Darwinism Instigated Nazism?
James Goetz
Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
could be Post of the Month material.
DJT
Bodega
What's to refute? The existence of Naziism has no bearing whatsoever
on whether an "intelligent designer" exists.
Why give seeming credence to the irrelevant and immaterial by debating
it?
James Goetz
Public education should address public misconceptions.
James Goetz
Excellent.
AC
About the only direct correlation I can think of is the idea of "struggle",
which the Nazis certainly invoked. A common theme here is to invoke
eugenics, but since selective breeding and culling (in some cases of humans,
see Sparta) has been practiced since the most ancient times, it's difficult
to see why you could credit Darwin's theory of natural selection as the
genitive idea.
The one thing that can be easily surmised from even a cursory analysis of
Nazi racial propaganda is that they were artful pseudo-scientists, able to
cull scientific and scientific-terminology for their own purposes. At the
same time, their doctrine was very much about a purification and rebuilding
of some sort of mythical Aryan master race. While there has long been a
misinterpretation of evolutionary forces as directed forces (ie. from simple
organisms advancing ever forward to human kind), and maybe that was some
inspiration, it's most certainly not the way that biologists saw or see
evolutionary processes.
Quite frankly, this is an ever-appearing topic on TO. I first started
contributing on TO in the early 1990s, and people were invoking it then.
It's been debunked countless times, and there are likely already PotMs or
PotM nominations tearing it, and it's closely related "Social Darwinism =
Darwinism" claims (which Glenn Sheldon recently has been tacitly invoking in
his "Social Darwinism lead to Nazis" claims) to pieces.
I would like to state that I have seen some misguided individuals attempt to
invoke Natural Selection as an argument for some form of eugenics. Eugenics
as it has been applied to humans has always taken this rather odd tact that
socio-economic status (ie. poor, middle class or rich/aristocracy) are
somehow genetically heritable traits, and that by culling or encouraging the
non-reproduction of those seen to be of the lower classes or undesirable
groups was somehow the path to a stronger species (of course, count in not
allowing those with various genetic conditions from being able to
reproduce).
Eugenics proponents seem to ignore the fact that most examples of selective
breeding have produced populations that are *less fit* than the parent
populations, save within the highly artifical environment produced by human
societies, mainly because breeders tend to be interested in exagerrating
aspects of the original population (ie. fitting within human societies as
per dogs, producing large quantities of milk, protein or pelts/furs as per
many domestic animals, or larger, more prominent fruits). While these
features certainly help humans, it can often lead to organisms that are
profoundly less fit than their forebearers. Next time you're at the park,
ponder the number of breeds of dogs you see, and how many could in any
appreciable way be considered as fit as their wolf cousins.
The value of Natural Selection is that while weaker specimens are produced,
that variation under selective pressure can produce better adapted
populations. But there's no goal beyond producing the next generation, and
NS is just as capable of producing dead ends; overspecialized populations
that can only survive in a rather narrow window of environmental conditions.
In short, the whole idea of the Nazi racial theory and of eugenics in
general really flies in the face of the most valuable lesson, that more
variability, not less, is the key to the long-term survival of any
population (that us, until a meteor strike or nearby supernova renders
everything, including this discussion, moot).
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
Cj
news:28e9f52f-2f9f-40b5...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Nazism had nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin or evolution. Hitler was
enamored of and inspired by "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" by
Houston Stewart Chamberlain. The book, published in German in 1899,
asserted that there were only two pure races, Jews and Aryans, other races
were mixed (mongrels). The author insisted that Jesus was an Aryan and the
Aryan race inherited all of the knowledge and glory of Greece and Rome.
Chamberlain (an Englishman) argued that German culture was the greatest in
all Europe and that it was the future of the western world. Hitler ignored
Darwin and accepted Chamberlain's book as absolute truth and did his best to
assure that there was only one pure race.
Cj
grasshopper
Bullock, first published by Odhams in 1952.
My copy is published by Pelican Books, reprinted 1969.
Here is a paragraph from page 776, describing how towards the end of the
war, Hitler's physical and mental health was declining.
"His secretary, who had to endure many such outbursts, records that
after his return to Berlin in January his conversations became entirely
self-centred and was marked by the monotonous repetion of the same
stories told over and over again. His intellectual appetite for the
discussion of such large subjects as the evolution of man, the course
of world history, religion, and the future of science had gone; even his
memory began to fail him. His talk was confined to anectodes about his
dog or his diet, interspersed with complaints about the stupidity and
wickedness of the world."
This paragraph was itself quoted from Zoller,A. 'Hitler Privat'
Dusseldorf, 1949
The reference to Hitler's interest in the evolution of man makes me
wonder if he was as much a Creationist as some would like to believe.
James Goetz
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT),
>
Okay, I see the attempt of logic. Some Darwinists supported eugenics.
And Hitler supported eugenics. Therefore, Darwinism instigated
Hitler's eugenics. And that is more important than Hitler appealing to
divine rights to defend his eugenics.
I never paid much attention to previous posts about it until a movie
tried to promote the idea.
AC
I'm not sure how many Darwinists did support eugenics, to be honest with
you. It seems to me that it was mainly early 20th century social reformers
who were the big pushers of this. It certainly wasn't the scientific
community so far as I can tell that managed to get eugenics laws passed in
certain Western countries. There were a number of sterlization laws passed
in my native land of Canada, most notoriously in Alberta, which, if you know
anything about Canada, is not exactly a place known for its liberal
secularist types.
Simply put, it was in vogue at the time, and the chief "innovation" of
Hitler and Goebbels was to link it to the sorts of racial theories that had
been floating around since Victorian times (and which were just as common,
if not more so, among the anti-Darwinist elements as any particular
supporter of Darwinian evolution).
AC
First of all, I'm not sure that any serious person would say Hitler was a
Creationist, at least in the sense most often used around here.
Secondly, Hitler's ideas, indeed the Nazi ideas, on race and on heredity
seem awfully confused to me. They were culling all sorts of sources,
smacking together all sorts of ideas into what seems to be a rather
ill-conceived mash. It's really no different than any other pseudo-science
in that respect. The primary purpose was to broadcast the central theme of
the Nordic Master Race and its rightful place at the top of humanity, and
that other races were impure and descended into animalistic nature.
To be sure there were those in the Darwinistic camp that probably held those
views, but it was by no means reserved to supporters of Darwin. Heck, guys
like Thomas Jefferson were invoking arguments like that well over a century
before Hitler's rise to justify such attrocities as slavery. The general
notion of Victorian racial theory was that the white European was at the top
of the pole, and doubtless lots of people who held this view grabbed on to
Darwinian selection, but completely misunderstood the underlying principle
that there's no direction or goal to evolutionary processes, that white
Europeans are no more the destined end result of selection processes than
star fish or E. coli.
Back to Hitler, he was a nut, and a great many of his declarations were
purely propagandistic in nature. He fancied himself a genius, and those
around him seemed to subscribe to that notion as well. At the end of the
day, if it pushed the German people in the direction he wanted, he said what
was needed at any given moment. I suspect his view of the Creator was
significantly different than the Judeao-Christian idea, but the key word was
"God", and whether or not he was talking about the same being that his
audience imagined him to be was besides the point.
James Goetz
Well, the journal name _Annals of Eugenics_ could give some people the
idea that evolutionary geneticists supported some aspects of eugenics.
grasshopper
illustrate how some proponents/defenders of evolution like to ascribe
Hitler's atrocities to Christianity only, much like some creationists
are inclined to blame Nazism on evolutionary theory alone, to the
neglect of any other factors.
Rusty Sites
This is from Mein Kompf.
[Hitler has been talking about why species don't interbreed. Actually,
it says cohabit.]
Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between
two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an
intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means
that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in
the biologically lower order of being, but not so
high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in
any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the
will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general.
The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate
individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the
complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not
mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own
higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as
cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature
and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of
evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be
conceivable at all.
So Hitler had some theory of evolution, but it wasn't Darwin's TOE or
the contemporaneous TOE. It was Hitler's TOE. Perhaps Hitler provides
a good illustration of why people should be educated about evolution. I
wonder how often we are arguing against Hitler's TOE?
AC
Well, the key fact remains that a nation made up overwhelmingly of
Christians followed him into a war of conquest against their neighbors and
into the near extermination of European Jewry. Whatever Hitler was, he knew
his audience.
John Wilkins
Several issues:
The main proponents of a public policy of eugenics in American,
Canadian, Australian and other Anglo societies were neither geneticists
nor evolutionists in any meaningful sense. That there were geneticists
involved is irrefutable; if any science is at fault it is genetics. So I
expect Stein and co to start attacking genetics.
Moreover, while some geneticists were indeed evolutionists (Pearson and
Fisher are the obvious suspects) not all were (including Dobzhansky -
those who know their history of evolution will know I have just named
three of the leading lights of evolution in the early 20th century). One
might argue that opponents of eugenics were rare or unifluential until
you encounter Dobie.
Third, selective breeding of humans goes back to the Spartans and
before. The entirety of Christendom's obsession with "good breeding" and
"the blood" throughout the late middle ages and through to today is
selective breeding, only on bad scientific grounds.
Fourth, negative eugenics, or the forced sterilisation or killing of the
"unfit", is precisely the *opposite* of Darwinian genetics, in which any
type that outcompetes (that is, outbreeds) its competition is *by
definition* fitter. So if the "morons" are breeding more, it is because
it is the *intelligent* that are unfit, not them. So eugenics of the
American and Nazi kind is contrary to Darwinian principles. It is no
accident that a good many of those who practiced it were not Mendelian
geneticists.
Positive eugenics, in which we are to encourage by state positive
sanctions the breeding of desireable traits (desireable to whom,
exactly?) is likewise contrary to Darwinian principles, for those who do
breed freely must be fitter than these desireable trait bearers.
However, it is a different animal than negative eugenics like the Nazi
program. It merely offers incentives to breed to those who meet some
(arbitrary social) measure of fitness. So having a journal in no way
bolsters the claim that evolutionary geneticists supported the negative
kind of eugenics. Fisher, fo rexample, had 12 kids before his wife had
had enough. Is that the same as murdering "defectives" in society? I
think not.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
RAM
> AC wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:58:22 +1100,
> > grasshopper <grasshop...@tessnet.cx> wrote:
> >> Cj wrote:
It is important to note that Hitler's racial theories didn't have much
moral support. Nor did they have any mechanism to ensure racial
purity. Racial purity was not just an ideal of Nazi's but of most
Southerner's prior to the 1950-60's civil rights revolution. Eugenics
was not just an ideal of Nazi's but of elite Southerners. In the
South there was a well rationalized theological justification for
maintaining racial purity. It is called the "Hamite Hypothesis" and
it permeated Christian thought about race. There were also Eugenic
laws that lead to many poor, blacks and physically defective
individuals becoming sterilized in the South. Poorly educated
parochial hillbillys understood that Ham's sins left their mark on all
Africans and that race mixing was against God's will. They had no
idea what in hell Eugenics or Darwin was about but they did indeed
hate Darwin and loved their religion.
While one can not easily generalize from Appalachians to Aryans, I
would point out that most Germans understood their Christian beliefs
far far better than they understood Aryan purity (in a Eugenics or
folk context) or Darwin as well. The latter two do not give a ready
"emotion" laden "vocabulary of motives" that would lead to the
absolute harm the Nazi's and Southerners did to their respective
minorities. The Germans did "not" grow up thinking about or being
indoctrinated about Eugenics and Darwin. They like hillbilly's loved
their religions.
I think the evidence of the role of Christian antisemitism is far more
than most people wish to admit. It was pervasive in Germany and in
the U.S. South, but racism was more pervasive here. There is no
comparable data to indicate the pervasiveness of Eugenic or Darwinian
thought in either Germany or the U.S. South. If there is I like to be
pointed to it.
RAM
Walter Bushell
AC <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lead to organisms that are
> profoundly less fit than their forebearers. Next time you're at the park,
> ponder the number of breeds of dogs you see, and how many could in any
> appreciable way be considered as fit as their wolf cousins.
Yet there are many more dogs than wolves these days, so dogs are more
fit -- under present conditions.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
J. J. Lodder
TomS
<28e9f52f-2f9f-40b5...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, James Goetz
stated..."
Others have covered several important points. I just have
a few small things to keep in mind.
If there is anything about evolution that is relevant to
these various social/political movements of the early
20th century, is is only "micro"evolution: evolution
within "mankind". And the creationists often insist on
telling us that the creationists accept micro-evolution.
The question to ask of creationists who bring up this
argument that evolution leads to evil consequences how
the creationists avoid those consequences.
There is no indication that the Nazis were pleased with
the idea of common descent, or any other "macro"evolution.
Quite the contrary. For example, from "Mein Kampf",
chapter 11:
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose,
and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The
only difference that can exist within a species must be
in the various degrees of structural strength and active
power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc.,
with which the individual specimens are endowed." (page
312 in the translation by Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin,
1943)
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
James Goetz
> "On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), in article
I like this. Hitler on baraminology.
noctiluca
Perhaps you meant "eugenecists" rather than "evolutionists?" (Dobie
was pretty explicit about this, no?)
James Goetz
I guess we can study the history of eugenics and look at how the
eugenics proponents justify themselves. So far it looks as if there is
zero evidence that Darwinism motivated Hitler's eugenics or Southern
US eugenics. But I think we can develop a case that Darwinism
instigated Spartan eugenics.:)
slothrop
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> >Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> >myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> >propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> >could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Others have covered several important points. I just have
> a few small things to keep in mind.
>
> If there is anything about evolution that is relevant to
> these various social/political movements of the early
> 20th century, is is only "micro"evolution: evolution
> within "mankind". And the creationists often insist on
> telling us that the creationists accept micro-evolution.
> The question to ask of creationists who bring up this
> argument that evolution leads to evil consequences how
> the creationists avoid those consequences.
>
Wow, I never considered that before...that's right, they DO talk to me
about micro- all the time, and yet use the Nazi argument, which is
micro-, no?
Has anyone pointed this out to a creationist using the Nazi/eugenics
arguments? What do they say? I can't wait to ask them this myself...
slothrop
Anthropus
news:13uj7kl4mompqfe@news.
[Hitler quote:]
> Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two
> breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an
> intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. [etc]
>
> So Hitler had some theory of evolution, but it wasn't Darwin's TOE or the
> contemporaneous TOE. It was Hitler's TOE.
Actually, I've come across that 'blending' view of human reproduction
before: I think it was kind of the pre-Mendelian, Victorian-era 'default'
assumption. Somewhere in one of Dawkins's early books there's even a
historical quote about the idea of a white man (superior) landing on an
island with a black population (inferior) and having his magnificent
superiority diluted to nothing over time because none of the wives he takes
will be able to produce offspring on his exalted level... {Does anyone know
where Dawks quotes that?}
As a view it's psychologically potent in several different ways. First, it
provides something for a 'God' to do -- since without an initial, 'divine'
creative act, there would be no way for a 'superior' race to have come
about. Secondly, while it exalts the (white) speaker over all the other
races he knows, it *also* imposes a permanent burden in terms of sheer
paranoia -- since now the white paragon is made to feel in possession of
something unique and precious that is *endangered on all sides*.
I mention all this because a wrong idea can become an obsession only if it
has such psychologically compelling aspects...
M.
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
The claim is Darwinism -> Atheism -> Nazism -> Death camps.
OK, according to the makers, Evolution is a myth. So we have...
Myths -> Atheism -> Nazism -> Death camps.
But Nazi Germany was not an atheist state. Now we have
Myths -> Atheism -> Theism -> Death camps.
To claim that Atheism -> Theism is patently silly so we now have
Myths -> Atheism and Theism -> Death camps.
I find myself unable to argue against either statement. The stories in the
myths are self-contradictory and it's a lot simpler to dismiss them all
rather than pick one on no evidence. Theism has resulted in millions of
deaths and continues to do so today.
--
Robert A Heinlein: Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark
cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
Ray Martinez
> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> could be Post of the Month material.
Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
deistic" ending of the "Origin".
Ray
James Goetz
Ray, do you have any historical evidence that indicates that Hitler
was motivated by Darwinsim? How come Mein Kampf says nothing about it?
James Goetz
John, I guess it is fair to say that most Darwinian scientists and
philosophers do not hold to "social Darwinism", whatever social
Darwinism is. Could you elaborate on this?
AC
AC
The Nazi racial theory most certainly comes from the ideas that became vogue
in Victorian times. Let's also remember that the idea of blood, of
characteristics like strength and leadership, being inherited in bloodlines
is very ancient. Nobility and aristocracy became quite obsessed with
extending their family trees to some ancient and noble individual or house.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
>> Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
>> myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
>> could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
I think we've demonstrated that, at best, some folks with some extremely
twisted notions of what Darwinian selection was all about did that.
> Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist
He did no such thing. I challenge you right now to provide verifiable
historical citations from Darwin showing that he proved God didn't exist or
that he thought he had. Anything but full citations is evidence that you
are a liar.
> and since he proved we are just modified
> apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
> extinction.
I challenge you to come up with direct citations from Darwin showing this.
Anything less is a full admission of your lying.
> Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
> beliefs.
Damn near every Victorian was openly racist, long before Darwin published
his theory. And it certainly began before Darwin. After all, most slave
holders in the Americas believed themselves superior to their black slaves.
You can't blame Darwin for American slavery, nor can you blame Darwin for
the Southern Baptist Convention, created specifically with a racist theology
in mind to justify slavery.
You're a liar and a fool.
> The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
> literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
We have citations from Hitler himself showing how false this is. You are an
immoral man, Ray, a foul ignorant liar. Now fuck off you twisted piece of
shit and quit polluting an interesting thread with your wickedness and
immorality.
Besides, you're much more a racist than Darwin ever was. I have evidence of
it right from your own posts.
Ray Martinez
No one expects Darwinists to acknowledge the facts outlined above just
like no one expects anti-semites to acknowledge the Holocaust.
Intelligent persons know that your "questions" are not as such but
are, in fact, the denial game that deniers play.
Ray
AC
Translation: No, I can't provide any sources, but I'll keep on ranting
anyways.
Ray Martinez
>
> fnor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Expected defense of the denial game by a fellow Darwinist.
Could anyone expect Darwinists to acknowledge that Darwin instigated
the Nazi's as I outlined?
Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
for Theism.
Ray
James Goetz
Ray, Mein Kampf clearly expressed hatred for Jews. And Mein Kampf also
supported some basics of baraminology.
Tim Tyler
> Fourth, negative eugenics, or the forced sterilisation or killing of the
> "unfit", is precisely the *opposite* of Darwinian genetics, in which any
> type that outcompetes (that is, outbreeds) its competition is *by
> definition* fitter. So if the "morons" are breeding more, it is because
> it is the *intelligent* that are unfit, not them. So eugenics of the
> American and Nazi kind is contrary to Darwinian principles. It is no
> accident that a good many of those who practiced it were not Mendelian
> geneticists.
This doesn't make much sense. AFAIK, there are no "Darwinian
principles" that say that orgainsms can't kill each other or
screw with each other's breeding.
> Positive eugenics, in which we are to encourage by state positive
> sanctions the breeding of desireable traits (desireable to whom,
> exactly?) is likewise contrary to Darwinian principles, for those who do
> breed freely must be fitter than these desireable trait bearers.
This doesn't make much sense either. However both paragraphs
contain the possibly-loaded phrase "Darwinian principles".
I suspect this indicates not amoral scientific principles, but
some kind of "principled" moral doctrine, the bizarre contents
of which I can only guess at: "the natually fittest ought to
surivive" - perhaps!
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Desertphile
> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> could be Post of the Month material.
It was debunked decades ago. Fuck, it was debunked millennia ago:
Nazi fascism predates written history.
Please see the talkorigins.org FAQ on the subject.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Caranx latus
>
> Could anyone expect Darwinists to acknowledge that Darwin instigated
> the Nazi's as I outlined?
Ray, what does the word "instigate" mean to you? Here's one definition
(from http://www.m-w.com):
: to goad or urge forward : provoke
synonyms: see incite
I cannot believe that you would think that that Darwin either provoked
or incited the Nazis. What is it that you really mean to say?
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> > could be Post of the Month material.
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
By "Darwin" I assume you mean "Martin Luther and 1700 years of
Christianity."
AC
Look Ray, we're not idiots, and we can tell when someone's just blowing hot
air. If you have direct citations to any of this, then by all means provide
them, but your immoral tactics only show the extent of your own depravity.
Tiny Bulcher
> On Mar 26, 2:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate
>>> about Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the
>>> information myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the
>>> Expelled propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good
>>> essay on this could be Post of the Month material.
>>
>> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
>> proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just
>> modified apes
Well, there you go. If Darwin proved all this, what are all these
creationists bitching about, hey?
>> they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
>> extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
>> beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
>> literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
>> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>
> Ray, do you have any historical evidence that indicates that Hitler
> was motivated by Darwinsim? How come Mein Kampf says nothing about it?
Lemme guess ... his evidence will be in his paper.
Cj
news:85be7da3-8fc2-4ef1...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Horse Shit!
Cj
Ray Martinez
>
> : to goad or urge forward : provoke
> synonyms: see incite
>
> I cannot believe that you would think that that Darwin either provoked
> or incited the Nazis. What is it that you really mean to say?
>
>
>
> > Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Charles Darwin:
"Descent of Man" (1871)
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
and the gorilla."
In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
of said war or extermination). The remainder of Darwin's thought can
best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
Ray
Rusty Sites
> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
>> Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
>> myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
>> could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
Did the Beatles instigate and empower Charles Manson?
J. J. Lodder
> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> > could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist ....
Could you outline that proof for us?
Jan
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:57:19 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
Here is a foundation for the instigation or empowering:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/500b992f526db225
I find your attitude unacceptable. I am attempting to help
evolutionary theory come to grips with its products. There is no
reason to deny the link. Evolutionary theory is not harmed, your
reaction is what harms your theory. We know Martin Luther was a vile
anti-semite. But his legacy is not seen or perceived as such - quite
the opposite. He was the Father of the Reformation. American civil
rights pioneer, Martin Luther King, and his followers insist that he
be identified with his full birth name. Evolutionary theory needs to
simply acknowledge the ugly truth. At which time intelligent persons
of cultural diversity will undoubtedly overcome and rescue ToE from
its most evil past.
Ray
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
>> for Theism.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there this "faith" thing?
--
Atheism: Godless, not believing in the existence of gods.
AC
Ray, you insufferable dishonest and immoral fool, the idea of racial
superiority predates Darwin by millennia. Half a century before Darwin
published, guys like Thomas JEfferson were writing about the inferiority of
the black man.
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:31:42 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
Where was that denied or ever the issue?
The issue was never the origins of racial superiority before Darwin,
or a Founding Father who helped write a Document that said Darwin is
constitutional and Moses is not, but the origin of Nazi ideological
empowerment.
Arguments have now been made. You have ignored and evaded and not
addressed. I also pointed out that denialism is expected, much like
those who deny the Holocaust with a wide spectrum of tactics.
Ray
Caranx latus
>
> "Descent of Man" (1871)
>
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
> will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
> as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
> and the gorilla."
>
> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> of said war or extermination). The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
> course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
> God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
> Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
Here's a hypothetical situation, Ray. Let's see what you make of it.
Someone (let's call him X) makes a prediction about some future state
the world.
40 years after the death of X, another person (let's call him Y)
decides to make that prediction come true.
Who is responsible for the realization of that prediction, X or Y?
AC
This is a bizarre paragraph. I really do think you're nuts.
>
> Arguments have now been made. You have ignored and evaded and not
> addressed. I also pointed out that denialism is expected, much like
> those who deny the Holocaust with a wide spectrum of tactics.
The Darwin-Nazi link has been pulled apart many times, and your claims (or
the more comprehensible versions put together by your more intelligent and
cunning counterparts) have been shown wanting.
Victorian racial theory informs Nazi racial claims, and those racial ideas
most certainly predate Darwin. The idea of blood lines and kinship and
purity predate Darwin and Hitler by millennia, and these two inform Nazi
racial ideas. The idea of expunging from society weaker or inferior
individuals was, in fact, championed by many Christians in the West, and
this informed the "solution" part of Hitler's scheme (and was not limited to
Jews, but homosexuals, the mentally retarded, the insane and other people
viewed to have undesirable traits were culled).
So let's see:
* Hatred of Jews has nothing to do with Darwin, and existed in Christendom
for the better part of two millennia.
* Notions of racial purity and of pure blood predate Darwin by millennia.
* Humane eugenics has existed at least since Ancient Greece, and I have no
doubt longer than that. Of particular interest, the modern eugenics
movement had many Christian advocates, and the places where such laws were
instituted were overwhelmingly Christian.
And you know what, it doesn't even matter if Darwin was the biggest racist
of them all. Evolutionary theory does not advocate any particular social
program or the selective breeding or culling of human populations. Quite
the opposite, evolutionary and molecular biology have demonstrated that
"race" as folks like Hitler and the Victorians viewed it is not even a
reasonable way to demark various populations of extant humans.
Anthropus
>> anti-semite. But his legacy is not seen or perceived as such - quite
>> the opposite. He was the Father of the Reformation. American civil
>> rights pioneer, Martin Luther King, and his followers insist that he
>> be identified with his full birth name. Evolutionary theory needs to
>> simply acknowledge the ugly truth. At which time intelligent persons
>> of cultural diversity will undoubtedly overcome and rescue ToE from
>> its most evil past.
More lunacy from the Raytard. In my circles, *everyone I know* recognizes
Luther's [religious!!] anti-Semitism (and sees it, incidentally, as a
powerful cultural factor in the Nazis' legitimation of the Holocaust).
What's more, everyone I know is *also* aware of Luther's dreadful opposition
to the European Peasant's Revolt in 1524. The fact remains, though, that
Luther's challenging of a corrupt and mendacious Church was *an incomparably
valuable act* that must have taken *unimaginable courage*: he gets the
credit for that -- but without the 'debit side' of his life's account being
ignored.
M.
Tiny Bulcher
I'd just like to point out that this s typical Ray lie. The quote refers
to Prof. Schaafhausen predicting that the other species of great ape
(gorilla, chimpanzee and orang) would be exterminated by their human
cousins, and by golly he was right. Ray will never admit this, of
course.
>>The remainder of Darwin's thought can
>> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism,
>> of course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
>> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence
>> of mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens
>> when God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
Is there some Biblical prohibition against racism?
>> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay
>> person could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we
>> replace Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is
>> wrong.
>
> Here's a hypothetical situation, Ray. Let's see what you make of it.
>
> Someone (let's call him X) makes a prediction about some future state
> the world.
> 40 years after the death of X, another person (let's call him Y)
> decides to make that prediction come true.
> Who is responsible for the realization of that prediction, X or Y?
Why bother asking questions of a madman? You get only mad answers.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<20316207-cd32-4fe5...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 26, 12:28 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> I cannot believe that you would think that that Darwin either provoked
>> or incited the Nazis. What is it that you really mean to say?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
>> > for Theism.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Charles Darwin:
>
>"Descent of Man" (1871)
>
>"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
>civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
>the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
>no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
>will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
>civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
>as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
>and the gorilla."
>
>In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
>killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
>identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
>of said war or extermination).
Ray, you're in error. Schaaffhausen wasn't referring to Africans, but
to creatures you yourself call "apes", and I have the evidence to back
it up. Please withdraw this claim.
Rusty Sites
How about what Darwin said just before your quote?
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his
nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or
living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to
the belief that man is descended from some lower form ; but this
objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from
general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution.
Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide,
sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees ; as between
the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the
other Lemuridae—between the elephant, and in a more striking
manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other
mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future
period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised
races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the
savage races throughout the world."
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
> will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
> as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
> and the gorilla."
So Darwin seems to be suggesting that the reason there seemed to be a
great break between humans and any other animal, which we now know is
not the case, is that some of the intermediates between man and other
apes killed off the others. He offers what he sees as the inevitable
extinction of the non-white races and anthropomorphous apes as how the
gap could widen even further. The former would not actually have that
effect but the latter would if it included chimpanzees and bonobos.
Nice try at quote mining.
>
> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> killing the "inferiors."
Does he advocate such action?
> Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> of said war or extermination).
So Darwin uses the term "anthropomorphous apes" and cites Schaaffhausen
who defines black African humans to be anthropomorphous apes so Darwin
meant Africans. Is that your logic? How about how Darwin himself uses
the term in the very book you are citing.
"Of the anthropomorphous apes the males alone have their
canines fully developed; but in the female gorilla, and in a less
degree in the female orang..."
Sounds like he means gorillas and orangutans to me. There are other
passages that make it clear Darwin is not including black Africans in
the category of anthropomorphous apes. Darwin is as much advocating the
deliberate extinction of gorillas as he is the inferior races.
> The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
> course, founded modern human evolution theory.
Do you think Darwin invented racism? Do you really not know that, at
the time, the supremacy of the white race was almost universally held
among whites and was, in fact, a core cultural belief? Abraham Lincoln
expressed the same sentiment.
> It is noteworthy to
> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
> God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
The creationists and evolutionists were all racists. Racism had nothing
to do with it.
>
> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
> Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
>
Only to the ignorant.
Glenn
wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), James Goetz
>
> > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> > could be Post of the Month material.
>
> It was debunked decades ago. Fuck, it was debunked millennia ago:
> Nazi fascism predates written history.
The Nazis no more existed in prehistory than did scientific racism,
you idiot.
>
> Please see the talkorigins.org FAQ on the subject.
>
And print it to wipe your ass with. Then go and read about any book or
article to get a quick education in the reality of the new ideology
influencing the Nazis and German people, among others, during the late
19th and early 20th century. Hell, go ask this idiot:
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/?p=161#more-161
And when you tire of reading Darwin and trying to separate out the
"descriptive" from the "prescriptive" and theory from unsupported
claptrap, you may begin to realize that Darwin was a member of the
eugenics club.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_man
"Darwin was sympathetic to the views of the Social Darwinists and the
eugenicists, but he did not believe that action should be taken." The
second part of this is not true, since he did advocate for "positive"
eugenics, that the "weaker and inferior" did not produce offspring.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1871darwin-desc3.html
"Both sexes ought to refrain From marriage if they are in any marked
degree inferior in body or mind but such hopes are Utopian and will
never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are
thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this
end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better
understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature
rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not
consanguineous marriages are injurious to man."
Darwin lent scientific credibility to the concept of eugenics, as did
others before and after him who dabbled in "evolutionary" concepts. He
wasn't the first, or by far the worst of the bunch, but the name of
Darwin can not be simply erased from the history of eugenics.
Caranx latus
> Thus cwaeth Caranx latus :
>> On Mar 26, 4:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
>>> killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
>>> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
>>> of said war or extermination).
>
> I'd just like to point out that this s typical Ray lie. The quote refers
> to Prof. Schaafhausen predicting that the other species of great ape
> (gorilla, chimpanzee and orang) would be exterminated by their human
> cousins, and by golly he was right. Ray will never admit this, of
> course.
I felt sure that Ray was probably wrong about this. Thanks for
confirming it. Ray seems unable to admit to errors of this magnitude, so
I'll accept the correction on his behalf.
>>> The remainder of Darwin's thought can
>>> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism,
>>> of course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
>>> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence
>>> of mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens
>>> when God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
> Is there some Biblical prohibition against racism?
>
>>> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay
>>> person could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we
>>> replace Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is
>>> wrong.
>> Here's a hypothetical situation, Ray. Let's see what you make of it.
>>
>> Someone (let's call him X) makes a prediction about some future state
>> the world.
>> 40 years after the death of X, another person (let's call him Y)
>> decides to make that prediction come true.
>> Who is responsible for the realization of that prediction, X or Y?
>
> Why bother asking questions of a madman? You get only mad answers.
Probably true. However, in my own defense, I have only the following to say:
'But I don’t want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can’t help that,' said the Cat. 'We’re all mad here. I’m mad.
You’re mad.'
'How do you know I’m mad?' said Alice.
'You must be,” said the Cat. 'or you wouldn’t have come here.'
John Wilkins
...
> John, I guess it is fair to say that most Darwinian scientists and
> philosophers do not hold to "social Darwinism", whatever social
> Darwinism is. Could you elaborate on this?
1. There is no social Darwinism. It is a term of opprobrium used against
one's opponents. There was one, and only one, social Darwinian: William
Graham Sumner. All the rest are not in the sense intended (devil take
the hindmost polities) social Darwinians. Even Spencer and Galton held
that society had some responsibilities towards the poor, the ill and the
"feeble". The term was invented in the second world war and popularised
by Hofstadter:
Hofstadter, Richard. 1944. Social Darwinism in American thought. Boston:
Beacon Press.
This is demonstrated, I think once and for all, although social
scientists haven't yet figured it out, by
Bannister, Robert C. 1988. Social Darwinism: science and myth in
Anglo-American social thought, American civilization. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press. Original edition, 1979.
It is very like the way Marxists treat Malthus, whose view of social
obligations meant that relief ought to be given to the poor even though
we do not encourage their continued breeding; or the way they treat Adam
Smith, who argued that the rich had a moral duty to help the poor. In
both cases, the critics overlook the humane side to demonise them as
ideologues. Social Darwinism is exactly like that - it's a construct
designed to demonise social theory not liked, mostly by the left but
also the right.
2. Since Moore, we know that arguing that the Good is a natural property
such as the evolved nature of human beings is a mistake. Since Hume we
know that one cannot derive, formally and deductively, an ought
statement from an is statement. Few if any philosophers would even try.
Incidentally, Moore and his colleagues were reacting to Spencer and
Haeckel, not because they had a bad plan for society, but because they
mistakenly tried to found prescriptive claims in descriptive biology.
However, there is another arguement that i would give credit to E. O.
Wilson for - the "species typical behaviour" argument that he made in
Human Nature:
Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On human nature. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
that what is a typical behaviour for a species (such as an ant) is in
effect a prescription for flourishing in that species. Humans, it is
argued, flourish when they behave in particular ways. I agree with this
- the problem lies in disentangling social mores from the biology, and
to date we haven't been able to do that. Hence, sociobiological accounts
almost always end up supporting the lifestyle of the class and culture
to which the researcher belongs.
I am confident we can evade some of this from primatology, in which
culture is less confounding.
3. If we cannot ground moral prescriptions in fact, how can we ground
them? I prefer the Wittgensteining view: moral claims are a kind of
language game that we play. Moral claims are not dependent upon facts
but are self-justifying. When you have two competing moral claims that
depend on different worldviews, the "each man calls the other a fool and
a heretic" as W said in On Certainty. And there's an end to it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Caranx latus
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 12:28 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 2:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Even in the brief text that Ray provided, there is nothing to indicate
that Darwin believed that what was described *should* happen. The
language is descriptive, not prescriptive.
>> Darwin then cites a German scholar who
>> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
>> of said war or extermination).
>
> So Darwin uses the term "anthropomorphous apes" and cites Schaaffhausen
> who defines black African humans to be anthropomorphous apes so Darwin
> meant Africans. Is that your logic? How about how Darwin himself uses
> the term in the very book you are citing.
>
> "Of the anthropomorphous apes the males alone have their
> canines fully developed; but in the female gorilla, and in a less
> degree in the female orang..."
>
> Sounds like he means gorillas and orangutans to me. There are other
> passages that make it clear Darwin is not including black Africans in
> the category of anthropomorphous apes. Darwin is as much advocating the
> deliberate extinction of gorillas as he is the inferior races.
Thanks for this information. I was sure that Ray was incorrect in his
interpretations.
John Wilkins
> "Rusty Sites" <Spame...@spamex.com> wrote in message
> news:13uj7kl4mompqfe@news.
>
> [Hitler quote:]
> > Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two
> > breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an
> > intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. [etc]
>
> >
> > So Hitler had some theory of evolution, but it wasn't Darwin's TOE or the
> > contemporaneous TOE. It was Hitler's TOE.
>
> Actually, I've come across that 'blending' view of human reproduction
> before: I think it was kind of the pre-Mendelian, Victorian-era 'default'
> assumption. Somewhere in one of Dawkins's early books there's even a
> historical quote about the idea of a white man (superior) landing on an
> island with a black population (inferior) and having his magnificent
> superiority diluted to nothing over time because none of the wives he takes
> will be able to produce offspring on his exalted level... {Does anyone know
> where Dawks quotes that?}
The view was that of Fleeming Jenkin, whose criticisms of the early
editions of the Origin forced Darwin to revise later editions. Don't
know where Dawkins gives it, but you'll find it in the second volume of
Janet Browne's biography, or Bowler's history of evolution.
>
> As a view it's psychologically potent in several different ways. First, it
> provides something for a 'God' to do -- since without an initial, 'divine'
> creative act, there would be no way for a 'superior' race to have come
> about. Secondly, while it exalts the (white) speaker over all the other
> races he knows, it *also* imposes a permanent burden in terms of sheer
> paranoia -- since now the white paragon is made to feel in possession of
> something unique and precious that is *endangered on all sides*.
> I mention all this because a wrong idea can become an obsession only if it
> has such psychologically compelling aspects...
>
> M.
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 26, 1:22 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:28:07 -0700 (PDT), James Goetz
>
> > <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> > > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> > > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> > > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> > > could be Post of the Month material.
>
> > It was debunked decades ago. Fuck, it was debunked millennia ago:
> > Nazi fascism predates written history.
>
> The Nazis no more existed in prehistory than did scientific racism,
> you idiot.
>
> > Please see the talkorigins.org FAQ on the subject.
>
> And print it to wipe your ass with. Then go and read about any book or
> article to get a quick education in the reality of the new ideology
> influencing the Nazis and German people, among others, during the late
> 19th and early 20th century. Hell, go ask this idiot:http://www.racismreview.com/blog/?p=161#more-161
> And when you tire of reading Darwin and trying to separate out the
> "descriptive" from the "prescriptive" and theory from unsupported
> claptrap, you may begin to realize that Darwin was a member of the
> "Darwin was sympathetic to the views of the Social Darwinists and the
> eugenicists, but he did not believe that action should be taken." The
> second part of this is not true, since he did advocate for "positive"
> "Both sexes ought to refrain From marriage if they are in any marked
> degree inferior in body or mind but such hopes are Utopian and will
> never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are
> thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this
> end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better
> understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature
> rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not
> consanguineous marriages are injurious to man."
>
> Darwin lent scientific credibility to the concept of eugenics, as did
> others before and after him who dabbled in "evolutionary" concepts. He
> wasn't the first, or by far the worst of the bunch, but the name of
> Darwin can not be simply erased from the history of eugenics.
I can add to your case:
Darwin biographers Adrian Desmond & James Moore ("Darwin" 1991:10):
"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly
concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event,
tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that
competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual
inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism
was invented to explain human society"
"Commonweal" magazine, March 9, 2007
[cover article]
"The Not-So-Gentle GIANT Selling & Sanitizing Darwin [by] Peter
Quinn"
Page 8: "The Gentle Darwinians: What Darwin's Champions Won't
Mention"
Quinn quickly shows us how modern day revisionists have sanitized
Freidrich Nietzsche who advocated castration for the mis-fit masses,
that society had this obligation to itself to prevent its enemies from
procreating. But according to the "Gentle Nietzscheans" Freidrich was
speaking metaphorically and not literally. We could only wonder how
these supporters figured this out before anyone else? Nietzsche, of
course, is promoting "eugenics, a theory....invented by Francis
Galton, Charles Darwin's first cousin" (page 9). In 1933 "Nazi-
Germany...had a rigorous policy of...sterilization" (page 9). In 1912,
Major Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) addressed the First
International Congress of Eugenics in London, before "racial
biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the
world" (page 9). Leonard Darwin believed eugenics would be "a
substitute for religion" and conveyed that his father agreed that
society should encourage breeding among its best and "prevent it among
the worst" (Quinn; page 9).
For the second edition of "Descent of Man" (1874), Darwin
"added ...Galton's eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer's "survival of
the fittest" social philosophy...calling Galton's treatise
"remarkable" and Spencer "our greatest philosopher" (page 10).
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <20316207-cd32-4fe5-b62f-d5502a5dc...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
Please don't get offended if we refuse to take your word on it?
>
>
> >The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> >best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
> >course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
> >point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> >mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
> >God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
> >If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> >could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
> >Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
>
> >Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Coning from YOU, Ray, that's pretty goddamn funny.
By the way, Ray, why does the Ku Klux Klan say it's a "Christian
organization" . . . . . ?
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Ray Martinez
> >> We know Martin Luther was a vile
> >> anti-semite. But his legacy is not seen or perceived as such - quite
> >> the opposite. He was the Father of the Reformation. American civil
> >> rights pioneer, Martin Luther King, and his followers insist that he
> >> be identified with his full birth name. Evolutionary theory needs to
> >> simply acknowledge the ugly truth. At which time intelligent persons
> >> of cultural diversity will undoubtedly overcome and rescue ToE from
> >> its most evil past.
>
> More lunacy from the Raytard. In my circles, *everyone I know* recognizes
> Luther's [religious!!] anti-Semitism (and sees it, incidentally, as a
> powerful cultural factor in the Nazis' legitimation of the Holocaust).
Luther lived many centuries before the Holocaust and had nothing to do
with it. But I have no doubt that your circles of Atheism comfort
yourselves accordingly. Darwinism commenced the Atheist revolution.
The Nazi's were convinced that God did not exist and mankind were but
modified apes and selected their enemies for extinction.
> What's more, everyone I know is *also* aware of Luther's dreadful opposition
> to the European Peasant's Revolt in 1524. The fact remains, though, that
> Luther's challenging of a corrupt and mendacious Church was *an incomparably
> valuable act* that must have taken *unimaginable courage*: he gets the
> credit for that -- but without the 'debit side' of his life's account being
> ignored.
>
> M.
You are also evading the fact that Luther is not perceived as a vile
anti-semite even though he was for strictly theological reasons.
Luther is a giant and his Theology changed the world. He re-discovered
the "lost message of the Bible" - sola fide. American civil rights
leader, Martin Luther King, and his followers, are proud of his name.
Luther's passive anti-semitism is completely lost and vanquished by
his earth shattering accomplishments, unlike Charles Darwin, Atheist-
racist, who empowered minds like his to murder tens of millions of
persons.
Ray
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Hey Ray, I can see your quotes, and add a few of my own:
"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."
Know who wrote those words, Ray?
I'll give you a hint: he ran Germany from 1933-1945.
Since you're such a, uh, researcher and all, Ray, here's an experiment
for you: Go find a copy of "Mein Kampf" (there are several
translations available online). Count the number of times Hitler
mentions "evolution" or "Darwin". Then count the number of times
Hitler mentions "Creator". "God" and "Almighty".
Let us know what you find.
After that, go to the websites of all the prominent white supremacist
and racist groups.
Do the same experiment.
Let us know what you find.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lenny: have you read the latest bio out on Mao?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read Ravenscroft, Lenny: Hitler was a devil worshipper of the worst
kind. This explains his sheeps clothing. But we know only Atheists
"believe" Hitler was a Christian for obvious reasons.
Ray
Free Lunch
>On Mar 26, 3:38 pm, "Anthropus" <Anthro...@office.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> We know Martin Luther was a vile
>> >> anti-semite. But his legacy is not seen or perceived as such - quite
>> >> the opposite. He was the Father of the Reformation. American civil
>> >> rights pioneer, Martin Luther King, and his followers insist that he
>> >> be identified with his full birth name. Evolutionary theory needs to
>> >> simply acknowledge the ugly truth. At which time intelligent persons
>> >> of cultural diversity will undoubtedly overcome and rescue ToE from
>> >> its most evil past.
>>
>> More lunacy from the Raytard. In my circles, *everyone I know* recognizes
>> Luther's [religious!!] anti-Semitism (and sees it, incidentally, as a
>> powerful cultural factor in the Nazis' legitimation of the Holocaust).
>
>Luther lived many centuries before the Holocaust and had nothing to do
>with it. But I have no doubt that your circles of Atheism comfort
>yourselves accordingly. Darwinism commenced the Atheist revolution.
>The Nazi's were convinced that God did not exist and mankind were but
>modified apes and selected their enemies for extinction.
Ray, you are a fool beyond reason. Luther offered the moral
justification for pogroms. Hitler was merely the criminally horrific end
of that justification. Darwin did not offer any moral justification for
any such behavior. You know that. You make excuses for evil and attack
good.
>> What's more, everyone I know is *also* aware of Luther's dreadful opposition
>> to the European Peasant's Revolt in 1524. The fact remains, though, that
>> Luther's challenging of a corrupt and mendacious Church was *an incomparably
>> valuable act* that must have taken *unimaginable courage*: he gets the
>> credit for that -- but without the 'debit side' of his life's account being
>> ignored.
>>
>> M.
>
>You are also evading the fact that Luther is not perceived as a vile
>anti-semite even though he was for strictly theological reasons.
When it comes to dead people, the fact that the murder was justified for
'strictly theological reasons' does not make their death any less
immoral.
>Luther is a giant and his Theology changed the world. He re-discovered
>the "lost message of the Bible" - sola fide. American civil rights
>leader, Martin Luther King, and his followers, are proud of his name.
>Luther's passive anti-semitism is completely lost and vanquished by
>his earth shattering accomplishments, unlike Charles Darwin, Atheist-
>racist, who empowered minds like his to murder tens of millions of
>persons.
You love to make excuses for evil. You love to defend lies. Your God
must be a very evil thing indeed.
Caranx latus
Are you referring to the book about which the following was written?
----- quote ---
In the first pages of The Spear, Ravenscroft states flat out that he
considers the third eye (AKA the pineal gland) to be a valid primary
source for historical research. To complicate matters even further,
Ravenscroft was describing the visions of Dr. Walter Stein, his friend
and teacher who was dead by the time Ravenscroft began writing.
How you feel about the Spear of Destiny depends a lot on how seriously
you take Ravenscroft's ideas on the 3rd Eye. Are you ok with someone
writing history as seen in someone else's mystical vision or are you
more the footnotesey type? The fact that a lot of Ravenscroft's quoted
sources are out of print makes his ideas hard to check or corroborate.
Having said all this, I really love the Spear of Destiny and I've lost
track of the number of times I've given copies to friends. I love
Ravenscroft's ideas, whereby WWII was really a conflict between famous
9th Century figures reincarnated after exactly 1000 years. Ravenscroft's
WWII was a war between cosmic Good and Evil in their most absolute
senses. It's all very Michael Moorcock/The Highlander and if anything,
Ravenscroft's book highlights how sorely we need a bit of romance and
myth in our times. Read it by all means. Maybe you'll take it seriously,
maybe not. But you will certainly be entertained.
----- end quote -----
Out of curiosity, and because I haven't read the book myself, why would
you consider such a book to be historical?
Ray Martinez
> other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and in a more striking
> manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other
> mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
> related forms which have become extinct. At some future
> period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised
> races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the
> savage races throughout the world."
>
> > "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> > civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> > the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> > anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> > no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
> > will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> > civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
> > as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
> > and the gorilla."
>
> So Darwin seems to be suggesting that the reason there seemed to be a
> great break between humans and any other animal, which we now know is
> not the case, is that some of the intermediates between man and other
> apes killed off the others.
Darwin suggested no such thing. The before context restored by you
does not in anyway betray a quote mine. The first clue we have to this
effect is your own tentative terminology, "Darwin seems to be
suggesting...." Darwin's terminology is anything but tentative
contrary to your portrayal.
The context you provide actually hurts your cause. Darwin mentioned
breaks caused by extinctions. In this context he advocates how man can
achieve an even larger break by exterminating the savage races, which,
unlike "the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and
in a more striking
manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other
mammals" (Darwin) does not now exist because the savage races exist.
> He offers what he sees as the inevitable
> extinction of the non-white races and anthropomorphous apes as how the
> gap could widen even further.
Exactly what I said. Do you understand that you are arguing against
yourself? But "anthropomorphous apes" means "man-like apes". It
doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is codified racism of
the worst kind. Who were these man-like apes?
> The former would not actually have that
> effect but the latter would if it included chimpanzees and bonobos.
> Nice try at quote mining.
>
>
>
> > In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> > killing the "inferiors."
>
> Does he advocate such action?
>
> > Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> > identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> > of said war or extermination).
>
> So Darwin uses the term "anthropomorphous apes" and cites Schaaffhausen
> who defines black African humans to be anthropomorphous apes so Darwin
> meant Africans. Is that your logic? How about how Darwin himself uses
> the term in the very book you are citing.
>
> "Of the anthropomorphous apes the males alone have their
> canines fully developed; but in the female gorilla, and in a less
> degree in the female orang..."
>
> Sounds like he means gorillas and orangutans to me. There are other
> passages that make it clear Darwin is not including black Africans in
> the category of anthropomorphous apes. Darwin is as much advocating the
> deliberate extinction of gorillas as he is the inferior races.
>
What does "anthropo-morphous" mean, Rusty?
> > The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> > best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
> > course, founded modern human evolution theory.
>
> Do you think Darwin invented racism?
Where did I ever indicate that?
> Do you really not know that, at
> the time, the supremacy of the white race was almost universally held
> among whites and was, in fact, a core cultural belief? Abraham Lincoln
> expressed the same sentiment.
>
> > It is noteworthy to
> > point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> > mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
> > God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
> The creationists and evolutionists were all racists. Racism had nothing
> to do with it.
>
>
>
> > If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> > could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
> > Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
>
> Only to the ignorant.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The issue here is that Darwin's racism and scientific theories
inspired Haeckel, German biology, and the Nazi's.
Funny how you evolutionists can deduce macroevolution despite massive
gaps of missing evidence but the Darwin-German-Nazi link escapes your
insight, very convenient.
Ray
Glenn
>
wrong about Schaaffhausen, yet that is of no significance to this
quote from Darwin.
What we are able to gather, and it reinforces other things Darwin
said, is that Darwin sees a "break" between the "races" of man, that
he thought Negros and Australians were "lower" than the "civilized
races", and that Darwin believed that "civilized man" is "higher" than
"savages", pretty much *destined* to prevail in a "struggle for
existence". If that ain't racist, I don't know what is.
Ray Martinez
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Read Ravenscroft, Lenny: Hitler was a devil worshipper of the worst
> > kind. This explains his sheeps clothing. But we know only Atheists
> > "believe" Hitler was a Christian for obvious reasons.
>
> Are you referring to the book about which the following was written?
>
Yes.
> ----- quote ---
>
> In the first pages of The Spear, Ravenscroft states flat out that he
> considers the third eye (AKA the pineal gland) to be a valid primary
> source for historical research. To complicate matters even further,
> Ravenscroft was describing the visions of Dr. Walter Stein, his friend
> and teacher who was dead by the time Ravenscroft began writing.
>
> How you feel about the Spear of Destiny depends a lot on how seriously
> you take Ravenscroft's ideas on the 3rd Eye. Are you ok with someone
> writing history as seen in someone else's mystical vision or are you
> more the footnotesey type? The fact that a lot of Ravenscroft's quoted
> sources are out of print makes his ideas hard to check or corroborate.
>
> Having said all this, I really love the Spear of Destiny and I've lost
> track of the number of times I've given copies to friends. I love
> Ravenscroft's ideas, whereby WWII was really a conflict between famous
> 9th Century figures reincarnated after exactly 1000 years. Ravenscroft's
> WWII was a war between cosmic Good and Evil in their most absolute
> senses. It's all very Michael Moorcock/The Highlander and if anything,
> Ravenscroft's book highlights how sorely we need a bit of romance and
> myth in our times. Read it by all means. Maybe you'll take it seriously,
> maybe not. But you will certainly be entertained.
>
> ----- end quote -----
>
> Out of curiosity, and because I haven't read the book myself, why would
> you consider such a book to be historical?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you assume the opposite based on a review?
This book is fascinating. Its core thesis is absolutely true. The
Nazi's were demon possessed to a degree unseen in history other than
Alexander the Great. The pictures in this book of Nazi's are
unrivaled. They capture the degree of how evil these bastards were.
Ravenscroft uncovers facts about Hitler that are utterly disturbing. I
have read this book three or four times.
Secular historians fail to educate the world that Vienna was annexed
for one main reason: so Hitler could enter the Hofburg Museum (all
alone) and take the Spear. Why? The German army surrounded the
building. The curators handed over the keys. Nobody went in until
Hitler himself arrived and had his moment alone in the Treasure House
- taking the Spear.
Why?
Read the book.
Ray
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Fourth, negative eugenics, or the forced sterilisation or killing of the
> > "unfit", is precisely the *opposite* of Darwinian genetics, in which any
> > type that outcompetes (that is, outbreeds) its competition is *by
> > definition* fitter. So if the "morons" are breeding more, it is because
> > it is the *intelligent* that are unfit, not them. So eugenics of the
> > American and Nazi kind is contrary to Darwinian principles. It is no
> > accident that a good many of those who practiced it were not Mendelian
> > geneticists.
>
> This doesn't make much sense. AFAIK, there are no "Darwinian
> principles" that say that orgainsms can't kill each other or
> screw with each other's breeding.
>
> > Positive eugenics, in which we are to encourage by state positive
> > sanctions the breeding of desireable traits (desireable to whom,
> > exactly?) is likewise contrary to Darwinian principles, for those who do
> > breed freely must be fitter than these desireable trait bearers.
>
> This doesn't make much sense either. However both paragraphs
> contain the possibly-loaded phrase "Darwinian principles".
> I suspect this indicates not amoral scientific principles, but
> some kind of "principled" moral doctrine, the bizarre contents
> of which I can only guess at: "the natually fittest ought to
> surivive" - perhaps!
Sure, but the Nazis and eugenicists didn'ty justify what they did in
terms of *them* being fitter, but rather that the "unfit" would
outreproduce them if they didn't take action. There is a disconnect here
between the Darwinian notion of "fit" (which is just differential
reproductive success) and the sense in which they are using it.
Now if they'd said (as the Japanese Darwinian justifications of their
imperial war did do) that if they fought and succeeded they'd be fit and
the other "races" unfit, then it would have been a Darwinian
justification. But they didn't.
Rusty Sites
Not a successful one, anyway. Your quote as it stands does not support
what you are saying, but the context reveals Darwin was speaking of
something entirely different.
> The first clue we have to this
> effect is your own tentative terminology, "Darwin seems to be
> suggesting...." Darwin's terminology is anything but tentative
> contrary to your portrayal.
But it so clearly shows that Darwin is advocating genocidal wars against
blacks, Asians, and gorillas. He starts off saying "The great break in
the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be
bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced
as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower
form ..." and then he said that after the extermination of the savage
races and the anthropomorphic apes, the gap would be wider. For the
passage to really make sense, he would have to have been suggesting that
the already wide gap had similar causes. He did not say that, so maybe
the passage just doesn't make complete sense.
>
> The context you provide actually hurts your cause. Darwin mentioned
> breaks caused by extinctions. In this context he advocates how man can
> achieve an even larger break by exterminating the savage races,
Why oh why do you think he wants such a gap? Where do you find Darwin
saying a wider gap is desirable? He just says the gap will be wider.
You are reading in the rest.
which,
> unlike "the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and
> in a more striking
> manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other
> mammals" (Darwin) does not now exist because the savage races exist.
Makes no sense to me.
>
>> He offers what he sees as the inevitable
>> extinction of the non-white races and anthropomorphous apes as how the
>> gap could widen even further.
>
> Exactly what I said. Do you understand that you are arguing against
> yourself?
I am not. You are claiming words mean something other than they do.
> But "anthropomorphous apes" means "man-like apes". It
> doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is codified racism of
> the worst kind. Who were these man-like apes?
Gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees.
>
>> The former would not actually have that
>> effect but the latter would if it included chimpanzees and bonobos.
>> Nice try at quote mining.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
>>> killing the "inferiors."
>> Does he advocate such action?
>>
>>> Darwin then cites a German scholar who
>>> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
>>> of said war or extermination).
>> So Darwin uses the term "anthropomorphous apes" and cites Schaaffhausen
>> who defines black African humans to be anthropomorphous apes so Darwin
>> meant Africans. Is that your logic? How about how Darwin himself uses
>> the term in the very book you are citing.
>>
>> "Of the anthropomorphous apes the males alone have their
>> canines fully developed; but in the female gorilla, and in a less
>> degree in the female orang..."
>>
>> Sounds like he means gorillas and orangutans to me. There are other
>> passages that make it clear Darwin is not including black Africans in
>> the category of anthropomorphous apes. Darwin is as much advocating the
>> deliberate extinction of gorillas as he is the inferior races.
>>
>
> What does "anthropo-morphous" mean, Rusty?
Gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees. I guess I forgot gibbons. It
means what you mean when you say ape assuming you distinguish apes and
monkeys.
>
>>> The remainder of Darwin's thought can
>>> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
>>> course, founded modern human evolution theory.
>> Do you think Darwin invented racism?
>
> Where did I ever indicate that?
Then why do you think Darwin's racism was of such great import? He was
about as racist as everybody else so any result could said to have been
founded on racism. I am absolutely sure that you are only familiar with
Darwin's work through quote mines. Surely you don't think what you have
posted shows that Darwin's racism was the inspiration for his
conclusion. The book you cite is about extending evolutionary theory to
man and lays out the evidence for it. You are the blind man insisting
the elephant is long and skinny like a snake.
>
>> Do you really not know that, at
>> the time, the supremacy of the white race was almost universally held
>> among whites and was, in fact, a core cultural belief? Abraham Lincoln
>> expressed the same sentiment.
>>
>>> It is noteworthy to
>>> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
>>> mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
>>> God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>> The creationists and evolutionists were all racists. Racism had nothing
>> to do with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
>>> could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
>>> Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
>> Only to the ignorant.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The issue here is that Darwin's racism and scientific theories
> inspired Haeckel, German biology, and the Nazi's.
The Beatles inspired Charles Manson to direct his family to commit mass
murders in order to start "Helter Skelter". He found messages in their
and other's songs that directed his actions. Does that mean that the
messages were really there?
>
> Funny how you evolutionists can deduce macroevolution despite massive
> gaps of missing evidence but the Darwin-German-Nazi link escapes your
> insight, very convenient.
It is simply a matter of seeing what is there and not seeing what isn't.//
Steven J.
> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
> > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
> > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
> > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
> > could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
> apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
> extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
> beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
> literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>
us") inscription on the belt buckles of German army uniforms. For
most of the Nazi era, they retained a regulation that required all
German army officers to be Christians; late in the war this was
relaxed to include deists. While there were atheists among the Nazis,
the party leaders repeatedly denounced atheism, burned atheist books,
and generally seemed not to be motivated by a burning conviction of
the nonexistence of God.
Hitler, as was noted upthread (see TomS's post, with Hitler's remarks
on "the fox remains always a fox) , apparently did not accept common
descent (evolution) any more than you do. Apparently, from what I've
read, Nazi high school textbooks, while waxing purple over the virtues
of natural selection in keeping species pure, did not mention any role
for natural selection in changing one species into a completely
different species. No doubt there were many Nazis who did accept
evolution (as, of course, their various opponents all did), but Hitler
and his cohorts do not seem to have thought of themselves or their
victims as "modified apes" (they often referred to their victims as
"vermin" or "bacilli," but this was presumably metaphorical)
Indeed, if the Nazis had attempted to carry out Darwin's ideas
literally, they would have had to abandon their antisemitism and their
racial essentialism. A central idea of evolutionary theory, in Darwin
and later, is that variation exists in all populations. There cannot
be any trait that distinguishes all members of one race from all
members of another race. In insisting otherwise, the Nazis were
fundamentally unDarwinian.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> On Mar 26, 12:28 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > Ray, what does the word "instigate" mean to you? Here's one definition
> > (fromhttp://www.m-w.com):
>
> > : to goad or urge forward : provoke
> > synonyms: see incite
>
> > I cannot believe that you would think that that Darwin either provoked
> > or incited the Nazis. What is it that you really mean to say?
>
> > > Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
> > > for Theism.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Charles Darwin:
>
> "Descent of Man" (1871)
>
> civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
> will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
> as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
> and the gorilla."
>
discussing why, even though nonhuman apes exist as intermediates
between humans and monkeys, and monkeys exist as intermediates between
humans and prosimians, no "ape-men" exist as intermediates between
humans and nonhuman apes. He was responding to the complaint that if
his theory were correct, "ape-men" should still be walking around
today, just as apes and monkeys are.
Darwin argued that, while monkeys occupy a different ecological niche
from humans, and don't compete with us, and nonhuman apes occupy a
somewhat different niche and don't compete much with us, "ape-men"
would have lived in the same environment we do, competed for the same
food and shelter, and died out as a result of this competition.
Indeed, our ancestors probably hunted them and killed them off.
To support this conjecture, Darwin pointed out that humans have a long
history of waging war against their own kind, and that high-technology
cultures have frequently wiped out lower-technology cultures. In his
own day, he could see this going on against the American Indians and
the Australian aborigines (especially the Tasmanians), as well as
against many of the African tribal peoples. He assumed that this
would continue into the future, and that in time all the stone-age
peoples would simply be wiped out. And, of course, his point was that
if we could do this to fellow human beings as smart as we are, how
much easier it would have been for our ancestors to do it to ape-men
who couldn't copy our technology or be assimilated into our culture.
Darwin was not advocating anything, of course; he was simply noting
what had happened in the historical past, extrapolating it to the
future, and assuming that things had been similar in the prehistoric
past.
Note that the Nazis do not seem to have been motivated to deliberately
wipe out the gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans, although Darwin
predicts that this will happen as humans encroach on their traditional
habitats. This suggests that the Nazis were not, in fact, instigated
by this passage in Darwin.
>
> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> of said war or extermination). The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism, of
> course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens when
> God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
No, Ray, "anthropomorphous apes" are gorillas, chimpanzees, and
orangutans, also known as "anthropoid apes." Again, the point of this
is that, a few paragraphs earlier, Darwin had pointed out that these
anthropomorphous apes, or Quadrumana ("four-hands," from the fact that
their feet have thumbs) are intermediate in anatomy and intelligence
between humans and monkeys. Their extinction would increase the gap
between humans and their nearest nonhuman relatives: a link which now
exists between us and the rest of the animal kingdom would have become
a missing (or at least extinct) link.
>
> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
> Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
>
As noted above, the Nazis in fact were not terribly eager to emphasize
humanity's link with other species.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> On Mar 26, 3:38 pm, "Anthropus" <Anthro...@office.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> We know Martin Luther was a vile
> > >> anti-semite. But his legacy is not seen or perceived as such - quite
> > >> the opposite. He was the Father of the Reformation. American civil
> > >> rights pioneer, Martin Luther King, and his followers insist that he
> > >> be identified with his full birth name. Evolutionary theory needs to
> > >> simply acknowledge the ugly truth. At which time intelligent persons
> > >> of cultural diversity will undoubtedly overcome and rescue ToE from
> > >> its most evil past.
>
> > More lunacy from the Raytard. In my circles, *everyone I know* recognizes
> > Luther's [religious!!] anti-Semitism (and sees it, incidentally, as a
> > powerful cultural factor in the Nazis' legitimation of the Holocaust).
>
> Luther lived many centuries before the Holocaust and had nothing to do
> with it. But I have no doubt that your circles of Atheism comfort
> yourselves accordingly. Darwinism commenced the Atheist revolution.
> The Nazi's were convinced that God did not exist and mankind were but
> modified apes and selected their enemies for extinction.
>
in order to have "nothing to do with it?" Darwin died seven years
before Hitler was born, and half a century before the Nazis took
power, and the Nazis praised Luther far more often than they did
Darwin. Darwin, as it happened, made no antisemitic remarks or calls
for the elimination of the Jews, whereas Luther did (and there's a
point to consider: none of the victims of the Nazis were "savages;"
all were members of civilized European cultures; how "literal" is
that?).
>
> > What's more, everyone I know is *also* aware of Luther's dreadful opposition
> > to the European Peasant's Revolt in 1524. The fact remains, though, that
> > Luther's challenging of a corrupt and mendacious Church was *an incomparably
> > valuable act* that must have taken *unimaginable courage*: he gets the
> > credit for that -- but without the 'debit side' of his life's account being
> > ignored.
>
> > M.
>
> You are also evading the fact that Luther is not perceived as a vile
> anti-semite even though he was for strictly theological reasons.
> Luther is a giant and his Theology changed the world. He re-discovered
> the "lost message of the Bible" - sola fide. American civil rights
> leader, Martin Luther King, and his followers, are proud of his name.
> Luther's passive anti-semitism is completely lost and vanquished by
> his earth shattering accomplishments, unlike Charles Darwin, Atheist-
> racist, who empowered minds like his to murder tens of millions of
> persons.
>
perceive things differently.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
> On Mar 26, 7:54 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > In the first pages of The Spear, Ravenscroft states flat out that he
> > considers the third eye (AKA the pineal gland) to be a valid primary
> > source for historical research. To complicate matters even further,
> > Ravenscroft was describing the visions of Dr. Walter Stein, his friend
> > and teacher who was dead by the time Ravenscroft began writing.
