Darwinism is the Main Source of Racism
A huge wave of propaganda has recently been initiated in various Darwinist publications. Some of the headlines that have appeared in these publications are: “Hatred of slavery drove Darwin ideas, book says” and “Darwin: shaped by slavery”, “Darwin’s anti-Slavery Views May Have Guided His Theory of Evolution.”
These suggestions, which might at first sight appear capable of misleading someone unaware of the true face of Darwinism, its sinister logic and the scourges and oppression it has inflicted on the world, are in fact a brand new initiative from Darwinists, who have for years been misleading humanity with the worst mass deception in history. Seeing that Darwinism religion has been brought to the ground, Darwinists have sought a solution in portraying Darwinism as an innocent ideology opposed to racism. However, the truth of the matter is this:
Exactly contrary to this propaganda, Darwin’s false claim of common origins FORMED THE MAIN BASIS FOR RACISM, and became THE SOURCE OF INSPIRATION FOR FASCISTS, who used racism as a supposed justification for massacres. Darwinism maintained that human beings were evolved from primitive life forms, and even claimed that some races had progressed further than others in the course of that fictitious evolution, thus providing a scientific mask for racism. To put it another way, Darwin wanted society to regard human beings as a species of animal and to believe in the existence of supposed “superior races” and “inferior races” within that species on the basis of false science and a false philosophy. What the Nazis and all other fascists did was simply to put Darwin’s theory into practice.
Peter Chrisp, author of the book The Rise of Fascism, makes this quite clear in the words “The Nazis distorted Darwin’s theories… using them to justify warfare and racism.” [i] The historian R. Hickman also describes how Hitler was influenced by Darwinism:
[Hitler] was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [ii]
The conclusion from these facts about fascist racism is clear: Darwinism is what is “truly” responsible for both all fascist regimes and the two world wars. Fascists draw their basic beliefs from Darwinism. Principles such as chaos, ruthlessness, oppression and strong being right are all inherent in this perverted system that regards chance as a creative force. The principle of continual struggle in Darwinism lays the philosophical groundwork for endless savagery, oppression and slaughter.
Therefore it is Darwin who is principally responsible for a century of mass slaughter by spreading the idea that human beings are descended from primitive animals and that undeveloped animals need to be destroyed. It is also Darwin who inflicted racism and fascism on the world and savagery, devastation and oppression on the people in it. And it is Darwin who regarded the Turkish nation as an inferior race, who had no compunctions about openly stating that, and who, since he believed the Turks were an “inferior race,” was determined they should be eliminated, thus making him the worst fascist in history. [iii]
That is the view that publications suggesting that Darwin was “opposed to racism” should be taking into account of the worst racist and fascist of all time, a man who claimed the Turkish nation was an inferior race and wished to see it eliminated. Darwinism is the sole and fundamental reason why the world suffered years of tyranny under the bloody rule of racism and fascism. The mass deceptions Darwinists have perpetrated over the last 150 years or so have now come to an end in absolute defeat. By trying to deceive people into thinking that the worst fascist in history was actually “opposed to racism,” Darwinists merely make themselves look ridiculous. People no longer believe in the lies of Darwinism and Darwinists.
[i] Peter Chrisp, The Rise of Fascism, Witness History Series, p. 6
[ii] Hickman, R., Biocreation, Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983; Jerry Bergman, “Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust”, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2): 101–111, 1999
[iii] Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I, 1888. New York: D. Appleton and Company, pp.285-286
*Compiled from here.
@Shams, I thought you know something about evolution, but you disappointed me.
You are asking over and over again about the starting of life, but for your kind information, the theory of evolution doesn’t deal with the starting of life. It just explains speciation, diversity of animal kingdom and above all how organisms change over time. The emergence of life is a subject under Abiogenesis. I think this essay is very compatible for your level: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense; http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jaffor/jaffor_intelligent_design.html
“The theory can better be described as establishment and west is enjoying its fruit especially from its social aspect. Its protectors are well aware of it. The atheists (around the world ) also support it by being an intermediate species (as labelled by their master).:D. We know its not easy to fight againt this establishment. The theory which relies on too much assumptions (might have been, possibly this or that condition of several billion years back….bla bla..) and still struggling for its existence in every aspect (scientific, social etc) is bound to collapse. We have to wait for several more years for the truth.”
দেয়ালে পিঠ ঠেকলো নাকি ভাই?
“At last you give a reference. well done. Can you focus just one from them and enlighten us why this is a transitional fossil?”
Try all the hyperlinks provided in that article.
1@এস.এম. রায়হান, as our argument is deviating from the context, I don’t want to reply to your comment#44. You can regard me as the loser.
You asked where Harun Yahya had stated about the inferiority of human. Please go through this write-up again. If you can find, then tell me what the criterion of measuring the inferiority.
2@ Anonymous,
It seems to me that you are blind, someone is reading for you! Thats why you find list of drawings as list of transitional species. It is up to you, it is up to your belief. Thanks
3@Anonymous,
“You are asking over and over again about the starting of life, but for your kind information, the theory of evolution doesn’t deal with the starting of life”
“Darwin’s warm pond idea is tested”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm
please open your eyes if you are NOT blind!
Regards
4….You are asking over and over again about the starting of life, but for your kind information, the theory of evolution doesn’t deal with the starting of life……
First of all thanking Sorowar for showing the link. I think Anonymous will read these links before making further comment about the relation between starting of life and evolution.
@Anonymous,
I did not say that evolution is all about starting of life but it is inside the arena of evolution theory which is given in sorowars link above. Read the no:7 argument of the writer “John Rennie” of your given reference!!!:). I have doubt that you read these articles at all!!!See what they say.
{Requesting the readers to look into the part of first sentence….”life could have formed….”}
….I think this essay is very compatible for your level: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense; http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jaffor/jaffor_intelligent_design.html….
Firstly, we hope that your knowledge about evolution will reach beyond ‘mukto-mona.com’ (if u really read them!!!) In these eassy they give nice articulated pictures (!!!) about evolution along with inappropriate argument. I leave it to the reader to judge, does the below comparison make sense:
…..The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” ….
….দেয়ালে পিঠ ঠেকলো নাকি ভাই?
Establishment is found in its various forms (for example political establishment, neo-cons of USA etc). Darwinism is also an area of science (as they calim) that became an establishment.In the course of time many of the establishment wiped out.History speaks the truth.
You drew conclusion about evolution whereas the theory is still not mature enough (after 150 years!!!) to get this privilege. I am not against evolution until it can prove itself. I think its the same to those who are opposing the theory. I requested you to discuss about the theory point by point (no gross remark or what the masters say). You just ignored them. Your comments exposed to the readers how the darwinist (athiest mind) work (supposed to be free thinker, open minded, ‘bigganmonosko’…..).
5Darwinism may not be the origin or the main source of racism, but the fact is that Darwinism has given racism a scientific mask. All those fascist and communist dictators have used social Darwinism to kill millions of people that Darwinists can no way deny.
Mr. Sorowar may want to write an article on Wikipedia’s so-called transitional fossils. Darwin’s blind devotees are forwarding that link to some blogs claiming that scientists have found transitional fossils! I have gone through the link some days back. They appear a bunch of drawings and real species, not transitional fossils. If they are really transitional fossils then why don’t we see them in their media!
6@Shams, I have something yet to answer to some of your questions asked in the comment#42. I missed those to answer in the previous session.
“Why we need to go back to 3.5 billions years back to get these “unicellular stromatolites” while these are present in this very recent time. The presence of these “unicellular stromatolites” in present time with its original form prove or disprove the start of life from these species?How?”
Can it be a question against evolution?!!? Evolutionary theory proclaims that life began from very simple living organisms, it can be unicellular or multicellular(actually from scientific view, unicellular organisms came first and it is evident). You don’t have to go back to 3.5 billion years back, because, from carbon dating it’s obvious that the unicellular cyanobacteria, found in stromatolites, existed around 3.5 billion years ago and no fossil of multicellular organisms have been found so far that existed before these microorganisms. This is why we can conclude that life began from this type of microorganisms.
“The presence of these “unicellular stromatolites” in present time with its original form prove or disprove the start of life from these species?How?”
=> What did you mean by “original form”? What species are you talking about?
“First of all thanking Sorowar for showing the link. I think Anonymous will read these links before making further comment about the relation between starting of life and evolution.”
Please show an extract from that write-up that says that Natural Selection deals with the starting of life.
“Read the no:7 argument of the writer “John Rennie” of your given reference!!!:). I have doubt that you read these articles at all!!!See what they say.
{Requesting the readers to look into the part of first sentence….”life could have formed….”}
So? What if I say that God created life? It doesn’t contradict the theory of evolution anyhow. Do you really have any clear idea on Natural Selection? I doubt.
“Firstly, we hope that your knowledge about evolution will reach beyond ‘mukto-mona.com’ (if u really read them!!!)”
Don’t you see that the essay was published in the Scientific American? Here is the link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist Read if you can.
“I leave it to the reader to judge, does the below comparison make sense:
…..The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?”….”
It doesn’t make sense for the amateur people. Firstly, descending from the adults are not evolution, but it means here “isolation”. We isolated from the earlier apes but it’s not compulsory for those apes to be extincted. Most of the time, the ancestor species evolves independently. But in some cases, they remain almost unchanged if the natural environment doesn’t change. It should be noted that we’re also apes(more precisely, “great apes”) and what we can see around us such as chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan etc are not our ancestor nor are we theirs. We all have a single common ancestor and we evolved through different lineages.
“Establishment is found in its various forms (for example political establishment, neo-cons of USA etc). Darwinism is also an area of science (as they calim) that became an establishment.In the course of time many of the establishment wiped out.History speaks the truth.”
Need a sleep now.
“I requested you to discuss about the theory point by point (no gross remark or what the masters say). You just ignored them.”
I have to write a huge essay to enlighten you about it. Natural Selection is a scientific theory. If an explanation of an observable phenomenon or a fact is proved to be true, that explanation is called a theory. As Natural Selection has been proven by experiment, it is a scientific theory. Now do I have to explain what Natural Selection is?
“Your comments exposed to the readers how the darwinist (athiest mind) work (supposed to be free thinker, open minded, ‘bigganmonosko’…..).”
Who is atheist? Who are you talking about?
7@Sorowar,
“It seems to me that you are blind, someone is reading for you! Thats why you find list of drawings as list of transitional species.”
Click the hypertexts of “Taxa” and “Genus”.
““Darwin’s warm pond idea is tested”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm”
For how much time have I to tell you that evolutionary theory is about the evolution of life, not about the beginning? This theory(Natural Selection) just explains how evolution took place after the life had emerged and how it’s still occurring.
8@এস.এম. রায়হান,
“the fact is that Darwinism has given racism a scientific mask.”
Agreed. But, this mask is not scientific but pseudo-scientific.
“All those fascist and communist dictators have used social Darwinism to kill millions of people that Darwinists can no way deny.”
Yes, it’s social Darwinism and THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF SOCIAL DARWINISM.
“They appear a bunch of drawings and real species, not transitional fossils.”
What do you want to see? “The list of transitional fossils” or “the transitional fossils”?
You haven’t reply to my question yet. Is it a fact that Caucasians are inferior to us?
9Anonymous says:
“Agreed. But, this mask is not scientific but pseudo-scientific.”
HahHah! Darwinism is altogether pseudo-science. In fact it’s a bad superstition. For example, you believe that once upon a time you had a tail in your back and in the passage of time your tail had got extinct! This is pure superstition. You also believe a lot more and much worse than this one.
“Yes, it’s social Darwinism and THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF SOCIAL DARWINISM.”
Firstly, there is no scientific basis of Darwinism either. Had there been any, I wouldn’t have to be a brutal critic of Darwinism! Secondly, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the idea of social Darwinism came from Darwinism itself. Had there been no Darwinism in the first place, there wouldn’t have anything like “social Darwinism” later.
“What do you want to see? “The list of transitional fossils” or “the transitional fossils”?”
Didn’t understand what you wanted to say here.
“You haven’t reply to my question yet. Is it a fact that Caucasians are inferior to us?”
Where did I say Caucasians are inferior to you!
10@Anonymous,
You don’t have to go back to 3.5 billion years back, because, from carbon dating it’s obvious that the unicellular cyanobacteria, found in stromatolites, existed around 3.5 billion years ago and no fossil of multicellular organisms have been found so far that existed before these microorganisms. This is why we can conclude that life began from this type of microorganisms.
–>Firstly I think you need to know about carbon dating. Where did you get this info that carbon dating can trace back fossil of 3.5billion where it trace maximum of 60000 years? Anyway this is not my point. Your mentioned simple cell is not simple at all, you know that? Is it formed by another evolution!!!
….What did you mean by “original form”? What species are you talking about?
–>Please read my comment again, what we are talking about in this comment.:)
…Please show an extract from that write-up that says that Natural Selection deals with the starting of life.
–>Cool down and read my comments, is it natural selection that I mention that deals with the starting of life!
…So? What if I say that God created life? It doesn’t contradict the theory of evolution anyhow. Do you really have any clear idea on Natural Selection? I doubt…
…If an explanation of an observable phenomenon or a fact is proved to be true, that explanation is called a theory. As Natural Selection has been proven by experiment, it is a scientific theory. Now do I have to explain what Natural Selection is?….
–>Simply speaking there are numerous reasons not to believe in your so called natural selection. Its a clever explanation of saying that that species evolved by adaptive mutations where as this mutation is very applicable at ‘microlevel(microevolution)’, its true that mutation occurs human body or more complex structures but that does not prove the transition of species from one species to completely different one. What type of experiment prove natural selection applicable at macrolevel (macroevolution)? Does the species changes to another one! The story comes, evolution occurs in thousands of years…slowly…slowly…in generations under certain conditions and environment!!!Human has 23 chromosoms, mice has 20, how the mutation creates new chromosomes!!!No answer. Does selective breeding of cow changes basic cow genome? No answer.List is going more and more…..
As calimed by evolutionists it is a theory that interprets the evidences (claimed as fact!) by fossil record! A lot of fraud and controversy about these fossils, hope no need to mention about it. I could not see a full single human (or ‘ape’) fossil (skulls only) in the web. Then how to tell that these are really human or ape or something else!Then the so called darwinists scientists need to make an agreement and this is scientitic!!!
My point is very clear it is not time for conclusion!I wish not to continue this useless argument.
I would like to ask Anonymous to write his scholarly article in favor of evolution/natural selection and let readers decide if they want to eat it.
11@এস.এম. রায়হান,
“Darwinism is altogether pseudo-science. In fact it’s a bad superstition.”
The validity of this statement depends on what you meant by “Darwinism”. Darwinism can mean a lot of ideas. It can mean Natural Selection, Pangenesis etc. So, please write precisely what you meant.
“For example, you believe that once upon a time you had a tail in your back and in the passage of time your tail had got extinct! This is pure superstition.”
It’s not Darwinism nor is it a superstition. It’s a fact. The coccyx that we have as a vestigial part has lost most of its functions. We still have some alleles that can produce a fully functional tail if they get homozygous.
“Firstly, there is no scientific basis of Darwinism either.”
Firstly, if you mean something other than the idea of Natural Selection, then I won’t oppose. On the other hand, if it means Natural Selection, then I must oppose. Secondly, if you can prove that Natural Selection doesn’t occur, then Darwinism can’t stand on a scientific basis anymore and I will accept your claim.
“Secondly, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the idea of social Darwinism came from Darwinism itself.”
Where did I ignore it? Go through from my first comment.
“Had there been no Darwinism in the first place, there wouldn’t have anything like “social Darwinism” later. ”
It seems like-”Had there been no theory of relativity in the first place, there wouldn’t have been anything like “nuclear weapon” later.”
“Didn’t understand what you wanted to say here.”
It’s a list of some transitional fossils which have been found so far : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Now do you want to see the transitional fossils?
“Where did I say Caucasians are inferior to you!”
Well. You didn’t say. Then would you please tell me whether it’s a fact that there’s a race of human which is inferior to others?
12@Anonymous in comment#7 wrote: “We isolated from the earlier apes but it’s not compulsory for those apes to be extincted.”
– What do you mean by “isolation” here. Do you mean to say that humans have not been evolved from apes (or any other animals); rather they (humans) have simply been isolated from apes? I’m not sure how much apes are there in the world now. Let’s say there are 100,000 apes in the world. Now, starting from these living apes, explain to us how a new species like humans will be isolated from these apes through Natural Selection, and apes will still be there.
“It should be noted that we’re also apes (more precisely, “great apes”) and what we can see around us such as chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan etc are not our ancestor nor are we theirs. We all have a single common ancestor and we evolved through different lineages.”
– What is that “single common ancestor”, btw.
13@Anonymous
Darwinists like you seem to be trying to ‘isolate’ anything and everything of Darwinism that sound bad or uncomfortable!
“The validity of this statement depends on what you meant by “Darwinism”. Darwinism can mean a lot of ideas. It can mean Natural Selection, Pangenesis etc. So, please write precisely what you meant.”
– You have to explain precisely what you mean by “Darwinism” as you believe in it.
“It’s not Darwinism nor is it a superstition. It’s a fact. The coccyx that we have as a vestigial part has lost most of its functions. We still have some alleles that can produce a fully functional tail if they get homozygous.
–
“Secondly, if you can prove that Natural Selection doesn’t occur, then Darwinism can’t stand on a scientific basis anymore and I will accept your claim.”
– The onus on you. You have to prove with example that Natural Selection does occur in reality, and it also transforms one species to a new one.
“It seems like-”Had there been no theory of relativity in the first place, there wouldn’t have been anything like “nuclear weapon” later.””
– You are comparing an apple with a stone to make a fool of yourself.
“It’s a list of some transitional fossils which have been found so far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Now do you want to see the transitional fossils?”
– As Mr. Shams said, take one fossil from the list as an example and clearly explain to us as to why it should be called a transitional fossil, and transitional fossil between which species?
“Well. You didn’t say. Then would you please tell me whether it’s a fact that there’s a race of human which is inferior to others?”
– It’s the belief of some Darwinists.
14