History Omitted from the Books

[Doc Velocity]

Like Hitler, Napoleon stretched his supply lines beyond reason, out of sheer ambition, in an effort to reach what he presumed were important strategic targets. That was both Napoleon's and Hitler's downfalls, NOT some imaginary Russian military superiority.

Yes, the winter retreats were hellacious, as they would be for any retreating force seriously depleted of supplies, food, fuel and morale.

— Doc Velocity

[MaximumPain]

Like Hitler, Napoleon stretched his supply lines beyond reason, out of sheer ambition, in an effort to reach what he presumed were important strategic targets. That was both Napoleon's and Hitler's downfalls, NOT some imaginary Russian military superiority.

Yes, the winter retreats were hellacious, as they would be for any retreating force seriously depleted of supplies, food, fuel and morale.

— Doc Velocity

Superiority is not the right word but every nation that has underestimated the Russian military power has paid the price on the field of battle. Sure man for man the German soldier was better than his typical Russian counterpart but this wasn't a boxing match it was a ball kicking, knife wielding alley fight.

When the Russians counterattacked the Germans near Moscow they used a new Tank en mass the T-34 that was vastly superior to anything the Germans had at the time. It wasn't until the Panthers and Tigers entered service that the Germans had anything even close. The large 76mm main gun and sloped armor on a cheap reliable hull with the Christie suspension allowing them to stay on top of the mud. No the T-34 is quite possibly the greatest tank ever built. Supply was only an issue because the Germans didnt account for the weather and assumed they would have already won and been able to winter in Moscow. Therefore they didn't issue any cold weather gear and the foot soldier in the field paid the price.

We need to be thanking those brave heroes of the Soviet Union for helping us secure the freedom of the western world.

[lazserus]

Wow, really? You guys are still debating WWII history? You guys are hijacking this thread. Take the debate to a new one and let this one run its course.

[Beatnik Bob]

(1) The Scandinavians were the first "Europeans" to settle in North America. They established a small settlement at the very least in Newfoundland c. A.D. 1000. (Some may argue that others reached North America prior to the Scandinavian settlement but there is no irrefutable proof, thus the Scandis are classified as the first.)

What is your position on the Irish actually settling America before the Vikings?
http://history.howstuffworks.com/nor...nk-america.htm

(4) Marxism is the base form of Communism but has never actually been practiced politically. All forms of Communism established in Modern History more or less spawn from Leninism, a skewed form of Marxism. During Lenin's reign in Russia, many practicing Marxists called him a heathen, a blasphemer.

I wasn't aware of that!
That's actually pretty interesting.
On what points did Marx and Lenin diverge?

(5) Aryans were Central-Asian nomads that infiltrated the Indian subcontinent c. 1700 B.C. and have no known relation to Scandinavians. Thus, Hitler's Aryan concept is completely fictitious based on the fact he was somewhat of an idiot.

I had always assumed that he was trying to redefine what Aryan was, not go by the original Aryans that invaded India.
Though it is true that that is where he adopted the Swastika from. It's a Sun symbol, and perhaps an Aryan derived symbol that Hindis adopted.

Interestingly...Native Americans had used the symbol too. Before they ever came into contact with Europeans.

Like this Native American tobacco pipe bag.


Or this Native American Basketball team from 1909:

[Freddy]

Freddy -

Its hopeles - GG does not deal well with fact nor does she demonstrate an understanding of the difference between facts and the subjective conclusions one might draw from them.

It is a sad thing and I weep for her.....

I took 3 courses in French history and 4 courses in Russian/Soviet history on my way to two degrees in History. I do not know if Napoleon or Hitler could have defeated the Russians and Soviets, respectively. What I do know is that they both failed to do so and the reasons why they failed.

[lazserus]

Thanks for keeping on topic, Bob.

What is your position on the Irish actually settling America before the Vikings?
http://history.howstuffworks.com/nor...nk-america.htm

My position is irrelevant. Before something is considered factual it requires corroboration. A single document of any kind, no matter how it stands against scientific dating, should not and can not hold truth beyond reasonable doubt. A number of documents dating to the Middle Ages from both Germany and the Vatican contest to the existence of North America (and especially her grapes) long before the Icelandic sagas were put to parchment. No matter what the manuscripts said, the declarations made in Icelandic manuscripts held little water until 1960, when a Norwegian explorer FOUND the settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows. The point I'm making is that we cannot take the word of any single declaration no matter its age until we can corroborate it.

That being said, I'm not ready to accept that a single Irish monk made it to North America before the Norse. Aside from the fact there is no corroborating evidence to support this claim, it does not stand the test of historical context. Monks did not sail the world. They were brought to new places by sailors. There is a lot more to this claim that I'm willing to commit here at this point, but for now I'm saying it is untrue. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

On what points did Marx and Lenin diverge?

I am not that well learned in Marxism, though I can be certain that his points were vastly skewed starting with Lenin. My suggestion is for you to read Marx's work and then return to how Lenin established the USSR. I know it's a cop out for me, but at least I'm admitting my lack of knowledge. I think this biggest gap deals with Lenin forcing revolution whereas Marx claimed social revolution would come naturally...eventually.

redefine[/I] what Aryan was, not go by the original Aryans that invaded India.

You're probably right. Either way, modern white supremacists are too stupid to think this far. They tend to draw the wrong conclusion.

[G66]

I am not that well learned in Marxism, though I can be certain that his points were vastly skewed starting with Lenin. My suggestion is for you to read Marx's work and then return to how Lenin established the USSR. I know it's a cop out for me, but at least I'm admitting my lack of knowledge. I think this biggest gap deals with Lenin forcing revolution whereas Marx claimed social revolution would come naturally...eventually.

The core ideological features of Marxism-Leninism include the belief that a revolutionary proletarian class would not emerge automatically from capitalism.

Instead, there was the need for a professional revolutionary vanguard party to lead the working class in the violent overthrow of capitalism, to be followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of moving toward communism.

Marxism-Leninism also maintained that workers in the most advanced capitalist countries had not opted for revolution because capitalism had moved to a new stage through the exportation of capital to colonies, which allowed capitalists to exploit such colonies and enrich markets and "bribe" workers in developed countries with higher wages.

Marxism-Leninism, therefore, saw the developing world as the frontline in the struggle against imperialism. As those markets were cut off through national liberation, capitalism would implode in the developed world and communist revolution would occur there as well.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Leninism

[Beatnik Bob]

The core ideological features of Marxism-Leninism include the belief that a revolutionary proletarian class would not emerge automatically from capitalism.

Instead, there was the need for a professional revolutionary vanguard party to lead the working class in the violent overthrow of capitalism, to be followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of moving toward communism.

Marxism-Leninism also maintained that workers in the most advanced capitalist countries had not opted for revolution because capitalism had moved to a new stage through the exportation of capital to colonies, which allowed capitalists to exploit such colonies and enrich markets and "bribe" workers in developed countries with higher wages.

Marxism-Leninism, therefore, saw the developing world as the frontline in the struggle against imperialism. As those markets were cut off through national liberation, capitalism would implode in the developed world and communist revolution would occur there as well.


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Leninism

That's Leninism.
Not necessarily Marxism.

[G66]

That's Leninism.
Not necessarily Marxism.

I assumed that you were quite versed in Marxism and by posting Marxist-Leninism you could draw your own conlusions.

I also provided the link:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Leninism

Which says this.

Distinction from classical Marxism

The most crucial difference between "classical" Marxism and Marxism-Leninism has to do with the fact that the early twentieth century working class had not developed in the way that Marx and Engels had predicted, but was adopting "bourgeois" values instead of supporting the communist cause. In accord with Marx's Laws of Economic Movement, the working class was supposed to develop a sense of class solidarity and a revolutionary consciousness due to increasing poverty because of machines replacing workers. As per the per the Marxist axiom that only labor produces profit, these circumstances would also result in a decrease in profits, resulting in a concentration of capital where less and less businesses would survive and so the Capitalist enemy would become increasingly targeted and a focus of antagonism. According to Marx's theories, these conditions would foster an overwhelming revolutionary sentiment. The ruling class, however, would only repress this democratic urge toward socialism, resulting eventually in a reaction that would lead to violent revolution. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" would be imposed by the workers themselves and would lead society in the transition from [[Socialism] to Communism.

Lenin perceived that the workers in the industrialized nations were not developing the revolutionary consciousness that Marx foresaw. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), he theorized that the imperialist powers had temporarily circumvented the process Marx envisioned, by exporting capital and products to their colonies and, in turn, claiming the wealth and raw materials of these colonies. The result was that the Capitalists could afford to provide their workers with just enough benefits to keep them satisfied and postpone any revolutionary ambition. As a result, Lenin insisted that only a "vanguard party" of the proletariat, comprised primarily of intellectuals rather than the workers, needed to foster the necessary revolutionary consciousness to overthrow the Capitalists. Lenin also advocating extending the target population for such revolutionary fervor to include peasants and the Russian soldiers involved in a seemingly hopeless war in Europe. In order to do this, they would need to use any means necessary to seize power and establish the proletarian dictatorship. After the Russian Revolution, Lenin saw that "reactionary forces" were so ingrained in Russian society that he maintained that a "Red Terror" would need to be organized by the Bolshevik state in order to root out such counter-revolutionary institutions as the "bourgeois press" and religious "superstition."

Lenin speaks to a crowd.

"To tolerate the bourgeois newspapers would mean to cease being a Socialist. When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward-or go back. He who now talks about the 'freedom of the Press' goes backward, and halts our headlong course toward Socialism.—V.I Lenin"

This version of Marx's the "dictatorship of the proletariat"—in which a small Communist party, backed by ruthless police power, determined what was good for the workers whether they liked it or not resulted when Lenin failed to gain a majority of parliamentary support following the Bolshevik Revolution. As the forces of "bourgeois democracy," religion, and other counter-revolutionary movements remained obstacles, Stalin would prolong the dictatorship of the proletariat, justifying the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union because of the danger of reactionary efforts to suppress the revolution. Although later leaders, notably Khrushchev, attempted to speculate on when such dictatorship might end their target dates came and gone and the stage from socialism to Communism was extended through an intermittent period referred to in the final years of the Soviet Union as "developed socialism."

[Doc Velocity]

(1) The Scandinavians were the first "Europeans" to settle in North America. They established a small settlement at the very least in Newfoundland c. A.D. 1000. (Some may argue that others reached North America prior to the Scandinavian settlement but there is no irrefutable proof, thus the Scandis are classified as the first.)

On the contrary, there is quantifiable and irrefutable proof that somebody of a very advanced megalithic culture arrived on and even developed North America in a rather substantial way, LONG before the more modern Scandinavian and later Mediterranean European invasions of the North American continent.

This earlier "mystery invasion" left profound evidence in its passing. There are, in fact, megalithic constructs in New England that resemble nothing in "modern" Scandinavian or in Mediterranean European histories (within the last 2000 years). The so-called "Mystery Hill" site in New Hampshire, for instance, resembles nothing so much as Neolithic ground structures in Eurasia that may date back some 8000 years.

Although Mystery Hill is often officially attributed to local aboriginal cultures in North America, no aboriginal culture in North America recognizes, remembers or accepts credit for the site. More recently, the site has been called a hoax perpetrated by an 18th Century farmer and his sons, which is a fairly preposterous allegation that is not supported by any anthropological evidence whatsoever. Science arbitrarily chooses to omit Mystery Hill from history.

In the vicinity of the southern Great Lakes, there still exist truly gigantic ground structures that rival the size and complexity of the Great Pyramids in Egypt. "Serpent Mound" in Ohio, for example, cannot even be identified as a single structure except from an aerial vantage. No local aboriginal people of North America recognize or accept responsibility for creating Serpent or any of these other enormous mounds. Indeed, no aboriginal people of North America have any history of mound building on this scale.

