The “Amazing” Randi is Just a Nasty Old Eugenicist

Some choice quotes from the favorite skeptic of the atheist and “reason”-based community: magician, bigot, and eugenicist James “The Amazing” Randi:

[T]hose individuals who were stupid enough to rush into the arms of the mythical houris and/or Adonis’s they would expect to greet them, would simply do so and die – by whatever chemical or biological fate would overcome them… [T]he principle of Survival of the Fittest would draconically prove itself for a couple of years, after which Natural Selection would weed out those for whom there is no hope except through our forbearance.

Any weeping and wailing over the Poor Little Kids who would perish by immediately gobbling down pills and injecting poison, is summoning up crocodile tears, in my opinion. They would – and presently do – mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored.

I’m sure Darwin would be appalled, but not by what you think, you cankerous old monster.

But wait! There’s more!

I’m a believer in Social Darwinism. Not in every case. I would do anything to stop a twelve-year-old kid from doing it. Sincerely. But in general, I think that Darwinism, survival of the fittest, should be allowed to act itself out. As long as it doesn’t interfere with me and other sensible, rational people who could be affected by it. Innocent people, in other words.

This word “innocent” you use: methinks you’re a bit confused about its meaning. It tends to be applied to people who don’t advocate the murder-by-inaction of those weaker than themselves, but please, continue showering us with the wisdom only found in the mind of a man who’s really good at card tricks and self-promotion:

These are stupid people. And if they can’t survive, they don’t have the IQ, don’t have the thinking power to be able to survive, it’s unfortunate; I would hate to see it happen, but at the same time, it would clear the air.

 

Questions: Why would it be unfortunate?  Unfortunate for whom? If it’s a good for society, there’s nothing “unfortunate” about it. If there’s something unfortunate about it, then it’s not a good for society, and your grotesque worldview is dust and ashes.

And these stupid people you’re talking about: are they stupid because they failed a test, or because of a belief system? Should, say, religious people (whom you hold in contempt and certainly believe are stupid) be allowed to die? Say, if our houses catch on fire, should we be allowed to burn alive for the greater good?

If not, why not?

What measure of intelligence are we talking about? For instance, say you need your car fixed, and there’s a mechanic who can’t read, write, or do higher math, but he can disassemble and reassemble a car engine. I have a relative like this, so it’s not an abstract question. Should he be allowed to die? If so, then who’s gonna fix your damn car? Do we have a “stupidity exception” for useful people?

What about aging magicians? I’m really not quite sure what you’re contributing to the world right now. You seem a little arthritic and, based on the rot coming out of your mouth, your brain is clearly decaying. Senility can’t be far off, if indeed it isn’t already here.  If someone smarter or healthier than you tried to kill you or allow you die through inaction, would I be wrong to stand by idly and let it happen?

If not, why not?

Oh, and my family is totally screwed:

I think that people with mental aberrations who have family histories of inherited diseases and such, that something should be done seriously to educate them to prevent them from procreating. I think they should be gathered together in a suitable place and have it demonstrated for them what their procreation would mean for the human race.

A suitable place? You mean, like a camp? Where we can, y’know, concentrate all the unsuitable and untermenschen? Spiffing idea!

Self-styled skeptics (as opposed to, say, Forteans) are just so very tedious. There is no unexplained phenomena they cannot explain away, even unto the point that their explanations become absurdly tendentious. Their skepticism is a religion unto itself, just like evangelical atheism. I traveled in Fortean circles for a while, and never met one “skeptic” who wasn’t vain and egotistical. This anti-humanism bubbles below the surface of the entire movement.

So, dear “skeptical”/atheist community, please fill in the blank:

“The difference between the views of James Randi and Nazi eugenicists is _______________. “

Go ahead, take your time. I’ll wait. You embraced him. You own him.

Will we see him at the next Reason Rally? I bet we will. They do so love their hate.

H/T Fortean Times

A Guide to Spiders
Mary Johnson’s Transsexual Problem UPDATED
A Dishonest “Cosmos”
Your Facebook Wall, Circa 1935
About Thomas L. McDonald

Thomas L. McDonald writes about technology, theology, history, games, and shiny things. Details of his rather uneventful life as a professional writer and magazine editor can be found in the About tab.

  • http://www.parafool.com victor

    Thank you 1) for the laughs in this post, which had me chuckling-out-loud and b) for introducing me to Charles Fort. Having never been a skeptic (as opposed to a cynic, which I’ve always been and which is tired and old and cliche) I wasn’t familiar with him. But from my poking around on the interwebs just now, he seemed to have had a great mind and an even greater ‘stache.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    I wrote for Fortean Times for a little while in the 1990s. Best gig ever. They comped my subscription (which is really expensive since it’s a UK magazine) for something like 15 years.

    Fort wasn’t much for religion, but he had no patience at all for the facile explanations of the scientific community when confronted with anomalous phenomena.

  • http://www.parafool.com victor

    That was very classy of the Fortean Times. I wish I could get Sound On Sound to do that, but I’ve never written for them so that’s probably why they don’t.

    I’ve got no beef with people who aren’t much for religion, as long as they aren’t much for anything else, either. I’m surprised more curent ID people haven’t revisted his objection to (non-Social? anti-Social?) Darwinism, though. A cursory review of his Wikipedia page would seem to indicate that at least from a formal logic standpoint (I’m not going to make a FORTRAN pun here), his objection to Darwinism haven’t ever been answered: “Fitness”, then, is only another name for “survival.” Darwinism: That survivors survive.”

    I’m going to have to look up his book.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    “Survivors survive:” The first lesson of Tautology Club is the first lesson of Tautology Club.

    Be aware that Fort’s prose style is, um … unique. The magazine carries on his tradition with wit and verve. http://www.forteantimes.com/

  • Tom

    I’m not sure why his social darwinism is only intellectual. Surely there can be room for physical social darwinism, and I would wonder if he would have any objection if a younger, stronger man were to attempt to apply this to his frail, eighty-something state.

  • Ashley

    The difference between the views of James Randi and Nazi eugenicists is similar to the difference in the views of Nazi eugenicists and the Catholic Ustase: not much. The difference in their actions is enormous, however. Randi has acted on his views by blowing a lot of hot air, much like Orson Scott Card or certain bloggers. The Nazi eugenicists and the Ustase acted on their views by slaughtering hundreds of thousands/millions of “undesirables”, much like the atheistic Stalinists.

    I’ll own my bad people if you’ll own yours.

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    Try to focus, Ashley. The question was this:

    “The difference between the views of James Randi and Nazi eugenicists is _______________. “

    Not this:

    “The difference between the views of James Randi and Nazi eugenicists is _______________ and throw in an irrelevant historical parallel in order to score cheap rhetorical points. ”

    I’m not inviting the Ustase anywhere because, well, it’s 20frigging13.

    Meanwhile, James Randi is feted by Reason Warriors (TM), speaking at the Reason Rally, mentor to Reason Hero Penn Jillette, and probably selling his own line of Reason Wear (slogan: “You won’t BELIEVE our prices!”)

  • http://www.parafool.com victor

    Please tell me that picture of Randi is a screen cap from a youtube video because this is an opportunity potentially too good to pass up. :-)

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald
  • http://www.parafool.com victor

    Huzzah! I sense a viral comedy diamond in the rough!

  • Harry Piper

    You know, I think it will be fascinating to see what happens when the New Atheist community at large begins to sit down and ask themselves difficult ethical questions (that will have absolutely no answers in their system) that will inevitably cause massive disagreements and schisms – see the civil war over Richard Dawkins comments on “Muslima”, and all the arguments over feminism that caused. James Randi’s eugenicist enthusiasm might be a catalyst for that.
    The only reason it hasn’t happened so far is that they’ve been unified in their hatred for religion and adulation for Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet.

  • Dan

    … Well, how disturbing. I think he just sank past Dawkins, passed Harris, and has just breached the border of normative ethical sanity.

  • deiseach

    Even his analogies are wrong, because “survival of the fittest” (and that’s a poor reading of natural selection) doesn’t care tuppence about “innocent” or “guilty”. What happens is that those best adapted to the ecological niche they occupy, under the pressure of the environment, survive, reproduce, and pass on favourable traits to their offspring so they in turn survive and reproduce.

    Even if Randi were the nicest, sweetest, most cuddly teddy-bear out there, it wouldn’t make a straw’s worth of difference to ‘survival of the fittest’. Set up a contest between a torture-loving serial killer who eats healthily, exercises regularly, and avoids alcohol and tobacco (never mind the other stuff) versus Randi in his current state of health, and we can all guess who is going to be the one to survive – and it has nothing to do with being innocent or rational.

  • Gladius

    Nasty Randi wishes he could cause pain, suffering and death on the scale of President Bush II.

  • jose navarro

    The same similarities of any religious duchebag with the same nazi eugenicists. Ignorance is dangerous, for all of you sheeps, go on youtube and look up what Randi is about and what he’s been doing, don’t misquote him as that’s just for phony cowards like the author of this blog

  • http://www.godandthemachine.com Thomas L. McDonald

    That didn’t make any sense at all. Try harder next time.

    There was no misquoting. Just quoting.

  • PatrickG

    Well, if that’s what Randi thinks, then he’s obviously a nut job, and I don’t care for him much at all. I waver between agnostic and Deist, by the way, and I don’t own him. I’ve never professed any faith or love of him, and his idiocy has nothing to with my spiritual beliefs. I honestly don’t see what this has to do with nontheism (to coin a term, I guess) in general. Atheism, and nontheism in general, are not unified, organized belief systems- in some cases (agnosticism) they are simply the lack of belief, so it would be foolish to claim that others who share a lack of belief would necessarily share any other characteristics.

  • Tim in Cleveland

    As a genuine coward myself, I too am tired of all these phony cowards. People need to grow a pair and be true cowards.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X