Darwin’s Dangerous Disciples

Lasha Darkmoon — Darkmoon March 4, 2018

In response to Jonas Alexis’ A Challenge to Lasha Darkmoon
and How Lasha Darkmoon Misreads Darwin

The greatest threat to world peace is godless nihilism: world war is the evil child of world despair.

Darwin and Dawkins

CHARLES DARWIN and RICHARD DAWKINS

Don’t confuse Darwinism with pseudo-Darwinism; 
don’t conflate Darwinism with Dawkinism.

Darwin remains remarkably fit for a man who’s been dead almost 136 years. The UK’s Channel 4 aired Richard Dawkins’ three part series “The Genius of Darwin” a few years ago, demonstrating clearly that Dawkins (popularly known as “Darwin’s rottweiler”) is a devout disciple of Darwin. Yet it is a mistake to confuse Darwin with Darwin’s rottweiler. And it is wrong to blame Darwin for things he never said, but which Dawkins was to say over a hundred years later. 
This is the mistake that the anti-Darwinians keep making: they keep confusing Darwinism with Dawkinism.
This is a monstrous logical error.
Just as you must avoid making the mistake of attacking Jesus Christ for things said in his name by St Paul and a long line of Christian spin merchants, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and the Rev Billy Graham, so you must do your best not to confuse Charles Darwin with Richard Dawkins and his like.
Don’t confuse the Master with the Disciple. Don’t get Darwin mixed up with his spin merchants. Don’t attack X for the ideas of Y.
In a recent article called Demonizing Darwin, I drew attention to the fact that there are many types of Darwinism to which Darwin himself would not have subscribed. These arguments are so important that they need repeating:
“There are more types of Darwinism than there are colors in the rainbow. Failure to understand this, that there is a broad spectrum of views on what Darwinism actually means, will lead invariably to strident denunciations of Darwinism. Understanding Darwin is not easy, because there were times when Darwin hardly understood himself. He was modest enough to admit it. Nuance. That is the operative word here.
Getting to grips with Darwin is like getting to grips with an eel.
The sad truth is, no one has been more misunderstood than Darwin. Paradoxically, the Darwinism of Darwin bears no resemblance to the Darwinism of his more dangerous disciples. He would have rejected their interpretations of Darwinism as distasteful. Richard Dawkins would have been an unwelcome guest at Darwin’s dinner table at Downe House in Kent. He would have had to watch his manners. The chances of Dawkins coming to blows with some of the other dinner guests, and of giving grave offense to Darwin’s beloved wife Emma, a devout Unitarian Christian, would have been pretty substantial. So Dawkins would have had to be on his best behavior in Darwin’s house.
The same applies in spades, a fortiori, to some of the more disreputable Darwinists preaching natural selection, or the Survival of the Fittest, without checks or balances. Social Darwinists like the mysterious Ragnar Redbeard, author of Might is Right, would have been given the boot almost at once if he had somehow managed to gatecrash one of Darwin’s dinner parties. So it is a mistake, a monstrous ideological error, to conflate the moderate and delicately nuanced Darwinism of Charles Darwin with the harsh, dog-eat-dog Darwinism of his more extreme and, in some cases, mentally deranged disciples.”
I am not saying that Dawkins is mentally deranged, though many others have said so. I think Dawkins is a genius in his own right. But Dawkins is Dawkins, and Darwin is Darwin, and never the twain shall meet.
—  §  —
Having read through Jonas Alexis’ recent 2-part article (here and here), challenging my pro-Darwinian views, I was impressed by his verbal restraint and dexterity. I felt that his tone throughout was refreshingly polite and civilized, considering he was challenging my views and pointing out how mistaken and confused I was.
I wish to state categorically here, however, that I am in no way “debating” Darwin with Jonas though he appears to be debating Darwin with me! Whereas he is offering an exhaustive point-by-point critique of my article Demonizing Darwin, I am not doing the same for his two articles linked above. Indeed, I hadn’t even read Part 2 of his article (published yesterday on Veterans Today) before writing this article of my own several days ago. My sole concern is to present my own pro-Darwinian views, without any attempt to refute Jonas’s thesis or launch a counter-attack on him for saying how erroneous and confused I am.
I admit to being confused — who isn’t? — and as to having erroneous opinions on Darwin, it would be extremely presumptuous of me to maintain that my opinions on this subject are the correct ones and that anyone who dares to contradict me is wrong. I am only too happy to admit that I “see through a glass darkly”, though seeing through a glass darkly is not something to be happy about.
I was particularly struck by this comment in Part 1 of Jonas’s article:
“Now tell me, Lasha: If Darwinists say that objective morality does not exist—and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Neo-Darwinists do say that—and then appeal to “moral clarity” or even morality to build their system, don’t you think that they are living in contradiction?”
That’s a good point. I happen to agree here with Jonas. So there’s no argument between us.
But Jonas misses my point.
I am defending Darwin, not “the vast majority of neo-Darwinists” who profess to speak in Darwin’s name. As I pointed out in my article in defense of Darwin, there are as many types of Darwinism as there are colors in the rainbow. No two Darwinists think alike. Some are at opposite ends of the Darwinian spectrum, and Darwin is somewhere slapbang in the middle. The mistake Jonas keeps making is his assumption that there is only one type of Darwinism. As a consequence, he falls into the trap of believing that all Darwinists think alike — or, at any rate, that they ought to think alike since they are all grouped under the one banner of “Darwinism”.  Jonas therefore, it seems to me, has the unfortunate tendency of  holding Darwin responsible for every single statement made by the dangerous disciples and spin merchants of Darwin. I am surprised that a man so intelligent and scholarly as Jonas should fall prey to such a hideous logical fallacy. I expected better of him.
Jonas quotes Richard Dawkins as saying:
“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
This statement annoys Jonas. Nay more, it outrages him! Since he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution himself, he resents the implication that he is ignorant, stupid and insane. But his blood positively boils at the thought that he is being called “wicked”. Speaking for myself, I would be flattered if the renowned Richard Dawkins were to take notice of my existence and call me “wicked”. I would be tickled pink. And I would at once forgive him for calling me ignorant, stupid and insane.
But Dawkins is not going to do that in my case, since I happen to believe in the theory of evolution. It makes sense to me. In no way does it threaten my deeply intrenched religious beliefs. God may be a delusion. But only to Dawkins and his disciples. Not to me. I can accept Darwin without kicking God into the bushes.
I think Dawkins is to be forgiven for his little rhetorical flourish and commended for his facility of language. Anyone who can produce such scintillating quotable quotes cannot be all that bad.

dawkins quote

—   §   —
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Darwinism and Dawkinism are two entirely different animals. For my part, I accept Darwin. I do not accept Dawkins. What is the main difference between Darwinism and Dawkinism? Answer: the God Question.
Darwin is an agnostic with theistic inclinations. He accepts the possibility of God. He is like someone who says, “Look, I’m not going to say I believe in God right now. Don’t rush me! Maybe I’ll say I believe in God tomorrow. All I’ll say right now is that I believe God is a distinct possibility. And I wouldn’t be surprised if God should turn out to be the ultimate explanation for the universe.”
I’ve lived with Darwin a long time now and absorbed the man’s  essence, and I know in my bones that this is how Darwin thought and felt. He had a veneration for life. He had seen its beauty and majesty. He had looked into the heart of things and heard “the still, sad music of humanity”.
Darwin’s religious views were full of “fluctuations” — his own words —  changing by the day and mellowing with the years. In 1859, after the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin was still pretty atheistical in some of his pronouncements. For example, this:
“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ [parasitical wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”
But then he adds elsewhere, far less atheistically and more agnostically, with that characteristic modesty of his that is one of his most endearing features: “I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.”
That’s Darwin for you. So beautifully measured. So honest and down to earth. For my part, it’s hard for me not to respect  and admire such a man.
To hate Darwin is to misunderstand him; not to love him is to have missed the way.
He is thinking on our behalf. He is reaching out, like neolithic man looking up at the starry heavens, for the Unknown God — the Hidden God who is so stunningly beautiful that he needs to hide behind a veil.

Charles Darwin

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882)
“I am not the least afraid to die.” — 
Last words

Last sentence of The Origin of Species :  “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
Note. The significant words “by the Creator” did not appear in the the first edition of The Origin of Species, but this omission was corrected by Darwin himself in the second edition of 1860 where the words appeared for the first time. This important emendation was then added to all subsequent editions during Darwin’s lifetime, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh editions. It is hard to see how Darwin could have been an “atheist”, as is often falsely claimed, if he insisted on using the word “Creator” so many times. (Scroll down to end of this Wikiquotes List)
Jonas is factually wrong to say, in Part 2 of his article, that I had “misread Darwin’s views“, when he himself is guilty of the glaring mistake of maintaining the very opposite of the truth here:
Yes, Darwin did say at the end of the Origin of Species that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”[39] But subsequent editions tell us something very different. This is what Darwin later said: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”[40]
Jonas, I regret to say, has got it back to front.
Darwin didn’t change his mind, as Jonas erroneously suggests, by dropping the phrase “BY THE CREATOR” in subsequent editions of The Origin of Speciesand settling for atheism.
On the contrary, the quote Jonas gives above, where the words “by the creator” are omitted, is the correct version only for the first edition of The Origin of Species, published in November 1859.  To all subsequent editions of the book during his lifetime — from the second edition of 1860 to the sixth edition of 1871 — Darwin had added the significant words “BY THE CREATOR”.
Contrary therefore to the false impression Jonas gives, Darwin had moved into theism, not lapsed into atheism! 
—  §  —
Richard Dawkins, however, is the inhabitant of different mental universe and you must not blame Darwin for Dawkins’ profoundly pessimistic, quasi-nihilistic pronouncements. The negative quotes about Dawkins that Jonas provides in his recent anti-Darwin article — “much of the philosophy he [Dawkins] purveys is at best jejune”, “badly flawed”, “an amateur”, “at best sophomoric … unfair to sophomores” — sadly miss the mark. The people who say these bad things about Dawkins are who exactly? Nonentities. Second raters. Relatively untalented ranters probably a bit jealous of Dawkins’ outstanding achievements and accomplishments: his scientific expertise, his genuinely religious awe for the mysteries and marvels of our universe, and his rare gift for rhetoric.
You may not wish to believe a word of this, but it’s so eloquently expressed that you cannot but admire its brilliance:
“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
This is just the kind of comment bound to anger devout Christians and all who believe in some kind of God. But why not let the sad bird sing? Why shoot the pretty songster because its script annoys you? Remember Shelley: “Our sweetest songs are those / that tell of saddest thought.”
Here is Dawkins again. Though I do not like what he says, I can’t help admiring the way he says it. Such lapidary prose, such brilliant use of language, dazzles me with delight and makes me feel I am in the presence of a virtuoso:
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
What we have here is a Godless universe. The Well of Despair. The ultimate expression of nihilism.
NEXT STOP — SUICIDE!
So where do we go from here? Don’t ask me!
I’m just an ant on the window ledge.

Source

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (b.1978) is an Anglo-American ex-academic with higher degrees in Classics whose political articles and poems have been translated into several languages. Most of her political essays can be found at The Occidental Observer and The TruthSeeker. Her own website, Darkmoon.me, is now within the top 1 percent of websites in the world according to the Alexa ranking system.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

INTERVIEW: Albert Einstein – The Incorrigible Plagiarist

Who was Einstein? Not who you think he was! Never expect the truth to come out of the tribe’s mouth. We suggest that from now on, you start doing research on whatever you thought to be a historical fact, if not you are part of the problem and will continue to support their evil plan. 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

COMMENTARY: When New York City Was the Capital of American Communism

This article was not only written by a member of the tribe but published in the NY Times which is completely owned by them. Hasn’t New York City ALWAYS been Capital of American Communism? History proves this. Jacob Schiff was by Rothschild to New York to carry out four specific assignments: 1. And most important, was to acquire control of America’s money-system. 2. Find desirable men, who for a price, would be willing to serve as stooges for the great conspiracy and promote them into high places in our federal government, our Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and all federal agencies. 3. Create minority group strife throughout the nations; particularly between the whites and blacks. 4. Create a movement to destroy religion in the United States, but Christianity to be the chief target. We have seen not only how Schiff and the international Jewish bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution, ever since then, America has been a puppet directed by Jewish Communist interests. Communist America

“When New York City Was the Capital of American Communism,” Source: nytimes.com

The Brooklyn-born playwright and critic Lionel Abel, who cut his political teeth in left-wing circles in Greenwich Village in the 1930s, remarked in his memoirs that during the Depression years, New York City “went to Russia and spent most of the decade there.” Leaving aside Mr. Abel’s taste for the mordant, he had a point.

For a few decades — from the 1930s until Communism’s demise as an effective political force in the 1950s — New York City was the one place where American communists came close to enjoying the status of a mass movement. Party members could live in a milieu where co-workers, neighbors and the family dentist were fellow Communists; they bought life insurance policies (excellent value for money) from party-controlled fraternal organizations; they could even spend their evenings out in nightclubs run by Communist sympathizers (like the ironically named Café Society on Sheridan Square in Greenwich Village, a showcase for up-and-coming black performers like Billie Holliday).

What became the Communist Party U.S.A. (its name varied in the early years) was founded in Chicago in 1919 and, following a period of underground organization, opened its national headquarters in that city in 1921. But the bulk of the movement’s members were in New York, and in 1927 Communist headquarters were shifted to a party-owned building in Manhattan, at 35 East 12th Street, one block south of Union Square. (The building still stands, although under new ownership, and in what has evolved into a considerably less proletarian neighborhood than in the old days.)

New York would remain the capital city of American Communism from then on. Leading communists, including such figures as William Z. Foster and Earl Browder, had their offices on the top floor of the 12th Street building; accordingly, within the movement, it became the custom to refer to party leadership as the “ninth floor.” (And, for some reason, even in non – and anti-Communist left-wing circles, “the party” was always understood to refer to the Communists, rather than any rival organizations.)

Immigrants, many of them of Eastern European Jewish background, provided the main social base for the party in New York City in the 1920s: As late as 1931, four-fifths of the Communists living in the city were foreign-born.

Of course, immigrant radicalism was nothing new in New York. The socialist leader Morris Hillquit, born in Riga, Latvia, won more than a fifth of the votes cast in the 1917 mayoral election. Socialists initially hailed the news of the Bolshevik Revolution, but many of them — except for those who left to become Communists — came in time to understand and oppose the Soviet regime’s abandonment of the left’s traditional democratic and egalitarian ideals.

Neither of the two main rival left-wing parties, Socialists or Communists, enjoyed much success in the 1920s. But with the onset of the Great Depression, Socialists were poised once again to become the dominant party on the left. In the 1932 presidential election, the Socialist candidate, Norman Thomas, won almost nine times the votes that the Communist candidate, Mr. Foster, received. (Neither of them had a fraction of the support of the actual winner, Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

But the balance of power on the left was about to change, and nowhere would that change make itself felt more dramatically than in New York. With the Depression spiraling out of control in the early 1930s, the Soviet Union began to be viewed in a new and more sympathetic light by millions of people around the world, including many in the United States. The “workers’ state”with its planned economy, viewed at a hazy distance and with a lot of wishful thinking, seemed to offer a desirable alternative to the cruel irrationality of a failed capitalist system, with its mass unemployment and widespread social misery.

Marxism-Leninism, Communists proclaimed, was a science, whose practical application by centralized and disciplined revolutionary parties in Europe, the Americas and elsewhere, held the key to unifying the workers of the world. Within a few years of the Nazi seizure of power in Germany in 1933, Soviet leaders shifted their international strategy from promoting world revolution to seeking anti-fascist alliances with Western democratic powers. In the era of the “popular front,” as American Communists stressed the need for anti-fascist unity, they began to win grudging respect in labor and liberal circles, as useful allies in the struggle for social change.

Party members did their best to appear less threatening and less foreign-inspired even as they still praised all things Soviet, proclaiming that Communism was simply “20th-century Americanism.” Communists also reached out to groups they had previously scorned, like the New Deal Democrats, and to politicians, they had previously denounced, like Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia.

For a while, it worked. In cities around the country, from Detroit to Seattle to Los Angeles, Communists began to play a visible and effective role in politics, both local and national. But nowhere were they as successful as in New York.

By 1938, the party counted 38,000 members in New York State, about half its national membership, and most of those living in New York City. Communists were increasingly native-born (although many were the children of immigrants). Party-organized mass meetings in the old Madison Square Garden were packed with as many as 20,000 participants; the annual May Day parades drew tens of thousands, too.

Some neighborhoods in New York could be likened to the “red belt” surrounding Paris: Communist-organized cooperative parties on Allerton Avenue in the Bronx were a strong base of party support, as were parts of East Harlem, Brooklyn, and the Lower East Side. In Harlem, the party’s strong commitment to fighting racism (still quite rare, even on the liberal left) helped it to attract the support of African-Americans across the social spectrum, including some leading artists like actor and singer Paul Robeson.

Communists were central to spreading the gospel of unionism from the garment trades to a host of previously unorganized industries and workplaces, as organizers and officials in the Transport Workers Union, the National Maritime Union, the Teachers Union and the American Newspaper Guild, among others. Ben Gold, the president of the Fur Workers Union, was one of the few labor leaders in the United States who openly avowed his Communist beliefs. A Communist candidate for the presidency of the city’s board of aldermen received nearly 100,000 votes in 1938; and during World War II, two open Communists, Peter V. Cacchione of Brooklyn and Benjamin Davis of Harlem, held seats on the City Council. At City College, Brooklyn College and Columbia University, there were hundreds of members of the Young Communist League, and thousands of students who joined Communist front groups like the American Youth Congress.

In the end, the decade or so that New York City “spent” in Russia came to nothing. The Communist Party’s ties to the Soviet Union, which forced it into the role of apologist for the worst crimes of the Stalin regime, from the Moscow Trials to the Nazi-Soviet Pact, limited its appeal even at the height of its success. With the onset of the Cold War, and of a second Red Scare more pervasive and longer-lasting than the original, Communists found themselves persecuted and isolated.

In 1956, with a hard core of 20,000 or so surviving members, the party was dealt a fatal blow when the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, delivered a “secret speech” to the 20th party congress in Moscow, denouncing his predecessor, Stalin, as a bloody mass murderer. The speech leaked. So did the disillusioned membership of the Communist Party U.S.A., reduced to a few thousand members by 1958, and never recovering much beyond that in decades to come. It did, however, survive the collapse of its political inspiration, the Soviet experiment.

On the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, the national headquarters of the Communist Party U.S.A. remains in New York City, on one floor of a party-owned building at 235 West 23rd Street. Party members are apparently divided over whether to keep the building, which generates considerable rent revenue or make a killing on the real estate market by selling it.

A very capitalist question, in the end, to preoccupy the remaining comrades.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
International jew
—————————————————

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.