Hitler, Religion, and Morality

[LeBrok]

religion is an invention of rulers to justify their own position and to convince their subjects are one people with him as their sole ruler and protector

look at the bible, it's an invention of some Jewish king to motivate the Jews to unite and to fight the Filistines with him as their sole ruler

Yes, the organized religion's main purpose was and still is (except few western countries) to unite groups or nations behind their leaders. Historically the strongest nations rose to dominance behind one monolithic religion. It didn't matter what it was called and how many gods it had, the important fact is that it was one and standing behind the leader, also legitimizing leaders as chosen by the gods or even descended from them. No wonder people were easily misled that gods were on their side, that they helped them conquer and kill enemies, take their land, made them special and superior. If you won a war it was mainly because it was a will of your gods.
Ones we have two or more dominant religions it is a good environment for a domestic war, and weakening the nation, till freedom of religion and tolerance had to be invented to keep peace in a multicultural nations.

history is being distorted and fantasised in order to suit the proper story-telling

That's our romantic spirituality side. Also helpful for surviving, inspiring, energizing, also coping with death and suffering, and answering many questions the science wayback could address. As religion is mainly a cultural phenomenon, spirituality is mainly genetic.

even today some still believe they are the only 'chosen people' and they can claim the 'promised land' for themselves only

This is an amazing documentary about evolution of god, particularly the God of Israel, a real eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzpaIrTFMc
Some more here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post418113

you can make the same parallel with many other religions too

Yes, because they have same purpose to unite the nation, to make people stronger as a group.

Times changed a lot during last hundred years, that's why Western Christianity religions are lost and trying to reinvent themselves. Being cut of from political game and economy (as vast land owners) what is left for them is the realm of ethics and morality. Pretty soon even this domain will be taken away.

[nordicwarrior]

...
In Europe the most peaceful countries are Scandinavian countries, which also happen to be the least religious.

In the USA, the most violent states are usually also the most religious (Bible Belt). Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia make up most of the states with the highest murder rates. These are exactly the 7 most religious US States according to a Gallup poll. In contrast, the states with the lowest murder rates also happen to be the least religious (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon). Still convinced that Christianity bring peace on Earth ?

Crime rates flucuate, but the states you've mentioned certainly do have a long-term problem with violence... however linking Christianity to violent areas simply does not fly. What about the Northern cities of Detroit and Chicago? I've lived all over the U.S. and I can tell you are missing the main cause of this crime. And that is the wholesale destruction of the family unit in minority/urban communities.

Whether or not this has anything to do with the for-profit prison industry that's solidly entrenched in the U.S.-- I can only speculate. Popular media (gangsta rap, glorification of drugs) has played a big role in the dismantling of the African-American family.

Also please don't pin this crime on racial tensions of the "Old South". I've found that blacks and whites relate far better to one another in the Deep South vs. the Northern States. When you interact with folks on a daily basis, colors seem to fade away. Most violence committed in the U.S. is between members of the same ethnic group.

[skaheen15]

It is...BEYOND ignorant and absurd to imply that religion is necessary for a person to be 'moral', compassionate, forgiving, and all the rest. That is patently untrue, and, anyone who would deny that both scientific and overall social progress(universal suffrage, the idea of basic civil rights for all, widespread literacy, things like that) have grown in inverse proportion to the decline of organized religion, is living in la la land, sorry.

[skaheen15]

There was a period where monotheistic dogma was the main organizing force of western society. We call it the 'dark ages' for a reason.

[LeBrok]

Originally Posted by Angela

As for the U.S., the violence is worst in urban, mainly minority cities. In my personal opinion, one which is increasingly accepted despite the "politically correct" push back, it is the collapse of the family which is largely to blame, and this collapse, while it has been encouraged by the practices of the welfare state, also owe a great deal to the collapse of the sexual morality which used to be enforced by traditional religious beliefs.

http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm
Looking at this chart, especially recent sudden fall of homicide rates, one can argue that, crime rate is rather loosely connected to traditional family values.

New York rates show same trends too. In 2005 there was even less crime than in 1965.

New York Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants

						Forcible		Aggravated		Larceny-	Vehicle
Year	Population	Index	Violent	Property	Murder	Rape	Robbery	assault	Burglary	Theft	Theft
1965	18,073,000	3,065.6	325.4	2,740.3	4.6	12.8	155.9	152.0	1,015.0	1,401.8	323.4
1966	18,258,000	3,338.1	342.6	2,995.4	4.8	13.4	164.8	159.6	1,074.2	1,568.7	352.5
1967	18,336,000	3,776.9	409.7	3,367.2	5.4	14.5	219.3	170.5	1,195.2	1,715.1	456.9
1968	18,113,000	4,579.3	543.9	4,035.4	6.5	14.0	330.5	192.9	1,385.3	2,071.1	579.0
1969	18,321,000	4,569.7	577.9	3,991.8	7.2	15.8	353.4	201.4	1,356.2	2,005.7	629.9
1970	18,190,740	4,971.3	685.0	4,286.3	7.9	15.8	446.1	215.2	1,470.4	2,125.0	690.9
1971	18,391,000	5,084.1	788.7	4,295.4	9.9	17.5	531.1	230.1	1,488.2	2,113.1	694.1
1972	18,366,000	4,380.9	754.3	3,626.6	11.0	22.9	470.4	250.1	1,306.1	1,748.3	572.1
1973	18,265,000	4,458.5	741.7	3,716.8	11.2	26.6	442.3	261.6	1,348.2	1,753.7	615.0
1974	18,111,000	5,034.0	803.0	4,231.0	10.6	28.9	479.3	284.1	1,500.9	2,155.4	574.8
1975	18,120,000	5,635.7	856.4	4,779.3	11.0	28.1	516.0	301.3	1,666.6	2,471.0	641.7
1976	18,084,000	6,225.1	868.1	5,357.0	10.9	25.8	529.3	302.1	1,763.5	2,855.2	738.2
1977	17,924,000	6,087.6	831.8	5,255.8	10.7	29.4	472.6	319.1	1,728.0	2,782.0	745.8
1978	17,748,000	5,792.2	841.0	4,951.2	10.3	29.1	472.1	329.5	1,650.6	2,628.6	672.0
1979	17,649,000	6,205.1	917.4	5,287.7	11.9	30.6	529.6	345.3	1,746.9	2,836.4	704.5
1980	17,506,690	6,911.6	1,029.5	5,882.0	12.7	30.9	641.3	344.6	2,061.6	3,060.4	759.9
1981	17,594,000	6,905.4	1,069.6	5,835.8	12.3	31.1	684.0	342.1	1,991.7	3,066.3	777.8
1982	17,659,000	6,468.1	990.1	5,478.1	11.4	29.2	610.7	338.7	1,671.9	3,025.3	780.8
1983	17,667,000	5,902.6	914.1	4,988.5	11.1	30.0	536.5	336.5	1,410.1	2,854.7	723.7
1984	17,735,000	5,577.3	914.3	4,662.9	10.1	31.6	506.9	365.8	1,257.2	2,755.1	650.6
1985	17,783,000	5,588.5	929.9	4,658.6	9.5	32.1	504.4	383.9	1,235.1	2,824.5	599.1
1986	17,772,000	5,767.7	985.9	4,781.8	10.7	30.5	514.1	430.6	1,221.1	2,923.5	637.2
1987	17,825,000	5,952.4	1,008.1	4,944.3	11.3	31.1	503.3	462.4	1,216.4	3,024.8	703.1
1988	17,898,000	6,309.3	1,097.3	5,212.0	12.5	30.6	544.4	509.8	1,218.3	3,133.8	859.9
1989	17,950,000	6,293.2	1,131.2	5,162.1	12.5	29.2	579.3	510.1	1,176.2	3,033.2	952.7
1990	17,990,455	6,363.8	1,180.9	5,182.8	14.5	29.8	624.7	512.0	1,160.7	2,979.4	1,042.7
1991	18,058,000	6,244.6	1,163.9	5,080.7	14.2	28.2	622.1	499.4	1,132.5	2,944.3	1,003.9
1992	18,119,000	5,858.4	1,122.1	4,736.3	13.2	28.4	596.9	483.5	1,068.2	2,735.8	932.3
1993	18,197,000	5,551.3	1,073.5	4,477.8	13.3	27.5	561.2	471.5	998.6	2,644.2	835.0
1994	18,169,000	5,070.6	965.6	4,105.0	11.1	25.9	476.7	451.9	906.2	2,489.5	709.3
1995	18,136,000	4,560.1	841.9	3,718.3	8.5	23.7	399.7	410.0	808.1	2,344.4	565.7
1996	18,185,000	4,132.3	727.0	3,405.3	7.4	23.0	340.0	356.7	713.9	2,197.0	494.4
1997	18,137,000	3,910.9	688.6	3,222.4	6.0	22.5	309.3	350.8	652.3	2,130.6	439.4
1998	18,175,000	3,588.5	637.8	2,950.7	5.1	21.1	270.3	341.3	576.7	1,998.9	375.1
1999	18,196,601	3,279.4	588.8	2,690.6	5.0	19.6	240.8	323.5	512.3	1,858.1	320.2
2000	18,976,457	3,099.6	553.9	2,545.7	5.0	18.6	213.6	316.7	463.4	1,796.4	285.8
2001	19,084,350	2,913.5	513.6	2,399.9	5.0	18.6	191.5	298.5	421.3	1,725.6	253.0
2002	19,134,293	2,807.1	496.6	2,310.5	4.8	20.3	191.6	280.0	400.9	1,662.1	247.5
2003	19,212,425	2,714.8	465.8	2,249.0	4.9	19.6	186.3	255.0	392.7	1,620.9	235.3
2004	19,280,727	2,632.9	440.4	2,192.5	4.6	18.7	173.8	243.3	366.7	1,613.2	212.7
2005	19,315,721	2,554.3	444.4	2,101.9	4.5	18.8	182.1	238.9	352.2	1,564.6	185.0
2006	19,306,183	2,487.6	434.9	2,052.7	4.8	16.4	178.6	235.1	355.1	1,531.1	166.4
2007	19,297,729	2,392.7	414.1	1,978.6	4.2	15.2	161.1	233.7	336.1	1,497.2	145.3
2008	19,467,789	2,394.3	398.3	1,996.0	4.3	14.4	163.0	216.4	336.6	1,530.5	128.9
2009	19,541,453	2,316.4	384.4	1,932.0	4.0	13.2	144.0	223.1	321.2	1,498.8	111.9
2010	19,395,206	2,352.2	394.4	1,957.8	4.5	14.4	147.6	227.9	339.5	1,511.9	106.4
2011	19,501,616	2,303.9	397.2	1,906.7	3.9	14.1	145.7	233.5	334.5	1,473.5	98.7
2012	19,570,261	2,328.8	406.8	1,922.0	3.5	14.6	146.4	242.3	329.9	1,503.5	88.6

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

For me crime rates are inversely related to economy and job prosperity than to family values. Don't take me wrong I'm a family man.

[skaheen15]

Yeah, I think that crime in the rust belt cities has a lot more to do with the fact that their main sources of employment were taken away decades ago, than it does to do with religion or family values.

[kamani]

For me crime rates are inversely related to economy and job prosperity than to family values.

True. Also agressive behavior as a lifestyle, is a sign of poor education or wrong type of education, which I guess is a side effect of poor economy and sometimes of radical ideologies. Both those factors coincidentally met in pre-Nazi Germany.

[Baltic tribes]

Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist, but he was religious. He recognized Aryanism.
The idea is that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race.
They identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic. Of which the most pure is Nordic.
Aryanism says that Jews descended from non-European races, and particularly what is classified as the Near Asian race (Vorderasiatische) more commonly known as the Armenoid race.
Aryanism claims that Slavs evolved from Aryans who intermixed with Mongols.
These and other ideas evolved into the term "Aryan race" to refer to what they saw as being a master race, which was narrowly defined as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by other sub-races of the Aryan race.
So, you can like or dislike but these are the points.

My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.

[skaheen15]

white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet

Um...what?

[Aberdeen]

Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist, but he was religious. He recognized Aryanism.
The idea is that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race.
They identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic. Of which the most pure is Nordic.
Aryanism says that Jews descended from non-European races, and particularly what is classified as the Near Asian race (Vorderasiatische) more commonly known as the Armenoid race.
Aryanism claims that Slavs evolved from Aryans who intermixed with Mongols.
These and other ideas evolved into the term "Aryan race" to refer to what they saw as being a master race, which was narrowly defined as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by other sub-races of the Aryan race.
So, you can like or dislike but these are the points.

My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.

I always find this "Aryan" shit hilarious, because the Iranian speaking people who called themselves Aryans weren't exactly the colour of fresh snow. And yes, Hitler did call himself christian, but he had a rather eccentric idea of what it was about.

[Aberdeen]

I suspect that one of the main causes of high crime and social breakdown is not poverty as much as economic uncertainty. A peasant family living in a low tech environment with very little in the way of material possessions but surrounded by relatives and friends usually is not a breeding ground of crime. But when children grow up without structure, often as a result of one or both parents losing their livelihood, the children often drift into petty crime and, once they get labelled as criminals, really commit to that kind of lifestyle.

[Aberdeen]

I like your analogy, epoch. Just because tyrants have often seen a certain type of religious dogma or a certain type of religious practice as effective ways of controlling people doesn't mean that religion was created for the purpose of controlling people.

I think some people want religion as a way of explaining the universe to themselves because they're not comfortable with "I don't know" and others use religion as a way of coping with their fear of death. And some folks are genuinely convinced that non-visible energies and powers do exist in the world and use certain spiritual practices, often framed as part of religious belief systems, in order to try to communicate with and interact with those energies.

I think that it's the religious ideas that appeal most strongly to those who fear death that are easiest to exploit for purposes of controlling the masses. Some folk have speculated that Emperor Constantine decided to remove the legal sanctions against christianity and make it the official Roman religion because he thought that its emphasis on the afterlife and on deity would help to control people and obey their emperor. But even if that's true, he didn't invent christianity, he just made it a tool of government.

[LeBrok]

Let me make an analogy: Football was not invented to give the masses games to control them. Football was invented as a fun game. And even if mass sports are supposed to be a good way to control the population, it would never have worked unless the sports weren't so massively popular. And even if dictators like to use sports as a way to "give them bread and games" the outcome is never sure, as the existence of football riots in the former Soviet-Union may show. Yet you want me to believe something that is similar to the idea that some one invented football to control the masses.

Why do people need sports, or even better, why people enjoy group sports?

When I look at football, or any groups sport, I can see two different tribes fighting, physically battling, running, throwing, etc, competing with each other with one goal in mind: to win, to dominate, to bring home bacon. Practically it is nothing more than what hunter-gatherers did for millions of years. Group of men running together after a common goal/prey, or group of men fighting other tribe to win the spoils of war and dominance. Also fans are nothing more than whole tribe pulling together behind their warriors and their tribe identity, a small scale nationalism if you will. Old HGs habits are still strong in us.
So it is true that football was not invented for higher social purposes. But once existed, it was taken over by a big business to serve purpose of building wealth for them and players. It works for fans, clubs and owners, so it is continued as such. Likewise first simple religions were not invented for purpose of centralised power, but only on grounds of human spirituality, but these first religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool of whole populous. Obviously it gave good results, making groups stronger, that's why it was continued in such form for millennia till pretty much present.

[LeBrok]

Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.

On contrary, the poves of bringing compelling evidence is on a person making extraordinary claims. Try proving your unbilivable claims.

So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet?

Provide a proof that Egyptian, Babylonian or even Greek civilization, not mentioning Indian or Chinese, was started by Nordics, and they are source of other races.

[skaheen15]

Hitler obviously was raised Catholic, and of course used religion as a PR tool in the NSDAP's rise to power, but anyone who has really studied the subject should know that he didn't take Christianity seriously as an adult, it's inaccurate to describe him or the Nazi movement as Christian. Christianity was definitely not part of the official Nazi philosophy, and was in fact discouraged to a large degree by the regime. The chief party ideologue, Alfred Rosenberg, was staunchly anti-Christian, as were Himmler, Bormann, Streicher, Hess, Eichmann, Darre, and most other key party figures, particularly in the SS. While it's obviously true that european anti-semitism historically had more than a little to do with Christianity, it really makes no sense for Pro OR anti-religious folk to use the Nazis as part of their argument, Nazi Germany was neither Christian nor atheistic as such, it was something else.

[Aberdeen]

..........

Provide a proof that Egyptian, Babylonian or even Greek civilization, not mentioning Indian or Chinese, was started by Nordics, and they are source of other races.

Well, the ancient Greeks were caucasian, although I doubt that many of them were blond haired, blue eyed Nordic types. Also, I suspect that when Baltic tribes talks about the creation of civilization, he isn't talking about the petty stuff such as literacy, mathematics, astrology, philosophy, architecture or creating water treatment systems. He's probably talking about the really important stuff, like pastoralism and intertribal warfare.

[ElHorsto]

I guess a religion which was so popular for so long time among "aryan europeans" and so important for national history (Holy Roman Empire, Crusaders) could not be completely rejected by Hitler without rejecting "aryanism" itself. He had to reinterpret it to make it more compatible. Christianly also ensured many conservative values, which were probably appealing for Hitler.

[LeBrok]

Well, the ancient Greeks were caucasian, although I doubt that many of them were blond haired, blue eyed Nordic types. Also, I suspect that when Baltic tribes talks about the creation of civilization, he isn't talking about the petty stuff such as literacy, mathematics, astrology, philosophy, architecture or creating water treatment systems. He's probably talking about the really important stuff, like pastoralism and intertribal warfare.

lol, I have a feeling that he subscribes to someone's fantasies he read somewhere, that goes against archeology, written records, genetics and what's not. Now somehow it is our duty to disprove them.

[kamani]

I think Hitler did not know what to do with Christianity, that's why we get conflicting positions of him on this. On one hand as a philosophy for him it was: too old, too soft, too slow, and too Jewish. He needed faster and more radical ideologies for fast world domination. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, he could not abolish it without losing support from the German people. So guys beware of people who want old senile religions to go away, it is usually to replace them with something worse.

[skaheen15]

The NSDAP was founded by a tradesman, I think a carpenter, mainly as a kind of para-socialist organization, but much of it's early membership was drawn from the Thule Society, a quasi-mystical racialist group with neo-pagan leanings and a decidedly anti-christian slant. I know this is how Rosenberg got involved, he had been a TS member. Certainly, many rank-and-file party members remained nominally Christian, but the overall bent of Nazi philosophy was towards a kind of ill-defined deism, with a Germanic pagan element. The SS, especially, developed it's own brand of 'nordic' mysticism. There was really no place for Christianity in any of this. The point I was trying to make is that the Nazis really shouldn't be part of the atheist vs. believers debate, and only ever are because of common misconceptions.

[Maciamo]

I think Hitler did not know what to do with Christianity, that's why we get conflicting positions of him on this. On one hand as a philosophy for him it was: too old, too soft, too slow, and too Jewish. He needed faster and more radical ideologies for fast world domination. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, he could not abolish it without losing support from the German people. So guys beware of people who want old senile religions to go away, it is usually to replace them with something worse.

Germans did replace old, senile and corrupted Catholic Church by something more radical : Protestantism. It happened many centuries before Hitler lived, but Hitler was brought up as a Catholic and just underwent his own "Reformation" in adulthood.

No matter how you look at it, Hitler's ideologies were heavily influenced by the Christian mindset, Christian fears and Christian creationism. The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others. It wouldn't make sense to a scientist who only sees the range of interpersonal variations between humans.

Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism, the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel). Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

NB : Hitler's neo-paganism was purely cultural, not religious. It was just for show, a kind of justification for Germanic militarism. Neither Hitler nor virtually anybody in Germany started believing in the power of ancient gods like Odin or Thor during the Nazi period. All remained strongly monotheist and were usually fairly typical Christians in their metaphysical beliefs.

[gyms]

No,Maciamo!

Many authors see the roots of modern antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:

1. Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
2. Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
3. Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was – at least in its classical form – nuanced in that Jews were a protected class
4. Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
5. Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism in the 20th century
6. Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism

Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."<sup>[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism</sup>

[epoch]

Why do people need sports, or even better, why people enjoy group sports?

When I look at football, or any groups sport, I can see two different tribes fighting, physically battling, running, throwing, etc, competing with each other with one goal in mind: to win, to dominate, to bring home bacon. Practically it is nothing more than what hunter-gatherers did for millions of years. Group of men running together after a common goal/prey, or group of men fighting other tribe to win the spoils of war and dominance. Also fans are nothing more than whole tribe pulling together behind their warriors and their tribe identity, a small scale nationalism if you will. Old HGs habits are still strong in us.
So it is true that football was not invented for higher social purposes. But once existed, it was taken over by a big business to serve purpose of building wealth for them and players. It works for fans, clubs and owners, so it is continued as such. Likewise first simple religions were not invented for purpose of centralised power, but only on grounds of human spirituality, but these first religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool of whole populous. Obviously it gave good results, making groups stronger, that's why it was continued in such form for millennia till pretty much present.

This is an adjustment of your theory that religion was invented for population control: You now state that religion was used as population control tool.

