|
Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad
creatures as straw dogs; the sage is ruthless, and
treats the people as straw dogs.
-Lao Tzu
Despite the benevolent nature of Judeo-Christian doctrine, natural history is a history of strife: one laced with continual war and conquest. The major marks of our species as a whole have demonstrated not a nature of universal brotherhood—whether it be in spirit or in arms—but of cleaving apart, over and over; of the struggle between organic collectives. And while it has been staunchly professed that Judeo-Christian values are positive, the Social Darwinist's perspective believes the opposite is true. The Judeo-Christian belief system, ergo, is inorganic: it negates every instinct natural to man, and, in its own practice, demonstrates nothing but fierce conquest through the immemorial and immutable laws of Social Darwinism. With this epiphany came a declaration that withstands the test of time itself: "The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior" (Redbeard, 3).
Social Darwinism emerged around the turn of the twentieth century, Ragnar Redbeard being at the ground floor of its development. In his book Might is Right, he contends that humankind is Darwinian in nature—that life’s very essence is a struggle for survival and dominance. Cracking the cover of his book, the reader will shortly discover the now infamous line "Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree" (2). Many philosophers have subscribed to this creed, including Francis Parker Yockey, Oswald Spengler, and Herbert Spencer. Spengler, a German of the early twentieth century, is notable for writing his two-volume series entitled The Decline of the West, in which he identifies historical and cultural trends. And finally Boyd Rice, a contemporary recording artist, is an example of a modern-day Social Darwinist. In his interview with Christian commentator Bob Larson, a best selling author, he gives us a concise definition for his ideology: "The strong dominate the weak, and the clever dominate the strong... That's what Social Darwinism is all about" (Rice, 20 minutes).
The Social Darwinist applies this information, carefully examining the peculiarities before him: how ironic it is that history has furnished us with wars amongst Jews; Christian nations attacking one-another with unremitting fervor: that shortly after the Protestant Reformation we saw the ensuing Thirty Years War; and that the largest Christian empire in the world—The late Roman empire—saw it's downfall in a massive conflagration of civil war. However, this kind of religious strife is nothing new—it was Jesus Christ himself who declared "If my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews" (Holy Bible, John 18.36). And how quaint it is to see Christ himself admit to the nature of strife 'this world' has to offer, in near correspondence with Ragnar Redbeard's acute observation: "[A] state of combat everywhere exists"(Redbeard, 2). Hence, if Christ himself admitted that the secular world was a world of war, then he, perhaps unwittingly, implicated humankind as being an echelon of warriors: each suited with a different mean, and yet striving toward the same end.
It must be remembered that Christianity did not come about through love and tolerance. It's popularity—or, to use a more suitable phrase—its conquest came about through the elimination of the rival cults of its time. Adolf Hitler undoubtedly understood this fact, when in July of 1941 he stated, "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity... [It] was the first creed in the world to exterminate it's adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance" (7). And it was St. Augustine himself who raged against the principles that made Christianity so great-—for, in his book Confessions, he obliviously denounces those who "[T]alk of their fantasies and lead men's minds astray" (172). One must only wonder what, precisely, the proselytization of Africa, South-East Asia and the New World included if not 'leading men's minds astray' on behalf of another's 'fantasy'.
And let us not forget that the Old Testament is an anthology saturated with intolerance. It outlines the harassment of the Jews, the continual threats of God and the stratification of the value of life (Jacobus, 637-640). It was H.L. Mencken, an American journalist, who so prudently noted: "The Old Testament, as everyone who has looked into it is aware, drips with blood; there is, indeed, no more bloody chronicle in all the literature of the world" (Treatise of the Gods, 134). In fact, it is the God of the Old Testament that demonstrates best a natural context of man: of master and slave, where a hollow shell of justice is fabricated to maintain oppression among the ignorant: and where one's enemies are eliminated by means of harsh rebuke.
On an even closer inspection of the Holy Bible we must look to Paula Fredriksen, a Yale scholar who wrote From Jesus to Christ—a book on the origin and evolution of Christianity. In it, she is quick to identify the civil strife among a peoples so united by the grace of God. She looks toward the Book of John, noticing its subtle undertone of animosity: "[The Book of John] is written by someone who consciously placed himself outside, if not against, Judaism." She also notes the Judeo-Christian position on good and evil, saying that the nature of evil "lacks ontological status", because it is merely the 'absense of good' (25; 12). This personification of nature is what the Social Darwinist refutes, saying that nature is not good or bad, but neutral: incapable of having a morality of its own.
However, the Christians (Despite their doctrine of pacifism) do not remain neutral on the question of Darwin. In fact, a well-known proponent of Social Darwinism—Oswald Spengler—managed to support his creed while simultaneously despising Charles Darwin himself. In the second volume of The Decline of the West, he mentions that Darwin's theory of evolution is inconclusive: for, with all the samples we've unearthed, we find animals "[W]ithout transition types…" in "[F]orms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape" (32). However, what Spengler fails to account for in his rebuttal is rather self-evident: that, glancing retrospectively into a history that we know little about, it is difficult to identify what a 'transitional type' is: furthermore, that 'transitional types' do not only include the bone-structures left over, but can be in regard to both a change in tissue-composition and the internal make-up of an organism. This failure of Spengler's to grasp the obvious can be accounted for by the era he lived in, which saw relatively little technology in the field of anthropology.
Spengler can be lauded, however, for his prudent observation in regards to the survival principle of Darwin's: "We know it to be true of every organism that the rhythm, form and duration of its life, and all the expression-details of that life as well, are determined by the properties of its species" (Vol. I, 21). This mantra for many Social Darwinists ratifies nation-state imperialism and conquest: for, if 'might is right,' then he who wins can never be wrong. To this end, it must be said that Social Darwinism does not, per se, encourage the 'might is right' principle exclusively—rather, it explains that the laws of nature are simply both necessary and hardwired into humanity: and that which is necessary cannot be wrong, just as that which is natural can never falter; to wit, it is not an issue of whether ‘might is right’—mainly, it is an acceptance of the fact that might prevails.
Next we will move into a subject on the intelligence of God. H.L. Mencken, in his book Minority Report, outlines the strange circumstances of Jesus' arrival on earth, implying that the "obscure corner of the Roman Empire" had very few men of power in it; that, if a location was to be chosen by God on which he would land his son, why was it not one where a single man could have had more influence: "Why not Rome?" Mencken asks (143). This goes to the point that the viability of Christianity was extremely low to begin with; and, to this end, one questions precisely how it was that a doctrine preaching love and tolerance wasn't wiped out by the numerous aggressive religions around it, if not by resorting to violence itself.
Also, since the time of it's beginning, it is undoubtedly true that Christianity has evolved in many ways. It no longer takes a geocentric view of the cosmos, spearheads witch-hunts, or declares crusades; practices within the church have also been changed (The allowing for female priests, to name only one). Hence, the question born unto us is simple: if the religion of Christianity came from God, then why would it evolve? Only natural and man-made things evolve: technology, industry, etc. Something so pure and genuine as Christianity could not evolve if it were of divine origin; ergo, the methods on which Christianity grew were not guided by an ethereal hand, but rather by the instinct—natural and innate to man—that propels him into lavish power or plunges him into insignificant annihilation.
A following point by H.L. Mencken was on the strange personality of the myriad Pope's Christianity has seen. He notes them as being far from Christ-like, and, in actuality, almost the direct anti-thesis of all things Christian: a figure more closely resembling a Ceasar or Stalin: "Not many popes won their way to Peter's thrown by piety alone; the prize commonly went to far more masculine qualities, some of them anything but ignoble" (Treatise of the Gods, 240). More fodder to the point that, perhaps, it was power and not religious inspiration that lingered in the minds of the famous European Popes. Arthur Schopenhauer sufficiently explicates the nature of power when he notes that "[B]y nature and from the first, it is not justice which rules the earth but force" (151).
Ragnar Redbeard also inspects this notion of Christian states being more focused on power than anything else. He writes on page seventy-one of Might is Right that "Metaphorically considered, every trading Christian State is a meat market, wherein the flesh, bones, and blood not only of men, but of women and little children are bought and sold daily—"offered up" nominally for the "Love of God" really for the Love of Dollars." He reiterates his point on Social Darwinism by stifling Christian minds with fierce poems, one of which is called "The Logic of To-Day," and can be found on pages 150-152; I will quote a stanza from it, in which he summarizes Social Darwinism and attacks the Judeo-Christian prophesy that the meek shall, at one point, gain some semblance of power:
The Strong must ever rule the Weak, is grim Primordial Law—
On earth’s broad racial threshing floor, the Meek are beaten straw—
Then ride to power o’er foemen’s necks, let nothing bar your way:
If you are fit you’ll rule and reign, is the Logic of Today.
Needless to say, his view of power is quite representative of the Greek Sophists who lived so long before him. Another poem of his, entitled "The Higher Law", can be found just on the next page:
From Sandy Hook to London tower
From Jaffa to Japan,
They can take who have the power
They may keep who can. (153)
Redbeards sentiments on power are the epitome of Social Darwinism: for him, the highest law is that "of tooth and claw"—one in which justice is a convenient ideal, but survival is reality (3).
And a further note on the Darwinian motives of humankind can be found within the words of Mark Twain. In regards to repeated repenting among Christians, he made the observation that God created all things—man, animal, and plant. He identified Judeo-Christian hypocrisy thus: "We hunt the fly remorselessly... which He pronounced good, and was satisfied with, and which we loudly praise and approve—with our mouths—
and then harry and chase and malignantly destroy, by wholesale" (175). This goes to show that, regardless of any divine presence, humans will act in their own favor: in accordance to their instinct—their phantom God.
In contemporary times, these ideas are very much alive: in 1991 a relatively young man by the name of Boyd Rice sat down across Bob Larson, a Christian talk-show host, preparing for a debate on precisely these matters. Rice, a recording artist, found himself quickly engaged by Larson; and after a brief dialogue Rice was questioned on whether or not man was an animal: "Man is absolutely an animal" he feverishly stated, claiming later "Bring back every natural instinct that is innate to man, every healthy instinct; everything that ever bettered him toward positive evolution" (1; 8 minutes). Rice's stance is in regard to what Social Darwinists perceive as 'positive evolution'—that is, an evolution that was beneficial to man and planet-friendly, where nature was not destroyed gratuitously. In fact, later in the debate, Rice claims that "Every year a grown Oak tree is cut down for every worthless human life so they can have junk mail and toilet paper."
Larson's points generally go along with the Biblical stance of love and tolerance, but one quickly notices that he is very intolerant of Rice after a certain point. At one instance, he rages against Rice, saying "You are outrageous, you are disgusting, you are evil, you are immoral, you are pathetic: but through Christ I love you and pray for your soul"; to this, Rice replies in a rather collected and soft-spoken manner, "Well, I think that's pathetic. Where are you instincts if you can love something in complete opposition to you?" Larson replies incredulously: "It's wrong to love your enemies?"—"Absolutely!" Rice cuts in, "Absolutely it's wrong... Look at the world out there today! Look at the crime problem, look at the entire fabric of this civilization falling apart, and every ideal you support has been a direct cause of it!" Rice demonstrates the Darwinian view of having his entire existence based on the primacy of instinct, whereas Larson's answers, as can plainly be seen, reflect a Christian perspective. Toward the end of the debate, Larson expounds on the fact that animals do not have a soul—a caller is on the show, and asks him why that is. Larson explodes, saying "Jesus Christ did not die for a platypus!" The caller quickly replies: "But he died for you?"
Those Judeo-Christian forces of the past have never acted on anything but a Darwinian principle: and putting their words aside, we can quickly observe their apt nature to destroy both each other and that around them. In their onset, they were the strong: they were the powerful—certainly this can be seen merely by inspecting the magnitude of their religious wars: their membership, and their unremitting history of persecuting their own people while remaining in good standing. In Darwin's own words, "Inferior organisms succumb and perish or are enslaved. Superior organisms survive, propagate and possess" (Redbeard qut. Darwin, 150). However, it is also prudent to note that religious membership and vigor has seen a falling out in the last century: that the natural and cyclical law of nature is omnipotent, sound and eternally resolute. And while the doctrine of Judeo-Christians might be perceived as a threat to the very essence of nature, its implementation has proven Darwinian principles with every passing day. To use the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, "Christianity is a metaphysics of the hangman" (Jacobus, 710).
Works Cited:
- Fredriksen, Paula. From Jesus to Christ. Yale University: Yale University Press, 2000.
- Hitler, Adolf. Hitler's Table Talks. London: Enigma Books, 2000.
- Holy Bible: Self-Pronouncing Edition. Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1948.
- Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006.
- Mencken, Henry Louis. Minority Report. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
- ---. Treatise of the Gods. Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997.
- Redbeard, Ragnar. Might is Right. Washington: Loompanics Unlimited, 1973.
- Rice, Boyd. Interview. Talk Back with Bob Larson. 1991.
- Saint Augustine. Confessions. Maryland: Penguin Classics, 1975.
- Schopenhauer, Arthur. Essays and Aphorisms. London: Penguin Classics, 1970.
- Spengler, Oswald. Decline of the West, Volume I. Form and Actuality. New York: Random House, 1980.
- ---. Decline of the West, Volume II. Perspectives of World History. New York: Random House, 1980.
- Twain, Mark. Letters from the Earth. New York: Fawcett Crest Books, 1967.
- Tzu, Lao. Tao Te Ching. London: Penguin, 1963.
|
