These Guys Couldn't Be Stupider If They Intended To Be - Three Comments

1. Right on cue, my most persistent troll and persistently willing example of everything wrong with the conventional, pseudo-liberal narrative puts his silly foot right into it, right up to his eyeballs.  And I'll bet he and his fellow, conceited pseudo-liberals won't see any problem with what he said.   
2. 
   steve simelsFebruary 13, 2017 at 8:16 PM

   INHERIT THE WIND on now on TCM.
   
   Amazingly, not a single character mentions how Darwin is going to cause The Holocaust.
   :-)

   ReplyDelete
3. 
   The Thought CriminalFebruary 13, 2017 at 8:46 PM

   Oh dear, what part of MOVIES AREN'T REAL was too complex for you to get?
   
   If you read the documents from the actual Scopes trial instead of that piece of Broadway -> Hollywood crap you'd see that William Jennings Bryan did, actually, predict that it would lead to results like the Holocaust. Only, in the real trial, not that piece of fiction, Clarence Darrow knew that his statements in the defense of "Babe" Leopold could be used to cut his argument in Scopes to shreds so he maneuvered to prevent Bryan from giving it. Luckily, the text exists and can be read. By such as can read, which doesn't include you or the others that put the "scat" into Eschaton.
   
   You are so endlessly stupid and clueless and self-contradicting, Simels, I do wonder if you have some occult power, extra-stupory-imperception.

   ReplyDelete
4. 
   The Thought CriminalFebruary 13, 2017 at 9:08 PM

   There's this passage from Bryan's speech, for example, that is remarkably prescient of how Germany was going to go.
   
   Quotes an English Author
   
   To show that this is a world-wide matter, I now quote from a book issued from the press in 1918, seven years ago. The title of the book is "The Science of Power," and its author, Benjamin Kidd, being an Englishman, could not have any national prejudice against Darwin. On Pages 46 and 47 we find Kidd's interpretation of evolution:
   
   "Darwin's presentation of the evolution of the world as the product of natural selection in never-ceasing war was a product, that is to say, of a struggle in which the individual efficient in the fight for his own interests was always the winning type - touched the profoundest depths of the psychology of the West. The idea seemed to present the whole order of progress in the world as the result of a purely mechanical and materialistic process resting on force. In so doing it was a conception which reached the springs of that heredity born of the unmeasured ages of conquest out of which the Western mind has come. Within half a century the 'Origin of Species' had become the bible of the doctrine of the omnipotence of force."
   
   Kidd goes so far as to charge that "Nietzsche's teaching represented the interpretation of the popular Darwinism delivered with the fury and intensity of genius." And Nietzsche, be it remembered, denounced Christianity as the "doctrine of the degenerate," and democracy as "the refuge of weaklings."
   
   Kidd says that Nietzsche gave Germany the doctrine of Darwin's efficient animal in the voice of his superman, and that Bernhardi and the military textbooks in due time gave Germany the doctrine of the superman translated into the national policy of the superstate aiming at world power. (Page 67.)
   
   And what else but the spirit of evolution can account for the popularity of the selfish doctrine, "each one for himself, and the devil take the hindmost," that threatens the very existence of the doctrine of brotherhood.
   
   In 1900 - twenty-five years ago - while an international peace congress was in session in Paris, the following editorial appeared in L' Univers:
   
   "The spirit of peace has fled the earth because evolution has taken possession of it. The plea for peace in past years has been inspired by faith in the divine nature and the divine origin of man; men were then looked upon as children of apes - what matters it whether they are slaughtered or not?"
   
   ----------------
   Of course, he was a lawyer and a liberal politician, not a biologist. I'd have been happier if he'd called what he was talking about "natural selection" but he didn't. Not that it would make a difference to you because you don't know enough to know the difference.