In addition to interviewing my parents regarding their experiences and impressions at the time, I've had other conversations with participants and refugees, and I've read many books on the subject---some fairly obscure.
Mein Kampf is, at its core, antisemitic. I found it disgusting and rambling.
But who am I to disturb the osteoblasts that have formed your opinions. ;-)
Goodbye.Querius
October 20, 2013
October
10
Oct
20
20
2013
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Querius.
Parents in europe or not doesn't impress me to drop my own conclusions.
I think i'm right.
Hitler was just a more extreme part of the spectrum of Europes peoples to assert themselves up. Germans were behind in many ways and not going forward.
I read Mein Kamph (sp) and didn't find it disgusting but very intelligent and reasonable SAVE the fact he advocated invading eastern nations for more land. He never advocated extermination camps or any unjustified murder save invasion . Which is murder of that nations young and middle aged men and anyone in the way.
Hitler persuaded Germans because he was reasonable to them.
Saying he was strange or evil would fail to stop him.
He wasn't in the open that way.
Just read his book on the internet.Robert Byers
October 18, 2013
October
10
Oct
18
18
2013
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
Barb
We made our points and it was interesting.
What you think is the common opinion. However evolution is common also.
Anyways Nazism was evil because it was about killing people without justification to get ones way.
Killing our soldiers, first, and killing others . Its murder.
All peoples in Europe were pushing themselves ahead in those days and thats okay as long as moral or political boundaries are not crossed.
indeed the world still has not decided on why some peoples hae/are more intelligent and moral then others based on the issue of identity.
So they call it as they see it but as in Hitlers case, as I see it, they lie about their conclusions and hate the winners.
Anyways this forum does lead to better conversations because we are all confident skeptics of mankinds conclusions.
Origin issues just another case.Robert Byers
October 18, 2013
October
10
Oct
18
18
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Robert Byers responds,
I know people say these things but i read Hitlers book and am aware of other nazi stuff and it wasn’t true about race being the point.
Despite what other historians have to say on the matter? Hitler wanted to create a master race, the German race. The purpose of annihilating Jews and other peoples was the purity of the German race. Race is the only point.
Hitler and company tried to say and tried to believe aryans were superior and Germans top aryans but show they really believed Jews were dominating them because Jews were superior. Nazi ism was a native reaction to a perceived colonizing oriental race no different then the third world peoples saw a European colonization based on superiority.
Jews ran germany almost and the most German types resented and hated them.
Again, this is all about race. The superiority of the Aryan/German race over the Jews.
The race stuff was used to excite and legitamize a destruction of a colonizer as they saw it.
Yes, absolutely, propaganda was used to demonize the Jews in Germany. But I'm unfamiliar with the concept of the Jews as "colonizing" Germany.
Possibly they might persuade themselves they were superior but i think their actions, the few at the top, show they didn’t believe thier ideas and this and the sincere belief that Jews were destroying them and Europe allowed a general remedy.
It's not a matter of they might persuade themselves; they believed this with ever fiber of their being, and it resulted in the deaths of over 6 million people.
Hitler insuisted it was just revenge as in his last will he said it.
People say a lot of things when they're backed into a corner with no way out.
I question if many Poles were killed as opposed to conquoring Poland and troubles thereto.
I'm sure you can Google the number of Poles killed in the camps. Not as many as the Jews, but a good number. And again, it was all about race.
I see no evidence race was relevant to the holocaust at a biological level.
its not what they stressed.
They stressed the superiority of the German race over the Jewish race in Nazi propaganda, which you just pointed out. Race was absolutely relevant at a biological level. Try stomaching descriptions of the experiments the Nazi doctors like Mengele performed on people.
they never said anyone was super human. tHat was later accused because it was thought lots of peoples believed in white superiority.
From Wikipedia: "The Übermensch (German) (English Overman or Superman) is a concept in the philosophy of German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche—he posited the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (German: Also Sprach Zarathustra).
However, Nietzsche never developed the concept on racial grounds; the philosopher was not racist (nor an anti-semite). Instead, the Übermensch "seems to be the ideal aim of spiritual development more than a biological goal.".[5] Nazism distorted the real meaning behind the concept to fit its 'master race' view.
Mendelian genetics was rediscovered in 1900, providing the basis of the genetic inheritance maps used by Nazi eugenicists to identify persons of the Jewish race. In relation to models of inheritance, race is treated by Nazi eugenicists not as a single gene inherited in a mendelian fashion, and is not based upon mendelian inheritance."
Hitler said all Aryans were equal. They were kinsman.
Have you read Mein Kamph???
All Aryans were equal. But Jews were a lesser race.
No, I haven't read Mein Kampf. I have no desire to read the paranoid delusions of a madman.
Very little on race but a great deal on identity and remedy.
Identity is tied to race.
Most would say what you said but its just later interpretations.
Its not a complicated thing to figure out.
Just listen to what they say
I am listening to what historians say, and they disagree with you.
TheisticEvolutionist: 0/10. Poor trolling attempt, no points.Barb
October 18, 2013
October
10
Oct
18
18
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
This is clear in Mein Kamph, except the killing stuff, and in most Nazi propaganda. Only later did racial purity get invoked to justify things to the public.
Sorry, Robert. You're so wrong in so many places, I don't know where to begin. First off, AH's disgusting book is called "Mein Kamf" in German. My parents lived through WW2 in Europe. I've studied the subject. I bet you don't even know what NAZI actually means in German.
Evolution is true
Such tender faith, TE. It would be like stepping on a puppy to confront you with facts . . . ;-)Querius
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
It makes no difference is Hitler was a creationist or a Darwinist. Evolution is true :)TheisticEvolutionist
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
kairosfocus
Welcome input but still missing the target.
Poland was simply to gain land for a expected 100 million Germans in the near future to live and thrive. It was not relevant about slavic inferiority. in fact Hitler said one must ho east because one can't go west.
Yes he mentioned about a desire to believe in a German racial superiority and so others he said were inferior. Yes breeding was important nevertheless the genocide had nothing to do with this.
It was clearly said to be a punishment to a dangerous colonizer, as they saw it, who would stop, destroy, Germany and European civilization.
This founded on the conviction the Jews could do it because they were already doing it according to Hitler.
Hitler would say it was revenge and self protection.
I say the majority of the reason was that Hitler believed Jews were superior to Germans and a murderous eny plus the revenge/protection is the origin of a final solution to the JEWISH PROBLEM> A long standing problem as much of Europe saw it.
This is clear in Mein Kamph, except the killing stuff, and in most Nazi propaganda. Only later did racial purity get invoked to justify things to the public.
Its a very simple common native uprising and hatred against a ruler and future ruler at root.
No mysterious thing once one realizes how Jews dominated Europe in those decades.
Hitler was like a killing Ghandi . His ideas made sense to most people except the secret agenda to uder a whole identity.
Germans just wanted Jews out of their country but not murdered.Robert Byers
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Yeah, what he said! There's too much for God to care about for God to be caring.Mung
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
The book of Acts in the Bible states that God sees all people as being equal (Acts 10:34,35).
The Bible is a fairytale. So the God of the Bible he see's a firefighter who saves four children and a kitten from being burnt alive as equal to a paedophile does he? He's sees a policeman who has just arrested a rapist to be equal to the rapist does he? He sees an innocent man who was mugged as equal to the mugger does he? The Bible is bull. There is no equality. If God/s exist then they would be completely impersonal, there is too much evil in the world for a caring God.TheisticEvolutionist
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
PS: Of course, I am not overlooking the sulphurous fumes that tell us the metaphysical roots involved, as the White Rose martyrs so eloquently put it.kairosfocus
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
F/N: Sigh, sometimes it is necessary to explicitly quote from a devillish mouth, here Bk I, Ch XI of the infamous Mein Kampf:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice . . . .
In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .
And, for those who need to be reminded, the Poles, viewed as Slavs, were in the twisted minds we are discussing, members of an inferior race. This is a part of why Poland was the first target of military aggression, and of why the Lebensraum sought was in the east . . . slav-inhabited lands.
(I recently learned that an intent further east was simply to confiscate the food of the Ukraine etc, leaving winter and starvation to do the rest. Also, there were 20 - 27 Mn Russian deaths, but only 5 - 6 mn on the battlefield. Looks like attempted genocide to me.)
We really need to understand the depravity of this man, and its roots. I suggest here as a useful start, including watching the lecture presented.
Notice the sharp contrast in H G Wells.
KFkairosfocus
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
Barb, thanks for your thoughtful response. Just to let you know that it is not all in vain. :)
Hitler's Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m73ILHJeC2A
Logan Gage interviews historian Richard Weikart on his book, now out in paperback, Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, and how Darwinism influenced and inspired much of Nazi ideology.
Weikart's provocative book argues that Hitler's immorality was not the result of ignoring or rejecting ethics, but rather came from embracing a coherent -- albeit pernicious -- ethic of improving the human race through "evolutionary progress." Directly inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution, this ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improved human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination. By embracing this particular brand of ethics, Hitler perpetrated much greater evil than he would have had he been merely opportunistic or amoral.
Hitler & Darwin: Richard Weikart Responds to Recent Claims Against his Books (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzE9zfpH3YU
Hitler & Darwin: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics (2 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9JPPtD18nMbornagain77
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
Barb
I know people say these things but i read Hitlers book and am aware of other nazi stuff and it wasn't true about race being the point.
Hitler and company tried to say and tried to believe aryans were superior and Germans top aryans but show they really believed Jews were dominating them because Jews were superior. Nazi ism was a native reaction to a perceived colonizing oriental race no different then the third world peoples saw a European colonization based on superiority.
Jews ran germany almost and the most German types resented and hated them.
The race stuff was used to excite and legitamize a destruction of a colonizer as they saw it.
Possibly they might persuade themselves they were superior but i think their actions, the few at the top, show they didn't believe thier ideas and this and the sincere belief that Jews were destroying them and Europe allowed a general remedy.
Hitler insuisted it was just revenge as in his last will he said it.
I question if many Poles were killed as opposed to conquoring Poland and troubles thereto.
I see no evidence race was relevant to the holocaust at a biological level.
its not what they stressed.
they never said anyone was super human. tHat was later accused because it was thought lots of peoples believed in white superiority.
Hitler said all Aryans were equal. They were kinsman.
Have you read Mein Kamph???
Very little on race but a great deal on identity and remedy.
Most would say what you said but its just later interpretations.
Its not a complicated thing to figure out.
Just listen to what they sayRobert Byers
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Nicely summarized, Barb.
Most people don't know that a teacher in Palo Alto, California (near Stanford University) conducted a social experiment at Cubberley High School with his classes demonstrating that American students were just as vulnerable to the elitist Nazi mindset as the Germans were.The results were scary! Yes, people are always vulnerable to this sort of thing.
Read about it here:
http://www.thewavehome.com
The American-made movie about (The Wave, 1981) was reasonably accurate (as far as Hollywood goes), but it's very difficult to find.
I can't verify this, but I believe that this experiment was the original source of "dumb blond" jokes--blonds were the "Jews" of the experiment.Querius
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Who cares about Hitler. Nutcases come and go. What about his followers? How far would have Hitler advanced without them?Mung
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Robert Byers:
I don’t agree hitler was a serious race believer.
He and they would say its reasonable to conclude Aryans are superior.
As Hitler saw it, “the German ‘masses’ were composed of 85 million people forming a unified ‘racial nucleus.’ Hitler’s pseudo-Darwinistic approach required that this ‘racial nucleus’ conquer its ‘territory.’” So as Gerhard Schulz, professor of modern history at the University of Tübingen, explains: “The violent conquest of new territory was Hitler’s favorite subject.”
You are wrong. Hitler was a virulent "race believer".
its wrong but not unreasonable. lots of races have said they are better or superior. Einstein said it was a viable option Jews were superior and many Jews said and still do.
The book of Acts in the Bible states that God sees all people as being equal (Acts 10:34,35). Do you disagree with this statement?
Racism is illogical and stupid and so are the racists.
There is nothing wrong with believing ones race or people are innately smarter or more moral then others.
Its just about how that affects ones neighbours.
See above.
Hitler saw all Aryans as better and germans the best of them.
Yet I don’t believe him.
Germans=Aryans. You might not believe him, but unfortunately for all mankind, a lot of people did.
i conclude he tried to believe that but really concluded Jews were superior and so in a rage of hate tried to destroy them all.
The book The Forgotten Holocaust shows that there were three million non-Jewish Poles caught up in the Holocaust. A History of the Modern World refers to the millions of other people involved in it. Even of the German Jehovah’s Witnesses, non-Witness sources have reported that “some 10,000 were imprisoned” and “more than two thousand perished in concentration camps.” The Holocaust is not to be regarded, therefore, as an assault on the Jews alone. Hitler was determined to exterminate any group of people that did not bow to his doctrine of Aryan superiority.
hitler would deny this and only say Jews were a menace to mankind but I think murderous envy was behind the genocide and only a minority portion was sincere fear and opinion they would destroy european civilization by communism or other ways.
See above. Hitler did not envy the Jews; he wished to create a master race and rule the world. Anyone who stood in his way was destroyed.
It really was a native people destroying a colonizer as they saw it.
I don’t see evolution as relevant to the genocide.
Hitler was fascinated by Darwinian ideas of survival of the fittest; find and read Richard Weikart's book if you can. Remember, ideas produce actions. Actions can be either good or bad.
Hitler always said it was about revenge but I say it was mostly a envious hatred of a conquered native people as Hitler saw it.
Again, Hitler didn't envy any particular people. He did partly see it as revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed sanctions against Germany for its role in World War I. Germany from 1918-1928 was not a very nice place to live.
Just read mein Kamph. its right there. Very little race stuff but lots of accusations.
Its not evolution but simply mirder that is the problem in these matters.
In his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Adolf Hitler asserted that the German race was the Aryan super-race that was destined to rule the world. Hitler felt that the Jews, who he said were responsible for sabotaging the German economy, were an obstacle to this glorious destiny. Thus followed the extermination of Jews and other minorities of Europe, which was indisputably one of the darkest chapters of human history. This was the disastrous outcome of racist ideas, including those of Gobineau and Chamberlain.
The book Essay on the Inequality of Races, by the 19th-century French writer Joseph de Gobineau, laid the groundwork for many such works to follow. In it, Gobineau divided mankind into three separate races in descending order of excellence: white, yellow, and black. He claimed that the unique qualities of each race were carried in the blood and that thus any mixing through intermarriage would result in degradation and loss of the superior qualities.
Gobineau argued that once there existed a pure race of white, tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed people whom he called Aryans. It was the Aryans, he argued, who introduced civilization and Sanskrit to India, and it was the Aryans who established the civilizations of ancient Greece and Rome. But through intermarriage with the inferior local people, these once-glorious civilizations were lost, along with the genius and fine qualities of the Aryan race. The nearest people to pure Aryan still remaining, asserted Gobineau, were to be found in northern Europe, namely, among the Nordic and, by extension, the Germanic peoples.
Gobineau’s basic ideas—the three-race division, the blood lineage, the Aryan race—had no scientific foundation whatsoever, and they are completely discredited by today’s scientific community. Nonetheless, they were quickly picked up by others. Among them was an Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who was so enamored with Gobineau’s ideas that he took up residence in Germany and championed the cause that only through the Germans was there hope of preserving the purity of the Aryan race. Needless to say, Chamberlain’s writings became widely read in Germany, and the outcome was ugly.
Accusations including evolutionary race ideas are fine as long as no mirder takes place.
Accuse away and opine away on race.
Just don’t sin.
Sin enters from what one thinks about, according to the book of James.Barb
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
How Evolutionary Ethics Influenced Hitler and Why It Matters - Weikart - 2012
Excerpt: When I wrote From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, only the final chapter explicates the role of Darwinism in Hitler’s worldview. This chapter provoked the greatest controversy, however, with some internet critics claiming that Hitler rejected Darwinism and was a creationist. Thus, I decided to follow it up with an entire book devoted to the role of evolution in Hitler’s worldview: Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Therein I demonstrate not only that Hitler believed in Darwinian evolution, including the evolution of humans, but I also showed in detail that evolutionary ethics was central to Hitler’s worldview. It influenced many elements of Nazi ideology and policy, including:
1) Racial inequality:
Hitler believed that different races had formed through evolutionary processes and were at different evolutionary levels. He thought the Aryan or Nordic race (these terms were used synonymously by Nazis) was the most advanced. These views were not idiosyncratic, but were common among German evolutionary biologists during the early twentieth century.
2) History as a racial struggle for existence:
Hitler thought that races were locked in an ineluctable racial struggle. He promoted policies that favored the Aryans and disadvantaged other allegedly inferior races, especially the Jews, in order to help the Aryans win the struggle for existence. Of course, those losing the struggle would eventually be eliminated, one way or another, as the Aryans took over the globe.
3) Eugenics policies, such as compulsory sterilization, forced abortions, and killing of the disabled:
These eugenics policies were designed to prevent biological degeneration and help along the process of evolution.
4) The drive for population expansion:
Darwin claimed in Descent of Man that the birthrate should not be limited, because a higher birthrate was advantageous for evolution. Hitler agreed and often expressed the same view.
5) The need to acquire living space (through military means):
This idea originated with the German Darwinian biologist-turned-geographer Friedrich Ratzel, who had argued that the struggle for existence was essentially a struggle for space. Hitler often expressed the need for living space in evolutionary terms. He linked it to population expansion and the racial struggle. Gaining living space and driving out the inhabitants was the way to improve the human species by increasing the “master” race at the expense of the “inferior” races.
6) Evolution of moral traits:
Hitler, like many other contemporary biologists and psychiatrists, argued that moral traits were biologically determined. He believed that the Aryans had the most advanced morality, as they were allegedly more loyal, honest, diligent, etc. On the other hand, he deemed Jews biologically immoral, since he blamed them for being lazy, mendacious, sexually lascivious, greedy, etc. Thus, by ridding the world of the Jews and replacing them with Aryans, Hitler in his own perverted view thought he was improving the world by banishing immorality and increasing morality.
Why does this matter? As many of my critics have pointed out, most Darwinists are not Nazis. So why should we care if the Nazis used Darwinism for their own perverted purposes?
While it is unlikely that anything quite like Nazism will ever spring from Darwinian premises again, there are many other ways that Darwinism is being used to devalue human life today (as I showed in my previous piece). Abortion is rampant, and eugenics and euthanasia are once again becoming fashionable in academic circles. While Darwinism is by no means the sole cause of this devaluing of human life, many prominent scholars, such as Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins, admit that it plays a significant role.
Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany and Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress.
http://www.credomag.com/2012/01/05/how-evolutionary-ethics-influenced-hitler-and-why-it-matters/
At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
Charles Darwin,The Descent of Man pg. 201, published in 1871:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=214
From Darwin to Hitler - Weikart - video lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A
Of related note, Blue eyes and light skin are the result of a loss of genetic information not a gain:
Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013
Excerpt: In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene "turned off the ability to produce brown eyes."
http://www.examiner.com/article/daily-thought-blue-eyes-and-other-gene-mutations
Melanin
Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Humans
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..."
Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED
Geometric Principles Appear Universal in Our Minds - May 2011
Excerpt: Villagers belonging to an Amazonian group called the Mundurucú intuitively grasp abstract geometric principles despite having no formal math education,,, Mundurucú adults and 7- to 13-year-olds demonstrate as firm an understanding of the properties of points, lines and surfaces as adults and school-age children in the United States and France,,,
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/universal-geometry/bornagain77
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
F/N: Seems to me there is need to familiarise with what is taught in Darwin's Descent of Man, esp ch's 5 - 7, and how he viewed the contest in Europe between the Turks and the European peoples as a manifestation of natural selection. Similarly, the logos for the congresses on Eugenics need to be examined -- e.g. cf here -- to see why it was openly defined and repeatedly publicly advertised as the self direction of human EVOLUTION; remembering how thoroughly it swept the elites and how deeply Darwin's own family were entangled in the movement. Social Darwinism, leading to the notion of the racially superior "Aryan" race, beyond reasonable doubt, grew in Darwinist soil, and indeed Darwin himself held to key tenets thereof. The after the fact revisionism is therefore utterly revealing on the force of the point: we here deal with something that cannot face the plain, easily documented facts of living memory history. KFkairosfocus
October 16, 2013
October
10
Oct
16
16
2013
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
I don't agree hitler was a serious race believer.
He and they would say its reasonable to conclude Aryans are superior.
its wrong but not unreasonable. lots of races have said they are better or superior. Einstein said it was a viable option Jews were superior and many Jews said and still do.
There is nothing wrong with believing ones race or people are innately smarter or more moral then others.
Its just about how that affects ones neighbours.
Hitler saw all Aryans as better and germans the best of them.
Yet I don't believe him.
i conclude he tried to believe that but really concluded Jews were superior and so in a rage of hate tried to destroy them all.
hitler would deny this and only say Jews were a menace to mankind but I think murderous envy was behind the genocide and only a minority portion was sincere fear and opinion they would destroy european civilization by communism or other ways.
It really was a native people destroying a colonizer as they saw it.
I don't see evolution as relevant to the genocide.
Hitler always said it was about revenge but I say it was mostly a envious hatred of a conquered native people as Hitler saw it.
Just read mein Kamph. its right there. Very little race stuff but lots of accusations.
Its not evolution but simply mirder that is the problem in these matters.
Accusations including evolutionary race ideas are fine as long as no mirder takes place.
Accuse away and opine away on race.
Just don't sin.Robert Byers
October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
BA77 @3: so did Hitler believe there was unlimited plasticity to variation in humans?5for
October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) - Casey Luskin April 12, 2011
Excerpt: This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create....[N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/04/lynn_margulis_criticizes_neo-d045691.html
Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816
EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..."
Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLEDbornagain77
October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
5for asks, "Are all dog breeders by definition “Darwinians”?"
No because Dog Breeders are aware that there is no 'unlimited plasticity' to variation within dogs, but know that there hard limits to how much variation they can expect from the gene pool of dogs and are also acutely aware of the dangers inherent with severe inbreeding for a particular trait due to the rapid expression of recessive detrimental mutations with inbreeding that would otherwise be spread out through the population.
podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the supposed evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution (breeding for a particular trait comes at a loss of overall genetic information).
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00
Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution?
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00bornagain77
October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
I would say a master race is the idea that you can selectively breed humans to achieve certain characteristics. But artificial selection was around a long time before Darwin. Are all dog breeders by definition "Darwinians"?5for
October 15, 2013
October
10
Oct
15
15
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
When one's metaphysic is rooted in denial of the obvious, what else would you expect from them?William J Murray