Darwin debunk

Fossils make very little sense as presented in the Darwinian context.
Darwinism has nothing resembling a direct demonstration of theory such as physics.
Darwinists claim without hardcore evidence that evolution is based on chance and natural selection.
David Berlinski

Biological objections

In physics, one can program a computer and simulate the consequences of one’s assumptions and theories. In biology, there is no such thing. Only if the computer is fed with non-Darwinian mechanics will it be able to produce and simulate biological life.

Laboratory evidence is missing. When one studies a dog, it does not change over a long period of time, and there is no explanation for it in Darwinian theory. There should be far greater variation if their theory is to be taken at face value. Well, says the Darwinist, it’s because it takes millions of years, many coincidences and many selections to change a species.

Darwinists claim that life adapts as needed. There is a need for a creature that can fly, so therefore nature spontaneously produces a bird. But a cow can flap as crazy as it wants with its legs, it will never be able to fly.

Darwin and the -ists argue that local variations were observed in the Galapagos Islands, after which they generalize and claim, that The Whole World at all times behaves like that. But that is not a consistent argument. One cannot magnify local variation to a universal rule. It may be conceivable that a seagull will turn into an elephant in half a billion years, that is an interesting theory, but if it is to be argued properly, it requires quite a lot more evidence than the Darwinists have been able to come up with.

Darwinists claim that whales must have started as terrestrial animals, since mammals are common on land and not in the ocean. But one can spend an entire life of a cow trying to teach it to live the rest of its life in the ocean, and it would never learn it. Not only that, almost all the characteristics of the cow had to be redesigned before it becomes a whale. Darwinists would say: well it takes many millions of years of peculiar whale-cow hybrids before it succeeds. In other words, a gigantic amount of mutations / redesigns, of which 99.999% of them will go in completely wrong directions + a whole lot of drowned cows.

The cow’s skin would have to become impermeable to water, a radical change, its respiratory organs had to change radically. A biological diving equipment would have to be organized. The eyes and ears would have to be protected, and in fact the ears would have to disappear when a whale hears with its skull and bones, since sound propagates directly in water. The digestive system from the mouth-tongue-teeth to the stomach system would have to be drastically changed. The whole nervous system would have to change. These are simple numbers we are talking about here, ie number of changes, and at approx. 50,000 changes you have to throw the whole towel in the ring. What do Darwinists do? They keep trying to come up with arguments that it can still be done.

The Darwinists say then, the example of the cow is misleading, for whales and cows are too far apart in family. Well, we say so. Take a horse or an otter instead. Well no, not an otter, because it already lives in the water, just not like a whale. Like a polar bear and a penguin. And now do not say a crocodile. What about a monkey then? Zoological Museum in Copenhagen. actually has a sea monkey … which of course is a joke fabricated by a witty conservator. What about a dog then? Come up with an example, do something! But the problem is, that Darwinists and biologists do not feel bound by experimental or logical evidence, for they are high above that kind of triviality, since they have been given the blue stamp as just: above all doubt.

With the example of the cow, or any other animal that Darwinists now prefer as a model for the land precursor to a whale, there should be a huge amount of fossil examples of hybrid intermediate stages from nature’s large randomness laboratory. They do not exist.

Darwinists use homological structures (built on the same logical principle …) as an argument for evolution. Behold, the beast has five ‘fingers’ in its fin. A human being has five ‘stalks’ in his hand. Ergo, it is a fish. There are plenty of examples of homological structures that absolutely do not prove a fellow species in the animal kingdom. Aside from the reproductive organs, the Australian marsupial in many ways resembles a coyote in North America. So some original wolf must have once emigrated to Australia, and mutation and selection then decided that the local species would rather get a purse instead of a uterus. There is nothing that can substantiate it, and the argument that should speak for it is what is called a circular argument.

Then there is one of the utterly heavy absurdities. The idea that mutations are tantamount to creative diversification, which is as wrong as anything. Mutations are damage to the organism and are always a weakening of this. Biologists find it extremely difficult to name a single example of beneficial mutations. It is destructive and inappropriate, because a mutation is a random error – unless some malicious researcher tries to create mutated rats using radiation. Genetics are code sequences. In computer coding, for example, the tendency is for programming errors to fuck up the program. That is, unless the error is insignificant and another code snag covers it up and takes over. The error may occur extremely rarely, but is still an error in a code that should be perfect. An animal or a human being can go around all his life with a genetic defect that does not give it problems, but it will never be considered a beneficial thing.

It happens in computer programs, ie systems created to simulate organic life and intelligence, that the system crashes due to poor programming. If we start introducing randomness into operating systems and programs, they will collapse very quickly. Then why, we ask the Darwinist, please give us a clear answer as to why it does not happen in the animal kingdom, because you must be able to do so according to your allegedly perfect theory, which in fact according to the you is no longer a theory but fully proven. So much the better, then please come up with an answer that starts with the sentence: Living systems do not experience crashes due to random system errors / mutations because …
The answer is absent.

According to Darwinism – and we are just repeating ourselves quite briefly in order to move on – there are constantly series of mutations that are by definition completely random and unpredictable. But after the mutations have done their havoc, a completely deterministic selection takes place, which determines which mutations are beneficial and which are harmful, and the ‘natural selection’ then turns out to be very intelligent through the back door. Yet Darwinists claim that every single incident of sheer stupid-lucky mutation > change (a stochastic principle) has nothing and absolutely NOTHING to do with the previous event, but that all events are unique. And that all the unbelievably beautiful creatures running around the Earth should have emerged by a sheer luck out of something that started as a destructive mistake and ended up being rescued at the finish line.

As we shall later try to understand the philosophical background of Darwinism, the presence of this deterministic intelligence reveals that Darwinism, which at least in the days of Darwin claims to be atheistic and rationalist-materialistic, is in fact a pantheistic and secular… theism. God just slipped in through the back door and mingled secretly with the mutations. This is part of the Darwinist creed: We believe in the absurd intelligence of evolution, which we will do anything to deny. It is a miracle!

Darwinism is thus the current and at some point absolutely leading theory of chance. Hmm, one ponders. If nature nevertheless proves to be so intelligent, why then the unnecessary part of fucking itself up and then making a fever rescue of itself? Perfect order out of chaos… weird that the same people came up with the thermodynamics that say the exact opposite. It’s as if they can not quite decide but have given in to some kind of pier pressure.

If an animal developed a chromosomal defect, that is, a serious mutation that changed the basic structure of its DNA chain, would not, as a result, a new species emerge, as the Darwinists have claimed? The animal would be unable to pass on its genome and the defect would be lost. Is it really a matter of natural selection, ie that nature makes sure to discard mutated genetics and clean up after itself? Not exactly what the Darwinists claim. They believe that it is precisely the mutations that create the dynamics. Nature obviously disagrees with them, since it so consistently makes sure to throw them in the big trash can.

Scientificity

We always hear the claim that scientists are a particularly self-critical people, as it is the idealized image of science that surrounds the whole field. It is a pretty statement that tells the story of the greatness of scientists’ egos rather than their moral set. Scientists hate to be criticized and they will do anything to avoid it. Their careers are built on their good reputation and are broken down by a bad reputation. If they have made a mistake, they will often do anything to hide it unless they can get away with it. At that point, they are neither worse nor better than other people. Local criticism of misused data takes place. A collegial pier review is taking place, but extensive global critique of major scientific theory complexes is very rare. Too big to fail, too big to jail, it is said about bankers who make mistakes – which for the most part is not mistakes but deliberate fraud = criminal. Too big to critique hangs like a protective cloak of inviolability around science. Darwinism has carried around such a thing since the establishment of the British Empire, which were Darwin’s clients, gave him and the theory the blue stamp.

Scientists are afraid of losing their foundation. It would certainly happen if a scientist were to be completely honest about his insights and say: I have no idea. So they fake an insight and talk around the topic instead. In young sciences, there will often be greater honesty about how far one is from understanding the problems of a branch of science in their full extent. Brain scientists have, by and large, admitted how little they actually understand. But they have been good at selling themselves anyway, because when there is a lot to understand, there is also work for many for a long time, and their employers / founders were obviously so benevolent eager to know as much as possible about the brain, they so much wanted to fuck with, that they got away with it.

Climate science is another example, but here it went less well, because the same clients here were more interested in shoveling a lot of money in while they made weather and climate a weapon of mass destruction. There was widespread data fraud among a special group of researchers at the University of East Anglia in England, and computer hacks in two rounds showed an internal mail correspondence in which the group agreed on how to cover up their criminal acts and keep other scientists from looking at them. the cards. They were the ones who fed the UN Climate Panel and Al Gore. Here we are into something more serious than inflated ego and arrogant ambition, for especially this case smells of commissioned work and corruption and the presence of a hidden hand with an agenda.
Read: Agenda 21/2030 – UN Schedule for the Global Mega-State

So the postulated general scientific validity is thus a beautiful thought, but nothing else. Perhaps especially within scientific disciplines that are Darwinist-infested. 100 years of fraud with embryological drawings speaks for itself. The story of the Piltdown man was vertical scam. The missing link has never appeared, but it acts as if it’s just a question of… tomorrow, then it should probably come. After 100 years of tense waiting and credibility on expected post-approval. The Neanderthal is constantly being relaunched as a precursor to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and it is now claimed that inbreeding took place between the two species. But the Neanderthal was not a human, it was a great primate, and all the features of its body were totally different from the human. And people have not walked around and fucked gorillas and orangutans out in the jungle, right?

Illustrators have been told for half and entire centuries to portray the Neanderthal with as human features as possible – just a little more flat-faced. There are not just two old men sitting here enjoying a cup of beer after the hunt. Note, they also had electric lights. At the same time, the early humans were described as monkey-like as possible. We meet halfway – since the link is missing.

When mental constructions as Darwinism has reached a certain size and extent, it assumes the character of immobility, and the proponents of the construction then consider it almost superfluous to take a position on facts and substance in justified statements or politely wondering questions from any critics but can be content to reject them with an arrogant snort. They consider themselves protected, as being in immunity, in a politically correct security zone of exclusivity. They are protected in Class A, and accountability and honesty are irrelevant. But arrogance is, as you know, a facade, and here the facade covers, among other things, a great deal of fear. Fear of losing social acceptance, fear of career, fear of loss of face, fear of loss of control and loss of power, fear of representations. In some cases, fear for one’s own life.

Do we have a piece of psychology here that tells something about how shaky Darwinism is as postulated science? So the weaker and more pierced a postulate is, the more powerful and almost desperate it must be defended in order not to collapse completely. For Darwinism has at the same time become an anachronism consisting of a stack of anecdotes from the 19th century that does not look like anything in the serious part of the sciences. It is a symptom of a sad constitution for both science as an institution and the mental health of knowledge in a society that one must be afraid to criticize Darwinism with substantial arguments. It should be a matter of course and almost a duty.

So why did Darwinism come up with one in the first place?

Historical objections

First, it is part of the knowledge theft from the Enlightenment and as such is a logical consequence. Secondly, they contain all the racist and eugenic application possibilities deeply hatched in the very British establishment that was Darwin’s clients. Third, it served as a pseudo-scientific backdrop and justification for the imperialists’ right to rule over the rest of humanity, including their own class-divided population, for they were the result of natural selection and the right of the stronger to pass on their genes – at the expense of others. Genocide just suddenly got a scientific superstructure. And fourthly, and perhaps most profoundly, it was a disguise of the real origin of man, for now we were just a stack of half-monkeys in suits and dresses, and that was exactly how the imperialists looked at mankind. The low life monkeys should not have high thoughts about themselves.

That the Darwinists hung out with eugenics and in many cases were one and the same, testifies that they did not even believe in the theory. Eugenics has nothing to do with chance and natural selection but is a practice for animal husbandry of humans, for conscious breeding, selection and ‘the fittest’, or as Darwin wrote ‘the strongest’ (the other is an after-edit) that shows up to be the ones perhaps suitable for the establishment. Darwin, by the way, did not come up with the theory, his father did decades before. And Darwin’s half-cousin was Sir Francis Galton, the man who gave the name to the institute that promoted eugenics in England, later taken over by the Rocefellers and later cultivated by the Nazis. Show me your family and I’ll tell you who you serve.

If Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not the result of a cosmic random conspiracy, then what is it? Geneticist Lloyd Pye put it bluntly. Humans do not originate from apes, they originate elsewhere in the galaxy, and as we are today, we are the result of genetic manipulation. The same goes for all the livestock breeds and some wild animal breeds. There was someone who once fiddled with genetics in a distant past. Now they are doing it again.

Impossible nonsense, shouts mainstream immediately. Here one must then just ask them why their colleagues up front then are so busy reinventing the chimeras described in ancient Babylonian writings? And which nature is guaranteed not to come up with by itself through random mutations and natural selection. Even a hardcore Darwinist would not think of claiming that. So if they are full busy today to recreate and reinvent all the horrible technologies described in eg the Sumerian war epic Enuma Elish, including warfare using weather, monsters and chimeras, genetic experiments with transhuman hybrids, plasma energy weapons powerful enough to shake the Earth in its foundations, flying high-speed craft, invisibility technology – all taken directly from a 5,000-year-old writing that is otherwise confirmed by similar writings from all high cultures – that is, if there was nothing back then ,that they are now feverishly preoccupied with imitating, then why all the fuzz?

And here we land again at what may be the real reason, we have got Darwinism to suck on instead of something that really makes sense. It is an ideological-political smokescreen to hide and bury knowledge of ancient times and human origins. Darwinism is a confusing designer release from the Tower of Babel intended to deprive humanity of an accurate conversational language. How convenient is it not, that Darwinism is one big denial of human greatness before the greatness of The Empire of Envy. Not only is the Empire envious of greatness of the present days, greatness of former civilizations and any memory of that must be thoroughly destroyed. And boy … do we see that taking place all the time?

Philosophical objections

This is of course the most difficult angle, but no one should say that we here at nedersteetage.dk make it easy for ourselves. Except that we take the help of experts in the field if one can say that it is to skip where the fence is low. That’s hardly it. But please note that we do not use sources consisting of people based on creationism / intelligent design, which in principle is just a kind of Christian counterpoint to Darwinism. This certainly does not mean that we are trying to deny that God had a hand in the Creation of the World itself. The question is simply: what god are we talking about here and what creation? Nor does it mean that we deny that Life on Earth bears witness to an even very high degree of intelligence or claim that organic life is merely a machine. We do something completely third or fourth.

Darwinism is not a mindset that has arisen or lives on in a vacuum. As an ideology, which it is, it is part of a chain reaction, a development – in other words an evolution 😉 of thoughts that have their roots back in history. We chose to use the term here in the confident assurance that you and I have understood something about what the word evolution in Darwinian terminology means.

The above has borrowed material from David Berlinski, and the following borrows material and views from the philosopher Jay Dyer’s 3-hour audio lecture on the subject, which is primarily theoretical, philosophical, epistemological-analytical in its angles. They complement each other in an excellent way.

The introductory angle is the assumption in science that in the study of e.g. earthworms can only assume that the solution is included as part of the package, ie that you can view it objectively, and that the views you as a scientist make about the creature as a materialized object of study are not linked to other beliefs or a basic worldview in general. So you just have to study the worm, the little slimy earth muncher, and then it will show by itself what it is doing. This thought has its roots in the first and crucial time when you just activate your sensory apparatus and the instruments that extend it. The pure, immaculate tabula rasa, the clean and empty drawing board thus simply gets written with the raw factuality by observing it without preconditions and prejudices. But that is a lost assumption, for there are no raw, neutral facts that are immaculate from interpretation and a basic paradigm.

That is why Darwinism is predominantly materialistic, reductionist, atomistic in its view of life, for life is a snotty machine that just chops loose with its blind shots in east-west-north-south, up-down-forward-and- back, and with an insane consumption of time and resources comes up with something useful in the end – only to throw it all away in the end. Simply calling the earthworm an earthworm implies an identity over time. We know what we’re talking about, because it’s an earthworm, right? It relates to all other experiences and occurrences of earthworms we have had and is thus an object with a history and a preconception, a prejudice.

So what’s the point of that? The point is that a overarching structure can be built on top of an underlying foundation that at best is incomplete and at worst is deceptive. It may work for a while, but the built-in bug will eventually cause the entire superstructure to fall apart. Naive Impericism and its derivation, Darwinism, adopted as a basic philosophy in the West, is now causing the West’s foundations to collapse. Very Spenglersk in a way, materialism becomes the Decline of the West (Untergang des Abendlandes).

Darwinism is more than just random, simple biological theory. It is a whole myth, a total world explanation and not surprising, as one of its purposes was to send the myth of Christianity to the count and take over the monopoly as a provider of truth in relation to the basic questions: Who are we, where do we come from, where do we move to and what is the driving force of life? Not entirely unimportant questions for our self-understanding. Darwinism thus functions in the same way as a religion with its prophets, its saints, its dogmas, its creation account, and its Credo (I believe …).

Philosphical historicity

The naming of species goes back 2,000 years to Aristotle. Empirical science starts here, but Aristotle is realistic in the original meaning of the word. The mindset intervenes in the Middle Ages, where Aristotle is rediscovered, but naming / nominalism according to Anselm, Abelard and Ockham are simple terms that come out of people’s mouths and therefore have no metaphysical reality / realism anymore. Quite radically, it will be with the British nominalists / empiricists of the Enlightenment, Hume, Locke and Hobbes, who inherit the medieval version and further radicalize it. Here the philosophical principle has come to a clarified distillate, which has been called epistemological self-awareness. And it is certainly not a pat on the back, because it is at this time that the construction begins to collapse.

For empiricists, concepts of reality can only come from prior, sensed experience. Metaphysical, higher reality is excluded. Man no longer has a soul, but only a collective experience from the anthill that human culture constitutes. Man is just a video camera that records the outside world through his sensory optics, and his consciousness is just a movie that is recorded. There is no reality other than experience. How far a philosopher like Hume went in that direction is illustrated in the anecdote about him that says he sometimes looked before going into his house to see if there was light. That is, if he was at home. Because if he was at home, reality was at home, and he was not outside, because only experienced reality is reality. A tree that falls in the woods without anyone seeing it is therefore not reality. Which, of course, is nonsense, but it tells what an absurd string they went off. Is it not just a philosophical-historical dead end? Yes and no. Yes, because it will eventually collapse as it is a dead end. No, because it got crucial and triumphed like hell. That’s where we are today.

Darwinism is associated with the rise of industrialism, imperialism, the rise of monopoly capitalism (East India Company) and the very idea of ​​the British Empire’s right to world domination. In the wake we find people like Ruskin and Rhodes, who are carefully described by Carol Quighley (Tragedy & Hope), The Royal Society as a basic think tank, which has its origins in the Age of Enlightenment and later The Royal Institute for International Affairs. This explains why Darwinism spread far beyond what it was entitled to. It was simply supported by the establishment’s most powerful institutions from its inception onwards, because it was able to substantiate the very idea of ​​British domination of the whole world. It’s Pax Brittanica, which we find in Spencer’s The Fairy Queen, where the Empire appears as the mystical-mythical resurrected Greco-Roman Empire (Pax Romana) – where the fairy queen, Galadriel from The Lord of the Rings with a twist, is of course extremely occult and symbolic queen, Elisabeth I. We know then that the British took their own detour from the Roman Empire and its real heir, the Catholic Church, in the form of a Protestant Naval Empire ruled by Venetian and partly Jewish bankers who operated the shadows of a world empire building on piracy, drug trafficking, human trafficking (slavery), wars, genocide and fraud. Very telling, when the Venetians financed the Protestant revolution in Europe and Luther / Calvin – and the Thirty Years’ War, the actual First World War.

The concepts go completely hand in hand according to Social Darwinism. If you are the fittest/strongest predator to survive, then you are just a monopoly capitalist, a banker or a queen. Or King, cf. the entire run-up to World War I and the war itself coming straight out of British crony capitalism, which was directly implemented Darwinism, cf. Webster Tarpley’s portrayal of Edward VII as the mastermind behind the war. The fittest/stronges read: the most cunning and aggressively unscrupulous Empire survives, and down with the flag goes the Austro-Hungarian, the German, the Russian and the Ottoman empires. Every historical Empire has its own myth, and the British version was called: Darwinism.

In the ancient empires, in fact up to the Sun King, Louis XIV, the king or emperor was the son of the Sun God. Caesar was the son of God. The pope becomes the very substitute of God on earth, another way of saying it. The Church made the historical figure, Jesus, disappear and transformed him into a Mithraic Sun God. In the Darwinian myth, Anglo-Man becomes the new naturalistic Sun God.
Read: The King that disappeared
Read: The Dying God – History of Kabbalism

Darwins On the Origin of the Species. A Treatise of the Favored Races of Man from 1859 is an apology (apologia = apology), as we know the concept from theology, a document that argues for the justification of and at the same time provides an apology for the conduct of the British elite in its day. So wrapped in the language and concept of natural history and natural science at the time, we find this essence. Darwinism simply cannot be understood outside this cultural context or outside this elitist, ideological environment. 10 years before the dissertation, Ireland had experienced The Great Famine (1845-49), which was precisely a British imperial assault on an entire people. NB! It had very little to do with potato blight, for why should 200,000 British soldiers take part in the looting in the four years it took place. Ireland was robbed of EVERYTHING they had in agricultural products and the population died like flies or tried to emigrate, the few for whom it succeeded. Darwin later writes: There are 70 human races on Earth, and the lowest of them all is: the Irish. It probably don’t get any clearer than that. Later, the British repeated the tactics of genocide by starvation against the Indians and Iranians.

It is this British strategy that, in its continuation today, is to blame for hunger, famine and disease throughout the Third World, which together with war and destruction IS eugenics. But it is very difficult for humans to discern the origin of the phenomenon if they do not know its origin. A new anti-Darwinist treaty should be written entitled: On the Origins of Misery – A Treatice of Racism, Eugenics, Wars and Artificial Scarcity as Concocted and Promoted by The Anglo-American Empire and the Global Banking Establishment. I have a suspicion that it would not be published by Oxford University Press.

Darwinism is infiltrated by a number of other isms that originated in the same environment in the second half of the 19th century. Just an example of a further development of Social Darwinism: socialism / Marxism. Following the publication of the Communist Manifesto, Marx simply wrote a letter of thanks to Darwin for how great he thought this theory was. Interesting, while he also stuffs money into the back pocket of the banking syndicate Rothschild (cf. Bakunin), so he does not mention the central banking system in Das Kapital aka Bank of England owned and controlled by this syndicate and is the model for the last 400 years of central banking without which British imperialism would not have been able to operate. Darwinism was launched as a philosophy of progress. Note the similarity with Marxism. Also note that this progress is tantamount to unheard of atrocities against humanity – but with a blue stamp on the back. Marx understood what Darwin was up to and that destruction should be the driving force of evolution. Both Darwinism and Marxism gained their impact because they appeal to human egoism, and when first implanted as ideas, they saw themselves as a poison, a virus throughout society. Together with the cultivation of elitist oligarchism, they are the cause of the misery we find ourselves in today.

During the 20th century, Darwinism began to dismantle its original affiliation with eugenics. Especially after World War II, it was no longer room for rent, and the British / Americans as the victors of the war with the right to write their version of history got it smeared on the Nazis, even though it was they who had developed it. Instead of eugenics, they now talked about genetics. Lately it is called bioethics. It sounds quite well-groomed and very roomy but is nothing more than old poison in a new bottle. Darwinism is now wrapped in a new, delicious propaganda cover and appears as a mixture of humanism and soft technocracy, ie Science as the World’s new savior who must save poor humanity from its own misery. Which is super ironic, since it’s Darwinism’s clients who have created all this misery. And there is no monolithic structure called Science. There is science and scientists of widely varying observance, but there is no higher Olympic Pantheon that can claim a status that justifies capitalization.

Darwinists today do not acknowledge their legacy in the same way that professing socialists today do not acknowledge the mega-atrocities that are their presuppositions. But that’s not how the piano plays. One cannot without consequences uncritically pretend like nothing and ignore history. When you hear people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, and other Darwinist atheists preach Darwinism and rationalism today, it’s just an update of 19th-century elitist Victorian anecdotes. One wonders if they are not an incarnate denial of the idea of evolution, for they have not progressed, no development has taken place in 150 years. It’s almost gone backwards.

The social Darwinist mythos is today maintained by the Anglo-American establishment calling itself the New World Order through a string of global institutions such as the UN, which is their invention. Darwinism is being indoctrinated in all schools, colleges and universities in the West, and if one refuses to do so, one no longer has a job in the business of science. Here the Darwinist or the skeptics who subscribe to the ideology would object: Well, there are SO many people in the World who are convinced of the truth of the thought, and then it must be true. First, the appeal to quantity / mass and popularity is not a valid argument but a logical fallacy. Second, the skeptic ignores the degree of sophistication and scope of propaganda and brainwashing of seriously many people at once. Cf. Edward Barnays, cf. the propaganda of the Soviet state and the Nazi state. The extent and effect of mass hypnosis should never be underestimated. Third, there is solid historical evidence that mass seduction has taken place for millennia. Fourth, the West and large parts of the periphery are a totalitarian monolith, where Darwinism has triumphed into hell, along with the English language, the dollar, McDonalds, 7/11 on every street corner, Coca Cola on every shelf, Hollywood on every flat screen. Darwinism is marketed and pumped into the brain of every schoolboy – at will and with a purpose. Mass acceptance based on coercion and seduction and eternal repetition is not a measure of truth value.

Empiricism leads to materialism and solipsism, the total isolation of man from a higher unifying principle, from the Cosmos. Death over metaphysics. The problem is just that Darwinists dit not get rid of metaphysics, because the mere mantioning of a universal governing principle, which for them is total and destructive chaos with a secret system of government, is a highly metaphysical statement. That everything is relative and chaotic flux is a deeply metaphysical statement that will not be honest about itself. It is intellectually dishonest. Materialists have a really hard time finding this built-in, tenacious metaphysics that they totally deny. One could almost become completely Freudian here: that which they deny and exile into the subconscious, will control their lives and thoughts. The story they refuse to tell, they will be forced to repeat.

They, like the Marxists, did all they could to kill the religion. And they ended up becoming religion themselves through the back door. Which is much worse. Both ideologies are manically obsessed with social control of the masses. Both call themselves secular while being deeply religious – in the bad way. Both call themselves sciences, but both have cheated on the weight. Both were funded and promoted by the Anglo-American banking elite. Both have as compensation for their great weakness that they are based on irresponsibility, compensated for it by infiltrating opinion-forming institutions and indoctrinating people with their destructive nonsense.

And both are doomed to failure, for it is built in as a timed self-destruction mechanism.