The View From 1776

Eugenics: Darwin Prescribed; Hitler Implemented

Eugenics is officially credited to Charles Darwin’s cousin Sir Francis Galton.  But Darwin had plenty to say about it in The Descent of Man

Hitler’s Aryan race theorists acknowledged their debt to the eugenics theories of Darwin, Galton, and Madison Grant, one of the founders of the Bronx Zoo in New York City and a leading liberal-progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt era.

Read DARWIN AND HITLER: IN THEIR OWN WORDS.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/08 at 01:02 AM
  1. The writer seems to blame Darwin, who died in 1882, for the crimes of the madman, Hitler, born in 1889.

    Darwin's thesis of natural selection and evolution had basically three points:

    1) Variations arise naturally in all species.
    2) Some of these variations result in more progeny.
    3) Over time, such variations, if inherited, tend to become more predominant in the species, and the species as a whole evolves to incorporate those variations.

    The only relationship between evolutionary theory and eugenics is that they both deal with "populations" and "inheritance of traits." Those advocating eugenics don't believe in Darwin's "natural selection" at all. In fact, the essence of eugenics is "artificial" selection, so the effort to tie Darwin to Eugenics is really far fetched.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/08  at  04:05 PM
  2. Justification must need be sought by all those who seek iconic standing of fellow-humanistic practices in behalf of an up-dated form of cannibalism.

    An 'associated' pair, in your myopic eyes, would be Margaret Sanger & Havelock Ellis. "What-a-pair, what-a-pair!"

    They were, and are, the essence of mass suicidal visionary stupidity!

    Think: Mass wipe-out of the Black race in America via Planned Parenthood. Adolph & Jews. Other.

    TELL US YOU DON'T GET IT!

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    a follower of The Lion of Judah
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  05/09  at  11:00 AM
  3. Regarding Pat's comment, he should argue with Charles Darwin, Thomas Huxley, and Francis Galton, not with me. All three wrote about the social and political implications of evolution.

    Pat is correct that eugenics is directed "evolution." That is not as contradictory as it seems on the surface. Huxley was at pains, and at length, to declare that the there can be no such thing as morals or sin; evolution, he said, proves that the only rule is survival of the fittest.

    That is the basis of eugenics, Hitler's national Socialism, and Lenin's and Stalin's liberal-progressivism in the Soviet Union. Marx and his followers, who were Darwin's contemporaries, welcomed evolutionary doctrine as proof of the socialist revolutionary doctrine.

    Reducing Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis to the mechanics of natural selection within species (there is absolutely no proof of any evolutionary development of one genus into another, merely speculation that one might have evolved from another) is analogous to saying that the atheistic and materialistic religion of socialism had no connection with the Soviet Union.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/09  at  11:40 AM
  4. "All this doesn't mean that Darwinism was the sole cause of Hitler's barbarism. But it does make clear that Darwinism must shoulder its share of the moral burden, because the connection is undeniable."

    Don't you think that a person like Hitler could have discovered eugenics all by himself? Sure he could have, without the help of Darwin.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/09  at  02:39 PM
  5. Thomas,

    You make a pretty good case for a causal relation between the two theories, yet I think you've missed a more salient point regarding them. Pat also neglects the historical connections between Darwinian evolution and eugenics. First of these is Galton was Darwin
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/10  at  02:08 PM
  6. David,

    For once I almost agree with something you've said. Almost.

    No, Hitler could not have come up with eugenics on his own (you give him too much credit), though you are right he would have found some such excuse for his race agenda even if he had to go back to Protagoras to find it. However, that still does not excuse Darwinism, eugenics, and their many proponents. Both Darwin and Galton were highly intelligent and imaginative people. As Thomas points out, both discussed at least some of the ramifications of their theories, and cannot, therefore, be said to have been entirely ignorant of their potential for harm (though they may not have seen it as harm). Darwin, particularly and to his credit, disliked the notion government might have a role in eugenics, but neither made any complaint against doctors, scientists, and similar 'professionals' dabbling in human genetic experimentation. That kind of moral recklessness continues today and has become all the more rampant. Soon, social-engineers (including many who are still respected) were agitating for it in the sincere conviction restrictions on childbearing for the insane, retarded, racially-inferior, weaklings, handicapped, terminally-ugly, and criminal would solve all our problems. At first, these refined and
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/10  at  03:51 PM
  7. I like Bob's first post suggesting that advocates of the horribly "enlightened" theories that end in eugenics "may have a common root arising from personality." He adds quite correctly that such thinkers become dogmatic and "acquiesce in all sorts of uncritical dogma." (Isn't there a book titled "Liberalsim is a Mental Disorder") However, it is difficult to identify when these disordered minds first arrived to plague us. William Shirer has pointed to a number of such enlightened but dogmatic thinkers that paved the way for Gobineau, Galton and Grant. Shirer relates how the German glorification of ruthless power and the need for a superman leading a super race to Johann Fichte, the University of Berlin philospher who delivered his "Addresses to The German People" in 1807 after Prussia's defeat by Napoleon at Jena. Fichte outlined his dream that a small elite of pure German blood, free of moral restraints, would subjugate the inferior decadent races. He was succeeded at the University by Hegel who preached similar concepts. Fichte's "Addresses" preceded the birth of Gobineau (1816), Galton (1822), and Grant (1865), as well as Darwin (1809). Darwin's theory fit a racist agenda so he was drawn in and the idea spread among those sorts of people that enjoy abstract dogma--especially if the dogma gives them a role in life, at the top, dictating to those below. (A category that can loosely be called the self-aggrandizing soft-science intelligentsias) In the early 1900's eugenics was adopted by those who wanted "to improve" the human race--When Hitler was ten years old, Dr A. Ploetz suggested that a panel of doctors should attend every birth and decide if the infant was fit to live, and, if not, to kill it. In the 1920's Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche recommended eutahansia for the defective in Germany. In 1923 Dr Lenz, professor of racial hygiene in Munich, stated that euthanasia should be part of racial hygiene program. In 1923 these ideas were endorsed by Dr Alexis Carrel on the staff of the Rockefeller Institute who proposed that criminals and the mentally ill should be put to death "by suitable gases." The common root of these bad "ideas" was their source--the intellectual philosophical elites of advanced nations who relied on their own reasoning power to establish dogmatic truths. Bedfellows to this pioneering and precedent shattering elite were the atheistic leaders who reigned over Communist Russia's extermination of millions of their own people, the Japanese leaders and invaders that committed the atrocities in China in the 1930's, the subsequent Maoist Chinese who starved and killed millions in the name of rational progress, and PolPot, the Paris educated intellectual whose grand dreams led to the extermination of millions of Cambodians. That recent historical record, the ravaged 20th century, vividly demonstrates why we should never give too much authority to our government and its leaders, especially if they only attend church and carry the Bible when under threat of impeachment or defeat at the polls--or worse, if they look down on my tendency to "cling to my gun and Faith.
    Posted by bill greene  on  05/11  at  01:50 PM
  8. Darwinism prevails today. So how come the eugenics he was supposed to have prescribed is not carried out today? That's because Darwin never prescribed eugenics. If the practice of eugenics came into being it's because his findings and conclusions were manipulated, distorted and taken out of context by the likes of Hitler.

    With the argument The View presents here it would banish all free thinking because it might lead to some unintended consequences, like the thinking of Darwin did. But then, conservatives have always been suspicious of new ideas. However, it is new thinking and ideas that has always propelled the world. Moreover, conservatives are more likely to burn books like Hitler did so as not to infect society with 'rogue' ideas.

