| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2005 09:51:05 PM |
| Object: |
Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
Ray Martinez wrote:
yared22311@yahoo.com wrote:
Idols of a 'jealous God'
Pamela R. Winnick was labeled a fanatic and a member of the "religious
right" five years ago when she published an article about a scientist
skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20051221-114228-8385r.htm
And Winnick is a Democrat Jew.
Winnick is a Democrat who has Jewish ancestors.
My definition of "Jew": an adherent of Judaism.
Darwinian "science" is all about their obsession of being God and doing
away with the God of the Bible.
Including "doing away with the God of" Judaism, who is alleged to have
done supernatural miracles?
Haeckel, Ernst. 1900. _The Riddle of the Universe: At the
Close of the Nineteenth Century_, translated by Joseph
McCabe. (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 391pp. On 328:
....on familiar principles of science, we put aside the
notion of supernatural conception through an
"overshadowing of the Most High" as a pure myth....
The statement of the apocryphal gospels, that the
Roman officer, Pandera, was the true father of
Christ, seems all the more credible when we make a
careful anthropological study of the personality of
Christ. He is generally regarded as purely Jewish.
Yet the characteristics which distinguish his high
and noble personality, and which give a distinct
impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical;
they are rather features of the higher Arian race,
and especially of its noblest branch, the Hellenes.
The above gives perfect correspondence to the Biblical declaration that
Satan wanted the same and was cast down and judged for his
insubordination. Now Satan seeks to get mankind to do the exact same as
is seen in the Darwinian scientific establishment and their Talibanic
methods of suppressing opposition to their evil agenda.
Fire the IDiots.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403121312.35d2e0c%40posting.google.com
Cage homophobic sky pilots.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127529658.506206.300210%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1924/5 Hitler: "today these sky-pilots [i.e. members of
the clergy]... force their drivel on the world."
Hitler, Adolf. _Mein Kampf_ at
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
Only after the enslavement of subjected races did the
same fate strike beasts, and not the other way around, as
some people would like to think. For first the conquered
warrior drew the plow-and only after him the horse. Only
pacifistic fools can regard this as a sign of human
depravity, failing to realize that this development had to
take place in order to reach the point where today these
sky-pilots [i.e. members of the clergy, judging by the
Goebbels diaries' use of the phrase] could force their
drivel on the world.
The progress of humanity is like climbing an endless
ladder....
12 May 1943 Goebbels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
The Fuehrer spoke very derogatorily about the arrogance
of the higher and lower clergy. The insanity of the
Christian doctrine of redemption really doesn't fit at all
into our time. Nevertheless there are learned, educated
men, occupying high positions in public life, who cling to it
with the faith of a child. It is simply incomprehensible
how anybody can consider the Christian doctrine of
redemption as a guide for the difficult life of today. The
Fuehrer cited a number of exceptionally drastic and in
part even grotesque examples. The opinionated "sky pilots"
[clergy members -df] of course know exactly how the world is
constituted. Whereas the most learned and wisest
scientists struggle for a whole lifetime to study but one of
the mysterious laws of nature, a little country priest from
Bavaria is in a position to decide this matter on the basis
of his religious knowledge. One can regard such a
disgusting performance only with disdain. A church that
does not keep step with modern scientific knowledge is
doomed. It may take quite a while, but it is bound finally
to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted in daily life, and
who can only faintly imagine the mystic secrets of nature,
will naturally be extremely modest about the universe.
The clerics, however, who have not caught a breath of
such modesty, evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude
toward questions of the universe....
atheism-adherents Hitler & Haeckel parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133410708.967895.276860%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Cage school officials that refuse to: adopt Darwinianity,
bow the knee to the god Darwin,
direct prayers to the god Darwin.
ACLU requests jail for Tangipahoa school officials
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127745432.742149.20950%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1918 Henry Adams on Quotemining and Darwinianity in 1867-8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133804198.957715.189070%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Cage the Baptists.
Ronald Numbers on Dennett
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6hihi0pd6bbh9minslv76qrvmrpr3aea7m%404ax.com
Dennett: Baptists ought to be put in cages
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406241903.4c152fe7%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407101059.ab87e1f%40posting.google.com
Cage parents that are adherents of non-secular religions (e.g.
Judaism).
1997 Nicholas Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406081943.625bd70c%40posting.google.com
Andrew Brown's comments on Humphrey
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406131334.2de61508%40posting.google.com
Kill persons that are adherents of non-secular religions (e.g.
Judaism).
the secular religion of atheism has a bloody history
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
Hitler was an adherent of atheism and engaged in homosexual activity
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129143372.689763.127020%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128308336.450775.177530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Kill unfit human life.
1916/ 1922 Nordau; infanticide, slavery, and genocide
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132847220.475151.206790%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin, T.H. Huxley, Haeckel, Trotha, Goebbels, Hitler, Marx, O'Hair
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133186735.613068.108090%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on selection of Spartan children
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135004225.246782.327080%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's debt to American eugenicists
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/HitlerDebtToAmerica.html
Hitler embraced Darwinian natural selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129143372.689763.127020%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Experiment on unfit human life to further science.
Lifton, Robert Jay. 1986. _The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing
and the Psychology of Genocide_ (NY: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers), 561pp. On 270:
Inmates suffered from hunger, nonetheless, and
from the constant uncertainty about "What will it
be this time?" For they had absorbed the
Auschwitz principle that _anything is permitted_.
Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 6:
The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs.
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
We know the Bible says their agenda was caused by God who gave them up
in wrath for denying Him Creator credit.
1997 Edward O. Wilson: "scientific materialism explains vastly more of
the tangible world.... Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not,
we are alone. We must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide
our own destiny."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07%40posting.google.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
Either way the Bible is proven true: denying His existence proves the
wrath claim and the attributes of the recipients craving god like power
while shitting on the Constitution gives perfect profile of an
invisible Devil pulling their God-senseless strings.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
24 Dec 2005 03:35:08 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
********
part even grotesque examples. The opinionated "sky pilots"
[clergy members -df] of course know exactly how the world is
constituted. Whereas the most learned and wisest
scientists struggle for a whole lifetime to study but one of
the mysterious laws of nature, a little country priest from
Bavaria is in a position to decide this matter on the basis
of his religious knowledge. One can regard such a
disgusting performance only with disdain. A church that
does not keep step with modern scientific knowledge is
doomed. It may take quite a while, but it is bound finally
to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted in daily life, and
who can only faintly imagine the mystic secrets of nature,
will naturally be extremely modest about the universe.
