caffeine

Darwinism, as most people use the term, does not refer to 'the sum total of ideas ever held by Charles Darwin'. We have a tendency to name ideas after people, but the idea soon takes on a life of its own and 'Somebodyism' can often mean views quite different to those of Somebody. I don't know if it's true that he held some bizarre racist ideas at some point in his life, and that isn't particularly important. The majority of people considering themselves Darwinists merely mean that they believe evolution progresses principally through the process of natural selection (and most would be neo-Darwinists, which is basically the same thing combined with Mendellian genetics).

The important point here is that there is not and cannot be anything prescriptive about a scientific theory. It's merely an attempt to observe and explain. Darwinism tells us, in simplified form, that lifeforms which are less successful at replicating themselves than other will leave less copies of themselves around. This is just common sense, as Darwin himself pointed out several times.

Darwinism does not say it's good to reproduce, or that the purpose of life is to reproduce, or that things are progressing to some ideal, or that there are some things we should try to select for in humans. None of the above can be derived from what is just a description of things happening.

To give an example, we could observe that some selective pressure is causing people with big noses to have more children than others in some society, and that their children are just as likely to survive and prosper as the average. Darwinian theory will tell us that, as long as that selective pressure remains, the proportion of population with big noses will increase. It does not tell us that big noses are better than small noses.

Advertising

roobarb

I respectfully disagree but I appreciate what you are saying. I also have seen others say the same thing about Nietzche's philosophy.

I do not doubt for one second Nazis created a mythology based on a perfect human race which took what they thought were principles from Nietzche and Darwin but no they were nto guiding principles of either. The Nazi ideology took them and many other thoughts and distorted them out of their original meaning. Case in point, the Swastika. In Hindu culture it is a wonderful sign. The fact the Nazis misappropriated and flipped it over does not mean we say the Nazi Swastika is based on Hinduism. No it is based on misappropriating a symbol from its original context. The Nazi swastika has nothing to do with Hinduism.

Nazi ideology is a classic example of people who did NOT understand something when they read it and so precisely because of that very point, when they repeat it, do not repeat it at all but make up something new based on their inability to hear the real thing.

It may borrow some of the sounds and colours but not the substance.

The theory of human evolution that Darwin commenced was not intended to be used in a manner to suggest one race was different then another. It said nothing of the kind. People after the fact tried to take the theory of evolution and force it to meet their preconceived needs to support such a theory.

Hitler never had an original thought in his mind and that is precisely why he was a failure as a painter-he could mimmic others' techniques but only to a point and just could not grasp their essence which showed in his paintings which were sterile, rigid and lacked perspective depth in their contours.

If anything it was his unrequited homo-sexual groupy Goebbels who was responsible for any creativity and even his propaganda simply regurgitated old stories and was far from original.

There is a reason so many chicken farmers rose to the heights they did in Nazi Germany. It wasn't because they understood Darwin.

freecell

Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race. Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some Negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins. Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder nearer the apes than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Blacks aren't human.

I would say he was a racist.

caffeine

Did you read any of my last post at all?

freecell

Yes I read your post but you have got to understand this man was bitter towards God. So he was going to find a way for his existence without God. In his last days he regretted this but the damage was already done. People who don’t believe in God ate up his logic. The only way back then was to NOT put black people in the same level as white. But I am not going to argue with you if you don’t believe in God. If you want to believe in his theory then there is nothing I can say. And Manson he also believed blacks or non-whites were dumb and wanted to be over them. Or at least the ones who didn’t die in the fight.
He didn’t really care for them.

caffeine

Fair enough, but you should remember that Darwin himself is not an essential part of the theories of evolution and natural selection; and if you're trying to understand them as simply an outgrowth of his personal struggle with faith you'll misunderstand. Most of Darwin's ideas predate Darwin, and I think neo-Darwinism would probably still be here even if there'd never been a Darwin. We'd just have a different name for it.

sid2112

God I love the Conspiracy Theory blogs. You guys come up with the most insanely entertaining stuff! Manson murders a Government black op?!? Priceless!!!!

Who's awesome? I'm Awesome!

roobarb

First let me make clear I am in no way intending to insult you. If I sound that way I apologize. I only mean to challenge your assumptions not you as a person. So sorry if that is not clear. I am only giving your opinions a hard time not you as a person. I sound more smart ass then I really am. I just mean to challenge your assumptions. Nothing else.

Now you asked me how objective am I? First off I have numerous subjective biases which no doubt cloud my ability to be objective no different then yours or anyone else's. So on one level I am conceding I am as big a dufus as I excuse anyone of being.

That said, no with due respect, I appreciate why you asked me to look at the web-sites you did. No I do not reject them outright but on the other hand for me personally, I can't read such web-sites and conclude things from them They are what I call incomplete sound bites. They are in themselves incomplete-they do not provide me sufficient information.

For me to really feel comfortable believing something-and that is me personally, I need more then some sound bites on a web site. I need more research, more substantiated references, corroborated evidence, documents, and I like to see both sides of an issue and try work towards the middle.

When it comes to conspiracy theories I treat them all the same-as new age religion-faith based doctrine that people create in the absence of objective explanations to help them feel they are in control and understand chaos and there is a reason behind chaos.

