<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity and Islam oppose evolution. Communism stands for the false idea of equality, whereas SD believes in intrinsic differences in each individual. So SD inevitably leads to laissez faire, and is opposed to communism. So I don't know how you can relate 'christoislamicommuninazism' to SD.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Communism and nazism are also said to be opposite poles (nazism is based on social darwinism - didn't ya know, see further below for link), but they are both the predictable offspring of the christianism mindvirus. Communism is said to be the opposite of objectivism as well, but the last is also a christoislami offspring, just like nazism/fascism, social darwinism. If you are only able to identify one school of thought inside christoislamism, then you don't understand the whole of the problem that the mindvirus poses.
Christoislamism carries more than merely the seeds for giving rise to nazism/fascism, communism, social darwinism (which I always include in the term nazism), objectivism - which is why christoislamism has at different times manifested *itself* in these forms. Why do christoislamics in S and C America and in Turkey and Kosovo get into communism so easily while they remain christoislamics? Why do Kosovo islamics and those in ME (Jerusalem mufti), and the Slovakian, Croatian, German and Italian catholics get into nazism/fascism and social darwinism so easily? Why do the KKK and other christo white supremacists advocate social darwinism?
You say that communism stands for "equality", but it really is a belief that "some are more equal than others" (as Orwell, disillusioned from his earlier infatuation with communism, rightly put it). That is why communism kills millions, like social darwinist nazism killed millions. As I think I stated before, the difference between the two is where the killing starts: communism begins by killing its own people (those of the same population who don't want to fall in line with its ideology) and nazism starts its killing-spree with some 'externals' - those identified as not fitting into its ideological plan.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So SD inevitably leads to laissez faire, and is opposed to communism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In so far as social darwinism is the inspiration for nazism - well, in that sense it can be said to be 'opposed' to communism (only within the christoislami worldview though). But SD and nazism, communism are still all the products of the christoislamic mindvirus, even if the offspring sometimes starts leading a life independent of the originating mindvirus.
Finally found it. Here you go: how social darwinism was the basis on which nazism was built (and eugenics, of course)
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth3
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line" explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection and served as an adjunct to his already established religious views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems.]</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SD inevitably leads to laissez faire<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No. That's what it <i>claims</i> (just like communism <i>claims</i> it's for equality). But in the end it always comes down to (calling for) extermination. Even Social Darwinists (and nazi-sympathizers! Quelle surprise!) playing at being scientists, like Roger Pearson and his buddy Lynn, advocate the Might (or rather, a confused idea of 'superiority') is Right principle and then come down to advocating getting rid of 'inferior races' and supporting eugenics programmes.
And on matters totally unrelated to Social Darwinism:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Turn the pages of Indian history, and you'll know it's true. Starting from Chauhan to the present day two-bit politician, you'll notice a familiar pattern. Hindus repeat certain mistakes, without ever caring to learn from them. And what are those mistakes? See below.
#1 Not understanding the enemy, especially the enemy's ideology.
#2 Not going for the kill<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This has been documented already: definitely in the early encounters with islam - the Hindus fought until the VERY end: they would not leave the islami opponents alive at the end (example posted at the bottom), because they had realised the ruthlessness of looney islam. It is only in medieval times that Chauhan and some others were overwrought with pity for the enemy that they made terrible mistakes in not finishing what they started.
Fortunately, bloodshed is not always the sole option - sometimes there is time to try out other avenues that can be equally successful. Disseminating fact-based information on the terrorist ideologies is a prime one.
In any case, the Gita should be a handbook on why Dharma should not relent when upholding Dharma.
And I've always advocated learning what the enemy's ideology stands for, to realise the extent of why it must be opposed. In fact, I believe in learning from the mistakes others made in their fight against the christoislamic mindvirus in the past. I think I even posted on why it seemed that Julianus might have hit on the solution (at least he scared the church into a fit, no ordinary achievement) and that we should look into what he was trying to do.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right, if you're viewing life in terms of right vs wrong, or good vs evil which, incidentally, happens to be a Christian idea. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Only christo-conditioned people would have interpreted what I said in that way.
In the Dharmic view, it is more in terms of - for lack of a better pre-existing idea in English - "Live and let live; and oppose those things that won't let live". Social Darwinism is an ideology concerned with determining who/what deserves life and continuation based on a very limited understanding of evolution and context. It has no idea of the bigger picture of where humanity came from or where its future in evolution may lie. People who hawk western progress as the measure of human success don't understand that the most adaptable, most successful humans (in terms of real evolution - that of Nature) lie in Africa and S America, SE Asia, etc. I mean, the tribal communities. They are likeliest to survive various natural calamities and many other occurrences, for example were the planet to lose current energy production (say fuel or electricity). For instance, heat waves a few years back in France killed many. Electricty disconnect in Canada killed many some years ago. Katrina Hurricane drove the region into a frenzy in the US, whereas India is able to cope better with more severe natural disasters. These are tiny problems that had a huge impact. The impending submersion of UK and other parts of the world are going to cause even greater turmoil - the kind that will mostly affect the urban, westernised populations. The impact on tribal populations is less, as they are used to roughing it. Our dependency on a myriad of factors has made us a shake nine - it's due to ultra-specialisation.
So, when it comes to evolutionary chances and adaptability, if the idea of relentless western progress is achieved, humans will have cornered themselves into a very vulnerable evolutionary dead end. We'd have reduced ourselves from a highly adapted natural diversity to a meaningless artificial uniform specialisation, and made our entire species very susceptible to any minor environmental changes that can drag us all back into the Stone Age. Uniformity in specialisation has a fatal chink: the same flaws are present in all that are thus specialised and therefore the same susceptibilities are introduced and duplicated in all. That is, if the entire world embarked on the pursuit of what west currently thinks is progress, we will all have traded in our individual community's evolutions for the same path. And if that path ever turns out to have a dead end, all in the world who'd embarked on it will become extinct together.
This forced assimilation of others is against nature. We were made diverse by nature; it is human will (push for globalisation, pushing the idea of western progress as the sole path in actual progress) that is enforcing uniformity amongst all human populations. It is this very recent western idea of "our way of progressing is the only progress, all else is backward" that is stifling natural human evolution everywhere else. One man's future need not be the same as another's. One man's path need not be the same as another's. This is a central idea in Hindu Dharma, also reiterated in the Gita.
Diversity is the key to life (and in fact, to evolutionary survival). Uniformity is unnatural - it imposes an artificial constraint on adaptability - and can easily lead to extinction, certainly to bottlenecks.
That is another reason why the Dharmic ideals of Live and Let Live and opposing those against Live and Let Live are important and imperative.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It isn't very difficult to concede that the asuras represent opposing forces, and the battle an evolutionary struggle. And Aurobindo firmly believed in this process. A cursory glance at his work "Life Divine" should prove this.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Aurobindo was a foremost believer in the spiritual evolution of mankind. In fact, he believed that mankind *can* indeed transcend the petty (like excessive materialism, racism - hey, that's opposed to you!). This is abundantly clear from reading his online work at VOI. So no need to give confused lectures on stuff that's clearly explained by Aurobindo himself.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But then again, Aurobindo's thoughts are too intellectually challenging for most people, which is why interpretations are necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry to find that you think his work is intellectually challenging, but please do not interpret for others what you find "too intellectually challenging". We are all capable of reading his works and can understand for ourselves what he has clearly set out. We certainly don't need expositions by the confused (self-styled teachers and self-appointed interpreters).
Somewhere above, I said I'd post this.
Historical Hindus accepting the fight-to-the-death scenarios that islam always enforces:
http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Consequently, Masud's huge army was besieged by the even greater Hindu army and no side gave the other any quarter. The Hindus, for once as an exception had learnt their lesson about Muslim treachery, after being victimized for four hundred years from 638 onwards. At the battle of Baharaich, gradually the Hindus began to decimate the Muslim army and as the hostilities progressed, Masud saw the unsuccessful end of his expedition. This bitter and bloody war was fought in the month of June 1033.
In this ferocious and bloodied war, no side took any prisoners and it ended only with the slaughter of the entire invading Muslim army along with many martyrs from the defending Hindu army.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The battle of Baharaich ended on 14th June 1033. At the gory end, the entire invading army along with their commander lay dead. Not one enemy soldier was allowed to return.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christoislamism carries more than merely the seeds for giving rise to nazism/fascism, communism, social darwinism (which I always include in the term nazism), objectivism - which is why christoislamism has at different times manifested *itself* in these forms. Why do christoislamics in S and C America and in Turkey and Kosovo get into communism so easily while they remain christoislamics? Why do Kosovo islamics and those in ME (Jerusalem mufti), and the Slovakian, Croatian, German and Italian catholics get into nazism/fascism and social darwinism so easily? Why do the KKK and other christo white supremacists advocate social darwinism?
You say that communism stands for "equality", but it really is a belief that "some are more equal than others" (as Orwell, disillusioned from his earlier infatuation with communism, rightly put it). That is why communism kills millions, like social darwinist nazism killed millions. As I think I stated before, the difference between the two is where the killing starts: communism begins by killing its own people (those of the same population who don't want to fall in line with its ideology) and nazism starts its killing-spree with some 'externals' - those identified as not fitting into its ideological plan.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So SD inevitably leads to laissez faire, and is opposed to communism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In so far as social darwinism is the inspiration for nazism - well, in that sense it can be said to be 'opposed' to communism (only within the christoislami worldview though). But SD and nazism, communism are still all the products of the christoislamic mindvirus, even if the offspring sometimes starts leading a life independent of the originating mindvirus.
Finally found it. Here you go: how social darwinism was the basis on which nazism was built (and eugenics, of course)
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth3
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line" explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection and served as an adjunct to his already established religious views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems.]</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->SD inevitably leads to laissez faire<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No. That's what it <i>claims</i> (just like communism <i>claims</i> it's for equality). But in the end it always comes down to (calling for) extermination. Even Social Darwinists (and nazi-sympathizers! Quelle surprise!) playing at being scientists, like Roger Pearson and his buddy Lynn, advocate the Might (or rather, a confused idea of 'superiority') is Right principle and then come down to advocating getting rid of 'inferior races' and supporting eugenics programmes.
And on matters totally unrelated to Social Darwinism:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Turn the pages of Indian history, and you'll know it's true. Starting from Chauhan to the present day two-bit politician, you'll notice a familiar pattern. Hindus repeat certain mistakes, without ever caring to learn from them. And what are those mistakes? See below.
#1 Not understanding the enemy, especially the enemy's ideology.
#2 Not going for the kill<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This has been documented already: definitely in the early encounters with islam - the Hindus fought until the VERY end: they would not leave the islami opponents alive at the end (example posted at the bottom), because they had realised the ruthlessness of looney islam. It is only in medieval times that Chauhan and some others were overwrought with pity for the enemy that they made terrible mistakes in not finishing what they started.
Fortunately, bloodshed is not always the sole option - sometimes there is time to try out other avenues that can be equally successful. Disseminating fact-based information on the terrorist ideologies is a prime one.
In any case, the Gita should be a handbook on why Dharma should not relent when upholding Dharma.
And I've always advocated learning what the enemy's ideology stands for, to realise the extent of why it must be opposed. In fact, I believe in learning from the mistakes others made in their fight against the christoislamic mindvirus in the past. I think I even posted on why it seemed that Julianus might have hit on the solution (at least he scared the church into a fit, no ordinary achievement) and that we should look into what he was trying to do.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You're right, if you're viewing life in terms of right vs wrong, or good vs evil which, incidentally, happens to be a Christian idea. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Only christo-conditioned people would have interpreted what I said in that way.In the Dharmic view, it is more in terms of - for lack of a better pre-existing idea in English - "Live and let live; and oppose those things that won't let live". Social Darwinism is an ideology concerned with determining who/what deserves life and continuation based on a very limited understanding of evolution and context. It has no idea of the bigger picture of where humanity came from or where its future in evolution may lie. People who hawk western progress as the measure of human success don't understand that the most adaptable, most successful humans (in terms of real evolution - that of Nature) lie in Africa and S America, SE Asia, etc. I mean, the tribal communities. They are likeliest to survive various natural calamities and many other occurrences, for example were the planet to lose current energy production (say fuel or electricity). For instance, heat waves a few years back in France killed many. Electricty disconnect in Canada killed many some years ago. Katrina Hurricane drove the region into a frenzy in the US, whereas India is able to cope better with more severe natural disasters. These are tiny problems that had a huge impact. The impending submersion of UK and other parts of the world are going to cause even greater turmoil - the kind that will mostly affect the urban, westernised populations. The impact on tribal populations is less, as they are used to roughing it. Our dependency on a myriad of factors has made us a shake nine - it's due to ultra-specialisation.
So, when it comes to evolutionary chances and adaptability, if the idea of relentless western progress is achieved, humans will have cornered themselves into a very vulnerable evolutionary dead end. We'd have reduced ourselves from a highly adapted natural diversity to a meaningless artificial uniform specialisation, and made our entire species very susceptible to any minor environmental changes that can drag us all back into the Stone Age. Uniformity in specialisation has a fatal chink: the same flaws are present in all that are thus specialised and therefore the same susceptibilities are introduced and duplicated in all. That is, if the entire world embarked on the pursuit of what west currently thinks is progress, we will all have traded in our individual community's evolutions for the same path. And if that path ever turns out to have a dead end, all in the world who'd embarked on it will become extinct together.
This forced assimilation of others is against nature. We were made diverse by nature; it is human will (push for globalisation, pushing the idea of western progress as the sole path in actual progress) that is enforcing uniformity amongst all human populations. It is this very recent western idea of "our way of progressing is the only progress, all else is backward" that is stifling natural human evolution everywhere else. One man's future need not be the same as another's. One man's path need not be the same as another's. This is a central idea in Hindu Dharma, also reiterated in the Gita.
Diversity is the key to life (and in fact, to evolutionary survival). Uniformity is unnatural - it imposes an artificial constraint on adaptability - and can easily lead to extinction, certainly to bottlenecks.
That is another reason why the Dharmic ideals of Live and Let Live and opposing those against Live and Let Live are important and imperative.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It isn't very difficult to concede that the asuras represent opposing forces, and the battle an evolutionary struggle. And Aurobindo firmly believed in this process. A cursory glance at his work "Life Divine" should prove this.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Aurobindo was a foremost believer in the spiritual evolution of mankind. In fact, he believed that mankind *can* indeed transcend the petty (like excessive materialism, racism - hey, that's opposed to you!). This is abundantly clear from reading his online work at VOI. So no need to give confused lectures on stuff that's clearly explained by Aurobindo himself.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But then again, Aurobindo's thoughts are too intellectually challenging for most people, which is why interpretations are necessary.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry to find that you think his work is intellectually challenging, but please do not interpret for others what you find "too intellectually challenging". We are all capable of reading his works and can understand for ourselves what he has clearly set out. We certainly don't need expositions by the confused (self-styled teachers and self-appointed interpreters).
Somewhere above, I said I'd post this.
Historical Hindus accepting the fight-to-the-death scenarios that islam always enforces:
http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Consequently, Masud's huge army was besieged by the even greater Hindu army and no side gave the other any quarter. The Hindus, for once as an exception had learnt their lesson about Muslim treachery, after being victimized for four hundred years from 638 onwards. At the battle of Baharaich, gradually the Hindus began to decimate the Muslim army and as the hostilities progressed, Masud saw the unsuccessful end of his expedition. This bitter and bloody war was fought in the month of June 1033.
In this ferocious and bloodied war, no side took any prisoners and it ended only with the slaughter of the entire invading Muslim army along with many martyrs from the defending Hindu army.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The battle of Baharaich ended on 14th June 1033. At the gory end, the entire invading army along with their commander lay dead. Not one enemy soldier was allowed to return.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->