Hitler, Religion, and Morality

..........

Provide a proof that Egyptian, Babylonian or even Greek civilization, not mentioning Indian or Chinese, was started by Nordics, and they are source of other races.

Well, the ancient Greeks were caucasian, although I doubt that many of them were blond haired, blue eyed Nordic types. Also, I suspect that when Baltic tribes talks about the creation of civilization, he isn't talking about the petty stuff such as literacy, mathematics, astrology, philosophy, architecture or creating water treatment systems. He's probably talking about the really important stuff, like pastoralism and intertribal warfare.
 
I guess a religion which was so popular for so long time among "aryan europeans" and so important for national history (Holy Roman Empire, Crusaders) could not be completely rejected by Hitler without rejecting "aryanism" itself. He had to reinterpret it to make it more compatible. Christianly also ensured many conservative values, which were probably appealing for Hitler.
 
Well, the ancient Greeks were caucasian, although I doubt that many of them were blond haired, blue eyed Nordic types. Also, I suspect that when Baltic tribes talks about the creation of civilization, he isn't talking about the petty stuff such as literacy, mathematics, astrology, philosophy, architecture or creating water treatment systems. He's probably talking about the really important stuff, like pastoralism and intertribal warfare.
lol, I have a feeling that he subscribes to someone's fantasies he read somewhere, that goes against archeology, written records, genetics and what's not. Now somehow it is our duty to disprove them. :confused:
 
I think Hitler did not know what to do with Christianity, that's why we get conflicting positions of him on this. On one hand as a philosophy for him it was: too old, too soft, too slow, and too Jewish. He needed faster and more radical ideologies for fast world domination. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, he could not abolish it without losing support from the German people. So guys beware of people who want old senile religions to go away, it is usually to replace them with something worse.
 
The NSDAP was founded by a tradesman, I think a carpenter, mainly as a kind of para-socialist organization, but much of it's early membership was drawn from the Thule Society, a quasi-mystical racialist group with neo-pagan leanings and a decidedly anti-christian slant. I know this is how Rosenberg got involved, he had been a TS member. Certainly, many rank-and-file party members remained nominally Christian, but the overall bent of Nazi philosophy was towards a kind of ill-defined deism, with a Germanic pagan element. The SS, especially, developed it's own brand of 'nordic' mysticism. There was really no place for Christianity in any of this. The point I was trying to make is that the Nazis really shouldn't be part of the atheist vs. believers debate, and only ever are because of common misconceptions.
 
I think Hitler did not know what to do with Christianity, that's why we get conflicting positions of him on this. On one hand as a philosophy for him it was: too old, too soft, too slow, and too Jewish. He needed faster and more radical ideologies for fast world domination. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, he could not abolish it without losing support from the German people. So guys beware of people who want old senile religions to go away, it is usually to replace them with something worse.

Germans did replace old, senile and corrupted Catholic Church by something more radical : Protestantism. It happened many centuries before Hitler lived, but Hitler was brought up as a Catholic and just underwent his own "Reformation" in adulthood.

No matter how you look at it, Hitler's ideologies were heavily influenced by the Christian mindset, Christian fears and Christian creationism. The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others. It wouldn't make sense to a scientist who only sees the range of interpersonal variations between humans.

Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism, the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel). Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

NB : Hitler's neo-paganism was purely cultural, not religious. It was just for show, a kind of justification for Germanic militarism. Neither Hitler nor virtually anybody in Germany started believing in the power of ancient gods like Odin or Thor during the Nazi period. All remained strongly monotheist and were usually fairly typical Christians in their metaphysical beliefs.
 
No,Maciamo!

Many authors see the roots of modern antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:

  1. Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
  2. Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
  3. Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was – at least in its classical form – nuanced in that Jews were a protected class
  4. Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
  5. Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism in the 20th century
  6. Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism
Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
 
Why do people need sports, or even better, why people enjoy group sports?

When I look at football, or any groups sport, I can see two different tribes fighting, physically battling, running, throwing, etc, competing with each other with one goal in mind: to win, to dominate, to bring home bacon. Practically it is nothing more than what hunter-gatherers did for millions of years. Group of men running together after a common goal/prey, or group of men fighting other tribe to win the spoils of war and dominance. Also fans are nothing more than whole tribe pulling together behind their warriors and their tribe identity, a small scale nationalism if you will. Old HGs habits are still strong in us.
So it is true that football was not invented for higher social purposes. But once existed, it was taken over by a big business to serve purpose of building wealth for them and players. It works for fans, clubs and owners, so it is continued as such. Likewise first simple religions were not invented for purpose of centralised power, but only on grounds of human spirituality, but these first religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool of whole populous. Obviously it gave good results, making groups stronger, that's why it was continued in such form for millennia till pretty much present.

This is an adjustment of your theory that religion was invented for population control: You now state that religion was used as population control tool.

However, there are flaws in this theory too. One of the flaws being that religion may indeed have been considered as possible power tool; it hardly served that purpose well. Let us take Christianity as an example. Christianity was for centuries a resistance religion, a religion fiercely persecuted by the Romans. Once adopted by the local powers it proved hard to control, especially since much of its mythology - the Vitae of saints specifically - cherished the martyrs of that resistance. Emperors sought to control the church, the church - especially since it considered the empire bequeathed to itself after the fall of the latest West-Roman emperor - sought to control the emperors and both sought to control the popular movements. These popular movements that sprung from Christianity were rather revolutionary, as numerous heretical and semi-heretical movements in the Middle Ages show. The novel "The Name of the Rose" may be fiction but Umberto Eco did very good research for it, and you should read it to get an idea of the revolutionary spirit of several christian movements in the second part of the Middle Ages.

As another example may serve Thomas Becket, who was a loyal chancellor of Henry II Plantagenet. Henry appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury - this is the part that you may consider in accordance with your theory that powers try to rule via religion - in the believe that Thomas Beckets loyalty would remain to Henry. However, Thomas Becket found that he now served God rather than the king and became a very vocal moral critic of the king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy

Reading on mediaeval history you'll find far more examples. I conclude from this that while you can find elements of your opinion that religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool this is a gross simplification, if not a distortion, of history.
 
My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.:wary2:

That's a pointless question because:

1) There was never one single ethnically unified Proto-Indo-European people. The Indo-Europeans were born out of several blending of populations. First, R1* people from North Asia mixed with European people (linked to Y-DNA I) during the Late Upper Palaeolithic. Then R1* split into R1a and R1b. R1b settled down in the Near East and mixed with various Near Eastern neighbours (including Proto-Semitic people). R1b then crossed the Caucasus and lived side by side with R1a tribes, and some intermingling did occur between the two (about 10-15% in each direction). Other Near Eastern populations from the Balkans and Carpathians were absorbed by both R1a and R1b tribes in the Pontic Steppe. From then on, the Indo-Europeans constantly intermarried with local women in all regions they invaded, be it in Europe, in Central Asia, or later in South Asia and the Middle East. In other words, each Indo-European branch became an ethnic group of its own, with only some partial, distant ancestry in common. The shared Indo-European ancestry of Europeans and North Indian Brahmins is only around 15% at best. Within Europe it is usually above 30% between the most distant Indo-European populations.

2) There isn't any population today that closely resembles Bronze Age Indo-Europeans, simply because they have mixed with other populations for the last 6,000 years. Likewise there isn't any population that is purely descended from Mesolithic Europeans or Neolithic farmers in Europe, although the closest are respectively the Saami (who also have considerable Siberian and Scandinavian admixture) and the Sardinians (who have some Mesolithic admixture). That is because they lived in geographic areas that were not easily reachable. The Indo-European homeland, on the other hand, was open steppe, which was invaded by more different people than almost anywhere else in the world in history. Actually, I believe that it is R1a tribes that eventually kicked out R1b tribes from the southern steppes and North Caucasus (probably during the Late Yamna and Catacomb periods).

