There are several problems that jumped out at me in this post. I'll just correct a few of your errors.1. "No mention of Lanz von Liebenfeld’s “Theozoology” and its influential occultism and anti-clerical books."A. Liebenfeld was actually a theist and Nazi who used the bible for inspiration for his racist views. He was a former monk with the Order of Cistercians, of Roman Catholic denomination. In his book he actually included over 100 references cited from the bible for support of his racist ideology. But I guess the author of this blog post didn't feel it was necessary to mention that.2. "Not one single mention of Freidrich Nietzsche’s visions of übermensch-supermen and the death of God. While it has never been reported that Hitler handed his henchmen copies of the Bible it has been reported that he did hand them the works of Nietzsche. “Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man.”"First of all, Nietzsche’s views about "supermen" is often very misunderstood. It isn't about progressing ever forward but simply a "man who overcomes himself, sublimating his impulses, consecrating his passions, and giving style to his character, becomes truly human or --- as Zarathrustra would say, enraptured by the word uber - superhuman...which refers to our true self, and the 'superman' is the one who has transfigured his physis and acquired self-mastery."Another fact is that throughout many of Nietzsche’s writings he supports the mixing of races - the total opposite of the Nazis!"The Poles I considered the most gifted and gallant among the Slavic people; and the giftedness of the Slavs seemed greater to me than that of the Germans - yes, I thought that the Germans had entered the line of gifted nations only through a strong mixture with Slavic blood [XI, 300]- -- Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Walter Kaufmann, pg 284, 312The Nazis distorted many of Nietzsche's writings and took them out of context in order to justify their own ideology. I guess the author of this post didn't want to mention that either.It's funny that the author also includes Wagner and Gobineau, whose theories Hitler was "well schooled" in - and two people who Hitler was very much influenced by. It seems that Hitler was more influenced by these individuals than Nietzsche. -- Holocaust: A History, by Deborah Dwork & Robert Jan van Pelt, pg 23It's funny that the author tries to deflect the blame on all these other influences in order to minimize the influence of Christianity's anti-semitism, which Hitler did mention in his writings. For example:"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."Also,"Race, however, does not lie in the language, but exclusively in the blood, which no one knows better than the Jew, who attaches very little importance to the preservation of his language, but all importance to keeping his blood pure." To Hitler, "[b]lood sin and desecration of the race are the original sin in this world and the end of a humanity which surrenders to it," which is very similar to a verse found in Leviticus 17:11-14, since Hitler claims, that "in the blood alone resides the strength as well as the weakness of man."-- Mein Kampf, pgs 312, 272, 372This is one link showing the similarities of biblical racism in the bible and his ideology. More information can be found in Hector Avalos's Fighting Words.Richard Dawkins did not set out to show every single influence of Hitler's. He is not a historian and was only trying to refute the argument that Hitler was an atheist. That's it, so there was no need to mention anything else. You act like he was hiding things when you misrepresent his intentions. He was only discussing one issue, and these other things are not important if he was just discussing that one thing.This post - like all others on this silly site - is just a bunch of whitewashing of history and the truth. Pathetic.
"one sentence referencing the “unscientific eugenics theory""Perhaps one sentence is enough. Do you wish to assert that "eugenics theory" (whatever that really means) is "scientific"? What "experiments" do you want to reference in the "scientific literature"? What "authorities" can you quote that have the opinion that "eugenics theory" is scientific?If "eugenics theory" is not scientific, what's the point? That a megalomaniac was willing to grasp at anything that would allow him to increase or hold onto his power? So what?All of your ranting is completely irrelevant to both atheism and science (as usual). But Christianity has a long history of antisemitism and that does seem relevant."No mention of Francis Galton the originator of the “science” of eugenics."So you agree that eugenics is not science?