Racial Evolution 101

"Hitler's inspiration" came from two things: Christianity, and WWI. He had fought on the frontlines in WWI and was severely distraught when he learned the German politicians had surrendered Germany. All the thousands he watched die in the trenches from bullets, artillery, and gas had died in vein he thought. He needed to place blame and this is where his Christian side came in to place it on the Jews who were referred to as "perfidious Jews" ("perfidy" means treachery) by the Church he had been an alter boy for in his youth in which he was an acclaimed "soldier for Christ". Hitler's life story is a sad one filled with extreme violence and brain-washing beliefs that made him into a terrifying individual. All of this shouldn't be that surprising really given the very extensive history of Christian crimes against the Jews for having "killed their savior". As Zangwill put it, "The Jews are a frightened people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have broken them down."

That's wrong in every way imaginable.Christianity simply never worked as a philosophical basis for racism, while evolution worked admirably. There were times in the history of Europe when a little bit of racism would have been completely in order, such as when Subudai and Batui invaded Eastern Europe on a 700-mile front in 1242 or the missed 300-year window of opportunity from around 1600 to around 1900 for throwing the Turks back into Central asia, and Europeans could never even manage the little bit of racism which would have helped them survive.Between the end of the Roman empire and the rise of workable gunpowder weapons and armies trained in their use, Europe was always at a military disadvantage wrt Asia. They never mastered the secrets of the composite bow and they never learned to shoot bows off horseback. The idea of claiming that Europeans were repressing ANYBODY during those centuries is ludicrous. It was all they could ever do to avoid being oppressed and/or enslaved themselves.Not that the holocaust you read of against the Jews wasn't sufficiently real and horrific, but there were at least two bigger holocausts in the 20'th centuries, i.e. the Maoist revolution in China and the communist holocaust against Christian Russia in the 1920s and 30s, and granted that Russian communism eventually turned against Jews, a lot of the people most heavily involved in those original programs in newly communist Russia were jews.There was enough blame to go around for whatever bad blood there was between Christians and Jews going from 1800 or thereabouts to 1940, and the combination of Darwinism and the racist policies based upon it and the Murder Inc. policies of the commie regime in Russia basically put an already cumbustable situation over the edge.

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."

Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist

>"Hitler's inspiration" came from two things: Christianity, and WWI.Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:

...The German Fhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution...

​

...The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions...

​

...We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior....

• Darwin at Nuremberg I
• Darwin at Nuremberg II
• Darwin at Nuremberg III
  

You know, except for that whole African slave trade thing, which was vehemently supported by a number of Biblical literalists at the time.I would have thought that everybody familiar with the theory realizes that "survival of the fittest" is a description of a trend, not a perscription for action. Guess I was wrong.

Ted is comical when he discusses physics, but here he sinks to a sleazy dishonesty on which I have noted in other forums. Last time I told him this he blew it off without any attempt to engage the demonstration of his cynical and crass distortions.Redwolf is, of course, Ted Holden himself. Noone else could possibly have this degree of stupidity. He is still quoting his standard extract from Evolution and Ethics, which Sir Arthur Keith wrote in about 1946. It is now on-line; I give the link.I am here recycling the refutation I wrote some years ago, which is available through the Google archive.It is a weird irony to see this mongraph quoted by someone like Ted, who apparently has no interest or concern with basic ethics or morals or integrity.From the conclusion of the chapter Ted quoted: It is the standard problem, which Keith also faced. He attempted to apply evolution to explain aspects of human behaviour. We might debate the success or otherwise of his endeavour; but the point is that the behaviour exists in any case, even long before evolution was conceived. The behaviour is not a result of accepting evolutionary explanations; and that is not Keith's position.Ted does suggest this, of course. But Ted is an idiot.Read Keith for himself if you are interested in Ted's repugnant quote mines, which attempt to smear a man of integrity and high standards of a kind Ted could only dream about.Sylas

>You know, except for that whole African slave trade thing, which was vehemently supported by a number of Biblical literalists at the time.Europeans got into the African slave trade thing somewhere around the mid 1400s. My GUESS would be that they probably broke even somewhere around 1750 or thereabouts, i.e. that they probably reached a point of having bought and/or sold as many Africans as Africans (Moors) and Asians had enslaved Europeans over the previous centuries.Moreover, it was precisely the Christians in England who finally put a stop fo the African slave trade around 1812, at least to the extent that the trade involved ships. Slavery in the muslim world of course still goes on.

>Ted is comical when he discusses physics, but here he sinks to a sleazy dishonesty on which I have noted in other forums...It simply is not my fault or concern that certain diehard dogmatic evoluddites are incapable of hearing or reading the the truth about their idol Chuck Darwin without having conniptions.The truth is that the horrors of the 20'th century werer ALL related to Darwinism, starting with the mad arms race between England and Germany in the late 1800s, and that nothing like the two world wars, particularly the war between two states entirely based on offshoots of Darwinism, had ever happened in the history of the world previously.Chuck Darwin has a hell of a lot of blood on his hands. My advice to you would be to stop the crybaby acts and actually read some of the material in question, and the three links I posted above would be as good a place to start as any.

One other way to look at the situation is this. Antisemitism did not get invented in 1930; it was there at least as far back as 1492. Nonetheless, Ferdinand and Isabella's notion of action upon it was to tell the Jews they had the option of converting to Christianity or leaving. The idea of improving the human genetic pool and creating the "uebermensch" by gassing all the jews (and everybody else they might not have liked) simply did not occur to Ferdinand and Isabella. That had to wait for Chuck Darwin's arrival.

Sir Keith quoted in one post:
...The German Fhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution...and the other post:
"It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.then you (sylas) says:
"The behaviour is not a result of accepting evolutionary explanations; and that is not Keith's position."As far I can tell from the quotes, according to Sir Keith, the behaviour of the Nazi's is a result of conforming to the theory of evolution, a result of the Nazi's making ethics based on evolutionary theory. Sir Keith criticizes doctior Waddington who apparently wants ethics based on evolutionary theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There are some really interesting quotes to be had in Keith's writings, particularly for those who think they can somehow or other reconcile Christianity and evolutionism....

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.

That last statement pretty much reflects my own sentiments.

Would it not be equally valid to attribute Hilters extermination camps to his Christian upbring and beliefs instead of his belief in Darwin?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Would it not be equally valid to attribute Hilters extermination camps to his Christian upbring and beliefs instead of his belief in Darwin?

No. Like I say, there's absolutely nothing in Christianity which you could base any part of naziism on. I don't even think there's anything in I-slam which you could base naziism on. I mean, muslims may still buy and sell blacks, but you don't read about them trying to exterminate blacks simply to improve the gene pool or any such. The ONLY religion which serves as a philosophical basis for that sort of thing is evolutionism.

If you look at Hitlers Attitude Toward Religion, you'll find that it was more political influenced than religious. Hitler was for anything "Pro-Germany", and since Christianity didn't meet his standards, he desided to discard it (Jesus was a Jew). He was more interested in i.e. Northern Mythology, since that were more to his belief that Germans were descendants of an Arian race.
To blame it on Darwin and TOE is moot. Most of todays Evos believe that man originated in Africa, so surely no one of them would even consider the Nazi beliefs (or they don't know their evolution theory well enough).Hitler himself was interested in holy relics in general and the Lance of Longinus in particular. He even mentions it in "Mein Kampf", as I understand. So to say that Nazism doesn't have any religious influences, is also wrong (although it was more a "powertrip" thing than a religious thing, I believe). Evolutionism is not a religion by the way. It is a scientific theory that is the best scientific explanation we have on how everything came to be. Cynic1 describes it well in "What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?"-thread:EvC Forum: What religious rights, if any, are currently being eroded in the USA?Regards,
SkepticScand[This message has been edited by SkepticScand, 04-25-2004]

quote:

---

It is not surprising, then, that Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He proclaimed essentially the same thing in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

