Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
The wisdom of the ages is that the original sin is knowledge of good and evil. That it is "original" means that it is the main manipulating sin. So in all sin you will likely find that the original sin plays a key role. And so should nazism also be understood in terms of original sin.
The nazi's committed the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is to propose as fact what is good and evil, instead of leaving good and evil a matter of opinion for the spirit to decide.
That is very clearly shown with social darwinism, they proposed as pseudoscientific fact what is good and evil. This sin of social darwinism manipulated the other sins of murder and mayhem, as is clearly shown in the books and speeches of the main figures.
If one proposes as fact what is good and evil, then your behaviour is no longer deffered to who you are as a decisionmaker, but behaviour is deferred to the "scientific" morality to calculate the "best" action. The scientific morality sorts out the best result, using the facts about what is good and evil as sorting criteria. You as a decionmaker are just calculating, sorting, and don't get to decide anything, because the scientific morality won't let you.
The original sin makes people feel high like a monkey in a coconut tree, the way of thought to introduce factual certitude in what is properly a matter of opinion, releases drugs in the brain. You could see the smug high in the eyes of the nazi's knowing with factual certitude the value of their own blood. It is very addictive, and addictions can be enormously difficult to deal with.
The guilt is very widely spread in German society, and with other societies, because all countries engaged to a very significant extent in social darwinism.
And still to this day social darwinism is widespread and on the rise. I can tell you, I have supported the validity of subjectivity for more than 10 years on the internet, and things are only getting worse. I can count exactly 0 people who completely agree with me that subjectivity is valid. There is still significant acknowledgement that social darwinism is wrong in reference to the "naturalistic fallacy", that one cannot get an ought from an is, but there is widespread structural undermining of all subjectivity with the overwhelming great majority of anybody I see on forums on the internet. The original sin lays deep within the psyche of any human being.
The nazi's committed the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is to propose as fact what is good and evil, instead of leaving good and evil a matter of opinion for the spirit to decide.
That is very clearly shown with social darwinism, they proposed as pseudoscientific fact what is good and evil. This sin of social darwinism manipulated the other sins of murder and mayhem, as is clearly shown in the books and speeches of the main figures.
If one proposes as fact what is good and evil, then your behaviour is no longer deffered to who you are as a decisionmaker, but behaviour is deferred to the "scientific" morality to calculate the "best" action. The scientific morality sorts out the best result, using the facts about what is good and evil as sorting criteria. You as a decionmaker are just calculating, sorting, and don't get to decide anything, because the scientific morality won't let you.
The original sin makes people feel high like a monkey in a coconut tree, the way of thought to introduce factual certitude in what is properly a matter of opinion, releases drugs in the brain. You could see the smug high in the eyes of the nazi's knowing with factual certitude the value of their own blood. It is very addictive, and addictions can be enormously difficult to deal with.
The guilt is very widely spread in German society, and with other societies, because all countries engaged to a very significant extent in social darwinism.
And still to this day social darwinism is widespread and on the rise. I can tell you, I have supported the validity of subjectivity for more than 10 years on the internet, and things are only getting worse. I can count exactly 0 people who completely agree with me that subjectivity is valid. There is still significant acknowledgement that social darwinism is wrong in reference to the "naturalistic fallacy", that one cannot get an ought from an is, but there is widespread structural undermining of all subjectivity with the overwhelming great majority of anybody I see on forums on the internet. The original sin lays deep within the psyche of any human being.