LIKE SO MANY COLLEGE CREDENTIALED, ILLITERATES, Simps has a very limited repertoire of tropes he goes over again and again and again, for decades and scores of years. It's why he continually goes over the pop kulcha drivel that he made the center of his so-called work life, rehashing the same old overplayed pop music and pop movies and pop TV shows over and over and over again, saying what others said a half century and more ago, probably where he got those tropes from originally. There's an episode of the very entertaining radio drama style online series Black Jack Justice that has that practice of the "critics" as a central part of its plot, which you might find amusing.
But enough of that, this is serious because it deals with serious things that shouldn't be the subject of humor or light banter.
One of the things that Simps is always saying is that I slighted the apparently the only book on the topic he claims to have read I (I don't think he ever did read it) Berlin Diary by William Shirer because he doesn't note that Darwinism was the primary motive behind the Holocaust. What I prefer to call the Shoah because there was nothing religious about the Nazi murder of millions of Jews or their murders of many others targeted for murder.
Unlike Simps, who claims to have read the book, I knew that the book only covered the period before the United States entered the war, even before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. It was published on June 20, 1941, and covers a period even earlier than that. The Holocaust as it is generally designated hadn't started by end of the period the book covers, though, as I pointed out in one of two answers to that accusation, the Nazi mass murders, including its trial run of murdering the disabled, started in 1939 in the T-4 murder campaign. That mass murder was explicitly Darwinist in that it was done under the umbrella of eugenics - I have proven, definitively that eugenics was born out of both Francis Galton's and Wilhelm Schallmeyer's reading of On the Origin of Species, no less an expert than the inventor of eugenics, Galton said that was his inspiration in his memoir (publishing the glowing letter that Charles Darwin sent him on the publication of his first book length treatment of eugenics, Hereditary Genius. [Note: you can search those posts in my archive, this entire text would be red if I provided links for all of the posts I've written on the topic.]
In April 1939, no less an expert on eugenics, Galton's successor as the head of the Eugenics Society in Britain and probably the world's leading expert on the thinking of Charles Darwin at that time, his son Leonard Darwin attributed the start of German eugenics to Schallmeyer, stating that it was his independent reading of On The Origin of Species which led to his independent conclusions in eugenics. I also showed, conclusively, that Schallmeyer's predecessor in German eugenic thinking and advocacy of just such mass murder, Ernst Haeckel, was also inspired in his thinking directly by his reading of Darwin and Darwin repeatedly IN WORK INTENDED TO BE TAKEN AS HARD SCIENCE, praised the relevant publications by both Galton and Haeckel, INCLUDING HAECKEL'S CONTENTION THAT MURDERING THOSE DEEMED INFERIOR WAS BENEFICIAL FOR THE SURVIVING (AND MURDERING) POPULATION.
Here are links to the two posts I made on September 19 and 20, 2017, refuting the same claim about Berlin Diaray.
Since from time to time I look farther into the matter of eugenics and its relation to attempted genocides and mass murders I recently read G. K. Chesterton's book Eugenics And Other Evils and was struck by his stated motive in publishing the book in 1922:
Though most of the conclusions, especially towards the end, are conceived with reference to recent events, the actual bulk of preliminary notes about the science of Eugenics were written before the war. It was a time when this theme was the topic of the hour; when eugenic babies (not visibly very distinguishable from other babies) sprawled all over the illustrated papers; when the evolutionary fancy of Nietzsche was the new cry among the intellectuals; and when Mr. Bernard Shaw and others were considering the idea that to breed a man like a cart-horse was the true way to attain that higher civilisation, of intellectual magnanimity and sympathetic insight, which may be found in cart-horses. It may therefore appear that I took the opinion too controversially, and it seems to me that I sometimes took it too seriously. But the criticism of Eugenics soon expanded of itself into a more general criticism of a modern craze for scientific officialism and strict social organisation.
And then the hour came when I felt, not without relief, that I might well fling all my notes into the fire. The fire was a very big one, and was burning up bigger things than such pedantic quackeries. And, anyhow, the issue itself was being settled in a very different style. Scientific officialism and organisation in the State which had specialised in them, had gone to war with the older culture of Christendom. Either Prussianism would win and the protest would be hopeless, or Prussianism would lose and the protest would be needless. As the war advanced from poison gas to piracy against neutrals, it grew more and more plain that the scientifically organised State was not increasing in popularity. Whatever happened, no Englishmen would ever again go nosing round the stinks of that low laboratory. So I thought all I had written irrelevant, and put it out of my mind.
I am greatly grieved to say that it is not irrelevant. It has gradually grown apparent, to my astounded gaze, that the ruling classes in England are still proceeding on the assumption that Prussia is a pattern for the whole world. If parts of my book are nearly nine years old, most of their principles and proceedings are a great deal older. They can offer us nothing but the same stuffy science, the same bullying bureaucracy and the same terrorism by tenth-rate professors that have led the German Empire to its recent conspicuous triumph. For that reason, three years after the war with Prussia, I collect and publish these papers.
You could read my posts dealing with the reporting of the eminent American biologist - and through Darwinist - Vernon Kellogg to read that his interviews with German officers with scientific training, some of whom he knew from his college days, supports Chesterton's association of eugenics with "Prussianism," of course neither of them knew that many of those same officers would go on to form and become members of the Nazi Party.
There was a lot of that kind of stuff in the intellectual and literary atmosphere as Darwinism became popular in those circles. I had noted in previous posts on the subject that George Bernard Shaw had been advocating the mass murder by gas chamber of the many millions of human beings he held to be biologically unfit to live since at least 1910, shocking and thrilling the Fabians with such statements at their meetings.* He shared that idea with that other popular writer, H. G. Wells, undoubtedly a Darwinist who had been a student of Karl Pearson, the student of Francis Galton and perhaps the greatest advocate of Darwinist elimination of people from the future in the late 19th century. As I've also pointed out here, Pearson wrote a scientific paper alleging that having Russian and Polish Jews in Britain would lead to a biological catastrophe of exactly the kind that the Nazis claimed they were for Germany. His research for that paper was done in collaboration with one of the major Nazi eugenicists, Eugen Fischer, someone who we know Hitler and is inner circle had read as they were developing Nazism.
* Shaw had a bizarre relationship with Darwin, claiming to reject Darwinism because it removed his rather flaky concept of "the will" from the scheme of things while retaining and expanding exactly the worst consequence of the theory of natural selection, genocidal eugenics. George Bernard Shaw was, before anything else, a real shithead as well as a total piece of shit. I wonder, other than the one good comedy he wrote, how many times a year his plays are produced these days. I wonder how many of those anyone has ever really liked instead of feeling some kind of twisted sense of conventional morality that they should pretend to like them.
