41
true believers out there, let us simply look to Darwin’s own words to see what social consequences he himself devel- oped from his Malthusian premises:
“We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of do- mestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (2)
Upon reading such indicting thoughts from Darwin’s own pen, we must wonder why such disciples as Richard Dawkins have not renounced the Darwinian/eugenics model in favor of a system far less fascist? The following excerpt from the 2006 article “Eugenics May Not Be Bad” by Dawkins reveals much of the thinking which modern geneticists have concluded as being the necessary basis of breeding better humans:
"IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be im- possible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one- dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musi- cal ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good
ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" (3)
So we come full circle. Darwin was a Malthusian, and Dar- win’s followers are eugenicists, and eugenists created the environmentalist movement to revive the ghost of Malthus. All this to attempt to justify the elimination of the unfit by an oligarchical master class who wish to maintain a “scientific dictatorship”. This is the new Satanic religion which is in the midst of fulfilling the nightmarish social model of T.H. Huxley’s grand children who wrote Brave
New World and dedicated their lives to putting it into prac-
tice. This is the model for a new dark age guiding humanity into an artificially induced extinction by nuclear war. It is only by passing Glass-Steagall and reviving the LaRouche Plan for a world economic recovery that the scientific fact of man’s creative nature shall have any hope of being pre- served, such that a new Renaissance may once again blos- som.
(2) Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, New York, Clarke Given and Hooper Publishers, reprint from 2nd Edition, 1871, p.152
(3) Richard Dawkins, "Eugenics May Not Be Bad", Scot- land's Sunday Herald, Nov. 19, 2006
High Priest Richard Dawkins. Just another Nazi
Disclaimer: Darwin’s astute observation that the selective breeding of humans along Malthusian lines is the logical outgrowth of his system was in conflict with his own moral inclinations evidenced by the following quote also from The Descent of Man:
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an inci- dental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previ- ously 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.”
This serves as evidence that unlike T.H. Huxley and the British oligarchy using Darwin for their own satanic ends, Darwin himself was tragically mournful of the undeniable social consequences of his own system. Darwin was nothing but a tool.