…by Jonas E. Alexis
Let me just say in passing that if you are an average person and would like to understand what is going on in Gaza and how the Zionists constantly use double standards and manipulation, David Duke has enough good videos out there to help you:
As Jones puts it,
“If people like Abe Foxman, Binyamin Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson, and Al Goldstein didn’t exist, David Duke would have to invent them. Duke was rescued by the course of history and the revulsion which the entire world felt at Jews’ involvement in what looked like the whole gamut of cultural pathology from promoting usury at Goldman Sachs to promoting sodomy at NPR.
“And then there was the criminal state of Israel. If it weren’t for the Jews’ criminal use of white phosphorus on innocent Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead and countless other atrocities and war crimes before and since that event, Duke would be a minor footnote in the history of an obsolete racial ideology in America. Now he can rouse an audience anywhere in the world simply by reciting the crimes of the Jews….
“When Professors Walt and Mearsheimer released their book on the Israel Lobby, Duke claimed that his views had been vindicated.”
It requires no rigorous thinking to debunk Zionism, or “Jewish Supremacism,” as Duke would put it. In fact, Duke always does a decent job when Zionist cells such as CNN allow him to voice his opinion:
Double standards, genocide, black operation, deception, are all part of the grand scheme known as the revolutionary spirit, which the Dreadful Few have embraced since time immemorial. That spirit got its start at the foot of the cross and over the centuries has given birth to other subversive movements such as Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism, Maoism, Freudianism, Neoconservatism, Feminism, etc.
As Jones argues in his meticulously documented study, the revolutionary spirit has never died out, and over the centuries has jumped around from place to place and movement to movement and has even taken different forms and variations.
The spirit manifested itself briefly in fourteenth-century Spain when usury was used at an exorbitant rate, which ended up suppressing the peasants and provoking anti-Jewish reactions in the region. It sent shockwaves across much of Europe during the Hussite rebellion in the fifteenth century. It reached its pinnacle during the Peasant Revolt in the sixteenth century when judaizing Christians ended up smearing excrement on crucifixes and vandalizing and destroying churches and monasteries.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the revolutionary spirit produced false Jewish messiahs such as Shabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), who spearheaded the Sabbatean movement, and later produced staunch disciples and lesser known messiahs such as Barukhia Russo, Miguel Cardoso, Mordecai Mokia, Lobele Prossnitz, and Jacob Joseph Frank, compounding disaster on disaster. The Frankist movement itself turned into a complete diabolical mess when participants
“engaged in secret antinomian rites: they practiced necromancy, masturbated and then smeared the whole body with the semen, permitted or even encouraged incest, practiced wife swapping and group sex, advocated a complete sexual freedom, and ‘permitted perjury, theft, and adultery.”
The revolutionary spirit swept Europe in the nineteenth century with the rise of Marxism, which was the ideological brainchild of Karl Marx and Moses Hess. In the same century, the spirit also showed itself in much of Europe and sections in America in the sex industry—an enterprise which gave rise to Hitler’s negative conception of the Jews. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer of Princeton himself declares that Bolshevism drove Hitler into a bloody conflict with the Soviet Russia. In the same vein Jewish historian Richard Pipes admits that “The Jewish Holocaust turned out to be one of the many unanticipated and unintended consequences of the Russian Revolution.”
The spirit also had a great influence on the slavery business in the nineteenth century and beyond. In the twentieth century, the revolutionary spirit morphed in the psychoanalytic movement with Sigmund Freud as the founder, who brought “the plague” (Freud’s own words) to America in 1909. This gradually branched off into the obscenity scene in the 1920s and all the way to the 1940s in New York and other parts of the United States. This eventually gave birth to what one could call “Jewish cinema,” which was subtly communistic in its orientation.
Neal Gabler himself declared that “Hollywood was invaded by a battalion of Jewish writers” in the 1920s, and they “colonized the American imagination…Ultimately American values came to be defined largely by the movies the Jews made. Ultimately, by creating their idealized America on the screen, the Jews reinvented the country in the image of their fiction.”
Gabler goes on to say that the American Communist Party (CPUSA), which was under the control of Communist Russia at the time, “dispatched V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence to Hollywood to channel the inchoate political sentiment there…”
It was only a matter of time before Jerome was lecturing Hollywood writers on Marxist and Communist ideas. He declared that “agitprop drama was actually better drama because Marxists better understood the forces that shaped human beings, and could therefore write better characters.”
Jerome went on to emphasize that Hollywood is already fighting for the good causes, and “however worthless” the movies can be, “they contributed mightily to the Cause in the long run.” Gabler comments that “to a writer who already felt unappreciated, this was like evangelism to a redeemable sinner…It was the political equivalent of salvation.”
After spending “nine months of agitating in Hollywood, the Party had a firm hold in the film community; estimates range as high as three hundred members during the decade from 1936-1946—nearly half of them writers.”
Once the American imagination has been colonized, then the next step was pornography. Nathan Abrams himself admits,
““[O]lder generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”
In short, the revolutionary spirit has come and gone, but its ideological foundation remains the same: a complete rejection of the moral and political order. Zionism happens to be one of those movements. As previously said, Duke has done a decent job exposing that evil empire to the average person. After exposing that empire in one of his videos, Duke said,
“Now you know why the Zionists hate me so much. I share with the world their true barbarity….When the Zionist whores lecture you that the Jews of Israel have some kind of moral right to mass murder and genocide of the children of Gaza, [and] if you don’t feel like throwing up, something is the matter with you, my brother. Something is the matter with you. You need to fight in a way that reaches the mind and the heart, like I’m trying to do right now….
“Don’t be fooled by the lying Zio-media. I say stop this genocide in Gaza. Free Palestine! Free America, and free the world from the Zionist lies and tyranny!”
So far, so good.
But what is the alternative if Zionism or “Jewish Supremacism” is debunked and refuted? Well, Duke has a solution: Darwinism and biology. Biology, as he explains it to E. Michael Jones during their interaction last month in Mexico, is the bedrock upon which our behavior is based. Jones said,
“I remained unconvinced. He then talks about being a European, which leaves me even less impressed, unsure of what he means by Europe. Is Europe Nietzsche or St. Thomas Aquinas? Is it Mother Teresa or Lazar Kaganovich?
“According to an account I read in the German magazine Stern on my way to Tehran, 50,000 Europeans have joined forces with ISIS in Iraq, where they are now beheading both Christians and Shi’a Muslims. The first person the Stern reporter met when he arrived at ISIS headquarters was a German by the name of Christian, who has now taken a Muslim name.
“Christian asked the reporter whether he would like to witness a beheading, either of a Christian or a Shi’a Muslim. The reporter declined, but the bigger question remains: why is Christian now working for ISIS? The answer is Nietzsche, the white guy, and nihilism, which knows no boundaries, and the will to power, which both Asharite Muslims and nihilistic Europeans share as a common ideology.”
This is a valid point, and one can easily replace Nietzsche with people like Marquis de Sade, Shelley, Guy de Maupassant, Jean Paul Sartre, Arthur Schopenhauer, Aldous Huxley, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead, Aleister Crowley, John Lennon, Mike Jagger, Timothy Leary, etc.
“During our walk, I recount the story of Sam Francis hosting BNP founder John Tyndall at a conference in Washington, DC, at which Tyndall, trying to convince the attendees of the benefits of being white guys, mentioned the glories of Elizabethan England.
“At this point Gerry Bruen and I looked at each other from across the room and entertained the same thought. Wasn’t this the time when Catholics could get hanged for attending Mass? Wasn’t this precisely what happened to the Jesuit St. Edmund Campion, whose gruesome death defies description?
“It was Gerry who asked Tyndall whether the Irish were white, and it was Gerry’s question which prompted the late Sam Francis to ask if Jews were white, to which a bemused Mr. Tyndall replied, ‘I don’t know.’
“With this incident in the back of my mind, I announced to David that I’m not white. White is an identity marker for the deracinated people who have no religion. Marius, a recent immigrant from Romania and even more recent convert to Orthodoxy, nods in agreement.
“Not only am I not white, I am biracial as well. My forebears came from Germany and Ireland. That makes me decidedly not English, certainly if my genes determine my behavior, as David seems to indicate.
“Although my forebears came from Germany and Ireland, my ethnic identity is American Catholic. I am a typical product of the Triple Melting Pot, the sociological theory which claims that, after three generations, religion (in America the options are Protestant, Catholic, and Jew) replaces country of origin as the source of ethnic identity.
“America, as I have said all over the world, is like Yugoslavia; it is a country made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions, all of whom have been involved in covert cultural warfare with each other since they arrived on these shores.
“The conversation then drifts into a discussion of Newtonian physics, which he defends. Duke is a man who believes in ‘science,’ which is to say, the use of physics, biology, and economics to rationalize the expansion of British capitalism throughout the world. Duke the polymath struggles with the related concepts of violent motion, telos, and divine providence.
“‘The normal form of motion always involves telos or goal,’ I say, trying to get a word in edgewise. ‘Motion involves the transition from an acorn to an oak. Newton made violent motion the paradigm for all motion because it was the perfect description of the actions of William of Orange, the usurper whom the Whigs put on the throne in England. The impetus for all motion now came from without. There was no telos. All motion was a function of human will and intention.’
“My reference to the telos involved in an acorn becoming an oak prompted Duke to start talking about Newton sitting under an apple tree and universal laws of motion, an idea that was at best beside the point. His Ukrainian Doctorate notwithstanding, David was having a difficult time understanding that Newton’s redefinition of all motion as violent motion was a piece of metaphysical sleight of hand that continued to produce evil consequences, the most evil being the world-wide hegemony of Capitalism.
“It was Kant who broke the hold of the English Ideology over the European mind, and it was Hegel who finished that rout by resurrecting classical Christian concepts like divine providence by restating them in the (admittedly somewhat opaque) language of the German Enlightenment.
“Hegel was crucial to our discussion and David’s inability to understand him (or my inability to convey his ideas) would remain a major roadblock to any meeting of the minds for the duration of the conference.”
Now I understand why I couldn’t get a rigorous response to the issues that I raised in my previous articles. After I wrote those three articles and read some of the responses by Duke and Patrick Slattery, I honestly kept wondering,
“Does Duke really understand the Darwinian paradigm? If so, why can’t he see the internal and unlivable contradiction in the system and answer the actual challenge? How can he not see that Darwinian metaphysics and indeed Zionism are cut-throat competitions and arguably concentric circles? And how is it that he is not fleeing from that morally repugnant ideology?”
As we shall develop in more detail at the end of summer, some biologists and anthropologists even argue that rape is logically consistent with the Darwinian model, which at its core is deterministic. How will Duke argue with this “science”? How will he summon the moral law to debunk those biologists and anthropologists when the Darwinian ideology does not have room for the moral law or free will? Here is again biology philosopher Michael Ruse:
“I appreciate when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves…Nevertheless, to a Darwinian evolutionist it can be seen that such reference is truly without foundation.
“Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…an ephemeral product of the evolutionary process, just as are other adaptations. It has no existence or being beyond this, and any deeper meaning is illusory.”
In the same vein, Massimo Pilgliucci, evolutionary biologist and Chair of the Department of Philosophy at the University of New York, stated unambiguously,
“There is no such thing as objective morality. We got that straightened out. Morality in human cultures has evolved and is still evolving, and what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean.”
Richard Dawkins adds in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference…”
So, Duke did not get the moral law which he is trying to impose on the Israeli regime and indeed on the entire Zionist empire from Darwin or his intellectual contemporaries or children like Thomas Huxley and Francis Galton. In fact, Darwin, to his dying day, could not solve that moral puzzle and had to retire in the land of contradiction.
I was not surprised, then, when Duke did not seem to understand the problem or the issues when he or Slattery answered my article and struggled mightily to wiggle out of that moral equation. In fact, no one after Darwin ever solved the problem without coming face to face with illogical leaps and an avalanche of contradictions.
Toward the latter part of The Descent of Man, Darwin clearly understood that his “survival of the fittest” principle, which really is a clumsy way of postulating tautology, 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.”
Here we see again and again that Darwin and Jewish ideology end up locking themselves in the same ideological building block. Each “race” and group tend to proclaim that they are the “chosen ones.” Keep in mind that the subtitle of Darwin’s Origin of Species is “the preservation of the favoured races in the struggle for life.”
If Duke fails to understand the Darwinian paradigm, leading British intellectuals and writers during the early part of the twentieth century did not. They quickly digested Darwin’s idea with great speed and spread it through eugenics and Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer for example declared,
“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.”
According to the Darwinian principle, the “savage races” are those still at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder. “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.” There is no doubt that Social Darwinism is 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.”
This brings us again to a central point: Darwin’s intellectual children cannot logically condemn Zionism or “Jewish Supremacism” or “Jewish Extremism” without contradicting themselves or without leaving Darwin’s ideology in a dumpster.
If survival of the fittest is actually true, aren’t Zionists or the Dreadful Few thriving to survive, eliminating rival competitions through deceptive means and preserving the “chosen ones”?
Once again, no serious Darwinist has ever been able to get out of that internal contradiction without abandoning Darwin’s central thesis. Darwin himself was confronted with that 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.”
Darwin indeed abhorred things like slavery, “Yet he could not pretend to deduce his political principles from his scientific theories…” Darwin died in 1882, and by 1900 intellectuals around the political spectrum quickly picked up where he left off and advanced his ideas to other territories. Mathematician and eugenicist Karl Pearson proclaimed in 1900:
“This dependence of progress on the survival of the fitter race, terribly black as it may seem to some of you, gives the struggle for existence its redeeming features; it is the fiery crucible out of which comes the finer metal.
“[When wars cease] mankind will no longer progress [for] there will be nothing to check the fertility of inferior stock; the relentless law of heredity will not be controlled and guided by natural selection.”
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.”
Darwin himself said:
“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.”
If we follow this principle consistently, the Israeli regime has every right to slaughter the Palestinians. This is the point that I tried to raise in a previous article, and Duke and his protégé Patrick Slattery could not answer that in a logical manner. Slattery responded that “I wish he [Alexis] hadn’t entertained thoughts like that.”
Why not? If Darwin is right, can Slattery and Duke seriously maintain that Zionism or “Jewish Supremacism” is wrong? Are they basing this conclusion on Darwin? If not, what are the criteria and parameters?
Finally, and as I pointed out in another article, if biology determines our behavior, why would Duke be upset when the Dreadful Few are landing on Palestinian bodies and crush them? When I made this point a few months ago, one reader told me that I was wrong. As a counterargument, he said that some scientific studies show that there is a genetic basis for people who have problems with alcohol, but alcoholics should be able to control their behavior.
I was not really persuaded by that explanation, but the argument itself assumes that man is more than matter and chemistry. In other words, if a person should be able to control his behavior, then man is not a robot. Then next logical step is that there is something called the mind that cannot be reduced to chemical properties or physical descriptions. As Sir John Eccles accurately put it, there is a “ghost”—the real person—that tells the brain what to do. The brain, Eccles says, “is a machine that a ghost can operate.”
The fact is that Darwinian metaphysics denies that “ghost.” Let us summon Daniel Dennett once again:
“We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all. We are made from robots, and composed of robots, and all the intentionality we enjoy is derived from the more fundamental intentionality of these billions of crude intentional system.”
Richard Dawkins adds: “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”
Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick dogmatically asserts in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis:
“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
Richard Dawkins makes the same assumption when he argues that the universe is “just electrons and selfish genes,” therefore “meaningless tragedies…are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune.”
If Duke hasn’t gotten a grip of this, then he needs to consult the literature—and he needs to do so pretty quickly. If not, then surely he will be left behind. A decent man like him needs to be rescued from moral and intellectual oblivion.
 E. Michael Jones, “Ethnos Needs Logos: Or Why I Spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Convince David Duke to Become a Catholic,” Culture Wars, June 2015.
 E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008).
 See for example Matt Goldish, The Sabbatean Prophets (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004); Gershom Gerhard Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976).
 Pawel Maciejko, The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 249.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, chapter 13.
 See Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery, 1870-1939 (New York: Schocken, 1983).
 See Arno J. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The “Final Solution” in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).
 Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 258.
 See Jay A. gertzman, Bookleggers and Smuthounds: the Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999); Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014).
 Neal Gabler, An Empire of their Own, 1-2, 5-6.
 Gabler, An Empire of their Own, 329.
 Ibid., 330.
 Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 72.
 Jones, “Ethnos Needs Logos: Or Why I Spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Convince David Duke to Become a Catholic,” Culture Wars, June 2015.
 Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).
 Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications (New York: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.
 Here is how it goes. How did it survive? Well, because it is the fittest. How do you know it is the fittest? Because it survived! Serious Darwinists indeed know this is plain tautology. People like Michael Shermer try to circumvent that tautology by saying that “Sometimes tautologies are the beginning of science, but they are never the end. Gravity can be tautological, but its reference I justified by the way this theory allows scientists to accurately predict physical effects and phenomena.” Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1997), 143. In a similar vein, Mayr writes: “What Darwin says, and I agree, is that it is the possession of certain characteristics which determines evolutionary success and that such characteristics have, at least in part, a genetic basis. An individual property that has these genetic properties will survive and reproduce with a much greater probability than another that lacks them. It is obvious that this correct formulation is not at all tautological.” Ernst Mayr, Evolution and the Diversity of Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976 and 1997), 13. Perhaps chemist and Nobel Prize winner Manfred Eigen would have had a good laugh about those guys trying to circumvent what one ought to call a square circle. Eigen wrote: “One day my Japanese colleague and friend, Motoo Kimura, came to me and asked me [a] question. He said, as I remember, ‘Manfred, shouldn’t we reformulate the Darwinian principle as ‘the survival of the luckiest’? My answer was: ‘Yes, Motoo, we may do so; but then we have to add that the ‘luckiest’ always has to be a member of the very elite club of the fittest.’” Manfred Eigen, From Strange Simplicity to Complex Familiarity: A Treatise on Matter, Information, Life and Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 195.
 Darwin, The Descent of Man, 112.
 For further study on this, 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).
 Quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1962), 317.
 Ibid., 326.
 Ibid., 318.
 Ibid., 319.
 Ibid., 321.
 Ibid., 320.
 Darwin, Origin of Species, 459.
 John Eccles, The Neurophysical Basis of the Mind (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953), 285.
 Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin, 2003), 2-3; Daniel C. Dennett, Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 55.
 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), xxi.
 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 3.
 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 132.
 This could have been one reason why Jones was trying to convince him to become a Catholic.