TUESDAYS are to me what Mondays are to to other people. Traditionally it's my busiest day of the week. I'll post something later. Until then, here's a piece I posted on another Tuesday, though I'm sure I wrote it before it was posted. It was from before I went sans serif and blew things up to be easier on the eyes, my eyes, actually. But I decided not to risk screwing around with the HTML by changing it. I have also added a few links to previous posts I did about Karl Pearson's Darwinism as proto-Nazism referred to in this post. There were more, which you can find by using the search window in the side bar.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
"Masterful Human progress following an inter-racial struggle" How Much More Obvious Can The Relationship of Darwinism To Nazism Get?
If the excerpt of the
British Fabian socialist, undisputed expert in Darwinism in his day and
still regarded as a great figure of science, Karl Pearson, given here yesterday didn't
convince you that his entirely orthodox pre-war vision of Darwinism,
which he got from one of Darwin's closest and most valued colleagues,
Francis Galton, was indistinguishable from Nazism and the current
thinking of neo-Nazis, you can complete that by his vision of what the
genocides he advocated and promoted would lead to. He didn't think
they should lead to any kind of peaceful millennium, such as that
pointed out here a few days back the British utilitarians theoretically
mused might be bought by the genocide of Jews. No, what would be bought
by the genocides he advocated of the inhabitants of the Americas,
Africa, Australia, etc. was a continued culling through violent struggle
among groups and a program within a group of selective culling through
the violence that is the basis of the class system and direct selection
of who would get to leave children.
Continuing immediately after where I left off in the main contents of National Life From The Standpoint of Science, page 25, Karl Pearson makes that claim to an absolute certainty.
But America is but one case in which we have to mark a masterful human progress following an inter-racial struggle. The Australian nation is another case of great civilization supplanting a lower race unable to work to the full the land and its resources. Further back in history you find the same tale with almost every European nation. Sometimes when the conquering race is not too diverse in civilization and in type of energy there is an amalgamation of races, as when Norman and Anglo-Saxon ultimately blended; at other times the inferior race is driven out before the superior, as the Celt drove out the Iberian. The struggle means suffering, intense suffering, while it is in progress; but that struggle and that suffering have been the stages by which the white man has reached his present stage of development, and they account for the fact that he no longer lives in caves and feeds on roots and nuts. This dependence of progress on the survival of the fitter race, terribly black as it may seem to some of you, gives the struggle for existence its redeeming features; it is the fiery crucible out of which comes the finer metal. You may hope for a time when the sword shall be turned into the ploughshare, when American and German and English traders shall no longer compete in the markets of the world for their raw material and for their food supply, when the white man and the dark shall share the soil between them, and each till it as he lists. But, believe me, when that day comes mankind will no longer progress; there will be nothing to check the fertility of inferior stock; the relentless law of heredity will not be controlled and guided by natural selection. May will stagnate; and unless he ceases to multiply, the catastrophe will come again; famine and pestilence, as we see them in the East, physical selection instead of the struggle of race against race, will do the work more relentlessly, and to judge from India and China, far less efficiently than of old.
Remember, this was Karl Pearson, eminent man of science, respected member of the Fabian socialist ranting like Hitler in 1900 as he said exactly the same things Hitler would begin saying two decades after Pearson gave this as a lecture, this was what he said was a fact of science, that science being what he regarded the glory of British Science, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, he was saying it in cultured English to a society of the nicest of British audiences, many of them members of the ruling aristocratic class.
It was a result of his scientific, materialist, atheist faith that Darwin had found the key to what they took as the central question of the life sciences, what the conventional - I would say enforced - hegemony of Darwinism in science still holds up as the central idea in biology, including, as can be seen in the revival of eugenics under Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology, still generates assertions of eugenics.
I don't know if there was ever a German translation of Karl Pearson's speech but, as with the translations of Darwinian scientific literature back and forth between English and German, the very terms that sound so deranged and morally repugnant when they come out of a Hitler, an Eichmann, a Goebbels, can be said in English through elegant prose, you can imagine hearing it in a refined, received British or an educated American voice, quite often in easily seen cognates.
I have known some American and British socialists of today, mostly Marxist, who, seeing the "socialist" label on a Karl Pearson or some other British scientist figure that they are the same kind of socialists they are. But there can be no question that the socialism of Karl Pearson, a development of his scientism, his atheism and his materialism when filtered through his Darwinism is an almost exact match for the National Socialism of the Nazis. The belief in natural selection - and given the impossibility of really observing Darwinian natural selection,* the production of new species, even the development of new traits that become a universal feature of species, it is a belief - inevitably leads to the same conclusions.
Darwin turned murder into a creative force when he posited a "struggle for existence" HIS WORDS, NOT MINE, as the engine of progress in evolution. The subsequent claim of post-war neo-Darwinists that Darwin's natural selection was not presented as a progressive force is a lie, as can be seen from reading the claims of conventional Darwinists of indisputable authority to make such claims such as Karl Pearson, indeed, going right back to Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man, in the fifth and sixth editions he prepared of On the Origin of Species, in his first and confirmed generation of his followers named by him, Francis Galton and, foremost, according to his own introduction in The Descent of Man, Ernst Haeckel whose authorized elucidation of Darwin's natural selection was so influential in German science, in German intellectual life and, in the next generation, in politics and the law.** That was already happening during Charles Darwin's life, he corresponded with, not only German scientists, but German intellectuals and legal scholars on the application of his theory in legal policy, including the imposition of execution, the implication of state killing in improving the human stock.
* It is not only in the investigation of human society that the truth is sometimes unavailable. Natural scientists, in their overweening pride, have come to believe that eventually everything we want to know will be known. But that is not true. For some things there is simply not world enough and time. It may be, given the necessary constraints on time and resources available to the natural sciences, that we will never have more than a rudimentary understanding of the central nervous system. For other things, especially in biology where so many of the multitude of forces operating are individually so weak, no conceivable technique of observation can measure them. In evolutionary biology, for example, there is no possibility of measuring the selective forces operating on most genes because those forces are so weak, yet the eventual evolution of the organisms is governed by them. Worse, there is no way to confirm or reject stories about the selective forces that operated in the past to bring traits to their present state, no matter how strong those forces were. Over and over, in these essays reproduced here, I have tried to give an impression of the limitations on the possibility of our knowledge. Science is a social activity carried out by a remarkable, but by no means omnipotent species. Even the Olympians were limited in their powers.
Richard Lewontin: Introduction: It Ain't Necessarily So
Lewontin is an honest enough person to admit that the belief that those "selective forces operating on most genes" can't either be observed or measured. In case no one missed that, it really means, there's no way to know if those things are there or even if they are real and not an imagined construct.
He goes on to present the problem in a way which directly shows the fact that natural selection must be believed and can't be known, "there is no way to confirm or reject stories about the selective forces that operated in the past to bring traits to their present state, no matter how strong those forces were." Anyone who reads any of the stories, the scenarios, the very substance that Darwinian natural selection is made of who doesn't see the truth of what Lewontin said isn't thinking about it very hard because it is obvious. In many of his writings on natural selection and, especially, his claims derived from it, Karl Pearson will admit that there is "little data" to support his claims, at one point I remember he even admitted that Darwin had no actual data to support what he said in Descent of Man, but then he claimed to see trends in other data or in life that support his Darwinian interpretation of them. What he was doing was imposing his ideological preferences on his observations, something which is rampant when even the biggest figures in science make up stories about fossilized remains and ALWAYS IS THE CASE WHEN THEY DO SO ON THE BASIS OF NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL. And as Richard Lewontin says, there is no way to confirm or reject stories about the selective forces invented in those stories, they are a matter of preference. That is inevitably a practice under Darwinism because there is no way to discern what really happened in the past because it can't be observed, it can't be measured and any analysis that is done to retrospectively create the simulations of observations is no different from the stories told in the first chapters of Genesis or any ancient creation myth. The difference is that what the scientists are doing is sold as science and the amoral atrocities such as those Karl Pearson developed out of Darwinism are generally more viciously murderous and sold as having a scientific reliability they most certainly don't have. Darwin, Karl Pearson, today's Evolutionary Psychologists, all of them claim to have those powers which the Olympians weren't claimed to have had. Sometimes they are used to authorized mass murder and genocide. That's as clear as the words of Karl Pearson.
** In fact, Ernst Haeckel had considerable influence in British and American intellectual circles through translation of his works, some by the foremost British atheist of his day, Joseph McCabe - some of which, proto-Nazi depravity and all, was reprinted by the American atheist publishing firm Prometheus not that long ago. And, for those with a more modest budget and less of an attention span, in the famous series of Little Blue Books, that came from the foremost American atheist propagandist of his day, Emanuel Haldeman-Julius. To read the history of eugenics and what would develop into fascism and its relationship with, not only the expected secular right but the secular left was quite an eye opener to me as to what materialism inevitably does to would-be leftism. It was one of the keys to my understanding of why the American left failed, catastrophically, continuing into today, as the likes of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. were succeeded by "secularists" and atheists.
Update: If you are still in denial due to the fact that the Nazis concentrated on European populations for wholesale slaughter instead of People of color, first, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like a Nazi, second, Karl Pearson practically gave them the very words in which the Nazis elucidated their plan to "cleanse" the German, the ARYAN population of "Asiatic" (the very word often used by the Nazis) pollution of them, Jews being foremost but only one of the groups they figured they needed to get rid of. I gave you that passage yesterday:
Frequently they intercross, and if the bad stock be raised the good is lowered. Even in the case of Eurasians, of whom I have met mentally and physically fine specimens, I have felt how much better they would have been had they been pure Asiatics or pure Europeans. Thus it comes about that when the struggle for existence between races is suspended, the solution of great problems may be unnaturally postponed; instead of the slow, stern processes of evolution, cataclysmal solutions are prepared for the future.
The word "final" in "final solution" was used because the Nazis found the Brits weren't going to let them deport Jews to Palestine or other places - no doubt, eventually in the continued culling of the sort both Pearson and they believed was necessary to "improve" the human species, they'd have gotten around to killing them in Palestine too. The "final solution" would certainly fall into the "cataclysmal solutions" to achieve his end that, in 1900, Pearson said were "prepared for the future" That Karl Pearson was presenting this as scientific fact in 1900 certainly gives him priority for such ideas over Hitler who was eleven at the time he said this.
Continuing immediately after where I left off in the main contents of National Life From The Standpoint of Science, page 25, Karl Pearson makes that claim to an absolute certainty.
But America is but one case in which we have to mark a masterful human progress following an inter-racial struggle. The Australian nation is another case of great civilization supplanting a lower race unable to work to the full the land and its resources. Further back in history you find the same tale with almost every European nation. Sometimes when the conquering race is not too diverse in civilization and in type of energy there is an amalgamation of races, as when Norman and Anglo-Saxon ultimately blended; at other times the inferior race is driven out before the superior, as the Celt drove out the Iberian. The struggle means suffering, intense suffering, while it is in progress; but that struggle and that suffering have been the stages by which the white man has reached his present stage of development, and they account for the fact that he no longer lives in caves and feeds on roots and nuts. This dependence of progress on the survival of the fitter race, terribly black as it may seem to some of you, gives the struggle for existence its redeeming features; it is the fiery crucible out of which comes the finer metal. You may hope for a time when the sword shall be turned into the ploughshare, when American and German and English traders shall no longer compete in the markets of the world for their raw material and for their food supply, when the white man and the dark shall share the soil between them, and each till it as he lists. But, believe me, when that day comes mankind will no longer progress; there will be nothing to check the fertility of inferior stock; the relentless law of heredity will not be controlled and guided by natural selection. May will stagnate; and unless he ceases to multiply, the catastrophe will come again; famine and pestilence, as we see them in the East, physical selection instead of the struggle of race against race, will do the work more relentlessly, and to judge from India and China, far less efficiently than of old.
Remember, this was Karl Pearson, eminent man of science, respected member of the Fabian socialist ranting like Hitler in 1900 as he said exactly the same things Hitler would begin saying two decades after Pearson gave this as a lecture, this was what he said was a fact of science, that science being what he regarded the glory of British Science, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, he was saying it in cultured English to a society of the nicest of British audiences, many of them members of the ruling aristocratic class.
It was a result of his scientific, materialist, atheist faith that Darwin had found the key to what they took as the central question of the life sciences, what the conventional - I would say enforced - hegemony of Darwinism in science still holds up as the central idea in biology, including, as can be seen in the revival of eugenics under Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology, still generates assertions of eugenics.
I don't know if there was ever a German translation of Karl Pearson's speech but, as with the translations of Darwinian scientific literature back and forth between English and German, the very terms that sound so deranged and morally repugnant when they come out of a Hitler, an Eichmann, a Goebbels, can be said in English through elegant prose, you can imagine hearing it in a refined, received British or an educated American voice, quite often in easily seen cognates.
I have known some American and British socialists of today, mostly Marxist, who, seeing the "socialist" label on a Karl Pearson or some other British scientist figure that they are the same kind of socialists they are. But there can be no question that the socialism of Karl Pearson, a development of his scientism, his atheism and his materialism when filtered through his Darwinism is an almost exact match for the National Socialism of the Nazis. The belief in natural selection - and given the impossibility of really observing Darwinian natural selection,* the production of new species, even the development of new traits that become a universal feature of species, it is a belief - inevitably leads to the same conclusions.
Darwin turned murder into a creative force when he posited a "struggle for existence" HIS WORDS, NOT MINE, as the engine of progress in evolution. The subsequent claim of post-war neo-Darwinists that Darwin's natural selection was not presented as a progressive force is a lie, as can be seen from reading the claims of conventional Darwinists of indisputable authority to make such claims such as Karl Pearson, indeed, going right back to Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man, in the fifth and sixth editions he prepared of On the Origin of Species, in his first and confirmed generation of his followers named by him, Francis Galton and, foremost, according to his own introduction in The Descent of Man, Ernst Haeckel whose authorized elucidation of Darwin's natural selection was so influential in German science, in German intellectual life and, in the next generation, in politics and the law.** That was already happening during Charles Darwin's life, he corresponded with, not only German scientists, but German intellectuals and legal scholars on the application of his theory in legal policy, including the imposition of execution, the implication of state killing in improving the human stock.
* It is not only in the investigation of human society that the truth is sometimes unavailable. Natural scientists, in their overweening pride, have come to believe that eventually everything we want to know will be known. But that is not true. For some things there is simply not world enough and time. It may be, given the necessary constraints on time and resources available to the natural sciences, that we will never have more than a rudimentary understanding of the central nervous system. For other things, especially in biology where so many of the multitude of forces operating are individually so weak, no conceivable technique of observation can measure them. In evolutionary biology, for example, there is no possibility of measuring the selective forces operating on most genes because those forces are so weak, yet the eventual evolution of the organisms is governed by them. Worse, there is no way to confirm or reject stories about the selective forces that operated in the past to bring traits to their present state, no matter how strong those forces were. Over and over, in these essays reproduced here, I have tried to give an impression of the limitations on the possibility of our knowledge. Science is a social activity carried out by a remarkable, but by no means omnipotent species. Even the Olympians were limited in their powers.
Richard Lewontin: Introduction: It Ain't Necessarily So
Lewontin is an honest enough person to admit that the belief that those "selective forces operating on most genes" can't either be observed or measured. In case no one missed that, it really means, there's no way to know if those things are there or even if they are real and not an imagined construct.
He goes on to present the problem in a way which directly shows the fact that natural selection must be believed and can't be known, "there is no way to confirm or reject stories about the selective forces that operated in the past to bring traits to their present state, no matter how strong those forces were." Anyone who reads any of the stories, the scenarios, the very substance that Darwinian natural selection is made of who doesn't see the truth of what Lewontin said isn't thinking about it very hard because it is obvious. In many of his writings on natural selection and, especially, his claims derived from it, Karl Pearson will admit that there is "little data" to support his claims, at one point I remember he even admitted that Darwin had no actual data to support what he said in Descent of Man, but then he claimed to see trends in other data or in life that support his Darwinian interpretation of them. What he was doing was imposing his ideological preferences on his observations, something which is rampant when even the biggest figures in science make up stories about fossilized remains and ALWAYS IS THE CASE WHEN THEY DO SO ON THE BASIS OF NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT ALL. And as Richard Lewontin says, there is no way to confirm or reject stories about the selective forces invented in those stories, they are a matter of preference. That is inevitably a practice under Darwinism because there is no way to discern what really happened in the past because it can't be observed, it can't be measured and any analysis that is done to retrospectively create the simulations of observations is no different from the stories told in the first chapters of Genesis or any ancient creation myth. The difference is that what the scientists are doing is sold as science and the amoral atrocities such as those Karl Pearson developed out of Darwinism are generally more viciously murderous and sold as having a scientific reliability they most certainly don't have. Darwin, Karl Pearson, today's Evolutionary Psychologists, all of them claim to have those powers which the Olympians weren't claimed to have had. Sometimes they are used to authorized mass murder and genocide. That's as clear as the words of Karl Pearson.
** In fact, Ernst Haeckel had considerable influence in British and American intellectual circles through translation of his works, some by the foremost British atheist of his day, Joseph McCabe - some of which, proto-Nazi depravity and all, was reprinted by the American atheist publishing firm Prometheus not that long ago. And, for those with a more modest budget and less of an attention span, in the famous series of Little Blue Books, that came from the foremost American atheist propagandist of his day, Emanuel Haldeman-Julius. To read the history of eugenics and what would develop into fascism and its relationship with, not only the expected secular right but the secular left was quite an eye opener to me as to what materialism inevitably does to would-be leftism. It was one of the keys to my understanding of why the American left failed, catastrophically, continuing into today, as the likes of The Reverend Martin Luther King jr. were succeeded by "secularists" and atheists.
Update: If you are still in denial due to the fact that the Nazis concentrated on European populations for wholesale slaughter instead of People of color, first, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like a Nazi, second, Karl Pearson practically gave them the very words in which the Nazis elucidated their plan to "cleanse" the German, the ARYAN population of "Asiatic" (the very word often used by the Nazis) pollution of them, Jews being foremost but only one of the groups they figured they needed to get rid of. I gave you that passage yesterday:
Frequently they intercross, and if the bad stock be raised the good is lowered. Even in the case of Eurasians, of whom I have met mentally and physically fine specimens, I have felt how much better they would have been had they been pure Asiatics or pure Europeans. Thus it comes about that when the struggle for existence between races is suspended, the solution of great problems may be unnaturally postponed; instead of the slow, stern processes of evolution, cataclysmal solutions are prepared for the future.
The word "final" in "final solution" was used because the Nazis found the Brits weren't going to let them deport Jews to Palestine or other places - no doubt, eventually in the continued culling of the sort both Pearson and they believed was necessary to "improve" the human species, they'd have gotten around to killing them in Palestine too. The "final solution" would certainly fall into the "cataclysmal solutions" to achieve his end that, in 1900, Pearson said were "prepared for the future" That Karl Pearson was presenting this as scientific fact in 1900 certainly gives him priority for such ideas over Hitler who was eleven at the time he said this.
No comments:
Post a Comment