Mein Kampf

Excerpts from Hitler's Mein Kampf

MEIN KAMPF By Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
Project Gutenberg File Converted into HTML pages by Nalanda Digital Library under Etext Conversion Project (ECP)

VOLUME-1 CHAPTER XI - RACE AND PEOPLE
There are certain truths which stand out so openly on the roadsides of life, as it were, that every passer-by may see them. Yet, because of their very obviousness, the general run of people disregard such truths or at least they do not make them the object of any conscious knowledge. People are so blind to some of the simplest facts in every-day life that they are highly surprised when somebody calls attention to what everybody ought to know. Examples of The Columbus Egg lie around us in hundreds of thousands; but observers like Columbus are rare.
Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth.
Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law--one may call it an iron law of Nature--which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.
Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances. This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means of defence against outer attack.
Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.
This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. It would be impossible to find a fox which has a kindly and protective disposition towards geese, just as no cat exists which has a friendly disposition towards mice.
That is why the struggle between the various species does not arise from a feeling of mutual antipathy but rather from hunger and love. In both cases Nature looks on calmly and is even pleased with what happens. The struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species. Thus it is one of the causes underlying the process of development towards a higher quality of being.
If the case were different the progressive process would cease, and even retrogression might set in. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly if they possessed the same capacities for survival and for the procreation of their kind; and the final consequence would be that the best in quality would be forced to recede into the background. Therefore a corrective measure in favour of the better quality must intervene. Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for here a new and rigorous selection takes place, according to strength and health.
If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.
History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants--who mainly belonged to the Latin races--mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
Man's effort to build up something that contradicts the iron logic of Nature brings him into conflict with those principles to which he himself exclusively owes his own existence. By acting against the laws of Nature he prepares the way that leads to his ruin.
Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even Nature."
There are millions who repeat by rote that piece of Jewish babble and end up by imagining that somehow they themselves are the conquerors of Nature. And yet their only weapon is just a mere idea, and a very preposterous idea into the bargain; because if one accepted it, then it would be impossible even to imagine the existence of the world.
The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcome Nature in any sphere whatsoever but that at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil which she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secret. He never creates anything. All he can do is to discover something. He does not master Nature but has only come to be the master of those living beings who have not gained the knowledge he has arrived at by penetrating into some of Nature's laws and mysteries. Apart from all this, an idea can never subject to its own sway those conditions which are necessary for the existence and development of mankind; for the idea itself has come only from man. Without man there would be no human idea in this world. The idea as such is therefore always dependent on the existence of man and consequently is dependent on those laws which furnish the conditions of his existence.
And not only that. Certain ideas are even confined to certain people. This holds true with regard to those ideas in particular which have not their roots in objective scientific truth but in the world of feeling. In other words, to use a phrase which is current to-day and which well and clearly expresses this truth: THEY REFLECT AN INNER EXPERIENCE. All such ideas, which have nothing to do with cold logic as such but represent mere manifestations of feeling, such as ethical and moral conceptions, etc., are inextricably bound up with man's existence. It is to the creative powers of man's imagination that such ideas owe their existence.
Now, then, a necessary condition for the maintenance of such ideas is the existence of certain races and certain types of men. For example, anyone who sincerely wishes that the pacifist idea should prevail in this world ought to do all he is capable of doing to help the Germans conquer the world; for in case the reverse should happen it may easily be that the last pacifist would disappear with the last German. I say this because, unfortunately, only our people, and no other people in the world, fell a prey to this idea. Whether you like it or not, you would have to make up your mind to forget wars if you would achieve the pacifist ideal. Nothing less than this was the plan of the American world-redeemer, Woodrow Wilson. Anyhow that was what our visionaries believed, and they thought that through his plans their ideals would be attained.
Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really deprives himself of the happiness to which he believes he can attain. For he places an obstacle in the victorious path of the superior race and, by so doing, he interferes with a prerequisite condition of all human progress. Loaded with the burden of humanitarian sentiment, he falls back to the level of those who are unable to raise themselves in the scale of being.
It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question as to what race or races were the original standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the real founders of all that we understand by the word humanity. It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert.
If we divide mankind into three categories--founders of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of culture--the Aryan alone can be considered as representing the first category. It was he who laid the groundwork and erected the walls of every great structure in human culture. Only the shape and colour of such structures are to be attributed to the individual characteristics of the various nations. It is the Aryan who has furnished the great building-stones and plans for the edifices of all human progress; only the way in which these plans have been executed is to be attributed to the qualities of each individual race. Within a few decades the whole of Eastern Asia, for instance, appropriated a culture and called such a culture its own, whereas the basis of that culture was the Greek mind and Teutonic skill as we know it. Only the external form--at least to a certain degree--shows the traits of an Asiatic inspiration. It is not true, as some believe, that Japan adds European technique to a culture of her own. The truth rather is that European science and technics are just decked out with the peculiar characteristics of Japanese civilization. The foundations of actual life in Japan to-day are not those of the native Japanese culture, although this characterizes the external features of the country, which features strike the eye of European observers on account of their fundamental difference from us; but the real foundations of contemporary Japanese life are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, that is to say, of Aryan peoples. Only by adopting these achievements as the foundations of their own progress can the various nations of the Orient take a place in contemporary world progress. The scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America provide the basis on which the struggle for daily livelihood is carried on in the Orient. They provide the necessary arms and instruments for this struggle, and only the outer forms of these instruments have become gradually adapted to Japanese ways of life.
If, from to-day onwards, the Aryan influence on Japan would cease--and if we suppose that Europe and America would collapse--then the present progress of Japan in science and technique might still last for a short duration; but within a few decades the inspiration would dry up, and native Japanese character would triumph, while the present civilization would become fossilized and fall back into the sleep from which it was aroused about seventy years ago by the impact of Aryan culture. We may therefore draw the conclusion that, just as the present Japanese development has been due to Aryan influence, so in the immemorial past an outside influence and an outside culture brought into existence the Japanese culture of that day. This opinion is very strongly supported by the fact that the ancient civilization of Japan actually became fossilizied and petrified. Such a process of senility can happen only if a people loses the racial cell which originally had been creative or if the outside influence should be withdrawn after having awakened and maintained the first cultural developments in that region. If it be shown that a people owes the fundamental elements of its culture to foreign races, assimilating and elaborating such elements, and if subsequently that culture becomes fossilized whenever the external influence ceases, then such a race may be called the depository but never the creator of a culture.
If we subject the different peoples to a strict test from this standpoint we shall find that scarcely any one of them has originally created a culture, but almost all have been merely the recipients of a culture created elsewhere.
This development may be depicted as always happening somewhat in the following way:
Aryan tribes, often almost ridiculously small in number, subjugated foreign peoples and, stimulated by the conditions of life which their new country offered them (fertility, the nature of the climate, etc.), and profiting also by the abundance of manual labour furnished them by the inferior race, they developed intellectual and organizing faculties which had hitherto been dormant in these conquering tribes. Within the course of a few thousand years, or even centuries, they gave life to cultures whose primitive traits completely corresponded to the character of the founders, though modified by adaptation to the peculiarities of the soil and the characteristics of the subjugated people. But finally the conquering race offended against the principles which they first had observed, namely, the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed, and they began to intermingle with the subjugated people. Thus they put an end to their own separate existence; for the original sin committed in Paradise has always been followed by the expulsion of the guilty parties.
After a thousand years or more the last visible traces of those former masters may then be found in a lighter tint of the skin which the Aryan blood had bequeathed to the subjugated race, and in a fossilized culture of which those Aryans had been the original creators. For just as the blood. of the conqueror, who was a conqueror not only in body but also in spirit, got submerged in the blood of the subject race, so the substance disappeared out of which the torch of human culture and progress was kindled. In so far as the blood of the former ruling race has left a light nuance of colour in the blood of its descendants, as a token and a memory, the night of cultural life is rendered less dim and dark by a mild light radiated from the products of those who were the bearers of the original fire. Their radiance shines across the barbarism to which the subjected race has reverted and might often lead the superficial observer to believe that he sees before him an image of the present race when he is really looking into a mirror wherein only the past is reflected.
It may happen that in the course of its history such a people will come into contact a second time, and even oftener, with the original founders of their culture and may not even remember that distant association. Instinctively the remnants of blood left from that old ruling race will be drawn towards this new phenomenon and what had formerly been possible only under compulsion can now be successfully achieved in a voluntary way. A new cultural wave flows in and lasts until the blood of its standard-bearers becomes once again adulterated by intermixture with the originally conquered race.
It will be the task of those who set themselves to the study of a universal history of civilization to investigate history from this point of view instead of allowing themselves to be smothered under the mass of external data, as is only too often the case with our present historical science.
This short sketch of the changes that take place among those races that are only the depositories of a culture also furnishes a picture of the development and the activity and the disappearance of those who are the true founders of culture on this earth, namely the Aryans themselves.
Just as in our daily life the so-called man of genius needs a particular occasion, and sometimes indeed a special stimulus, to bring his genius to light, so too in the life of the peoples the race that has genius in it needs the occasion and stimulus to bring that genius to expression. In the monotony and routine of everyday life even persons of significance seem just like the others and do not rise beyond the average level of their fellow-men. But as soon as such men find themselves in a special situation which disconcerts and unbalances the others, the humble person of apparently common qualities reveals traits of genius, often to the amazement of those who have hitherto known him in the small things of everyday life. That is the reason why a prophet only seldom counts for something in his own country. War offers an excellent occasion for observing this phenomenon. In times of distress, when the others despair, apparently harmless boys suddenly spring up and become heroes, full of determination, undaunted in the presence of Death and manifesting wonderful powers of calm reflection under such circumstances. If such an hour of trial did not come nobody would have thought that the soul of a hero lurked in the body of that beardless youth. A special impulse is almost always necessary to bring a man of genius into the foreground. The sledge-hammer of Fate which strikes down the one so easily suddenly finds the counter-impact of steel when it strikes at the other. And, after the common shell of everyday life is broken, the core that lay hidden in it is displayed to the eyes of an astonished world. This surrounding world then grows obstinate and will not believe that what had seemed so like itself is really of that different quality so suddenly displayed. This is a process which is repeated probably every time a man of outstanding significance appears.
Though an inventor, for example, does not establish his fame until the very day that he carries through his invention, it would be a mistake to believe that the creative genius did not become alive in him until that moment. From the very hour of his birth the spark of genius is living within the man who has been endowed with the real creative faculty. True genius is an innate quality. It can never be the result of education or training.
As I have stated already, this holds good not merely of the individual but also of the race. Those peoples who manifest creative abilities in certain periods of their history have always been fundamentally creative. It belongs to their very nature, even though this fact may escape the eyes of the superficial observer. Here also recognition from outside is only the consequence of practical achievement. Since the rest of the world is incapable of recognizing genius as such, it can only see the visible manifestations of genius in the form of inventions, discoveries, buildings, painting, etc.; but even here a long time passes before recognition is given. Just as the individual person who has been endowed with the gift of genius, or at least talent of a very high order, cannot bring that endowment to realization until he comes under the urge of special circumstances, so in the life of the nations the creative capacities and powers frequently have to wait until certain conditions stimulate them to action.
The most obvious example of this truth is furnished by that race which has been, and still is, the standard-bearer of human progress: I mean the Aryan race. As soon as Fate brings them face to face with special circumstances their powers begin to develop progressively and to be manifested in tangible form. The characteristic cultures which they create under such circumstances are almost always conditioned by the soil, the climate and the people they subjugate. The last factor--that of the character of the people--is the most decisive one. The more primitive the technical conditions under which the civilizing activity takes place, the more necessary is the existence of manual labour which can be organized and employed so as to take the place of mechanical power. Had it not been possible for them to employ members of the inferior race which they conquered, the Aryans would never have been in a position to take the first steps on the road which led them to a later type of culture; just as, without the help of certain suitable animals which they were able to tame, they would never have come to the invention of mechanical power which has subsequently enabled them to do without these beasts. The phrase, 'The Moor has accomplished his function, so let him now depart', has, unfortunately, a profound application. For thousands of years the horse has been the faithful servant of man and has helped him to lay the foundations of human progress, but now motor power has dispensed with the use of the horse. In a few years to come the use of the horse will cease entirely; and yet without its collaboration man could scarcely have come to the stage of development which he has now created.
For the establishment of superior types of civilization the members of inferior races formed one of the most essential pre-requisites. They alone could supply the lack of mechanical means without which no progress is possible. It is certain that the first stages of human civilization were not based so much on the use of tame animals as on the employment of human beings who were members of an inferior race.
Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa, as some people would have us believe. At first it was the conquered enemy who had to draw the plough and only afterwards did the ox and horse take his place. Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider this fact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization which these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to their rigmarole.
The progress of mankind may be compared to the process of ascending an infinite ladder. One does not reach the higher level without first having climbed the lower rungs. The Aryan therefore had to take that road which his sense of reality pointed out to him and not that which the modern pacifist dreams of. The path of reality is, however, difficult and hard to tread; yet it is the only one which finally leads to the goal where the others envisage mankind in their dreams. But the real truth is that those dreamers help only to lead man away from his goal rather than towards it.
It was not by mere chance that the first forms of civilization arose there where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first mechanical tools in the service of a growing civilization.
Thereby the way was clearly indicated which the Aryan had to follow. As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organized channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and purpose. By imposing on them a useful, though hard, manner of employing their powers he not only spared the lives of those whom he had conquered but probably made their lives easier than these had been in the former state of so-called 'freedom'. While he ruthlessly maintained his position as their master, he not only remained master but he also maintained and advanced civilization. For this depended exclusively on his inborn abilities and, therefore, on the preservation of the Aryan race as such. As soon, however, as his subject began to rise and approach the level of their conqueror, a phase of which ascension was probably the use of his language, the barriers that had distinguished master from servant broke down. The Aryan neglected to maintain his own racial stock unmixed and therewith lost the right to live in the paradise which he himself had created. He became submerged in the racial mixture and gradually lost his cultural creativeness, until he finally grew, not only mentally but also physically, more like the aborigines whom he had subjected rather than his own ancestors. For some time he could continue to live on the capital of that culture which still remained; but a condition of fossilization soon set in and he sank into oblivion.
That is how cultures and empires decline and yield their places to new formations.
The adulteration of the blood and racial deterioration conditioned thereby are the only causes that account for the decline of ancient civilizations; for it is never by war that nations are ruined, but by the loss of their powers of resistance, which are exclusively a characteristic of pure racial blood. In this world everything that is not of sound racial stock is like chaff. Every historical event in the world is nothing more nor less than a manifestation of the instinct of racial self-preservation, whether for weal or woe.
VOLUME-2 CHAPTER IV - PERSONALITY AND THE IDEAL OF THE PEOPLE'S STATE
If the principal duty of the National Socialist People's State be to educate and promote the existence of those who are the material out of which the State is formed, it will not be sufficient to promote those racial elements as such, educate them and finally train them for practical life, but the State must also adapt its own organization to meet the demands of this task.
It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality.
The first consequence of this fact is comparatively simple. It demands that those elements within the folk-community which show the best racial qualities ought to be encouraged more than the others and especially they should be encouraged to increase and multiply.
This task is comparatively simple because it can be recognized and carried out almost mechanically. It is much more difficult to select from among a whole multitude of people all those who actually possess the highest intellectual and spiritual characteristics and assign them to that sphere of influence which not only corresponds to their outstanding talents but in which their activities will above all things be of benefit to the nation. This selection according to capacity and efficiency cannot be effected in a mechanical way. It is a work which can be accomplished only through the permanent struggle of everyday life itself.
Anyone who believes that the People's National Socialist State should distinguish itself from the other States only mechanically, as it were, through the better construction of its economic life--thanks to a better equilibrium between poverty and riches, or to the extension to broader masses of the power to determine the economic process, or to a fairer wage, or to the elimination of vast differences in the scale of salaries--anyone who thinks this understands only the superficial features of our movement and has not the least idea of what we mean when we speak of our WELTANSCHAUUNG. All these features just mentioned could not in the least guarantee us a lasting existence and certainly would be no warranty of greatness. A nation that could content itself with external reforms would not have the slightest chance of success in the general struggle for life among the nations of the world. A movement that would confine its mission to such adjustments, which are certainly right and equitable, would effect no far-reaching or profound reform in the existing order. The whole effect of such measures would be limited to externals. They would not furnish the nation with that moral armament which alone will enable it effectively to overcome the weaknesses from which we are suffering to-day.
In order to elucidate this point of view it may be worth while to glance once again at the real origins and causes of the cultural evolution of mankind.
The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its origin to the ruses and stratagems which man employed to assist him in the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the struggle. Those first very crude inventions cannot be attributed to the individual; for the subsequent observer, that is to say the modern observer, recognizes them only as collective phenomena. Certain tricks and skilful tactics which can be observed in use among the animals strike the eye of the observer as established facts which may be seen everywhere; and man is no longer in a position to discover or explain their primary cause and so he contents himself with calling such phenomena 'instinctive.'
In our case this term has no meaning. Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscience of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct.'
This is more easily understood and more easy to believe in the case of man. His first skilled tactics in the struggle with the rest of the animals undoubtedly originated in his management of creatures which possessed special capabilities.
There can be no doubt that personality was then the sole factor in all decisions and achievements, which were afterwards taken over by the whole of humanity as a matter of course. An exact exemplification of this may be found in those fundamental military principles which have now become the basis of all strategy in war. Originally they sprang from the brain of a single individual and in the course of many years, maybe even thousands of years, they were accepted all round as a matter of course and this gained universal validity.
Man completed his first discovery by making a second. Among other things he learned how to master other living beings and make them serve him in his struggle for existence. And thus began the real inventive activity of mankind, as it is now visible before our eyes. Those material inventions, beginning with the use of stones as weapons, which led to the domestication of animals, the production of fire by artificial means, down to the marvellous inventions of our own days, show clearly that an individual was the originator in each case. The nearer we come to our own time and the more important and revolutionary the inventions become, the more clearly do we recognize the truth of that statement. All the material inventions which we see around us have been produced by the creative powers and capabilities of individuals. And all these inventions help man to raise himself higher and higher above the animal world and to separate himself from that world in an absolutely definite way. Hence they serve to elevate the human species and continually to promote its progress. And what the most primitive artifice once did for man in his struggle for existence, as he went hunting through the primeval forest, that same sort of assistance is rendered him to-day in the form of marvellous scientific inventions which help him in the present day struggle for life and to forge weapons for future struggles. In their final consequences all human thought and invention help man in his life-struggle on this planet, even though the so-called practical utility of an invention, a discovery or a profound scientific theory, may not be evident at first sight. Everything contributes to raise man higher and higher above the level of all the other creatures that surround him, thereby strengthening and consolidating his position; so that he develops more and more in every direction as the ruling being on this earth.
Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for existence.
Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another and one of them bases his work on that of the other. The same is true in regard to the practical application of those inventions and discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their turn inventions also and consequently dependent on the creative faculty of the individual. Even the purely theoretical work, which cannot be measured by a definite rule and is preliminary to all subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the majority organize or think; but always and in every case the individual man, the person.
Accordingly a human community is well organized only when it facilitates to the highest possible degree individual creative forces and utilizes their work for the benefit of the community. The most valuable factor of an invention, whether it be in the world of material realities or in the world of abstract ideas, is the personality of the inventor himself. The first and supreme duty of an organized folk community is to place the inventor in a position where he can be of the greatest benefit to all. Indeed the very purpose of the organization is to put this principle into practice. Only by so doing can it ward off the curse of mechanization and remain a living thing. In itself it must personify the effort to place men of brains above the multitude and to make the latter obey the former.
Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership.
Such men of brains are selected mainly, as I have already said, through the hard struggle for existence itself. In this struggle there are many who break down and collapse and thereby show that they are not called by Destiny to fill the highest positions; and only very few are left who can be classed among the elect. In the realm of thought and of artistic creation, and even in the economic field, this same process of selection takes place, although--especially in the economic field--its operation is heavily handicapped. This same principle of selection rules in the administration of the State and in that department of power which personifies the organized military defence of the nation. The idea of personality rules everywhere, the authority of the individual over his subordinates and the responsibility of the individual towards the persons who are placed over him. It is only in political life that this very natural principle has been completely excluded. Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass which counts--through the decision of the majority--makes its appearance only in the administration of the national community especially in the higher grades; and from there downwards the poison gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to the persistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the destructive principle of the Jews, They become the 'ferment of decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sense, the wreckers of human civilization.
Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish endeavour to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In politics the parliamentary form of government is the expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the trade union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry. Just to the same degree in which the principle of personality is excluded from the economic life of the nation, and the influence and activities of the masses substituted in its stead, national economy, which should be for the service and benefit of the community as a whole, will gradually deteriorate in its creative capacity. The shop committees which, instead of caring for the interests of the employees, strive to influence the process of production, serve the same destructive purpose. They damage the general productive system and consequently injure the individual engaged in industry. For in the long run it is impossible to satisfy popular demands merely by high-sounding theoretical phrases. These can be satisfied only by supplying goods to meet the individual needs of daily life and by so doing create the conviction that, through the productive collaboration of its members, the folk community serves the interests of the individual..
The People's State must assure the welfare of its citizens by recognizing the importance of personal values under all circumstances and by preparing the way for the maximum of productive efficiency in all the various branches of economic life, thus securing to the individual the highest possible share in the general output.
Hence the People's State must mercilessly expurgate from all the leading circles in the government of the country the parliamentarian principle, according to which decisive power through the majority vote is invested in the multitude. Personal responsibility must be substituted in its stead.
From this the following conclusion results:
The best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the community.
Just as in the field of economics men of outstanding ability cannot be designated from above but must come forward in virtue of their own efforts, and just as there is an unceasing educative process that leads from the smallest shop to the largest undertaking, and just as life itself is the school in which those lessons are taught, so in the political field it is not possible to 'discover' political talent all in a moment. Genius of an extraordinary stamp is not to be judged by normal standards whereby we judge other men.
In its organization the State must be established on the principle of personality, starting from the smallest cell and ascending up to the supreme government of the country.
There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons. And the word 'council' is once more restored to its original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual person alone.
The principle which made the former Prussian Army an admirable instrument of the German nation will have to become the basis of our statal constitution, that is to say, full authority over his subordinates must be invested in each leader and he must be responsible to those above him.
Even then we shall not be able to do without those corporations which at present we call parliaments. But they will be real councils, in the sense that they will have to give advice. The responsibility can and must be borne by one individual, who alone will be vested with authority and the right to command.
Parliaments as such are necessary because they alone furnish the opportunity for leaders to rise gradually who will be entrusted subsequently with positions of special responsibility.
The following is an outline of the picture which the organization will present:
From the municipal administration up to the government of the REICH, the People's State will not have any body of representatives which makes its decisions through the majority vote. It will have only advisory bodies to assist the chosen leader for the time being and he will distribute among them the various duties they are to perform. In certain fields they may, if necessary, have to assume full responsibility, such as the leader or president of each corporation possesses on a larger scale.
In principle the People's State must forbid the custom of taking advice on certain political problems--economics, for instance--from persons who are entirely incompetent because they lack special training and practical experience in such matters. Consequently the State must divide its representative bodies into a political chamber and a corporative chamber that represents the respective trades and professions.
To assure an effective co-operation between those two bodies, a selected body will be placed over them. This will be a special senate.
No vote will be taken in the chambers or senate. They are to be organizations for work and not voting machines. The individual members will have consultive votes but no right of decision will be attached thereto. The right of decision belongs exclusively to the president, who must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.
This principle of combining absolute authority with absolute responsibility will gradually cause a selected group of leaders to emerge; which is not even thinkable in our present epoch of irresponsible parliamentarianism.
The political construction of the nation will thereby be brought into harmony with those laws to which the nation already owes its greatness in the economic and cultural spheres.
Regarding the possibility of putting these principles into practice, I should like to call attention to the fact that the principle of parliamentarian democracy, whereby decisions are enacted through the majority vote, has not always ruled the world. On the contrary, we find it prevalent only during short periods of history, and those have always been periods of decline in nations and States.
One must not believe, however, that such a radical change could be effected by measures of a purely theoretical character, operating from above downwards; for the change I have been describing could not be limited to transforming the constitution of a State but would have to include the various fields of legislation and civic existence as a whole. Such a revolution can be brought about only by means of a movement which is itself organized under the inspiration of these principles and thus bears the germ of the future State in its own organism.
Therefore it is well for the National Socialist Movement to make itself completely familiar with those principles to-day and actually to put them into practice within its own organization, so that not only will it be in a position to serve as a guide for the future State but will have its own organization such that it can subsequently be placed at the disposal of the State itself.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Hitler, Darwin and Japan; how do they relate ?

