Darwin: "the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society"

[davidford]

steveandersen:

Davidford,
In an odd coincidence I caught the first 3 minutes of a show called “Theologians Under Hitler” the other night. I didn’t have chance to watch it but apparently it is an independent documentary regarding three influential theologians, Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel and their support for Hitler.

I know that you “decline to answer” as to your point in posting links for Darwin and Nazis but using what appears to be your Darwin rationale are we soon to see postings regarding Christianity and Hitler based on the actions of the theologians listed above?

Time will tell.

“three influential theologians, Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel and their support for Hitler”
Support how/ in what ways, and when?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
theological disputes among German Protestants; Nazi
concentration camps for Catholics and Protestants
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129228612.176548.107730%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Churches resisted Hitler
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128561942.412167.145530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

a claim: Hitler was a Christian
google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

 

[spiritblows]

Most White people in the 1800’s thought the white race was of superior intelligence. This was pretty much standard thinking. Their encounters with primative native societies strongly reinforced that veiwpoint. They looked at Black Africans, etc, and the people appeared childlike and incompetant to the dominant and capable Europeans with their technology and highly organized societies.

People were just starting to understanding the importance of heredity in influencing inteliigence and other traits. By the 1920’s this had evolved into the Eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger was a big proponent of it and thought that the use of birth control could help acheive her goal of improving the race.

There was no social taboo against these beliefs, and everything seemed to point towards the idea that the white race was superior. It seemed like a logical conclusion to many otherwise good people.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

“Darwin… I think he got some things right and some things wrong.”
Do you agree with this Dawkins?:

Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
“Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.”

…

Sure.

“he [Darwin] probably was not the most influential racist who ever lived (Hitler?)”

Darwin influenced Hitler.

…

So if I can dig up a racist who influenced Darwin, that would make that person the most influential racist who ever lived?

 

[tiny_smommy]

The problem with Darwinism is Social Darwinism, which is the inevitable logical conclusion one draws from the theory. And I think that’s the real agenda - why it is pushed so hard on the scientific community and the public schools. The DNA scientist Dr. Watson is a raving Social Darwinist. I watched a PBS documentary in which he claimed that abortion has to remain legal because it’s the only way to kill off the imbecile, maimed and other useless babies, in a nutshell. In the very first scene of the documentary he is giving a speech before the doctors who work for him at his clinic in CA, which has a direct link to the eugenics movements of the 1930’s and 1960’s, and he says, “Some people have accused me of playing God. And I answer, well, somebody has to,” and all the little mad scientists cheer. Little gods, little technocrats running the country from their ivory towers, killing at will. What a country we live in. What a world. Count Draculas, all of them.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

The problem with Darwinism is Social Darwinism, which is the inevitable logical conclusion one draws from the theory.

…

I do not think the assertion that Social Darwinism is an inevitable logical consequence of evolutionary theory is correct. Evolutionary theory is positive, not normative - it (attempts) to describe what did, does, and will happen. It has nothing to say about what ought to happen. Just because something did, does, or will happen does not mean that thing thing ought to happen - that is clear enough. So there’s no reason to think that evolutionary theory entails whatever it is that Social Darwinism claims - since Social Darwinism seems to advocate some course of action or another, which evolutionary theory does not and cannot.

 

[tiny_smommy]

The point is that it’s all a ruse, all altruistic philosophic debate aside. And Darwinism is philosophy, not science in and of itself. But the door to philosophic debate has been shut by secular fundamentalists who refuse to allow any other theories, like Intelligent Design, to be debated along side Darwinism. Every class I had in high school in which Darwinism was brought up, the class inevitably brought up Social Darwinism, although they didn’t know to call it by it’s proper name. They just considered it a logical progression from the few pages of text we were instructed to learn like gospel. My husband had the same experience, and I think it’s safe to say that most of us have. It’s about designing and engineering a race of people at the highest levels and justifying the horrible poverty and abuses in our society at the lowest. It’s a philosophy for the Brave New World, and they are taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

The point is that it’s all a ruse, all altruistic philosophic debate aside. And Darwinism is philosophy, not science in and of itself.

How so?

But the door to philosophic debate has been shut by secular fundamentalists who refuse to allow any other theories, like Intelligent Design, to be debated along side Darwinism.

So is ID philosophy and not science? As far as its being a theory, what predictions does it make? What sort of tests can we conduct that would invalidate the theory?

Every class I had in high school in which Darwinism was brought up, the class inevitably brought up Social Darwinism, although they didn’t know to call it by it’s proper name. They just considered it a logical progression from the few pages of text we were instructed to learn like gospel. My husband had the same experience, and I think it’s safe to say that most of us have. It’s about designing and engineering a race of people at the highest levels and justifying the horrible poverty and abuses in our society at the lowest. It’s a philosophy for the Brave New World, and they are taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.

So because a class of high schoolers thought Social Darwinism was a consequence of evolutionary theory, it is? I can’t argue with you unless you support and defend your arguments.

 

[tiny_smommy]

Who wants to argue? I’m stating the truth, it’s self evident and the “proofs” you require are meaningless. Darwinism is a philosophy. Intelligent design is a philosophy. The problem is that people today put too much stock in empirical analysis. First of all, we are taking other people’s words, i.e. opinions, for things, and the word of a scientist carries as much credence with me as a priest probably would for you. Personally I believe that the average scientist, including social scientists, is an egocentric technocrat hell bent on recreating the world in his (they are overwhelmingly male) self-deluded interest. So his positive analysis means nothing to me. They are “priests” of a new world, similar to the maji of the ancient world. Through their alchemy they want to make humans into gold for themselves. What you’re asking me to do is akin to asking me to prove that George Bush is dirty and corrupt. Just turn on the tv. You either see the truth or you are deluding yourself into believing what makes you feel comfortable. These truths are self-evident to anybody who is willing to see them for what they are. Even Aristotle, the father of empirical analysis, didn’t put as much stock in the process as the average scientist does today, or their cronies.

 

[Ianjo99]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

Who wants to argue? I’m stating the truth, it’s self evident and the “proofs” you require are meaningless. Darwinism is a philosophy. Intelligent design is a philosophy. The problem is that people today put too much stock in empirical analysis. First of all, we are taking other people’s words, i.e. opinions, for things, and the word of a scientist carries as much credence with me as a priest probably would for you. Personally I believe that the average scientist, including social scientists, is an egocentric technocrat hell bent on recreating the world in his (they are overwhelmingly male) self-deluded interest. So his positive analysis means nothing to me. They are “priests” of a new world, similar to the maji of the ancient world. Through their alchemy they want to make humans into gold for themselves. What you’re asking me to do is akin to asking me to prove that George Bush is dirty and corrupt. Just turn on the tv. You either see the truth or** you are deluding yourself into believing what makes you feel comfortable**. These truths are self-evident to anybody who is willing to see them for what they are. Even Aristotle, the father of empirical analysis, didn’t put as much stock in the process as the average scientist does today, or their cronies.

Uh huh.

With backing from such intelligent statements describing little more than a conspiracy theory, it’s truly a wonder that many people don’t take creationist arguments seriously.

 

[davidford]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

The problem with Darwinism is Social Darwinism, which is the inevitable logical conclusion one draws from the theory. And I think that’s the real agenda - why it is pushed so hard on the scientific community and the public schools. The DNA scientist Dr. Watson is a raving Social Darwinist. I watched a PBS documentary in which he claimed that abortion has to remain legal because it’s the only way to kill off the imbecile, maimed and other useless babies, in a nutshell. In the very first scene of the documentary he is giving a speech before the doctors who work for him at his clinic in CA, which has a direct link to the eugenics movements of the 1930’s and 1960’s, and he says, “Some people have accused me of playing God. And I answer, well, somebody has to,” and all the little mad scientists cheer. Little gods, little technocrats running the country from their ivory towers, killing at will. What a country we live in. What a world. Count Draculas, all of them.

