For The Post War White Wash Of These Connections The Jig Is Up

We can know to within the realm of complete certainty that Hitler got Karl Pearson's thinking at least second hand through the one scientific work that we know he was reading as he was formulating his Nazi ideology in Mein Kampf .  We know that with certainty because the book Grundruss von Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene was given to Hitler by the right-wing science publisher J. H. Lehmann to aid Hitler's research while he was in Landesburg prison. The book, by three German scientists of the day,  Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer*, and Fritz Lenz cites Karl Pearson and a series he oversaw at the Galton Institute as among the foremost of sources of such science.   You can also see from the citations that they used material from English language sources, Charles Davenport, Paul Popenoe,  and, most interesting from my point of view, a book which Charles Darwin, himself, endorsed,  Francis Galton's Hereditary Genius which they deemed to be "The classic work on the matter of hereditary endowment"  They certainly got that from the English original because in their note on the book they discount the German translation as "not completely satisfactory". [See here in the original, pages 302 and 303]

These very ideas of English and American Darwinism were among the ones that Hitler was using when he formulated Nazism, just about every one of them from atheists who were almost uniformly hostile to Jewish-Christian religion.

The ties that bind English language Darwinism directly to Nazism are there in plain sight and always will be as long as the literature of both exist.   You could cover that up in the print culture that created the post-war non-eugenic Darwin but that's over with access to the original documents online in easily found, easily researched form. 

Scientists, science popularizers, those holding up their plaster-St. Darwin idol had better face that fact, that the long told lies of impunity for the concept of natural selection,  Darwinism, are falling as people have a chance to look at that primary material.  As I said, every single time I start to look into the writing and words of the mainstream Darwinists, I can almost guarantee you that I'll find some depravity.  At times it's only quasi-Nazi-like, couched in veiled racism, other times, as in the major figure of Karl Pearson, it is indistinguishable from Nazism.  And the ties to everything from neo-Nazism to the American Republican-fascist right are included in those connections.  An example I've mentioned before, one of Paul Popenoe's post-war associates was James Dobson, the founder of Focus On The Family** and a major figure in right-wing American politics today.   Darwinism is based in inequality, it cannot be reconciled with the basis of genuine American style liberalism.   It certainly is incompatible with the political beliefs of some of its most ardent defenders such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin.  That tension is something that the neo-eugenicists have exploited in their attacks on them.

Dump Darwinism it's incompatible with democracy.

*  Eugen Fischer was guilty of war crimes by that time due to him doing in a German concentration camp in East Africa in the first decade of the 20th century pretty much what Mengele and his colleagues in German science did in the 1940s.  Only, as his victims were Black People, it's only recently that that connection has been made.

As can be seen from the passages from Karl Fischer I gave you this week, one sentence in this recent citation of that is absolutely wrong.

In the Herero work camps there were numerous children born to these abused women, and a man called Eugen Fischer, who was interested in genetics, came to the camps to study them; he carried out medical experiments on them as well. He decided that each mixed-race child was physically and mentally inferior to its German father (a conclusion for which there was and is no respectable scientific foundation whatever) and wrote a book promoting his ideas: 'The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene'. Adolf Hitler read it while he was in prison in 1923, and cited it in his own infamous pursuit of 'racial purity'.

That idea did have a "respectable scientific foundation," such was given to it by one of the foremost scientists of that decade,  Karl Pearson, years before Fischer carried out his proto-Nazi experiments and drew his proto-Nazi conclusions.  Such is the "respectable" science that arises with Dariwnism for the reasons I stated below, it makes murder into a creator god on the basis of asserted inequality, including among humans of different races and classes.  I would love to know if Fischer had read Pearson or what of Darwin he had read before he committed crimes against humanity.  That was the same scientific basis on which the post-war scientific hero Francis Crick was writing in secret to his scientific colleagues to get support for the scientific racism of Arthur Jensen, whose work informs the racism of Charles Murray.  It's a daisy chain of Darwinist racism that continues to our time.

** Just as the ties to figures like Karl Pearson discredits the awful British from of "socialism". Fabinanism,   such ties as that of Dobson discredit the "Christianity" that is part of the American Republican-fascist right, the ones who also put a serial adulterer, bragging sexual assaulter and hater of the poor and white supremacist in the White House and maintains him there.  

Note:  I have stopped using the dishonest convention of putting discredited or all too temporarily unpopular science such as eugenics and scientific racism in scare quotes as "science".   Science is whatever the scientists of its time decide it is, this science was accepted almost universally by biologists in the pre-war period, it is being reverted to now that the memory of the atrocities of the Nazis is fading with the deaths of those who experienced and witnessed it.   Science wears this because science, scientists, maintain its repute as can be seen in Crick and Watson, etc.  They don't get to hide behind poses of moral impunity as far as I'm concerned.

Update:  Hey, it as you who slammed me for what I said about Karl Pearson, I'm not going to apologize for knowing how to prove I was right about him and to tie him into the general milieu in which he operated and his ideas operate today.  Maybe if you read more instead of playing online . . .