Hitler was an IDer? - THANK YOU, David Ford!
Cygnus X-1
weren't for his incessant posts linking Hitler and Darwin, I *never*
would have been inspired to actually read the "Mein Kampf" (instead of
the 'reguri-think' references he posted).
What did I find?
First note that I read the Ralph Manheim translation (1998, Houghton
Mifflin Co, ISBN: 0-395-92503-7) which is in many bookstores.
Hopefully I caught all the typos. I'll give the page numbers so others
can confirm my claim (and perhaps check against other translations).
Hitler believed he was doing God's work:
* "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will
of the Almighty Creator: by defending against the Jew, I am fighting
for the work of the Lord." [pg 65]
In fact he used *many* religious comparisons throughout the text:
* "Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than than a great
man be 'discovered' by an election." [pg 88]
* "Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the
foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation
or destruction of a state, let alone a party." [pg 114]
* "Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the
most modern inventors of the cultural perfume. Their whole existence
is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image." [pg
178]
* "Anyone who dares lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits
sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and
contributes to the expulsion from paradise." [pg 383]
He admired Christianity:
* "The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiation
for compromise with and similar philosophical opinions in the ancient
world, but it its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for
its own doctrine." [pg 351]
and the adherence to dogma over science:
* "Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church.
Through its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes
into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less
unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas.
It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not
lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of
the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in
rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas
which lend to the whole body of the character of a faith. And so today
it stands more firmly than ever. It can be prophesied that in exactly
the same measure in which appearance evade us, it will gain more and
more blind support as a static pole amid the flight of appearances."
[pg 459]
* "Faith harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change
than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to
the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all time consisted less in
a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which
inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward."
[337-338].
He didn't like the notion of being compared to apes (I hear this is
something used by Ken Ham's in his lectures as well):
* "A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the
level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the
consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images
of the Lord and not some monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
[pg 402]
Here it almost looks like he's describing the Theory of Evolution:
* "Nature herself in times of great poverty or bad climatic conditions,
as well as poor harvest, intervenes to restrict the increase of
population of certain countries or races; this, to be sure, by a method
as wise as it is ruthless. She diminishes, not the power of
procreation as such, but the conservation of the procreated, by
exposing them to hard trials and deprivation with the result that all
those who are less strong and less healthy are forced back into the
womb of the eternal unknown. those whom she permits to survive the
inclemency of existence are a thousandfold tested, hardened, and well
adapted to procreate in turn, in order that the process of
thoroughgoing selection may begin again from the beginning. By thus
brutally proceeding against the individual and immediately calling him
back to herself as soon as he shows himself unequal to the storm of
life, she keeps the race and species strong, in fact, raises them to
the highest accomplishments." [pp 131-134]
but then there's this:
* "No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger
individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a
lower races, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over
perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow."
[pg 286]
where he suggests higher breeding is a GOAL of Nature. Isn't that one
of the claims of Intelligent Design???
And this is consistent with:
* "And in this it must remain aware that we, as guardians of the
highest humanity on this earth, are bound by the highest obligation,
and the more it strives to bring the German people to racial awareness
so that, in addition to breeding dogs, horses, and cats, they will have
mercy on their own blood, the more it will be able to meet this
obligation." [pg 646]
Hitler compares his program of racial purification not to Darwin, but
to ANIMAL BREEDING, which predates Darwin by at least thousands of
years.
BTW, I didn't find a single mention of Darwin in the nearly 700 pages
of Hitler's ramblings. Loads of other stuff I could have added in
these categories, but I got tired of transcribing.
Enjoy,
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygn...@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
Frank J
Or the same "microevolution" that nearly all anti-evolution activists
have long conceded, and would have with or without Darwin. But those
scam artists know just when and how to bait-and-switch with perceived
weaknesses in "macroevolution."
>
> BTW, I didn't find a single mention of Darwin in the nearly 700 pages
> of Hitler's ramblings. Loads of other stuff I could have added in
> these categories, but I got tired of transcribing.
Authoritarian megalomaniacs like Hitler know that God sells. How else
can one not take responsibility for one's own moral relativism when one
sees oneself the "leader" of all humans?
Desertphile
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
(Massive trim: please see original)
Thank you for the quotes. However, I doubt Hitler believed what he said
about believing in Jesus and God, any more than Bush2 does.
Cygnus X-1
(in article <1156777876....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
But he clearly understood how religion could be used to manipulate the
masses.
The Bible points out how to recognize the false prophets (Matt
7:15-20). Like the old saying about politicians, "Don't listen to what
they say, watch what they do."
What did they need to do?
