The Swastika in Jrock

[Illaparatzo-sama]

Uhhh. Aryan race beginning in India? Does that sound odd to anyone else? >_>;

 

[TyPe-ZeRo]

ironically, the guy in that little moving gif looks like one of hitlers soldats... hmm
Could it be, since that Germany was Japan's ally at the time (I think.. correct me if i'm wrong) had influenced the use of the swastika? I mean if they were allies, i'm pretty sure there would be a time where the Japanese, and the Nazi Germany had been in the same room, and Japan had gotten influenced by any of this? I think swastika means well-being from that other thread we had. Just my thought on this

 

[Winter]

The concept of aryanism actually began in the garden of eden, somewhere in the midsts of northern africa.

Technically, according to ancient texts, and theological studies of Thulian mythos, Aryans were ordained by G*d, I forget whether its Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, to be pure among the blessed ones of humans.

To mix science with religion, humanity has 3 races, along with the said 'aryan' race, who were commanded by G*d to remain pure so that they may inherit the earth and govern over the other blessed ones.

Current Neo-Nazi's try to manipulate this doctrine as their own, but there is little proof of this word as the Aryan being caucasian peoples. If you want to get historical, the aryan in the lore refers to the peoples of ancient Arabia.

 

[TyPe-ZeRo]

Someone did their homework

 

[bossel]

Current Neo-Nazi's try to manipulate this doctrine as their own, but there is little proof of this word as the Aryan being caucasian peoples. If you want to get historical, the aryan in the lore refers to the peoples of ancient Arabia.

Actually, Aryans very probably were members of the Caucasoid race, there is not much doubt about that. What is highly doubtful though, is their appearance to be Nordic (IE blond, blue eyes etc.). Since the origin of the Indo-Europeans (from whom the Indo-Aryans derived) is considered to be somewhere to the North of Black &/or Caspian Sea, they looked probably more like modern Caucasians. Aryans were no race of their own, at best they might be considered a sub-race of Caucasoids.

since that Germany was Japan's ally at the time (I think.. correct me if i'm wrong) had influenced the use of the swastika?

The relationship between Germany & Japan was not that easy. Up to 1940/1 the Germans even supported the Chinese in their fight against the Japanese.

 

[Winter]

Actually, Aryans very probably were members of the Caucasoid race, there is not much doubt about that. What is highly doubtful though, is their appearance to be Nordic (IE blond, blue eyes etc.). Since the origin of the Indo-Europeans (from whom the Indo-Aryans derived) is considered to be somewhere to the North of Black &/or Caspian Sea, they looked probably more like modern Caucasians. Aryans were no race of their own, at best they might be considered a sub-race of Caucasoids.

You are aware I was telling you mythology, right? I mean, you didnt think Thule was real, did you?

In the Thulian myths Aryans are twisted into being a seperate human race.

Its a myth buddy.

 

[bossel]

You are aware I was telling you mythology, right? I mean, you didnt think Thule was real, did you?

In the Thulian myths Aryans are twisted into being a seperate human race.

Its a myth buddy.

Well, yeah, it seems most of your post is mythological, though I cannot really recognize thy myth you are talking about. Any sources?
Anyway, Thule (as a place) was probably real. If I remember correctly in ancient Greek mythology Thule is mentioned. The place they have meant may have been the Norwegian coast, or some island in the North (eg. Iceland).

 

[Winter]

Thule is the nordic version of Atlantis.

If you want references and sources, go to your local Masonic temple and either join, or become really good friends with a member and extort the info out of him.

 

[bossel]

Thule is the nordic version of Atlantis.

If you want references and sources, go to your local Masonic temple and either join, or become really good friends with a member and extort the info out of him.

I think, Thule is a bit closer to reality than Atlantis (although you can't be absolutely sure for Atlantis either). The Greek who is said to have mentioned Thule first, Pytheas ( Pytheas - Wikipedia ), probably either travelled himself to Northern Europe or met people who had been there. What the guys of the Thule-society made of it is, of course, a different matter.

Aah, Free Masons! Hmm, a lot of rumours about them & it seems there are a lot of circles who claim to be, but actually aren't. Furthermore, the differences between Free Masons in different countries seem to be significant. I looked around a bit, but I didn't find any references to Thule in Free Masonry online.

If you're referring to the German Thule-society: they were organized like a Free Mason lodge, but AFAIK weren't actual Free Masons (at least of the modern kind, adhering to the 1717 Constitution), though the founder was probably initiated/introduced to some kind of Turkish Freemasonry.

 

[catriona]

The Swastika is a very, very old symbol that originated in central asia. It precedes all current world religions. The one used as a buddhist symbol is DIFFERENT from the ones the nazis used, its arms turn the other way.

I still feel uncomfortable when I see swastika jewellery, symbols, etc... but that's just me.

 

[Maciamo]

I think they do use it as a symbol (like Gaki said) but very few will know know it is associated with the Nazi Party and World War Two. They aren't neo-nazis, just really ignorant to all the emotions that come attached to that symbol.

How comes they haven't learned at least once at school about Nazism ? Japan not being a western country is no excuse. Japan was allied to Germany and Italy, and therefore Japanese have better reason to learn about that than, say Australians, who live so far from Europe and didn't really have any fighting against the Nazi (btw, when I was in Australia, I noticed a typically Aussie easy-goingness in their statement about nazism, as it seems people also didn't really understand it, or just didn't feel concerned. But at least they know what a swastika stands for).

I suppose that it's not in the Japanese "world history" school program because they would have to explain all the atrocious things Japan did as well.
Another weird thing about the Japanese educational system is that high school students have to choose between "Japanese history", "world history" or "geography" (and maybe a couple of other choices). As if the history of one country could be taught independantly from the rest ! How can they understand the import of the Chinese culture (rice culivation, Buddhism, Confucianism, kanji, city planning, "celestial emperor"'s concept, etc.) without learning about how it developed in China first ? How can they understand the sudden arrival of Europeans in the 16th c. without learning about the European Renaissance, technology, religion, political system and colonization ? How can they understand Meiji, the biggest cultural revolution ever in Japan, without understanding all Western history, political, economical and social system of the time + the progressive developemnt of sciences and philosophy since the Antiquity ? How can they understand WWII without learning about Japan's alliances and what happened in Europe at that time. Everything is interconnected. People who don't have a global view of history will never understand it, even for a relatively isolated country like Japan. No wonder most Japanese are completely (and I mean it) ignorant of the rest of the world. Never seen that before (no, actually in the US and Australia ), not even in the Middle-East, India or S-E Asian countries where they rarely travel, are 3rd world educated, but even their geography beats that of Japanese. -end of rant (I should now translate it into Japanese and sent it to the Japanese ministry od education...)

 

[Maciamo]

By the way, the crucifix isnt just a symbol of God or the saviour, its also a symbol of torture, and devastation.

Personally I feel as uncomfortable seeing a crucifix (even writing the word!) than a swastika, as it conjures up images of atrocities commited by the crusaders ("crusade" comes from cross/crucifix), the massacre between Catholics and Protestant (not yet over, as Irish people know), the Spanish and Portuguese forced convertion and execution of miscrents during the colonization of America, or just the Spanish Inquisition in Europe (not just Spain, but the Spanish Netherlands, i.e. roughly nowadays' Benelux). Even Nazi had part of their ideology from Christianity, and so does the American neo-nazi Ku Klux Klan. All these can be said to have killed in front and for a cross.

I hope that help some of you understand why all religious symbols have been banned from public schools and institutions in France, as it should be everywhere.

As always, Japan seem so naive and ignorant about everything a little bit serious. That also includes sexual harassment, teenage prostitution, political corruption, nature destruction, immigration and general preconceptions toward foreigners and the rest of the world as a uniform entity... For all these things Japan is still almost a developping country, deeply traditional and hard to adapt to societal and ideological changes.
Please read Alex Kerr's Dogs and Demons to understand how backward Japan is ideologically (esp. politically).

 

[Maciamo]

Well the swastikas hitler used had many meanings originally like some Naitive Amricans used that symbol for good luck and then hitler came aloong and used it for hir campain of eliteness

I didn't know native Americans used it, but the origins of the word "swastika" is from Sanskrit (swasti=well being, from "su"="good" and "asti"="being").

It's interesting that the same Indian symbol was already used by Amerindians. That let us wonder whether that symbol didn't have an even much more ancient origin, possibly before the rise of civilizations. But if it did, Europeans should have used it too, as the Indians who created Hinduism were a group of the original Aryans from the Caucassus/Black Sea area that split into Indian, Persian and European branches about 5000 years ago. As the first humans crossed from Asia to America about 15-10.000 years ago, the swastika might have had a more widespread prehistorical use at least from Eastern Europe and Central Asia to Siberia.

 

[Maciamo]

i wonder if there will be a time when this symbol can be used in its original sense again...

In India, I saw swastikas everywhere (like 100 a day or something). They are clearly different of the Nazi ones, not only because they are anti-clockwise, but also because they are red (instead of black), have ornamental ending and dots betwen their arms.

One can thus easily distinguish the meaning of each swastika. Nevertheless, the swastika used in Japan and other East-Asian countries normally don't have the dots and ornaments and are sometimes black (but anti-clockwise, unlike the nazi one).

 

[Maciamo]

Actually, Aryans very probably were members of the Caucasoid race, there is not much doubt about that. What is highly doubtful though, is their appearance to be Nordic (IE blond, blue eyes etc.). Since the origin of the Indo-Europeans (from whom the Indo-Aryans derived) is considered to be somewhere to the North of Black &/or Caspian Sea, they looked probably more like modern Caucasians.

Technically, we could say that the Aryans were the branch that invaded India in the 2nd millenium BCE. But I usually consider the European branch as Aryan too, as they were the same ethico-cultural group. Have you ever compared Sanskrit with Latin or Ancient Greek ? Strking ressemblance. As for the blue eyes and fair hair, I think most if not all Aryans/Caucasoids had at least blue eyes. In Europe, not only the Germanic, but also the Celtic and Slavic ethnic groups have blue eyes. It's difficult to tell exactly for Latin and Greek, as they have mixed with the original inhabitants, then with Phoenician/Carthagenian, then with Germanic tribes (Goths, Suevir...) then with Arabs (esp. in Spain), then with Danish Viking and Normans... Consequently, some Italian or Spaniard have blue eyes but might be due to the Germanic and Viking blood. Nonetheless, it was said of Ancient Greeks that they had blond hair and blue eyes. I guess that the warm climates also changed the melanine level with time.

The most striking proof that Aryans had blue eyes is that some high caste Indians nowadays, who haven't mixed with the local black-skinned Dravidians (that was the point of the caste system ; dividing races), still have fair skin as Europeans but also fair eyes (usually grey, but sometimes blue). I have seen a few people like that in India, but watching Bollywood movies is as convincing (as most actors/actress are rich upper-caste and have very fair complexion). Check this picture of Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai :

 

[Winter]

Personally I feel as uncomfortable seeing a crucifix (even writing the word!) than a swastika, as it conjures up images of atrocities commited by the crusaders ("crusade" comes from cross/crucifix), the massacre between Catholics and Protestant (not yet over, as Irish people know), the Spanish and Portuguese forced convertion and execution of miscrents during the colonization of America, or just the Spanish Inquisition in Europe (not just Spain, but the Spanish Netherlands, i.e. roughly nowadays' Benelux). Even Nazi had part of their ideology from Christianity, and so does the American neo-nazi Ku Klux Klan. All these can be said to have killed in front and for a cross.

I hope that help some of you understand why all religious symbols have been banned from public schools and institutions in France, as it should be everywhere.

Well while I'm with you on the interpretation of the cross, I am not with you that religous symbols should be banned everywhere.

I used to wear a crucifix upside down during my days in high school, simply to oppose the popular view of the christian-ruled schools I went to. That and I'm a Satanist...

But at any rate, my point is many saw my defiance through symbolism as offensive. So what happened? I was expelled. First, I had been 'banned' from the school 3 seperate times, before they kicked me out for good.

Its freedom of speech. I wasnt hurting anyone, and even when I see someone wearing a cross 'correctly', while it upsets me, it isnt hurting me. It isnt intruding on my life. So I strongly disagree that symbols like that should be banned.

Let the christians preach their word. Let the skinheads spread their hate. Let the anti-christs defy. Just so long as nobody hurts anybody.

 

[thomas]

I think they do use it as a symbol (like Gaki said) but very few will know know it is associated with the Nazi Party and World War Two. They aren't neo-nazis, just really ignorant to all the emotions that come attached to that symbol.

Look at one of these ignorants living in my neighbourhood. Pic taken 3 weeks ago. Worse, I am getting used to that view.

 

[Maciamo]

Let the christians preach their word. Let the skinheads spread their hate. Let the anti-christs defy. Just so long as nobody hurts anybody.

I disafree with that. Hurting doesn't have to be physical. Actually, emotional pain can be much worse than physical one, and it often pass unnoticed.

 

[Winter]

I disagree with that. Hurting doesn't have to be physical. Actually, emotional pain can be much worse than physical one, and it often pass unnoticed.

And this is the US.

I respect that you disagree, but here are my thoughts.

Physical pain lead to death. Emotional pain can be just as, if not even more scarring.

But the reality of life is that its harsh. Thats just how it is. We've evolved more to the point of not resorting to physical violence. However, as I said before, reality is a harsh mistress.

