From Metapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

["White" race ?]

There is no such thing as the "White" race. If you read the article race, race follows the taxonomy of language--not color. Skin color does not define race. The Basques live in Europe but they are not Indo-Europeans. The marxist and the jews want you to use the term "white" for they want to divide the world up into "White" "Brown", "Yellow" and "Black". Many Jews have White skin but they are Semitic people! Using "color" to denote race just lends itself to confusion, and that is why it is promoted by marxists and jews.WHEELER 04:32, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

I had not meant to imply that colour implied race, I have amended the article to make this clearer. I do not have a better word to use than "white", "Caucasian" has its difficulties. "White Caucasian" or "Europoid" might be worth considering. "White" is used in terms like "white nationalism" and "white pride", so there is non-race-denier usage. On language, whereas it is important for determining past population migrations, it is not the be-all and end-all of race, as many non-Whites speak Indo-European tongues. Hoder 15:49, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

Personally, I never use the term "white" to describe anything. I always use the term European or Indo-European. The high castes of India are Indo-European and the Persians are Aryan. We live in an age of great confusion. Both sides use propaganda; nationalists and marxists; national socialists and international socialists. "White power" is a Euro, national socialist propaganda word like "black power" is for African national socialists.
One of our problems is Paramenides principle of non-contradiction which is a very Indo-European thinking mentality. The bastardization of our language does not help us but afflicts us. Another half of the problem is that Humans are lazy. It is easier to say "That black man" rather to know what African nationality he is. We don't bother to investigate and the Spanish called all Africans "negro" (black) in Spanish. It is really lazy. It has been going on for years and so we have unscientifically lumped all Africans together under a color title and so now all human society lumps people by color. It is easier for humans but very unscientific. Now Color has morphed into psuedo-scientific racial category. We do have a problem.WHEELER 03:29, 11 August 2007 (CEST)
Of course are Basques Europeans. Hu1 10:48, 2 March 2014 (CET)
Indo-European is in my opinion only usable for languages, but not for races. However, Persian and Armenian are more related to us (Turanian) linguistically, than to the so called "Indo-Eoropean" languages. There is lot of pseudo-science or in linguistic, partly created by German "scientists". Hu1 10:48, 2 March 2014 (CET)


Could we substitute Aryan for Adamic race? Adamic seems to have a Biblical form of reference and is not supported by race history. I would like some opinions on this suggestion.NatAll75 23:44, 23 March 2008 (CET)

I agree that Aryan should be used instead of Adamic. In fact, this is the first time I've heard the word Adamic. CHM8318 April 4 2008 - 02:04 GMT

Non-European Caucasians


In the definition of the term we read: "The White race refers to the race of people indigenous to Europe, which has spread to parts of America, South Africa and Oceania."

As far as I know, the original homeland of the Caucasian peoples was in West Eurasia, and specially the most ancient of all White civilizations originated in the Middle East (Sumer, Babylon, Persia, etc). Thus, to say that Whites were indigenous just to Europe and neglecting the fact that they didn't even migrate to Middle East is plain stupidity. Even the most fanatic advocates of the Nordicist school don't have such a stance and believe that Whites were present in Middle East and North Africa since the times immemorial. They just state that because of frequent invasions & immigrations of non-White peoples into these regions, MODERN inhabitants of ME and NA are non-White and/or mixed; an argument I agree with partially.

Also in the picture showing the various sub-races of the White race, we see a Turk, an Arab and an Afghan. My question is: if Whites weren't present in Middle East or didn't migrate to it, then how did these White sub-races pop up in the world?


--Ardashir.Azadeh 09:46, 21 December 2009 (CST)

I think, you are right. Do you have some useful resources of your point of view?
Also it is a good question where Germanic people are from. Was there really a continent Atlantic, that sunk?
Hu1 11:52, 21 December 2009 (CST)

Yes, I can back my claims with lots of reliable sources.

About Germanic peoples, they came from a place wherein other Indo-European peoples came from. So, as long as we don't know exactly where was the original homeland of Proto-Indo-Europeans, we'll never know exactly where did the Germanic (or other IE) peoples came from.

About Atlantic continent, I think it's just a dreamland.


--Ardashir.Azadeh 12:26, 21 December 2009 (CST)

I lifted the protection on the article so you may make the edits, also welcome to Metapedia. NatAll75 14:30, 21 December 2009 (CST)

Thanks comrade. I'll add my 2 cents ASAP.


--Ardashir.Azadeh 17:02, 21 December 2009 (CST)

I just edited the definition of the term. See the changes and let me know your opinion.


--Ardashir.Azadeh 17:49, 21 December 2009 (CST)

Your update seems to be a real enhancement for me. Hu1 01:38, 22 December 2009 (CST)

Thanks. I will expand the "Achievements" section later.

--Ardashir.Azadeh 10:24, 22 December 2009 (CST)

Move article

It has been suggested we move this article to European race - NatAll75 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As far I know white race was originated in Asia (Indoeuropean people) and moved to Europe afterwards, in several waves. However it is still present in Asia. Today they could be called "white race" or "indoeuropean people", but "european race" doesn't look suitable to refer Asians, doesn't it?--Derzeeman 23:07, 27 December 2011 (CET)

No that's wrong. The white race has originated in Europe. There is no Indoeuropean race, only a group of languages spoken by different races (brown Indians, Pakistanis, black Americans, mestizos in South America) are indoeuropean. Pakistanis speak an Indoeuropean language but are not the same race as we are. Bh3u4m 01:12, 28 December 2011 (CET)
I would argue that this article should be re-called "white race", as it gives room for both theories. In contrast, the current to one. --German Garcia Perdomo 04:06, 3 January 2012 (CET)
The Indo-European language has already been proven to have originated with the Race that forms the majority of the European population today; those of other races who speak only do so because of Indo-European invasions. However, there are ethnicities who undeniably belong to this same Race, such as the Basques, Hungarians, Finns, and Estonians, but do not speak an Indo-European language. Race must not be defined by a language, even if linguistic type usually corresponds with race.
What can we call our race? The best I can think of is "European Race." It is true that this term can cause confusions (among Russians, for example, "European" is completely equated with "Western", meaning that Eastern Europeans like Russians are therefore thought to be "non-European"); and therefore it would require constant clarification. However, what else is there? "Aryan race" is even more confusing, and "Caucasian" and "White" are not only also confusing, but cannot denote a real racial group. Race is not merely a biological phenomenon, as scientific materialism assumes, it is also a psychological and spiritual phenomenon. In fact, it is easy enough to argue that Race is primarily metaphysical, with its physical component being an expression of a metaphysical type (see the works of Julius Evola, Alexander Jacob, Alfred Rosenberg, etc.). Only in this way can we have a proper and more effective understanding of the reality of race. Anyway, if the term "European Race" is not good, then another designation must be given which does not imply race is merely skin color or a set of phenotypic characteristics. - Sword of Michael 17:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
From a practical point of view I also agree with "European race"; everyone will then immediately understand what is meant. But from a principal point of view I think the term "Aryans" is the best (even better than "Aryan race"; to avoid the difficult topic over what precisely "Race" is); the term "Indo-Europeans" is often used instead of "Aryans" only for reasons of political-correctness, [1]. But Metapedia should not adhere to the standards of political-correctnes. Also possible could be "Aryan-Europeans" ... (Galileo 22:33, 19 March 2012 (CET)).

Shall we move the article title back to White race? It reads as if this is the title. When we changed it last time to European race we never made the necessary edits. For me either title is fine, but the article must be consistent with the title. - NatAll75 01:28, 20 March 2012 (CET)

On second thought, let’s keep the title European race. - NatAll75 02:21, 20 March 2012 (CET)

Bh3u4m's edits

Some of these were good, but others were dubious. For example the claims about Argentina and Uruguay that they are somehow non-European. Most of these people are Spaniards and Italians, as well as their culture is entirely European. This article in general is of quite low quality and doesn't have a specific body of sources. We should set out important people who have wrote about the European race and then build on the foundation of their sources. Basileus 01:47, 20 March 2012 (CET)

About education of whites

Any information on education before industrialization?

Common misperceptions

I think it should be like this:

Considering people like Armenians Georgians and Kurds as European. Recent research has shown that these people display non-negligible Asiatic genetic components. In fact Kurds appears to be of 28.5 J2, 11.5 R1a and 17 R1b[2] [3]

So I think Kurds should be included in the article because many of them are still 100% White since only 13 generations have passed since the Median Empire. And unlike the Armenians, they have never lived with the semites or babylons, Most Kurds in the country are anti-semites and don't mix with the arabs and other non-Whites. And my link above actually proves that Kurds have lesser non-White admixture than Armenians.--Herius 23:04, 26 July 2012 (CEST)

