Latinos who speak Spanish.
A Latino in South America would also lose their privilege, if he married an Amerindian, though he himself was of a mixed Spanish-Amerindian origin.
As already said, that had something to do with cultural segregation, not with blood.


And the Mestizo having lost his privilege I'm sure found a way to be upper-class filthy rich to be mummified and have his own portrait done, cause that's exactly what happens when you lose your privilege. 8)

It is quite ridiculous how much it pains you and it hurts that the Greeks & Romans were not actually Nordic snowflakes like how you imagined them, it is funny watching you squirm like that.

Take a look at Alexander the Great one more time:

Image

And here are some more Greek portraits of athletes from Arsinoe(a Greek city).

Image

Image
#14720728
@noemon,

as I already mentioned, neither ancient Romans nor ancient Greeks were homogeneous groups, you could find some that were black, like Africans, and some were white, like North Europeans.

I have even pasted a picture from Pompeii with a black man having sex with a white woman.

They kept slaves that were brought from different parts of the world, so what is strange about that? Some Greek cities had as much foreign slaves, as Greeks.

What to Alexander, we know that the mosaic was not original, so why do you present this work of art, created 200 years after the death of Alexander, if there is a sculpture, that was created at the lifetime of Alexander by Lysippos, and Alexander himself liked it?

According to Plutarch Alexander did not look like he was painted by Apelles.

But forget about Alexander, what about other ancient Greeks?

If you read Homer's Odyssey, you will find out that Penelope had white skin and blond hair, as many other personages of this work.

And it is obvious that the mixed descendants of Alexander and his soldiers were Greek citizens, it is idiotic to deny that. It is obvious that after Greeks conquered huge regions with swarthy people, they themselves became swarthy.

Today Greeks are mainly of Slavic origin, they are not as swarthy any more, as they were in the Roman Empire.
#14720873
ArtAllm wrote:@noemon,
as I already mentioned, neither ancient Romans nor ancient Greeks were homogeneous groups, you could find some that were black, like Africans, and some were white, like North Europeans.
I have even pasted a picture from Pompeii with a black man having sex with a white woman.


Sounds like modern German porn.

They kept slaves that were brought from different parts of the world, so what is strange about that? Some Greek cities had as much foreign slaves, as Greeks.


Which ones?

According to Plutarch Alexander did not look like he was painted by Apelles.


Plutarch is even more contemporary than the Mosaic.

If you read Homer's Odyssey, you will find out that Penelope had white skin and blond hair, as many other personages of this work.


If you read anything about Greece you will notice than 90% of people had brown eyes and the blonde is always highlighted as exotic which further confirms that blonde was not widespread.

And it is obvious that the mixed descendants of Alexander and his soldiers were Greek citizens, it is idiotic to deny that. It is obvious that after Greeks conquered huge regions with swarthy people, they themselves became swarthy.


Like the British, the French and the Germans who conquered all of Africa and the Middle-east, so obvious?

Today Greeks are mainly of Slavic origin, they are not as swarthy any more, as they were in the Roman Empire.


I see, cause I'm certain after the Byzantine Emperor blinded the entire Bulgarian army, to gain the cognomen the Bulgar-slayer, they went on a massive inter-breeding campaign or that the same people who established the term Slav/Slave must have been very keen and open in interbreeding.

As an aside I wonder why Slavic and not Venetian, Genovese and Florentine with whom relations were cordial, who defended and occupied the Byzantine Empire and where Greeks chose to migrate? From the South Slavs only the Serbs had privileges but again your imagination of wholesale transformation is certainly misguided. People do not transform on a wholesale scale even if there is a certain level of interbreeding in their nation as we clearly observe all these parametres in the UK, Germany and France but we do not observe wholesale transformations. Your imagination is simply running wild to confirm your biases.
#14721060
Germany and "them Nazis" are off-topic here.
BTW, I neither have blue eyes nor blond hair.
I used to have blond hear as a child, because my father looked very nordic, but my mother looked rather like a mediterranean person, with brown eyes and dark brown hair, and I am a mongrel. My brother and sister have blue eyes and blond hair, but they are mongrels, too, because some of their children have blue eyes, and others have brown eyes.
Blue eyes and blond hair is a recessive trait, and it becomes less and less dominant, because this racial traits were only useful in the glacial period for a limited group of people.

Since the ice began melting many millennia ago, and North Europeans began spreading around the Eurasian continent, they mixed with different other groups, but could not preserve their Nordic racial traits, because these traits are recessive. Because of the high solar radiation of most parts of Eurasia, people with low degree of pigmentation cannot survive on a long run (millennia) without a protection from solar radiation, they have a good chance to die from skin cancer.
The nature has culled out this racial traits which were predominant in the whole of North Eurasia many thousand years ago, there is a lot of archaeological and genetic evidence for that.

That is the reason why around the Eurasian continent low degree of pigmentation is associated with upper classes.

Upper classes did not have to work in the fields, they could protect themselves from the sun in their palaces, they had money for clothes. The lower classes did not have this privilege, that is why the Northern Genes were culled out from their genome, and today in many societies around Asia and South Europe white skin, blue eyes and blond hair is still associated with upper classes.

As we see, there is a simple explanation.

Today Europeans (including Germans) are mongrels, we are descendants of all European tribes that lived in this region before the modern nations were created.
South Germans are mixed descendants of Germanic, Slavic Alpine and Mediterranean tribes.

The same with North Italians.

noemon wrote:Which ones?


In Sparta, for example.
The same was in other Greek cities.

Piso asked as a personal favour that the man should be pardoned, but his request was refused, which made Piso very angry: if Theophilus had been pardoned, the brother would have certainly cancelled the debt. He made a violent Speech in which he said that the latter-day Athenians had no right to identify themselves with the great Athenians of the days of Pericles, Demosthenes, Aeschylus, Plato. The ancient Athenians had been extirpated by repeated wars and massacres and these were mere mongrels, degenerates, and the descendants of slaves.

https://www.amazon.com/I-Claudius-Rober ... B000H85PYQ


noemon wrote:Plutarch is even more contemporary than the Mosaic.


He just quoted the eyewitnesses.
Do you have any explanation why he should invent things?

noemon wrote:If you read anything about Greece you will notice than 90% of people had brown eyes and the blonde is always highlighted as exotic which further confirms that blonde was not widespread.


So you basically agree that there were nordic looking peole in Greece, and that Greeks were of mixed race.

So why are you so stubborn with claiming that the swarthy people, representing Egyptian mummies and some people who lived in ancient Greece are the typical representation of ancient Greeks?

Is it now obvious that the overwhelming majority of Greeks neither looked like Swedes, nor like Ethiopians or Mulattoes?

Here are three picture of Mummies from Egypt:

Image

Image

Image

Is it not obvious that the three person do not belong to the same race?

The young woman may be of predominantly Greek origin, but the man is of predominantly North African origin, the man or woman with the bigger nose looks like an oriental person.

The three persons, who are presumable Greeks, do not have a lot of similarities, even if we ignore the colour of their skin and hair, they are totally different, which is a prove that the Greeks mixed with the peoples in the colonies.

Only the young girl looks like a typical European girl.

The man has rather African nose, hair and lips, the woman has rather Mediterranean nose, lips and hair.


Most Greeks looked like other Mediterranean or South Caucasian people, they were Caucasians with a higher degree of skin, hair and eye pigmentation, than the North Europeans, but they had similar facial traits and a similar scull shape.

According to Renato Biasutti, frequent Mediterranean traits included "skin color 'matte'-white or brunet-white, chestnut or dark chestnut eyes and hair, not excessive pilosity; medium-low stature (162), body of moderately longilinear forms; dolichomorphic skull (78) with rounded occiput; oval face; leptorrhine nose (68) with straight spine, horizontal or inclined downwards base of the septum; large open eyes."[37]

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


Image


noemon wrote:Like the British, the French and the Germans who conquered all of Africa and the Middle-east, so obvious?


