W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume What is New





Where Reason dies, Truth is Scuttled
and the Ship of Imagination toils in the Surf


Of course, as Dr Jerry Bergman's recent book*APPENDIX
Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian World View

makes so very clear, it is not just Hitler.
There are remarkable masses of quotations
from a varied series of sources

which expose
an enormous tie-up with the German academic institutions,
a concordat with the pope,
a leaning to seeking name and superiority in much of the nation,
and a breeding for the best mentality,
transferable from the devices of Darwin.
It was one monstrous assemblage
of what could indeed be called the hell-kit,
since its nature was fit only there,
and its exponents had little other hope
than an end where they belonged in style and method ...



The science establishment both in theory and in practice, scientist and doctor alike were involved, was to a very large extent not merely tolerant of the Social Darwinism which sought to apply the ludicrous hypothesis of the English philosopher, Charles Darwin, to actualities as if it were true; they actually were KEEN in many cases, to carry out the gruesome tasks that made hate seem almost sound by comparison.

Staggering data reveal the zeal of this very body, even in some areas the leadership in the devilish works of erecting a new morality in terms of the presumed basis of life, and letting it even  receive some help from man. Yes what were called the iron laws of nature, were considered, despite their magnificent feat in making man to survey and formulate them, codify and apply them; and having deified them, they yet deemed them inadequate. They NEEDED help from man. Iron laws would have a concomitant iron fist. Having imagined the source of what the laws would merely codify, they determined to match its assumed nature.

But why ? If these imagined iron-clad legal horrors had done so much (and a law is merely a verbal or mathematical formulation about what is happening, not what makes it do so, and hence avoids any explanatory power in the ultimate dynamics, or any moral position), and WERE indeed laws, why one merely describes what is happening. But if it is not happening, there is no law. They however wanted it both ways. In this their confusion leads nowhere but to presumption and failure. They lasted in this some 12 years before falling.

It is far better to deal with facts than imaginary dreams.

What is, is; and what ought to be, ought to be. You cannot transfer from the one to the other, without mere misuse of terminology; and when this in turn leads to the destruction of tens of millions of lives (cf. Bergman op. cit. pp. 21 et al), perhaps in the ultimate assessment as many as 55 million, then the point is certainly not trivial. Imagine asking if you could, any ONE of the victims his own assessment of the work of such superior and most qualified people in death watch!

Thus we come to a double dissolution of logic. There was, to be yet more specific, a barrage of statements moving from nature's supposed iron-laws, cruel but successful, to the RIGHT of those endowed with the strength to use it for the forwarding of the race - not in this case, the human race, but the Nordic one, the imagined source of the splendid Germanic man, then in vogue. The principle however is the same, whatever race you set up, human or segmental, for the application of such doubly dissolute logic.

FACT CANNOT make a thing right or wrong, in itself. If it HAPPENS, it is an event. It if OUGHT to happen, it is an obligation. What happens, in itself, is indicative of events; what ought to happen is source for change. What is in phenomena, cannot become what ought to be, by some kind of existential sanction; for what is its basis ? Murder is an essence in the approach: does this make it right! If a mass of murderers kills, does that make it right. If most of the world murdered and loved it, does that make it right ? Did Nazi multiplicity of murders make them right ? Does the whole of 'nature', whatever it does or is deemed to do, make the result right ? HOW!

Phenomena are one sort of thing; they occur. Obligatory, moral requirements are another. A happening cannot ennoble them into existence, or deprave them for that matter. For this you require first the KNOWLEDGE of what ought to be and with it, logically, the reason for that view. Nature is not reason, nor does it direct us from what is, to its moral basis in any way whatsoever. Whatever is in fashion for what man wants things to be - or prefers to imagine to imagine is legally going to happen by observation of what does happen - can be as script written from the sleep of the bedroom. But for any fashion whatsoever, there is no moral ground on this model. Where is it then to be found ? it is only in the intimations, verifications and validations concerning its own source, and the declarations of that source as in SMR, TMR, that such is to be found.



This however is not available on the obsessive model on which we are working from Darwin, with or without Hitler's application of it. Here our concern is the point of view of the consistent materialist, and his logical impasses. Let us proceed there then.

Secondly, IF  IT WERE so that 'nature',


having successfully invented itself from nothing
(for a source for nature is excluded in the materialist syndrome
that supplants logic - cf. Repent or Perish Ch. 7),


had then successfully made man


in such a plethora of magnificent inventions of laws and skills imparted and intellectualisation and verbalisation (as in DNA), and turned magic into a sideshow by comparison, forgetting cause and yet using it in explanation in a sort of verbal bubble of intermittent thought and dream:


then why help it ?

If in the best splendour of magic, it managed all that, Is there some obligation to help it, to admire it, to consider it good ? Is man magnificent other then technically ? Have you read the news in the last 40 years, as I have ? in the last 70 or so, as I have ? Even if it is only in the last 50, do you notice magnificence in the conduct of man  ? Is the behavioural capacity of this tweak from nothing, on that basis, enough to cause your sense of splendour to be staggered ?

Yes, you say, in some things it has.

In most things ? In the behaviour of the social side of man, then, where nation first kills in some other nation, then in its own (as in Nazi Germany) in the millions and is still not satisfied; brings folly as a mockery to this earth in endless religiously or materialistically-wrought grabs for the throats of others, to complete some vision of illusion, grasp for more wealth, incident of hatred, relish of torture ?

Does any sense of obligation in this appear ? in the UN for example, is it seen, where empty talk adds to the tumultuous interplay of undisciplined passions, and monstrous presumption enables them to make some sense of right and wrong founded on anything you like, so making morality from mouths, where logic is not relevant! Neither is caprice thought, nor is imagination a thing of right.

Neither nature nor nations nor a group of nations nor all nations can make right or wrong. They can only reflect what is; and where this is phenomena as base, their edicts and laws are mere psychological trivia (cf. News 19). If you are going to use reason, you have to be reasonable, and events do not give, with themselves,  the RIGHT events for comparison, or their principles, basis, source, except by the right use of logic beyond them, or ancillary information, or both. You cannot omit this; there IS a necessary step, and it HAS to be taken for logic even to be relevant. Otherwise all your rights and wrongs are with gripes and grimaces, noises and worries, just baggage. You might as well expect a cow to give a lecture on milk, as an event to disclose a means of assessment of all events. IF you want this and that, and choose to call this the right and that the wrong, then your WILL is active; but not logic.

Logic is to be used in defence of ideas? then its methods must be followed, not episodically, but consistently. Otherwise, it is like excluding maddened bombers with dynamite on their waists, usually from say, a shopping mall. However even once let them in, and the whole system is ready to collapse. It is so with logic; if it interests you in argument, then use it. If not, then do not misrepresent your will as reason.

If this is pursued wilfully, it becomes a lie. That is how, as in I John 2:22 readily refers to denial of Jesus Christ's biblical role as a lying work. Logic attested in the works cited for this site, leads to Him via the Bible; and the wilful rejection of this then leaves that category in place, truth voided and avoided.

Will indeed has its place; but when it usurps logic, it is in disgrace. When it usurps the results of what logic requires, then the case worsens. When nothing is the source, it is mere persiflage. When a complex series of interactive forms and laws is assumed, without cause, and without demonstrable capacity to create them, let alone from nothing, you are in the same logic-denying, self-contradictory occasional use of logic as before.

