Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

I am not saying Darwin is wrong or that this was his intention. We know the Nazi genocide was partly based and heavily supported by the progressive American eugenics movement which was based on Social Darwinism.
Alexander Vucinich, in his book "Darwin in Russian Thought" (1989), claims that "Engels gave Marx credit for extending Darwin's theory to the study of the inner dynamics and change in human society".[
Between Communism and Nazism, two sides of the same coin, they were responsible for the deaths of 250 million people in the 20th century. They believed they knew what was best to do with the lives of others. Their belief and justifications were based on the theory of evolution.
communist_posters_02.jpg
communist_posters_02.jpg (24.75 KiB) Viewed 1226 times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influences ... les_Darwin
In late November 1859, Friedrich Engels acquired one of the first 1,250 copies of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, and then he sent a letter to Karl Marx telling: "Darwin, by the way, whom I'm just reading now, is absolutely splendid". The following year, Marx wrote back to his colleague telling that this book contained the natural-history foundation of the historical materialism viewpoint:[5][6]


These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book on natural selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view.

—Marx; December 19, 1860.[7][8]

Next month, Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle:


Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.

—Marx; 16 January 1861[9]

By June 1862, Marx had already read again the Origin, finding a connection between Herr Malthus's work and Darwin's ideas:


I am amused at Darwin, into whom I looked again, when he says that he applies the "Malthusian" theory also to plants and animals.

—Marx; 18 June 1862, in a letter to Engels[10]

In 1863, he quoted Darwin again, within his Theories of Surplus Value (2:121), saying that "In his splendid work, Darwin did not realize that by discovering the 'geometrical progression' in the animal and plant kingdom , he overthrew Malthus theory."[11]

Having read about darwinian evolution along with Marx, German communist Wilhelm Liebknecht later said: "when Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.”[12] Historian Richard Weikart points out that Marx had started to attend "a series of lectures by Thomas Henry Huxley on evolution."[13]

In August 1866, in another letter to Engels, Marx referred to Pierre Trémaux's Origine et transformations de l'homme et des autres êtres (1865), as "a very important advance over Darwin."[14] He went further to claim that "in its historical and political application", the book was "much more important and copious than Darwin."[15]

Although there is no mention of Darwin in The Communist Manifesto (published 11 years prior to Origin of Species), Marx includes two explicit references to Darwin and evolution in the second edition of Das Kapital, in two footnotes where he relates Darwin's theory to his opinion about production and technology development. In the Volume I, Chapter 14: "The Detail Labourer and his implements", Section 2, he referred to Darwin's Origin as an "epoch-making work",[16][17] while in Chapter 15, Section I he took on the comparison of organs of plants to animals and tools.[18]

In a book review of the first volume of Das Kapital, Friedrich Engels wrote that Marx was "simply striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field." [18] In this line of thought, several authors such as William F. O'Neill, have seen that "Marx describes history as a social Darwinist 'survival of the fittest' dominated by the conflict between different social classes" and moving to a future in which social conflict will ultimately disappear in a 'classless society'",[19][20] while some Marxists try to dissociate Marx from social darwinism.

Nonetheless, it is evident that Marx had a strong liking for Darwin's theory and a clear influence on his thought. Furthermore, when the second German edition of Capital, was published (two years after the publication of Darwin's Descent of Man)), Marx sent Darwin a copy of his book,[21] with the words:


Mr. Charles Darwin
On the part of his sincere admirer
(Signed) Karl Marx.

—London, 16 June 1873[22][23]

Darwin wrote back to Marx in October, thanking him for having sent his work and saying "I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge".[24]

According to scholar Paul Heyer, "Marx believed that Darwin provided a materialistic perspective compatible with his own", although being applied in another context;[25] while Alexander Vucinich, in his book "Darwin in Russian Thought" (1989), claims that "Engels gave Marx credit for extending Darwin's theory to the study of the inner dynamics and change in human society".[26]
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Yukon Cornelius
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Yukon Cornelius »

Probably the case that if the Marxists, etc., didn't have Evolution -- they'd have to invent it.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Parodite »

A bit more is required to make materialism or even evolution theory the ideological main suspect culprit that caused various genocides. Correlation versus causation, complex compound causality versus off-hand simple-cheap finger pointing, ...
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Parodite wrote:A bit more is required to make materialism or even evolution theory the ideological main suspect culprit that caused various genocides. Correlation versus causation, complex compound causality versus off-hand simple-cheap finger pointing, ...
Really? Eugenics was actually also called Social Darwinism. Not that Darwin would have agreed to that theory. Though it was considered an expansion of Darwin's theory proposed by Darwin's cousin Galton(Galton preached positive, not negative eugenics which is not great but not as bad) . What Darwin's theory directly gave Marx ad Engels the last piece in their puzzle to exclude a supreme being a creator of the universe thus freeing them to declare that the state could be the ultimate judge jury and executioner of men for any reason determined to be harmful to the state. IE the state is the god of men.

Used it to claim there are no inalienable or natural rights for individuals. Because those right would mean nothing(since there was no higher judge) if the state did not have the laws and provide the police to enforce them. Everything to Marx (and Lenin) devolved back to the state as final judge. Those found to be most fit being determined through the lens of what was best for the state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy ... man_rights
Soviet concept of human rights[edit]

Human rights in the Soviet Union

Soviet concept of human rights was different from conceptions prevalent in the West. According to Western legal theory, "it is the individual who is the beneficiary of human rights which are to be asserted against the government", whereas Soviet law declared that state is the source of human rights.[13][14] Therefore, Soviet legal system regarded law as an arm of politics and courts as agencies of the government.[15] Extensive extra-judiciary powers were given to the Soviet secret police agencies. The regime abolished Western rule of law, civil liberties, protection of law and guarantees of property.[16][17] According to Vladimir Lenin, the purpose of socialist courts was "not to eliminate terror ... but to substantiate it and legitimize in principle".[15]

Crime was determined not as the infraction of law, but as any action which could threaten the Soviet state and society. For example, a desire to make a profit could be interpreted as a counter-revolutionary activity punishable by death.[15] The liquidation and deportation of millions peasants in 1928–31 was carried out within the terms of Soviet Civil Code.[15] Some Soviet legal scholars even asserted that "criminal repression" may be applied in the absence of guilt.".[15] Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka explained: "Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror."[18]

The purpose of public trials was "not to demonstrate the existence or absence of a crime – that was predetermined by the appropriate party authorities – but to provide yet another forum for political agitation and propaganda for the instruction of the citizenry (see Moscow Trials for example). Defense lawyers, who had to be party members, were required to take their client's guilt for granted..."[15]
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Parodite »

Doc wrote:
Parodite wrote:A bit more is required to make materialism or even evolution theory the ideological main suspect culprit that caused various genocides. Correlation versus causation, complex compound causality versus off-hand simple-cheap finger pointing, ...
Really? Eugenics was actually also called Social Darwinism. Not that Darwin would have agreed to that theory. Though it was considered an expansion of Darwin's theory proposed by Darwin's cousin Galton(Galton preached positive, not negative eugenics which is not great but not as bad) . What Darwin's theory directly gave Marx ad Engels the last piece in their puzzle to exclude a supreme being a creator of the universe thus freeing them to declare that the state could be the ultimate judge jury and executioner of men for any reason determined to be harmful to the state. IE the state is the god of men.
There will always be people of doubtful intellectual and moral integrity who are able to use or abuse any scientific theory for some fancy ideology in order to make it sound scientific, truthful... as an excuse for whatever behavior.

Those same typov people are also able to use Holy books for similar purposes. Not much difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the faithful". Both storylines end with killing bill the enemy for good. Seems to be a lose-lose situation ;)

No disagreement on the USSR nightmare though.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Parodite wrote:
Doc wrote:
Parodite wrote:A bit more is required to make materialism or even evolution theory the ideological main suspect culprit that caused various genocides. Correlation versus causation, complex compound causality versus off-hand simple-cheap finger pointing, ...
Really? Eugenics was actually also called Social Darwinism. Not that Darwin would have agreed to that theory. Though it was considered an expansion of Darwin's theory proposed by Darwin's cousin Galton(Galton preached positive, not negative eugenics which is not great but not as bad) . What Darwin's theory directly gave Marx ad Engels the last piece in their puzzle to exclude a supreme being a creator of the universe thus freeing them to declare that the state could be the ultimate judge jury and executioner of men for any reason determined to be harmful to the state. IE the state is the god of men.
There will always be people of doubtful intellectual and moral integrity who are able to use or abuse any scientific theory for some fancy ideology in order to make it sound scientific, truthful... as an excuse for whatever behavior.

Those same typov people are also able to use Holy books for similar purposes. Not much difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the faithful". Both storylines end with killing bill the enemy for good. Seems to be a lose-lose situation ;)

No disagreement on the USSR nightmare though.
The difference between Marxism/social Darwinism being that most religions don't state out with the idea of mass killing of people. At least not the ones that stick around for a while. While with Marxist /social Darwinism the more people they kill the longer they seem to stick around.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Parodite »

Doc wrote:
Parodite wrote:There will always be people of doubtful intellectual and moral integrity who are able to use or abuse any scientific theory for some fancy ideology in order to make it sound scientific, truthful... as an excuse for whatever behavior.

Those same typov people are also able to use Holy books for similar purposes. Not much difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the faithful". Both storylines end with killing bill the enemy for good. Seems to be a lose-lose situation ;)

No disagreement on the USSR nightmare though.
The difference between Marxism/social Darwinism being that most religions don't state out with the idea of mass killing of people. At least not the ones that stick around for a while. While with Marxist /social Darwinism the more people they kill the longer they seem to stick around.
I don't agree. They work with the exact same template from the get-go: We, the good ones, will survive them, the bad ones. It is how their stories begin and how they end.

Differences among religions exist in that for instance ISIS just applies a kill all enemies here-and-now, whereas for instance in Christianity that task is usually relegated to a future moment and future Executioner.

There also exists a version in Christianity that states "the meek will inherit the earth" should not be understood as some favoritism of a Executioner God who will violently do away with the unbelievers on Rapture-Rupture Judgement day.. but rather as a natural outcome in the long run... of natural selection!

Marxism as such does not state at all that people ought to be killed from the get go, neither does social Darwinism. But they do embrace the idea of competition, of battles that can be won or lost. That some revolutions will be bloody but produce more happiness later. Also not much different from the religious storylines. Sacrifice, visions of a better future, etc.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Parodite wrote:
Doc wrote:
Parodite wrote:There will always be people of doubtful intellectual and moral integrity who are able to use or abuse any scientific theory for some fancy ideology in order to make it sound scientific, truthful... as an excuse for whatever behavior.

Those same typov people are also able to use Holy books for similar purposes. Not much difference between "survival of the fittest" and "survival of the faithful". Both storylines end with killing bill the enemy for good. Seems to be a lose-lose situation ;)

No disagreement on the USSR nightmare though.
The difference between Marxism/social Darwinism being that most religions don't state out with the idea of mass killing of people. At least not the ones that stick around for a while. While with Marxist /social Darwinism the more people they kill the longer they seem to stick around.
I don't agree. They work with the exact same template from the get-go: We, the good ones, will survive them, the bad ones. It is how their stories begin and how they end.

Differences among religions exist in that for instance ISIS just applies a kill all enemies here-and-now, whereas for instance in Christianity that task is usually relegated to a future moment and future Executioner.

There also exists a version in Christianity that states "the meek will inherit the earth" should not be understood as some favoritism of a Executioner God who will violently do away with the unbelievers on Rapture-Rupture Judgement day.. but rather as a natural outcome in the long run... of natural selection!

Marxism as such does not state at all that people ought to be killed from the get go, neither does social Darwinism. But they do embrace the idea of competition, of battles that can be won or lost. That some revolutions will be bloody but produce more happiness later. Also not much different from the religious storylines. Sacrifice, visions of a better future, etc.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx
Engels actually came up with the idea of racial genocide before the publishing of origin of the species.
https://books.google.com/books?id=F3Emt ... cs&f=false
"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary holocaust. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary. ...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character ... [A general war will] wipe out all these racial trash [Völkerabfälle - original was given at Marxist websites as "petty hidebound nations" J.D.] down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."
- Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels "Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung", Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849
And who would these counter revolutionaries be?
"We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt."
- Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 29. Apr. 1849
"...only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution there will be a struggle, an 'inexorable life-and-death struggle', against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror -- not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!"
- Friedrich Engels, "Democratic Pan-Slavism, Continued," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 16 February 1849
"Germans and Magyars [of the Austro-Hungarian Empire] untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness... In short, it turns out these 'crimes' of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history."
- Friedrich Engels, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 15 February 1849:
Actually Christianity original result of judgment to me was that the souls of those judged good would live eternally and the souls of those judged bad would cease to exist. But I am not so interested in the religious side verses the socialist side. Darwin's theory to many religious was a threat to their religion. But with Progressive Americans, socialists and communists it was a solution to perfect man. In some cases a final solution. ISIS on the other death cult. Though reports are that its leadership are not particularly believing in that.

But my point here, and I freely admit I am still thinking about the possibilities more than any thing else right now, is that the meme of "We know what is best to do with the lives others" may exist as a basic human nature in many people, if not all people. Think of Darwinism as a Rorschach test. People are given something that they can rationalize in different ways. Rationalization Is how people make sense of the world. Religious types looked at it and thought "There is no way I am a monkey" Others looked at it and thought "This is proof there is no God If there is no God there is only the judgment of men"

Then consider this, and who tends to exhibit this behavior:
Because we’re just like the Stasi! Until we came along, the Stasi were the biggest surveillance network in world history — you know, everybody spying on their neighbors to make sure they were doing the right thing. And now, of course, we look back on that as monstrous. But that is exactly the system that we’ve set up, where somebody like Justine can be destroyed while she sleeps because we’ve decided that some tweet is a clue to her inherent evil, which is such a ridiculous thing to think about Justine.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/03/jo ... aming.html
Jon Ronson on Monica Lewinsky and Cybershaming
By Jesse Singal

Jon Ronson hung out with a lot of recently fired people while writing his new book, So You've Been Publicly Shamed, which is out next Wednesday. Justine Sacco, who infamously tweeted an insensitive AIDS joke that went viral while she was on a flight to South Africa, got fired for it. Lindsey Stone got fired for a Facebook photo of her flipping the bird at Arlington National Cemetery. Jonah Lehrer got fired for plagiarism. "Hank" was fired for making a dick joke about a "dongle" to a friend at a tech conference. The woman who got Hank fired by tweeting her displeasure about the joke — the tweet included a photo of Hank and his friend — was fired as well.

But for these and the other subjects of Ronson's book, unemployment ended up being the least of their problems. Far worse was the jarring amount of hatred directed their way by the online masses, the sudden appearance of hordes of strangers seemingly obsessed with their destruction — strangers who, in addition to inflicting considerable psychological damage, seared onto their victims the modern equivalent of scarlet letters: highly ranked Google results about the unforgivable wrongs they had committed. (For the female victims of these shamings, of course, violent rape and death threats were also par for the course.)

Ronson dove into these stories in an attempt to highlight the devastating effects of this strange modern ritual and to better understand why some people walk away relatively unscathed from public shamings, while others still feel as though their lives have been ripped from under them long after the online chaos has mostly subsided. He thinks "we," not some small contingent of online trolls, are the problem — even if the average person wouldn't send Sacco a death threat, plenty of them eagerly retweeted her slip-up and used flight-tracking apps to gleefully watch her plane approach Cape Town.

In an interview, Ronson spoke with Science of Us about Monica Lewinsky's recent speech about the power of shame, what he sees as the prevalence of victim-blaming when these incident erupt, and his (perhaps surprising) deep-seated optimism about the human species.

Did you see the Monica Lewinksy Ted Talk on “The Price of Shame” that went up a few days ago?
Yes, and I thought it was great. She’s obviously a kind of kindred spirit. I’m kind of hoping to do some stuff with her. I’d love to do some work with her.

Your book echoed in my head when she said that it’s “Time to take back my narrative,” and that “You can insist on a different ending to your story."
Oh, I agree with her completely. Totally. And she got a standing ovation and she totally deserves it. The only thing is that some of the people who gave Monica a standing ovation would still happily tear apart Justine Sacco. I think there’s still a way to go, and I think people are more willing to forgive consensual sex scandals than what’s seen as, like, moral failings — even though I consider Justine Sacco to be just as innocent as Monica. But I think Monica was brilliant and I feel a kind of kindred spirit.

It seemed like in your book you were trying to figure out exactly what it was that allowed shame to sort of bounce off of some people, but that you weren’t quite able to come up with a unified theory about that.
I think there’s far fewer shameless people out there than we like to think, and public shaming is an incredibly powerful weapon. And sure, there are a few people out there who don’t feel they’ve done anything wrong when they’ve been shamed, but in general I think the conclusion to the book’s a little bit more nihilistic than that. It’s more that those of us on social media now have the power, and if we decide that somebody is shame-worthy, we can destroy them.

And it’s great that we don’t go after people involved in consensual sex scandals as much as we used to, because that was ridiculous, but we still go after people who don’t deserve it. I think a big public shaming is devastating to all but a very few people, and to me our desire to destroy people for nothing is a kind of bigger and more interesting mystery than why some people are immune to it.

That’s the part that I struggle with, because there were a million people who weren’t cackling to themselves and saying, “I hope Justine Sacco gets destroyed” or “I hope Lindsey Stone gets destroyed,” but they still eagerly retweeted damaging tweets about these people nonetheless. They even flocked to Facebook pages set up just to call for them to be fired.
Yeah! I mean Lindsey and Justine are really similar. People can’t have their cake and eat it — they want to destroy Justine and Lindsey, and they also want to not feel bad about it. They want to tear these people apart for nothing and think, Oh, I’m sure they’re fine. It’s a weird dissonance going on. And yeah, to set up a “Fire Lindsey Stone” page, and all those tens of thousands of tweets that were like “Last tweets of your career, Justine Sacco, sorry not sorry” and “I won’t rest until I get this bitch fired” ... The kind of brutality — especially because it’s coming from nice people like us — is horrifying and mysterious to me. So that’s the mystery I wanted to solve in the book. Why have we shifted our position? Why have we become these brutal people?

But have we become brutal people, or is it just that we no longer have the stocks? When you described all this stuff as a funhouse-mirror version of human nature, or something like that, part of me was like, "Well, maybe it is human nature and we’re just sublimating it into something a little less physically brutal."
I know what you’re saying, but I’d like to think that that isn’t the case. I’d like to think that people are basically good and they just don’t understand what it is that they’re doing because they haven’t thought it through. I recently gave a talk in London — and nobody had read the book yet since it hadn’t come out — and I compared Twitter to the Stasi, the East Germany police force. And when I said that, I heard somebody in the audience loudly tut. And as I stood onstage I thought, The only reason why you’re tutting is because you haven’t thought it through.

Because we’re just like the Stasi! Until we came along, the Stasi were the biggest surveillance network in world history — you know, everybody spying on their neighbors to make sure they were doing the right thing. And now, of course, we look back on that as monstrous. But that is exactly the system that we’ve set up, where somebody like Justine can be destroyed while she sleeps because we’ve decided that some tweet is a clue to her inherent evil, which is such a ridiculous thing to think about Justine.

Because it pretends that that tweet — it was not a good tweet, and it wasn’t a good joke, and if she was a writer on The Colbert Report, that joke wouldn’t make it to the show — but that’s what she was trying to do, but tens of thousands of people, hundreds of thousands of people, decided to pretend that they didn’t know that about Justine.

That’s what gets me about it, the willful ignorance. Everyone knows, at least deep down, that you can’t take one tweet by one person and make broad, sweeping generalizations about their character, but we seem to selectively forget that when we get caught up in the excitement of a shaming episode. A lot of these outrages don’t really pass the smell test, and yet they keep blowing up anyway. How do you prevent that? How do you inject some common sense?
When my book was extracted in the New York Times recently, most people really loved it. But then I got sort of attacked by a couple hundred people all at once, so it made me think that it was some sort of unified thing. And I didn’t reply to any of these people saying like, “What racist is Jon Ronson gonna put his cape on for next?” and stuff like that. And I didn’t reply, because I knew the only thing I’d say would be like evidence for the prosecution. And then somebody said, “Why hasn’t Jon Ronson replied to any of us?” and somebody else said, “Because Jon Ronson only replies to men.” At that point, I thought, Oh God!

You know, there’s something that Hank — the guy that whispered the dongle joke — said to me, which I didn’t put in the book, and I only noticed it when I relistened to the interview not long ago. He said, “I know that I’m just a kind of blank canvas for people to put their ideology onto.” And that’s what I was in that moment. You know, there are too many blank canvases for people to put their ideologies onto at the moment. But nobody is a blank canvas, and anybody who values ideology over human beings is somebody who’s lost their moral compass.

The very way a site like Twitter is constructed probably makes it easier to lose our moral compass, right? Because it’s in Twitter’s best interest for us to be able to retweet something with a click or two, but retweeting something, when a million people do it, can have grave consequences. Is there any way back from this, given the technology we have now?
I think there has to be, because what we’re doing is wrong. So there has to be a way back from it. I mean, you’re right — the technology of Twitter has got such a lot to do with it. Inadvertently, the way we surround ourselves with people who feel the same way we do, so we just kind of mutually approve each other — my friend, a documentary filmmaker, calls it “mutual grooming.” We’re grooming each other.

Like primates.
Yeah, and if anybody gets in the middle of that, we just scream them out, which is the opposite of democracy! In democracy, you hear other people’s points of view — you can have a kind of shout at each other, but you still want to hear each other’s points of view. In this, you just want to scream them out and demonize them and reduce them to some label. But I think there has to be a way back because it’s evidently not the way that humans should behave, and because my view is that we’re all good people just trying to do good, so it has to change.

Since my book came out, a few people said to me, “I’m gonna send this book to my children, so they’ll think twice next time they make some sort of joke that could be misconstrued.” And I’m like, That’s not the behavior change that I’m advocating, because that’s like saying, “Don’t wear short skirts, girls.” It’s like victim blaming. But I do want a behavior change. Now that we have the power — now that we are the judges in certain transgressions, we decide how severe people’s sentences should be, how brutal we should be towards them — we have to rediscover kindness and nuance and empathy, because we’ve lost it.

But I think that humans are kind, empathetic people who understand nuance, so I think this is a sort of false reality we’ve created for ourselves. I mean, you might say — I realize as I’m saying this I’m sounding like John Lennon’s "Imagine: and it sounds a bit genuflecting naïve — but having spent years now with the victims of public shaming campaigns, you really feel for them and you know that things have gone all wrong.

Naïve isn’t the word I’d use, but it’s definitely true that in the wake of something like the Sacco incident, 95 percent of the response isn’t, “Hey, maybe we shouldn’t shame Justine Sacco.” It’s predominantly, “Watch what you say.” So it seems like there’s a lot of that victim blaming going on.
Yeah, it’s victim blaming. It’s victim blaming. We don’t like it when police officers say, “It’s Saturday night, girls, don’t wear short skirts.” We know that’s victim blaming. And saying, “watch what you tweet” is victim blaming. Justine — it was a badly worded tweet, it was not a good joke — but the fact is, while Justine slept and was completely unable to respond — and in fact, that was part of the joy, that was part of the gaiety of the night, was that she was oblivious to her destruction — we destroyed her. I don’t think I’m being too much of a polemicist when I say that she was the victim in this.

When you talk about folks like Jonah Lehrer, Mike Daisey — people who committed actual transgressions, and for whom it might be hard to ever trust them to do nonfiction again maybe — how do they fit into your whole theory of public shaming in 2015?
I totally get what you’re saying and I think maybe if I hadn’t gone down the road that I’ve gone down the last few years, and met Jonah and met Michael Moynihan and met other recipients of other shamings where the transgressions were less serious, like Lindsey, I would probably feel the same way. But honestly I think it’s okay to humanize Jonah without exonerating him, and I actually want to live in a world where Jonah should get another chance, even though I really understand that he made some really stupid mistakes, both in the transgressions and also in trying to cover them up. To say he was his own worst enemy would be putting it mildly. But I still want to live in a world where people are allowed reentry into society, whatever they did. That’s just the world I want to live in.

Reentry is a really a good word for it because in some of the scenes in your book when you’re talking to people at their kitchen table and they’re just broken, it’s like society has collectively decided to shoot them into space and let them orbit alone for a while. There’s this sense of fundamental disconnection from the rest of humanity.
Yeah, and how traumatizing is that? I mean, Lindsey used words to me like worthless. Like she felt worthless. And I think she really meant it. And then when you’re cast out in this kind of major way, the way that Lindsey was and Jonah too — as I said, his transgressions were more serious — but still, to be cast out like that ...

This is why I sometimes think that, in a funny sort of way, people who are attacked by ridiculous trolls — like feminists who are attacked by misogynistic trolls — they’ve always got a support network. They’ve always got people around them to help them through. People like Justine Sacco didn’t have anyone. That kind of megashaming by good people like us as well as violent trolls, that’s worse, I think. In terms of drama, I think it’s worse.

I say this because the other week when I was in London, I was talking to a woman called Caroline-Criado Perez who was petitioning for more women to be on the British bank notes, which is hardly the most controversial thing to want, and yet she was attacked. She got millions of rape threats and death threats and she said that it was really frightening because she didn’t know whether it was hyperbole or whether the people meant it. But she had a big support group around her: Newspapers were on her side, and friends and fellow feminists, and all these people were supporting her. So she was never cast out into that orbit the way that Lindsey was or Justine was. That’s what I mean when I say in a sort of weird way, it’s not as profoundly traumatizing. I think what I’m saying is we are more terrifying: Nice, good people like us can be more terrifying than trolls.
[/quote]
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5640
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Parodite »

Doc, that handful of quotes attributed to Marx (some of them allegedly were in fact of Engels) does IMO not justify labeling Marxism as a theory/ideology that promotes genocide. Marx developed a socio-economic theory and critique of the politics of capitalism in Das Kapital where genocide as a justified means to achieve communist goals is not mentioned. His theory was that capitalism itself would generate so much inequality and misery that a bloody counter revolution was inevitable and cause capitalism to implode ultimately. But that is different from saying that it justifies genocide, let alone that genocide would be something you should want.

I find the references in holy books to wanted genocide much more explicit and frequent. That in some religious versions it only means that some souls will be saved and others lost forever to Hell or total oblivion.. doesn't make it any better, on the contrary! Physical death is one thing...but god forbid we do indeed have/are something like a soul that is the core of our being... and it should be destroyed forever? In other words.. a genocide of souls. Can't think of anything worse than that, as if the world is not already unfair enough... Not my copatea.

Can only repeat and underscore my point: people can use holy books, pretentious and underdeveloped theories like Marxism and even Donald Duck himself (if nothing else is available)... to use as a source of inspiration and excuse for their whatever behavior. As such you can't use those sources to explain those behaviors in the sense of a linear "because of source A.. behavior B had to happen as a consequence". Same can be said of course in the more positive realms of light and love: it is equally faulty to claim that people are only capable of loving others after they have read holy books, or Donald Duck (if nothing else is available) for that matter.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

It was baleful that Darwin's theory arose in a milieu of 19th century nationalism. Maybe it had to be like that, 'ya know- to get from point A to point and all- but it is a pretty dastardly combo.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Parodite wrote:Doc, that handful of quotes attributed to Marx (some of them allegedly were in fact of Engels) does IMO not justify labeling Marxism as a theory/ideology that promotes genocide. Marx developed a socio-economic theory and critique of the politics of capitalism in Das Kapital where genocide as a justified means to achieve communist goals is not mentioned. His theory was that capitalism itself would generate so much inequality and misery that a bloody counter revolution was inevitable and cause capitalism to implode ultimately. But that is different from saying that it justifies genocide, let alone that genocide would be something you should want.

I find the references in holy books to wanted genocide much more explicit and frequent. That in some religious versions it only means that some souls will be saved and others lost forever to Hell or total oblivion.. doesn't make it any better, on the contrary! Physical death is one thing...but god forbid we do indeed have/are something like a soul that is the core of our being... and it should be destroyed forever? In other words.. a genocide of souls. Can't think of anything worse than that, as if the world is not already unfair enough... Not my copatea.

Can only repeat and underscore my point: people can use holy books, pretentious and underdeveloped theories like Marxism and even Donald Duck himself (if nothing else is available)... to use as a source of inspiration and excuse for their whatever behavior. As such you can't use those sources to explain those behaviors in the sense of a linear "because of source A.. behavior B had to happen as a consequence". Same can be said of course in the more positive realms of light and love: it is equally faulty to claim that people are only capable of loving others after they have read holy books, or Donald Duck (if nothing else is available) for that matter.
In truth the time we spend in this universe is eternal at least as long as the universe exist. Because there is no arrow of time that exists as far as anyone can tell. So in reality I am not looking to sell or debate my eternal soul here. Or even the meaning of time being an illusion in the linear sense. That was good enough for Einstein so I figure that is good enough for me. Of course it also means nothing really concerning religion.

Anyway As far as Marxism and Nazism or whatever extremely violent "ism" goes Where someone knows what is best to do with the lives of others. And it can be a religious "ism" as well. I am not saying because of A, B had to happen. But I am claiming B happened in part because of A. And A was the use or misuse certainly of an idea. Maybe it was genocide looking for an excuse. a justification. IE Ideas don't mass murder people, People mass murder people. People do a lot of things because of their beliefs.

But lets go back a little bit.
There is a clear path from the theory of evolution through Galton to American progressive eugenics to the holocaust.

Galton, Darwin's cousin Did develop the theory of eugenics. In fact he gave it its name.
American progressives worried about the dangers of over population and the decline of the quality of humans through inter breeding did practice eugenics in the United States through forced sterilization

They did talk about it extensively and encouraged it practice in many parts of the world including Nazi Germany.

Hitler did mention American progressive eugenics in Mein Kampf Glowingly.

Nazi eugenics propaganda poster "We are not alone" Note the flag in the upper left.

Image

More
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

Without doubt the chain from Darwin to Galton to American progressive eugenics to the Nazis is unbroken. Though the eugenics actors made a pseudo science from Darwin's work and in fact Engels and Marx were talking about the need for holocaust(purportedly the first time the word was ever used) a decade before Darwin published. So maybe Darwin got his inspiration from Marx.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... /03/04.htm
Karl Marx in the New York Tribune 1853

Forced Emigration
Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:It was baleful that Darwin's theory arose in a milieu of 19th century nationalism. Maybe it had to be like that, 'ya know- to get from point A to point and all- but it is a pretty dastardly combo.
Indeed a lot of things converged I am thinking that they are still with us today.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Typhoon »

Doc wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:It was baleful that Darwin's theory arose in a milieu of 19th century nationalism. Maybe it had to be like that, 'ya know- to get from point A to point and all- but it is a pretty dastardly combo.
Indeed a lot of things converged I am thinking that they are still with us today.
Most of the things believed to be self-evident are later understood to be nothing more than prejudiced opinions.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Typhoon »

Meanwhile in Canada . . .

Creationist hopes his fossil find will get two plaques – one fitting his world view
Alberta man who discovered a rare fish fossil is happy to display it in a museum, even if he takes issue with scientists’ stance: ‘We agree to disagree’
Canadians, eh?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by noddy »

i still cant make the link between evolution and eugenics.

it must be the fault of the south east asian fruits that keep using the damned 'survival of the fittest/strongest' phrase instead of the more banal `survival of the ones who didnt die before they breed`.

humans get all macho and egotistical about the words fit and strong.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Good point, Noddy. The key to success in evolution is the ability to adapt to changes. Eugenics reduces variability, and would reduce humanity to a collection of varietal sub-species akin to dog breeds. Flaws would become as ensconsed as the desireable traits, and the reduced variability would result in a more vulnerable population.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Typhoon »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:Good point, Noddy. The key to success in evolution is the ability to adapt to changes. Eugenics reduces variability, and would reduce humanity to a collection of varietal sub-species akin to dog breeds. Flaws would become as ensconsed as the desireable traits, and the reduced variability would result in a more vulnerable population.
Spot on

Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male fertility in the Darwin family

The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Yukon Cornelius
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Yukon Cornelius »

Pretty sure we all agree that eugenics was a bad thing.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Yukon Cornelius wrote:Pretty sure we all agree that eugenics was a bad thing.
Do we? Look at the abortion rates of black women having abortions compared to all other groups.

since 1973 when abortion was legalized, even though Blacks account for 12 or 13% of the general population, they account for 35% of all abortions. Without abortion there would be 51 million black Americans today. With abortion there are 36 million. Nearly a 30% reduction in population than would have been otherwise. The size of these numbers alone are enough to give a very long pause to think.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Simple Minded

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Simple Minded »

Doc wrote:
Yukon Cornelius wrote:Pretty sure we all agree that eugenics was a bad thing.
Do we? Look at the abortion rates of black women having abortions compared to all other groups.

since 1973 when abortion was legalized, even though Blacks account for 12 or 13% of the general population, they account for 35% of all abortions. Without abortion there would be 51 million black Americans today. With abortion there are 36 million. Nearly a 30% reduction in population than would have been otherwise. The size of these numbers alone are enough to give a very long pause to think.
I would think that few pregnant women who have had an abortion would look at it as practicing eugenics, or even concern themselves with "society." I would imagine that for most who have had an abortion, the abortion seems more a personal action to correct an "inconvenient incident" that requires long term responsibility at considerable cost.

The flip side would be "I'm going to have sex to propagate my superior gene pool."

Now if you want to argue that those who claim to be in favor of "a woman's right to choose" are racist, that would require some mind reading skills.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Simple Minded wrote:
Doc wrote:
Yukon Cornelius wrote:Pretty sure we all agree that eugenics was a bad thing.
Do we? Look at the abortion rates of black women having abortions compared to all other groups.

since 1973 when abortion was legalized, even though Blacks account for 12 or 13% of the general population, they account for 35% of all abortions. Without abortion there would be 51 million black Americans today. With abortion there are 36 million. Nearly a 30% reduction in population than would have been otherwise. The size of these numbers alone are enough to give a very long pause to think.
I would think that few pregnant women who have had an abortion would look at it as practicing eugenics, or even concern themselves with "society." I would imagine that for most who have had an abortion, the abortion seems more a personal action to correct an "inconvenient incident" that requires long term responsibility at considerable cost.

The flip side would be "I'm going to have sex to propagate my superior gene pool."

Now if you want to argue that those who claim to be in favor of "a woman's right to choose" are racist, that would require some mind reading skills.

That is not what I am claiming I put forward facts That are indeed facts that show for some reason black women have more abortions by far than any other group. The question is why? Are they being targeted for it? If so that is negative eugenics(the bad kind associated with genocide)

I have heard the claim that Abortion clinics are predominately in proximity to areas with large black populations. (I am not sure if that is true or not.) I would also note that Margret Sanger spent a great deal of time trying to "fix the black "race"" even though she was careful to put it in more neutral terms.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by noddy »

careful with that bow string eugene.
ultracrepidarian
noddy
Posts: 11318
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by noddy »

we have been butchering out the bloodline of the enemy since day zero, the outcome is obvious and requires no science scapegoats.
ultracrepidarian
Simple Minded

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Simple Minded »

Doc wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Doc wrote:
Yukon Cornelius wrote:Pretty sure we all agree that eugenics was a bad thing.
Do we? Look at the abortion rates of black women having abortions compared to all other groups.

since 1973 when abortion was legalized, even though Blacks account for 12 or 13% of the general population, they account for 35% of all abortions. Without abortion there would be 51 million black Americans today. With abortion there are 36 million. Nearly a 30% reduction in population than would have been otherwise. The size of these numbers alone are enough to give a very long pause to think.
I would think that few pregnant women who have had an abortion would look at it as practicing eugenics, or even concern themselves with "society." I would imagine that for most who have had an abortion, the abortion seems more a personal action to correct an "inconvenient incident" that requires long term responsibility at considerable cost.

The flip side would be "I'm going to have sex to propagate my superior gene pool."

Now if you want to argue that those who claim to be in favor of "a woman's right to choose" are racist, that would require some mind reading skills.

That is not what I am claiming I put forward facts That are indeed facts that show for some reason black women have more abortions by far than any other group. The question is why? Are they being targeted for it? If so that is negative eugenics(the bad kind associated with genocide)

I have heard the claim that Abortion clinics are predominately in proximity to areas with large black populations. (I am not sure if that is true or not.) I would also note that Margret Sanger spent a great deal of time trying to "fix the black "race"" even though she was careful to put it in more neutral terms.
note to self: Try to refrain from using the word "you" in my posts, use the word "one" instead! :)

got it Doc. I am familiar with Sanger's ideas.

My point is that communities don't get pregnant, individuals do. Mostly women for some reason.... :?

Couching the discussion in terms of white or black plays into the hands of the race pimps/social crusaders/politicians who gain power and great incomes from keeping the discussion constrained by their lexicons. Solving problems does not bode well for their long term job security. The white/black filter would be the last one I would employ if I wished to understand/ameliorate the situation, or the first one I would employ if my goal was getting an income, presenting myself as "compassionate" or getting elected.

I'm sure there are many similarities among women who get abortions. I would bet that POS parents, dysfunctional family lives, and self-destructive local cultures are predominant. Examination of each individual case, as an individual case would be instructive. I'm pretty sure well defined patterns would emerge.

Theodore Dalrymple has written extensively on the phenomena of the underclass. Since he was practicing in England, race was not the issue, it is "claimed" to be in the US.

Humans seem pretty consistent. Provide them with perverse financial incentives that reward self-destructiveness (make poverty lucrative) and many will take the bait. Why do some have the power to resist? In my simple minded experience, it has to do with local cultural expectations.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Theory of evolution: the most deadly idea in history?

Post by Doc »

Simple Minded wrote:
Doc wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Doc wrote:
Yukon Cornelius wrote:Pretty sure we all agree that eugenics was a bad thing.
Do we? Look at the abortion rates of black women having abortions compared to all other groups.

since 1973 when abortion was legalized, even though Blacks account for 12 or 13% of the general population, they account for 35% of all abortions. Without abortion there would be 51 million black Americans today. With abortion there are 36 million. Nearly a 30% reduction in population than would have been otherwise. The size of these numbers alone are enough to give a very long pause to think.
I would think that few pregnant women who have had an abortion would look at it as practicing eugenics, or even concern themselves with "society." I would imagine that for most who have had an abortion, the abortion seems more a personal action to correct an "inconvenient incident" that requires long term responsibility at considerable cost.

The flip side would be "I'm going to have sex to propagate my superior gene pool."

Now if you want to argue that those who claim to be in favor of "a woman's right to choose" are racist, that would require some mind reading skills.

That is not what I am claiming I put forward facts That are indeed facts that show for some reason black women have more abortions by far than any other group. The question is why? Are they being targeted for it? If so that is negative eugenics(the bad kind associated with genocide)

I have heard the claim that Abortion clinics are predominately in proximity to areas with large black populations. (I am not sure if that is true or not.) I would also note that Margret Sanger spent a great deal of time trying to "fix the black "race"" even though she was careful to put it in more neutral terms.
note to self: Try to refrain from using the word "you" in my posts, use the word "one" instead! :)

got it Doc. I am familiar with Sanger's ideas.

My point is that communities don't get pregnant, individuals do. Mostly women for some reason.... :?

Couching the discussion in terms of white or black plays into the hands of the race pimps/social crusaders/politicians who gain power and great incomes from keeping the discussion constrained by their lexicons. Solving problems does not bode well for their long term job security. The white/black filter would be the last one I would employ if I wished to understand/ameliorate the situation, or the first one I would employ if my goal was getting an income, presenting myself as "compassionate" or getting elected.

I'm sure there are many similarities among women who get abortions. I would bet that POS parents, dysfunctional family lives, and self-destructive local cultures are predominant. Examination of each individual case, as an individual case would be instructive. I'm pretty sure well defined patterns would emerge.

Theodore Dalrymple has written extensively on the phenomena of the underclass. Since he was practicing in England, race was not the issue, it is "claimed" to be in the US.

Humans seem pretty consistent. Provide them with perverse financial incentives that reward self-destructiveness (make poverty lucrative) and many will take the bait. Why do some have the power to resist? In my simple minded experience, it has to do with local cultural expectations.
There are several ways that Black women could be targeted to have abortions. One is by marketing. Planned Parenthood apparently from what I have seen pays black ministers to push their message. Also I have seen the claim that abortions clinics are more common close to areas where more black folks live. I have looked at the maps and just from my impression of them without going into a lengthy dataset gathering analysis I think it is true. It is certainly true that there are many more abortion clinics in cities with large black populations. In other areas of high black populations like the south east abortions clinics in more rural settings seem to be pretty regularly distributed in the South East states and through the Atlantic states. However there are not many in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Both of the above possible reason points to the social/"racial" pimps being the culprits. Make no mistake that at this time there is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of Black
folks going on in this country. Many are starting to question who really has their interests at heart.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Post Reply