See for me, my readings and research leads me to believe Charlie Manson was just part of the chaos of the world that frightends people and they want to try package in neat explainable theories so he no longer is just some irrational lunatic but someone who was part of a rational process. Thanks but no thanks. I do not need a rational theory for Satan or evil. To me I have read documentation and then read his own words and that basis if information to me suggests Charlie is a deranged psycho-path with a particular kind of pathology and personality disorders that enabled him to manipulate others with other kinds of personality disorders. Even his intense staring eyes that seem to bulge like he is possessed by evil, to me there is an actual bio-chemical reason why his eyes bulge.

I think what Charlie Manson did is explainable but not in the way you are doing it. What his followers did is explainable. In my opinion they engaged in violent murder based on a shared pathology with Charlie Manson who was able to direct their actions and compel them to do what they did by filling their need for a father figure and manipulating their emotion and creating a family they did not feel they had.

He then did what any gang leader or pimp or cult leader or politician or clergyperson can do, he led by his words and by using the group to lower their inhibitions and allow him permission to tell them how to conduct their lives.

He literally took control of their bodies by fucking them, telling them who they could fuck, when they could eat, pee and sleep and what they could eat and think. In this manner he regressed them back to an infantile state.

There is nothing magical. No conspiracy theories. Just the pathology of humans with mental illnesses and personality disorders that when mixed as in this case formed a killing machine and a lethal mix of charismatic or emotionally manipulative leader with followers.

Charlie Manson is a psychopath. He is no socio-path. A socio-path knows what they do is wrong. A psycho-path like Charlie has no clue. He does not feel remorse or define rights or wrongs. All that exists in Charlie's world is what he says is so and he drifts in and out of our world spending more time in his world then ours. His world consists of symbols and meanings that you and I will never understand because Charlie has no clue how to explain them in a coherent manner.

He suffers from a kind of schizophreniform where his words become garbled as he tries to talk-they become disjointed babble because of neuro-transmission failure. Most of what he says is gibberish but what Charlie is capable of doing is manipulating the emotions of others and so to them, his words are not what manipulates them, its his violent ourbursts followed by demands for sex and being loved unconditionally. That they conform to and crave because in their world, sexual molestation and violent authority figures represents family-the only family they have known, escaped from and then look for again.

Charlie is very much the result of a pre-disposed biological entity destined to be violent because of his chromosones and hormones and brain structure and then add to that the experiences of his childhood, being incarcerated, eating poorly for years, and you get this brew of toxic substance and yes its contagious. He is a pathogen for hatred. He easily incites others to hate and finding anti-social personality disordered individuals who come from broken homes where they were beaten and molested and now on the street, is child's play for Charlie just as it is child's play for a pimp to find a run away on the streets.

There was no government conspiracy, just some drugged out, lost souls, confused, brought up in a world where they felt entitled but soon found themselves in a world that would not give them what they felt they were entitled to-and a world of pain and perversion. So they turn to drugs to engage in self-indulgence and try block out the unfair world-only the drugs then distorted their worlds and made them susceptible to the babblings of Charlie.

The drugs lowered their inhibitions and Charlie fucked each and everyone of them man or woman and created a pimp prostitute dynamic.

No magic. No CIA agents. Just criminal pathology and mutual dependency.

Objective? Objective to me is looking at someone who claims to be God, Satan, etc., and asking him when was the last time he showered or ate or brushed his teeth or combed his hair. Objectivity to me is looking at a man covered in his own excrement and using that as the basis to determine he has some sort of problem.

TomSip

I just wanted to see if anyone simply ruled out what those sites said outright. You are taking a logical position. I have lived abroad and I'd learned about what those sites say long before I read anything about it. If I hadn't done that, I'd probably take a position similar to yours. I like to put that question to people as a litmus test to see if they are worth debating.

Your analysis of Manson killings is plausible. I still consider the conspiracy theory plausible too. There are several plausible scenarios and I don't know how we can possibly determine which one reflects reality.

The US government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

They faked the Apollo moon landings.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/1/

They train torturers and members of death squads to keep people in third world countries from trying to democratically elect leaders that represent the people of their countries instead of American companies.

(enter "torture" and "death squads" in this search engine)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/htdig/search.html

The internet is full of stuff about how the CIA has the ability to program people to do things they normally wouldn't do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cia+mind+control+experiments& search_type=&aq=0&oq=cia+mind+control

The press gives a totally upside-down view of what's happening and/or why it happens on a regular basis.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&threa d=1525

I'm not saying I'm sure that the Manson killings were a government black op. I'm just saying the idea is not far-fetched and fits the picture considering everything else the government has done. Whether the government did it or not, the government benefited from the killings as they did discredit the counter-culture to a great degree.

roobarb

Hey Tom, the point is you started a thread to debate this and we are. That is what counts. I sometimes to do not mean to sound as intolerant as I am. It sounds worse then it is when I respond. I appreciate you are just speculating and offering theories for discussion and I am zapping back to your zip.

Look do I believe everything I read in the media? No. Do I believe anything, shit I am not sure. Honest. I mean I am like anyone else. I have no f..cking clue as to what to believe these days.

I mean we have all lived through stories that have been proven to be pure bullshit.

I mean you speculate, I speculate, and shit do any of us ever know or will ever know? I mean I sometimes think I am better off not knowing.

I mean this way I believe Lindsay Lohan is not a lesbian and will come back to me eventually.

All of us need our myths to keep us going.