The Hamites and the Hitler

Posted by T on October 05, 2009

In the book under review, Ham et al. make the inevitable appeal to Hitler:

Because people groups have allegedly evolved separately, they are at different stages of evolution, and some people groups are less evolved. Thus, the other person may not be as fully human as you. This sort of thinking inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies and to establish the “master race.” Sadly, some Christians have been infected with racist thinking through the efforts on our culture of evolutionary indoctrination, that people of a different “color” are inferior because they are supposedly closer to the animals. (p. 78f.)

And, in case you missed it the first time,

Evolutionists like Hitler treated the Jews, Gypsies, and other groups as inferior, and therefore argued that they needed to be eliminated. (p. 166)

It is unfortunately necessary again to question Ham’s honesty. In the current sputtering shibboleths about Nazis, you are supposed to mention the persecution of homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses as well. Why does Ham “forget” to mention those groups? Why only Gypsies and Jews? Obviously, because Sodomites are not a racial group, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not a racial group. (Perhaps it is also because his rhetoric would then find less sympathetic reception amongst his white conservative audience?) But this should have cued him in that his premises might be wrong. He needs a theory to account for the persecution of all the groups that were persecuted.

The “closer to the animals” argument is dubious as stated. Presumably, Ham believes that cattle are “inferior” to humans; yet this has not led him to desire that all the cattle of the earth should be wiped out. Of course we slaughter cattle, but this is different than “eliminating.” The history of man is full of mutual slaughter, and not necessarily based on a theory of inferiority. Indeed, probably it hardly ever is tied to a theory of inferiority.

Moreover, one can believe that some races are inferior to others based on any number of criteria having nothing to do with evolution, nor does such a belief need to entail hatred or a desire for genocide. One could believe that one’s mortal enemies were superior, and therefore had to be eliminated — kill or be killed as they say.

Note further that the desire for racial separation does not necessarily imply a sense of racial superiority, any more than separating the squabbling children is. Think: let it be that the Aryan is inferior to the other races. Fine: now can we have our own country? Indeed, if there is any legitimacy to desiring to see one’s tribe continue qua tribe into the future, then the desire for separation would only become stronger when said tribe is mingled with a superior and dominating rival tribe.

We can summarize the fallacious forms of Ham’s logic thusly:

  • Belief in racial inferiority does not imply justification for genocide
  • Belief in racial inferiority does not imply belief in evolution
  • Desire for racial separation does not imply belief in racial inferiority
  • Desire for racial separation does not imply belief in evolution

The Hamites have not thought this matter through carefully because, I suspect, their minds have been addled by the Nazi meme, which our rulers have deeply implanted in the minds of our people. Corrupted by our rulers’ meme, the Hamites in turn plant their own. The meme-planting intent of this passage is clear: if you want to live where you can raise your children far away from Negroes, then you are equivalent to a Nazi, acting like Hitler.

Whenever the H-card is played, one should unpack carefully. Why is the deliberate Judeo-bolshevik slaughter of millions of Ukrainians prior to the ascendancy of H never mentioned? That was surely racial hatred, but not necessarily based on evolution. On the other hand, there are several ways that Ham on Hitler re race is wrong, reflecting the analysis above:

1. H’s alleged belief in the primacy of the German and the relative inferiority of the Slav, Hun, and Mediterranean did not stop him from making friendly alliances with Croatia, Hungary, and Italy (not to mention Romania) against their common enemy, the Bolsheviks; and those allied nations fought valiantly at the side of the Germans.  (Slovakia too was on friendly terms, and had something equivalent to an SA of their own.)  Many Russian soldiers after capture volunteered to fight with the Germans against their communist rulers. (Roosevelt/Truman obeyed Stalin’s order to hand them over to the USSR after the war for execution — but I digress.)

2. If he had heard that the Slavs regarded their race as superior, I suspect H would have taken that with bemused humor. He would not have cared if you did not agree that the Aryan was superior. Indeed, he would probably respect you more if you held a similar view of your own race. Think of C. S. Lewis’ friends observing that the men of every nation believe their own women the most beautiful, when one of the old ones murmured “yes… but in our case, it is true.”

(Interesting trivia: H thought of the Japanese as the “Aryans of the Orient.”)

3. Nor was his desire to expel jews from Germany necessarily based on a belief that jews were inferior or sub-human in the sense that Ham implies. It was based on his conviction that jews were deleterious in their effect on the German people; and whether that pernicious effect was due to their being superior or inferior would be irrelevant to that conclusion, unless it should be that jewish superiority made separation even more urgent.

4. Why were other groups put in concentration camps, such as Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Sodomites? I cannot produce quotes, but it does not require much imagination to find a common denominator to make sense of such a policy: all of these groups are resistant to bonding tribally: they thus needed to be quarantined during the national emergency. All of this would make for an interesting discussion in its own right, but too much of a digression just here. The point is, that Ham’s pulling of the H-card is confused and probably exploitative of current political shibboleths; it cannot be marshaled to his thesis about evolution, or even race.

If quarantining a group believed to be potentially dangerous during a national emergency is so bad, why don’t the Hamites harp on the American segregating of Japanese-Americans during WW2 — which was unambiguously race-based. Why does poor old H always have to take the heat on this one? The answer is, that the American action was very clearly not related to a belief in evolution. It was based on the question of ethnic loyalty. The action may have been just or unjust — that would be the subject for a different essay. But it would reveal a nest of debatable issues that belie the Hamites’ charge of evolution, and place the discussion in a completely different framework.

5. We have made the point before, but it bears repeating in this new application: Hitler’s view that the Aryan needed to be preserved and separated from the Jew is a position that one could hold with or without evolution. The logic is simply absent when people make this assertion.

6. Doubtless, Hitler had a dynamic view of history, such that energetic peoples would tend to expand and sluggish ones contract.  Any pointy-headed academic might entertain such a hypothesis about history. No doubt, H desired his own people to be one of the energetic ones, not one of the sluggish ones. Given the hypothesis, that is certainly a rational view to have. It is compatible with either evolution or anti-evolution.

If it turns out that H believed in evolution in point of fact, would that prove Ham’s thesis? No it would not. It is the logical entailment that is wrong with Ham’s analysis.

People need to work up the courage to study that period in our people’s history; or perhaps just a study of critical thinking will suffice. After they do, cheap rhetorical tricks such as are sprinkled through this book will be enough by themselves to strip credibility from such authors. The Hitler treated by the Hamites is actually just a cartoon character created by Hollywood. That is why I say “the Hitler” in the title of this post. It is a stock character, to be dragged out on demand from the back-stage closet, like “the Mummy,” or “the Vampire.”

Now perhaps the Hamites will answer this analysis along these lines: even granting that the desire for racial separation is not logically dependent on a view of inferiors and superiors, and even if such a desire is possible with or without evolution — yet the escalation from separation to extermination (i.e. the “holocaust”) would only be possible on a view of superiority derived from evolution. Now leaving aside the fact that the “holocaust” story itself, as we have begun to document, seems to be patched together with even more baseless assertions and distortions than the Hamites can make in one short book, consider the logic of this move even granting the premise. First, such a view would be a misunderstanding of Darwinism. Darwinism speaks of the fittest surviving, not the “superior” as conceived of along logical, ethical, or teleological grounds. In other words, a Hitler that wished to exterminate a rival gang would not need to deduce a “right” to do so from some axiology of worth: the desire itself would be its own vindication or (upon loss) rebuttal. It is a misunderstanding to think that Darwinism permits a calculation of ethical right, or even a pragmatic right. The fittest survive, because those that survive are the fittest by definition. It has nothing to do with an apriori. Second, such a desire could be produced by other non-Christian worldviews with or without Darwinism being part of the package. One could believe, for example, that one’s own tribal god has created one’s tribe, or set it apart, and so ordained. In that case, Hitler’s view would be formally analogous to the ancient Hebrews’s genocide of the Canaanites, if it were the case that Jehovah were simply a tribal invention and not the true God. Again, such an attitude need not involve either a view of superiority or evolution. Finally, the last resort of the Hamite will probably be to say, that the execution of a genocide requires the cooperation of many persons, whose scruples would have to be overcome by some means or other. But if their scruples are based on Christian convictions, how would this be overcome by Hitler asserting Darwinism? The overcoming of scruples would need to take place by defeating Christian convictions by hook or by crook, and (a) this need not take place via Darwinism, and (b) the cynical Hitler-figure would not need himself to believe whatever subterfuge would be used to overcome the others’ scruples. And again (not to sound like a broken record), the agenda could just as well be pushed on the view of the right and exigencies of tribal survival as on the view of tribal inferiority or superiority.

One gets the feeling that Ham never tests his premises by the free variation of imagination. After a while, one starts to wonder if he is just cliché-monger, not a thinker at all. But if Ham merely passes along the usual “white lies” about Nazis, we cannot let the “Editor-in-chief” Jim Fletcher in his forward to the book off the hook so easily. Of that little piece of work, we must borrow the words of Mary McCarthy spoken originally about Lillian Hellman: Every word in it is a lie, including “and” and “the.” Consider just this one whopper:

Even the Japanese in World War II, to justify that nation’s expansionist aggression, had been told that they were the most “highly evolved” race on earth. After all, Europeans, with their longer arms and hairier chests, were clearly still closer to the ape, weren’t they? (p.13)

I seriously doubt that he can back up his quote with a published citation: I am calling your bluff, “Mr. Fletcher.” But perhaps he will find some Japanese somewhere that said that. Perhaps some over-heated rhetoric on either side may be excused on the mitigating circumstance of the heat of battle — on the level of the playground pugilist’s “your mother wears army boots.”

However, even the slightest acquaintance with the facts belies this assertion as a fair statement of the case: the expansion of Japan was into the territory of fellow Orientals, and they were allied with that nation, Germany, which is arch-European! Even the attack on “European” America was reluctantly undertaken due to the deliberate provocation of the Roosevelt administration, as “Mr. Fletcher” would have known if he had read even ten pages of history before getting up on his soap box.

Again, if he feels the need to take a cheap shot, why not pick on “us” rather than “them”? After the US government had goaded and tricked the Japanese into a war they did not desire, consider how “the Allies” treated them racially. Military commentator Fletcher Pratt “declared that the Japanese ‘can neither make good airplanes nor fly them well.'” (T. Fleming, The New Dealers’ War, p. 44) After Pearl Harbor, “an agitated General Douglas Macarthur swore they must have acquired Germans or some other white mercenaries to fly their planes.” (pp. 44-45)  “After the bombs fell, the paper’s cartoonist, Theodore Giesel, future beloved children’s book writer Dr. Seuss, drew a picture of a long column of slanty-eyed Japanese lining up to collect TNT at a house labeled ‘Honorable Fifth Column.'” (p. 110) “Pearl Buck risked her status as a best-selling author … in her 1943 novel, The Promise, about the British and Chinese fighting the Japanese in Burma. She depicted the British as infected with all but incurable racist attitudes, which led them to see Asians as subhuman, even when they were allies.” (p. 379) “In an official government film, Action at Anguar, issued in the spring of 1945 to support the seventh war-bond drive, footage showed Japanese soldiers being burned alive by flamethrowers while the narrator said: “By this time we had shot, blasted or cooked six hundred of the little apes.'” (p. 540)

A Christian should be doubly careful to be fair and just in his treatment of his enemies, knowing the proneness of human nature to self-deception. One feels cheap having to correct Ham and his colleagues on these matters: like having to prove that there were 10 cookies in the jar in the presence of the little liar that obviously stole one. The situation has gone beyond the passing on of falsehoods that are part of the received tradition taught in government schools. One can forgive someone that has not been corrected, for passing on the false idea that Lincoln waged the “Civil War” to end slavery. But here, we are dealing with a situation that has gone beyond that: people think they can actually make up any slander out of thin air and pass it on with impunity when dealing with Nazis.

Schlissel thinks one can lie when dealing with a Nazi: it is but a short step, and one which most published Americans evidently have taken, to think one can tell any lie about the Nazis. Ham et al. undoubtedly think that if these baseless assertions about Nazis turn out to be false, they are just little “white lies,” well justified by the circumstance. But John Murray showed convincingly that even inadvertent passing along of falsehoods involves one in sin: for God is Truth. This is a very serious matter. If people claiming to be Christians continue to do it after being corrected, the credibility of their profession will eventually need to be questioned.

Tags: , , ,

19 Comments to The Hamites and the Hitler

  • Didn’t Hitler blame the Jews for financial troubles in Germany after WWI? They were the financiers and were relatively wealthy. Christians had little to do w/banking due to RC bans on usury during the Middle Ages. It’s human nature to want to blame people and find scapegoats.

  • Well remember the old gag, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

    Today note that the business milieu is exactly the opposite. It’s always, “let’s not assign blame, let’s just fix the problem.” But this modern view suppressed justice — with a pious mask of magnanimity.

