In the eleven years I've been formally writing on these topics, I've found that atheists and other fans of biological and physical determinism have a limited number of arguments, any of those I've had reason to address are not that hard to refute, given enough citations. While it would be fun to rewrite the ones demonstrating, in no uncertain terms, the links, in their own words, between biological determinism and fascism and Nazism, I don't have time today. So, here.
While he penned The Turner Diaries more than two decades ago, Pierce continues to champion its ugly vision of a world for whites only. A National Alliance radio broadcast aired in early 1997 provides one of many examples:
In 1975, when I began writing The Turner Diaries...I wanted to take all of the feminist agitators and propagandists and all of the race-mixing fanatics and all of the media bosses and all of the bureaucrats and politicians who were collaborating with them, and I wanted to put them up against a wall, in batches of a thousand or so at a time, and machine-gun them. And I still want to do that. I am convinced that one day we will have to do that before we can get our civilization back on track, and I look forward to the day.
The other day I excerpted an article which William Pierce published the same month he published The Turner Diaries in book form for the first time. I noted that he had previously published it in serial form in his National Vanguard tabloid, ATTACK. That same month Pierce published a piece in ATTACK #55 in which he lavished praise on E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology and joined in attacking Sociobiology's critics, a counter-attack which other supporters of Sociobiology had been at for a couple of years already. While I think some of them implied the same things, Pierce, even writing in his cover-story style, got right into the Jewish identity of a number of those critics.
THE AUGUST 1 issue of Time magazine carried a six-page cover story on sociobiology, which is just a fancy name for the biological study of groups of interacting organisms — including human societies. Charles Darwin demolished one Jewish myth, and his successors are now finding the courage to tackle another: that of the infinite malleability of human nature.)
It is one of the things I've noticed in this latest review of the material that Darwinists such as Pierce are remarkably able to hold opposite views of reality, depending on who and what they are talking about. In his piece I analyzed the other day, he lauded the view that the universe is always changing, evolving to a higher state, which he contrasts to the popular mischaracterization of Jewish-Christian thinking that the universe is static and unchanging. However, as is typical of neo-Darwinist conceptions of such things, they loathe the idea that human beings can change, that their characters and limits are not set by the character of their chromosomes at conception.
A book or more of such contradictions held by the proponents of Natural Selection could be written. A chapter discussing the self-interest of those who hold such contradictions, depending on who or what is being granted dispensations from their rigidly held beliefs would be necessary for a full treatment of the subject.
The Time story has many flaws. In addition to its inevitable bias, it treats its subject in the typically jazzy, junky style we have come to expect whenever one of the controlled media gets its grubby paws on something of real value. Yet, the Time editors left enough solid truth in their story that the intelligent reader must scratch his head and wonder whether they have suddenly developed suicidal tendencies; the article is a loaded and cocked revolver pointed straight at their black hearts.
Of course, it is possible that the media masters are too busy counting their shekels these days to worry about the deeper implications of some of the things they allow to appear in print. In any event, they do include in the sociobiology article a sampling of the rantings of their “court scientists,” all of whom viciously denounce sociobiology and the scientists working in this discipline: “Dangerously racist,” screams Harvard’s 1984-style Committee Against Racism; “genetic capitalism,” scoffs the University of Chicago’s Marxist-Jewish anthropologist Marshall Sahlins; “bullshit,” exclaims Harvard’s worried neo-Lamarckian biologist Richard Lewontin.
In doing this Pierce echos the mainstream of criticism of the critics of Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. Notably, many of its critics are Jewish, hardly surprising considering the recent events which most of those Jewish people had witnessed in their lifetime. Though the mainstream accusations against them focus on their alleged or past or admitted Marxism. Though many of the critics of Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology are not Marxists, at all. But the angry retorts of Wilson, Pinker and others within that camp generally focus on that canard instead of addressing the observations and concerns of their critics.
Considering the warnings of the 1975 statement of the Sociobiology Study Group, in the passage posted here yesterday, that Sociobiology and its associated sciences would serve a revival of eugenics and posed a risk of neo-Nazi violence, that William L. Pierce was so quick to see its potential for his ideology was rather rapid confirmation of those fears which have not yet been taken seriously in science and certainly not in the media which has adopted the most obvious of eugenic thinking as a result of these sciences.
Pierce continued:
The simple reason for the intemperate denunciations — and the reason why Time Managing Editor Henry Grunwald erred badly in judgment when he OK’d the article — is that the already shaky credibility of the entire pseudoscientific rationalization for current liberal dogmas on racial equality and human nature can be sustained only so long as those dogmas are scrupulously shielded from any contact with scientific truth. Recent developments in sociobiological research put the racial equalitarians and the “environment is everything” mythologists in the same untenable position in which Darwin’s theory of evolution put the believers in Genesis a century ago.
And like any Darwinist, Pierce was eager to give credit to Charles Darwin in anticipating this extension of Natural Selection.
Despite Time’s headline description of sociobiology as “A New Theory of Behavior,” the discipline is not really new. Darwin himself laid the cornerstone of sociobiology in his little-known “third book,” The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, published in 1872. Since then many scientists have explored one aspect or another of group evolution. Three decades ago the eminent British anthropologist, embryologist, and anatomist, Sir Arthur Keith, published his A New Theory of Human Evolution, dealing with the genetic basis of altruism, xenophobia, and other inherited social traits. What is new is the emergence of the sociobiologists from their closets after more than 30 years of moral intimidation.
It was 33 years after the fall of the Third Reich and the revelation to the wider world of the Nazi eugenic murders in hospitals and in industrial murder facilities. I will remind you that this piece was published the same month Pierce put out The Turner Diaries in book form for the first time which were an encouragement to future Einsatzgruppen who he hoped would continue and finish the extermination of most of the world's population, leaving his master race the only people in the world.
Where could he have gotten such an idea from? Well, as he read Darwin's 'little-known "third book," it's pretty safe to guess he read his "second book"
The Descent of Man, the one which contains such ideas. This infamous passage, for example.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.*
I have seen this passage twisted through the most ridiculous contortions by Darwin's defenders but it's clear that the mainstream understanding of Darwinism admits what it plainly says, that when the "civilised races of man" "exterminate, AND REPLACE**, the savage races throughout the world" it will produce "man in a more civilised state, as we may hope even than the Caucasian" meant that white folk were destined to rule the world and the results would be a superior species of humans. That, to state it baldly, is exactly what the Nazis and neo-Nazis such as Pierce find scientific support of their dream in. What Charles Darwin said, the" hope" he expressed is exactly their hope, stated in no uncertain terms as science.
And, I will point out, that the only motive for Darwin to have come to those horrible and most extreme conclusions isn't in some kind of exhaustive confirmation from carefully collected data carefully and exactingly quantified and analyzed, it is through assumptions leaped to on the basis of his Natural Selection. As I said yesterday, the foremost use of Natural Selection has been as an oracle to "see" what cannot be seen, only, as physicists learned in the early part of the 20th century, what you use to "see" such things with have an inevitable part in determining what you see with it. It is one of the great discoveries of physics in the past century that the means of seeing things inevitably determines the character of what you see. Clearly the physicist Pierce didn't take that seriously into account in his view of Natural Selection, something which is practically ubiquitous in its use as a frame through which to view evolution.
Continuing with Pierce isn't pleasant but it is a real eye opener and confirmation of what the Sociobiology Study Group warned about the consequences of reviving biological determinism as science in the real world.
The outbreak of the Second World War gave the pseudoscientists an advantage in silencing their critics which they exploited with true chutzpah: anyone who questioned their doctrines or who dared to report scientific findings contrary to the liberal-Jewish doctrine of racial equality and the infinite malleability of human nature was accused of having Nazi tendencies and being subversive.
In the immediate postwar years the myth of the “six million gassed Jews” was given an enormous buildup by the controlled media, and the pseudoscientists never hesitated to suggest that anyone who accepted the scientific facts which the German National Socialists had accepted must share the Nazis’ “guilt.” To cite evidence, for example, that Blacks and Whites are not only physically different but also psychically different, implying that racial differences in behavior are, to a large extent, genetically determined, was considered equivalent to putting on a Nazi armband and calling for the extermination of all Blacks.
I will remind you of Pierce's commentary on The Turner Diaries quoted by the ADL above, reminding you that he first published it in the same tabloid this piece appeared in.
Jewish gas-chamber propaganda is still trotted out regularly by hecklers at lectures by the University of California’s psychologist Arthur Jensen and Stanford University’s physicist-turned-geneticist William Shockley, both of whom have presented hard evidence that Negro mental inferiority is hereditary. After more than 30 years, however, the time-worn fables of the Nazis’ human soap and lampshades have lost much of their bite, and since Jensen’s courageous first venture into taboo territory in 1969 dozens of other scientists have followed.
One of the greatest shames of our race is that, as a whole, we showed so little moral backbone for so long. We allowed ourselves to be intimidated by an alien gang of hucksters posing as scientists into going along with their suppression of truth and promotion of self-serving lies for nearly 40 years. What makes the shame even greater is that we displayed our cowardice most abjectly in the very places we have always most proudly boasted of our bold and fearless independence: in our great universities.
Out of the thousands of our scholars who saw through the Jewish-liberal fakery, only a handful had the courage to challenge the liars, deceivers, and obscurantists openly. The vast majority swallowed their pride — and their honor — and put salary and social acceptance ahead of their obligation to truth and their people. Even today a substantial portion of our most distinguished, degree-laden savants tremble in fear that someone may publicly label them “bigots” or “Nazis,” and they nervously hasten to assure anyone who will listen that they are not really racists.
The recent work of Harvard sociobiologist Edward Wilson and others which is cited in Time is a welcome new wave of truth over the top of the dam of lies, censorship, and repression, but it is only a precursor of the flood which will follow as the dam inevitably crumbles under the growing pressure behind it, and the alien filth is swept away forever in a cleansing rush.
The great science of life, the foundations of which were laid by Charles Darwin and Gregor (Johann) Mendel more than a hundred years ago, will finally be free of the fetters placed on it by evil men and their soul-sick disciples. Our people will then have at their disposal a mighty tool in their never-ending quest for their unlimited Destiny, a tool which will transform not only the lives of our children and our children’s children, but all of Creation.
I think I won't analyze that right now.
I certainly doubt that E. O. Wilson, if he knew about it, could have been happy to have William L. Pierce's support and endorsement and I certainly don't accuse him of being a racist or an antisemite. I doubt in the extreme that he has any desire to kill anyone or even express as much enthusiasm for the result of mass slaughter as Charles Darwin and so many of those whose thinking was changed by such ideas as H. G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw (remembering Pierce's use of Shaw's Man and Superman and Shaws witty advocacy of mass murder in gas chambers noted here the other day). Wilson is a 20th century American who worked in a milieu which, one would think, would never continuance such talk. The very culture of egalitarianism that Pierce hated so much that his followers hate today as can be seen online and in the news when such incidents as the mass murders of Dylan Roof are committed.
But a mere lack of desire to consider oneself as superior on the basis of race shouldn't be counted on to act as a governor on the application of such assertions by scientists as Wilson, Dawkins, etc. make. The mere social disapproval of such talk didn't even keep it out of the formal literature of such science, as the Kevin MacDonald scandal proves beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is nothing in science, in materialism, in an atheist-secular society which has the strength to tame and restrain such ideas. Even a nominal belief that "all men are created equal and endowed with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" didn't prevent eugenics from being the Supreme Court sanctioned law in the United States, whose eugenics programs were an inspiration to the Nazis.
Natural Selection is inevitably linked to the idea that the deaths of groups of people, the disabled, those deemed to be inferior from their biological characteristics due to ethnicity or race, will be a benefit to the species in the wake of their deaths. That is the inevitable meaning of it as applied to the human population. That result is more massively evidenced in the history of eugenics in German and other languages, it is the reason that William Pierce found Darwinism and its extension in Sociobiology in the 1970s, after eugenics had been suppressed in the wake of World War Two, such good news.
* When I was looking up Darwin's citations, trying to find the passage he described, I didn't find it but
I did find evidence that Darwin likely lied about what Schaaffhausen said. I have never found any passage of Schaaffhausen that said what Darwin alleged he did in that statement in The Descent of Man. If any of Darwin's defenders would like to produce the document where Schaaffhausen said what Darwin claims he did in that incredible proto-Nazi statement I would welcome having it and I will post a retraction of my suspicions.
** In short, they would take over the territory of those they had exterminated, exactly the Nazi policy of
Lebensraum.
Note: I will pause in posting on this issue unless someone brings something up that I feel needs to be addressed. I suppose I should thank my enemies for making me feel this was necessary to go into, "Skeptic Tank" particularly who made me realize that I hadn't looked at explicit Darwinism in American neo-Nazis, in English, without any problems of translation. In William L. Pierce, the link between a scientists reading of Darwin and neo-Nazi murder is undeniable except by the most massive of lies.
