As, during the past several weeks, I was reviewing my notes and typing out the proof that the Nazi eugnic-genocides were founded on what they found in Darwin's theory which is not "evolution" as is so ubiquitously not understood but natural selection, I realized that the Nazi conception of life and politics that allowed them to take Darwin's theory and use it to kill millions rested on other aspects of "enlightenment" culture and science of the time and which, like natural selection, is still imagined to be an aspect of nature and still carries the same potentials for genocidal violence it did then. It's destroying American democracy and that in many other countries, right now. And the Nazis are hardly alone in doing that.
Right before the New Year, I was planning on attacking another of those scientifically imagined entities, one that mixed with natural selection in such a deadly way, the ethno-nationalistic notion of "Aryanism". That's why I linked to and mentioned the Guardian article about the mathematical proof that pretty much everyone who were identified as "European" or at least a large majority of them would have had the Carolingean Emperor Charlemagne (748-814) as one of their ancestors because of the numbers of ancestors of those generations we all have and because the theoretical number of those would exceed the size of the human population.
I pointed out in passing that if "all of us" or even almost all of us would almost certainly have one man, Charlemagne, as one of our myriads of ancestors of that time, we would all, including every last Nazi, have Jews in our ancestry, there having been many more than one Jew in the same available population to have provided us with our ancestry in those and even earlier generations.
The chances of every last Nazi having Jewish ancestry would be a virtual certainty as would every last Jew of European ancestry, today, having distant ancestors who participated in pogroms at the time, we would, all of us have crusaders in our ancestry as well as people in the groups they murdered on their way to the middle east, Jews, Roma, Orthodox Christians, etc. And if not in our direct line, we certainly share the same ancestors they did. We are all cousins, at least. The concept of ethnic purity as a biological concept is as mathematically incompetent as Richard Dawkins' "first bird to call out" horse shit biological theory. Both fail on that absolute requirement of all real science, that it have mathematical and logical integrity.
The idea of ethnic purity depends on ignorance for it to be maintained, and loads of scientists who should have been able to comprehend the mathematical disproof of it by the time they were fifteen are devout believers in it. Look at the very accomplished mathematical scientists who have, such as Karl Pearson. What is especially telling is that with the generation of Darwin who correctly speculated that all human beings had an origin in Africa, there should have been no force more ready to give up the superstitions of racism but his theory of natural selection, based in the ethic of the British Class system by way of Malthus, produced some of the most vicious and genocidal scientific racism the world has ever seen. Darwin's racism, given his theory depends on a glacial rate of biological change within and among species, should have disappeared when he came up with his ideas but he was a full blown, if less vulgarly expressed scientific racist, I think becoming more so for his development of his theory.
The extent to which the Nazi conceptions of such things resulted in their mass murders couldn't possibly be less important than the bogus scientific theory of natural selection they, neo-Darwinistically, slapped it together with. ,They found that so easy because, as can be seen in the relationship of Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, etc. such scientific racism was endemic to the theory. The variety of it they chose had an older, somewhat independent though not entirely unrelated existence. The theory of "Aryianism" is a particularly vile creation of the "enlightenment" one which finds a rather curious tie in with "the rights of states to exist" in the 19th century French pseudo-scientific thinker and writer, Ernst Renan who anticipated those Nazis who attempted to rewrite the Bible by making Jesus an "Aryan," by almost eight decades. Only Renan did it under the influence of secular-French culture in the post-revolutionary period. He was also one of the early popularizers of the notion of "rights of states to exist". Which is as basic a misconception as ethnic nationalism and as dangerous. Virtually every instance of mass murder by countries has involved some, notion that "the state" had a right to kill lots and lots of people, you don't have to mix some idiotic 19th century reification of natural forces with it for it to be deadly, the gangsters who call themselves "Marxists" used such an idea as an excuse for mass murder mixing it in with some of the more flaky notions of social science that arose in the early to late 19th century.
Ethno-nationalistic fascism is certainly not limited as to its variety. Any ethnicity can play that game. And it's always dangerous. Renan has a kind of contemporary intellectual descendant in Jean Raspail, the author of a novel, Le Camp des Saints, which is very popular with white-supremacists and, very oddly, neo-Nazis. Raspail mixes his decidedly French flavored nationalist-racist paranoia with neo-integralist Catholicism and monarchism. I seem to recall he's a fan of the heretical Society of Pius X. The extent to which Christianity, which never had any business having a kingdom of this world, was mixed with political entities, be they Roman emperors or feudal monarchs or even republics it became associated and mixed up in those same things. But that's a very long series of posts and we've got Trump to deal with. Among Trump's band of bandits who love them some Raspail are Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Julia Hahn and Steve King. William F. Buckley loved the book as did the vile patron of so many of our media crypto-Nazis, Jeffrey Hart. For those who think there's a real difference between "conservatism" as the word is used by Republican-fascism and contemporary fascism.
I could write at length on both of those pillars of the pseudo-scientific contribution to the age of genocide we have been during the late "enlightenment" period as I have on natural selection, Darwinism's contribution to it. It would be possible, at least as a means of debunking their scientific legitimacy the extent to which those make claims of scientific validity. The notion of "states rights" is not scientifically definable or justifiable - it's more of a basic category error kind of thing. But it is mixed in with notions of nationalism, ethnic purity and identity and gives them a particularly potent potential for getting lots of people discriminated against, expelled and killed. That such a noble conception such as human rights is can be so easily confused into something so vile as the word is so often used to protect and promote, is certainly worth thinking through to see if that cancer can't be removed from it because it will certainly kill human rights. Those are either enjoyed equally, or they are destroyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment