Integration has failed

[Horus]

Thank you Norsemaien for being the only one to reference my Godly Epic post.

 

[Nile577]

I dislike economic ghettos but I don't think integration is inherently the ghastly venefice you suggest; it’s more the myopic (and racist) scope of its realisation that's the problem. This is down to racist attitudes in 'white' society (which you seem to exhibit with your ridiculous claim about IQ) There are many positives to integration.

Society is enriched by opening itself up, removing notions of "otherness." For example, I believe university learning can be enriched by the presence of educated people from different cultural backgrounds. I also hold that a racial and sexual 'diversity' prevents religious extremism developing (as in the guns, church and apple-pie nirvana of bible-belt America). Also, one may identify more closely with people of different cultures on important cultural issues - for example, along with practitioners of Islam, I abhor drunkenness, yet one in five adults in England is a binge drinker.

I would argue that, sadly, Western Romantic culture is either dead or slumbering. There is no mechanism through which a Western cultural conscience may be reached. Everything is apathy and comfort. We’ve become crushed into inactivity through a reverence of past works but all of these things are a result of modern technological thinking and nothing to do with multiculturalism.

(As a digression, I often wonder if, for most, Black Metal fandom is a self-Romanticising form of individualism in which the ideal (social revolution?) is the eternally unachievable, and the postured heroism of self merely an ‘end-result’ position to 'score chicks.' Much in Black Metal suggests almost Wildean dramatics upon the stage of life, only with less integral motivation.)

I think it's rather fatalistic, historically dubious and almost anti-life to posit that miscegenation inexorably leads to terminal and everlasting cultural and genetic decline: Newton and Shakespeare embody the cultural and scientific contributions of a primarily mixed-race society; while in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilisation itself was formed by the intermixing of Ubaidian and Semitic tribes. All life has a history of miscegenation and this miscegenation is not 'always dysgenic'.

What you think of as 'dysgenic' is a hopeless out of date term that hasn't the slightest bearing on reality.

The problem, I think, is the vapid, Capitalist ideology which fuels such integration, instigating the apotheosis of money and social status (fame) to the detriment of the cultural. Politicians too often stress only the economic benefits of immigration, leaving aside the cultural. The shibboleth of modern society is 'what time is Big Brother on?' Removing people of different "races" would not eradicate this vacuous apathy, for its seat is an individualised society in which immediate self-comfort usurps any and all higher values. I am proud to live in a culturally mixed society

 

[Norsemaiden]

QUOTE=Nile577
I think it's rather fatalistic, historically dubious and almost anti-life to posit that miscegenation inexorably leads to terminal and everlasting cultural and genetic decline: Newton and Shakespeare (WHO WAS BLACK LOL2006!1!) embody the cultural and scientific contributions of a primarily mixed-race society; while in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilisation itself was formed by the intermixing of Ubaidian and Semitic tribes. All life has a history of miscegenation and this miscegenation is not always dysgenic.

All civilisations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else.

"By about 4000 BC, most of the Fertile Crescent was occupied by Caucasians. Probably Semitic peoples had already begun to penetrate it by them too, their pressure grew until by the middle of the third millennium BC (well after the appearance of civilization) they would be well established in central Mesopotamia, across the middle sections of the Tigris and Euphrates. The interplay and rivalry off the Semitic peoples with the Caucasians, who were able to hang into the higher lands which enclosed Mesopotamia from the north-east, is one continuous theme that scholars have discerned in the early history of the area. By 2000 BC, the peoples whose languages form part of what is called the 'Indo-European' group have also entered the scene, and from two directions. One of these peoples, the Hittites, pushed into Anatolia from Europe, while their advance was matched from the east by that of the Iranians. Between 2000 BC and 1500 BC branches of these sub-units dispute and mingle with the Semitic and Caucasian peoples in the Crescent itself." -ROBERTS, J.M,, The Hutchinson History of the World, Hutchinson Publishing Group, first published 1976, page 62-63.

Indeed, March of the Titans also says this:

"As a result of this continual crossover of civilizations and shared geographical area, the racial distinctions of the peoples became more and more blurred, and towards the close of this epoch it becomes more and more difficult to identify clear racial groups as opposed to named cultures. Ultimately, the disappearance of the distinct racial groupings in the region led to the torch of civilization being passed to what were then more homogeneous societies - first in Egypt and then to the classical Greek and Roman civilizations."

http://white-history.com/pontikos_lie12.htm

 

[Imp!]

Gangsta culture is indeed promoted in such a way as to keep Blacks down, as Ptah Khnemu observed. But this is clearly not being done by White racists, as there is no sign of White racists being anything other than the "bogeymen" of modern culture. The true intention is to make White people also behave like Gangstas.

The white man is the "bogey man", but you think true intention is to make white people black? WTH is this? This makes no fucking sense, if blacks wanted white people to be "gangsta" they wouldn't use them as the bogey man...

And it is working very well, with increasing numbers doing so. There are very few non-Whites where I live, but the (especially underclass) White youth mostly seem to idolise rappers such as 50cent and Eminem. After playing a game of Grand Theft Auto, young boys openly talk to eachother of their ambition to be a pimp when they are older.

So the fact that white people are acting more gangsta means the "true intent" is working?! This is not logical! I'm not the expert on debate and such, but there's a term to describe what you just did, I've been accused of it many times (lil help here guys?) but just because the effect seems to prove your idea, doesn't make it so...

Certain people want Whites to follow into the ghetto culture. This elite see it as essential to consolidation of their power. They educate their children separately from these "animals", and teach their children to see popular culture as a weapon to use against others, and certainlly not for their own consumption.

Please, who are "certain people", and "elite"? And this is part of a pre-ordained plan of some sort? Seems pretty far fetched, as bad as the fact that the Jews are running the world... Could the jews be in on this?

Norsemaiden, I know you post a lot, and you're probably popular and all, sorry for the rudeness, but that post made no sense... I hope someone can reply better than I can, I need to work on debate.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You have identified who the elite are. It's not that they want to make white people black - although they do want them to mix. Its just that they want whites to have that kind of mental attitude so they leave the well paid and powerful jobs for the Jews (and Asians are taking advantage of this too). The fact is this is actually happening. Blacks mostly don't want to behave like whites, (hence the lack of integration) but whites are more likely to feel a social pressure to be more like blacks.
Asians don't feel they need to emulate blacks because they don't have the fear of feeling racist.

 

[Nile577]

All civilisations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else

Thanks for the quotes. Your research was interesting and definitely worth consideration. I appreciate the time you spent doing it.

That said, I really can't agree with the above quote. To blame the fall of Rome on "racial" intermixing would be hopelessly reductive (what the hell do you mean by it anyway? and how it is a "factor" at all?). Many factors were involved. Likewise, do you suggest that the fall of the Third Reich (a culture that actively promoted racial exclusivity) was due to issues of "racial" homogenity? Finally, you neglect to explain how from the 11C onwards, England – a culture of mixed "racial" identity - not only rose to prominence in Artistic and Scientific fields, but amassed one of the largest empires the world has ever known (though it is dubious to judge such cruel imperialism as "success")

Here is what Samuel Kramer has to say about Mesopotamia. Since there has been confusion in another thread, I will adopt your method of using the "quote" function when quoting other authors.

The Ubaidians are the first people in the history of man for whose ethnic identity and cultural achievement we have linguistic evidence. To be sure, we do not know what they called themselves since writing was still unknown in their day, but clay documents of later Sumerian times make it apparent that they were not Sumerians. For example, the names by which the document writers referred to the Tigris and Euphrates - Idiglat and Buranun - are not Sumerian words and are therefore generally assumed to be of Ubaidian origin. It must have been the Ubaidians too who gave such names as Eridu, Ur, Lagash, Nippur and Kish to some of the villages and tows that later developed into large and impressive Sumerian cities. Even more important, it was from the language of this thriving and preposterous people that the Sumerians probably borrowed such culturally significant words as farmer, herdsman, plough, metalworker, weaver and carpenter.