* To love your enemies (Matt 5:43-47). It also specifies that how you
treat those different from you is a true test of your christianity.
* The Golden Rule (Matt 7:12).
* the example of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) and others in a
similar vein...
Yet it's amazing how easily people are duped by scammers making
religious claims with just their words, not their acts.
AC
I'm quite certain both are/were quite sincere.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
stew dean
You think Bush is an athiest? Now that's something I find hard to
believe. If you said Clinton I could go for it but Bush - nah.
Stew Dean
Spanish Paranoia
I always wanted to know what that book was about, and your selection of
excerpts says it all.
No need to waste my time now ....
Inez
And yet Clinton is actually attends church, while Bush doesn't. Hmm...
I believe that Bush is Christian in the same sense that millions of
Americans who claim to be Christian but don't regularly attend church
are.
Cygnus X-1
school history or politics classes.
There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
into Hell.
It's amazing how much of Hitler's recommendations for manipulating the
masses is being practiced by the so-called 'Liberal Media' in this
country.
Tom
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:41:34 -0400, Spanish Paranoia wrote
(in article <1156869694.5...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
> Thank you Cygnus.
> I always wanted to know what that book was about, and your selection of
> excerpts says it all.
> No need to waste my time now ....
> Cygnus X-1 wrote:
>> I'd like to thank this newsgroup's regular poster David Ford. If it
>> weren't for his incessant posts linking Hitler and Darwin, I *never*
>> would have been inspired to actually read the "Mein Kampf" (instead of
>> the 'reguri-think' references he posted).
>>
>> What did I find?
[ stuff deleted ]
John Harshman
> Actually you SHOULD read it. It should be required reading for high
> school history or politics classes.
>
> There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
> would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
> describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
> Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
> 44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
> into Hell.
No, he wasn't elected. He joined a coalition government, which he
proceeded to bully into giving him the chancellorship and various
extraordinary powers, after which he dispensed with the coalition,
elections, and all that bothersome stuff.
> It's amazing how much of Hitler's recommendations for manipulating the
> masses is being practiced by the so-called 'Liberal Media' in this
> country.
I presume you meant to say "current administration".
Cygnus X-1
(in article <Wv2Jg.3828$tU....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
> Cygnus X-1 wrote:
>
>> Actually you SHOULD read it. It should be required reading for high
>> school history or politics classes.
>>
>> There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
>> would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
>> describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
>> Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
>> 44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
>> into Hell.
>
> No, he wasn't elected. He joined a coalition government, which he
> proceeded to bully into giving him the chancellorship and various
> extraordinary powers, after which he dispensed with the coalition,
> elections, and all that bothersome stuff.
I remember that surprising stat on the from some source, maybe "Backing
Hitler" by Gellately? Perhaps it was a poll of some fraction of
support when he came to power?
>> It's amazing how much of Hitler's recommendations for manipulating the
>> masses is being practiced by the so-called 'Liberal Media' in this
>> country.
>
> I presume you meant to say "current administration".
>
I've heard (or perhaps 'not heard' is more correct) stuff on the
'Classic Big 3 Networks' that makes me suspect some of this is not 100%
along 'party' lines, but a lot of 'big business' lines. Mostly the
stories that can be claimed 'slipped through the cracks' and never got
the level of attention they deserved.
Tom
Alexander
Cygnus X-1 wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:41:10 -0400, John Harshman wrote
> (in article <Wv2Jg.3828$tU....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>
> > Cygnus X-1 wrote:
> >
> >> Actually you SHOULD read it. It should be required reading for high
> >> school history or politics classes.
> >>
> >> There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
> >> would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
> >> describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
> >> Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
> >> 44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
> >> into Hell.
> >
> > No, he wasn't elected. He joined a coalition government, which he
> > proceeded to bully into giving him the chancellorship and various
> > extraordinary powers, after which he dispensed with the coalition,
> > elections, and all that bothersome stuff.
>
> I remember that surprising stat on the from some source, maybe "Backing
> Hitler" by Gellately? Perhaps it was a poll of some fraction of
> support when he came to power?
The NSDAP was popular to a certain degree but there does seem to be a
direct correlation between how well Germany was doing and the support
for the party during the late 20's and early 30's. There is a view
(not sure how accurate it is) that Hitler was offered the chancellry as
the larger more established parties thought they could control him.
Then it all went a bit pear shaped with the Reichstag fire, the
Enabling Act and the night of long knives which effectively allowed
Hitler to rule through diktat by the mid-30's.
John Harshman
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:41:10 -0400, John Harshman wrote
> (in article <Wv2Jg.3828$tU....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>
>>Cygnus X-1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually you SHOULD read it. It should be required reading for high
>>>school history or politics classes.
>>>
>>>There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
>>>would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
>>>describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
>>>Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
>>>44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
>>>into Hell.
>>
>>No, he wasn't elected. He joined a coalition government, which he
>>proceeded to bully into giving him the chancellorship and various
>>extraordinary powers, after which he dispensed with the coalition,
>>elections, and all that bothersome stuff.
>
>
> I remember that surprising stat on the from some source, maybe "Backing
> Hitler" by Gellately? Perhaps it was a poll of some fraction of
> support when he came to power?
The Nazis got 37 percent of the vote in the elections of 1932, the
highest they ever got. They were the largest party in the Reichstag. But
they were not at all a majority. They gained power by negotiation with
other parties, backed up by threats and double-dealing.
[snip]
CreateThis
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:41:10 -0400, John Harshman wrote
>(in article <Wv2Jg.3828$tU....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>
>> Cygnus X-1 wrote:
>>
>>> Actually you SHOULD read it. It should be required reading for high
>>> school history or politics classes.
>>>
>>> There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
>>> would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
>>> describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
>>> Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
>>> 44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
>>> into Hell.
>>
>> No, he wasn't elected. He joined a coalition government, which he
>> proceeded to bully into giving him the chancellorship and various
>> extraordinary powers, after which he dispensed with the coalition,
>> elections, and all that bothersome stuff.
>
>I remember that surprising stat on the from some source, maybe "Backing
>Hitler" by Gellately? Perhaps it was a poll of some fraction of
>support when he came to power?
>
>>> It's amazing how much of Hitler's recommendations for manipulating the
>>> masses is being practiced by the so-called 'Liberal Media' in this
>>> country.
>>
>> I presume you meant to say "current administration".
Had to. The way he said it would be like Charlie McCarthy practicing
ventriloquism. But I'll give this much to the current administration:
until lately anyway their manipulation of the masses has been as
impressive as Edgar Bergen's ventriloquist act getting famous on the
radio.
CT
Spanish Paranoia
did as well.
At least Maquiavello was blatantly open about how to oppress and
despotize the populace, although his book was meant for Princes and
Kings, that is, people chosen by God to rule their nations, no less...
Cygnus X-1
(in article <1156923322.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> I rather read Machievello's "The Prince", which I am positive Hitler
> did as well.
> At least Maquiavello was blatantly open about how to oppress and
> despotize the populace, although his book was meant for Princes and
> Kings, that is, people chosen by God to rule their nations, no less...
In the same book is also:
"In general the art of all truly great national leaders at all times
consists among other things primarily in not dividing the attention of
a people, but in concentrating it upon a single foe. the more unified
the application of a people's will to fight, the greater will be the
magnetic attraction of a movement and the mightier will be the impetus
of the thrust. It belongs to the genius of a great leader to make even
adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to a single
category, because in weak and uncertain characters, the knowledge of
having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of
doubt in their own right.
Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many
enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the
question whether all others are really wrong and only their own people
or their own movement are in the right."
[pg 118]
"Anyone who wants to win the broad masses must know the key that opens
the door to their heart. Its name is not objectivity (read weakness),
but will and power." [pg 338]
I'd say that's pretty blatant.
I guess there were some people doing the "Blame Germany First" thing:
"It was absolutely wrong to discuss war-guilt from the standpoint that
Germany alone could not be held responsible for the outbreak of the
catastrophe; it would have been correct to load every bit of the blame
on the shoulders of the enemy, even if this had not really corresponded
to the true facts, as it actually did."
[pg 182]
> John Harshman wrote:
>> Cygnus X-1 wrote:
>>
>>> Actually you SHOULD read it. It should be required reading for high
>>> school history or politics classes.
>>>
>>> There was loads of other material seriously OT for this group that
>>> would be hot material for other politics or religion groups. I would
>>> describe it as Machievelli's(sp?) "The Prince" applied to democracies.
>>> Many people forget that Hitler was actually elected (by I believe about
>>> 44% of the German populace) and then he dragged the rest of his nation
>>> into Hell.
>>
>> No, he wasn't elected. He joined a coalition government, which he
>> proceeded to bully into giving him the chancellorship and various
>> extraordinary powers, after which he dispensed with the coalition,
>> elections, and all that bothersome stuff.
>>
>>> It's amazing how much of Hitler's recommendations for manipulating the
>>> masses is being practiced by the so-called 'Liberal Media' in this
>>> country.
>>
>> I presume you meant to say "current administration".
>
--