Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 125

Thread: Were We Stronger when We Were Pagan?

  1. #101
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 09:25 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    What is the value of being a better individual and what purpose does it serve?
    I'll simply appeal to the authority of one of the teachers that I admire, Epictetus:

    How a man should proceed from the principle of God being the father of all men to the rest.

    If a man should be able to assent to this doctrine as he ought, that we are all sprung from God in an especial manner, and that God is the father both of men and of gods, I suppose that he would never have any ignoble or mean thoughts about himself. But if Caesar should adopt you, no one could endure your arrogance; and if you know that you are the son of Zeus, will you not be elated? Yet we do not so; but since these two things are mingled in the generation of man, body in common with the animals, and reason and intelligence in common with the gods, many incline to this kinship, which is miserable and mortal; and some few to that which is divine and happy. Since then it is of necessity that every man uses everything according to the opinion which he has about it, those, the few, who think that they are formed for fidelity and modesty and a sure use of appearances have no mean or ignoble thoughts about themselves; but with the many it is quite the contrary. For they say, "What am I? A poor, miserable man, with my wretched bit of flesh." Wretched. Indeed; but you possess something better than your "bit of flesh." Why then do you neglect that which is better, and why do you attach yourself to this?

    Through this kinship with the flesh, some of us inclining to it become like wolves, faithless and treacherous and mischievous: some become like lions, savage and untamed; but the greater part of us become foxes and other worse animals. For what else is a slanderer and a malignant man than a fox, or some other more wretched and meaner animal? See, then, and take care that you do not become some one of these miserable things.


    Chapter 3 of the Discourses and, for what it's worth, I do take this sort of lecture seriously. I've no mean thoughts about myself, likening myself to a simple animal driven about by amoral impulses or, even worse, a rational being driven by animal impulses. I do believe in God and that God is the father of men in that man shares in the blessed nature of the divine via the power of his mind (intellect, volition, will, etc.), which is capable of ethical introspection and whatnot. I've nothing really to say to the morally ambivalent as, in the end, they'll not learn anything from what I might have ot say.

  2. #102
    Senior Member Germania Magna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 04:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    reality
    Posts
    200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    What is the value of being a better individual and what purpose does it serve?



    Why the race? Why not the community or the family or just the individual himself? If the aim is to be fit, why should we not see in all men only a means to personal gain and satisfaction. Surly if this is the case, all men have no duties but to the fulfillment of their wants. Let every man universally declare:

    "Success is what I deem makes me strong and failure what makes me weak and any reverence to a collective like race is a shared power and only a fool shares power. Therefore all are either enemies or means. Whether fate has placed you upon the same rock and beneath the same rag matters only to me so far as your use. For I acknowledge the truth that a brother is only a competitor and these I call enemies. You are either an enemy or a means depending whether you be man or womb. My highest aim is to reproduce myself and in this no boundaries shall hinder me. My security and death exists only after my enemies are defeated, perpetual war therefore to me is life. I am satisfied only when my seed has overflowed in my enemies women. I have neither allegiance to family, nor to community, nor to state nation or creed but to one law only- growth. To kill, to fuck and to eat, what limits any of these is evil and what increases them is good".
    Germanics are naturally social animals with social instincts. I understand success not just in terms of my own personal success but also the success of my family, community, nation and race. I enjoy my society and I would enjoy it a lot more if it had a healthy nationalist orientation and if we were more forceful with anti-social elements. The nation must be fit and successful. That is why the instinct of national idealism is so important.

    I will quote Hitler on the importance of idealism to the Aryan struggle, from Mein Kampf, volume 1, chapter 11.


    The question as to the ground reasons for the predominant importance of
    Aryanism can be answered by pointing out that it is not so much that the
    Aryans are endowed with a stronger instinct for self-preservation, but
    rather that this manifests itself in a way which is peculiar to
    themselves. Considered from the subjective standpoint, the will-to-live
    is of course equally strong all round and only the forms in which it is
    expressed are different. Among the most primitive organisms the instinct
    for self-preservation does not extend beyond the care of the individual
    ego. Egotism, as we call this passion, is so predominant that it
    includes even the time element; which means that the present moment is
    deemed the most important and that nothing is left to the future. The
    animal lives only for itself, searching for food only when it feels
    hunger and fighting only for the preservation of its own life. As long
    as the instinct for self-preservation manifests itself exclusively in
    such a way, there is no basis for the establishment of a community; not
    even the most primitive form of all, that is to say the family. The
    society formed by the male with the female, where it goes beyond the
    mere conditions of mating, calls for the extension of the instinct of
    self-preservation, since the readiness to fight for one's own ego has to
    be extended also to the mate. The male sometimes provides food for the
    female, but in most cases both parents provide food for the offspring.
    Almost always they are ready to protect and defend each other; so that
    here we find the first, though infinitely simple, manifestation of the
    spirit of sacrifice. As soon as this spirit extends beyond the narrow
    limits of the family, we have the conditions under which larger
    associations and finally even States can be formed.

    The lowest species of human beings give evidence of this quality only to
    a very small degree, so that often they do not go beyond the formation
    of the family society. With an increasing readiness to place their
    immediate personal interests in the background, the capacity for
    organizing more extensive communities develops.

    The readiness to sacrifice one's personal work and, if necessary, even
    one's life for others shows its most highly developed form in the Aryan
    race. The greatness of the Aryan is not based on his intellectual
    powers, but rather on his willingness to devote all his faculties to the
    service of the community. Here the instinct for self-preservation has
    reached its noblest form; for the Aryan willingly subordinates his own
    ego to the common weal and when necessity calls he will even sacrifice
    his own life for the community.

    The constructive powers of the Aryan and that peculiar ability he has
    for the building up of a culture are not grounded in his intellectual
    gifts alone. If that were so they might only be destructive and could
    never have the ability to organize; for the latter essentially depends
    on the readiness of the individual to renounce his own personal opinions
    and interests and to lay both at the service of the human group. By
    serving the common weal he receives his reward in return. For example,
    he does not work directly for himself but makes his productive work a
    part of the activity of the group to which he belongs, not only for his
    own benefit but for the general. The spirit underlying this attitude is
    expressed by the word: WORK, which to him does not at all signify a
    means of earning one's daily livelihood but rather a productive activity
    which cannot clash with the interests of the community. Whenever human
    activity is directed exclusively to the service of the instinct for
    self-preservation it is called theft or usury, robbery or burglary, etc.

    This mental attitude, which forces self-interest to recede into the
    background in favour of the common weal, is the first prerequisite for
    any kind of really human civilization. It is out of this spirit alone
    that great human achievements have sprung for which the original doers
    have scarcely ever received any recompense but which turns out to be the
    source of abundant benefit for their descendants. It is this spirit
    alone which can explain why it so often happens that people can endure a
    harsh but honest existence which offers them no returns for their toil
    except a poor and modest livelihood. But such a livelihood helps to
    consolidate the foundations on which the community exists. Every worker
    and every peasant, every inventor, state official, etc., who works
    without ever achieving fortune or prosperity for himself, is a
    representative of this sublime idea, even though he may never become
    conscious of the profound meaning of his own activity.

    Everything that may be said of that kind of work which is the
    fundamental condition of providing food and the basic means of human
    progress is true even in a higher sense of work that is done for the
    protection of man and his civilization. The renunciation of one's own
    life for the sake of the community is the crowning significance of the
    idea of all sacrifice. In this way only is it possible to protect what
    has been built up by man and to assure that this will not be destroyed
    by the hand of man or of nature.

    In the German language we have a word which admirably expresses this
    underlying spirit of all work: It is Pflichterfüllung, which means the
    service of the common weal before the consideration of one's own
    interests. The fundamental spirit out of which this kind of activity
    springs is the contradistinction of 'Egotism' and we call it 'Idealism'.
    By this we mean to signify the willingness of the individual to make
    sacrifices for the community and his fellow-men.

    It is of the utmost importance to insist again and again that idealism
    is not merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment but rather
    something which has been, is and always will be, a necessary
    precondition of human civilization; it is even out of this that the very
    idea of the word 'Human' arises. To this kind of mentality the Aryan
    owes his position in the world. And the world is indebted to the Aryan
    mind for having developed the concept of 'mankind'; for it is out of
    this spirit alone that the creative force has come which in a unique way
    combined robust muscular power with a first-class intellect and thus
    created the monuments of human civilization.

