The smugness of this guy is awful. He obviously thinks that he's very clever to have figured all of this out, but he clearly hasn't done much background research.

Studying evolutionary theory is all very well so far as it goes, but a further study of anthropology, sociology, psychology or even history would relieve him of the notion that there is anything clever or original about this crude social darwinism.

This theory was popular when 'The Origin of Species' began to be accepted, and was popular with right wingers at the time because it supported the status quo. (Aristocrats were in power because they were naturally better and brighter/ if they hadn't been better and brighter they wouldn't be aristocrats. Also - black people were inferior or they wouldn't have become slaves) These theories were quickly debunked by serious thinkers for many reasons, just some of which were; lack of cultural/historical context, reasoning backwards from effects to causes, making generalisations about human society based on plants is damn silly and so on.

By the end of the 19th century, few serious intellectuals (at least in Europe) still believed the theory... but as a simple to grasp and reassuring 'formula for everything' the theory remained popular with the public (esp in a society losing belief in God). This became confused with nationalist ideas and provided for the rise in fascism.

Any idea that defends the status quo or harks back to a nonexistent golden age (presumably when women didn't object to being hit) will always be popular. The recent return of social darwinism should be watched carefully. There can be no morals, only science, says the social darwinist- therefore nothing I can do can be morally wrong.