If “You Think Darwin Sounds Like A Nazi, There Is A Connection”
I’m hoping SEK will pick this up, since I haven’t any time at all, but suffice it to say that Darwin’s theory, like any powerful theory, is subject to perversion in the hands of the unscrupulous for political purposes. Darwin’s insight was the result of his having an extraordinarily open mind; it is sheer perversion to turn that into a rationale for totalitarianism. (h/t Good Glenn)
Darwin was specifically worried about his work being mis-used in that way at the time…
Dan, I would suggest Duoism, for only one example, as a philosophy that may disagree: Freedom arises not in peace and order, but among diversity, contrast, competition and choice, those being not inconsistent with the natural order.
On the other hand, if Campolo shows Darwin rejected natural competition, then apparently Darwin wanted to alter the evolutionary path…
I’m no authority on the books. Did Darwin say what’s attributed to him there?
It doesn’t negate natural selection to say Darwin himself applied it badly (if he did).
I’m not arguing that he didn’t say those things. I am arguing that the book that is quoted is NEVER a part of the curriculum. There are lots and lots of evolutionary biologists who’ve never read it. To say that the central insights of The Origin of Species, which comprise what IS taught in schools, has a fascistic component is, to my mind, ridiculous.
The Nazis weren’t the only ones to pick up on Darwin and use him for social engineering: the whole freaking fascist movement, including the one here in the U.S., was highly enamored of the idea that humankind can be improved by selective breeding.
It is highly likely that Darwin saw the darker races as inferior: all the other scientists did, too.
Sorry, “experts.”
Margaret Sanger, she who founded Planned Parenthood, hoped that her birth control movement would prevent inferiors from breeding–blacks, browns, reds, the feeble-minded, and anyone else who failed to turn on to the Sublime Eugenics Movement.
You should listen to the experts, dagnabbit! They have only your best interests at heart!
Darwin wasn’t a nazi, but nazis were Darwinists. They just followed the ideas of evolution of species and survival of the fittest to logical conclusions: there is a superior humanity evolving and we’re going to help that process along.
Darwin wasn’t a nazi, but nazis were Darwinists. They just followed the ideas of evolution of species and survival of the fittest to logical conclusions: there is a superior humanity evolving and we’re going to help that process along.
What seems to be getting overlooked is the Eugenics movement is extinct, and the Nazi’s are bordering on the edge. Darwin works in mysterious ways.
Think of these two evils as cockroaches: you have to keep stomping on them or they’ll breed behind your back. Don’t count either out.
In any case the philosophy of both was based on Darwin’s writing, they simply were logically consistent – people now want the Darwinism without the consequences because it helps them avoid other uncomfortable consequences.
Just to be really damn annoying, it’s a misnomer to talk about, “Survival of the fittest.” It is much more proper to say, “Non-survival of the least fit.” That’s how the mechanism theoretically works, anyway.
Yeah, I know it doesn’t ring as well in the ears.
You can see how it works with modern-day human evolution. Since we have removed many of the stumbling blocks for survival (disease, famine, etc.), the gene pool has sort of spread out over the evolutionary landscape. I would certainly not call it the fittest group of individuals in the overall sense, and we certainly have huge subsets surviving that probably wouldn’t if the landscape were more competitive.
BTW, 100 years ago I would’ve been long dead due to disease, so I’m not being high and mighty and claiming I’m one of “the good ones” or anything like that.
Short version (long one to follow later, time permitting): This is the problem with Goldberg’s book — it encourages this kind of politico-historical stupidity. There’s nothing fascistic about Darwinian thought, mostly because (as the first commenter noted) Darwin specifically said these conclusions were invalid (as least in The Origin). As for The Descent of Man, it’s concerned with sexual selection and Darwin 1) was a monogeist, believing that all races shared common descent and 2) believed the differences between races to be the result of non-adaptive processes. (Despite the idea that Africans are better suited to live in tropical climates — a canard then, still one now — Darwin could make nothing of the differences between “white” people. One thing to remember here is that “black” was and is a socially constructed category. In Darwin’s time, the Irish were considered “black” — or, more generally, “non-white,” and he could find no appreciable adaptive differences between the Irish and the English.)
If you want to talk about eugenics, you need to address the work of Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton. Galton was the one who identified “good” and “bad” traits, then demonstrated that they existed in higher/lower frequencies among certain families/populations. But what he didn’t (and couldn’t) advocate is what we call “eugenics,” since the means and mechanism of inheritance weren’t known. Mendel wouldn’t be rediscovered until 1900, and the Modern Synthesis wouldn’t be made until the 1930s. So yes, there’s something profoundly stupid about the claim that Darwin is the intellectual forebear of Nazism, and is thus, himself, somehow fascistic. Racist? Most certainly, as was almost every other educated person alive at the time.
I mean, if we’re going to call everything the Nazis incorporated proto-fascistic, we could always focus on their efficiency fetish, which came from Noted Liberal Philosopher Frederick Winslow Taylor.
So you’ve read Goldberg’s book and he doesn’t do that, SEK?
Darwin would me a good name for a turtle. I haven’t named mine yet.
Oh. That should be *be* a good name for a turtle. Probably not so much for the alpha turtle, but for the other one I think.
Would this be a good time to bring up Margaret Sanger and the liberal embrace of her life’s work?
Oh, yeah: by adopting themselves into a “race” that they were nearly totally unconnected to.
It’s a great time to bring that up again, Pabs.
;P
As long as I’m not Jonah Goldberg, I guess. Because really, I don’t want Frank J. gunning for my shit.
I was actually referring to omment-cay ive-fay.
I see. Whew! That’s a relief. Especially since there’s no fascist based movement in the US, nor has there ever been. And American liberals don’t have any firmly held beliefs rooted in any such fascist soil.
Because that Goldberg fella, he’s just making shit up. And encouraging others to do likewise. Like dicenta, obviously. Right, Scott?
*moons Frank J.*
Anyone can stick “Darwin!” in their Nazi/Progressive/whatever eugenic litany, and they usually do, but it doesn’t fit.
eugenics : Darwinian selection :: socialism : anarcho-capitalism
Name one who was.
Not one who said he was — one who was.
That’s not a principle of Darwin’s; it’s just a thing that happens.
“Limited reproductive success of the least likely to produce reproductively successful offspring” is nearer to the point.
But no one can yell “Nazi!” at that.
I don’t understand how Frank J. comes into it exactly.
Yup, I was just doing Jonah’s bidding: seeing fascism under every rock and pointing it out, yo.
Goldberg bends over backwards to NOT equate everything that the Nazis supported as fascist in essence. That eugenics thing? Not excluded.
But he doesn’t excoriate Darwin as a proto-Nazi, either. I DID pick up on that part.
Oh, yeah: by adopting themselves into a “race†that they were nearly totally unconnected to.
yeah, well nobody called the scheme sane or intelligent, but it was consistent with Darwinism.
Name one who was.
Not one who said he was  one who was.
All of them. They held to his theories and based their racial purity concepts on them. So did Eugenicists. It’s pretty simple: previous, weaker, less evolved humans being replaced by more evolved ones, let’s help the process along by getting rid of those competing for resources. One could even call it your duty, as the fitter, more evolved race.
“Africans are better suited to live in tropical climates  a canard then, still one now”
Do they have higher incidences of HbS (sickle cell hemoglobin)? Being heterozygous for HbS confers resistance to malaria. I would think that all of us have very subtle genetic differences like that. I believe that such differences are largely immaterial in assessing the individual (at least as far as things such as being heterozygous for HbS; being homozygous for it would have to be taken into account, insofar as it causes a definite disease state that an employer, e.g., would need to know about).
As to eugenics, I teach my students the Michaelis-Menten equation, more properly known as the Michaelis-Menten equation with the Briggs-Haldane modification. Check out J.B.S. Haldane. But I still teach a little about his work, even if he was a crackpot in some areas.
The Nazi’s may have borrowed from Darwin, but at best it was a bastardization. For example, if the Aryans were the most fit, home come they lost WWI? They would have adapted the theory to account for a reason why their clear superiority was suppressed, like, for example, because of the dastardly evil plans of the Jews.
‘feets, I think it started here before it took on a life of its own.
Whoops! Don’t nobody tell thor, k?
Al Maviva, I’m not sure what the “that” is you’re referring to. But yes, I have read Goldberg’s book, and it is that laughably bad. He included some argumentative escape pods — he’s stupid, but savvy — so that he can equate liberal policy with Nazism in one chapter and, when called on it, can point to statements that he’s not equating liberal policy with Nazism. The problem is, some people can remember that what he argues contradicts what he says:
Liberals are like Nazis. Liberals are like Nazis. Liberals are like Nazis. Liberals are like Nazis. Liberals are like Nazis.
[…]
Not that I’m equating liberals with Nazis, mind you.
Then, on his blog, he’ll write a post saying:
This person claims I say liberals are like Nazis. He obviously didn’t read my book with the same careful attention to detail with which I crafted it, because right there on page four I wrote “Not that I’m equating liberals with Nazis, mind you.”
So yes, Pablo, I do think Goldberg is making shit up. He’s doing it a bit more deviously than I would’ve thought him capable, but he’s still cherry-picking the historical record and playing fast and loose with ideological affiliations. (His easy equation of turn-of-the-last-century Progressives with contemporary liberals, for example, is facile and relies on his eliding the many, many ways in which they’re absolutely nothing alike.)
Especially since there’s no fascist based movement in the US, nor has there ever been. And American liberals don’t have any firmly held beliefs rooted in any such fascist soil.
By this standard, Goldberg’s silly argument can easily be turned around on conservatives: the cult of masculinity, economic imperialism, and militarism are a hallmark of contemporary conservatism. Therefore, CONSERVATIVES ARE FASCISTS! The fact that I’m ignoring all the ways in which conservatives aren’t fascists to make my case points to how empty of value Goldberg’s argument is. The only people who buy it are people who want to believe that liberals are the real fascists. They’re not — at least no more nor less than contemporary conservatives are.
Oh. I wish Frank J every success I guess. Persistence is key.
Liberals are kinda like Nazis with the carbon dioxide demonization thing I think. I really do. These poor little molecules are the new Jews really. Never again, I say.
happyfeet, the Frank J reference is here.
The book-throwing Pablo is referring to is a question Frank J asks of Jonah:
Ahhh, Haldane (1949) “It is generally admitted that liberty demands equality of opportunity. It is not equally realized that it also demands a variety of opportunities and a tolerance of those who fail to conform to standards which may be culturally desirable but are not essential for the functioning of society.”
LEAVE THE NERDS ALONE!!111!!!
Hilarious, this guy thinks someone drawing parallels in thought between liberal use of fascist rhetoric and tactics means he believes liberals are equal to nazis. His entire argument seems to be “I read the book and it pissed me off.”
Frank J is funny. I stopped reading him cause turning off javascript made Firefox crash on his site at one point when I had this one firewall running.
Mr. Scott Eric, if it’s for real that easy I think you’re missing a super market opportunity. I bet a book called Conservative Fascism would totally get you on all the NPR shows at least twice. Let me know if you need a blurb.
Does anyone remember what time the next meeting of the Cult of Masculinity is? I don’t want to be late – it was bad enough the last time when I didn’t have time to change out of my dual-purpose economic imperialism/militarist uniform and that whole jackboots and jodhpurs thing really clashed with the vestments at the ritual. Rove was not pleased.
I honestly want to hear a good explanation for how on earth the left can justify their multiculturalism and protection of the other yet condemn absolutely the nazis. They clearly were a minority that was oppressed by the Europeans, they made huge strides toward women’s rights, most of the leadership was gay, they’re an incredibly oppressed minority today… why don’t they qualify?
I’m still on probation cause someone reported seeing me drinking a Manhattan straight up. I swear I just didn’t know.
Goldberg correctly identifies which types of ideas were embraced by which types of people back in the WWI, WWII era.
He also correctly notes that “the cult of masculinity, economic imperialism, and militarism” are no longer embraced by today’s Progressives.
Unless you count the “moral equivalent of war” as militarism.
But let’s get straight what the terms “right” and “left” mean:
Left = more government
Right = less government
Fascism = The State as God, who will make humanity Big and Strong (masculinism; 1984) or will Take Care Of You (feminism; Brave New World).
= Let’s all Work Together to make sure that No Child Is Left Behind.
= Let’s create a New Man, better than the old one: better, stronger faster.
= The leader of the movement intuitively, mystically knows what the people need, s/he feels their pain and knows EXACTLY what they need.
= Democracy and capitalism and Christianity are outdated, we need to sweep them away (or reform them from the inside) so that we can Make Progress.
= The Experts will tell us what to do, and we can trust them with our whole souls because they are Experts.
= Anyone who refuses to participate in this project is at best hurting things and at worst is Dangerous; they should at least be marginalized (or sterilized, or imprisoned, or exiled, or executed).
On the other hand…
Classical Liberalism = People can’t be trusted with very much power; set up a government that permits some essential governmental functions but that prevents any one party from getting too much power.
= Tyrrany (or totalitarianism) is the greatest political evil; liberty is the greatest political good
= When you give people enough free rein to determine their own destinies, some will screw up horribly, and others will make incredible discoveries, invent wonderful things, and create wonderful institutions
= Or not, but people, who function better in the wild than in a zoo, deserve the chance to hammer out their destinies according to their own consciences.
= It’s better to put as much power at the local levels, because that makes for greater accountability.
Now maybe Scott looks at those definitions of Fascism that I listed above and sees them as a recipe for dystopia the way the rest of us do.
But Hillary? She wrote the book on the Mother State. Obama? Who knows what he’ll do, but he’s right now playing the role of Fascist Messiah to the letter.
So. Which camp is closer to the Fascists (not Nazis, Fascists): those who want a bigger, nanny-state government, or those who want government to back the hell off?
Hilarious, this guy thinks someone drawing parallels in thought between liberal use of fascist rhetoric and tactics means he believes liberals are equal to nazis.
“This guy” would be the guy Dan wanted to comment on this post, so someone thinks his opinion is of (at least) minimal value. And, for the record — because, honestly, I like the record, and want it to be accurate — I didn’t say that Goldberg is drawing parallels between “liberal use of fascist rhetoric.” In fact, I said Goldberg does the very opposite, inasmuch as he claims liberals tar conservatives with fascist rhetoric while enacting fascist policy themselves … not that he’s calling liberals fascist, mind you.
Seriously, if you fall for this, I will chip in money for the helmet you so desperately need. The world is full of The Corner, er, corners, my friend, and it’s best you don’t trip into them.
happy, I’d be more than, um, happy to have a blurb from you, but sadly I’m too busy writing an actual work of scholarship, complete with an argument made with such care and in such detail blah blah blah, that I can’t stop to write hack-work. (Not even if it’ll land me on NPR.)
That said, I think most of you know that I’m writing about social Darwinism, don’t you? About how it didn’t exist, how it was a bogeyman created by Richard Hofstadter to justify the New Deal ex post facto? Because I’m actually working with much of the same source material Goldberg’s research assistants skimmed. This isn’t a partisan thing for me, since my dissertation will condemn the New Deal demonization of capitalism, I mean, um, celebrate and champion how wonderful all liberals always are!
What’s wrong with Eugenics? Its fairly obvious to me that the race we know as “Leftists” have been long left on the scrap pile of history -and if you need proof, just ask yourself this. How come they don’t know it?
Could it be an inferior awareness of the workings of human nature and the universe in general? “No God, thank god! Which leaves ME in charge…”
I think it would take a monumental effort on my part to have Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and all the other two bit genocidal Socialistas right in front of my face, and STILL say that their path is the one to follow. “But those guys just didn’t execute right!” (pun intended)
But thinking outside the box is a hallmark of the Leftist race. I mean, you gotta like the idea of taking a brand new Cadillac, destroying the engine, and then wondering why it won’t take you to town anymore.
Just how stupid can a human be?
Apparently, with the Leftist race, the answer is: “pretty”.
Get out the Bass-o-matics, ladies and gents. Eugenics is just alright with me…
(Please note: T-I-C)
Secrets?
Wait until recess. On the playground, me and you. My jump-rope won’t be used for jumping today.
Did he really use research assistants? I mean that’s fine for some stuff but not for really integral source material I don’t think. That’s a lot Al Franken really. I only say this cause I picked up the book at this place down the street where they had it for like $37 bucks and he uses lots of footnotes to where it looks like for real scholarship, and also to where I figured I wouldn’t actually read it cause it looked so ponderous.
I said Goldberg does the very opposite, inasmuch as he claims liberals tar conservatives with fascist rhetoric while enacting fascist policy themselves … not that he’s calling liberals fascist, mind you.
He doth protest too much, methinks. But I think he’s not backing off the term “fascist” so much as he’s trying to maintain a bright line between popular fascism and the Hitlerian horrorfest with which we currently associate the term “fascist.”
Right now, when leftists say “Bushitler,” they’re saying that he’s as mercilessly authoritarian as Hitler and every bit as evil. When they accuse someone on the right of being a “fascist,” they’re not accusing them of denouncing capitalism, democracy, and Christianity and blazing the way for a New Man and a new, better society.
So while Goldberg can historically unite the terms “progressive” and “fascist,” he wants to emphasize that he’s not referring to connotations of “evil” and “Holocaust” and “racist” and “militarist.” Just to the all-encompassing government Who Will Make It All Better part.
I honestly want to hear a good explanation for how on earth the left can justify their multiculturalism and protection of the other yet condemn absolutely the nazis. They clearly were a minority that was oppressed by the Europeans, they made huge strides toward women’s rights, most of the leadership was gay, they’re an incredibly oppressed minority today… why don’t they qualify?
I’m trying to remember whether I’ve read anything dumber recently, but for the life of me can’t. This, my friend, is pure pot-logic. Next thing you know, like, you’ll be asking me, dude, like if the universe is everything and it’s expanding, like what is it expanding into?
dicentra,
Nice to see someone else has read the book.
He also correctly notes that “the cult of masculinity, economic imperialism, and militarism†are no longer embraced by today’s Progressives.
And who are those values embraced by now? And who might I therefore call fascist, were I as intellectually dishonest as Goldberg?
But let’s get straight what the terms “right†and “left†mean …
If it were that easy, we could do without historians. (Granted, Goldberg would rather it be that easy, and he’d rather do without historians, but that’s beside the point.) Point being, we can’t easily pin down what “left” and “right” have meant throughout European and Anglo-American history. It’s just not possible. We can talk about strains of thought, but those strains weave their way through this left and that right, then that left and this right, such that by the time you reach the present, you’ve a worm-track through your terrarium.
Quick example: I wrote about Herbert Spencer tonight. Now, I want you to place him on the contemporary ideological spectrum. He was a free-market advocate, coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” but he also wrote movingly about altruism and the responsibilities of the State. Is he a liberal? Is he a conservative? Please, I’d like to know where you think he falls on the (contemporary) ideological spectrum.
The State as God, who will make humanity Big and Strong (masculinism; 1984) or will Take Care Of You (feminism; Brave New World).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Mitt just say that only Republicans can protect us from Osama? So the Republicans are fascist?
Let’s all Work Together to make sure that No Child Is Left Behind.
So Bush is a fascist?
The leader of the movement intuitively, mystically knows what the people need, s/he feels their pain and knows EXACTLY what they need.
That’s why we elected The Decider.
Democracy and capitalism and Christianity are outdated, we need to sweep them away (or reform them from the inside) so that we can Make Progress.
Which is why we must bulwark failing industries to make sure they don’t go out of business and regulate the economy, like Reagan did.
The Experts will tell us what to do, and we can trust them with our whole souls because they are Experts.
Do you really want to discuss Nixon and the rise of the technocrat? Because I’m game if you are.
Anyone who refuses to participate in this project is at best hurting things and at worst is Dangerous; they should at least be marginalized (or sterilized, or imprisoned, or exiled, or executed).
I mean, gah, no comment necessary.
Seriously, I mean, seriously. I don’t write this to disprove what you’ve written, or to say that it isn’t applicable to liberals. I write this because what you say is equally applicable to conservatives, which is why Goldberg’s argument’s so damn vacuous. I mean, really, should we bring up the erosion of civil liberties, the gifting of our civil rights to a benevolent government that “knows better” than we do the threat the terrorists pose?
Mostly though I think the blue hat guy just wanted to make a play for some Amazon scratch. Jeff never does that. He should. I’d probably buy books and other stuff a lot even if I never read them cause I’m highly suggestible and impulsive. Definitely he should do this before I get my tax rebate.
Did he really use research assistants? I mean that’s fine for some stuff but not for really integral source material I don’t think.
Well, he said he did.* Plus, he tried to enlist me as an unpaid one before he realized I’d be like all honest and stuff.
*There’s actually nothing inherently wrong with research assistants. (Lord knows, I’d kill for one.) When used correctly — “Hey kid, make sure my notes here jibe with the original text, and see if you can’t find some more passages along the sames lines,” &c. — they’re like your own personal search engines. But when used incorrectly — “Hey kid, do a Proquest search for the word ‘fascist’ and copy every text in which a liberal-something-or-other might maybe praises it,” &c. — they’re a formula for Whig history.
I mean, really, should we bring up the erosion of civil liberties, the gifting of our civil rights to a benevolent government that “knows better†than we do the threat the terrorists pose?
None of my civil liberties have been eroded. Anyone else lose theirs?
None of my civil liberties have been eroded. Anyone else lose theirs?
Just because you don’t know which emails Carnivore’s snooped or which phone calls have been recorded doesn’t mean your civil liberties haven’t been violated.
Also, the suspension of habeas corpus for, um, people who the government doesn’t think deserves habeas corpus might not be a violation of your civil liberties, but it’s certainly a violation of someone’s. What I find odd is that people who don’t believe the government can count to five on one hand possesses the knowledge to know, with absolute certainty, who does and doesn’t deserve habeas corpus.
(There may be an extra “s” in the previous comment.)
Well there was this one time where the scanner lady at the airport stoled my antiperspirant. It was a 4-oz thinger it said on the package and you can only have 3-oz thingers. I said but look lady it’s half used and the lady behind me in line said he’s right. She was really brave to speak up like that I thought. A true American. The scanner lady wasn’t having it though and she gave me this look that said I better shut up and hand over the antiperspirant if I knew what was good for me so I did.
I was dead certain I saw Carnivore violating my civil liberties a moment ago, but I could have been mistaken. Dadgum uncertainty. Dadgum faulty peripheral vision.
Fucking Bill Clinton eroding my civil liberties with Carnivore. Goddamit. First he inflicts us with the mental pairing of that pig-face Lewinsky and blow jobs, arguing about the meaning of is, and now the weak-hearted fucker is intruding on my emails! Will the fucker never let me be at peace?!?!
I guess we can quibble all we want on whether terrorists taking up arms against American soldiers, hiding amongst civilians, should have the benefit of habeus. Funny, with all of the teeth gnashing, all of these fuckers seems to be getting their day in court.
happyfeet – My better half did the same thing coming home from Utah, except that kind little proto-Mitt let her through. I think it had something to do with her being hot, and nice, and prego, and a minority. People do not know how to say no to that combination.
I’m glad, JD. I’d never been so scared or felt so small and powerless.
@ #49
Hap, at the rate you’re going you’ll wind up in gitmo, Lickety-Split.
hf – It is amazing what pregnant women can get away with.
Not always, JD.
Well, I’ve learned my lesson – I will never again read the comments to a post that asks for input from SEK.
It’s like being the guy without genital herpes in the Valtrex ad who’s dipping it in the chick with the warts. It just ain’t worth it.
I think the question is not whether there has been encroachment on our civil liberties, but rather is the reasoning behind it sound enough to justify it. I think, in the short term at least, the answer is yes. I believe that the history of this country backs that up.
Interestingly, in addition to Carnivore coming to life under Clinton, he also signed into law the AEDPA, which put limits on habeas in the fight on terrorism. It’s sort of funny that this particular limit never comes seems to come up amongst the civil rights absolutists. I am not including you in that camp SEK, because I don’t actually know where you stand on the issue.
comes seems is longhand for seems for those who don’t proofread.
Everything in the quote at Driscoll’s place was utter crap:
He never proposed the extermination of any. This is an idiotic lie. Darwin was an abolitionist. He may have believed they would be exterminated, but that is drastically different from proposing it. He’s just too stupid to know the difference.
No, he didn’t. He argued precisely the opposite: “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the
manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor
could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without
deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden
himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for
the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak
and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an
overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad
effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears
to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and
inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this
check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind
refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than
expected. (Descent of Man)
Darwin’s ideas did not lead to the Nazis, they were banned (in some cases) by the Nazis, and were described as a Jewish plot in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hitler was a creationist, in Mein Kampf he rejected common descent and held creationist views on “kinds”. (If you look it up, do a search for the word “fox”). That people can point to Nazi biologists who referred to Darwin’s theories has more to do with them being biologists than with them being Nazis. The idea that hatred of Jews began with Darwin is absurd.
Bleah, should have proofread that better.
“Consistent with”? Is there natural selection in an unfounded belief that some of us are sorta-kinda pureblooded Aryans, and furthermore that said Aryans were near-perfect beings? Is there anything at all Darwin theorized in the Nazi Master Race notion, other than maybe the Master Race might breed true? Curse you, Gregor Mendel!
I’m not seeing it, I have to say.
Ones based on a poorly-understood culture, thousands of years old, that had pretty much died out.
If that’s their best effort at evolving, they’re doing it wrong.
You, sir, are either certifiable, or a devious prankster who is snorting back the laughter.
I really hope it’s the latter.
But let’s get straight what the terms “right” and “left” mean …
If it were that easy, we could do without historians.
I’m down with that. :D
I know how hard it is to define “right” and “left.” At this moment in history, in the United States, “right” means “limited government” and “left” means “bigger government.” We go from there.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Mitt just say that only Republicans can protect us from Osama? So the Republicans are fascist?
The Fascist government intends to micromanage your life to make sure that Nothing Bad Ever Happens To You, like unemployment, serious illness, risk, discouragement, obesity, etc.
The Classical Liberal government is expressly tasked to provide for the common defense, or some stupid thing. Something the people absolutely cannot do for themselves as individuals.
So Bush is a fascist?
Yes, the impulse behind Bush’s domestic policies are largely fascist, as is most “compassionate conservative” bunk.
That’s why we elected The Decider.
Uh, no cult or personality surrounding Bush, because then he’d NEED a personality. Unfortunately, he’s a man much like his father–bland and unimpressive.
Which is why we must bulwark failing industries to make sure they don’t go out of business and regulate the economy, like Reagan did.
To the extent the Reagan used the levers of government to aid Industry, then yeah, he behaved like a fascist.
Do you really want to discuss Nixon and the rise of the technocrat? Because I’m game if you are.
Notice how I’m not denying that fascism can pop up in the GoP? Notice all the caterwauling about McCain being nominated? Hear the hue and cry in 2006 about our moronic congresscritters? Many conservatives are freaking fed up with the slow slide left of BOTH parties. Sometimes Repubs will slow the growth of government, but they don’t see their way clear to “take a weed whacker” to the onerous undergrowth we’ve accumulated over the decades.
Yeah, the GoP does it too. Because when you’re in elected office, the easiest way to get votes is to promise people stuff. Somehow, “Get off your Spoiled American Tukus” doesn’t rally the crowds as well as “Change we can believe in!”
I write this because what you say is equally applicable to conservatives, which is why Goldberg’s argument’s so damn vacuous.
I guess you didn’t see the chapter (which I haven’t read yet) where he excoriates the “right” for indulging fascist impulses. Or should I call it the Totalitarian Temptation? Because I don’t think that the word “fascism” is going to be useful for anything but calling people Hitlerian for the nonce.
I mean, really, should we bring up the erosion of civil liberties, the gifting of our civil rights to a benevolent government that “knows better” than we do the threat the terrorists pose?
I have a hard time seeing the Bush admin putting itself in the role of “expert” in this case. The information about what the terrorists are up to is not that hard to find or interpret, compared to, say, climatological studies, which though available, are hard for Joe Average to interpret.
It’s Bush’s job to make decisions about the WoT: not because he’s an “expert” but because he’s CiC. We can all disagree with him if we want (and many people, including his staff, do). If you believe that he’s hyping the crisis to enlarge his powers, then be my guest, but that all ends up being a matter of opinion rather than an objective fact.
Creating a global organization made up of “experts” (who would be accountable to no one) to regulate carbon emissions based on extremely tenuous data, thus putting them in charge of the world’s economy?
Now THAT’s certifiably “Progressive.”
Bush is magnificent. There were all kinds of policy trade-offs he had to make cause of the fags like John Warner and Lindsay Wagner – and this list could go on awhile – he had to work with in the Senate. On the important stuff he done good. I love him to pieces, really.
I’m trying to remember whether I’ve read anything dumber recently, but for the life of me can’t. This, my friend, is pure pot-logic. Next thing you know, like, you’ll be asking me, dude, like if the universe is everything and it’s expanding, like what is it expanding into?
Someday we’re going to have to have a nice long talk about sarcasm.
Unless it’s true what they say about liberals and humor….
Oh, and since Dan went to the trouble of having a topic and everything,
1) People like to lumber Darwin with Nazis, despite the little they have in common and the fact that Darwin was “selected out” before the Nazis got their groove on. Nietzsche gets lumbered unfairly with that baggage as well, but at least he was a philosopher. And, late it life, barmy. People draw connections between things because we want ANSWERS, we want life to make sense. In a sick way, all this blaming is healthy because it means we don’t really understand the sick bastards, so we have to keep trying to explain them.
Anyway.
2) Haven’t read Goldberg’s book yet, the premise is rational enough to anyone who’s been on a college campus in the last couple of decades. Doesn’t mean the whole book is valid, but given who it pokes in the eye, I’m sure it’s been the subject of a lot of “deconstruction” and framing, so I’m less interested than I normally would be of criticism – unless I’m intimately familiar with the critic’s agenda. And sense of humor, sorry SEK.
As was pointed out upthread, Francis Galton…
Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, at Harvard University. From his book “This is Biology”, p. 246.
In theory, if not in execution.
Loved her in The Bionic Woman.
Which, for no reason at all, brings the following song lyrics to mind:
Opening number of the best live album of all time.
I’m trying to remember whether I’ve read anything dumber recently, but for the life of me can’t. This, my friend, is pure pot-logic.
I agree, that’s why I’m asking how leftists can cling to this position. It makes no sense, but it’s the kind of thing that arises in a cloud from a bong. How do you manage to justify these two positions? What is the argument used?
[…] a post discussing Darwin’s contributions to Hitler, I found a better scapegoat… “But what about artificial selection for superior […]
So, basically, SEK’s reaction to Goldberg’s book is a hardy “AM NOT!!!”
First, Merovign, you see my sense of humor’s intact. He wasn’t kidding. He’s spouting the old “but how can you call yourselves ‘tolerant’ when you’re intolerant of intolerance!” canard.
Second, Rob, have you read anything I’ve written here? (Answer: Obviously Not.)
Rob Crawford: pretty much, but in a much more wordy manner. He asserts things and then refutes them, without actually refuting Goldberg’s points.
Incidentally, anyone who wants to read a previous, less political take on the topic check out Gene Edward Veith’s “Modern Fascism” written ten years earlier. Great book.