The Sicilian Question

Shoah yourself hooknose

It's a thought exercise more than it a realistic thing that's going to happen. I'm not personally suggesting that, just asking what the people who do, think of Sicilians
Well personally I think that white Europeans are welcome in reasonable quantities to emigrate to America given they integrate. I don't see why this is an issue.
No one talked about trade, mate.

calm down, faggot, I was just asking a question and providing both sides to the argument.

Gas yourself, moron.

...

I`ll say that we either kill`m all or we put in a naval blockade and have them breed the nigger out.

We had enough to this >X white shilling on cuckchan

You have to go back

It's not just overall genetic similarities that matter, but the general character of said race. If you get the same group of people and split them into 3, and convert each to Christianity, Judaism and Islam, all three are going to come out with different general characteristics molded by their religions.

Sicilians have plenty of Middle eastern and North African inter mixture, but are Christian and are therefore significantly influenced by the character of the religion. They're obviously going to act better than your average Syrian rapefugee.

They are nevertheless more prone to violence and crime as shown from regional statistics. The anecdote is that Sicily is the Ghetto of Italy.

Personally, I would solve the problem by having a government program that inclines the smarter and more peaceful to have more children, and the more violent and dumber to have less. Perhaps a childless tax on high-income individuals, or subsidized sterilizations.

long term eugenics program to clean up the island

Sicilians live in Sicily.
Problem solved.

sicilians and everybody south of rome is not white, take this from a lombardian

>I've Just Seen The Dennis Hopper Scene From True Romance

...

Op here

But what about the Sicilians living in other white countries like America or Canada? Obviously chinks, arabs, and other non-whites need to be expelled, but should Sicilians be given any special allowance?

explain the people posted in this link then and the ones in the OP. These people "look h'white to me"
italicroots.lefora.com/topic/375/Southern-italians-how-we-really-look

I'm OP, not him.

realistically what portion of the population are? That would need to be answer, is it even 1%?
It'd be a problem if they represented a large portion of the population, but I doubt they do considering Germans and Anglos are by far the majority of European descended North Americans in terms of heritage

People in those pics look quite white (minus few).

I'm a different person

Not even Neapolitans? Damn. I though it was just Sicily.
Then, what would be your Solution to the Southern Italian problem?

I have no idea what should be done with the Sicilians in the US to be honest. There seems to be quite a lot of them.

at a quick glance, Americans of Italian descent are at most 5% of the US population 17 million or so people
That's just Italian, not distinguished by region, so really they aren't really much of a problem in the US which is being overrun by nigs, spics, and arabs

It's a tricky question. If Turks are not white (I think we all agree here) but some of them at least optically look more white than Sicilians and even Greeks, how do you deal with that?

You definitely need a firm rule and can't just make it based on how individuals look. I say some countries and regions are just included, some have to be excluded. If you end up on the wrong side of that, bad luck.

Those are descendants of Balkan people that got brought there during Ottoman Empire, as well as those who's native genes overpowered the mud ones (Western Turkey was white before the shitskin hordes arrived)

Turks have about 10% East Asian admixture and around 10% Semitic admixture (Actually less than Sicily I'm afraid) which increases to 20% in the southern places like Alexandria.

bad example pictures, there are much much darker Italianos….and lots of them.

Well, that depends on which definition of race you use.
It's generally accepted that the definition we use for white race is a group of people who have a closer genetic, cultural and historical relation to each other, even though biologically speaking there are several "races" within our concept of white race.
By that definition, yes, sicilians, Iberians and Cypriots are white.

Yes but the bottom line to me is they aren't white. So if you apply that standard to them, do you have to be careful about applying it to others? Personally I think you can make some arbitrary decisions on that too.

Whaaaaaat? Dude, the Moors rape and pillaged their ass. They look like niggers, because they're niggers… like that 49'ers quaterback.

Now shitskins are back landing in Sicily so in

what's interesting is that they still managed to preserve quite a high average IQ, in fact even higher than in some more northern countries. I personally hate Italians, but that's because they send all the trash north….these are basically like turks and arabs without the explosions.

I don't know. The link I posted here seems to show Southern Italians as quite white. I don't think Italy has been completely overrun, but in the far far South there's a very clear North African genetic presence
Allowed to remain but not allowed to have children unless they score within a certain European/white genetic percentage? Sicilians are far less of a problem than the rest of the non-whites flooding our nations, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be barred from immigration (at least on a case-by-case basis)

Well I think that the boundaries should definitely be Europe, but with certain limits depending on region, like Sicily

moors were never niggers. This is an afro-centrist lie. Moors were North Africans/Arabs, and they account for about 20% (give or take some) of Sicilian DNA. There are some white sicilians, but also very arab looking ones.

Yeah, these Italians are a known phenomenon. The fact is that rural Italians (you will find your average shitlib in the cities) have a highly tribal worldview for today's standards, so I like to theorize that these as should Italians are the pariahs of their families, being thrown away from the "tribe" for whatever reason and moving North to escape the "oppressive Italian culture" or whatever.

bump

If race is more than skin deep why the fuck does so much of Holla Forums get caught up in Sicilians etc. being slightly darker than Northern Europeans?

If I were in charge of Italy, I would implement a racial program to whiten up southern Italy. Send excess white men to southern Italy to impregnate the south Italy women.

But I'm not in charge of Italy so it doesn't matter.

Lol, no. Race Uber alles. Middle Eastern Christians are just as subhuman as middle Eastern Muslims.

the moors were half-berber half arab iirc

If anyone wants to see what almost pure Neolithic farmer stock looks like, look up picture of Sardinians. They are 90% Neolithic farmers. And they look much whiter than a lot of southern Italians.

From the title alone I can already tell it is either a shill or Holla Forums

Modern Greeks and Southern Spanish are no whiter than Sicilians. Given their low numbers and historically Christian European identity, I believe peripheral Europeans, including the 5-10% Mongoloid Eastern Slavs, can be given a honorary white status at this point in history. This should be a one-time allowance which cannot be expanded to any future population, and should be followed by immediate global genocide in order to prevent any further contamination.

I would still not consider peripheral Europeans to be the equals of Northwestern Europeans. In the future global European Reich, I believe that "Core Europeans" should be given preferential settlement rights to high value colonial territory and that a eugenic regime should be put in place which recognizes the higher genetic worth of the Aryan phenotype and discourages admixture. I advocate for a Eugenic policy which would ensure that non-Aryan peripheral Europeans should never exceed 10% of the population of our future European Reich. Despite their lower caste status, I believe that peripheral Europeans should be allowed to preserve their genetic continuity within their historical homelands in perpetuity, and should be granted many new colonial settlements in formerly non-white territories.

Or we could just find some Hitler DNA and use clones of him and only him to populate the earth, while exterminating everyone else

Many of them are about 20% Middle Eastern North African

Modern Greeks and Spaniards are genetically the same as they were in ancient times. If you wish to exclude them as white, then you have to reject their cultural contributions to our civilisation. There are many whites living in Southern Europe - in fact I would say the majority of them are (until you get into the deep, deep south like in Sicily). Greeks in general have typical Mediterranean European features, but are far more prone to tanning, which gives them a darker swarthy appearance after heavy sun exposure. They also cluster with other Europeans and not turks or other Middle Easterners as you can see in the graph in the OP. Nordics are not the only type of white European, and they are by no means "more pure" than Italians, spianiards, or Greeks.
Russians only have about 1-2% mongoloid admixture at most. Some foreign admixture is also present in many Europeans, so this is essentially noise. A caste system like you propose is unnecessary and needlessly divisive. All it can do is breed resentment and work against the interests of white racial unity. Your definition of "core European" is also rather flawed, considering Europe has never been a gradient of "pure" nordics to "mixed" people on the fringes. In ancient times, Europe was colonised by three populations - Northwestern Hunter-Gatherers, Neolithic farmers, and Yamnaya people, all of which mixed in various quantities to produce the populations we see today. Southern Europeans simply have a higher concentration of Neolithic farmer DNA than nords, giving them a darker appearance in general, but by no means making them "non-white arab rape-babies". The only place in Europe with heavy Middle Eastern admixture is Sicily, which has been proven by genetic testing and "DNA kits" like 23andme.

Hitler was only one character in a Germanic expansion which began in Denmark 2000 years ago and reached the moon at its peak. The expansion has been temporarily delayed but the underlying genetic reality has not changed. It is our destiny to conquer.

sicilians are subhuman savages who should be genocided, just like all southern italians

wew lad

Modern Greeks actually have at the highest 10% Semitic admixture, and Iberians 10% North African admixture.

source please.

Sure. We can divide europe between the 4th reich and the New Roman Empire.
north euros were arguably less relevant than south euros up to the industrial revolution, with a short period of relevance in the 600-900

our relation should be of an amicable rivalry, like how cousins behave in a healthy family

Not an argument. How many terrorist attacks or rapes are there from Christian Middle Easterners? I'm not saying they should be admitted in to Europe or the US or anything like that.

Europedia

It's best to take the individual approach. See what the dominant genes are. People with dominant white genes can easily dissolve into the general white population after few generations (provided the nation remains racially homogeneous and there is no further mixing with lesser races). It would be good to settle ethnic Germans (or some similar nation) in Sicily for example, to "whiten out" their genes. Same goes for Greece and similar European countries.

That would actually improve the overall genetics of white people, as you could combine the genetic variety with racial purity.

Those with dominant African/Arab/Semitic genes need to go back to the lands of their ancestors.

i'd send ~80% to the chambers

can you be more specific, please? That "Semitic admixture" could very well be neolithic haplogroups shared by both Middle Easterners and some Southern Europeans from ancient migration patterns. The image in the OP clearly shows that Greeks cluster with Europeans.

come-on-now.jpg

Sicilians tend to all congregate together. Depending on where you live, they might seem like they are everyone or you might have never seen them.

Thats what the ottomans have done, except that it was used to darken europeans/whiten middle easterners to achieve a "homogenous socity".

"Southwest Asian Admixture"

I'm pretty sure the Ottomans just took white slaves, but didn't have a large program of ethnic homogenisation.

They did both. However, im talking about several "goverment programs" that involved moving several ethnic groups within the empire's border.it consisted in taking people from armenia sending to egypt, some from greece and sending them to lybia, and of course, taking arabs and sending them to western anatolia/balkans.

The Etruscans (North of Rome) were of semitic origin too
Hannibal was North African, but most likely would hardly consider himself as resembling the modern inhabitants of Tunisia. Those terms don't really hold that much meaning honestly. The ancient world that Greece was centred around was very much a different place to our modern conceptions.

Over its 500 years of occupation Turks did spread their shit throughout Northern Greece and Bulgaria in particular, though with population exchanges during the modern period ethnicity and political borders more or less match up nowadays.

Also I should mention, arguably Turks aren't even "Turkic" per se, other than culturally and religious-wise, and that the Turkic invasions into Anatolia didn't actually leave much of a genetic impact. The modern inhabitants of Anatolia probably have a very similar genetic profile to the inhabitants of the region that were originally Hellenized more than 2000 years prior.

More than from white Christians.

if there was such a program of mixing, then how come Greeks still cluster with other Europeans and physically match their ancient counterparts

are those children Turkish? I wonder how they look so Germanic

This is obviously not true, though this cannot be tested until genetic sequencing technology has advanced to the point where high-quality DNA can be recovered from warm-climate burials. Once ancient Greek DNA is successfully sequenced, I am certain that it will reveal modern Greeks as the descendants of Near Eastern refugees from the Arab expansions. Much historical evidence exists for substantial population turnover within the Byzantine empire during the Arab expansions.

As far as I am concerned, the ancient near-eastern farmers which are the source of the majority of Southern European ancestry are no less a contamination than any more recent kebab admixture.

This has been the case since the Germanic expansions.

Southern Europeans are also behind Northern Europeans in every possible measure of civilizational complexity, they are objectively a lower form of human.

The caste system is an acknowledgment of reality. I am willing to grant Southern Europeans a privileged status because of our shared culture and ancestry, but Northern Europeans don't need Southern Europeans, we can easily plow you over just like all of the other non-whites. It is in your interest to accept the caste system.

Turns out the ottomans didnt have modern administration techniques to make a large impact into some of the white populations.

