Hoax: Darwin did not believe in "survival of the fittest" and apparently was a Democrat.
Here is one you might appreciate by: Neil Robert Miller, San Francisco, May 23, 2000.
Charles Darwin, an extraordinarily warm, profoundly gentle, loving, and people's revolution supporting, dyed-in-the-wool liberal, was in the habit of accidentally vomiting ('burp, excuse me') all over his slave-trading dinner guests, whenever they attempted to cackle this crackpot horse s-t! in his presence.
It was not religion that he had a problem with. He was married to a deeply affectionate woman with whom he was wildly in love every day of his life, a marriage to die for, children from all around, drawn by Emma's and Charles' warmth, always delightfully underfoot. As it turns out, Emma, Charles' wife, was a devoutly religious person, which was never a problem for them.
No no! As best I can tell, the real problem, as Charles experienced it, was not religion at all. It was the slavers that broke his heart and drove him down! with their twisted "survival of the brutal" anti-science 'bleeds' from his work.
Not having the political facile, or moxie, to deal directly with these fools, is what, without question, repeatedly drove him to otherwise unexplained, long bed-ridden, deathly illnesses, and to an early grave.
And the 'social'-'darwinists', who are in fact anti-social, anti-Darwin, anti-scientists of course, still viciously cackle over him, chanting his name like a mantra ten times per paragraph; for Charles, it must be very painful, still.
As it turns out - surprise, no surprise - very much like the Christian right-wing, the strange little secret of the sociobiologists, is that their man was a communist.
All nature, of course, and, as is certainly most clearly seen in human evolution specifically - all nature selects, or perhaps better put, arranges, For precisely what capitalism calls 'weak', and leaves behind precisely what capitalism calls 'strong'. By bourgeois definitions of 'weak' and 'strong', the famous 'Law of the Jungle' was, 'Survival of the Weak'.
Evolution favors vulnerability and delicacy - when a configuration is helpful, nature covers the vulnerability ecosystemically, over time, 'jostling shoulders, bumping hips', so to speak, until things more or less fit, and work well together; BUT, evolution does Not favor dominance, or the debasement of surroundings or environment - in evolution's powerful hierarchical arrangements, dominating or debasing configurations just pass away into oblivion.
In fact, the mathematical formula that evolved for 'natural selection', or 'natural arrangement', and which is present in every chromosome, selects, and arranges, over thousands of generations, no no, NOT for that which strengthens itself, a mathematically vacant idea, but rather, selects and arranges, again, over thousands of generations, arranges for that which strengthens the world around, locally, generally, and bioecosystem wide.
As best I can tell, and I can tell a lot, the way Mr. and Mrs. Clinton administrate their great responsibilities and choreograph their lives is the closest human emulation of that evolved mathematical, perhaps metaphorically speaking 'God'-level, but in any event, certainly very high level, natural arrangement formula that I know about.
As best I can tell, the Clintons are Royalty in the classical sense, perhaps as close as I'll ever know of in my lifetime. In fact, the classical meaning of the term, might be very close to the American idea after all, that is, as a practical matter, they are the most helpful people imaginable to have at the highest levels of power, operating very much in everyone's interest. At the very least, they sleep, and dream, with the gods.
In evolution, if a configuration - be it a blade of grass, an internal organ, a full-blown mammal, or anything else - if a configuration's 'focus' is strengthening the world around it, in the human analogy: caretaking, feminine, communism, The Democratic Party idea; if its 'focus' is strengthening the world around, in nature, it survives over the long pull, often, indeed, probably usually, it survives, Forever.
If its 'focus' is strengthening itself, again, in the human analogy: 'mostly-protection-seeking', fascism, the bourgeois persuasion, The Republican Party idea; then, in nature, it dies away, in evolutionary time, very very quickly.
What could be more obvious? Nothing could be more obvious!, somehow, still astounds me, is that in the big ivy league universities, they have whole, official departments, named, actually named! for this obviously anti-scientific 'sociobiology' frame of reference grotesquely masquerading as science. Joseph Goebbels stalks even still, and tips his hat to Harvard University, the devil incarnate, down to this very day.
'Sociobiology' covers the third base in this politically satanist set of anti-science hoaxes, namely, "well, even if there is an understandable system at the high level, and even if you could figure out what it was, it would turn out to be ugly and vicious and petty and suicidal" (like capitalism, of course), so "you don't really want to know anyway, 'don't want to go there'", or whatever.
'Only for the very strong' as they say in the deranged world of pornography. Quite the serious anti-intelligence scam. |
