Skip to comments.Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
Posted on 05/27/2009 8:24:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
by Jerry Bergman
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwins theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitlers government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitlers administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the superior race. This required at the very least preventing the inferior races from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latters gene pool. The superior race belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwins original survival of the fittest theory. This philosophy culminated in the final solution, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as inferior races...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
One day people will come to understand the need for nature to take its course. Darwin’s theories should give pause to the fact that “nature will always find a way”. For thousands of years it did not need scientific intervention for things to have come about the way they did.
This article shows such backward, twisted, extremism that is of the lowest sort. To try to exterminate other humans to bring about what nature would bring about naturally is just sick!
Good article and dead accurate. The world has suffered enough from evoloserism; it’s clearly time to get rid of it.
If you argue against Darwinism/evolution, you're arguing against fact. I'm a Christian, and I see clearly that Darwin was exactly right. His theories have been confirmed a thousand ways to Sunday, and it's just sad to see that we are still denying them. Do we want to deny the existence of atoms, too?
Hitler misused everything. Just because survival of the fittest is an undeniable fact doesn't mean that it's a normative statement (that we should practice it).
The only thing Darwin knew about economics was that he was living off of his parents wealth.
Debate all you like, but Hitler’s motivations have absolutely no bearing on the Theory of Evolution’s adherence to evidence.
My point was the author incorrectly attributed this phrase to Darwin.
You may think that you are a Christian, but your post is that of a true dreamer.
Gould admitted hundreds of times that the evidence was in opposition to the premises of evolution; do you think that you know more about it than he did?
Adgerence to evidence? What a laugh!
> If you argue against Darwinism/evolution, you're arguing against fact. I'm a Christian, and I see clearly that Darwin was exactly right. His theories have been confirmed a thousand ways to Sunday, and it's just sad to see that we are still denying them. Do we want to deny the existence of atoms, too?
> Hitler misused everything. Just because survival of the fittest is an undeniable fact doesn't mean that it's a normative statement (that we should practice it).
Sorry for the plagiarism: I couldn't resist. Couldn't have said it better myself, so I chose instead to say what you said again: it bears repeating and putting in bold. Well said!
In some of undergraduate college history classes a number of years back, the question of ‘survival of the fittest’ Darwinism was frequently discussed in relations to Nazism and the Holocaust.
Kind of ironic, almost deja vu’ like, to see an article on this. That being said, Darwinism, as a philosophy and ‘science’, was still 1) a major influence mechanism and 2) dominated thinking during that time.
You obviously missed my point. Adherence or nonadherence, Hitler’s motivations have no effect on the evidence.
> You may think that you are a Christian, but your post is that of a true dreamer.
He says he’s a Christian, who are you to say otherwise?
I’m a Christian, and I happen to agree with what “electron volt” wrote.
“Gould admitted hundreds of times that the evidence was in opposition to the premises of evolution;”
I’d love to hear a source for this claim.
Careful, next thing you know that small facist group will start calling you a liberal,
> Careful, next thing you know that small facist group will start calling you a liberal,
LOL! Being called a “liberal” is the grown-up FRee Republic equivalent of being called a “poo-face” or a “meany” when you’re a kid. It smarts a little the first time but loses its sting when the adults are around.
Google ‘nazi anthropologist’ as a lead in to get more information on this topic.
Oc course by the standards of the evolutionists, these guys were highly credentialed and degreed scientists, so we should take every word they made as gospel.
There are some good links under that search string! I will be sure to post some of them in the future :o)
The Godfather of American Liberalism [HG Wells]
Thanks for the heads up...I’ll give it a read!
Thanks for the ping!
John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. Would you want to do without his work?
Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the BS that you post here suggesting that Hitler’s atrocities might not have happened had it not been for Darwin’s ideas is true.
The fact remains that it has no bearing on the scientific validity of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.
It is merely an exercise in guilt by association...one of the most common logical fallacies.
John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. Would you want to do without his work?That's just......sad.
To: Borges Not sure what you mean.
The “extermination” of the native peoples can be seen as an example of the survival of the fittest, since disease carried away most of the Indians who died. But disease is also responsible for the failure of Europeans to colonize most of Africa, Certain places, such as West Africa, were known as the white man’s graveyard.
I agree in part, people are also products of their time period and shouldn’t be judged by our own time period.
But with regard validating the theory of eugenics, the influence was catastophic for millions of people, so not inconsequential or “off-handed” in the least.
I don’t think we can let some people totally off the hook for their ‘influences’, even if they did not know where their influence would lead.
History is a harsh judge.
What is sad?
I think the point is that the evidence had a great deal of effect on Hitler's motivations.
Creationists may be using Hitler to discredit Darwin, that is true. But the evidence suggests that Darwin's ideas DID influence Hitler and a lot of other eugenicists ... even to this day.
This is not an attack on the validity of Darwin's ideas. But it is one of MANY disturging outcomes from them. Biological determinism has proven to be a dangerous concept in practice.
Stating so isn't all that controversial.
Rule #1......in the end, always try to pin your opponent to the Nazis.
Hillary is Hitler
Bush is Hitler
Those that believe in Evolution are Hitler
Let’s see....the “logic” here is that the Theory is “bad” because Nazis used notions of it to make policy and killed millions of people....right?
So....GUNS are “bad” because people use them and kill millions of people......right?
No no no....you’re not a REAL Christian....not the right KIND of Christian.
Lemme guess.....you don’t believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? You don’t believe that Man survived in a time of a hundred species of man-eating dinosaurs?
YOU’RE NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN....OFF WITH YER HEAD!!!
It’s exactly this “you’re not the right brand of ‘religion X’” mentality that is and always has been the ruination of a civil society that has the belief in god(s).....this mentality is one machete away from cutting off heads in front of a camera....one law away from forced conversion....one lunatic away from religious-based genocide.
Hitler was a vegetarian ... ergo, vegetarians are Nazis.
Marx was born in 1818, over a century after Locke's death. If Locke was a materialist, it had nothing to do with Marx's influences, or those of those who immediately influcencd Marx, notably Feuerbach and Hegel.
Where do you get that????
The conquistadors were basically in it for the money and the only protection the Indians ever had was the church people who came along with. Prior to the white man landing in the Americas of course, the biggest problem most central and south Americans had in life was getting cooked and eaten by Aztecs and Mayas. Christians put a stop to that sort of crap in the bargain.
I phrased my statement badly. I meant you could trace Marx’s thought partially to Locke.
Careful, next thing you know that small facist group will start calling you a liberal,Which group would that be?
Read his books!
“Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.”
—Yes, Hitler believed that through selective breeding that change can be produced within a ‘kind’, but he didn’t believe that speciation could occur. So his beliefs are identical to that of modern Creationists.
“Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role.”
—Strange, if Darwinism played such a critical role, one would expect that maybe Hitler would have, you know, mentioned Darwin - at least ONCE - in his book, or one of his MANY speeches, or at one of his MANY meetings - or maybe just in passing (there were so many people recording his words, whether at meetings or just in casual conversations, that several books have been published using the notes, such at “Table Talk”). And yet, no evidence (AFAIK - someone correct me if I’m wrong), that he ever once in his life uttered “Darwin”. And this is from someone who borrowed from everything in culture to try to justify his ideology (even opera - Richard Wagner).
What were Hitler’s beliefs regarding nature and evolution?
First, he believed that we were created - as is:
“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will. Mein Kampf
As with Creationists, Hitler argued that the boundaries between species were definite, as opposed to evolutionists who argued that such boundaries were more or less arbitrary and created out of convenience:
Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature’s rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.
Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature’s restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
-Contrast this with Darwin who said: It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists minds, when they speak of species It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable. and I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.
And not only are their clear lines of demarcation - but those lines cannot be crossed, creatures can only “multiply their kind”:
‘Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law—one may call it an iron law of Nature—which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.’...
“The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc.”
A quote I see quite often, and used again in this article is this:
Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if
such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.
Read in context the principle hes talking about there isnt natural selection, but a principle against race or species mixing, hes making an argument against miscegenation. Hitler calls miscegenation a sin against the will of the eternal creator.”
You won’t find Darwin arguing against miscegenation or talking about “racial purity”. And the idea of “higher” and “lower” species in Darwininism is silly - all extant species are equally “evolved” and all are branches that reach the top of the evolutionary tree. No species holds a special place.
An idea that DID rank species is the old Creationist idea of “The Great Chain of Being”, which Hitler expresses here:
“This is only too natural. Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. You won’t find anything like this in “Origin”. This is Creationist Chain of Being talk.
So where did Hitler get his cruel ideas about “higher” and “lower” species and “racial purity” and rules against “miscegnation”, etc if not from Darwinism?
Actually, from pre-Darwinism Creationists such as Gobineau.
Gobineau isn’t well known today, but he was once quite popular. Chamberlain, for instance, was a loyal Gobineau follower.
Gobineau believed that there were various human races which could be ranked, and that they must remain separate, or in whatever nation they are mixing the nation and culture would deteriorate and fall. It was he who began calling the white, northern europeans “Aryans” (sound familiar?), and claimed that the Aryans were the greatest race and had the highest culture. His most famous book is “Essay on the Inequality of Human Races”, from 1855. In it he wrote that the Aryans must actively wipe out, or at least separate, from the “inferior” races before civilization falls.
Here’s Hitler giving Gobinism in a nutshell:
“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Can anyone imagine Darwin saying anything like that?
Here’s more Gobineau, this will all sound familiar to anyone that’s read Hitler:
“A nation does not derive value from its position; it never has and never will. On the contrary it is the race which has always given - and always will give - to the land its moral, economic and political value... The purer a race keeps its blood, the less will its social foundations be liable to attack; for the general way of thought will remain the same.”
The lost purity of the blood alone destroys inner happiness forever, plunges man into the abyss for all time, and the consequences can never more be eliminated from body and spirit.
“Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people.”
And here’s Hitler again:
“A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood, thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its manifestations”.
The Nazis believed that misceganation would combine what God had created separate (the same reason Bob Jones U gave for not allowing interracial dating).
Hitler follows Gobineau to a T. What the Nazis were practicing was not Darwinism - but Gobinism.
Hitler got ideas from other influential Creationists as well - a race must rule or be ruled:
“Nations and races, like individuals have each an especial destiny: some are born to rule, and others to be ruled. And such has ever been the history of mankind. No two distinctly marked races can dwell together on equal terms.”- Josiah Nott “Types of Mankind” 1854
So Hitler was a Creationist who got his ideas primarily from other Creationists.
The above quotes were all Mein Kampf. Let’s try a source that gives more private thoughts, like Table Talk.
“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” - Table Talk. (Self explanatory I think)
“A skull is dug up by chance, and everybody exclaims ‘That’s what our ancestors were like.’ Who knows if the so-called Neanderthal man wasn’t really an ape? What I can say, in any case, is that it wasn’t our ancestors who lived there in prehistoric times.”
“Who’s that little Bolshevik professor who claims to triumph over creation? People like that, we’ll break them. Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.”
The name Hitler was looking for there is “Oparin”. He came up with a hypothesis for abiogenesis very similar to what Urey and Miller came up with. The idea of a materialistic beginning of life outraged Hitler. This perhaps gives us an idea of what he may have thought of Darwin (that is, if he ever DID think of Darwin, who, for all we know, Hitler never did think of).
I could bring up many other Creationist sources for Hitler’s ideology (Martin Luther’s “The Jews and their Lies”), but I think this is enough for one post.
I’ll end this with some thoughts that actually ARE from Darwin:
As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man
“Read his books!”
As someone who’s read all his books (and articles, and many of his published articles in journals), I’d like a source as well. :-)
The clearest “source” is his book “Wonderful Life”
Hitler was a full-on evolutionist, and he had a seething hatred for Christianity. Indeed, he planned on destroying Christianity at the first opportunity. Surely you know all this?
What I know from Hitler are from his book, his many speeches, and the many notes taken from his personal chats.
All of it has him repeatedly arguing for the “iron law of Nature” that places “definite limits” on how much a species can change and only allows species to “multiply after their kind”. Of people who believes in materialistic origins of life he says “we’ll break them”.
Every bit of Hitler’s ideology on the subject sounds loud and clear like those of many pre-Darwinian Creationists, especially Gobineau. And most of it would still fit right in place in any modern Creationist article.
Many of Hitler quotes I used (and I could dig up more) if quoted here with no citation would have received a round of “amen”s from the Creationists.
If you have sources on his thoughts that I missed, I’d love to see them.
If you have sources on his thoughts that I missed, Id love to see them.
That's somewhat surreal.
I realize Hitler quoted scripture to the masses in Nuremberg, but even the most braindead, misled, misguided person alive today would get that he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination a Christian.
But then again I see people driving cars around here with Obama stickers on one side of their bumpers with pro-life stickers on the other side.
More proof that in the liberal world, up is down, down is up.