First bullshit: @2:43 What on Earth is primitive Darwinism? No one seems to know. And they did not ban any of Darwin's books. Second bullshit:@ 5:44 "Hitler always professed Jesus as his saviour"??? One quote at least, please??
@theantisauronist "What on Earth is primitive Darwinism? No one seems to know."
What does that matter? It's what the Nazis called evolutionary biology in general when they banned Darwin's and Haeckel's works. Look up the Nazi book blacklist
"And they did not ban any of Darwin's books."
Indeed they did. It's number six in the official Nazi blacklist of "Die Bucheri". (Number 10 was any book written by a jewish author, there were 12 points in total)
@ProcInc omg!!!!!!! It does not matter! So you decide to define what THEY called primitive darwinism, even though you couldn't provide any quotes to back it up.
And it does not matter that none of Darwin's books were banned! And wtf has point six of the list ("We wish to eradicate lies..." has anything to do with Darwinism? Nothing matters for you deranged fanatics. Even muslims and communists argue better than you creeps. At least they follow some kind of human logic.
@theantisauronist "So you decide to define what THEY called primitive darwinism, even though you couldn't provide any quotes to back it up."
Well the blacklist themselves gave an example (Haeckel). And looking deeper into it we know that Darwin's works were specifically included thanks to the work of real scholars like Robert Richards and Daniel Gasman.
@theantisauronist "And wtf has point six of the list ("We wish to eradicate lies..." has anything to do with Darwinism? "
Umm, point six says "Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklrung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist"
which translates into "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism"
@ProcInc I'm sorry, are you actually retarded? In my very first comment I stated that no one knows what what the nazis meant by "primitive Darwinism", and I added that none of Darwin's books were ever banned, even though many other books were. I'm going to politely decline to continue this pointless "debate" and urge you to tell the nurse your medication might need a bit of tweaking . Goodbye.
@theantisauronist It's typical for a point of cliche for a creationist to be as rude as they are wrong. The fact that you would add to that that you "politely decline" is very revealing of your warped moral mindset.
It seems as though the only reason you are even opposed to Nazism is they lost and you don't wantt o associate with them anymore.
Of course, had Nazism taken over you, the Christian would be the privelaged Volk and I'd go the way of Max Sievers, much to your glee I'm sure
@theantisauronist See, that's what I mean. You want to accuse all of these ideologies you disagree with with associating with this and that hate group. But all you end up doing is putting on full display the hate in your own heart.
Your beliefs make you a far worse person than you could be in every way...you don't have the truth on your side and can't take me down with bullets like in the good old days so you try it with petty words. Hopefully that will always be the case
@theantisauronist "And wtf has point six of the list ("We wish to eradicate lies..." has anything to do with Darwinism?"
You are confusing the blacklist guidelines with the 12 blacklist slogans. Something of a bizarre error.
I should also point out that both "Darwinism" and "monism" were capitalised whereas "primitive" was not. It is therefore more likely that they were not about a philosophy called "Primitive Darwinism", but were merely deriding Darwinism in general as 'primitive'
@theantisauronist ""Hitler always professed Jesus as his saviour"??? One quote at least, please??"
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior 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 fight against them and who, God's truth!" -The speech goes on in much the same vein but you get the idea
You can basically turn to any page of 'Mein Kampf' too
None of these people had a valid view on evolution. Hitlers ideas were insane. To create a pure race would kill us and create more handicapped people (who he didnt like) because of a lack of variation.
This is a very interesting video series and I believe I've commented on this video before, but one thing this video fails to mention is tht Nazism was also simply a Nationalist reactionary response to Judeo-Bolshevism. If it wasn't for the heavy influence of Jews in the Bolsheviks revolution Nazism probably would never have existed in the first place.
@LordMalice6d9 "but one thing this video fails to mention is tht Nazism was also simply a Nationalist reactionary response to Judeo-Bolshevism. If it wasn't for the heavy influence of Jews in the Bolsheviks revolution Nazism probably would never have existed in the first place."
Technically I could have mentioned any number or all of the contributing factors to Nazi ideology and the success of the movement but it would be ultimately irrelevent to the core of the topic
'cherylwens (3 hours ago) The weak can adapt to societal needs by clamouring for help. They appeal to our altruisism. You can very well be a school dropout. Rather dense in the thinking department. But if you can satisfy the demands of the world population, you'll become a billionaire. That's the difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the most adaptable". It's not always the smartest, tallest, strongest, healthiest, most attractive that are successful.'
Comrade, here is another question, however you may have already answered it in your vid.
Q: Another vid on YT claims that Darwinisn, or Darwin's theory, is not about intellectual superiority or strength, but, instead, is about the "adaptability" of a species.
A species, more accurately, the genes of a particular species, survive due to that species ability to endure eg. harsh environmental conditions etc, do you agree?
Yes, Darwin's theory is about the adaptability of a species. It is not about the survival of the strongest.
I agree with that entirely.
Although when you say "more accurately, the genes of a particular species" that somewhat accurate but its more a model that Richard Dawkins uses (He stresses that genes are almost exclusivelty the unit of selection). That MIGHT be true but other biologists say that there is more to it than just the genes.
'I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world.
'Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.'
And do the governments in existence now use eugenics secretly? Are there portions of the population they want to get rid of? What they would deem genetically inferior human beings, the ill, sick, and old. Those sectors relying on state welfare.
They may be achieving this by legislation, policy, etc., it could be so subtle, so covert, as to be completely hidden, undetected
"And do the governments in existence now use eugenics secretly? "
It is actually very safe to say no. Genetic inferiority/superiority is an outdated concept. Removing undesired people from the gene pool is not something that could be performed no matter how covert.
Eugenics is usually the organised union of couples (that couldn't happen in secret) or voluntary/involuntary sterilisation (same) according to Galton's descriptions.
If a government killed, its simply murder, not eugenics
How has genetic superiority been PROVEN wrong?? Just because today we now happen to be indoctrinated to believe that all peoples and races are completely equal, even though the course of World History has shown a marked INEQUALITY between certain civilizations and cultures.
"Survival of the Fittest" has guided human history, period.
Call me a bigot all you want, I do believe that diversity benefits the peoples history has shown to be "lesser", while stalling higher civilizations.
There is little else to say to you bobshenix but to confirm your anticipated response.
You are a bigot. Genetic diversity has been disproven wrong by myriad genetic research since the 1920s. There is no superior race as all races are equally susceptable to genetic damage.
I'm going to go ahead and assert that you believe that the so called "higher" civilisation culture just happens to be yours
Yes, and also the culture/civilization that happened to dominate the entire globe unequivocally... in spite of the fact it represented (and still does) an extremely small percentage of Earth's population.
Call me a dumb redneck (I'm not) if it makes you feel smarter, but I believe there are no coincidences in human history-- that whoever reached a higher echelon of civilization in the times when Political Correctness did not purposely FORCE equality on the world has a claim to stake.
I said "HAPPENED to dominate" (although in some ways the Europeans and their decedents still do) as in BEFORE the days where Political Correctness was the international law. You know well what I mean, the sun never set in the British Empire and European interests dominated WW2 for a good reason, World History is not merely coincidence..
Hitler pointed out truthfully that only the White man's conscience (recent times) or infighting (WW2) could prevent him from controlling the world.
Let's first remember that even if your simplified bigotry was correct in terms of imperialism it had nothing to do with genetics. The British Empire had technology, not superior genes and no they did not develop technology due to superior genes either.
Your mantra that world history is not a coincidence is entirely nonsensical, ther is no meaning behind the vox pop
You admit that the British (like the Germans, French, & the rest of Europe) had developed superior technology to the rest of the world, but only add that it has NOTHING to do with superior genetics.... while offering nothing at all to back up this biased claim/opinion!!
How about we remember that I first responded to YOUR claim that genetic superiority has been PROVEN wrong-- AT LEAST I can use history and social hierarchies as a guide. You only echo the idealist line of equality!!
@bobshenix. Lest you forget that Korea and Japan developed FAR superior technology to Europe. It has nothing to do with genetics because history observes it merely depends on how technology is prioritised.
Different civilisations have been the progress elite at different times. During the Age of Faith/ Dark Ages the arabs were the scientific and mathematic elite. We know that genetics does not play a role because genetic diversity between races is no greater than that between individuals.
If the last statement you made were true, then people of different races around the world would not look so different. And no, it is not merely "the colour of our skin" and nothing esle... any objective person can recognize genetic variations amongst human races.
Facial characteristics? Type of hair? Eye colour? Height? Genetic diseases much more prevalent in some peoples rather than others (sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, etc.). Are these not determined by genetics??
@bobshenix Different races around the world look superficially different but their genetic makeup is consistently similar. A more in depth (and modern) understanding of genetics explains this but you are stuck in the pre mendelian, pre evolutionary synthesis era.
You seem confused between differences in phenotyp and genotype.
Also, based on your own listed diagnostics europeans are far from superior
@bobshenix You share more in common with your siblings than you do with your cousins yet you think its strange that different ethnic groups have consistent phenotypical similarities and differences? You are very behind on principles of genetics, 200 years behind in fact explaining your unfounded white supremacy delusions.
None the less East Africa alone has more genetic diversity between each other than than any two races have between one another. They are related but different disciplines
Following up form my statement that Europeans are far from superior take Sickle Cell anaemia for example.
Firstly susceptability to the disease is not due to genetics. It spread due to a favourable SELECTIVE PRESSURE for it. In the areas where anaemia has spread those with the disease were more likely to survive because the disease protects against malaria.
if you lived in that area you would be weaker since you don't have the circumstantially beneficial mutation to protect from malaria! QED
You make a good point about the sickle cell anemia protecting against malaria. In any case, you are smart enough to know that some of my views will not change and for my part I recognize the same. Nothing wrong with some discussion, I do not want to look like a troll here and I think you actually did a good job on this video.
With that said I wish to end this back and forth thing for now, take care...
@bobshenix. You can end it if you like but your views SHOULD change. Racism/ white supremacy is a dangerous and erroneous ideology with no foundation in fact.
I am always willing to change my mind when I am demonstrably wrong about something. I may or may not be smart enough to make such a conclusion on you not changing your fallacious views however I AM smart enough to know that no false belief is worth keeping for any reason.
I hear ya, but some of my views are reactionary. I grew up in a pretty bad area and i see what all these hoodlums really do with their welfare checks... it makes me so sick. I do not like that white children are indoctrinated to feel White Guilt, and that people of European descent are the only people in the states considered "racist" if they have any real pride in their identity.
There are exclusive groups for every other type of people but white groups are racist-- hands tied.
@bobshenix. White children are not indoctrinated to feel white guilt anywhere nor are white people singled out as racist.
The United States did practise slavery and then segregation both of which are a dark mark on the history of the country and it is because of that that there is the social gap (hence 'hoodlums'). Guilt is not a requirement for the aftermath of this but awareness is
Slavery has been a mainstay for 99% of human history. Nearly every single thriving civilization used slavery. Genghis Khan slaughtered and enslaved millions but is known today only as a great Empire founder.
No country/society has EVER treated their (former) slaves with the respect and dignity that the USA has in integrating the blacks-- even giving them special opportunities for their advancement. Yet we are still ostracized for it... many still bitch about what we can give them!!
Slavery was a mainstay yes but the US kept slaves after other countries ended it. However as I mentioned following slavery was segregation, one of the major causes of the social and fiscal gap between black and white Americans even today.
But that isn't the point. You can not be a racist (especially a 'scientific racist') just because you resent the way black people are treated or act today, its all consequential
True, that is a definite factor in the US today. However, I think too many black people (especially men, they are getting killed by black women in academics and on the job) pride themselves on the wrong things and wallow in a culture of victimhood-- they use slavery as an excuse and do not do enough to help themselves.
Blacks are universally known as the bottom of the human barrel not because of the US, but because of the total lack of contribution from the cesspool that is Africa!
Black people are *not* universally known as the bottom of the human barrel. Anyway, these are sociohistoricall issues, not genetic ones. There is no valid scientific argument for the inferiority or superiority of any race
And there's also no conclusive scientific proof to support the idealistic view that every race and type of human is completely equal. That if we could start human history all over again, perhaps THIS time black people might emerge as the founders of a superior civilization-- that Africa could be littered with thriving cities and magnificent buildings/monuments (like in Ancient Rome or present-day Europe). This is basically saying that the entire course of history was a coincidence.
I know you've covered all that... I just happen to think that it's all academic.
If one observes the course of human history up to today as (for example) "God's gigantic social experiment" where "God" threw a bunch of underlings of different factions onto Earth -- in order to later see which faction of the underlings could organize themselves more effectively and even become capable of dominating the other factions -- do we not have some clear-cut winners of such a "contest"??
No, wrong again. As I pointed out earlier all first world nations today are multicultural, oweing their success to contributions from every culture it assimilates.
Besides, why would you attempt to use cultural arguments for racial conclusions? It makes no sense seeing as all ethnic groups share a common ancestry and have equal capabilities.
That most first world nations are multicultural in recent times has nothing to do with the dominance of European nations throughout history, imperialism and so on.
Does the US owe its space program to the illegal Mexicans flooding the country today?? Of course not-- America thrives (or at least used to) in spite of the Third World invasion, not because of it.
Most of the world's top nations were founded and built by European peoples. Black majority nations are helpless lol...
Okay, let's ignore the rather obvious fact that imperialism is not exactly a judge of superiority and reestablish that this is in no way genetic issue. Its burture, not nature.
You are simply letting your resentment override your rationality.
I think imperialism WAS a judge of superiority... to some extent. Things play out how they do for a reason. Do you think there was any chance, in some parallel historical time warp, that Europe would/could be imperialized by a host of African nations?? Of course not, and people living at the time would laugh at such a notion.
I single out Africa because the contrast between Europe and Africa is most striking-- OTOH Asian civilizations have accomplished a lot in the past and today.
@bobshenix Imperialism was a judge of superiority by the imperialists, meaning your entire point is moot.
Africa is the CRADLE of civilisation, it is in Africa that humanity first evolved and mastered art, mathematics and technology. When our African ancestors migrated to harsher climates they relied more on this exploitation of technology and so used it more while the groups that remained in Africa acheived sustainability, something no civilisation has mastered.
Sustainability?? Why, then, are their scarcely any architectural masterpieces/monuments of the caliber we find throughout the Arab World, parts of Asia, or Europe, even AFTER two modern World Wars left half of Europe in rubble??
Before you rave about Egypt, understand that the ancient Egyptians were an exception on their continent... and in any case were not really Black, but genetically akin to the Arab world it is situated right near (like the Moors and Berbers after them).
@bobshenix Yes, sustainability a totally different thing to the construction of monuments.
The Egyptians, like everyone else are the descendents of Africans. There is no coorelation between the colour of skin and intelligence, you are suggesting that Egyptians became a thriving civilisation as soon as the melanin levels in their skin dropped. It doesn't work that way. The ancient Africans had every cognitive ability of their regional cousins they didn't have the necessity or the resources.
I only stated the fact that the Egyptians were/are far more genetically akin to Arabs than the Africans in the heart of the continent. In fact the Black sub-Saharans were used by the Egyptians as slaves to build the pyramids.
I do agree that the harsher climate was a big factor in the European's swifter advancement. To survive in such a climate they had to rely on ingenuity-- those who could not handle the conditions died... that is evolution, survival of the fittest at its best!!
First of all you are conceding that without the help of the sub saharan africans the Egyptians would not have acheived anything. Secondly the Egyptians are far closer to Africans than Arabs. Third evolution is not a ladder and neither is humanity
You have admitted your racism is driven only by resentment of misuse of welfare (because white people NEVER abuse welfare lol). Your attempts at historical and scientific fallacies disguised as arguments are merely dishonest
Notice that nearly every single one of my posts here has contained "I think" or "I believe" (this or that conclusion) based on things that have actually happened and trends that actually exist in this not-so-perfect, not-so-fair world.
You, my friend, are the one who attempts to prove his own views with idealistic P.C. nonsense that (sadly for you) is not always applicable in the real world. You continue to present purely academic theories as outright "facts", when they are not...
@bobshenix How can you justify saying that you explicitly disclaim what you say with "I think" and "I believe" but then turn around and accuse me of being idealistic?
Although you have moved away from the erroneous statement as much as possible your original argument was that genetic superiority in white people was either proven or not disproven. And as I have pointed out with several non theoretical examples that is total bollocks
Genetic perhaps no, but time and history has shown us that something has allowed European people (and descendants around the world) to account for a vastly disproportionate portion of overall human progress, relative to their small numbers on Earth.
I just happen to believe it wasn't by accident, or some crazy coincidence that history played out like it did. Even you admitted there was certainly a degree of natural selection with white people having to survive in the harsher climate.
Firstly natural selection does not ordain a ladder. Secondly lighter skin wasn't selected for to be stronger, natural selection simply became more lax and so white skin was no longer detrimental.
Secondly you have created the false dichotomy of ordained white supremacy or a total random accident, that's not justifiable.
thirdly the "something" you are referring to is not intellectual superiority. In fact it is far closer to chance coupled with legacy. You are not superior
So you do believe it is by "chance" (coupled with legacy) that Europeans play an extremely disproportionate and integral part in human progress/technology and advancement in sciences despite their very small numbers globally??
I think that is laughable-- history's track record contradicts your whole "African and European peoples, their bloodlines, and their civilizations are completely equal" hypothesis. So you then chalk known world history up to random chance??
@bobshenix Not only do I believe but I can demonstrate this. Do you want me to reiterate the evidence?
You don't have the evidence on your side no matter how much you assert history's track record supports you because it doesn't. And we knwo also that you are not inspired to make this argument due to evidence but simply your racist bile. You also qualify your statements with "I believe" and "I think" and drew attention to this yourself
Remember what I said about false dichtomoty? previous post
Other than the fact that it (the entire course of human progress and history) contradicts your current worldview... what really makes you so sure that everything happened the way it did, and the world is the way it is, by random chance. Is the head of a pride of lions, the alpha male, ordained that position by chance or does he earn his advantageous position of power??
Does the alpha lion not demonstrate that he is more fitting to lead and thus has the necessary characteristics??
@bobshenix Again, the course of history DOESN'T contradict me. Unless you distort the course of history so that the criteria of the superior civilisation is that of the most bigoted. You are not superior and a very simple fact reminds you of this.
Plenty of black people are more intelligent than you, you aren't that intelligent so this applies even moreso. Its all nurture, not nature. There is no correlation between race and intelligence
"It's all nurture, not nature".... Again how can you definitely make such statements as if they are universal truths or proven facts. Nature vs. nurture will be debated forever because both are important factors in someone's life, try to be a little more objective.
It's never entirely one or the other... every case has a number of different circumstances and variables that enter into the equation-- it will *never* be an exact science. Ask any psychiatrist... it is case by case.
@bobshenix I'm not talking about nature vs nurture in general. I'm talking aqbout how wrong your unfounded Victorian era racism is.
You share more in common genetically with an African than your neighbour and that is a fact. The whole genetic concept of race is meaningless. Its all superficial so don't you dare ask me to be objective.
Any person of any race will behave the same way in the same circumstance with variation only in the random individual and with no correlation to ethnic group
Thank you for clarifying. And for the record I never insinuated that I was smarter than every single person of African descent in the world, I'm aware that there must be some out there with higher IQ's or other measures of intelligence better than myself.
I have principally been referring to the different cultures on the whole, not individually... I do understand with modern globalization many blacks have access to well-established educational institutions of Western civilization.
@bobshenix But cultures are not dependent on what race was leading it (not least of all because race is a meaningless term in humans genetically).
Cultures are always advanced based on what they take from their predecessors and cousins. Taking your arbitrary qualifications for most advanced culture to heart you would see that the most recent cultures are the most 'advanced' as are the cultures with the most trade.
@ProcInc Sorry, but there is noreal evidence that suggests that the Ancient Egyptians were black they were a semitic people. The only people who truly believe that the Egyptians were black are delusional Afrocentrics.
@ProcInc But with regards to culture, I do not for one second think that all cultures are equal (which is why I think Mosaic styled Multiculturalism is a failure in practice). I do not think any honest person with any integrity could possibly think that Islamic culture which is astoundingly misogynistic and repressive towards women, or the Niam Niam tribal culture in the Congo of Africa which still practice cannibalism are in anyway on an even playing field with western culture.
@ProcInc This comment strikes me as odd. Race is not (in general) a social construct. Social constructs are things like ownership, in which items of exosomatic property are associated with specific individuals, and that association is given the accord of consensus, of common agreement. Cavalli-Sforza (et. al.) identified ten gene-clusters within our species that closely correspond to the traditional racial group identifications. So the nature of race as a biological reality is well founded.
@LordMalice6d9 "Race is not (in general) a social construct."
I didn't argue it was. I was attempting to explain the confusion surrounding differentiated "culture" and "race"
Cavalli-Sforza later revised his conclusions and concluded "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." (1994). His original conclusions, that there was a genetic basis for (consistent) racial difference was from 1977.
@ProcInc I tend to agree that as a whole their is one human race, but I think that Negroid, Cacuasoid and Mongoloid make up different sub-species within the whole. after all Chimpanzees share roughly 98% of the same gentic makeup of us hominds, but no credible biologist or geneticist worth his/her salt would suggest that we and Chimpanzees are the same exact species.
Excuse me but how was Richard Nixon, one of the most socialist Presidents the Republican party every produced, a "social darwinist"? Given that Social Darwinism is about not helping so that people who need help don't reproduce and given that he initiated a lot of "helping", what's your reasoning?
No No No No If he was really a Christian and killed Jews and says he did it because they killed Christ,
it's a big fat lie. And he also killed himself....
No real Christian would ever kill them self, you can't repent if you kill yourself. Just because you call yourself a shoe, doesn't make you a shoe :) and I don't even want to get into the fact that you make video calling Catholics Christians, do your home work please!
I already answered these questions, both of them in fact by demonstrating that the book was funded by the Discovery Institute (of which Weikart is a fellow), contains erroneous information that even the antidefamation league has denounced (especially the holocaust survivors) and the scathing criticisms by legitimate historians
You are of course aware that Richard Weikart is a member of the Discovery Institute and only wrote that book as Wedge strategy propaganda to discredit evolutionary theory?
That every historian (including Andrew Zimmerman and Nils Roll-Hansen) has been critical of the books for their dishonesty and inaccuracy?
"Make it 9 (lol) defenses of your pro- Hitler comment."
If its Pro-Hitler to say that then The Founding Fathers were Pro-Hitler. They made exactly the same comments.
"endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights"???
I didn't say they were atheists, They were vehemently anti-Christian Deists. Just like Hitler was (Except that Hitler was initially vehemtly christian)
Kim Jong Il has a cult of personality and suppresses science (His Autobiography says his birth was foretold by a sparrow etc)
Hitler was a christian come Neopagan Deist, Stalin has a cult of personality and may have not lacked belief in a god as initially thought, Mao had a collection of Eastern religious tradition, Lenin and Castro weren't even particularly bad people for their time and situation. Marx was a philosopher on equality.
"American Presidents from Washington to Obama- pretty much all Christians"
The Founding Fathers were Deist and Unitarian who wrote against the brutality of christianity. It was christianity that forced the pilgrims to seek freedom from persecution in America but they then practised their own persecuition against the Natives, Quakers and each other in the form of witch hunts
Who cares what religion a president is? Oh, right. VOTERS. Specifically, insecure idiots who are terrified of non-conformity.
Remember the huge fuss about how Obama was supposedly a muslim? If that were true, forget presidency. He'd never even be nominated for senator. Would it have affected his job performance anyway? The First Amendment says it had better not.
It's not a sign of conviction, it's publicity. Nonbelievers don't react with knee-jerk panic, but wacko fundamentalists DO.
"If I recall correctly, George H. W. Bush once said, upon hearing 90% of Americans were theist, that it was a shame the other 10% existed. He also said an atheist could not be a true American citizen."
Something like that
"The U.S is a tyranny by majority"
Perhaps not a tyranny but certainly a proponent of inequity.
The Founding Fathers would indeed be horrified at the quasi-theocracy of the US's Southern States
Not only that. The Founding Fathers were opposed to direct democracy being used to opress minorities. Now we see the rights of sexual minorities being decided by ballot and undergoing trial by media.
This is an interesting video series, but you don't provide any sources or actually well accredited Scholars or Historians to support the premise and these videos. whats up?
What sort of sources would you like? Mein Kampf makes Hitler's position on biological evolution very clear (quotes in the side bar). If you like I'll dig up a few quotations from Richard Dawkins showing his opinion on Social Darwinism.
I'm talking about actual well accredited scholars or historians who have studied the history of Hitler and Nazism ad nauseum to prove your point that Hitler was not a darwinist. You fail to do so.
The best proof here to begin with is that every Historian and Scholar studying Hitler has attributed other causes to the rise of Nazi Germany, Hitler's comments of evolution (side bar) speak for themself
You can also look up the blacklist Die Bucheri of the official Nazi lending library (Number six bans Darwin and Haeckel's works)
The antidefamation league (including the Holocaust survivors) also affirms that the Holocaust was not "Darwinist"
"But how accurate are these testimonies of the holocaust survivors"
That's just clutching at straws now. You may as well deny the holocaust itself. I would think you would hold the testominy of people who were there OVER the testimony of any historian
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.
Christianity is the liar....
We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."
Don't you DARE spam another one of my videos with misinformation!
You've done that twice already
Hitler did as all Christians did. Take the bits of christianity he liked and formed his own little sect of it. His officers endorsed christianity and so did the people.
And quick question, what religion are neo-Nazis nowadays? (it rhymes with blistianity)
So allow me to refresh YOUR memory with the context of what I was saying:
"If we look back into the history for the presents sects of christianity we shall find few who in their turn have not been persecutors...the primitive christians thoughts persecution extremely wring in the pagans but practised it on one another"- Benjamin Franklin (Correspondant with Erasmus Darwin who gained his support of abolitionism from him)
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of christianity been on trial, what have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Mcenroe
You see, most of the Founding Fathers had a disdain for christianity equal to that of Hitler (Except Hitler wanted a new christianity when the founding fathers were happy enough with none.) that's the context
"That is your complete opening sentence, in context, just as you wrote it."
Its an introductory sentence that is in proper centext with the whole first paragraph.
You seem to think that because I acknowledge Hitler stating something accurate I am somehow supportive of his position. Although I'm not, since Hitler was an insane religious Dictator who wanted to make Christianity develop into the less "Jewish" positive christianity
"I think that says it all. Read it again and let it sink in... "
Are you asking me to take myself out of context and let that sink in?
Hitler used Christianity as a means of gaining popularity for the Nazi party and proclaimed for the majority of his reign as Chancellor and fuhrer (both publicly and privately) that he was doing this for the good of christianity and the "almighty creator".
However, after Germany fell behind, Hitler stated that christianity would slowly die, and it is
As I already pointed out Hitler was not an atheist anyway (Even if he wasn't christian which in his firmest convictions stated he was). The only one of the three dictators you listed who fits that definition was Stalin and new evidence has led scholars to suggest otherwise. However all three were anti-darwinian pseudoscience advocates.
Especially Hitler who led a campaign against the Godless movement
PS make sure YOU read it again in the proper context including the immediately subsequent sentence.
The founding fathers also stated Christianity was absurd and dying, does that make them Hitlerian? Of course not.
Just as it doesn't make being a vegetarian, non-drinker or animals rights proponent makes one Hitlerian (Hitler was vegetarian, didn't drink and loved animals)
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.
Christianity is the liar....
We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."
In his final years Hitler was right about christianity. He shared these views with America's founding fathers (who also believed christianity to be absurd, in conflict with the state etc)
From the beginning though he lamented that his Nation was a Christian nation wishing it was something less 'weak and flabby' like the 'mohamoddean' religion. Part of the new Nazi religion of "positive christianity" incorperated the mythology volk too. He certainly was not an atheist
No, Hitler and the Nazis were not atheist _or_ Darwinist. They were mostly Catholic and in some cases, pseudo-pagan. Only one of them was ever excommunicated, except one, for the horrid crime of marrying a Protestant. At any rate, one of Hitler's first acts in office was to get rid of any atheist Organizations in Germany.
Hitler most likely believed in some form of Pagan Germanic deism as and like Proclnc said was an advocate of "Positive Christianity" He was certainly NOT an atheist.
Or rather I disagree. I think Hitler viewed the church as a cultural entity and used it as a means for goals. As you pointed out he called himself Catholic, yet praised Martin Luther (who was just as anti-Catholic as he was anti-Semitic) but also embraced several elements of Pagan Germany as well. I think Hitler was a naturalist, a Pantheist probably who say no seperation between God and nature.
Whether he took things too far, his rational didn't stand in start contrast to the natural world.
"As you pointed out he called himself Catholic, yet praised Martin Luther (who was just as anti-Catholic as he was anti-Semitic)"
Oh yes, I really that. I wouldn't go so far as to say he praised him he simply admired his traditional anti-semitism. Hitler also admired Neischke but like with Martin Luther was selective in what propositions he took on board
Ultimately I think Hitler utilized religion, the same way he utilized essentially any method of authority. Since religion is the ultimate form of authority and breaks the will of any rational being under enough indoctrination I think Hitler sought to create a new religion. A religion that was probably more organic than Christianity... and sadly enough much more in tune with man's own nature.
I would agree on the most part. Hitler did create a new religion ultimately which he dubbed 'positive christianity'. He lamented that christianity did not have the potential of the 'mohammedian' religion (Islam) in being a vehicle for nazism however the State of Germany was christian so he decided to appeal to the masses.
The Nazi party was motivated by their own christianity either way and Hitler did not accept material inquiry.
What grasp of naturalism he had was shrouded by a misunderstanding he attributed to a god to explain.
"a Pantheist probably"
My video touches on the possibility of him being a gnostic deist however its clear from his conclusions that he believed god shoudl be used to define nature rather than nature defining god
Everyone knows science is science, how I think everyone has their own opinion on how that science is APPLIED. Obviously Hitler had very strong views on its application and his embrace of conflict rather than the idea man should "overcome" his warlike attitude.
Everyone has cause and effect, so even the most unenlightened theist essentially creates his concept of god from some element of nature. Probably more "human" than natural and Hitler detested humanism.
Im also a cock relation of Farrah Fawcett and Jimmy Barnes (by cock relation I mean not a close relative but its on the family tree)
Side note Im not sure if your into cricket or not but im rapt my boys are giving yours a run for their money (sure we are going to lose but at least we are competing)
I'd be interested in a source for the assertion that "Hitler professed that change is limited to subtle variants within a "kind" and asserted the fixity of species." It sounds like a knock-out punch.
Aside from the fox and goose argument he also states in the other quote I put up.
"Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump..."
I am certain there are more but felt I made my point with those two alone
First bullshit: @2:43 What on Earth is primitive Darwinism? No one seems to know. And they did not ban any of Darwin's books. Second bullshit:@ 5:44 "Hitler always professed Jesus as his saviour"??? One quote at least, please??
theantisauronist 4 months ago
@theantisauronist "What on Earth is primitive Darwinism? No one seems to know."
What does that matter? It's what the Nazis called evolutionary biology in general when they banned Darwin's and Haeckel's works. Look up the Nazi book blacklist
"And they did not ban any of Darwin's books."
Indeed they did. It's number six in the official Nazi blacklist of "Die Bucheri". (Number 10 was any book written by a jewish author, there were 12 points in total)
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc omg!!!!!!! It does not matter! So you decide to define what THEY called primitive darwinism, even though you couldn't provide any quotes to back it up.
And it does not matter that none of Darwin's books were banned! And wtf has point six of the list ("We wish to eradicate lies..." has anything to do with Darwinism? Nothing matters for you deranged fanatics. Even muslims and communists argue better than you creeps. At least they follow some kind of human logic.
theantisauronist 4 months ago
@theantisauronist "So you decide to define what THEY called primitive darwinism, even though you couldn't provide any quotes to back it up."
Well the blacklist themselves gave an example (Haeckel). And looking deeper into it we know that Darwin's works were specifically included thanks to the work of real scholars like Robert Richards and Daniel Gasman.
ProcInc 4 months ago
@theantisauronist "And wtf has point six of the list ("We wish to eradicate lies..." has anything to do with Darwinism? "
Umm, point six says "Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklrung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist"
which translates into "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism"
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc I'm sorry, are you actually retarded? In my very first comment I stated that no one knows what what the nazis meant by "primitive Darwinism", and I added that none of Darwin's books were ever banned, even though many other books were. I'm going to politely decline to continue this pointless "debate" and urge you to tell the nurse your medication might need a bit of tweaking . Goodbye.
theantisauronist 4 months ago
@theantisauronist It's typical for a point of cliche for a creationist to be as rude as they are wrong. The fact that you would add to that that you "politely decline" is very revealing of your warped moral mindset.
It seems as though the only reason you are even opposed to Nazism is they lost and you don't wantt o associate with them anymore.
Of course, had Nazism taken over you, the Christian would be the privelaged Volk and I'd go the way of Max Sievers, much to your glee I'm sure
ProcInc 4 months ago
@ProcInc Nurse!
theantisauronist 4 months ago
@theantisauronist See, that's what I mean. You want to accuse all of these ideologies you disagree with with associating with this and that hate group. But all you end up doing is putting on full display the hate in your own heart.
Your beliefs make you a far worse person than you could be in every way...you don't have the truth on your side and can't take me down with bullets like in the good old days so you try it with petty words. Hopefully that will always be the case
ProcInc 4 months ago
@theantisauronist "And wtf has point six of the list ("We wish to eradicate lies..." has anything to do with Darwinism?"
You are confusing the blacklist guidelines with the 12 blacklist slogans. Something of a bizarre error.
I should also point out that both "Darwinism" and "monism" were capitalised whereas "primitive" was not. It is therefore more likely that they were not about a philosophy called "Primitive Darwinism", but were merely deriding Darwinism in general as 'primitive'
ProcInc 4 months ago
@theantisauronist ""Hitler always professed Jesus as his saviour"??? One quote at least, please??"
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior 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 fight against them and who, God's truth!" -The speech goes on in much the same vein but you get the idea
You can basically turn to any page of 'Mein Kampf' too
ProcInc 4 months ago
None of these people had a valid view on evolution. Hitlers ideas were insane. To create a pure race would kill us and create more handicapped people (who he didnt like) because of a lack of variation.
The USSR was about peace, love and fascism :P
gulbirk 5 months ago
This is a very interesting video series and I believe I've commented on this video before, but one thing this video fails to mention is tht Nazism was also simply a Nationalist reactionary response to Judeo-Bolshevism. If it wasn't for the heavy influence of Jews in the Bolsheviks revolution Nazism probably would never have existed in the first place.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
@LordMalice6d9 "but one thing this video fails to mention is tht Nazism was also simply a Nationalist reactionary response to Judeo-Bolshevism. If it wasn't for the heavy influence of Jews in the Bolsheviks revolution Nazism probably would never have existed in the first place."
Technically I could have mentioned any number or all of the contributing factors to Nazi ideology and the success of the movement but it would be ultimately irrelevent to the core of the topic
ProcInc 1 year ago
Comment removed
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Whore of Capitalism (Part One)
INFO-AWARENESS
Dec-29-2010--Social Darwinism-Hitler and Eugenics-Stalin and Communism
-Academic freedom and struggle
GOVERNMENT MORTGAGE RELIEF
1-858-366-4777
1-800-270-2928
INFOAWARENESS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Whore of Capitalism (Part One)
INFO-AWARENESS
Dec-29-2010--Social Darwinism-Hitler and Eugenics-Stalin and Communism
-Academic freedom and struggle
GOVERNMENT MORTGAGE RELIEF
1-858-366-4777
1-800-270-2928
88888FORCE 1 year ago
from-
'cherylwens (3 hours ago) The weak can adapt to societal needs by clamouring for help. They appeal to our altruisism. You can very well be a school dropout. Rather dense in the thinking department. But if you can satisfy the demands of the world population, you'll become a billionaire. That's the difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the most adaptable". It's not always the smartest, tallest, strongest, healthiest, most attractive that are successful.'
Guevaristas 2 years ago
Comrade, here is another question, however you may have already answered it in your vid.
Q: Another vid on YT claims that Darwinisn, or Darwin's theory, is not about intellectual superiority or strength, but, instead, is about the "adaptability" of a species.
A species, more accurately, the genes of a particular species, survive due to that species ability to endure eg. harsh environmental conditions etc, do you agree?
Guevaristas 2 years ago
Yes, Darwin's theory is about the adaptability of a species. It is not about the survival of the strongest.
I agree with that entirely.
Although when you say "more accurately, the genes of a particular species" that somewhat accurate but its more a model that Richard Dawkins uses (He stresses that genes are almost exclusivelty the unit of selection). That MIGHT be true but other biologists say that there is more to it than just the genes.
ProcInc 2 years ago
'I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world.
Guevaristas 2 years ago
'Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.'
Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius"
Guevaristas 2 years ago
always compelling.
And do the governments in existence now use eugenics secretly? Are there portions of the population they want to get rid of? What they would deem genetically inferior human beings, the ill, sick, and old. Those sectors relying on state welfare.
They may be achieving this by legislation, policy, etc., it could be so subtle, so covert, as to be completely hidden, undetected
Guevaristas 2 years ago
"And do the governments in existence now use eugenics secretly? "
It is actually very safe to say no. Genetic inferiority/superiority is an outdated concept. Removing undesired people from the gene pool is not something that could be performed no matter how covert.
Eugenics is usually the organised union of couples (that couldn't happen in secret) or voluntary/involuntary sterilisation (same) according to Galton's descriptions.
If a government killed, its simply murder, not eugenics
ProcInc 2 years ago
hmm, what would be the closest to it, discrimination? Eg against the disabled? But that is not eugenics.
Is there any semblance of eugenics remaining in any country in 2010?
Guevaristas 2 years ago
The closest thing to eugenics in the 20th century are arranged weddings and women who opt for artificial insemination choosing the donation.
In other words pretty mild stuff
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
How has genetic superiority been PROVEN wrong?? Just because today we now happen to be indoctrinated to believe that all peoples and races are completely equal, even though the course of World History has shown a marked INEQUALITY between certain civilizations and cultures.
"Survival of the Fittest" has guided human history, period.
Call me a bigot all you want, I do believe that diversity benefits the peoples history has shown to be "lesser", while stalling higher civilizations.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix.
There is little else to say to you bobshenix but to confirm your anticipated response.
You are a bigot. Genetic diversity has been disproven wrong by myriad genetic research since the 1920s. There is no superior race as all races are equally susceptable to genetic damage.
I'm going to go ahead and assert that you believe that the so called "higher" civilisation culture just happens to be yours
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Yes, and also the culture/civilization that happened to dominate the entire globe unequivocally... in spite of the fact it represented (and still does) an extremely small percentage of Earth's population.
Call me a dumb redneck (I'm not) if it makes you feel smarter, but I believe there are no coincidences in human history-- that whoever reached a higher echelon of civilization in the times when Political Correctness did not purposely FORCE equality on the world has a claim to stake.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix The culture/ civilisation you clam "dominates the world" is that of multiculturalism. The most advanced cultures are amalgams.
You aren't a redneck, just a nationalist bigot
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
I said "HAPPENED to dominate" (although in some ways the Europeans and their decedents still do) as in BEFORE the days where Political Correctness was the international law. You know well what I mean, the sun never set in the British Empire and European interests dominated WW2 for a good reason, World History is not merely coincidence..
Hitler pointed out truthfully that only the White man's conscience (recent times) or infighting (WW2) could prevent him from controlling the world.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix
Let's first remember that even if your simplified bigotry was correct in terms of imperialism it had nothing to do with genetics. The British Empire had technology, not superior genes and no they did not develop technology due to superior genes either.
Your mantra that world history is not a coincidence is entirely nonsensical, ther is no meaning behind the vox pop
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
You admit that the British (like the Germans, French, & the rest of Europe) had developed superior technology to the rest of the world, but only add that it has NOTHING to do with superior genetics.... while offering nothing at all to back up this biased claim/opinion!!
How about we remember that I first responded to YOUR claim that genetic superiority has been PROVEN wrong-- AT LEAST I can use history and social hierarchies as a guide. You only echo the idealist line of equality!!
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix. Lest you forget that Korea and Japan developed FAR superior technology to Europe. It has nothing to do with genetics because history observes it merely depends on how technology is prioritised.
Different civilisations have been the progress elite at different times. During the Age of Faith/ Dark Ages the arabs were the scientific and mathematic elite. We know that genetics does not play a role because genetic diversity between races is no greater than that between individuals.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
If the last statement you made were true, then people of different races around the world would not look so different. And no, it is not merely "the colour of our skin" and nothing esle... any objective person can recognize genetic variations amongst human races.
Facial characteristics? Type of hair? Eye colour? Height? Genetic diseases much more prevalent in some peoples rather than others (sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, etc.). Are these not determined by genetics??
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix Different races around the world look superficially different but their genetic makeup is consistently similar. A more in depth (and modern) understanding of genetics explains this but you are stuck in the pre mendelian, pre evolutionary synthesis era.
You seem confused between differences in phenotyp and genotype.
Also, based on your own listed diagnostics europeans are far from superior
ProcInc 1 year ago
@bobshenix You share more in common with your siblings than you do with your cousins yet you think its strange that different ethnic groups have consistent phenotypical similarities and differences? You are very behind on principles of genetics, 200 years behind in fact explaining your unfounded white supremacy delusions.
None the less East Africa alone has more genetic diversity between each other than than any two races have between one another. They are related but different disciplines
ProcInc 1 year ago
Following up form my statement that Europeans are far from superior take Sickle Cell anaemia for example.
Firstly susceptability to the disease is not due to genetics. It spread due to a favourable SELECTIVE PRESSURE for it. In the areas where anaemia has spread those with the disease were more likely to survive because the disease protects against malaria.
if you lived in that area you would be weaker since you don't have the circumstantially beneficial mutation to protect from malaria! QED
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
You make a good point about the sickle cell anemia protecting against malaria. In any case, you are smart enough to know that some of my views will not change and for my part I recognize the same. Nothing wrong with some discussion, I do not want to look like a troll here and I think you actually did a good job on this video.
With that said I wish to end this back and forth thing for now, take care...
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix. You can end it if you like but your views SHOULD change. Racism/ white supremacy is a dangerous and erroneous ideology with no foundation in fact.
I am always willing to change my mind when I am demonstrably wrong about something. I may or may not be smart enough to make such a conclusion on you not changing your fallacious views however I AM smart enough to know that no false belief is worth keeping for any reason.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
I hear ya, but some of my views are reactionary. I grew up in a pretty bad area and i see what all these hoodlums really do with their welfare checks... it makes me so sick. I do not like that white children are indoctrinated to feel White Guilt, and that people of European descent are the only people in the states considered "racist" if they have any real pride in their identity.
There are exclusive groups for every other type of people but white groups are racist-- hands tied.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix. White children are not indoctrinated to feel white guilt anywhere nor are white people singled out as racist.
The United States did practise slavery and then segregation both of which are a dark mark on the history of the country and it is because of that that there is the social gap (hence 'hoodlums'). Guilt is not a requirement for the aftermath of this but awareness is
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Slavery has been a mainstay for 99% of human history. Nearly every single thriving civilization used slavery. Genghis Khan slaughtered and enslaved millions but is known today only as a great Empire founder.
No country/society has EVER treated their (former) slaves with the respect and dignity that the USA has in integrating the blacks-- even giving them special opportunities for their advancement. Yet we are still ostracized for it... many still bitch about what we can give them!!
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix.
Slavery was a mainstay yes but the US kept slaves after other countries ended it. However as I mentioned following slavery was segregation, one of the major causes of the social and fiscal gap between black and white Americans even today.
But that isn't the point. You can not be a racist (especially a 'scientific racist') just because you resent the way black people are treated or act today, its all consequential
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
True, that is a definite factor in the US today. However, I think too many black people (especially men, they are getting killed by black women in academics and on the job) pride themselves on the wrong things and wallow in a culture of victimhood-- they use slavery as an excuse and do not do enough to help themselves.
Blacks are universally known as the bottom of the human barrel not because of the US, but because of the total lack of contribution from the cesspool that is Africa!
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix.
Black people are *not* universally known as the bottom of the human barrel. Anyway, these are sociohistoricall issues, not genetic ones. There is no valid scientific argument for the inferiority or superiority of any race
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
And there's also no conclusive scientific proof to support the idealistic view that every race and type of human is completely equal. That if we could start human history all over again, perhaps THIS time black people might emerge as the founders of a superior civilization-- that Africa could be littered with thriving cities and magnificent buildings/monuments (like in Ancient Rome or present-day Europe). This is basically saying that the entire course of history was a coincidence.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix.
Noo, that's the thing. There IS scientific proof that all races are equal. This is because genetically all racial difference is merely superificial.
Don't go around in cr\\ircles. I've already covered human history and superior civilisation
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
I know you've covered all that... I just happen to think that it's all academic.
If one observes the course of human history up to today as (for example) "God's gigantic social experiment" where "God" threw a bunch of underlings of different factions onto Earth -- in order to later see which faction of the underlings could organize themselves more effectively and even become capable of dominating the other factions -- do we not have some clear-cut winners of such a "contest"??
Yes.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix.
No, wrong again. As I pointed out earlier all first world nations today are multicultural, oweing their success to contributions from every culture it assimilates.
Besides, why would you attempt to use cultural arguments for racial conclusions? It makes no sense seeing as all ethnic groups share a common ancestry and have equal capabilities.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
That most first world nations are multicultural in recent times has nothing to do with the dominance of European nations throughout history, imperialism and so on.
Does the US owe its space program to the illegal Mexicans flooding the country today?? Of course not-- America thrives (or at least used to) in spite of the Third World invasion, not because of it.
Most of the world's top nations were founded and built by European peoples. Black majority nations are helpless lol...
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix
Okay, let's ignore the rather obvious fact that imperialism is not exactly a judge of superiority and reestablish that this is in no way genetic issue. Its burture, not nature.
You are simply letting your resentment override your rationality.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
I think imperialism WAS a judge of superiority... to some extent. Things play out how they do for a reason. Do you think there was any chance, in some parallel historical time warp, that Europe would/could be imperialized by a host of African nations?? Of course not, and people living at the time would laugh at such a notion.
I single out Africa because the contrast between Europe and Africa is most striking-- OTOH Asian civilizations have accomplished a lot in the past and today.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix Imperialism was a judge of superiority by the imperialists, meaning your entire point is moot.
Africa is the CRADLE of civilisation, it is in Africa that humanity first evolved and mastered art, mathematics and technology. When our African ancestors migrated to harsher climates they relied more on this exploitation of technology and so used it more while the groups that remained in Africa acheived sustainability, something no civilisation has mastered.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Sustainability?? Why, then, are their scarcely any architectural masterpieces/monuments of the caliber we find throughout the Arab World, parts of Asia, or Europe, even AFTER two modern World Wars left half of Europe in rubble??
Before you rave about Egypt, understand that the ancient Egyptians were an exception on their continent... and in any case were not really Black, but genetically akin to the Arab world it is situated right near (like the Moors and Berbers after them).
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix Yes, sustainability a totally different thing to the construction of monuments.
The Egyptians, like everyone else are the descendents of Africans. There is no coorelation between the colour of skin and intelligence, you are suggesting that Egyptians became a thriving civilisation as soon as the melanin levels in their skin dropped. It doesn't work that way. The ancient Africans had every cognitive ability of their regional cousins they didn't have the necessity or the resources.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
I only stated the fact that the Egyptians were/are far more genetically akin to Arabs than the Africans in the heart of the continent. In fact the Black sub-Saharans were used by the Egyptians as slaves to build the pyramids.
I do agree that the harsher climate was a big factor in the European's swifter advancement. To survive in such a climate they had to rely on ingenuity-- those who could not handle the conditions died... that is evolution, survival of the fittest at its best!!
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix
First of all you are conceding that without the help of the sub saharan africans the Egyptians would not have acheived anything. Secondly the Egyptians are far closer to Africans than Arabs. Third evolution is not a ladder and neither is humanity
You have admitted your racism is driven only by resentment of misuse of welfare (because white people NEVER abuse welfare lol). Your attempts at historical and scientific fallacies disguised as arguments are merely dishonest
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Notice that nearly every single one of my posts here has contained "I think" or "I believe" (this or that conclusion) based on things that have actually happened and trends that actually exist in this not-so-perfect, not-so-fair world.
You, my friend, are the one who attempts to prove his own views with idealistic P.C. nonsense that (sadly for you) is not always applicable in the real world. You continue to present purely academic theories as outright "facts", when they are not...
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix How can you justify saying that you explicitly disclaim what you say with "I think" and "I believe" but then turn around and accuse me of being idealistic?
Although you have moved away from the erroneous statement as much as possible your original argument was that genetic superiority in white people was either proven or not disproven. And as I have pointed out with several non theoretical examples that is total bollocks
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Genetic perhaps no, but time and history has shown us that something has allowed European people (and descendants around the world) to account for a vastly disproportionate portion of overall human progress, relative to their small numbers on Earth.
I just happen to believe it wasn't by accident, or some crazy coincidence that history played out like it did. Even you admitted there was certainly a degree of natural selection with white people having to survive in the harsher climate.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix
Firstly natural selection does not ordain a ladder. Secondly lighter skin wasn't selected for to be stronger, natural selection simply became more lax and so white skin was no longer detrimental.
Secondly you have created the false dichotomy of ordained white supremacy or a total random accident, that's not justifiable.
thirdly the "something" you are referring to is not intellectual superiority. In fact it is far closer to chance coupled with legacy. You are not superior
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
So you do believe it is by "chance" (coupled with legacy) that Europeans play an extremely disproportionate and integral part in human progress/technology and advancement in sciences despite their very small numbers globally??
I think that is laughable-- history's track record contradicts your whole "African and European peoples, their bloodlines, and their civilizations are completely equal" hypothesis. So you then chalk known world history up to random chance??
Idealist notion!!
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix Not only do I believe but I can demonstrate this. Do you want me to reiterate the evidence?
You don't have the evidence on your side no matter how much you assert history's track record supports you because it doesn't. And we knwo also that you are not inspired to make this argument due to evidence but simply your racist bile. You also qualify your statements with "I believe" and "I think" and drew attention to this yourself
Remember what I said about false dichtomoty? previous post
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Other than the fact that it (the entire course of human progress and history) contradicts your current worldview... what really makes you so sure that everything happened the way it did, and the world is the way it is, by random chance. Is the head of a pride of lions, the alpha male, ordained that position by chance or does he earn his advantageous position of power??
Does the alpha lion not demonstrate that he is more fitting to lead and thus has the necessary characteristics??
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix Again, the course of history DOESN'T contradict me. Unless you distort the course of history so that the criteria of the superior civilisation is that of the most bigoted. You are not superior and a very simple fact reminds you of this.
Plenty of black people are more intelligent than you, you aren't that intelligent so this applies even moreso. Its all nurture, not nature. There is no correlation between race and intelligence
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
"It's all nurture, not nature".... Again how can you definitely make such statements as if they are universal truths or proven facts. Nature vs. nurture will be debated forever because both are important factors in someone's life, try to be a little more objective.
It's never entirely one or the other... every case has a number of different circumstances and variables that enter into the equation-- it will *never* be an exact science. Ask any psychiatrist... it is case by case.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix I'm not talking about nature vs nurture in general. I'm talking aqbout how wrong your unfounded Victorian era racism is.
You share more in common genetically with an African than your neighbour and that is a fact. The whole genetic concept of race is meaningless. Its all superficial so don't you dare ask me to be objective.
Any person of any race will behave the same way in the same circumstance with variation only in the random individual and with no correlation to ethnic group
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc
Thank you for clarifying. And for the record I never insinuated that I was smarter than every single person of African descent in the world, I'm aware that there must be some out there with higher IQ's or other measures of intelligence better than myself.
I have principally been referring to the different cultures on the whole, not individually... I do understand with modern globalization many blacks have access to well-established educational institutions of Western civilization.
bobshenix 1 year ago
@bobshenix But cultures are not dependent on what race was leading it (not least of all because race is a meaningless term in humans genetically).
Cultures are always advanced based on what they take from their predecessors and cousins. Taking your arbitrary qualifications for most advanced culture to heart you would see that the most recent cultures are the most 'advanced' as are the cultures with the most trade.
This wasn't always the 'white' areas
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc Sorry, but there is noreal evidence that suggests that the Ancient Egyptians were black they were a semitic people. The only people who truly believe that the Egyptians were black are delusional Afrocentrics.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
@LordMalice6d9 "Sorry, but there is noreal evidence that suggests that the Ancient Egyptians were black they were a semitic people."
I did not argue that Egyptians were black. Though I can see how I could have been interpreted as saying that.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc But with regards to culture, I do not for one second think that all cultures are equal (which is why I think Mosaic styled Multiculturalism is a failure in practice). I do not think any honest person with any integrity could possibly think that Islamic culture which is astoundingly misogynistic and repressive towards women, or the Niam Niam tribal culture in the Congo of Africa which still practice cannibalism are in anyway on an even playing field with western culture.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
@ProcInc This comment strikes me as odd. Race is not (in general) a social construct. Social constructs are things like ownership, in which items of exosomatic property are associated with specific individuals, and that association is given the accord of consensus, of common agreement. Cavalli-Sforza (et. al.) identified ten gene-clusters within our species that closely correspond to the traditional racial group identifications. So the nature of race as a biological reality is well founded.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
@LordMalice6d9 "Race is not (in general) a social construct."
I didn't argue it was. I was attempting to explain the confusion surrounding differentiated "culture" and "race"
Cavalli-Sforza later revised his conclusions and concluded "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." (1994). His original conclusions, that there was a genetic basis for (consistent) racial difference was from 1977.
ProcInc 1 year ago
@ProcInc I tend to agree that as a whole their is one human race, but I think that Negroid, Cacuasoid and Mongoloid make up different sub-species within the whole. after all Chimpanzees share roughly 98% of the same gentic makeup of us hominds, but no credible biologist or geneticist worth his/her salt would suggest that we and Chimpanzees are the same exact species.
LordMalice6d9 1 year ago
It isn't just about genetic similarity though, rather a consistent pattern of difference between groups
Those differences are inconsistent between the three commonly described groups you cite.
While I don't deny that, for instance, you can externally/forsenically identify such a group, the differences between races are solely external.
What we usually pin down as major differences are cultural and not inherent (I think you are arguing this point anyway though)
ProcInc 1 year ago
Excuse me but how was Richard Nixon, one of the most socialist Presidents the Republican party every produced, a "social darwinist"? Given that Social Darwinism is about not helping so that people who need help don't reproduce and given that he initiated a lot of "helping", what's your reasoning?
newperve 2 years ago
When you say "helping" what are you specifically referring to?
ProcInc 2 years ago
No No No No If he was really a Christian and killed Jews and says he did it because they killed Christ,
it's a big fat lie. And he also killed himself....
No real Christian would ever kill them self, you can't repent if you kill yourself. Just because you call yourself a shoe, doesn't make you a shoe :) and I don't even want to get into the fact that you make video calling Catholics Christians, do your home work please!
I pray to God, they pray to idols and the dead...
sexywildchildbaby 2 years ago
"He also killed himself"
The Red Army was advancing on his bunker.
Have you any idea what they would have done to Hitler had they taken him alive?
Hitler was still a human with human fears. But that's beside the point as plenty of people christian their entire life commit suicide
You are employing the no true scotsman fallacy. Catholics are christians as much as your denomination is (technically moreso since its older)
ProcInc 2 years ago
I was enjoying myself and totally forgot I came here looking for talk on Capitalism! LOL!
CausalObserver74 2 years ago
Apologies for the somewhat misleading title :)
ProcInc 2 years ago
However the sources attatched to the wiki article direct you to every citation you would need as well as direct quotations on the weppage itself.
Weikart is a notorious hack and the fact he is a fellow of the DI and was exclusively funded by them should have been a dead givaway
Darwin denied eugenics and Hitler denied Darwin (He banned Darwin and Haeckel's works) The two could not be more disparate
ProcInc 2 years ago
I already answered these questions, both of them in fact by demonstrating that the book was funded by the Discovery Institute (of which Weikart is a fellow), contains erroneous information that even the antidefamation league has denounced (especially the holocaust survivors) and the scathing criticisms by legitimate historians
I suggest you wiki the book title for details
ProcInc 2 years ago
You are of course aware that Richard Weikart is a member of the Discovery Institute and only wrote that book as Wedge strategy propaganda to discredit evolutionary theory?
That every historian (including Andrew Zimmerman and Nils Roll-Hansen) has been critical of the books for their dishonesty and inaccuracy?
Weikart is an exposed hack
ProcInc 2 years ago
Make it 9 (lol) defenses of your pro- Hitler comment.
The founding fathers- you mean the guys who wrote and signed things like "endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights"???
Not exactly poster children for atheism.
Kim Jong Il, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Marx, Castro- YES- excellent examples of atheism
American Presidents from Washington to Obama- pretty much all Christians
See a pattern???
Atheists make up less than 3% of the world population. Check it out.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"Make it 9 (lol) defenses of your pro- Hitler comment."
If its Pro-Hitler to say that then The Founding Fathers were Pro-Hitler. They made exactly the same comments.
"endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights"???
I didn't say they were atheists, They were vehemently anti-Christian Deists. Just like Hitler was (Except that Hitler was initially vehemtly christian)
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Kim Jong Il"
Kim Jong Il has a cult of personality and suppresses science (His Autobiography says his birth was foretold by a sparrow etc)
Hitler was a christian come Neopagan Deist, Stalin has a cult of personality and may have not lacked belief in a god as initially thought, Mao had a collection of Eastern religious tradition, Lenin and Castro weren't even particularly bad people for their time and situation. Marx was a philosopher on equality.
ProcInc 3 years ago
"American Presidents from Washington to Obama- pretty much all Christians"
The Founding Fathers were Deist and Unitarian who wrote against the brutality of christianity. It was christianity that forced the pilgrims to seek freedom from persecution in America but they then practised their own persecuition against the Natives, Quakers and each other in the form of witch hunts
ProcInc 3 years ago
I actually find it disturbing that you think any viewpoint at all synonymous with a historical figure makes one entirely supportive of that person.
That kind of black and white absolutism is what causes people to get support for evil deeds. I bring that up in the secind part of this video.
Hitler was a vegetarian, non-drinker and animals rights advocate. Does that mean doing any of those things are Pro-Hitler too?
ProcInc 3 years ago
"The founding fathers- you mean the guys who wrote and signed things like "endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights"???"
And wrote and signed "The United States is in no sense founded on a Christian Nation"
And again its irrelevent that the Founding Fathers made positive comments on a creator as Hitler did too
"it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."
Except Hitler named the 'creator'
ProcInc 3 years ago
Who cares what religion a president is? Oh, right. VOTERS. Specifically, insecure idiots who are terrified of non-conformity.
Remember the huge fuss about how Obama was supposedly a muslim? If that were true, forget presidency. He'd never even be nominated for senator. Would it have affected his job performance anyway? The First Amendment says it had better not.
It's not a sign of conviction, it's publicity. Nonbelievers don't react with knee-jerk panic, but wacko fundamentalists DO.
jbxenia 2 years ago
"Who cares what religion a president is? Oh, right. VOTERS. Specifically, insecure idiots who are terrified of non-conformity."
Agreed, or people who have been conditioned by their community to believe that if you aren't christian then you hate America or something like that.
"Remember the huge fuss about how Obama was supposedly a muslim?"
Oh yeeah. Conservapedia is still trying to peddle it. And agreed again with your point,
ProcInc 2 years ago
Comment removed
R055HP 2 years ago
"If I recall correctly, George H. W. Bush once said, upon hearing 90% of Americans were theist, that it was a shame the other 10% existed. He also said an atheist could not be a true American citizen."
Something like that
"The U.S is a tyranny by majority"
Perhaps not a tyranny but certainly a proponent of inequity.
The Founding Fathers would indeed be horrified at the quasi-theocracy of the US's Southern States
ProcInc 2 years ago
Not only that. The Founding Fathers were opposed to direct democracy being used to opress minorities. Now we see the rights of sexual minorities being decided by ballot and undergoing trial by media.
R055HP 2 years ago
This is an interesting video series, but you don't provide any sources or actually well accredited Scholars or Historians to support the premise and these videos. whats up?
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
"But you don't provide any sources"
What sort of sources would you like? Mein Kampf makes Hitler's position on biological evolution very clear (quotes in the side bar). If you like I'll dig up a few quotations from Richard Dawkins showing his opinion on Social Darwinism.
What particularly requires a source?
ProcInc 2 years ago
I'm talking about actual well accredited scholars or historians who have studied the history of Hitler and Nazism ad nauseum to prove your point that Hitler was not a darwinist. You fail to do so.
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
The best proof here to begin with is that every Historian and Scholar studying Hitler has attributed other causes to the rise of Nazi Germany, Hitler's comments of evolution (side bar) speak for themself
You can also look up the blacklist Die Bucheri of the official Nazi lending library (Number six bans Darwin and Haeckel's works)
The antidefamation league (including the Holocaust survivors) also affirms that the Holocaust was not "Darwinist"
ProcInc 2 years ago
I see, but how accurate are these testimonies from Holocaust survivors?
LordMalice6d9 2 years ago
"But how accurate are these testimonies of the holocaust survivors"
That's just clutching at straws now. You may as well deny the holocaust itself. I would think you would hold the testominy of people who were there OVER the testimony of any historian
ProcInc 2 years ago
All I am stating is the obvious- you wrote this, it is a direct quote...
"In his final years Hitler was right about christianity." -ProcInc
That is your complete sentence, in context, just as you wrote it.
You agreed with Adolf Hitler and you spent well over 8 seperate posts defending it, denying it and trying to cover it up.
But there it is...for all to see.
You just got caught. Admit it.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
""In his final years Hitler was right about christianity." -ProcInc"
Yes he was, but his views matched that of the American Founding Fathers.
And it is true that Christianity is dwindling due to its doctrine of absurdity. Creationism and its moronic zealots are eroding the parent theology.
ProcInc 3 years ago
To refresh your memory-...
Adolf Hitler -14 October, 1941,
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.
Christianity is the liar....
We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
Don't you DARE spam another one of my videos with misinformation!
You've done that twice already
Hitler did as all Christians did. Take the bits of christianity he liked and formed his own little sect of it. His officers endorsed christianity and so did the people.
And quick question, what religion are neo-Nazis nowadays? (it rhymes with blistianity)
ProcInc 3 years ago
So allow me to refresh YOUR memory with the context of what I was saying:
"If we look back into the history for the presents sects of christianity we shall find few who in their turn have not been persecutors...the primitive christians thoughts persecution extremely wring in the pagans but practised it on one another"- Benjamin Franklin (Correspondant with Erasmus Darwin who gained his support of abolitionism from him)
ProcInc 3 years ago
And:
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of christianity been on trial, what have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Mcenroe
You see, most of the Founding Fathers had a disdain for christianity equal to that of Hitler (Except Hitler wanted a new christianity when the founding fathers were happy enough with none.) that's the context
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity"
"Christianity is the liar.... "
compare these quotes with
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology."-Jefferson
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."-John Adams
ProcInc 3 years ago
"In his final years Hitler was right about christianity." -ProcInc
That is your complete opening sentence, in context, just as you wrote it.
Read it again...
Let that sink in, then read it a few more times.
Your words- not mine.
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"That is your complete opening sentence, in context, just as you wrote it."
Its an introductory sentence that is in proper centext with the whole first paragraph.
You seem to think that because I acknowledge Hitler stating something accurate I am somehow supportive of his position. Although I'm not, since Hitler was an insane religious Dictator who wanted to make Christianity develop into the less "Jewish" positive christianity
ProcInc 3 years ago
"In his final years Hitler was right about christianity" - ProcInc
I think that says it all. Read it again and let it sink in...
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
"I think that says it all. Read it again and let it sink in... "
Are you asking me to take myself out of context and let that sink in?
Hitler used Christianity as a means of gaining popularity for the Nazi party and proclaimed for the majority of his reign as Chancellor and fuhrer (both publicly and privately) that he was doing this for the good of christianity and the "almighty creator".
However, after Germany fell behind, Hitler stated that christianity would slowly die, and it is
ProcInc 3 years ago
As I already pointed out Hitler was not an atheist anyway (Even if he wasn't christian which in his firmest convictions stated he was). The only one of the three dictators you listed who fits that definition was Stalin and new evidence has led scholars to suggest otherwise. However all three were anti-darwinian pseudoscience advocates.
Especially Hitler who led a campaign against the Godless movement
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Read it again"
PS make sure YOU read it again in the proper context including the immediately subsequent sentence.
The founding fathers also stated Christianity was absurd and dying, does that make them Hitlerian? Of course not.
Just as it doesn't make being a vegetarian, non-drinker or animals rights proponent makes one Hitlerian (Hitler was vegetarian, didn't drink and loved animals)
ProcInc 3 years ago
Adolf Hitler -14 October, 1941,
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.
Christianity is the liar....
We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."
Hitler,Stalin,Mao all atheists
moonlightbateman 3 years ago
In his final years Hitler was right about christianity. He shared these views with America's founding fathers (who also believed christianity to be absurd, in conflict with the state etc)
From the beginning though he lamented that his Nation was a Christian nation wishing it was something less 'weak and flabby' like the 'mohamoddean' religion. Part of the new Nazi religion of "positive christianity" incorperated the mythology volk too. He certainly was not an atheist
ProcInc 3 years ago
Furthermore, the Nazis themselves remained firm christians which fuelled their support for the holocaust of the "Christ-murdering" Jews.
Atheists (and other freethinkers) were in fact subject to Nazi prosecution.
Hiter was an anti-'darwinian' theist, Stalin was a Lamarckian atheist and Mao was an ancestor worshipper, taoist, marxist etc.
ProcInc 3 years ago
No, Hitler and the Nazis were not atheist _or_ Darwinist. They were mostly Catholic and in some cases, pseudo-pagan. Only one of them was ever excommunicated, except one, for the horrid crime of marrying a Protestant. At any rate, one of Hitler's first acts in office was to get rid of any atheist Organizations in Germany.
Hitler most likely believed in some form of Pagan Germanic deism as and like Proclnc said was an advocate of "Positive Christianity" He was certainly NOT an atheist.
LordMalice6d9 3 years ago
Yes Hitler was a crazy fucking idiot, no he was not a Marxist or communist.
KenTelevision 3 years ago
"Yes Hitler was a crazy fucking idiot, no he was not a Marxist or communist."
Well, he was clearly anti-communist.
ProcInc 3 years ago
Your analysis of Hitler is not correct.
IrminC 3 years ago
Would you care to elaborate?
ProcInc 3 years ago
Or rather I disagree. I think Hitler viewed the church as a cultural entity and used it as a means for goals. As you pointed out he called himself Catholic, yet praised Martin Luther (who was just as anti-Catholic as he was anti-Semitic) but also embraced several elements of Pagan Germany as well. I think Hitler was a naturalist, a Pantheist probably who say no seperation between God and nature.
Whether he took things too far, his rational didn't stand in start contrast to the natural world.
IrminC 3 years ago
"As you pointed out he called himself Catholic, yet praised Martin Luther (who was just as anti-Catholic as he was anti-Semitic)"
Oh yes, I really that. I wouldn't go so far as to say he praised him he simply admired his traditional anti-semitism. Hitler also admired Neischke but like with Martin Luther was selective in what propositions he took on board
ProcInc 3 years ago
"Oh yes, I really that"
I meant to say I 'realise' that
ProcInc 3 years ago
Ultimately I think Hitler utilized religion, the same way he utilized essentially any method of authority. Since religion is the ultimate form of authority and breaks the will of any rational being under enough indoctrination I think Hitler sought to create a new religion. A religion that was probably more organic than Christianity... and sadly enough much more in tune with man's own nature.
IrminC 3 years ago
"Ultimately I think Hitler utilized religion"
I would agree on the most part. Hitler did create a new religion ultimately which he dubbed 'positive christianity'. He lamented that christianity did not have the potential of the 'mohammedian' religion (Islam) in being a vehicle for nazism however the State of Germany was christian so he decided to appeal to the masses.
The Nazi party was motivated by their own christianity either way and Hitler did not accept material inquiry.
ProcInc 3 years ago
"I think Hitler was a naturalist"
What grasp of naturalism he had was shrouded by a misunderstanding he attributed to a god to explain.
"a Pantheist probably"
My video touches on the possibility of him being a gnostic deist however its clear from his conclusions that he believed god shoudl be used to define nature rather than nature defining god
ProcInc 3 years ago
Everyone knows science is science, how I think everyone has their own opinion on how that science is APPLIED. Obviously Hitler had very strong views on its application and his embrace of conflict rather than the idea man should "overcome" his warlike attitude.
Everyone has cause and effect, so even the most unenlightened theist essentially creates his concept of god from some element of nature. Probably more "human" than natural and Hitler detested humanism.
IrminC 3 years ago
4:41
Haha I actually know the dude in the middle
One of the McAllister boys
They grew up around the block from me in Nelson New Zealand before moving to Christchurch and setting up the Christchurch skins
The other brother not pictured ended up going mad and shot at a couple policemen and ended up getting shot to death himself back in 89 i think it was
Not sure but I think I know the dude on the left aswell but its hard to tell (I know a few of them)
Bit of useless trivia
666daedsidog 3 years ago
Wow, small world
ProcInc 3 years ago
Tis indeed
6 degrees of separation
Im sure you have heard of that
Im also a cock relation of Farrah Fawcett and Jimmy Barnes (by cock relation I mean not a close relative but its on the family tree)
Side note Im not sure if your into cricket or not but im rapt my boys are giving yours a run for their money (sure we are going to lose but at least we are competing)
666daedsidog 3 years ago
Godwin's Law.
who0Oshhh 3 years ago
Yes exactly, this a response to Godwin's law. Well done.
ProcInc 3 years ago
I'd be interested in a source for the assertion that "Hitler professed that change is limited to subtle variants within a "kind" and asserted the fixity of species." It sounds like a knock-out punch.
IAmARationalApe 3 years ago
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
Ohh its actually from Mein Kampf!
IAmARationalApe 3 years ago
Aside from the fox and goose argument he also states in the other quote I put up.
"Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump..."
I am certain there are more but felt I made my point with those two alone
ProcInc 3 years ago
That quote is from Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
For more see:
h++p: // skepticwiki. org/ index. php/ Hitler_and_evolution
IAmARationalApe 3 years ago
Ha, so it is.
There are some excellent quotes there which I didn't even know about.
I didn't include in this video anything on Neitschke (Who inspired Hitler's 'man and superman' ideology) but that article does it pretty well enough
ProcInc 3 years ago
Excellent!
h8uall66 3 years ago 2