Social Darwinism :
The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.
A long time ago I became interested in why evil people, why people like Beria can kill millions and still sleep at night. Human nature often is a study of contradictions as most of us share a little of the best and worst of human nature. But some of us are capable of things that make the rest of us vomit and still be able to enjoy a fine meal afterwords. So why do they do this? Some of the most frightening criminals operated on Machiavellian principles that were used to justify some of the worst crimes against humanity. One of these principles was Social Darwinism.
Creationism or Evolution?
That is the result from a quick search of Social Darwinism on the net. Just to start off, I am not a fan of Nietzsche or Malthus, and remember well that Hitler used the theory to justify the evils of National Socialism. (By the way, is it not odd that anything National Socialism embraced is evil when on the other hand, the two bigger killers of humanity are Stalin and Mao, and liberals continue to embrace Communism and it’s child, Socialism.) Hitler was an evil man but he was right in one respect, culture does play a major role in the destiny of a society. (And no, in no way, does it justify what he did. He also thought the Treaty of Versailles was unfair, which it was, but was a lot nicer then the terms the Kaiser would have proposed if he won or Hitler if he had…) Any biologist would agree that an organism’s ability to defend itself and to procreate affects it’s survivability, so why would it be the case also be for societies, culture, and for sociologists. So with this in mind, I want to coin a new term:
Cultural Darwinism. The theory that the values and beliefs of a culture determine it’s relative survivability against other competing cultures.
So, is there anything to this idea? Have liberal values affected our country’s birthrate and ability to defend itself? Notice how birthrates have fallen in secular societies and in heavily liberal states in the United States. The Free Republic notes that in socialist Europe wolves are taking the place of people as Europe will lose 41 million people by 2030 even with continued immigration.
European Birth Rate Declines
The natural increase in Europe’s population is slowing and may start a steep decline within a few decades, researchers say.
Researchers writing in the journal Science said European population growth reached a turning point in the year 2000 when the number of children dropped to a level that statistically assured there will be fewer parents in the next generation than there are in the current generation.
In effect, the authors say, the momentum for population growth in the 15-nation European Union has flipped from positive to negative and the trend could strongly influence population numbers throughout the 21st century.
“If the current fertility rate of around 1.5 births per woman persists until 2020, negative momentum will result in 88 million fewer people in 2100, if one assumes constant mortality and no net migration,” the researchers say. The EU population in 2000 was about 375 million.
from CBS News
Worried European governments are crafting natalist policies to nudge couples to have more children, from offering better child care to monthly stipends keyed to family size. But why are these policies necessary in the first place? I used to date a liberal feminist who demeaned her sister when she chose to be a stay at home mom and once wished her mom had not “wasted her life” raising her. And to repeat what I said in Sacrificing Society on an Alter of Choice, how can a philosophy that celebrates abortion rather then motherhood not be destructive? On an alter of choice more babies have been aborted since Roe then all the deaths in the Civil War, World War I, and WWII combined.
But what about the other criteria of survivability, the ability to defend yourself? As a case in point, Traditional France lost a quarter millions soldiers in one battle, (Verdun) but secular France lost 9 men in one battle (Afghanistan) and pulled their troops. Secularism simply cannot defend itself adequately. For another example, let’s take a look at the dismal record of liberal Jimmy Carter’s joke of a foreign policy.
Carter once described Yugoslav strongman Marshal Josef Tito as “a man who believes in human rights.” Regarding North Korea’s dearly departed Kim Il-Sung, Carter found him “vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country,” adding “I don’t see that [North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.”
He was similarly generous regarding Manuel Noriega, Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu and, of course, Yasser Arafat. He said of Ceausescu and himself, “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”
Almost all of the humanitarian activities of the Carter Foundation abroad have been in direct opposition to US foreign policy. Carter called Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil” was “overly simplistic and counterproductive.”
from Vcrisis
Carter was shocked when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Bill Clinton was attacked by Al-Qaeda repeatedly and did nothing until the Lewinski scandal. An now it is the likes of Dean and Murtha that follow along in this proud tradition. A culture that demonizes and handicaps it’s own military and views it’s enemies higher their own country is not only weak, but suicidal. Simply, how can you defeat the enemy when you cannot even recognize the enemy or even name the enemy? The lying media won’t even call some terrorists what they are, terrorists.
Names are everything. A good name makes good ideas sound bad and bad ideas sound good. Take the ACLU. The ACLU was founded by Communists and is dedicated to destroying Christian values in this country. But they cannot call themselves the Anti Christian Communists Union, because then they will not get as much money. Liberals are called Liberals because they have standing armies to protect them. Without a standing army, liberals would have another name or two, namely the enslaved or dead. (by the way, how many liberals choose to serve their country and serve in the military?) Sadly, because of the defects in human nature, there will always be war. And those that believe that this will change, and that you can stop evil by being nice to it also goes by the name of liberal, but in another time they were called the stupid, or simple, or delusional. But it does not matter if one has a bad idea if you can make it sound good and demonize those that do not agree with you. For those that control names control words, and thus thoughts and society. And that is the danger.
Here’s a recent editorial from the Chronically San Franciscan by a Professor Robert Jensen,
Men Being Men is a Bad deal: Guys Should Evolve Beyond Masculinity:
“Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women, but for us. We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It’s time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.”
Amazingly, in Jenson’s bizarro world, our worst social problems are not caused by an absence of real men, but by their very presence: “masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control ‘their’ women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery.”
Leftist that he is, Jensen is confusing the horizontal category of mere biological maleness and the vertical psycho-spiritual achievement of true manhood. And naturally, “if we are going to jettison masculinity, we have to scrap femininity along with it. We “have to stop assuming” that masculinity and femininity even matter anymore.
The idea that getting rid of masculinity should be absurd to most anyone, but it is not to some that teach our young adults and influence their values. The thought that a demasculinized society will roll over in the face of an aggressor should seem obvious, but it is not to the permanently simple. Like with any species, what determines the survivability of a nation is it’s ability to defend itself and ability to procreate. Secular Liberalism fails in both categories. Culture does matter, and now even more as we are in the mist of a cultural war as we struggle to win a very real world war. This, more then any other factor is why I changed my party affiliation from Democrat to Republican. Social Darwinism is real and will determine if the west will survive at all. For in the end, either the west will defeat secularism and survive or the west will stay secular and fall.
Blogs at Orbys.net
