Darwin was a horrific eugenicist

Whatever your views on human origins, Richard Dawkins demonstrates what his true institutionalised agenda is in interview after interview-including constant ad hominem attacks on anyone with a different viewpoint

He and many like him also interestingly fail to mention that the full title of the famous Darwin book is –

 “The Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” 

In other words, Darwin was a horrific eugenicist and Anglo Germanic supremacist racist who believed in the deliberate destruction of races not in keeping with his tastes, which included the Irish.  

I am currently based in Shrewsbury in the UK, Darwin’s birthplace, which celebrates his name with the main shopping centre called The Darwin Centre, and various signs proudly associating the town with the Nazi’s primary intellectual inspiration.  Now there would be an interesting campaign – to tell Shrewsbury in Shropshire to wake up and realise you’re promoting the mass elimination of undesirable human beings, which to the elite globalists means most of us.

Shrewsbury famous for its Flower Show – the town of flowers – in fact the birthplace of Nazi eugenicist ideology and the depopulation agenda we live with to this day.  Darwin only intended the mass elimination of humans to apply to certain inferior races such as the Irish (read The Descent Of Man).  Now it’s being applied across the planet by the globalist elites who want to clear the earth of 95% of its human population.

This is why local MP, Owen Paterson as Secretary of State for the Environment, is now promoting GMOs as a sensible way for the plebs to be eating – foods designed to sterilise and kill millions.  Genocide was never done so sweetly.  But does he even have a clue?  Like most people consuming the poisons being rushed onto our dinner plates and into our drinks, he has not the foggiest idea of the intended outcome.  Yet by signing GMOs into Britain, he could well destroy far more human life than Himmler’s final solution.  Only the people modifying the genes know what they are doing, and the evidence is strong that the claimed benefits are a giant hoax, and the next phase of deadly human destruction is in fact what they are up to.

Just like the deadly vaccines being pumped into babies by sweet-faced nurses, unaware of the mass sterilisation programme they are an unwitting part of (yet many won’t vaccinate their own children for some reason), now GMOs are being brought to your table by a charming ex-public school boy who has no idea at all of what he’s doing.  Except he and other MPs won’t allow GMOs into the canteen of the Houses Of Parliament.  It’s always someone else’s kids who have to die, not your own or yourself.


Chris Jones

The Tap Blog is a collective of like-minded researchers and writers who’ve joined forces to distribute information and voice opinions avoided by the world’s media.

27 Responses to “Darwin was a horrific eugenicist”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Dawkins is an abrasive chap no doubt, but I have never heard him utter anything contrary to the available evidence. Inelligent design is nothing other than an attempt by religious people to bypass the principle of keeping religion out of the classroom. No intelligent design people seem to promote- for instance – the idea that aliens modified early hominids to create a race of slave labourers. In any case, there is nothing intelligent in the design of H.sapiens; my back is killing me.

  2. Chris Jones says:

    One of the questions is: if Dawkins and others like him are so confident and happy with their own points of view and beliefs,scientific or otherwise, why does he and others like him devote most of their lives to ad hominem attacks and condescenidngly interrogating people who don’t share their exact views on this area?

    Intelligent design does not have to denote religion per se. It denotes intelligence and, by that very nature-spirituality…which probably could also be simplified as religios doctrine.

    One thing’s for sure: as an observer, it’s quite easy to work out that Dawkins has his own hidden agenda and, deliberately or otherwise, is a disingenious condescending bully masquerading as a rational scientist

  3. Anonymous says:

    Answer: he makes money from talks and books.
    Intelligence does not denote spirituality.
    Dawkins is condescending perhaps, maybe he loses patience with people who ignore physical evidence, but I have never heard him make an ad hominem attack or be a bully.

  4. Chris Jones says:

    Intelligence and spirituality do not neccessarily have to be linked but there is such a thing as spiritually intelligent which does not have to be the same as traditional ‘learned’ intelligence..

    As for ad hominem and bullying – Dawkins makes countless attacks on this women based purely on the fact that she has points of view and beliefs he disagrees with- he repeatedly tries to bully her that she has ’emotional problems’ due to her not agreeing with him, that she is probably a far right winger because she does not agree with his points of view and tries to insinuate that she and others who share similar beliefs are ignorant and are not aware of the facts that are available to all-as if he can somehow save them from what he insuniates is ‘backward conservatism’ by showing her some skeletons in a local museum.

    Just look at the way he talks to her and refuses to show any real respect to her reasoned points about finding common ground and mutual respect.This guy is a narcisistic disingenious bully throwback to the truly narrow minded Victorian imperialists

  5. Anonymous says:

    There is, with the greatest respect, wisdom and intelligence. A wise person needn’t score highly on an IQ test, likewise someone could be foolish but intelligent. Spiritual intelligence is therefore perhaps not a particularly helpful phrase. I don’t want to dismiss spirituality out of hand, people aren’t robots after all, but people can be spiritual, and/or adhere to Christianity, and still believe that evolution is a rational explanation for the species living in the natural world, whether or not the universe was made by God.
    We have to disagree on the interview, I saw nothing but civilised argument and neither party insulted the other as individuals.

  6. Anonymous says:

    @ Anon 3:06.

    Agree totally about two points you made there.

    – People can be foolish and intelligent.

    – The other point being about IQ scores. High IQ scores doesn’t mean higher intelligence as the IQ scoring system is relatively quite restricted in the parameters it is based on.

    Real-world intelligence is something that is difficult to quantify. For instance, someone with a university degree is not necessarily more intelligent than someone without a university degree.

    The whole education system from nursery to university was designed to be confined to a certain level of knowledge. The elites/TPTB have their own education system which is geared to a much higher level of esoteric knowledge… they designed our ‘education’ system, don’t forget, for us ‘mere mortals’,

    The NWO image of the capstone separated from the rest of the pyramid shows that a lot of knowledge/intelligence is beyond the reach of most people. That’s assuming the average person wants to go in search of higher knowledge too.


  7. Tapestry says:

    There is no evidence of humans having evolved from apes or a common ancestor. Evolution is a slow process. Humans all descended from a single female around 250,000 years ago – not long enough to evolve anything much.

    There were huge populations of humans in central Africa – about 50 million of us – with 10 million stone circles made from magnetic stone (magnetrons) using technologies far more advanced than those we use today – for up to 200,000 years.

    The slave race to the gods theory of Sitchin is the front runner from where we came from. Then you might ask, who created The Gods?

  8. Anonymous says:

    Morning, Tap.

    Who created the Gods… chicken and egg comes to mind there.

    Speaking of Africa and stones (spheres), I wonder who (or what) created these:


  9. Anonymous says:

    In the intellectual world Dawkins is viewed as a disturbed lightweight, and similar to James Randi.
    Winston Churchill promoted euthansia experiments at Porton Down
    his jew communist masters wanteda full programme on this unrolled in the UK, and we are now witnessing just this, precisely as lord rothschild predicted

  10. Anonymous says:

    @ Anon 8:30 am

    Winston Churchill’s masters might of been Jewish.

    They were, however, more Zionist than Jewish… and a lot of Jews hate Zionists:


  11. Tapestry says:

    Churchill’s masters were his relatives – the Rothschilds. Churchill was the son of Edward 7th, the grandson of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Queen Victoria’s father.

    His mother was Jenny Harriman, the family that controlled Stalin throughout WW2, part of the Rothschild cabal.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Morning Tap, there is plenty of evidence that we have a common ancestor with apes, such as DNA and fossilised specimens. The single female theory is not inconsistent with this, given the timescale. Admittedly there is something peculiar about modern humanity when compared with other animals, or even himself for most of his existence. The theory of extra-terrestrial influence on human development is worth pondering or even examining, eg Lloyd Pye has a good lecture on this subject. As yet I see no irrefutable evidence, but something got us out of hunter-gathering and into cities in relatively short order.

  13. Tapestry says:

    All life on earth comes from the same basic DNA. There are no fossilised specimens which demonstrate that we share a common ancestor with apes.

    Urbanisation began overnight about 7000 years ago, as did agriculture around 10,000 years ago. Mtd DNA demonstrates that humans come from a single female about 250,000 years ago.

  14. Anonymous says:

    The world is 6,000 years old and Dick is a liar, his agents challenging me for a live debate with him, something which I ignored, my mind made up by my scientific experience.

    Why did this happen? His followers were baying for one young Debbie Drapper to be placed in care because she did not know, nor was she interested in who Britney Spears was.

    Personally I think her parents did a fine job. Why should she be fed such drivel?

    And what would be the agenda having the child taken from her parents and placed under supervision by this gang of criminals we call the State.

    Work it out for yourself what Dorkins agenda is, his followers promoting child snatching by the State.


  15. Anonymous says:

    @ Tap 8:49am

    ”Churchill’s masters were his relatives – the Rothschilds. Churchill was the son of Edward 7th, the grandson of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Queen Victoria’s father.

    His mother was Jenny Harriman, the family that controlled Stalin throughout WW2, part of the Rothschild cabal.”

    That’s why I said ”might of been Jewish”

    Thanks for the history lesson though…

    HISstory’ usually being written by the very dictators that ‘win’ the false wars that humanity has had to endure through history.


  16. Anonymous says:

    Tap, your second statement is true if the history books are not a hoax. Your first statement is false if the collections of fossils of primitive man-like creatures are a hoax. I don’t need to list the various species as I’m sure that you know about them, but other living apes resemble us physically and in their DNA. If dogs, wolves and foxes all spring from a common ancestor – which is not an unreasonable assumption – there is no reason why man and other primates have not done so.
    With regard to urbanisation, I would contend that mankind is following some kind of natural or possibly mathematical law which means that animals which adopt a colonial and hierarchical lifestyle – such as ants, bees, a few mammals suc as naked mole-rats and us – eventually become socialised along the insect model.
    This has profound implications, as it allows the development of an exclusively parasitic caste – in our case the evolution of the psychopath. Such individuals would not survive in a hunter-gatherer society, being bloody useless, unpleasant and a drain on scarce resources. In the modern human hive society, they gravitate to positions of power and hide behind the law.

  17. Chris Jones says:

    @Anonymous 3.06 am

    Of course someone can be foolish and intelligent, have low academic qualifications and IQ but be wise etc. Intelligence in general,especially when looking at it in the context of the intelligent design argument also suggests spirituality and vice versa. My point is that spiritual intelligence,whethere tied in with general intelligence or not, is possibly more important and valid in the grand scheme of things. I would say for example that Dawkins seems to have a good scientific mind and an ability to cram a lot of information in to his brain but has very low spiritual intelligence. In other words, if i may briefly use a bit of my own crude ad hominem, he’s a bit of a knob!

  18. Anonymous says:

    Agreed, Chris, Dawkins does come across as being knob-like. But that does not mean he is wrong as a scientist, or a bad man. We have to define what spirituality is, though, which is very hard to do. Is it an ethical sense? A sense of wonder at the grandeur of the universe and nature? I would not presume to say that Dawkins is bereft of these qualities just because he does not believe in a Deity. Don’t forget that JC’s parable of the Good Samaritan specifically showed that religiosity does not equal goodness, ie an ethical sense. But you are right if you are implying that science can be a dangerous tool – or useless – if wielded by someone who lacks the spark of humanity, or human “spirit” if you will. I do not believe that this human quality comes from a personal God, but agree that it is more important than cold intellect.
    -Anonymous 3.06

  19. Anonymous says:

    PS I forgot to add, the only thing that matters for a shit-for-brains semi-philosopher like me is whether something is true or false, not whether it is good or bad. That is outside the remit. So yes, religions or various takes on spirituality may be good but that doesn’t mean that they are true. However, that does not mean that I am unable to detect the difference between good and evil.
    -Anonymous 3:06

  20. Anonymous says:

    Hello Tap some good comments here, but you are giving Dawkins a more serious role than he has in actuality, Ben Goldacre is another daft twat who talks about stuff he knows sod all about.
    jews often say not us but the zionists and the zionists say not us but the illuminati jews, i dont accept that churchill was the son ofa rothschild, but my grandfather who was one of his wartime drivers said the man was a drunken shit who enjoyed whores in his secret underground cinema, he grand father also said many englishmen hoped hitler would come and zet us free from our opressors.
    Dave Harris

  21. Chris Jones says:

    Anonymous 3.06 . Interesting, although seems a bit odd to me that there are areas you think of as outside your remit. Being religious does not automatically make people good or spiritual I agree.Empathy is a pretty good start I’d say. See what you think of this fascinating and rational interview with Dr Richard Milton about the general failure of Darwinism (please don’t be put off by the channel name..)


  22. Anonymous says:

    Chris – Religion is outside the remit of deciding whether something is true or false because it requires faith and not evidence, and so cannot be falsified.
    Watched video, was worth watching, thanks, but he made a few unsubstantiated assumptions. Meteoric dust (he assumes past levels were the same as today) his evidence of a worldwide flood was not convincing, he says species aren’t “plastic”, but dog breeding shows otherwise.
    True enough, Darwin’s theory doesn’t account for the origin of life, or of the earth. But the “bears to whales” supposed impossibility is ruined by examination of a whale’s skeleton, which shows five fingers in it’s flippers. Strange design for a sea creature IMO, and shows that the whale may have evolved from something with legs.
    Some good points, notably the helium and quick(er than supposedly possible) formation of certain rocks and coal. Must check these, it is quite interesting. Cheers.
    Anon 03:06

  23. Chris Jones says:

    @Anon 3.06 Religion may well be outside the remit of deciding whether something is true or false but in my view it shouldn’t stop you including it within the general remit of any discussion (or any other subject for that matter) After all,true or false can be as subjective as good or bad, as can science or religion be.There is no absoloute truth in science-only a theory that hasn’t yet been proven wrong

    Glad the video was of interest. But if the bears to whales argument makes sense, why did Darwin himself later remove it from his theory?

    The most interesting points in the video to me is that wood from a few centuries ago can be seen to turn in to an early form of coal within such a short period of time and that if the Darwinian theory is so correct, why aren’t we all digging up countless fossils and skeletons of ‘in between species’ all accross the globe? There should be milliions of them turning up all the time…

  24. Anonymous says:

    Chris, I don’t know about millions of “in-between” fossils being dug up – the chances of any dead animal becoming a fossil instead of being eaten or decaying must be very small, not to mention the chances of it being unearthed by someone who even knows what it is.
    True or false is not at all subjective. If I put out milk in a saucer every night for a fairy who can assume the appearance of a hedgehog, I might believe it to be true. But it isn’t. Something is either true or false, and that does not depend upon the observer’s opinion. There can indeed be absolute truth in scientific laws – gases expand if heated, etc.
    I don’t know why Darwin removed the whales from bears argument from his theory, because it seems plausible – lower strata have simple tiny animals, so there must have been small animals before there were big ones.
    Not to mention that I have a transitional species in my own garden. Partially scaled, with the three-toed therapod feet, and they lay eggs despite being warm-blooded. Buk-Buk-B’Gawk!
    Having said that, whether the earth is old or young or where species came from is not that important as long as we don’t mindlessly dance to someone else’s tune.
    Anon 3:06

  25. Chris Jones says:

    In law,truth or falseness are things that can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.Personal truths or non truths are things which can very much be subjective and are often to do with individual or collective beliefs-as religion demonstrates of course.Science follows the same basic principle as the system of law but it differs in that it is a theory until proven otherwise.However as we have seen,science has sadly also historically been hijacked by highly dangerous subjective views as demonstrated by Darwin and his superiority racist doctrine-maybe not so far away from your fairies pretending to be hedgehogs..

    Going back to fosills – Countless fosills can be found within a few minutes on any rocky shoreline in the world as millions of people could testify – you would have thought that all of these would therefore show a vast difference within the devlopment of each species. I keep an open mind on this but as far as i know this is not the case.

    These records of transitions should be especially true with the transition from chimpanzees to humans but this, as LLoyd Pye and others have demonstrated, is not the case..

  26. Anonymous says:

    Hello again Chris. You are right about the sea-creature fossils and I was wrong. For instance “When trilobites first appeared in the fossil record they were already highly diverse and geographically dispersed.” There seems to be no scientific contention over this phenomenon. This does not seem to fit into Darwin’s model of evolution, so I admit that you are right in this one. The pre-cambrian explosion is not Darwinian.
    However, personal truths are not facts. Facts are things which have occurred, truth is what someone believes about a fact.
    Two people can each make a truthful statement about a fact.
    Example: Bill says “The Queen is a Head of State who maintains the constitution and unites society.”
    Fred says “The Queen is a parasite and has no place in society.”
    Both statements are true, based on your “personal truth” theory, but neither are facts.
    In actual fact there exists a wealthy woman who is viewed differently by Bill and Fred. That’s it. “Head of state” or “society” are only ideas and are not real.
    As for mentioning the law, laws are just opinions backed up by force. Eg I used to be able to smoke in a pub, now I can’t. The landlord didn’t ask me to stop, neither did other customers. Someone who never even goes to that pub signed a piece of paper -fact – and the landlord may now be fined or jailed if I smoke; fact.
    Anyway, thanks for putting me right about Trilobites.
    Anon 03:06

  27. Chris Jones says:

    Hi-Facts are another thing again and I agree with your analysis of truth in the context of facts. Facts are altogether more straightoforward I also agree, eg “there are six eggs in that box”. Truth in the context of a case of law is beyond reasonable doubt whilst state or jurisdiction laws can be highly dubious I agree again..

    Cheers – interesting stuff

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.