Comments on: Revisiting the Aryan racial superiority cult

By: menzi

menzi — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:10:15 +0000

I hope I did not exceed!!!Please read The Emperor’s New Clothes by Robert L.Graves

By: Dick Corner

Dick Corner — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:31:48 +0000

PS Add: that just because an individual is talented, it does not mean that any or all of his compatriots are brilliant.

By: Dick Corner

Dick Corner — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:03:50 +0000

May I repeat the need to understand and thereby reduce racial animosity by sending out the message
that, during any given period, various nations have held power,
that, just because a nation might be “great” at any given time, it does follow that every one of its natives is superior to others,
that there is a need to accept and always remember that there are good, bad and indifferent in every community.

By: ned

ned — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:24:16 +0000

‘Will Hays, for example, had no qualms about describing his lineage as “the finest pioneer blood, Anglo-Saxon, German, Scotch-Irish and Dutch”

Am I deluded or is there something really terrible and racist in the above statement?

The man is proud of his heritage and he ends up in an article about Aryan superiority, being framed as some kind of genocidal nazi Ubermench.

This is the kind of rubbish the White, European has to put up with on an almost daily basis. Are we to be ashamed of our lineage and heritage?

Are you, dear Author, not proud of your Hebrew blood? (For it is ought but a metaphor for lineage)

This is rank hypocrisy, can you not see it Mr Saks? Or do you even care?

By: Martin Foster

Martin Foster — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:50:03 +0000

I was hoping that you would give some possibly reason for the Nazi’s group narcissism (self love)
My unresearched theory is that it is a “political leadership ploy” to create esprit de corps.

I have seen this in para-troops who regard themselves superior to run of the mill infantry. Gordon created “The invincible army” in China in the 1800′s – it was effective. Remember “I am the greatest” Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) And now we have God’s greatest gift to the DA – Little Julius.
I am not decrying this form of narcissism – its a useful mechanism which only becomes evil when eugenics is added into the computation to create a superior race. It has it’s basis in collectivist notions which deny rights to the smallest minority group – the individual.

By: ED

ED — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:54:36 +0000

‘President Warren Harding’s campaign manager Will Hays, for example, had no qualms about describing his lineage as “the finest pioneer blood, Anglo-Saxon, German, Scotch-Irish and Dutch”

What, pray tell, is so wrong with claiming a heritage and lineage?
Are Europeans to be denied this as a result of Hitler’s ravings?
Are you not yourself in some way proud of your Hebrew blood?

By: MrK

MrK — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:45:55 +0000

There were a few stiff necked (and quite frankly racist) classicists who dismissed Black Athena out of hand, over 20 years ago. However, if you examine their arguments, they are very shallow. On the other hands, Egyptologists are consistently confirming a lot of it’s claims.

However, even if you don’t like the use of linguistic etymologies as evidence, Martin Bernal gives a very detailed historiography of the shift in European views of Egypt, Greece and the Levant throughout the last four centuries of European history. And that is really what we are talking about here, I think.

Why not judge for yourself?

By: Lisa

Lisa — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 08:33:33 +0000

@MrK Black Athena is a book that is largely rejected by classicists and archeologists. Bernal’s claims cannot be substantiated archeolgically, and his use of myth is deeply flawed. His approach to etymology is also widely criticised.

By: Mia Hugo

Mia Hugo — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:24:00 +0000

The debate about Aryan superiority is incomplete without mentioning the impact that Darwin’s theory had on it. We are celebrating the 150 year anniversary of Darwin’s theory this year and it is no coincidence that Aryan superiority started to rear its ugly head in the decades that followed. Darwin’s opinion of racial evolution is almost never publicised these days in popular media when he is celebrated, but one part of his theory was the fact that certain races were more evolved than others. Aborigines were deemed, by the unscientific method of judging their appearance, to be closer to early hominids than the rest of mankind. Then followed other blacks, then asians, then north europeans as the ultimate product of evolution. His evolution theory became very popular in the whole of Europe during the late 19th century, but with it also his views on races.
Eugenics was a direct outflow from Darwinism and gathered influential followers in America and Europe, specifically Germany. Eugenics believed in the engineering/breeding of a more evolved race, and it also believed that some races were further along the track than others. It was the Eugenic scientists who decided who were good specimens to keep alive, and who should be exterminated in order to help nature along a little bit. After WW2 there were suddenly no Eugenics supporters to be found in America or Europe.

By: Lyndall Beddy

Lyndall Beddy — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:00:32 +0000

It might have been Ayran for the Jews, but the we-they phenonomen is universal. Why do you think the Japs and the Chinese were at each others throats for centuries?

And when an Empire is established, whether Attila the Hun, the Romans, the Brits or the Americans – the imperialists always think they are superior.

The Romans most definately did not consider Boedicia and her woad painted warriors as anything other than inferiors.