-— but animals don’t engage in social engineering, they don’t sit in an office and plan the annihilation of a an entire class.
Do they? -—
Are you saying that in reality, humans are categorically different from animals?
If so, then you are contradicting Darwin and Marx. When there are no fixed species, in a world of matter in motion, there are no essences, so there can be no essential differences.
This is the fundamental incoherence of Darwinism and Marxism.
Let's keep it nice and simple, shall we? Our closest relative the chimp will gang up against a rival troop and kill their leaders, often using sticks, but they don't write instruction books on how to do it, or preach a creed that sets one troop against another. They don't kill for sport, either. We are too clever for our own good. The more progress we seem to make, the more often some power-seeking entity comes along and forms a sect which sets one group against the other, and the better and more efficient ways we find to kill each other.
Eff Marx & Darwin. Two puny losers. Darwin too afraid to publish what he really saw in South America, because he didn't want to go against Lyell's Principles of Geology, and Marx for being a sloth who lived off his wife's inheritance and lived in squalor when the money ran out.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F59&pageseq=1
page 182
....It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters: now we find mere pigmies, compared with the antecedent allied races. If Buffon had known of the gigantic sloth and armadillo-like animals, and of the lost Pachydermata, he might have said with a greater semblance of truth that the creative force in America had lost its power, rather than that it had never possessed great vigour. The greater number, if not all, of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period, and were the contemporaries of most of the existing sea-shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of the land can have taken place. What, then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring’s Straits, we must shake the entire framework of the globe...
And from then on, he struggled with the evidence before his eyes, and the book he carried with him on the Beagle.
SOURCE - frontpagemagazine blog comments:
It’s not surprising Marx wrote about the exploitation of working people. He was intimately familiar with exploitation of working people, since he personally exploited everyone around him his entire life. He was a broke loser who sponged off everyone around him, borrowed money and never paid it back, and believed it was the obligation of his family and friends to support him in his “great work” so that he wouldn’t have to earn a living. Stephan Molyneux paints a chilling portrait of the monster that Marx was in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg
That the ideas of Marx would be popular among other people who share his belief that the world owes them something is not surprising.
Video is a must-see