Thursday, December 19, 2019

Hate Mail

Oh, no siree, baby.  I nailed the argument yesterday when I produced the citation in Baur, Fischer, Lenz, THE NAZI SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY IN THEIR RACIAL AND NOT LONG AFTER GENOCIDAL POLICY, citing the 1925 paper by Karl Pearson and Margaret Moul on their scientific assertion of a. the biological degeneracy of Polish and Russian Jews and, b. the biological necessity of keeping them out of Britain because of the alleged danger they posed to the biological soundness of the British population.   I produced, in the original German them saying that what Pearson and Moul said in that paper couldn't be of more "burning concern" for German policy concerning "eastern" Jews in the very years the Nazis were using that book to inform their plans for genocide.  

There was no one in the world in 1925 or 1932 who could be said to be more a Darwinist, a disciple of Darwin than Karl Pearson, except, possibly, Leonard Darwin, Darwin's own son..  And unlike Pearson, Leonard Darwin was not a scientist.  

Karl Pearson, most famous as a statistical geneticist was, if memory serves, the fourth person awarded the Darwin Medal by the Royal Society, in 1899.   He was honored for furthering the work of Charles Darwin.  I will grant that, a student, not of Darwin but of his cousin Francis Galton, Pearson ranked his own teacher slightly higher than he did the mathematically ignorant Charles Darwin, but he was a committed Darwinist his entire life and in his eugenics.  I recall struggling through reading a chuggy, slow posting of a hagiographic address he made to a bunch of Brit teachers in 1923 a mere two years before, using the principles of natural selection, he was producing his paper that the Nazis cited and, no doubt, found confirmation in for their developing policy to deal with "the Jewish question" and as they were developing their plans to invade Poland and other countries to the East, to dispose of the native population and replace them with Aryans.   

I will note that, as I was listening to the Impeachment debate yesterday, working from memory, I mixed one thing up.  It wasn't that Pearson provided the Nazis with the box of fake hair used to grade school children, assigning them a racial categorization - certainly the better to discriminate against those who were too dark - it was one of the trio of Nazi scientists who provided it to Pearson and his Brit colleague Moul, so they could make their own contribution to Nazi style science, as quoted from their 1925 paper,  in my post on that. 

Our results were obtained with Fischer's glass silk hair scale which has a large series of numbered patterns, and we have grouped them above into eight classes of fairly definite character for comparison with those of other observers. It is very difficult to grasp what other observers who have not worked with standard scales really mean by their colours. Thus Jacobs' 35.5 yo of black hair seems compatible with nothing else recorded, and must certainly include all the very dark brown hairs. For the final comparison it has not seemed possible to do more than divide the whole series into dark and light hair as given by the second percentages in each column. Under these circumstances Jacobs' adult Jews correspond reasonably with the Galician adult Jews. A large mass of material for the German Jewish boys is provided in Virchow's German pigmentation survey and is directly comparable with ours, both sets of boys being of school age. Now our boys were those on whom the special eye examination was made, and these were on the whole older than the general school population. Hence our boys are likely to be older than the German boys. Yet they are clearly a lighter haired population. Of course hair darkens with age, and if we were to suppose the German Jewish boys to become as dark as the Jewish adults in the first two columns in our table as they grow older, there is no reason to suppose that the alien Jewish boys (who start older) would catch them up. Here again it seems possible that there is some infusion of foreign blood.

No, it's only disputable by using the same tactics of lying through your fucking teeth that was so on display in the House Republican caucus, yesterday.  Darwinism, was not only linked to Nazism, Darwinists worked hand in glove with them.   Here's a picture of Eugen Fischer from 1934 at the University of Berlin, where he was a working scientist, he's the one with the creepy goatee 



No, dear, you can't escape it, the Nazi genocide of the Jews, not to mention the disabled, the Roma, the Poles, etc. has a Darwinist imprimatur stamped on it.  Darwinism had a brief period of covering up its contribution to eugenics and the most extreme form of that in the Nazi's genocides, but now all that primary documentation is available in easily searched form, online.   The post-war cover-up that depended on the ink on paper world and the laziness of people too lazy to look up primary documentation is over, for good.

Update:  I should note that Baur, Fischer, Lenz also had many citations of a. Leonard Darwin's eugenics assertions some of them making assertions before the Nazi party took power (or even existed) that the Nazis could be merely parroting.  I will remind you, if you looked at my links, you would find that Leonard Darwin, repeatedly, over decades, including in a letter to Karl Pearson, asserted that his eugenics work was a continuation of his father, Charles Darwin's work and that he, HIS OWN SON, was sure his father would be pleased with his eugenics.
b. Francis Galton's use of the history of the Darwin-Wedgewood family as a prime example proving the heritable superiority of people, a major support of natural selection and its own criminal offspring, eugenics.  They go farther and cite the careers of Leonard, George, Francis and Horace Darwin, as I mentioned four of Charles Darwin's sons who were prominent in the promotion of eugenics.  

I would go into the particularly foul version of socialism that Karl Pearson pushed in Darwinian terms.  I will note that his socialism was, he asserted, more likely to find it possible to implement eugenics than governments that concerned themselves with the rights of individuals.  I suspect that the often cited socialism of Pearson, a friggin' Fabian, is a good example of why the word "socialism" should be scrapped.  It is too mixed up with that kind of thing, through Marx AND THROUGH THE NAZIS and the friggin' Fabians to be useful to promote any democratic system that promotes economic justice.   After reviewing the often lauded socialism of Karl Pearson - the scientist who, among other things, bemoaned Cesearan section saving the lives of too many babies and mothers, I understand how the Nazis adopted the word to describe what they did, as well as how the Soviet and other genocidal Marxist regimes did.  What I can't account for is how anyone who held with egalitarian democracy and economic justice could possibly have pretended that wasn't a problem throughout the 20th and, now, into the 21st centuries.   

Update 2:  As a point of consideration in Pearson's socialism that would be so much more likely to overlook the rights of individuals to impose eugenics on them and in relation to his British socialism and that which was developing in the Nazi party,  here is a passage and a footnote from his 1925 paper on proposing genetic inabilities in two of the very populations the Nazis targeted for genocide:

Such is the infusion of blood if it really exists is not definitely against the alien Jew as an immigrant, although an infusion of West European blood would have been a more suitable factor;  neither Jews nor Slavs have hitherto shown in their historical records the ability to found a stable democratic community*.


*  The racial origin of the present leaders of Soviet Russia still seems to be very obscure, but from the anthropological standpoint would form an undoubtedly interesting study

After saying it's fucking rich for a Brit Fabian to cite other people for not having shown "in their historical records the ability to found a stable democratic community,"  something which hardly anyone, anywhere had or still today has done, his covert attribution of likely Jewish heritage to the Bolsheviks could have come right out of the mouth of an American or a Nazi antisemite as well as an upper-class Brit in class-ridden Britain.  In her great essay-review of Richard Dawkins' idiotic The God Delusion, in citing John Hartung's and Kevin MacDonald's contemporary scientific antisemitism which Dawkins found credible to cite as reliable science, Marilynne Robinson notes that Darwinism is seldom far from dark waters.   Darwinian eugenics is resurgent and as dangerous as it was in the early decades of the 20th century. 

No comments:

Post a Comment