"Hitler's Table Talk" Study Hour: Episode 11

Published by carolyn on Thu, 2014-05-22 12:17
 
00:00

May 22, 2014

Joseph Goebbels on his wedding day in Dec. 1931, with Magda's 10 yr. old son walking beside him. Hitler, walking behind dressed in coat and hat, was best man. The Church put Goebbels under a ban for marrying a Protestant, but he still had to pay the church tax.


Carolyn Yeager and Ray Goodwin read and comment on the October 24-30th, 1941 dinner table conversation and monologues by the German Leader, taken down in shorthand by trusted aide, attorney Heinrich Heim.  Topics included in this episode:

  • Religion and the Church versus science;
  • The beauties of the Ancient World and the destruction of antiquity and the past;
  • The fate of Europe's Jews for their responsibility in bringing on war;
  • Vision of a strong and great Europe with the addition of Ukraine;
  • Thoughts on motorized war, the qualities of Croatians, National-Socialism, training of teachers, the art and culture of Paris;
  • A number of distinguished guests were present at these meals.

The edition of Hitler's Table Talk being used was translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, published by Enigma Books, New York, and can be found as a pdf here.

Comments

Hitler, as most people, thought Evolution is science. While micro-evolution (aka variation within the kind) is scientific and observable, macro-evolution is not. It's a state sponsored religion, sold as fact. This Darwinian theory is mentioned in the Protocols to cause confusion and destroy faith in a creator. Darwinism was mandatory indoctrination in the USSR. Watch: Lies in the textbooks: 

http://youtu.be/b8GgrUposII

http://www.dailystormer.com/dc-anti-islam-bus-ad-features-adolf-hitler/

Anglin says Table Talk is fake. 

http://youtu.be/_DqqrQMKuHA

Croat bloodline (migrants from the North that were conquered by Slavs). 

I have been to Paris and Vienna. Paris is very grey. It is far bigger than Vienna, but it lacks spirituality. Vienna is more artistic and inspiring. Vienna used to be the capitol of the Holy Roman Empire, while Paris is very cosmopolitan.  

Markus, I can respect your disbelief that humans evolved from another species but please to not lump those of us who believe in macro-evolution with Russian communists.  Darwin is an example of a great mind that was produced by Western Culture.  Christianity, while it helped shaped Western Civilization in positive ways, by constrast is a creation of the orient and basically philo-Semitic at heart.  Jesus was Jewish; if you worship him as a God you are basically worshipping a Jew.  I say this with the assumption that you're a Christian who takes the bible literally rather than metaphorically.  

let's see how we can create life out of non-life and let's see in an empirical experiment a macro-evolutionary metamorphosis. You don't even know what empirical means, I suppose. 

I have never said, I'm a Christian and there is disputes whether jesus was a Jew. Hitler thought, Jesus was a Gallian, a Frankian, an Aryan Germanic. 

I'm not lumping in anyone. I'm pointing out the fact that Darwinism is part of the Protocols to deceive the Goy. It was a state sanctioned religion, sold as fact in Communism and it is pushed in the Western world as fact, as well. 

Did you even watch the film? Just because the speaker is a Christian, doesn't mean I am. But his exposing the lies of macro-evolution are striking. 

I've been to both capitals too. According to Google,

Paris: 40 sq miles; 2.2 million population (lots of Muslims)

Vienna: 160 sq. miles; 1.7 million population.

You decide which is bigger. Since Vienna is more spread out, it would not seem as crowded.

Anglin says Table Talk is fake.

Despite fake quotes from the fake “Table Talks,” Hitler was not “pro-Islam,” save in that he found some leaders from the Muslim world he was able to work with to achieve his own goals for Europe.

What Anglin knows about anything you can put in a thimble. That Hitler was not pro-Islam is NOTHING NEW. I had to argue that by myself 3 or 4 years ago to those who wanted to believe he was. I'm not aware of Hitler saying any such things in Table Talk. Andrew should quote the quotes he's referring to if he wants to be taken seriously.

Finally, I don't think that youtube video proves anything about Croatians. The map is useless and makes it hard to read the text, which is the only useful part.

Markus, imo, you are too easily persuaded by videos and expect others to sit through them just because you do.

Markus writes:

Greater Paris (dissolved as governmental district in 1968) is 185 sqm. That's what I am referring to, which is another 1-2 million citizens and is also bigger in size.

http://www.chick.com/bc/1987/evolution.asp

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

Just because Macro-Evolution is not scientific, does't mean that Creationism is. No one knows, but Evolutionists pretend they do to get state funding and deceive pupils.

