A sure sign of a runaway argument is the proliferation of LOL, ROFL and their ilk. Your laughter is a defense mechanism against ideas that might undermine your position. In this case, it protects you from facing the fact that you're guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.
The Italian Fascisti ceased to exist as a party after WWII. Even then, the word was used to refer to more than the actual Fascisti, since it was also applied to German National Socialists who were not literally fascist, but who resembled the Fascisti in certain ways. The third Reich has of course fallen, so even that stretched application of the term is essentially obsolete. Your implied definition of "fascist" is completely useless outside a discussion of mid-twentieth-century history.
In common parlance, and in my post, the word "fascist" was used as a general reference to authoritarians who, unlike the socialists, allow citizens to retain their private property but who, being authoritarians, control the citizens' use of their property. The United States government has enacted a good deal of legislation that is fundamentally socialist, and also a good deal that is fundamentally fascist. See for example Social Security on the one hand, and the Food and Drug Administration on the other.
If you fail to grasp the basic usage of a word, then of course the rest of the discussion will fly over your head. But the rational man remedies his vocabulary problems. The unthinking man laughs, mistaking his incomprehension for the other man's stupidity.
LOL... Yeah, Francis Galton was a "fascistic individual." I guess today, using your magic decoder ring, "fascistic individual" means "Victorian gentleman."
He specifically advocated that public policy should exert control over reproduction for the "improvement" of the species. It's abundantly clear that this fits within the common-usage meaning of "fascism". Of course you'll have lots of leisure to debate whether it's fascistic at all, since you will obviously be forbidden to breed under any rational eugenics program.
Darwin's work may have been a catalyst in Galton's case (or, more likely, may have been used by Galton to give his ancient ideas a modern, scientific cast), but they were a catalyst for him contemplating the application of artificial selection to human beings. If Galton "credited" Darwin, he simply didn't understand Darwin's work, anymore than you understand what the word "fascist" means.
I quote the paragraph in its entirety because excerpting it would be to deface a masterpiece: it's an incredible assembly of incorrect assertions that would be remedied if you'd read anything of Galton's at all.
Galton's core observation was one oft-repeated today: society negates natural selection by providing the means for unfit persons to survive. This observation links natural and artificial selection in a natural and obvious way. Namely, artificial selection is called for precisely because natural selection has ceased to operate "correctly". This extends the analogy of animal husbandry, by calling upon evolutionary theory as evidence that a problem exists, to which artificial selection is then proposed as the solution.
I've already described this as a misapplication of the theory of evolution, so you can leave out your straw-man suggestion that I somehow blame Darwin for Galton. However, it's equally important that you realize the natural (but incorrect) logic whereby natural selection suggests the notion that civilization is harmful to the species. The observation never fails to be made at about that point in a discussion of natural selection. It's the fascist mentality that makes one extra step, and decides government should rectify the situation.
LOL... Where did you get this supposed Ph.D?
I notice that each section of your reply begins with a fresh burst of laughter. You apparently have your mental barriers set at maximum. My PhD is in Mathematics, and was awarded by Syracuse University. That's why I focus so closely on the flaws in your logic; they glow for me like flashing neon signs.
Actually, it recognizes the humor in watching you manufacture history, mangle logic and invent language. (Oh, tell us again, dear sage, of how Victorian fascists invented eugenics...) The fact that it is a common mistake to use the word "fascist" in the manner you do does not transform your improper usage of the word into a proper one; it simply means that a lot of people make that same mistake you do.
The unthinking man laughs, mistaking his incomprehension for the other man's stupidity.
Or, as in this case, the thinking man laughs as the stupid man displays his stupidity. Hence my laughter.
He specifically advocated that public policy should exert control over reproduction for the "improvement" of the species. It's abundantly clear that this fits within the common-usage meaning of "fascism".
Calling a tail a "leg" doesn't change the fact that dogs only have four legs. Describing a man who was not a fascist as a "fascist" does not make him one.
Likewise, the eugenicist who misconstrues and misunderstands the principle of natural selection--as you admit Galton did--is not "contemplating natural selection," he's contemplating a mischaracterization or caricature of natural selection coupled with a contemplation of artificial selection.
And the premise that "society negates natural selection by providing the means for unfit persons to survive" is such a misunderstanding of natural selection that it falsifies your assertion that it provides a "natural and obvious" link between natural selection and artificial selection. Since such a link does not exist in this context, then your initial assertion that eugenics arises from the contemplation of natural selection by those you mistakenly term "fascists" is simply false. They may be contemplating something, but it is not natural selection.
I notice that each section of your reply begins with a fresh burst of laughter.
Because your posts are so amusing. When dealing with people like you, smart people are often amused by your struggling attempts at rationality. It is a fleeting amusement, but amusing none the less.