The clerics, however, who have not caught a breath of
such modesty, evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude
toward questions of the universe....
Snigger! And this from nazi clowns who labelled anything
they did not understand "Jewish science" and thus hampered
science in German Universities by shutting down "Jewish
science" courses.
And of course firing and harassing Jews in Universities til
they fled Germany all together.
Hitler realized that many low grade preachers were deeply
ignorant but was not smart enough to recognize his own equally
superstitous ignorance.
The ignorant Stalinists were no better and fell for Lysenko's
pseudoscience.
Preachers and politicians should never be allowed to judge
science, they have proven unfit for the task.
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
26 Dec 2005 11:48:31 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
********
part even grotesque examples. The opinionated "sky pilots"
[clergy members -df] of course know exactly how the world is
constituted. Whereas the most learned and wisest
scientists struggle for a whole lifetime to study but one of
the mysterious laws of nature, a little country priest from
Bavaria is in a position to decide this matter on the basis
of his religious knowledge. One can regard such a
disgusting performance only with disdain. A church that
does not keep step with modern scientific knowledge is
doomed. It may take quite a while, but it is bound finally
to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted in daily life, and
who can only faintly imagine the mystic secrets of nature,
will naturally be extremely modest about the universe.
The clerics, however, who have not caught a breath of
such modesty, evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude
toward questions of the universe....
Snigger!
Do you agree with any of the above Goebbels?
And this from nazi clowns who labelled anything
they did not understand "Jewish science" and thus hampered
science in German Universities by shutting down "Jewish
science" courses.
What would you consider the bigger insult:
a) to call something "Jewish science,"
or
b) to call something 'Jewish religion'?
And of course firing and harassing Jews in Universities til
they fled Germany all together.
Hitler realized that many low grade preachers were deeply
ignorant but was not smart enough to recognize his own equally
superstitous ignorance.
"Hitler... his own equally superstitous ignorance"
Details, please.
Hitler's human breeding plan using [1871 Darwin]"careful selection" +
mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on [1871 Darwin]"careful selection" in connection with the
breeding of humans;
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
The ignorant Stalinists were no better and fell for Lysenko's
pseudoscience.
Stalin's contributions to science
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406212039.69fbcce1%40posting.google.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Preachers and politicians should never be allowed to judge
science, they have proven unfit for the task.
Do you think only scientists "should... be allowed to judge science"?
Do you think there was "science" occurring in 1940s Auschwitz
during the experiments by medical personnel to develop methods of
sterilizing women and men using chemicals and radiation?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I base my Auschwitz question on what I recollect reading from the book
Lifton, Robert Jay. 1986. _The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing
and the Psychology of Genocide_ (NY: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers), 561pp. On 270:
Inmates suffered from hunger, nonetheless, and
from the constant uncertainty about "What will it
be this time?" For they had absorbed the
Auschwitz principle that _anything is permitted_.
Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 6:
The published record of the German medical profession
makes it clear that many intellectuals cooperated fully in
Nazi racial programs, and that many of the social and
intellectual foundations for these programs were laid long
before the rise of Hitler to power. What I want to argue in
addition to this, however (and here I shall be drawing
upon a growing body of recent German scholarship on
this question) is that biomedical scientists played an
active, even leading role in the initiation, administration,
and execution of Nazi racial programs.
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
--
Wassail, Happy Holidays, Merry Solstice, Happy
Saturnalia, mull the wine and pass the eggnog.
Cheerful Charlie
Merry Winter Solstice, Charlie!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134184020.915479.145130%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
03 Jan 2006 10:10:26 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
david ford wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120260213.363834.164990%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
********
part even grotesque examples. The
opinionated "sky pilots"
[clergy members -df] of course know
[exactly how the world is
constituted. Whereas the most learned and
wisest scientists struggle for a whole
lifetime to study but one of the
mysterious laws of nature, a little
country priest from Bavaria is in a
position to decide this matter on the
basis
of his religious knowledge. One can
regard such a
disgusting performance only with disdain.
A church that does not keep step with
modern scientific knowledge is
doomed. It may take quite a while, but it
is bound finally
to happen. Anybody who is firmly rooted
in daily life, and who can only faintly
imagine the mystic secrets of nature, will
naturally be extremely modest about the
universe. The clerics, however, who have
not caught a breath of such modesty,
evidence a sovereign opinionated attitude
toward questions of the universe....
Snigger!
Do you agree with any of the above Goebbels?
Do you agree with Goebbels that many sky pilots
are deeply ignorant about science?
And this from nazi clowns who labelled
anything
they did not understand "Jewish science" and
thus hampered science in German Universities by
shutting down "Jewish science" courses.
What would you consider the bigger insult:
a) to call something "Jewish science,"
or
b) to call something 'Jewish religion'?
What is the biggest insult?
To call anything that is not far right religous
***** Nazism, or to be that ignorant?
And of course firing and harassing Jews in
Universities til they fled Germany all
together.
Hitler realized that many low grade preachers
were deeply ignorant but was not smart enough
to recognize his own equally superstitous
ignorance.
"Hitler... his own equally superstitous
ignorance" Details, please.
Details? You stupid *****? What did I post
above?
Anything Hitler and crew couldn't understand
was labelled Jewish science. And was rejected.
Like a bunch of creationists rejecting
"materialism".
Do you think only scientists "should... be
allowed to judge science"?
Nobody else is fit to even try.
Not creationists, not politicians,
not moron religous fanatics who aren't smart
enough to handle the job.
Do you think there was "science" occurring in
1940s Auschwitz during the experiments by
medical personnel to develop methods of
sterilizing women and men using chemicals and
radiation?
No, it was Nazis playing at being scientists,,
sort of like creationists playing at science.
Both are parodies of science.
Basically, the Nazis were racists based on the
evil racist theories of Gobineau, and killing
Jews has long been a christian habit, not a
scientific habit. Attacking and displacing one's
neighbors has been a habit since history began,
Goths, Huns, Mongols, Germany in 1945 was doing
something old as the hills. Gobineau in one
hand, Bible in the other.
Each German soldier wearing his Gott Mit Uns
beltbuckle. Assured by his fuerher that he
was doing the work of god and saving the world
from Bolshevism by displacing these
untermenschen.
