>>Kalamata post 366 (cont. 3): "I recall that Hitler joined the German Workers Party; but I don't recall anything about them being Christian, other than perhaps a name-drop or two. Do you have references?"
>>Joey: "I'll start a collection of references for you, here's one, a PDF Also try here, then click on pdf above:
Those link to the same PDF file by Robert Richards. I have that paper in my libary which mentions the German Workers Party, but not the Christain Workers Party as you asserted. It did however mention the Christian-Social Party. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the Christain Social Workers Party was renamed to the Christian Social Party in 1881, a few years after it was formed; but neither Weikart nor Richards include "Workers" in the name.
In an English translation of Mein Kampf, Hitler called it the Christian-Socialist Movement and/or Party, as mentioned later.
*************
>>Joey: "As a boy Adolf Hitler sang in his church choir and wanted to become a priest."
You linked to Wikipedia, again, Joey; so let me expound that over-simplification.
Hitler was baptized and received confirmation, as did most young Catholics; but his ambitions as a youth soon gave way to those of a more militaristic nature, of which he mentioned in Mein Kampf:
"In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressed again and again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What could be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days? At least, that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I had with my father did not lead him to appreciate his son's oratorical gifts in such a way as to see in them a favourable promise for such a career, and so he naturally could not understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at that time. This contradiction in my character made him feel somewhat anxious… Browsing through my father's books, I chanced to come across some publications that dealt with military subjects. One of these publications was a popular history of the Franco-German War of 1870-71. It consisted of two volumes of an illustrated periodical dating from those years. These became my favourite reading. In a little while that great and heroic conflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that time onwards I became more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in any way connected with war or military affairs." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p.19]
According to Richard Weikart's sources, Hitler was estranged from Catholicism by the time he left home:
"Like most young people in his society, he was confirmed in the Catholic Church. However, despite the fact that confirmation is supposed to be a solemn expression of one's personal Christian faith, Hitler's godfather claimed Hitler seemed disgusted with his confirmation ceremony in 1904. One of Hitler's religion teachers in Linz, Franz Sales Schwarz, made such a negative impression on his students that he alienated most of them from Catholicism. Hitler's boyhood friend Kubizek believed that Hitler had been truly devout in the days when he sang in the Lambach choir, but as he grew older, 'his father's freethinking attitude won the upper hand.' Kubizek also could not remember Hitler ever going to a church service."
"By the time Hitler left home in 1907 to live in Vienna, he was already estranged from Catholicism. Brigitte Hamann, who has done the closest analysis thus far of Hitler's Vienna years, reports that no sources ever mentioned Hitler going to church in Vienna. Further, Hamann claims that almost all the eyewitness accounts of Hitler's time in Vienna note his hatred of the Catholic Church. One source reported that around 1912, 'Hitler said the biggest evil for the German people was accepting Christian humility.' This certainly jibes with Hitler's later outlook. Though the source base is scant, the evidence we do have suggests that Hitler had a negative view of Catholicism already while living in Vienna from 1907 to 1913."
"[Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016]"
By the time Hitler joined the military, his faith and reverence toward the church had virtually disappeared. Weikart explained that, according to Thomas Weber's book, "Hitler's First War," the war did not renew Hitler's appreciation for religion, as it did for others. Weikart cites several apostatic scenes during the war, including this one:
"Although [Hitler] was out of the line in reserve, discussion arose about crossing into Niemandsland to share Christmas with the British. He refused. 'Such a thing should not happen in wartime/' Hitler argued. 'Have you no German sense of honor left at all?' More than patriotic scruples were involved. Although a baptized Catholic, he rejected every vestige of religious observance while his unit marked the day in the cellar of the Messines monastery to which they had retired on the 23rd. 'Adi' was distinctly odd. He received no mail or parcels, never spoke of family or friends, neither smoked nor drank, and often brooded alone in his dugout. In the ruins open to the sky, Corporal Frobenius, a Lutheran theology student also decorated with the Iron Cross, read the Christmas gospel to a joint congregation of Catholics and Protestants, but not to Corporal Hitler." [Stanley Weintraub, "Silent Night: the story of the World War I Christmas truce." Free Press, 2001, pp.70-71]
*************
Joey name-dropped a few links from Wikipedia.
>>Joey: "Christian Social Workers' Party (Germany), founded by Adolf Stoecker."
>>Joey: "Christian Social Party (Austria), founded by Karl Kueger >>Joey: "Georg Ritter von Schönerer, Pan German Party >>Joey: "Karl Lueger, Christian Social Party, >>Joey: "Adolf Hitler, National Socialist Workers Party,
The following segment is directly out of Richard's paper and book of the same name, "Was Hitler a Darwinian":
>>Joey: "The Catholic Lueger was quite anti-Semitic, mostly it seems for political advantage. When challenged on one occasion that his dinner companions were Jewish, he famous proclaimed: “I decide who’s a Yid.”119 Opportunistic perhaps, but his newspaper, the Volksblatt, was so vehemently anti-Semitic that the Archbishop of Vienna denounced it. Leuger’s party shared both name and outlook with those of the Protestant Court Preacher and deeply anti-Semitic Adolf Stöcker."
>>Joey: Hitler explicitly said that it was Lueger and his Christian Social Party that caused his “opinions regarding anti-Semitism to undergo a slow change in the course of time.” “It was,” he said, “my most serious change of opinion.”120
The word "explicitly" may be somewhat overstated, Joey. This is one translation:
"To-day, as well as then, I hold Dr. Karl Lueger as the most eminent type of German Burgermeister. How many prejudices were thrown over through such a change in my attitude towards the Christian-Socialist Movement! My ideas about anti-Semitism changed also in the course of time, but that was the change which I found most difficult. It cost me a greater internal conflict with myself, and it was only after a struggle between reason and sentiment that victory began to be decided in favour of the former. Two years later sentiment rallied to the side of reasons and became a faithful guardian and counsellor." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p.54]
Hitler may have attributed his anti-semitism to the Christian-Socialist Movement, but he doesn't mention it in that translation, which seems to be the common translation. However, the Manheim translation leans toward Richard's interpretation:
"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.55]
There is at least one translation in which it appears that Hitler specifically attributed his change in attitude to Lueger:
"How many of my deliberate opinions were thrown over by my change of attitude towards the Christian Socialist movement! When because of this my opinions in regard to anti-Semitism also slowly began to change in the course of time, it was probably my most serious change. This change caused me most of my severe mental struggles, and only after months of agonizing between reason and feeling, victory began to favor reason. Two years later feeling had followed reason, and from now on became its most faithful guard and monitor." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Complete and Unabridged." Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940, pp.71-72]
A direct word-for-word translation from the German is not a lot of help; but it does seem to pointing in that direction, as well:
"How many of my intentional views have been but by such a change in my opinion overturned to the Christian-social movement! If this slowly also my views in relation subject to anti-semitism the change of time, then this was probably my worst change ever. It cost me the most inner mental struggles, and only after months of struggle between minds And feeling the victory began to side with to beat the intellect." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kamp: Unabridged Edition - German." Eher-Verlag, 1943, p.59]
However, later in Mein Kampf, Hitler writes that he rejected the Christian-Socialist Party form of anti-semitism because it was religious, rather than racial:
"The failure of this [Christian-Socialist] Party to carry into effect the dream of saving Austria from dissolution must be attributed to two main defects in the means they employed and also the lack of a clear perception of the ends they wished to reach. The anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists was based on religious instead of racial principles. The reason for this mistake gave rise to the second error also. The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party were of the opinion that they could not base their position on the racial principle if they wished to save Austria, because they felt that a general disintegration of the State might quickly result from the adoption of such a policy… It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism did not upset the Jews very much, simply because it had a purely religious foundation. If the worst came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would settle the matter, hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business safely and at the same time retain his Jewish nationality… Through this shilly-shally way of dealing with the problem the anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists turned out to be quite ineffective. It was anti-Semitic only in outward appearance. And this was worse than if it had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; for the pretence gave rise to a false sense of security among people who believed that the enemy had been taken by the ears; but, as a matter of fact, the people themselves were being led by the nose." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, pp.103,104]
So, above all, Hitler was a racist, and there is no doubt that racism "exploded" after the arrival of Darwin's, Galton's, and Haeckel's works.
*************
That is a continuation of Joey's previous statement from Richard's paper and book.
>>Joey: "Hitler scholars Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw concur with Hitler’s own estimate that these two politicians were the most significant in forming his attitudes about Jews and the need for a racially homogeneous German land.122 >>Joey: "So by Hitler’s own admission, these political figures, not Darwin, were pivotal in forming his anti-Semitic attitudes. Thus neither Hitler’s conception of race was Darwinian nor was Darwinism the source of his anti-Semitism. The motivation and origin of his views were political, not scientific, and certainly not Darwinian.123"
Perhaps; but there are holes in the story, and in your interpretation. Weikart discussed it in this manner, in which he mentions the Mein Kampf statement I previously quoted:
"Hitler's attitude about Jews early in his life is difficult to figure out because the testimony is ambiguous. While he was in Vienna, its Catholic mayor Karl Lueger peddled a populist version of anti-Semitism, and Hitler later praised Lueger's ability to mobilize the masses. However, he ultimately did not approve of Lueger's form of anti-Semitism, calling it a 'sham anti-Semitism which was almost worse than none at all,' because any Jew could save himself and his business with 'a splash of baptismal water.' Hitler viewed this kind of anti- Semitism as superficial, not scientific. Also, Hitler was alienated from Catholicism at an early age, so it is not clear how much credence he would have given to Lueger's anti-Semitic rhetoric. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that the Pan-Germans such as Schönerer had the right attitude toward anti-Semitism because they based it 'on a correct understanding of the importance of the racial problem, and not on religious ideas." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.6]
There's more. In this statement, Weikart uses one of Richard's own references, Ian Kershaw, to support Weikart's interpretation:
"Despite Hitler's claim in Mein Kampf that he developed into a consistent racial anti-Semite while in Vienna, historians Brigitte Hamann and Ian Kershaw, who have done the closest analyses of Hitler's early attitudes toward the Jews, do not believe his concocted story. Both conclude that Hitler did not fully develop his harsh anti-Semitic ideology until 1918–19. The shock of German defeat in World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and especially the short-lived communist republic in Munich, which had some Jewish leaders, galvanized anti-Semitic agitation in 1919. Hitler was still in the army when the communists took over in Munich, and his role during that time is murky. After the White forces bloodily suppressed the Bavarian communist regime, Hitler was recruited into an army propaganda unit, where he was trained to ply the troops with ultra-nationalist speeches. One of the nationalist figures who helped train Hitler and his fellow orators was Gottfried Feder, an anti-Semite whose central mission was to combat the alleged economic domination of the Jews. Hitler claimed that after hearing Feder's first lecture, he immediately recognized he 'had now found the way to one of the most essential premises for the foundation of a new party.' Hitler's anti-Semitism drew heavily from Feder's interpretation of the Jews as greedy, exploitative parasites on the German economy." [Ibid.]
Kershaw even rejected some of the statements by Hitler's supposed childhood friend:
"For Kubizek, Vienna had made Hitler's antisemitism more radical. But it had not created it. In his opinion, Hitler had gone to Vienna 'already as a pronounced antisemite'. Kubizek went on to recount one or two episodes of Hitler's aversion to Jews during the time they were together in Vienna. He claimed an encounter with a Galician Jew was the caftan story of Mein Kampf. But this, and a purported visit to a synagogue in which Hitler took Kubizek along to witness a Jewish wedding, have the appearance of an outright fabrication. Palpably false is Kubizek's assertion that Hitler joined the Antisemitenbund (Antisemitic League) during the months in 1908 that the friends were together in Vienna. There was no such organization in Austria-Hungary before 1918.292." [Ian Kershaw, "Hitler: 1889-1936 - Hubris." Penguin Books, 2001, Chap. V]
Kershaw went on to say, "The formation of the ideological antisemite [Hitler] had to wait until a further crucial phase in Hitler's development, ranging from the end of the war to his political awakening in Munich in 1919."
*************
Joey returns to Wikipedia:
>>Joey: "On Georg Ritter von Schönerer: "During these years, while the Kulturkampf divided Imperial Germany, Schönerer founded the Los von Rom! movement, which advocated the conversion of all Roman Catholic German-speaking people of Austria to Lutheran Protestantism, or, in some cases, to the Old Catholic Churches. Schönerer became even more powerful in 1901, when 21 members of his party gained seats in the Parliament. His influence and career rapidly declined thereafter, however, due to his forceful views and personality. His party suffered as well, and had virtually disintegrated by 1907. But his views and philosophy, not to mention his great skill as an agitator, would go on to influence and inspire Hitler as well as the Nazi Party.[11]"
As aforementioned, Weikart said that Hitler claimed the Pan-Germans such as Schönerer had the right attitude toward anti-Semitism because they based it on a correct understanding of the importance of the racial problem, and not on religious ideas. Hear if from Hitler himself:
"The Pan-German movement was right in its theoretical view about the aim of a German renascence, but unfortunate in its choice of methods. It was nationalistic, but unhappily not socialistic enough to win the masses. But its anti-Semitism was based on a correct understanding of the importance of the racial problem, and not on religious ideas. Its struggle against a definite denomination [Catholicism,] however, was actually and tactically false." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.122]
Hitler lamented Schönerer's alienation of the Catholics, fearing they would lose the political war, which they did; but he also revealed a belief in a "divide-and-conquer" conspiracy by the Jews:
"Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom [Away-from-Rome] Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a 'single holy German nation,' just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer's anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement's power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews. In the second volume of Mein Kampf, Hitler even accused the Jews of conspiring to divide Germans from each other by arousing religious sectarianism. By stirring up German Catholics to fight against German Protestants, Jews were diverting them from confronting their real threat: the Jews themselves. Hitler insisted that his political movement should unite all Germans to oppose the Jews, becoming a party where 'the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions.' He did not care whether his fellow Germans were Protestant or Catholic (or of some other religious persuasion). However, he wanted to ensure that religion did not create divisions and thereby weaken the German Volk." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.1]
Above all, the context of Mein Kampf requires consideration that Hitler is writing after the war, and after being thoroughly alienated from the Jews.
*************
Joey quoting Emily Himmel from a paper on Academia.edu:
>>Joey: "Schönerer, Lueger, and Hitler: The Politics of the Vienna Years, 1907-1913: "Adolf Hitler spent the years between 1908 and 1913 in Vienna, Austria, the crown jewel of the Hapsburg Empire. Hitler’s Vienna was a bustling metropolis, full of the rich and elite of Austrian society, but also the most impoverished. A massive influx of labourers from the countryside at the turn of the century had overwhelmed the employers and architects of the city, leaving many of the workers unemployed and homeless. These horrible economic conditions formed a breeding ground for extremist politics and philosophy, particularly that of the anti-Semites, who used the Jews as a scapegoat for their economic hardships, and the pan-Germans, who supported an “ethnic unification” between Germany and Austria. The two most prominent proponents of those ideas were Georg von Schönerer, an influential Austro-Hungarian politician and Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna from 1897 to 1910. The words of these men circulated through the men’s hostels and the poorest class, gaining followers, particularly one down-and-out architect by the name of Adolf Hitler..."
That is a rather lengthy copy/paste that contains no new information or interpretations, so I chopped it off and presented her summary, instead:
"Hitler entered Vienna with Schönerer's ideals and left with Lueger's political prowess. In Lueger, Hitler saw someone who knew how to work his people. Lueger understood the need to have a common enemy, to appeal to the lower-middle classes, and to use propaganda to his advantage. Hitler greatly respected Schönerer for his ideas, but Lueger for his politics. It can be argued that Hitler was exposed to anti-Semitism as a child, and then again in Linz, but the true formative years for his personal and political dogma were spent in Vienna. Never in his life was he so exposed to two perfect sources of information: Georg von Schönerer taught him about Pan-Germanism and racial anti-Semitism, while Karl Lueger taught him how to control the masses and run a successful political party. Adolf Hitler's time in Vienna perfectly prepared him for his future role as the head of the Nazi Party and the Führer of Germany." [Emily Hummel, "Schönerer, Lueger, and Hitler: The Politics of the Vienna Years, 1907-1913." 2013]
I mostly agree.
*************
Joey quoting Robert Richards, "Was Hitler a Darwinian":
>>Joey: "Several scholars and a host of religious conservatives have argued that Hitler derived his anti-Semitic racism from Darwin’s theory. They suggest this connection morally taints Darwinians and undermines evolutionary conceptions. Careful examination shows that Hitler’s racial views had no connection with Darwinian ideas; indeed, he held to the fixity of species and thought descent of human beings from animal forbearers absurd. Hitler’s anti-Semitism comes mostly from Houston Stewart Chamberlain and political sources. Those biologists most closely allied with the Nazi party rejected Darwinian and Haeckelian theory because it was assumed to be rigidly mechanistic, and volkisch biology was not mechanistic. The moral and epistemic implications often drawn are without merit. Those who attempt to link Hitler’s ideas with those of Darwin are either blindly driven by ideology or have failed to consider the evidence. Likely both."
Naturally I think that statement is a bunch of baloney from an ideologically-driven Darwin/Haeckel apologist. Weikart, however, is more congenial in his rebuttal (but it is obvious that he, too, thinks it is baloney):
"In his two books, Hitler discussed evolutionary theory as vital to his theory of racial struggle and eugenics. Several times throughout Mein Kampf, he specifically employs the term 'struggle for existence' ('Kampf um das Dasein'); in fact, the phrase or its plural appears three times in a passage several pages long where Hitler described why the Germans should be both pro-natalist and expansionist. Historian Robert Richards, however, inexplicably claims that Hitler's views in this passage are un-Darwinian, because—according to Richards—a Darwinian should supposedly want population expansion only within restricted borders, which would allow the fit to triumph over the unfit. Richards argues expanding into new territory would lessen the struggle, allowing the fit and less fit 'to have fairly equal chances.' Richards, however, miscalculates here because he leaves out one of the most important factors in Hitler's reasoning: the living space (Lebensraum) is to be taken from allegedly inferior races. Thus, expanding is part of the Darwinian racial struggle that allows the allegedly fitter Nordic race to outcompete allegedly inferior races. Contra Richards, Hitler's discussion makes perfect sense in a Darwinian world if unequal races are waging a struggle for existence. In fact, the whole idea of Lebensraum was first formulated by Friedrich Ratzel, a Darwinian biologist who later became a geographer. In addition, many pro-natalist eugenicists with impeccable Darwinian credentials, such as Alfred Ploetz or Max von Gruber, agreed with Hitler's position on expansionism (indeed, they may have influenced Hitler in this matter)." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.8]
*************
Joey is back to Wikipedia [I am omitting the redundant first part]:
>>Joey: [Hitler] also developed an admiration for Martin Luther.[50]
Luther is one of the go-to boys for the Darwin apologists; yet, Hitler rarely mentioned Luther, except perhaps to praise him as a reformer (against the Catholic Church,) and, in Hitler's opinion, for Luther's lack of strict adherence to the scripture:
"Strangely, Hitler praised the Jesuits for stimulating the Counter-Reformation, whose architecture he appreciated. Luther, on the other hand, had succumbed to a mystical inwardness—according to Hitler—that was inferior to the Jesuit's pursuit of sensuous pleasure (Hitler obviously did not know much about Ignatius of Loyola's own mysticism.) Luther, however, had one thing going for him, Hitler believed: he 'did not bind humanity to the letter of the scripture; there are an entire string of utterances, in which he takes a position against the scriptures, in that he ascertains that they contain much that is not good.' This is a rather backhanded compliment of the man who made 'scripture alone' one of the guiding principles of his life and ministry. If nothing else, it proved Hitler did not have a very high opinion of the Bible." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.4]
*************
[Removed distractions.]
>>Joey, continuing: "The origin and development of Hitler's anti-Semitism remains a matter of debate.[53] His friend, August Kubizek, claimed that Hitler was a "confirmed anti-Semite" before he left Linz.[54] However, historian Brigitte Hamann describes Kubizek's claim as "problematical".[55] While Hitler states in Mein Kampf that he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna,[56] Reinhold Hanisch, who helped him sell his paintings, disagrees. Hitler had dealings with Jews while living in Vienna.[57][58][59] Historian Richard J. Evans states that "historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat [in World War I], as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe".[60]"
I tend to agree with Evans. This is the link to his article:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/hitlers-first-war-by-thomas-weber/article4261721/
*************
Finally, back to the go-to boy for the Darwin apologetics:
>>Joey: "Also, note above the reference to Martin Luther, doubtless including his 1543 book: On the Jews and their Lies. Nothing Charles Darwin wrote could remotely approach the influence on a mind like Hitler's of Luther's 400 year old words."
You must have forgotten about Charlie's "The Descent of Man," Joey:
"Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence ; and this from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not bitterly to regret, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils with the lower animals, lie has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to the rank of manhood." [Ibid. p.180]
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." [Civilised Nations, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex - Indexed." Princeton University Press, 1st Ed, 1981, Chap V, p.168]
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]
"So in regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic animals. Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper,&c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr. Galton, that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, New Ed, 1901, Chap.II, p.41]
Charlie certainly appears to be promoting genocide and eugenics.
What were the Hitlerian Nazi's guilty of? Geocide and eugenics, of all things. . .
Mr.Kalamata
Schönerer, Lueger, and Hitler: The Politics of the Vienna Years, 1907-1913: 
"Hitler was nineteen when he arrived in Vienna on an orphan’s pension and with a dream of studying painting at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts... 
