Political Darwinism

I've been thinking a lot lately about the Gettysburg address. Let me quote:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

And somehow, my strange brain was also thinking about Charles Darwin. You know, the guy who told us about "survival of the fittest"

But the fittest what?

It seems most of the wars we've been in for the last 60 years have been to decide this question.

In World War II, we battled Facism. The Master Races. We believed that Darwin was talking about the fittest individual, whatever his race. And we settled that argument fairly convincingly. We fought for the right of an individual to be equal, to be free from enslavement by other races.

Next, we fought the Cold War, or World War III. Capitalism vs. Communism. In other words, we struggled to decide the fittest economic system. Once again, we fought for the individual, the other side fought for the state. We fought for the rights of the individual, only this time to be free to choose his own destiny, or be enslaved by a state.

For the last twenty years we've been in World War IV, we fight to determine what Darwin meant. We've only recently begun to fight fight for the right of the individual to choose his religion, or none at all. The other side wishes to impose Islam on us all, with all it's connotations. This war is religious Darwinism.

Should you ritually wash your feet five times a day before you pray to Mecca? Should you be killed for your sexual orientation? Should women be allowed to drive? Vote? Can they be killed for adultery or perceived adultery? Can you commit murder of anyone you please as long as they are not muslim? Should All jews be killed? All Christians? Should we perpetuate a new Holocaust only orders of magnitude larger? Is Genocide God's Will?

If you answered yes to all of the above, I think you are already on the other side.

I've been called conservative. Someone once said I made Ted Nugent look like a communist. But I don't think so. I believe in the individual.

Not the State. Not any Race. Not any Religion.

States have many times committed barbarity and evil. See Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea. All races have committed barbarous acts on other races at some point in their history. And organized religion has many times been twisted into getting it's followers to commit most ungodly acts, whatever god you believe in. See how the Muslims murder children and target innocents daily.

No, I believe in individuals. You want to be Gay? Fine, none of my business. That's between you, partners, family, friends, and any god you choose. You want to be Conservative/ Liberal/ Religious/ Agnostic/ Communist/ or Fruit Bat Worshiper, go right ahead.

But when you wish to use the power of the state, and the rule of law to compel my behavior or participation in something I may or may not believe in, we have a problem.

Therefore, I have a problem with our enemies. I choose not to become a muslim. I find it's practice to be brutal and barbarous, cruel and callous. I will therefore live and die an infidel. I answered no to all of the questions I posed earlier.

And no, I will not change my mind, no matter how many innocent of whatever religion they choose to slaughter.

If we ever finally decide the question of religious Darwinism in favor of the individual, we might have time to finish the first question of political Darwinism, the one that consumes domestic politics.

We currently argue a form of Darwinism, does he mean the fittest individuals or the fittest groups?

To debate this, I'm going to talk about Republicans and Democrats.

I can't talk about the true champions of individuality, the Libertarians. They believe so strongly in individuals that it's hard to get a consensus view from them on anything. It's kind of like trying to hold a convention for us Agnostics. Ask where to hold it or when, or how much to spend, you always get the same answer - "I don't know." Try mentioning the entertainment and it'll get worse.

Republicans believe much more in the individual. Democrats believe in groups.

Look at the republican constituency. Only a few groups there. Religious groups. Second Amendment supporters. And maybe business types. But notice that these are all groups that anyone can join. Republicans are very inclusive.

Now lets look at the democrats. Hispanic rights groups. Immigrant rights groups. Black groups. Hell, they even have congressional caucuses with purely racial agendas. Sexual orientation groups. All of these groups are based on qualifications over which individuals have no choice.

The democrats only major constituency group to which qualification may be voluntary are the unions. And they fight tooth and nail to eliminate a workers right to choose to join, and give them no say in how all their political dollars are spent.

I choose to go where my rights to choose as an individual are respected.

One day, I'd love to debate with the opposition over individual rights versus group rights (aka mob rule).

But right now, we just don't have the time.

The democrats want to fight this fight right now.

If we don't win the fight for the individual in religious Darwinism, al of their arguments become mute.

The muslims believe in stoning to death for homosexuals. If we lose the religious Darwinism fight, there will be no more gay/ lesbians, and no need to discuss the rights of the dead.

The same goes for black rights. Just look at Darfur. Muslims win, no blacks to have rights to argue for.

Jewish rights? Oops, sorry, you're all under a death sentence. Hispanic rights? Given the way they feel about Jews and the way they treat Blacks, how confident are you in a long life as a hispanic muslim?

Unfortunately, the democrats choose to pander to their different groups for political advantage rather than try to win the defining struggle of our times.

If, and only if we win, will the question of individual versus group domestically be important. In that case, those who sought to distract us from the fight for religious freedom will be remembered quite poorly by history.

Arnold. Quisling. Reid?

until later,

thenakedemperor