From Darwin to Hitler, or not?

| 106 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Last month, Robert Richards, a noted historian of science, particularly evolution, at the University of Chicago, gave a talk, ‘The Narrative Structure of Moral Judgments in History: Evolution and Nazi Biology.’ See the event listing. The talk has been attracting some attention on the blogosphere, i.e. Light Seeking Light and Red State Rabble.

The Richards talk is described in a reasonably detailed news account from the University of Chicago student newspaper, the Chicago Maroon. According to the news story, Richards addressed the arguments of historians (unnamed in the news article) that “made [Charles] Darwin and [Ernst] Haeckel complicit in the crimes of the Nazis, though both had been dead for decades before the rise of the Nazis.”

Richards set up some general principles for judging actors in history, and then addressed Darwin and Nazism:

While Richards maintained that the moral judgments are unavoidable in narrative history, he did offer his audiences several principles to govern these moral judgments. First, he said, there is “the supreme principle of assessment,” which should evaluate all actions with the same moral core. Other principles included understanding the intention and beliefs of the actor, and the actor’s motive for acting.

Based on these principles, Richards concluded that it could only be “tendentious” and “dogmatic” to condemn Darwin for Nazism, although Richards confessed that he still has not made up his mind on Haeckel. Ahmed (2005), quoting Richards. Bold added.

This is, of course, rather relevant to the writings of Discovery Institute associate and ID-supporter Richard Weikart, whose book From Darwin to Hitler draws exactly this line:

In Hitler’s mind Darwinism provided the moral justification for infanticide, euthanasia, genocide, and other policies that had been (and thankfully still are) considered immoral by more conventional moral standards. Evolution provided the ultimate goals of his policy: the biological improvement of the human species. Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 215

Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism – or at least some naturalistic interpretations of Darwinism – succeeded in turning morality on its head. Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 233

Numerous ID supporters have promoted the Darwin-to-Hitler thesis, wielding Weikart’s book. Weikart has done essentially nothing to restrain his colleagues, despite popping up to reply to his critics on essentially every forum and discussion board. See previous PT posts, such as this one, for documentation.

I don’t know if Richards discussed Weikart’s book specifically – I bet he did, but there is no evidence on this at the moment – but his critique of the general argument is apropros. In terms of Hitler’s inspiration, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel is certainly much closer to the root of Hitler’s evil than Darwin. Quite a list of factors favor this view:

  • Haeckel died in 1919 and was active in the early-20th century German discourse that Hitler read
  • Haeckel lived and worked in Germany
  • Haeckel was an anti-Semite and campaigning biological racist
  • Haeckel was a strong, explicit promoter of eugenics
  • Haeckel was a strong, explicit promoter of morally radical atheistic philosophies like monism (Weikart makes much of the alleged overturning of conventional religion and moral standards in Germany)

Darwin, on the other hand,

  • died a generation earlier
  • lived and worked in England, not Germany
  • was racist but basically in a similar fashion to Abraham Lincoln
  • was not a promoter of eugenics
  • was not pushing atheism or radical moral philosophy, and instead argued that evolutionary theory fit well with the long-established natural law tradition of morality

It seems clear that Haeckel-to-Hitler (whatever the limitations of that view) is far more plausible than Darwin-to-Hitler. Even in the index to From Darwin to Hitler, Weikart mentions Haeckel on about 82 pages, while Darwin gets mentioned on only 49.

So what does Richard Weikart, the author of From Darwin to Hitler, say about the Haeckel-to-Hitler thesis?

“As I reformulated my study on evolutionary ethics to include discussions on the value of human life, another topic became inescapable: the influence of this discourse on Hitler. Hitler was not even on my radar screen when I began my research, and Daniel Gasman’s one-sided attempt to link Haeckel and Hitler made me wary.” Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. x, Preface

“Hardly anyone has pursued the thesis of a single dominating influence on Hitler more relentlessly than Daniel Gasman with his Haeckel-to-Hitler hypothesis. […] However, Gasman’s approach is too blinkered, ignoring the huge disparities between Haeckel and Hitler. In many respects Haeckel lined up with liberal progressives of his time, promoting the peace movement and homosexual rights, among other liberal causes. Gasman makes altogether too much ado about Haeckel’s anti-Semitism, which, though misguided, was not a likely source for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. For one thing, Haeckel’s anti-Semitic utterances are extremely rare, and they are much milder than Hitler’s. Also, there were many anti-Semitic thinkers in the early twentieth century whose views are much closer to Hitler’s. Even many socialists, including some Marxists, jumped on the eugenics bandwagon.

Also, Gasman cannot prove that Hitler ever actually read any of Haeckel’s works, so whatever influence Haeckel allegedly exerted on Hitler may have been mediated by others. Indeed Haeckel’s works were widely read in the early twentieth century, and it would not be surprising if Hitler read one or more of them. However, many eugenicists, racists, and anti-Semites peddled Haeckel’s ideas, too, and they were widely discussed in the popular press, so it is not at all unlikely that Hitler imbibed them through others. Thus, Gasman is right to point out that Haeckel’s ideas were an important influence on Hitler, but they by no means provided the ideological foundation for facism, and Haeckel was by no means a proto-fascist.” Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 217

“The Haeckel-to-Hitler (and Haeckel-to-Fascism) thesis is pursued relentlessly by Daniel Gasman in The Scientific Origins of National Socialism (London, 1971), and Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology (New York, 1998). Gasman’s work is not highly regarded by most historians, and with good cause.” Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 235, Endnote 4 of the Introduction

To quote Jon Stewart, “Whaaaaa?” Weikart says that Haeckel-to-Hitler is bogus, but then writes a whole book devoted to From Darwin to Hitler? Something doesn’t add up here.

Reference

Usman Ahmed (2005). “Richards addresses moral role of historians at Ryerson Lecture.” Chicago Maroon, April 15, 2005.

1 TrackBack

Last year, I wrote a post called From Darwin to Hitler, or not? This post discussed the book From Darwin to Hitler by historian Richard Weikart, who just happens to be a Discovery Institute fellow. The thesis of the... Read More

106 Comments

hmm. and to think i always stopped with this ridiculous darwin-hitler thing whenever i saw:

“— or at least some naturalistic interpretations of Darwinism “

which is what all of the bs related to social darwinism always boils down to.

‘was racist but basically in a similar fashion to Abraham Lincoln’

I don’t think that’s a good comparison.

Darwin may have been racist but no more so than anyone else in Victorian England at the time and most probably less.

I went to a talk by Mary Poplin, a professor of Christian education and education for disadvantaged students. Not to detract from her noteworthy achievements in bringing education to those who need it most, but some of her views aren’t what people whould be taught. After hearing her discuss the notion that all lines of thought stemming from non-Christian sources had aspects of “evil” to them, I asked what she thought of the possibility that mainstream (i.e. actual) science could be marginalized by Lysenkoist programs. I mentioned the case of evolution being rejected in Stalin’s USSR. Her response, “well, Darwin was a racist, and Hitler based his views on Darwinism.” And on from there, with a smiling and “oh, so moderate and open-minded am I” tone. Mary seemed to be bubbly rather than malicious with her musings about God helping out scientists by sending visions to their wives, but some of these people really don’t get it–some of them even profess to hate PCism, all the while putting on a smiling face and acting as if they’re open to all these new possibilities when they don’t care what anyone else is going to tell them.

The theme of the talk was how she came to be a Christian, after realizing that her radical feminism open-mindedness really wasn’t open-minded at all. I neglected to mention that she should try converting to Christianity again, if it’s all about dispelling false mysticism and seeing clearly.

Something Fishy In Africa.

The fossil of a previously unknown Boneless fish is the oldest fish fossil to be found in Africa

“These exciting fossils will help fill in the ‘missing link’ in the evolutionary history of very early fishes,” Professor Aldridge said. Each new fossil find helps to paint a more complete picture, and indicate when various new adaptations evolved. “The fossil record confirms that the evolution of fish was a step-wise event,” explained Professor Aldridge. “The various characters that make up a fish, or a vertebrate, didn’t all appear at once - they were added one-by-one through evolutionary time.

Apoligies if this has been on PT before.

What always amuses me about the “Darwin to Hitler” argument is that it presupposes that ideas about racial purity and supremacy didn’t exist prior to Darwin. Not only that but it also supposes that people had never justified their actions/ideas by appealing to the “good of the {insert grouping of choice here}”. Not to mention the GLARING strawman in the claim that evolutionary biology specifically advocates that things be done for the good of the species, as if the species were the sole unit of selection and as if that were the “point”.

Sadly for the “Darwin to Hitler” posse one can equally make the case “Muhammed to Hitler” or “Jesus to Hitler” or “Aristotle to Hitler” with similar facility and accuracy. It’s just such a crock that these ideas (evolution and racial purity ideologies) are inextricably linked together.

Social Darwinism my sainted nether regions! Why not have Social Newtonism, which by some “interpretations” must mean that (should we adhere to some of Newton’s more fruity ideas) that because of gravity we must drop people of differing religious views to us out of high windows thus killing them to maintain the purit of our theology?

Bah!

What always amuses me about the “Darwin to Hitler” argument is that it presupposes that ideas about racial purity and supremacy etc didn’t exist prior to Darwin. Not only that but it also presupposes that people had never justified their more dubious actions/ideas by appealing to the “good of the {insert grouping of choice here}”. Not to mention the GLARING strawman in the claim that evolutionary biology specifically advocates that things be done for the good of the species, as if the species were the sole unit of selection and as if that were the “point”. There’s just simply too much nonsense in the idea to wade through.

Sadly for the “Darwin to Hitler” posse one can equally make the case “Muhammed to Hitler” or “Jesus to Hitler” or “Aristotle to Hitler” with similar facility and accuracy. It’s just such a crock that these ideas (evolution and racial purity ideologies) are inextricably linked together.

Social Darwinism my sainted nether regions! Why not have Social Newtonism, which by some “interpretations” must mean that (should we adhere to some of Newton’s more fruity ideas) that because of gravity we must drop people of differing religious views to us out of high windows thus killing them to maintain the purity of our theology?

Bah!

Several people have expressed the opinion above, that Darwin was racist. I do not believe that this view can be sustained by the evidence. Although Darwin wrote several passages that could be viewed as racist in effect, he also frequently lauds people of other races, and not in the stilted way that suggests he is praising their acheivement as exceptional for their race, but simply as exceptional (or at least laudatory) simpliciter.

I think a better reading of Darwin is that he was not a racist, but rather a cultural supremacist. He thought the overwhelming difference between an Englishman and a man from another race was, not that the former was English, but that he was bathed in English culture. He found the company of Fuegans on board the Beagle as least as congenial as that of the English sailors, for they had imbibed, for two years, English culture. But Fuegans in their native culure he considered the lowest humans on Earth. The difference, culture rather than race, was the basis of his discrimination.

Regarding Hitler and evolution and creationism, see:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nazis.htm

Attempting to defend Darwin from any direct link to Hitler is obviously only fair in what was a complex history. Also, practically everyone was influenced by Darwin and used him to justify their own views. But when all is said and done the whole tone of cultural discourse was set into a tailspin by Darwin’s (and Spencer’s) work. I was looking at J.Barzun’s _Darwin, Marx, and Wagner_ (from before the Synthesis!, 1941), and he noted just how dreary it was to research the literature of the late nineteenth century in the wake of Darwin’s book, all the forgotten stuff packed off to the archives. The lead up to WWI was filled with pseudo-Darwin. To take it at the high end, compare Kant and Nietzsche (who was critical of Darwin, and yet…). The sudden vicious tone is unmistakable. BTW, even Nietzsche has been quite sanitized, cf. the recent _Nietzsche, Biology, and Metaphor_, dredging up his remarks on extermination. So while Weikart’s work shows still another important thematic coopted by the ID people, sure to discredit everything they touch, the often disastrous thinking induced in many by Darwin can never be taken lightly.

Any theory about survival of the fittest needs vigilance! Even now the genocidal lunatics are out there, and I have met a number, and they never appear in print. All they need is the wrong moment to get activated. Those underground lunatic Darwinians are always there.

I knew someone would crawl out of the slime and try to deflect this topic into one of a connection between Christianity and Nazism. I won my private bet–it was Lenny, with the link to the drivel he provided. Before ya’ll go there, I’ll remind you:

Rutgers university (that hotbed of fundamentalist Christendom) has a Nuremberg project (here is the link)where they are investigating new documents. One major part of the Nazi Master plan was “The Persecution of the Christian Churches.”

The editor of the project, Julie Mandel, said

“A lot of people will say, ‘I didn’t realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.’ … They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity.”

(the Phildelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2002.)

And from a 1945 OSS report: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion”

In light of these, it is clear that Nazis “quote mined” Christianity for their own purposes, that they treated some misguided Christians as “useful idiots” for their own purposes, and that ultimately they would institute a plan of persecution against the church.

Try to stay on topic–which is Darwin and Nazism, not Christianity and Nazism.

What always amuses me about the “Darwin to Hitler” argument is that it presupposes that ideas about racial purity and supremacy etc didn’t exist prior to Darwin. Not only that but it also presupposes that people had never justified their more dubious actions/ideas by appealing to the “good of the {insert grouping of choice here}”. Not to mention the GLARING strawman in the claim that evolutionary biology specifically advocates that things be done for the good of the species, as if the species were the sole unit of selection and as if that were the “point”. There’s just simply too much nonsense in the idea to wade through.

What amuses me about it is that the very idea of a “genetically pure master race”, is anti-evolutionary. Evolution **depends** on genetic diversity, and cannot work without it.

Any “genetically pure master race” would suffer the same fate as a monocultured wheat field when faced with a disease or parasite. Its future would be short, and its demise certain.

As usual, those who mis-use evolution, are also the ones who understand it the least.

“As usual, those who mis-use evolution, are also the ones who understand it the least.”

Too bad the same can be said of nuclear physics?

“I knew someone would crawl out of the slime and try to deflect this topic into one of a connection between Christianity and Nazism”

Slime, eh? Suggesting that Nazism could not have arose without hundreds of years Church sponsored anisemtism is not so much a ‘deflection’ as a counter-explanation. Although the Nazis are probably best understod neither as “Christians” nor “Darwinists” per se, it is difficult to imagine Nazism springing up without either. In fact, it’s utterly ridicuous. The Church paved the way for the extermination of the Jews.

Look at “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s” by Daniel Goldhagen for an in-depth discussion.

All well and good, but what the heck does atheism have to do with “radical moral philosophies” or Nazism? Your fifth item in each of your two lists just doesn’t fit.

Thanks for the link. This is an interesting site and I will be returning often. Regarding the link between Darwin and Hitler, I think that there is a general misconception here about historical causation. Yes, of course, Darwin’s ideas provided scientific rationales for some of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated. Similarly, Marx’s claim to “scientific” authority did the same for the even greater crimes perpetrated in Communist countries. But that is a far cry from saying that Darwin and Marx bear some responsibility for those crimes. History doesn’t work that way.

1) Both Darwin and Marx articulated ideas that were not completely unique to them. Lots of other people were thinking along the same lines and the same general concepts would have emerged regardless of whether or not either man ever wrote a word.

2) The assumption is that absent Darwin or Haeckel there would have been no Hitler (or no “final solution”) and that absent Marx there would have been no Stalin or Mao. I rather doubt that – the organization of modern states, the technologies of control, etc. that underlay the rise of totalitarianism would have emerged regardless of whether these ideas were in the air. And, scapegoat groups would have been persecuted in the pursuit of national and social unity. Even if the justifying ideas were absent the same historical situations were likely to emerge, and there are always sources of justification – religion for instance.

3) Nor does the fact that horrific crimes were committed in the name of “science” invalidate the scientific enterprise any more than the fact that crimes were committed in the name of religion invalidates religion. The ideas are not in themselves determinative. Hitler does not invalidate Darwin, nor Stalin Marx, anymore than Torquemada invalidates Jesus Christ.

If Darwin’s Origin led to Nazism then: Einstein killed hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Wright brothers killed 3000 at the World Trade Centers. Utterly ridiculous.

Any study of the origins of Nazi racial theory has to take into account that it was derived from the Gobineau via Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

Gobineau’s main work on the subject, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, was written in 1853-55, predating Darwin’s publication of his views of evolution.

Christians are understandably sensitive about the holocaust, because it was inspired in large part by the New Testament, and Hitler himself was a self-proclaimed Christian.

Here is Hitler, for example, on the importance of the Passion Play at Oberammergau [just like Mel Gibson’s blockbuster]:

“His blood be on us and our children … [Matthew 27:25], maybe I’m the one who must execute this curse … I do no more than join what has been done for more than 1,500 years already. Maybe I render Christianity the best service ever!” (Adolph Hitler, 1942)

If Christians try to equate the Holocaust with subjects other than Christianity, I suggest referring them to the following articles and images, as well as the Bible, which reveal all too clearly the discomfort that comtemporary Christians have about the Holocaust:

Now where are those links with the Holocaust and evolution?

“I knew someone would crawl out of the slime and try to deflect this topic into one of a connection between Christianity and Nazism.”

Even if there is (at best) an ambiguous connection between Christianity and Nazism, there is certainly no confusion over the DIRECT ROLE Christianity has played in countless other murderous actions.

Oops. Just a technicality, but please replace “Christianity” with “Christians.”

Of course, the role Christians played in Nazism is not ambiguous at all…

…Doesn’t the Bible teach us to kill people who are different than us?

David Heddle Wrote:

.….… In light of these, it is clear that Nazis “quote mined” Christianity for their own purposes, that they treated some misguided Christians as “useful idiots” for their own purposes, and that ultimately they would institute a plan of persecution against the church. ….…..

Here are some photos of some of those Christian “useful idiots”: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

In light of these, it is clear that Nazis “quote mined” Christianity for their own purposes, that they treated some misguided Christians as “useful idiots” for their own purposes, and that ultimately they would institute a plan of persecution against the church.

some misguided Christians?” A whole country’s worth (and then some)? Unfortunately, Christianity is terribly “quote minable,” and so anti-semitism, sectarian disputes, and the use of religioun as a motivating factor for war precede Nazism and Darwin by centuries. Use of scripture for one’s own purposes and belief in the validity of that scripture are not mutually exclusive (e.g., “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”).

Try to stay on topic—which is Darwin and Nazism, not Christianity and Nazism.

The topic is “From Darwin to Hitler, or Not.” In weighing against a theory, one serves the debate better by adducing other hypotheses. I’d suggest that interpretations of Christianity played a far more significant role in Nazi propaganda and belief than interpretations of Darwin and evolutionary theory (which post-date many conceptions of racial/cultural superiority). Thus, this is very much part of the overarching topic under discussion. Cheers,

-TTm

Ambrose, caerbannog, TTm, jjebus, since you can’t stay on topic and can’t grasp a point, I’ll try to direct you.

There is a difference between co-opting something for one own’s advantage and sincere support. The Rutgers works trumps anything written before it, for before the Rutgers project it was possible to argue that Nazis believed their own talk when they misused scripture for anti-Semitic purposes. The Rutgers work shows they despised Christianity. The Rutgers work, alas, does not show that they despised evolution.

So back to Darwin and Nazism. Maybe we could start with Hess’s “national socialism is nothing but applied biology.”

David:

You could.

But I recommend reading Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (a truly classic book) first.

You would thereby learn how irrelevant Darwin was to National Socialism.

How shocking! The Nazis, while claiming to be Christians, persecuted other people who called themselves Christians!

…sounds eerily like what Christians have been doing to one another for the past 20 centuries or so, doesn’t it?

And how can the “persecuted” Christians be distinguished by the “persecuting” Christians, pray tell me? Did you get a phone call from Up There, David, telling you that the Nazis were “no true Scotsmen”?

I don’t have the exact details at hand, but isn’t it the case that Louis Agassiz, one of the most famous 19th century scientists who never accepted Darwinism, was also rabidly racist? I recall a quote included in one of Gould’s essays where Agassiz was literally revolted by an encounter with a black person in America.

Racism and anti-Semitism will use any tool at hand, and as they are looking for a hammer will see any tool as a hammer; when they do, it’s foolish to blame the tool.

ARGH! Heddle that’s another irony meter you’ve blown!

In the same post referring to the co-option of something for one’s own advantage as a defense/rebuttal of the statedly religious (and even christian in places) sections of Nazi ideology, and then claiming a Darwinian basis for certain Nazi ideology. Oh dear.

Everyone knows the Nazis misused a variety of spiritualist and religious doctrines to suit their own ends and garner popular support. Everyone also knows that their latching onto concpets contained in social Darwiniasm (not something I would defend anyway) and evolutionary biology and twisting them to suit their racist and anti-semitic ideals was an equally unsupportable piece of dishonesty.

The only distinction is that evolutionary biology (as Lenny correctly points out) shows that ideas about racial purity being favoured are clearly incorrect and self-defeating, and that various religions (esp christianity in this case) have been used with apparent scriptural justification to “justify” the most abhorrent practices in human history. Mainly due to the simple fact that religion is something dreamt up in the mind to express desires about the universe and science has to deal with reality as it is, not as it wants it to be. Of course if you disagree with that as I am sure you will, please feel free to answer Lenny Flank’s question about why your religious opinions are any more correct than anyone else’s.…..

Please stop flogging your tired old strawman.

Louis,

I agree with you–I absolutely think it is meaningless to tie evolution to Nazism. Of course the Nazis co-opted evolution, and of course this has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of evolution, which is a scientific theory and thus politically agnostic. I was responding in kind to the idiots who wanted to tie Christianity to Nazism, as a deflection. Your hero Lenny is the chief of sinners in this regard.

Jeff Guinn Wrote:

But I recommend reading Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (a truly classic book) first.

‘Road to serfdom’ is probably the lengthiest slippery slope fallacy ever…

Hmmm, David dodged my question. I wonder why.

And how can the “persecuted” Christians be distinguished by the “persecuting” Christians, pray tell me?

What makes the “persecuted Christians” more Christians than the “persecuting Christians”?

Face it, David: as much as you wish it to go away, history has shown us countless examples of Christians (both as individuals and as organizations) harassing, torturing, murdering other Christians (as well as non-Christians, of course).

Do you know where the real difference is, between “Darwin-to-Hitler” and “Luther-to-Hitler” reasoning?

That we do have a way to see whether the Nazis were “Darwinists” (hint: they weren’t), whereas we don’t have any such way to check whether Nazis were “Christians” (unless one takes the entirely ludicrous idea that David Heddle’s opinion is enough to bar Nazis from being Christians).

Martin Luther wasn’t “misrepresented” or “interpreted” by the Nazis.

It’s totally absurd to imply that Nazi genocide would not have occurred in the absence of the theory of evolution. Genocide has been a part of human behavior throughout history. See Jared Diamond’s writings or (ahem) the Old Testament. Artificial selection (breeding) has been known about for just as long. If the Nazis did resort to Darwin’s work to justify their actions (something I doubt occured to a significant degree), it would simply be that, a justification.

Bridgeport IPA…

on tap or bottled?

“Hitler was a carpenter?”

hmm. now who else was also historically considered to be a carpenter?

coincidence?

;)

Not to step on any toes, but the Gypsies (or Travellers, if you prefer) were also sytematically rounded up and exterminated by the Nazis, for pretty much the same reasons.

So were homosexuals. Guess who wants to round up and execute all of the homosexuals today? I’ll give you a hint: The guy who bankrolls the DI, which gave Weikart a fellowship for his book, counted himself among their numbers not long ago.

Congratulations to mynym for his expert use of the classic device: “As even a freshman knows…” I’ve been involved with history for 35 years, including three years of graduate study under Leonard Krieger, and I don’t recall the Darwin to Hitler notion as being treated as factual. It is around, as are Luther to Hitler, Friedrich II (both of them) to Hitler, Rousseau to Hitler (one of my favorites), Goethe to Hitler, and a few dozen more. Where is the solid scholarship?

You forgot “Wagner to Hitler”.…

“You mean there is no link?  Gosh, then who the hell is this “Almighty Creator” that Hitler mentions dozens of times in “Mein Kampf” )but oddly enough, doesn’t mention evolution or Darwin even ONCE) . … .”

The Holocaust has little to do with monotheism or “creationism” or whatever it is you’re trying to say here. According to your logic then, their is a “link” between ancient Judaism and the holocaust. I mean there *is* a “link” I suppose but’s it’s not that helpful for understanding why a modern nation would industrialize the extermination of an entire group of people.

The most direct “cause” for the Holocaust is more specifically European Christian antisemitism and its prosletyzing, superseccessionist theology and decades of church sponsored antisemitism.

(And the “Jewish Problem” was much older than Darwin or the industrial revolution.)

But to suggest that the Holocaust resulted from a belief in an “Almighty Creator” or old-testament deity, although a great “dis” to a bigotted ID asshole, is also to suggest that Jews are somehow “to blame” for the Holocaust. And it’s also wrong.

“Odd, that evolutionists cannot seem to understand the principles involved in tracing the evolution of an idea…”

Odd that fundamentalist Christians can’t (or don’t) bother to trace the roots of antisemitism to medeival Christian theology and culture.

What’s the “meme” that best explains this recurrent pattern of hypocracy and self-denial among your ilk I wonder?

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 16, column 2, byte 1079 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Sir - Sirius,

1) It seems that you have not paid attention to the bull’s eye: Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” may have been written by the other Thule Society occultist Rudolf Hess, but from Hitler’s babble talk, at least. The Kampf-word was a direct translitteration from the… from the… from the Origin.

Whose the full name was Darwin, Charles (1859) The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the STRUGGLE for Life.

2) Haeckel did die, eventually. His final act, however, was to help to erect the Thule Society in 1919, a secret organ that desperately seeked a common man as a glimmering Fuhrer to hide the real elitistic drive. ruling Nazi’s quicly forbid the Thule behind the Germanenorden in 1933-34- but for the very reason to cover up their way of arranging the money to run a private army of S.A. that was four times bigger than the Wehrmacht a’la Versailles pact.

They were hired arms, not philantropists! And they were largely pair abroad, US mainly. Here we get to Skull & Bones. Samuel Bush worked for Remington, for instance.

SA troops (storm troopers) numbered 350,000 for many years when the correspondent ultra rightwing parties got only a few percentage of the votes in elections. Who paid these private arms, that were four times larger than Wehrmacht, the German field army after the Versailles? SA did not manage its duties for charity and its troops were not considered “Altkämpfers”, as the organization was dismantled after Hitler assumed power. Despite the title of Fritz Thyssen’s (1873-1951) book “I paid Hitler” (1941) the sum of 1 million German marks displayed in it is not satisfactory.

As for George Walker, according to the accusations of Loftus and Aarons, at the time he did not yet directly benefit from financing Hitler. He invested.

“Walker was one of Hitler’s most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler’s infant Nazi party.” (p. 358).

If true, Walker was supporting the movement in its most vulnerable and critical period. It was the period after the 1923 inflation, when Hitler was released from prison and the politics were brutalized and radicalized. The foreign currency prooved to be vital, when inflation raised the exchange rate fabulously high. (1.11.1923 one US dollar costed 130,000 million German marks, which consumed all of the savings of the middle class.)

Both H’s were funky occultists, but I can see why Dr. Weikart does not want that label to his book.

3) Weikart does not say that there is a direct causality between Darwin and Hitler. You are baking the issue, boys! Making it all up. All Weikart says is: “Ever since Darwin”. That is: “a chronological follow up from Darwin’s unleashing until Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel”.

4) It was UNCLE DARWIN, who explicitly gave the mantle to the young and ambitious Ernst! In the Descent he flatters an totters the boy professor to the seventh heaven! “His knowledge is Soooooooouuuuu much fuller than mine!” And blaa blaa blaa.

C’me on! Let’s face it. Darwin ATE most of his “specimen” quote unquote. Haeckel had more titels and epithets that a prize winning German shepherd. Darwin had not any. He was a drop out. Two times. Whence the “Master of Arts” in his old days?!?

The correspondence between Haeckel-Darwin-Haeckel has not been published yet in full. But it is already clear that the letters prove that Darwin blessed the boy. Both had been married to their cousins - and when Ernst’ cousin died in his husband’s 30th birthday… Darwin was nothing but sympathy. Haeckel even visited the ol’ Down’s rogue by the time. Ernst could not even attend to the funerals. He became so bitter to God.

Even the “bulldog” publically confessed that his German counterpart was the real “rotweiler” of Darwin. A bigger shot than he was. The grandpa of Julian Huxley and Aldous Huxley. Thomas Henry Bulldog was the one who translated Haeckel’s stuff, coming up with his term “agnostic”. It was not only against the church but also against the Monist conviction and Moneron-fakes. Yes, uxley recycled the brutal embryo figures at the ethical tangent despite the fact that he knew the spontaneous generation in Monera were a deliberate fraud.

4) In the same year, 1859, also 24 canines invaded Australia with a similar vigor. Now they number how many? And who knows the name of this Thomas Austin, Darwin’s country man?

[Enable javascript to see this email address.] Helsinki Finland

Pauli Ojala said:

1) It seems that you have not paid attention to the bull’s eye: Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” may have been written by the other Thule Society occultist Rudolf Hess, but from Hitler’s babble talk, at least. The Kampf-word was a direct translitteration from the … from the … from the Origin.

Whose the full name was Darwin, Charles (1859) The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the STRUGGLE for Life.

Suggesting that Hitler got his idea for using the German word for “struggle” from Darwin would require that Hitler had read Darwin, for which there is not even a claim of a possibility.

The struggle Darwin writes about is the struggle to gather food and make a nest – anyone who had read Darwin would understand immediately that Hitler’s struggle, in prison, was not in any way the same.

And anyone who has bothered to read Darwin knows that Origin of Species addresses human struggle not at all.

And as to the political family links to the rise of Hitler – between the Lindberghs, Kennedys and Bushes, it’s a wonder that Hitler’s crew didn’t just buy Germany, if we were to put stock in half the conspiracy stories that come down the pike.

