I was fascinated to find that Darwin's book Mein Kam... er, I mean "content" The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection has another title, to continue: —or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Now, I'm not saying he a hate monger. But others used it to say whites are better blokes.

Now, if Adolf Hitler were to write a book that explained how certain species or races are better, I wonder how much people would be using it for a text book. Oh, that's right, he DID do that!

But, here, Darwin lays the foundation of all modern, organized racism and genocide with his book, and it is hailed as the "proof" that evolution is right and good.

Of course, he ran and hid after publishing his book. But others took up the bloody white flag and used his book as their excuse to opress, torture, murder, rape, etc. etc. whichever race, group, nation, whatever that they deem to be "inferior".

So, then, by Darwin's thinking, it is whoever has the most weapons and uses it to murder the most people that is the shining example of the race that gets to breed next, thus vastly improving the quality of the genetic stock by murdering all those who don't have as many weapons.

If Darwinism is true, then Hitler was the most highly evolved being in known history.

Way to go, Darwin. You may not have murdered, but you sure furnished those who did with a nice, sharp sword to do it with. What a victory.

In the name of Allah the most merciful the graceful

I made a post about this previously but here is the link if you want to read it again, The funny thing is not alot of people have worked this out remember at school they told us this guy was a hero.

http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm

East_African wrote: Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau fit the description. His doctrine in fact received alot of fanfare throughout Europe at the time.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/12

Here is another intresting link If you believe he wasn't rascist then this qoute sums the guy up.

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."

I will not try to defend Darwin wholeheartedly but if this is quote is what a racist feed off for justification as 'scientific validation' from 7 chapters away from the cover and more of a couple of pages into the chapter in question searching for this quote, then they cannot distinguish an opinion (prediction) from actual theory of the subject. Even Darwin saw the cruelty placed upon captured Africans and Indians unwarranted. But le me rephrase I am not defending Darwin wholeheartily.

I forgot to mention his friend Thomas H. Huxley. No he is direct when he said

Thomas H. Huxley

[align=left]No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal . . . of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed . . . he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites."
[/align]

But even in America, we had our leading thinker of races theories summing up the 'Black' race is a different species of man from the 'White' race. This is in my opinion is the foundation of 'scientific racism'. Polygenesis proponents in my opinion set the foundation of such. Check out

http://www.thoemmes.com/science/polygenesis_intro.htm

And Louis Agassiz, Swiss born who came to America and saw his witnessed his first 'Negro' in Philadelphia to come to the point of proving 'Negro' inferiority and justification for slavery through 'scientific means' and becoming America's leading authority of science behind 'Negro' inferiority.


http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_o...ticle.asp?7793

This is the very scholar that had the audacity to stand alone in challenging the famous Harvard scientist Louis Agassiz, who held that human races constitute separate creations (53). Of Agassiz, Stephens writes elsewhere: It was in Philadelphia that Agassiz saw a black person for the first time in his life, and, in a letter to his mother, expressed a feeling of disgust and repugnance over the skin color and facial features of the man. Soon he would see black people in great numbers and, unlike the individual in Philadelphia, they would be subjects of bondage, representing, in the views of most southern writers and in the view of the Swiss visitor, an inferiority of physiognomy, character, and metal capacity that warranted their status as slaves. (97)

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/norman/kuhn.html

The scientifically untenable notion of a variety of human races soon gave rise to the theory of polygeny which asserts that the Black 'race' was an entirely different species that did not originate from a common stock with the White 'race’. Polygeny was touted at the time as the first contribution of the American School of Anthropology to the world of science. Louis Agassiz (1850), a Harvard Zoologist and Samuel Morton (1839), a Philadelphia scientist and physician, were the eminent proponents of polygenism. In his book, The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould has amply demonstrated the prejudices that underlaid Agassiz theorizing and Morton's craniometric data in defense of polygeny. Agassiz (1850) achieved great prominence among scientists as the theorist of polygeny on the basis of the following 'facts' on which he built the great edifice of polygeny: [align=justify] ‘The indominable, courageous, proud Indian--in how very different a light he stands by the side of the submissive, obsequious, imitative Negro, or by the side of the tricky, cunning, and cowardly Mongolian! Are not these facts indications that the different races do not rank upon one level in nature’ (p. 144).[/align]

and how Darwin theory turned this man away from Agassiz

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...61/ai_86469080

In order to appreciate William James, Menand first establishes the racial myths and prejudices that were common at Harvard University and other advanced scientific circles. The published writings of the naturalist Agassiz are special grist for Menand's mill. Agassiz was quite precise when he lectured that "the Negro represented the lowest stage of human being" and compared the adult "Negro" brain to that of a seven-month-old white baby (109). James heard these ideas at Harvard College on the eve of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of the Species and the terrific academic debates that followed. From this, "the real lesson of On the Origin of Species for James--the lesson on which he based his own major work, The Principles of Psychology (1890)--was that natural selection has produced, in human beings, organisms gifted with the capacity to make choices incompatible with 'the survival of the fittest"' (146). James moved sharply and decisively away from the racism and dogmatic truths of his Harvard College science professors and into a more nuanced view of humans and their possibilities.

My own opinion...Harvard University a top notch school held such views even when Darwin published his works. Strange world.

Some more for you

Racism was not only widespread in the North, the authors tell us, but it was also supported by the leaders of the scientific establishment. In 1847, Harvard's renowned scientist Louis Agassiz declared that blacks were a completely separate species from whites. An Agassiz ally, Philadelphia physician Samuel Morton, won international acclaim by doing experiments that "proved" that blacks had smaller craniums than whites and were hence innately inferior. This scientific racism meshed perfectly with the beliefs of those who exploited slaves for commercial gain.

[align=left]


[/align]

"While many have argued that Darwin himself was not a “racist� (referring specifically to the fact that The Origin of Species did not include much discussion about Homo sapiens), his second book left little question about his personal views. Titled The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to “The Races of Man.� In that book, Darwin wrote:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

Why is everyone so surprised? This is exactly the train of thought that most if not all whites had in that time period. If you look at the mostfamous historical leaders( Hume,Jefferson, etc)in the 18th and 19th century and read what they say about blacks, you'll see something very similar to the quotesabove. There were no genetic tests or dna to prove that we were equal to whites or that we were in fact the first people on earth, so people tried to emphazie their own white supremacist views through science. I am not trying to excuse Darwin, but he is a man of his time.

Darwinism also inspired many other massacres of the 20th century. Here is another fascinating link by Harun Yahya which goes into detail about how darwinism inspired Hitler, Marx, Engel and also British Colonialism.



http://www.harunyahya.com/disaster1.php
P.s click the arrow at the bottom of the page to view the next page.

he (Darwin) was a racist. in fact, reading his works reveals a fact many gloss over: he didn’t formulate his theory based on observation of animals and plant life in the wild, but on observations of the mental and physical state of blacks in comparison to whites, that he applied to the wider world. fact is the shallow devil could not reconcile the mental and physical state he saw in blacks with debilitations caused by brutal, repressive bondage, and concluded blacks were less than whites. i doubt it was a case of a man at pains to prove racial inferiority to support an oppressive system. Darwin approached the issue from a purely CHientific angle.

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

this is exactly how the code language many in the media send out today sounds. may just be paranoia on my part, but i believe they still figure we are on our way out.

sorry liberiangirl but that mode of thought didn’t wane with time. I think many of our people are failing to see this truth because western society has become better at masking the reality. overt racism may be illegal in many western countries, but “racism� as a belief is still alive and well, probably much more widespread and more staunch than previously, thanks to so much knowledge coming to the rescue of the belief (IQ, genetics, etc.). understand: getting discriminated on account of race, creed, etc. may be illegal, but the guy who gives you the job still either hates your guts, or believes you are a compromise because you are less human.

also, the fact many have bought into the idea black people are the first humans on earth, without seeing the implications, shows a mental lack that feeds the very idea of superiority still entertained today by many white people, who understand this statement differently. this is evidence of their superiority in how they continue to outwit many in our ranks, shown also in how they talk some us into counterproductive beliefs, poverty, AIDS and death, etc.

lets get a fact strait here... if all species of human beings come from black, then what stops us from extending the same logic to… all humans come from apes? open your eyes, not just your mouth... white people do not come from me. how in ****’s name are you going to get a white person to evolve from me? i honestly have not seen the evolution, if by this we understand improvement.

the belief some races are superior to others, based on how they look in relation to one's own, is myopic, of course, and since the believers make the classic mistake of falling so in love with their own image they can see no further than their noses, in a manner a thinking being shouldn't: i mean my little baby boy (black) interjected in a shallow exchange over how animals are ugly with the statement: "we must look ugly to them too". little boy didn't need to be told what these CHientists failed to see (one of them up there was sick from just how ugly blacks were to him), their bigger heads notwithstanding. To me, this shows these CHientists are a little more wordy than my little one, but in actual fact mental inferiors of such because they find thinking in relative terms impossible. how come so many white people have failed to deal with our different appearance as we have learnt to deal with theirs?

i don't care they are rationalizing thusly (horribly) to support rape, pillage, and what not. the idea of men being so shallow whatever the ends is enough for me to sign them off as intellectual incompetents. no competition (save when he comes in with guns ablaze), but even that is pure technique and others are bound to catch up soon.