[Vision2020] THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OF THE NAZI EUGENICS
PROGRAM.txt
Pat Kraut
pkraut at moscow.com
Fri Apr 1 23:36:41 PST 2005
This was too easy!
Here is the first one!
PK
-------------- next part --------------
<!-- Browser Detective - Protected Source Code -->
<!-- Your IP Address Is Being Logged! -->
<html>
<head>
<title>THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OF THE NAZI EUGENICS PROGRAM</title>
<meta name="description" content="Leading Edge International Research Group Home Page. Planetary and Social Paradigm Analysis and Discussion">
<meta name="keywords" content="Matrix V, paradigm analysis,vaccines,vaccine,vaccine toxicity,fluoridation,fluorides, historical analysis,Matrix 5, incarnations, out of body trevel ">
<meta http-equiv="pics-label" content='(pics-1.1 "http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html" l gen true for "http://www.trufax.org" r (cz 1 lz 1 nz 1 oz 1 vz 1) "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true for "http://www.trufax.org" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0))' />
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta name="resource-type" content="document">
<meta name="revisit-after" content="5 days">
<meta name="classification" content="Education">
<meta name="robots" content="FOLLOW">
<meta name="distribution" content="Global">
<meta name="rating" content="General">
<meta name="copyright" content="1996-2000">
<meta name="author" content="Leading Edge International Research Group">
<meta http-equiv="reply-to" content="trufax at trufax.org">
<meta name="language" content="English">
<meta name="doc-type" content="Web Page"">
<meta name="doc-class" content="Living Document">
<meta name="doc-rights" content="Copywritten Work">
<META NAME="ROBOTS" CONTENT="INDEX,FOLLOW">
<!---------------Load System Style Sheet--------------->
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../menus/le.css">
<!---------------Suppress Status Bar Data----------->
<script>
//Hide status bar msg II script- by javascriptkit.com
//Visit JavaScript Kit (http://javascriptkit.com) for script
//Credit must stay intact for use
function hidestatus(){
window.status=''
return true
}
if (document.layers)
document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEOVER | Event.MOUSEOUT)
document.onmouseover=hidestatus
document.onmouseout=hidestatus
</script>
</head>
<body topmargin="8" bgcolor="#99CCFF">
<!-----------START MENU LOAD SCRIPT------------->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
/*
* DHTML Menu version 3.3
* written by Andy Woolley
* Copyright 2002 Andy Woolley. All Rights Reserved.
* Commercial licence agreements are available on request for use & full support.
* You can send email to menu3 at milonic.com
*/
</SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="../menus/lemenu.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="../menus/mmenu.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
<!--------------- Frames Breakout script --->
<script>
/*
Break-out-of-frames script
By Website Abstraction (http://wsabstract.com)
Over 400+ free scripts here!
Above notice MUST stay entact for use
*/
if (window!= top)
top.location.href=location.href
// -->
</script>
<!-----------DISABLE SELECT TEXT SCRIPT---------->
<script language="JavaScript1.2">
//Disable select-text script (IE4+, NS6+)- By Andy Scott
//Exclusive permission granted to Dynamic Drive to feature script
//Visit http://www.dynamicdrive.com for this script
function disableselect(e){
return false
}
function reEnable(){
return true
}
//if IE4+
document.onselectstart=new Function ("return false")
//if NS6
if (window.sidebar){
document.onmousedown=disableselect
document.onclick=reEnable
}
</script>
<!-----------START VARIABLE POPUP SCRIPT------------->
<SCRIPT language="JavaScript">
<!--
function n_window(theurl)
{
// set the width and height
var the_width=880;
var the_height=500;
// set window position
var from_top=20;
var from_left=20;
// set other attributes
var has_toolbar='no';
var has_location='no';
var has_directories='no';
var has_status='no';
var has_menubar='no';
var has_scrollbars='yes';
var is_resizable='no';
// attributes put together
var the_atts='width='+the_width+',height='+the_height+',top='+from_top+',screenY='+from_top+',left='+from_left+',screenX='+from_left;
the_atts+=',toolbar='+has_toolbar+',location='+has_location+',directories='+has_directories+',status='+has_status;
the_atts+=',menubar='+has_menubar+',scrollbars='+has_scrollbars+',resizable='+is_resizable;
// open window
window.open(theurl,'',the_atts);
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
<!---Link Call Format: <A HREF="javascript:n_window('http://someplace.com/page2.htm');">Link 2</A> --->
<!-----------END VARIABLE POPUP SCRIPT------------->
<!-----No Right Click Script --->
<script language="javascript">
<!-----
// No rightclick script
// (c) 1998 barts1000 barts1000 at aol.com
// no error message on Net browsers Julie Ton
// julieton at jayzeebear.com
var bN = navigator.appName;
function click() {
if (bN=='Microsoft Internet Explorer')
{
if (event.button==2)
{
str = "Copyright 1988-2002 Leading Edge International Research Group.";
str = str + "";
str = str + "";
alert (str);
}
}
}
document.onmousedown=click
//------->
</script>
<!-----End No Right Click Script --->
<!----------------------------------------------------------- HEADER ------------------------------->
<table border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="100%"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="25%"></td>
<td width="25%"> </td>
<td width="25%"> </td>
<td width="25%"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="center"><b><font face="Verdana" size="3">
THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND OF THE NAZI<br> "RACE PURIFICATION" PROGRAM, US & German Eugenics, <br>
Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, and Population Control ...<br>
</font></b><font face="Verdana" size="2">©1995 T.D. Hall, Ph.D.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p align="left"><br>
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In the conclusion of his remarkable book <i> The Nazi Doctors--Medical
Killing and the Psychology of Genocide</i>, Robert Jay Lifton writes
of a visit to Auschwitz: "I went to the camp a few years
ago and was shown the many exhibits maintained there, exhibits
that leave nothing to be added concerning the evil human beings
can do to other human beings. But the one that left the most
profound impression on me was the simplest of all: a room full
of shoes, mostly baby shoes."</font>
</p>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Genocidal campaigns are not new. They occurred before the Holocaust;
and they are occurring at this moment.What distinguishes the Nazi
"race purification" extermination program from other
genocidal campaigns is its "scientific" character.
At a mass meeting in 1934, Nazi Deputy Party Leader Rudolf Hess
stated, "National Socialism is nothing but applied biology."
"The entire Nazi regime was built," Lifton writes,
"on a biomedical vision that required the kind of racial
purification that would progress from sterilization to extensive
killing." As early as the publication of Mein Kampf (1924-26),
Lifton indicates, "Hitler had declared the sacred racial
mission of the German people to be 'assembling and preserving
the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements [and] . . .
. slowly and severely raising them to a dominant position.' .
. ."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Where did the "biomedical vision" of Hitler and his
party originate? The primary sources were: Darwinian biology
and evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination
of Darwinism; and a pseudo-science called "eugenics."
In the first several decades of the twentieth century, eugenics
was considered by many as humanity's best hope for the future.
It played the role now played by "genetic engineering."
It was applied Darwinism. The following outlines, briefly, the
nature of these related sources:</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Today, our orthodox theory of biology and evolution is "neo-Darwinism."
Neo-Darwinism combines what is called "classical Darwinism"
with modern genetics. Classical Darwinism dates from 1859, the
year in which English naturalist Charles Darwin published On
the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, subtitled
(note carefully) The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life. Despite the fact key premises underlying Darwin's
theory were unproven scientifically, the theory was embraced by
numerous scientists and intellectuals as if it was gospel -- the
Gospel of Science. In a relatively short time, the Origin replaced
the Bible as western civilization's preferred authoritative text
on the subject of the nature of life on Earth. In 1871, Darwin
published the even more controversial The Descent of Man.</font>
<P align="center">
<font face="Verdana" size="2"><b>
The major premises of Darwinism</b></font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
The major premises of Darwinism may be summarized as follows:</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
(1) The first premise, the concept of the evolutionary
transformation of one species into others, was derived from the
"Transformism" of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who founded
evolutionary science in 1809 with the publication of Philosophie Zoologique. In his History of Creation (1873), evolutionist Ernst
Haeckel writes, "To him [Lamarck] will always belong the
immortal glory of having for the first time worked out the Theory
of Descent, as an independent scientific theory of the first order,
and as the philosophical foundation for the whole science of Biology."
Indeed, the very term "biology" was coined by Lamarck.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Darwin became acquainted with the work of Lamarck through
his friend and mentor, the eminent geologist Charles Lyell. Volume
II of Lyell's Principles of Geology, which contains a long exposition
of the Lamarck theory, was received by Darwin in South America
in 1832, in the first of his five years engagement as ship's naturalist
on the H.M.S. Beagle.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
(2) The second premise of Darwin's theory is that "natural
selection" is the cause of divergence in species, i.e., the
origin of species. The first published mention of the idea of
Nature-as-selector is in Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin
and Foundations of Inequality Among Men" (1755). In a discussion
of the conditions of life in ancient Sparta, Rousseau writes,
"Nature used them precisely as did the law of Sparta the
children of her citizens. She rendered strong and robust those
with a good constitution and destroyed all the others."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
A more immediate source was the evolutionary theory of English
naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who committed to paper a theory
of evolution by natural selection prior to the completion of
Darwin's work. In June of 1858, Wallace submitted to Darwin an
unpublished work titled "On the Tendency of Varieties to
Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type." Shortly thereafter,
Darwin wrote to Lyell, "Your words have come true with a
vengeance -- that I should be [could be] forestalled. You said
this when I explained to you here very briefly my view on Natural
Selection depending on the struggle for existence. I never saw
a more striking coincidence; if Wallace had my M.S. written out
in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract! Even
his terms now stand as heads of my chapters . . . . "</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Had Wallace simply published his manuscript, he would have had
priority with regard to the concept of evolution by natural selection.
Instead, priority went to Darwin. The questionable means by
which priority was conferred on Darwin are discussed in a fascinating
book by Arnold Brackman titled <I>A Delicate Arrangement</I>.
Darwin's understanding of natural selection derived from his work
with breeding. The breeding of plants and animals Darwin called
"artificial selection;" the breeding that occurs in
"the wild" he called "natural selection."
Early in the Origin, Darwin defines natural selection in these
(anthropomorphic) terms: "Natural selection is daily and
hourly scrutinizing . . . . every variation, even the slightest;
rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that
is good; silently and insensibly working . . . . at the improvement
of each organic being . . . ." In effect, Darwinism replaces
the traditional belief that order in nature is the result of
a divine presence (God) with the idea it is the result of a natural
presence (Natural Selection).</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
(3) The third premise in Darwinism is that the drive behind
evolution is the sexual-reproductive instinct. Given the tremendous
influence of this drive, life is an incessant struggle for existence:</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
"A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high
rate at which all organic beings tend to increase. Every being
. . . must suffer destruction . . . otherwise, on the principle
of geometrical increase, its numbers would quickly become so inordinately
great that no country could support the product. Hence, as more
individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must
in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual
with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct
species, or with the physical conditions of life. . . ."
The basic premise ("the high rate at which all organic beings
tend to increase") and the "principle of geometrical
increase" are, as Darwin indicates, "the doctrine of
Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable
kingdom. . . . "</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
The Malthus in question is the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834),
famous "pessimist" and author of one of the most influential
essays in modern times -- the "<I>Principle of Population</I>"
(1798). In this essay, Malthus argues that because "all
animated life [tends] to increase beyond the nourishment prepared
for it," there can never be real progress or happiness for
mankind. Give man a little more bread than usual, he'll breed
more than usual, wiping out his little gains. Populations increase
by geometrical progression, Malthus asserted, while the means
of subsistence increase by only mathematic progression. Thus
man is doomed to procreate himself into destitution. Malthus,
one of the founders of the "dismal science" of economics,
painted visions of a future filled, inescapably, with starving
and diseased multitudes.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Before Malthus and his nightmarish visions, the rulers of Europe
looked upon large populations as assets; after the "<I>Principle
of Population</I>," they began to view the same populations
as liabilities, potentially disastrous liabilities. The revolution
in America and the abortive revolution in France had made it very
clear that masses can be lethal to the ruling classes, and Malthus
provided just the perspective the rulers of Europe were looking
for. The masses are totally unprincipled. Populations must
be strictly controlled. In 1789, the first year of the French
Revolution, the European country with the largest population was
France. The statistics were on the wall, and the rulers of Europe
were not slow in reading them.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe,
members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered
"Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing
the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the
poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor,
we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should
make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses,
and court the return of the plague. In the country we should
build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage
settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,"
and so forth and so on.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
The Reverend Malthus, who took the understandable precaution
of publishing his "Population" essay anonymously (in
1798), is the prototype of the Nazi-style social theorist. "Malthusianism,"
as it was called, found adherents throughout Europe, but few of
these dared to express their opinions outside the private chambers
of fellow believers. By the end of the century, however, the
Malthusians were out of the closet.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In Germany, "racial scientists" openly advocated the
killing of unwanted members and segments of the population. One
of these scientists, Adolf Jost, "issued an early call for
direct medical killing in a book published in 1895 . . . <I>The
Right To Death</I> (Das Recht auf den Tod)." Jost argued
that for the sake of the health of the social organism, the state
must take responsibility for the death of individuals. Adolf
Jost was a mentor to Adolf Hitler, who agreed 100 percent. "The
state must see to it that only the healthy beget children,"
Hitler said. "The state must act as the guardian of a
millennial future. . . . It must put the most modern medical
means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit
for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have
inherited a disease and can therefore pass it on."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Between the first decade of the nineteenth century and the last,
what was it that occurred that made Malthusianism "respectable?"
Darwinism. Specifically: Darwin's adoption of the "Malthus
doctrine" as his third premise. In the third premise is
a foundation of the Third Reich. In effect, if not intent, Darwinism
is Malthusianism, re-presented in the guise of true science.
Under the banner of Darwinism, "The Only True & Sacred
Biology & Evolution," the Malthusians and their masters
were able to wreak havoc in our civilization. Among their legacies
are the ravages of the imperialists in the late nineteenth century,
the lethal socialisms that have plagued our century, the world
wars, holocaust after holocaust, and very possibly one or more
of the serious diseases which now afflict humanity.</font>
<P align="center">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
****************</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In Palo Alto, early 1994, I attended a lecture on evolution by
a distinguished Stanford professor. The professor began his lecture
with the bald statement, "Today, the science of evolution
is synonymous with Darwinism." The professor paused, smiled.
There were no challenges from the audience, and so he continued,
repeating the "truisms" of Darwinism, truisms that are
not true but only seem so because they've been repeated so often.
Unlike any other scientific theory I know of, Darwinism has survived
refutation after refutation. In 1971, Norman Macbeth, a Harvard-trained
lawyer who made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation for
many years, published quite a good critique of Darwinism -- <I>Darwin
Retried</I>. One of Macbeth's major concluding points, which
is well documented, is that most Darwinists have little confidence
in their own theory. The eminent Karl Popper calls the book "an
excellent and fair, though unsympathetic retrial of Darwin."
(What "sympathy" has to do with science I do not know.)
It is 1995, almost twenty-five years later. Darwinism is still
our orthodox biology.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In 1986, Australian scientist Michael Denton published <I>Evolution:
A Theory in</I> <I>Crisis</I>, a thoroughgoing critique of Darwinism
which concludes that the much-celebrated theory is "the great
cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." "One might
have expected," Denton writes, "that a theory of such
cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world,
would have been something more than metaphysics, something more
than a myth." Practically in the same breath, Denton remarks
that "Darwinism remains . . the only truly scientific theory
of evolution."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Denton's confusion is understandable. It is difficult to believe
that a theory with so little merit could have become so profoundly
entrenched in our science -- and in the conventional wisdom.
Isn't science supposed to free us from myth? Darwinism may remain
the teflon orthodoxy for another twenty-five years. That should
not dissuade us from the vital work of critique.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2"> So far, we've
analyzed Darwinism into its three basic premises. How valid
(strong) are those premises?</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
(1) The strength of Darwinism is in the first premise, the Lamarckian
premise of the evolutionary transformation of one species into
others. Lacking sufficient data, Lamarck viewed the evolutionary
line as strictly linear. Species A produces B, B produces C,
C produces D, and so on. In 1855, Alfred Wallace re-articulated
the premise,</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
arguing that the evolutionary line may be branched, i.e., Species
A may produce C as well as B, B may produce D, E and F, etc.
Further, Wallace argued, evolutionary steps are not necessarily
"progressive" (more and more perfect), as Lamarck had
maintained.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
The Wallace articulation came to be known as "the Sarawak
Law." Every species has come into existence coincident both
in time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species.
The long and short of it is: When the Lamarck-Wallace premise
fell into Darwin's hands, it was in good shape scientifically.
It was, and is, a valid premise, supported by much evidence.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
(2) Darwin's second premise, that natural selection is the cause
of divergence in species, is what is called an "empty generalization."
It sounds good, but it tells us nothing. If I were to tell you
that the cause of divergence in species was the "environment,"
would you find that an adequate explanation? No, of course not.
"You must be more specific," you would say. "What
is it, specifically, in the environment that causes divergence?"
"Natural selection" is no more specific than "environment."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
It is not difficult to understand why so many scientists have
accepted the premise of natural selection uncritically. It does
seem to be an explanation more in the scientific direction than
"Zeus," for instance, of "Jehova." Nevertheless,
natural selection is simply a "false scent" that takes
us nowhere, except deeper and deeper into the woods. Darwin himself
was uneasy with the term. In the sixth and last edition of the
Origin, he says that survival of the fittest is a "more accurate"
expression of what he had previously called natural selection.
Interestingly, the phrase "survival of the fittest"
was coined not by Darwin, but by philosopher-evolutionist Herbert
Spencer some seven or eight years before the publication of the
Origin. By 1872, the phrase had become the common catchword (slogan)
for Darwinism. Darwin laid claim to it ("selected"
it, we should say), preferring it over the meaningless natural
selection.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Further, the concept of natural selection was tied too closely
to Alfred Wallace, the talented young evolutionist who had been
totally eclipsed by Darwin. (When the famous theory of evolution
was first presented, it was called the "Darwin-Wallace"
theory. A correct title would have been the "Wallace-Darwin"
theory.) The phrase "survival of the fittest" was
the product of one of Darwin's most ardent apostles. Mr. Spencer
was quite delighted Darwin adopted the phrase.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
(3) Darwin's third premise -- the so-called "Malthus doctrine"
-- has no scientific validity, and it never did. In the modern
jargon of critique, we would call the Malthus doctrine an example
of "reductive, or simplistic, sexual determinism."
(Sigmund Freud is whipped routinely by contemporary commentators
for having fallen into the trap of sexual determinism.) The
idea that "all animated life" is governed exclusively
by the sexual-reproductive drive was suggested to Malthus by early
eighteenth century reports regarding goats that had been released
by buccaneers on certain of the Galapagos islands circa the 1670s.
The reports indicated that the goats had multiplied to the point
that scarcely a bit of vegetation was left.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Malthus read the reports and concluded that human beings, if
left to their own devices, would do the same thing. They would
reproduce themselves right out of house and home, to the point
the entire population would be left without a can of beans. This
conclusion is the pseudo-scientific basis of the "Malthus
doctrine" that Darwin so enthusiastically embraced, and
amplified -- by his declaration that it "applied . . . to
the whole animal and vegetable kingdom."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Any form of reductive determinism is the intellectual equivalent
of a tar pit. Malthus was trapped in his own tar. In later life,
he endeavored to correct the erroneous doctrine, but by then,
it was too late. The doctrine had become a part of our common
stock of "true ideas about the way things are." Thus
it is that Darwin writes with such certainty, that "There
is no exception to the rule, that every organic being naturally
increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed [Italics mine],
the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair
. . . ."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
"Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years,"
Darwin continues, "and at this rate, in a few thousand years,
there would literally not be standing room for his progeny."
This "Malthus-Darwin doctrine," let us call it, was
the basis for much hysteria in the ruling classes of the last
century. The Malthus-Darwin doctrine clearly suggested that
the human population of the planet had become a problem. "If
not destroyed," to use Darwin's phrase, this population would
soon leave the planet as barren as the goat-infested Galapagos
islands. The Malthus-Darwin doctrine had no scientific basis whatsoever;
it was based on the erroneous reasoning of Malthus. Darwin should
have known better. Perhaps he did. Whatever the case, the doctrine
was a big hit with the rulers of the last century, a strong incitement
-- sanctioned by science -- to over-run the planet before others
did so.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Suddenly, the nations of Europe found themselves with "surplus
populations." The Age of Imperialism was born, as nation
after nation entered the race to acquire foreign lands and foreign
countries, not because of greed, but because of national survival.
The nations that would survive into the future would be those
in possession of vast tracts of land for the dumping of surplus
population. In a very short time, all of Africa was carved up
by the European nations. Aboriginal peoples of that continent
who objected to slavery were slaughtered. Many great tribes --
tribes that for thousands of years had existed in balance with
their environment -- were eradicated in the "African Holocaust."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Imperialistic competition for "empire" (i.e., colonies
throughout the world) was probably the principal reason for World
War I. In 1901, Arthur Dix, the editor of two Berlin journals,
writes, "A timorous people, which knows not how to use its
elbows, may of course put a stop to the increase in its population
-- it might find things too narrow at home. The superfluity
of population might find no economic existence. A people happy
in its future, however, knows nothing of an artificial limitation;
its only care can be to find room on the globe for a livelihood
for other members of its own race."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In Britain as Germany's Vassal (1912), German Social Darwinist
(and retired general) F. Von Bernhardi writes, "In the interest
of the world's civilization it is our duty to enlarge Germany's
colonial empire. Thus alone can we politically, or at least nationally,
unite the Germans throughout the world, for only then will they
recognize that German civilization is the most necessary factor
in human progress. We must endeavor to acquire new territories
throughout the world by all means in our power, because we must
preserve to Germany the millions of Germans who will be born in
the future, and we must provide for them food and employment.
They ought to be enabled to live under a German sky, and to lead
a German life." Given such attitudes -- not only in Germany,
but throughout Europe -- war became inevitable. It was inevitable
for another reason as well:</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
War was viewed by Bernhardi and his many Social Darwinist colleagues
in Europe as "an indispensable regulator" of populations.
"If it were not for war," Bernhardi writes, "we
should probably find that inferior and degenerate races would
overcome healthy and youthful ones by their wealth and their numbers.
The generative importance of war lies in this, that it causes
selection, and thus war becomes a biological necessity."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
The German word for "colonies around the world in which
to dump surplus populations" was "Lebensraum" --
living space. For the Germans, the loss of the First World War
meant, among other dire things, the loss of their lebensraum.
The punitive reparations demanded by the victors was a serious
matter; far more serious was the fact that Germany was physically
contracted and stripped of her colonies. This contraction of
Germany was, from the point of view of the Darwinists in that
country, a death sentence. With the empire-building option blocked
(momentarily at least), German social planners began to focus
more exclusively on internal options for guaranteeing the survival
of the German race.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In 1923, Fritz Lenz, a Germany physician-geneticist who became
a leading ideologue in the Nazi racial purification program, complained
bitterly that Germany under the Weimar Constitution was falling
far behind America in the all-important field of eugenics, the
science of improving the race by means of "selection"
of degenerate individuals and groups for sterilization: "Lenz
complained that provisions in the Weimar Constitution (prohibiting
the infliction of bodily alterations on human beings) prevented
widespread use of vasectomy techniques; that Germany had nothing
to match the eugenics research institutions in England and the
United States (for instance, that at Cold Spring Harbor, New York,
led by Charles B. Davenport and funded by the Carnegie Institution
in Washington and by Mary Harriman)." Mary Harriman was
the widow of the railroad tycoon E. H. Harriman. Both E. H. Harriman
and Andrew Carnegie had been great admirers of Herbert Spencer,
who was the chief conduit in America for Darwinian dogma.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In historical context, "eugenics" may be defined as
applied Darwinism. The founder of eugenics is Francis Galton,
a cousin of Darwin's and the author of several highly influential
books on heredity, including <I>Hereditary Genius</I> (1869<I>),
Inquiries into Human Faculties</I> (1883), and <I>National Inheritance</I>
(1889). Not long after Galton published the last-named book,
a group of so-called "racial scientists" became quite
active in Germany. (Also influential in the formation of the
group was German Social Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, who declared
that the various races may be defined as separate species.)
One of these scientists was Adolf Jost, previously cited as
the author of <I>The Right to Death</I> (1895). The main thesis
of this book is that the final solution to the population problem
is state control over human reproduction. The book is couched
in the rhetoric of (Darwinian) natural rights. The state has
a natural right and a sacred responsibility to kill individuals
in order to keep the nation, the social organism, alive and healthy.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Later advocates of state-medical killing, such as law professor
Karl Binding of the University of Leipzig and Alfred Hoche, professor
of psychiatry at the University of Freiburg, would stress the
therapeutic value of destroying "life unworthy of life."
The destruction of such life is "purely a healing treatment."
Between the world wars, sterilization became the most preferred
tool for the control of population. The fact the Weimar Constitution
did not allow sterilization was no small matter; Social Darwinistic
scientists and their followers saw it as a dire threat to the
nation. "If the power to fight for one's own health is no
longer present," Hitler wrote, "the right to live in
this world of struggle ends."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
To understand why sterilization was such an important issue for
the Social Darwinists, we need not look far. "In civilized
man," Ernst Mayr (America's dean of Darwinism) writes, "the
two components of selective value, adaptive superiority and reproductive
success, no longer coincide. The individuals with above-average
genetic endowments do not necessarily make an above-average contribution
to the gene pool of the next generation." Indeed, Mayr continues,
"shiftless, improvident individuals who have a child every
year are certain to add more genes to the gene pool of the next
generation than those who carefully plan the size of their families<I>.
Natural selection has no answer to this predicament</I>. [Italics
mine} The separation [in] the modern society of mere reproductive
success from genuine adaptedness poses a serious problem for man's
future."</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In other words: When humans are in the state of nature, their
numbers (and their quality as biological organisms) are effectively
controlled by natural selection. In the struggle for existence,
the fittest usually win, and the weakest usually lose. The winners
get to pass on their winning genes; the losers get to skulk away
and die. When man becomes "civilized," however, the
game changes. The weak are no longer destroyed. Indeed, the
weak are protected by unnatural do-gooder religions and philosophies.
They are given advantages they have not earned. They have nothing
to do in life but reproduce, and reproduce they do -- "a
child every year," according to Mayr. While those who are
unworthy of life proliferate right and left, the genuinely
superior find themselves more and more restricted, more and more
disadvantaged in the evolutionary struggle.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
Thus it is Mayr issues his dark prognosis . . . this situation
"poses a serious problem for man's future." Mayr's
view is essentially a contemporary re-statement of the old eugenics
propaganda. When Hitler and his Nazis commenced their programs
of sterilization and extermination, they were operating on the
firm conviction that for the sake of the German people and the
future of man, National Socialism must take over where Natural
Selection left off. In Darwinism -- both classical and neo-Darwinism
-- natural selection is the only ordering principle in nature.
If the principle of natural selection is thwarted by misguided
man, what is the inevitable result? Disorder, degeneracy, and
destruction.</font>
<P align="justify">
<font face="Verdana" size="2">
In a great many ways, the Nazi movement was a crusade against
what they perceived as degeneracy, a crusade in the name of the
new god . . . Science. The legacy of the Malthus-Darwin doctrine
is sad indeed. The mandate it gave our rulers was, "Control
population and progress . . . or perish." From this mandate
arose two political strategies that were to make the twentieth
century the most cruel and barbaric on record. One of these strategies
was strictly Malthusian: "Do nothing for the masses except
that which accelerates their destruction." This was called
"laissez-faire" . . . don't interfere. The other strategy
saw in totalitarianism, the complete control of society by the
state, the only satisfactory answer to the population problem.
Most of the "socialisms" of our century fall in this
category.</font>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list