Monday, August 25, 2014

Death as the Engine of Progress

Ideas Have Consequences



Watch this short video to see how ideas have consequences.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

the war of annihilation … is a natural law, without which the organic world … could not continue to exist at all.—Gustav Jaeger, 1870

just as in nature the struggle for existence is the moving principle of evolution and perfection … so also in world history the destruction of the weaker nations through the stronger is a postulate of progress.—Friedrich Hellwald, 1875

according to Darwin’s theory wars have always been of the greatest importance for the general progress of the human species … the physically weaker, the less intelligent, the morally lower … must give place to the stronger.—Heinrich Ziegler, 1893

Those people who are, from the outset, failures, oppressed, broken— they are the ones, the weakest, who most undermine life among human beings, who in the most perilous way poison and question our trust in life, in humanity, in ourselves.—Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals

The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live … Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect any help from anyone.—Adolf Hitler

36 comments:

  1. Obviously, those Germans had never heard of the naturalistic fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...nevertheless, these are their words.

      The question is not 'were they mistaken to hold these ideas' but did they hold them and did people act on them.

      Delete
    2. Obviously, those Germans had never heard of the naturalistic fallacy.

      Evolutionary ideas have led to eugenics, world wars, genocide and abortion. Where is the fallacy?

      Delete
    3. The fallacy lies in arguing that because Nature is "red in tooth and claw" we are entitled to behave atrociously towards each other. it doesn't follow.

      Not that it ever stopped people. They have practiced the most appalling barbarism towards one another throughout recorded history. before Darwin, they found other justifications. Read Martin Luther on the Jews or go further back and read the Old Testament.

      Delete
    4. Ian:

      The fallacy lies in arguing that because Nature is "red in tooth and claw" we are entitled to behave atrociously towards each other. it doesn't follow."

      The motivation and justification does not come from predation and evil in nature, it comes from Darwin's theory of origins.

      Delete
    5. Cornelius HunterThe motivation and justification does not come from predation and evil in nature, it comes from Darwin's theory of origins.

      And before Darwin, people found other motivations and justifications for barbarity. The problem lies in human insecurity, the need for certainty. Once men believe they have found some great insight, some absolute Truth, is when they can be drawn to the next step of believing that almost anything is justified to further that Truth. Whether it is "God's will" or "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or "lebensraum" doesn't seem to matter. If Darwin and his theory had never been born, Imperial Germany and Nazi Germany would have found some other source of inspiration and justification


      Delete
    6. Ian:

      "The problem lies in human insecurity, the need for certainty."

      Such as when evolutionists insist their idea is a fact?

      Delete
  2. Dr. Hunter, I'm having difficulty sourcing the Gustav Jäger quote. The closest I've been able to find is in a novel, The Shadowed Mind, in which the view above is attributed to Jäger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nathan, Thanks and good question. Unfortunately I'm afraid I can't help as I wasn't involved with producing the video. I'll let you know if find out though. Thanks again.

      Delete
    2. Nathan:

      That quote comes from Richard Weikart's book, *From Darwin to Hitler.* There is material in that book appearing in English for the first time--well worth the investment.

      Delete
    3. The Jaeger quote is from "Die Darwin'sche Theorie und ihre Stellung zu Moral und Religion" 1869. I have a copy and am attempting to locate the complete quote (forgive my suspicion of ellipses!). My German is quite poor, but will post an update when I find it.

      Delete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionary ideas have led to eugenics, world wars, genocide and abortion.

    Wars, genocide, abortion, and selective breeding of humans, long preceded Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Therefore evolution can have no influence on them.

      Delete
    2. Therefore evolution cannot be responsible for them.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius Hunter: Therefore evolution can have no influence on them.

      No. Evolution has clearly influenced society, such as those who seek out a scientific veneer to justify their hate. However, evolution didn't "lead" to these problems, which preexist evolutionary theory.

