History of the Holocaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
SAM said:
He was an atheist in private. He couldn't be one in public because the nation was Christian.
- - - - - -
Likewise, Hitler should be known by what he openly advocated, rather than what he is presumed to have thought
Your point?

The man was a raving, lunatic, superstitious mystic. He was more inclined to bring back the pantheon of Roman gods, or have people worshipping Woden, than establish an atheistic ideology of governance.
SAM said:
No one calls Mohammed a Quraish pagan even if he was born in the community.
And despite his criticism of the church of his surroundings, and his mystical visions of destiny, he is usually labeled a theist.
SAM said:
The same bizarre eugenics also supported by all the free thinkers of the time and most major scientific institutions.
Bullshit.
SAM said:
It was the 30s, they were sterilising the mentally retarded, performing human experiments on the lowly inferior criminals, exhibiting Africans in zoos and obsessed with the science of genetics.
"They" were mostly theists, doing that stuff. And even so not much of that was Hitler style "eugenics", even the silliest of it.
SAM said:
Like I said, advertising
? So what was your point?
 
Gaza was a part of Egypt and he West Bank was a part of Jordan .
Geese the real Palestine is what is now Israel .

Only after they were occupied in the 1948 war, before that they were part and parcel of the Palestinian Mandate, not Egypt, or even Jordan which didn't even exist at that time, and that Mandate was from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire which controlled those territories.

No the Real Palestinians are in Jordan, as that was Palestinian Mandate.
 
Your point?

The man was a raving, lunatic, superstitious mystic. He was more inclined to bring back the pantheon of Roman gods, or have people worshipping Woden, than establish an atheistic ideology of governance.
And despite his criticism of the church of his surroundings, and his mystical visions of destiny, he is usually labeled a theist.
Bullshit.
"They" were mostly theists, doing that stuff. And even so not much of that was Hitler style "eugenics", even the silliest of it.
? So what was your point?

Notice how all the enemies of the west are always raving lunatics? You'd think the only sane people live in the west.

Meanwhile do look up the history of eugenics and genetic testing in the 30's. It was the freethinkers that supported eugenics, not the Christians

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

Textbooks said things like this:

Even under the most favorable surroundings
there would still be a great many indivduals
who are always on the border line
of self-supporting existence
and whose contribution to society is so small
that the elimination of their stock would be beneficial.

E. W. Sinnott and L. C. Dunn
Principles of Genetics (1925)
p. 406.
 
Notice how all the enemies of the west are always raving lunatics? You'd think the only sane people live in the west.

Meanwhile do look up the history of eugenics and genetic testing in the 30's. It was the freethinkers that supported eugenics, not the Christians

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

And according to You, the only sane people are Muslims, the Chosen of Allah, and the scourge of the unbelievers.
 
SAM said:
Notice how all the enemies of the west are always raving lunatics? You'd think the only sane people live in the west.
Hitler was the West, SAM. He was no enemy of the West - he was a home grown raving lunatic. That was kind of a big deal, about him. That's famous.
SAM said:
Meanwhile do look up the history of eugenics and genetic testing in the 30's. It was the freethinkers that supported eugenics, not the Christians
Your claim was that "all the freethinkers" supported Hitler style eugenics, and it is garbage; and your implication that Christians were not major supporters of eugenics of all kinds, Hitler goofiness as well as racist promotion of birth control and all the rest, is ill informed.

Even in that link there, with its flashing red letters and unwarranted extrapolations of "science" to political evil, there is no compilation of "freethinkers" as Hitler style eugenicists. The people mentioned were not the major freethinkers of their time (the Puritan raised Davenport, first and most prominent, not a freethinker at all), and few of the major freethinkers of the time in that and related fields - Bertrand Russell on the atheist side, Theodore Dobzhansky on the theist, etc - were Hitlerian eugenicists.
SAM said:
Textbooks said things like this:
So?
 
Hitler was the West, SAM. He was no enemy of the West - he was a home grown raving lunatic. That was kind of a big deal, about him. That's famous.
Your claim was that "all the freethinkers" supported Hitler style eugenics, and it is garbage; and your implication that Christians were not major supporters of eugenics of all kinds, Hitler goofiness as well as racist promotion of birth control and all the rest, is ill informed.

Even in that link there, with its flashing red letters and unwarranted extrapolations of "science" to political evil, there is no compilation of "freethinkers" as Hitler style eugenicists. The people mentioned were not the major freethinkers of their time, and the major freethinkers of the time in that and related fields - Bertrand Russell on the atheist side, Theodore Dobzhansky on the theist, etc - were not Hitlerian eugenicists.
So?
Bertrand Russel thought eugenics was one of the usual government enforced leftist ideas.

Writing in "Icarus Or the Future of Science" in 1924 he wrote: "Birth-control is a matter of great importance, particularly in relation to the possibility of a world-government, which could hardly be stable if some nations increased their population much more rapidly than others.." Well before the Pill was invented, he saw 'scientific' birth control as a major factor at work influencing the demography of the West:

"Before long the population may actually diminish. This is already happening in the most intelligent sections of the most intelligent nations; government opposition to birth-control propaganda gives a biological advantage to stupidity, since it is chiefly stupid people who governments succeed in keeping in ignorance. Before long, birth-control may become nearly universal among the white races; it will then not deteriorate their quality, but only diminish their numbers, at a time when uncivilized races are still prolific and are preserved from a high death-rate by white science. This situation will lead to a tendency --- already shown by the French --- to employ more prolific races as mercenaries. Governments will oppose the teaching of birth-control among Africans, for fear of losing recruits. The result will be an immense numerical inferiority of the white races, leading probably to their extermination in a mutiny of mercenaries.

If, however, a world-government is established, it may see the desirability of making subject races also less prolific, and may permit mankind to solve the population question. This is another reason for desiring a world-government."

On eugenics... "Passing from quantity to quality of population, we come to the question of eugenics. We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad. Mr. Micawber, who was Dickens's father, would hardly have been regarded as a desirable parent. How many imbeciles ought to outweigh one Dickens I do not profess to know. "
 
SAM said:
Bertrand Russel thought eugenics was one of the usual government enforced leftist ideas.
Try to make a definite statement: are you claiming that Bertrand Russell was a Hitler-style eugenicist, or approved of government-enforced eugenics programs of any kind?

Do you think the quote there* is written in approval of government enforced eugenics programs?

Here is another version:
Russell said:
"We may perhaps assume that, if people grow less superstitious, government will acquire the right to sterilize those who are not considered desirable as parents. This power will be used, at first, to diminish imbecility, a most desirable object. But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased. But probably the effect upon really exceptional intelligence will be bad.

Eugenics has, of course, more ambitious possibilities in a more distant future. It may aim not only at eliminating undesired types, but at increasing desired types. Moral standards may alter so as to make it possible for one man to be the sire of a vast progeny by many different mothers. ... If eugenics reached the point where it could increase desired types, it would not be the types desired by present-day Eugenists that would be increased, but rather the type desired by the average official. Prime Ministers, Bishops, and others whom the State considers desirable might become the fathers of half the next generation. Whether this would be an improvement it is not for me to say, as I have no hope of ever becoming either a Bishop or a Prime Minister.

If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not feel sure. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative."
He's British, SAM. He's mocking the idea, slamming it.
 
Last edited:
Try to make a definite statement: are you claiming that Bertrand Russell was a Hitler-style eugenicist, or approved of government-enforced eugenics programs of any kind?

He followed the same kind of thinking that pervaded society at the time but opposed government control.

I'm not sure what you think he was saying different.

He's British, SAM. He's mocking the idea, slamming it.

Ah like Mark Twain. I think it more likely that he had shifting stances on the issue. IIRC, he did advocate for the sterilisation of the mentally retarded.

And is this also a mockery?

thesocialandpoliticalth.png


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...resnum=8&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 
Last edited:
SAM said:
He followed the same kind of thinking that pervaded society at the time but opposed government control.
So he opposed eugenics, opposed Hitler style eugenics, opposed eugenics programs, was not a eugenicist.

And neither were a large number of the freethinkers of the time.

SAM said:
I think it more likely that he had shifting stances on the issue.
Find another stance, then. So far, it's just the one - sarcastic dismissal.

SAM said:
And is this also a mockery?
Dunno. But it's obviously not eugenics.
 
Dunno. But it's obviously not eugenics.

What is eugenics, then according to you?

eu⋅gen⋅ics
  /yuˈdʒɛnɪks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
Use eugenics in a Sentence
See web results for eugenics
See images of eugenics
–noun (used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

How would you classify this?

thesocialandpoliticalth.png
 
SAM said:
What is eugenics, then according to you?
At a minimum, a genetics program - something related to reproduction, breeding.

SAM said:
How would you classify this?
Racial bigotry and sexism.

If you recall, we were talking about the Holocaust. If you put all the blacks and women in death camps, your eugenics program is going to run into trouble.
 
At a minimum, a genetics program - something related to reproduction, breeding.

Racial bigotry and sexism.

If you recall, we were talking about the Holocaust. If you put all the blacks and women in death camps, your eugenics program is going to run into trouble.

So you don't see his views as promoting eugenics. I guess we disagree.
 
SAM said:
So you don't see his views as promoting eugenics. I guess we disagree.
I think his view of eugenics - even the relatively benign British proposals, let alone Hitler's delusions - was pretty clearly stated, by him, and quoted by you. It is not a promotion, or even an approval. He obviously despises the idea.

What is your problem? Are you actually, as you appear to be, lumping sexists and bigots in with the Auschwitz engineers? Are you then equating the people who call Jews "apes and pigs", or think women ought not to be allowed to drive cars, with the people who built Treblinka?
 
I think his view of eugenics - even the relatively benign British proposals, let alone Hitler's delusions - was pretty clearly stated, by him, and quoted by you. It is not a promotion, or even an approval. He obviously despises the idea.

What is your problem? Are you actually, as you appear to be, lumping sexists and bigots in with the Auschwitz engineers? Are you then equating the people who call Jews "apes and pigs", or think women ought not to be allowed to drive cars, with the people who built Treblinka?

I think encouraging breeding of the intellectuals by giving scholarships to their children, based on the parents merits is definitely eugenics.

All such people need is the power to exercise their views. As Russel himself put it, democracy gets in the way. Meanwhile anyone who thinks women and negroes are stupid doesn't differ very much from those who think Jews and gypsies are inferior.
 
SAM said:
I think encouraging breeding of the intellectuals by giving scholarships to their children, based on the parents merits is definitely eugenics.
Professionals, not intellectuals. And reducing the burden of educational expenses on clerics and other religious men and the like (the professionals in British society who are most likely to find educational expenses a burden) strikes you as similar to Hitler's eugenics program in what way?

SAM said:
All such people need is the power to exercise their views. As Russel himself put it, democracy gets in the way.
That was humor, SAM. Irony. You can't read Russell that carelessly - he was not writing carelessly.
SAM said:
Meanwhile anyone who thinks women and negroes are stupid doesn't differ very much from those who think Jews and gypsies are inferior.
But the subject was Hitler's eugenics and the Holocaust. What are you trying to say? That the Muslims who think women are stupider than men, Jews are inferior, and so forth, are not different from Hitler's SS?
 
Professionals, not intellectuals. And reducing the burden of educational expenses on clerics and other religious men and the like (the professionals in British society who are most likely to find educational expenses a burden) strikes you as similar to Hitler's eugenics program in what way?

Increasing the family size of those with a greater intellectual "average" while considering women and negroes stupid?

That was humor, SAM. Irony. You can't read Russell that carelessly - he was not writing carelessly.

No he wasn't. He adhered very closely to what he wrote in Politics of a Biologist.

But the subject was Hitler's eugenics and the Holocaust. What are you trying to say? That the Muslims who think women are stupider than men, Jews are inferior, and so forth, are not different from Hitler's SS?

Sure if that is what they think. Is it?
 
No the Real Palestinians are in Jordan, as that was Palestinian Mandate.
No those are Jordanians. The real palestinians are from palestine not Jordan Why do you keep insisting on saying that when its already been shown to be historically bullshit? Why does 2 years the same and 25 years of being part of a larger area refered as palestine by outsiders trump some 3000 years of etymology?

still the same I see. Ignore history because you dislike it.
 
No those are Jordanians. The real palestinians are from palestine not Jordan Why do you keep insisting on saying that when its already been shown to be historically bullshit? Why does 2 years the same and 25 years of being part of a larger area refered as palestine by outsiders trump some 3000 years of etymology?

still the same I see. Ignore history because you dislike it.

pj, your historical knowledge leaves much to be desired to say the least, and you selection bias on information that only agrees with your parochial view is willful ignorance.
 
pj, your historical knowledge leaves much to be desired to say the least,
Well I could see how from your point of view it leaves much to be desired because I do not adhear to your twisted version. But historical knowledge is quite good.
and you selection bias
Once again in your attempt to insult me you show your ignorance. Your using the term selction bias all wrong. But that's not surprising given your complete ignorance of formal logic and hatred for statistics.
on information that only agrees
I read things that disagree with me I just don't use them in argument. But than again you have wanted people to attempt to their own arguments because you can't.
with your parochial view
big words for such a small man. and its laughable that you would call me parochial doublely so in pertaining to this topic.
is willful ignorance.

still projecting your faults on to me.



If I am wrong prove it. Though you won't you'll just insult me like you always do.




















a side question if you really are a 60+ year old vet why do you tend toward using language habits of a 14 year old girl?
 
Well I could see how from your point of view it leaves much to be desired because I do not adhear to your twisted version. But historical knowledge is quite good. Once again in your attempt to insult me you show your ignorance. Your using the term selction bias all wrong. But that's not surprising given your complete ignorance of formal logic and hatred for statistics. I read things that disagree with me I just don't use them in argument. But than again you have wanted people to attempt to their own arguments because you can't. big words for such a small man. and its laughable that you would call me parochial doublely so in pertaining to this topic.

still projecting your faults on to me.



If I am wrong prove it. Though you won't you'll just insult me like you always do.

a side question if you really are a 60+ year old vet why do you tend toward using language habits of a 14 year old girl?

Yes, to disagree with pj is to insult Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top