>
> > How you feel about the Spear of Destiny depends a lot on how seriously
> > you take Ravenscroft's ideas on the 3rd Eye. Are you ok with someone
> > writing history as seen in someone else's mystical vision or are you
> > more the footnotesey type? The fact that a lot of Ravenscroft's quoted
> > sources are out of print makes his ideas hard to check or corroborate.
>
> > Having said all this, I really love the Spear of Destiny and I've lost
> > track of the number of times I've given copies to friends. I love
> > Ravenscroft's ideas, whereby WWII was really a conflict between famous
> > 9th Century figures reincarnated after exactly 1000 years. Ravenscroft's
> > WWII was a war between cosmic Good and Evil in their most absolute
> > senses. It's all very Michael Moorcock/The Highlander and if anything,
> > Ravenscroft's book highlights how sorely we need a bit of romance and
> > myth in our times. Read it by all means. Maybe you'll take it seriously,
> > maybe not. But you will certainly be entertained.
>
> > ----- end quote -----
>
> > Out of curiosity, and because I haven't read the book myself, why would
> > you consider such a book to be historical?
>
>
sources rather than on psychic visions?
>
> This book is fascinating. Its core thesis is absolutely true. The
> Nazi's were demon possessed to a degree unseen in history other than
> Alexander the Great. The pictures in this book of Nazi's are
> unrivaled. They capture the degree of how evil these bastards were.
> Ravenscroft uncovers facts about Hitler that are utterly disturbing. I
> have read this book three or four times.
>
> Secular historians fail to educate the world that Vienna was annexed
> for one main reason: so Hitler could enter the Hofburg Museum (all
> alone) and take the Spear. Why? The German army surrounded the
> building. The curators handed over the keys. Nobody went in until
> Hitler himself arrived and had his moment alone in the Treasure House
> - taking the Spear.
>
both in Austria and in Germany, for Austria to be united with
Germany. This would have been in accord with Wilson's principles of
national self-determination, but it was less in accord with [a]
Austria's desire not to be saddled with a share of Germany's war
reparations and blame for the war, and [b] the allies' fear of a Pan-
German Reich. Still, the Nazis (as well as less sociopathic German
parties) had plenty of reason to want to annex Austria, along with its
capital, Vienna. The idea that a nationalist German party could have
only one reason (to grab some old spear) to want perhaps the richest
and most famous German city in the world under the German flag is
rather ... odd.
>
> Why?
>
> Read the book.
>
The fact that someone has written his delusions down does not convert
those delusions into facts.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Anthropus
news:fsf28v$4el$1@aioe.
> Ravenscroft's WWII was a war between cosmic Good and Evil in their most
> absolute senses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY
M.
Martin Kaletsch
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
>>> Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
>>> myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>>> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
>>> could be Post of the Month material.
>>
>> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
>
> Did the Beatles instigate and empower Charles Manson?
According to a leaflet on occultism, satanism and rock music I was given in
school they did. "Blackbird" was clearly a satanist song in the authors
opinion.
Pity I didn't keep that thing, it was really good for a laugh.
--
Martin Kaletsch
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Tiny Bulcher
> Tiny Bulcher wrote:
> > Thus cwaeth Caranx latus :
> >> On Mar 26, 4:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> >>> killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> >>> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> >>> of said war or extermination).
>
> > I'd just like to point out that this s typical Ray lie. The quote refers
> > to Prof. Schaafhausen predicting that the other species of great ape
> > (gorilla, chimpanzee and orang) would be exterminated by their human
> > cousins, and by golly he was right. Ray will never admit this, of
> > course.
>
> I felt sure that Ray was probably wrong about this. Thanks for
> confirming it. Ray seems unable to admit to errors of this magnitude, so
> I'll accept the correction on his behalf.
Since Hermann Schaafhausen was an anatomist and one of the principal
founders of modern anthropology, I think it's fair to say he knew the
difference between a G. gorilla and a H. sapiens.
> >>> The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> >>> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism. Darwin's racism,
> >>> of course, founded modern human evolution theory. It is noteworthy to
> >>> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence
> >>> of mankind after God is rejected as Creator. This is what happens
> >>> when God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
> > Is there some Biblical prohibition against racism?
>
> >>> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay
> >>> person could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we
> >>> replace Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is
> >>> wrong.
> >> Here's a hypothetical situation, Ray. Let's see what you make of it.
>
> >> Someone (let's call him X) makes a prediction about some future state
> >> the world.
> >> 40 years after the death of X, another person (let's call him Y)
> >> decides to make that prediction come true.
> >> Who is responsible for the realization of that prediction, X or Y?
>
> > Why bother asking questions of a madman? You get only mad answers.
>
> Probably true. However, in my own defense, I have only the following to say:
>
> 'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
> 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat. 'We're all mad here. I'm mad.
> You're mad.'
> 'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
> 'You must be," said the Cat. 'or you wouldn't have come here.'
Well, yes. but Ray is madder than most of us. So far he has combined
in what passes for his thought every kook hobbyhorse known to man (the
Spear of Destiny, no less, is the latest) except Shoah denial,
Shakespeare denial, moon landings, and 9/11. I'm expecting the latter
two, at least, to turn up any day now.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mar 26, 11:08 am, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
>> > > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
>> > > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>> > > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
>> > > could be Post of the Month material.
>>
>> > Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
>> > proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
>> > apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
>> > extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
>> > beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
>> > literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
>> > deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>>
>> Ray, do you have any historical evidence that indicates that Hitler
>> was motivated by Darwinsim? How come Mein Kampf says nothing about it?
>
>No one expects Darwinists to acknowledge the facts outlined above
Because they are not facts - they are total lies, but then we expect
that from you Dishonest Ray.
> just
>like no one expects anti-semites to acknowledge the Holocaust.
You would know, being such a racist.
>
>Intelligent persons know that your "questions" are not as such but
>are, in fact, the denial game that deniers play.
Projection is not good for you Dishonest Ray.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Dishonest Ray, you are, as always, spreading lies. Why?
--
Bob.
Jenny Brien
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 11:34 am, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:32:08 -0700 (PDT),
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Mar 26, 11:08 am, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 26, 2:02 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate
>> about
>> >> > > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the
>> information
>> >> > > myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>> >> > > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay
>> on this
>> >> > > could be Post of the Month material.
>>
>> >> > Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since
>> he
>> >> > proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just
>> modified
>> >> > apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
>> >> > extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
>> >> > beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
>> >> > literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
>> >> > deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>>
>> >> Ray, do you have any historical evidence that indicates that Hitler
>> >> was motivated by Darwinsim? How come Mein Kampf says nothing about
>> it?
>>
>> > No one expects Darwinists to acknowledge the facts outlined above just
>> > like no one expects anti-semites to acknowledge the Holocaust.
>>
>> > Intelligent persons know that your "questions" are not as such but
>> > are, in fact, the denial game that deniers play.
>>
>> Translation: No, I can't provide any sources, but I'll keep on ranting
>> anyways.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron Clausen mightymartia...@gmail.com
>>
>> fnor- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Expected defense of the denial game by a fellow Darwinist.
>
> Could anyone expect Darwinists to acknowledge that Darwin instigated
> the Nazi's as I outlined?
>
> Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
> for Theism.
>
> Ray
Ray, let me get this straight. First you say Darwlk proved there was no
God, and now you complan that "Christians" won't admit he was right?
--
Is this the God who made the nematode?
Is this the God who made the kangaroo?
Caranx latus
> On Mar 26, 7:54 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> Why do you assume the opposite based on a review?
I don't. But I do use reviews to gauge whether a book will be
interesting to read, and assess whether I might actually learn something
from it.
> This book is fascinating.
That seems clear.
> Its core thesis is absolutely true.
That seems highly questionable.
> The
> Nazi's were demon possessed to a degree unseen in history other than
> Alexander the Great.
Alexander the Great? Oh, please... do tell.
> The pictures in this book of Nazi's are
> unrivaled. They capture the degree of how evil these bastards were.
> Ravenscroft uncovers facts about Hitler that are utterly disturbing. I
> have read this book three or four times.
>
> Secular historians fail to educate the world that Vienna was annexed
> for one main reason: so Hitler could enter the Hofburg Museum (all
> alone) and take the Spear.
So, your claim is that the Anschluss had nothing to do with unifying
German-speaking peoples into a single state?
> Why? The German army surrounded the
> building. The curators handed over the keys. Nobody went in until
> Hitler himself arrived and had his moment alone in the Treasure House
> - taking the Spear.
Fascinating, but I don't see how eels and pyramids factor into all of this.
> Why?
>
> Read the book.
Not likely to happen, I'm afraid. My reading list is long enough
already, and the cost of this book looks like $20 that I would never get
any benefit from.
Tim Tyler
My impression of the Nazi mind is that they were mainly
concerned with racial *purity*, which they wanted to
avoid being "diluted" by certain nasty foreigners - and
which they tried to improve by importing other desirable
Polish types.
Maybe Hitler saw himself as exterminating the "unfit".
If so, no doubt his successes in this area just proved
to him how unfit they really were.
Anyway the idea that "positive eugenics" is
"contrary to Darwinian principles" still seems
like total bunk to me.
"Positive eugenics" most certainly does not
involve the idea that the "unfit" will inherit
the earth unless an intervention is staged.
It is just breeding humans for some desired trait.
Those who lack the desired traits are not
necessarily considered to be "unfit" -
they are just considered to be undesirable.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
TomS
latus stated..."
>
>Ray Martinez wrote:
[...snip...]
>> Secular historians fail to educate the world that Vienna was annexed
>> for one main reason: so Hitler could enter the Hofburg Museum (all
>> alone) and take the Spear.
>
>So, your claim is that the Anschluss had nothing to do with unifying
>German-speaking peoples into a single state?
And that it had nothing to do with Darwin, either.
Not that I can imagine even in Hitler's crazy ideas
that there would be a connection between marching
into Austria and the origins of the vertebrate eye.
By the way, I looked up "Spear of Destiny" in Wikipedia,
and it led me to "Holy Lance":
"According to legend, the Holy Lance (also known as the
Spear of Destiny, Holy Spear, Lance of Longinus, Spear of
Longinus or Spear of Christ) is the name given to the
lance that pierced Jesus while he was on the cross."
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Lenny: have you read the latest bio out on Mao?
>
Soundproof skull, huh Ray.
Why DOES the KKK say it's a Christian organization, Ray . . . .?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Read Ravenscroft, Lenny: Hitler was a devil worshipper of the worst
> kind. This explains his sheeps clothing. But we know only Atheists
> "believe" Hitler was a Christian for obvious reasons.
>
BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one, Ray.
Ravenscroft, indeed.
BWA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TomS
<7MLGj.114737$nw4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Tim Tyler stated..."
Which calls to mind the joke about the ideal which they
were aiming for was to be as tall as Goebbels, as slim
as Goering, and as blond as Hitler.
Tim Tyler
> On Mar 25, 2:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
>> could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Been done:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
A similar topical presentation:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
David Hare-Scott
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20316207-cd32-4fe5-b62f-> Charles Darwin:
>
> "Descent of Man" (1871)
>
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
> will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
> as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
> and the gorilla."
>
> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> killing the "inferiors."
At the time of writing the more technologically advanced Europeans (mainly
white) had been doing a fine job of exterminating, subjugating and exploiting
the inhabitants of other continents (mainly non white) for several hundred
years. This is Darwin anticipating that the trend would continue. As it
turns out he was wrong in some cases where the colonial powers failed to
exterminate the indigines but right in others where they did so. Show me
where he says that it is right or desirable that they succeed.
Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> of said war or extermination). The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism.
Darwin's language is far from politically correct, he uses phrases like
"savage races" in several places. This is typical of the times and the world
view of the dominant Europeans who considered the conquest of the rest of the
world to be their God given right. It has nothing whatsoever to do with him
being a scientist, a biologist or the theory of evolution. He was
representing the common view and using the common language of his culture and
class.
He was no more or less racist than the leaders of the times who treated the
Indians (of the subcontinent) with paternal contempt, as a market, and a cheap
labour force; the Indians (of the Americas) as a potential slave labour force
(and donors of lands) and exterminated the Tasmanian Aboriginals. If his
attitude was gutter racism that charge should also be laid at the feet many of
the white founding fathers of America (and Australia too). I will take a
guess and say you hold many of them in high regard as God fearing men. But as
I said that has nothing whatsoever to do with the TOE.
Darwin's racism, of
> course, founded modern human evolution theory.
You have show no evidence for this whatsoever and this quotation does not
support it.
It is noteworthy to
> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> mankind after God is rejected as Creator.
Show me the quote where he does this.
This is what happens when
> God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
>
> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought. Or if we replace
> Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
>
Nonsense. The above quote says nothing at all about whether the whites OUGHT
replace the other races, it only predicts they WILL. He makes the statement
in the context of "breaks in the organic chain". Here let me restore the
context, this is the previous paragraph from The Decent of Man:
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies,
which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been
advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some
lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who,
convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution.
Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp
and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its
nearest allies-between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridę-between the elephant
and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and
other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related
forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as
measured .........."
This is heady Nazi invective about those echidnas.
David
John Wilkins
It is my view that Darwin, in common with his times, made no clear
distinction between culture and biology. "Savage races" meant,
effectively, any society that was "uncivilised" but there's no
indication this had to be a biological distinction.
And I've been cited in print saying that too :-)
> nearest allies-between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridć-between the elephant
> and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and
> other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related
> forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as
> measured .........."
>
> This is heady Nazi invective about those echidnas.
>
> David
AC
Let's also remember that "race" was often used more loosely by Victorians.
Heck, Churchill even referred to Germans as a "race". One must be careful
when reading certain passages to assure that one is reading in the
appropriate context, and in particular taking into account the usages common
at the time of writing.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> > On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
>> > > Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
>> > > propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on
>> > > this
>> > > could be Post of the Month material.
>>
>> > proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
>> > apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
>> > extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
>> > beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
>> > literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
>> > deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>>
>> Ray, do you have any historical evidence that indicates that Hitler
>> was motivated by Darwinsim? How come Mein Kampf says nothing about it?
>
> No one expects Darwinists to acknowledge the facts outlined above just
> like no one expects anti-semites to acknowledge the Holocaust.
No one expects anyone to acknowledge a "fact" that is not true. Your
claims above are false, and to "acknowledge" what is false would be
irrational.
>
> Intelligent persons know that your "questions" are not as such but
> are, in fact, the denial game that deniers play.
Ray, what would you know about what "intelligent" persons? Also, you
haven't answered the questions, but just avoided them. You are the one
who is denying the evidence of evolution, and making up stories.
DJT>
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 25, 1:28 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Expelled tries to tie Darwinism to Nazism. I saw some TO debate about
>> Darwinism to Nazism. I am too busy to pull together the information
>> myself. Does anybody in TO want to post a debunk of the Expelled
>> propaganda that associates Darwinism with Nazism? A good essay on this
>> could be Post of the Month material.
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
Sorry, Ray, but that's not true. What "instigated" the Nazis (no
apostrophe, unless you are using the posessive case) was the historic
anti-semitism found in Eurpoe, the economic depression, and the humiliation
that Germany suffered after the first world war. What "empowered" them
was the German people electing Hitler into the Chancellery. The Nazi
atrocities don't follow from the theory of evolution, nor does hatred and
barbarity require an excuse.
> Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist
Darwin didn't "prove" that, nor was that his intent.
> and since he proved we are just modified
> apes
That humans are a species of ape was known long before Darwin. Darwin
discovered the mechanism which explains the relationship.
> they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
> extinction.
However no species of ape "selects" their enemies for extinction. More to
the point, people have been committing genocide long before Darwin, when
people still thought of humans as being a "special creation". Therefore
it can hardly be Darwin's fault that the Nazis acted like people in the
past.
>Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
> beliefs.
Darwin's racism was rather mild for the time he lived, and he held the same
"superiority" beliefs that any person of his time and class held, including
many creationists. Ray has called Cuvier an "Arch anti evolutionist", and
he was more racist than Darwin ever was.
> The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
> literally.
Actually, the Nazis did not accept Darwin's theory, but used a distorted
idea, based on eugenics, and ideas of "superior" races.
> Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
Darwin's religious beliefs are irrelevant to the veracity of the
evolutionary theory. The fact remains that Darwin was not an atheist, and
he did not reject a belief in God. Lying about Darwin does not make Darwin
a bad person. It only makes Ray a liar.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> >> Ray, do you have any historical evidence that indicates that Hitler
>> >> was motivated by Darwinsim? How come Mein Kampf says nothing about it?
>>
>> > No one expects Darwinists to acknowledge the facts outlined above just
>> > like no one expects anti-semites to acknowledge the Holocaust.
>>
>> > Intelligent persons know that your "questions" are not as such but
>> > are, in fact, the denial game that deniers play.
>>
>> Translation: No, I can't provide any sources, but I'll keep on ranting
>> anyways.
snip
>
> Expected defense of the denial game by a fellow Darwinist.
what is there to "deny"? You made some false assertions, and didn't back
them up.
>
> Could anyone expect Darwinists to acknowledge that Darwin instigated
> the Nazi's as I outlined?
You couldn't expect anyone to acknowledge a falsehood. You didn't produce
any evidence to support your claim, and your assertions are contradicted by
the facts of history. The Nazis didn't require any rational reason to
"instigate" their actions. They were feeding off the anti-semitism that
already existed in Germany, and the rest of Europe. The theory of
evolution did not inspire, or sponsor their actions. Ideas of "racial"
superiority predated Darwin, and the idea of one population of human being
"better" than another does not follow from the theory of evolution.
>
> Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
> for Theism.
Any Christian who is honest will admit that there isn't any physical
evidence for theism, nor would there need to be. Note that Ray has not
provided any scientific evidence for theism, nor can he.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> I cannot believe that you would think that that Darwin either provoked
>> or incited the Nazis. What is it that you really mean to say?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Its tantamount to a "Christian" "admitting" that there is no evidence
>> > for Theism.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Charles Darwin:
>
> "Descent of Man" (1871)
>
> "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
> civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
> the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will
> no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
> will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
> as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian
> and the gorilla."
>
> In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
> killing the "inferiors."
Actually, in the out of context quote above, Darwin was explaining why their
are no other living human species. He was pointing out that humans tend to
kill off any close competition. Darwin did not suggest that the "civilized
races" were "superior" to the "savage" races, but that they were more
technologically advanced. Darwin was making an observation about what was
happening, not saying that this was a good thing. He was certiainly not
predicting a "war based on race". He was saying that higher technological
populations tend to exterminate lower technology races. This can be seen in
history, and was going on at the time Darwin wrote. That is what happened
to the American Indians, the Maori in New Zealand, and the Austrailian
Aborigines.
> Darwin then cites a German scholar who
> identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
> of said war or extermination).
By which he meant the chimps, gorillas, and orangatangs.
> The remainder of Darwin's thought can
> best be described as the epitome of gutter racism.
Except that it's not. Darwin was not suggesting that these populations
should be exterminated, but that it would most likely happen.
>Darwin's racism, of
> course, founded modern human evolution theory.
Modern human evolution is founded on the evidence. Darwin's racist ideas,
for what they were, did not produce the theory. More to the point, the
theory has been supported since then with even more evidence.
> It is noteworthy to
> point out that Darwin relies on his racism to explain the existence of
> mankind after God is rejected as Creator.
Whether or not it's "noteworthy", it's false. Darwin did not reject God
as creator. He explained the existence of humans by giving evidence to
support his theory. Since Darwin's time, much more evidence of human
evolution has been found. Darwin's racism had nothing to do with it.
> This is what happens when
> God is rejected: racism becomes "science".
False for two major reasons. Darwin didn't reject God, and racism is not
science. Evolutionary theory is based on evidence, not racist beliefs.
>
> If we were to delete Darwin's name from the above quote any lay person
> could easily identify said quote with Nazi thought.
Unless they knew the context in which Darwin was writing.
> Or if we replace
> Darwin's name with Hitler's no one would think something is wrong.
Except that Hitler didn't rely on evidence, or science. Hitler would have
claimed that it was proper for the civilized populations to replace the
"savage" ones. Darwin made no such suggestion.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> >In this quote Darwin predicts a war based on race; or the "superiors"
>> >killing the "inferiors." Darwin then cites a German scholar who
>> >identifies Africans to be "anthropomorphous apes" (the future target
>> >of said war or extermination).
>>
>> Ray, you're in error. Schaaffhausen wasn't referring to Africans, but
>> to creatures you yourself call "apes", and I have the evidence to back
>> it up. Please withdraw this claim.
>>
>
> Please don't get offended if we refuse to take your word on it?
Ray, do you have any evidence to suggest that Shaaffhausen was referring to
African humans? Also, why, since you are expecting everyone to take your
word for your own claims, do you disptue Augray's statement?
In biology, "anthropomorphous" means:
"Having the figure of, or resemblance to, a man; as, an anthromorphous
plant. "Anthromorphous apes.""
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?anthropomorphous
elsewhere in Descent of Man, Darwin says:
"So that the correspondence in general structure, in the minute structure of
the tissues, in chemical composition and in constitution, between man and
the higher animals, especially the anthropomorphous apes, is extremely
close."
It's clear from the context, that Darwin is using the term to mean non human
apes, such as gorillas, and chimps.
Ian Tattersall states, in "Extinct Humans":
http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/t/tattersall-extinct.html
[referring to Zoologist John Ray] He did so by introducing the term
Anthropomorpha, which means "man shaped." But, no matter how anthropomorphic
apes and monkeys obviously were, they were fated to be classified apart from
humans.
Care to provide any evidence that Shaafenhausen meant Africans?
DJT