Home » Intelligent Design » He said it: Herr Schicklegruber speaks in the voice* of the dragon, refuting prof Avalos

He said it: Herr Schicklegruber speaks in the voice* of the dragon, refuting prof Avalos

Sometimes, it is necessary to document some very unpleasant things for record.

This post is one of those, in response to the recent UD post on the Unbelievable radio and Internet debate between Profs Weikart and Avalos. being strictly for the record, comments will be disabled.

Accordingly, I now clip as a post (it appeared as a comment previously in the just linked thread) a certain Herr Schicklegruber, aka Adolph H, in his notorious 1925/6 work that I refuse to name or to link, Vol I Ch 11; I add comments in parentheses for clarification:

_____________

>>Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature [--> notice, the capitalisation; (u/d Jul 27: this is not the pivot of the argument, but note the personalisation of Nature as having a will, in context)]  for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. 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 [--> i.e. evolution viewed as progress] 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. [ --> survival of the fittest, with a focus on the predators] 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.

Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. 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 [--> i.e. effectively sexual selection] grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. [--> i.e. of evolution via struggle for existence and survival of the fittest]

If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. [--> devolution] For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, 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. [ --> A problem raised in Darwin's Descent of Man, chs 5 - 7; cf discussion now here on the wayback machine.] 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. [--> Social Darwinist solution to the problem, paralleled by Darwin's discussion of the Celts [= Irish] Scots and Saxons [ = English]]

No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race [ --> Focus on race, note the subtitle of the earlier edns of Origin: preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence], since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow. [--> then accepted evolutionary timescale for man]

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:

* Lowering of the level of the higher race;

* Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.

To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator. [--> note want of capitalisation, and recall, the dominant view of the time was an eternal nature, the Big Bang type cosmology only triumphed in the 1960's, indeed in 1925/6 when MK was written it was not yet proposed (u/d 27 Jul: again, the force is not pivoted on case of text, but in the main on the context of ideas)] And as a sin this act is rewarded. [--> uses the TERM sin, but in a most antichristian context, similar to antichristian usage of the term "eternal creator" to denote nature, perhaps nature personified in some sort of vaguely deistical or pantheistical sense]

When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature [--> Notice the immediate elaboration on his "eternal creator", Nature capitalised (u/d Jul 27: Again, observe context; this would not need emphasis, but we are dealing with rhetirical counters on a strawmanisation of the issue)] , he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. And this attack must lead to his own doom. [--> thus we see what the "sin" against the eternal creator, Nature, is.]

Here, of course, we encounter the objection of the modern pacifist, as truly Jewish in its effrontery as it is stupid! ‘Man’s role is to overcome Nature!’ [--> Notice, not creation, Nature, capitalised, and we need hardly underscore the label, sneer and dismiss racism (u/d Jul 27: again, kindly read the context for genuine understanding, not to snip out to make handy counter talking points)]

Millions thoughtlessly parrot this Jewish nonsense [--> where do violent, contempt-filled words in the mouths of the morally benumbed all too often end up?] and end up by really imagining that they themselves represent a kind of conqueror of Nature; though in this they dispose of no other weapon than an idea, and at that such a miserable one, that if it were true no world at all would be conceivable.  >>

_____________

I now speak under right of fair comment.

Avalos is a senior scholar.

He is responsible to do the sort of digging that would easily turn up this pivotal passage and its ideational context.

This failure to do due diligence under basic duties of care, is sadly revealing.

Let us look, and let us learn.

Let us not forget the lessons of history, lest we repeat some of the worst all time chapters. END

_______

* F/N 1: I speak specifically to his hatred, racism and murderous violence. I specifically do not intend that adherents of the theory of evolution or deism or pantheism or vague mysticism of Nature, etc., are to be interpreted as being conscience-benumbed as this evil man was. However, we do need to correct a decidedly false impression being promoted by a senior scholar who should have a much more balanced and responsible view. Science — like religion and a hundred other generally beneficial things — can be badly abused, and this was an extreme case.

F/N 2: At comment no 8, JDFL gives a very relevant clip that prof Avalos should also consult, and we should contrast the NYT article with The Barmen Declaration, 1934:

. . . Not fans of Jesus:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01…..tml?src=pm

Destroy the Christians!

“In the political relations with the churches in Germany however, Hitler readily adopted a strategy “that suited his immediate political purposes”.[322] Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich.[325][326][327] The leader of the Hitler Youth stated “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement”
from the start,
but “considerations of expedience made it impossible” publicly to express this extreme position.[325] His intention was to wait until the war was over to destroy the influence of Christianity.[320]

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

Comments are closed.