In the Hitler case, Bergman's publication shows the extraordinary ease with which the phenomenal becomes the obligatory with no logic whatever, only will. If you WILL that your nation becomes the most sophisticated,  admirable,  splendid, and in point of many presentations, the best-looking and most courageous, disciplined and capable: and THAT was what multiplied citations exhibit, then fine, that is you. You have a will. You have used it.


If as with Hitler, your nation is under care of those who have this will, that is itself merely an active phenomenon without ground. It happens. Ludicrously wrong technically in terms of the use of means for these ends, with all kinds of skull  measurements and the like in imaginary senses of power within being so reflected, and such bogus self-made beliefs, as was the case with the Hitler mob,  they yet have their WILL. It is a selection. However misled as to the way to get it, this is what they repeatedly make clear: they WANT.

A baby might be taken with an ice-cream ? So that makes it right ? The phenomenon of the baby's wish (amid, on this model, the allegedly harsh and iron laws of what is called nature), makes it right ? Just how ? or a nation's wish ? for living room in which to enjoy the superiority sought  ? Superiority in WHAT! WHY? It is because it is desired. It is a mental model which is extrapolated to become a moral model. How moral ? It is in this way, for it is repeatedly stated in relevant, cited literature, that the iron laws and force and the survival of the fittest being means, then it is RIGHT to use iron, heartless means to further the process. Rank your defiance if not; realistic your thrusts, if so.

If this produced all that from nothing (otherwise, ignoring causality, irrationally beg the question), then how right it is to further the process!

Why ? It got us so far, and we MUST kick on further, for it is blessed, it is right, it is pleasant, it is good, it is enjoyable to have room to kick things around a bit when you are THERE,  at the notional masterpiece of superiority in the process. Is even THAT a right ? In what way, on what basis, for what reason ?

Why should you be free to kick things around a bit, to be served by slaves, to be able to relish how advanced you are in physical power and admirable qualities ? Who or what made it so ? It is one thing only; YOUR WILL. Hence it is, logically, mere self-indulgence; and if the self were God, then it would be 'right' in terms of authority.

But the self is not god, and how is such a self, national or other, admirable ? It may seem admirable to itself, but where are the grounds for such an opinion... logically!

To be sure, on this evolutionary model, moral qualities are constantly in stark confusion added to the list of what happens when the strong disrelish and dismember the weak, but there is on this model no possible basis for this, but self-will, self-accomplishment,  self-relish on the basis of preference. Preference is not logic; it relates to will. Darwin depicts; Hitler applies. But neither has any ground for preference, unless illicitly bringing these in from other models.

Thus,  consider the moral qualities IMPOSED BY IMAGINATION by this atheistic accolade of the survival of the fittest on a null basis concept, still in vogue, though with contradictory considerations. Hitler says: more of the same, help it out, we must have what the law says; without adding, poor little law, it rusts, as he might.

But now, the approach is sometimes to be found, as if by relief from the distortion of this power-manufactured- 'right', in the idea of doing the exact opposite of what is the imaginary model's ideas about the way of 'nature', of  this something they call 'nature', on which see Paley's Natural Theology for some awareness of balance and coverage of the actual case. Be kind since nature is not becomes the lurk; be compassionate since we see now that we NEED compassion.

Some model is this, which makes the author of man, in 'nature', come courtesy of nowhere for no reason, to need correction to the uttermost. This is an anti-verification of the first order. This is rather like seeking the most sensitive soul to bring up poets, and choosing those brought up in cages in the forest, courtesy of Vietnam perhaps, or seeking the grow vegetables by using poison for fertiliser. There is a nil score for total misconception is seeking grounds for anything, with no alliance, correlation or consideration for the derivation of systematic content. It is the nadir of scientific method.

But this is not all. There is in the Hitler application, as with many who follow the generalisations of Darwin alone, a lurking desire very often for what is manifestly left out in principle, in origins, in content production - a yearning for something with some kind of relationship to man as he is, rather than as a fisty automaton as with Hitler, or a reductionist residue, as with Darwin in his imaginative explosion and book.

We find here even in the Hitler works, or those of his Model men, an example. We learn as on pp. 231 of a "spiritual struggle", just as on p.210, of the acquisition by force of goods to which the self-congratulatory 'stronger' party thereby has 'perfect right.' This is the morality of power: I can, so to get is good. But how is power moral ? it is capacity to work at a rate: what direction, kind of work, mode, purpose, motive, results ? These are forgotten, as if a mathematician forgot that numbers apply.

We can further again in this flight from morals, and the absurdities resulting. Thus, on p. 51 of Bergman's work, we read of Arthur Keith, in terms of his idea that evolution has "gone mad" having left its proper role - but what is PROPER ? and why is it so ? Underneath there is always a moral assumption when the case is not pure asininity. On p. 282 of the same work, we see that the person who fights the iron laws of nature is fighting what has produced his own so delightful life; and woe to such as do this. That is the analysis given, the estimate made, and the implicit recommendation presented.

That is always the underlying idea, though not the only one by any means.



Thank 'nature' for making you, becomes a theme, though it is never seen doing it. Moreover,  while at it, thank nature for making you the best; and with earnest, dutiful enthusiasm, be happy to know by something like existential thrust, that what you are is right, make it even more right by doing the iron law stuff, like the bully in Calvin and Hobbes. Do it, the devilish destructiveness of concept continues, till you gobble up every resistance (which the tame and timid weak may occasionally, regrettably in their sheer stupidity, needlessly offer).

Then you can luxuriate with slave labour doing its stuff while you do yours, which is ? well, to enjoy yourself and your peers in the armchair luxury of sheer serviced personal flats, fully surrounded with guaranteed deliverance from the messy stuff, while those in servitude wear out, or whatever that kind of being does, till you have so elevated it all, that you can all just have it happen for you, somehow, means not thought out. Such a picture is force plus phenomena equals right, moral right, grounds for admiration and congratulation and it realises what nature is striving for, pointed at, or has in mind; except of course that it does not have one.

In this way, the mindless becomes mind, and then minds well what its vacuity has created, and its nothingness has born, having first borne it. What a lot you can get out of nothing and begged questions, perhaps using each alternately for best, devious, irrational impact on the victims of talk, before they can be made the victims of walk.

After all, as in Mein Kampf, p 430, the view is this: that "it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him." You just kill it, maybe at times making it serve you as an animal might, and act as lord of all. It is relatively easy if you have better weapons, no heart and an arrogant head to conceive of yourself. However, do it, as none ever did, and what would you have ? merely a non-human devil, not a beast for they are far kinder overall than these foul strategists of pan-murder philosophy.

Where is all the fineness that the superior is supposedly to have, having now attained ? Is it to be found after all, when only force mattered in the long process to the top ? Is the philosophy that  ONLY FORCE moves things along the upward path (forgetting the need for direction of that force for such an accomplishment, and understanding), is this idea, this procedure indeed, to become in consequence of this iron-law-schema, suddenly a refined, cultivated, sophisticated, charming thing, manifested in persons filled with tenderness and equipped with depths of admirable human nature ?

If this does not matter on the way, how in the end ? If iron laws dictate reality on the way, how do they leave their iron ? and how do they create, if they are all that matters, what is aluminium, or plastic, or even human ? In other words, this is a profiteering form of reductionism, ignoring what it likes, pouring it back in when it wants, in an irrational maelstrom of romantic adventures, making the glories of humanity out of and WITH its shame. It is education in the gutter, to attain education in electrical engineering.

Such is the confusion and self-hypnosis when the evolutionary paradigm of creation through omission of bad drafts (survival of the fittest) is even conceivable. Screwing up your failures in an essay, as you write, produces the right one ? Many a student might wish it were so; but it is not so. This is contra-factual nonsense. Products are of different types: engineering ones such as DNA do not have this facility, and if they did, the world would be a magical paradise, although not very challenging, a sort of dream. Darwin sees that it is not a dream; but he substitutes one of his own. It is almost as if he were trying to be facetious, mocking his own talk of severity and struggle.



In fact, such imagination about an automatic thrust for continual advance, such is never found in unintelligent information dispersion, leads in this field to periodic ego-trips about who is the most and the bestest of the quest (to invent a Shakespearian double superlative in type). It leads to imaginary morals which suddenly elevate this or that with no more basis than the occurrence of this or that scent,  as in Spring at a given location and on a given day.

Here the quest is clear: quality of life for the supreme fittest. But what life ? and at what cost ? and with what assumptions ? and why is the sybarite so noble, when endless pain and torture preceded his so eminent self in its vainglory and self-accorded superiority! And how in any case is his new nature to survive when it begins to fall, and iron fists have to hit. Force and strength, power to subvert, kill, overcome others is as helpful in reaching moral heights, wonders of mind and heart, understanding and wisdom, as shaking a child till its head falls off, is to education. It is discipline without understanding; creation without content; invention without mind.

Thus,  some hammers smash better than others, but they are better ONLY at the smashing or driving in. To create ? it is a little different. You do not just hammer away blindly. You have to think... Some like to make it nature that thinks, but it is not found doing so. What IS found doing this, however, is man now, and the evidence of the  installation procedures of highly sophisticated provisions, whether in the brain, nervous system or DNA. Ignoring the causative evidence about the requirements for such products, Darwinism, whether in the Hitler application or in any other, simply becomes an ideological cause-free conundrum, one of man's philosophical blathers, irrelevant to scientific method and logic alike.

What however of the thrust to have the fulness of life for the superior conquerors envisaged on this false paradigm. Though logically foolish the consideration given is psychologically revealing. What a time they would have, and is envisaged for this most advanced mob. What perfect sybaritic egotism! It is spoken of in terms of  "the worth of {such thereby gained} freedom," (p. 209). They get it (squashing anything threatening to it, like mosquitoes or man), and experience freely its worth, regaled by services innumerable, unresistingly supplied. It sounds like a man-made heaven made by creatures from hell, tormentors, killers, maimers, disregarders, gods beyond touch, enforcing their sublime and sybaritic will. It is what they WANT that is granted, and what they WILL that is to be done. What a conquest! what joy in misery, what heights for such devilish tyrants. Force is alleged to make such marvels of pseudo-morals.



Force is the power to accelerate matter, direct energy, and there is much direction here, but with one aim: overthrowing what hinders and getting what you want, esteem highly, by pursuing plans which disesteem utterly what is not yourself. Is this some kind of advance then ? Such is the program in view, the regimen estimated, the dream invented, the finding shared ... Is this then parallel to a pair of jaws, in its consummation, in its attainment envisaged so merrily by Hitler and his men, a development in man ? It in fact strips him of all but force, which is a sub-human element, of moral blankness, meaningless mission, disruptive potential, and as a god-source, merely a disruptive thrusting that knows no direction. That is what is added. Here the addition is subtraction of anything human, and the elevation of mass murderers as the height of accomplishment. Naturally, as things develop, their religious commitment will lead on to their use of force amid themselves, which is neither haven nor heaven, but a lurking hell.

As to the place of force, "Only force rules. Force is the first law," Hitler is cited as declaring (p. 193). The State, we see in one phase, was to provide redemption from evil. What is evil ? the contrary of good. What is good, what is right ? It is this then, for 'right': to become as capable of doing many things, such as murder or abuse of children as required, and then having forced yourself on the world, then a matter of singing and eating, and conversing with pleasure, and making things that are sophisticated. To do what ? to follow the same line ? How else!

Why is this deemed good ? It is because of CAPACITY. But a boa constrictor is capable in some ways. Does this make it good ? Goodness is not the same as capacity; that would beg the entire question. What is good depends on what it is that you are both capable of doing and SELECT. The PURPOSE enters in: if it is good to inflict torture and death on millions, or even one, for your satiation with delight in your attainments, racial, family, business or scientific application, then the good is scientific knowledge. But why is this good, absolutely ? Is capacity goodness ? Is technicality rightness ? Is potential righteous ?

There are snakes which are masterpieces of death for survival. Is this good ? Are all to be made as far as possible invulnerable while utilising power to make what is less so,  dead ?

Why ?

It is all about selection of purpose and turning dream into morals, which is no better (or worse, except in result) than turning bravado into science. It is just that it does not relate to its field at all. It is irrelevant.

Meanwhile morals are invented (from nowhere) which bring with this self-indulgent arrogance, this merciless pre-occupation with BEING among the mighty, amid the serviced, what ? It brings in theory, contentment for the institution of this admirable group of faithless felons. They have some notable inclusions from various spokespersons, philosophers and acolytes. They liked what they saw, whether or not it meant the saw to see off what is inferior, not so good, with the saw. They talked of it, enthused about it, applied it by the million, in deliciously productive deaths. This does not exaggerate the direction of flow of this meaningless, irrational, reductionist dynamic as found in particular persons or groups.

Even school texts were invented to fan the arrogance and make hearty the heartlessness of the irrational concepts on which the philosophy was based, namely the imagination that survival of the fittest (best defined as those who survive in normal circularity). Thus on p. 277 we see some examples. "Each individual wants to maintain its existence in the struggle for survival," we read in the school text, although this is not actually true.




MANY in thousands and millions, it appears from the endless citations from many ages, and especially from the last 100 years of battles and blasting,  have not only NOT struggled to maintain existence, but in the interests of morality and reality and of the Creator and Redeemer, have freely avoided escape, become objects of contempt, slow death and all but endless torture, in order to honour the Creator, who having made freedom and thus scope for love, having allowed man to show himself and find the results of living by any other method. This is the stark opposite of the theory, which is merely a selection of cases of one kind. In a class, it is like selecting a type of student, such as dunces.

Omitting the rest does not allow you to characterise the class, logically. However Hitler does it, and Darwin thrust it home like a rapier blow. This is one element among myriads in nature; and in man, it is not a constructive one, even if in much it is an evacuative one. Evacuations however, do not create nations.

This pointed refusal to put survival first, in the interests of moral quality and the source of it,  is summed up in numerous aspects in Hebrews 11, and a modern display in many foci and features of just this aspect of logically based reality, is to be found in a work concerning sublime and unsublime human behaviour in The Tartan Pimpernel, an account in extreme detail about helping the ravaged in France and enabling escapes at almost ANY cost to those performing these feats for others. The NON-survival work was so extreme that when the war was well-advanced, the author, having felt a call of Christ to this work of deliverance for the ''weak", including airmen and others under the heel in France, did not accept deliverance by air back to England. Why ? Feeling called to be faithful to the uttermost to those whom he saw as his responsibility, he CONTINUED faithful, was imprisoned, subjected to ingenious tortures, but lived.

How often is the delivered weak found to become the delivering strong, and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in mutual bonds of concern, together. This better than a worshipped force, which knows nothing, and produces nothing worthy of knowledge.

This anti-strong exploitation approach is exemplary of much often seen and lived! The generalisation about seeking to survive, therefore, is incorrect, and parents often show it, as do friends, and you see it in novel form in The Tale of Two Cities, of Charles Dickens, in the affair of Carton delivering the man whom the lady he himself so loved, would marry, an event made possible by his own death. He sacrificed what he loved for what she loved.

