Ellis Washington’s Brilliance, Part 2

Buffoon Award

We know you like your creationism to be utterly and hopelessly insane, flamingly crazy, howling at the Moon stuff, so that’s what we’re offering here. This comes from the RenewAmerica website, which recently won our Buffoon Award, thus the jolly logo above this post.

As you might expect, it was written by Ellis Washington. Our regular readers are familiar with his work from when he was a regular contributor to WorldNetDaily. The best example of his thinking 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

The last time we wrote about one of his essays was a week ago: Ellis Washington Displays His Brilliance. At the end of that post we reminded you that the title of his essay said it was “Part 1,” so we warned you there would be more to come. It has arrived.

We are delighted to present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from On Darwin and the eternal lie of evolution atheism, Part 2. However, we’re not going to give you many excerpts from Ellis’ latest. It’s too raw, too putrid. Even your Curmudgeon can’t take very much of it. But we will give you a few of the best parts, with bold font added by us for emphasis. Here we go!

Perhaps most people don’t realize that a large majority of Darwin’s evolution racism ideas came from his cousin, Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911). Galton was the discoverer of eugenics, creating the term itself and the phrase “nature versus nurture.”

Aaaargh!! No, Galton wasn’t the “discoverer” of eugenics. The concept of destroying defective children was practiced in Sparta, and it was Plato who recommended state-supervised selective breeding of children — see The Republic by Plato, Book 5. Further, as we explained in Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin, Darwin specifically rejected the whole idea. Ellis is off to a good start. Then he says:

This invidious racism by Galton under the sophistic legitimacy of eugenics pseudo-science fit perfectly with Darwin’s evolution atheism and evolution racist ideas like natural selection, survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism.

Aaaargh!! None of those ideas were advocated by Darwin. Well, yes, natural selection, but that isn’t racist. Let’s read on:

Not surprisingly 50 years after the pseudo-science and racist ideas of Darwin’s evolution atheism and Galton’s eugenics were accepted as ‘settled science’ in the genteel Victorian societies of England and America, in the 1920s-40s Hitler and his Nazi doctors, for example, Hitler’s Minster of Propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels and SS Officer and Auschwitz death camp physician, Dr. Josef Mengele, brought Darwin’s evolution atheism and Galton’s racialist eugenics to its logical progression and apotheosis despite the fact that Marxist and Progressive historical revisionists have worked tirelessly (through their higher education and Marxist media monopoly) to promote the lie that evolution and eugenics were ‘misinterpreted’ or ‘distorted’ by Nazi fanaticism.

Aaaargh!! It’s one vomit-inducing lie after another. Ellis continues:

On the contrary the Nazis fulfilled Darwin’s natural selection and survival of the fittest in evolution and in eugenics theories by taking Darwin’s ideas from the laboratory and systematically implementing them into actual German public policy

This is an incredible pile of creationist craziness. But here comes the best part:

The Nazis and Adolph Hitler utterly loved Darwin’s evolution atheism and evolution racism so much so that Hitler in his 2-volume memoir Mein Kampf (1925-26) acknowledged Darwin’s ideas to the extent that he defied them as sacred scriptures, writing: If I can accept a divine Commandment, it’s this one: “Thou shalt preserve the species.”

Aaaargh!! As we said in Hitler and Darwin, Hitler was a high-school dropout and may not have studied evolution at all. Even if tried to apply Darwin’s ideas, limiting the diversity of the gene pool is detrimental to the health of a species. Most importantly, Mein Kampf mentions Bismarck, Henry Ford, Frederick the Great, Lenin, Martin Luther, Karl Marx, Napoleon, Richard Wagner, and many others — but it contains not one word about Darwin. And we also wrote this:

In Mein Kampf, Hitler clearly indicates that he’s a creationist. Check it for yourself: Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Volume Two, Chapter X:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.

Anyway, Ellis has now given creationists everywhere a mined quote from Hitler they’ll all be using from now on. When you see it used elsewhere — and you will — you’ll know the source.

Does Ellis have anything else worth excerpting? Not really. It’s the usual word-salad with various names dropped, which is designed to impress drooling idiots that they’re reading something that’s really intellectual. But it’s pure garbage from start to finish. Oh, wait, you gotta see this:

The Turkish writer Adnan Oktar (b. 1956), has written many books under the pseudonym Harun Yahya … these books provide an interesting and systematic analysis into the philosophical and intellectual foundations of atheism, materialism, evolution and Darwinism. These books proclaim that evolution denies the existence of God, undermines religion, perverts morality, and supports materialism and communism, all which lead to societal deconstruction, genocide and democide.

Aaaargh!! There is no one whose writings are more execrable than Adnan Oktar. It’s not surprising that Ellis likes him. We used to write about the guy — see Harun Yahya Offers Eight Trillion Dollar Prize!

Okay, we’re done. You can click over there to read Ellis’ essay in its glorious entirety, but this is where we’ll leave it. And remember — Ellis is one of the featured writers at RenewAmerica. They’ve certainly earned our Buffoon Award.

Copyright © 2015. 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

18 responses to “Ellis Washington’s Brilliance, Part 2

  1. A particularly savoury crouton adorning Washington’s latest Waldorf of words:

    Dr. Josef Mengele, brought Darwin’s evolution atheism and Galton’s racialist eugenics to its logical progression and apotheosis

    Ya gotta had it to him. Could anyone else even attempt to yoke together the concepts of “apotheosis” and “atheism”?

