Liberal Myths Part Three: Darwinian Evolution

This essay forms part of a series for my paid subscribers on the liberal myths that have shaped modern anarcho-tyranny:

1. Liberal Myths Part One: The ‘Good War’

2. Liberal Myths Part Two: White Privilege

3. Liberal Myths Part Three: Darwinian Evolution

4. Liberal Myths Part Four: What is a Sensitive Young Man Meant to Make of the History of Apartheid?

5. Liberal Myths Part Five: Is Barack Obama a Real Person?

My writing on anarcho-tyranny can be found here:

1. Anarcho-tyranny in South Africa

2. Anarcho-tyranny escalates into global liberal terror

   ---

“I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding evolution as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives, is not so much your arguments against it, as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.”

CS Lewis, letter to Captain Bernard Acworth, one of the founders of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951

“The use of an organ does not explain its origin, on the contrary! During the greater part of the time occupied in the formation of a certain quality, this quality does not help to preserve the individual; it is of no use to him, and particularly not in his struggle with external circumstances and foes… The influence of environment is nonsensically overrated in Darwin: the essential factor in the process of life is precisely the tremendous inner power to shape and to create forms… Natural Selection is also credited with the power of slowly effecting unlimited metamorphoses: it is believed that every advantage is transmitted by heredity, and strengthened in the course of generations (when heredity is known to be so capricious that . . .); the happy adaptations of certain creatures to very special conditions of life, are regarded as the result of surrounding influences. Nowhere, however, are examples of unconscious selection to be found (absolutely nowhere).”

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1901

What mean? Hercules kills the Medusa which turns men to stone.

Evolution, like democracy, like white privilege, like climate change, forms the background of all thought in the western world.

And it is one of the main reasons western thought has become so rancid.

In a sense, it is the founding myth of western liberalism.

And I say myth, because it was always leapt upon as a way to attack greatness, glory, and higher life. Plus, there is very little evidence for it.

Tom Wolfe, the greatest journalist/culture observer of our time, recently called the whole thing a myth in a book about how evolution could never account for human speech and memory - note the interesting title, The Kingdom of Speech.

But equally note below, how his interviewer describes questioning evolution as ‘very dangerous’. Remind you of the last two years? Why dangerous? Because the myth is a founding myth, a substitute for religion.

First of all, let me say that Darwin, when he saw finches with different size beaks on different islands for different types of feeding, did not discover anything new. Farmers and shepherds have known for millennia that animals who are fittest for survival pass on their traits to their young.

The BAPman makes the aesthetic and naturalist argument against Darwin:

“Clearly physics and chemistry seem to be driven by no purpose or goal. But animals seem very much driven by motive or purpose, and is hard to explain a biological feature without reference to its end or purpose. So the Darwinist forgets, or tries to change the topic all the time: he knows what is really interesting is the question of what drives life, what explains animal behavior and what explains the correspondence between organism and environment. This is the question. The mechanism of heredity or the means by which a species is shaped, natural or unnatural selection, which is really Darwin’s only insight, is the least interesting part of all… Something every sheep breeder in history has known. But that this alone explains animal adaptation or behavior is nonsense…

“There is Alpine mouse that collects food for winter. Somehow it knows exactly the proportion of poison herbs to include in winter stores, to preserve them. Too much, and the food it gathered becomes poison, too little and it spoils. There is example Schopenhauer gives: two insects, and one will kill the other on sight. Yet this other presents no immediate danger to the first, but will only eat its eggs in the future. How does that first insect know this? It is not taught, nor does it see. It has very primitive nervous system. It knows this somehow ‘in the blood.’ This is a very specific and complicated behavior. There are many such cases in nature!”

Yes, there is something ‘in the blood’. And not only in the animals which display behaviour which could never be learnt gradually or passed on merely in mutated genes.

How does a sperm and an egg gather nutrition and divide its cells into a baby, that looks like its parents. Babies know how to suckle, how to cry for help. This is all random collision of atoms, apparently. That is the official story.

Heredity passing on advantage is, in fact, a truism. Its obviousness is used to hide and lend credibility of the rest of Darwinism, which is a leap into the mythological, for the sake of a sickly will to power on behalf of a new clerisy of ‘scientists’.

I hope you have all seen how sickly this is. The same effete elites who grabbed power with Darwin, are the ones who masked your kids and force-vaccinate billions with a fake medicine. Without the founding myth of evolution, there can be no great rule of the scientists.