I have taken the liberty of removing what had been the third of the common misperceptions listed in this article, the reason being that, try as I might, I couldn't find the wording to make its premise -- language -- to comport with the article's subject matter, European race. Perhaps someone else can take a shot at editing the third paragraph and reinsert it; I will look at it later as well, time permitting. For now, however, "Common misperceptions" is easier to read now that I have put it in an affirmative voice -- what the misconception is and how it is incorrect -- instead of being written in a more negating voice. Mencken 00:49, 2 March 2014 (CET)


After reading from this article the following:

"An Indoeuropean race does not exist. Indoeuropean is only a set of languages, spoken by different races. For example, Pakistanis speak Urdu and many Indians speak Hindi, which are Indoeuropean languages but are not part of the same race as Europeans. The same applies to Africans in the United States and Mestizos in South America. The old theories of language spreading correlated with racial evolution have been mostly disproved by genetics. Languages usually spread much faster than genetic components through a population."

I am confused. It's a misperception that an Indoeuropean race doesn't exist? That is to say, there are some number of people who think that an Indoeuropean race doesn't exist when it, in fact, does? Is that the author's intent here? I merely ask because I want to be sure before I go in and do an edit of the above that I'm not dense and just misunderstanding what is put forth in the paragraph. Comments? Suggestions? Raspberries? Anyone? Thanks. Mencken 04:06, 17 February 2014 (CET)

I fully agree with the statement, there exists no Indoeuropean race, just a language, and the other statements above. A Gypsy looks very different than I do, and also behaves very different. What is your problem with that? Hu1 11:01, 17 February 2014 (CET)
The problem is, as I said, I'm confused, confused by the way the paragraph is written, not with its content. I will take a shot at editing it to read more clearly in light of your expository comment. I'd appreciate your crits on whatever I come up with that will, with hope, be less dense and easier to read. Thanks in advance. Mencken 04:06, 3 March 2014 (CET)
Okay. Rewrite accomplished re the paragraph about the Indoeuropean race does not exist. Feh. This editing is harder than it looks. Mencken 04:21, 3 March 2014 (CET)
Whites are a subgroup of Caucasoids which includes Indians. Mikemikev 06:47, 3 March 2014 (CET)

Should this be linked here?

I found this great article though the domain is at Stormfront and there's no mirrors. Somebody said I shouldn't mention stormfront in articles. I'm asking whether it should go just in an external link. A Wyatt Man 04:58, 14 July 2013 (CEST)

I hadn't heard that linking to stormfront is taboo. I will look into it. If anyone knows off the top of one's head, I hope they will post it below whether it's yea or nay and cite a page link. Mencken 04:24, 3 March 2014 (CET)
Searching the community portal and pertinent pages, I don't see anything that precludes linking to stormfront. That said, though, there are already four external links, and all of them seem worthy to me and plenty. Speaking only for myself, if you want to add the stormfront link, I have no objection to it provided, however, that I haven't missed somewhere some metapedia prohibition on linking to stormfront. Mencken 06:22, 28 May 2014 (CEST)
Added it to the links. Hu1 09:26, 28 May 2014 (CEST)

Punctuation and Diction

I have chosen this article at random and am working toward cleaning it up with respect to punctuation and grammar. In some places, I have made slight changes to awkwardly worded passages. I'm not yet finished and will return to it as time permits. Mencken 06:29, 3 February 2014 (CET)

Make-up and Origins

I deleted the sentence "A large percentage of the world's great inventions and artwork have been attributed to the European race." It was made redundant by the opening line of the section titled "Achievements and Survival," which is better placed than a sentence saying the same thing placed in the section on Makeup and Origin. Mencken 03:57, 3 March 2014 (CET)

Comments, suggestions, flames, whatever, please, on my edit of this section. I did my best to untangle what I think was the thrust of the original author's point.
I wonder, though, whether this section might better be titled something else. It seems to be more an exposition on the several subcategories of the European race, not so much a make-up, which suggests to me demographic data, or the origin of the European race. Any suggestions on a renaming, then, of the section? Or do y'all think it sits fine as named? Mencken 03:32, 9 March 2014 (CET)
Your rewrite is better. Yeah, make up is covered. Maybe 'Conceptual Origins'? Mikemikev 07:20, 9 March 2014 (CET)

Thank you, Mike, for the compliment on my rewrite. That is gratifying. "Conceptual Origins," it will be, then, since "Make-up and Origins" isn't truth in advertising and I can't think of anything to top what you propound. Mencken 03:44, 22 March 2014 (CET)

Ancient vs Modern Populations

Firstly, I propose changing the heading to this section. "Ancient vs Modern Populations" sounds like a sporting contest. I propose "Comparison of Ancient to Modern Populations."

