← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Eendracht Maakt Mag
Thread ID: 6973 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-05-28
2003-05-28 18:04 | User Profile
What, your mind constitutes "the West"? Is it merely a memetic cultural construct? Is it an ethnoracial super-entity of some sort? Perhaps the West refers to a certain region or regions that share a common culture and genetic heritage? What regions are in the West? What is completely outside it? Youckey, for example, considered Russia/ns non-Western, and I am inclined to agree to a certiann extent. While racially and genetically Russians are Europid, our culture and history sets us apart. Western culture, in my opinion is a synthesis of classical Roman and Hellenic, as well as later Keltic and Germanic elements. The culture of Russia and much of the rest of Eastern Europe is at its core a synthesis of pagan Slavic-Finnic elements with the culture of the Byzantine empire. Thus, we do not belong to the West culturaly; whether this is a good or bad thing is an open question. The Judeo-Masonic cabal has reduced Russia to a state of complete bankruptcy and servitude; yet unlike much of the West, we still retain our pride in our culture and accomplishments. The West has become weak, and effeminate, its very founding principles replaced by the decadence of Judaic pseudo-intellectualism-Marxism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, Freduianism, Objectivism, etc... So far has it gone now that the once proud bearers of Western culture and now literally groveling before the sons of their former slaves. Can the West be saved? Should it be saved? Will another one rise in its place?
I look forward to your answers.
2003-05-28 18:48 | User Profile
Moderators, could you move this to a higher traffic forum? I can see a good debate brewing...if anyone actually gets around to reading it that is :).
2003-05-28 19:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Prodigal Son@May 28 2003, 12:04 ** What, your mind constitutes "the West"? Is it merely a memetic cultural construct? Is it an ethnoracial super-entity of some sort? Perhaps the West refers to a certain region or regions that share a common culture and genetic heritage? What regions are in the West? What is completely outside it? Youckey, for example, considers Russia/ns non-Western, and I am inclined to agree to a certiann extent. While racially and genetically Russians are Europid our culture and history sets us apart. Western culture, in ky opinion is a synthesis of classical Roman and Hellenic, as well as later Keltic and Germanic elements. The culture of Russia and muc of the rets of Eastern Europe is at its core a synthesis of pagan Slavic-Finnic elements with the culture of the Byzantine empire. Thus, we do not belong to the West culturaly; whether this is a good or bad thing is an open question. The Judeo-Masonic cabal has reduced Russia to a state of complete bankruptcy and servitude; yet unlike much of the West, we still retain our pride in our culture and accomplishments. The West has become weak, and effeminate, its very founding principles replaced by the decadence of Judaic pseudo-intellectualism-Marxism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, Freduianism, Objectivism, etc... So far has it gone now that the once proud bearers of Western culture and now literally groveling before the sons of their former slaves. Can the West be saved? Should it be saved? Will another one rise in its place?
I look forward to your answers. **
Russia is a great enigma...I think that many of the differences between Russia and the "West" ensued as a result of sustained political isolation. However, from Peter the Great until Red October, Russia essentially became part of the West for 200 years. Many Hapsburgs took Russian brides, and Russia was accepted, albeit grudgingly, as a European power.
Yockey raised the issue that although Russia was culturally, linguistically and politically isolated from Western Europe, it was still the best hope for White Western survival. Yockey surmised that even if the USSR had subsumed Western Europe, the West would still endure and even become stronger. He theorized that the Russians would eliminate the influence of the culture distorters while imposing a militant, masculine ethos upon cosmopolitan Western Europe. Simultaneously, Russian peoples and institutions would be assimilated into the European fold. Food for thought. Thanks for raising this topic.
-Tom
2003-05-28 19:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz@May 28 2003, 13:10 ** Russia is a great enigma...I think that many of the differences between Russia and the "West" ensued as a result of sustained political isolation. **
I agree, although I think the seed was sown in the late 10th century when Russia's elite decided to convert to Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, rather than Catholicism (believe it or not, Judaism was contemplated as a religion for a while, but thankfully the prince quicly discarded that idea.)
** However, from Peter the Great until Red October, Russia essentially became part of the West for 200 years. Many Hapsburgs took Russian brides, and Russia was accepted, albeit grudgingly, as a European power.**
I don't know... I think that in many ways, particularly in terms of race, Russia is an indelible part of the West. Also, more ecently Western culture (if we can call the decadence of the modern West that) has been making more and more of an impact on young Russians, which I can say with certainty, is not a good thing. The clothing of the modern-day Russian, his physiognomy and his mannerisms are Western; his soul is not.
Yockey raised the issue that although Russia was culturally, linguistically and politically isolated from Western Europe, it was still the best hope for White Western survival.
In Imperium Yockey made it clear that he did not view Russia as a part of the West; indeed, he saw Russia and the West to be two archnemeses, one always trying to destroy the other. Of course, its clear that he was talking about culture alone, and even in this respect he overexagerates the incongruity between the Slavo-Finnic paganism/Byzantine Orthodoxy of Russia and the Kelto-Germanic paganism/Hellenic-Roman classicism of Western culture. I do not know what his racial views on the Russians were-many of the people of that time period had the misconceptions that Russians are some kind of semi-Mongoloid Turanid hybrid. However, he did view Russsian individuals as being assimilable into the West.
** Yockey surmised that even if the USSR had subsumed Western Europe, the West would still endure and even become stronger.ÃÂ He theorized that the Russians would eliminate the influence of the culture distorters while imposing a militant, masculine ethos upon cosmopolitan Western Europe.ÃÂ Simultaneously, Russian peoples and institutions would be assimilated into the European fold.ÃÂ Food for thought.ÃÂ Thanks for raising this topic.**
I honestly have not read much by Yockey excpet Imperium and some of his early essays, but it does seem that he viewed Russian culture in a more admirable light in his later years.
Thanks for the reply,
Joseph.
2003-05-29 00:29 | User Profile
**What, your mind constitutes "the West"? Is it merely a memetic cultural construct? Is it an ethnoracial super-entity of some sort? Perhaps the West refers to a certain region or regions that share a common culture and genetic heritage? What regions are in the West? What is completely outside it? **
Geographically, ââ¬ÅThe Westââ¬Â is composed of all the states that boast majority Aryan population. In my mind it includes Russia as far as the Urals, and Greece. It is also a cultural construct that accommodates our sometimes distinct but more or less entwined histories and furnishes one prism through which we derive our common outlook. Naturally those that peer through the lens while standing slightly off centre view things a little differently, but who is to say which vantage point yields the least distorted image. Cultural proximity can to a degree offset genetic distances, as I think it does in the case of South-eastern Europeans. But the alien culture of the Iranians, for example, is such that they do not come close to qualifying for Western inclusion.
**The Judeo-Masonic cabal has reduced Russia to a state of complete bankruptcy and servitude; yet unlike much of the West, we still retain our pride in our culture and accomplishments. The West has become weak, and effeminate, its very founding principles replaced by the decadence of Judaic pseudo-intellectualism-Marxism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, Freduianism, Objectivism, etc... **
Past accomplishments, while rightly the source of pride and reason for celebrations, mean NOTHING in the present struggle. The English speaking countries, the victors of recent wars and would-be global cultural conquerors are in dire straights. As you perceive, the greatest of them, the US, is close to capsizing, and this despite the historically unprecedented political, military, and economic power it flaunts.
ââ¬ÅRetention of pride in cultural accomplishmentsââ¬Â and preservation of racial unity is the true battleground. ââ¬ÅState bankruptcy and servitudeââ¬Â can be quickly remedied, misery having always served as fertile ground to train the faithful, but a large hostile or indifferent alien minority combined with a general populace devoid of racial instincts and conditioned since infancy to develop multicultural mindset is infinitely more difficult to counter. In fact, if recent reports out of Russia are even remotely accurate and are representative of public thinking, her chances of genetic and cultural preservation are considerably better than those of English-speaking Whites the world over.
Extensive, true institutional racism practiced by majority of the populace (even if passive in nature), supported by like-minded law enforcement personal and indifferent courts is what maintains the genetic uniqueness of a country in times of peace. Being a racist or a race-conscious intellectual with nothing but a keyboard is cathartic, yes, but no substitute for sending a meaningful message to the global village that foreigners are not welcomed in your nation.
Can the West be saved?
If I were to say that the West is destined to collapse and leave it at that, historically speaking, I would be correct. I need not add anything about causes, e.g., extent of Jewish saturation, etc., for these things are cyclical and even the Fuehrer, the dreamer talked not of the ââ¬Åeternal Reichââ¬Â but of a ââ¬Åthousand-year Reich,ââ¬Â implicitly recognizing that all civilizations eventually fall. The question is whether there will exist people that look and think like us in the millennia to come (a blink of an eye per geologic time-scale). What culture theyââ¬â¢ll wallow is not especially critical, but I suppose the sentimentalist in me would like to see them cherish the best elements our civilization had to offer and discard the more savage acquisitions weââ¬â¢ve picked up recently.
Should it be saved?
Must you ask? Viable beings of all races naturally think their kind worthy of preservation. Those who think otherwise are free to make whatever arrangements they thinks necessary to end their particular lines. I gather you are suggesting that a strict Darwinist would conclude that if there is something innate about Aryans that merits their extinctions, e.g., misplaced altruism, then such is their lot, and merit should decide their destiny as opposed to it being left to chance. True enough, but what is evolution but a mixture of natural selection and generous helping of luck. Recall that we could conceivably have been lizards were it not for an asteroid. I would not be at all surprised if Whites escaped extinction/racial absorption on account of a bug or two.
Will another one rise in its place?
Always. But Iââ¬â¢ll pass on making prediction concerning its sophistication or the amounts of melanin present in the more advanced hominid tribes of the future. It helps sometimes to survey all the different humans on the planet and ponder the extent and duration of the miscegenation phenomena. Judging from the colourful assortment of humanoids here, there and everywhere, itââ¬â¢s clear that the wandering White man, unlike the Jew for the most part, has been a busy, busy boy for a long, long time.
2003-05-29 05:53 | User Profile
The answer is [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089555464X/qid=1054187553/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/002-3961917-2981634?v=glance&s=books]HERE.[/url]
Walter
2003-05-29 07:16 | User Profile
**A-Y:
In principle, I accept Revilo Oliver's definition of "the West" as those peoples who were Catholic prior to 1492.**
This is also the definition of the West as put forward by the Spenglerians: Spengler, Yockey, and Brown.
BTW: I highly recommend reading Lawrence R. Brown's "The Might of the West". It's a masterful work; well worth the trouble of securing a copy.
As to Russia: it is a border "satellite culture", much like Japan was a satellite culture of China, and is currently a satellite culture of the West. The Hittites are another example of a satellite culture - of the Babylonian civilization. The Phoenicians started out as an offshoot of the Babylonian culture, and later became a satellite of the Classical culture.
Satellite cultures tend to be cultures which are themselves not part of any High Culture, but bordering on a High Culture, they at least superficially take on some of the aspects of a High Culture.
When the Russians were functioning as a superficially Westernized satellite culture, it was on the whole a good thing; when its Westernized elites were wiped out by the Jewish Bolsheviks, that was a bad thing. Hopefully now Russia is coming back under the influence of the West.
Reading Spengler, Yockey, and Brown, I cannot decide whether Russia is going to be a High Culture of its own in the future (Spengler plays with this possibility at one point in the Decline of the West) or whether it is always going to remain a satellite culture. Going on past history, I can't think of a satellite culture that became a High Culture in its own right. Satellite cultures make up for their lack of originality by having greater adaptability; Russia may survive the West (if the West fails) but that does not mean that Russia will be the next High Culture.
But "applied Spenglerianism" can only help predict the future of a High Culture that already exists and whose character is already known; it cannot predict the emergence and character of new High Cultures; that is a mystery which is quite beyond anything that the study of history can hope to illuminate.
2003-05-29 07:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by grep14w@May 29 2003, 01:16 ** > **A-Y:
In principle, I accept Revilo Oliver's definition of "the West" as those peoples who were Catholic prior to 1492.**
This is also the definition of the West as put forward by the Spenglerians: Spengler, Yockey, and Brown.
BTW: I highly recommend reading Lawrence R. Brown's "The Might of the West". It's a masterful work; well worth the trouble of securing a copy.
As to Russia: it is a border "satellite culture", much like Japan was a satellite culture of China, and is currently a satellite culture of the West. The Hittites are another example of a satellite culture - of the Babylonian civilization. The Phoenicians started out as an offshoot of the Babylonian culture, and later became a satellite of the Classical culture.
Satellite cultures tend to be cultures which are themselves not part of any High Culture, but bordering on a High Culture, they at least superficially take on some of the aspects of a High Culture.
When the Russians were functioning as a superficially Westernized satellite culture, it was on the whole a good thing; when its Westernized elites were wiped out by the Jewish Bolsheviks, that was a bad thing. Hopefully now Russia is coming back under the influence of the West.
Reading Spengler, Yockey, and Brown, I cannot decide whether Russia is going to be a High Culture of its own in the future (Spengler plays with this possibility at one point in the Decline of the West) or whether it is always going to remain a satellite culture. Going on past history, I can't think of a satellite culture that became a High Culture in its own right. Satellite cultures make up for their lack of originality by having greater adaptability; Russia may survive the West (if the West fails) but that does not mean that Russia will be the next High Culture.
But "applied Spenglerianism" can only help predict the future of a High Culture that already exists and whose character is already known; it cannot predict the emergence and character of new High Cultures; that is a mystery which is quite beyond anything that the study of history can hope to illuminate. **
That's a fascinating account. I'll see if I can track down the Brown text. Could you reccomend some of Spengler's writings regarding Russia? (Other than "Decline of the West")
-Tom
2003-05-29 07:33 | User Profile
**That's a fascinating account. I'll see if I can track down the Brown text. Could you reccomend some of Spengler's writings regarding Russia? (Other than "Decline of the West") ** I'm not aware of any of Spengler's writings about Russia, apart from what he wrote in "The Decline of the West". Some of his later polemical writings may have touched on this topic, but I don't recall. Most of my books and old copies of Michael Walker's "The Scorpion" magazine are in deep storage, so I don't have this info at my fingertips anymore. It's buried deeply in long term memory somewhere, if this info exists in me at all.
As for Brown, it is a very obscure book; either use interlibrary loan, or visit one of the major white nationalist booksellers - National Vanguard Books probably still carries it.
2003-05-30 04:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@May 29 2003, 15:29 I'll take a look at Lawrence Brown's book, I know I've seen it advertised from various bookdealers targetting racialist audiences. You are the first person to tell me that there's anything substantively new in it, most other people have told me that Brown basically rewrote The Decline of the West in a different style for a different audience (something one can equally say of Yockey, actually).
IMO that's a very superficial view of Brown. Yes, Brown rewrites Spengler for an English speaking audience, but he also expands upon Spengler and develops Spengler's logic in ways Spengler never got around to, or in areas in which Spengler was mistaken or insufficiently rigorous in his logic. IMO Brown is vastly superior to Yockey, precisely because he does not attempt to slavishly reiterate Spengler for a political purpose.
I found Brown a highly useful writer, however, to the English speaking reader who has difficulty grasping Spengler. And that's not a bad quality, either.
** I've also been skeptical of Spengler's assessment of Russia as a new civilization. He argues that Russia in the 18th and 19th century was at the same stage of development as Carolingian Europe and thus occupies the same relationship to the West as the West occupies with respect to Islamic civilization. My belief has always been that Russia has always represented the conflict and interplay of westernizing forces (Vikings, Peter the Great, the Romanovs) and an eastern Byzantine element. Rather than being a different civilization, Russia can be thought of as a frontier between two different civilizations, or as a satellite shared by or fought over by the West and East.**
That's my view too, and Brown's view as well, although he doesn't talk much about Russia. Brown's book is primarily dedicated to the purpose of getting the reader to grasp the essential reality of the West; understanding the rest of the world is subservient to this purpose in his writing.