(1) A lot has been said regarding whether or not Hitler was influenced by Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and by Nietzsche’s theory of the over man. After doing some research, I can say that opinions are equally divided. On ones side are those who defend the close relationship between Darwin’s and Hitler’s anti-Semitism ideas. “Concerning whether Hitler's ideas were Darwinian: Hitler believed that population pressure causes a struggle for existence between organisms that leads to evolutionary progress. He also believed that this struggle occurred between human races. This is completely Darwinian (yes, Darwin did use the rhetoric of progress), and Hitler often described evolution in Darwinian terms.” Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler.

However, I don’t think Hitler’s anti-Semitic ideas were directly influenced by Darwin’s writings. If Hitler was highly influenced by Darwin, why he never mentioned him on his writings, such as Mein Kampf? I kept asking myself this question. Weikart in his book “From Darwin to Hitler” addresses this question” by arguing that “Hitler hardly ever named thinkers from whom he derived ideas.” Weikart continues by saying that “[he] thinks this was because he wanted to appear like an original thinker” He also argues that there is no evidence that Hitler ever read Darwin, and that he might has just gotten his knowledge from school, newspapers and books. Fair enough. Hitler didn’t want to show the world that he had based his theories on other people’s theories, but that instead they come all from his own mind, he was the creator.

“In Hitler’s mind Darwinism provided the moral justification for infanticide, euthanasia, genocide, and other policies that had been (and thankfully still are) considered immoral by more conventional moral standards. Evolution provided the ultimate goals of his policy: the biological improvement of the human species”. Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 215

While doing research, I also discovered that Hitler wrote another book after Mein Kampf – “Zweites Buch”- were he indeed shows Darwin’s influences in his writings; specially Darwin’s concepts of evolution. Terms such as “struggle for survival”, “self-preservation”, and “evolution” are mentioned more than once in this book. Paragraphs like the followings: "Politics is history in the making. History itself represents the progression of a people’s struggle for survival [life]. I use the phrase 'struggle for survival' [life] intentionally here, because in reality every struggle for daily bread, whether in war or peace, is a never-ending battle against thousands and thousands of obstacles, just as life itself is a never-ending battle against death. Human beings know no more than any other creature in the world why they live, but life is filled with the longing to preserve it.” or "In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution." and "Politics is the art of the execution of the struggle for life of a people [Volk] for its earthly existence. Foreign policy is the art to secure a people [Volk] its necessary living space in extent and quality." shows us that indeed Hitler’s ideas about racial struggle, evolution, and population expansion were derived in some way from Darwin (http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2008/04/15/expell_ing_the_outrage_hitler_and_darwin).

On the other hand, there are those who opposed to the idea of any type of relationship between Darwin and Hitler anti-Semitic ideas. They go by saying that Hitler never used the term “evolution” (in the context of natural selection) in “Mein Kampf”, although it has been demonstrated that he did talk about it in his second book. They also argue that Hitler’s anti-Semitic ideas had a Biblical origin instead of a Darwinian one; “Hitler viewed progeny not in regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (a Biblical view)”. Perhaps the strongest arguments is that “at times, [Hitler] expressed his ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Spencer’s concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection (…) Spencer’s Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin’s biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs (…) adopted by the Nazis”. The author of this journal makes a note at the end of this paragraph that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems (http://nobeliefs.com/hitler-myths.htm#myth3).

At the end, I think Hitler’s mind was crooked and he did read Darwin, but misinterpreted his writings, or in other words, adequate them to his convenience in order to give himself a reason to support his idea of a superior race-the Aryan-and to exterminate the Jewish.

(2) I think the fact of Japan being part of the Axis in WWII was a mere strategically thing for Hitler: Japan could provide for China invasion; it was geographically located close to Russia and it could give Hitler’s military fair access to Russia territory; it has a superior naval infantry that could provide for an attack to the most important U.S. naval base – Pearl Harbor located in Hawaii. Japan had more accessible ways to get to the west coast of the U.S. than Germany, as Germany had to first conquer England to have an easier, opener access to the Atlantic Ocean. I believe that at the end of the war, if Hitler had won, he would have probably betrayed his alliance with Japan, and try to conquer them as well. Japan was for Hitler just another step in his run to achieve his goal – full supremacy and dominance of the world. So, the point that Hitler taught so little of Japan and made it of public knowledge in his book “Mein Kampf” is left apart in order to obtain all the “armament” necessary for Hitler to win the war.

While doing some research for this question, though, I found another point of view regarding why Japan joined Germany in WWII: When WWII started, Germany rapidly conquered most of Europe continental. The colonies of these countries conquered by Germany, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Indochina and Burma were left without protection from their colonizers. Japan was were interested in picking up those colonies, and probably taught that being Germany allies in war would make his possession of these colonies more accessible. The argument goes further by stating that Japan and Germany alliance was never very strong – military speaking and the negative response of Japan of intervening in Russia campaign make his relationship very weak. They did trade among them however, Germany providing high tech motors for watercraft and Japan providing raw rubber. This point of view also demonstrates then that in fact Japan also had strongly reasons to be Germany allied in WWII (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080726074757AAQgL5h).

(3) I tried the questions given on class among the members of my family. Although the questions were quite simple; would you rape a child to save your life? Would you rape a child to save his life? My relatives answered the question by asking me more questions; do I know the child? How old is he? Are we talking of sexual rape? Or perhaps molestation? I think they were just trying to avoid the clear, and for some, cruel but realistic answer: in both cases they probably would rape the kid. It’s difficult to affirm that in fact you would rape somebody to save your/or somebody else’s life since (1) raping is condemned by society (2) if saving your life is the issue, then you demonstrate being a selfish person capable of doing anything and everything to save yourself (3) if your first thought was to save the child regardless, don’t you think you are creating more harm to that child with such a horrible experience? I think that the term selfishness has been misinterpreted by society – at the end, how come you pretend to assist and offer help to others when you haven’t taken care of yourself first? I don’t deny that some help is done, but wouldn’t it be more efficient if we were at a 100 percent level when trying to help the others? Some personal development has to be achieved, and unfortunately, thinking of yourself first is the only way. If you are always thinking of what is good for others, leaving your dreams on side, when would you attain personal achievement? How can you give to others when your needs haven’t been covered? Now, the problem is that as society evolves, as we get better jobs and more money, we become greedy, and we think we have more necessities than before. That is condemned- greediness mixed with selfishness. However, I think that a little of selfishness, especially in order to achieve your own professional, personal goals, is helpful and harmless.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Hitler and perils of obedience

1) Both Darwin’s theory of natural selection and Nietzsche’s concept of the Overman are misunderstood by Hitler and strengthened Hitler’s concept of the master race of the Aryan. Darwin’s theory is all species derived from common ancestors through natural selection, which simply to say, organisms with characteristics that make them better adjusted to the environment tend to survive more than other organisms lacking of these characteristics and reproduce more, and thus be able to pass their genetic qualities to generations. (http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm) Darwin did not mean natural selection is progress of organisms. In fact, he never used the word “evolution” in his writings, and instead, he referred his theory as “descent with modification.” (http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/darwin.htm, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/dec/16/20051216-093825-6055r/?page=2) But, Hitler understood this concept to mean that the genes of the superior species, the Aryan viewed as the founder of culture by Hitler, should be passed to the next generation, and the genes of the inferior species, especially the Jew as the destroyer of culture, should not be passed to the posterity.
As for Nietzsche’s concept of the Overman, he claimed that people should try to become an Overman by breaking out of the idealistic norms, especially of Christian conscience. To be an Overman, man first needs to deny God, then absolve himself of responsibility through the postulation of a deity, and create his own ideal. Also, man has to overcome nihilism by living a life without God, fully acknowledging and utilizes his freedoms, and becoming completely independent. (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/%C3%9Cbermensch#Confusion_with_Scientific_Ideologies) Hitler interpreted this concept to justify killing people who are dependent each other and on God, do not create their own ideals, and are restricted with the dogmas of religion. Both Darwin’s theory and Nietzsche’s concept of the Overman stimulated and led Hitler to pursue the possibility of creating the superior human race by the hands of the human being themselves, not by God.

2) Although Japan was allied with Germany during the Second World War, Hitler’s views on Japanese were not all amicable. As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, the Aryan is the only founder of culture, and the Japanese are merely the bearers of culture. He wrote, “the present Japanese development has been due to Aryan influence,” and suggested the fall of Japan’s civilization without Aryan influence. However, Hitler appreciated the power of the Japanese military. Hitler claimed “we now have an ally who has never been vanquished in 3000 years!” when Japan entered into the war. (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Stadium/6712/warONamerica.htm) In addition to that, Hitler called the Japanese the “honorary Aryans.” (http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/nazism.htm) From these information, I think Hitler acknowledge Japan as a good partner at least in some ways.

3) I tried out the same questions we answered to in class to 22 people (more than the half was Asian) at the Thanksgiving Day party, which was a sort of inappropriate time to ask such a horrible question but was a good chance to take an anonymous survey at a same time. The result for the first question of choosing between being shot or raping a child was that 8 people (36%) would die and 14 people (64%) would rape a child. The ratio is almost the opposite of the result in class. As for the question of choosing between letting a child shot or raping a child to save, 6 people (27%) would let the child killed and 16 people (73%) would rape a child to save the life. It means a little more people would like to save a child comparing the result of our class. I think the result I found out for the first question is more realistic than the one in class, and the result for the second question was more idealistic than the one in class. Personally, I believe all people are self-centered, but we have and follow our moral principles. This can be explained following moral principles are just more beneficial to one than doing what he wants to do. So I think in reality, most people would rape a child to survive and most people would do nothing to avoid being involved with the crime. That said, as for the first question, there are many reasons for one to choose die. For some of us, it may be more frightening to rape a child than being killed. For some, it is more important to follow their ethics than being killed. Some people with their kids may choose to die instead of showing them their parents raping a child. But even if some choose to die, I think the reasons are all about themselves, not the child.

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Mein Kampf - Hitler's frightening insight into humanity

1) The writings of Darwin and Neitzsche show both the authors discussing the evolution of nature and strong beings. Hitler may have had some influence from both but in a strangely twisted way, as he showed in his book, Mein Kampf.
Darwin published a draft of Origin of Species in 1844 (http://www.darwin-online.org/). He claimed that all species had descended from other species, not independently. He also wrote that the species in existence in the world had been "modified and coadapted". Hitler's Mein Kampf seemed to be a dark interpretation of Darwin's Law of Natural Selection. Darwin wrote that "Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of the less improved forms of life". Hitler read this and believed that the Jews, not being the Aryan race, must be eliminated by him to keep with Nature's way of doing things.
Darwin wrote about transitions of how a simple being can be changed into a highly developed one. Hitler understood this to be the Germans being the leaders of the Aryan race. "Hybridism, of the infertility of species" was addressed by Darwin through his research, but Hitler took that as evidence that any intermingling of a superior and inferior race will lead to a weaker, infertile species.
The existential philosopher, Nietzsche wrote about "the overman" in "The Will to Power". The overman was a superior creature who would go beyond christian good and evil, and replace the passive man. Whereas this overman, being the next step up in the evolutionary ladder could have been used by Hitler to think of the Aryans as superior, many scholars disagree. The overman is a contradiction in himself, being a superior master of his environment but also seeing his human flaws. (www.freeessays.cc.com)
There are many basic themes in all three writings which hold similarity even though the context is different for all of them. Hitler may have been influenced by them as well as his own personal beliefs, values and nature.

2) In World War I, Germany under the nationalistic ruler, Wilhelm II, and it's allies, had been defeated . A Republic was formed but it was put heavily in debt by war reparations and restrictions via treaties. Germany was soon hit by hyperinflation and economic problems (www.world-war-2.info). Hitler became the President of Germany in 1933. In Mein Kampf he talks about the Japanese not being the creators of a culture, but using the "scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America" both being Aryan people. If they had not done this, their culture would have been fossilized.
Knowing that Germany had lost World War I, and that Germany was in dire financial straits, Hitler must have thought that he needed strong allies by his side. Japan was a worthy ally, having gone to war with China, and Hitler may have thought that it was Japan's saving grace, or payback to fight with Aryans.
Those may have been some of the reasons underlying the signing of the Tripartite Treaty by Germany, Italy and Japan on Sep 28th, 1940. (www.threeworldwars.com)
3) The question discussed in class about being shot or raping a child was one of the many moral dillemas philosophers face today. People have different viewpoints. Milgram's study showed us the innately dark aspect of human nature to torture another person if there was no responsibility attached, if the authoritative figure was authentic and sitting in close proximity, and if the victim was far away. Most people would prefer to be shot that rape an innocent young child. However, the sad reality, based on Milgram's experiment, is that how many, when faced with such a situation, would be morally upright to prefer dying than harm an innocent? It cannot be said. Situational and dispositional factors will prevail at such a moment because whereas humans are mostly alike, there are still disparities in thought and action, from one person to another.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Hitler believed humans were animals that the genetics laws could be applied. The Nazis believed that instead of allowing natural forces to control evolution, they must be in control of the process to advance the human race. The first step was to isolate the ‘inferior races’ in order to prevent them from further contaminating the ‘Aryan’ gene pool. The public support for this policy was a result of the belief that certain races were genetically inferior which was scientifically ‘proven’ by Darwinism. Hitler said that Darwinism was the only basis for a successful Germany. (Darwinism and the Holocaust, Bergman, Technical Journal.) The underlying themes in Nietzsche and Hitler's philosophies are the importance of impulses and action for self-preservation. It is suggested that Hitler had a direct awareness and interest in Nietzsche's philosophy. ( history.ucsb.edu)

"Japan did not fit into a category in Hitler's view, because he felt that there was no conflict of interests if Japan wanted to keep the whites out of Asia. Japan did not play an extensive role in Hitler's view of the world in the pre-war period, although Hitler had insisted that an alliance with Japan could help lead Germany "into a new future." Hitler saw the Japanese in a similar light as the Germans; hard-working, martially aware, racially unspoiled and with little living space. While he showed restraint in advocating an alliance, Hitler recognized the strategic value of Japan on the Russian front." (Hitler's Weltanschauung (World View)).

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

1 .Darwin’s theory of Evolution and Nietzsche’s philosophy of the Overman served as a centerpieces of the Hitler’s theory of Aryan supremacy. Darwin argued that through accumulation of minor genetic advantages over the generations, species develop certain advantageous mutations. This process leads to the situation that the inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior members of the species. (www.darwin-theory-of-evolution.com)This theory had been adapted by Hitler, who asserted that evolution does not stop on humans. People just as animals have their gradations on inferior and superior races. He went even further saying that the struggle between different species (humans) does not arise from antipathy, but rather from hunger and love. And because nature created such order “ a corrective measure in favor of the better quality must intervene” A new and rigorous selection must take place, according to strength and health, by which the “ weaker will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted” (Hitler, Mein Kampf).
Philosophical justification to his theory Hitler found in Nietzsche’s Overman theory. The fundamental idea of which was the proclamation “G-d is dead”. Since G-d is dead there is a necessity for the emergence of the Ubermensch, the superman or overman, who is to replace G-d. Following that logic supermen are creators of a master morality “that reflects the strength and independence of one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid” (www. age-of-the-sage.com). Adapting this philosophy Hitler claims that Aryan race, being superior among races, is an only prototype of the Overmen. And since the common moral norms are no longer valid, the only goal that should interest Arians is to achieve world supremacy over inferior races by conquering them with force. By doing that Arians will accomplish their Nature’s given role.

2. Even though Hitler rejected idea that Japanese could be creators of a culture or Aryans, he desperately needed allies in the war. So, a special term had been created – Honorary Aryan to grant status to people who were not considered to be biologically part of the Aryan race, but instead were granted an “honorary” status of being part of that race. This status could be granted to those whose services were considered valuable to the German economy. Hitler bestowed the title on the Japanese people. The Japanese, though of a different ethnicity, were considered by Hitler to have similar enough qualities to Aryans in order to build up an alliance with them.

3. In the “Perils of obedience” slightly mentioned the name of Adolf Eichman as an example of how far human being can get in his obedience following absolutely immoral and criminal orders. Probably somebody doesn’t know that Eichman was a chief officer responsible for the “final decision” of Jewish question in Nazi’s Germany during the WW2. Making long things short, he was actually responsible for execution of 6mln European Jews. After the war he succeeded to escape justice and lived under different identity in Argentina. But in 1963 he was traced and captured by Israeli Mossad and was delivered in the diplomatic baggage to Jerusalem to face a trial.
People who presented on this trial shared their common impressions on how come this intelligent and educated person could did what he did and thereafter peacefully live under such a heavy burden. His answer was that he was only a solder who fulfilled orders.
This is an extreme example reflecting how dangerous can be the loss of responsibility for what you forced to do by someone else.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Question # 1
Hitler and other supremacist share the common mentality that one race is superior to another and seem to use literature to assert their position. However, the works of Charles Darwin and Nietzsche has been misinterpreted to gain meaning of a whole new sort. People have coined the term as Social Darwinism as the scientific reasoning behind racism, however, Darwin imply that everyone not belonging to the superior race should be killed. According to Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”, the scientist states that Negroes and Europeans belong to different sub-species, however if presented to a naturalist would be view as “good and true” species. This shows that even though the Negro and white race have different physical qualities, they are human species and therefore equal.
As for the writings of Nietzsche, which propelled Hitler’s calamity, is more closely associated with racist comments which influenced Hitler. In Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Moral, he states that the pure bread Aryan holds the upper hand due to their complexion and intellect. Nietzsche was bold in his statements pertaining to race, however, he did not mention the ethnic cleansing technique utilized by Hitler.

Question # 2
The fact that Japan joined the Axis Powers does not make practical sense to me. The Axis Power was led by Germany, which was headed by Hitler, who felt that Japanese were an inferior race compared to the Aryans. He believed that their entire civilization was rooted upon European culture and not that of the native Japanese. In Mein Kampf he discredits all of their scientific and technological achievements by implying that Europe and the Americas laid the groundwork for all others to follow.
It is most ironic that he speaks of Americans as part of the superior race, while America was their worst enemy. According to information gathered from www.japan.guide.com/e/e2129.html, Japan joined the Axis Powers due to negative relations with America. It is downright silly that a country would become involved with a war which has nothing to do with them, simply because they dislike a country. Thousands of Japanese, Americans and Germans were killed due to inhumane and simplistic, barbarian logic.

Question # 3
After trying out my questions on a few surprised subjects, I have concluded that there is no clear cut answer to the questions discussed in class. Everyone made the comment that they would have to be placed in the situation in order to give a truthful answer. However, they also seemed to agree that they would try to cause the child as least harm as possible, and if they know the child they would not likely rape him/her in order to same their own lives. Even though not raping a child is the noble thing to do when faced with a life or death situation, however, I don’t think I have the guts to live with myself after committing such crime against humanity. My conscience was ultimately take over my sanity.

Hitler's Mein Kampf

1. Friedrich Nietzsche believed that humanity needed to be overcome. Nietzsche referred the overman as a superhuman being. The overman is seen as the next step up from normal humans; this creature could even be interpreted as the next step up the evolutionary ladder. This is like an individual which will more likely have greater knowledge and power if they believed in themselves. This is what Mein Kampf shows how people become stronger from their own will and guts. Every individual wants to have greater superiority and want to be at the top of a food chain. Nietzsche also mentioned that every individual need to have their own self control to be able to control themselves. Nietzsche believes that the only way of overcoming this sickness in society is for the next evolutionary step to be taken-- the weak be left to their own devices, whilst the strongest develop themselves. In effect, this is a representation of the survival of the fittest theory. The weaker human’s will suffer and the stronger human will be better off. This relates to Darwin’s theory of Survival of the fittest and The Aryan race having there own race to become more superior to any other race. Charles Darwin has his own theory of Survival of the Fittest and how it relates to Nietzsche reasoning and the Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Darwin asserted that in order for a species to cope with the ever changing environments and circumstances it is subjected to, it must not only adapt, but must also be capable of passing on those adapted characteristics to its offspring. Every species has its own ability to grow. Darwin’s Survival of the fittest can also be interpreted as “the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life”. This relates in a certain race becoming more superior to any other race. Like in Mein Kampf, German’s wanted to be more superior to any other race. As a result, in Mein Kampf, Hitler wanted a pure Aryan race. The word Ariya means noble or spiritual. The Nazis were part of the Aryan race. They portrayed their interpretation of an "Aryan race" as the only race capable of, or with an interest in, creating and maintaining culture and civilizations, while other races are merely capable of conversion, or destruction of culture. Hitler wanted all Germans to be racially pure because he wanted to start his own "super" perfect race. He wanted men to be muscular and strong. Women to be beautiful and well dressed. The Aryan race is free from any mixtures. Any other races that aren’t favored by him are considered inferior to him. By relating Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Darwin idea to it, he believed them the Germans to be the Superior group.

http://www.freeessays.cc/db/18/evj167.shtml

2. The 3 Axis power were German, Italy and Japan. Japan tends to be the dominating of the three. This paradox in light of what Hitler says about the Japanese can interpreted as that the Japan tends to be more superior and powerful than Germany or Italy. If these two countries fall, then Japan would still be breathing a bit longer. Hitler mentioned that Japanese lives are the enormous scientific and technical achievements of Europe and America, as relates to the Aryan peoples. In Mein Kampf, they mentioned that “as the present Japanese development has been due to Aryan influence and if any other outsiders come into the traditional Japanese culture, then their race will be different and become fossilized. This would in fact impact the Aryans. Only there own culture can be dominant just like the Japanese were back then. Each race has their own superiority just like Hitler mentioning about the Germans.

3. The question discussed in class was pretty shocking when we first saw the two pictures. The emotions we felt for those poor kids were sad and depressing. We all had to come up with a decision either by raping the children or getting ourselves killed by a Gun. Some of my thoughts were, I would have to go and rape the kid in order to save our lives from suffering. I know that torturing can be as stressful as putting a gun right on your forehead. I know that getting shot by a bullet dies quickly as to rape a child which would involve more stress and pain by seeing the child die slowly. Seeing those kids being so lonely and poor can be as sad as the 9/11 attack. People have to come up with their own feelings and emotions of what’s good for them. Some thoughts like are their lives worth living or should just die by the bullet which would eventually keep the kids alive and be set free. These mental questions all comes down to different people around the world. People think about their own culture striving to survive with food and water. People feel how they were as a child when they were young. These questions tend to be around for years for people to think about and it’s really not easy give a straight answer. This question was worth mentioning which had a lot to do with different cultures and what people emotions were if they were two looking at these two pictures and decide. Just keep in mind that rape can be as painful as a bullet running through a person’s head.