Some might [and "some" will] see this as bogus/alarmist/excessive ~ I see it as the logical conclusion based on GOP/TP rhetoric and actions ~  ~ Sooz

The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
Wednesday 30 November 2011

Can't be called Social Darwinism if it hasn't evolved... must be Repugnantism.

For years, modern conservatives have successfully defined "liberals" to such an extent that the word is now seen a negative description of anyone who opposes their view or any policy that runs counter to "conservative ideals". One word - liberal - can disparage a reputation or political position unlike anything seen since the first half of the twentieth century. Perhaps it's time to turn the tables on this. Conservative can come to mean "greedy", "sociopathic", "narcissistic", "violent".... whatever.... the key is to define conservatism by using the empirical evidence they themselves conveniently and repeatedly provide. It's important that the message be simple and conjure up a vivid image with the utterance of that one word - conservative.

social darwinism is a combination of bogus and immoral. it is astounding how many Christians believe in it.

The odd thing is though... they infuse themselves with "social darwinism at work" as portrayed in Charles Dicken's novels every christmas, while completely missing or ignoring his message.

totally.  but what is interesting about that story is that it implies that charity somehow makes up for the avarice.  it doesn't.

That's the message they (conservatives) would be getting, but I don't think that's the writer's message. And there be the difference between liberals and conservatives!!!! .... if Oliver Twist is about the times of the writer and the disparity between the classes, then you're a liberal. If it's about charity justifying avarice, you're a conservative.

Cool....