"He states quite clearly that National Socialism has foundations in biology and, correct me if I'm wrong which I'm sure you will, Darwin was a biologist or, if you wish to be pedantic, a naturalist."
"He states quite clearly that National Socialism has foundations in biology and, correct me if I'm wrong which I'm sure you will, Darwin was a biologist or, if you wish to be pedantic, a naturalist."
You point was what? You linked Darwin and the Nazis. For what other reason but to smear him.
Darwin is a totem if not THE totem of the Green movement. Read any discussion of the subject and he is invariably mentioned. Dawkins is arguably the present Green "media darling."
It is therefore inevitable that both will be mentioned in any discussion of Green ideology. It seems a long time ago now but my original assertion was that Green levies or taxes, arising from the obsession with Green ideology, are a significant contributing factor to the rise in energy prices.
I also expressed my concern that the old and vulnerable are in grave danger of dying as a result of these price increases whilst pointing out, justifiably, that the Green movement generally is in favour of population controls and thus may see the possible deaths I refer to as a bonus.
I expressed those sentiments rather more succinctly in my opening post on this thread as you can read.
It is also a fact as I have illustrated, although you evidently wish to deny or ignore it, that the growth of fascism and National Socialism has been influenced by Green ideology.
In simple terms Hitler and others used the "survival of the fittest" meme of the Greens (which I know Spencer rather than Darwin actually said before you point it out) to justify the atrocities committed against Jews, the elderly and disabled. That, unpalatable as it is, is FACT.
It is the vulnerable or "less fit" in danger of dying through increased prices and costs because of Green ideology.
Hence the link.
Provocative certainly but hardcore Greens are not as cuddly and fluffy as those advocating separating your paper from your cardboard etc would have us believe.
Len, I have read your quotation, "The leadership of our National Socialist state and our conception of a people [Volk] is penetrated and inspired by foundations in biology. Legal provisions are derived from the laws of life. Their worth proceeds from the degree to which they are thought through in biological terms and on biological foundations." over and over again in the hope that I might make some sense of it. I cant. I therefore tried to analyse it, sentence by sentence:
"The leadership of our National Socialist state and our conception of a people [Volk] is penetrated and inspired by foundations in biology". I have literally no idea what this means. There is no clue given as to why leadership and people should be linked, how a conception is inspired and still less penetrated! What are the "foundations in biology"? And most annoyingly of all why is one odd word written in German, presumably translated back to its original language.
"Legal provisions are derived from the laws of life". What legal provisions? What laws of life? Are their any laws of life, if so what are they? Once we've got over those hurdles, if legal provisions are derived from the laws of life, how are they, and perhaps more importantly, why?
"Their worth proceeds from the degree to which they are thought through in biological terms and on biological foundations" The worth of what- legal provisions? Surely not. Surely the worth of legal provisions are the value they have to society, not how they are "thought through", whatever that might mean. Why do unspecified things gain value when thought through in biological terms? And which biological terms? And which biological foundations?
Having gone through it line by line I am still none the wiser. And there is a very good reason why I am none the wiser, that is because it makes no sense at all. It is meaningless gobbledegook. Why it is meaningless I'm not entirely sure. It may well be because it's been removed from it's context, or possibly because it's a poor translation, or even because it was just rubbish in the first place. Of one thing I am entirely sure though, is that you do yourself and your argument no favours at all when you quote nonsense like this.
Len - speaking as a Geologist by training, and more specifically, a palaeontologist, I find it risible that you would misappropriate Darwin's 'survivial of the fittest' doctrine - a scientific theory postulated to explain the overarching concept of evolution of species - to suit your ridiculously specious argument that the green movement is somehow in favour of some bizarre form of age-related demographic cleansing by way of environmental policy.
"He states quite clearly that National Socialism has foundations in biology and, correct me if I'm wrong which I'm sure you will, Darwin was a biologist or, if you wish to be pedantic, a naturalist."
You point was what? You linked Darwin and the Nazis. For what other reason but to smear him.
Darwin is a totem if not THE totem of the Green movement. Read any discussion of the subject and he is invariably mentioned. Dawkins is arguably the present Green "media darling."
It is therefore inevitable that both will be mentioned in any discussion of Green ideology. It seems a long time ago now but my original assertion was that Green levies or taxes, arising from the obsession with Green ideology, are a significant contributing factor to the rise in energy prices.
I also expressed my concern that the old and vulnerable are in grave danger of dying as a result of these price increases whilst pointing out, justifiably, that the Green movement generally is in favour of population controls and thus may see the possible deaths I refer to as a bonus.
I expressed those sentiments rather more succinctly in my opening post on this thread as you can read.
It is also a fact as I have illustrated, although you evidently wish to deny or ignore it, that the growth of fascism and National Socialism has been influenced by Green ideology.
In simple terms Hitler and others used the "survival of the fittest" meme of the Greens (which I know Spencer rather than Darwin actually said before you point it out) to justify the atrocities committed against Jews, the elderly and disabled. That, unpalatable as it is, is FACT.
It is the vulnerable or "less fit" in danger of dying through increased prices and costs because of Green ideology.
Hence the link.
Provocative certainly but hardcore Greens are not as cuddly and fluffy as those advocating separating your paper from your cardboard etc would have us believe.
Your first two sweeping assumptions just underline my previous comment about your views.
Len - speaking as a Geologist by training, and more specifically, a palaeontologist, I find it risible that you would misappropriate Darwin's 'survivial of the fittest' doctrine - a scientific theory postulated to explain the overarching concept of evolution of species - to suit your ridiculously specious argument that the green movement is somehow in favour of some bizarre form of age-related demographic cleansing by way of environmental policy.
You are, truly, an extremely odd individual.
Leroy,
Population control is, and has long been, a fundamental part of Green Dogma.
The methodology is no longer as blatant as hoarding people into gas chambers like Hitler did but tends to be more subtle.
A sustained media propaganda campaign to justify euthanasia in various guises and programmes in NHS Hospitals such as the Liverpool Care Pathway to kill people off by dehydrating and starving them to death.
I have personal experience of this with my own relatives although doubtless that will be considered an inadequate "source" by the likes of you and Henry so here is a link:
Those NHS administrators that preside over the killing of the most people are promoted or handsomely paid off rather than sacked unceremoniously for negligence or gross misconduct.
The head of NHS England, David Nicholson, has been promoted to his position despite presiding over the early stages of the Stafford Hospital scandal where hundreds died of neglect.
One can only surmise a tacit approval of their actions since as I have shown they have been rewarded for their efforts though, of course, nobody will come out and say so directly!
"He states quite clearly that National Socialism has foundations in biology and, correct me if I'm wrong which I'm sure you will, Darwin was a biologist or, if you wish to be pedantic, a naturalist."
You point was what? You linked Darwin and the Nazis. For what other reason but to smear him.
Darwin is a totem if not THE totem of the Green movement. Read any discussion of the subject and he is invariably mentioned. Dawkins is arguably the present Green "media darling."
It is therefore inevitable that both will be mentioned in any discussion of Green ideology. It seems a long time ago now but my original assertion was that Green levies or taxes, arising from the obsession with Green ideology, are a significant contributing factor to the rise in energy prices.
I also expressed my concern that the old and vulnerable are in grave danger of dying as a result of these price increases whilst pointing out, justifiably, that the Green movement generally is in favour of population controls and thus may see the possible deaths I refer to as a bonus.
I expressed those sentiments rather more succinctly in my opening post on this thread as you can read.
It is also a fact as I have illustrated, although you evidently wish to deny or ignore it, that the growth of fascism and National Socialism has been influenced by Green ideology.
In simple terms Hitler and others used the "survival of the fittest" meme of the Greens (which I know Spencer rather than Darwin actually said before you point it out) to justify the atrocities committed against Jews, the elderly and disabled. That, unpalatable as it is, is FACT.
It is the vulnerable or "less fit" in danger of dying through increased prices and costs because of Green ideology.
Hence the link.
Provocative certainly but hardcore Greens are not as cuddly and fluffy as those advocating separating your paper from your cardboard etc would have us believe.
Your first two sweeping assumptions just underline my previous comment about your views.
I've not weighed in as yet, this thread has gone a bit crazy. One point I'm struggling Edith is this continued assertion that Richard Dawkins is some sort of green idol or demigog. From the little research I've done I can find not link. Dawkins main area of expertise and publicity is in the atheism v religion debate, only touching of Darwin and Darwinism where it is relevant in within that debate.
Unless, and I hesitate to use anothers unsubstantiated point, you are arguing purely on the creationist "atheists and Dawinism is cruel and uncaring" line of reasoning that has little logic or basis in fact.
To be honest this whole thread has gone over the edge. The original comparisons of Darwin and Dawkins with Nazis, two people with only the loosest of links anyway, was surely pure folly, and the continued inability to backtrack in the slightest and admit the argument may have been overstated (in the extreme in my opinion) has now defended into farce.
Green energy and propoganda has increased billa for the consumer no doubt.
Researching and building wind farms is not cheap, lets face it, energy companies will increase costs in order to maintain profits. Added to the fact that wind farms are just gimics and produce litte or no energy compared to coal or nuclear power, it leads to an increse in prices.
As companies have to show they are thinking of the envoroment, they have to take costly, yet meaningless steps to apease this small group of nut jobs. Ultimately this leads to increases in prices.
So the nazis used Darwin's survival ofthe fittest as part justification for the eradication of the Jews and that means people who believe in Darwinism and evolution are nazis? Can someone clarify if that is what Len is insinuating and that the Greens are continuing this nazi dogma?
....nor, for that matter, that the Green Party "in favour of some bizarre form of age-related demographic cleansing by way of environmental policy" but hey, who cares, grab a pitchfork and lantern and get after the bastard.
I work for BG and we have a deal where if we have our dual fuel with them we get £200 per year off our bill. As I first signed up to it in March 2011 I got my first £200 back in March last year , very handy indeed and as at the time we were living in a rented property which had a card and key meter installed it was nice that all of a sudden I had £100 credit on each meter.
Last year we moved in December and obviously stuck with BG , when it came to March this year no money came back when I asked what had happened I was told that it was because we'd moved in December so the year started again and therefore we'd have to wait until December this year to get any money back. Also at our last property we signed up to the five year fix and fall deal so our prices won't go up in that period but once again that seems to have gone when we moved. This week I got a letter from work telling me that the money we get off for wrking for BG is being abollished altogether .
As a result we will defo be going elsewhere on principal alone
Comments
Dave, worth remembering this next time you at one of those special beeches
Naturist - Walks around in the buff
Naturalist - Studies nature
Biologist - Nazi
: - )
Or is it Naturalist?
Not sure either about Darwin, Hawkins, Moses & God.
Charlton won.
;-)
is invariably mentioned. Dawkins is arguably the present Green "media darling."
It is therefore inevitable that both will be mentioned in any discussion of Green ideology. It seems a long time ago now but my original assertion was that Green levies or taxes, arising from the obsession with Green ideology, are a significant contributing factor to the rise in energy prices.
I also expressed my concern that the old and vulnerable are in grave danger of dying as a result of these price increases whilst pointing out, justifiably, that the Green movement generally is in favour of population controls and thus may see the possible deaths I refer to as a bonus.
I expressed those sentiments rather more succinctly in my opening post on this thread as you can read.
It is also a fact as I have illustrated, although you evidently wish to deny or ignore it, that the growth of fascism and National Socialism has been influenced by Green ideology.
In simple terms Hitler and others used the "survival of the fittest" meme of the Greens (which I know Spencer rather than Darwin actually said before you point it out) to justify the atrocities committed against Jews, the elderly and disabled. That, unpalatable as it is, is FACT.
It is the vulnerable or "less fit" in danger of dying through increased prices and costs because of Green ideology.
Hence the link.
Provocative certainly but hardcore Greens are not as cuddly and fluffy as those advocating separating your paper from your cardboard etc would have us believe.
Are you ashamed of your creationist beliefs then. You seem happy to share the resy of your bizarre and twisted views.
They say you can't argue with a sick mind and you prove that point very well so I'm going to stop trying now.
You will smear away regardless as you do to most people you disagree with.
What I will say though, to give you something to deride me with for the future, is that I am a Christian albeit not a very good one sometimes.
EDIT: One question for you Henry. Do you believe all Muslims are terrorists?
I can only assume that you do since you have categorically stated that I believe Darwin is a Nazi.
you watch to much Jeremy kyle
"The leadership of our National Socialist state and our conception of a people [Volk] is penetrated and inspired by foundations in biology". I have literally no idea what this means. There is no clue given as to why leadership and people should be linked, how a conception is inspired and still less penetrated! What are the "foundations in biology"? And most annoyingly of all why is one odd word written in German, presumably translated back to its original language.
"Legal provisions are derived from the laws of life". What legal provisions? What laws of life? Are their any laws of life, if so what are they? Once we've got over those hurdles, if legal provisions are derived from the laws of life, how are they, and perhaps more importantly, why?
"Their worth proceeds from the degree to which they are thought through in biological terms and on biological foundations" The worth of what- legal provisions? Surely not. Surely the worth of legal provisions are the value they have to society, not how they are "thought through", whatever that might mean. Why do unspecified things gain value when thought through in biological terms? And which biological terms? And which biological foundations?
Having gone through it line by line I am still none the wiser. And there is a very good reason why I am none the wiser, that is because it makes no sense at all. It is meaningless gobbledegook. Why it is meaningless I'm not entirely sure. It may well be because it's been removed from it's context, or possibly because it's a poor translation, or even because it was just rubbish in the first place. Of one thing I am entirely sure though, is that you do yourself and your argument no favours at all when you quote nonsense like this.
You are, truly, an extremely odd individual.
Loony.
But I will add.
Loony, seeking for attention.
Population control is, and has long been, a fundamental part of Green Dogma.
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/03/02/too-many-people-population-control-and-climate-change/
and
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-population-control-agenda-behind-the-global-warming-movement-for-the-environmental-extremists-at-copenhagen-population-reduction-is-the-cheapest-way-to-reduce-carbon-emissions
are just two articles to illustrate this.
The methodology is no longer as blatant as hoarding people into gas chambers like Hitler did but tends to be more subtle.
A sustained media propaganda campaign to justify euthanasia in various guises and programmes in NHS Hospitals such as the Liverpool Care Pathway to kill people off by dehydrating and starving them to death.
I have personal experience of this with my own relatives although doubtless that will be considered an inadequate "source" by the likes of you and Henry so here is a link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10179029/Doctors-who-abused-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-face-disciplinary-action.html
Those NHS administrators that preside over the killing of the most people are promoted or handsomely paid off rather than sacked unceremoniously for negligence or gross misconduct.
Another two examples:
This one from Maidstone:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7851691/Sacrificed-superbug-NHS-chief-Rose-Gibb-wins-190000-damages.html
The head of NHS England, David Nicholson, has been promoted to his position despite presiding over the early stages of the Stafford Hospital scandal where hundreds died of neglect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10173074/Sir-David-Nicholson-I-am-absolutely-proud-of-my-NHS-record.html
One can only surmise a tacit approval of their actions since as I have shown they have been rewarded for their efforts though, of course, nobody will come out and say so directly!
So be it.
Unless, and I hesitate to use anothers unsubstantiated point, you are arguing purely on the creationist "atheists and Dawinism is cruel and uncaring" line of reasoning that has little logic or basis in fact.
To be honest this whole thread has gone over the edge. The original comparisons of Darwin and Dawkins with Nazis, two people with only the loosest of links anyway, was surely pure folly, and the continued inability to backtrack in the slightest and admit the argument may have been overstated (in the extreme in my opinion) has now defended into farce.
was a cracking impersonation of him pal he says that line more than any other 8)
Researching and building wind farms is not cheap, lets face it, energy companies will increase costs in order to maintain profits. Added to the fact that wind farms are just gimics and produce litte or no energy compared to coal or nuclear power, it leads to an increse in prices.
As companies have to show they are thinking of the envoroment, they have to take costly, yet meaningless steps to apease this small group of nut jobs. Ultimately this leads to increases in prices.
Simples
Last year we moved in December and obviously stuck with BG , when it came to March this year no money came back when I asked what had happened I was told that it was because we'd moved in December so the year started again and therefore we'd have to wait until December this year to get any money back. Also at our last property we signed up to the five year fix and fall deal so our prices won't go up in that period but once again that seems to have gone when we moved. This week I got a letter from work telling me that the money we get off for wrking for BG is being abollished altogether .
As a result we will defo be going elsewhere on principal alone