Nature and Nazism
Why a solely science-driven society ultimately leads to barbaric, and faceless Totalitarianism
The infamous Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, proposed many reforms to culture based on science and reason over his lifespan. But a careful reading of his journals reveals that he, along with the likes of Hobbes and Rousseau, had concluded the ultimate fate of our species would be one of Totalitarianism.
"I know how difficult it is to avoid illusions; perhaps even the hopes I have confessed to are of an illusory nature…the optimism without foundation…If experience should show—not me, but to others after me who think as I do—that we are mistaken, then we shall give up our expectations. I will curb my ardor and admit the possibility that I, too, am chasing after an illusion…But you must admit that there is here the justification for a hope for the future, that perhaps we may dig up a treasure that can enrich culture, and that it is worthwhile to make the experiment of a non-religious education. Should it prove unsatisfactory, I am ready to give up the reform and to return of the earlier purely descriptive judgment: man is a creature of weak intelligence who is governed by his instinctual wishes."
-Sigmund Freud, 1927
Then, he describes the ONE solution that will remain if his hopes turn out to be illusions:
"[Then] follows the necessity for…the most rigorous suppression of these dangerous masses and the most careful exclusion of all opportunities for mental awakening…[It then becomes obvious that] it is…impossible to do without government of the masses by a minority…who should be independent of the masses by having at their disposal means of enforcing their authority…; and one may be appalled at the stupendous amount of force that will be unavoidable if these intentions are to be carried out."
-Sigmund Freud, 1938
Another Austrian wrote similar passages in a text named Mein Kampf.
Naturalism
Why did Freud think that if his propositions for an optimized society failed, the only alternative would be rigorous suppression of the masses? Because, being a Scientolator, and supreme naturalist, he held the following positions fast:
Human nature as entirely determined by blind, complicated, and brutal instincts.
Relativistic ethics denying the validity, and therefore the controlling power, of objective and universal norms of conduct.
Naturalistic atheism which regards religion as a neurosis and the idea of an almighty and overruling God as the infantile projections of a father fixation.
Although hoped for throughout the 20s and 30s, the dictates of scientific reason did not adequately replace the power of moral obligation and religion in Europe. Instead, naturalism had won the most numerous adherents of the day.
After materialism, naturalism is the second main form that Scientism assumes. Through materialism, it holds dominion across the scientific tradition, along with its dogmas of metaphysics. But with naturalism as one of its main outgrowths, Scientism now looked to hold dominion over human nature/psychology, the ideal society, and the psyche of the masses.
The Nazis believed in the natural man, but understood him as described by Hobbes and Freud, with his lust for power, sexuality, and aggressiveness. And so, they emphasized the necessity of satisfying the natural instincts, not of the individual, but of the ethnicity, as a whole. They understood that when individuals are allowed the unbridled gratification of instinct, the result is anarchy. The Nazis simply applied and put the theories of naturalistic or psychological Scientism into practice.
In the modern tense, Naturalism was a western metaphysical tradition that was based in ancient Greek philosophy, especially the Milesians and the atomists (e.g. Democrtius). It wasn’t until the 17th century that naturalists like Benedict Spinoza and David Hume along with proponents of French materialism started to reshape the philosophy as one which asserts that man is merely an animal determined in all he thinks and does by unconscious and irrational instincts.
The Nazis took this modern casting of naturalism seriously and acted accordingly. The German people's lust for power was seen merely as the natural emanation of the German spirit. As the agent of its fulfillment, it threw up a Adolf Hitler who was guided, at every step, by natural intuition and who, like an unconscious automaton, lived by unknown and uncontrollable forces.
Under the leadership of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (the official name of the German Nazi political party), the German people gratified their lust for power and instinct of aggression with no regard for humanity. Every conceivable kind of excess and barbarity was permissible and, in fact, advisable, as long as it contributed to the mastery of the German people. This end and goal justified the slaughter of the Jews who threatened the purity and solidarity of the "master race." It justified the enslavement of peoples, the violation of solemn agreements, the abolition of religions that held virtues of mercy, humility, and love in exaltation. Instead, the Nazis venerated the heroic ideals of self-assertion, racial pride, ruthlessness, and patriotism.
That's what a science-oriented society gets ya?
Nazi and Communist Ethics
Consider this regarding Communism and Nazism:
Both ideologies are forms of Scientism that have encouraged modern man to reject all universal moral principles and reduce all values to their pragmatic function.
Both ideologies deny the validity of traditional Western morality and abuse the Christian ideal as both bourgeois and an enslavement strategy.
Both systems regard the ends as justifying the means.
But where Communism aims for the classless, egalitarian society in which the brotherhood of man will be realized, Nazism had as its goal simply the satisfaction of the racial lust for power, which would result in the world dominion of the German people. The Nazi system was meant to give birth to Nietzsche's blond beasts and supermen. But, what Totalitarianism in general produces are men who have lost their humanity. This abolition of man is common to both Communism and Nazism, but it takes different forms.
In the one case, materialism is the underlying philosophy and economic forces the determining power; the product, on the human level, is the economic man—the cog in the economic machine. In the other case, naturalism is the metaphysical context and instinct the guiding principle; the end result, in terms of human beings, is the faceless man—the blind pulse in the racial bloodstream.
In both cases, it is Scientism that brings man to this end. Because of its materialistic and deterministic dogmas, it must regard man's spirit and freedom as illusions; therefore, it deprives man of his dignity, integrity, special status in creation and prepares him for extinction in the totalitarian state.
Scientism at in America
The USA is squarely a society steeped in the scientific tradition which, as explained above and in previous posts, produced Marxism, the Communist state, the Nazi ideology and with it, modern-day barbarism. There is simply no denying that Scientism is responsible for the empiricistic biases of our philosophy, the utilitarian character of our ethics, our pragmatic conception of truth, our agnosticism in regard to god, and our religious devotion to science.
Once the industrial revolution began to take its effect in the 19th century, it was, of course, in the interest of the new industrial class in society to have a laissez-faire economy, an economy in which government didn’t interfere but rather allowed economic forces free play. And yes—science, industrialization, and laissez-faire Capitalism has added to the world’s material welfare in immeasurable ways. There can be no question but that scientific progress has resulted in tremendous gains in our knowledge and power in relation to nature. Dazzling victories have been won over space, time, disease, scarcity, and over a host of evils and limitations that were previously thought to constitute a permanent part of our earthly prison.
These gains were made possible by three great benefactions:
Science gave us knowledge
Industrialism put it to work
Capitalism spread its benefits
Industrialism and pragmatism combined to exalt the dollar to divine status. The former raised the owners of the machines to a predominant position in society and at the same time put more material goods into the hands of more people. But the end result was the values of the industrialist, which appeared also to be responsible for raising the whole standard of living, became the prevailing values of the culture!
Now you may might say, “So what? Everyone wins, right?”
Well, let’s zoom in…
The industrialist operates on a purely utilitarian or pragmatic basis. The industrialist is interested in solving practical problems, and in securing the maximum of human mechanical efficiency. What is right in behavior and true in theory is what is useful in practice; and useful is herein deemed as anything that makes money! These are the brass tacks which the entirety of Capitalist society pursues, in reference to which all standards are set; all judgements passed. The production of money is sine qua non to our ethos and as such, anything that makes money, makes right.
Materialistic Scientism produced the Communist society, which is a type of economic collectivism. Naturalistic Scientism produced the Nazi society, which is a kind of instinctual barbarism. Scientism has given rise to a bourgeois society, which worships science, the machine, and the dollar. Just as empirical Scientism1 must either deteriorate into complete skepticism or else harden into a dogmatic mold that resembles the other two versions (materialistic and naturalistic), so also the culture that it nurtures is faced with only two alternatives: either it will disintegrate in aimlessness and confusion or else it will petrify into some kind of scientific mass society.
And with that, I leave you with the ending scene from the 1991 classic, The Matrix2…
Empirical Scientism attempts to investigate all problems by means of the empirical method of science in which is actually restricted by its nature, and is so employed in science proper, to certain areas of existence. It’s more hypothetical and tentative in its conclusions than its more dogmatic brothers, but at the same time, it shares with them all the presuppositions and biases of the Scientific Revolution.
inspired by the writings of Philip K. Dick