Saturday, December 20, 2025

why did the nazis get the idea of the aryan race backwards?

because they were racist. stated simply.

the nazis were operating on one of a number of competing hypothesis for the indo-european urheimat, a german word that means "homeland". after realizing that the european and indian languages derive from a common source, linguists, archaeologists and anthropologists (this was before watson & crick. there were no geneticists.) sought out to make sense of why and how that could be and try to piece together a theory about it. this is good science and all ideas should be considered, to start. it was actually an australian named gordon chile that came up with the idea that the urheimat was in germany, and a german master race of blond-haired and blue-eyed aryans migrated out of germany, across the steppes and into india, bringing european genotypes and phenotypes with them. 

there's nothing inherently racist or particularly egregious about this theory. it was a decent guess based on the evidence in front of gordon chile as to how europeans and indians came to speak the same language that made sense in the era of global european colonialism. but it was one of several in existence at the time, and the fact is that we know today that it is wrong.

the theory that turned out to be correct (and proven beyond a doubt by modern genetics) was the one eventually written by marija gimbutas, that proved through careful archaeological work that the aryan urheimat was not in germany but rather in ukraine and that we can trace the spread of the aryans via their grave sites, called kurgans, from ukraine outwards in many directions - to europe, but also to china, to india, to persia, and to asia minor and south to egypt and mesopotamia. these people had horses and wagons and whether they were the absolute first people to invent the wheel or not, they certainly made good use of it to violently conquer and slaughter and replace the people around them. that's not nazism, although many ignorant people continue to think that is. that's actually well-established peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary science.

some of the initial ideas about these aryans are correct - they were gigantic, compared to settled peoples. we understand this today as a consequence not of differences in genetics but of differences in diet. humans are not pea plants like mendel might guess; we're not tall and short, and don't come out in some mix of dominance or submission. the nazis would have believed that, but that's wrong for this allele, for this phenotype. rather, height demonstrates tremendous plasticity. if we eat more then we grow more and if we eat less, or less nutritiously, then we stunt. we understand today that the aryan steppe nomads were bigger because they ate better food - more protein, wild grains - and that the settled people were smaller because agriculture had led to overpopulation, poor soil quality, less nutritious foods and deficits of protein. we have also recently learned that the nomads had much larger brains, not because they were superior and more evolved in some way, but rather because poor nutrition resulting from agriculture led to decreases in human brain sizes in settled populations, not just relatively as the bodies shrunk, but actually absolutely. agriculture and civilization really did make the settled peoples small and weak and stupid and the superior nomadic aryans really did just ride in and slaughter them all, like rats biting the heads off of house mice, or like wolves eating domesticated dogs for breakfast.

but aryan is the same word as iran. arya exists as a place name in afghanistan, but not in germany. linguists claim ireland is a false cognate with arya, but i've never been fully convinced. regardless, there are almost no traces of aryan place names in europe that we can't expain by late migration (the alans, for example, settled in france, and disappeared but left a strong trace in human and place names), but a great many place names in the east that appear to have been there for centuries. 

in fact, the science states without ambiguity that these aryans, from ukraine, that spread their language and genes (r1*) throughout europe and asia, were not very european looking at all, but rather more central asian, in phenotype.

we needed the science of genetics to establish itself before we could properly understand this.

- the aryan race was indeed much larger - 6 or 7 feet tall - than settled agricultural populations, and it was warrior based, but that was not genetic, it was cultural and nutritional. they were also of a slightly darker skinned complexion (not quite olive or brown, but a beige or mixed white) than western europeans and mostly had brown eyes and black hair.
- blonde and red hair do seem to have developed in europe, but those traits were already in europe when the aryans got there. through a process of likely sexual selection (read: monster aryan men raping pretty little blond girls, many times, and over and over), the indigenous non-aryan europeans, who spoke a language with a traceable substrate but that is otherwise almost entirely lost, managed to retain that phenotypic trait, despite the aryan invasion, and not because of it. it is almost the only thing left of the indigenous european population, after the aryan invasion.
- blue eyes spread from finland in a manner that's still not fully understand, but was entirely independent of the aryan invasion into europe, and mostly just random genetic drift, aided by slight sexual selection.

this, in fact, repeated for thousands of years, until the mongols were blocked entry by a coalition of slavs and germans. the mongols were the last steppe warriors to threaten europe and no longer spoken an aryan language, but were essentially what the aryans looked and acted like.

in the end, the steppe cultures were defeated with guns and tanks. agriculture won - smaller brain sizes and all. but these periodic steppe invasions brought genetic diversity with them, which europeans needed to continue to evolve. the fact that the nordic europeans were at the end point of these aryan invasion routes likely did help europeans become a master race and conquer the world in the 17th century, but that was the end of the long war that had been happening since darius.

so, the nazis got this all backwards; the aryans, the yamnaya, were indeed very much a master race, and they did slaughter and kill and replace much of the world. however, they were not europeans in the sense we understand it; they did not have blond hair or blue eyes and were not pasty white but a kind of darker white. they were not the nordic race. the nazis believed the aryans were from germany, and used the terms nordic and aryan interchangeably, but the nordics and aryans were distinctly different groups and the aryans in truth nearly wiped the nordics out, leaving almost nothing of them but certain phenotypic traits in the places that the nodics were wiped out from. because, hey, blonde chicks are hot.

it's not entirely clear how an actual nazi from the 30s would react to any of this, if explained to them now. they had faith that the nordic race was the master race that populated the continents. the science says that's wrong - that the nordic race was a victim of the aryan expansion and not the cause of it.
an actual contemporary nazi movement in europe or canada would support the following political positions:

- inferior migrant workers should work under the table for the benefit of the aryan race; migrant workers should do the jobs that canadians don't want to do. they might support literal work camps, but that would probably be a little overkill. something like the temporary foreign worker program would be more along the lines of a contemporary version of nazi labour theory.

- competition between like-minded firms should be minimized. rather, the economy should be cartelized and overseen by government. in canada, the word we would use for a nazi cartel would be a crown corporation.

- europe (canada) should massively increase military spending. spending on the military is not just good for self-defence, it is good for the economy.

- there should be massive state expenditure on modernizing infrastructure, like high-speed electric rail networks.

- islam is superior to christianity because islam is a master morality and christianity is a slave morality. chrtistianity should be altered so it is more like islam, and the masses should be converted to the new militant form of christianity. however, the elite know better than to concern themselves with such nonsense and should focus on germanic concepts of culture and religion. the islamified version of christianity would just be a tool to control the masses with, but done in a way that corrects the mistakes made in the earlier roman empires. it is not clear if the nazis would have sought to simply replace christians with muslims if the christians refused to change, but they might have done that. it sounds like something they'd do.

- there is no valid law except the state and the state determines law as it decides. there is no common law.

- communism, marxism, socialism and anarchism are taboo topics, not to be learned about or talked about in any way. proponents of these ideologies should be ostracized, or killed.

- russians are an inferior race because they are half mongoloid and russia needs to be conquered by europe to provide for more living space for europeans. therefore, the nazis would support nato expansion into finland, the baltics, belarus, poland, romania and ukraine.

- generous state subsidies should be provided for the master race, based on re-distributing wealth upwards from the labour of the inferior migrant workers, who do the work that the master race doesn't want to do.

- a new western roman empire, a fourth reich, must emerge that unites all of the west under a single military, social and political command. the romans, after all, were aryans (a claim that is actually correct, in the sense that they meant it, although their use of the term aryan was backwards). therefore, the second reich was properly continued in germania, as the holy roman empire, and the fourth reich must be a new aryan empire that unites the entire germanic world under one control structure. the fourth reich would be something like nato, in construction, but with a unified political command.

- there should be no political boundaries in europe or north america but should rather be complete freedom of movement across the continents.

who does that actually sound like to you?
i would not have voted for robert borden. i think wilfred laurier is the best prime minister the country has ever had, by a large margin, and would have certainly supported laurier, and certainly supported the laurier liberals, and not just because i'm a little bit french canadian.

but these people sound like robert borden. a lot.

they do not even remotely sound like adolf hitler, not even a little.

this has no remote resemblance to nazi ideology. rather, they sound like canadians from the early part of the 20th century.

robert borden, who was prime minister around world war one, campaigned on the slogan "a white canada" and succeeded in almost completely blocking non-white immigrants from entering the country until the pearson-trudeau government opened immigration policy. there were essentially no black, middle eastern or asian people in canada until about 1970; the country was something like 98% european. while the civil rights movement was happening in the united states, canada was an essentially homogeneous white society. this was strongest in the western part of the country, but was due to the fact that the tories were initially in control of the country almost continually up to world war two. this was a very british, conservative party ideology.

the nazis, on the other hand, aggressively prevented anybody that wasn't white from trying to migrate. if you were considered sufficiently european, you could come in and out of germany, but you could not leave germany if you were jewish, black, gypsy, slavic (they thought poles, czechs and ukrainians were "mongoloids") or gay, as you were under essential house arrest until you could be enslaved by the master race. 

the nazis would have scoffed at the concept of expelling the inferior races, as it would mean that the gemans would be forced to work in the factories. conservatives, on the other hand, are in favour of keeping out immigrants precisely because they steal their jobs.

the nazis were weird and hard to understand using contemporary political ideas. they were a kind of vulgar marxist on some level, in the sense that they sought to use marxist ideology to advance the interests of an upper class, rather than the interests of a proletariat. they sought to use marxism against the marxists. being a communist, marxist, socialist or anarchist would get you sent to the work camps, partly because they'd call you a jew because they thought socialism was jewish. the nazis were actually kind of more like modern liberals, economically; it was a type of state capitalism. they were not very conservative in any sense of the term, except the most culturally narrowest, as inheritors of the prussian junker class system.

the nazis also loved islam because they saw it is a militaristic version of christianty and aligned with muslim groups to fight the british everywhere and anywhere. the purpose of what these people in the article are trying to do is reduce muslim migration to canada, but the nazis were actually in favour of muslim immigration and actually sought to build military and political alliances with muslims, often against christians, wherever they went. the nazis showed no aversion to arabs, turks, north africans or iranians, unless they were mistaken as jews.

these people are probably better described as trying to bring back the british empire than trying to bring back nazi europe and they may have some valid points to make, in that regard. if canadian law attempts to criminalize speech of this sort (it does not, in truth. that claim is false.), then the problem would be with canadian law, which would need to be corrected to allow for a more free exchange of ideas, but that isn;t actually the case. canadians should not be ashamed of their history or afraid to identify as who they are