      Delete
    4. I bet Ian and Zach would have been advocates for each of those quoted people if they lived during those times. A simple check is whether they support abortion rights today.

      Delete
    5. Marcus,
      I bet Ian and Zach would have been advocates for each of those quoted people if they lived during those times.


      Ian is a Brit, I doubt he would have supported the German quest for elimination of his homeland.

      A simple check is whether they support abortion rights today.

      Of course, because restriction of government power was exactly what the Germans were advocating.

      Delete
    6. Ian, Marcus

      "The fallacy lies in arguing that because Nature is "red in tooth and claw" we are entitled to behave atrociously towards each other. it doesn't follow."

      Pro choice supporters use this logic to justify killing tiny but healthy humans. They reason: because there are miscarriages we are allowed to eliminate healthy embryos. Government makes it a law and everybody is happy in politically correct universe. Fashion of the moment morality wins but it's still wrong!

      Delete
    7. Eugen,
      Pro choice supporters use this logic to justify killing tiny but healthy humans.


      Sorry to interrupt , humans that require the use of another person's body to survive . Just curious since you stipulated healthy, would severe medical issues for either mother or tiny human make a difference?

      They reason: because there are miscarriages we are allowed to eliminate healthy embryos.

      I think the way that argument goes is this, whatever designed the reproductive system is responsible for the loss of a staggering amount of tiny humans.

      Government makes it a law and everybody is happy in politically correct universe

      In the US it was just the opposite, the court ruled that government could not make a law abridging that right. So pro life is pro big government.

      Fashion of the moment morality

      Perhaps if birth control was not deemed immoral then we could reduce the number of abortions.

      Delete
    8. Eugen, I agree with you. Also, Like Dinesh D Souza points out, no one speaks of animals behaviors toward other animals as evil. We only say something is evil to describe the acts people do to other people. Dinesh would say it much more eloquently :) But I can't find the quote.
      When one person kills an innocent person on purpose, we call that murder and the government should be a vehicle to remove murderers from society. I think they get away with murder because they just redefine what it means to be human. If your in the womb, then your not human. If you don't want the unborn, then it's a fetus. Don't like something, just redefine the terms of it.

      Don't like God, just redefine what God is.

      Delete
    9. Don't like God, just redefine what God is.

      Actually" Don't like ( my definition of)God, just redefine what God is.


      Delete
    10. Marcus

      you are right. I lived under communist government when I was young in Europe. Communists redefined political opponents as enemies of the state. It was legal to imprison and in cases kill political opponents. Was it right to kill people for political reasons just because government said so ?
      Of course not but law to mistreat political dissidents was the "fashion rule" of the moment or rather era. That's all changed now, thank God. Humans know what is right or wrong, it's the "government politically correct fashionistas" who want to brainwash us otherwise. They want to control our minds.

      Velik

      Let nature do what nature does, we humans have to do what is right.

      Delete
    11. Eugen,
      Let nature do what nature does.


      I do, nature is endlessly fascinating.

      The problem is for those who believe humans and their reproductive systems must be intelligently designed, a lot of human life is lost because of that design.


      Delete
    12. velikovskys Ian is a Brit, I doubt he would have supported the German quest for elimination of his homeland.

      As I remember, after the First World War was over there was a proposal to erase Germany from the map, to flatten the whole country and turn it into farmland or plains "where the deer and the antelope play". That was probably going a bit far. Although it would have stopped them from winning so many soccer World Cups.

      Delete
    13. Although it would have stopped them from winning so many soccer World Cups.

      I guess we can blame Darwin for that too.

      Delete
    14. "As I remember, after the First World War was over..."

      Ian, you remember First World War? Are you 130? Do you use funnel as a hearing aid?
      :)

      Delete
    15. Eugen: "I lived under communist government when I was young in Europe."

      Have you considered writing about your experiences? I'm sure you have a very interesting history to share. I'm always ready to read what grateful people have to say.

      Delete
    16. Marcus,
      Have you considered writing about your experiences? I'm sure you have a very interesting history to share.


      As soon as the statute of limitations expires;)

      Delete
    17. Eugen Ian, you remember First World War? Are you 130? Do you use funnel as a hearing aid? :)

      Just call me The Doctor. I was the guy wearing the Pickelhaube almost completely hidden behind Kaiser Bill in that picture.

      Delete
    18. Marcus:

      "Also, Like Dinesh D Souza points out, no one speaks of animals behaviors toward other animals as evil. We only say something is evil to describe the acts people do to other people."

      No, that is not true. Natural evil, including predation, is of substantial concern to people. As Darwin wrote: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or the cat should play with mice."

      Delete
    19. "No, that is not true. Natural evil, including predation, is of substantial concern to people."

      I stand corrected. Thank you Dr. Hunter. I should have said Dinesh points out, it makes no sense to speak of predation as moral evil. In his book Godforsaken in chapter 5 he lays out his argument. Animals don't have free will so they don't do moral evil. Humans do have free will and therefore are capable of moral evil.

      Delete
    20. Marcus:

      "I should have said Dinesh points out, it makes no sense to speak of predation as moral evil. In his book Godforsaken in chapter 5 he lays out his argument. Animals don't have free will so they don't do moral evil. Humans do have free will and therefore are capable of moral evil."

      Well the concern with natural evil which evolutionists have always had, is that the creation reflects the Creator.

      Delete
  4. Ideas have results but its not, perhaps, the ideas that are at fault. Mankind is at fault.
    As a creationist I don't attribute evil human deeds to the idea of evolution or Darwin.
    Darwin did not advocate hurting anyone and his quote was more like a sad commentary on a expectation.
    The natives, to their credit, overcame others wills being imposed on them to their hurt.

    Evolution being accepted in the educated classes of Europe made it possible for others to say mankind is innately not equal and can be treated so. They still say like Pinker and Wade. I mean the inequality presumption.

    Yet any great evil was not done with public consent or rea;;y motivated by evolution. other agendas I say.
    those who opposed these evils also believed in evolution.
    Darwins ideas only allowed easier certain conclusions.
    This is what evolutionary biology takes blame for. But not actual deeds.
    what a few writers said is not proof of what leaders and the public thought.

    Evolution has the problem that it teaches evolving intelligence and morals. from fish to apes to us.
    SO anyone can take this evolving principal and say its not been across the board.
    its an option to evolutionists and a secret that think man is not created equal MORE then they admit. They admit iot some.
    anyways its not accurate to blame evolution for mans evils or errors. Its blameworthy for raw foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually, the design is perfect. It has produced 7 billion and counting.

    The unseen spontaneous abortions are more likely caused by poor understanding of the design by pregnant humans.

    A whole lot of the women who are pregnant don't even know it. That is a good starting point for further study and remedial action, dont you think?

    Velikovskys: "The problem is for those who believe humans and their reproductive systems must be intelligently designed, a lot of human life is lost because of that design. "


    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,
    Actually, the design is perfect. It has produced 7 billion and counting.


    Assuming a 15% failure rate of fertilized eggs, the prefect design killed one billion very little humans.

    The unseen spontaneous abortions
    The killing of tiny humans

    more more likely caused by poor understanding of the design by pregnant humans.

    It is a bad design which does not provide clear instructions, in which case design is again to blame. Not to mention the designer is also responsible for the design of those pregnant humans.

    A whole lot of the women who are pregnant don't even know it.

    Sounds like a bad design.


    That is a good starting point for further study and remedial action, dont you think?

    If the reproductive system is perfect, then the women who contain it are also prefect design, why do we need to take remedial action on a perfect design?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Online Easy Jobs from home with data entry, copy pasting, facebook jobs
    www.jobzcorner.com

    ReplyDelete