Log in

View Full Version : Eugenics



Borincano
24th November 2003, 04:30
What are your opinions on eugenics, the supposedly "scientific" belief of being able to "weed out" the weak and undesirable by sterilization, which, in return, would allow the strong and "beautiful" to breed and create a better, suitable people of the world? It has had negative reprecautions, such as the Nazi's sterilizing and killing anyone they deemed undesirable, and the USA gov't sterilizing poor and/or dark people, most commonly Puerto Ricans. However, eugenics have worked in breeding good dogs, lol.

Pete
24th November 2003, 04:49
It is little more than insititutionalized genocide (or homosexual-cide or disablity-cide ect ect) given a glossy finish.

Fidelbrand
24th November 2003, 11:19
from the point of morality, that seems a bit demoralising + dehumanising....... also it is hard to compare among individuals...... life becomes tasteless.

SonofRage
24th November 2003, 14:08
I am 100% against it.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics
24th November 2003, 14:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 05:30 AM
. However, eugenics have worked in breeding good dogs, lol.
In fact not, dogs are a great example of how badly it works. Thanks to interbreeding of pedigrees they generally have many common defects. For example German Shepards are prown to developing leg problems in old age, pugs can have breathing problems, the list goes on and on-though i'm not a dog expert so these are only a copuple that i'm fairly sure on. If you want a dog who will probably have fewer problems your better off with a heinz (as in not a pure breed such as a terrier or labrador, but a cross breed between the 2).

crazy comie
24th November 2003, 14:57
I think the idea is disgusting

Don't Change Your Name
25th November 2003, 01:12
One of the most terrible things ever invented...

How can someone do such a thing? I don't see the point of it, and what El Marko said is an interesting point.
Oh, and what indicator shows who should reproduce and who should be eliminated?

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 02:09
Babble Babble Babble.

Pete
25th November 2003, 02:16
So... you are a light skinned Indian man whose ancestors invaded and destroyed teh Indus valley civilization a few thousand years back?

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 02:21
Hampton,

Hmmm, why would you censor my comments? Is this how you promote free speech? By deleting whole posts to satisfy your personal point of view? That doesn't sound very leftist to me....

Bolshevika
25th November 2003, 02:23
Lol, authoritarian liberals?

By the way, can someone ban this Aryan Blitzkreig waste of resources? I don't like his opinion.

CAGE THE BASTARD!

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 02:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 03:16 AM
So... you are a light skinned Indian man whose ancestors invaded and destroyed teh Indus valley civilization a few thousand years back?
How dare you call me a "Light skinned Indian man". Who gave you the athority to label my race in such a manner? I thought we were here to unite the masses, not to seperate them by making idiotic jokes.

Pete
25th November 2003, 02:27
Hey, that is my understanding of an Aryan. But then there is the other understanding which is usually associated with white nationalists. The way you talk about 'your race' my reference to the origin of the term you label yourself with is hardly a 'joke.' Perhaps you should know where the word 'Aryan' comes from. They where the ones that imposed the caste system upon India based on skin colour (yet this is not absolute, just a general rule).

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 02:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 03:27 AM
Hey, that is my understanding of an Aryan. But then there is the other understanding which is usually associated with white nationalists. The way you talk about 'your race' my reference to the origin of the term you label yourself with is hardly a 'joke.' Perhaps you should know where the word 'Aryan' comes from. They where the ones that imposed the caste system upon India based on skin colour (yet this is not absolute, just a general rule).
Without investigating the full history of the Caucasus and the first migration of the Aryan people (Into the Iranian plateau, just east of the Zagros mountains), it would be difficult to quell someones nationalistic mindset with a few memorandums on your notebook. Inter alia, the Aryan people were nomads during the invasion of the Indus valley and the insinuation of the caste system. The caste system is all speculation and hardcopy evidence of such a theory does not fully support the idea of the Aryans suppressing residents of the Indus Valley. The Aryan civilization did not set its foundations down until a couple thousand years later with the Achaemenid Empire. That is when the true humanitarian work commenced. Up until the Tazis invasion....

Yes, I am very familiar with the Aryan word and where it comes from. Its root, Arya, is part of Old-Persian and is the reason why my beloved nation is called Iran today (Land of Aryans).

Pete
25th November 2003, 02:56
The Aryans where herders, and yes nomads. The Indian branch (Aryans) did enter India aroudn the time of the end of the Indus Valley collapse, and they, being herdres, had a much weaker material culture (wooden instead of stone) but also had a higher military 'culture,' if you will. The caste system, of course, took time to become indoctrined in religion and social life.

The other branches of the Indo-European tribes spread out to areas like Persia (Iran) and Europe. Linguistic similarities prove this.

