Hitler, Evolution, and Christianity

I've been thinking about this for awhile and am trying to get together some texts to consult.The topic is the misuse of scientific ideas:In the first half of the 20th century, I maintain, there was significant and multifold misuse of scientific ideas in politics and morals. The scientific concept was lifted out of its scientific context and applied non-scientifically to other areas. I think one can see why this time period would be prone to such practice: (1) it was a time of profound scientific discoveries and (2)it was a time of precarious world politics. Put those 2 situations together and the misuse of science is likely.The philosophical question is, does such use of scientific ideas always lead to vicious systems? Is there such misuse today?The historical question is, is my above contention accurate?(this is similar to my "dangers of secularism" thread, but that topic suffered from vagueness. I am trying to be more precise).Let's take, for example, Hitler and Nazism:--was he mainly Christian, as some might maintain by quoting what appear to be Christian passages from his speeches, or mainly pseudo-Darwinian, as I maintain? And how much did his purported Christian belief or purported pseudo-Darwinian belief influence Nazism?Evidence: I maintain that Nazism had within it the idea of natural selection, lifted from Darwinism.from Mein Kampf:"Nature herself in times of great poverty or bad climatic conditions, as well as poor harvest, intervenes to restrict the increase of population of certain countries or races; this, to be sure, by a method as wise as it is ruthless. She diminishes, not the power of procreation as such, but the conservation of the procreated, by exposing them to hard trials and deprivations with the result that all those who are less strong and less healthy are forced back into the womb of the eternal unknown. Those whom she permits to survive the inclemency of existence are a thousandfold tested, hardened, and well adapted to procreate in turn, in order that the process of thoroughgoing selection may begin again from the beginning. By thus brutally proceeding against the individual and immediately calling him back to herself as soon as he shows himself unequal to the storm of life, she keeps the race and species strong, in fact, raises them to the highest accomplishments." (131)Here, I suggest, is the idea of natural selection. What's different is that Hitler is thinking in terms of races rather than species. In fact, Hitler uses the idea of "race" as though it meant "species."In his chapter on "Nation and Race," he tries to show that "racial purity" is natural, and therefore good:"The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc . . ." (285)He seems to think the different "races" are like different species, with their own separate gene pool.This idea, I claim, is central, not peripheral, to Nazi dogma, and is a perversion of Darwinism.Work Cited: Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin, 1971Released from [forum=-25] by Admin.

The topic I had in mind was more concerned with #1, but I'm not so sure that "God and country" meant in Nazism what it meant in other contexts.The Nazi ideology was as follows: There are various races, and the Aryan Race is the superior race, the "culture-maker" as he says in Mein Kampf.What this means is that by "natural selection" among races, the Aryan race is destined to triumph. But what it also means is that Aryan race is morally right in triumphing and enslaving the other races because it is "natural."quote from Hitler: "Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills" (Hitler's words qtd. in Bullock 226).I don't believe he is referring to a Christian God here, but an "evolutionary God," a sort of "life force" idea, if you will. However, at the moment I can't prove that. But I think I can once I get hold of some texts.AS far as what he told the German people, he spoke of "stamping the Nazi Weltanschaung [world view] on the German people" (Hitler's words qtd. in Bullock 228).What is the world view?"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist progamme is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to subsititute for them the Volk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its commmon blood" (Hitler's words qtd. in Bullock 228).
(from a speech in 1937).The world view of Nazism is as I stated above: the right of the superior race, the Volk, to enslave other races because it's "natural."work cited: Bullock, Alan. "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny." Abridged edition.

I'm doing what everyone does which is starting with a tentative hypothesis. However, I didn't just dream this up out of nowhere. It comes from reading various sources. And I don't plan to ignore things that go against my idea.Hitler has some comments about the Superman, delivered in speeches which I think are important, but I haven't be able to locate them yet (I just remember reading them).For example, I used to think that Hitler was an atheist, but having read Mein Kampf, I don't think so anymore. As far as him being a Christian, well that's up in the air for me right now. I don't see this: rooted in the soil yes, but look at the rest of the quote: "bound together by the bond of its common blood." He's talking about race.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are talking about a pre-Hitler, traditional definition of Volk, and I'm talking abut Nazi ideology. I have no problem with saying that Nazism changed the definition, superimposing racism. An odd comment. Surely you are not suggesting that Hitler and Nazism were not "really" racist.He and it were as racist as you can get.

I wasn't thinking about the distinction you are making between what the Nazi official ideology was and what they told the masses to convince them (perhaps I should have thought of it).I'll accept your opinion that they sold the masses on something other than the idea of the superior race.I don't think that affects my argument, which is about the use of pseudo-Darwinian ideas in Nazi ideology whether that was important for convincing the masses or not.The German people may not have known what the Nazis' ideology was but we do, and we also know, I think, that the idea of the superior race, as I described above, was a driving force in what they did. So their perverted idea of "natural selection" was an important factor in the events that occurred during the Third Reich.

I've produced evidence in the form of quotes from Hitler.This claim about "agricultural practices," claimed by you and others, is not backed up by anything. They are assertions which you expect me to accept.

Hitler's ideas were not scientific, but he does compare races with species, as the quote shows. But what he was saying was that races should not interbreed, not that they couldn't.He says that in nature species do not interbreed; therefore, races should not interbreed either. His premise is that what is natural is good. I'm not saying what he says makes sense. But that is what he says.

No doubt Hitler was irrational, but without Hitler there would presumably be no Nazism. My claim is that Hitler used the idea of "natural selection" from Darwinism in his development of Nazi ideology. He perverted it, but he used it.And I am waiting for evidence that he used something else, some sort of traditional ideas that you and others have suggested: not just your assertion that he did, but some evidence.

I'm mucking about in it because I think it is important.It shows you how one can take a scientific concept and distort it, and use it to create havoc.A scientific concept has prestige.

That's not what I'm doing. Darwin is not responsible for Nazism and neither is Darwinism.Hitler was responsible. He used the idea of natural selection and perverted it.A scientific theory is like a hammer. You can use it to drive nails but you can also use it to knock someone in the head. The latter is a perverted use of a hammer.

Your assertion was that HItler was using the word "Volk" in a traditional, non-racial sense. I was just wondering what you've got to back that up.

I'll get back to you, Jar. Got to do some homework first.

I have no problem with that idea. Here's a comment about the meaning of the word "volkisch":"'Volkisch' is impossible to translate in a single word. Literally meaning 'folkish,' it had overtones of racism; but to translate it simply as 'racist' is to ignore its folk-nationalistic implications" (91).John Toland, "Adolf Hitler" Vol 1., Doubleday, 1954.

Jar, I ran across something in my reading that would support your idea that Hitler was a genuine Christian (by "genuine" I mean someone who believes that Jesus was the Son of God).It's so odd (to me), that I tend to accept it. It sounds like something Hitler would believe:This comes from an interview with somebody named Erich Kempka, who knew Hitler (I haven't pinned down exactly who Kempka was yet):These are not Kempka's words but the author's: "Hitler did not consider Jesus a Jew but a Mischling (a half Jew who did not adhere to the Jewish religion and therefore was free of the Jewish virus) on the grounds that, with immaculate conception, he only had two Jewish grandparents" (233).If he believed in the immaculate conception, then he had to believe that Jesus was divine.But one runs across some odd comments, like this: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude" (Hitler's words,from a speech Dec. 18, 1926, qtd. in Toland 233).Christ did not finish his work? It gives one the impression that Hitler's view of the work of Christ was rather unorthodox, to say the least.Work cited: Toland, John. "Adolf HItler." Vol. 1., Doubleday, 1954.

Good point. And according to the paraphrase of Hitler's speech, your idea about the moneychangers is right on. Here is this author's paraphrase of the speech (I don't have the actual speech): "He was not the apostle of peace. His life's purpose and life's teaching was the battle against the power of capitalism, and for this he was crucified on the cross by his arch-enemy, the Jews" (233).I forgot about the difference between vigin birth and immaculate conception. But if the interview with Kempka is reliable, then that slip doesn't matter.