-4 votes

Darwin's Ideas have been USED to Justify Racism, Genocide, Industrial Monopoly Without Restraint

"The actual title of Darwin's famous book is:
The Origin of Species of Means of Natural Selection, or
Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

Many elite and power seeking individuals use his theories to justify genocide or industrial monopoly. (survival of the fittest)

"J. D. Rockefeller said, "The growth of large business is merely a survival of the fittest." to justify industrial monopoly.

"As early as 1923 in his book Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed his adherence to evolution in justifying genocide." (the survival of the fittest) although he did not quote Darwin. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/what-did-char...

My Idea of Human Evolution of Modern Man
I believe there is a prime creator who has created all species of living things, and evolution is part of the grand scheme of creation.

As humans we evolve by our choices and the conditions of our environment. We move in the direction of our choices within a lifetime and gain strength in that direction, whether it be the choice of physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual development.

In the end our human choices determine our evolution as a species. Even in the midst of our present dark time in history, humans as a group struggle with what they will value in the future, as the age of animal-human marked by ego, greed, seeking power over others, and seeking wealth, comes to a close.

Now we become a kinder more sensitive species of human seeking those values of the heart and spirit. Jesus came teaching love, forgiveness, and compassion, and that is where we are to move on the path. Buddha taught the same.

What we create upon this Earth, what we choose to value, how we choose to behave, is our choice as individuals and as a group. A new age emerges.

Well that is how I see it. It would be interesting to read your ideas.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Darwinism is a lie. Evolution

Darwinism is a lie. Evolution is real.
Think of the title of Dawkins' (a Darwinian Hard Man) book:
"The Selfish Gene"

While Dawkins' is a professed atheist, he must be off kilter if he believes in the religion of 'genes' being sentient creatures.

Southern Agrarian

Here is some recent scientific information on evolution

of human genes. It would appear humans continue to evolve genetically and adapt to environmental and cultural pressures. So evolution is real.

"Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics.

"These are very recent events—within the past ten thousand years," said Jonathan Pritchard, a geneticist whose laboratory team conducted the study.

The results suggest that humans in different regions have continued to adapt in numerous ways to both environmental changes and cultural innovations.

Many of the genetic changes Pritchard's group detected came during or after the emergence of agriculture, beginning about 10,000 years ago, and long after the formation of modern human populations.

Some of the genes most strongly affected by selection were those associated with skin color, bone structure, and the metabolism of different foods." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_...

So what?

So what?


So what, indeed?
Judeo-Christianity has been used to bolster slavery and genocide as well, and Charlie Manson discerned that The Beatles were the architects of Helter Skelter.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

I have come to beleive that those who want power

over others will use anything and anyone to justify what they do. The church (in the name of Jesus and God) was responsible for the Inquisition, and many other things such as burning of witches, slavery. Evolutionary theories, not necessarily Darwin, are used to justify genocide.

We are perhaps at a point in human evolution of consciousness where we need to examine what we choose as acceptable values, and what we want to carry with us into the future. Do we accept genocide? war? drones over America and the world? brutality to animals and people? elitists robbing us of the fruits of our labor?

Evolutionary "theories" maybe...

But evolutionary facts, nah.

Adaptability per advantageous traits seeping into certain niches are what drives evolution.

That is a fact.

Love thy enemy.


Didn't he admit later that he made some mistakes on his theories?

Where is the source that he was a mason?

I do not think masons at that time would of accepted someone with his views.


I researched that he recanted on his theory

but it appears that is rumor. If you find more I am interested.

Found this site and quote.
"While there is no evidence that Darwin was a Mason, the males in his family were Freemasons, and so were his close colleagues and friends. " - See more at: http://www.henrymakow.com/was_darwin_an_instrument_of_th.htm...

If you Google the question lots of sites with information emerge.


For your work.

I am going to look at the ideas of his followers to get more info. Perhaps some Frenchmen or Germans if there are any notables. I think it will give more insight then just Brits imo.


I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is...

...Darwin isn't mentioned in Mein Kampf--that is an urban legend--the Nazi's banned Darwin's books.

..the races are different and have been endowed with different sets of characteristics, gifts and liabilities. von Mises wasn't shy about "race science" any more than Rothbard.

Darwin has been twisted, just not as people realize. Darwin wrote his book to counter the catastrophist wing of the human condition--the wing the so-called libertarian counter-culture should be spending its time with, not the egalitarians and levelers who still want to blame things on the Nazis...like the neocons.

Longtime Internet Poster

Hitler did not quote Darwin.

"In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment. (Charles Darwin)" http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolutio...

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (the Aryan Race)

“ Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term: MAN.

He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth.

Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years human culture will vanish and the world will become a desert. ”

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_political_views

Prometheus of mankind...

...would make the corporal sympathetic to Creationism, right? Nowhere is there a discussion of how colder temperatures, cross-mating with Neanderthals selected for higher intelligence and certain traits (blonde hair recessive, blue eyes from Neanderthals.)

Various understandings of "evolution" have pre-dated Darwin. Darwin's point was on how "species" are created or why they went extinct (natural selection vs catastrophism), which he failed to do.

But if you can find a quote from Darwin to make sense of your post, please do.

Like I said, I am not sure what the point of this exercise is, but bad history or folks talking about a subject heavily influenced by PC dogma doesn't seem like a worthwhile endeavor.

Longtime Internet Poster

The point of my post was to stimulate thought

and questions. I also like to add to my own perspective by reading the views of others.

In that sense I do not consider the post a waste of time. Many of us have learned something from exchanging ideas. I know I have learned much.

Survival of the fittest in the market, means fittest for what?

"The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle.

The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meager subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively, or out of gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.

It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful "struggle" of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence." - Murray Rothbard

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I can only agree with your comment.. Beautifully expressed.

Quoting from your comment.

"Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society.

The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle."

Now there is the difference.

Darwin and his father...

Where both paid freemasons. Most of their findings were just made up lies and most of Europe today believes in creationism not Darwinism.

The ideas, theories, and

The ideas, theories, and science by itself are good as far as they are close to reality. The use that people make about those concepts is what carries an ethical charge. In this case Hitler et al appropriated these ideas for evil purposes. BTW, the nazis also misappropriated the "superhuman" concept developed by Nietzche.

Same thing happens with Christianity but here it is more obvious. Certain segments of the population try to use Christianity to justify wars in the Middle East.

I do not blame Darwin for his theories but he was indeed a racist. He wrote that the Australian aborigines were in a lesser scale of evolution than the Brits. The holocaust in Australia is history and has been unackwoledged by the queen et al.

Those seeking power and control, who view themselves

as superior to others, will use any justification including Darwin and religion. Nor do I blame Darwin.

As opposed to religion

which allowed women to be sold into slavery..

" the favored race being the white race." .. wasn't that a 'mark of cain' (religion) thing?

I don't see how religion is any better of a role model..? Have you READ the bible? Because there is some pretty awful shit in there:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Darwin > god.. ANY DAY!!

Why don't you mention all the idiots that have used religion to justify the shit they do? I promise, they have darwin beat by a long shot.

I can't wait until religion dies the horrible painful death it deserves. But hey, believe whatever you want. :) Hopefully we can still be friends.

But i'm not sure how you don't see the hypocrisy of your post.

Well, let's look at the context.

It's easy to cut and paste items from antiquity to make a modern point.

Today, the vast majority of the world's population are debt slaves.Yes, you can change "owners", but more than likely you'll still be working for Leviathan's corporate -government-NGO complex. And to live what we call a "decent" lifestyle, you'll be up to your eyeballs is debt to that very same complex. Especially if you grew up belieiving what you were told, which is most of us.

At the time the Torah was written, the Israelites were struggling to be separate from the surrounding nations, where slavery was also rampant. In fact, it was just the economy of the world at that time (and referencing my previous paragraph, still is in a sophisticated way.)

I like how it gives women some status, not what we would like today. But consider the sex trafficking our Elite do. This verse would be a step up for those entrapped in white slavery today. Also consider how women were being treated by the surrounding pagan tribes, certainly not with this much consideration.

The New Testament verses reveal the reality of the economy in Roman times, where slavery was also rampant. As a Christian, you do more for promoting the cause of Christ by NOT slitting your master's throat. The verse out of Luke you cite is part of a parable about doing your duty. God expects more out of those who have been given much.
Application: If you are living in the 21st century, are literate, and have access to all the libraries of the ages (ie internet) you are going to be held accountable for that opportunity and what you decided to do or not do with it.

Had Darwin followed God's Word and not had incestuous relationships, his 10 children would have all lived to be be bright, intelligent children and there would be lots of Darwins out there today from his line.


it's ok to have slaves?

I'm not seeing your point. It just sounds like your trying to justify owning slaves.

"Had Darwin followed God's Word and not had incestuous relationships, his 10 children would have all lived to be be bright, intelligent children and there would be lots of Darwins out there today from his line" - You don't KNOW this... you're just making stuff up.

How did Adam and Eve propagate? Wouldn't their children have had to sleep with each other? I mean. if there are only two people on earth and those two people have kids... well who do those kids have kids with? They either had sex with their siblings, or their parents.. no?

What about Adam's first wife, Lileth? You know the one who was banished from the garden of eden because she refused to make herself subservient to Adam (specifically, she refused to get into the missionary position with him during sex). When she was cast out, she was made into a demon figure, and Adam was given a second wife, Eve, who was fashioned from his rib to ensure her OBEDIENCE to her man.

I'm glad you approve of the 'status' they give women. I don't. Religion is evil! Racism, sexism, and probably a bunch of other 'isms' are build into the core beliefs.. which are just wrong on so many levels.

by DEFINITION religion required faith, NOT critical thinking! And THAT is the problem.

No honey,

I'm trying to point out that for most of human history, a person's labor was a commodity to be traded. Today, the condition continues in a more comfortable way for us in the west. Unless of course you happen to be in one of the Elite's white slavery rings, in which case you don't get out in seven years, but stay trapped for life. I don't condone slavery, that's why I'm a Christian where the promise of being free from slavery to sin is a standing offer. At the point in history that Leviticus was written the time for mankind's liberation had not come. But it's coming soon!!

As far as Darwin's family being inbred with poor genetic results is a matter of record:
Source: The Daily Mail

Now not all fared badly, three went on to have successful careers. I think three were able to have children. But the high infertility of the Darwin and Wedgewood families has been documented and attributed to the intermarriage between these families.

The question of Adam and Eve's children is age-old. Many believe that their genes were different than those of people today. And then you have the nephalim situation, too. After there were enough people on earth, God made rules stipulating who could have relations with whom. John the Baptist had his head chopped off for calling out Herod's incestous relationship. Again, compared to the rest of the world at this time, creating boundaries about who may marry whom to create sound families, was a revolutionary idea. Modern science confirms that you need genetic diversity to have healthy offspring.

The story of Lillith is no where to be found in the Biblical canon.

Atheism has a far higher death toll than religion. Actually it has an even greater number than that if you include all the athiests that POSED as religious people to MANIPULATE the masses. Why assume that Charlemagne, the popes, etc were true believers? We'll never know. The Bible says that true believers worship in spirit and in truth, not in buildings, with rituals, or political affiliation.

Racsim, sexism, etc are also used by the nonreligious to get their way. That's the human condition.

Faith and reason are like two shoes, you use both to walk straight. Test out your critical thinking skills with this fascinating talk about the historical background of the Bible -interesting compared to the other works of antiquity. Check it out if you're brave enough.

Interesting comment.. We remain slaves to this day.

Did not know Darwin married his cousin. You got me searching. Here is more on the topic.

"Not only were Darwin and his wife first cousins, but his mother’s parents were third cousins. The researchers calculated that for 6.3% of their genetic sequences, Darwin's children inherited the same DNA from their mother and father. That certainly increased their risk of developing health problems that only occur when the faulty genes are inherited from both parents. It probably explains the high rate of infertility among his adult children, the researchers write."

Please explain to me

how adam and eve's children procreated.

+1 You have made some very good points rpr3volution2012

Religion has not been a good role model and has always been more about power and control, and still is. I believe humanity will be going beyond this mind control model soon, and I hope a true spirituality emerges.


Now spirituality, I can get behind. But I don't need christ for that, or any other 'god'.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, But the stories in the bible can be traced back to the sumerian texts.

The floods, the tower of babel.. these things were written BEFORE the bible.

So.. the sumerians said there were two gods, Enki, and Enlil. (which explains why god changes his mind so much in the bible. He didn't really, there were just two gods) Anyway. "God" was an alien species called the Anunnak that came here to mine gold. (I think) They genetically engineered humans to be slaves ;), but Enki liked us, so he gave us knowledge, and basically all hell broke loose from there.

So shouldn't we just skip the bible, and go straight to the source: the sumerians texts? And of course, worship aliens instead of christ.

Personally, I think the story is a lot cooler than the bible anyway.

The problem with religion is that by DEFINITION it requires faith, and NOT critical thinking. And THAT is the problem.


...is also very commonly used for all of those purposes as well.

Ideas are not to be blamed for the ways people twist them.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


It goes back a long ways

doesn't it. I think we have to get beyond these ideas and evolve to a higher way of thinking and being.

But here's my contribution:

Whenever I'm debating a statist/collectivist from an AnCap point of view, I'm ALWAYS forced to differentiate between Social Darwinism and Anarcho Capitalism. Many leftists simply cannot understand that they are not the same.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Dr. Berlinksi, the Athiest Anti-Darwinist

Interesting ideas from a mathematician/microbiologist who says that darwinian macroevolution is absurd.


His book, The Devil's Delusion on CSPAN:


He's not dry to listen to either.