I don't mean any offense, as I said before, it seemed you where using your name in the manner that White Supremists do.

Just as a word of warning though, since this site is hosted out of Germany (I believe) your stay here may be limited because of the laws that prevail there and the webmasters wish not to go to jail.

Yazman
25th November 2003, 09:58
Although marxist myself, I am purely disgusted that you would simply delete his posts simply because he may hold some sort of nazi belief.

Shame on you. He is still a person, and holds basic human rights, as do we all. I'm sure you people know the feeling of being crapped all over just because of your beliefs. Now instead of oppressing him, stop being complete fucking assholes and AT LEAST let him speak, whether we hate nazis or not.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics
25th November 2003, 10:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 10:58 AM
simply because he may hold some sort of nazi belief.

Shame on you. He is still a person, and holds basic human rights
I disagree. Nazis are inhumain monsters, and should be treated as such.

Yazman
25th November 2003, 10:29
Yet you still tolerate inhuman monsters such as Stalinists and cappies.


PATHETIC, I SAY!

SonofRage
25th November 2003, 10:54
Originally posted by AryaN [email protected] 24 2003, 09:21 PM
Hampton,

Hmmm, why would you censor my comments? Is this how you promote free speech? By deleting whole posts to satisfy your personal point of view? That doesn't sound very leftist to me....
who said free speech was promoted here? Nazi's have never been welcome.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics
25th November 2003, 14:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 11:29 AM
Yet you still tolerate inhuman monsters such as Stalinists and cappies.


PATHETIC, I SAY!
how do you know I tolerate them? besides i think a neo-nazi is far worse than a plain ol' ignorant cappie.

crazy comie
25th November 2003, 14:54
I say kill all nazis

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 21:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 03:56 AM
I don't mean any offense, as I said before, it seemed you where using your name in the manner that White Supremists do.

Just as a word of warning though, since this site is hosted out of Germany (I believe) your stay here may be limited because of the laws that prevail there and the webmasters wish not to go to jail.
CrazyPete,

Non taken my friend. Although my username raises suspicion amongst the members on this forum, I am here to distinguish the difference between nationalism and Nazism. If you can feel the reverence I have for my nation, you will not be able to discover any resentment or persecution of any sort. Like any nation or idelogy, the Aryan race within my country in particular has had its highs and lows. Fortunately, the lows are kept at a minimum (I am indicating the time prior to the Arab invasion. When Iran's sovereignty layed boundless).

Although my time on this forum might be limited, I hope we can all have a comfortable relationship without brawling over who is correct and who is dillusional. I also hope the discord presented by a few members in this thread will not continue.

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 21:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 10:58 AM
Although marxist myself, I am purely disgusted that you would simply delete his posts simply because he may hold some sort of nazi belief.

Shame on you. He is still a person, and holds basic human rights, as do we all. I'm sure you people know the feeling of being crapped all over just because of your beliefs. Now instead of oppressing him, stop being complete fucking assholes and AT LEAST let him speak, whether we hate nazis or not.
Yazman,

I thank you for speaking on my behalf but I simply did not indicate myself as being a Nazi or a supporter. If Hampton took his time to carefully read my message, he would have discovered something to the contrary. I clearly distinguished myself as an anti-Nazi activist and never attempted to downplay the process of human Eugenics. It is clearly a violation of the values set forth by my nation's ancestors. Why would I support such an inhumane ideology such as Nazism?

Thanks again for your concern Yazman.

Eastside Revolt
25th November 2003, 23:16
So how do you feel about Hitler there Aryan boy? :unsure:

SonofRage
25th November 2003, 23:17
Originally posted by AryaN [email protected] 25 2003, 04:04 PM
If you can feel the reverence I have for my nation, you will not be able to discover any resentment or persecution of any sort. Like any nation or idelogy, the Aryan race within my country in particular has had its highs and lows.
There is no "Aryan Race." Biologically speaking, there is only a single human race. Race as we know it is a social construct based on arbitrarily chosen physical characteristics. If you are here to promote your "nation" then you will be nothing but a divisive force.

AryaN BLitZKrieG
25th November 2003, 23:51
Originally posted by SonofRage+Nov 26 2003, 12:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SonofRage @ Nov 26 2003, 12:17 AM)
AryaN [email protected] 25 2003, 04:04 PM
If you can feel the reverence I have for my nation, you will not be able to discover any resentment or persecution of any sort. Like any nation or idelogy, the Aryan race within my country in particular has had its highs and lows.
There is no "Aryan Race." Biologically speaking, there is only a single human race. Race as we know it is a social construct based on arbitrarily chosen physical characteristics. If you are here to promote your "nation" then you will be nothing but a divisive force. [/b]
If it were only that easy....

