| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Vikings in South America and racism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Vikings in South America and racism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Vikings in South America and racism
    Posted: 21 Jun 2011 at 09:36
On the net one can still see people who make references to the wild theories of Jacques de Mahieu. This man had some wild ideas about South America being colonised by people from Scandinavia in prehistoric time. He even speculated that Troja was occupied by Scandinavians and when they had to abandon the city in the wake of the Trojan war they simply went to the Americas and started colonies there.
 
Mahieu was from the beginning french. He partok in WWII as a part of the Waffen SS division Charlemagne which consisted of french volunteers. After the war he moved to Argentine where he published books and where an active right wing extremist. Some of his ideas he got from the extreme racist anthropologist Georges Montandon who was a collaborator during WWII.
 
Some of the so called evidence de Mahieu put forward to show that ancient Scandinavians colonized South America was petroglyphs that he interpreted as runes.
 
He was a racist that thought that South American natives could not have created the civilisations found there, but instead they must have been created by higher and more developed peoples from northern Europe.
 
One of his books are even published in Swedish.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 21 Jun 2011 at 09:39
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jun 2011 at 14:40
Certainly. There are many racists like that guy. There are still ignorants in this world that attribute the developments of the Amerindian civilizations to Nordics, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Arabs, Solutreans and Blacks.... The stupidity with the history of the Americas began in the 15th century, when dumb Europeans didn't find the New World in the Bible Confused


Edited by pinguin - 21 Jun 2011 at 14:42
Back to Top
Goban View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 791
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goban Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2011 at 05:11

Pinguin, don't forget about the "extraterrestrial theorists" Big smile

Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2011 at 10:45
There are a bunch of such pseudo-historians. He is just one of maybe one hundred out there saying their theory about who colonized america, who the Trojans and Atlanteans were.

Btw, I remember a book I read from a Scientologist speculating that Greeks build temples in central and south America. He based the hole theory on 4-5 glosses in Ketsua that were the same in Greek. Of course such things happen randomly in geographically unrelated languages in some amount. It is pure coincidence, the rest is bullsh*t.
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 01:56
Originally posted by Goban Goban wrote:

Pinguin, don't forget about the "extraterrestrial theorists" Big smile



Yeap. At least, those are known lunatics, and lack credibility on the average educated people.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 01:59
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

There are a bunch of such pseudo-historians. He is just one of maybe one hundred out there saying their theory about who colonized america, who the Trojans and Atlanteans were.

Btw, I remember a book I read from a Scientologist speculating that Greeks build temples in central and south America. He based the hole theory on 4-5 glosses in Ketsua that were the same in Greek. Of course such things happen randomly in geographically unrelated languages in some amount. It is pure coincidence, the rest is bullsh*t.


It seems every single lunatics want to claim New World's civilizations for other cultures.

I wonder why so many people robb the heritage of Amerindians. They are the worst kind of robbers, because they grab others peoples past for theirs own use.

When will be the time people would say: Wow! These Amerindians developed wonderful cultures all by themselves! These Amerindians were quite smart people.

I bet only locals of the New World, particularly Latin Americans, recognize the glory that was the pre-Columbian Americas and its extraordinary civilisations and cultures: our heritage.

 


Edited by pinguin - 25 Jun 2011 at 02:00
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 02:06
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


I bet only locals of the New World, particularly Latin Americans, recognize the glory that was the pre-Columbian Americas and its extraordinary civilisations and cultures: our heritage. 

In my experience those theories are more popular in Latin America than in the rest of the world. I've never met so many people who claimed Quetzalcoatl was Saint Thomas or a Viking, and the Mayans Chinese or Aliens than in Mexico. Strange but true.

Of course part of the explanation may be that in the rest of the world people are just not interested in the topic either way.

Quote I wonder why so many people robb the heritage of Amerindians. They are the worst kind of robbers, because they grab others peoples past for theirs own use.

Hmmm, I'm never really too sure what to make of that kind of argument. On the one hand it's true that racism may be involved, but on the other hand just shouting 'racism!' or 'stop robbing our heritage!' is not exactly the most effective way to debunk those theories. The most remarkable thing about this kind of crankery is not how racist it is, but rather how completely unsupported it is.

Edited by Mixcoatl - 25 Jun 2011 at 02:08
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 02:35
It is plain racism of the worst kind. Some people still believe Amerindians are mentaly retarded, so they couldn't develop civilisations by theirs own. Therefore, they needed help!

Any person that assign a non-Amerindian origin to the pre-Columbian civilisations of America is a racist, and period.
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 20:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is plain racism of the worst kind. Some people still believe Amerindians are mentaly retarded, so they couldn't develop civilisations by theirs own. Therefore, they needed help!Any person that assign a non-Amerindian origin to the pre-Columbian civilisations of America is a racist, and period.

Name one contemporary pseudohistorian (with a following outside of the neonazi or similar community) who claims Amerindians are mentally retarded.

Besides, even if somebody ascribes a non-Amerindian origin to a pre-Columbian civilization because of racist motives it's not racism that makes the claims spurious, it not being corroborated by the facts is.

Edited by Mixcoatl - 25 Jun 2011 at 20:19
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 21:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Any person that assign a non-Amerindian origin to the pre-Columbian civilisations of America is a racist, and period.

Nonsense. I'm thinking if I should elaborate, but you are so fanatical I doubt you'd take reason: for anyone else I'd be preaching to the already convinced. Short though: you give way too little credit to sheer ignorance and the allure of mysticism.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 00:49
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Nonsense.


You may believe so, but you haven't proved it. And you are wrong.
Behind every "theorists" that claim an external origin to the Amerindian civilisations lies a racist.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


I'm thinking if I should elaborate, but you are so fanatical I doubt you'd take reason: for anyone else I'd be preaching to the already convinced. Short though: you give way too little credit to sheer ignorance and the allure of mysticism.


Of course, I am convinced. It is just common sense.

There is no way to study the Americas but from recognizing it was an isolated continent were man developed its own cultures in parallel of the rest of the world. That's the beauty of this place.

People that for whatever reason denies it, follow the next routine.

(1) First, they claim there is a "mystery". The fact, the only mystery they solve is theirs own ignorance on the topic.

(2) They put on place a theory that explains how "those Indians" invented anything, and the answer is always the same: "they received the teachers from somewhere else"

What else could it be but plain racism?



Back to Top
King John View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King John Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 00:53
Out of curiosity, how is this different from claiming the US Constitution is based on Amerindian (read Iroqouis) social structure? 
 
I'm not trying to start a side conversation, just trying to point out the hypocracy in the stance that attributing pre-Columbian accomplishments to non-Amerindian origins is racist but attributing Amerindian origins to things/accomplishments of non-Amerindians is not racist.  THe fact of the matter is that both stance "rob" cultures of their heritage and are both based in, at the least, ignorance and possibly racism/nationalsim/anti-Westernism/any other -ism you can think of.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 01:05
The Iroquouis constitution was the first democratic and federal constitution that ever existed in the whole New World. It was in place by at least three centuries before Columbus arrived to the Americas. That's something no historian can put in doubt.

Now, the case of the "influences" of the Iroquois into the colones is more controversial. There is no doubt that there was some influences, of course. Any rational mind could deny there were "some" influences. For instance, it is not a coincidence the bald eagle, that was the sacred totem of the Iroquois, was addopted by the U.S. as a symbol. Now, this debate is about the degree of influence, rather than if existed or not. And it is a legitimate debate and has nothing to do with the other topic.

And, of course robbing the heritage of certain etnics groups is racist, whether it is done knowing or not.

Next time you read about other of those wonderful pre-contact travels, try to catch the racist that wrote them in the first place. Nazis loved and love wonderful myths, starting from the holed earth, for example.







Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 07:36
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You may believe so, but you haven't proved it. And you are wrong.Behind every "theorists" that claim an external origin to the Amerindian civilisations lies a racist.

You make a claim, so you're the one who has to prove it. Just repeating an assertion does not constitute an argument.

Quote What else could it be but plain racism?

That question has already been answered.

Also I'm still waiting for a name of pseudohistorian who claims Amerindians are retarded.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 08:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Nonsense.


You may believe so, but you haven't proved it. And you are wrong.
Behind every "theorists" that claim an external origin to the Amerindian civilisations lies a racist.

Nonsense. You made the claim: you prove it. And to do that it you need to go through every single one of those theorists and show that they had racist opinions (stating aliens built pyramids is not racist, as everyone but you realizes). 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 15:06
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


You make a claim, so you're the one who has to prove it. Just repeating an assertion does not constitute an argument.


I don't have to prove the sun shines on the sky.
I don't have to prove, either, that somebody who doesn't believe natives can invent theirs own things, it is a racist.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Also I'm still waiting for a name of pseudohistorian who claims Amerindians are retarded.


They never said it. Of course those hypocrites take care of that.
But they think it.

The very fact they INVENT pseudohistories to "explain" how inventions "came" to the Americas is a proof of theirs racism.




Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 15:21
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Nonsense.


Don't call "nonsense" to things you ignore.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


You made the claim: you prove it. And to do that it you need to go through every single one of those theorists and show that they had racist opinions (stating aliens built pyramids is not racist, as everyone but you realizes). 


Well, go to the study of the Nazis and theirs strange beliefs, and compare those with the beliefs of theirs sucessors: our contemporary lunatics that preaches UFO contact with ancient civilisations and transoceanic contacts all over the place.

To undestand it, you must known about Nazi beliefs, such as the myth of the holed earth, and the central point that the Atlantis had in theirs myths. And I am not talking about Plato's Atlantis, but Nazi's Atlantis.

The Atlantis, the origins of all civilisations. A superior race that tought the barbarians everything.

Just take a look at the roots of all that stupidity.






Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 16:05
Quote I don't have to prove the sun shines on the sky.

You don't. However, if you really had to you could prove that the sun shines in the sky; as in providing empiral data supporting that clame rather than calling your opponent names.

Quote
I don't have to prove, either, that somebody who doesn't believe natives can invent theirs own things, it is a racist.

Yes you do. You're making a claim (and a potentially libellous one at that), so it's up to you to back it up. You've been repeating the same assertion over and over again, but you haven't yet given a single shred of evidence.

If it's so blatantly obvious that the pseudohistorians we are talking about are motivated by racism then surely it's easy to produce some evidence for your claim.

Do you realize that you're using the same tactics the Afrocentrists use?
"Olmecs were black, stop stealing our heritage. If you deny that you're racist."

Edited by Mixcoatl - 26 Jun 2011 at 16:09
Back to Top
Mixcoatl View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Poyais
Status: Offline
Points: 5042
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mixcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 16:15
Let's use an example:

One somewhat famous theory states that in the first century AD Saint Thomas travelled to Mexico and introduced Christianity there. The Virgin of Guadalupe was not painted by Juan Diego but dates from the first century and was Thomas' mantle. Quetzalcoatl was really Thomas, the stories about hit visit having been corrupted during the next 15 centuries, and Tonantzin was of course originally Mary.

I give you that this is nonsense, but why would this theory be racist?

Edited by Mixcoatl - 26 Jun 2011 at 16:22
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 25 Mar 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 14
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 16:40
It's highly unlikely the Vikings colonised South America. They only returned to Vinland to get timber
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 16:54
Responsible scholarship has little assocation with contemporary dingbats, even if these have seized upon the musings of 19th century "art experts" and amateur "archaeologists" for their flights of fancy.   Of course this declaration brings to mind good old Carch and his musings about new "methods" and innovative "technolgies" [e.g. osteology, genetics], which heavily lace the ravings of individuals such as Ivan van Sertima or Constance Irwin. I can fondly recall the claims made for Phoenicians in the late 50s and early 60s with respect to the Olmec but then just as now such nonsense was heartily rejected within the circles of professionalism. That such nonsense continues is really more than a function of merchandizing with respect to sensationalism in the book trade and now in the visual medium that is television and the History Channel. Racism? I do not thinks so since exploitation of the gullible has long been traditional when the object is the making of mucho dinero.
 
Of course there is a bit of humor here with respect to our esteemed Forum addict, the Penguin, who elsewhere argued on behalf of the African origins of Cubism! Talk about a sun-setting...


Edited by drgonzaga - 26 Jun 2011 at 16:55
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 18:50
Originally posted by Nick1986 Nick1986 wrote:

It's highly unlikely the Vikings colonised South America. They only returned to Vinland to get timber


As strange as may sound, the Vikings were the only Europeans that reached the Americans in pre-Columbian times. We know it because the evidence is undeniable. The site of a Viking town exists, and there there was found archeological pieces of Norse manufacture. There are the Icelandic Sagas that describe the events. And also, there is the knowledge of how it was done and the precise dates of these events.

But there is no single evidence, norses reached South from Canada.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 18:55
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...
Yes you do. You're making a claim (and a potentially libellous one at that), so it's up to you to back it up. You've been repeating the same assertion over and over again, but you haven't yet given a single shred of evidence.


The proof is simple. Trace the origin of the Nazi beliefs in the Atlantis, and the the same mecanism is in action here.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...
If it's so blatantly obvious that the pseudohistorians we are talking about are motivated by racism then surely it's easy to produce some evidence for your claim.


I didn't say pseudohistorians are motivated by racism. They are racists and some not even know it.
They are racist for the simple fact they DENY Amerindians theirs own culture, development and creations. Now, the motivation of pseudohistorians is more simple than that: it is money. They know the world is covered with ignorance, and that exploiting it produces money, so they go for the dollar.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...
Do you realize that you're using the same tactics the Afrocentrists use?
"Olmecs were black, stop stealing our heritage. If you deny that you're racist."


I don't know who are the Afrocentrists, and what one should learn from them.
Olmecs were Amerindians, and anyone that say otherwise lies.




Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 18:58
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Responsible scholarship has little assocation with contemporary dingbats, even if these have seized upon the musings of 19th century "art experts" and amateur "archaeologists" for their flights of fancy.   Of course this declaration brings to mind good old Carch and his musings about new "methods" and innovative "technolgies" [e.g. osteology, genetics], which heavily lace the ravings of individuals such as Ivan van Sertima or Constance Irwin. I can fondly recall the claims made for Phoenicians in the late 50s and early 60s with respect to the Olmec but then just as now such nonsense was heartily rejected within the circles of professionalism. That such nonsense continues is really more than a function of merchandizing with respect to sensationalism in the book trade and now in the visual medium that is television and the History Channel. Racism? I do not thinks so since exploitation of the gullible has long been traditional when the object is the making of mucho dinero.


I agree with you on this topic, and, of course, exploiting ignorance produce a lot of money, and these books of "mysteries" are targeted to the ignorant public. I bet a pseudohistorian make more bucks that a legion of academics.

 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Of course there is a bit of humor here with respect to our esteemed Forum addict, the Penguin, who elsewhere argued on behalf of the African origins of Cubism! Talk about a sun-setting...


That was another topic. There is nothing strange that artists get inspired and influenced in exotic cultures, and Picasso wasn't the exception.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 19:14
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

To undestand it, you must known about Nazi beliefs, such as the myth of the holed earth, and the central point that the Atlantis had in theirs myths. And I am not talking about Plato's Atlantis, but Nazi's Atlantis.

The Atlantis, the origins of all civilisations. A superior race that tought the barbarians everything.

Just take a look at the roots of all that stupidity.
None of those are 'Nazi beliefs'. An occasional Nazi might possibly have held one of them, but that's just as true as the rest of the world's population.
 
Holding one of those beliefs does not make anyone a Nazi, and equally, being a Nazi did/does not mean you believed any of them.
 
A lot of garbage is talked about the Nazis and esoteric beliefs, just as it was about the Templars and theirs. The famous expedition to Tibet can hardly, when you think about it, have been a search for Atlantis, which in all the mythologies lies to the West. Granted some of the Nazi theorisers talked about an orignal home of the Aryans, and granted they got it wrong, most Nazis coldn't have cared less about Atlantis: they had more practical issues to contend with.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 20:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

None of those are 'Nazi beliefs'. An occasional Nazi might possibly have held one of them, but that's just as true as the rest of the world's population.
 
Holding one of those beliefs does not make anyone a Nazi, and equally, being a Nazi did/does not mean you believed any of them.
 
A lot of garbage is talked about the Nazis and esoteric beliefs, just as it was about the Templars and theirs. The famous expedition to Tibet can hardly, when you think about it, have been a search for Atlantis, which in all the mythologies lies to the West. Granted some of the Nazi theorisers talked about an orignal home of the Aryans, and granted they got it wrong, most Nazis coldn't have cared less about Atlantis: they had more practical issues to contend with.


Nazi beliefs are well researched and studied. You well know that the swastica cames from the East, and that the link with the Tibetians shouldn't be ridiculised. After all, Tibetians died deffending the Reich capital during the fall of Berling.

Now, one of the principles of Nazism is that there are superior and inferior peoples. One of the myth of the nazism is that the superior race started in Atlantis, and spread its knowledge worldwide. So, how could we wonder when those same reclycled myths are used to steal the heritage of Amerindians?


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 23:22
It is one of the wonders of modern "fuzzy thinking" that there are certain contemporary idiots that actually believe the NAZI party had any type of coherent ideology or a structured "sense of history". One could attempt to bore themselves to death by reading the Volkischer Beobachter after the advent of Alfred Rosenberg to the editorship in 1923 and the most one could assert is that they have suffered through an exercise in specious intellectualizations. Certainly there was no intellectual constuct behind NAZI concepts on government or governance. And anyone who claims otherwise has hit one too many bottles of high-proof elixir. And I am surprised that the Penguin did not notice the underlying truth here: Government by Gorilla criminality (with all due apologies to the simian). There were no "principles" behind the NAZIs other than criminal opportunism and the megalomania of very minor intellects acting out their psychological insecurities.  

Edited by drgonzaga - 27 Jun 2011 at 03:36
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 01:06
Of course Nazi didn't have a coherent ideology. But they believed in many stupid thinks, and had many myths, from the holed earth, Atlantis, the white Christ and the cycle of the Ring. That's something an historian as yourself should know.
And I don't agree that Gorillas lacked principles. One of the principles of Hitler and Pinochet was to exterminate all "subhuman" communists to save mankind. As an historian you should also know that.


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 03:51
Who is "they"? After all there were crackpots muttering such garbage long before a ne'er-do-well Austrian crossed into Bavaria! As for "historians", they have certainly analyzed the manner and style of force utilized by Hitler to consolidate power and therein there is not a single quality that could be identified as "principle". Perhaps you should pick up and read Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (1968) in order to understand the actual intellectual currents of Germany in the 1920s.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 04:21
I have studied Nazis for a long time. The first think I recomend you study on the topic is theirs origins in the Thule lodge. That will open yours eyes.
If you believe Nazis were intellectuals, you are dead wrong. Nazis were ignorant shamans that brought Europe 1500 years backwards in time, with the mentality of the Vikings and the violence of the Mongols.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.