Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Definition: What is a Human?

  1. #1
    Senior Member rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 06:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Definition: What is a Human?

    Just an essay I was working on for the new edition of my Asatru book:

    A person on a recent program on human evolution stated “I don’t consider someone a modern human until you can send him to school have him successfully complete college and get a good job. When did those people come about?” The scientist replied “probably 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. Even though those people didn’t act modern at all they probably had the mental ability. They just needed that cultural impetus that we have in modern times.” Interesting considering that many human beings today are incapable of completing college and successfully working on a job (despite great efforts to cover such differences up).

    Anthropologically modern humans: around 200,000 years ago people who look like modern humans popped up. They aren’t considered modern humans because they only had primitive stone tools like stone axes, spears and perhaps a bow and arrow. They had no agriculture, advanced art, written language, complex organization etc. Yet by this definition many modern people (like native Africans, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders etc.) would not be human. They are physically human but have only crude stone tools and primitive organization. No writing, no advanced agriculture etc. When their children are born and raised in a modern society they tend to have lower I.Q.s, not be able to succeed in school etc. Yet there is this odd theory that all the ills of humanity can be solved through social engineering. There is a theory that given enough education we can turn a Neanderthal or a homo erectus into a Homo Sapien. Obviously I think common sense (not to mention experience) would dictate otherwise.

    What we are dealing with from the folkish point of view in opposition to the liberal point of view is a clash of standards. Folkists would seek minimal standards and liberals would seek to lower standards to the lowest possible point (to the degree that some of them argue that monkeys or sheep should be considered human too). Is a person with one arm, three legs and two heads a human? Is a person who falls under a certain minimal I.Q. level human? Is a person with abnormal behavior (such as a desire to compulsively kill, lick rocks etc.) a human? To a folkist- no. They are a deviant human being. Quasi human perhaps, but not entirely human, no. To a liberal any perversion or deviations is not only human, but also entitled to all the success and social status of normal beings. A folkist believes each “folk” should have one ‘ideal’ of humanity and certain minimal standards of conformity to that ideal and anything outside of that is an incomplete human (or incomplete member of the folk- be it an incomplete German, Visigoth, Roman etc.).

    Humanity itself would be a conglomeration of related tribes or folks of people who themselves fall under a certain concept of what it means to be human. Folkists often split humanity into certain groups such as “ubermensch” and “untermensch”. The Ubermensch are races that are capable of leading, that on their own accord have invented writing, are capable of basic insight, invention, mathematics etc. They would have I.Q.s that average around 105 or above. They have social etiquette that allows them to work together and form civilizations with a minimal amount of intra-group conflict. The various Aryan civilizations or the Japanese for example would be ubermensch. They have writing on their own accord, they have advanced tools, advanced political structures and a vast storage of cultural knowledge. By contrast Untermensh would fail to create a civilization on their own. They would not organize themselves into large structures or be very inventive. They typically would lack complex writing or complex culture and most of their tools would be delegated to crude stone or wood tools (rather than metals or complex mechanical or electronic devises). A tribe running around naked in Africa with only stick tools who lack the foresight to plant some seeds in the ground or store some food away for the dry season would be considered untermensch. Within civilization they would have low I.Q.s and likely be incapable of any true form of higher education and often be inclined towards crime or other poor social etiquette. As our understanding of one culture, one community, one blood erodes the folkish concept of “humanity” is replaced with the liberal Marxist concept of humanity which is all inclusive and without standards or expectations. As such our “folkish” philosophy of life is not one of hatred or conflict but simply at its core is an ideological principle of nobility; that is one of standards.
    Last edited by Ahnenerbe; Tuesday, February 9th, 2010 at 03:51 PM. Reason: clarifying ideas
    “success and survival are above all the rule of life. As such it is the highest command of moral law” –Lord Livwell (me)

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 07:56 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Round Mountain, California
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    retired
    Politics
    None
    Religion
    atheist
    Posts
    64
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    HUMAN/Hueman/Colored Man

    I never did like the name Human because it sounded like the following:
    HUE= Color
    Man= man.....Therefore to me it sounded like color man....
    Up most I am Duetsch, and above that I am Aryan..
    Lets not go any further....We know what we are...

  3. #3
    Senior Member rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 06:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Yes I've struggled with that myself. If I'm human then the people around me are not human typically. If they are human then I am something different. I think of myself as a homo sapien. This is a thinking man. These guys who have low I.Q.s must be modern homo erectus- they walk upright like a man but lack the mental abilities of one.
    “success and survival are above all the rule of life. As such it is the highest command of moral law” –Lord Livwell (me)

Similar Threads

  1. Fascism, a Definition
    By Renwein in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 03:23 PM
  2. What is Your Definition of Sexy?
    By starprincess in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Sunday, July 18th, 2010, 04:39 AM
  3. The Definition of Tradition
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Metaphysics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 12th, 2007, 05:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •