Hitler is not a racist, but you are…

Thistle

Thistle

Well-known member
"Hitler is not a racist, but you are…"
-- Whoopi Goldberg

image

​
Any questions?

On the plus side however, cancel culture has now become two week vacation and culture. Has anyone solicited Alex Jones for a comment?
 
Last edited:
Hitler got his racism from darwin as darwin was progenitor of the current idea of races and he hated non-whites and used his fantasy to justify his racism - his ideology of evolution has fostered it. Consider the case of Ota Benga—a pygmy from Central Africa, who in 1906 was caged in the Bronx Zoo with an orangutan. Remember the Jews in the gas chambers devised by Hitler to advance the Aryan “master race.” Reflect on the Australian aborigines hunted down in the 1800s by evolutionists in search of the “missing link.”
Darwin’s Racism
Niles Eldridge, who was the curator of the American Museum of Natural History and a renowned evolutionist who wrote, Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, gives much homage to Darwin and his work, stating,​

He remains, like Lincoln, a symbol of a worldview—a view of what life is and how it came to be, and above all else, a view of who we humans are and how we came to be—that remains in some quarters a promise yet to fully realized and others a satanic thread against all that is good and holy.​
Click to expand...
While Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day, February 12, 1809, comparing them is full of irony. Lincoln believed that mankind was created by God and often acknowledged the Almighty publicly. His belief in human equality led to the emancipation of the slaves and to the elevation of the ideal that no man is better than another. In contrast, Darwin denied the One that made him, the One that gave him life and the One that, through His grace gave him everlasting life. Darwin’s willful denial of a Creator led him to create a theory that reduces man to a highly evolved animal that descended from ape-like ancestors, which justifies racism.

Darwin’s book is now simply referred to as the Origin of Species, but the second half of original title, written not for a scientific audience, but the general public, was, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin proposed that all living things are connected by common descent from a single, original organism. According to Eldridge and many others, Darwin’s identification of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is what made him one the most renowned scientists of history. Defined as a process that naturally selects individuals that have the best chance of surviving due to evolved advantages, it suggests that any variation “to the least degree” not beneficial would be “rigidly destroyed.” Although Darwin never actually applied his theory to mankind in the Origin of Species, such implications certainly included man, as the word “Races” (which he used interchangeably with “species”) used in the original title indicates.

In 1871, twelve years after he published the Origin of Species, Darwin did address mankind in his book, Descent of Man. This is where Darwin’s theory fully unfolds and affirms his racist beliefs. In Darwin’s own words, the purpose of the book was to do away with the idea that man was a divinely created being with a God-given purpose. Darwin makes this clear in the introduction, writing,​

The sole object this work is considered, firstly, whether man, like every other species,
is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development;
and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so called races of man.​
Click to expand...
When it comes to mankind, disciples of Darwin who live by his ideology cannot escape the brutal trap of his “tree of life,” and the question of which race resides on the lowest branch and which gets the top spot. Speaking of the future evolution of man, Darwin wrote,​

The break between man [and his nearest allies] will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead as present between the negro or Australian (aborigine) and the gorilla.​
Click to expand...
Darwin clearly indicates a racial hierarchy here, with the Caucasian at the top and the Negro and aborigine at the bottom, and closest to the gorilla. He imagines that in “not very distant” future, the inferior races/species—i.e. the Negro, the Australian aborigine and the gorilla—would be eliminated, and that there would be a wider gap between a more highly evolved Caucasian and the baboon. As much as evolutionists try to deny it or obscure it from view, it is evident in the plethora of Darwin’s literature, including his correspondence, papers and books, that Darwin and his theory are racist. With such a racist mentality, how can so many well-respected scientists like Niles Eldredge worship Darwin? And why is this the only acceptable theory of origins in our public schools?
Darwin’s (1859) The Origin of Species. The original title for this book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This title remained until the sixth edition when in the 1872 printing it was changed to its present form.​
In his book, The Origin of Species Revisited, Wendell R. Bird (1991) noted outspoken atheist Michael Ruse referring to Gould, Lewontin, and Oparin, noting that Oparin was quite open to his subscription to Marxist-Leninist philosophy of nature, and consciously applied it to his work on the appearance of new life. Haldane and Bernal were also Marxists. According to Ruse, (the late Stephen Jay) Gould was also a Marxist, who wrote that racism was also heavily supported by evolutionists as a logical outgrowth of their Darwinism. Here are some of the quotes attributed to Stephen Jay Gould.

Biological arguments based on innate inferiority spread rapidly, after evolutionary theory permitted a literal equation of modern ‘lower’ races with ancestral states of higher forms…

…Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority.

…At this point, I hasten to add that I am not selecting the crackpot statements of a bygone age. I am quoting the major works of recognized leaders.
 
ferengi said:
Hitler got his racism from darwin as darwin was progenitor of the current idea of races and he hated non-whites and used his fantasy to justify his racism - his ideology of evolution has fostered it.
Click to expand...
Amen

ferengi said:
Consider the case of Ota Benga—a pygmy from Central Africa, who in 1906 was caged in the Bronx Zoo with an orangutan. Remember the Jews in the gas chambers devised by Hitler to advance the Aryan “master race.” Reflect on the Australian aborigines hunted down in the 1800s by evolutionists in search of the “missing link.”
Darwin’s Racism
​
Click to expand...
Another famous German, Haeckels, in German wrote about his interest in breeding a black woman with an ape as an experiment. Whhopie?

I didn't ever bother to translate it from German to English.
 
ferengi said:
Hitler got his racism from darwin as darwin was progenitor of the current idea of races and he hated non-whites and used his fantasy to justify his racism - his ideology of evolution has fostered it. Consider the case of Ota Benga—a pygmy from Central Africa, who in 1906 was caged in the Bronx Zoo with an orangutan. Remember the Jews in the gas chambers devised by Hitler to advance the Aryan “master race.” Reflect on the Australian aborigines hunted down in the 1800s by evolutionists in search of the “missing link.”
Darwin’s Racism
Niles Eldridge, who was the curator of the American Museum of Natural History and a renowned evolutionist who wrote, Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, gives much homage to Darwin and his work, stating,


While Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day, February 12, 1809, comparing them is full of irony. Lincoln believed that mankind was created by God and often acknowledged the Almighty publicly. His belief in human equality led to the emancipation of the slaves and to the elevation of the ideal that no man is better than another. In contrast, Darwin denied the One that made him, the One that gave him life and the One that, through His grace gave him everlasting life. Darwin’s willful denial of a Creator led him to create a theory that reduces man to a highly evolved animal that descended from ape-like ancestors, which justifies racism.

Darwin’s book is now simply referred to as the Origin of Species, but the second half of original title, written not for a scientific audience, but the general public, was, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin proposed that all living things are connected by common descent from a single, original organism. According to Eldridge and many others, Darwin’s identification of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is what made him one the most renowned scientists of history. Defined as a process that naturally selects individuals that have the best chance of surviving due to evolved advantages, it suggests that any variation “to the least degree” not beneficial would be “rigidly destroyed.” Although Darwin never actually applied his theory to mankind in the Origin of Species, such implications certainly included man, as the word “Races” (which he used interchangeably with “species”) used in the original title indicates.

In 1871, twelve years after he published the Origin of Species, Darwin did address mankind in his book, Descent of Man. This is where Darwin’s theory fully unfolds and affirms his racist beliefs. In Darwin’s own words, the purpose of the book was to do away with the idea that man was a divinely created being with a God-given purpose. Darwin makes this clear in the introduction, writing,


When it comes to mankind, disciples of Darwin who live by his ideology cannot escape the brutal trap of his “tree of life,” and the question of which race resides on the lowest branch and which gets the top spot. Speaking of the future evolution of man, Darwin wrote,


Darwin clearly indicates a racial hierarchy here, with the Caucasian at the top and the Negro and aborigine at the bottom, and closest to the gorilla. He imagines that in “not very distant” future, the inferior races/species—i.e. the Negro, the Australian aborigine and the gorilla—would be eliminated, and that there would be a wider gap between a more highly evolved Caucasian and the baboon. As much as evolutionists try to deny it or obscure it from view, it is evident in the plethora of Darwin’s literature, including his correspondence, papers and books, that Darwin and his theory are racist. With such a racist mentality, how can so many well-respected scientists like Niles Eldredge worship Darwin? And why is this the only acceptable theory of origins in our public schools?
Darwin’s (1859) The Origin of Species. The original title for this book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. This title remained until the sixth edition when in the 1872 printing it was changed to its present form.​
In his book, The Origin of Species Revisited, Wendell R. Bird (1991) noted outspoken atheist Michael Ruse referring to Gould, Lewontin, and Oparin, noting that Oparin was quite open to his subscription to Marxist-Leninist philosophy of nature, and consciously applied it to his work on the appearance of new life. Haldane and Bernal were also Marxists. According to Ruse, (the late Stephen Jay) Gould was also a Marxist, who wrote that racism was also heavily supported by evolutionists as a logical outgrowth of their Darwinism. Here are some of the quotes attributed to Stephen Jay Gould.

Biological arguments based on innate inferiority spread rapidly, after evolutionary theory permitted a literal equation of modern ‘lower’ races with ancestral states of higher forms…

…Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority.

…At this point, I hasten to add that I am not selecting the crackpot statements of a bygone age. I am quoting the major works of recognized leaders.
Click to expand...
If your post suggest anything to me, it's the extent to which personal bias and prejudice can affect people's scientific inferences. I don't dispute anything that you said about the content that you provide, but in fairness, modern biological evolutionists I have a entirely different set of inferences. Someone can check me on this, but I'm not even sure that all modern evolutionists consider themselves neo-Darwinists.
 
Thistle said:
If your post suggest anything to me, it's the extent to which personal bias and prejudice can affect people's scientific inferences. I don't dispute anything that you said about the content that you provide, but in fairness, modern biological evolutionists I have a entirely different set of inferences. Someone can check me on this, but I'm not even sure that all modern evolutionists consider themselves neo-Darwinists.
Click to expand...
THX
 
Thistle said:
If your post suggest anything to me, it's the extent to which personal bias and prejudice can affect people's scientific inferences. I don't dispute anything that you said about the content that you provide, but in fairness, modern biological evolutionists I have a entirely different set of inferences. Someone can check me on this, but I'm not even sure that all modern evolutionists consider themselves neo-Darwinists.
Click to expand...
Economists have fresh water and salt water schools among others.
Darwinists have 7 schools and most fall into parts of 2 plus an 8th school is coming
Psychologists have freudian Psychoanalytical and Jungian and many more.
 
Thistle said:
Poetic license…
Click to expand...
Oh, it looked like you were being nakedly dishonest or were the gullible victim of someone that was.

Didn’t realize you were participating in some form of poetic expression that only mimicked that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top