Who’s responsible for this?
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Last November, Gordon Duff made the case that if people of Europe really wanted to stop the flood of the so-called Syrian refugees, they would have stood up against their government which supported perpetual wars around the world and which is the main cause of the crisis in the first place.
This point cannot be easily dismissed. Since the past three years or so, the population in Europe has been largely silent about the conflict in Syria, which German, British, and even French officials and oligarchs supported. They allowed the United States and much of Europe to call Vladimir Putin “the new Hitler” because he was challenging the New World Order in Syria.
The overall population also believed the lie that Assad was killing his own people. People of Europe should have said something in unison when it was discovered that it was the Syrian rebels, not Assad, who actually used chemical weapons, but again there was no serious demonstration. They should have asked deeper questions such as: if Assad was really a bad guy, how is it that he won the presidential election by almost 89 percent? What kind of democracy is the West trying to create by removing him?
If the masses really wanted to know the truth about the real issue, Duff seemed to have said, then they needed to psycho-analyze themselves and stop listening to the mumbo jumbo as propounded by organizations like NATO, which Noam Chomsky says is “a U.S.-run intervention force.” The International Business Times and the British Telegraph have recently said that Germany alone “has received over 1 million migrants in 2015.”
In other words, Germany is now composed of basically two cultures. Duff would probably argue that those Syrian refugees are the symptoms. The real elephants in the room are the leaders in Europe and America who screamed their lungs out for perpetual wars in the Middle East in first place.
In short, if people of Europe want to fight the real cause, then they need to go after the Israeli regime, the Zionist regime in America, the Zionist regime in England, and puppets like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and much of the GOP, which is now run by Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson, who backed both Netanyahu and the Republican Party at the same time.
Adelson in particular was accused of “possible bribery” and other illegal activities such as running prostitution in Macau, China. Robert Keatley, former editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal and the South China Morning Post, said that documents suggest that Adelson
“was willing to grease official wheels with cash to get his way; one document talked about the need to spread $300 million around Beijing to solve his problems. There are also claims that he approved using prostitution and unsavory mainland organizers of gambling junkets to entice customers.”
Former Sands executive Steven Jacobs said that Adelson approved “prostitution strategy” in China. In a lawsuit, Jacobs “accuses the company and Adelson of breach of contract and of pushing him into illegal activity in Macau.”
Adelson’s activities in Macau, Jacobs suggests, are based on “loan sharks and prostitution.” Jacobs said:
“This project was met with concern as (company) senior executives informed me that the prior prostitution strategy had been personally approved by Adelson.”
Jacobs also accused Adelson of being involved in the “Chinese triads, bribery, and criminal activity.” The Huffington Post reported:
“In his court filing, Jacobs alleges other documents that haven’t been turned over include records of misuse of ‘blue card’ work permits and the hiring of illegal workers in Macau; emails and records of Adelson controlling a ‘Chairman’s Club’ allowing favored members, including known or suspected organized crime figures, exclusive access to Sands China’s most luxurious accommodations; and email requests from Adelson to a Macau lawmaker who Jacobs said was hired as outside counsel after Jacobs was fired.”
So, people cannot really complain about the Syrian refugees in Europe without revolting against the criminal underground which continues to wage a cosmic war against the moral law and political order. This incredibly evil entity, which spreads its tentacles far and wide, seeks to destroy everything reasonable and orderly.
Now, you’ve got people like Alex Jones talking about the so-called Syrian invasion of Europe and then ignoring the abundance of evidence which indicates that the Israeli regime is behind the war in Syria in the first place. When people mention Israel, Jones summons the so-called “globalists manipulating the Muslims.”
Well, who are the globalists, Jones? Why can’t you cite the fact that the Israeli regime has been supporting terrorist groups since the beginning of time? Paul Joseph Watson has recently written an article entitled, “Hundreds of ‘Refugees’ Caught With Images of ISIS Flags, Severed Heads on Their Phones.”
But Watson, like Jones, cannot move beyond this and ask the deeper questions because that probably would ruin Jones’ Prison Planet. If Jones’ listeners realize that Jones actually supports the terrorist state of Israel, they probably would stop funding Prison Planet.
Jones really shot himself in the toes when he declared:
“What I want to say is this—I want to say this out in the open: I support the Jewish state of Israel. That is their land, and it’s the U.N. that has declared them terrorists.”
Obviously Jones hasn’t read a single serious scholarly work on this issue at all. The scholarly studies by Jewish experts themselves have exploded over the past two decades, and Jones simply cannot close his eyes and declare that Israel is not a terrorist or apartheid state. If he is too lazy to check those scholarly sources, then we should cite for him Israeli historian Benny Morris, who said unequivocally:
“A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
Morris’ The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, which is published by Cambridge University Press, “chronicled the Zionist murders, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing that drove 600,000-750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948, thus refuting the myth that they fled under the orders of Arab leaders.”
In the second edition of the book, Morris documents “massacres, and a previously unsuspected number of rapes and murders of Palestinian women.” Morris himself said:
“The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought.
“To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.”
“On 14 or 15 May , a 12-year-old girl was raped by two Haganah soldiers; there were also a number of attempted rapes. There was widespread institutional and private looting by Haganah and IZL [National Military Organization or Irgun] troops and Tel Aviv citizens who infiltrated the town, there was robbery on the roads by patrolling Jewish troops and there was widespread vandalisation of property. In genera, the inhabitants complained, they were ‘being incessantly molested.’
“The looting was so bad that Chizik appealed directly to Ben-Gurion, who on 22 May ordered the IZL and the Haganah to obey Chizik’s instructions. A senior Kiryati officer, Zvi Aurbach, made a point of washing his hands of any responsibility for property in Jaffa. On 25 May, on official reported:
“‘During the whole day I walked about the streets…I saw soldiers, civilians, military police, battalion police, looting, robbing, while breaking through doors and walls…’”
There were reports suggesting that the Jewish terrorist group Irgun or IZL “raped a number of Arab girls and murdered them afterward.” “During the summer four village women were raped and murdered by IDF soldiers. In August, some inhabitants were forced by the IDF to flee; the remainder fled the following month, after an IDF raid in which 20 were killed and 20 buildings demolished.”
At one point, “One Haganah soldier twice attempted to rape a 20-year-old woman prisoner. Abu shusha’s remaining inhabitants were expelled, apparently on 21 May.” During the same month,
“The 9th Battalion troops killed a large number of villagers, apparently executing dozens of army-age males. They appear also to have raped and murdered a teenage girl. The same day, the inhabitants of neighbouring Sumsum and Najd, to the west, were driven out.”
Perhaps we should let Alex Jones quarrel with Morris, who cites archival documents throughout his study to build his case. And perhaps this is one reason why Jones couldn’t make a serious point during his interaction with David Duke, who could have been challenged on serious issues such as the so-called genetic basis of Jewish behavior, the ideological link between Darwinism and Zionism, and the logical perversity of affirming Darwinism on the one hand and repudiating Zionism on the other.
Duke could also have been challenged on other issues such as the people who were responsible for the Irish Potato Famine were “white” and that the WASP ruling class (such as the Rockefellers) also bears some responsibility for the low birth rate in America.
Moreover, if the Jewish behavior is genetic, Duke needs to explain to us how to get rid of it because the same “science” which Duke uses to propound the claim that Jewish behavior is genetic also tells us that man is just matter and chemistry and that there is no such thing as morality. What makes Duke so discriminatory? What logical inference that allows him to pick this “science” and then reject that “science”?
Unless Duke takes some time reflecting on these issues and then responding to them in a logical fashion, we simply cannot take him seriously. He is certainly a well-meaning person and we should all encourage him for exposing the Zionist criminals, but logical consistency does not seem to be his intended goal. Francis Crick meant it when he said:
“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.”
Duke’s erroneous views on morality and biology flow from his failure to understand Darwinism and its metaphysical implications. Darwin himself predicted that wars and “survival of the fittest” would be a legitimate route for species to get ahead.
By the twentieth century, Zionism became a stumbling block for staunch Darwinists precisely because this pernicious ideology has logically been following what Darwin had predicted in the nineteenth century. In other words, Darwin predicted that Duke would be battling Zionism—and the strongest will survive.
Darwinism got Darwin into trouble even during his time. “I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit,” Darwin told one of his critics one year before he died. “The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.”
In order for Darwin’s theory to survive, morality has to be taken out of the equation. In fact, both Darwin and his intellectual children tell us that there is no such thing as morality, or that morality is an evolutionary process, which means that it cannot be objective. Instead of thinking this issue through from the point of view of practical reason, Darwin chose to live in contradiction, and his intellectual children such as philosopher of science Michael Ruse still cannot square that circle.
To cite again Ruse: “there are no grounds whatsoever for being good…. Morality is flimflam.” Morality, Ruse moves on to say,
“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.”
Evolutionary psychologist David Barash of the University of Washington would concur, adding that “The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process…”
If human beings “are produced by a natural, totally amoral process,” what good does it do to have morality as the foundation for institutions such as marriage? Evolutionary psychologist Christopher Ryan, co-author of the book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, answers that question for us. Marriage, Ryan postulates, is “in direct confrontation with the evolved reality of our species.”
How do people like Duke respond to Ryan, who obviously believes that he is writing about “science”? If paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson is right, that “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind,” how did he get something purposeful like morality? If leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr is correct, that “Darwin’s theory of natural selection made invocation of teleology unnecessary,” why are Darwinists trying to find teleology in this universe?
Let us illustrate this with an example. 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 by saying, “Life doesn’t seem fair,” would you be satisfied with such an answer? You would immediately think that they guy is at least out of touch with reality, if not psychologically disturbed.
Do Darwinists want to amuse us all by perpetuating that morality does not exist and at the same time positing the claim that people ought to be moral? If they cannot see that this is intellectual perversity, then we cannot help them. These people prove that Augustine was right all along, that those who reject morality and Logos will end up being the anti-thesis of their own existence.
Darwin once again was confronted with many of those serious problems right after the publication of his Origin of Species. He ended up postulating things that would probably stun his ardent followers.
According to biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin believed that “The dangerous point was that man’s mind had emerged from the worm’s in the first place. This was the crux. By subjecting mind and morality to self-evolving forces, he threatened the ideals so cherished by the geographical gentry: human dignity and accountability.”
If Darwin is right, say Desmond and Moore, then morality and accountability “would crash.”
Darwin agreed with others that
“moral norms are formed by external forces, that all vices and virtues depend on their social context. Virtue could lie in slaughtering men in tribal war, or in altruistically saving life; it manifested in bizarre and unpredictable ways across the globe….
“This moral spectrum was no odder than dog breeds exhibiting different instincts. And the fact that humans have some sort of morality was because ‘man, like deer,’ was a ‘social animal.’ Moral acts were as instinctive as a deer’s warning bark. They had evolved from the social instincts to aid the cohesion of the human ancestral troop.”
According to this idea, “Good and evil were not moral absolutes so much as monkey attributes.” Darwin, who was “imperturbably Whig,” ended up embracing “a terrifying materialism,” which says that “the human mind, morality, and even belief in God were artefacts of the brain: ‘love of the deity [is the] effect of organization…” Desmond and Moore say that “Working through the implications gave him migraines, left him writhing on his sick bed, fearing persecution.”
Darwin was pretty much inconsistent. Janet Browne, another biographer, pointed out that for Darwin, morality “was only relative.” Darwin admitted that he had “no practice in following abstract abstruse reasoning,” which means he was too blind to see the moral and philosophical contradiction of his own theory. But he was quite confident to assert that morality could not really be “objective and universal.”
To this very day, Darwin’s intellectual children are still toe-dancing around the morality puzzle and continue to present one illogical postulate after another. Darwinism, its proponents admit, cannot provide a rational defense of objective morality, which makes the whole system metaphysically worthless.
Modern materialists and Darwinists need to start addressing those serious issues if they want us to take them seriously. You simply cannot posit that morality does not exist and then say that we ought to be moral. This is an insult even to a freshman in philosophy. On this issue, Jean Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, among others, were more honest than modern Darwinists. Listen to Russell:
“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the débris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
“Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”
Instead of focusing his attention on those issues, Alex Jones, who kept saying that he wanted to have “a sophisticated thought,” moved to weird territories such as psy-clops and grand dragon. Duke should have humored him a little here: “Mr. Jones, with all due respect, is that what you call a sophisticated thought?”
Jones also made numerous references to Nazi Germany. Obviously he seems to have bought the Holocaust narrative.
Jewish historian Edward J. Bristow pointed out way back in 1983 that it was Jewish sexual perversion throughout Europe that largely gave rise to the Third Reich. It was really funny to listen to Jones saying that “The West funded the rise of Hitler.”
Has Alex Jones ever heard of the book called The Transfer Agreement Pact: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine by Jewish historian Edwin Black? If he wants to accept the Holocaust narrative, perhaps he should be a little more careful.
Going back to the main point. Duff ended his article by saying:
“For Europeans living in Germany, Austria, Serbia and other targeted nations, we wish them more than luck. We wish them the courage to dismember the EU, throw off the Euro and run as fast as they can away from NATO.”
This is true. NATO, the United States, the U.N., and even the EU have been living in contradiction from time immemorial. The crashing of the Russian fighter jet is a classic example. Turkey perversely declared that the jet was in their territory and therefore had to be gunned down. This lie was fully supported by the United States and other allied nations.
But Turkey has been unwilling to withdraw their troops from Iraq, even “after Baghdad accused Ankara of deploying soldiers there without permission.” “There is no way we can withdraw our soldiers from northern Iraq now,” said terrorist president Erdogan.
Turkey, as political analyst, writer and commentator for the Middle East Catherine Shakdam has put it, has been “exploiting terror to legitimize its infringement of international law.” How do the United States and its allies respond?
Silence. No one has ever said that Turkey did something wrong. It gets even more interesting. When Russia presents evidence showing that Turkey has been involved in numerous terrorist activities, Turkish groups respond by saying that Russia has insulted Erdogan.
Do you see why Putin and Assad simply cannot stand this political perversion? Do you see why Assad has recently said that he cannot make deal foreign terrorists? Do you see why former C.I.A. Graham Fuller had to say that Russia stepping in the ideological ring has been a relief for much of the world and a death blow to ISIS?
Do you see why U.S. Colonel Ann Wright told the truth that “American-allied nations are secretly helping ISIS to grow”? Do you see why people are saying that “No terrorist group can survive unless some government finances it”? Do you see why many voices are now saying that the West is largely responsible for terrorism?
 “Bashar al-Assad wins re-election in Syria as uprising against him rages on,” Guardian, June 4, 2014; “Bashar Assad wins Syria presidential election with 88.7% of vote,” Russia Today, June 4, 2014.
 “Chomsky: NATO is a U.S.-run intervention force,” Russia Today, November 7, 2014.
 “Refugee crisis: Germany has received over 1 million migrants in 2015,” International Business Times, December 10, 2015; David Millward, “German refugee influx tops one million in 2015,” Telegraph, December 10, 2015.
 Dana Milbank, “GOP candidates kiss up to billionaire Sheldon Adelson,” Washington Post, April 1, 2014; Kenneth P. Vogel, “Sheldon Adelson: Wild card,” Politico, March 31, 2014; “2016: Who’s Kissing the Ring of Sheldon Adelson?,” Bloomberg, March 27, 2015; Evan Osnos, “Sheldon Adelson and Macau,” New Yorker, July 3, 2012.
 Thomas L. Friedman, “Is It Sheldon Adelson’s World?,” NY Times, March 11, 2015.
 Robert Keatley, “The GOP, China and Sheldon Adelson,” National Interest, August 31, 2012.
 Ken Ritter, “Sheldon Adelson Approved ‘Prostitution Strategy’: Fired Former Sands Executive,” Huffington Post, June 29, 2012.
 Osnos, “Sheldon Adelson and Macau,” New Yorker, July 3, 2012.
 Ritter, “Sheldon Adelson Approved ‘Prostitution Strategy’: Fired Former Sands Executive,” Huffington Post, June 29, 2012.
 See for example Herb Keinon, “’Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,’” Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2013.
 See for example Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Jewish Terrorism in Israel (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009); The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Ian Black and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Services (New York: Grove/Atlantic, 1991); Ilan Pappe, The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011); The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World, 2009); Ilan Pappe and Noam Chomsky, Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on Israel’s War Against the Palestinians (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2011); Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998); Gideon Levy, The Punishment of Gaza (New York and London: Verso, 2010); Miko Peled, The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine (Charlottesville, VA: Just World Books, 2012); John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2007); Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (New York and London: Verso, 2010); Norman Finkelstein, Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Assaults on Gaza (New York: OR Books, 2015); Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Levant Books, 2014); Michael Bar-Zohar and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: HarperCollins, 2012).
 Ari Shavit, “Survival of the Fittest?: An Interview with Benny Morris,” Counter Punch, January 16, 2004.
 Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 210-211.
 Ibid., 229.
 Ibid., 240.
 Ibid., 248.
 Ibid. 249.
 See E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 975-989.
 See E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 Quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1962), 319.
 David P. Barash, “God, Darwin and My College Biology Class,” NY Times, September 27, 2014.
 Quoted in Thomas Rogers, “‘Sex at Dawn’: Why monogamy goes against our nature,” Salon, June 28, 2010.
 George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 345.
 Steve Mirsky, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American, November 24, 2009
 Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionists (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), 239.
 Ibid., 262.
 Ibid., 263.
 Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 342.
 Ibid., 392.
 Bertrand Russell, Mystery and Logic and Other Essays (CreateSpace, 2012), 23.
 Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery 1870-1939 (New York: Stocken, 1983). I have addressed this issue at length in the second volume of Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism.
 For other similar sources, see Sarah Ann Gordon, Hitler, Germans, and the Jewish Question (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984); Klaus P. Fischer, Hitler and America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
 “Erdogan says no way Turkey will withdraw troops from Iraq,” Daily Star (Lebanon), December 10, 2015; Daren Butler and Ahmed Rasheed, “Turks keeping troops in Iraqi camp, Baghdad turns to U.N.,” Reuters, December 11, 2015.
 Daren Butler and Ahmed Rasheed, “Turks keeping troops in Iraqi camp, Baghdad turns to U.N.,” Reuters, December 11, 2015.
 “The Ottomans strike back – Turkey’s race for control is metastasizing in Iraq,” Russia Today, December 11, 2015.
 ‘Defaming Erdogan’: Criminal complaint filed against Putin in Turkey,” Russia Today, December 12, 2015 12, 2015.
 “Syria won’t negotiate with foreign terrorists, but only national & patriotic opposition – Assad,” Russia Today, December 12, 2015.
 “Russian involvement – a chance to deal a death blow to ISIS – ex-CIA officer,” Russia Today, October 2, 2015.
 “American-allied nations are secretly helping ISIS to grow – US Colonel Ann Wright,” Russia Today, September 8, 2014.
 “No terrorist group can survive unless some govt finances it – terror economy expert,” Russia Today, December 15, 2014.
 Stephen Kinzer, “Blame the West’s interventions for today’s terrorism,” Boston Globe, November 24, 2015.
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.