It is all epitomised by Jesus Christ who announced His coming, by the Spirit, in great detail (cf. I Peter 1), what He would do, purposefully not to survive on this earth, how He would the break the basis of death, through death, and provide eternal life through His sacrifice (cf. Joyful Jottings 22-25). On the way, and in the end, He then deployed the divine power, rescuing many in physical reality, even feeding them and delivering them from spiritual disease as well, or raising the dead; and in so doing, as predicted, He came to meet the mocking mouths, puckered with their spit, while He Himself enduring the anguish of sin-bearing.

That shows another way of having morals. Find God and then find what He wants, and then inspect it for morals, and if you love Him more than yourself, and want His kingdom more than sybaritic self-fulfilment, and trust Him, why then, you don't need to make up morals which are disdainful of suffering, delirious with self-hood and ferocious in seeking a wonder of fantasy. You have something founded and bounded with grounds, an eternal basis and a workable reality. You find directed force, considerations of heart, grounds for the marvels to which man has access in all the realms of spiritual understanding, co-operative sincerity and available attainment. Leaving this as many did under Hitler, in order to favour the new morality of Nazism, for that is what it is, has a parallel now.

They were not alone in their disruptive and dispersive force fantasies.

It becomes rather like the position of some religions which similarly still may use or have used force to gain divine favour, victory a card to more than dubious pleasures, God as a way to prosperity of purse and so on. It is just one more of those ... you do what it takes to get what you want, only you do it indirectly, using god-type entities of your own mind, be it collectively sought or individually. Conquer and kill, if need be; or overcome anyway; and advance by all means; till your new-made god or gods can be said to earn their keep. It is all fantasy of dysfunctional selfhood, adequately covered in such texts as Jeremiah 2 and Isaiah 44. It is MAKING up your gods, and making others pay, or your gods performers for your passion.

Consider however a little further even than this, the struggle hypothesis for engendering man and uplifting him, or anything else. Qualities are supposedly to come from total disregard of certain categories of human beings, treated like crops or farm animals, except far more torturously, whether by man or by 'nature', man being viewed as an extension of it.

What qualities are sometimes cited ? First let us go a little further in the Nazi text book cited by Bergman. On the negative side of morality, it announces this: "He who wants to live must fight, and he who does not want to fight in this world of perpetual struggle does not deserve to live," (p. 277, cf. p. 93). Thus there are things you deserve, in terms of your approach to life, and things you do not; and some things you do not deserve, because you did not fight well enough, are so shocking, that if you do not value these, you really ought not to live at all. That is the paradigm.

Your fighting is defined to be right, and you are defined to be wrong if you do not exercise this right. But smashing opposition does not invent anything, except pollution, mayhem and resentment, vengeance, vindictiveness, hatred and contempt; and perhaps pity, for since it is not 'nature' which first inventing itself when it was not there to do it, then went on its dreamy way to do many more marvels of irrationality. Thus this right it is, which is itself wrong logically, apart from morally. It is hard to find morals in iron, or its human-style extensions, mindlessly minding their survival as a sacred duty, which is mere irresponsibility and servility to forces which go where they will, in their thrusting. It is a sort of bombing mission to build. It was great as such in World War II, but rebuilding Europe was not advance, but colossal expense, and part of the USA's current problem from way back.

What then is the Darwinian plan put into human application as by Hitler, using its natural ingredients as defined ? To fight without regret for survival is RIGHT,  to the point to transgress this law means you deserve not life, but death. This is a moral sanction, beyond circumstance. It is what OUGHT to be. It is invented on the basis of the sybaritic syllogism.

All who deserve to live will to fight to the uttermost;

X wills not to fight to the uttermost;

therefore X deserves not to live.

It may be simply, outside Hitler, that X is disposed not to live, in 'nature', but this is the same principle, whatever form and format and function is supposed to direct such a procedure.

They, those formulated as extinguishable in terms of human nature as part of nature in the Hitler regime,  were of course often seen in categories, which thus were conceived as being disposable, like tissues, en bloc. This included Christians increasingly, and their exits were accordingly made easier and easier for them, many whole races being so poor, in the Nazi concept, that they could conveniently be removed in one planning stroke, as incapable of the sort of fight envisaged to be needed, condemned in advance. What was envisaged became their god, the unspoken contribution of Darwin in his naturalistic demonisation.

Strange were the misconceptions and residual ideas mixed. After all, when you suppress the truth, as in Darwin or Hitler in their special modes, what is suppressed, like fat flesh in a narrow vestment, is disposed to come out.

Thus one item in the litany of citations is this, that "the body is the showplace of the soul," and "the soul is primary," as on p. 91. Thus there is a soul of some kind, and it can have qualities, and the co-ordination with the body, though illusory in the extreme, does not hide the fact that the soul is cited. What about qualities for it, then ?

On the negative side, there is admission that in the case of the Jews, it is not so much their lack of intelligence, as a spiritual quality which upsets the New Nordic Man, the ideal Nazi. What is that ? It is cited as "using their intelligence in crafty and underhanded ways for selfish gain." THIS is undesirable, and it is a spiritual matter, a moral matter in terms of something other than force, it concerns certain aesthetic perceptions about what is good and desirable and of an admirable nature. So does this 'flesh' exude from the binding garment of reductionist thought.

So craftiness is malodorous ? But whoever was craftier than Hitler among world politicians, as in his boast that he would attend to Christianity in its time, but for the present it was not politic to be too harsh towards it! (p. 64). Who was craftier than the signer of treaty with Russia, prelude to invasion with the purpose of removing a racial scum from the pond of life!

Again, here from Hitler,  we read from his words, these: "The evil that is gnawing our vitals is our priests, of both creeds. I can't at present give them the answer they've been asking for but ... it's all written down in my big book. The time will come when I'll settle my account with them ... They'll hear from me all right." The same is asserted in kind, of God by this quasi-god Hitler (Rosenberg, received philosopher, cited p. 237), whose views become laws of nature, which however fail, much to his concern. Germany must be SAVED and REDEEMED from such failure. Failing gods, however, lest alone law-of-science ones,  are as fictitious as futile. What is a god that can be killed forever ? What has supervening power that does not supervene! What is a law that lurks in shadows, trembling for its very existence, in the minds of its illusory makers ...

How confused is it POSSIBLE to be ? HItler exhibits the extreme, as does all evolutionary make-believe, making ultimates out of relatives, moral qualities out of merely inter-active entities, duties out of phenomena, and absolutes out of nothing while condemning absolutes (cf. Lead Us Not into Educational Temptation).

Thus morals are in this model, exist as a convenient invention, used as a battering ram against others, meaningless for oneself because the survival achievements sought are so 'good' that the end justifies the means. Reality does not cease to exist because one chooses mentally to blot it out. That reminds of Jesuitism, and it is surprising how many major German leaders, cited by Bergman, were brought up devout Romanists! Hitler apparently admired the Jesuit hierarchical concepts greatly. Both religions, his and theirs, have a total elevation at the top of the human poll (in the latter despite Matthew 23:8-10), in terms of overall performance, and both value ends to the point they can suppress the morality of means, as in mental reservations,  in terms of alleged truth ...

What then of the 'right' and the 'good'. The good in this irked scenario, however, did not even know what was good for it, for there was believed to be a failing nation, despite this iron law, and it needed much help, this natural LAW, which is supposedly a description of what happens, of itself, being scientific and beyond speculation. It was just that here, in the most profound of all possible contradictions of terms, it was NOT HAPPENING, thus creating a problem for the inventive 'scientists.'

If it is natural law, it happens. If it does not, it is not law. It is the same now in the genome, if it is advancing, show it; if it is conducting sophisticated manoeuvres know it. But in fact, it is deteriorating, as is common in design works over time, from plasticine to plastic, bones to beauty, as shown in the work of Dr Sanford of Cornell University,



Let us return then to the Nazi consternation. This brutal, blundering advance was law, but failing to happen. In the flashy and hypnotised mind of maddened man, this this hybrid collection of opposites, in their confusion, then cites death for millions.

What then ? If it is law there is no way, in this tenet, that "nature's efforts" could be "rendered futile." This formulation fits imagination, not law. Nature, moreover, is seen as making efforts, though how what has no being or mind can make an effort is unclear, or for that matter, how what is mind-free can have a purpose towards which to make an effort, is even more turgid. In this way, God being suppressed as explained in Romans 1:17ff., is re-introduced, though without a visible pass-port, as the logical deficiencies of the concepts require. Putative mind is illicitly on this model, placed in force splashes, and thrust upwards to desiderata comes out of the shadows of subverted reasoning

It is a kind of smuggling, an ad hoc affair, like boats coming illicitly to Australia. This however is not a matter of mere episode, but system! Shamefaced at times, yet the absolute morals come anyway. The work is done, system or no system. Poor nature, so mighty, yet so readily turned from its noble purpose, is to be helped. This is simply a lap-god, useful to stroke and to take along with one, able to be called or culled. Nobility in this is nil.

Presumably suppressing truth once more is to help survival: but of what depth of denial of reality, and such denial is always costly, in the end lethal.

Power politics ? are they better! Are they not gifted with the same evil dynamic: power is all that matters, vision is null, righteousness is non-existent. How then can we as godless moral-inventors please ourselves best ? Come, my dear sir, let us consider neutrally the maximum mutual advantage, leaving aside the intolerable seeming divergencies. How best then can we do business ?

In view of its temerity and shame, its assumptions and its rational emptiness this does indeed call for the utter catastrophe which such soulless rambling deserve: for they omit the facts that do not appeal, whether with Hitler or with Darwin, in their various toys of trade and deployment, with the realms deemed operative in the end.

Thence all appeal to it on scientific grounds is invalid. That is and remains the case. It makes of the Western trend to affirm the same iron laws, the same evolutionary dynamic, beyond mere mind, but lacking it, the more a lesson in irrationality. Neither logic nor history do they heed.

Now many of this model desire the opposite of the apposite scientific laws, and desire to allay suffering even of the weakest, as if in a sort of moral blitz, or purgation from the devices of Hitler and Darwin in their modes, while retaining the latter in stark contradiction, as if by habit.

Many evolutionists in the present era seem to wish to be good or do  good, or something or other that is markedly moral. Yet if  horrendous cruelty is your father, and the meaningless is your nature, which you adopt, why appeal to 'science' as a basis for the meaning that is not there, the rationality that had to be invented from and by nothing,  when you cease fiddling with the controls and look at causal sufficiency in origins, or the morals that lack even a possible basis!

Moreover, out of the nothing pot, or begged questions worth nothing in science, comes this, that the result has to be so conformed to logic in its innermost being, that it is possible, pleasurable and potent to investigate its workings BY LOGIC, with enormous profit and growing understanding. In other words, that kind of thing is well adapted to this kind of thing: logic the maker's insertion, and logic the human student's tool: they match, as do those happily married, and nothing works better in investigation than such procedure on the combined logical basis, in the mind of the researcher and in the construction of 'nature'; which in fact is a series of natures and systems in synthetic relationship together with individual integrity, whether laws of science or the human body.

But the lurk is to forget all of this, and imagine its basis is either nothing or its spawn, a magic birth or plain nullity. Science ? it is a surfeit of pure irrationality.

Why expect such depraved pseudo-science, in fact an exercise in limit-free contradiction of scientific method, to provide any moral uplift, anything relevant to man's needs ? If what fathered you, and is received as your mother nature, so restively moving upward to your very own self, is as described, why disown it in person while accepting in mind in a sort of schizoid philosophic dream!

Reductionism does not reduce suffering but increases it, since all non-truth avoids what is there, and twists what is to be done. Hence World War II follows World War I, and World War III, not so very cool, its predecessor, and what shapes as World War IV, the Islam devastation program wrought by many of this kind, for it is obviously far easier to destroy by force, than to build by intelligence. Meanwhile, then, many evolutionists deplore the outcomes of force rule, and seek to sanction its arrest; but only mildly.

So  like explosions, comes the intensifying desire, contrary to the imaginary father of man, the iron laws and their ilk, the meaningless and its kind, the nullity and its baselessness; the desire to accommodate anything and everything comes in like an fevered reaction. It keeps one point: ANYTHING is right. That is special. Hence anything is wrong, including the concept that anything is right, and so circularity rules. This is merely part of the reductionist syndrome: there are to be no rules ... how IRON you are, O rules!

The theory concerning the currently coerced student-substitutes for Hitler youth,  as they are in these fields of confusion, such as much within the Educational Apparatus in Australia*1, is little different but simply more contradictory still. Hitler decreed: iron law means iron fist. It was ludicrous, since the law did not make the morality. Now it is iron law means soft touch. How ?

Where is the morality to come from for Hitler or other organic evolutionists, whether they choose to invent some invalid god who did not actually do it, or not! Why does it contradict the allegedly implicit nature of the alleged laws of nature ? and if they are not laws, what has science to do with them ? concerned with laws or their bases or outcomes.

What is morality to do with this ? Is nature to lecture us ? Its ways are of different kinds exceedingly, beauty and horror, magnificence and smashing, love and hate and so forth. What is this lecture then ? Just imagination ? with no basis ? mere wilfulness ? How is this education, that students are intolerably and vexatiously turned into Hitler-youth with respect to  their manipulation phases, with even worse inconsistency and more vacuous (if at all possible) failure in logic! What in Hitler was reductionist and unobservable generalisation becomes not an exercise in contrariety.

It is pure deceit. It has neither causal nor moral  basis and invents both. So did Hitler. Let us see some more of his invented morals.

Nature was supposedly (p. 48) to create "a higher stage of being." How high ? what kind of height ? Is it higher to watch without soul the rank horror of grieved spirit, assailed mind and contorted bodies in the  youth misused, or shot, as in the case of many who were kidnapped from Poland and not found suitable after all, for the aggrandisement of the Nazi human production units (called Lebensborn - pp. 253ff.)!  Is this higher ? Is power right ? Is ability god ? This is merely a short-circuit of morals and a personal mandate made by power, to exist for inventing them.

On the positive side, we learn that from this godless phenomenal, causatively magic basis, there is a certain NOBILITY. Indeed, that is some production from nullity, and some offspring for iron!

Now we come to panache indeed. To be noble ? what is it! It would tend to mean above the mass or the norm, higher in certain inward and elevated qualities than most, putting principles above pleasure, sacrifice above desire, and even keeping faith with people to their advantage and one's own detriment when this is sensed to be one's own responsibility or duty. It is FAR removed from iron laws, iron hearts and iron fists where might is right and power in itself gives authority over others, including that over their possessions,  as was taught in myriads of ways, discrete or defiant, devious or blasting.



The nobility was in origin, up North origin, so it was mused. So great was it imagined to be, that the Nordic man, the true German and all that, is not marked by original sin but by original nobility (Rosenberg cf. p. 236). This is on the way to apotheosis!

This then comes ultimately from some nothing-nowhere combination of originating concepts, some nullity, held in some causal ultimacy, or suspended irrelevance to taste, instead of from God. It just is, like Topsy. Be kind and avert the eyes. Let it all just come, and it will come quietly ? Not so. THIS sort of coming, free of morality and reality alike, led by dream to scores of millions of death, under delusion. Practise illusion, and not only confusion but killing readily results. Let creative nature, first creating itself, do it, or let man apply it, it is all one god of desolation, whatever it be called, without name or power to do anything, and assigned the futile task of doing everything. Hitler was scarcely more deluded in his particular applications, than this in its generic concepts. Make murder king and you scarcely account for life. Make overcoming the rule, and you do not at all account for the strong or the weak, but show a certain irrationality as the operative weakness, if the term os appeals.

Leaving the infinitely more causatively effective source, of the everlastingly present God of creation, some of the main Nazis turned to the god of Hitler, and the sacrifice ? It was to be the Jews. Confusion, thy name is corruption.

Thus you can see the type of personal movement often involved: it is one where the desirable is turned into the right, into the justly admirable, and it is only power, strength, fitness which makes it so. Fitness for what ? why for continuing to live. This may be in guile, horror, hatred, murder, mayhem, but it lives. How then is it noble ?

There is the moral: have none. This leaves the way open, as Christ pointed out, for seven worse devils (Matthew 12:40-45), and from the day of negating Darwin, in his reductionist dreaming and anti-scientific meanders (cf. SMR Ch. 2, TMR Ch. 1, The gods of naturalism have no go!)), to the defiled present, the irrational rambling continues. As many went on mindless in aspiration, affirming  Hitler, or Darwin, how the devils spawned. It is like  house, or garden. Leave it alone and you can scarcely imagine the decline. Hitler however wants to bring in a little look of peace ...

Thus, as in Mein Kampf p. 285, even to the uttermost in cruelty, "nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction." You may say this is purely metaphor, but it is far more. It is declaring vividly that


the ULTIMATE in any basis is nature, whatever that is, and


it comes however it comes, and


it needs neither explanation nor investigation on origins, and that


it is SO SET that there is a quasi-purpose to it,
to get to the most accomplished (but in what!), and


it WILL do its utmost to get there,.


the thing most satisfactory in consequences.

Thus is the thought of man extrapolated into nature, first in scheme and then in schema.

It is about striving. If nature is striving, it is personal, equipped with thought and force and vision and concept. If, as is the case with this model, it is NOT so seen, then there is no DIRECTION of any objective kind, neither a good or a bad one, but a heap of phenomena. If on the other hand, it IS so seen, then nature is another term for a plastic god-filler, made at will. This is an exchange: irrational turgidity for truth, will for fact.

If you have power to deal with it this way or that - like killing a child to get a piece of bread it will not yield as its starved form eats - then that is a DECISION of WILL. Certainly it has moral elements (as in News  19), but these are in the evaluations of mind and the inventions of morals, and not in the concatenation: child plus force-addict means result.

It is all chosen, whether on rational grounds, or inventive masterpieces of wantonry misnamed morality. It is seen in the Nazi evolutionary approach,  once more, in the concepts of breeding the "new human" and avoiding "everything hateful and evil" (cf. p. 290), as one of the forerunners of Nazism in this field opined. This was to be done by avoiding racial admixture.

What then is the evil, and why is a thing objectively hateful, as distinct from merely being different from one's preference: on this model ? There is certainly vast admiration for one thing desired, and intense hatred of the thing not desired, and evil is a term used in the setting, so that language from another model for the universe, is meaninglessly introduced here as though it had some standing other than what one feels like, or does not. Emotion here is meaningless as it is intense, as immense as it is irrelevant, as revelatory of the confusion, as of the illusion whether in the Hitler version or any other in the organic evolutionary stables, which may have such preferences, be the bases and direction what they will.

Reverting to Hitler in particular (p. 231), we find that "the systematic spiritual struggle against these powers is a necessary war mission. I have therefore instructed ... "

A SPIRITUAL struggle. We have come to soul, now to spirit. There is then in man a movement of thought, imagination and desire which may, or may not, go in such and such a way, leading to advance to heights, and indeed as an SS planning document put it, war would "keep Germany young" (p. 215).

Young, if not in body then in what ? presumably in spirit, tested, invested, flung, creating and so forth, like youth in optimistic essence. Again, turning to Streicher, who categorised Jews on a hidden moral basis of his own (just as nature is supposed to 'fill a vacuum', so do morals invent themselves even where their objectivity is denied, and they become valid by default in a quirkish process that the fallen soul seeks to authenticate), Hitler found a problem. This devastating subordinate was apparently deemed by the boss not to be firm enough on the Jews. Thus there is the cited word of Hitler on that topic (p. 2150), that "the Jew is baser, fiercer, more diabolical than Streicher depicted him."

Now we even have reference to an immoral source, a detestable arena, morals turning to ultimates, spiritual assessment of spiritual things. So when truth is put out, illusion is put in.

Thus we have what is used for categorisation in this most measuring, most scientific, most objective approach, this hall mark for science, found in terms of the diabolical. Once again, someone says, That is pure metaphor. But what is a metaphor for ? It depicts something underlying, and what is that underlying ? It is this, that there are qualities of the human spirit, soul, and these are all noted from time to time, which cause moral anguish to the spectator, which cause the noble soul to squirm in distaste, revolt in horror that such evil could be. Thus there are values purely intimate and subjective, and spiritual which are in the realm of the ultimate, which may be used in making life and death formulations. The whole world of spiritual reality exists, on a raft, and keeps shouting and is sometimes heard; and is never sunk. So does illusion rule, delusion aggrandise and folly arrive, like mass immigrants.

The results are multiform. Thus the Lebensborn project of copulative increase of national capacity by importing suitable women, for example, had an idealistic element. The superior race tended to tilt to the noble as we have seen, and could even include such elements as 'loyalty, determination, courage, and a sense of honour', and these could be physically transmitted, more or less, we find. Our point here is not the ludicrous and historically lampooned idea (you often see in the Bible in Kings and Chronicles, amazing sequences of good and bad kings, to the uttermost extreme, as in life) of the physical transmission of moral qualities.  It is rather WHAT is supposedly so transmitted. These spiritual qualities, these moral elements such as honour (what honour however among mass murderers, who even deceive those about to be murdered in showers, that it is for de-licing!) are noted and admired and to be sought. Why ? Why are they good or even desirable ?

Is it so that the irrational objectives, not being founded in nature, but in dream, may be fulfilled by help from man, pushing the failing 'laws' along ? Then how are laws in need of aid, and how is aid in place for giving it ? If this bounty of niceness, these desiderata, these moral qualities,  is  even indeed for people living together, and in peace with application, how is it that the exact opposite is part of the iron law and metaphorical fist of 'nature' which on this basis is alien to all nurture, though not in fact!  This is as if to specify poverty as the source of riches, and a cultivated spirit to be found among headhunters.

That however is the model, which pops constantly, like soap bubbles, iridescent in sailing splendour. These come, they soar, they look pretty, and then they are not there at all, just gone, like the unworkable Nazi Germany, built on the illusion of superman, while the genome in scientific fact is degrading! (cf. Waiting for Wonder, Appendix).

