There is No Kurdish Problem in Southeast Turkey, Only a Communist One

4 09 2015

pkk

by Adnan Oktar

The term “the Kurdish problem” in Turkey has been turned into a propaganda tool by various people. For years now, our people have been made to believe in some manner of artificial hostility between Turks and Kurds, as if our Kurdish brothers were not members of this country, not members of the Republic of Turkey. The alleged Ergenekon organization ruthlessly and wickedly oppressed our Kurdish brothers for many years; however, that can never change the fact they are our brothers and are very dear to us.

The problem referred to as the “Kurdish problem” is in fact the preparation for a communist, Stalinist and Leninist rule in the region.

The separatist terror organization  PKK merely makes use of Kurdish nationalism. THE PKK IS ACTUALLY A DARWINIST, COMMUNIST, STALINIST AND LENINIST ORGANIZATION WHOSE AIM IS NOT TO BRING COMFORT TO OUR KURDISH BROTHERS, BUT TO CRUSH THEM UNDER A STALINIST MINDSET.

In the event – may God forbid – that communist, Stalinist, Leninist rule is established in the region, the first people to be oppressed and subjected to violence from the PKK will be our Kurdish brothers. We, as the Turkish nation, will, of course, never  permit the country to be divided or our Kurdish and Turkish brothers to suffer violence and persecution.

It is essential to be aware of the communist threat in the Southeast!

Many people who now suggest that “the best solution to terror is autonomy” are unaware that the problem in the Southeast is one of communismThey ignore the fact that this is the greatest communist uprising in the history of the republic.

We need to know the threat and its scale in order to take the right precautions.

  1. The PKK is Darwinist

As with all communist organizations, the PKK terror organization is entirely founded on Darwinist ideology. The baby-killer Abdullah Öcalan openly and frequently sets out his Darwinist views:

Communality is the precondition for human existence. It is a most-recent known fact of sociology that man’s splitting away from the PRIMATE (the closest family to man) species before him  and becoming human went hand in hand with socialization. (From the chapter “Social Realism and the Individual” of the book.) 

  1. The PKK is irreligious

The PKK terror organization is not, as some circles have recently claimed, Zoroastrian. It is an irreligious organization as required by its Darwinist ideology. Indeed, PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan has no compunctions about frequently expressing his perverse views on religion. These views represent the basis of the organization’s system of ideas:

(Surely our Almighty Lord is beyond this)

We have nothing to do with religion. Our people must break away from God and ideology. I strove hard and eventually broke away from GodI got over God. Thus I managed to become Abdullah Öcalan.”

  1. The PKK is against the state

The PKK wants to divide and tear apart the Republic of Turkey and then move across the border and reach out  and destroy other states. Therefore, when people talk about an autonomous Kurdish state, they are only referring to the first stage of the fragmentation of our country, but the aim is really acommunist world state. The idea is the destruction of states will be bloody and full of acts of violence as required by Leninism.

  1. The PKK is against the family

Since the PKK is a Marxist and communist organization it absolutely rejects the concept of the family, again as required by communism. The family is regarded as a part of the feudal system, and people are encouraged to sever family relations in order to concentrate on the communist struggle. The baby-killer Öcalan’s words on this subject are particularly striking:

The family is a concept we have the greatest problem with: We must see all aspects of the obstacle of the family during our process of national liberation. This is an obstacle they seek to raise up sharply before us, like Mount Ağrı.

The family is a devil’s triangle in which thought is buried, free will is turned into a jigsaw puzzle and our people are torn apart and scattered. 

As can be seen, according to the communist mindset, the family is a supposedly dangerous devil’s triangle that needs to be abandoned. Therefore, making calls to the members of the terror organization saying “return to your father’s warm home,” “drink your mother’s hot soup” or “come down from the mountains and start a family” is totally ineffective.

  1. The PKK will never abandon terror

The PKK is a communist, Stalinist, Leninist terrorist organization. It follows in Lenin’s footsteps, and terror is therefore essential for this communist organization. For that reason, meeting the various demands of the PKK will not put an end to terror in any way; on the contrary, terror will simply continue and increase.

The baby-killer Öcalan has explicitly stated that he believes that armed struggle is essential to survival:

“…THE ARMED STRUGGLE, CIVIL COMMOTION AND ORGANIZATION HAPPEN IN A HIGHLY INTER-RELATED WAY AND MAKE EACH OTHER ESSENTIAL…” (Abdullah Öcalan, Selected Writings, Vol. 1, p. 195)

The only solution is an intellectual struggle

Neither merely military measures, nor calling on terrorists to heed their consciences, nor condemnation, nor calling them back to hearth and home norgiving up pieces of our homeland can put an end to terror.

The communist uprising is an ideological movement: The  struggle against the communist threat must therefore be a scientific and intellectual one. The most important thing that needs to be done is to tell people of the invalidity of Darwinism, the basis of communism. When people see the invalidity of Darwinism, that will cause the logical framework of communism to collapse. An ideology that has lost its Darwinist infrastructure will disappear virtually overnight. For that reason, ideas must be opposed with ideas, and an INTELLECTUAL struggle must be given against communism. The only way for the Turkish state to free itself from the scourge of terrorism is to commence a rapid and effective campaign that eradicates Darwinism in the Southeast. Brochures, articles, talks, conferences, TV and radio programs and broadcasts of civil society organizations disproving the theory of evolution must be made available to all our people there. Other than this,  nothing else would constitute a definitive solution to terror.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


A New Deal for Main Street.

1 09 2015

I believe after many years of shifting congressional powers between Democrats and Republicans nothing has changed for Main Street America, with both parties committed to Wall Street and the influence of big money.

image via Screenshot

Both parties are the same, different sides of the same coin, failed Main Street in almost every thing, from jobs, to social security, to wars, to education, social services, health, housing, infrastructure certainly the environment and an unfair tax system.

Notwithstanding the lies and propaganda we hear from both Republicans and Democratic candidates, all of them are beholding to big dollars, to the rich and powerful, with citizens reduced to showing up at the voting booth as cattle’s at the watering hole.

Both parties, seek the necessary funding and alliance with the rich so that can convince the poor Main Street to vote for them through political strategists, polestars and 30 seconds advertisements that make mockery of voters and their intelligence hiding the stupidity and fakeness of these candidates.

With Citizens United, it is the money, the Super PACs, the billionaires from Hollywood, Texas, Wall Street and Los Vegas already lined up behind major candidates from both parties. This coming presidential election is a test of who is more powerful and influential, the billionaires behind the Republicans or the billionaires behind the Democrats.

While admitting that reforming a corrupt inept political process could not take place over night or in a single election cycle, there is certainty that we as citizens and voters can change the entire political process as we see it now within the next 10 years.

And yes, we can defeat Citizens United not in grand halls of the Supreme Court but in the privacy of voting booths. We can defeat big dollars, pollsters, political strategists who package candidates with the 30 seconds sound bite and TV ads. Without our votes candidates with hundred of millions behind them could not win an office.

The key and focused objective of any new political movement is not to compete in the current presidential race but to target key congressional elections where candidates have shown themselves over an over as Wall Street First, Main Street Last, America Last, Israel First, and at the behest of lobbyists.

The new political movement must not be an extension or beholding to one or the two political patties as the Tea Party, and must not seek funding and support from major donors like the Koch Brothers, or Adelson, or Saban. Most important must not be ideologically driven by politics of faith, but politics of common sense.

