Hitler's Aryan theory rubbished by science

[Angela]

Ibn Fadlan was in eastern europe were he met the Rus or the Varangians. Nothing to do with scandinavia, but you maybe reference something i dont know about ?

It was a joke based on a movie, a really good one, imo, but its history was of the Hollywood variety. It's available for free from netflix.

 

[hrvclv]

Ibn Fadlan was in eastern europe were he met the Rus or the Varangians. Nothing to do with scandinavia, but you maybe reference something i dont know about ?

Yes, actually it was just a joke... I was referring to that A. Banderas' movie The Thirteenth Warrior ! A romanticized Viking story without any relevance whatsoever with the case discussed here. There just happens to be an Arab poet in it, more or less mobilized against his will by Viking warriors summoned back to Scandinavia to defend a weak old king. Judging by what you write, I realize that story must have been grounded in real facts. I cracked my little joke without even suspecting so much. Which goes to show you learn things in all circumstances!

Oops ! Cross post Angela. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Angela]

Yes, actually it was just a joke... I was referring to that A. Banderas' movie The Thirteenth Warrior ! A romanticized Viking story without any relevance whatsoever with the case discussed here. There just happens to be an Arab poet in it, more or less mobilized against his will by Viking warriors summoned back to Scandinavia to defend a weak old king. Judging by what you write, I realize that story must have been grounded in real facts. I cracked my little joke without even suspecting so much. Which goes to show you learn things in all circumstances!

Oops ! Cross post Angela. Thanks for explaining.

No problem. I should have waited for you to respond since you made the joke, which I appreciated, btw, along with the movie. I guess I couldn't resist looking at Antonio Banderas again.

Yes, the character is based on a real person, but all the rest is fantasy. That said, the real man also had an incredibly adventurous life. Who knows if he was as handsome as Banderas, though!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan

 

[halfalp]

Ok at Angela and Hrvclv, i never saw that movie or i dont remember. I actually have seen a movie ( reconstruction ) of Ibn Fadlan adventures and it was pretty good. First he was dazzled by the Rus beauty but when he had the right to assist to the burial of one of their chief, burned into a Drakkar, he saw the companions of the chief sacrifice one of his slave servant ( a woman ) that accept the sacrifice. He was pretty disgusted by that barbarian practice. Paradoxically, that practice looks like the Sâti from indian people, that were a civilization that greatly influence the islamic one. For going more into the subject. All those question have nothing to do with what the author ( Melchior ) tried to disprove or proved. Vikings like many other indo-europeans people, were warriors, if they would be overrrun or impressed by an other culture warfare, they would adopt it without questionning themselves. Recognize that other culture might be better than you in a given domaine has nothing to do with the mass being absorb into mondialization and multiculturalism by force. Like IronSide have said, they study is pretty much a good exemple of Political Correctness. People of good family and good education that pretend themselves better than the plebians and able to witness the " truth " better than anyone else.

 

[Angela]

Way to ruin a nice vibe with more steppe superiority racism. Jeez!

 

[Ygorcs]

Nazis has nothing to do with nationalism, conservatism and even ethno-nationalism. Nazis were ethno-nationalists but all ethno-nationalists are not Nazis or Neo-Nazis.

... that most of people going into those crazyness are Capitalists or Democrats ( Democrats in an american way [ interventionists ] ), people that believe to the Providence State and that their culture and civilization is a model that should be applied to any others.

Oh, come on, you simply know that that is objectively not true. I'm not saying being conservative or republican (in the US party system) is a problem per se nor that it leads naturally to Nazi/Fascist supremacist ideologies, but it's just empirically demonstrated that most white supremacists tend to be also supporters of more conservative and nationalist parties and ideological groups, simply because most of them, in their confusion, equate race, culture, genetics, tradition and nationality. They are truly confused and ignorant people who live in a delirium, but it's just a fact that, whether you like it or not, they tend to declare themselves as more conservative and right-leaning.

Statements like yours sound like wishful thinking and, yes, even some kind of "fantasy world" in order to avoid seeing the reality around. You can rest assured and keep calm, no need to be defensive: nobody is claiming that all conservatives and nationalists are racist/eugenist Nazis. But it is self-evident that, unmistakably, Nazi ideology had much to do with conservatism, nationalism and above all ethno-nationalism. You can't say they were ethno-nationalists and in the same post deny that they have anything to do with it. It sounds like some refusal to make a much welcome self-criticism in order to avoid any future association of these ideologies with a destructive force like Nazism once again.

 

[Ygorcs]

Gaulish chieftain Vercingetorix lay forgotten by history for 2000 years. Napoleon III resurrected him to give France a symbolic figurehead at a time when the country spoke diverse dialects, and still lacked cohesion and a sense of national pride. The Nazis did just the same with their "Aryan" theories. One should never under-estimate the key role of myths in cementing together a community. The Nazis didn't start from the data to establish the myth. They established the myth, and then tried to gather the data to support it. It didn't matter to them whether the data didn't exist, or were fragmentary, or wrong. What did matter was that the myth proved effective. It provided the exaltation and self-aggrandizement that turned average men into efficient workers and resolute soldiers. The true goal was achieved.

You nailed it.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Did R6 show any finno-ugrian admixture. It’s seems that this sample received mtdna n1a from the earliest farmers in Neolithic Europe. And this was in Denmark, and to my knowledge the indigenous hunter gatherers and yamanaya related peoples who migrated to Scandinavia, were present in the region of Scandinavia before finno-ugric people’s and no finno urgian people have ever been present in Denmark.

 

[halfalp]

Oh, come on, you simply know that that is objectively not true. I'm not saying being conservative or republican (in the US party system) is a problem per se nor that it leads naturally to Nazi/Fascist supremacist ideologies, but it's just empirically demonstrated that most white supremacists tend to be also supporters of more conservative and nationalist parties and ideological groups, simply because most of them, in their confusion, equate race, culture, genetics, tradition and nationality. They are truly confused and ignorant people who live in a delirium, but it's just a fact that, whether you like it or not, they tend to declare themselves as more conservative and right-leaning.

Statements like yours sound like wishful thinking and, yes, even some kind of "fantasy world" in order to avoid seeing the reality around. You can rest assured and keep calm, no need to be defensive: nobody is claiming that all conservatives and nationalists are racist/eugenist Nazis. But it is self-evident that, unmistakably, Nazi ideology had much to do with conservatism, nationalism and above all ethno-nationalism. You can't say they were ethno-nationalists and in the same post deny that they have anything to do with it. It sounds like some refusal to make a much welcome self-criticism in order to avoid any future association of these ideologies with a destructive force like Nazism once again.

You didn't get my point at all. Conservators and ethno-nationalists tend to be autarcic, democrats and capitalists tend to be imperialistic. If there is one thing that gonna govern the world one day, its way more an economic one, than, saying the KKK. While you will concentrate on White Supremacism that is totally paria movements. You will let the real powerful people get up your ***. You didn't get my point on the Fantasy World and Himmler too apparently. How Nazis were conservative when the point of Hitler was to have an Lebensraum for his people. This is the classic excuse of a conqueror, you need to study the history in an economic point and not an ideological point. And what ? I dont need any self-criticism on White Supremacism, i dont have any kind of respect for europeans and the way the handle the " reality around ".

 

[Jack Johnson]

Capitalism is not really an ideology, it is an economic system with many different varieties. Cronyism, corporate capitalism/crony capitalism, social demecroacy, are all varieties of capitalism with elements of state intervention or shades of socialism thrown in depending on the variety. The ideaologies behind those who support capitalism vary from liberitarian (which outside of the United States can be ideologically considered anarchy in many European political spheres) to American progressivism or quote “liberalism”. It is all no true Scotsman in many respects, since terminology for these various ideaoglogies seem to be constantly changing from group to group. A perfect example of those is amongst Marxists and socialists admist the socio-political and economic failures of nations that applied their ideaologies, such as Venezuela, Cuba, the USSR, and Maoist’s China. Many will claim these are not actually marxists nations, but who sets the definition in stone, who are they to determine what is and isn’t marxists since the leaders of these nations are self described socialists in their own words. You would think the best way to reach such a conclusion would be to read the original works of said ideaologies, then they could simply go down the rabbit whole of endless interpretation, since people like Marx and Engels have been dead for over 130 years. Some even seperate capitalism from free markets, since if you poses capital you are a capitalist in a more literal sense. A bit of a tangent but my thoughts on how things like political science are not scientific due to the limited field of agreement amongst those philosophers and political theorists on definitions. There are no repeatable experiments and results, no testable hypotheses almost all of the time.

 

[Angela]

Capitalism is not really an ideology, it is an economic system with many different varieties. Cronyism, corporate capitalism/crony capitalism, social demecroacy, are all varieties of capitalism with elements of state intervention or shades of socialism thrown in depending on the variety. The ideaologies behind those who support capitalism vary from liberitarian (which outside of the United States can be ideologically considered anarchy in many European political spheres) to American progressivism or quote “liberalism”. It is all no true Scotsman in many respects, since terminology for these various ideaoglogies seem to be constantly changing from group to group. A perfect example of those is amongst Marxists and socialists admist the socio-political and economic failures of nations that applied their ideaologies, such as Venezuela, Cuba, the USSR, and Maoist’s China. Many will claim these are not actually marxists nations, but who sets the definition in stone, who are they to determine what is and isn’t marxists since the leaders of these nations are self described socialists in their own words. You would think the best way to reach such a conclusion would be to read the original works of said ideaologies, then they could simply go down the rabbit whole of endless interpretation, since people like Marx and Engels have been dead for over 130 years. Some even seperate capitalism from free markets, since if you poses capital you are a capitalist in a more literal sense. A bit of a tangent but my thoughts on how things like political science are not scientific due to the limited field of agreement amongst those philosophers and political theorists on definitions. There are no repeatable experiments and results, no testable hypotheses almost all of the time.

Agree with much of that, but you can have limited capitalism and no democracy, as in China. I have a definite libertarian streak; never thought of it as anarchism.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Agree with much of that, but you can have limited capitalism and no democracy, as in China. I have a definite libertarian streak; never thought of it as anarchism.

Thanks for the response. I suppose what I meant by that was anarchism is considered to be part of the left wing sphere of politics, and that the roots of modern libertarianism (at least in the US) have there origins partly in the writings of 19th century American anarchist and liberal philosophers such as Lysander Spooner. I have also looked at political ideaologies as being more on a graph and not as a line going from left to right. One measurement I used to use was more of a circular arrow, in which the more left or right down the arrow you go, the more collectivist or individualist your ideaology is. From there it’s gets more confusing, like there are liberitarian socialists, and left-wing libertarianians; you have anarco-capitalists, eco-liberitarians, paleo-conservatives and so on. In the end, it is all confined to people’s own views, and therefore the ideological possibilties are endless, and making a measurement of such is quite a difficult task.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Thanks for the response Angela. I guess what I meant by Anarchy was that modern liberitarianism in the United States has its roots partly in the writings of 19th century American anarchist philosophers and writers such as Lysander Spooner. On the subject of political ideaologies, I used to look at it as a graph like with ‘x’ and ‘y’ axis’s, and the farther left you went the more collectivist the ideaology became and the more right you went the more individualist the ideaology became. And yet that is another simplification as there are many different shades of libertarianism with almost contradictory principles thrown into the mix like liberitarian-socialism, left-wing liberitarianism, anarcho-liberitarianism, which is seperate from anarcho-capitalism. It is all individuals own beliefs and ideals and therefore it is very difficult if not impossible to accurately portrayal everyone’s ideals on a graph, due to the endless possibilities and the fact we have seven billion people on this planet from different parts of the world, with different cultures and beliefs, each with an individual mind. We cannot know everyone’s beliefs and ideaologic adherences, and they could be changing all the time too, since people’s views evolve and change as they get older (most of the time anyway). The best we can do is look at the source materials, like Mussolini's work Fascism, or the Communist Manifesto, and ask these questions to various people from a variety of backgrounds, but again it is impossible to represent everyone or even a good portion. These tangents of mine sound like I’m trying to become some sort of hack sociology major or political theorist. As a side note do you know of any good ancient dna databases? I heard that Jean Marco had sadly passed away and her website ancestral journeys, was taken offline. I used to follow her website religiously, always looking for updates on ancient samples; it was something that would always make my day, like the finding of those two Q1a2 samples in both eneolithic Khvalysnk and Mesolithic Latvia, or that mtdna C1e/f sample in Mesolithic Karelia.

 

[Angela]

Thanks for the response Angela. I guess what I meant by Anarchy was that modern liberitarianism in the United States has its roots partly in the writings of 19th century American anarchist philosophers and writers such as Lysander Spooner. On the subject of political ideaologies, I used to look at it as a graph like with ‘x’ and ‘y’ axis’s, and the farther left you went the more collectivist the ideaology became and the more right you went the more individualist the ideaology became. And yet that is another simplification as there are many different shades of libertarianism with almost contradictory principles thrown into the mix like liberitarian-socialism, left-wing liberitarianism, anarcho-liberitarianism, which is seperate from anarcho-capitalism. It is all individuals own beliefs and ideals and therefore it is very difficult if not impossible to accurately portrayal everyone’s ideals on a graph, due to the endless possibilities and the fact we have seven billion people on this planet from different parts of the world, with different cultures and beliefs, each with an individual mind. We cannot know everyone’s beliefs and ideaologic adherences, and they could be changing all the time too, since people’s views evolve and change as they get older (most of the time anyway). The best we can do is look at the source materials, like Mussolini's work Fascism, or the Communist Manifesto, and ask these questions to various people from a variety of backgrounds, but again it is impossible to represent everyone or even a good portion. These tangents of mine sound like I’m trying to become some sort of hack sociology major or political theorist. As a side note do you know of any good ancient dna databases? I heard that Jean Marco had sadly passed away and her website ancestral journeys, was taken offline. I used to follow her website religiously, always looking for updates on ancient samples; it was something that would always make my day, like the finding of those two Q1a2 samples in both eneolithic Khvalysnk and Mesolithic Latvia, or that mtdna C1e/f sample in Mesolithic Karelia.

I sometimes look at this one, Jack, but I don't know who created it so I'm always hesitant to endorse it too completely. With Jean, you knew it would always be meticulously researched, and scrupulously honest. She's a sad loss to this field.

https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#2/77.7/66.1

As to economic/political systems, I totally agree that it's a complete jumble by now, with what sometimes seem like infinite variations. Looking back to source materials makes sense.

I always find it extraordinary how many Europeans seem to have no problem with not only accepting but proposing more and more regulation of every aspect of life. That sometimes even includes my Italian relatives, although in their case they often have no intention of completely following them.

They, in turn, can't understand the libertarian streak in American thought, if they even know that's the thing to which they're objecting.

 

[holderlin]

you're right
it is the first time I ever heard of a 'theory of Scandinavian racial purity'
why bother?

I don't think anyone who matters believes this.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Thanks for the response Angela. [...] I heard that Jean Marco had sadly passed away and her website ancestral journeys, was taken offline. I used to follow her website religiously, always looking for updates on ancient samples; it was something that would always make my day, like the finding of those two Q1a2 samples in both eneolithic Khvalysnk and Mesolithic Latvia, or that mtdna C1e/f sample in Mesolithic Karelia.

In the study "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus", there is an .xlsx file (Supplementary Data 2) in the Supplementary materials which has 1405 samples, also the study in which each sample was published in column F
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.figures-only

 

[Ownstyler]

There are plenty easily and objectively measurable concepts in politics, but political philosophers in the 19th century and earlier had very limited empirical observations so of course they disagreed on how to interpret them. If you want to see the effects of different political systems on anything, check large political and economic databases. But you won't see many ideological variables.

 

[Jack Johnson]

There are plenty easily and objectively measurable concepts in politics, but political philosophers in the 19th century and earlier had very limited empirical observations so of course they disagreed on how to interpret them. If you want to see the effects of different political systems on anything, check large political and economic databases. But you won't see many ideological variables.

By objectively measurable you mean in application and the end result of that application correct? For example governments of the fascists or communist orientation generally lead to either of the following: dictatorship, censorship, loss of individual liberty. Or in economics the almost universal rule that if a currency is hyperinflated it looses its value. Also on the subject of economics, you can’t really test economic hypothesis like you can in fields such as chemistry or biology, since the economy is just billions of interactions and exchanges between people around the globe, and you would have to analyze individuals for great periods of time and how they interact with other individuals just to get one microscopic semblance of how that one microscopic part of the economy functions in relation to the people that make up it. The setting up of test conditions were hypothesis could be tested and scraped or adopted and built upon due to their repeatable nature under exactly the same conditions, is where fields like politics and economics have issues with objectivity. How do we know what factors are involved, how do we prove it?