Monday, November 23, 2015

Hate Mail - About "St. Darwin"

I got more complaints about me sarcastically calling ol' Chuck, "St. Charles Darwin".   There are obvious reasons I've started doing that, the irony of his place in the pantheon of atheism, foremost. Another is that there is no such title for what he really is to them, a god, not unlike the Roman Cesar-gods, a figure to whom we are to give worship and praise even as we ignore the real man and his real place in history.   In the absence of such a title denoting deity, St. will have to do.   Doing so is not out of keeping with what the man himself and his inner circle did during his life time, constructing a sanctified public persona, complete with personal mythology, for him.  Thomas Huxley was his ruthless publicity agent, one worthy of a Hollywood movie containing one.  He and Francis Galton planned Darwin's epic funeral, an affair which sounds like it could have rivaled a royal funeral, and his entombment, ironically, in the same cathedral in which they crown and marry those inbred folk. That is where they put the mortal remains of saints, after all.  And it worked.  Richard Feynman might have snarked about the status given the papacy but it's summer stock compared to the promotion machine of the Darwin industry.

I have also gotten more requests to go into more detail over the position of Darwinism in neo-Nazism, which I will do but which is some of the most repulsive research I've ever done.  I must say that considering the position Darwin's Natural Selection has played and still does in Nazi antisemitism and the desire to commit racial genocide, that the people who they hope to murder would seem have more of an incentive to look critically at the far from secure nature of that dogma than they have.  While Darwin, quoting the flaming bigot and eugenicist W. R. Greg, dissed the Irish and obviously gave their fellow bigots fodder for their efforts (it was the day of "No Irish" signs) no one ever, so far as I can see, used Natural Selection as a reason for our extermination.   

If the reason that those who are the targets of neo-Darwinism haven't questioned the dogma of Natural Selection is fear of being considered low-class and unrespectable, that's nothing compared to what could and has happened.   People, many in those named groups, were involuntarily cut off from having children, confined and, yes, killed on the basis of Natural Selection.   There is nothing that would prevent that from happening again as long as the theory behind that maintains the status it has as scientific fact.  The existence of William L. Pierce and his surviving cult prove that.  We are, in 2015, the kind of country in which Donald Trump is being taken seriously as a possible presidential candidate.  I don't think something like that was true of Germany in even the early  1920s.  We have had Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in office.  Our politics are hardly Nazi proof. 

There is no rational reason for people marked by Darwin, Haeckel, etc. in a chain of bigots up till today as inherently and eternally inferior due to our ethnic heritage to just accept that the alleged science they used to do it is unquestionable.  As I pointed out, there are Irish name people in biology and elsewhere who, unaware of Darwin putting his own unremovable mark of Cain on us, are some of his great enthusiasts.    There are people whose great-great etc. grandparents were among those whose progeny Darwin warned against as an almost certain catastrophe for the human race if not stopped from having children, who rose in income, studied science and imbibed the Darwin industry, eugenics-free Darwin unaware that if he'd had his way, they wouldn't be here because their parents wouldn't be here. Somehow, they never bothered to read him and those whose science he promoted.

Update:  Typical of a British gentleman's son of the upper class, Darwin included the British poor as among those whose ability to have children was considered to carry the unremediable and permanent danger of dysgenisis in the human population.  It wasn't merely members of ethnic groups, those unnamed but alluded to as "savages" and some named groups who he considered to be inescapably marked as those whose culling from the population would have beneficial effects for succeeding generations.  Any of those people who rose and went to universities and became full fleged members of the intellectual class are the ones I'm talking about whose ability to ascend was denied by Darwin and who, if Darwin's scientific views became law, as they did in places like the United States, Canada and Germany, might not be around today to become members of the Darwin fan club, members who, like most of them, have never read The Descent of Man or considered that it was their great-great grandparents who he was talking about in those passages.

Update 2:  I have absolutely no idea who most of the people who read my blog are, I do know that several hundred people read it every week if not every day.  If your accusation is correct and they're all creationists, I can't say that I consider it to be a problem.  If they want to read what is said here, maybe they'll learn that they don't have as much to fear from real liberals as they're led to by the atheist pseudo-liberals.   I can say that as I've read more deeply into the Bible, especially the Jewish scriptures that I've become entirely more liberal than I ever was as an agnostic.  I do think that a conservative who took what Jesus said seriously would be hard pressed to avoid becoming more liberal in the traditional American meaning of that word than an atheist who mocked what he said and the Jewish scriptures he built on.   The profound Jewish nature of Christianity is another thing I've learned from reading more deeply into the scriptures in the past three years.  Jesus was a Jew, as I mentioned, he was murdered as a Jew, with a sign put over him, his death couldn't be more strikingly like the murders of his fellow Jews in the 20th or, for that matter the 13th centuries, than if he'd been forced to wear a yellow star of David.

If any evangelical or fundamentalist or creationist reads me saying that seriously considers it, I'm not unhappy to have written it.   They have the same right to my consideration as anyone else who does me the honor of reading what I write. 


  1. "We are, in 2015, the kind of country in which Donald Trump is being taken seriously as a possible presidential candidate. I don't think something like that was true of Germany in even the early 1920s."

    What was that you were saying about not being a writer, Sparky? You're selling yourself short -- that sentence is an absolute masterpiece of silliness worthy of Lewis Carroll. Kudos!

  2. Oh, well, to start with, I count two sentences, not one. And what's your refutation of it? You think that the country that elected the Weimar government was the kind of country in which serious people had to consider someone like Donald Trump as a possible winner of an election? Go into detail.

    I've admitted I'm not a writer, nor have I ever been guilty of claiming to be one. When are you going to admit you're not a thinker?

  3. You got me there, Sparky-I looked it up, and no, Trump WASNT running for office in early 20s Germany.

    1. Not to mention admitting that you're not especially accomplished in the old reading comprehension area.

  4. Another joke that flew right past you. I genuinely can't believe how obtuse you are.

    1. Your best friend won't tell you, Simps, so I will. Whoever told you you were a wit was a nitwit.