Hey, Klinghoffer: How About Hitler & Gobineau?

A causal link between Darwin’s theory of evolution and Hitler’s maniacal misdeeds is one of the foundational lies of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).

Several Discoveroids have been actively promoting this particularly egregious misinformation, including David Klinghoffer, upon whom the Discoveroids have bestowed the exalted title of “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist). Here’s one of his Discoveroid blog articles promoting that dogma: Hitler’s Debt to Darwin.

We’ve thoroughly debunked such nonsense (see Hitler and Darwin), and we’ve also shown that although Hitler never even mentioned Darwin, Winston Churchill read Darwin. In that post we quoted Churchill’s own written words to that effect. The evidence is rather clear that it was the good guys in WWII, not the Nazis, who were familiar with Darwin’s ideas.

Another Discoveroid “fellow” who plays the Hitler card is Richard Weikart, author of a book titled From Darwin to Hitler. We recently wrote about him here: The Shroud of Seattle.

Is there anything new to be said about all of this? Yes, but we won’t learn about it from the Discoveroids because it doesn’t fit into their twisted fantasy world. Take a look at this Wikipedia article on a book titled An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. That book is the work of a Frenchman named Arthur de Gobineau, and it was written between 1853 and 1855. (Darwin’s Origin of Species wasn’t published until 1859.) Quoting from Wikipedia, with bold font added by us:

Using scientific disciplines as varied as linguistics and anthropology, de Gobineau divides the human species into three major groupings, white, yellow and black, claiming to demonstrate that “history springs only from contact with the white races.” Among the white races, he distinguishes the Aryan race as the pinnacle of human development, comprising the basis of all European aristocracies.


[H]e believed European civilization represented the best of what remained of ancient civilizations and held the most superior attributes capable for continued survival. His primary thesis in regards to this theory was that European civilizational flowering from Greece to Rome and Germanic to contemporary sprang from, and corresponded to, the ancient Indo-European culture, also known as “Aryan”. Gobineau originally wrote that, given the past trajectory of civilization in Europe, white race miscegenation was inevitable and would result in growing chaos. He attributed much of the economic turmoil in France to pollution of races.

One more quote:

Hitler and Nazism borrowed much of Gobineau’s ideology, though Gobineau himself was not anti-Semitic, and may even be characterised as philo-Semitic. Gobineau wrote positively about the Jews, including the long eulogy to the Jews in his Essai sur l’inégalité des races, describing them as “a strong, a free, an intelligent people”. When the Nazis adopted Gobineau’s theories, they were forced to edit his work extensively to make it conform to their views, much as they did in the case of Nietzsche.

That was no problem for Hitler. He had another authority for his Jewish theories — and it wasn’t Darwin. Check out On the Jews and Their Lies, by Martin Luther.

Will the Discoveroids ever write about Gobineau? No, of course they won’t. They’ll stick with their fantasy that it was Darwin who influenced Hitler. Why let facts get in the way of their creationist propaganda?

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

4 responses to “Hey, Klinghoffer: How About Hitler & Gobineau?

  1. Unconscionable. This makes me angrier than anything else these IDiots do. Lying is not a Christian virtue, but you’d never know it. They freely mine quotes by or about Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase “Social Darwinism”) and attribute them to Darwin, or else suggest the subject was really evolution. It’s a deliberate effort to blur the distinction between the two concepts (“Darwinism” and Social Darwinism) in the public’s mind. Presented in digestible sound byte chunks, the public is just stupid enough to take the bait. IDers are aiding and abetting ignorance, and they know it. Ignorance is bad enough, but willful ignorance is inexcusable.

  2. And, of course, he was a creationist. This from Wikipedia:

    …Gobineau also questioned the belief that the black and yellow races belong to the same human family as the white race and share a common ancestor. Trained neither as a theologian nor a naturalist and writing antecedent to the popular dissemination of a theory of evolution, Gobineau took the Bible to be an accurate account of human history and accepted in An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races the day’s prevailing Christian doctrine that all human beings shared the common ancestors Adam and Eve…

  3. @magpie61 – I believe that Spencer never used the expression “social darwinism”, that Spencer did not accept the productivity of “survival of the fittest”, and that Spencer was not a “social darwinist”. Moreover, anyone who believes that human intervention is necessary to prevent “deterioration” of a “kind” obviously does not accept the productivity of “random mutations and natural selection”.

    On another issue, it is generally accepted that Houston Stewart Chamberlain was an influence on Nazi “thought”, and Chamberlain had a very low opinion of Charles Darwin’s ideas. See what he says about Darwin in his “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century”.

  4. If I could define the terms I would replace “creationism” and “creationist(s)” with Klinghofferism and Klinghofferist(s).” First, it would only be fair, given evolution-deniers paranoid obsession with “Darwinism” and “Darwinist(s).” Second, it’s far less ambiguous than the current terms, because the public defines “creationism” much more narrowly (i.e. Biblical literalists of the 6-day varieties) than critics do (any evolution-denial, regardless of designer’s identity or “what happened when”). “Soft” Klinghofferists like Ken Ham might give a few details about his own “theory” and occasionally politely criticize contradictory Klinghofferist “theories,” while “hard” Klinghofferists will give no hint as to what they think happened (or when) in lieu of “Darwinism.” But they’d all agree on the “Darwin-to-Hitler” thing, and that that’s the cornerstone of their “theories.”

    With new terms we’d all be on the same page, and ID scammers would not be able to fool the public with “ID is not Klinghofferism.” If they whine that the word “Klinghofferism” (& “Klinghofferist(s)”) unfairly sensationalizes their scam, just tell them to stop using “Darwinism” and “Darwinist(s)” first. Which they won’t dare do.