#1 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

I was just curious if there were any comic book/video game characters who adhere to or devote themselves to fascist and/or Darwinian ideals.  Any thoughts?  
 
I would assume that Apocalypse (X-Men) falls into this category. 

#2 Posted by joshmightbe (24691 posts) - - Show Bio

Red Skull, Crossbones, Magneto, High Evolutionary, Zod, The Viltrumites from Invincible, Baron Zemo,

#3 Edited by The_Peter_Cosmic (401 posts) - - Show Bio

Archangel, AoA Wolverine, Mister Sinister, The Celestials, Dark Beast... Honestly I'd say about half of Marvel's villains are driven by Nazi ideals or eugenics in general. Plus you have stories like the mutant genocide at Genosha that are analogous to the holocaust with sentinels being representative to SS officers. It's really kind of an overused concept.

#4 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

Darkseid (Fascist) 
Daleks 
Cybermen 

#5 Posted by Alton (154 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame said:

I was just curious if there were any comic book/video game characters who adhere to or devote themselves to fascist and/or Darwinian ideals. Any thoughts? I would assume that Apocalypse (X-Men) falls into this category.

Do you consider Fascist ideals the same as Darwinian theory? I'm a little confused by the question here.Neo-Cons have embraced a term called Social Darwinism that has nothing to do with Darwin and is just a pseudo scientific cloak for the Fascist bedrock of Neo-Con philosophy.

#6 Edited by gavinification (83 posts) - - Show Bio

I just want to point out that eugenics is not Darwinian. It is pretty much the opposite of natural selection.

And there are no ideals of natural selection.

#7 Edited by Hazlenaut (1960 posts) - - Show Bio

Darwinism is the strong survive ideology there is extreme Darwinism which would count Apocalypse.

Finitevus, Speedy and Lien-Da are a few example of being facist

Finitevus attempted a genocide on all non eckidna species. he hate people that rely on ancient prophecy instead of technology. This mean he is a Facist and Dawinistic ideals

Speedy hates anyone who does not fly naturally that is why he hate Tails

Lien-Da has shown hostility of the Dark Legion no longer being eckidna exclusive

#8 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@Alton said:

Do you consider Fascist ideals the same as Darwinian theory? I'm a little confused by the question here.Neo-Cons have embraced a term called Social Darwinism that has nothing to do with Darwin and is just a pseudo scientific cloak for the Fascist bedrock of Neo-Con philosophy.

They certainly aren't the same, but fascism and Darwinian thought (which can include Social Darwinism, the Survival of the Fittest, etc.) can overlap with each other. The best example of this is Nazi Germany. The eugenics programs in both the United States and Nazi Germany are good examples of this. Many people think that Nazism was only about anti-Semitism, but it was much more than that. Even though anti-Semitism was the main focus at the time, Nazism had many other goals. People who had "undesirable" or "weak" genes/traits were either exterminated, sterilized or experimented on. I digress, however.

Fascism and Darwinism (including Social Darwinism) are both incredibly huge and broad categories. So, I could talk about this in great detail, but I don't think that would be a good idea. It is true that Charles Darwin was misunderstood. Darwin stated himself that he did not approve of or agree with the principles of Social Darwinism. If I recall correctly, it was Herbert Spencer who came up with the 'Survival of the Fittest' phrase.

I just did some research on Neoconservatism, and it does appear that there are some fascist elements within this branch.

@gavinification said:

I just want to point out that eugenics is not Darwinian. It is pretty much the opposite of natural selection.

And there are no ideals of natural selection.

I don't see how eugenics isn't Darwinian in nature. From a historical perspective, eugenics programs have mostly been about attacking (and sometimes eliminating) the weak and undesirable and sterilizing those who were deemed undesirable and weak. People who were mentally ill, mentally deficient, physically deformed, diseased, poor, blind, deaf, homosexual, "racially different", etc. were all victims in most eugenics programs (especially those in the United States and in Nazi Germany).

It is my understanding that Natural Selection is, as implied, about Nature selecting and making sure that the strong of a particular species survive and reproduce. The weak of a particular species were forced to adapt, and if that didn't happen, then they would be weeded out. I also assumed that the Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection were somewhat synonymous. I don't know that much about Natural Selection. So, I could be wrong. lol

I am also not sure what you mean by stating that there are no ideals to Natural Selection, and I don't see how eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I would simply say that eugenics is enforced my humans, while Natural Selection is enforced by Nature. *shrugs*

#9 Posted by TheWitchingHour (1340 posts) - - Show Bio

Fascist/Darwinian...Tomato/Tomato right?

#10 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheWitchingHour said:

Fascist/Darwinian...Tomato/Tomato right?

Eh, not necessarily. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. lol

#11 Posted by TheWitchingHour (1340 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame:

I was trying to be a little facetious but it doesn't exactly come across too well over the interwebs. And you're right, that was exactly my point. It seems odd for them to be so easily lumped in together.

#12 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheWitchingHour said:

I was trying to be a little facetious but it doesn't exactly come across too well over the interwebs. And you're right, that was exactly my point. It seems odd for them to be so easily lumped in together.

lol No worries. I could tell.

#13 Edited by CATPANEXE (9368 posts) - - Show Bio

Sinister is heavily debatable as his motivations don't tend to match up correctly. Also he himself claims to be against it, and essentially called Darwin an idiot (literally as Sinister was actually there at the time = Further Adventures Of Cyclops And Phoenix). His efforts alongside of Apocalypse at any duration have been to undermine Apocalypse's designs. More or less Sinister's motivation is scientific/genetic obsession, reveling in his own genius. Additionally his stance against the Morlocks as personal perversion of his work by Dark Beasts hand, which he recognized as Apocalypses designs tainting his own at the time, and discomfort with Genesis/Tyler Dayspring. Sinister's motivation was to cure his son, hence kicking of his obsessions with genetics. He doesn't show an actual favoritism nor perception to a more powerful creature, just an extreme fascination with mutation itself. As the side that makes it unclear anyways for any definition being applied here. ie: Mad Scientist to put it bluntly.

#14 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah, Mr. Sinister seemed/seems to be extremely interested in evolution.

#15 Posted by CATPANEXE (9368 posts) - - Show Bio

That and most of his own Marauders are cloned genetic run off according to this stance (sorry, love you Marauders though! (:), another thing that defies Apocalypses ideals. He's often mistaken for following the same views, but even in The End and The Age Of Apocalypse Sinister had an all together different agenda as well as in 616. Dark Beast actually falls in this category as well. He is just a scientific explorer in an extreme and twisted regard, the shadow of the real McCoy's intents and drives as it were. Dark Beast has no more an actual interest in creating Apocalypses world again nor living in it than Sinister does, even if he sides and brown noses at time, but that's more or less him playing the sides to get what he wants and being somewhat of a worm. He joined Norman Osborn in Dark Reign, Onslaught, allied with Emma Frost and even moled into the X-Men when it suited him. In modern terms Dark Beast is a player.

#16 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

Doctor Doom is obviously a Fascist, and a completely awesome one at that. 

#17 Posted by entropy_aegis (14459 posts) - - Show Bio

Ra's al Ghul is a Fascist

Bane is a Darwinian

#18 Posted by Illuminatus (9497 posts) - - Show Bio
@The_Peter_Cosmic said:

Archangel, AoA Wolverine, Mister Sinister, The Celestials, Dark Beast... Honestly I'd say about half of Marvel's villains are driven by Nazi ideals or eugenics in general. Plus you have stories like the mutant genocide at Genosha that are analogous to the holocaust with sentinels being representative to SS officers. It's really kind of an overused concept.

Huh? Since when have the Celestials held such relatively petty beliefs?
#19 Posted by gavinification (83 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame: I think we have a misunderstanding of the word Darwinian. Over here it only means evolution by natural selection, it isnt a way of thinking or a system of beliefs or anything like that.

Eugenics is opposed to natural selection as it limits the gene pool, which is bad, whereas natural selection is random variation and non random survival.

#20 Posted by Stuka69 (117 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame said:

@Alton said:

Do you consider Fascist ideals the same as Darwinian theory? I'm a little confused by the question here.Neo-Cons have embraced a term called Social Darwinism that has nothing to do with Darwin and is just a pseudo scientific cloak for the Fascist bedrock of Neo-Con philosophy.

They certainly aren't the same, but fascism and Darwinian thought (which can include Social Darwinism, the Survival of the Fittest, etc.) can overlap with each other. The best example of this is Nazi Germany. The eugenics programs in both the United States and Nazi Germany are good examples of this. Many people think that Nazism was only about anti-Semitism, but it was much more than that. Even though anti-Semitism was the main focus at the time, Nazism had many other goals. People who had "undesirable" or "weak" genes/traits were either exterminated, sterilized or experimented on. I digress, however.

Fascism and Darwinism (including Social Darwinism) are both incredibly huge and broad categories. So, I could talk about this in great detail, but I don't think that would be a good idea. It is true that Charles Darwin was misunderstood. Darwin stated himself that he did not approve of or agree with the principles of Social Darwinism. If I recall correctly, it was Herbert Spencer who came up with the 'Survival of the Fittest' phrase.

I just did some research on Neoconservatism, and it does appear that there are some fascist elements within this branch.

@gavinification said:

I just want to point out that eugenics is not Darwinian. It is pretty much the opposite of natural selection.

And there are no ideals of natural selection.

I don't see how eugenics isn't Darwinian in nature. From a historical perspective, eugenics programs have mostly been about attacking (and sometimes eliminating) the weak and undesirable and sterilizing those who were deemed undesirable and weak. People who were mentally ill, mentally deficient, physically deformed, diseased, poor, blind, deaf, homosexual, "racially different", etc. were all victims in most eugenics programs (especially those in the United States and in Nazi Germany).

It is my understanding that Natural Selection is, as implied, about Nature selecting and making sure that the strong of a particular species survive and reproduce. The weak of a particular species were forced to adapt, and if that didn't happen, then they would be weeded out. I also assumed that the Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection were somewhat synonymous. I don't know that much about Natural Selection. So, I could be wrong. lol

I am also not sure what you mean by stating that there are no ideals to Natural Selection, and I don't see how eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I would simply say that eugenics is enforced my humans, while Natural Selection is enforced by Nature. *shrugs*

Natural Selection has no ideals because it is not an ideology, it is the way species evolve in Planet Earth. I find your post interesting, but perhaps you should not mix philosophical and political ideologies with the science.

#21 Edited by The_Peter_Cosmic (401 posts) - - Show Bio

@gavinification said:

@Edamame: I think we have a misunderstanding of the word Darwinian. Over here it only means evolution by natural selection, it isnt a way of thinking or a system of beliefs or anything like that.

Eugenics is opposed to natural selection as it limits the gene pool, which is bad, whereas natural selection is random variation and non random survival.

They experiment on "lesser races" like humanity to affect their evolutionary path. They're sometimes said to be the ones responsible for human's being able to develop super-powers. Also if you've been reading the latest Uncanny X-force arc, AoA Wolverine ascended to become Apocalypse because he believes the Celestials will wipe out humanity if he doesn't cull the weak.

#22 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@gavinification said:

@Edamame: I think we have a misunderstanding of the word Darwinian. Over here it only means evolution by natural selection, it isnt a way of thinking or a system of beliefs or anything like that.

Eugenics is opposed to natural selection as it limits the gene pool, which is bad, whereas natural selection is random variation and non random survival.

I see. Sorry about the confusion. It seems that there are other interpretations and definitions.
I assumed that Natural Selection also has a similar effect, but I will do more research on this topic. I think it is interesting.

@Stuka69
said:

Natural Selection has no ideals because it is not an ideology, it is the way species evolve in Planet Earth. I find your post interesting, but perhaps you should not mix philosophical and political ideologies with the science.

Yes, that is true. My mistake. Natural Selection ought to be left to a purely scientific discourse.

#23 Posted by Alton (154 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame (second post)good points here and thanks for the clarification on your thread.

#24 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@Alton said:

@Edamame (second post)good points here and thanks for the clarification on your thread.

You're welcome. :)

#25 Posted by joshmightbe (24691 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: Doom is not a fascist, he is a totalitarian dictator with a god complex, Fascism implies a belief in a superior group of people where as Doom's theory is that everyone is equally inferior to him

#26 Posted by RainEffect (3240 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
Doctor Doom is obviously a Fascist, and a completely awesome one at that. 
<3333
#27 Posted by JonesDeini (3620 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Doctor Doom is obviously a Fascist, and a completely awesome one at that.

Tabernacle, preach!!!

#28 Posted by Soulstealer (825 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe said:

@FadeToBlackBolt: Doom is not a fascist, he is a totalitarian dictator with a god complex, Fascism implies a belief in a superior group of people where as Doom's theory is that everyone is equally inferior to him

I approve this statement. It is Doom in all his glory. ^_^

#29 Edited by etragedy (1051 posts) - - Show Bio

These were common themes in the comics of the 1980s:
 
The comic Judge Dredd frequently explored themes of fascism, totalitarianism and social Darwinism with Judge Dredd himself coming down on both sides of the coin at various points throughout the comic's history.
 
Themes dealing with genetics like eugenics, survival of the fittest, etc. were often explored in the X-Men in it's heydey under Claremont/Byrne.
 
Miracleman under both Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman's runs dealt with Nietsche Ubermensch type ethics.

#30 Posted by krilling (2488 posts) - - Show Bio

Stormfront and Homelander (from The Boys) are another characters with a "Übermensch"-complex and they despise everyone who isn't a supe. 
Master Man and Warrior Women are nazis.
What about Namor? He always saw homo sapiens like insects and it seemed like if he is an "Atlantean supremacist".

#31 Edited by etragedy (1051 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh, almost forgot - The Squadron Supreme mini (maxi?) series also delved into this and is considered one of the books that started the 'darker' age of superhero books that led to Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, V for Vendetta, etc.
 
From the Squadron Supreme entry here on CV:

What happens when the greatest heroes of an alternate world institute the Utopia Project, vowing to abolish war and crime, to eliminate poverty and hunger, and to cure death itself! Can they possibly succeed? And when do heroes stop being heroes?

#32 Posted by Phaedrusgr (1668 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: I can't remember who created the Daleks (not in the series), but I do remember vividly an ex-producer of the show saying that the Daleks were "made" to remind us of the Nazis. So, you're absolutely right. They're the definition. Cybermen are a devastating manifestation of misunderstood human effort for eugenics. So, you're right here too. Now, Darkseid needs no comment. I'll add Red Skull, Baron Zemo etc etc and we're all done here, I guess.

#33 Edited by Wise Son (1772 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame said:

@gavinification said:

I just want to point out that eugenics is not Darwinian. It is pretty much the opposite of natural selection.

And there are no ideals of natural selection.

I don't see how eugenics isn't Darwinian in nature. From a historical perspective, eugenics programs have mostly been about attacking (and sometimes eliminating) the weak and undesirable and sterilizing those who were deemed undesirable and weak. People who were mentally ill, mentally deficient, physically deformed, diseased, poor, blind, deaf, homosexual, "racially different", etc. were all victims in most eugenics programs (especially those in the United States and in Nazi Germany).

It is my understanding that Natural Selection is, as implied, about Nature selecting and making sure that the strong of a particular species survive and reproduce. The weak of a particular species were forced to adapt, and if that didn't happen, then they would be weeded out. I also assumed that the Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection were somewhat synonymous. I don't know that much about Natural Selection. So, I could be wrong. lol

I am also not sure what you mean by stating that there are no ideals to Natural Selection, and I don't see how eugenics is the exact opposite of Natural Selection. I would simply say that eugenics is enforced my humans, while Natural Selection is enforced by Nature. *shrugs*

There are no ideals to Natural Selection. It isn't a school of thought. It's a natural process. I think that's what he meant.

Eugenics was a bigoted science and less effective than natural selection on a grand scale. Being poor says nothing about a person's physical gifts. Granted in a socio-economic setting of a developed country a poor person could be a hindrance from an economic stand point. If anything they aren't fit for a system that's built against them. People are born into poverty so the problem perpetuates itself. Fix it and it's no longer a problem. Killing someone for being gays is just as stupid. You could be a perfect specimen and a valuable member of society but because you're gay you have to die? Get them to jizz in a cup and donate it. Problem solved. You're hurting humanity's progress if you don't. Mental illness is a slippery slope so I'm not touching that one. Race only really accounts for minute, superficial physical differences in people. Nothing major. You see how biased the science is?

Natural selection on the other hand is a culmination of variation, inheritance, selection and time. The only "bias" natural selection has is towards the objective fittest.

In short, I think they overlap to a great degree but one is much more flawed. If this post is confusing I apologize, I was trying to multi-task :P

#34 Posted by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@Wise Son said:

There are no ideals to Natural Selection. It isn't a school of thought. It's a natural process. I think that's what he meant. Natural selection on the other hand is a culmination of variation, inheritance, selection and time. The only "bias" natural selection has is towards the objective fittest.

I see. Now, how similar is Natural Selection to the Survival of the Fittest? Aren't they somewhat synonymous? Also, does this mean that Nature prefers the "strong" or the most adaptable? Doesn't this mean that the "strong" should use their "strength" to help the "weak" survive and such?

@Wise Son said:

Eugenics was a bigoted science and less effective than natural selection on a grand scale. Killing someone for being gays is just as stupid. You could be a perfect specimen and a valuable member of society but because you're gay you have to die? Get them to jizz in a cup and donate it. Problem solved. You're hurting humanity's progress if you don't. Race only really accounts for minute, superficial physical differences in people. Nothing major. You see how biased the science is?

@Wise Son said:

Being poor says nothing about a person's physical gifts. Granted in a socio-economic setting of a developed country a poor person could be a hindrance from an economic stand point. If anything they aren't fit for a system that's built against them. People are born into poverty so the problem perpetuates itself. Fix it and it's no longer a problem.

Indeed, and capitalism seems to clearly favor and support the rich. That may be one of the many reasons why capitalism is doomed to failure, just like the so-called Communism (true Communism can't exist due to human nature) that existed in other nations (the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, etc.). It is funny how some called the former Soviet government to fall under 'Red Fascism'. I guess that makes sense if one thinks about it.

I wonder what you mean by saying that people are born into poverty. May I ask what you mean by saying that? For instance, I am sure that expensive divorces can easily get any individual into poverty. There could also be a horrible accident that you get yourself into, and as a result, your finances will be severely drained. I forgot to mention credit card debt and college loan debt.

@Wise Son said:

Mental illness is a slippery slope so I'm not touching that one.

How so?

#35 Edited by joshmightbe (24691 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame: Yes nature is only concerned with the strong, I'm not saying whether its a good or a bad thing but the laws of nature are pretty much made to kill off the weak. Look at lions, if given a choice they almost always take the weak and sickly prey even when its an animal they can easily over power when its in fit condition

#36 Edited by Edamame (27987 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe said:

@Edamame: Yes nature is only concerned with the strong, I'm not saying whether its a good or a bad thing but the laws of nature are pretty much made to kill off the weak. Look at lions, if given a choice they almost always take the weak and sickly prey even when its an animal they can easily over power when its in fit condition

Okay. Well, if that is true, then why are the weak even born? Isn't it incredibly inconsiderate to have them born to only go through pain, suffering, rejection and death, while the strong don't have to go through these things to the degree that the weak do? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

With regards to nature, what other purpose does weakness serve besides elimination?

#37 Posted by etragedy (1051 posts) - - Show Bio

The Spartans of 300 are often compared to fascists.

#38 Posted by joshmightbe (24691 posts) - - Show Bio

@Edamame: To put it bluntly nature is a vicious bitch with little room for weakness, and all those ideals of fairness and compassion are a completely human invention

#39 Posted by joshmightbe (24691 posts) - - Show Bio

@etragedy: I like 300 a lot but it shows that Frank Millar didn't fully understand Sparta and I almost died laughing when Leonidas used boy lovers as an insult toward Athens when Spartans were historically famous for pederasty( thats sex with young boys)

#40 Posted by etragedy (1051 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that as written the Spartans in that comic are frequently compared to fascists. In fact, long before Frank Miller's 300 people were comparing Spartan society to fascism (or more accurately, fascism to Spartan society) based on it's militarism and enforced eugenics. That's the topic of the thread, not the historical accuracy of the comic - which I agree with you is way off... I even mentioned it in my review of the comic.

#41 Posted by ithinkitwasyou (682 posts) - - Show Bio

sinister technically kind of.