Posted on 11/30/2001 7:55:36 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail
When Steven Spielberg made a movie about an intrepid archaeologist’s fight to keep a precious and powerful artifact — the Holy Grail — out of the hands of the Nazis, it was not widely known that the tale was based on truth. There really was a Nazi archaeological unit and it did send teams across the world to try to find the Grail.
History meets Indiana Jones in HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL, a one-hour documentary airing on PBS Monday, November 27, 2000, 10:00 p.m. ET (check local listings). Host Michael Wood (IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT) explores how history was used as a political tool and how the theories of the Nazi historical department provided the ideology used by the SS (Schutzstaffel – "protection squadron") to justify genocide.
The program outlines how the racialist theories of the SS were drawn from archaeology, myth and legend, as well as selected history. Nazi ideas about "Aryans" and the "master race" came out of historical and ethnic fantasies in which legends such as the Holy Grail and the lost city of Atlantis — supposed to be a home of the Aryan race — played their part.
HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL contains rare and previously unseen footage, including
* color film of the Nazi expedition to Antarctica;
* film of the Nazi expeditions across the world, from the Baltic to Venezuela;
* footage of the 1938 expedition to Tibet, with the measuring of skulls of Tibetans;
* documentary evidence for expeditions to Peru, Iceland and Iran, and footage of SS chief Heinrich Himmler at archaeological sites.
The film conjures the eerie world that permeated the thoughts of key members of the Nazi leadership, especially Himmler, and shows how top scholars, some of them still alive, collaborated in this project.
HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL includes interviews with a former member of Himmler’s personal staff and the wife of a top SS commander, who give unique and unrepentant insight into the mentality of the Nazi inner circle. The program also includes a dramatic recording of the Nuremburg trial of Wolfram Sievers, the head of the SS Ahnenerbe ("Ancestral Heritage Society"), Himmler’s archaeological and historical unit. The Ahnenerbe’s task, according to Himmler, was "to restore the German people to the everlasting godly cycle of ancestors, the living and the descendants."
Himmler was a member of the Thule Society, an extreme nationalist group named after one of the mythical homes of the German people. It was the society’s almost mystical belief in the greatness of the German past — to which Himmler subscribed with fanatical devotion — that was to provide the intellectual ballast to Nazi belief in race and destiny.
The chief administrator of the Ahnenerbe, Dr. Wolfram Sievers, had been heavily involved in the criminal medical experiments that were carried out on Jews in concentration camps, all to prove racial differences and the superiority of the Aryan race. After Germany’s defeat in 1945, Sievers was brought before a war crimes tribunal, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed on June 2, 1948. The archaeological world of the Ahnenerbe died with Hitler, Himmler and Sievers; the Ahnenerbe, too, melted away. Many of its top archaeologists, however, returned, unpunished, to university life, only to re-emerge as leading academics in postwar Germany.
Day & time: check with your local station
Underwriters: Public Television Viewers and PBS. Producer: Maya Vision. Producer: Rebecca Dobbs. Director: Kevin Sim. Format: CC STEREO TV Calendar PBS Previews PBS Picks Telstar/C-band Schedule Primestar, Dish Network & DirecTV Schedule PBS KIDS Channel PBS YOU Schedule
I thought you were making the claim for certainty "tongue in cheek" all along. I wish I could recall who made the statement to the effect that evolution is the only reasonable explanation, because its alternative, that God created the Universe, is repugnant (from memory not a direct quote).
the evidense for Rome is overwhelming, even though we seem to have a little dificulty in replicating Caesar.
History is a different discipline than science, with different evidentiary standards. What does replicating Caesar have to do with anything? It sounds as though you are placing the theory of evolution under the discipline of history now, instead of science, as an explanation for not having replicated life experimentally(?) You previously stated that you had faith in science, so I took it that you placed evolution under science, not history . . .
If God created life via natural laws, then what is needed here for explantaion are natural laws, not God.
And God created the natural laws . . . Where do orderly laws come from in the materialist view? (just asking)
Compare the cells in your body to the cells in your body four days after a fatal heart attack. Same molecules...
That is the point. The same molecules, but they are not presumably still alive at some point after a fatal heart attack. The evidence is that life comes from something living, not something non-living, or something that was alive but is now dead. Even cloning.
You seem to have skipped several hundred important steps there, a common tactic of those who intentionally mis-interpret science for political goals.
What does politics have to do with it? My message was clear that I was asking how the theory of evolution accounts for the origin of life. And I mentioned that evolution is not a priori inconsistent with my worldview, although I remain skeptical because there are gaps in the evidence . . .
Using the basic chemicals available on earth billions of years ago and ultraviolet light and lighting-simulating electrical zaps, the building blocks are coming together.
Based upon this explanation, there obviously does not presently exist a scientific hypotheses explaining how life occurred. It is speculation, which ** feeds into ** science in that it leads to scientific inquiry. HOWEVER, the predicted time dilation in gravity(for example) has since its postulation as a theory been scientifically verified. It is grounded science. The theory of evolution is not science in this same sense, and not because it is not physics. Verifiable scientific experiments take place in the biological sciences, too.
