by Jonas E. Alexis
“In economics,” writes E. Michael Jones in his recent magnum opus Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury, “the most enduring legacy of the pagan world, next to debasing the currency to keep pace with usurious interest payments, was contempt for labor.” Once true labor was detested and rejected, then the next logical step followed:
“Since money was not to be—and in some instances could not be—earned by honest labor, the homo oeconomicus of the ancient world sought to increase it by recourse to magic, speculation, or usury. Once ‘gold and silver became ‘powerful gods’ in Hellas,’ avarice had a corrupting effect on the entire culture.”
This “avarice” was predicted by both Plato and Aristotle and many writers in the ancient world, who saw that money is sterile intercourse. Plato argued that “No money is…to be lent on interest. The law will not protect a man in recovering either interest or principal.”
For Aristotle, money has “no intrinsic qualities other than being used as a medium of exchange. It could not beget itself and therefore usury was not useful.”
If money has “no intrinsic qualities,” what if the oligarchs and the powers that be appeal to magic and deceptively or diabolically turn money into “powerful gods”? Well, you get economic chaos and misery. “The Shylocks of the world exploited the Antonios, seeking to extract their pound of flesh when Christian principles demanded fairness and lenient lending policies.”
The main vehicle that “the Shylocks of the world” have used to exploit the poor in economic business is usury, which is a sophisticated way of cheating the system. Usury, as Charles R. Geissthimself points out, “was understood to be something not conducive to economic well-being…for almost a thousand years.” Usury, according to medieval writers, was “a wasteful practice…No value was created and nothing useful accomplished except to enrich the lender.”
Marcus Porcius Cato, a Roman statesman who lived between 234 and 149 B.C., rhetorically asked: “And what do you think of usury?—What do you think of murder?”
So, the oligarchs and the oppressors in the ancient world despised practical reason in economic business and substituted instead sophisticated means such as usury. In short, they despised Logos.
One can say something similar about the metaphysics of the New World Order. Its most enduring legacy is obviously contempt for morality and what Immanuel Kant calls practical reason in the comprehensible universe, which was created by what Aristotle calls the Unmoved Mover.
Using reason alone, Aristotle deduced that this Unmoved Mover is the “first principle” in natural philosophy and “the maker and father of all.” This progressively became part of the Western philosophical and intellectual tradition.
One must add that this “maker and father of all” is the source of objective morality and the essence of all things reasonable. So, from this first principle, we can deduce that morality, which binds us all together as human beings, is not relative but objective.
In other words, we can say with certainty that there are some things in this world that are morally and objectively wrong. By objective morality, I do not mean to say what you and I agree is right. In that sense, objective morality cannot be based on mere social contract, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued.
To use to real-world illustrations, objective moral truth simply states that Stalin was wrong irrespective of what he and the Bolsheviks believed, Ho Chi Minh was wrong regardless of his motives or ambitions, and Mao was wrong despite his evolutionary belief that those who could not adapt to his ethical codes had to vanish.
We must add that this objective morality cannot be deduced from Darwinian evolution or biology, despite the bold claim by some that “science can determine human values.” Science, though very useful, cannot answer some of the most basic yet fundamental questions of life such as why we are here and what the purpose of life actually is.
Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar raised that same point in the 1980s. Science can accurately describe the ingredients that Mr. Jung used to make his cake, but it cannot tell why Mr. Jung took the time to make the cake.
In the same vein, science cannot describe or answer moral and aesthetic questions. Science cannot say that the creation of the atomic bomb was good or bad. (If it was good, then we have yet to see its “goodness.” If it was bad, then the people who created it were evil?)
And this is where our discussion gets very interesting because most Darwinists and evolutionary biologists can make neither heads nor tails of the real metaphysical issues here. As Richard Dawkins himself tells us, “there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” Elsewhere, Dawkins added this frightening statement, which literally destroyed the moral pretension of Darwinism:
“I very much hope that we don’t revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said thatI am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist.
“It’s undoubtedly the reason why we’re here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which we live.”
You see, Dawkins embraces a philosophy which he himself agrees is morally indefensible, existentially unlivable, and practically worthless. But he has to live by it because it is the only game in town. He has no other option because philosophically he does not want to admit that there are some things that are objectively good and evil in this world, despite the fact that he has made millions of dollars over the years saying that some actions in the Old Testament are universally wrong.
Why can’t England’s grumpiest atheist come out and admit without contradiction that some things are really wrong?
Because once a person takes that step, then it logically leads to a moral lawgiver. Aristotle again would have called this moral law giver the Unmoved Mover. But Dawkins and his followers do not like that route, so he decides to live in contradictions. As Friedrich Nietzsche predicted, when one rejects this Unmoved Mover, then one also “pulls the right” to objective morality “out from under one’s feet.” Jean-Paul Sartre saw the thing.
Sadly, virtually all the leading evolutionary biologists and other Darwin’s intellectual children find themselves in the same contradictory and intellectually risible weltanschauung when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of morality. I particularly have yet to encounter a consistent evolutionary biologist or Darwinist who is willing to take Darwin to its logical conclusions.
Take for example primatologist Frans de Waal. He begins with the premise that “morality originated in small group settings during our evolution.”
Even if that were true, it does not explain the fundamental issue at all. The central question that evolutionary biologist has to answer for us is this: Is morality objective or not? If it is objective, then Darwin is out.
Throughout his work and conversation, de Waal keeps mixing epistemology with ontology, which is a cardinal error. He argues that “before our current religions existed, humans cared about right and wrong, punished bad behavior, cared about fairness and so on.”
That is absolutely true, but that has never been the argument. Let me make it clear here because people like de Waal have misstated or mischaracterized or misrepresented this vitally important issue for years. Hopefully they will get it this time.
We are not arguing for an epistemological foundation of objective moral values, but rather for an ontological foundation of objective moral values. In other words, we are not saying that people like de Waal do not or cannot make reference to an objective moral value, or that moral values are the sole province of religious people. De Waal is right: we do not need religion or God to recognize objective morality. It is ingrained in human nature.
For example, if a sexual predator rapes a twelve-year-old child, both de Waal and I would say that this act is morally wrong. But what is the ontological foundation for that objective morality? Well, Darwin and his intellectual children say that it is not objective! Philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg makes it clear that
“In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it’s hard to see how there could be room for moral facts. In a universe headed for its own heat death, there is no cosmic value to human life, your own or anyone else’s.”
Rosenberg continues to dig his own philosophical grave by saying:
“Real moral disputes can be ended in lots of ways: by voting, by decree, by fatigue of the disputants, by the force of example that changes social mores. But they can never really be resolved by finding the correct answers. There are none.”
Since there is no such thing as “intrinsic moral value,” Rosenberg finds solace in nihilism, which is hard to maintain consistency. “Nihilism,” he tells us, “denies that there is anything at all that is good in itself or, for that matter, bad in itself. Therefore, nihilism can’t be accused of advocating the moral goodness of, say, political violence or anything else.”
Well, if nothing is intrinsically good or bad, how did Rosenberg swiftly insert “political violence” into the equation? Does he mean to say that violence is bad? If so, doesn’t that undermine his fundamental assumption, namely, nothing is intrinsically good or bad?
Rosenberg is aware of the philosophical problem that his worldview faces, but once again it is the only option he has. It is the same thing with people like Michael Ruse, whose contradictory worldview we have examined at length.
If de Waal means to say that moral progress is possible and plausible, then we agree. Moral progress is based on epistemology, not on ontology. But moral progress is impossible without a moral reference, which is what Darwin and his intellectual children deny.
Moreover, de Waal doesn’t seem to understand that animals are not moral agents. When a female hamster kills and eats her own children (I’ve had thirteen hamsters and had to learn that lesson the hard way), who will call that murder? When a male lion forcibly copulates with a female lion, who will call that rape? Doesn’t Darwinian evolution predict that these are just patterns of behavior? And haven’t some evolutionary biologists and scientists argued that rape is compatible with Darwinian evolution?
De Waal is not a staunch Darwinist like Richard Dawkins when it comes to morality so that basically saved him from more intellectual embarrassment and oblivion. He does give religion some credit for
“binding people together. Religion has a strong binding function….Religion has very important social functions: it’s not just policing. By binding communities together in a ritual-based system of shared belief, you get more committed to each other….Religion probably serves a number of functions for us that we are beneficial.”
