Social Darwinism Didn’t Die, It Just Evolved

by Emmet Sweeney

Nazism has been characterized, rightly, as a form of Social Darwinism, and Social Darwinism can be described as the political application of the Darwinian concept of “survival of the fittest.” Darwin himself denied (publicly, at least) that this meant, or should mean, the elimination of the “unfit” in human society. Nonetheless, in the Darwinian system, Natural Selection was indubitably the driving force behind evolution and the development, ultimately, of intelligent human beings — and it achieved this by eliminating the unfit. Some years after the publication of the Origin of Species Darwin was to write:

I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters Vol. 1 (ed. Francis Darwin, 1888), p. 316)

If Darwin himself was a bit coy in spelling out the consequences of his ideas in public, his greatest champions and defenders were most certainly not. Racism was almost universal among the early evolutionists, many of whom believed the races had evolved separately. Thomas Huxley, known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” expressed his belief that blacks would not be able “to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival [i.e., whites], in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places within the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins…” (Thomas Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, 1870), p. 20)

Ernst Haekel, the great popularizer of Darwin in Germany, wrote:

The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher mammals, especially the apes, with which they are genealogically connected…. Their intelligence moves within the narrowest bounds, and one can no more (or no less) speak of their reason than that of the more intelligent animals…. These lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian negroes) are psychologically nearer to the mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives. (Ernst Haekel, The Wonders of Life (New York, 1904), pp. 56-7)

Darwin’s theory did not, of course, appear in a political and cultural vacuum, and the intellectual classes of 19th century England (i.e., the wealthy and comfortably off) were happy to believe that the crushing poverty endured by the urban working classes and rural poor of that time — with an average life expectancy of around 35 years — was part of the natural order of things and even beneficial for the future progress and development of humanity. If the poor died off before they could breed, so much the better: they were obviously mentally and intellectually “unfit.”

There is no question that the increasingly post-Christian mindset of the ruling elites in Britain, France and the US during the latter years of the 19th century hastened the triumph of Darwin’s theory, yet by the final years of the 19th century those same elites had a problem: improved medical care, diet and housing meant that more of the “great unwashed” were surviving — and so were their children. Social welfare programs, usually funded by churches and other charitable institutions and eventually, to some degree, by the state, meant that more and more of these “mentally defective” denizens of the slums were living beyond their childhood and they too were having children — large numbers of them. Polite society at the time was full of talk of the danger this phenomenon might pose for the future. What to do? In 1883, one years after Darwin’s death, his half-cousin Francis Galton coined a new term, “eugenics,” (from the Greek words eu “good” and genes “birthing” or “creating”). Galton was an influential polymath as well as an enthusiastic admirer of Darwin. Over the next two decades he applied himself energetically to promoting what he regarded as a new scientific discipline, publishing a plethora of papers outlining and popularizing the concept. His words fell on fertile ground; Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from various sources. Organizations were formed to win public support and sway opinion towards what was described as responsible eugenic values in parenthood. Such groups included the British Eugenics Education Society, founded in 1907, and the American Eugenics Society, founded in 1921.

To begin with, the eugenecists contented themselves with trying to encourage the more “intelligent” members of society to have more children, whilst simultaneously discouraging the less intelligent from having children at all. To this end, Britain’s first birth control clinic, founded in the early 20th century by ardent eugenicist and racist Marie Stopes, sought to normalize the use of contraception among the poor. However, it soon became clear that such measures would have little impact, and calls for more coercive measures were quickly heard. Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for exchanging ideas, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. By the early 1920s active and influential eugenics groups in Great Britain, France, and Germany, were calling for the forced sterilization of the mentally “unfit,” and by the late 1920s and early 1930s, similar policies were implemented in other countries including Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Sweden. Frederick Osborn’s 1937 journal article “Development of a Eugenic Philosophy” framed sterilization as a social philosophy. Osborn, who was widely influential at the time, advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits (“positive eugenics”) and reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (“negative eugenics”).

The Nazi Party assumed power in Germany in 1933, inaugurating there an extremely active eugenics policy. This resulted, by the late 1930s, not only in forced sterilization on a large scale, but killing (euthanasia) of the mentally and physically disabled. These were, infamously, designated as nutzloser Esser (“useless eaters”). In his Mein Kampf, Hitler had outlined his support for an extremely proactive application of eugenics, and made his debt to Darwin and Darwinism in this regard very explicit. Darwin is cited throughout the book. It should not be imagined however that the extreme policies inaugurated by the Nazis, which included stud farms for producing genetically improved Germans, were confined to Germany and uniquely Nazi. On the contrary, as the 1920s gave way to the ’30s, the position of eugenicists everywhere, including in democracies such as Britain and France, as well as in the Communist regime of the Soviet Union, became more and more radical. In 1931 for example, British author and Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw argued that “If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight … then clearly, we cannot use the organizations of society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to you.” (BBC interview, 1931). He also noted that, “[I]f we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.” This included a whole range of “defectives.”

The defeat of Nazi Germany and the revelation of the horrors inflicted by the Nazi Party on populations throughout Europe during the War had the effect, by the late 1940s, of discrediting eugenics as a philosophy — though even then Shaw and a few other enthusiasts unapologetically stuck to their position. By the 1960s,however, few public figures dared go on record promoting anything that smacked of forced sterilization or selective breeding. Yet the fundamental premise of eugenicism, the Darwinian interpretation of evolution, was never discarded. On the contrary, it embedded itself ever deeper into the minds of the European and American elites, and as the 20th century came to its close those same elites moved ever further away from the Christian roots of their civilization, whilst embracing utopian scientism. If God is not in control of the world, then Man — meaning of course the ruling elites themselves — must take control. Billionaire “philanthropists” began funding think tanks and pressure groups of various kinds which campaigned for extensive access to both contraception and abortion, especially in poorer parts of the world. In a hugely influential book published 1968 Professor Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University warned that mankind faced a crisis of exploding populations, which would cause, he predicted, devastating famines around the Earth by the 1980s. Eugenicists had of course been warning of “overpopulation” for nigh on a century, but little had been hitherto done to counter population growth. Now however governments in many countries, but especially in Europe and America, began to aggressively promote birth-control programs. These were followed, in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the legalization of abortion in almost all of Europe and North America.

Ehrlich’s predicted famines did not of course materialize, and food production easily outstripped population increases in every part of the world in the decades between the 1960s and ’90s. This did not, however, lessen calls for population control, and in a 1976 book entitled The Final Days, the Nazi term “useless eaters” was once again applied to the sick, elderly and infirm; this time by Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger. By the early 1980s the need for massive population reduction became a constant theme of the burgeoning environmentalist movement. Human beings were increasingly portrayed as a plague on the Earth, a plague that needed to be controlled. Despite the fact that birth-rates in Europe and North America (as well as Australia) had dropped below replacement levels by the mid-1990s, and had begun to go the same way in Asia and Latin America by the early 2000s, the calls for population reduction only intensified.

The need to reduce the numbers of “less desirable” humans was of course a long-standing theme of the eugenics movement — as was the need to increase the numbers of the “more desirable” type. In this spirit, the first sperm-banks were opened in 1964 in the US and Japan. Such faculties, which have now spread throughout the world, allow women whose husbands are infertile, as well as single women and lesbian couples, to select genetic material from men who are strictly vetted in terms of health, intelligence, etc. Only men with the highest IQs and in the best health, free of all genetic disorders, are selected as donors. These modern sperm-banks are therefore close cousins to the Nazi Lebensborn stud-farms.

A chief goal of the eugenicists of the 1920s and ’30s was the elimination of all those unfit or unable to contribute economically to society, and this too has its parallel in the modern world, where euthanasia, the deliberate killing of the very old and infirm, has again raised its ugly head. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia (in 2001) and it was followed by several other countries in Europe and Canada, was well as most of Australia. As might be expected, in all these places it is stipulated that the decision to die must be made by the patient him/herself. However, as might also be expected, actual practice in hospitals has moved ever closer to simply killing the patient whethere he or she desires it or not. And just this, as we shall see, has now been put into practice on a truly colossal scale throughout the West.

As noted earlier, the modern iteration of the eugenics movement ties it closely to environmentalism (note; the Nazis were also enthusiastic environmentalists), which views humanity as something close to a destructive plague on the Earth. One of the most vocal voices in this regard is Microsoft CEO and billionaire “philanthropist” Bill Gates. In a TED Talk speech delivered in 2010, Gates argued that the Earth could comfortably support half a billion people (500 million) but that the world’s population was on the way to nine billion. It was necessary, he said, for the good of humanity, to drastically reduce that number. This, he felt, could be achieved by the use of vaccines in the poorer parts of the world. Gates of course always claimed that what he meant by this statement was that vaccination campaigns would produce better health for children and that, sure of the survival of their existing children, poor couples would not feel the need to have large families. Yet it is curious that as early as 1993 the World Health Organization had announced the development of a “birth-control vaccine,” whilst in the same year the Catholic Church in Kenya announced that such a vaccine was already in use there. This claim, it should be noted, resurfaced again in 2014.

Gates is of great interest. He is an influential member of the rather sinister World Economic Forum, a talking-shop for the super-rich and super-powerful; a body which, like Gates himself, actively campaigns for population reduction and de-industrialization in the name of the environment. The two goals are inseparable. Bill’s father, William H. Gates, was an outspoken and unapologetic eugenicist, and there is unambiguous proof that Bill has adopted core principles of his father’s beliefs. Through the “charitable” “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,” Gates has helped fund research into developing new forms of biotechnology aimed, allegedly, at alleviating disease in poorer countries and improving the quality of life. The Foundation also funds genetic engineering of foods and Gates himself has been a keen supporter of and investor in Moderna, a pharmaceutical corporation which was founded specifically for the purpose of developing mRNA technology. The latter is a gene-altering process aimed at humans which, as Gates and others have repeatedly stressed, could help mankind eliminate hereditary incurable illnesses such as Cystic fibrosis and Type-1 diabetes. Such has always been one of the primary goals of the eugenicists. In fact, an mRNA-based “vaccine” was finally rolled out by Moderna and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer in late 2020, and the use to which the mRNA jabs were put would confirm that only with difficulty can we defend a benign interpretation of Gates’ 2010 claim that vaccination could help dramatically reduce the Earth’s population.

Which brings us onto what will surely be seen by future historians as the biggest event of the past 70 years: the alleged “COVID pandemic.” Along with his good friend Anthony Fauci, Gates was extremely influential in facilitating the totalitarian and completely unprecedented “lockdowns” in the US and throughout much of the world. These two of course by no means acted alone: It seems that the entire billionaire and trillionaire class, who own all the media (and all the politicians), co-ordinated efforts to produce what can only be described as a deliberate campaign of deception and terror in order to deprive billions of people of their freedom and millions of their lives. There was of course no deadly virus around in 2020, a fact proved by the failure of this alleged “killer” to produce mass deaths in countries such as Belarus and Sweden which did not lock down and which did not implement any special measures. In fact, both the latter countries had negative excess deaths in 2020, meaning that COVID-19, whatever it was, was not even as dangerous as an average ’flu. However, in many countries which did lock down, including much of Western Europe and North America, there were many excess deaths in 2020. It is now clear that the vast majority of these deaths were of elderly and frail people who were actually euthanized in hospitals and care homes. This was effected by refusal to provide proper and effective treatments for respiratory illness (such as vitamins D and C, as well as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine), and instead subjecting patients to doses of such lethal drugs as Midazolam (in UK and Europe) and Remdesivir (in US and Canada). These two drugs, plus improper use of ventilators, deprived millions of the elderly and sick of their lives in the Spring of 2020, in what can only be described as the largest act of mass murder in modern history. But the modern totalitarian eugenicists were by no means finished.

Throughout the first year of the COVID “emergency,” Gates, as well as Fauci and other spokespersons for the new tyranny, proclaimed continuously that the “pandemic” would never be over until a vaccine could be developed to control it. I will not go into the utterly unscientific nature of such as statement, as it has already been dealt with at length by others much better qualified than me. Suffice to say that it is now perfectly clear that the coordinated campaign of terror in the media throughout 2020 and 2021 was designed to frighten as many people as possible into taking the mRNA “vaccine” which Moderna and other pharmaceuticals had already, it seems, developed.

It is a fact that the introduction of the COVID-19 “vaccines” was accompanied by an immediate increase in death rates in every country with large uptakes in the injections. Countries which tended to reject the “vaccines” had no significant increase in death rates. In the West (Europe, North America, Australasia, Japan and South Korea), where “vaccination” rates were highest, most of the huge increase was blamed on COVID. However, there was also an immediate and quite dramatic rise in heart-related and cancer-related deaths. These, however, were ignored by the controlled mass media. There was also — and this calls to mind Bill Gates’ chilling words in 2010 — a massive increase in miscarriages among women and a dramatic decrease in the birth rate.

And thus it has remained since the spring of 2021. The death rates in all Western countries have continued to be far above average, and it is now admitted that the vast majority of these have nothing whatsoever to do with COVID-19. Almost all are heart- or cancer-related. The numbers dead, throughout Europe, America, Australasia, and the Pacific Rim, is now in the tens of millions. In those same regions the birth rates, already well below replacement level, have dropped noticeably, and it is clear that the “vaccines” are acting as a sterilizing agent. The eugenicists have done their work well.

(Note: The author of this article accepts that “natural selection” or the “survival of the fittest” does indeed operate in the natural world. Sick or frail animals die quickly in the wild. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this can produce new species, and it needs to be stated that the rise of new species throughout Earth’s history is as much a mystery now as it was in the time of Darwin. Finally, it should not be forgotten that the protection of the sick and the frail is one of the defining characteristics of civilized humanity; one of the remarkable features differentiating us from the savage beasts).

Emmet Sweeney is the author of several works dealing with problems in the ancient history of Egypt and the Near East.

Wow! That is Escalation: Medvedev’s New Year Gift!

Machine Translation

“The US State Department has published a pep talk to the people of Russia, saying, “We love you all.” It ends in their typical vile Jesuit style: “We stand in solidarity with every one of you who seeks to create a more peaceful future.” And the war in Ukraine, they say, is not worthy of everyone’s attention.

Even for these top-notch freaks, this is the height of cynicism and the limit of moral degradation. The United States is spending tens of billions on the war in Ukraine, supplying its weapons on a gigantic scale, exterminating thousands of people by proxy. This is extreme cynicism in the best traditions of the Nazis. Yes, in fact, sons of bitches, by conveying such nonsense, are the real heirs of the Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.

Only this stillborn nonsense no longer affects anyone. And you will not receive the answer to it in the silence of the office.

[But] The main present for the New Year, a set of Zircon missiles, went to the shores of NATO countries yesterday. Their 1,000 km range, a hypersonic speed of Mach 9 and the ability to use any charge are guaranteed to overcome any missile defense. Let it stand about 100 miles offshore, close to the Potomac River. So rejoice!  

It will bring to mind anyone who poses a direct threat to Russia and our allies. 

You and your henchmen who kill our people will never be forgiven. We will speak to you in the language of power, if you don’t understand it any other way. And we’ll produce even more modern weapons. And grind with them the Nazi scum you spawned in the twenty-first century.  Revenge every criminal for every murdered citizen of our country.”

The EU’s Lost the Plot

by Alastair Crooke, Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author via Al Mayadeen 

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.” ~ Lewis Carroll’s ‘Through the Looking-Glass’

The EU, with much ado, this week announced the NINTH sanctions package on Russia. What is it about sanctions the EU doesn’t ‘get’? Russia has comfortably survived Western financial sanctions (even the fervently anti-Putin Economist concurs). Perhaps it is the tech sanctions which ultimately will ‘strangle Russia’. Good luck with waiting that one out! Who ends up strangling whom?

The EU still is busy trying (“legally”) to annex any, and all, Russian assets in Europe. And what Russia targets has the EU found to sanction? Well, that was no easy hunt, as so much has already been sanctioned. So the focus is on making illegal any last remaining Russian voice still extant in Europe.

Yes, we Europeans have been so afflicted by “head-spinning” disorientation through the rain of state disinformation, and by outrageous, obvious lying, that many have begun to question their own and surrounding levels of sanity. In their bemusement, they have come to see the “messaging” of endless sanctions as “perfectly rational”. They have been hypnotised into “You are either ‘with the narrative’ or ‘against it’.”

So, clearly, all Russian discourse within Europe must be eliminated:

Last week the EU General Council put out a statement that it is “concerned Turkey is maintaining a close partnership with Russia, despite the war in Ukraine and tough Western sanctions against Moscow.” The deepening economic ties between Turkey and Russia are “a cause for great concern”, EU foreign policy chief Borrell said in a letter to the European Parliament. Also “of concern” was Turkey’s continued policy of “not joining the EU’s restrictive measures against Russia”, the letter said. It was important that Turkey not offer Russia any workarounds to sanctions, Borrell cautioned.

To which, President Erdogan riposted:

“It’s an ugly statement. Borrell can’t define and formalize our relations with Russia. He has neither the qualifications nor the ability to make such decisions. Who is he to assess our relations with Russia with respect to sanctions?”

Then, on 12 December, Borrell announced that the EU will agree on a “very tough” package of sanctions against Iran:

“We are going to approve a very tough package of sanctions. [The EU] will take any action we can to support young women and peaceful demonstrators. And we will try to agree further sanctions on Iran over the supply of drones to Russia.”

Put plainly, the EU doubles-down; nay, triples-down: spraying its sanctions toward anyone ‘not with the narrative.’

It is surprising (or maybe ‘not’), that the EU is not reading the runes on Ukraine accurately, in terms of the struggle over Ukraine policy taking place in Washington. Loosely put: the élite US Realist constituency, together with Henry Kissinger — a ‘hawk’, sometimes posing as a Realist — is going head-to-head with the Russophobic constituency within the élite, hinting that the latter covet a bigger war (which US would be ill-advised to wage).  

Although the notion would be no surprise to most readers, Kissinger — in saying that a dismemberment of Russia or the destroying of its ability to conduct strategic policy is a ‘no-no’ — implicitly strips naked the neo-conservative constituency by putting their covert aims into objective consciousness (the latter has always denied their aim being to dismantle Russia into inconsequential statelets and then to seize its resources). Kissinger at least ‘outs’ the issue.

So far, this maneuvering between US élite constituencies is more about preparing the ground within the US foreign policy discussion groups, than birthing a new policy. (It is too early for that, perhaps?).

The EU however, wants to ‘mark its territory’, but does not think things through. Olaf Scholz, limp-wristed, mutters about a ceasefire and the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. 

The British PM, however, has poured cold water on any ceasefire: The West should consider any Russian call for a cease-fire in its war against Ukraine “completely meaningless” in the current circumstances, Rishi Sunak said on Monday.

Well, even if there were a withdrawal to positions of 24 February 2022 (the Kissinger proposal), that just won’t work as the basis for a ceasefire, but rather highlights the naïvety of EU ‘thinking’.

The EU wraps the Ukraine into a fantasy of a like-minded democratic state struggling for its independence against an overweening ‘big brother’. This is nonsense. Ukraine is ethnically, linguistically, culturally and affiliationally divided. It is in midst civil war. It has been in civil war for decades. Tens of thousands dead.

Simply to pretend that this fundamental fact does not impinge on any ceasefire framework is ridiculous. The armed nationalist siege lines are arrayed within rocket range of those northern (culturally Russian) civilian cities (such as Donetsk) the radical nationalists wish to conquer and subdue.

Such a ceasefire would be analogous to re-inserting the Catholic Irish Republican Army (IRA) forces under the nose of the Protestant Northern Ireland paramilitaries. Does anyone believe that London would be able to just abandon the Protestants to such a prospect? Well, neither can Moscow allow the ethnic Russians (particularly in lands which have been a part of Russia for centuries) be allowed to swing in the wind of a ceasefire in which all is restored to ‘as it was’ (i.e. when the nationalist forces were freely treating Donetsk City as a coconut shy).

To give Kissinger his due, he recognises the ceasefire’s implausibility by referring to the possible partition of Ukraine (via referenda) becoming a necessity — were his ceasefire proposal prove impossible. (The EU are miles off such thinking.)

Rather, the EU has dug itself into a ‘Bakhmut trench’ with its Ukraine “must win”, and “we must support Ukraine for ‘as long as it takes’”. The EU acts as if it believes itself to be in control; that is, that the EU will decide whether ‘to confer a ceasefire’ on Russia — or not. 

Most likely, the EU will be a bystander watching events from the outside. It will not have a seat at the table. 

And there may never be a formal ‘ceasefire’. Diplomats are overly fond of saying that conflicts are never resolved by military means — but that is quite untrue. Often a demonstration of military strength is required, precisely in order to catalyse and bring about a tectonic shift. 

Or, simply, the outcome may emerge from the ‘inside-out’: i.e. from a bottom-up, or outside-in, leadership realignment occurring inside Kiev or in the Ukrainian military — separate from any EU or US direct involvement. The possibility should not be overlooked.

The consequences to these EU high pretentions of having agency in respect to events in Ukraine are not trivial, but of a strategic order. The most immediate is that the EU’s fanatical support for Kiev has moved ethnically ‘anti-Russian Ukraine’ further and further away from any possibility of serving as a neutral or buffer state.   

Pari passu for any EU role. It has burnt any bridges as mediator. Why would ethnically Russian Ukrainians trust the EU (when the Kremlin doesn’t)?

The fanning — by Ukraine ‘activists’, inside the EU leadership class and at the highest level of the EU — with toxic anti-Russian sentiments inevitably has plumbed a bitter fault line in Ukraine.  

Yet, not one confined to Ukraine alone: It is both fracturing Europe, and creating a strategic fault line between the EU vs the rest of world.  

President Macron said this week that he sees ‘resentment’ in President Putin’s eyes. — “a sort of resentment” directed at the Western world, including the EU and the US, and that it is fueled by “the feeling that our perspective was to destroy Russia”. 

He is right. The resentment however, is not confined to Russians who have come to despise Europe; it is rather, that across the globe, resentment is bubbling up at all the destroyed lives strewn in the wake of the western hegemonic project. Even a high-ranking French Ambassador now describes the rules-based order as an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony”. 

Angela Merkel’s interview to Zeit Magazine confirms for the rest of world that EU strategic autonomy always was a lie. She admits that her advocacy of the 2014 Minsk ceasefire was a deception. It was an attempt to give Kiev time to strengthen its military — and was successful in that regard, Merkel said. “[Ukraine] used this time to get [militarily] stronger, as you can see today. The Ukraine of 2014/15 is not the Ukraine of today”.

The EU posits itself as a strategic player; a political power in its own right; a market colossus; a monopsony with the power to impose its will over whomsoever trades with it. Simply put: the EU insists (and believes) that it possesses meaningful political agency. But it has no political or military power per se (it being a US vassal). Rather, its influence derives from its economic breadth — and that has been wasted through self-harm.