Was Darwin Really a Eugenicist, or just Misunderstood?

By Jonathon Ludwig

Upon confronting even the slightest opposition to the Darwinian model of Natural Selection, or the lawful relationship between this model and its practical application by Darwinophile Adolph Hitler, nests of  adherants of the Darwin cult are apt to attack with the fervent viciousness of any  religious fanatic. The popular tactic developed by Darwin’s bulldog T.H. Huxley, and used by Darwinian priests ever since in their defense of Darwin is to clump any opposing hypothesis used to describe the causal principle of evolution as being “creationist” and thus not worthy of further consideration. Design, intelligence or directionality in evolutionary processes must be ridiculed before being treated as warranting of a serious investigation. Priests and other defenders of the faith who use this dirty tactic such as modern geneticist Richard Dawkins portray their messianic devotion to the cult of Darwin by such disturbing quotes as the following introduction to his  The Selfish Gene in 1989:

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin

“Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin. To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth, but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist… we no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G.G. Simpson put it thus: “The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely”. (1)

What Dawkins is saying is that Darwin’s Revelation demands that mankind dismiss all concepts of humanity from Socrates and Jesus Christ to the Platonic Christian Humanists of the Renaissance that gave birth to the 1776 Declaration of Independence. Mankind is not made in the image of the creator, nor created equal, being endowed with a power of creative reason entitling all of humanity to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  The true Darwinist must believe that nothing can be further from the truth, as the imperial program of survival of the fittest expressed by both Thomas Hobbes and later Thomas Malthus affirms.

It is primarily Hobbes and Malthus’s evil program which Darwin uses as his foundation to construct the design of his own biological machine. And lest there still be doubting true believers out there, let us simply look to Darwin’s own words to see what social consequences he himself developed from his Malthusian premises:

“We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (2)

Upon reading such indicting thoughts from Darwin’s own pen, we must wonder why such disciples as Richard Dawkins have not renounced the Darwinian/eugenics model in favor of a system far less fascist? The following excerpt from the 2006 article “Eugenics May Not Be Bad” by Dawkins reveals much of the thinking which modern geneticists have concluded as being the necessary basis of breeding better humans:

“IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as “these are not one-dimensional abilities” apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

Richard Dawkins, high priest of the Darwin cult

Richard Dawkins, high priest of the Darwin cult

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?” (3)

So we come full circle. Darwin was a Malthusian, and Darwin’s followers are eugenicists, and eugenists created the environmentalist movement to revive the ghost of Malthus. All this to attempt to justify the elimination of the unfit by an oligarchical master class who wish to maintain a “scientific dictatorship”. This is the new Satanic religion which is in the midst of fulfilling the nightmarish social model of T.H. Huxley’s grand children who wrote Brave New World and dedicated their lives to putting it into practice. This is the model for a new dark age guiding humanity into an artificially induced extinction by nuclear war. It is only by passing Glass-Steagall and reviving the LaRouche Plan for a world economic recovery that the scientific fact of man’s creative nature shall have any hope of being preserved, such that a new Renaissance may once again blossom.


Darwin’s astute observation that the selective breeding of humans along Malthusian lines is the logical outgrowth of his system was in conflict with his own moral inclinations evidenced by the following quote also from The Descent of Man:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”

This serves as evidence that unlike T.H. Huxley and the British oligarchy using Darwin for their own satanic ends, Darwin himself was tragically mournful of the undeniable social consequences of his own system. Darwin was nothing but a tool.

End Notes

(1) Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1976, p.1

(2) Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, New York, Clarke Given and Hooper Publishers, reprint from 2nd Edition, 1871, p.152

(3) Richard Dawkins, “Eugenics May Not Be Bad”, Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Nov. 19, 2006