    Were it not for idealism all the faculties of the intellect, even the
    most brilliant, would be nothing but intellect itself, a mere external
    phenomenon without inner value and never a creative force.

    Since true idealism, however, is essentially the subordination of the
    interests and life of the individual to the interests and life of the
    community, and since the community on its part represents the
    pre-requisite condition of every form of organization, this idealism
    accords in its innermost essence with the final purpose of Nature. This
    feeling alone makes men voluntarily acknowledge that strength and power
    are entitled to take the lead and thus makes them a constituent particle
    in that order out of which the whole universe is shaped and formed.

    Without being conscious of it, the purest idealism is always associated
    with the most profound knowledge. How true this is and how little
    genuine idealism has to do with fantastic self-dramatization will become
    clear the moment we ask an unspoilt child, a healthy boy for example, to
    give his opinion. The very same boy who listens to the rantings of an
    'idealistic' pacifist without understanding them, and even rejects them,
    would readily sacrifice his young life for the ideal of his people.

    Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the
    preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is
    a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist
    ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even
    though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it
    is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued
    with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he
    should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who
    pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudencc to
    criticize her decrees.

    It is just at those junctures when the idealistic attitude threatens to
    disappear that we notice a weakening of this force which is a necessary
    constituent in the founding and maintenance of the community and is
    thereby a necessary condition of civilization. As soon as the spirit of
    egotism begins to prevail among a people then the bonds of the social
    order break and man, by seeking his own personal happiness, veritably
    tumbles out of heaven and falls into hell.

    Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their own individual
    interests, but it will praise those heroes who renounced their own
    happiness.

  3. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 11:02 PM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    586
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Germania Magna View Post
    Germanics are naturally social animals with social instincts. I understand success not just in terms of my own personal success but also the success of my family, community, nation and race.
    Ahh, but there it stops. Why does it not extend? If what is good for an individual is to sacrifice itself for the whole then is it not true that mankind, being itself a whole is who the individual ought to sacrifice? Is not egoism of the group, no less selfish than individual egoism among the group? If altruism is beneficial within the goup than is not that group which acts altruistically for the whole the greatest benefit? On the other hand, if it is true that altruism degrades the further from the individual, then why should sacrifice for community, nation and race form the basis of the group and not the family itself? Hitler sheds no light on this subject either, for below, the only logical conclusion one can draw is towards a humanitarian position. Love of the individual group can exist only in the context of greater love for the whole of man.

    Adolf Hitler:
    As soon as the spirit of egotism begins to prevail among a people then the bonds of the social order break and man, by seeking his own personal happiness, veritably tumbles out of heaven and falls into hell.

    Posterity will not remember those who pursued only their own individual
    interests, but it will praise those heroes who renounced their own
    happiness.
    Is it not clear, that what is true of individuals is so likewise among groups? If so, what of a group that pursues only its individual interests? Is the group exempt from what Hitler was saying, but individuals not?

  4. #104
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    832
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    57
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    36 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    Ahh, but there it stops. Why does it not extend? If what is good for an individual is to sacrifice itself for the whole then is it not true that mankind, being itself a whole is who the individual ought to sacrifice?
    If this were true, it presupposes that the significance of the different 'wholes' to their respective parts (which is the group for the whole of humanity, the family for the whole of the group, the individual for the whole of the family) is of equal worth. Is it? Isn't the individual much more defined by his family and tribal/national relatives than it is (and even these are) by the whole of humanity or even the whole of living organisms? If this is the case, loyalty to a common species or fellow life forms might to an extent be important, but never to the extent that loyalty to one's specific human group is important. There arises a hierarchy of priorities.

    To counter this it can be argued that the whole always preceeds its parts, f.e. there is no race without humanity or humanity without life. But the competition between groups is only a struggle between groups. It's a battle between different parts against eachother, not of a single part against the encompassing whole which is humanity. Of course it isn't, because since the group in question is a part of this whole, it would actually mean that it is fighting itself.

  5. #105
    Senior Member Germania Magna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 04:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Country
    England England
    Gender
    Religion
    reality
    Posts
    200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I'll simply appeal to the authority of one of the teachers that I admire, Epictetus:

    How a man should proceed from the principle of God being the father of all men to the rest.

    Chapter 3 of the Discourses and, for what it's worth, I do take this sort of lecture seriously. I've no mean thoughts about myself, likening myself to a simple animal driven about by amoral impulses or, even worse, a rational being driven by animal impulses. I do believe in God and that God is the father of men in that man shares in the blessed nature of the divine via the power of his mind (intellect, volition, will, etc.), which is capable of ethical introspection and whatnot. I've nothing really to say to the morally ambivalent as, in the end, they'll not learn anything from what I might have ot say.
    You are an animal, dont you know that? You are driven by animal impulses. Your entire will-to-live is an inherited animal instinct that is driven by evolution. That is why you get out of bed in the morning, work for a living and supply yourself with your biological needs. That is why we marry and mate because we are animals who follow the instinct to reproduce. All higher culture is aimed at making human existence more pleasurable, more refined and ultimately at keeping us alive. Our rational minds, our aesthetic perceptions, even our "moral" ideas are all aimed at survival and prosperity. They are so many facets of the human psyche that have evolved through the struggle of the survival of the fittest. That is how Nature works, like it or not, and everything good that we are is the result of that selective process. We are made up of so many traits that Nature has selected to improve our chances of survival. We are nothing else but animals in the process of evolution. You quote Epictetus but he was a rational philosopher and he would certainly agree with me if he lived in this post-Darwin age.

    Our moral ideas are aimed at success and survival and they must all be evaluated on that basis. We create our own moral ideas and we must be critical of them and develop new and better moral ideas, especially when the old moral ideas become harmful and useless. National Socialism has its own morality: whatever is good for our race is good. That is neither egoism nor altruism, it is group loyalty. Any group that lacks that loyalty will simply cease to exist, overrun and outbred by aliens. NS represents the struggle of Aryan man to survive and to prosper and we have nothing to apologise for that! We will criticise any "morality" that goes against the interests of our race and we will treat as enemies any who act against the interests of our race. That is the Natural path and you can slander it all you like with your hatred of animals.

    I find it very disturbing that you are satisfied to quote a passage claiming that "god" is the "father of all men". I dont see anything about the importance of racial loyalty there. And that is the danger of christianity. It is a universalist religion that preaches that all men are the children of god and that they must all care for each other. That christian morality is no use whatsoever to our race. It is an alien morality and the entire christian doctrine is a mortal threat to the survival of our race. Christianity is just about the most harmful doctrine that anyone could have invented to injure the Germanic peoples. Ultimately, christianity should be rooted out entirely from Germanic societies. We dont need some desert Jewish loser to tell us how to think or how to live or how to be "good". Only those religions should be encouraged that come from our own psyche and that express our own natural and healthy instincts. Nothing could be more unhealthy than the otherworldy doctrine of sin and charity.

    Really, christians insult our race when they tell us that we need to be christians and to learn from some Jew. Our race is sufficient unto itself and we dont need to worship any alien god let alone a crucified Jew. That is precisely the sort of nonsense that we need to liberate our minds from. It is time for our race to grow up and to get real about the world if we are to have a future into the next century let alone the next millennium.

    God is dead, get over it!

  6. #106
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 07:43 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,807
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,016
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,162
    Thanked in
    484 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense
    ...the whole of man.
    There is no such thing as the "whole of man".

    This "mankind is one" blubbering gets disproven any time a scientist touches genetics. The three races are not only human races, but actually seperate species, that developed independent from each other.

    And even within the three main species are different races that seperate the groups further.

    And regardless of what one may think about any group, they are not included in the Natural Group Loyalty that instincts gave us as a means of protection. When it looks foreign it is dangerous. If it looks similar, it's potentially trustworthy. We prefer to socialise with people who are similar to us. Even the culture that group brings forth is partly a genetic product, there are even hints that some aspects of culture itself are encoded in DNA, not just as a byproduct of certain shared character traits.

    Natural Law is to defend what is yours, your tribe, your people, your family, your land. If that will does no longer exist, natural law says you deserve to die out. When I sometimes see your nonsense that "nature wont allow this or that", you clearly show that you havent understood Nature's laws at all.

    You see, when a folk doesnt care for itself, no one will. This humanitarian nonsense built ivory towers for the thoroughly disconnected from reality ones, ie "philosophers". And christians. But it's just weakness encoded into "morals" which are against Nature and Life itself.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  7. #107
    Hundhedensk "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hersir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Håløyg
    Ancestry
    Norway
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    I2b1
    mtDNA
    J2a1a1b
    Country
    Norway Norway
    State
    South Trondelag South Trondelag
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Posts
    5,963
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    756
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    553
    Thanked in
    256 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    The three races are not only human races, but actually seperate species, that developed independent from each other.

    And even within the three main species are different races that seperate the groups further.
    This is not correct and does not fit in with the definition of species according to science (biology).


    Once again you present an outrageous claim with no sources whatsoever. If you have any please present them.

    Members of a species can interbreed and create fertile offspring. Biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic likeness. Even though we have different races our genome is extremely similar, to put this in comparison we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees. We also share 98,5% of our genes with the gorilla. The difference between human and chimp is about 10 times as large as between two humans.

    Even though Europeans, Inuits, Africans, Asian and Arabs share 99,9% of our genes the 0,1% is enough to make quite the difference. The small difference is because our species is a relatively new species.

    The chimp has 24 chromosome pairs and about 25 000 genes (94% of their genome has been mapped), this is pretty close to the human 20-25 000 genes and 23 chromosome pairs. Humans and chimps parted ways in evolution around 6 to 8 million years ago. The human protein has in this time only changed 1 amino acid and with around 3 billion DNA base pairs there is 35 million single base differences between us. Only 50 to 100 genes has been lost between the two species.

    Our closest relative, the Neanderthal died out about 24 000 years ago, and in 2006 scientists extracted DNA from the thigh bone of a 38 000 year old Neanderthal. This showed that our genetic material is 99,5% similar to the Neanderthal, and only differ in about 3 million bases. The family Hominidae (aka “great apes”) includes humans, chimps, and gorillas.





    (Livets utvikling 2009 ISBN 978-82-535-3024-6)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
    http://geekapolis.fooyoh.com/geekapo...shlist/1091666
    http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229



    Two different species can sometimes create fertile offspring, but this is extremely rare. All human races can interbreed and produce fertile children without having trouble to conceive.

    Other than that a good argument for different human races is that blacks, Asians, Indians and whites are prune to different diseases. A medicine against high blood pressure is for example more effective on white Americans than blacks. Indians are 4 times as likely to get diabetes than Brits. Doctors are becoming more aware how sickness works different on different peoples. Scientists are working on a new classification system on different population groups, and this follows some of the traditional sorting based on skin color and head structure.

    Race-based medicine is the term for medicines that are targeted at specific ethnic clusters which are shown to have a propensity for a certain disorder
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacogenomics

  8. #108
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    832
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    57
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    93
    Thanked in
    36 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Germania Magna View Post
    You are an animal, dont you know that? You are driven by animal impulses. Your entire will-to-live is an inherited animal instinct that is driven by evolution.
    We are more than an animal. Besides our will-to-live, we also posess a will-to-create. We can fulfill our earthly mission only when the former is made subservient to the latter.
    Since you are a nationalsocialist I can recommend reading the chapter Wille und Trieb in the second part of Rosenberg's Mythus. Darré was another NS ideologue who considered the Will to be something that sets us apart from animals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Germania Magna View Post
    I find it very disturbing that you are satisfied to quote a passage claiming that "god" is the "father of all men". I dont see anything about the importance of racial loyalty there.
    Perhaps a deist analogy might show why this is a false discrepancy. If God is thought of as nature and its laws (which many neo-nationalsocialists do) does this oppose the idea of racial loyalty? When nature is "father [or rather mother] of all men" - which it clearly is - does this mean that the universality of nature implies humanist ethics? Or that racial loyalty therefor means that we should get rid of the universal concept of nature as is done with the universal concept of God?