---

He seemed to think so.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

My own theory is, that Hitler became an anti-semite because of the political debates he had with communists and others in Vienna. He was at one time thrown out of a debate, and was very angry about that, and that's when he decided to become an anti-semite, I guess. Hitler's anti-semitism was a conscious deliberate decision more then a slow growth process. It's quite clear in Mein Kampf that he chose to hate Jews as some kind of life's fullfillment. The evil is surprisingly apparent. I mean it doesn't seem to matter if you would change the word anti-semite in the text into something like anti-racist, the straightforward evil would still drip from the text. The significant thing is the cold hatered to which he quite openly commits himself to as his life's fullfilment.Apparently anti-semitism, or to vent your anger at some group, worked well for him emotionally, and when it also brought him a job and then fame and fortune, he was hooked on the murderous hatered. Hitler had apparently always been searching very desperately for some philosophy or religion that would set his life straight for him, and anti-semitism seemed to be it. Hitler asserted his anti-semitism as rational, and he distanced himself from what he called emotional forms of anti-semitism. It is unlikely that Hitler thought highly of Christian anti-semitism in respect to other forms of anti-semitism, since it probably would fall in the category of emotional anti-semitism for him. Besides that, he also despised Christianity as weak. Christianity had failed him previously in his search for some beliefs to get his life straight. He reconceived his Christianity in hateful anti-semitic terms, making Jesus a fighter in stead of a sufferer. It's hardly possible that Hitler conceived of Jesus as a fighter in stead of a sufferer when he was growing up. But he still seems to have found many useful things in his Christian upbringing for his new anti-semitism. For instance his aspirations for becoming a priest were useful for becoming a populist orator. Also his reconceived Christianity must have given him a large amount of emotional support. It appears to have been relatively easy for Hitler to convert his feelings associated to Christianity into anti-semitic hatered, only the "Jesus greatest as a fighter" doctrine, stands out as a tell-tale canard in this transformation exercise. Where Christianity also apparently played a large part is in bringing him fame and fortune, because of his antisemitism.The working beliefs that Hitler entertained were just like Klaus Fischer sets out in his book the 12 year reich. Every organism is engaged in a ruthless struggle for existence, in which only the fittest can hope to survive. Nations like individuals are also engaged in a ruthless struggle for existence. etc. etc. It's a kind of philosophy which is very old and very common as far I can tell, for instance the predarwinist creationist Speke also talks in those kind of terms about races (which has become significant in relation to the genocide in Rwanda). But those beliefs had gotten a new and increased credibility through Darwinism, especially since Darwinist science was highly ideological, especially in Germany through Haeckel, who was the motor behind all sorts of ideological and pseudoscientific endeavours. I think the fact that the Hitleryouth were taught to deny Catholic teaching of equality, and to affirm Darwinist and Mendellian pseudoscience, says much about the beliefs of Nazi's. They used science to undermine established religion, meanwhile establishing a religion / life's philsophy of their own closely related to Darwinist science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

My own theory is, that Hitler became an anti-semite because of the political debates he had with communists and others in Vienna. He was at one time thrown out of a debate, and was very angry about that, and that's when he decided to become an anti-semite, I guess. Hitler's anti-semitism was a conscious deliberate decision more then a slow growth process. It's quite clear in Mein Kampf that he chose to hate Jews as some kind of life's fullfillment.

The question isn't really why or how did Hitler start to hate Jews; you're missing the point. Hating jews was not a new thing in 1925. The real question is, what if anything had changed, going from 1800 or so to 1925 or 1940, in man's estimation of what you were allowed to DO about hating somebody or some group of people, and why, and what, if anything, could you use to JUSTIFY any new approaches to dealing with classes of people that you hate.There are, for instance, people that I hate or despise, such as SUV drivers. Nonetheless, the idea of building myself some sort of an evolutionist/nazi SUV superstore in which the potential SUV buyers would enter via the door and exit via the chimney does not occur to me as a real possibility. Granted such an endeavor might actually improve the gene pool of the American people, I might THINK ABOUT IT but, as Jackie Gleason noted in Smokey and the Bandit, I do not DO it.As Newt Gingrich noted, the question of whether a person views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random events in the universe simply has to affect human relationships. Somebody like myself who actually did view his fellow man as meat byproducts of chance events might in actual fact be out there right now building the ultimate SUV dealership.That, you see, is the real difference.