I think its wrong to censor oneself. If someone wants to call me a dirty worthless chink, then by all means let them call me that. Its my duty, as a person in this life, striving to make a name for myself in the world, that I am strong enough to take that, and move beyond it.

If someone wants to say Jesus was a worthless heb of an individual, then they should be able to say that. Its f*cking freedom. Freedom to ostricize the self from society by making such painful remarks. Freedom not just to speak the mind, and preach ones beliefs, but to make oneself the antagonist of anything remotely decent. Its our freedom, here in the US. Its what we've fought for on so many levels, and I'll be damned if that freedom is taken away just because it hurts someones feelings.

This is another reason why I'm so serious about running for office.

 

[Gaki]

Look at one of these ignorants living in my neighbourhood. Pic taken 3 weeks ago. Worse, I am getting used to that view.

The one in your pic is backwards ;

 

[Gaki]

As always, Japan seem so naive and ignorant about everything a little bit serious. That also includes sexual harassment, teenage prostitution, political corruption, nature destruction, immigration and general preconceptions toward foreigners and the rest of the world as a uniform entity... For all these things Japan is still almost a developping country, deeply traditional and hard to adapt to societal and ideological changes.
Please read Alex Kerr's Dogs and Demons to understand how backward Japan is ideologically (esp. politically).

But then the same things happen in "Western" society.

No one is perfect...

 

[hyde-sama]

urm.... i think i'll pass

 

[Maciamo]

Its f*cking freedom. Freedom to ostricize the self from society by making such painful remarks. Freedom not just to speak the mind, and preach ones beliefs, but to make oneself the antagonist of anything remotely decent. Its our freedom, here in the US. Its what we've fought for on so many levels, and I'll be damned if that freedom is taken away just because it hurts someones feelings.

Then you are already dammned. One of the main difference bewteen the US and Europe regarding freedom od speech is the all-pervading American "political correctness". How comes more people aren't fighting against this hypocritical p.c. made and imposed by politicians if they really care so much about freedom of speech as you say. Why is it that Americans feel ashamed of calling someone "black", "oriental" or "blind", while it's perfectly acceptable in Europe ? Isn't it brainwashing of the US government through the education system ?

Freedom to ostricize the self from society by making such painful remarks

This discussion started when I said that religious symbol should be banned in public schools and institutions. You replied that you prefered freedom of speech, even if it hurts people emotionally.

My point is, do you prefer a violent society where each person is free to insult, emotionally hurt each other, possess guns, etc., or a safe society with more self-restrictions (respect of others, honesty, not saying things that could hurt other people...) like Japan ? I immediately choose the second possibility.

Total freedom equals to chaos. If you want total freedom, go to some countries in Africa like Congo or Ethiopia, but I can't garantee you come back alive, as people are free to kill you (even if there are laws, if they cannot be enforced, it's as if therer were none).

Unfortunately, too many Americans believe so much in the virtue of "freedom" (a word they don't understand), that they think everything is allowed in its name. My opinion is that all societies need rules (=laws), and where there are rules there are restrictions to liberties.

 

[Maciamo]

But then the same things happen in "Western" society.

It happens to a different scale. The problem in Japan is that the people in power (politicians...) don't care at all or just don't realise the potential danger because they are too selfish and narrow-minded. In Western countries, the governement's role is to educate the people and make rules for companies to prevent these things (sexual harassement, racism, ecological destruction, etc.). In Japan, it is as if the governemnt were encouraging or sponsoring these activities. That's a completely different situation than the West.

 

[Winter]

My point is, do you prefer a violent society where each person is free to insult, emotionally hurt each other, possess guns, etc., or a safe society with more self-restrictions (respect of others, honesty, not saying things that could hurt other people...) like Japan ? I immediately choose the second possibility.

Total freedom equals to chaos. If you want total freedom, go to some countries in Africa like Congo or Ethiopia, but I can't garantee you come back alive, as people are free to kill you (even if there are laws, if they cannot be enforced, it's as if therer were none).

Unfortunately, too many Americans believe so much in the virtue of "freedom" (a word they don't understand), that they think everything is allowed in its name. My opinion is that all societies need rules (=laws), and where there are rules there are restrictions to liberties.

I do believe you confuse my approval of freedom to say whatever you can without implying infraction on laws *ie: "I want you dead" vs. "I'm going to kill you"*

You know, instead of explaining myself, I'll just answer your question.

The two societies; I prefer the first.

I'm glad to know you think I'm damned.