Less boring than you think, for those of us who are learning. Notice that this averaged reconstruction resembles in many ways the ancient Praxitelean statues I had asked about, including but not limited to the way in which the bridge of the nose doesn't seem to go in where it meets the brow, but goes more straight down (or, so it *seems* here, but I could be wrong -- hard to judge from a full-face, non-profile view like this).

Intresting .He seems to have some elements of generalized alpine,dinaric and med.Though I see him on the Dinaric side.If he dressed up with a Pittsburg Steelers and jeans he would probably be considered an orinary white guy in America.I doubt people would say gee he odd .

Though I would be able to pick him out in a crowd as Greek or Balkan.

What software and what methods do you use to do facial averaging?

Morpher. You have to define corresponding points/regions in two pictures and then it creates a composite of the two.

Oh, alright. I was thinking maybe you had some special program for mixing large numbers of people. But I guess you probably mix them in pairs, then mix pairs of the mixes, then mix pairs of those, etc.

This web page, http://forums.delphiforums.com/hellenes , has at its heading (just above the page's title, which is "THE HELLENES") two rows of thumbnails. In the first row (top row) of thumbnails, fourth from the left, is an ancient statue (whose bronze is a dark gray color on my machine) showing the head of a youth or young man whose face looks very much like the composite of the 16 soccer players.

This other ancient statue, http://www.theoi.com/Cult/HermesCult.html , also shows a face very similar to the soccer-player composite. (I don't know if the statue in this particular photo is the original by Praxiteles; it might be.)

On the other hand, the youth shown here http://www.geocities.com/dienekesp2/ancient/greekart.html (scroll down to Fig. 2: bronze sculpture, "The Charioteer," early fifth century B.C.) seems to show a different ancient Greek physical type from the other type seen above in the other two ancient statues and the modern soccer composite. Dienekes and Doric Greek have pointed out that there was a multiplicity of physical types in ancient Greece.

The composite of soccer players of today gives the impression that a certain ancient Greek Praxitelean ideal type of face had a strong basis in reality at that time (and wasn't just dreamt up out of whole cloth by classical Greek artists and sculptors of that age) and is still represented in the faces of today's Greek young men. Maybe other ancient types are too.

I don't think that this composite would be viewed as a "typical white guy" in the US. I'm curious what kind of lighting was present in the original pictures that made up this image.
Would the average American consider this composite to be "white?"

You can check out the original pics in the provided link. Everyone there was used except a couple of guys whose hair was falling on their brow.

The composite is not the typical white guy, I agree about that. He's the average Greek guy. For the average German guy, follow the link a few posts below.

BTW, anyone who wants to can replicate this for any ethnic group they want to. They just have to find good face pics and experiment a bit to get the technique right. Morpher is available here.

I looked at this pic again on another computer, with better screen brightness and definition, and OK, this composite can pass as a 'white.' However, many of the original players would not pass as 'white', and I wonder if they all really ethnically Greek.

mxrienzi, I thought there were lots of different types of whites -- no? This composite looks one-hundred percent white to me. Isn't "white" Europe and its derivatives such as North America and Australia; Mediterranean North Africa; the Near- and Middle-East; and large parts of the Indian Subcontinent including its eastern fringe, Bangladesh? That's been my impression. This guy looks like a Mediterranean white. Saying all that doesn't mean I want to replace the entire population of Greece with Egyptians or vice-versa tomorrow, or the entire population of Bangladesh tomorrow with Irishmen from county Sligo or replace the entire population of Ireland tomorrow with Bangladeshis, as the race-deniers, leftists, Marxists, various corporate interests, President Bush, Karl Rove, and certain bloggers such as a particular one at "Gene Expression" are dying to force down people's unwilling throats. The reason I'm not dying for any of that to be forced down unwilling populations' throats is that races, ethnicities, and ethno-cultures have a right not to be ethnolysed if they don't want to be. All those who DO want to be ethnolysed, be my guest -- just step right up, and we can arrange that in a jiffy. Let me introduce you to a certain blogger.

All others have a right to be left fricking alone.

>> I looked at this pic again on another computer, with better screen brightness and definition, and OK, this composite can pass as a 'white.' However, many of the original players would not pass as 'white', and I wonder if they all really ethnically Greek.

All the original players are ethnically Greek AFAIK. This is what Greeks look like. None of these would even raise an eyebrow anywhere in Greece, let alone because someone might think that they were not 'white'. And, by all means, they are not even the most extreme Greeks that one could find (in any direction).

BTW, please list the non-white ones if you have the time.

Note that I'm on the "bad" computer again, somewhat fuzzy, so I'll be "conservative."
Assume we are reading left to right for each row.
So the top row, we have, left to right #1-3,
below that, left to right, #4-6, and so on, 6 rows of three apiece.
The ones that I say are _most_ "suspect" would be:
1,5,8,9,10,11,14,16,17

Maybe if I saw all of them in "real life", or with better perspectives, I'd think differently, but I'm sure that of these 18 - even under the "best" circumstances, some fraction would be "suspect" - by MY standards.

As far as the other post - well, it matters what you consider "white" - a vague term. Nordicists think only NW Euros are 'white', Medititercentrists think all Caucasians are 'white', etc. Generally, in the USA, Caucasians who are not dark-skinned are considered 'white.' I'd prefer to use that term for those of European descent, but then I use "Euros" instead.

My time is limited this week, so if anyone feels strongly enough about my views on this topic, they can email:
mxrienzi@aol.com, and I'll get to it when I can.
My bottom line is that, in MY opinion, we shouldn't just say that any "Caucasian", or even any "European" is "white." I know that's subjective. That's why I've been promoting ABD 2.0 tests for an evaluation of at least Caucasian/Negro/Mongolid/Amerind admixture.
True enough, various "Caucasian" types cannot be precisely differentiated by this test, but results have shown that as one moves east from Europe (or at least from Western Europe), the % of IndoEuropean genes in "Caucasians" decreases, so that one can go from 100% IndoEuropean in western Europe (in many/most cases) to some East Asian % in Eastern Europe, up until the point where ~50% of tested South Asians have signficant East Asian genetic admixture. So, in very rough terms, while one cannot precisely differentiate between 'whites' with 2.0, one can make probability statements that MLEs that approach ( or equal) 100% IndoEuro are _most likely_ of European origin.

The response I've gotten from "white nationalists" as regards this test has been mostly VERY hostile. God forbid they find out if _they_ have Negro, Asian, or Amerind ancestry - after accusing others, esp. SEs of being "mulattos", etc.

Thus, I've grown disenchanted with genetic testing - and think that the time is not yet right for it, it seems.

Everyone loves _subjective_ phenotype.
So be it. I can be subjective too.

And some of those players "don't look White" to me.

If some of those players "don't look White" to you, then in the hypothetical case that the all-white state that you envision becomes a reality, what will happen to them?

I don't think that this composite would be viewed as a "typical white guy" in the US. I'm curious what kind of lighting was present in the original pictures that made up this image.
Would the average American consider this composite to be "white?"

Well, as regards white nationalism: okay, I wouldn't feel good about mass immigration from Greece in the future, but the relatively small numbers of Greeks (and Sicilians and any other "suspect" Euro groups) already here are fine with me.

>> Well, as regards white nationalism: okay, I wouldn't feel good about mass immigration from Greece in the future, but the relatively small numbers of Greeks (and Sicilians and any other "suspect" Euro groups) already here are fine with me.

This is the crux of so-called "white nationalism". It divides Europeans into suspect and non-suspect groups based on an arbitrary definition of whiteness that is inversely proportional to the distance from NW Europeans. Greeks should avoid "white nationalism" like the plague; Greek patriotism is the only ideology we need.

I don't know what Oleg means by "suspect," unless it be in the same sense in which Norwegians, say, would be viewed as "suspect" by Greeks and by Sicilians if they began ethnolysing the latter by means of replacing them with the former. The Red Indians viewed the Anglo-Saxons as "suspect" when they ethnolysed them almost to extinction. That's the only way in which I am able to interpret Oleg's use of "suspect" here. I side with any race, ethnicity, ethno-culture, or racial/ethnic mix, which doesn't want to be ethnolysed but is being forced against its will to undergo that process. Another word for that situation, in which such a group has ethnolysis inflicted upon it against its will, is holocaust.

I dunno, maybe it's my migraines acting up, or maybe it's my hormones ... but I don't happen to favor subjecting races of people to genocidal holocausts -- but, HEY -- that's just me .... each to his own, I always say ...

Dienekes:

This is the crux of so-called "white nationalism". It divides Europeans into suspect and non-suspect groups based on an arbitrary definition of whiteness that is inversely proportional to the distance from NW Europeans.

Right - but that's because most white Americans are of NW European stock.

Greeks should avoid "white nationalism" like the plague; Greek patriotism is the only ideology we need.

Clarify something for me: do you live in America or Greece? If the latter, then by all means, go for Greek patriotism. "White" nationalism is mainly for whites living outside of Europe, as I see it. Those in European countries would obviously be better suited with ideologies catering to their specific ethnic group (e.g. Greek nationalism for Greece, German nationalism for Germany, etc.)

In my opinion, ethnic Greeks ought to be good citizens and patriots for the countries in which they have citizenship. In as much as they identify with their Greek culture they should try to maintain it and pass it on to their children.

What Greeks ought NOT to do is join a "white nationalist" movement composed of a variety of people, some of whom regard some Greeks as white, others as non-white, others as suspect, even if they are willing to "tolerate" them.

Greeks don't need White nationalism? Good luck then dealing with the teeming hordes of coloreds with Greece's tiny population. Are you brain-addled or what?
As regards "suspect populations" - no. no. no. No Euro population should be 'suspect' and no person deemed 'suspect' just because they belong to such an ethnie. Since racial ancestry can now be quantitated for any individual by ABD technology, that's what should be used. In point of fact, one may indeed find more admixture in 'non-suspect' individuals than in 'suspect' individuals.
But, phenotype has its place too. I'm sorry, but if someone - an INDIVIDUAL, _not_ an entire group - looks 'suspect' then there is a problem.
Some of those players look to me exactly like the same kind of mulatto hispanics I see walking around America. Some look like part-Mongolid Turkics. Am I wrong? Then let's get those folks tested. If they are "pure Caucasian", then, OK, then it is my subjective error.
And "Nordics" need be tested too. I know of one Blonde/blue "Nordic" from East Europe who turned out to be ~25% East Asian.
What about those players in a White state? I want to judge folks on the "big three": genes and ancestry, phenotype, and extended phenotype (Intelligence, culture, behavior, etc). Those guys fail the phenotype test, do they pass the others? I acknowledge the problem: they have nowhere else to go. They are ostensibly European. They are I presume, culturally Greek-European. Fine. Small numbers of such folks can be assimilated. But we need racial eugenics to improve the stock. My problem is not with some soccer player who looks like a Turk or a Puerto Rican. The problem is with "Mediterrocentrists" and others who wish to obfuscate real differences amongst "Caucasian" peoples and who refuse to at least acknowledge that certain phenotypes AND genotypes are a problem.
Nordicists are just as bad - accusing everyone else of being 'mulatto' without acknowledging the reality of genetic testing for such admixture.
We need White solidarity and White nationalism. But we need to overcome:
1) the Nordicist idea that certain Euro groups or individuals are automatically "suspect", and
2) the Mediterrocentrist idea that "all Caucasians are the same" regardless of their genes and what they look like.

What's the population of Greece - 10-12 million or so? How many Greeks are there in the world, including in the Americas?

You got more brownsters bathing in the Ganges in any given day than you have total # of Greeks, and you think you can "make it on your own?"

Oh..wait a minute..brown Indics and Dravidics are all "white", so that's "no problem."

sheesh.

>> Greeks don't need White nationalism? Good luck then dealing with the teeming hordes of coloreds with Greece's tiny population. Are you brain-addled or what?

Greek patriotism is enough to ensure that immigration into Greece is checked. Actually, most of these 'coloreds' pass through Greece to go to the more populous and industrialized parts of Western Europe. It seems that our association is hurting us in that respect.

>> Some of those players look to me exactly like the same kind of mulatto hispanics I see walking around America. Some look like part-Mongolid Turkics. Am I wrong? Then let's get those folks tested.

You're not just wrong. You're clueless and completely ignorant of physical anthropology. Now, Greeks have been studied by physical anthropology and various racial types have been found in them, e.g., Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, Nordic, Armenoid, etc. etc. "Mulatto Hispanic" or "part-Mongolid" Turkic aren't included in that list. So, either the choir of anthropologists is wrong, or you're wrong.

>> I acknowledge the problem: they have nowhere else to go. They are ostensibly European. They are I presume, culturally Greek-European. Fine. Small numbers of such folks can be assimilated.

Listen, Greeks turn red in the face if you tell them they're going to be "tolerated" in small numbers as an act of charity. Read a bit about Greek philotimo.

>> You got more brownsters bathing in the Ganges in any given day than you have total # of Greeks, and you think you can "make it on your own?"

Greeks have "made it on their own" for 3,500 years. We chose to face the Ottoman onslaught alone when the simple concession of accepting the Pope would have "saved" us. We don't compromise our identity for tactical benefit.

Greeks should keep Greek interests in mind, nothing more and nothing less. Being a "tolerated" sidekick to "White Nationalism" isn't for us.

I thought I was a pretty hard-core, in-your-face, anti-PC kind of guy, but next to this guy Rienzi I'm a rank amateur.

"Greeks don't need White nationalism?  Good luck then dealing with the teeming hordes of coloreds with Greece's tiny population.  Are you brain-addled or what?"

Mediterranean whites don't seem to have the same problem the Germanic white ethnies have ("une ethnie," a French word used inadvertantly by Rienzi, means "an ethnic group").  The Germanic ones (Anglo-Saxons, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians) instantly swallow every kind of anti-white-race propaganda put out by the most transparently rabid racist haters since Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele, and Hitler (the racists this time being anti-white ones).  Just let Marxists or other white-haters say the word and the Germanic branch of whitedom simply can't commit self-ethnolysis fast enough.  The Meds seem not to harbor this gravest defect, an utter lack of the instinct of ethno-cultural self-preservation -- seem to be immune to this mortal illness we've contracted.  That over which we in the north are locked in a life-and-death struggle (and will soon succumb), they in the south contemplate without a care in the world and completely shrug off, wondering what's the matter with their Germanic cousins.  They don't put up with this crap for one second, and no one can fool them into swallowing it as the usual suspects have so easily fooled us northerners.  Did anyone see how the various Balkan "ethnies" resumed their age-old fights with each other after a hiatus of seven hundred years?  It was amazing!  They picked up exactly where their ancestors of the 1300s had left off! I mean, it was GREAT STUFF TO BEHOLD! Talk about anti-entropy! -- what they did sure sent entropy packing! Where their ancient blood feuds were concerned, seven centuries were as seven minutes! 

No, I don't think the anti-white bull-sh*t that's stifling the life out of us so-called nordics threatens the Greeks one iota. The LAST thing they need in regard to this threat is "our nordic help or advice," help or advice which -- were they stupid enough to accept it -- would probably make them lose their existence as a race in about five minutes, as is happening to us.

It's not the place of losers to start dishing out advice to others.   

"But, phenotype has its place too. I'm sorry, but if someone - an INDIVIDUAL, _not_ an entire group - looks 'suspect' then there is a problem."

What problem? I mean, I'm second to none in my opposition to the current world-wide drive to extinguish the white race -- but if a country is what it always was and is perfectly happy continuing to be that, and if nothing outrageous is being rammed down its throat by the usual suspects (and, no, the "usual suspects" are not the Jews, the Masons, or what-have-you, but are mainly our own white-Euro-Christian élites in their various rôles) -- then what's the problem exactly?

"Some of those players look to me exactly like the same kind of mulatto hispanics I see walking around America. Some look like part-Mongolid Turkics. Am I wrong? Then let's get those folks tested. If they are 'pure Caucasian,' then, OK, then it is my subjective error."

I don't see the need to test anyone. Stopping massively excessive incompatible immigration has no bearing on any individuals, but only on government policy favoring incompatible immigration in such numbers as to overwhelm and actually change a country's traditional race and ethno-culture. That concern has to do with large numbers of people and not with any particular individuals whose race on an individual level is irrelevant to the larger concern because they as individuals do not threaten to undo a nation's race, the only threat I'm concerned about. Other than that, every race has it gifts and defects and I certainly view none as intrinsically better or worse than any other. I only want each race to continue to exist if it wants to.

"I want to judge folks on the 'big three': genes and ancestry, phenotype, and extended phenotype (Intelligence, culture, behavior, etc). Those guys fail the phenotype test. Do they pass the others?"

This kind of talk is where I and Rienzi's brand of white nationalism part company. I see no need whatsoever for any of this kind of talk.

"I acknowledge the problem: they have nowhere else to go."

Why do they need to go anywhere? They're already home (where they've lived thousands of years, from what I understand).

"The problem is with 'Mediterrocentrists' and others who wish to obfuscate real differences amongst 'Caucasian' peoples and who refuse to at least acknowledge that certain phenotypes AND genotypes are a problem."

The problem I see in the world today is élites deliberately erasing ancient nations and races who don't want to be erased. I don't see any "problem" with any phenotype or genotype per se.

"Oh..wait a minute..brown Indics and Dravidics are all 'white,' so that's 'no problem.' "

This of course refers to my comment that Subcontinentals were white despite being brown-skinned. All I can say is, they are. Plenty of them are one hundred percent white if one disregards the color of their skin. If anyone doubts this, that person lacks contact with some of these Subcontinental races. Work alongside dozens of them both male and female for a year, as I did in Trenton, New Jersey. (Apart from being white, by the way, they're delightful folk -- intelligent, educated, refined, dignified, polite, wonderful, friendly, and quite nice-looking people.)

This of course refers to my comment that Subcontinentals were white despite being brown-skinned. All I can say is, they are. Plenty of them are one hundred percent white if one disregards the color of their skin.

It's always funny how Jews who claim to want to protect the white race always have a ridiculous idea of what "white" is. Now, genetic testing has shown a large distance between European whites and subcontinentals (if you really dispute this, I'll dig up the raw data). So why then would anyone insist that Indians are white... perhaps because their presence in large numbers would make Jews a less conspicuous minority? Sheesh, even "white nationalist" Jews are shameless promoters of diversity it seems.

I'm Catholic (though never confirmed).

Unadorned said on this thread: "We already know that the web-site "Gene Expression" is one of the web's major forces for the advocacy of white-race ethnolysis, due mainly to a particular blogger there who attempts to enforce the subordination of whites to browns and yellows."

He comments on this thread: "This of course refers to my comment that Subcontinentals were white despite being brown-skinned. All I can say is, they are. Plenty of them are one hundred percent white if one disregards the color of their skin. If anyone doubts this, that person lacks contact with some of these Subcontinental races. Work alongside dozens of them both male and female for a year, as I did in Trenton, New Jersey. (Apart from being white, by the way, they're delightful folk -- intelligent, educated, refined, dignified, polite, wonderful, friendly, and quite nice-looking people.)"

To which Oleg responds: "It's always funny how Jews who claim to want to protect the white race always have a ridiculous idea of what "white" is..."

To which Unadorned responds: "I'm Catholic (though never confirmed)."

Haha. Oops, looks like you've failed one of those "racial purity" tests of in-group acceptance, Unadorned. Based on what you've said I'm not sure where you're going with this. In the linked thread you also said you didn't see how Rienzi could be "assailed" when he said:

"if citizenship is to be "ideological" and based on "IQ" and so forth, I have a suggestion. How about nations like China and India to show the way - show us poor benighted Euros how to go about doing this"

Looking at this though, I'm not sure what sort of diabolical thing it is that us Gene Expressors are advocating, that you disagre with? You seem to be down with an in-group that includes the so broad as to be meaningless designation "Caucasian".

I'm certainly perplexed about how Godless' and GnXp's very conservative, demographically inconsequential (esp. if you consider SAs white!), merit-based ideas on immigration as the equivalent to "the advocacy of white-race ethnolysis".

Also, I should point something out. The "white race" is not an ethnicity by any definition, and therefore cannot be "ethnolyzed". Only Van Den Berghe includes race as a part of his definition of ethnicity, and he is not really considered very important within the related fields of study. As I have stated previously, I believe razib and I to be the same ethnicity, using the conventional definition of the term. Many of the friends I grew up with were black, asian, latino, jewish, etc. and were at least as aracial and assimilated as I am. Because of this I believe racial heritage can and should be a subordinate concern in regards to the overall potential of the individual to share a part in the nation which I was born to and the unique historical experiment it represents.

Plenty of them are one hundred percent white if one disregards the color of their skin.

Also, it's the other way around - you're 100% brown except for the color of your skin. :)

>> Also, I should point something out. The "white race" is not an ethnicity by any definition, and therefore cannot be "ethnolyzed".

I agree about the "white race" not being an ethnic group. But, are e.g., "white Americans" an ethnic group? I think they certainly used to be one. I'm not sure how much they still consider themselves to be one, i.e., how many still do, as opposed to those who simply define themselves as "American".

"I believe Razib and me to be the same ethnicity, using the conventional definition of the term. Many of the friends I grew up with were black, Asian, Latino, Jewish, etc. and were at least as aracial and assimilated as I am. Because of this I believe racial heritage can and should be a subordinate concern in regard to the overall potential of the individual to share a part in the nation which I was born into and the unique historical experiment it represents."

First of all, "the unique historical experiment it represents" is nonsense -- that's naught but begging the "excessive incompatible immigration" question on the part of the pro-excessive-incompatible-immigration fanatics (a piece of circular reasoning which Jason seems to have been duped into swallowing -- unless he's a fanatic himself): the strategy is if they repeat enough times the psychotic pipe-dream that this country was intended to be some kind of "unique historical racial egalitarian experiment wherein it makes not the slightest difference whether or not white-Euro Christians are in the majority," the weak-minded will start believing that, greatly facilitating these fanatics' goal of making a brazen lie actually come true. That "unique historical experiment" stuff is as much a political slogan as "pro-choice," the pro-abortion slogan. It has no raison-d'être or basis in reality other than its partisan political one. I saw a big professor of medical ethics at Brown University argue a point of medical ethics using the pro-abortion crowd's rhetoric including "reproductive-choice" as if it was a moral philosophy instead of a partisan political slogan -- the guy had no brain and yet was some sort of big ivy-league professor. It was amazing to behold. What a numbskull he was -- what an oaf. Let's leave mere partisan political slogans out of the quest for a thing called truth, shall we?

Definitions of "ethnicity" that exclude race and consider only cultural trappings are great stuff and would make life so much easier -- not to mention making everyone feel more moral, a very big plus. I could really get into them myself. But there's a problem. Race determines culture to some extent. (I'm quoting Razib here.) ( * ) Inborn/racial differences at the individual level translate in their aggregate manifestations into unequivocal large-scale racial distinctions as regards culture and other stuff, such that while a few individuals of a different race won't matter to a race's gross characteristics, large numbers of them will -- they will change it. Many members of that race don't want its gross aggregate characteristics changed -- they like them fine the way they've been these five or ten or fifteen or twenty thousand years or whatever it is (be it that long or be it two nanoseconds -- I don't want them changed, sorry -- but thank you very much anyway for offering, Noel Ignatiev! You're soooo kind the way you so generously think only of others! -- I know it's the thought that counts, Professor!).

I don't see how my views have implications for friendships, or citizenship, or inter-racial marriage or dating, or withholding of rights, or discrimination, or whatever, on the level of the individual. They have to do solely with opposition to government policies sanctioning large-scale incompatible immigration. There has to be a way for distinct races and ethnicities to continue to exist.

I like the world's different cultures, physiognomies, and ways of being, and want the races that produced that rich variety to continue in existence. This desire is not shared by the race-exterminators such as Harvard "Professor" Noel Ignatiev and the excessive incompatible immigration fanatics, whose naked hatred of the white race and deep yearning for its destruction blinds them to any possibility of a downside of their actions.

"The 'white race' is not an ethnicity by any definition, and therefore cannot be 'ethnolyzed.' "

The white race is a race. If Jason is going to start denying the existence of a white race then let's go along with that, and simply begin speaking in terms of the components of the white race, such as the Greeks, the Iberians, the Bavarians, the Swedes, the Dutch, the Anglo-Saxons, the Bulgarians, the Iraqis, the Punjabis, the Pathans, etc. I can deal with that -- I consider it bullsh*t to say there's no white race, but I have no problem with dividing it up like that, whatsoever. In fact, it enormously simplifies my task. As br'er Rabbit said, "Pleeeeeeeze don't throw me into that briar patch!!"

"Haha. Oops, looks like you've failed one of those 'racial purity' tests of in-group acceptance, Unadorned."

If my grandmothers' ethnicity gets me out with the "in-group" or in with the "out-group" (whoever THEY'RE supposed to be) then so be it.  I need no one's permission to oppose excessive incompatible immigration, Ignatievism (rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, totally racist dedication to the destruction of all the white races), and leftism in general. 

( * ) "Culture and genetics can in my opinion feed into each other."  (Excerpted from the very end of an Aug. 31st blog entry by Razib, entitled "Too soon for Soon.") To be fair, Razib also says stuff like this:  "The system obviously matters.  Genetic capital isn't everything -- it is simply linked to other factors.  Russia and China have high IQs -- but communism messed them up, hard-core." (From an Aug. 30th blog entry.) But that first statement, one hundred percent true IMHO, nevertheless stands.

In a reader's comment on this Dienekes.com blog entry, 000104.html , I noted the same thing -- acquiescence in the other side's denial of the existence of such a thing as a white race would actually greatly facilitate things for the side I support. In fact, my side should consider doing exactly that, whether or not the other side forces us into it: it can only be to our advantage.

Unadorned,

You never answered the primary question about how GnXp can in any resonable way be called (and I quote): "[one of] the web's major forces for the advocacy of white-race ethnolysis". Does this label apply to everyone who doesn't support a race restrictionist immigration policy?

I'm not sure you've even said what kind of policy it is that you do support. Please tell. Also, say what sort of policies could be different from your own without being evil. How different could a policy be from the one that you would choose without being utterly unacceptable?

I get the impression that since you are part Jewish yourself, and since you have said that South-Asians are "100% white", your main concern is letting in any amount of East Asians - skilled or otherwise. I'm having trouble understanding why though. How does the reason you gave:

Inborn/racial differences at the individual level translate in their aggregate manifestations into unequivocal large-scale racial distinctions as regards culture and other stuff, such that while a few individuals of a different race won't matter to a race's gross characteristics, large numbers of them will -- they will change it.

...Apply to East Asians in particular in an undesirable way? Do the "aggregate" of Russians who make Russia or the "aggregate" Indians who make India make for better places than the Japanese who make-up Japan?? What underlying quality of East Asian society do you detect that you suppose is genetic and that would damage the character of America?

As a Greek archaeology student I would like to comment on some things I’ve read on this forum. Of course I’ll try to narrow it down to what the Greek part is concerned. Palaeontology studies/excavations show that the Greek area has been inhabited since before the dawn of Homo sapiens. Through the pass of a long period of time and after mankind became Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens-sapiens) of course, the archaeologically confirmed as indigenous Minoan and later on Mycenaean people rose approximately 7000 years ago. Those two intermixed culturally and genetically. Followed by the descending of the “Greek” tribes of the Dorians, Aetolians and the Ionians around 5000 years ago (We ‘re not sure yet if they were of Indo-European origin or not. They could have descended from the mountain range of Pindos). The cultural and genetic intermixing of all of those tribes is what gave birth to the nation of the Greeks! As for other elements included, I’d have to say that the only one worth mentioning is a certain number of PaleoSlavs (not sure if this is the correct attribution of the word in English) that descended to the northern parts of Greece from the 9th to 11th century AD. By the time that the Turks conquered Constantinople (1453AD) they had been fully assimilated. Now far as the Turks are concerned, I should mention that due to the different religion, customs and political organization of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire where wasn’t even a remote mixing between the two nations (Well, except for some words and cooking recipes).
Summing things up. The white nation/race had always been an alien if not unknown idea to the Greeks. In fact, for a long period of time they thought themselves as being just Greeks! Not white people, or European, or Mediterranean or even Balkanian. The bottom line is that the Greeks exist as nation, millennia before the tribes that would later on form what you call “white race”, even set foot on European soil (Celts excluded)!!!

PS1 You should know that the term Caucasian is used only the Americans to describe something rather obscure.
PS2 On a more humours basis now, I’d like to ask you this. Could you find more ugly soccer players than those? What about Greek women? After all, each persons half genetic code comes from their mothers!

If nordics think they are so tough, know this.

You are a tiny white boy european race. danmark, swedia, holland etc.

Only germany has a large population. They are turk jewish.

Greeks, Italians, Spanish have lost tens of millions of people in various bullshit wars that white boy nordics were too scraed to fight for themselves so got us real men involved.

Greeks still outnumber tiny finland

There is a lot of misinformation on the posted replies.

I am a highly educated person of Greek descent living in the West. There are a lot of differing theories as to the Greeks and their racial/ethnic roots and origins. From a Aryan Model mostly formulated by North-Western European scholars to the Afro-Asiatic model proposed by the Jew Martin Bernal.

As to the reply that the Turks did not mix at all with the Greeks during the 400 year occupation that is completely false. I am living proof. In my visage one sees not only the Greek features of classical antiquity but also an Oriental Asiatic Turkic phenotype.

I preach for more educated reponses that are more thought out.

Sincerely,

Evangelos

I doubt that you know what an "Oriental Asiatic Turkic" phenotype is, but feel free to post your picture.

I am not Greek and am a female, and do not like to overly label people or generalize, but I can not help but acknowledge the extraordinary beauty of Greek people. In America, it is just understood without debate that Greeks are supremely handsome in physical appearance.

I wouldn't recommend dating a Greek-American, however, as the Greek man that I know and love is very temperamental, and can be extremely judgemental and arrogant at times!

He is, however, very wise about the world and is usually right about his thoughts, ideas, insights, etc.
His outlook on life, unfortunately, can sound very negative and pessimistic at times.