Stupid Mail - The Last Answer I'm Giving For A While

I as many of those who have not admired Richard Dawkins' scientific claims for many decades and his anti-religious bigotry for fewer decades was tickled when, on live radio he was challenged to give the full title of his scripture, On the Origin of Species and we hear that he, a high-priest of Darwinism, couldn't readily do it after he claimed he could.  You can listen to the exchange for the context that made that so satisfying.

The title, as can be seen on the original title-page of the first edition is plainly:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

The very title contains the basic claim of racism, that there are "favored races" and the signpost to eugenics, not all that long after, Nazi eugenics, that the favoring of some races over others means that those so favored are preserved.  In other places Darwin explicitly claims that the "favoring" of such favored races is inherited biological superiority, And the converse of that, the losers in the "struggle for life" are biologically, inherently inferior as will be the children they produce.  And he, himself predicted that it would be catastrophic if such aid to the underclass as was found in the horrific Victorian death camps, the Work House system and universal vaccination went on. 

As that quote given in a footnote this morning points out,  any application of that idea in political and legal terms, "biopolitics" will have to include the converse of that, the expression of the same idea, that "unfavored races" will have to die, they will not be "preserved" and when that is the scientifically asserted basis on which such decisions by governments and legal systems are executed, it will mean that people kill other people.

When you do that on a national basis (the "nation" as a biological entity taking the place of different "races") it will mean entire populations will be targeted for death.  As I've had to point out many times, Charles Darwin explicitly made such claims in his scientific writings in which he explicitly endorses the idea that the extinction of entire ethnic and racial groups in such a struggle, explicitly including the killing of people, would be beneficial to the survivors.  And that's not to mention members of the economic underclass even in his super-race, Brits.  That is present in everything from his major scientific publications, Origin of Species, especially The Descent of Man, and in letters to people like G. A. Gaskell (do a word search of my archive, I'm tired of giving links you never look at).   And that was, as well, an immediate response by scientists and jurists and people who asserted they were in the business of improving life that started within weeks of the publication of the book that carried that title, and that continues to this day within science and certainly outside of it.  That is a line of development that led within 48 years to the first eugenic law being passed in Indiana, explicitly asserted as scientifically valid through Darwinism, within 80 years to the beginning of the Nazi genocides.

Since I began looking into this, literally every lead I got, starting with Darwin's own writings, his own letters and correspondence and going on from the writings he cited and endorsed, following on from those, everything I looked at was a uniform confirmation of what I've said about him.   I've challenged those asserting another interpretation to refute it with evidence from the primary record and have gotten almost nothing, the little that was produced so flimsy that it was easily knocked down, generally using the very words of Charles Darwin and those who knew him, personally, intimately and scientifically.  As I said last week when challenged, I still have a large amount of evidence that proves what I'm saying.  You guys have yet to refute a single part of it with anything but jr. high level mockery and lies drawn from the phony post-war fiction surrounding Darwin.