JackRiddler » Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:55 pm wrote:Except it's the reverse. 'Nazi science' was an extreme variation of the eugenics thinking, human resources development, and 'industrialized human experimentation' (e.g. Taylorism) already underway in the capitalist heartlands of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Same deal here. The IG Farben trust, brought together in 1925, preceded the Nazi state. Its constituent companies were founded in the late 19th c. and put back into business after 1945. While the German corporations are a big part of the 'modern pharmaceutical industry' historically and today, the industry itself can hardly be said to be simply a 'direct descendent' of Farben. (Now wait for someone to say that this constitutes a 'defense' of pharma. Or maybe not.)
The modern pharmaceutical industry is descendent of the emergent technological developments in synthetics during the 20th century. The prime movers of this were German chemists, who eventually conglomerated themselves into an industrial monolith with a name and clear organisational superstructure. If the modern pharmaceutical industry has a progenitor, then this is it. If this is an oversimplification of things, which almost anything could be called, then I'm willing to read your exegesis explaining the complex context I'm missing.
If it does not have a progenitor and isn't in fact a 'modern' pharmaceutical industry at all, but rather a new industry brought into existence spontaneously between then and now within the impossible to navigate process of corporate mergers and acquisitions, then I.G Farben would of course be of little significance. Then we could explore some kind of Big Bang theory of origin, possibly surrounding the human genome project.
'Nazi science' was an extreme variation of the eugenics thinking
Specifically to this point, the ideology of eugenics served that of synthetics. The Nazis rounded up Jews on ideology emergent from the eugenics principle but delivered them to I.G Farben camps to be used as scientific test subjects for research and experimentation into synthetic developments. This is the ideological undercurrent which has persisted till this day. The complete subordination of all nature, including human nature, to synthetic adaptation, as to be completely controllable by those who adapt it. Those who believe in the subordination of nature to the synthetic products of technology aren't picky in who they ally with, so long as they seek to further this process. The key qualifier to my point here is 'complete subordination', I am not anti-science. But like all things It should exist in some kind of moderation. Though generally speaking it does lack ethics, because ethics are subjective, and thus don't exist. And we shouldn't believe in something which doesn't exist, as that would be like believing in God.
To I.G Farben, the Jews weren't Jews, they were test subjects. They were only Jews so far as that allowed them to be test subjects through dehumanisation. The question of eugenics is redundent here, because one of the many ends of the current Pandemic situation, as believed by me, is to replace the natural immune system with a synthetic one. And to that end, the means being utilised are best characterised by those used by the Nazis.
Also, you know who else got not just immunity but were completely ignored as perpetrators after the war? The two German churches, who participated in the 'euthanasia' program, the first systemic genocide of the state, serving up the people in their mental health and disabled wards for death-shots. Despite this, it cannot therefore be simply stated that the 'modern Christian denominations' are direct descendents of the Nazi-era churches. I add this only to illustrate the logical fallacy used here.
Hitler didn't meet with the Church in 1933 to back his formal rise to Power. Nor are the origins of Institutional Christianity descendent of Nazi Germany. Nor is Christianity a relevant or even substantial power structure mandating its will through our modern political lives. It may attempt too, but its power is impotent. The logical fallacy found here is the false equivalency you've used in an attempt to illustrate one.
And Nietzsche was a totalitarian, not a fascist. He provided a general outlook for fascism, which was shared by communism. In borrowing from another German philosopher, you could call it a general outlook to facilitate one part of a dialectic towards totalitarianism. The spiritual aspect of this being that instead of doing this under God, all of humanity should come together to gang rape nature, because it is God, as one single transcendent organism of synthetic being. I.G Farben was the very first institutionalisation of this process and its legacy lives on.
