Book Review: Eugenics and Other Evils

9781504022545-medium“Eugenics and Other Evils” by G.K. Chesterton

2017 Reading Challenge — Book 8: A Book About a Current Issue

Why, you might ask, would you read a book nearly 100 years old to satisfy the requirement of a book about a “current issue”? The answer, in this as well as many other cases, is that to truly understand an issue, we often need to distance ourselves from the myopic view of the current news cycle, and look instead at the historical sources where ideas and philosophies were first developed and critiqued.

But the news cycle certainly did help me to determine a topic for study. I chose a “current issue” which lies at the intersection of the topics which most interest me: theology, politics, education, history, and philosophy. Understanding the eugenics movement of the early 20th century provides context for current discussions about abortion, Socialism vs. Capitalism, creation vs. evolution, and even presidential politics.

Eugenics, though not a word often encountered, has been in the news once again in recent days. During the election season, one of the Left’s frequent accusations against Donald Trump was that he is an advocate of eugenics (see this piece from The Huffington Post as an example), and I’ve seen that same video making the rounds on social media again just in the last week. I’ve written before of the connection between eugenics and Planned Parenthood (whose founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member of the American Eugenics Society). The evolutionary connection is even clearer, as the very word “eugenics” and the first ideas about its implementation were proposed by Francis Galton, who wrote in 1863 that “if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring,” his proposal based largely upon the theories his cousin Charles Darwin had published in his book  The Descent of Man.

G.K. Chesterton, perhaps alone among the scholars and authors around the turn of the last century, stood firmly against the onrushing tide of the eugenics movement. While the movement had its origins and strongest support in Prussia/Germany (where Nietzsche had proposed the idea of creating a race of supermen), by the first decade of the 20th century it was quickly gaining popularity throughout the West, particularly in Academia. It’s prominent proponents in Britain and America ranged from popular writers such as H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, to influential businessmen like Alexander Graham Bell and John D. Rockefeller, to political leaders including Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt. In 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (in an 8-1 ruling with Oliver Wendell Holmes penning the majority opinion) a law allowing states to implement forced sterilization for eugenic purposes.

This background is important because—though it is generally looked upon with revulsion today, across the political spectrum—during Chesterton’s day eugenics seemed almost inevitable. It took great courage to speak out when he did.

He began his research for this book in 1910, but then, as he states in the book’s introduction, “the hour came when I felt, not without relief, that I might well fling all my notes into the fire.” Why? Because Prussia, that great paragon of “the scientifically organised State” upon which England and America had gazed with such admiration, was at war with the rest of the West. And as the State which had most fully adopted eugenic ideals began to collapse upon itself and implemented more and more barbaric methods of warfare, Chesterton took solace in the comfort that “no Englishmen would ever again go nosing round the stinks of that low laboratory. So I thought all I had written irrelevant, and put it out of my mind.

Alas, it was not to be. “I am greatly grieved to say that it is not irrelevant. It has gradually grown apparent, to my astounded gaze, that the ruling classes in England are still proceeding on the assumption that Prussia is a pattern for the whole world.” And so this book came to be published in 1922.

It would finally take the work of another German acolyte of Nietzsche and Darwin—whose eugenic experiments and ethnic cleansing awakened the world to the horror of this philosophy put into practice—to finally take eugenics out of the realm of mainstream thought. And though Chesterton did not live to see the start of the second World War, he was one of the few outspoken critics of Adolf Hitler in the early 1930’s, again announcing prophetic warnings about the Nazi leader’s dangerous eugenic fervor. If only the world had listened to him then!

But I do hope we’re listening now, and so I’ll allow Chesterton’s words to speak for themselves for the remainder of this review. Here are a few excerpts that stuck out to me as I read:

He knew his was a needed prophetic voice

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

He pointed out the folly of academic double-speak which tends to hide terrible ideas behind technical language

Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them “The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable, especially to the females”; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them “Murder your mother,” and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same. Say to them “It is not improbable that a period may arrive when the narrow if once useful distinction between the anthropoid homo and the other animals, which has been modified on so many moral points, may be modified also even in regard to the important question of the extension of human diet”; say this to them, and beauty born of murmuring sound will pass into their face. But say to them, in a simple, manly, hearty way “Let’s eat a man!” and their surprise is quite surprising. Yet the sentences say just the same thing.

As today, churches were seen by the scientific and academic communities as standing in the way of “progress” through the use of political power

All I assert here is that the Churches are not now leaning heavily on their political establishment; they are not using heavily the secular arm… They are not specially using that special tyranny which consists in using the government.

The thing that really is trying to tyrannise through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the Government will really help it to persecute its heretics. Vaccination, in its hundred years of experiment, has been disputed almost as much as baptism in its approximate two thousand. But it seems quite natural to our politicians to enforce vaccination; and it would seem to them madness to enforce baptism.

In an era when corrupt Capitalists used the power of the State to prey on the poor and weak, he lamented the growing inequality and loss of freedom

Industrialism and Capitalism and the rage for physical science were English experiments in the sense that the English lent themselves to their encouragement; but there was something else behind them and within them that was not they—its name was liberty, and it was our life. It may be that this delicate and tenacious spirit has at last evaporated. If so, it matters little what becomes of the external experiments of our nation in later time. That at which we look will be a dead thing alive with its own parasites. The English will have destroyed England.

Yet he knew that Socialism was not the solution to inequality; Left and Right both lead to tyranny when ideas are spread through coercion rather than persuasion

It may be said of Socialism, therefore, very briefly, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty. On the one hand it was said that the State could provide homes and meals for all; on the other it was answered that this could only be done by State officials who would inspect houses and regulate meals. The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history. It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it. Since it was supposed to gain equality at the sacrifice of liberty, we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality. Indeed, there was not the faintest attempt to gain equality, least of all economic equality. But there was a very spirited and vigorous effort to eliminate liberty, by means of an entirely new crop of crude regulations and interferences. But it was not the Socialist State regulating those whom it fed, like children or even like convicts. It was the Capitalist State raiding those whom it had trampled and deserted in every sort of den, like outlaws or broken men.

In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad. All that official discipline, about which the Socialists themselves were in doubt or at least on the defensive, was taken over bodily by the Capitalists. They have now added all the bureaucratic tyrannies of a Socialist state to the old plutocratic tyrannies of a Capitalist State. For the vital point is that it did not in the smallest degree diminish the inequalities of a Capitalist State. It simply destroyed such individual liberties as remained among its victims.

Closing Thoughts

In Chesterton’s day, the idea of eugenics took off so quickly because it appealed to those on both the political Left and Right. Those on the Right, whom Chesterton often referred to as “plutocrats” (rule of the wealthy), were drawn to eugenics because its implementation favored the powerful at the expense of the weak. Those on the Left were allured by its necessity of central planning.

Since Hitler’s defeat, the eugenics movement has evolved significantly. While abortion is mentioned only once in Chesterton’s book, the author is clearly concerned about what eugenic philosophy could mean for the unborn (“they seek his life to take it away”). Prior to the 1940’s, eugenics was focused more on selective breeding and forced sterilization rather than abortion; in the years that followed, dedicated eugenicists like Margaret Sanger turned their attention to different methods.

Eugenic philosophy is alive and well today, though it masquerades by many other names. I strongly encourage you to study more on this issue, and Chesterton’s book is a great place to start. You can check out the audiobook for free, as I did, from Librivox, read it via pdf at Project Gutenberg, or pick up a print edition here.

For further reading:

  • Read more about the connection/progression from Darwin to Nietszche to Hitler to Planned Parenthood here.
  • Answering the claims that Chesterton was a fascist and/or anti-Semite (allegations which often prevent modern readers from taking his writing seriously), by a G.K. Chesterton fellow at Oxford: here.
  • Transcript of a lecture from the American Chesterton Society on the significance of this book, and on the link between eugenics and abortion: here.

Book Review: The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.

“The Portage to San Cristóbal of A.H.” by George Steiner

What would you say if given the chance to confront one of the most hated men of the last century? What if your loved ones had suffered and died by his hand?

Welcome to one of the most disturbing and controversial books ever written. The basic premise is simple: It’s 1977. Jewish Nazi-hunters have discovered that Adolf Hitler did NOT die in his Führerbunker, and have tracked him down in a remote hideout in the Amazon. Their goal is to take the 90-year-old man safely and secretly through the jungle to San Cristóbal, so that he could be taken back to Jerusalem to stand trial.

However, this is no mere “what if” piece of historical fiction. Rather, it is a philosophical look into the nature of evil and the power of language. Throughout the relatively short novel, dozens of characters are introduced, but very few (if any) are developed to an extent where readers really get to “know” them. Instead, Steiner gives glimpses into the minds and bureaucracies of people and nations impacted by Hitler’s reign of terror.

When the story was first published in 1979, it sparked a firestorm of controversy. Most of the controversy revolves around the final chapter, in which Hitler finally speaks in his own defense. Readers have rightfully been repulsed and horrified at the brute force of Hitler’s logic and rhetoric as he not only justifies himself, but claims that the Jews ought to be grateful to him; after all, he says, would there have ever been a Zionist state without the Holocaust?

Many critics have believed that Steiner — a Jew — was himself justifying Hitler’s actions, by virtue of giving A.H. the “last word”. The book ends without any rebuttal to the four points given in his self-defense. The actual final word is spoken by an Indian guide named Teku, who simply says, “Proved.” Many have questioned whether he meant by this that Hitler had proved his own case, or whether he was incriminated by his own testimony, but I think the actual answer to this question is very subtly hidden in the name Steiner gave this native guide: “Teku” is a Hebrew word meaning “the question remains undecided”. I believe that readers are meant to come to their own conclusions.

I did not get the sense at all that Steiner was in any way sympathetic to Hitler. Most of the first sixteen chapters are devoted to the horrors of the Third Reich, particularly a long monologue by a Jew named Lieber which acts as a counter-balance to Hitler’s monologue at the end of the book. Instead, the message that I felt Steiner intended to communicate with me, the reader, was the idea that evil can be very seductive; Hitler’s speech is a very unpleasant (but important) reminder of the power of words to persuade otherwise sensible people to believe all manner of atrocious things. We must remember that Hitler was a master communicator, who convinced millions of people to follow him and accede to the implementation of his “Final Solution”. Should we be shocked at the idea that a justification of Hitler’s crimes could actually be made to sound reasonable? If we think something like that could never happen, we invite history to repeat itself.

There are also some other very important philosophical questions raised in this novel. What does revenge actually accomplish? Can any measure of vengeance bring closure for the families of victims? Can someone become too old to stand trial? If one man, no matter how evil, has been made to be a symbol of the evil actions perpetrated by thousands of individuals, is it possible to give him a fair trial? Who gets jurisdiction to try him? The continued relevance of these questions is evident in the recent and ongoing proceedings involving 91-year-old John Demjanjuk, the last Nazi war-crimes defendent, who a month ago was found guilty by a German court of 28,060 counts of accessory to murder.

This is certainly not a pleasant nor easy novel to read, but it is an important one. We need to be stretched, and reminded of our own propensity for evil if we are to stand any chance of resisting or opposing it. This book is a challenge worth facing. Buy it here.

A Disorder of Excessive Life

I came across an interesting phrase today, as I was reading through George Steiner’s book The Portage to San Cristóbal of A.H. It’s been a terribly interesting novel so far, due as much to the author’s unique way of using words as to the controversial nature of the subject matter (for a good article summarizing Steiner’s writing style and flair for controversy, read this).

The phrase in question comes from the inner monologue of one of the characters as he is remembering his deceased wife. In his mind, he describes her as having died from “a disorder of excessive life”. It struck me that that might not be the worst way to be remembered.

Worth 1,000 Words

The Chinese have a proverb that says, “A picture is worth a thousand words”. It’s just a shame that words don’t always seem to have much worth anymore.

As a self-admitting news junkie, one thing that has always fascinated me has been how pictures are used to tell a story — particularly, how the tone of a story is often set by the expression on the faces of the people in the photos that go along with a story. You can also typically tell the bias of a particular publication based on the photos they use. Let me give you just a few examples, using some of the most familiar examples — American Presidents and presidential candidates.

THE ALL-AMERICAN SMILE

THE FINGER POINT

THE SCOWL

THE REGULAR JOE

THE CANDID CAMERA

All these pictures make me wonder how foolish we are for thinking that we can truly know someone through news reports and press releases. Reading through the Federalist Papers recently, I found myself wishing that we could go back to living in a time when people cared more for the character and beliefs of our politicians than for their celebrity status. Think about it: We had 85 essays (not to mention almost as many more presenting the opposing views) explaining and expounding upon a 5-page legal document. Those letters contained the heart and passion of the men who had written the Constitution, which citizens and their electoral representatives took the time to carefully read and consider before bringing it to a vote. How then have we reached a point where we pass 1,100-page legislation in less than 12 hours, without anyone reading it? Meanwhile, pollsters diligently track our politicians’ “likeability”.

While I am saddened at how our consumer culture “consumes” politics, news and media, I can’t tell you how thankful I am that I am not subjected to the constant limelight, with my every expression being photographed and evaluated under intense public scrutiny. I don’t think I would handle well the knowledge that putting my feet up while working in my own office had the potential to cause an international crisis. It seems that there are only two types of people who can attain to political office today: Those who seek the publicity, and those who love their country enough to serve it despite the publicity.

What really spurred me to write this post, though, was the recent publication of two photo galleries, giving us never-before-seen access into the lives of two men. And before we go on, I must urge to you the fact that I am equating these men in NO way other than by the timing of the release of these albums.

It has been very common since the advent of photography to have photojournalists traveling with prominent politicians, for the purposes of chronicling their lives for posterity. What is unprecedented, though, is the public photo chronicling of a sitting US President, but that is exactly what we were given a little more than a month ago. President Obama’s White House has authorized a “Photostream” containing an intimate look into the life of an intriguing man. These pictures are not merely the work of “paparazzi”, but of staff photographers who have provided access to things never before available to us. I think these pictures are fascinating, and I highly recommend you bookmark this photostream, as new photos are posted frequently.

It helps that Barack Obama is probably our nation’s most photogenic president, with the possible exception of the actor Ronald Reagan or JFK. The dignity and grace with which he carries himself seem to lead to great photo opportunities… though it probably helps when the photographer is on the payroll and tasked with the role of presenting him in a great light. Here’s a recent favorite from his trip to Egypt:

Another album, released last Thursday, unveils vivid, color photography documenting Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. He planned to use these pictures in a memoir after the establishment and fulfillment of his Third Reich. As they say, though, history is written by the victors, and so the legacy of Hitler has — until now — been revealed to us through images of him scowling, yelling, or looking otherwise unpleasant. The implication is that he was not a man but a monster. Always evil, all the time.

So it was chilling, to say the least, to see images of “der Führer” smiling as he entertained guests at Christmas parties, car shows, and luxury cruises (which, along with the Volkswagon Beetle, were the invention of the Nazi Party as part of their “Strength Through Joy” social policy), as security guards work to restrain his adoring masses.

You can see these albums for yourself (without the getty images watermark) on Life magazine’s website:

Adolf Hitler: Up Close
Adolf Hitler: Among the Crowds
Adolf Hitler’s Private World
Hitler’s Humble Beginnings
WWII: Women of the Third Reich

It’s difficult to imagine Adolf Hitler as a human being, yet he shared many common interests (cars, sports, music, etc.) with so many of us. This serves as a reminder that ALL human beings, no matter how exceptional (whether for good or evil), are still people. We each have the capacity to promote or restrain great goodness as well as great evil, but doing so requires looking deeper than the caricatures that our media paints of our public figures.