Nazis, Darwin And Evolution

[bilby]

Any reading of Mein Kampf will unambiguously render Hitler as being a man who, like Darwin (and like a whole array of German philosophers,) viewed life and the world as a jungle where survival of the strongest was the only mandate one needed to justify predation.

Point out, word for word, where both Hitler and Darwin endorsed a "might makes right" ethic. For Darwin, you may stick to "Origin of Species".

This seems to me like projection of villainy.

There's no 'ethics' in natural selection.

/me waves goodbye to the Strawman.

There's nothing natural about eugenics or ethnic genocide, or indeed any of Hitler's (or anyone else's) ethics.

The strawman here is the one you just tried to sneak in the back door.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future. If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states."

Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

No Darwin here. No evolution here. Back to the Northern crusades, Might Make Right. Obviously not some idea Adolf got from Darwin or Darwin's theory of evolution. Despite the lies of Richard Weikart or Dinesh D'Souza that Darwin inspired Hitler.

 

[Bomb#20]

Any reading of Mein Kampf will unambiguously render Hitler as being a man who, like Darwin (and like a whole array of German philosophers,) viewed life and the world as a jungle where survival of the strongest was the only mandate one needed to justify predation.

"I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. … And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty" - Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle

As to "Darwinism" and eugenics, it must be pointed out that eugenics is *artificial* selection.

There is nothing 'artificial' about in-group / out-group natural selection. Many species deliberately cull the weak.

"Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind" - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

 

[Bomb#20]

Any reading of Mein Kampf will unambiguously render Hitler as being a man who... viewed life and the world as a jungle where survival of the strongest was the only mandate one needed to justify predation.

Point out, word for word, where both Hitler and Darwin endorsed a "might makes right" ethic. ...

There's no 'ethics' in natural selection. ...

There's no ethics outside of natural selection: only natural selection can account for the feelings of sympathy and fairness that ethics arose from.

There's certainly no ethics in Divine Command Theory. Strength is the only mandate the Biblical God seems to think He needs to justify His predations.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nope. Hitlers Concordat with the Holy See (July 1933) was a Nazi con job.

The Nazis started violating the agreement within days of signing it.

They introduced sterilization laws which offended Pius XI. They banned the Catholic Youth League. They executed Erich Klausener, the leader of Catholic Action in Germany. The Gestapo was forcefully intruding and violating the seal of Confessional to gather intelligence on Catholics. Catholic publications were being banned and shut down across the country. Why? Because of their support for Hitler?
Catholic priests and nuns in their thousands were being arrested.

Read Pius XI encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" which accused the regime of sowing the "tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church" Pius XII described Nazism as arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ. (Which it was/is)

The only blame the Catholic Church has for Hitler was when it granted the dispensation which enabled the consanguineous marriage of his parents Klara Pözl and Alois Schicklgruber.

Any reading of Mein Kampf will unambiguously render Hitler as being a man who, like Darwin (and like a whole array of German philosophers,) viewed life and the world as a jungle where survival of the strongest was the only mandate one needed to justify predation.

As to "Darwinism" and eugenics, it must be pointed out that eugenics is *artificial* selection.

There is nothing 'artificial' about in-group / out-group natural selection. Many species deliberately cull the weak.

The Catholic Church isn't the same thing as Christians. The Catholic Church is famous for not being especially Christian. That's why the reformation first got started. Historically the Catholic Church are supremely good at being pragmatic and ignoring parts of the Bible or Christian thought that is inconvenient at the time.

The Catholic Church have historically acted as a brake on the worst excesses of fanatical Christians. So too in the holocaust. That's why Hitler did away with their power.

Its similar to the Ottoman caliphs. They have a reputation for being fanatically spreading Islam through jihad. But if you read about the actions of the caliphs, 9/10 times the were cracking down on tinpot loony fundamentalist jihadists rather than infidels.

The pope has had the same role in the Catholic Church. Both the pope and the caliphs spent considerable efforts in protecting Jews right through history. Otherwise they would have been murdered through genocide long ago.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nope. Hitlers Concordat with the Holy See (July 1933) was a Nazi con job.

The Nazis started violating the agreement within days of signing it.

They introduced sterilization laws which offended Pius XI. They banned the Catholic Youth League. They executed Erich Klausener, the leader of Catholic Action in Germany. The Gestapo was forcefully intruding and violating the seal of Confessional to gather intelligence on Catholics. Catholic publications were being banned and shut down across the country. Why? Because of their support for Hitler?
Catholic priests and nuns in their thousands were being arrested.

Read Pius XI encyclical "Mit Brennender Sorge" which accused the regime of sowing the "tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and His Church" Pius XII described Nazism as arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ. (Which it was/is)

The only blame the Catholic Church has for Hitler was when it granted the dispensation which enabled the consanguineous marriage of his parents Klara Pözl and Alois Schicklgruber.

Any reading of Mein Kampf will unambiguously render Hitler as being a man who, like Darwin (and like a whole array of German philosophers,) viewed life and the world as a jungle where survival of the strongest was the only mandate one needed to justify predation.

As to "Darwinism" and eugenics, it must be pointed out that eugenics is *artificial* selection.

There is nothing 'artificial' about in-group / out-group natural selection. Many species deliberately cull the weak.

The Catholic Church isn't the same thing as Christians. The Catholic Church is famous for not being especially Christian. That's why the reformation first got started. Historically the Catholic Church are supremely good at being pragmatic and ignoring parts of the Bible or Christian thought that is inconvenient at the time.

That isn't uniquely Catholic. All religions and sects selectively pick the parts of their holy texts that support their current biases and current culture and ignore those parts that they find inconvenient. As the times change their choice of what parts of the texts they think important and which parts superfluous changes.

The Catholic Church have historically acted as a brake on the worst excesses of fanatical Christians. So too in the holocaust. That's why Hitler did away with their power.

Fanatical being defined as those who disagree with the leadership. As for excesses, there was the little matter of the inquisition fully supported by the Pope.

ETA:
This thread seems out of place in the 'natural science' forum. 'Social science' would seem to be more appropriate.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I put in in the natural science forum because the OP was about Nazi attacks on natural science, IE, evolution and Darwin. And anti-Darwinist attempts to attack evolution by claiming Darwin inspired the Nazis and Holocaust.

 

[Lion IRC]

...Despite the lies OPINIONS of Richard Weikart or Dinesh D'Souza that Darwin inspired Hitler.

Fixed your post. An honestly held opinion is not a lie - agreed?

I put in in the natural science forum because the OP was about Nazi attacks on natural science, IE, evolution and Darwin. And anti-Darwinist attempts to attack evolution by claiming Darwin inspired the Nazis and Holocaust.

The claim isn't that Darwin "inspires" Nazis to perpetrate crimes like the holocaust. The claim would be that Darwinism enables the sort of conclusions and interpretations as were used by the Master Race. The same racist "might makes right" naturalistic fallacy permeated the Imperialism of the British Empire.

 

[Lion IRC]

Natural History Museum to review potentially 'offensive' Charles Darwin collection
An internal review in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests has led to an audit into some rooms and items

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1302719377142358019?s=20

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...Despite the lies OPINIONS of Richard Weikart or Dinesh D'Souza that Darwin inspired Hitler.

Fixed your post. An honestly held opinion is not a lie - agreed?

I put in in the natural science forum because the OP was about Nazi attacks on natural science, IE, evolution and Darwin. And anti-Darwinist attempts to attack evolution by claiming Darwin inspired the Nazis and Holocaust.

The claim isn't that Darwin "inspires" Nazis to perpetrate crimes like the holocaust. The claim would be that Darwinism enables the sort of conclusions and interpretations as were used by the Master Race. The same racist "might makes right" naturalistic fallacy permeated the Imperialism of the British Empire.

Weikart has been corrected many times on his "opinion". So has D'Souza. and a few others peddling these lies. But reason and facts fall on deaf ears with these writers. There is a point when the facts matter more than mere opinions that refuse to acknowledge these facts. They just keep peddling more of the same and refuse to be corrected. at that point, it is in fact lies, no merely a mistaken opinion. Their books are in print, and Weikart, being corrected on his first book's omissions of fact and careless claims wrote a second book merely doing more of the same. This is like Holocaust deniers who will not be corrected and still peddle Holocaust denial. This does a lot of damage misleading people and these ideologues do not care.

No, it is not about mere opinion. And no, there is nothing in Darwin that would enable genocide or wars of conquest. as Hitler makes clear in Mein Kampf, those ideas were present centuries before Darwin and inspired Hitler.

 

[BH]

What does it mean to be weak anyway? Over here in the usa the weak would be people who work at Walmart. In former communist countries these people who would have been the walmart workers killed their kings and well off people and took their shit. The king and the rich were the weak in that situation. I'd be very careful using this word weak. It seems relative.

 

[Bomb#20]

In former communist countries these people who would have been the walmart workers killed their kings and well off people... The king and the rich were the weak in that situation. I'd be very careful using this word weak. It seems relative.

In 1921 Paris was loaded with formerly rich Russians trying to talk Western Europe into helping them get their stuff back, while Russia was loaded with five million peasants starving to death from the famine Lenin caused. Yes, weak is relative.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

[removed] These mystical fascist zealots also embraced the discoveries of the Wright Brothers, dynamite, shipbuilding, cartography and a host of technologies that benefitted their religionist fervor. Is anyone whipping the discoverers of those scientific breakthroughs and technologies?

When integration happened in the last school district near here people with enough money put their children into catholic schools. Civil rights and integration were a boom to racists and segregationists. It was common knowledge that parochial catholic education was a bed of racism.

Lets not forget that Nazis didn't drop onto the earth out of the clouds. They arose in a christian state where people were lutheran and catholic, all properly baptized and schooled christians.

 

[skepticalbip]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

[removed] These mystical fascist zealots also embraced the discoveries of the Wright Brothers, dynamite, shipbuilding, cartography and a host of technologies that benefitted their religionist fervor. Is anyone whipping the discoverers of those scientific breakthroughs and technologies?

When integration happened in the last school district near here people with enough money put their children into catholic schools. Civil rights and integration were a boom to racists and segregationists. It was common knowledge that parochial catholic education was a bed of racism.

Lets not forget that Nazis didn't drop onto the earth out of the clouds. They arose in a christian state where people were lutheran and catholic, all properly baptized and schooled christians.

True. An official NAZI insignia worn on military belt buckles included the eagle and swastika and contained the phrase, "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) not "Darwin was right".

 

[abaddon]

These mystical fascist zealots also embraced the discoveries of the Wright Brothers, dynamite, shipbuilding, cartography and a host of technologies that benefitted their religionist fervor. Is anyone whipping the discoverers of those scientific breakthroughs and technologies?

...

I wonder how much the culture of ideas really played a role. Was it Darwin and Nietzsche and "the death of God" that caused the world wars? Or was it just more tribalistic warring, like all through the history of civilization, but this time with far more destructive technology and technical efficiency?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

These mystical fascist zealots also embraced the discoveries of the Wright Brothers, dynamite, shipbuilding, cartography and a host of technologies that benefitted their religionist fervor. Is anyone whipping the discoverers of those scientific breakthroughs and technologies?

...

I wonder how much the culture of ideas really played a role. Was it Darwin and Nietzsche and "the death of God" that caused the world wars? Or was it just more tribalistic warring, like all through the history of civilization, but this time with far more destructive technology and technical efficiency?

The rise of the ideology of the German Volkisch movement. Combine that with the rise of racism, Gobineau and the Nodicists, we had an explosive mix. All started long before Darwin was even born. Tribalism taken to it's logical extreme ends.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

What is "Darwinism" anyway? Darwin was describing how things work, not advocating anything.

It's like blaming Newton because you were hurt in a fall.

 

[Rhea]

I see that you embrace Newtonism, Loren! You rapscallion!

 

[Tharmas]

At least he's not an Einsteinist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Chapter XV

That hardly sounds like a Nazi.

Darwin's mystical, religious detractors referred to his scientific discoveries as "A Gospel of Dirt." They were really out of their league with Darwin.