Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ToE Attacked at Anti-Tax "Tea Party": "Burn the Books!"

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Steven L.

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 1:29:44 PM4/10/09
to
At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
those which contain all that "evolution crap"

Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]

Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”

Woman: “I am too.”

Man: “Burn all the books?!”

Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”

Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”

Woman: “Yes.”

Man: “Which ones are those?”

Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
(the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)

(Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
are OT for this NG)


--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 3:43:43 PM4/10/09
to
Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
> those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>
> Woman: [Shouts] "Burn the books!" [applause]
>
> Man: "I don't think you were serious about that, were you?"
>
> Woman: "I am too."
>
> Man: "Burn all the books?!"
>
> Woman: "The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books."
>
> Man: "[laughs] Brainwashing books?"
>
> Woman: "Yes."
>
> Man: "Which ones are those?"
>
> Woman: "Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah..."

Like so?
<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bücherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>

Jan

Louann Miller

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 5:24:54 PM4/10/09
to
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:

> Like so?
> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>
> Jan
>

How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?

Rodjk #613

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 5:36:20 PM4/10/09
to
> Email:  sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Ok, that was the scariest sh*t I have seen in a long time...
I don't just mean the 'burn the books' evolution stuff, I mean the
whole conspiracy whack job bit of that video.

As I just pointed out to my wife: These people think I am being
brainwashed?
Wow...

Rodjk #613

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 6:17:12 PM4/10/09
to
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
<loua...@yahoo.com>:

>nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
>news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>
>> Like so?

>> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>


>>
>> Jan
>>
>
>How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?

Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

Walter Bushell

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 6:23:29 PM4/10/09
to
In article
<da8c4c14-fa0c-4f42...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
"Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I just pointed out to my wife: These people think I am being
> brainwashed?

Strictly speaking you are. The first step in education is getting the
wrong ideas out. But brainwashing has been take as putting ideas in,
whereas the term shapes it should mean removing false facts, as it were,
or ideas that are not in the person's experience, to restore the
pristine state of the mind.

Greg G.

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 7:18:00 PM4/10/09
to
On Apr 10, 6:23 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <da8c4c14-fa0c-4f42-be80-0949181b9...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

>  "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I just pointed out to my wife: These people think I am being
> > brainwashed?
>
> Strictly speaking you are. The first step in education is getting the
> wrong ideas out. But brainwashing has been take as putting ideas in,
> whereas the term shapes it should mean removing false facts, as it were,
> or ideas that are not in the person's experience, to restore the
> pristine state of the mind.

I prefer a good brain-dry-cleaning.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 7:32:40 PM4/10/09
to
On Apr 10, 1:29 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
> those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>
>      Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>
>      Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>
>      Woman: “I am too.”
>
>      Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>
>      Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>
>      Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>
>      Woman: “Yes.”
>
>      Man: “Which ones are those?”
>
>      Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
> (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>
> (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
> are OT for this NG)
>


I guess that's what happens when the Repug Party takes it worse
thrashing since the 30's, all the rational people leave it, and all
that's left are the nutters.

It guarantees that the Repugs will not see power again for the rest of
this generation.

The "Reagan Revolution" is over.


================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com


David Hare-Scott

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 7:51:07 PM4/10/09
to
Steven L. wrote:
> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids,
> including those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>
> Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>
> Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>
> Woman: “I am too.”
>
> Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>
> Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>
> Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>
> Woman: “Yes.”
>
> Man: “Which ones are those?”
>
> Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
> (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>
> (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
> are OT for this NG)

But interesting nonetheless. I reckon there are some posters who have been
put in one of them there brainwashing devices and nobody remembered to set
the timer.

David

Robert Carnegie

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 7:59:22 PM4/10/09
to

Yeah. Or the Christians razing Alexandria. Depending on which parts
of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction_of_the_Library>
you chorse to believe.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 8:59:55 PM4/10/09
to
On Apr 10, 7:32 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:29 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
> > those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
> > those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>
> >      Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>
> >      Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>
> >      Woman: “I am too.”
>
> >      Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>
> >      Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>
> >      Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>
> >      Woman: “Yes.”
>
> >      Man: “Which ones are those?”
>
> >      Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
> > (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>
> > (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
> > are OT for this NG)
>
> I guess that's what happens when the Repug Party takes it worse
> thrashing since the 30's, all the rational people leave it, and all
> that's left are the nutters.
>
> It guarantees that the Repugs will not see power again for the rest of
> this generation.
>
> The "Reagan Revolution" is over.

Would you back your "guarantee" by betting actual, well, money? And
what defines "this generation?"

--
Will in New Haven

[M]adman

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 9:07:25 PM4/10/09
to
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:29 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
>> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids,
>> including those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>>
>> Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>>
>> Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>>
>> Woman: “I am too.”
>>
>> Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>>
>> Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>>
>> Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>>
>> Woman: “Yes.”
>>
>> Man: “Which ones are those?”
>>
>> Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
>> (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>>
>> (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said
>> that are OT for this NG)
>>
>
>
>
>
> I guess that's what happens when the Repug Party takes it worse
> thrashing since the 30's, all the rational people leave it, and all
> that's left are the nutters.
>
> It guarantees that the Repugs will not see power again for the rest of
> this generation.
>
> The "Reagan Revolution" is over.

Amen.

It's about time

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 9:24:21 PM4/10/09
to
You are focusing on a couple aspects of that video, as is apparently
Steven L. Sure the Constitution Party guy is representing an extreme
minor party view and the lady calling for book burning is disturbing,
but the fact that a guy identified himself as Libertarian, makes me
think this meeting attracted people with a diversity of views. There
might have been some people there who took exception to the burn all
books comment. Surely true Libertarians, as extreme as the are on many
issues would be rabidly opposed to book-burners. I'm concerned that
the self-identified Libertarian seemed accepting of the Constitution
Party. Either he was friends with the other guy or he was adopting the
enemy of my enemy is my friend approach. The Libertarians and
Constitution Party are probably of similar mindsets about taxation.
Foreign policy platforms would have some agreement. Both parties would
seek to reduce US outlay in other countries, but the Constition Party
seems to be more isolationist where the Libertarians are opposed to US
intervention but still open to other nations.

Similarities between the parties end on immigration and social issues.

Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
anarchist-wing might burn flags instead). Many of them might just be
atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.

Too bad nobody from the Natural Law party was there to offer their
thoughts on the merits of transcendental meditation for reducing the
stresses brought on by unravelling conspiracies connected to the all
seeing eye on our paper currency and its background story of the
Illuminati-Free Masons-Council on Foreign Relations- Skull & Bones-
Trlateral Commission-G20-Teletubbies nexus :-)

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 9:27:33 PM4/10/09
to
On Apr 10, 6:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
> <louan...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>
> >> Like so?
> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>
> >> Jan
>
> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>
> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>
The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books. They might oppose the fact
that there are *public* schools supported by tax revenues, but not the
content of the textbooks, least of all evolution.

John Smith

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 10:39:41 PM4/10/09
to

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tI2dnaelzLiaH0LU...@earthlink.com...

At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
those which contain all that "evolution crap"

Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]

Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”

Woman: “I am too.”

Man: “Burn all the books?!”

Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”

Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”

Woman: “Yes.”

Man: “Which ones are those?”

Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
(the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)

(Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
are OT for this NG)


and these fuckheads are allowed to own guns!

Boikat

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 11:12:29 PM4/10/09
to
On Apr 10, 12:29 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Email:  sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

That could be a case study of how mobs get out of hand and become a
mass of retarded goons. It starts out reasonably enough (As well as a
bunch of right wingers can be reasonable), then they let the nutcases
have their say, and because they want to show solidarity, the don't
stop the nutter when the conspiracy spew starts, and the next thing
you know, everyone's lost their minds, and the stupidity takes
cammand.

Boikat

Boikat

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 11:15:48 PM4/10/09
to
On Apr 10, 9:39 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>
> news:tI2dnaelzLiaH0LU...@earthlink.com...
> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
> those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>
>      Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>
>      Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>
>      Woman: “I am too.”
>
>      Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>
>      Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>
>      Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>
>      Woman: “Yes.”
>
>      Man: “Which ones are those?”
>
>      Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
> (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>
> (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
> are OT for this NG)
>
> and these fuckheads are allowed to own guns!

The hope is that they will shoot their own nuts off.

Boikat

Desertphile

unread,
Apr 10, 2009, 11:27:49 PM4/10/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:39:41 GMT, "John Smith"
<bobsyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:tI2dnaelzLiaH0LU...@earthlink.com...
>
> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest

An anti-tax "protest." Good bloody *GODS* that's funny!

> a protester calls for burning all
> those books at universities which are "brainwashing"
> our kids, including those which contain all that
> "evolution crap"

All that gravity brainwashing crap should go, too. The attraction
of dissimilar charges brainwashing should also go.



> Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>
> Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>
> Woman: “I am too.”
>
> Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>
> Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>
> Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>
> Woman: “Yes.”
>
> Man: “Which ones are those?”
>
> Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
> (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>
> (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
> are OT for this NG)

Shocking.



> and these fuckheads are allowed to own guns!

And vote, which is worse.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Paul Ciszek

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 12:31:54 AM4/11/09
to

In article <54b436b8-2321-4103...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>Yeah. Or the Christians razing Alexandria. Depending on which parts
>of
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction_of_the_Library>
>you chorse to believe.

Yeah, if the Romans destroyed it before the Christians existed and the
Moslems destroyed it after the Christians were supposed to have, the
Christians couldn't have destroyed it that much.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

Paul Ciszek

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 12:35:36 AM4/11/09
to

In article <9c30u49rqgqlvd3m3...@4ax.com>,

Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
>> and these fuckheads are allowed to own guns!
>
>And vote, which is worse.

And breed (and breed and breed and breed and breed and breed and breed...)

Greg G.

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 1:03:47 AM4/11/09
to
On Apr 10, 11:27 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:39:41 GMT, "John Smith"
>
> <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> >news:tI2dnaelzLiaH0LU...@earthlink.com...
>
> > At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest
>
> An anti-tax "protest." Good bloody *GODS* that's funny!

Right after the biggest middle class tax cut in history.


>
> > a protester calls for burning all
> > those books at universities which are "brainwashing"
> > our kids, including those which contain all that
> > "evolution crap"
>
> All that gravity brainwashing crap should go, too. The attraction
> of dissimilar charges brainwashing should also go.
>

Brainwashing devices? Do those use magnets, too?

--
Why isn't it spelled "UPPERCASE"?

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 7:32:45 AM4/11/09
to
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>
> > Like so?

> > <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bücherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>


> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?

Inappropriate.
Americans burning 'un-American books'
are no better
than Germans burning 'undeutscher büche'.

Jan

J. J. Lodder

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 7:32:46 AM4/11/09
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
> <loua...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
> >
> >> Like so?
> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >
> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>
> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?

Sure, it applies to gratuitous references.
It can't be invoked to block appropriate discussion
involving nazism.

Those American wannabe nazis are so naive.
It seemed to me that a 'Bookburning for Dummies'
reference would be appropriate,
to show them how it's done.

Jan

Paul Ciszek

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 9:22:54 AM4/11/09
to

In article <1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,

I am vaguely aware that the Nazis did not like _The Origin of Species_,
especially the idea of common descent. But can anyone point me to
references to them banning or burning books about evolution, or forbidding
the teaching of it? Those would be handy in some of these arguements.

TomS

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 9:41:58 AM4/11/09
to
"On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:22:54 +0000 (UTC), in article
<grq5je$bq5$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek stated..."

>
>
>In article <1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>J. J. Lodder <jjl...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
>>> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
>>> those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>>>
>>> Woman: [Shouts] "Burn the books!" [applause]
>>>
>>> Man: "I don't think you were serious about that, were you?"
>>>
>>> Woman: "I am too."
>>>
>>> Man: "Burn all the books?!"
>>>
>>> Woman: "The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books."
>>>
>>> Man: "[laughs] Brainwashing books?"
>>>
>>> Woman: "Yes."
>>>
>>> Man: "Which ones are those?"
>>>
>>> Woman: "Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah..."
>>
>>Like so?
>><http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bücherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>
>I am vaguely aware that the Nazis did not like _The Origin of Species_,
>especially the idea of common descent. But can anyone point me to
>references to them banning or burning books about evolution, or forbidding
>the teaching of it? Those would be handy in some of these arguements.
>
>

This has been mentioned a few times here in t.o:

<http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm>

I would be interested if anyone has other, independent references.


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

Walter Bushell

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 9:47:38 AM4/11/09
to
In article <grp6mo$qfk$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> In article <9c30u49rqgqlvd3m3...@4ax.com>,
> Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >
> >> and these fuckheads are allowed to own guns!
> >
> >And vote, which is worse.
>
> And breed (and breed and breed and breed and breed and breed and breed...)

What else are they going to do with their time? They are hardly likely
to enjoy listening to Haydn symphonies.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 12:19:32 PM4/11/09
to
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> in
<dd0ae343-1768-4c3a...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
>Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
>everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
>opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
>issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
>freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
>anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).

I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
interference.

>Many of them might just be
>atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
>Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.

Why did she despise them?

[snip]

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 1:52:44 PM4/11/09
to
On 11 Apr, 14:22, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <1ixz86v.1cqyw0x1l70k...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> J. J. Lodder <jjlx...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

You won't get much.

The one direct reference is "Richtilinien für die Bestandsprüfung in
den Volksbüchereien Sachsens" Die Bücherei 2 (1935): 279–80. It lists
under 6.: Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen
Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung
eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel). (rough
translation: writings of philosophical or anthroplogical nature based
on the wrong scientific theories of a primitive Darwinism and monism
Haeckel)

But that missive only meant that his books were removed from the
public libraries in Saxonia. Darwin's works are not on the list of
burned books (http://www.berlin.de/rubrik/hauptstadt/verbannte_buecher/
schwarze_liste.php) or the much longer list of forbidden literature.
Haeckel's association was however closed down, as was his journal.

Most of the Darwin reception, was it was, came via Haeckel, who did
promote active eugenics and was also an outspoken nationalism - but
also of the opinion that the best thing would be a massive
interbreeding between Jews and Aryans, probably to make the latter
more intelligent: “I hold these refined and noble Jews to be important
elements in German culture. One should not forget that they have
always stood bravely for enlightenment and freedom against the forces
of reaction, inexhaustible opponents, as often as needed, against the
obscurantists.“ Did not go down well with the Nazis ;o)

Both Haecked and Darwin were critizised by semi-official Nazi
ideologues for their materialism (cue Nando): Günther Hecht, an
official from the NSDAP Rassenpolitischen Amt (roughly Department for
Race Policies wrote: The common position of materialistic monism is
philosophically rejected completely by the völkisch-biological view of
National Socialism. [. . .] The party and its representatives must
not only reject a part of the Haeckelian conception—other parts of it
have occasionally been advanced—but, more generally, every internal
party dispute that involves the particulars of research and the
teachings of Haeckel must cease.( Günther Hecht, “Biologie und
Nationalsozialismus,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft 3
(1937–1938): 280–90, at 285. This Journal was at the time the “Organ
of the Reich’s Section Natural Science of the Reich’s Students
Administration", so statements there had particular impact on teaching
and the science curriculum

In the same issue, Kurt Hildebrandt,, another party official, wrote
(my rough translation again) We have to reject Haeckel's simplistic
assumption that philosophy reached its pinnacle in the mechanistic
solution to the world puzzles through Darwin’s descent theory.”

But other Party affiliated researchers did try to develop "scientific"
foundations of Nazism using Haeckel (much less Darwin directly) and
did not suffer adverse consequences either. Heinz Brücher is a
noteworthy example, writing a book on "Ernst Haeckels Bluts- und
Geisteserbe. Eine kulturbiologische Monographie.“ München: J. F.
Lehmanns Verlag, 1936 where he argues Haeckel's work is essentially
"nordic" evenif he has way too many Jewish ancestors.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 4:38:01 PM4/11/09
to
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:

Well, yeah, but that's not what I was commenting/asking
about; it was the idea that Godwin's Law should be invoked
for a comment about the book-burnings done by Nazis in
response to an article about book-burnings done (or
encouraged) by other jerks.

Paul Ciszek

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:02:23 PM4/11/09
to

In article <0d210542-7293-475a...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
>irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books.

Sez who? I have encountered "libertarians" who argued in favor of
warrentless wiretapping, giving government money to churches, and
everything else that George W. Bush ever wanted to do. I have met
"self-identified libertarians" who think same sex marriage should
be illegal. Some "libertarians" want the government to stay out
their homes and ignore what they do to their wives and kids, but
want the government to prosecute other people's "immoralities". About
the only thing you can say about libertarians in toto is that
they don't want to pay taxes for any of the stuff they want the
government to do. So, while you could say "Libertarians don't
want to pay taxes to support government organized book burings",
you can't universally say that libertarians don't burn books or
even than no "self-identified libertarians" want the government to
burn books.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:12:08 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 3:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Its simply a statement of probability, not a statement about
applicability or relevance.

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:31:43 PM4/11/09
to

Mhh, but would anybody really mention Goodwin when in a discussion
group on WW2 someone says: In comparison to the Nazi Generals,
Montgomery voiced open criticism of the orders given to him bu his
leaders" ? It does not contradict it of course, but is trivially
fulfilled

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:37:33 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 10, 8:59 pm, Will in New Haven

The whole nation is currently betting on it. With lots of money. Lots
and lots.

And
> what defines "this generation?"
>

Well, the LAST time the Repug free-market nutters destroyed the
economy (in 1929), they were utterly completely absolutely irrelevant
for the entire decades of the 30's and 40's, and only regained some
limited relevance by capturing the Presidency in 1953 --- and that had
far more to do with Eisenhower being a war hero than it had with any
love for Republican policies (Eisenhower could have run as a
representative of the Monster Raving Looney Party and still won). And
even when the Repugs FINALLY did win a real presidency in 1969, Nixon
stayed severely away from all the free-market stuff and didn't even
attempt to dismantle any of the New Deal/Great Society programs. He
knew better than to even try.

The Repug free-market fans weren't able to gain real power again until
the "Reagan Revolution" in 1980 ----- 50 years after they first fucked
things up ---- at a time when most of the people who had lived through
the results of their first fuckup, were dead.

And they promptly fucked things up again.

I don't expect to see them in real power again for another 50 years --
when all the people alive now, this generation, who have seen the
latest fuckup firsthand, will mostly be dead.

NOTE; The fact that the rightwingnuts won't gain power DEMOCRATICALLY
doesn't mean they can't gain power UN-democratically--if we're
collectively dumb enough to let them. And after all, we WERE
collectively dumb enough to let the Bushites shred the Constitution
without any protest. . . .

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:38:11 PM4/11/09
to
> It's about time-

I thought you killfiled me, you fucking liar.

heekster

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:49:56 PM4/11/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:22:54 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>J. J. Lodder <jjl...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Steven L. <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
>>> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
>>> those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>>>
>>> Woman: [Shouts] "Burn the books!" [applause]
>>>
>>> Man: "I don't think you were serious about that, were you?"
>>>
>>> Woman: "I am too."
>>>
>>> Man: "Burn all the books?!"
>>>
>>> Woman: "The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books."
>>>
>>> Man: "[laughs] Brainwashing books?"
>>>
>>> Woman: "Yes."
>>>
>>> Man: "Which ones are those?"
>>>
>>> Woman: "Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah..."
>>
>>Like so?
>><http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bücherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>
>I am vaguely aware that the Nazis did not like _The Origin of Species_,
>especially the idea of common descent. But can anyone point me to
>references to them banning or burning books about evolution, or forbidding
>the teaching of it? Those would be handy in some of these arguements.

Citing:
Schwarze Liste für öffentliche Büchereien und gewerbliche
Leihbüchereien
Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur: Reichsleitung

Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries
Fighting League for German Culture:
Guidelines
...


6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren
Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven
Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals
with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and
Monism (Häckel).

From
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

So from this, only creationist imbeciles & liars from AIG and ID,
conclude that the nazis were influenced by "Darwinismus", which they
(nazis) referred to as "false scientific enlightenment" and"
primitive", and blacklisted from the libraries.

Interestingly, the ADL has taken the position that because Creationism
and Intelligent design are religious beliefs, and the government is
prohibited from endorsing the beliefs of any particular religion, they
should not be taught in science classrooms.
--
Ridendo dicere verum.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 5:59:18 PM4/11/09
to
You are picking and choosing evidence. What is nazism.

regards,
Mohamnad Nur Syamsu

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 6:03:00 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 5:02 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <0d210542-7293-475a-80d3-aac34e5ee...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

>
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books.
>
> Sez who?  I have encountered "libertarians" who argued in favor of
> warrentless wiretapping, giving government money to churches, and
> everything else that George W. Bush ever wanted to do.  I have met
> "self-identified libertarians" who think same sex marriage should
> be illegal.  Some "libertarians" want the government to stay out
> their homes and ignore what they do to their wives and kids, but
> want the government to prosecute other people's "immoralities".  About
> the only thing you can say about libertarians in toto is that
> they don't want to pay taxes for any of the stuff they want the
> government to do.  So, while you could say "Libertarians don't
> want to pay taxes to support government organized book burings",
> you can't universally say that libertarians don't burn books or
> even than no "self-identified libertarians" want the government to
> burn books.
>
Much of the above is anathema to libertarian philosophy. Gov't
wiretaps are definitely a no-no. Anyone who approves of them shouldn't
be calling themselves a libertarian (big or little "l"). It's easy
enough to call oneself a libertarian (which I recall Bill Maher doing
on several occasions), but something different to know what it means
and walk the walk. Libertarians are anti-tax to the core, which might
attract them to an anti-tax rally, but they are not in legion with neo-
con ideals or family-values mumbo-jumbo. They certainly would not
advocate giving gov't money to churches. A libertarian might be OK
with someone buying a bunch of books to burn with their own money, but
not gov't sponsored book burning or anything intended to curtail
freedom of the press or speech. In a sense a private citizen burning a
book is exercising free-speech and if they purchased the book it's
their property and they can do with it as they please. Any action,
though , that reaches the level where it's intended to interfere with
someone elses ability to access information is a no-no. Sense book-
burning is intended usually as stomping out expression of an idea, I
can't see a libertarian participating in this action themselves and
still identifying as such.     |

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 6:13:54 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 12:19 pm, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
> <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a-89f1-5f13eeea7...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>

> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
> >Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
> >everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
> >opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
> >issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
> >freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
> >anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).
>
> I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
> really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
> of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
> interference.
>
> >Many of them might just be
> >atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
> >Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.
>
> Why did she despise them?
>
It ranged from the Eric Cartman 'they're a bunch of hippies' approach
to seeing them as plagiarists of her ideas. She had some sort of issue
with Murray Rothbard especially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 6:17:49 PM4/11/09
to
> official from the NSDAP  Rassenpolitischen Amt (roughly Department forRace Policies wrote:  The common position of materialistic monism is

>
> philosophically rejected completely by the völkisch-biological view of
> National Socialism. [. . .]  The party and its representatives must
> not only reject a part of the Haeckelian conception—other parts of it
> have occasionally been advanced—but, more generally, every internal
> party dispute that involves the particulars of research and the
> teachings of Haeckel must cease.( Günther Hecht, “Biologie und
> Nationalsozialismus,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Naturwissenschaft 3
> (1937–1938): 280–90, at 285. This Journal was at the time the  “Organ
> of the Reich’s Section Natural Science of the Reich’s Students
> Administration", so statements there had particular impact on teaching
> and the science curriculum
>
> In the same issue, Kurt Hildebrandt,, another party official, wrote
> (my rough translation again) We have to reject Haeckel's simplistic
> assumption  that philosophy reached its pinnacle in the mechanistic
> solution to the world puzzles through Darwin’s descent theory.”
>
> But other Party affiliated researchers did try to develop "scientific"
> foundations of Nazism using Haeckel (much less Darwin directly) and
> did not suffer adverse consequences either. Heinz Brücher is a
> noteworthy example, writing a book on "Ernst Haeckels Bluts- und
> Geisteserbe. Eine kulturbiologische Monographie.“ München: J. F.
> Lehmanns Verlag, 1936 where he argues Haeckel's work  is essentially
> "nordic" evenif he has way too many Jewish ancestors.
>
One of Haeckel's students, Richard Semon, who did field work in
Australia and advanced the mnemic theory of organic memory, was
Jewish.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 6:24:00 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 4:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:

>
>
>
> >On Apr 10, 6:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
> >> <louan...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> >> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>
> >> >> Like so?
> >> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>
> >> >> Jan
>
> >> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>
> >> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>
> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books. They might oppose the fact
> >that there are *public* schools supported by tax revenues, but not the
> >content of the textbooks, least of all evolution.
>
> Well, yeah, but that's not what I was commenting/asking
> about; it was the idea that Godwin's Law should be invoked
> for a comment about the book-burnings done by Nazis in
> response to an article about book-burnings done (or
> encouraged) by other jerks.
>
I was trying mostly to point to the problem of drawing generalizations
about people at a meeting based on a camera perspective that focused
on a couple prominent aspects of the meeting. These aspects may have
been made prominent by where the person recording was standing and the
time period recorded. I have to admit much of what I saw was
disturbing, but cannot assume everybody their was of the exact same
mindset. There might have been some hardcore pro-gov't liberals there
who were engaging in quiet observation for all I know and reported
back to their own organizations about the event as they saw it.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 6:56:31 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 12:19 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
> <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a-89f1-5f13eeea7...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>

> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
> >Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
> >everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
> >opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
> >issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
> >freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
> >anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).
>
> I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
> really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
> of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
> interference.

I don't know who you are talking to but they aren't libertarians. They
may well be members of the Libertarian Party but given who that party
nominated for president, many of them aren't libertarians either.

>
> >Many of them might just be
> >atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
> >Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.
>
> Why did she despise them?

Because we arrived at vaguely similar conclusions to hers as to what
it is reasonable for a government to be allowed to do WITHOUT going
through the same steps, agreeing to her detailed philosophy and
becoming part of her cult of personality.

When I knew her she was a bitter old bitch and didn't like much of
anyone but she really, really hated anyone who didn't give her credit
for their belief in liberty. On the other hand, if an Objectivist were
running for office against any of the statists who call themselves
Republicans or Democrats I would vote for her or him.

--
Will in New Haven

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 6:58:26 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 5:02 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <0d210542-7293-475a-80d3-aac34e5ee...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

>
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books.
>
> Sez who?  I have encountered "libertarians" who argued in favor of
> warrentless wiretapping, giving government money to churches, and
> everything else that George W. Bush ever wanted to do.  I have met
> "self-identified libertarians" who think same sex marriage should
> be illegal.  Some "libertarians" want the government to stay out
> their homes and ignore what they do to their wives and kids, but
> want the government to prosecute other people's "immoralities".  About
> the only thing you can say about libertarians in toto is that
> they don't want to pay taxes for any of the stuff they want the
> government to do.  So, while you could say "Libertarians don't
> want to pay taxes to support government organized book burings",
> you can't universally say that libertarians don't burn books or
> even than no "self-identified libertarians" want the government to
> burn books.

It is completely in opposition to the libertarian philosophy to do
those things. If those people told you they were your kids would you
give them their allowances too?

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 7:30:34 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 5:59 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are picking and choosing evidence.
>
Who? Me?

On what grounds do you assert this, especially without quoting
whomever it was directed towards.
>
> What is nazism.
>
Funny question coming from you or was it rhetorical?

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 7:57:20 PM4/11/09
to
On 12 Apr, 00:30, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 5:59 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You are picking and choosing evidence.
>
> Who? Me?
>
> On what grounds do you assert this, especially without quoting
> whomever it was directed towards.
>

Which is pretty much why i will ignore him until he learns either
basic manners, or how to use a computer properly.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 8:31:46 PM4/11/09
to
natural selection is the theme in mein kampf, its in the schoolbook
for the hitler youth in reference to Darwin, its mentioned in the
wannsee document as a means of genocide. Those are the main books,
papers in nazism, except perhaps some speeches.

Hitler had 1 belief, the ruthless and brutal struggle for life of
nature. Thats all, Hitler was not a sophisticated thinker. Besides
this 1 belief he also would believe anything fanatically if he so
thought believing it was useful in the struggle for life.

Besides this as you well know, all Darwinists on this group
consistently oppress and deny any knowledge about freedom. That
practise of denying freedom, which practice is based on natural
selection theory, provided the main killer element in Nazi ideology.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Paul J Gans

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 8:47:03 PM4/11/09
to
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Apr 10, 9:39 pm, "John Smith" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:tI2dnaelzLiaH0LU...@earthlink.com...

>> At an anti-tax "Tea Party" protest, a protester calls for burning all
>> those books at universities which are "brainwashing" our kids, including
>> those which contain all that "evolution crap"
>>
>>      Woman: [Shouts] “Burn the books!” [applause]
>>
>>      Man: “I don’t think you were serious about that, were you?”
>>
>>      Woman: “I am too.”
>>
>>      Man: “Burn all the books?!”
>>
>>      Woman: “The ones in college, those, those brainwashing books.”
>>
>>      Man: “[laughs] Brainwashing books?”
>>
>>      Woman: “Yes.”
>>
>>      Man: “Which ones are those?”
>>
>>      Woman: “Like, the evolution crap, and, yeah...”
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwdOwgD5OsY
>> (the book-burning & ToE stuff begins at 4:40)
>>
>> (Starting at 1:58, there are some other extreme things being said that
>> are OT for this NG)
>>
>> and these fuckheads are allowed to own guns!

>The hope is that they will shoot their own nuts off.

The problem with the fHeads is that they have no self-respect.
They can't stand on what they are, because they fear that they
are nothing. They can't stand on what they think because, to
be blunt, they don't do that often enough.

So the only self-respect they can have is by being made special
by an outside power.

And now you come along and tell them about evolution. You've
taken special creation away from them and you want them to be
happy about it?

We need to invent a substitute. My current offering is that
God set up the rules by which the universe operates. He can
do this because he is omnipotent. God KNEW (for he is omniscient
as well) that these rules would result in THEM being born. So
they are important to God. And it's almost as good as being
specially created.

If we can convince them of this then perhaps they will go away
and leave us alone?

--
--- Paul J. Gans

wf3h

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 8:44:03 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 8:31 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> natural selection is the theme in mein kampf,

strange, then, that it's never mentioned in 'mein kampf'...unless, of
course, you're making it up..

its in the schoolbook
> for the hitler youth in reference to Darwin, its mentioned in the
> wannsee document as a means of genocide. Those are the main books,
> papers in nazism, except perhaps some speeches.

gee. nando seems to have forgotten about the 'table talk'
documents...a series of transcriptions hilter had with
people...included was a discussion he had with the bishop of munich
where, when confronted with a complaint about his treatment of jews,
he asked the bishop why he was complaining since he was doing what
christians had always had done to the jews

and the biggest antisemites in the world today are islamists.

just as you yourself advocate repression of christians if muslims wish
it.

>
> Besides this as you well know, all Darwinists on this group
> consistently oppress and deny any knowledge about freedom. That
> practise of denying freedom, which practice is based on natural
> selection theory, provided the main killer element in Nazi ideology.
>

too bad nando doesn't pay attention to modern history. it was his
friends who flew the jets into the WTC and the pentagon. if i were
nando i wouldnt be singing the praises of islamism too loudly

it's the most genocidal ideology on earth today

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 9:19:46 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 6:56 pm, Will in New Haven

<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:19 pm, Matt Silberstein
>
>
>
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> > "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
> > <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a-89f1-5f13eeea7...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > >Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
> > >Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
> > >everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
> > >opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
> > >issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
> > >freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
> > >anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).
>
> > I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
> > really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
> > of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
> > interference.
>
> I don't know who you are talking to but they aren't libertarians. They
> may well be members of the Libertarian Party but given who that party
> nominated for president, many of them aren't libertarians either.
>
At one time Ron Paul was the nominee. I voted for Andre Marrou and
then for Harry Browne. Then for Gore, Kerry and most recently Obama in
a different party of curse.

>
>
> > >Many of them might just be
> > >atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
> > >Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.
>
> > Why did she despise them?
>
> Because we arrived at vaguely similar conclusions to hers as to what
> it is reasonable for a government to be allowed to do WITHOUT going
> through the same steps, agreeing to her detailed philosophy and
> becoming part of her cult of personality.
>
I used to have libertarian leanings, but no longer find the
libertarian ideal a realist view how a modern society could function.
Plus some of their privatization schemes are over the top. Blackwater
has shown what privatization can do for us in the military realm and
Fox's 24 is redeeming itself by taking this private army mess even
further to its theoretical limits than Blackwater did.

Should we privatize fire departments and police departments? With the
label of minarchist, some libertarians would be OK with enough
taxation to support minimal gov't functions involving a publically
funded military (sans interventionist foreign policy needing it to be
excessive) and local police and fire departments.

What about education? I see nothing wrong with private schools and
home education per se, although much of this involves religious
indoctrination more than solid education, especially with home
schooling. This is something the public sector should provide,
especially since many parents cannot afford a private school's tuition
with or without tax vouchers. If said voucher adds to the parental
money intake beyond reduction of taxes, this actually becomes
redistributive subsidy to the private sector anyway. I'm sure
libertarians would agree to this last fact, but would likely wish to
see public education dismantled completely and pushed into the private
sector.

What about highways? Would libertarians have given us a functional
interstate highway system so we can drive from coast to coast on
halfway decent roads? Should roads be pushed into the private sector
where each segment is owned by someone who collects a toll for people
driving on their property and puts some of this into maintenance? Or
should biulding and maintenance be a shared responsibility of federal,
state and local gov't levels? What would libertarians do about
decaying bridges or infrastructure in general? Doesn't business
benefit, as do private citizens, from a certain level of publicly
provided infrastructure? How could private pizza shops and florists
survive without gov't subsidized roadways?


>
> When I knew her she was a bitter old bitch and didn't like much of
> anyone but she really, really hated anyone who didn't give her credit
> for their belief in liberty.
>

I do have a manga-like fantasy of her rising from the dead and locking
horns in a Godzilla vs. Gamera showdown against Ann Coulter. Sure
Coulter would be a formidable opponent with the caustic venom spraying
from her mouth, but Rand, after shaking off the effects of the venom,
would vaporize Coulter with laser beams shooting from her eye sockets.
They would show exclusive footage on FoxNews where Hannity would
lament the demise of his venomous friend at the hands of a risen from
the dead atheist with laser shooting capability. Then Greta VanCistern
would chime in for an hour.

Seriously though I wonder what Rand would think of Coulter if she were
alive to read her books. Probably not much if at all.


>
> On the other hand, if an Objectivist were
> running for office against any of the statists who call themselves
> Republicans or Democrats I would vote for her or him.
>

Even Peikoff?

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 9:27:49 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 9:19 pm, "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[spelling self-flame snip]

>
> At one time Ron Paul was the nominee. I voted for Andre Marrou and
> then for Harry Browne. Then for Gore, Kerry and most recently Obama in
> a different party of curse.
>
Oops! Bad typo. At least I didn't add an "f" instead of dropping an
"o" and spell it "off course".

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 10:36:48 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 5:31 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

Darwin and biological evolutionary theory by any name are not
mentioned in Mein Kampf. However, God is mentioned several times.

Please quote the people you are responding to.

Kermit

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 10:38:09 PM4/11/09
to
On Apr 11, 2:59 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

No, we are considering all relevant evidence, which is part of
scientific methodology. That must be why you are confused about this.

Kermit

Dick C.

unread,
Apr 11, 2009, 11:24:29 PM4/11/09
to
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e01c9060-75a2-435f...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 10, 8:59 pm, Will in New Haven

>> Would you back your "guarantee" by betting actual, well, money?
>
>
>
> The whole nation is currently betting on it. With lots of money. Lots
> and lots.
>
>
>
> And
>> what defines "this generation?"
>>
>
>
>
> Well, the LAST time the Repug free-market nutters destroyed the
> economy (in 1929), they were utterly completely absolutely irrelevant
> for the entire decades of the 30's and 40's, and only regained some
> limited relevance by capturing the Presidency in 1953 --- and that had
> far more to do with Eisenhower being a war hero than it had with any
> love for Republican policies (Eisenhower could have run as a
> representative of the Monster Raving Looney Party and still won). And
> even when the Repugs FINALLY did win a real presidency in 1969, Nixon
> stayed severely away from all the free-market stuff and didn't even
> attempt to dismantle any of the New Deal/Great Society programs. He
> knew better than to even try.
>
> The Repug free-market fans weren't able to gain real power again until
> the "Reagan Revolution" in 1980 ----- 50 years after they first fucked
> things up ---- at a time when most of the people who had lived through
> the results of their first fuckup, were dead.
>
> And they promptly fucked things up again.
>
> I don't expect to see them in real power again for another 50 years --
> when all the people alive now, this generation, who have seen the
> latest fuckup firsthand, will mostly be dead.

I find it interesting that the U.S. then elected FDR, who is still hated
by the right wing. And not only did he inherit a major financial crisis
it was made worse by a major drought in the midwest that forced thousands
of families to lose their homes and farms, and become homeless.
Today, our president has inherited a financial crisis and a major climate
crisis along with it.

--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 12:01:35 AM4/12/09
to
On Apr 11, 11:24 pm, "Dick C." <foo.dic...@toast.net> wrote:
I saw something recently about a a major sandstorm that hit a US
military base in Iraq with an enormous sand cloud. One might not be
surprised about this in Iraq, but wasn't this happening during the
infamous Dust Bowl in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_storm

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 12:48:42 AM4/12/09
to
On Apr 11, 11:24 pm, "Dick C." <foo.dic...@toast.net> wrote:


Indeed, one of the reasons why the rightwingnuts hate Obama so much is
because they are utterly terrified that Obama will do what FDR did.

Of course, what FDR did, was to save their rich fat ungrateful asses,
with them kicking and screaming and fighting against him the entire
time.


And not only did he inherit a major financial crisis
> it was made worse by a major drought in the midwest that forced thousands
> of families to lose their homes and farms, and become homeless.
> Today, our president has inherited a financial crisis and a major climate
> crisis along with it.
>

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 6:18:01 AM4/12/09
to
German for natural selection is "naturliche auslese", or "auswahl".
Evolution is referred to by Hitler as "entwicklung", development, or
"hoherzuchtung", higher breeding and such.

Mein Kampf, Hitler
"Die Natur selber pflegt ja in Zeiten großer Not oder böser
klimatischer Verhältnisse sowie bei armem Bodenertrag ebenfalls zu
einer Einschränkung der Vermehrung der Bevölkerung von bestimmten
Ländern oder Rassen zu schreiten; allerdings in ebenso weiser wie
rücksichtsloser Methode. Sie behindert nicht die Zeugungsfähigkeit an
sich, wohl aber die Forterhaltung des Gezeugten, indem sie dieses so
schweren Prüfungen und Entbehrungen aussetzt, daß alles minder
Starke, weniger Gesunde, wieder in den Schoß des ewig Unbekannten
zurückzukehren gezwungen wird. Was sie dann dennoch die Unbilden des
Daseins überdauern läßt, ist tausendfältig erprobt, hart und wohl
geeignet, wieder weiter zu zeugen, auf daß die gründliche Auslese von
vorne wieder zu beginnen vermag. Indem sie so gegen den einzelnen
brutal vorgeht und ihn augenblicklich wieder zu sich ruft, sowie er
dem Sturme des Lebens nicht gewachsen ist, erhält sie die Rasse und
Art selber kraftvoll, ja steigert sie zu höchsten Leistungen.


Damit ist aber die Verminderung der Zahl eine Stärkung der Person,
mithin aber letzten Endes eine Kräftigung der Art. "


"Wenn man bedenkt, daß außerdem noch eine möglichst große
Einschränkung der Zeugung an sich erfolgt, so daß der Natur jede
Auslese unterbunden wird, da natürlich jedes auch noch so elende
Wesen
erhalten werden muß, so bleibt wirklich nur die Frage, warum eine
solche Institution überhaupt noch besteht und welchen Zweck sie haben
soll? "


"Sicher wird dieses Interesse nicht befriedigt und es wird ihm nicht
gedient durch die Herrschaft der nicht denkfähigen oder nicht
tüchtigen, auf keinen Fall aber begnadeten Masse, sondern einzig
durch
die Führung der von Natur aus mit besonderen Gaben dazu Befähigten.
Das Aussuchen dieser Köpfe besorgt, wie schon gesagt, vor allem der
harte Lebenskampf selbst.Vieles bricht und geht zugrunde, erweist
sich
also doch nicht als zum Letzten bestimmt, und wenige nur erscheinen
zuletzt als auserwählt. Auf den Gebieten des Denkens, des
künstlerischen Schaffens, ja selbst denen der Wirtschaft findet
dieser
Ausleseprozeß auch heute noch statt, obwohl er besonders auf dem
letzteren schon einer schweren Belastung ausgesetzt ist."


"Auch wird durch solchen Zusammenschluß das freie Spiel der Kräfte
unterbunden, der Kampf zur Auslese des Besten abgestellt und somit
der
notwendige und endgültige Sieg des Gesünderen und Stärkeren für
immer verhindert."


"Nationalsozialistische Arbeitnehmer und nationalsozialistische
Arbeitgeber sind beide Beauftragte und Sachwalter der gesamten
Volksgemeinschaft. Das hohe Maß persönlicher Freiheit, das ihnen in
ihrem Wirken dabei zugebilligt wird, ist durch die Tatsache zu
erklären, daß erfahrungsgemäß die Leistungsfähigkeit des einzelnen
durch weitgehende Freiheitsgewährung mehr gesteigert wird als durch
Zwang von oben, und es weiter geeignet ist zu verhindern, daß der
natürliche Ausleseprozeß, der den Tüchtigsten, Fähigsten und
Fleißigsten befördern soll, etwa unterbunden wird."


"Sowenig sie aber schon eine Paarung von schwächeren Einzelwesen mit
stärkeren wünscht, soviel weniger noch die Verschmelzung von höherer
Rasse mit niederer, da ja andernfalls ihre ganze sonstige, vielleicht
jahrhunderttausendelange Arbeit der Höherzüchtung mit einem Schlage
hinfällig wäre."


"Dem Naturgesetz aller Entwicklung aber entspricht nicht das
Verkuppeln
zweier eben nicht gleicher Gebilde, sondern der Sieg des stärkeren
und
die durch den dadurch bedingten Kampf allein ermöglichte
Höherzüchtung der Kraft und Stärke des Siegers."


"Damit entspricht die völkische Weltanschauung dem innersten Wollen
der Natur, da sie jenes freie Spiel der Kräfte wiederherstellt, das
zu
einer dauernden gegenseitigen Höherzüchtung führen muß, bis endlich
dem besten Menschentum, durch den erworbenen Besitz dieser Erde,
freie
Bahn gegeben wird zur Betätigung auf Gebieten, die teils über, teils
außer ihr liegen werden."


"Im allgemeinen pflegt schon die Natur in der Frage der rassischen
Reinheit irdischer Lebewesen bestimmte korrigierende Entscheidungen
zu
treffen. Sie liebt die Bastarde
nur wenig."


"Diese aber besorgt die Natur, indem sie den schwächeren Teil so
schweren Lebensbedingungen unterwirft, daß schon durch sie die Zahl
beschränkt wird, den Überrest aber endlich nicht wahllos zur
Vermehrung zuläßt, sondern hier eine neue, rücksichtslose Auswahl
nach Kraft und Gesundheit trifft."

TomS

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 6:54:56 AM4/12/09
to
"On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:44:03 -0700 (PDT), in article
<226a943a-c71c-4ec6...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>On Apr 11, 8:31=A0pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

><nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> natural selection is the theme in mein kampf,
>
>strange, then, that it's never mentioned in 'mein kampf'...unless, of
>course, you're making it up..
[...snip...]

What is denied is the efficacy of natural selection. Perhaps not
explicitly, because I doubt that Hitler knew enough or cared
enough about natural selection to even mention natural selection.

What we see, by their actions, is a belief that, without something
like "design", things will deteriorate. Like creationism and unlike
evolutionary biology.

What we see is a belief in "micro"evolution, that is, belief that
changes operate within a "kind", like "mankind". Like the
creationists, where the creationists accept this bit of evolutionary
biology.

What we see is a denial of "macro"evolution of human beings. Like
the creationists.

What we see is a belief that the physical properties of humans,
such as their origins, determine the values of humans. Like the
creationists.

But I don't say that the creationists happen to agree on some issues
with a particular gang of thugs that the creationists bear any
responsibility for what they did. That would be vile behavior on my
part, and I would hope never to do that.


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

wf3h

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 7:25:34 AM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 6:18 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> German for natural selection is "naturliche auslese", or "auswahl".
> Evolution is referred to by Hitler as "entwicklung", development, or
> "hoherzuchtung", higher breeding and such.
>

incidentally, nando, your co religionists in afghanistan last week
legalized the rape of women. how's that fit in with your view of
freedom?

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 7:33:26 AM4/12/09
to
There is no Darwinist on this newsgroup that believes good and evil
are non material, spiritual qualities. Darwinists demand evidence for
everything, and dont acknowledge anything without evidence. This
excludes the possibility of knowing good and evil by faith, and
results in a science of good and evil based on evidence. A Darwinist
will not acknowledge that things originate per decision, and that all
decisions are made spiritually.

Darwinists believe in choosing only by the logic of natural selection.
In the Darwinist conception of choice the alternatives are in the
present, the less fit and more fit organisms. The goal of the choice
is predefined, survival, so that choosing becomes a calculation of a
survival optimum without the possibility that an alternative is
realized. So choosing equates to force in Darwinism.

In creationist concept of choosing the alternatives are in the future,
and the result determined spiritually. This way either alternative may
be realized in a choice, so the concept of freedom is genuine.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

TomS

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 8:39:07 AM4/12/09
to
"On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:33:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
<33b4e2ec-c3bc-44e8...@f25g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."

The fascinating thing about this is how many creationists seem to
believe that a physical property - like ancestry - carries with it
values.

How many times do we hear that if humans are descended from monkeys,
then we should behave like monkeys?

Think of the famous and popular 19th century hymn to creation:

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colours,
He made their tiny wings.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And order'd their estate.

etc.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 8:57:27 AM4/12/09
to
You can see the Darwinist conception of choice equates to force in
evolutionary game theory. Fitness is the predefined goal, and choosing
is only mentioned in reference to reaching this predefined goal. This
theory merely regresses the problem of freedom to choosing the goal in
the first place.

As before, an organism that behaves according to a predefined goal is
predictable, and may therefore be easy prey. The organisms would also
get in each others way a lot if they behaved according to predefined
goals, going after the same food. An organism that freely chooses has
the advantage of surprise in attacking, and unpredictability in
fleeing. So even when survival is the limiting factor to behaviour,
then survival is not neccessarily the goal of the organism, since
having a predefined goal would make the organism vulnerable. So you
see freedom and fitness go hand in hand, but a Darwinist does not see
it.

Ive seen grown men, eminent scientists like Karl Pribram be baffled by
this problem of freedom. But really the common knowledge everybody
uses when talking in terms of choosing is basically correct. Choices
are made spiritually, without a predefined goal, from the heart, as
mentioned a thousand times a day on television soaps and movies.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 10:29:33 AM4/12/09
to
To acknowledge freedom requires to acknowledge that things act
according to the future. The future which consists of alternatives,
what physically determines the result from the alternatives is
nothing, or zero. Creatio ex nihilo. Darwinists have not yet conceived
that nothing or zero, is part of material reality. They lag about 500
years since the zero was discovered. Now Darwinists talk about
emergence, which is kind of like a something and nothing blended. The
information which the present generation consists of is not inherent
to the previous generation, yet the information is said to come from
the previous generation.

Still no freedom is acknowledged.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 10:59:07 AM4/12/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:56:31 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Will in
New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> in
<455bdd59-76cd-43d5...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 11, 12:19 pm, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
>> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
>> <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a-89f1-5f13eeea7...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
>> >Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
>> >everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
>> >opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
>> >issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
>> >freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
>> >anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).
>>
>> I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
>> really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
>> of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
>> interference.
>
>I don't know who you are talking to but they aren't libertarians. They
>may well be members of the Libertarian Party but given who that party
>nominated for president, many of them aren't libertarians either.

Ah, the No True Libertarian argument.

>>
>> >Many of them might just be
>> >atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
>> >Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.
>>
>> Why did she despise them?
>
>Because we arrived at vaguely similar conclusions to hers as to what
>it is reasonable for a government to be allowed to do WITHOUT going
>through the same steps, agreeing to her detailed philosophy and
>becoming part of her cult of personality.

Given what I know of Rand that makes absolute sense.

>When I knew her she was a bitter old bitch and didn't like much of
>anyone but she really, really hated anyone who didn't give her credit
>for their belief in liberty. On the other hand, if an Objectivist were
>running for office against any of the statists who call themselves
>Republicans or Democrats I would vote for her or him.
--

Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 11:00:50 AM4/12/09
to

By the way, Nando -- none of these passages refers to biological
evolution or Darwin. Not a one of them.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 10:59:39 AM4/12/09
to


Here, Nando -- you forgot some parts of "Mein Kampf":


"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably
bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines,
the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this
globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the
destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy
the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to 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."

" It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most
gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to
degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and
Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."


"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and
reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children
and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the
fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the
mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."


"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am
fighting for the work of the Lord."

"Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order,
thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of
preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by
the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission."

"Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with
terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of
lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North
America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of
Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples,
shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America,
where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the
aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and
distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic
inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure
and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the
master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the
blood. The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always
the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing
else but to sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in
his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially
of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word
be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and
their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the
Lord's creation, the divine will."

Who is this "God", "Lord", Almighty" and "Creator" that Herr Hitler
keeps talking about, Nando . . . .?

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 11:02:28 AM4/12/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> in
<1a566eb4-487b-4a55...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

>On Apr 11, 6:56 pm, Will in New Haven
><bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 12:19 pm, Matt Silberstein
>>
>>
>>
>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
>> > "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
>> > <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a-89f1-5f13eeea7...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > >Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
>> > >Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
>> > >everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
>> > >opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
>> > >issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
>> > >freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
>> > >anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).
>>
>> > I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
>> > really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
>> > of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
>> > interference.
>>
>> I don't know who you are talking to but they aren't libertarians. They
>> may well be members of the Libertarian Party but given who that party
>> nominated for president, many of them aren't libertarians either.
>>
>At one time Ron Paul was the nominee.

Is he a real libertarian? Because he sure is a state's rights over
individual rights kind of guy.

[snip]

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 11:23:58 AM4/12/09
to
So then it is not the ruthless and brutal struggle for survival, but
the "holy" ruthless and brutal struggle for survival. This conception
of natural selection is also in line with Darwin who referred to the
creator in Origin of Species.

Besides God the nazi also like to talk about spiritual qualities. But
then the spiritual qualities they consider just as heritable as
cheekbones and toes. So spiritual=material in nazism, consequently
good and evil are basically scientifically determined.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 12:13:54 PM4/12/09
to
Hitler also directly comments on the creation vs evolution debate in
Mein Kampf. Saying that it confused him as a child in school, to learn
creation is true in one class, and evolution is true in another. Then
he says that creation or evolution doesnt matter because in both
scenarios there is a first of every one.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

TomS

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 12:16:04 PM4/12/09
to
"On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:29:33 -0700 (PDT), in article
<56868013-bf20-47bf...@n1g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."

As far as I know, there were two independent discoveries of zero,
both at least 1000 years before Darwin: in Mesoamerica and in
India.

Even today, there are plenty of people who don't quite grasp the
concept of zero. They may confuse zero with nothing.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 1:20:11 PM4/12/09
to
No the origin of things can be calculated to come from that which
consists of nothing, and is nowhere, all the physical attributes zero.
So nothing is part and parcel of material reality, and can be
objectively identified.

You are talking about things you dont understand, and evidently dont
even like to understand.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 1:33:13 PM4/12/09
to
Incidentally this is one of the few things I changed my mind about on
internet debating forum. Previously I used to be convinced that
nothing was not real, now I know to acknowledge nothing is real is
just as natural as to acknowledge the 0-axis on a graph.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

TomS

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 1:37:20 PM4/12/09
to
"On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:13:54 -0700 (PDT), in article
<a1fda6a0-39f8-4054...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."

Citation?

TomS

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 1:42:36 PM4/12/09
to
"On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:33:13 -0700 (PDT), in article
<a95a7c24-7885-41e9...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."

The "natural" is not always "desirable".

TomS

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 2:22:39 PM4/12/09
to
"On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:20:11 -0700 (PDT), in article
<6b36f518-1db6-4c37...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
nando_r...@yahoo.com stated..."

Yes, the concept of zero is rather difficult to grasp.

I can remember, as a child, complaining when the sports announcer
would say that there is "no score" in the game. I pointed out that
there was a score in the game, the score was zero to zero.

Much later I was told about one definition of dimension, whereby
the dimension of a space consisting of isolated points was zero,
and the dimension of the empty set was minus one. *Not*, by the
way, was it necessary to point out to this mathematics class that
"having zero dimension" is different from "having no dimension".
By the way, I also recall that there was a proof dependent upon
the fact that 0 was an even number. I wonder how many non-
mathematicians would accept that 0 is an even number?

I understand that one of the barriers to the acceptance of "Arabic"
numerals in Europe was the difficulty of grasping that the numeral
zero was not nothing: how, people wondered, could 10 be different
from 1, when 0 is nothing; how could adding nothing to 1 change it?

And there was a correspondent in this group some time ago who
insisted that 5 divided by 0 was 5 divided by nothing, and therefore
was 5: if you don't divide 5 by anything, then you don't change 5.
(I don't recall if they also said that 5 times 0 is 5, for a
similar reason.)

Dr.Gary Hurd

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 3:11:20 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 11, 1:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 10, 6:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
> >> <louan...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> >> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>
> >> >> Like so?
> >> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>
> >> >> Jan
>
> >> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>
> >> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>
> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books. They might oppose the fact
> >that there are *public* schools supported by tax revenues, but not the
> >content of the textbooks, least of all evolution.
>
> Well, yeah, but that's not what I was commenting/asking
> about; it was the idea that Godwin's Law should be invoked
> for a comment about the book-burnings done by Nazis in
> response to an article about book-burnings done (or
> encouraged) by other jerks.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

But, the Nazis did ban all of Darwin's books as well as Ernst
Haeckel's work.

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries,
published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second
round of "purifications" (saüberung).
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren
Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven
Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals
with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and
Monism (Häckel)

The store of banned books was the source for books to fuel the public
bonfires, so burning evolutionary text is in fact a real parallel- not
a Goodwin example.

Burkhard

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 4:00:34 PM4/12/09
to
On 12 Apr, 11:18, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mots of the rest is just an idea of breeding applied to humans - and
breeding for certain characteristics rather precedes Darwin, you
know.... but this one I thought I translate just for you:


>
> "Nationalsozialistische Arbeitnehmer und nationalsozialistische
> Arbeitgeber sind beide Beauftragte und Sachwalter der gesamten
> Volksgemeinschaft. Das hohe Maß persönlicher Freiheit, das ihnen in
> ihrem Wirken dabei zugebilligt wird, ist durch die Tatsache zu
> erklären, daß erfahrungsgemäß die Leistungsfähigkeit des einzelnen
> durch weitgehende Freiheitsgewährung mehr gesteigert wird als durch
> Zwang von oben,
>

"National- Socialist workers and employers are trustees of the entire
people The high degree of personal FREEDOM, which they are given for
their task, can be explained by the fact that experience tells us
people's ability increases the more FREEDOM they are given rather than
force from above."

Did't you go on and one about knowledge of freedom elsewhere?

er...@swva.net

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 4:24:40 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 7:33 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no Darwinist on this newsgroup

True. Darwinists are imaginary rhetorical constructs of science-
haters.

(snip)

Eric Root

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 5:29:05 PM4/12/09
to
As mentioned before, you should put this in context of a thought
experiment. What would you tell a secret agent about the nazis who has
a mission to infiltrate a castle full of ss officers to obtain the war
plans, posing as an ss officer himself.

So then for instance you would tell the secret agent that nazism is
about great personal freedom. Would that information help the secret
agent in fullfilling the mission.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 6:34:11 PM4/12/09
to
> by the right wing. And not only did he inherit a major financial crisis

> it was made worse by a major drought in the midwest that forced thousands
> of families to lose their homes and farms, and become homeless.
> Today, our president has inherited a financial crisis and a major climate
> crisis along with it.

I hope you don't believe that anything Roosevelt did ended the
Depression. He ameliorated the suffering somewhat but it took an
upturn of the world economy to end the Depression. It seems to have
taken WWII to cause the upturn of the world economy but it may have
happened anyway.

--
Will in New Haven

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 6:38:54 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 10:59 am, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:56:31 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Will in
> New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> in
> <455bdd59-76cd-43d5-99f6-879bad60b...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 12:19 pm, Matt Silberstein
> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:24:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> >> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
> >> <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a-89f1-5f13eeea7...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
> >> >Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
> >> >everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
> >> >opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
> >> >issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
> >> >freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
> >> >anarchist-wing might burn flags instead).
>
> >> I know they claim that, but most of the Libertarians I run into a
> >> really state's rights advocates. That is, they stand up for the right
> >> of Georgia to discriminate on the basis of religion, free from federal
> >> interference.
>
> >I don't know who you are talking to but they aren't libertarians. They
> >may well be members of the Libertarian Party but given who that party
> >nominated for president, many of them aren't libertarians either.
>
> Ah, the No True Libertarian argument.

Oh, fuck off.

I could go tell people I was a Democrat and that I believed in burning
people at the stake. Would that mean that democracy was a bad thing?
Or I could tell your neighbor I was a Jew (which I am, by heritage)
and that we sacrificed Christian children at Passover. Would you just
shrug and not point out that this was nonsense?

--
Will in New Haven


>
>
>


> >> >Many of them might just be
> >> >atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.
> >> >Yet would Ayn Rand burn books on the ToE? I think not.
>
> >> Why did she despise them?
>
> >Because we arrived at vaguely similar conclusions to hers as to what
> >it is reasonable for a government to be allowed to do WITHOUT going
> >through the same steps, agreeing to her detailed philosophy and
> >becoming part of her cult of personality.
>
> Given what I know of Rand that makes absolute sense.
>
> >When I knew her she was a bitter old bitch and didn't like much of
> >anyone but she really, really hated anyone who didn't give her credit
> >for their belief in liberty. On the other hand, if an Objectivist were
> >running for office against any of the statists who call themselves
> >Republicans or Democrats I would vote for her or him.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>

> http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 6:41:37 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 11:02 am, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
> <1a566eb4-487b-4a55-947b-43ec21a51...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>

He has some libertarian sympathies. Preferring smaller entities over
nation-states is a reasonable way for a libertarian to approach some
political questions if we didn't have the horrible performance of some
of our states to look at.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 6:39:28 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 11:02 am, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:19:46 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins ,
> "*Hemidactylus*" <ecpho...@hotmail.com> in
> <1a566eb4-487b-4a55-947b-43ec21a51...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
If memory serves he was a prominent Republican who ran as a
Libertarian and gave them a good boost at the polls that year ('88). I
don't think he was a True Libertarian, though his views did overlap
significantly. He is pro-life and anti-immigration from what I can see
on this wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

He has made some gutsy choices that are parallel to Libertarian
beliefs, like opposing the Iraq war.and the Patriot Act, which were
stances opposite to his fellow Republicans, in general. He's also
opposed to the War on Drugs.

State's rights is what made Goldwater seem like a racist in the 60's,
though in some respects he wound up become more in unison with
libertarian later in lifes. He was more of a pro-choicer than other
Republicans and was more accepting of homosexuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

Interestingly one of Goldwater's entourage was one of the
urlibertarians Karl Hess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hess

Paul Ciszek

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 7:05:28 PM4/12/09
to

In article <dd0ae343-1768-4c3a...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Seems like a bunch of politically active people from many backgrounds.
>Just because it had something to do with Glenn Beck doesn't mean
>everyone there was in locked step with him or eachother, beyond maybe
>opposition to gov't spending. Libertarians are opposed to this, an
>issue where I disagree with them, but Libertarians are about social
>freedoms and book burning doesn't seem to be their thing (the
>anarchist-wing might burn flags instead). Many of them might just be

>atheists inspired by Ayn Rand, who ironically despised Libertarians.

I seriously doubt that anyone shown on that videotape is an atheist.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

Rodjk #613

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 7:34:43 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 5:34 pm, Will in New Haven

Yeah, Roosevelt did not spend nearly enough money to overcome the
depression.
It took the money spent on WW II to do that...

Rodjk #613

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 9:53:01 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 12:13 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hitler also directly comments on the creation vs evolution debate in
> Mein Kampf.


Reeeaaallllyyyyy. Which chapter. What page.

This is utter bullshit.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 9:55:35 PM4/12/09
to
On Apr 12, 6:34 pm, Will in New Haven

You're right --- FDR didn't spend enough government resources to have
ended the Depression. To do that, it took a level of government
spending equivilent to that needed to . . . uh . . . fund a global
war.

wf3h

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 10:15:47 PM4/12/09
to
> There is no Darwinist on this newsgroup that believes good and evil
> are non material, spiritual qualities

meaningless. 'non material' does not equate to 'spiritual'

you need to learn english.

. Darwinists demand evidence for
> everything, and dont acknowledge anything without evidence.

i love beethoven's 'moonlight sonata'

how do you thnk 'darwinists demand evidence' for the moonlight sonata?

oh. they don't. more meaningless tripe


wf3h

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 10:17:42 PM4/12/09
to
> Hitler also directly comments on the creation vs evolution debate in
> Mein Kampf.

the most intense believers in hitler today are islamists like nando.

and, as a side line, he believes christianity should be suppressed so
muslims won't feel lonely

muslims in afghanistan legalized rape last week. is that freedom?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 11:55:16 PM4/12/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:02:23 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by nos...@nospam.com (Paul
Ciszek):

>
>In article <0d210542-7293-475a...@e25g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,


>*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
>>irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books.
>

>Sez who? I have encountered "libertarians" who argued in favor of
>warrentless wiretapping, giving government money to churches, and
>everything else that George W. Bush ever wanted to do. I have met
>"self-identified libertarians" who think same sex marriage should
>be illegal. Some "libertarians" want the government to stay out
>their homes and ignore what they do to their wives and kids, but
>want the government to prosecute other people's "immoralities". About
>the only thing you can say about libertarians in toto is that
>they don't want to pay taxes for any of the stuff they want the
>government to do. So, while you could say "Libertarians don't
>want to pay taxes to support government organized book burings",
>you can't universally say that libertarians don't burn books or
>even than no "self-identified libertarians" want the government to
>burn books.

Those "Libertarians" are Libertarians in the same way that
the fundies frequently encountered here are Christians or
the Bush Republicans are fiscal conservatives. IOW, not at
all.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 12:01:03 AM4/13/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:24:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:

>On Apr 11, 4:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 10, 6:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
>> >> <louan...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
>> >> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>>
>> >> >> Like so?
>> >> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>>
>> >> >> Jan
>>
>> >> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>>
>> >> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>>

>> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it

>> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books. They might oppose the fact
>> >that there are *public* schools supported by tax revenues, but not the
>> >content of the textbooks, least of all evolution.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but that's not what I was commenting/asking
>> about; it was the idea that Godwin's Law should be invoked
>> for a comment about the book-burnings done by Nazis in
>> response to an article about book-burnings done (or
>> encouraged) by other jerks.
>>

>I was trying mostly to point to the problem of drawing generalizations
>about people at a meeting based on a camera perspective that focused
>on a couple prominent aspects of the meeting. These aspects may have
>been made prominent by where the person recording was standing and the
>time period recorded. I have to admit much of what I saw was
>disturbing, but cannot assume everybody their was of the exact same
>mindset. There might have been some hardcore pro-gov't liberals there
>who were engaging in quiet observation for all I know and reported
>back to their own organizations about the event as they saw it.

Point(s) taken, but any mention of organized book burning
would seem to automatically conjure pictures of Germany in
the '30s.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 12, 2009, 11:58:58 PM4/12/09
to
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:12:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Dr. Acula"
<jerr...@gmail.com>:

>On Apr 11, 3:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 10, 6:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
>> >> <louan...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
>> >> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>>
>> >> >> Like so?
>> >> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>>
>> >> >> Jan
>>
>> >> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>>
>> >> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>>
>> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
>> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books. They might oppose the fact
>> >that there are *public* schools supported by tax revenues, but not the
>> >content of the textbooks, least of all evolution.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but that's not what I was commenting/asking
>> about; it was the idea that Godwin's Law should be invoked
>> for a comment about the book-burnings done by Nazis in
>> response to an article about book-burnings done (or
>> encouraged) by other jerks.

>"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
>involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
>
>Its simply a statement of probability, not a statement about
>applicability or relevance.

From the phrasing I'd judge that what was intended was
irrelevant or inapplicable comparison, which is how I've
seen it used several times. For instance, a mention of
Hitler or Nazis in a discussion of WWII would hardly invoke
Godwin. You could be correct in a strict sense, but not in a
rational one.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 12:07:27 AM4/13/09
to
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:11:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Dr.Gary Hurd"
<gary...@cox.net>:

>On Apr 11, 1:38 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:27:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
>> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 10, 6:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller
>> >> <louan...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
>> >> >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>>
>> >> >> Like so?
>> >> >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
>>
>> >> >> Jan
>>
>> >> >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
>>
>> >> Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>>
>> >The presence of a self-identified Libertarian at the meeting makes it
>> >irrelevant. Libertarians don't burn books. They might oppose the fact
>> >that there are *public* schools supported by tax revenues, but not the
>> >content of the textbooks, least of all evolution.
>>
>> Well, yeah, but that's not what I was commenting/asking
>> about; it was the idea that Godwin's Law should be invoked
>> for a comment about the book-burnings done by Nazis in
>> response to an article about book-burnings done (or
>> encouraged) by other jerks.

>But, the Nazis did ban all of Darwin's books as well as Ernst


>Haeckel's work.
>
>Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
>Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries,
>published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second
>round of "purifications" (saüberung).
>6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren
>Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven
>Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).
>
>6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals
>with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and
>Monism (Häckel)
>
>The store of banned books was the source for books to fuel the public
>bonfires, so burning evolutionary text is in fact a real parallel- not
>a Goodwin example.

Thanks for the additional info. But don't tell Nando (who
resides in my killfile due to his inability to observe any
sort of netiquette regarding context and attributions, and
who I see by the responses has joined this thread with his
usual idiocies), since he thinks the Nazis used Darwin's
work as a Bible.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 12:08:38 AM4/13/09
to
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:41:37 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Will in
New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> in
<1cd1064f-1412-49e7...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>He has some libertarian sympathies. Preferring smaller entities over
>nation-states is a reasonable way for a libertarian to approach some
>political questions if we didn't have the horrible performance of some
>of our states to look at.

But since we do have those horrible examples and since states' rights
advocates have a 150 year long history of wanting to restrict the
rights of individuals, either as a group or singly, the default
position is that a states' rights advocate, even if they hand wave
about freedom (as Paul does) is for government intrusion in people's
lives. When their position includes things like Paul's We The People
Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539:) which would
allow states to ignore freedom of religion issues, then the support
for intrusive government is established.

Matt Silberstein

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 12:09:38 AM4/13/09
to
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Will in
New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> in
<c26498fd-4fd0-4c3d...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

So well reasoned a response.

>I could go tell people I was a Democrat and that I believed in burning
>people at the stake. Would that mean that democracy was a bad thing?
>Or I could tell your neighbor I was a Jew (which I am, by heritage)
>and that we sacrificed Christian children at Passover. Would you just
>shrug and not point out that this was nonsense?

And when you assert that the Libertarian Party choice for president is
not a libertarian, then you have accepted newspeak.

*Hemidactylus*

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 12:17:26 AM4/13/09
to
On Apr 13, 12:01 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:24:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "*Hemidactylus*"
> <ecpho...@hotmail.com>:
True enough.

Dick C.

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 1:23:17 AM4/13/09
to
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
news:345e8fad-8266-4281...@k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 11, 11:24 pm, "Dick C." <foo.dic...@toast.net> wrote:
>> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:e01c9060-75a2-435f

> -82ee-da9...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

Oh, I know that. The programs that were in place were not enough to
solve the problems. And most of what was done put a few people to
work for a little while, but little was done to keep solve the real
problems.
And you are right about WWII. It certainly pulled the U.S from the
depression. Nothing like putting everyone in the country to work to
solve the unemployment problem. Even it is manufacturing arms to go
to war with.

--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 9:33:56 AM4/13/09
to

The idea that the way to end the Depression was to expend government
resounces is not proven. That the government has any resources that it
doesn't take from others is false. All government is force, which does
not mean that government activity is never justified.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 9:42:10 AM4/13/09
to
On Apr 13, 12:09 am, Matt Silberstein

<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Will in
> New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> in
> <c26498fd-4fd0-4c3d-a4fb-68807b569...@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>

"Libertarian," like "Democrat" or "Republican" is a general term as
well as the name of a political party. Libertarian ideas are not
always reflected by the party that calls itself Libertarians. Just as
some Democrats prefer that the courts make decisions that might be
left to referenda, not a very democratic (small d) position, although
it might be correct. Just as the Republicans lately have seemed to
support oligarchy rather than republicanism (small r)

If the desire for a looser and freer society, which I call
libertarianism because the word "liberal" has been coopted in this
country, is imperfectly reflected in the Libertian Party, it is not
newspeak to point it out. When it is _grossly_ distorted by their
choice of presidential candidates, it is not newspeak to point it
out.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 10:01:07 AM4/13/09
to
In article <1iy0eym.4pn...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:24:54 -0500, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Louann Miller

> > <loua...@yahoo.com>:


> >
> > >nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> > >news:1ixz86v.1cq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
> > >
> > >> Like so?
> > >> <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B?cherverbrennung_1933_in_Deutschland>
> > >>
> > >> Jan
> > >>
> > >
> > >How do you say "Godwin" in Dutch?
> >
> > Doesn't Godwin's Law apply only for non-relevant references?
>

> Sure, it applies to gratuitous references.
> It can't be invoked to block appropriate discussion
> involving nazism.
>
> Those American wannabe nazis are so naive.
> It seemed to me that a 'Bookburning for Dummies'
> reference would be appropriate,
> to show them how it's done.
>
> Jan

First instruction, "Burn this book.".

Rodjk #613

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 10:12:14 AM4/13/09
to

I just find it odd how many people sneer at FDR and his approach to
ending the depression. "FDR didn't end the depression with all his
spending, WW2 did..."
Its as though WW2 was some sort of magical event, and people ran
around joyfully yelling "Hurray! We are at war! The Depression is
over..."

Rodjk #613

Desertphile

unread,
Apr 13, 2009, 10:37:28 AM4/13/09
to
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:13:54 -0700 (PDT),
"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hitler also directly comments on the creation vs evolution debate in
> Mein Kampf.

What chapter? Please quote the section in full. Thank you in
advance.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages