…by Jonas E. Alexis
Iran has recently sent US officials a fairly legitimate proposal on how dialogue is possible with respect to nuclear programs. They said:
“The condition for negotiating Iran’s missiles is the destruction of the nuclear weapons and long-range missiles of the United States and Europe.”
Iranian officials have obviously grown wary of the United States. Why? Because US and Israeli officials have a history of playing double standards in the political landscape.
Remember what they did to Iran in 1953? Remember the Anglo-American coup, which literally ruined the political order in Iran? Mark Dankof and I have repeatedly discussed these issues in the past.
Iranian officials are obviously taking precautions. They are also watching US officials very closely. If US officials do not offer something that is conducive to the moral and political order, Iran doesn’t seem that they will abide by it. As one Iranian official has recently said:
“The US is trying to pressure us into withdrawing from the nuclear deal, but we will not fall into their trap. If the US withdraws, no country would hold negotiations with them any longer.”
The US certainly cannot continue on perpetual wars and perpetual conflicts any longer. They need to give Iran a chance; they need to stop listening to the Israeli regime and allow frank dialogue in the political landscape. Why?
Former secretary of defense Robert Gates declared in 2012 that a strike on Iran would be catastrophic for the U.S., “haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” Not only that, Gates saw that Israel, the supposed ally, was pushing that war, which led him to say that Israel is “an ungrateful ally.” The Neoconservative machine was on the frontline chastising Gates for his comments.
As I have argued in the past, Iran is not and has never been a threat to the United States or Israel. Both the US and Israel have their roots firmly planted in contradictions and double standards, and that is where the real problem begins and ends.
For example, Iran has already signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but Israel hasn’t; Iran allows inspections, Israel does not allow any inspections whatsoever. Israel does not even want to discuss the issue.
Both the US and Israel want to live in a world where double standards and contradictions are the norm. They do not want to apply consistency in the political landscape. The sad thing is that they cannot see why Iranian officials are frustrating. What can one conclude from this?
Double standards, blatant contradictions, and inconsistencies are infallible signs of a failing system. And this has been my frustration with those who cannot take time to address the contradictory nature of their own system.
For example, I have thoroughly addressed some of Darwin’s blatant contradictions in a previous article. I even pointed out exactly what Darwin’s admirers have to do in order to make their ideas rational, coherent, and rigorous, and philosophically sound. Instead of addressing those issues in a logical fashion, I was accused by Lasha of “confusing Darwinism with Dawkinism”!
Once again, she built a straw man and a red herring and demolished it with great delight with statements like: “This is a monstrous logical error.” Throughout the previous article, I pointed out where Darwin himself was being inconsistent. I even pointed out that Darwin was inevitably building a case for Zionism when he said things like:
“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.”
No one, including Lasha, has been able to explain this phenomenon. We are constantly bombarded with one straw man and red herring after another, such as the following: “The mistake Jonas keeps making is his assumption that there is only one type of Darwinism.”
Where did I even remotely suggest that there is only one type of Darwinism? Why did I laboriously cite numerous scholarly and independent sources? And why did I spend time addressing where the central issues are? Sigh…But it gets even worse:
“Jonas therefore, it seems to me, has the unfortunate tendency of holding Darwin responsible for every single statement made by the dangerous disciples and spin merchants of Darwin.”
That is really disappointing precisely because I have never even hinted that all Darwinists are the same. It seems to me that all those statements are desperate attempts to evade the central issues.
I simply could not hold my laughter when I read the following statement: “Speaking for myself, I would be flattered if the renowned Richard Dawkins were to take notice of my existence and call me ‘wicked.’ I would be tickled pink. And I would at once forgive him for calling me ignorant, stupid and insane.”
Come on, Lasha. So calling someone “wicked” or “stupid” or “insane” is better than calling someone “cowards” or “intellectually dishonest”? Wasn’t Jonas E. Alexis the new bad guy on the block for using “cowards”? Are we being consistent here? Dawkins can be forgiven but Jonas E. Alexis has committed an unpardonable sin?
When Dawkins was criticized for using sophomoric arguments, Lasha responded by saying that “The people who say these bad things about Dawkins are who exactly? Nonentities. Second raters. Relatively untalented ranters probably a bit jealous of Dawkins’ outstanding achievements and accomplishments: his scientific expertise, his genuinely religious awe for the mysteries and marvels of our universe, and his rare gift for rhetoric.”
This is intellectually irresponsible. It is discouraging because the people who made the accusations meticulously pointed out where Dawkins was acting like a sophomore. What’s so amazing is that I cited the sources where Lasha could have discovered for herself where Dawkins was acting like sophomore. Let me produce just one example out of more than a dozen. Dawkins declares in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life that
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
River Out of Eden was written in 1995. In 2006, Dawkins unequivocally said in chapter 2 of his God Delusion:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we just dance to its music.”
I thought there was no evil? I thought the universe has “nothing but pitiless indifference”? Could it be that the God of the Old Testament was just dancing to his DNA? Does one need to be a philosopher to detect some of those basic errors? And how can Lasha even declare that people who point out those errors are “second raters”?
I simply cannot take time to respond to all the logical errors that Lasha has recently propounded. Let me conclude by saying that the world is in a mess because many people want to live in a matrix where irrationality and blatant contradictions are revered and cherished. If we are going to criticize US foreign policy and Jewish ideological movements for their inconsistencies, shouldn’t we provide a rigorous system where contradictions aren’t accepted?
“And don’t you think that being deceived about the truth is a bad thing, while having a grasp of the truth is good? And don’t you think that having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way things are?”—Plato
I am done with this discussion.
-  “Iran to US: Surrender your nukes and then we’ll talk missiles,” Russia Today, March 3, 2018.
-  Ibid.
-  Elliott Abrams, “Bob Gates and Israel: There He Goes Again,” Weekly Standard, October 5, 2012.
-  Patrick B. Pexton, “What About Israel’s Nuclear Weapons?,” Washington Post, August 31, 2012.
-  Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.
-  Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2006), 51.
-  Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.