This is a long article by Jonas Alexis, but it covers very well some key hidden truths of our world:
We have argued earlier that Darwin’s project is consistently compatible with the essentially Talmudic ideology, which states that the Goyim are beasts. Darwin argued that the “imbeciles” and the “weak” ought to be eliminated; the Talmud teaches that the Goyim were created essentially to serve Jews.
This point was articulated by the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef back in 2010. “Why are Gentiles needed?,” he asked, “They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.” Yosef continued:
“In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Gentiles were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
Yosef also said of Arabs: “How can you make peace with a snake? Those evildoers, the Arabs — it says in the Gemara [Talmud] that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael.”
Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu quickly distanced himself from Yosef when he uttered those wonderful words. He issued a statement saying that Yosef’s sermons “do not reflect my approach or the stand of the Israeli government.” So far, so good.
But when Yosef died in 2013, Netanyahu declared: “The Jewish People have lost one of the wisest men of his generation.” One of the wisest men?
Well, according to this logic, Yosef taught the Jewish people, including Benjamin Netanyahu, that the Goyim are donkeys. How else would the Israeli government, under Netanyahu’s watch, continue to slaughter, maim, and mercilessly exterminate the Palestinians? How else would they continue to expand the settlement? How else would “A large majority of US Senators, both Republican and Democratic, ask President Obama to increase military aid to Israel”?…
… It is often said that “Social Darwinism” was a movement that had little or nothing to do with Darwin’s public or private beliefs, but as biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore point out, Darwin’s own notebooks “make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”
In other words, the Social Darwinists were more consistent in following Darwin’s reductionism than Darwin consistently following the extension of his own weltanschauung. In fact, Darwin was confronted with this dilemma right after the publication of the Origin of Species.
A Manchester newspaper quickly realized that he was implicitly and subtly advertising the idea that “might is right” and that “every cheating tradesman is also right.” Like his intellectual children, Darwin disagreed with no serious justification. Yet one year before he died, Charles Darwin proved that his critics were right all along. He said,
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. 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 civilized 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 the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Darwin, as it turns out, was intellectually dishonest, largely because he deliberately excluded practical reason from his project. His intellectual children have never been able to recover from that intellectual dishonesty.
In fact, some of them (like Marc Hauser of Harvard) have deliberately forged lies and complete fabrications to propound their ideas. And no one wants to talk about the so-called Piltdown Man anymore because the story is now too embarrassing. Ernst Haeckel’s fake drawings seems to have fallen into the same category.
The deduction we are trying to make here is that when practical reason is excluded from any intellectual project, then contradiction, blatant dishonesty, illogical leaps, and sometimes deliberate deceptions would be the end result.
Immanuel Kant quickly realized this and immediately put practical reason back into the intellectual firmament, which inevitably allowed him to come up with a much more rigorous and intellectually satisfying system known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative prohibits contradiction and irrationality precisely because it is based on the moral law itself. It states:
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
That obviously throws Darwin out the window because there is no Darwinian maxim that can logically become a universal or moral law. In fact, Darwin denied a universal and moral law. Keep in mind that this universal law does not depend on how you and I feel on a given day. It also is not contingent upon what we may think is right. This universal law is independent of our appetite and preference. In other words, we obviously did not make this universal law; we just happen to discover it…
… In fact, it can easily be argued that intellectual and scientific dishonesty is largely the hinge upon which Darwinism is built in academe. If you do not think so, then call immunologist Caroline Crocker, a former professor at George Mason University, evolutionary biologist Richard Stenberg, formerly of the Smithsonian Institute, neurosurgeon Michael Ignor of Stony Brook University, Dean Canyon of San Francisco State University, etc.
If you don’t get fired for criticizing Darwin, then rest assured that your arguments will be either ignored, ridiculed, dismissed without serious thought, or politically castrated.
For years, philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University maintained that Darwinian evolution provides the best explanation for life. But Nagel dropped that position in his recent book Mind and Cosmos, in which he cogently argues that “the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”
The academic community obviously owes Nagel a serious response, but no one has ever bothered to formulate a cogent counter-argument. It was really funny to watch how so-called thinking people were all interested in talking about Nagel as a person and not about the arguments he presents in the book—a classic example of a straw-man and ad hominem attack. The same thing happened to mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski, who criticized some of the central tenets of Neo-Darwinism. In response, Daniel Dennett said:
“I love it: another hilarious demonstration that you can publish bullshit at will—just so long as you say what an editorial board wants to hear in a style it favors.”
Well, if it is “bullshit,” then the case is closed. No evidence needs to be provided; no counter-argument is required; no logical or scientific or empirical evidence ought to be presented. Bullshit is bullshit, and that is the end of the story. Berlinski humorously responded,
“We lost something in the literary and intellectual culture that’s no longer accessible. You get a guy like Daniel Dennett, whose greatest intellectual achievement was growing that stupid beard of his, masquerading as a scientific expert on Darwinian theory, staring at the camera, and no one is dousing him with a bucket of water. It’s incredible to me….It should be sad.”
We are constantly told over and over that “science” is self-correcting and that scientists are always open to constructive criticism. According to Crocker, you simply cannot criticize Darwinism without being fired.
Why did she get fired? Well, Crocker was demonstrating that the Miller-Urey experiment, among other frauds, was almost certainly “irrelevant” to the tenets of Darwinism. In fact, if the experiment were successful, Darwinism would have once again received a low blow precisely because it would have proven that it takes intelligence (namely Miller and Urey) to create life!
Once Crocker announced that there are some frauds in the biology textbooks, the Washington Post itself declared that “Gasps and giggles burst out” in the classroom. In other words, Crocker was an intellectual terrorist who ought to be expunged. But there were some good reactions.
One student by the name of Carolyn Flitcroft who thought she was getting a decent education declared: “So far, we have only learned that evolution is true. This is the first time I have ever heard it isn’t.” Another student declared, “If science is the pursuit of truth, why is evolution not questioned?”
Well, that was the end of Crocker’s academic career. She said: “I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.”
But then some scientists would run around and declare things like, “Darwinism is true because nearly all the major scientists believe it.” This is a vacuous statement precisely because serious scientists are not allowed to touch the theory without being politically castrated.
End of quote.
Most people accept the teaching they have received that science is sacrosanct and everything in the “Scientific World View” got there through the application of the scientific method. That happens to be pure propaganda and is well illustrated by the fact that work conducted areas that do not support the principles of the Scientific World View are either actively destroyed as described above or studiously ignored, such as the work of Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin, who have both rigorously applied the scientific method to what would be considered by the mainstream to be the paranormal.
But it seems more and more people are waking up. My writing of this was interrupted by a phone call from a guy who, it turned out (not the reason for the call), discovered GcMAF and got his prostate cancer under control after the Allopathic medical diagnosis (a Rockefeller creation) of “two years to live”.
May the waking up continue.