How Liberals Use Science

[sealybobo]

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

NOoo... What I did was to point out the irrefutable FACT Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Histler were all Humanists... and while it is theoretically possible for a humanist to be fiscally conservative, they can never be truly conservative as that requires the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to, the laws of nature which govern human behavior... and to be THAT, one must first recognize the Creator of the Universe... thus precluding the participation of those who REJECT such.

Therefore we can recognize that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were Communists of the first order... Histler was a pragmatic Progressive... not at all distinct from you, except he has power and you have none.

And FTR: One does not seek to annihilate an entire race of people, who's fundamental trait is the unapologetic recognition of the Creator and the laws which govern human behavior... and reasonably claim them self an adherent to such. And that Histler was raised Catholic, with a Jewish Parent, does not a "Religious" Histler make.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Who are you Nostrodumbass?

This is just your failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies.

Humanism generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith. Don't you? Then you can't be that smart.

LOL! yet, humanism is never found engaging in critical thinking and eschews all evidential doctrine and faith.

FTR: A-theism rests entirely in Relativism... which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus rejects the essential element of truth, thus precluding trust, morality and the service to justice. As a result, it is quite literally impossible for an A-theist to consistently recognize the tenets of a soundly reasoned morality, therefore, the A-theist bears intrinsic a-moral, thus immoral baggage.

Which is why, I think... critically... that Humanism's history is one which demonstrates that it is the single most lethal; human threat, to humanity, in the history of humanity.

While it is true that Stalin and Mao were atheists and that they did not believe in any deities, it is also true that they did not commit their immoral acts because of something they read in the “Gospel of Richard Dawkins” or in “The Holy Book of Atheism.” The reason for this is because there are no such books. The problem with the implication is that the theist is equating atheism with a religion. But there is no doctrine of atheism. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in deities. There are no holy atheists and there are no infallible atheist books laying out dogma and doctrine.

Stalin and Hitler also both had mustaches. Does that mean that mustaches cause tyranny? This is where the theist will often assert that the lack of belief – or more accurately the lack of fear in God acts as a restraint on human’s natural sinfulness. This is a really poor argument for multiple reasons.

First, there are religious tyrants too. So the fear of God doesn’t really restrain anything or anyone. In fact, there are more religious tyrants than non-religious tyrants and with good reason. It is easier to demand obedience from people when you invoke a supernatural authority complete with rewards and punishments in an unverifiable afterlife.

 

[sealybobo]

Liberalism or socialism had nothing to do with the Nazi's.

False. Nazis were the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party... meaning that they were SOCIALISTS, of the nationalist variety.

That National Socialism is 'To the Right' of international socialism, does not make it less socialist... and it sure as hell, doesn't make it 'right'.

Nazism is ALL YOUR'S sweety... Just as Mao was yours... Murdered 100 million people in the name of Humanism... and Stalin was yours... Murdered 25 million in the name of Humanism. And you and your own cult are responsible for the 50 million of humanities MOST innocent and MOST DEFENSELESS that you MURDERED... with your shame being that it was YOU who those humans depended upon to defend them. And you failed... and ya did so WILLFULLY and wantonly... .

You people are a menace to the species, without regard to the names you make up to hide your trail.

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.

Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler

I don't know if you've heard, and this may come as a shock to you, but Hitler's public statements were propaganda. Of course he publicly supported the faith of the German majority.

"Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. For Protestant clergy he felt only contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs...[-] They have neither a religion you can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome'. It was the 'great position' of the Church that he respected; towards its teaching he showed only the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."- Hitler a Study in Tyranny; Alan Bullock

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

.

So we're once again trying to tie Hitler to one "side" or other.

Silly. He was his own type of psychopathic evil, gang. Try as we might, he was neither a liberal nor a conservative.

Sheesh.

.

I was just refuting someone's attempt to tie Hitler's psychopathy to Christianity. The Wikipedia article I linked does a balanced job of describing Hitler's relationship with religion. Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And here we have again a post (#180) claiming that Hitler was obviously 'right wing'. What does that even mean? I went to college, and I know that's always been the mantra. Often it seems, unrefined college kids equate right wing with racism. Of course, Marx and Darwin were also racists, as was Stalin.

On the one hand, Hitler wanted to revive nationalistic fervor and pride in German traditions. He espoused traditional roles for men and women in society. You could call that right wing, I suppose. As part of his effort to preserve German heritage, he espoused environmentalism (saving pristine lands and habitat for native species). Is that a conservative view or a progressive view? It could be considered either.

The type of socialism that Hitler fought against during his rise to power was grassroots socialism. These were 'power to the people' protesters who were into unionization and wielding the threat of the national strike. These were not Statists that Hitler scapegoated and crushed. They were champions of individual liberty. They were anti-bankster. They were anti-war. They were similar in many ways to the Ron Paul Revolution. What Hitler ultimately yielded was the Supremacy of the State.

Eugenics was a product of progressiveness, and remains so today. Only today, we don't use that dirty word. We call it bio-engineering, and if you're too critical of it we say that you are an enemy of scientific advancement.

I think the point I'm trying to make is how easily the German Catholics went along with the Nazi movement. And look how easily the stupid American Christians in 2003 were lied into Iraq. Speak the truth against Bush like the Dixie Chicks did and look at how Christian America treated them.

Pol Pot targeted not just different religions, but education, science and medicine in his quest for total domination. Now, let’s take a head count of atheists who are against education, science and medicine. Thought so…

Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist. He studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years.

Huh... A buddhist? Pol Pot? The guy that murdered 3 million innocent people? ROFLMNAO!

Well, Pol Pot may have come from Buddhist stock... but there toward the end he sorta departed from the teaching of Buddha... and leaned more toward the vacuous notions of the lowly relativist, which is to say the Humanists... which is to say he was a Leftist.

But how cool is it that you, a humanist critical thinker, eschew the evidence intrinsic to Pol Pot's behavior, in favor of your own subjective needs?

LOL! I say it here and it comes out THERE! This is truly amazing stuff...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

NOoo... What I did was to point out the irrefutable FACT Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Histler were all Humanists... and while it is theoretically possible for a humanist to be fiscally conservative, they can never be truly conservative as that requires the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to, the laws of nature which govern human behavior... and to be THAT, one must first recognize the Creator of the Universe... thus precluding the participation of those who REJECT such.

Therefore we can recognize that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were Communists of the first order... Histler was a pragmatic Progressive... not at all distinct from you, except he has power and you have none.

And FTR: One does not seek to annihilate an entire race of people, who's fundamental trait is the unapologetic recognition of the Creator and the laws which govern human behavior... and reasonably claim them self an adherent to such. And that Histler was raised Catholic, with a Jewish Parent, does not a "Religious" Histler make.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Who are you Nostrodumbass?

This is just your failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies.

Humanism generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith. Don't you? Then you can't be that smart.

LOL! yet, humanism is never found engaging in critical thinking and eschews all evidential doctrine and faith.

FTR: A-theism rests entirely in Relativism... which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus rejects the essential element of truth, thus precluding trust, morality and the service to justice. As a result, it is quite literally impossible for an A-theist to consistently recognize the tenets of a soundly reasoned morality, therefore, the A-theist bears intrinsic a-moral, thus immoral baggage.

Which is why, I think... critically... that Humanism's history is one which demonstrates that it is the single most lethal; human threat, to humanity, in the history of humanity.

While it is true that Stalin and Mao were atheists and that they did not believe in any deities, it is also true that they did not commit their immoral acts because of something they read in the “Gospel of Richard Dawkins” or in “The Holy Book of Atheism.” The reason for this is because there are no such books. The problem with the implication is that the theist is equating atheism with a religion. But there is no doctrine of atheism. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in deities. There are no holy atheists and there are no infallible atheist books laying out dogma and doctrine.

Stalin and Hitler also both had mustaches. Does that mean that mustaches cause tyranny? This is where the theist will often assert that the lack of belief – or more accurately the lack of fear in God acts as a restraint on human’s natural sinfulness. This is a really poor argument for multiple reasons.

First, there are religious tyrants too. So the fear of God doesn’t really restrain anything or anyone. In fact, there are more religious tyrants than non-religious tyrants and with good reason. It is easier to demand obedience from people when you invoke a supernatural authority complete with rewards and punishments in an unverifiable afterlife.

So the belief in Nothing has produced no books on the subject?

Amazing... you'd think that such would have fostered great volumes... such as has been established in this forum, under your screen name.

Oh well... yet another mystery we will probably never come to fully understand.

 

[sealybobo]

Liberalism or socialism had nothing to do with the Nazi's.

False. Nazis were the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party... meaning that they were SOCIALISTS, of the nationalist variety.

That National Socialism is 'To the Right' of international socialism, does not make it less socialist... and it sure as hell, doesn't make it 'right'.

Nazism is ALL YOUR'S sweety... Just as Mao was yours... Murdered 100 million people in the name of Humanism... and Stalin was yours... Murdered 25 million in the name of Humanism. And you and your own cult are responsible for the 50 million of humanities MOST innocent and MOST DEFENSELESS that you MURDERED... with your shame being that it was YOU who those humans depended upon to defend them. And you failed... and ya did so WILLFULLY and wantonly... .

You people are a menace to the species, without regard to the names you make up to hide your trail.

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.

Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler

I don't know if you've heard, and this may come as a shock to you, but Hitler's public statements were propaganda. Of course he publicly supported the faith of the German majority.

"Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. For Protestant clergy he felt only contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs...[-] They have neither a religion you can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome'. It was the 'great position' of the Church that he respected; towards its teaching he showed only the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."- Hitler a Study in Tyranny; Alan Bullock

It would have been a lot harder for Bush or Hitler to have taken their people into war if the people were atheists who all used the scientific approach to what Bush and Hitler were saying:

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me. If you questioned Bush, you got Dixie Chicked. If you questioned Hitler you got killed. A Hitler or Bush wouldn't be able to suppress questions in an atheistic and scientific society.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so. Saddam had WMD's?

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.

 

[sealybobo]

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

NOoo... What I did was to point out the irrefutable FACT Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Histler were all Humanists... and while it is theoretically possible for a humanist to be fiscally conservative, they can never be truly conservative as that requires the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to, the laws of nature which govern human behavior... and to be THAT, one must first recognize the Creator of the Universe... thus precluding the participation of those who REJECT such.

Therefore we can recognize that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were Communists of the first order... Histler was a pragmatic Progressive... not at all distinct from you, except he has power and you have none.

And FTR: One does not seek to annihilate an entire race of people, who's fundamental trait is the unapologetic recognition of the Creator and the laws which govern human behavior... and reasonably claim them self an adherent to such. And that Histler was raised Catholic, with a Jewish Parent, does not a "Religious" Histler make.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Who are you Nostrodumbass?

This is just your failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies.

Humanism generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith. Don't you? Then you can't be that smart.

LOL! yet, humanism is never found engaging in critical thinking and eschews all evidential doctrine and faith.

FTR: A-theism rests entirely in Relativism... which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus rejects the essential element of truth, thus precluding trust, morality and the service to justice. As a result, it is quite literally impossible for an A-theist to consistently recognize the tenets of a soundly reasoned morality, therefore, the A-theist bears intrinsic a-moral, thus immoral baggage.

Which is why, I think... critically... that Humanism's history is one which demonstrates that it is the single most lethal; human threat, to humanity, in the history of humanity.

While it is true that Stalin and Mao were atheists and that they did not believe in any deities, it is also true that they did not commit their immoral acts because of something they read in the “Gospel of Richard Dawkins” or in “The Holy Book of Atheism.” The reason for this is because there are no such books. The problem with the implication is that the theist is equating atheism with a religion. But there is no doctrine of atheism. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in deities. There are no holy atheists and there are no infallible atheist books laying out dogma and doctrine.

Stalin and Hitler also both had mustaches. Does that mean that mustaches cause tyranny? This is where the theist will often assert that the lack of belief – or more accurately the lack of fear in God acts as a restraint on human’s natural sinfulness. This is a really poor argument for multiple reasons.

First, there are religious tyrants too. So the fear of God doesn’t really restrain anything or anyone. In fact, there are more religious tyrants than non-religious tyrants and with good reason. It is easier to demand obedience from people when you invoke a supernatural authority complete with rewards and punishments in an unverifiable afterlife.

So the belief in Nothing has produced no books on the subject?

Amazing... you'd think that such would have fostered great volumes... such as has been established in this forum, under your screen name.

Oh well... yet another mystery we will probably never come to fully understand.

All the great writings from the great thinkers of our past were wiped out with wars and religions. Plato decided instead of a math and science community we would have a slave society. And this society became the Christians. The same slave owning rulers allowed you to be Christians and forbid you to be anything else.

You need to watch the Cosmos to learn human history. The Library of Alexandrea was destroyed by religion and rulers. The Catholic Church burned books by people like Giordano Bruno and Gallaleo. Great minds in ancient China, Iraq, etc. All destroyed by states who were also churches.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Liberalism or socialism had nothing to do with the Nazi's.

False. Nazis were the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party... meaning that they were SOCIALISTS, of the nationalist variety.

That National Socialism is 'To the Right' of international socialism, does not make it less socialist... and it sure as hell, doesn't make it 'right'.

Nazism is ALL YOUR'S sweety... Just as Mao was yours... Murdered 100 million people in the name of Humanism... and Stalin was yours... Murdered 25 million in the name of Humanism. And you and your own cult are responsible for the 50 million of humanities MOST innocent and MOST DEFENSELESS that you MURDERED... with your shame being that it was YOU who those humans depended upon to defend them. And you failed... and ya did so WILLFULLY and wantonly... .

You people are a menace to the species, without regard to the names you make up to hide your trail.

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.

Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler

I don't know if you've heard, and this may come as a shock to you, but Hitler's public statements were propaganda. Of course he publicly supported the faith of the German majority.

"Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. For Protestant clergy he felt only contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs...[-] They have neither a religion you can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome'. It was the 'great position' of the Church that he respected; towards its teaching he showed only the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."- Hitler a Study in Tyranny; Alan Bullock

It would have been a lot harder for Bush or Hitler to have taken their people into war if the people were atheists who all used the scientific approach to what Bush and Hitler were saying:

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me. If you questioned Bush, you got Dixie Chicked. If you questioned Hitler you got killed. A Hitler or Bush wouldn't be able to suppress questions in an atheistic and scientific society.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so. Saddam had WMD's?

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.

So atheists question authority?

Huh... yet they're such profound promoters of it?

Now... Stalin. He was an atheist. And he sat in power over an atheist cult. Who spent the bulk of his entire reign of power, at war.

And to be sure, there were those among the Soviet Atheist cult who questioned his power... the axiomatic result was their near instant demise. To the tune of 25 million questioners having been murdered. (Which it should be pointed out, was IN PEACE TIME... and decidedly does NOT include those tens of millions of his own people he murdered in WAR time.)

Moa... he was an Atheist to... at least according to YOU! And he too sat in power over an atheist cult... and yet in his response to their 'thinking for themselves' got them murdered to the tune of 100 MILLION of 'em.

SOooo... not sure what you're driven at here, but your case is feckless at best and as usually happens in feckless cases, it seems to be missing a point.

Can ya shape one up for us? That might help.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Liberalism or socialism had nothing to do with the Nazi's.

False. Nazis were the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party... meaning that they were SOCIALISTS, of the nationalist variety.

That National Socialism is 'To the Right' of international socialism, does not make it less socialist... and it sure as hell, doesn't make it 'right'.

Nazism is ALL YOUR'S sweety... Just as Mao was yours... Murdered 100 million people in the name of Humanism... and Stalin was yours... Murdered 25 million in the name of Humanism. And you and your own cult are responsible for the 50 million of humanities MOST innocent and MOST DEFENSELESS that you MURDERED... with your shame being that it was YOU who those humans depended upon to defend them. And you failed... and ya did so WILLFULLY and wantonly... .

You people are a menace to the species, without regard to the names you make up to hide your trail.

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.

Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler

I don't know if you've heard, and this may come as a shock to you, but Hitler's public statements were propaganda. Of course he publicly supported the faith of the German majority.

"Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. For Protestant clergy he felt only contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs...[-] They have neither a religion you can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome'. It was the 'great position' of the Church that he respected; towards its teaching he showed only the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."- Hitler a Study in Tyranny; Alan Bullock

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

American Christians tend to be functional atheists who go to church to gain access to customers to sell insurance to.

You can't blame the Iraq War on theists when outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens wholeheartedly supported it. Today, Bill Maher is one of the foremost atheists whose rallying cry is to destroy the backwards theists who don't belong in the 21st Century.

"WMD's or not, Hitchens defended the war -- and his role in promoting it -- as being on the right side of history, saying it was an appropriate response in a post-9/11 world. He dubbed the attacks "fascism with an Islamic face" in his post-9/11 column for the Nation." - Christopher Hitchens Despite Criticism And Casualties Defended Iraq War To The End

War is sold to the public today more upon secular humanitarian grounds than an appeal to religion. If we ramp up our efforts against IS, how will Obama and Kerry sell that? Crimes against humanity by an enemy comprised of backwards theists.

 

[sealybobo]

dimocrap scum don't care about facts or truth.

They lie. It's an autonomic function with dimocrap scum. It's what they do.

Babies cry, dogs bark, pigs oink, ducks quack.......

And dimocraps lie.

They get busted in one lie? They don't care. They have no honor, no code, no conscience, no morality, no caring, no empathy or sympathy and they GODDAM sure don't care about the harm their lies might cause.

They are the scum of the earth.

Which is why I refused to try to get along with them decades ago.

There's no point. You think you've reached an agreement with a dimocrap and they'll stab you on the back the second you turn around.

I shit you not. They are not worthy of consideration

Fox News proves that it is Republicans who are doing the most lying. Its why their viewers are the most under and ill informed on the subjects the GOP doesn't want them to know the facts about. Like global warming. But ask them about the keystone pipeline or how much vacation time the Obama's have taken and they'll know all the facts.

Again, you prove my point about how dimocraps are not only liars, but stupid as well.....

"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."
— Jon Stewart on Sunday, June 19th, 2011 in an interview on Fox News Sunday

EDITOR'S NOTE: On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewartaccepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."

Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the most consistently misinformed media viewers PolitiFact

dimocraps lie. It's what they do

WRONG again buddy! If you read that truthometer details, it'll explain that Fox viewers are very well informed on issues the GOP/Fox want them to be informed on but clueless when it comes to things like Ben Gazi or WMD's.

 

[Edgetho]

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

The only person in here that thinks Hitler was religious is you. You started the lie, you propagated the lie, you continue the lie.

Hitler was, at best, ambiguous about religion. National Socialism was not. National Socialists didn't like religion one bit. Hitler's relationship with religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.

You lie. But you're a dimocrap. That's what dimocraps do

 

[Edgetho]

dimocrap scum don't care about facts or truth.

They lie. It's an autonomic function with dimocrap scum. It's what they do.

Babies cry, dogs bark, pigs oink, ducks quack.......

And dimocraps lie.

They get busted in one lie? They don't care. They have no honor, no code, no conscience, no morality, no caring, no empathy or sympathy and they GODDAM sure don't care about the harm their lies might cause.

They are the scum of the earth.

Which is why I refused to try to get along with them decades ago.

There's no point. You think you've reached an agreement with a dimocrap and they'll stab you on the back the second you turn around.

I shit you not. They are not worthy of consideration

Fox News proves that it is Republicans who are doing the most lying. Its why their viewers are the most under and ill informed on the subjects the GOP doesn't want them to know the facts about. Like global warming. But ask them about the keystone pipeline or how much vacation time the Obama's have taken and they'll know all the facts.

Again, you prove my point about how dimocraps are not only liars, but stupid as well.....

"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."
— Jon Stewart on Sunday, June 19th, 2011 in an interview on Fox News Sunday

EDITOR'S NOTE: On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewartaccepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."

Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the most consistently misinformed media viewers PolitiFact

dimocraps lie. It's what they do

WRONG again buddy! If you read that truthometer details, it'll explain that Fox viewers are very well informed on issues the GOP/Fox want them to be informed on but clueless when it comes to things like Ben Gazi or WMD's.

Wrong 'buddy'

This is about as emphatic as emphatic gets

BTW, I am not your buddy. Never will be.

You're a dimocrap. More annoying and less important than the occasional pile of dog shit I step in

 

[sealybobo]

Liberalism or socialism had nothing to do with the Nazi's.

False. Nazis were the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party... meaning that they were SOCIALISTS, of the nationalist variety.

That National Socialism is 'To the Right' of international socialism, does not make it less socialist... and it sure as hell, doesn't make it 'right'.

Nazism is ALL YOUR'S sweety... Just as Mao was yours... Murdered 100 million people in the name of Humanism... and Stalin was yours... Murdered 25 million in the name of Humanism. And you and your own cult are responsible for the 50 million of humanities MOST innocent and MOST DEFENSELESS that you MURDERED... with your shame being that it was YOU who those humans depended upon to defend them. And you failed... and ya did so WILLFULLY and wantonly... .

You people are a menace to the species, without regard to the names you make up to hide your trail.

What you did was us an ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic because we live in a secular society.

Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism.

Stalinism and Communism exercised gosateizm (state atheism) based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler

I don't know if you've heard, and this may come as a shock to you, but Hitler's public statements were propaganda. Of course he publicly supported the faith of the German majority.

"Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. For Protestant clergy he felt only contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs...[-] They have neither a religion you can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome'. It was the 'great position' of the Church that he respected; towards its teaching he showed only the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."- Hitler a Study in Tyranny; Alan Bullock

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

American Christians tend to be functional atheists who go to church to gain access to customers to sell insurance to.

You can't blame the Iraq War on theists when outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens wholeheartedly supported it. Today, Bill Maher is one of the foremost atheists whose rallying cry is to destroy the backwards theists who don't belong in the 21st Century.

"WMD's or not, Hitchens defended the war -- and his role in promoting it -- as being on the right side of history, saying it was an appropriate response in a post-9/11 world. He dubbed the attacks "fascism with an Islamic face" in his post-9/11 column for the Nation." - Christopher Hitchens Despite Criticism And Casualties Defended Iraq War To The End

War is sold to the public today more upon secular humanitarian grounds than an appeal to religion. If we ramp up our efforts against IS, how will Obama and Kerry sell that? Crimes against humanity by an enemy comprised of backwards theists.

I guess even atheists can be wrong sometimes. Hitchens was a vocal supporter of Republicanism in the United Kingdom

 

[sealybobo]

dimocrap scum don't care about facts or truth.

They lie. It's an autonomic function with dimocrap scum. It's what they do.

Babies cry, dogs bark, pigs oink, ducks quack.......

And dimocraps lie.

They get busted in one lie? They don't care. They have no honor, no code, no conscience, no morality, no caring, no empathy or sympathy and they GODDAM sure don't care about the harm their lies might cause.

They are the scum of the earth.

Which is why I refused to try to get along with them decades ago.

There's no point. You think you've reached an agreement with a dimocrap and they'll stab you on the back the second you turn around.

I shit you not. They are not worthy of consideration

Fox News proves that it is Republicans who are doing the most lying. Its why their viewers are the most under and ill informed on the subjects the GOP doesn't want them to know the facts about. Like global warming. But ask them about the keystone pipeline or how much vacation time the Obama's have taken and they'll know all the facts.

Again, you prove my point about how dimocraps are not only liars, but stupid as well.....

"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."
— Jon Stewart on Sunday, June 19th, 2011 in an interview on Fox News Sunday

EDITOR'S NOTE: On the June 21, 2011, edition of The Daily Show, Jon Stewartaccepted our False verdict and apologized, saying, "I defer to (PolitiFact's) judgment and apologize for my mistake. To not do so would be irresponsible."

Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the most consistently misinformed media viewers PolitiFact

dimocraps lie. It's what they do

WRONG again buddy! If you read that truthometer details, it'll explain that Fox viewers are very well informed on issues the GOP/Fox want them to be informed on but clueless when it comes to things like Ben Gazi or WMD's.

Wrong 'buddy'

This is about as emphatic as emphatic gets

BTW, I am not your buddy. Never will be.

You're a dimocrap. More annoying and less important than the occasional pile of dog shit I step in

Nope. Liar Liar pants on fire is the most emphatic on the truthometer.

 

[sealybobo]

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

The only person in here that thinks Hitler was religious is you. You started the lie, you propagated the lie, you continue the lie.

Hitler was, at best, ambiguous about religion. National Socialism was not. National Socialists didn't like religion one bit. Hitler's relationship with religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.

You lie. But you're a dimocrap. That's what dimocraps do

He thought he was a god. And it doesn't matter if he was. His citizens were Catholics. That's Christian, right? They hated the Jews and murdered millions of them. Typical of Christian history. Nothing new.

 

[Treeshepherd]

NOoo... What I did was to point out the irrefutable FACT Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Histler were all Humanists... and while it is theoretically possible for a humanist to be fiscally conservative, they can never be truly conservative as that requires the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to, the laws of nature which govern human behavior... and to be THAT, one must first recognize the Creator of the Universe... thus precluding the participation of those who REJECT such.

Therefore we can recognize that Lenin, Stalin and Mao were Communists of the first order... Histler was a pragmatic Progressive... not at all distinct from you, except he has power and you have none.

And FTR: One does not seek to annihilate an entire race of people, who's fundamental trait is the unapologetic recognition of the Creator and the laws which govern human behavior... and reasonably claim them self an adherent to such. And that Histler was raised Catholic, with a Jewish Parent, does not a "Religious" Histler make.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Who are you Nostrodumbass?

This is just your failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies.

Humanism generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith. Don't you? Then you can't be that smart.

LOL! yet, humanism is never found engaging in critical thinking and eschews all evidential doctrine and faith.

FTR: A-theism rests entirely in Relativism... which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus rejects the essential element of truth, thus precluding trust, morality and the service to justice. As a result, it is quite literally impossible for an A-theist to consistently recognize the tenets of a soundly reasoned morality, therefore, the A-theist bears intrinsic a-moral, thus immoral baggage.

Which is why, I think... critically... that Humanism's history is one which demonstrates that it is the single most lethal; human threat, to humanity, in the history of humanity.

While it is true that Stalin and Mao were atheists and that they did not believe in any deities, it is also true that they did not commit their immoral acts because of something they read in the “Gospel of Richard Dawkins” or in “The Holy Book of Atheism.” The reason for this is because there are no such books. The problem with the implication is that the theist is equating atheism with a religion. But there is no doctrine of atheism. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in deities. There are no holy atheists and there are no infallible atheist books laying out dogma and doctrine.

Stalin and Hitler also both had mustaches. Does that mean that mustaches cause tyranny? This is where the theist will often assert that the lack of belief – or more accurately the lack of fear in God acts as a restraint on human’s natural sinfulness. This is a really poor argument for multiple reasons.

First, there are religious tyrants too. So the fear of God doesn’t really restrain anything or anyone. In fact, there are more religious tyrants than non-religious tyrants and with good reason. It is easier to demand obedience from people when you invoke a supernatural authority complete with rewards and punishments in an unverifiable afterlife.

So the belief in Nothing has produced no books on the subject?

Amazing... you'd think that such would have fostered great volumes... such as has been established in this forum, under your screen name.

Oh well... yet another mystery we will probably never come to fully understand.

All the great writings from the great thinkers of our past were wiped out with wars and religions. Plato decided instead of a math and science community we would have a slave society. And this society became the Christians. The same slave owning rulers allowed you to be Christians and forbid you to be anything else.

You need to watch the Cosmos to learn human history. The Library of Alexandrea was destroyed by religion and rulers. The Catholic Church burned books by people like Giordano Bruno and Gallaleo. Great minds in ancient China, Iraq, etc. All destroyed by states who were also churches.

I preferred Sagan's version. Cosmos episode 1, if I remember correctly, does blame the fire at Alexandria on religion. Horsefeathers. And then they spin a narrative where evil Church authorities animated to look like Jafar from Aladdin persecute Giordana Bruno for pursuing science. A cursory look at Bruno's wiki page tells the opposite story, that Bruno's scientific pursuits had nothing to do with his arrest and execution. So, while Bruno's execution for espousing religious heresies like pantheism was not a great moment in Church history, the Cosmos show completely rewrites history and tells uses Bruno's story as evidence of religion's incompatibility with science.

A more accurate portrayal of history would mention that the Abbey system preserved Classical knowledge during the 'Dark Ages', that the Church founded the modern university system, and that virtually every department of science was pioneered by a priest or Jesus freak (Mendel, Copernicus, Lemaitre, Bacon, Gassendi, Magnus, Pascal, etc..
An honest study of history reveals that Galileo was friends with the Pope, who commissioned his studies. That Pope died, and Galileo publicly humiliated the next Pope. His imprisonment was most likely a result of personal issues with the new Pope, and not instigated by his scientific claims.
Did Galileo get in trouble for being right or for being a jerk about it

 

[sealybobo]

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

The only person in here that thinks Hitler was religious is you. You started the lie, you propagated the lie, you continue the lie.

Hitler was, at best, ambiguous about religion. National Socialism was not. National Socialists didn't like religion one bit. Hitler's relationship with religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.

You lie. But you're a dimocrap. That's what dimocraps do

He knew how to use religion to control the masses. That's the point I'm trying to make. In the middle east they use religion to control their people. Religion is the government in Iran. In America we aren't a Christian nation but Bush played Christians like a fiddle.

 

[sealybobo]

Who are you Nostrodumbass?

This is just your failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies.

Humanism generally prefers critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith. Don't you? Then you can't be that smart.

LOL! yet, humanism is never found engaging in critical thinking and eschews all evidential doctrine and faith.

FTR: A-theism rests entirely in Relativism... which axiomatically rejects objectivity... thus rejects the essential element of truth, thus precluding trust, morality and the service to justice. As a result, it is quite literally impossible for an A-theist to consistently recognize the tenets of a soundly reasoned morality, therefore, the A-theist bears intrinsic a-moral, thus immoral baggage.

Which is why, I think... critically... that Humanism's history is one which demonstrates that it is the single most lethal; human threat, to humanity, in the history of humanity.

While it is true that Stalin and Mao were atheists and that they did not believe in any deities, it is also true that they did not commit their immoral acts because of something they read in the “Gospel of Richard Dawkins” or in “The Holy Book of Atheism.” The reason for this is because there are no such books. The problem with the implication is that the theist is equating atheism with a religion. But there is no doctrine of atheism. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in deities. There are no holy atheists and there are no infallible atheist books laying out dogma and doctrine.

Stalin and Hitler also both had mustaches. Does that mean that mustaches cause tyranny? This is where the theist will often assert that the lack of belief – or more accurately the lack of fear in God acts as a restraint on human’s natural sinfulness. This is a really poor argument for multiple reasons.

First, there are religious tyrants too. So the fear of God doesn’t really restrain anything or anyone. In fact, there are more religious tyrants than non-religious tyrants and with good reason. It is easier to demand obedience from people when you invoke a supernatural authority complete with rewards and punishments in an unverifiable afterlife.

So the belief in Nothing has produced no books on the subject?

Amazing... you'd think that such would have fostered great volumes... such as has been established in this forum, under your screen name.

Oh well... yet another mystery we will probably never come to fully understand.

All the great writings from the great thinkers of our past were wiped out with wars and religions. Plato decided instead of a math and science community we would have a slave society. And this society became the Christians. The same slave owning rulers allowed you to be Christians and forbid you to be anything else.

You need to watch the Cosmos to learn human history. The Library of Alexandrea was destroyed by religion and rulers. The Catholic Church burned books by people like Giordano Bruno and Gallaleo. Great minds in ancient China, Iraq, etc. All destroyed by states who were also churches.

I preferred Sagan's version. Cosmos episode 1, if I remember correctly, does blame the fire at Alexandria on religion. Horsefeathers. And then they spin a narrative where evil Church authorities animated to look like Jafar from Aladdin persecute Giordana Bruno for pursuing science. A cursory look at Bruno's wiki page tells the opposite story, that Bruno's scientific pursuits had nothing to do with his arrest and execution. So, while Bruno's execution for espousing religious heresies like pantheism was not a great moment in Church history, the Cosmos show completely rewrites history and tells uses Bruno's story as evidence of religion's incompatibility with science.

A more accurate portrayal of history would mention that the Abbey system preserved Classical knowledge during the 'Dark Ages', that the Church founded the modern university system, and that virtually every department of science was pioneered by a priest or Jesus freak (Mendel, Copernicus, Lemaitre, Bacon, Gassendi, Magnus, Pascal, etc..
An honest study of history reveals that Galileo was friends with the Pope, who commissioned his studies. That Pope died, and Galileo publicly humiliated the next Pope. His imprisonment was most likely a result of personal issues with the new Pope, and not instigated by his scientific claims.
Did Galileo get in trouble for being right or for being a jerk about it

Sort of like how the pope yesterday said he understood why the terrorists did what they did in France. If you make fun of my mother, he said, you can expect a fist to the face. In other words, don't mock or question someones religion because they take it very personally and some will even kill over it.

 

[Edgetho]

Who do you use propoganda on? A stupid citizenry. Hitler used propoganda on his stupid chrsitian citizens and Bush used it on our stupid christian society.

I wonder how many US presidents, Senators and Congressmen don't really believe in god. They all say they do but that's statistically impossible. Just like there is no way there are zero gays in the NFL.

For example, I think Obama and Clinton are smarter than that.

The only person in here that thinks Hitler was religious is you. You started the lie, you propagated the lie, you continue the lie.

Hitler was, at best, ambiguous about religion. National Socialism was not. National Socialists didn't like religion one bit. Hitler's relationship with religion has been characterized as one of opportunistic pragmatism.

You lie. But you're a dimocrap. That's what dimocraps do

He thought he was a god. And it doesn't matter if he was. His citizens were Catholics. That's Christian, right? They hated the Jews and murdered millions of them. Typical of Christian history. Nothing new.

Well, you're a product of Pop Culture education, so I guess it's not your fault that you look stupid all the time.

Hitler had all those Jews killed, NOT because of their religion or their race. Anybody that believes that is beyond stupid.

Hitler killed them because socialists hate -- What? What do socialists hate more than anything? More than anything else on earth socialists hate Capitalism.

And Hitler, (as well as marxists) saw Jews as the world's best and foremost Capitalists.

Read Bruno Bauer's "The Jewish Question"

Better yet, since I doubt your attention span can last past your next phone call, skip to Marx's reply to Bauer in his "On The Jewish Question"

They ALL saw Jews as a problem in the institution of socialism.

The Russian socialists solved the problem by doing away with Capitalism altogether. This, removing the stimulus and the desire to be Capitalists.

The Nazis simply did away with Jews.

It's more complicated than that, but that's the general gist of it -- For the simple minded.

Hitler killed the Jews because he saw them as a stumbling block on his path to a Nationalist, socialist Germany. He believed (rightly) that he could keep ethnic Germans in line. But that Jews might be a problem.

To call it racism or racialism or a Religious Pogrom is stupid. Just stupid.

If Hitler was such a racist (he was to an extent) then how come the Countries he devastated the most were much more racially similar to Germans than the Countries he allied himself with?

Hitler prefered Blonde Hair and Blue Eyes. The pure Aryan. We all know that.

What was the incidence of Blond Hair and Blue Eyes in Japan?

How about comparing the number of Aryans in....... Let's say, Poland compared to Italy?

You people on the left, you just swallow whatever pablum you're fed. It's why I hate you so much. Not that you're stupid but because you're stupid and defend your stupidity like a junk yard dog

 

[paperview]

One of Hitler's paintings.

Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ

 

[PoliticalChic]

Glad socialism doesn't affect us then. The effect of socialism in the US is greatly exaggerated and used a a fear mongering tool for the idiots that believe it.

Yes... Socialist policy only managed to collapse the international financial markets.

Nothing to worry about. Its effect is minimal.

Of course, the socialists elected a socialist to the Presidency. Who spent more in deficit in his first year, than the entire average Federal Budget of the preceding Democrat President. Which he did his second, third, fourth, fifth year... effectively DOUBLING the Federal Debt which he inherited, which took 230-ish years and 43 Presidents to accumulate.

Nothing to worry about... indeed. As there's nothing that can fix it now anyway.

Lots of left-wingers have used science, yes. Gaspard Monge and Albert Einstein immediately come to mind.

And no, Hitler hated marxism: Godwin s Law Review Racial and Cultural Demonization

Marx was a proponent of the International Socialism. Which failed... National Socialism was the remedy for that failure. Of course, it failed to. And it keeps failing, everywhere it's tried, because it rejects the objectivity required to recognize truth..., thus it fails to develop trust, rinses away all sense of soundly reasoned morality and ultimately it fails to serve justice.

That's the perfect formula for failure... there's nothing that can do, but fail.

Of course the Nazi's were socialist in name only. Once the were done with the Night of Long Knives the implimented fascism like they had in Italy, and like Pinochet later enacted in Chile, and like all the Pinochetists who call themselves "Republican" want to enact here. They are philosophically the same:

http://www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

ROFLMNAO! Yes, yes.... And Mao, Stalin, Lenin... they were also Socialist posers. We know... "There's never actually ever been a true Socialist..."

LOL! Useless idiots.

Socialism is Sweden dumbass, not Cuba.

I see you have appeared, needing an education.

And, it will be provided.


Sweden.....your suggestion:

1. "With respect to claim that Swedish socialism shows the "success" of socialism, as O'Rourke notes, free trade reigned in Sweden from roughly 1846 until the Social Democrats were elected in 1932. After 1932, Sweden was helped by its neutrality in World War Two. Unlike Germany, Sweden's major cities were not bombed flat. The Social Democrats, then, had a great deal of wealth produced by capitalism and undamaged by war to share as political spoils."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman33.html alists.



Now....as this thread was about Liberal/Progressive "science," eugenics.....

2."As Ludwig von Mises writes inThe Anti-Capitalistic Mentality,it is capitalism — based upon individual liberty and private property — which has materially advanced human life from mud huts and horrific infant mortality rates to the comfort in which much of the world lives today.
It is also in capitalist nations — where the right to liberty and the right to property are protected — where men and women have been comparatively free from the eugenic nightmares of other nations. Although prisoners and "mental deficients" were sterilized in the United States, such programs never reached the levels they reached in Sweden, let alone in Germany under the National Socialists.

3. A1 of the August 29, 1997,Washington Post,

From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.
The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology, founded in 1922, was the first national institute of the kind. The Swedes were also the first to sterilize the mentally ill, beginning in 1934.

One woman, aged 72 at the time of the Post article, was sterilized "because she couldn't read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses and was deemed to be retarded."

[You realize how lucky you weren't born in the socialist paradise, Sweden...you'd have surely been sterilized.]



4.— the Social Democrats — "accepted the policy as an essential part of their overall philosophy." This claims is supported by the fact that, as noted above, the Social Democrats came to power in Sweden in 1932. In other words, they waited a mere two years before embarking on a program of eugenics. This would appear to make the eugenics program a high priority for the Social Democrats, as Dagens Nyheter contended.
"...90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control."


5. ....Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families:

Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery."...One man featured in the documentary, who was lobotomised in 1963, is now 67 and has no concept of time, still believing that his children are small.

In part, the benevolent socialist government of Sweden hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."
The allegedly "benevolent" Swedish social democrats, then, behaved very like the Nazis."
Ibid.

....and like Liberals/Progressives.

Pretty smart of you to bring up Sweden, huh, you dope?