The Darwinist Hitler Youth

14 views
Skip to first unread message

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 8:56:24 AM10/14/09
to
The handbook for schooling the Hitler youth
http://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Handbook_For_Schooling_the_Hitler_Youth.pdf

"The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the
perception of the unlikeness of men."

"The Christians, above all the Roman Church, reject the race idea with
the citation: Before God all men are equal."

"Now why do we find in Free Masonry, Marxism, and the Christian church
this mistaken teaching of the equality of all men? All three are
striving more or less for power over the whole earth. therefore they
must necessarily be international. They can never acknowledge the
human ties of race, community, or nation if they do not wish to give
up their own aims. In spite of this powerful opposition, however, the
race idea goes on gaining ground. The truth gradually prevails."

"The conclusion has been drawn that the types today have developed
gradually out of older forms. This assumption is in fact generally
accepted today after experiments have also demonstrated that race and
consequently species transformations occur on the earth. The study
which has to do with this question is called the study of evolution.
Closely associated with it is the name of the Englishman Charles
Darwin (1809-1882)."

" Several clusters of hereditary carriers can remain in one cell. All
these changes are enormously important. They actually bring about
externally visible changes which are inheritable. In that way new
races can appear. These changes, which are called mutations (after the
Latin word MVTATIO = change), are not always a good thing for living
beings. They often lead to damaging transformations. Above all sexual
power is often lost. Also, externally stunted forms are frequent. In
this case the process of selection sets in. Only that which is of
value in the struggle for life remains permanent."

"The hereditary welfare measures heretofore explained are for the
purpose of preventing the further spread of existing hereditary
defects and gradually doing away with them altogether. A completely
effective welfare program of this kind is not sufficient, however. The
selection and fostering of the sound part of our people must go along
with the wiping out of hereditary defects."

"The fighting period, by reason of its daily sacrifice of blood and
goods, naturally brought with it the severest process of selection.
Today the process of selection must take place along other lines. The
numerous schools for leaders, especially the Ordensburgen and the
Adolf Hitler schools, have taken over these tasks. Here character,
willingness to serve the community, power of decision, ability to do
are tested as they once were during the fighting period. The
fundamental principle of the socialistic process of selection likewise
applies here."

"Wiping out of the less worthy and selection of the best are the means
for raising and maintaining the racial values of our people.
Selection, however, is possible only when a sufficiently large number
of persons is at hand. Therefore, it is the duty of the leaders of a
people who are conscious of their responsibility to be concerned about
having as large a population as possible. This is the objective of our
population policy."
-------

How Darwinism causes Nazism.

1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas. When you
think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
to succeed in this struggle.

2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum. For example according
to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value. In
normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
will, or creationism.

3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
spiritual domain. Instead of being subjective about what is good and
evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
people that are caused by genes and evnironment.

Regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 9:09:27 AM10/14/09
to

Alber speer, from his memoirs:

“Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had
learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to
penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century,
his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of
Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan
today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by
the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic
peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was
perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long
run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions
of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives,
so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at
the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

“Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 9:21:06 AM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 8:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...

>
> "The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the
> perception of the unlikeness of men."

who is the leading holocaust denier on earth today?

the leader of the ISLAMIC republic of iran

islamists such as yourself routinely deny the shoah ever happened.
you're not doing yourself much good with this argument...

>
> How Darwinism causes Nazism.

1. if it DID cause nazism, so what? if the theory is TRUE then its
consequences are IRRELEVANT

2. i suggest you read 'dabru emet' a document prepared by 200 JEWISH
historians and rabbis. in that document they state that, although
christianity did not CAUSE the shoah, without the existence of
CHRISTIAN antisemitism, the shoah could NEVER HAVE HAPPENED

3. the leading purveyors of antisemitic filth in today's world are the
saudi and egyptian governments which publish, at govt expense, 'the
protocols of the elders of zion' and other lies about jews

4. the leading killers of jews today are islamist fundamentalists who
are also creationists.


>
> 1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
> natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas.

darwin didn't. in fact the leading pro slavers of darwins day were
creationists. ALL slave owners in the US were creationists. many of
them wrote pro-slavery tracts based on creationism.

When you
> think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
> identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
> context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
> to succeed in this struggle.

this is rationalization in defiance of evidence.

>
> 2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
> meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum.

blah blah blah. there is no freedom in an islamic republic. there is
no freedom in a religious state. creationists have NEVER shown
themselves capable of supporting freedom. the slaveowners of the south
didn't and they were creationists.


> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
> spiritual domain.

gee. so does chemistry and physics.


Instead of being subjective about what is good and
> evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
> people that are caused by genes and evnironment.
>

how do you know what 'they' believe at all?

you're a liar, nando. a bald faced liar

wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 9:22:35 AM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 9:09 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>      “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,

> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)- Hide quoted text -
>

excellent info...thanks much.

it's amazing how creationists distort history to make their lies
palatable...

Erwin Moller

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:06:44 AM10/14/09
to
Hi Nando,


No thanks, I stopped reading Hitlers work when I discovered the Quran:

Read for yourself:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
Quote
------------------------------------------------------------
Question:

Does the Qur'an really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

Summary Answer:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with
nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads
and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who
do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will
send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

These verses are mostly open-ended, meaning that the historical context
is not embedded within the surrounding text (as are nearly all of the
Old Testament verses of violence). They are part of the eternal,
unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything
else in the Qur'an.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to
abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be
fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to
Islam, or are killed. This proclivity toward violence - and Muhammad's
own martial legacy - has left a trail of blood and tears across world
history.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive
them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of
Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them
until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a
good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage
is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However,
there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that
the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a
qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting
may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad
is not reassuring.

etc. etc. etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
end quote.

For dozens more vivid examples, visit:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

As to your ending:

> How Darwinism causes Nazism.
>
> 1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
> natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas. When you
> think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
> identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
> context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
> to succeed in this struggle.


So, Nando, does that mean that BEFORE Darwin published his work we had
no racism? No facism?
A blatant lie. Human history is filled with examples.

What's more: You accuse ALL people that think evolution is true to be
racists and genocidal!
You are such an idiot.

Most genocides I know of have a religious component.


>
> 2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom


Aaah, your infamous "knowledge about freedom" hollow phrase again.
Did you notice nobody in here has clue what that means?
We keep asking and asking, but you never deliver. :-(

> by perverting the
> meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum. For example according
> to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
> every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value. In
> normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
> Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
> Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
> will, or creationism.


'Darwinists'?
Do you really think that people who understand biology/evolution have
some secret church somewhere?

"Oh all hail Darwin now! On your knees and pray to the Great omnipotent
Darwin with his Wise Long beard! Charles, we all love you!"
Grow up.
Evolution is science, not some mumbo-jumbo-religion.

And do you really think 'Darwinists' are always calculating their
actions in the light of evolution to create an optimal offspring.
Tell me then, you nutcase: Why do I smoke?
I am clearly a 'Darwinist', and smoking is not excactly associated with
optimal choosing, is it?
So why do I do it?
Doesn't make the slightest sense according to your own little pettheory.


Also: You still seem under the delusion that people who are religious
always think evolution is a lie.
I would like to point you here:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm

Being relious doesn't mean automatically you deny reality, as appears to
be the case in your situation.

You have so much to learn.


>
> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
> spiritual domain.

Bullshit.
Darwin was a biologist that started the whole scientific field of evolution.
He has nothing to do with the 'spiritual domain'.
He has nothing to do with atheism, theism, god, the afterlife, ghosts,
goblins, dragons, or the origins of the universe.
NOTHING.
Darwin/evolution --> biology.
Get that into your head....

Doesn't it bother you in the least you write and write, but never touch
reality?
You just make things up.


> Instead of being subjective about what is good and
> evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
> people that are caused by genes and evnironment.


Indeed. Genes and environment do define what you consider good and evil.

You are under the delusion 'good' and 'evil' are concrete concepts
somehow, defined in an objective manner.
Suprise! They are not.
Good and evil are human concepts, highly varying from culture to culture.
For example: In my culture we consider female humans 100% mature/full
humans, capable of making their own decisions.
In yours their are inferior and a possesion.
I consider your culture as 'evil' for that reason, and you consider mine
'evil'.

In my culture most consider you a dangerous nutcase with dangerous ideas.
In your culture the mad and insane are considered in touch with God.

Do you see the differences that can arise concerning good and evil, and
how they depend on the culture you happened to be born in?

>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu
>

Erwin Moller

PS: If you think I am a little unfriendly and harsh on you, be sure I
deleted half of my previous reply. THAT was harsh.
You and your lies about your evolution-nazi connection make me sick.
You have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too ignorant
and arrogant to change that.
So if I insulted you somewhere, be asured the insults were coming from
my heart. I dispise you and your sick ideas. Science doesn't lead to
facism: society and irrational thinking on the other hand can lead to
facism.

--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

Erwin Moller

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:19:30 AM10/14/09
to
wf3h schreef:

Dito!
Excellent response by Burkhard. :-)
Be asured that Nando will ignore this, or sidestep the issue.
Nando doesn't care too much for facts.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

Kermit

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:26:26 AM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 5:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence

<snip>

> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I fixed it for you by removing the errors and lies. This is, after
all, the essence of the science vs anti-science debate.

HTH.

Kermit

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:24:53 AM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 9:09 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> nando_rontel...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The handbook for schooling the Hitler youth
> >http://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...

Iain

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:39:59 AM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 1:56 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<crap>

If anything, Darwinism prohibits eugenics.

Before Darwin, the received wisdom was that selective breeding is
sometimes desirable and requires intelligent intervention. That would
be a valid(albeit amoral) basis for eugenics.

Darwin detracted from this, saying that in the long term a species
adapts efficiently without any intelligent intervention.

In other words, Darwin pointed out the superfluity of eugenics in
improving a species, when previously it had been thought necessary.

Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.

--Iain

Boikat

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:41:41 AM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 7:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...
>
<snip attempt at guilt by association. Logic was never your strong
point, nando.

> -------
>
> How Darwinism causes Nazism.
>
> 1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process of
> natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas.

False.

> When you
> think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
> identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
> context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
> to succeed in this struggle.

Question. Are there genetic differences between you and a dog? Ho
about you and a bullfrog? How about between you and a chimp? Are the
differences equal, ora re you more genetically similar to a chimp than
you are to a bullfrog?

>
> 2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
> meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum.

What the hell does that mean, in english?


> For example according
> to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
> every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value.

I chose to have beakfast at Shoney's this morning, and none of that
even vaguely crossed my mind. Therefore, you are full of shit, as
usual.


> In
> normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
> Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.

So, there's some problem where a choice is possible, choosing a course
that will achieve optimum outcome is bad?

> Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
> will, or creationism.

It's highly dishonest of you to group those three concepts together
and claim those that accept some of them reject all of them. Fore
example, one can full well accept the concept of free will, adn reject
creationism. One is a philosophical outlook which expresses the
individuals ability to take responsibility for his or her actions, the
other is a religious dogma. Do you have enough un-druged brain cells
left to figure out which is which?

>
> 3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
> spiritual domain.

And how is that a problem?

> Instead of being subjective about what is good and
> evil,

So, you reject moral absolutes? I thought that was what you fundy's
claimed was a fault of "atheists" which usually includes anyone who
accepts the ToE. Now here you are, apparently finding fault because
the ToE *destroys* subjective morality. Will you be so kind as to
make up your little mind?

> they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
> people that are caused by genes and evnironment.

Are you saying that genes and environment do not influence people's
perceptions of good and evil? It looks like you are trying to think
too hard, and just painted youself into a moral corner, especially
since, where humans are concerned, local religious beliefe are part of
the social environment, which is pretty much inseparable from the
physical environment in which a person lives. That sort of shoots
down whatever it is your trying to blame on the ToE, which is a valid
scientific theory, no matter how it's missused, or who missused it to
ay extent.

Boikat

Nashton

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 1:35:51 PM10/14/09
to
Burkhard wrote:

>
> Alber speer, from his memoirs:
>
> “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had
> learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to
> penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century,
> his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of
> Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan
> today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by
> the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic
> peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was
> perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
> conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long
> run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions
> of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives,
> so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at
> the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
>
> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>

So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.

Nashton

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 1:39:38 PM10/14/09
to
Erwin Moller wrote:


>
> Erwin Moller
>
> PS: If you think I am a little unfriendly and harsh on you, be sure I
> deleted half of my previous reply. THAT was harsh.
> You and your lies about your evolution-nazi connection make me sick.
> You have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too ignorant
> and arrogant to change that.
> So if I insulted you somewhere, be asured the insults were coming from
> my heart. I dispise you and your sick ideas. Science doesn't lead to
> facism: society and irrational thinking on the other hand can lead to
> facism.
>
>
>

You're way too emotional and touchy-feely. Take up dancing.

Nashton

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 1:45:18 PM10/14/09
to


This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.

Period.

This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
respective motives.

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 1:56:20 PM10/14/09
to


" I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as
a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a
Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out
of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His
fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was
driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

* Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922

wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:06:28 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 1:35 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>

>
> >     “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
> > ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
> > didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
> > the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
> > have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
> > to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
> > Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>

> So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.-

so much for hitler being inspired by evolution

religion seems to make you crazy. not science
e

Nashton

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:13:02 PM10/14/09
to


The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.

Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.

Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
ensue.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:12:55 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 1:45 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> Iain wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:56 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <crap>
>
> > If anything, Darwinism prohibits eugenics.
>
> > Before Darwin, the received wisdom was that selective breeding is
> > sometimes desirable and requires intelligent intervention. That would
> > be a valid(albeit amoral) basis for eugenics.
>
> > Darwin detracted from this, saying that in the long term a species
> > adapts efficiently without any intelligent intervention.
>
> > In other words, Darwin pointed out the superfluity of eugenics in
> > improving a species, when previously it had been thought necessary.
>
> > Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
> > based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
>
> > --Iain
>
> This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
> from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
> highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
>
> Period.
[snip]

Are you familiar with instance where Hitler quoted or discussed
Darwin?

Are you familiar with instance where Darwin cited survival of the
fittest as an ideal?

wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:10:21 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 1:45 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> Iain wrote:

>
> > Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
> > based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
>
> > --Iain
>
> This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
> from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
> highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.
>
> Period.

really? rather strange in that:

-hitler never mentions darwin in his 'mein kampf'
-hitler never mentions natural selection in 'mein kampf'
-in his 'tabletalk' diaries, hitler told the bishop of cologne to stop
complaining about the jews since he was only doing what christians had
been doing to jew for centuries
-in 'die bucherei' archive at the u. of arizona, there is a list of
nazi banned books. banned books included
-anything by darwin since darwin was considered an 'enlightment'
thinker
-anything critical of the christian religion

so nashton is a liar.

period

>
> This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
> murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their

> respective motives.-

they were massive murderers because of technology. stalin had been an
orthodox seminarian. antisemitism was rife in both germany and russia.

nashton is, again, a liar

Hatunen

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:28:19 PM10/14/09
to
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:35:51 -0300, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:

>Burkhard wrote:

[...]

>> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
>> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
>> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
>> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
>> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
>> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
>> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>>
>
>So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.

He never claimed to be. He wanted to set up a German religion
based on the old German mythology.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:34:18 PM10/14/09
to
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:45:18 -0300, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:

>This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
>from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
>highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" was an invention of the social
Darwinists, and the phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer.
Darwin did use it later, but as a synonym for "natural
selection".

'Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate,
local environment", not the common inference of "in the best
physical shape"'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

>This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
>murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
>respective motives.

Well, not "nothing", at least for Hitler. But this raises the
question of whetehr persecuting the Jews is a religious or
"racist" activity.

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:46:18 PM10/14/09
to

In the same way one could argue that his unsystematic and mistaken
references to Darwin are a propaganda tool to give his eschatological
ideology the veneer of scientific respectability, i.e. a propoganda tool.

Now I would say the Nazis never particularly bothered to develop a
consistent ideology, and I don't think that Christianity was a dominant
causal factor for them - but if someone were to debate where they got
more of their inspiration from, I _do_ think that it is much easier to
demonstrate how fringe Christian beliefs, in particular millenianism in
the de Fiore tradition, shaped their view of the world than Darwinism.

As always with the lunatic fringe, distinctions with other schools and
ideals get blurred. Note e.g. from the previous post that what he
admired in Islam, and what he woudl have liked the Christian church to
be, is rather similar to the "reworded" bible suggested by
conservapedia, where the "soft and touchy feely" elements are purged as
"later additions driven by a liberal agenda".

> Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
>

Gives you a "true Scotsman" problem - there is of course a long and
well documented history of prosecution of Jews in Europe by Christians
and their various churches. You might say that in your reading of the
bible, this is incompatible with "true Christianity" - but then so is
his mangled and rather haphazard and unsystematic references to Darwin -
and it is easier to show that his ideas of breeding to an _absolute_
ideal of human perfection is incompatible with key tenets of the ToE
than it is

> Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
> definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
> underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
>
> Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
> and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
> of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
> ensue.
>

Again you are either making a true Scotsman fallacy or your argument
can just as easily applied to the misuse of science by ideologues

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 2:56:03 PM10/14/09
to
Well, that latter he arguably did, but with a non-Darwinian notion of
"the fittest". In particular, he believed that "the fittest" is an
absolute term (physical strength, risk taking, aggression) and that
there was a telos in human history to bring these characteristics about.

Both the idea of a telos and the idea of absolute, context independent
values is of course a notion found in religious discourse, but not in
science. He would obviously have been aghast by the idea for instance
that depending on the environment, "running away from the enemy really
really fast" can make you the fittest.

Boikat

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:06:51 PM10/14/09
to

Well, someone's selling propahanda, that's for sure. Isn't it odd,
how Hitler will flat out claim that he felt that his actions were on
behalf of his "lord and saviour" (not Darwin, BTW), and cretins like
you pass it off as propaghanda used to sucker in the general
population, yet if he says something that even hints of an element of
biologial evolution, you fuckers are all over it, claiming that the
ToE is the basis for his actions, NAZIism, Communism, Facisim, and the
common fucking cold.


>
> Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
> definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
> underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
>

And *NOT* the theory of evolution. Please correct nando.


> Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
> and will never be religion behind wars and genocides.

Bullshit.

> It is the *lack*
> of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
> ensue.

Denial is not he name of a river in Egypt. Wars fought for religious
reasons: Hundreds, if not thousands. Wars fought in the name of
Darwin: Goose-egg, zero, nada, none, zip. You can add zilch and
nill, to that too.

Boikat

John Stockwell

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:08:14 PM10/14/09
to

If the Nazis had an accurate understanding of evolution, they
would have advocated the increase of genetic diversity in the
German population through intermarriage with non "aryans".
Instead, they advocated the reduction of the fitness of their
population
by discouraging genetic diversity.

-John


On Oct 14, 6:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...

Boikat

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:12:58 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 12:45 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
> Iain wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 1:56 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <crap>
>
> > If anything, Darwinism prohibits eugenics.
>
> > Before Darwin, the received wisdom was that selective breeding is
> > sometimes desirable and requires intelligent intervention. That would
> > be a valid(albeit amoral) basis for eugenics.
>
> > Darwin detracted from this, saying that in the long term a species
> > adapts efficiently without any intelligent intervention.
>
> > In other words, Darwin pointed out the superfluity of eugenics in
> > improving a species, when previously it had been thought necessary.
>
> > Darwin weakened the even older premises on which eugenics agendas are
> > based, and did not add a single reason in their favour.
>
> > --Iain
>
> This "fine print", so to speak, in Darwin's doctrine does not detract
> from the fact that Hitler, not withstanding what you underscored, was
> highly influenced by Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest.

And that his ideals for what constituted "fittest" was based upon
religious beliefs.
>
> Period.
>

Except for the parts you ignore, like religious influences.


> This makes Hitler, Stalin and previous military campaigners the worst
> murderers where religion had absolutely nothing to do with their
> respective motives.

You're so full of crap it's amazing. You should be in a circus.

Boikat

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:14:09 PM10/14/09
to
Hatunen wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:35:51 -0300, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
>
>> Burkhard wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking,
>>> ‘You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why
>>> didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for
>>> the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would
>>> have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have
>>> to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer,
>>> Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)
>>>
>> So much for Hitler being inspired by Christian ideals.
>
> He never claimed to be.

Quite often, as a matter of fact - of course this does not mean he was
sincere

He wanted to set up a German religion
> based on the old German mythology.
>

No, that is more Hollywood than history, Wagner is always good as a
backdrop for films. There was a Norse revival element in the NSDAP,
especially in the early years and the Thule society, but not more really
than in other European countries at the time, most notably Britain
(Tolkien, anyone?) While they had in Himmler a high ranking supporter,
they were an irrelevant fringe in the party and Hitler, Goebbels,
Borman and the other Nazi dukes scoffed at them. Some of the traditional
festivities like Jul were briefly revived, maionly for the youth
organisation, but without the deities and as a part of Hitler's
personality cult.

See e.g.
Stefanie von Schnurbein: Göttertrost in Wendezeiten. Neugermanisches
Heidentum zwischen New Age und Rechtsradikalismus, München 1993

Peter Viereck, "Nazi Religion versus Christian Religion," in
Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler,
Transaction Publishers, 2004 esp. para 12

Iain

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:15:40 PM10/14/09
to
> Christian background and Christianity in general .....

Indeed, just as some Nazis used Darwin in order to give his politics a
scientific feel.

Just as he called his party a 'workers'' party in order to appeal to
the working class majority.

Et cetera.

--Iain

wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:24:07 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 2:13 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>
> The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used  his
> Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
> in order to justify the extermination of Jews.

as christians had done since virtually the very inception of their
religion. many of the 'nuremburg' laws were derived from christian
laws agains jews, such as those promulgated by the 4th lateran council
of 1215

Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.

bullshit. christians expelled jews from every single country in europe
at one time or another, starting with the english in 1255. chaim
raphael points out in his book 'up from bablyon' that spanish
christians murdered about the same percentage of spanish jews as
hitler murdered european jews.

your fairy tale view of 'christian principles' is simply a lie and
does not square with christian history.


>
> Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
> definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
> underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.

again, bullshit. why is it christian 'principles' when people behave
nice due to religion, but NOT christian principles when they do evil
things due to religion?

you're engaging in a circular argument

>
> Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
> and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
> of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that

> ensue.-

again, bullshit. people believe many things about religion. not all of
them nice. our current world situation vis a vis islamism is a perfect
example

other than your self aggrandizing assertions....each of which is
wrong...is there ANY evidence to support your claims?

you have NO evidence at all.

John Wilkins

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:33:33 PM10/14/09
to
In article
<e372c8b3-b5a7-4786...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the Nazis had an accurate understanding of evolution, they
> would have advocated the increase of genetic diversity in the
> German population through intermarriage with non "aryans".
> Instead, they advocated the reduction of the fitness of their
> population
> by discouraging genetic diversity.

They would also have recognised that the more successful, in terms of
reproduction, groups, like Slavs, were *by definition* more fit than
the wimpy Aryans that had fewer progeny...

John Wilkins

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:35:12 PM10/14/09
to
In article <hb57u1$vu$1...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Stefanie von Schnurbein: G�ttertrost in Wendezeiten. Neugermanisches
> Heidentum zwischen New Age und Rechtsradikalismus, M�nchen 1993


>
> Peter Viereck, "Nazi Religion versus Christian Religion," in
> Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler,
> Transaction Publishers, 2004 esp. para 12
>

Thanks, Burkhard, that matches the feeling I have long had that there
really wasn't a "Germanic" philosophy (or Volksphilosophie, as it was
called in one book that I read on the foundations of Nazism) on which
they depended.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 3:55:33 PM10/14/09
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org

Nashton should not be patronize; he should be expected to support his
clains. I was looking for Nashton to produce quotes, not assertions
or even, as you do above, sophisticated discussion. N.B., it was
Nashton who said we can for his purposes ignore the "fine print" in
Darwin. Nashton wrote "Darwin's ideal of survival of the fittest." I
actually gave Nashton more room than he deserved; I should have just
asked him to defend his claim that survival of the fittest was
"Darwin's ideal" with quotes from Darwin.

Mitchell Coffey

wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 4:08:23 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 1:39 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:

>
> You're way too emotional and touchy-feely. Take up dancing.- Hide quoted text -
>

you and nando are taking quite an asskicking with your lies about
evolution and nazism

care to comment?

the floor...which was recently cleaned by you and the idiot
islamist...is yours

Steven L.

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 4:20:29 PM10/14/09
to

Seconded!


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

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 4:38:28 PM10/14/09
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Oct 14, 3:35 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article <hb57u1$v...@news.albasani.net>, Burkhard
>
>
>
> <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Hatunen wrote:
> > Stefanie von Schnurbein: Göttertrost in Wendezeiten. Neugermanisches
> > Heidentum zwischen New Age und Rechtsradikalismus, München 1993

>
> > Peter Viereck, "Nazi Religion versus Christian Religion," in
> > Metapolitics: from Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler,
> > Transaction Publishers, 2004 esp. para 12
>
> Thanks, Burkhard, that matches the feeling I have long had that there
> really wasn't a "Germanic" philosophy (or Volksphilosophie, as it was
> called in one book that I read on the foundations of Nazism) on which
> they depended.

There was a misty northern-European centric ideology that began
puffing up in the 18th century in England (or, I recall something,
Scotland?). It didn't as a rule seek to supplant Christianity, though
there were some Nazis who did. Hitler didn't encourage them, but was
generally tolerant of sub-ideologies withing Nazism, which has given
room for generalization for people who wish to locate Nazism outside
Christian tradition.

Regarding Wf3h's quote dealing with Islam, there's a similar one
somewhere in Hitler's Table Talk. With that and all Hitler scraps, it
should be kept in mind that Hitler did like to talk - really enjoyed
it! - which has given all sort of liberties to the sort of people who
think one can fathom the core of a man with a long and vocal public
career by excitedly copying what he said on 13 March, 1937, later in
the afternoon, over coffee with some general.

One thing I don't know what to make of is the facts that Darwin was a
moderately well-known guy in Germany, and "natural selection" was a
common catch phrase (I don't know about the popularly at the time of
the German equivalent of "survival of the fittest). And not only did
Hilter talk a lot, he wrote two books, made many, many speeches, and
his blatherings were widely jotted down in dictation or record on
film, or in memoirs by various witnesses. Nonetheless, Hitler seems
to have spake the term "natural selection" twice, and uttered the name
Darwin once, as a term of disparagement, in a probably spurious
conversation. I don't know what to make of these facts.[*]

Tolkien, I know from inside-information, is for reasons Burkhard
suggested not popular at the US Holocaust Museum.

Note: the Thule Society was suppressed by the Nazis. Neither was it
much of a thing far into the '20s. It's inclusion in some pantheon of
mystic Nazi influence has to do with the Hollywood pseudo-history of
Nazism, which seeks to comfort the souls of white folks by making
Nazism have its sources in - ironically - the other.

[*] What is the name of this rhetorical device, where one pretends not
to know what to make of certain selected facts he has just cited, thus
trying to hide from truly defending his argument? It's sort's like
Socratic irony, but one thing I know is how ignorant I am of such
things.

Mitchell

John Wilkins

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 4:49:46 PM10/14/09
to
In article
<48f9124f-7e01-4cf5...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:

> [*] What is the name of this rhetorical device, where one pretends not
> to know what to make of certain selected facts he has just cited, thus
> trying to hide from truly defending his argument? It's sort's like
> Socratic irony, but one thing I know is how ignorant I am of such
> things.

I can't say...

Dwib

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 4:49:46 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 7:56 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler
>
> <lots of crap>
>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Mohammad, you ignorant slut.

Erwin Moller

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 4:55:29 PM10/14/09
to
Nashton schreef:

Thanks for your advice, but I stopped dancing like 15 years ago. ;-)
While I can easily handle guys like you, Madman, and the like, this
Nando manages to really piss me off every time I read his crap.

I think it is his sincere arrogance that causes it.
Arrogance + stupidity.
Somehow that combination irritates me deeply.
I also dislike being called a facist.

But you are right: I shouldn't let him irritate me that much.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

Rolf

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 5:16:26 PM10/14/09
to
Burkhard wrote:
> nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youth
>>
http://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Handbook_
For_Schooling_the_Hitler_Youth.pdf

Just as we cannot make Lise Meissner, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Edward
Teller, Albert Einstein and the rest of them responsible for the fact of
nuclear physics and radioactivity, we cannot blame Darwin for the fact of
evolution. Or Alfred Nobel for dynamite. Who can we blame for Osma Bin Laden
and Taliban? Yes, we have a grudge aginst the Bible too.)


> Alber speer, from his memoirs:
>
> �Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had
> learned from a delegation of Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to
> penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century,
> his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of
> Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan
> today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith
> by
> the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic
> peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was
> perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the
> conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the
> long
> run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and
> conditions
> of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous
> natives,
> so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at
> the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
>

> �Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 5:09:59 PM10/14/09
to
FACTCHECK

Q does identifying yourself as being a part of natural selection,
differential reproductive success, makes you come up with racist, and
genocidal ideas
A yes
evidence:
try it

Q do darwinists deny all principles based on freedom such as free will
and creationism
A yes
evidence:
- no single Darwinist on the forum ever uses the logic of things
turning out alternative ways in a theory about behaviour, or anything
else, and they regularly oppose it, especially creationism they oppose

Q Do Darwinists demand objective evidence for spiritual claims such as
for instance, the existence of God, or the goodness of people
A yes
evidence:
Already 1 Darwinist posted in the thread that goodness and evil are
material and objective.

What the Darwinists give you about Nazism is stories about Islam and
Christianity, which many of them despise. What I give you is easily
checked direct evidence.

regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu


VoiceOfReason

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 5:38:27 PM10/14/09
to

Wow! That's some of the most flagrant denial of history I've seen in
a long time.

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


VoiceOfReason

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 5:46:29 PM10/14/09
to

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Nashton schreef:
> > Erwin Moller wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Erwin Moller
> >>
> >> PS: If you think I am a little unfriendly and harsh on you, be sure I
> >> deleted half of my previous reply. THAT was harsh.
> >> You and your lies about your evolution-nazi connection make me sick.
> >> You have no clue what you are talking about, but you are too ignorant
> >> and arrogant to change that.
> >> So if I insulted you somewhere, be asured the insults were coming from
> >> my heart. I dispise you and your sick ideas. Science doesn't lead to
> >> facism: society and irrational thinking on the other hand can lead to
> >> facism.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You're way too emotional and touchy-feely. Take up dancing.
> >
>
> Thanks for your advice, but I stopped dancing like 15 years ago. ;-)
> While I can easily handle guys like you, Madman, and the like, this
> Nando manages to really piss me off every time I read his crap.
>
> I think it is his sincere arrogance that causes it.
> Arrogance + stupidity.
> Somehow that combination irritates me deeply.
> I also dislike being called a facist.
>
> But you are right: I shouldn't let him irritate me that much.

You know, I've noticed that over the years. How is it that some
stupid people can be so arrogant? Are they so totally clueless that
they don't realize their own limitations? Is it the hope they can BS
their way past other people with empty bombast?


wf3h

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 6:58:25 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 5:09 pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> FACTCHECK
>
> Q does identifying yourself as being a part of natural selection,
> differential reproductive success, makes you come up with racist, and
> genocidal ideas
> A yes
> evidence:
> try it

OK..hold on


nope. it didn't. NOW let me try thinking like an islamist fanatic

gee...where's the airport? do they have flying lessons?

>
> Q do darwinists deny all principles based on freedom such as free will
> and creationism
> A yes
> evidence:
> - no single Darwinist on the forum ever uses the logic of things
> turning out alternative ways in a theory about behaviour, or anything
> else, and they regularly oppose it, especially creationism they oppose

and we don't apply evolution to ballet dancing either...or trading
baseball cards...

makes as much sense

>
> Q Do Darwinists demand objective evidence for spiritual claims such as
> for instance, the existence of God, or the goodness of people
> A yes
> evidence:
> Already 1 Darwinist posted in the thread that goodness and evil are
> material and objective.

nope. no one cares about whether god exists or not

>
> What the Darwinists give you about Nazism is stories about Islam and
> Christianity, which many of them despise. What I give you is easily
> checked direct evidence.
>

ditto. in afghanistan right now there are 68,000 US troops and 30,000
other NATO troops fighting islamist killers

in pakistan the army is getting ready to launch an offensive against
islamist killers

in iraq, 80,000 people have been killed by islamist murderers

and nando is here to tell us how wonderful islamism is, and what a
danger evolution is.

Bill

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 7:46:00 PM10/14/09
to
On 14 Okt, 19:56, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The handbook for schooling the Hitler youthhttp://www.archive.org/download/HandbookForSchoolingTheHitlerYouth/Ha...

>
> "The foundation of the National Socialist outlook on life is the
> perception of the unlikeness of men."
<snip>

When you haven't got a single persuasive argument, compare your
opponent to Hitler.

>
> Regards,
> Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Mark Evans

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 8:00:34 PM10/14/09
to
On Oct 14, 2:13 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
(snip)

>
> The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used  his
> Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
> in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.

Clearly you have not talked to many Christians, especially the ones
who refer to Jews as "Christ-killers" and who tend to get red-faced
when reminded that their religion is supposed to be based on the
teachings of a Jew.

Mark Evans

heekster

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 8:27:38 PM10/14/09
to

>The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
>Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
>in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
>that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
>Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
>

>Secondly, within the more general context of warfare and plunder, it is
>definitely *not* religion that was at the basis of the motivation
>underlying respective campaigns, but politics and imperialism.
>
>Thirdly, and this ties everything else very nicely, it never was, isn't
>and will never be religion behind wars and genocides. It is the *lack*
>of religion, from which spring forth moral codes and the behaviors that
>ensue.

What is crusade?

What is jihad?

Damn, you're ignorant.

AusShane

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 10:36:16 PM10/14/09
to
How Darwinism causes Nazism.


1 - All people who identify themselves as being part of the process
of
natural selection, come up with racist and genocidal ideas. When you
think of yourself as an organism in a struggle to survive, and
identify others based on genetic similarity and differences in this
context, then naturally you will come up with thoughts about wanting
to succeed in this struggle.

The science of Evolutionary Biology contains no instructions on how
humans should behave. The term 'Darwinism' has no meaning as either a
political nor philosophical construct. 'Darwinism' does not exist.


2 - Darwinists destroy knowledge about freedom by perverting the
meaning of choosing with calculating an optimum. For example
according
to Darwinists choosing means calculating the survival benefits of
every option, and then going the way of the highest survival value.
In
normal understanding of choosing you can go alternative ways, but in
Darwinist understanding of choosing you can only go the optimal way.
Darwinists oppose concepts of origins based on freedom, like free
will, or creationism.

The science of Evolutionary Biology contains no instructions on how
humans should behave. The term 'Darwinism' has no meaning as either a
political nor philosophical construct. 'Darwinism' does not exist.


3 - Darwinists destroy subjectivity by demanding evidence for the
spiritual domain. Instead of being subjective about what is good and
evil, they see goodness and evil as measurable brain activitities in
people that are caused by genes and evnironment.

The science of Evolutionary Biology contains no instructions on how
humans should behave. The term 'Darwinism' has no meaning as either a
political nor philosophical construct. 'Darwinism' does not exist.


Regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Do you get it yet?????

William Morse

unread,
Oct 14, 2009, 11:21:41 PM10/14/09
to
I am unaware of any historical facts that would support your last
paragraph. I would agree that calculations of self-interest (you refer
to them as "politics and imperialism") explain much about war. But
religion clearly was behind the Inquisition, just as it currently fuels
Al-Quaeda. And I challenge you to come up with a genocide conducted
based on a lack of religion.

Wombat

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 2:43:28 AM10/15/09
to

As someone who read "The Hobbit" followed by "The Lord of the Rings"
to my young daughter as bedtime stories, that is intriguing. Could
you be more precise, please.

Wombat

shuttlt

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 5:00:37 AM10/15/09
to
Hi,

I just wanted to draw the attention of this thread to the long
discussion we had with Nando over at the James Randi forum (http://
forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152078). We spent 1000 posts mainly
working on a definition of what in the world Syamsu/Nando meant by
choosing and freedom. He left the thread at a point where I felt we
were starting to get things pinned down.

For a while he seemed to agree with the following:
****************************************************************************************************************
Choosing
Choosing is an explanation for the apparent randomness in quantum
mechanics. "Choosing" agrees with the information interpretation of
quantum mechanics. The formula's of quantum mechanics describe the
statistical properties of choosing. In the example of the bomb test
the choice will tend to 50% path A, 50% path B on average. The cause
for a choice to go one way instead of another is 'spiritual'. The
operator cannot influence or increase the likelihood in any way of the
photon taking one path over the other. The fact that information can
be obtained about what could have happened alternatively.

Freedom

Something is free, in the sense of freewill, if it can take actions
that are outside the causal chain.

The spiritual

The cause of events that lack a physical cause.
****************************************************************************************************************

By the way, does anybody know if Nando is a Sunni, Shia or some other
form of Muslim. His notion of free will and choosing doesn't seem to
me compatible with a notion of God as omniscient in the sense that my
limited knowledge of Islam makes me think Sunni and Shia believe.

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 5:28:39 AM10/15/09
to
> Email:  sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Mhh, thanks guys, but can an author "unsecond" his post?. This one had
zero input from me, and it took me not more than 2 min to locate an
English translation of the quote - appropriate reply to Nando's smear
job, but hardly a noteworthy contribution to the ToE debate, and as
Mitchell rightly says, if it were not in the context of Nando being
his annoying self, close to a quote mine.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 5:34:24 AM10/15/09
to

I will un-nominate.
Sometimes I react too quickly to ideas I find interesting.
I was nominating the information, not your post.

Burkhard

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 5:53:18 AM10/15/09
to
My own take would be "applause form the wrong crowd" - which Tolkien
however robustly rebuffed:

A German publisher in 1938 wanted to translate his work into German,
and had inquired in his letter if Tolkien was "arisch" (Aryan)
Tolkien's reply:

"Thank you for your letter ... I regret that I am not clear as to what
you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-
Iranian; as far as I am aware noone (sic) of my ancestors spoke
Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to
understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can
only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that
gifted people."

So what is left is a somewhat unfair guilt by association. From the
late 19th to early 20 century, you find across Europe (don't know
about the US) a general Norse revival, as a follow up of the
romanticist movement. Nothing organised or systematic, and as a result
you got also groups where this was mixed with racism and extreme
nationalism. The Nazis went a bit further in misappropriating this
movement - and from this point onwards, it became difficult
("politically incorrect would be the term today) to also use these
symbols and narratives. If as in Tolkien , the Heroes are described
(in some detail) as tall, blond and beautiful, and the villains black
and ugly , that did not help.

Tolkien eventually felt the need to make a public statement: [I have
a] burning private grudge against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf
Hitler for "ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever
accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to
Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true
light."

Wombat

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 6:38:06 AM10/15/09
to

Thank you for that explanation. BTW, were the Rohirrim Anglo-Saxon
Huscarls
who had learned to fight on horseback?

Wombat

Jim

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 7:08:07 AM10/15/09
to
On Oct 14, 5:46 pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
<snip>

> You know, I've noticed that over the years.  How is it that some
> stupid people can be so arrogant?  Are they so totally clueless that
> they don't realize their own limitations?  Is it the hope they can BS
> their way past other people with empty bombast?

It's just an irritating corollary of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

G

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 9:04:28 AM10/15/09
to
Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
> Burkhard wrote:
>>
>> " I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as
>> a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
>> only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
>> summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
>> greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a
>> Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
>> the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out
>> of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His
>> fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
>> thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
>> ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
>> blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
>> be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
>> And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
>> suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
>> ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was
>> driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
>>
>> * Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of April 12, 1922
>>
>
>
> The quote you posted in a previous post indicates that Hitler used his
> Christian background and Christianity in general, as a propaganda tool
> in order to justify the extermination of Jews. Note that this notion
> that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is incompatible with
> Christian ideals since Christians regard Jews as the chosen people.
>
[....]

This doesn't make any sense.

If the "notion that Jews are somehow the scourge of the Earth is
incompatible with Christian ideals", using Christianity as a propaganda
tool would have failed miserably. It didn't and it isn't (or at least it
wasn't at the time).

G

Walter Bushell

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 9:04:15 AM10/15/09
to
In article <hb569q$u2r$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Now I would say the Nazis never particularly bothered to develop a
> consistent ideology, and I don't think that Christianity was a dominant
> causal factor for them - but if someone were to debate where they got
> more of their inspiration from, I _do_ think that it is much easier to
> demonstrate how fringe Christian beliefs, in particular millenianism in
> the de Fiore tradition, shaped their view of the world than Darwinism.
>
> As always

And the traditional hatred of Jews in Christian thought. Read Martin
Luther, for example. One thing, is that Christians could never
understand why Jews would not embrace Christianity. The only explanation
had to be malice, because, of course, Christianity was so self evidently
true.

--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 9:06:50 AM10/15/09
to
In article
<46d19dd5-b75a-458c...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Denial is not he name of a river in Egypt. Wars fought for religious
> reasons: Hundreds, if not thousands. Wars fought in the name of
> Darwin: Goose-egg, zero, nada, none, zip. You can add zilch and
> nill, to that too.
>
> Boikat
>

We hardly every even beat up a creationist. Hmm, creationists have been
know to trash someone's car for the wearing of a Darwin Fish sticker.

Boikat

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 9:14:49 AM10/15/09
to
On Oct 15, 8:04 am, G<g...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

"Logic" was never Nashty's strong point.

Boikat

Walter Bushell

unread,
Oct 15, 2009, 9:24:04 AM10/15/09