Creationism proponents wanted: no scruples necessary

ragarth

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2008
1,217
62
Virginia, USA
✟1,704.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Could it be done if, say:

  1. Every Christian on the face of the earth suddenly disappeared.
  2. Any nation refusing to co-operate, like say, Israel --- were to be eliminated for the sake of the whole? (You know --- cut off a finger to save a hand.)

1) No, because at most christians make up 30% or so of the world population, leaving 70% of the population left, for brevity, let's make that 1/3 loss, this equates to a reduction of 2 billion people, leaving 4 billion. This fails to satisfy the logistics issue. Considering the problems we face in the US managing our massive population, having a progressive government (which I assume you assume that I assume) would be rediculous and unwieldy without more advanced technology.

2) This would still fail to bring forth results, it'd effectively decimate the world population since very few soveriegn nations are okay with having their sovereignty taken by another. It would in effect, homogenize the world, which is bad.

So to answer your immediate question, no. I assume there's a larger question behind this, phrased like this: If these are social descriptions of evolutionary processes, could they bring forth an assumed better society?

The answer to this is: No. These two options are not representative of evolutionary processes because genocide is not a normal evolutionary process. Extinction does happen, but it is very rare and usually rather random. Diversity plays a much larger role in evolution than extinction does, and diversity tends to make a more robust population, and a more robust ecosystem than homogeny.

Social groups have nothing that directly shows speciation, the closest is when a social group spawns another, but this happens too rarely for it to really count. Given the almost total lack of speciation within social groups, a core hallmark of evolutionary theory, an application of evolutionary theory to society would almost certainly destroy that society by increasing homogeny and damaging the robustness of the larger society. This is why I feel social evolution is bunk.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
[/list]
Are you trying to say that it's Christians that refuse worldwide cooperation?


Anyway, even if there was no religion, or one religion: we'd still have nationalism, cultural differences, economic difficulties and whatnot. Just look at the EU: it is far from being a "one Europe government".



Wiping out an entire nation and all those with that nationality would be almost an impossibility, so the point is moot from the start.


Av makes these wild leaps off into unanswerable irrelevancies, and here you are trying to follow him...?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
2) This would still fail to bring forth results, it'd effectively decimate the world population since very few soveriegn nations are okay with having their sovereignty taken by another. It would in effect, homogenize the world, which is bad.
Then please tell me why you made this statement:
The fact as I see it is, we are a tribal creature in a global environment. We need to get beyond the tribal view of nations, ethnicities, and groups, and see each other as part of the global community.
If it is our nature to be tribal, why do you say we NEED to get beyond the tribal view?

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

First saying we need to get beyond this, then telling me it would homogenize the world, which is bad?

Make up my mind.
 
Upvote 0

WilliamduBois

BenderBendingRodriguez
Mar 11, 2006
252
9
Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Visit site
✟7,964.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Av makes these wild leaps off into unanswerable irrelevancies, and here you are trying to follow him...?

This if fun, but it alo shows AV that his challenges and irrelevant questions won't get him off the hook. If the lurkers notice he refuses to answer questions, goes of in half-insane ramblings and /threads out of every thread he gets "pwned", it's a victory for the realist side.

And I can only imagine how AV must feel when he finds himself cornered again. I wonder if a person gets used to that or if it continues to gnaw.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
This if fun, but it alo shows AV that his challenges and irrelevant questions won't get him off the hook. If the lurkers notice he refuses to answer questions, goes of in half-insane ramblings and /threads out of every thread he gets "pwned", it's a victory for the realist side.

And I can only imagine how AV must feel when he finds himself cornered again. I wonder if a person gets used to that or if it continues to gnaw.

Well i guesssss.... What is "pwned" by the way?

i think tho you are talking to someone who is incapable of realizing he is ever wrong. There was a kid like that in jr high? I beat him in a chess game and when i made the checkmate, and he countered that with something ridiculous, i dunno, a bishop jumper a pawn or something.. anyway, "French rules" he said, and declared himself the winner.

If you use the bible like "french rules" you can never lose.

I didnt really take any psych classes that dealt with this, but I think for some people, never being wrong is essential to holding their whole deal with life together. So no matter what, its always gonna be "french rules". Dont you think so? Its like a balloon, the tiniest hole is a disaster. You might not even want to do that.

Might be fun for a while to see what sort of ridiculous things a person will do to still be right, but it gets annoying. Anyhow, AV iggied me so I dont converse with him. Should never have started.
 
Upvote 0

ragarth

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2008
1,217
62
Virginia, USA
✟1,704.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Then please tell me why you made this statement:If it is our nature to be tribal, why do you say we NEED to get beyond the tribal view?

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

First saying we need to get beyond this, then telling me it would homogenize the world, which is bad?

Make up my mind.

Good question! We are genetically a tribal species, but genetics doesn't choose who we decide our 'tribe' is. Gang members relate their gang as their tribe, the highly religious relate their religion as their tribe, the highly national relate their nation as their tribe. We can choose who our tribe is, and what I'm espousing is that people see each other as part of the world society, that we are all part of a single tribe. This is how I see the world. This does not increase homogeny because one can be muslim, christian, atheist, american, european, etc and still consider themselves part of another tribe altogether, christian gang members for instance relate to their gang membership but are still christian. Your tribe is who you think of first when confronted with opposition. When I make an argument, do you think 'atheist argument' or 'another human's argument'?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We are genetically a tribal species, but genetics doesn't choose who we decide our 'tribe' is.
Are you suggesting then that we align our choices up with our genes?

If we did that, wouldn't that just create and solidify a heterogeneous society?

How then do you propose to get beyond it for the sake of homogenizing the world?
 
Upvote 0

ragarth

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2008
1,217
62
Virginia, USA
✟1,704.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Are you suggesting then that we align our choices up with our genes?

If we did that, wouldn't that just create and solidify a heterogeneous society?

How then do you propose to get beyond it for the sake of homogenizing the world?

No, that's the exact opposite of what I stated. We are genetically predisposed to developing societies, to being part of a tribe. We are a group species in this way, just like wolves, lions, and horses have a tendency to form groups, humans form groups as well. Humans do, however, have the capacity to define for themselves who and what their group (tribe) consists of.

If I made an effort and mentally reinforced it for myself, I could begin thinking in terms of 'people who eat wheat bread.' I would eventually begin analyzing my choices in life based upon the pros and cons for people who eat wheat bread, and if I'm an aggressive individual, vs those who eat *them other breads.*

Also, broadening your view of who your tribe is does not homogenize the people of that tribe. I consider you part of my tribe, does that make you more like me? The USA is a diverse melting pot of different ethnicities, cultures, beliefs, and methods, but it still manages to be a cohesive, powerful force in the world. It's not homogenous, but it is a potential tribe.
 
Upvote 0

WilliamduBois

BenderBendingRodriguez
Mar 11, 2006
252
9
Desselgem, WVL, Belgium
Visit site
✟7,964.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well i guesssss.... What is "pwned" by the way?

The term "pwn" or "pwned" originally comes from the gamingworld. It started with a typo ("owned") and became one of the best known words in leetspeak. "pwning someone" means "defeating someone soundly". It's something AV likes to use, unaware that 1) leetspeak is annoying and 2) he never actually "pwns" someone anyway.

i think tho you are talking to someone who is incapable of realizing he is ever wrong.

One can only hope he realises in real life that some of his "pet theories" are ridiculous, even if he won't admit it here on the forums...

There was a kid like that in jr high? I beat him in a chess game and when i made the checkmate, and he countered that with something ridiculous, i dunno, a bishop jumper a pawn or something.. anyway, "French rules" he said, and declared himself the winner.

Those are the rules. I live 30 km north of France and that's how I was taught it.

Heh, no really. People like that are annoying, but again: that kid must've realised he lost. He knew he made something up. I hope AV is like that too. And Dad. And RobertByers. Zone definitely knows.

If you use the bible like "french rules" you can never lose.

I didnt really take any psych classes that dealt with this, but I think for some people, never being wrong is essential to holding their whole deal with life together. So no matter what, its always gonna be "french rules". Dont you think so? Its like a balloon, the tiniest hole is a disaster. You might not even want to do that.

Except that they must have that gnawing feeling whenever they make something up. "Man! I must be right, but I just made it up."

Might be fun for a while to see what sort of ridiculous things a person will do to still be right, but it gets annoying. Anyhow, AV iggied me so I dont converse with him. Should never have started.

I've read lots of quotes by AV on FSTDT before I came here, and I was surprised that he's like this almost all the time, instead of a "funny" quote every once in a while. I still find it hilarious, especially since it's great how people point out his errors in sarcastic/ironic/whatever ways. Nathan Poe is my hero when it comes to that.

And if AV ignores you, that's a badge of honor. Means he either was unable to reply to something you posted, or you ticked him off very good. Both aren't too bad, IMHO ;)
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
The term "pwn" or "pwned" originally comes from the gamingworld. It started with a typo ("owned") and became one of the best known words in leetspeak. "pwning someone" means "defeating someone soundly". It's something AV likes to use, unaware that 1) leetspeak is annoying and 2) he never actually "pwns" someone anyway.



One can only hope he realises in real life that some of his "pet theories" are ridiculous, even if he won't admit it here on the forums...



Those are the rules. I live 30 km north of France and that's how I was taught it.

Heh, no really. People like that are annoying, but again: that kid must've realised he lost. He knew he made something up. I hope AV is like that too. And Dad. And RobertByers. Zone definitely knows.



Except that they must have that gnawing feeling whenever they make something up. "Man! I must be right, but I just made it up."



I've read lots of quotes by AV on FSTDT before I came here, and I was surprised that he's like this almost all the time, instead of a "funny" quote every once in a while. I still find it hilarious, especially since it's great how people point out his errors in sarcastic/ironic/whatever ways. Nathan Poe is my hero when it comes to that.

And if AV ignores you, that's a badge of honor. Means he either was unable to reply to something you posted, or you ticked him off very good. Both aren't too bad, IMHO ;)

A few years ago i sat on an airplane, the guy next to me turns out to be a minister. He wanted to talk religion, maybe he figured I look like a pagan or Buddhist or something. I guess I do at that!

I think some religious talk is interesting, if its kind of intellectual at least. So my first Q was to see if he was a fundie, the opposite as i see it, of intellectual. Anyhow.. ended up talking about Noah's ark.

He said its not only real, but, people have seen it. I told him, Marco Polo reported that someone had just discovered Noahs ark! For something that has been discovered so many times, its sure hard to find out where it is or see a photo or anything.

So he says, well it is in a glacier, and the cracks open up, you can see it, then they close...ok i said, the glacier would long since have carried it out and dumped the little shreds out at the end.

Well in the end it turned out that everything he said was true, because god was telling him what to say and the devil was telling me what to say.

So I learned something from that, there is a way to rationalize just making things up as you go along! And not just rationalize it but make it the holy word of god. So Im not so sure that all of our practitioners of the art on this forum have any feelings other than maybe warm glow of righteousness every time they lie.

ps I ticked him off by saying that I am profoundly disguested with anyone who believes some of the things he subscribes to.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RobertByers

Regular Member
Feb 26, 2008
714
9
59
✟15,909.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The bible has been used to legitimize evils itself. As stated earlier, the conquering of the Inca, The crusades, holy wars galore. These people were racist, and the bible was used to support this racism.

Evolution has been used less often for this, but it hasn't been around as long. Notably Stalin did make use of 'social evolution' to advance his ideals. Social evolution has been proven to be bad science, and it's safe to say that Stalin didn't understand evolution as it existed at the time, but he still supported himself with it. (just as people who kill in the name of jesus don't understand the horrible irony in that, perhaps?)

The point is, they've both been abused and manipulated to advance goals that they don't inherently hold, whether it be through actual intellectual manipulation, or misunderstandings. So quit the fracking finger pointing because it does nothing. Christianity is religion, evolution is science. If a war were started over eating eggs small side up vs small side down, would you denounce the stupidity of the war, or the act of eating eggs?

/I'd denounce the stupidity of the war, of stalin, of spains conquering the inca, of the crusades, of holy wars... it's all stupid, sad, and horrible.

Your right its stupid and horrible for unjust killings and destruction.
Yet there good wars. The bible says people deserved destruction here and there.
The incas and other people in the new world were evil. They did evil things to other people. So, without me knowing for sure, its possible God brought on them the spainards to give just punishment.
They were not racists. there is no such thing as racism. Its just a word used to deny the moral right to see other identities in a bad light. Right or wrong. any practical injustice has names already.

The bible was used to bring all modern advances in love and justice. Any use of it otherwise was a fraud.
Therefore this is why the English-speaking world was the highest just civilization. It used the bible more by7 way of evangelical christianity.
 
Upvote 0

BananaSlug

Life is an experiment, experience it!
Aug 26, 2005
2,454
106
39
In a House
✟10,782.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The incas and other people in the new world were evil. They did evil things to other people. So, without me knowing for sure, its possible God brought on them the spainards to give just punishment.

I'm sorry, I am usually very laid back but this has to be the biggest load of crap I've ever read. What the Incas and other tribes of the Americas did to other people is no different than what the Israelites did to the other tribes of their region.
For some reason I thought the God of the New Testament had given up his bloodthirsty ways of smiting cities and killing children for making fun of bald guys. Even though Jesus taught to love our enemies and love our neighbors I guess even God couldn't keep up with those commandments, according to your views.
 
Upvote 0

ragarth

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2008
1,217
62
Virginia, USA
✟1,704.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Your right its stupid and horrible for unjust killings and destruction.
Yet there good wars. The bible says people deserved destruction here and there.
The incas and other people in the new world were evil. They did evil things to other people. So, without me knowing for sure, its possible God brought on them the spainards to give just punishment.
They were not racists. there is no such thing as racism. Its just a word used to deny the moral right to see other identities in a bad light. Right or wrong. any practical injustice has names already.

The bible was used to bring all modern advances in love and justice. Any use of it otherwise was a fraud.
Therefore this is why the English-speaking world was the highest just civilization. It used the bible more by7 way of evangelical christianity.

I'm at a loss for words. Attempting to legitimize these things- the cruel death of civilizations, racism, etc, it's despicable. The movie "Apocolypto" was not a documentary, and the world is a lot more complex than 'the Christians invented all of society'. Do some research and learn that the world isn't as black and white as this post makes it seem you think it is.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
I have given serious consideration to adopting Christianity even if not all my posts sound that way.

I would be interested to see how many Christians on the board will denounce this belief and how many will support it.

There is no way that I could be part of a group that has this view of the world.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
"by Dr. David Menton, AiG-U.S.January 8, 2009 [Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine. Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University ]

"We are have just entered what many are calling “the year of Darwin.” During 2009, much of the world will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his book On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (most people do not know the full, racist title)."
source


The Rockefeller Center has an online seminar in celebration of this event, it's really interesting for creationist and evolutionist alike. From RNA to Humans I would think that the title of the seminar would dispel the myth that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but we will see.

It shouldn't have to be noted that the use of "races" in the title was in no way intended to reflect the racism David Morton implies. In fact, the use of "races" wasn't even Darwin's idea. For those who may be unaware, here is an explanation of the title, On the Origin of Species, from Wikipedia.
"On 20 July 1858 Darwin started work on an "abstract" trimmed from his Natural Selection, writing much of it from memory. Lyell made arrangements with the publisher John Murray, who agreed to publish the manuscript sight unseen, and to pay Darwin two-thirds of the net proceeds. Darwin had initially decided to call his book An abstract of an Essay/on the/Origin/of/Species and Varieties/Through natural selection/, but with Murray's persuasion it was eventually changed to the snappier title: On the Origin of Species with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, a long book title as was common during the Victorian era. Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".
source
And just so there's no mistake about the contemporary meaning of the word "racist" as used by Menton.
Encarta World English Dictionary
Racist:
1. based on racism: based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race
2. prejudiced against other races: prejudiced against all people who belong to other races

Cambridge Dictionary
racist
noun DISAPPROVING
someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly:

Wiktionary
Racist
Adjective
Of, relating to, or advocating racism.

racism
The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
The belief that one race is superior to all others.
Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.
So here we have good evidence that having the brains to acquire a PhD does not mean one also has the wherewithal to acquire scruples. Purposely misrepresenting someone's words to reflect badly on them is not only unethical but down right despicable. But, of course, we've come to expect as much from the creationist movement. Congratulations Dr. Menton, wear your Creationist Creep badge with honor.

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 The Descent of Man The Races of Man. Charles Darwin)​

He believed that certain races were going to be 'exterminated' by superior ones. Anyone who reads On the Descent of Man and is not struck by the unapologetic racism that permeates his whole theory is doing so out of a deep intellectual bias, not a fair reading of the text.

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. (The Decent of Man, Darwin)​

It's amazing that in these intellectual culture centers they have the nerve to defend Darwin and yet ridicule Christian thought on the subject of the origins of man.

No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, Thomas Henry Huxley)​

Was Darwin a Racist? by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Whatever else Darwin was, the man was a racist.
 
Upvote 0

ragarth

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2008
1,217
62
Virginia, USA
✟1,704.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
The Rockefeller Center has an online seminar in celebration of this event, it's really interesting for creationist and evolutionist alike. From RNA to Humans I would think that the title of the seminar would dispel the myth that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but we will see.

Evolution is what happens with living things, self-replicating RNA is not living, and follows a similar but not quite the same process called provolution. The transition from organic molecules to self-replicating RNA and from self-replicating RNA to actual living things is called abiogenesis. They are all related, but they are not all evolution (except evolution, it's safe to say evolution is evolution).
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
The Rockefeller Center has an online seminar in celebration of this event, it's really interesting for creationist and evolutionist alike. From RNA to Humans I would think that the title of the seminar would dispel the myth that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but we will see.


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 The Descent of Man The Races of Man. Charles Darwin)​
He believed that certain races were going to be 'exterminated' by superior ones. Anyone who reads On the Descent of Man and is not struck by the unapologetic racism that permeates his whole theory is doing so out of a deep intellectual bias, not a fair reading of the text.
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. (The Decent of Man, Darwin)​
It's amazing that in these intellectual culture centers they have the nerve to defend Darwin and yet ridicule Christian thought on the subject of the origins of man.
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, Thomas Henry Huxley)​
Was Darwin a Racist? by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Whatever else Darwin was, the man was a racist.


I think it would have been very hard to find anyone in Europe or America who was not "racist" at that time, so what is worthwhile about selecting Darwin for that label isnt clear to me. What is the point?

Now, if you want to find racism alive, well and often virulent today, you might like to visit the far east, the mid east, south east asia, africa.....

Sometimes I think the USA is kind of insane. This is probably the least racist country on earth. What is left of racism mainly exists in the form of professional race baiters of all sorts attaching wires to make the corpse of racism twitch. Or people falling all over themselves to be PC and avoid any hint of being racist. I am SO tired of that word!!!!!

We will really have some "closure" on the whole issue when anyone who tries bringing up the subject gets the response he deserves.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Christian Soldier

QUESTION EVOLUTION
Aug 1, 2002
1,524
55
Visit site
✟2,190.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

--Adolf Hitler, Evolutionist
Mein Kampf

.
 
Upvote 0