Jonas E. Alexis graduated from Avon Park High School, studied mathematics and philosophy as an undergraduate at Palm Beach Atlantic University, and has a master's degree in education from Grand Canyon University.

Some of his main interests include the history of Christianity, U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book ,Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the first Century to the Twenty-first Century.

He is currently teaching mathematics in South Korea. He plays soccer and basketball in his spare time. He is also a cyclist. He is currently writing a book tentatively titled Zionism and the West.

Alexis welcomes comments, letters, and queries in order to advance, explain, and expound rational and logical discussion on issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, the history of Christianity, and the history of ideas.

In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, Alexis asks that all queries be appropriately respectful and maintain a level of civility. As the saying goes, “iron sharpens iron,” and the best way to sharpen one’s mind is through constructive criticism, good and bad.

However, Alexis has no patience with name-calling and ad hominem attack. He has deliberately ignored many queries and irrational individuals in the past for this specific reason—and he will continue to abide by this policy.


View Latest Posts >>>

David Duke Gets It Wrong About the So-Called Khazar Theory—Again

It is a little disappointing because Duke does have a good grasp of Zionism and how the West has been bamboozled by “Jewish supremacism.” But it is really frustrating because he doesn’t want to follow his own worldview to its logical conclusions.

“Certainly [Christ] spoke a doctrine that was diametrically opposed to what Judaism was and is…The Talmud is the core of Judaism. It is extremely racist and ethnocentric religion.”

“Certainly [Christ] spoke a doctrine that was diametrically opposed to what Judaism was and is…The Talmud is the core of Judaism. It is an extremely racist and ethnocentric religion.”

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

I have discovered a long time ago that some people love to posit extraordinary claims but are not willing to follow those same claims to their logical conclusions. When you take time to point out where the issues lie and why the statement that Jewish behavior is genetic is logically incoherent and morally irresponsible, they just repeat the same old vacuous argument as if logic does not mean much to them.

Being incapable of criticizing Darwin, they simply surrendered to his intellectually contradictory worldview, in so far as they understood it, to the detriment of their own understanding.

I have argued for years that if the Jewish behavior is genetic, then you cannot condemn it morally precisely because whatever happens genetically will inevitably happen consequently. As Richard Dawkins himself notes, “DNA neither cares nor knows.”[1]

From a Darwinian point of view, we are just “selfish genes.”[2] As science philosopher and popularizer Daniel Dennett has said, “We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all.”[3]

Moreover, the same “scientists” who posit the claim that Jewish behavior is genetic also maintain that morality is an illusion. Some of those same “scientists” have been caught numerous times deliberately tampering with the data.

So, there is no morality, but people want to condemn the behavior on morality! If people cannot see this obvious contradiction, then they are either working with a doctrine which does not allow them to think properly or they cannot understand reason.

There is more. If genes are the arbiter of our behavior, we are therefore doomed to “survival of the fittest.” The strongest genes will survive, and the weakest ones must be eliminated. This was exactly what Darwin and his staunch followers predicted. Social Darwinists picked that theme up and spread it across the continent.[4]

In response to the “Khazarian theory,” which makes far more provisional sense than its alternative, David Duke has recently raised written:

Interestingly enough, the Khazar theory was launched, and is still to this day, driven primarily by Communist Jews and other Jews who promote it in the Gentile community as a refutation that the Jews can’t be racist because they are not a race!

“It is ironic that the three most prominent exponents of the theory that ‘the Jews are not a race’ all have almost exaggerated caricatures of features people ascribe as Jewish.”

First of all, the so-called Khazar theory predated Arthur Koestler, Eran Elhaik, and Slomo Sand. Koestler wrote The Thirteenth Tribe back in 1976. The old Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) and the new Jewish Encyclopedia (1962) were saying the same thing long before Koestler and others came on the scene.

Duke should have done a little digging. If he did know that the Jewish Encyclopedia had already dealt with this issue long before Koestler and others, I wonder why he has never addressed this.

Then Duke implicitly argues that there is a good chance that the theory might be wrong largely because Koestler, Elhaik, and Sand were all communists. This is a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. It is the idea that you cannot quickly invalidate a person’s belief by simply showing how it originated. Though sometimes this can be true, it is not always the case at all. And it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

For example, suppose little Johnny picks up a comic book from a trashcan which basically states that Joseph Stalin slaughtered no less than thirty million people. Is the statement wrong because little Johnny got it from a comic book, let alone from a trashcan?

But let us suppose that Duke is right. Then he still has to carry a huge burden. For centuries, rabbis from all walks of life have been saying that Jewish behavior is genetic. I am pretty sure that Duke would not consider Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson a nice guy. But he was propounding what Duke is currently postulating.

So, should we disregard what Duke is saying because Schneerson was a bad guy and was saying the same thing?


Duke is basically regurgitating what Darwin and his followers have propounded over the years. I have argued in numerous articles that that the Darwinian paradigm is intrinsically contradictory and incoherent.

If one takes the paradigm seriously, it predicted that wars and conflicts are things that will get the so-called strongest ahead. Darwin’s book was entitled The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin was so sure about his theory that he later wrote in the Descent of Man:

“We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skills to save the life of every one to the last moment…

“[If we] do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world.”[5]

Duke, a proponent of Darwinism, should be happy about what “Jewish supremacism” is doing in much of the West and the Middle East precisely because that was exactly what his intellectual father predicted and accepted.

Duke constantly inveighs against “Jewish supremacists” who do not want to go by morality and international rule of law, but Darwin and his intellectual children themselves would have taken issues with Duke here because they did not believe that morality is objective!

Friedrich Nietzsche, who himself criticized Darwin but embraced him unconsciously,[6] saw this as a huge problem. Will Durant, interpreting and citing Nietzsche, wrote:

“If life is a struggle for existence in which the fittest survive, then strength is the ultimate virtue, and weakness the only fault. Good is that which survives, which wins; bad is that which gives way and fails. Only the mid-Victorian cowardice of the English Darwinians, and the bourgeois respectability of French positivists and German socialists, could conceal the inevitableness of this conclusion.

“These men were brave enough to reject Christian theology, but they did not dare to be logical, to reject the moral ideas, the worship of meekness and gentleness and altruism, which had grown out of theology.”[7]

Durant moves on to say:

“Darwin unconsciously completed the work of the Encyclopidists: they had removed the theological basis of modern morals, but they had left that morality itself untouched and inviolate, hanging miraculously in the air; a little breath of biology was all that was needed to clear away this remnant of imposture.”[8]

This is certainly true. Almost all of the Encyclopedists ended up denying a key element of morality and interpreting nature in a completely materialistic way. La Mettrie’s L’Homme MachineMan: a Machine—was based on the premise that man is just matter and chemistry.[9] D’Holbach started with his materialistic idea and forced it upon reason and science.

Other philosophes did the same thing. Aldous Huxley wrote that the reason La Mettrie formulated his materialistic worldview was not primarily because of intellectual reasons, but because his “predominantly erotic” desires compelled him to do so, as indicated at the end of L’Homme Machine.[10]


Herbert Spencer

Herbert Spencer

If Darwin can talk about “favoured races,” who is David Duke to tell Jewish supremacists that they are not part of what Darwin envisioned? On what basis should we judge whether a “race” is ornately favored?

In The Descent of Man, Darwin clearly understood that his principle would create havoc if applied consistently. “At some future period,” he lamented, “not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”[11]

Other British intellectuals quickly digested that idea with great speed. Herbert Spencer, who coined the term “survival of the fittest,” added,

“The poverty of the incapable, the distresses that come upon the imprudent, the starvation of the idle, and those shoulderings aside of the weak by the strong…are the decrees of a large far-seeing providence.”[12]

Darwin himself put a similar spin on this issue. “The very poor and reckless,” Darwin lamented, “who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life.”[13]

There is no doubt that Social Darwinism was a logical extension of Darwin’s own ideas,

“which envisaged the individual members of any given species competing against each other for the available resources—out of which competition the fittest individuals survived, perpetuated their kind, and thus contributed to the betterment and evolution of their species.”[14]

Sir Arthur Keith, anthropologist and Darwin’s biographer, was indeed a pacifist. But given that he was a Darwin sympathizer, he could not see anything wrong with wiping out the weak through wars, “for the real health of humanity and the building of stronger races.”[15]

Which brings us to a central point. I have said this before and I will say it again: Darwin’s intellectual children cannot logically condemn Zionism or “Jewish supremacism” without contradicting themselves or without dumping Darwin’s ideology in the dustbin.

If survival of the fittest is actually true, aren’t Zionists or Jewish ideologues thriving to survive, eliminating rival competitions through deceptive means? What are the moral parameters? No serious Darwinist has ever been able to get out of that contradiction without abandoning Darwin’s central thesis.

In fact, Darwin was confronted with this dilemma right after the publication of the Origin of Species. A Manchester newspaper quickly realized that Darwin was logically advertising the idea that “might is right” and that “every cheating tradesman is also right.” Darwin disagreed with no serious justification. Yet one year before he died, Charles Darwin proved that his critics were right all along. He said,

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is!

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”[16]

Interestingly enough, Darwin lived by contradiction throughout much of his intellectual life. He said in the Origin of Species:

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”[17]

Yuri Slezkine of the University of California[18] has told us that the twentieth century belongs to “Jewish supremacism.” Perhaps this was the “civilized races” that Darwin was talking about?

Darwin did not like the logical consequences of his ideas any more than Duke does. But Darwin ended up living in contradiction because he had no other alternative. In fact, many of his disciples and admirers were quite shocked to realize that Darwin did not want to take his ideas to their logical conclusions.


Darwin’s ideas would have long been abandoned and placed in the dustbin of history had it not been for capitalism, which E. Michael Jones defines as “state-sponsored usury.”[19] In fact, people like Spencer “provided the defenders of laissez-faire capitalism with the intellectual justification to oppose state interference in the market forces.”[20] Noted historian of biology and prolific scholar Peter J. Bowler notes that Darwin

“projected the competitive ethos of capitalism onto nature and then bent all his observations to fit into the pattern imposed by his own mind. Darwin did not discover natural selection: he invented it and then sold it to a world that was only too willing to see its own values provided with a ‘natural’ justification.

“The scientists’ efforts to portray Darwin as a purely objective researcher are merely a device used to conceal the ideological foundations of science itself.”[21]

Modern Darwinists like Michael Shermer would agree that capitalism and Darwin’s survival of the fittest or cut-throat competition are concentric circles. Shermer also agrees that Darwin and Adam Smith had a kindred spirit when it came to the philosophical understanding of the struggle for existence. “Darwin scholars largely agree that he modeled his theory of natural selection after Smith’s theory of the invisible hand.”[22]

“Survival of the fittest” was first coined by Herbert Spencer, but Darwin spread it in the political spectrum. It was quickly picked up by Spencer’s devoted disciples, namely, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who used it in economic dealings.[23]

In his autobiography, Carnegie declared that he himself used to travel with Spencer.[24] After Carnegie fell under Darwin’s and Spencer’s theories, he admitted that “I began to view the various phases of human life from the standpoint of an evolutionist.”[25]

In a similar vein, John D. Rockefeller declared:

“The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest. . . . This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature.”[26]

Scholar Stephen T. Asma writes,

“James G. Kennedy, in his book Herbert Spencer, informs us that in 1896 ‘three justices of the Supreme Court were avowed Spencerians and participated in decisions recognizing corporations as individuals, and disallowing government regulation of contracts with regard to hours of work, a minimum wage, or child labor.’ Spencer himself adamantly opposed all state aid to the poor on the grounds that it would be an interference with the ‘natural’ developmental process.

“In other words, unpleasant though it might at first seem, we must stand aside and let the Malthusian forces crush the weak and incompetent, the homeless and jobless—but we can take some consolation in the fact that it was ‘fated’ by nature to happen.”[27]


What we are seeing here is that Darwin’s idea, as philosopher of science and Darwin admirer Michael Ruse himself has argued, is an ideology which has moral and intellectual consequences.[28] Why did intellectuals quickly gravitate toward that ideology? Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin provided some answer back in 1997:

“We take the side of science [Darwinian evolution] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[29]

In other words, you cannot provide a serious critique of the theory because people like Lewontin will not allow it. Then you have Darwinists repeatedly saying, “You see, no serious scientist doubts the theory.”

Well, duh! Look what happens if you do doubt it or provide a genuine rebuttal to it. A classic example would be Thomas Nagel of New York University. For years, Nagel maintained that Darwinian evolution provides the best explanation for life.[30]

But Nagel dropped that position in his recent book Mind and Cosmos, in which he cogently argues that “the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.” Instead of responding to Nagel’s arguments in a rational manner, Daniel Dennett said:

I am just appalled to see how, in spite of what I think is the progress we’ve made in the last 25 years, there’s this sort of retrograde gang. They’re going back to old-fashioned armchair philosophy with relish and eagerness. It’s sickening. And they lure in other people. And their work isn’t worth anything—it’s cute and it’s clever and it’s not worth a damn.”

Biologist Jerry Coyne commented, “Nagel is a teleologist, and although not an explicit creationist, his views are pretty much anti-science and not worth highlighting.” Without an iota of coherent rationality, Coyne even likened Nagel’s conclusion to astrology.[31]

Michael Chorost of the Chronicle of Higher Education seemed to have been puzzled by Coyne’s comment because

“The odd thing is, however, that for all of this academic high dudgeon, there actually are scientists—respected ones, Nobel Prize-winning ones—who are saying exactly what Nagel said, and have been saying it for decades. Strangely enough, Nagel doesn’t mention them. Neither have his critics. This whole imbroglio about the philosophy of science has left out the science.”32]


What we are seeing here is that people like Dennett and Coyne are using “science” in a promiscuous way. I see the same thing with David Duke. He cites an article by the Jewish Daily Forward which had a headline entitled: “Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal.”

But Duke did not even tell his readers that the same Jewish Daily Forward published a later article entitled: “’Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert.” It was actually based on the work of Eran Elhaik. Elhaik was criticizing the work of Harry Ostrer, who previously published a pretentiously scholarly book entitled, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People. Elhaik simply asked Ostrer a scientific question:

“It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people. Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”

This is not a communist question. If Ostrer professes to go by the scientific method, then he would be more than happy to present the data to other scientists like Elhaik. But Ostrer had other purposes in mind:

“Ostrer replied that the data are not publicly available. ‘It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,’ he wrote. ‘Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.’”[33]

Is Ostrer’s behavior here a representation of a serious scientist? If you say yes, then this is an infallible sign that you are again under an ideological system which does not allow you to see things the way they really are.

Sadly, David Duke mentioned none of these issues in his article. Sadly, he could never tell his readers that many other scientists have tempered with the data to fit their ideological hermeneutics. In fact, this has had a long tradition in the sciences.[34]


Here is the conclusion. If Duke wants people to take him seriously, he needs to address the fundamental issues. Furthermore, he needs to tell us forthrightly how “Jewish supremacists” can get rid of their bad behavior. He also needs to tell us how Christ and his disciples and even people like Gilad Atzmon and Mortimer Adler and Jews over the centuries got rid of theirs. When Alan Colmes raised a similar question to Duke, he responded:

“Certainly [Christ] spoke a doctrine that was diametrically opposed to what Judaism was and is…The Talmud is the core of Judaism. It is extremely racist and ethnocentric religion.”

Precisely. This is where the issue begins and ends. It is this Talmud which allows rabbis from the first century to this very day to say weird things.[35] It is that particular book which eventually provided the political and ideological worldview of “Jewish supremacists.” They have embraced its political or subversive ideology directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. This is why Benjamin Netanyahu can say that Israel’s legal system is based on the Talmud.[36]

The fact that Christ spent much of his ministry trying to persuade the rabbis of his day to come to grip with metaphysical Logos actually proves that the issue is not really genetic. If it were, then Christ and his disciples were stupid to reason with those people.

If the rabbis were just machines or robots, as modern Darwinists propound, then there was no way for them to change their behavior. This is not a hard concept, and David Duke needs to address these issues before he can move to his next point. His last interaction with E. Michael Jones doesn’t seem to show that he will ever address these issues logically precisely because he is operating under a system which does not allow him to see things the way they really are.

It is a little disappointing because Duke does have a good grasp of Zionism and how the West has been bamboozled by “Jewish supremacism.” I would certainly recommend many of his videos, but it is really frustrating because he doesn’t want to follow his own worldview to its logical conclusions.


[1] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 155.

[2] Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).

[3] Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin, 2003), 2-3.

[4] See for example Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Decline of Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Robert C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979); Peter Watson, The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002); Paul A. Lombardo, ed., A Century of Eugenics in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011); Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).

[5] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: The Modern Library, 1936), 901.

[6] For points of contention on these issues, see John Richardson, Nietzsche’s New Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Gilles Deleuze and Hugh Tomlinson, Nietzsche and Philosophy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962); Dirk R. Johnson, Nietzsche’s Anti-Darwinism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Gregory Moore, Nietzsche, Biology and Metaphor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Christian J. Emden, Nietzsche’s Naturalism: Philosophy and the Life Sciences in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); R. J. Hollingdale, Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965 and 1999).

[7] Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1926 and 1961), 401.

[8] Ibid., 402.

[9] See Julien Offray de la Mettrie, Machine Man and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

[10] Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), 272.

[11] Darwin, The Descent of Man, 112.

[12] Quoted Gertrude Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds: A Study of Intellectuals in Crisis and Ideologies in Transition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), 317.

[13] Ibid., 326.

[14] Ibid., 318.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 319.

[17] Darwin, Origin of Species, 459.

[18] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).

[19] See his recent study, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014).

[20] Frank Ryan, Darwin’s Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002), 35.

[21] Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 8.

[22] Michael Shermer, The Mind of the Market: How Biology and Psychology Shape Our Economic Lives (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2008), 24; see also James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Geoffrey M. Hodgson, Economics in the Shadow of Darwin and Marx: Essays on Institutional and Evolutionary Themes (London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006).

[23] See for example Stephen T. Asma, “the New Social Darwinism: Derving Your Destitution,” The American Humanist Association, September/October 1993.

[24] Andrew Carnegie, The Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie (London: Constable & Company, 1920), chapter 25.

[25] Ibid., 168.

[26] Quoted in Asma, “the New Social Darwinism: Derving Your Destitution,” The American Humanist Association, September/October 1993.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Michael Ruse, “How Evolution Became a Religion,” National Post, May 13, 2000; “Is Darwinism a Religion?,” Huffington Post, September 21, 2011.

[29] Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 1997.

[30] Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130-131.

[31] Michael Chorost, “Where Thomas Nagel Went Wrong,” Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2013.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Rita Rubin, “’Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert,” Jewish Daily Forward, May 7, 2013.

[34] See for example J. S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); Frank Spencer, Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Eugenie Samuel Reich, Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010); Robert Bell, Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise and Political Influence in Scientific Research (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 1992); Horace Freeland Judson, The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science (Orlando: Harcourt, Inc., 2004).

[35] See for example Peter Schaffer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

[36] Marissa Newman, “Netanyahu reported to say legal system based on Talmud,” Time of Israel, May 8, 2014.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on February 17, 2016, With 8636 Reads Filed under History, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

18 Responses to "David Duke Gets It Wrong About the So-Called Khazar Theory—Again"

  1. Lee01  March 7, 2016 at 5:49 am

    – Yahweh states, “And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for THEY COMMITTED ALL THESE THINGS, and therefore I abhorred them.” (Lev 20:23)
    – Biblically, there was no moral solution to the corrupt seed of Canaan. The solution was genocide. There was a divine timetable where the genocide only took place when Canaan’s “iniquity was complete”.
    – When it was not complete, there was likely a divine grace because Yahweh is merciful and righteous. “Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.”
    – So are the Khazars genetically predispositioned to their behavior or do they have moral free will? The answer is “yes”.
    – The Talmud is the collective creation of the Khazarian/Edomite brain. It’s their idea of “morality”. There are many non-Christian religions; but there is only one wholly anti-Christian religion: Talmudic Judaism. -Religion is culture externalized and culture is a product of a people’s genetics.
    -While a severe minority and rare exception, not every Khazarian person embraces the Talmud. Rare they may be, I suspect there are more than ten such Khazars at this point in history.

  2. jonnbrown  February 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    Thank you Jonas for your AMAZING and accurate observations – and Dr. James for chiming in. The Khazar story is complex and has got to be respected. Indeed, “Khazarian Mafia” is a consolidating moniker. But there are so many facets to the history of modern Jews that it cannot stop with the Khazars. See my comments responding to William Bourne below.

  3. jonnbrown  February 21, 2016 at 8:56 pm

    Duke’s position is refuted by many scholarly works. But he would not listen to me when I directed him there – because he had already written it, in “My Awakening.”

    If you want to see a real Israelite, look at freckle-faced people from the Caucasus, whose caucasian families there are traceable from the 7th century B.C. when the Kings of Assyria took the Northern Kingdom of Israel into captivity and placed them near the Caucasus foothills (indeed, millions were displaced and relocated there).

    Modern Khazars may be “white” but they are not caucasian except in cases of intermarriage. And due to the close-quarters of Jewish community life, “Edomite” (Esau) Jews, and “Khazar” Jews intermarried to create the modern genome. These people are unrelated in the modern sense to the Israelites from the caucasus – who populated western Europe over the centuries. This process was amplified when Catherine the Great place them all in the “Pale of Settlement” where Khazaria had been in part – just to the north of where the Israelites had been quartered. Is it any wonder that clashes in that part of the world have come up ?

    Google darkmoon.me and add top-israeli-scientist-says-ashkenazi-jews-came-from-khazaria-not-palestine (refers to David Duke)

  4. jonnbrown  February 21, 2016 at 8:54 pm

    The “pharisees” noted in the Gospels who were always confronting Jesus were descended from Jacob/Israel’s brother, Esau. They were imposters noted by John in his “Revelation” as “them who say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of satan.” Revelation 2:9. (“satan” simply means adversary).

    This is an allegorical reference to the children of Esau who were “created” Jews in about 125 B.C. by mistake of a Hasmonean (Aaronic) prince named John Hyrcannus when he forcibly circumcised the males of Edom *(Esau’s country on the south of Judea). This mistake led to their assimilation in the remnant of Judah surrounding Jerusalem. And thus, King Herod the Great, although not an Israelite but descended from the arch-enemy (Esau) of True Israel, was called “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate. Is it any wonder this madman was reputed in the Gospels as wanting to destroy Jesus from birth?

    Most people in this thread need to get their heads out of their arses, including David Duke. He mistakenly calls Europeans – “Esau’s descendants” due to his persistent misunderstanding of who Jacob / Israel and his real descendants are. He thus attributes scenes like Jesus driving the money-changers out from the Temple as being because Jacob was a greedy money-monger (the stereotypical “Jewish” personality).

  5. Lee01  February 19, 2016 at 7:11 am

    Interesting article. Some thoughts it brought to mind I’d like to share:

    – The term “Jews” is highly misunderstood and confused. It can mean several different things.
    – Biblically, a “Jew” can mean a geographical resident of Judea.
    – Biblically, a “Jew” can be someone who practices the religion of The Traditions of the Elders, known today as Talmudism. “And many from the peoples of the country declared themselves Jews, for fear of the Jews had fallen on them.” Esther 8:17 ESV
    – Biblically, a “Jew” can be a genetic descendant of Judah, or an Israelite of the House of Judah. The correct term for this type of “Jew” is Judahite.
    – Todays so called “Jews”, mostly Khazars, have no genetic claim to the title Judahite. They have no Israelite blood. They are “Jews” by Talmudic religion only. They are proselytes.
    – The Khazarian “Jews” of today are a mixed race of people. The Biblical term for a mixed race people is “mamzer” (Strong’s H4464).
    – Sephardic “Jews” may have Israelite blood, but they are also mamzers. To say Sephardic Jews are true Jews because they may have Israelite blood is like saying Obama is white because his mother was white.

  6. Bear  February 18, 2016 at 9:56 am

    It’s not genetic. It may appear so, but that is because the sexual-trauma-based mind-control happens so very quickly following birth. For females it is more insidious. The powerful effect kicks in rather more slowly – the knowledge that it is the matrilineal aspect that makes one a jew. This is not all. They have powerful rituals that bind & create more power. Similar to Mayan blood-letting etc. & this also connects with aspects of Djinn. Here is where the psychopath/vampire is born & the soul is lost.

  7. John Kirby  February 18, 2016 at 8:19 am

    Blaise Pascal, (a mathematician no less) said :-

    “The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of”

    • Jonas E. Alexis  February 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

      John Kirby,

      Sorry to say it, but you slightly misstated Pascal’s point and the context in which he said this. He was not proposing irrationality or contradictory statements or even incoherent premises. I would challenge you to read the entire context. Pascal certainly knew that incoherent propositions would lead to chaos. How would you adjudicate competing theories if they all propound contradictory reports? Would they all be right?

  8. haroldsmith  February 17, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    “I have argued for years that if the Jewish behavior is genetic, then you cannot condemn it morally precisely because whatever happens genetically will inevitably happen consequently. As Richard Dawkins himself notes, ‘DNA neither cares nor knows’.”

    First, what aspect of Jewish behavior are you referring to? If you’re referring to the apparent genetic predisposition to do “evil”, then yes, it can be “morally” condemned.

    “From a Darwinian point of view, we are just “selfish genes.”[2] As science philosopher and popularizer Daniel Dennett has said, ‘We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all’.”

    Observation of human behavior (particularly the extremes of human behavior) and subsequent simple reasoning proves this statement wrong.

    “Moreover, the same ‘scientists’ who posit the claim that Jewish behavior is genetic also maintain that morality is an illusion. Some of those same “scientists” have been caught numerous times deliberately tampering with the data.”

    Strawman.

    “So, there is no morality, but people want to condemn the behavior on morality!”

    Of course there’s “morality”. If you say otherwise, please start with a definition of the term.

    “If people cannot see this obvious contradiction, then they are either working with a doctrine which does not allow them to think properly or they cannot understand reason.”

    There is no contradiction if all of the terms are properly defined.

  9. carsondyal  February 17, 2016 at 9:48 pm

    So, the rabboni Yeshu was God, though more properly, the Son of God the Father, and together with the Holy Ghost they constituted not three Gods but three Persons in one God, and Mary, a non-God gave birth to this Son of God even though she was a virgin. If this is your idea of logic pursued rigorously, Jonas, then the word has lost all its meaning.

  10. Jonas E. Alexis  February 17, 2016 at 7:55 pm

    Dave E.,

    Obviously you have not been paying careful attention to what was said in the article and what I have argued elsewhere, otherwise you wouldn’t have made the same mistake that David Duke is making. And this is part of my frustration with other people who claim to know some things about these issues. Let me try to summarize the points for you.

    If you are willing to compare giraffes’ behavior with that of human, then you must also accept the fact that giraffes basically have no morals. Darwin and his intellectual children, as I have repeatedly pointed out, deny morality, the very foundation of our discussion here. Animals do not act upon what Immanuel Kant would call practical reason. If you want to study similar issues in more details, see for example Michael Murray, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). By the way, there have been numerous studies done which contradict the very genetic stuff that you are talking about here. See for example Francis Collins, The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine (New York: Harper Perennial, 2010). Collins was the head of the genome project.

    Second, you took the affirmative position, namely, Jewish behavior is genetic. I am not under obligation to “prove” anything. You have to prove your point and it has to be coherent and rational. I had a similar discussion with a lawyer one year ago. When he posited an extraordinary claim, I simply asked, “What’s the evidence for that?” His response? “What’s the evidence that it isn’t so?” I couldn’t hold my laughter on that one because I could have come up with at least 10 unprovable and crazy ideas and asked him to disprove them.

    Furthermore, I did provide enough evidence to question the prevailing and erroneous claim that Jewish behavior is genetic. I even provided another article where I discussed how some scientists have tampered with the data. All this information was completely deleted from your presentation.

  11. Ramirez  February 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Perhaps he just feels it is his best tactic ? He is surely smarter than the average bear and retains facts well ?

    Good one again Jonas, no flies on you lad.

  12. Jonas E. Alexis  February 17, 2016 at 3:00 pm

    Sorry, Dave E. It pains me to correct you here, but you have already produced an enormous contradiction in the first part of your presentation. You stated that “there are some things that ‘logic’ simply cannot know.” But then you moved on to say that “Duke’s point is perfectly logical in the context of plausible theory…” Which is it?

    This reminds me of a man two years ago who told me that “logic and reason do not prove anything” and then wrote a painfully long paragraph pretentiously using “logic and reason” to prove his point.

    Second, you have brought up giraffes and goldfish here. You are postulating the same thing that the French Encyclopedists propounded during the French Revolution, which is to say that there is little difference between man and a giraffe or a lion or any other animal. But again whenever man acts like a shark by forcibly copulating on a lady, we all say that it is wrong. This again is a vital contradiction which can hardly be reconciled.

  13. Dan  February 17, 2016 at 2:56 pm

    MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology has had a disastrous influence on Duke, leaving him speaking at cross purposes as Jonas points out. The first sentence in that quote from Dr. Duke is baffling. Considering that the word “race” has diverse meanings beyond Caucasian etc, groups with similar physical and other traits, such as Polynesians, Germans, Eskimos, Khazars or Jews can uncontroversially be called a race. It therefore seems unlikely Jews would sell a Khazar race hoax to gullible Gentiles for the purpose of refuting it later, hoping to pull a rabbit out of the hat with new evidence they’re not in large measure descendants of the Khazars and for that reason alone they, the Jews, can’t be racists. Overall, however, he’s right on target if he’s arguing we shouldn’t go out on that limb, which is an unnecessary distraction from what the Jews are up to today.

  14. paul becke  February 17, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Acquaint yourself with uncommondescent.com, Dave, and you will learn Jonas is correct in stating that the secular fundamentalist/materialist/naturalist worldview is logically incoherent, undermining the validity of its own claims to reason and logic.

    Moreover DNA has been found to be nothing like as determinative as was thought in the past. Far from it. But another ‘killer blow’ to materialism, in addition to its logical self-refutation, is the fact that all matter is information-based. Matter, itself, is not primordial, but draws its substance from information. ‘In the beginning was the Word’, was how St John the Evangelist expressed it in his famous prologue.

  15. Altimometer  February 17, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    He brings his readers quite far but he leaves one astray when he claims every practicing judaic as genetically prone to perversion.

  16. nawlins  February 17, 2016 at 11:41 am

    “Social Darwinism” is itself a misnomer. It is a bastardization of a scientific theory begun by an industrialist in the last age. A logical idea twisted into a parody of itself.

    The idea that anyone who takes the bible literally in any way, shape, or form, can criticize logic! Yeah, they got a real good handle on logic and reason.

  17. Preston James, Ph.D  February 17, 2016 at 11:27 am

    This is an excellent article and 100% on the Mark in its conclusions about the unexpected effects of social Darwinism, the inconsistencies of logic associated with its use and the mistaken conclusion that Dr. David Duke comes to about Khazarian origins of the contemporary “Jew”. Jonas Alexis is correct that the Talmud is the source of the tribal racial superiority and it is now being promoted by folks whose history goes back to Khazarian. The current Jewish Supremacy was in fact created by the City of London Zionists who used the Work Camps in Germany during WW2 to create the “holocaust fable” and a racial ideology of “God’s chosen People” as an attempt to mold the Khazarians and the real Sephardic Hebrew groups into a single superior racial group marked by World rights to take control of everything. Instead they have become money-changers, cutouts and parasites upon America and many other nations. Sephardics are real Hebrew descendants and Khazarians are converts only to a weird form of perverted Judaism based on Babylonian Talmudism, not the Torah (Old Testament)

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH