[AntonioXYZ]

Hmm, I imagine the events that led to the Great War would still have happened and the outcome would have been the same?

That's a major what if, if there ever was one. But I think all would have hinged on how the Prussian state would have handled the Balkan situation vs. the way that the Austrians effectively adopted.

[obegeLype]

That's major what if, if there ever was one. But I think all would have hinged on how the Prussian state would have handled the Balkan situation vs. the one that the Austrians effectively adopted.

The only thing I really know about the causes of WW1 is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as a catalyst. I think it is probable that Prussia would not have declared war on Serbia because of that but who knows.

Well and then a bunch of alliances that cause nations to declare war on each other. I was thinking there must be more to it then that. I'm not sure what the situation was with Austria and Serbia prior to that though.

[DINAKuncher]

It's not designed for anything. 'White' refers to a white skinned person. Not my fault the definition has been perverted throughout history and become very subjective in nature. For example, Ayatollah of Iran is white but not European.

"Perverted throughout history" as if it used to be crystal clear since day 1.

Either way, by your own Caucaus / Ural mountains definition, you're not white either since your country is located behind Turkey outside of Europe.

[Dvjkefdw]

The only thing I really know about the causes of WW1 is the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as a catalyst. I think it is probable that Prussia would not have declared war on Serbia because of that but who knows.

Well and then a bunch of alliances that cause nations to declare war on each other. I was thinking there must be more to it then that. I'm not sure what the situation was with Austria and Serbia prior to that though.

From what I have read about the matter, the assassination was carried out by a Serbian nationalist, so I think that, if anything, the Prussians would have been more ruthless in putting down the nationalist waves that shook the Austrian sphere so badly at the end of the XIXth century. It goes without saying that they would have had their hands full on it, and perhaps would have prevented them from competing with the UK as for the dominance on the sea and the African/Asian colonies.

[Aceroassert]

From what I have read about the matter, the assassination was carried out by a Serbian nationalist, so I think that, if anything, the Prussians would have been more ruthless in putting down the nationalist waves that shook the Austrian sphere so badly at the end of the XIXth century. It goes without saying that they would have had their hands full on it, and perhaps would have prevented them from competing with the UK as for the dominance on the sea and the African/Asian colonies.

I thought the assassin was an anarchist.

You're probably correct though because I can not recall why I thought that.

I was thinking that if the assassin was an anarchist then Ferdinands death was just an excuse but if he was a nationalist then I guess that could be the reason alone.

[bestworkothlo]

I thought the assassin was an anarchist.

You're probably correct though because I can not recall why I thought that.

I was thinking that if the assassin was an anarchist then Ferdinands death was just an excuse but if he was a nationalist then I guess that could be the reason alone.

The assassination was carried out by a member of the Black Hand, a secret military society formed by members of the Serbian army, whose intent was to unite all all of the territories containing significant Serb populations annexed by Austria-Hungary.

[EmxATW5m]

"Perverted throughout history" as if it used to be crystal clear since day 1.

Either way, by your own Caucaus / Ural mountains definition, you're not white either since your country is located behind Turkey outside of Europe.

I never mentioned Armenia, stop bringing it up and going off topic.

Anybody that is white skinned and has Caucasoid features is white. If you want to use old colonial definitions (at some point where even Southern Europeans weren't considered white) be my guest. You can also use colonial definitions about the universe and world, I'm sure you will be very well informed....

[QEoMi752]

Then why use an analogy to the color "white"? Why even call it 'White nationalism' in the first place?

idk man, i really don't know the etymology behind the word. why choose white over peach or apricot etc.

what i can speculate is that it has something to do with the notion that white=purity and that paleness was thought to be a trait of beauty in europe, and was sort of a status symbol. i.e. most royalty were of lighter skin, either naturally or by powdering the face etc. and avoiding the sunlight. part of this probably ties to the white=purity thing and also the notion that a person who is dark skinned is a commoner who got that way by spending all his time working in the fields etc. this is common in many cultures around the world.

Give me a fucking break. Just look at the logo; german nazi font in white, Celtic Cross, the name itself, Stormfront (the symbolism of natural elements, such as storms, lightning etc.). You know damn well how much they glorify everything Nordic and Germanic - not to mention whiteness itself; blondeness, fair skin, bright eyes.

what do you expect? they are a white nationalist group that exalts hitler and nazism. of course they will favor germanic symbolism over others.

(Also, to say that it has "nothing" to do with skin-color is a bit exaggerated, dont' you think? I don't think you consider a dark person from india 'white' regardless of how european that person's features are, or what culture he/she has.)

i wouldn't consider a person from india "white" period. and neither would anyother white person i know. or black for that matter, or hispanic. or anyone i have ever met in my life ever. because india is not considered a white country.

^ I have no problem with all of that that. I just think it's somewhat hypocritical of them to call all europeans "white" when what they really mean is those of germanic origin.

you are trying to equate your perception (which is a false one from what i have been able to gather) of stormfronters and the likes idea of what is white with the ideal held by every other white person. most white people have no clue what the term germanic means, or who is included in it. all that counts is that they are european.

It's not designed for anything. 'White' refers to a white skinned person. Not my fault the definition has been perverted throughout history and become very subjective in nature. For example, Ayatollah of Iran is white but not European.

just because your people and arabs etc. had a similar term doesn't mean that the term used by americans and europeans is the same term, or that it holds the same origin. and in the grand scheme of things our term is the one that is used most often, so it doesn't matter really.

ayatollah definitely has the skin tone of a european, i dont debate you there. but he is still an iranian, and if you were to ask any average american citizen "do you consider a man who is from the middle east, is of middle eastern descent and is a muslim a white person" 99.99999% will say "fuck no", regardless of his coloration. other than his skin tone he shares absolutely no bond with white people whatsoever.

[chzvacmyye]

Stormfront is depressing. Anything from that site is pure rubbish.

[ImmimiFruff]

Most white people have no clue what the term germanic means or who is included in it.

All that counts is that they are european.

elone. Those two sentance pretty much capture what it's about. You have a US-definition of white. Your US-definition of white was created in contrast to black. In Europe, with no black slavery, that was never the case. Stormfront is, I'm guessing, a US-driven site due to their definition, because they seem to be living in a utopia that doesn't quite match the racial reality of Europe.

I have -never- heard anyone from Scandinavia speak about people from Greece, Bulgaria, or some other distant country, as their 'brethren'. That feeling of a shared 'whiteness' doesn't really exist. And the further away from the current phenotype the weaker that bond becomes. If I ask scandinavians if they consider south-europeans to be white the answer is just as often "no" as it is a drawn-out and hesitant "yes...".

The _actual_ divide in Europe has been between East and West for economical & political reasons (communist block vs the capitalistic western europe) - and between North and South for racial, cultural and historical reasons. North and South Europeans are distinct culturally, linguistically and racially, just like East and West are.

If a meta-ethnicity does exists in Europe (and I would argue that it does) then North-europeans; the Germanic countries (Scandinavia, England, Germany, Holland etc) would be one of them. They really do feel some abstract bond with each other. Another such meta-ethnicity exists between South-europeans, where Italians, Spaniards etc. They often consider each other to be a 'brother'-people, linguistically, racially, culturally, historically. A third Meta-Ethnicity would be the Slavic Eastern Europe. They seem to share a bond of language, culture, historic past as communist countries and so on.

But overall - I have never heard a single person reason in terms of "EU-nationalism". And the European Union is a standing proof of the failure to create any actual sense of 'togetherness'. Quite frankly; Nobody gives a flying fuck about it. At best, it is by its people seen as a beaurucratic, administrative unit in place to do.. something.

[j2Y6Ysmb]

^I think Stormfront tends to be a pan-Europeanist board doesn't it?

[Abanijo]

LOL at you saying there was no black slavery in europe. read a book fool. stormfront is a racist site that deals strongly with whitepride worldwide (which is its slogan, go figure), there are people on that site from every part of europe, but that is neither here nor there because again you are trying to look to them as if they speak for all white people, which they DON'T. only a minority of whites hold their extremist views regarding racial issues such as racial preservation and their feelings on minorities etc..


im completely aware of the seperations between east west and north south etc. in europe. but you asked me what the standing definition of white is.. and as i and other posters have said AGAIN AND AGAIN. the term "white" is an unscientific one and subject to change, depending on the time period,region,and from person to person. some people don't think jews are white, some do. some people don't believe eastern europeans are "fully" white, some do. some would not agree that sicilians or greeks are white, some do.

regardless of who you think is white or who you don't think makes the cut (and for the most part determining who is white is very subjective ) the common thread between all of those answers is that "they must be of european descent".

[Nupbeaupeteew]

elone. Those two sentance pretty much capture what it's about. You have a US-definition of white. Your US-definition of white was created in contrast to black. In Europe, with no black slavery, that was never the case. Stormfront is, I'm guessing, a US-driven site due to their definition, because they seem to be living in a utopia that doesn't quite match the racial reality of Europe.

I have -never- heard anyone from Scandinavia speak about people from Greece, Bulgaria, or some other distant country, as their 'brethren'. That feeling of a shared 'whiteness' doesn't really exist. And the further away from the current phenotype the weaker that bond becomes. If I ask scandinavians if they consider south-europeans to be white the answer is just as often "no" as it is a drawn-out and hesitant "yes...".

The _actual_ divide in Europe has been between East and West for economical & political reasons (communist block vs the capitalistic western europe) - and between North and South for racial, cultural and historical reasons. North and South Europeans are distinct culturally, linguistically and racially, just like East and West are.

If a meta-ethnicity does exists in Europe (and I would argue that it does) then North-europeans; the Germanic countries (Scandinavia, England, Germany, Holland etc) would be one of them. They really do feel some abstract bond with each other. Another such meta-ethnicity exists between South-europeans, where Italians, Spaniards etc. They often consider each other to be a 'brother'-people, linguistically, racially, culturally, historically. A third Meta-Ethnicity would be the Slavic Eastern Europe. They seem to share a bond of language, culture, historic past as communist countries and so on.

But overall - I have never heard a single person reason in terms of "EU-nationalism". And the European Union is a standing proof of the failure to create any actual sense of 'togetherness'. Quite frankly; Nobody gives a flying fuck about it. At best, it is by its people seen as a beaurucratic, administrative unit in place to do.. something.

Seems like you're trying to tie too much at once to an arbitrary, simple, and somewhat outdated social concept.

You've got genetics, linguistics, geo-politics, economics, history...and, what else would you like to define at the same time with the term "white"?

I told you already, if you look white, then you're white. And if you don't quite look it, then you're not white. You don't need a passport or genealogical report for this. Either you are, because average Joe sees you that way, and treats you accordingly, or you're not.

Of course, it is possible to define white genetically, if we really wanted to, simply by running a cluster analysis using many dimensions of genetic variation. Basically, whoever shows up as an outlier from the European cluster, isn't white.

But some Scandinavians, like from, say, northern Sweden, wouldn't make it, due to a higher than average Siberian admixture. Still, in terms of science, that would be the best way to go IMO.

[Abanijo]

Would be great, a white calculator

[CDCL7WKJ]

Of course, it is possible to define white genetically, if we really wanted to, simply by running a cluster analysis using many dimensions of genetic variation. Basically, whoever shows up as an outlier from the European cluster, isn't white.

What is this European cluster?

[Talicoabilk]

It's funny to hear Storm-Front become so "Pan European" to the point that they are calling others "race traitors" if they have "sub racial supremacy."...sounds like some sort of Politic Correctness in racialist circles, lol. Even if half it's members are quasi Nordicist and half it's Scots-Irish hillbilly audience think they actually have something in common with the ancient Romans or Greeks, lol.

As anyone can see, "White Nationalism" is a total mess, and a joke. The only thing more hapless and impotent then their "historiography" is their nationalism itself. If the pathetic "Occupy Wall Street" tards got in a fight with all White Nationalist Storm-Fronter tards, they'd win hands down...superior numbers and at least they have the ability to orchestrate and organize more than 300 people into a public gathering.

[Aaron757]

lol "white nationalism"....get a life.

[antipenq]

I told you already, if you look white, then you're white. And if you don't quite look it, then you're not white. You don't need a passport or genealogical report for this. Either you are, because average Joe sees you that way, and treats you accordingly, or you're not.

White in the eyes of whom? There's no way you're so naive that you think the definition of white is the same across the globe. I can guarantee you that what is percieved as "white" in e.g. Greece is quite different from what is percieved as white in e.g. Sweden.

Of course, it is possible to define white genetically, if we really wanted to, simply by running a cluster analysis using many dimensions of genetic variation. Basically, whoever shows up as an outlier from the European cluster, isn't white.

You'll never escape the problem of having to draw a line somewhere. And that line is bound to be arbitrary. You even said it yourself now - "whoever shows up as an outlier". Well, you gotta subjectively pick a number for how big that outlier is allowed to be.

Anyways - The point of the thread was that 'White nationalism' seem to have very Nordicist ideals. So their claim that they view 'all european subraces as equal' sounds a bit hollow.

[highattainlet]

White concept has changed depending on who, and when, was used. In the anglo empires, white were those who look mainstream anglo-saxon (this has now become the official view) while in the spanish/portuguese empires, and that was before the anglo ones, Whites were those of predominantly european descend, regardless if the euro was south or north.

[Zdfjpbth]

I can guarantee you that what is percieved as "white" in e.g. Greece is quite different from what is percieved as white in e.g. Sweden.

I said "average Joe" for a reason.

You'll never escape the problem of having to draw a line somewhere. And that line is bound to be arbitrary. You even said it yourself now - "whoever shows up as an outlier". Well, you gotta subjectively pick a number for how big that outlier is allowed to be. The average Joe doesn't have that problem. It's a quick glance, best guess type of thing. Yes, no...if maybe, then no.

As for the outliers in the cluster analysis, let's say that anyone who has above noise, recent non-European genetic ancestry is an outlier. Above noise means over 2%, and recent means post-Iron Age, because there haven't been any major population movements into Europe since then. I don't think that's too arbitrary.