Revolutions

[TheReal_ND]

No the Aryan peoples inhabited a very large territory and we are descended from those people. Well I am at least.

In India they were bred out. The White Aryan caste has been wiped out. They did in fact attempt to maintain racial purity for some hundreds of years. That is what the whole caste system was about. They came and conquered an already preexisting cluture.

So, you're claiming ancestry from horse nomads. Which were invading the European tribes in prehistory.

Source?

Yes the Indo-European hypothesis. That is the preferred nomenclature now instead of Aryan.

[TheReal_ND]

I should add that the White phenotype is far older than the Aryan peoples but classical Europeans share a common ancestry with Aryans despite this. More than that, the Old Gods of Europe stem from the Aryans as well.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I should add that the White phenotype is far older than the Aryan peoples but classical Europeans share a common ancestry with Aryans despite this. More than that, the Old Gods of Europe stem from the Aryans as well.

That's one hell of a hypothesis.

But again, a 'shared ancestry' implies racial purity of some kind? How does that connection even get made?

[TheReal_ND]

The Aryan caste of India was concerned with racial purity for as long as they could maintain it. I think what is confusing you is my use of the term Aryan to denote the shared ancestor of the European people that once had conquered a vast stretch of land. Even Iran in fact still has some of the pre Semetic blood kicking around. The mullah appears to be largely White. As for the Indo-European hypothesis I'm kind of not surprised this is new information for you. Most modern scholars only attribute it to be a shared family of languages but I assure you they shared more than a language, they shared the same genes.

[SuburbanFarmer]

The Aryan caste of India was concerned with racial purity for as long as they could maintain it. I think what is confusing you is my use of the term Aryan to denote the shared ancestor of the European people that once had conquered a vast stretch of land. Even Iran in fact still has some of the pre Semetic blood kicking around. The mullah appears to be largely White. As for the Indo-European hypothesis I'm kind of not surprised this is new information for you. Most modern scholars only attribute it to be a shared family of languages but I assure you they shared more than a language, they shared the same genes.

Not new to me. I'm questioning how you could take such a loose, prehistoric connection to a people that you know nothing about, culturally or genetically, and extrapolate it all the way into an idea of a separate modern people. Or how Hitler could possibly find that relevant to his German ubermensch. Let alone take it to the point of finding this vague idea of a group "superior" to the rest.

It's built on smoke.

[TheReal_ND]

I'm questioning how you could take such a loose, prehistoric connection to a people that you know nothing about, culturally or genetically, and extrapolate it all the way into an idea of a separate modern people.

Have I not demonstrated I know more than nothing about the roots of Europeans that we share a cultural and genetic tie to? If you find it too much a stretch to identify with Aryans then that's ok with me. I like to use the term because it's politically incorrect and for people that understand the Indo-European hypothesis it conveys essentially the same idea. White works too.

Or how Hitler could possibly find that relevant to his German ubermensch. Let alone take it to the point of finding this vague idea of a group "superior" to the rest.

You are the one that keeps bringing up Hitler in this conversation. Me not once. The reason is because "Aryan" illicites a pavlovian response that makes you associate the user of the word with the Third Reich. That's why I use the term partly. And Hitler never came up with these ideas on his own. All of the ideology he used concerning the quasi mythic origination of the White race came from the Thule society and Rudolph Hess. I find it interesting however. I like to think about the origins of the White race and practice some magical thinking about something special in our genes. It's really self evident though as far as the science is concerned. I mean I shouldn't say that Western Europeans are overall superior to any other phenotype but I like our culture and shared heritage the best. I'm sure the Sub Saharan African phenotype is superior in it's own ways as is as well the Eastern Asian or even Ashkenazi.

It's built on smoke.

You shouldn't let them do that to you.

[Speaker to Animals]

The history of linguistics is fascinating. They uncovered the truth of it through comparative linguistics. There exist identical, and not probable duplicate, idioms shared between ancient texts. The famous one was an idiom used in the Illiad and in the Baghadvadita.

Then linguists began to deconstruct the common language based on how languages tend to evolve. They were able to figure out the word for mouse, for example in Indo-European. It sounds sort of like "mooze".

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm questioning how you could take such a loose, prehistoric connection to a people that you know nothing about, culturally or genetically, and extrapolate it all the way into an idea of a separate modern people.

Have I not demonstrated I know more than nothing about the roots of Europeans that we share a cultural and genetic tie to? If you find it too much a stretch to identify with Aryans then that's ok with me. I like to use the term because it's politically incorrect and for people that understand the Indo-European hypothesis it conveys essentially the same idea. White works too.

You know only that the roots of English are related to horse nomads from Central Asia. Think about that for a minute. Who were they raiding?

Isn’t the most likely explanation that the groups were intermingled, just like Vikings and Saxons? Hell, Olde English is a mix of Nordic and Saxon, far more than it’s related to Pashtun.

The fact is, we can only guess at what happened that far back. Entire people’s were moving all over the place, interbreeding, and being wiped out. Finding a similarity between two of them is no basis for any sort of idea about modern genetic heritage, or traits thereof.

Or how Hitler could possibly find that relevant to his German ubermensch. Let alone take it to the point of finding this vague idea of a group "superior" to the rest.

You are the one that keeps bringing up Hitler in this conversation. Me not once. The reason is because "Aryan" illicites a pavlovian response that makes you associate the user of the word with the Third Reich. That's why I use the term partly. And Hitler never came up with these ideas on his own. All of the ideology he used concerning the quasi mythic origination of the White race came from the Thule society and Rudolph Hess. I find it interesting however. I like to think about the origins of the White race and practice some magical thinking about something special in our genes. It's really self evident though as far as the science is concerned. I mean I shouldn't say that Western Europeans are overall superior to any other phenotype but I like our culture and shared heritage the best. I'm sure the Sub Saharan African phenotype is superior in it's own ways as is as well the Eastern Asian or even Ashkenazi.

He’s kind of the eternal figurehead for fascism. And most certainly for the idea of “aryans” being white people.

You have to expect that.

[TheReal_ND]

I expect it but I still like to poke the sore spot because it illicits a reaction and hopefully gets people's noggins joggin when it comes to the fact that even speaking about the origin of the White race is practically a thought crime. Yes Europe has an extremely complicated history that is poorly documented. But yet every race has an intricate and nuanced history. Genetic phenotypes still exist however. White is a race just as much as any other even if it's a thought crime to say so.

Now back to the original hypothesis of mine, Whites are far more altruistic than any other race. We are inherently liberal by nature. And to demonstrate this fact we have a varying degree of Eagletarian forms of government that can be traced back all the way to weriguild which was a basic principle of Danes Law which helped pave the way to the Magna Carta and finally the Constitution, the most liberal document in human history afaik. And if you think about it, it makes sense. A culture whose nascent beginnings was formed by a nomadic horse people would be inherently more..... liberal.

Culture leads to genetics. Culture turbo charges the genetic disposition. For example its possible that the reason Nords are so fair is because they used to spend half the year snowed in with their mate as opposed to freely being able to fuck in the jungle 24/7. Therefore the genes that pass down good looks would be heavily favored. And let's face it. Nords are beautiful.

But to answer your previous question, I don't know what the origin of the White race is. It certainly wasn't Aryans as phenotypes take too long to develop and Aryans only came on the scene some 2500 years ago according to some. I think this timeframes for the Indo-European "invasion" is BS. I would put it closer to 3000 years ago if not more. I also entertain the notion that there are lost civilizations and some of them may have been inhabited by White people. Perhaps a giant "Collapse of the Bronze Age" style thing some 15000 years ago.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Well, you’re right about one thing - white is just as much a race as any other.

There’s no such thing. Maybe there were significant genetic tribal differences tens of thousands of years ago, but it’s all gone now. The most distinct people were probably the native Americans, and some Amazonian tribes, and they’re all but wiped out. The Chinese have the best claim of any “purity”, by far. And that only goes back 2,000 years. Maybe the Hans originated from the same group of horse archers that became “Aryans”.

The simple fact is that even the most ardent racist can’t define his “race” without a bunch of caveats. My first post summed it up pretty succinctly. Even if you want to define it as “Northern Europe”, what the hell is that based on?

Where do gypsies fit? The Irish weren’t “white, just a century ago. Italians? What do you do with all of the mixing? There are no “pure bloods” of any geographic area, color, or even culture. I could easily go back far enough to show them originating from another part of the world, or ancestors that held wildly different cultural norms.

The entire idea is senseless.