…by Jonas E. Alexis
Oligarch George Soros is still politically radioactive. He is eighty-five years old, but he does not consider himself obsolete. He is still emitting subversive energy and using people as means to get his essentially diabolical work done.
Soros certainly cannot come out of the closet and explicitly say things like, “I want to destroy the social order in America through subversive means and in Europe through the so-called Syrian refugee crisis.”
Virtually everyone would be chasing him with baseball bats. As Jim W. Dean rightly put it last year: “Soros should be hounded publicly wherever he shows his face in the EU…” He does not want to be hounded publicly, so he has to frame his worldview in the language of “humanitarian rights” or set up revolutionary cells in places like Ukraine. Back in 2014, he was asked by Fareed Zakaria:
“First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?”
Soros responded: “Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.”
What is specifically interesting about Soros’ ideological weltanschauung is that it does not rest on a particular location or country. Soros wants to spread his subversive wings in Europe, Asia (mainly China), and of course in America. Soros, Bloomberg has acknowledged,
“has recently been involved in a war of words with the Chinese government. He said at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he’s been betting against Asian currencies because a hard landing in China is ‘practically unavoidable.’”
Lest you think that Soros is a nice guy trying to play by the rules, listen very carefully to what economist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman had to say back in 1998:
“Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”
Krugman cited Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad saying that the United States promoted Soros in Asia for the purpose of manipulating Asia’s economy. Mahathir’s government believed that people like Soros advocate “currency fluctuation” because they are subtly promoting “villainous acts of sabotage,” which are “the height of international criminality.”
Krugman, of course, defended Soros by saying that he “was not a major player in the crisis” which caused serious problem in Malaysia. Perhaps Krugman underestimated Soros. Perhaps he should have asked the Chinese themselves what they thought of Soros.
Soros’s “international criminality” seeks to debase the Chinese money, which we all know would bring about massive economic problem. “China has a major adjustment problem,” Soros declared in 2008. “I would say it amounts to a crisis. When I look at the financial markets there is a serious challenge which reminds me of the crisis we had in 2008.”
From 1969 to 2011, Soros’ net worth grew astronomically, and Bloomberg seems to indicate that he built his giant paradise by devaluing the currency, which always creates economic shockwaves. Soros, we are told, “gained a reputation for his investing prowess in 1992 by netting $1 billion with a bet that the U.K. would be forced to devalue the pound.”
What’s the historical term for this? Usury, which means cheating people out of their labor. It is also alchemy, which is the basis of Soros’ book, The Alchemy of Finance. E. Michael Jones writes in his recent magnum opus Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury:
“From the time of Roger Bacon to the Medicis to John Dee to Isaac Newton to George Soros in the present, alchemy has exerted its unique attraction over the mind of man who is interested in getting out from under the necessity of labor as the road to wealth…
“The same regent that brought John Law to France had already hired alchemists to produce gold by magic. Law was hired not because of his undeniable financial genius [but] because he was perceived as a more successful alchemist than his predecessors. The only thing that had changed over this entire period was the medium in which alchemy operated.
“Once precious metals ceased to be medium of exchange, alchemy moved from chemistry to finance. The modern economy is the continuation of alchemy by other means. Alchemy raises man to the status of demiurge by granting him supernatural powers. Like God, he can create something out of nothing. In this instance, that something is money.”
The capitalist system assumes that money can magically be accumulated without labor—a premise which has always been associated with magic or alchemy. People like George Soros cheat the system because they are inexorably following an immoral and destructive principle, which over the years has been embellished and flattered by Darwinian metaphysics.
As a matter of fact, usury flourishes under the banner of capitalism to this very day because Darwin’s metaphysical reductionism implicitly gave it a stamp of approval. Eric D. Beinhocker of Harvard admits:
“Evolutionary theory and economics have 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 Future Improvements 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.”
Upon reading Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population, Darwin began to formulate his own ideas. Survival of the fittest, he promiscuously postulated, is the fundamental law upon which the universe rests. There is no metaphysical telos; there is only strife—inter-species competition and intra-species competition. In that sense, the weak, the “imbeciles,” as Darwin himself put it, must be eliminated because they do not contribute to society as a whole:
“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.”
Darwin, whether he liked it or not, was laying the groundwork for oligarchs like Soros to supplant the moral law and to pursue their ideological interests at the expensive of the majority of people on this planet. This is why I keep saying that proponents of Darwin cannot logically criticize Soros and other oligarchs without falling into internal contradiction. In fact, Darwin predicted that cut-throat competitions would be the best ways to get ahead.
Furthermore, if survival of the fittest is actually true, aren’t Zionists or Jewish oligarchs thriving and eliminating “inferior members of society” and people they despise (namely the Goyim) through deceptive means, covert operation and psychological warfare? If morality is an illusion and that “everything in nature is the result of fixed laws,” as Darwin himself asserted, who are we to say that Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, and Goldman Sachs are wrong? No serious Darwinist has been able to get out of that contradiction without abandoning Darwin’s central thesis. And it gets worse.
Having embraced “a terrifying materialism,” which is to say a world in which everything is reduced to matter and chemistry, Darwin believed that the human mind and even morality “were the artefacts of the brain.” According to British historian of science and biologist Janet Browne, Darwin also believed and articulated the view that “The Natural world has no moral validity or purpose.”
“By subjecting mind and morality to self-evolving forces,” write biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin “threatened the ideals so cherished by the geological gentry: human dignity and accountability.” Darwin obviously had to hide this side of his principles from some of his close friends, or
“they would have found them utterly demoralizing. Darwin could expect a furore among his geological friends if they discovered his secret…His respectability would be compromised. Not only would his science be impugned. He himself would be accused of reckless abandon.”
So, the logic is pretty clear: if serious and honest thinkers know Darwin’s secret, he would cease to have any intellectual power over them. Conversely, Darwin only has power over those who lack the sophistication to realize where the metaphysical issues actually are. After all, how can they know, since they have been told ad nauseam that they are all robots?
As Darwin’s apologist Daniel Dennett writes, “We are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all.” Dennett elaborated on this idea in his book Kinds of Minds:
“We are descended 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 systems.”
Richard Dawkins had already fallen into the same trap back in 1976 (three years before I was born), when he published his widely read book The Selfish Gene. He writes, “We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”
When people like Dennett and Dawkins are confronted with requests to provide serious evidence for this madness, they have no answer. In fact, Dawkins does not really believe that we are robots, as indicated in The Selfish Gene itself:
“We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”
Dawkins, like his intellectual father, never bothers to explain where robots get “the power to turn against” their creators. Robots, by definition, cannot think, cannot act upon the basis of reason, and do not have the will to choose. Darwin himself agreed: he “had confessed that free will had no place in his determined world-system, and he carried his materialism with him” to other people, though all of that was still done in secret. “Darwin’s denial of free will edged him closer to the metaphysical abyss.”
Leo Tolstoy indeed took Darwin to task by saying that Darwin propounded “a fictitious law” into biology. Darwin’s reductionism is indeed fictitious precisely because it is irreducibly contradictory, morally repugnant, and philosophically risible.
Yet this “fictitious law” never died out. It has made its appearance in one way or another in the works of Richard Dawkins, Francis Crick, James Watson, E. O. Wilson (the father of sociobiology), Daniel Dennett, Richard Lewontin, Ernst Mayr, Michael Ruse, to name just a few.
Wilson declared way back in 1985 that “Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate.” In his breakthrough Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Wilson expounds on his “essence of sociobiology” this way: “Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.”
Wilson has two fundamental flaws here: 1) morality is an illusion and 2) all social behavior can be explained in terms of biological makeup. One can say that all determinists have to abide by these risible assumptions. In fact, the conclusions of any reductionist axiom are the same: that personality, consciousness, emotions, and free will are just the result of material compositions. As Francis Crick puts it in his 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.”
For those people, “morality” is just a product of sociobiological evolution which has been ingrained in us and which has no serious objectivity or what Kant would have called categorical imperative. As eminent and prolific philosopher of science Michael Ruse put it, “there are no ultimate foundations [for morality], just a biological illusion of objectivity.”30]
Let us avoid complex philosophical arguments and get to the metaphysical implications of what Wilson and others are saying. If morality is an illusion, then moral responsibility is also an illusion. If moral responsibility is an illusion, then there is no such thing as good or evil act. If there is no such thing as good or evil, as Richard Dawkins himself argues, then Stalin did nothing wrong when he slaughtered at least sixty million precious lives in the twentieth century.
In the same vein, Israel didn’t do anything wrong when they mercilessly liquidated Palestinian men, women and children in 1948. According to this principle, Gaza is not really a concentration camp. If nothing is morally binding, then nothing is morally wrong.
This is practical reason 101, and reductionists like Wilson need to get with the program quickly. They keep comparing animals to humans when in fact animals are not moral agents. For example, there is no such thing as “murder” or “rape” or “justice” or “hate” in the animal kingdom.
In short, reductionism, which Wilson and others espouse, is logically incoherent and fundamentally vacuous. But reductionism or determinism has become so bizarre over the years that some evolutionary psychologists are telling us that rape—yes, rape—has a biological basis. There is more: even infanticide has an evolutionary or genetic dimension, even though no one has been able to identify the genes which cause those behaviors in the first place.
Darwin was cognizant of Immanuel Kant’s entire philosophical project and most specifically his categorical imperative. But Darwin could make neither heads nor tails of Kant’s arguments because Darwin, as he himself admitted, had “no practice in following abstract and abstruse reasoning.” This inexorably led Darwin to make elementary and categorical errors, such as morality cannot be “objective and universal.”
Like Darwin, many Darwinists today seem to have “no practice in following abstract and abstruse reasoning” and therefore have to react in almost the same way that their intellectual grandfather reacted when he failed to understand practical reason. Darwin says that there is no objective morality, but poor and hopeless Darwinists try to sneak in morality into their equation as if contradictions do not matter.
If biologists like Karl Vogt of the University of Geneva are right in saying that “In no moment are we masters over ourselves, over our reason, over our mental powers, any more than we are masters over whether our kidneys excrete or not” and that “The organism cannot control itself, but the law of its material composition controls it,” then we are just machines and therefore lack the power to choose good or evil.
So, for the average Darwinist to assert that man is just a machine and then get angry because an individual fails to choose that which is right is just pure mumbo jumbo. Even Julien Offray de La Mettrie—who propounded the idea that man is just a machine, largely because he wanted to pursue an explicitly sensual and hedonistic lifestyle—understood very clearly that if man is just a machine, then the next logical steps follows: no evil act can be considered a crime. As the late ethicist James Rachels (himself a proponent of Darwinism) pointed out, those are the implications Darwinism, and they are “morally pernicious.”
So, our objection to Darwin’s metaphysical project is rooted and grounded in practical reason and is not based on any theological or preconceived premise.
Obviously if a person does not have the honesty to recognize that Darwinism is fraught with contradiction and that contradiction is a sign that a system is intellectually failing, then that person has no part in any serious debate. Furthermore, people of reason should avoid any serious dialogue with such a person because practical reason is obviously foreign to him.
I personally am not interested in having a dialogue with people who do not understand how practical reason works or who cannot realize that he has just made an incoherent statement. You simply cannot argue with someone who does not understand the cannons of logic and fallacious arguments.
Last year, a commenter told me that “By themselves, Logic and reason prove nothing.” To substantiate this promiscuous cleverness, the same individual wrote a long paragraph pretentiously using logic and reason to show that logic and reason prove nothing. That obviously was too good to be true, and one needn’t be a logician to realize that the poor man was trapped in his own mumbo jumbo. I tried to rescue him, but he was too far gone in his ideology. In response, I said:
“In order to say that ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ one obviously has to use logic and reason–an impressively and fantastically incoherent argument. In fact, if ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ why should we listen to Mr. [X] here? Is he telling us to ignore his point? If this is so, then he shall have his wish.”
I even moved on to give a personal detail:
“I remember one time a friend of mine gave a lecture at a university during which he argued that things must be coherent. At the end of the lecture, an irate lady walked to the microphone and asked, ‘Why does everything have to be coherent?’ To which the speaker responded quite humorously, ‘Do you want me to give you a coherent answer or incoherent one?’ She was completely stumped and she quietly went back to her seat.”
Did Mr. X listen? No. He went about making the same old boring statement. That was the end of my interaction with him.
 The only European country that obviously understood Soros’ political goal is Russia. That is why they kicked him out. China, as we have already seen, kicked him out as well.
 Virtually everyone now knows that Soros is behind the subversive and violent movement known as Black Lives Matter. It has been reported that Soros’ BLM is actually behind the social disruption at Donald Trump’s rallies. See for example Pat Buchanan, “No Absolution for the Mob,” American Conservative, March 14, 2016.
 “Sino-Russian Gas Deal Signed; Ukraine Picks New President; Interview with George Soros; The Power of Liberal Arts Education,” CNN, May 25, 2014.
 Bonnie Cao, Ye Xie, and Saijel Kishan, “Soros Says China’s Debt-Fueled Growth Echoes U.S. in 2007-08,” Bloomberg, April 21, 2016.
 Paul Krugman, The Accidental Theorist: And Other Dispatches from the Dismal Science (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), 160.
 Ibid., 147.
 Anusha Ondaatjie, “George Soros Sees Crisis in Global Markets That Echoes 2008,” Bloomberg, January 7, 2016.
 E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 855-856.
 Quoted in ibid., 479.
 Gertrude Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds: A Study of Intellectuals in Crisis and Ideologies in Transition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), 318.
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: The Modern Library, 1936), 901.
 Darwin, Origin of Species, 459.
 Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1958), 87.
 Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: Penguin, 1991), xviii.
 Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 54.
 Desmond and Moore, Darwin, 239.
 Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin, 2003), 2-3; emphasis in original.
 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, 1976), 215.
 Ibid., 201.
 Desmond and Moore, Darwin, 239, 259.
 Ibid., 261.
 Browne, Charles Darwin, 258.
 I have dealt with Dawkins and Crick in the past.
 Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975 and 2000), 4.
 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 3.
 Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on Its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications (New York: Routledge, 1989), 271.
 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.
 These people may want to thank goodness that they never met people like Kant.
 For similar studies on this, see Michael Murray, Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
 Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).
 See Glenn Hausfater and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, eds., Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives (New York: Aldine Publishing, 1984).
 Browne, Charles Darwin, 392.
 Quoted in Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington: Regnery, 2016), kindle edition.
 Julien Offray de La Mettrie, edited by Ann Thomson, La Mettrie: Machine Man and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
 See for example James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 4.