Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Small wonder she would reply "Darwinism". As Berlinski states later on in the article "Where, one might ask, had Hitler heard those ideas before? We may strike the Gospels from possible answers to this question." Also telling in relation to the link between Nazi leaders and Darwinian theory was the following...
Again, this hardly resembles anything from the four Gospels. One objection that is commonly raised goes something like this. Hitler was the leader of Germany . Martin Luther was German and produced writings that were highly critical of Jews. Thus, Hitler learned such behavior from Martin Luther. Berlinsky goes on to address this argument thusly...
What is often called social Darwinism was a malignant force in Germany, England and the United States from the moment that social thinkers forged the obvious connection between what Darwin said and what his ideas implied. Justifying involuntary sterilization, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” He was not, it is understood, appealing to Lutheran ideas. Germany reached a moral abyss before any other state quite understood that the abyss was there to be reached because Germans have always had a congenital weakness for abysses and seem unwilling, when one is in sight, to avoid toppling into it."
In the interests of full disclosure, Berlinski is the son of Holocaust survivors so I think he knows a thing or two concerning what he is talking about.
Jonathan Sarfati, reviewing the book The Darwinian Roots of the Nazi Tree, give us this example of the mindset of the National Socialistsfrom 1937 Germany. A brief excerpt from the transcript of the film Opfer der Vergangenheit, (or "Victims of the Past") reveals the following...
...a disfigured handicapped person [is shown] and [thus] declared ‘Everything in the natural world that is weak for life will ineluctably [unavoidably] be destroyed. In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply! The descendants of these sick people look like this!’
In this era of sex-selective abortions and aborting a child because of reasons like a misshapen foot (Link) I can't help but wonder if we arent on some slippery type of slope. That we're on a downward trend, leading toward something from history that we once swore we would never repeat.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
"It was with the rediscovery of the Bible and of its message at the time of the Reformation....that a new impetus came to the development of science. This new impetus, flowing together with all that was best in Greek thinking, was to produce the right mixture to detonate the chain reaction leading to the explosion of knowledge which began at the start of the scientific revolution in the sixteenth century, and which is proceeding with ever-increasing momentum today."
Not only did science not develop with the Greeks, but it is also true that science would not have originated among the Hebrew people-it did not and would not-for the simple reason that to the Hebrews, as you recall in Psalms, the world was simply an occaision for praise to the Creator. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork" (Psalms 19:1).
Nor could modern science ever have come into existance among the Arabs, because of the Muslim religion. The writings of Aristotle, when lost to the Western world from about A.D. 500 to A.D. 1100, were kept by the Arabs of North Africa and finally reintroduced into Europe in the 1100's and 1200's. Aristotle-unlike Plato-had a philosophy that would lend itself to the scientific type of study because it was more inductive than Plato's deductive kind of reasoning. Plato would get an ideal and deduce all manner of things from it. Aristotle would tend to look at the particulars and induce principles from them. Because of the Aristotelian thought they had access to, the Arabs-including Nestorian Christians-generally made greater scientific and mathematical advances than the Europeans during the Middle Ages.
But during all of that time the Arabs never introduced nor created any real science. Why? Because of their religion. Because of the fatalism that dominates the Muslim religion. Since everything is fatalistically determined, obviously there is no point in trying to manipulate the natural world to change anything, because all things are unchangeable.
Science could never have come into being among the animists of central or southern Africa or many other places in the world because they never would have begun to experiment on the natural world, since everything-whether stones or trees or animals or anything else-contained within it living spirits of various gods or ancestors.
Nor could science have originated in India among the Hindus, nor in China among the Buddhists, for both Hinduism and Buddhism teach that the physical world is unreal and that the only reality is that of the world's soul and that the greatest thing anyone has to learn is that the physical world is not real. Therefore, there would have been no point in spending one's life fooling with that which had no reality in the first place.
It waited for Christianity to come and take several of the different strains and weave them together to produce in the sixteenth century the phenomenon we know know as modern science. It was because of a number of basic teachings of Christianity. First of all is the fact that there is a rational God who is the source of all truth, and that this world is a rational world. This gives rise to the possibility of scientific laws.
It is interesting to note that science could not originate in the philisophical view prevelant in the world today. The prevailing philosophy of the Western world is existentialism, which is irrational. It would not be possible for science to develop in an irrational world because science is based on the fact that if water boils at 212 degrees today, it will boil at 212 degrees tomorrow, and the same thing the next day, and that there are certain laws and regularities that control the universe. This all stems from the Christian concept of the God who created the world-a God who is rational and who created a rational world."
"The idea that religion is the enemy of science is a remarkably silly one when examined in scientific terms. Consider that Christian nation and the hostility to science it supposedly harbors due to it's extraordinary religiosity. And yet the United States of America accounts for more than one-third of global scientific output despite representing only 4.5 percent of the global population. The scientific overproduction of religious America is a factor of 7.89, representing 28.7 percent more scientific output per capita than the most atheistic nation in Europe, France."
I can't leave without bringing up something quoted by Kennedy and Newcombe concerning the founders of so many branches of science. Let's look at a partial list from page 101, shall we?
"Antiseptic surgery, Joseph Lister
Bacteriology, Louis Pastuer
Calculus, Dynamics, Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics, Johannes Kepler
Chemistry, Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle
Comparative Anatomy, Georges Cuvier
Computer Science, Charles Babbage
Dimensional Analysis, Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh
Electronics, John Ambrose Fleming
Electrodynamics, James Clark Maxwell
Electromagnetics, Field Theory, Michael Faraday
Energetics, Lord Kelvin
Entomology of Living Insects, Henri Fabre
Field Mechanics, George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy, Sir William Herschel
Genetics, Gregor Mendel
Glacial Geology, Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz
Gynecology, James Simpson
Hydrography, Oceanography, Matthew Maury
Hydrostatics, Blaise Pascal
Isotropic Chemistry, Willam Ramsey
Natural History, John Ray
Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernard Riemann
Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster
And on it goes. All of these founders were Bible believers...."
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Hitler's hatred for communism has been opportunistically exploited to signify ideological distance, when in fact it indicated the exact opposite. Today this manuever has settled into conventional wisdom. But what Hitler hated about Marxism communism had almost nothing to do with those aspects of communism that we would consider relevant, such as economic doctrine, or the need to destroy the capitalists and bourgeoisie. In these areas Hitler saw largely eye to eye with socialists and communists. His hatred stemmed from his paranoid conviction that the people calling themselves communists were in fact in on a foreign, Jewish conspiracy. He says this over and over again in Mein Kampf."
While looking through different articles on this subject, I came across one from libertarian columnist Vox Day which gives us a pretty good indication of how we can view the Nazi Party when compared to the communist, democrat, republican and libertarian parties over 10 different areas. Day ranks them 0-10 with zero meaning total state control and incrementally less control as we move closer to a ranking of 10. The final tally when all ten factors were considered and added up?
Read 'em and weep ladies.
"This political spectrum of freedom is by no means complete, and I would certainly welcome any suggested modifications or additions from thoughtful readers. What it does provide, however, is a reasonable starting point for a discussion of the left-right political spectrum based on identifiable facts and philosophy instead of ignorance, deception and half-baked history." Vox Day
Friday, March 19, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The students found that one-third of the coverage of Romney’s 2008 bid for the Republican presidential nomination concerned his Mormonism. Much of that included questions about such long-repudiated practices as polygamy. (Mainstream Christians, they said, were unlikely to face similar questioning about, say, the immaculate conception.)
This handling, they argued, reflected wider problems with the media’s approach to religion and politicians. Their recommendations: Don’t report on religious doctrine. Don’t force candidates to speak for their faiths. Treat candidates equally. Respect the way religions see themselves and give religious leaders their say. And provide voters with the information they need to make informed choices."
Some of that scrutiny might be mindless, uninformed, mean-spirited. That’s deplorable. But the alternative is a level of ignorance that’s even more unacceptable."
UPDATE: A new poll out now has Romney tied with Obama Link
Thursday, March 11, 2010
"Under Ortiz's proposal, a customer's only chance for a taste-bud sensation would be once the meal actually arrives at the table. Then, the diner could heap out the sodium aplenty -- but only then. "This legislation will give customers the option to add salt after the meal has been prepared for them," the bill reads....But he defended the piece of social engineering, suggesting that people in this state consume far more than the 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day that they need. "The fact is, [salt use] brings some ramifications regarding heart disease" and other health problems, Ortiz said, adding that "if this legislation gets passed, we'll save close to $32 billion in" public health care costs."
Nutrition "is not a private matter" urges a Hitler Youth manual titled Health Through Proper Eating. I'm sure many of you know that Hitler and Himmler were an avowed vegetarians. Rudolf Hess was an advocate for holistic medicine. "Dachau had greenhouses where medicinal plants were grown. Some of the experiments done on prisoners tested herbal remedies" and the most virulent anti-smoking crusaders in the world up until that time were the Nazis. Professor Robert Proctor of Penn State University when interviewed about his book The Nazi War on Cancer stated that ""Do we look at history differently when we learn that Nazi leaders opposed tobacco, or that Nazi health officials worried about asbestos-induced lung cancer? I think we do," writes Proctor, who teaches the history of science at Pennsylvania State University. "We learn that Nazism was a more subtle phenomenon than we commonly imagine, more seductive, more plausible. We learn that the barriers which separate 'us' from 'them' are not as high as some would like to imagine." Peirrelemieux.org writes.. "(Professor) Proctor takes care to distance himself from libertarians who would see fascism's invisible fist in today's repression of smoking: "My intention," he writes, "is not to argue that today's antitobacco efforts have fascist roots, or that public health measures are in principle totalitarian -- as some libertarians seem to want us to believe" (p. 277). This is just logic: if F (fascism) implies P (public health), it does not follow that P implies F. Of course." Link
Once again, it seems that the ideals to the right of the political spectrum translate to greater freedoms for individuals than those on the left.
(The above poster translates to ""Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity. Become a member!")
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
I found an article which , although not complete, begins to explain my understanding as to what makes up left or right wing ideologies.
Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement was, as the name clearly says, a party of the left. While not explicitly Marxist-Leninist, National Socialism accepted the essentials of that worldview while adding Germanic racial supremacism to the mix. This is not the place to lay this out in detail, but it is part of the historical record. Jonah Goldberg's (pictured above and whose archive is accessible via a link on the right margin) Liberal Fascism includes the best recent treatment of the subject. Thus it was not astonishing that in 1939 Hitler and Stalin found ample common interests to establish an alliance, nor did it astonish that Communist Party members in the West almost unanimously took up support for Nazi Germany. The alliance simply recognized the ideological kinship between the two.
Then in 1941, Hitler turned on his fellow socialist and invaded the Soviet Union. How was Stalin to explain or rationalize this turnabout? What ideological signboard could he put around Hitler's neck that would make sense in the Soviet political context? Certainly Stalin could not let it appear he had been duped by a fellow socialist, nor could he allow Hitler to give socialism a bad name. The solution was to label the bad guys, Hitler and the Nazis, as polar opposites of the good guys, Stalin and the Communists. Fascism - a leftist, socialist doctrine - was abruptly and absurdly labeled a phenomenon of the extreme right.
From 1941 onward into the postwar era, Soviet propaganda, diplomacy, and scholarship consistently depicted Nazism as a right-wing phenomenon, communism on the left, with the Western powers arrayed on a vague spectrum somewhere in between. Western academics and journalists fell into the same practice, often but not always because of their own leftist sympathies. Few bothered to contest the analysis and assumptions that underlay the new model, and it was a convenient way to depict and describe political camps. Thus the classic political spectrum of the 20th century became second nature to everyone, not just to communists."
Again, this is just a starting point to discuss the topic for now. Feel free to post your thoughts on the way you define ideologies in the comment box along with why you define terms as such.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
- "Ludwig Lenz worked at the Sex Research Institute in Berlin, which was destroyed by Hitler's Brown Shirts in 1933 likely because its records, including 40,000 confessions from members of the Nazi Party, would have exposed the sexual perversions of Nazi leadership. Lenz said that "not ten percent of the men who, in 1933, took the fate of Germany into their hands, were sexually normal."
- "In fact, the Nazi Party began in a gay bar in Munich, and Ernst Roehm, Hitler's right hand in the early days of Nazism, was well-known for his taste in young boys. William Shirer says in his definitive "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," not only that Roehm was "important in the rise of Hitler," but also "like so many of the early Nazis, (he was) a homosexual."
- "Hitler's Brown Shirts, the dreaded SA, better known as "Storm Troopers," were the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach, and Storm Troopers were almost exclusively homosexual. They also, sadly, comprised most of the leadership of the Hitler Youth, resulting in frequent instances of sexual molestation."
- "In his book, "The Pink Swastika," Lively exposes a secret homosexual activists don't want you to know about Nazi Germany: that although the Nazis did persecute homosexuals, the homosexuals the Nazis persecuted were almost exclusively the effeminate members of the gay community in Germany, and that much of the mistreatment was administered by masculine homosexuals who despised effeminacy in all its forms. "
Of course these are only a few of the more interesting quotes from the cited article and there are other contained within it as well. I'm not going to state outright that everything cited by the author is 100% true because I would like to discuss this topic with an open mind. I'll ask the first question and inquire if any of the above quotations from Fischer have been proven to be unfounded. Feel free to state your opinions on the matter here as there seems to be no shortage of this type of material available on the internet.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
- Many of the historians who critiqued Washington's writings in the past were themselves Biblically illiterate. Washington would often times weave numerous Bible references together in one letter, however, unless you actually knew the Bible, you probably wouldnt pick up on it.
- There are absolutely no known references in which Washington said he was a deist. Lillback was given access to over 270 of Washington's writings and in none of them did he declare anthing remotely resembling deism.
It all added up to a very interesting lecture. A question to any of you out there who might know. What was George Washington's favorite Bible verse? He quoted it far more than any other.