  2. Derek Freyberg

    I rather like “in the early 1870s the eugenics movement likewise literally exploded onto English Victorian society”. For a man who supposedly earns his keep writing and teaching, Mr. Washington displays a convincing lack of knowledge of the English language.
    And, as before, he claims “This essay is based in part on ideas from Encyclopedia Britannica Great Books of the Western World, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor-in-Chief (University of Chicago, 1952)”. Somehow I doubt the authors of the works excerpted in the Great Books, or even Mr. Hutchins and his crew in 1952, thought the way Mr. Washington seems to think they did [cue quote from The Princess Bride], or thought as sloppily.

  3. Ah, bless the Internet. It enables totally illiterate and ignorant people, such as Washington to blather incoherently on subjects about which they obviously know nothing.

  4. Off topic for this thread, but definitely within the scope of this excellent blog:

    Lower back pain linked to chimpanzee spine shape

    I can’t wait for the Creationists to insist this is wrong, and that it is the Intelligent Designer (blessed be He/She/It/Them) who is to be thanked for lower back pain!

    As for responsibility for real pains in the [beep beep boop] like Ellis, well…that is a moot point.

  5. A coincidence, Megalonyx, is that I’ve been looking at a related article at Physorg: Common back problems may be caused by evolution of human locomotion. I’ll wait to see what the creationists do with it.

  6. michaelfugate

    Washington is so crazy – that I am thinking this could be an intellectual Free Fire Zone. I am sure our esteemed host has read the book, but I would like to give a shout out for this:

    How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It (or The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots invention of the Modern World) by Arthur Herman

    The perfect counter to the Washingtons of this world.

  7. Christine Janis

    “Common back problems may be caused by evolution of human locomotion.”

    Maybe we’d be better off if we all had baboon vertebrae

  8. What about all the people who accept evolution based on the evidence who are not atheists?

    How do they fit into Mr Washington’s reality free worldview? I hope he explains them in the next chapter of his saga.

  9. “For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.”

    I guess that clearly explains why Hitler chose to exterminate the Jews. Perhaps Ellis might focus on that thought.

  10. nature nurture
    Here is an essay with the title: “Shakespeare Follow-Up: Nature vs. Nature” in “Shakespeare Teacher” for November 8, 2013


    The essay points out that “Shakespeare himself juxtaposed the two words in The Tempest, as Prospero describes Caliban” and “Shakespeare was not the first to contrast these two words, but Galton is known to have been a Shakespeare fan,”

    Unfortunately the citation for “not the first” is broken. As might be guessed, a search for uses of the two words turns up too many cases to be useful.

  11. aturingtest

    How in the world does Washington get ““thou shalt preserve the species” as a commandment from “evolution atheism” when the TOE is a theory about their diversification? It probably doesn’t help that he thinks “survival of the fittest” is a description of a goal rather than simply an outcome.

  12. The only other early quotation about nature and nurture that I have been able to dig up is also from Shakespeare: “Timon of Athens” iii. v. 49  “Yee are both like in nature, & in nurture”

  13. Holding The Line In Florida

    No amount of Margaritas can make this understandable. I have read it three times and it is as incomprehensible as the first. Maybe after round four….

  14. I came across this index and concordance to the English version of Mein Krampf. It is interesting to see the many, many references to “creation, creator, creature, etc.” There are a very few references to “evolution, etc.” (and if one looks them up, one sees that there are no references to biological evolution). One can see that there is not one reference to “Darwin”.

  15. TomS says:

    There are a very few references to “evolution, etc.” (and if one looks them up, one sees that there are no references to biological evolution).

    That’s not surprising, but it’s the raw material for quote-mining. In my news scans for “evolution,” I often find false positives. It’s most often used to mean “development” or “change” in a non-biological sense. Football teams evolve. Business plans evolve.

  16. Since Washington doesn’t even know how to properly spell Adolf Hitler’s name–not exactly a challenging feat of scholarship–why should anyone take seriously anything he says?

  17. “As you might expect, it was written by Ellis Washington.”
    Eh yes, it’s in the header.

    Our dear SC cries out: “It’s one vomit-inducing lie after another.” and missed one bit of truth.

    “through their higher education”
    Yup. EW should try to get some as well.

    “creationists ….. will all be using from now on”
    I’m looking forward to it. Because “Thou shalt preserve the species.” is exactly the opposite of evolution. And, like I recently did, I won’t forget to quote from Mein Kampf:

    “iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.”
    “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.”
    Hitler was a creationist. Darwin’s book was burned.


  18. @mnbo
    The thing is, that the “science” behind many of the early 20th-century political-social movements is just “common sense”, the same “science” behind, for example, creationism. Ideas that led people to think that without purposeful direction, things would deteriorate. That one can draw lessons about values from nature.
    So what the creationists are seeing in the “science” of the Nazis is their own common sense. Not that there is any particular affinity there. “Everybody” (until the “modern synthesis”, and a few hold-out “darwinists”) thought that way.
    But it is ironic that the creationists think that what they are seeing is not their own image. They are condemning, not “darwinism”, but what everybody believed before Darwin.