Also, the greeks deported them all in the early 1900s.

They are the descendants of the last Sultan.
Their Harems obviously were stacked with white wimminz, so of course they got white washed. Same goes for the whole of Turkey. They were Greekified, the Greeks didn't Turkify.

These studies have already been done, and have blown it out of the water. Sadly I can't upload pdfs here. But keep your kike lies for yourself in the future. Greek-Turk mingling was one-way. Greeks that mixed converted to islam and became Turks, Turks that mixed stayed mudslime. As muslims obviously can't leave their faith.

Iberia and Sicilia are another story, as when they were reconquered the invaders had to opportunity to convert to kikestianity now that the muslim authorities had been driven out, which too many did convert instead of leaving. This didn't happen with the Greeks, as they deported all of the muslims

Greentext is a response to

Make Sicily its own country with the right to defend its border. And the right to drown them.

All your problems solved.

Yep, keep that shit in your containment continent, Amerisrael.

My mothers side is half sicilian and scottish and fathers is anglo-saxon

am i white?

t.also looks like mister bean

Up to the french revolution spain was the world's superpower, and untill 1700 italy was the center of cientific progress.
During the vast majority of history, south europe has been more important than north europe, even after the shitskin invasions.

About how white or non-white is Calabria as an Italian town? My dad's parents were from there, and I've been told it's near Sicily.

except it is. Modern Greeks resemble their ancient counterparts and cluster closely with Europeans compared to Middle Easterners, as shown by the picture in the OP.
Well then you would be wrong
such as? ancient busts and art all resemble modern Greeks very closely
So you're a historically illiterate nordicist. Good to know
No it hasn't. Europe literally never was purely nordic. Pic related
Southern Europeans built the foundations of all of European civilisation
Of what "reality"? Your nonsensical, a-historical nordicism?
I'm not a Southern European, though. I'm an Anglo/Russian.
also
fuck off.
How is it in the interests of our whole racial community to divide ourselves between ever-deceasing lines of non-existent "aryan purity"

Go back to brit/pol/, faggot.

That would make you a quarter Sicilian, who are already 80%+ European. I would consider you white.

Calabria is in the big toe of the boot, so its genetic composition is pretty much the same as sicily.

The Spanish empire was already way in decline by then. They still had their colonies though.

google.ca/search?q=calabria people&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlyd3Z_6DPAhVKyoMKHbtsDAYQ_AUICCgB&biw=1422&bih=806&dpr=0.9

These people look like typical white Mediterraneans to me.

I fucking laughed at this part. Either LARPing faggot or D&C. You're not a geneticist, you're an austist who has a few picture on his hard drive.

Kill yourself, my man.

This has gotta be bait. Please tell me this is bait.

for

The demographic destruction of America doesn't change what fundamentally defines it, you brit/pol/ faggot.

Because sicilians are typical white mediterraneans.

The british empire was already in decline by the 1900s, yet they still were the world's superpower and had their colonies. What's your point?

Sicilians look far less white than what I saw when I googled calabrians, though.

...

Yes, everyone who calls out your bullshit is a brit/pol/ faggot. Apparently even Kek.

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

where do you think the farmers came from, user?

Dubs dont lie.

Damn, Estonians are mesolithic af.

But American culture and institutions are Jewish. It is a Jewish nation populated by shitskins. A Judeo-nigger empire.

Agreed. Sicilians, Maltese and Sardinians are as white as Lebanese. That is to say, they aren't.

Also I consider Romania, Bulgaria/Macedonia, Albania, Greece and the entire former Yugoslavia - yes, including Slovenia - borderline white at best. I'd be happy to be in some political/trade/defense union with them, but I don't want free movement of people with them.

Spaniards are surprisingly Moor-free considering their history.

fam

France is white. Their darkness comes from Iberoid blood, which in the way that matters (ie intellect) is white. Different from Sicilians who are dark because they're basically Moorish quadroons.

Different again from Balkanoids; who may be mostly "native" blood, but that "native" blood is the product of heavy admixture with prehistoric Near Eastern people: hence the IQ hovering halfway between Central Europe and the Near East. You know there was no Bosphorous Strait, originally.

That's because the Muslim conquest of Spain was mostly through mass conversions, for example, mercenary groups could work for both those on the christian side, and those on the Muslim side because they were essentially the same people just different religions. The greatest hero in Spanish history/folklore is "El Cid" who started off as a mercenary who worked for both the king of Castile, and some Muslim lords before betraying them and taking Valencia for the Christians.

The swarthy features come from their Iberian blood

yes, because movies have always been a valid source of historical knowledge

You could say a lot of the same things about Germany or Britain, tbh.

Are pics related not white to you? Sardinians are the purest example of neolithic farmers. They are not genetically related to lebanese people at all. See the graphs here
This is questionable, considering all of these groups cluster with other Europeans very closely and not middle Easterners. These peoples were never nordic either, so to assume they became "less nordic" over time due to mixing is also false.

If Balkanoids are so close to the rest of Europe genetically, then it goes to show that a little goes a long way.

Same with Sardinians. If Europe were populated with Sardinians, we'd be Muslim and China would rule the world.

PS:
Yeah and all Poles look like Swedes, right?

Let's just ignore science and call everyone JIDF or a shill

The problem here is that, Holla Forums is not one person, so these threads won't lead us anywhere where we can ALL agree, there are those who will say X is not white, and those who will say otherwise, and it will remain that way forever.

Science, DNA, facts be dammed.

During most of history, the population of Southern Europe outnumbered the population of Northern Europe 10 to 1. It was only after the introduction of the heavy plow into Northern Europe during the late middle ages that Northern Europe became demographically competitive with the south. Once demographic parity was reached between Northern and Southern Europe, the south ceased to be civilizationally competitive.

Putting an arbitrary circle around various disparate populations and labelling it "Whites" is not evidence of genetic continuity on the Greek peninsula. As far as a know, no ancient Greek DNA has yet been successfully sequenced.

There are historical accounts of Levantine Christian refugees flooding into Greece during the Arab expansions.

We are working on it.

These achievements took place only after substantial Aryan admixture and came to an end when the northern populations with higher Aryan admixture reached demographic parity with the south.

Because Northern Europeans are far more capable than Southern Europeans. Any movement which equates Northern Europeans with shiftless spaghetti niggers is doomed to failure. We can have an alliance with Southern Europeans, but it can never be a union of equals, pretending otherwise will just result in parasitism, as Greeks now parasite off of Germans, or Southern Italians and Southern Spanish parasite off of Northern Italians and Northern Spanish. We must acknowledge racial reality in order to have a realistic movement.

A migration of degos into Northern Europe would be almost as harmful as a migration of wogs. Southern Europeans have very little to contribute, they are scientifically, economically, militarily, physically and aesthetically inferior to Northern Europeans, a movement that pretends otherwise is doomed to failure. The only way that a "white-nationalist" ideology can work is with the inclusion of a complex caste system which acknowledges intra-racial genetic variation, most importantly, the north-south cline in intelligence.

reluctantapostate.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/mapping-the-2009-pisa-results-for-spain-and-italy/

hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/northern-vs-southern-spanish-iq-redux/

what facts are you basing this off of? Southern Europeans, you know the ones who built Roman and Greek civilisation, are primarily neolithic farmer unlike their nordic counterparts, who have a higher quantity of yamnay and Western Hunter-gather DNA. Sardinians are the purest example of neolithic farmers alive today.
Because they are not nordic they're suddenly worthless shitskins? Now you're just spouting d&c garbage and unnecessarily dragging your European racial brothers through the mud.
Got any evidence to back that claim up, my dude?
I literally googled "Sardinian people" and picked a bunch of photos on the first page.

How? By letting Jamal into your own country? Or Sweden does not count as a nordic country?

Is that so? Spaniard here, do you know when the Muslims managed to snag half of Spain from the Spaniards? When the Visigoths came in and took over, their constant in-fighting left the doors open for a Muslim invasion, not to mention, do you know who was in charge of the spanish crown when the spanish empire was in it's decay due to careless expending? The Bourbon Monarchy, not exactly Spanish, and it's not like the Habsburg did any better before their last heir was too sickly to even have children.

Now I am from northern Spain, and I've been around the country, you see, there's a wide range of features in Spain, from light to dark, in the north west there's the highest concentration of light features, northwest has a mix of both light and dark, the center has an even bigger mix of both light and dark, and in the very south is all dark, mostly given to the fact that it has served as a bridge between African and Europe, so a lot of the inhabitants there are straight up moors that have crossed the border recently.

Look at WW2, the only fascist regime to survive the onslaught was the Spanish and Portuguese, and the Spanish regime was not as active in the war, but it did help out Germany against the Russians, my grandfather fought in Stalingrad for example.

There's some Nordic mixture in Spain but in all my years, it's never truly made a difference, there is no magic "nord gene" that makes someone an ubermesnch.

What it does is prove that Greeks cluster closely with other Europeans compared to Turks and other middle Easterners, who very clearly have their own distinct genetic cluster. if Greeks were the same as Middle Easterners, then they would cluster with Middle Easterners, but this is not the case.
So basically you're using ignorance and making outlandish, a-historical claims to assert that ancient Greeks were Aryans, despite the fact that all art, statues, and self-descriptions show that greeks are the same as their modern counterparts.
Source?
Hang yourself.
Literally no proof of this exists. No historical, anthropological, or genetic evidence suggests Mediterranean greatness came from Aryans. This is just nordicist nonsense not backed up by reality.
Yeah, using the technology, techniques, knowledge, and administration frameworks all built in Southern Europe during the Roman periods. By your own logic, it took the achievements of Southern Europeans just for Northern Europeans to grow in population. If nords were inherently so superior, then why did they not arrive at this level of sophistication on their own before Southerners? You just explain this away by saying "Romans were aryans" when there isn't a single ounce of proof to suggest this.

And there's surely no bias in the photographers' choice of subjects, because fair eyes in a sea of swarthies won't stand out at all. Just like all Afghans have blonde hair and green eyes.

And that's a good analogy, actually. Persia was built by Aryans. Then they miscegenated with locals. Now they have a third world IQ and third world prospects.

And the analogy goes further. Fair Afghans, though less stupid than shitskinised ones, are still quite stupid. It's quite obvious if you let go of your big tent bias and engage your fucking brain as to why they, and the balkanoid people, despite being so similar to us, are much stupider than us. Simply, they've not gone through the environmental rigors of the northern Europeans: specifically, the brutal ice age, which was VERY recent in our genetic past. Thus they are more mentally primitive despite being genetically similar.

No amount of wishful thinking or holding up exceptional balkaniggers can hide this fact. I don't advocate alienating balkanoids from us, but they shouldn't intermix with us. They are inferior. Or "different", if you prefer. If they belong to anybody, they belong to a Turkey shorn of Kurdistan.

kek

What's with those numbers in Hungary?

You do realize that Galicia is where the biggest nordic admixture exists right? And it's below Murcia, which is located in the south.

This is just manlet rage. The Nord can't handle that there are people taller than him, but who don't have blonde hair so he decides on this.

Source?
The degeneration of IQ is likely the result of Islam promoting inbreeding.
This is not even a scientific term. It's just a made up categorization.

All you're doing is spouting a bunch of subjective, scientifically-illiterate, ideologically-driven nonsense backed up by nothing other than your own feelings and ignorance. What scientific evidence to you have to back up your statement "are much stupider than us. Simply, they've not gone through the environmental rigors of the northern Europeans: specifically, the brutal ice age"? In ancient times after the ice age had ended, it wasn't nords building the great European civilisations, but Southern Europeans. How does your "nordic vigour from the ice age" theory hold up there? All you are doing is spouting d&c bullshit to further slice our racial community into ever-decreasing-in-size sects. If you wish to disregard all of Southern Europe as "not pure enough", then you should stop associating their contributions to our civilisation.

Greeks were an invading population from the north: specifically the Danube. They considered themselves invaders, not natives. They were fair-haired. They took local peoples as slaves, and had taboos against breeding with them.

Civilisation flourished in the Near East first, because civilisation is a product of the resource abundance coming from agriculture. This isn't a sign that they are superior. An agrarian society needs few people of exceptional intellect, and indeed too many is politically destabilising.

This is no longer the case. Now we need as many bright men as we can get. Balkanoids are found wanting. Near Easterners are downright incapable of 21st century society without eugenic pogroms.

Not blonde. There have been more great men with brown hair in modern history than blonde. But certainly Western and Northern European master race, yes.

/thread

It's a non-issue. There are only 5 million people on the whole island. Even if the whole island emptied out and came to America, that would be less than half the size of the illegal mestizo population alone. There simply aren't enough of them to cause a problem even in that worst-case scenario.

The bigger issue with your post is the phrase "white countries like America". It makes some sense to treat America as just being white and accept European immigrants regardless of nationality (it's arguable that it was really meant to be a specifically Anglo-Saxon nation, but we'll leave that aside for now). It does not make any sense at all to treat European countries like that. France is specifically for the French (in an ideal, uncucked Europe). There's no obligation for them to take in non-French immigrants if it doesn't serve the interests of the French. Whether Sicilians trying to immigrate to France are white or not is sort of a moot point, because they're not French.

We Southern Italians are a lot Whiter than you Scandinavian pricks. Enjoy letting Jamal rape your family in the name of tolerance and diversity you bleached niggers.

Those "clusters" are completely arbitrary. Modern Greeks are objectively genetically closer to Turks than to Northern Europeans.

Actually, most colorized ancient Greek statues look significantly whiter than modern Greeks. Besides, the ancient Greeks were generally considered by contemporaries to have been the smartest people in the world, in contrast, modern Greeks are generally considered to be shiftless kebabs. Population turnover is the most likely explanation for these discrepancies, though we will have to wait a bit longer for genetic confirmation.

I had a source in mind but I can't find it. It was a Byzantine princess who wrote that Northern Greece had become "overrun by muddy waters" during the refugee crisis caused by the Arab conquests.

Here is an example that I did find:

books.google.com/books?id=IvPVEb17uzkC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=christian refugees from islamic conquests&source=bl&ots=Td7VD8QW4Q&sig=b0xpjqXd3WMJC6DX53tG9SamgdE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYvJCYl6HPAhUCOT4KHUVwAas4ChDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=christian refugees from islamic conquests&f=false

Aryans exterminated the farmers in Northern Europe and became the military aristocracy that ruled over the farmers in Southern Europe. The elite culture of the ancient Greeks and Romans was distinctly Aryan. Their language, religion, social organization and military tactics can all be traced back to the Aryans. As for genetics, the first pic in your own post here shows Aryan admixture in Southern Europe, admixture which I believe was higher in the past.

Actually, it was the Chinese heavy plow that made Northern European soils usable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carruca

It is true that Northern Europeans built their civilization on the technological and institutional capital which was amassed by more ancient high-density Southern civilizations, but Southern Europeans had done the same, building their civilization on innovations introduced by even more ancient and densely populated Near Eastern civilizations. Northern Europeans are smarter than Southern Europeans, who in turn, were smarter than the Near Easterners, but the Near Easterners lived in the native territory of wheat and had an Early demographic advantage over northern peoples. It took the genetically superior Southern Europeans many millenia to overtake the Near Easterners in terms of population density, just as Southern Europeans have now been eclipsed by the more intelligent Northern Europeans.

Who gives a fuck what they think, they are fucking idiots that shouldn't be paid any heed.

Fucking hell why can't we go back to old 8/pol/ before cuckchan invaded?

If Egypt was black I guess it's not that much of a stretch to claim Greece and Rome were Nordic.

Can you provide a source for this claim? This just sounds like a load of nordicist bollox. All ancient art, busts, and self-descriptions indicate a Mediterranean origin of the Greek people. Please ignore the anti-nazi, anti-nordic nonsense on this website and scroll down to the comparison between ancient statues and modern Greeks. I think it gives a good comparison.

hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/204/paintings-ancient-greeks-evi-sarantea

I disagree. Resources obviously help, but civilisation is a product of the racial vigour of the people that produce it. Sub-Saharan Africa is resource rich, but they never produced any successful civilisation.
This just sounds like a load of back-pedaling to me. So in one breath you're arguing that Greeks really were nordics to lay claim to their greatness, and in the next you're saying that Greek civilisation isn't proof of any greatness because "an agrarian society needs few people of exceptional intellect". Which one is it? I thought that non-agrarian societies correlated directly with the primitivity of a people such as North American Indians or Sub-Saharan Africans.
So this is just more goal-post shifting. I also see you continue to use "balkanoid" as if it's a scientific term, when it's just same made up classification you've created.
No one is talking about near-easterners. Lebanese people, Syrians and Turks are near-easterners, not Greeks Italians, or people from the Balkans.

That's why I distinguished America when I said "white countries". European nations have every reason to maintain their particular identities and do not have an obligation to allow other Europeans immigrate, but in the context of America which has developed more of an organic "white identity", I think the question is appropriate.

And we should take your word for it because? Where's the proof for that.

[Citation Needed]

WE WUZ ROMANS N SHEEEEEEEEEEEIT
t. Scandinavian

It's amazing how every ancient civilization was Nordic.

But as soon as reliable historical records appear, no Scandinavian country has ever amounted to dog shit.

...

Pretty much, they're the Niggers of Europe. They claim everything was theirs, when the only thing they've done was murder, rape and loot other villages like rabid niggers.

They are like that kid in class who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and just stays at home thinking about how smart he is, while everyone else goes out and learns a trade skill or gets a job, he stays at home thinking about what STEM field is proper for his superior intelligence

What's the difference between Scandinavians and Niggers?
In about 100 years, nothing

If you have a specific question about the Aryan migration, let me know. This migration has been well documented by both anthropologists and geneticists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations

You do know that these aryans were mostly dark eyed and haired, right? didn't you see the scientific article posted here a couple months ago?
If anything south europeans are closer to them than the northeners.

What said, and I still see no mention of that systematic extermination, must have overlooked it, or maybe it's not there.

Yep I pretty much agree with this. We need to get along but that doesn't mean we're the same to the extent that we're interchangeable.

Because you say so?
And they were genetically the same as their ancient counterparts, so you're basically rejecting all contributions Ancient Greeks made to European civilisation. That graph you posted also places Slovakians closer to Turks, Italians, and Cypriots than Northern Europeans, yet I doubt you'd go around questioning the whiteness of them. I'd be interested to know what genetic markers they're comparing in this image. Do you know?
So again, your argument is based on nothing but subjective anecdotes and appeal to ignorance. You have no proof that Ancient Greeks were "aryans", yet you continue to assert it due to ideology and not fact. Greeks described themselves as in-between Northerners and Southerners (Egyptians and other near-Easterners I assume) in colour, and their statues blatantly depict modern Greek/Mediterranean features.
Well I will be waiting for a source for this quote then. By all means, keep looking for it.
So how do you know that these populations punctured right into what is today modern Greece? Byzantium was a large Empire that controlled pretty much all of Anatolia (or what we would now call Turkey), so these Christians fleeing prosecution may very wall have settled there. There certainly doesn't seem to be a close genetic relationship between Lebanese people and Greeks.
And why should I believe this? Because you assert it without proof? You can't keep pedaling your a-historical nordicist nonsense and act like it's a valid placeholder for real evidence.
Again, please provide a source. I know you're so desperate to prove nordic superiority by d&cing Mediterranean whites and denying them their pride, but if you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to back up your claims with facts.

Yeah, that was a pic I posted to prove that Greeks and other Southern Europeans are primarily made up of ancient neolithic farmers which gives them their Mediterranean appearance and not the result of later mixing. Just as there is small yamnaya admixture in Southern Europeans, there is small neolithic farmer admixture in Northern Europeans. This was just the reality of migration patterns
So your "faith" and "beliefs" are now more valid than scientific evidence? Come the fuck on.
Why do you keep on bringing up this argument of "high density", as though it came prior to advancement. Rome and her territories only became "high density" after they developed the technological and logistical know-how to maintain populations of that size. Romans didn't have some magical benefit of larger populations - in fact their population growth can be tied to the prosperity created by Roman advancement, not the other way around. This just seems like a weak cop-out argument. If Northern Europeans were superior to Southern Europeans, then logic would dictate that the nordics would produce high culture and civilisation prior to their southern counterparts, thus allowing them to create large population centers. Obviously the opposite is true, considering it was the foundation that Rome and Greece built which allowed Northern Europeans to succeed.
But this is simply wrong. The Romans were influenced primarily by Greeks more than anyone else, and their culture was unique to to them alone. Diffusion of technology and ideas between Rome and Germanics happened at a far greater rate than diffusion between near-east civilisations and Romans due to the fact that Rome held a massive Empire with an enormous border alongside Germanic tribes, and regularly traded and interacted with them. There's a reason people call the foundations of white civilisation Graeco-Roman and not "Assyrian-Roman" or "Babylonian-Roman".
So why were they comparatively so primitive to Romans and Greeks?

The yamnaya people were mostly light-skinned with dark hair and eyes.

Take your EU bullshit and shove it, commie.

I'm against miscegenation among Europeans so the Sicilian question doesn't matter to me since I'm not Italian. There's far too many Europeans not in their country.

To fix the miscegenation problem among Europeans essentially what you have to do is restrict immigration to business and tourism only. No entry for marriage. Make it so a resident will never be eligible for citizenship in each country.

If two different nationalities want to marry they can fuck off to Canada or whatever country will take them.

Sicilians are white.

They're also some of my favorite people.

What's your point? Regardless of their hair color, they contributed most of the ancestry of modern Northern Europeans and were objectively genetically superior to the near eastern neolithic farmers, who they subjugated in every encounter, carrying out a policy of almost complete extermination in Northern Europe. The light cosmetic features of Germanic peoples evolved relatively recently, but the intelligence, warrior spirit and physical strength of Germanic peoples can be traced back directly to their Aryan forebears.

You keep repeating this mantra without the slightest bit of evidence. It is plainly obvious that modern Greeks are dramatically different from ancient Greeks.

They literally were Aryans, the descendants of Indo-European invaders, the question is only to what degree. Modern Greeks still have Aryan admixture, my position is that this admixture was higher in the past, before the massive population movements which took place in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Byzantine period. As yet, theres is no genetic position to support either side of this argument, but all of the outlying evidence points to a population turnover.

As mentioned by the user above, ancient Aryans weren't dramatically lighter than other populations.

Because I have previously read sources that stated as much. You are implying that the Byzantines had a racial conception of their empire, that they would have prevented settlement of non-Greek Christians into mainland Greece based on racial distinctions, this is an anachronistic position. Non-Greek Christians were not prevented from settling in Greece.

Read the links, the genetic evidence is clear. Before 2000 BC, neolithic farmers inhabited Northern Europe, after 2000 BC they were almost completely replaced by Aryans. Are you disputing this?

In Southern Europe, all of the previous neolithic communities were destroyed, and new Indo-European speaking hybrid populations emerged in their place. Are you disputing this?

Ancient Greeks spoke and Aryan language, worshiped an Aryan thunder god and used bronze weapons introduced into Europe by the Aryans. Are you disputing this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_religion#Origins

The same argument can be made for Near Easterners. If Italians were smarter than kebabs, then they would have been the first to build complex walled cities. Obviously, the first to do something are not necessarily the most intelligent. Given the genetic distribution of traits, a very large population with a low average intelligence will have more smart people than a tiny population of extremely intelligent people, this is why population density matters when discussing early human achievements.

The Greeks acquired knowledge of writing, sailing, mathematics, architecture and various other innovations from older near-eastern civilizations. Romans were hugely influenced by Etruscans, who appear to have been a colony of near-eastern aristocrats from a far older civilization.

Because smaller populations result in lower human capital.

My point is that south europeans have more to do with them than north europeans.

I don't follow your reasoning. Genetic evidence indicates that Northern Europeans have more Aryan admixture than Southern Europeans.

Depends on your concept of northern and south european. The people associated with the indo-aryan people are of the R1b haplogroup, and from the R1a, some say.
According to this graph, looks like the iberians, the western french and the british are the ones with the highest percentage of their descendency, and north germans and scandinavians having a relatively smaller percentage compared to the rest of europe.

Here's a better map.

Waste of time, shit thread

Y-Chromosome data is not meaningful in determination in overall autosomal ancestry. The autosome indicates that Northern Europeans have greater Aryan ancestry than Southern Europeans.

Show it, links, pics, you name it, but give us something, don't say it, show it.

if you avoid the shills here and look at the history of the place you would understand better

anatolia is a very complex history of invasion and population resettlement
in short turks pretty much don't exist anymore, except a few million living in the various 'stans
the people living in turkey today are largely the descendants of the same peasants who lived there in roman times

as to why some turks especially those of in inland mountanous regions look so germanic is because they are
back in 300 bc a gallic warlord by the name of brennus amassed a huge army and invaded the balkans, one tribe of this group splitnered of and settled in the anatolian mountains, there distinct genetics remained intact over 2000 years and in isolated mountain villages you will find these blond people

My point is that the features you seem to suggest are synonymous with "aryans", which are light eyes and hair, were actually less common with the yamnaya invaders.
If the neolithic farmers who settled Southern Europe were "inferior" to the yamnaya invaders, then how come It was those with more Neolithic farmer admixture who produced the original great European nations that laid the foundations for white Civilisation?
Wrong. For one, there were fewer neolithic farmers in Northern Europe due to better land in the south, but secondly the yamnaya invaders intermixed with the neolithic farmers. You can clearly see that in the first pic here . Norwegians and other nords are by no means pure yamnaya, suggesting a decent degree of mixing occurred.
Except it's not plainly obvious at all. You just assert this bullshit to pedal your nordicist lie. It's actually plainly obvious that modern Greeks are the same as their ancient counterparts simply by comparing statues and art from ancient times to today. Here's a link that does a good comparison. Please ignore the retarded anti-nordic, anti-nazi garbage at the start.
hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/204/paintings-ancient-greeks-evi-sarantea

you haven't provided a single ounce of evidence to suggest that Greeks were "aryans". All you can do is assert they were, and when pressed, declare that "the evidence isn't there, so we don't know either way". I'm getting real tired of your dishonesty.
Show me some goddamn proof then
Christ, I feel like a broken record. I have already provided evidence proving that Greeks never had large yamnaya admixture, and I have just linked evidence to prove that modern Greeks looked the same as their ancient counterparts.
Of course they have yamnaya admixture. Every population in Europe has it, just as every European population has neolithic farmer admixture.
And yet, depsite constant requests, you have not been able to provide me with a single piece of evidence to support this claim. All you've done is asserted it and hoped that people would believe you. Show me the facts that prove that Greeks were nordics in ancient times but were since changed by migrations. If Greeks really were mixed with levantines, then we should assume they would cluster together, yet pic related clearly shows that there is a large difference between the two groups.

So you admit you have no evidence, than assert that "the outlying evidence points to a population turnover" even though I have already shown that to be completely false.
But if Greeks were "ancient aryans" then surely they would have described themselves as the same as northern populations, right? Greeks described themselves as in-between because they were (and still are) white Mediterraneans, distinct form both middle Easterners and the yamnaya invaders.
No I'm not implying that at all, I'm just suggesting that the Byzantine Empire was large, and it makes more sense that the fleeing Christians would have moved to mainland Anatolia instead of all hopping on boats and crossing the Aegean Sea. If there was large-scale mixing, then these two populations would cluster closely together.
And yet you have failed to provide me with an explanation of how these large populations came to be in Italy and Greece. Population growth always comes after advancements in agriculture and technology, not before. Italians didn't become intelligent and advanced because of a large population, they grew a large population because they were intelligent and advanced, and were able to feed such a population. Statistically, a population of any size should have the same intelligence distribution.
And how do you think large populations come to be?

Seriously you can get into all the minutiae, but to me Turks are Turks, they're all mudshits, and they sure as shit aren't White. They can stay where they are, those in Europe can all go back, and that's as far as it needs to go.

Why do we need to complicate these things?

...

...

Well that guy isn't entirely wrong. I think that immigration from any non-European country should be completely banned, even if small white minorities exist there.

On a practical level that is the easiest solution, it's just that posts like that reek of wilful ignorance.

dubs don't lie.

bump

DO NOT LISTEN TO THE NORDICIST RETARDS IN THIS THREAD

I REPEAT – IGNORE THE NORDICIST 'TARDS

You're historically illiterate if you believe that the indigenous northern Europeans were exclusively "neolithic farmers," when they were, in fact, largely pre-Aryan hunter-gatherers (Cro-Magnons if you will) associated with the haplogroups I1a and I1c (from whom they get their coloring). The only Aryan genetic markers are R1b and R1a, and the Aryans themselves were a mixture of Near Eastern neolithic farmers, robust hunter-gatherers, and proto-Turkic Mongoloids. In fact, it's quite obvious that the hunter-gatherers were either subjugated by more advanced Near Eastern neolithic types or Mongoloid horsemen.

I would go as far to say that this Cro-Magnon blood is, in fact, the basest blood in Europe. And, while it may be true that Yamnaya admixture is concentred in the north, it can hardly be said that the Yamnaya are the *only* source of Indo-European blood in Europe…

It should also be noted that being "Yamnaya" or "Aryan" does not in itself make a race more "evolved." If that was a case, then the Ukrainians would be more advanced than the British, which they clearly are not.

In summation, every European race is VERY far removed from the age of the Indo-European expansion and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The potential of a race is, in my opinion, far more closely tied to the recorded/civilizational history of that race, which is why northern Italians (an urban race, with almost no history of manorialism) have the highest IQs in Europe, along with other races which didn't separate themselves into feudal castes…

Just setting the record straight. I'm looking out for ya.

The fist picture in this post shows autosomal ancestry of European groups. The green (and part of the blue) represent Aryan ancestry.

Light eyes and hair are Germanic features, Germanics being a recently evolved subset of Ayrans. Intelligence, physicals size and strength, and warrior spirit are the features synonymous with Aryans.

Because those were the first European groups who reached a population density necessary for widespread social specialization. For example:

The total population of the Greek peninsula, the Italian Peninsula and the Iberian peninsula in 14 AD was 2.8 million, 7 million and 9 million respectively.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Roman_Empire#Population

The total population of England and Wales in 1000 AD was 1.6 million. The total population of Germany in 1000 AD was 5.4 million. The total population scattered across Scandinavia and the low countries in 1000 AD was 2.2 million.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#Demographic_tables

Do you see how it would be unreasonable to compare the accomplishments of a long established high-density farming population with that of a lightly populated hinterland?

Those neolithic farmers who did live in Northern Europe ceased to exist.

>You can clearly see that in the first pic here . Norwegians and other nords are by no means pure yamnaya, suggesting a decent degree of mixing occurred.

They kept a small percentage of neolithic women as slaves, these numbers were small compared to the numbers that were exterminated.

Like I said, ancient appearances are not what is important here. Modern Greeks are STUPID AND DYSFUNCTIONAL, this in itself is clear evidence of population turnover.

No you haven't. Appearance is not a meaningful proxy for ancient Aryan admixture.

Ancient Greek history is characterized by repeated invasions from the north, medieval Greek history is characterized by repeated settlement from the Levant. In 1200 BC, the Greek peninsula was already dominated by the Aryan speaking Mycenaeans, who were themselves displaced by Dorian invaders. The Greek golden age began shortly after the migrations of the Greek dark age. Every single tribe of Greeks considered themselves to be the descendants of invaders from the north, and yet you pretend that Greek civilization was an outgrowth of the neolithic farmers, this is retarded, the dimwitted and docile neolithic farmers inhabited Greece for 4000 years before the Greek invasions, and had little to show for it.

Ancient Greeks didn't just have yamnaya admixture, they had an Aryan culture, language, religion, social structure and military complex.

What do Nordics have to do with it? The Aryans were already established on the Greek peninsula before the Nordics even existed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greece#Neolithic

The middle east has experienced repeated population turnover during the last two millenia. Modern Greeks are a good genetic proxy for pre-Arab invasion Levantines, a population that has largely gone extinct in the near east, making comparisons to modern middle easterners meaningless.

1. Historical records, archeology and linguistics indicate that ancient Greeks were the descendants of Aryan invaders from the north.

2. This discussion is primarily about how much neolithic admixture was retained by the ancient Greeks.

3. Modern Greeks are largely descended from neolithic farmers. They are also some of the dumbest and most dysfunctional people in Europe.

4. The genome of ancient Greeks has not yet been sequenced, so we do not know for certain what their level of neolithic admixture was, but higher Aryan admixture is correlated with higher intelligence and military prowess in every other existing European population.

5. Given this context, it is highly unlikely that ancient Greeks were largely of neolithic ancestry, since the neolithic farmers were intellectually dull and militarily ineffectual in all other historical cases.

Why would that be the case? The ancient Aryans who populated Greece migrated along the black sea coast from the Aryan urheimat north of the Caucasus. The Germanics were a new Aryan-derived population that began expanding out of Denmark at a time when the Aryans had already been established in Greece for 2000 years. You anachronistically conflate Aryan with Germanic.

They originally did, until the Muslim expansions reached mainland Greece, at which point, the Greek peninsula was the only place left for Christian refugees to flee.

For the same reasons that large populations in the fertile crescent predated large populations in Souther Europe by many millenia. It took a long time for crops and farming techniques to adapt to a new environment.

Yes. It takes a long time to make these advancements. In the case of Italians, it took them 4000 years to catch up with near eastern population densities.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The ancient city of Babylon had a population of hundreds of thousands, even if their average IQ was in the mid 80's, they still had more geniuses available to make discoveries than did an Iron Age Scandinavian village with an average IQ in the high 90's and a population of a few hundred.

Large human populations first appeared in warm and fertile river valleys where early crop plants were endemic. As these agricultural innovations made their way to smarter northern populations, the civilizational center of gravity steadily shifted north. This whole process is a result of the fact that northern climates are conducive to the evolution of higher human intelligence, but not very conducive to agriculture.

There is no such thing as "Cro-Magnon blood". Cro-Magnon is just a blanket term used to describe all pre-agricultural European populations, peoples who underwent complete population turnover regularly. The hunter-gatherers who lived in Europe 10,000 years ago had no relation to the hunter-gatherers who lived in Europe 40,000 years ago, or even 20,000 years ago.

Historical migration patterns suggest otherwise.

The British are largely descended from a newer and more advanced type of Aryan, the Germanic.

But it should be noted that Aryan admixture is still strongly correlated with every measure of civlizational success among European populations.

Some European populations have experienced selection for higher intelligence during the last 2000 years, especially around the Po and Rhine valleys. This can be attributed to Malthusian cast replacement, where sufficient population densities were reached for lower social classes to be starved to death and replaced by higher social classes. Read the works of Gregory Clark for more on Malthusian caste replacement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms

Can't tell if this is weapons grade LARP autism or JIDF have stepped up the D&C game to a professional level.

Either way hang yourself.

t. Greek subhuman with 142 IQ and a STEM job.

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT THE BARON

It literally doesn't matter at all. Let the Sicilians have Sicily.

There are anons on here right now that advocate race-mixing with Asians I'm guilty of doing this and consider certain Arabs white, as well as the "sleepy doctor muh based blacks" advocates.

Some people that identify as white, are borderline white, and have their own island in Europe named after them because they have lived there for so long are not a threat or a problem. I think I've met one ethnic Sicilian in my life and he was white enough that you couldn't tell the difference.

Let the swarthy whites keep Southern Europe, they aren't really doing anything wrong. pay denbts

I'm blond haired and green eyed, the swarthiest genes I have are from Spain.

sage for stupid trivial D&C bullshit

You're a retard, bro. The Cro-Magnons are the direct ancestors of the pre-Aryan hunter-gatherers who were conquered by the Yamnaya. I decimated your feeble history. Get on my level. The truth is that higher IQs correlate directly to urbanization and an egalitarianism.

Gregory Clark is a middle-brow peasant much like yourself.

Fucking retards man.

Those people are as good as kikes. Probably full of ashkenazi genes without even knowing it.

Let the Greeks sort that shit out once the more obvious problems are taken care of.
They seem to assimilate well wherever they go, but I do often wonder how much of their culture is unique to them and how much is naturally shared with greece by virtue of having somewhat similar ethnic backgrounds.
Either way, they don't seem to cause many problems on a global scale, if they are shitting up greece, the greeks should kick them out.
I see more greeks shitting up greece though by getting addicted to narcotics and being complacent towards goddamn everything.

Jesus Christ, you're still using this "population density" argument despite me BTFOing it multiple times. Let me spell it out for you very clearly
POPULATION SIZE AND DENSITY FOLLOW TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT AND CULTURAL COMPLEXITY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
A people aren't just magically bestowed with high populations. The only reason these places were able to sustain such high populations was because they had the technological, administrative, and intellectual capacity to organise and feed such a large sum of people. Southern European populations grew as a result of technological advancements and improvements in agiculture, not the other way around. I don't know why you keep making this shit argument despite me refuting it already. Tribal hunter-gatherers don't magically become an advanced civilisation once they reach a certain population size.
Not at all. You're trying to claim that the Northerners were (and are) superior to the southerners, yet the overwhelming material evidence doesn't prove this - in fact some of it suggests the opposite. If the northerners were superior, then why hadn't they already settled down to create "long established high-density farming populations?" Why did it take the entirety of Southern European civilisation to form the foundations on which the northerners could begin to grow? Your "muh population density" argument doesn't hold up as I've already explained to you.
Because they mixed with the yamnayas and Western Hunger Gatheres as indicated by their this graph . There were already far fewer Neolithic farmers in the north anyway, so to act like the yamnayas came and wiped out a vast established population centers as proof of their "genetic might" is idiotic and a-historical.
Do you have any source for this or are you just talking out of your ass on the fly? Where are you getting this information?
No you didn't say this. You're just shifting the goal post. At first you were trying to claim that ancient Greeks were "aryans" with blond hair and blue eyes, yet after being proved entirely incorrect by examples of ancient Greek art and sculptures and knowledge about historical migration patterns, you've shifted the goal post to saying "modern Greeks are subhumans lol". This is not a valid argument, nor does it provide any evidence that any kind of population replacement happened since ancient times. All you can muster is a feeble appeal to ignorance and obscurist, a-historical conjecture.
Now you've just hit rock bottom. I have already shown in this first graph that Greeks have far more neolithic farmer in them than yamnaya admixture, proving that they were never the "ayran" nordics you claim they were. Physical appearance is now meaningless to genetic admixture? Fucking listen to yourself right now. These are the "arguments" of someone clinging to ideology in the face of overwhelming counter evidence. You want me to believe that ancient Greeks, who clearly resemble their modern Mediterranean counterparts, were actually secret Aryans? What hard evidence do you actually have to support this other than your retarded nordicist ideology?
Again, you keep making this general, outlandish claims yet CAN'T PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM. If modern Greeks are the result of genetic mixing with people from the Levant, then how come they do not cluster anywhere near them here or here ? Cypriots are a good example of a non-white, levantine people with Greek culture, and they very clearly cluster close to Middle Easterners as opposed to Greeks who cluster with Europeans.
Language is no proof of genetic domination at all. One is not proof of the other. Indians and Iranians both speak an "aryan" or "indo-European" language, yet they are genetically completely different from Europeans.

Can you please provide a fucking source for at least one of these claims? I'm assuming you read "march of the titans" and then suddenly think you've figured everything out, right? Greeks described their skin colour as being in-between Northerners and Southerners, and considered everyone but themselves "barbarians". If they were the same genetically as northerners, then A. they wouldn't look different, and B. they wouldn't consider their ancestors barbarians.
So you want me to believe that Aryans "from the North" invaded South into Greece bringing with them their superior culture and intellect, yet their Aryan brothers who remained in the north, who you want me to believe were so vastly culturally superior, were still living in comparatively primitive tribal societies long into Roman times? What happened to the argument where you conceded that ancient Roman and Greek society was in fact produced by Mediterraneans, but this could be explained away due to "population density"? Sounds like a load of goal-post shifting, historically illiterate garbage. You can't even maintain a coherent train of thought. In one breath, the Greeks were aryans who conquered local neolithic farmers, in another, they were actually Mediterraneans but only appeared superior due to "population density".
What are you basing this assessment on?
wew lad. More goalpost shifting. Earlier you were implying that aryans were synonymous with nordics with their light features, and now you're trying to assert they're not the same?
As I've already explained, indo-European speakers =/= genetic "aryans". Interestingly, your quote says they also invaded from the east (suggesting mainland anatolia), yet you conveniently leave this part out.

This is false.

www.unz.com/gnxp/our-magnificent-bastard-race/

If your philosophy wins out our descendants will be on here a century from now, being politically incorrect, when they say they think someone should have only one "partner".

If we cannot preserve our race, then what will we have to show for it many generations from now? How will respect us if we allow ourselves to wither away, rather than easily fight them off because we're "nice".

I can't be nice anymore, to much is at stake.

sage

Northern European hunter-gatherers were by your own definition "Cro-Magnons" you piece of shit. Hunter-gatherers most certainly mixed with each other and there is evidence to support this– the least evolved sub-group in Europe without a doubt. Any pre-agricultural European is "Cro-Magno" as you said, and so the pre-Aryan hunter-gatherers were "Cro-Magnons."

Aryan admixture is barely associated with civilizational success. As anyone can see, Slavs (who have the highest concentration of Yamnaya blood) are less advanced than Spaniards.

"Malthusian caste replacement" is just an elitist explanation for the superior intelligence of northern Italian populations. The truth is that the lower classes (which were virtually non-existent in Italy to begin with) ROSE TO THE OCCASION and became merchants since they weren't oppressed by feudal lords, and there is much evidence to support this.

In other words you're a dishonest WN piece of shit and an enemy of democracy, liberty, et cetera. I truly pity scumbags like you. What are you, really? Some rural imbecile who misunderstood Nietzsche?

You don't know what you're talking about. I lived in Cyprus, and the people there are not white. They cluster genetically with Middle Easterners and do not look white at all.

also
who the fuck made this?

Lines up with the previous boundaries of the Roman Empire and historical Christendom

...

Jews, both Askenazim and Sephardi interbred with Southern Europeans for ages, Schlomo. Excluding your deleterious inbreeding it's more than expected to cluster along with Helleno-Phoenicians like Cypriots and Sicilians, kike.

Kinda expected. Kikes are eventually expelled from all countries.

You're too short to post here.

What do you get when you mix an Italian with an African?

A Jew

what the fuck are you spewing in that word salad? Are you implying that Cypriots and Jews are white? They're not, I can tell you that.

This isn't a real thing, rabbi. At the most it would only be Sub-saharan Africa.
>what are your feelings towards Sicilians, especially those who have

...

this is far more accurate

Do you know how to tell if a graveyard is Jewish?

You have to pay to get in

There is literally nothing wrong with wanting to genocide non-Europeans for white colonisation, but that's an argument for a different thread.

Kazakhstan is far more white than Turkey. it's something like 30-40% Slavic.

better?

/thread

Aren't kazakhs also like around a quarter white or somehing?

Let me summarize it:
>>>/oven/

What?

Kazakhs are mongoloid Eurasians. They may have some European admixture, but it's not very much. All the kazakhs I've ever met have looked asian

This fucking kike again. Weren't you already banned? You were flipping IDs like a motherfucker in that thread a while back.

True.

Cypriots are Greeks, stupid.

You must be a very elaborate kike. One one hand you try to defend Southern Europeans against "nordicist lies" probably to discredit White's, in the strictest sense, superiority and on the other hand you try to deprive Southern Europeans off their Whiteness.

Your obsession with the Fertile Crescent's success, though historically valid, seems a bit too Guns,Germs$Steelish to be honest. Just waiting here until your proclaim that Akkadian semites are the true masterrace.

I'll be watching you, Schlomo.

I know they look asian. I just heard they have a lot of west eurasian admixture . ~20% if i remember correctly

You do realize that "turks" are actually descendants of Greek rape victims and traitors and not actually mongoloids like their sister Altaic ethnicity THE FREAKING MONGOLS, don't you?

There is depending on which non-europeans you are talking about.

not arabs caucasians scythians and everyone else as well.

These were either Hellenized ot Persified centuries before turkroaches stole horse-riding from the chinks to come into Anatolia.

Some people were "magically bestowed" with high value crops. Plants that did not grow equally well in all climates.

Population growth and technical advancement are part of a single feedback loop, not independent phenomenon. Southern Europeans were always dumber on average than Northern Europeans, but wheat simply grew better in the soils and climate of Southern Europe, giving Southern Europeans an early start in amassing human capital, an advantage that they have long ago lost.

Why did it take 4000 years from the establishment of civilization in the fertile crescent for complex agricultural civilization to develop in Southern Europe? Why couldn't agriculture that was optimized for near eastern flood plains be directly transplanted into Southern Europe en masse? Because Southern Europeans are clearly stupider than Mi>>7582590
ddle-easterners, that must be the only possible explanation.

There was a long historical record of settled farming communities in Northern Europe. After the Aryan invasions, all signs of settled agricultural civilization disappeared.

westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/massive-migration/

Only neolithic mtDNA persisted in Northern Europe, this is clear evidence of neolithic males being exterminated and their females taken captive. Even Southern Europe saw an almost complete eradication of neolithic y-DNA. Male neolithic farmers experienced a continent-wide extermination, this is uncontroversial genetic fact.

westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/massive-migration/

The ancient Greeks were whiter than modern Greeks, as evidenced by their statuary. This does not imply that ancient Greeks had a "Germanic" phenotype. The Germanic phenotype did not even exist at the time of the Aryan invasions of Greece.

The genome of modern Greeks tells us very little about ancient Greeks.

Modern Greeks don't "clearly resemble" ancient Greeks. We don't really know what ancient Greeks looked like, but we know for certain that there were no Greeks on the Greek peninsula until the Aryan invasions, there is no "secret" here, the Greeks were an Aryan people. Whatever the ancient Greeks looked like, it is apparent that modern Greeks look and behave like shitty kebabs.

Will you at least accept that no population called "Greeks" existed on the Greek peninsula until a Greek speaking Indo-European population invaded the peninsula around 2100 BC? Will you at least admit that the Greek language, religion and culture were introduced into the peninsula by a foreign population?

Because the original populations of the Levant were displaced by new migrations from Arabia. Greeks are not genetically similar to Arabs, but are genetically similar to pre-Arab Levantines, the so-called "neolithics".

I guess that this is our primary disagreement. Historical evidence suggests a massive invasion into Greece and a dramatic change in Greek culture from a population of docile farmers into one of marauding sea warriors. What are the chances that after 4000 years of stagnation, a massive cultural and behavioral shift should closely coincide with an invasion of a known warrior race?

The Spartans were the descendants of Dorians, a late-arriving tribe of Greeks whose southward migration was documented by ancient Greek sources.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorians#Origin_of_the_Dorians

Ok, now we are making some progress. The Aryans who settled in Southern Europe and admixed with Southern locals were able to achieve higher population densities than their northern cousins, and so were able to accrue greater civilizational capital.

Ancient European civilization was not produced by neolithic Mediterraneans (with the possible exception of the Minoans), but by a hybrid population of neolithics and Aryans.

We are confusing populations here. I believe that the ancient Greeks were an exceptional population, far different from any other Southern European population. I believe that the ancient Greeks represented a particularly potent strain of ancient Aryan genetics, this is the only way to explain their intellectual superiority to all other Southern European populations. Italians on the other hand, were a far more mediocre hybrid population, their greatness was largely a result of having the greatest population density and population size of any ancient European people.

The continent-wide subjugation of neolithics by Aryans and the replacement of neolithic y-DNA in most of Europe, in addition to the millenia-long stagnation displayed by neolithic farming societies in Europe.

Nordics were a later tribe of Aryans. Aryans as a whole predate the existence of Nordics by many thousands of years.

for those who might actually be interested, the answer is simultaneously good and bad. shortest answer: you already answer your question in sentance 2 before the first comma.

slightly longer shortest answer: the newly expelled arrivals are often frankenstien-crossbreeds or direct descendants of the parasitic afro-muslim-judeo-mongol-asiatic line. to classify on sicilian first, and then ask 'are they jews', places the remainder before the sum / cart before the horse / etc.

the chart in the OP is outdated.
the chart attached is more representative, and shows the larger picture.

i've worked for jews, i've worked with jews, i've had jews work for me, and i've done so for longer than i care remember. same for italians (though not strictly sicilians), armenians, lebonese, iraqi, saudi, spaniards, and mexicans, etc. the same but without the regret for loss for german, pols, irish, and english, which are preferred on account of us either just not sucking or at least actually trading (instead of lying).

trading time and money for so long, my conclusions are that armenians are turks, not armenians. they may have 'fought them off' whatever, but dear god in heaven, they're turks. the few white armenians i've met were fly-overs or specialists, not the waste imported, and not the new arrival greencard 'cosmetologist' scabs in barber shops everywhere since 1999.

this same pattern largely holds for sicilians: the expanding, noticeable population flauntingly/flamingly claiming sicilian is not exactly what i would call them if the world came with a mute button. there is a difference, however: in the usa, sicilians and italians have been here for a while, so you have generation spectra of both impostor-flamers and
far more white groups – that is to say, the reverse classification of invalid->sicilian are not nearly as strictly segregated/paired. that being said, the newcomers are often still degenerate, but you just don't get the same 'obviously not a sicilian' smack to the face.

it is far more likely to encounter a jew-italia halfbreed that can do accounting, than a jew that can do accounting, or an italia that can't do accounting. the jew-italia accountant will cheat you, because they can't meet the trade. the jew will cheat you, because they fucking lie your shit away using their cross-breed cousins (while also throwing their cross-breed cousins under the bus). the italia accountant usually will be an asshole, but will actually have the able-ness to do full double-ledger accounting (aka not lie/steal through ineptitude or open two faced scams).

i should note that, excluding the direct descendant line members, all the cross-breeds thought themselves honest, and better than their priors. i could never figure out how to tell them that honesty is not relevant, if you can't even see the full task/truth/job in the first place. this is the same effect/witness.

So you are admitting that all relevant Greek culture that the West idolizes, maybe minus Sparta, came two millenia after the "Nordic" Hellenes fully miscegenated into the Pelasgian population?

Good that you came back to your senses.

Except by comparing their DNA to their former colonies you mean?

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21401952

There is no genetic population called "Cro-Magnons", it is a loose term used to describe many different populations that lived in Europe over the last 40,000 years.

You cannot say:

As there is no such thing as "Cro-Magnon blood". If you are referring to a specific stone-age European population, than use its proper name.

This is an arguable point. Slavs have contributed far more to science than have Spaniards.

Yes, I'm not a big fan of democracy or liberty.

First of all, your use of the term "Nordic" is anachronistic, it is a term associated with the Germanic expansions out of Denmark during the early Roman imperial period. Use Aryan, Indo-European or Yamnaya instead. Second of all, there are credible suggestions that the Pelasgian peoples were themselves settlers from an earlier non-Greek Indo-European migration into the Greek peninsula, so I am reluctant to use Pelasgians as representatives of the pre-Aryan substrate of Greece. Other than that, you have stumbled upon our main point of contention, that is, the degree to which Greek civilization represented an outgrowth of Yamnanya culture and genetics. As I have argued previously, Greek civilization does not seem characteristic of the docile and stagnant neolithic farmers, who inhabited Greece for many millenia without making any notable archaeological impact. I must confess that this argument can only be resolved by the successful sequencing of ancient Greek genomes, a task that as yet remains impossible.

Not really. The discussion in terms of trying to ascertain whether they are white or not is pointless because a majority of us have already come to the conclusion we don't want them in Europe.

so is Germany, considering their language is built from Yiddish.

Base your judgement on a case-to-case basis, with generalisations made based on groups.

In general Southern Italy is less Aryan, but any Aryan from Southern Italy is no less so than one living elsewhere.

It's the other way around, kike

Gas all South Italians

Gas all Greeks (and anyone else in the Balkans) with a turk parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent

Gas all non-whites

GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS

NO MERCY FOR THE NON-WHITE

You're forgetting about "whites" in North Africa, such as Berbers (although many are unfortunately arabised).

Personally, I prefer using a hack saw on my non-whites. The look in their eyes as a real killer goes to work on them is worth it.

Oh please. Did the British Empire mean nothing? The crushing of the Spanish Armada? The destruction of Catholic hegemony over Europe? The crushing of Napoleon at Waterloo, by the British and the Prussians? The Nordic expolorers who founded the colonies in Iceland and Greenland? The Norsemen, known to southern Italy as the Rus, who laid the foundation of modern day Russia? The Norman reign in France? The Holy Roman Empire?

Come on now. What you've said is categorically false. Southern Europe was getting assblasted by muslamic incursion after muslamic incursion so badly that the Byzantine Emperor requested his body guards be Norsemen, fierce warriors from the North.

B-b-ben?

Let actual european man fuck their women for a few generations and they might be redeemed.

Berbers, as in pure unmixed Berbers, are very rare to find and they're very rural. Most of the ones you'll find will live in southern Morocco, the part that's genetically 10% negro, as opposed to the 5% of the North.

The ancient maritime trade routes of the Phoenecians spanned the entire Mediterranean. It was a melting pot. Its influence went as far as Cornwall and Ireland. Some evidence suggests global even. Pottery was also traded for gold in Africa. However the Phoenecians may have had lighter skinned Nordic roots. Basically we all have a lot of ancestral DNA.

Its so weird I was literally thinking of this scene earlier for no reason at all.

Hitler was shit and doesn't deserve to be counted among anything other than complete failures.

Notice the Huns pushing in. And the harvests were bad.

Germans can lot of other things in addition to conquering. Science, Art, Literature, and Beer.

Then hop on a dingy and head south. Free ride all the way. If lazy sand niggers & dindus can do it, so should you.

The usual D&C thread.

The average Sicilian is more of a westerner than the average us citizen.

Sicily had always been a crossroads of people, none really replacing the others (except for the Phoenicians).
Natives, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs & Berbers (for less than three centuries), Norsemen (yes, they conquered Sicily as well), Germans (at the time of Frederick the II) and Neapolitans.

You know who wasn't settled there, at least until the EU and the UN decided to ferry Africans straight across the mediterranean in order to import more rapefugees?
Exactly, sub-saharian and equatorial blacks to be used as slaves.

where is that photo from? details

Unfortunately, the main reasons we've so often been mongrelised throughout history have been our own arrogance (kings, pharaohs, etc. taking negro wives) and our stubbornness in giving up what we have built. Of course, settling is much better than being like the nomadic no-good kikes.

Europe and America may end up looking as the Middle-East looks today (the same that happens to us now happened to the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and other great Aryans). In this age of the internet, we should settle on places to resettle, and form hierarchies based on merit/genetics.

i want to shoot my load on 2 and 4

White flight is a good thing. It keeps populations pure. Segregation is much much preferable to integration.

I doubt it. America has something like 190-200 million actual Whites left(actual as in not 10% redskin beaners that only Latin American countries call White). There will be civil war before that gets anywhere near 140 million, and even at 140 million that's still almost 2x as many Whites as any nation in Europe has.

Shit will go down before anything too mongrelizing happens. Europe's a powder keg, and America's about to elect a president that can rile up the country enough to get shit done.

Trump seems like controlled opposition to me, with his jewish cabal. I predict that when it all crumbles, everyone will look to him as the saviour of our race, martial law will be enforced and 1984 will become a reality.

The UK may have to take refugees. Genuine native Europeans fleeing the savage invasion of their homelands.

Soros and his ilk is doing this to "red pill" the West on Islam make us fight their enemy even more, whilst they sit back and watch.

When it all crumbles, the infrastructure through which he can control America will have deteriorated.

The great irony of 1984 is that it's utterly inaccurate. You don't control America by having a rigorous totalitarian top down regime. You control America the same way the left has been for years. Political correctness through shame and guilt is exactly what 1984 warned against.

Once shit hits the fan, America has too many guns to fall into the trap Europe is in. Too many guns and too many people experienced with niggers and assorted POCs to give them up. Congress can vote, but as soon as something like a gun ban passes, you're looking at Civil War 2.0.

The South will rise again. That is for sure.

don't be stupid

Culturally, yes, but not genetically. They cluster with Middle Easterners unlike Greeks, who cluster with Europeans.
I'm a kike for defending my Southern European racial brothers against untrue Nordic-superiority D&C lies?
I'm simply stating facts. Cypriots are not genetically European. I literally lived there for a few years, so I have first-hand experience.

turks and greeks are more white than sicilians

Around here the Calabrians took care of the guinea problem.

Greeks, yes, Turks, no.

no big genetic difference between both

check the graph in the first post
turks are genetically anatolians

What are you talking about? Cypriots and turks cluster with Middle Easterners while Greeks cluster with Europeans. The distinction is very clear.

I'm sardinian. Feels good to be well preserved genetic stock.

not middle easterners
anatolians, armenians, georgians, persians

sicilians are closer to north africans thus turks are whiter

get the point?

you wanna argue north africans are whiter than persians?

I want to argue that neither are white. North African and Middle Easterners cluster together and Europeans cluster together. Cypriots, who are not white, cluster with non-white middle Easterners and North Africans, while Greeks, who are white, cluster with Europeans.

look at the graph
use your eyes if you ever see north africans

theres a big distinction between anatolians,
turks, armenians, georgians, and closely relatved caucasians, people from the balkans
persians

AND north africans, or arabs or what you call middle easterner

People from the balkans are clearly not the same as Turks, Armenians, and Iranians. I don't know how you're drawing that comparison, because the picture very clearly clusters Turks with Middle Easterns and North Africans, and Greeks with Europeans.

why did the ancient greeks paint their staues white then? why are a majority of modern greeks swarthy in skin tone?

why did ancient greek statues have extremely european facial features? why do modern greeks have near eastern facal features.

obviously here are varying degrees all throughout Greece, but to say that the majority of greeks alive today carry on the lineage of the greeks from antiquity is fucking retarded.

Afrikaners literally aren't white, but just stay retarded, American.

news24.com/Columnists/MaxduPreez/Are-we-all-coloured-20110309

blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/04/the-ancestry-of-one-afrikaner/#.V-Ppza0l25k

africandna.com/\adna_static\ScienPapers\Deconstructing_Jaco_Genetic_Heritage_of_an_Afrikaner.pdf

etc. etc., google it you ignorant halfnigger

Because they are Mediterraneans and have more yearly hours of sunlight. Ancient Greeks literally described themselves as darker than northerners, and lighter than southerners
What are you basing this off of? All their ancient art and sculptures depict Greeks with Mediterranean features that match modern Greeks.
They don't. Have you seen near-easterners? They're distinctly different.
Why? What evidence are you basing this off of?

This website is a good source comparing ancient Greek statues and art with Modern Greeks. Please ignore the retarded anti-nazi, anti-nordic garbage and just scroll down.

forgot link

hellas2010.proboards.com/thread/204/paintings-ancient-greeks-evi-sarantea

It means that there are some lost tribes in these region (descendents from vandals, Greeks and romans) which classify as white. Not the majority of the population.

Precisely. The rare pure Moroccan berber without Arab DNA is indistinguishable from a Spaniard physically.

The Arab mixture and the islamic takeover have taken a once triving part of the Roman empire and turned it into a place with IQ levels similar to that of an American negro.

It sucks, because North Africa used to be European, but now the vast majority are arab mutts.

their populations are so small that even labeling those countries "sometimes white" is an overstatement.

I assume you haven't been to greece if you think that modern greeks don't look like Turks. In fact, it's only a minority of greeks that have that Hellenic idealized blonde hair fair skin combo we are used to seeing in some of their Olympians. At the very least Italians resemble the Roman statues that are meant to represent their ancestors. This isn't the case with your various greek sculptures. Greeks are in the same class of admixture with n. africans as sicilians are, and I think we can all agree that sicilians are very adversely mixed even by very lax measuring sticks.

eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups_by_region.shtml

The British Empire was arguably weaker than the Spanish up to the decades preceeding the napoleônicas wars. The British victory over the Spanish armada was a tactical sucesso, and certainly an exception, otherwise it wouldn't go down on history like one of the most important victories of history, changing the fate of European history.
Wot? The protestant reformation was de facto more political than spiritual, mainly against local bishops and such. The Vatican had a very important role in protestant countries almost as much as in Catholic ones after the initial 150 of the reformation.

Russia really was the one who stopped napoleon, but I will give you that the British and Prussian did contribute to his defeat. Also, South Europe was already in decline since the 1700s. The French revolution/napoleonic wars are only the turning point where northern Europe became more relevant in the economical and technological aspects.

Yet we Iberians were the only ones who managed to make profitable colonies for hundreds of years. Germans even tried settling in colombia, but they failed horribly both times they tried.

Well, the karling kings of France only lasted about 200 years before their stupid succession laws made their empire fracture. The Russians definitely were a very strong people who had the misfortune of facing the mongols in the 1200s,however even after they defeated the steppe hordes and unified, they were less relevant than the southern European up to the date specified. It might have been due to internal crisis and external threats, had they not faced these the Slavonic people could very well be the most advanced in Europe at the time, but who knows.
Now the HRE is complicated, since it didn't have uniform development, for once the northwestern kingdoms were far less developed than the southern up to the 1400s,thia of course eventually shifted and resulted in the German unification. Also,the HRE had too many internal wars to gain any relevance when compared even to the brits.

We South Europeans are responsible for colonizing most of America, the rediscovering of steam engines, the first parachute, most of the modern architecture/engineering, modern musical theory,the entire western philosophical basis(Germans, French and the British develop over this from the late 1550s onwards) and the entire writings of Leonardo DaVinci, which area topic of a thread if it's own.
People like to belittle South European technological progress because in the last 250 years North Germans ruled in this aspect, but historically the opposite was true.

I have already provided you with a website that compares ancient Greeks statues with modern greeks, so what exactly are you basing your argument on? If ancient Greek statues resemble modern Greeks, then we can only assume that there hasn't been a significant genetic change
Sicilians were heavily mixed with Greeks in ancient times due to Greek colonisation. I'm not surprised there's at least some overlap
If they were genetically the same, then why do they not cluster with either of these groups in these graphs here ? An example of genetic Middle Easterners with Greek culture are the Cypriots, who cluster with Middle Easterners and North Africans rather than Europeans, which the Greeks do. If Greeks are the same as Turks, then why is there such genetic disparity between the two groups in terms of genetic distribution?

You misunderstood two points in my post. I said that modern greeks do NOT resemble their greek statues. Also, Greek colonization or not, it doesn't change the fact that sicilians and greeks both have ~20% frequency of north african y-DNA. This is in stark contrast to most other groups that dare to claim themselves european. It's a smattering of near-eastern (turkic) and n.african dna that has infected the sicilians and greeks. I'm not a 'one drop rule' purist but even by my standards I hardly consider sicilians white. Even italians, the niggers of europe, call sicilians 'terroni' because they are noticeably more stupid, more swarthy types. Their relation to a northern Milanese is distant.

Well, they certainly don't look Nordic with their curly/wavy hair and angular skull shapes.
Also, Greeks didn't idealized blonde people, I don't know where you got that from. They did idealized green eyes, though.

This "whiteness" shit is completely useless and also damaging. Sicilians are Sicilians, Sicily is their homeland. Of course they don't belong in Sweden, just like Swedes don't belong in Sicily. I hope you aren't trying to apply white nationalism to Europe, we aren't European mongrels here and we like our own differences.

they don't though, they have a specific European subclade of E1b1b, E-V13, which entered Europe in the neolithic, if that's what you are referring to

meant to quote

But I have provided a source that refutes this point. What do you have?
If there was such genetic overlap, then why are do the Greeks cluster genetically with other Europeans and NOT turks or near-easterners? Cypriots are clearly non-white, as they cluster much closer to Middle Easterners despite their Greek culture.
Except evidence for Sicilian non-white admixture is indicated by their much closer distribution to Middle Easterners and North Africans, while Greeks still cluster overwhelmingly with Europeans. If there was as much mixing as you suggest, then modern Greeks should resemble cypriots genetically, who cluster with MENA.
Fuck off, kike
This discussion is about Greeks, not Sicilians.

This isn't the point of these discussions. For one, these discussion are to determine where the genetic lineage of the European/white race extends to, and secondly, they are also for White Nationalists in colonies like America to determine what kind of immigration they would ally. Europeans, as much as you would like to think otherwise, do in fact share a common genetic lineage with each-other, so I think it's important to make certain distinctions.

I'd include everything up to Cypriots as European.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond_Kouros's_Head_of_the_Acropolis

There has to be a line in the sand somewhere. I'm Italian so I realize I fall somewhere near the line of what most would consider the line between white and non-white, and as an objective observer I can realize why this would be useful. If you want a practical application why we should be doing this, consider that Trump wants to go back to 'historical norms' of important only European immigrants. If we were to use the yardstick of EU membership for consideration of european-ness, then we will soon be flooded with turks and turkic looking/acting greeks and sicilians.

I'm not sure how aware you are of this, but the coastal and island regions of Italy were under constant threat of islamic conquest. In fact, my home island was under islamic rule until the proto-crusade, the Pisan-Genoese expedition to sardinia. This is where the admixture comes from. Sicily, being a short hop from morocco, became a favored spot for moroccan migrants well before angela merkel threw open the gates.

It's clear that 'whiteness', or however you want to describe the intersection of intelligence, compassion, beauty of form, is a spectrum. Naples is a shit hole because the population there are substantially more admixed than, for example, Turin. This has deleterious effects in every way that can be measured. Their outcomes aren't as bad as say a bantu nigger coming over, but it's substantially worse for these people and it's not getting any better. I don't know what part of Europe you seem to be from, but Italians very strongly practice discrimination if that's what you're referring to as 'white nationalism'. To imply that there aren't edge cases of populations that are mongrelized by virtue of their unfortunate proximity to areas of the world that we consider distasteful is sophistry. Again, these complaints seem to come from someone who has never experienced south Italians first hand and simply want to wax poetic about all people who are majority European dna simply because that's what they feel they should do.

And that explains why the ottomans were strong.

"White" Nationalism doesn't even work for America. Deracinated Americans are in for an unpleasant surprise when they start importing Eastern and Southern Europeans and they don't behave like all of the Northwest European folks in America do.

This is something that many American White Nationalists don't realize. America is not a "White" Nation. It is Celto-Germanic, as in Northwestern Europe(Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Scandinavia, etc). Importing Albanians, Romanians, etc will not be a good idea. Very different peoples like that don't meld together very well in a society. They're too different.

well in that case it's simply hard to put a strong border on it, south-east Europe is strongly west Asian in ancestry and on a gradient towards areas that wouldn't really be considered white/European in any case
and this isn't a recent development due to historical migrations, it's thousands years old stuff

I don't want to sound like a pinko who is blind to colors because they lie on a continuous spectrum, but when it comes to Europe, I find it improbable you'll be able to find agreeable genetic contours regarding south Europe, at least when you include south-east Europe

Sardinia was never under Arab rule, first of all.
Second of all, I don't see how the Islamic rule in Sicily and touch and go rule in south Italy would bring north African lineages and not mainly Arab lineages.

But even if both of those were to be considered, you'd have to explain why Y-DNA J1, the semitic-arab one, does NOT have a north-south gradient in Italy, but peaks in central Italy, and why you don't actually find much proper north African lineages in south Italy, which would be E-M81, and could be from pre-Roman times

or maybe it's because they have a shit culture from hundreds of years and it's a highly populated area? this materialistic obsession with genes is really ridiculous even in a traditional sense, the south of Italy wasn't like that before the unification, and no admixture took place in the last 200 years

Plot twist: I'm Italian as well, and not a terrone.

Naples really is shit tier tbh. However, I've heard people on the countryside of Southern italy are nicer. He'll, even cities to the south of Naples are nicer.

Cypriots are middle-easterners.

I think that these graphs are where the limits should be drawn, but with special considerations when immigration is coming from places like Southern Italy or South-eastern Europe to determine whiteness.

literally how? Etruscans, going by mtDNA, were most likely local neolithic Europeans influenced first by alpine/continental European influences(proto-Villanovan culture) and later by Greek settlements in coastal Italy

I guess Mujahid never existed then? I guess he never took my people as slaves until the pope got off his fat ass and decided to fight back? Do you know anything about the Abassid caliphate? It certainly wasn't prolonged rule but there was a short time when we were a conquered people. It was only a matter of time really, being such a short hop away from africa we were under constant attack. There's a reason our flag has the head of decapitated moorish kings on it, a common theme of flags in the region.

I could be speaking anecdotally but I was pretty sure that since Italy was not one country until fairly recently and was instead highly balkanized, the reason we got higher J1 in middle Italy was because the city-state of Florence was a banking-commercial capitol and thus attracted those whose hands constantly need rubbing.

See, the problem with sicilians isn't only that they have significant n. african admixture, it's that the T y-DNA haplogroup has suffused itself through the population there. That's the eastern african, the absolute shit tier bantu niggers. Listen, I realize you're probably sicilian and it's uncomfortable hearing this, but it is the truth. These are of course averages, so you and your family might not be ones personally affected by this admixture so try not to let your baby rage get in the way of your consideration of the truth.

Yeah Naples needs to be nuked really. My favorite city in Italy that I've visited is Siena. I might get a house there to retire.

Mate, Sardinia is the purest example of ancient neolithic farmers left alive today. They are not North African mongrels, and they are much lighter than a lot of Sicilians and definitely distinguishable from North Africans.

none of this constitutes formal rule over the region, of course they heavily attacked the island and killed/took people, but they never claimed territories from the locals, they were always pushed back

It's most likely jews from Roman times really.

but they don't, what they are really high on is west asian and southwest asian admixture

top kek, T is also a neolithic remnant and it's pretty much present all over Europe
it's higher in south Europe because south Europe preserved its neolithic legacy more than the rest

also, east Africa was colonized by west Eurasian aka Caucasian peoples during the neolithic expansion, Y-DNA T likely is of Eurasian origin as well

besides, I'm most likely some Sardinian/Corsican/Tuscan/north Italian mutt, not south Italian

I wasn't saying that we are mongrels, but I would say that even we suffered a great deal. We expelled our muslim conquerors not long after they came, not true with Sicilians. They were under islamic rule for a very long time. There was a time in the 11th century when Muslims made up a majority of Sicilian residents.

I really want my own Sardinian waifu, we are too well preserved to die out.

I'm sure you can forgive me for taking this with a large grain of salt.

I just gave you an example of rule being established over parts of the island for some time, but because we didn't drop the ball like Sicilians you feel justified moving the goal posts.

WE

Irony is the last resort when someone runs out of arguments, like you just did. No need to get salty over getting BTFO on the internet m8. I'm sure the Y-DNA T found in Estonia is also a result of the infamous Somalian conquest of the Baltics.

Ah yes, Cyprus, Sicily, Tunisia, Ibiza, and Morocco, all bastions of blonde haired aryans and certainly not people we would consider non-European or at least on the fence.

We just disagree on interpretations so we are at an impasse, terrone.

nice strawman, you still haven't explained to me how it got to Estonia and Russia

also, I'm sure you can explain to me how east Africans got agriculture and west Eurasian autosomal DNA without west Eurasians moving into it

if you want to attack Sicilians, at least attack them using actual significant data
pro-tip: Y-DNA means fuck all when it comes to the recombining DNA that defines what you are

I'd also like to point out that northern sicily has less Y-haplogroup T than Estonia, russia, and Northern Italy. How do you explain that?

Who said I'm attacking anybody? You're taking this rather personally for someone who doesn't consider himself Sicilian.

I don't have all answers my man, I just want you to know the whole 'south Italians are niggerized' isn't just a meme. There's a reason people look at you funny if you say in the north that you're from Calabria.

when you come up with absolutely comedy gold shit like "it's that the T y-DNA haplogroup has suffused itself through the population there. That's the eastern african, the absolute shit tier bantu niggers.", it's absolutely clear you are either trolling or you are really desperate to shit on Sicilians
perhaps you are that Sardinian who is constantly fighting with s. Italians on Italicroots or something, I've heard that's a thing even though I never browsed that shithole

I mean of the many """arguments""" I've heard to attack Sicilians this is completely new to me. You could point out to their autosomal DNA and how heavily near easterner it is, instead you focus on absolutely dumb and irrelevant shit like that phrase of yours I quoted

I could have easily overstated my case with hyperbole. I don't think it's prudent to die upon the T y-DNA hill so I'll let sicilian y-DNA frequencies speak for themselves regarding the mixedness of the Sicilian population. That these haplogroups mirror quite closely what we believe in terms of who is European and who is not is not itself a coincidence in my view. That y-DNA doesn't constitute the whole of what comes together to form a person is obvious, but ultimately irrelevant because I'm merely arguing in terms of strong correlative factors and not causative ones.

Looking at the major ones, you have aryan R1b mostly in its Italo-Celtic and Anatolian-Hittite subclades, west asian J2 in its commonly Greco-Anatolian form, E1b1b mostly in its European variant E-V13, G2a which is the main lineage of early neolithic Anatolians, and some small extra stuff like norman/nordic I1, paleolithic shit like I2*, and some combined mere 3.5% of various J* elements, plus that 4% T which is commonly associated with neolithic times.

What really comes out of this is really their west Asian-ness, which is common to pretty much all south-east Mediterraneans, and I'm certainly not denying it.

I'm not denying the poor European-ness of Sicilians here and their genetic "wogness", just pointing out that what causes it is not something recent but thousands years old stuff that is fairly well understood in the context of south-east Europe as a whole, and how the latter changed a lot after the neolithic, while south-west Europe better preserved that legacy, which is why modern Sardinians are a better proxy for neolithic Anatolians than chalcolithic Anatolians themselves.

(heil)

I could see how what you're saying makes sense now. I just haven't been able to find good breakdowns of Sicilian dna like I've been able to find Sardinian. As Sardinia is a blue zone, we have a wealth of genetic data to source from.

I'll let you in on a secret: I'm actually only half sardinian. My other half is made up of 25% german and 25% Sicilian.

Well Sardinians are certainly under huge interest from geneticists, but Italy in general is fairly well studied.
Interestingly, it's not even Sicilians who are the woggiest of them all, it's Congolabrians, which is something people don't seem to be aware of.

what?

...

why is it not a valid question? Should people with large Middle Easterner DNA be considered white?

...

kill yourself.

I couldnt care less about some armchair geneticists idea of who's white and who's not

Just hide the thread man, this isn't a low-brow discussion of D&C but rather an insightful look into where the line of white/non-white actually lies. If you couldn't care less then you can stop spamming a thread that is of no interest to you. This is interesting to those who are Italian, myself included.

then don't respond?

...

Calabrians m8

I figured

Take a good look at the map you posted, Hans.

That's almost like looking to a 1000BC map with brown indicating civilization.

kys.

Can I get some recommended books for understanding this thread further?

sorry mate. I'm not sure of any. Maybe make a new thread asking about studies or books on the genetic and migratory history of Europe?

Pic is a bit wrong and outdated.

1. While western foragers of the later paleolithic didn't seemingly posses the mutations that are linked with fair skin in modern Euros, some Scandinavian ones from Motala did actually already possess some of those mutations, and some of them were already blonde, blue eyed and fair. Some Russian foragers IIRC also possessed those.

2. As of now, we know that early European farmers came from Anatolia, from peoples that weren't particularly related to neolithic Levantines and not related at all with neolithic Iranians. The reason why there was a seemingly monolithic "ENF" source farmer population is because these farmers apparently began mixing with each other around the near east, creating an ENF meta-population that at low number of clusters in admixture runs picks up the whole, let's say, near eastern package. But European farmers for the most get their ancestry only from the Anatolian population(which is confirmed by the fact that early farmers were mostly of G2a and I2 paternal lineage, with only few E1b1b1 and J* ones), while also getting increasingly paleoEuropean ancestry in the Balkans and as they moved west.
Also, I don't think they carried mutations for light hair. The light haired farmers we've got are the ones from the north who had already mixed with the locals. As far as I know none of the early Aegean/Anatolian farmers posses SNPs for light hair.

So the Neolithic farmer population that settled Europe was not the same as the ones that lived in the levant and Iran?

Fuck off Shlomo.

Here's the final rendition of the official whiteness guide. What do you think?

just cleaned it up a bit

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the arbitrarily drawn circles actually mean anything, when the only thing relevant is the nodes themselves and the distance between them, which shows genetic relatedness. From there, you will witness an astounding fact: easily half of all the so-called 'Europeans' are either more closely related to Jews and other non-White subhuman sand nigger filth than they are to Nords, or intermediate between the two. What that indicates is that much of Europe is actually being occupied by impure non-Whites who ought to be Ethnically cleaned to achieve total White supremacy in the truest sense. The muds have to go! No exceptions! 1 drop mud = full mud. Peoples who aren't from the far left side of the so-called "European" cluster are literally non-Whites, and we can't allow them to occupy lands and consume resources that could be used by our race. We are rival competing species. Think of the Semites as coyotes, and the Nords as wolves. Well the assorted Balkan peoples, and Southern Euros are coywolves. As such, they are not our kin, any random member of one of our societies would be more closely related to us than a child produced from further mongrelization with one of their ilk.

...

Now look at the breakdown by region and you'll realize that Northern Italy is dragging that up.

Sicily's average IQ is 89.

I read that southern Italy is less high IQ, but this level of IQ still astonishes me compared to the stereotypes of Italians

certainly not the one of Iran, the difference is huge and the word "race" could be used
as of the Levantine Farmers, it's not clear, Anatolian Farmers and Levantine ones seem closer to each other, but still fairly different

...

Do you have the breakdown? I'd be interested to see what Sicilians score. Christ, Germany isn't even 100, it's 99.

*Northern Italians

Never mind, didn't see this

these are from two different studies, the latter is based on PISA results iirc, so I'd take it with a huge grain of salt when it comes to those differences

The map I posted is of IQ.

If it were regionalized all throughout Europe, you would most likely see a strong correlation with the "European core" banana shape that stretches from London, to Beneleux, to Paris, to Stuttgart, to Northern Italy, and down to Florence.

This is the most Jewish post I have ever seen on Holla Forums. Why do you need to use Tor, Rabbi?

At least it made logical sense.

Albeit he does ignore that most of the philosophical works of Western Civilization are based on the ones from Classical Civilization.

And Classical Civilization was propagated by those "coywolves" so to speak.

This is classic D&C kike posting. It couldn't be any more "look at me, I'm a Kike trying to be subtle" if it tried as hard as it could. He posts no evidence that a majority of Europeans are mongrels, or related to Jews, and expects us to believe it? Fuck him.

You're a non-White and you ought to be gassed. Your people are worthless shitskins who never produced anything of value. You are literally no better than a nigger. Ancient Rome and all its wonders were built by Blonde-haired Blue-eyed Nordic patricians, not brown dark-eyed wog trash like you. Your sub-human race was merely treated as livestock like cattle and used for menial labor.
By the way, you worthless niggers are the reason the axis failed. Hitler should've never allied with non-Whites like you.

Sicilians are non-White and should be gassed, as should all closely related Southen 'Euro' peoples. By the way, how fucking new are you? Looks don't fucking matter whatsoever. Many kikes deceptively 'look' White. What matters is the actual genetics. Unless a genetic test can prove that the White looking Sicilians are actually descendants of a Germanic people, then they get gassed, since it otherwise it would mean they are mongrels sub-human Semitic admixture.

You are being too generous with sub-human non-White mongrels. If they're mixed breed, they're a different beast, and all of the people you mentioned are certainly mongrels, intermediate between us and the shitskin sand nigger semites. Remember, the one drop rule. Shitskins get gassed. Period. What you suggest is a weakness born of sentimentality that could threaten our race, for the sub-human mongrels would surely resent their inferior status and turn against us.

Your nose is showing, Schlomo. You practically sound like libcuck. Only the Nordic people and their immediate close kin are White, everyone else is a sub-human shitskin mongrel. Genetic distance reveals the ultimate truth. FST does not lie.

This man gets it. Spaghetti niggers are non-White subhuman filth, by virtue of the fact that they fall between Nords and sand niggers in terms of FST. You wouldn't allow an octoroon or a supreme gentlemen to marry your daughter, why would you make an exception for the Semitic equivalent, just because they happen to be occupying some of our traditional lands and they have taken to calling themselves 'European'?

GTFO you cuck. You're pushing the myth of non-White inventions. Every technological and cultural achievement in ancient China was actually produced by the red-haired Tocharian people, who were purely of Nordic/ Germanic racial stock. When the Tocharians disappeared, 'Chinese' civilization stagnated, and no new innovations ever came from it again. Ask yourself the obvious, why? Because non-Whites are sub-humans and couldn't possibly invent anything. It makes no difference whether wog, chink, Mestizo, or Semite. They're all subhumans. And all their civilizations were originally created by noble Germanic Aryans of pure racial stock, while these 'peoples' were merely used by our ancestors like domesticated animals.

Fuck off, Rabbi

you could at least put some effort into not making it so obvious
kek'd

I didn't say it wasn't kike posting. I just said the kike made sense.

There is quite obviously a difference between Northern and Southern Europe, and every single European knows this. It's Americans and their "pan Europa" that conflates the North and the South so much.

/thread

indeed it is quite interesting that one of the most truly right wing and one of the most profound supporters of the Aryan tradition of Europe was a simple Italian with origins from one of the most borderline European lands, Sicily

Now THAT'S what I call shilling.

You don't even know the migratory history of Europe, you fucking kike.

what's with the yellow lines?

Who cares. The country will be 100% nigger in a couple of decades.

To be fair his family used to be nobility, he was no regular wop to begin with. But yeah, if nothing else Sicily gave us Evola and to me that settles it. Now I just wish southern Italy was its own country but that's another story.

Sicily should join a Union with Sardinia and Malta. The Mediterranean islands need to stick together.

But Sardinia is not even ethnically the same as Sicily

A Union doesn't mean mandatory miscegenation fam

"Not a D+C Thread"

Sure buddy.

what good is a union between different ethnicities? You'd just have a smaller version of the European Union

He's not OP

Please just let this idiotic thread die.

why? The thread is fine and has good discussion.

What good is the Nordic Union(I believe it's only cultural)?
What good was the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth?

Not all Unions are unitary and disenfranchising for each nation. Some of them, like the British Union, the UK, aren't too bad.

hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

I suppose you're right, but at that point, why not just keep the Italian union?

Can't larp if we keep nations whole.

And Sicilia was its own province back in Roman times. So it's not like a separation is unprecedented.

You call me rabbi because I want to maintain the racial purity of the Aryan master race and I'm unwilling to settle for anything less than total White supremacy? What a cuck… I bet you literally enjoy snorting nigger cum out of your sister's asshole, Moishe.

Don't tell me you believe in the liberal kike fable of non-White civilizations? What's next, are you gonna assert that man came from Africa? Why are you such a bluepilled cuck, user? You need to read March of the Titans. Every civilization at every time on every continent was originally established and ruled by Aryan elites of pure Germanic racial stock. We held the shitskins in bondage instead of outright exterminating them, and that's where we went wrong. Every last shitskin ought to be wiped from the face of the earth and if you disagree, you're a treasonous race traitor who ought to hang on the day of the rope.

define this
Historically illiterate nordicist garbage
Lmao. You really are a fucking idiot.

Canadaian cuckboy here.
LOOK NORTH FOR THE ANSWER
The Sicilian slime have absolutely laid waste to the city of Montreal. There are almost weekly firebombings of property all over the city of Montreal by the Italian Mob. Their main tactic is to burn you to the ground if you don't pay.

Just read about the mob in Montreal. They're absolute human waste.

...

By all means, criminal trash should be exterminated, but that doesn't necessarily answer the question of whiteness. Obviously Sicilians in general seem largely mixed, but there are still a number of them who resemble typical white Mediterraneans

If they act like niggers, they're niggers.

This, I hate to resort to the NAXALT cliche but criminal scum really do exist in every demographic and less than one in a thousand Italians are involved in organized crime. In addition, it was a wop who successfully prosecuted the 5 families, Guiliani, and since then the Cosa Nostra in America is a shadow of its former self.

Yeah, and I would add that under Mussolini, the Mafia was neutered to the point of ineffectiveness.

Even the Japanese, who couldn't be considered a "primitive" people by any means, have one of the most sophisticated organised crime syndicates on Earth.

well said

Guiliani is just a wop that cozied up to jewish crime organizations