    In a way I am surprised at the attitude take here toward eugenics because I feel certain that it was conservatives and traditionalists who once gravitated to this notion because it was they who in the past most talked about creating the perfect race and removing life's unsavory characters.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/11  at  06:14 PM
  9. FREE THINKING AND NEW "IDEAS" IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES ARE WELCOMED BY ALL--ESPECIALLY THE CONSERVATIVES WHO TEND TO BE THE ENGAGED BUSINESS PEOPLE AND ENTREPRENEURS WHO USE THOSE DISCOVERIES TO HELP MANKIND. (SUCH AS THE BIG DRUG AND CHEMICAL COMPANIES) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AS CURRENTLY DEFINED AND CONSERVATIVES IS THAT THE FORMER LOVE NEW IDEAS IN THE SOFT SOCIAL SCIENCES BECAUSE IT LETS THEM UPSET SOCIETY AND GAIN ENTRE TO PARTICIPATION. CONSERVATIVES, ON THE OTHER HAND, EMPLOY PROVEN PRINCIPLES IN THE SOFT SCIENCE WORLD AND ARE WARY OF NEW IDEAS--SUCH AS THOSE COMING FROM GALTON, GOBINEAU, FICHTE, AND HEGEL. BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW USEFUL NEW IDEAS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE SINCE THE GREEKS AND ROMANS, AS ELABORATED UNDER ENGLISH COMMON LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES, A WISE MAN MAY WELL BE WARY OF ANY PHILOSOPHICAL REMEDIES THAT WILL SUPPOSEDLY "MAKE THINGS BETTER."
    Posted by BILL GREENE  on  05/11  at  09:13 PM
  10. David,

    Clearly, you did not read my comment #9 all the way through. Eugenics is very much alive and well today. It is no longer called by that label because its many advocates are in self-denial regarding their (your) association with Nazis (and communists) and have succeeded in burying the term through misrepresenting the historical record; a revisionism you have obviously bought hook, line and sinker. Abortion, artificial-insemination, birth-control, cloning, sterilization, human genetic-engineering, sperm-banking, and trans-humanism are all examples of eugenics: the notion we can 'evolve' the human race through selective pruning and grafting. The euthanizing of declared human-vegetables (PVS) contributes nothing to this targeted evolution, but I included it because it is derived from the same underlying philosophy (there is no G*d, ergo we are free to make up any moral code and do as we dang well please). Human-controlled evolution (or, as Thomas calls it,
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/12  at  07:55 PM
  11. Bob and David, I suggest that this dispute over whether "conservatives" or "liberals" supported eugenics is muddied by the labels used. Both terms have changed in meaning over the last two centuries during which the idea of eugenics has been advanced. I think it is clearer to argue that those individuals who have abandoned the Judeo-Christian faiths have tended to be for genetic and racial engineering, while those with a belief in the moral lessons of Judeo-Christian religions have maintained a reverence for life that precludes eugenics and euthanasia. This fairly accurate generalization indicates the essentiality of religion in restraining man's worst impulses. In my post above (#7) the point was made that the massive atrocities of the 20th century were the work of authoritarian figures who had abandoned the strictures of religion and attempted to rely on pure reason to guide them. They all shared a belief: in killing--on an unprecedented scale, and an antipathy to any GOD. Now, it is true that liberals and intellectuals are generally more apt to be secularists/or atheists; and conservatives do tend to be active Christians, but the best correlation for those for or against eugenics is simply their rejection or support of a God.
    Posted by bill greene  on  05/12  at  08:28 PM
  12. (cont.)

    Before that you have to go back to something many regard as conservative in style but which is philosophically disconnected from today
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/12  at  08:31 PM
  13. Bill,

    I don
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/12  at  08:54 PM
  14. Bob,

    The use of vague abstractions like "conservatives" and "liberals" is what allows the Davids of this world to obfuscate any political or moral issue with wild and unfounded statements. And acceptance of that usage forces you into an endless debate or explanation of what the terms actually mean, or used to mean, versus what they are believed to mean today. Better to address eugenics as a strictly moral question--you're either for the sanctity of life or you're not. It is primarily a religious issue--not a political or economic issue. And it is a dispute roughly divided between Christians and atheists. Now, a balanced budget has perhaps a liberal and conservative split but isn't it clearer to say you are for or against fiscal prudence, and a balanced budget as compared to pork barrel spending, corporate subsidies, and deficits. In those terms people know what you're saying! On social issues you are either for pornography or seek limits. You either want to make the government bigger or smaller. Regarding foreign aid handouts you're either for or against. Same with the UN and the international court, the Kyoto Treaty, and The World Bank and IMF. The original posting was about eugenics and whether you're a liberal or a conservative is irrelevant--what counts is your position on the specific subject. It is really impossible to lump a uniform position on all these issues under one umbrella. A person who approves of abortion but wants to close down the UN is just one of dozens of "mixed bags" that get confusing when one tries to pigeonhole positions as either liberal or conservative.
    Posted by bill greene  on  05/12  at  10:13 PM
  15. Bill,

    You said "... abstractions like 'conservatives' and 'liberals' is what allows the Davids of this world to obfuscate any political or moral issue with wild and unfounded statements." Yes and no, David manages to cloud the argument with rant no matter what. Trust me, I have tried leaving out the labels to see what effect it would have, and he remains in attack mode. Yes, it provides him with an opening, but, no, there is sometimes no getting around it - as in this particular discussion.

    Remember, this started from Thomas's assertion eugenics and the left are the sole responsibility of Liberals. So, this discussion turns on that connection and whether or to what extent his argument is valid. I believe I have fairly (and generously) stated this is not entirely one-sided. However, eugenics is and remains entirely a liberal construct and one the left has been pushing very hard for well over a century. It is not inconceivable that at least some conservatives would be taken in by the, by now, well honed hard sell. Eugenics at best undermines religion and at worst gave us things like the Holocaust (as a Jew, I
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/13  at  05:42 PM
  16. (cont.)

    To see why I think socialism (and that
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/13  at  05:46 PM
  17. Conservatives like Bill paint themselves as lilly white. They pretend not to have participated in eugenics. But one thing they have participated in throughout history is crusades, crusades to convert the world to their kind. In so do they have slaughtered a great percentage of humankind.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/13  at  10:11 PM
  18. "Human is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his environments, institutions, and respectful relations to his individual fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the universe." Selah

    Can you see a collectivist socialistic liberal humanist dolt subscribing to this paragraph? Of course not. Add: Where and when did the creative process, a choice-making process, ever produce & invent in a collectivist society? Never. Choices? HA! It can only happen by imitating Western principles.

    Western principles are Judeo-Christian. Conserve.

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    a follower of The Lion of Judah
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  05/14  at  09:51 AM
  19. Jim-

    Amen to that! The creative choice-making actions that created the modern world arose exclusively from the initiative and imagination of individuals--giving full expression to their God-given free will. And it was the Judeo-Christian principles of agape and the essentiality of loving your neighbor that allowed the cooperative society of these free individuals to act creatively. As you indicate, whenever you modify such a free society so that the liberty of each individual becomes restricted and controlled from the top by some collectivist liberal dolt, the once flourishing people will stagnate and Decline sets in. It has always been thus--See the "Radzewicz Rule" which I have formulated in "Common Genius" to provide a comprehensive history of what has worked and what hasn't. Since human nature in not malleable, as the central planners would like, an effective society mcan only function successfully under conditions of economic freedom and individual empowerment.
    Posted by bill greene  on  05/14  at  01:29 PM
  20. Add: Since each human is anchored in a carnal-ego, he cannot invent criteria-for-choicemaking that is greater than self. The only principles and criteria greater than self, are found only in the scriptures of The Holy Bible. Further evidence of a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN intelligent Designer & Creator.

    Man-made 'criteria' produces mediocrity and worse.

    semper fidelis
    vincit veritas
    a follower of The Lion of Judah
    Posted by Jim Baxter  on  05/14  at  04:01 PM
  21. David,

    What is it about this stuff you just don
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  05/14  at  04:08 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.