Exciting New Info On Crazed Octogenarian

Another slant, let's say, if not actual information. That bastion of pre-enlightenment thought, beliefnet, manages to politicize belief, or religify politics, w/ a couple of examples of the alleged USHMM murderer's ideas on "genetics."

Straight from the alleged murderer's mouth/keyboard:

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated [...] on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal.

We cite that mostly for the proof that octo(alleged)-killer "WAS A LEFTIST!!!" The carefully collected quotes go downhill from there, ending w/ this:

Our Founding Fathers were Aryans, men of good breeding who understood, empirically, the great differences existing between strains of horses; strains of live-stock; races of men; and between individuals: knowledge confirmed today by the natural sciences of Genetics, Eugenics, and Anthropology. Hitler, as American boobs are beginning to learn, was not all wrong.

Where does our beliefnet author leap from the spew he's quoted?

No, he doesn't cite Darwin by name in the part of his book that's readable online -- the first 6 of 12 chapters. But do you get the general drift? And you want to tell me that ideas don't have consequences?

Well, you have to make hay while the sun shines. Typist Klinghoffer, it just so happens, grinds an axe for the Discovery Institute. Were we to make any leaps from the mere title of Klingy's pile, we'd think he had an interest in a religio-fascist theocracy (if you'll pardon us the redundancy) based on a self-serving interpretation of "the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible."

And we might want to notice that besides whatever crazed shout-outs Brunn gave to Hitler's re-cycling of age old bull (Not too many of that ol' Hebrew War God's people were big on race-mixing either, were they? Mostly genocide, but spare the women for slavery, as we recall.) he also gives it up for the Founding Fathers & the "natural sciences of Genetics, Eugenics, and Anthropology." Not seeing "Evolution" anywhere in there. Think there's a reason Darwin isn't "cited by name" in the readable portion of the book? To suggest that doctrines of racial superiority are a consequence of Darwin's codification of nature's selection process (rather than a sad reflection of eternal human nature) & to use a heinous & political murder to smear poor dead Darwin, only exposes the weakness of the Discovery Institute's positions on virtually everything.

Everything? Sure. They seem awfully interested in Russia. We'd guess they think they can mobilize all the Orthodox sheep, as long as they're kept sheep-like by the imposition of state Orthodoxy. If you'd like to come to a different conclusion, please do read some of it. Telebision beckons us.