…by Jonas E. Alexis
The city of God, says Augustine, is based on the love of God, is rooted and grounded in the moral and political order, transcends cultural backgrounds, and seeks to help all humanity.
But the city of man has for its edifice selfish and carnal desires and the exploitation of fellow men, dominated by lust, greed, envy, and pride, among other vices.
Those two cities, says Augustine, have been at war since the beginning of time, and although their terminology may change from one century to the next, the metaphysical substratum remains the same.
Moreover, both spheres have their own agendas and purposes. The city of God seeks to uplift that which is true, honest, just, pure, and lovely.
The city of man seeks to do the opposite through sophisticated means—be they intellectual, sexual, or completely wicked means—with the end result of the city of man being to deconstruct the city of God and replace it with misery on earth.
Marquis de Sade is a classic representation of “the city of the world,” because his lifestyle was ultimately a war against existence and essence—two of the metaphysical fibers which hold human beings together and are rooted in the moral and natural order.
First, de Sade attacked the divinely designed order and implemented sexual perversion in its place. If “the Frenchman were buried deeper in the darkness of Christianity,” de Sade tells us in Philosophy in the Boudoir, then “we would suffer the arrogance, the tyranny, and the despotism of priests.”
Before proceeding to abandon himself to his sexual impulses and perversion, however, de Sade, like Nietzsche who later deliberately infected himself with syphilis, made sure that he dismissed any supernatural force:
“No, there is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself; in no wise hath she need of an author.”
If God is dead, as Nietzsche postulated, then there is no objective morality. And later philosophers understand this basic principle quite well. Noted atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse postulated more than three decades ago:
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves…
“Nevertheless, to a Darwinian evolutionist it can be seen that such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…an ephemeral product of the evolutionary process, just as are other adaptations. It has no existence or being beyond this, and any deeper meaning is illusory.”
Ruse, as a serious Darwinist philosopher, concluded, “In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”
If morality is just “an aid to survival,” then there is no way to adjudicate competing theories. Sade’s sexual perversion was just an aid to survival.
Since the moral order is banned, Sade moved on to intone his sexual impulse which he followed to its tragic end:
“I advise a girl to have a good friend, a woman, who, untrammeled and in society, can help the girl to secretly taste those worldly pleasures.”
With morality and order removed, de Sade was free to follow any impulse and encourage others to do the same:
“You girls who have been tied down by the absurd and dangerous bonds of an imaginary virtue and a disgusting religion: imitate ardent Eugenie. Destroy, trample, as swiftly as she, all the ridiculous precepts inculcated by moronic parents.”
De Sade further deconstructs the moral order by saying, “It’s absurd to say that this mania is unnatural. Can it be censured if nature inspires it in us? Can nature dictate something that degrades it?”
Since the moral order is now gone and parental supervision is viewed as a relic of the distant past, Sade has to substitute the moral order with his own sexual passion, which he fleshed out in virtually every page of Philosophy in the Boudoir:
“Fuck, Eugenie, fu$k away, my dear angel! Your body belongs to you, and to you alone. You are the only person in the world who has the right to enjoy your body and to let anyone you wish enjoy it.”
“to fu$k women in the rear is but the first part of buggery [sodomy]; tis with men Nature wishes men to practice this oddity, and it is specially for men she has given us an inclination….
“We are born to fu$k, because by fu$king we obey and fulfill Nature’s ordinations, and because all man-made laws which would contravene Nature’s are made for naught but our contempt.”
Here and elsewhere, Sade was following the logical outworking of Enlightenment philosophy, which, like feminism, promised freedom on the surface but delivered moral and intellectual bondage.
As E. Michael Jones puts it, “Sexual liberation is a conflation of Enlightenment thought, which is to say, rationalization based on ‘science,’ and masturbation.” This sexual liberation was the bedrock upon which many of the Enlightenment writers ended up sexualizing France.
Yet despite the fact that Sade’s writings are pornographic in nature, he does not lack defenders. Scholar John Phillips writes that most of de Sade’s writings “contained neither obscenity nor extreme violence, and many of his works of fiction are considered masterpieces of their genre.”
We can ignore Phillips for our discussion here, since he doesn’t seem to have a complete version of Sade’s Philosophy in the Boudoir and his other works. If he does, then he deliberately misrepresents Sade and portrays him as a patron saint. For example, how did Phillips miss Sade’s point here, which is in plain English?
“My husband’s whim is to have himself sucked, and here is the most unusual practice joined as a corollary to that one: while, as I bend over him, my buttocks squarely over his face and cheerily pumping the fu$k from his balls, I must shit in his mouth!…He swallows it down!…”
In the same vein, feminist scholar and critic Camille Paglia, who declared unambiguously that she is “totally pro-pornography,” supports Sade by saying,
“Not since the Bacchae has there been so direct a transcription of daemonic experience.
“Sade recreates the agony and ecstasy of ancient mystery religions. His female libertines are high priestesses of savage nature, doing their work day and night…Sade’s libertines freely wallow in filth and find no humiliation in being flogged or sodomized in public.” Yet even Paglia warns,
“Even I cannot stand many passages, despite my long study of the chthonian and, possibly more germane, a college summer as ward secretary of a downtown hospital emergency room.
“Don’t read Sade before lunch! Sade is subjecting the body to Dionysian process, reducing the human to raw matter and feeding it back to rapacious nature…Sadean sex is not democratic, but it always occurs in groups…
“Men take masochistic roles and women rape and torture in order to destroy traditional sexual hierarchy. Paganism is restored and the hermaphroditic world of Roman orgy recreated.
“Sade wants to create an androgyne as perfect monster, combining as many perverse identities as possible.”
Here Camille is locked into her own philosophical deadness. She declared in an interview that when one looks at pornography,
“you’re looking at nature roiling up. Pornography is about vitality. It’s not about degradation. [It’s about] the vitality of life principle.”
Camille just shows that you cannot break the moral law and still remain rational.
But there is something more underneath Sade’s sexual metaphysics: men—or women—are simply machines that could be manipulated. Sade picked up that idea from Enlightenment writers such as d’Holbach and Helvitius.
“What is man? And what difference is there between him and other plants, between him and all the other animals of the world? None, obviously,” Sade theorized.
Since there is no real difference between man and plants—or even worms for that matter—Sade proceeded to cross the pornographic Rubicon, never to return to sanity.
“Women are nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness.” As a metaphysical principle, “Voluptuaries of all ages and sexes” must “listen solely” to the “delicious passions” which guide them, and that “their source is the only one that will lead to happiness.”
Austrian scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called Sade “the grandfather of modern democracy.” Camille Paglia stated that Sade actually changed Mother Nature: “Rousseau revives the Great Mother, but Sade restores her true ferocity. She is Darwin’s nature, red in tooth and claw.”
Paglia moved on to say that Sade’s metaphysical worldview with respect to nature is “a classically Dionysian view of man’s immersion in organic nature. Judeo-Christianity elevates man above nature, but Sade, like Darwin, assigns him to the animal kingdom, subject to natural force.”
By logical extension, then, “marital sex is no different than rape…As a Dionysian sexualist, Sade abolishes the great chain of being, sinking man into the continuum of nature.”
Sade’s view of nature and man got a “scientific” spin with the advent of Darwinian metaphysics, which largely declares that the universe, in the words of Richard Dawkins, contains “just electrons and selfish genes.”
Dawkins puts the issue quite bluntly in his popular book River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice…DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
Yet in Selfish Genes, Dawkins writes,
“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.”
We? Who’s we? Didn’t fellow atheist Daniel Dennett relentlessly say that “we are each made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all?”
Dawkins and his peers cannot address this classic and perennial contradiction because the philosophical premise of the Darwinian view of life is logically and intellectually incoherent. It is like walking into a room full of smoke.
DNA does not determine our good or bad behavior. Sade’s pornography was not part of his genetic code, but part of his immoral reasoning, which quickly precipitated into graphic perversion and degradation of both men and women.
If DNA determines our behavior, then we would not be able to hold Sade responsible for his behavior. He could have simply said, “Forgive me, your majesty. My genes made me do it.”