But success and achievement breed envy among peoples as well as individuals, and it was not long before rivals appeared to challenge the Ubaidians standing as the sole occupants of southern Mesopotamia. Around the end of the fifth millennium B.C. some of the hordes of Semitic nomads inhabiting the Syrian Desert and the Arabian peninsula to the west began to infiltrate the Ubaidian settlements, both as conquerors in search of booty and as peaceful immigrants eager to better their lot. The resulting cross-fertilization of the two peoples and cultures, the Ubaidian and the Semitic, brought about a new and even more productive era during which it may be said that the foundations were laid for the world's first true civilization.

The builders of that civilization, the Sumerians, did not arrive upon the scene until about 3500 B.C., probably from Central Asia by way of Iran. With the advent of this third important group of people there took place in southern Mesopotamia an ethnic and cultural fusion that was to influence profoundly the future course of humanity...It was in these Sumerian cities of the late fourth and early third millennia B.C. that ancient man accomplished some of his most impressive achievements in art and architecture, in social organisation, in religious thought and practice and - with the invention of writing - in education and communication - Great Ages of Man - Cradle of Civilization, Samuel Noah Kramer, pages 32-33

"Samuel Noah Kramer was one of the world's foremost scholars of Mesopotamian cultures and the cuneiform writing that they used. He received his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania in 1929 and took part in archaeological expeditions to the Middle East in 1930-1931; from 1949 he served as the University's Clerk Research Professor of Assyriology and as the curator of the museum's Tablet Collection. He is the author of "History begins at Sumer," "The Sumerians: Their Character," "History and Culture," and "Biblical Parallels from Sumerian Literature"

 

[infoterror]

You're talking about closely related ethnic groups there. The English were Angles, Saxons and Phoenicians, for the most part. These groups shared a common ancestor (Phoenicians were Semites, e.g. part Caucasian of the Alpine/Falid type).

Rome fell in part because it lost its cultural identity. Race hybridization was a big part of this.

If multiculturalism is such a good idea, why do you have so few examples?

 

[infoterror]

Samuel Noah Kramer

Also note: potentially biased source.

 

[Norsemaiden]

You're talking about closely related ethnic groups there. The English were Angles, Saxons and Phoenicians, for the most part. These groups shared a common ancestor (Phoenicians were Semites, e.g. part Caucasian of the Alpine/Falid type).

Rome fell in part because it lost its cultural identity. Race hybridization was a big part of this.

If multiculturalism is such a good idea, why do you have so few examples?

That saves me writing part of my answer. And it must be added that Britain's influxes of other white tribes in history have come as conquerors, not as refugees or a mass of slaves. Their qualities added postively to the population.

Nile577, you are a very intelligent man, and I am sure that you can't have failed to notice that, throughout the world, in the present day you can see many nations that have fallen from greatness and that a correlation between this and their lack of homogeneity exists. On the other hand, a country like China is very much on the rise. Race mixing has never caused a positive force for advancement and inventiveness. There is no reason to suppose that this effect was any different in the distant past.

Various versions of history are written, and are affected by the political bias of the author. So the evidence of one's own experience, use of logic, and also other books read, must have a bearing on how plausible one version of history appears compared to another.

I will probably post again with regards to the quotation by the historian that you posted, but I'm in the process of gathering information.

In the case of National Socialist Germany, it was militiarily defeated, but the civilisation could otherwise have been left intact. However, the best of the Germans had been killed and racial mixing was immediately introduced.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Here is some more information relevant to what we were discussing about Mesopotamia.

It was around 4000 BCE that a people called Sumerians moved into Mesopotamia, perhaps from around the Caspian Sea. By 3800 BCE the Sumerians had supplanted the Ubaidians and Semites in southern Mesopotamia. They built better canals for irrigating crops and for transporting crops by boat to village centers. They improved their roads, over which their donkeys trod, some of their donkeys pulling wheeled carts. And the Sumerians grew in number, the increase in population the key element in creating what we call civilization - a word derived from an ancient word for city.

