Darwin, The Heresiarch

  

Let us talk about Darwin, or rather let us explore Darwin a bit.......

......Karl Marx, being an avid fan of Charles Darwin, dedicated Das Kapital to him in the footnotes of his 19th century magnum opus which talked a great game about the material course of history and of man himself through to the industrial era justifying it with his ethos of "To each according to his ability, to each according his need", which was not bad in and of itself but I would like to imagine a world where Marx was merely an economist creating a different form of industrial production than creating an entire worldview out of the ass-end of Hegel's dialectics. Why? because what is inherently problematic about Marx was his affinity for extreme material determinism which led every man, as a consequence of equality of opportunity to the same exact place of live, eat, work, die. This was the end goal of all men, according to Marx, nothing supernatural or divine about his "being-in-the-world", as Hegel's dialectic was turned upside down to reject idealism wholesale and make man a collection of bolts, gears, switches and motors. No man should have to live this way, because "that ain't livin'" We are more than the sum of our parts and should be able to voluntarily pursue our hopes and dreams and desires, not to get rich, but to bring value to our life, one that we create, with or without the aid of a creator, though the former is preferable.

    Which brings me to my second point, since some of the world's most evil men hailed Darwin as a visionary, the ethos of another Darwin admirer springs to mind, that of famed anti-state, liberty-loving sociologist Herbert Spencer, who coined the infamous phrase "survival of the fittest". Why on earth should only those of sound mind, finessed bodies and admirable stamina were able to carry on their legacy through the genes of the other sex, since women by and large get to decide who has a legacy and who does not. female agency is the piece-de-resistance of Darwin, and you're not getting anywhere unless she allows it. But what if you held the ultimate key to your own survival? What a world that would be and you wouldn't have to seek approval from society or any one person. There is the theory of post-humanism, which means you could extend your life through turning yourself into a machine, which is probably what Marx would have wanted dialectically (but you'd get your labors' worth, I guess), there is also the idea of transhumanism which is less severe yet, but to experience the world as your own personal cause is more fulfilling, after all, being a clone of Alex Murphy (Robocop) where his memories are erased would never give you the fulfilling justice of knowing one's self and owning one's self and getting your redress on society. If man controlled his own destiny without approval of the fairer sex there would be many in society who would cry afoul of "human rights" which unlike Schmitt's idea of using it in a universalist sense of the global expanse, like Immanuel Kant, which judging by my last essay, would be easy to exploit, rather human rights should belong to the patriarch and the patriarch only, in the transvaluation of all values to decide the exception, to make a universal law. and so it shall be, those who invoke Darwin want to invoke passivity and in turn, leading men to the same place of annihilation.

                                                                                                                                J/Adolf Stalin