It is charged against me that I am against
property, that I am an atheist.
Both charges are false. Adolf Hitler
An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries
of nature and bows before the unknowable.
An educated man, on the other hand, runs the
risk of going over to atheism (which is a return
to the state of the animal).
Adolf Hitler
We don't want to educate anyone in
atheism. Adolf Hitler
Without pledging ourselves to any particular
Confession (Protestantism or Catholicism), we
have restored to faith its prerequisites because
we were convinced that the people need and
require this faith. We have therefore undertaken
the fight against the atheistic movement, and
that not merely with a few theoretical
declarations: we have stamped it out.
Adolf Hitler
*His blending of church and state: "National
Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it
anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on
the ground of a real Christianity" For their
interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike
in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy
in the world of today, in our fight against a
Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement,
against criminality, and in our struggle for a
consciousness of a community in our national life
"These are Christian principles!" (August 1934)
--
Happy Hogmanay!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
03 Jan 2006 10:30:04 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Details? You stupid *****? What did I post
above?
Anything Hitler and crew couldn't understand
was labelled Jewish science. And was rejected.
Like a bunch of creationists rejecting
"materialism".
Not so. World class physicists such as Heisenberg knew perfectly well,
the theory of relativity. That is Jewish Science if every there were
such a thing. What Heisenberg had to do was not mention Einstein's name.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
25 Dec 2005 12:05:40 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
yared22311@yahoo.com wrote:
Idols of a 'jealous God'
Pamela R. Winnick was labeled a fanatic and a member of the "religious
right" five years ago when she published an article about a scientist
skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20051221-114228-8385r.htm
And Winnick is a Democrat Jew.
Winnick is a Democrat who has Jewish ancestors.
My definition of "Jew": an adherent of Judaism.
As I understand it, virtually all Jews (including those who meet your
standards of "adherent to Judaism") define "Jew" to mean someone born
to a Jewish mother. In other words, if you have a maternal-line
ancestress who was an adherent to Judaism, you are yourself a Jew. I
have read that some Reform Jews also count people who had a Jewish
father (presumably an adherent of some sect of Judaism, since how
likely otherwise is it that one would insist on being considered a
Jew?), and of course converts to Judaism are counted also.
Darwinian "science" is all about their obsession of being God and doing
away with the God of the Bible.
Including "doing away with the God of" Judaism, who is alleged to have
done supernatural miracles?
Ray Martinez would certainly agree here, but then, Ray is not exactly a
paragon of rationality.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1900. _The Riddle of the Universe: At the
Close of the Nineteenth Century_, translated by Joseph
McCabe. (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 391pp. On 328:
....on familiar principles of science, we put aside the
notion of supernatural conception through an
"overshadowing of the Most High" as a pure myth....
The statement of the apocryphal gospels, that the
Roman officer, Pandera, was the true father of
Christ, seems all the more credible when we make a
careful anthropological study of the personality of
Christ. He is generally regarded as purely Jewish.
Yet the characteristics which distinguish his high
and noble personality, and which give a distinct
impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical;
they are rather features of the higher Arian race,
and especially of its noblest branch, the Hellenes.
May I point out to you, if no one else has done so, that evolutionary
theory (whether the idea of common descent, or the idea of adaption by
natural selection of mutations) is not a religion, and has no
presumably inerrant scriptures (unless one counts nature itself)?
Haeckel's views of the paternity and ethnicity of Christ do not, merely
because Haeckel uttered them, constitute part of evolutionary theory,
nor are they somehow more consistent with evolutionary theory than
contrary views. Any evolutionary theorist can err even in his
particular area of expertise (although I don't see any strong
connection between embryology or phylogenics, and Haeckel's views on
matters of "race" or the parentage of Christ).
A related note: evolutionary theory really doesn't deal in "higher" vs.
"lower" taxa, or in judgments on which traits or populations are
"noblest."
The above gives perfect correspondence to the Biblical declaration that
Satan wanted the same and was cast down and judged for his
insubordination. Now Satan seeks to get mankind to do the exact same as
is seen in the Darwinian scientific establishment and their Talibanic
methods of suppressing opposition to their evil agenda.
-- [snip assorted drivel, quote-mining, incomprehension, and
self-referential links]
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
26 Dec 2005 12:10:22 PM |
|
|
Steven J. wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
yared22311@yahoo.com wrote:
Idols of a 'jealous God'
Pamela R. Winnick was labeled a fanatic and a member of the "religious
right" five years ago when she published an article about a scientist
skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20051221-114228-8385r.htm
And Winnick is a Democrat Jew.
Winnick is a Democrat who has Jewish ancestors.
My definition of "Jew": an adherent of Judaism.
As I understand it, virtually all Jews (including those who meet your
standards of "adherent to Judaism") define "Jew" to mean someone born
to a Jewish mother.
Was the Old Testament person of Ruth "born to a Jewish mother"?
Was Abraham "born to a Jewish mother"?
In other words, if you have a maternal-line
ancestress who was an adherent to Judaism, you are yourself a Jew.
Suppose I lack "a maternal-line ancestress who was an adherent to
Judaism." Can I become a Jew? If 'yes,' how?
I have read that some Reform Jews also count people who had a Jewish
father (presumably an adherent of some sect of Judaism, since how
likely otherwise is it that one would insist on being considered a
Jew?), and of course converts to Judaism are counted also.
Darwinian "science" is all about their obsession of being God and doing
away with the God of the Bible.
Including "doing away with the God of" Judaism, who is alleged to have
done supernatural miracles?
Ray Martinez would certainly agree here, but then, Ray is not exactly a
paragon of rationality.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1900. _The Riddle of the Universe: At the
Close of the Nineteenth Century_, translated by Joseph
McCabe. (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 391pp. On 328:
....on familiar principles of science, we put aside the
notion of supernatural conception through an
"overshadowing of the Most High" as a pure myth....
The statement of the apocryphal gospels, that the
Roman officer, Pandera, was the true father of
Christ, seems all the more credible when we make a
careful anthropological study of the personality of
Christ. He is generally regarded as purely Jewish.
Yet the characteristics which distinguish his high
and noble personality, and which give a distinct
impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical;
they are rather features of the higher Arian race,
and especially of its noblest branch, the Hellenes.
May I point out to you, if no one else has done so, that evolutionary
theory (whether the idea of common descent, or the idea of adaption by
natural selection of mutations) is not a religion, and has no
presumably inerrant scriptures (unless one counts nature itself)?
Hsu in 1987
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
A century has elapsed before Darwin's mistakes
were discussed, but my inaccurate quotation was
pointed out by three persons within a week after my
commentary was published; Darwin's "bible" is still
being read.
Barzun, Jacques. 1941. _Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage_
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 420pp. A paragraph on 82-83:
A worse fault than obscurity, in view of the wide
faith accorded by the nineteenth century and ours to
scientific works, is Darwin's hedging and self-
contradiction; for it enabled any unscrupulous reader
to choose his text from the _Origin of Species_ or
the _Descent of Man_ with almost the same ease of
accommodation to his purpose as if he had chosen
from the Bible. But the Bible is a whole library,
written by different men at different times, whereas
Darwin's books are supposedly consistent from
beginning to end. On the subject of war, for
example, Darwin can be used equally well to prove
its utility to the race or the reverse, and this without
any indication that war may have contradictory
virtues.
Tristram in 1860, cited by Hsu:
the argument of noise and sneers with which
(Darwinists) tried to put down... everyone... who did not
subscribe to the infallibility of the God Darwin
and his prophet Huxley
Gould, Stephen Jay and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. "The spandrels of
San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist
programme" _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B_
205:589-90. Under their names appears "_Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts_ 02138, _U.S.A._"
Section 4, in entirety:
4. THE MASTER'S VOICE RE-EXAMINED
Since Darwin has attained sainthood (if not divinity)
among evolutionary biologists, and since all sides invoke
God's allegiance, Darwin has often been depicted as a
radical selectionist at heart who invoked other
mechanisms only in retreat, and only as a result of his
age's own lamented ignorance about the mechanisms of
heredity. This view is false. Although Darwin regarded
selection as the most important of evolutionary
mechanisms (as do we), no argument from opponents
angered him more than the common attempt to caricature
and trivialize his theory by stating that it relied exclusively
upon natural selection. In the last edition of the _Origin_,
he wrote (1872, p. 395):
'As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented,
and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of
species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted
to remark that in the first edition of this work, and
subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position -
namely at the close of the Introduction - the following
words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the
main, but not the exclusive means of modification." This
has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady
misrepresentation.'
Romanes, whose once famous essay (1900) on Darwin's
pluralism versus the panselectionism of Wallace and
Weismann deserves a resurrection, noted of this passage
(1900, p. 5): 'In the whole range of Darwin's writings there
cannot be found a passage so strongly worded as this: it
presents the only note of bitterness in all the thousands of
pages which he has published.' Apparently, Romanes
did not know the letter Darwin wrote to _Nature_ in 1880,
in which he castigated Sir Wyville Thompson for
caricaturing his theory as panselectionist (1880, p. 32):....
[am eliding letter extracts-df] We do not now regard all of
Darwin's subsidiary mechanisms as significant or even
valid, though many, including direct modification and
correlation of growth, are very important. But we should
cherish his consistent attitude of pluralism in attempting
to explain Nature's [sic] complexity.
In short, Darwin, aka [Gould & Lewontin]"THE MASTER," has [Gould &
Lewontin]"attained sainthood (if not divinity) among evolutionary
biologists."
Some heretics are so brazen-faced as to allege regarding [Gould &
Lewontin]"THE MASTER/ [Gould & Lewontin]"God" that he has no clothes:
Roberts, Russell. Sept 1996. _Commentary_, 23. Roberts is with the
Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Remarks in entirety:
I want to thank David Berlinski for his elegant expose of
the Darwinian emperor and his meager amount of
clothing. Biologists and the rest of us often confuse what
I would call micro-evolution (animals have coloring that
makes them hard to spot in the wild) with macro-evolution
(the tree of life that Mr. Berlinski mentions where man
makes his orderly climb out of the primordial soup).
There is a great deal of evidence for the former and
precious little for the latter. Where are those pesky
intermediate forms?
People often speak about the theory of evolution has if it
were a 'fact' or 'proven.' Alas, it is only a theory, a useful
way of organizing our thinking about the real world.
When theories stretch too far to accommodate the facts,
a paradigm shift is usually forthcoming. As Mr. Berlinski
notes, biologists have trouble imagining an alternative
paradigm to evolution. This may explain the vehemence
with which they greet criticism. Perhaps they too are
uneasy with the emperor's wardrobe.
Hsu is a heretic:
about Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
abstract of Hsu's "Darwin's three mistakes"; Hsu quoting Ernst Chain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980426214908.24131A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
Hsu "almost tempted to join my colleague, Paul Feyerabend"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35lfj3F4ojm7rU1%40individual.net
Darwin's bible; Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
Haeckel's views of the paternity and ethnicity of Christ do not, merely
because Haeckel uttered them, constitute part of evolutionary theory,
nor are they somehow more consistent with evolutionary theory than
contrary views.
"Haeckel's views... nor are they somehow more consistent with
evolutionary theory than contrary views"
ReMine, and Birch & Ehrlich on the unfalsifiability of the ToE
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990620062330.18490880A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Any evolutionary theorist can err even in his
particular area of expertise (although I don't see any strong
connection between embryology or phylogenics, and Haeckel's views on
matters of "race" or the parentage of Christ).
"I [SJ] don't see any strong connection between... phylogenics, and
Haeckel's views on matters of 'race'"
I do.
A related note: evolutionary theory really doesn't deal in "higher" vs.
"lower" taxa, or in judgments on which traits or populations are
"noblest."
Does "evolutionary theory... deal in" 'fitter' vs. 'less fit' "taxa"?
Does "evolutionary theory... deal in... judgments on which traits or
populations are" 'fitter'?
Hitler & Darwin on
[Hitler & Darwin]"master[s]"
over
[Darwin]"subjugated... men"
having
[Darwin]"utility to their masters"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135100164.057260.78490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of the
native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin: [Greg]"the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies
like rabbits"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
The above gives perfect correspondence to the Biblical declaration that
Satan wanted the same and was cast down and judged for his
insubordination. Now Satan seeks to get mankind to do the exact same as
is seen in the Darwinian scientific establishment and their Talibanic
methods of suppressing opposition to their evil agenda.
-- [snip assorted drivel, quote-mining, incomprehension, and
self-referential links]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
27 Dec 2005 11:51:39 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Steven J. wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
yared22311@yahoo.com wrote:
Idols of a 'jealous God'
Pamela R. Winnick was labeled a fanatic and a member of the "religious
right" five years ago when she published an article about a scientist
skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20051221-114228-8385r.htm
And Winnick is a Democrat Jew.
Winnick is a Democrat who has Jewish ancestors.
My definition of "Jew": an adherent of Judaism.
As I understand it, virtually all Jews (including those who meet your
standards of "adherent to Judaism") define "Jew" to mean someone born
to a Jewish mother.
Was the Old Testament person of Ruth "born to a Jewish mother"?
Was Abraham "born to a Jewish mother"?
Further down, I note that "converts to Judaism are counted also." I
perhaps should have attached that clause to another sentence; it occurs
to me that as I wrote it, it may imply that only Reform Jews count
converts as Jews, but this is not the case, nor did I wish to imply
that it was.
In other words, if you have a maternal-line
ancestress who was an adherent to Judaism, you are yourself a Jew.
Suppose I lack "a maternal-line ancestress who was an adherent to
Judaism." Can I become a Jew? If 'yes,' how?
<http://www.convert.org/process.htm>
I have read that some Reform Jews also count people who had a Jewish
father (presumably an adherent of some sect of Judaism, since how
likely otherwise is it that one would insist on being considered a
Jew?), and of course converts to Judaism are counted also.
At this point, to show that you actually read and think about the
replies you receive, you should have added a snarky comment to the
effect that obviously Obed's family were Reformed Jews.
Darwinian "science" is all about their obsession of being God and doing
away with the God of the Bible.
Including "doing away with the God of" Judaism, who is alleged to have
done supernatural miracles?
Ray Martinez would certainly agree here, but then, Ray is not exactly a
paragon of rationality.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1900. _The Riddle of the Universe: At the
Close of the Nineteenth Century_, translated by Joseph
McCabe. (NY: Harper & Brothers Publishers), 391pp. On 328:
....on familiar principles of science, we put aside the
notion of supernatural conception through an
"overshadowing of the Most High" as a pure myth....
The statement of the apocryphal gospels, that the
Roman officer, Pandera, was the true father of
Christ, seems all the more credible when we make a
careful anthropological study of the personality of
Christ. He is generally regarded as purely Jewish.
Yet the characteristics which distinguish his high
and noble personality, and which give a distinct
impress to his religion, are certainly not Semitical;
they are rather features of the higher Arian race,
and especially of its noblest branch, the Hellenes.
May I point out to you, if no one else has done so, that evolutionary
theory (whether the idea of common descent, or the idea of adaption by
natural selection of mutations) is not a religion, and has no
presumably inerrant scriptures (unless one counts nature itself)?
-- [snip assorted drivel, quote-mining, incomprehension, and
self-referential links]
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Ewan Kahana" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
03 Jan 2006 05:08:23 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Steven J. wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
yared22311@yahoo.com wrote:
Idols of a 'jealous God'
Pamela R. Winnick was labeled a fanatic and a member of the "religious
right" five years ago when she published an article about a scientist
skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20051221-114228-8385r.htm
And Winnick is a Democrat Jew.
Winnick is a Democrat who has Jewish ancestors.
My definition of "Jew": an adherent of Judaism.
Your definition disagrees with that of every Jewish authority
in the world.
As I understand it, virtually all Jews (including those who meet your
standards of "adherent to Judaism") define "Jew" to mean someone born
to a Jewish mother.
Was the Old Testament person of Ruth "born to a Jewish mother"?
You're an ignoramus in addition.
The correct term is NOT `Old Testament' but Tanakh.
The two are NOT equivalent.
Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim.
The `Old Testament' as defined by, for example, Catholics
includes certain extra works which are not part of the Jewish
canon and presents those books which are common to the
Tanakh in a different order.
However, if you had bothered to read either one, you would
find that Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz.
See Ruth 1.14-18.
The Tanakh as translated by the JPS has:
1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and
Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth cleaved unto
her.
1:15 And she said: 'Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back
unto her people, and unto her god; return thou after thy
sister-in-law.'
1:16 And Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave thee, and to
return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will
go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be
my people, and thy God my God;
1:17 where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the
Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee
and me.'
1:18 And when she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go
with her, she left off speaking unto her.
In case you have any doubts, here's the KJV for Ruth 1:16.
1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, [or] to return
from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and
where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people [shall be] my people,
and thy God my God:
Was Abraham "born to a Jewish mother"?
Abraham was a Hebrew. FYI: Abraham lived before the
Torah was given to Moishe Rabbeinu on Sinai.
Modern Judaism derives from the period in which
the Mishnah was composed (0-200 CE).
The Mishnah is regarded by all forms of normative
Judaism in the modern period as the oral Torah;
the counterpart of written Torah. Both were given
to Moshe Rabbeinu on Sinai according to the foundational
myth of rabbinical Judaism.
FYI: Torah means `teaching.'
In other words, if you have a maternal-line
ancestress who was an adherent to Judaism, you are yourself a Jew.
Suppose I lack "a maternal-line ancestress who was an adherent to
Judaism." Can I become a Jew? If 'yes,' how?
By formal conversion to Judaism.
I have read that some Reform Jews also count people who had a Jewish
father (presumably an adherent of some sect of Judaism, since how
likely otherwise is it that one would insist on being considered a
Jew?), and of course converts to Judaism are counted also.
Reform congregations of America call a person a Jew if either
parent was Jewish and the child was raised Jewish. So for example,
if a child is born to a Christian mother and a Jewish father, but
raised Jewish, Reform congregations regard the child as a Jew,
but if the child is born to a Jewish mother and a Christian father,
but is not raised Jewish then the child is not regarded as as Jew.
Orthodox congregations do not agree, and would count the child
of a Jewish mother and a Christian father as a Jew, no matter
what, and would not count the child of a Jewish father and
a Christian mother as a Jew unless there was a conversion
to Judaism.
The Orthodox halakhic reasoning on the question actually
has to do with the laws regarding the legality of marriages
between Jews and non-Jews. Such marriages are illegal,
so a question arises in the case of a child of such an
illegitimate marriage. A minor child, it is reasoned, should
go with its mother, and the statement of halakha is that
if the mother is not Jewish and does not wish to convert,
she should then return to her own people and the child
is treated as her people would treat it, or if the mother
is Jewish, she should also return to her own people with
the child and the child is then of course treated fully as
a Jew.
So the issue originally, as you can see, was not about
the beliefs of the child.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: "Idols of a 'jealous God'" |
04 Jan 2006 01:22:26 PM |
|
|
David Ewan Kahana wrote:
david ford wrote:
Steven J. wrote:
david ford wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
yared22311@yahoo.com wrote:
Idols of a 'jealous God'
Pamela R. Winnick was labeled a fanatic and a member of the "religious
right" five years ago when she published an article about a scientist
skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution.
at http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20051221-114228-8385r.htm
And Winnick is a Democrat Jew.
Winnick is a Democrat who has Jewish ancestors.
My definition of "Jew": an adherent of Judaism.
Your definition disagrees with that of every Jewish authority
in the world.
Like I really care what "authority" claims.
Is it the case that my "definition disagrees with that of every Jewish
authority" that has ever lived, as far as you know?
As I understand it, virtually all Jews (including those who meet your
standards of "adherent to Judaism") define "Jew" to mean someone born
to a Jewish mother.
Was the Old Testament person of Ruth "born to a Jewish mother"?
You're an ignoramus in addition.
And in subtraction.
The correct term is NOT 'Old Testament' but Tanakh.
The two are NOT equivalent.
Is Ruth in the Old Testament?
Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim.
The 'Old Testament' as defined by, for example, Catholics
includes certain extra works which are not part of the Jewish
canon and presents those books which are common to the
Tanakh in a different order.
What books are in the "Torah"?
However, if you had bothered to read either one, you would
find that Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz.
See Ruth 1.14-18.
The Tanakh as translated by the JPS has:
1:14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and
Orpah kissed her mother-in-law; but Ruth cleaved unto
her.
1:15 And she said: 'Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back
unto her people, and unto her god; return thou after thy
sister-in-law.'
1:16 And Ruth said: 'Entreat me not to leave thee, and to
return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will
go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be
my people, and thy God my God;
1:17 where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the
Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee
and me.'
1:18 And when she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go
with her, she left off speaking unto her.
In case you have any doubts, here's the KJV for Ruth 1:16.
1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, [or] to return
from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and
where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people [shall be] my people,
and thy God my God:
Q: Was the Torah person Ruth "born to a Jewish mother"?
A: No.
Was Abraham "born to a Jewish mother"?
Abraham was a Hebrew. FYI: Abraham lived before the
Torah was given to Moishe Rabbeinu on Sinai.
"Abraham was a Hebrew."
Agreed.
Was Abraham "born to a Jewish mother"?
"the Torah was given to Moishe Rabbeinu on Sinai"
Was "Moishe Rabbeinu" told about the Torah person Ruth?
Does "Moishe Rabbeinu" = Moses?
Modern Judaism derives from the period in which
the Mishnah was composed (0-200 CE).
The Mishnah is regarded by all forms of normative
Judaism in the modern period as the oral Torah;
the counterpart of written Torah. Both were given
to Moshe Rabbeinu on Sinai according to the foundational
myth of rabbinical Judaism.
Does a "written" copy of "the Mishnah" exist?
FYI: Torah means 'teaching.'
In other words, if you have a maternal-line
ancestress who was an adherent to Judaism, you are yourself a Jew.
Suppose I lack "a maternal-line ancestress who was an adherent to
Judaism." Can I become a Jew? If 'yes,' how?
By formal conversion to Judaism.
Cool.
Herberg, Will. 1992. _From Marxism to Judaism: The Collected Essays
of Will Herberg (Masterworks of Modern Jewish Writing)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1558760660/qid=1136401585/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-1834226-7660117?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
I have read that some Reform Jews also count people who had a Jewish
father (presumably an adherent of some sect of Judaism, since how
likely otherwise is it that one would insist on being considered a
Jew?), and of course converts to Judaism are counted also.
Reform congregations of America call a person a Jew if either
parent was Jewish and the child was raised Jewish.
When did this view arise?
So for example,
if a child is born to a Christian mother and a Jewish father, but
raised Jewish, Reform congregations regard the child as a Jew,
but if the child is born to a Jewish mother and a Christian father,
but is not raised Jewish then the child is not regarded as as Jew.
Orthodox congregations do not agree, and would count the child
of a Jewish mother and a Christian father as a Jew, no matter
what, and would not count the child of a Jewish father and
a Christian mother as a Jew unless there was a conversion
to Judaism.
When did this view arise?
The Orthodox halakhic reasoning on the question actually
has to do with the laws regarding the legality of marriages
between Jews and non-Jews. Such marriages are illegal,
so a question arises in the case of a child of such an
illegitimate marriage. A minor child, it is reasoned, should
go with its mother, and the statement of halakha is that
if the mother is not Jewish and does not wish to convert,
she should then return to her own people and the child
is treated as her people would treat it, or if the mother
is Jewish, she should also return to her own people with
the child and the child is then of course treated fully as
a Jew.
What is "halakhic"?
So the issue originally, as you can see, was not about
the beliefs of the child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese" |
05 Jan 2006 03:00:19 PM |
|
|
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
Darwin, Charles. 1871, 1874. _The Descent of Man_ Chapter 7 - On the
Races of Man
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html
A paragraph and its note:
On the other side of the question, if our supposed
naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man keep
distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in
large numbers in the same country, he would immediately
discover that this was by no means the case. In Brazil he
would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes
and Portuguese; in Chiloe, and other parts of South
America, he would behold the whole population
consisting of Indians and Spaniards blended in various
degrees.* In many parts of the same continent he would
meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes,
Indians, and Europeans; and judging from the vegetable
kingdom, such triple crosses afford the severest test of
the mutual fertility of the parent forms. In one island of the
Pacific he would find a small population of mingled
Polynesian and English blood; and in the Fiji Archipelago
a population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all
degrees. Many analogous cases could be added; for
instance, in Africa. Hence the races of man are not
sufficiently distinct to inhabit the same country without
fusion; and the absence of fusion affords the usual and
best test of specific distinctness.
* M. de Quatrefages has given (_Anthropological Review_,
Jan., 1869, p. 22), an interesting account of the success
and energy of the Paulistas in Brazil, who are a much
crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of
the blood of other races.
Darwin extracts:
In Brazil... an immense mongrel population of Negroes
and Portuguese; in Chiloe... whole population
consisting of Indians and Spaniards blended in various
degrees.
==
the most complex crosses between Negroes,
Indians, and Europeans
==
In one island of the
Pacific he would find a small population of mingled
Polynesian and English blood; and in the Fiji Archipelago
a population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all
degrees.
==
the success and energy of the Paulistas in Brazil, who are a
much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture
of the blood of other races.
Compare this Hitler:
a world... composed of mongrels and negroids
==
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is
not language but blood. == the blood of the people
==
the resultant mongrel race
==
Nature generally takes certain measures to correct the
effect which racial mixture produces in life. She is not
much in favour of the mongrel.
==
lack definite will-power and vigorous vital energies owing
to the lack of harmony in the quality of their blood.
==
a person of pure racial blood == the person of mixed blood
==
In innumerable cases wherein the pure race holds its
ground the mongrel breaks down.
==
a new mongrel race
==
a race of homogeneous blood
==
every racial mixture leads, of necessity, sooner or later to
the downfall of the mongrel product
==
racial strata of this cross-breed
==
stock of pure racial elements which resists further
crossbreeding.
==
monsters that are a mixture of man and ape
==
a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1883 Darwin: "When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the
progeny seems to be eminently bad."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
1923 Holmes; parallel between Hitler and [Darwin]"the inferior vitality
of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work*(5) as a well-known
phenomenon"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1133927305.339964.266320%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
1924/5 Hitler & 1871 Darwin on heterogeneous & homogeneous peoples
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133977762.788382.143030%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Darwin on certain "distinct races" of humans being "distinct species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Darwin on correlation between human skin colour and odour
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135051524.767332.265230%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of the
native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
agree with Hitler about who 'Jews' are?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136226458.258397.34490%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
a claim: Hitler was a Christian
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1131389424.486586.51840%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
fuller Hitler.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch01.html
Over against all this, the volkisch concept of the world recognizes
that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance
for mankind. In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to
an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics
of mankind. Therefore on the volkisch principle we cannot admit that
one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different,
the volkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and
inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in
conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to
postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination
of the inferior and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that
the principle underlying all Nature's operations is the aristocratic
principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the
last individual organism. It selects individual values from the mass
and thus operates as an organizing principle, whereas Marxism acts as a
disintegrating solvent. The volkisch belief holds that humanity must
have its ideals, because ideals are a necessary condition of human
existence itself. But, on the other hand, it denies that an ethical
ideal has the right to prevail if it endangers the existence of a race
that is the standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal. For in a world
which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human
beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our
humanity would be lost forever.
On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly
bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated
or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold
the earth.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch02.html
Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement
Chapter II: The State
What makes a people or, to be more correct, a race, is not language but
blood. Therefore it would be justifiable to speak of Germanization
only if that process could change the blood of the people who would be
subjected to it, which is obviously impossible. A change would be
possible only by a mixture of blood, but in this case the quality of
the superior race would be debased. The final result of such a mixture
would be that precisely those qualities would be destroyed which had
enabled the conquering race to achieve victory over an inferior people.
It is especially the cultural creativeness which disappears when a
superior race intermixes with an inferior one, even though the
resultant mongrel race should excel a thousandfold in speaking the
language of the race that once had been superior. For a certain time
there will be a conflict between the different mentalities, and it may
be that a nation which is in a state of progressive degeneration will
at the last moment rally its cultural creative power and once again
produce striking examples of that power. But these results are due
only to the activity of elements that have remained over from the
superior race or hybrids of the first crossing in whom the superior
blood has remained dominant and seeks to assert itself. But this will
never happen with the final descendants of such hybrids. These are
always in a state of cultural retrogression.
==
Nature generally takes certain measures to correct the effect which
racial mixture produces in life. She is not much in favour of the
mongrel. The later products of cross-breeding have to suffer bitterly,
especially the third, fourth and fifth generations. Not only are they
deprived of the higher qualities that belonged to the parents who
participated in the first mixture, but they also lack definite
will-power and vigorous vital energies owing to the lack of harmony in
the quality of their blood. At all critical moments in which a person
of pure racial blood makes correct decisions, that is to say, decisions
that are coherent and uniform, the person of mixed blood will become
confused and take measures that are incoherent. Hence we see that a
person of mixed blood is not only relatively inferior to a person of
pure blood, but is also doomed to become extinct more rapidly. In
innumerable cases wherein the pure race holds its ground the mongrel
breaks down. Therein we witness the corrective provision which Nature
adopts. She restricts the possibilities of procreation, thus impeding
the fertility of cross-breeds and bringing them to extinction.
For instance, if an individual member of a race should mingle his blood
with the member of a superior race the first result would be a lowering
of the racial level, and furthermore the descendants of this
cross-breeding would be weaker than those of the people around them who
had maintained their blood unadulterated. Where no new blood from the
superior race enters the racial stream of the mongrels, and where those
mongrels continue to cross-breed among themselves, the latter will
either die out because they have insufficient powers of resistance,
which is Nature's wise provision, or in the course of many thousands of
years they will form a new mongrel race in which the original elements
will become so wholly mixed through this millennial crossing that
traces of the original elements will be no longer recognizable. And
thus a new people would be developed which possessed a certain
resistance capacity of the herd type, but its intellectual value and
its cultural significance would be essentially inferior to those which
the first cross-breeds possessed. But even in this last case the
mongrel product would succumb in the mutual struggle for existence with
a higher racial group that had maintained its blood unmixed. The herd
solidarity which this mongrel race had developed through thousands of
years will not be equal to the struggle. And this is because it would
lack elasticity and constructive capacity to prevail over a race of
homogeneous blood that was mentally and culturally superior.
Therewith we may lay down the following principle as valid:
every racial mixture leads, of necessity, sooner or later to the
downfall of the mongrel product, provided the higher racial strata of
this cross-breed has not retained within itself some sort of racial
homogeneity. The danger to the mongrels ceases only when this higher
stratum, which has maintained certain standards of homogeneous
breeding, ceases to be true to its pedigree and intermingles with the
mongrels.
This principle is the source of a slow but constant regeneration
whereby all the poison which has invaded the racial body is gradually
eliminated so long as there still remains a fundamental stock of pure
racial elements which resists further crossbreeding.
Such a process may set in automatically among those people where a
strong racial instinct has remained. Among such people we may count
those elements which, for some particular cause such as coercion, have
been thrown out of the normal way of reproduction along strict racial
lines. As soon as this compulsion ceases, that part of the race which
has remained intact will tend to marry with its own kind and thus
impede further intermingling. Then the mongrels recede quite naturally
into the background unless their numbers had increased so much as to be
able to withstand all serious resistance from those elements which had
preserved the purity of their race.
When men have lost their natural instincts and ignore the obligations
imposed on them by Nature, then there is no hope that Nature will
correct the loss that has been caused, until recognition of the lost
instincts has been restored. Then the task of bringing back what has
been lost will have to be accomplished. But there is serious danger
that those who have become blind once in this respect will continue
more and more to break down racial barriers and finally lose the last
remnants of what is best in them. What then remains is nothing but a
uniform mish-mash, which seems to be the dream of our fine Utopians.
But that mish-mash would soon banish all ideals from the world.
Certainly a great herd could thus be formed. One can breed a herd of
animals; but from a mixture of this kind men such as have created and
founded civilizations would not be produced. The mission of humanity
might then be considered at an end.
Those who do not wish that the earth should fall into such a condition
must realize that it is the task of the German State in particular to
see to it that the process of bastardization is brought to a stop.
Our contemporary generation of weaklings will naturally decry such a
policy and whine and complain about it as an encroachment on the most
sacred of human rights. But there is only one right that is sacrosanct
and this right is at the same time a most sacred duty. This right and
obligation are: that the purity of the racial blood should be guarded,
so that the best types of human beings may be preserved and that thus
we should render possible a more noble development of humanity itself.
A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony from the level
of being a constant scandal to the race. The State should consecrate
it as an institution which is called upon to produce creatures made in
the likeness of the Lord and not create monsters that are a mixture of
man and ape. The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity
does not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the
most depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing
unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries,
while on the other hand contraceptives are permitted and sold in every
drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be
born even among the healthiest of our people. In this present State of
ours, whose function it is to be the guardian of peace and good order,
our national bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make procreation
impossible for syphilitics and those who suffer from tuberculosis or
other hereditary diseases, also cripples and imbeciles. But the
practical prevention of procreation among millions of our very best
people is not considered as an evil, nor does it offend against the
noble morality of this social class but rather encourages their
short-sightedness and mental lethargy. For otherwise they would at
least stir their brains to find an answer to the question of how to
create conditions for the feeding and maintaining of those future
beings who will be the healthy representatives of our nation and must
also provide the conditions on which the generation that is to follow
them will have to support itself and live.
How devoid of ideals and how ignoble is the whole contemporary system!
The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the
image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of
that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They
talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the
Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level. Then they look on with
amazement when they realize how small is the influence of the Christian
Faith in their own country and how depraved and ungodly is this
riff-raff which is physically degenerate and therefore morally
degenerate also. To balance this state of affairs they try to convert
the Hottentots and the Zulus and the Kaffirs and to bestow on them the
blessings of the Church. While our European people, God be praised and
thanked, are left to become the victims of moral depravity, the pious
missionary goes out to Central Africa and establishes missionary
stations for negroes. Finally, sound and healthy-- though primitive
and backward-- people will be transformed, under the name of our
'higher civilization', into a motley of lazy and brutalized mongrels.
It would better accord with noble human aspirations if our two
Christian denominations would cease to bother the negroes with their
preaching, which the negroes neither desire nor understand. It would
be better if they left this work alone, and if, in its stead, they
tried to teach people in Europe, kindly and seriously, that it is much
more pleasing to God if a couple that is not of healthy stock were to
show loving kindness to some poor orphan and become a father and mother
to him, rather than give life to a sickly child that will be a cause of
suffering and unhappiness to all.
In this field the People's State will have to repair the damage that
arises from the fact that the problem is at present neglected by all
the various parties concerned. It will be the task of the People's
State to make the race the centre of the life of the community. It
must make sure that the purity of the racial strain will be preserved.
It must proclaim the truth that the child is the most valuable
possession a people can have. It must see to it that only those who
are healthy shall beget children; that there is only one infamy,
namely, for parents that are ill or show hereditary defects to bring
children into the world and that in such cases it is a high honour to
refrain from doing so. But, on the other hand, it must be considered
as reprehensible conduct to refrain from giving healthy children to the
nation. In this matter the State must assert itself as the trustee of
a millennial future, in face of which the egotistic desires of the
individual count for nothing and will have to give way before the
ruling of the State. In order to fulfil this duty in a practical
manner the State will have to avail itself of modern medical
discoveries. It must proclaim as unfit for procreation all those who
are inflicted with some visible hereditary disease or are the carriers
of it; and practical measures must be adopted to have such people
rendered sterile. On the other hand, provision must be made for the
normally fertile woman so that she will not be restricted in
child-bearing through the financial and economic system operating in a
political regime that looks upon the blessing of having children as a
curse to their parents. The State will have to abolish the cowardly
and even criminal indifference with which the problem of social
amenities for large families is treated, and it will have to be the
supreme protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of.
Its attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than
the adult.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese" |
05 Jan 2006 06:13:18 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-1136494819.673310.232510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
{...}
And your point would be?...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese" |
06 Jan 2006 11:35:56 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dford3-1136494819.673310.232510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
{...}
And your point would be?...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese" |
06 Jan 2006 12:04:42 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-1136568956.419292.210280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dford3-1136494819.673310.232510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
{...}
And your point would be?...
Hmmm.... My newsreader appears to have nuked your reply.
My apologies, but could you repeat it? Thanks.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese" |
06 Jan 2006 12:16:56 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dford3-1136568956.419292.210280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dford3-1136494819.673310.232510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
{...}
And your point would be?...
Hmmm.... My newsreader appears to have nuked your reply.
My apologies, but could you repeat it? Thanks.
Sure:
"And your point would be?"
{there's nothing here}
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese" |
06 Jan 2006 12:41:34 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-1136571416.445043.34610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dford3-1136568956.419292.210280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <dford3-1136494819.673310.232510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
{...}
And your point would be?...
Hmmm.... My newsreader appears to have nuked your reply.
My apologies, but could you repeat it? Thanks.
Sure:
"And your point would be?"
{there's nothing here}
Hmmm. Then you appear to have gone to a great
deal of effort -- researching, composing, typing --
to no purpose whatsoever. May one ask why?
-- cry
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
