[OT] You Can't Make This Stuff Up Department

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:17:05 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:08:24 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
No Hitler considered himself a devout Catholic. Fact are facts.

Hitler also considered himself a socialist - a national socialist
=
nazist...

Of course, the philosophy and practice of National Socialism bears
little resemblance to socialism as defined, say, by Marx. And
neither
bears much resemblance to socialism as the word is generally applied
to modern western states.

Which just goes to show that the word is generally not very useful
without a degree of qualification and context.

It also goes to show that how Hitler considered himself and what he
actually was can be very differen
t. A devout Catholic is definitely expected to follow the commandment
"Thou salt not kill" much much better than Hitler did. Stalin didn't
have this selfcontradiction since he was an atheist.

Denominational Christianity did nothing to counter the ideology that there is an ascending evolutionary trajectory between monkeys and white skin academics ,not even the horror of WW2 drew attention to this empirical 'law of nature'.

Contemporary academics simply ignore the core empirical doctrine which insisted that some human beings were more human and less ape-like than others as a 'law of nature' and this horror alone presented those with inherent prejudices the excuse to attempt to wipe out so many people.

No matter how repulsive I find using a figurehead for that doctrine, it is necessary to demonstrate that while National Socialism was dealt with great cost, the underlying empirical principle wasn't. It was buried as 'social darwinism' while the core principle still looms behind the narrative that should not have made it into circulation.

Bad,bad business.

Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:17:05 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:08:24 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
No Hitler considered himself a devout Catholic. Fact are facts.

Hitler also considered himself a socialist - a national socialist
=
nazist...

Of course, the philosophy and practice of National Socialism bears
little resemblance to socialism as defined, say, by Marx. And
neither
bears much resemblance to socialism as the word is generally applied
to modern western states.

Which just goes to show that the word is generally not very useful
without a degree of qualification and context.

It also goes to show that how Hitler considered himself and what he
actually was can be very differen
t. A devout Catholic is definitely expected to follow the commandment
"Thou salt not kill" much much better than Hitler did. Stalin didn't
have this selfcontradiction since he was an atheist.


Stalin was an atheist but had trained as an Orthodox priest.
Hitler was at least as Catholic as Oriel. In both the basic teaching WA
overlaid with personal superstitions.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:54:39 AM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 11:17:05 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:08:24 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
No Hitler considered himself a devout Catholic. Fact are facts.

Hitler also considered himself a socialist - a national socialist
=
nazist...

Of course, the philosophy and practice of National Socialism bears
little resemblance to socialism as defined, say, by Marx. And
neither
bears much resemblance to socialism as the word is generally applied
to modern western states.

Which just goes to show that the word is generally not very useful
without a degree of qualification and context.

It also goes to show that how Hitler considered himself and what he
actually was can be very differen
t. A devout Catholic is definitely expected to follow the commandment
"Thou salt not kill" much much better than Hitler did. Stalin didn't
have this selfcontradiction since he was an atheist.


Stalin was an atheist but had trained as an Orthodox priest.
Hitler was at least as Catholic as Oriel. In both the basic teaching WA
overlaid with personal superstitions.

Empirical doctrine with its 'laws of nature' survived WW2 even though it held that the connection between apes and white academics contained intermediary living evolutionary examples of those convictions.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin

That does not represent severe prejudice nor does it represent evolutionary processes, it represents the empirical ideology that an analogy drawn from racial experience can be imposed on biological development as a 'law of nature'.

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

National Socialism didn't conjure its extermination policies out of thin air, it borrowed directly from the central theme of Darwin's assertion that some humans are more ape-like than others. When RichA used 'subhuman' in respect to me it was jarring rather than insulting because such people are susceptible to these horrible ideologies and without question.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 10:23:24 PM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:

A devout Catholic is definitely expected to follow the commandment
"Thou salt not kill" much much better than Hitler did.

True. Or than Torquemada did, for that matter.

Oh, wait. Expected by whom?

No, that's not fair; whatever the Church may have expected of Torquemada, it
did have expectations of Hitler that he violated, or the encyclical "Mit
Brennender Sorge" would never have been written.

Still, while Hitler did come from a Catholic background, it is unlikely that he
believed in anything much. The neo-paganism of some of his followers... by most
historical accounts, amused him.

John Savard

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 07:23:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

It also goes to show that how Hitler considered himself and what he
actually was can be very differen
t. A devout Catholic is definitely expected to follow the commandment
"Thou salt not kill" much much better than Hitler did. Stalin didn't
have this selfcontradiction since he was an atheist.

There is no such commandment to be found in Abrahamic scripture. The
only commandment is "you shall not commit murder", and Hitler did not
violate that commandment. Killing has always been perfectly acceptable
within the Abrahamic religions, fully supported by their god.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
No Hitler considered himself a devout Catholic. Fact are facts.

Hitler also considered himself a socialist - a national socialist =
nazist...

And the dictator of the Democratic Republic of the Congo considers himself a democratic ruler. And the People's Republic of China is ruled by the people of China.

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

The dictionary definition of "socialism", of course, is a system under which
the means of production are owned and operated by the State.

It certainly is true, though, that in Nazi Germany, although private
businessmen retained title to their factories, the government told them what to
do with them a lot. This, at least, could be said to also be true of the United
States of today, or Sweden of today.

In war time the political leaders sometimes "take over" the production of heavy industries and the government tells them what to do. All the heavy industries of the US were ordered by our own government to go on war production, thus all automobile manufacturing was stopped so that tanks and other war materiel could be built. Airplane production was turned over to military airplanes. All the support industries likewise were placed on war footing. So it's not a matter of just Hitler telling business what to do. Every nation involved in WW2 did exactly the same.

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:19:08 PM UTC, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:08:27 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 17:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
No Hitler considered himself a devout Catholic. Fact are facts.

Hitler also considered himself a socialist - a national socialist =
nazist...

And the dictator of the Democratic Republic of the Congo considers himself a democratic ruler. And the People's Republic of China is ruled by the people of China.



It takes a troubled mind to filter out responsibility for what they profess and especially when there are no racist tendencies involved. The empirical ideology is indifferent to normal prejudices because the assertions themselves are meant to elevate the white academic person's sense of superiority rather than diminish those of black skin, in other words, skin pigmentation was a means to an end to justify political/social dominance.


"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

After this horror gained intellectual currency it was only a matter of time before it would be applied. I give you WW2 and policies born from that awful 'law of nature' -

" A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed." Hitler

There is something in your weakness where you can't grasp the insidious 'law of nature' where the lines between the human species was blurred to insert an evolutionary narrative and it is far,far beyond racism.

On Monday, 16 November 2015 18:31:06 UTC+1, Uncarollo2 wrote:

In war time the political leaders sometimes "take over" the production of heavy industries and the government tells them what to do. All the heavy industries of the US were ordered by our own government to go on war production, thus all automobile manufacturing was stopped so that tanks and other war materiel could be built. Airplane production was turned over to military airplanes. All the support industries likewise were placed on war footing.. So it's not a matter of just Hitler telling business what to do. Every nation involved in WW2 did exactly the same.

Nowadays governments pay companies a fortune to make weapons all of the time. The result is much the same as enforcing arms production and just as profitable for everybody involved, if not those concerned. It means that educated people get to waste their entire lives perfecting ways of wounding and killing civilians so that the weapons can be sold to tyrants and terrorists.. Which is much the same as working for CroakerCola or McLardys, I suppose.

Wikipedia has some interesting statistics on road deaths by country. About 1.25 million globally per year [1910] but I hear they still call them "accidents." Terrorism and gun deaths hardly scratch the surface compared with *annual* road deaths in many countries. Humanity and reality make such poor bed fellows. None of it need ever occur. Forget about air bags and seat belts: All it would take is a long, sharp spike in the middle of every steering wheel to concentrate the driver's mind wonderfully. Road deaths would drop like a stone! Damocles would have understood.