The Left’s cruelty — an ideology without room for repentance

Leftism is just another faith, but it’s more cruel than the Judeo-Christian tradition as its creed does not recognize remorse, repentance, and redemption.

This is a rather discursive post, but there are a lot of ideas and facts I want to tie together to explain why I argue that Leftism is an unusually cruel creed, which allows no room for individual growth or moral improvement. Although the genesis for this post was a news story and a friend’s comment, I’m going to discuss them later. I’ll start, instead, with an HBO documentary from 2014 called Questioning Darwin. HBO summarizes the documentary as follows:

Literal and creationist interpretation of the Bible is the fastest-growing branch of Christianity in the U.S. This film takes an in-depth look at the views of these Christians who reject Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution–while also examining how Darwin handled the question of God himself as he developed his theory of natural selection in the mid-1800s.

The documentary spends surprisingly little time on Darwin although what time it spends is interesting. For example, it talks about his traditional Christian beliefs before he took off on the HMS Beagle and the way in which the journey changed those views.

One thing that struck me was that Darwin’s eventual views about evolution were neither new nor unique. He just did them better than anyone else. For decades, digs in England had turned up all sorts of bones from extinct species, from dinosaurs to mammoths. These bones forced many people to recognize that literal Biblical dating, which placed the world at about 6,000 years old, had to have been inaccurate. This meant that, when Darwin reached the Galapagos Islands in Year Four of his five-year journey, he was already primed to understand that earth’s life forms had changed over time, rather than appearing in perfect and final form in a single instant.

The other striking thing the documentary claims — and this is where I’m heading with the rest of my post — is that Darwin’s journey first made him aware of Nature’s and Man’s cruelty, leading him to reject the idea of a “loving God.” Specifically, according to the documentary, a devastating earthquake in Chile and the cruelty of Brazilian slavery opened his eyes to the overall cruelty that made up the world. I found this assertion peculiar because Darwin was born in 1809 and left on the HMS Beagle in 1836. The England he knew before boarding the Beagle wasn’t a particularly kind and loving place.

Infant mortality in the England of Darwin’s youth hovered around 50%, a mortality rate that held true until children made it past their 5th birthdays. Average life expectancy was 40 years and an enormous percentage of children who didn’t die were full or half orphans (especially because of maternal mortality).

Deadly diseases were endemic. Infections were untreatable. Serious injuries usually meant death. In 1816, thanks to the Mount Tambora eruption, there was a year without summer, which meant a year of starvation across England and Europe. A seven-year-old Darwin may well have been aware of that starvation.

It wasn’t just Nature that was blatantly cruel. People, including children, were routinely hanged for thieving. Insane people were chained to walls and people went to view them like animals in a modern zoo.

Although England no longer had “ownership” slavery, industrialization was in full bloom and it created a form of “wage” slavery. The early factory owners treated their employees with extraordinary cruelty. People worked endless hours in incredibly dangerous conditions for wages starvation wages. That’s why their children, starting at age 6, worked the same long hours in the same dangerous conditions. Vast swaths of English people lived in unrelenting squalor with starvation an ever-present threat. It’s hard to believe that even Darwin’s upper middle class upbringing sheltered him entirely from this reality.

When Darwin boarded the Beagle, England may have been primed to begin the modern era. Nevertheless, it was still a place in which life was Hobbesian: life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

In other words, it’s difficult to accept that it took a journey to Latin America for Darwin to discover that life was hard, that Nature was cruel, and man had the ability to be even crueler than Nature alone, because man, unlike Nature, brought intentionality to his cruelty. I suspect that Darwin, who once wanted to be a minister, was already moving towards atheism when he embarked on his journey. The trip starting solidifying his belief that the world’s random cruelty was inconsistent with a benevolent God, a view that later hardened completely when his beloved daughter died when she was 10. In other words, for Darwin, the order wasn’t “evolution therefore no God;” it was almost certainly “no God therefore evolution.”

The preceding laborious analysis is important, because it’s a necessary backdrop both to my thoughts about the religious people given voice in the documentary. According to the documentary, Darwin rejected God because the world is cruel and it is cruel, in part, because humans are animals.

As the foil to examining Darwin’s scientific views (and moral findings), the documentary’s in-depth look at modern Creationism consists of interviewing ministers and parishioners from churches in Ohio, Texas, and Washington State, as well as the Australian-born Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum. To their credit, the documentary’s makers do not use cheap tricks to make the people whom they interview look foolish. Instead, they let them talk.

I suspect that this “let them talk” approach wasn’t just intellectual honesty. The filmmakers must have known that cheap tricks were unnecessary because the documentary’s intended audience — people who accept 100% the Darwin theory of evolution — would mentally attire the interviewees with clown hats without the documentary makers having to do so. I know this because I once was among that intended audience. That is, I had all of Leftism’s disdain for genuinely religious people. The fact that religious Christians could hold onto their blind faith in the face of science struck me as proof that they were idiots.

I’ve since changed my views. A lot.

What was fascinating to me now that I’m more open-minded about faith was what the Christians interviewed said. Sure, some of it was “Because the Bible tells me so,” a reductive response that’s more than enough to earn sneers from the Evolution crowd. Mostly, though, these Christians talked about important non-tangible things, although they phrased them in “godly” terms offensive to the Darwin crowd. They said that we are better than animals; we are not random events; morality is predicated upon our unique status and relationship with God; God’s love is a bulwark against the ugliness of life, making us feel we are worthy and worthwhile; and, most importantly because it explains their push back against evolution, without Genesis there is no God and without God there is only a frightening black hole of amoral nihilism.

Regarding the point about feeling worthwhile, I actually blogged about it some time ago when a friend’s daughter explained how her realization that God loved her saved her from a horrible spiral of damaging behaviors based upon a feeling of worthlessness. The documentary shows the same mindset when it allows a former drug addicted prostitute and a former drug addicted vet to speak. Both escaped the horror that their lives had become because they could see in themselves a reflection of God and God’s love. As for faith being a bulwark against the ugliness of life, I’ve noted here before that Dennis Prager says part of his faith is because, without a belief in a just God, one who will invariably dispense justice even if we cannot see it being done, he would be driven insane by man’s periodic cruelty.

In other words, Creationists aren’t being mindlessly, blindly faithful to the Bible. They believe that God — and their relationship with God — gives meaning to their lives and structure to the world. Theirs is a deeply considered faith that pushes back against the factual and emotional anarchy of “pure reason.” Rather than saying these people are stupid, one could just as easily say that they’re very wise.

By the way, a bit of a digression here: The Leftist attack that Creationists are anti-science is unfair. Yes, a small percentage of Creationists will also deny science in other aspects of their lives. They’re the ones who end up in the newspapers because they let their children die from appendicitis or from some other ailment that modern science can correct. However, most Creationists happily embrace the benefits of modern science.

Indeed, for some religious people, modern science is a pathway back to God. At the end of the day, the know that science can answer many questions, but not the ultimate ones. That’s why it’s only Leftists who are stunned to learn that one of the foremost scientists involved in unraveling the mysteries of the human genome saw science lead him to God not away.

The reality is that the only science most Creationists deny is evolution — which, while a big belief in modern science, is not at all connected to modern scientific work in medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, etc. Thus, their Creationism has no effect on the scientific trajectory of the modern world. The Left focuses on Creationism only as an easy tool by which to ridicule and destroy religion entirely.

The focus on Creationism also allows the Left to ignore that some of today’s loopiest, least scientific thinking comes from Lefties who totally buy into evolution. These are the people who refuse to vaccinate their children; drink (and feed to their children) dangerously unpasteurized dairy products because they think they’re healthier; believe in crystals and other New Age healing; and have given themselves entirely over to the Church of Climate Change notwithstanding the fact that actual data gives the lie to all the computer modeling predictions. Given the nonsensical thinking that dominates so much Leftist discourse, it’s risible that Lefties still award to themselves the labels of “scientific” and “reality based.” (I blogged more about that here, if you’re interested.)

To sum things up before I move to my next premise, Creationists know that the world is cruel and man is flawed, but they also believe that faith in God is the best and only antidote. Rather than doing as Darwin did in the face of the world’s random cruelty and rejecting God, they fight this randomness by embracing God. Doing so gives meaning and purpose to life, stature to humans, a reason to behave in a moral way, and a promise of something better in the Afterlife to offset the fact that, no matter how carefully one follows God’s moral principles, bad things still happen. For them, Embracing evolution, a theory that has no effect whatsoever on people’s day-to-day lives, undermines God, thereby undermining everything good that flows from the Judeo-Christian belief system.

So, what does the above megillah have to do with my post title — “The Left’s cruelty — an ideology without room for repentance”? Well, for that point, I have to introduce you to the tragic story and my friend’s comment, both of which were the genesis of this post.

The story — a tragic one, as I mentioned — came out of the University of Texas, a school I attended more than 30 years ago, when it was still sane:

Before killing himself with a drug intended for rapid and painless animal euthanasia, Richard A. Morrisett had endured a nightmare at the University of Texas in Austin. The 57-year-old tenured professor of pharmacology and toxicology was once a rising star in the College of Pharmacy – a man regarded as a first-rate research scientist and teacher during his 21 years at the state’s flagship university. Morrisett’s research offered new insights into alcohol-related brain disorders and alcoholism – an arcane area of research among neuroscientists. Some colleagues called him “brilliant.”

Morrisett’s career, however, was destroyed by a single newspaper article. Published by the Austin American-Statesman, a metropolitan daily, the article dredged up an ugly episode from Morrisett’s past – a domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend at the time. It was the sort of inexcusable incident that, sadly, the police and courts handle all the time. There were no serious injuries; it hadn’t even merited a headline when it occurred on May 28, 2016. Morrisett, in a plea deal, pleaded guilty to a 3rd degree felony. He was sentenced to four years of probation, called community supervision in Texas, and ordered to receive counseling, take a class on avoiding family violence, and perform 100 hours of community service. Morrisett had thought he was moving on with his life. He had accepted responsibility for his actions and, moreover, had put an apparently volatile and dysfunctional relationship behind him.

Then, more than a year and a half after the incident, a Statesman reporter contacted Morrisett about the domestic violence case. On his lawyer’s advice, Morrisett declined to comment. And not long after that, on Thursday, January 25, his nightmare began: He woke up to see a banner headline across the Statesman’s front page: “UT declined to sanction professor who pleaded guilty to violent felony.” The incident had suddenly become timely – tied as it was to the #MeToo movement that, starting one year ago with Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, has since targeted and disgraced a number of prominent or famous men for being sexual predators and abusers.

Until the Statesman’s article, only a handful of people knew about the incident, mainly in the criminal-justice system and at the University of Texas. But the #MeToo movement changed all that; or as the Statesman explained: “The case comes to light at a time of heightened concern at colleges and universities, and more broadly across American society, about sexual assault and interpersonal violence.”

The Statesman’s article set off a media feeding frenzy and campus uproar. Overnight, Morrisett became Public Enemy No. 1. Enraged that a domestic violence abuser was in their midst, many students staged peaceful anti-Morrisett protests, chanting and marching while shadowed by campus police. Radical leftist students, however, went on a rampage. One night, students apparently affiliated with the Revolutionary Student Front, a communist group, stormed the College of Pharmacy like the blood-thirsty mob that stormed the Bastille. They spray painted the building’s front stone facade with red paint reading: “UT harbors abusers.” Nearby on the sidewalk, they wrote: “Watch your back, Richard.” And Morrisett’s office door was spray painted: “Get out Morrisett or else!” The graffiti was signed with hammer and sickle symbols, and later posted on the website of the local Revolutionary Student Front. (Hyperlinks omitted.)

You can read the whole thing here and I strongly recommend that you do so. It’s a horrific example of Leftism ascendant. In response to what happened to Morrisett and the blind hatred aimed at him, my friend Princess Leah made a comment that I thought was very profound:

Remorse, repentance, and redemption are God-based concepts that began with the Jews and continued with Christians. They arise from the premise that we are created in God’s image so, no matter the Fall, we still have God within us. That notion leads to other profound ideas: no matter the Fall, God remains interested in his creation’s affairs; God has set out important moral rules that we are expected to follow; God knows we are fallible (if we weren’t, we’d also be gods); and God’s love allows us to experience remorse, to repent of our bad behavior, to reform our conduct; and thereby to be redeemed. Indeed, without that trajectory, a relationship with God is meaningless because there is no benefit either to following His rules or to changing bad behaviors and habits that are out-of-sync with His rules.

Nature, of course, is neither moral nor loving. Tennyson nailed the difference between a God-based world and a nature-based world. Speaking of Man (as in mankind), with Man being the “Who” in the first line I quote below, he wrote:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek’d against his creed

In Nature, it’s strong versus weak. The lion is not evil for killing. It just does what lions do to survive, a behavior uncomplicated by notions such as good or bad. Social Darwinists transformed this natural absence of morality into “might makes right,” and therefore justified their foul racism. Since they had achieved more worldly success in Darwin’s time than blacks had, they reasonably concluded that were inferior under a Darwin-esque world view and could be exploited and destroyed. They cheerfully extended that thinking to any people’s they viewed as less successful than they were in terms of worldly goods and accomplishments. (Mediterranean people, Chinese people, Irish people, Jewish people…)

The fallout from abandoning God in favor of “Darwin-esque scientism,” didn’t end with justifying the scientific racism that led directly to Hitler’s modern antisemitism, the dehumanization of the Jews, and the Holocaust. Instead, it drove a dagger into the notion of moral improvement.

Thus, Leftism, by abandoning the Judeo-Christian relationship with a just and loving God, necessarily also abandoned the notions of remorse, repentance, and redemption, none of which have meaning in a universe without fixed moral principles and divine forgiveness. Instead, it is a universe governed by rules.

Rules and morals are two different things. Think of it from a navigational approach. Morals are like the fixed points of a compass. If you know your compass points, it’s quite easy to navigate from point A to point B, even when it’s not a straight line between those two points. No matter which way you’re facing when you begin, if the direction you’re given is “go West,” you know which way to travel. However, rules are incredibly situational. They tell you “if X then Y, if A then B.” If you get any of those wrong, you’re lost.

I can speak with some authority about this geographic analogy because I grew up in San Francisco, a small city that has the Pacific Ocean on its west side and the Golden Gate Bridge on its north. For me, West and North are fixed. I always know where they are. If I’m trying to go someplace in San Francisco based upon directions that tell me to “go two blocks on X street and then turn right on Y street, then three blocks and then turn left, etc.” I am at a high risk of getting lost. One wrong turn (a right where I should have gone left, or a moment’s inattention that finds me on the wrong street) and I suddenly have no idea where I am and may have a hard time finding my way either to my starting point or my goal.

Compass navigating, however, will get me to, or near, my destination. If I need to head west to get out of downtown and north to get to the Golden Gate Bridge, it doesn’t much matter which streets I travel or where I make my turns.

The religious person’s compass is the Ten Commandments. No matter how lost you, if you wish, you can find your way back to them.

The American Leftist person’s rules, however, are the constantly mutating hierarchy of victimhood, with this hierarchy always and ultimately functioning in the service of political power. Once, American Progressives had as their rule “blacks, Italians, Poles, Native Americans, the mentally disabled, Chinese, etc. are all bad and whites of Northern European descent are good.” Then their rule changed to “whites and other races are equally good” (which is a nice, “we’re all God’s children” rule). In the last few decades, though, the rule has changed again: whites, especially white males, are bad.

Recent developments with females, though, show just how situational the Leftists rules are. Because white women refused to vote en masse for Hillary or Stacey Abrams, or to condemn Justice Kavanaugh, white females are now as bad as white males. Their double X chromosomes no longer protect them from the Left’s wrath.

This newest rule is a far cry from a world in which all females were good, except that minority and lesbian females were obviously better than white and/or straight females. Now, in addition to minority and lesbian subsets of the all-wonderful world of women, we have the addition of men who claim they are female. Because these men are of the LQBTQ spectrum, their perception of themselves, no matter their XY chromosomes, trump any rights inherent in XX chromosome females, especially those lacking melanin. (Yes, it’s incredibly confusing.) This is already wreaking havoc in the sports world and will soon play out in ugly ways in the corporate world.

Make a wrong turn in the Leftist rule-based world and there’s no getting back. You are forever lost and will be forever punished and, possibly, destroyed. Violate one of the prevailing shibboleths and there’s no road back. Even Mao-style re-education will not restore you to full status. At best, it will spare you execution and torture. Certainly, taking your punishment through the criminal judicial process, as Richard A. Morrisett did, is insufficient. Once he was shown to be a damaged gazelle, he was fair game. Nature red in tooth and claw indeed.

Both halves of the Judeo-Christian tradition (the Jewish and the Christian) had growing pains during which the faithful exhibited behavior entirely inconsistent with, even hostile to, God’s commandments and Jesus’s teachings. Nevertheless, in the early 21st century, most practitioners of those two faiths have found their way back to the central components, which demand moral behavior and humane treatment of our fellow man, especially those of our fellows who have fallen but are seeking their way back. The same is true for Americans who fell short of the commitments to individual equality and liberty, as set out in the Declaration and Constitution, and who painfully worked their way back, through a bloody civil war and the hard work of the early Civil Rights movement (before the latter became a Leftist vehicle for perpetual political power).

Other religions, including Leftism, lack the safe havens inherent in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Danny Lemieux, a faithful and brilliant friend to this blog, first alerted me a long time ago to the fact that indigenous Americans often did not fight the Spanish and French priests who sought to convert them to Christianity. Those who were the victims of human sacrifice and torture at the hands of stronger tribes (or stronger people within their own tribes) were grateful for a religion that was based upon love and that disavowed human sacrifice. They finally had a belief system that allowed them to turn their backs upon the unbelievable cruelty and violence that was a daily reality in Stone Age tribes across the world.

I’m wandering, so I’ll try to wrap it up here: Our Judeo-Christian faith, including the Creation story in the Bible, is neither rational or scientific. It doesn’t need to be, though. What’s important is that it is a belief system that elevates humankind, allowing people the mercy of remorse, repentance, and redemption. Those virtues — and they are virtues — are utterly lacking in both raw Nature and in those faiths that are based solely in Nature, whether we’re talking about stone-aged animism or modern, Darwinist Leftism. There, capricious rules (or gods), especially when combined with actual or social Darwinism, create a world in which if you’re down, you’re dead.

Darwin Agrees with God about Man’s Thirst for Liberty

Vassarbushmills

(Note: I’m trying to reformat a book about the Constitution and the Common Man, so I began rereading a lot of scientific literature about evolution, natural selection, territory and instincts, provocative things I’d read in the 70s, then laid aside as they had no immediate impact on me, since I was still in my 20s and predictably stupid back then.

(I now plan to “prove” that the thirst for Liberty is innate in Man and can be proved scientifically as well as through Morality, Reason and Logic, themes we dwell on all the time. I decided to make this the book’s hook, that Man’s desire and right to be free is agreed upon by both God and (some) Darwinists. And  since God is much older, He still gets top billing.

(This article is only a synopsis of the lynchpin theme in my book, introducing this thesis, the chapter itself rather long. I think you’ll find this entertaining, and just a little intellectually challenging, especially for those of you who thought all evolutionists moved in lock step with all those creepy anti-religion, anti-liberty scientists who seem to do the Left’s bidding these days. They don’t.)

   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

In the 13th Century there was an interesting Franciscan friar named Ramon Llull (pronounced “yoohl”), who, like another philosopher 400 years later, was also a noted mathematician. So Llull understood both the immutable laws of logic and God’s laws.  He was also something of a charismatic, which even in the days of the Crusades was rare, and rarer still, any day, for a mathematician.

Llull was born on Majorca, an island off the coast of Spain, so wanted to convert his people under the dominion of the Muslims in Spain. Now in those days the Arabs of Spain and North Africa were hardly the grimy camel drivers we see killing people in Syria, Iraq and Libya.  This period was probably the height of Muslim arts, architecture and scholarship. Their philosophers matched the best in the West and Byzantium; great minds such as Averroes, Avicenna, and Ibn Khaldun. (I studied these men in college, so know how to spell their names.) Llull knew he could not simply march up to people like that and begin pointing to Christian scripture (called “Bible-thumping” today) knowing that these people had their own holy books. Instead, he engaged in a process called “disputation”, which for those of you who’ve followed Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, was a form of argument, involving step-by-step logic, thrust and parry, and which carried the argument to a certain conclusion. If you’ve followed the arguments of Richard Dawkins, the anti-Christian animal behaviorist and William Lane Craig, the defender of Creationism, or the more entertaining Dinesh D’Souza-Christopher Hitchens debates on the subject of atheism versus religion (you can find these on YouTube, and are well worth the 45-minutes of your time), you’ll get some idea how the “disputation” style of argument works. No matter which side you’re on, it’s very edifying for it leads up to a point, if the cards are played well, where one side simply cannot answer one final logical question. Thus is was with Richard Dawkins, who has refused to debate Craig any longer, since Craig posed just that sort of question.

Sadly, this happened to Llull as well, in Tunisia, where he’d forgotten all about the home field advantage, and the Muslims stoned him to death. At age 82.

Llull’s lesson for us today is that it really is of no purpose to thump the Bible to people who either have another book, or no book at all, and are proud of it…if your purpose is to bring them around to seeing your way of thinking. Being a mathematician Llull learned that there were logical flaws in the Muslim philosophy of the day, and drove those points home. He succeeded in his arguments because he explored the logic of the faith of his enemies. It’s that simple and is a lesson we must learn if we are to do battle with the Left successfully.

Men like Llull usually had two purposes in their arguments. The first was to sow seeds of doubt in the scholars on the other side. Call it a slight vanity. Christopher Hitchens died doubting, unsure of his atheism, in all likelihood because of D’Souza’s arguments, but also the unrelenting love of his brother Peter, who was also a Christian. Richard Dawkins also probably carries doubt now, only his vanity has been bruised and his arrogance wounded so he can’t say it out loud. Besides, intellectual atheism, even the pseudo- variety,. pays so much better than Christian apologetics. He’s been asked questions he cannot answer about a subject he thought he had down cold; the non-existences of a guiding Force in the Universe. Nothing can be more humbling to a scientist than to deny, with certainty, the existence of a thing, then learn you cannot prove that it does not exist.

But sowing this seed of doubt was not Llull’s main purpose, just as it shouldn’t be ours.

His second purposewas to persuade the general population, not just the scholars; to actually gain converts. The same sort of people Christ preached to. Here we are talking of a different audience, the man in the street, not the cloistered scholar. When you can win the hearts and minds of the people in the street you can change the politics of a nation. It was that threat Llull posed that caused him to be stoned.

And this brings to where we are today in America, for our battle is twofold as well.

Even if, with the snap of a finger, we could pass new laws undoing all the old laws that the Left has foisted on us the past forty years, and which have made the American ground more fertile for their brand of culture-destroying supervision, making possible the sort of sterile political life the Left has in mind, we would still have to go out and first retake, then re-till and replant that lost ground. After all, we’re the ones who sat idly by and allowed all that ground to be spoiled in the first place, in the naive belief that as long as we kept our own yard clean, that would be civilization enough to keep the barbarians at bay.

Since Bill Clinton was elected our public schools have pumped out approximately four million students per year, graduates and dropouts combined. That’s 80 million, ranging from 18-to-38 years old in twenty years. How many of these came from broken or single-parent homes? Close to half, maybe more. How many were raised without any moral education based on any religion at all, outside the public schools, where situational ethics are considered moral teachings?  Probably more than half. And how many of those were raised in strong enough moral settings to strengthen rather than weaken the bonds of marriage and family as their own lives moved forward, thus providing fertile ground for that family to move into yet a third generation with the same core foundations?

This is the generational multiplier theory that is tilted downward, and algorithms are probably available to show this mathematically.

If you think I am speaking here as a moralist, well a little, but I am also speaking as a Darwinist, for these same “survival” indicia in our society are as important to them as they are to constitutional conservatives. Moreover, in these days, that 80 million I just mentioned are more apt to respond to, and respect arguments that are scientific in nature than those underpinned with moral principles, for the simple fact that our God-based foundations have been stripped away, stone by stone, in their world, while we’ve idly watched, for over forty years. “Love thy neighbor” is still a good rule, but it is no longer good because it comes from On High. It is good because it meets the approval of whatever commission that has been appointed to approve such things. And forget that “as thyself” part altogether.

American youth, as you already know, are perfectly OK with what many Darwinists and religionists agree are survival-endangering behavior, from indiscriminate sex with each other, and of either gender, having nothing to do with bonding, procreation or permanent relationships and a complete abjuration of the duty of self-sufficiency, or the simplest economic principles of personal survival.

Close your eyes and imagine the task that lies ahead for us then;

1) Saving the coming generations politically, which entails restoring the legal supremacy of the family, and its underlying traditions and institutions, then preventing the Left, with or without the Supreme Court’s help, to waylay our children in the public schools, which entails taking back the schools from the grass roots;

2) Taking back the public highway, which entails bringing a measurable percentage of those 80 million lost souls back over to our side of seeing the life-saving necessity of liberty in Mankind’s life, and the reciprocity and duty this involves, and to know what those building blocks of freedom mean in Darwinian as well as moral terms…and that they are almost the same.

If we don’t, the other side wins.

Darwinism is not all we have been led to believe, sometimes by our own preachers.

First, it never was a scientific movement marching in lock step. They disagree with one another all the time. Second, Darwin’s Theory is just a theory, many of its grander precepts, especially a direct link between ape and Man, are not proven. But the fact that humans, like other vertebrates, evolve within their own species is not really in doubt, or that our evolution is a result of new environments we’ve encountered, even over the past hundred years, e.g., smaller ears and bigger derrieres. The average man or woman today couldn’t fit into the seats that served as the audience of a Chicago opera house in 1898.

There’s Darwin-the-theory as science, and Darwin-the-theory as religion and Darwin-the-theory as politics. I only say this for amusement, for Darwin-religionists are just like the Muslim scholars Llull wanted to debate just for the fun of it, an academic adventure. Interestingly, these seeds of doubt are being sewn everywhere in modern science anyway due to the growing exposure of the climate change hoax, a different science field altogether, but which has exposed  1) the power of politics in the fact-based scientific community, and 2) the power of the pursuit for status (peer pressure) and money within several scientific disciplines which will cause men to lie, fudge numbers, cook the books, just like commonplace government bureaucrats…just in order to maintain their standing in their field and to continue to get those grants every time some Pavlovian handler rings a bell and offers some more cash.

So just like Law, accounting, business, even some churches, Darwinism, and its whole evolutionary grab bag of disciplines have always been contested between what can only be called “honest scholarship” and “dishonest scholarship.” This has nothing to do with Darwin’s Theory itself, but a more basic principle, i.e., whether factual evidence has been put forth honestly. Just like the rules of evidence in law, science has a process of approval for any thesis, called the Scientific Method, which is actually more rigorous than Law. Like the Talmud, The Hebrew Law, it is to be protected at all times. Or is supposed to be.

So, if one can prostitute that process, which consists of a jury of peers, then you have the rest made in the shade…until, as we’re seeing with global warming, climate change, when the whole house of cards suddenly begins to come tumbling down.

Enter Karl Marx and why all this matters to conservatives. The god of Marxism is science. But Marxists being what they are, they have always tried to make science comport to their contrived unscientific view of the world, and how mankind fits within it. I’ve never known any leftist who was the least bit intellectually curious about anything except how to steal some man’s bus ticket. It has always been this way.

True scientists are at heart ethicists, for the Method is sacrosanct with most of them. Like personal honor, it’s not for sale. These scientists see no Truth as being higher than scientific Truth, and trust me, this is a Good Thing for our world (Aristotle, Aquinas, Natural Law) for it has enabled science to achieve many wondrous things on Mankind’s behalf over the centuries.

Now I can’t say exactly when Marxist “science” began to try to steamroll the academy, since no one was really looking at it in those terms until the 1950s. F A  Hayek encountered it in England in the 30s and 40s, but in a book of essays he edited in 1963, Capitalism and the Historians, he chronicled socialist historians and economists fudging numbers in academic tracts going back into the 1870s.

The term “political correctness” had not yet been invented yet, but Robert Ardrey, in his 1966 The Territorial Imperative, mentioned that academic discussion about the existence of instincts in Man, a central subject of the Natural Right of Freedom thesis here, suddenly disappeared from scientific inquiry in America in the 1920’s, which coincidentally, was the period in which the Soviet Union and their Marxist views of “scientism” first arose.

Ardrey was one of the early writers of science who was excoriated by the American left because he discussed observations and conclusions about Man’s instinctive behavior contrary to Marxist scientific holy writ. That’s why “instinct” is my jumping-off place here, for Darwinists acknowledge it in lower animals, but since the 1920s, have gone mute about it in man, and apparently for political, not scientific reasons.

A scholar could do a much better job than I can in chronicling this story of academic discrimination against any theory that highlights man’s innate instinct for freedom instead of trying to confirm his innate malleability for servitude, but I have another objective to serve with this book. Following Ardrey’s cue, I can simply pull that one un-Marxist piece of science from the pile, the instincts of Man, and carry that thesis forward to establish all I need in order to prove that the thirst for freedom is innate in Man, and that it cannot be conditioned out of existence, destroying all the Leftists’ hope for a scientific basis for their invasions.

Marxism believes in the “perfectibility” of Man through science. Namely socialization and conditioning, much like Pavlov conditioned his dog, with a whistle and bite of food. But simply by connecting a few scientific dots, Marxist science completely unravels once it can be shown that Man’s instincts cannot be conditioned out of him. He will always resist.

And always has.

If Man is hard-wired to mate (pair bond), acquire and defend territory (and property) and to provide for a place to breed, and nurture young, so as to extend  the species, just like any other animal, and to be part of a larger group (genetic population) with which he also identifies, and works together for mutual benefit and protection (reciprocity)…

…then Man is hard-wired to strive to attain this if denied it, and to resist once taken away.

Territory = Property = Status = Mating = Heirs = Genetic Population (community or nation = Survival of the Family Blood Line into the next generation.

Collectively Ardrey said this equation amounted to a “biological morality.” I can add that his biological morality is very similar to the moral antecedents found in Jefferson’s “pursuit of life, liberty and happiness” clause of the Declaration, and the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Constitution found in The Federalist Papers. They knew of what they spoke.

If this is true, and many evolutionists insist it is, then Marxism and socialism becomes unraveled at it very roots, fails, and is exposed as nothing more than a power-grab based on a fraud.

This we already know, but we should find profit in being able to explain Liberty in this way, to newer sets of ears who are not yet ready to appreciate the Invisible Hand.

This is the tale we need to tell non-believers about freedom. If they want to go against Nature, and many will, they must know, as “mutations,” nature has its own ways of dealing with them, which, again, is not unlike how God promises to deal with them. By telling them in this way, through disputation, you can lead them all the way to the end of the story before they finally reject you, which is much better than have them shut you down before you can get the first “God loves you” out of your mouth. We are planting seeds, and trying to restore our country, not getting them to join our church.

Marxist science is the mad dog I want to shoot down in the street, and if shaking hands with a bunch of honest Darwinists will help me in this endeavor, I’m all for it.

*******************************************************************************

VASSAR BUSHMILLS

Contact:           vbushmills@yahoo.com

Twitter:           @Bushmillsvassar

Publications:  Famous Common People I Have Known and Other Essays

                       Donald Trump, the Common Man and the American Theology of Liberty

(Both books in Kindle format only, Publishers and agents welcome, as both need to revised)

Support:         Yes, I’ve never been paid a nickel to write.

Donations can be made to vbushmills@thesandsinstitute.org via Paypal