    The problem with the jew is not his presence at the center of finance per se, but the fact that his ultimate motive therein is self-aggrandizement, not the prosperity of the nation. Plus, being part of a network that teaches him, with religious authority, that it is ok to trick and deceive goyim.

    All of this is beside the point of the post, however. Here, the focus is on Ken Ham’s assertion of falsehoods, slandering people he knows next to nothing about, coupled with very bad logic to support his anti-evolution polemic.

  • Excellent analysis- sadly, for the vast majority of the ‘American Sheeople’, philosophical appeals to ad hominem, reductio ad absurdum, etc. go right over their heads… which means they STILL would not get the stuff about ‘H’ even when you spell it out to them- as you have done so well.


  • Thank you, Father, and you are right — our people are almost too far gone to be able to think about these things clearly. Here is the glimmer of hope, though. I, and I assume you too, used to think like they do. Yet something allowed us to clear the fog. Therefore, it can happen to them too. And I see signs everywhere that people are waking up. It’s only a snort and a flop of the arm so far, but maybe the giant is waking up.

  • Hitler Banned Darwin (see number 6)

    Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

    1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).

    2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

    3. Pacifist literature.

    4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).

    5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).

    6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

    7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).

    8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).

    9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].

    10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.

    11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.

    12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature (P.O. Höcker!).

    [Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter. Bold added.]

  • Is there a reason why T consistently fails to properly capitalize “Jew.” He capitalizes “Christian,” and he even capitalizes “Sodomites.” But “Jew” he more times than not leaves in lower case.

    I’m always suspicious of people who do this.

  • Joel,
    1. It is not your place to tell people to “keep their thoughts to themselves” on our blog. Is this chutzpah?
    Hard-hitting analysis, probing questions are in bounds; issuing commands is not.
    2. Jew does not need to be capitalized any more than “black” or “white.” It is a racial, not religious designation. Most jews are atheists, in fact, unless worship of self counts as theism.
    The proper contrast to jew is not “Christian” but rather “gentile.” This is how jews divide the world. And in the kikenpress lexicography, jew is capitalized while Gentile is not. Consider the leader to a CBN interview here:
    “you will learn the significance of Yom Kippur, the most important holiday in the Jewish year; God’s desire to see Jews and gentiles united; and Israel’s link to revival. ”
    This is outrageous and we will need to re-train ourselves to think correctly by, for a time, upper-casing Gentile and lower-casing jew. This will fix the problem. It is kind of like having to recrease an envelope.
    3. As to your being “suspicious,” suspicious of what? Surely not the dreaded A-word! I think we have exploded that concept adequately — you can do a search.
    Merely announcing that you are suspicious is not very helpful, except perhaps to your future biographer, if he happens to be reading this blog. But it is actually not even going to be a very interesting footnote in your biography unless reasons, distinctions, clarifications are made — indeed, the very kind of clarity of thought that you so quickly demand of others.

  • He needs a theory to account for the persecution of all the groups that were persecuted.


    I wish I was smart as you. This philosophy degree is kicking my butt.

  • Ham doesn’t mention homosexuals in particular because in reality Hitler did not have much of a problem with them as a group. In fact, his best friend, head of the SA Ernst Rhoem, was a notorious homosexual. Party members tried to get Hitler to censure Rhoem and Hitler wouldn’t do it saying, “let’s not waste time being squeamish about the morality of some men.” see The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer. He only began persecuting homosexuals when it became politically expedient to do so, and when it looked as though he was being inconsistent with his racial theories. Homosexuals were a small minority, much smaller than the Jews, and were not the main target of Hitler’s racial policies. Hitler did not rail against homosexuals in Mein Kampf as he did the Jews. Page after vitriolic page is filled with sinister attacks against the Jews. If you wish to stand up for persecuted homosexuals why don’t you just do so and leave Ham out of it? Why do you feel inclined to attack him? Are you opposed to him standing up for the rights of Jews and Gypsies? I don’t see your reasoning behind attacking him. Ham also neglected to mention Hitler’s persecution of the Catholic Center Party and the Social Democrats, Trade Unionists, Communist party, etc. Does that mean you are against all those groups? Is it Ham’s responsibility to name and define every group Hitler persecuted? If he did it wouldn’t leave much room for the main body of his commentary, a fact you would know had you done your homework.

  • On another note, are you saying the Civil War was not waged with the intent of freeing slaves? Are you apt to quote that worn out line about Lincoln saying “if I could preserve the union without freeing a single slave I would do so?” – leaving out the balancing portion of that quote which reads “and if I could preserve the union and free all the slaves I would do so.” Lincoln was always an abolitionist. It was always on his mind to free the slaves. If not, how do you explain the Lincoln/Douglas debates where Lincoln insisted that if the document which states “all men are created equal” is untrue, “then let us destroy that document…but if it is true, then let us live by it.” sic
    Do you mean to say that if there had not existed slavery there would still have been a Civil War? You should really consider research before going off half cocked the way you did. Your writing is snide, insulting and lacks serious objectivity. You sound flat out mad.

  • Finally, you say that Aryan mixture with Jews is an argument one could make “with or without evolution.” The problem is Hitler DID make that point using evolution as his evidence for making it. Are you aware of the fact that Hitler was a proponent of eugenics and evolution? That he was an ardent admirer of Charles Darwin? Have you read Mein Kampf? You need to so you will know what Hitler believed about evolution. He believed the Aryan race was evolutions next leap forward.

  • Ok Lee let’s go point by point. We give one free lesson in critical thinking — after that you have to pay.

    #12. The point is simply that Ham has been highly selective in his presentation of evidence, and this is even more obvious after seeing your additional list of groups not mentioned. He pruned the evidence in such a way as to give superficial plausibility to his anti-evolution rhetoric. When the entire list is mentioned, not only does Ham’s argument lose all its kick, but he sets himself up for the suspicion of being a dishonest man.

    #13. On Lincoln, I’ll stand by the summary given here:
    The quote you give, no matter how worn out, is certainly sufficient to prove that Lincoln did not wage war for the purpose of abolishing slavery.

    Note however that that is a quite different question as to whether “if there had not existed slavery there would still have been a Civil War.” You could also say, “if there had not existed a tariff…” or “if the North was still dominated by Christians….” etc. At SOME point, the answer will be no. But historical hypotheticals can only be speculated on. I would rather suggest there is an organic connection between all these things. That is, the Yankee’s willingness to exploit Americans in another region/susceptibility to abolitionist sophistry/abandonment of orthodox Christianity is all ONE problem, not many. It was the Yankee’s soul that was the problem, not this that or the other heresy in isolation.

    Whatever Lincoln’s deep feelings about slavery were, we will perhaps never know, since he was the consummate opportunist and politician. However, I think we should certainly agree with his view, documented beyond dispute, that the Negro after emancipation should either be shipped back to Africa or, if he remains, occupy a subordinate position. I think some modern Confederates jump all over on Lincoln for this, but improperly. Yes, it shows the hypocrisy of Republican historiography, but still, Lincoln happened to be right on that point.

    #14. How do you explain Lincoln waiting two years to issue it, and why did it not apply to areas (including those that never seceded) that were not “in rebellion”? See the essay referred to above for more information on this. No, if anything the Emancipation Proclamation proves that Lincoln was not a dogmatic abolitionist.

    #15. Well Lee here we see your difficulty dealing with both minor and major premise in an argument.

    First, I have read large sections in Mein Kampf and not come to anything about evolution or Charles Darwin, nor do I find either topic listed in the index. But I haven’t read every single page, and perhaps the index is inadequate. Nevertheless, I’m calling your bluff, or what I suspect is your bluff: please provide the page numbers and edition in which you claim to have found this discussion.

    As I was flipping through the volume last night to check your point, I did find a section in which Hitler describes certain ways the Aryan is inferior, and the jew superior. I will be glad to supply you the page #s AFTER you give us the ones supporting your claim.

    However, apart from the factual question, I already addressed your claim in the essay, saying “If it turns out that H believed in evolution in point of fact, would that prove Ham’s thesis? No it would not. It is the logical entailment that is wrong with Ham’s analysis.” You are not grasping the analysis of entailment. Go back and read the essay more carefully.

  • “It was the Yankee’s soul that was the problem”

    What was the problem with the Yankee’s soul?

  • Unsanctified original sin, leading to the other things listed, given the Yankee’s specific historical Sitz im Leben.

    Anon– we let your message through, though you used an improper email address. But that’s only because we thought others might have the same question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *