I have said it before and I'll say it again because it's the truth, it is in no way a mark of honor for the upholders of science that in this matter they are the ones who have lied as their opponents in anti-evolution, in "fundamentalism" have told the truth about Charles Darwin and his disciples. And the smarties who so disdained the anti-evolutionists and "fundamentalists" were really stupid because their effort was always bound to fail in the end. The absolutely obvious and fully documented fact that Darwinism, natural selection was the foundation of the Nazi genocides was denied by post-World War Two academic and scientific culture but was something they never denied before the war that I have found. In the post-war period it was was covered- up by them and exposed by those who hated Darwinism because it was the enforced, officially required framing of evolution in the post-war period. That lie depended not on reading the record, but by lying about what it said, the lie to be believed by people who refused or failed to look at the primary documents.
In so far as the relationship of Darwin with eugenics and eugenics with the Nazi genocides, "fundamentalists in their post-war polemics weren't the ones who were required to lie, continually, about that, they found much of what I had to discover for myself by doing what hardly any of Darwin's champions ever do READING WHAT HE SAID, WHAT HE CITED AS SCIENCE, reading what was said by self-proclaimed Darwinists who were scientifically and academically accepted as such, who were accepted as such by conventional science and academia right up through the end of the Nazi era.
Checking the many, explicit links between Nazi eugenics-genocide and English language eugenics, those primary documents are so numerous, so obvious in their meaning, often found right in the heart of the scientific literature - Baur, Fischer, Lenz, the writings of Alfred Ploetz, and those in English by their colleagues such as Karl Pearson, Charles Davenport, etc. - WHICH WERE ENTIRELY ACCEPTED AS SCIENCE by scientific departments of major, esteemed universities, by institutions, and in academic and reputable culture of the time. Their eugenics were taught in university science departments and in high school science classes.
That is the pre-war scientific record which the post-war cover-up always had hanging over it, which it could fight off only by lying about its existence, its status as accepted science with all of the powerful repute that carried was always going to be there. And with peer-pressure coercion.
I doubt I'd have looked at much of it if it hadn't been easily available to me in electronic form, especially when it is in a form which is easily accessed through computer search. That is the reality we live in now, even someone who was as totally duped by the post-war cover-up as I was, if they are willing to do what they should have done all along, fact check it against the primary documentary record, honestly reading it for what it is cannot have that long-told lie of St. Charles Darwin, promoted by the British government, by academic institutions and the media, presented by the BBC-PBS bullshit factory - the primary source for so much of what current college-credentialed people believe they know about such stuff - still stand. I have said as soon as I read The Descent of Man, as soon as I read Charles Darwin's letter to his cousin Francis Galton effusively praising the first major work of Eugenics, Hereditary Genius, my naive faith in the eugenics-free St. Charles Darwin did just that, it crumbled. And the fragments turned to dust as I continued to check the primary source material over the next years.
I know of two such fictitious constructs in current required, aggressively enforced academic-college-credentialed culture. This one is important, the other is merely of artistic interest. Darwinism is the one that got millions killed and still, today, in the form of what in secular-materialistic-atheistic culture goes by the name of "ethics" has 21st century academics drawing up lists of those who it's OK, if not good, if not "humane" to kill, getting on the BBC and PBS and NPR to push their erudition and Lord knows where else in much the same way that eugenicists were covered in the popular media of its heyday. Even by those who claim a family history of victims of the Shoah. That is how bad it is.
For those who are puzzled as to how we are seeing a resurgence of neo-fascism, neo-Nazism and its indigenous American forms in neo-Confederate racism, how could that be a shock when polite society was never disabused of its basis in biologically asserted inequality? That is the very basis of natural selection.
I will say that when, several weeks back, I read the quote by the radical doctor and public health advocate, Sr. Teresa Forcades noting that modernism, when it made knowledge the sine qua non of esteem, it pushed inequality to the forefront and very center of culture. She noted that the alternative to that which makes sanctity the foremost goal of life was inherently egalitarian because it is something that anyone can strive for. I have only started to consider that idea but I'm finding that it explains a lot more than I may have thought when I first read it.
I will note that one of the things I found that was most enlightening was reading the undelivered closing statement of William Jennings Bryan in the actual Scopes trial, which was not the yahoo, ignorant ranting that those two asses who wrote Inherit The Wind, as a part of the post-war cover-up put in his mouth. Or rather what so many believe is his mouth. It was also one of the greatest shocks of going online to learn that many, PhD holding college-credentialed people - the two I learned it from were credentialed in science - believed that play was, as the saying goes, "based on history" when it was, start to finish, a falsification of the Scopes trial.
Here's part of the end of what Bryan intended to say, kept from saying it only by the design of Clarence Darrow who knew he had provided Bryan with what he needed to discredit the defender of Darwin in his own closing statement in the Leopold and Lobe trial.
Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endangers its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius; it has made war more terrible than it ever was before. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane--the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times a bloody as it was before; but science does not teach brotherly love. Science has made war so hellish that civilization was about to commit suicide; and now we are told that newly discovered instruments of destruction will make the cruelties of the late war seem trivial in comparison with the cruelties of wars that may come in the future. If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of the meek and lowly Nazarene. His teachings, and His teachings, alone, can solve the problems that vex heart and perplex the world....
If you consider how the next fifteen years history in Germany and elsewhere would prove his case, it's especially disgusting the use which was made of him in the post-war lie. Whatever he may have gotten wrong about evolution and geology, he more than made up for by getting the results of believing in natural selection right, proved in the next two decades in the form of millions of murders and deaths in a war more terrible than the ones he was talking about. He had his faults, he was highly imperfect, though far less so than St. Darwin proves when you read him and look at what he supported and what came of his theory. Reading history, reading such scholars as Habermas and Kloppenberg, I think he got pretty much all of that right.
No comments:
Post a Comment