Germans did not have significant colonies in Africa, and no Europeans brought any Slaves from the provinces to their European countries in the past, they had a sufficient high birth rate. But we can see today with our own eyes how the people from the colonies will eventually flood the countries of the former colonisers, and how quickly the demographic situation can change.


noemon wrote: People do not transform on a wholesale scale even if there is a certain level of interbreeding in their nation as we clearly observe all these parametres in the UK, Germany and France but we do not observe wholesale transformations.


Well, if the trend continuous, you will see a transformation very soon.

Do not forget that in the case of Greece or Roman empire we are talking about a period that lastet many centuries, after these countries became empires, speak conquered large foreign provinces.

What to modern Europe, they created their empires a couple of centuries ago, but they had enough of white Slaves (called serfs), who were reproducing so quickly, that they could populate North America and Australia.

Today we can see unprecedented quick transformation of Europe, due to the subversion of European institution and general decadence of European culture.

The promotion of degeneracy led to decadence, the decreasing birth rates, and, as a consequence, to the flooding of Europe from people of the former colonies.

In France and England this process began decades ago, people who spoke English or French from former colonies flooded France and England. Today all Europe is flooded, because the European civilisation became very decadent, and therefore prone to subversion.

The late Greek and Roman civilisation were also very decadent, they could not reproduce in sufficient numbers, and that is why they needed foreign Slaves, and after their collapse these empires were flooded with people from the provinces.

Slavic and Germanic tribes were the main people who flooded the Byzantine and Roman Empire, after the Romans and Greeks became decadent, that is why Europe, as a whole, did not significantly change in racial terms, and the European civilisation continued.

Today Europe is flooded with low-IQ-people from backward countries with a very different racial type, and this will be the end of European civilisation, as we knew it, if the trend continuous.

How did the term Caucasian Race come into existence?

Well, it is because the today Georgians and other ethnic groups look similar to the ancient Greek sculptures, regarding their facial traits and scull shapes.

Greek scriptures became the standard of beauty and perfection for Europeans, and European anthropologists could find people who looked like their imagined standard of beauty only on the Southern slopes of Caucasus. That is how the terms "Caucasians" and "white Caucasians" were born.

It is obvious that ancient Greeks looked similar to today Georgians, and the population of ancient Colchis was similar (in racial terms) to the population of ancient Greece. Colchians could preserve their racial traits, because they remained isolated, today Greeks are mongrels who could only preserve the Greek language.


Colchis (/ˈkɒlkɪs/; Georgian: კოლხეთი Kolkheti; Greek Κολχίς Kolkhis) was an ancient kingdom and region on the coast of the Black Sea, centered in present-day western Georgia. It has been described in modern scholarship as "the earliest Georgian formation" which, along with the Kingdom of Iberia, would later contribute significantly to the development of the medieval Georgian statehood and the Georgian nation.[1][2] Internationally, Colchis is perhaps best known for its role in Greco-Roman mythology, most notably as the destination of the Argonauts, as well as the home to Medea and the Golden fleece.[3]
Colchis was populated by Colchians, an early Kartvelian-speaking tribe, ancestral to the contemporary Western Georgians, namely Svans and Mingrelians, as well as the related Lazs.[4]

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


The name "Caucasian" derived from the Southern Caucasus/Transcaucasia region (or what are now the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) because he considered the people of this region to be the archetype (cf. taxonomical "neotype") for the grouping.
...
Caucasian variety—I have taken the name of this variety from Mount Caucasus, both because its neighborhood, and especially its southern slope, produces the most beautiful race of men, I mean the Georgian; and because all physiological reasons converge to this, that in that region, if anywhere, it seems we ought with the greatest probability to place the autochthones (original members) of mankind.[9]

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


As we see, anthropologists did not care a lot about the degree of pigmentation of skin, eyes and hair, they cared about the scull shape and facial traits.

The Georgians rarely have blond hair and blue eyes, they have rather pale skin, but their scull shape and facial traits are very similar to what Europeans believe is the standard of beauty, which was very heavily influenced by the ancient Greece, speak the ancient Greek sculptures.

Here is an example of how typical Georgians from Colchis region look:

Image

Image


Image

Image

Image

Any Europeans would say that these Georgians are beautiful, though they are not blond and do not have blue eyes, because this is the standard of beauty for Europeans.

That has nothing to do with "racism", that is just something subconscious, influenced by the ancient Greek art.

Some today Greeks look like their ancient forefathers, but most portraits of Egyptian mummies do not look like that, and that is the prove that they were of mixed race.

Other races have different standards of beauty, but why should we, Europeans, care about this?
#14721136
ArtAllm wrote:Germany and "them Nazis" are off-topic here.


So why did you mention the Nazis?

In Sparta, for example.
The same was in other Greek cities.


Sparta did not have any non-Greek slaves, the Helots and all their slaves were Achaeans, that is Greeks.

So you basically agree that there were nordic looking peole in Greece, and that Greeks were of mixed race.


I agree that Greek people were swarthy Mediterranean people in their majority and that there were of course some Blonde and Red-haired people among them too.

So why are you so stubborn with claiming that the swarthy people, representing Egyptian mummies and some people who lived in ancient Greece are the typical representation of ancient Greeks?


The swarthy people representing Greek people from Arsinoe are typical representations of Meditterenean people that one expects to find all across the Med.

Is it not obvious that the three person do not belong to the same race?


No it's not.

The three persons, who are presumable Greeks, do not have a lot of similarities, even if we ignore the colour of their skin and hair, they are totally different, which is a prove that the Greeks mixed with the peoples in the colonies.
Only the young girl looks like a typical European girl.
The man has rather African nose, hair and lips, the woman has rather Mediterranean nose, lips and hair.
Most Greeks looked like other Mediterranean or South Caucasian people, they were Caucasians with a higher degree of skin, hair and eye pigmentation, than the North Europeans, but they had similar facial traits and a similar scull shape.


It is not proof that they mixed with people in the colonies, for all we know the white girl could be the mongrel and the darker men the original Greeks, you have manufactured an image in your head and you believe that this image of Nordic-looking original Greeks is for some reason the correct one and any deviation from that image the result of admixture, when in reality it is completely manufactured and evidently false as well.

Germans did not have significant colonies in Africa, and no Europeans brought any Slaves from the provinces to their European countries in the past, they had a sufficient high birth rate. But we can see today with our own eyes how the people from the colonies will eventually flood the countries of the former colonisers, and how quickly the demographic situation can change.


See now you are in denial, they did bring slaves and immigrants to their home countries and their governments and cultural ethos has been a lot less racist than ancient Greek governments and ethos.

Do not forget that in the case of Greece or Roman empire we are talking about a period that lastet many centuries, after these countries became empires, speak conquered large foreign provinces.


It has been more centuries that the British, Germans, French and Dutch have been colonising Africa and the Middle-East than between Alexander and the Arsinoe portraits. Once again you are in denial.

What to modern Europe, they created their empires a couple of centuries ago, but they had enough of white Slaves (called serfs), who were reproducing so quickly, that they could populate North America and Australia.


Again you are in denial, and how is that different with the colonisation undertaken by Greeks who were the largest nation in the antiquity and who had huge quantities of their own Greek serfs/slaves?

The late Greek and Roman civilisation were also very decadent, they could not reproduce in sufficient numbers, and that is why they needed foreign Slaves, and after their collapse these empires were flooded with people from the provinces.


The collapse happened in 1453 AD. :eh:

It is obvious that ancient Greeks looked similar to today Georgians, and the population of ancient Colchis was similar (in racial terms) to the population of ancient Greece. Colchians could preserve their racial traits, because they remained isolated, today Greeks are mongrels who could only preserve the Greek language.


Again your image is manufactured because some German romantics found their idealised forms of humans in Georgia. Greece has changed hands once since the Roman Empire. Georgia has changed hands about 30 times since the antiquity.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

And you wonder why conservatives and libertarians[…]

This is fucking disgusting. Hard times bring out […]

Jacinda vs ScoMo

I agree with Ardern. Traditionally Australia and N[…]

There's definitely a difference between austerity […]