However, there are flaws in this theory too. One of the flaws being that religion may indeed have been considered as possible power tool; it hardly served that purpose well. Let us take Christianity as an example. Christianity was for centuries a resistance religion, a religion fiercely persecuted by the Romans. Once adopted by the local powers it proved hard to control, especially since much of its mythology - the Vitae of saints specifically - cherished the martyrs of that resistance. Emperors sought to control the church, the church - especially since it considered the empire bequeathed to itself after the fall of the latest West-Roman emperor - sought to control the emperors and both sought to control the popular movements. These popular movements that sprung from Christianity were rather revolutionary, as numerous heretical and semi-heretical movements in the Middle Ages show. The novel "The Name of the Rose" may be fiction but Umberto Eco did very good research for it, and you should read it to get an idea of the revolutionary spirit of several christian movements in the second part of the Middle Ages.

As another example may serve Thomas Becket, who was a loyal chancellor of Henry II Plantagenet. Henry appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury - this is the part that you may consider in accordance with your theory that powers try to rule via religion - in the believe that Thomas Beckets loyalty would remain to Henry. However, Thomas Becket found that he now served God rather than the king and became a very vocal moral critic of the king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy

Reading on mediaeval history you'll find far more examples. I conclude from this that while you can find elements of your opinion that religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool this is a gross simplification, if not a distortion, of history.

[Maciamo]

My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.

That's a pointless question because:

1) There was never one single ethnically unified Proto-Indo-European people. The Indo-Europeans were born out of several blending of populations. First, R1* people from North Asia mixed with European people (linked to Y-DNA I) during the Late Upper Palaeolithic. Then R1* split into R1a and R1b. R1b settled down in the Near East and mixed with various Near Eastern neighbours (including Proto-Semitic people). R1b then crossed the Caucasus and lived side by side with R1a tribes, and some intermingling did occur between the two (about 10-15% in each direction). Other Near Eastern populations from the Balkans and Carpathians were absorbed by both R1a and R1b tribes in the Pontic Steppe. From then on, the Indo-Europeans constantly intermarried with local women in all regions they invaded, be it in Europe, in Central Asia, or later in South Asia and the Middle East. In other words, each Indo-European branch became an ethnic group of its own, with only some partial, distant ancestry in common. The shared Indo-European ancestry of Europeans and North Indian Brahmins is only around 15% at best. Within Europe it is usually above 30% between the most distant Indo-European populations.

2) There isn't any population today that closely resembles Bronze Age Indo-Europeans, simply because they have mixed with other populations for the last 6,000 years. Likewise there isn't any population that is purely descended from Mesolithic Europeans or Neolithic farmers in Europe, although the closest are respectively the Saami (who also have considerable Siberian and Scandinavian admixture) and the Sardinians (who have some Mesolithic admixture). That is because they lived in geographic areas that were not easily reachable. The Indo-European homeland, on the other hand, was open steppe, which was invaded by more different people than almost anywhere else in the world in history. Actually, I believe that it is R1a tribes that eventually kicked out R1b tribes from the southern steppes and North Caucasus (probably during the Late Yamna and Catacomb periods).

3) It is a serious anachronism to think that the mutations for fair hair, fair skin and blue eyes originated with the same people. Blond hair is thought to have originated with R1a people in Northeast Europe, while red hair would have been more of an R1b feature. However, blue eyes originated in Palaeolithic Europe (haplogroup I). White skin originated in at least two different regions independently (different mutations) : a) in the northern Near East/Caucasus or Northeast Europe, and b) in East Asia (haplogroup NO). The fact that many northern Europeans combine these traits today is just the result of ethnic blending and environmental or sexual selection. What it proves is that Germanic people are far from pure and are indeed more quite a composite people in terms of ancestry. This is obvious from their Y-DNA haplogroup composition. Scandinavians are essentially a three-way blend of I, R1a and R1b. Germans are the same with more Near Eastern Neolithic lineages (E, G, J, T).

[skaheen15]

The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism.

That is definitely true.

And I agree that, as far as Hitler is concerned, the neo-pagan blood-and-soil type stuff was show for the masses, who obviously remained Christian for the most part, but that certainly wasn't the case with Himmler, Rosenberg, and their ilk, who I think definitely were enthusiastic believers in the peculiar Nazi brand of mysticism. Of course, this thread is about Hitler, so let me stop there.