"To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a ‘racial’ struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled. Who taught the Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin." — James Pusey
It’s the sesquicentennial of the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, and many people (including mainline religious denominations) are celebrating the event. (And this despite the fact that Darwin’s book never did explain the origin of any species.)
A few thinkers, however, are subjecting the social implications of Darwin’s theory to relatively intense critical scrutiny:
"The ideology that led Mao to murder 77 million of his own people began with a view of nature that values struggle and fitness over the individual. Though acknowledging that the political currents in China were complex, with reformers like Yan Fu and Sun Yat-sen incorporating Darwinian principles without radical revolution, [James] Pusey placed the worldview that empowered Marxist ideology squarely at the feet of Darwin. Darwin was Mao’s ideological mentor…. Darwinian ideas can produce murderous results in individuals, too. The Sunday Times Online printed an article that described the Darwinian motivations behind some of the serial killers of recent memory."
Such sobering reports, however, are aberrations among the Anglo-American press, who prefer to think of Darwinism as a simple truth without any bad consequences. Thus the media will continue to make sure that news and analyses such as these receive malign neglect.
You may read the entire article in which the above passages appeared at the Creation-Evolution Headlines weblog. Scroll down to the entry for 11/12/2009: "Where Chairman Mao and Teenage Nihilists Got Their Motivation."
Yes, Virginia, ideas do have consequences.
—Mike Gray
Actually, Pascal, I haven’t been to your excellent website in over a week (apologies for that). Chalk it all up to synchronicity, the new moon, or whatever.
As for the word “sinister,” it’s in the Creation-Evolution Headlines article, quoting Sewell in yet another article:
“The more sinister implications of the world-view that has come to be called ‘Darwinism’ …”
Darwinism isn’t merely a theory, you see, but a “world-view,” and that makes all the difference.
For some people, Darwinism can be a “tripwire” as well, a sacred cow. I don’t know what you think of Darwinism, but be assured that in academia anyone who questions it stumbles over a “tripwire.” The ensuing reaction to such unorthodox thinking has all the earmarks of censure directed at a heretic defecting from the One True Faith. Ann Coulter has designated Darwinism the “liberal creation myth.” The millions of dead bodies supplied by Nazism and Communism that resulted from this “myth” are ample historical evidence for her assertion.
“S I N I S T E R W I N G”: I like it, but you may encounter resistance to its adoption.
Holy mackerel, Mike. Is there something in the air for the muse to instill in us both a similar title touching on the same subject (deadly Marxism and its coterie) within 24 hours of each other?
With the deadly things that have happened under Marxism for the last hundred years, how can radicals – who still want to create a global government based on that proven deadliness – be thought of as not merely left but also sinister? — Radical Left = Sinister Wing
I doubt I inspired you to it, because I just haven’t had that many hits. As for my post, it’s been up and received comment hours before yours appeared.
What got you to invoke a word (sinister) that tends to jolt (as does evil) the “leaders” on the conservative side?
In my own case, it’s a thought that has been festering in me for some time, but needed a trigger: the travails reported at the site I link in my post.
———————————-
Regarding what you and Sam have been proposing, I’ve another post that helps explain resistance to it from some quarters of society you’d expect to find receptive.
Maybe I can help you figure out ways to come up with countermeasures that would permit your message to get through.