Nazis, Nazis all ...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

Or could Hitler have gotten his ideas from another source? Maybe the founder of Protestant religion?

I wonder if this "scholar" would also blame fundamentalist evangelical Christianity for the actions of people like the person who leads protests with signs bearing messages like 'God Hates F--s', or the people who advocate and carry out the assault and murder of abortion providers? Somehow, I don't think he'd see any connection...

Don't forget to read the comments/responses attached to the end of the opinion piece!

The problem for people like Safarti who contribute to interactive online news sites is that they can be very easily refuted and shown to be the fools that they are.

I doubt he'll be adding more opinion pieces on that site any time soon (unless they remove the comment function a la the DI web log).

... to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders ... Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues ... And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught" From Proctor 1988: 88.

"The minutes [taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt] for the second day's meeting, on 17 April 1943, recorded a statement by Ribbentrop, in Hitler's presence, to a point made by Horthy: "On Horthy's retort, what should he do with the Jews then, after he had pretty well taken all means of living from them-- he surely couldn't beat them to death-- the Reich Foreign Minister [Ribbentrop] replied that the Jews must either be annihilated or taken to concentration camps. There is no other way." Hitler almost immediately confirmed Ribbentrop's explicitly murderous statement at some length: Hitler: "Where the Jews were left to themselves, as for example in Poland, gruesome poverty and degeneracy had ruled. They were just pure parasites. One had fundamentally cleared up this state of affairs in Poland. If the Jews there didn't want to work [in Third Reich concentration camps], they were shot. If they couldn't work they had to perish. They had to be treated like tuberculosis bacilli, from which a healthy body could be infected. That was not cruel, if one remembered that even innocent natural creatures like hares and deer had to be killed so that no harm was caused. Why should one spare the beasts who wanted to bring us Bolshevism more? Nations who did not rid themselves of Jews perished." (references and footnotes are found in Evans, 2001:92-93)

Ed Brayton, who posts on PT frequently, has had several excellent posts about the whole Darwin-caused-Nazism nonsense, lately. (Don't know why he hasn't cross posted them here...) This one is probably the best, but scroll up and down for more.

Yes, it's very common for right-wingers to claim that Nazis were Darwinists. In actuality, racial hygiene, the "science" (pseudoscience, actually), upon which Nazis based their racial "theories" was a perversion of Darwinism along the lines of social Darwinism, combined with directed breeding of humans and eugenics.

Not once does Safarti actually quote Hitler himself. Let's give Adolf a chacne to defend himself agasint Safarti's scurriloius charges:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

This idea that Hitler was an evolutionist is a form of holocaust denial. Casey, are you listening?

I particularly like the use of 'logical conclusion' in Safarti's piece. It seems to come down to: I want to associate A with B, so I declare B is a 'logical consequence' of A and hurry on, hoping the audience doesn't notice that no actual connection was made...

Talk of Darwin was a rhetorical stalking horse for some Nazis (a grotesque travesty given Darwin's actual views). But (as others have already pointed out) the roots of anti-semtism are firmly set, deep in the Christian tradition.

There's a sad, dazed sort of repetitiveness in the routine appeal to the subtitle of Origin. Everyone's heard it before; treating it as evidence for racism is grotesquely tendentious, not to mention just plain stupid... what we're looking at here is a marketing plan that hasn't had a new idea in decades, and is short even on new slogans. It will take a very sheltered environment to save this species of intellectual disfunction...

Oh ...OK we're Nazis again. I hope Mr Luskin is paying close attention and will soon leap to our defense in the interest of fairness and equity.

Oh . . . OK we're Nazis again. I hope Mr Luskin is paying close attention and will soon leap to our defense in the interest of fairness and equity.

— DS

I also entered a comment below Sarfati's article and backed it up here.

Perhaps Sarfati ought to run his sicko ideas past people like Noam Lahav, Emeritus Professor of Origin of life and Soil Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem...

Any time anyone tries to create negative propaganda, they invoke the Nazis, it is so tiring.

I just want to say that this post is definitely helpful, and if you're a creationist, remember that you started throwing around the Nazi comparison first, instead of science, so don't whine if it backfires on you.

Can we just invoke Godwin's Law on the whole publication and be done with it?

Typical AiG tactic. Here's one by Carl Wieland on the same topic.

I meant to add that Safarti's article is not original in The Conservative Voice.

Here it is, word for word, in the Answers in Genesis online mag apparently published in 1999:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/holocaust.asp

Same publishing standards as Meyer, obviously.

But at least Sarfati doesn't go around trying to convince people that his "Nazi" screed has been a "peer-reviewed" publication two, three, or four times over.

Joe McFaul's observation is dead-on.

This doesn't detract form the critical comments at all. But it raises the question of whether Sarfati submitted this to "The Conservative Voice" or if they merely lifted it from the Answers in Genesis Ministry website?

Common standards require that reprints be identified as such, and authors must inform editors if their submitted work has already been published.

Answers in Genesis Ministry is a well known science denial outfit, that is regularly exposed as liars. For example, I have dealt with them several times, one example being http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html. Directly refuting Sarfati is great fun as in Boiled Creationist with a Side of Hexaglycine: Sarfati on Imai et al. (1999).

Dr.GH

So, does the Conservative Voice subscribe to the idea that it was Darwin's fault that conservatives push Social Darwinism? How bad of him to mislead them like that!

www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/index.html Richard Weikart Dept. of History California State Univ., Stanislaus Turlock, CA 95382

he makes it clear that he believes that Darwinists cannot but help be led to the same logical conclusions that the Nazi evolutionists came to - support for eugenics and the "erosion of the Respect for Life ethic". Only those who are influenced by morality from outside Darwinism (no doubt he means religion) can resist the urge.

Communistic evolution, according to the Senate committee that examined it, is responsible for 135 million deaths in peacetime...There's no religion that has a tiny fraction of that many deaths on it conscience.

There's no religion that has a tiny fraction of that many deaths on it conscience.

"His blood be on us and our children... [Matthew 27:25], maybe I'm the one who must execute this curse ... I do no more than join what has been done for more than 1,500 years already. Maybe I render Christianity the best service ever!" (Adolph Hitler, 1942)

As there have been no further comments, I'll conlude that this discussion is over for the momment. Consequently, I'll close the comments so as to avoid becoming a spam target.

Thanks to all.