From Darwin to Nietzsche to Hitler

SemperFiDawg

Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
I found this book review thought provoking. Sounds like a good, informative book.

From Darwin to Nietzsche to Hitler

This is the first of a 2-part series on Darwin’s impact on philosophy and politics.

In today's piece, I investigate how Darwin influenced the existentialist philosopher Frederic Nietzsche, and how Darwin and Nietzsche together influenced the German dictator Adolph Hitler, whose crimes against humanity include World War II and the Holocaust.

Some experts prefer to link Darwin and Hitler directly - and that connection can certainly be made. However, I also want to discuss the role of Nietzsche – because it was Nietzsche (not Darwin) who built evolutionary theory into a moral philosophy – a philosophy that not only shaped Hitler, but also crystallized the thinking of many Europeans in the early 20th century.




“Darwin’s evolutionary theory had an uncomparable impact on European culture. After Darwin, the fact of evolution could no longer be denied, and the popular imagination, long prepared for such a theory, extended it to ever new fields.” – The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the German Ideology

One of those fields was philosophy. Frederic Nietzsche, arguably the most famous and controversial philosopher of the past 150 years, used Darwinism as the foundation of his moral system.






“'The total nature of the world,’ Nietzsche wrote in Die frohliche Wissenschaft, ‘is. . . to all eternity chaos,’ and this thought, basic to his philosophy, arose directly from his interpretation of Darwin.” - From Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy
“The scientist Charles Darwin had awakened the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche from his dogmatic slumber by the realization that, throughout organic history, no species is immutable (including humans). Pervasive change replaced eternal fixity.

"Going beyond Darwin, the great German thinker offered an interpretation of dynamic nature that considered both the philosophical implications and theological consequences of taking the factual theory of biological evolution seriously.

"Nietzsche was not previously oblivious to either geological time or the paleontological record. He accepted the most controversial ramification of Darwin’s theory: humankind had evolved from remote apelike ancestors, in a completely naturalistic way, through a process of chance and necessity (fortuitous random variations appearing in, and inevitable natural selection acting on, individuals within a changing environment).

"Even the mental faculties of human beings, including love and reason, were acquired during the course of evolutionary ascent from earlier primate forms.

"For Nietzsche, evolution is the correct explanation for organic history but it results in a disastrous picture of reality, since evolution (as he saw it) has far-reaching truths for both scientific cosmology and philosophical anthropology: God is no longer necessary to account for either the existence of this universe or the emergence of our human species from prehistoric animals. In fact, this philosopher held that Darwinian evolution led to a collapse of all traditional values, because both objective meaning and spiritual purpose had vanished from interpretations of reality (and consequently, there can be no fixed or certain morality).” -Darwin, Nietzche, and Evolution

Nietzsche believed that the “collapse of all values” caused by Darwinism was ominous for mankind…

In his book, On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, Nietzsche anguished over the consequences he foresaw:


"If the doctrines of sovereign Becoming, of the liquidity of all...species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal -- doctrines which I consider true but deadly -- are foisted on people for another generation with the frenzied instruction which is now customary, then it should take no one by surprise if people destroy themselves in egotistical trifles and misery, ossifying themselves in their self-absorption, initially falling apart and ceasing to be a people.

Then, in place of this condition, perhaps systems of individual egotism, alliances for the systematic larcenous exploitation of those non-members of the alliance and similar creations of utilitarian nastiness will step forward onto the future scene."

Nietzsche tried to stave off this condition by creating a new philosophic system.

"Nietzsche knew that the previous philosophical systems from Plato and Aristotle to Kant and Hegel were inadequate to deal with the crisis of evolution. As a result, a totally new philosophy of the world was now required." -Darwin, Nietzche, and Evolution
“In the early 1880s, when he wrote Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche arrived at a conception of human life and possibility – and with it, of value and meaning – that he believed could overcome the Schopenhauerian pessimism and nihilism that he saw as outcomes of the collapse of traditional modes of religious and philosophical interpretation. He prophesied a period of nihilism in the aftermath of their decline and fall; but this prospect deeply distressed him. He was convinced of the untenability of the 'God hypothesis,' and indeed of all the religious and metaphysical interpretations of the world and ourselves; and yet he was well aware that the very possibility of the affirmation of life was at stake, and required more than the mere abandonment of all such “lies” and “fictions”. He took the basic challenge of philosophy now to be to reinterpret life and the world along more tenable lines that would also overcome nihilism.” - Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy

Nietzche’s “basic challenge” is quite similar to Brian’s challenge in The Mustard Seed.

In Chapter 2 of The Mustard Seed, Brian describes his fear of having to choose between truth and happiness…he wishes to have both, but – given what he's been told about the world - it seems like a contradiction… thus, Brian would be sympathetic to Nietzsche’s dilemma…so would Heather Manning, for that matter…indeed, Heather – like Nietzche – wants to “reinterpret life” to “overcome nihilism.” Thus, she created of “Spiritual Rationalism.”

But Nietzche – unlike Heather Manning – was a prisoner of his Darwinian outlook.

"God is dead means that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism….

Nietzsche posited the Übermensch as a goal for humanity to set for itself in his 1883 book Thus Spoke Zarathustra…

Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. Because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.

Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed the Christian value system as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative…

Zarathustra first announces the Übermensch as a goal humanity can set for itself. All human life would be given meaning by how it advanced a new generation of human beings. The aspiration of a woman would be to give birth to an Übermensch, for example; her relationships with men would be judged by this standard.

Some commentators associate the Übermensch with a program of eugenics. This is most pronounced when considered in the aspect of a goal that humanity sets for itself. -Wikipedia

In many ways, the Ubermensch sounds innocuous enough – even admirable – but a closer reading of Nietzsche's text – reveals a more disturbing aspect to his creation.
“The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy” argues Nietzsche, is that it “accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings, to slaves, to instruments.” The “fundamental faith” of the aristocracy, then, is that “society” exists for them, for their sake, so that all the lesser types who serve them in society exist “only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to a higher state of being…”

A higher state of being, the übermensch, who cares nothing for those upon whom he steps to go up the evolutionary slope -- that is Nietzsche’s goal…

Nietzsche thought we were slipping back down the evolutionary slope to the “last man…and the only thing that could drive upwards, was a great conflict. Writing before World War I…he believed the “‘European problem’” could be solved by “the cultivation of a new caste that will rule Europe.”

To revive Europe, a great danger must present itself, thought Nietzsche, one that calls forth once again the desire to fight and conquer:

“I mean such an increase in the menace of Russia [for example] that Europe would have to resolve to become menacing, too, namely, to acquire one will by means of a new caste that would rule Europe, a long, terrible will of its own that would be able to cast its goals millennia hence -- so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its many splinter states as well as its dynastic and democratic splinter wills would come to an end. The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for the dominion of the earth -- the compulsion to large-scale politics.”

One cannot help but hear the marching boots of the Third Reich - Darwin, Nietzsche, and Hitler: Evolution of the Ubermensch
 

SemperFiDawg

Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)
Part II

Even though Hitler was the most evil man in history, we shouldn’t dismiss his evil as something that was “innate� or “irrational� – and therefore, impervious to our understanding. The fact is: Hitler was a man who took ideas seriously. Throughout his life, Hitler was informed and motivated by several powerful ideas…thus, it is incumbent upon us to examine those ideas with a critical pair of eyes.

However, before we begin, let’s note a simple fact: Hitler was NOT a life-long racist…there is no record of Hitler revealing any kind of racism until he moved to Vienna - a place where he immersed himself in a swamp of “scientific� and “genocidal� anti-Semitism.

"Hitler said he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna, which had a large Jewish community, including Orthodox Jews who had fled the pogroms in Russia…Vienna at that time was a hotbed of traditional religious prejudice and 19th century racism. Hitler may have been influenced by the writings of the ideologist and anti-Semite Lanz von Liebenfels and polemics from politicians such as Karl Lueger, founder of the Christian Social Party and Mayor of Vienna, the composer Richard Wagner, and Georg Ritter von Schönerer, leader of the pan-Germanic Away from Rome! movement." – Wikipedia

This “new� brand of anti-Semitism was vastly different from traditional Christian anti-Semitism which criticized Jews for not accepting Jesus, and at least gave Jews the possibility of acceptance through conversion…What made this new brand of anti-Semetism different? And what motivated it?

These pro-German and anti-Semitic works – which greatly influenced Hitler and the National Socialist movement – relied on 2 philosophers: Darwin and Nietzche…from Darwin came the ideas that 1) God doesn’t exist, and 2) relentless competition between species (known as “survival of the fittest�) is the means of progress…from Nietzche came 2 additional ideas which were consistent with Darwin’s…3) morality is a sham used by the weak to bring down the strong, and 4) the only true, legitimate, leaders in society are those with “the will to power� and are “beyond good and evil.�

For most scholars, the link between Hitler and Nietzsche is accepted (although mostly ignored). What is NOT accepted (and therefore, much more controversial) is the link between Hitler and Darwin. Not only is it controversial, it is also very relevant. After all, Darwin (unlike Nietzche) is universally taught in high schools, and Darwinism proclaims itself as the sole arbitrator of truth – not just biological truth, but all Truth. This makes the link between Hitler and Darwin especially powerful and uncomfortable.

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.�

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.� What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.�

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.�

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism� gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view...’

The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing…

Like Hitler, Charles Darwin saw natural processes as setting moral standards. It’s all in The Descent of Man...In [that] book, he compared the evolution of people to the breeding of animals and drew a chilling conclusion regarding what he saw as the undesirable consequences of allowing the unfit to breed:

“The weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed…�

Most disturbing of all, in The Descent of Man, Darwin prophesied: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races...�

You only have to read Mein Kampf to see the indebtedness…Hitler gives a Darwinian-style analysis of how the struggle for existence mandates a defense of the Aryan race.

[Hitler] invokes the “principles of Nature’s rule,� “her whole work of higher breeding,� in which “struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.� He warns against racial decline from the mixing of blood — his own spin on Darwinism — arguing that the preservation of a “creative race� is “bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right of victory of the best and stronger in this world.� He calls for “a more noble evolution.�

Other Nazi propaganda followed his lead. In a 1937 German propaganda film, Victims of the Past, the audience is shown a retarded person as the narrator intones, “In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply.� - David Klinghoffer, Don't Doubt It

The key chapter in Mein Kampf is Chapter XI, “Nation and Race,� where Hitler discusses the imperative to defend the Aryan race from the Jewish menace.

His argument is couched from the start in transparently Darwinian terms. He writes:

"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development."

He praises “the iron logic of Nature� with its “right to victory of the best and stronger in this world.�
But what if the strong (Aryans) choose not to dominate and exterminate the weak (Jews)? This would be against Nature, whose “whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow.� And so on and on.

As Discovery Institute fellow Dr. Richard Weikart explains in his outstanding book From Darwin to Hitler, Hitler absorbed his twisted Darwinian worldview from the poisonous popular Viennese press, which was full of the stuff. He calculated that an appeal to the Germans to make war on the Jews would be most likely to succeed if framed in scientific-sounding terms.

Hitler could have couched his argument here any way he wanted. He chose the language of Darwinism. Mein Kampf was hugely popular and influential, selling six million copies by 1940. In The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945, Lucy Dawidowicz seeks to explain what motivated the German people either to do their evil work in the racial struggle or to stand by and passively accept the results of the racial war. Her answer: 'They were mesmerized by [Hitler's] voice, and they responded to his message.'" - David Klinghoffer, Opening Up Mein Kampf





The bottom line: The road from Darwin to Nietzche to Hitler was a straight, logical line…Darwin’s ideas about the “truth� of nature led to Nietzsche’s idea about the “truth� of morality led to Hitler’s idea about the “truth� of Aryan superiority and the justice of genocide…was all of this inevitable?...of course not…but it was very likely to happen…there is a strange, perverse logic from Darwin to Nietzche to Hitler can’t be opossed on materialists ground…which makes the truth of materialism itself suspect…and the quest for an alternative to materialism urgent.

However, I need to add one point: Clearly, while Darwin is just as popular today as he was 100 years ago, Hitler and Nietzsche have become very UNpopular – and not just among the general population, but among the Darwinists themselves…how have the Darwinists managed to separate themselves so successfully from their dark past?...what are their new philosophic ideas that animate our culture?...and what are the long-term implications of those new ideas?...I’ll examine those questions in my next article, “From Rorty to Obama to Beyond.�

But in the meantime, take a look at how Darwinism inspired Communism – that other materialist scourge of the 20th Century…

Lenin:


On his desk Lenin had a statue displayed in a “prominent position for all to see...its vivid presence dominated the room.� What kind of statue?

It was a “bronze statue of an ape gazing at an oversized human skull.� This symbolized the evolutionary core of Lenin’s atheism.

Stalin:


Following Lenin, Stalin ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for thirty years. From Landmarks in the Life of Stalin we read:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.�

G. Gludjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s relates: “I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God....’�

Gludjidze reported: “I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. How can you say such things, Soso?� he asked Stalin, who replied:

“I will lend you a book to read: it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.�

“What book is that?� his friend inquired.

“Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.�

Mao:


Being a Marxist and an atheist and a firm believer in evolutionism himself, Mao mandated that the reading material used in this early day “Great Leap Forward� in literacy would be the writings of Charles Darwin and other materials supportive of the evolution paradigm.

In a collection of his 1958 speeches published by the Red Guard entitled "Long Live Mao Zedong Thought", Mao praised 26 men he considered to have demonstrated a fearless intellectual spirit in advancing human knowledge. The only three westerners he saw fit to name were Marx, Lenin and Darwin.

Marx:



Indeed, Karl Marx - the father of Communism - was a passionate Darwinist.

When Darwin’s book came out in 1859, Marx read it and exulted: "Darwin’s book is VERY important and serves me as a basis for the class struggle in history....Darwin suits my purpose."

Later, when Marx finished writing his three volume tome, Das Kapital, he dedicated his work to Darwin.

Despite what his supporters say, Marx was a hate-filled man who, from his college days throughout his life, was bent on inflicting as much grief and woe on the world as he possibly could. Check some of his own words and draw your own conclusion:

“I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.� (From a poem).

Another poem: “The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The Prince of Darkness [Satan] sold it to me.�

From a drama Marx wrote and called “Oulanem� (an inversion and anagram for Emmanuel, a Biblical name for Jesus), is loaded with devilish stuff, including these lines:

“You will sink down and I shall follow laughing, whispering in your ears, ‘Descend, come with me friend.�

The Drama ends:

“If there is something which devours, I’ll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins - the world which bulks between me and the abyss, I will smash it to pieces with my enduring curses. I’ll throw my arms around its harsh reality. Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away.�

Only eighteen years old when he penned those sweet uplifting thoughts, Marx found the destructive instrument he was looking for in Socialism and its most radical expression, Communism.

As the author of this compilation points out…

“[Not] all evolutionists are potential mass murderers, of course. However, it does strongly suggest that a passionate belief that man is just another evolved animal is a conviction that is fully capable of creating a mind-set which cheapens life and excuses whatever behavior and policies individuals may pursue, no matter how hurtful and even deadly that behavior and those policies may be to millions of other people.�
 

SemperFiDawg

Political Forum Arbiter of Truth (And Lies Too)

660griz

Senior Member
Seems the book may prove that there is no limit at what the human being can twist to serve their own purpose.

Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration in Mein Kampf:


"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
 

centerpin fan

Senior Member
Seems the book may prove that there is no limit at what the human being can twist to serve their own purpose.

Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration in Mein Kampf:


"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Actions speak louder than words.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
http://xcomplex.com/book-reviews/from-darwin-to-hitler-goes-nowhere/

“From Darwin to Hitler” Goes Nowhere

April 16, 2011 in Book Reviews



Richard Weikart is a professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus. His book under review here, “From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany” is available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other book sellers.

This book attempts, as its title states, to show that a belief in Charles Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection was the root cause of the Holocaust and the Nazi eugenics program of the mid-twentieth century. Professor Weikart spends a great deal of his book examining the work of German naturalist Ernst Haeckel and uses Haeckel as his primary link between the Nazi agenda and the work of Charles Darwin.

In the opening pages of this book, Professor Weikart thanks a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute for funding his research. What is ironic is that the Discovery Institute itself was funded with support from holocaust revisionist R. John Rushdoony‘s foundation. A better title for this book may have been: “From Denying the Holocaust to Exploiting Misconceptions about the Holocaust.”

Weikart’s foil throughout the book is primarily the work and influence of a German Lamarckian naturalist named Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was a contemporary and rival of Charles Darwin. Darwin himself devoted much of his “Origin of Species” to debunking Lamarckism, which was then the prevailing view of evolution. Somehow Weikart misses this simple fact and the plain distinction between the two competing outlooks in his research.

I was also left amazed that a book which claims to be examining the influence of Darwinism on German science and culture in the early 20th Century overlooks every single German Darwinist of that time period. There is no mention of the most influential Darwinians such as Janensch, Rensch, Gross and Stromer. And, the most influential Darwinist since Darwin himself, Ernst Mayr, doesn’t get a mention either.

Perhaps the single most important Darwinist of the Twentieth Century was Ernst Mayr. Mayr lived from 1904 – 2005. His most important work (Systematics and the Origin of Species, From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-86250-3) was published in 1942 at the height of Nazi power. Yet Mayr was persecuted by the Nazis and was employed by a Jewish patron (the Rothchilds). Ernst Stromer suffered the loss of his entire collection of dinosaur fossils to confiscation by the Nazis and ultimately saw their destruction in an Allied bombing raid. Werner Janensch was removed from his position as curator of the Berlin Museum of Natural History because he consorted with and protected Jewish colleagues. Bernard Rensch (who formulated “Rensch’s Rule” for sexual dimorphism) lost both his sons to forced impressment in the Wehrmacht allegedly because he too had suspicious ties to “Jews.” Later he would also be forced into service despite advanced age and a crippling disability.

Did Weikart deliberately leave out these names because they were all persecuted by the Nazis for holding such a “foreign ideology” as Darwinism and for “consorting” with Jewish colleagues? Or perhaps, did Weikart’s holocaust denying funders cause him to ignore the important Jewish contributions to Darwinism on the Continent, like Baron von Rothschild’s own funding and financial support to Darwinian research?

Another troubling aspect of “From Darwin to Hitler” is that it ignores the centuries old ethnic rivalry that existed between the German peoples and their Eastern neighbors which included the bulk of European Jewry. Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius, the Lindsay Young Professor of History at the University of Tennessee, has published a book entitled “The German Myth of the East.” In it, Professor Liulevicius demonstrates the centuries old conception held by so many Germans of “the East” (Ostland) being a place of “dirt and chaos” while also paradoxically holding a fascination for them as a place for future German colonization and development. Liulevicius then shows how a group of influential German thinkers (Geopoliticians) would later translate this ethnic desire for expansion into modern terms which they deemed more compatible with their 19th and 20th century milieu. In other words, as Liulevicius demonstrates, the racism and the desire to remove and replace the ethnicities already present in the East predates the publication of “On the Origin Of Species” by many, many centuries. In fact, much of this can be traced directly back to Charlemagne’s wars to “Christianize” and “civilize” the Slavs and other ethnic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe.

All in all, “From Darwin to Hitler” is a disappointing read for anyone who is even the least bit familiar with the history and development of Darwinism or the history of Germany for that matter. Weikart repeatedly misses his mark and displays a level of ignorance that will consign this whole escapade to the same dusty shelves as the other failures of the Discovery Institute such as Ben Stein’s lamentable and grossly inaccurate film. Professor Weikart’s apparent obsession with the writings of the German naturalist Ernst Haeckel – an advocate of Lamarckism – is perhaps the primary example of how far this work strays from Darwin and his theory of Natural Selection. Almost all of the book’s treatment of “biology” attempts to trace Haeckel’s views and his influence on German popular opinion. Yet, Haeckel was a rival to Darwin and promoted rival theories. This surprising gloss on the part of Professor Weikart is actually quite stunning as you read his book.

Lessons to be learned: When you’re going to be using the Jewish Holocaust to bash another’s ideas, don’t take your funding from holocaust revisionists. This will only add to your trail of confusion.

Here is a video of Professor Weikart’s presentation following the publication of “From Darwin to Hitler.” Notice that in the opening he appears to distance himself from the title of the book. He then goes on in his presentation to affirm the premise summarized by the title. Such waffling is typical of someone who is unprepared to be held accountable for their published ideas. Can we challenge Professor Weikart on the issues raised by the title of his book? No. He has distanced himself from that title and asks that we not pin it upon him. Can we then reject the idea expressed by the title out of hand? No, because Professor Weikart is promoting those ideas and wants us to embrace them as well. The perfect waffle.
 

centerpin fan

Senior Member
Based on...words. Right?

God had no problem killing Tens of MILLIONS. Tell us more about actions....

This "Hitler was a Christian" idea that continually shows up here is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum. As much as you guys like to like to poke fun at talking snakes and talking donkeys, I assure that "Hitler was a Christian" is no less amusing to us.
 

660griz

Senior Member
This "Hitler was a Christian" idea that continually shows up here is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum. As much as you guys like to like to poke fun at talking snakes and talking donkeys, I assure that "Hitler was a Christian" is no less amusing to us.

I don't believe I said anything about Hitler being a Christian.
I posted. "Based on...words. Right?"
And, I posted Hitler's words. Didn't see anything about Christians

That being said, Hitler himself, characterized himself as being a Christian.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Why does that amuse you?
 

centerpin fan

Senior Member
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." - President Barack Obama


"I am not going to be the Alabama coach." - Nick Saban, 12/21/06
 

660griz

Senior Member
"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." - President Barack Obama


"I am not going to be the Alabama coach." - Nick Saban, 12/21/06

So liars and sinners can't be Christians? That would surely narrow it down. Hitler could be in heaven right now. "Forgive me for all those murders father." Just like Dahmer.

Really not sure where you are going/trying to go with this. Hitler THOUGHT he was a Christian going by Christian values. You cannot deny the Christian - Judaism relationship that went on for 1000s of years.

The early history of the church was such that anti-Jewish themes were not only incorporated into the new theology of Christianity; it was an absolute necessity that ``anti-Judaism be core to the contouring of Christian theology, and it was. If this were the case, then this anti-Judaism would be impossible to root out. And it was. Even church leaders who were sympathetic to Jews and Judaism, and who battled racism, could not overcome the inertia of 2,000 years of theological anti-Judaism deeply inculcated in priesthood, practice and publications.
 

660griz

Senior Member
I think we(some) just want facts.
Why did Hitler kill all the jews?
If there was clear evidence he twisted Darwinisn into it, then o.k. Is that a sign that Darwinism is evil. No, Hitler is evil.
If there is clear evidence he did it base on Christian ideal, then o.k. Is that a sign Christianity is evil. No, Hitler is evil.

The problem is when Hitler is used to attack Darwinism(like the original post) or Christianity, like was thought to be happening but, really it is not. Facts are facts.

All we have to go on is Hitler's words and actions.

"The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were".... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions."

-Adolf Hitler, 26 April 1933
 

centerpin fan

Senior Member
So liars and sinners can't be Christians? That would surely narrow it down. Hitler could be in heaven right now. "Forgive me for all those murders father." Just like Dahmer.

Really not sure where you are going/trying to go with this. Hitler THOUGHT he was a Christian going by Christian values. You cannot deny the Christian - Judaism relationship that went on for 1000s of years.

The early history of the church was such that anti-Jewish themes were not only incorporated into the new theology of Christianity; it was an absolute necessity that ``anti-Judaism be core to the contouring of Christian theology, and it was. If this were the case, then this anti-Judaism would be impossible to root out. And it was. Even church leaders who were sympathetic to Jews and Judaism, and who battled racism, could not overcome the inertia of 2,000 years of theological anti-Judaism deeply inculcated in priesthood, practice and publications.


20100622120351_auto.gif
 

660griz

Senior Member
That is one sloth that is in heaven.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
This "Hitler was a Christian" idea that continually shows up here is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum. As much as you guys like to like to poke fun at talking snakes and talking donkeys, I assure that "Hitler was a Christian" is no less amusing to us.

The fact that most "Christians" claim they are a Christian is the amusing part. Each and every one of you point the finger at the next while overlooking your own actions.
Being a Christian is only about believing in Christ. If it had anything to do with the actions of individuals not a single one of you would qualify. Not One.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
The story of the person in power separating those out he didn't approve of and sending them off to a place of horror and torture so that he would then only be surrounded by those he did approve of has been around since long before Hitler.
 
Top