…by Jonas E. Alexis

During the Cold War, it was meticulously and rightly argued by scholars of various stripes that the Soviet Union created what was known as “godless communists.”[1] These “godless communists” built their ideology on Marxism/Leninism, an essentially diabolical system that sought to eradicate religion during that era.[2]

These “godless communists” failed miserably largely because you cannot fight Logos and win. Moreover, the fact that Russia has thrived over the years is a clear indication that Alexander Solzhenitsyn was right all along. Back in 2013, Vladimir Putin changed the political calculus by saying that much of the West was committing political suicide. How?

Ideologues, said Putin, were surreptitiously declaring that “faith in God is equal to faith in Satan.” For many, that was an interesting move by Putin. As Patrick Buchanan put it then, “In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God’s side. The West is Gomorrah.”[3] Putin said:

“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God, and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”[4]

The Washington Times reported then:

“In his state of the nation address, Mr. Putin also portrayed Russia as a staunch defender of ‘traditional values’ against what he depicted as the morally bankrupt West. Social and religious conservatism, the former KGB officer insisted, is the only way to prevent the world from slipping into ‘chaotic darkness.’

“As part of this defense of ‘Christian values,’ Russia has adopted a law banning “homosexual propaganda” and another that makes it a criminal offense to ‘insult’ the religious sensibilities of believers…

“Although Mr. Putin has never made a secret of what he says is his deep Christian faith, his first decade in power was largely free of overtly religious rhetoric. Little or no attempt was made to impose a set of values on Russians or lecture to the West on morals.”[5]

Top 5 Best Smartphones 2022

Certainly, Putin put the moral equation back on the table. Kevin Barrett declared that Putin was trying to “put the fear of God in the New World Order.” Barrett moved on to make the forceful argument that much of the Zionist establishment in the West is afraid of Putin because the establishment lives in fear. “Russian President Putin is resisting,” said Barrett. “That is why the Western propaganda machine is calling him names.” Barrett continued to argue cogently:

“It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of God…. Putin’s reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists.

“Anyone who doubts this should run the name ‘Lt. Col. Michael Aquino’ through a search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist, and credibly accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US military…

“The shock troops of the NWO’s war against religion and tradition (and Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio terrorist Michael Ledeen explains:

“‘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.’

“Putin is stopping New World Order ‘creative destruction’ in Syria and Ukraine. He is part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not just religious traditionalists, but also progressive anti-globalization forces, including Hugo Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin America.”

Kudos for Barrett here. The regime proved Putin right by applauding the Pussy Riot,[6] a Trotskyite group that ended up having sex (literal pornography) at the Moscow National Museum. (We have discussed this issue in the past.) The interesting thing about all this was that Neocons like Seth Mandel of Commentary were on the front line defending the Pussy Riot.[7]

But the crucial point here is that Putin, like Emmanuel Kant and even John Adams and others, understands that a nation cannot exist without objective morality, and objective morality cannot exist without Logos,[8] the essence and sustainer of the moral universe.

In that sense, and whether he notices it or not, Putin was implicitly or indirectly attacking the Neo-Darwinian ideology, which states that objective morality is an illusion and has no metaphysical basis. It is here that we find again that Neo-Darwinian metaphysics is intellectually useless and worthless because it denies the very essence of a moral universe.

As we have noted in the past, serious Darwinists agree that objective morality is an illusion. The noted biology philosopher Michael Ruse once again said that “there are no grounds whatsoever for being good…. Morality is flimflam.”[9] Yet like his intellectual antecedent Charles Darwin, Ruse ends up contradicting himself in the very next sentence by saying,

“Does this mean that you can just go out and rape and pillage, behave like an ancient Roman grabbing Sabine women? Not at all. I said that there are no grounds for being good. It doesn’t follow that you should be bad.”[10]

Well, duh! If there are no grounds for objective morality, then good and bad are also illusion. And if good and bad are just illusion, then Nietzsche’s transvaluation of all values is the next logical step. What is good for you may not be good for me, and there is no way of adjudicating competing explanations. In that kind of world, might makes right. Ruse does not really have a problem with this argument here. In fact, he moves on to say that morality

“is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this. If all future food were Pablum, we would probably be better off without teeth.

“Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down.

“Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: ‘Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me.’ The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer.

“So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective.”[11]

Ruse, like some genetic theorists, really believes that “morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator…”[12]

This, by the way, is logically congruent with Darwin’s survival of the fittest. (I am currently writing a critique of Kevin MacDonald’s recent book for Culture Wars magazine, and these issues will be thoroughly and methodically examined.) And survival of the fittest is logically congruent with Zionism. If evolutionary theory “explains how warfare contributed to fitness in the course of the evolution of Homo sapiens,” as scholar Bradley A. Thayer maintains,[13] then how can a serious Darwinist say that Social Darwinism or even Zionism is really bad on a consistent and logical basis?

Thayer, of course, struggles mightily to rationally defend the thesis that “Warfare contributes to fitness”[14] and that “people wage war to gain and defend resources”[15] while maintaining that social Darwinists were wrong in taking social Darwinism to its logical conclusion. He says that “social Darwinists perverted Charles Darwin’s argument” and “distorted evolutionary explanations because they misunderstood Darwin’s ideas and were ignorant of or consciously chose to ignore the naturalistic fallacy. Those who use evolutionary theory to explain aspects of human behavior must recall the social Darwinists’ errors. Doing so makes it possible not only to avoid repeating errors but also to advance scientific understanding.”[16]

But Thayer moves on to make this argument:

“The ultimate causation for warfare is anchored in Darwinian natural selection and inclusive fitness….warfare can increase both the absolute and relative fitness of humans…From the classical Darwinian perspective, warfare contributes to fitness because individuals who wage war successfully are better able to survive and reproduce.”[17]

Thayer repeats this thesis over and over in the course of the book:

“An ultimate causal explanation for warfare based in evolutionary theory begins with the recognition that warfare contributes to fitness in certain circumstances because successful warfare lets the winner acquire resources.

“For evolutionary biology, a resource is any material substance that has the potential to increase the individual’s ability to survive or reproduce. As such it may be food, shelter, or territory, especially high-quality soil or wild foods; abundant firewood; or territory free of dangerous animals, such as lions, or insect infestations, or disease; and also status coalition allies, and members of the opposite sex.”[18]

And then this: “Warfare might be necessary then for offensive purposes, to plunder resources from others. In these circumstances, an individual becomes fitter if he can successfully attack to take the resources of others.”[19]

Thayer cites evolutionary theorist William Durham saying that

“War is one means by which individuals ‘may improve the material conditions of their lives and thereby increase their ability to survive and reproduce…Thus successful warfare would help the tribe gain resources, and for a widen agricultural economy land is critically important.”[20]

So, is Thayer really against social Darwinism? Ideologically, yes. Consistently and logically? No. I honestly don’t blame him, for his intellectual grandfather could not solve that problem either and had to live in contradiction until his dying day. Darwin declared at the end of his Origin of Species:

“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.”[21]

Correct me if I am wrong here: isn’t Darwin saying that war and famine and death are things that will get the higher animals ahead? It is agreed among scholars that this is Darwin at his best. Yet when social Darwinists took Darwin’s thesis and spread it across the political spectrum, Darwin disagreed![22]

If “Jewish intellectual and political movements” are in the struggle for survival, then the Goyim must swiftly be eliminated. That is certainly consistent with Darwin’s grand scheme. If people cannot see this and try to avoid this vital contradiction, then you can be sure that they are not to be taken seriously or they do not want to follow their own ideological project to its bitter end.

So, when people are trying to maintain an objective morality by either appealing to the so-called “evolutionary theory” or even DNA, then you can be sure that those people either are out of touch with the scholarly literature, are not well equipped to understand or articulate their own position, or are just deliberately lying.

Furthermore, to appeal to reciprocal altruism to prove objective morality, a central protocol in Darwin’s grand scheme,[23] is also a dead end because the life of Mother Theresa and countless other examples prove that this idea will not work. I was hoping that modern Darwinists would make some good improvement on this warfare theory, but so far virtually everyone has failed.

I am certainly not asking people to drop their cherished belief. In fact, there are many people who believe in the tooth fairy. But so long that this Neo-Darwinian ideology remains intellectually incoherent and morally indefensible, they can leave me out of it.

Going back to Putin, he said in 2013:

“People in many European countries are ashamed, and are afraid of talking about their religious convictions. [Religious] holidays are being taken away or called something else, shamefully hiding the essence of the holiday.”[24]

The Zionist regime, of course, made the false accusation that Putin was persecuting homosexuals. But Putin moved on to diffuse the regime’s silly argument this way: “We need to respect the rights of minorities to be different, but the rights of the majority should not be in question.”[25]

So, yes, Patrick Buchanan. Putin is one of us! Any serious politician who stands against the diabolical establishment is one of us. As Friedrich Hansen of Asia Times put it,

“Make no mistake, Putin is not targeting homosexuals, as he made clear with his welcoming them to the Sochi Olympics. It also seems only fair to remind Western readers that ever since the 1980s, Sotchi has been the center of Russia with a vibrant homosexual subculture. Rather, Putin is addressing the whole gamut of post-modern incarnations of the ‘sex and drugs’ revolution: binge drinking of both genders until the doctors move in, elite illicit drug use, unmanageable crime rates, surging divorce numbers, Hook-Up sex on campus, out of wedlock births, fathers and mothers in puberty, abortion on demand, public nudism and human copulation in parks, gay promiscuity with a good conscience, swinger clubs and darkrooms, ruthless Internet dating and pornography and what have you.”[26]

How does the regime respond? Well, you know the drill. Owen Matthews, a useful idiot, declared in the Spectator that Putin has a “new plan for world domination”![27] In order to slander Putin, Matthews indirectly linked him with Willi Munzenberg, a revolutionary Jew who wanted to take the Western world to perdition at any cost. Munzenberg was so passionate about his revolutionary goal that he wrote:

“We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western Civilization stink! Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

When Putin said that Russia will “defend traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years,” Matthews declared that Putin “is on to something.” What is it? Matthews told us:

“Putin’s new mission goes deeper than political opportunism. Like the old Communist International, or Comintern, in its day, Moscow is again building an international ideological alliance.”[28]

He again emphasized this point so that readers could get it: “And again, like the Comintern, Putin appears convinced that he is embarking on a world-historical mission.”[29] He moved on to talking about “Putin’s conservative Comintern.”

At the other end of the political spectrum, David Cameron likened Putin to Hitler.[30] John McCain, Lindsey Graham, among other usual suspects, all placed Putin and Hitler on equal footing.[31]

Historian Paul Johnson (sad to say) even went so far as to say that Putin and Hitler are basically two sides of the same coin. Johnson said that Putin

“believes in a strong Stalinist state. His goal is to reverse the events of 1989–the end of the Soviet state and dissolution of its enormous empire. He seeks to do this by using what remains of Russia’s Stalinist heritage: the military, a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and immense resources of natural gas and other forms of energy.”[32]

Johnson was sad because “there is no Churchillian voice to sound the alarm and call the democratic world to action.”[33]

Johnson has got to be kidding. What he ended up saying was that someone like Churchill needed to step up and start lying to the West about Putin. It was so sad to read silly comments such as this by a generally good historian like Johnson. But since Johnson himself was intellectual crippled by the Zionist establishment, he could not think clearly.

But the real question is this: why did puppets of the current regime hate Putin so much? Well, Putin suggested back in 2013 the Soviet government was guided by a dark force whose “ideological goggles and faulty ideological perceptions collapsed.”[34]

“The first Soviet government,” Putin added, “was 80-85 percent Jewish.”[35] Sounds like Putin has read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together. If so, then it seems clear that much of the entire media had good reasons to fear him. Perhaps Putin has been encouraged by Solzhenitsyn’s bravery. It was Solzhenitsyn who said:

“And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”[36]

Putin was saying enough is enough. And this may be one reason why nearly all the major news outlets were relentlessly slandering him. Kevin Barrett ended up his excellent article saying, “God bless President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.” Let us hope that he will never be weary in well doing, for in due season he shall reap, if he faints not.

This slightly altered article was first published in the summer of 2015 and 2019.


  • [1] See for example William Husband, “Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia, 1917–1932 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002); Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
  • [2] See for example Sabrina Petra Ramet, Religious Policy in the Soviet Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 4; for similar studies, see also John Anderson, Religion, State and Politics in the Soviet Union and Successor States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
  • [3] Patrick J. Buchanan, “Vladimir Putin, Christian Crusader?,” American Conservative, April 4, 2014.
  • [4] Marc Bennetts, “Who’s ‘godless’ now? Russia says it’s U.S.,” Washington Times, January 28, 2014.
  • [5] Ibid.
  • [6] Peter Pomerantsev, “For God and Putin,” Newsweek, September 10, 2012.
  • [7] Seth Mandel, Contentions: Putin Vs. the Punk Rockers,” Commentary, August 17, 2012.
  • [8] E. Michael Jones has made this very point in his article “Ethnos Needs Logos: or Why I spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Convince David Duke to Become a Catholic,” Culture Wars, June 2015.
  • [9] Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality,” Guardian, March 15, 2010.
  • [10] Ibid.
  • [11] Ibid.
  • [12] Ibid.
  • [13] Bradley A. Thayer, Darwin and International Relations: On the Evolutionary Origins of War and Ethnic Conflict (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2004), 96.
  • [14] Ibid., 99, 100, 107, 114.
  • [15] Ibid., 99.
  • [16] Ibid., 102.
  • [17] Ibid., 103, 104.
  • [18] Ibid., 108.
  • [19] Ibid., 109.
  • [20] Ibid. 110, 111.
  • [21] Darwin, Origin of Species, 459.
  • [22] For a decent historical study on this, see for example Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1962). Darwin was not as open-minded as people thought he was. “Former Darwin enthusiast St. George Mivart published anonymous articles critiquing Darwin’s theory. A gifted zoologist, Mivart would eventually publish a volume titled The Genesis of Species, an influential book that raised serious questions about the limits of natural selection, especially in its application to man. Far from rejecting Darwin wholesale, Mivart continued to embrace evolution and believe that the physical capacities of human beings had developed from the lower animals. But he continued to insist—like [Alfred] Wallace—that man was radically unique from the rest of creation and had a soul. Egged on by Thomas Huxley, Darwin became increasingly bitter over his former disciple’s criticisms, despite Mivart’s attempts to be personable in private correspondence and his public praise of the ‘invaluable labours and active brains of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.” John G. West, Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007).
  • [23] See Denis L. Krebs, The Origins of Morality (New York: Oxford University, 2011), 41-42.
  • [24] Neil Buckley, “Putin urges Russians to return to values of religion,” Financial Times, September 19, 2013.
  • [25] Ibid.
  • [26] Friedrich Hansen, “Putin Stands Up to Western Decadence,” Asia Times, February 28, 2014.
  • [27] Owen Matthews, “Vladimir Putin’s new plan for world domination,” Spectator, February 22, 2014.
  • [28] Ibid.
  • [29] Ibid.
  • [30] Owen Jones, “David Cameron and the cynicism of comparing Putin to Hitler,” Guardian, September 3, 2014.
  • [31] Michael Kelley, “11 Prominent People Who Compared Putin To Hitler,” Business Insider, May 23, 2014.
  • [32] Paul Johnson, “Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler?,” Forbes, April 16, 2014.
  • [33] Ibid.
  • [34] “Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish,” Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2013.
  • [35] Ibid.
  • [36] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Solzhenitsyn Reader (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2007), 558.

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

19 COMMENTS

  1. Putin is attempting to conduct a ‘Humanitarian War’, that is why it is still ongoing! It could be a big mistake on his part! We will see.

  2. Comment correction:
    Kant is the most misunderstood philosopher of all time. This author understands him well I think. The Left has essentially inverted Kant to make him say that morality is subjective. What Kant means by “subjective” is very different and opposite from what the left says. I explain how his philosophy is the foundation of the West in my book “Assholes and Bullshit: A Language Problem”, where I explain that the conception of the asshole is a uniquely Western concept. Western Trinitarian Common law governemnts are the brainchild of Kant and expanded by Ficte, a disciple of Kant.

  3. It was a bit disconcerting to see Putin entertaining a visit by those little guys with the beards and funny black hats with the cubes on the forehead, just as it was to see the Pope kiss their rings. All I see now is if Putin rolls over, it is over……

  4. Protocol 1:11. The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms of the GOYIM, but we must in no wise be guided by them.

    • “”””Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy.”””

      This is oh so true, because the authors of that philosophy are the very ones who take down rulers who are forthright enough to ever take such as themselves into their royal and gullible confidence.

  5. Heinlein said more issues are settled with violence than any other means. I agree. However the non-violent means must have their chance. That is why war is the last option but it must always be an option or your rhetoric is without force. Yes, Darwinian evolution does indeed support war as an environmental factor that weeds out the unfit. While there are of course those whom chance will snuff out without regard to fitness you must rely on the broader scope of racial survival to insure the gifting forward to our descendants the traits that allow us to survive.

    Language is one of those survival traits. Cradle to the grave socialism will wipe out the human race if taken to its conclusion. An example of non-productive foolishness which will require that old time religion, war, to destroy it from our present or there will not be a future. If they don’t have to work the race will die, eating popcorn and watching Netflix because the women don’t want to endure labor and the men are too lazy to copulate. Technology can save the human race if socialism overwhelms us as it seems to be doing. The artificial womb should not be opposed as at some future date Big Brother may be overthrown. At least there will always be that possibility if BB grows all the slaves he desires. BB’s appetites are legendary, he will want many slaves. All miserable of course that he may lord it over them and feel better about his own atheistic misery. Just because you

    • Satan is an opportunist. He uses both Communism and Capitalism. It has been correctly stated that communism is the attack dog of the ultra-capitalists, used explicitly to eliminate the power of the wealthy, so they can be subjugated / owned / appropriated by the mega-rich. This is what the major global economic collapses have been about: the ultra-rich weakening the rich, then gobbling up their capital and assets.

    • David,
      Satan is all of them, and if you don’t understand the meaning of that, your spirituality needs a reboot.

  6. > “built their ideology on Marxism/Leninism, and essentially diabolical system that sought to eradicate religion during that era”

    forget about religion – it’s all about moral behaviour.

    The most self-congratulatory of the religions for it’s supposed virtue is Christianity – which is the tool used to validate destruction, misery and death throughout the world.

    There may be argument about whether or not despicable action is due to “true” christianity .. but that is utterly irrelevant. Keep the eye on the ball – moral behaviour in evidential reality – not academic definitions of words.

    • “””There may be argument about whether or not despicable action is due to “true” christianity .. but that is utterly irrelevant”””

      A true Christian would rather die than kill someone else
      Does that makes clear enough for you?

  7. In characteristic fashion, the author makes two entirely unsubstantiated claims. I document them here for those readers interested in an honest analysis:

    1) The author writes that “Aquino, an avowed Satanist and credibly-accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US military…”. Any search engine will confirm that Michael Aquino never held such a position, nor has such a position as “Chief of Psychological Warfare” existed apart from that held by Robert A. McClure of the Allied Expeditionary Force over seventy years ago.

    2) The author repeats Putin’s allegation of the first Soviet government being “80-85 percent Jewish”, and attributes such an idea to Solzhenitsyn. Putin indeed repeats this old canard (though he did it while making a gesture of goodwill to the Jewish community in Moscow, which the author neglects to mention: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1st-soviet-gov-t-was-80-jewish-says-putin-1.5282900), but Solzhenitsyn did not. Nor has any academic source. The reason is that it is entirely and categorically false. The author would be well-advised to cite any such data to that effect for his readers. The first Soviet government was Lenin’s People’s Commissars. It contained one Jew (by ethnicity, not religion; important to note only because the author maintains that Jewishness is a theological and not a racial category)-Leon Trotsky.

  8. —I am amazed with some “Readers” when they
    —“Misunderstand or Worse, Demand for More Explanation”
    — When the “Columnist’s Superb Article” is as Clear as Day & Night

  9. This article makes some good points when the author is within his areas of expertise, such as philosophy, religion, and morality. It goes off the rails in the few paragraphs starting with, “Correct me if I am wrong.”

    The author conflates ideas on war with Darwin’s quote on the “war of nature.” What Darwin is describing is evolution as seen across vast timescales, where environmental factors (war of nature, famine, death) have interacted with individuals to select traits that eventually develop species in various ways. This has nothing to do with human wars or Thayer’s musings on them.

    The idea that “eliminating the goyim” is “certainly consistent with Darwin’s grand scheme” is absurd. It shows that the author has not invested enough effort in understanding basic evolutionary principles, such as individual selection. Of course Darwin would disagree with such a misapplication of evolutionary theory.

    • Raven:
      Thanks for your comments. Read Darwin’s biographers and Darwin’s writings. There were numerous points that I specifically left out because the articles would have been too long. But I will point these out in my upcoming critique of Kevin MacDonald. For example, Darwin explicitly said: “Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”
      Darwin said this towards the end of his life. If wars and conflicts are consistent with Darwin’s overarching principle, then why should we exclude wars between the so-called Goyim and the “Jewish intellectual and political movements”? Aren’t those movements trying to survive by eliminating their competitors? Again, these issues will be fully developed in an upcoming essay at the end of next month. You may want to disagree, but it is not something that is in dispute among many Darwin scholars.

    • Darwin is Satanic horse crap meant to deceive Christians first, and all other goyim, second; periord!

      That is a sure and confident statement, because it was conceived by those who knows it’s a LIE.

      As far as “war” goes, our Maker demonstrated right from the beginning; to make a long story short, how Cain killed Able out envy and jealousy.
      And thus man set out on his muderous course.
      In our heavenly Father Almighty God’s unfathomable plan, He took man’s rebellious and lustfully war-minded ways, and used them as a driving force to illicit and demonstrate His power to bless those who believed and obeyed Him, and curse those who forgot to believe Him, and who dis-obeyed Him.
      God defeated the children of Israel’s enemies as long as Israel obeyed God.
      When they dis-obeyed, God let their enemies win.

      And thus it as ever been so.

    • I realized this needs clarifying;
      “”That is a sure and confident statement, because “””it”””was conceived by those who knows it’s a LIE.”””

      The “””it””” is Darwinism.
      Some didn’t need the clarification, but I did.

      Jerry Lee Lewis sang about the culprit; Wine Spodee Odee

Comments are closed.