Making a claim and then supporting it is fundamental to a cohesive argument. You “cited” no data (except for an IQ study that ignores cultural factors). I’ve asked for something 3 times that directly supports your egalitarian Nazi vision, but you refuse. You just point to your own unfocused and generally un-sourced opinion on you blog.
There you repeat your extraordinary claim that Nazis are not racists, while ignoring the evidence that they were, relying on the logical incompatibility of socialism and racism to extend egalitarianism to Nazis. But Socialism is inherently intellectually inconsistent and any violation of its ideals, like promoting racism, is expected when practiced to the extreme to which it was implemented in Nazi Germany.
The closest thing you have to support your non-racist Nazi hypothesis are two interesting quotes. The first you say is from Hitler calling for a “classless, casteless” Germany. As far as I can tell, Hitler never said such a thing. The phrase "classless, casteless " was lifted from Rorty’s " Philosophy and Social Hope ". Here are the google results of those two words plus the word “hitler” in any document (less those by you or Rorty): Results There appears to be nothing like that by Hitler. I think you’re confused.
The second quote that you close your essay with is by Professor R. Gayre (which also can’t be found on the internet) who you describe as “a distinguished Scot ethnologist” who wrote, “It was the disregard of biological ethnology and not the belief in it, which made the Nazi "racial" ideology possible.”. I see he’s widely known as a racialist and white supremacist.. Here’s a sample:
The Mankind Quarterly , dedicated to'race-science' and 'racial history', was established in 1960 by Professor R. Gayre of Edinburgh who believed that 'racial fundamentals' were 'all important' in human affairs. He maintained that scientific evidence proved blacks 'prefer their leisure to the dynamism which the white and yellow races show'.(25) Gayre's work owed a heavy debt to that of Hans F. K. Günther, a major Nazi race theorist. Indeed, Gayre's first important work, Teutotn and Slav, argued for improving the 'racial homogeneity' and 'Nordic' purity of the German nation.You may agree with that. But referring to the only person who seems to agree with your egalitarian Nazi claim as just “distinguished” is indicative of the kind of blind reasoning from cherry picked data needed to support such your thesis. You have to fanatically grip your blinders to miss the Mission of Organizations like the Aryan Nation World Headquarters and its repeated references to “White Aryan Races” and “Non-white Races” or The American Nazi Party’s call for call for “White WORKER Power . You have to ignore Mein Kampf where Hitler creates the principal of culture creating and culture bearing races.
This is in a way a very distorted Fichtian idea of the German and Latin races being alive and dead races, it has however been severely distorted to give this theory. The example he gives is that of the Japanese and their modernization. He states that if all Aryan influence was removed from Japan they would soon begin to decline culturally again. It is true, he admits, that their development would continue for a short while, but eventually their culture and development would return to the rigid, frozen state it was in before the influence of the West. Thus we see that Hitler sees the Aryan race as the motor for the whole world's development, for without the Aryans no-one else has the ability to develop cultures. It is also this idea of the Germans as the superior culture-creating race that gives it the right to enslave lesser races.It takes extraordinary obsession to ignore all that. You’re so emotionally committed to genetic that you can’t read disagreement clearly. You accused me of, “pretend that all people have the same potential” but I said nothing that implies it. I don’t doubt that the Turks took longer to decay under Islam than nations further from its heart. I don’t doubt that the decayed Arabic cultures and institutions have an adverse impact on their IQ. I don’t doubt that race affects IQ either. IQ affects culture and then culture (plus genetics) affects IQ The relationship is circular rather than linear. I showed that to you in the I.Q. - Genetics or Environment link that you failed to read:
Environmental differences in how children are raised also play a significant role on intelligence. Socio-economic status (SES) has been shown to play an important part of development. One study indicated that children from a home with a low SES, upon being transferred to a home with high SES, improved their test scores as much as 16 points (Wahlsten, 1995). Another study shows that home environment also plays a significant role. This study, conducted by R.A. Hanson, indicated that Stanford-Binet IQ scores were greatly associated to many environmental factors that remain stable, in the home. These variables associated to intelligence in each age period are: ‘freedom to engage in verbal expression, language teaching, parental involvement, and provision of language development models’ (Hanson, 1975). Cognitive development appears to be stimulated by the development of language. Such home variables as quality of language models available to the child, opportunities for enlarging vocabulary through appropriate language usage, and opportunities for language practice were also found to be important factors showing a ‘.69 correlation between total ratings of the home environment and general intelligence’ (Hanson).No point in reading something you don't like, right? That essay goes on to support a lot of racially dependent IQ factors, but isn't blinded to either by "subjective value judgments" ;^)
I will point out to you, the source of the "Classless/casteless society," reference, however. It is in the Nazi propaganda film, "Triumph of The Will." I do not know, or care, whether it is available on the Internet. The Internet is not the source of all knowledge. However, the film has been aired on Turner Classic Movies, on Cable TV--not because Ted Turner is a closet Nazi--but because the cinematographic techniques are impressive. And there is Hitler, expressing Elfman like sentiments, including his "casteless/classless" society claims.
But you are attaching the cart to the wrong horse. It is you, not I who are using spurious evidence to put a Faith and its adherents down. Hitler used racial claims, much as the Communists used economic claims--purely for propaganda. That he did so, does not make him the issue on racial questions--or as, here, for there are several prominent ethnologies in the Near East--on ethnological or class questions. On the other hand, before you smear adherents of Islam as a destructive force in the lives of the people of the Near East--paralleling Hitler and Marx, before him's, demonization of the German Jews, as corrupting German society--you need to postulate some theory of the aptitudes of the people involved.
The burden is on you, who advance a hypothesis, to show that the people had the same aptitudes as those to whom you would compare them. Even taking the genocide against the Moslems in the late 14th Century out of the equation, you will not find any evidence of an equality in aptitudes, anywhere in the traits of any advanced species of life. Until you isolate that factor, you theory is pure conjecture. Since it ignores a mountain of evidence--whether you can find it on the internet or not--if becomes pure fantasy.
An analogy would be the parent who bullies his son, because he is not good in sports, even though the father thinks that he should be. Another analogous situation would be those parents who blame the school where their child attends, for the failure of that child. There is no evidence of human equality; but it is easier to blame a school, or a Faith (Judaism or Islam) than it is to actually analyze the dynamics involved. The ugliness of the possible results was well illustrated by what the Nazis did to the millions of European Jews, whose only actual offense were to be members of a very talented minority.
I must confess that I have never read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but I know many who have and came away with the idea that Christianity played a major role in the Fall of Rome. But did it? There are others who have analyzed the changes in the Roman population, over the centuries. And it is clear that the original Romans had almost died out by the time of the Fall. Is it more likely that embracing a religion which at other times was linked to progress, took Rome down, or that changes in the gene pool were the principal factor?
You have not made your case, and embracing environmentalists, trying to argue against the imporance of human differences, does not make it for you. Nor does accusing Libertarian minded American Conservatives, who are offended at your religious bigotry, of being Nazis. You sound like an echo of the Montagu/Allcott crowd, in the tactics you use. (See my article on that Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education.)
Finally, your comments about the late Col. Gayre, reveal your ignorance. You can quote from the Leftist side of the argument, until you are blue in the face; but Gayre was the British intelligence operative, who first warned of the Nazi/Soviet pact that led to the invasion of Poland. He later taught for years in India, and founded the Mankind Quarterly specifically to add balance to the debate over the Nature/Nurture question. Calling him names will not answer his argument, nor those of the impressive group of scientists who contributed to his Quarterly. Why you would expect a man who died in 1996, and who had a major stroke when he turned 80 in 1987, to be posting on the internet, I do not know.