| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
12 Jul 2004 09:33:45 PM |
| Object: |
Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"But beyond anti-Semitism and the other links that have been
established, certainly the most significant and heretofore largely
unnoticed and unrecognized influence of Haeckel and the Monists on the
development of National Socialism is to be found in Hitler himself. It
has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears
to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and the
framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social
Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists.59 However, these insights have
thus far not been developed or elaborated upon to any great extent. More
intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking,
especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespräche, reveals a
critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of
Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations
and the content of some of his writings emerge as an ex-tended
paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Natiirliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte and the Welträtsel. The first question that should
be answered, therefore, is whether or not it is likely that Hitler read
the works of Haeckel or was in a position to know of his ideas or the
beliefs of any of the Monists."
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When
the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of
Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans.
It
was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
13 Jul 2004 12:26:21 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in
message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
-- [snip]
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
Interestingly, natural selection is described here exclusively as something
that *maintains* a species and its adaptions, not something that transforms
species and shapes adaptions. Stripped of the political applications, this
is the conception of natural selection that prevailed before Darwin extended
it and offered it as a mechanism for the transmutation of species. I know
of no creationist that does not accept that natural selection *maintains*
species and prevents (or at least retards) their degeneration.
Note, for what it's worth, that very few evolutionary biologists that accept
the label "Darwinists" would concede that "each life form struggles to
ensure the survival of its species," which this text regards as the "second
law of life." Each organism struggles, rather (and considering the number
of organisms which are, e.g. plants, that struggle must be rather different
from political or military ones in many cases) to ensure the survival of its
*own* alleles (it generally doesn't consciously intend to do this, of
course; it is simply the end result of its actions). Concern for the
species is not a feature of "Darwinian" models, but is a political
imposition on biological concept of natural selection.
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When
the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of
Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
How about a discussion of natural selection that does not even hint at
common descent, or the transmutation of species? See the very link you
offer.
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans.
It was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Do you mean, "Gasman is wrong here; the Nazis could and may have believed
that 'Aryans' started out as apes lower even than the 'inferior races' but
evolved to a higher form," or do you mean you can't figure out what Gasman
is arguing? He is arguing that the Nazis thought that Aryans had *always*
held the position they held in Hitler's day (at least, in Hitler's mind) --
the pinnacle of human potential. If anything, they had allowed themselves
to degenerate; they had not themselves arisen from inferior racial stock.
"Inferior stock" and "superior stock" were (Gasman argues -- I'm not sure
whether the Nazis actually thought that much about the matter) essential,
immutable features to the Nazis, not something that could be altered by
evolution.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
13 Jul 2004 08:42:51 PM |
|
|
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> on 13 Jul 2004 posted
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net>
wrote in
message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
snip
" It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans.
It was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors."
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Do you mean, "Gasman is wrong here; the Nazis could and may have
believed that 'Aryans' started out as apes lower even than the
'inferior races' but evolved to a higher form," or do you mean you
can't figure out what Gasman is arguing? He is arguing that the Nazis
thought that Aryans had *always* held the position they held in
Hitler's day (at least, in Hitler's mind) -- the pinnacle of human
potential. If anything, they had allowed themselves to degenerate;
they had not themselves arisen from inferior racial stock. "Inferior
stock" and "superior stock" were (Gasman argues -- I'm not sure
whether the Nazis actually thought that much about the matter)
essential, immutable features to the Nazis, not something that could
be altered by evolution.
The particular kind of racism prevelant to this line of thinking is that
man has evolved from lower forms, and the currently existing 'slave'
races are lower than the 'master' race. Technically, this should lead to
different types of races, ie the fully (or at least 'more fully' evolved
relative to others; but still striving torwards high standards of pure
excellence) 'accelerated' races (usually just one race, ie that which the
person propsing the system happens to find him or herself belonging to)
and then the less evolved, 'retarded' races, the ones that are literally
populations of throwbacks/living fossils of the more primitive stage
(which, since we're talking haeckel hear, are phylogentically and
ontolgentically retarded) and the mongrelized/diluted races; those being
populations of the 'master' race that breed outside the race and even
populations of people more highly developed than apes who have also
mixed with the 'lower' races to become degenerate. Might sound weird,
but the nazis (don't godwin me) sometimes considered the japanese as (and
i don't think that they used this term but it seems like they'd've
approved of it) as 'honourary aryans', so to speak. So the japanese
weren't the pure aryan strain, but they might be, say, a seperate
population that hasn't acheived aryanness (and i think there would be
some typism in this sort of thing too, so aryanness might quite literally
mean the same physical type) but is advancing to it, rather than a
'degenerate mongrelized' race. They'd in a sense be a local master race
with the more cosmopolitan, urban, and multi-ethnic chinese as their
local slave race; whereas the aryans would be a global master race. The
bits about the japanese aren't so far off, especially if the stories
about the thule society and such being 'inspired' by the japanese secret
society; the 'black dragons'.
