Search This Blog

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Yes, Virginia, there was a Darwinist root to the Nazis and Social Darwinism is now the enemy of freedom.

After World War Two a lot of things happened in America that had long-range consequences.  We were understandably weary of fighting around the world, we were not prepared to face down Communist dictatorships after having conquered Fascist Germany and Italy and Imperialist Japan.   There was a sense of isolationism as well that grew more popular as we turned away from fighting in Korea and agreed to draw a line in Berlin between US and THEM.  There was a time of relative peace and prosperity in the middle 50's and early 60's here in the States and yet there was an undercurrent of fear.  Just watch a few episodes of The Twilight Zone from the first couple of seasons - one of the recurrent themes was one that was echoed in popular fiction as well - the concept of nuclear Armageddon.    But bombs falling didn't do us in.   Advancing armies didn't do us in.

Yet we find ourselves in deep trouble now.   This is nothing but the consequences of a generation saying that you can discuss anything but "politics and religion."   The problem is, politics and religion are an integral part of life and in fact a vital part of life.  While we were watching Donna Reed become The Brady Bunch become All In The Family become Sex In The City become Jersey Shore we found that our Republic is becoming a socialist state and capitalism, once acknowledged as the means by which we all made life better, is now demeaned and demonized.   How far are we from Land Of The Free And Home Of The Brave to The State Above All?  The Judeo-Christian ethic is foundational to free society and the society that casts out Christ finds freedom following soon thereafter.   How free are the residents of Communist states, of Islamic states, of states ruled by power-mad Dictators?   

More than once I have pointed out that Charles Darwin's hypothesis has led to death, suffering and cruelty rather than be in any way useful to science.   This post kind of puts the icing on that cake:


The Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system


This article is focused on the Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system. It contends that Darwinism underpinned the most basic features of Nazi legal order and theory. The Nazis developed a ‘progressive’ theory of law in which ‘law’ was interpreted as a result of force and social struggle. According to the Nazi legal theory, the legal system should not contain fixed rules of law but evolve in continuous flow as a ‘living law’. Because the Nazis were Darwinists who believed that human beings were descended from the animal kingdom, they did not accept the idea of God-ordained human rights, but rather that the ‘stronger’ would have the ‘right’ to dispossess and destroy the ‘weaker’. During that time, most German judges and lawyers were legal positivists who rejected the concept of God-given rights as defined by the Holy Scriptures and classical natural-law theory. As a result, a ‘master morality’ was developed, and it became meaningless to appeal to any higher law above the oppressive commands of the Nazi State.

Poster of Hitler Youth; Source:
Children from the Hitler Youth had to recite a daily prayer to the Führer
Figure 1. Children from the Hitler Youth had to recite a daily prayer to the Führer.

Darwinism underpinned the most basic features of Nazi theory and practice. While Darwinism is not the sole explanation for National Socialism, it is nonetheless an essential one. The Nazis strongly believed they were acting on behalf of evolutionary ‘science’, reason and progress. They saw themselves as progressive people, who in their impatience merely wished to hasten evolution’s laggard pace by giving a helping hand to its guiding principle, ‘survival of the fittest’.

This article is focused on the evolutionary roots of the Nazi legal system. It explains why the Nazi legal system cannot be isolated from the Darwinian viewpoints of Nazi Germany’s juridical elite. During the period in question, most German judges and lawyers were legal positivists who supported a legal system that rejected any idea of a higher law overseeing the state. Instead, evolutionary thinking, as it had been developed since Darwin, made the Nazi state the means by which ‘evolution’ would be advanced; by tweaking its ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism to add to its propulsion.

Nazism and Darwinism

Since Charles Darwin (1809–1882) believed that humans evolved from animals by means of a blind process of natural selection, three chapters of his The Descent of Man are devoted to the theory that the mental and moral faculties of human beings originate from the same fount as that of animals. Deeply fallacious and racist as they are, these arguments made a profound impact upon social-science disciplines such as psychology, anthropology and law. According to law professor Phillip E. Johnson:
‘Because Darwin was determined to establish human continuity with animals, he frequently wrote of “savages and lower races” as intermediate between animals and civilized people. Thanks to Darwin’s acceptance of the idea of hierarchy among human societies … the spread and endurance of a racist form of social Darwinism owes more to Charles Darwin than to Herbert Spencer.’1
Neo-atheists sometimes try to suggest that the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) was a religious person. Although Hitler grew up a nominal Roman Catholic, he rejected from an early age Catholic teaching, regarding Christianity as a religion fit only for slaves.2 According to the late British biologist Sir Arthur Keith (1866–1955), at one time a leading evolutionist in Great Britain, the German Führer was an ardent ‘evolutionist … that consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’3
 
Nazism would not have existed without Darwinism. While Darwinism is not the only explanation for Nazism, it is nonetheless an essential one. The Nazis believed they were progressives who were advancing ‘evolution’ by conferring on the blind forces of nature the perfect sight of the Aryan, the better for its guiding principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ to see where to go. 

Darwinism underpinned the most distinctive and essential features of National Socialism. Indeed, Nazism would not have existed without Darwinism. While Darwinism is not the only explanation for Nazism, it is nonetheless an essential one. The Nazis believed they were progressives who were advancing ‘evolution’ by conferring on the blind forces of nature the perfect sight of the Aryan, the better for its guiding principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ to see where to go. There is very much a correlation between the Darwinian worldview of the Nazis and the policies they implemented. This is a worldview in which race occupies a central role, and the struggle for survival is the sine qua non of life.4
 
While it is true that Hitler sometimes referred to ‘God’ or ‘Providence’ in political writings and speeches, he was not appealing to the Christian deity. Rather, he equated ‘natural law’ with the ‘survival of the fittest’, and God with ‘the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses’.5 For Hitler, the two basic dynamics of life were hunger (which promoted self-preservation) and love (which preserved the species).6 He argued that the natural conditions in which these two instincts are satisfied are limited, such that organisms have to struggle for space and resources. It is out of this primordial struggle that Hitler saw ‘evolution’ taking place through the mechanism of ‘survival of the fittest’.7
 
Hitler drew from a bountiful fund of social-Darwinist thought to construct his racist philosophy.8 In one of his tirades, on the ‘virtues’ of vegetarianism, he contended that ‘the monkeys, our ancestors of prehistoric times, are strictly vegetarian’.9 In October 1941, he said: ‘There have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years. There is less distance between the man-ape and the ordinary modern man than there is between the ordinary modern man and a man like Schopenhauer.’9 As for educating Africans to become lawyers and teachers, he rejected it as impracticable, saying it was ‘a criminal lunacy … to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him … For this is training exactly like of a poodle.’10

Nazism and religion

Hitler believed that the ramparts of religious belief had been overrun by the swift rush of science. He saw evolutionary ‘science’ as a vital element in the task of discrediting Christianity.11 Thus, according to historian Richard Evans, ‘the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition.’12 In a conversation which took place just one year after the Nazi seizure of power, in 1933, Hitler stated (also noting how liberal churchians could be ‘useful idiots’):
‘The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future—certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch, and annihilating it in Germany … But for our people it is decisive whether to acknowledge the Jewish Christ-creed with its effeminate pity-ethics, or a strong, heroic belief in God in Nature, God in our own people, in our destiny, in our own blood … Leave the hair-splitting to others. Whether it’s the Old Testament or the New, or simply the sayings of Jesus … it’s all the same old Jewish swindle. It will not make us free. A German Church, a German Christianity, is a distortion. One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. You can throw the epileptic Paul out—others have done so before us. You can make Christ into a noble human being, and deny his role as a saviour. People have been doing it for centuries. I believe there are such Christians to-day in England and America … We need free men who feel and know that God is in themselves.’13
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.—Adolf Hitler

Hitler was of the opinion that ‘the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity’.14 He ordered the Germans to stop celebrating Christmas, and forced children from the Hitler Youth to recite a daily prayer to him for all their ‘blessings’ (figure 1). Not surprisingly, he blamed the Jews for having invented Christianity,15 thus requiring as a remedy that Germans be ‘immunised against this disease’.16 According to US Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954), the chief prosecutor at the main Nuremberg Trial, the Nazis carried out ‘a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches’.17 Hitler had indeed also created a final solution for the ‘problem’ of Christianity, again invoking liberal theologians as useful idiots:
‘What is to be done, you say? I will tell you: We must prevent the churches from doing anything but what they are doing now, that is, losing ground day by day. Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense! Never again. That tale is finished. No one will listen to it again. But we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes.
‘What we can do? Just what the Catholic Church did when it forced its beliefs on the heathen: preserve what can be preserved, and change its meaning. We shall take the road back: Easter is no longer resurrection, but the eternal renewal of our people. Christmas is the birth of our saviour: the spirit of heroism and the freedom of our people. Do you think these liberal priests, who have no longer a belief, only an office, will refuse to preach our God in their churches? I can guarantee that, just as they have made Haeckel and Darwin, Goethe and Stefan George the prophets of their “Christianity”, so they will replace the cross with our swastika [figure 2]. Instead of worshiping the blood of their quondam saviour, they will worship the pure blood of our people. They will receive the fruits of the German soil as a divine gift, and will eat it as a symbol of the eternal communion of the people, as they have hitherto eaten the body of their God. And when we have reached that point … the churches will be crowded again. If we wish it, then it will be so—when it is our religion that is preached there. We need not hurry the process.’18
Because the most radical and influential leaders of the Nazi movement explicitly objected to Christianity in its very essence, they wished to replace it with a German national religion that was intended to supersede the Christian religion and its ideas of sin, penitence and grace.19 The German people would adore a man-god in the place of the God of the Bible; and abide by the paganism of nature-worship as a substitute for the ‘Jewish bondage of law’.20 According to Professor Ernst Bergmann, a Nazi intellectual,21 the Germans should follow the ideals of ‘honour’, not compassion; of ‘eternal struggle’, not peace.22 In his opinion, the most important thing was to give up the ‘superstition’ that people are sinful, and instead develop a new faith ‘in which we are ourselves Christ’. Influenced by the ‘forces of evolution’, the new ‘Christ’ would be ‘re-born in the womb of Mother-earth’; but not to be the Redeemer of the world, ‘for the world is in no need of redemption’.23 Said Bergmann: ‘Destroy the legend of God become man and man himself shall rise up as God, as Christ; he shall become conscious of himself as such, and his essence shall take on the divine form.’24

Paganised Christianity

© 1996-2007 Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand
The so-called ‘German Christian Movement’ desired to achieve absolute organizational and ideological conformity between the Protestant church and the National Socialist state. The banner reads: The German Christian reads the ‘Gospel in the Third Reich’
Figure 2. The so-called ‘German Christian Movement’ desired to achieve absolute organizational and ideological conformity between the Protestant church and the National Socialist state. The banner reads: The German Christian reads the ‘Gospel in the Third Reich’.

It is a sad truth that many Germans who professed to be Christians made efforts to compromise with Nazism (figure 2). Needless to say, these ‘German Christians’ were determined to confer an opposite meaning to authentic Christianity. As such, they rejected all Jewish aspects of Christianity, particularly the Old Testament, and interpreted ‘God’ as some kind of super-Hitler on an extended scale. Finally, they elevated the leaders of Nazism to the position of final interpreters of the divine will. Naturally, this sort of ‘Christianity’ had absolutely nothing to do with biblical teaching, but was rather a product of liberal Protestant theology. According the Professor Emeritus of History at the University of British Columbia, J.S. Conway:
‘The leaders of the [German Christian] movement, Pastors Julius Leutheuser, Joachim Hossenfelder and Siegfried Leffler, strove to convince their fellow clergy that only a completely new interpretation of Christianity … could meet the needs of the new age. They sought to rid the Church of its ‘pre-scientific’ mentality and its archaic liturgies, and to substitute a new revelation as found in Adolf Hitler. The essential was not Christian orthodoxy but Christian activism that would follow the example of the ‘heroic’ Jesus … In the new creation of the Nazi Party, they saw a vehicle for their programme that offered fellowship which they believe to be characteristic of true Christianity. If Hitler could perform what they called Christian deeds, then orthodoxy could be abandoned.’25
As for the numerous attacks levelled against Christianity by Nazi leaders, these ‘German Christians’ consoled themselves with the fact that such hostility emanated only from individual representatives of the Party. Thus, in April 1937, a Rhenish group of ‘German Christians’ published a resolution which substituted Hitler’s authority for that of the Bible. The resolution stated: ‘Hitler’s word is God’s law; the decrees and laws which represent it possess divine authority. The Führer being the only hundred per cent National Socialist, he alone fulfils the law. All others are to be regarded as guilty before the divine law.’26

 
Those ‘Christians’ had embraced a paganised form of ‘Christianity’ that freed them from any moral implications of the Christian faith. They practised a form of pagan amoralism that was based on the worship of Power and Self under a more or less transparent ‘Christian’ cover.27 They postulated that Christ had not come to reconcile everyone to the God of Creation and the Moral Law but rather ‘to rescue them from the pressure of His demands and pretensions’.28 Therefore any attempt to overcome ‘the evil in us’ was deemed out of question, because the pursuit of ‘righteousness’ was interpreted as being incompatible with the sinful condition of human beings. According to the ‘German Christian’ Wilhelm Stapel, a prolific German theologian who thought each nation was entitled to possess its ‘own ethics’:
‘Redemption has as little to do with moral elevation as it has with worldly wisdom … The Christian knows it is strictly impossible for him to ‘live’ except in sin; that he can form no decision without falling into unrighteousness; that he cannot do good unless doing evil by it at the same time … God has made this world perishable, it is doomed to destruction. May it, then, go to the dogs according to its destiny! Men who imagine themselves capable of bettering it, who want to create a higher morality, are starting a ridiculous petty revolt against God.’29

The Nazi legal system

The idea that human law was to be subject to God’s law began to be more deeply challenged in the 19th century, when Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was interpreted as an attempt to promote a worldview that is based on the non-existence of God. But whenever the value of law is entwined in such belief in ‘evolution’, law automatically loses its transcendent dignity, and the whole idea of government under law loses its most important philosophical foundation. Whereas Christianity sees God’s laws as a manifestation of divine reason and justice, Darwinism provides no transcendent basis for law, such that legality is seen to be no more than the prosaic codification of a government’s policies. As such, the idea of law is reduced to a managerial skill employed in the service of social engineering, the dominant view in the legal profession today.30
 
Legal positivists developed a theory that ‘law’ is a mere product of human will, essentially a result of force and social struggle.

In this sense, legal positivists developed a theory that ‘law’ is a mere product of human will, essentially a result of force and social struggle.31 To strict legal positivists, any law which in procedural terms can be properly enacted by the state must not be disobeyed or rendered invalid on account of its immorality.32 Thus, a legal theory was developed; one which may be defined in terms of ‘a philosophy without metaphysics, an epistemology without certainty of truth, or a jurisprudence without an idea of right.’33
 
The Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen (1881–1973), a famous legal positivist in the early twentieth century, explained that legal positivism confines itself to a theory of positive law and to its interpretation. Accordingly, legal positivism is anxious to maintain the difference, even the contrast, between just and legal. But as Kelsen also explained, this sharp separation of jurisprudence from legal science did not exist until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Before the rise of the German historical school of law, ‘the question of justice was considered its fundamental problem by juridical science.’34
 
Kelsen contended that legal norms are not valid by virtue of their substantive content, but rather only as a positive law enacted by the proper legal authority. As such, any content of law might be valid, because, in his opinion, ‘there is no human behaviour which could not function as the content of a legal norm. A norm becomes law only because it has been constituted in a particular fashion, born of a definite procedure and a definite rule.’35 Such ‘pure’ theory of the positive law is concerned to reveal the law of the state as it stands, ‘without legitimising it as just, or disqualifying it as unjust; it seeks the real, the positive law, not the right law’.36 In other words, he developed a legal theory which refused to evaluate the content of positive laws.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, Kelsen, who was Jewish, was forced out of his post as Dean of the Law Faculty at the University of Cologne.37 Nevertheless, in the years following the Second World War, it was alleged that Kelsen’s legal positivism offered no legal resource which could be used to resist the Nazi regime. Instead, such doctrines of legal positivism would have provided a certain degree of validity to the evil laws of Hitler’s Third Reich. According to the American law professor and Catholic apologist Charles Edward Rice (b. 1931), ‘when the Nazis moved against the Jews, German lawyers were disarmed … by legal positivism.’38 Rice also says that this would not have been the case had most of the German legal profession not fully embraced legal positivism but had instead responded to the early Nazi injustices with a sound and ‘principled denunciation’ rooted in traditional principles of natural law.

In this sense the Nazi legal system cannot be isolated, like some sort of accident, from the viewpoints of the powerful legal elite in Germany. Though Germany in 1933 had a constitutional order, the tradition of constitutional law was solely based on positivist legal principles. Most German judges and lawyers were anxious to establish an authoritarian rule that was supported by a legal system which rejected any protection of the individual against the state. Such lawyers had been hostile to the Weimar Republic, and they generally welcomed the Nazi regime in 1933.39
 
Photo from
Leading Nazi lawyer Hans Frank advocated that Hitler should stand above the law.
Figure 3. Leading Nazi lawyer Hans Frank advocated that Hitler should stand above the law. He was Reich Minister without portfolio, Head of the National Socialist Bar Association (1933–1942), member of the Reichstag, President of the International Chamber of Law (1941–42) and of the Academy of German Law, and Governor General of the occupied Polish Territories October 1939–1945.

One of the Nazi Party’s leading lawyers, Hans Frank (1900–1946; hanged at Nuremberg), in this sense advocated for the need to base German society on the foundations of a legal system which suited the purposes of charismatic leadership.40 He wished to legally legitimise the idea of a ‘strong ruler’ who could directly appeal to the masses. The Führer should stand above the law, because an ‘efficient’ government is more important than constitutionalism.

Similarly, Ernst Rudolf Huber (1903–1990), who was at that time a prominent constitutional law professor at the University of Kiel, thought it was ‘impossible to measure the laws of the Führer against a higher concept of law’, because ‘in the Führer the essential principles of the Volk come into manifestation’.41 As ‘the executor of the nation’s common will’, Huber contended that the power of the Führer should be ‘comprehensive and total’, because such a power was a personalised political power that should remain ‘free and independent, exclusive and unlimited’.42
 
In conformity to the Volks-Nomos theory developed during the Nazi regime, the Nazi jurists denied the existence of any individual right against the power of the state.

In conformity to the Volks-Nomos theory developed during the Nazi regime, the Nazi jurists denied the existence of any individual right against the power of the state. In the Nazi legal view, Aurel Kolnai explains, law was not a safeguard the citizen held against violence and oppression ‘but another means of securing omnipotence for the Lords of the State … In a word, the object of law was no longer to check but rather to encourage arbitrary exertion of public power.’43 Naturally, ‘such interpretations by highly regarded legal theorists were of inestimable value in legitimating a form of domination which … effectively undermined the rule of law in favour of arbitrary exercise of political will.’44
 
Curiously, the more the legal community made efforts to legitimise the Nazi regime, the greater was the abuse and contempt with which it was greeted by it. Hitler considered lawyers ‘defective by nature’, and was of the opinion that the foundations of the Nazi law lay wheresoever the Volk life or the present time was stirring. Thus, the permanent source and principle of Nazi law became living law, which in practice materialised from the arbitrary decisions (‘decisionism’) of the holders of power. In the Nazi system of domination, law was understood in terms of a progressive order of community life and social progress, which was not rigid but rather evolved in continuous flow.

Conclusion

Reflections on the Nazi legal system help us to understand why the idea of ‘the god that is ourselves’ is so dangerous for the attainment of human freedom and happiness. For it is the acceptance of God’s higher laws that better enables civil societies to cast down their tyrants; whereas the idea of people being gods unto themselves only serves to divinize political rulers, helping them to ignore higher principles of justice and morality against which their evil actions would be measured.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime are the perfect illustration of what might occur when a civil government declares itself to be completely independent of God’s law. The Nazis believed that humans were not created by God but rather descended from the animal kingdom, an idea they adopted from Darwin. They believed that ‘superior’ humans had the ‘right’ to eliminate the ‘inferior’ ones, for the same reasons that lions eat antelopes. A ‘master morality’ therefore prevailed, and it became meaningless to appeal to any higher law as a defence against such brutal tyranny. For to do so would be, in the Nazis’ naturalistic worldview, akin to telling lions that they should stop being lions.45

Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to Mr Frank Gashumba for his assistance with the final production of this paper.

Reader’s comment:

Jachin M., New Zealand, 25 January 2010
1) Hitler and others promoted the Aryan morphology (i.e. physical form, including blond hair, blue eyes, muscularity, ‘good looks’, etc.) as the ideal for the so-called master race; they even had a breeding programme called Lebensborn* which was used to produce more Aryans and included a neoreligious naming ceremony for the babies at a Nazi altar.

Did anyone in Germany spot the hypocrisy of Hitler and his cronies? Hitler and his inner circle were, without exception as far as I know, the opposite of the Aryan ideal that they espoused. To put it crudely, some were fat and some, including Hitler, looked like runts. One, Himmler if my memory serves, was described as looking like a half-drowned rat. Looking to these guys for breeding advice was like getting mechanical advice from a guy whose car sickly sputters down the road, spewing thick smoke all the while.

Churchill was another believer in eugenics (’good breeding’) whose physical form was far from ideal and healthy.

This degree of hypocrisy indicates dishonesty and/or self-delusion on the part of these leaders. I believe that eugenics is a religion, and the hypocrisy of these religious leaders contrasts strongly with Jesus who exemplified what he preached.

2) The Nazi statements regarding the absolute power of the state (Hitler was in effect the state) echo Rousseau’s beliefs regarding social contract theory**. Rousseau said, in almost as many words, that life is a gift from the state and we should be grateful that the state allows us to live ***. Rousseau believed that individuals should surrender every right to the state in order to allow the state to maintain social order (harmony) ****.

For example, Rousseau would have applauded the Nazis when they outlawed home schooling, a law which remains in effect today. Yes, today in Germany parents who home school their children are sent to prison. This is because the current state wants children to learn the state religion (not the religion of their parents), and maintenance of social order is the state’s justification for this. In this regard the current state is no different to the Nazi one.

The pattern here is that throughout history we see state leaders who want absolute power—a desire which arises from the pride, the same sin that resulted in Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit-using any number of excuses to justify their tyranny. The Darwinian notion of a desirable master race is just one more in a long line of such excuses.




* Lebensborn means ‘Fount of Life’, and this name came from a regime that is most remembered for being a cult of death.

** It’s called ‘social contract theory’ but in fact it is not a contract because it is unilaterally imposed. A true contract is an exchange of promises freely entered into by two or more parties.

*** Here Rousseau is trying to usurp God, because life is a gift from God, and he graciously allows us to live despite the fact that we deserve the death penalty for our sins.

**** This is the opposite of God’s plan for social order. God did not appoint the state to maintain social order, instead he maintained social order by making laws that governed the relationship between individuals, e.g. Exodus chapters 22 & 23.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. Johnson, P.E., Objections Sustained, pp. 35–36, IVP, 1998. 
  2. Bullock, A., Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, Vintage Books, NY, p. 381, 1993. 
  3. Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, New York, p. 230, 1947. 
  4. Hawkins, M. Social Darwinism in European and American Thought 1860–1945, Cambridge University Press, p. 290, 1997. 
  5. Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944, translated by Cameron N. and Stevens, R.H., Oxford University Press, pp. 6, 44, 1988. 
  6. Hawkins, ref. 4, p. 278. 
  7. Hawkins, ref. 4, p. 274. 
  8. Weikart, R., From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, p. 9, 2004. 
  9. Hawkins, ref. 4, p. 283. 
  10. Hitler, A., Mein Kampf, translated by Manheim, R., Hutchinson, London, p. 391, 1974. 
  11. Hawkins, ref. 4, p. 283. 
  12. Evans, R., The Third Reich in Power, Penguin, New York, p. 256, 2005. 
  13. Rauschning, H., Hitler Speaks, Thornton Butterworth, London, p. 57, 1939. 
  14. See Dowley, T. (Ed.), A Lion Handbook: The History of Christianity, Lion, Oxford, pp. 589–590, 1997. 
  15. Hitler believed the apostle Paul had planned a ‘world revolution’ to overthrow the Roman Empire. In spite of his abandonment of the old faith, Paul would have continued to act on behalf of the Jewry. 
  16. Hitler’s Table Talk. ref. 5, p. 217. 
  17. Jackson, R., Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 2, The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Sir Winston Churchill, in his famous 5 October 1938 speech in the British Parliament, declared: ‘There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force. That power cannot be the trusted friend of the British democracy.’ Cited in Adams, V., Men in Our Time, Ayer Publishing, p. 77, 1969. 
  18. Rauschning, ref. 13, p. 58.
  19. Shirer, W., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon and Schuster, NY, p. 240, 1960. 
  20. Kolnai, A., The War Against the West, Victor Gollancz, London, p. 241, 1938. 
  21. Professor Ernst Bergmann wrote an important book entitled Die 25 Thesen der Deutschreligion (Breslau, 1934). In this book, he set up a Nazi religion for German schools that was based on pantheism, subjectivity, nature-worship and ‘Volk’ instincts, via the romantic school of the French philosopher J.J. Rousseau. Professor Bergmann called his thesis ‘a catechism of the German Religion’. See Viereck, P.R.E., Metapolitics: From Wagner and the German Romantics to Hitler, Transaction Publishers, p. 292, 2004. 
  22. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 238.
  23. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 246.
  24. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 267. 
  25. Conway, J.S., Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933–1945, Regent College, p.11, 2001. 
  26. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 276.
  27. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 249. 
  28. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 249–250.
  29. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 256–257.
  30. Colson, C. and Pearcey, N., How Now Shall We Live? Tyndale, p. 93, 1999.
  31. See Noebel, D., The Battle for Truth, Harvest House Publishers, p. 232, 2001.
  32. Hughes, R.A., Leane, G.W.G. and Clarke, A., Australian Legal Institutions: Principles, Structure and Organisation, Lawbook, Sydney, p. 32, 2003.
  33. Rommen, H.A., The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy, Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, MN, p. 35, 1989.
  34. Kelsen H., General Theory of Law and State, H., Russell & Russell, NY, p. 391, 1945. The German Historical School of Law emphasized the historical limitations of the law and it stood in opposition to natural law. Based mainly on the writings and teaching of Friedrich Carl von Savigny (1779–1861), the basic premise of the Historical School is that law is the expression of the convictions of the people, that it is grounded in a form of popular consciousness called the Volksgeist. The Volksgeist thus evolves in an organic manner over time so that the ever-changing needs of the people would justify the continual organic development of the law.
  35. Kelsen, H., The pure theory of law Part 2, Law Quarterly Review 51:17, Parag. 29, 1935. 
  36. Kelsen, ref. 35, p. 474.
  37. Kelsen moved to the United States in 1940, becoming a full professor at the department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1945.
  38. Rice, C., Some reasons for a restoration of natural law jurisprudence, Wake Forest Law Review 24:539ff., 1989; p. 567. In fact, just after World War II, the German jurist Gustav Radbruch (1878–1949) made the same claim that a prevailing legal positivism had helped pave the way for National Socialism.
  39. For instance, Carl Schmitt (1888–1985), the famous constitutional law professor at the University of Berlin, supported the emergence of the Nazi power structures because he thought the institutional practices of parliamentary government in the Weimar Republic did not provide for a strong and stable government, and that they were unconvincingly justified by a mere faith in rational discussion and openness. Schmitt, who developed a conception of law in which law and morality are the mere products of a battle for political supremacy between hostile groups, joined the Nazi Party in May 1933. Between 1933 and 1936 Schmitt produced several essays in support of the Nazi regime’s most brutal policies.
  40. Kershaw, I., Hitler: Profiles in Power, Longman, London, p. 77, 1991.
  41. Huber, E.R., Verfassungsrecht des Grossdeutshen Riches. Hamburg, Hanseatishe Verlagsanstalt, 2nd ed. , p. 197, 1939; cited in: Lepsius, O., The problem of perceptions of national socialist law, or: was there a constitutional theory of national socialism? in: Joerges, C. and Ghaleigh, N.S. (Eds.), Darker Legacies of Law in Europe: The Shadow of National Socialism and Fascism over Europe and its Legal Traditions, Hart, Oxford, p. 25, 2003.
  42. Huber, ref. 41, p. 78.
  43. Kolnai, ref. 20, p. 300.
  44. Kershaw, ref. 40, p. 78.
  45. D’Souza, D., What’s so Great About Christianity, Regnery, Washington DC, p. 221, 2007; see review by Cosner, L., J. Creation 22(2):32–35, 2008.
~~~~~~~


These days when I hear of rioting in the streets I am unsure if it will be crowds of Syrians or a bunch of union thugs in Wisconsin?  Does it surprise you that the modern socialistic Democrats will run away from legislatures to frustrate the legal system and the unions will hire thugs and miscreants to produce "rallies" in an attempt to thwart the will of the people?  Would it surprise you to know that the Hitler regime began amongst rioting in Germany as the economy and way of life hung in the balance?   Take a look around you and think about what has happened to the USA since the Obama Administration took over and ask yourself if you see trouble ahead...and if you do, are you willing to vote and think and act as if your country depends upon it?  Because the union organized riots of today are all too much like the Brownshirts riots of the 1920's and early 30's in Germany - and we know how that worked out/


Show all research tools

Brownshirt

Brownshirt Member of an early Nazi paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung or SA (‘assault division’). The Brownshirts, recruited from various rough elements of society, were founded by Adolf HITLER in Munich in 1921. Fitted out in brown uniforms reminiscent of Mussolini's BLACKSHIRTS, they figured prominently in organized marches and rallies. Their violent intimidation of political opponents and of Jews played a key role in Hitler's rise to power. From 1931 the SA was led by a radical anti-capitalist, Ernst Röhm. By 1933 it numbered some two million, double the size of the army, which was hostile to them. Röhm's ambition was that the SA should achieve parity with the army and the Nazi Party, and serve as the vehicle for a Nazi revolution in state and society. For Hitler the main consideration was to ensure the loyalty to his regime of the German establishment, and in particular of the German officer corps. Consequently, he had more than 70 members of the SA, including Röhm, summarily executed by the SS in the ‘Night of the Long Knives’, after which the revolutionary period of Nazism may be said to have ended.


"Brownshirt." A Dictionary of World History. 2000. Retrieved March 19, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O48-Brownshirt.html

16 comments:

radar said...

To be clear, I am advocating the rule of law. I want Americans to vote as if their way of life depends upon it, because it does. The combination of a catastrophic economy and a growing Federal government eventually becomes tyranny.

The way to avoid tyranny is to provide freedom based upon the absolutes of right and wrong - historical concepts of right and wrong based on the Law of God rather than the opinion of man. It should be frightening to you to know that Darwinists aggressively censor science to cast aside evidence that is a threat to their worldview and to have non-Darwinists cast out of academia and secular scientific societies.

Fortunately too many men and women who love truth and freedom recognize censorship and fight for freedom. I do not advocate a Christian state, but I advocate a return to a state that is not hostile to Chrisianity. I am advocating scientific and academic freedom and the tearing down Darwinist walls that hinder research and stifle dissension.

Jon Woolf said...

[sigh] Back to this bit of lunacy, are we?

Because the men of the Ku Klux Klan were Christians and based their racism on the Bible, all of Christianity is irretrievably corrupt, and anyone who practices it is a racist and a murderer.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Not least because you know you are a Christian and you're not a racist.

So don't make equally stupid arguments about evolutionary theory and nazism.

Or about evolutionary theory and "censorship" either. Creationists are excluded from the High Table of science because creationism isn't science. Period, end of story.

radar said...

Woolf, you don't address evidence, you just present your opinion as fact. Ku Klux Klansmen were not Christians, they were racists who were in agreement with Darwin and Hitler that black people were less-evolved and not actually real people.

Censorship of ID and creationist science is out of fear. Darwinists fear information that hurts their untenable position so they try to stifle it lest people find out that it is not only not fact, it isn't even theory but simply a bad hypothesis that survives primarily to prop up an atheistic worldview.

The article has a tremendous amount of research behind it and is historically accurate.

Anonymous said...

"Censorship of ID and creationist science is out of fear"

Proof or it didn't happen. Show us the scientific papers submitted for peer-review by creationists and subsequently censored by the mainstream scientific journals.

Jon Woolf said...

>> The article has a tremendous amount of research behind it and is historically accurate. <<

Some people say that about David Irving's books, too.

Creationism is a pack of lies, and the best proof of that is your own arguments (if indeed such vicious, vile propaganda can be known by so noble a term). You rely entirely on distortions and deceit, and run away from honest discussion. Darwin is not responsible for what others allegedly did in his name, and there is no relation between the modern theory of evolution and the perverted notions of racial superiority that were pushed by the Nazis. Or by your brothers-in-Christ of the Klan.

Anonymous said...

When a pile of propaganda like this is pasted on the blog of someone as gullible and deluded as Mr. Radar, simply checking some of the more absurd claims can give an idea of the author's (and the blogger's) credibility.

Here's one: "(Hitler) ordered the Germans to stop celebrating Christmas"

A simple google of "Hitler celebrates Christmas" yields pictures of Hitler himself celebrating Christmas, and of high-ranking Nazis celebrating Christmas well into their reign, even up to 1944, the last winter before Nazi Germany was defeated. Since most of these google hits provide links to Neonazi propaganda, I won't link to them here, but if you google this yourself, you'll see that the claim that Hitler banned Christmas makes no sense.

Same goes for the claims that Hitler was anti-Christian and pro-evolutionist. If that was the case, why did the Nazis pursue the opposite ideology by banning books promoting Darwin's so-called bad science and by promoting books featuring Christian values? That Hitler believed in racial purity doesn't mean he accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. It just requires a belief in microevolution a la animal husbandry, which even Mr. Radar believes in.

Anonymous said...

When a pile of propaganda like this is pasted on the blog of someone as gullible and deluded as Mr. Radar, simply checking some of the more absurd claims can give an idea of the author's (and the blogger's) veracity.

Here's one: "(Hitler) ordered the Germans to stop celebrating Christmas"

A simple google of "Hitler celebrates Christmas" yields pictures of Hitler himself celebrating Christmas, and of high-ranking Nazis celebrating Christmas well into their reign, even up to 1944, the last Christmas before Nazi Germany was defeated. Since most of these google hits provide links to Neonazi propaganda, I won't link to them here, but if you google this yourself, you'll see that the claim that Hitler banned Christmas makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Same goes for the claims that Hitler was anti-Christian and pro-evolutionist. If that was the case, why did the Nazis promote the opposite ideology by banning books promoting Darwin's so-called bad science and by promoting books featuring Christian values? That Hitler believed in racial purity doesn't mean he accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. It just requires a belief in microevolution a la animal husbandry, which even Mr. Radar believes in.

Anonymous said...

"The article has a tremendous amount of research behind it and is historically accurate."

The mere presence of footnotes doesn't mean the article is historically accurate. Maintain a skeptical attitude, young Mr. Radar.

Anonymous said...

"Proof or it didn't happen. Show us the scientific papers submitted for peer-review by creationists and subsequently censored by the mainstream scientific journals."

Simple: it didn't happen, or Mr. Radar would have provided this exact proof many moons ago. We can add this unsupportable allegation to the pile of creationist lies.

Anonymous said...

"Woolf, you don't address evidence, you just present your opinion as fact. Ku Klux Klansmen were not Christians, they were racists who were in agreement with Darwin and Hitler that black people were less-evolved and not actually real people."

One sentence after chiding Woolf for supposedly presenting opinion as fact, you present opinion as fact. Embarrassing.

First, being Christian and being racist isn't mutually exclusive. And just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them non-Christian.

Second, you'll find a KKK website at www DOT kkk DOT com. Hm, I wonder what religion they are.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Radar, is there anything you would disagree with here:

"Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers."

Anonymous whatsit said...

"It should be frightening to you to know that Darwinists aggressively censor science to cast aside evidence that is a threat to their worldview"

It seems you're confused as to what constitutes actual evidence.

radar said...

Ah, the propagandized do fail to see beyond their built-in fences.

Jon Woolf said...

Ah, the propagandized do fail to see beyond their built-in fences.

You owe me a new irony-meter.

Anonymous said...

"You owe me a new irony-meter."

That's on top of the two Radar owes me already. And I even bought the special, hardened, Scientology-proof version...