web analytics

The Inhumanity of Being Animals

The intended audience of this post is Christians, and anyone else interested in aligning their viewpoints to reality.   I know it is long, but if you’re going to comment, I insist you read it all before you do.

From the transcript of the Scopes Monkey Trial, pg 208:

[Clarence Darrow quizzing one of the students in Scopes’ classroom]

Q — Now, Howard, what do you mean by classify?
A— Well, it means classify these animals we mentioned, that men were just the same as them, in other words—
Q— He didn’t say a cat was the same as a man?
A— No, sir; he said man had a reasoning power; that these animals did not.
Q— There is some doubt about that, but that is what he said, is it?
(Laughter in the courtroom.)

and later, on pg 296, Dudley Malone says:

…whether Mr. Bryan knows it or not, he is a mammal, he is an animal and he is a man.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was a 1925 trial in which a science teacher was found guilty of teaching, contrary to law, that man ‘arose’ from a ‘lower order of animals.’   Whether or not humans ought to be considered as an animal was a question that threaded its way through the entire trial, with poor Mr. Bryan taking it on the chin numerous times on the question.  After all, the really, really, really smart people had fully established that evolution, and Darwinism in particular, was true.  Reading the transcript, Bryan seems to hold his own, but the propaganda hit piece, Inherit the Wind, manages to retroactively color Bryan as a clown of the highest order.

It is proven, is it not, that humans are just animals?  Are you not stupid to deny it?  SCIENCE SAYS!

I often think about the this strand woven throughout the Scopes Monkey Trial when I hear stuff like this from an article by Yoni Appelbaum, an editor at the Atlantic, that was recently published:

Recent research by political scientists at Vanderbilt University and other institutions has found both Republicans and Democrats distressingly willing to dehumanize members of the opposite party. “Partisans are willing to explicitly state that members of the opposing party are like animals, that they lack essential human traits,” the researchers found. The president encourages and exploits such fears. This is a dangerous line to cross. As the researchers write, “Dehumanization may loosen the moral restraints that would normally prevent us from harming another human being.”

Emphasis added.

Well, it certainly is the case that dehumanization plays a big role in facilitating the harming of one human by another.  How interesting, however, that he decides to single out the president on the matter.  If the president ‘encourages and exploits such fears’ that pales in comparison to the fact that liberal progressives believe, with all their hearts, because: SCIENCE! that people are not merely ‘like animals’, but ARE animals, and insist that this be taught to every young child.  Woe to the person who dares suggest otherwise, as witnessed in Kansas, in Dover, or the attempts to close the Creation Museum with its new Ark Encounter!  So, it is the actual Democrat position that we ARE animals, but it is the president that encourages and exploits such fears?

Appelbaum’s piece turns out to be just another partisan hit job illustrating how the left is rapidly descending into radical extremism, but that is another blog post.  I mention it here largely because it is a very recent example, out of which many could be offered.

Another relatively recent illustration of how the progressives have gone nuts, that is relevant to this post, going back to when Trump called members of the MS-13 gang ‘animals.’  I discussed the dishonesty of this reporting in this post.  Suffice it to say, though, that at the time, there was the usual gnashing of teeth by self-righteous statists that Trump was ‘dehumanizing’ illegal immigrants.  (that’s where the dishonesty is; Trump was referring specifically to MS-13, a salient distinction.)

And, for those who are intrigued by the research I present in this article, the same anecdote appears in a similarly themed blog post I wrote about the implications of the belief that people are animals, in that for statists, that conclusion serves as a basis for justifying their manipulation of people via conditioning (think “Pavlov’s Dog”, but for humans).  You may want to check it out, too.

Well, I just affirmed that dehumanization is BAD, and unlike your typical progressive ideologue, I don’t actually think humans are ‘animals.’  Surely, then, I ought to be prepared to condemn Trump’s language?

Context matters.  Also, having a brain matters.  I have a brain.

There is obviously a difference between a figure of speech and a formulated position.  Does Trump actually think MS-13 gang members are not humans?  That seems unlikely to me.  But as for a group of people who warrants the figure of speech of being called ‘animals,’ MS-13 seems to well deserve it.

I’m not the only one who sees the obvious difference.  For example, I don’t recall Big Media or Yoni Appelbaum anyone complaining about the dehumanization reflected in the song, “Bad Touch”, which was a very popular tune for awhile (SAD!) and contained these lyrics:

Do it now
You and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals
So, let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now

Here is the video, with 315,000,000 views, if you can stand it.

I do not recall any statists bemoaning the wallowing in our bestiality it calls us to. You know who has called attention to it?  Me (2017).  And again, me (2014).   Oh, and who might this be, in 2008?  Oh, that’s right, me.   What’s this?  RIGHT.  Me again, 2007.

Most of these posts have to do with the obvious message that we have a license to engage in any and all sexual activities.  I don’t really think that the “Blood Hounds” are going to use this license as a rationale for
“harming another human being” in the sense that we are worried about usually when talking about dehumanization, because, well, that would be stupid.  And I’m not stupid.  (Note:  I’m not saying no harming of humans occurs, just not in the genocidal sense.  See those posts for more.)

Or, we could look at some more lighthearted fare, such as…

Judge: Uh, you’re referring to the official findings on the murders of Frank Castle’s family?
Medical Examiner: Not just them. You don’t understand. I had to do it. Those animals came to my office.
Judge: Who came to your office?
ME: After the defendant’s family was murdered, two men I’d never seen before they warned me, if I didn’t fix the case reports, they’d come after my family next.

From episode 7 of season 2 of Daredevil.

Did you see that?  A respected member of the community calls people animals. 

OMG

I heard Yoni Appelbaum’s head split open when he heard about this incident.  Lol, ok.  I did not.  He said nothing at all about it.  No one cares.

I assume I don’t have to here provide a catalog of all the times when people were called ‘animals’ in our society, within our entertainment and without, and no one was concerned that genocidal principles were being invoked.  But yea, you know, TRUMP.

Believe it or not, I’m not here trying to mount a defense of Trump or go after the radical left (increasingly, a redundant phrase), but I think it is important, yet again, to lay bare the blatant hypocrisy of people who say that they are concerned about dehumanization while simultaneously believing there isn’t anything particularly special about humans, anyway; nay, we’re just animals!  This is not, as I’ve said often, a trifling matter.  We really do need to be concerned about dehumanization and genocides, and it is for that very reason we need to call attention to the fact that a large number of people–among us, mind you– wholeheartedly accept an intrinsically dehumanizing ideology.

Or, to put it another way:  so long as we continue to convey the idea to children that it is 100% undeniably the case that we are lately descended from pond slop, children are going to continue believing and behaving as if they are… wait for it… lately descended from pond slop. *Mind Blown.*

I was thinking about this again because of what is happening in China.  As we speak, and as I have complained about in my last few posts, China is presently throwing millions of people into veritable concentration camps.  Their fates have yet to be decided, but things are not looking good.  And if there is any country which fully embraces Darwinism, it is modern day China.  In my readings on China, their feeling that they represent an actual superior race on the planet percolates up on occasion.   At some point, I’m going to have to make a dedicated inquiry into it.  Still, phrases like this, which popped up in a book by Chinese military men, greatly concern me:

The casualties resulting from the constant chaos are no less than those resulting from a regional war, and the injury done to the living social organism even exceeds the injury inflicted by a regional war.

That phrase, “the living social organism”, happens to represent a concept that permeates Darwinian thought, especially in the old days, when one could be bold in discussing the logical implications of Darwinism–that is, the days when eugenics was accepted across the world.  I have actually been compiling references to this phrase/concept on my eugenics website.  This should give you a flavor of the baggage that comes with this concept.  See also.

The idea of the ‘social body’ pops up wherever there are people who staunchly believe in Darwinism.  It surfaces in different ways, mind you, but all basically reflect the idea that when push comes to shove, it is the species as a group that matters more than any of the individuals in the group.  Whether its communists, Nazis, or your run of the mill statists, the tendency is to prioritize the ‘health’ of an abstraction–the State, the Nation, the Species, etc, over the interests of actual individuals.  This puts it well:

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. […] There can be no successful government without the intimate, instinctive co-ordination of the organs of life and action. This is not theory, but fact, and displays its force as fact, whatever theories may be thrown across its track. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.

That’s President Woodrow Wilson, homeslice.

Or:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. 

That’s the esteemed chief Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, folks.

For those recently passing through our school system, these are not Nazis.  These are Americans.  ‘Liberals’, even.   Yoni Appelbaum would have voted for Woodrow Wilson three times, if he could have, I reckon.

Let’s provide a little more context to the prime source of ‘dehumanization’ in our day.

I think it useful to remember what that stalwart environmentalist, Madison Grant, had to say in his popular book, “The Passing of the Great Race”:

Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.

Surely you all can see it, without me even bolding the text.  This was 1916.

Madison Grant fell out of favor, and it certainly did not help that Hitler ended up being one of his biggest fans.  Indeed, several Nazis accused of war crimes attempted to mount a defense by pointing out that their ideology was grounded as much in beliefs popularly embraced and promoted by American thinkers, as German ones, specifically invoking Grant’s book.

Grant may have been repudiated, but his beliefs have not.  The ‘obliteration of the unfit’ is well under way, even in ‘civilized’ countries such as Iceland, Australia, and England, where for example Down Syndrome unborn babies–conveniently declared unhuman–are aborted in such high numbers that DS born babies are so rare as to almost never be seen.  In the ‘civilized’ country of the United States, abortion rates of DS children are above 90%, and children with other defects are also aborted at high rates.

As much as the abortion debate provides picture perfect example of how dehumanizing leads to “harming another human being” to the tune of MILLIONS of people already slain, for our purposes here I’d like to focus on the manifestations of Grant’s views that threaten those who have already managed to escape the extremely dangerous passage through the birth canal.   If perhaps we cannot concern ourselves with the erosion of a belief in the sanctity of human life as it pertains to defenseless individuals in the womb–a class we no longer belong in–we may perhaps be concerned about how it pertains to us.  Yes, that’s right, a direct appeal to your own self-interest.

Skipping ahead about 80 years, consider the book by James Rachels called Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism.   Here you have a book by a devout evolutionist which you can guess from the title is going to tell you all you need to know.  You guessed it:  the ‘sanctity of life’ does not fare well when passed through the prism of Darwinism.  Being mere animals and all, what would you expect?  Surprisingly, there is no evidence of outrage by Yuni Appelbaum at this intrinsically dehumanizing outlook.  A whole book on it, mind you!

Out of many passages that could be given, allow this to be a summation:

It might be protested that this view leaves the human life less secure than traditional views.  Indeed it does.  the abandonment of lofty conceptions of human nature, and grandiose ideas about the place of humans in the scheme of things, inevitably diminishes our moral status.  God and nature are powerful allies; losing them does mean losing something.  But it does not mean losing everything.  Human life can still be valued, and we can still justify moral and legal rules to protect it.  We will, however, have to acknowledge that these rules grow out of our own valuings, rather than descending to us from some higher authority.  If that is a loss, it may be a loss that humans after Darwin must live with. [pg 205]

Rachels seems to sense how flimsy this conclusion is, doing all he can to resist the implications of Darwinism as he himself presents them.  What I would like to take note of is the use of the word ‘can’, which I think marks the difference between the Darwin and God (and nature?) viewpoints.  Here is Darwin/Rachels:

Human life can still be valued; but on his own arguments, it need not be.

We can justify moral and legal rules to protect human life, but we don’t have to.

If however, we have a value intrinsic to us due to being created by God, rather than by animals, we would formulate it thusly:

Human life must be valued.  We must have moral and legal rules to protect human life.

On Rachel’s application of Darwinism, any ‘rules’ we are left with (“A Darwinian must make do with skimpier materials” pg 198; “It is hard to see how [the view that humans are good for the universe can be sustained] without the resources of which Darwin deprives us, one could justify such a view.” pg 201) are no more than a society’s consensus.  He says this, but we note he is doing so from within a society that still relies on a lot of inherited Christian capital.  What might someone say if they lived in a country without that capital?

There is no sense in his book that he recognizes that grounding human value on our “own valuings” is an opening for the Chinese (and any other would-be genocidaires) large enough to drive a bus through.  For, obviously, I mean OBVIOUSLY, if the assessment on the value of human life depends on a particular society’s assessment of its own needs, norms, etc, then there is no particular reason to condemn any particular society’s assessment.  It merely differs from one’s own.

Such arguments remind me of my attendance at a Christian academy I attended in France which focused on apologetics, but had a distinct eye for human rights.  Many were the arguments for the sanctity of human life, and plainly was it stated that the abandonment of the Christian worldview did not bode well for human rights.  But left unaddressed was the rub.  The rub, when it comes to abuses of human rights, is the same rub, in all times and in all places.  Here is the rub:  At what point is one person (or society) justified in counteracting the rights of one group of humans (eg, the oppressors) in order to save another group of humans (eg, the oppressed).  And in what way and to what extent can that counteracting represent?  Actually killing the oppressors?

All the other stuff about human rights is pretty easy.  Platitudes, even.   The really hard part is the part where we feel we need to take action.

The problem with our relativistic mindset is that its foundation for human rights, let alone taking action, is no sturdier than a wet paper bag.  You can’t put any weight on it at all without falling through.  Thus the complete failure to stop the Rwandan genocide, the general reluctance to stand up to communism in the past and present (who can say they are wrong in their ‘own valuings’?!?!?), and so on and so forth.  In order to take action, you have to have, first and foremost, a conviction that you actually possess the moral high ground.  But on a Darwinian basis, there is no moral ‘high ground.’

Well, with that view, one ought not be surprised that at the same moment some people remain silent and inactive, knowing their view is literally nothing more than their own opinion, other people… say… the Chinese… say, “Sweet! We get to make our own ‘valuings?’  Game on!”

As with many governments that have embraced a Darwinian outlook, the ‘valuings’ of society are represented in people who themselves are no more than minor constituent parts of the ‘social body.’  Setting aside for a second the obviously dangerous potential of that view, think for a moment about what that means for people deemed to be detrimental to the ‘social body.’

This passage from a blog focused on China puts it well:

Indeed, the Party has applied the language of pathology—and to great utility—to theorize state violence towards non-Han cultures. The application of this language in official discourse taps into a long history of what anthropologist Stevan Harrell called China’s “civilizing project,” treating people on China’s geographic and cultural periphery as inferior and therefore deserving of the colonial predation visited upon them. The pathology metaphor dwells outside the spotlights that beam down on colorful exhibits of ethnic minority cultures. “Sick” minorities cannot lure tourists or sell souvenir trinkets, so this imagery rarely appears in popular media. Yet, the C.C.P. has routinely portrayed religious and ethnic minorities as sickly patients and desperate addicts in need of the state’s salvation. As early as 1942, Mao expressed that “our object in exposing errors and criticizing shortcoming is like that of a doctor curing a disease.”

Perhaps the idea of viewing dissenters as a pathology ‘infecting’ the body politic does not sound particularly Darwinian, but that’s because there is very little actual education about the history of Darwinian thought, and certainly very little ‘mainstream’ coverage.  Consider this example from the past:

Neither the greater diligence in seeking them out nor the fact that they remain in institutions for longer periods will account for the disproportionately increasing number of defectives and criminals in our population. This fact seems demonstrated and one does not merit the epithet of alarmist for pointing it out. And if true, must we not give thought to its remedy? Chatterton-Hill,[3] in a striking simile, has likened the condition of the social organism under these circumstances to that of a biological organism in which catabolism is exceeding anabolism, resulting in autointoxication, the gradual poisoning of the civic body. Death is the normal process of elimination in the social organism, and we might carry the figure a step further and say that in prolonging the lives of defectives we are tampering with the functioning of the social kidneys!

Leon Cole.  Nazi?  Nah.  Professor of geneticist at the University of Wisconsin, 1914, teaching this stuff to the next generation of geneticists, who are only now dying of old age, who themselves passed it on to our generation of geneticists such as…

…what about this?

Thus some geneticists suggest the social importance of improving the “gene pool.” For example, geneticist Margery Shaw, convinced that every Mendelian genetic trait will eventually be diagnosed prenatally, has asserted that: “The law must control the spread of genes causing severe deleterious effects, just as disabling pathogenic bacteria and viruses are controlled.” She argues that parents may be liable for failing to respond to information about potential genetic disorders by controlling their reproduction, and that the police powers of the state could be employed to prevent genetic risks.

*Shudder.*

Margery Shaw, a diabolical intern for Mengele?  Nope.  A recently deceased esteemed doctor in the good ol’ USA.  Ironically, she was found to have a genetic disease.  Love how the universe gives us laughs some times!

The next time you hear the Chinese talk about its sub-populations as a ‘virus’ or ‘disease’ or refer to the ‘social body’ or the ‘State’, etc, you need to bear in mind that this package of concepts is tied up with a very old Darwinian viewpoint which is premised on the notion that people are just animals.  And what do we do with animals?  Anything we want.

(Unfortunately, there is another extreme.  If dehumanizing humans poses problems, there is humanizing animals.  Animals have now been found to have ‘human rights’ in courts across the world, including the US.  Whether it is bringing humans down to animals or animals up to humans, it still results in and reflects a cheapening of the whole notion of ‘human rights,’ and gives very little reason to concern ourselves TOO MUCH with the interests of individual humans.  After all, everyone knows sometimes the herd has to be ‘culled.’  The ‘humane’ society collects stray dogs… most of which it must euthanized… How many times have you heard the argument, “if your dog or horse was suffering, wouldn’t you put it out of its misery?  Why not a person?”  Rachels in fact makes this exact comparison.)

I have a great deal more to say about all of this, but it is time for some application.

In the first place, how upset should we be about extreme leftists (pardon the redundancy) constantly accusing others of behaviors that in fact it is they who are engaging in?  Ie, in this instance, getting all hot and bothered about dehumanizing people while they themselves have an ideology which, by virtue of its insistence of aligning with SCIENCE!, tends to incorporate Darwinism?  As maddening as the hypocrisy is, I think there is brewing something much more dangerous.

To understand it, I think we need to address a bit more how western statists have responded to this pressure to dehumanize all humans (except themselves, typically: they are L33T).   After all, how many secular humanists were willing to go along with Richard Dawkins which he casually dismissed the abortion of a child with a birth defect, just suggesting people get on to having the next child?  His words:

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

He tried to caveat it (see the linked article) by then defending himself, saying,

“To conclude, what I was saying simply follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse. My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can’t help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand.”

[…]

“If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down’s baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child’s own welfare.”

Pay attention, here.  I’m not drawing attention, here, to any reference to a ‘social body.’   My point, here, is that Dawkins actually took a lot of heat from this:  but he was right.  He took a lot of heat from fellow lefties: but he was right.  A lot of fellow liberals groaned: but he was right.  Dawkins was right.  Although, I do notice he attempted to soften his original: “It would be immoral” into “might actually be immoral.”

In further defense, he said,

“Those who took offence because they know and love a person with Down’s syndrome, and who thought I was saying that their loved one had no right to exist, I have sympathy for this emotional point, but it is an emotional one not a logical one.”

From the point of view of his audience, as he understood them (“the ordinary pro-choice stance that most of us, I presume, espouse“)–It is indeed merely an emotional point.  Sound familiar, perhaps?  A bit like,

Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community.

emotional = sentimental.

On what basis, exactly, can those who share his pro-choice, Darwinian viewpoints object?  There isn’t one.  They just know it sounds, really, really, really yucky.  Makes ’em feel all queasy inside, it does.

Do these bleeding hearts stop to think for a moment that perhaps their queasiness is a loud alarm bell signalling that there is something profoundly wrong with their worldview?  Might they need to reconsider their pro-choice views?  Their grounds for morality?  Darwinism itself?

HA!

No.  They just maintain their viewpoint, based only on raw sentiment, and sentiment alone.  They just ‘know’ it is wrong, or since there is no such thing as ‘wrong’ in their worldview, ‘yucky.’  If you want to know what this looks like, think of Wil-E coyote running off the cliff and then, in total defiance of gravity, sustains himself in mid-air indefinitely.  But even in cartoon land, the coyote eventually looks down, and falls to his doom.  The modern statist response to its complete lack of foundation for making moral judgements is precisely the same.  It just hovers there, held fast by sheer fiat.  And they hate it when people like Dawkins make them look down.

(Dawkins’ own association of Darwinism to eugenics, human breeding, etc, is a topic for another day.)

Where is the danger in this, you ask?  Should we not be happy that a great deal of progressive statists violently part company with the social biology crowd?   To an extent, sure.  But maintaining a position that obviously contradicts their own beliefs comes at a price, and the price to be paid when the belief in question is as foundational as the materialistic-laced Darwinism is, is quite high.  There is always a price to be paid when someone rejects reality itself, and I’m not the only one who has noticed that materialistic progressive statists who shriek SCIENCE! whenever challenged, tend to dispense with it quite quickly when it comes to the ‘moral implications of Darwinism.’

The problem is getting worse as the ‘left’ continues to venture further and further from reality.   The increasing distance makes the break from reality more readily seen by more people, and the ‘left,’ pretty well conceding by their methods that they recognize that they are untethered from the real world, has made things even worse by resorting to screeching in order to win the day.  They screech about race, they screech about gender, they screech about politics, they screech as they try to get you fired, they screech while they boycott, they screech as they throw rocks through your windows, they screech while they burn down city blocks.  And boy do they screech if you dare challenge them.

A lot of people are tired of being screeched at, especially when they are simply referencing undeniable aspects of reality.  Just to illustrate, the refusal of the ‘left’ to acknowledge the plain import of having this or that genitalia and then calling people ‘bigots’ who do acknowledge that, is beyond the pale for many people–even fellow ‘leftists.’  It has created a situation where even gays and feminists are being maligned.  You do have to feel for a woman who has been fighting for “women’s rights” for decades suddenly being told that any ol’ man can also be a woman, merely on the declaration.  Worse, as society falls over on itself to crown the newest oppressed minority group, these new ‘women’ are being allowed to compete in sports events for women–as ‘women.’  With results as expected.   So much for the old adage, “whatever a man can do, a woman can do, better”, eh?  And then to top it off, these ‘women’ are not merely being given access to women’s bathrooms, which is only barely tolerable, even to a strident leftist, they are being welcomed into women’s locker rooms.  You know, places where women get naked.

If you have any problem with these developments, expect to be screeched at.  It’s their only defense.

I give the trans movement as an example to illustrate how clearly the break from reality is–so clear, that even people who have been moving further from reality themselves for a long time can see the break.  It is in these earlier distancings where the danger lies, where the ‘break’ is not quite as self-evident, the consequences less obvious then men being permitted into women’s locker rooms as if those places were their harems, but nonetheless as real.  When these earlier distancings are challenged, the same SCREECH defense is given.  It is, as I said, their only defense.

There is a large group of people who also claim SCIENCE! as their ally, who believe firmly that what they learned in high school about Darwinism is quite true, and can’t understand why the conclusions they’ve drawn from what they’ve learned are incorrect.  Whenever they raise these conclusions, they get shrieked at.  And, as I said, they are no longer willing to put up with being shrieked at.

In the West, these people are the ‘white nationalists.’   A ‘white nationalist’ wonders what the big deal is about viewing the world through Darwinian eyes.  After all, don’t we all say we believe it?   So, naturally, the idea that there might be within human populations certain physical differences related to the unfolding of human evolution is, to them, no more controversial than noticing that there are physical differences among finches or the big cats.  Only, they’ve noticed that you can talk about the different physical characteristics of finch populations or tigers and lions, but if you talk about them related to humans you are… wait for it… A RACIST.

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH.

Then they say, “but I thought we all just agreed…” which is quite right.  They did agree–except our progressive statist, by sheer will power alone, has decided that treating physical differences as real and/or really indicative of biological processes, is ‘wrong.’  More than that, they’ve both accepted the intrinsic materialistic aspect of Darwinism.  In other words, to refer to the physicality of something is another way to describe the essence of something, completely.  Even mental states are just brain states.  And if the brain is just stuff, subject to the selective pressures of evolution over millions of years, why should it be untoward to acknowledge that different human populations have differing IQs?  It is not (according to these people) necessarily pejorative to do so.  One acknowledges that the brain states of a dog is qualitatively different than a human, but that doesn’t mean there is any problem with dogs.

In the face of such reasoning, the statist progressives have nothing to say in rebuttal, because of course there is nothing to say in rebuttal.  The conclusions of the ‘white nationalists’ flow just as rationally from Darwinism as Dawkins’ assessment about aborting disabled children flows rationally from a pro-choice position, which “most of us, I presume, espouse.”

Lacking any substantive reply, the progressives SCREECH.  The ‘white nationalists’ get angry and annoyed, and more convinced of their view.

We are witnessing a rise of these ‘so-called’ white nationalists, and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump, Republicans, etc.  It has everything to do with people who claim SCIENCE! and supposedly accepting Darwinism choosing to call everyone racists, sexists, bigots, etc, who ALSO accepts Darwinism.  A few years back, on this very blog, I mocked the assertion that Trump and/or the Republicans were ‘racists.’  I mocked the idea–at the time–that there was a rise in the numbers of these ‘nationalists.’  I mocked, and provided data.  (Data and evidence doesn’t matter to progressives, but I offered it anyway.)  But I have noticed a distinct uptick since then, and a lot of it appears to be a direct response to being SCREECHED at.

And it hasn’t helped that the SCREECHERS have added to their screeching even bigger breaks from reality.

It is not just in the West where this is unfolding, which is why I’m bringing this up.  The same response is occurring in China (and elsewhere, but China is on my mind in this article), where, as I discussed above, a Darwinian outlook is firmly implanted.   To them, it is just a no-brainer that there would be a clash of ethnicities, just as there clashes between sub-populations of birds and bears.  Right?  Don’t you believe in intraspecific competition?  To them, the push back they’ve received from Western liberals has sounded only like screeching… which, of course, is all it is.  It is, as I said, all they’ve got.

In China, the Western liberals’ fellow Darwinists have taken umbrage to being screeched at and have even, apparently, coined a word to describe these ‘white leftists.’   The word is baizuoThis web page has a fascinating description of what the Chinese mean by baizuo:

Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

I know what you’re thinking:  they nailed it.  This is about as an apt of a description of your average devout ‘leftist’ of the west as you’re going to find.  But within this definition, you have to remember that when the Chinese are thinking about the ‘real problems in the real world’ they are thinking about it through the prism of a materialistic evolutionary paradigm.  Like our ‘white nationalists’ of the west, they have a conception of what reality is, which they believe is grounded in cold hard, scientific fact.  Like our ‘white nationalists’, they don’t appreciate having as the sole response to their beliefs and attitudes, SCREECHING.

And so, their attitudes are hardening.  You can even see it in the comments of that article I just linked.  The moderators deleted a number of comments attributed to ‘racists,’ with one commentator even complaining,

“Moderators. You know that articles like this attract racists like this one, and I dare say this article has already attracted more than usual! How come that you are eager to delete all posts containing words that were not tolerated in the Victorian era, that you rush to the defence of white male Anglophones with no ethical standards at all who are being criticised, but do not do anything against this racist shit? You are turning oD comment threads into playgrounds for racist and neonazi propaganda shills.” [sic]

So, there you have it.  An article which reflects and begs for interpretation through biology attracts people ready to interpret things through biology–which supposedly is accepted by all–and the reaction is shrieking.   And deleting of the comments.  What?  No substantive rebuttal?

No, because no substantive rebuttal is possible.

Ironically, our baizuo in the West, especially in America, attempts to lump the ‘white nationalists’ in with the Christians.  This is laughably absurd.  It is another fairly self-evident fact that the more devout the Christian is, the more likely it is he’ll reject Darwinism itself.  If there are self-described Christians who identify as ‘white nationalists’ they aren’t likely to accept the Bible as an trustworthy source of authority, and they almost certainly will be full blown Darwinists–just like the ‘white leftists.’  Indeed, the ‘white nationalists’ and the ‘white leftists’ are both racists, just the inversion of each other.

Anyone who insists on viewing all the world’s problems through the prism of physical characteristics such as skin color, genitalia, etc, is a racist.  Period, end of story.  And few sentences describe modern leftists as well as the first one in this paragraph.

In other words, both sides are jackasses.

And that’s putting it mildly.

If the ‘white leftists’ had intellectual integrity, they’d come to see that their sense that their feelings that certain things are ‘yucky’ is a big clue that those things are actually wrong and inaccurate.  But this they cannot do, largely because to them, the best part about the materialistic worldview is that it gives them license to have sex… with anyone, with anything, etc etc, with no guilt or consequence.  Hell, in the off chance that a new human is created in the process, you can just kill it, again, with no guilt.

In other words, your Chinese and white nationalists see a different purpose in the liberating aspects of Darwinism.  The West has doubled down on ‘doing it like they do it on Discovery channel.’  Others consider the world apart from wondering which orifice next to put their penis.  But, this doesn’t necessarily make them ‘better,’ because, as we are seeing in China, that outlook leads them to happily throw millions of people into concentration camps, with who knows what is next.  Not that THIS makes the baizuo better, since their attitudes have happily facilitated the deaths of millions of people in the womb, out of the control rates of STDs (just give them more money and more power and mandatory sex ed classes the day after the kid learns to talk, and they’ll fix that, they promise!), the dissolution of the institution of Marriage, with all its negative fall out–only the impending collapse of Western civilization itself.

Like I said, they are both jackasses.

I dwell on it because what we have here are two groups of jackasses which are feeding on each other, growing in strength in their own way, with a very possible outcome of serious, serious, fallout for everyone else.  If the baizuo manage to hold off the Islamicists (Who have an entirely different basis for dehumanizing than the Darwinists), it seems to me that would be a miracle.  But assuming they do, it seems to me that the clash between them will come to a head.

The rest of will be caught in the middle.

But you can be sure, when it all happens, that the baizuo will blame anyone but themselves for what happened, even though it was they who played a critical role in bringing it all to pass.  Because being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.  Why should you be sorry, when you meant well?

Which reminds me of something that Mr. Bryan said in his testimony of the Scope’s Trial.  pg 523-pg 524

In 1900—twenty-five years ago—while an international peace congress was in session in Paris, the following editorial appeared in L’Univers:

The spirit of peace has fled the earth because evolution has taken possession of it. The plea for peace in past years has been inspired by faith in the divine nature and the divine origin of man; men were then looked upon as children of one Father, and war, therefore, was fratricide. But now that men are looked upon as children of apes, what matters it whether they are slaughtered or not?”

When there is poison in the blood, no one knows on what part of the body it will break out, but we can be sure that it will continue to break by science. Evolution is at war with religion because religion is supernatural; it is, therefore, the relentless foe, of Christianity, which is a revealed religion.

Let us, then, hear the conclusion of the ‘whole matter. Science is a magnificent material 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 vessels. 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.

The person Bryan quoting sums it up well, and that was now 120 years ago.  But Bryan’s own remark, about not knowing where the poison will break out, but that it will “break by science” has been shown to be accurate time and time again since then.  Most notably, of course, with how ‘science’ was employed by the leftist National Socialists and the leftist Communists, both of whom firmly believed they were acting in accord with ‘science,’ and, not incidentally, Darwinism.

We do not know where the poison will break out, either.  At present, China appears to be a strong candidate.  You can be sure that if it does, they will wrap themselves in the cloak of SCIENCE! But it could break out other places, and we all have to be on our guard.

Remember, I have Christians in view as my audience for this post.  So what shall we do?

I think first of all you have to understand where things stand.  I have described a situation in which we recognize that in the first place, we understand that dehumanization is a critical facilitator of genocidal behaviors, and in the second place, we live in a world which is thoroughly drenched with people who have intrinsically dehumanizing worldviews.    This realization does not, I think, lend itself to simple action points.  But I don’t know how you can begin formulating action points if you don’t appreciate the fact that according to most of the globe, each and every one of us is little more than an ‘animal.’  Like, for realz.

Second of all, you have to make sure that your children and loved ones know where things stand.  It is easy to fall into a mindset of perceiving world events occurring for random reasons with no particularly important precursors.   In actuality, things that happen often have deep roots.  This certainly is true of all of the genocides we’ve seen since 1900 and is true of many other things.  We have to be able to see these connections in order to act in response to them.

Thirdly, we need to stop coddling people.  The baizuo use our civility against us, and regimes such as the Chinese take advantage of our patience, reliance on the rule of law, etc.   I’m not calling for incivility.  I’m calling for telling the truth. I’m calling for being concerned about the truth.  I’m calling for being grounded on the truth.

What do we really have to fear?  Surely the reader is already well aware of just how far detached from reality our society is drifting.   The same people who are so confused about the implications of particular genitalia to the point that they cannot bring themselves to keep men out of the locker rooms of girls, confidently tell us that ‘climate change’ is real.  Many such absurdities could be presented here.  They are not credible.  They need to understand that their credibility exists only insofar as it aligns with reality.  If they jettison reliance on a plain reading of the evidence, don’t let them get away it.  You do them no good, and worse, you abandon the field to them.

The worst thing that could happen for the world right now would be for Christians to go ‘dark.’  Nonetheless, I strongly encourage you to become as self-sufficient as possible.  You cannot have your well being and livelihood tied to these people without having that being used against you.  A good way to stop China would be to hurt them in their pocketbook.  This would be far preferable than open war.  But if you depend on Chinese products and services to the point where if China threatened to withdraw them if you protest, then you are their slave.  But this is true across the board.  If you cannot speak out against (for example) men being allowed in the locker room of your own daughter because you fear you will be fired from your own job, you need to get a different job.  And get your daughter out of that situation!  Holy cats, man.  Why would you allow that?

At this point, my assessment–subject to new information coming to light or new developments in the world–is that the best we can hope for (apart from the second return of Christ) is to be left standing when all the inhumanitarians are left finished battling it out.

Do what you can so that after it all, you can still stand.

Oh yea, and in case it isn’t clear:  reject Darwinism and its many children wholesale.  When it is all said and done, do not be found among the jackasses.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

14 + seventeen =