Su-asti-ka
 

Swastika banner flies over New York beaches

The above new story concerns a groups of UFO cultists, the Raelians, who venerate the swastika. While people in the West have been programmed like Pavlov dogs to foam at the mouth at every swastika they see, the Raelians' far bigger transgression is that they are a UFO cult. Beyond that, I agree with their stance concerning the swastika. People's reaction to it is largely silly and stupid. Unproductive, at the very least.

This kind of ties into another thread where people were either attacking Sid Vicious for wearing a swastika t-shirt or being an apologist. both sides miss the point entirely: it's just a f-ucking symbol, get over it. If he wore it for the shock value, it's YOUR fault for getting shocked by it in the first place.

It boils down to this: the swastika didn't do s-hit to anybody. It is, in fact, the oldest symbol known to the human race--about 12,000 years old:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...541903b077.jpg
These objects from Mezine, Ukraine dated at 10,000 BCE are made from mammoth ivory and believed to be bracelets.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...94523fd376.jpg
From India circa 9000 years ago.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/or...abe12203f6.jpg
From the Vinca culture of Bosnia circa 8000 years ago.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...3b1b9ead04.jpg
From Sumeria circa 5500 years ago.

http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/73...8649c43c11.jpg
Ancient Greek pottery.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...0ac4f7d4a9.jpg
Tibetan swastika from the Iron Age showing its astrological origins.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or...a1376995d2.jpg
The origin of the swastika is likely found in the stars--the asterisms of the dippers specifically. These would denote the four directions which mark the two equinoxes and solstices which are seen as gateways to the heavens.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...33af723214.jpg
American Indian basketball team.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...f92969c545.jpg
Aztec calendar.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...9d20dca450.jpg
Japanese Buddha.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...59bf4b3f41.jpg
Japanese family crests.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...1452e23176.jpg
Korean temple.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...99febd7d07.jpg
Tibetan Lama

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...1255e1b11b.jpg
Window of an Ethiopian Christian church.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...bfd6811242.jpg
From the pew of an old British church. The Limeys call the swastika a fylfot.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...e9b6bd180c.jpg
Euro funerary statue of a bishop.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...7a24f63a98.jpg
Ancient Chinese coin.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...e7d3e98d47.jpg
Ancient Armenian petroglyphs.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...e655743b98.jpg
Crux dissimulata from the Roman Empire.

Yep, last I checked, the Nazis didn't hold a copyright on the swastika. So why act like they do?

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...1d59e439ab.jpg
And if you think the Jews didn't use it, think again.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...fff5ab690b.jpg.
One of the most fascinating uses of the swastika was KRIT Motors--a Detroit automobile manufacturer that lasted from 1909 to 1916. Their official logo was the swastika.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...9ed0e6b1e5.jpg
The badge of the 1913 KRIT touring car.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...3697a36d32.jpg
KRIT badge bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Nazi badge.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...d3b5702438.jpg
Nazi badge.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...826aa1a0ac.jpg
Pre-war courthouse in Philadelphia.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73...1e2d2a3346.jpg
Pre-war bridge in Arizona. America is full of these pre-war swastikas although most are now carefully hidden. I found one in the Masonic temple in Detroit and was told that it was "just a coincidence."

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...0c6d15fbc6.jpg
In antique store, I photographed this 1939 Nazi Party banner on sale for $800. I didn't buy it.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...fb82da7736.jpg
the flag of Kuna Yala, a province in northeast Panama.

So for those of you flip out every time you see a swastika, do yourselves a favor and grow the f-uck up. It's just a symbol, it can't hurt you. Honestly.

I don't give a **** if I see one but I understand why someone would.

Also, it is my understanding that ones pointing left have a completely different meaning than ones pointing right.

It's a good luck symbol and means nothing more. It doesn't matter which way it "rotates"--deosil or widdershins--it simply signifies "fortune" or "abundance." The word "swastika" is made up of three Brahmi characters: su and asti or "to be well." The "-ka" suffix denotes a thing that bestows this wellness or, in other words, a talisman. Swastika simply means talisman.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...9f39c7a5b4.jpg
Hindu child

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...b9d30f215b.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...91f5f8bf0e.jpg

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or...707625ca18.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...296f0af654.jpg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...77b7b63df2.jpg
Pre-war postcards and birthday cards from Britain and America.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/73...5e7a876048.jpg
Actress Clara Bow.

So what's the big deal?

You can't be fucking serious

It may have been a "good luck" symbol and "nothing more" prior to WWII but the Third Reich changed that forever, and to pretend it didn't is just stupid. That symbol now represents the evil horror of Nazi Germany. And nothing more.

I used to live in an apartment building built around the turn of the 20th century that had that pattern in the flooring of the entryway to my room, I knew that it was pre-war so I learned to just look away from it. If it were my property I would've replaced that flooring with ANYTHING.

That's the big deal. Notice that nearly every one of the images you're providing is 1920's or earlier. Tell you what, if it *really* means nothing why don't you decorate yourself with them and walk through NYC or London or Tel Aviv.

Not if you're part of a religion that still venerates it.

OK for 99% of the world


*edit: this should have been western world, I misspoke

Not to mention the numerous atrocities perpetuated by various Christian churches over the last two millenia. If we're going to crucify the swastika I think that would justify treating the cross with the same kind of knee jerk hatred. And yet...

I'm no fan of Christianity either. But come on. Not even close.

Tell that to the Cathars and every non-Christian who was tortured and murdered by the Inquisition.

Batty, you're way off. WAY off. Yes, the Inquisition, I know. How about I also tell it to the church down the street that brought me food and helped pay my electrical bill when my power was turned off. You're being ridiculous. No comparison.

Yeah, those users of the cross are nice people who don't burn people at the stake, but there have been people throughout history who have given the cross as bad a name as the Nazis did the swastika, just like there have been many users of the swastika who have been as commendable as the people who helped you. It's a collection of lines with no inherent value one way or the other except for the power you give it.

Like I told Larehip, Batty, if you believe that then wear swastika's around town.

Common sense survival instincts have nothing to do with the moral nature of the swastika.

Your argument just ate itself

How many people in the western world have used that symbol for anything other than showing their affinity for neo nazism? If someone has that tatooed on them I'm going to ask.

No, you just used bad logic. You basically said that somebody's subjective opinion on something is representative of its objective worth. From what I've been given to understand there were venues you could go to in the eighties where wearing a Metallica or a Motley Crue shirt to an Agnostic Front show could get your ass kicked too. Doesn't mean Metallica or Motley Crue necessarily suck.

OK then let me clarify. The contention that there is no meaning beyond the pre-WWII meaning of good fortune is not correct. In the vast majority of Europe and the Americas, the swastika = Nazi Germany. I recognize that in Asia the symbol is still used. It is simply not true that the symbol has the same meaning as before WWII.

Symbolism = language.

And it's "correct" meaning is that which is intended by the "speaker". If a Buddhist monk walks around Israel, somehow, someway ignorant of how others might interpret it, and others interpret it as a Nazi symbol they have just misinterpreted it. Because they are both basically speaking a different language. Hence, a symbol has only the power that you give it. If I see some punk-looking dude with a studded leather jacket and a mohawk wearing a Nazi armband, then yeah, I'm going to assume he's being a twat, but that doesn't mean that another use of the swastika is any less valid. The problem being many people's ignorance of any other use of the swastika other than as a Nazi symbol, which unnecessarily taints other representations that could otherwise be positive.

Fair enough, but I believe the symbol has well earned it's poisoned connotation. I see that symbol, I see Auschwitz and Treblinka. Other cultures don't, I get that. I wish they would.

I know you have to have the last word, Batty, so go ahead. My position is stated.

The question is, why does there NEED to be a positive representation?

Yes it's a common, simple symbol used by a lot of people for a lot of things, yes it has a lot of history, and admittedly, in terms of timescale, its been a positive symbol for far longer than its been a negative one.

But WW2 and the Holocaust have literally shaped the world we live in today in a far more direct and irrevocable way than any other single event I know of. Everything from American Patriotism and status as a superpower, to nuclear power, popular culture, everything, stems from midwar and postwar culture.

The 50s American "Golden Age" wouldn't have happened without the American postwar need for entertainment and economic growth which was spurred on by huge advancements in American manufacturing. The way to the east would likely have remained closed and japan would be a very different place also. All of Europe would be unrecognisable. Russia would be ungodly powerful. China and Asia's positions in the world economy as manufacturing centers with cheap labour, would have developed differently and likely far more aggressively, etc etc.

I don't agree that there needs to be some movement that diminishes the importance of the symbols new meaning. Symbols and representations are a language and they evolve. Over time, being fat has gone from being a symbol of wealth and importance to a sign of impoverishment and reliance on cheap fast food. Wearing purple has changed from an opulent fashion trend reserved for the wealthy, to being a commonplace thing nobody would think twice about.

World War 2 changed completely the primary associations of that symbol. Much like obesity as a signifier of wealth and stature, it's prior connotations are now only of interest historically - there is no practical value to be gained from trying to change its meaning in the present day.

Yes, there are groups and religions of benign and presumably good people who still cling to older traditions that venerate the symbol for peaceful causes, and they should be afforded consideration - But to drag them into an argument about nulling the present-day meanings of their symbol does them a disservice - you're essentially asking them to defend their symbol at the cost of nulling the meaning the symbol currently carries - That of not only the huge worldwide impact of WW2, which shapes every tiny element of our lives, whether we're aware of it or not, but also the simpler meaning that, should it be forgotten, would be equivalent to forgetting millions of innocent people being murdered for the gain of a tyrant.

^ I'm glad you posted, GB, we're in agreement but you state the case far more eloquently than I.

You mean... an X with feet at the tips has been used before? ****, and I thought it was so original.

Next you're gonna tell me Earth isn't the only round planet. As if!

To be fair, if the symbol was completely unoriginal there wouldn't be a problem with it. If the nazi party used a hollow circle as their symbol you would be hard pushed to relate every instace of a circle to WW2.

Its a red circle.

Do you think of

A) Japan
B) The Rising Sun
C) Zits
D) Japan

I agree with you if you are only considering American culture.

Cultures that used the symbol prior to WW2 still exist and shouldn't change because of an historical atrocity. I could see it affecting countries that were involved in WW2 but if your culture had nothing to do with it people shouldn't expect you to stop using it.

I wouldn't argue with you if you said maintaining cultural values is not a practical reason. I just wanted to make a point.

That is totally dependent on the time and place. I certainly don't think of Japan every time I see a red circle.

I would have said a bullseye

The argument thus presented in the form of a question of why does there need to be a positive representation of the swastika answers itself--to restore its meaning stolen by the likes of the poster who asked the question and those who agree him.

Someone said to go around town wearing one and see what happens as though this brilliant retort somehow negates my argument. It is precisely WHY the swastika should be unstagmatized in the West. Get over yourselves. You're no more important than anyone else--I know you don't believe that but, trust me on this one. And if we are going to be SO inflexibly self-righteous about this then make sure when you see that Buddhist monk (yes, we have a Buddhist monastery here in town) wearing a swastika medallion--go kick his f-ucking ass. And be sure to tell him that it doesn't matter why he wears it, it only matters what you think of it. The rest of our bright, educated society will back you--"Hell, who does he think he is? He shoulda known better'n to wear that. F-uck, I'da kicked his ass, too."

And while we're on the subject of how much WW2 and Holocaust changed society--so what?? So did the Inquisition, so did the Japanese-American Internment, so did the atom bomb. So did the millions of children sexually abused by the Catholic Church (remember, it's been going on for centuries) "But that's not even close!" REALLY?? Well, as long as we see fit to turn this into an ouch contest--go tell a sexual abuse survivor that what he went through was nothing compared to what the Nazis did. Tell that to an atom bomb survivor I'm sure they'll thank you for setting them straight.

The bottom line is that there is no credible reason that the swastika should be reviled because one group of murderers and thugs chose to use it as a symbol. That's happened many times in history but only the swastika has suffered that fate and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Before some self-righteous ass decides to lecture me again about the f-ucking Jews just remember that they weren't the only people to suffer in WW2 and they certainly weren't the only people to suffer in all of history. It's happened before, folks, it's happening right now and it will happen again. The truth is, it never stops happening but because of media brainwashing we have frozen this one period of suffering in time and elevated it above all other suffering to further Israel's ambitions and that is bulls-hit. And holding an ancient symbol responsible for that suffering is not only bulls-hit, it's retarded bulls-hit. Grow the f-uck up.

Resolving misunderstandings 101

Me: woah, what's with the swastika?!
Buddhist monk: what this? It's the tibetan symbol for eternity
Me: oh okay, cool. I did not know that.

I love that in this post you not only accused me of being self righteous in a thread where your whole point is literally to be so yourself, but then you said "World War 2 Changed things, but so did the Atom bomb!" as if those were two unrelated things. Ridiculous.

You're a deluded, self-aggrandizing, grandstanding blowhard who consistently pours his own time into endless pontification over arguments for which you've failed to reconcile any of the evidence you so painstakingly compile, with any actual point you'd like to make of your own.

it's a shame that the nazis ruined the swastika for everyone, it is aesthetically speaking a pretty cool symbol.

i wonder though why is it especially offensive compared to say the imperial sun of japan or the sickle and hammer of the soviet union. in terms of evil and indifference to human life these regimes were more or less on par... why is special symbolic significance attributed to the swastika?

I think that's your issue right there. WW2 was instigated by the Nazis and is the single largest recorded loss of human life to war in all of history, on top of being enacted by a party who sought to subjugate and completely dehumanise to the point of genocide, a group of people who had done nothing wrong. The only comparable death toll ever recorded was that of the mongol conquests. The expansion and establishment of an empire over decades.

To say that other regimes were on par with that is stretching it. They were awful, yes. But they weren't that.

Also those symbols are considered offensive in many places. Just not places that weren't affected by japanese imperialism. Which is to say - not in the US or Europe. (Unless you've researched it and read up on the context...)

i would agree that ww2 was instigated by the nazis... yet i don't think that is why the swastika is specifically reviled. ww1 was arguably instigated by a variety of different powers and was a more or less equivalent loss of life yet none of those regimes personify evil in our modern frame of reference in quite the same way.

the nazis are reviled because they were genocidal fanatics. the soviet regime was every bit as genocidal and fanatic. i will not emphasize japan as much since i don't know as much about them... but from what i've heard... yea

edit: and let us not forget that the soviets actually helped the nazis instigate ww2 by jointly invading poland, which is where the war really kicked off.

Almost. The Soviets allowed the invasion of Poland to happen due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939. They did not take part.

And without question, Stalin's USSR is definitely part of the conversation of all-time wicked regimes, which may explain why you don't see a lot of sickle & hammer symbolism anymore either.

i could have swore they did both invade and occupy poland, and so i did a quick google search:

Invasion of Poland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they basically agreed with the germans to invade and divide poland between them, after germany tried and failed to ally with poland in order to jointly attack the soviet union. correct? if so they seem pretty culpable for the war's escalation in my book.
yea but it's not nearly as reviled as the swastika, is it? i've seen t-shirts with the sickle and hammer on it... i would tend to guess most people honestly either are unaware of how horrible the soviet regime was or they don't even know what that symbol means.

i want to correct this after having googled the figures. clearly i was wrong about them being nearly equivalent. i'd say instead that a huge portion of the dead in ww2 were civilians murdered in genocides instead of just soldier deaths. so to be honest i'm not sure the millions of soviet murders of their own civilians for ideological, nationalistic and economic reasons should be blamed on germany for starting the war in europe. nor the millions of dead in the asian theater.

They absolutely were, no doubt, and Stalin knew perfectly well that Hitler would turn on the Red Army. Stalin was baiting Hitler, as no one has ever (even to this day) successfully invaded Russia, it's so vast that all they had to do was keep pulling back and let the Siberian Winter win the war for them, which is exactly what they did in WWII. Yes, that action cost them millions of lives, but Stalin didn't care. He knew that he would come out the victor of the spoils.

And there was never going to be a "merger" of Poland. Anymore that he intended to "merge" the Sudetenland without taking over in Czechoslovakia. If it was handed to him like Czechoslovakia and Austria were, well he'd have taken it, but he'd played one too many "no more land demand" cards with the Sudetenland

i remember reading that stalin was actually in denial about the prospect that hitler was going to attack him prior to operation barbarossa. that he was actually warned about the attack on good intelligence and ignored the warnings because he didn't think hitler would be that foolish.

but yea i've also read they both ultimately expected to clash eventually. they were diametrically opposed in ideology and both had their eyes on the same land in eastern europe to feed/fund their respective empires.

edit: also, i think the soviets had a good reason to agree with the invasion and dismantling of poland, even if the 'agreement' was only to be temporary. the poles were one of their main perceived threats at the time to such an extent that pole within the soviet sphere were persecuted as possible subversives and agents of the polish state.