Sunday, October 8, 2017

"Race as a Biological Concept," by J.P. Rushton

Rushton prefaced his release of the article below with this statement:
I am issuing this statement to a wide range of media and interested parties in response to the recent Knight-Ridder article out of Washington which argues that race has no validity as a biological concept when applied to man (see *Genetic Basis For Race Just Skin Deep* : October 13, 1996).
I refuted this widely disseminated statement locally (including an appearance on the John Oakley TV talk-show, October 24, 1996 and in a letter appearance on the John Oakley TV talk-show, October 24, 1996 and in a letter to The Toronto Star, October 28, 1996). However, the never-ending disinformation campaign attempting to deconstruct race as a biological concept, needs to be countered by a careful examination of what we do know about human variation. 
I urge academicians, journalists, and editorialists to review the evidence presented here before offering any further comment on this controversial topic. If nothing else, those in academia and the media need to be aware that major efforts are being made throughout Europe to stifle free discussion of race by tightening so-called "hate-laws" and in North America by restricting the way research can be conducted (and funded) and that implementation of these policies threatens the general principles of free speech, open inquiry, and academic freedom and tenure.
Discussion of "race" shows little sign of diminishing, despite efforts to deconstruct the concept. Deconstructing the concept of race not only conflicts with people's tendency to classify and build family histories according to common descent but also ignores the work of biologists studying non-human species. Ever since 1758, when the Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus created the classification system still used in biology today, most zoologists have recognized at least the four human subdivisions Linnaeus delineated: Asians, American Indians, Europeans, and Africans. (Technically, some would group the first two Linnaean subdivisions together, thus yielding three major races, often termed, mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids.) Such high-level classifications do not rule out making finer, hierarchical subdivisions within these major groups.

A race is what zoologists term a variety or subdivision of a species. Each race (or variety) is characterized by a more or less distinct combination of inherited morphological, behavioral, physiological traits. In flowers, insects, and non-human mammals, zoologists consistently and routinely study the process of racial differentiation. Formation of a new race takes place when, over several generations, individuals in one group reproduce more frequently among themselves than they do with [others]. This process is most apparent when the individuals live in diverse geographic areas and therefore evolve unique, recognizable adaptations (such as skin color) that are advantageous in their specific environments. But differentiation also occurs under less extreme circumstances. Zoologists and evolutionists refer to such differentiated populations as races. (Within the formal taxonomic nomenclature of biology, races are termed subspecies). Zoologists have identified two or more races (subspecies) in most mammalian species.

Unless one is a religious fundamentalist and believes that man was created in the image and likeness of God, it is foolish to believe that human beings are exempt from biological classification and the laws of evolution that apply to all other life forms. Of course, individuals vary greatly within each racial group and should be treated as such. Nonetheless, much has been learned by studying the statistical differences between the various human races. In my book Race, Evolution, and Behavior (1995, Transaction Publishers), as well as in other recent writings (e.g., the February 1996 issue of Current Anthropology), I review the behavioral, morphological, and physiological differences between the three major human races -- mongoloid, caucasoid, and negroid -- and show that these statistical differences are constant across both historical time, national boundaries, and political and economic systems.

Here I will briefly summarize the findings. Asians and Africans consistently aggregate at opposite ends, with Europeans intermediate, on a continuum that includes over 60 anatomical and social variables. These 60 variables include brain size, intelligence, sexual habits, fertility, personality, temperament, speed of maturation, and longevity. If race were an arbitrary, socially-constructed concept, devoid of all biological meaning, such consistent relationships would not exist.

Those objecting to the concept of race argue that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and subjective. Although critics are correct to point out that the variation within each race is extremely large, that there is disagreement as to exactly how many races there are, and that there is a blurring of category edges because of admixture, they are in error when they claim that classifications are arbitrary. For example, race-critic Jared Diamond, in the 1994 issue of Discover magazine, surveyed half a dozen geographically variable traits and formed very different races depending on which traits he picked. Classifying people using anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint patterns, or skin color resulted in the Swedes of Europe being placed in the same category as the Xhosa and Fulani of Africa, the Ainu of Japan, and the Italians of Europe.

Jared Diamond's classifications, however, are arbitrary and nonsensical because they have little, if any, predictive value beyond the initial classification. More significantly, they confuse the scientific meaning of race, that is, a recognizable ... geographic population. In everyday life, as in evolutionary biology, a "negroid" is someone whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa, and likewise for a "caucasoid" and a "mongoloid." This definition fits with the temporal bounds offered by the best current theory of human evolution. Thus, since Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago, branched off into Europe about 110,000 years ago, and into Asia 70,000 years after that, a "negroid" is someone whose ancestors, between 4,000 and (to accommodate recent migrations) 20 generations ago, were born in sub-Saharan Africa -- and likewise, for a caucasoid and a mongoloid.

Social definitions -- that is, self-identification and other-identification actually accord quite well with the physical evidence. Mongoloids, caucasoids, and negroids can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in skeletal morphology, hair and facial features, as well by blood groups and DNA fingerprints. Forensic anthropologists regularly classify skeletons of decomposed bodies by race. For example, narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets identify a caucasoid person, distinct cheekbones characterize a mongoloid person, and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a negroid person. In certain criminal investigations, the race of a perpetrator can be identified from blood, semen, and hair samples. To deny the predictive validity of race at this level is nonscientific and unrealistic.

The mean pattern of educational and economic achievement within multi-racial countries such as Canada and the United States has increasingly been found to prove valid internationally. For example, it is not often recognized, perhaps because it contradicts the politically correct theories that intelligence is purely a matter of socio-economic conditions, that Asian-Americans and Asians in Asia often outscore white Americans and white Europeans on IQ tests and on tests of educational achievement (even though the tests were largely developed by Europeans and white Americans for use in a Euro-American culture). Blacks in the Caribbean, Britain, Canada and sub-Saharan Africa as well as in the United States have low IQ scores relative to whites. For violent crime, analyses of INTERPOL data from the 1980s and 1990s show the same international distribution that occurs within the United States (that is, Asians least, Europeans in the middle, and Africans most). A similar racial gradient is found both within the U.S. and globally for measures of sexual activity and frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS (based on World Health Organization data).

One neurohormonal contributor to crime and reproductive behavior is testosterone. Studies show that black college students and military veterans have 3% to 19% more testosterone than their white counterparts. The Japanese have even lower amounts than whites. Sex hormones are circulated throughout the body and are known to activate many brain-behavior systems involving aggression and reproduction. For example, around the world the rate of dizygotic twinning per 1,000 births (caused by a double ovulation), is less than 4 among Asians, 8 among Europeans, and 16 or greater among Africans. The differences in multiple birthing are known to be heritable through the race of the mother regardless of the race of the father, as found in Asian/European matings in Hawaii and European/African matings in Brazil.

Publication of The Bell Curve brought widespread public attention to the research on race that has been accumulating over the last 30 years in technical and specialist journals that demonstrably challenges each and every article of the dogma of biological egalitarianism. Startling, and alarming to many, is the conclusion that follows from these data that if all people were treated the same, most average race differences would not disappear. With egalitarianism under siege, there has been a major effort to get the "race genie" back in the bottle, to squeeze the previously tabooed toothpaste back into the tube, to suppress or deny the latest scientific evidence on race, genetics, and behavior.

Regardless of the extent to which the media promote "politically correct," but scientifically wrong, resolutions from professional societies such as the American Anthropological Association, facts remain facts and require appropriate scientific, not political, explanation. On average, the Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese are more similar to each other and are different from Australians, Israelis and the Swedes, who in turn are similar to each other and are different from Nigerians, Kenyans, and Jamaicans. None of this should be construed as meaning that environmental factors play no part individual development. But with each passing year and each new study, the evidence for the genetic contribution to individual and group differences becomes more firmly established than ever.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

A Remark on Hitler from David Lloyd George in 1936

"I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country."

- David Lloyd George, from the Daily Express, on 17 September 1936

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

'Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life': Brief Excerpts and Remarks on Scale and Scope

Binding and Hoche's book was a seminal work. It placed the question of life and death in a scientific, legal, and political contexts. But the concept of 'life unworthy of life' is normative and is broader and deeper than the medical context to which they applied it. The NSDAP and SS expanded it beyond Binding and Hoche's focus. This increased scale and scope was legitimate, and it retains warrant and relevance today.

Binding and Hoche's book, Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, was published in 1920 following Binding's death. It examines the theoretical, legal, and medical contexts of the question: "When is the state justifiably engaged in the ending of life?" Their answer: When it involves a life that is not worth living. An unworthy life, in their view, is one that burdens both the individual and his community: It involves a forfeiture or a loss of a will to live that is combined with a grave medical affliction or condition, along with costs it imposes on family and society. In such situations, ending life is laudible. To this end, the state must act to render the desirable possible and feasible.

Binding and Hoche restricted the concept of 'life unworthy of life' to medical contexts, and in particular, to cases of terminal illness. They saw the consequences of World War I in society, particularly the fatally crippled and terminally ill. Their book proposes cautious and systematic medical review of such cases, concluding that the state was weighted with the responsibility of carrying out killing when physicians decided it was necessary. The idea of 'life unworthy of life' was as much informed by the desired weal and quality of life in society as it was of the individual whose life would remain under review: They proposed extensive and exacting legal, scientific and psychiatric study and evaluation.

