Atlantis

Here is my guess, the priest was simpley telling Solon of a empire in the west, its history, its capital( tartesso) and its end from a earthquake and a flood .

 However Plato turned the story into a work of athens and it Gods.  Why because Socates was put to death soon after for not believing in the greek myths and their gods. 

 I believe the story is true, only given all the glory to athens and in its myths , like the flood story that were most likey borrowed from another culture.

Originally posted by Arthur-Robin People need to put aside their puritanistical/PC anti-Nazi prejudices and consider Aryan theory on its own merits.

Well, I would put aside "Aryan" theories with all the other rubbish, ludicrous phantasies like the real Atlantis, Extra-terrestrial invasions and all that stuff, if it hadn't been for the circumstance that this theory was attempted to be put into practise, with all the consequences we know so well.
In this context, one can never have enough prejudices against race theories and especially against the Nazi "Aryan" one, and discussing it "on its own merits" is a contradiction in terms. It hasn't got any.

Why do they have to be devious and pretend that they dis-agree with it in order to publish the ideas which they evidently don't dis-agree totally with secretly/in the end any way.

???

Plato places Atlantis close to Gades , it could`nt be any where else

Originally posted by docyabut Plato places Atlantis close to Gades , it could`nt be any where else

Plato does not mention Gades - does he?

Edited by Arthur-Robin

Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Maju: Thanks for your response. Yes Plato mentions Gadeirus/Gadeira (Necho) which people usually identify with Gades and/or Ceuta, but I prefer equating it with Agadir.

Gadeirus is a name of one of Atlas' brothers. Not a city - though most likely Plato or whoever took the idea from Gadir

I can't comment on your claim about your culture not having sky tradition because I don't know what culture you are from (is that your avatar picture?) But even if that is so there are still many cultures that have this tradition so there must be some truth to it.

I am Basque, as most people in this forum know. My avatar has nothing to do with who I am personally but about a struggle against intolerance and fascism. Would you be European and not Polinesian, you'd probably know that that lady is a Dutch MP.

I was not limiting "Aryan" to Indo-European/Germanic when I said about before Germans/iron age. But even so the  #1  list of before then evidence was I-E (hence "proto-Germanic") but outside/before Europe. The I-Es may be Eur-african ("Nordic") and/or Eur-asiatic.

IEs do not exist: IE is a linguistic family. There are IE speakers and these change a lot physically. Examples of:

a/ IE native speakers:

66s/EXP=1141940655/**http%3a//www.sloughlin.addr.com/mfinger .jpg">

b/ non-IE native speakers:

 

The #2 list you claim are unrelated racially to the I-Es/Germanics but that is not necessarily definately the case. Since "Aryan" in sense of  masters/chosen rather than I-E  is either/both Eur-african and/or Eur-asiatic it could mean the "pre-I-E" culture races as well as or instead of I-Es/Germanics.

You are ranting Nazi nonsense about master races and those stupidities. Aryan is just a term that exists in Indian and Iranian cultures. Its totally alien to European culture - sorry but you must improve your knowledge.

First there are no human races.

Second, if they would exist, none of them would be "Aryan" that Hitler one day had a weird idea to claim that Germans were the cream of the cake with no grounds at all... doen't mean that he was right.

A person with such a silly moustache and such megalomaniac tendencies can hardly be right.

Anyhow, he was wrong: flatly wrong.

So we have 3 scenarios: "Aryan" is I-E, and Europe before them was not; or "Aryan" was "pre-I-E", and I-Es were barbarian invaders; or "Aryan" is both "pre-I-E" and IE.

We have only one scenario: there is no Aryan in Europe. Aryans were people of India and Iran. It's an Asian concept, totally out of place in Europe.

Originally posted by Arthur-Robin Sorry, obviously I will have to steer clear of any "Aryan/master/race/Nazi" subjects since people are so intolerant/puritan.

Seems like a pretty good plan to me.
As you probably know, we Germans can be rather intolerant.

Edited by Arthur-Robin

Originally posted by Arthur-Robin I'm not allowed to comment. All I can say is you originally said there were no races and no masters and now you say (Indo-)Eurpoeans are inferior to Asian/Medes/Mediterraneans/easterners/mixed/Chinese/Medes/hy brids/Maoists.  (Nazism is "dead" yet the world is still a mess regardless.)

I said that it should not be taken seriously...

Now seriously, don't confuse:

• Indo-European (a linguistic family)
• European (a geographic denomination)
• Caucasoid, aka "white" (an arguable "racial" denomination, including from Dravidians to Irish, from Yemenis to Lapps in any case)
• Aryans - a diffuse ethnicity of the Indo-Iranian protohistory, of Indo-European language(s), located around Afghanistan or Central Asia
  

Maoists are not any "race" - no matter how you look at it

Nazism is not dead, sadly. It seems to have some appeal to (Caucasoid) people with an inferiority complex and problems of identity. These people seem to find some strange sucedaneous satisfaction in identify themselves with some "superior race". Obviously you would not be holding such views if you would think yourself as mixed or belonging to one of the ethnicities called by Nazis "inferior races". You only hold such views because you think you are a member of the so called "superior race". This is an obvious by-product of an inferirority complex. A complex just like the one Hitler himself had.

But don't worry: you can overcome it. But you must look at yourself as you are... without pretensions of any sort. Just a hairless monkey with oversize head like the rest of us. Only slightly different than any other human in the world... no matter their skin shade or other rather irrelevant small variations.

I never said we are all "equal" - I said that the meaningful differences are not skin deep (racial). As you may know there are people with all sort of problems indepedently of their skin tonality.

X can have a complex of inferiority independently of being white, black or blue... if he/she is white, specially pale white (blond), X may find consolation in such far-fetched racist theories as Nordicism. If he/she is Chinese, X may find consolation in sino-centric theories (of which I know little but I'm sure they exist). Of course X may find consolation in other things: not all X with a self-esteem problem must necessarily find their "solution" (a false solution always) in joining a racist or xenophobic band of hooligans with that sort of ideas. They may find other solutions - hopefully better ones, like developing his/her self-esteem without walking sticks...

You don't need those sticks: you can walk on your own...

Now to your points:

1/ The main reason that the typical Nazi fussion of Aryan (Indo-Europeans) and Nordics is in decay is because archaeology and other branches of investigation seem to prove clearly that they are not particularly related. In other words: original IEs, who lived in Kazakstan and SE Russia, were whatever but of Nordic type. They probably resembled modern Southern Russians or Kazaks, with some uncertainty implicit (for some time I thought they were Mongoloid or partially Mongoloid but now I'm not so sure).

Also because IEs (aka Aryans) have tended not to be very constructive but rather destructive. True that some Indoeuropeized peoples such as Greeks, Hittites or Iranians developed some advances of this or that kind. But it's also true that they were strongly influenced by non-IE peoples that were there before them and who also had made major developements. We don't know for sure what Minoan Cretans spoke but it wasn't Greek. And we know that where the Hittite Empire was created they used to speak Caucasic languages (Hatti and Hurrian). We know that Iranians fed of what Elamites and other less known pre-IE peoples had made before them, etc.

Also we know that Hittites, Greeks, Iranians, etc, were mostly descendant of the pre-IEs that were there before them and not of the elite of invaders that brought the language. There's more "racial" (biological, genetic) continuity than cultural or linguistic one. That a people starts speaking IE doesn't make them "racially Aryans".

Apart that we don't know for sure how were the prototypical IEs before they started expanding and getting mixed with their willing or (more probably) unwilling hosts.

But we know for sure that all IE-speaking peoples of today are mostly non-IEs in their genetic constitution.

Also we know that they were creating culture before IEs arrived. Notice that the first IE civilizations is not older than 2000 BCE in any case. While other linguistic groups were creating civilization since much earlier:

• Sumerians since c. 5500
• Pre-IE Aegean and Balcanic peoples since c. 3500 BCE (Troy, Varna civ.)
  
• Afroasians and Dravidic speakers since c. 3300 BCE (Akkad, Egypt, Indus civ.)
  
• Iberians/Atlanteans (Basque speakers?) since c. 2600 BCE (Los Millares, VNSP)

In comparison the first Western IE relevant city (Rome) can be considered civilization maybe c. 500 BCE - and thanks to Etruscan very intense apportation. Etruscans again are not IEs.

The first civilized stage of Germans can only be detected over the spoils of the Roman Empire in the 5th century and out of formerly Roman territory only much later.

True that Germanic peoples have been very active in the cultural, economic and political fields latey but only since Renaissance or so. The first clearly Germanic major power has been Britain and that hasn't happened before the 17th or rather 18th century.

So there are many reasons against both Aryanism and Nordicism and about the ilegitimate admixture of both racisms.

2/ Historical revisionism has been treated in other topics...

3/ I don't know what you mean by Eurafrican and Eurasiatic. There are just Euro people with no Asian or African significative connection since 30,000 BCE. In fact that is appliable to most Europeans.

But, of course, Europeans or Caucasoids are not the only creators of culture. All peoples are and, as discussed in other topics, China is one of the major global creators of culture ever (from paper to gunpowder, from compass to print...). Other centers of global culture have been India, the Near East (Egypt included) and Southern Europe.

Northern Europe, due to their isolation and other difficult to measure factors has remained relatively backwards all the time before the renaissance. But don't worry: it's not due to any racial defect of Nordics - it's just luck.

4/ We haven't had time to diverge but slightly and admixture has been active all the time. Famed geneticist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza suggested in 1996 that Caucasoids are an old hybrid of the two major human branches: Asians and Africans, in a 2-1 proportion. I suspect he's right.

...

Anyhow we are totally off topic. I hope Kom locks this, so we can move over to more productive matters. Sadly this is not a pedagogic reeductaion center for confused racist people.