For a theory to be proven, it must be shown that a hypothesis can be made, and that there is evidense to back it up, and that the evidense can be used to make a prediction, that can then be shown to be true or false.
What you have described is a type of logical inference, which is used in science; but science also requires verifiable results in the physical world. You believe that science will in time explain all this, but that is belief and not science. No reason to belittle people who don't believe what you believe.
Thanks. I did not know about arn.org. I have heard of Johnson's book, have not read it. So many books, so little time (sigh).
Since you have all the answers, you tell me. ;)
You are clearly pushing the creationist agenda for world dumbification. This is a political movement, not a scientific one.
To the contrary. I am appalled by the abysmal education in the US in science and math. The US scored way down the list (again) in a recent international comparison. It is more likely the educrats who have an agenda (stated or unstated, seen or unseen . . .) which is being played out in results in the dumbification of kids.
Basic chemicals forming into more complex chemicals, eventually forming simple life.
More likely eventually forming something that is identical to the same life form which had died, since the process you described does not make it living. BTW, is this postulated ("eventually forming simple life") process continuing as we speak? (Just asking?) If so, is there evidence of it? If not why did it happen only once?
Form there, biological evolution takes hold. Wanting to know EXACTLY what happened, how and when, . . .
If it were scientifically proved, we would know . . .
This would not prevent verifiable experiments in a lab. in which the environment were controlled.
? If I make a bacterium from scratch, feed it nutrients and watch it wriggle around and make more bacteria. . .
My point: the IF is non-trivial. I'm sure we can count on you to inform us IF this happens . . .
And has been repeatedly pointed out to you, these experiments have been performed, generating amino acids, proteins and recently short RNA strands.
These "building blocks" are necessary but not sufficient. One cannot underestimate the complexity of what remains. There is a qualitative difference between the chemicals which are necessary to life, and the information content of even the simplest living thing. Even what has been obtained under laboratory conditions demonstrates the involvement of human intelligence to make sure that undesired chemical interactions do not mitigate against the development of the desired building blocks. You may have developed another argument for design . . .
Not that these experiments are not interesting. It is always fascinating to begin to understand how things work. I would like to propose the following thought experiment, obviously not a scientific proof. Think back to the proofs for the existence of Santa Claus which you proposed. Watch a young child on Christmas morning come into the room with the lighted tree and gifts underneath. As you experience the pure joy of the child, you realize that the child believes Santa Claus is responsible. The gifts "prove" to the child that Santa exists. You enjoy for a moment the secret pleasure of knowing the child's joy is actually the result of YOUR efforts, and you smile to yourself. You know that the child's belief in Santa Claus does not make Santa Claus responsible. You know that Santa Claus does not actually exist. Now, consider an intelligent God responsible for creating the Universe. He sees a scientist excitedly discovering chemical building blocks for life, believing "evolution" is responsible. These building blocks "prove" evolution. Perhaps God would smile at the joy of the scientist, knowing that He was actually responsible for not only the creation of the Universe, but allowing for the joy of discovery by man . . .
Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!
But the question remains what was the root source of National Socialism. Was N.S. a product of some occult movement, or rather was there something in the origin of National Socialism that prompted it toward occultism.
My opinion is that the second is the truth. In XIX century Germany there was a movement of Volkism from which N.S. originated and so did other movements. Read the excellent The Crisis of German Ideology by George L. Mosse.
Thanks for the info. Nazism seems like a real devil's brew. Didn't Hitler get the "Master Race" from Nietsche's "superman"?
D Starkl in her book "The Occult in Nazi Germany" traces the beginning of the party to the Thule Society that was operating in Munich before and after WW1. Germany at the turn of the century and later had many secret occult societies and many folks were influenced by them. Often a volkish or anti-semetic front was put up to keep things looking "legit".
A good place to look for a taste of this mentality is in the work of Hermann Hesse, his "Journey to the East" is an excellent example of the tone of the times. Also, Thomas Mann's "Dr. Faustus" retells Goethe's Faust for modern Germans (this was written during WW2 I believe).
Hitler's involvement w/ the occult has been traced to his vagabond days in Vienna. His library, confiscated by the allies after the war, contained many volumes penned (and signed) by Viennese occultists. I would say therefore, that Nazism was itself an occult organization w/ the manifestation of the SS as its priesthood. The symbolism used by them is simply too strong to ignore and of course their actions speak for themselves.
While some would make lite of this subject, we dismiss it at our own peril.
A phenomenal book. Mann's understanding of the particular "pact with the devil" that destroyed Germany is very poignant. One another level, it addresses the "problem of evil" in the human condition.
Of course the "master race" has ethnic/mythological components also. The "overman" (I am not fond of the translation to "superman" -- I think it does not quite capture Nietzsche's sense) would be seen in Hitler and the Nazi elite. In Nietzsche's thought, the "overman" is morally compelled NOT to follow the moral rules which the weak follow. The "overman" is compelled by the "will to power." [Now it occurs to me, Nietzsche's "overman" explains Bill and Hill's approach to rules, morality, power, etc.!?]
There is other common ground between Nietzsche's thought and Nazi "philosophy". Both embraced the idea of eternal recurrence, for example. (The symbol of the swastika).
Without putting them on the same plane, there is also some similarity between Hitler's and Nietzsche's personalities: a type of meglomania --convinced of being right-- combined with not being understood, being rejected, etc. Mann's Dr. Faustus explores a main character in the end consumed by syphillitic madness. Given his other theses in the work, I have wondered whether this was a veiled reference to Hitler? Or to Nietzsche?
I have sensed that we have been talking past each other and referring to different kinds or levels of proof.
There is proof from experimental science, based upon physical evidence. This is what I have been referring to when I speak of scientific proof.
There is "proof" based upon logical reasoning and historical evidence. This type of "proof" relies upon its logical and explanatory power. Its ability to explain things as we see them in the light of historical evidence. It is not "certain" in the sense of scientific proof, but is employed where/because experimental science cannot or has not resolved the theory in question. Logical reason can lead to apprehension of truth. But a theory supported by logic and reason is open to criticism by others -- e.g. if there are logical inconsistencies, if there are alternate explanations of the evidence, etc.
Parts of the theory of evolution are supported by experimental science. The support for much of the theory, however, is in the form of reasoning, using historical evidence, etc.
That is why I have stated that the entire theory of evolution is not scientifically proven.
Now, there are some key aspects of the theory of evolution that seem to be assertions rather then scientifically-formulated hypotheses. Life is assumed to have originated from material means and material means only, employing chemical evolution, energy, etc. This assertion/assumption/hypothesis has not been proven. It has to be that way in the matierialist worldview, and alternate explanations are not considered. Even though the same type of proof which supports much of the theory of evolution, arising from rational thought, is available for alternate explanations.
Materialism is in a box of its own definition. It purports not to condider anything non-material, as that would be a contradiction of the premise of materialism.
So a materialist "has" to logically accept the theory of evolution and assume that proof will be forth-coming. So IF the theory of evolution is not in fact true (the origin of life, evolution between species for which there is no physical or historical evidence, etc.), the materialist will not be able to apprehend the truth. He will be stuck, by his own premesis, accepting something not true. This applies even if all of the theory of evolution is true but there exists some non-material aspect to life, consciousness, etc.
Although the materialist has to accept (believe) the theory of evolution, even if evolution were entirely proven, materialism itself would not be proven. Since God is outside the Universe of time and space, for example, even an incontrovertible theory of evolution would not do away with Him . . . And as noted, there are other ways of apprehending God . . .
There are metaphysical beliefs embedded in materialism/evolutionism. E.g. that only the material exists. Since this is not subject to scientific proof, the path to truth will be through reason.
Enough to provide food for thought; however, not nearly enough of them to constitute proof that all past and presently existing species evolved from one initial chemically-evolved entity which self-organized into a life-like form and became living . . .
It is *proven* to the point that it is accepted
I do not dispute that evolution theory has enjoyed broad acceptance as an explanatory theory. However, some discoveries which are causing "another look" are relatively recent, such as the unexpected complexity of even the simplest life form(s) -- which could not have been known by Darwin. Hence, the theory of evolution actually possessed more explanatory power at the turn of the last century than at the turn of this one. Information theory has progressed to the point that it is possible to compute probabilities associated with the self-organization of various building blocks. Etc.
However, those who put forth such rejected notions often feel a sense of personal inadequacy and persecution for not being immediately accepted (see the cold fusion and creationism crowds), and claim some sort of closed-minded conspiracy against them where none exists.
You will probably get more pleasure debating evolution with some of those, then, than with me. I find science exciting and interesting, but do not intend to debate evolution ad infinitum. If it in the end is proven true, I am prepared to accept it. However, until then, I remain a skeptic . . . Call me an evolution theory agnostic if you will ;).
God is only relevant when God is WITHIN time and space
God is not material. He is not limited by space and time. However, He "owns" it. We have already discussed the personal nature of the Christian God.
Neither method has shown *any* evidence for alternate proposals.
The use of reason to apprehend God has been underway for millenia. I won't attempt to provide a reading list; however it is a stretch to say there is not *any* rational evidence . . . As to scientific evidence: well, there will not be physical evidence of the non-material. However, there is scientific support for intelligent design, and I will not insult your intelligence by attempting to regurgitate it. You wouldn't take it coming from me, anyway . . . ;).
It purports not to condider anything non-material, as that would be a contradiction of the premise of materialism....
... thus demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of scientific materialism.
Then scientific matierialism accepts non-material or supernatural explanations?
Let me know if you start a thread! Well worth FReeper cogitation and consideration. . . .
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.