Intriguing.

the atheism-adherents Watson and Crick
From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
Time later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
___If a child were not declared alive until three days
___after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
___choice only a few are given under the present
___system. The doctor could allow the child to die
___if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
___and suffering. I believe this view is the only
___rational, compassionate attitude to have.
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service
as saying,
___. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
___until it has passed certain tests regarding its
___genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
___it forfeits the right to live.

Darwin on selection of Spartan children
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135004225.246782.327080%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Darwin: “the New Zealander… compares his future fate with that of the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]“master”
over
[Darwin]“subjugated… men”
having
[Darwin]“utility to their masters”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Kill/ death to [Darwin]“imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135791290.639930.285730%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

threatened and actual use of force by atheism-adherents
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135396265.419462.311690%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

1983 Daniel Brooks
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990628151138.260287C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

 

[davidford]

Further to Watson

A claim: No true atheism-adherent believes in gods.
Question: What if one ‘god’ is the atheist himself?

atheism-adherents Hitler & Haeckel parallels
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133410708.967895.276860%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler was an atheism-adherent.
google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Re: [Hitler]“God” or [Hitler]“Providence” referring to Hitler himself:

Q: “Do you believe in a supreme being?”
A: “Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is mankind.”

Analysis: surely not all mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship the
very best portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the humanist himself.

Q: ‘Do you believe in a supreme being?’
A: ‘Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is ME!’

Morain, Lloyd and Mary. 1998. Humanism As the Next Step
(Amherst, New York: Humanist Press), 145pp. A paragraph on 32:
___Harold R. Rafton, founder of the Humanist Fellowship of
___Boston, when asked, “Do you believe in a supreme being?”
___replied, “Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is
___mankind.” Humanists are careful, however, to point out
___that this does not mean prideful self-worship of humanity,
___because humanists do not worship in the traditional sense.
___To be sure, the fulfillment of human life is their highest
___value and their goal. But they realize that this fulfillment
___is dependent upon human interrelationship with other
___varieties of living things and nature as a whole. They
___know that nature and its laws largely set the course and
___determine the goals humans must seek to be fully human.
___Their needs and their hopes are developed in interaction
___with each other and nature.

• Viereck, Peter. 1941, 1961, 1965. Metapolitics: The Roots of the
  Nazi Mind (NY: Capricorn Books), 371pp., 287-291, 299.
• Rauschning, Hermann. 1940, 2003. The Voice of Destruction
  (Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company), 295pp., 243, 252.
• May 2003 Timothy Ryback on “Hitler’s Forgotten Library”
  freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895696/posts

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

So if I can dig up a racist who influenced Darwin, that would make that person the most influential racist who ever lived?

Maybe so. Go for it.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

 

[davidford]

spiritblows:

Most White people in the 1800’s thought the white race was of superior intelligence. This was pretty much standard thinking. Their encounters with primative native societies strongly reinforced that veiwpoint. They looked at Black Africans, etc, and the people appeared childlike and incompetant to the dominant and capable Europeans with their technology and highly organized societies.​

the Eugenics movement. Margaret Sanger was a big proponent of it and thought that the use of birth control could help acheive her goal of improving the race.

1871 Darwin: [CD]“the civilised races of man”-- e.g. [CD]“the Caucasian”-- [CD]“will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”-- e.g. [CD]“the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]“man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

[1872 Darwin]“Blushing is evident in all the Aryan nations of Europe… The
Semitic races blush freely, as might have been expected, from their
general similitude to the Aryans.”
[Darwin]“Dr. Saviotti in… 1871… remarks that it more frequently
occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in others”
[1871/ 74/ 88 Darwin]“Europeans and Hindoos… belong to the same Aryan stock… Jews… belong to the Semitic stock”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132942108.117285.130610%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Does anyone here consider T.H. Huxley’s 1890 essay “The Aryan Question and
Pre-Historic Man” ‘scientific’?

It’s at
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/Aryan.html
He talks quite a bit therein about a [Huxley on 284 of my Huxley
book copy]“blond, long-headed race,” i.e. [Huxley on 305]“an Aryan
race.”
In a 29 September 1890 letter to Joseph Hooker, Huxley called that
essay “scientific”:
Huxley, Leonard, editor. 1901. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry
Huxley: by his son Leonard Huxley, in two volumes (NY: D. Appleton
and Company), 539pp. and 541pp. On 286 of volume 2:
___Providence has, I believe, specially devolved on
___Gladstone, Gore, and Co. the function of keeping “'ome
___'appy” for me.
___I really can’t give up tormenting ces droles.
___However, I have been toiling at a tremendously scientific
___article about the “Aryan question” absolutely devoid of
___blasphemy.

Hitler’s debt to American eugenicists
waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/HitlerDebtToAmerica.html

the American eugenics movement, H.G. Wells
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128523609.669113.175570%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

2004 Richard Weikart: “physicians… were committed to a racist eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com

Essay using Kevles’s In the Name of Eugenics
groups.google.com/groups?selm=5orcou%241eeo%40nntp6.u.washington.edu

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Sanger: segregate the anti-social and feebleminded
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128629229.811428.173830%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Darwin on [1871 Darwin]“careful selection” in connection with the breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

 

[davidford]

Ianjo99:

With backing from such intelligent statements describing little more than a conspiracy theory, it’s truly a wonder that many people don’t take creationist arguments seriously.

What are the 2 best “creationist arguments” you’ve encountered?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

On the Origin of Life
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net

Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1135748125.229401.252690%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

omphalic YEC and blindwatchmakingist parallels
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411270821.29ee3dd9%40posting.google.com

 

[davidford]

tiny'(name removed by moderator)my:

the few pages of text we were instructed to learn like gospel.

Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

1937 Goldschmidt on winning souls for Darwin
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403131825.1eefa6ee%40posting.google.com

Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net

Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Maybe so. Go for it.

…

I’d bet that Thomas Malthus was a racist.

And incidentally, for a human to be called a god is just an abuse of language.

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

I’d bet that Thomas Malthus was a racist.

Have ye any evidence for your “bet”?
How did Malthus influence Darwin?

Did Darwin accept any of Malthus’s claims?
Do you accept any of Malthus’s claims?

Do you agree with this proposition?:
Malthus claimed theory T applies to humans.
Darwin took theory T and applied it to animals.
Social Darwinists (including Darwin) took theory T as Darwin had applied it to animals and applied theory T to animals.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35lfj3F4ojm7rU1%40individual.net
___Darwin did not fool all of his contemporaries. I cite Frederick
___Engels in my Reply to Schoch’s Comment (above) that the whole
___Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is but a “conjurer’s
___trick.” Arguments on the basis of the social philosophy of his time
___were the basis for Darwin’s interpretation of the history of life,
___and his theory was then transferred back to provide the scientific
___basis in support of social Darwinism as the eternal law of human
___society. “The puerility of this procedure is so obvious,” Engels
___wrote in 1875, “that not a word need be said about it.”
___I wish Engels had dwelt more on the “puerility of this procedure,” so
___as to show the true color of “the argument of noise and sneers with
___which (Darwinists) tried to put down… everyone… who did not
___subscribe to the infallibility of the God Darwin and his prophet
___Huxley,” as Tristram said in 1860. Darwin has made mistakes, and his
___mistakes have brought misery to humanity. Facing the bias and
___obstinacy of Darwinists, I feel almost tempted to join my colleague,
___Paul Feyerabend (1975, p. 7), who proposed to lead “three cheers to
___the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic
___formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the textbooks and
___an account of Genesis included.”

EnterTheBowser:

And incidentally, for a human to be called a god is just an abuse of language.

For some, Darwin is a god.

Paul Johnson
discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News&id=2828
___At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians
___two or three years ago, I heard
___the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian
___McEwan, call out, 'Yes, we do
___think God is an old man in the sky
___with a beard, and his name is
___Charles Darwin.

Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Everyone that doesn’t bow down before the god Darwin should lose their
jobs.

Fire the IDiots
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com

 

[davidford]

What role does the thinking of Malthus play in Darwin’s thinking?

Did Darwin accept any of Malthus’s claims?
Do you accept any of Malthus’s claims?
What are Malthus’s claims with respect to plants?

Do you agree with this proposition?:

Malthus claimed theory T applies to humans.
Darwin took theory T and applied it to animals.
Social Darwinists (including Darwin) took theory T as Darwin had applied it to animals and applied theory T to humans.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net

 

[EnterTheBowser]

davidford:

Have ye any evidence for your “bet”?

Well, he was an Englishman in the 1800s; that’s pretty good reason to make such a bet.

How did Malthus influence Darwin?

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

Malthus’s theory was also a key influence on both of the co-founders of modern evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Darwin, in his book The Origin of Species, called his theory an application of the doctrines of Malthus in an area without the complicating factor of human intelligence. Darwin, a life-long admirer of Malthus, referred to Malthus as “that great philospher” (Letter to J.D. Hooker 5th June, 1860) and wrote in his notebook that “Malthus on Man should be studied”. Wallace called Malthus’ essay “…the most important book I read…” and considered it “the most interesting coincidence” that both he and Darwin were independently led to the theory of evolution through reading Malthus.

Evolutionists such as Ernst Mayr, Carl Zimmer and Elliot Sober directly recognise Malthus’ many unintended contributions to evolutionary theory. Mayr referred to population thinking as “…the foundation of modern evolutionary theory…”, though he called it “…Darwin’s new way of thinking…”. Malthus reinforced observations relating to the struggle for existence within limits to growth. Thanks to Malthus, Darwin recognised the significance of intraspecies competition between populations of the same species (eg. the lamb and the lamb), not just interspecies competition between species (eg. the lion and the lamb). Malthusian population thinking also explained how an incipent species could become a full blown species in a very short timeframe.

Did Darwin accept any of Malthus’s claims?
Do you accept any of Malthus’s claims?

Probably; maybe some that I haven’t heard of, but the important ones that he’s remembered for - no.

Do you agree with this proposition?:
Malthus claimed theory T applies to humans.
Darwin took theory T and applied it to animals.
Social Darwinists (including Darwin) took theory T as Darwin had applied it to animals and applied theory T to animals.

I think Darwin did more than apply Malthus’s theory to animals. Social Darwinism is not, however, supported by evolutionary theory. Perhaps some misguided individuals thought it did (such as the Social Darwinists) but I confidently assert that they were wrong.

…

For some, Darwin is a god.

…

To say that a person is a god in the same sense that the god of Christianity is a god is an abuse of language.

 

[davidford]

With which of these propositions do you agree?:

1. (this is df’s view) A ‘Jew’ is someone that has embraced Judaism/
   [Hitler]“the Mosaic faith”;
   if someone rejects Judaism, that person is not-a-Jew.
2. [Hitler]“the Jews are unquestionably a race, not a religious
   community”
3. [Darwin]“Jews… belong to the Semitic stock”
4. [Hitler]“the Jews are members of a people and not of a
   ‘religion’”
5. There’s such a thing as [Darwin]“the Semitic races.”
6. [Hitler]“the Jew has always been a people with definite racial
   characteristics and never a religion”
7. (this isn’t Hitler’s view) [Hitler]“the Jews” are [Hitler]“not a
   people but a ‘religious community,’ though of a special sort”

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

agree with Hitler about who ‘Jews’ are?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136226458.258397.34490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

[1872 Darwin]“Blushing is evident in all the Aryan nations of Europe… The
Semitic races blush freely, as might have been expected, from their
general similitude to the Aryans.”
[Darwin]“Dr. Saviotti in… 1871… remarks that it more frequently
occurs in prognathous skulls, not of the Aryan race, than in others”
[1871/ 74/ 88 Darwin]“Europeans and Hindoos… belong to the same Aryan stock… Jews… belong to the Semitic stock”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132942108.117285.130610%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com