Did Darwin cause Hitler? (The Eugenics Debate)
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 09. 2024
- Some historians argue that Hitler's National Socialism was inspired by Social Darwinism, which originates in the eugenic movement of the 1800s. This places Charles Darwin (and others) at the centre of a debate over whether science caused the tragedies of the 20th Century. In the book “From a ‘Race of Masters’ to a ‘Master Race’ ” Samaan makes a very unique argument about this topic, and today we'll have a look at what he says, and assess whether he's right or wrong.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos on Mondays at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from CZcams ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
"What separates humans from animals? The Rhine."
- some clever Roman naturalist
I'd have said it was more likely to have come from a German?
@@AndyJarman😂
@@AndyJarmanWhy? Europe is rightfuly Roman.
They were there first.
Veni Vidi Vici
I hear Norwegian version of that: Svinnesund Bridge.
What stands out about this channel is how from the beginning, even if you'd like to agree to a certain theory, you point out potential probles and inaccuracies with it and analyze it fairly. Another awesome vid
Yeah, I actually went back and forth about this one, because if Samaan's narrative was true, it would fit with the idea of National Socialism being a religion really well. At first I thought I was onto a winner. But Samaan's narrative fell apart the closer it went back to Darwin, and that's where I suspect he wrote it backwards, because the evidence doesn't really support him when it comes to Darwin, but the unsuspecting reader may be convinced since the early parts of the book are fairly well done.
Yes, that is what I love about this channel. Interesting topics and strong research combined with a fearless quest for truth regardless of popularity.
@@TheImperatorKnight I'm replying here to catch your attention, hopefully. You may read _From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
by Richard Weikart on the organisation that archives the internet and also lends books. I can't post a link because the platform deletes it.
@@gagamba9198 That one website that has the first three letters as the words LIBeral and GENerative? I also just looked up Weikarts books there because I'm curious to see first hand how his arguments hold up. Truly an amazing resource.
@@gagamba9198 Maybe he'll cover that, but given how he's covered the refutation of some of Weikart's other arguments, probably not.
With regards to Social Darwinism, I was surprised not to hear a single mention of Herbert Spencer, the anthropologist who literally coined the term "survival of the fittest" after becoming acquainted with Darwin's work.
Spencer is a fascinating, controversial, and seemingly contradictory figure. A positivist and utilitarian on one hand, and on the other a staunch libertarian admired by anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard.
I would love to see a video on this most perplexing man.
In sociology which is one of the most left wing major they also introduced me to him😂
The problem is Charles Darwin's scientific views are utterly misrepresented by 99.999% of the media... Natural Selection is just one overhyped part of his theory. He soon realised it was incomplete and extended it to allow for environment and our higher level being influencing information passed on to offspring, and even our own bodies and immune system. His later works were buried by MSM even though much of it is looking correct.. Dennis Noble is about the only mainstream science guy pushing this knowledge.
Nothing contradictory bout that. Ancaps are utilitarian positivist.
@@Mr.Witness .. You have to realise 'Darwinism' is a misrepresentation of Darwin, let alone Social Darwinism / Neo-Darwinism.. You have to read Darwin's later works and views on evolution to know what Darwinism really is.. It has never been 'survival of the fittest'.. Darwin would think Dawkins is wrong for example. He believed in environment effecting genes via communication to sperm and eggs.
--
An-caps are a mixed bunch. Many have a strong sense of charity as a better means to administer welfare as the laziest won't be helped so much but the deserving poor will be helped more and for the right reasons, by more people... The opposite is China, the least charitable country in the world where if the state isn't looking after you, you're screwed, and the cracks in the CPP welfare system are as big as the many cracks that appear in their shoddy roads and buildings... huge and numerous
That's where it is conflated. Spencer's ideas do got nothing to do with origins of man or the species. They do however use the 'struggle for life' argument, which creationists, if they were consequent would also use. The OT text points to that itself that nations and empires do struggle with each other for hegemony. The Nuremberg Laws were actually taking cues from Jewish rules of race preservation... Which are also founded on biblical grounds. Creationists who are often Dispensationalists and Judeolizers do not want to see this. They are partially also taking cues from the universalists, which are humanists themselves... The "there's one race, the human race" type of argument for example. They completely ignore that it was Noah that implement social inequality and the nations and races emerged as a result of the tower of babel event.
I'm surprised that you didn't mention Margaret Sanger and her influence on the American eugenics movement.
While it's in Samaan's book, it wasn't relevant to the Nazis, and I had to leave a lot of stuff out just because the video was getting long
@@TheImperatorKnight *National Socialists* Eugenics wasn't part of the NSDAP program anyway. There were however some functionaries/officials that picked up the idea from elsewhere and they also may indeed have picked up on American ideas (some NS-figures had connections with the US), but that precedes 1933. Eugenics essentially tries to remove bad genes from reproduction. The idea is rather old and you actually find it in the old pagan practices as well as in the bible. It is not a Darwinian idea. Darwin just postulated that people came from primitive life-forms. And he suggested that mutation and selection were the driving force behind that. But that view got problems of its own.
@@TheImperatorKnightwe can deal with a slightly longer 4hr vid, bro. deep dives are fun. discovered your channel this week, and am enjoying the objective unbiased view of history and facts. keep up the good work 👍
Not excusing her, or her legacy, but Better Living Through Science created a belief that everything could be managed and controlled. And that it was up to humans to do so. It was considered the height of kindness to put the inferior bred out of their misery, not only for the good of humanity and its future, as well as the larger population on the whole, but for the being who (it was believed at the time) could contribute nothing but being a drain on resources, and who only existed as a miserable wretch. This whole “drain on resources” which harmed the greater good (trolly theory) concept is what lead a certain German dictator to carry out his eugenics program, and lead Margaret Sanger to believe it was best for everyone if poor and non-white women terminated their pregnancies. You hear echos of these theories still to this day, and from so called progressives. Not to mention the idea of trolly theory as some kind of altruistic concept.
As I understand it, Darwin disapproved of Social Darwinism on moral grounds. In a purely rational perspective, you can easily apply Darwinism to people, but he thought that people could be better than the brutal processes of natural selection.
Social Darwinism is altruism perverting science.
Right and it was Neitzche who called him out on this as intellectual cowardice. Darwin wanted all the good things from Christianity such as it’s morality but he wanted to divorce it from all of its teleology, Neitzche saw right through this and called him out on it, rightfully so. You can’t have Christian morality without Christianity, either you embrace the whole thing or you reject ALL of it including it’s “live and let live” and “love thy neighbor” morality, which the modern world is EXTREMELY influenced by still.
@@Jareers-ef8hpAny particular reason why? From the evolutionary standpoint, we are very much a social animal, and generally speaking are thriving in social environments with "moral standards". There's a reason psychopathy isn't ubiquitous and is considered a mental deviation from the norm. It wasn't selected for in our species. Because it's a good way to get ostracised by your tribe if you don't hide it exceptionally well. It's the same as caring for your offspring. Why do you care for them? Because generally speaking those that didn't had not left their genes in the pool.
Morality doesn't have to be "Christian", "Hindu" or "Buddhist". But there's no reason no to have any. Because it is beneficial to us. Why wouldn't it be selected for?
@@nemamiah7832 Funny enough that is almost word for word the argument Darwin lays out for why western civilization should keep Christian morality but throw away everything else. However, I’m afraid I don’t necessarily agree, for example psychopathic and sociopathic traits are actually evolutionarily advantageous characteristics to have. Although I’m afraid I can’t link a study to CZcams comment section because CZcams deletes my comments when I do, I am aware of many studies that demonstrate how a very sizable portion of the elites of any country in the world have psychopathic tendencies and traits, especially in America, and this makes absolute sense from evolution. Psychopaths have a great advantage in civilization since they are more likely to finesse, exploit, and subvert any human institution and social structure in order to make sure they come out on top, and this all too often means betraying the trust of the group or tribe to get the best possible outcome for themselves and their offspring, as they say “nice guys finish last”. Neitzche new this very well, and so he called for a revolution in morality, he wanted to destroy and get rid of the old liberal Christian morality that made Europe weak, and replace it with the Greek style of morality, one of strength, vitality, virility, aggression, health, and might makes right. The law of the jungle as he saw it.
@@Jareers-ef8hp We know where CZcams stands in the cultural battle. You hang in there. You will win over them.
My parents owned a small grocery store in which I worked as a teenager. My father taught me to always be suspicious of a salesman who wants to rearrange your shelf space for you. Most of the time they are doing it to short you on stock. So I would also be suspicious of an author who "rearranges" the timeline.
Great example.... I also noticed that how NS is presented they also start with supposed outcomes. Not with what happened during the Weimar period including what roles Jews played there. They get up set, when you point out the reasons why the NSDAP wasn't too fond of Jews... Also when you point out that Hitler supported Zionism... But people's once conditioned can't read and analyze the texts anymore... That was indeed shocking.
Hey Tik, I cannot watch the video right now, but I nearly busted out laughing in the middle of the library after seeing the thumbnail. Can't wait to check this one out!
Terri did a good job with the thumbnail! Hope you enjoy it when you do get to watch it
No amount of photoshop can make Austrian painter not sexy!
What needs to still be remembered is that Hitler was a product of his time. He was born in the 19th century, served in WWI and then would go on to be a major contributor to WWII. In the time of the 19th century, ideas such as eugenics and who was the best race floated around and was taken very seriously in the "scientific community" of the time. Damn near everyone had these ideas that some races were just better than others in one respect or another. I remember there was a French colonel of an African regiment in WWI who always volunteered for the missions with the highest chances of death and dismemberment because he believed the African soldier was superior to the European soldier because he could allegedly endure physical pain and bodily stresses better than Europeans.
Was Hitler inspired by Darwin? Probably. Probably a whole lot of other scientists and philosophers too, let's be honest here, the enlightenment period didn't do us a whole lot of favors, it just invented new ways for us to hate one another and then make the claim that somehow one side was more righteous than the other
late 18 not 19 Þ)
@@gunnarbjornsson7676 ???what??? You seem to forget how late in the course of history Africa was colonized!
Hitler was basically put out there by the "elites" you don't see. He did exactly what he was supposed to as Lenin, Trotsky and Marx. As Anthony C. Sutton put it, it's the Hegelian dialectic. Pitch two seemingly (on the outside only) opposites against each other to create something new. Thesis, Antithesis leads to Synthesis. This process is older than Marx although he used it in his terminology if I recall correctly. It's called 'creative destruction' and this concept has its beginnings in occultism. It's used by some American warhawks as a philosophical description to this day.
@@gunnarbjornsson7676 19th century=1800s. Unless i have worms in the brain, I think the century is what is being worked to
That French officer's views carried on for some time. There's a documentary with interviews from soldiers that served in Vietnam. One talked about regularly being volunteered for scouting missions because he was an Indian (Native American) and therefore better at stealth in the wilderness. His response was "I'm from Detroit! What do I know about the f*cking jungle?"
Personally Id like your video's about the ideology of the Nazi/Hitler and others. So I would love if you can continue making them now and again!
I'd prefer more vids like this, talking about subjects that make people feel sore inside, because they know it's true. Question literally everything, right?
Why does something that is true make you feel sore UNLESS you are a LIAR...YOUR comment speaks volumes LIAR. Having JESUS in your name and MOST CERTAINLY NEVER BEING ABLE TO EVEN PROVE GOD BEING REAL, SANTA SAYS HI@@AR15andGOD
@@AR15andGOD I like both, but you can only question one thing at a time (but my personal preference is the ideology videos),
100% This is a key topic that few intellectuals are willing to fully explore. Plus they typically have ideological baggage that distorts their perceptions.
I think TIK can make some major contributions in this area.
@@FromPovertyToProgress I'm not seeing any of it in this video, so it's not a criticism of how TIK is now, but in some previous videos I encountered a but of current-year anti-'woke' baggage which distorted the presentation, and I thought some of the presentation also had a few anticommunist asides which detracted from the main points of the video (as in the content that I come here to watch). The good thing though is TIK does not avoid researching and presenting information that makes some others who also oppose(d) communism look bad.
I think the series tracing the antecedents of Nazi ideology is crucial in understanding it is not something that was only unique to Germany or Germans but there were various ideas and influences that were in Western thought at the time that came together with the Nazis. These ideas nearly came together in other countries at that time also should be remembered. That the US, UK, etc. managed not to go to extremes of the Nazis may be more of an accident than many would like to believe. It's interesting how much of Nazi ideology has British and American influences.
The key to me is idea we are doomed to make the same tragedies that have already happened because we don't bother to try to understand how the earlier tragedies came about.
British and American philosophy result from German philosophy.
@@TeaParty1776 Until the birth of analytical philosophy in the early 1900s by Whitehead and Russell
Why is it a tragedy?
@@Swift-mr5zi No, Whitehead was a Platonic mystic and Russell was a Kantian mystic. Their first concern was consciousness,not existence. They were rationalists, not sense-based rational as in Aristotle.
For The New Intellectual-Ayn Rand
If you're a socialist, then yeah, you're more closer to the Nazis than the liberals/libertarians in the US. You can't have eugenics without state control.
As I understand it, Darwin did not "work with" Wallace. Wallace got the same idea as Darwin and communicated it to him in a letter. That is the only reason Wallace was given credit as co-author. The 20 years of research was entirely Darwin's, and so it is perfectly understandable that Wallace has since been disregarded. Correct me if I'm wrong.
That sounds like revisionism, as naming a co-author is not trivial
@@-Jason-L "Alfred Russel Wallace OM FRS (8 January 1823 - 7 November 1913) was an English[1] naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator.[2] He independently conceived the theory of evolution through natural selection; his 1858 paper on the subject was published that year alongside extracts from Charles Darwin's earlier writings on the topic.[3][4] It spurred Darwin to set aside the "big species book" he was drafting and quickly write an abstract of it, which was published in 1859 as On the Origin of Species.
"
@JasonLeGris naming ARW as coauthor of the Origin is just a flat error. End of.
Darwin was first, but he hesitated to publish. Later Wallace had the idea, and backed it with evidence, independently, and therefore they published simultaneously.
@@-Jason-L The only author of 'On The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection' was Charles Darwin MA. (1859). Before that Darwin had sent out synopses to various scientists and then Wallace sent Darwin a letter outlining his similar views which Darwin forwarded to the Linnean Society which decided on a joint presentation of both individual papers.
I vote: definitely keep going. Excellent critique and analysis. I think this subject is simply too central to our sensibilities concerning WWII and its aftermath to ignore. These sidebars and contextualizations of the war are extremely enlightening. Thank you for all your work. Categorically first rate.
Great video as always, maybe one of your best. Would happily see a deeper look into this. Keep up the great work
5:24 Gregor Johan Mendel is the father of modern genetics mainly because he was the first to apply statistics and math to record and identify the heredity rules like dominant and recessive "factor" (= gene).
And he was assisted by the monks because he was a one of them. And a priest and finaly an abbot of Augustians monastery.
Calling Nietzsche a cult leader is an exaggeration since he stated that he has no use for a follower , he quoted "One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil."
You both use bad reasoning, SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T WANT FOLLOWERS CAN'T BECOME A CULT LEADET, and you've shown, as nearly everyone does who talks about Nietzsche, and I know I've done it and still do it, that you don't understand Nietzsche. Nietzsche knew that only the rarest of students can surpass a great thinker. Nietzsche craved a Plato to his Socrates but must've known that he was far above Socrates, even if he didn't reach Plato's heights, so that craving a student to surpass him to the degree that Platob did Socrates was an either an idle daydream or a kind of boasting about himself, I am so great I will never be surpassed. And, 135 years later, with maybe over a million more students than Plato had in his lifetime, it still hasn't happened. Not even Aristotle surpassed Plato's creativity. Socrates only seems great because Plato put great ideas in his mouth. And it's very naive to take Nietzsche's I don't want followers literally. He wanted followers and he craved Platos.
There's also just a long history in humanity of tribalism, where anyone who didn't worship your gods, speak your language and share your culture was seen as sub-human even if they looked exactly like you. The "Us" vs "Them" struggle goes back for millennia.
I think what a lot of people miss is that 'survival of the fitest' is descriptive, not prescrivptive. It merely notices that those groups and individuals are who are able to adapt and change to fit the conditions they are in will surive to continue their lineage, while those who don't, don't. Its not some divine right for the powerful to rule over the weak, or cull the deficent or whatever.
(I have not watched the entire video obviously, so of course I'm not addressing you, this is just a common strawman I have seen others make).
Yes, that's basically the argument that Richards gives in his book, which I explain in the video. The problem is that the logical next step to what Darwin explained is that humans can decide who gets to survive, which is why Darwin's brother in law, Sir Francis Galton, coined the term Eugenics, and why Charles Darwin's son (Leonard Darwin) championed eugenicism.
@@TheImperatorKnight From an evolutionary standpoint might is right.
@@TheImperatorKnight Well humans have been deciding who gets to survive genetically for milleniea by killing criminals and deciding who marries who. Arranging for your daughter to marry a rich, intelligent, gregarious or strong lad is basically eugenic.
@@jarl8815 Might is Right did not ultimately work for the dinosaurs, the sabre-tooth tiger or the ferocious flightless killer birds. Sometimes the meek do inherit the earth, depends on the climate and the environment etc.
And what it means to be the fittest in a dynamic environment is often unpredictable. Genetics and reproduction constantly creates variations, many of which fail, but occasionally one works so well as to become dominate. Like a free market.
I love the mention of Edward Bellamy. I had never heard of him, but after a quick research he clearly was an important person worth knowing. The idea that a Socialist authored the Pledge of Allegiance is fascinating. And his book was one of the biggest sellers of the 19th century.
It shows that you really do your research!
It's why when Jordan Peterson talks about state education, he explains how the system was designed to produce good workers and soldiers, not to promote critical thinkers.
I listened to the first chapter of the sequel to looking backwards (it's on CZcams) it's Marx and Wilson's lovechild utopia
I think a fair amount of history is intentionally hidden.
That one knocked me back a stretch. I was stunned.
Lol, *Francis Bellamy* was the pledge of allegiance guy. *Edward Bellamy * was the guy who wrote Looking Backward.
Both were socialists, but neither were Marxist socialists. They were also cousins. I missed that part of the video but I hope he didn't confuse the two. That would indeed show some very sloppy research
A deep dive into eugenics is definitely warranted. I believe Thomas Sowell also makes some of these connections. Liberalism and eugenics have a long history that has largely been covered up. No doubt the coverup is equally interesting.
Cough *theory on middleman minorities* cough
Oh, you mean the token Harvard propagandist?
you are an idiot conservatives such as Churchill and Wilson (who was a conservative christian and not a progressive as many propagandists claim) were the champions of eugenics
So at one time many liberals believed in mild form of eugenics?
@@interstellarsurfer
What an odd way to spell;
The most influential living conservative thinker.
There is a little confusion between Evolution and Abiogenesis. Evolution only explains the diversity, not its origin.
Abiogenesis is the theory of how life started, and that is the real debate.
The mystery of Abiogenesis and how exactly it happened is so fascinating. Lots of possible start points, tide pools, thermal vents, hot springs and even hitching a ride on a comet; which is the most annoying option since it pushes the timeline back to conditions we can't model cause we have no idea what the planet of origin would have been like. The fact that panspermia remains on the table is an irritating reminder that we still haven't be able to replicate Abiogenesis in a lab and thus it remains possible that none of our starting assumptions are correct. It's a fun debate but likely one we won't solve anytime soon unless we make a breakthro with replication of the process. However at that point we then have the moral quandary of what to do with this second tree of life that would ultimately be more different from us than even the most bizarre of single celled lifeforms. Solving the riddle creates a whole new one.
Yeah, but you have to remember, those of us in the public sphere are way behind the scientific one, and kept there by dishonest actors.
@@Lusa_Iceheart I think argument for abiogenesis has to start outside biology and inside the debate between inorganic and organic chemistry.
How did we move from an inorganic to organic world?
Next, where did DNA come from?
I have ideas that a virus capable of reverse transcription developed basic DNA and grew from there due to mutation and other replication errors adding to the genome.
have you noticed that all the "darwinian successes" are cockroaches, rats, pigeons, humans...whereas all the "beautiful animals" need protecting and preserving? yes spartans were short lived, but helen of sparta was beautiful (apparently)
By far one of your best videos. And, very timely! You are onto something, I would love to see you delve into this more.
The German doctors getting away reminds me of Unit 731 of Japan and how they got away after the war. Will you do a video on that in the future or is it too controversial?
What's fascinating about Unit 731 is that we have all sorts of records and details of what they did and the results of the experiments. Which the US government gave to our scientists because it was useful. Gruesome fact, but it is what it is.
Whereas, for the nazi medical experiments, we just don't have data on it, we dont even really know what the results of their experimens were or even all they did, certainly none of the actual details.. We only have scant testimony from a few second hand witnesses. Which is a shame in a sense. But maybe for the best.
One reason why Unit 731 is very interesting, in comparison. I'm surprised it isn't talked about more.
Darwin actually did not mention god in the first edition, he was pressured to do so in the second. Owen is not correct here
I've seen a first edition and God is mentioned twice in the foreword
@@jimmys6566 You mean by Whewell and Bacon? They are not Darvin. They haven't been written by Darvin. They were put there by the publisher to add to the books credibility
@@tedarcher9120 As l said, God is mentioned in the foreword of the first edition
@@jimmys6566 and what? Darwin didn't write it. He probably didn't even choose it. What does it have to do with anything. Back then anything probably has some mention of gods
@tedarcher9120 not "gods," but "God". Twice mentioned in the foreword of his first edition
I learned recently that the Nazis started out as a religion that practiced theosophy. They became a political party to gain more power to further the tenets of their religion.
Interesting! Keep going!
In Jonah Goldberg's book, "Liberal Fascism. The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" I first came into contact with the idea that Nazism and especially fascism are actually a form of socialism. The author claims that they are left-wing, while I reject the political spectrum as nothing more than a tool of electoral propaganda.
Also in this book, J. Goldberg makes the connection between the American eugenicists and Hitler, but also between the New Deal and the policies of the Third Reich.
I'm sick of the left/right dichotomy. It often causes more confusion, mainly out of a misplaced desire to _be_ far-left or far-right
@@SonofTiamatIt’s not hard to grasp at all. Collectivism vs individualism and bigger government vs limited government. There is no politician in power advocating for anarchy. There’s almost no one advocating for that either, so virtually no one is far right.
@@96stealthYou could look into centaur state theory. Limited regulation for the ruling class, statism for the rest. From Loïc Wacquant, but I think he borrowed the metaphor from Gramsci.
so I guess this means all the kings of eurpope were far left @@96stealth
@@kinanshmahell8065 Yup
Great video. Your conclusion is correct, I think. Charles Darwin was a scientist, who sought to understand how species of living things originated. None of his conclusions, which were factual, had any direct implications for questions of how humans ought to behave towards their fellow humans. Science and politics are different categories, a fact that climate science deniers often overlook, to take a more current example of the same fallacy.
This is really great work Lewis. I've been waiting awhile for someone to tackle this one and you nailed it.
Why was Darwin working with Wallace the spiritualist?
Because they were both working on the cutting edge of orthodoxy. Darwin delayed publication of On the Origin for a decade because Natural Selection was auch a contentious idea.
During that time Wallace was living overseas and remarking on evolutionary patterns he was witnessing.
Darwin had never met Wallace the spiritualist, and added Wallace's name to his because he wanted to acknowledge Wallace's contribution (he was being gentlemanly).
He was in no way endorsing Wallaces other ideas.
I’ve believed this to be true since I discovered the disturbing history of American, British, Germanic, European, & Japanese eugenics movements. I also agree that the suppression of this scientific and philosophical history actually (unintentionally) fuels antisemitism and racism. It’s difficult for a person to make sense of the past and present with all the middle ground that’s left out in between and oversimplified. Definitely interested in the topic being explored as it’s virtually never talked about. As you mentioned, it either leads people to blaming Darwin (instead of his relatives) or simply being ignorant of the eugenics movement altogether, which is far more common.
This is a classic case of BOTH the book and TIK are Right/Wrong. Classic case of more than 1 truth is present at the SAME time while some "book writer and historian" nit pics and gets lost in the weeds over singular statements... In the period of the 19th century, the thinkers of the day, Hagel, Darwin, etc, etc ebbed and flowed all over the place and basing your "present day book theory" or in this case a YT video who is more than likely basing his statements on a review of a certain book rather than reading the base documents ... or any ones singular writing is beyond stupid. Often their early writings and thesis's are in direct opposition to their later works and ALL of them can easily be manipulated to say the opposite of what they actually finally thought and whom the PEOPLE OF THE DAY actually thought. All of them influenced each other as they were all writing to each other and in the same discussion groups etc.
The question is NOT if the National Socialists thought Darwin the PERSON and his writings were the Bible on Race theory, the Question to be answered is if ALL those thinkers who were basing their race theory on prehistoric understanding of genetics creating Eugentis etc of which Darwin was just a singular part, INFLUENCED the National Socialists of whom Mr. H was a key figure. The answer is unquestionably: YES. People all over the world were influenced by such bogus race theories. The question is: How much?
Never underestimate Greed, Lust of POWER, combined with what a group thinks of as NEED. The need in this case was to feel superior enough to justify killing millions and taking their stuff/land to help assuage their conscience and of course get them ELECTED into POWER... It is really that simple. One does not need a religious answer every time though those who LUST for power will often use Religious aspects or religion itself to gain said power and justify their actions.
Eugenics is not horrific, it is natural process. If you allow anyone to survive, then society will decline. We see that process right now.
Lets start Eugenics with you... Make society MUCH better to get rid of an arrogant murderous piece of garbage off the face of the earth @@aleksazunjic9672
@@aleksazunjic9672 I learned long ago not to argue with morons, you only descend upon their ground where they have a lot mire experience!
So I will leave you to your ignorant bigotry!
@@aleksazunjic9672 Not at all. Eugenics is not only the complete opposite of natural processes but is also completely unnecessary(at best). You see, for eugenics and the manual elimination of 'wrong' genes to make sense at all, someone must arbitrarily decide which genes are 'bad' and which are 'good' and be able to enforce these decisions. This means that some breed hygiene institute is essential. However if the findings of the Institute of Breed Hygiene will be consistent with natural selection - then it is usseless, if they will be inconsistent with natural action - and then IHR is clearly harmful.
TIK, difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism (in my personal understanding) could be surmised as a presupposition of the "superior" and/or "positive" traits and deliberate selection for these arbitrary traits. Natural selection has no presuppositions, for it has no goal. It's a process. And it's a process without aim.
Funnily enough, it often implies that genetic diversity of the secies should be reduces and "mixing" is somehow "bad", while it's demonstrably not true. The more genetic diversity there is in the species, the more these species are protected from the outside factors and capable of adaptation through selection.
If there was noone in Europe resistant to Black Death (which was still devastating for the genetic diversity of parts of Europe affected by it) - the story would be VERY different.
And we don't really know which traits would end up beneficial to us, for we are not prophets.
Always excited to see a new video! Thanks for the effort you put into those, you have the best history channel on CZcams right now, TIK!
Who is that in your profile picture
Hey TIK, you may want to look into Tom Sowell’s theory on middleman minorities. It’ll tie in nicely to the eugenics topic. I shared a brief article about on your Patreon a while ago.
An hour long? Lovely, I'm going to watch it!
Yes, it took a while to make this one! Samaan's book is over 800 pages, and could really be half that if he didn't repeat over and over how the Nuremberg Laws were a verbatim copy of Laughlin’s “Model Sterilization Law” that had been enacted in the United States.
@@TheImperatorKnight I can't help but thank you sincerely for the work you put in to developing these videos. Your economics videos helped influence me to become a libertarian and finally understand the downsides to the Keynesian system. Thank you.
I don't have a argument with this particular presentation.
However, I doubt that any book or school of thought can be independently or exclusively linked to Hitler's thought, rather there are many streams of thought that coil within Hiters personality, some more prominent than others.
Please keep doing these challenging videos.
Darwin never denied the possibility of an internal "genetic" information, he actually assumed that there is a yet unkown mechanism of 'inheritance', but at that time the existence of such factor was purely speculation. Owen's bet on such factor was purely a guess. It was no more scientific than Darwin's position.
Also Darwin's model of natural selection is not in contradiction with genetics.
That's the problem with this video. It doesn't go far enough into the concepts of Darwin, Owen, Nietzsche and other clear inspirations of national socialism and actually explain anything about them themselves. The video has mostly been very shallow. If one needed to know that Hitler was inspired by Darwin one just needed to spend 5min. The question here is if these ideas were necessarily wrong and if they had to have led to Hitler and this video did nothing to explain why Darwinian thought is still prevalent despite us now rejecting eugenics.
I wouldnt call it a bet. The assumption that there is a spiritual world was just an uneducated guess. Owen had zero evidence to include a whole new world in his theory, so he didint. Just as today people have no evidence that the spaghetti monster isnt the real god.
The fact and not a bet is people make up stories. And he used facts to reach conclusions.
@@duckling3615Well to be fair it looks like a lot of people are still racist in the sense of people hyper visualizing things through race even if it’s not through oppressive eyes.
By stating that much of the variation in a species is heritable, Darwin obviously adhered to the existence of A mechanism for transmitting information to offspring. It’s irrelevant that the exact mechanism was unknown at the time, this is a foundation of Darwinism.
@@duckling3615 TIK glossed over most of it because as he stated previously, he wanted to give an overview of Samaan's book. I think that the bigger question is that Samaan's book is, by design, a gateway into the rabbit hole of eugenics and who said what. Without a deep dive in all aspects of Darwin's theories, Nietzsche's rhetoric, and so on, some stuff is gonna have to be cut.
TIK this is why I love your videos, detail, detail, detail and challenge the narrative
Hey TIK, I definitely think you should make more videos on this topic. I strongly agree with the narrative that there is a tie between the 19th to early 20th century eugenicist ideas and Hitler, who called Madison Grant's eugenicist book "The Passing of the Great Race" his "Bible".
Ooh yes I'm ready for this hour and 8 minutes of absolute bliss
Good vid TIK as always.
Some food for tough:
Nietzsche didn't actually wrote "The will of power", apparently it's his sister that compiled unrelated works with her own narrative.
That book is very off when you look at
The works of Nietzsche published before.
What is the alleged basic difference? He thought in all his thought that reality was an unknowable chaos requiring man to guide survival by emotions.
@@TeaParty1776 Im actually curious to hear OPs reply so I'm commenting on the thread for updates.
You're right in regards to the Will to Power.
@@OlympusLaunch ?
@@OlympusLaunch Nietzsche's sister had an antisemite mind she was married with a weirdo who tried to create a race-based colony in south America.
A lot of sentence from The Will of power are not from Nietzsche.
Most of them have just dates whitout the authors of the original text.
Just like the book reviewed by TIK, the will of power of power folllow is unchronological but worse : none of the chapter have a context.
The true philosophy of Nietzsche is portrayed trough "The AntiChrist", the "Will of Power" isn't from him.
Source : "The will of power doesn't exist" by Montinari.
This was really interesting; shining a light on the true origins of ideas and their applications. As a biologist I was surprised by the claims (even, or especially from the academic world) that eugenics was unscientific. If you hide and distance yourself from it you can't learn from it. I think it demonstrates clearly that a goal (a healthy, strong population) can be lofty but the method by which you want to attain such goals need to be carefully considered. Which is all the more important now that genetic engineering is on the horizon.
"eugenics was unscientific" is a political talking point, not a historical or scientific fact. The truth is that, since the early 20th century, we have used eugenics to increase the productivity of crops and livestock at an unprecedented rate. We have refrained from applying eugenics to our own species, but, as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins pointed out on Twitter a few years ago (angering many of his "progressive" followers), of course it would work for man as well. He did not advocate it, he said, but it certainly would work. I think the first question we should ask is: what will happen to our species if we continue to hold natural selection largely at bay, and replace it with nothing?
You are onto something. As an American, I am appalled by US contributions to NAZIism and the Holocaust.
Yep just ask native americans
Don't be appalled by something other people did a hundred years ago. That's pure stupid.
@@C21H30O2you can be appalled, that’s totally allowed. It’s when it gets down to being upset you’re white or American because the atrocities were caused by people like you but generations removed and not even related. Then it gets a bit goofy.
The US did NOT contribute to "the Holocaust." Eugenics, racialism, the Nuremberg Laws, yes. But not any "holocaust." Germany's persecution of the Jews was entirely home grown.
So happy to find this channel, you are a kid to me, but I have learned much.
Wonderful presentation, TIK.
Darwin? Houston Stewart Chamberlain and his crew more likely created Uncle Adolf.
Yes, I know. However, Darwin had his influence
@@TheImperatorKnight indeed, apologies I wrote before watching the stream, many thanks.
What a moronic and stupid comment. If you think hitlers beliefs can function without evolutionary theory and darwinism, you haven't studied up much on the subject. Darwinism was MANDATORY in my former nazi years, it was the foundation of the entire belief system... the whole concept of the Aryan relies on evolutionary theory to produce superior beings above inferior ones.... ridiculous.
You're just trying to protect your belief in evolution. That isn't how adults think or reason. We start with the evidence and go from there, not our own conclusion and then looking at the evidence.
And yes, hitlers theory of the evolution of nature was non physical, but also extended into the physical. The physical was merely a small reflection of the overall synthesis of nature. Read more literature on the subject, broseph.
hey moron hitler was a creationist@@AR15andGOD
Isn’t Eugenics not just selecting for desirable traits. We already do this when screening embryos for genetic disorders and syndromes.
That’s good eugenics.
From what I understand, there’s positive and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics encourages people with desirable traits to reproduce more like make a tax rebate per child of high IQ people to make it easier for people to afford child rearing. CZcamsrs like Ubersoy support this version of eugenics. Where as negative eugenics is reducing the reproduction of those with undesirable traits. For example, promoting cheaper birth control for people with lower IQ. The method though can be extreme like those killing or sterilizing a population or something less extreme like in the examples I gave above. The extreme method though is what most people think of we they the word.
Ableism
@@orvos1459all eugenics is good, why would you desire negative traits?
TIK needs to trademark “But is this really the case?”!
Very interesting and well explained. Thank you. Yes, a deeper investigation into the history would be helpful, especially about the Spartan system which I thought of as a 'model' society until this video.
Not to pick. But really, it took you until THIS video to realize the Spartan system was terrible?
Great video! You got me very curious about Samaan's book, you have made a superb comment/review. Congratulations, keep the good work rolling! :)
These topics are probably the most important to discuss, please do more.
There is a book about Nazism and Darwinism titled The Scientific Orgins of National Socialism by Daniel Gasman. Worth a read.
Samaan mentions that book in his book
@TheImperatorKnight "National Socialism" is an erroneous term that only the politically illiterate would ever fall for. Nationalism is self obsessive ie individualistic as Socialism is a liberal/collectivist construct, so the joke is on whoever pairs the two to begin with.
Nazis were state capitalism, backed by half the US corporations of that era.
Try me. I'm not some college kiddo in mummy's basement.
Your channel smells like desperate CIA propaganda..
Also -- "Hitler's Ethic - The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress" - Weikart, Richard (2009).
@@yw1971 ~ right wing social eugenics is what’s ruining the U.S. per hyper individualism..
@@yw1971 Samaan talks about that too in the book, and I talk about Weikart in the video. Probably best to just purchase Samaan rather than Weikart since Samaan's argument is actually better, and Weikart was refuted by Richards as I explained.
As a US citizen myself, I say you're spot on. I've been saying this for decades. Many Nazi ideals came from U.S. Eugenics. This doesn't get talked about in the US for obvious reasons, but it still happened, and needs to be included in History.
The US eugenics movement was Progressive, not Rightist!
@@TeaParty1776 You are more correct than not. The truth is it spanned the political spectrum, but the most enthusiastic promoters tended to be progressives. Of course, many progressives from that era would be anathema to today's "progressives."
Two books: "Hitler's American Model" by James Whitman; and "Illiberal Reformers" by Thomas Leonard.
@@michaels4255 Ive never heard a "Progressive" honestly admit to their early racism. They also were the most influential supporters of Prohibition. A long way from California tent cities full of crazies and druggies!
@@michaels4255 I didnt know it was bipartisan.
Well, eugenics certainly have us Margaret Sanger in the US, and Sanger was well acquainted with eugenics in Germany on the 1930s.
You got Nietzsche wrong because he did hate both kant and schopenhauer and even said that evolution and Darwinism are completely false in his book the twilight of the idols
Many people get Nietzsche wrong. Very, very wrong.
I thought this video was fascinating & would love to learn more about this subject. Well done, Tik!
Funny you showed that pic of the woman with the face mask. I was in the UK earlier this month, in London, and I saw a lot more people wearing face masks then I normally would in my neck of the woods. Here in Nijmegen maybe 1 in a 1000 still, in London I think it was 1 in 50.
Eugenics was also really popular with the Progressive movement in the USA.
Keep going, its not only interesting, its essential to understanding and identifying how these horrific ideas are formed.
“The Will To Power” is not considered to be a part of the Nietzsche canon, but rather a work by Nietzsche’s sister and her husband.
Definitely follow up with more content. Interesting video as always and hope more is to come soon 👍
More research, especially into the eugenics laws from the US and their links to the Nuremberg Laws, is warranted in my opinion. Understanding how this came about can give important clues for recognising something similar going forward.
Already been done.
"You will have no children. And you will be happy."
"Or else..."
The reason Gregor Mendel was ignored was likely due to the style of his own work. The title of his most prominent work (German for Experiments in Plant Hybridization) was an extremely unassuming title on an extremely dry and statistical book. The book seemed like a gardener's in-depth examination of plant combinations rather than what it was - a rock-solid, statistical argument of evolution that he discovered - namely, genetic passing of a randomized selection of alleles from each parent. Additionally, it was functionally against the process of scientific method. Rather than having a hypothesis that he was striving to prove. He began exploring how he was ending up with these strange color results and created post-hoc rationalizations of the results of his work. This factors damaged his image as well as others like becoming a friar to save himself from his wealth problems and his failed attempts at becoming a high/secondary school(I think the term was gymnasium for that time period) teacher. All these together likely led to him being ignored by his peers at the time.
Wait, he is ignored? Here in spanish schools we learned that he is the father of genetics and his laws (and exercises to prove we know to apply the theory) are also heavily learned here
@@Dario-uj6qo He was ignored until the 1900s. After that, his work was rediscovered, and he became the father of genetics thanks to the investigation of a trio of different scientists if memory serves. Until that point, Mendel was entirely unknown to the world.
@@Alex_Fahey ah, I see, thanks
The one fairly influential German professor who had corresponded with Mendel did not really understand what Mendel had as a model, and urged him to repeat the pea study on his pet plant species, which had terribly complex genetics, so Mendel failed in the replication.
Mendel was not ignored. His work was known and discussed among scientists, but Mendel did not know what he had discovered. He thought he had discovered a special case that applied only to hybridization, and for decades other scientists assumed he was right. Only in the year 1900 did it occur to someone that Mendel had actually discovered the key to understanding all of heredity.
@ 5:00
Hold on: if I understand you right, is he saying that Darwin's concept of natural selection (the "outside"), is mutually exclusive to Owen's "Internal" idea? Because if so, he's wrong.
Darwin makes it very clear that populations tend to develop natural variations--these are always there. The environment then "selects" for those which are beneficial: it doesn't have an end goal, or any thought. What Darwin lacked was a mechanism to account for this variation--and more importantly, its inheritance: people didn't know about genetics or even DNA. EDIT: later on, you discuss how this feeds into social Darwinism. Maybe so, but only if you assume evolution has a particular goal to it (or assume that you can somehow impose a goal, as Leornard Darwin states @52:07). I don't know if Darwin believed this or not--his son implies this might not necessarily the case, but it's easy to see people thinking that. After all, it's a short step from artificial selection, to eugenics (and artificial selection is basically the human version of natural selection).
So Mendel's work complimented Darwin's, and added to it. Mendel also addressed some misconceptions Darwin had about plant fertilization, but this isn't about genetics or evolution: it's just about how fertilization actually works in that kingdom. Actually, Darwin's work was an influence on Mendel.
There's a good chance this guy is conflating Darwin's observations--which are indeed external--with Owen's internal idea.
EDIT: and that assumes Owen's idea really is about genetics. I don't know: that's a first to me.
@ 6:09
Darwin and Wallace independently proposed Natural Selection in a separate paper, but Darwin alone wrote the book.
@ 20:40
No, you didn't. And in fact, your excerpts show he couldn't have, since Fuegians are from South America.
What Darwin did actually state, was that mankind probably evolved in Africa. His argument was simply that this was most likely, given that all our closest relatives are in Africa. Actually, the part about imitation was him explaining how innate this is to the entire ape family.
@ 24:36
For those wondering: Haeckel specifically believed that the embryology of an organism directly recapitulates the evolution of the said organism.
Ok, I like your channel, but I have serious issues on how you're presenting Darwin's theory and how you seemingly dismiss it from the process of evolution by saying Mendel had the truth: both have it, they just have different parts of it. Genetics give the explain the origin of new characteristics, natural selection defines which new characteristics will stick around.
Darwin didn't say natural selection was destiny, nor did he imply it. It may appear like it because the environment defines who survives and who doesn't, but that process has nothing personal about it: it's just the way things are. Darwin described natural selection as the mechanism through which species become different from each other. Yes, genetics play a role and Darwin ignored that role, but genetics are not enough to explain evolution.
Imagine the following: a genetic mutation makes a person naturally 3 meters tall. How do we know if that is advantageous and that this will stick? Well, does it better suit their environment? If it doesn't, and for some reson the resources avaliable are not enough to sustain that kind of creature, they won't thrive: they're all gonna die out or similar creatures are gonna outcompete it for resources: it's what happened to neanderthals, basically. _That_ is natural selection. The environment's pressures "select", but not intentionally, the individuals who will survive and make descendents. There is nothing metaphisical about it, it's just creatures adapting to the environment through the advantageous variations of their form, variations that come from genetics, but are weeded off the gene pool by the environment. Giraffes only exist because long necks and strong tongues are really useful on the savannah: they can eat acacia, a resource few can access there. Some animals have bodies so efficient at surviving that they barely changed in millions of years: sharks are a great example of that. You can say they hit an evolutionary jackpot and didn't need to adapt much more than what they already have. But it wasn't fate deciding that, it was just sharks adapting to the environment at the time they showed up. And it happened to be so efficient that it didn't need to be changed for their survival.
Implying natural selection is not a part of evolution and dismissing it as gnosticism is just plain wrong.
Hell, natural selection works even on the market: the smartphone proliferated because the environment (us, the consumers) favored it over the previous forms of handheld devices. McDonald's and fast food were favored by the consumer as they were convenient methods of eating (convenient, not healthy).
Just some constructive commentary. Please, don't spread misconceptions on biology. We already have creationists for that.
Seconded
"Implying natural selection is not a part of evolution and dismissing it as gnosticism is just plain wrong." - So right! In fact, Darwin's theory of natural selection as the chief MECHANISM of evolution is the only reason why the very old theory of evolution quickly came to be widely accepted. There were evolutionists before Darwin, in fact, since at least the fourth century BC, including Charles' grandfather Erasmus Darwin, but it had few adherents because no one could explain how it might work. It was Charles's theory of natural selection that changed that.
@@michaels4255 Hell, the Catholic Church, for all its obscurantism, had to admit that Latin was becoming something else in the many areas it had sway over --- they saw the romance languages emerging and had to admit "well, we can't keep insisting that people are speaking Latin anymore".
@@leonardonascimentopires3043 The romance languages emerged many centuries ago, but the RCC continued to use Latin until the end of V2 (1965), so obviously this decision had nothing to do with what people were speaking. They even used Latin in non - Romance countries! However, the world of SECULAR scholarship and literature (in both Romance and Non - Romance countries) ended several centuries earlier, but that was related to the rise of national identities, not to policies of the RCC.
@@michaels4255 I mean, sure, but that was not the point: even catholics had to admit something was up when the romance languages emerged
one of my favorite videos so far, never realized how interconnected darwin (or more specifically the aftermath of "the origin of species" and further how ideologies/idealogues used "darwinism") and eugenics are and how Richard Owen's theories were a more accurate representation of evolution. this video really opened my eyes on how much i am lacking in knowledge on the history of evolutionary theory, and for that alone i thank you
I am not sure if you've heard it said before but I've heard National Socialism and Marxian socialism are linked with Lamarckian evolutionary theory rather than with Darwinian evolutionary theory, if you are on this topic it seems like a good avenue to explore that may bring some insight.
I know the connection is probably more blatant with the soviets, especially with Lysenko, but from what i know there appears to be some sort of connection there, especially with the concept of struggle.
I'm no fan of Nietzsche, but I can offer one charitable interpretation of his will to power. One needs a will to power over oneself, to wish to master yourself and be master of yourself and only yourself. You cannot be free without this will, for without it you will always shirk your responsibility towards yourself and liberty
Richard's might be correct, but waffling about "conservative, religious thinkers" to discredit the statements before hand is kind of ridiculous for a person trying to convince others, unless he is really just trying to convince those that wouldn't need convincing anyways
Indeed I found those bits very fallacious and it makes me want to read Weikart to see what he actually believes.
Regarding the direction of historical study, I argue it depends on the objective. Why does a child care about ancient Sumaria and clay tablets? It has no bearing on them, they think, and history becomes a terrible experience for them because there is no point to paying attention to the foundation. Which you must have to understand everything that comes later. Starting at the point of interest and working back to find out why something happened can help connect the past to something tangible.
Going backward can also be a powerful tool, and may even help highlight discrepancies in the narrative being presented. "Wait, that doesn't make sense. Why does H man nationalize the unions if he is anti-union?" You find that inflection point and start investigating backwards. Pulling at threads and unraveling as you go.
On the other hand, it can be used to hide and obfuscate, as you point out with Pienaar. So its not that one method is necessarily correct, but that each has unique utility and risk.
I mean I hung out with vets as a kid and that got me interested in history, other family members around the same age did not so they never did. Writing backwards either means he’s just straight up lying or he’s doing it to hook the reader in, they’re reading it for the national socialism and Hitler stuff.
TIK could you please delve into Caroll Quigleys work specifically his two infamous, tomes “tragedy and hope” and “Anglo American establishment”, his work would be considered a precursor to Antony Sutton thank you
Did you think some time on made videos not focus on the Second World War like (on some way) this? Is awesome. As someone who don't have money for books and hate to read online because destroy my vision, this kind of information is pure gold. Also you don't force your think in the topics, you give sources and quotes for everything you say and that's should'be the first thing everyone who talk of history should do.
English is not my first language, if is something wrong here is because of that :b
Thank you , TIKhistory.
ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING!!!! I would definitely want to watch more on this topic since there are so many misconceptions about this that I find it really refreshing and inspiring to have this untangled and learn from it.
Perhaps even a video on the philosophy of Heraclitus, and subsequently philosophy of Plato including, would be much appreciated!
Great work and so relevant to today, you can see whiffs of this mindset in today's Britain, the only bit I don't get, is the flooding of the country with the dregs of the worlds societies
The people with the same roots as those in this video decided that whatever Hitler stood for must have been wrong so instead diversity is the way to create ‘the race’ and that reality favors putting diverse types of people together hence why they want to forcibly import other types of people.
I also have an inkling that they still believe in the shrinking markets problem and believe that if they keep the “third world” poor, then they’ll have a constant way to sustain their own societies by incentivizing people to move in and do menial jobs from there
@leblevjames7744 Yes, I think you're right
@@JHouston62they switched sides and joined the Jews 😂
Don’t ignore it. Eugenics in general deserves more attention. I did a study of what I refer to as modern eugenics, and sometimes Social Darwinism, but I actually start with Malthus. I did Malthus to Darwin (Social Darwinism) to Julian Huxley (Eugenics) to Aurelio Peccei (Club of Rome, Limits To Growth, Rockefeller Population Council) Alexander King (Later Club of Rome and ties to WEF). I was actually working on Eugenics and The Club of Rome for a 3 part essay on Substack so I could not make every single connection or it would have been too long. My contention is that The Club of Rome originates from the Eugenics movement and in turn influenced the WEF which the CofR, founded earlier than the WEF, inspired. It’s a vast web, and I would like to know more.
Social Darwinism begins with Herbert Spencer, not with Darwin; and eugenics begins with Galton, not with Julian Huxley. Your research is clearly deficient. These are huge mistakes.
To understand Darwin you need to read the origin of species in its original printing, “the origin of species or the preservation of the food races in their struggle to survive” & “the descent of man” along with those books. It should also be noted that Darwin was a fan of Calvin’s predestination theology.
John Taylor Gatto in his ultimate history lesson talks about this as well
Love the accents when reading the quotes!! Great informative video. Keep up the good work!😊
Hi tik!
I really like your content, especially the videos about fascism and fascists. So that is why I would love if you could do a comparison between Adolf Hitler and antoun Sa'adeh (founder of the Syrian Social Nationalist party). He was a very important figure in French mandate and post French mandate in syria history. Claimed to be a fascist and openly supported Adolf Hitler.
Thank you in advance.
Ali
I am interested in reading more about this and the political connections between this and the current Syrian regime in power.
I too am a Nationalist of the Social variant.
@@Reinhard_ErlikBASED 🤙
I haven't watched the video yet, but the thumbnail made me laugh out loud😆 Thanks for bringing joy into my life, mate🤩
I was lucky in University to have one of my history professors background fields being WW2 Germany because he touched upon elements of outside examples of nazi crimes which they used to obfuscate their actions. It is so outrageously frustrating to read sources which play into the hands of people who can use them for such heinous acts, and what's worse is that those same people can't bring themselves to have even a shred of self awareness or introspection to realize that acting just as foolish as the people they're trying to separate themselves from.
Before establishing crime, one needs to have evidence... good evidence that is not just some narrative and fool's play type of arguing. But people don't get that. They can be shown stuff with a hypothesis and then believe the hypothesis because they've 'seen it'... Really?
Great stuff. Your takes bring wider picture of historical events. Give context in the world of short attention span.
we need more please keep going and dont hurry your research we are patient
More please!
Just as an anecdote: I was having a conversation with a relative of mine yesterday about whatever came to mind and an offhand comment was put forth by him along the lines of "nowadays so many unintelligent people possess way too much money and power, if we look into the past anyone in power was at least educated to a higher standard" with the implication being that it somehow made society run better/better decisions were made. Then in the evening your video pops up and in an hour you paint a very bleak picture of how a group of intellectuals manage to "fabricate" justifications for probably the greatest crimes in history and it takes them less than 100 years of echochambering. Talk about a counter-argument! /anecdote
Thank you for all that you do TIK!
Great job. I Started writing a book a week ago that deals with this topic.
How’s the book going?
This is the material as of why I watch this channel.
More of this please.
Awesome video! More stuff like this please!
I know I am biased, but I would like to hear more on this topic. I think there are deeper implications suggested by the potential relationships between some of these individuals that return to many of the issues covered in the world today. Great video (as usual)!
Hey tik , first of all thanks for the video about eugenetics ,secondly do you ever planing to do battlestroms about ww1 battles in the future.
I've been fascinated by ww2 my whole life and you have one of the best, most informative- not only the best CZcams channel- but overall best presentations anywhere,anytime. God bless, from America
I still recall the testimony from the classic documentary the World at War of a German woman who along with some neighbours were hiding Jews and one time she turned some people away for a bunch of reasons, it wasn't convienient at the time etc. Later she found out how those people were arrested at a train station and went on to die in a concentration camp. The completely forthright way that she explained how the Hitler and the Nazi's turned her into a murderer.. I'll never forget that.
"went on to die in a concentration camp" - How did she know they died? Not everyone did you know. They were labor camps (except for Auschwitz which was a processing camp) and as recently as 2005, the state of Israel still counted more than 1 million elderly survivors, which means there must have been many millions of them still alive when "the holocaust" (as it became known in 1967) officially ended in 1944 (the termination date according to J'ish historians of the holocaust). Of course, you might wonder what sort of "holocaust" leaves millions of its least favorite people still alive when recent historians claim there were then not more than about 12 millions J's between the Urals and the British Isles, and not all of them under German occupation. Well, that is not a permissible topic of discussion on YT, and shame on you for thinking about it!
Please talk about the Fabian Society next!
Yeah, it's something I need to do at some point
@@TheImperatorKnight Yay. I've been badgering James Lindsay for months but he won't look into it even though I found essays stating they influence John Dewey!
Seconded!
@@ArgentWolf95 Woop! Let's gooo!!
I can't promise it'll be soon. In fact, it's a difficult topic to talk about due to the fact it's a conspiracy in and of itself, and we live in a world where people have been conditioned to believe that conspiracies don't happen...
15:56
The entire book is available to rent on the Internet Archive.
Thanks tik this was very well put together. There seem to be plenty of puzzle pieces that made up the answer to the question. I'm looking forward to the next video! have a great time till then :).
I love your videos, the level of intelectual integrity and steel manning is nothing shy of inspirational
Hmmm...science forms a concensus around popular belief, then censors dissent? Who could have guessed?
Can anybody explain the eugenic ideas used by the soviets? I haven't really heard about marxist states using eugenics for their ideology but I am intrigued.
Acccording to wiki eugenics was pretty popular in ussr in 1920s with idias of creating super soviet citizens (aka homosoveticus).
However in the middle of 30th it lost it position probably because of association with Nazis and later it was banned at all. Unfortunately for soviet science they've banned genetics too, which stoped soviet science in that field for almost 2 decades.
I wish I had more academic sources to give you but I’ve heard that basically the purges from the Cheka and NKVD were part of it and that the Soviets really had a thing for psychiatrists labeling dissidents and anyone they weren’t super keen on as mentally disabled/ill. Supposedly they diagnosed something like 90% of political opponents with schizophrenia and other disorders
Soviets denied genetics altogeather.
Mesmerizing hour. I'd never heard you before, and so spent the first half mentally probing for biases and red flags. I'm an instant subscriber, and Bravo!. I would very much like to see you continue to chase down this thread. (The notifications will alert me when you do. : )
Thank you for this, it just shows how many people were thinking about the possiblity of eliminating a certain part of humanity roundabout the 1880s, to purify mankind. I would be really greatful if you could also do some research into Martin Luther and his ifluence on _'that man's'_ (A.H.) decisions, thanks!
Contrasting John Calvins economics/society vs Marx/modern socialist society, would be another good crossover.
Decades ago, I watched a documentary where, in the late 1930s, a German-Jewish woman was sent to America by her husband (a physician) to see if she could find him a job (a condition of refugee status). The hospital she visited was located in the south. The woman was horrified to see that America was treating its blacks _identical_ to how Germany was treating her and her husband. The hospital sent her home with an offer of employment for her husband, but upon returning she lied and told him he didn't get the job. They both survived the war, and she confessed to him what she had done after. She told him she felt, as minorities, they were no better off in America than in Nazi Germany. That story always stuck with me.
I am so happy your channel exists! Keep going, man, and don't let the mob censor you!