The accusation has been made that it was what Darwin said against the Irish that has motivated my critique of him and his work. The accusation from Britain is "You hate him because he insulted Irishmen and you're Irish."
Well, I could go through the chronology of my disillusionment one more time and note the position of that statement in his book which disillusioned me. By the time I got there, the plaster saint I'd been fed by the Darwin industry had become pretty well rotted by things he'd said about other people. But that is a rather boring and too specific an argument when there's one that is far more interesting because it is far more important.
Why should anyone belonging to those groups of people named and implied by Darwin as carrying an inescapable inherent biological taint of degeneracy accept Darwin?
Darwin held that such people as us were irredeemably "weaker", irredeemably unworthy of having children who would also carry his scientifically applied Mark of Ham, if not Cain. That, dear friends, means us, here, today. I am, obviously, one of those descendants of the McCarthys, Donovans, and several other names living in Ireland during the famine, tracing a good part of my ancestry to Skibbereen and others in other counties and, it is believed, at least one nation of the North American natives whose imminent extinction was eagerly anticipated in the same book. I and my entire family carry the same heritage that Darwin and his colleagues marked as inferior to his "Saxons" only partially relieved by intermarriage with Darwin's superior race in only a few instances. And I'm not exactly certain that even that would have allowed some of my well loved nieces and nephews to have escaped his taint. Many later day Darwinists believed that "mongrels" between the unfit and fit were even less fit for that "race mixing".
And the Irish are hardly alone in being marked as inferior. Darwin specifically and, it is inescapable to conclude, enthusiastically anticipated the displacement and extinctions of entire groups by, specifically, Britains and, more generally, the "civilised men" who are obviously Europeans of the North Western variety, the Irish excluded. Darwin and those he endorsed had quite a list of people they considered unfit to "reproduce their kind" or marked for extinction in a struggle for existence with European conquerors. Tasmanians - who were the victims of one of the most successful genocides in history conducted during Darwin's lifetime by Britains, Maories of New Zealand, Melanesians of the New Hebrides, inhabitants of islands and continents around the world.
Why shouldn't the people still living under the burden of Darwinian denigration reject his evidence-free assertions about us? We have every right to take his slanders against us personally because we constitute those groups he slandered as clearly as the author of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion did at about the same period. And that isn't even getting to those groups whose extinction Darwin said would constitute a boon for the human species.
And it's far from the case that even many members of the Saxon and other of the "favoured races" escaped Darwin's death sentence. And it is absolutely clear that it was a death sentence. The poor were the largest and most general group of those presumed to be "weaker members" of the human species, those who must be kept from "reproducing their kind" at peril to the entire population, the group for which even the death camps of Victorian workhouses would keep too many of them alive.
The rejection of Darwin by the great unwashed is one of the greatest annoyances of those with a university education today. Even questioning him and, more so, the completely phony post-war Darwin that was created by the suppression of his own writing, the greatest act of "QUOTE MINING" OF DARWIN OF ALL. There are no greater pickers and choosers of Darwin's words for ideological purposes than his fans and the Darwin Industry that created and maintains that lie. For a person with a university education to reject Darwin you have to read him and his citations in the way I have advocated from the first time I committed my unforgivable act of heresy against "modernism".
But along the way I have found the great irony is that the anti-evolutionist have read Darwin in far greater detail than his supporters, including those in science. That last point is understandable, Darwin's science has been largely superseded. Indeed, natural selection couldn't have survived if Darwin's method of inheritance wasn't superseded by genetics.
As more people do what I have advocated, many of them will find, as I did, that Darwin's depiction of us, as the inheritors of our Victorian era ancestor's biological identity, is about as uncomplimentary as those who marked Jews as inferior and degenerate and, explicitly, a danger to the greater human species. There is every reason for members of those ethnic and economic classes slandered by Darwin to read what he said about us, to reject it and to reject his idea, which isn't evolution but natural selection. The problems with natural selection were noted as early as the early 1860s, even by someone as originally prepared to accept Darwin as useful as Karl Marx, who noted how very odd it was that Darwin, far from imposing the law of nature on human society, imposed his peculiar, class bound British society on the entirety of nature.
I'm amused that Darwin, at whom I've been taking another look, should say that he also applies the ‘Malthusian’ theory to plants and animals, as though in Mr Malthus’s case the whole thing didn’t lie in its not being applied to plants and animals, but only — with its geometric progression — to humans as against plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.
As I noted last week, it is far too great a coincidence that Darwin's natural selection ended up, in each and ever case, supporting his way of life, his racial, national, economic and class interests and those of his readers and fellow aristocrats, who almost exclusively peopled science and all other establishments that adopted Darwinism. A coincidence that big is no coincidence.
Today, especially in countries such as the United States where people instituted such contra-Darwinian institutions as compulsory elementary education, public libraries, land-grant universities,.... many of the descendants of those who Darwin wanted to die without children have gone to college and absorbed the phony, post-war Darwin and even some of the modern versions of his biological determinism. Ironically, many of them support the secular deification of a man whose theory held they shouldn't be here by now and if the great misfortune of their ancestors leaving children happened that they would be, that their lives would constitute a continual danger to the more fit of the human species, the embodiment and means of human dysgenesis . I'll repeat that in another way. Darwin explicitly said that. If large parts of our educated population did what they pretend to have done, read him, they could observe that, according to Darwin, they, their parents and grandparents shouldn't have been born and they could not have been able to become highly educated and to have become members of today's intellectual and economic elite. Their very lives constitute a major refutation of Darwin's application of natural selection to the human species, they are a major refutation of natural selection even as they sit on university faculties and teach Darwinism to another generation. As a lover of irony, that's one for the record books.
Darwinism will always contain the time bomb that will always be there because what Darwin said is not going to change. The greatest of all the ironies of this is that if the educated population reads Darwin they will find he said what he did. And people will read him as easily as going to Project Gutenberg and other online sources and see just what he really did say in the full context of how he said it.
No comments:
Post a Comment