By Cranky Housewife -
Humanity is on the precipice. We are teetering on the verge of our next evolutionary leap.
I've heard various iterations on this theme echoed over and over by liberal elites ever since Barack Obama was inaugurated this last Monday – but nowhere was it better highlighted than by John Kass as he gently chided a caller to his radio show, "Are you saying to me that the more liberal a person becomes, the more evolved he becomes?"
And I realize that context is everything when it comes to a conversation that you are perhaps learning about in your third-person capacity – an answer in the affirmative to such an evocative question could be interpreted in a few different ways depending on the discussion, but let me be clear for anyone who happened to miss this. They were not having a conversation about evolved thinking which holds a very different connotation. This was a specific reference to the evolution of humankind as a species. The dialogue very much revolved around the idea that President Barack Obama would usher in a permanent shift in human behavior, that this shift would be of central importance to the improvement of homo-sapiens and that this is an evolutionary moment – imperceptible to the human eye but palpable and unstoppable.
Kass's question was impishly coquettish and unassuming, but it is perhaps the best moment that I have ever heard on radio because it caught his caller completely unaware and drew out an almost irrepressibly truthful answer. The answer showcased for the whole world to hear that insidious and pervasive attitude on the Left which is often cloaked in the dog-whistle terms of progressivism regarding the quality of the human stock within the Left's limited parameters of social and philosophical acceptability.
Those of you on the Right may not actually be surprised by the caller's response to Mr. Kass and I wasn't actually either, but I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting to hear it anyway. I wanted to know – would she do it? Would she answer the question? Given the keen wording of John Kass's question, it was nearly impossible to give an honest answer that pushes forth the progressive agenda without revealing…truth. "Are you saying to me that the more liberal a person becomes, the more evolved he becomes?" The only marginally chastened caller muttered a brief complaint about the indiscretion of John Kass's question before she concluded that…well, yes. Yes. She and her ilk move on a higher plane of evolution.
I'm sure that you have met one or more members of this elite species of human being before. They may look a lot like you or me but upon greeting one of these uber-evolved humans, they tend to rattle off their college transcripts as confirmation of their genetic pedigree so as not to be mistaken for the lower breeds…they are invariably well educated. So they ought to well know the historic relevance of this caller's line of thinking.
Take the time to ask yourself a few random questions.
How could some people within a society evolve in the justification that there are other people in this world that are so low that they are untouchable – unclean – unemployable – un…whatever – fill in the blank?
How could a world leader develop solutions to social disorder that include the extermination of entire races of people?
How could a leader develop solutions to social disorder that include the extermination of entire segments of his own people?
How could a people evolve their thinking to justify the extermination of millions upon millions of unborn children?
Now there's a word. Justify. And please. These are not happy things that I am going to write but they are relevant to the excitement that we see mounting over our imminent social evolution especially on this 40th anniversary of Roe V. Wade.
"Even the most careful selection of the best can accomplish nothing; if it is not linked with the merciless elimination of the worst people…Do not spare your neighbor! For the person of today is something which must be overcome, then the worst people, the low ones, and the superfluous ones must be sacrificed…Therefore this means becoming hard against those who are below average, and in them to overcome one's own sympathy."
That is a quote from Alexander Tille who published the first English translation of Friedrich Nietzsche's Also sprach Zarathustra in 1896. He was a first-generation Social Darwinist. Social Darwinism is the philosophy of evolutionary ethics that views death and deconstruction as engines for evolutionary progress and believes that speeding up that death and deconstruction must therefore increase the likelihood of genetic mutation and improvement. And not to get too bogged down in the detail, but there was disagreement about how best to achieve the desired results of evolutionary engineering. The two schools of thought dealt with positive and negative eugenics.
Positive eugenics encouraged monetary bribes to those who were deemed to be low-stock humans – described as unfit for the strenuous nature of life, unable to grow up in anything but stature and carnal appetites, perhaps intelligent but unable to grasp the nuances of cultural stability which require self-control and self-denial – monetary bribes in exchange for sterilization. Supporters of this mode of evolution believed "eugenics must be introduced into the national conscience like a new religion. It has strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future." Francis Galton 1904
This versus negative eugenics which advocated forced sterilization and, if need be, genocide. Margaret Sanger, for instance, believed that positive eugenics would create "cradle competition" between the fit and unfit. It was that same mentality that brought America such stellar adjudicating in the form of Buck v Bell in which the Supreme Court declared forced sterilization to be constitutional. It is why to this day Planned Parenthood sets up shop in poor, ethnic minority neighborhoods. It is why the MSM peppers us with articles about the rise of minority populations which are meant to stoke the fire of fear and racism while confusing conservative debates about illegal immigration to deflect their extremism on us.
You see, the idea that we are seeing something novel in the rhetoric of the Left is simply not true. The notion that we are evolving into something the world has never seen before is a falsehood. Liberals feel inspired to take Progressivism to the next level because having our nation's most autocratic leader since FDR reelected tends to boost the confidence…and rightly so. But the Left's justification for fanaticism and authoritarianism is not new. Talking oneself into the right to subjugate based on the feeling of superiority is a tale as old as time itself. The world's history is littered with well-educated members of various elite species of men who are certain that their Machiavellian drives to power are justified and necessary for the betterment of the village or the nation or the whole of humanity.
But they never actually are justified in what they do and if we are to bear witness to anything at all as the unrestrained power of the Left manifests, let us at least document how muddled the thinking can become when Man believes himself to be the ultimate negotiator of progress.