Skip to comments.Whitewashing Darwinism's Ongoing Moral Legacy (Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter latest example)
Posted on 06/14/2009 5:38:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Whitewashing Darwinism's Ongoing Moral Legacy
Is it somehow petty, offensive, exploitative, and beyond the pale to point out how the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter, who murdered a guard on Wednesday, writes about evolution in his sick manifesto? Should it be considered beneath one's dignity to quote the man and let his words speak for themselves?
James von Brunn, the suspect in question, is a white supremacist, a bitter anti-Semite, a Holocaust-denier, a wacked out conspiracy theorist, who served more than 6 years in a federal prison for attempted kidnapping. All this is fair game to report. Everyone agrees to that. But the fact that he writes of "Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool" -- that's somehow inappropriate to note in public?
That seems to be the message from the media, which has ignored the fact, and from some readers who have responded to my blog on the subject. I realize the topic is uncomfortable for all sides in the evolution debate. So let's try to step back and consider this rationally.
It's historically undeniable that Darwinian thinking forms a thread linking some of the most reprehensible social movements of the past 150 years. I and many other people, including professional historians (which I'm not), have written about this repeatedly and from many different angles. By all means check out my own most recent contributions on the theme of "Darwin's Tree of Death."
From Darwin's own musings on the logic of genocide, to his cousin Francis Galton's influential advocacy of eugenics, to the Darwin/monkey statuette on Lenin's desk, to Hitler's Mein Kampf with its evolutionary theme, to the biology textbook at the center of the Scopes trial that advocated racism and eugenics, to the modern eugenics movement right here in the U.S., to recent school shootings in which the student murderers invoked natural selection, to yesterday's tragedy at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and much more along the way -- the thread is persistent, if widely ignored.
Should it be ignored? No, it shouldn't. I will give you an analogy. Our culture is very comfortable reminding us often of atrocities committed in the name of religion -- whether it's the Crusades, the Inquisition, or 9/11. Ironically, the day of the Holocaust Museum shooting, an interesting new Jewish web magazine, Tablet, published a fascinating scholarly essay by Paula Fredriksen about how under the Nazis, some German theologians tried to fit Jesus into a Nazi mold. They drew on anti-Jewish writings widely available in Christian tradition.
Is it "beyond the pale" to point this out? No, of course not. So what's the difference? I would say it's not only appropriate to document the dark side of religion. It's necessary. The Anti-Defamation League commented on the Holocaust Museum shooting, pointing to this "reminder that words of hate matter, that we can never afford to ignore hate because words of hate can easily become acts of hate, no matter the place, no matter the age of the hatemonger."
Exactly. It's also the case that ideas have consequences and knowing those consequences can rightly prompt us to look with renewed skepticism at a given idea, whether religious or scientific. 9/11 was a good reason to go back and take a second look at Islam. Not to reject it, but to consider it critically. The Crusades are a good reason to do the same with Christianity. Not to reject it, but to think twice. That's all.
Why would the incredibly popular and influential work called Mein Kampf not be a reason to think twice about Darwinism? Not to reject it, but to get yourself properly informed and make up your own mind rather than simply go along with the prestige culture and media view.
The legacy of Mein Kampf included the murder of 6 million Jews. As Richard Weikart meticulously documents in From Darwin to Hitler, Hitler's book was part of a stream of intellectual influence that began with Darwin and continued through to Hitler. It's with us today and it played a part in the demented thinking of James von Brunn, "a peripheral but well-respected figure among American white supremacists," as the ADL notes.
If you want a good chill, Google the phrase "natural selection" as it appears on the popular neo-Nazi website Stormfront.org. Here, I've done it for you.
It doesn't negate the point to remind me that Hitler put his own wicked spin on kindly Charles Darwin's words, one that Darwin himself would absolutely repudiate. Nor that evolutionists like James von Brunn have a crude grasp of evolutionary theory. Nor that today's evolutionary scientists, unlike their fairly recent predecessors, do not truck with racism (though some certainly do truck with anti-religious agitation, reserving special venom for the God of the Hebrew Bible).
All these same things could be said about religion-based haters of today and centuries past. They too distort their tradition. Yet they emerge from it, and so, again, that's a sound reason to give a second, skeptical look to the relevant religious traditions.
What's not reasonable is to give Darwinism's social influence a special pass, forbidding any mention of it as somehow out of bounds. Very far from reasonable indeed, it's nothing less than a cover-up.
Another fool confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism. That’s it gg&g...you’re going on the watchlist....seems you folks are capable of anything. Except maybe empiric thought.
Thanks for the ping, GGG. Unfortunately I’ve found myself having to argue yet again elsewhere on this forum with members of a religion who don’t quite see things that way.
So-called âSocial Darwinismâ actually predates Darwin. It has its roots in the thinking of British Sociologist Herbert Spencer. It’s more apt to call Darwin’s work Biological Spencer-ism.
Actually, Spencer was quite the Lamarckian. But either way, he was an evolutionist.
Are you talking about members of the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism?
There is a difference between asserting that evolution takes place, and asserting that someone knows the future, knows what traits will be more fit, and not content to let the future work it self out, begins murdering.
This jerk was a crank. He had nutty ideas, and tried to justify his ideas by asserting without evidence or proof that his ideas followed from accepted science.
It would have the same lack of validity if he had asserted the superiority of blue eyes from the blue sky. He is crazy. Don’t you be crazy.
What is it with people named Dave? Why does everybody pick on them for the stupid things they say? It’s not fair.
The 19th century saw everything in terms of evolution. Industrial, Social and otherwise. It was the spirit of the time.
The search for a missing link might be a dark PC way to “search” for a cross bred ancestor. It seems Von Brunn struck the chord of common ancestor search to actual avoidance of cross breeding with animals or lower races.
Darwinism seem to avoid that subject and muses in round about ways about survival of the fittest. What about of necessity? Germanic Wagnerian themes of incest and inbreeding seem to ring with Lot’s daughter finding it necessary, in their lack of faith, the need to inbreed with their father. What about with apes?
Similarly John the Baptist’s own father was muted from any further obsene and blasphemous mockery of God when he said he was “too old” to be able to conceive any children.
One might say that MLK talked of a dream, but Von Brunn claimed his own dream. Why this guy’s and not the other’s?
Perhaps fantasy, engineering theories and dreams of these sorts are inherently dangerous because totalitarian, viewing life from the outside, as some sort of game.
To accept that a “science” can play a game like this on us is indeed a strange way of replacing fantasy with a sort of pseudo-antifantasy, just as convenient and fantasy full for the witches of its party - not to mention horrible in and of itself and making sensible armament against it “illegal”.
Then what gives the wielders of armament for it the authority? Plenty of hypocrisy in this: “oh, I’m inferior but I support the concept, so I am kept on life support by the taxpayers” ?
Sums up the arrogance and hypocrisy of liberals in this, all for desegrating some races and forcing them together, while keeping themselves above and free from such tensions and exercises, making other pay for their experiments.
More blood libel from the Discovery Institute.
I’m not like the author. I for one reject Islam because it promotes illiteracy, superstition and sin according to my personal edification and standards. Its violent proselytist tones are also arrogant.
That said, I will not abandon study of my enemies and even Islam itself, even willingly participate in it if needed to attain a greater faith in greater things than vulgar themes of 72 virgins in a hell where once they are not so, it’s no more - and other ad nauseam revisionisms and imaginations the arab world likes to screw itself over.
Nazis would view my ideas of caring and litteracy for the poor and the oppressed as weak. Communists would view it as anti-progressist because they don’t believe in poverty but in empowerment and science in and of itself.
Ok, there you have it, same difference: Nazis are for a sort of “race shepherd” for the flock of uniformly growing sheeps, while communists are for wild animals without shepherd “except for a few opinion makers who make sure it’s kept that way”.
Either way we are dealing with fascists with feel good PC garbs, quoting Darwin, arrogantly claiming to know it better, yet completely disrespecting litteracy that the weak or volunteer poor witnesses.
They don’t care, they just want to test, to play games with the world, to choreograph scenes and wield “Hollywood scripts” as Saddam hypocriticaly accused his adversaries in deep primitive envy.
So, this shooting is blamed on evolution?
Have you no shame?
This kind of article completely discredits the source. Totally asinine.
If you want to attack evolution, do it within the scientific boundaries. Throwing dead kittens or Jew-haters into the equation just makes you look like a fool.
Well, does Darwin require Social Darwinism? Maybe so, maybe no.
The Holocauast Museum shooter was a nutcase. But he was more of a Darwinist nutcase than a Christian nutcase, as the news media portrayed him. If nothing else, Darwinism is open to that kind of “master race” distortion. Christianity is not.
I would take issue with one thing in the article. It numbers the Crusades “among atrocities committed in the name of religion.” Sorry. That’s a bad rap. Yes, the Crusades sometimes went off the rails, like many other major human undertakings. Still, the Crusades were defensive. They were an attempt to reverse the course of Islamic conquest. In the end, they failed in that purpose. But is it reasonable to say that Christendom should not have been allowed to defend itself against Muslim agression and conquest? I think not. The only thing wrong with the Crusades is that they weren’t done better.
LOL...Hitler, the creationist who wanted to wipeout Judaism and Christianity...now that’s rich!
While the political rulers of Europe had every right to defend themselves against Muslim invaders, Christianity should never be used as the justification to go to war IMHO. The political leaders were of course within their rights to want to protect the benefits of Christian civilization, but nowhere in the New Testament does it tell Christians to go to war on behalf of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Jesus Christ himself tells us the exact opposite. By the same token, the New Testament also tells us that the government does not bear the sword in vain, and in that sense, the rulers of the Christian West had every right, as the divinely appointed rulers at the time, to act in their own and their people’s interests and kick some Muslim _ss.
==So, this shooting is blamed on evolution?
If you read the article at all, you obviously didn’t read it very carefully...otherwise, you wouldn’t allow yourself to make such obviously erroneous statements....unless, of course, as an Evo you view honesty as nothing more than an illusion generated by chance plus survival.
I am sorry that your faith is so shallow that it is threatened by a theory.
When you want to make a serious argument, let me know.
Well, Darwinists of today never go over the question that Darwin’s theory would implicitly ask: do we have a common ancestor or did we have a yet higher and better ancestor who went astray and mated with apes yielding our current “multicultural” kind?
Communists and Nazis completely agree on our “multiculturality”, by the way. For some reason Nazi self hate stopped short of submitting to their own laws of killing their own “impure”. Communist self hate stops short of commiting themselves to the wilderness they claim they survive best. Nazism is also more homosexual in inclination yet forbade it allegedly. Communists’ humaneness also allows for homosexual behavior yet has little concern for the human condition of those submiting to the behavior. Communist self-sufficiency and progressist themes also contradict their goals of honoring the “savage man” theory origins of ours (notwithstanding that he can be savage yet enjoy fruits of modernity in humane ways etc.)
In any case, quick quoters of Darwin in Darwin’s favor are hypocriticaly quick to also unsubscribe their own lives from it. The ideologue again avoids first hand litteracy and avoids the conflict of interest issues. The “meat-o-logies” of this flesh above that (Nazis), or this flesh for that flesh (equalitarianists) often avoid hard questions of prudent policy and care for the improvement of the health and healing of the sick, including themselves. It’s ridculous but modernity is but a thin artificial convenience hiding strangely well our inherent recent primitiveness from memory. It’s all repressed subconsciously yet there and never healed, ready to spring out any minute into orgies of genocide at the hands of day dreamers whose power wielding abilities allow them to stay aloof or imagining with very live lives.
Darwood’s materialist creation myth isn’t even a theory. It is, as E. Mayr points out, nothing more than a long argument, completely devoid of observable, repeatable data...hatched by a med-school dropout, turned clergy dropout, turned amateur naturalist...who had a religious axe to grind which amounted to nothing more than “God didn’t do it.”
I never see evolutionists make up inane arguments like these to support their ideas. Pathetic!
I show how Darwin himself in The Descent of Man provided the rationale for what became the eugenics movement
—The eugenics movement wasnt at all popular until the early 20th century. The reason is that the true rationale didnt exist until the discovery of Mendelism. As Davenport put it in 1911:
Formerly, when we believed that factors blend, a characteristic in the germ plasm of a single individual among thousands seemed not worth considering: it would soon be lost in the melting pot. But now we know that unit characters do not blend
So if one is looking for someone to blame, dont forget Mendel.
True, Darwin does goes (sic) on to indicate that we cant follow the dictates of hard reason in such cases without undermining our sympathy the noblest part of our nature. But such misgivings represented a lame objection at best.
—Lame? Apparently the Discovery Institute is now publishing articles in defense of Social Darwinism. The author of this article is much more of a Social Darwinist than Darwin.
Darwin didnt think such compassion was lame. Darwin donated money throughout his life to aid missionary work which aided the poor and contributed to abolitionist organizations. I guess that was all lame of him.
he’s a one trick pony desperately searching for approval from his mutual admiration society.
“Darwoods materialist creation myth isnt even a theory. It is, as E. Mayr points out, nothing more than a long argument, completely devoid of observable, repeatable data...”
—Mayr was quoting Darwin, who in Origin called the book “one long argument” because it incorporates observed data from myriad fields of science (biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, taxonomy, paleontology, etc) and explains it all under a single theory.
“who had a religious axe to grind which amounted to nothing more than God didnt do it.
—A religious axe to grind? What evidence is there of that? He was married to a Christian, had his children go to church, donated money to missionaries, even donated money to have churches built, and the reason he waited so long to publish his theory was probably out of fear of offending anyone. As I’ve said before, psychology and mind reading are not your strong suit.
Though his rantings are garbage Freud's ideas have become ingrained in the thinking of evolutionary psychology.
Seems to me you could make an equally strong—or equally ludicrous—case that Brunner was advocating that people reproduce after their own kinds. He must have been strongly influenced by the Bible.
Back then Barbarians had more luxurious lives, however. So there was some usage of religion needed by some for the sole sake of not looking Barbarian. Now modernity has allowed such people to discard religion as being “antiquated” in their goal of looking less barbaric. Additional Faustian deals with such as Darwin and other vulgarized “sciences” have yielded their poor results of temporary empowerments.
What is Christianity? What were the Crusades’ intent? Christianity is not sectarian against those letting it be, but certainly will shake dust from under its foot when crossing hostile illiterate groups. Jesus did not employ force but nor submited to it, God forbid, for it is the same. He also forbade Himself and others the testing of God: life is not some game, but something to undertake in its earnestness, even if it is meant to be met temporarily in flesh. Thus He did not fling himself down a cliff when tempted by the Devil, nor did He come down from the cross as when taunted to use divine powers. In fact He avoided being part of such barbarity and descent into participation or life in lawlessness, illiteracy or repent to His tormentors.
Before His crucifiction He also gave the disciples blessings to carry money, weapons and legal documentation, and other enforcement means for their own self defense, knowing all along that they still did not understand what He was doing.
Christianity is definitely a defended faith in all aspects, a language of variables (whereas the OT is lived by physical example of such application of variables) and motivating in litteracy of all such things. It does not impose a music to its followers, save for its formative church stages, but ultimately seeks to inspire music from its “followers”/leaders.
In short, survival of the fittest. Sounds like Darwinism not creationism.
Carroll H., is that you?
==I have an Uncle who is a certified lunatic.
Must be a Darwiniac.
Hitler believed that through selective breeding that a “kind” could change somewhat and improve, but that speciation was not possible. He makes this clear in both his public writings and in his more private utterances.
In short, precisely what most Creationists agree with.
I put together a post explaining this here:
Nope, your flavor.
Creationists are the definition of sanity, everybody knows that d:op
Well, this is the crux: God did not do what is grand in the superiority of our race over other animals, yet these same folkes do not believe in an original sin, ironically.
Yet the original sin directly implies the sort of bestiality that might have occurred and which have yielded our current conditions of sinful affinity to horrible experiments and masturbate fantasy type “dream behaviors” undertaken by experimentist scientists (eg. Dr. Mengele and other dictators never get to undergo what their “dreams” and ambitions to others impose). Those things indeed, God did not do it, which is the more salient point they always avoid, because they do it and they are the fetishist “fleshists” who swim in such saltless salts of mediocrity.
They fail to comprehend, in their blinding sins and barbarity, that it is the saltiness in the other that is valuable, and they do not have faith that whatever saltlessness lugage there is, it gets either digested or reconditioned. It’s not what comes in that matters in terms of “education”, but what edifying substance that comes out - be it work output as part of a team or personal conclusions to add to the libraries out there.
The missing link searchers conveniently fail to look for the greater picture of a missing solution to a puzzle they obviously do not want to figure since their search is based in a belief in Darwin instead of questioning the whole ethics issue surrounding genocide via abortion and stem cell “research”.
Isn’t it strange they then believe like astrologers that it is birth that matters more than conception time? While it is clear that the NT and science implicate the conception by the Holy Spirit or under certain special and unique conditions as paramount to determining the “future” success or failure or grandness of a being.
The cynical illiteracy, manipulation and hypocrisy of today’s sinful world has lead to such blindness and denial, all the while confering them to confined “disciplined” searches, missing forests for the tree.
Then Hitler was a Christian in his views?
Thanks for the ping!
Hitler was an occultist member of the Thule society which used mythology and the occult to basically create their own religion. They believed in a creation story based on twisting of Norse and Germanic mythology.
“Then Hitler was a Christian in his views?”
—He seems to have thought himself as a Christian of some sort, but he had unorthodox ideas to say the least. He seemed to have a high regard for Jesus (claims he was an Aryan - which coming from Hitler was meant to be a compliment, I guess) but had very low regard for Paul. If someone doesn’t consider him Christian, I certainly wouldn’t blame them, and wouldn’t argue against them.
By “Creationist” I simply meant that Hitler believed that species or kinds (as he put it) were created by God essentially as we find them today, and that species have definite limits beyond which they can’t change. He was also rabidly anti-evolution and anti-abiogenesis; the idea of a materialist origins of life enraged him.
Pretty lame, even for your standards.
Tie your opponents to Nazis...check.
Tie your opponents to Commies....check.
Tie your opponents to every nutcase with a gun that goes and shoots someone....check.
This isn’t even about “evolution” and he isn’t even an “evolutionist”.....but don’t let that stop your nonsense.
Exactly, he had a twisted belief that god(s) created different orders of men, with some orders destine to be gods themselves, and others whose purpose was to serve the others. This was a twisted version of several religions and occult beliefs including twisting of Christianity. Like Stalin, he pretty much had all evolutionary science teaching shut down.
I’m still waiting for GGG to respond to my observation that a new species has evolved in the “Swine Flu” virus.
In other words, a hodge-podge of insanity.