There is no connection. Hitler’s refusal to allow transfusions was based on his solid, anti-Darwinian misunderstanding of science. The end.

Facts are stubborn things, John Adams said. Even more stubborn than conspiracy theorists.

“And anyone who has bothered to read Darwin knows that Origin of Species addresses human struggle not at all.”

Darwin, actually, concluded the Origin with a hint on that direction. After much speculation, a short mention of the future prospect is even more effective, of course. He played tactics and the strategy helped the conservative readership to accept “his theory”.

I would also recall that Darwin’s Descent of Man was published in 1871, prior to Adolf’s birth even.

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318. Francis Darwin (editor).

By the time, angry mob worried about the “Lebenstraume” certainly had suck the “Struggle” concept already in their mother’s milk. Darwin’s Origin IS a complicated book and heavy to digest for a high school dropout.

“Any study of the origins of Nazi racial theory has to take into account that it was derived from the Gobineau via Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Gobineau’s main work on the subject, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, was written in 1853-55, predating Darwin’s publication of his views of evolution.”

Even Haeckel was not the MAIN progenitor of anti-semitism. What makes him differ from ther extravagant persecutor Theodor Fritsch, for instance, are the big prints and Haeckel’s sermons to common crowds in rented halls.

Gobineau, then, he was an obscure lunatic. It was Haeckel who gave the fool his prestige and audience and attention.

Haeckel considered human thought as a mere physiological process and stressed the physical similarity of humans and animals. The man and the myth applied the cherished comparative embryology to cheapen human beings from special creation to animal kingdom.

Haeckel’s Wonders of Life (Lebenswunder 1904) was a supplement to the best-selling Riddle of the Universe (1899), and in it Haeckel declared that the newborn human infant is deaf and without consciousness, from which he reasons that there is no soul or spirit even by birth. Haeckel advocated the destruction of abnormal new born infants and argued that it cannot rationally be classed as murder. Eventually, Haeckel recapitulated convincing statistics to persue “an act of kindness” and “redemption from evil” to liquidate the invalids by a dose of morphia .

Daniel Gasman (1971) reminded how Haeckel had declared: “Among the Spartans all newly born children were subject to a careful examination and selection. All those that were weak, sickly, or affected with any bodily infirmity, were killed. Only the perfectly healthy and strong children were allowed to live, and they alone afterwards propagated the race.’” (The History of Creation, p. 170).

It is not only “guilt by association” that Haeckel predated Hitler in the Spartan admiration. Corporal science and corporal legislation - that is the Haeckelian legacy of popularization.

Let us recall that premature infants have been even operated without local anaesthesia or analgesic drugs almost until our times. Western countries, generally, have broadly embraced the fact that a new-born child can feel pain only at the late 1980’s.

Eventually, Haeckel recapitulated convincing statistics to persue “an act of kindness” and “redemption from evil”. As a father of a “Dummkopf” who is supposed to “suffer” from autism, I want to draw attention on how Haeckel exhorted to liquidate the invalids by a dose of morphia:

“We must class as a traditional dogma the widespread belief that man is bound under all circumstances to maintain and prolong life, even when it has become utterly useless - a source of pain to the incurable and of endless trouble to his friends. Hundreds of thousands of incurables - lunatics, lepers, people with cancer, etc. are artificially kept alive in our modern communities, and their sufferings are carefully prolonged, without the slightest profit to themselves or the general body … What an enormous mass of suffering these figures indicate for the invalids themselves, and what a vast amount of trouble and sorrow for their families, what a huge private and public expenditure! How much of this pain and expense could be spared if people could make up their minds to free the incurable from their indescribable torments by a dose of morphia!” (Haeckel, Wonders of Life, 1904, p. 118).

Haeckel was not satisfied in infanticide, but ascended down to the genocide: “ … the morphological differences between two generally recognized species - for example sheep and goats - are much less important than those … between a Hottentot and a man of the Teutonic race” (The History of Creation, 1883, p. 434).

Haeckel categorized human beings as “Woolly-haired” or “Straight-haired”. The former were “incapable of a true inner culture or of a higher mental development” (The History of Creation, 1876, p. 310).

Only among the Aryans was there that “symmetry of all parts, and that equal development, which we call the type of perfect human beauty” (The History of Creation, 1876, p. 321).

Haeckel’s final judgement was given in the Wonders of Life:

“The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher mammals, especially the apes, with which they are genealogically connected. Their whole interest is restricted to the physiological functions of nutrition and reproduction, or the satisfaction of hunger and thirst in the crudest animal fashion … one can no more (or no less) speak of their reason than of that of the more intelligent animals.” (The wonders of life, 1905, p. 56-7).

“the lower races - such as the Veddahs or Australian Negroes - are psychologically nearer to the mammals - apes and dogs - than to the civilised European. We must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives … Their only interest are food and reproduction … many of the higher animals, especially monogamous mammals and birds, have reached a higher stage than the lower savages” (The wonders of life, 1905, p. 390, 393).

Anthropologists dismissed Haeckel’s racist drawings of brains, skulls, faces, ears and arms of human races and primates 50 years ago. Embryology has been transformed into “developmental biology”, but has analogous responsibility. The Haeckelian legacy of popularization relates to the myth of disability of newborn babies to feel pain, abortion legislation, psychoanalysis, and many other influential deductions. After the methodologies in cultivating embryonic cells have abrupted, there is also economic interest involved in the modern developmental biology. Haeckelism should not be cherished upon the stem cell legislation.

[Enable javascript to see this email address.] http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dav[…]en_Amon.html

I am a father of an autistic boy - just as is William Dembski, “Dumbski” so called. For that reason, I am most concerned of Ernst Haeckel’s propaganda against the most innocent minds in our Western culture, these “Dummkopfs” of ours.

Please let me give a more national excuse: FINNENFRAGE

What was the impact of the Haeckelian amplification of the “Mongolian” malign regarding Finnish-speaking country folk in the rampant executions and concentration camps after the Civil War of Finland in 1918?

Already in the Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (1868), Haeckel classified Finns as Mongolians or peoples who resembled them. Finland was a country located at the bloody northern borders of the east and west. Were the Mongolian (Finno-Ugrian) people capable of establishing a state?

Finnenfrage had to do with the claim, that the Prussian population was related to the “Mongolian” Finns. What was in doubt, was the ethnic nobility of the Bavarians. The primitiviness of the Finns was taken as a matter of fact, in the Gobinean shadow.

The meticulous pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) was an adversary of the Haeckelian evolution and appears as one of the main opponents in Ernst Haeckel’s books. (In a personal level, Haeckel wonders in his correspondences whether his old mentor Virchow had emotional life at all due to his discipline and pedantry.) Franz Boas, another German Jew, was also a student of Virchow. I consider Boas, the maligned anthropologist, as one the greatest dissidents of the time, due to his unbelievable (but genuine) results on the complexity of the Inuiti language etc. (Boas was forced to leave not only Germany but also United States.)

Professor Aira Kemiläinen is the grand old lady studying Finns in the shadow of the Aryans. She described how

“Virchow… travelled to Finland in the 1870’s in order to study the Finnish people and its roots. He was astonished when he saw that Finns were blond. His voyage was caused by the famous ‘Finnenfrage’ (‘question of the Finns’)” (1998 p. 69).

In Wonders of Life (1904), Haeckel categorized Finns as a “middle civilised race”, which had seven races below them, and four races above them. Of the twelve categorical races, these latter four were “higher civilised races”, “lower cultured races”, “middle cultured races” and “higher cultured races”. The first higher stage above the Finns included the culture of the fifteenth century Italians, French, English, and Germans. In Haeckel’s booklet on the evolutionary history of man, published in Finnish in 1911, there were only two divisions: the natives and the cultural people. The Mongolic and the Caucasian races were distinguished in the latter one, but the detail did not seem to bother the publishing labour movement much. Haeckel’s evolutionary tree of the Indo-European languages, naturally, did not include the peculiar Finno-Ugric language.

“The views on the subject of European nations which have large colonies in the tropics, and have been in touch with the natives for centuries, are very realistic, and quite different from the ideas that prevail in Germany. Our idealistic notions, strictly regulated by our academic wisdom and forced by our metaphysicians into the system of their abstract ideal-man, do not at all tally with the facts. Hence we can explain many of the errors of the idealistic philosophy and many of the practical mistakes that have been made in the recently acquired German colonies; these would have been avoided if we had had a better knowledge of the low psychic life of the natives (cf. the writings of Gobineau and Lubbock).” (Haeckel, The wonders of life, 1905, p. 390-1).

Let us quote the Gobineau, recommended by Haeckel the scientist, on Finns, then:

“creatures so incontrovertibly ugly and repulsive as the ordinary specimens of the Mongolian race … These are all people of low stature, with wide faces and prominent cheek-bones, yellowish or dirty brown in colour—The Finns have always been weak, unintelligent, and oppressed—in the south through miscegenation with the Negroes and in the north with the Finns.” (Gobineau, Inequality of Races (1853-55, 1967).

To cut the short of a less romantic drama, Joseph Arthur “Comte” de Gobineau (1816-1882) proclaimed that a Finn does not have a stronger desire than to have a man of noble blood to spend a night on his tent with his wife or daughter. Gobineau divided mankind in three races: the White, the Black, and the Yellow (the Good, the Bad - and the Ugly, in essence). The Yellow were extremely ugly, and the group included not only Finns, but also Mongols and Tartars. Finnish historian Aira Kemiläinen writes (1998 p. 85):

“Finns were a primitive aboriginal people in Europe and in Asia. They were short of stature and deformed. Their limbs were feeble and they had protruding cheekbones and slanting eyes. They were more yellow than the Chinese, who had the blood of the White race. How else could the Chinese have created a high culture? Even the Hungarians were ‘white Huns’; they had White ancestors … In an Aryan society at the top were Aryans, in the second class were the Celtic and Slavic peoples and men and women of mixed blood. The deformed Finns were lowest.” The earlier race theories with the symptomatic Nordic admiration had been formulated by men like de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927) – a Germanophile Frenchman, and Englishman and son-in-law of Wagner living in Wien, respectively.

Given the prejudices at the international level, it is no wonder, that the Finnish speaking population was reluctant to adopt early eugenic ideas. Every literate Finn knew what kind of rubbish was the widely held “scientific” view of Finns as short and dark Mongolian or East Baltic race.

The Finnish tragedy is, that the “ryssäviha” (hatred of the Russians) had a visible, if not so broad, support especially at the universities after the victory of the Whites (many of the Finnish opinion leaders, even of the church, had been members of the AKS, Academic Carelian Society, in their youth). Soviet Union did not even admit that it had made the initiative and attacked Finland in 1939, which embittered the minds further. The Russian population was not seen as a victim of a political dogma. The Soviet National Anthem claimed that the Union was created by the common will of nations. Let us remember, that the BIGGEST SHOT who adored and magnified Haeckel’s name was no one else than V.I. Lenin, the terrorist who seems to have been in the gang that the firt bank robbery in Finland.

It is a stunning fact that the notion of Finns as Mongols remained in Swedish encyclopaedias as late as to the 1950’s (Hämäläinen 1985). This took place regardless the trend that the confusion with Laplanders began to be refuted from the books even in Germany soon after Finland gained her independence in 1917. Beauty contests and Olympic medals seem to have been more efficient in correcting the prevailing stereotype of Mongol-like Finns than were the craniometrical surveys etc. The irritant of the nine gold medals at the Stockholm Olympics in 1912 also complicated the issue. Hannes Kolehmainen won the 5,000-meter and 10,000-meter events and the marathon and is said to have “run Finland on to the world map”. Paavo Nurmi had time to set 31 outdoor track world records and won nine gold- and three silver medals between 1920 and 1928 (Paasivirta 1981) – before he was disqualified as a “professional” by the Swedish chairman of the time.

Swedish-speaking establishment had ruled two of the four ranks in the old estate based Diet of the Grand Duchy of Finland (the bourgeois and the gentry, apart from the clergy and the peasants). In 1906, the one citizen one vote -principle in the new unicameral Parliament diminished the power under the Czar to a mere 12%.

Harry Federley, the father of genetics in Finland whose correspondence to Haeckel we have unearthed (lots of Kampf-word there), prompted publicly, that the Finnish franchise should be reduced on a scientific and social basis (1919), to the best of the emerging new nation. In practice this means that Federley demanded that Finland should give up democracy and justified his cause by biology.

Pangermanic regime was no exclusive and isolated case, but followed the norm in the countries ranking high in the Haeckelian legacy. In Finland, National Socialism was never established. There were societies in that direction, but they did not enjoy large memberships. As a party, the extreme Right Patriotic People’s Movement (IKL) had fascist characteristics - but merely 8 representatives in the parliament in 1939.

Scandinavian countries pioneered in the sterilization laws and race-biological institutes, but the ideal of race hygiene was not put to a final action in Finland. There was anthropologist “mismeasure” of Finnish Romanies, Lapps, and Finns themselves, but the plan to file all of the population was terminated soon. Nature or nurture? In Finland, the term was not the Anglo-Saxon “eugenics” according to Francis Galton (geographer, statistician, and first cousin of Charles Darwin), but “race hygiene”, as formulated by Alfred Ploetz. (Ploetz got a Nobel Prize in 1936 for his work on racial hygiene; Proctor 1988, pp. 15, 28).

To cut to the short of the drama, Finns had been misconceived to the Lapps in the Northern Finland in the popular uttering of the Mid-European light-weight anthropologist. The Mongolian category was received with malicious pleasure among some of the descendants of the ancient oppressors and landlords, despite the evident misunderstanding.

Hitler’s formulation of the human races correlated directly with Haeckel’s versification (that is Gasman’s main finding: 1971, pp. xxii; 157). I mean: Haeckel had those brilliant blue eyes, not Adolf himself. At the top of the unilinear progression were the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blondes. Haeckel’s position on the Jewish question was assimilation, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In the Haeckelian legacy, World War I was a war of nations, whereas World War II was a war of races. In the same vein, the victory of the Whites in the Civil War in 1918 was a victory for Western culture in the eyes of the Swedish-speaking military leadership and the Red herds were associated with Mongols (Aro 1985). For Federley, the Civil War of Finland outlined anthropological conclusions.

The standard Nazi slogan “politics is applied biology” was Haeckel’s phrase, originally (Milner 1993, p. 207). Harry Federley represents a Finnish case for this application. Finnenfrage, of course, did not draw the main conclusion in Germany. Writes Gasman:

“ … Haeckel was one of the most vociferous opponents of the jews and his importance for the history of anti-Semitism in Germany is that he did much to bring the Jewish question INTO THE REALM OF BIOLOGY.” (Gasman 1971, pp. xxii, 157).

Have you ever heard of the Russian pogroms, tavarits? Maybe even 1,5 million Jews lost their lives in the ghetto pogroms. BUT: they did not have that biological nuance, least to say core, yet!!!

[Enable javascript to see this email address.]

“Christians are understandably sensitive about the holocaust, because it was inspired in large part by the New Testament, and Hitler himself was a self-proclaimed Christian.”

Main stream Monism argued that the weed called Judaism was in charge for the introduction of transcendental dualism into the Western society in its accelerating decline. Jews – the inventors of the monotheistic God and Christianity - were the explicit scapegoat. Jews were the great symbol of man’s rebellion against nature. Jews were the source of the decadence. And the old Haeckel sought their immediate exclusion from contemporary society.

Genocide was not yet openly exhorted for the people of the book, but Haeckel justified anti-Semitism by charging Jews themselves for persecution’s eternal return. Haeckel’s close followers like French authors Jules Soiree and George Vacher de Lapouge did demand the destruction of the Jews more openly. It was all in the name of science, and far more extreme and physically threatening than the harangues of Houston Stewart Chamberlain with his program of Aryan Christianity (Gasman 1998, 2002).

Anti-Semitism was not a German phenomenon. It was more kind of a price by which Germany sold its aggressions to the indifferent European countries. United States withdrew its ambassador from the Germany at the Kristallnacht unlike all the European countries. Prior to the well-known marriage laws of the Nazi-Germany, however, similar prohibitions were constituted even in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and short-lived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “coloured races” was self evident (Haller 1963, p. 52; Allen 1975).

[Enable javascript to see this email address.] http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dav[…]en_Amon.html

Incidentally Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln shared the same birthday:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&[…];btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&[…]&spell=1

Wasn’t that also true for Napoleon and Wellington? They also shared their age, can you imagine that!!!

That’s why I want to do homage to Mr. Interference on science. The paradox of the Bush-bashing is the sympathy raised by the repention from the “Sins of the Fathers” by somebody who’s trademark is loyalty. White House Paper was a dear document on the history of the bioethics on the planet Tellus.

WHITE HOUSE PAPER ON EMBRYO BUSINESS & THE SINS OF THE FATHERS

President George Walker Bush addressed his nation in the 9th of August, 2001, on the potential of some types of embryonic stem cells to lead to new and revolutionary therapies. In his speech, President Bush publicly commended and called for more federal funding of scientific research using stem cells from sources other than human embryos. Instead of federal funding for the embryonic stem cell research, focusing on the ~65 preliminary ebryonic stem cell lines, adult progenitor cells – and private companies in the wild market - was exhorted in the largest economy of the world.

The White House Paper can be reproached for using a double standard on ethics, regarding approval of the foreign ESC-lines that were already introduced and concerning the mere transfer of the embryonic utilization from the state to the private companies. Nevertheless, this statement seems to be the most wellknown attempt for a request of a time-up, and I consider this opinion as the singularity on the bioethics, regarless one’s opinion concerning putative challenge to the Hippocratean research tradition: The recycled evolutionary Haeckelian embryo fraud has been at the ethical tangent and you desperately need to win back the reputation of science there in the US. Next I try to shed light on the historical significance and the political repercussions behind the “White House Paper”.

Now that the US archives of the WW II are being declassified by the Interagency Working Group, as appointed by William Clinton in 1995, extremely stringent questions have been asked regarding the civilian annihilation and the Western coalition (Jokisipilä 2001). Why did not the allies bombard the civilian destruction factories, or even their railway connections during their air reign, despite the fervent requests? Both London and Washington were aware, after all, of the destiny of the Jewish civilians, their co-victims, and their protectors, since the Barbarossa that began in June 1941. The number of broken messages 1941-42 was nearly two thousand. One burst could contain even 3000 casualities, and these “enigmas” were so congruent and monogenous that soon they were not even briefed to the British leaders etc. After the war, this information was hidden from the courts of war crimes. The cold war against the former Soviet Union began earlier than thought.

No Jew, as an indication, was handed Red Cross passport, whereas fugitive men like the commendant of Treblinka (Stangl), Death angel with his “mengelian genetics” (Mengele), the leader of the Gestapo in Poland (Kutschmann), and “The Butchler of Lyon” (Barbie) were allowed it - and even recruited for the western espionages in the last case, according to the most controversial intelligence surveys by Loftus and Aarons (1993, 1994). There were only a handful convicted men in Nürnberg, usually released a few years later. The bulk part of the race-breeders and, finally, civilian massmurderers, escaped via the “ratline” through Italy with the smuggled money stolen from the war victims. Despite the pious smoke screen after the shoa (unvoluntary holocaust), the economical collaboration and outright money laundring for Nazies in the west went largely untried, it seems.

Ethics in science means the study of morals, not moralizing as such. In contrast to the rhyme pecunia non olet (money does not smell), I think this is a most relevant issue because in the business the free act of choice is most emphasized.

This has nothing to do with the new ethics of modern bioscience, has it? It might have. As a result of the White House Paper, the scientific community in the Europe seems to have stood up to oppose the “banning politics” of George Bush Jr. in a nearly solid front. Why did the “president’s men” call to Scandinavian professors (Outi Hovatta, personal communication) to home at the mid-night to ask the number of the existing embryonic stem cell lines, then?

George Bush Junior got both of his names from George Bush Senior - the second Vespasian-Titus relationship in the history of one of the world’s oldest democracies. The father of George Bush Senior and the grandfather of George Bush Junior was the post-war senator Prescott Bush, from whom the two presidents inherited their family name. The grandfather of George Bush Senior and the great-grandfather of George Bush Junior was investor (and former heavyweight boxing champion) George Herbert Walker, from whom the two presidents inherited their first name. The second name of G. W. Bush denotes Walker, whereas the whole name of the Senior president is George Herbert Walker Bush.

Classified ones are not the files of choice as scientific references, but an introduction to the one of the most heated debates related to the motives behind the Bush’es seems not only justified, but a key insight, to me.

Among the most prominent authors linking the fathers of the Bush family directly to Nazi Germany is the former US Justice Department Nazi War Crimes Prosecutor John Loftus, mentioned above. As a prosecutor, Loftus had access to Top Secret files, and as a private attorney he has helped intelligence agents to obtain lawful permission to declassification. The research by Loftus and Aarons is severely biased in its topic, but it is their “license to leak” that has stirred up discussion to the point of open and public letters from organizations like Antifa to G.W. Bush.

The most controversial titles of Loftus and Aarons include Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis and the Swiss Banks (1993, 1998) and The Secret War against the Jews: How the Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (1994).

Loftus and Aarons are one of the authors claiming that affiliates of Prescott Bush’s company were under investigation for aiding the Nazis in the time of war. The accusations refer to I.G. Farben, well-known for its connection to German in provision of oil, chemicals, and munitions. The cartel is also mentioned in the context of building and operating slave labor factories and death camps after their scaling up from the euthanasia projects.

To make a long story on nihilism short: These cartels gave a totally new meaning for recycling, human transplants and Haeckelian term of ecology. The Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company located in a particularly well-known area in Poland. As far as the most recent accusations by Loftus go, the coal deposits could be processed into coal or additives for gasoline - in Auschwitz.

According to Loftus and Aarons, Prescott Bush became the national chairman of the United Service Organization’s annual fund campaign, which raised $33 million 1942 to provide entertainment for Allied troops. That was also the year, when the 18-year old George Bush Senior abandoned his plans to enter Yale, and made the historical decision to volunteer in the war. Loftus and Aarons claim that while George Bush Sr. was in flight school preparing himself to save his family’s reputation, the U.S. government charged his father with running Nazi front groups in the country.

“Under the sharing with the Enemy Act, all the shares of the Union Banking Corporation were seized, including those held by Prescott Bush as being held for enemy nationals … The U.S. government found that huge sections of Prescott Bush’s empire had been operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted the German war effort” (Loftus & Aarons 1994, p. 360-1).

As for George Walker, according to the accusations of Loftus and Aarons, at the time he did not yet directly benefit from financing Hitler. He invested.

“Walker was one of Hitler’s most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler’s infant Nazi party.” (p. 358).

If true, Walker was supporting the movement in its most vulnerable and critical period. It was the period after the 1923 inflation, when Hitler was released from prison and the politics were brutalized and radicalized. The foreign currency prooved to be vital, when inflation raised the exchange rate fabulously high. (1.11.1923 one US dollar costed 130,000 million German marks, which consumed all of the savings of the middle class.)

SA troops (storm troopers) numbered 350,000 for many years when the correspondent ultra rightwing parties got only a few percentage of the votes in elections. Who paid these private arms that were four times larger than the German army after the Versailles? SA did not manage its duties for charity and its troops were not considered “Altkämpfers”, as the organization was dismantled after Hitler assumed power. Despite the title of Fritz Thyssen’s (1873-1951) book “I paid Hitler” (1941) the sum of 1 million German marks displayed in it is not satisfactory. Fritz Thyssen fled from the Nazi-Germany after the invasion of Poland. He did not acknowledge the authorship of the I paid Hitler, however. Was the book a public cover?

The most malicious online book George Bush - The Unauthorized biography (http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm) was published by Tarpley and Chaitkin as an assault against the re-election campaign of George Bush Sr. in 1991. Regardless of the documentation of its claims (which I find wanting), these assaults have to be taken into account in order to understand the political backround for the White House Paper.

Tarpley and Chaitkin introduced also the fourth generation, great grandfather Samuel Bush, as a child of his World War I –time. As far as the story goes, Samuel Bush’ clan kept specimen of lower races in cages for show and had an antropologist to lecture on them. (The preferred cage-race were “Bushmen” not only in Ernst Haeckel’s science books … )

To put things in perspective, again, the accusations of “sins of the fathers” in the “bushism” could be compared to the accusations against some neutral countries, such as in the case of the Swiss banks or Swedish industry. Esse non videri: In their The Art of Cloaking, Aalders and Wiebes present a case of even a closer link to the IG Farben (1989, 1996) in the case of the largest private bank in Sweden. If Joseph Stalin, in accords with his name, trusted in steel, see Fritz 1973 for a review of Swedish iron ore and German war industry.

It is dramatical that Simon Wiesenthal has lived 100 years, after visiting his 44 kg. A rough estimation of the number of documents putting forward the heroic story of Raoul Wallenberg in the Swedish media is some three thousands. From the viewpoint of the accusations against Raoul’s two uncles, a document per 10-30 rescued Jews could righteously be called biased popularization. This pious smoke screen has indeed been noticed by the “Nazi-hunters” before their retirement.

The export and import numbers, respectively, with the Nazi German in the case of the semi-allied Finland, my own country judged as a country that attacked Soviet Union and that paid all its “war indenmities”/reparations, were 16.2% and 20.7% in 1939; 52.6% and 20.3% in 1940; 53,5% and 53,2% in 1941; 65,8% and 72,0% in 1942; 67,1% and 75,0% in 1943; and 66,5% and 71,1% in 1944 (Visuri & Forsberg 1992). The 1939 numbers are indicative of the fact that Finland fought and very hardly survived through the Winter War 1939-1940 all alone, without an ally. Germany sold Finland to USSR.

Regarding the “Kampf” and the Russians, there is evidence that In Ukraine and Baltic countries people welcomed the German troops as redeemers. These illusions evaporated soon, when the SS (Schutzstaffel) and civilian administration followed the field-army. Hitler did not even try to separate the Russian people from the Soviet government. The Eastern Europeans Slavic people were born “slaves”, indeed. If the Finnish speaking Finns sold to Molotov were Mongols and inferior to the Swedish-speaking elite, for Hitler the Slavic people were “Untermenschen” (Bullock 1958 pp. 423-5). Why did Hitler open a second front by attacking to east, against all of the advices in his headquarters? The command for Barbarossa was undersigned only 5 months after the speech to the parliament, declaring invasion to the opposite direction (England) (Bullock 1958, p. 377). What if the failure of the Red Army (with its many executed officers) to take over Finland in the Winter War, despite Ribbentrops’ license from the Nazi-Germany, contributed to the strategy? USSR had ten times more men across the borders and Finland did not have even a decent artillery or air force, but Josif “steely” Stalin could not take Finland. And so Adolf Hitler, as asperger character together with Joseph Goebbels, underestimated it.

We are living at the time of the declassification of files from the World War II, but privileged researchers would not have had to wait to check the roots of the brutalizing recapitulationary myth. The scientific references were never classified. Haeckel’s bitter materialism culminated in the upper right panel of his most famous illustration: In the “earliest” stage of the brutalized human embryo.

What if President Bush tried to be earnest in this particular ethical tangent? What if he could have been the man who should have been taken dead seriously? What if we would also consider judging the present in the past context, before the market forces break loose?

Pauli J. Ojala [Enable javascript to see this email address.] SOURCES: Aalders, G.; Wiebes, C. (1996) The Art of Cloaking Ownership: The Secret Collaboration and Protection of the German War Industry by the Neutrals: The Case of Sweden. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, Netherlands Allen, G.E. (1985) Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge History of Science. Eds Bassalla G & Coleman W. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Bannister, R.C. (1979) Social Darwinism: science and myth in Anglo-American social thought. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA Bullock, A. (1958) Hitler – A study in tyranny. Finnish translation by R Wilenius. 2nd ed. Tammi, Helsinki, Finland Friedländer, S. (1997) Nazi Germany and the Jews. New York: Harper Collins, NY Fritz, M. (1973) Swedish iron ore and German steel, 1939-1940. Scandinavian Economic History Review 21: 133-144 Gasman, D. (1971) The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League. MacDonald, London, UK Gasman, D. (1998) Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology. (Studies in Modern European Gobineau, J.A. (1853) The Inequality of Races (English translation 1967). New York: Howard Fertig Co. Haeckel, E. (1900) The Riddle of the universe at the close of the nineteenth century. The Rationalist Press Association, Watts & Co., London, UK Hailer, M.H. (1963) Eugenics: Hereditarian attitudes in American thought. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ Harrington, A. (1996) Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Kemiläinen, A. (1998) Finns in the shadow of the ‘Aryans’. Race theories and racism. Finnish Historical Society, Studia Historica 59. Gummerus, Jyväskylä, Finland Loftus, J.; Aarons, M. (1994) The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St.Martin’s Press Loftus, J.; Aarons, M. (1993, 1998) Unholy Trinity. The Vatican, the Nazis and the Swiss Banks. 2nd ed. New York: St.Martin’s Press Mosse, G. L. (1985) Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, WI Payne, S (1995) A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. Proctor, R. (1988) Racial Hygiene. Medicine under the Nazis. Harvard University Press, MT Reilly, P.R. (1991) The surgical solution: A history of involuntary sterilization in the United States. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London Tarpley, W.G.; Chaitkin, A. (1991) George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography. Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, DC Thyssen, F. (1941) I Paid Hitler, New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc. Weindling, P. (1989) Health, Race and German Politics Between national Unification and Nazism 1870-1945. Cambridge History of Medicine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Is it really true, that 80% of the Eastern European Jews were dismissed as “feebleminded” in the US IQ-tests between 1910 and 1930?

If it holds, when was the cultural parameter and learning from the books discerned away from these tests?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 4, 2005 1:03 AM.

Appeal to Inappropriate Authority was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #27 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter