Deliver us from Evil - Identifying the evils of Darwinism - The Ongoing Holocaust

For what reason do you live? What purpose do you serve? Free Dictionary dot com:

Noun1.raison d'etre - reason for being

rationalization, rationalisation - the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

2.raison d'etre - the purpose that justifies a thing's existence

function, purpose, use, role - what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"

I have a friend with whom I share a rare and not-to-be-envied link; We both know what it is like to be "t-boned" in an intersection by a speeding drunk driver. We have similar names and a few similar interests as well. We both love fantasy sports and we both used to participate in lots of strenuous physical activities. I preferred basketball, tennis and volleyball, she was more into skiing and skydiving. This week I had arthroscopic surgery on my right knee in hopes of finally being capable of playing sports again after one more rehab. I have permanent nerve damage in my right leg and my left shoulder and back injuries that will limit my return to basketball to half court and will require me to be willing to reduce my court coverage on the tennis court. I'm the lucky one.

My friend had to have an arm removed and she walks with great difficulty. Having been hit by a bunch of drunks driving a company car on company business, she was also hit with a money bomb at the end of it all but it won't replace an arm or the ability to run or end the lifetime of pain in every waking moment. This friend is one of my heroes. I overcame my injuries, moved into a new line of work and supported my family. I refused to give up and give in. But she had all the money she could use and more. SHE HAD BEEN PART OF A HEART SURGERY TEAM. Now she couldn't carve her own Thanksgiving turkey. She'd been an elite healthcare professional. Did she decide to go on cruises and hang out in the casino and drink away her troubles? No, she decided she could still use her nursing skills one-handed and she works with children in an old Eastern European city that was ravaged by the 90's wars and the various outbreaks of Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian violence since.

I did what I had to do, which was admirable. She does what she wouldn't be expected to do. To me, that is heroic!

Which brings me to the subject of good and evil. My friend has devoted her life to doing Good. I can see clearly that I must do what I can to do the same. In my case, the most Good I can do is to clearly expose and publicize Darwinism as not just mistaken science but pure Evil, bringing evil and destruction everywhere it is accepted, including the church itself. As I read in the Book of Ephesians, God has gifted me specifically to follow callings that He has designed for me to fulfill. I read that I am made free from sin by His power and not by my abilities or works, but also that He has prepared me to do works for His sake!

Ephesians 2:8-10 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."

GOOD AND EVIL

There is now and has always been a war ongoing, a fight between Evil and Good. We have seen it happening throughout the course of human history. God made Adam and Eve and then Satan came up to offer evil to people who had no concept of anything other than Good. They didn't even know there was anything else but Good. It was the ability to judge between Good and Evil that was the Curse that mankind chose to take when we ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. You see, if you know the difference you must make the right choice every time. Otherwise you are liable for the evil you have done. This is why Jesus Christ had to do what He did and die as He did and rise up from death as He did. Jesus had to make all the right choices for us and pay for all the wrong choices we make. Only God could do such a thing.

I don't know all the things my friend does and doesn't do, she is many hours and thousands of miles away. As I write these words she is probably close to hearing the alarm clock start off the day. Here it is evening of the day before. But I do know that she was crushed emotionally and physically and she responded by the decision to do good. She has said that she has traded the thrills of her previous life for the smiles of small children. Thank God for her compassionate heart! She is fighting the war between Good and Evil and she has chosen to side with Good.

GOD AND DARWIN

It is clear to me that Darwinism stands for Evil in this world. Those who promoted the concept in the first place were seeking to shake the moral fabric of society and made no bones about it. Just as the atheopaths of today, men like Darwin and Haeckel and Galton and Marx and Huxley were more than willing to lie and cheat and plagiarize and obfuscate in order to promote their foundational premise, which was that No God was needed to explain the existence of the Universe or the Solar System or life or even mankind. Materialistic Naturalism. No God, no absolutes, no standard by which Good and Evil could be measured...situational ethics, the ascent of Self to the throne of mankind which is classic Secular Humanism - the religion which pretends it is not, the State Religion of Government and the Prevailing Paradigm which currently reigns over academia, media and so-called science and philosophy. This is the great evil of our day and the reason that babies are murdered by the State all over the world and that many hundreds of millions of ordinary people have been slaughtered in cold blood since the onset of this mindset in the 19th Century was birthed and promoted by men feted by secular science today.

"The great Evil of the 19th and 20th Centuries is that men believed in nothing rather than God, and therefore considering themselves accountable to no one, found themselves capable of doing anything." - Radar

Now even today the weak are sacrificed at the altar of the strong and the statements of fallible men are given more importance than the Word of God. Even now the holocaust against the unborn continues only because Darwinism is accepted as true. Evil begets evil.

To the shame of mankind, so many of the people of this Earth have ignored the inner voice urging them to consider God and have carelessly thrown their lot in with the Darwinists, with no thought about the temporal or eternal consequences. But there have been continual consequences on this planet since men decided to not only abandon God but find a way to hoodwink the world into thinking they were right and therefore would not be hindered from accomplishing their darkest desires.

Previously I have pointed out the direct line from Darwin to Hitler and brushed aside the pathetic arguments against the relationship. The primary problem Hitler had with Darwin was that Hitler didn't want to wait for the weak to be overcome by the strong, he wanted to hasten the process. But Hitler was not the first to use Darwinism as an excuse for genocide and racism and violence and atrocities of various kinds. Nor has he been the last. Perhaps the most famous, but certainly Stalin and Mao killed more and Adolf was not even the first German ruler to use Darwinism as an excuse for tyranny and slaughter. Ungodly elitists began using Darwinist thought as an excuse to steal and plunder and murder and massacre before Hitler unleashed his first Nazi salute. The book reviewed below is a record of one such season of evil...

The Kaiser’s Holocaust by David Olusoga and Casper W Erichsen: review

Ian Thomson is chilled by The Kaiser's Holocaust: Germany's Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism by David Olusoga and Casper W Erichsen, an impressively researched account of the killing fields of Namibia

By Ian Thomson

1:13PM BST 16 Aug 201

Joseph Conrad set Heart of Darkness in the ivory-rich Congo Free State, created in the 1880s by King Leopold II of Belgium. Having cleared out African villages, his majesty’s traders herded the homeless into swamps and starved them. A century on, Congo tribes still speak fearfully of “the overwhelming”.

The Belgian monarch’s depredations were mirrored, 20 years later, by those of Kaiser Wilhelm II in German South West Africa. Between 1904 and 1909, the imperial ruler and his subalterns liquidated the indigenous Herero and Namapeoples of modern-day Namibia. This was done in the name of acquiring “living space” for German settlers, and foreshadowed the murderous racism inflicted half a century later by the Nazis on Jews and other “asocials”. So argue David Olusoga and Capser Erichsen in The Kaiser’s Holocaust, a provocative and uncomfortably absorbing book.

According to the authors, the “killing fields” of Namibia presaged not only Hitler’s genocidal madness, but served as inspiration for the dictator’s hoped-for empire in the European east, where Jews and Slavs were seen as “subhuman”. In the previous century, German settlers had been encouraged by the Kaiser to scorn the Judaeo-Christian morality of compassion for the weak and view the African tribes in their midst as metamorphosed apes. (“Exterminate all the brutes!” exclaims Conrad’s European trader Kurtz.)

From this it was a short step to advocating the racial supremacy of Aryans in Nazi Germany. Nazism was not an isolated instance of human infamy, then, but part of an earlier behaviour that went back to Imperial German Africa.

Even by the barbarous standards of Wilhelmine Germany, however, the genocide of the Herero and Nama tribes could not reasonably be termed a “holocaust”. There is something distasteful about appropriating a term peculiar to the Jewish tragedy. The Kaiser’s racial policies in Africa, motivated chiefly by a desire to rival Britain as an imperial power, were horrific, but they were not the assembly-line gassing of human beings. There was an unprecedented moral horror to what the Nazis did.

Hitler’s murder of Jews and Slavs was, the authors concede, “unique” in its scale and industry, yet they manage to find many connections between the Nazis’ murderous social Darwinism and the Kaiser’s barbarism in Namibia. Hermann Göring's father, Dr Heinrich Ernst Göring, served as the first Commissioner of German South West Africa, orchestrating that barbarity, before becoming the Kaiser’s ambassador to Haiti in 1893. The notorious brown shirts worn by the Nazi storm troopers had originally served as uniforms in Namibia.

Not long after Dr Göring had begun to confiscate Herero and Nama tribal lands, Berlin sanctioned the use of concentration camps. The most notorious of these, set up in 1905, was situated on Shark Island near the town of Lüderitz. The enormity of Shark Island has been suppressed and forgotten too long, say the authors. By the time the Konzentrationslager was closed in 1907, thousands had died there due to beatings and forced labour. Though the death toll is impossible to establish accurately (the Germans later burned incriminating documents), the liquidations were carried out so efficiently that by 1908 the Kaiser’s government had wrested a total of 46 million hectares of land from the Africans.

A great deal of the book is devoted to the social Darwinists and eugenicists in late-19th-century Germany who helped to create new values of totalitarian dominance. Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, with its brutally materialist account of nature as bleak survivalism, was made to serve as justification for the extermination of Namibian tribes and, later, for Hitler’s biological anti-Semitism. In a racist age, nature was seen as a competitive market place, where black people were born to be mastered and the fittest survived. Armed with callipers and craniometry charts, the Kaiser’s race engineers were keen to measure the severed heads of Nama tribesmen: handle-shaped ears, prehensile feet and other “apish” stigmata were considered telltale atavisms. Civilisation, according to these pseudo-scientists, depended on the separation of races, not on their harmonious integration.

Impressively researched, The Kaiser’s Holocaust unflinchingly catalogues the abuse of human life in a continent the Kaiser never even visited. Olusoga and Erichsen, with their novelist’s flair for narrative, provide a grimly readable history. If the comparisons between colonial Namibia and Nazism do not always quite convince, the book remains a vitally important addition to the ever-growing literature of atrocity and deserves to be read widely.

* Ian Thomson’s The Dead Yard: a Story of Modern Jamaica won the 2010 Ondaatje Prize and the Dolman Travel Book of the Year Award

The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

credit

For those of you who have forgotten the links between Hitler and the Darwinists...

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust

by Jerry Bergman

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.

Introduction

Of the many factors that produced the Nazi holocaust and World War II, one of the most important was Darwin’s notion that evolutionary progress occurs mainly as a result of the elimination of the weak in the struggle for survival. Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred.

Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust.¹ Darwin’s theory, as modified by Haeckel,²^,³^,⁴^,⁵^,⁶ Chamberlain ⁷ and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.¹^,⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰

The very heart of Darwinism is the belief that evolution proceeds by the differential survival of the fittest or superior individuals. This requires differences among a species, which in time become great enough so that those individuals that possess advantageous features—the fittest—are more apt to survive. Although the process of raciation may begin with slight differences, differential survival rates in time produce distinct races by a process called speciation, meaning the development of a new species.

The egalitarian ideal that ‘all people are created equal’, which now dominates Western ideology, has not been universal among nations and cultures.¹¹ A major force that has argued against this view was the Social Darwinian eugenics movement, especially its crude ‘survival of the fittest’ worldview.¹⁰^,¹² As Ludmerer noted, the idea that the hereditary quality of the race can be improved by selective breeding is as old as Plato’s Republic but:

‘ … modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics—and it was he who created the term “eugenics”—were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’ ¹³

Nazi governmental policy was openly influenced by Darwinism, the Zeitgeist of both science and educated society of the time.¹⁰This can be evaluated by an examination of extant documents, writings, and artefacts produced by Germany’s twentieth century Nazi movement and its many scientist supporters. Keith concluded the Nazi treatment of Jews and other ‘races’, then believed ‘inferior’, was largely a result of their belief that Darwinism provided profound insight that could be used to significantly improve humankind.¹⁴ Tenenbaum noted that the political philosophy of Germany was built on the belief that critical for evolutionary progress were:

‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’¹⁴

The importance of race in Darwinism

The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don’t possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the ‘weaker’ individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species.

These differences gradually produce new groups, some of which have an advantage in terms of survival. These new groups became the superior, or the more evolved races. When a trait eventually spreads throughout the entire race because of the survival advantage it confers on those that possess it, a higher, more evolved form of animal will result. Hitler and the Nazi party claimed that one of their major goals was to apply this accepted ‘science’ to society. And ‘the core idea of Darwinism was not evolution, but selection. Evolution … describes the results of selection’.¹⁶ Hitler stressed that to produce a better society ‘we [the Nazis] must understand, and cooperate with science’.

As the one race above all others, Aryans believed that their evolutionary superiority gave them not only the right, but the duty to subjugate all other peoples. Race was a major plank of the Nazi philosophy; Tenenbaum concluded that they incorporated Darwinism:

‘ … in their political system, with nothing left out …. Their political dictionary was replete with words like space, struggle, selection, and extinction (Ausmerzen). The syllogism of their logic was clearly stated: The world is a jungle in which different nations struggle for space. The stronger win, the weaker die or are killed ….’¹⁷

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that ‘higher race subjects to itself a lower race …a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right,’ because it was founded on science.¹⁵

Hitler believed humans were animals to whom the genetics laws, learned from livestock breeding, could be applied. The Nazis believed that instead of permitting natural forces and chance to control evolution, they must direct the process to advance the human race. The first step to achieve this goal was to isolate the ‘inferior races’ in order to prevent them from further contaminating the ‘Aryan’ gene pool. The widespread public support for this policy was a result of the belief, common in the educated classes, in the conclusion that certain races were genetically inferior as was scientifically ‘proven’ by Darwinism. The Nazis believed that they were simply applying facts, proven by science, to produce a superior race of humans as part of their plan for a better world: ‘The business of the corporate state was eugenics or artificial selection—politics as applied biology.’¹⁸^,¹⁹

As early as 1925, Hitler outlined his conclusion in Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf that Darwinism was the only basis for a successful Germany and which the title of his most famous work—in English My Struggle—alluded to. As Clark concluded, Adolf Hitler:

‘ …was captivated by evolutionary teaching—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas—quite undisguised—lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf —and in his public speeches …. Hitler reasoned … that a higher race would always conquer a lower.’²⁰

And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:

‘ … was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’²¹

Furthermore, the belief that evolution can be directed by scientists to produce a ‘superior race’ was the central leitmotif of Nazism and many other sources existed from which Nazism drew:

‘ … its ideological fire-water. But in that concatenation of ideas and nightmares which made up the … social policies of the Nazi state, and to a considerable extent its military and diplomatic policies as well, can be most clearly comprehended in the light of its vast racial program.’²²

The Nazi view on Darwinian evolution and race was consequently a major part of the fatal combination of ideas and events which produced the holocaust and World War II:

‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’²³

Terms such as ‘superior race’, ‘lower human types’, ‘pollution of the race’, and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. His race views were not from fringe science as often claimed but rather Hitler’s views were:

‘ … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection….’²⁴

The philosophy that humans can control and even use Darwinism to produce a ‘higher level’ of human is repeatedly mentioned in the writings and speeches of prominent Nazis.²⁵ Accomplishing the Darwinian goal for the world required ruthlessly eliminating the less fit by open barbarian behavior:

‘The basic outline of German social Darwinism [was] … man was merely a part of nature with no special transcendent qualities or special humanness. On the other hand, the Germans were members of a biologically superior community … politics was merely the straightforward application of the laws of biology. In essence, Haeckel and his fellow social Darwinists advanced the ideas that were to become the core assumptions of national socialism …. The business of the corporate state was eugenics or artificial selection ….’¹⁸

Hitler once even stated that we Nazis ‘ … are barbarians! We want to be barbarians. It is an honorable title [for, by it,] we shall rejuvenate the world ….’²⁶ Hitler, as an evolutionist, ‘consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’.²⁷ Keith adds that:

‘If war be the progeny of evolution—and I am convinced that it is—then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life—which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad.’²⁸

Jews in Germany and Darwinism

The German eugenic leadership was originally less anti-Semitic than even the British leadership. Most early German eugenicists believed that German Jews were Aryans, and consequently the eugenicist movement was supported by many Jewish professors and doctors both in Germany and abroad. The Jews were only slowly incorporated into the German eugenic theory and then laws.

The Darwinian racists’ views also slowly entered into many spheres of German society which they had previously not affected.⁹The Pan German League, dedicated to ‘maintaining German Racial Purity’, was originally not overtly anti-Semitic and assimilated Jews were allowed full membership. Many German eugenicists believed that although blacks or Gypsies were racially inferior, their racial theories did not fit Jews since many Jews had achieved significant success in Germany. Schleunes adds that by 1903, the influence of race ideas permeated the League’s program to the degree that by 1912, the League declared itself based upon ‘racial principles’ and soon excluded Jews from membership.²⁹

In spite of the scientific prominence of these racial views, they had a limited effect upon most Jews until the 1930s. Most German Jews were proud of being Germans and considered themselves Germans first and Jews second. Many Jews modified the German intelligentsia’s racial views by including themselves in it. Their assimilation into German life was to the extent that most felt its anti-Semitism did not represent a serious threat to their security. Most Jews also were convinced that Germany was now a safe harbour for them.³⁰ Many still firmly held to the Genesis creation model and rejected the views upon which racism was based, including Darwinism. What happened in Germany later was obviously not well received by Jewish geneticists, even Jewish eugenicists and certain other groups:

‘The eugenics movement felt a mixture of apprehension and admiration at the progress of eugenics in Germany … but the actual details of the eugenics measures which emerged after Hitler’s rise to power were not unequivocally welcomed. Eugenicists pointed to the USA as a place where strict laws controlled marriage but where a strong tradition of political freedom existed.’³¹

Hitler’s eugenic goals

Nazi policies resulted less from a ‘hatred’ toward Jewish or other peoples than from the idealistic goal of preventing ‘pollution’ of the superior race. Hitler elaborated his Darwinian views by comparing the strong killing the weak to a cat devouring a mouse, concluding that ultimately the Jews must be eliminated because they cause:

‘ … peoples to decay …. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird … to know the laws of nature … enables us to obey them.’³²

Hitler then argued that for this reason, governments must understand and apply the ‘laws of Nature’, especially the ‘survival of the fittest’ law which ‘originally produced the human races and is the source of their improvement’. The government must therefore aid in the elimination, or at least quarantine, of the inferior races. Hitler argued:

‘If I can accept a divine Commandment, it’s this one: “Thou shalt preserve the species.” The life of the individual must not be set at too high a price. If the individual were important in the eyes of nature, nature would take care to preserve him. Amongst the millions of eggs a fly lays, very few are hatched out — and yet the race of flies thrives.’³³

Hitler was especially determined to prevent Aryans from breeding with non-Aryans, a concern that eventually resulted in the ‘final solution’. Once the inferior races were exterminated, Hitler believed that future generations would be eternally grateful for the improvement that his programs brought to humanity:

‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’²⁰

Individuals are not only far less important than the race, but the Nazis concluded that certain races were not human, but were animals:

‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’³⁴

As a result, the Darwinist movement was ‘one of the most powerful forces in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries German intellectual history [and] may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of national socialism [Nazism]’.³⁵ Why did evolution catch hold in Germany faster, and take a firmer hold there than any other place in the world?

Evolution used to justify existing German racism

Schleunes noted, rather poignantly, that the reason the publication of Darwin’s 1859 work had an immediate impact in Germany, and their Jewish policy, was because:

‘Darwin’s notion of struggle for survival … legitimized by the latest scientific views, justified the racists’ conception of superior and inferior peoples and nations and validated the conflict between them.’³⁶

The Darwinian revolution and the works of its chief German spokesman and most eminent scientist, Professor Haeckel, gave the racists something that they were confident was powerful verification of their race beliefs.³⁷ The support of the science establishment resulted in racist thought having a much wider circulation than otherwise possible, and enormous satisfaction ‘that one’s prejudices were actually expressions of scientific truth’.³⁶

And what greater authority than science could racists have for their views? Konrad Lorenz, one of the most eminent animal-behavior scientists then, and often credited as being the founder of his field, stated that:

‘Just as in cancer the best treatment is to eradicate the parasitic growth as quickly as possible, the eugenic defense against the dysgenic social effects of afflicted subpopulations is of necessity limited to equally drastic measures …. When these inferior elements are not effectively eliminated from a [healthy] population, then—just as when the cells of a malignant tumor are allowed to proliferate throughout the human body—they destroy the host body as well as themselves.’³⁸

Lorenz’s works were important in developing the Nazi program designed to eradicate the ‘parasitic growth’ of inferior races. The government’s programs to insure the ‘German Volk’ maintained their superiority made racism almost unassailable. Although King claimed that ‘the holocaust … pretended to have a scientific genetic basis’,³⁹ the position of the government and university elite of the time was so entrenched that few contemporary scientists seriously questioned it. The anti-Semitic attitudes of the German people were only partly to blame in causing the holocaust—only when Darwinism was added to the preexisting attitudes did a lethal combination result.

Eugenics becomes more extreme

The first step in an eugenic program was to determine which groups were genetically superior; a judgment that was heavily influenced by culture. The ideal traits were:

‘ … a human type whose appearance had been described by the race theorist Hans F.K. Günther as “blond, tall, long-skulled, with narrow faces, pronounced chins, narrow noses with a high bridge, soft hair, widely spaced pale-coloured eyes, pinky-white skin colour”’.⁴⁰

Although superficial observations enable most people to make a broad classification of race, when explored in depth, race status is by no means easy to determine, as the Nazis soon found out. Many of the groups that they felt were inferior, such as the Slovaks, Jews, Gypsies, and others, were not easily distinguishable from the pure ‘Aryan’ race. In grouping persons into races to select the ‘best’, the Nazis measured a wide variety of physical traits including brain case sizes. The Nazis relied heavily upon the work of Hans F.K. Günther, professor of ‘racial science’ at the University of Jena. Although F.K. Günther ’s ‘personal relationships with the party were stormy at times, his racial ideas were accepted’. They received wide support throughout the German government, and were an important influence in German policy.⁴¹ Günther recognized that, although ‘a race may not be pure, its members share certain dominant characteristics’, thus paving the way for stereotyping.⁴¹

Günther concluded that all Aryans share an ideal Nordic type which contrasted with the Jews, whom he concluded were a mixture of races. Günther stressed a person’s genealogical lineage, anthropological measurement of skulls and evaluations of physical appearance, were all used to determine their race. Even though physical appearance was stressed, ‘the body is the showplace of the soul’ and ‘the soul is primary’.⁴² Select females with the necessary superior race traits were even placed in special homes and kept pregnant as long as they remained in the program. Nonetheless, research on the offspring of the experiment concluded that, as is now known, IQ regressed toward the population mean and the IQs of the offspring were generally lower than that of the parents.

The bad blood theory

Darwinism not only influenced the Nazi attitude toward Jews, but other cultural and ethnic groups as well. Even mental patients were included later, in part because it was then believed that heredity had a major influence on mental illness (or they possibly had some Jewish or other non-Aryan blood in them), and consequently had to be destroyed. Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s accepted telegony, the idea that ‘bad blood’ would contaminate a race line forever, or that ‘bad blood drives out good, just as bad money displaces good money’.⁴³ Only extermination would permanently eliminate inferior genetic lines, and thereby further evolution.

Darwin even compiled a long list of cases where he concluded bad blood polluted a whole gene line, causing it to bear impure progeny forever. Numerous respected biologists, including Ernst Ruedin of the University of Munich and many of his colleagues such as Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and Eugene Kahn, later a professor of psychiatry at Yale, actively advocated this hereditary argument. These scientists were also the chief architects of the German compulsory sterilization laws designed to prevent those with defective or ‘inferior’ genes from contaminating the Aryan gene pool. Later, when the ‘genetically inferior’ were also judged as ‘useless dredges’, massive killings became justified. The groups judged inferior were gradually expanded to include a wide variety of races and national groups. Later, it even included less healthy older people, epileptics, both severe and mild mental defectives, deaf-mutes, and even some persons with certain terminal illnesses.¹^,⁴⁴

The groups judged ‘inferior’ were later expanded to include persons who had negroid or mongoloid features, Gypsies, and those who did not pass a set of ingeniously designed overtly racist phrenology tests now known to be worthless.⁴⁵ After Jesse Owen won four gold medals at the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, Hitler chastised the Americans for even permitting blacks to enter the contests.⁴⁶

Some evolutionists even advocated the view that women were evolutionarily inferior to men. Dr Robert Wartenberg, later a prominent neurology professor in California, tried to prove women’s inferiority by arguing that they could not survive unless they were ‘protected by men’. He concluded that because the weaker women were not eliminated as rapidly due to this protection, a slower rate of evolution resulted and for this reason natural selection was less operative on women than men. How the weak were to be ‘selected’ for elimination was not clear, nor were the criteria used to determine ‘weak’. Women in Nazi Germany were openly prohibited from entering certain professions and were required by law to conform to a traditional female role.⁴⁷

Evolution and war in Nazi Germany

Darwinism not only offered the Germans a meaningful interpretation of their recent military past, but also a justification for future aggression: ‘German military success in the Bismarkian wars fit neatly into Darwin categories … in the struggle for survival, [demonstrating] the fitness of Germany.’ ⁴⁸ War was a positive force not only because it eliminated ‘weaker’ races, but also because it weeded out the weaker members of the ‘superior’ races. Hitler not only unabashedly intended to produce a superior race, but he openly relied heavily upon Darwinian thought in both his extermination and war policies.²⁵ Nazi Germany, partly for this reason, openly glorified war because it was an important means of eliminating the less fit of the highest race, a step necessary to ‘upgrade the race’. Clark concludes, quoting extensively from Mein Kampf, that:

‘Hitler’s attitude to the League of Nations and to peace and war were based upon the same principles. “A world court … would be a joke … the whole world of Nature is a mighty struggle between strength and weakness — an eternal victory of the strong over the weak. There would be nothing but decay in the whole of nature if this were not so. States which [violate] … this elementary law would fall into decay. … He who would live must fight. He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.” To think otherwise is to “insult” nature. “Distress, misery and disease are her rejoinders”.’⁴⁹

German greatness, Hitler stressed, came about primarily because they were jingoists, and thereby had been eliminating their weaker members for centuries.⁵⁰ Although Germans were no stranger to war, this new justification gave powerful support to their policies. The view that eradication of the weaker races was a major source of evolution was well expressed by Wiggam:

‘ … at one time man had scarcely more brains than his anthropoid cousins, the apes. But, by kicking, biting, fighting … and outwitting his enemies and by the fact that the ones who had not sense and strength enough to do this were killed off, man’s brain became enormous and he waxed both in wisdom and agility if not in size ….’ ⁵¹

In other words, war is positive in the long run because only by lethal conflicts can humans evolve. Hitler even claimed as truth the contradiction that human civilization as we know it would not exist if it were not for constant war. And many of the leading scientists of his day openly advocated this view: Haeckel was especially fond of praising the ancient Spartans, whom he saw as a successful and superior people as a consequence of their socially approved biological selection. By killing all but the ‘perfectly healthy and strong children’ the Spartans were ‘continually in excellent strength and vigor’. ⁵² Germany should follow this Spartan custom, as infanticide of the deformed and sickly was ‘a practice of advantage to both the infants destroyed and to the community’. It was, after all, only ‘traditional dogma’ and hardly scientific truth that all lives were of equal worth or should be preserved.¹⁸^,⁵³

However, the common assumption that European civilization evolved far more than others, primarily because of its constant warmongering in contrast to other nations, is false. War is actually typical of virtually all peoples, except certain small island groups who have abundant food, or peoples in very cold areas.⁵⁴ Historically, many tribes in Africa were continually involved in wars, as were most countries in Asia and America.

Nazism and religion

Much of the opposition to the eugenic movement came from German Christians. Although Hitler was baptized a Catholic, he was never excommunicated, and evidently ‘considered himself a good Roman Catholic’ as a young man, and at times used religious language. He clearly had strong, even vociferous, anti-Christian feelings as an adult, as did probably most Nazi party leaders. As a consummate politician, though, he openly tried to exploit the church.⁵⁵ Hitler once revealed his attitude toward Christianity when he bluntly stated that religion is an:

‘ … organized lie [that] must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought it was necessary to set about [destroying religion] … with dynamite. I’ve since realized there’s room for a little subtlety …. The final state must be … in St. Peter’s Chair, a senile officiant; facing him a few sinister old women … The young and healthy are on our side … it’s impossible to eternally hold humanity in bondage and lies …. [It] was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed upon our peoples …. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their death with serenity in their souls.’ ⁵⁶

His beliefs as revealed in this quote are abundantly clear: the younger people who were the hope of Germany were ‘absolutely indifferent in matters of religion’. As Keith noted, the Nazi party viewed Darwinism and Christianity as polar opposites. Milner said of Germany’s father of evolution, Ernst Haeckel, that in his Natural History of Creation he argued that ‘the church with its morality of love and charity is an effete fraud, a perversion of the natural order’.⁵⁷ A major reason why Haeckel concluded this was because Christianity:

‘ … makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?’ ⁵⁸

The opposition to religion was a prominent feature of German science, and thus later German political theory, from its very beginning. As Stein summarized Haeckel in a lecture titled On evolution: Darwin’s Theory:

‘ … [Haeckel] argued that Darwin was correct … humankind had unquestionably evolved from the animal kingdom. Thus, and here the fatal step was taken in Haeckel’s first major exposition of Darwinism in Germany, humankind’s social and political existence is governed by the laws of evolution, natural selection, and biology, as clearly shown by Darwin. To argue otherwise was backward superstition. And, of course, it was organized religion which did this and thus stood in the way of scientific and social progress.’ ⁵⁹

Martin Bormann, Hitler’s closest associate for years and one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany, was equally blunt: the church was opposed to evolution and for this reason must be condemned, but the Nazis were on the side of science and evolution. Furthermore, Nazi and Christian concepts are incompatible because Christianity is built:

‘ … upon the ignorance of men and strive[s] to keep large portions of the people in ignorance …. On the other hand, National Socialism is based on scientific foundations. Christianity’s immutable principles, which were laid down almost two thousands years ago, have increasingly stiffened into life-alien dogmas. National Socialism, however, if it wants to fulfil its task further, must always guide itself according to the newest data of scientific researches.’ ⁶⁰

Bormann also claimed that the Christian churches have long been aware that:

‘ … scientific knowledge poses a threat to their existence. Therefore, by means of such pseudo-sciences as theology, they take great pains to suppress or falsify scientific research. Our National Socialist world view stands on a much higher level than the concepts of Christianity, which in their essentials were taken over from Judaism. For this reason, too, we can do without Christianity.’ ⁶⁰

As Humber notes, Hitler believed that Blacks were ‘monstrosities halfway between man and ape’ and therefore he disapproved of German Christians:

‘ … going to “Central Africa” to set up “Negro missions,” resulting in the turning of “healthy … human beings into a rotten brood of bastards.” In his chapter entitled “Nation and Race,” he said, “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” A few pages later, he said, “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”.’ ⁶¹

A literature review shows that German racism would have had a difficult time existing if the historical creation position, void of race curse theories, had been widely accepted. One of these biblical theories was the claim that Genesis teaches that ‘two types of men’ were originally created; Adam and Eve, the superior race line, and the ‘beasts of the earth’, the inferior black race line.⁶²^,⁶³ Few people, though, accepted this idea.

Relatively few scientific studies exist which directly deal with Darwinism and Nazism—and many evolutionists avoid the subject because evolution is inescapably selectionist. One of the best reviews of Darwinism and Nazism documents clearly that Nazism felt confident that their programs of extermination was firmly based on evolution science.⁶⁴ Recently, a number of popular articles have covered this topic in a surprisingly candid and honest way.⁶⁵ The source of the worst of Nazism was in Darwinism and we must first understand history to prevent its repeat. Paraphrasing the words of Hitler, those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it.⁶⁶ Admittedly, some persons who did not accept evolution espoused non-evolution theories which accommodated or even espoused racism. Nonetheless, these persons were few and the theories that were developed seem to be mostly in response to preconceived ideas or to justify existing social systems.

Nazism-applied evolution

From our modern perspective, many persons have concluded that World War II and its results ensued from the ideology of an evil madman and his equally evil administration. Hitler, though, did not see himself as evil, but as humanity’s benefactor. He felt that many years hence, the world would be extremely grateful to him and his programs which lifted the human race to genetically higher levels of evolution by stopping race pollution by preventing mixed marriages with inferior races.

‘Hitler was influenced above all by the theories of the nineteenth-century social Darwinist school, whose conception of man as biological material was bound up with impulses towards a planned society. He was convinced that the race was disintegrating, deteriorating through faulty breeding as a result of a liberally tinged promiscuity that was vitiating the nation’s blood. And this led to the establishment of a catalogue of ‘positive’ curative measures: racial hygiene, eugenic choice of marriage partners, the breeding of human beings by the methods of selection on the one hand and extirpation on the other.’⁶⁷

Hitler’s efforts to put members of these inferior races in concentration camps was not so much an effort to punish but, as his apologists repeatedly stated, was a protective safeguard similar to quarantining sick people to prevent contamination of the rest of the community. In Haas’s words, the Nazis believed that ‘killing Jews and others was in fact a scientific and rational way of serving an objectively greater good’.⁶⁸ Or, as Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, adds, ‘such a struggle, legitimized by the latest scientific views, justifies the racists’ conceptions of superior and inferior people and nations and validated the conflict between them’.⁶⁹ Many in Germany recognized the harm of Darwinism, and Nordenskiöld claimed the Prussian Minister of Education, even for a time in 1875 banned, its teaching:

‘ … the Prussian Minister of Education sent round a circular strictly forbidding the schoolmasters in the country to have anything to do with Darwinism … with a view to protecting schoolchildren from the dangers of the new doctrines.’ ⁷⁰

An interesting question is, would the Nazi holocaust have occurred if this ban had remained in effect? Haeckel was at the center of this fight and garnered much support from:

‘ … free-thinkers and it is easy to realize the eagerness with which the friends of the freedom of thought and word must have gathered around him in spite of his many delusions, when such measures as the school regulations mentioned above were adopted … All the more so as the outcome proved Haeckel’s justification; Darwinism might be prohibited in the schools, but the idea of evolution and its method penetrated everywhere … And to this result Haeckel has undeniably contributed more than most; everything of value in his utterances has become permanent, while his blunders have been forgotten, as they deserve.’⁷⁰

A biologist writing the above today would certainly drop ‘as they deserve’ because Haeckel is today acknowledged as an unscrupulous forger who played no small role in the horrible events that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s.

The well documented influence of Darwinism on the Holocaust has been greatly downplayed by the mass media. Current writers often gloss over, totally ignore, or even distort the close connection between Darwinism and the Nazi race theory and the policies it produced, but as Stein admonishes:

‘There is little doubt that the history of ethnocentrism, racism, nationalism, and xenophobia has been also a history of the use of science and the actions of scientists in support of these ideas and social movements. In many cases it is clear that science was used merely as raw material or evidence by ideologically interested political actors as proof of preconceived notions. Most contemporary sociobiologists and students of biopolitics would argue that all attempts to use science in this manner are, in fact, mere pseudoscience ….’ ⁷¹

He adds that there is also little doubt that this contemporary self-protecting attitude is based on a:

‘ … somewhat wilful misreading of history. The history of ethnocentrism and the like has also been the history of many well-respected scientists of the day being quite active in using their own authority as scientists to advance and support racist and xenophobic political and social doctrines in the name of science. Thus, if the scientists of the day used the science of the day to advance racism, it is simply a form of Kuhnian amnesia or historical whitewash to dismiss concern with a possible contemporary abuse of science by a claim that the past abuse was mere pseudoscience.’ ⁷¹

Darwin was not just responding to his culture as often alleged. In Hull’s words ‘we have all heard, time and time again, that the reason Darwin’s theory was so … sexist, and racist is that Darwin’s society exhibited these same characteristics’. Hull answers this change by noting that Darwin was not ‘so callow that he simply read the characteristics of his society into nature’.⁷²

Nazism is often used as a warning example of the danger of religious zeal, yet only occasionally is the key role of the eugenics of Francis Galton, based on the theory of natural selection espoused by his cousin, Charles Darwin, mentioned. Eugenics is still alive in the world today. As late as 1955, a Canadian professor of zoology, notes that ‘possibly the most significant fact is that he [Darwin] finally freed humanity from a great measure of … church proscription and won his fellow men a freedom of thought that had been unknown for centuries’. ⁷³ He then argues that reducing the churches’ influence in society allowed the discovery of, not only the means of evolution, but the knowledge that man had the means and that we can either direct evolution or let it take place on its own or, worse, stop it by counteracting the forces which propel it, causing devolution.

Rowan argued that man has, tragically, chosen the latter ‘selection is still as vital to human progress as it has ever been. The great Darwinian principle remains…’. Then he added, ‘When man acquired intellect, he started on an entirely new path without precedent in the animal world, the course of which now depends, not on further physical changes, but on intellectual and equally intellectual selection.’⁷⁴ Unfortunately, he concludes, humans are ‘saving’ the intellectually inferior and have failed to order their affairs according to the laws of biology.⁷⁴ This discussion, although tactful, is clear: those whom evolutionists judge as less fit need to be eliminated, or at the least our efforts in saving them, should be limited and we should let nature do its work. Not to do so will result in the eventual doom of the human race.

Conclusion

Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind. Society, he felt, would some day regard him as a great ‘scientific socialist’, the benefactor of all humankind. By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolutionary development. If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him. As a result, the human race will grievously suffer. If Darwinism is not true, what Hitler attempted to do must be ranked with the most heinous crimes of history and Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history. An assessment by Youngson concluded that the application of Darwinism to society, called eugenics, produced one of the most tragic scientific blunders of all time:

‘The culmination of this darker side of eugenics was, of course, Adolf Hitler’s attempt to produce a “‘master race’ by encouraging mating between pure ‘Aryans’” and by the murder of six million people whom he claimed to have inferior genes. It is hardly fair to Galton to blame him for the Holocaust or even for his failure to anticipate the consequences of his advocacy of the matter. But he was certainly the principal architect of eugenics, and Hitler was certainly obsessed with the idea. So, in terms of its consequences, this must qualify as one of the greatest scientific blunders of all time.’⁷⁵

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Wayne Frair, Ph.D., John Woodmorappe, M.A. and Paul Humber, M.A. for their insight and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Namibian genocide—a precursor of the Holocaust (A Review of The Kaiser’s Holocaust: Germany’s Forgotten Genocide and the Colonial Roots of Nazism)

A review of: The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity by Bruce Walker

References

Chase, A., The Legacy of Malthus; The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1980. Return to text.
Haeckel, E., The History of Creation: Or the Development of the Earth and Its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes, Appleton, New York, 1876. Return to text.
Haeckel, E., The Riddle of the Universe, Harper, New York, 1900. Return to text.
Haeckel, E., The Wonders of Life; A Popular Study of Biological Philosophy, Harper, New York, 1905. Return to text.
Haeckel, E., Eternity: World War Thoughts on Life and Death, Religion, and the Theory of Evolution, Truth Seeker, New York, 1916. Return to text.
Haeckel, E., The Evolution of Man, Appleton, New York, 1920. Return to text.
Chamberlain, H., The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, 2nd Vol., (1st Vol. 1899), Lane, London, 1911. Return to text.
Aycoberry, P., The Nazi Question: An Essay on the Interpretations of National Socialism, 1922–1975, Pantheon, New York. 1981. Return to text.
Beyerchen, A.D., Scientists Under Hitler, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1977. Return to text.
Stein, G., Biological science and the roots of Nazism, American Scientist 76(1):50–58, 1988. Return to text.
Tobach, E., Gianusos, J., Topoff, H. and Gross, C.G., The Four Horsemen; Racism, Sexism, Militarism, and Social Darwinism, Behavioral Publications, New York, 1974. Return to text.
Clark, Robert, Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958. Return to text.
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics, In: Encyclopedia of Bioethics,Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978. Return to text.
Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946. Return to text.
Tenenbaum, J., Race and Reich, Twayne Pub., New York, p. 211, 1956. Return to text.
Stein, Ref. 10, p. 53. Return to text.
The Nuremberg Trials, Vol. 14, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 279. Return to text.
Stein, Ref. 10, p. 56. Return to text.
Poliakov, L., The Aryan Myth, Basic Books, New York, 1974. Return to text.
Clark, Ref. 12, p. 115. Return to text.
Hickman, R., Biocreation, Science Press, Worthington, OH, pp. 51–52, 1983. Return to text.
Tenenbaum, Ref. 15, p. vii. Return to text.
Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, CA, p. 27, 1982. Return to text.
Stein, Ref. 10, p. 51. Return to text.
Jackel, E., Hitler’s Weltanschauung, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT, 1972. Return to text.
Rauschning, H., The Revolution of Nihilism, Alliance Book Corp., New York, 1939. Return to text.
Keith, Ref. 14, p. 230. Return to text.
Keith, Ref. 14, p. 105. Return to text.
Schleunes, K., The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1970. Return to text.
Schleunes, Ref. 29, p. 33. Return to text.
Jones, G., Social Darwinism and English Thought; The Interaction Between Biological and Social Theory, The Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ, p. 168, 1980. Return to text.
Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953. Return to text.
Hitler, A., Ref. 32, p. 116. Return to text.
Whitehead, J, The Stealing of America, Crossway Books, Westchester, IL, p. 15, 1983. Return to text.
Gasman, D., The Scientific Origin of National Socialism, American Elsevier, New York, p. xiv, 1971. Return to text.
Schluenes, Ref. 29, p. 30–32. Return to text.
Poliakov, L., The Aryan Myth (translated by E Howard), Basic Books, New York, 1974. Return to text.
Chase, Ref. 1, p. 349. Return to text.
King, J., The Biology of Race, University of California Press, 2nd ed., Berkeley, CA, p. 156, 1981. Return to text.
Fest, J.C., The Face of the Third Reich, Pantheon, NY, pp. 99–100, 1970. Return to text.
Mosse, G.L., Nazi Culture; Intellectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, Schocken Books, New York, p. 57, 1981. Return to text.
Mosse, Ref. 41, p. 58. Return to text.
Paliakov, Ref. 37, p. 282. Return to text.
Wertham, F., A Sign for Cain, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1966. Return to text.
Davies, J.D., Phrenology: Fad and Science, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1955. Return to text.
Stanton, W., The Leopard’s Spots; Scientific Attitudes Towards Race in America, 1815–1859, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1960.Return to text.
Weindling, P., Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism 1870–1945, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989. Return to text.
Schleunes, Ref. 29, p. 31. Return to text.
Clark, Ref. 12, pp. 115–116. Return to text.
Rich, N., Hitler’s War Aim, Norton, New York, 1973. Return to text.
Wiggam, A. E., The New Dialogue of Science, Garden Publishing Co., Garden City, NY, p. 102, 1922. Return to text.
Haeckel, Ref. 2, p. 170. Return to text.
Haeckel, Ref. 4, p. 116. Return to text.
Posner, G.L. and Ware, J., Mengele, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1986. Return to text.
Phillips, K., Post-Conservative America: People, Politics, and Ideology in a Time of Crisis, Random House, New York, p. 164, 1981. Return to text.
Hitler, A., Ref. 32, p. 117. Return to text.
Milner, R., The Encyclopedia of Evolution, Facts on File, New York, p. 206, 1990. Return to text.
Keith, Ref. 14, p. 72. Return to text.
Stein, Ref. 10, p. 54. Return to text.
Mosse, Ref. 41, p. 244. Return to text.
Humber, P., The Ascent of Racism, Impact, February, p. 2, 1987. Return to text.
Hawtin, G., The Living Creature; The Origin of the Negro, Geo. R. Hawtin, Battleford, Sask. 1980. Return to text.
Magne, C.L., The Negro and the World Crisis, New Christian Crusade Church, Holywood, CA, 1972. Return to text.
Mueller-Hill, B., Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others, Germany 1933–1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 23, 1988. Return to text.
Gray, P., Cursed by Eugenics, Time, January 11, pp. 84–85, 1999. Return to text.
Jones, E.M. (ed.), Darwin and the Vampire: Evolution’s contribution to the Holocaust, Culture Wars 17:11, 1998. Return to text.
Fest, Ref. 40, p. 99. Return to text.
Haas, P.J., Nineteenth century science and the formation of Nazi policy, Journal of Theology, 1995. Return to text.
Hoess, R., Commandment of Auschwitz, World Publishing Company, Cleveland, IL, p. 110, 1960. Return to text.
Nordenskiöld, E., The History of Biology, Tudor Publishing Company, New York, p. 522, 1935. Return to text.
Stein, Ref. 10, p. 50. Return to text.
Hull, D., Uncle Sam Wants You; a review of the book Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? by Michael Ruse. Science284:1131–1132, 1999. Return to text.
Rowan, W., ‘Charles Darwin’, in Architects of Modern Thought, Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Toronto, p. 12, 1955. Return to text.
Rowan, Ref. 73, p. 13. Return to text.
Youngson, R., Scientific Blunders; A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be, Carroll and Graf Pub., New York, 1998. Return to text.

~~~~~~~~~

Christian, one more point to ponder and I will let God speak for Himself. Jesus told us that "no man can serve two Masters" and you know that John wrote " God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."

Ephesians 4:17-24 - "This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.

But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness."

Search This Blog

Radaractive