A Blood Libel on Our Civilization. Can I expell Expelled?

National Review Online ^ | April 28, 2008 | John Derbyshire

[Texas Songwriter]

Thank you for your post. Dr. Weichart was illuminating. I plan to read his book. I would add that Hitler in the European mileau with the teachings of Malthus and populations, Meade and Galton and their assumptions of Eugenics and the academic America (the same liberals who, after being humiliated by the Prussian induced holocaust), now, having endured, rightly their humiliation and horror as applied eugenics and now replace eugenics with abortion rights and the evolving culture of death, and the Nietzche superman, postulated upon a declaration that God was dead, seized upon darwinian theory as the methodology under his supervision and direction to bring Europe to such savagery that it is almost is incomprehensible. The eugenists have evolved, as a matter of social adaptation, in euphemeism and in deed, to seize the term "choice" to achieve esentially the same goals Hitler desired. Read G.K.Chesterton and he brings it all into view. Today the same crowd who is so incensed to be coopted with the Rhineland worldview, feign gaping wounds at the suggestion of a connection, which is ubiquitous and present for all who care to know about those connections. Academics and educrats, all lay claim to the stake in the darwinian juggarnaut and act apoplectic at someone who suggests the obvious. The Jewish scientists who worked for Hitler were similar in their devotion to darwin, Malthus, Neitzche, and Meade up until the time the 'selections out' began. Only then did their conscience and fear make them adopt a real world view of what was happening. The roots of eugenics lie in both darwinian evolution theory and Malthus. Darwin and Malthus have never been controversial in leftist elitist circles. Malthus said, go ahead and reorganize society so all are well fed. In the long run they could do no good, because they hoped to remove the undesirables...the miscreants, syphilitic, and feeble-minded. Those were the categories which led to other categories....leaving academics and elitist uncategorized or categorized as superior and suitable for life. The problem was that with better feeding and social saftynets, the very ones the elitist wanted eleminated, flourished. Something must be done. So Mr.Hitler determined, as per Nietzches' superman evolved, set about to do just that...Only Mr. Hitler got to do the categorization. The stongman, with the gun, always has his say. The rest is only a matter of method of carrying out his assessment, confident in the belief that 'survival of the fittest' is the only morality suitable for the day. Darwins' science gave justification to a simple 'speeding-up' what was 'scientifically' inevitable, given darwinists dogma. First we begin with Eastern European Jews and move on from there. And to our eternal shame, 'scientific elitist' in America "almost" convinced the country of this dogma. The Restriction League of Harvard championed the cause...consiting of the most prominent scientists of the day. Henry Cabot Lodge gave Congress on March 16, 1898 a speach in support of immigration restriction on Jews and praised the superiority of of the Germanic tribes.

It was in this scientific stewpot that Nazism was born. Scientific officialism and organization in the State which had specialized in them, had gone to war with the older culture of Christendom. Either Prussia would win and protests would be hopeless, or Prussianism would lose and the protest would be needless.

If one wants to understand the debate today, read Chesterton, an observer, real-time who almost singlehandedly held back the Anglican tide turning to that of the darwinist and eugenist. Read Weickart and learn from an observer, real-time of what really undergirded the Hitlerian regime. As Chesterton said, "eugenics (and darwinism) is a thing no more to be bargained with than poison."

Euphemisms soothe the leftist and always have. From Chestertons' day until now, nice word pictures of things not-so-nice direct perceptions among those unstudied on the subject. Like Nietzche and Hitlers' superman, the darwinist assert the upward assent of man to what goal...Godhood? Perfection? At what point does it mature? These notions are not new. Homo noeticus, 'New Man' is their stated new species. Some even declare when that will happen ( I won't say here, but if you are interested it is there for all to see). For now the eugenists progeny are becoming more clamorous at suggestions of the obvious, but they do not give ground to the self-evident history and their stated goals. They have locked horns with the Judeo-Chrisian world view and we find ourselves living in post-Christian country. Perhaps Mr.Stein is a modern day G.K.Chesterton.

[HerrBlucher]

No, Ben Stein and you never sought to intimate that Evolution could be untrue or evil or despicable by linking it with Hitler. Heaven forfend!/s

Well I can't say what is in Ben Stein's heart, but I certainly don't think that Darwinism is untrue because it led to Naziism. What I am saying is that, if Darwinism is true to the extent that it indicates there is no God and hence no absolute moralty, then it is a very COLD truth, so cold that we cannot even say that Hitler was wrong for doing what he did, or at least we have no foundation for saying it other than we don't like it and it seemed very mean.

However, there are many Christians that accept evolution but with the provision that God is guiding it, or at least, guiding it to the extent that it relates to Man. Within that framework, much of Darwinism can exist. Still, one shouldn't be expelled simply for questioning Darwinism and that, after all, is the theme of Stein's movie.

[Alter Kaker]

Kaker, you’re Jewish? I thought you were an Athiest?

You thought wrong. I'm quite serious about my faith.

[HerrBlucher]

The reference I linked to made this statement as I indicated in my previous post:

“• In Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing “lower human types.”

No, I did not get an electronic copy of Mein Kampf and do a search for "Entwicklung." You can if you want and then if you get a zero then you can come back here with an I told you so. But if you think that simply because Hitler never used the word evolution somehow proves that Darwinism didn't influence him that is quite a stretch considering all the evidence regarding eugenics and Naziism, and eugenics and Darwinism.

BTW, calling me a liar is no way to convince me of your arguments.

[Lakeshark]

I think Stein was addressing the radical element of scientists (often the most vocal) that are closing the doors of academia to other opinions about life origins. A very Stalinist bunch these people are, I have met quite a few like that. Unfortunately far too many of them post on evo threads at FR.

I just found this article, not about evolution, rather on global warming, but in the same vain the global warming “scientists” are just as militant and Stalinist in their efforts to close the doors. How very medieval of these “open minded” folks: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html

[HerrBlucher]

Perhaps Mr.Stein is a modern day G.K.Chesterton.

He certainly is creating a flurry of angst among Athiests that Chesterton did. Still, I think Chesterton was a genius and Stein is simply smart.

I have read several of Chesterton's books, he is one of the great ones. Thanks for you educational post. Now its time for me to rest from this debate and get some shuteye.

[allmendream]

You, I am afraid, are entirely unconvinceable.

But I must call a spade a spade and it is a untrue to say he used the word many times in Mein Kampf when he only used it once.

Once is not many times, to say “many times” is to speak an untruth.

Moreover the single time he used the word it was obviously in regard to political rather than biological evolution, perhaps why you failed to actually provide any of the supposedly “many” quotes.

So it was just a mistake because you didn't get an electronic copy and do a search? Not a lie just shoddy research skills?

Where did you get this “many times” thing from? Did someone lie to you and now you repeat it to us? If you are cutting and pasting please provide your lying sources or I will just assume that anything patently untrue that you post is your own lie. Is plagiarism of a lie any less of a lie, or is it theft as well as a lie?

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Sun. A number of folks have been saying it’s quite good. I appreciate the comments.

[allmendream]

I apologize, I didn't see the html for the link, I thought it was you telling the untruth that Hitler used the word Evolution “many times” in Mein Kampf when he only used it once, and in regards to political rather than Biological Evolution.

Your source lies blatantly, and assumes that anyone reading it is too stupid or lazy to check themselves.

[Soliton]

Hitler believed in breeding a master race and puriity of blood. Breeding is a concept much older than evolution. He wasn’t talking about humans evolving into a new species, but simply breeding “better” humans within species. This has much more to do with Mendel, a Christian monk, than Darwin.

[Cincinatus]

Sorry, atheists don't qualify as "paleocons."

Have a look at his published work. Then, tell that to him.

[WVKayaker]

...But creationists insist that there is, insist that their unequal, invalid view

No bias there, huh?

Science IS a religion, and it seems you must be one of the high priests. Unless one accepts that everything came about from nothing, that life began from nothing, and that there COULK NOT BE EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF GOD, you are a heretic, and have "invalid"views.

ROFLMAO...

[WVKayaker]

COULD...

[dread78645]

From that it is clear that Hitler was an evolutionist. How could he have been anything else and promoted the creation of the ubermensch?

Hitler had no understanding of evolution, or if he did he rejected it completely.
Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" in the context of Darwin's theory. Hitler never mentioned Darwin or evolution in any speech.

The "Ubermensch" is a term coined by Nietzsche, a man Hitler would've detested because Fredrich Nietzsche was an atheist.
Hitler loathed atheists.

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, Berlin speech 24 Oct. 1933

As Weickart noted in his six reasons why Darwinism led to the Holocaust, Darwinism removed the basis for our Judeo Christian moral code and replaced it with a scientific basis for Race Hygiene.

There's no such thing as "Race Hygiene" in Darwin's Theory. Nor are there moral codes, Judeo Christian or otherwise.

... You may call that “twisting” Darwinism but I don’t see where the twist is.

Obviously.

If Dr. Richard Weikart had been serious in finding the origin of anti-semitism, then he would have gone back 1850 years ago to Justin (the) Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew", Tertullian's "Treatise against the Jews", or 1800 years ago to Orgin's essay "Against Celsus", or even 1600 years back for sermons by John Chrysostom.

Hitler, not being much of a scholar, seemed unaware of these works and had to make due with arch antisemitic Martin Luther from 400 years ago.
I think it's rather fitting that exactly 400 years, from the publishing of "On the Jews and Their Lies", 1543 to 1943, marked the decline of the German Reich. Don't you agree?

Quick test, who wrote the following:
1. "The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world."

• Hitler
• Charles Darwin
• John Chrysostom
• Origen of Alexandria
• Martin Luther
• Justin Martyr

2. "The Synagogue is a brothel, a hiding place for unclean beasts."

• Hitler
• Charles Darwin
• John Chrysostom
• Origen
• Martin Luther
• Justin Martyr

3. "First, set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..." and "They [the Jews] must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."

• Hitler
• Charles Darwin
• John Chrysostom
• Origen
• Martin Luther
• Justin Martyr

How'd you do? If you guessed Origen, John Chrysostom, and Martin Luther, then you know more of Christian history than Richard Weikart.

Weikart's book "From Darwin to Hitler" is an embarrassing piece of work for any honest historian. Although I suppose that if you have an agenda, it's all good, right?

[MrB]

“Yeah, you did say Stein couldn’t be criticized because any criticism proved his point.”

Show me where I said that - prove it. No, I didn’t say “any”. The “criticizers” such as yourself can’t help but use the exact tactics that he exposes in the movie - generally described as bullying.

The tactic is as follows, and you can’t help yourselves.
“You’re dumb/inferior if you believe differently than we do.”

Yes, that’s arrogant.
Example from YOUR post:
(nose in the air)”Thinking people”(/nose in the air)

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>What I am saying is that, if Darwinism is true to the extent that it indicates there is no God<<

Do you mean that you think that it’s impossible to be convinced that evolution could be designed by God? If not, what do you think “Darwinism” means?

[Shryke]

I believe if Stein wanted a movie that made money, he could have produced one.

Ok? What's the point of making a commercial movie then?

Only ignorant people, who haven’t seen the movie, would trash it for what they imagine it says.

Well, when they release a commercial that starts out with a tired and old false argument against evolution, they should expect some criticism.

[Lakeshark]

A pretty good article today linked via Instapundit on the new politburo of “science”: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Never mind, I think I know what you were trying to say.

The way I first parsed your sentence was: Darwinism is true in the way it is stated->it must follow that there is no God

After I looked again, I think you meant: One believes that Darwinism requires that there is no God->it must follow that one believes that Hitler cannot be blamed for what he did.

For one thing, some scientists who believe that evolution is true believe in God.

Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."

I believe in God and think there is some merit in what Dostoevsky said. A belief in materialism and atheism could lead to the idea that life has no special value.

And yet many atheists seem to value life. Nat Hentoff is an atheist who is pro-life and opposed to euthanasia. I would still argue that Dostoevsky was correct, since I believe that the gift of respect for life comes from God, even though atheists do not know it.

[Ken H]

Science IS a religion,...

The Founding Fathers disagree, since one of the powers of Congress is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.