6 Million and Counting: Hitler and the Social Construction of Reality
by John Egan
The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the fold; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some dark unknown place, where they should be. Yes, he said, that must be done if the breed of the Guardians is to be kept pure. Plato, The Republic, Book V, -360 B.C.
Who was Adolf Hitler?
The German dictator was born in Austria in 1889 and took political power in Germany in 1933. This confuses some people right away because they wonder how an Austrian was accepted as the leader of another country. Back then, being German, or Deutsch, was a racial or ethnic classification, not a national one. The word Austria is an Anglicization of the German word Osterreich, meaning “Eastern Empire.” Hence, Austria is a term for a national boundary where many ethnicities resided—ten in fact—among which the Germans, or Deutschen, were the largest and most powerful. They ran the country and when the combined armies of Austria-Hungary and the German Empire lost World War I in 1918, the victors prohibited any future union of the two central European German states. One of the things Adolf Hitler the politician did was unite Austria and Germany into one country, Gross Deutschland (Greater Germany). This consolidation was part of a racial plan to unite all Germans in Europe into one large ethnically pure nation. Since Germans then lived all over Europe, in northern Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Russia, Hitler’s plan, as clearly outlined in his bestselling book Mein Kampf, necessitated war. One historian described Hitler’s book this way:
…Hitler arrives at a whole ‘philosophy of history’, an interpretation of human existence from beginnings onwards, which has a certain crazy originality. As Hitler sees it, human history forms part of nature and follows the same laws as the rest of nature…There follows an outline of history that portrays it as one long degeneration. Nature demands inequality, hierarchy, subordination of the inferior to the superior-but human history has consisted of a series of revolts against this natural order…1
There is nothing original about any of it. Somewhere along the line Hitler may have lost his mind, but all his ideas in Mein Kampf are based upon the leading philosophical and scientific knowledge of his day and before.2 The lineage from Malthus, Spencer, Darwin, and the Eugenics movement through Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s German popularizer and promoter of the myth of racial superiority is clear. A professor of Biology at Jena University, Haeckel’s books sold in the millions. Here is what he had to say on the Teutonic “Aryan” race:
…symmetry of all parts, and that equal development, which we call the perfect type of human beauty…the lower races-are psychologically nearer to the mammals-apes and dogs-than to civilized Europeans, we must therefore assign a totally different value to their lives.3
Hitler certainly did assign different values to people’s lives, exactly adopting Darwin’s notion of “sub-humans” as he formulated his genocidal plans. Hitler never met Haeckel, nor did he mention him, but his influence is clear. Historian Daniel Gasman:
Hitler's views on history, politics, religion, Christianity, nature, eugenics, science, art and evolution, however eclectic, and despite the plurality of their sources, coincide for the most part with those of Haeckel and are more than occasionally expressed in very much the same language.4
Hitler also drew upon the popular ideas of Alfred Plotz, a eugenicist influenced by Haeckel.5 Plotz introduced the term Rassenhygiene into practical use after the Nazis seized power in 1933. In 1936 Hitler appointed Plotz to a chair at the University of Munich because he echoed Hitler’s own ideas about eliminating people with hereditary diseases from a nation’s social fabric. Plotz believed that advances in medicine would only insure the survival of the weak and eventually debase the racial stock of the splendid German master race. Many Darwinists, including Charles himself and later Aldous Huxley, as noted earlier in the text, held similar beliefs. Plotz was instrumental in establishing the T-4 Euthanasia Program, the official name for the plan that was instrumental in the murder of 200,000 Germans suffering from mostly minor hereditary diseases.6
Hitler took a mix of scientific knowledge and bastardized elements of German philosophy to arrive at his conception of the world. He co-opted the philosophical thoughts of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who was, sorry to say, a racist, not unlike just about every Euro-American thinker at the time.7 Nietzsche originated the term Ubermensch and applied it to personal development as part of a proposed magical transformation of the German Herren Rasse (Noble Race) into a mystically super endowed trans-human, hence his term “the will to power” adopted by Hitler as a personal mantra. Nietzsche proposed that the Ubermensch would inevitably appear as a function of the Noble Races’ superior will and in the process destroy Christianity, another of Hitler’s long-term goals. It was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) who believed that the human “will” (der Wille) was far more significant than material power, actually the primal force in life, hence Hitler’s belief that his march to political power was a “triumph of the will” against the corrupt materialism of bourgeoisie society. Hitler then arrived at a worldview in which the entirety of existence revolved around the purification and survival of the Germanic Race (das Volk), as a single conscious organic being.8 This was Hitler’s God. He was not a Catholic. He never went to church, Catholic sacraments were irrelevant to him and he never took confession either. He was not a Social Darwinist. He was a Sociobiologist and the Nazi state became the world’s first ultra-Darwinist state: Amazingly, in a short time, biology became the organizing principle for the German national state’s policies, just as Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf. The biological end of German political action would be the complete annihilation of the Jews: When the last Jew in Europe was dead, then the Ubermensch would appear, and the whole German race would be mystically and immediately transformed by the power of der Wille into an extraordinary trans-human race, unbound by conventional moral and physical limitations. This explains a lot of things, namely the first Cause.
The first cause of the Holocaust is a deeply troubling problem for many people, not only Jews, but also for anyone concerned about righteousness. Just a brief history of Holocaust scholarship shows that for 15 years after the end of the Second World War, no major historical study was made until 1961 when Raul Hilberg quietly published, with extreme difficulty, his massive study on the perpetrators of the crime.9 It was a subject very few people wanted to talk about and it is just beyond the scope of this book to get into the problems Hilberg faced and why. But more studies followed and the general consensus was that anti-Semitism lay as the root cause.10 Undoubtedly anti-Semitism was part of the problem, especially considering the motivation for the thousands of ordinary Germans who became Hitler’s enthusiastic killers.11 However, the question we are asking here is; what motivated the Nazi ruling elite, the men who made the policy decisions? Anti-Semitism does not explain their actions since the Holocaust was perpetrated to the extreme detriment of the Third Reich’s own survival and actually led to its destruction. This is something difficult to comprehend. David Berlinsky:
For reasons that they could not make clear, even to themselves, the men controlling the Third Reich determined that it would be a fine thing to exterminate 9 million European Jews. 12
They did make it clear to themselves. The connections between Darwinism and the Nazi genocide of Jews and Gypsies are obvious, but the scientific establishment has been in denial for quite some time, and their protectors in the media and academia are unwilling to draw anyone’s attention to just how murderous a doctrine Darwinism is. Hitler, unlike Malthus, didn’t have any agenda against poverty. A pauper, as long as he was Aryan, made as good a soldier as anyone. Hitler was a racist and he saw History in terms of a racial struggle for existence in the same way that Darwin did. It was Ernst Haeckel who coined the phrase “politics is applied biology”13 and Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, reaffirmed Haeckel when he stated, “The German Nazi state is nothing but applied biology.”14 These are not idle words. The Nazi ultra-Darwinist state applied biological notions to its domestic and foreign policies and acted upon them. Alfred Rosenberg on Germany’s war on the Eastern Front that began in 1941:
At the same time this eastern territory is called upon to solve a question which is posed to the peoples of Europe; that is the Jewish question. In the east some six million Jews still live, and this question can only be solved in the biological eradication of the entire Jewry of Europe. The Jewish question is only solved for Germany when the last Jew has left German territory and for Europe when not a single Jew lives on the continent up to the Urals.15
Can it be said any clearer than that? Hitler was not a scientist, but with a photographic memory he was also not a fool. He gladly accepted as true the 19th and 20th century notions about the inherent superiority of the white or Aryan races. However, Hitler was unwilling to accept the concept that the “noble” Aryan race was descended from apes, and so he distanced himself from Haeckel and never acknowledged him. Instead Hitler drew upon ideas from members of the Thule Society and the Theosophical Society who believed that the Aryan race was descended from more highly evolved human forms that originated in the far north, perhaps in the Himalayan Mountains.16 The Nazis then sent expeditions out there looking for their hereditary roots. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, teams of Hitler’s elite guard, the SS, were sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, India, and Tibet as “archeologists” to find ancient artifacts, as well as “biologically pure” specimens of the mystical Aryan root race.17
Hitler was obsessed with the notion of racial purity and believed that by “cleansing the blood” of the German race, it might attain the mythical powers of the Aryan root race. His mentor, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, had this to say about “the sacredness of pure race.”
The individual members may have ever so different qualities…yet together they form a molded unity, and the power-or let us say rather the importance-is multiplied a thousand fold by his organic connection with countless others.18
Hitler believed that the rationale for human existence was the survival and purification of the race or Volk. Darwinists now define this as the gene pool. It’s important to note again that Nazi ideologues went far beyond the notion that the main motive for political action was the survival of the national state. For them, the national state was but a means to an end, and that end was the purification and survivability of a master race. Hitler in Mein Kampf:
The state is not an end in itself.... The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogeneous creatures.19
This is the most radical, and least discussed of Hitler’s ideas, but it is the most crucial because it dispels the currently accepted myth that the Nazis used European Jews as scapegoats in their quest for political power. If this were the only reason for Nazi rhetoric against the Jews, then certainly they could have left the Jews alone once they took control of the government in 1933. They didn’t let them be. The Nazis passed laws, closely modeled on American eugenic laws, which made it difficult for Jews to live in Germany, thereby encouraging Jewish emigration. Prior to World War II, the Nazis had no explicit plan to murder Europe’s Jews, if only because there was no practical way to execute it. Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Nazi police, thought to resettle German Jews in Madagascar after the British rejected a Nazi plan to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine.20 At that point mass murder was not yet an option and Nazi race policy was only designed to get rid of German Jews by any means possible. However, to kill all European Jews, Hitler needed a war against the country that harbored the most of them: Russia. The Holocaust then began after the savage German invasion of 1941, as roving Nazi death squads took the opportunity to murder vast numbers of Jews in the confusion of a major war. Hitler and his subordinates then organized the indiscriminate killings into die Endlosung “the Final Solution to the Jewish problem.”
What takes most people by surprise about the Holocaust is the intensity of it all. In a relatively short time, from July 1941 until the defeat of Germany in the spring of 1945, about 6 million Jews were murdered, and that’s probably a low estimate. There are two schools of thought on this. The first, the Functionalist view, claims that the Holocaust was primarily the product of a Nazified German bureaucracy that served a national industrial purpose but was not part of a larger, strictly ideological plan: This methodical organizing of the Holocaust progressed in ever more violent stages but was no different than the ordinary efficient bureaucratic workings of the German state. It was, however, directed and driven in a wholly unique biological way by enthusiastic civil servants who dehumanized the victims, and were proud to be part of a history making process and who often, on their own initiative, found the most expedient ways to kill as many Jews as possible within the shortest amount of time and with a minimum use of resources.21
This explanation didn’t sit well with historian Lucy Davidowicz who claimed the entire war was centered upon racial extinction:
Hitler had embarked on an ideological war, to achieve ideological/racial goals, but to win that war he also had to fight a conventional war.22
Davidowicz was the first of the Intentionalists, the other point of view. She saw that German political and military actions only made sense if their object was the complete annihilation of the Jews. Hitler on July 22nd 1941:
Russia has become a plague-center for mankind…For if only one state tolerates a Jewish family among it, this would provide the core-bacillus for a new decomposition (of the race).23
Here is the notion that the present Aryans were deteriorated from the fabled root race. Hitler, from Chamberlain, and echoed by the Thule Society and Theosophists, felt the Aryans had lost their primal powers through an intermixing of impure blood. This situation could only be rectified by racial purification through a nationally directed ethnic extermination program. Hence the Nazi quest to kill every last Jew; man, woman and child. For example, in October 1941 the Germans rounded up, among thousands of others, 2000 Spanish Jews in Paris in retaliation for an attack on some German soldiers. The Spanish government pressed for their release and they were willing to take these Spanish Jews off the German’s hands and ship them to Morocco, at their own considerable expense.
But Heydrich denied them:
These Jews would be too much out of the reach of the direct measures to be taken after the war regarding the fundamental solution to the Jewish question.24
What? The whole of Europe was in the midst of the most chaotic war in its history. The Nazi government was dealing with millions of prisoners of war and physically occupied with the brutal forced mass deportation of more millions of people. In the middle of all this, these 2000 Spanish Jews couldn’t be allowed to escape the Nazi grasp, even momentarily? Obviously by this time complete insanity had overwhelmed German leadership, and the outline for the absolute annihilation of European Jewry had already been philosophically decided upon. It is this driving need to murder all the Jews, to not allow even the survival of a single family, which makes one question the conventionality of the Functionalist perspective and see the situation in a wholly different light. Holocaust historian Christopher R. Browning:
The Holocaust was a watershed event in human history-the most extreme case of genocide that has yet occurred. What distinguishes it from other genocides are two factors; first the totality and scope of intent-that is the goal of killing every last Jew, man, woman and child, throughout the reach of the Nazi empire; and second, the means employed-namely the harnessing of the administrative/bureaucratic and technological capacities of the modern nation state and western scientific culture. It is precisely these elements that define the singularity of the Holocaust and distinguish the Nazi Final Solution in its ultimate form from the regime’s prior policies of population decimation, genocide and even the systematic and total mass murder of all Soviet-as opposed to all European-Jewry. It is not a trivial historical question to ask when Hitler and the Nazi regime passed the point of no return and committed themselves to a vision of murdering all the Jews of Europe through the most modern and efficient methods available to it.25
I can answer Browning’s question right now. What was an unrehearsed murderous scheme in 1941 had become the basis for national action by the beginning of 1942. It was then clear that the conventional war with the Soviet Union was not going to be a short one, and had in fact evolved into a true world war with the United States now an enemy. Hitler along with Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Alfred Rosenberg, his closest ideologues concerning race, were all convinced that when the last Jew in Europe was killed, or when a critical mass of them was eliminated; then the whole Aryan race would immediately transmutate into the next, inevitable stage of human development, the Ubermensch, or else revert to and attain the immense supernatural powers of the Aryan root race. Hitler on February 17th, 1942:
Peace can only result from a natural order…It is Jewry that always destroys this order. The more we render the Jew incapable of harming us, the more we shall protect ourselves from this danger. The Jew plays in nature the role of a catalyzing element: A people that are rid of its Jews returns spontaneously (emphasis mine) to the natural order.26
This is the reason why the total obliteration of the Jews often took precedence over the conventional war effort. Their destruction was the war aim. Hitler believed that a spontaneous Aryan species-wide transmutation would happen immediately upon the Jews’ complete annihilation. In Mein Kampf, Hitler had this to say on the coming war against Russia:
The way to do this is above all for the state not to leave the settlement of the newly acquired territories to chance, but to subject it to special norms. For this however, definite racial purity must be established.27
As outlined by his mentor Chamberlain, Hitler believed that through racial extermination, the Aryan race would, at some point in the process, assume the paranormal proportions of the Ubermensch, with every individual German’s personal power spontaneously and immediately increased a thousand fold. This event would win the war. This is why the killings continued unabated, and actually increased in intensity, even after a series of cataclysmic military defeats against the Red Army. For example, in April 1944, with the Red Army days away from the Hungarian border and over the resistance of the Hungarian government, vast resources of the Nazi state were used to round up and transport 800,000 Hungarian Jews to death camps. How else can the illogic of this action and all of it be explained? Davidowicz:
The Final Solution had top priority, even at a time of military exigencies. The need for railroads to transport Jews to their deaths often competed with the need for railroads to transport soldiers and military supplies to the front. Both received equal consideration.28
This explains the true death camps like Belsec, Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno, whose only function was to kill Jews as quickly and efficiently as possible, even when this mandate was at odds with the increasingly unsuccessful titanic military struggle against the Red Army. Historian Norman Rich:
The Holocaust was to be carried out…with an almost total disregard for political and economic consequences.29
Most Americans today cannot grasp the magnitude of the combat between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. A rough analogy would be to imagine Canada as a nation of 300 million people with advanced military doctrine waging a successful and ruthless total war against the United Sates while the American government concerned itself with deporting and murdering a racial minority.30 Can you imagine any country risking catastrophic defeat in order to imprison and exterminate an ethnic group in the midst of a situation like that? That’s why the Holocaust doesn’t make any logical sense. Only the illogic of Nazi racial mysticism can explain it. Now it’s true that by 1942, some Nazis saw an inefficiency in murdering millions of Jews and Russian prisoners of war when they could more profitably be worked to death as slave laborers in the German armaments industry. The new plan was so effective that German military production tripled from 1943 to 1944, even though the British and the Americans were bombing German cities around the clock. It was at this time that German industry relocated out of the cities to work in conjunction with the slave labor/death camps which were never bombed. So on one level, the destruction of European Jews served the purposes of those money managers and investors involved in capital production, as the profits were enormous from a labor pool that worked without pay.31
Not only Germans were involved. The American company ITT for example, owned the German aircraft firm Focke-Wulf, which produced a number of hot interceptors that were very adept at shooting down American bombers. Many of the parts for these warplanes were built with slave labor. This meant huge profits for all concerned, since the German mark was a valid currency actively traded throughout the war. After the war, ITT had the audacity to demand compensation from the American government for damages to its German holdings by the American bombers that their Focke-Wulf 190’s were shooting down. Since most Allied governments were involved in various ways, they wanted as little public discussion as possible about the exact workings of the slave labor camps. So the United States government paid damages to ITT and quietly closed the affair.32
Economics aside, the war was an opportunity to advance and manifest the Nazis' ultimate aim, which was the creation of a new and superior human species: the Ubermensch. Our version of history places the onus squarely upon Hitler—it’s another “lone gunman theory” on a massive scale. The idea that one man, who was mad, masterminded the Holocaust, neatly circumnavigates the very evident trend in European history that has been discussed throughout this book. By labeling Hitler the sole architect of the Holocaust, our civilization deftly avoids confronting the true nature of the crime. Hitler, the madman, serves as a perfect scapegoat for a society unwilling and unable to confront the links between the Malthusian/Darwinist ethos and Nazi fascism. After all, many of the fundamental elements of that political philosophy form the basis of 20th and 21st century Euro-American social orders. This is one reason why malignant doctrines like Sociobiology can take root in our culture. The Malthusian/Darwinian philosophy is a generally accepted truth, upon which other destructive ideas such as survival of the fittest and Sociobiology are justified and gain scientific credibility through their conformity to the prevailing fascist, racist ideology that is now central to Euro-American governments.
American Sociobiology originated in 1975 with the publication of Edmund Wilson’s massive 700-page volume entitled Sociobiology.33 Unbeknownst to the author and his followers, it is an extension of Nazi science. The book implies that all human behavior can be understood through, and is absolutely determined by genetics. Wilson and his disciples, who call themselves Sociobiologists, argue that the dominant life form on the Earth is the gene, even though genes are only chemicals that encode and duplicate genetic information. In a strict Darwinian sense then, the same can be said of humans; we too are chemicals and human life has no intrinsic value beyond reproduction and the ultimate survival of the gene pool. For Sociobiologists, the human form is irrelevant. Sociobiologist Richard Dawkins:
…genes swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence ...we are their survival machines.34
This idea fascinates others as well. Here is what Hitler had to say:
...events in the lives of peoples are not expressions of chance, but processes related to the self-preservation and propagation of the species and the race and subject to the laws of Nature, even if people are not conscious of the inner reason for their actions.35
In the United States and Britain today Dawkins is regarded as a genius that tells us there is no god but the deity of genetics. Hitler said the same thing. This is why the Nazi movement won’t die. The same ideas emerge again and again, from Dawkins, Wilson, and all the atheistic biologists of modern times who echo der Fuhrer’s ideas so gleefully, as if they have discovered something new.
Since most Sociobiologists hang around places like Harvard and Oxford, they don’t talk to many Nazi theoreticians. If they did, and chose to read the works of Adolph Hitler and chief Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg, they might be able to see how their discipline is essentially Nazi fascism disguised as science. In fact, the Nazis invented a scientific discipline to determine the influence of genetics upon society. They called it Gesellshaftsbiologie, translated literally as sociobiology, and also Rassenhygiene, or “racial purity.”One problem with modern academia is that professors are insulated from each other’s area of study. Biologists don’t comment upon historians and vice versa. This is why brilliant minds like Wilson and Dawkins can present their version of the Nazi ethos as if it were enlightenment. Everyone remains within the narrow confines of their own area of expertise. On the other side of the fence, historians of fascism might suspect that Sociobiology bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the racist sciences of the Nazi empire, but they generally won’t comment on it either.36
The slaughter of Jews and Gypsies served the Nazis’ purpose: They were convinced that the purification and transformation of the German race into a new species could only be accomplished through the elimination of other races deemed inferior. In this scheme, the current human is but a Darwinian transitional form. These ideas conformed to a general intellectual trend in our civilization, which accepted, as truth, an evolution of species and peoples by means of selection. Daily, at the labor camps, Nazi doctors stood ready to select those doomed to immediate death or to temporary survival for work as slave laborers. The impetus for this system came from Darwinian Theory. Implicit was the notion that all species were in a constant flux of evolution and that some species and races were more highly evolved than others. To the theorists who were convinced that the ultimate rationale for human existence was the purification and higher evolution of the race, the destruction of Jews, Gypsies, and others deemed “polluters of the blood,” or the gene pool, served a grand purpose. They sought to accelerate and give direction to the forces of natural selection. If they had at hand Wilson’s Sociobiology or Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, either could have served as guidebooks for the Nazis. Wilson and his popularizers give ultimate scientific justification for the destruction of human individuality in favor of race consciousness and a racial deterministic interpretation of history. Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, did the same thing.
The book Sociobiology, and the whole Sociobiology movement, is particularly dangerous because the authors imply that an understanding of social insect behavior will enable us to understand human behavior. Sociobiologists believe that if the gene is the dominant life form on the planet and then our relationship as humans to the gene is not essentially different from that of social insects: the termites, bees, and ants that thrive in a completely controlled environment. The individual workers, soldiers, and nurses are all genetically identical to one another. They are clones with no sexuality, no individuality, and they exist solely to perform their functions. Their ultimate goal is the efficiency and survivability of the colony, which is actually a single living entity. With the exception of the Queen, all members instantly sacrifice their lives for the survival of the group, or the “gene pool,” as the Darwinists say. Like Hitler’s views on society, the “science” of Sociobiology says human free will is non-existent, and people’s actions are best understood as unconscious reflections in accordance with the principles of gene survival. Human individuality is of minor importance—we exist only to protect and propagate our genes. In a nutshell, this is Nazi ideology. For the Nazi mentality individuality is not only irrelevant, it is dangerous.
Sociobiologists like to refer to their discipline as the final revolution in Darwinist thought. They are now referred to as ultra-Darwinists. More likely, Sociobiology is the ultimate perversion of Darwinism. Darwinism tells us that we evolved as humans from lower forms of life through mechanical means. The Sociobiologists would have us believe that our lives as humans, and all of history, are totally irrelevant to the grander purpose of gene survival. It should be emphasized here that Sociobiologists do not see the gene as having any individual consciousness, even though consciousness on the cellular and genetic level would solve many of the logical and evidential problems in Darwinist reasoning.37 Like all Darwinists, the ultra-Darwinists are committed to a mechanical understanding of biology. To them, and to mainstream Darwinists, genetic functions take place irrespective of outside environmental conditions. Genes do not think nor make decisions to determine the direction of evolution in the “host” organism, as they are chemicals. In both systems, mechanical random chance mutations are given direction by the outside forces of natural selection actingupon the individual organism by giving it a better chance to reproduce successfully: Which is Darwinist thinking in its entirety.
Ultra-Darwinists say that human behavior is understood best when we know that our ultimate purpose is the preservation of genetic material. This is a philosophical system that promotes Naturalism in its most brutal form, and reduces our understanding of human behavior to its very simplest and darkest level; all in conformity with mainstream Darwinist doctrine, which maintains that life processes are of a completely mechanical nature. Sociobiology, a reductionist argument to validate Darwinist thought, lessens all modes of human behavior to genetics; hence it is Nazi science. Mainstream Darwinists fear it because, within the context of their more mundane ideology, Sociobiology does logically follow. At first, genetics was a proof for Darwinist theory. Now, according to Sociobiology, genetics shall be the ultimate raison d'être for human existence. It is difficult for Darwinists to argue against this since their theory is so intimately bound to mechanical genetic forces. Mainstream Darwinists like Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin censor Sociobiologists because that discipline shows most profoundly how and why Darwinism is inexorably entwined with racist theory.38 But there is no getting away from it.
If our civilization continues to rely upon Darwinism as the philosophical basis for understanding the development of humanity, the influence of Sociobiology will not disappear. Could the war against Iraq be the beginning of the next Holocaust? Right now, the United States is actively engaged in bombing both Iraq and Afghanistan with radioactive munitions that will poison the land and water in the Middle East for decades, and we are now seeing birth defects, as a result.39 More Americans are willing to accept torture as an acceptable police option and we live in an often brutal prison-industrial state: For those who seek freedom from racism, militarism, and genocide, a new understanding of the way in which humanity functions is necessary. Somewhere along the line, thinkers need to recognize alternatives to scientific disciplines that protect and promote human subjugation in return for the apparent security of a highly disciplined, militaristic national police state.
It is important to note that even the most seemingly benign ultra-Darwinists are completely totalitarian in their plans for social engineering. The creation of a new and improved society has been around since Malthus and little has changed. Sociobiologist Daniel C. Dennett is director of the “Center for Cognitive Studies” at Tuft’s University. His aptly titled book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, offers the notion that religions will only be tolerated in an ultra-Darwinist state if evolution is taught. He writes:
Save the Baptists! Yes, of course, but not by all means. Not if it means tolerating the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world.40
His idea is that Darwinism is an absolute truth; therefore, anyone who disbelieves this reality must be destroyed. In effect, there is not much different between Dennett and Hitler. Dennett’s approach is the worst and lowest form of destructiveness; one that offers the rejection and annihilation of long held moral and religious convictions in the belief that that there is no inherent meaning or purpose to existence outside of Darwinian logic. Dennett:
There is no denying, at this point, that Darwin’s idea is a universal solvent, capable of cutting right to the heart of everything in sight. The question is: What does it leave behind? I have tried to show that once it passes through everything, we are left with sounder, stronger versions of our most important ideas. Some of the traditional details perish, and some of these are losses to be regretted, but good riddance to the rest of them.41
There is obviously got to be quite a bit of “cultural cleansing” involved in this agenda. The Baptists and “the rest of them” might not want to go down without a fight, and considering that America is the most heavily armed country in the history of the world, Dennett’s brand of social engineering is going to need a lot of firepower to back itself up. No problem. Dennett would find good company with modern Nazis and skinheads who envision the same sort of merciless program for America and the world. Darwinists like Dennett and Dawkins have persistently proposed a model for human development that is essentially spiritless and amoral. To them, there is no intrinsic value to human existence. They say life proceeds according to mechanical forces outside the intentions of humanity. This is a Cosmological viewpoint that says the Universe is a closed mechanical system, devoid of spiritual direction. In presenting this view of life, they have consistently overlooked, discarded, and suppressed evidence for any alternative to their own view.
Obviously we can’t blame Darwinism and the historical model it presents for all our current ethical problems. However when a civilization comes to accept as a fundamental reality a mechanical world-view that is destructive to human nature, we may logically question it. A correct assessment of the nature of life should enhance the quality of life. That’s not happening. Instead, we see a total breakdown of moral principles and common decency toward our fellow humans. The rout of Western Civilization is almost complete.
1 Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World-Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1967) p.184.
2 George J. Stein, “Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism” American Scientist, 76(1), 1988, pp. 50-58.
3 Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or, the Development of the Earth and Its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes, (Appleton, 1876), p. 321 and The Wonders of Life: A Popular Study of Biological Philosophy, (Harper, 1905) p. 390.
4 Gasman, op.cit. p.161.
5 Haeckel, (1905) p.116.
6 John Cornwell, Hitler’s Scientists: Science, War, and the Devil’s Pact, (Penguin, 2003) pp 71-90. Also, Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, (PalgraveMacMillan, 2004).
7 For example: “In the Latin malus the vulgar man can be distinguished as the dark-colored, and above all as the black-haired ("hic niger est"), as the pre-Aryan inhabitants of the Italian soil, whose complexion formed the clearest feature of distinction from the dominant blondes, namely, the Aryan conquering race: … good, noble, clean, but originally the blonde-haired man in contrast to the dark black-haired aboriginals. The Celts, if I may make a parenthetical statement, were throughout a blonde race; and it is wrong to connect, as Virchow still connects, those traces of an essentially dark-haired population which are to be seen on the more elaborate ethnographical maps of Germany, with any Celtic ancestry or with any admixture of Celtic blood: in this context, it is rather the pre-Aryan population of Germany which surges up in these districts. (The same is true substantially of the whole of Europe: in point of fact, the subject race has finally again obtained the upper hand, in complexion and the shortness of the skull, and perhaps in the intellectual and social qualities. Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more modern anarchy, and indeed that tendency to the "Commune," the most primitive form of society, which is now common to all the Socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion – and that the conquering and master race – the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically?).” Friedrich Nietzsche, On The Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, Section 5, (1887).
8 Hitler, op.cit. “Personality and Conception of the Folkish State” pp. 442-451. George L. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, (Grosset and Dunlap, New York, 1964), p.4, Das Volk as “The union of a people with a transcendental essence.”
9 Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, (Octagon Press 1978). First published in 1961, Hilberg encountered resistance and hostility from the Jewish community for his study’s concentration on the German machinery of genocide rather than the suffering of the victims. Actually preceded by Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe 1939-1945 (New York: The Beechhurst Press. 1953).
10 Stein, op.cit.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, (New York, Knopf, 1996). Goldhagen sees the entire German nation as being “of one mind” with Hitler on anti-Semitism. For a review of the literature see Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, (HarperPerennial, 1998), pp. 191-223.
12 David Berlinsky, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its scientific Pretensions, (New York, 2008), p.29.
13 Stein, op.cit.
14 Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, (Thunder’s Mouth Press, New York, 2004), p.270.
15 Christopher R. Browning, Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers, (Cambridge University Press, 2000), p.48.
16 Joscelyn Goodwin, Arktos: The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism and Nazi Survival, (Phanes, 1993), pp.13-76, Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult, (Dorset Press, New York, 1977), Jacques Biergier and Louis Pauwels, The Morning of the Magicians, (Avon, New York, 1960). Nicolas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, (NYU Press, 1993).
17 Heather Pringle, The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust, (Hyperion, New York, 2006).
18 Houston Stewart Chamberlain, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, John Lees, trans. vol. 1, (London, 1913), p. 320.
19 Hitler, op.cit. p.393.
20 In July 1937 the Palestine Royal Commission and Lord Peel declared that a plan for a Jewish homeland in Palestine was unworkable. The Nazis then began to work out a plan to resettle European Jews in either Guiana or Madagascar, which never got off the ground. See Nora Levin, The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968), p.128+ for the Palestine question, pp. 199-203 for the Madagascar plan. Also Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1985).
21 For example, Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, rev.ed. (New York, 1985). Also, Christopher R. Browning, The Path to Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution, (Cambridge, 1992).
22 Lucy Davidowicz, The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945, (New York, 1975), p.142.
23 Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1936-1945, (London, 2000), p. 470.
24 Christopher R. Browning, (2000), p. 40.
25 Christopher R. Browning, (2000), pp. 32-33.
26 Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations, Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans. (Enigma, New York, 2000), p.314.
27 Hitler, p. 405.
28 Davidowicz, op.cit., p.140.
29 Norman Rich, Hitler’s War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion, 2 vol. (Norton, 1973), vol. 2, p.11, also, vol. 1, pp.57-58.
30 The American government did deport, disenfranchise, plunder and imprison, but not murder, an 110,000 strong Japanese-American ethnic minority in 1942. However, the battle against Japan was always thousands of miles away. Fascist Japan was never really a threat and was annihilated by the United States in short but vicious naval war.
31 Albert Speer, Der Sklavenstaat [the slave state]: Meine Auseinandersetzungen mit der SS (Stuttgart: Anstalt, 1981), Inside the Third Reich, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Avon, 1971), and Infiltration, trans. Joachim Neugroschel (New York: MacMillan, 1981). Also, Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s most Powerful Corporation, (Three Rivers, New York, 2002). Information about slave labor in Nazi Germany is hard to come by. As late as 1990, the entire University of California library system has only one reference under the subject heading “slave labor, Germany,” i.e., the personal reminiscences of Gerda Weissmann Klein, All But My Life (New York: Hill and Wang, 1957). For more information one must consult the euphemistic subject heading “conscript labor” to find only the following foreign language titles: Gerd Wysocki, Zwangsarbeit in Stahlkonzern: Salzgitter und die Reichswerke Hermann Goring 1937-1945 (Braunschweig: Magni-Buchladen, 1982), Klaus-Jorg Siegfried, Das Leben der Zwangsarbeiter in Volkswagenwerk, 1939-1945 (Frankfurt/New York: Campus, 1988), Hans Pfahlmann, Fremdarbeiter und Krieggefangene in der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft, 1939-1945 (Darmstadt: Wehr und Wissen, 1968), Jochen August, et al, Herrenmensch und Arbeitsvolker: auslandische Arbeiter und Deutsche,1939-1945 (Berlin: Rotbuch, 1986), Rainer Frobe, et al, Konzentrationslager in Hannover: KZ-arbeit und Rustungsindustrie in der spatphase des zweiten Weltkrigs (Hildesheim: A. Lax, 1985).
32 Anthony Sampson, The Sovereign State of ITT (New York: Stein and Day, 1973).
33 Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1975). Wilson is one of the world's leading authorities on ants; hence his use of them as models for human behavior. He writes on ants: “The ants filled the earth because they stumbled upon a highly successful general strategy: the formation of a colony of self-sacrificial non-reproducing workers, arrayed around a fertile queen...a factory within a fortress, a splendid arrangement of soldiers, builders, nurses, and other specialists united in single minded dedication to the survival and reproduction of the queen and hence the proliferation of more ant colonies.” In short, the perfect fascist society in miniature. Also, Wilson, “Empire of the Ants,” Discover, v. 11, No. 3, March 1990, p. 50. Wilson apparently holds humanity in less esteem. He writes, for example, in Sociobiology: “human beings are absurdly easy to indoctrinate…they seek it” p. 562.
34 An idea from Richard Dawkins cited in Time magazine, “Why You Do What You Do. Sociobiology: A New Theory of Behavior,” August 1, 1977, pp. 54-63. See also Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1976). Refutations to Sociobiology can be found in Lewontin et al, op. cit., and the excellent Evolution and the Humanities by David Holbrook (Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Gower, 1987).
35 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1943), p.283.
36 Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: With a New Introduction by the Author, (Transaction, Somerset, New Jersey, 2004).
37 A.C.R. Dean and Sir Cyril Hinshelwood, Growth, Function and Regulation in Bacterial Cells, (Oxford, Clarendon, 1966). They write: It has long been recognized that the reproduction of living matter must depend, on the molecular level, on a copying mechanism analogous to some kind of template action, and the picture of this becomes progressively clearer as the chemistry of the nucleic acids and proteins develops. The molecules containing the information codes must be relatively stable or there would be no heredity at all. They are not however, unchangeable: hence the possibility of mutations. But to make mutations responsible for all changes is as arbitrary as to ignore them altogether. Cells which had no regulatory and adaptive machinery of their own would appear to be extremely inefficient and handicapped in the evolutionary competition. What is more, if the observations recorded in different sections of this book and the arguments put forward have any validity at all, then cells, with the kind of chemical make-up which they in fact have, would need to ignore some basic principles of science in order to preserve the kind of rigidity which has occasionally been demanded of them. (p.424). Also, Steele, E.J.- Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution: On the Inheritance of Acquired Characters. 2nd Edition. Revised with an author's Postscript, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1981. Steele, E.J., Lindley, R.A. & Blanden, R.V. Lamarck's Signature: How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm, Frontiers of Science. Series editor Paul Davies. (Allen & Unwin , Sydney, 1998; Addison -Wesley-Longman PerseusBooks, Reading MT, 1998).
38 Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose and Leon J. Kamin, Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature, (Pantheon, 1985). Richard Dawkins, in his review of the book, says the authors are Communists. “Sociobiology: the debate continues" New Scientist, 24 January 1985.
39 Marc W. Harold, “Uranium Wars: The Pentagon Steps Up Use of Radioactive Munitions” http://www.cursor.org/stories/uranium.htm. Larry Johnson, “Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects Blamed on U.S. Depleted Uranium” November 12, 2002 The Seattle Post Intelligence. Hassan Hafidh, “Iraq says cancer cases soar since Gulf war”Reuters Tuesday, March 7, 2:12 PM.
40 Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York, 1995), P.516. Also, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, (Penguin, 2006). Materialism as God.
41 Dennett, p. 521.