El Brujo
26th November 2003, 03:57
Blitzkraig, are you an anti-imperialist revolutionary nationalist of some sort?

Eastside Revolt
26th November 2003, 08:06
Originally posted by AryaN BLitZKrieG+Nov 26 2003, 12:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AryaN BLitZKrieG @ Nov 26 2003, 12:51 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 12:17 AM

AryaN [email protected] 25 2003, 04:04 PM
If you can feel the reverence I have for my nation, you will not be able to discover any resentment or persecution of any sort. Like any nation or idelogy, the Aryan race within my country in particular has had its highs and lows.
There is no "Aryan Race." Biologically speaking, there is only a single human race. Race as we know it is a social construct based on arbitrarily chosen physical characteristics. If you are here to promote your "nation" then you will be nothing but a divisive force.
If it were only that easy.... [/b]
Well.....


....explain to me just "what" "race" is. :unsure:

Eastside Revolt
26th November 2003, 08:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 05:30 AM
What are your opinions on eugenics, the supposedly "scientific" belief of being able to "weed out" the weak and undesirable by sterilization, which, in return, would allow the strong and "beautiful" to breed and create a better, suitable people of the world? It has had negative reprecautions, such as the Nazi&#39;s sterilizing and killing anyone they deemed undesirable, and the USA gov&#39;t sterilizing poor and/or dark people, most commonly Puerto Ricans. However, eugenics have worked in breeding good dogs, lol.
This to me is contradictory, how do they know "beautiful" is the same as "strong and healthy".

suffianr
26th November 2003, 12:59
Eugenics is just an example of science in practice, and science is, of course, a discipline that is continuously obsessed with the idea of achieving &#39;perfection&#39; in all it&#39;s forms.

Personally, I am against tampering with human beings, for better or for worse.

There is no Master Race, and we are all one and the same. :)

And it should stay that way.

crazy comie
26th November 2003, 14:55
i agrre

AryaN BLitZKrieG
26th November 2003, 19:05
Originally posted by El [email protected] 26 2003, 04:57 AM
Blitzkraig, are you an anti-imperialist revolutionary nationalist of some sort?
You got it buddy.

:D

Eastside Revolt
26th November 2003, 19:08
Originally posted by AryaN BLitZKrieG+Nov 26 2003, 08:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AryaN BLitZKrieG @ Nov 26 2003, 08:05 PM)
El [email protected] 26 2003, 04:57 AM
Blitzkraig, are you an anti-imperialist revolutionary nationalist of some sort?
You got it buddy.

:D [/b]
Please answer me&#33;

How do you feel about Hitler, and just what is "race".

AryaN BLitZKrieG
26th November 2003, 20:07
You are a fiesty one aren&#39;t you redcanada. If I were to go ahead and present you with an essay of the meaning of the term, "race", it would be a waste of both my time and yours. For that simple reason, i will display the dictionary meaning of the word. I hope you are capable of figuring out the concept.

race
n.

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.

Biology.
-----&#62; An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
-----&#62; A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.


As to your question regarding Adolf Hitler, I clearly disassociated myself with the principles of Nazism and personally denounced supporters as being traitors to the Aryan race and the world. I don&#39;t think I should add anything else to that.

Eastside Revolt
26th November 2003, 20:14
You do know that the german "race" was completely non existent untill the creation of the german nation?

That&#39;s been what.... less than a hundered years?

If so then how, even by the dictionary&#39;s definition, can they be a race.

AryaN BLitZKrieG
26th November 2003, 21:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 09:14 PM
You do know that the german "race" was completely non existent untill the creation of the german nation?

That&#39;s been what.... less than a hundered years?

If so then how, even by the dictionary&#39;s definition, can they be a race.

The Origins of the Aryan Race

I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings
The king of many countries and many peoples
The king of this expansive land,
The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,
Persian, the son of a Persian,
&#39;Aryan&#39;, from the Aryan race
"From the Darius the Great&#39;s Inscription in Naqshe-e-Rostam"

The above scripture is one of most valid written evidences of the history of the Aryan race, and as can be seen, Darius I (Dariush in persian), the Achaemenian king, in the 5th century BCE, declares himself a Persian and form the Aryan race. Herodotus, the father of history, writes (in his book: "History of Herodotus") at the same times: "In ancient times, the Greeks called Iranians "Kaffe", but they were renowned as Aryans among themselves and their neighbors". In another part of his book, Herodotus writes that the Medians were known as Aryans during a certain period. So in two of the oldest written human documents, the race of the Iranians have been mentioned as Aryan.

On the other hand, in many contemporary books, one reads that the Aryans were not original residents of the land of Iran, and that they migrated to Iran from Central Asia or somewhere in the north of Europe. The point is that if some of the oldest written records of the human history confirm that the residents of the Iranian Plateau were Aryans, why should some claim otherwise?

We will discuss the origins of the Iranian race, and we will try to shed light on some unknown corners of history, which has been mixed with ignorance and lies.

We want to extract the facts out of centuries and millennia and out of paleontological studies, old and new, to prove that Iran is the original land of the Aryan race, that this people has never migrated to any other land, and it has defended its homelands for centuries on end.

There are all numerous reasons that the Aryan race has undergone its evolution from the primitive man to the white man in the Iranian Plateau. These reasons can be categorized as historical, geographical, mythological, anthropological and linguistically.

Against the reasons we will discuss, no valid evidence has been produced to prove that the Aryans migrated from Central Asia or any other place to Iran. What European historians have written in this regard is based on unscientific and unproven hypotheses influenced by anti-Iranian and political ideas.

The reason for the migration of Aryans from Iran to other places of the world should be searched in climatic events. At the end of Ice Age, as a result of excessive rainfall on the Alborz and Zagros Mountains and the melting of the ice accumulated on the mountains, the rivers flowing through the Iranian Plateau were much larger than they are today. Therefore there was a large lake in the place where to day is the Central Desert. One of the most interesting mythological texts says in this regard:

"...In the second phase of the creation of the world, Ahura Mazda created the waters, and the waters flowed towards Farakhekrat Sea which covers one third of the world from the southern outskirts of Alborz." With the continuous warming of the earth and the decrease in rainfall, this lake gradually dried up and the peoples living around it, who had a common language and Aryan culture, was forced to migrate from Iran. The routes of this great migration are an evidence for the central position of Iran, for the Aryan peoples have set Iran as the center and set out on migration in any direction.

As a matter of fact, many Western historians have declined to accept the politicized version of history, admitting that Iran was the origin of the Aryan race.

Hegel writes in his book The Philosophy of history: "The principle of evolution begins with the history of Iran". Another prominent orientologist says that: A large part of our cultural and material legacy was unveiled in southwestern Asia the center of which was Iran." Petri, in a famous speech, said that "When Egypt had only just begun the art of pottery, the people of Susa (in Iran) were painting beautiful pictures on ceramics." this shows that the Iranian civilization was 3,000 years ahead of that of Egypt, dating back at least to 12,000 years ago. In other words, when Central Asia was totally buried under thick layers of ice, Iranians were creating pictures on earthenware, which indicates their art and creativity.

Considering the existence of this 12,000 years-old civilization in Iran, would it not be unlikely that 6,000 years ago, a group of people spontaneously crossed the ice covered Siberian lands, suddenly wiping such a civilization off the earth. The word Aryan has roots in world that Iranians called themselves by Ayria, meaning free, noble and steady. The world Iran is derived from this very root, having been transformed from to Ayran Iran, meaning the land of the Aryans. This is the most ancient term applied to the Iranian Plateau, and such a term has never been detected anywhere else in the world, e.g. Europe or Turkistan.

The myth of Aryan&#39;s migration to Iran implies that a people have come to Iran from a remote land, giving their name to an already inhabited land which had no name, and that no trace of their name has been remained in their name has been remained in their original homeland. In historical records, Central Asia has been mentioned as the land of Sakas, Masagets, Touran, Soghd, Kharazm, Khiveh, and Turkistan, none of which words has any relation to the word Aryan.

Paleontology is one of the sciences that confirm the formation of the white race in Ian. The Homo sapiens evolved from its Neanderthal ancestors in a 30,000- year process between 50,000 to 20,000 years ago. In the Hutu and Kamarband caves near Behshahr, Iran, bones of men from different historical periods have been found, showing that a kind of human race has continuously dwelled in this area and evolved, meaning that there has been no migration.

In Babylonian and Assyrian sources, one of the largest ancient Iranian tribes has been mentioned as Kas Su, Kassi and Kashi, which in ancient languages and also in the modern language of the people of Gilan means fair-eyed and fair-faced. The name of central city of Kashan (Kassan) is a relic of this ancient Aryan tribe. Many relics of the Kassi tribe has also been found in the Khorramabad region, including paintings in the cave of Dusheh which date back to 15,000 BC. In these paintings, people can be seen riding horses. This is a very valid evidence against the erroneous theories which say that the Aryans brought the horse form Central Asia to Iran around 4,000 BC. Like its ancient riders, the horse is indigenous to Iran since at least 17,000 years ago.

Geology and meteorology confirm the evolution of man in the Iranian Plateau. The supporters of the theory of the migration of the Aryans from the north to Iran assume that with the fall in the temperature during the ice age, men were forced to migrate from the north (Central Asia) to the south (Iran). But the homo race was formed at the end of the third ice age, i.e. when the weather was gradually warming from the south to the north. Therefore, it would have been natural for people to migrate from south to north, and not the other way round. In fact, Central Asia was not habitable for men for thousands of years after the ice age, it only became so in the historic age as a result of the melting and receding of the arctic ice cap. Later groups of Iranians and Chinese migrated to these areas and formed the Turk race through cross breeding. The Indians are a hybrid of early Dravidians and the white Iranian race, a fact, which is evident from their dark skin.

So why have some European historians said that the origin of the Iranians is Central Asia? Because in 1833, an Oxford University professor used the term Aryan to describe a group of languages with common origins. Although he later admitted that parts of his theory were erroneous, the theory of an Aryan race was used by a group of romanticist writers and western historians in quest for an ancient identity.

The Germans, eyeing vast expanses of land in Central Asia, called themselves Aryans and cried for a return to the homeland. They used the Swastika, which, as a "wheel of Mithra (Sun/Fire)" used to be the arm of the Iranians since ancient times, as a Nazi symbol, to have an alibi to invade Russia.

The French, British, Russians and recently Americans found different reasons to call themselves Aryans.

AryaN BLitZKrieG
26th November 2003, 21:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 09:14 PM
You do know that the german "race" was completely non existent untill the creation of the german nation?

That&#39;s been what.... less than a hundered years?

If so then how, even by the dictionary&#39;s definition, can they be a race.
I will let the German nationals defend their claim. From what I know, they are Aryan. They are part of the Germanic tribes, who directly migrated from the Iranian plateau into northern Europe.

Eastside Revolt
26th November 2003, 21:30
The mere fact that europeans can grow red hair, shows that we are related to African tribes aswell, wouldn&#39;t that make us just as African as we are "aryan".

SonofRage
26th November 2003, 21:58
from pbs.org



TEN THINGS EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RACE

Our eyes tell us that people look different. No one has trouble distinguishing a Czech from a Chinese. But what do those differences mean? Are they biological? Has race always been with us? How does race affect people today?

There&#39;s less - and more - to race than meets the eye:

1. Race is a modern idea. Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even language. The English language didn&#39;t even have the word &#39;race&#39; until it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of kings.

2. Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race.

3. Human subspecies don&#39;t exist. Unlike many animals, modern humans simply haven&#39;t been around long enough or isolated enough to evolve into separate subspecies or races. Despite surface appearances, we are one of the most similar of all species.

4. Skin color really is only skin deep. Most traits are inherited independently from one another. The genes influencing skin color have nothing to do with the genes influencing hair form, eye shape, blood type, musical talent, athletic ability or forms of intelligence. Knowing someone&#39;s skin color doesn&#39;t necessarily tell you anything else about him or her.

5. Most variation is within, not between, "races." Of the small amount of total human variation, 85% exists within any local population, be they Italians, Kurds, Koreans or Cherokees. About 94% can be found within any continent. That means two random Koreans may be as genetically different as a Korean and an Italian.

6. Slavery predates race. Throughout much of human history, societies have enslaved others, often as a result of conquest or war, even debt, but not because of physical characteristics or a belief in natural inferiority. Due to a unique set of historical circumstances, ours was the first slave system where all the slaves shared similar physical characteristics.

7. Race and freedom evolved together. The U.S. was founded on the radical new principle that "All men are created equal." But our early economy was based largely on slavery. How could this anomaly be rationalized? The new idea of race helped explain why some people could be denied the rights and freedoms that others took for granted.

8. Race justified social inequalities as natural. As the race idea evolved, white superiority became "common sense" in America. It justified not only slavery but also the extermination of Indians, exclusion of Asian immigrants, and the taking of Mexican lands by a nation that professed a belief in democracy. Racial practices were institutionalized within American government, laws, and society.

9. Race isn&#39;t biological, but racism is still real. Race is a powerful social idea that gives people different access to opportunities and resources. Our government and social institutions have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power, and resources to white people. This affects everyone, whether we are aware of it or not.

10. Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn&#39;t exist is not the same as creating equality. Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others.

Also read this (http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-11.htm).

El Brujo
27th November 2003, 06:36
Originally posted by AryaN BLitZKrieG+Nov 27 2003, 04:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AryaN BLitZKrieG @ Nov 27 2003, 04:05 AM)
El [email protected] 26 2003, 04:57 AM
Blitzkraig, are you an anti-imperialist revolutionary nationalist of some sort?
You got it buddy.

:D [/b]
That&#39;s what I imagined based on your comment that you want to distinguish nationalism from nazism. Unfortunately, most people in the west fail to recognize the difference between revolutionary nationalism and imperialist nationalism (which in reality, is more like bourgeoisie internationalism if looked at globally). I myself am an Argentine nationalist and a pan-Latin Americanist (both of which are notions Che adhered to, yet my ideas have been frowned upon by the more fanatical Trotskyites here).

What is your opinion on Mosaddeq?

crazy comie
27th November 2003, 16:17
It makes you seam reactionary having a name like aryan blitzkrieg and why the blitzkrieg part.

Bastardo
27th November 2003, 16:42
Can&#39;t believe you guys are falling for this shit..... :rolleyes:

suffianr
27th November 2003, 16:47
Yeah, lumping "Aryan" and "Blitzkrieg" side by side is, like, kind of implying that you favour a bunch of blue-eyed blondes raping and pillaging all the way to Dunkirk.

Do you believe in Lebensraum as well, mein gelehrter Freund?

AryaN BLitZKrieG
27th November 2003, 22:27
Originally posted by El Brujo+Nov 27 2003, 07:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Brujo @ Nov 27 2003, 07:36 AM)
Originally posted by AryaN [email protected] 27 2003, 04:05 AM

El [email protected] 26 2003, 04:57 AM
Blitzkraig, are you an anti-imperialist revolutionary nationalist of some sort?
You got it buddy.

:D
That&#39;s what I imagined based on your comment that you want to distinguish nationalism from nazism. Unfortunately, most people in the west fail to recognize the difference between revolutionary nationalism and imperialist nationalism (which in reality, is more like bourgeoisie internationalism if looked at globally). I myself am an Argentine nationalist and a pan-Latin Americanist (both of which are notions Che adhered to, yet my ideas have been frowned upon by the more fanatical Trotskyites here).

What is your opinion on Mosaddeq? [/b]
Let me give you some information about my family and a few preceding events in Iran before I give you my personal opinion of Mossadegh.

My family, prior to the Islamic revolution, were diehard supporters of the Shah. A few members of my family held impressive ranks in the military and within various government ministries (I will not provide you with specifics for security reasons). Although I do not support Imperialism in any of its forms, the Shah did. Since Mossadegh&#39;s fall in 1953, the Shah clamped down on leftist insurgencies. He exiled many high ranking leaders of many revolutionary groups such as the MKO (Mujahedin-e Khalq) (Islamic-Marxist party) which is currently being supressed by American forces in Iraq&#39;s Western frontier, the Tudeh party (Communist party) and the Islamic fundamentalists, who are currently in power. As you might already know, Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini was exiled into Iraq for his views on politics and society around a decade before the Shah voluntarily stepped down as supreme leader. The Shah had a great desire to make Iran the Iran of some 2000 years ago. He wanted to make Iran great once more. And he did just that. By collaborating with mostly American consortiums, he created the mightiest army in the Middle East. The IIAF (Imperial Iranian Air Force) was admired for its strength. The economic state dramatically improved in Iran. The poverty and illiteracy levels decreased. Life was good. Anyone would have been proud of the achievments made by the Shah. He unfortunately achieved all these goals by playing along with the currupt American beauracracy and the CIA. That was his only mistake.

I cannot disrespect the defunked monarchy. If they are able to regain power in Iran, I will serve them with pride. They are part of my culture. The monarchy has played a tremendous role in molding the Iranian spirit. They are the embodiment of Iranian nationalism. The chances of a monarchy rebirth within Iran is minimal in comparison to a republic but if they do, I&#39;d rather see them pursue a constitutional monarchy instead of a full on dictatorship.

(Wow, I&#39;ve written quite a bit already and still haven&#39;t touched the Mossadegh issue, argh)

Mossadegh was a man who opposed the partnership between Iran and the Imperialists. He wanted an Iran for Iran. His most noble task was nationalizing Iran&#39;s oil industry, striking a blow to the British, Russians and Americans. He is one of my heros. Too bad all of it was in vain. As we speak, the barbaric theocracy is privitizing the oil industry. Selling oil to every available country except the "Great Satan", America. To me, the mullah&#39;s are the children of Lucifer. They are deciples of the devil. Nothing more.

AryaN BLitZKrieG
27th November 2003, 22:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 05:47 PM
Yeah, lumping "Aryan" and "Blitzkrieg" side by side is, like, kind of implying that you favour a bunch of blue-eyed blondes raping and pillaging all the way to Dunkirk.

Do you believe in Lebensraum as well, mein gelehrter Freund?
Thank you both crazy comie and suffianr for pointing that out. I should have known I would recieve this type of reception for choosing this particular username.

Lebensraum, a.k.a. geopolitics, was used by every successful empire but was revolutionized by the Nazi&#39;s during the Third Reich era. I do not endore the occupation of foreign lands by otherwise, powerful nations. To consume a foreign land&#39;s natural resources for self-gain and an economic boom is arrogant and evil. It sends a message to the locals that the occupying force is more deserving than they are. That they are inferior compared to them. Hmmmm.... Reminds me of a nation today.... Can anyone guess which one?

;)

AryaN BLitZKrieG
27th November 2003, 22:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 05:42 PM
Can&#39;t believe you guys are falling for this shit..... :rolleyes:
Can you please divulge the meaning of your statement for us?

Borincano
29th November 2003, 05:08
Here are some more questions to jumpstart some discussion: Do you think it&#39;s right for a country&#39;s government to support sterilization to help control their populations, such as China&#39;s or India&#39;s? Also, do you think it&#39;s right for medical science to create cures for diseases, subsiquently interfering with the "natural course of things," therefore allowing the world&#39;s population to boom to the point resources will be scarce and the Earth will be inhabitable for all? BTW, I&#39;m not saying I believe on thing or the other, I&#39;m just asking questions, so when responding don&#39;t blast me with insults, lol.

suffianr
29th November 2003, 05:18
Thank you both crazy comie and suffianr for pointing that out. I should have known I would recieve this type of reception for choosing this particular username.

So, what the hell were you thinking, then?

AryaN BLitZKrieG
29th November 2003, 16:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 06:18 AM

Thank you both crazy comie and suffianr for pointing that out. I should have known I would recieve this type of reception for choosing this particular username.

So, what the hell were you thinking, then?
Actually, I want to retract my comment on my username. The real reason why I led myself into choosing this identification is quite simple. As I am an ancestor of the Aryan people residing in Iran, accompanying the title, Aryan into my username, would not be a violation of any belief systems and it should not be a cause for offence. Blitzkrieg is a term still used in today&#39;s world. Although used by Axis forces during the second World War, it is a form of military engagement. It does not symbolize the Nazi ideology or their genocidal tendencies. I am sure you have heard of its abbreviated form, Blitz. If you judge people before questioning an individual&#39;s ethical system, black listing will go on forever.

Misodoctakleidist
30th November 2003, 12:53
The Homo sapiens evolved from its Neanderthal ancestors

This is untrue, homo sapiens and neanderthals both evolved seperately from the same comon ancestor. The homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthanls.

suffianr
30th November 2003, 17:40
Actually, I want to retract my comment on my username. The real reason why I led myself into choosing this identification is quite simple. As I am an ancestor of the Aryan people residing in Iran, accompanying the title, Aryan into my username, would not be a violation of any belief systems and it should not be a cause for offence. Blitzkrieg is a term still used in today&#39;s world. Although used by Axis forces during the second World War, it is a form of military engagement. It does not symbolize the Nazi ideology or their genocidal tendencies. I am sure you have heard of its abbreviated form, Blitz. If you judge people before questioning an individual&#39;s ethical system, black listing will go on forever.

Gosh darn it, one whole paragraph, an&#39; you still ain&#39;t answering my questions, sonny&#33;

So, why did you intend to elicit a particular response from people, in this case something like "Nazi Wanker&#33;" by leading people to draw generalized conclusions about the nature of your screen name?

I understand that something like &#39;Aryan Rapid Reaction Force&#39; might be a bit of a mouthful, but why Blitzkrieg if you&#39;re afraid that people might wrongly label you as a Nazi troll on a leftist messageboard?

Say, if I go to a right-wing site and call myself "Russian Gulag", wouldn&#39;t that be pretty much the same thing?

The Children of the Revolution
30th November 2003, 18:05
Nothing wrong with "BlitzKrieg" comrades...

It&#39;s just German for "Lightning War". (As i&#39;m sure you all know)
A rather super tactic which allowed Hitler to wipe out European resistance in a matter of weeks.
Which was a bad thing, let me reaffirm.

Who really cares what usernames people have?
"Anti-Fascist" is an utter looney, and is one of the most right wing people on the site&#33; (Or so I have assumed after reading his (or her) posts...)

"AryaN BLitZKrieG": Nice name, mate.
Provoked discussion anyhow&#33;

Hawker
1st December 2003, 02:58
Why do you need to create a master race when everyone is already perfect in their own different ways.The human race is the master race,probably in the whole galaxy,even the universe.

hazard
1st December 2003, 06:53
your idea of eugenics is the worst of them all, and as such it paints a pretty horrible picture of what is actually a time honoured tradition

besides the eugenics of feudal times that still remains to today, which is basically a process of arranged marriage, there are older versions such as that proposed by Plato. there was a GUARDIAN class that lived communally and bred for the purpose of creating the military and police within society. as a process of eugenics, it was to create a class of protectors as opposed to creating an entirely new race. then again, hitler probably just read plato wrong and decided he knew what he meant. thats his fuck up though. I mean he was hitler, after all.

RedAnarchist
1st December 2003, 14:46
Eugenics is such a sick policy, that anyone who even considers its justification should be treated in mental hospitals.

The Genetic revolution has shown that there is only tiny differences between the races. We are all equal brothers and sisters on this planet - and we are not here to put some people above others. We are here to be equal, to live a full and enjoyable life and to look after this planet.

I, like many english people, am a mongrel ethnically, and i am very proud of this fact. I have Irish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, Frisian, German, French and possibly a couple more. Vive la difference&#33;

crazy comie
1st December 2003, 15:25
evaloution happens without human guidence so why should we try to guide it in that sense eugenics is stupid as well as crule.

che's long lost daughter
6th December 2003, 07:24
This isn&#39;t a good idea at all...it is like they are trying to make genocide legal. Well, to make good use of it, they should be doing it with capitalists, racists, policemen, anarchists etc., this would surely make the world a better place

crazy comie
8th December 2003, 15:19
Eugenics is compleatly pointles.

gawkygeek
8th December 2003, 17:13
on the contrary, eugenics is not completely pointless, it serves an immense purpuse, and it has always existed, just on a much smaller scale. when a girl looks at a guy and is attracted to his muscle, thats exactly whats happening, when a guy goes for the hottest girl. eugenics is simply darwin on a greater scale. its not as bad as everyone has made it seem

crazy comie
10th December 2003, 14:59
That isn&#39;t ugenics that is sexual selection. in eugenics you phisicaly stop some one from breeding by steralising them or killing them.

Umoja
11th December 2003, 00:37
Their is an old Table Top RPG called "Transhuman Space". It involves what happens when genetics become horribly tampered with to the point where people start creating people from scratch and the like. It&#39;s pretty interesting if only for the reading and speculation they bring up when it involves eugenics.

I don&#39;t think "Eugenics" is the worst idea, if you don&#39;t take it in a racial context. If we found out a way to stop diabetes from appearing in humans, I don&#39;t see that as a problem. Now at times issues would become race specific. Yes, I do mean race. For example, very few people who aren&#39;t black have Sickle-Cell Anemia. Also, African Americans (because of their overly mixed backgrounds) generally have problems finding organ matches. While most Slavs would match with other slavs. The differences aren&#39;t humongous, but they are their and especially being black many of these disorders affect the black community far more then the non-black community would imagine.

crazy comie
11th December 2003, 15:48
it is still no reason for eugenics. eugenics is forcing peopole not to bread by steralising them it is evil idea.

Umoja
11th December 2003, 23:34
Eugenics is forced breeding. It&#39;s the idea of trying to create "a perfect man" but I don&#39;t view that as being the goal. Since perfect is hard to say. I view it more as improving people through changing genetics. Slightly transcendental but little beyond that.

Also, sterilization isn&#39;t a bad idea. I don&#39;t see anything wrong with what they do in China and India. They are using strong social engineering to prevent overpopulation, without killing anyone. Not all that bad if you ask me.

crazy comie
12th December 2003, 15:19
i don&#39;t dissagre with cultural engerniring but steralising somone against there will is one of the worst crimes possible.

DeadMan
12th December 2003, 19:25
Oops...wrong topic.

DeadMan.

gawkygeek
14th December 2003, 05:23
i don&#39;t dissagre with cultural engerniring but steralising somone against there will is one of the worst crimes possible.
what is so horrendous about steralising someone, its not castration its just taking away the ability to procreate, to pass on genes that are inaddequite, useless to the survival of man, its not necessarily castration its just the end of a bloodline. do we still live in a world that requires the creation in such a way, are we that barbaric and under developed that we cannot adopt? creation of life goes far beyond the physical creation of a human, most of it is in the raising, nurturing of a child. if overpopulation is a problem, why allow the unfettered growth of men to continue?

gawkygeek
14th December 2003, 05:31
oops, did it twice explorer exploded...

crazy comie
15th December 2003, 14:55
lots of coyuntrys just few the cultures there forming are maneging a 0 % population increase.

Danton
18th December 2003, 12:03
Is not Guevara&#39;s concept of "The new man" a form of social eugenism?
Just a question...