Editor’s Abstract: The European race is divided into three primordial races: the European Nordid White (‘White Nordid’ or WN), the Nordid Central Asian Redhead (‘Red Nordid’ or RN), and the Near Eastern Armenid.
The white race is actually a mixture of two or more races. We cannot say, ‘This person is a pure white’ but ‘This person has a mixture of A, B and C races in such proportions’. With terms like Aryan or White we designate a mixture between White Nordid and Red Nordid and its mild crossing with non-white ‘Armenids’ or ‘Mongolids’—usually people of Germanic and Slavic origin.
Therefore, while the ideal white is a White Nordid with a Red Nordid, we cannot say that those whites who have some Armenid or Mongolid genes are non-whites. However, we could say they are non-whites if they have substantial Armenid and/or Mongolid blood and especially Congid blood.
(Passages from one of Evropa Soberana’s essays in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.)
14 replies on “The new racial classification”
In my previous post I mentioned how the Italian painter Caravaggio, unlike Fra Angelico, chose some non-Aryan models. Visitors will be interested to know that, according to the full article (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour publishes an abridgement), Caravaggio had the Congid gene E-V13.
Europa Soberana is a smart guy but his attempt at anthropology is balderdash.
His main error is assuming that an individual can be identified without external reference. Without seeing that “white nordic” man’s face in comparison to other faces or measured with calipers one could never actually accurately assess anything conclusive about his facial dimensions. Such knowledge would be necessary for racial classification and was the normal procedure during the Golden Age of anthropology. For all we know, that man may have too large of a face to be Nordic.
A minor error would be relying too much on superficial traits such as pigmentation. Facial structure is a much better indication of heritage than anything else.
Not sure if I can follow you.
Have you read the whole article?
Yes, I indeed read the whole article. I have known about Europa Soberana for quite some time. At least since 2014. I always had a hard time reading him since I only have a basic understanding of Spanish and I never cared much for his anthropological theories. They seem borderline impossible: the individual he calls dinarid in the phylogenetic tree is supposed to be a descendant of “eastern neanderthal” yet shows not a single trait of Neanderthalism: he is 100% homo sapiens in cranial construction. He has zero facial projection whereas all neanderthals exhibit a level of facial projection far beyond that of any living human. His face also indicates a lean bone structure, what serious anthropologists call “gracile”. By contrast neanderthals had a kind of robust yet smooth bone structure that some researchers describe as “inflated” which in the flesh would have given them a very round face with a strong jawline. The dinarid man shows none of this.
I could go on and on but the whole effort at reinventing anthropology seems to really undermine E.S.
According to them, there are 3 races that mainly compose the white race, but ‘Dinard’ is not a term that appears in Soberana & Valg’s text.
How long ago did you read it?
According to the chart us Scandinavians has just as little in common with the people from middle Ireland as we have with tribes i Papua New-Guinea.
Interesting…..
I did not publish the chart in The Fair Race; nor have I studied it.
At any event, what matters is the textual part of Soberana & Valg’s long article.
“According to them, there are 3 races that mainly compose the white race, but ‘Dinarid’ is not a term that appears in Soberana & Valg’s text.”
I am going off the graph, not the text. I assume E.S and Valg use ‘Armenid’ to mean ‘Dinarid’ [the man in the photo is textbook Armenid].
“How long ago did you read it?”
Only a few hours ago. Even now I struggle to read Spanish. It is a language I barely know. Still I understand the gist about how the “old anthropology” is incorrect, yet neither E.S nor Valg seem to be familiar with the works of Charleton Coon. Had they read 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦 there would be no reason to create classifications that seem as artificial as “white” or “red” nordic. A Scandinavian such as Jahn Teigen could never fit either description yet in Coon’s study is easily identifiable as a moderately robust upper paleolithic-influenced Nordic.
The above link is in English, not Spanish.
Another mistake I noticed when reading his material was that he conflates pigmentation with cranial classifications. He describes Alpinids as being brown-haired and Nordics as having ‘rosy skin’. One can be totally Alpinid and still be as blonde as any Nordic. Likewise one can phenotypically Nordic without having blonde hair or blue eyes.
This girl has blonde hair and green eyes yet in no way or shape is Nordic. Not even slightly.
https://za.pinterest.com/pin/58546863879646107/
Dinaric and ‘Alpine’ are not categories in Soberana or Valg’s classification but of the ‘old’ racial classification.
The ‘old’ classification that Soberana uses is merely an misunderstanding of traditional anthropology. Soberana’s ‘new’ classification is nonsense. There are plenty of sources from the early 1900s that should be read by any would-be anthropologist that have none of the flaws that Soberana ascribes to older studies. Anything from Charleton Coon would make sense than this.
You said above that you read the article in Spanish with your poor Spanish, even though my link links to an English translation. I wonder if you really read the entire English translation?
Yes: the essay may have some errors here and there. It’s not a peer-reviewed published piece. But your generalizing criticism reminds me of the criticism of Arthur Kemp in the forums of white nationalism. All Kemp critics are terrified of Nordicism. Therefore, they use a strawman to make fun of Kemp: that he said that ‘the ancient Egyptians were Nordic’ when, in fact, Kemp said with DNA tests of mummies that some of the earlier pharaohs were redheads.
What I see in Soberana and Valg’s essay is that their reductionist hypothesis is healthy. Instead of so many native white races in the ‘old’ classification (Dalic, Dinaric, Alpine, East Baltic, Mediterranean, etc.) the basic elements were, prehistorically, three. Soberana and Valg’s reductionism, even if mistakes can be spotted here and there, could potentially be a great breakthrough in racial studies—if they are generally correct.
Non-specialists like me can’t pass judgment about the validity of their new racial classification. As I say at the very end of The Fair Race (as Soberana and Valg’s essay is published as an appendix):
I only read the English version after it appeared in the comment section. Until then, I had no way to read it in English.