Author Topic: Pat Buchanan on Darwin  (Read 1579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« on: July 04, 2009, 04:35:55 PM »
Professor Kevin MacDonald

July 1, 2009

       Pat Buchanan is without doubt the most incisive political commentator that we have. His writings
       on the death of the West, immigration, the neocon influence in the Republican Party, and the Israel
       Lobby are brilliant and courageous, and they certainly have won him no friends among the most
       powerful forces in the Republican Party or among the watchdogs of political correctness.

So it is with a great deal of ambivalence that I must disagree with his recent op-ed `Making a monkey out of Darwin.` The article and the book it relies on, by Eugene G. Windchy, are a compendium of Creationist ideas claiming that Darwinism has no scientific basis and that it has led to great evil. I have discussed some of these issues in a previous article on Ben Stein`s movie Expelled which links Darwinism to the Holocaust and represents the scientific community of evolutionists as an oppressive Inquisition-like establishment bent on squelching heresy.

One particularly objectionable claim is that Karl Marx was inspired by Darwin. Marxism is far more associated with Lamarck`s idea that people can inherit the characteristics that their ancestors acquired during their lives. The inheritance of acquired characteristics is the exact opposite of Darwin`s view that the basic mechanism of evolution is natural selection `” the selective retention of genetic variants because they result in increased survival and reproductive success.

Lamarckism, not Darwinism, became official ideology in the Soviet Union `” the idea being that it would be easy to reshape human nature and produce the new Soviet Man. Famously, Trofim Lysenko applied this to agriculture, hoping to get plants to change their genetic characteristics by exposing them to harsh arctic climates.

This set back Soviet agriculture for decades, but the results were far worse for humans. Lamarckians believed that it would be easy to change the culture and train people to be good socialists. Then their children would inherit those traits and voila, it would usher in a golden age where people would not have nasty, capitalist traits like greed, envy, and selfishness. In the meantime, it was eminently reasonable to simply exterminate those who didn`t get with the program and who clung to their pre-revolutionary ways. In the end, the Lamarckians in the Soviet Union rationalized the murder of many millions of their fellow citizens in the name of creating the new Soviet man.

Creationists who link Darwin with evil should also think long and hard about the fact that genocides and a great many other evils have been carried out under religious ideologies. Christiane Amanpour`s God`s Warriors on Jews,Christians, and Muslims certainly shows that religious ideology can motivate the most extreme of fanaticisms, from Jihad to much of the West Bank settler movement (including both its Christian and Jewish supporters) `” all of which Buchanan presumably abhors. Is that a reason for getting rid of religion?

The problem of evil is very much with us and continues to haunt all ideologies and scientific theories that address it. For a great many people, it is completely incomprehensible that a God would allow all the violence, pain, and suffering that have always been the fate of so many humans `” and animals. Positing a God to explain human behavior and human traits is useless. It doesn`t really explain anything, because we then have to ask why He would make us to be so prone to inflict suffering on others. And why would he create animals that inflict so much suffering on other animals.

The scientific route of explaining human evil as resulting from Darwinian natural selection for traits that were adaptive in spreading the genes of our ancestors is unacceptable to many because it seems to justify violence and aggression. As Buchanan notes, racial nationalism in the period prior to World War I was very much in the air and was invoked by some advocates of war. But wars and genocides occurred long before World War I `” without any Darwinian ideology.

And at least some wars would not have occurred if the war mongers had been good Darwinians. For example, the Civil War was a cousin`s war fought between closely related men from different British sub-cultures. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa. (See here.) Militarily, the war with the Confederacy was the greatest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans. From a Darwinian perspective it was a disaster in which mass murder of cousins was rationalized by a moral ideal.

Or consider World War II, the subject of Buchanan`s brilliant The Unnecessary War. It was indeed an unnecessary war `” and one that would not have been launched by a British Darwinian. Buchanan is quite correct that Winston Churchill should live in infamy for his role in promoting both World War I and World War II. But did Churchill and the rest of the British elite who jumped over the cliff with him act like good Darwinians?

Buchanan is quite correct to point to Churchill`s bellicosity, his vanity, and his desire for personal power; and there are strong hints of his corruption as a result of being rescued from near bankruptcy after the stock market crash of 1929. But if Churchill was a good Darwinian, he would have been able to control these all too human impulses and think rationally about the long term good of his people. (Yes, evolutionists do believe that humans can control their primitive tendencies.) It simply made no sense to go to all out war with the closely related Germans over German hegemony over the continent `” especially because in order to win, Britain had to make an alliance with the Soviet Union, the most murderous regime in history. The victory of the Soviet Union, made possible by military aid from the West, then subjected Eastern Europe to decades of brutality and economic stagnation, and it led to a prolonged and destructive Cold War. But from the standpoint of the West, all this sacrifice was endured in order to destroy genetically closer Germans. Churchill himself seems to have reveled in the destruction even of German civilians.

No Darwinian would have done this. But Churchill `” an egomaniacal, short-sighted, vainglorious war monger unaware of his ethnic genetic interests `” loved it.

Buchanan also fails to see how the defeat of Darwinism in the social sciences has led to all the ills that he deplores in the US and the contemporary West. The period from around 1890 to 1924 was a period of ethnic defense in the United States, and Darwinism was a potent tool in the hands of immigration restrictionists. Bluebloods like Henry Cabot Lodge and Madison Grant were extolling the virtues of Northern Europeans and funding the movement to end immigration `” a battle that ended with the ethnically defensive immigration law of 1924 that was reaffirmed by the 1952 McCarran-Walter act. But at the same time, academic anthropology was coming under the control of the Boasians for whom the entire idea of race was anathema.

I have argued that Boasian anthropology is a Jewish intellectual movement that had the effect of undercutting Americans` natural desire for an ethnically homogeneous culture. As immigration historian John Higham noted, by the time of the final victory in 1965, which removed national origins and racial ancestry from immigration policy and opened up immigration to all human groups, the Boasian perspective of cultural determinism and anti-biologism had become standard academic wisdom. The result was that `it became intellectually fashionable to discount the very existence of persistent ethnic differences. The whole reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful ideological weapon.`

The demise of Darwinism had major implications because it removed the only intellectually viable source of opposition to cosmopolitan ideology and a cultural pluralist model of America. In the absence of an intellectually respectable defense, ethnic defense was left to conservative religion and the popular attitudes of the less educated. These were no match for the cosmopolitan intellectual elite who quickly became ensconced in all the elite institutions of the US`”especially the media and the academic world. In a very real sense, the demise of Darwinism has led to the death of the West that Buchanan deplores. Without an intellectually compelling and scientifically based ideology of ethnic defense, it was not possible to erect barriers against the invasion of other peoples.

As I noted elsewhere, Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea.

       Evolutionary theory points to the deep structure of genocide as a particularly violent form of
       ethnic competition. But ethnic competition is ethnic competition whether its carried out in an
       orgy of violence, or by forcible removal of people from land on the West Bank by Jewish settlers
       or by forcible removal of Native Americans during the 19th century by white settlers, or by
       peaceful displacement of whites via current levels of immigration into Western societies. From
       a Darwinian perspective, the end result is no different. The genetic structure of the population
       has changed, and there are winners and losers. `¦

       And it could be argued that adopting an explicitly Darwinian perspective would actually lead to
       less genocide.  For example,  by understanding that ethnonational aspirations are a normal
       consequence of our evolutionary psychology,  we could at least build societies that, unlike the
       Soviet Union, are not likely to commit genocide on their own people.  Nor would we be saddled
       with a multicultural cauldron of competing and distrustful ethnic groups.  And, as noted in a
       previous article, societies based on ethnonationalism would have other benefits as well: Greater
       openness to redistributive policies; greater trust and political participation; and a greater
       likelihood of adopting democratic political systems based on the rule of law.

My alternate view of the 20th century in America is that if a robust Darwinian intellectual elite had remained in place, the cosmopolitan revolution that opened up America to immigration of all peoples never would have occurred. The immigration restrictionism of the 1920s would have been institutionalized in all the elite institutions of the United States, and it would have developed an increasingly sophisticated theoretical underpinning as the evolutionary understanding of human behavior progressed. Immigration policy would have been carefully formulated to ensure that immigrants were genetically similar to the founding stock `” just as American immigration policy was crafted until 1965.

I close with a quote from Stephen Jay Gould where Buchanan follows Windchy in distorting a comment by Stephen Jay Gould. Based on his reading of the fossil record, Gould had proposed that evolution was less gradual than Darwin supposed, while certainly not disagreeing with Darwin`s central view on natural selection.

       But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues.
       I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new
       life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by
       distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for
       the moment`”a kind of old-time religion on our part.

       But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and
       narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to
       understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a
       united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

I can`t say that I am a fan of Stephen Jay Gould because of his role in attempting to shape Darwinism to his leftist sympathies and, I think, his sense of Jewish interests. But I certainly agree that we have to continue to attempt to understand nature and let the chips fall where they may.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University`“Long Beach.
http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=3490
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2009, 07:40:14 PM »
Not you SG but McDonald.

Quote
One particularly objectionable claim is that Karl Marx was inspired by Darwin. Marxism is far more associated with Lamarck’s idea that people can inherit the characteristics that their ancestors acquired during their lives. The inheritance of acquired characteristics is the exact opposite of Darwin’s view that the basic mechanism of evolution is natural selection — the selective retention of genetic variants because they result in increased survival and reproductive success.

I don't see any difference. Ancestor survives and its offspring does. Same in both.  McDonald is another one to keep and eye on.

Quote
As I noted elsewhere, Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea.

       Evolutionary theory points to the deep structure of genocide as a particularly violent form of
       ethnic competition.

Huh? Where? How?

He must have writers' block.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2009, 09:10:37 PM »
The term Darwinism in popular use has come to mean the philosophy of evolutionary theory as a whole and few people in the world and probably 90% of Buchanan's followers could articulate the diffferences Lamarck and Darwin. Buchanan himself probably doesn't know the difference. Even though MacDonald does offer food for thought.

Quote
Lamarckism, not Darwinism, became official ideology in the Soviet Union `” the idea being that it would be easy to reshape human nature and produce the new Soviet Man. Famously, Trofim Lysenko applied this to agriculture, hoping to get plants to change their genetic characteristics by exposing them to harsh arctic climates.

I remember a few years ago seeing a program on PBS regarding Darwinism where they showed Soviet experiments with caged animals, I believe foxes that were raised for their furs, that praised the Lamarckian theory. The claim was they could speed up the evolutionary process, to make better foxes for fur, through enviromental changes. The main point here: our establishment that runs PBS believes and and was advocating the Lamarckian theory, even though they only mentioned Lamarck in passing and just called it new Darwinism, or something like that.

There's no doubt that our oligarchs have adopted the Lamarckian theory and are putting into practice beyond a philosophy and simple enviromental controls by moving into the area of genetic modification.

Quote
The demise of Darwinism had major implications because it removed the only intellectually viable source of opposition to cosmopolitan ideology and a cultural pluralist model of America. In the absence of an intellectually respectable defense, ethnic defense was left to conservative religion and the popular attitudes of the less educated. These were no match for the cosmopolitan intellectual elite who quickly became ensconced in all the elite institutions of the US`”especially the media and the academic world. In a very real sense, the demise of Darwinism has led to the death of the West that Buchanan deplores. Without an intellectually compelling and scientifically based ideology of ethnic defense, it was not possible to erect barriers against the invasion of other peoples.

That's a great point that specifically applies to the current non-debates about stem cells and infanticide. The issues of infanticide as an instrument of population control never enters the debate, just as much the issue of genetic modification through the use of stems cells never enters the debate, and the groups presented as being against these two issues usually rely on Old Testament myths and ancient moral edicts to make their arguments.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2009, 09:34:26 PM »
McDonald's comment:

Quote
''I have argued that Boasian anthropology is a Jewish intellectual movement that had the effect of undercutting * Americans` natural desire for an ethnically homogeneous culture. As immigration historian John Higham noted, ** by the time of the final victory in 1965, which removed national origins and racial ancestry from immigration policy and opened up immigration to all human groups, the Boasian perspective of cultural determinism and anti-biologism had become standard academic wisdom. The result was that `it became intellectually fashionable to discount the very existence of persistent ethnic differences. The whole reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful ideological weapon.`

  * When I arrived here in the late 50's, immigrants came predominantly from Central Europe, Britain,
     Scottland and Ireland.

** This was the beginning of the J-wish Cultural Revolution. I recall a palette of Kodak babies in
     every color...

Among other 'achievements' this is precisely what happened and fractured this country (including
Europe, Canada and Australia.) This is the milieu that these elements have shamelessly created,
they thrive and capitalize on the chaos they create within. But basically I think we have to blame
our fathers - who should or could have stopped it.

He made other good points as well....
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2009, 10:07:22 PM »
Quote
  * When I arrived here in the late 50's, immigrants came predominantly from Central Europe, Britain,
     Scottland and Ireland.

** This was the beginning of the J-wish Cultural Revolution. I recall a palette of Kodak babies in
     every color...

Among other 'achievements' this is precisely what happened and fractured this country (including
Europe, Canada and Australia.) This is the milieu that these elements have shamelessly created,
they thrive and capitalize on the chaos they create within. But basically I think we have to blame
our fathers - who should or could have stopped it.

He made other good points as well....

There's no doubt it. The 1965 immigration act was one of the primary goals of the J-wish Cultural Revolution as a way to muddy culture and take political control. At this time their goal is even more ambitious -- most students in the top universities are from China and India and when they finish their studies they will will assume the top spots in America as business, cultural, and technology managers. The advantage for J-ws in having managers who are dissintrested to local politics is obvious. Students of the top law schools that will become the future judges and political class are over 50% J-wish. No suprise here. This must be phase 2 or the final blow for people of European origins.

He made almost too many points.

Do you have the link to this article? I wanted to read this piece he alluded to -- "Ben Stein`s movie Expelled which links Darwinism to the Holocaust."
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2009, 10:09:40 PM »
Yes he does have some good material.  


Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2009, 10:13:06 PM »
Do you have the link to this article? I wanted to read this piece he alluded to -- "Ben Stein’s movie Expelled which links Darwinism to the Holocaust."

I watched the trailers.  And skunk says they are not geniuses.  I can see stark raving anti-communists of two decades ago completely forget that Communists won WWII and infiltrated US government and churches.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2009, 10:44:37 PM »
http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=3490 There are many links within the article.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2009, 10:50:34 PM »
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-BenStein.html

More food for thought:

Ben Stein's Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust?
Kevin MacDonald

December 1, 2008

In my previous column, I noted the Stalinist tendencies of the leftists that are so entrenched in the academic world. The fact is that the academic left has never been concerned about truth when truth is incompatible with their political objectives. This is the fundamental message of my book, The Culture of Critique where I trace the involvement of Jewish intellectual activists in producing a leftist academic culture that promoted specifically Jewish goals, including lessening the political power and cultural influence of European-derived peoples and the eradication of anti-Semitism.

Chief among the bogeymen of these Jewish intellectuals is Darwinism. The war against Darwinism is a major theme of The Culture of Critique, and it persists as a constant drumbeat in our culture`”from the cultural Marxists who are in charge of socializing our college students to a great many examples in popular culture.

Consider Ben Stein's film Expelled. Stein depicts Darwinism as a stifling orthodoxy that suppresses free inquiry into how things got this way. And in particular, the triumph of Darwinism has meant that the theory of intelligent design has been banished from the realm of reasonable discourse in the academic world. 

Of course, intelligent design is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences. But why would Ben Stein produce a movie that panders to religious conservatives? It would doubtless be pretty hard to find anyone in the Jewish intelligentsia who in the privacy of their innermost thoughts believes in God.

Indeed, it's fair to say that the mainstream Jewish community regards Christian religious sentiment with fear and loathing. For example, Elliott Abrams, whose title in the Bush Administration (Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy) sounds like a neocon wet dream, acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community `clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.` According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known.

The deep structure of Expelled can be inferred from another comment by Elliott Abrams. Abrams thinks that a strong role for Christianity in America is good for Jews:

In this century we have seen two gigantic experiments at postreligious societies where the traditional restraints of religion and morality were entirely removed: Communism and Nazism. In both cases Jews became the special targets, but there was evil enough even without the scourge of anti-Semitism. For when the transcendental inhibition against evil is removed, when society becomes so purely secular that the restraints imposed by God on man are truly eradicated, minorities are but the earliest victims.

I think Abrams and Stein are on the same page. I make this inference because in his film promoting intelligent design Stein argues that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. In making a movie that attempts to legitimize `Creation Science` in the academic world, Stein is thinking not so much about intellectual honesty or the relative adequacy of Darwinism and Creation Science in producing testable hypotheses and mountains of supporting evidence. He is asking an age-old question: `Is it good for the Jews?` If Darwinism is not good for the Jews, then so much the worse for Darwinism.

In mounting a war on Darwinism or at least attempting to control it, Stein is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion, at least for the last 100 years or so. The triumph of the Boasian school of anthropology over Darwinism in the early years of the 20th century was a watershed event in intellectual history of the West `” in effect more or less obliterating what had been a thriving Darwinian intellectual milieu. This era of Darwinian domination of the social sciences included several well-known Jewish racial Zionists, such as Arthur Ruppin, who were motivated by the fear that Diaspora Judaism would lose its biological uniqueness as a result of pressures for intermarriage and assimilation.

Among the Zionists, the racialists won the day. Ruppin`s ideas on the necessity of preserving Jewish racial purity have had a prominent place in the Jabotinsky wing of Zionism, including especially the Likud party in Israel and its leaders`”people like Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir. (Here`s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under a looming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: `These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.`  As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel `is governed by [Jabotinsky`s] conscious heirs.`

But it was the Boasians who won the day in the academic establishment of the West. Whereas Jewish intellectuals played a bit part in the wider movement of racial Darwinism, the Boasian revolution which triumphed in academic anthropology in the West was overwhelmingly a Jewish intellectual movement.

And besides the Boasians, a great many Jewish social scientists of the period were also attracted to a thriving cult of Lamarckism `” the view that evolution works via the inheritance of acquired characteristics rather than Darwin`s theory of natural selection. Indeed, Lamarckism became official ideology in the Soviet Union because of its easy compatibility with Marxist visions of utopia: Creating the socialist society would biologically alter its citizens. 

Both theories combated racialist theories of Judaism that depicted it as having a biological uniqueness. (Actually, Boas`s approach is more an anti-theory because it cast doubt on general theories of human culture common among Darwinian anthropologists of the period, emphasizing instead the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human cultures, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation.) For example, based on skull measurements and IQ testing, racial scientists, including some racial Zionists, concluded that Jews had evolved to have higher IQ, but this was often linked with a tendency toward psychopathology`”the `nervous Jew.`

The Boasians and the Lamarckians countered with the view that Jewish traits had resulted from historical conditions. As historian Mitchell B. Hart notes, `the positions taken by Jewish researchers [i.e., the Zionist racialists, the Lamarckians, and the Boasians] were driven in large measure by ideological commitments and political goals.` Three different groups of Jewish social scientists, three different ideological agendas stemming from their different views on how social science can best serve Jewish interests.

Boas`s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in this cause of the anti-racialists. Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas`s data, physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz do not accuse Boas of scientific fraud, but they do find (pdf) that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end racialist views in anthropology:

While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.

This view certainly dovetails with my research. Boas can now be officially grouped with his student and protege Margaret Mead as using social science to further a leftist, anti-Darwinian political agenda. 

Concerns about scientific fraud have also dogged Larmarckism. Lamarckism was a pillar of the intellectual left in the West during the 1920s but declined rapidly after its major scientific proponent, Paul Kammerer, committed suicide shortly after an article appearing in the prestigious British journal Nature accused him of scientific fraud. Kammerer, who was half Jewish on his mother`s side, was a staunch socialist. He wrote that Lamarckian inheritance offered hope for humanity through education, and he became a hero among committed Socialists and Communists. Despite Kammerer`s disgrace, Lamarckism lived on in the Soviet Union under Trofim Lysenko, with disastrous results on agricultural policy.

Interestingly, Boas, who was also a political radical, continued to accept Lamarckism up until his death in 1942 `” long after it had been discredited by accusations of scientific fraud. The moral seems to be that people who use science to advance their political agendas are unlikely to reject politically attractive theories for trivial reasons like lack of evidence and a history of cooked data. Isn`t that how science is supposed to operate? Not surprisingly, that other pseudoscientific charlatan, Sigmund Freud, also continued believing in Lamarckism long after it had been scientifically discredited. 

Ben Stein`s brief for intelligent design is therefore in the long line of movements, beginning with Boas and Lamarck, that have attempted to undercut Darwin as a pillar of Western science. Each of them is mistaken (to be generous) and each was highly motivated. Among Jewish participants, the motives can be quite straightforwardly related to their Jewish identity. 

But we still must ask what to make of Ben Stein`s claim that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. John Derbyshire characterizes the charge as a `blood libel on our civilization` which indeed it is.  Nevertheless, such a claim should not be taken lightly. For example, it is common among historians to hold views similar to Michael Hart`s statement that `it is impossible to understand the Holocaust without comprehending the degree to which racial science and a medicalized racial ideology occupied central positions in Nazi thought and policy.` 

By the same token, I suppose, one could argue that the Palestinian catastrophe is the result of the triumph of the racial Zionists and their Likudnik descendents in Israel. Or one could argue that Darwinism does not necessarily lead to the specific views attributed to the National Socialists.

And one could certainly note that genocides occurred long before World War II and they have continued to occur without any specific Darwinian ideology. Indeed, as noted above, Elliott Abrams places Communism in the same category as Nazism when it comes to the ill effects of removing a religious world view. In April, 2008, the Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko petitioned the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to recognize the 1932`“1933 Ukrainian famine as an act of genocide`”a genocide carried out by an avowedly Marxist government at a time when Jews formed an elite within the Soviet Union. (See also Charles Dodgson's lucid comments in TOO on Jewish involvement in the Ukrainian genocide as a blind spot in Jewish memory. Abrams is an example of a Jewish writer who deplores the discrimination against Jews that occurred after World War II in the USSR, but is silent on the pre-World War II period when Jews formed a hostile elite in the Soviet Union and served as Stalin's willing executioners.) Indeed, it has been estimated that Communist governments murdered over 90,000,000 people in the 20th century, including 25,000,000 in the USSR. These murders were certainly not carried out under a Darwinian ideology. 

And genocides have been carried out under religious ideologies as well. Christiane Amanpour`s God`s Warriors series certainly shows that religious ideology can motivate the most extreme of fanaticisms, from Jihad to much of the West Bank settler movement (including both its Christian and Jewish supporters). (The Christian and Muslim segments are still on You Tube. But the Jewish segment has been removed, presumably by the same Jewish fanatics featured in the segment. But you can still see two rebuttals put out by the pro-Zionists: Part I and Part II.  My description and commentary on the Jewish segment is here.)

Ben Stein is wrong. There is no reason at all to suppose that adopting a religious world view immunizes against genocide. Perhaps he and Elliott Abrams are simply expressing their belief that present forms of Christianity would not lead to a Holocaust even if they achieved a great deal more power over public policy. This was the view of neocon guru Leo Strauss  who is quite possibly the inspiration for both Abrams and Stein. They could be right about that, but I wouldn`t bet the farm on it. 

But let`s not be naïve. Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea. In the same way that the evolutionary theory of sex has illuminated the deep structure of the human mating game, evolutionary theory points to the deep structure of genocide as a particularly violent form of ethnic competition. But ethnic competition is ethnic competition whether its carried out in an orgy of violence, or by forcible removal of people from land on the West Bank by Jewish settlers or by forcible removal of Native Americans during the 19th century by white settlers, or by peaceful displacement of whites via current levels of immigration into Western societies.

From a Darwinian perspective, the end result is no different. The genetic structure of the population has changed. Darwin, of course, understood this. Notice, for example, the subtitle of his masterpiece: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

We all have an implicit understanding of human sexual politics. What Darwin did (with the help of Robert Trivers) is to produce an explicit theory which explains sexual politics. But sexual politics and genocide existed long before Darwin came along. And it is at least questionable whether the occurrence of future genocide would be more or less likely if most people had an explicitly Darwinian theory. Humans seem to be able to commit mass murder under multiple ideological umbrellas.

And it could be argued that adopting an explicitly Darwinian perspective would actually lead to less genocide. For example, by understanding that ethnonational aspirations are a normal consequence of our evolutionary psychology, we could at least build societies that, unlike the Soviet Union, are not likely to commit genocide on their own people. Nor would we be saddled with a multicultural cauldron of competing and distrustful ethnic groups. And, as noted in a previous article, societies based on ethnonationalism would have other benefits as well: Greater openness to redistributive policies; greater trust and political participation; and a greater likelihood of adopting democratic political systems based on the rule of law.

So three cheers for Darwin and for science. Long may they live. And please, no more Ben Steins trying to send us back to the Dark Ages.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University`“Long Beach.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2009, 10:59:18 PM »
Quote
Of course, intelligent design is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences.


Sorry Sush.  This is straight out of the Protocols.  You don't have to believe in extraterrestials and/or supernatural.

There are no half bats.  Therefore until there is some new insight there is no evolution and intellligent design is the most reasonable alternative.

Sorry but look at the silliness of MacDonald comparing evolution - strongest offspring survive - against intelligent design.

It is apples and oranges.  Evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2009, 11:02:40 PM »
Quote
There's no doubt it. The 1965 immigration act was one of the primary goals of the J-wish Cultural Revolution as a way to muddy culture and take political control.

1)  At this time their goal is even more ambitious -- most students in the top universities are from China
     and India and when they finish their studies they will will assume the top spots in America as business,
     cultural, and technology managers.

2)  The advantage for J-ws in having managers who are disinterested to local politics is obvious.  Students
     of the top law schools that will become the future judges and political class are over 50% J-wish. No
     suprise here. This must be phase 2 or the final blow for people of European origins.

Very good points!
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2009, 11:20:47 PM »
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2009, 12:19:54 AM »
Sorry Sush. This is straight out of the Protocols....

That's OK... I'm still learning too. BPO, would you point out some specific passages for me, please?
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2009, 04:49:15 AM »
Huh? Where? How?

Yeah, I don't see much here, other than an ultimately meaningless academic exercise. I see no benefit in throwing labels onto how jews have hijacked human history over the last century or more.  The issue is jews.
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2009, 06:31:32 AM »
Sorry Sush. This is straight out of the Protocols....

That's OK... I'm still learning too. BPO, would you point out some specific passages for me, please?

Sorry first a side bar:

Quote
In this century we have seen two gigantic experiments at postreligious societies where the traditional restraints of religion and morality were entirely removed: Communism and Nazism.

In both cases Jews became the special targets, but there was evil enough even without the scourge of anti-Semitism

What?! First the Third Reich was religious Catholic and other Christian sects.  Second Communism was religious. Religous jews killing Orthodox Russians then attacking Europe and Palestine.  MacDonald doesn't know this?

Now back to MacDonald as Elder's agent:

Protocol IV:  Destroy God

Elders: "WE SHALL DESTROY GOD

But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination.

With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth.

This is the reason why IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND OF THE "GOYIM" THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS."

MacDonald:  Destroy GOD

"Of course, intelligent design [GOD] is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences.

"And it could be argued that adopting an explicitly Darwinian [anti GOD] perspective would actually lead to less genocide."


Why would the Elders employ MacDonald to this?:

1. Goyim slaving away at materialism where the jew profits.

2.  No chance of the goyim being distracted by self managing and self organizing Christian or Muslim communities opposing Jew materialism.

3. The goyim are not human and do not get to have GOD > "conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination" GOD is only for the Jews.

Again I am not evangelizing for religion.  Only bashing the absurd evolution belief and the patterns I have seen of "white nationalists aka racists who promote the Protocols agenda.




Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2009, 10:37:29 AM »
I'm starting to suspect Ben Stein's promotion of neo-Lamarckianism is directly related to the current genetic science that claims it can alter genetic material which can be passed on for generations, therefore the promotion ID fits in with the philosophy that man can play god in the creation process. With the twist of course that there's no creator but we are all part of the creation process.

MacDonald on the hand believes in pure Darwinism or the belief that nature has its own code, blueprints, and determinism that can't be altered.

Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2009, 11:28:55 AM »
Why would the Elders employ MacDonald to this?:

1. Goyim slaving away at materialism where the jew profits.

        Is this not what most goyim so passionately do, maxing out their credit cards? :-))

I am not religious (as in belonging to any church) though I do believe that there is a God
(or Creator) That Jesus was born I believe as well. ~ With all the hardship on this Earth,
recent Palestine genocides, etc, etc., etc, etc...

~ A little divine intervention could have gone a long way! ~ I think I'll leave it at that.

In regard to this article (and many others) perhaps, as Pete says, it's ultimately meaningless
academic exercise.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline Sue

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 19731
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Thumbs Up
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2009, 11:34:32 AM »
MacDonald on the hand believes in pure Darwinism or the belief that nature has its own code, blueprints, and determinism that can't be altered.

MacDonald is most likely a DEIST.
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is "not done".
...Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with.

Offline bpocatch

  • Lieutenant General
  • ***
  • Posts: 5336
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2009, 01:21:18 PM »
... pure Darwinism or the belief that nature has its own code, blueprints, and determinism that can't be altered.

Nature? Note the personification of some mysterious intelligent designer with design tools blueprint, code, etc.?  Evolution believers often use creation ideas for criticism.

Darwinism is survival of the fittest.   An organism is in an environment that affects it. This creates a variant organism. If successful the variation survives and passes on this variation gene. Progessively the variants or adaptation are the "evolution machine."

Of course critics say that this is truism.  Yes those die die and those that don't survive.  Has no impact on whether the was a design or how the original specie came to be.

It is quickly dismissed.  It is quickly dismissed by science:  irreducible complexity and violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
 

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Pat Buchanan on Darwin
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2009, 06:23:00 PM »
the philosophy that man can play god in the creation process. With the twist of course that there's no creator but we are all part of the creation process.

There will be two main characters in the story.  One would be the good scientist trying to correct God's mistakes; the other would be the evil scientist trying to be God.  In real life, both would be jews.  In the hollywood version, the second would have blue eyes and a German accent.
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.