Could someone explain what a modern Nazi believes? Do they believe in Hitler? Do they believe in God? Who are their enemies and friends.
Could someone explain what a modern Nazi believes? Do they believe in Hitler? Do they believe in God? Who are their enemies and friends.
I am particularly concerned about the Nazi's alliance with England. I am confused weather or not to call them friend or foe. They are a Germanic people but the fought against Germany in the World Wars.
Perhaps you should explain more. The original Nazi believed in god, and they weren't allies with England. In the 90's when I lived in Germany, they seems rather tolerent of a youth culture that likes to evoke occasional Nazi imagery and express racism so long as they didn't cross certain boundaries. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "modern Nazi."
Yeah I've never heard of a Nazi-English Alliance.. When you say modern Nazi it sounds like you're talking about Neo-Nazis, but I also feel like you're talking about the 'behind-closed-doors' Nazis, like the kind that are generally perceived as ordinary people - but in reality are nazi supporters.
The second type, the Nazi sympathizers, are the dangerous ones. Because on paper they seem legitimate, but when coaxed they will support Nazi policy. These types of people, who are of the greatest threat, are often business men and all the like - usually Upper Classmen, and so they carry clout. I've heard the problem in Germany, and world-wide, isn't the Neo-Nazi, they are just soldiers - people who take the fall. Above them you have these types of sympathizers, and usually some or other charismatic person guiding them all. The Neo-Nazis are easy to spot. These Sympathizers however are not, and trying to find them takes a lot of work and effort.
I doubt any specific country/government is allied to the Nazis, political parties however?? There probably are a few out there...
Edit: Here's a link helping outline this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaron_Svoray
Last edited by stander-j; January 19th, 2012 at 12:10 PM.
One could view the Munich Agreement as a sort of semi-alliance..... kind of if you stretch it. Chamberlain made quite an effort to be Hitler's buddy before WW2 actually broke out. Remember, Germany was Nazi already before WW2 began.
Munich Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During WW2, Hitler considered the people of England and France to be Aryan in his doctrines. He just couldn't continue invading Eastern countries without violating the Munich Agreement and ending up at war with them. It's kind of dicey making it out, but the success of the Dunkirk Evacuation, where 338,000 (mostly English) soldiers managed to get out of France before the German army could kill them, might actually have been due to Nazi sympathy in not wanting to wipe out fellow Aryans. Hitler had a whole week to deliver the coup de grace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation]Error[/URL]The evacuation started May 27, and ended June 4.In one of the most widely-debated decisions of the war, the Germans halted their advance on Dunkirk. Contrary to popular belief, what became known as "the Halt Order" did not originate with Adolf Hitler. Gerd von Rundstedt and Günther von Kluge suggested that the German forces around the Dunkirk pocket should cease their advance on the port and consolidate, to avoid an Allied break. Hitler sanctioned the order on 24 May with the support of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW). The army were to halt for three days, giving the Allies time to organise an evacuation and build a defensive line. Despite the Allies' gloomy estimates of the situation, with Britain discussing a conditional surrender to Germany, in the end over 330,000 Allied troops were rescued.
I am not Nazi anymore. I don't worship Hitler anymore. I was just sick. Besides I am part Polish and Russian. My people suffered during the Nazis.
Yeah. It's actually kind of ironic that Nazism is starting to become popular in Russia. Of all places....
I did like the uniforms.
I am beginning to wonder if you need professional help
I am Christian now. I believe in Christ and God. I reject Satan.
Anyway, there was some ideological support for Fascism in Old Blight in the form of Sir Oswald Mosley and his "Blackshirts" PLUS no less a figure than the Prince of Wales, Edward VIII.
In the literature of the day, Hitler was sometimes regarded as a "monarchist", though of all the Axis Powers, militantly imperialist as they were, Nazi Germany probably had the fewest trappings of actual royalty. Japan of course was nominally headed by Emperor Hirohito and Fascist Italy had a role in its hierarchy for King Victor Emmanuel III, who actually appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister of that unfortunate nation in 1922. Mussolini made a point of swearing his loyalty was to the King, rather than Parliament.
Anyway, another great ideological debt is owed by the Nazis to Darwinism, which was explicitly racist and provided a clear rationale for the self-declared "master race" of Northern Europe to pursue the course of empire, e.g. Kipling's "White Man's Burden". It is somewhat ironic that the most effective Allies of Nazi Germany were the Japanese, not the least bit Aryan, but politics made strange bedfellows then as it does today.
Just a few points for possible illumination. Modern Nazism should be virulently racist and just as fanatically capitalist, social Darwinist, anti-intellectual, intolerant of dissent, xenophobic, and homophobic. Sound like anyone you know?
I don't believe in voice to skull anymore.
From "The Descent of Man": “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
"Darwinism", as the ideology of Darwin, as elucidated by bloody damned Darwin, the racist. Of course, it is common for apologists to say that at the time, racism was the norm in society. This does not excuse Darwin from providing a pseudo-scientific foundation for Nazi racist ideology.
Agreed. Evolution is an established fact, amply supported by the fossil record. Darwinism is a racist ideology which is inherently unable to be objectively tested.
Returning to the topic:
Darwin was only saying it's inevitable, Social Darwinism is clearly influenced by what Darwin had believed he was observing: That we will always be in competition with our closest relative, and as a result the more apt will displace and exterminate the less apt. It seems Darwin also believed the same would eventually happen to Caucasians, and H. Sapiens as a whole. I don't think it is racist so much as a claim that the concept of Survival of the Fittest also exists on a societal level.
This doesn't particularly mean that Darwin advocated it, he just advocated that it is the reality. Do you think Darwin advocated, and sponsored, Evolution - or do you think he advocated, and sponsored, that the theory of Evolution is true?
Darwins personal racism has about as much to do with Darwinian theory of evolution as Newton's astrology has to do with Newtonian theory of planetary motion.
How so? The title of the book from which the quote is extracted is "The Descent of Man", not "My Diary" by Charles Darwin the big fat bloody racist. There's more like that quote in there too, buddy. Defend your position.
"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development."-A. Hitler
White people and black people aren't the same not only in skin colour, but also because White people have a grandeur they've achieved through migration and thousands of years of adapting to new environments. Black people, namely the African, is less evolved as it hasn't been posed to much of a new environment, therefore not having evolved as much as the White Man. They therefore are less human, if even human, and incapable of being the White Man's equal.
^ See how easy it is to purposely take a theory out of context and use it for whatever means you wish?
Anyway in Mein Kampf, Hitler foresees an alliance between the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, and THE BRITISH EMPIRE. Evidently no place for Imperial Japan was seen at the time of publication, which is consistent at least with Aryan superiority rhetoric...
Mein Kampf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those aren't his views. He was just using it to illustrate how easy it is to twist something into what you want it to say.Is that original? It doesn't have to be to demonstrate you are a racist. What context is it you are wishing to extract it from?
That quote from The Descent of Man of yours illustrates how even the most brilliant of men can come up with the purest nonsense. Those were his personal opinions and does not have a bearing on the science of evolution. Hitler chose to latch on to that kind of eugenics nonsense as part of his greater dogma of Aryan superiority. It does not mean that Evolution is racist in nature, even if Darwin himself opined in that direction.
Social Darwinism justifies the people at the top of the socioeconomic pecking order attaining their positions through some sort of inherent, "natural" superiority. In colonial Imperial societies such as Britain's this amounted to racism, THE BLOODY WHITE MAN'S BURDEN, capitalized in case you missed it the first time. Look, it's been lovely but I have to scream now.
Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ That was not Darwins goal, or purpose, behind Social Darwinism. It was a commentary based off the observation that man will compete, and the society that competes the best will be the fittest to survive in the long haul, which was intended as an extension of the theory of Evolution.
Well, if you define Darwinism as evolution with all Darwin's sociological and idiological ideas bolted on, then of course, but that is not how the term "Darwinism" is used normally. Normally it just means evolution.Evolution is NOT Darwinism, inarguable.
I just want to say this, in case it is unclear to anybody (not you necessarily): Evolution can't be brought into disrepute simply because of how some fanatics have latched on to it and found some diabolical inspiration from it. Even if Darwin himself might be one of them. That you are using the word Darwinism in a pejorative or accusatory sense, while normally it is anything but, is not a good idea. It is exactly this kind of implied connotation that gets people confused and dismissing of its truth.
Darwinism holds that random mutation and natural selection account adequately for these changes. There are problems with this hypothesis in that it has never been observed to create a new species by the means described, and it cannot be tested, since all such testing is the result of intelligent direction, e.g. selective breeding. Even the arrival on the scene of multi-drug resistant bacteria is the result of ARTIFICIAL SELECTION PRESSURE. We are breeding such bacteria as surely as the chicken farmer culls the hens which no longer lay eggs.
But none of this has much per se to do with the Nazis(remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis...).
Thank you all, my worthy opponents! I go now to seek challenges of another sort, be well until again we meet!
It has been observed and it can be tested. But as you say you are off, and it is off-topic, we can leave it there.There are problems with this hypothesis in that it has never been observed to create a new species by the means described, and it cannot be tested, since all such testing is the result of intelligent direction, e.g. selective breeding.
Finch beaks? Bullfeathers, they are still finches. Natural selection has been observed, as has random mutation. This does not indicate that the theory, by whatever name you choose to call it, is adequate to account for THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. As a matter of fact, according to Darwinism and the gradual accumulation of incremental changes implied, there should really BE no recognizable species at all, really- this deficiency was recognized by the founders of the so-called "punctuated equilibrium" model. Rates of random mutation are constant, and the consequences of natural selection are as well- speciation is not.
Anyhow, Nazi beliefs generally involve claims of racial or genetic, intrinsic superiority with regard to other ethnic groups. According to records, Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have better group track records of achievement. This is rather more likely to be cultural than genetic, which is a worthy topic for another thread.
Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 22nd, 2012 at 02:50 PM.
Advocates of Nazism have traditionally taken the "nature" side of the Nature vs Nurture debate, arguing that whole peoples have fixed and immutable attributes. If this were in fact the case, history would be radically different from what we now know it to be. Prosperous and stable kingdoms would not fall, and slaves would never aspire to literacy, freedom, and dignity. Yet we know that they do.
It doesn't take much time as this has been answered sooooooo many times, it is getting tedious. This is a good starting point: Observed Instances of Speciation
There are many, many more if you want to start a thread on it.
If it is NATURAL for a group to assert its superiority and to dominate, how is it that this has not happened before the arrival of the demagogue?
If anything, Nazis seem to be rebelling against the status quo, upset by and determined to upset the current, "natural" order of things. Discontent, insecure, similar to other recruits to cult beliefs- very scared, very angry.
And therefore extremely dangerous.
Black slavery simply provided them with a new, lower caste to add to their system. Kings and nobles were super-humans. Peasants were mere humans, and black people filled the role of sub-humans for them.
The only very practical way to be certain that it actually descended from another species would be to carry out an experiment in captivity. Otherwise, we'd need to be really, really, really good at hiding the cameras and tagging the creatures in the wild so we could keep careful track of what young were being born to what parents, and watch them so intensively for long periods of time, decades at least. I doubt a project of that scale would receive the needed funding.
You claim the consequences of natural selection are constant. Those words do not make much sense, but in context you seem to mean that the rate of change produced by natural selection is constant. If this is what you mean you are entirely wrong. (If you mean something else please clarify.) The rate of change due to natural selection is dependent upon the rate of change of the environment slecting for that change and the rate of mutations favourable to that changing environment.
You almost stumble into understanding , then veer wholly of course when you say "there should really BE no recognizable species at all". Indeed, the distinction between species on a temporal (not geographic) basis is subjective. Each species evolves slowly, in terms of generations, into another. where you put the dividning line is rather unimportant and certainly artificial. Nevertheless the end members are most certainly different species.
Reading through it, that was a really good link. I never really thought about the idea of speciation being defined (more or less) as the point at which two populations are no longer able to interbreed. It stands to reason such events would occur quite a lot whenever two populations of the same species are allowed to be separated long enough.
For humans, clearly we haven't been isolated from one another long enough to become truly different species. There is a combination of risk and benefit associated with interracial breeding, because some genes really are incompatible, but on the larger scale the worst combinations would tend to die out rapidly, so probably society at large is better for it. If I understand correctly then what happens overall is the average of good and bad outcomes balances out, but it's a stronger bell curve if you stay inside your own race.
Are Interracial People Healthier And More Attractive? | VDARE.com
I love England.
War is hell.
Okay, you concede there are species, but you cannot tell one from another. Perhaps you, John Galt, cannot only not figure out WHO you are but WHAT you are? This identity crisis of yours is not only chronic, but appears more acute than suspected...
Hitler was the leader of the original Nazi Party during WWII. Remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis...
Incidentally Shockley, a notorious racist who was sort of involved in the invention of the transistor, wrote a book about race science. Is he a Nazi?
Last edited by Arthur Angler; January 23rd, 2012 at 03:23 PM.
No, Hitler was not inspired by Darwinian theory - he was mistaken about Darwinian theory. There's a difference. Unless you have some odd notion of "Darwinism" that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory, the claim that Hitler was inspired by Darwinism is simply false.Hitler was racist, inarguable. He was inspired by Darwinism, also inarguable. Evolution is NOT Darwinism, inarguable.
This, for example,is not Darwinism. It's more Lamarckism, or some related theory.Originally Posted by Hitler
Likewise thisis just wrong. Natural selection is on reproduction, not life or death. Many, many organisms die to reproduce, many others live to reproduce, almost all die regardless, eventually.The consequences of natural selection are either life or death.
Usually this kind of approach is based on a fundamental error - that the sociological races are genetically defined and genetically coherent.Originally Posted by kojax
People will try, for example, to compare the genetics of "black" and "white" people, US sociological categories, as if those were genetic races or categories. That's more or less like comparing the phlogiston content of different sizes of firewood splits.
The main problem is that if one of the children of these marriages is afflicted with a disorder due to the pairing being incompatible, there's a higher than normal probability that all of them will be. The marriage itself is a gamble.
The one thing that is true of other groups traditionally called "races" (but that word has become un-PC due to its connotations) is that they come from a different family than you, and their ancestors come from a different family going way way back really far into time. Fortunately these ancestoral groups were not isolated from each other long enough, nor completely enough, to result in speciation, so we can all still breed together, but they were still quite isolated, and not all of the genes are always going to be compatible with each other.
That assumption is going to mislead you, seriously, if you use it to compare prospective mates,Originally Posted by kojax
especially if you are "black" - you are far closer to average whites and reds and yellows than you are to some blacks.
The normal consequence in the human type of situation is that outbreeding improves things by reducing the buildup of deleterious recessives.Fortunately these ancestoral groups were not isolated from each other long enough, nor completely enough, to result in speciation, so we can all still breed together, but they were still quite isolated, and not all of the genes are always going to be compatible with each other.
Elsewhere, however, like if you consider the natives of a place like Easter Island, who had no contact with anyone outside their island for many centuries, you might get some more extreme differences, perhaps.
The only problem is that there are some genes that simply don't mix well and cause problems. This is from the link I cited earlier:The normal consequence in the human type of situation is that outbreeding improves things by reducing the buildup of deleterious recessives.Fortunately these ancestoral groups were not isolated from each other long enough, nor completely enough, to result in speciation, so we can all still breed together, but they were still quite isolated, and not all of the genes are always going to be compatible with each other.
For example, ace genetics reporter Nicholas Wade wrote in the New York Times ( 11/11/05) about a gene variant that is benign in whites and Asians but more than triples the heart attack risk in part-white African-Americans:"
Dr. Stefansson [of Iceland's DeCode Genetics] said he believed that the more active version of this gene might have risen to prominence in Europeans and Asians because it conferred extra protection against infectious disease."Along with the protection would have come a higher risk of heart attack because plaques that build up in the walls of the arteries could become inflamed and rupture. But because the active version of the gene started to be favored long ago, Europeans and Asians have had time to develop genetic changes that offset the extra risk of heart attack."The active version of the inflammatory gene would have passed from Europeans into African-Americans only a few generations ago, too short a time for development of genes that protect against heart attack, Dr. Stefansson suggested." [ Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine]Like hybrid vigor, genetic incompatibilities across racial lines unquestionably exist in some cases. So the key empirical question is: what the net balance of the two opposing forces?Gregory Cochran told me that he and University of Utah population geneticist Henry Harpending once scanned the medical literature to see if interracial mating increased human fertility (due to hybrid vigor) or decreased it (due to genetic incompatibilities). They concluded that whatever net effect might exist was smaller than the statistical margin of error in the studies.
This is what I'm talking about. Some genes don't mix well because they were meant to be complimented by other genes. This loss is clearly offset by the gain from blocking out the recessive genes, but it's still a loss. As was mentioned in the article, though, the balance between them appears to be either very close or spot on, so it evens out.
All marriages are a gamble, in my experience. Can you give examples, kojax, of genetic disorders which are MORE common in the offspring of exogamous couples?
As far as "inbreeding" goes, the Samaritans are still around, still resisting converts, and special precautions to prevent genetic disease are practiced. To the best of my knowledge, Hitler, leader of the Nazis, had no specific policy concerning the Samaritans, but we of course may speculate. Remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis...
2.) Being dead presents formidable difficulties when it comes to procreation and the transmission of heritable legacies. This is why we are not overrun with zombies- they do not breed very often, outside of horror movies, anyway. Survival IS the definition of fitness, at least to the point of reproduction of viable offspring, the more, the better, so a greater lifespan implies greater reproductive success. Not to belabor an elementary point too much, or oversimplify for you egregiously, but DEAD bad! Alive GOOD!
3.) And people DO observe significant differences in the incidence of genetic disorders based upon ethnic groupings. Incidence of Tay-Sachs disease, for example, is greater in certain ethnic groups:
Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Blanket term for the study of evolution
True enough, sir, but without the Darwinism, would we have the other? And "eugenics", "phenogenetics", and so on? Perhaps not in the form of which we know, I would submit...
Phenogenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There seems little debate that the founder of modern eugenics, one Galton, was influenced heavily by the Darwin...Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ring species. The wikipedia article gives some hints of the difficulties of precisely defining species. We can define end members that clearly belong to different species, but it is more difficult and often arbitrary where we place the dividing line where trransitional members exist. This is true geographically. It is also true chronologically. This was the point you failed to appreciate in your original post (there should really BE no recognizable species at all) and that you now seem determined to avoid understanding.
Lose the personal remarks. They are not relevant to your misunderstanding of Darwinian theory.Perhaps you, John Galt, cannot only not figure out WHO you are but WHAT you are? This identity crisis of yours is not only chronic, but appears more acute than suspected...
The quote you posted from Hitler showed that he was a believer in something more closely related to Lamarck's theory than Darwin's - his notion that "struggle" improved "a species health" and so forth is contrary to Darwinian theory.Originally Posted by arthur
That is usually false. There is usually a lifespan that confers the greatest chances of reproductive success, and some mechanism ensuring death soon after it. There is usually a best or ideal number of offspring, such that more threatens them all and fewer is needlessly risky.Originally Posted by arthur"- - - Survival IS the definition of fitness, at least to the point of reproduction of viable offspring, [/quote] Death is only one factor preventing successful reproduction, and survival is just a means - dispensed with as an unnecessary expense, often. In many species the deaths of the parents and most offspring are by mechanism, built into the structure - backswimmers, say. The parents die, the young eat each other, survival is unusual. [quote="arthur
No they don't. They observe genetic disorder correlated with certain ethnic groups. What they are based on is another matter - inbreeding populations, geographic influence, bottleneck events, etc.Originally Posted by arthur
Actually, it's especially true in Africa and India, where skin color in common conceals great genetic disparity. In the US, where in many communities most blacks and most whites are narrowly filtered in origin (for example: the whites from a small area of the British Isles, the blacks from a small region and one tribe on the west coast of Africa) you can sometimes judge genetic disparity by skin color with fair accuracy. In India, there are places where the average nearest genetic match for some dark skinned people would not be their dark skinned neighbors, but a white person from eastern Europe. Similarly among the San in Africa, or the tribes around the Horn.Originally Posted by kojax
The problem is exacerbated by the tendency of European/White genes to be recessive. Presumably it's a younger genetic group, and so its genes are less strongly asserted.
Genetic Find Stirs Debate on Race-Based Medicine - New York Times
Which genetic race of black people was that measured in?Originally Posted by kojax
Why should the discovery of race dependant diseases evoke such strong controversy? Africans (and some other populations from tropical areas) are more prone to sickle-cell anaemia than anyone else, though they are more resistant to malaria. Caucasians are more susceptible to skin cancers due to low melanin content, etc. We are different. Why is it such a big deal?
Exactly. The very reason why we have different skin and hair tones are adaptations based on optimizing vitimin-D and susceptibility to folic acid deficiency in pregnant women which has catastrophic results for the fetus.Why is it such a big deal?
I DO think that the modern Nazis, much like those of the late and not so great XXth century, would be pretty darn quick to censor those with whom they simply did not agree, on any issue- don't you?
What role did the English play in WW2. Did they give Hitler money and orders?
Lamarck is conspicuous by his absence in the following source, make of it what you will.
Racial hygiene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oddly, Lamarck is not mentioned in this discussion of Nazi racial policy and its origins, but guess who is, and repeatedly?
Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism
Anyway, there is little controversy regarding the reverence the Nazis had for ancient Sparta and its policy of infanticide in order to improve Spartan military prowess. This policy was of little help to Sparta in 371 B.C., when Epiminondas and his Thebans broke Spartan power forevermore. It was a brilliant campaign, according to at least one account, and deserves to be better known.
Amazon.com: The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny (9780385720595): Victor Davis Hanson: Books
A little more about Epaminondas to tide you over until you get the book, guys- what a relief to be digressing about something other than bloody old wormy old Darwin, what?
Anyway, it is not such a big digression as all that, since Hanson's book explicitly compares the campaign of Epaminondas against the Spartans with that of Patton against the Nazis. Remember the Nazis? This is a thread about the Nazis...
Dunkirk, Singapore, Dieppe, Crete, Arnhem, and so on. Plus, they graciously REARMED the Japanese before handing Indochina back to the FRENCH, so we can thank THEM for the Vietnam War! Thank YOU, Lord FREAKING Mountbatten!!! See "Prelude to Disaster".
Many Nazi combat veterans served in the French Foreign Legion in Indochina to a.) gratify their desire to kill non-Aryans and/or Communists and b.) escape prosecution for war crimes. They are known to have used chemical warfare agents there according to published accounts.
Probably the main cause is modesty altho' it is just possible the questions have an underlying subtlety some of us are unable to grasp.
Of course the English did stand on the sidelines, drinking German beer, and giving Hitler money and orders. What other reason could he possibly have had for planning an invasion, of Britain, and bombing our cities?
Hitler was mistaken about Darwin, not Lamarck. So?Originally Posted by arthur
If Hitler had taken his theory from Darwin, rather than his "cues", he would never have adopted the racial policies we see in the Third Reich.Originally Posted by arthur
Whether he got his theories from the Lamarckian approach they more closely resemble, is irrelevant - his errors in comprehension of Darwinism, if that's what happened rather than simple image hacking, are common among many who have not read Lamarck at all.
If you put great stock in "vocabulary" and so forth, you will forever mistake propaganda campaigns for theoretical underpinnings. The Nazis called themselves "socialist", they claimed to be fighting for the "Aryan" race, they rejected major advances in physics as "Jewish" science, and all manner of similar nonsense. None of this had any basis in reality.
Nazi racial policy was not based on Darwinian evolutionary theory, and this remains so no matter how many goofball Nazis have claimed otherwise over the years. Your quotes above make that perfectly clear, if we didn't already know.
Anyway, Edward VIII was a racist Nazi bastard. That is not just me talking, but Lord Caldecote, and of course, good old Eddie himself, the vacuous twit.
Thomas Inskip, 1st Viscount Caldecote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Very well, I retract the "vacuous twit" bit above. As for the rest, perhaps the Wikipedia article on good old Eddie should "tone it down a bit", too.
I suppose it is the sheerest coincidence that Social Darwinism provides a justification not only for the excesses of the Nazis(remember the Nazis?) but for hereditary aristocracies and monarchies of all flavors.
Very convenient for some, wouldn't you say?
None, as far as I know. They seem to have made the common errors on their own.Originally Posted by arthur
Galton I haven't read. Darwinian theory supports nothing the Nazis did, nor does it supply their declared justifications.Originally Posted by arthur
Their vocabulary - "socialist", "freedom", "triumph", "Aryan race", "superior race", etc - I file under modern propaganda efforts. In that field they were groundbreaking and supremely competent. One doesn't actually believe any of it, of course - right?
The link does not answer the question of which genetic race(s) of black people were involved. The description "African" narrows it down a bit, and "African American" a fair amount, but not enough to be genetically precise.Originally Posted by Kalster
It's possible that the problem afflicts all European/non-European genetic combinations, in which case "black" or "African American" would err by too narrow a focus rather than the too wide my query implies.
|« The problems for Hilary | Where to find info on legislation when the usual resources don't help? »|