  9. #109
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    4 Hours Ago @ 07:43 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    45
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,807
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,016
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,162
    Thanked in
    484 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    This is not correct and does not fit in with the definition of species according to science (biology).

    Once again you present an outrageous claim with no sources whatsoever. If you have any please present them.
    Blah blah, it's not that our science / genetics / anthro sections arent full of these articles, but here's one for a start:

    Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientist


    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    Members of a species can interbreed and create fertile offspring. Biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic likeness. Even though we have different races our genome is extremely similar, to put this in comparison we share 99% of our genes with chimpanzees.
    Yes, and would you deny that we and apes are different species? I hope not.

    The thing is, it is possible to interbreed with the great apes, it would create fertile offspring too.

    With horse and donkey, this is not the case, most offspring is infertile and those who are not have mostly stillbirths. Although lions and tigers would never interbreed in nature, it is possible to crossbreed them and the result is mostly fertile.

    Point is, the species barrier for interbreeding is not as clear a line as many people claim. The crux of this is the X chromosome and the biological functions connected with it. If they stay similar even beyond the species split, it's continually possible to interbreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    Even though Europeans, Inuits, Africans, Asian and Arabs share 99,9% of our genes the 0,1% is enough to make quite the difference. The small difference is because our species is a relatively new species.
    Europeans and Asians have at least 4% identifiable Neanderthal genes (most likely more, but much of the genome is neutral so that it's hard to pin down) that Africans have not. Yet, this number you throw is pulled time and again, but they exclude each other.

    The Out of Africa Bullshit was not thought out by actual scientists, it is a lie made into a religious dogma, and like any lie, it requires laws and witchhunting of "dissenting" scientifical finds, ie they get embargoed and shouted down with "racist" and "dangerous" and other stuff of that sort. And there is plenty of evidence that the OoA BS is not true, while there is next to nothing that supports it.

    Even the OoA BS, in order to make even remotely sense, claims that "modern man" (whatever that may be, in contrast to the older, but meanwhile dismissed term "homo sapiens sapiens" - because it offended Africans because they were not part of that definition) interbred with older human species he met in the regions were he came to.

    In contrast to this made-up "modern man" these regional human species lack the evidence for much migration. They are regional.

    So in fact, even if there was a super-mobile species "modern human" - it travelled the entire globe as if all the natural barriers wouldnt exist - which interbred with the regional species, the result would still constitute seperate species, because the mix would never produce a similar result in any seperate region, setting on on very different source material.

    But this super-mobile "modern human" doesnt exist, it is an invention, like the OoA BS is an invention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    The chimp has 24 chromosome pairs and about 25 000 genes (94% of their genome has been mapped), this is pretty close to the human 20-25 000 genes and 23 chromosome pairs. Humans and chimps parted ways in evolution around 6 to 8 million years ago. The human protein has in this time only changed 1 amino acid and with around 3 billion DNA base pairs there is 35 million single base differences between us. Only 50 to 100 genes has been lost between the two species.
    So what you're saying is that humans and apes are the same species?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hersir
    Two different species can sometimes create fertile offspring, but this is extremely rare. All human races can interbreed and produce fertile children without having trouble to conceive.
    Yes, as said above, it'd be possible to interbreed with great apes.

    Does that invalidate that we are different species? No it doesnt.

    And it also doesnt invalidate that Blacks, Asians and Europeans are seperate species, because they developed independent from each other in seperate regions, which makes them seperate species, not just seperate races.

    They may share a common ancestor 6+mio (most likely more) years ago, but this doesnt make them the same species either.

    The commonly used table for species, race etc btw is very inaccurate.

    I'll give it in German because Gattung and Rasse/Art both translate rather interchangeably with both terms species and race, which is inaccurate.

    Reich (animals or plants, flora / fauna)
    Stamm (f.e. Chordata)
    - Unterstamm (f.e. Tunicata, Cephalochordata, Vertebrata)
    (Unterstamm is further seperated into (from Vertebrata): )
    - - Klasse (Cyclostomata, Osteichthyes, Amphibia, Mammalia etc)
    - - - Ordnung
    - - - - Familie (f.e. Hominidae)
    - - - - - Gattung (this is the accurate species slot, or "sort")
    - - - - - - Art (here goes race, unfortunately race is badly defined)
    - - - - - - - Unterart (seperations within race; if the breeding definition of for example dog breeders would be used, only Unterart would be Rasse (race) (Collies, Labradors etc), and Gattung required an Untergattung category).

    The interbreeding barrier often appears only on Family level, so the ability to interbreed says exactly nothing about whether it's seperate species or not, and it's obviously therefore an invalid criteria for the definition sort, species and race.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  10. #110
    Hundhedensk "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hersir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Håløyg
    Ancestry
    Norway
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Y-DNA
    I2b1
    mtDNA
    J2a1a1b
    Country
    Norway Norway
    State
    South Trondelag South Trondelag
    Location
    Norway
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Pisces
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Posts
    5,963
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    756
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    553
    Thanked in
    256 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    Blah blah, it's not that our science / genetics / anthro sections arent full of these articles, but here's one for a start:

    Blacks, Whites and Asians have different ancestors – and did not come from Africa, claims scientist
    That site is hardly any good source, it clearly has an political motive and it has not even been updated since may 2011. Other articles include 4,000-year-old Aryan city discovered in Russia, Missouri Cherokee Tribes proclaim Jewish Heritage etc... It's pretty clear this isn't a scientific site, I never even heard of it before. It's certainly isn't my job to dig up sources. You made the extreme claim, and such needs good evidence, which you have so far failed to provide.

    "Bla blah"? How mature of you.

    Btw, the Peking man is not even an homo sapient, but a homo erectus.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    Yes, and would you deny that we and apes are different species? I hope not.
    Where did I deny that we we are separate species? Humans, gorillas and chimpanzees belong to a subfamily of Hominidae called Homininae.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    The thing is, it is possible to interbreed with the great apes, it would create fertile offspring too.
    You claim it is certain, but it's not. It has been tried before, and it never succeeded.

    In the 1920s the Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/non human ape hybrid. At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy

    In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea.

    In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.

    However, despite speculation, no case of a human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed to exist
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

    There have been no scientifically verified specimens of a human/ape hybrid.

    There are many biological barriers to prevent this from happening. For one, the sperm cells would not recognize the egg cell and the egg cell would probably not allow the sperm to enter. Secondly, even if conception did occur, the offspring would most likely abort at an early stage.
    Because the offspring has an odd number of chromosomes it can't seperate its chromosomes during meiosis and produce haploid gametes, this is the reason for sterility.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_the_chimpanzee is confirmed as fake.


    Keep in mind that that there is a differance in the chromosonal numbers between chimpanzee/gorilla and humans (like I wrote in my earlier post).

    There has been breeding between goat and sheep. The sheep has 54 chromosomes and the goat 60, the offspring was sterile with 57 chromosomes. They belong to different genus.


    Europeans and Asians have at least 4% identifiable Neanderthal genes (most likely more, but much of the genome is neutral so that it's hard to pin down) that Africans have not. Yet, this number you throw is pulled time and again, but they exclude each other.
    Not at least 4%, but between 1 and 4%. Many people on skadi have taken the DNA test by 24andme (myself included), but noone has over 4%. However you are correct that genetic evidence suggests that Neanderthals are closer to non-African than African anatomically modern humans, which is probably due to interbreeding between Neanderthals and the ancestors of the Eurasians.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet
    So what you're saying is that humans and apes are the same species?
    Again, where did I say that? Always trying to pin strawmen


    Do you have something more concrete than alleged rumors?

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What to Eat for a Stronger Immune System
    By Nachtengel in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 27th, 2016, 12:12 AM
  2. Are Ethnic Mixed Children Physically Stronger?
    By FearingAfrica in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Thursday, September 29th, 2011, 09:27 AM
  3. "We Afrikaners Are Stronger Than Ever"
    By Nachtengel in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, April 11th, 2009, 08:54 PM
  4. Race or Religion: Which Is Stronger?
    By Blutwölfin in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Friday, August 25th, 2006, 06:04 AM
  5. Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts
    By Thruthheim in forum Alternative Sciences
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 12:52 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
  •