“What is good? Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man. What is evil? Whatever springs from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome.”—Friedrich Nietzsche
…by Jonas E. Alexis
I bought David Duke’s My Awakening last month. I did so because I wanted to make sure that I do not misrepresent his position or misread what he is actually saying. After reading the major chapters, however, I simply could not hold my laughter precisely because he agreed with what I was saying about his worldview.
Yet he gave the impression that he disagreed with the conclusions that I was drawing, when in fact his own premises inexorably lead to those conclusions. Here we are going to discuss some of those points, and please put on your thinking cap in order to examine the issues carefully.
In a previous article, I did say specifically that Zionism and Darwinism are arguably concentric circles. Now listen to Duke in My Awakening:
“One of the first history books my father gave me to read in grade school was H.G. Wells’ classic The Outline of History. Its theme is the rise and fall of nations. A great people arise having intelligence, strength and ambition.
“They create a powerful society and conquer their less fit neighbors. And then begins a process of absorbing the conquered in their nation-state. The traits that originally led them to victory and dominance are lost as they gradually absorb the defeated population.
“Invariably the process begins again, and another people come on the scene and conquer, only to once more be absorbed by those they had vanquished. Such a pattern was obvious to me in studying the Americas, but now, as I read more history, it became obvious to me that the race factor is present in the rise and fall of every civilization…
“The only real justification for the survival of a nation is a racial one—the survival of that specific population as a distinct genetic entity, as a source for the next generation. Otherwise, such a nation would not be worth defending in a world of many nations.”
Has Duke read Charles Murray’s “The Jewish Genius”? Duke cites The Bell Curve in his book, but he does not mention that Murray and his co-author Richard J. Herrnstein argue that Jews “test higher than any other ethnic group.”
Doesn’t Duke argue throughout his book that, through eugenics, we have to preserve the smart people? If so, why not the Dreadful Few, who are pillaging and plundering America through covert means?
Moreover, isn’t the Israeli regime preserving its “racial realities” and the genetic makeup of the Dreadful Few there by destroying Palestinian homes and slaughtering innocent men, women and children? Doesn’t the Darwinian ideology predict that this would be the case? How does Duke fail to see that his idea is implicitly and subtly supporting the Zionist regime in the Middle East?
If “civilization was ultimately the product of biology,” as Duke asserts, how will Duke stop the “Chosen People,” the “Jewish Genius,” from landing on Palestinian bodies? If the Israeli regime continues to torture and torment Palestinian children, can Duke logically condemn this wicked activity and still remain a committed Darwinian?
In addition, if criminal behavior is inherited or genetic and is not a deviation from the moral law, how can Duke really condemn that behavior? If he does condemn it, on what grounds? Where did he get that moral law and who gave him the license to impose it on others? Darwin? Again, does he not know that the Darwinian ideology proposes cut-throat competitions?
“Is the Jewish behavior pattern a product of cultural institutions such as Judaism and its secular offspring, Zionism, or is there something in their genotype that inclined them to the consistent behaviors that they have exhibited across greatly differing cultures over three millennia?”
Duke’s answer is that there is something in their genotype that causes them to act the way they do. “There seems little doubt that Jews are indeed very different from Europeans and that they had maintained that genetic difference for a very long time,” Duke tells us.
Once again, Duke never tells us how Jesus, Paul, and Jews who became Christians or upheld the moral law and docility got rid of their wicked DNA. I wonder how Nicholas Donin got rid of his. Mortimer Adler, arguably one of the most trenchant philosophers and logicians in the last century, got rid of his wicked DNA as well.
Perhaps Duke needs to give people like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Henry Makow, James Perloff, Norman Finkelstein, John J. Mearsheimer, and Brother Nathanael Kapner a call and ask them about how they fixed their genotype. That would be a valuable research for his next edition of My Awakening.
“Just as two species of animals occupying a particular geographic area naturally develop a group evolutionary strategy to compete for resources, so human groups can do the same thing—even in the civilized societies.”
I couldn’t help but laugh a bit here. Once again, how can Doctor Duke seriously say that he is not happy with the way that the Israeli regime is treating the Palestinians? Did he thoroughly revisit My Awakening before he started criticizing the Israeli regime?
If we follow his premise to its logical conclusion, “evolutionary” hypotheses predict that different groups will compete for resources, and Darwin tells us that the strongest groups will thrive and wipe out the weakest ones.
If Duke does not like that or takes issues with it, then we have to conclude that he is either dishonest or does not understand Darwin or the evolutionary tale he is proposing in My Awakening. Let me quote him in full in order to show the connection between his view and the Zionist machination in the Middle East:
“Two schools of eugenic thought arose: positive eugenics and negative eugenics. What is called positive eugenics is simply encouraging the best to procreate. Teddy Roosevelt was its best known advocate. It could be characterized by generous tax breaks for taxpayers with children so that these generally competent members of the population are not penalized for having children while the indigent are financially rewarded for having them. It means letting those of achievement know that no matter how impressive their work, nothing exceeds the importance of passing down their inherent abilities and talents to the next generation.
“It means that when a spouse is infertile and the couple opts for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, that they should select from the most genetically gifted of donors. Positive eugenics can also mean finding a way to let a career woman have children without penalizing her professionally or economically.
“Negative eugenics means no longer financing welfare illegitimacy, and encouraging recipients’ responsibility not to bring unwanted children into the world. It means encouraging those with serious genetic defects to adopt or utilize artificial or in vitro fertilization.
“It means protecting our borders from Third Worlders and stopping foreign aid to the Third World unless they agree to responsibility in regard to overpopulation. These policies will greatly lesson future human suffering and help preserve the Earth’s ecosystem—as well as aiding those nations to create higher standards for their own people.
“One of my interviewers, Evelyn Rich, once told me an amusing story about her mother in Scotland. It seems that whenever her mom gets an appeal for a donation to feed the starving of some Third World country, she simply places a condom in the return envelope and mails it back. Enough said…
“Both the positive and negative variety of eugenics are keys to not only advancing the health, intellectual capacities and desirable characteristics of mankind; they are truly the way to achieve the lessening of human pain and suffering.
“Not only will our future generations be born with fewer hereditary defects and diseases, but we can also have more productive and creative people from everyone benefits. To insure that fewer children will have to endure impairment is a truly humanitarian cause. And when fewer are born that way, more resources are available for better care of those who do bear infirmities.”
If Doctor Duke cannot see the connection between Zionism and the ideas that he is proposing here, then there is again dishonest or does not understand his own view. Throughout his book, he never chastises his intellectual father, Charles Darwin, for his horrible views. Here is what Darwin said:
“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.”
Ideologically, Darwin would have been pleased with the following news (though morally he probably would have backed off from what he had intellectually committed himself to):
“An Israeli human rights organization, Gisha, sued in Israeli courts to force the release of a planning document for ‘putting the Palestinians on a diet’ without risking the bad press of mass starvation, and the courts concurred. The document, produced by the Israeli army, appears to be a calculation of how to make sure, despite the Israeli blockade, that Palestinians got an average of 2279 calories a day, the basic need.
“But by planning on limiting the calories in that way, the Israeli military was actually plotting to keep Palestinians in Gaza (half of them children) permanently on the brink of malnutrition, what health professionals call ‘food insecurity.’
“And, it was foreseeable that sometimes they would slip into malnutrition, since not as many trucks were always let in every day as the Israeli army recommended (106 were recommended, but it was often less in the period 2007-2010).
“The food blockade had real effects. About ten percent of Palestinian children in Gaza under 5 have had their growth stunted by malnutrition.
“A recent report [pdf] by Save the Children and Medical Aid for Palestinians found that, in addition, anemia is widespread, affecting over two-thirds of infants, 58.6 percent of schoolchildren, and over a third of pregnant mothers.”
The questions we are faced again and again are simple. Who is going to determine who is weak and strong? Who is going to decide who has to live and die? David Duke? The Dreadful Few? Sigmund Freud? What are the objective parameters?
Well, Nobel Prize winner Alexis Carrel answers those questions for us when he declared that so-called lunatics, imbeciles, and criminals “should be humanely and economically disposed of in small euthanasic institutions supplied with proper gases.”
Duke seems to have noticed that the eugenics movement had a horrible past, therefore he distances himself from talking about its history. He only tells us that “the eugenic idea and ideal had the endorsement of many of the leading lights of Western Civilization,” but he never tells us what happened to states and countries which ended up following that ideology at the expense of the poor and defenseless.
To support this claim, Duke summons people like John Maynard Keynes, Teddy Rosevelt, Arthur James Balfour, and even Winston Churchill. This poor and goofy argument renders Duke’s intellectual project immobile for the very fact that most of those people were flaming Zionists. The Jerusalem Post itself declared that Churchill was “a leading Gentile Zionist who contributed to the establishment of the state of Israel.” Others, like Julian Huxley, Sir Arthur Keith, George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Well, were highly preoccupied with or influenced by Darwin’s ideas.
Moreover, surely Duke knows that it was Roosevelt and Churchill who aligned with Stalin to literally liquidate the poor German civilians after World War II. If we take Duke’s logic seriously here, Roosevelt and Churchill did a great job because they were applying the eugenics ideology to the Germans. With respect to Arabs, Churchill said, “I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes.” Churchill also wanted to gas the Germans. After pondering upon this issue for a while, he said,
“It is absurd to consider morality on this topic. I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people, and not by psalm-singing uniformed defeatists.”
Doesn’t Duke owe both the Arabs and the Germans an apology for summoning Churchill to support his eugenics project here?
We all know that both Roosevelt and Churchill thought that they were doing humanity a great service by eliminating those “useless” Germans. Churchill, like Duke, was “profoundly impressed by Darwinism” and took Darwin’s survival of the fittest very seriously. In fact, Churchill “took a particular dislike, for some reason, to the Catholic Church, as well as Christian missions.”
“From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany.
“This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone’s interpretation of international law except Britain’s, it was illegal…
“But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions by which men have tried to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill…About 750,000 German civilians succumbed to hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition..
“The effect on those who survived was perhaps just as frightful in its own way. A historian of the blockade concluded: ‘the victimized youth [of World War I] were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism.’
In 1915, after provoking other nations to get into World War I, Churchill declared, “I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment—and yet—I cannot help it—I love every second I live.”
Churchill wanted to literally destroyed Germany because he thought that Germany was the cause of evil in the world (he turned his wrath of Stalin later). He declared in 1943,
“The twin roots of all our evils, Nazi Germany and Prussian militarism, must be extirpated. Until this is achieved, there are no sacrifices we will not make and no lengths in violence to which we will not go.”
“Churchill even had a hand in the barrage of pro-British, anti-German propaganda that issued from Hollywood in the years before the United States entered the war.”
When Stalin and other Communist leaders were creating hell in Europe in Bolshevik slaughter houses, perceptive observers began to get upset. Yet again Churchill’s response was stunning:
“Why are we making a fuss about the Russian deportations in Rumania of Saxons [Germans] and others?…
“I cannot see the Russians are wrong in making 100 or 150 thousand of these people work their passage….
“I cannot myself consider that it is wrong of the Russians to take Rumanians of any origin they like to work in the Russian coal-fields.”
The British Royal Navy, under Churchill’s command, “imposed upon Germany a starvation blockade that violated all previous norms of civilized warfare.”
“Herbert Hoover opposed the blockade, as did Pope Benedict XV, but Churchill was unmoved. Under normal circumstances Germany needed to import one-quarter of the food it consumed. Those normal circumstances had been exacerbated by the war and the blockade.
“When the Kaiser requested permission to buy 2.5 million tons of food, Churchill denied the request because his aim, in his own words was to ‘starve the whole population—men, women and children, old and young, wounded and sound—into submission.’
“On March 3, 1919, ‘four months after Germany had accepted an armistice and laid down her arms,’ Churchill told the House of Commons that, ‘We are enforcing the blockade with rigour, and Germany is very near starvation.’
“It was another four months before the starvation blockade was lifted on July 12, 1919. In December 1918 the German Board of Public Health claimed that 763,000 Germans had died because of the blockade.
“In April 1919 Dr. Max Rubner claimed that another 100,000 German civilians had died following the armistice but that figure did not include the Germans who died between April and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in July, so the number of Germans who died from Winston Churchill’s starvation blockade most probably approximate the number of Irish who died during the Great Famine.”
Summoning Balfour to support his eugenics plan was also a poor choice of word for Duke:
“The war with Germany was a war for trade, as Balfour made clear when he said: ‘We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.’
“When someone countered Balfour’s assertion by saying, ‘If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder,’ Balfour could only counter fantastically, ‘That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war….Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.’”
Roosevelt was no better. He wrote to biologist and eugenic crusader Charles B. Davenport saying,
“Some day, we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of good citizen of the right type, is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.”
Why doesn’t Duke let his readers know those things? Why does he cite people who support his views and then does not go on to tell us what they actually believe? Is that fair? Is this the “science” that he has been talking about all along? Once again, Duke writes that
“Woman’s Movement pioneers such as Margaret Sanger and many others wrote and spoke of the need for eugenics to improve the quality of the race and lessen the numbers who would be born suffering from deliberating mental and physical hereditary conditions.”
Yet throughout his book, Duke never addresses the worldview under which Sanger and others were operating. Sanger herself said: “More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.” Julian Huxley, whom Duke cites approvingly, declared,
“We must be able to pick up the genetically inferior stocks with more certainty, and we must set in motion counter-forces making for faster reproduction of superior stocks.”
What happened when you “pick up the genetically inferior stocks”? Well, look no further. Huxley has an answer:
“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilization.”
Huxley was not alone. As we have seen elsewhere, the leading intellectuals who promoted social Darwinism took Darwinian principles to their logical conclusions. John D. Rockefeller, William Graham Sumner, and others understood Darwin’s natural selection perfectly well, and applied it to the “inferior races” and the “undesirables.”
By the early 1900s, the principle of social Darwinism had reached America.
“Indiana passed the first laws allowing sterilization of the mentally ill and criminally insane; by the late 1920s twenty-eight American states and one Canadian province had followed suit, enacting legislation that resulted in the sterilization of some 15,000 individuals before 1930—many of them against their will and most while incarcerated in prisons or homes for the mentally ill.
“By 1939 more than 30,000 people in twenty-nine American states had been sterilized on eugenic grounds; nearly half the operations (12,941) were carried out in California.”
Moreover, strict laws were passed in many parts of the country, “according to which idiots, the insane, and individuals suffering from gonorrhea or syphilis were not allowed to marry and could be punished with fines up to $1,000 or prison terms up to five years for violating the statutes.”
During the same era,
“Eugenics advocates lobbied for legislation to prevent those with undesirable gens from reproducing, and in 1907 Indiana adopted the first law providing for the forced sterilization of mental patients, prisoners, and paupers. Twenty-nine states ultimately adopted forced-sterilization laws, and more than 60,000 genetically ‘deficient’ Americans were sterilized.
“In 1927 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sterilization laws in the notorious case of Buck v. Bell. The case involved Carrie Buck, a seventeen-year-old unwed mother who had been committed to a Virginia home for the feebleminded and ordered to undergo sterilization. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion for the eight-to-one majority upholding the sterilization law:
“‘We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices….
“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.’
“Referring to the fact that Carrie Buck’s mother and, allegedly, her daughter were also found to be mentally deficient, Holmes concluded: ‘Three generations of imbeciles are enough.’”
Having examined the ideologies behind the social Darwinism movement, G. K. Chesterton rightly labeled it “the survival of the nastiest.”
While Darwin may not have wanted to take his own philosophies to their furthest application, others in history have not been so squeamish. Basing their actions on the irrefutable “truth” of the survival of the fittest, they created a system of social Darwinism, eventually leading to active eugenics programs.
As previously said, Duke cites people approvingly in My Awakening without examining their metaphysical worldview. We have already given many examples. Let us give more. He summons Charles Darwin to develop his thesis that natural selection “had developed the exceptional abilities of mankind itself.”
What Duke does not seem to understand here is that natural selection does not have the power to create something new—it only works with information that is already present in a system. For example, a jackass has the information in its gene pool to produce four legs, but it does not have the capacity to produce a wing or a beak, as these are not natural jackass traits. Therefore, natural selection cannot create something like David Duke’s brain and genes; it can only work after his brain and genes are already in existence.
This brings us to a crucial point here: using natural selection to prove the existence of things like the mind is arguing in circle. Natural selection is very inadequate in this case. Even evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch, writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, admits that natural selection does not seem to give a sufficient or satisfying answer for “the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.”
Darwin himself would have perceived that point. He said:
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
In the same vein, biology philosopher Michael Ruse argued that Thomas Huxley, commonly known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” “always had doubts about the overall effectiveness of natural selection.” But, as biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University points out, “in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Another point that needs to be discussed quite briefly here is that Darwin’s grand theory (what is now called macro-evolution) is much more philosophical and political than scientific. Many scientists have been fired for simply mentioning that macro-evolution does not provide a serious mechanism for life on earth. Caroline Cracker, who has her Ph.D. in immunopharmacology, happened to mention intelligent design in a cell biology classroom at George Mason University.Cracker lost her job, and was subsequently unable to find another job anywhere!
Richard Von Sterngerb, who has a Ph.D. in Molecular Evolution and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Biology, lost his prestigious job at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History because he published a paper by Stephen C. Meyer (Ph.D. from Cambridge) that suggested intelligent design might be able to explain the origin of life. Sternberg had previously published more than thirty articles in scientific books. In Sternberg’s own words, “I was viewed as an intellectual terrorist.”
Michael Egnor, MD, from Columbia University and professor at State University of New York, wrote an essay to high school students saying that doctors do not need evolution to practice medicine. He received many threats from Darwinists, and some even called his university suggesting that it was time for him to retire.
Robert J. Marks II, Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Baylor University, was a tenured professor. Yet as soon as the university found out that he mentioned intelligent design in his website, the university immediately shut it down and asked him to return his grant money.
Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez is the co-author of the book The Privileged Planet. Although a distinguished scholar, the theme of the book put his quest for tenure in hot water. This is more bad news:
“At San Francisco State University, tenured biology professor Dean Kenyon was removed from teaching introductory biology classes in the early 1990s. Once an influential proponent of Darwinian evolution, Kenyon had come to doubt key parts of Darwin’s theory and expressed those doubts to students in class, including his belief that some biological features exhibited evidence of intelligent design. Kenyon was luckier than most academic critics of Darwin; after his plight was publicized by an article in the Wall Street Journal, his university was shamed into reinstating him.
“Oregon community college instructor Kevin Haley was terminated in 2000 after it became known that he criticized evolution in his freshman biology classes…
“In 2003, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed from her post as head of the science and math division of Mississippi University for Women after she delivered a lecture to honors students about some of the scientific weaknesses of chemical and biological evolution. ‘Students at my college got the message very clearly, do not ask any questions about Darwinism.’
“Also in 2005, Ohio State University doctoral candidate Bryan Leonard had his dissertation defense put in limbo after three pro-Darwin professors filed a bogus complaint attacking Leonard’s dissertation research as ‘unethical human subject experimentation.’
“Leonard’s dissertation project looked at how students changed after students were taught scientific evidence for and against modern evolutionary theory. The complaining professors admitted that they had not actually read Leonard’s dissertation. But they were sure it must be unethical. Why? Because there is no valid evidence against evolutionary theory.”
Kenyon in particular was the co-author of the book Biochemical Predestination, in which he argued for a Darwinian view of life. But once he began to have serious doubts about his own view and eventually co-wrote Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, which argues that the Darwinian paradigm is insufficient to explain life on earth, the university decided that he needed to be excommunicated, despite the fact that he was already tenured.
So much for academic freedom.
The big question is this: since natural selection cannot be used to explain things like the mind, how did the mind get here in the first place? Darwin never answered that question. In fact, he never discussed the origin of species in his ambitious work The Origin of Species. Explaining how a computer work, for example, does not answer the question as to how it got here in the first place. After Darwin, numerous individuals began to propose that life got here by chance. Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod wrote back in 1971,
“Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.”
These assertions are quite dazzling, but when asked for empirical, testable evidence, Darwinian evolution is silent. Moreover, if chance is the mother of all inventions, how did Monod trust his thoughts and reasoning? And does David Duke believe in all this pseudo-intellectual drivel? He takes evolution as a given but never addresses its metaphysical problem.
Duke writes that
“It is comforting to note that the two Galileos of the modern age, Dr. William Shockley (the transistor), and Dr. James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA Double Helix) have expressed the racial understanding expressed in this book.”
To support his claim, Duke declares that Watson “has supported Eugenics. It is wonderful thing for all our people to know that the two leading scientists of the modern age, Shockley and Watson, have the same core beliefs as presented by this book.” Here is what Duke did not tell his readers. Watson says:
“If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.”
So, what do you do when you have a disease? Don’t you try to get rid of it by any means? Here again is Watson’s solution:
“The lower 10 per cent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what’s the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, ‘Well, poverty, things like that.’ It probably isn’t. So I’d like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent.”
“A few years earlier, Watson had stirred controversy by saying that, if a gene for homosexuality were discovered, a pregnant woman who did not want a homosexual child should be free to abort a fetus that carried it.
“When his remark provoked an uproar, he replied that he was not singling out gays but asserting a principle: women should be free to abort fetuses for any reason of genetic preference—whether testing showed the child would be born dyslexic or lacking musical talent or too short to play basketball.”
Is that what Duke has been proposing? If he disagrees with Watson here, why didn’t he point it out in his book? Why does he keep citing people who agree with him but never reveal those people’s ideological foundation? Why has he led people into this trap for years? And more importantly, why haven’t some of his readers point out that the emperor actually has no clothes?
As it turns out, David Duke is quite dishonest. His overarching project is dead beyond resuscitation. I still believe that he is right on Gaza and the Middle East, but his metaphysical weltanschauung with respect to Darwin and the application of the moral law is quite embarrassing. It is so embarrassing that Duke cannot seem to think beyond his own worldview. He brags that
“Aryans swept over the Himalayas to the Indian subcontinent and conquered the aboriginal people. The original term India was coined by the Aryan invaders from their Sanskrit word Sindu, for the river now is called the Indus.”
So, Duke believes in Darwin’s survival of the fittest after all. He gives flowery distinctions throughout his book, but the end result is the same: the strongest survives and the weakest must be eliminated.
When Friedrich Nietzsche left his Lutheran upbringing behind, he soon discovered that he had to embrace a new identity. He found it in the “Superman” or “Aryan.” He wrote at the beginning of The Anti-Christ: “Let us look at each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans…”
When Duke left his Methodist upbringing behind, he embraced a similar weltanschauung. In fact, he devoted an entire chapter in his book talking about the “Aryan vision.” Why did H. G. Well, one of Duke’s heroes, did not believe in the bright “Aryan vision” toward the latter part of his life? Wells wrote:
“To a watcher in some remote entirely alien cosmos, if we may assume that impossibility, it might well seem that extinction is coming to man like a brutal thunderclap of Halt!…We may be spinning more and more swiftly into the vortex of extinction, but we do not apprehend as much…A harsh queerness is coming over things and rushes past what we have hitherto been wont to consider the definite limits of hard fact. Hard fact runs away from analysis and does not return.”
Wells expanded on this view this way:
“The searching skepticism of the writer’s philosophical analysis has established this Antagonist as invincible reality for him, but, all over the earth and from dates immemorial, introspective minds, minds of the quality of the brooding Shakespeare, have conceived a disgust of the stresses, vexations and petty indignities of life and taken refuge from its apprehension of a conclusive end to things, in mystical withdrawal.
“On the whole mankind has shown itself tolerant, sympathetic and respectful to such retreats. That is the peculiar human element in this matter; the recurrent refusal to be satisfied with the normal real world.
“The question ‘Is this All?’ has troubled countless unsatisfied minds throughout the ages, and—at the end of our tether, as it seems—here it is, still baffling but persistent. To such discomfited minds the world of our everyday reality is no more than a more or less entertaining or distressful story thrown upon a cinema screen.
“The story holds together; it moves them greatly and yet they feel it is faked. The vast majority of the beholders accept all the conventions of the story, are completely part of the story, and live and suffer and rejoice and die in it and with it. But the skeptical mind says stoutly, ‘This is delusion.’”
“I resolved to live my life in the original meaning of the term Aryan, a noble life of dedication to my people. My life from that moment onward has been in the service of my people and the Promethean task ahead. I determined that my life would be about awakening the Aryan within every person of European descent.”
So, E. Michael Jones was right after all: Duke used the Israel/Palestine conflict to expand his “Aryan vision” to thousands of people who may not have the intellectual sophistication to detect his worldview.
One final point which we must point out is that Duke does not seem to understand that the history of the eugenics movement does not agree with this “Aryan vision.” Weren’t the tens of thousands the people who were sterilized through eugenics in countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland “Aryans”? One scholar by the name of Bent Sigurd Hansen describes the Eugenics era in Denmark during that time as “something rotten in the state of Denmark.”
As E. Michael Jones would have put it, this “Aryan vision” actually “has no roots” and has “no basis on anything.” This stuff, says Jones, has been invented “to keep people enslaved.”
 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ (New York: SoHo Books, 2013), 18.
 David Duke, My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding (Mandeville, LA: Free Speech Press, 2013), kindle edition. Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent quotations are from that particular book.
 Charles Murray, “The Jewish Genius,” Commentary, April 1, 2007; see also David Shamah, “Jewish intellect could turn Israel into a ‘Hong Kong squared,’ says ‘Bell Curve’ author,” Times of Israel, May 29, 2012.
 Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1996), 275.
 Phoebe Greenwood, “Israel furious at UN report detailing torture of Palestinian children,” The Telegraph, June 21, 2013.
 The rabbis during Jesus’ day were subtly positing the same thing that Duke has been saying here.
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: The Modern Library, 1936), 901.
 Quoted in Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill (New York: Perseus Publishing, 2002), 66.
 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); Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Paul A. Lombardo, ed., A Century of Eugenics in America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011); Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008); Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003); Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998); Michael J. Sandel, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).
 See for example Tamsen Wolff, Mendel’s Theatre: Heredity, Eugenics, and Early Twentieth-Century American Drama (New York: Palgrave, 2009).
 See for example Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 (Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007); Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007); R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans After the Second World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010).
 Quoted in Kishore Mahbubani, The New Asian Hemisphere (New York: Public Affairs, 2008), 5.
 Quoted in Jonathan Glancey, “Goodbye to Berlin,” Guardian, May 12, 2003.
 Ralph Raico, Great Wars & Great Leaders (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010), 59.
 Ibid., 65-66.
 Ibid., 101.
 Ibid., 76.
 Ibid., 95.
 E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1211.
 Ibid., 1209.
 Quoted in Michael J. Sandel, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 65.
 Quoted in Peter Dickens, Social Darwinism (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000), 3.
 Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988), 95.
 Ibid., 97.
 Sandel, The Case Against Perfection, 66.
 G. K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils (London: Cassell, 1922), 54.
 Cited in David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions (New York: Basic Books, 2009), 195.
 Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1993), 227.
 See James T. Costa, Wallace, Darwin, and the Origin of Species (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 84.
 Michael Ruse, Darwin Defended (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley ,1982), 51.
 For a better explanation on this, see for example Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, second edition, 2006), 30; see also Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler Publishers, 1986).
 John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007), 238-239.
 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (New York: Knopf, 1971), 112-113.
 In fact, there is evidence against this grand scheme. For a mathematical dissertation, see for example William Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007); Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001).
 Quoted in Sandel, The Case Against Perfection, 71.
 Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ, 17.
 H. G. Wells, Mind at the End of its Tether (New York: Didier Publishers, 1946), 8.
 Ibid., 13-14.
 See for example Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996).