The book was published before Hitler became Reich Chancellor and NSDAP had formed a government. Both the NSDAP and Schutzstaffel, the SS, also made use of the concept of 'life unworthy of life.' But the NSDAP and SS both understood that the concept was normative, political, and prescientific. It was normative, in that it expressed a value. It was political, in that it referred to how a community ought to view certain of its members. But it was also prescientific. It existed before science formed an integrated institution. Binding and Hoche's use of it was legitimate, but for these reasons, so was the use of the concept by the NSDAP and SS, who expanded it to racial, ethnic, and other contexts.

Despite this, since World War II Anglo-American scholars have ridiculed the notion: 1) They have charged that Binding and Hoche themselves embraced a flawed notion, and injuriously extended it to medicine, and 2) the NSDAP and SS took an already flawed notion and then expanded it to other contexts.[1] But the reality is that every society has some basis for weighing the value of life. In the USSR, 20 million peopled died as a result of Stalinist purges, collectivization, and Gulag confinement. In the US, a chaotic democratic spectacle and blind market coalesce in abortion, tolerance of minority violence, promotion of ill health, poor diet, and abhorrent insurance practices.

The only real esteem that can be given to life arises from a regard for death.

The contemporary West has never been so openly contemptuous of itself, as it has been in the last few decades. It has combined an encouragement of the proliferation of the weak, the unfit, and the mentally and physically infirm with suicidal with a suicidal immigration and demographic policy. It not only permits the persistence of the mentally disturbed, retarded, and inept, but enshrines and elevates them. Normal, healthy, potentially productive youths are asked to share their social space with people of foreign descent as well as the least fit of their own kind. Obesity and gender ambivalence are openly promoted. The natural order is reversed, the most fit punished:
There was a time, now considered barbaric, in which eliminating those who were born unfit for life, or who later became so, was taken for granted.
That line comes at the end of Binding and Hoche's work.

The expansion of the concept by the NSDAP and SS was predicated on the fundamental racial and ethnic interests of the German people and of Europe taken as a whole. Peoples rise and fall, some suffering quiet retreat into diminution, countless dying for causes that remain invisible to them through death. The political expansion of the notion of unworthy life is entitled on the grounds that life and death should not be left to empty and hollow ideological abstractions or the fluctuations of a blind market, but from the vital, core interests of a given folk and its underlying racial foundations. These precede even human societies, and its natural imprints are evident from the distant past.


Source: K. Binding und A. Hoche, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens (Leipzig, Felix Meiner Verlag: 1920). German here. [1]

Dr. Karl Binding (1841-1920)

Dr. Alfred Hoche (1865-1943)

... Should permissible taking of life be restricted, except in emergency situations, to an individual's act of suicide as it is in current law, or should it be legally extended to the killing of fellow human beings, and under what conditions?

To what extent, then, is killing humans allowed today, again apart from emergency situations, and what is to be understood by this? Recognizing a right to kill would be the opposite of "allowing."

[...]

Are there human lives which have so completely lost the attribute of legal status that their continuation has permanently lost all value, both for the bearer of that life and for society?

Merely asking this question is enough to raise an uneasy feeling in anyone who is accustomed to assessing the value of individual life for the bearer and for the social whole. It hurts him to see how we handle the most valuable of lives (filled with and sustained by the strongest will to live and the greatest vital power), and how much labor, power, patience, and capital investment we squander (often totally uselessly) just to preserve lives not worth living - until nature, often pitilessly late, removes the last possibility of their continuation.

Reflect simultaneously on a battlefield strewn with thousands of dead youths, or a mine in which methane gas has trapped hundreds of energetic workers; compare this with our mental hospitals, with their caring for their living inmates. One will be deeply shaken by the strident clash of the sacrifice of the finest flower of humanity in its full measure on the one side, and by the meticulous care shown to existences which are not just absolutely worthless, but even of negative value on the other.

It is impossible to doubt that there are living people to whom death would be a release, and whose death would simultaneously free society and the state from carrying a burden which serves no conceivable purpose, except that of providing an examples of the greatest unselfishness. And because there actually are human lives, in whose preservation no rational being could ever again take any interest, the legal order is now confronted by the fateful question: Is it our duty actively to advocate for this life's asocial continuance (particularly by the fullest application of criminal law) or to permit its destruction under specific conditions? One could also state the question legislatively, like this: Does the energetic preservation of such life deserve preference, as an example of the general unassailability of life? Or does permitting its termination, which frees everyone involved, seem the lesser evil?

[...]

But I cannot find the least reason - legally, socially, ethically, or religiously - not to permit those requested to do so to kill such hopeless cases who urgently demand death.

[...]

Despite everything, this new question allows only a very slowly unfolding process of change and adjustment. The consciousness of the meaninglessness of merely individual existence when compared with the interests of the whole; the feeling of one's absolute obligation for integrating every available power and discarding all useless tasks; the feeling of being a totally responsible participate in a difficult and painful undertaking: these must all become part of the common understanding to a much greater extent than today before any of the ideas presented here can receive complete recognition.

[...]

... Goethe originated the model for how important human questions evolve. He saw them as a spiral. The core of this model is the fact that at regular intervals a spiral line rising in a particular direction perpetually returns to the same position relative to the axis crossing it but each time a step higher.

Eventually, this image will be apparent even in connection with the cultural question we have been discussing. There was a time, now considered barbaric, in which eliminating those who were born unfit for life, or who later became so, was taken for granted. Then came the phrase, continuing into the present, in which, finally, preserving every existence, no matter how worthless, stood as the highest moral value. A new age will arrive - operating with a higher morality and with great sacrifice - which will actually give up the requirements of an exaggerated humanism and overvaluation of mere existence. ...

--------------------
[1] A good example is "Binding and Hoche's 'Life Unworthy of Life': An Historical Analysis," by Howard Brody and M. Wayne Cooper. They regurgitate the Allied claim that the NSDAP and SS pirated Hoche and Binding's already pseudo-scientific concept.
[2] The English excerpts that I include in this post are cross-referenced with the translation of the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent & Disabled, published in Issues in Law & Medicine, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1992: 231-265.

Friday, June 2, 2017

When Youth Were Told the Truth: Excerpts from a Middle School Biology Textbook in the German Reich

The excerpts below are taken from a middle school biology textbook for German girls.

Source: Marie Harm and Hermann Wiehle, Lebenskunde für Mittelschulen. Fünfter Teil. Klasse 5 für Mädchen (Halle: Hermann Schroedel Verlag, 1942), pp. 168-173.

The Laws of Nature and Humanity

I.

We have established that all creatures, plants as well as animals, are in a constant battle for survival. Plants crowd into the area they need to grow. Every plant that fails to secure enough room and light must necessarily die. Every animal that does not secure sufficient territory and guard it against other predators, or lacks the necessary strength and speed or caution and cleverness will fall prey to its enemies. The army of plant eaters threatens the plant kingdom. Plant eaters are prey for carnivores. The battle for existence is hard and unforgiving, but is the only way to maintain life. This struggle eliminates everything that is unfit for life, and selects everything that is able to survive.

We have seen that the laws of nature are built on a struggle for survival. The slow-moving herbivores (e.g., cows) have weapons, the speedier ones (e.g., horses or rabbits) use that speed to escape predators. The rabbit instinctively conceals the traces that lead to his den. As a prey, his eyes are to the sides of his head, while a carnivore’s are to the front. The hedgehog has his needles, toads and salamanders have poisonous skins. Predators have keen senses, a powerful spring, sharp teeth, and claws. If we further consider protective coloring, camouflage, and other coloring (above all with young animals), and that each animal has different gifts in seeing and smelling that are appropriate for its needs, we can see everywhere that living creatures are well prepared for the battle for survival. (Compare offensive and defensive characteristics of the various animals!) Animals at our latitude have many characteristics that enable them to survive winter: storing food, hibernation, migration, winter pelts... The same is true for plants. Poisons of various types, irritants, thorns, and needles protect them from herbivores. (Remember the earlier examples!) Seeds that can survive the winter, roots, storage ability (Examples!), enable plants to survive the cold months. By ground leaves, growing high, pyramidal structure, leaf mosaics, climbing, winding, spreading (the dog rose), plants seek the necessary light for their leaves.

All the various habitats are heavily populated; every creature has to fight for its survival and wants to be a winner in this battle. This is summarized in the principle: Each individual wants to maintain its existence in the struggle for survival (self preservation instinct, fighting will, individuality).

Mankind, too, is subject to these natural laws, and has won its dominant position through struggle. This is obvious when we consider the prehistoric hunting age. People then had both to secure their own prey, and protect themselves against the larger carnivores. This old form of the struggle for existence does not, of course, exist in civilized nations any longer. Early man lived in hordes, we live in an ethnic state. The state takes responsibility for territory and much, much more. Nonetheless, each must win his place in his community. As Moltke said, “In the long run, only the hardworking are lucky.” True, the larger carnivores are lacking, but bacteria and other tiny carriers of disease are no small danger. Consider the enormous scientific efforts (the struggle for survival!) men have made, and continue to make, to master these enemies, to defeat diseases! Each of us must keep his body strong through exercise and healthy living habits in order to develop his capacities and use them to serve his people. Those who do not do so are unsuitable for the more refined, yet just as relentless, nature of our struggle for life and will perish. Our Führer tells us:
"He who wants to live must fight, and he who does not want to fight in this world of perpetual struggle does not deserve to live!” (Mein Kampf, p. 317)
II.

All living creatures that succeed in the struggle for survival are not satisfied merely with existence, but seek to preserve their species as well. Here, too, is a drive that corresponds to natural law. Without this drive, species would long since have vanished.

The fox builds a den for its helpless young and cares for them. The deer cares for its fawns, and the bat even carries its young with it through the air. Each spring we watch with fascination as the birds cleverly build their nests, hatch their eggs, and untiringly feed their young. Insects place their larvae in certain areas where food is available. Mosquitoes and dragon flies, for example, put them in water, the cabbage moth in cabbages, stag beetles at the base of old oaks. We find the care of the young characteristic of all branches of the animal kingdom (Name all forms of care for offspring with which you are familiar!)

[Here follows a paragraph on insect reproduction]

Maintaining the species also is a struggle. The deer ruts in the fall and offers battle to other deer in competition for females. The stronger and cleverer deer passes on his inheritance. The rooster defends his status and his hens courageously. The battle for females selects the fittest. Later, we will discuss the laws of inheritance.

[There follows two paragraphs on methods of plant reproduction.]

The drive for maintaining the species is stronger than the instinct for self preservation. Plants sacrifice themselves for their seeds. Most insects die when they have reproduced. The female rabbit defends her young against hawks, often at the cost of her own life. A fox risks its life to secure food for its young. The life of the individual can be sacrificed to assure the continuation of the species. (The law of the species is stronger than that of the individual!)

Among all living creatures, we can see a further natural law: the production of numerous offspring. Nowhere on earth do we find a form of life that produces only one or two offspring (corresponding to the number of the parents). That would inevitably lead to extinction. The elephant has the longest period of procreation, from its 30th to 90th year. It brings about six offspring into the world. A scientist has calculated that even with this slow rate of reproduction, in the absence of the struggle for survival elephants would take over the entire world in a few hundred years. A single pair would produce 19 million descendants in 750 years. The struggle for survival leads most to perish. The blue titmouse has two broods of 10-13 a year, but their number is not increasing. The more threatened a creature is in the struggle for survival, the more offspring it must produce. The greater number of offspring is a necessary means of responding to the hard struggle for survival. Each habitat can disappear from one day to the next (arrival of a new predator, disappearance of a food source).

A large number of offspring are an important means in the struggle for survival of the species. The house mouse can resist the field mouse simply through its larger number of young. In such instances, one can speak of a battle of births.

The second law to which all life is subordinate is: “Each life form strives to ensure the survival of its species. The number of offspring must be greater than the number of the parents if the species is to survive (law of the larger number of offspring). Each species strives to conquer new territory. The species goes before the individual.

History provides us with enough examples to prove that mankind, too, is under this law. In the midst of their prosperity, the Romans lost the desire to have children. They sinned against the law of maintaining the species. Their state was undermined and overcome by foreign peoples in a short time. The ethnic traits of the Romans thus vanished. Our nation, too, once hung in the balance. National Socialism restored to the German people the will to have children, and preserved our people from certain decline, which would have been inevitable under the law of species and the law of the greater number of offspring.

Here, too, we can recall the Führer’s words:
Marriage, too, cannot be an end in itself, but rather it must have the larger goal of increasing and maintaining the species and the race. That only is its meaning and its task. (Mein Kampf, p. 275) 
The goal of female education must be to prepare them for motherhood. (Mein Kampf, p. 460)
III.

As we have already noted, people do not live as individuals like animals and plants, but as peoples, which largely have come together as ethnic states. We know something similar only with insects. Bees and ants are not only the sum of individuals; each individual shares a united drive in service of the entire group. They do not have an individual will any longer, but rather their actions have only the goal of serving the welfare of the whole, the welfare of the community. The state-building drive in insects has created a higher order from the drives of the individuals. Their species has become a higher order, one will in many parts. The individual member of a beehive does a single task: One may be a worker that carries nectar, another cleans the hive, the third builds on to it, a fourth feeds the larva, a fifth watches the hive’s entrance. Each individual activity serves the whole. It is the same with ants. Certain ant species even have a warrior caste that fights in the front lines for the rest; the battle against the enemies of the state here, too, involves the whole group.

The instinctual state of the ants corresponds to the leadership state among mankind; however, the principles of a perfect insect state give people cause to think. They have preserved bees and ants in the struggle for survival and thereby proved their validity. We earlier noted the following truths about ants:
1. The work of the individual has only one purpose: to serve the whole group.
2. Major accomplishments are possible only by the division of labor. 
3. Each bee risks its life without hesitation for the whole. 
4. Individuals who are not useful or are harmful to the whole are eliminated. 
5. The species is maintained by producing a large number of offspring.
It is not difficult for us to see the application of these principles to mankind: We also can accomplish great things only by a division of labor. Our whole economy demonstrates this principle. The ethnic state must demand of each individual citizen that he does everything for the good of the whole, each in his place and with his abilities (Principle 1).
He who loves his people proves it only by the sacrifices he is prepared to make for it. (Mein Kampf, p. 474).
If a person acts against the general interest, he is an enemy of the people and will be punished by the law (Principle 4). A look at our history proves that we as a people must defend our territory to preserve our existence.
The world does not exist for cowardly nations. (Mein Kampf, p. 105)
Military service is the highest form of education for the Fatherland (Principle 3).
The task of the army in the ethnic state is not to train the individual in marching, but to serve as the highest school for education in service of the Fatherland. (Mein Kampf, p. 459).
The fifth principle has already been discussed.

Each citizen of the nation must be ready to do all for the good of the whole, for the will of the Führer, even at the cost sacrificing his own life (the national law). The good of the nation goes before the good of the individual.

These natural laws are incontrovertible; living creatures demonstrate them by their very survival. They are unforgiving. Those who resist them will be wiped out. Biology not only tells us about animals and plants, but also shows us the laws we must follow in our lives, and steels our wills to live and fight according to these laws. The meaning of all life is struggle. Woe to him who sins against this law:
The person who attempts to fight the iron logic of nature thereby fights the principles he must thank for his life as a human being. To fight against nature is to bring about one’s own destruction. (Mein Kampf, p. 314).

Friday, March 10, 2017

"National-Socialist Racial Standpoint": Excerpt from 'Why the Aryan Law?' by Dr. E.H. Schulz and Dr. R. Frercks

In 1934, the National-Socialist government adopted a law removing Jews from the various occupations in German society, an application of a much more comprehensive legislation ensuring the racial integrity of the German people. The composition, below, is an extract of a much larger pamphlet defending this law, and it places the philosophical standpoint of the National-Socialist party and state in context to the law.

'German Family,' by Adolf Wissel

Source: Dr. E.H. Schulz and Dr. R. Frercks, Warum Arierparagraph? Ein Beitrag zur Judenfrage (Berlin: Verlag Neues Volk, 1934). Translation by R. Bytwerk.

For a long time, people at home and abroad claimed that National-Socialism meant war at any price. Only gradually is it becoming clear that a stable Germany, one that needs peace for decades to build itself up economically and agriculturally, is a surer guarantee of peace than a nation torn apart by party conflicts, which is a constant source of political unrest. The new Germany’s racial thinking is the hardest element for many to understand, encountering rejection and misunderstanding. Some of it is the result of the honest misunderstanding of the old liberal outlook, but some of it is also the result of a conscious attempt to encircle Germany. Before the war the danger was seen as the "militaristic Empire." Today, the racial outlook is seen as a threat to all human culture and civilization, making necessary a unified front of all those nations whose dignity is threatened by German barbarism. That is the approach today of those foreign circles interested in isolating Germany.

In the long run, no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between nations than National-Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the furtherance and maintenance of one’s own race and one’s own people, and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations. Such mutual respect which requires respect both for one’s own nation and that of others rejects the forcible conquest of other nations, and history shows that it is useless as well. Imperialist strivings are rejected from the start, since they would mean an overlapping of one’s own activities with those of others.

There can be no doubt that, as in so many other areas, human generations develop in unified ways. But humanity finds its deepest meaning when the outward elements are determined by the character and spiritual characteristics that find their visible expression in race and nationality. No thought or feeling, if it is genuine and deep, can escape its racial boundaries.
" . . . no idea is better suited to guarantee peace between nations than National-Socialist racial thinking, which calls for the furtherance and maintenance of one’s own race and one’s own people, and supports similar efforts on the part of other nations. . . ."
One of the fundamental principles of the National-Socialist worldview is that there are not universal human principles, such as the Pan-European idea in politics or the idea of a human soup in racial terms. Judgments are only possible from life, which is racially determined. Being interested in and caring for one’s kind is not to disparage foreign peoples and races. The Jews are responsible for charges that Germany puts all other peoples and races on earth on a lower level. Just as one cannot say that one animal or plant is better than another, one cannot make an objective value judgment between Europeans and Mongols. Their thinking and feeling about essential matters are different, which means they will have different cultures. We have our values, other peoples have theirs. Every variety of custom and culture is colored by the race or group from which produces it, as are judgments of such matters.

Lasting peace is possible based on the consciousness of the ethnic or racial distinctiveness of each nation, and a recognition of their mutual right to existence rather than on the maintenance of some sort of power position. The new Germany that views its own race and ethnicity positively must therefore distinguish within its territory between one race and another, between one people and another. Mixing of blood harms both sides. Race is an issue for every people if they are to live according to their nature. The German people is not so arrogant as to believe that it is the chosen people. The familiar quotation from Geibel, "The world should enjoy German ways," should be understood in the context of the dreams of world betterment of those past days.

The National-Socialist racial viewpoint has clear consequences for the relationship between Germans and Jews. People have often said that National-Socialism’s approach to the racial question is purely negative and destructive, and that its essential characteristic is radical anti-Semitism. One must grant that we made the Jewish question clearer than anyone else, and taught an entire generation that had been taught to see all people the same to recognize the importance of the Jewish question not only for our people, but for the entire world. Our treatment of the Jewish problem in the years before we took power must be seen as the political education of the German people, which had lost its racial instincts to a dangerous degree.
". . . the National-Socialist worldview [rejects the idea of] universal human principles . . ."
The question took on its own nature in Germany. Many citizens had their eyes opened, and the simultaneous appeal to all the heroic and manly virtues of the German man resulted in a racial selection of political fighters who today stand at the head of the new state. Formerly, the Jewish question, as seen by the state, was a matter of complete equality and the unhindered immigration of Jews from the East. This is the best proof of how racial feeling and consciousness had been lost. Our tone was not purely negative or the simple rejection of others, rather the emphasis was on the positive values of our own people. This does require noting that Jewry through its Marxist class struggle leadership role and its international financial measures aimed at Germany supported every kind of anti-national action in the cultural and political fields. Jewry should not complain if its anti-German activities, which have no counterpart in any other country, call forth from the people the defensive reaction of anti-Semitism.

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

"The Jews and the German People": An Excerpt from K. Bareth and A. Vogel's 'Hereditary and Racial Science for Elementary and Secondary Schools'

This is an extract of a larger text published for German elementary and secondary schools, emphasizing the necessity for the German to place himself in relation to the Jew. This calls for understanding the biological traits of individual Jews. The Jewish people is a folk, not a race; it is composed of Near Eastern, Negroid and Oriental racial elements. The inclination of Jews for certain professions also underwrites their nature.

The qualities of the Jew, depicted in a textbook for German children.

Source: Karl Bareth and Alfred Vogel, Erblehre und Rassenkunde für die Grund- und Hauptschule, 2nd edition (Bühl-Baden: Verlag Konkordia, 1937). Translation by R. Bytwerk.

Each German must understand the Jewish question. With sure vision, the writer Anacker predicted the bitter struggle against the "Red flood," and called for "the last reserves" in the decisive battle. In our own country, Red power ended as a result of the German revolution of 1933. Beyond our borders, however, the red plague still rages, attempting to corrupt other peoples and plunge them into misery and misfortune.

In our own land, we want to hold eternal watch. That is particularly true for you, German youth! You, too, must fight the battle and must therefore know the destroyer of all ethnic life: the Jew!

Development of Jewry. The Jews are not a race, as is often thought. The Jewish people is a racial mixture from parts of the Near Eastern and Asian races. The genetic, physical, and spiritual characteristics of the Jew are so foreign and different to us that any association with a Jew must be rejected by any German with sound instincts, even by the smallest, simplest child. This is particularly clear in areas where Germans do not live, but instead visit farmers for commercial reasons. The simple person in the countryside knows the Jew only from livestock trading or peddling. The trading instinct is in the Jew’s blood. The first Jews came to the Germanic regions during the time of the Romans. At first, they were only guests. But they were masters at understanding how to exploit the nature of their host people. As soon as the Jew was recognized as a bloodsucker and parasite among the people, he was expelled from the people’s community. During the Middle Ages, they were kept in strictly separate Jewish districts (ghettos), and had to wear distinctive clothing (pointed Jewish cap). Even during the age of Frederick the Great, one saw the Jew as a member of a foreign race, and Goethe, too, was outraged that the ban on marriage between Jews and Christians was to be lifted. The ghetto walls fell for the Jews during the French Revolution, with its notion of "equality." Following that example, the liberal statesman Hardenberg instituted the "emancipation" of the Jews, granting them independence and equality within the German host people. Suddenly, the Jew was a citizen. The Jew rapidly forced his way into every area of life of the German people. After Bismarck’s fall in 1890, the misfortune could no longer be halted.