Yet this perennial contradiction is the fabric upon which “scientific” determinism is built. Einstein once declared, “I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.”
If people like Stalin could not be held accountable for their wicked actions, who committed the murder? DNA? Forces of nature? Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick tried to give an answer to these questions in his The 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.”
Crick could not see the illogical leap of his assertion because he wanted to preserve the notion that man has no free will. Darwinian evolution is the only game in town.
Crick was simply using biology as ideology, and many scientists admit to doing the same thing. Philosopher of science Michael Ruse once again argued,
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledge alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality…
“This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”
“then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics [because] the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy…
“Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution—as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”
Ruse, of course, somewhat got excommunicated for saying things like that. In an email exchange, Daniel Dennett told Ruse quite bluntly,
“You may want to try to extricate yourself, since you are certainly losing ground fast in the evolutionary community hat I am in touch with…I…think you are doing a disservice to the case of taking science seriously.”
Ruse, who is now at Florida State University, responded,
“I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect…I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design—we are losing this battle…
“What we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues—neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas—it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard [Dawkins] claims…”
But what happens when men ultimately reject freewill and morality? Well, they need to be honest like noted evolutionary biologist William B. Provine of Cornell, who postulated that:
“There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no freewill for humans, either.”
If the serious neo-Darwinist takes his premises to their logical conclusions, he will end up there. And if he disagrees, I personally would love to dialogue with him and show him that his feet are firmly planted in mid-air.
As atheist mathematician and philosopher Alston Chase put it a few years ago, “A life without God, meaning, or value is a difficult one to live.”
Over the past few decades, biology has also been used to propagate the idea that Jewish behavior is genetic, despite the fact that the proponents of this idea have never bothered to address the philosophical and scientific challenges the idea has faced.
Proponents of this idea indirectly adopt the Enlightenment principle with a Darwinian spin, apply it to human behavior, and then absolve themselves any responsibility for their doctrine.
Think about this for a moment. If genes are the arbiter of our behavior, we are therefore doomed to the survival of the fittest. The strongest genes will survive, and the weakest ones must be eliminated for the good of the strongest ones.
If the genetic theorists do not like that, they need to take it up with Darwin himself, who fantasized that
“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. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope…”
The genetic theorists, like many neo-Darwinists, do not want to go beyond mere words and apply their philosophy to ultimate metaphysics. Darwin “was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope.”
If eminent physicist Lawrence Krauss is right—that “we’re just a bit of pollution…If you got rid of us, and all the stars and all the galaxies and all the planets and all the aliens and everybody, then the universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant”—why not get rid of the pollution at our earliest convenience or through deceptive means?
If Richard Dawkins is right, that the universe (including you and me) has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”—an ideology which he gleaned from his intellectual antecedent Charles Darwin and which has been widely accepted by the vast majority of biologists—why did he see the need to attack the God of the Old Testament as evil in a book that is more than four hundred pages long?
Here and elsewhere, both Richard Dawkins and the genetic theorists share a kindred spirit: their hypothesis is internally contradictory and intellectually repugnant, though they search tirelessly for a solution to that contradiction.
Noted textbook biologists Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller tell us that “Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless—a process in which nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit…The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons.”
What noted physicist Stanley L. Jaki wrote in 1978 turned out to be true, that Darwinism, at its metaphysical level, turned out to be a Designer substitute, ultimately devoid of moral.
If the genetic theorists happen to tell you that the Khazarian theory is wrong because those who propose it had an agenda from the beginning, point out the double standard that Charles Darwin, who failed to discuss the origin of species in his Origin of Species and whom those people seem to apotheosize, also had an agenda from the moment he started his theory. Darwin wanted to subtly deconstruct any divinely designed purpose in the universe.
In fact, it was not the sciences that led Darwin to reject a divinely designed universe; it was the problem of evil. He wrote to Asa Gray:
“With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.—I am bewildered.—I have no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as others do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us.
“There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding with the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”
He continued to marshal a really bad argument with respect to the problem of evil this way:
“I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and kill it, I do this designedly. An innocent & good man stands under tree and is killed by flash of lightening. Do you believe that God designedly killed that man?
“Many or most persons believe this; I can’t and I don’t. If you believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particular sparrow [should] snap up that particular gnat at that particular instant?…
“If the death of neither man or gnat are designed, I see no good reason to believe that their first birth or production [should] be necessarily designed. Yet, as I said before, I cannot persuade myself that electricity acts, that the tree grows, that man aspires to loftiest conceptions all from blind, brute force.”
Too bad that Darwin was a crummy philosopher. In fact, no serious philosopher today maintains the position that the problem of evil poses an intellectual stumbling block to a divinely designed plan. Listen to agnostic philosopher Paul Draper:
“Logical arguments from evil are a dying (dead?) breed…For all we know, even an omnipotent and omniscient being might be forced to allow [evil] for the sake of obtaining some important good. Our knowledge of goods and evils and the logical relations they bear to each other is much too limited to prove that this could not be the case.
“In short, logical arguments from evil are thought to fail because of a nonprobabilistic skeptical thesis: given our cognitive limitations, we are in no position to prove that [an omnipotent and omniscient being] is false.”
The poor objectivist has to maintain that it is impossible for an omnipotent deity and evil to co-exist for a period of time. That unspoken affirmation requires enormous logical justification, and thus far no one has ever been able to produce that justification.
If we use the red-herring argument as propounded by the genetic theorists, then Darwinian evolution, as the late analytic philosopher David Stove put it, is a fairytale.
More than likely, the answer you would get from the genetic theorists is that, “Oh no. Darwinism has to be examined upon its merit and evidence.” I fully agree, and if we look at Darwinian evolution from a purely mathematical standpoint, most specifically probability, it will collapse in a second.
Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, two of the world’s leading mathematicians and astronomers of the twentieth century (Hoyle himself coined the term “big bang theory”), did their own calculations to see whether life could have originated by chance.
Both men wanted to prove that life could have originated by chance. Yet at their end of their research, they concluded:
“The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one in part (1020)2000 = 1040,000 , an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
“If one is not prejudice either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.
“But one is so prejudiced it is possible, in the fashion of a grand master with a lost game of chess, to wriggle ingeniously for a while. He would make a series of postulates, for which there is no evidence….
“For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for its assembly….No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning.
“Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.”
In other words, the chance that enzymes could have been formed by chance is worse than magic, and this was one of the reasons why many mathematicians by the middle of the twentieth century could not accept the prevailing doctrine of neo-Darwinism.
After a long pause, Hoyle declared that his atheism was “greatly shaken.” Hoyle finally concluded:
“Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.’ Of course you would . . .
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
“a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together.”
How can such a small thing as the cell contain that much information? And how can that possibly be the work of accident and blind chance, as Jacques Monod argued?
The only defense that the poor Darwinist has is to appeal to is natural selection. But natural selection does not have the power to create something new—it only works with information that is already present in a system.
For example, a jackass has the information in its gene pool to produce four legs, but it does not have the capacity to produce a wing or a beak. Therefore, natural selection cannot create something like your mind; it can only work after the system is already in existence.
Darwinism, like “Holocaust” studies, has become so ingrained in the minds of many that to question or doubt its intellectual power is to commit an unpardonable sin.
When noted neurosurgeon Michael Egnor of State University of New York wrote an essay saying that there is a lack of evidence in the Darwinian theory, he received some really nasty letters from the Darwinian establishment saying that it was time for him to retire. Egnor indeed was not espousing religious dogmas, for he clear said that
“I accepted the Darwinian explanation. I considered religious explanations for biology unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But Darwin’s explanation, too, was a matter of faith because I did not know the evidence…
“I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor.”
Dean Kenyon received his undergraduate degree in physics at the University of Chicago and his Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University. As an atheist, Kenyon believed that evolution could have explained even the origin of the universe.
Kenyon then took a position as a postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California. He also was a Research Associate at NASA-Ames Research Center, and a Visiting Scholar at Oxford University. His career was on the rise and, with co-author Gary Steinman, wrote the textbook Biochemical Predestination.
Yet five years after the release of the book, Kenyon began to doubt the plausibility of his arguments. His academic environment was so unwelcome by his new shift that he was fired from his position at San Francisco State University. Kenyon was already tenured. The University, we are told, shamefully reinstated him.
But then the typical neo-Darwinist would bring this self-serving and circular argument, “every good scientist believes in evolution.” Well, duh! Look what happens if you start questioning the dogma!
For example, when Roger DeHart, a biology teacher in Burlington High School, Washington, told his students that there are biological systems that cannot be explained in a Darwinian way, he was immediately told that he was not allowed to present “any information that might cast any doubt on Darwinian theory, even if that information came from mainstream science journals.” Dehart taught biology for more than thirty years.
Kevin Haley of Oregon Community college was fired in 2000 because he simply criticized evolution. “In 2003, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was removed from her post as head of the science and math division of Mississippi University for Women after she delivered a lecture to honors students about some of the scientific weaknesses of chemical and biological evolution.”
Similar things happened to Caroline Crocker of George Mason University, Bryan Leonard of Ohio State University, molecular evolutionary biologist Richard von Sternberg, distinguished Professor of Engineering Robert J. Marks II, Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, etc.
This is not a tolerant world—and it is an irony that those who claim to follow rigorous scientific criteria do not want the evidence to speak for itself.
My simple question is this: why should only Darwinism get the sort of privilege that the genetic theorists are asking for? What makes these people so discriminatory?
Why are they ready to move heaven and earth to lump the Khazar theory in with communist Jews and then are reluctant to analyze Darwinism on the same principles?
That kind of behavior betrays their obvious prejudice and it is another piece of evidence suggesting that they are not seriously interested in the truth. They want to propound what they want to believe and then force-feed it to their untrained audience.
One final point. The genetic theorists need not forget that it was a Jew who converted to Christianity by the name of Nicholas Donin who made us all aware of the deceptive nature of the Talmud in the thirteenth century.
If he had wicked DNA, how did he overcome it? If he did not, how can one adjudicate one wicked DNA from a good one? What are the parameters?
Do we now differentiate good DNA vs. bad DNA by people’s actions? Who is willing to commit that intellectual wickedness? Do people like Brother Nathanael Kapner have good DNA or bad DNA?
I remember discussing this very issue with one individual and, during our email conversation, I pointed out the fact that Christ was ethnic Jew and that the “Jewish question” is primarily theological and moral.
In order to maintain the psition that Jewish behavior is genetic, my correspondent had to literally deny that Christ was not really an ethnic Jew! I tried to help him, but I quickly realized that I could not reason him out of an idea which wasn’t formed on the basis of reason in the first place.
Moreover, it was a clear sign that I was in the presence of an ideologue, and I had to completely stop responding to his endless mumbo jumbo.
The West did not have this DNA issue until German writer Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) published his famous tract The Victory of Jewry over the Germans: Viewed from a Non-Religious Point of View in which he argued that Germans and Jews were locked in perpetual combat not because they operated on a completely different moral code but because they were racially different.
“Marr’s life was quite interesting because three of his first four wives were Jewish women, and to the end of his days he spoke tenderly of his love for his second wife, who died tragically in childbirth.
“He had intimate Jewish friends, business partners, and political allies; in the 1840s he was closely associated with a number of Jewish radicals and was attacked for his supposed philo-Semitism.
“He was a lifelong admirer of the Jewish artists and writers Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Boerne.
“In the final decade of his life, in the 1890s, he broke with the anti-Semitic movement of the day, describing the anti-Semites as worse than the Jews and requesting pardon of the Jews for what he had earlier written. He declared that it was in reality problems of industrialization and modernization that had provoked him, not the Jews as such.”
Whether Marr was sincere when he wrote the tract or after his repentance is hard to examine. But one fact is for certain: wherever his tract is in circulation, it is seldom, if ever mentioned, that Marr apologized for it toward the end of his life.
Marr’s cardinal error was not that he was not a good observer and meticulous writer. In fact, he observed quite accurately that the Jewish network abhorred “real work” and had the inclination to, in the words of Albert S. Lindemann, “exploit the labor of others.”
This is not a stereotype, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn found the same thing in Russia.
But Marr, as an atheist, deliberately ignored the theological substratum. And for that reason, we can’t with any rational justification continue to take Marr seriously.
Marr’s overriding thesis lacks moral depth and perception because it is like examining Muslims or Christians without a serious examination of their religions or what their founders actually taught and practiced—a highly implausible, dubious, and daunting task.
Many modern writers, who seem to have little knowledge of the relationship between mind and matter and who seem to blend those two together as if they were the same, are making the same mistake.
If serious scholars are going to examine the issue accurately, they ought not to dismiss the theological dimension, though they may not subscribe to its premise.
One highly respected scholar, who has actually examined this issue from a secular perspective, once told me that “the theological perspective is not my cup of tea.”
Ever since the publication of Marr’s tract, the West has fallen into the fallacy that Jewish behavior have some kind of bad DNA, which is really a problem for the Church because the Church has never fallen in that trap since the beginning of time.
In fact, the Church, as E. Michael Jones rightly argues, is universal, not national, which is to say that the Church is interested in everyone accepting Christ, not just a particular group.
“And because it was international, it was not ‘white’ in the way the Protestant sects were. The Protestant churches, by the facts associated with their inception, had become de facto national churches.
“The Church of England was a national and therefore ‘white’ church in the way that the Catholic Church in Spain was not and could never become.”
A classic example would be the Poles and Lithuanians who came to America in the early 1920s, who didn’t even know that they were “white.” They eventually became “white” by default.
It was after the ideology of people like Luis Wirth in the 1920s, after the rise of the civil rights debacle and the events leading up to the sexual revolution in the 1960s, that the cultural shift began to take place.
What we are saying here is that a wicked behavior ought to be placed in the realm of morality and theology, not in the realm of genetics.
We have already seen in a previous article that if a Jew becomes a Christian, he is banned by the state of Israel and sometimes persecuted (even if his family died in Nazi Germany, as in the case of Oswald Rufeisen), which clearly indicates that something other than DNA is at work here.
Moreover, we are also saying that man was created in the image and likeness of God, who, in the words of Augustine, is “the Author of this universe, who is not only above everybody, being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible—our principle, our light, our good.”
This Author does not act “rashly, and, as it were, fortuitously…but according to the order of things and times, which is hidden from us, but thoroughly known to Himself.”
That in no way means that the Author of life is going to act contrary to reason, but sometimes He may act, as E. Michael Jones rightly puts it, “in ways that sometimes go beyond what human reason can comprehend but never in ways that contradict that reason.”
The Creator has imbued us all with the capacity to reason, choose, and reject evil and that which degrades and suppresses other human beings.
If man suppresses that reason, if he is blinded by a theological system which intellectually and spiritually suppresses the obvious, even if that blindness has continued over the centuries and attracted other people, that is not a license for anyone to say that he has wicked DNA.
Yet, according to Darwinian evolution, man is just an accident. Sir Arthur Keith again wrote,
“The purpose manifested in evolution, whether in adaptation, specialization, or biological progress, is only an apparent purpose. It is just as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides.
“It is we who have read purpose into evolution…If we wish to work towards a purpose for the future of man, we must formulate that purpose ourselves. Purposes in life are made, not found. In brief, man’s appearance on earth is accidental, not purposive.”
Too bad that Keith didn’t get to read Jean Paul Sartre’s Nausea. In the book, the main character postulated unequivocally that there are no meaning, value, and purpose.
Yet in the same breath, he was trying to force meaning, value, and purpose into the universe! The main character quickly realized that he came into a philosophical dead end, and at that point he became sick. (Sartre later declared that the main character was Sartre himself.)
Suppose you walk the streets of Manhattan and come across a person who is constantly talking to himself although nobody is around. So you approach him and ask, “What’s going on, dude? Why are you talking to yourself?”
He answers, “I am angry with my wife.” Further into the conversation, however, you realize that the man never had a wife. You then ask, “How can you be angry with an imaginary wife?”
If he responded with, “Life doesn’t seem fair,” would you be satisfied with such an answer? You would immediately think that the guy is at least out of touch with reality, if not psychologically disturbed or insane.
If there are no meaning, value, and purpose, and if life is just an accident; if evolution is cruel and mean, why are we upset when Jewish revolutionaries apply that method in the real world?
 For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 Marquis de Sade, Philosophy in the Boudoir (New York: Penguin, 2006), 105.
 See E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994).
 Quoted in Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 236.
 Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications (New York: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
 Quoted in Peter H. Kahn, Jr., Technological Nature: Adaptation and the Future of Human Life (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011), 19; Karl W. Giberson and Donald A. Yerxa, Species of Origins: America’s Search for a Creation Story (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 42.
Sade, Philosophy in the Boudoir., 34.
 Ibid., 1.
 Ibid., 44.
 Ibid., 35.
  E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 22.
 See for example Peter Cryle and Lisa O’Connell, ed., Libertine Enlightenment: Sex, Liberty and License in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).
 John Phillips The Marquis de Sade: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), preface.
 Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 238, 239.
 Ibid., 239.
 Peter Cryle and Lisa O’Connell, ed., Libertine Enlightenment: Sex, Liberty and License in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 1.
 Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism (WA: Regnery Publishing, 1991).
 Paglia, Sexual Personae, 235.
 Ibid., 236.
 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 155.
 Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Genes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 201.
 Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin, 2003), 2-3.
 Quoted in Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007), 393.
 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 3.
 See for example Richard C. Lewontin, Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA (New York: HarperCollins, 1992).
 Michael Ruse, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post, May 13, 2000.
 Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putnam, 1947), chapter 4.
 Quoted in Harold W. Attridge and Keith Stewart Thomson, The Religion and Science Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 49.
 William B. Provine, “Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy,” Origins Research 16 no. 1 (1994): 9; for other citations from people like E. O. Wilson who espouse similar views, see for example Harold W. Attridge and Keith Stewart Thomson, ed., The Religion of Science Debate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 46-47.
 Alston Chase, Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Theorist (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003), 210.
 For an introduction to what DNA can and cannot do, see for example Francis S. Collins, The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine (New York: Harper Collins, 2010).
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: The Modern Library, 1936), 201.
 J. Scott Turner, The Tinker’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 206.
 Quoted in Richard Panek, “Out There,” NY Times, March 11, 2007.
 Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 155.
 See for example Gregory W. Graffin, Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist Worldview (Ithaca: Polypterus Press, 2004), 42.
 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2006).
 Joseph S. Levine and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (Lexington: D. C. Heath, 1994), 161.
 Stanley L. Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).
 See for example Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: A Biography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 542.
 See for example Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991).
 Quoted in Michael Ruse, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 195.
 William A Dembski and Michael Ruse, ed., Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 23.
 For a technical study on this issue, see for example Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).
 Paul Draper, “The Skeptical Theist,” Daniel Howard-Snyder, ed., The Evidential Argument from Evil (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 176-177.
 David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution (New York: Encounter Books, 1995).
 For further research on this, William A. Demski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982); Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998); John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2001); Donald E. Johnson, Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity (Charleston and Lexington: Booksurge Publishing, 2009).
 Fred Holy and Chandra Wickramasinghe Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 24, 30.
 See for example Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia: Wistar Institute Press, 1966).
 For a small detail of Hoyle’s analysis, see http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2001/09/Was-Life-Begun-By-Chance-Not-A-Chance.aspx?p=2.
 Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science, November 1981: 8-12.
 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 17-18.
 Michael Egnor, “A Neurosurgeon, Not a Darwinist,” Forbes, February 5, 2009.
 See Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (WA: Regnery Publishing, 2006).
 See Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 118-119.
  Albert S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), 127. For other sources on Mars (though I do not necessarily agree with some of their conclusions), see for example Moshe Zimmerman, Wilhelm Marr: The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
 Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 128.
 See Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 571-577.
 For a good introduction on this issue, see for example Colin McGinn, The Mysterious Flame: Conscious Minds in a Material World (New York: Basic Books, 2000).
 Jones, Libido Dominandi, 347.
 For a cultural history on these issues, see for example David R. Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005); John J. Bukowczyk, ed., Polish Americans and their History, Community, Culture, and Politics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996).
 See for example E. Michael Jones, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2004).
 Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 184-185.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 14.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.