Where Chairman Mao and Teenage Nihilists Got Their Motivation

 

Nov 12, 2009 — What propelled Mao Zhedong to become the biggest mass murderer in world history?  Let a professor of Chinese history answer the question.  James Pusey (Bucknell U), writing in Nature this week for a series on “Global Darwin,”¹ was explaining the vacuum left by the collapse of the reform movement in the early 20th century.  A “group of intellectuals” found Marxism attractive.  It was the fittest ideology:

Many tried to fill it: Sun, Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kaishek) and, finally, the small group of intellectuals who, in indignation at the betrayal at Versailles, found in Marxism what seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive.
    This was not, of course, all Darwin’s doing, but Darwin was involved in it all.  To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped).  One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a ‘racial’ struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled.
    Who taught Chinese these things?  Marx?  Mao?  No.  Darwin.

The ideology that led Mao to murder 77 million of his own people (11/30/2005) began with a view of nature that values struggle and fitness over the individual.  Though acknowledging that the political currents in China were complex, with reformers like Yan Fu and Sun Yat-sen incorporating Darwinian principles without radical revolution, Pusey placed the worldview that empowered Marxist ideology squarely at the feet of Darwin.  Darwin was Mao’s ideological mentor.

    Darwinian ideas can produce murderous results in individuals, too.  The Sunday Times Online printed an article that described the Darwinian motivations behind some of the serial killers of recent memory.  “The naturalist [Darwin] outraged the church, prompting a bitter debate that still sets creationists against evolutionists,” Dennis Sewell wrote.  “Now a sinister link has emerged between his work and the recent spate of high-school killings by crazed, nihilistic teenagers.” 

Despite Darwin’s personal reputation as an “amiable Victorian gent,” Sewell continued, he “has been fingered as a racist, an apologist for genocide, and the inspiration of a string of psychopathic killers.”  The shooters at Columbine High School, for instance, saw themselves as eliminators of the weak.  Harris wore “Natural Selection” on his T-shirt the day of the shooting spree.  Many other artifacts gathered afterwards, described in the article, uncovered the boys’ fascination with “survival of the fittest.”

    In 2007, detectives intercepted a school shooting in Pennsylvania.  They “discovered that their suspect often logged on to a social networking site called Natural Selection’s Army,” the article says.  Sewell discussed a personality cult around Harris and Klebold in certain chatrooms and websites, including a computer game that lets the player act out the massacre. 

“Natural Selection” apparel is hot with these aficionados, and “‘Natural Selection’ is the name of a popular computer game in which competing teams attempt to annihilate one another – a sign that Darwin’s term is still associated by many teenagers with sudden and extreme violence.”  Another case is the killing spree in 2007 in Finland by Pekka-Eric Auvinen, who declared in his manifesto before the event that he was a social Darwinist wanting to weed out the unfit.  In his words: “It’s time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track.”

 Sewell acknowledged that Darwin himself would have been horrified by all this.  He knows that other great figures have been used by murderers as their inspiration.  Still, he was not ready to let the bearded old man off the hook.  “One conclusion implicit in evolutionary theory is that human existence has no ultimate purpose or special significance…. Darwin also taught that morality has no essential authority, but is something that itself evolved,” he continued. 

These simple (and simplistic) ideas are certainly accessible to disturbed adolescents who feel nothing stops them from taking natural law into their own hands.  And Darwin himself wrote in 1881, “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.”

 Sewell is author of the book The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics.  His Times article was published on the Science page, not the Opinion page.  On page 2, he continued supporting his premise that Darwin’s views feed into the nihilism behind high school shootings – and political genocides – because it destroys all moral restraint.  One particular example shows this is not an isolated interpretation. 

He said, “Cheerleaders celebrating Darwin’s 200th birthday in colleges across America last February sang ‘Randomness is good enough for me, If there’s no design it means I’m free’ – lines from a song by the band Scientific Gospel.”  With a gospel like that, no wonder some go beyond the mere abandonment of sexual mores taught by their parents.  “But wackos such as Harris and Auvinen can just as readily interpret it as a licence to kill.” 

Sewell ended by pointing out that we cannot begin to address the issues when presented only with a “bowdlerized account of Darwin’s work” – i.e., a sanitized version portraying Darwin as a scientific saint.  He said, “The more sinister implications of the world-view that has come to be called ‘Darwinism’ — and the interpretation the teenage nihilists put on it – are as much part of the Darwin story as the theory of evolutions [sic].”

---

1.  James Pusey, “Global Darwin: Revolutionary road,” Nature 462, 162-163 (12 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/462162a.

You have just seen what two scholars said who were not intelligent design leaders, creationists, or Bible-thumping preachers.  If you will not listen to the latter, then listen to the former.  You heard them saying what the preachers would have said anyway.  Let’s recap the list of principles that Pusey said you have to believe in to be a Marxist:

1. Inexorable forces push mankind to inevitable progress (are we there yet?)
2. There are set stages of progress (which can be skipped; e.g., by revolution).
3. History is a story of violent struggle (i.e., violence, not peace, is the ultimate reality).
4. The struggle is between classes or races (meaning, genocide is sometimes a moral obligation).
5. The individual must be severely subordinated to the group (so you are just a pawn in a game played by forces of nature).
6. An enlightened group must lead the people for their own good (e.g., the Communist Party leaders, who lived more royally than Czars, while their people suffered in famines and cramped apartments or in prison camps).
7. People must not be humane to their enemies (or to the unfit).
8. The forces of history assure victory to those who struggle (i.e., evolve or perish; eliminate the Mother Theresas and hospitals who unnaturally prolong the life of the unfit).

Again: who taught the Chinese these things?  Marx?  Mao?  No.  Darwin.
    What a world we live in.  On one side you have radical revolutionaries and teenage nihilists killing for Darwin.  On the other you have radical Muslims killing for Allah.  What to do?  Run not to the poorly-named Scientific Gospel, or to any self-proclaimed messiah who’s dead, but to the true gospel of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.  Run to the true Messiah who gave his life for his friends.  Run to Teacher whose two greatest commandments were to love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Notice how un-Darwinian his Sermon on the Mount is.  The truth, not randomness, will set you free.  The truth will lead to a flourishing free society based on individual responsibility and charity.  You will know teachers of lies and teachers of the truth by their fruits.
Next headline on:  Darwin • Politics and Ethics • Bible and Theology

Black Conservative: Lloyd Marcus’ Confessions

By Lloyd Marcus

Coming from the projects, the story of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, is inspiring. Ironically, the success of Obama, a black, and Sotomayor, a Latina, epitomizes the availability of the American Dream to minorities as well as the greatness of America. And yet, both harbor resentments and seek to reshape America.

Here is a quote from Sotomayor:  “I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Imagine if a white male nominee made this racist statement in reverse. He would be toast!

Despite Sotomayor’s heart-warming story, Republicans MUST have the courage to say “NO!” to this radical, extreme left, agenda-driven nominee.

Like Sotomayor, I too lived in the projects. Allow me to share the tale of why I am a proud black conservative.

Confessions of a Black Conservative

Young Lloyd Marcus

A urine smell permeated the stairwell. In the darkness, due to smashed light bulbs, the sound of broken wine bottles underfoot echoed off the concrete walls. I was nine years old. With the elevators out of service half of the time due to vandalism, many times I was forced to take the scary trek into the shadow of death up the stairwell to our sixth-floor apartment in the projects of East Baltimore.

This was a far cry from the brand-spanking-new building we moved into just two years earlier. I remember our excitement when my parents, three younger siblings and I moved in our apartment. It was a dream come true, moving from our leaky roof ghetto into a place where everything, including the appliances, was new. We were one of the first in the eleven-story, all-black-residents building. While a few people kept their apartments lovely, most seemed committed to destroying the building.

All I kept hearing was that everything was the “white man’s fault.” Even at age nine, I sarcastically thought to myself, “How can we stop these evil white people from sneaking in here at night peeing in the stairwell, leaving broken wine bottles, smashing the light bulbs and attacking people?”

My early experience living in the government project taught me that some folks simply have a ghetto mindset. I also witnessed the trap of government welfare. And why were so many around me angry and violent despite getting free housing, food and health care?

It was the late ’50s when my dad was one of the first blacks to break the color barrier into the Baltimore Fire Department. The sight of him in his crisp dress-blue firefighter uniform made everyone proud, though none more than me. With dad’s new job, the government raised our rent to $72 per month. I remember my dad saying, “Seventy-two dollars! They must be crazy. We’re movin’!” We moved to a suburban black community. I truly believe I would not be who I am today had we stayed in the projects.

Several of my cousins stayed enslaved to the system and the bigotry of low expectations. Because true self-esteem comes from personal achievement, they possessed very little. They lived angry and bitter lives consumed with serial impregnating, out-of-wedlock births and substance abuse. An outrageously high number died prematurely.

So when I hear politicians pandering to the so-called poor of America, it turns my stomach. I’ve witnessed the deterioration of the human spirit, wasted lives and suffering that happens when government becomes “daddy.”

Editor’s Note: Lloyd Marcus is the Deltona, Fla.-based songwriter and vocalist who vaulted to fame for his song, “American Tea Party Anthem,” which became the musical rallying cry of the American Tea Party Movement.  He is also president of the National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color (NAACPC).  I’ve written about him on at least several occasions.  To learn more about him, visit www.LloydMarcus.net or LloydMarcus.com.

Is it Okay for Liberals to Call Blacks the ‘N’ Word?

Original Article

By Lloyd Marcus
Guest Blogger

“Maybe this nigger should shut up and learn his place” is one of numerous racist hate-filled comments posted on YouTube attacking me, a black Conservative, for writing the American Tea Party Anthem. And who is spewing this racist hate? So-called “tolerant” liberals.

But how can this be? According to the biased media, liberal Democrats are saviors saintly protecting blacks from evil rich white conservative Republicans. Regretfully, their “devoid of the truth” marketing plan has been extremely successful. For generations, like zombies, blacks have awarded liberal Democrats 90 percent of their vote.

Like the woman in the old diet infomercial, I want to scream to my fellow blacks, “STOP THE INSANITY! Liberals Democrats are NOT OUR FRIENDS!” They want to keep us on their “you’re a victim” plantation. Simply put, liberal Democrats HATE “uppity” blacks who achieve without their programs such as Affirmative Action.

Here are my outrageously stupid beliefs which have caused libs to call me the “N” word on numerous occasions: I love my country; I tell youths all limits are self-imposed; no one is entitled to the fruits of someone else’s labor; and I refuse to see myself as a victim.

Liberal actress-comedian Janeane Garofalo, diagnoses blacks who think like me as suffering from “Stockholm Syndrome”. Garofalo, in her arrogance, is REALLY saying, “Get your black ‘A’ back on the plantation. Who do you think you are? You are NOT free. You are an eternal victim. Every white American will ALWAYS owe you! GOT IT, you dumb, ‘N’?”

And yet, with help from their local buddies in the media, Democrats successfully brand Conservative Republicans as racists. History reveals the truth that blatant racism has been the elephant in the liberal Democrat’s living room for years. See this site for the facts.

FACT! Conservative Republicans do not persecute black achievers. Liberal Democrats DO! Blacks achieving without Liberal Democrat assistance are targeted for destruction. Examples are former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. These two brilliant blacks should have been held up to black youths as shining examples of what can be achieved in America via character, education and hard work. Instead, Liberal Democrats despise Rice and Thomas. Rice and Thomas severely weaken the lie that America is racist with limited opportunity for minorities.

Also, the “victim business” can be extremely profitable. Remember when the NAACP got $54 million from Denny’s because some blacks received slow service? Give me a break! And then, there is the dirty little secret among liberal black Democrats. Rice and Thomas broke an unspoken rule which goes as follows: to be true to one’s blackness, one MUST always harbor, at least a minimal, resentment against white America!

Here are more examples of liberal racism. A white blogger posted a doctored photo of black former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele in white minstrel blackface. The caption read, “Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house.” Liberal cartoonists published vicious racist cartoons of Rice. They even called her “Aunt Jemima.” Former KKK member, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), used the “N” word in an interview. Senator Byrd apologized and everyone moved on. A few Republicans who made far milder gaffs were verbally flogged within an inch of their lives and subjected to high-tech lynchings.

The media ignores liberal Democrat racism. I guess they consider it a kind of ‘tough love’ to reign in us blacks who have wondered off the victim plantation. When they call us the “N” word, it is only because they care. “Ouch, I’m movin’, easy with that whip!”

It is time for blacks to wake up and smell the betrayal. Democrats’ so-called compassionate policies and programs have destroyed many black families. Before Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” in 1965, most black families were intact. Today, over 60 percent of black kids grow up without dads. Again, I refer you to this site for the facts.  The media and Democrats are co-conspirators in keeping as many blacks as possible crippled with a victim mindset and dependent on Democrats and government. Totally disgusting.

So, you libs and Dems, keep calling me the “N’ word. It only strengthens my resolve to keep standing up for the truth. In my best Charlton Heston as Moses impression, I command, “Liberal Democrats, LET MY PEOPLE GO!”

Editor’s Note: Lloyd Marcus is the Deltona, Fla.-based songwriter and vocalist who vaulted to fame for his song, “American Tea Party Anthem,” which became the musical rallying cry of the American Tea Party Movement.  He is also president of the National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color (NAACPC).  I’ve written about him on at least four occasions.  To learn more about him, visit www.LloydMarcus.net or LloydMarcus.com.

Racists Upset Over Possible Baltimore Mayor Replacement

From Moonbattery

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at 8:15 AM

Rush Limbaugh is upset that the Governor of Maryland may appoint an African-American to replace Baltimore’s corruptocrat Mayor Sheila Dixon, who is under indictiment for theft and perjury. Limbaugh is quoted as saying:

“My concern is who would the governor appoint? What if the governor appointed somebody colored? … Would he appoint a negro to be the mayor?”

OK, now the real story. It’s the NAACP that is upset that the Governor might appoint a white person to replace the corrupt mayor.

“Our concern is who would the governor appoint?” (Marvin L. Cheatham, the president of the Baltimore Chapter of the NAACP) said. “Here you have a predominantly African-American city. What if the governor appointed somebody white? … Would he appoint someone Irish to be the mayor?”

Puts a different color on things, doesn’t it?

“Where the white or Irish women at?”

In semi-related news, super-genius Congresswoman Sheila Jackson “Flag on Mars” Lee wants Rush Limbaugh barred from ownership in any NFL Team, but claims to support the First Amendment.