Since I took up the challenge to "prove" that the Nazi's murder of about six-million Jews was a crime with the fingerprints of the Darwinists all over it, I have established, in primary documentation a number of things. A partial listing of which are:
- It is known that as Hitler and other Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Emil Maurice, as they were in Landsberg Prison, were provided with an influential, two-volume work of three eminent German biologists, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz - a book, the title of which is translated in a number of ways into English and which, here, I will call by the often used nickname, "Baur, Fischer, Lenz".
- It is known that what Hitler, and it can be assumed, in so far as I've read the primary literature, Rudolf Hess were greatly influenced by what Baur, Fischer and Lenz wrote in that book which, during the entire period after its publication and through the Nazi period was the foremost German language scientific authority on the topics most relevant to the Nazi's eugenic and genocide policies. I have not been able to check the assertions I've read in the secondary literature that many of the things Hitler said in Mein Kampf and in subsequent documents either appropriate or closely paraphrase passages in the book. I am not familiar enough with whatever words or other traces Emil Maurice may have left to know the extent to which he may have been influenced by the book.
- I have established that Fritz Lenz, in a passage of the book he wrote, said that the biological framing of the work was that of natural selection, with which they interpreted genetic and other claims made in the book. He also, explicitly, named the scientific orientation they used in their book as Darwinism, explicitly tying their book and its claims to the foremost theory of Charles Darwin. I will note that Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer were the two members of the trio who officially joined the Nazi Party and enjoyed great scientific advancement and benefits from that, both directly participated in Nazi eugenics in both its scientific theory and political application, Fritz Lenz saying things, such as, " As important as the external features for their evaluation is the lineage of individuals, a blond Jew is also a Jew. Yes, there are Jews who have most of the external features of the Nordic race, but who nevertheless display Jewish mental tendencies. The legislation of the National Socialist state therefore properly defines a Jew not by external race characteristics, but by descent." which by his own scientific declaration must be taken to be a claim made out of his belief in natural selection.
I could come up with page after page of such statements made by him and the other two which would be of a similar nature and orientation that would show, in no uncertain terms, what flowed from their Darwism. I will later translate the one I've already given in German, now that I've broken my own rule against translating, I may as well give you that, too.
- I have established that among other things in the book taken from people who have, as well, in their own words, identified their biological framing as that of natural selection and, in most cases identifying natural selection by its other name, Darwinism, that one of the most explicitly relevant to proving my case was a 1925 paper by the eminent second-generation Darwinist, Karl Pearson and Margaret Moul (about whom I know very little) which is explicitly a work of scientific antisemitism. The Problem of Alien Immigration Into Great Britain, Illustrated By An Examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children. I have given the passage in which Baur,Fischer, Lenz used that paper by Pearson and Moul to explicitly claim that "eastern" Jews were flowing into Germany and posing the same kind of "danger" to Germans and Germany and that it was a "now burning" - which might be also translated "most burning" - danger to the German people.
- I have, as well, in his own words proven that Karl Pearson said that his framing of biology was the same as that of Baur, Fischer, Lenz, natural selection which he, as well, explicitly identified with the person of Charles Darwin. I could and will, give example after example of that and the truly depraved and Nazi like assertions it led the British, English speaking gentleman Pearson, to make scientific claims that sound like the coldest, cruelest of Hollywood stock villain depraved Nazi, only he said it in the sterile language of Brit science, with a veneer of numbers so the superficial won't understand that that's what he's saying. No doubt, it sounded more anodyne to German speakers who could read Baur, Fischer, Lenz in the months and years before the Nazis cut to the meat of the matter and, with the help of, at least, Fischer and Lenz, made it as real as can be in military and genocidal terms.
I have proven my case, the scientific basis of the Nazi eugenics that rapidly turned to Nazi genocide was, in their own words, the product of their belief in natural selection, which they, in their own words, called what a belief in natural selection is, Darwinism. I have in numerous posts over the last seven or so years, established that such thinking permeates the writing of Charles Darwin and those scientific authorities he approved and cited positively in his scientific writing, especially Ernst Haeckel and the teacher of Karl Pearson, Francis Galton, including claims of the beneficial effects to the killers and their families and societies of genocide, the extermination of entire human populations as well as the internal "dangers" of allowing poor people and the disabled to live long enough to have children. What the Nazis found there had been there since, at least, the 1860s.
And about those numbers, in that Cavendish lecture that Pearson gave, the kind of stuff he used as "data" to make up his numbers is of the typical kind of dodgy observation that Darwin, himself, based his science in. Pearson relies on such things as police reports and police records of servant girls who were insufficiently docile and obedient to please their Victorian-Edwardian era masters and mistresses and what they got up to when not working to base his hard, scientific seeming science in. As I've made this long study which is now closing in on two decades, I have to say the standards of such crap being called and treated as hard science has been rather a shocking eye-opener. While I know that effort to turn what might be more honestly considered idle gossip as found through the framing of the mostly men, often quite conservative or reactionary gossipers into "data" in the way Karl Pearson and those who would make behavior the object of scientific study, it is no better than the source of such junk science. But as it is credentialed, published scientists who make those claims, it is seldom treated with the level of critical skepticism that such men of science pretend they always apply.
I will close by saying that the guy who made the challenge, a play-lefty American, college-credentialed and member of a self-styled "brain - trust" is about as open to the evidence as the House Republican caucus has been in the Impeachment of Donald Trump. As I have said, one of my greatest shocks since going online and interacting with what I once mistook as my fellow lefties of the college-credentialed type was how much so many of them had in common with the crudest, vilest, most reactionary right-wingers. And I don't just mean the blog-rat variety of "leftists" I mean some of those who have careers in journalism and in whatever you want to call online podcasting and Youtubing. I think, in the end, it comes down to the same thing, whether or not you value the truth as opposed to convenient, congenial lies. In the end, it's not even a question of information, it's a question of moral choice.
In a related though separate exchange I had with a blog-comment level racist this week, after I'd provided the "proof" he demanded, he parried by saying, "It's like my mother used to say, you can't fix stupid," to which I said I was certain he'd given his mother many an occasion to say that to him.
Update: Re-reading this, I see that, in the event that some defender of Darwin notes that the paper of Pearson comes two years after Hitler read the first edition of the book, that the book and, as I proved, its authors were of continuing influence on Nazi policy, the edition of the book I took that citation from was 1932, before the Nazis took power and before the man who wrote it, Fritz Lenz was helping to shape Nazi policy against the Jews, up to and including the earliest part of their genocide, the 1935 eugnics laws Lenz gave his scientific approval. As can be seen in the careers of Fischer and Lenz, after the Nazis took power, they relied on their science informed by the science of such people as Pearson, the explicitly Darwinist eugenics of Paul Popenoe and Leonard Darwin (both, as well, have numerous citations in" B.F.L") to make Nazi policy as enacted. When arguing with the champions of Darwin, it's essential to anticipate which of the several dodges they will use to distort or deny the evidence that proves the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment