Hate Mail - Put Up Or Admit You Can't - This Is A Good Model For How The Trump Cult Operates

I HAVE BEEN issuing the challenge since about 2008 to anyone who wants to refute what I wrote from the words in the primary scientific record of Darwinism to demonstrate that Darwin rejected eugenics and didn't do what he did in his letter to Francis Galton praising his first book of eugenic theory,  Hereditary Genius, and the two articles which Galton, himself said were his first publications of eugenics.    That Darwin not only praised those to Galton and others privately BUT CITED THEM AND THE EVEN MORE EXTREME EUGENICS OF ERNST HAECKEL IN HIS SECOND MAJOR BOOK ON NATURAL SELECTION, THE DESCENT OF MAN.   That he supported his son George's article which may be the first time that anyone proposed a law instituting eugenics, the involuntary dissolution of a marriage if either partner was judged to be mentally ill, attacking those who pointed out what an outrageous intrusion of the legal system and government into the private choices of married couples that was.   Those are rather conclusive proof that Charles Darwin was not merely accepting of eugenics, he asserted it as a holding of science and of legal and social policy. 

No one has ever shown that the acknowledged inventor of eugenics,  Darwin's cousin and an eminent scientist in his own right, Francis Galton, who explicitly said the entire thing was based on Charles Darwin's articulation of natural selection in On the Origin of Species, ever renounced that claim before his death.   That claim is certainly not made in his authorized biography by his eminent student and figure in science, Karl Pearson, who asserted the basis of eugenics in natural selection, himself.  Even if Charles Darwin had rejected eugenics,  Galton proclaiming On The Origin of Species as the thing that inspired him to invent eugenics would absolutely settle that case.   

Without the theory of natural selection being claimed by Darwin, eugenics would likely never have been invented or put into practice in the Americas, in Europe, in Nazi Germany.  

As I pointed out yesterday,  Leonard Darwin, who certainly knew his father's thinking better than any post-WWII liar who distanced him from eugenics and who has absolutely more credibility to make that claim than anyone who never once laid eyes on the man or talked to him, or who knew him as intimately as a son knows his own father,  said his own eugenics activism was him carrying on his father's work, he said so over at least a period of three decades, as I documented from his own words.   He, as well, in 1939, five months before the Nazi government started WWII and, with that the active genocidal phase of their eugenics program,  credited On the Origin of Species as the spark for Wilhelm Schallmeyer, independently inventing German eugenics - though I'd say Ernst Haeckel and others had come to the same conclusions well before Schallmeyer did.   He explicitly endorsed Nazi eugenics, though it had not yet come to the logical conclusion of eugenics and natural selection, of actively killing people,  though such talk had been rampant in English language eugenics for about four to five decades.   

The talk of one ethnic group wiping out other ethnic groups on the basis of their respective economic value (though seldom admitted to be what was under discussion) on the basis of natural selection started almost immediately, as can be seen by Haeckel's publications and those of Darwin's protective "bull dog" Thomas Huxley who breezily announced the impending obliteration of American Black People in his infamous 1865 essay Emancipation: Black and White.  The scenario he gave of such a genocidal race war was entirely based in his own scientific racism and the theory of his master, natural selection.    Darwin, in The Descent of Man, repeatedly made assertions of the beneficial effects of murder, individual to genocidal, constantly presenting the deaths of those he deemed inferior as a means of the improvement of the (murdering) survivors.   

Given the availability and ubiquity of such claims AS SCIENCE in the primary record of Darwinism, of the theory of natural selection, it astounds me how long the scientific, academic, journalistic, etc. establishment got away with peddling the lie that Darwin and his theory of natural selection had nothing to do with eugenics.  It could only be done either through a. reading those scientific publications on which so much subsequent science is alleged to be based and lying to themselves and everyone else what they said or, b. pretending to have read them and merely repeating the tertiary or even more remote claims made about it, especially on the popular level of "the public understanding of science."   As I said, though always on the look out for that denial of a connection in the pre-WWII period, I never found anyone actually claiming that natural selection had nothing to do with eugenics - especially not as claimed by the eugenicists.   The closest thing I found to that was in such clearly embarrassed implications of Vernon Kellogg in his Headquarters Nights, that the German military officers he encountered, some of whom he had known from the time they were students together,  had an understanding of Darwin that was, in some unspecified way, illegitimate.   Kellogg, himself, had supported eugenics and was a through Darwinist and I'm certain he must have read The Descent of Man and probably the things Darwin endorsed as science in it, from such scientists as Galton and Haeckel which couldn't be more clear of the connection between exactly the ideas of the German officers Kellogg talked to.   

It was one of the unintended results of the more than fifteen years I've put into studying this issue that I was stunned by how easily that lie was inserted into the common received wisdom of the college-credentialed class in the post-WWII period and how resistant those who bought into that are to a presentation of the actual primary record contradicting that lie - in my experience among the most absolute proofs of any such thing as could be found.   The reliance on the very lies in the popular post-WWII presentation of it insisted on being more reliable than the very words of Darwin and those he presented as supporting scientists and the plain meaning of what they said.   I think if you want to see how the Trump cult thinks or, rather, doesn't think but lies on his behalf,  the conventional post-WWII line on Darwin and natural selection is a good model to consider.