Malthus in remarks by Hitler


#1

Hitler
hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch04.html
Without doubt the productivity of the soil can be
increased up to a certain limit. But only up to a
certain limit, and not continuously without end. For
a certain time it will be possible to compensate for
the increase of the German people without having
to think of hunger, by increasing the productivity of
our soil. But beside this, we must face the fact that
our demands on life ordinarily rise even more
rapidly than the number of the population. Man’s
requirements with regard to food and clothing
increase from year to year, and even now, for
example, stand in no relation to the requirements of

 our ancestors, say a hundred years ago.  It IS, 
 therefore, insane to believe that every rise in 
 production provides the basis for an increase in 
 population:  no; this is true only up to a certain 
 degree, since at least a part of the increased 
 production of the soil is spent in satisfying the 
 increased needs of men.  But even with the greatest 
 limitation on the one hand and the utmost industry 

 on the other, here again a limit will one day be 
 reached, created by the soil itself.  With the utmost 
 toil it will not be possible to obtain any more from it, 
 and then, though postponed for a certain time, 
 catastrophe again manifests itself.  First, there will 
 be hunger from time to time, when there is famine, 
 etc.  As the population increases, this will happen 
 more and more often, so that finally it will only be 
 absent when rare years of great abundance fill the 

 granaries.  But at length the time approaches when 
 even then it will not be possible to satisfy men's 
 needs, and hunger has become the eternal 
 companion of such a people.  Then Nature must 
 help again and make a choice among those whom 
 she has chosen for life; but again man helps 
 himself; that is, he turns to artificial restriction of his 
 increase with all the above-indicated dire 
 consequences for race and species.

 The objection may still be raised that this future will 
 face the whole of humanity in any case and that 
 consequently the individual nation can naturally not 
 avoid this fate.
 At first glance this seems perfectly correct.  Yet here 
 the following must be borne in mind:

 Assuredly at a certain time the whole of humanity 
 will be compelled, in consequence of the 
 impossibility of making the fertility of the soil keep 
 pace with the continuous increase in population, to 
 halt the increase of the human race and either let 
 Nature again decide or, by self-help if possible, 
 create the necessary balance, though, to be sure, in 
 a more correct way than is done today.  But then this 
 will strike all peoples, while today only those races 
 are stricken with such suffering which no longer 
 possess the force and strength to secure for 
 themselves the necessary territories in this world.  
 For as matters stand there are at the present time 
 on this earth immense areas of unused soil, only 
 waiting for the men to till them.  But it is equally true 
 that Nature as such has not reserved this soil for the 
 future possession of any particular nation or race; 
 on the contrary, this soil exists for the people which 
 possesses the force to take it and the industry to 
 cultivate it.

 Nature knows no political boundaries.  First, she 
 puts living creatures on this globe and watches the 
 free play of forces.  She then confers the master's 
 right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage 
 and industry.

#2

Any Malthus-echoing extracts presented from Origin of Species or Mein Kampf or Descent of Man would be appreciated.

Hitler:
_ _ artificial restriction of his
_ _ increase with all the above-indicated dire
_ _ consequences for race and species
Compare:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life

Compare:

Hitler:
_ _ either let Nature again decide…
_ _ Nature knows no political boundaries. First, she
_ _ puts living creatures on this globe and watches the
_ _ free play of forces. She then confers the master’s
_ _ right on her favorite child, the strongest in courage
_ _ and industry.
Compare
[Hitler, and Darwin]“Nature… she,” in
Darwin in the 6th edition of Origin on [Darwin]“survival of the fittest” and the [Darwin]"struggle for life"
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132161340.121874.63970%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler embraced Darwinian natural selection
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129143372.689763.127020%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler:
_ _ today only those races
_ _ are stricken with such suffering which no longer
_ _ possess the force and strength to secure for
_ _ themselves the necessary territories in this world
Compare:
Darwin
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
_ _ the New Zealander… compares his future fate with
_ _ that of the native rat now almost exterminated by
_ _ the European rat

Hitler:
_ _ For as matters stand there are at the present time
_ _ on this earth immense areas of unused soil, only
_ _ waiting for the men to till them. But it is equally true
_ _ that Nature as such has not reserved this soil for the
_ _ future possession of any particular nation or race;
_ _ on the contrary, this soil exists for the people which
_ _ possesses the force to take it and the industry to
_ _ cultivate it.
Compare:
Darwin
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1137172777.820169.233390%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
_ _ Since we see in many parts of
_ _ the world enormous areas of the most fertile land
_ _ capable of supporting numerous happy homes, but
_ _ peopled only by a few wandering savages, it might
_ _ be argued that the struggle for existence had not
_ _ been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to his
_ _ highest standard.


#3

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

Hitler’s actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social Darwinist vision
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net

The fact is, as Young wrote (1985, p. 609),
Darwinism is social: "Extrapolations from
Darwinism (of evolution) to either humanity or
society are not separable from Darwin’s own views."
Frederick Engels, the philosopher and cofounder of
communism, saw through the veil of pseudoscience
in Darwin’s history of life. He wrote the following:

“The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for
existence is simply a transference from society to
living nature, of Hobbes’ doctrine bellum omnium
contra omnes
(that is, the war of all against all)
together with Malthus’ theory of population. When
this conjuror’s trick has been performed, . . . the
same theories are transferred back again from
organic nature into history and it is now claimed that
their validity as eternal laws of human society has
been proved. The puerility of this procedure is so
obvious that not a word need be said about it.”

Indeed too little has been said until one had the
temerity to point out again, after more than a
century, the “puerility of this procedure,” after all the
harm that has been done to humanity.

more Hsu:
The fact remains that Darwinism has a social origin.
As a recent student of Darwinism has pointed out,
“the extrapolation from Darwinism to either
humanity or society are not separable from Darwin’s
own views, nor are they chronologically subsequent.
They are integral” (Young, 1985).

Darwin did not fool all of his contemporaries. I cite
Frederick Engels in my Reply to Schoch’s Comment
(above) that the whole Darwinist teaching of the
struggle for existence is but a "conjurer’s trick."
Arguments on the basis of the social philosophy of
his time were the basis for Darwin’s interpretation of
the history of life, and his theory was then
transferred back to provide the scientific basis in
support of social Darwinism as the eternal law of
human society. “The puerility of this procedure is so
obvious,” Engels wrote in 1875, “that not a word
need be said about it.”

I wish Engels had dwelt more on the “puerility of this
procedure,” so as to show the true color of “the
argument of noise and sneers with which
(Darwinists) tried to put down… everyone… who
did not subscribe to the infallibility of the God
Darwin and his prophet Huxley,” as Tristram said in
1860. Darwin has made mistakes, and his mistakes
have brought misery to humanity. Facing the bias
and obstinacy of Darwinists, I feel almost tempted to
join my colleague, Paul Feyerabend (1975, p. 7),
who proposed to lead “three cheers to the
fundamentalists in California who succeeded in
having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of
evolution removed from the textbooks and an
account of Genesis included.”


#4

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.