LOL
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/29/2006 1:50:06 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough noise from this damn thing. |
Posted on 04/27/2006 8:01:57 AM PDT by Tribune7
I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
"Did I call you a psychotic asshole?
If I didn't I should have."
This from someone who had the nerve to threaten to call the mods for abuse. You can't make this stuff up. Too funny.
I already do.
You didn't know what Hitler believed in, until I told you. And now you are grasping at this one quote.
Guess what? You're just like the people who say that Communism hasn't failed because Lenin (Stalin, pick a name) didn't understand it properly.
So Communism has never been tried.
That is a preposterous argument. But it's all you've got. And you wouldn't have that without my quotes.
You guys are really a hoot. And that you pat yourselves on the back for being the defenders of objective research, etc.
It's like a trip to a monkey cage to watch you scurry around flinging feces at actual documented and researched information.
I guess it's a foreign concept.
"He believed in the fixity of species."
By the way, this is so typcial of someone of your mindset (i.e. a cultist).
At the end of that very quote Hitler said:
"They’ve occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey—assuming that this transformation really took place."
Guess what. He assumed it took place.
You and your merry band don't know Hitler from shinola.
I suspect it's true of a lot of your claimed fields of "expertise."
Fascism's highest good is the worship of the state, and Adolph Hitler clearly revelled in being worshipped as the godhead. He drew from any source he thought would support his goal of world domination, from science to religion. By anyone's standards, layman or historian, he was a madman. Stalin may have been paranoid butcher, but Hitler was insane. There's no reasoning how he took ideas from science, philosophy, and religion at all.
You seem to have gone from saying Adolph Hitler is not a good representative of Christianity, which is a reasonable position, to saying the Holocaust is a consequence of Darwin's theory, which is unreasonable. In my opinion, attempting to "blame" the Holocaust on Darwin is a mild form of Holocaust denial, because it denies the roots of Christian anti-semitism that helped bring it about. Pinning Hitler on Darwin is a way of passing the buck, and absolving one's own faith of culpability. Christian anti-semitism has centuries and centuries of history in Europe. One only need read the writings of Martin Luther to realize this. Scientific theories such as Mendelen inheritence and Darwinian natrual selection, and philosophies such as those of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were Johnny-come-latelies. One might as well blame the Holocaust on Gregor Mendel.
To whom it may concern, any more personal (bleep) and this thread gets yanked, which does not exclude other possible consequences.
I take personal responsibility for all that has been said.
Hitler was quite clear from the beginning about his intentions. The question is why people followed him. I don't think they were deluded about anything except the chances of success.
Unbelievable.
Testify, brother! I need the laughs.
By the way, speaking of Hitler's secretaries, this excerpt is from "Voices In The Bunker, Hitler’s Personal Staff Tells The Story Of The Führer’s Last Days:
There were sometimes interesting discussions about general subjects, although in fact one couldn’t really call them discussions, because the simplest remark or question would start Hitler off on a lengthy dissertation of his views that we were all required to listen to. He would talk about religion, for instance. He had absolutely no time for the Church and considered the Christian faith a hypocritical institution which corrupted men. His religion was the laws of nature, and his violent dogma accorded better ‘with them than with the Christian doctrine of loving one’s neighbour and even one’s enemy.
‘Science hasn’t yet established the roots of the human species. The only thing that’s certain is that we are the highest stage of development in mammals, having begun as reptiles and ended up as Man, passing through a phase as monkeys on the way perhaps. We’re a link in the chain of creation; we’re children of nature, and the laws that govern all living creatures apply to us too. Anything that’s ill-adapted to life, or not strong enough, gets eliminated. It’s only Man himself, and especially the Church, that have decided artificially to prolong the lives of the weak, the misfits and those who are inferior.’ -- Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge
You simply don't know what they hell you are talking about, bucko.
Directly and absolutely.
Social darwinism is the natural and logical outworking of atheism. It is "enlightened" atheism's means of achieving dominance over lesser creatures. The gas chambers, ovens, and gulags were the filters that atheism employed screen out less-evolved humankind.
The words above the gate to Dachau read "Arbeit Macht Free" (Work Makes One Free). It more aptly might have read, "Only the Fittest Survive."
LOL
"Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species."
"This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed."
I suppose you could spin this as just a little misunderstanding of Darwin. It's certainly no further from Darwin than the understanding displayed by the current crop of anti-evolutionists.
But if evolution corrupts, then the depth of one's corruption should be correlated with the depth of one's knowledge of evolution.
Let's do a study comparing the rate of conviction for child molestation between biology teachers and clergymen.
So you claim to be an atheist, and yet you've now denigrated two atheist sites, and one book critical of the religous right's influence. Your claim of atheism is as credible as much of the rest you've posted.
The citations that follow will be from Carrier, Richard C., German Studies Review, October 2003, pp 561-576, a peer-reviewed scholarly publication from the US German Studies Association.
No one. NOT ONE PERSON has ever suggested that these remarks were inaccurate. There would be no reason on Earth for Heim or Picker to allow their notes to be misrepresented or twisted. In fact, they could have gotten some lucrative book contracts, if they had taken this stance.
This is ridiculous and ignorant. Picker did publish his original version of the Table Talk, in 1951. Subsequent editions carried "several testimonials to the text's accuracy and authenticity by fellow bunker officers" (Carrier, p 563). Jochmann published the original German of Bormann's notebook, in 1980. The two independent texts have been checked against each other, and are consistent. What they are not consistent with are Genoud's French and Trevor-Roper's English text, from which you quote. I'll let Carrier take it from here.
Given certain blatant distortions in Genoud's French, it appears some shameful mischief has been done by Genoud, while Stevens and Cameron are equally guilty of some incompetence or dishonesty-at least, if they claimed to have translated the Bormann-Vermerke but in fact merely translated Genoud's French. In the preface to his third edition, Trevor-Roper describes the bitter copyright battle between Picker and Genoud, which is supposed to explain why Genoud didn't allow the actual Bormann- Vermerke to be published until 1980, and then only after decades of insistent cajoling by academics. One might wonder if Genoud was also trying to conceal his crime.There may be a clue on the website of the controversial historian David Irving. He relates how Genoud attempted to hoax him in the 1970s with what appeared to be a forgery of 'Hitler' s Last Testament' which Genoud published earlier. Irving even claims he got him to confess to forging this "testament," Genoud declaring in his defense "But it's just what Hitler would have said, isn't it?" Irving's story throws a lot of suspicion on Genoud as a man willing to perpetrate a hoax, thinking it permissible to fabricate the words of Hitler if it was what he believed Hitler "would have said." Such a man would likely have no scruple against altering and inserting words and remarks into the Table Talk.
Further study of Genoud's history and motives, and the nature of the distortions he introduced into the record, would be worthwhile. He appears to have been a very strange man with a colorful history: a Swiss banker and Nazi spy who laundered money for the Third Reich, a self-professed neo-Nazi right up to his suicide in 1996 (though never an open supporter of the holocaust), a voracious purchaser and profiteer of Nazi archives, and an admitted financer of terrorists....
Whatever Genoud's motivation for doctoring the text, the fact that Stevens and Cameron's English translation matches Genoud's falsified French (as we shall see), and not the actual Bormann- Vermerke published by Jochmann, leaves many questions unanswered. Were they lazy? Duped? Accomplices in crime? Whatever the case, the Trevor- Roper edition is to be discarded as worthless....
Case Study: The Glover Quotes
At the conclusion of a two-page entry for the afternoon of 27 February 1942, the Trevor-Roper text reads as follows:
If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that trafficks in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one's will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others' bodies and tyranny upon others' souls.Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn't, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.
What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.
But Jochmann and Picker both have a very different text here:
Ich bin auf Grund höherer Gewalt da, wenn ich zu etwas notig bin. Abgesehen davon, dass sie mir zu grausam ist, die seligmachende Kirche! Ich habe noch nie Gefallen gefunden daran, andere zu schinden, wenn ich auch weiB, dass es ohne Gewalt nicht moglich ist, sich in der Welt zu behaupten. Es wird nur dem das Leben gegeben, der am starksten darum ficht. Das Gesetz des Lebens heiBt: Verteidige dich!Die Zeit, in der wir leben, ist die Erscheinung des Zusammenbruchs dieser Sache. Es kann 100 oder 200 Jahre noch dauem. Es tpt mir leid, dass ich wie Moses das gelobte Land nur aus der Feme sehen kann.
Wir wachsen in eine sonnige, wirklich tolerante Weltanschauung hinein: Der Mensch solI in der Lage sein, die ihm von Gott gegebenen Fähigkeiten zu entwickeln. Wir müssen nur verhindem, dass eine neue, noch grössere Lüge entsteht: die Jüdisch-Bolschewistische Welt. Sie muss ich zerbrechen.
My translation (here and hereafter with the assistance of Reinhold Mitschang):
I am here due to a higher power, if I am necessary for anything. Leave aside that she is too cruel for me, the beatifying Church! I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn't possible to stand your ground in the world without force. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.
We are growing into a sunny, really tolerant worldview: Man shall be able to develop his God-given talents. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: that of the Jewish-Bolshevist world. That's what I [must] destroy.
So it appears your argument is based on a discredited source, which was not merely just a third hand report of Hitler's words, but which was altered by the Nazi forger Genoud, and reproduced without question by Trevor Roper and his translators.
So you can't defend your claims about the April 12, 2002 speech, and you're source for Table Talk is hopelessly compromised. How embarrassing that must be for you!
You are a joke.
I produced perfect corroboration from one of the participants, Christa Schroeder herself.
And then other quotes from known particpants in same. You have some exegesis from a lunatic site.
This is between you and your case worker.
Go waste his time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.