But like Michael Ruse, de Waal does believe that morality is “a value system that arose through a long evolutionary process and which we often strongly share, not coincidentally, with other beings.” De Waal believes this because “my goal is a very Darwinian one…” De Waal is not too far from Rousseau when he says:
“One-on-one morality is, ‘I want to maintain a good relationship with you. I look out for my interests but I also look out for your interests. I will repay the relationship if we get into a fight. I will help if you’re down and you will help me—reciprocity.’”
Elsewhere, de Waal seems to agree with Rousseau when he says,
“Morality is a group-oriented phenomenon born from the fact that we rely on a support system for survival. A solitary person would have no need for morality, nor would a person who lives with others without mutual dependency.”
What distinguishes de Waal from other evolutionary biologists out there is that he is smart enough to realize that “our genes” do not “prescribe specific moral solutions,” which is to say that our genes can never be the foundation of morality.
“Moral rules,” de Waal adds, “are not etched in the genome. Old literature tried to derive the Ten Commandments from the laws of biology, but such endeavors inevitably fail.”
We again agree with de Waal when he says:
“The desire for an internally consistent moral framework is uniquely human. We are the only ones to worry about why we think what we think. We may wonder, for example, how to reconcile our stance towards abortion with the ones towards the death penalty, or under which circumstances stealing may be justifiable. All of this is far more abstract than the concrete behavioral level at which other animals seem to operate.”
But that argument does not fit the evolutionary or Darwinian pattern to which de Waal subscribes. In fact, de Waal presents numerous arguments that would certainly be rejected by staunch Darwinists.
The central and key issue here is simply this: when you are operating within a system that denies objective morality, you will inevitably become the antithesis of your own intellectual existence. In fact, de Waal and others realize that they have to borrow from the Christian worldview. He states:
“The idea of a rebellion against motives, or even against our genes (Dawkins, 1976), is a secular version of the old Christian notion of denial of the flesh. Gray discusses how religious positions have unconsciously slipped into liberal and scientific discourse.”
So, we can safely say that Darwinian metaphysics is intellectually incoherent and contradictory, and morally worthless. We can also say that it cannot consistently fight the New World Order, which is also based on the denial of objective morality and practical reason.
Moreover, one can easily argue that the New World Order is consistent with Darwinian metaphysics in that they both see wars and death and suffering, not morality, as heroes. Darwin postulated:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated.”
Compare that to what Jewish Neocon and New World Order agent Michael Ledeen has said:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.
“Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace … We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.’”
So, Darwin used the word “extermination,” and Ledeen preferred to use “creative destruction.” What unites both gentlemen is the fact that they both exclude morality in their ideological equations. This is also consistent with Adam Smith’s principle on self-interest. In fact, de Waal himself agrees that Darwin was inspired by Smith’s principle in order to refine his theory. As Eric D Beinhocker of Harvard has shown,
“Evolutionary theory and economics have a long and intertwined history. In fact, it was an economist who helped spark one of Charles Darwin’s most important insights. In 1798, the English economist Thomas Robert Malthus published a book titled An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects FutureImprovement of Society, in which he portrayed the economy as a competitive struggle for survival and a constant race between population’s growth and humankind’s ability to improve its productivity. It was a race that, Malthus predicted, humankind would lose.”
In short, it was inevitable that both Darwin and Ledeen would end up in a cosmic struggle because they are both saying the same thing but using different terminology. Darwin predicted that
“At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.”
Yuri Slezkine tells us that the twentieth century is “The Jewish Century.” So, were the Dreadful Few than the “civilized race”? According to Darwin’s logic, the answer has to be yes.
Here again, we see that Darwinian metaphysics cannot consistently combat the ideology that the Dreadful Few are forcing upon the West. And this is one reason why we cannot help but laugh at those who pretentiously believe that they can fight Zionism and its offshoots and consistently maintain Darwinism at the same time.
If “survival of the fittest” is the fundamental law of the universe, if “moral norms are formed by external forces,” if morality “was only relative,” as Darwin maintained, then the Dreadful Few are doing a great job in the Middle East, particularly in Gaza, which is now a concentration camp. Evolutionary biologists shouldn’t complain either, since their fundamental ideology logically and consistently compliments and indirectly praises Zionism.
Both systems lead to Vladimir Putin would have called this a “the path to degradation.”In the 1920s and 30s, Social Darwinism led to the path of degradation in Europe and America. In the twentieth century, Zionism followed the same pattern and ended up liquidating innocent Palestinian men, women and children by the thousands. That liquidation process is still going on.
In fact, Gilad Sharon, son of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, declared in 2012 that Israel needs to “flatten all Gaza,” where
“There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing… Were this to happen, the images from Gaza might be unpleasant – but victory would be swift, and the lives of our soldiers and civilians spared.”
So, Social Darwinism and Zionism practically ended up slaughtering innocent people. Darwin’s intellectual children are so captivated by Darwin’s ambitious project that they fail to see that ideas have consequences.
The only people who took Darwin to its logical conclusions were the Social Darwinists, who were literally sterilizing and torturing “the unfit” and “imbeciles” in places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, England, the United States, etc.
The funny thing is that the intellectual children of Social Darwinism are now turning around and complaining that they do not have enough children for the next generation while continuing to exalt Darwin as a hero!
What’s even more risible is that the Rockefeller family spent much of the twentieth century promoting contraception, applying Darwinian metaphysics to economics, and subverting Catholic institutions such as the University of Notre Dame, and no one said a word about this. But when the grandchildren of Social Darwinism woke up and realized that they would be out of existence if something drastic does not happen, they put the blame on just about everyone but themselves.
I must really say that these people lack vision and insight, and I personally can never join them because they are comfortable with internal contradictions and therefore (deliberately) fail to understand the logic. As it turns out, survival of the fittest and natural selection
“are rationalizations of English Capitalism projected on to the natural world as a way of exculpating its perpetrators of the guilt they incur by imposing this system of state-sponsored usury on the rest of us.”
E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 43.
 Quoted in Charles R. Geisst, Beggar Thy Neighbor: A History of Usury and Debt (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 19.
See Jean-Jacques Rousseau,The Social Contract (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
See for example Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010).
Peter Medawar, The Limits of Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); for other sources on the limits of science, see John D. Barrow, The World Within the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); Noson S. Yanofsky, The Outer Limits of Reason: What Science, Mathematics, and Logic Cannot Tell Us (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2013).
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 155.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515-516.
 Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is Humanism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 28-29.
 Howard Burton and Frans de Waal, On Atheists and Bonobos: A Conversation with Frans de Waal (Toronto: Open Agenda Publishing, 2013), kindle edition.
 Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions (New York: W. W. Norton, 2012), 95.
 For a study on this, see Michael Murray, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
 See for example Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000). We will discuss the content of this book later this year.
Howard Burton and Frans de Waal, On Atheists and Bonobos: A Conversation with Frans de Waal (Toronto: Open Agenda Publishing, 2013), kindle edition.
Frans de Waal, “The Tower of Morality,” Stephen Macedo and Josiah Ober, eds., Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006), 161.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: Modern Library, 1936), 201.
De Waal, “Primate Social Instincts, Human Morality, and the Rise and Fall of ‘Veneer Theory,’The Tower of Morality,” chapter 1.
 Quoted in Jones, Barren Metal, 479.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: John Murray, 1871), 200-201.
Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionists (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), 262; Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 342.
 “Israeli Officials Call for Concentration Camps in Gaza and ‘the conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters,’” Daily Mail, August 4, 2014.
Marc Bennetts, “Who’s ‘godless’ now? Russia says it’s U.S.,” Washington Times, January 28, 2014.
 For further study on this, see Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hanson, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2005); Mark B. Adams, The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Decline of Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Mathew Thomson, The Problem of Mental Deficiency: Eugenics, Democracy, and Social Policy in Britain c. 1870-1959 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); 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); Jonathan Peter Spiro, Defending the Master Race: Conservation, Eugenics, and the Legacy of Madison Grant(Burlington: University of Vermont Press, 2008); Marius Turba, The History of East-Central European Eugenics, 1900-1945: Sources and Commentaries (New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015).
See for example Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2998); Ilan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011); The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World Publications, 2007).
Gilad Sharon, “A decisive conclusion is necessary,”Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2012.
 For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000); Is Notre Dame Still Catholic: How Catholic Higher Education Has Failed the Church and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2009). We will delve into this later this year in a tentative article entitled “Demographic Winter?”
 For articles on issue, see for example Sabrina Tavernise, “Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.,” NY Times, May 17, 2012; Sam Roberts, “Census Benchmark for White Americans: More Deaths Than Births,” NY Times, June 13, 2013.
 Jones, Barren Metal, 483.