Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

uncommondescent.com ^ | William Dembski

[Tribune7]

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. :-)

[Sam Hill]

"Much evidence can be provided, many quotes and such, that Hitler was a creationist. But you'd just ignore those, so why bother."

LOL. In other words you don't have any such evidence.

You people are too much. Who should I believe? You or my lying eyes?

Well, hey, are you tired of Table Talk? Maybe you believe that scores of people have lied and allowed such a forgery to pass for Hitler's thinking, like the other nutjob here.

Well, how about a little Mein Kampf?

Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth.

Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.

Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defence against outer attack.

Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly and protective disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition towards mice.

That is why the struggle between the various species does not arise from a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love. In both cases Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased with what happens. The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the muck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being.

If the case were different the progressive process would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and for the procreation of their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede into the background. Therefore a corrective measure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new and rigorous selection takes place, according to strength and health.

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants - who mainly belonged to the Latin races - mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.

Man’s effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.

Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even Nature."

There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewish babble and end up by imagining that somehow they themselves are the conquerors of Nature. And yet their only weapon is just a mere idea, and a very preposterous idea into the bargain; because if one accepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine the existence of the world. The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcome Nature in any sphere whatsoever but that at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil which she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secret. He never creates anything. All he can do is to discover something. He does not master Nature but has only come to be the master of those living beings who have not gained the knowledge he has arrived at by penetrating into some of Nature’s laws and mysteries. Apart from all this, an idea can never subject to its own sway those conditions which are necessary for the existence and development of mankind; for the idea itself has come only from man. Without man there would be no human idea in this world. The idea as such is therefore always dependent on the existence of man and consequently is dependent on those laws which furnish the conditions of his existence.

++++

Since true idealism, however, is essentially the subordination of the interests and life of the individual to the interests and life of the community, and since the community on its part represents the pre-requisite condition of every form of organization, this idealism accords in its innermost essence with the final purpose of Nature. This feeling alone makes men voluntarily acknowledge that strength and power are entitled to take the lead and thus makes them a constituent particle in that order out of which the whole universe is shaped and formed.  

Without being conscious of it, the purest idealism is always associated with the most profound knowledge. How true this is and how little genuine idealism has to do with fantastic self-dramatization will become clear the moment we ask an unspoilt child, a healthy boy for example, to give his opinion. The very same boy who listens to the rantings of an ‘idealistic’ pacifist without understanding them, and even rejects them, would readily sacrifice his young life for the ideal of his people.  

Unconsciously his instinct will submit to the knowledge that the preservation of the species, even at the cost of the individual life, is a primal necessity and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters, who in reality are nothing better than cowardly egoists, even though camouflaged, who contradict the laws of human development. For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudence to criticize her decrees.

++++

Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time.

++++

The general evolution of things, even though it took a century of struggle, placed the best in the position that it had merited.

 And that will always be so.

++++

For instance, the leadership principle may be imposed on an organized political community in a dictatorial way. But this principle can become a living reality only by passing through the stages that are necessary for its own evolution. These stages lead from the smallest cell of the State organism upwards. As its bearers and representatives, the leadership principle must have a body of men who have passed through a process of selection lasting over several years, who have been tempered by the hard realities of life and thus rendered capable of carrying the principle into practical effect.

++++

Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.  

The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species.  

But the case is different when man himself starts the process of numerical restriction. Man is not carved from Nature’s wood. He is made of ‘human’ material. He knows more than the ruthless Queen of Wisdom. He does not impede the preservation of the individual but prevents procreation itself. To the individual, who always sees only himself and not the race, this line of action seems more humane and just than the opposite way. But, unfortunately, the consequences are also the opposite.  

By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species. But man restricts the procreative faculty and strives obstinately to keep alive at any cost whatever has once been born. This correction of the Divine Will seems to him to be wise and humane, and he rejoices at having trumped Nature’s card in one game at least and thus proved that she is not entirely reliable. The dear little ape of an all-mighty father is delighted to see and hear that he has succeeded in effecting a numerical restriction; but he would be very displeased if told that this, his system, brings about a degeneration in personal quality.  

For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.  

But if that policy be carried out the final results must be that such a nation will eventually terminate its own existence on this earth; for though man may defy the eternal laws of procreation during a certain period, vengeance will follow sooner or later. A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.

++++

I'm sure our resident chemistry teacher Hitler will soon be by to explain how Mein Kampf doesn't represent Hitler's thinking. It was translated by a Christian!

[Sam Hill]

The last line of my last post should have read:

I'm sure our resident chemistry teacher Hitler scholar will soon be by to explain how Mein Kampf doesn't represent Hitler's thinking. It was translated by a Christian!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species."

"This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed."

You DO realize that this makes him against evolution, right?

[Liberal Classic]

YOU are the revisionist. And you are a true pig to keep trying to somehow tar my position with David Irving's revisionism. Irving and the rest of the Neo-Nazis do contend that Hitler was a good Christian. So you are taking the Neo-Nazis position, you asshole.

I may regret jumping in at this point, but here goes.

No one is saying he was a "good" Christian. No one denies Adolph Hitler was a madman. However, he would not have been able to orchestrate the Holocaust without being able to capitalize on centuries of Christian anti-semitism. Christian anti-semitism has deep roots in Europe -- sentiments that still exist to this day. It exists on this side of the ocean, as well. In any discussion of this sort, one cannot exonerate Christianity from culpability in the Holocaust. To attempt to do so is a whitewash of history. Hitler's personal beliefs, whatever they might have been, are irrelevant to the issue.

It's easy to want to dismiss Hitler from Christianity because of the scale of his crimes. This is a natural defense mechanism. However, Adolph Hitler was not alone in responsibility for the Holocaust. A significant fraction of the population of Germany followed him. Are we to excommunicate (to borrow the word) them from Christianity, as well? How far must we go to erase Christianity's culpability in the Holocaust? Was Germany not a Christian nation? Was Italy? Of course they were.

We must, instead, recognize that just because people were Christian does not mean they are incapable of doing horrible things. We must understand that just because the U.S. is a predominantly Christian nation, it doesn't mean that it can't happen here.

[Liberal Classic]

I am the destroyer of threads. One post from your's truly, and it's into the Smoky Back Room we go.

[Sam Hill]

"You DO realize that this makes him against evolution, right?"

LOL. He had a flexible understanding of what evolution is. He was a promoter in the German (especiall Haeckel's) understanding of Darwin. But he accepted Darwin, even though he did not understand aspects of him correctly.

Hitler modeled his whole political and philosophical world view on Darwinism--as I have shown with endless quotes.

Only a fool (ahem) would think otherwise. Those who knew him and those who have studied him do not think otherwise.

[Sam Hill]

One of Hitler's confident's and a regular attendees at his table was Otto Dietrich:

"In his speeches he often mentioned the Almighty and Providence. But he personally was sharply hostile to Christianity and the churches, although the Party program came out for a “positive” Christianity. In private conversation he often remarked sarcastically, in reference to churches and priests, that there were some who “boasted of having a direct hook‑up with God:” Primitive Christianity, he declared, was the “first Jewish‑Communistic cell.” And he denied that the Christian churches, in the course of their evolution, had developed any genuine moral foundation. Having ordered trials of certain Catholic priests on charges of immorality, he used the findings of the courts as the basis for the broadest generalizations." -- Adolf Hitler by Otto Dietrich 1955, p. 153.

"Hitler was convinced that Christianity was outmoded and dying. He thought he could speed its death by systematic edu­cation of German youth. Christianity would be replaced, he thought, by a new heroic, racial ideal of God." -- Ibid, 155.

"Hitler was fond of ideas with cosmic sweep. He spoke of human beings as “planetary bacilli” and was a passionate adherent of Hoerbiger’s Universal Ice Theory. His evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel." -- Ibid, 152.

"Among Hitler’s own justifications for his actions was his primitive philosophy of nature. Both in public speeches and private conversation he would repeatedly refer to this philosophy, his purpose being to convince his listeners that this philosophy represented the final truth about life. He took such principles as the struggle for existence, the survival of the fit­test and strongest, for the law of nature and considered them a “higher imperative” which should also rule in the commu­nity life of men. It followed for him that might was right, that his own violent methods were therefore absolutely in keeping with the laws of nature." -- Ibid, p. 19.

[Sam Hill]

Let me post that again, with plain text:

"In his speeches he often mentioned the Almighty and Providence. But he personally was sharply hostile to Christianity and the churches, although the Party program came out for a "positive" Christianity. In private conversation he often remarked sarcastically, in reference to churches and priests, that there were some who "boasted of having a direct hook up with God:" Primitive Christianity, he declared, was the "first Jewish Communistic cell." And he denied that the Christian churches, in the course of their evolution, had developed any genuine moral foundation. Having ordered trials of certain Catholic priests on charges of immorality, he used the findings of the courts as the basis for the broadest generalizations." -- Adolf Hitler by Otto Dietrich 1955, p. 153.

"Hitler was convinced that Christianity was outmoded and dying. He thought he could speed its death by systematic edu­cation of German youth. Christianity would be replaced, he thought, by a new heroic, racial ideal of God." -- Ibid, 155.

"Hitler was fond of ideas with cosmic sweep. He spoke of human beings as "planetary bacilli" and was a passionate adherent of Hoerbiger’s Universal Ice Theory. His evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel." -- Ibid, 152.

"Among Hitler’s own justifications for his actions was his primitive philosophy of nature. Both in public speeches and private conversation he would repeatedly refer to this philosophy, his purpose being to convince his listeners that this philosophy represented the final truth about life. He took such principles as the struggle for existence, the survival of the fit­test and strongest, for the law of nature and considered them a "higher imperative" which should also rule in the commu­nity life of men. It followed for him that might was right, that his own violent methods were therefore absolutely in keeping with the laws of nature." -- Ibid, p. 19.

[Sam Hill]

Here, in her book, Hitler Was My Chief Christa Schroeder gives exact corroboration of the Table Talk records:

Letter to my friend from the FHQ “Wolfsschanze” July 13 1941:

 In our nightly conferences with the Boss the church plays a big role. It’s a shame that you can’t be here for it once. It is so plausible everything the Boss says when he says for example that Christianity through its mendacity and hypocrisy has set mankind back about 2000 years in its development—culturally speaking. I must truly finally start to make notes afterwards on the remarks of the Boss for myself.

Compare with Table Talk (already posted above):

Night of 11th-l2th July 1941

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours.

In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

On a question from C.S. [Christa Schoeder], whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued

No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. It is a simple question of honesty, that’s what it will finally boil down to. ..

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the di­rection of world-domination, and humanity would not have extin­guished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

 Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

 The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.

[Sam Hill]

"No one is saying he was a "good" Christian. No one denies Adolph Hitler was a madman."

LOL.

Every serious historian denies this.

Like so many here, you don't know what you are talking about.

But don't let that stop you.

[RightWingNilla]

There is only one shining big daddy pretender,

BIG DADDY?

[Sam Hill]

As I have said, many of these people in Hitler's inner circle have written books. Here a quote from "The Way In The Third Reich" by one by his personal adjutants, Fritz Wiedemann:

Hitler repeatedly in his speeches also called on God. He didn’t do that from inner conviction, because he didn’t know a God in the Christian sense. Christianity was a teaching of weakness for him and if he proceeded not even more sharply against the church, it was only because he didn’t yet feel sufficiently strong to do it.  -- p.87

[ml1954]

I may regret jumping in at this point....

You probably will. But the experience of attempting to engage in civil discourse with an amateur 'Hitler Expert' (there are many around) with an ax to grind might be entertaining if you're in the mood and have a lot of time on your hands. Be prepared for many subject changes and much cutting and pasting in an attempt to impress everyone with 'Hitler Knowledge'. Also be prepared for a lot of personal insults.

[Sam Hill]

Hey, we're all very impressed with your scholarship.

LOL

Notice how I'm the only one producing quotes.

Funny isn't it?

[Sam Hill]

From Hitler confident, Kurt Ludeke, who wrote, I Knew Hitler:

By this time he was talking entirely to me; it is his habit to center himself on one person when he gets warmed up. The others were listening intently enough except the good Hoffmann, who... had concentrated on the wine with such good effect... that he dumped the bottle over, and the precious liquid spilled over the priceless little table ... and, on the priceless rug. Hitler stopped. He looked up frowning, lifted his shoulders in annoyance, but said nothing.

 Talk against Christianity and for new Heathen faith to be established after access to power.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"LOL. He had a flexible understanding of what evolution is."

Sorry, but the parts you excerpted showed he didn't believe in speciation. He believed in the fixity of species. That isn't evolution.

"He was a promoter in the German (especiall Haeckel's) understanding of Darwin. But he accepted Darwin, even though he did not understand aspects of him correctly."

No, you can't accept evolution if you believe that species (races) are immutatable.

"Hitler modeled his whole political and philosophical world view on Darwinism--as I have shown with endless quotes."

What you have shown is that your understanding of what evolution is and what Darwin said is next to nil.

[Right Wing Professor]

Just to let you know, first, that I've decided not to ignore you. Nobody calls me a pig and an asshole on this site and gets away it. You can now expect every word you posted on this subject to be examined carefully. And since so many of them are obvious fabrications, by you or by others, this will be extremely embarrassing for you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Notice how I'm the only one producing quotes."

Quotes that showed that Hitler didn't accept speciation. He couldn't have been an evolutionist.

"Funny isn't it?"

Like a train wreck.

[Sam Hill]

Ah, this is what passes for intellectual rigor on these threads, huh.

Hilarious.

You guys are real scientist, huh?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaaha.