I am entirely justified in calling the English speaking scientists Karl Pearson and Margaret Moul as well as the eugenicists Paul Popenoe and Leonard Darwin collaborators with Nazi science because that's exactly what they were because it is what they did, they collaborated with Nazis in the production of their science, explicitly in the cases of such Nazi party members as Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz, Alfred Ploetz, etc. who not only cited their scientific claims, with their knowledge, to make their claims which were the foundation of Nazi eugenics-genocide, in many cases we have documents produced by the scientists that verify their approval of that, as in the case of people like Popenoe and Leonard Darwin and in the strongest possible form when that approval comes in the form of a scientist like Pearson inserting Nazi science into their own work, crediting Nazi scientists - or soon to be Nazis - as having produced reliable claims in exactly these areas relevant to this, reliable enough to become science.
There is a very long list of such people in English language science and, beyond any doubt, among the eminent scientists of other countries. Many times the same people who could be put on that list with complete justification were also those who advised and promoted the eugenic, immigration, etc. policies of their own governments, they certainly did in the United States and other countries which adopted eugenic laws and policies. I wish I had time to pour over the papers of Oliver Wendell Holmes to see what if any trace he left of his reading on the subjects which informed is infamous Buck v Bell decision, one thing we do know is that he read a lot of the then current popular science, including whatever was included in the magazine of that name. We know, from his own declarations and the testimony of his very close friend and associate, his one time personal secretary, the eminent lawyer and judge Francis Biddle that his thinking was permeated with the writings of Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer and others in Darwin's inner circle. I would imagine that if he kept reading in that line he would certainly have read Karl Pearson or at least be aware of what he was saying as well as what other eugenicists were claiming in that first decade of the formal existence of the Nazi Party. I am certain that he would be aware of the Darwinian claims of such major figures of American science as Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin, working out of a major institution of American science, The Cold Spring Harbor Labs and collaborators with Nazi science even right up to the American entry into World War Two, shortly before the Wansee conference, if memory serves, even as the Einsatzgruppen were slaughtering people in Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe.
One of the things I've noticed in this argument is that everyone pretends that the men and, to a lesser extent, women who created Nazi eugenics-genocide, had no minds or lives before 1919, including the scientists. ESPECIALLY THE SCIENTISTS. We are just beginning to get over that with an awareness and understanding that the German death camps in the first decade of the 20th century had the most intimate of relationships with the death camps of the 1930s and 40s, and that in important instances, the very same people were involved with both. We focus on what Hitler was ranting out in 1923 as if that was the sole source of the Nazi genocides when Hitler as a Nazi was, himself, formed by what he read, what he heard.
I will note that that odd habit of thinking about this would seem to only cover science, which is odd because pretty much all of the claims of the Nazis as to why they were doing what they did was made in terms of science, biology, of what was presented as the supreme force in evolutionary science, natural selection. We are to pretend that they did what they did because of religion when they didn't, themselves, make their claims out of medieval antisemtic heresy - often heresy invented by medieval princes and monarchs so they could dispossess Jews and use them as scape goats in pretty much the way Trumpian fascism uses Latin Americans and Muslims.
The study of that phenomenon of the post World War Two cover-up of the biological nature of the Darwinist character of the Nazis crimes against humanity used that tactic of shifting the blame entirely to religion even as those within religion, in many cases, were profoundly penitent of whatever role they may have played in it. Addressing that was a major focus of Vatican II and subsequent changes in the Catholic Church and many other Christian churches have, as well, been profoundly changed by the examination of conscience that came with the revelation of the Nazi genocides. But science, scientists are not in the habit of saying they're sorry in the same way as science, by human invention and artificial convention, exclude questions of morality from science and what is demanded of scientists.
I cannot believe that their use of this has not had, as has the scientific literature of Darwinism from at least the time of Huxley and Haeckel, an overtly anti-religious motivation as well. It is rather noticeable how often these men of science turned natural selection into a tool to discredit not only Christian religion but also the moral teachings of Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and Paul, especially relevant in this argument when it led to them drawing up lists of people whose deaths would be desirable in terms of biological and, rather shockingly explicitly, in economic utility. Charles Darwin founded natural selection on exactly that aspect of Malthus's economic pronouncements, so that use of natural selection is absolutely not surprising, what would be shocking if that use of it had never been made.
We do know that a lot of it also came through the cultural intervention in the west of Soviet propaganda, often filtered through playwrights and other creators of fiction that so many, even college-credentialed people take as history. I have to say that my study of this has led me to think that the use of real history by those in show biz and the writing of fiction is both dangerous and unfortunate because entertainment is so much more potent than careful scholarship. If scientists don't take moral responsibility, show business and entertainment are entirely worse. But that is also a very complex thing and it is external to my addressing the challenge that was made to me to prove that the fingerprints of Darwinists were all over the Shoah, the Nazi genocidal murder of at least six-million Jews. And I've done that.
No comments:
Post a Comment