Marx and Darwin

Our friend, Karl, claims that Darwin had no influence on Marx, or the work Marx did.  Now, I have read Marx, and I’ve read a great deal written about him by those who lived closer to his time and I distinctly remember reading that Darwin’s theories had some inter-connection to Marx.  Now, it is not that Darwin’s theory of evolution was responsible for Marx’s ideas.  Obviously Hegel had more influence than Darwin, and Hegel came much earlier than Darwin.  Marx had published The Communist Manifesto long before Darwin published The Origin of the Species.  However, whenever you are dealing with anyone who supports any of the many cousins of Marx’s ideology, you must be extremely careful to verify everything they say.  They are very, very prone to revisionism – and all too often, they just flat out lie.  Here’s a case in point.  I found this in checking myself and my assertions against Karl’s:

Marx, Stalin, and Darwin

Now, I find it interesting that this blog claims to be dedicated to preserving the enlightenment values of reason while this post rests upon layers of strawman assertions, but there are also factual errors that, in the context they are presented, could be taken as deliberate lies.  Here’s one of the many errors I found:

6. But, didn’t Darwin have some influence the views of Marx? No, the chronology is all wrong: It is beyond dispute that Marx wrote much of his work about communism before Darwin published Origin of Species, and therefore before he or the rest of the world had heard of Darwin and his theory of evolution; so Darwin had zero intellectual influence on Marx.

OK, let’s go to Wiki (if they can get it right, the author of this piece should have gotten it right – unless he intentionally did not want to).

The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848

The Origin of Species was published in 1859

The FIRST volume of Das Kapital was published in 1867

Anyone who can do simple math can see that it most certainly was possible for Darwin’s work to have influenced Marx.  But let’s then look at another little piece of evidence.  If Marx didn’t care about Darwin’s work, then how do we explain this?

Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind. I remain, Dear Sir Yours faithfully, Charles Darwin

Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
October, 1873

OK, so Marx cared enough to send his work to Darwin.  The author of our blog post asserts that Darwin was a big capitalist, yet, somehow, we have to accept that Darwin thought it was an “honor” that Marx shared his attack on Darwin’s livelihood and wealth.

The real lie in this piece is that God is a Communist.  That shows a real reach as, if anyone were to bother to read the Bible, it is clear that everything about God’s commands deals with the individual – not the collective.  In reality, the Bible is the antithesis of Communism, and nowhere is that more clear than in the early part of Acts, one of the parts of Scripture most often pointed to by Communists to justify their ideology.  They read that the early Church held everything in common and that all needs were met by the Church, but they ignore the part where the Apostles tell the Church members that their property is theirs, and that they are free to do as they wish with it.  Now, there is no way to read that and make it fit into Marx’s notion of Capitalism.

You see, those that I have read who make the connection between Darwin’s work and that of Marx do not claim that Darwin gave birth to Marx.  The point they make — and the one I support — is that Darwin affirmed the Marxist notion that society was an organism that can and does evolve rather than react.  That this was a core belief of Marx would be difficult to oppose.  Even if Marx never said so, nearly every one of his followers have expressed the notion that society is a living organism and that it’s evolution can be directed.  In fact, without this foundation, even the fictitious designs of Communism fall apart.  After all, only a madman would think 7 billion individuals would ever come to be of one mind on their own accord.  Yet this is exactly what Marx asserts will eventually happen, and the only possibility of this ever happening is if those 7 billion cells are just part of one body with one brain (and, naturally, Marx wanted to be the brain — as do all of his disciples since).

In reality, these are just a continuation in the long list of example of the followers of Marx getting things 180 degrees backward.  And this is why a person who cares about the truth should be very, very skeptical of anything that is said by anyone who dwells on the political Left.

62 thoughts on “Marx and Darwin

  1. Karl must have some special, top secret insight because his comrades at the World Socialist Web Site show evidence that Marx and Engels admired Darwin:

    Superficially, it may seem there is not much of a connection between Darwin, the retiring English gentleman, and Marx ,who along with Frederick Engels, was involved in revolutionary communist activity for most of his adult life. But Marx and Engels themselves immediately recognised the significance of Darwin’s theory when On the Origin of Species appeared 150 years ago. Engels wrote to Marx in 1859, just after he had read the first edition of Darwin’s book [2]:

    Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.

    The last sentence is a reservation that Engels and Marx held—only in private it must be stressed—regarding the methodological approach of Darwin. But throughout their lives they insisted on the importance of Darwin’s work. Teleology, meaning a divine purpose which was working itself out in nature, had been demolished.

    • From Merriam Webster;
      Main Entry: tel·e·ol·o·gy
      Pronunciation: \ˌte-lē-ˈä-lə-jē, ˌtē-\
      Function: noun
      Etymology: New Latin teleologia, from Greek tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia -logy — more at wheel
      Date: 1740
      1 a : the study of evidences of design in nature b : a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature c : a doctrine explaining phenomena by final causes 2 : the fact or character attributed to nature or natural processes of being directed toward an end or shaped by a purpose 3 : the use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena

    • Utah, so that you know, the WSWS is Trotskyist, so by definition, no more a sympathizer of Stalinism and Maoism than anybody in this forum. The Trotskyist were victims of a bloody repression at the hands of Stalin and his acolytes. But this use of such a source on your part reveals probably your deep (mis)undestanding of Marxism as a single block, and also another deeper one, namely that the Soviet experience was representative of Marxism in practice, when nothing could be further from the truth. Who gives you the authority to make such claims? There has been no agreed-upon standard of Applied Marxism, so how could any single version pretend to be the standard? Mind you, the supporters of all kinds of extreme versions have have pretended for their version to be the standard, but this doesn’t mean they were right just because they were saying so. This only confirms the well known wisdom that all extremist ideologies work in the same ways, no matter if claiming to be on the Left or on the Right.
      When all you know about a certain ideology is that atrocious thing were committed in its name, then you have the tendency to ignore all different versions of such ideology, and this is exactly what you are displaying here. If you were a scholar of Soviet experience, you would refrain from making such undifferentiated claims because it would remind you of the same tactics used by the Communist regimes themselves. Do you think the North Koreans for example, care much about the differences between American Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Conservatives, Catholics and so on? For you, on the other hand, there are irreconcilable differences between these American groups. Do you see my point? All the NKoreans need to know is that “America is bad”, period, and they can use footing from the KKK rallies in the ’60s to convince their people on precisely such point: that America is bad. Aren’t you using the same type of (mis)reasoning? All you know is that ‘Liberalism is bad’ and Marxism is the same as liberalism. That way you fail to distinguish between different versions of Marxism and Liberalism and take the same stance towards Pol Pot as towards Danish SocialDemocrats or towards Wilson and Obama.
      On the other hand, I’m sure you would protest very loudly if somebody made the same kind of claims toward Christianity i.e. that all its versions are the same, and the experience of Spain under Torquemada, or of the slave-holding South before the Civil War or many others like these, are more than sufficient to demonstrate the evils of such faith.
      I hope you see the flaws or your position.

      • Actually, my friend, it is you who seek the “easy out” by trying to keep cutting the socialist pie thinner and thinner in an attempt to sift and parse the words just enough to evade the truth.

        Oh! That’s 15% Trotskyite! You can’t call it Marxism!

        That’s as intellectually dishonest as it is stupid.

        In theory, there may be enough difference between the variants of communism practiced by Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin and Marx but in practice, they are all but branches of a single tree sprung from the same root. The end effect of all of them was the same, the only difference was the name of the tyrant in charge. It matters only to the easily duped that a thing is 99.9% Marx and 0.1% Stalinist. It may well matter in an academic debate sense but to the person that was standing in front of an empty bread bin in Moscow in 1980, it is still nothing but communist tyranny.

        History does not support your fantasy.

        Hopefully, you will see your error.

        • Pearse was very clear about this. He said the one common trait of ALL the Marxist offspring was that everyone was trying to establish their own “science,” to which they were the only “expert.” hence the many flavors of the same rotten fruit — and from the pen of one who would know because he was there, in the thick of it.

          • Zalo is playing the same definitional exactness game all these leftists play to avoid being pinned down. Say the words “socialism”, “Marxism” or “communism” to anyone old enough to have lived under it in any flavor and the most common free association will be tyranny, closely followed by oppression.

            • Yep, another example of brilliant logic: you guys say nothing about my analogy with Christianity. Say the word “Christian” to anyone having lived under Torquemada in Spain, or to any Jew being hunted down like a dog by the Reformers in Germany, or by Calvinists in Geneva, or to any Native American having lived under Andrew Jackson and the most common association would be atrocity, closely followed by torture. The differences between Christian denominations may well matter in an academic debate, but to the person standing about to be crushed in the torture chamber it was still nothing but Christianity.
              Hic Rhodus, hic salta!

              • Why, thank you.

                But the fact remains that what you say still doesn’t invalidate my point simply because we are discussing communism and not Christianity. What could be said or not said about Christianity is immaterial to what history and experience says about communism.

                Stay on topic.

                • But you still don’t refute my argument on its merits (neither does Joe), you stay on generalities. I brought the comparison to make the point that anybody can commit atrocities in the name of “something”, but it doesn’t mean that “something” is inherently evil. So my point stands. And I’m sure you yourself use the popular expression of comparing apples and oranges when you talk with your friends. Imagine your audience coming back to you with “Utah, please stay on topic, we are discussing cars here, not fruits!”
                  My points stand.

                  • That’s because it has no merits. We’ve been kind in trying to point this out and explain it, but you won’t take the hint. Now I’ll be blunt.

                    WE CANNOT REASON WITH AN IRRATIONAL PERSON!

                  • It is impossible to discuss individual “merits” when we are talking about something at a national scale. By definition, this must be an evaluation of the total system impact…and the failure of communism at that level is simply not in dispute. You are the one who tries to point to specific “merits” as if somehow a minor positive outweighs the overwhelming negatives.

                    Sure, your points do stand – the problem is that for the purpose of the discussion I was trying to have – they are irrelevant.

                    • Utah,

                      His points don’t stand in the sense he is asserting them. he is equivocating as well as committing BOTH fallacies of division/composition. In short, his arguments are internally inconsistent, therefore, irrational. Now, if he would accept correction and modify his arguments accordingly, we might be able to hold a rational discussion with him. But he refuses to even acknowledge his mistakes. In fact, they appear to be intentional. Therefore, we waste our time engaging him. The best we can do is correct his false assumptions/assertions for the benefit of those following the discussion.

                    • Yeah, I’m done with it. Between you and me, we have written tens of thousands of words on the subject that he is welcome to learn from.

                    • That’s just it: he and Karl are not looking to learn, they are trying to “convince” you and I to submit. The sad part is they base their arguments on the assumption that we will submit because we recognize their “logic” is superior, yet they do not use logic — they use emotional appeal and dogma.

                      180 degree rule, brother 😉

                    • What are you talking about, man? Either you did not read my post, or you did not understand it. Who is talking about ‘individual’ versus ‘national’? Who is disputing the failure of communism? My argument, briefly, and related to Marxism, not Soviet Communism mind you, was this: when all you know about something is that it’s bad, then you tend to ignore the different versions of that ‘something’, even as supporters of these different versions, inside the ‘something’, deem their differences irreconcilable. Now, to fully get my point, take my sentence and replace the ‘something’: -first, with Marxism, and -second, with Christianity. You will see that both propositions thusly obtained have been historically true. That’s why I gave you the comparisons with NKorean propaganda about America. Please re-read my original posts.
                      See, I hope l made it very easy for you!

              • Zalo,

                To be totally honest with you, I’ve lost interest in what you have to say. You’ve proven that you either do not understand or refuse to adhere to the principles of basic logic and sound reasoning. You’ve also shown that you are disingenuous. My experience has taught me that, nearly every time one encounters such a person, nothing of any value comes from it.

                • Everyone: did you notice?

                  Zalo just asserted Christianity ALWAYS does the same thing like the various Man-designed, Marxist based, “governments”.

                  Funny how AMERICA, a Christian nation, is the ONLY nation/society to work, and die, for the freedom of all peoples, regardless of race, color, or creed.

                  And then the Marxists want to argue, if we will just give up our individual liberty, live according to their plan, things will somehow be better…

                  SHOW US ONE EXAMPLE OF SUCCESS OF MARXIST BASED SOCIETY !!!!!!!

                  Oh yes, they have to destroy all the freedom loving individuals…..

                  No wonder they have to sneak their way into governmental power, where they can force their ideas and ideals on others.

                  In a free-marketplace world of ideas, their ideas lose. Everyone chooses a different course when they are free to think, evaluate, and choose.

                  • Texas, you understood exactly NOTHING from my post, so why bother?. OK, let me help you anyway: I did not assert what you thought I was asserting, I only asserted that atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity as well as in the name of Marxism. I’m not passing any value judgment on neither, I’m just asserting a historical fact as comparison.
                    As for success of “Marxist based” society, I would show you Sweden, Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Finland, etc. Not because they consider themselves Marxist, but because they are not ‘pure market’ economies, which in your eyes (eyes of an uninformed outsider) would suffice to label them Marxist,almost equal to NKorea.
                    If you want to educate yourself, go and live 6 months in Finland, look at their quality of life, and ask them if they feel enough free. That would be the best remedy to your misinformation.

                    • zalo, Assumption: wrong.

                      Our current economy is not pure market. “Crony Capitalism” is an oxymoron. Not capitalism at all. It is fascism.

                      There are no “pure market” economies. If America adopted a pure market economy, as described by the late Milton Friedman, envisioned by our founding fathers, and hoped for France by French philosopher Frederic Bastiat, we’d all be rich. Everytime “government” starts “controlling actions” and “picking and choosing” winners and losers, we all lose. Property, liberty, choice, and freedom.

                      I do know people from Finland. Funny thing, when they come to America, they are constantly trying to figure out ways to buy things in order not to pay taxes….

                      Now that is the kind of government we all want to live under. A government that makes unjust laws. Laws so unjust everyone agrees it’s perfectly acceptable to lie and cheat in order to bypass the unjust laws.

                    • You are a prominent blogger, you should know some basic rules of logic, namely that anecdotal evidence (your Finnish friend) doesn’t mean anything. Look, rather, at the world rankings of corruption levels, and you will see how low corruption is in Finland, Denmark, Norway, etc. So I think it’s the kind of society you would like to take example from.
                      And as your ‘pure market’ utopia hasn’t ever existed, why even bring it up?
                      Your logic is totally warped. Sorry.

                    • The free market has always existed. It exists today. SO that objection can be dismissed.

                      As for my grasp of logic, I can assure you, it is more than sound. I know, I’ve been rigorously tested — repeatedly. Remember, I earned my philosophy degree, and philosophy is all about logic. What’s more, I earned the respect of my liberal professors because I have such a firm understanding of logic. I bested more than one of them in open class, including the department’s celebrated Mensa member and the dead of the department. So, you can tell me I don’t understand logic, but I know that everything in academia has said I hold the highest understanding of the subject.

                      This is why I know that it is difficult for people to follow our conversations and easy for them to accept your faulty assertions — because you and those like you are highly skilled at misdirection and deception. But then, you have to be. Your ideas have never been able to stand up to the scrutiny of an open debate governed by the strict rules of reason.

  2. Could one argue?
    Darwin did not believe in a creator/God, the universe was a mere accident, he and his friends were going to “order” our world?

    • Utah just exhibited; Marx & Engels clearly believed this.

      No wonder John Dewey’s design emphasized Darwin …..

  3. Where did Marx ever call society an organism? He doesn’t even have so much a concept of a unified society. How can a promoter of class conflict, then go to say society is one, even the bourgeoisie and proletarian elements. Marx’s idea wasn’t slowly changing a unified mass called society. it was one oppressed class overthrowing the ruling class. Two separate beings at odds, in conflict, fighting for power. Your idea of Marx’s ideas are fascist. Fascist promote one nation and all its elements holding hands and working together for the betterment of the one eternal nation. Class collaboration and unification of all into a nation. Not class struggle and the workers of the world uniting to throw of the bourgeoisie parasites.

    Please stop with you lies about reading Marx’s work, you have demonstrated time and again you haven’t.

    • Isn’t it wonderful? To discover truth?

      These mere men, would write one thing for “the masses”, and reveal their true design in letters to one another (“elites” in their own eyes).

      How convenient to discover the “elites” were lying to the “workers” (about their personally held beliefs) in order to get the workers to follow the “elites”.

      What a great design! A philosophy that must be based upon lies, deceit, ignorance and indoctrination in order to get “the workers” to support and follow them.

    • You are really that big of an idiot, aren’t you Karl?

      “Society is a sort of organism on the growth of which conscious efforts can exercise little effect.”

      This quote of Marx was recorded by Matthew Arnold, a Victorian era British poet and cultural critic.

      You have created this little version of Marxism that just fits your little world perfectly – but unfortunately, that world has unicorns that poop diamonds as well because while you accuse others of being ignorant, your knowledge is based on a narrow view of socialism, Marxism and Communism. I understand why you want to protect your pet ideology but the fact is that none of it has ever worked without tyranny and oppression to force its implementation.

      That is what is known in the real world as a “fact”.

      Of course you are going to say, “That wasn’t REAL socialism/Marxism/communism because if it was, it would have worked!”

      Well, as it turns out, not so much.

      Marx saw his ideology as a transitional bridge between socialism and communism brought about through violence, that much is true but his vision was the dictatorship of the proletariat, a global unification of the people under communism. If there was to be no “unified society” would that not mean perpetual revolution?

      Think about it.

      You are pretty daft, Karl.

      • You are confusing what Marx said society is, classes in struggle; with what society would become, classless.

        To say society is currently one being, is to deny class struggle, the key Marxist concept.

        • But the minute you appoint someone or some group to plan for the rest of society, you vest in them status in society and power over society – and you immediately create classes where one has power over another – and therein lies the impossibility and inherent contradiction of socialism/Marxism/communism.

          Back once again to that unanswered question of Vladimir I. Lenin: “Who, whom?”

          I’m not confused at all.

            • Not quite, genius. The “Who, whom” dilemma: that is to say, who plans for whom, who decides for whom and so on and so forth.

              The best answer to this question is a representative republic, not socialist state. I don’t understand how you can deny that the second that someone is given the power to plan any aspect of someone else’s life in a socialist/Marxist/communist system that they cannot opt out of, that classes aren’t created.

              If I’m planning your work, I have power over you and that automatically gives me status over you just as it does the people who make plans for what I plan. It can be no other way – we can’t have a national referendum to decide if the pothole in front of my house gets fixed. If all output goes to the state, someone has to decide to provide funds, material or labor – or all three to fix it. That person has power and by virtue of the status generated by that power, they are in a different class.

              • Utah,

                Perhaps we should use the term “caste” here instead of classes. I understand what you mean, as do the rest of us who understand Marxism, but Karl is going to see your use of the word class and think you are admitting to his conceptualization of it and that notion is a figment of his imagination. We mustn’t add to his delusion 😉

        • Unlike Americanism as exhibited in the Declaration of Independence; All men are created equal ….

          Marx did not want to end the classification of people into classes, he merely wanted to make himself and his elites the RULING CLASS.

    • The Very NOTION of Class as anything real has been disavowed by the Successes of the Western ( and later Asian) Republics.

      In these republics people have risen on their own talents and have reached heights of wealth unseen by the older Elite Knobility. These people , coming from ALL kinds of different socio-economic backrounds, have built industries, reached academic standing moving Freely through the salary strata and the employment of their parents !

      Classes don’t exist …… individual People Do.

      When freed by a Republic …. their talents ( their pursuit of “happiness” ) reaches their own levels.

      • Don,

        To read your comment, one might almost get the impression that you have “observed reality and THEN drawn your conclusions” (as opposed to dreamed up a fantasy and then went in search of support — like Marx did) 😉

  4. This is a Complex subject. But Marx’s whole thesis was based on his Supposed application of Scientific Materialism …. a scientific approach to understanding history and Social evolution and hierachies …. wherein the struggle for resources ended in certain groups being the sole possesors of the means of Production whereby those Resources were transformed into the Modern Products of Civilization. Malthus also had his ideas about Populations in relation to resources as did Adam Smith.

    In the sense that species ( as borrowed by Darwin) also competed for Natural Resources and ,to be overly simple, eventually resolved the struggle with the Success of the “Genetically Superior” members of the species…….Marx viewed the Social structure of society as the strong victimizing the weak for these resources and their manufacture. This was part of the general dialogue of the time in many fields.

    To vere slightly …. we must remember Darwin’s basic theses were not his own, but were an extention of his Father’s ( and others before him).

    Likewise…..Marx is too much viewed as a lone originator. He was not. He had supporters and there were others who were behind him. He was part of an agenda. There were almost no people at his Funeral. And yet dying in 1883….somehow the Deacons of the Ivory towers were “down with the Socialist Struggle” so much that major essays were being written as early as 1887 ???…..As joe’s thread below beautifully exposes. The Fabian society is a going concern at this time….and the Socialist Union Workers Internationles are regularly meeting. This should be a sign-post to those looking at the subject.

    The fact is Marx was a figure at which support was thrown ( Engels as just one example) to promote a movement whereby Some of the Monied elite sought to harness the power of the People ( as the disaffected, discontented..”Masses”). This power was then used to contain that power within a Chosen Elite ( the 1% of the time if you will) …… One of the Groups promoting this Power of the Eilte ( which Lenin promoted strongly 2 hundred years later ) was the Barvarian Illuminati ….a Group financed by the German aristocracy. Their goal was to retain their power, retain a form of the Ancien Regime by using harnessing the new powers gained by the Merchant classes and the Towns through the Industrial and Religious revolutions.

    • Karl,

      See what you understand when you learn history. Don is trying to teach you the truth, but you are so immersed in the fiction involved here that you cannot extricate yourself from it long enough to benefit from the help he offers. I sincerely wish you would try — even if only to see this from the other perspective rather than through the one-way mirror so many Marxists wear 😦

    • Marx’s idea was that private property and capital created a situation where, the capitalist system would collapse not due to revolt, but economics of the falling rate of profit and concentration of capital. Marx recognized the capitalist system would start collapsing and the workers would revolt near the collapse.

      • BUT …. It didn’t happen that way AT ALL.

        Marxism was FORCED on Russia and China….(Both agrarian societies)…. by taking advantage of the War and Economic hardship in Russia WWI( shades of Obama in 2008) and during WWII during an Invasion of China by Japan….. most of Mao’s Footsoldiers at that time thought Mao was a way to oust the Japs in the North while Chiang Kai Chek was fighting in the south. Chaing was undermined by our State Dept ( who were infested with Soviet agents) which is why Mao came to Power……..Owen Lattimore, Phillip Jaffe, Edgar Snow, T A Bisson were all in league with Mao as least as far back as 1937. One just needs to STUDY the history.

        With the same level of support as Before the war….Chiang would have retained power in China.

        WHEREAS ….. In the west…Capitalism expanded as did the Middle-Class and the Upper Middle class as the freedoms entailed upon them in the Western Republics lead to higher and higher standards of living.

        • Don,

          Pearse, the original Secretary of the Fabian Socialists, says that the “working class” refused to take up the socialist cause in England, as well — and they were industrial. The Fabians had to force it on them. They admit it — openly.

          • Hopefully the young reading TRNL will take these people referenced and research for themseves ….. I rather think some will !!

            • Don,

              I sure hope so. You know, I need to ask Utah about posting a page at the top of the blog for a suggested reading list. We can list the book, link it to its Amazon page and provide a 1-2 line description of what it is about and what area(s) it will help people understand about the larger plan we see unfolding in the headlines today. What do you think, Don?

              • I think it is a Great Idea !!…… I have to go put out some fires at work apparently, but I wanted you and / or Utah to read the April 4 2013 Essay by Stan Evens in Investors.com ( I B D ) and maybe do a Post on it. He says that those in the Religious Community world-wide are having MORE children than those in thr Liberal Secular one….and so Conservatism is the Long-term Historical trend coming up. And that GOP RINOs and Democrats ( Socialists of any sort) are on the WRONG side of history with repesct to Amnesty….very hopeful article by a Definitely-not-dumb-guy !
                http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/040413-650573-republicans-need-to-hang-tough-on-illegal-immigration.htm#ixzz2PXmKroAa

                • Utah,

                  Just reading the title, you might should have a go at a post based on this article instead of me. I do not see a future in the GOP, and you guys know it. So I do not think I would do justice to this piece — no matter how good it is.

                  Let me know what you think, Boss (assuming you see this comment, that is).

                  • It’s not for the GOP…except that he is warning them to not fall for the Amnesty Trap…..The Bigger point is that people of Faith are having children at a higher Rate than the Socialists which is a good sign !

                    • Well ….. your missing my point.

                      If you can pass it to Utah … I’m not quite sure how.

                    • Don,

                      I understand your point, I just think you are using linear algebra to solve what is a DE problem.

                      How do we account for the fact that the Republican leadership is unlikely to yield to the growing religious influence?

                      Or that their children are being forced into a curriculum designed to undermine the influence of their parents?

                      Or that the govt. is in an active war against the Judea/Christian faith?

                      These considerations have to be factored in tot he equation, especially given that up to 88% of all Christian youth walk away from their faith when they reach college.

                      Think of the Left as the cowbirds they are: you can breed ’em right, but they just turn ’em left.

            • I fear, once “martial law” is enacted by the self aware “government”, the internet will be “shut down”.

        • Marxism works, once the Marxists murder all the individuals and steal their property.

          Ala’ Germany, Italy, soviet union, china, south Asia, Vietnam et al., Cuba, south America, too many to continue…most united nations countries…

          Wow, look at all these wonderful and successful examples of Marxism working.

          100,000,000 million murders.

          I bet the person, or their lost offspring, who would have discovered the cure for cancer is in that holocaust….

          • And Texas … Under Obama/ Pelosi / Reid Socialism since 2008…..America has Record numbers of people unemployed, record numbers of people on Welfare record numbers who’ve given up looking for work or have left the workforce.

            It happens the same EVERY TIME , every place !

            • I know.
              FDR’s policies caused the depression to be twice as long and deep as the rest of the world who didn’t follow similar policies.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.