Why Saying that Ideas of a Master Race is Stupid

Off Topic
181

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

royrobot – Instead of me watching a single documentary, why don’t you do some research about the use of the Swastika over thousands of years in several different religions? Given that last response, I’m guessing the docu skipped over that part. Probably skipped a lot of other things as well.

Poor Hitler. He didn’t start Nazism. He wasn’t a fucking pawn, that’s for sure. —

looking something up on wikipedia is not doing research
ultralars – To your supprise, looking something up on wikipedia is not doing research. Doing research involves for example, going trough archives on the topic,and why should i waste life doing that when it have obviously been done before? you have no idea of nazi occultism, and watching that serie of documentaries on the topic will give you a clear overview of what your trying to talk about.

Obviously you have no interest in doing anything else than spreading rumors and stupid theories. —

[/quote]

Ahem, to Ultralars’ surprise, and disappointment, I didn’t look it up on Wikipedia, one of my main interests is mythology and the occult. Ultralars’ recommended documentary does not cover the complete history of the swastika as his ignorance of it is pretty evident in his earlier posts.

Ultralars has tried to tell me Wikipedia links are not proper research, only to use Wikipedia links as part of his response to BG. Ultralars is a tiresome hypocrite not worth arguing with.
[/quote] What?? i said that Wikipedia does not qualify as a means for doing quality research, but it’s perfect as a mean to show people what stuff are, it doesn’t not go deep but it covers the general thing. I did not find out about the Nazis use of runes on wikipedia, i just used it to show you what the hell it is. [/quote]

Liar. You demonstrated no knowledge of these ‘runes’ until after you accused me of trawling through wiki links because that’s what you do. E-intelligence.

[quote]ultralars wrote:

looking something up on wikipedia is not doing research. [/quote]

Goodbye.

[/quote]
LoL? I knew of that rune thing from the start of this thread, and before actually. Why do you think i recommended you’d watch The Occult History of the Third Reich? because you obviously have no idea about the current subject.

182

It took 5 pages until ultralars’ claims could be seriously discussed…I am not surprised considering the opening post.

So, the concept of purification of a race, or nation, is modernly linked to Herbert Spencer, who argued that the civilizations of the strong should destroy the civilizations of the weak to make a better society. Spencer, an atheist like Hitler (Hitler was an avouwed atheist and fan of Nietszche), argued that in matters social, economic, and political, the “weaker” should be left to oblivion, to better civilization. Contrary to the reform movements of Europe during the 1840s, which sought to ease the plights of the poor and unfortunate, Spencer urged letting them die and not procreate.

Spencer’s colleague was one Erasmus Darwin, another atheist, grandfather of Charles Darwin. The younger Darwin, in the circle of the friends of his famous grandfather, read Spencer’s work and immediately applied it to biology and the phenomenon he witnessed aboard the HMS Beagle. Despite the victory of anti-Darwinist forces in the Scopes trial, Darwinism gained approval in the scientific community at the same time that Spencer’s ideas gained steam in the social community (which makes sense seeing as the two are inextricably linked).

By 1900, in influence of Judeo-Christian mentality was on the downturn in Europe (still strong, but weakened). Judeo-Christian mentality holds humanity in high esteem, as both religious traditions view man (and woman) as made in the image and likeness of God. Darwinism and Spencerism deny that. Thus, as Darwinism and Spencerism (which dominated the European political mindset…see Rudyard Kipling’s White Man’s Burden) grew to be vogue among the elite (the scientists, academics, and the politicians who listened to them), the ideas of eugenics and euthanasia became more and more accepted and commonplace. The same began to take place in the United States a little later.

Thus, we see individuals like Margaret Sanger become game changers. For those that don’t know, Sanger urged for more liberal access to contraceptives…but just to minorities and poor. She also advocated forced sterilizations of minority and poor women. Her first clinics, called Planned Parenthood later, were opened in 1917 in the UK.

183

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]AndrewBolinger wrote:

…-The placement of Japanese into prisoner camps…

[/quote]

However reprehensible one might view this action it is not even remotely comparable to the atrocities committed in German and Polish camps during WWII.

I don’t think you have your facts straight here if indeed you are referring to the Battle of Britain.

Not even close to being able to be identified as “awful policy.” In fact it was THE most humane way to end the war.[quote]

…These are just a few of thousands of examples of awful policy from the allied statesmen during the war…

[/quote]

“Thousands,” huh? Thousands?

Good grief, pseudo historians chock full of illusions are certainly rife around these her parts.

It most certainly does.

Speaking of propaganda and brainwashing…[/quote]

All I see here is selectively reading my statements with a pre-conceived notion of what I am trying to say.

I am not saying the allies were worse than the axis side. I am saying that there were horrible actions taken with horrible consequences on both sides. My definition of policy is any decision of action taken by a state or its military. Yes, thousands of decisions at least were made which resulted in the loss of life, liberty, or property of people. This happens in every war almost by definition.

I am not comparing the Japanese prisoner camps to the Polish prisoner camps. I am saying that both were not desirable. Which one was worse is irrelevant.

I will get a citation from the book I found the information on the battle of britain in. I just have to get the book again from someone’s library. It is from a large volume of books offering a historical account of the war written near the time of its ending. Can’t remember the info at the moment but I know where they are at least so I will find them.

To think that the overall consequences of WW2 were the resolution of a bigger problem is naive. The end of the war resulted in the utter economic destruction of eastern europe and germany for decades to come and the purposeful starvation of tens of millions of people. You can postulate some sort of Europe wide holocaust might have occurred under the ultimate rule of Hitler, but you would have to first believe that the German people in general are evil enough to conduct this sort of thing on an even more massive scale. We should be civilized to know by now that Germans are in fact not uniformly evil people. However, this view was driven away after the war to justify the intellectual and industrial looting and pillaging of Germany. FDR willingly attempted(and succeeded at) starving millions of Germans after the war with the JCS 1067 Directive. When asked if he wanted the German people to starve he replied “Why not?”. (this is from the book “The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler’s Germany”)

Did the end of WW2 justify the means? Well, considering the end was arguably worse than the means (in eastern europe and germany) I don’t know how anyone can even hold this view.

185

[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
It took 5 pages until ultralars’ claims could be seriously discussed…I am not surprised considering the opening post.

So, the concept of purification of a race, or nation, is modernly linked to Herbert Spencer, who argued that the civilizations of the strong should destroy the civilizations of the weak to make a better society. Spencer, an atheist like Hitler (Hitler was an avouwed atheist and fan of Nietszche), argued that in matters social, economic, and political, the “weaker” should be left to oblivion, to better civilization. Contrary to the reform movements of Europe during the 1840s, which sought to ease the plights of the poor and unfortunate, Spencer urged letting them die and not procreate.

Spencer’s colleague was one Erasmus Darwin, another atheist, grandfather of Charles Darwin. The younger Darwin, in the circle of the friends of his famous grandfather, read Spencer’s work and immediately applied it to biology and the phenomenon he witnessed aboard the HMS Beagle. Despite the victory of anti-Darwinist forces in the Scopes trial, Darwinism gained approval in the scientific community at the same time that Spencer’s ideas gained steam in the social community (which makes sense seeing as the two are inextricably linked).

By 1900, in influence of Judeo-Christian mentality was on the downturn in Europe (still strong, but weakened). Judeo-Christian mentality holds humanity in high esteem, as both religious traditions view man (and woman) as made in the image and likeness of God. Darwinism and Spencerism deny that. Thus, as Darwinism and Spencerism (which dominated the European political mindset…see Rudyard Kipling’s White Man’s Burden) grew to be vogue among the elite (the scientists, academics, and the politicians who listened to them), the ideas of eugenics and euthanasia became more and more accepted and commonplace. The same began to take place in the United States a little later.

Thus, we see individuals like Margaret Sanger become game changers. For those that don’t know, Sanger urged for more liberal access to contraceptives…but just to minorities and poor. She also advocated forced sterilizations of minority and poor women. Her first clinics, called Planned Parenthood later, were opened in 1917 in the UK. [/quote]
Just watch The occult history of the third reich, Also every officer was required to learn about the nazism religion.

186

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

royrobot – Instead of me watching a single documentary, why don’t you do some research about the use of the Swastika over thousands of years in several different religions? Given that last response, I’m guessing the docu skipped over that part. Probably skipped a lot of other things as well.

Poor Hitler. He didn’t start Nazism. He wasn’t a fucking pawn, that’s for sure. —

looking something up on wikipedia is not doing research
ultralars – To your supprise, looking something up on wikipedia is not doing research. Doing research involves for example, going trough archives on the topic,and why should i waste life doing that when it have obviously been done before? you have no idea of nazi occultism, and watching that serie of documentaries on the topic will give you a clear overview of what your trying to talk about.

Obviously you have no interest in doing anything else than spreading rumors and stupid theories. —

[/quote]

Ahem, to Ultralars’ surprise, and disappointment, I didn’t look it up on Wikipedia, one of my main interests is mythology and the occult. Ultralars’ recommended documentary does not cover the complete history of the swastika as his ignorance of it is pretty evident in his earlier posts.

Ultralars has tried to tell me Wikipedia links are not proper research, only to use Wikipedia links as part of his response to BG. Ultralars is a tiresome hypocrite not worth arguing with.
[/quote] What?? i said that Wikipedia does not qualify as a means for doing quality research, but it’s perfect as a mean to show people what stuff are, it doesn’t not go deep but it covers the general thing. I did not find out about the Nazis use of runes on wikipedia, i just used it to show you what the hell it is. [/quote]

Liar. You demonstrated no knowledge of these ‘runes’ until after you accused me of trawling through wiki links because that’s what you do. E-intelligence.

[quote]ultralars wrote:

looking something up on wikipedia is not doing research. [/quote]

Goodbye.

[/quote]
LoL? I knew of that rune thing from the start of this thread, and before actually. Why do you think i recommended you’d watch The Occult History of the Third Reich? because you obviously have no idea about the current subject.[/quote]

Dude, the name ‘swastika’ is derived from sanskrit (see above ^), there are obvious parallels between the symbolism and the etymology. Arguing that the Nazis derived the swastika from runes is bullshit when they clearly got the name from the same source as the symbol. Understand? It’s not hard to grasp. Truth is whatever religious/ mythic undercurrent there was going on in the Third Reich, it was a hotchpotch of different beliefs cobbled together from different cultures by the Nazis themselves.

They were not tapping into some arcane source of power that they happened to stumble upon by virtue of their superiority. “no idea about the current subject” -LOL!

I’ll watch The Occult History of the Third Reich if I can find it, just to see exactly how much of the above you made up.

187

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:
Jews where likely to be killed yes but so where any other " race ". The nazis belived in some kind of religion which said that they where the ancestors of Atlanteans, and that they had physic powers. They belived the reason they lost their power was because of interbreed with " beasts " or any other " race ". and therefore they became impure.

there where like 7 races before them and each has had it’s downfall, and one of the races’s downfall was interbreeding with animals. So the final solution to kill all Jews was because they believing in this crap and all other races was belived to be beasts, which must be wiped out in order for the nordic race’s exsistance to remain true.

The swastika is the symbol of the Aryan race as hitler called it. [/quote]

Not just Jews: wealthy Jews. As time went on, Hitler’s cause became more and more about keeping the cogs of his war machine going and less about establishing a master race (which he, by his own definitions, would never be a part of) . He would keep Jews with unique skill sets alive and dispose of those whose material worth could strengthen his regime - which is why a lot of them ended up in ghettos, this was the first stage of a deliberate, calculated process set to strip them of their humanity. Prison camps were the last. It transcends “mere” eugenics.

Yes, Hitler killed more than Jews, but they were the focus.

The swastika wasn’t the symbol of the Aryan race until Hitler hijacked it for his own purposes. It dates back thousands of years and generally means good luck. Working backwards, the “religion” was fabricated.

Consider this: Hitler’s Nazi salute was meant to subjugate the masses. It appears to be a gesture of solidarity and equality, but it isn’t. When Hitler gave an address and saluted the crowd, in returning the salute they were paying tribute not to each other or the state, but to him.

Compare that with Churchill’s victory ‘V’…[/quote]

it wasn’t hitler who started using the symbol it was actively being used in ww1.

Watch " The Occult History of the Third Reich " and you’ll get a better overview of their belief system and why they felt it so necessarily to exterminate every other race.[/quote]

Instead of me watching a single documentary, why don’t you do some research about the use of the Swastika over thousands of years in several different religions? Given that last response, I’m guessing the docu skipped over that part. Probably skipped a lot of other things as well.

Poor Hitler. He didn’t start Nazism. He wasn’t a fucking pawn, that’s for sure.

[/quote]

I don’t believe it’s the same swatika you’re referring to. I believe the nazi swastika was tilted a bit. There is a difference. But yes, it was generally hijacked. Still not exactly the same and as you pointed out, not the same symbolism. [/quote]

There are quite a few variants of the ‘swastika’ design throughout history, even the name is from the Sanskrit ‘svastika’, meaning good luck. It wasn’t just a hijacking of the symbol itself. The etymology was pilfered as well. So it wasn’t coincidence.[/quote]

I didn’t imply it was coincidence. I stated I believed (from memory) that it was specifically “stylized” for the nazi party.

188

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I didn’t imply it was coincidence. I stated I believed (from memory) that it was specifically “stylized” for the nazi party.[/quote]

Point taken, but saying you don’t believe it was the same symbol is an implication that it was coincidence. You’ve now elaborated on what you meant, it’s just how I read that post. I’m not disputing that the Nazi cross symbolizes something far different than the classical view of the symbol (which for most of the Western world all positive connotations have been usurped by the negative). I actually said that earlier.

What I’m saying is that he Nazis knew full well what they were doing by taking a positive symbol, known across several cultures, along with the name. They were relying on people to be aware of what a svastika was to gain a following. The change in meaning was gradual and purposefully so.

There was no need to remind me that the swastika doesn’t embody the same things as a svastika. Of course it doesn’t. I don’t disagree.

My point is, if they hadn’t taken the name along with the symbol, Ultralars’ runes theory would have merit. As it stands, it doesn’t. I don’t care how many documentaries or wiki articles he’s digested.

I’m not arguing semantics here. You’ve clarified your position, as have I.

189

There is no swastika rune.
Nazis used runes like Sig or Odal, but there’s no “Swastika” rune in any of the rune “alphabets”.
There’s a Gibor rune which kind of resembles swastika but it was invented by Guido Von List in 1902 and is not found in any of the earlier rune sets.
Swastika’s origins are “Indo-Aryan” which is why Hitler selected it to represent the “struggle of an Aryan man”.

190

[quote]ReignIB wrote:
There is no swastika rune.
Nazis used runes like Sig or Odal, but there’s no “Swastika” rune in any of the rune “alphabets”.
There’s a Gibor rune which kind of resembles swastika but it was invented by Guido Von List in 1902 and is not found in any of the earlier rune sets.
Swastika’s origins are “Indo-Aryan” which is why Hitler selected it to represent the “struggle of an Aryan man”.
[/quote]

Thank you sir. Common sense prevails.

191

so have you watched it yet?

192

[quote]ultralars wrote:
so have you watched it yet?[/quote]

Which one?

193

cute thread

now following

194

My primary beef here is that “master race” implies that there is a race in existence that trumps all others or that this can be engineered within an existing race. As far as genetics is concerned to myself, race isn’t the focal point in genetic advancement. Attempting to inbreed perfection is foolish. What the Nazi’s lacked is what the Jews had in abundance, that is where the hate spawned from. Attempting to eradicate all races with strong traits that reflect your weak traits or with strong traits that trump your own is horribly flawed. Instead genetic advancement should focus on pulling the best features from all races - not ignoring flaws and flaunting strong points. The only “master race” is ironically a diluted one.

195

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:
so have you watched it yet?[/quote]

Which one?[/quote]

the only fucking one i recommended, the occult history of the third reich, it’s a serie of documentaries btw. everyone is well made and very interesting, i would guess you would want to watch part one " The Enigma of the Swastika "

196

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:
so have you watched it yet?[/quote]

Which one?[/quote]

the only fucking one i recommended, the occult history of the third reich, it’s a serie of documentaries btw. everyone is well made and very interesting, i would guess you would want to watch part one " The Enigma of the Swastika "[/quote]

You never said it was a series until now you troll. “only fucking one I recommended” indeed. And you are a troll - 16 year olds don’t debate this kind of thing on the internet. They are “mass debating” over other more pressing matters. Like porn. Grown men with nothing better to do than masquerade as teenage boys do debate this kind of thing on the internet. “Hi, I’m Lars, I’m a Norwegian teenager eager to translate quotes into English to convince an American bodybuilding website how the Nazis got bad press because the Allies beat their asses in WW2. I don’t care if you agree with me, I’ll argue with you anyway, and if you still don’t disagree with me, I’ll make something up so you do”. Fuck. Off.

197

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:
so have you watched it yet?[/quote]

Which one?[/quote]

the only fucking one i recommended, the occult history of the third reich, it’s a serie of documentaries btw. everyone is well made and very interesting, i would guess you would want to watch part one " The Enigma of the Swastika "[/quote]

You never said it was a series until now you troll. “only fucking one I recommended” indeed. And you are a troll - 16 year olds don’t debate this kind of thing on the internet. They are “mass debating” over other more pressing matters. Like porn. Grown men with nothing better to do than masquerade as teenage boys do debate this kind of thing on the internet. “Hi, I’m Lars, I’m a Norwegian teenager eager to translate quotes into English to convince an American bodybuilding website how the Nazis got bad press because the Allies beat their asses in WW2. I don’t care if you agree with me, I’ll argue with you anyway, and if you still don’t disagree with me, I’ll make something up so you do”. Fuck. Off.[/quote]

This is too much, i am just laughing at you right now cause you’ve just sunk to a whole new low.

198

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]ultralars wrote:
so have you watched it yet?[/quote]

Which one?[/quote]

the only fucking one i recommended, the occult history of the third reich, it’s a serie of documentaries btw. everyone is well made and very interesting, i would guess you would want to watch part one " The Enigma of the Swastika "[/quote]

You never said it was a series until now you troll. “only fucking one I recommended” indeed. And you are a troll - 16 year olds don’t debate this kind of thing on the internet. They are “mass debating” over other more pressing matters. Like porn. Grown men with nothing better to do than masquerade as teenage boys do debate this kind of thing on the internet. “Hi, I’m Lars, I’m a Norwegian teenager eager to translate quotes into English to convince an American bodybuilding website how the Nazis got bad press because the Allies beat their asses in WW2. I don’t care if you agree with me, I’ll argue with you anyway, and if you still don’t disagree with me, I’ll make something up so you do”. Fuck. Off.[/quote]

This is too much, i am just laughing at you right now cause you’ve just to a whole new low.
[/quote]

I agree. You’re absolutely right.

199

Someone is messing with my posts… first it deleted " sunk " from my last reply and it wont let add it in… atleast not imidiantly. somone has messed with the title too

I am so fucking tired of you damn bullshit roybot

You arguments always consists of the same thing and you follow the same insecure discussion patterns.

First; since you can’t say anything else, you try to pick on my age or my ethnicity, if your not trying desperately to find typos that is. My age should not be in the fucking argument, your not insulting anyone expect yourself by acting like mentally defective monkey

You always seem to intentionally " forget " everything written on any past page and you often just fucking refuses i wrote something that i have, or say that i have written something that i indeed haven’t. the only way to open your damn eyes is to shove the fucking proof in your fucking face.

One of the most pathetic things you do, is placing yourself in your insults towards me. You say that i make up things in order to strengthen my argument, That is not fucking true, i almost always have a source ready and listed but you fucking refuse to look it up. it is pretty obvious that the one who makes up shit is you. Also you say my only source of information, is wikipedia. I haven’t used wikipedia for anything expect trying to find the names of two jews mentioned earlier and using it as proof to show you stuff. pretty much all i have said in this thread, is stuff i learned way before creating it.

Your like a under educated ghetto rat trying to discuss rocket physics, just fucking give up.

why don’t you shut the fuck up if you have nothing new to say, which has been the case for at least the last 5 pages. i almost want to report all your posts as spam, if thats possible.

200

[quote]Deorum wrote:
My primary beef here is that “master race” implies that there is a race in existence that trumps all others or that this can be engineered within an existing race. As far as genetics is concerned to myself, race isn’t the focal point in genetic advancement. Attempting to inbreed perfection is foolish. What the Nazi’s lacked is what the Jews had in abundance, that is where the hate spawned from. Attempting to eradicate all races with strong traits that reflect your weak traits or with strong traits that trump your own is horribly flawed. Instead genetic advancement should focus on pulling the best features from all races - not ignoring flaws and flaunting strong points. The only “master race” is ironically a diluted one. [/quote]

The strength of genetic diversity is a biological fact. However, so is the power of selective breeding. Like produces like consistently over time. Nature/nurture aside, inherited traits are present for everything from intelligence to athleticism to your risk for certain disease. Selective breeding need not be “racist”. Asking or restricting someone from procreating need not be racist - I think there is an abundance of people on the earth that should not pass along their genes. But that desire need not be racist.

Of course, restricting someone’s right to breed is probably a human right violation, but thankfully there is no restriction for two sprinters getting together to breed :slight_smile:

Should two retards be allowed to bear children? If not, where then do you draw the line when we have so many “functioning retards” within our society (cue the White Family from West Virginia - google it).