Michel Boucher wrote:
> "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.
>
No, what I said is still above. Learn to read.
Otherwise, it seems that old Hermann was telling big tales again.
The Swastika entered the Nazi party via the Thule-Gesellschaft;
a really nasty bunch.
The man who introduced it was Friedrich Krohn, a member of
Thule, Germanenorden and the NSDAP.
A little further digging seems to point to that Swastika as a representation
of Thor's hammer; no good luck charme at all.

> 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.
>
See above.

>> 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.
The "modern origin" didn't surface until the 1970ies.
India in Germany in the 1920ies was only known to some linguists;
the symbolism entirely unknown.

> 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.
>
Then explain the use of a Swastika by the Minoans.
Superior culture, non IE, no transfer.
That was another example, 4000 years old.
Unless you can show that cultural transfer happened - and for this
you would have to show that the symbol had the same meaning in the cultures.
I don't hold my breath ...


>>> 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.:
>
Since American Indians developed agriculture before contact,
here's your example.
Since American Indians used the Swastika before contact, that's
another example.
And you still haven't got it : You make a claim, you back it up.

> 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 ********.
>

We're talking about the Swastika, not loan words.
Or are you weaseling again ?

>> 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.
>
Then demonstrate ...

> The swastika had largely been ignored as a symbol (except in India where
> it has religious significance)

And in Scandinavia as Thor's hammer, and and and.

> 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.
>
It gets better and better ...

That was your demonstration ? Hmmm

>>>> 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.

No, I just don't like permanent evasions.
Plus, you don't seem to get the simple fact that adapting a language
or words from that language doesn't mean that religious symbols
are also adapted.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner