Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

Page not found | National VanguardMarx, Darwin and the Scientific Ideology
Philosophy; Posted on: 2004-09-13 10:09:05 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]ntific investigation of the nature of life supports racialism, demolishes Marxism and equalitarianism.by John Thornton BannermanWHEN IN 1867 Karl Marx had completed the first volume of his major work, Das Kapital, he offered to dedicate it to the great biologist Charles Darwin. Darwin cautiously declined the honour, pleading his "ignorance of economics." It is one of the great ironies of history that the main founder of one of the major ideologies contending for the soul of the Twentieth Century should thus have wished to dedicate his magnum opus to the man who was to play an equally significant, if less overt, role in founding the other great contending world-view.No less ironic were the words spoken sixteen years later at Marx's graveside by his amanuensis and financial backer, Friedrich Engels. "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature," eulogised Engels, "so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history." Ironic, for the social consequences of the law of evolution in organic nature Darwin discovered sounded the death-knell of Marx's pretended "law of evolution in human history." (ILLUSTRATION: The young Jew, Karl Marx, left; the young European, Charles Darwin, right. Each in his own way would dramatically affect the future of the West.)The invocation of Darwin's name by Marx and Engels cannot have reflected any grasp on their part of the social implications of his discoveries. Implications which are in fact utterly fatal to the Marxist world-view. Instead, Marx and Engels trotted out the name of Darwin as part of their ambition to present as "new" and "scientific" a body of belief which actually is very old and wholly unscientific.Marx's "scientific" "law of evolution in human history" is, at bottom, little more than the old Judaeo-Christian superstition dressed up in the trappings of pseudo-scientific jargon. Trappings which, in turn, merely reflect the rising prestige of Science and the declining prestige of religion in the Nineteenth Century Western society in which Marx lived.Marx's vision of human history, past and future, shares the basic Judaeo-Christian theme of the Fall and Redemption of Man. In the beginning, according to Marx, was the primal Eden of "primitive Communism." Therein entered the serpent of private ownership. This, as the distinguished Oxford historian, R. N. Carew-Hunt, rightly put it, "in the Marxist scheme takes the place of the Fall of Man, since the inclination of men to take advantage of one another was a corruption introduced into history by the private ownership of the means of production." [1]

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/humanism/evol_genocide.htmMussolini was strengthened in his belief that violence was basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Nietzsche. Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by Evolutionism. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace: it would only hinder the evolutionary process.Likewise Hitler based his politics on Darwin. Jews must be segregated, he urged in Mein Kampf, to avoid mixed marriages; were they to occur, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile."Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist, writing just after World War II, observed, To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.If Marx was not "converted" by the preaching of Darwin, he was certainly "sanctified" by it. Jacques Barzun[16] notes that Marx wished to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin declined the offer, thinking it would have an adverse effect on the popularity of his own books.He had little to worry about. While Modernism was sweeping the Bible under the rug, Evolutionism literally swept the globe. And its chief propagandists were Hitler, Mussolini, and their totalitarian ilk, who, early in their "careers," were well-respected by the United States aristocracy because they were "scientific" social reformers who defended "law and order."[17] Nazism may have been (temporarily) forced underground, but the anti-Christian world-and-life-view it so successfully propagated remains the centerpiece of the Dominant Culture.[18] The Christian Patriarch can have no part in it.[19]"CAPITALISM" Social Darwinism in Economics is perhaps more familiar to some. Use the State to put your competitors out of business; ethics must not stand in the way of the "Survival of the Fittest."
The railroad magnate James J. Hill, manipulating to get more railways under his control, said that "the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest."
Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune in the State-protected steel industry, describes his conversion to Evolutionism upon reading Darwin and Herbert Spencer: John D. Rockefeller, who, like so many, attempted to seduce Christians into Evolutionist harlotry, propagated his religion in Christian Sunday School classes. His "testimony" was inspiring: Needless to say, the "God" of John D. Rockefeller and Adolph Hitler is not the God of Micah and Jesus.But these are the roots of corporate fascism in America.They are also the roots of Racism. . . and we are now seeing the fruit of this deadly tree.
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the highest of Evolutionism's high priests, who ministered in the parish of Harvard University, has pontificated that Darwin

You have also switched to Marxism when you originally said Communism.

Please explain how "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is different from "Love others as you love yourself".

You also somehow skipped over your Nazi assertion when it is well documented that Hitler's elimination and sterilization of the unfit was based on Christian Principles, not Evolution.

Faith writes:
Darwinism says human beings were evolved by purely chemical and biological (mechanical and physical) means from early forms of life.

This results in a mechanical and physical understanding of human nature without any intrinsic value or meaning except that we exist, we got here.

A basic cynicism about our existence and the value of life, our own, human life in general. Devaluation of life in a nutshell. We got here, but for what?

Neither does "basic cynicism" logically lead to eugenics.

So, (at least) one of your premises is false and your premises do not support your conclusion.

No I was not. I was speaking of EUROPE. ONLY EUROPE. Message 70 Read the thread. Learn to read. I've already answered this.Message 70:Many primitive cultures, the entirety of European tribes for startersSo if we're talking about "ONLY EUROPE" and the "the entirety of European tribes for starters" where were we going for the main course? Somewhere in Europe that isn't covered by the entirety of European tribes???And this is all off topic

Many primitive cultures, the entirety of European tribes for starters, were supplanted by Christianity over the centuries, MOST OF THEM BY CHOICE. [In Europe t]hey were all tribal cultures whose religion was some form or other of witchcraft. Civilization didn't even begin to happen [in Europe]until Christianity supplanted all those delightful tribal cultures that lived by raping and pillaging.

Faith writes:
The theory itself about how we got where we are, as a mass of meaningless chemicals just randomly tossed together over aeons is a what I was referring to as a mechanical and physical understanding of human nature that leads to the devaluation of life.

You say evolution predicts morality, but that's because you know morality exists. It's all too easy to look at the history of humanity and just subsume whatever you find there under evolutionism.

A species benefits from protecting the young, weak, etc. because it makes them more likely to reproduce.

Eugenics, on the other hand, arbitrarily chooses certain characteristics to preserve. It is diametrically opposed to natural selection.

It makes of morality, makes of the Ten Commandments, nothing but a blind mechanical meaningless instrument of survival.

Always mere survival is the highest value from the evo perspective, a very empty value. A bunch of chemicals live and die. Big deal. Who cares.

You might read up on the Existentialists, who express a different reaction to evolutionism than the optimistic types who thought it would lead to human progress.

A general demoralization is another, and the state of despair and meaninglessness the existentialists wrote about. But most people just ignore its implications and go on living as if they didn't exist.

Which is it? Are we in a state of despair? (Personally, I am not. I think your outlook on life is much more bleak than mine. ) Or do we just not reallize how desparate Darwinism has made us?

I wasn't just dealing with your comment on racist tendencies, but the rest of your take on Biblical ethic.I notice that you mentioned only Sodom and Gomorrah and had no comment to make on my other examples. Could it be because you see that the point I make is valid? If we are to judge the "ethics" of evolution on the uses misguided people have put it to, shouldn't the same judgement be made of the Bible? Or maybe you see that neither should be judged in this way.

a Biblical ethic counters racist tendencies and leads to a concern for all members of the human race, because it says we are all made in the image of God and all descend from one set of parents.
(emphasis mine)