At least twelve cities arose among the Sumerians. Among them were Ur, Uruk, Kish and Lagash - Ur, for example, becoming a city of about 24,000 people

.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm

Based on diagrams on ancient clay tablets, the earliest known use of this essential invention was a potter’s wheel that was used at Ur in Mesopotamia (part of modern day Iraq} as early as 3500 BC. The first use of the wheel for transportation was probably on Mesopotamian chariots in 3200 BC. It is interesting to note that wheels may have had industrial or manufacturing applications before they were used on vehicles.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/wheel.htm

The wheel was invented by the Sumerians. The towns Ur, Uruk, etc were not more the creation of the Ubaidians than were Ohio, Mississippi, and Chicago created by the Red Indians.

About 4000 years ago, the Sumerians began to build the first cities/writing/wheel. The Sumerians are accepted to have come from the north in the region of the Caucasus, as conquerors.

There is a thesis that civilisation cannot begin without first an inferior people being subjugated - allowing a division of labour with slaves/warriors/priests/artisans/architects,etc.

Civilisation persists so long as the ruling class retain a separate culture/identity/standards and values.

The rulers of Sumeria held the swastika sacred (the oldest known is in possession of the "Notre Europe" French National Socialist group. They left statuettes of themselves, characterised by inlaid blue eyes of ceramic nature.

The Sumerians, along with the Hittites, were neither Semites nor Turks, but indo-Europeans and shared the common indo-European pantheon of Gods equivalent to Thor/Odin/Frey.

The Sumerians were defeated in 2300 BC by Sargon, a Semite. Sargon destroyed the Nordic Sumerian (Greek style) city state system and forged an Empire including Akkad, anatolia, the first multi-racial empire.

This collapsed at the death of Sargon's 56 year reign.

Gutans from the North reconquered Sargon's empire. This established a pattern of multiracialism, decay and reconquest from the north for thousands of years.

Civilisation lingered on for such a long time in Mesopotamia perhaps because of the relatively high intelligence of the different ethnic groups involved, but it has always been characterised by a whiter ruling class and little altruism in the general population, cruelty, despotism and tyranny - even up to Saddam Hussein's rule. This is a possible fate for the West also.

Footnote: The ancient Holy City of Ashur in Iraq may be the ancient citadel of Asgard, as its principle deity, Enlil (The Atmosphere/sky God) is consistent with Odin. Ishatar is consistent with the Earth Goddess. Perhaps knowledge of this filtered north, as the city fell to the Semites in 2000BC.

 

[Nile577]

Also note: potentially biased source.

Unlike "whitehistory," then?

 

[Nile577]

You're talking about closely related ethnic groups there. The English were Angles, Saxons and Phoenicians, for the most part. These groups shared a common ancestor (Phoenicians were Semites, e.g. part Caucasian of the Alpine/Falid type).

Rome fell in part because it lost its cultural identity. Race hybridization was a big part of this.

If multiculturalism is such a good idea, why do you have so few examples?

To recapitulate, I think the current method of its employment has resulted in anomie for ghettoised victims of racism. I hold, however, that this does not provide evidence for a categorical rejection of integration but rather necessitates a rethink of its form, scale and scope. That is, I think the issue is ideological rather than racial. A healthy society might welcome cross-racial immigrants without nihilating either their, or the host nation’s culture. A more profitable ideological response would cast integration as cogent symbiosis as opposed to uniform egalitarianism, which often masks material and social inequalities.

 

[Nile577]

That saves me writing part of my answer. And it must be added that Britain's influxes of other white tribes in history have come as conquerors, not as refugees or a mass of slaves. Their qualities added postively to the population.

Ahh, so the worth of racial intermixing depends on context and is not inherently 'bad?' Or do you argue that the success of English culture was in fact a decline from what the group of conquering Normans might have achieved had they not settled down and had kids with us? *rolleyes*

I am sure that you can't have failed to notice that, throughout the world, in the present day you can see many nations that have fallen from greatness and that a correlation between this and their lack of homogeneity exists. On the other hand, a country like China is very much on the rise. Race mixing has never caused a positive force for advancement and inventiveness. There is no reason to suppose that this effect was any different in the distant past.

I totally, totally disagree.

First, I fail to see how China is 'very much on the rise' in any sense other than the material. China contributes to global warming in a wholly unchecked fashion, is fast becoming the biggest global consumer of oil, and achieves material growth by covertly embracing Capitalist protocol, cannibalising the health of its own people. There are thousands of workers manufacturing fine chemicals with no safety equipment, stirring bromine (and worse) as you might cook food in a kitchen. I would liken it to Industrial age Britian or Stalinist Russia; "Satanic mills" and desperate poverty.

I think it’s a terrible system of government. Take the Tiananmen square massacre: it shows the dangers of a fascistic government lacking wisdom, value and anything other than self-centred power-clinging hunger.

If I allow you to give China as example of a successful homogenous nation, you must grant me America as a successful heterogeneous country.

About Sumeria: The historian I quoted was considered a world leader in the field, however having done a fair measure of reading in this area, I do recognise disputes and I even concede that I find other interpretations more convincing. I am grateful for your research. Your point about Native Americans is an excellent comparison if extended to the actual naming of cities and has changed my opinion on placing much value on the linguistic evidence. Milwaukee, for example, derives from the Native American term 'Millioke' (meaning 'the good land') but it was not founded BY Native Americans. What doesn't vary across my reading however, is the recognition that Sumeria arose from a hybridisation of different racial and cultural groups.

You stated that every nation's decline and defeat has been solely due to "racial" intermixing. I don't understand why you think this is a problem. I don't think race exists in any meaningful biological fashion. We should be extolling (celebrating) diversity in our society.

Even if there are biological racial differences between people (which - though it is outside my field - I do not think there are) I think we should celebrate these differences, not in any kind of hierarchy, but as wondrous instances of anthropoidal variance! Our essential humanity is always the same.

Issues of integration must be met with an intelligence and consideration that shuns bigoted proclamations of superiority or forced segregation.

You posit evolution as existing in distinct forms - assuming I grant this (which I do not) - why break off after thousands of years and proclaim existing "racial" types circa 2006 'finished,' attempting to channel such into anti-natural parallels? It's nonsense.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The Phoenicians were mentioned earlier. They traded with Britain around 10BC in Cornwall. They were a mixture of Old European, Indo-European and Semitic (Arab) speaking peoples. Their presence left a genetic trace in the Cornish population. Cornishmen have a more gypsie-like appearance, taller and darker than other English. They have a history of being smugglers and of killing shipwreck survivors and stealing the loot. But this is a very outdated observation considering the much larger influence of modern immigration on the British population.

 

[Nile577]

The Phoenicians were mentioned earlier. They traded with Britain around 10BC in Cornwall. They were a mixture of Old European, Indo-European and Semitic (Arab) speaking peoples. Their presence left a genetic trace in the Cornish population. Cornishmen have a more gypsie-like appearance, taller and darker than other English. They have a history of being smugglers and of killing shipwreck survivors and stealing the loot. But this is a very outdated observation considering the much larger influence of modern immigration on the British population.

Further example of culturally beneficial integration: Moorish Spain. The Moorish occupation of Spain resulted in Spanish music acquiring the certain Middle-Eastern twang evident in the works of composers such as Joaquin Rodrigo and Fernando Sor. The Moors introduced the guitar (sitar) to Spain. It also resulted in the most magnificent architectural works the country has ever seen. The structure of The Alhambra was accentuated and developed by the Moorish regime, sharpening its beauty to a rarefied state directly because of cross-cultural integration.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is only by extreme good fortune that in 732, Karl Martel defeated the Muslim Arabs in the Battle of Tours in France, thereby preventing the conquest of all of Europe. How different might have been the history of Western Europe had the Muslims conquered!

Nevertheless, they did conquer Spain, bringing with them the Black Moors of Africa and the Semitic blood of the Arabs. It was not until 1492 that Isabella, the white queen of Spain, finally drove them out. In the same year Queen Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain, and Columbus sailed for America.

Having driven out the Moors and the Jews, Spain began the greatest and grandest period of her history and the next hundred years can be considered the golden age of Spain. This included the conquistadors conquering the Aztecs and taking control of Mexico and Peru.

From Wikepedia:

The Spanish Empire was one of the first truly global empires. During the 16th century Spain and Portugal were in the vanguard of European global exploration and colonial expansion and the opening of trade routes across the oceans, with trade flourishing across the Atlantic between Spain and the Americas and across the Pacific between East Asia and Mexico via the Philippines. Castilian conquistadors toppled the Aztec and Inca civilizations and laid claim to vast stretches of land in North and South America. For a time, the Spanish Empire dominated the oceans with its experienced navy and ruled the European battlefield with its fearsome and well trained infantry, the famous tercios.

Nevertheless, the damage had been done. The almost thousand years of Moorish tenure in Spain and Portugal had permanently entered the bloodstream of those two nations and inflicted lasting damage. The empire became impossible to maintain and there has been nothing but mediocrity in the achievements of the people of Spain and Portugal ever since.

“The violent character of some acts inserted in the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency in groups” is beginning to alarm society, the report states. It is beginning to not be infrequent to read reports of attacks by gangs of young boys from shanty towns on hypermarkets, with security guards being beaten unconscious by groups of 30 or 40 youths armed with knives and baseball bats, who then proceed to terrorise the entire shopping centre, vandalising, stealing, beating and sexually abusing women. Last year, there was an attack on a train by a gang of boys of African origin. They streamed through the train attacking and robbing the passengers, chanting “We will rule here one day”.

http://english.pravda.ru/portugal/2001/04/12/3504.html

 

[speed]

It is only by extreme good fortune that in 732, Karl Martel defeated the Muslim Arabs in the Battle of Tours in France, thereby preventing the conquest of all of Europe. How different might have been the history of Western Europe had the Muslims conquered!

Nevertheless, they did conquer Spain, bringing with them the Black Moors of Africa and the Semitic blood of the Arabs. It was not until 1492 that Isabella, the white queen of Spain, finally drove them out. In the same year Queen Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain, and Columbus sailed for America.

Having driven out the Moors and the Jews, Spain began the greatest and grandest period of her history and the next hundred years can be considered the golden age of Spain. This included the conquistadors conquering the Aztecs and taking control of Mexico and Peru.

From Wikepedia:


Nevertheless, the damage had been done. The almost thousand years of Moorish tenure in Spain and Portugal had permanently entered the bloodstream of those two nations and inflicted lasting damage. The empire became impossible to maintain and there has been nothing but mediocrity in the achievements of the people of Spain and Portugal ever since.

Of course, you do realize that from 800-1400, the Arab world was not only the most advanced in every single sphere, but one of tolerance and culture.
And of course, the early Spanish empire was extremely reactionary, and contributed to the slaughter and slavery of millions upon millions of "savages".

 

[Norsemaiden]

Of course, you do realize that from 800-1400, the Arab world was not only the most advanced in every single sphere, but one of tolerance and culture.
And of course, the early Spanish empire was extremely reactionary, and contributed to the slaughter and slavery of millions upon millions of "savages".

Yes it was bad that they treated savages in such an uncivilised way. There were good points about the Muslims but it would have been absolutely tragic if the Muslims had succeeded in taking over all of Europe. Why would you say it is that the Muslim nations are so backward in the present day, stuck in an almost medieval time warp with regard to their culture?

 

[speed]

Yes it was bad that they treated savages in such an uncivilised way. There were good points about the Muslims but it would have been absolutely tragic if the Muslims had succeeded in taking over all of Europe. Why would you say that the Muslim nations are so backward in the present day, stuck in an almost medieval time warp with regard to their culture?

Because all cultures have their ebbs and flows. They had a long 850 year run of dominance.

Im just saying, if you were a objective observer living in 15th century Spain, the Moorish system would probably seem much more attractive.

 

[Dushan S]

That saves me writing part of my answer. And it must be added that Britain's influxes of other white tribes in history have come as conquerors, not as refugees or a mass of slaves. Their qualities added postively to the population.

This is nonsense. A lot of nations have been made in a way that there were waves of different conquerors. Even if that you can use reverse logic in a similar way and come to conclusion that if there are different waves of conquerors, people living there have experienced being constantly conquered by someone, so they should adopt slave-alike mentality.

Nile577, you are a very intelligent man, and I am sure that you can't have failed to notice that, throughout the world, in the present day you can see many nations that have fallen from greatness and that a correlation between this and their lack of homogeneity exists. On the other hand, a country like China is very much on the rise. Race mixing has never caused a positive force for advancement and inventiveness. There is no reason to suppose that this effect was any different in the distant past.

NM You are intelligent woman but it does not stops you from being rassistic orinted to the point of ignoring everything that you have read and does not gets along with your views, and by assuming that when you read a number of books you can easily come with all kinds of concslussions. You can let your imagination fly high, and I am glad that you are creative and imaginative personality, but, unfortunately, China is not one nation in a monolitic way, actually it is very mixed, and it is just your rassistic ignorance I assume that makes you think that if they are all yellow and look similar to you, they must be one nation.
In reality, Chinese from different parts of continent are often different between themselves as much as people that were making deathcamps and people that were killed in the same deathcamps. Btw current biggest power in the world (and you can argue as long as you like that it's democratic society is crumbling or whatever som of you like to do) is highly multhiethnical in its profile, and it will stay like that. At the end it all depends what is the way we differentiate between people. Someone can choose race. Someone not.

Various versions of history are written, and are affected by the political bias of the author. So the evidence of one's own experience, use of logic, and also other books read, must have a bearing on how plausible one version of history appears compared to another.

I will probably post again with regards to the quotation by the historian that you posted, but I'm in the process of gathering information.

In the case of National Socialist Germany, it was militiarily defeated, but the civilisation could otherwise have been left intact. However, the best of the Germans had been killed and racial mixing was immediately introduced.

And that in turn, by your own merits you often use is proof that it was inferior, and didn't stand test of survival of the fittest. I can just the same say that Babylonian civilization was great but, unfortunatly it was military defeated, but it could otherwise be left intact.
NSG was not functional in long terms. It was very unstable and there was a need of expansion and agression towards other nations, that was part of the very nature of it. Fact that Germany was completely destroyed, that every other german was killed in 6 years, and that it was splitted in two tells enough about it. Uniformal ethnicity didn't helped much.

Main flow with all racial views is that if you want to call a group of people "nation" you have to take a certain point in time as a "starting point". But if you look back it appears that something considered nation at one time was actually again exposed to mixture with other ethnical groups in the past, and that there is no monolitic ethnicity.

Having driven out the Moors and the Jews, Spain began the greatest and grandest period of her history and the next hundred years can be considered the golden age of Spain. This included the conquistadors conquering the Aztecs and taking control of Mexico and Peru.

This is funny. Arab world (as Speed has already pointed out) was way more advanced and civilized at that time. There are two reasons that Spain has rose quickly to power at that time: Ther was a military tradition after all those time of fighting, and second, they got knowledge from their highly civilized enemy and gold by conquering arab theoritories that were rich. So fact that spain has rose to power hase more to do with bloodthirsty temper of these people than their racial superiority.

And please, learn history first. Even if you want to disagree with it (as I often do in some other cases) you need to have some basic clues that are not biased with childish racial theories... I mean... Spanish spoiled by foreign blood... My god what a nonsense.
Our whole "european" culture is actually not europena at all in its roots... Most of Greek scientists were not born in Greece but in greek towns in asia minor, or were heavily influenced by Egyptians and Persians. You are using arab numbers and arab mathematics every day. Computer you are connecting on internet are using binary system that has been stolen from old Chinese works. As moronic tribe people were organising their unstable kingdoms and planing crusades so they can pillage burn and destroy, arab world was having a rennesaince.
Fact that you live in a VERY short hystorical period (compared to history line of few thousand years) when white race has got world supremacy does not justifies ignoring fact that thru rest of history other races were more advanced, and that may simply happen again in future.