I think Spengler was fooled by the "frontier" nature of Russia; the only thing in common between both 18th century Russia and Carolingian Western Europe is that both regions were essentially devoid of culture or civilization of its own; however Russia did have a Westernized elite, whereas the early West had nothing equivalent to a "Levantinized" elite, but went on to develop a culture of its own. Russia continues to be a satellite culture, in contrast.
As to whether Russia has moved in a "Western" direction since the fall of the USSR, one can point out that today's ruling elite in Russia is culturally and ethnically quite similar to those who brought the October Revolution of 1917, only now they style themselves as International Capitalists rather than International Socialists. In many ways Russia under the Gusinsky and Berezovsky cabals is probably less "Western" in character than it was under Brezhnev.
Ah, but doesn't that also describe the current situation in the West as well?
2003-06-02 17:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sisyfos@May 28 2003, 18:29 ** Geographically, ââ¬ÅThe Westââ¬Â is composed of all the states that boast majority Aryan population. **
How do you define "Aryan"? Technically, the word Aryan should on;y be applied to the descendants of the original Indo-Europeans-these people are confined to certian areas of Northeastern Europe. I know that you are using the word Aryan as a synonym for "white", but even here ambiguity is very powerful. Who is white? This is one of the biggest problems of the WN movement-get two random WNs together and I can almost guarantee that they will not be able to agree on who is white and who isn't.
**In my mind it includes Russia as far as the Urals, and Greece. **
I disagree. Northeastern Russia is inhabited by Finno-Ugric peoples of Uralolappinoid racial types, who have strong (~25%) Mongoloid admixture. In fact, the Bashkirs, a Turkic people with around 70% Mongoloid ancestry, and the Samoyeds, a fully Mongoloid people, live within the confines of European Russia. Some ethnic Russian groups of the Vyatka/Kama river basins are of sub-uralolappinoid affinities, meaning that they are predominantly Europid with Uralic/Lappinoid admixture. Do you see people with slight Mongoloid admixture as "Aryan"? What about people with slight Negroid admixture? Where do you draw the line between what amount of admixture is still acceptable and what isn't?
(It is also a cultural construct that accommodates our sometimes distinct but more or less entwined histories and furnishes one prism through which we derive our common outlook. Naturally those that peer through the lens while standing slightly off centre view things a little differently, but who is to say which vantage point yields the least distorted image. Cultural proximity can to a degree offset genetic distances, as I think it does in the case of South-eastern Europeans. But the alien culture of the Iranians, for example, is such that they do not come close to qualifying for Western inclusion.
I agree. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the West is as much a cultural construct as it is racial one, perhaps even more so. Take for example the Albanians-mostly of Alpine, Dinaric, and Nordic affinities. The average Albanian is indistinguishable from the average Frenchman. Some Albanians, like this man: [img]http://www.legioneuropa.org/Racediv/CSCoon/Images/p30f3.gif[/img]
are Nordics who would look more at home in Stockholm, London or Novgorod than Tiranna. However, they are mostly Muslim, and Muslim Albanians, whether they are Alpine, Dinaric, Noric, or Nordic, are not a part of the West (though racially assimilable into it). In fact, indigenous Nordics are found among Berbers, but nobody can seriously suggest that even a blonde, blue-eyed Nordic Berber Muslim is a part of the West.
**Past accomplishments, while rightly the source of pride and reason for celebrations, mean NOTHING in the present struggle. **
I beg to differ. The past of a people, is what constitutes a people's history and culture-when this is lost or trampled, their culture and history is trampled. > ** The English speaking countries, the victors of recent wars and would-be global cultural conquerors are in dire straights.ÃÂ As you perceive, the greatest of them, the US, is close to capsizing, and this despite the historically unprecedented political, military, and economic power it flaunts. **
Exactly, and this is because instead of being taught to respect and take pride in their history, young Westerners are indoctrinated with a message of self-hate-a message of such utter contempt for their past and history that they literally bow before their former slaves.
2003-06-03 00:40 | User Profile
As for Greeks, not only are they genetically on the perphery of Europe (at least 60% of their ancestry is Middle Eastern), but they are also culturally distinct from Westerners, being Orthodox Christians, rather than Catholics or Protestants. I do not believe that peoples of Orthodox faith, be they Cro-Magnoid/Nordid Russians or Danric/Alpine/Levantine Greeks are part of the West.
2003-06-03 03:53 | User Profile
**PS: How do you define "Aryan"? Technically, the word... **
I do not bother to define it. I use it as I deem fit. ââ¬ÂAryanââ¬Â has a venerable history so itââ¬â¢s more colourful than ââ¬Åwhite,ââ¬Â and zhids throw fits upon hearing it, which is why its usage should be encouraged.
Iââ¬â¢ve given the standard political description of what many consider to be the West without regard for the innumerable minorities inhabiting its domain. Your 'Finnish' and 'Russian' examples are, of course, no more Aryan than the savages residing in the ruins of Detroit. But Iââ¬â¢m not prepared to discount the whole state of Michigan on account of its many rotted and browning apples, not just yet. Naturally, these pockets will continue to grow and eventually absorb entire states/provinces and later whole countries. At precisely what point during the process the territory becomes nearly devoid of whites and the landscape found vaunting for lack of white culture so as to no longer merit ââ¬ÅThe Westââ¬Â designation is not terribly important. What matters is that somewhere a sizable contingent of whites succeeds in preserving its racial cohesion or denies entry to non-Aryans for at least as long as Americaââ¬â¢s cultural hegemony endures. When the Empire implodes, the gloves will come off, the settling of accounts will proceed unabated in countries where racial instinct for self-preservation has not been etiolated and supplanted with penchant for excessive do-gooding. For starters, they will be able to what they like within the confines of their borders.
I see that elsewhere youââ¬â¢re having fun at the expense of a racial survey apparently devised by eager young kiddies in training for the priesthood profession. Since international comparisons tell us that American youths fair poorly in geography and history (perhaps less so concerning US history) in comparison with others, it is fair to assume that many participants would have trouble finding the enumerated countries on a nameless political map, let alone know something of its people and history. The rabbleââ¬â¢s thinking is deserving of scorn, true enough, but I would suggest that there is little to be gain from rehashing worn out arguments over who is white. Other forums have done so sans much progress (e.g., Polinco). A person is White if he i) looks white (absence of, or minimal foreign admixture) and ii) acts white (exclusionary clause for wiggers and other undesirables). In other words, youââ¬â¢ll know it when you see it. ââ¬ÅThe movement,ââ¬Â as you so charitably put it, has many problems and lack of optimal racial composition is not one for the major category.
Concerning the Greeks, Albanians and other similarly situated Europeans, I have no firm opinion save to say that ideally the thing should probably be decided on case-by-case basis, i.e., theoretically appealing but practically a near impossibility. Protestants* and Catholics ye, but Orthodox Christians nay, you say. Interesting. What of atheists, pagans, and those into multi-god grovelling?
*My signature, whatever the actual truthfulness of the content, is there to convey the little ironies that can serve as genesis of movements and possibilities, however short lived. Preference for the literal Genesis should not be read into it. :hyp:
2003-06-03 06:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sisyfos@Jun 2 2003, 21:53 **Your 'Finnish' and 'Russian' examples are, of course, no more Aryan than the savages residing in the ruins of Detroit. **
I am confused. Are you referring to ethnic Northeastern Russians and ethnic Finns (Suomen) who have only slight Uralolappinoid influence? Some Finno-Ugric speakers of Northeastern Russia (Nenets, Khanty, etc..) are of Uralo-Lappinoid type. Ethnic Russians of the Vyatka-Kama river basin regions are Nordeuropids who have slight Uralolappinoid influence. Same goes for Finns, Karelians, Esths, Livs and Letts. Do you consider these people non-Aryan?
2003-06-03 18:14 | User Profile
**What, your mind constitutes "the West"? Is it merely a memetic cultural construct? Is it an ethnoracial super-entity of some sort? Perhaps the West refers to a certain region or regions that share a common culture and genetic heritage? What regions are in the West? What is completely outside it? **
The definition of the West has changed over time. Traditionally, the West constituted of the nations and kingdoms that were founded on the territories of Western Rome (Britain,France,Spain,Italy, Croatia). Germany, from that point of view, was not really a Western nation, as its national myth centers around the successful resistence towards Roman occupation. Finally, the Franks succeeded in what the Romans failed and brought Germany under Roman law and faith. But there has always been some move to distance oneself from the classical West. Somehow that division is still existent today, as the Roman occupied areas have strong affinities towards France, and the Catholic faith is still very strong over there. The Northeast of the country, the areas that later became the kingdoms of Saxony and Prussia, are more pagan still today, and tend towards stronger nationalism. The French saw the symbolism, when the capital moved from Bonn at the Rhine river to Berlin east of the Elbe river. The British and the French did not really consider the country as part of the Latin civilization that gave birth to today's West. On the other hand, Germany carried the burden of the Cesarian Throne, as the "Holy Roman Empire" was the legal successor, or better the continuation of ancient Rome. The socalled "Reichsidea", the fact that the pagan German tribes continue the glory of Rome, was conceived by Charlemagne, who dreamed up the idea of a united Christian Europe, but considered himself a "Rex Germanaie". The merger of the northern barbarians with Latin civilization, as was embodied in the Frankish Kingdom, is generally considered the birth of the West. So as Russia became the "Third Rome", carrying the legacy of Constantinople and Eastern Rome, Germany carried the legacy of Western Rome, at least politically, as culturally, there is a difference. But from the Renaissance on, the self perception of the West changed, and thus what Germany belonged to, changed, too. The Enlightment never had the same effect on Germany as on the other Western countries, the social structure of the country remained relatively conserved from the Middle Ages until WWI. Germany, together with Zsarist Russia and Austria Hungary, formed a reactionary alliance against the ideas of the French Revolution after the Viennese Congress headed by the Austrian Count Metternich. So until the end of WWI, and one might even say until the end of WWII, Germany was not part of the West as we know it today.
2003-06-03 20:55 | User Profile
jamestown> So until the end of WWI, and one might even say until the end of WWII, Germany was not part of the West as we know it today.
I believe Adenauer was heard on the train once uttering as his rail car crossed the Oder that now he was entering Asia.
2003-06-03 21:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Jun 3 2003, 14:55 ** jamestown> So until the end of WWI, and one might even say until the end of WWII, Germany was not part of the West as we know it today.
I believe Adenauer was heard on the train once uttering as his rail car crossed the Oder that now he was entering Asia. **
It was the Elbe river. Everytime he crossed her, he spit into her. He swore that Berlin should never become the capital again. To him Asia started east of the Rhine River. He tried everything to prevent unification and was the major brainchild of Western Germany's alliance with America and France. He made Bonn the capital.
2003-06-03 22:25 | User Profile
jamestown Thanks for the correction.
2003-06-04 06:39 | User Profile
PS: I am confused. Are you referring to ethnic Northeastern Russians and ethnic Finns (Suomen) who have only slight Uralolappinoid influence? Some Finno-Ugric speakers of Northeastern Russia (Nenets, Khanty, etc..) are of Uralo-Lappinoid type. Ethnic Russians of the Vyatka-Kama river basin regions are Nordeuropids who have slight Uralolappinoid influence. Same goes for Finns, Karelians, Esths, Livs and Letts. Do you consider these people non-Aryan?
As might be expected, cousin, I would never deny Russians of minimal mongoloid admixture the right to refer to themselves as Aryans if they wish, nor would I deny the same to any Europeans with similar negligible impurities. My comments were confined to the Turkic people you mentioned and other obvious Mongoloids. The Finns, they of the highest percentage of true blonds, deserve no different in terms of criteria. In their case I had in mind only the aborigine Lapps, or Sami as they prefer. Of these, some members of the more Europoid Western tribes may merit inclusion but the more Mongoloid Easterners would invariably not.