Darwin's Dystopia

What a colossal pile of horse dookie...



That's confusing Darwinism with eugenics.

No, by observing Darwin's theory of natural selection as accomplishing a 'more fit species', Hitler concluded that intentional breeding of more fit specimens with other more fit specimens could hasten the process to produce a a master race.

I think Stein is absolutely correct that there is a correlation. I don't believe that Darwin is culpable in Hitler's distortion of Darwin's theory however.

If Hitler did, indeed, base his views on Darwinism, it is therefore equally valid to say that the massacres of the Crusades and the tortures of the Inquisition were based on Christianity.
Hitler never mentioned Darwin nor did his view of nature reflect any substantive understanding of evolution. In fact, Hitler's racism was based on the view that "races were created distinct by God" and he frequently cited works such as Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" as guides to his policies.
Hitler's appeals to "Holy Blood", "God's Will", "Divine Destiny", etc. were ubiquitous in his speeches, and make it very obvious that he did not base his hate on scientific principles.
Hitler cited the genocide of Native Americans in North and South America by European settlers (which people also attempted to justify with Christianity) as an inspiration for his policies

Comparing the Inquisition and the Crusades to 'natural selection' or 'a master race' is comparing apples to oranges, however. The Crusades were not really to further Christianity but were to bolster the prestige and power of corrupt popes and/or monarchs. The Inquisition was not all that much different--it was largely instigated to strike fear into the hearts of people and keep the power in the hands of those same corrupt popes and/or monarchs. Such corrupt popes and monarchs were at times thoroughly dishonest and calculating, but they weren't crazy. Their rationale in no way resembled Christian teachings but were a grievous corruption of Christian teachings.

Hitler's crazy notions of course were to bolster his own power and authority but were based on irrational criteria that included a kind of eugenics that was a corruption of Darwin's basic theory of natural selection.

Hitler's criteria for his policies:

International relations are an endless and merciless inter-racial struggle for domination.

His "racial" division of mankind is a hierarchy, with the "Aryan race" (the Germans) as the master race at the top, followed by the "Nordic" peoples of northern Europe, followed by other nations and races, with the Slav peoples of Eastern Europe at the bottom, and the jews totally outside the hierarchy as a demonic arch-enemy of the Germans.

As the master race, the Germans are entitled to, and must, expand their territory by merciless force, and enslave "Lower races".

Particularly, the Germans should occupy the vast lands of Eastern Europe, enslave its peoples, exploit its endless natural and agricultural resources, and fill it with Germans.

To be as strong as possible, the Germans must strictly keep their "Racial purity", and be led by a Fuhrer (leader) of total authority - Adolf Hitler.
The jews, the "Arch enemy", should be eliminated.

Hitler also believed that Communism, and particularly the Soviet Union, are in Jewish control. This doubled his motivation to attack Russia.

Finally, with Eastern Europe's resources in their hands and with the jews out of the way, The 3rd Reich (Hitler referred to Nazi Germany as the 3rd German Empire in history) will be able to defeat all other nations and dominate the entire world "For at least a thousand years".
LIFTED FROM SOURCE

I don't know if Hitler read Darwin but Darwin was being widely read and discussed throughout the free world in the 1930s and 40s. I do see a correlation between the two theories with Hitler's theory being a grievous corruption of Darwin's teachings.

Fox's historical recitations remind me of Fractured Fairy Tales.

FWIW:

"Hitler never mentioned Darwin nor did his view of nature reflect any substantive understanding of evolution. In fact, Hitler's racism was based on the view that "races were created distinct by God" and he frequently cited works such as Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" as guides to his policies. Contrast that with what Darwin said "As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races." - The Descent of Man, 1871."

source

Moreover, even if Hitler had based his eugenics on Darwin's theories it still wouldn't invalidate them. The misuse of a concept is not the fault of the concept or its originator. If that was true, just think of where that would put all religious scripture.

Well they would wouldn't they. What difference does it make what Foxy's posts "remind you of"? You're barracking. Not contributing. Isn't that trolling?

The fertile field Hitler ploughed contained national humiliation and economic misery caused by the victorious powers. His ideas would have never sprouted and blossomed but for those nutrients being in the soil. That they did and took the form they did does owe something to Darwin and the ideas which grew out of his work. There was a strong eugenics movement in England during those years.

Spengler says that only Bernard Shaw, in his Man and Superman, took such ideas to their logical and scientific conclusion. Nietzsche contributed as did Wagner to Shaw's play.

And besides seeing terrible conditions in Vienna Hitler saw worse in the front lines.

People who are down do search for certainty.

The Germans, if in fact they experienced "national humiliation," suffered that because they expected their armies to have been victorious, and they weren't. To help the "stab in the back" myth along, political scumbags such as Röhm, Hitler, Spendius and others claimed that the German army had never been defeated in the field, but that the politicians had sold them out.

As for economic misery as a result of any actions of the victorious powers, that's a load of codswallop. German economists and economic historians have known since the 1970s that the inflation rate in Germany had gotten out of hand before the war even began--serious inflation began in early 1914, and by 1917, thanks to a war Germany could not long afford to wage, it had become runaway inflation. As for reparations, the Germans simply did not pay them. Most of what was paid was paid in kind, and that was only "paid" to the extent that the English, the French and the Belgians seized German property in partial repayment of what they had suffered. By the time reparations payments (reduced many, many times) were suspended in 1931, only one eighth of the reparations (at the new, drastically reduced rate) had been paid.

By contrast, after the Franco-Prussian War, Germany imposed reparations (for what ? ! ? ! ?) on France of 700,000,000 gold francs. The French paid up in under three years.

Evolution exists regardless of what people may (or may not) choose to do with the knowledge.

It's the same with atomic bombs. They exist. Just because they have been used in war doesn't cause atomic theory to vanish.

And besides, Hitler was more strongly motivated by his religious beliefs than he ever was by Darwin. Does that mean that religion doesn't exist?

The mistake with considering eugenics is to think they consist of putting the fittest troops in a dorm with the fittest bints and stuff of that nature.

Eugenics is at work, and always has been in much more subtle ways than such simple things.

A person's social station directs him or her to certain public meeting places where the sexes gather during the courtship phase. Even gays have posh and rough.

As I understand it, the institution of "dating" in America is a sort of informal arranged marriage system with fluidity around the edges with a social stigma attaching to anyone who goes too far in enforcing the unwritten rules which doesn't apply in some other cultures.

Unknown, it seems bootless to add, in evolution in action or in theory.

An honest assessment of any history does not assign evil to everything associated with a person just because evil can be associated with that person. This is a concept that many here on A2K don't seem to grasp. You are probably quite right that Hitler indicated no commitment or even knowledge of Darwin's theories--I've never had reason to check that out but I don't recall him ever quoting Darwin--and Spendi is quite right that both Darwin and eugenic concepts were not unknown to the general public during Hitler's rise to power.

The old proverb that there is nothing new under the sun certainly applies to cultural influences that are likely to seep into most concepts of their day as it is rare that any thought is created in a complete vacuum.

To say that there is a parallel between Hitler's eugenic ambitions and Darwin's theory is not to presume that they are alike; only that there is a similarity in concept or appearance much as you might see a similarity between a horse and a zebra which are quite different animals.

Breeding a master race would have more in common with the work of Mendel than it would with the works of Darwin.

Darwin said the fittest will survive
Mendel said you can breed for traits you desire.

Well, Uri Noy. the author/editor of that website, might be good professional software developer and certainly he has also studied military history as a hobby in the last 25 years ... but his summary is, mildly spoken, an hobbyist's work.

Perhaps. I wasn't so convinced of his motive for attacking Russia, but the basic concepts seemed to be fairly complete and I didn't want to type it all out. Perhaps you would like to provide an equally condensed list that would be more accurate.

No argument from me. There is no way that Darwin's theory is eugenic. But Darwin's theory put forth the concept of natural selection producing a new and improved version because such natural selection tends to result in 'survival of the fittest'. It wouldn't take a huge imagination to think that this process could be hurried along intentionally through eugenic practices or not leaving it to nature to weed out the 'less fit'.

It's nice to know there were no cattle or dog breeds before Darwin in your historical view of the world Fox.

Breeding for traits existed before Darwin. Mendel quantified the breeding with recessive genes.

Sigh. I thought just maybe....just this once....we could actually agree on something Parados. But again you totally miss the point and try to make it into something that was never said or even implied. I have no problem with breeding animals to achieve a better breed. I have a huge problem with Hitler (or anybody else) forcibly breeding humans to produce a superior human and forcibly eliminating any not considered worthy of this process.

What was never said or implied Fox?

Breeding was known before Darwin. Darwin really has nothing to do with breeding for traits. It didn't take "imagination because of Darwin" to come up with breeding. One only needed to look at how it had been used for centuries.

The subject however I saw as being related to Darwinian concepts and how those might be corrupted or applied in negative ways, Parados. I'm sorry if you are incapable of integrating more than one thought at a time--maybe it is something in your genes?--but I was trying to stay within the spirit of the context of the thread. If you want to discuss something different, that's fine but maybe a different thread would make more sense in that case?