Support and funding must come from individual voters and members. NO Super PACs, but membership money and small donation, but most important commitment to vote. with the objective to transform and change the existing political landscape within the next 10 years. Seeking a majority of at least 40% in legislative houses across America and the nation capital. To achieve that,

1. Candidates for local and congressional offices must be committed to term limits (6-8 years) thus transforming legislative houses to citizen houses not a place for lifetime professional politicians.
2. Candidates must be committed to end the seniority system, which gives long time sitting politicians an unfair edge in money and influence in elections and change this seniority system once in office.
3. Candidates must be committed not to seek or accept any funding from outside their local, congressional or senatorial districts. Thus limiting the amount and influence of outside money.
4. Candidates must commit themselves to a maximum of 3 months of campaigning and accepting no “issue” funding from special lobbies.
5. Candidates must be committed to America First and seek to limit the toxic and undue influence Israel and its Fifth Column and AIPAC have over Congress and the White House.
6. Candidates must be committed to reform and overhaul the Tax System simplifying it from 300,000 pages to less than 30 pages making sure that every citizens, every corporation and every business pay their fair share of the tax. No more tax loopholes.
7. Candidates must be committed to re-invest in America First, in re-industrialization of America, in infrastructures, public transportation systems, public educations, industrial educations, parks and public facilities forcing the more of than $3 trillions of America’s corporate money sitting in tax shelters back to the US.
8. Candidates must commit themselves not accept lobbying money and favors including paid trips by foreign governments, lobbyists or special interests.
9. Candidates must be committed to a drastic reform of the financial system including the undue and toxic influence of Wall Street has on political, economic and social life, making sure that corporations (as citizens) are subject to criminal prosecutions with executives going to jail for crimes or fraud committed by their corporations.
10. Candidates must be committed to reform our judicial, criminal justice, social and welfare services system to bring America in line with other nations, and seek reconciliations between all of our citizens, making America a united nation we should be.
11. Candidates must be committed to a balance budget with a budget cycle of 5 years thus avoiding all the uncertainly paralysis facing our nation annually.
12. Candidates must be committed to NO More Wars, while keeping our nation strong to defend itself against enemy aggression.

We as citizens and voters must not under estimate our power, the right to vote, which is more powerful than all the billions raised in elections. Without over vote no one can win an office.


Disunity: The Reason Behind The Bloodshed In The Islamic World

28 08 2015

syrian-refugee-children-on-the-streets

by Harun Yahya

Today, the primary cause of bloodshed in the Islamic world is the conflict among Muslims. Contrary to the very spirit of the Qur’an, some Muslims have come to regard one another as enemies. Based solely on this perverse belief, they consider themselves as justified in killing one another and shedding the blood of one another.

Yet the oppression and slaughter of Muslims in every part of the world could end right away with the establishment of a union of Islamic countries. In this union, while member states’ independence and national borders are preserved, they can be united under a shared Islamic culture, and develop common policies.

Today, however, because of the largely sectarian disputes, Muslims remain disintegrated, merely watching the persecution going on from a distance.

In the Qur’an, God commands all Muslims to be united, and to join forces for an intellectual struggle against oppression in this world. Despite this clear obligation, however, Muslims fail to fulfill this important command because of the ongoing conflicts and disagreements among themselves.

Muslims’ Divine Book is the Holy Qur’an; and God reveals everything that He has made unlawful and lawful for His servants in the Qur’an. According to the Qur’an, Muslims are brothers, and any sort of quarrel and dissension among brothers are unacceptable.

Islam stresses what unites people, and not what causes division. There is co-existence, collaboration and opting for the common ground for the sake of the good of humanity, and not separation, self-righteousness, and self-interests.

Focusing on discrepancies and differences among the different Islamic schools would deliver no positive results for any individual in the Islamic world. The good of the Islamic world lies in the spirit of ‘unity and solidarity’ which is set forth in the Qur’an.

Obey God and His Messenger and do not quarrel among yourselves lest you lose heart and your momentum disappear. And be steadfast. God is with the steadfast. (The Qur’an; 8: 46)

In the Islamic world the tendency to blame the West for the troubles afflicting Muslims is prevalent; the real blame, however, lies with the Muslim world that is unable to escape the trap of disunity.

Establishing the unity, as God commands in the Qur’an, and living by the real conception of Islam revealed in it will quickly disperse the dark clouds over the Islamic world. This is the recipe God shows us in the Qur’an.

If the Islamic world does not make an alliance within itself, God informs us that there would be mischief and turmoil in the land. (The Qur’an; 8; 73)

The main accomplishment of the Islamic world would be to disallow any conflict among schools or races, and meet on the common ground. This unity will be the means by which the beauty of Islam will spread to the entire region.

This unity will ensure the solution to internal problems and prevention of other countries’ intervening in the internal affairs of Muslims. Furthermore this unity will be the means by which all the conflicts among  various schools – as well as civil wars and seemingly unceasing turmoil – will come to an end.

The Islamic world should keep in mind that they can only stand in unity as one body when it is integrated around one center. Just as our Master Bediuzzaman Said Nursi spoke of in The Flashes (21st Flash) of the Treatise of Light Collection, when there is “unity” the entirety of the organs of the body are in comfort and function like the gears of a factory in harmony and completion.

In the good morals of Islam, one hand does not compete with another, one eye does not criticize the other, the tongue does not object to the ear, the heart does not divulge the error of the soul; on the contrary, all these complement and cover their deficiencies to provide for all their needs.

In brief: the rights of the entire Islamic world will be preserved, all discrimination, unjust practices and oppression will end, and an amazingly mighty political, social and economic power will arise.

There are different cultures and traditions in the Islamic world. This is perfectly normal. However without making it a matter of dissension, it is important to bring these differences together in a unity of belief and pluralistic solidarity.

According to the Islamic moral values Muslims must always keep in mind that they are brothers. And their race, language, nation or school does not alter this fact. Therefore, differences within the Islamic world must be regarded as sources of wealth. These differences must not be rendered into causes of division and conflict that lead Muslims to fall out with one another.

Unity of Muslims is essential for the good of each Muslim in this world. In the absence of unity, the Muslim world is merely setting itself up to be torn asunder.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Iran Nuclear Deal. Israel in the driver seat

25 08 2015

Sami Jamil Jadallah

When it comes to the Iran Nuclear Deal it is not the American public that will make the decision. The fate of the Iran Nuclear Deal is in the hands of Israel, its Fifth Column and in the hands of Israeli officials past and presents both pro and against the deal and Obama administration knows that very well.

The American public has been incited against Iran for a long time especially since the taking of American hostages (November 4, 1979- January 20, 1981) when American media set aside a special nightly program against Iran at the expense of all other national and international events. With a lingering anger about the hostage taking the general American public is lukewarm about the deal 28% v. 24%, while American Jews showing strong plurality for the deal 49% v.31%.

However at no time Ted Koppel nightly broadcast, ever-mentioned Israel’s deliberate cold-blooded murder of 34 sailors and civilians on the USS Liberty and the wounding of 171 sailors.

Against this background, Israel is the key player and decision maker on whether Congress will approve the deal and whether Congress can override an expected presidential veto.

Tens of millions of dollars have been committed, both for and much more against the deal funded mainly by AIPAC and associated organizations such as Citizens Against Nuclear Iran, United Against Nuclear Iran, Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran, with American Jewish multi millionaires and multi billionaire throwing a ton of money (more than $40 millions) trying to buy votes Congressional votes. At this moment it is neck and neck with the President of the United States loosing the comfortable margin he needs for his expected veto.

The administration desperate for votes has enlisted the help of American Jewish leadership with some 340 Rabbis announcing support for the deal and more are expected to announce their support this coming September when the Orthodox Union will try to bring hundreds of Rabbis to Washington.

The on going public debate for the most part specially on nightly news, features Israeli officials past and present. While President Obama is doing his best to secure support in Congress, Bibi Netanyahu personally and through the Israeli ambassador in Washington have been strongly lobbying Congress to vote against the deal with the Israeli ambassador secured meeting with 60 members of Congress in the last month.

Former members of the Senate the likes of Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss, Evan Bayh are following the lead of former Senator and Rabbi Joseph Lieberman who is leading the fight to defeat the deal in Congress.

On the other hand major former Israeli intelligence and military officers have been coming out in support of the deal.

Among those is the former head of the Mossad, Efraim Halvey “the attempt to change the rules of the game and to include further demands from Iran in the agreement, such as recognition of Israel and stopping support for terrorism shows that Netanyahu has no interest in the agreement whatsoever”.

Giving support to his counterpart, the former head of Shin Bet, Ami Aylon cam out in support of the deal, “ the deal achieved in Vienna is the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternatives.” Continuing to state, “ When it comes to Iran nuclear capabilities, this deal is best option”.

While members of Congress think they can get a better deal neither for Israel nor for America of course, have been raising issues of the competency of the technical team that helped negotiate the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Countering such claim is non other than Yitzhak Ben Israel, the Chairman of Israel Space Agency and the Chairman of the National Council for Research and Development in the Ministry of Science, Technology and Space “ there is a dialogue of the deaf, the agreement is not bad, at all, even good for Israel.”

It is yet to be seen whether America’s national security and world security will determine the outcome of the vote or whether Israel once again determine American’s national security and interests through its agents in Congress.

The debate as we have seen is hardly among and between Americans; it is almost exclusively among AIPAC, Israeli officials, certainly between members of the American Jewish community. In the end, the vote in Congress is not about Iran Nuclear Deal it is all about which comes first America or Israel. Remember that next November.


The PKK’s Deception about Being Democratic

24 08 2015

74858396

by Harun Yahya

The communist terror organization known as the PKK frequently employs terms such as “a democratic nation, a democratic transition, freedom and peace” that will please the West in order to deceive world public opinion in its press statements. It is an easy matter for the PKK to lie and say, “We are the only democratic and secular organization you can trust.”

In fact, the PKK is using the same language as all other communists did over the last century. The true face of states founded on such lies as “a democratic nation, building socialism, secularism, protecting the oppressed, a brotherhood of nations and being a party of the workers,” just like the PKK does, can clearly be seen from the following examples.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam

A single-party communist state was founded in the northern half of Vietnam under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh in 1945, “The Democratic Republic of Vietnam.” Toward the 1960s, the Ho Chi Minh regime decided to support the guerrillas of the communist National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong, in South Vietnam in order to spread its supposed democracy to the south. The Viet Cong wished to unite the country under communist rule by destroying the South Vietnamese regime. The Vietnam War, fought with the participation of the U.S., China and the Soviet Union, led to the loss of some 1.4 million people and to another two million being injured.

The People’s Republic of Bulgaria

In the 1946 elections, Georgi Dimitrov, leader of the “Bulgarian Communist Party” was elected prime minister and Bulgaria was proclaimed a People’s Republic. Later the Social Democrats merged with the Communist Party. Although speaking of “workers’ rights, social democracy, democratization and populism,” Bulgaria in fact moved toward a soulless, oppressive, single-party communist state in which freedoms were heavily restricted and democracy was suspended. The communist regime in the country came to an end with the collapse of the USSR in 1990.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” was set up in the north of the divided Korean Peninsula in 1948. However, there is not the slightest trace of freedoms in the policies of this supposedly democratic country. The country has been ruled by a communist dictatorship, the most closed to the outside world of any country, with the fewest freedoms and the worst repression. This regime’s ruling ideology, known as “Juche” and built upon the principle of self-reliance, claims that the “people enjoy freedom in thoughts and in politics.” The truth, however, is that its people are essentially living in a vast open-air prison.

The Romanian People’s Republic

Someone else who wished to implement a communist, Juche regime in his own country was Nicolae Ceausescu, another communist dictator. Ceausescu became leader of the communist “Romanian People’s Republic,” founded in 1947, in 1965, after which he set about establishing a similarly repressive regime. When Ceausescu became general secretary of the “Romanian Workers’ Party” the first thing he did was to rename it the “Communist Party of Romania.” He also changed the name of the country to the “Socialist Republic of Romania.” This communist dictatorship collapsed with the Romanian revolution in 1989.

The German Democratic Republic

A socialist regime was established in East Germany, under Soviet control, in 1949, after the end of the Second World War. The “Socialist Unity Party of Germany,” the result of a merger of the Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, came to power, and the country was renamed as the “German Democratic Republic.” The supposedly “democratic” East Germany was in fact never a democracy at all. Waves of strikes that began in 1953 were savagely repressed with the help of the Soviet Army. After some three million had fled to West Germany, the Berlin Wall was set up in order to prevent any further migration from East to West on August 13, 1961. This wall of shame was an exact reflection of the policies of that so-called “democratic” regime, and the country was turned into a massive surveillance state. Under totalitarianism, all of East Germany’s links to the West were severed. West Germany grew and prospered in terms of art, quality, economic well-being and esthetics compared to the East, which claimed to be building “ultra-secularism,” and came to resemble a soulless and dead place of shabby infrastructure and art under a gray mentality of stifling uniformity. Although it was right in the middle of Europe, this supposedly democratic country lived deprived of peace, liberty and democracy until the reunification of the two Germanys in 1990. The Stasi, the secret service of the German Democratic Republic, employed 274,000 agents. The Stasi assisted with the establishment of similar secret services in dozens of countries, such as Chile, Ethiopia, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique and Syria. All it taught the secret services of those countries were the communist tactics and techniques of torture.

Democratic Kampuchea

During their brief time in power in Cambodia in 1975-1979 the Khmer Rouge developed a regime that they described as “agricultural socialism/rural communism.” Pol Pot claimed to have created a new socialist movement and stated that he wished to build a democratic country. The system of “agricultural socialism” developed by the communists, who delight in such new and fancy descriptions, was in fact rooted in Maoism and Stalinism. Pol Pot’s ideas of an agrarian utopia were developed from the ideals of Mao, who implemented rural communism, and Stalin, who first put agricultural collectivization into action. The new regime called the country “Democratic Kampuchea.” The first action of the Khmer Rouge regime, which claimed to be democratic, was to start slaughtering its opposition. According to Cambodian records, 3.3 million of the country’s 7 million people were slaughtered during Pol Pot’s four years in power. This dark era, when almost half the population died from forced labor, torture, mass executions or malnourishment, is known as the “Cambodian genocide.”

The People’s Republic of Albania

Enver Hoxha claimed to be building socialism in Albania. During his 41 years in power, when he imposed his singular rule along Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist and Maoist lines, the “People’s Republic of Albania” became the world’s first atheist state. Hoxha’s party, the delightfully named “Party of Labor of Albania,” remained the country’s only political party for 45 years.

The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

Maoist guerrillas intent on bringing communism to the country by changing the existing regime in Nepal committed numerous acts of terror from 1996 until 2006; some 13,000 people lost their lives as a result. The Maoist movement improved its organization considerably following peace talks and a general amnesty law. The Maoists won one in four of the seats in Parliament in the 2007 elections and then withdrew from the government complaining of a lack of democratization. The Maoists then went on to win a huge majority in the Constituent Assembly elections of 2008 and founded a communist “Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal” by abolishing the monarchy.

CONCLUSION

What the PKK wants to do behind its “deception of being democratic” is to found a communist state, as in the aforementioned historical examples.

The PKK terrorist organization has caused the deaths of some 40,000 people in Turkey in the acts of terror it has perpetrated using its Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology. The aim of this terror organization, whose initials stand for the “Kurdistan Workers’ Party,” is to found an independent communist state based on Marxism-Leninism.

Indeed, the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan explicitly states this fact in his books:“The PKK has experienced a development in line with the MARXIST-LENINIST tradition. It is clear that from then on it will take shape on the basis of that legacy, which is inseparable in the way that flesh is joined to bone.”(Kurdistan’da Halk Kahramanligi [Popular Heroism in Kurdistan], p. 78)

The PKK has used violence to obstruct any and all parties opposed to it in both Turkey and Syria (operating in Syria under the name PYD), has assassinated their leaders and expelled most of them from the region. Masoud Barzani, president of the Northern Iraq’s Regional Kurdish Administration, is under constant threat by the PKK. If the PKK gains official status, then this Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist organization will accelerate its slaughter, as during the time of Pol Pot, and will increase the support it provides for various communist movements in numerous countries of the world, as in the examples of Vietnam and East Germany.

Therefore, the U.S. must never allow a policy that will lead to a new Pol Pot or a new North Korea in the Middle East.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com


Social Darwinism and the Favored Races Myth

17 08 2015

by Harun Yahya

Though racism can be found throughout history, Darwin was the first to give it an alleged scientific validity. The subtitle of The Origin of Species was The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin’s writings about “the preservation of favored races,” and in particular the unscientific claims in his The Descent of Man, lent support to the Nazis’ erroneous belief in the superiority of Aryan race, and a similar British belief about the Anglo-Saxons. In addition, Darwin’s theory of natural selection spoke of a fight to the death, a “law of the jungle.” Applying it to human societies made conflict and war inevitable between races and nations. A great many prominent figures of the time, from warlike statesmen to philosophers, from politicians to scientists, adopted Darwin’s theory. In The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, Professor Karl A. Schleunes of North Carolina University’s history faculty describes how:

taws

A black slave who was tortured and flogged and eventually managed to escape in 1863. During those years before the Civil War, slaves in America were frequently flogged, or worse.

Darwin’s notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by the racists… such struggle, legitimized by the latest [so-called] scientific views, justified the racists’ conception of superior and inferior peoples… and validated the struggle between them. (1)

With the claims put forward by Darwin, those who held racist views naturally imagined that they had found a scientific foundation for their views about human classes. But shortly afterwards, science revealed that in the same way that Darwin’s claims had no scientific validity, a great many movements built around Darwin’s ignorant views had committed an enormous error.

With the support it received from Darwinism, the Nazis practiced racism in the most violent manner. Yet Germany was not the only place where so-called “scientific” racism reared its head. A number of racist administrators and intellectuals arose in many countries, particularly in Great Britain and America, racist laws and practices also made a rapid appearance.

Evolutionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries held almost totally racist views. Many scientists had no hesitation about openly expressing such opinions. Books and articles written at the time offer the most concrete proof. In Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, John S. Haller, a professor of history at Southern Illinois University, describes how all 19th-century evolutionists falsely believed in the superiority of the white race and that other races were inferior. One article in American Scientist magazine calls Haller’s book:

… extremely important… documenting as it does what has long been suspected: the ingrained, firm, and almost unanimous racism of North American men of science during the 19th (and into the 20th) century… Ab initio, Afro-Americans were viewed by these intellectuals as being in certain ways unredeemably, unchangeably, irrevocably inferior.(2)

Another article in Science magazine made the following comment about some of Haller’s claims:

What was new in the Victorian period was Darwinism… Before 1859, many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of the same species as whites. After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no. … The African was inferior because he represented the “missing link” between ape and Teuton.(3)

Of course, this claim is totally unfounded. That people have different skin colors or different racial or ethnic origins doesn’t make them superior or inferior to anyone else. One main reason why this deception became prevalent in the 19th century was the widespread ignorance of the time, itself due to the primitive scientific conditions.

Another example of a scientist known for his racist views was Princeton University’s American biologist Edwin G. Conklin who, like other racists, had no qualms about openly expressing his perverted opinions:

Comparison of any modern race with the Neanderthal or Heidelberg types show that… Negroid races more closely resemble the original stock than the white or yellow races. Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races.(4)

William Sollas, a professor of paleontology and geology from Oxford University, set out his views in his 1911 book Ancient Hunters:

Justice belongs to the strong, and has been meted out to each race according to its strength … It is not priority of occupation, but the power to utilize, which establishes a claim to the land. Hence it is a duty which every race owes to itself, and to the human family as well, to cultivate by every possible means its own strength: directly it falls behind in regard it pays to this duty, whether in art of science, in breeding or in organisation for self-defence, it occurs a penalty which Natural Selection, the stern but beneficent tyrant of the organic world, will assuredly exact, and that speedily, to the full. (5)

To say that justice belongs to the strong—a grave error—will lead to terrible social chaos. No matter what the conditions and circumstances, all people must benefit from true justice, regardless of their color, language or gender. The claim made by Darwinist racists that justice only applies to the strong in no way reflects the truth. Every individual may wish to acquire things of the highest quality and the most attractive for himself and for his society, but he is never justified in ignoring the harm he inflicts on others in doing so. To claim the opposite violates reason and good conscience.

apartheid
The middle of the 20th century saw another surge of racism in certain regions of the USA. The Ku Klux Klan, whose ideology was based on violence, was one of the most prominent supporters of American racism. This organization supported such errors as the superiority of the white race and caused the deaths of a great many people.

One can encounter racist views in subsequent years also, even in the writings of evolutionists who claim not to be racist—as a natural consequence of their belief in evolution. One of these is paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson who, no matter how strongly he resents being termed a racist, claimed in an article published in Science magazine that racial differences appeared as a result of evolution, and that some races are more advanced or backward than others:

Evolution does not necessarily proceed at the same rate in different populations, so that among many groups of animals it is possible to find some species that have evolved more slowly, hence are now more primitive, as regards some particular trait or even overall. It is natural to ask—as many have asked—whether among human races there may not similarly be some that are more primitive in one way or another or in general. It is indeed possible to find single characteristics that are probably more advanced or more primitive in one race than in another.(6)

Despite its having no scientific basis whatsoever, Simpson’s superstitious view was adopted by certain circles for ideological reasons. In defending the theory of evolution’s unscientific claims in their writings, books, and speeches, other scientists of the time also supported racism. An article titled “The Evolution of Human Races,” by Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History and a prominent racist and evolutionist anthropologist of the early 20th century, made comparisons between races and came up with a number of deductions totally lacking any scientific evidence:

The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.(7)

As can be seen from such statements, most 19th- and 20th-century evolutionist scientists were racists who ignored the dangers posed by their twisted views. About the destructive effects of their so-called “scientific” racism, the American scientist James Ferguson has this to say:

In 19th-century Europe the concept of race was a preoccupation for the growing human sciences… These first physical anthropologists helped to develop the concept of Aryan supremacy, which later fueled the institutional racism of Germany in the 1930s, and of South Africa today. (8)

In an article about the racist views of evolutionist anthropologists, the late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould says the following:

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology… unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. (9)

Once the theory of evolution acquired an alleged scientific validity, scientists were able to speak without hesitation of such illusory concepts as “inferior” races and some races being more closely related to apes than to human beings. Despotic dictators such as Hitler recognized such claims as a golden opportunity and killed millions of people because they were “inferior,” “inadequate,” “flawed” or “sick.”

One of the main reasons why almost all 19th century evolutionists were racists is that their intellectual forerunner, Darwin, himself held such views.

 

(1) Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970, pp. 30, 32 ; Jerry Bergman, “Eugenics and Nazi Racial Policy,” p. 118.

(2) Sidney M. Mintz, American Scientist, vol.60, May/June 1972, p. 387.

(3) John C. Burham, Science, vol.175, February 4, 1972, p. 506.

(4) Edwin G. Conklin, The Direction of Human Evolution, New York, NY: Scribner’s, 1921, p. 34.

(5) “Evolution and Ethnicity;” http://www.ncl.ac.uk/lifelong-learning/distrib/darwin/08.htm

(6) George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, vol.152 (April 22, 1966), p. 475.

(7) Henry Fairfield Osborn, “The Evolution of Human Races,” Natural History, January/February 1926; 2nd pub. Natural History, vol. 89, April 1980, p. 129.

(8) James Ferguson, “The Laboratory of Racism,” New Scientist, vol. 103, September 27, 1984, p. 18.

(9) Stephen Jay Gould, “Human Equality is a Contingent Fact of History,” Natural History, vol.93, November 1984, p. 28.

 

The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

 


Page 1 of 9912345...102030...Last »