In the northern Great Lakes region, specifically around the shores of Lake Superior, there still exist thousands of prehistoric open-pit Copper mines that can be attributed to none of the aboriginal tribes of North America. The quantity of native (near-pure) copper originally removed from these primitive mines is estimated to exceed 100 MILLION pounds — that's 50 THOUSAND TONS.

Thus far, the entire collection of known ancient copper and bronze artifacts in the world do not amount to a fraction of the copper mined out of these prehistoric mines in North America.

So... WHO were the miners, and WHERE did all this near-pure copper GO? Nobody knows.

In the American West, in the mineral and ore-rich Rockies of Colorado and Utah, modern miners have discovered ancient tunnels and caverns mined out of coal layers at depths of up to 800 feet below the surface — the coal discovered in these ancient excavations crumbles to the touch, like dirt, indicative of centuries, if not thousands of years, of exposure to air.

Again, no local aboriginal people of North America recognize, remember or accept credit for such prehistoric excavations.

I will say that the Hopi tribe — now pretty much confined to the Three Mesas area of northern Arizona — claim to be responsible for ALL prehistoric and megalithic structures in North AND South America. There is, of course, no anthropological evidence to support the Hopi's remarkable claims.

Now, I'm not even mentioning the various runestones and runic inscriptions found throughout the Eastern and Central areas of North America, which are almost certainly of Scandinavian origin. I seriously doubt that known 19th Century hoaxters (such as the Mormons) are entirely responsible for all such artifacts. Some of these runestones simply could not have been hoaxed in recent times — the Kensington Runestone, for example, was discovered deeply entangled in the roots of a tree more than a couple of centuries old.

Interestingly, the Kensington Runestone has been "officially" dismissed as a hoax because it does not "fit in" with accepted historical records — meaning dogmatic Science is simply dismissing it, rather than rewriting history. Science chooses to omit it from history.

Still, I'm not even much interested in Scandinavian visits to North America, most of which I think are obviously authentic and do pre-date the Columbian invasion by many centuries. The Mediterranean European "conquest" of this continent is merely the most recent of many, many invasions over thousands of years.

I'm far more interested in the prehistoric invasions of this continent by mystery civilizations capable of technological feats of mining and engineering that rival our own modern civilization.

(5) Aryans were Central-Asian nomads that infiltrated the Indian subcontinent c. 1700 B.C. and have no known relation to Scandinavians. Thus, Hitler's Aryan concept is completely fictitious based on the fact he was somewhat of an idiot.

Well, in a word, no.

Many (most) Indian anthropologists today accept the Aryan nomadic theory — since the indigenous people of India are, indeed, Caucasian, with genetic ancestry directly traceable NOT to Central Asia but to Western Asia — there is a peculiar mindset among modern anthropologists in the West that the Aryan civilization is pure myth stemming from Darwinian-based "racism" left over from the 19th Century.

Hitler's ideas of an Aryan super race in ancient times is not based on his being "an idiot" but, rather, on very popular 19th Century notions of an ancient Caucasian race that spread eastward from ancient Europe to colonize most of Asia, probably seeding Chinese civilization over 5000 years ago, and settling Japan long before Mongol peoples ever arrived on those islands.

The fact is that, when Mongol settlers first arrived in the Japanese archipelago, they discovered the indigenous people there were Caucasians. To this day, Japan's indigenous people survive in small communities and are identified by anthropologists as Indo-Aryans (like the Indians).

After Hitler's Third Reich appropriated the Aryans as their ancestral "super race," only then did modern historians attempt to erase the Aryans from our collective consciousness. See, the idea that the Aryans were a "mythical race" is MODERN REVISIONISM.

The fact is that a mysteriously advanced Caucasian race did exist in ancient Europe, perhaps dating back as far as 11,000 years ago (by liberal estimates) or, more conservatively, as far back as 5000 to 7000 years ago.

Yes, there IS firm and irrefutable evidence.

In both Europe and Eastern Asia, a number of tall, red-headed Caucasian mummies (estimated at 4000 years to over 7000 years old) WERE discovered in the late 20th Century, clothed in very sophisticated fabrics that predate accepted anthropological theory by many millennia, and possessing forged metal artifacts that, again, predate accepted anthropological theory by as much as a thousand years.

Even more astonishing is that a 5000-year-old mummy — the so-called "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps — was discovered to not only possess a pure copper axe and medicinal herbs, but was tattooed with acupuncture diagrams along his spine.

Acupuncture, of course, is credited to the oh-so-advanced Chinese civilization, which was born 4000 years ago. However, the Ice Man was already marked with acupuncture diagrams 1000 years before the advent of Chinese civilization.

The only reasonable conclusion is that acupuncture existed in Europe long, long before it existed in China.

The Caucasian mummies discovered in Takla Makan (China) were red-headed giants compared to their nomadic Mongol contemporaries. These European mummies, dated at 4000 to 7000 years of age, wore comparatively fine jewelry, carried sophisticated forged metal tools, and were clothed in finely-woven fabrics — while the Mongol nomads of the day were still wearing crudely-stitched animal hides.

Obviously, these Caucasian mummies originated from a fairly highly advanced civilization in Europe or perhaps somewhere farther west (perhaps the very ancient North American continent?), compared to the more primitive people of India and China. It is reasonable to assume that the more advanced European civilization seeded other cultures as it moved about the Eurasian continent and the Indian subcontinent.

Now, you can try to dismiss the Aryan civilization as a "racist myth"; but the fact is that a very highly advanced Caucasian civilization DID EXIST in the dim past, on the edge of prehistory, and, conceivably, founded a number of civilizations all across Europe, North Africa, Asia and India.

The fact is that those who dismiss the Aryan civilization out-of-hand are actually attempting to revise history, attempting to omit one of the greatest mysteries of all time from history.

— Doc Velocity

[Beatnik Bob]

Well, from an archeological standpoint (concerning India), the Aryan conquest survived into Hindi folklore, mythology, and culture.
But India was not "seeded" by Aryans.
For example, the coming of the Aryans can be traced in the development of Sanskrit. Sanskrit changed dramatically after the Aryan conquest. And Hindi culture has not forgotten their coming.
But the fact is, Sanskrit was around long before the Aryans came, as was Indian civilization. The coming of the Aryans dramatically changed India though. It is believed that many gods in the Hindu pantheon are actually derived from Aryan gods and Aryan mythology. Aryan religion was probably assimilated into Hindi religion and culture.
But India was pretty well established, with a rich culture long before Aryans would have reached the area.

[Doc Velocity]

But India was pretty well established, with a rich culture long before Aryans would have reached the area.

The earliest recognizable Indian civilization (that of the Indus Valley) was far from "well-established" as a sophisticated civilization, and came into being about 5000 years ago, when the mystery civilization — presumably the Aryan civilization — had already been moving around Eurasia for more than 2000 years.

I mean, there were already red-headed Caucasian mummies in China 2000 years before the the Indus Valley Civilization came into existence.

— Doc Velocity

[lazserus]

Now, I'm not even mentioning the various runestones and runic inscriptions found throughout the Eastern and Central areas of North America, which are almost certainly of Scandinavian origin. I seriously doubt that known 19th Century hoaxters (such as the Mormons) are entirely responsible for all such artifacts. Some of these runestones simply could not have been hoaxed in recent times — the Kensington Runestone, for example, was discovered deeply entangled in the roots of a tree more than a couple of centuries old.

A good number of the smaller runic inscriptions are in fact hoaxes, recreations by 19th-century enthusiasts and small rural folk perhaps seeking attention. The veracity of these inscriptions can be tested with an understanding of medieval Germanic syntax and morphology, particularly by weighing against contemporary examples from Denmark, Norway and various North Atlantic colonies. The larger stones, however, are much more likely to be authentic. The Kensington Runestone, for example, appears to be a grave marker, or a sign that a Germanic funeral occurred somewhere nearby. I've worked with Dr. Richard Nielsen and met Professor Henrik Williams, both of whom are responsible for the current translation of the Kensington, and, as you say, it is almost certainly authentic, dating to A.D. 1362.

The Heavener Runestone in Oklahoma, which I have worked on for more than a year now, is looking more likely to be authentic as well. More fascinating than the Kensington (and much more difficult to research), the Heavener runes all hail from the Germanic "elder" fuþark, which was abandoned in favor of the Norwegian short-twig and Danish long-branch sometime in the opening of the 9th century. This means that the author of the Heavener stone must have carved it sometime in the mid-to-late 8th century. The inscription reads: glomedal, which translates to either Glom's Valley or Glom of the Valley (or possibly Glom from Dalen). Glom is obviously a proper name and dal is Old Norse for "valley, dale." The e rune may be a genitive inflection i.e. Glome (Glom's) or a dative preposition i.e. Glom e/é, which later in Old Norse may have become í ("to, in, from"). Authentication is around the corner. Professor Williams says the l rune could also be n, which would change the translation to Gnome Valley. If this is the case then the stone is unfortunately a brilliant hoax, because the word gnome was borrowed from English. (Gnome is actually of Greek origin, but the Scandinavians borrowed it from the English, not the Greeks.) Once Dr. Nielsen provides evidence of the second rune appearing as l in context in other inscriptions, the last step is to make sure the stone was spotted before 1870. If we can verify this contextual l variation and show that the stone was in fact spotted before 1870, then that's enough to confirm its authenticity.

Sorry for the tangent, but I found this relevant.

Interestingly, the Kensington Runestone has been "officially" dismissed as a hoax because it does not "fit in" with accepted historical records — meaning dogmatic Science is simply dismissing it, rather than rewriting history. Science chooses to omit it from history.

It's still taught that is likely a hoax, though it has more or less been authenticated by both Dr. Nielsen and Professor Williams. I'm not sure what science you're talking about, but if it's from Scott Wolter then you can be sure it's fishy.

For example, the coming of the Aryans can be traced in the development of Sanskrit. Sanskrit changed dramatically after the Aryan conquest. And Hindi culture has not forgotten their coming.
But the fact is, Sanskrit was around long before the Aryans came, as was Indian civilization.

This isn't quite accurate. Sanskrit is a liturgical language brought to India by the Indo-Aryans. However, the Indus civilizations of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro did in fact have their own pictographic writing system that was replaced by Sanskrit. As far as I know this pre-Aryan system has yet been deciphered, mainly because we just do not have enough of it to put it all together. The same situation applies to Minoan Linear A - the Minoans had a writing system, though not enough of it has survived for us to piece it all together.

The earliest recognizable Indian civilization (that of the Indus Valley) was far from "well-established" as a sophisticated civilization, and came into being about 5000 years ago, when the mystery civilization — presumably the Aryan civilization — had already been moving around Eurasia for more than 2000 years.

The Indus civilizations were quite sophisticated it seems. They were well organized and even had public works systems in place, effective sewage draining systems perhaps among the most notable.

Great retorts, you two!

[TC]

Given the bone structure of the skeletal remains of the east coast native Americans, they differ in both size and shape from their Cloves tribe relatives of the mid west. Strong jaw and sharp hooked noses reveal a group that had at one time mixed with a race entirely different from the classic oriental groups that crossed the Baring straits.

The wanderings of the central European ( the modern European) hunter groups that followed the Caucus mountains northward, eventually mixed with the indigenous polar groups like the Saami ( today's Laplanders) who, at that time were predominantly oriental. This hunter group roamed an area from Sweden to the Kola peninsula, and had the ability to traverse the northern arctic regions westward as well as east, long before any European maritime voyages took place. eventually reaching the Newfoundland coast and the southern Canadian regions.

Housing structures ( Tepee) as well as art is near identical to the saami polar groups, this suggests that these were brought with those that traversed the northern arctic. In fact today's Saami ( Laplander) are a 50/50 mix of west European and polar oriental, something entirely different from the classic Eskimo groups of the east Siberian/ Alaskan region.

Once these travelers reached what is today the Canadian/ American regions of the east coast, they mixed, becoming what is the classical east coast native American groups, which differs in both art and habit, as well as physical stature.

[Beatnik Bob]

Concerning Laz's definition of Aryan, and Doc's hypothetical "Aryan Empire."

Firstly, Germans were aware that Aryans came from Asia. It was referred to as a German migration. The main goal of the Ahnenerbe Organization (German Ancestry Research Society) was to educate Germans on the achievements of "Indo-Germanic people" specifically.

Heinrich Himmler helped run an archeological campaign to discover everything Indo-Germans had done.

They went to Tibet, India, and Greece and found swastikas on pottery and archeology. They used this to prove that Indo-Germans had brought "culture and civilization" to these people, and it was observable in the existence of the swastika in these cultures.
People like Himmler also maintained that Greeks were Indo-Germans.

And one of his proofs of this was that the original Hellenistic Greeks were white, and some ancient Greek pottery has swastikas on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

However, these theories have many loose ends. Firstly, just because ancient Germanic peoples shared the use of the Swastika with ancient Greeks, Hindus, and Tibetans does not mean that the swastika is a Germanic invention that was adopted by others.
It is just as likely that Germanic tribes adopted the swastika from some other culture.
Secondly, Sanskrit shares no relationship with German. The "Aryan," as the Ahnenerbe Organization defines it, did not seed it. And Laz is right, Harappan civilization was very advanced before Aryans came. They had sewage, water, and drainage systems centuries before Rome. Though this was also in my 6th grade world history curriculum. So it's not breaking any ground.
Also, the German Aryan belief stems from Madam Blavatsky, who said Aryans come from Atlantis. And Aryans were either brown skinned and blue-eyed (with red/dark hair) or fair skinned and blue eyed. According to the basis of Blavatsky's Aryan definition, many Middle Easterners are Aryan.

Anyway, perhaps the strongest proof that "Indo-Germans" did not seed cultures is simply because how damn primitive they were. Romans described the Germanic tribes as savage and uncouth. If they were so advanced, why was culture brought to them instead of the other way around? And even though Himmler and Ahnenerbe suggest that Northern Europe is the birthplace of civilization, and Aryan culture created the rise of Rome, it's extremely unlikely.

If, as Doc Velocity, Himmler, and other proponents suggest, there was a prehistoric Aryan civilization. There simply is no real proof that they were an influential civilization, or even a civilization. More likely, they were a ravaging horde. Which would fit India's mythology about them.

In fact, the race that is closest in ethnicity to the original Aryans are closer to Iranians.
Iran means "land of aryans." "Aryan" meaning "spiritual." Iranian=Aryan. Linguistically. Which is why some Persian kings declared themselves "King of the Aryans."
And this is the only thing that gives some credence to some of Doc's assertions. Yes, there are red-haired Iranians, and yes there are blue and green-eyed Iranians, and there are blond haired Iranians too. Ill expound on this later.

Also, I looked into the Ainu of Japan. The Ainu, though they are white, are not descended from Indo-Germans, Germans, or Nords.
When the Mongols came to the area, they found "white Ainus"--but the Ainus were brown eyed and dark-haired.
Mongols never came to an island populated with blond haired/blue eyed people, as you may suggest. You also referred to red-haired Aryans holding prominent positions of power, yet there are no, and never were any, red-haired Ainus.
Ainu actually trace back to Siberia, and are a "mongoloid" ethnicity, according to Russian scientists who explored the topic. They're not from Indo-Europe or Europe.

-Anyway, here are some pictures-

Here is a picture of an Iranian Kalasha. These tribes live in present-day Pakistan:

Another Pakistani girl:


Are those people responsible for "seeding cultures"? No. They're primitive natives.

These primitive blonds in Iran (who do not hail from advanced societies), are just an Iranian subgroup. They never seeded Iranian or Indian cultures. They're natives. They're about as advanced as the expanding Mongolian horde was.

However, this probably the most accurate depiction of what an Aryan looks/looked like:




Both are Afghanis.

[Doc Velocity]

If, as Doc Velocity, Himmler, and other proponents suggest, there was a prehistoric Aryan civilization. There simply is no real proof that they were an influential civilization, or even a civilization. More likely, they were a ravaging horde. Which would fit India's mythology about them.

The advanced tools and personal effects discovered with various ancient mummies — as the "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps and the mummies of the Takla Makan — suggest a very advanced and sophisticated Caucasian culture (yes, with red and blonde hair), not a mere "ravaging hoard," as Beatnik Bob proposes without a shred of evidence.

The sophisticated metal tools, fabrics, jewelry and medicines discovered with these Caucasian mummies PREDATE the conventionally-accepted anthropological timeline by a thousand years or more.

More importantly, the modern scientific discoveries of the "Ice Man" and the Takla Makan mummies occurred many decades AFTER the propaganda campaigns of the Third Reich and have nothing to do with Nazi propaganda, as Beatnik Bob is attempting to suggest — again, without a shred of evidence to support his assertion.

Also, I looked into the Ainu of Japan. The Ainu, though they are white, are not descended from Indo-Germans, Germans, or Nords... Mongols never came to an island populated with blond haired/blue eyed people, as you may suggest. You also referred to red-haired Aryans holding prominent positions of power, yet there are no, and never were any, red-haired Ainus.

Again, you're attributing statements to me that I never made, not here in this forum nor anywhere else.

What I said was that Mongols who entered the Japan archipelago discovered an indigenous population of Indo-Aryans — as they are identified by modern anthropologists. The Indo-Aryans are certainly of Caucasian descent, being the same Caucasians who settled India in the dim past — the indigenous people of India, with dark eyes, dark hair and dark complexions, are indeed Caucasian.

Caucasian is NOT a description of pigmentation, although many amateurs make the mistake of thinking the 3 Races of Man are separated only by pigmentation, which is bullshit. The terms "Caucasoid," "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" are NOT descriptions of pigmentation or eye and hair color, but of certain facial characteristics on the skeletal level.

If this were not the case, we wouldn't be able to identify skeletons as Caucasian, Negro or Mongol.

I never said the Ainu were Germanic or Nordic. I said they were and are Indo-Aryan. And I never said that "red-haired Aryans [held] prominent positions of power" in Japan or anywhere else. That is your statement, either erroneously or falsely attributed to me.

These primitive blonds in Iran (who do not hail from advanced societies), are just an Iranian subgroup. They never seeded Iranian or Indian cultures. They're natives. They're about as advanced as the expanding Mongolian horde was.

And yet Iran and Iraq (the Persia of old) are readily acknowledged by anthropologists as the "Cradle of Civilization," long before the Egyptians or Chinese or Indian civilizations ever rose out of the dust.

You need to brush up on your World History and anthropology, Bob.

— Doc Velocity

[Beatnik Bob]

The advanced tools and personal effects discovered with various ancient mummies — as the "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps and the mummies of the Takla Makan — suggest a very advanced and sophisticated Caucasian culture (yes, with red and blonde hair)

And where are the traces of the "advanced" Caucasian infrastructure. We have Egyptian pyramids that survive today, Mohenjo Daro (that is an Indian city that predates the arrival of the Aryans), and many other structures.

And it would seem that if there was an equally advanced Caucasian race, they would have left buildings behind. Specifically, traces of cities in the Caucuses or Indo-Europe. Cities that were as advanced, if not more advanced, than Mohenjo Daro (which had sewage, drainage, and water systems).

not a mere "ravaging hoard," as Beatnik Bob proposes without a shred of evidence.

Well, it seems likely. Firstly, you said that they achieved positions of prominence in the lands they conquered, thus red-haired mummies etc. But, when the fact that they never really had a civilized and empirical infrastructure in place is taken into account, it gives credence to the fact that they have more in common with the Mongols than they did with Egyptians or Romans.
The Mongols too had no significant infrastructure, yet they built the world's largest empire to date. And the Mongols too gained many treasures from the lands they conquered and were often ahead of the average person of the time period, in the ways they dressed, and the tools they eventually came to use as their dominance was reinforced.

But more importantly, I called them a maurading horde because proof of Aryan conquest mainly survives in mythologies. Indian mythology recognized them as savages. They weren't necessarily superior people, they were just maurading people. Post-Harappan cities were not as advanced as Mohenjo Daro.
If the Caucasians were so advanced, they would have known about sewage and water transportation. Instead, Indian cities devolve slightly.

The sophisticated metal tools, fabrics, jewelry and medicines discovered with these Caucasian mummies PREDATE the conventionally-accepted anthropological timeline by a thousand years or more.

Can you give pictures? Or links?
And can you prove that these sophisticated tools are Caucasian in origin? Because the "conventionally accepted anthropological timeline" is often vague and inconclusive. And many times, it's strait wrong.
Furthermore, if the caucasians were kings in the lands they blundered into (and conquered), it would serve to reason that the tools and objects of a king would be more advanced than objects of the commoner in a given time period.

More importantly, the modern scientific discoveries of the "Ice Man" and the Takla Makan mummies occurred many decades AFTER the propaganda campaigns of the Third Reich and have nothing to do with Nazi propaganda, as Beatnik Bob is attempting to suggest — again, without a shred of evidence to support his assertion.

I'm not saying it's Nazi propaganda.
But here's the thing. No scientists have come to the conclusion of a Caucasian empire from studying the "Ice Man."
The Ice Man's tools weren't particularly uncommon for the time in which he lived.
In fact, most of his possessions were seen in Egypt even earlier.
If you want to suggest that Caucasians seeded cultures because Caucasian kings had nice objects, then according to such logic Egypt seeded Caucasian culture because anything a Caucasian had can be traced back even further in Egypt.
From the invention of advanced hinges, to pulleys, to irrigation--Egypt was more advanced in any way.
To even compare Mongols or Caucasians to a real culture with real lasting infrastructure is almost absurd.
And though Rome is not a contemporary example (Rome emerged much later) they are still more of an empire than whatever Aryan hordes might have been.

Again, you're attributing statements to me that I never made, not here in this forum nor anywhere else.

You never said there were red-haired caucasians who held prominent positions of power? Ok, my bad.

I will ignore this then:

In both Europe and Eastern Asia, a number of tall, red-headed Caucasian mummies (estimated at 4000 years to over 7000 years old) WERE discovered in the late 20th Century, clothed in very sophisticated fabrics that predate accepted anthropological theory by many millennia, and possessing forged metal artifacts that, again, predate accepted anthropological theory by as much as a thousand years.

Which I would like to add to that.... Egyptians invented mummification. So it seems that these Caucasians were heavily influenced by Egypt.

What I said was that Mongols who entered the Japan archipelago discovered an indigenous population of Indo-Aryans — as they are identified by modern anthropologists.

Here's the problem: They are not identified as Indo-Aryans. Though they may have been identified as that before people knew any better.
Russian scientists traced their lineage to Mongolia and Siberia. The Ainu are a Mongoloid race. Which is to say, what Mongolians in Siberia looked like.
And it is believed that they then emmigrated from Siberia to Hokkaido, Japan.

I never said the Ainu were Germanic or Nordic. I said they were and are Indo-Aryan.

Yes, and you would be wrong.
Scientists already checked their DNA.
But to be fair, some have made the argument that the Japanese Natives come from the same genetic line as the Aborigines of Australia.

However, though that may be so, it poses one problem for you: such people were never particularly advanced. Or advanced in the way you suggest.

The Ainu were a society of hunter gatherers who had a pretty religion based on nature.

And yet Iran and Iraq (the Persia of old) are readily acknowledged by anthropologists as the "Cradle of Civilization," long before the Egyptians or Chinese or Indian civilizations ever rose out of the dust.

And the original Persians were not blonde.
The "red-haired" and "blond haired" people that you report have seeded cultures, never represented anything more than an unadvanced tribal minority in Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
They never held power, and they were never the original deffinition of Aryan.
And yes, they are caucasians, but they have never seeded a culture. They are far too unadvanced.

You need to brush up on your World History and anthropology, Bob.

Right.
Anyway, your whole theory seems to be flawed.
This mysterious "Caucasian Civilization" (if it existed) never had a unified religion or belief. To this day, the blond natives in Iran and Pakistan have varying religions, and they are not advanced. And they never held power in Iran or Iraq. "Iranian" means "Aryan," but they are not the Aryans that are being referred to. Westerners twisted the definition of "Aryan."

In addition to not having a unified belief, there are no parallels between the red-haired mummies and people like "Ice Man" in Europe. There is no proof that they did not hail from two different cultures.
You have to find real proof. Shared characteristics is not proof. All that would mean is that there were some caucasians in east Asia, and some caucasians in Europe. Who may or may not be linked. Not all caucasians are apart of the same culture, country, or nationality. Nationalism is sectarian.

[lazserus]

Holy crap, I didn't think one of my contributions would lead to an extensive debate. One part of me is sorry and the other part is thrilled. I'll make a few comments.

Given the bone structure of the skeletal remains of the east coast native Americans, they differ in both size and shape from their Cloves tribe relatives of the mid west. Strong jaw and sharp hooked noses reveal a group that had at one time mixed with a race entirely different from the classic oriental groups that crossed the Baring straits.

All of what you said is important, my friend, but I didn't want to quote it all to save some space. These skull features that you describe show how vast migrations of peoples were. It also shows that "race" is mostly a sociological construction and not genetically definitive. Doc Velocity compounds what you say here later, which I will highlight when I comment on his response.

Concerning Laz's definition of Aryan, and Doc's hypothetical "Aryan Empire."

Firstly, Germans were aware that Aryans came from Asia. It was referred to as a German migration. The main goal of the Ahnenerbe Organization (German Ancestry Research Society) was to educate Germans on the achievements of "Indo-Germanic people" specifically.

Heinrich Himmler helped run an archeological campaign to discover everything Indo-Germans had done.

A lot of what you said is fascinating, but I think there's a significant flaw in your argument. I'm not saying it is your argument per se, but you mention "Indo-German" a number of times and I think this requires some attention.

The term Indo-European is meant to encompass a number of ethnic groups who share a common mother tongue from India to Europe (hence the name). That tongue is simply called Proto-Indo-European. Indo-European is not a term that should be associated with ethnicity, eye color, or skin color. It is purely a linguistic nomenclature. Indo-European-speaking people come in all shapes and colors.

That being said, there is no such thing as an "Indo-German." This skewed concept is on par with comparing 20th-century Germans with ancient Aryans: it's bogus. Ethnicity is defined as a group of people whose members share real or assumed heritage, agree on spiritual/philosophical issues (religion), share the same culture, and share the same language. For the longest time the early Celts occupied what is now the German states, eventually migrating and solidifying somewhat in the British Isles. Post-Celtic culture blurs with proto-Germanic language and culture. The Germans did not exist before the proto-Germanic periods, which occurred in Central/Eastern Europe after the Celts left the Continent. The people who eventually became the Germans may have originated from Central Asia, but before that migration they are simply described as Indo-Europeans. A friend of mine tends to say the Celts came from the Caspian region, though this is not accurate. The migrants that originated from the Caspian eventually became the Celts, but they were not Celts before migrating.

If we dig deep enough we will almost always reach Africa - the source of early human diffusion. Although evidence today suggests modern human evolution occurred on two fronts (Africa and West-Central Asia), it's certain at this point the earliest anatomical humans spread from Africa. My point is, neither you nor I would say we're of African decent. The same measure should be applied when dealing with human migrations. Because North Germanic history is my specialty, I will provide three analogies using the Norse as examples to further elaborate my point.

(1) Normandy in northern France was established as a fiefdom by the Scandinavian Rollo (Robert I) after he partook in sacking Paris. Normandy is derived from Old French meaning Northman (though the Old French borrowed the Germanic words for north and man). William the Conqueror was a decedent of Rollo, but upon the invasion of England he was classified as a Frenchman: William spoke French and no dialect of Scandinavian. Although ancestor to Rollo, William is considered ethnically French because the Normans by then had long since adopted French culture and language and abandoned their Germanic heritage.

(2) Kiev, the capital of today's Ukraine, was established as a city by the Swedish Rus in the 9th century. The Rus usurped the Slavs and controlled the region for more than a century, creating a major trade hub between the Byzantines and the east. The impact of the Swedish rulers in the 9th and 10th centuries can still be seen today in certain Scandinavian proper names: Oleg, Vladimir, Ivan, Ivar, Anya, etc. However, after some time the Swedes assimilated into Slavic society, adopting the language and culture. Urkainians certainly won't call themselves Scandinavian!

(3) Dublin, Ireland. Vikings raided the Irish coast around the same time they pillaged the English coast, thus turning the simple seaside village of Dubh Linn (Irish-Celtic meaning "black pool") into a fortified naval outpost, one of which becoming a trade hub between the Scandinavian peninsula and the colonized British Isles. The Norse controlled this part of Ireland for the better part of a century before finally being overthrown by neighboring Celts. The Norse, however, remained in Ireland and began adopting the Celtic dialect of the region. How many Irishmen do you know claim to be of Danish decent?

I will reiterate that there is no such thing as an Indo-German.

And even though Himmler and Ahnenerbe suggest that Northern Europe is the birthplace of civilization, and Aryan culture created the rise of Rome, it's extremely unlikely.

Unlikely is an understatement. It's simply not true. The birth of Roman civilization is clearly understood, and it has nothing to do with Germans. Rome was established by Italic-speaking people from the Italian peninsula.

"Aryan" meaning "spiritual." Iranian=Aryan. Linguistically.

Arya is found in Sanskrit to mean "noble, a person of high birth." Thus Aryan is a person of Arya.

The photos are great but can be a little misleading. Without a study of genetic trends associated with geographic placement, we cannot for certain say any of these light-skinned people are native to the lands, or have any relationship to the Central Asian migrations just after 2000 B.C. (Other migrations include the Hittites and Hyksos roughly around the same period as the Aryan movements.) These small groups scattered around Central and East Asia obviously did not "seed" the regions. I know you're not claiming that these small groups have anything to do with populating the regions, but it's important to point out regardless.

The advanced tools and personal effects discovered with various ancient mummies — as the "Ice Man" of the Italian Alps and the mummies of the Takla Makan — suggest a very advanced and sophisticated Caucasian culture (yes, with red and blonde hair), not a mere "ravaging hoard," as Beatnik Bob proposes without a shred of evidence.

What advanced tools are you referring to in regards to the Italian "Ice Man?" He was shot in the back by an arrow and apparently kept moving long after being punctured. I don't recall him being found with sophisticated tools. An arrowhead was not removed from his body, just a puncture wound was found which was believed caused by an arrow. I could be mistaken, but that's how I remember it.

Caucasian is NOT a description of pigmentation, although many amateurs make the mistake of thinking the 3 Races of Man are separated only by pigmentation, which is bullshit. The terms "Caucasoid," "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" are NOT descriptions of pigmentation or eye and hair color, but of certain facial characteristics on the skeletal level.

I'm glad you pointed this out. For the most part we're dealing with skull shapes. On the other hand, Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid are archaic terms of which anthropologists no longer use seriously. They do provide some information in regards to regional origin, but, as TC mentioned above, the extent of these features can be found in minute variation all over the globe.

And yet Iran and Iraq (the Persia of old) are readily acknowledged by anthropologists as the "Cradle of Civilization," long before the Egyptians or Chinese or Indian civilizations ever rose out of the dust.

This may very well be an issue of semantics. I'm not disagreeing with you, but Indus societies were much more sophisticated than Mesopotamian, at least on the practical level, save for writing. Civilization is very difficult to define both historically and anthropologically because there are varying degrees - there seems to be a gradient wherein some cultures overlap with others and some cultures take one step in a different, perhaps more progressive direction. There is no doubt that Mesopotamian culture developed and executed a pragmatic writing system before any other. The oldest remnants of cuneiform predate Linear A and Harappan pictographic script. The advent of writing and its systematic, widespread usage in Mesopotamia is perhaps the defining characteristic of civilization. But does a functioning writing system in fact demarcate the boundaries separating civilization from those uncivilized? Just because we have not recovered (or because there is none surviving) more evidence to decipher the pictographs found in Indus ceramics does not mean the people did not establish a primitive form of writing. Although it appears apparent that the Indus cultures did not apply their pictographs to practical use, they did have astoundingly complex city-planning and implementation. At the very least it's something.

[Traveler]

How about someone that was involved

+ YouTube Video

[medicvet]

never mind, I just totally jumped the track with a post and am deleting it.

[Beatnik Bob]

That being said, there is no such thing as an "Indo-German." This skewed concept is on par with comparing 20th-century Germans with ancient Aryans: it's bogus.

I agree. The term "Indo-German" was used by the German Ancestry department in the 1930s and 40s. Obviously, Indo-German is innacurate, but they used the word--thus, in the context of people like Himmler, I used it as well.

Arya is found in Sanskrit to mean "noble, a person of high birth." Thus Aryan is a person of Arya.

I looked into it and apparently Aryan means both noble, and spiritual.

[lazserus]

I looked into it and apparently Aryan means both noble, and spiritual.

Cheers, that actually makes sense. The nobility were those of spiritual enlightenment. The trend encompasses the entirety of the world. Early on there were priest-kings, and no matter which civilization you explore, you'll find that the priestly class was always at the top of the hierarchy. This above all remains true for the now two dominant monotheistic faiths: Christianity and Islam. Christianity outgrew this, but only in the last few centuries. Consider the histories of both faiths and you can see how the trends of old transmit to those of recent.

I wish I had something new to offer to this thread. I think you, me and Doc discouraged potential posters with our longwinded debate. The debate was great, but man...poor posters.

[G66]

I wish I had something new to offer to this thread. I think you, me and Doc discouraged potential posters with our longwinded debate. The debate was great, but man...poor posters.

Nah, debate and discussion is how we all learn....

I am all for it. Bob is one smart fucker and prety much always makes sense.

Doc is just funny to read...

[Doc Velocity]

Doc is just funny to read...

Doc just uses Armageddon Online to sharpen his claws.

My good shit gets sold on Amazon.

— Doc Velocity

[Doc Velocity]

What advanced tools are you referring to in regards to the Italian "Ice Man?" He was shot in the back by an arrow and apparently kept moving long after being punctured. I don't recall him being found with sophisticated tools. An arrowhead was not removed from his body, just a puncture wound was found which was believed caused by an arrow. I could be mistaken, but that's how I remember it.

Well, at the risk of wasting bandwidth on a topic well-documented all over the WEB, the 5,300 year old "Ice Man" was discovered several years ago in a meltwater pool of a receding glacier in the Alps. Scientists named him "Otzi," which I think refers to the region of the Alps where he was discovered. Yes, it appears that Otzi was chased, shot and left for dead. One of the most amazing things about him, however, was the fucking forged Copper axe found on him... At 5300 years old, Otzi REWROTE THE BOOKS on the Copper Age, moving it back by 1000 years.

— Doc Velocity