3) It is a serious anachronism to think that the mutations for fair hair, fair skin and blue eyes originated with the same people. Blond hair is thought to have originated with R1a people in Northeast Europe, while red hair would have been more of an R1b feature. However, blue eyes originated in Palaeolithic Europe (haplogroup I). White skin originated in at least two different regions independently (different mutations) : a) in the northern Near East/Caucasus or Northeast Europe, and b) in East Asia (haplogroup NO). The fact that many northern Europeans combine these traits today is just the result of ethnic blending and environmental or sexual selection. What it proves is that Germanic people are far from pure and are indeed more quite a composite people in terms of ancestry. This is obvious from their Y-DNA haplogroup composition. Scandinavians are essentially a three-way blend of I, R1a and R1b. Germans are the same with more Near Eastern Neolithic lineages (E, G, J, T).
 
The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism.



That is definitely true.

And I agree that, as far as Hitler is concerned, the neo-pagan blood-and-soil type stuff was show for the masses, who obviously remained Christian for the most part, but that certainly wasn't the case with Himmler, Rosenberg, and their ilk, who I think definitely were enthusiastic believers in the peculiar Nazi brand of mysticism. Of course, this thread is about Hitler, so let me stop there. :cool-v:
 
No,Maciamo!

Many authors see the roots of modern antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:

  1. Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
  2. Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
  3. Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was – at least in its classical form – nuanced in that Jews were a protected class
  4. Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
  5. Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism in the 20th century
  6. Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism
Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

1. Ancient Greco-Roman racial anti-Semitism doesn't make much sense when one knows that Jews are genetically closer to Cypriots, Greeks and southern Italians than to anybody else, even in the Middle East. Anyway the Greeks and Romans regarded all foreigners as barbarians. The Romans did not hesitate to commit genocide even on Celtic tribes that were ethnically related to them. Actually in ancient times genocides were common practically everywhere, and is even recommended by the Old Testament.

3. Traditional Muslim anti-Semitism is an oxymoron since Arabs are also Semitic people. The Koran does grant special protected status to the other people of the Book, namely the Jews and the Christians. Where Islam is intransigent is against pagans and Atheists. So Islam cannot be called anti-Jewish, even less anti-Semitic (obviously), but is clearly anti-pagan and anti-Atheist.

For the rest, anti-Semitism in Europe was always both religious and racial for the good reason that the term Jew conveys both religious and racial meanings. The two are so indissociable historically that it has become a real problem for modern Jews and for the Israeli state to define who is a Jew and who is not. The problem is that 40% of American Jews are Atheists but still consider themselves Jewish, as an ethnic definition. In Israel, Jews come from so many different horizons and are so genetically different (e.g. Ethiopian Jew vs Russian Jew) that only religion unites them. If even today the Jews themselves can't agree on what it means to be Jewish, how would you expect non-Jews in past centuries to know ? Therefore it is both mistaken and pedantic of this Jerome Chanes to try distinguish religious from racial anti-Semitism in European history.

The political, social and economic anti-Semitism is essentially the same as racial and religious anti-Semitism too. Socially the Jews were always excluded (or excluded themselves) from the mainstream European society. The reason was purely religious though, and the consequence was that they remained ethnically distinct from other Europeans. You can't separate the social from the religious and the ethnic. It's all one and same thing. Economically the Jews were richer because they specialised in jobs such as money lending that was traditionally prohibited to Christians. So once again they different economic status has religious roots. The political expression of anti-Semitism rose because of resentment towards this ground of people who were ethnically and religiously distinct and accumulated considerable wealth. No matter whether it was in the 18th, 19th or 20th century, political anti-Semitism was always caused by these three factors, who all have their roots, ultimately, in religion. So anti-Semitism in Europe was always a religious conflict, even in Nazism. You just can't separate racial Jewishness from religious Jewishness in anti-Semitism. If you can then please advise the Israeli state on who they should accept as new citizens.
 