The USSR was rather quickly, on its own version of force ultimacy, like a headless monster specialising in begetting heads, to follow suit. The end was in both cases suitable to the means. It matched. Indeed they were matchless in mutiny, murderous in theme, godless in confusion and directed by soulless dreams, in a modelled world where dreams had no place. HOW can any follow such quackery ? Yet they did; and they do; and they to this day in many a land of democratic pretension, continue to force such dreams down the student maw, like force-feeding an infant with nasty medicine. This however is not medicine, except that of death. Spiritual mass murder may be another realm; but it is still mortal, in both sense of the term. Pity was for those then deluded; and continues for those currently misused in the still misleading and illicit name of science. It is as it was then, now.

There is a coming assizes, and this time, its name is not Nuremberg.





*1 See for example TMR Ch. 8, with Ch. 1, Government submissions, and for England, Beauty for Ashes  Ch. 3.

A relatively recent work of oppressive diligence from the South Australian government is to be found at



Under policies published in December, the board said it required ''teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis''.

The board said it ''does not accept as satisfactory a science curriculum in a non-government school which is based on, espouses or reflects the literal interpretation of a religious text in its treatment of either creationism or intelligent design''.

The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said the board statement was too strident, removing the right to teach ''biblical perspectives'' as part of science.


He said the policy set a precedent which might be taken up in other states, including NSW, where the issue had been the subject of intense debate two years ago.

A spokeswoman for the NSW Board of Studies, Rebecca Lloyd, said the NSW board had made its policy clear last June that science teaching which was not scientifically or evidence-based would not be part of assessment for the School Certificate or Higher School Certificate.

But the NSW Board of Studies had a policy of not loading so much mandatory work on to schools that there was no time for anything else, and other non-core activities offered to students could include extra religious instruction.

The acting executive director of the NSW Association of Independent Schools, Michael Carr, said: ''Our view is that NSW independent schools must follow the Board of Studies curriculum, which dictates that creationism cannot be taught as science. ''Schools wishing to teach creationism must teach it as part of their religious studies.''

But Mr O'Doherty said a close reading of the South Australian policy indicated it was going a step further and banning teaching of the subject altogether. It was the only such subject singled out, he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/christian-schools-angry-over-ban-on-teaching-creationism-20100302-pgjb.html#ixzz2gKuXjDJ2

In this account you see the sheer blind effrontery and distinctively anti-scientific thrust of the philosophy which is driving these comments from the State.

OF COURSE, science must be done with scientific method. It is precisely failure to do this which is a large part of the entire point. The fact that this is not even so in principle in these areas of thought and life, is made especially clear by the words of what presumably is near to being outstanding world leader in these fields (for good or ill), at Harvard, namely Leowontin.  His words speak for themselves, which is always an advantage. This may be presented from Ch. 1 of a volume in our theological set, In Praise of Christ Jesus, The Lord of Longsuffering, as below (slightly revised and somewhat extended).


Professor  Lewontin of Harvard University in biological science, makes the matter clear, and this is not the first such admission from scientists, as to what is the philosophic point. Nor is this by any means the first time such addictions have been pointed out, in various regards and fields in this general region, as by Professor Heribert Nilsson of Lund University (cf. SMR pp. 107-111), Professor Søren Løvtrup of The University of Umea, Sweden (SMR pp. 252Aff.),  Professor  Professor Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University (Wake Up World! ... Ch. 6).

Lewontin, notable figure in the aggressive evolutionary program wrote this: ("Billions and Billions of Demons," The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997 - emphasis in original, colour added):

Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Here we see many non-scientific philosophical assumptions, some impossible logically, set not as an admission of a zealot, acknowledging the fault of putting personal ideas into a container unit, into which science is to be sovereignly suppressed, a sort of papal pronunciamento on doctrine, with a new kind of authority without ground, but as a glorying, in true religious zeal.

He freely admits how ludicrous is much in materialistically captured science, as shown in recent  volumes as in SMR and Repent or Perish Ch. 7 and Christ Incomparable ... Ch. 2,  where such basic concepts are shown to be logically incoherent.

It has to appear so, the point he admits,  because it is so, and here avoids the empirical which it so exalts in principle. In fact, directly he admits that his truncated insistence, materialism, a debased philosophy (see refs. above) based on nothing, is a mere preference. Such a fallacious and self-contradictory pre-scientific philosophy, dominating the scene in a manner pre-emptive and utterly both presumptuous and unscientific,  MUST produce such ludicrous results, such just-so stories, since it abandons just use of logic and causality, and what this requires. These results are predictable, and that is one more verification of what he rejects, a free look at ALL possible sources of ANY particular phenomenon. This philosophic impertinence parading as science, an application of preferred ideas to limit it and a closed mind to inhibit, distort or destroy not only  its premises and method, but its integrity and effective results.

These admittedly appalling looking results, to which Leowontin refers,  come as  simple verification that such cut-down science is incompetent. that it does produce such outcomes, when what is removed from the actual evidence, proceeds in terms of what has been  called THE CULT OF THE FORBIDDEN (cf. SMR pp. 150ff., 330ff.). That is, a religious cult and philosophic dictation, which forbids some areas from being investigated scientificallly, on the basis of preference of a purely personal character.

This, of course, not only ruins scientific credibility in these forbidden cultish procedures and areas, indeed arenas, , but cuts away truth, and leaves a desolated result, much like Hiroshima.






BERGMAN'S VOLUME is used in this journal entry, as the organisation of informational data on the Hitler question. It is the distinctly obvious aspects which are here given consideration in their total impact: this Chapter is a work of reflection concerning the data unit of Bergman in this field of the Nazi. In former volumes on this site, it has come in many different spheres; here this is the one considered in its meat and pursuit of any merit, or demerit.

That is the purpose in this Chapter, which concerns the Nazi application of Darwinism and its underlying themes, and those in the Darwinian basis itself as mentor. It involves reflection on the swaths of data.

It pursues questions of the dynamic, its drift, its blindnesses, its self-contradictions and its assumptions. Such is the evolutionary drama in its theories, whether extended as with Hitler to practical application of any underlying appearance of logic, or not. The vain hopes, the ludicrous mischaracterisations, the imaginary proceedings from nullity, the omission of the need for logical adequacy in the account of the aspiring Darwin and the firing Hitler alike, spring naturally from their defective basis. Leaving the non-nothing eternal origin of the universe, as demonstrated in SMR, for example, they have only make-believe and fantasy to consult. The defects in this naturalistic romance, so much ado indeed about nothing, are ignored with the fatal fascination Satan so readily brings,  and this, whether in the generality of Darwin or the specialty of Hitler.

Nature is never found presenting this, branding into being the information from matter which startlingly is expected to come; it is not found doing here and now its stuff. Even Dawkins is found asserting that these innovations of evolution are something which he has observed. Ah, it is asked, how so is that ? Well they were observed; it is just that when they happened, he was never there to see it. This is empirical science in imagination, this is data by imagination, confirmation by invention, terminology deviousness. This unseeable observation is for him as is the case for one and all mankind. What greater pompous counter-scientific claim is there than this: he observed them, but when they happened he did not see it, for he was never there at the time.  THEY were NEVER SEEN. He observed in some mystic sense, what was not there to be seen by his own testimony. Is this not a forked tongue, using terminology the exact opposite of his meaning. Is this then confusion  ? it is better not taught.

However, the ACTUAL evidence of course fits the Bible perfectly. Thus Dawkins is observing what he notes is not to be seen, and the biblical creationist is observing the cessation of what is not now happening, as simple verification of the biblical statement of the same kind: IT HAS NOW STOPPED because God is no longer doing it. Bible: God did it and stopped, giving information and then abruptly ceasing that dynamic. Nature shows the incorporation of the information; and it now is stopped. The Bible fits, as evolution does not, with observation. Man's own creative intelligence merely verifies the generic mode, for creation, namely intelligence acts in creation, and that occurs continually in billions of persons, on a daily basis. For the imaginary kind, there is neither evidence nor ground to produce it, even in the imagination. Only in unreal worlds does this happen; and that, romance is sci-fi.

Indeed, how can something of given features, like matter,  perform the work of something so very different, like mind, with distinction far above mongoloid mind, and even further above no mind at all! Why expect a basis in mental nullity to be superior in mentality's modes when the mongol, far more than that,  could not at all produce this kind of stuff ? He is far above mindlessness. What then ? Is something the matter with matter that it cannot nut out how to make the mental from its machineries ? But again, is it a shameless plough that does not write ? what do you EXPECT! or is it rather a shameless observer who would expect it to do so, out of kind! You do not look, as Christ pointed out, for figs from thistles. Imagination should be put to bed when it despises what is found.

Why invent magical powers in defiance of what is found in nature! You name your source, we investigate it, and it does not do it. Empirically your situation is null. Scientifically it does not score, unless zero be deemed a score.

Matter is no creator of mind, which may by will, put mind to work on matter, not by invasion, but by understanding. As with Hitler the illusion based on fraud, is fatal; for then from nature without morals, morals are also invented as if by divine rite, and right is made from wherever it seems good to be called thus, and this illicitly on this effectually materialistic model. The trouble is that NOTHING  is ever found when one demands to see evolutionary acts happen as noted from Dawkins. NOTHING again, in a different connection, is all that is presented as the ground of the causally connected universe.

That leaves you precisely with nothing to start with, with nature to make itself before it is there to do it, and an indifferent assemblage of anything from nowhere, when it IS there. Hence, there is NOTHING to explain a whole host of features, of which law and logic's own laws are but examples. There is a logical void or there is the everlasting God. Voids are uncreative.

As noted in Dizzy Dashes ... and The Brilliant Harmony of Inevitable Truth, Ch. 6 for example, on this pagan model, there is a total failure in comprehension and coverage on the one hand, and a total success on the other.


What on any naturalistic or monistic ground


in metaphysics is mere discord (cf. SMR Chs.   3,   10),


in aesthetics mere mumble (cf. SMR Ch. 5


in ethics platitude without meaning (News 19),


in epistemology mere vacuity (cf. TMR Ch. 5),


in politics defeatism (cf. Questions and Answers Ch. 7),
or else towers built on invisible clouds,


all reductionist, irrational or both
(cf. What is the Chaff to the Wheat Chs.   3 and ),


now on the ground of supernatural origin of the regimented and volitional natural world,  becomes




in essence predictable,


continually and assuredly verifiable on the ground of the creator,
whose verified word is without inhibition


exhibiting the fitting conclusion, like a thunder-clap to a murder.


In all things on such a basis, specifically the biblical




there remains nothing in the least systematically difficult, whereas on the other model, there is nothing but failure; for there is never explanation for knowledge, existence, division, beauty or morals, but only tired reductionisms, these without power, without ground and without the necessary result. It is simple fact that creationism in general, but more specifically biblical creationism with the creator who has acted and declared Himself verifiably in the Bible (cf. SMR Chs. 1-3, 10, 8-9, 5), accounts for everything as nothing else
either does or can
(cf. Reason, Revelation and the Redeemer).

It is the same in things mechanical, metaphysical, psychological, logical, if you INSIST on doing and thinking in the fallacious direction, then the more you continue, the more disparity from reality, harmony of concept and verifiability you get. Truth is one; error verges on the infinite. The path to life (and for life) is indeed narrow; and the way is constrained, as Christ declared (Matthew 7:15ff.). What is good does not 'arise' from indolence and nullity, but purpose, provision, assiduity, understanding and knowledge, of which only God has enough to cover it all.

OUR task of showing this to be so is like a secondary school effort; in MAKING it so, so that we can follow it up and show it so, there is the need of an infinity of wisdom. God walks; but we plod after: yet it is a very pleasant walk that He walks, suffer as we may, for it is filled with light and operates for His followers, with a sublime beauty. What then of the march in force, of the dereliction from the Deity.

Where this reality as far as may be, by will is absent, you have neither meaning nor liberty nor love, but only the nil assets with which you begin. Devastation is easy. Creation is not. It is not stirred to happen now in physical nature, because God as He stated, did it and then stopped. It is a wonderful word deposit, as in the DNA, of almost inconceivable mathematical complexity, system upon system, production probe, printing and editing being the type of feature, information and information about information, all in strata interactive. It is not easy. It is a world of connotations given denotation, vigorous, made self-active, branded into being; and then no more despatched in kind.

You look for it; but it is not found. You search for it, but it is already implanted. It deteriorates, and it goes. But it is the coming which is the point: that is creation, and the inventive mind of man is in one way, a far greater creation, for it is able to engage in limited scale, in this TYPE of thing, all by itself. The spirit of man is a far greater one still, for it can inspire or fire or defile, love or hate, and is not simply programmed, free to insult or assault God as occasion may offer, deliberately to lie or to have discord with reason.

Similarly, when a child is born there is no use in searching in the womb any further, or imagining thousands of years for its development. Develop it will, ONCE it is emplaced in a due and true prelude format, as will cabbages in good soil. But the continuity of cabbage, like that of man, is not in the same world of action as the making of the seed. To continue in any sphere where you achieve, is certainly NOT the same as founding the thing!

Using the modes of the thing done as if these were the modes of the thing being made is an elaborate obfuscation unworthy of any thought at all. Again, making the seed from the equipment and seeds provided is very different from making the equipment and the seed themselves,  in the first place. Manufacturing involves a lot of parts; but they need emplacement before the easy roll of production. Willing it to be so, this makes no factories. Having theories about such happenings do not turn them into observable events, despite Dawkins' misuse of language. Matter makes no thought. Nothing makes no matter. Start with the eternal adequacy, the God of creation, or simply acknowledge irrationality!

Why bother with self-deception and why decimate science and despoil its once good name, just as they did so willingly and blatantly in Germany as so profoundly attested in Bergman's work, for example ? It is because the spirit of man has its own agenda, as did Hitler, and this godless emptiness and evacuation from observation and logic alike,  serves the purpose of turning this world over to spiritual adventurers, who even (ultimately) deny the significance of spirit as a basis, while using it in their own thoughts, as the most basic, even blindly.

What Germany did to itself, now the world aspires to re-create for ITSELF, albeit with some refinements in the hope it may work better, next time.  To achieve such follies, it becomes necessary to ignore history as well as science; but for the universe, to many a mind, to grab it as a foundling, this seems a bargain. As in all the parallel instances of such drifts in history, indeed such psychic dynamics, the end is always ship-wreck. The seas are too rough for founding it all on the self-contradictory mind of man, who increasingly makes what his mind opines, a person or a thought, to be his god. This the many habitually are doing, leaders of thought, or their servants, while denying the necessary validity of mind first of all, for meaningful assertion on this or any other topic. Indeed, he ignores its validation in results, without minding at all, the contradiction. This is the run of the expanded humanity in the folds of the hapless, alas both deceived and deceiving, waiting on the unworkable, leaning on the unverified, resting in the anti-validated.

It is rather like a contrary type of wife, never content without calamitous contradiction. But there is a harmony where truth lies.