Ellis Washington: Darwin and Other Villains

Buffoon Award

The morning’s tranquility was shattered by the blaring sirens and flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™. We rushed to the computer and found it locked onto an article in WorldNetDaily (WND). It’s in their honor that our jolly buffoon logo is displayed above this post.

The Retard-o-tron™ had found an article by one of our WND favorites — Ellis Washington. In this earlier post we described Ellis and his intellectual style, so we won’t repeat ourselves. But we must remind you of the best example of his cosmic-level thinking, which can be found here: Scripture Trumps Darwin, when he informed us of “the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization”:

If A = B, then A + B = C

Today’s essay from Ellis is titled Utopia, eugenics and today’s progressives. WND says it’s an “Exclusive.” Of course it is — material like this can’t be found anywhere except WND. And there’s a sub-title: “Ellis Washington explains how Plato’s anti-family philosophy lives today.” He begins with a quote from The Republic by Plato:

The bride and bridegroom must set their minds to produce for the State children of the greatest possible goodness and beauty.”

We’ve discussed Plato’s wackiness before. In Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin we talked about:

… the false claims that Darwin is responsible for advocating eugenics and selective breeding of humans. Those ideas are at least as old as Athens and Sparta, [see The Republic by Plato, Book 5], so you can read that for some additional insights. Unless Darwin had a time machine which enabled him to instruct the Spartans about destroying defective infants, and to encourage Plato to write about a selective breeding program for the republic, he’s innocent of the charges so thoughtlessly made by creationists.

Will Ellis finally be able to connect the dots and see the flamingly obvious relationship between Plato’s other-worldly mysticism, his advocacy of eugenics, and his fantasy of being the intelligent designer of a perfect society? Or will Ellis continue to blame all the world’s problems on science? Alas, we fear that we already know the answer, but let’s look at a few excerpts from what he has to say, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

The introduction to “The Faber Book of Utopias,” edited by John Carey, chronicles the methods of creating ideal citizens, which historically have been repeatedly promoted by utopian philosophers via the deconstruction or abolition of the family. Originally proposed by Plato in his magnum opus, “The Republic,” this simple yet dramatic blueprint has influenced a number of social philosophers as diverse as More, Hobbes, Voltaire, Rousseau, to Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Freud, B.F. Skinner, to socialist, liberal, progressive thinkers and politicians in modern times.

That’s a classic Ellis Washington scatter-shot historical name salad. And observe, dear reader, that he tossed Darwin into the mix — as he almost always does. What does Darwin have in common with any of those others? Or with Plato? Was Darwin a utopian dreamer? Was he a socialist? Was he an advocate of eugenics? The answer is “no” to all those questions, but Ellis doesn’t know that — nor does he care. He just tosses names around and babbles, which qualifies him as a deep thinker at WND. His essay continues:

Plato promoted the belief that the family should be completely deconstructed and its component parts used as tools of an omnipotent, leviathan state. This means that children will be taken from parents practically from birth, preventing the parent/child bonding. Children will be raised exclusively by state bureaucrats; the unfit, mentally feeble, undesirables like their fellow Greeks (Spartans) and in modern times under Hitler and the Nazis, summarily aborted.

That’s pretty much true — but it has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory of evolution. Ellis goes on for several paragraphs, talking about feminism, abortion, radical anti-family philosophy, state-raised children, Mussolini’s fascism, eugenics, forced sterilization of those deemed unfit, and genetic engineering. It’s quite a collection. But again we must ask: What is Darwin’s name doing in Ellis’ collection? As we slog through to the end, we find absolutely no explanation. Here’s how Ellis concludes:

The Progressive Revolution will continue to mandate universal policies of death for unfit populations through their current champion, President Barack Obama, unless and until conservatives raise up their own champion to defeat him.

That was a fine collection of nothing. How can we respond to Ellis’ slipping Darwin’s name into his vomit-pile? With perfect justice, we shall respond by using his own technique. Here is your Curmudgeon’s collection of historical names: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, Hitler, Stalin, and Ellis Washington. There — we learned how to do it from the master.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Ellis Washington: Darwin and Other Villains

  1. Eddie Janssen

    You forgot Darwin.

  2. Garnetstar

    Ancient nomadic tribes also practiced eugenics. If a child was born when the previous child could not yet walk, one of them had to go, because the mother could not carry two children and still walk the distances required. Or, if a toddler was not physcially able to keep up with the tribe, it had to go as well.

    Probably Darwin’s fault. Or the Enlightenment. Both, actually.

  3. Garnetstar says: “If a child was born when the previous child could not yet walk, one of them had to go, because the mother could not carry two children and still walk the distances required.”

    No twins, huh?

  4. retiredsciguy

    No wonder twins and triplets are so rare today. Natural selection has virtually removed the multiple birth gene from the gene pool.

    More proof of evolution!

  5. Well, it’s actually artificial selection, isn’t it? I guess to creationists, it’s all the same thing. The root of all evil!

    And, I wonder where the father was in all this? Couldn’t he carry one of the kids? Oh well, maybe he had the latest kill slung around his shoulders, a dead gazelle or something, so his hands were full.

  6. Garnetstar observes, “Well, it’s actually artificial selection, isn’t it?”

    Yes, if you just consider the case where the tribe made the deliberate decision to kill one of the twins. But I was thinking of the long history of human evolution before that point, when a woman with twins would have a very difficult time raising even one to maturity. There would have been no intentional killing; they just would not have made it. Therefore, the gene controlling multiple births would have become rare.

    At some point, it would dawn on the tribal leadership that twins are a detriment to the tribe, and they would learn that sacrificing one of the twins would give the surviving twin a better chance.

  7. They couldn’t have just gotten somebody else to carry the extra kids?

  8. Techreseller

    Enter Menopause and grandmothers. Barren aunts. They could carry the extra kid.