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.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks