12 Chapter 1
withholdingmercy;“but... if... he aidsthe abject,raisesthe lowlyto a levelof parity
withhimself... , thenhe necessarilydisruptsthe naturalorderand pervertsthe natural
law:whenceit resultsthat pity,far frombeinga virtue,becomesa real vice.. .” As far as
the marquisascertains,the ideaof charity“couldhavebeendreamtup onlyby some
feebleindividual;for it to haveoccurredto one of the mighty,in needof nothing,would
not havebeennatural:to bindthe weakto his will,he alreadyhad whatthe taskrequired:
his strength.. .” Thebeliefin mercywas“inventedby somepunywretch,andit is
foundeduponargumentsquiteas futileas wouldbe this one addressedby the lambto
the wolf:You mustn’t eat me, I am four-footedtoo.” It has not occurredto the marquisthat an
individualwhommanypeoplemighthaveoncemisperceivedas weak—he maybe hand-
icapped—maylaterproveto be strongin contextstheyhad not priorlyanticipated,such
as his beingan inventivegenius.
Nonetheless,Sadecontinuesthathe hatesthatthe “religionof thatwilylittlesneak
Jesus—feeble,sickly,persecuted,singularlydesirousto outmaneuverthe tyrantsof the
day—can bullythe tyrantsintograntingclemency.” “Herewe see Christianityin the role
of the weakerparty;Christianityrepresentsthe weakandmustspeakandsoundlike
them.... But thathe whois neitherweaknor Christiansubjecthimselfto suchrestric-
tions,voluntarilyentanglehimselfin this mythicalsnarlof brotherlyrelationshipswhich
withoutbenefitinghimin the leastdeprivehimenormously—it’s unthinkable;and from
theseargumentswe mustconclude” that the ideaof mercywasinitially“proposedby the
weak.. .” andthat“... its existenceis frivolousandthatwe mustnot underany
circumstancessubmitto it.”^44
Universityof the ArtsprofessorCamillePagliaobservesSade’s low opinionofHomo
sapiensin general.^45 She bringsher readers’ attentionto this statementof his: “Whatis
man?Andwhatdifferenceis therebetweenhimandotherplants,betweenhimandall
the otheranimalsof the world?None,obviously.”^46 In contrastto Rand,Sadeholdsno
reverencefor the rationalfaculty.Sade’s rhetoricastonishinglymatchesthe straw-man
social-Darwinismrhetoricthatgovernistshavefalselyimputedto the free-marketadvo-
catestheyaimto defame.But any exhortationthatthe strongsubjugatethe weakis not
Randianself-interestin any respect.NordoesSade’s philosophymatchthatof Spencer
and Sumner.
Basically,HuntingDownSocialDarwinismwilladdressthe vagariesof the socialDar-
winismlabelin greaterdepththandid BookTwo.In thischapter,I shallexplorethe
notionthat Spencerand Sumneropposedprivatecharity.Mostof the rest of this partwill
addressthe additionallyscandalousideathatthe pro-capitalismtheoriesof Spencerand
Sumnerinspireda socialDarwinismmovementthatgaverise to eugenicslegislationand
Naziism.The recordevincesthatthe laissez-fairephilosophy,especiallywhenexplicated
by Spencerand Sumner,is the oppositeof everythingthatanimatedeugenicslegislation
and Naziism.Further,the earlytwentieth-century’s socialistsand Progressives—the puta-
tive detractorsof suchso-calledsocialDarwinistssuchas Spencerand Sumner—werethe
truebrainsbehindeugenicslegislation.Finally,I proposethatNaziismwasnot the intel-
lectualprogenyof Spencer-Sumnerideologybut insteada governisteffortto combatit.
Are Millionairesthe Productof NaturalSelection?
Here,one mayask me why,if Sumnerwasnot an advocateof dog-eat-dogspoliation
or socialDarwinism,did he judgeself-madeindustrialiststo be at the peakof the evolu-
tionarypyramid?GovernistsquoteSumnersaying,“Themillionairesare a productof
naturalselection... .” Amongthe governistsquotingthis expressionare JohnKenneth
Galbraith,RobertM. Rees,CharlesDerber,and PhilipTaftAward-winningfinancialjour-
nalistand laborhistorianSteveFraser(b. 1945).^47 WhenthesecriticsquoteSumnerin this