Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From Darwin to Delegated Fascism


Richard Pearcey traces how a Darwinian worldview leads to “delegated fascism”. These are critical issues in debating the societal CONSEQUENCES of Evolution vs Intelligent Design, (as distinct from the scientific origin theories themselves.) ———————————

Abortofascism and Free-Market Homicide

By Rick Pearcey, Pro-Existance, May 12, 2008
In a column titled “Atheism and Child Murder,” Dinesh D’Souza comments on his recent debate with Princeton ethicist and atheist Peter Singer:

Some of Singer’s critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler’s schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn’t want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

Singer as an individual may or may not approve “state-sponsored killings,” but his worldview nevertheless demands obedience. This is what worldviews qua worldviews do as presumed guides to living in the real world.

What counts here, in Singer’s case, are not the desires of a particular professor, but rather the imperative mobilized by atheistic presuppositions that give rise to a materialistic and inhumane philosophy of life. . . .
A denial of the dignity of Man and the sacredness of the individual pushes people downstream into currents of inhumanity that allow no adequate ethical opposition to radical dehumanization, up to and including concentration camps and abortion chambers. . . .

You can be a materialist even if you’re a hippie and have only one quarter in your pocket (as Francis Schaeffer observed on occasion). In similar fashion, you can be a fascist and have only one baby, one person, one slave, one Jew in your power, your pocket, at your mercy, in your womb, subject to your autonomous choice. . . .

For if the naked secular state is the de facto ultimate political power (because God does not exist, and the impersonal cosmos is indifferent), then even the putatively “empowered” individual really functions more as something akin to an NGE (nongovernmental entity), enacting that which the state allows and the Darwinian struggle for existence compels, excuses, and forgives.

This is a delegated fascism — from the secular state to the secularized individual and his or her own personal will-to-power. “Freedom” and “empowerment” become PR symbols to help grown-ups feel better about imposing their values on pre- and post-natal children. This scheme works best if the grown-ups remain unaware of their subservience to the state establishment.

It is important to not be confused or distracted by the struggle between the fascism of the one (naked, personal choice and the individual will-to-power) and the fascism of the many (naked, political choice and the raw communal will-to-power).

One need not reduce Singer to Hitler to recognize Naziesque applications that emerge naturally and logically from an inhumane, Singeresque worldview. We are condemned to repeat the past if we ignore its dangerous presuppositions.

Dawkins: Nazi Eugenics “May Not Be Bad”?, by Rick Pearcey
* Fascism Is Back, by Rick Pearcey


Highly recommend reading the full article: Abortofascism and Free-Market Homicide

Through Harvard, Peter Singer has an apparently credible platform. Thus he advocates All Animals are equal Ch 43 in Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Russ Shafer-Landau (Editor) (2007) ISBN:1405133198 Singer directly undermines the legal foundation of the USA in which the Declaration of Independence appeals to the highest law - that of the Supreme Judge of all the world. For atheist Singer, there is no Judge, consequently Darwin rules. Might makes right. For Singer, an animal is equivalent to a human of similar mental capabilities. Consequently, there is no difference between killing the young or old or an animal. Many swallow such logic, never seriously examining the underlying presuppositions. Consequently Singer builds on Darwin to further destroy Western civilization. DLH
Most of the great historical Darwinians advocated the totalitarianism of scientific elite. Julian Huxley went as far as to say that scientists will not only tell people what modes of religious expression would be permissible, but also what religious beliefs would be permissible to hold. "There is a good deal of evidence that the feeble-minded are increasing in numbers in this country. They are careless of the consequences of their actions, and they reproduce rapidly. They appear to be a real danger to the State." - John R. Baker "...we shall tell the man who can't provide for himself and his family that he cannot have State aid unless he agrees not to have any more children. If he refuses, State aid shall also be refused him or else he shall be locked up... All of this may seem very undemocratic, but heredity and biology are very undemocratic." - Julian Huxley Vladimir Krondan
Singer is a hypocrite, and why anyone would take him or his views seriously is beyond me. Paul Copan's book "How Do You Know You're Not Wrong?" pretty much demolishes any arguments Singer might put forth on why his views on personhood and human nature should be accepted. Barb
Peter Singer and Dan Barker debates… http://www.tothesource.org/dsouza_singer_debate_4_25_08.htm http://www.tothesource.org/dsouza_barker_debate_4_23_08.htm CN
Also recommended by yours truly is Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." Goldberg doesn't emphasize the Darwin connection but the atheism is clear and this facts vast and detailed. Rude
Here I think an analogy to slavery is apt. The governments of the Southern states did not hold slaves. Instead, those governments allowed free markets to dictate whether a particular (white) individual would choose to own a slave. That is to say, if the white person could afford a slave, he was free to choose one. That is why the old canard of the pro-abort crowd "If you're against abortion, don't get one" never made the least bit of sense to me. A slave owner could have said using the same logic, "If you're against slavery, don't buy one." A rapist might as easily say, "If you're against rape, don't commit one." BarryA

Leave a Reply