"Michael Kuettner" > wrote in news:h3d6np$d1n$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Michel Boucher wrote:
>>> It's somewhere in Maser or Kershaw. They're citing an interrogation
>>> with Göring around the Nürnberg trials.
>>
>> And what, you can't find it in the actual transcripts?
>>
>> Let me give you a hand: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/
>>
> Those are the trial transcriptions. <sigh>

You said it was from the Nuremberg trial so I invited you to find the
exchange. Is this too much for you? It's called "using primary sources"
in history.

In fact a rather extensive search of the Nuremberg transcripts has not
revealed this comment by Göring. And even if it did, how can you know it
was true? We know the Hakenkreuz was chosen as a symbol in 1919, at least
two years before Göring met Hitler (1922) so he certainly had little if no
influence whatsover on that choice.

> It means that the swastika is _NOT_ a symbol specific to that group.
> There goes your Indian origin.

I didn't say it was specific. I said it had its modern origins in Indian
symbolism. That connection could be 3000-4000 years old. I don't think,
given that much time that it seems more improbable rather than less so,
unless you don't understand cultural transference. The more time between
the points, the more likely the transference is to have taken place, unless
an impenetrable geographic barrier stands in the way. Not the case here.

>> But Suomi is found within an Indo-European area, as are the other two
>> Finno-Ugric languages: Türkçe and Magyar. Geographic connection
>> certainly explains the transference of a symbol from one group to
>> another.
>>
> Or it means that each group developed it by themselves.
> Boats or agriculture was developed independently, too.

Can you prove that boats and agriculture did not have a single common
source within the proper geographic context? Simply gainsaying everything
I propose is not a proper argument, q.v.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

>> Another example of possible transference in Suomi is the introduction of
>> the root "sat-" for "one hundred" which is most likely an import from
>> Russian. I am merely using this example to demonstrate that geographic
>> propinquity has a definite impact on cultural and linguistic
>> transference. It can be achieved in other ways as well, but that is a
>> primary conduit for transmission.
>>
> Unless there is no transference.

Well, then it should be possible to show that ancient Suomi has the root
sat- *before* contact with the Russians. Otherwise, my proposition is at
least valid. Simply saying "No it isn't" is a load of ********.

> It's up to you to show that the groups mentioned above took the
> symbol from IE speakers.

Actually, the symbol can be found everywhere, but as I suggested, it had
its modern origins in Indian symbolism and I can at the very least
demonstrate a path of connection.

The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India where it
has religious significance) until interest in its "importance" was
rekindled by the writings of Madame Blavatsky (who claimed to have spent
two years studying in Tibet as well as to have later spent time in India)
when she brought it out of obscurity.

>>> Stay with your "Indian origin". Bye.
>>
>> I guess you don't like new ideas.
>
> What new ideas ? The only thing you've shown is confusion
> and weaseling.

We are a font of dourness, are we not.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes