Mandela Effect - Hitler's eyes were brown!

I have to say, I've never been in the slightest doubt that Hitler's eyes were brown.

For as long as I've been aware of him, he's always had brown eyes.

That's because that's what we were taught in school.

originally posted by: Pearj
I have to say, I've never been in the slightest doubt that Hitler's eyes were brown.

For as long as I've been aware of him, he's always had brown eyes.

That's because that's what we were taught in school.

It scares me to think who was running a school where kids learn what Eye color Hitler had.

You don't happen to shave your head do you?

Jokes aside

Was this in a history class where you learnt this or some other class?

Was this in high school or some higher education learning?

I ask because I find it unlikely that this would be a part of the curriculum of a history class in high school.

There are a lot of unimportent facts that people learn with no care for their veracity.
I heard the as all of you that Hitler's eyes were brown , its not importent , so the fact that its not true isnt importent.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Lets start here and herefor a low level explanation.

Now papers, I'm sorry if you can't access some of these, I am based in a contract research organization and have access to a lot of papers. No I'm not going to cut and paste, and violate copyright

Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 598-609 (August 2004) "Deconstructing the relationship between genetics and race"

JAMA. 2004;292(13):1612-1614. Points out that you can't actually pinpoint what genetic traits are in a race.

Pharmacogenomics, 2008 , vol. 9, # 11 p. 1639 - 1645. "Race does not explain genetic heterogeneity in pharmacogenomic pathways "


Quite simply, race is a social construct. SO if we talk about a single gene or mutation, defining a race, you are going to have millions of races within the species. Clearly that is not appropriate.

originally posted by: Pearj
I have to say, I've never been in the slightest doubt that Hitler's eyes were brown.

For as long as I've been aware of him, he's always had brown eyes.

That's because that's what we were taught in school.

Kinda mad, teaching you what colour his eyes were.

I remember seeing pictures of him in an encyclopaedia when I was little and having a conversation about him with my granddad who was a Burma vet.

I guess I should clarify... We were taught that it was ironic / hypocritical for Hitler's ideal race to be blonde haired / blue eyed - when he himself had dark hair and eyes.

It's not just me, many people were taught that.

a reply to: Pearj

Honestly, I have been a Mandela Effect troll on a number of websites... then I seen this thread.

I WAS taught what you referenced above. WTH? Seriously WTH?

a reply to: Noinden

Scientists are not exempt from brainwashing or popular pressure. Just look at the categorical denial of the validity of ufo sightings and abduction literature.

After the Nazis and WWII dealing with races scientifically became taboo.

As I already said, you can quote scientists and so can I. Where does that lead us? I put my trust in my own common sense and the scientists that come from a culture where the concept of race itself isn't inherently taboo.

From your first article:

For an objective, biological definition of race, this genetic differentiation has to occur “across sharp boundaries and not as gradual changes.”

I already debunked this notion in my last post. Since they can't deny the differences between races they move the goalpost. Just because red and blue is part of the same spectrum of colour doesn't mean they're not different.

The other argument is mainly semantic, races do not adhere to the taxonomic classification of race. This ignores the colloquial use of the word, if you want to be pedantic we can call them subspecies.

At the end of the day races are not a social construct but a word describing clear differences between different groups of humans. The only social construct here is the tired but hyped notion of social constructivism.

And obviously we are not talking about a single gene here, that's a straw man.

Of course, when you look at the agenda of globalism these notions being favoured over others suddenly puts things in context. Nation states are obsolete, so are individual cultures. Enforced mixture, multiculturalism and destruction of traditional cultures is the objective here and denying the existence of races is simply one outwards manifestation of this trend.

Pure, geographically separated ancestral populations are an abstraction: “There is no reason to think that there ever were isolated, homogeneous parental populations at any time in our human past.”

Fallacy of the excluded middle. So because different groups aren't completely pure or separated between sharp boundaries there can be no merit to the idea of race.

Let's ignore this intellectual masturbation and talk down to earth facts:

Different groups of humans display different characteristics, these different groups are referred to as races. That's it.

"The notion of race may be real, but the science is not.We are all the same, with no exceptions."

Not gonna read any more than that if the guy starts spouting brainwashed memes like that right off the bat. Of course, "we are all the same".. Egalitarianism has become a sickness, a caricature. No, we are not all the same. Just more doublethink from some conditioned pleb. Seriously think about that statement for a while, "we are all the same".. Are we, really? In what way are we all the same? Because last time I checked there are any number of myriad differences between ALL OF US. Even identical twins differ in their experiences.

This guy is gonna be hypercritical about the down to earth demonstrable notion of races in his article - because of conditioning - yet he'll gladly spout abstract and unfounded mantras like "we are all the same" without being even a little critical. All this science is trying so very, very hard to discredit the idea of race and it is still failing. Science isn't supposed to desperately try to confirm beliefs it has already made its mind up about, and that's what this is looking like.

Relativism and cult like statements like "we are all the same". No thanks, I'm different and I disagree.

And so do these scientists:

racialreality.blogspot.se...

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

No scientists exempt. However, speaking as someone with bioinformatics (specifically genomics) training, and research performed .... Race is not a genetic thing . It is a social thing. This is evidenced quite simply by the percentage differences between the so called races. They are very low. Viz: Nature Genetics 36, S28 - S33 (2004) Ethnicity is not race. People forget this.

Now quote me a peer reviewed journal not a blog thanks.

a reply to: Pearj

It's not just me, many people were taught that.

Many people are taught that Jesus came back to life. Many people are taught things which are not necessarily factual but make a good story. People are often taught things that are just plain wrong.

Some of those people understand that you can't believe everything you are told.

Why do you? Were you not taught critical thinking skills? (Rhetorical)

a reply to: Noinden

You haven't refuted anything. You merely repeated your opinion and asserted your credentials as if that would automatically make you right.

I did counter every one of your positions and also explained the cultural and social context in which these claims are being made. You on the other hand haven't countered even a single point that I made. Instead you just repeated the same claim that I already countered.

Boasian anthropology was agenda driven from day one. Comments?

www.nature.com...

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

My comments return to the point I made a while back. There is no statistical difference between the so called races. Rather, there is a greater difference within them, than between them.

You have yet to be able to counter that fact

There is no agenda, only data.

a reply to: Noinden

I already did that way back..

anthropology.net...

You on the other hand have still not countered any of my points.

Serious question: Is someone trying to drum up interest in this nonsense to push a book or something?

And if not, WHY not?

There's clearly a market.

originally posted by: Greggers
Serious question: Is someone trying to drum up interest in this nonsense to push a book or something?

And if not, WHY not?

There's clearly a market.

I think perhaps Amazon showing the man in the high castle may have gotten folks going a little.

originally posted by: Pearj

For as long as I've been aware of him, he's always had brown eyes.

Funny, I was thinking he'd been dead.

Is he alive in this timeline?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

If you say so. The papers I've shared have all the data to speak to your points.

Again there is no data to corroborate the idea that the idea of race is genetic.

a reply to: Noinden

Again. I have countered all of your points. You haven't countered a single one of mine, you have simply reiterated your points continually without acknowledging anything that I have said.

Just now you completely ignored the blog I posted where someone debunks the mantra you've been repeating.

Neither did you acknowledge the paper that I linked to.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Noinden

I already did that way back..

anthropology.net...

You on the other hand have still not countered any of my points.

Actually your right race has many effects we are just learning about. One of the more interesting is that genetics can even determine how we interact with others. For example in an article they discuss the tribal nature of thr middle east. And how they seem to can't function under a democracy. And it's been suggested that we actually have to wait for a genetic change for that to change.

time.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Very uncommon to have somebody agreeing with me on an issue like this. Liberalism has poisoned the minds of so many that even suggesting these things will get you accused as a racist, and if you're a professional you'll often lose your job for daring to voice such opinions in public.

This despite the overwhelming evidence for it and how readily apparent it is. You don't really even need science to know this, it is obvious. Denying it is just another case of doublethink. Ironically most people do acknowledge race but their conscious minds don't seem to realise it. Notions of black people being superior athletes are widespread and they aren't relegated to conservatives or racists, liberals hold such beliefs too. Another example is the common stereotype of Asians being very intelligent and good at math. But if you would ask these people about it they would probably repeat the same mantras that Noinden has in this thread.

The argument is mostly semantic but when it comes down to it there are differences between different races and they are scientifically verifiable. And neither are they negligible as many would argue.

I was familiar with the article you linked from before, it's a great read and it makes an awful lot of sense. Unfortunately the author was attacked for daring to speak on this very taboo issue. Probably a bunch of virtue signalling sheep trying to show everyone how good they are. Academia isn't immune to ideology and politics, if this was the 30's they'd probably all be on the racial science bandwagon. China is mostly immune to this poisonous denial of anything that isn't politically expedient and they don't deny the reality of race.

Care to actually touch on any of the arguments Noinden? All I'm seeing is a lot of hand-waving and very little substance.