Split from ISIS thread

I3BrigPvSk said:
I view this as amusing and annoying at the same time. First of all, there is a huge difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution with natural selection. The latter has been proven correct a lot of times. Darwinism was a term created by Herbert Spencer and he also used the term "survival of the fittest" When you are quoting someone, use it correctly or don't do it at all. Darwin said

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."

You also begin to read about what liberalism is, because you don't know the difference between socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and nazism.

Shall we ask Red to move this thread to the General Discussion part of the forum
Click to expand...

Own-goal !!
You quoted Darwin saying that it was a bad thing to help the weak.That it is wrong to prevent the elimination of the weak . Hitler said the same thing and did what Darwin proposed = to eliminate all those who not belonged to the race of the Übermensch .
 
lljadw said:
Own-goal !!
You quoted Darwin saying that it was a bad thing to help the weak.That it is wrong to prevent the elimination of the weak . Hitler said the same thing and did what Darwin proposed = to eliminate all those who not belonged to the race of the Übermensch .
Click to expand...

Yep, he said it because he was married to his 1st cousin and their kids suffered from it. some of them died very early. Today you aren't allowed to marry your first cousin.
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
The truth is that the nazis embraced Darwinism (and especially its racist and antisemitic side )and used it as a foundational principle of their worldview .The influence of the chief German Darwinist (Ernst Häckel ) on nazism ,was essential .

This is confirmed in other words by establishment historians as Richard Evans; Ian Kershaw and Eberhard Jackel .
Click to expand...

Darwinism, not the evolution with natural selection, which has been proven scientifically several times.
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
Own-goal !!
You quoted Darwin saying that it was a bad thing to help the weak.That it is wrong to prevent the elimination of the weak . Hitler said the same thing and did what Darwin proposed = to eliminate all those who not belonged to the race of the Übermensch .
Click to expand...

The problem remains that it is common knowledge that Darwin tried to steer clear of political, social and economic issues as demonstrated in letters sent to Hugo Thiel and Karl Marx.
In an 1869 letter to Hugo Thiel Darwin wrote "you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different, and most important subjects".

On matters of race Darwin appears to have typical Victorian views as you would expect from a Victorian naturalist however the fact that he died in 1882 makes it unlikely he was pro-Nazi (1919) or Eugenics of which the term was invented a year after Darwin's death but physically practiced as far back as Sparta and Plato.
 
There are two perceptions of Darwinism, the Origin of Species by natural Selection and then social Darwinism which is a social interpretation of the biological theory. I prefer to call the first one just the theory of evolution.

Charles Darwin asked himself why there are so many different kind of fishes, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals etc. He also compared extinct animals with living animals. He find the extinct sloth looked like the living sloth and the same thing with the armadillo. When he arrived to Galapagos, every island had it's own finches with different beaks. He compared these finches with the finches on mainland South America and realized they must have a common ancestor. During his voyage on the ship HMS Beagle, he collected samples of animals and because he was prone to sea sickness, I guess he puked a lot. Darwin, a religious man like most people back then started to questioning the biblical story about how old Earth really is when he found more and more fossils. When he returned to England he began to study and categorize the samples and saw animals changed depending on their habitat. He also studied embryos from different animals and saw they all look the same. Darwin knew humans can breed different animals to get the desired result. Dogs, for instance, he began to realize the nature does the same but over a very long time. Nature is a brutal and savage place where animals struggle for survival. Those animals with the best camouflage, can run fastest, or hunt best will survive and pass these traits to the next generations. Trough eons of what geologist and paleontologists call deep time, these traits in the struggle of survival can create new species. There is one thing Charles Darwin didn't know and that was how it worked. Now we know how it works and that is through genetics. The genetics has confirmed the validity of the evolution theory. that's why his theory about evolution is accepted, if it wasn't it had ended up in the bin.

Social Darwinism was most likely created by Herbert Spencer after he read the Origin of Species and evolution by Natural Selection. So it should be called Spencerism instead. He applied the biological theory of evolution on human societies. This perception got a lot of support in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, but it's more or less gone now after the Second World War. Humans are part of the natural world, the micro-biological world keeps us there. But, there is a one major difference between humans and animals. We create cultures and societies, animals don't. Even though we aren't the only species able to be altruistic.

The two approaches cannot mix, either we talk about the evolution theory Darwin published in 1859, which is one of the most important scientific work in our history or we talk about something which is not scientific and more or less being rejected.
 
MontyB said:
The problem remains that it is common knowledge that Darwin tried to steer clear of political, social and economic issues as demonstrated in letters sent to Hugo Thiel and Karl Marx.
In an 1869 letter to Hugo Thiel Darwin wrote "you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different, and most important subjects".

On matters of race Darwin appears to have typical Victorian views as you would expect from a Victorian naturalist however the fact that he died in 1882 makes it unlikely he was pro-Nazi (1919) or Eugenics of which the term was invented a year after Darwin's death but physically practiced as far back as Sparta and Plato.
Click to expand...

Well said. I don't think we can find a link between Darwin and Hitler. It will be easier to find a link between Spencer and Hitler.
 
I think we need to talk a little about the different political ideologies/theories/identities here.

The major ideologies (remember they all are ideas about how we shall organize our societies)

Liberalism is divided into three different approaches. The Classical Liberalism, the Social Liberalism, and the Neo-Liberalism. The essence in liberalism is the individual freedom and they oppose all governmental interference in peoples life. The classical liberals argued for a small government and the same government should stay out of the economical life as well (Laissez Faire). Classical liberals are also supporters of what is called the night watchman state. The government shall only provide with the police, the military, and the courts. The social liberals wants to keep the small government, but they aren't supporters of the Laissez Faire economy. The majority of those calling themselves liberals are social liberals. The Neo-Liberals want to return to the classical liberalism with a night watchman state and Laissez Faire economy. Liberals are supporters of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all human have fundamental rights. a free market, and the government shall stay away. If we take an example from the reality. The US Constitution is a very classical liberal text.

Socialism is divided into two mainstream paths. The social democratic path and the Marxist path. The socialists aren't focusing on the individual freedoms, they are focusing on class and the struggle between classes, the ownership of the means of production. The social democrats want to change the society into a class free society through reforms. The Marxist/Leninist/ Maoist approach is to change the society with a revolution and then create the proletarian dictatorship when all classes are destroyed which will lead to communism.

Conservatism, is the most divided of them. It appears to be ad hoc about different issues. The mainstream is to change the society very slowly and base governments on the existent structures in the society. It can be called to keep the throne, the church, and the economic structures. Even though, there are many different kinds of conservatism. Economic conservatism, religious conservatism, political conservatism, and they don't share the liberals optimistic perception of how people are. Although, they agree with the liberals on the free market.

Fascism and Nazism. There is a difference between them. They appear more as a reaction to something. During the majority of the 20th century we had to opposing economic systems competing. Fascism was a reaction to the communists, but they prefer the capitalist system. However, their approach is the national state with a strong leader and no opposition. There is however no free market in a fascistic state. The government decide about means of productions. Although, fascist don't care much about what a person is as long as the person is viewed as a citizen and not opposing the government. Nazism share some traits, but they don't share the view on what a person is.

The criticism toward all of them. Liberals are too damn optimistic about people and many of their ideas don't really work. Even though, most people can agree with the freedom of speech, text, religion etc. Socialism, their thoughts about classes can be viewed as quite odd. It worked during the industrial revolution when many of the socialist movements were created. They established trade unions to improve the conditions for the working class. However, in their attempt to destroy the class structure in the society, they created new classes. The other approach has never worked, when Marx and Engels "invented" it they really didn't understand the nature of human beings. It has never been any communistic countries and it will never be any. All countries trying this ideology have failed and it ended up with totalitarian states. The only difference between Fascism, Nazism, and Communism is; the class struggle the communists are talking about. The outcomes are the same.

Conservatism is a very ad hoc ideology depending where it is. Some countries are focusing a lot on religious conservatism, others on political conservatism and fiscal issues.

So how shall we view all these political theories and ideologies? All political parties around the world use these ideologies as a foundation for how they want to organize the society. Most people listen to what politicians/political parties are saying and then they begin to pick out things from all political ideologies and things people agree most with will get their vote.

So with all this let us take a closer look at the American parties. The republicans are very liberal in many aspects. The democrats seem to be more social democratic than social liberal. The British labor party when Tony Blair was the leader it turned more toward social liberalism, but now under the control of Jeremy Corbyn it has turned more to be more left than the social democrats.

There are other ideologies out there. Environmentalist (green parties) feminist parties, and others to be nationalistic, but the latter have a tendency to be social conservative
 
Sorry for the blank posts above here, I think I have found the problem so it should work to post again now
 
Today's liberals are not supporters of small government ( Beveridge : the man of the welfare state was a liberal ),neither do they support freedom of religion .
Free Market : there was only one fascist state,Italy, and there was free market in Italy : free market and autarky/protectionism do not exclude each other .
Free market is not Free Trade .
 
lljadw said:
Today's liberals are not supporters of small government ( Beveridge : the man of the welfare state was a liberal ),neither do they support freedom of religion .
Free Market : there was only one fascist state,Italy, and there was free market in Italy : free market and autarky/protectionism do not exclude each other .
Free market is not Free Trade .
Click to expand...

Beveridge was a social liberal, inspired by Keynes and Beveridge was working on how to get Britain out of the recession caused by the Second World War. Britain was close to bankruptcy after the war. The Labour party picked up some of his ideas, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

Franco's Spain, the military juntas in South America were very much fascist states. Even Japan prior and during the Second World War fills into that category as well. You really need to read more about the fascistic economy, it was influenced by the socialist economy. The means of productions were owned by private corporations, but they couldn't decide what to produce nor who they could hire. The same with the educational institutions (universities) A totalitarian state doesn't allow the universities to scientifically study and to educate those admitted to their universities and colleges.

The free trade is a part of the free market
 
Btw, How many of you believe in what a few goat herders/fishermen/carpenters wrote for about two thousand years ago? Did Jesus really exist? Did Mohammed really exist? Do we have any independent sources that confirm their existence? (not the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran)

I know the Torah is supposed to be older....You eligible to believe whatever fairy tale you want, but your fairy tales aren't true and that makes the difference. I might offend some people now and to that I say....so fxxking what?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Beveridge was a social liberal, inspired by Keynes and Beveridge was working on how to get Britain out of the recession caused by the Second World War. Britain was close to bankruptcy after the war. The Labour party picked up some of his ideas, but that doesn't make him a socialist.

Franco's Spain, the military juntas in South America were very much fascist states. Even Japan prior and during the Second World War fills into that category as well. You really need to read more about the fascistic economy, it was influenced by the socialist economy. The means of productions were owned by private corporations, but they couldn't decide what to produce nor who they could hire. The same with the educational institutions (universities) A totalitarian state doesn't allow the universities to scientifically study and to educate those admitted to their universities and colleges.

The free trade is a part of the free market
Click to expand...

Beveridge was the father of the Welfare State ,and also a liberal : this proves that the claim thatliberals supported small government,is wrong,because welfare state means big government . That Britain was bankrupt after the war is irrelevant, as this did not cause the welfare state .
Franco Spain was not fascist: the Spanish variant of Italian fascism (the Falange ) was eliminated by Franco .
Totalitarian states do allow scientifical studies at universities : in Germany, a lot of scientist were studying at the universities .
Free trade is not a part of the free market : during the depression,free trade was replaced by protectionism, but free market still existed .
After the war,and still today, liberalism dominates Britain : Cameron, a Tory, led a progressive coalition with the liberal party . ''progressive coalition '' were his own words .
The liberal British governments forbade and still forbid religious schools to teach creationism and oblige them to teach the evolution theory of Darwin .
This is a direct attack on the freedom of religion .
There is also the Fair Admission Campaign, obliging religious schools to admit non religious students and students of other religions .
This also is a direct attack on the freedom of religion .
In Canada ,the liberal government of Trudeau is attacking the right of christians to demonstrate for religious reasons .
That fascist economy was influenced by socialist economy is irrelevant,as the liberal capitalist economy also was and is influenced by socialist economy .
In Franco Spain, railways were owned by the state, but that does not prove that Franco Spain was economically socialist or fascist : in the US railways are also owned by the state, as in Germany ans in Belgium .
There is no such thing as a fascist economy .
Mussolini had some economic theories, but these were very fast abandoned faced by reality . After all,fascism ruled in Italy and ideologies are not very important in Italy .
 
lljadw said:
Beveridge was the father of the Welfare State ,and also a liberal : this proves that the claim thatliberals supported small government,is wrong,because welfare state means big government . That Britain was bankrupt after the war is irrelevant, as this did not cause the welfare state .
Franco Spain was not fascist: the Spanish variant of Italian fascism (the Falange ) was eliminated by Franco .
Totalitarian states do allow scientifical studies at universities : in Germany, a lot of scientist were studying at the universities .
Free trade is not a part of the free market : during the depression,free trade was replaced by protectionism, but free market still existed .
After the war,and still today, liberalism dominates Britain : Cameron, a Tory, led a progressive coalition with the liberal party . ''progressive coalition '' were his own words .
The liberal British governments forbade and still forbid religious schools to teach creationism and oblige them to teach the evolution theory of Darwin .
This is a direct attack on the freedom of religion .
There is also the Fair Admission Campaign, obliging religious schools to admit non religious students and students of other religions .
This also is a direct attack on the freedom of religion .
In Canada ,the liberal government of Trudeau is attacking the right of christians to demonstrate for religious reasons .
That fascist economy was influenced by socialist economy is irrelevant,as the liberal capitalist economy also was and is influenced by socialist economy .
In Franco Spain, railways were owned by the state, but that does not prove that Franco Spain was economically socialist or fascist : in the US railways are also owned by the state, as in Germany ans in Belgium .
There is no such thing as a fascist economy .
Mussolini had some economic theories, but these were very fast abandoned faced by reality . After all,fascism ruled in Italy and ideologies are not very important in Italy .
Click to expand...

He suggested it in a time period without any safety net at all. He wasn't the creator of it. Bismarck was, but there is a difference between them, though. Beveridge was a social liberal, but he wasn't a socialist. He wanted to keep the means of production within the private sector. The Labour party picked it up and won the election. Fascistic economy relation to socialistic economy isn't irrelevant, maybe in your mind it is. You need to read more even things that contradict your own perceptions.

Only because universities exist in totalitarian states don't make them independent from state. When the state doesn't have any influence on what the university does, that makes the science much better. With saying that, the Soviet Union had really good universities that achieved great things, but they weren't allowed to practice one important thing. The critical thinking.

So now we have a liberal market economy, a few days ago we didn't. It's good if the British schools don't teach things unsupported by the reality, they do in their history courses at the universities. The Limey's have really good universities. You should sign up for their courses.
 
Last edited:
There is essentially no difference between the intervention of the British Government in the programs of Religious schools and the decision of the Liberal Canadian governmednt to block all funding of religious organisations who are opposed to abortion .
Both decisions prove that the Liberals want a big government, a secularisation policy which is hostile to religion and that they are attacking not only religious freedom but the foundations of western society = freedom of speech .
Attacks on critical thinking are attacks on the freedom of speech .
About a liberal market economy : such a thing does not exist : we have in the west a market economy (limited by interventions from liberal governments ) .
It is also not correct to say that British ,US, ..universities are independent from the state .
The truth is the following :
Western societies are governed by liberal governments AND there is today much more state intervention than in the past . More state intervention means more power for the government and less freedom for the people .
Thhus, liberalism is doing what socialism is doing and difference between both is only semantic .
 
Last edited:
On July 16 2010 the leader of the British Liberal and Democrats ,Nick Clegg, wrote the following in ''Liberalism in government ''.

It is not the size of the state that matters, but what the state does .
Every socialist would agree with him .
Clegg is advocating big government to impose liberal ideas .
The difference between liberalism and socialism is only theory, in reality ,both do the same : increase government to impose their ideas .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
He suggested it in a time period without any safety net at all. He wasn't the creator of it. Bismarck was, but there is a difference between them, though. Beveridge was a social liberal, but he wasn't a socialist. He wanted to keep the means of production within the private sector. The Labour party picked it up and won the election. Fascistic economy relation to socialistic economy isn't irrelevant, maybe in your mind it is. You need to read more even things that contradict your own perceptions.

Only because universities exist in totalitarian states don't make them independent from state. When the state doesn't have any influence on what the university does, that makes the science much better. With saying that, the Soviet Union had really good universities that achieved great things, but they weren't allowed to practice one important thing. The critical thinking.

So now we have a liberal market economy, a few days ago we didn't. It's good if the British schools don't teach things unsupported by the reality, they do in their history courses at the universities. The Limey's have really good universities. You should sign up for their courses.
Click to expand...

It always amuses me that the father of the welfare state was Bismarck.

I don't know where I fall in the spectrum of socialist/liberal and government, I don't support large government I believe the role of government is to provide the guidelines for growth but not direct it (for example with regard to power I believe government should set emissions requirement and then leave it to business to meet those limits which means I support coal fired power plants as long as they meet emissions requirements), I am pro-death penalty but I believe in our social welfare system (albeit a more controlled version of it) on the whole I think I am a right-wing socialist.
 
MontyB said:
It always amuses me that the father of the welfare state was Bismarck.

I don't know where I fall in the spectrum of socialist/liberal and government, I don't support large government I believe the role of government is to provide the guidelines for growth but not direct it (for example with regard to power I believe government should set emissions requirement and then leave it to business to meet those limits which means I support coal fired power plants as long as they meet emissions requirements), I am pro-death penalty but I believe in our social welfare system (albeit a more controlled version of it) on the whole I think I am a right-wing socialist.
Click to expand...

I support governments leaving some decisions to its citizens. Governments are implementing laws and regulations, they are also enforcing those laws and regulations. There were/are instances when car manufacturers were/are not completely honest about the emissions from their cars.

There are instances when governments are intervening directly into what usually are left to the private actors. They do that during recessions and start infrastructure projects to get people back to work.

The new abortion laws have caused reactions. I believe in leaving the decision about abortion to the woman. It's her body and her life.

The climate change is interesting, it is very polarized between those who believe we are causing it and those who don't. This planet has experienced several climate changes during its existence (about 4.6 Billion years) Life on it has been here for about 3 billion years. These climate changes have caused mass extinctions, the most famous one is the End-Cretaceous 66 mya, but it wasn't the worst one. That one occurred 251 mya (End- Permian) and it seems a massive volcanic eruption caused the death of 75% of all species on land and 95% of all ocean living species. There are indications of we are in the sixth mass extinction now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top