Obviously pedophiles, Neocons, and other New World Order agents will never forgive Putin because he is making those people look really bad. If those people are pursuing a satanic ideology, says Putin, then they are in “the path to degradation.”
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Can you think of any Western politician who can entertain questions even from virulent opponents for four hours? Has any Western leader been able to do that in recent memory? How about George W. Bush? Obama? Perhaps Angela Merkel?
Well, Vladimir Putin has been able to do just that. In fact, he did exactly that at the end of last month. Throughout his speech and discussion, Putin again brought the moral issue back on the political table, which inexorably is at the root of nearly all the current political conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. Putin certainly did not fail to deliver:
“Many Western states have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots which form the basis of Western civilization. I
“n these countries, the moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied – national, religious, cultural and even gender identities are being denied or relativized.”
The fact that he raised the gender identity issues, which he said “are being denied or relativized,” is a pointed rebuke to Satanism, which basically articulates the promiscuous idea that morality should not play any role in identifying gender and that pedophilia is simply a relic of the past.
This is also a pointed rebuke to leading Satanists like Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich, who postulated that sexual liberation should be pursued at any cost. Reich meant it when he postulated in his Sexual Revolution:
“The first precondition for the improvement of human and sexual relationships is the absolute break with those moral views which base their commandments either on allegedly supernatural arrangements or on arbitrary law or simply tradition. The laws of morality should also be founded on the insights gained by progressive science.”
Like the French encyclopedists, Reich deliberately fell into the trap that true science can really contradict morality, when in fact morality is essentially the cornerstone or the pillar upon which true scientific enterprise is based. He was not the only one to have deliberately fallen into that trap. Charles Darwin actually beat him to the punch.
Darwin excluded morality from his intellectual project, and, as expected, quickly ended up living in blatant contradiction. “Everything in nature,” says Darwin, “is the results of fixed laws.” Darwin came to this conclusion because he began to embrace what biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore call “a terrifying materialism,” according to which “the human mind, morality, and even belief in God were artifacts of the brain…”
In that sense, Darwin believed that morality was created, not discovered, by evolution. According to historian of biology Peter J. Bowler, Darwin
“was trying to turn morality into a branch of biology through the proposal that our instinctive behavior can only be understood as a product of natural processes that have adapted us to a particular way of life based on the family unit as a means of raising children.”
If everything, including morality, is the artifact of the brain, if our behavior is “instinctive, programmed by evolution into the very structure of our brains,” and if “morality is merely the rationalization of these social instincts,” then there is no moral responsibility. We simply cannot condemn immoral acts and immoral people like Benjamin Netanyahu and oligarchic empires like Goldman Sachs.
There is more, Darwin believed that “man’s mind had emerged from the worm’s in the first place. This was the crux.”
If morality is out of the equation, then what is left is basically strife, force, and might. In short, survival of the fittest. Darwin meant it when he said:
“There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
“It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
It is no accident that Darwinism and Capitalism have a kindred spirit. As historian of biology Peter J. Bowler points out, Darwin
“projected the competitive ethos of capitalism onto nature and then bent all his observations to fit into the pattern imposed by his own mind. Darwin did not discover natural selection: he invented it and then sold it to a world that was only too willing to see its own values provided with a ‘natural’ justification.
“The scientists’ efforts to portray Darwin as a purely objective researcher are merely a device used to conceal the ideological foundations of science itself.”
Darwin complicated things when he declared that he “would rather be descended from a heroic little monkey that sacrificed her life than from a savage ‘who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and his haunted by the grossest superstitions.’”
So, which is it, Darwin?
Philosophically and ideologically, Darwin wants to be cruel to the “imbeciles.” In fact, he said quite explicitly that the “imbeciles” ought to be eliminated. Yet practically the same Darwin was complaining that the “savages” shouldn’t delight in torturing each other. Darwin did not even accept the idea that morality could be “objective and universal”! In fact, he believed that “The natural world has no moral validity or purpose.”
To this very day, Darwin’s intellectual children like Bradley A. Thayer still haven’t solved the internal contradiction that exists in their own weltanschauung which they desperately want to be true.
When all is said and done, Darwin preferred to live in contradiction rather than allowing moral duty to guide his thinking. He posited the claim that the “imbeciles” do not deserve to live, but he repudiated people who put that idea to practice.
Objective morality does not exist and even infanticide has a Darwinian mechanism, but it is bad for savages to commit infanticide and to practice human sacrifices. What’s more interesting is that Darwin thought that it was wise to impose that “objective” law upon the savages!…