But regardless of that bizzare digression, this 'scientific racism'
wouldn't have a problem with man having evolved from apes, and the
'untermensch' being, not just metaphorically or politically sub-human,
but literally and actually sub-human. A truly revolting system.
snip
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Klaus Hellnick" |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
17 Jul 2004 02:42:22 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in
message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"But beyond anti-Semitism and the other links that have been
established, certainly the most significant and heretofore largely
unnoticed and unrecognized influence of Haeckel and the Monists on the
development of National Socialism is to be found in Hitler himself. It
has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears
to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and
the
framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social
Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists.59 However, these insights have
thus far not been developed or elaborated upon to any great extent.
More
intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking,
especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespräche, reveals a
critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of
Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations
and the content of some of his writings emerge as an ex-tended
paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Natiirliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte and the Welträtsel. The first question that should
be answered, therefore, is whether or not it is likely that Hitler read
the works of Haeckel or was in a position to know of his ideas or the
beliefs of any of the Monists."
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
NONE of the "Mein Kampf" ecerpts on that site make any reference to natural
selection. Is it the right link?
Klaus
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When
the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of
Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans.
It
was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
19 Jul 2004 07:13:46 AM |
|
|
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnicknospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<6ofKc.4183$pR5.3373@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"But beyond anti-Semitism and the other links that have been
established, certainly the most significant and heretofore largely
unnoticed and unrecognized influence of Haeckel and the Monists on the
development of National Socialism is to be found in Hitler himself. It
has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears
to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and the
framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social
Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists.59 However, these insights have
thus far not been developed or elaborated upon to any great extent. More
intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking,
especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespräche, reveals a
critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of
Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations
and the content of some of his writings emerge as an ex-tended
paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Natiirliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte and the Welträtsel. The first question that should
be answered, therefore, is whether or not it is likely that Hitler read
the works of Haeckel or was in a position to know of his ideas or the
beliefs of any of the Monists."
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
NONE of the "Mein Kampf" ecerpts on that site make any reference to natural
selection. Is it the right link?
Yes, it is [KH]"the right link."
[KH]"make any reference to natural selection" Perhaps your conception
of NS is too restricted and needs broadening. Read also the material
introducing the _Mein Kampf_ quotes. If the bit about "truths about
ants" and "the application of these principles to mankind" isn't an
example of so-called "social Darwinism" (the application of Darwinian
thought to humans and human society), then I don't know what is.
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans. It
was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
20 Jul 2004 04:07:09 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407190420.127f4f5e@posting.google.com>...
"Klaus Hellnick" <khellnicknospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<6ofKc.4183$pR5.3373@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"But beyond anti-Semitism and the other links that have been
established, certainly the most significant and heretofore largely
unnoticed and unrecognized influence of Haeckel and the Monists on the
development of National Socialism is to be found in Hitler himself. It
has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears
to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and the
framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social
Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists.59 However, these insights have
thus far not been developed or elaborated upon to any great extent. More
intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking,
especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespräche, reveals a
critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of
Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations
and the content of some of his writings emerge as an ex-tended
paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Natiirliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte and the Welträtsel. The first question that should
be answered, therefore, is whether or not it is likely that Hitler read
the works of Haeckel or was in a position to know of his ideas or the
beliefs of any of the Monists."
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
NONE of the "Mein Kampf" ecerpts on that site make any reference to natural
selection. Is it the right link?
Yes, it is [KH]"the right link."
[KH]"make any reference to natural selection" Perhaps your conception
of NS is too restricted and needs broadening. Read also the material
introducing the _Mein Kampf_ quotes. If the bit about "truths about
ants" and "the application of these principles to mankind" isn't an
example of so-called "social Darwinism" (the application of Darwinian
thought to humans and human society), then I don't know what is.
You mean just like Christian fascist leader, Jefferson Davis said? He
didn't agree with Darwin with just like you, Christian fascist, David
Ford.
Preamble
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#Preamble
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity --
invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God -- do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Section 2 - The House
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#A1Sec2
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen
every second year by the people of the several States; and the
electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States,
and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most
numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign
birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to
vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.
2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the
age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States,
and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in
which he shall be chosen.
3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States, which may be included within this Confederacy,
according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three-fifths of all slaves. The actual enumeration shall be made
within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the
Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in
such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives
shall not exceed one for every fifty thousand, but each State shall
have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be
made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the
State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida
two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and
the State of Texas six.
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans. It
was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
13 Jul 2004 08:26:06 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"But beyond anti-Semitism and the other links that have been
established, certainly the most significant and heretofore largely
unnoticed and unrecognized influence of Haeckel and the Monists on the
development of National Socialism is to be found in Hitler himself. It
has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears
to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and the
framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social
Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists.59 However, these insights have
thus far not been developed or elaborated upon to any great extent. More
intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking,
especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespräche, reveals a
critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of
Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations
and the content of some of his writings emerge as an ex-tended
paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Natiirliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte and the Welträtsel. The first question that should
be answered, therefore, is whether or not it is likely that Hitler read
the works of Haeckel or was in a position to know of his ideas or the
beliefs of any of the Monists."
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
Should I be surprised that a creationist, when asked for reference to
something in a particular book brings up a different book that
doesn't have that reference?
anyway, the relevant section is
"Mankind, too, is subject to these natural laws, and has won its
dominant position through struggle. This is obvious when we consider
the prehistoric hunting age. People then had both to secure their own
prey, and protect themselves against the larger carnivores. This old
form of the struggle for existence does not, of course,"
compare with natural selection as a mechanism of evolution but is
rather a propagandistic representation of 'our noble and strong'
ancestors. Physical Fitness, not unromantic Darwinian fitness (which,
ironically enough, is all about 'romance' in a sense).
" exist in civilized nations any longer. Early man lived in hordes, we
live in an ethnic state. The state takes responsibility for territory
and much, much more. Nonetheless, each must win his place in his
community. As Moltke said, "In the long run, only the hardworking are
lucky." True, the larger carnivores are lacking, but bacteria and
other tiny carriers of disease are no small danger. Consider the
enormous efforts (struggle for survival!) men have given, and will
continue to give, to master these enemies to defeat disease. "
this has less to do with biological science than with the nazi
uber-concern with hygeine, and notice that they don't discuss natural
anti-biotic resistance. Infact, they don't talk about medication and
such at all. 'Vee must be strrrrong to defeat der bacterien'. Hardly
darwinian.
"Each of us must keep our bodies strong through exercise and healthy
living habits, to develop our capacities and use them to serve the
people."
So this is a biology textbook made as a part of nazi propaganda during
the height of the war, and everything it talks about is in a context
that appears as if darwin had never even existed! Outside of the idea
of struggle/fight, there isn't even a resemblence to darwin's ideas.
" Those who do not do so are unsuitable for the refined, yet just as
relentless. form of our struggle for survival, and will perish. Our
Führer tells us:
He who wants to live must fight, and he who does not want to fight in
this world of perpetual struggle does not deserve to live!" (Mein
Kampf, p. 317)"
And now, in this high school textbook (which, of all formats, is very
basic, 'iconic', and most suitable to propaganda methods) in a state
the -specializes- in mass propaganda, -during wartime- and including a
quote from mein kampf itself, there isn't a mention of darwin,
evolution, natural selection, or adaptation, but rather an extremely
non-darwinian context of personal individual improvement and if
anything an -anti-selection/adaptationist- logic.
Very nice Mr. Ford, I see you've left the dark side. What, if
anything, is different for you now?
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When
the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of
Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
I tend to agree with your relectance, oh evolutionary cult-brother, in
this case. I recall occasional mention to 'the blonde beasts of prey'
in, if my memory is serving correctly (and i think it might not be on
this mark) Haeckel's 'Riddle of the Universe'. Surprisingly,
(although i haven't read it entirely nor critically) its not
particularly nazi-istic.
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans.
It
was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Yes, he seems to have missed the entire idea of 'evolutionary
justification for racism'. -IF- a person doesn't understand the full
implications of common descent and darwin's theory, (or perhaps all
that is needed is ignorance of the data regarding human
interrelatedness) then one might assume that sports/varietals/races
exist amougn humans and that some are more apelike and others more man
like, or even if one doesn't go for ladder-like typism they might
assume that these supposed varieties of humans have 'evolved' under
different conditions of nature and as such have developed different
physical traits and different mental traits (ala the bell curve).
But now that you have decided to join the evolutionist Kamp, you know
that thats all a lie and evolution doesn't even actually occur.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
I suspect that these 'Monists' who were not properly biolgically
trained or who didn't really understand evolution any further than
they needed to to reinforce their own parochialisms, probably were
still locked into the common-place typism ideal, wherein humanity
(well, in their opinion the 'aryan' {ha, its means iranian, wonder
what they'da thought 'bout that)) had reached a state of perfection.
Interestingly enough, Darwin frequently used the english phrase "state
of perfection" (or something like that) but he meant it in a context
of adaptation to the 'conditions of existance'. Obviously, in this
aryan typism there isn't any adaptation, but rather an unfolding of a
proper type. One can see why Haeckel's recapitulationist theory would
hold such attraction in this way of thinking, as the phylogenic
history of types unfolds in the process of development. I suspect
that many people thought of the 'lower forms' as being in a state
analogous to 'arrested development' or some sort.
Unfortunately I can't research that right now. And neither can you my
co-conspirator. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy requires more pressing
matters of you. First you have to meet with our alien overlords (duh,
they're the ones fighting god) and they'll give you a program that can
decode messages via evolutionary algorythms (you thought we just made
that stuff up for no reason?) from which you will receive your mission
instructions.
In the meantime, you are to act as a counter agent in the creationist
resistance. Now, all creationists are actually extremely honest and
thoughtfull, so you should be able to infiltrate their movement
easily. While you are there, post completely irrelevant topics to
this and maybe some other newsgroups. Stick with this 'hitler was
darwin's *****' part. Its wonderfull. The intent is to make
creationists look like morons, so that should do a good job. But
don't worry about it too much, that is being handled by other
operatives...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: "Darwin's bulldog" Legacy |
14 Jul 2004 05:25:06 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407121838.5dc16063@posting.google.com>...
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote in message news:<cce5f0ph1lfrekn925rkqm5lmrbgq945f5@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 "Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
"But beyond anti-Semitism and the other links that have been
established, certainly the most significant and heretofore largely
unnoticed and unrecognized influence of Haeckel and the Monists on the
development of National Socialism is to be found in Hitler himself. It
has only relatively recently been observed that a relationship appears
to exist between, on the one hand, the general outlook of Hitler and the
framework in which he cast his ideas and, on the other hand, the social
Darwinism of Haeckel and the Monists.59 However, these insights have
thus far not been developed or elaborated upon to any great extent. More
intensive probing into the ideological framework of Hitler's thinking,
especially as intimately recorded in his Tischgespräche, reveals a
critical, general and also a specific relationship with the ideas of
Haeckel. Indeed, rightly considered, a number of Hitler's conversations
and the content of some of his writings emerge as an ex-tended
paraphrase and at times even plagiarism of Haeckel's Natiirliche
Schöpfungsgeschichte and the Welträtsel. The first question that should
be answered, therefore, is whether or not it is likely that Hitler read
the works of Haeckel or was in a position to know of his ideas or the
beliefs of any of the Monists."
In his essay, Gasman fails to connect anything particularly Hitler to
anything particularly Haeckel. This isn't surprising, because if
Hitler felt himself influenced by Haeckel he kept it under wraps;
there is, for instance, no reference to Haeckel or Monism (or Darwin
or natural selection) in Mein Kampf.
[MC]"there is... no reference to... natural selection... in Mein
Kampf." I disagree.
Your disagreement is worthless without evidence. Page numbers,
please, and do cite the edition. It's good to see you stipulate to
the fact that there is no reference to Haeckel, Monism, or Darwin in
Mein Kampf. He does take time to praise Luther and other people you
probably like. (Also Henry Ford, though I assume it's no relation.)
excerpts from a 1942 Nazi biology textbook for the middle school
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/textbk01.htm
As Steven J. points out, this snipplet ignores most of the central
points of natural selection and "Darwinism", like common descent and
the non-fixity of species, gives a gross misexplanation of natural
selection, and is mostly mostly non-Darwinian in nature, in particular
presenting evolution as teleological.
More importantly, Creationist consistently drag out the same four or
five quotes as evidence for Darwinism's influence on Hitler and
Nazism, none of them particularly direct. Given that Hitler was
less-then-coy about who influenced him, and the great volume of
comments and writings attributable to Hitler and other Nazis, as far
as real history is concerned this is as good as saying "we don't have
much evidence." Which is why Creationist depend on quote mining. And
why you have to do things like fail to include page numbers with your
assertion about Mein Kampf, above.
Meanwhile, Creationists ignore the far greater number of direct
statements Hitler made about about his influences other than Darwin,
his non-Darwinian take on evolution, his creationist and ID leanings,
and the instances where Nazi ideologists attack Darwinism.
While we're at it, at least one Nazi biology textbook evoked Mendel
for support. The Creations have taken to exalting Mendel, so this
gets censured.
Just so this isn't a complete loss, let me quote a passage from
Gasman's essay just two paragraphs down from the paragraph you quote:
"To identify Darwin, instead of Haeckel, as the matrix of Hitler's
social Darwinism, as is generally done, is to ignore, in addition to
the enormous success of the Welträtsel and Hitler's reference to
Haeckel, the obvious reality that since the publication in 1866 of
Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, the Germans understood
Darwin and Darwinism through the distorted lenses of Haeckel. When
the
Germans refer to Darwin, more often than not they in fact mean, not
Darwin, but Haeckel and his Monist philosophy."
And I'll quote this, Gasman's last paragraph:
"One question remains to be answered, however. Haeckel was clearly
accorded recognition by some Nazi intellectuals and by his followers
as a forerunner of the Third Reich. Yet at the same time, it is also
apparent that Haeckel did not figure in Nazi propaganda as a major
prophet of National Socialism. He never attained the status of
Lagarde
or of Houston Stewart Chamberlain in the annals of Nazi history. And
the reason is clear. While Darwinism was part of the Nazi educational
curriculum in biology,
To illustrate, see the link above.
official National Socialist ideology was
suspicious of the idea of human evolution and, while not outrightly
denying it, tended to play down the theory of the animal origin of
man.
Evidence?
Sure, shortly after you cite the page numbers for your assertion about
Mein Kampf, above, then go back and address my several requests that
you provide evidence for your assertions that Pasteurs' experiments
into spontainious generations have some relevence to modern theories
regarding abiogenesis.
(If anyone else wants citations, other that that idiot "Murphy," they
should let me know.)
It must be remembered that the Nazis had assigned a heroic and
eternally superior character and racial constitution to the Aryans.
It
was therefore hardly ideologically admissible at the same time to
allow for the evolution of the Aryans from a group of inferior
anthropoid progenitors.
Gasman isn't making sense here.
Cough. It's about the only place he makes sense. Let me explain: one
of the three or four key points of "Darwinist" biology is
"tree-shaped", widely-branching common descent. This means humans of
all races have common ancestors, and relatively recently (because of
the wide branches). This has traditionally upset racists, and is why
racists have tended to adopt some Lamarckian or Creationist
teleological theory of descent, with few or no branches.
Any theory of this kind would have destroyed
the notion that the Aryans were in possession of racial superiority
from the beginning. This dilemma of the Nazis, however, in regard to
the complete acceptance of the idea of evolution was in fact an
Haeckelian dilemma magnified many times. Haeckel and the Monists had
also tried to disseminate their belief in man's immutability in a
world which by the fundamental tenets of their own theory was assumed
to be constantly in motion."
[Gasman]"Haeckel and the Monists had also tried to disseminate their
belief in man's immutability" Evidence that they believed this?
Are you asking me? It's the first I ever heard they believed this.
Gasman's citation for that paragraph reads: "For more on National
Socialism and Darwinism, see Conrad-Martius. Utopien der
Menschenzüchtung, pp. 283-299."
[See:http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm]
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
