We will soon see how crime scene cleanup's place in our world arrived too late. Meanwhile we will dispose ourselves of all whining and see to the efforts we might have made, given the opportunities against malfeasance in government and elsewhere.

"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated?

- Justice Robert H. Jackson, Nuremberg Chief Justice

Yes, on first glance, we might wonder if this comment might somehow point to government negligence in its denial of global warming. It doesn't.

I remind myself to begin writing with an "I." This way I achieve the great Green acclaim, personal and social responsibility for how I write and how I act. Unlike social darwinists, I make no claim that one person carries inherited characteristics superior to another person's inherited characteristics, their genes.

Unlike professional writers on this subject, most of whom know their stuff so well, I do not claim a scholarly approach; neither does xxy. I hope to hit the highs and lows of social darwinism's development and current state of health.

For those unfamiliar with reports on social darwinism, we do not see much in print or on corporate media about social darwinism. There's a reason. It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. But I'm going to share it anyway. Those who own the media do not care to have their benefactors tabled with such a negative phrase. It's easy to understand why.

I will hint at the most direct observation of social darwinism to date. The most recent Republican Party attack on working class social programs. These they blame for capitalism's collapse; since I can remember, they've hammered away at social programs for the poor and working class. I'm reminded of the Nazi German's similar approach to politics and the poor and working class. End social programs for "the unfit" the Germans were to finally claim, and the German people will do much better.

This strand of social darwinism we heard from the Republican Party leadership as they held our nation by threat, as they used a terrorist threat to forfeit the good name, faith and credit of the United States for their own ends. They wished to change the course of doing politics in a way that became the pattern 77 times before.

What I must agree with, their idea that a country's budget become balanced sooner than later. What I cannot agree with, they were intent on reducing and destroying the prospects of so many United States citizens for no good reason. Where were these guys when Bush was throwing our national treasure and blood into the fires of two wars on the other side of this planet? I do not recall any threats from thereabout.

I suppose their line of social darwinist politics needs some more light. Facts remain that the United States Government, with Republican and Democratic Party collaboration, charged the good faith and credit of the United States to the Chinese Communist Government. They did so to carryout two mindless wars. One, Iraq, the other, that tribal society, Afghanistan. So what's the sense of a "balanced budget" threat in light of the trillions we owe to the Chinese nation? I don't get it.

The Republican's exposed their weak-kneed social darwinism for what it was, an attempt to reduce the poor and working class to the lowest common wage with no guaranteed bottom. It's sick.

Social Darwinism before Darwin

Before Charles Darwin sought to organize observed natural findings, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin sought a key to evolution. In some way he hoped to explain the greatest mystery of mysteries, how so many types of life came to exist and perish, while others continued. He followed Lamerack to no successful end. What he lacked Charles Darwin and Carl Marx would find, Malthus's essay on population and its inevitable logic. A struggle for existence related to starvation from unsustainable numbers means that some must perish.

To this notion Darwin added his own favorable parental genes, environmental pressures, and an absolute geographical barrier between members of the same species, like rivers, mountains, and especially islands, like the Galapagos. .

During this period of English History, Queen Victoria ruled England; infarct, the sun always shined somewhere on the British empire. This major accomplishment by a tiny island's inhabitants must mean something special about the English people. It happened at this time that "evolution" was "in the air" without a suitable explanation for its occurrence. As a result, many of the Queen's subjects assumed that they had arisen to the top social strata of all people, and by their own superiority. Their superiority arose not so much from the Queen or deity's special grace upon their land, but by their own superior being.

England had become the top of humanity's social, philosophical, religious, and scientific hierarchy by an evolutionary momentum. Whether or not divinely gained mattered little. It worked.

This superiority notion lead many to learning a superiority complex which lead to a condescending attitude toward other classes, "races," and countries. Upon Darwin's publication of his book on evolution, these folks had a "scientific" explanation for their "superiority." If God had not graced the upper-crust, Darwin had. By the time Charles Darwin had sailed a big part of the earth for five years, England's social darwinism remained unnamed.

Rather than go through the entire history of Darwin's biological collections and organizing powers, readers must trust that at one time Darwin made a simple observation, for which no other being has disturbed so many minds with so simple an idea, but one. Alfred North Wallace found the same outcomes as Darwin's research over so many years; unlike Darwin, Wallace placed his entire argument in a short essay leading to his unassuming finding, species change by something similar, if not the same "natural selection." Species change over long periods of time (geologically speaking) because they acquire and disseminate their parents' best genes for survival in the wild. I said, "IN THE WILD"; not in society. Whether or not Darwin claimed that we continue to evolve in society comes later with the Russian Social Darwinist Lysenko

.

This claim received tentative and confirming observations and replications throughout the world in biology, ecology, and even medical science.

Most of all, it became the intellectually charged argument of the British ruling class. They became enamored of their selected characteristics; for they, like so many others, either mis-interpreted Darwin or purposely belied his findings.

Others were to do the same with Darwin's findings.