Secondly, regarding the reference to Tacitus' description of the Caledonians, there is no link to the source text, "The Life and Death of Julius Agricola," only a reference to the title of the source. I'm able to find a link to an online version of Tacitus' work. Tragically, I am too dense to figure out how to edit this and make the link work. Will someone more deft than me, please, take this link, then, edit it into number 3 of the references section, and I'll then be able to see how to set links such as this in the future. Or, in the alternative, point me, please, to some Metapedia instruction on the how-to of editing reference links.

Anyway, the link to the referenced portion of Tacitus is here:

Thank you in advance. Mencken 04:10, 22 March 2014 (CET)

Well, thanks anyway to all. I managed, like the constipated computer programmer, to work it out myself using a keyboard.Mencken 04:38, 24 March 2014 (CET)

I have taken the liberty of removing the single-line paragraph that read thusly: "The ancient Israelites were known as having blonde hair or blue eyes" and its footnote citing this source:

My reason for excising this is because the source doesn't appear to reflect serious research as much as it simply makes broad pronouncements written in a style and tongue that I'd term "Tribal blather." I'm certainly open to anyone's counterpoint on whether what is on the cited page is worthy of inclusion in this article.Mencken 05:01, 25 March 2014 (CET)

Exception Outside Europe

This section citing the Berbers as Whites outside Europe I have removed as the information in the section had nothing to corroborate it outside the assertion of whoever placed it here. I'm not averse to having it re-inserted; my thinking is that there should be a cited reference and not just assertions. Mencken 06:00, 28 May 2014 (CEST)

European languages

It seems to me that there is no relationship between many European languages at all. Yet this article keeps suggesting that there is. My book Words - A History of western languages (virtually everything in Europe this side of the Urals), edited by Victor Stevenson, London, 1983, shows very distinctly different languages in Europe. Basque, Finnish and Hungarian, for instance, are said to have no relationship to the Teutonic and Nordic languages, nor to the Slavic family of languages. This book gives "European languages" in their respective groupings but there is much debate about their relationships, given that language structures across Europe are often so fundamentally different as to be alien from each other. While there is consent that the Indo-Europeans' original common homeland was between the Carpathian and Ural mountain ranges, there is considerable debate about a common language base. The modern Baltic languages, Lithuanian and Latvian, for instance, possess Indo-European features that do not appear in other European languages. I really do think we must avoid "fudged" articles. Cicero 13:38, 26 August 2015 (CEST)

There are no claims in the article that all Europeans speak Indo-European languages or that the Indo-European languages are very similar. Also, while there is an association between language and race, they are not identical. Upplysning 16:43, 26 August 2015 (CEST)

The Indo-European page states that "Indo-Europeans were an ethno-linguistic group of people" and I felt the inference was carried on in this page. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to categorise Indo-Europeans by language. Race yes. Cicero 18:22, 26 August 2015 (CEST)

Then that is likely a discussion topic for the Indo-European page. Also, regardless of the status of the ancient Indo-Europeans, they are are not identical with modern Europeans. When they invaded/immigrated they gradually mixed with pre-existing groups. Upplysning 18:47, 26 August 2015 (CEST)

Achievements and Survival

I'm not certain there's even a need for a section "Achievements and Survival." One might make the argument for two separate sections, "Achievements" and "Survival," though, I suppose. We might at some point delete this section altogether or fold the information into other sections based on relevance of the info to the section.

I made some small edits with regard to grammar.

Lastly, with regard to the following:

its continued existence, however, is threatened by mass non-European immigration into predominantly European areas, low birth-rates (caused by contraception and the Abortion Holocaust) and miscegenation.

The parenthetical (caused by contraception and the Abortion Holocaust), I think, needs to be deleted. It inserts a degree of subjective commentary that does not contribute to the article. Also, the term "Abortion Holocaust" is of debatable usage since it is a term not in common use anywhere else that I can recollect reading.

I will wait some time for any contrary opinion. If there is none, I will delete the parenthetical portion. Mencken

I generally agree with much of what you say. I have made some changes. Upplysning 16:51, 5 May 2016 (CEST)

Well, I agree with the comments made about abortion and contraception. Most patriots in Europe agree on this.Cicero 17:55, 5 May 2016 (CEST)