Skip to content

By Darwin Racism is Supported but Human Rights are Rejected

May 22, 2019

You cannot have a winner without a loser.  You  cannot have a boss without a subordinate.  You cannot have a victor without a vanquished.  You cannot have a superior without an inferior.  Those who believe in the divine creation of mankind  believe in human equality because all of mankind descends from a common origin, making all people brethren.  All brethren are equal since they have the same creator-parent.*

*[albeit historically the firstborn had special privileges and responsibilities, and males held a higher social position, -in a human pecking order].

But as a matter of Judeo-Christian doctrine, age and gender do not constitute a basis of greater worth since the Creator looks upon all humans as his children and as individuals, -not hierarchically (as organized societies do).

But at the heart of the theory of evolution there exists an opposite view of humans, and it is based on a hierarchical ranking of the quality of human capabilities.  Since it postulates that humans appeared as the evolved product of various branches of the tree of primate and hominid evolution, it was assumed that some branches evolved farther than other branches, some to such a degree that most of the ‘inferior’ branches went extinct.

That view was a perfect fit with not just Darwin’s view of evolution but also with his view of the various races of mankind, some of which appeared for all intents and purposes to be backward, primitive, beast-like, and incapable of advanced abstract thinking.  In other words: inferior.

Is there anything wrong with that?  Did it not accurately describe the world in which he found himself?  Did it not perfectly fit with his belief in natural selection and the advancement of the superior outcomes of evolutionary change?  Was it not natural that the fittest would survive and come to dominate those that were less ‘fit’?  Was not one group’s natural superiority a natural basis for them to subjugate those who were inferior?  What could possibly be unnatural about that?

According to Darwinian theory, nothing.  It would be the natural way of nature that involved all of ‘creation’.  Humans, being no different from animals, would naturally exhibit that same hierarchical orientation to ‘others’, -including other humans.  After all, why deny one’s self the benefit of one’s superiority?  That wouldn’t make any sense.  To do so would include denying one’s children a benefit that would appear to rightfully belong to them.  So if one’s group ‘is’ superior, then why forego the status that should come with that superiority?  (~are you smelling a Nazi connection yet?)

Population groups can be differentiated by various criteria, the foremost of which is gender, followed by age, but that is true within all groups, but what is foremost between groups is race, with ethnicity close behind, followed by culture and religion.

Darwinism’s focus was on the physical, principally race since it is more pronounced than ethnicity.  With the human race being racially disparate, and each race having a distinct evolutionary background, it had to follow that the result of those backgrounds produced results that could be rankable according to quality and capability.

In other words, not all races and peoples could possibly be equal since nature doesn’t work that way.  To be equal they would all have had to have been produced by the same process, from the same genetic mold, but nature could not have done that, so a hierarchical view of the races of mankind was unavoidable.

Of course it was obvious to men of advanced, educated, civilized god-less cultures that members of primitive groups were naturally inferior, and thus, like beasts, could and should be made to support the service of their superiors, and so we see the result throughout the history of mankind.

Even ‘primitive savages’ viewed themselves as superior to the evil members of other primitive groups that were sub-human in their eyes.  That superiority, and their wicked enemy’s inferiority gave them license to capture them, kill them, enslave them, rape them, and in some groups, to eat them, or parts of them.  The Law of the Jungle.  Survival of the ‘fittest’.  The King of the Mountain.  The Worthy vs the unworthy.  The Superior vs the inferior.

That is the natural way in the Darwinian universe, and also in the Atheist/ Marxist/ Socialist/ Communist/ Progressive/ Liberal universe as well.  That is why, since ‘men are not brothers’, they are free to abuse their inferiors any which way that seems right in their own eyes, including genocide.  That is because if men are not equal based on all being the product of the same creator/parent then they must be viewed in the only alternate perspective, which is the hierarchical one; higher and lower on the totem pole, on the pyramid, on the ascending scale of quality, value, and worth.

In that anti-Judeo-Christian perspective reality can be boiled down to four simple words:


You have no right to Life, nor to Liberty, nor to Happiness.  We innately feel that we at least have the right to beg for mercy when we and our rights are being mercilessly trampled on, but we don’t even have a right to do that because RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST!

Do women have a right to enjoy civil rights?  Hell no!  They are inferior to men!
Do the dark-skin people have a right to be free?  Hell no!  They are inferior to light-skin people!  The irony is almost too great to grasp.  Liberals claim the high ground of defending the rights of minorities and ‘the oppressed’ and pushing back against the dictatorship of Judeo-Christian doctrine and yet it is that very world-view that gives them the right to claim to be the Great Defenders and pretend to be the opposite of what they actually are and believe!

They believe that the ideological elites are superior to the unwashed masses and have the right to rule over them in perpetuity without their consent and without limitation, including no limitation against killing, even on a massive scale.  The only right they really believe in is their own right to rule the others who are not among the elites.

Their fundamental world-view is one in which there is no natural equality between the peoples of the world because Darwinian rules rule.  So what are they doing?  In their rejection of Judeo-Christian morality and doctrine they are embracing two total opposites simultaneously.
The only other self-cancelling belief of equal magnitude is that of being forced to believe that Allah is both a loving and merciful God but at the same time is a blood-lusting dictator calling for mass murder. It’s truly astonishing the mental gymnastics that the human mind is capable of performing,  -and blindly so.

So the Liberals and Socialists all go about claiming to support the right to ‘this’ and the right to ‘that’ all while the foundation of their belief system rejects the very concept of “rights” since it has no foundation in their Godless universe.

If, every time they defended a claimed ‘right’, they were to be asked where that right comes from, they would be totally stumped.  They can’t say that it comes from God, the Creator of all mankind, because they reject the concept that any god exists.  The only thing that they could say, but won’t say, is that it comes from government.

They won’t say that because it is self-evident that if it comes from government then it is not a right but is merely an allowed privilege. And we all know that privileges can be both given and taken away by the fiat feelings of the elite rulers, -leaving everyone else without a single unalienable right at all.

by Adrien Nash, May 22, 2019
Read the essay that inspired mine:

Why Darwinism Can Never Separate Itself from Racism


“In a Darwinian scheme, someone must be the official subhuman.

I have been trying to get that across for years. It’s why Darwinism can never get away from racism. Racism is implicit in the Darwinian belief system about how things happen.  Even if one’s creationism amounts to no more than the idea that humans have an immortal soul, it makes all humans equal for all practical purposes. Take that away and believe instead that humans are animals that slowly evolved from less-than-human creatures and a variety of things happen, none of them conducive to non-racism.

To “get past” the fact that Darwin was a racist, we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human.  Rooting it out would call so many things into question as to produce a crisis. What will we be left with?

Indeed. But then an even bigger problem looms: In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman…. who will it be?

If they aren’t found, the Darwinist is looking down the maw of some sort of creationism. It need not be theistic creationism. But it does mean that a momentous event happened with explicable swiftness, like the Big Bang or the origin of language, findings naturalists do not like precisely because of their creationist implications.

Surely these are the true reasons Darwinists simply can’t confront the race issue and get past it, and so they resort to long-winded special pleading.”




Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: