|
|
After Robert W. Malone appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, the phrase "Mass Formation Psychosis" was trending on Google and Social Media. Then the phrase was banned after our leading "authorities" claimed to have "discredited" it, as if a phrase that was invented two weeks ago has "long been disproven" by "respected experts and authorities." But the ideas of Mattias Desmet (Professor, Ghent University, Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting) have never been disproven, only "discredited," in the sense that "authorities" have announced that the idea should not be believed (the word "discredit" comes from the Latin word credo, which means "I believe." Just because you choose not to believe something does not constitute a rigorous academic proof of its falsity.).
Is the "Mass Formation Psychosis" theory a scam?
A "psychosis" is a belief in something that is not real. It is a belief in something that is not grounded in reality. The purpose of this website is not to "debunk" the theory of "Mass Formation Psychosis," or to prove that Malone and Desmet are wrong. It should be obvious that throughout human history, entire nations -- and even vast swaths of humanity across national borders -- have believed ideas which were not grounded in reality: "psychosis." One can argue the claim that mass delusion or mass deception are not technically species of "psychosis," but Malone and Desmet are correct to see a problem: millions of people today WILLINGLY Give Up Their Freedoms based on ideas which are not grounded in reality.
"Mass Formation Psychosis" speaks of people as if they were passive carriers of a disease. The purpose of this website is to argue that people are being actively scammed. We want to indict the scammers.
And yet the victims of these scammers are not passive. There are scammers who are deliberately scamming people, but people invite these scammers. These scammers occupy the highest positions of political power, academic authority, and scientific respectability. They control the most enduring "institutions" of our society and of "western civilization." They control channels of information and influence. These authorities profit from the psychoses they generate in the masses, either monetarily or politically. People act as if they have no choice but to follow the diktats of these authorities. But the masses want to be scammed. They pay large sums of money to have their children scammed by these "authorities" and to develop this mental state. This mental state may or may not be technically classified as a "psychosis," but this mental state is clearly detrimental to their individual mental health and the future of our society.
In 2022, there are only a handful of "white supremacists" in America, and they are no threat to anyone. They are not plotting nor could they execute a conspiracy to enslave blacks under their control. They have goofy views, e.g., that God wants the races to be separate, and therefore condemns miscegenation (marriage between two races). Today's "white supremacists" are quaint and powerless.
It was not always so. Consider two famous racists and the influence they have had on our world. Both were born on the same day in 1809.
Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. According to CNN,
Lincoln used the N-word and told racist jokes. He once said that Black people were inferior to Whites and he liked minstrel shows. He proposed ending slavery by shipping willing Black people back to Africa.
Lincoln also once floated an offer to the Confederates that would allow them to keep slaves until 1900 if they surrendered, according to a PBS film called "The Abolitionists." And at one White House meeting with Black ministers, Lincoln virtually blamed slaves for starting the Civil War.
If some of Lincoln's public utterances about Blacks were retweeted today, he would have been canceled on social media and likely run out of office.
During one of his famed senatorial debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln said:
"There is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Lincoln didn't even try to hide his racism. Why should he? His racist views were widely held in his day.
In his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Lincoln declared, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races...."
In 1860, Lincoln racial views were explicit in these words: "They say that between the nigger and the crocodile they go for the nigger. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the crocodile to the nigger so is the nigger to the white man." ["Lincoln's Legacy at 200" by Mark Alexander]
Lincoln also believed that hundreds of thousands of human beings could be murdered in order for him to retain his political power over their state governments. But Lincoln himself did not kill all those people. They killed themselves, suffering from a form of "Mass Formation Psychosis" -- a belief in the reality of something that does not have a reality: the legitimate right of some people to rule over others. In a word "civil government."
More about Lincoln and his worship of political power.
Darwin was born across the pond in England on the same day as Lincoln: February 12, 1809. According to Uncommon Descent, Darwin, who not only "listened to the science," but helped create many of modern science's most cherished psychoses, said:
It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.
“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”
Darwin often referred to blacks and indians as "savages," and said
“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Only whites are truly civilized:
“We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. 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.”
Of course, most people today recognize racism as a form of "mass formation psychosis." It is a belief that is not connected to reality. It is a belief that was widely held because of social pressure. It is a belief that was promoted by all the "smart" people. "Listen to the science" and recognize the superiority of the civilized whites over the uncivilized colored savages. Or so we were told.
There are many delusional beliefs like those promoted by Lincoln and Darwin.
"Wait a minute; are you saying that Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, and Anthony Fauci could be mistaken?"
Yes. And millions -- even billions -- of people could believe things that aren't true.
But the rest of this article is mostly about one specific belief unconnected to reality, but a belief nevertheless held by the masses: it's called "statism." It is a religious belief in the legitimacy of those who claim to possess a monopoly on violence: "The State" or "civil government." All of the psychoses listed above are related to the concept of "The State" and the problem of Political Authority.
| The LORD will punish you by making you crazy. He will make you blind, make your mind confused. Deuteronomy 28:28 Thou hast made us to drink the wine of astonishment. 13 The princes of Zoan have become fools; |
This is not an "essay," it's a "Reader's Guide." An "essay" would write out the whole argument. This "Reader's Guide" just lists the resources one would have to read in order to understand the argument.
This Reader's Guide is primarily about mass belief in The State in an impersonal evolving universe, and not about mass belief in the government's "public health policy" regarding COVID-19.
But we start with COVID.
The world's response to covid was in large part dictated by the United States. Weaker nations often have their policies directed by the U.S. as part of long-standing foreign aid agreements. The U.S. pulls the strings of international organizations like the W.H.O. So-called "Western Nations" are influenced by the U.S. as a kind of "peer pressure." The U.S. is the world's last "superpower," though being rivaled, it seems, by China, where, we are told, the virus originated.
Locking people inside their homes to fight a respiratory infection -- instead of getting everyone out in the sunshine -- is madness. The government caused more economic, mental, and physical suffering than covid itself by its lockdowns and other "public health" measures. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has documented that government "public health" institutions were guided more by profits and political power than the health of the public. The media have been purveyors of fear and panic, because negative news has proven to be a ratings viagra. The combination of media fear-porn and government propaganda and mandates has produced mass hysteria in the public. That is not a wild claim of some "conspiracy theorist." It's a public health conclusion drawn from scholarly research. See this article:
COVID-19 and the Political Economy of Mass Hysteria
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7913136/
Examine the components of that URL:
NIH.gov = National Institutes of Health
NLM = U.S. National Library of Medicine
NCBI = National Center for Biotechnology Information
PubMed® "comprises more than 33 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books."
This article is from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
This article begins to explain how so many respected doctors, scientists, journalists, and government officials could have prescribed public policies which caused more economic, mental, and physical suffering than the disease they claimed to be fighting.
|
I'm proud to say I was a friend of the late Greg L. Bahnsen. I recorded hundreds of his sermons onto cassettes which are now part of The Bahnsen Project. He tutored me one-on-one in the quixotic quest for ordination in the OPC. He earned his Ph.D. under Dallas Willard in philosophy, in the field of epistemology:
Bahnsen argued that the human mind has the amazing capacity to sincerely and truly believe something to be true even though one knows it is false.
This capacity is called self-deception. (That link is a "Reader's Digest" presentation of the Thesis.)
The human mind is also capable of passionately believing something that one denies believing in at all.
This is a fascinating cross between the fields of ethics and epistemology.
This is an intensely Biblical thesis. The desire to be as god (Genesis 3:5) motivates "science" as well as "theology" as well as crime as well as "public health" as well as "political science."
Covid hysteria was generated by fear (on the part of the compliant) and the quest for power and profits (on the part of those "in charge").
A man dies in a motorcycle accident and the doctor puts down "covid" as the cause of death because the doctor passionately hates
Donald Trump, and wants to make Trump look bad.
Would the doctor admit that's why he put down "covid?" No. But the death certificate is not grounded in reality. It is therefore a symptom of "psychosis."
Maybe the hospital gets more money from government sources by classifying a death as "covid," and so the doctor felt administrative pressure to lie about the cause of death. In any case, the decision-making process is not objective and dispassionate. The health system
is listening to profit and/or politics, but not to science; not to reality.
Why did "the Science" so quickly and enthusiastically embrace a model which overstated covid deaths by a factor of 24x?
That's an astonishing magnitude of error when you think about it. Political polls boast accuracy within 3%.
It's not "science" alone that motivates these actions. It's religion. It's mass hysteria.
Covid is not the only example of mass psychosis.
Germany, a highly educated, technologically advanced, western nation, worships a dictator and murders millions. As Nicholas O’Shaughnessy writes in How Nazi Propaganda Encouraged the Masses to Co-produce a False Reality.
The idea of people willingly misled offends our notion of man as rational. A more accurate representation of the psychology of the Third Reich would be to conceive of a partnership in wishful thinking in which the masses were self-deluded as well as other-deluded. Persuasion in such cases offers an idea of solidarity and the target of that persuasion is more co-conspirator than victim, an invitation to share in the creation of a hyperbolic fiction.
Millions of Americans today are in self-deluded covid lockdown "solidarity."
The term "mass formation" is trending in 2021-22: Mass Formation and Consequent Totalitarian Behavior in Homo Sapiens. "Mass psychosis," "mass hysteria," "mass delusion" and other terms are trending.
"We failed," reads the article's headline from tabloid Ekstra Bladet, which goes on to admit that "For ALMOST two years, we - the press and the population - have been almost hypnotically preoccupied with the authorities' daily coronavirus figures. "(translated).
"We Failed": Danish Newspaper Apologizes For Publishing Official COVID Narratives Without Questioning Them“‘mind control.’ That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”
“The way we have used fear is dystopian. The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Use of Fear to Control Behaviour in Covid Crisis Was ‘Totalitarian,’ Admit Scientists“Virtually all of the scenario planning for pandemics employ technical assumptions and strategies familiar to anyone who has read the CIA’s notorious psychological warfare manuals for shattering indigenous societies, obliterating traditional economics and social bonds, for using imposed isolation and the demolition of traditional economies to crush resistance, to foster chaos, demoralization, dependence and fear, and for imposing centralized and autocratic governance.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Can millions and millions of people all come to believe something that is false? They can, and they do. With a little help from our compassionate overlords and the little media-dog that sits obediently in the government's lap.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s new book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, discusses this example of mass deception, although the extent of the "mass" deception was not as widespread at the time as covid today or nazism 80 years ago. Powerful bureaucrats and crony capitalists can crush real science. They invent rumors to protect their profits and their political positions. Talking heads on TV can repeat rumors that destroy the careers of esteemed scientists like Peter Duesberg.
There are many sincere Christians who have doubts about whether the Bible can be trusted.
There are many people who hate Christianity who tell these sincere Christians that the Bible cannot be trusted.
People who say we can't trust the Bible live in a fantasy world. They've been deceived, and now they try to deceive others to give themselves intellectual company.
Most of the arguments against the Bible share common traits with one of the most common: "The Telephone Game" argument.
At a party, the first participant in "the Telephone Game" will whisper a sentence to the person in the next chair, who whispers the message to the person in the next chair, and so on around the circle. The final person in the "phone chain" reveals the message, which is compared with the first participant's real message. The two are found to be totally different, and everybody laughs.
As the argument goes, this is like the transmission of the Bible over the centuries. Nobody involved in copying the Holy Scriptures took it all that seriously, they whimsically changed words, sentences, or paragraphs to suit their fancy, and the Bible we have today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Moses, Isaiah, Matthew (or whoever started the chain) had in mind.
This argument can be made to sound very educated and sophisticated, but it is pathetic and juvenile. Millions of people believe it.
Here is some information on the actual transmission of the Biblical text.
In 1912, Frederic Kenyon was knighted Sir Frederic Kenyon for his service as Director and Head Librarian of the British Museum. He describes how the Jews meticulously copied the Old Testament:
Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. The enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle, not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter, of the Law should pass away or be lost.
In Kenyon's day, the oldest copy of the Old Testament was a copy from the 10th century after Christ. But in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and they contained a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, dating over one thousand years earlier than that 10th century copy. The results astonished the scholarly world. Gleason Archer, in comparing the manuscript variations of the Hebrew text with pre-Christian literature such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, states that it is amazing that the Hebrew text does not have the phenomenon of discrepancy and MS change of other literature of the same age: "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A. D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible" with the exception of minor variations in spelling, on a par with the British "colour" and the American "color." "Even those Dead Sea fragments of Deuteronomy and Samuel which point to a different manuscript family from that which underlies our received Hebrew text do not indicate any differences in doctrine or teaching. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest."
In other words, the Old Testament we have today is virtually letter-for-letter the same Old Testament Jesus had in His day. And the copy of Isaiah that Jesus read from (Luke 4) was virtually letter-for-letter the same as the one Isaiah himself wrote. Ditto for the Proverbs of Solomon, the Psalms of David, and the books of Moses.
If you want to claim that Christianity is a psychosis, don't claim that Jews copied the Bible in a haphazard and inaccurate way. Better to allege that they all suffered from a form of OCD mental illness that caused them to painstakingly and accurately copy their Holy Book for centuries without error. That's closer to reality.
All this about the Bible being filled with corruptions and changes is the polar opposite of reality. There is no ancient manuscript evidence to support this view; all the evidence is against this view.
This proves that atheists live in a world of fantasy. Some atheists believe the Bible is unreliable because that's what they've been taught, and they want to be respected by those who told them. But there are some atheists who are bad people and are just making this stuff up. The ones who start these rumors about the Bible have a completely different conception of history than historical reality, and a completely different view of religious people than reality. If an atheist -- knowing even one-tenth as much about the Biblical manuscripts as the Director and Head Librarian of the British Museum -- makes up the story that the Bible is untrustworthy and unreliably transmitted through the centuries, then he is a liar who probably hates God and doesn't want to love his neighbor, refrain from stealing, or be faithful to his wife. You would be wise not to listen to such people.
There are 300 million people in America. How many of them accept the "telephone game" version of the history of the Bible? How many of them believe something that is 180° opposite reality?
4. The Bible as Conservative Blueprint
On the opposite side of the spectrum from Richard Dawkins and other atheists who contend that the Bible is an indecipherable mish-mash of repeatedly edited and mis-copied ancient texts are champions of the Bible, including Neo-conservatives, conservative "Constitutionalists," all the way to "Christian Reconstructionists," who say the Bible contains principles of Constitutional and Republican Civil Government. Atheists contend that the Bible (if it's possible at all to interpret it and discover a coherent message) endorses slavery, war, and "theocracy" (by which they mean some kind of tyranny by clergy). Some conservatives come close to agreeing with these atheists. But the Bible is actually opposed to war and slavery. Here is an example of an article from Forbes magazine that speaks of "
5. The "Theory of Evolution" is also an example of mass hysteria, mass self-deception. Or even better, mass psychosis, which is "a detachment from reality." In this case, a detachment from God's reality.
Most people believe that the textual record of the Bible is a "telephone game" of gaps and mistakes, but they also believe that the fossil record of the evolution of life is a robust and detailed history of the evolution of life on earth over billions of years. Their view of the Bible is psychotic, as is their view of evolution.
Charles Darwin moaned about the absence of fossil proof of his theory of evolution, hoping someday the proof would be found. It never has been.
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
The Origin of Species, Mentor edition, 1958, pp. 293-294
But not just in the fossil record -- all around us, throughout the world, life appears in various "kinds" as
described in the Bible, not a "finely-graduated organic chain" like Darwin's theory demands. Evolution should be visible everywhere. It should be next-to-impossible to identify different
"kinds" of animals. There should be a "finely-graduated organic chain" between all animals, because all of life is perpetually evolving. Continuously. Step by step, mutation by mutation. It didn't all stop
evolving when Adam and Eve finally came along.Think of the confusion evolution would have produced if it really were happening:
It doesn't exist. It's all a myth. The GEICO caveman does not live in anyone's neighborhood.
If evolution were true, it would also be a lot easier to believe the people at PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
— Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
But the lines are clearly drawn. Evolution is a lie.
But the purpose of this Reader's Guide is not to weigh "scientific evidence." This Guide is not about biology or archaeology. The purpose is to weigh the evidence showing that evolutionism is a religion or a mass deception. The evidence for this is overwhelming, but you certainly never heard this evidence during your government-regulated education.
Darwin and the early promoters of evolution recognized that science was not on their side. But they hated God (Theonomy) and worshiped self (autonomy). They deceived themselves as they deceived the masses.
Self-deception has many motivations. It is not our purpose here to breakdown all the psychological motivations that exist for promoting or believing in evolution. Every individual has a slightly different motivation. Fear of God's Judgment is certainly one motivation, as many evolutionists have openly admitted, though they wouldn't call it "fear" (for that would presuppose the reality of God's Judgment), but rather "revulsion" or some other term of derision or condemnation.
It's not about "science." Nobody was forced to abandon creationism and accept evolution by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It was a choice. It's been a Long War Against God.
What follows is an overview of the argument that "evolution" is a product of mass hysteria, mass psychosis, or mass self-deception. The theory of evolution is:
This guide is not primarily about Darwin, but about those who preceded him in their evolutionary speculations, as well as those who have followed him.
|
When I realized that in order to be "Bible-believing Christian" I had to be a six-day creationist, I quickly realized that in order to be a "Bible-believing Christian" I also had to be an anarchist. This is because I realized that the "theory of evolution" was a rationalization for those who wanted to be Archists. They wanted to impose an evolutionist theocracy on everyone. (The word "Theocracy" means "God Rules." The evolutionist wants to be his own god.)
So I realized that in order to be a "Bible-believing Christian," I had to believe in "Creationist Anarcho-Theocracy."
The argument against "evolution" on this page is based on a Christian "fundamentalist" and anarchist presupposition.
Most people don't expect an "anarchist" to be defending "fundamentalism" and "Theocracy," and opposing "evolution." That's because most people today -- even the most intelligent -- are victims of educational malpractice. They don't recognize the Theory of Evolution as a sacrament of statism, the worship of political power.
Let's define the key terms.
What is "liberty?" Libertarians define it as "freedom from aggression by others."
The "libertine" is not to be confused with the modern libertarian. The "libertine" believes that "freedom" is the power to aggress against others, and "nobody can tell me what to do."
"Liberty" cannot exist in a "libertine" society. If everyone believes he is his own god, nothing stops him from aggressing against you, stealing your property, stealing your wife, or even stealing your life. The "libertine" is FREE! He can do whatever he wants. Nobody can tell him what to do, or what not to do. (See Jean-Paul Sartre, below.)
Down below we will look at the concept of "Theocracy." The word means "God governs." The theory of evolution says there is no God. The Bible says this was Satan's temptation in the Garden of Eden: "You shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). Libertines love the theory of evolution, because in the absence of a Creator, the libertine gets to be his own god, "knowing" or determining "good" and "evil" for himself. The Apostle Paul described it as "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). This sums up the entire field of evolutionary thought.
The biggest threat to your liberty, as we will see, is the evolutionist who believes he is his own god, and nobody can tell him not to aggress against you. The modern evolutionist believes he ("Political Man," evolved man) now "guides" (controls) evolution. That means he controls you. Evolution is now no longer "natural" selection, but political selection, with the oligarchy-establishment in the driver's seat. [See "Davos and Transhumanism," below.]
I write as an "anarchist."
I could write as a "Christian," but that doesn't tell anyone as much about me as the label "anarchist" -- even though "anarchist" is somewhat confusing. "Christian" is a much bigger target. It could mean anything. Joe Biden and Dorothy Day
both claimed to be "Catholics." And "catholic" is a circle within "Christian."
"Anarchist" narrows it down: I'm anti-State. I'm anti-State because I'm anti-violence. I'm anti-violence because I'm a follower of the Prince of Peace.
The first confusing aspect about "anarchism" is the widespread belief that "Christian Anarchist" is a contradiction in terms. This is easily clarified:
Resource #1: What is an "Archist?" "Anarchist" as Defined by Jesus
The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words meaning "not an archist." What is an "archist?" Jesus says "the kings of the gentiles" love to be "archists," but followers of Christ are not to be. See Mark 10:42-45.
An "archist" is someone who likes to control and rule over others, imposing his own will on others by threats of violence. To be an "archist" is to violate God's Commandments, which can be summed up as:
The idea that "anarchists" are bad people while those who oppose "anarchists" (logically, the an-anarchists, or simply "archists") are good people, is the biggest lie in the history of human political thought.
Resource #2: The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
You were not taught this in Sunday School. All archists -- all "governments" -- eventually ban the teaching of the Bible, as the United States has done.
"Fundamentalism" is the belief that the Bible is the Word of God the Creator, and we should just believe that whatever the Bible says is true, regardless of what any created being says.
"Whatever the Bible says" is a tricky phrase. But not too tricky. Jesus said "I am the door" (John 10:7-9). This does not mean that Jesus is a plank of wood that swings on brass hinges. There are literary devices used in the Bible, and no "fundamentalist" denies this.
The Bible was written by intelligent adults for intelligent adults.
"The Fundamentals" were a series of doctrinal booklets published around 1910. They were an apologetic response to "modernism," or "liberalism," which denied "fundamental" doctrines like the deity of Christ and His virgin birth; doctrines which "liberals" agree were taught and believed by the "pre-scientific" authors of the Bible, but cannot be believed by "modern man."
Someone who claims to be a "fundamentalist," or claims to believe that God wrote the Bible, may not agree that God wrote an "anarchist manifesto." So "fundamentalist" simply describes a formal commitment to the Bible as the Word of God. Among such people could be numbered: Augustine, Calvin, Gov. John Winthrop ("City on a hill"), Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuyper (Prime Minister of the Netherlands), and J. Gresham Machen.
H. L. Mencken -- no fan of fundies -- wrote an obituary for one of the leading "fundamentalists" of the day, J. Gresham Machen. In that obituary, Mencken disagrees with Machen's fundamentalism, but claims that fundamentalism is more logical than liberalism, which doesn't even have a claim at being a logical religion. Liberals claim to be Christian but don't even agree with all the fundamentals of the Christian religion. Why do they bother going to church or dressing up like clergymen? At least fundamentalists are trying to be consistent with principles with which Mencken and other liberals don't agree. Mencken's obituary, "Dr. Fundamentalis," appeared in the Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 15, is
Resource #3: available online here, and is well worth reading.
When Princeton Theological Seminary (home of fundamentalists like B.B. Warfield) abandoned the fundamentals in favor of liberalism, Machen left Princeton and formed the Westminster Theological Seminary. Machen was booted out of the liberal Presbyterian church and founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. These events were front-page news in the New York Times, back in a day when Americans still cared a little about true religion and the press was not as frequently criticized for "liberal bias." It's a different world today.
Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism could have been titled, Liberalism vs. Fundamentalism.
The writers of the Bible were "fundamentalists." They believed what they wrote. Fundamentalists believe what the Bible teaches. Liberals don't.
If you want to be a "Christian," you have to be a "fundamentalist." Otherwise, you're just making up your own religion and cloaking it with the label "Christian."
Resource #4: Backgrounder on Fundamentalism
The issue is authority. Some people are willing to let the Word of God be their authority. Other people want to be their own authority. Some choose several authorities from the Authority Smörgåsbord, but it is still they themselves who decide which "authority" will be on their plate. Atheistic anarchists say allowing the God of the Bible to be one's ultimate Authority is inconsistent with the principle of being your own god. That's a logical position. The Christian Anarchist worships and serves the Creator as Ultimate Archist rather than any creature (Romans 1:25).
Jesus is the incarnate Word (John 1:1)
The Bible is the inscriptured Word.
Resource #5: The Supernatural Origin of the Bible
A popular argument against the authority of the Bible is the "Telephone Game" argument: that the text of the Bible has been repeatedly changed over the last few thousand years, and we really have no way of knowing what the Prophets or the Apostles actually wrote.
The truth is 180° in the opposite direction. Biblical copyists were OCD about copying the Bible accurately. They did not have a "liberal" attitude toward the text. And the great irony is that they accurately copied a book which portrayed them as faithless rebellious sinners. They had every reason to change the text to make themselves (or their nation) look better, but the text has remained unchanged over the centuries.
These arguments against the Bible presuppose in advance that evolution is true, and the Bible is merely the product of evolutionary forces. Evolution is believed to be true because it relieves us of any obligation to obey the Bible.
"Higher Criticism" arose in England in the late seventeenth century as a reaction to the use of the Old Testament as a guide for civil law. Public schools were formed in America in order to teach the Bible, because the Bible was the basis of all colonial laws.
Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, Connecticut, 1639
Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….
Note: being an "archist" like "the kings of the gentiles" is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus (see above). America was founded by fundamentalist archists. The Puritans believed the Bible was the Word of God, but also believed that Aristotle and Plato should be followed in civil matters. This position is logically contradictory and politically unstable. Atheistic anarchists oppose Christian civilization based on antinomian depravity, but one can favor Christian civilization but oppose the coercive imposition of someone's version of Christian civilization by archists in "civil government."
Higher criticism of the Bible was an important tool in the humanists' war against Christian civilization. See
Resource #6: Henning Graf Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World.
That's a large tome. You can get the "reader's digest" version here: The Hoax of Higher Criticism.
We're told "theocracy" means "government by clergy." Wrong. That would be "ecclesiocracy." "Theocracy" means "God governs," or "God rules."
God "rules" over the society that obeys God's rules (commandments).
"Theocracy" is the flip-side of "Christian anarchism." To say "God governs" is to say "the Creator governs, not any created being." "Theocracy" in a Christian sense means "no mere man is an archist." From the evolutionary perspective, MAN is god. In an evolutionist Theocracy, the most powerful creature rules. And the most powerful creature usually is "The State."
Resource #1: Only the God of the Bible is an Archist. [same link as above, "What is an 'Archist?' 'Anarchist' as Defined by Jesus"]
The creature must obey the Creator. Jesus is the Creator.
All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:3; see also John 1:10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2,10
Our Creator is our only real Lord, our only real King, our only real God.
For the LORD is our Judge,
The LORD is our Lawgiver,
The LORD is our King;
He will save us
Isaiah 33:22
Jesus is the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and the God of gods. All creaturely kings and all creaturely lords and all creaturely gods (whether human or demonic) are false gods, false lords, and false kings. Trump is a false king. Moloch was a false god. ("Moloch" means "king.") No creature is a legitimate king or lord.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
1 Corinthians 8:5
Our Creator, Jesus, is the only lord, god, king we should worship and serve. Not like evolutionists,
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen
Romans 1:25
According to the Bible, "Civil Government" is a false god. Archism -- being a government, or voting for a government -- is idolatry.
"Fundamentalism" is the individual granting authority to God and His Word. "Theocracy" is a society coming under the authority of God and His Word. A Biblically consistent Theocracy is an "Anarcho-Theocracy."
The most common objection to Christian Anarcho-Theocracy is either
Nobody in 1776 believed in "secular [non-theistic] government." America's Founders tragically believed that God required human beings to form "civil governments," and forming and maintaining a civil government was a religious obligation.
Resource #2: A Theocratic Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
Resource #7: Theocracy is the Only Path to Liberty
America was once a "Christocracy." Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison -- each of whom came from a different political party. And of what party was Rush?
I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power. . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone Who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.
The modern cult of Materialistic Scientism will not allow the Bible to be taught in state-run schools the way Benjamin Rush would teach it. The Declaration of Independence (America's "birth certificate") is a Theocratic document. It is currently illegal to teach students in a public school that the Declaration of Independence is actually true. America was a Christian nation. (If any "nation" can be "Christian.")
Nobody living through the Trump-Biden regime believes in Fundamentalist Anarcho-Christocracy (except me, it seems).
In this year of coronavirus, mask- and lockdown-dissidents are told to shut up, "listen to the Science" and get in line.
"Listen to the Science" actually means "Listen to my preferred or socially dominant cult of Scientism." There are many cults that make up the religion of Scientism, with one cult culturally dominant for a while, then another cult (or multiple cults) replacing it. In our day, the coronavirus cult is one of the dominant cults of Scientism. Also the environmentalist cult.
The vast majority of us attended parochial schools sponsored by the archist cult of Scientism.
We've been brainwashed to reject the Bible by atheist (Christocracy-denying) archist fundamentalists.
One of the biggest obstacles to a fundamentalist acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God is the issue of "Evolution vs. Creation." This is just "creature-ism vs. Creator-ism" (Romans 1:25).
Nobody in 1859 (when Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was published) rejected Creator-ism and embraced evolutionary creature-ism because they were forced to by the overwhelming weight of "scientific facts."
Darwin's theory of evolution was the latest cult in the religion of Scientism.
There have been various theories of evolution for thousands of years. But in 1859, "Western Civilization" was largely Christian Civilization.
And evolutionists hated that.
No atheist in any university wanted to defend theories of evolution which were popular in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, or China. They wanted something a little more "modern" and "scientific"-sounding.
Darwin's book filled the bill. At least for now. It would have to do. Everyone knew it was riddled with scientific holes. But nobody wanted to obey the Bible. There had to be a substitute.
Resource #8: "The Facts" vs. The Faith
Note especially the recollection of George Bernard Shaw: "The world jumped at Darwin."
"Jump" is not a verb one expects to find in the philosophy of science or any dispassionate discussion of "The Scientific Method."
"Jump" is the language of mass hysteria and delusion..
We need to learn the presuppositional nature of the conflict:
It's not a battle between "religion and science," but a battle between two religions: Christianity and Liberalism, or the Religion of Christ vs. The Religion of Secular Humanism.
In the early 1800's, anyone who advocated the abolition of slavery was told to "Listen to the Science!" There were "scientific" "experts" who said Negroes were inferior to whites and could never be assimilated into white society. Abraham Lincoln believed this. Charles Darwin believed this. A lot of white people believed this.
Resource #9: The Dark Side of Darwin
Some people say Darwin wasn't a racist because he advocated being kind to the help, and not mistreating inferior races.
Think about that.
In 1859, when Darwin's book was published -- one year before the beginning of the U.S. Civil War -- a lot of people believed in the inferiority of less-"Favoured Races."
|
|
Resource #10: John S. Haller, Jr., Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900
They weren't "outcasts" back then. Today, maybe.
A "scientific" justification for racial inferiority was a "scientific" justification for racial subordination.
Subordination is not just racism, it is archism.
Evolution was the quest for archist-hood. (We'll see this in detail below.)
Racism motivated acceptance of "The Science" of evolution the same way
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" motivates acceptance of "The Science" of lockdowns and covid "models" which inaccurately project millions of deaths.
Sentencing 130 million poor people around the world to starvation and justifying that by claiming to "protect" less than 1% of the population who were going to die later that same year anyway is not a rational "public health policy." That's not pure, dispassionate, objective epidemiology. That's the adrenaline rush that an archist gets when exercising political control and influencing an upcoming Presidential election.
The human mind has the amazing capacity to sincerely believe something one knows is false.
It is also capable of passionately believing something that one denies believing in at all.
This capacity is called self-deception, as we observed above.
The desire to be as god (Genesis 3:5) motivates "science" as well as "theology."
Bad science is not always motivated by bad theology. Sometimes it's just the pressure of the "old boys'" guild. There is scientific peer pressure as well as international/governmental peer pressure. Governments can force scientists to limit their inquiry or promote false theories, either as a self-conscious tool of political repression, or out of hysteria or self-deception:
Certain questions are considered legitimate in any given academic guild at any given point in history. Certain approaches to the solution of these circumscribed questions are also considered the only ones acceptable. The guild polices itself rather well. The ways in which guilds enforce their world-and-life views are catalogued effectively in Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, [1962] 1970). Kuhn concludes from a study of the history of physical science that the major intellectual breakthroughs are all too often made by young innovators who are not well established within the guild and by skilled amateurs who are self-taught and completely outside the guild. Guild members are seldom convinced by these scientific breakthroughs; they simply grow old and retire, or die, while the younger men establish the new "paradigm." Then a new series of questions and answers becomes the reign in orthodoxy, waiting for yet another innovator to revamp the operating presuppositions. Kuhn's analysis became a new paradigm for numerous academic disciplines during the late 1960's. Historians, political scientists, education professors, sociologists, and even a handful of natural scientists adopted Kuhn's open relativism. The idea of "objective science" was effectively removed from the classroom in those years of academic and campus turmoil. The confident technocratic neutralism of the Kennedy years disappeared, especially among the untenured younger professors. Kuhn's book itself launched a cross-disciplinary scientific revolution.
Gary North, Academic Compromise
"The Science" told Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) that Alternating Current (AC) was impossible because it violated the laws of physics. "Listen to The
Science," Tesla was told. "The Science" would have sentenced the human race to a battery-powered (DC) world.
Tesla said the speed of light was not a constant. That's a "scientific revolution" that has not yet been permitted by the Guild to happen.
The U.S. military invasion of the Philippines began in 1899. This was perhaps a watershed year in America's transition from a Theocratic Christian Republic into a Progressive Atheist Empire. Evolutionism + archism = imperialism. A Secular Empire is the opposite of a "City upon a Hill."
It has been said that "Ideas Have Consequences,"
to which has been added, "Bad Ideas Have Victims."
The millions who starve because of a supply-chain destroyed by unwarranted covid lockdowns are victims of the ideas entertained by quiet epidemiologists and exploited by power-hungry political archists. The tens of millions who have been killed, crippled, or made homeless during my lifetime by a thousand U.S. military bases around the world are victims of the ideas of evolutionary biologists appropriated by the Military-Industrial Complex. Consequential ideas are often lies. Human beings are complex, as are the societies they create. John Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion by noting that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man (self-knowledge) are intimately connected, and knowing ourselves and our motivations and deceptions is very hard work.
Some are more honest about their motivations than others.
Racism
Fascism
Adultery
Militarism
Thomas Henry Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" because of his vigorous public propagation of Darwin's theory. He was also the patriarch of one of the Great dynasties of the world: The Huxleys. One of T.H. Huxley's grandsons was Aldous Huxley. He was sometimes honest about his motivations for accepting evolution. He said that evolution, which denied a Creator, and therefore denied design, and therefore denied meaning, provided atheists with a justification to "seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...." He went further:
For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy [worldview] of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, Chatto & Windus: London, 1946, pp. 270, 273)
I would argue that the desire to cheat on your wife is an archist desire to rule over a member of an inferior sex.
From the French Revolution to the Sexual Revolution, and well before that, evolution meant Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator throughout these centuries. It wasn't just Darwin and biology. It was Louis XIV (1638-1715) (“L’État, c’est moi” ), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814).
In addition to slavery, another form of racism is "eugenics." The evolutionary archist seeks to impose his own will (that inferior races not reproduce) on members of those un-Favoured Races. Margaret Sanger was Darwin's Killer Angel. Adolph Hitler was Darwin's Killer Angel.
From 1859 to 1938 (when the previously-lauded Hitler went out of fascion -- excuse me, fashion), evolutionism meant eugenics, and more importantly, Progressivism. Progressivism was Darwinism, racism, statism, fascism and archism all rolled up into a global cultural eugenics movement.
Most Christians are ignorant of this vast religious cult.
The Progressive Ideas That Fueled America’s Eugenics Movement - Foundation for Economic Education
The Dehumanizing Impact of Modern Thought: Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Their Followers
A few modern thinkers specifically criticized the “anthropocentric” view that humans are special, made in the image of God. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the famous German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, for example, blasted Christianity for advancing an “anthropocentric” and dualistic view of humanity.[2] Today the famous bioethicist Peter Singer, along with the atheistic Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins, argue that based on the Darwinian understanding of human origins, we need to desanctify human life, divesting ourselves of any notion that humans are created in the image of God and thus uniquely valuable.[3] An evolutionary ecologist at the University of Texas, Eric Pianka, fights overtly against anthropocentrism, even expressing the wish that 90% of the human population will be extinguished, perhaps by a pandemic.[4]
Archists need to de-sanctify human life in order to rule over it, and destroy it if necessary. But the Harvard-educated archists who are in control of these eugenic and imperialistic programs will live to enjoy their lives of domination.
In education, progressive Darwinist archism is seen in
Resource #11: The Messianic Character of American Education. Today's public schools are acknowledged even by liberals to be the established church. "Sidney E. Mead, in his important book, The Lively Experiment: The Shaping of Christianity in America (1963), has argued perceptively that the public school system is America’s only established church." Scientific secular education is utterly religious. It was messianic. This secular religion, inculcated in the youth, would save civilization. Educators were our Saviors. At least they thought so.
The "New Deal" was progressive. As Hegel might have put it, Progressivism was eugenics walking on the earth:
From Darwin To Hitler: The Origins of Scientific RacismCharles BurrisThe Origins of Scientific Racism Fascinating exploration of pseudo-scientific intellectual ideas from Darwinism and the problems of heredity, the impact of Francis Galton, the Teutonic Germ Theory, the rise of Nordicism and the supremacy of Nordics, Anglo-Saxon superiority, the rise of Eugenics and race in the United States, and how these ideas impacted National Socialist Germany. The Eugenics movement drew their greatest enthusiastic support and funding — extensive funding from America’s upper-most philanthropic sources such as from the Carnegie Institute and the Harriman railroad fortune. The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Dr. Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Cereal magnate J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. Top tier social scientists, especially economists, gave their full sanction to the Eugenics project. Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organizations that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms. One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenics agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement. Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defects. Ideas truly have consequences.
In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.
War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, by Thomas C. Leonard Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, by Adam Cohen White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, by Nancy Isenberg Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, by James Q. Whitman The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, by Richard Weikart Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Constructions of Race in Nazi Germany: A Literary and Cultural Analysis of Darwin’s Works and Nazi Rhetoric, by Emily M. Wollmuth The Nazi Connection Eugenics, American Racism, And German National Socialism, by Stefan Kühl The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945, by Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann Nazi Nexus : America’s corporate connections to Hitler’s Holocaust, by Edwin Black Racism (Amazon book list) The Murdering State (Amazon book list) |
Most Christians -- and even most liberals -- are ignorant about the real issues in the 1925 Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. William Jennings Bryan, who opposed the teaching of evolution, was not what most folks today would call a fundamentalist. He was more of a liberal. In a narrow sense, Bryan was theologically conservative, and defended the deity of Christ, but He was politically liberal -- a Progressive. He opposed evolution because he believed it led to the oppression of the poor and the un-Favoured Races. He was, of course, completely correct about this, even though, from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, he was wrong about history and the creation of the world. William Jennings Bryan was not a six-day creationist. He was anti-eugenics. He was anti-genocide. He stood up for non-archists.
What was the Scopes trial really all about? This: a defense of democracy by Bryan and an attack on democracy by Clarence Darrow, the ACLU, and H. L. Mencken.
It was also about the government's plan to create a genetic master race -- an idea that Bryan was determined to stop.
If you want the proof, with 166 notes, I have provided it here, free of charge:www.garynorth.com/RoadtoDayton.pdf
Does this sound preposterous? Only because the textbooks have dropped this down the Orwellian memory hole. Doubt me? Read this: Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. This monstrous plan was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, two years after Bryan's death. Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell.
The Real Scopes Trial, and My Free Book Exposing It
Must reading:
Resource #12: Road to Dayton
But William Jennings Bryan's progressive defense of the little guy was out-gunned by archists who saw Progressivism as their archist religion.
More must reading:
Resource #13: Appendix A of Gary North's commentary on Genesis, "From Cosmic Purposelessness to Humanistic Sovereignty," is a critique of the most important sleight-of-mind, bait-and-switch scam in
modern thought: Darwinism's transformation of "man, the unplanned speck" into "man, the planning god." It lies at the heart of modernism. Humanists use a two-step argument to get to their fundamental principle: the sovereignty of archist
man.
North's Appendix contains the names of Progressive Era scientific planners you've never heard of. They were famous and well-respected during The Progressive Era. Their progeny rule us today. North says this Appendix is
"the most important academic article of my career." It shows in great detail, with exhaustive footnotes, the real meaning of Darwinian Progressivism. Evolution is nothing less than the religion of archism. If you read nothing else in this "Reader's Guide," read that. If you lean "libertarian" and you're a "theistic evolutionist," this essay should "red pill" you.Progressivism gave rise to "The Administrative State." During the Progressive Era, which might be dated from 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was formed, to 1930, liberal elites believed in "scientific socialism." The Administrative State
is best described in the 1983 book, Law and Revolution. The Introduction to that book is the most important single academic article I have ever read. In his Introduction, Harvard legal historian Harold Berman described the six revolutions in the history of Western legal theory: the Papal revolution of 1076, the English Puritan Revolution of 1643-58, the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. These six revolutions have shaped the West in ways that are barely understood by scholars or voters. They shaped the way in which the law applies to individuals.
Berman was convinced that a seventh revolution began in the early 20th century: administrative law. This revolution separates the courts from the executive and the legislative branch. It separates the idea of law as possessing a separate foundation and separate jurisdiction from the executive. This revolution centralizes power in the state, and crushes the earlier legal revolutions.
The legal revolution of administrative law is the greatest single threat to liberty in the world today, and it is firmly locked into the American social and legal order. People unthinkingly accept it. They are unaware of it. They do not understand the implications of the Federal Register, which now publishes 80,000 pages of fine print administrative law every year.
Politics is impotent to change this. Politics is unaware of it. Those few laws that get passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are then administered by the federal bureaucracy, and there is almost nothing that a President or Congress can do to stop it. Occasionally, the Supreme Court may hand down a ruling that will stop some minor aspect of the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, but this is rare. (Liberty's Greatest Enemy Today)
The French and Russian revolutions were explicitly religious revolutions. See the impressive work by the Librarian of Congress, James Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith (1980). See also Marx's Religion of Revolution. Billington begins with the French Revolution and ends with Lenin. It is by far the most detailed account of the conspiratorial and occult religious origins of revolution. The revolution of Administrative Law is the religion of science and rationalism, while violent revolution is the religion of chaos (irrationalism). Humanism/Autonomy is constantly fluctuating between rationalism and occult irrationalism. Cornelius Van Til spent his career exposing this humanist dialecticism. This is why the irrational occult chaos of BlackLivesMatter burning cities is supported by all the rational, Harvard-educated fancy-suit elites in the industrial "complexes" listed above.
The story is also told in North's book Crossed Fingers, the story of the Progressive take-over of the Presbyterian Church in Machen's day (Chapter 7, "Darwinism, Democracy, and the Public Schools"):
Conklin was a defender of what he called the religion of evolution.(97) As he said, "the greatest and most practical work of religion is to further the evolution of a better race."(98) "To a large extent mankind holds the power of controlling its destiny on this planet."(99) (Problem: when we say that man must control man's destiny, this means that some men must do the controlling, while others must be controlled.)
"Others must be controlled."
Evolution is the archist's religious wet dream.
"Listen to the Science," they tell you.
Don't believe the Bible.
Wear a mask.
Created: Thursday, November 12, 2020, 3:09:40 AM
Gary North published a couple of videos promoting his book Road to Dayton.
* * * * *
Most Americans have only the vaguest awareness of the Scopes trial. They do not know why it was important.
It has become known as the "monkey trial." But it was not about monkeys in the evolutionary chain that produced man. It was about control of the tax-funded schools by the voters.
In the early 1920's, William Jennings Bryan began a campaign to get Darwinian evolution out of tax-funded schools, grades 1 through 12. This challenged the crucial monopoly of humanists in America: control over the public schools. They mounted a campaign against Bryan's campaign against them.
The political conflict culminated in a five-day trial in tiny Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925.
In this video, I cover the background of the trial: what was at stake and why.
Does all this seem incredible? I have written a mini-book on the Scopes trial. It has the footnotes to support my version of the story. Download it here.
This is Lesson 2. Lesson 1 is here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/21581.cfm.
The issue was representation: Bryan vs. Darrow. The trial was a major public event. It asked Americans: "Which side are you on?" It asked them to choose sides.
Forgotten is this fact: William Jennings Bryan's brother Charles had been the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President in 1924. That was the influence of Bryan's name. Charles also controlled his brother's huge and profitable mailing list.
This was a showdown like no other in the 1920's: religious, cultural, social, political, and educational. It was a battle for political control over the academic content of the public schools, grades 1-12. It was therefore a battle for the future of America.
There were two well-known representatives doing battle. It was not like Prohibition, which had no representatives. People could hear this battle on the radio. This had never happened before . . . anywhere.
The battle still rages culturally. It was settled in the public schools only in the early 1980's. Evolution was not taught in biology courses in my day: the 1950's. Both sides in the 1925 showdown were in the shadows. Then the next showdown took place. The creationists lost.
This settled the political issue: the voters cannot legally determine what is taught in government schools. The educrats won. Democracy as a concept lost. That was the issue in 1925. It is still the issue today.
* * * * *
Why is that in the 1800's "liberal" Christians were more likely than "conservative" Christians to believe that racism was unChristian and Darwin's un-Favoured Races were entitled to the same ethical and legal treatment as whites?
Joel McDurmon has discussed the prevalence of racism among "conservative" theologians in the South. Oberlin College is an example of a Northern Presbyterianism that was more passionate about abolitionism than Calvinism. Calvinists, arguing more from Roman Law than Hebrew Law, were statists. Opponents of statism bought into (because they could not refute) the teaching of the Calvinists that the Bible -- particularly the Old Testament -- endorsed war, the State, and slavery. Those with libertarian leanings simply downplayed the Old Testament and became "New Testament Christians."
This would have been prevented had Christians in the 1700's and 1800's realized that the Protestant Reformers were wrong about the State, and that the Bible -- even the Old Testament -- in fact, especially the Old Testament -- is an Anarchist Manifesto.
A lot of conservative Christians in our day talk about the need for a "Biblical Worldview," but without anarchism in their worldview, Christians are copy-cats of Greco-Roman "classical" statism.
"Davos" is a group of archists, archist wanna-bes, and archist admirers, who meet regularly in Switzerland. "Transhumanism" means man taking control of evolution to bring about a synthesis between human beings and computers.
There was recently a speech at a Davos meeting in which the speaker succinctly stated the thesis of this website: that evolution is a religion which seeks to move archists from dependent spectators of the impersonal laws of nature, to active god-like creators. From unguided "natural" selection (as Darwin described) to archist-planned and guided selection.
“For four billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life,” he said. “All of life was subject to the laws of natural selection and the laws of organic biochemistry. But this is now about to change.
Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design, not the intelligent design of some god in the clouds, [but] OUR intelligent design, and the design of our ‘clouds,’ the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”
The speaker was Yuval Noah Harari. His book is titled Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. "Homo Deus": man as god. Here is the speech:
Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow with Yuval Noah Harari
Evolution is a religion. Man is the new god. And as Hegel noted, autonomous man tends to worship the most visible accomplishment of man, the State. "The State is god walking on the earth."
Davos plans have been brought to light by a comedian named J.P. Sears. His video is here:
What You Need to Know About the Transhumanist Agenda
"Human Life Has Absolutely No Meaning" - The American Vision
From: Evolution and Genocide | skip down to genocide as motivating impulse
In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States proudly boasted the the U.S. was legally, officially, constitutionally, "organically," a "Christian nation." But today, a century later, the U.S. is throughly secular and evolutionist. And as a result. the U.S. is a genocidal empire.
Genocide is the murder of a race, or species. Genocide is built into the theory of evolution, especially when Man the Archist hijacks the evolutionary worldview and no longer relies on "natural" selection, but graduates to political selection.
The modern world laughs at the Bible. "Myths and legends." "Full of errors." The Biblical account of the creation of the universe in six days not more than 10,000 years ago is laughed at by most (but not all) scientists. In place of the Garden of Eden, modern scientists and politicians have given us smog and smut, Hiroshima and homelessness.
The 20th century saw the triumph of secularism. Three centuries ago, all the great nations of Western Civilization were openly Christian nations. Today these same nations are openly atheistic ("secular"). God and His Law have no authority. No longer is man seen as created in the Image of God. He is just a random mutation; a meaningless conglomeration of chemicals. Social customs -- even the once-scientific understanding that human beings are "male" and "female" -- are also seen as meaningless and arbitrary.
"But at least we are no longer oppressed by the Bible," some will still say.
They are on the road to death.
The existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre put it well: "If I am god, then my neighbor is the devil." Research led by Prof. R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii has calculated that nearly 200 million human beings have been deliberately killed by "their" (secular) governments in this century alone. An equal number of human beings have been murdered by the other guy's government ("war"). A greater percentage of the human race has been murdered - by governments - than any previous century.[1]
Followers of secularism have learned their lessons. They are not afraid to kill their families, their own children, even themselves. Drugs, sex, gangs, and alcohol bring escape from a meaningless, atheistic world.
Followers of Christ may not have learned their lessons, but at least they know Who the Teacher is. True Christians take the Bible seriously. They believe its record of human history; they obey its laws. They work for the full social embodiment of Biblical Creationism as seen in the words of the Prophet Micah:
And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation
And never again will they train for war.
And each of them will sit under his
Vine and under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid.
For the LORD of hosts has spoken.
Though all the peoples walk
Each in the name of his god,
As for us, we will walk
In the Name of the LORD our God
forever and ever.
In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth,
and I will gather her that is driven out,
and her that I have afflicted;
And I will make her that halted a remnant,
and her that was cast far off a strong nation:
and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.
Micah 4:1-4
We can call this the "Vine & Fig Tree" vision. "The Mountain of the Lord" is a reference to the Garden of Eden: Micah's use of it here speaks of the re-creation of the world into a Garden-Temple; a future age of peace, secure property, and restored Edenic conditions.
We can also call this perspective "Patriarchy." Feminists hate the word, but anyone who would believe in a literal Garden of Eden would probably also try to convince men to become sons of the Patriarch Abraham (Galatians 3:7,29) and to organize society Patriarchally (by families) rather than politically (by conquest). This is in fact the agenda of "Vine & Fig Tree." Patria vs. Polis.
In sharp contrast to this "Vine & Fig Tree" perspective which we find in the Bible, we have the "Survival of the Fittest," embraced by Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and the nationalism, militarism, materialism, and cutthroat, State-buttressed "competition" of what is sometimes called "capitalism."
Let's be consistent. If you believe something about the Bible, then be consistent. It's the Creator of the universe speaking, or it's a joke.
Some evolutionists have been honest and consistent with their evolutionary assumptions. They adopted the evolutionary religion because they wanted to commit adultery or seize political power, and they saw the religion of Christianity as a roadblock to their ambitions.
"Vine & Fig Tree" imagery pervades the Bible. Christianity is a religion of service, not conquest. Who can seriously maintain that the Ethical World-View of Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and Jesus is the same as that of Darwin, Hitler, Marx, Mussolini, or Rockefeller?
But Jesus says if we are not for Him, we are against Him (Matthew 12:30). If we are not seeking to establish a Biblical culture, we are unwittingly working for the establishment of a totalitarian, homosexual, racist genocidal empire. We are enemies of Jesus.
Many people do not think of themselves as being enemies of Jesus just because they believe in Evolutionism. They have been told that this theory is "scientific." Doesn't Jesus want us to be "scientific"?
Before the "Enlightenment," scientists were Christian. In fact, science can be said to exist only in Biblical cultures. Isaac Newton wrote more books about the Bible than he did on physics. They believed science was possible because the creation was a product of an orderly God. The question we ask for now is, Why did scientists all of a sudden abandon Biblical Creationism and embrace the theory of evolution?
Here's the answer in a nutshell: It wasn't "the facts." When evolution swept the world, there were no "facts" to support it.[2] It was supported by a faith - a faith against God; a desire to get out from under His Law as recorded in the Bible.
Fable: In 1831 a divinity school drop-out began formulating the tenets of a bizarre new religion that, playing on the hopes and fears of the post-Christian world, and embraced by dictators and industrialists around the world, would eventually become the largest pseudo-scientific religious cult in the modern age. Without his degree in theology, and lacking a degree in any natural science, he set sail to gather anecdotes from nature to illustrate his new religion.
His timing was perfect. Men and nations were rebelling against the Christianity of the Catholics and the Reformers. A "re-birth" of Greco-Roman Caesarism - a pagan view of nature, and an elitist, stratified view of social classes - left men and women panting for some new religion that would spell freedom from responsibility under God and yet still present an aura of "scientific respectability."
At last the creed was formulated. Drawing from various ancient religions - from that of the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Emperors of Babylon and China, the philosopher-kings of Greece, and the Caesars of Rome - our seminary drop-out finally published his Confession of Faith. On November 24, 1859, the first edition was released and by sundown every single copy had been zealously purchased by devoted throngs of pre-publication converts.
Fact: The Seminary drop-out was Charles Darwin; the book was The Origin of Species; the rest is history.
Sure, we took some liberties with the story - but only in that we presented the facts in a perspective somewhat unlike the one most of us are taught in the State's schools.
It is clear (and we have demonstrated it elsewhere) that - far from being "proven" - the difficulties in Darwin's thesis were - to use Joseph Hooker's word - "appalling"; the task of finding "evidence" to "prove" the theory was, to quote Dobzhansky, "the paramount task which biologists faced in the closing decades of the 19th century."[3] It is thus also clear that the devout fervor which surrounded the publication of Darwin's work was not "scientific," but religious to the core.
Or perhaps we might say, "anti-religious." For most men of the 19th century, "religion" was just another word for "Christianity."
Granted, many who embraced Darwin rejected much in the institutional church which is itself "anti-Christian." We join the Evolutionists in opposing "the Church." But many evolutionists also self-consciously opposed the Bible. They had knowledge - perhaps a vague premonition, perhaps a studied understanding - that the Bible was utterly opposed to the kind of lawless, self-centered, materialistic lives they wanted to lead. Darwin "liberated" them. We oppose them. We reject the hidden agenda of these "Social Darwinists."
It is not our purpose to prove that all who believe in Evolution are Nazis. As we said above, many reject "Christianity" because of what is done in the name of Christ by "christians" who do not really want Micah's prophecy to come true. What is important to understand is that the great majority of those who shouted "Hosanna" to Darwin were motivated by racism, greed, class hatred, militarism, and a thirst for political power - to say nothing of their "private" (sexual) lives. The broad cultural acceptance which Darwin received[4] was generated by people who hold ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Bible's "Vine & Fig Tree" imagery, and, hopefully, to the ideals which you yourself hold. Recognizing what motivated an acceptance of Evolutionism may help you see why you should reject Fascist Evolutionism and embrace Radical Creationism.
RACISM Few people are aware that one of the reasons William Jennings Bryan opposed the teaching of Evolution in public schools was that he feared the teaching of racism. This is because few people are aware of how racist non-Christian scientists had become by 1859.[5] John S. Haller, Jr., has demonstrated that virtually all 19th-century evolutionists believed in the evolutionary superiority of the white race and the inferiority of others, especially the Negro race.[6] There may have been some evolutionists who opposed the slave trade, but they generally held - with Darwin himself - that the Negro was a backward race, doomed to become extinct in future evolutionary competition with the more favored races.
Racism is an easy justification for war. We will see this below; we can see it in the words of Darwin himself:
I could show fight [sic] on natural selection having done more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is? The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.[7]
What a pleasant thought!
OK; so racism is no longer as trendy as it was a hundred years ago.[8]
Still, ostensibly non-racist Bible-bashers continue telling us that "Evolution was immediately accepted by scientists of the day as true" and that we too should reject Biblical Patriarchy and bow before the shrine of Darwin. But if scientists had not been motivated by racism, Evolutionism might not have been so unanimously acclaimed.
What else motivated the "universal acceptance of Evolution"?
ANTI-FAMILIAL SEX In the Bible, the Family is the central unit of social organization. The discipline and self-sacrifice required by Biblical Laws governing the Family produces competence, social energy, and an ability to deal with frustrations without resorting to violence.[9]
In stark contrast to this view of life, marriage, and the sexes, is a view which legitimizes and even extols the idea of immediate sexual gratification, using anyone[10] of either sex[11] to achieve desired pleasures. Prostitution, homosexuality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and incest are not forbidden in the modern world. And in a world which is evolving toward the unknown, empowered by the unthinking, there is no basis for forbidding anything. "All is permitted," as Dostoyevsky observed.
The Marquis de Sade declared that if sexual gratification could be obtained either by dominating and torturing another, or by being so abused, then it is good to do so. His writings preceded Darwin's by 50 years, but many who embraced Darwin found therein a "scientific" justification for sadism, masochism, and other forms of deviance from Christian Family forms. As Darwin noted,
A man who has no assured and no present belief in the existence of a personal God or a future existence with retribution and rewards, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.
What seemed best to the Marquis de Sade was power over others. Whips and chains excite some; still others, perhaps in a graphic and ritual display of the "truth" of Evolutionism, gain sexual gratification through intercourse with animals. As we move from Anti-Family Sex to a third motivation for rejecting the Bible and embracing Evolutionism, ask yourself the question, "What would my life be like if those practicing these kinds of 'alternative life styles' were to gain political power over me and my Family?" "What will the next generation act like if these people write their school text-books?"[12]
FASCISM The desire for sexual "liberation" and the quest for God-like power over others are admitted to be the prime motivations for belief in the non-Christian religion of Meaningless Cosmic Evolutionism. Aldous Huxley, grandson of "Darwin's bulldog," Sir Thomas Huxley, has frankly confessed,
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. . . . For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, observing what we saw above under "Racism," has noted that
From the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life," it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes, or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification. Social Darwinism has often been understood in this sense: as a philosophy exalting competition, power, and violence over convention, ethics, and religion. Thus it has become a portmanteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race.
Recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf, are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here. And it is by an obvious process of analogy and deduction that they are said to derive from Darwinism. Nietzsche predicted that this would be the consequence if the Darwinian theory gained general acceptance:
If the doctrines of sovereign Becoming, of the liquidity of all . . . species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal - doctrines which I consider true but deadly - are hurled into the people for another generation . . . then nobody should be surprised when . . . brotherhoods with the aim of robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers . . . will appear on the arena of the future.
Himmelfarb is right in saying that such conclusions are arrived at by "an obvious process of analogy and deduction." She is dreaming when she asserts that the connections between Evolutionism and totalitarianism are "too familiar to require exposition here." They are not familiar.
The connections are suppressed.
The self-centered "ME-generation" of the late 20th century is utterly disconnected from the ideological movements of the early 20th century. The State's schools have sent Secular Humanism's voluminous failures[13] down the Orwellian "Memory Hole."
Volume after volume has poured from the publishing houses describing every phase of the Hitler regime, but their writers are so timidly afraid of being classed as anti-evolutionary "fundamentalists" by the high-priests of Evolutionism that one may search through their books by the hundreds and scarcely find a mention of evolution or Charles Darwin.
Nevertheless, the rise of war and fascism in the 20th century is inescapably attributable to the rise of Evolutionism; and the rise of Evolutionism is attributable to the propaganda machines of the Emperors who loved the Theory of Evolution precisely because it was useful in justifying their total war against Eden.
But then, perhaps the connections are familiar enough: Richard Hofstadter's book, Social Darwinism and American Thought,[14] records the great chorus of voices which united in praising the word of Darwin for the light it bestows on how nations, businesses, and relations between economic classes should be governed. Wallbank and Taylor's text, Civilization Past and Present,[15] evidences their conclusion that Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" "became a vogue that swept western thought in the late nineteenth century. It . . . became a convenient doctrine for justifying various economic and political theories." Nietzsche, for example,
ridiculed democracy and socialism for protecting the worthless and weak and hindering the strong. Social Darwinism and the antidemocratic cult of naked power, as preached by advocates like Nietzsche, were laying the foundations of fascism, which would one day plunge the world into the most terrible convulsion in its history.
Ashley Montagu comments on an inflammatory book by Freiderich von Bernhardi, Germany and the Next War:
"War," declared Bernhardi, "is a biological necessity;" it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of Nature;" it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." "The whole idea of arbitration represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development," for "what is right is decided by the arbitration of war." In proof thereof such notions of Darwin's as "The Struggle for Existence," "Natural Selection," and the "Survival of the Fittest" are invoked with sententiousness quite military both in logic and in sense. According to Bernhardi, it is plainly evident to anyone who makes a study of plant and animal life that "war is a universal law of nature." This declaration and fortification of Germany's will to war - for it had the highest official sanction and approval - was published in 1911. Three years later the greatest holocaust the world had ever known was launched. . . .
Mussolini was strengthened in his belief that violence was basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Nietzsche. Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by Evolutionism. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace: it would only hinder the evolutionary process.
Likewise Hitler based his politics on Darwin. Jews must be segregated, he urged in Mein Kampf, to avoid mixed marriages; were they to occur, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile."
Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist, writing just after World War II, observed,
The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. . . .
To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.
If Marx was not "converted" by the preaching of Darwin, he was certainly "sanctified" by it. Jacques Barzun[16] notes that
In an age of social Darwinism, the combination of the ideas of struggle, of historical evolution, and of progress proved irresistible. The Marxists became merely a sect in the larger church . . . .
Marx wished to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin declined the offer, thinking it would have an adverse effect on the popularity of his own books.
He had little to worry about. While Modernism was sweeping the Bible under the rug, Evolutionism literally swept the globe. And its chief propagandists were Hitler, Mussolini, and their totalitarian ilk, who, early in their "careers," were well-respected by the United States aristocracy because they were "scientific" social reformers who defended "law and order."[17] Nazism may have been (temporarily) forced underground, but the anti-Christian world-and-life-view it so successfully propagated remains the centerpiece of the Dominant Culture.[18] The Christian Patriarch can have no part in it.[19]
"CAPITALISM" Social Darwinism in Economics is perhaps more familiar to some. Wrongly called "laissez-faire capitalism," it actually means using the State to put your competitors out of business; ethics must not stand in the way of the "Survival of the Fittest."
The railroad magnate James J. Hill, manipulating to get more railways under his control, said that "the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest." (To his credit, Hill did not rely on government subsidies to build his rail empire.)
Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune in the State-protected steel industry, describes his conversion to Evolutionism upon reading Darwin and Herbert Spencer:
I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution.
John D. Rockefeller, who, like so many, attempted to seduce Christians into Evolutionist harlotry, propagated his religion in Christian Sunday School classes. His "testimony" was inspiring:
The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest. . . . This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.
Needless to say, the "God" of John D. Rockefeller and Adolph Hitler is not the God of Micah and Jesus.
But these are the roots of corporate fascism in America.
They are also the roots of Racism
. . . and we are now seeing the fruit of this deadly tree.
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the highest of Evolutionism's high priests, who ministered in the parish of Harvard University, has pontificated that Darwin
finally and definitely established evolution as a fact, no longer a speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific investigation.
This is a lie. Many other evolutionists have admitted that Darwin did no such thing.
If we are "normal" or "average" Americans, then we have been taught this lie. We are continually bombarded with lies about Man as god and the State as Savior. And we believe these lies. Only if we are radical creationists are we cleansing our minds of lies and becoming effective in standing against the violence, fascism, and racism of the Modern World. We are surrounded by the dead and dying, victims of Darwin and the Secular Humanists, and yet we think that we will not be touched and that God will not hold us accountable.
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:12
Cosmic meaninglessness is a lie.
Political totalitarianism is a lie.
Sexual "freedom" is a lie.
War is a lie.
"The Truth shall make you free."
We have noted the shift from "natural selection" to "political selection." But most politicians are sock-puppets and empty-headed bumps on logs. Instead of speaking of "political selection" we might speak of "Gatesian Selection" or "Sorosian Selection," because non-political figures like Bill Gates and George Soros exercise disproportionate power over ordinary politicians in deciding who will live and who will die -- far more power than is wielded by an "elected representative" who represents a typical congressional district of 700,000 people, and was elected by one-tenth that number.
Secular Humanists have deliberately killed an average of 10,000 or more people per day during the 20th century. Nearly half a billion people have been murdered by non-Christian governments in the 20th century. This number does not count the number of people who aren't allowed to see their first birthday. In America 4,000 pre-born people are killed every day, with possibly double that number in China and the "former" Soviet Union — each. Adding these murders, and the total approaches 10,000 murders per hour.[1]
But because Americans are so "heavenly-minded they are of no earthly good," Secular Humanists have decided to up the ante. They now are discussing possibilities for eliminating an additional fifteen thousand people per hour.
Here are the details from The New American magazine :
Cousteau the "Humanitarian"Item: In its front-page article on the passing of famed French oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, the June 26th [1997] New York Times stated that the "outspoken Mr. Cousteau was often at odds with other leaders of the environment movement. He not only lent a sympathetic ear to technological fixes for pollution problems, but he also refused to put the interests of animals above those of people. 'I'm not an ecologist for the animals,' he often said, 'I'm an ecologist for the people.'" Correction: Cousteau put the interests of people so high that he concluded many needed to be eliminated so that others could survive. In an interview appearing in the November 1991 UNESCO Courier, Cousteau bared his humanitarianism and his anxiety toward certain "technological fixes":
Cousteau, you see, viewed overpopulation as the greatest problem facing humanity. But even the fates of those fortunate enough to continue living on our crowded planet would be shaped by coercive utopians like Cousteau. In the 1980s, in order to prevent nuclear war, Cousteau proposed "the compulsory exchange of children at a relatively low age, 7 to 8 or 8 to 9" to live for one year in the enemy country. "I don't see how a nation could press the button . . . when they know that 3 million of their children are over there. I mean, the mothers would not tolerate that," he reasoned to the June 13, 1985 Los Angeles Times. What could be more humanitarian than that? THE NEW AMERICAN - Vol. 13, No. 16 — Copyright 1997, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated |
Search: Bill Gates + pandemic + genocide
When the United Nations and other Secular Humanist organizations decide who will live and who has "the right to die," will you be the one whose "rights" are "protected?"
More comments on the UNESCO article.
Comments on "Cousteau the humanitarian eco-saint": 20,000 lies under the sea - The Fishy World of Jacques Cousteau The (London) Independent
Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground
"Meeting Doctor Doom" - The Citizen Scientist
Democide:
The Secular State is the Killer State.Evolution and Secularism mean genocide
Another human hater: Finland's Pentti Linkola
"By sacrificing perhaps billions [we] might possibly save a million," he remarks.
As one who believes another world war would be a "happy occasion for the planet," Linkola likens the current global situation to a sinking ship with only one remaining lifeboat. "Those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot." while
"those who love and respect life will take the ship’s ax and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat," he declares.
To chop the metaphorical hands from the gunwales, this outspoken opponent of Amnesty International and the Vatican advises an end to third-world aid, the introduction of mandatory abortions, and the creation of a totalitarian state with strict environmental laws enforced by a
ruthless "green police."
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
"May we live long and die out," is the rallying cry for this Oregon-based environmental faction dedicated to bringing the human experiment to an abrupt halt. However, unlike Linkola, these "deep" ecologists suggest non-coercive means to eliminate our toxic
presence from the planet.
The Antidote to Environmentalist Toxins: Vine & Fig Tree's "Global Warming is Cool!" Page. [2002]
A survey of several important recent books
According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 50 million abortions are performed around the world every year. That's an average of 136,986.3 abortions every single day. That's 5707.7 pre-born children killed per hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Summary - The State of World Population 2000
Jesus came to bring the "salvation" described by the Old Testament prophets, which preeminently meant a decentralized spread of peace and wholeness across the globe, free of secular militarism and Humanistic empires. God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. The Prophet Micah said people would one day put God's Law into practice, beat their swords into plowshares, and be free from the despotic genocidal tendencies of would-be gods, sitting peacefully under their "Vine & Fig Tree." Don't wait for heaven; The end of evolutionism is NOW! Check out
The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
For Further Reading . . .
Off-site:
(1)
Death by Government, published by Rutgers University in 1995. The figure does not include murder by non-governmental agents. In the United States alone, over 30 million children have been murdered by their parents since 1973. The rates in China are higher. The average Russian woman has had nine abortions. [Back to Text](2) Even secularists admit this. Prof. Philip Johnson of the Law School at Berkeley argues that if the facts are put on trial (and the jury is not from Los Angeles!) Darwin would be convicted. See his book, Darwin on Trial, 1985. Or judge for yourself. Read just one Creationist book. Scientific Creationism is a good start. The facts simply do not support the anti-Biblical position. [Back to Text]
(3) Hooker was a famous scientist who lived in Darwin's day. Dobzhansky was a modern scientist, widely acknowledged as one of the leading defenders of Evolutionism. [Back to Text]
(4) and still maintains: "What? You believe in Genesis?! Everybody knows that Evolution is a scientific fact!!" [Back to Text]
(5) In the middle ages, scientists were Christians. Isaac Newton wrote more books about the Bible than he did about physics. But after the "Renaissance" (the re-birth of paganism among philosophers) and the "Enlightenment" (the acceptance of paganism by politicians), Christian influence declined. [Back to Text]
(6) Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971. [Back to Text]
(7) Have we forgotten the full title of Darwin's book [of course we have]: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Memory is so convenient. A diploma is bliss. [Back to Text]
(8) Or so we are led to believe by politicians who claim to solve social problems by their magic legislative wands. [Back to Text]
(9) J.D. Unwin, "Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy," The Hibbert Journal, XXV:663-77; George Gilder, Sexual Suicide, NY: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1973. [Back to Text]
(10) or any thing, depending on how you classify animals. [Back to Text]
(11) of any age [Back to Text]
(12) Yes, ask this question quickly, for the next generation is already buying their guns. [Back to Text]
(13) Two World Wars head the list. [Back to Text]
(14) Boston: Beacon Press, 1955. [Back to Text]
(15) Scott, Foresman and Co., 1961. [Back to Text]
(16) Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Doubleday, 1958. [Back to Text]
(17) Catholics and Mormons have their theological differences, but they will work together against abortion. American "capitalists" and German "socialists" had their differences, but they could work together against the Authority of the Bible and for a "modern," "scientific" world. At the end of World War II, thousands of Nazi scientists were given false identities and brought into the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex. (Christopher Simpson, Blowback, 1987.) America has been characterized by a fascist economy fueled by a Darwinian ideology. As our ideology become sheer nihilism, it remains to be seen how our fascist state will evolve. [Back to Text]
(18) While Feminists bow before the altar of "Freedom from Biblical Patriarchy," Nazis hide behind it, snickering at these "weaker vessels." [Back to Text]
(19) Members of "mainstream" Christian denominations are bugged by the occasional presence of teams of Mormon missionaries at their door; at the turn of the century, missionaries for the religion of Evolution were in your face like pollen. Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted by most governments, barely tolerated by the rest; Darwin's witnesses are accredited and funded, because their doctrines buttress the power of the State. But perhaps a military metaphor is more appropriate than a religious one: these are soldiers, spies, and agents of disinformation. We cannot serve two captains (Matthew 6:24; Hebrews 2:10). [Back to Text]
For almost five decades I have been fascinated with the origins of ideas, particularly ideologies and cosmologies, both religious and secular. It is a theme I have elaborated upon numerous times at LRC:
And while I have had numerous guides in my quest through this linguistic labyrinth, perhaps the most insightful has been Murray N. Rothbard.
In the last decades of Rothbard’s life, he developed an important interpretative framework in understanding American history. This was prodded on by his careful study of the emerging “new political history” which was reinterpreting the dynamics of the ebb and flow of ethnocultural and ethnoreligious groups. This bold synthesis became the central focus of some of his greatest scholarly endeavors, particularly when it came to understanding progressivism as a secularized version of this postmillennial religious zeal.
In his brilliant book, The Progressive Era, (which I believe to be his greatest work) Rothbard provided the Rosetta Stone to understanding the origins of the welfare state in America: the role of postmillennial Protestant pietistic intellectuals and activists born in the crucial decade surrounding the Civil War who, because of the seductive allure and influence of the evolutionary naturalism of Darwinism, came of age increasingly secularized, but who did not forsake their faith in statism and elitist social control.
Interested LRC readers should further delve into the excellent authoritative text, Gnostic America: A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy, by Peter M. Burfeind. The subject of gnosticism is one of the most important and impactful areas of study in world history, with tremendous consequences both ancient and modern few non-initiates can fathom. It has fascinated a wide range of dedicated scholars with which LRC readers are familiar such as:
My parents were "theistic evolutionists." They taught me to believe that scientists had "proven" that life on earth evolved over billions of years. But, they added, "God did it." Then in high school I learned that evolutionists did not want God in the picture. They wanted us to believe that Mother Nature did it. And "Mother" is, like "Our Father who art in heaven," too personal. Evolutionists wanted the cold, impersonal, meaningless forces of physics and chemistry to have done it. With God out of the picture, it would be easier to rape and steal without a nagging conscience.
|
"Theistic evolution" is a contradiction in terms. "Evolution" was invented to get rid of God entirely. Gary North writes:
Believers in Darwinism in the United States have a major problem. Almost nobody thinks they are correct.
In 1982, a total of 9% of the people surveyed by the Gallup organization said that they believed that man evolved over millions of years, and that God had nothing to do with the process. This is straight Darwinism. It is the theory of evolution through natural selection. In 2012, 15% of those surveyed said they held to this view. In other words, 153 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the Darwinists have failed to persuade 85% of the American population of the truth of their position.
This is the case, despite the fact that Darwinists have by law captured all of the public schools, the vast majority of the universities, and most of the media, which includes captured Hollywood, the news networks, the publishing industry, and cable television. This has been the most concerted effort in government-financed, government-regulated propaganda in the history of the United States, and it has come a cropper. The overwhelming majority of Americans think that the theory is nonsense.
Darwinists do not rejoice when somebody says that he believes in evolution, but an evolutionary process guided by God. This idea is anathema to the Darwinists. Darwin took his stand against exactly this position. In his day, intellectuals believed in an old earth. They believed in God-directed evolution. God imposes order on the universe, they argued. Darwin's idea of evolution through natural selection was the answer to this view. This is why the Darwinists are passionate in their rejection of the ideas promoted by a movement that calls itself "intelligent design." Darwinists reject intelligent design as being as unscientific as the six-day creation movement.
The main point of Darwinism is not the idea of evolution. That idea long preceded Darwinism. It goes back to classical Greece. The main point of Darwinism is to promote the idea of purposeless life prior to the advent of man. It promotes the idea that all life came out of a purposeless universe, and until the advent of man, there was no purpose in the universe.
The main motivation of Darwinists has always been to elevate man as a replacement of God. What God is not allowed to do, namely, shape history, including cosmic history, in terms of His purposes, man is now said to be able to do, and therefore he has a responsibility to do it. It is the elevation of man as the new God that is the essence of Darwinism, not the doctrine of evolution. This is why Darwinism is a religion.
Darwinism, Badges, and Guns
"No purpose" means "no morality."
Notice that little phrase, "by law." If a public school teacher teaches children what my parents taught me -- that "God did it" -- that teacher could lose her job. It is illegal to teach "theistic evolution" or "intelligent design" in government-controlled schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot even present "both sides" and give atheism and theism "equal time."
Controlling Federal Court decisions even prohibit teaching a semi-secular concept of "intelligent design" in government-controlled schools. Not "God." Certainly not "Our Father." Just "Intelligence." Maybe with a capital "I."
The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover | American Civil Liberties Union
"Straight Darwinism" -- atheistic evolution -- is the only legal option in the once-Christian United States. Theistic evolution must be censored. Children must be shielded from this dangerous religious cult.
And yet most parents -- "insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" -- defy the law and believe it anyway.
Evolutionists and secularists often claim that America's Founding Fathers and the authors of the U.S. Constitution were "deists." But today's thought-police say that teaching "deism" is "unconstitutional."
(Headline correction: As far as I know, I'm the only self-conscious "anarcho-creationist" on planet earth.)