Influence of Jewry in the economy. The House of Rothschild is a classic example. The Jew Meyer Amschel Rothschild was the founder of this “ruling house.” He began as a small merchant, them moved to money trading, and finally became court advisor to the Elector of Hesse. During the French Revolution, he earned millions by supplying the army. His five sons settled in Frankfurt, London, Paris, Vienna, and Naples, becoming Europe’s most powerful bankers.

Even kings and emperors fall victim to the Jew’s weapon of money. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the capitalist Jew stood higher than the political statesman, and soon the Jew Walter Rathenau could substitute the slogan "The economy is fate" for the holy concept of “blood and soil.” Jewry gained absolute control of Germany’s economy and commerce after the November Revolution of 1918. As Germany’s poverty grew, thousands of Jews immigrated from Galicia and Poland to our land in order to exploit the German people’s misery. In 1925, there were 76,000 Jewish immigrants. Filthy and poor, carrying all their possessions in a sack, they moved to Breslau, Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg, etc. The plague also broke out in Baden, along the border. Within a few years, the Jews had gathered wealth and possessions. The following statistics show the economic power Jewry had in Germany.

In 1930, 57% of the 603 German metalworking firms were Jewish, 41% of the 514 dealers in scrap metal, 39% of the 12,858 textile firms, and 61% of the 133 wholesalers of women’s clothing. Of the 147 members of the Berlin stock exchange, 116 were Jewish! Four of the six members of the board of directors of the Reich Bank were Jews!

The Jews Katz, Kutisker, Barmat, Sklarek, and Rotter cheated the German people of many, many millions in economic life. Despite their guilt, they managed to avoid long prison sentences.

Influence of the Jews in German professional life. In Prussia in 1925, Jews were: 
  • 59% of commerce and transportation (17% of the general population works in this area); 
  • 26% of industry and crafts; 
  • 2% of agriculture (30% of the general population works in this area); 
  • 6% of civil servants and the professions (5% of the general population works in these areas); 
  • 4% of the health care system (2% of the general population works in this area). 

In Berlin in 1933, Jews were: 
  • 42% of all doctors, 
  • 52% of all insurance doctors, 
  • 45% of all hospital directors, 
  • 35% of all dentists, 
  • 28% of all pharmacists, 
  • 48% of all attorneys! 
  • 56% of all notaries! 
  • 80% of all theatre directors!
Jews take over German culture. To break the German powers of resistance, the Jews worked to poison our cultural life. Their filthy theatrical productions and dirty movies corrupted many Germans, particularly the young. Lovely old German fables were replaced by dirty books, Jewish jazz music drove out German folk songs. The German soul was increasingly poisoned, and the German people made ready for conquest.

Jews and politics. Politics was decisive; therefore, the Jew put particular energy into increasing his influence in politics. The Jew played a particularly destructive role in the November Revolution. One, a Polish Jew, made himself President of Bavaria. He declared that Germany bore the guilt for the World War. Levien, also a Jew, was a leader of the Munich Soviet Republic. He participated in the slaughter of hostages. Krautsky, a Czech Jew, succeeded in becoming a Reich undersecretary of state. He wrote a book that made Germany particularly guilty for the war, ignoring or twisting important documents. Lies by Eisner and Krautsky did great damage to our fatherland.

The Jews assumed important state positions, until our Führer took over the leadership of the state. Hilferding, a Jew from Austria, was Reich Minister of Finance for a long time. The Police President of berlin, Isidor Weiß, was a Jew. Even the Foreign Ministry was lead by a Jew for a long time. The Jews had leading roles in the Marxist parties. The Jews Marx, Lasalle, Rosa Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Hilferding, Hugo Haase, and others were leading Marxists. In 1924, 22% of SPD representatives were Jewish, 15% of the USPD. These people misled German workers for decades. Our Führer tells us in his book Mein Kampf how the Jews thought up Marxism. When Adolf Hitler was working in construction in Vienna, fighting for his future, misled workers tried to convince him of the Jewish doctrines of Marxism. They said more or less the following: "Look, we are workers, without rights and oppressed. We are a class, a working class, and have but one enemy, the bourgeoisie, the rich. That is whom we fight against. Workers all over the world are fighting him." Adolf Hitler saw the falseness of this doctrine, but also saw that it had been thought up by Jews. He also knew that it would be impossible to wipe out this doctrine, which had split the German people into enemy camps, without taking power away from the Jew. Therefore, Adolf Hitler set himself the task of taking his great influence away from the Jew, and never losing sight of that goal. Thus, immediately after the German revolution, the Jew was removed from all influential positions through the Aryan Paragraph of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933. The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor (Reich Party Rally at Nuremberg, 1935) prohibited marriage between Germans and Jews. Racial defilement is severely punished. The Jews are excluded from Reich citizenship. After 100 years, this law once again makes clear the line between Germans and Jews, to the blessing of our people.