In what ways are Jews MORE closely related to Greeks, Italians and Cypriots than they are to other Semitic Arabs? I think it's the opposite, plus, you're ignoring a whole lot of paternal AND maternal European components in the latter two especially LOL. Jews are EXTREMELY related to nearby Arabic/Semitic peoples.
 
The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

But Christianity is transethnical in heart! The whole beef with Jews started with Paul, who thought that gentiles should be allowed to become Christians while maintaining their habits, versus a number of Jewish Christians who strongly believed that Christ came as a Jewish messiah.

However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others

This is not a logical conclusion. Creationism does not lead invariably to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others" nor does atheism prevent such believe.

Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism

That is complete nonsense.

the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel).

See above on apostle Paul. These prejudices did exist, however anti-semitisme is not the same as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

No. Simply no. The reaction of gyms already explained. The "Jewish Question" had to do with the concept that if all peoples had the right on a nation to rule themselves, how should Jews fit in this. Nationalism being on the rise made this issue - or non-issue by modern standards - more and more poisonous.

For an Atheist scientist like me

I am not religious and do not believe. Yet I will never call myself atheist. Frankly, I am done with all -isms.
 
But Christianity is transethnical in heart! The whole beef with Jews started with Paul, who thought that gentiles should be allowed to become Christians while maintaining their habits, versus a number of Jewish Christians who strongly believed that Christ came as a Jewish messiah.

That's a theological argument best left to theologians. If I didn't know about that I doubt that ordinary, uneducated folks in past centuries knew either. And therefore this argument could not have influenced much the anti-Semitic views of most of the population.


This is not a logical conclusion. Creationism does not lead invariably to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others" nor does atheism prevent such believe.

I didn't say that Creationism invariably led to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others". It said that Creationism was a prerequisite for it. If you have flour, milk, butter and eggs, you can make waffles, but you can also make pancakes, or just bread if you leave some ingredients. To get the concepts of "fixed races" and hence also "superior races", you need several ingredients and one of them is that God created humans in clearly separate races.

I didn't say that Atheism prevented the concept of racism either. Not all Atheists are well educated scientists - far from it. What prevent the concept of "superior races" is the understanding of evolution and genetics. However one cannot reasonably understand evolution and genetics and not be an Atheist. So all geneticists ought to be Atheists, but the reverse is not true (at all).

No. Simply no. The reaction of gyms already explained. The "Jewish Question" had to do with the concept that if all peoples had the right on a nation to rule themselves, how should Jews fit in this. Nationalism being on the rise made this issue - or non-issue by modern standards - more and more poisonous.

This point is moot knowing that "nations" were composed of vastly different people. Spain and France, for example, had the Basques, who always regarded themselves as ethnically distinct, just like the Jews. But Spain also has the Catalans, Galicians, Asturians... France has the Bretons, Corsicans, Alsatians... Italy has the Sardinians, Aostans, Tyrolians, etc. All these minorities were already known at the time. I don't see how the Jews were any different for the purpose of nation-states or the argument of ethnic purity. The only difference with the Jews was their religion. But even then, there has been a considerable minority of non-Christians in Europe (Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, Pantheists, etc.) at least since the Enlightenment.
 
1. Ancient Greco-Roman racial anti-Semitism doesn't make much sense when one knows that Jews are genetically closer to Cypriots, Greeks and southern Italians than to anybody else, even in the Middle East. Anyway the Greeks and Romans regarded all foreigners as barbarians. The Romans did not hesitate to commit genocide even on Celtic tribes that were ethnically related to them. Actually in ancient times genocides were common practically everywhere, and is even recommended by the Old Testament.

3. Traditional Muslim anti-Semitism is an oxymoron since Arabs are also Semitic people. The Koran does grant special protected status to the other people of the Book, namely the Jews and the Christians. Where Islam is intransigent is against pagans and Atheists. So Islam cannot be called anti-Jewish, even less anti-Semitic (obviously), but is clearly anti-pagan and anti-Atheist.

For the rest, anti-Semitism in Europe was always both religious and racial for the good reason that the term Jew conveys both religious and racial meanings. The two are so indissociable historically that it has become a real problem for modern Jews and for the Israeli state to define who is a Jew and who is not. The problem is that 40% of American Jews are Atheists but still consider themselves Jewish, as an ethnic definition. In Israel, Jews come from so many different horizons and are so genetically different (e.g. Ethiopian Jew vs Russian Jew) that only religion unites them. If even today the Jews themselves can't agree on what it means to be Jewish, how would you expect non-Jews in past centuries to know ? Therefore it is both mistaken and pedantic of this Jerome Chanes to try distinguish religious from racial anti-Semitism in European history.

The political, social and economic anti-Semitism is essentially the same as racial and religious anti-Semitism too. Socially the Jews were always excluded (or excluded themselves) from the mainstream European society. The reason was purely religious though, and the consequence was that they remained ethnically distinct from other Europeans. You can't separate the social from the religious and the ethnic. It's all one and same thing. Economically the Jews were richer because they specialised in jobs such as money lending that was traditionally prohibited to Christians. So once again they different economic status has religious roots. The political expression of anti-Semitism rose because of resentment towards this ground of people who were ethnically and religiously distinct and accumulated considerable wealth. No matter whether it was in the 18th, 19th or 20th century, political anti-Semitism was always caused by these three factors, who all have their roots, ultimately, in religion. So anti-Semitism in Europe was always a religious conflict, even in Nazism. You just can't separate racial Jewishness from religious Jewishness in anti-Semitism. If you can then please advise the Israeli state on who they should accept as new citizens.

The Israelite Exodus from Egypt, recounted in the Bible, tells of the oppression of the Israelites as slaves in Egypt, their flight from the country led by Moses and their journey through the wilderness before eventually settling in the "Promised Land".

Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm#ixzz2qYyzIbX6

The Babylonian captivity (or Babylonian exile) is the period in Jewish history during which Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylonia.
According to the Hebrew Bible, there were four deportations of Jews to Babylon: After the Battle of Charcamish during the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among young Jewish nobility carried off by Nebuchadnezzer to Babylon.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
 
That's a theological argument best left to theologians. If I didn't know about that I doubt that ordinary, uneducated folks in past centuries knew either. And therefore this argument could not have influenced much the anti-Semitic views of most of the population.

The concept of the Christian world was very clear to everybody in the Middle Ages. The imperial orb is the very symbol of that.

I didn't say that Creationism invariably led to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others".

I can't read anything else in this sentence: "Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others".

It said that Creationism was a prerequisite for it. If you have flour, milk, butter and eggs, you can make waffles, but you can also make pancakes, or just bread if you leave some ingredients. To get the concepts of "fixed races" and hence also "superior races", you need several ingredients and one of them is that God created humans in clearly separate races.

But that is not true either. First, Christianity clearly states that all men were created equal. Secondly, the idea of superior and inferior races in the late nineteenth early twentieth century has its roots in social Darwinism, amongst others. The idea was that if species were created by evolutionary winnes and evolutionary losers the same could be said for peoples.

This point is moot knowing that "nations" were composed of vastly different people. Spain and France, for example, had the Basques, who always regarded themselves as ethnically distinct, just like the Jews. But Spain also has the Catalans, Galicians, Asturians... France has the Bretons, Corsicans, Alsatians... Italy has the Sardinians, Aostans, Tyrolians, etc. All these minorities were already known at the time. I don't see how the Jews were any different for the purpose of nation-states or the argument of ethnic purity. The only difference with the Jews was their religion. But even then, there has been a considerable minority of non-Christians in Europe (Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, Pantheists, etc.) at least since the Enlightenment.

But the Bretons, Corsicans, Tyrolians and whomever had homelands, to wit Brittany, Corsica, Tyrol and where ever. The Jews hadn't. The Zionists actually sought to find a homeland, the Soviet-Russians invented a homeland for Jews. National-Socialists, who defined the whole of history in terms of a colossal fight between "races" in which the winners would have natural right to rule over the losers, concluded from that lack of homeland that the Jews were the natural enemy of all of Europe since they wished to subdue it and use it as colony, just to get an enormous homeland.

The Nazi's persecuted Gypsies almost as fiercely as Jews just because they fitted the description of people without homeland as well. Gypsies were mostly Roman Catholics.
 
The rise of the NSDAP is deep rooted in the events (aftermath) of WWI - the collapse of the German Empire (Kaiserreich) and the rising threat of Communism (Bolschewismus) topped with the incompetances of the Weimar republic;

Franz von Papen instigated Hindenburg (the president) to appoint Hitler as chancellor (Reichskanzler) in the times of turmoil after the 1932 (November) elections; And indeed Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler in January 1933 by Hindenburg - but the big blunder of this was that von Papen's grant plan was to actually control and contain Hitler and the NSDAP with that position; Didnt work out;
Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S38324%2C_Tag_von_Potsdam%2C_Adolf_Hitler%2C_Paul_v._Hindenburg.jpg


The NSDAP became the strongest party (winners de-facto ) in the 1933 March elections;

Election results 1924-1933:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/elect.htm
 
Germans did replace old, senile and corrupted Catholic Church by something more radical : Protestantism. It happened many centuries before Hitler lived, but Hitler was brought up as a Catholic and just underwent his own "Reformation" in adulthood.

No matter how you look at it, Hitler's ideologies were heavily influenced by the Christian mindset, Christian fears and Christian creationism. The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others. It wouldn't make sense to a scientist who only sees the range of interpersonal variations between humans.

Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism, the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel). Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

NB : Hitler's neo-paganism was purely cultural, not religious. It was just for show, a kind of justification for Germanic militarism. Neither Hitler nor virtually anybody in Germany started believing in the power of ancient gods like Odin or Thor during the Nazi period. All remained strongly monotheist and were usually fairly typical Christians in their metaphysical beliefs.

You didn’t get the point.
I’m not talking about religion, I’m not talking about haplogroups, I’m not talking about Hitler, I’m not talking who’s superior or who’s inferior. I’m talking about white and black rabbit and reasoning as to why black rabbit can’t in his lineage create white rabbit. And why white rabbit can in his lineage create black rabbit???
How can your useless haplogroups explain that?
For your and for everyone’s anatomical knowledge here, colour of eyes, hair or skin does not define race. For example, for Swedish southern Italian can appear as black. Colour of skin is a point of view . The same southern Italian in Nigeria would be called blonde (the last happened in front of my eyes).
Race is defined not by colour but by skeleton type, by bone structure. Skin colour you can change, as M.Jackson did, but you can’t change skeleton, at least for now. Anthropologists just by examining human skeleton can tell that man’s race without any haplogroup theory, skin colour or eyes colour
 
I didn't say that Atheism prevented the concept of racism either. Not all Atheists are well educated scientists - far from it. What prevent the concept of "superior races" is the understanding of evolution and genetics. However one cannot reasonably understand evolution and genetics and not be an Atheist. So all geneticists ought to be Atheists, but the reverse is not true (at all).(Maciamo)

Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements[19] such as Wicca,[20] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[21] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union




 
Crime rates flucuate, but the cities you've mentioned certainly do have a long-term problem with violence... however linking Christianity to violent areas simply does not fly. What about the Northern cities of Detroit and Chicago? I've lived all over the U.S. and I can tell you are missing the main cause of this crime. And that is the wholesale destruction of the family unit in minority/urban communities.

Whether or not this has anything to do with the for-profit prison industry that's solidly entrenched in the U.S.-- I can only speculate. Popular media (gangsta rap, glorification of drugs) has played a big role in the dismantling of the African-American family.

Also please don't pin this crime on racial tensions of the "Old South". I've found that blacks and whites relate far better to one another in the Deep South vs. the Northern States. When you interact with folks on a daily basis, colors seem to fade away. Most violence committed in the U.S. is between members of the same ethnic group.

I intended to reply, but it seems you have stolen my thunder N.W.
 

This thread has been viewed 54335 times.

Back
Top