A warm welcome

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."Charles DarwinHe says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.Extract from an interview with James Watson, co-discoverer of DNAWhy don't the modern proselytisers of Darwinism come clean and admit it. Nazism really did found it's theoretical justification in Darwin? How on Earth can they claim to be humanists if what they believe in is the survival of the "fittest".Madison Grant the US eugenicist was one of the major influences on Nazi ideology. He was a Darwinist too. Like Watson and Darwin himself (Dawkins slips and slides away from aligning himself with them) he was an outright racist and just like Darwin he fanned the flames of Genocide."A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit — in other words social failures — would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types"Madison GrantDarwinism can be blamed directly for providing the basis of the ideology that justified the slaughter of millions of people during the second world war.Darwinism justified colonialism. Darwin himself was undeniably a racist and Darwin himself was a social Darwinist. The proselytisers of evolutionary theory as it spreads like a cancer into the social sciences, just as it did before.Darwinian theory should stay in its box and not pretend, with it's crude logics of self interest and adaptation, to account for all aspects of human behaviour, human imagination and thought.People like Dawkins cold blooded fundamentalists, the furthest thing from real humanists one could imagine, have let the monster of social Darwinism out of the box again. A monster that denies our very humanity. At least our humanity as we conceive it. And at this point a smarmy philosopher, Anthony Grayling, will point to Gilbert Ryle and say that when we think of ourselves in terms that do not come from the brain sciences then we commit category errors.Mores the pity! Pity itself a "category error" to these modern heirs to the eugenicists. Humanists my arse. The name Watson comes to mind. Remember the scandal he generated by saying that in Africa people had not developed, perhaps because they were an inferior species. In doing so he betrayed his contemptible ignorance of Africa and African history, but also, at the same time he expressed his scientific opinion. The balls in Dawkins court. Do you agree with Watson?Look at all the arguments that are surging up at the moment to look at humans as if they were animals. To assign to them the same value. To introduce euthanasia. To screen all "imperfect" embryos. To allow late abortions. To encourage sterilisation of those with genetic "defects". These are all the ideas of the new "humanists" the new Darwinians. And they are Nazi ideas: Every single one of them is a variant on an idea the Nazis put into practice. Peter Singer, the so called animal rights campaigner proposes animal rights at the expense of human rights. He is a well known Eugenicist.Here are a few more of Darwin's own statements from the Descent of Man:"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"