17 July, 2007

IRANIAN FOR ARYANS: The Racial Basis of Civilization: A Critique of the Nordic Doctrine

Posted by alex in Iranian for Aryans at 3:40 pm | Permanent Link

The Racial Basis of Civilization: A Critique of the Nordic Doctrine

 

By Iranian for Aryans

 

I read this work by the sociologist Frank Hankins about three weeks ago. The subtitle interested me. I, a Nordicist, wanted to review this work that I read well nigh a decade ago.

 

Overall, my (not very erudite) opinion (I did a lot of skimming) on this work is overwhelmingly positive. He has a great deal of insight into the many vagaries, sillinesses, and contradictions of classical Nordicist treatises, a la Grant, Stoddard, and H.S. Chamberlain. Be that as it may, I thought Hankins too virulent on his attack against Nordicism. Perhaps this is due simply to my espousal of such a view? Maybe, but I think that he didn’t drive the positive points of Nordicism home, something to the effect, “Yes, the creative elements of Europe are not overwhelmingly “pure” Nordics, like the Scandinavian-types, however, almost all (if not all) creative elements have Nordic genes.” Further, in support of my Nordicist view, Hankins doesn’t make note of the fact that Nordic countries are ahead of their Alpine and Med. cohorts. Indeed, though he is right, namely, that pure Nordics are not the majority of the creators, still the majority of the creators are overwhelmingly Nordic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I wish Hankins would have done work on “non-White” civilizations, say like those of the Pacific and the New World. If he would have delved into that, he would have found a blow or setback at the minimum to his anti-Nordicist treatise; e.g., Nordics created the civilizations of the Americas plus those of the Pacific. So, I might ask Hankins where the Alpines and Meds were in these doings. Incidentally, Meds have had transactions on the west coast of Africa and the New World, but Nordics have been proclaimed as the progenitors of these “indigenous” civilizations.

 

To the above, we can also include the Nordics who ran “amuck” in ancient Egypt, western China (Xinjiang Province), and elsewhere in the Old World. Those Nordics brought their intrepid wunderlust and creative abilities to the native peoples. Yes, perhaps the Nordic Warrior-Kings might not have been Scandinavian-types, but they were Nordic, nonetheless; vide the blue-eyed Buddha, the blue-eyed Bodhidharma (founder of Zen Buddhism and Martial Arts; I am going to write about this in a journal in the near future), and whatnot. Historically, Nordics have been the upper-crust of non-Nordic societies.

 

Notwithstanding what I have written so far, I do think that Hankins was a bit “soft” on the “race business”. He wrote something to the effect that America will be blessed by high-ranking Chinese, Hebrews, and Indians, and that it’s our sociological prejudice that would not allow such intrusion of foreigners and their eventual, and beneficial, amalgamation.

 

Obviously, I’m dead against this kind of mixing. Yes, intraracial mixing is beneficial if done between sound stocks, say, Germans and Swedes or Danes and Brits, as they are both Nordics.

 

Anyway, the Japanese are a living example that miscegenation does not necessarily lead to sordid affairs, say like mulattos, but can lead to an honorable, sedulous people. I think such a mix has resulted in a loss of Nordic creativity. Overall, I’m vehemently against Japanese mixing w/Nordics as it dilutes Nordic creativity, yet, I still realize that there’s racial mixing and then there’s racial mixing.


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 07/16/07 IRANIAN FOR ARYANS: Common Sense and Fatigue 42% similar
  3. 03/14/08 Iranian for Aryans on ‘Beowulf’ 40% similar
  4. 09/03/06 Book Review: “The Kite Runner” 10% similar
  5. 10/10/06 Letter: On Your Introductory Speech for the Portland Lovecraft Film Festival 9% similar
  6. 07/13/09 Whites: Always Giving Non-Whites a Boost 4% similar
  7. 9 Responses to “IRANIAN FOR ARYANS: The Racial Basis of Civilization: A Critique of the Nordic Doctrine”

    1. greywolf Says:

      “WOW”

    2. Stronza Says:

      Every race, every last little sub-race too, has an inherent right to keep to itself and keep genetically pure just because. It doesn’t matter whether or not the “sound stocks”who are mixing come up with something better. These new people will be hybrids and it takes hybrids a long, long time to stabilize to the point where they could be considered a “pure” race. Same as plants, which is where my interest in this topic initially lay.

      In gardening circles, they make a fuss over “heirloom” or “heritage” varieties of tomatoes and everything else that people grow on a small scale – flowers, tubers, grains, etc. Very few bother to consider that that heirloom tomato, whose seeds are saved at the giant Seed Savers Exchange in Decorah, Iowa, at one point, many years ago, had 2 parents that were quite different. The breeder had to patiently grow out the variety for at least 50 years before it could be considered an heirloom, ie, it had to reproduce true-to-type for 50 generations. (Mind you, I do know that professional plantbreeders have a way of speeding up things, so that they can go thru a few generations in one caldendar year.)

      When it comes to us, however, a generation is about 20 years. So, do the math.

      Is it good enough for any blue-eyed, light-haired folk to reproduce, or should we, to be consistent with our ideology, restrict ourselves to people of our own ethnicity, those of us who can trace our ethnicity back quite a few generations? The writer of the article above referred to mixing between Danes and Brits but it’s all okay because they are all Nordics. I’m not so sure – aren’t the Brits a mulligan’s stew if there ever was one?

      I don’t think that keeping to your own ethnic group, where having children is concerned, would present a problem with inbreeding, as someone (in my household) suggested, since all the white ethnicities are pretty well represented number-wise. Of course, in theory, after a long period of time, some slackjawed, weakchinned, pointy-headed kids could start showing up, and then they’ll have to relax and find someone outside of their ethnic group to improve it. Not unlike the actions of those who I shall not name. .

      Just rhetorical questions and grist for the mill.

    3. HLH Says:

      I, a Nordicist, wanted to review this work that I read well nigh a decade ago.

      You just blew your cover you little crypto-kike shit stirrer.

      Real “Nordicists” don’t call themselves “Nordicists” because “Nordicist” is a pejorative term.

      Yet another pathetic attempt by Hymie to pit Nordics against non-Nordics is exposed for what it is.

    4. Hengest Says:

      I agree with Iranian there.
      I am not classically Nordic myself, but I am most definately WHITE and I take no offence by his post for I believe that the Nordics are the aristocracy of the white race. Though I think that Germanic would be a better classification than Nordic, for how many great inventors, artists, composers, engineers, architects or philosophers can you name who hale from Skandenavia?
      Most come from Germany, Austria, England, France, Italy and America.

    5. Reck- Less, Abandon Says:

      Sweden: Sharia-Supporters and Transvestites of the World Unite!

      http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=3031&cid=3&sid=102

    6. DQ Says:

      America use to be the allstar team of europe(and hopefully will be agen). European mixing in america is a good thing, the best european people in america try to breed with the best americans regardless of which section of europe they came from.

    7. Fr John Says:

      Think of it this way. Biblically speaking, you bred within your tribe (nation/ethnos). If no suitable bride was found, you could go to another ‘related’ tribe (European nation). But the boundaries of permissable couplings were confined to the ’12 tribes’ (what the Christian Identity call the 12 ‘nations of Europe’) either way, marriage mates are basically confined to those who are within a specific geography (from the Bosporus to the Gibraltar straights) and within one race (white). It is a paradigm that is both, historical, religiously, racially,a nd culturally workable, and yet still offers a RIOT of ‘diversity.’ As if that really matters, though……(Think locally, act racially)

    8. clinton Says:

      “to the Gibraltar straights”

      . . .in contradistinction to the Gibraltar queers?. . .

      S T R A I T S

    9. giles Says:

      to Fr John, and any others-

      Please list by name the “12 nations of Europe”, and also list their corresponding Hebrew names.