Markus, you are using "Chick" publications as a reference?  The creators of such garbage as the little tract entitled "Love the Jews"!  Now I know you are off the deep end!

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1000/1000_01.asp

What does it matter where it is linked? You just divert and look for an easy way not to respond to the content. 

I think it does matter where it comes from, but Rick should still respond to your three quotes and your conclusion.

The russian bolshevik who attacked the supreme, may be Anatoly Lunacharsky, who staged a trial against god, for 6 hours, 17 january 1918, and then firing at the sky. It's weird, english wikipedia of him doesn't have this fact of his bio but other languages, like the spanish one, have it.

I think you are most likely right! After reading about him, it seems almost a certainty. He died in 1933, so Hitler would surely have been aware of him. He was the first Soviet People's Commissar of Education. This is what he believed:

 ... held that God would be replaced by man as an object of worship. It did not mean that single individuals would be worshipped, but rather the entire potential of the human race and all its achievements would be the object of worship.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building#Lunacharsky

Lunacharsky wished to change the commandment to love God above everything into, 'You must love and deify matter above everything else, [love and deify] the corporal nature or the life of your body as the primary cause of things, as existence without a beginning or end, which has been and forever will be.

I find it a waste of time to argue with creationists; they don't think scientifically, they think emotionally and distort reality to fit a world view that is pleasant to them.  Creationists use rhetoric, not science to prove their points about evolution; therefore for them it is more about linguistical evasion and word games then it is about uncovering the truth.  

Statement #1

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book.  If i knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not on such fossil for which on could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Coin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)"

In this statement Dr. Colin Patterson is referring to direct lineage of a specific species.  Archaeopteryx (a bird-like reptile with wings) for example may be a direct descendant of birds or it may have been a side branch that evolved from the same ancestors of birds.  Humans in comparison evolved from the same ancestor as modern chimpanzees but did not evolve from modern chimpanzees.  We split evolutionary ways with gorillas and organgutans at an even earlier date; therefore you are not going to find any transitional fossils between gorillas and humans.  You do have several examples of transitional fossils that link modern humans with a chimpanzee-like ancestor.  Modern chimpanzees, which stayed within the confines of the jungles, did not diverge to the degreee that we did because the open savannah habitat in which we evolved had different evolutionary pressures.  Read "Before the Dawn:Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors" by Nicholas Wade for more information on the topic.

Markus, here is my reference; notice how I didn't just cut and paste but actually interpreted the essay

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Statement #2

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only becasue it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. MichaleWalker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.


This statement from Dr. Michael Walker has been clipped; the full statement reades:

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only becasue it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences"

This quote comes from Walker's seesay "To Have Evolved or To Have Not? That is the Question".  Walker, who was Catholic, is questioning the validity of using evolution to explain the development of human culture; he is not criticizing the reality of evolution itself or challanging facts showing that we evolved from another species.  Walker even goes so far as to call creationism "scientifically bankrupt" and "sterile bible [sic] bashing".

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig evo and morals.htm (Link does not work because of blank spaces - web search "Another dishonest attempt by AiG to link evolution and morals".

As far as human culture and evolution, a recent book by Nicholas Wade called "A Troublesome Inheritance" actually makes arguments for the role of evolution and human civilization and was featured as a topic on "Vanguard Radio" with Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and John Derbyshire.

http://www.radixjournal.com/vanguard-radio/

Too bad you didn't leave off the last paragraph, Rick. Speaking of the respectibility of the source, I would not use Richard Spencer's Radix Journal. Look at the names featured  in there: Queers Jack Donovan and Greg Johnson (several times), anarchist Keith Preston, race-mixers Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire ... the other names I don't know are probably of the same caliber and persuasions.

P.S. I've got more to say about Greg Johnson in The Heretics' Hour tomorrow, so I'm actually glad you brought this to my attention. It all fits in quite well. Thanks.

Carolyn

Thanks for the response; the main focus for me was the book they were covering by Nicholas Wade.  The book in question "Troubling Inheritance" is quite philo-Semetic in many aspects but at the same time it is very subversive to the Cultural Marxists.  Wade wraps his theories in philo-Semetic rhetoric only to bash several prominent Jews in the field of sociobiology including Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, and Stephen Jay Gould.  

Looking forward for your show tomorrow.

Rick,

i already told you that I do not endorse the creationist alternative view either. Creationists like Evolutionists both act emotionally when it comes to their interpretations. But, the macro-evolutionary interpretation is no less religious as the creationary one. 

Science is limited to the provable and repeatable. Breeding and cross-breeding of dogs, humans, (blue, white, yellow) corn, etc is 100% scientific. Theories of the origins are just that, theories. Not empirically repeatable. And there are two major religions that accompy both interpretations. Theism and Atheism. Atheism though disguises itself as scientific since it bases its worldview on scrict material origins to get state funding and masquarades as science, when it is not. It is pure speculation, just as Theism. 

Again, I am neither an evolutionist nor a creationist, but limit my opinion on what's scientifically verifiable. And that is merely micro-evolution. Another religion, how things got here is the Hinduistic (everything has always been here, there is no beginning and no end) or that Aliens somehow planted life on earth. Nothing can be proven. 

But, it is clear that the USSR and now all "democracies" push evolution and Darwinism is mentioned in the Protocols to destroy civilization. 

Ernst Haekel's drawings where fake and his university tried him for that, yet textbooks still use it to push an agenda (That we came from animals and therefore it's ok to behave like animals - goyim). Hovind doesn't make that connection but is a Jew worshipping Hitler-basher. He draws false conclusions in this regard. Kind of like Alex Jones, who explains Bilderberg's agenda correctly but projects it on imaginary Nazis. 

I used to argue with people so they would not put all the blame for WWII on Germany alone.  My tendency is to think both sides lead to such grand conflicts.  But Germany might be one of the rare innocent parties in war, especially in light of some of things discussed in this series.  It was Germany that was simply concerned with its own interests and sovereignty.  The Allies were clearly expansive, aggressive, resistant to negotiation, totalitarian and certainly racist in their policies (England lorded over millions of non-whites).  

Statement #3

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984."

"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" originally comes from French Biologist Jean Rostand who also stated "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution."  This is the nature of science, to balance out contradictory points of view and eventually give more credence to the theory that has tested the weight of time.  Scientific theories are in flux and remain without absolutes, therefore they are continually questioned and challenged from various angles within scientific circles.  If a theory cannot be disproven through research and testing it remains standing.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html  

Statement #4

"Just because Macro-Evolution is not scientific, doesn't mean that Creationism is.  No one knows, but Evolutionists pretend they do to get state funding and deceive pupils."

This statement ignores the tens of thousands of other papers that give credence to macro-evolution.  You cannot throw all your faith behind a few misquoted passages found on a "Christian Zionist" webpage.

That's like saying the holocaust happened because there is a concensus and if you don't comply, you lose your job. Darwinism is Communist in nature. There is no science behind macro-evolution other than a concensus and wishful thinking that it must have happened. This should be obvious to anyone who looked into this critically, regardless of their world view. You keep believing in that, I don't mind. But don't call it science because it is not. Empirical science is even more ridiculous. Just because some Christians use this to push their world view, does not falsify the fact that macro-evolution (Darwinism) is baseless. Many workers fell for Communism, many academics fell for Darwinism. Creation and Evolution are both faith based beyond micro-evolution. That's all that's to it. 

People have come to the conclusion that 6 million Jews were not gassed by the Nazis through questioning, researching, and conducting tests.  So far you have not given any evidence that macro-Evolution doesn't exist; "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is not a credible scientific papaer; while it may have some insights it is certainly not gospel.  Darwinism the the creation of the Western Mind and I take exception that you want to hand credit of the revolutionary discovery to the Jews.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
 

Yes. That's how it works every time you debate with an Evolutionists. They simply put the burdon of proof onto the nonbeliever. Evolution is the same as the ancient religions that claimed there were half man/half horse creatures or that a princess kisses a frog to get a husband. Evolutionists simply add "millions of years" and imagination that it must have happened scientifically, and voilà, Macro-Evolution is "empirically evident". The burdon of proof is on the Evolutionist, since he claims it is "empirical science". Let's repeat the process by trial and error. That is how science works, except when it comes to Evolution or the "obviousness of the holocaust". 
I don't judge anyone who simply swallowed the indoctrination and in most cases, it doesn't have a severe impact on ones' morality or world view, but someone like you, who knows there are scams out there of that magnitude, who is aware of the heretic scholars in biology/geology etc, is very disappointing. But you seem to agree with the ADL that the Protocols are fake also. 
This was my last post on this subject. I have gone on for too long and I didn't intend to use Carolyn's forum for a side issue other than stating my initial point. Heil und Segen. 

Add new comment