Hate Mail - First He Insults Me, Then He Plagiarizes Me, Then He Lies About Me, All The While Making Up Stuff Which I've Never Said

I have no opinion about Spike Lee's movie BlacKkKlansman, I wasn't aware of its existence till finding out my troll claimed to know what I'd say about it when I hadn't heard of it or anything about it.  I had time to look at a couple of reviews, it's not a universally supported film, apparently.  I probably won't see it, I don't watch many movies, especially those purporting to be "based on true events" because I don't believe that when it comes from the movies.   I've got no problem with someone like Spike Lee trying to harness the potential of movies to sway people, if it's going to happen I'd rather it happen for better than worse motives, I do have a problem with them doing what I slam the fascist use of movies for, not telling the truth.  If that's a habit of Mr. Lee, I don't have any idea.  Of course, any movie writer, director, producer, who starts from scratch instead of "based on" BS, they can't be faulted for having distorted history or current events.  Fiction movies based on original screen plays never lie about those things contained completely within that story, though it can get facts about anything outside of that impinging on real, reality wrong.

I will be mildly curious to see what Stupy makes of this.

Update:  Apparently Shitforbrainz Simels is a. claiming that he's reading a book about tourists going to Nazi Germany when what he's really done is read a review about it in the Washington Post, b. he's snarking that he hasn't found a mention of Charles Darwin in the book.  I happen to have read a review of the book which said that most of the people mentioned in it were convinced that Hitler was on the right track, it said the only fan of Hitler who had his mind changed was Thomas Wolfe, the American novelist who saw a boarder guard beating up on a Jewish person he'd just stripped of all of his possessions.

Um, Stupy, anyone who, in the 1930s thought Hitler was on the right path wasn't likely to be the brightest bulb in the marquee sign, something you could relate to, and if they understood that Nazi ideology and policy was entirely based in biology and, as I demonstrated the past two weeks, they, themselves said that what they were doing was based in Darwinism, natural selection.  I'll bet that in those travels of his to France, Sweden, etc. Stupy is as plug ignorant of the intellectual bases of the present day governments of those countries as his fellow American untellectuals would be. 

Though just about anyone who knew anything about biology and had read Nazi literature would have known that relationship to Darwinism.  I wouldn't be too certain that some of them didn't know that was the basis of Nazi ideology, lots of the visitors to the Reich I've read about were eugenicists and before the end of WWII literally no one anywhere I've looked ever denied the connection of Darwin with eugenics.  As I've pointed out many times before, in April, 1939, in Eugenics Review, Darwin's own son, Leonard, a major figure in British eugenics, was proudly pointing out the connections between his father and German eugenics, which of course, meant Nazi eugenics.  He was certainly not the only person to note that.  Charles Davenport certainly knew it as he was heavily involved with Nazis in his eugenics promotion right up into the war, before the United States joined it.

Maybe it just didn't come up in the author's theme of the book Stupy is pretending that he's reading, authors pick and choose what they look at and what they include in their books.  Maybe it just didn't fit.  Or maybe the author realizes that they would be attacked for pointing out that glaring fact and an author's interests include selling more books.

I think there are scads of writers who know that, I mean, I found that out within the first week of my research into the question, and I started out almost as ignorant as Stupy.  There are two lines of direct connection, complete with scientific citations by Darwin and his fellow scientists and direct correspondence between them.  An honest researcher could hardly miss it.

One goes directly from Charles Darwin to Francis Galton (the father of eugenics) to scientists and people like Darwin's sons George, Francis, Leonard and Horace, all of them major figures in British eugenics, and American eugenics which the Nazis used to formulate their theories and who were in nearly constant contact.

The other was even more direct, Charles Darwin to Ernst Haeckel to his students and readers who fed directly into German science and social thought directly into the Nazi theoreticians and politicians.  You might call Wilhelm Schallmeyer a third line, but he was definitely aware of Haeckel and that chain of connection even though he said his own eugenics came from the same source as Galton's and Haeckel's, Shallmeyer reading On The Origin of Species.

Two direct chains connect Darwin with the Nazis, more, actually.  Whether or not the kind of person who would have gone on vacation to Nazi Germany would have known that in the 1930s, not all of us are are as ignorant as they may have been.