Liberals deride the fraudulence and flakery of the supposed science underlying racist ideologies, yet many liberals advance an equally fraudulent and flaky science to promote their own ideology: an ideology that promotes the mass migration from the Third World to the West, where the fertility of the indigenous people has been driven well below the replacement rate by liberals promoting every form of non-reproductive sex. This is a policy, deliberate or otherwise, of genocide that is destroying the ethnic identity, both racial and cultural, of the European peoples.
In her book, The War that Ended Peace, an account of events leading up to World War 1, Margaret MacMillan, Oxford Professor of International History, offers a fine example of such fraudulent liberal racial science.
Writing of what she calls Oswald Spengler’s “great work”, The Decline of the West, she says:
[Spengler] argued that there were natural life cycles for civilizations and that the Western world had reached its winter. Underlying much of such concern about degeneration and decline were widely shared assumptions drawn from Darwin’s theory of evolution. Although he [she means Darwin] was talking about the evolution of species over thousands of years and in the natural world, it struck many intellectuals in the nineteenth century that his ideas could be applied to human societies as well.
First, not everyone thinks Spengler’s book was a “great work.” To many it is more like a miasmatic phantasmagoria of mystical Germanic disphoric delusion. But that aside, from where, exactly, in the works of Darwin, could any such nonsensical theory of “natural life cycles for civilizations” be drawn? On that question, MacMillan leaves the reader entirely in the dark.
As for the claim that “many intellectuals of the nineteenth century were struck by the thought that Darwin’s ideas could be applied to human societies,” that is hardly something to be wondered at, since Darwin himself explicitly stated that that this was so. Therefore, MacMillan’s comment that Darwin “was talking about the evolution of species over thousands of years and in the natural world” fails to discredit those nineteenth century intellectuals who thought Darwinism was applicable to human societies.
Moreover, the conclusions that MacMillan implies, namely, that humans are (a) not subject to evolutionary processes, (b) that evolution can only be considered on a timescale of many thousands of years and (c) that mankind is not part of the natural world, are all false.
Taking those points in turn:
(a) Archaeological, genetic and other lines of evidence make abundantly clear that humanity is an evolved species that emerged probably from a single small African population about 100,000 years ago and which, as it spread across the globe, underwent further evolution to yield the morphological and physiological diversity evident in the many races, tribes and nations of modern man.
(b) The notion that evolutionary change occurs only over thousands of years is refuted by endless examples to the contrary, from the story of the melanic moth, the first widely known example of evolutionary change occuring in the wild over the course of a few short years, to laboratory experiments showing morphological and fitness changes in microorganisms within 2000 generations (or about three weeks under optimal growing conditions), the evolution of a two-fold difference in the size of fish within four generations, and changes in sperm competitiveness in mice under selective pressure over 12 generations.
(c) Except to a creationist, the idea that mankind is not a part of the natural world is bizarre unless one is to infer that the elite are now determined to reduce humanity to the status of a domesticated animal, to be bred, selected, culled and brainwashed as the elite thinks fit. But even so, the elite would remain autonomous and thus would still be a part of nature, subject to all the vagaries of the environment beyond human control.
But, MacMillan continues.
Using Darwin in this way [i.e., applying, quite rational Darwinian ideas about evolution to mankind] seemed to fit conveniently with nineteenth-centurey view of progress and science. Social Darwinists, as they came to be known, believed that they could explain both the rise and the disappearance of different societies with the help of natural selection.
Yes, well, as it happens they were right. How else, for example, did the Tasmanians disappear (or the Tasmanian Tiger for that matter)? They succumbed to, and were replaced by, another human group (i.e., British settlers) with whom they were only distantly related (The Australian aborigines are thought to have reached Australia from Asia around 40,000 years ago, and are thus one of the most evolutionarily isolated human populations on earth.). The ethnic cleansing of the Tasmanians was an evolutionary event, changing if only slightly, the genetic composition of the human population. And since mankind is a part of nature, this was a case of natural selection.
So the people MacMillan identifies as wacko “social Darwinists” were in fact, correct in understanding man’s place in nature and in recognizing that the human species continues to evolve as some groups are extinguished while others rise, multiply, spread, and over time, diversify, biologically and culturally.
And now for the liberal “anti-racist” political payload :
And in a leap which had no scientific basis and which was to reinforce racialist theories, Social Darwinists [i.e, people who, like Charles Darwin, sought to explain the development of humanity in accordance with evolutionary principles] generally assumed that human beings were not a single species but a variety which they confusingly and interchangeably called races or nations.
Wow, so much nonsense. Or is it propaganda?
MacMillan gives no references to support her claim that social Darwinists were biological illiterates who described humanity as “not a single species but a variety.” That is not surprising, since 19th century Darwinists understood perfectly well that a species consists of a group of organism among whom there are no organic barriers to mating and successful reproduction (there are special cases, vegetatively reproducing organisms, etc. but these need not concern us here).
By that definition, mankind is clearly a single species, so MacMillan’s assertion that Social Darwinists believed “mankind was not a single species” amounts to either a serious scholarly error, or a piece of sheer lying propaganda.
As for the claim that social Darwinists believed humanity to be variety, that is mere nonsense. A variety, is term normally applied only to plants, and refers to a distinct form of a species, not to different species.
But what anyone with eyes in their head knows, as did the social Darwinists MacMillan seeks to discredit, is that humanity is diverse: distinguishable into families, clans, national types, and the great families of mankind, not just black, white, yellow and red, but within those groupings huge differences in body form, physiology and facial features, between Hutu and Tutsi, bushman and Yoruba, Celt and Saxon, dolicocephalic Han Chinese and the broad-skulled ethnicities of Southern China.
So whether or not their beliefs reinforced certain racialist theories, the social Darwinists were correct. The greater human gene pool is divided into many sub-pools, the latter also with subdivisions, as the result of longstanding barriers of geography, politics, class, caste, and many other factors that restrict inter-racial breeding. To recognize that mankind is divided into many races is thus to use correct, scientifically sound terminology, and any amount of liberal jeering and diversionary rubbish will not alter the biological reality.
And because of restricted gene flow among the races and sub-races of mankind, each has a distinct gene pool, the differences among them accumulating over time as the result of differences in selective pressures, chance mutations and genetic drift.
Such differentiation arose in the course of up to 100,000 years of separate development. What it means in terms of human potential, we hardly know. But in the minds of liberals and globalists, those who wish to conserve human biodiversity, or at least to preserve their own unique racial group, are to be smeared on the basis of a fraudulent racial science and the misrepresentation of Darwinian thought as “racialist theorizing.” Meantime, liberals, pursue their insane drive to mongrelize humanity as a means to their goal of global empire.
See also: CanSpeccy: In Praise of Diversity.