Hitler and the Holocaust

[Autumnlicious]

Just to clarify,

In Mein Kampf, hitler first put over the idea of the final solution and supported it
with the Darwins Theory of Evolution and the concept of survival of the fittest
as a prime justification for the supremacy of the Aryan race.

NO. No. No. You are FUCKING wrong. And here is why, using examples to show if that Hitler used Creationist arguments and religious justification instead of complete science, with the occasional convenient misunderstanding or reinterpretation of fragments of science to justify policies.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes that Aryans are the "highest image of the Lord," put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races:

"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."

Actions which aid the "subhumans" at the expense of the Aryan master race, Hitler declared, were an offense against God. So, rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God.

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi.

"My feeling 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." - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? 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 , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier.

Even in discussing racial purity and "race-mixing", Hitler chooses not the words of evolutionary biology or eugenics, but points instead to his divinely holy mission: "Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood. The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the Eternal Creator."

Die Buecherei von 1935 (The Library of 1935):

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklaerung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Haeckel).

Translation:

6. Writings of world natured and living-oriented nature, whose content is of false scientific enlightenment through primitive Darwinism and Monism.

For you, sir, I am irate. Irate that you open your mouth and this oral diarrhea comes out with almost no idea of the history. Just as bad as the creationists who came to university and tried the same trick.


Sources:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/0...arwin.html
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/...heist.html
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/...inist.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Hitler.cfm

[fr0d0]

"with the occasional convenient misunderstanding or reinterpretation of fragments of science to justify policies" ...the same can be said for his abuse of Christianity.

[Autumnlicious]

"with the occasional convenient misunderstanding or reinterpretation of fragments of science to justify policies" ...the same can be said for his abuse of Christianity.

Except that we can see volumes of his abuse of Christianity with creationist tendencies. Not science.

Finding the correct or halfway assembled pieces of science in Mein Kampf is like fishing on the shallow end of a frozen lake in Alaska.

[unus_supra]

oh wow, i was incredibly drunk when i wrote and read this last night, it was fascinating.
Dare i say you have increased my sedentary heartrate. irate? me? nah,
worthy of a hefty yawn, sure.


1. you have relinquished your right to accurately level critiscism. period. and have shown
precisely the level in which you are able to think freely and read between the proverbial
lines. If you are unable to know when and individual CLEARLY IMPLIES (and later ruthlessly implements)
one thing, while cleverly disguising it as another to allow its temporary passage,
that speaks volumes of your own mental prowess.

perhaps an in depth self schooling of the concept of survival of the fittest and natural selection
would be appropriate. Thus when its principles are mentioned, even in guise, they do not go un noticed.

2. that is precisely the foolish gullabillity and ignorance that alllowed someone of his nature
to garner power in the first place. Yes robbing and pillaging and calling it redistribution
dont change the fact that you are bieng robbed and pillaged.
A similar ploy was also used when herding multitudes of men women and children to their
deaths in public "showers".


that is not an insult, ignorance is our greates blessing if we learn from it,
becuase you cannot cure a cancer you cannot see right?

you know the most unforunate thing about the above post is that it is not
predominantly your own. That bugs me cause i can tell your no slouch
at the same time, a great mind doesnt just see an object, it penetrates and
cuts it to ribbons to understand its true nature and function. No mental cut and paste.

what are you then?

Let me state clearly once again.

not only did he imply what he meant for humanity, he also IMPLIMENTED, and actions
while they speak louder than words, they also clearly put into sharp focus precisely
what words that have been spoken meant.

dont forget that. So, stay irate

and in so, unfocused and clueless in your anger, while i candidly pass the mop
so that you may clean a mess which is decidedly your own.

(by the way, everything you read above, is my own, quote me on it)
so that we can learn clearly the difference between critical independant thought

and the regurgitation of information.

DAMNIT! you know whats wrong with my beautiful country?
its filled with idiots who think they are f#cking wise
because they can memorize shit. ARRRRRRRR

u know what, im actually irritated right now and thats no easy feat,
and not with sound argument, that i relish
but rather i am irritated at a childish inability to engage
in purely constructive argument of the kind that is beneficial
to both participants. That shit is like a fucking plague. So now
im pissed and ive replied in manner in which i would rather have not.
for that in and of itself, i apologize, violance, physical or verbal
is not something i tend to readily engage in.

(ya i tought close combat in the Marine Corp for 4 years and applied those principles in war)
thus if i say violance is foolish, be it subtle and verbal, or overt and physical, i say
so from a vantage point of experiential understanding. Another words i have the mo....

never mind.

dont ever insult me again, this conversation is done.

peace

[Dotard]

lol?


Provided with quotes from Hitler. Denounces them with a "he was lying/fooling you"

Thinly veiled "NTS" arguement?

[Autumnlicious]

oh wow, i was incredibly drunk when i wrote and read this last night, it was fascinating.
Dare i say you have increased my sedentary heartrate. irate? me? nah,
worthy of a hefty yawn, sure.

First you appear to be starting with a dismissal of previous arguments with appeal to emotion, claiming that they are not worth the effort and that you were in a compromised position.

1. you have relinquished your right to accurately level critiscism. period. and have shown
precisely the level in which you are able to think freely and read between the proverbial
lines. If you are unable to know when and individual CLEARLY IMPLIES (and later ruthlessly implements)
one thing, while cleverly disguising it as another to allow its temporary passage,
that speaks volumes of your own mental prowess.

You attack my intelligence and create an argument that claims that what individuals write, say and appear to the rest of the community to support and believe in are really not in support of it. Hmm, do I sense a No True Scotsman fallacy in the making?

perhaps an in depth self schooling of the concept of survival of the fittest and natural selection
would be appropriate. Thus when its principles are mentioned, even in guise, they do not go un noticed.

My scores and writings for my classes like "Human Evolution" at a top rated university clearly demonstrate my lack of awareness of what evolution and its components are, despite that one would expect a top rated university like UCLA to only pass students who understand the course material. Never mind as well that by being vice president of the local skeptics and secularists club requires knowledge of evolution and its components because these discussions are exactly what one encounters while tabling to attract new members. I definitely have NO idea, right?

2. that is precisely the foolish gullabillity and ignorance that alllowed someone of his nature
to garner power in the first place. Yes robbing and pillaging and calling it redistribution
dont change the fact that you are bieng robbed and pillaged.
A similar ploy was also used when herding multitudes of men women and children to their
deaths in public "showers".

Ironic that someone who bothered to quote source material from several sources is accused of being ignorant and gullible in an attempt at character assassination. Your argument sounds remarkably similar to a sophistry, as you are redefining that all meanings of one term mean another.

that is not an insult, ignorance is our greates blessing if we learn from it,
becuase you cannot cure a cancer you cannot see right?

you know the most unforunate thing about the above post is that it is not
predominantly your own. That bugs me cause i can tell your no slouch
at the same time, a great mind doesnt just see an object, it penetrates and
cuts it to ribbons to understand its true nature and function. No mental cut and paste.

what are you then?

Let me state clearly once again.

Let me clearly state that you have used sophistry, character assassination and the no true Scotsman fallacy to illustrate your point. In this case, your credibility is severely weakened.

You call me ignorant, yet you redefine whole patterns of thought to mean something else. It appears to me that you choose to see things your way in order to facilitate some agenda. My mistake, I thought you were really misinformed and would participate in a discussion by actually citing source materials to exemplify your position.

not only did he imply what he meant for humanity, he also IMPLIMENTED, and actions
while they speak louder than words, they also clearly put into sharp focus precisely
what words that have been spoken meant.

dont forget that. So, stay irate

and in so, unfocused and clueless in your anger, while i candidly pass the mop
so that you may clean a mess which is decidedly your own.

If I kill a member of a minority, I am guilty of murder. However, if others noted that I had a history of expressing hatred against such minority, I would be guilty also of a hate crime enhancement. That enhancement is added in even if I just got enraged with the unfortunate victim and killed him in a crime of passion. You see, because we cannot climb into a person's head, finding their motivations is very difficult and must use objects like writings, speeches, conversations to explain their actions. Do you understand? An action is an event, but the rhetoric of telling the story and the underlying motivations follow a different set of processes. In a court of law, your argumentation would have been diminished as you argued purely from actions, and when confronted with material to demonstrate a clear set of beliefs echoed through writings, speeches and conversations, you claim that it really does not mean that, while not offering counter evidence.

(by the way, everything you read above, is my own, quote me on it)
so that we can learn clearly the difference between critical independant thought

and the regurgitation of information.

Indeed we can learn the difference. One uses source material to support an argument, while the other relies on ad hominem and logical fallacies.

DAMNIT! you know whats wrong with my beautiful country?
its filled with idiots who think they are f#cking wise
because they can memorize shit. ARRRRRRRR

Quoted for evidence.

u know what, im actually irritated right now and thats no easy feat,
and not with sound argument, that i relish
but rather i am irritated at a childish inability to engage
in purely constructive argument of the kind that is beneficial
to both participants. That shit is like a fucking plague. So now
im pissed and ive replied in manner in which i would rather have not.
for that in and of itself, i apologize, violance, physical or verbal
is not something i tend to readily engage in.

Many times I write out an invalid argument, but before I post, I stop and examine my motivations. Perhaps you should too.

(ya i tought close combat in the Marine Corp for 4 years and applied those principles in war)
thus if i say violance is foolish, be it subtle and verbal, or overt and physical, i say
so from a vantage point of experiential understanding. Another words i have the mo....

never mind.

Your appeal to authority is noted and logged. I will note also that your 'position' or history does not harm my argument.

dont ever insult me again, this conversation is done.

peace

Up yours jughead.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Up yours jughead.

Most definitely not an ad hominem attack,rather a pretty accurate description. I admire your restraint.

[Autumnlicious]

Up yours jughead.

Most definitely not an ad hominem attack,rather a pretty accurate description. I admire your restraint.

Keeping thoroughly serious and professional for most of the time is difficult for me. Ending it with an insult based on the context offered is a bit of guilty fun.

[Dotard]

He's not really a Marine, he's a bus driver. Here's his name plate;