Soros, Practical Reason, and the World-Wide Criminal Organization (Part II)

by Jonas E. Alexis

We have argued earlier that Darwin’s project is consistently compatible with the essentially Talmudic ideology, which states that the Goyim are beasts. Darwin argued that the “imbeciles” and the “weak” ought to be eliminated; the Talmud teaches that the Goyim were created essentially to serve Jews.[1]

This point was articulated by the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef back in 2010. “Why are Gentiles needed?,” he asked, “They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.”[2] Yosef continued:

“In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Gentiles were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”[3]

Yosef also said of Arabs: “How can you make peace with a snake? Those evildoers, the Arabs — it says in the Gemara [Talmud] that God is sorry he ever created those sons of Ishmael.”[4]

Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu quickly distanced himself from Yosef when he uttered those wonderful words. He issued a statement saying that Yosef’s sermons “do not reflect my approach or the stand of the Israeli government.” So far, so good.

But when Yosef died in 2013, Netanyahu declared: “The Jewish People have lost one of the wisest men of his generation.”[5] One of the wisest men?

Well, according to this logic, Yosef taught the Jewish people, including Benjamin Netanyahu, that the Goyim are donkeys. How else would the Israeli government, under Netanyahu’s watch, continue to slaughter, maim, and mercilessly exterminate the Palestinians?[6] How else would they continue to expand the settlement?[7] How else would “A large majority of US Senators, both Republican and Democratic, ask President Obama to increase military aid to Israel”?[8]

It can easily be argued that people like Soros have been politically and ideologically spreading Ovadiah Yosef’s dream all across Europe and America. If the Goyim are donkeys, then using so-called race wars to divide and conquer is a small price to pay.[9]

If the Goyim were specifically created to serve people like Soros, then using the Syrian refugee crisis to destroy countries in Europe and to create conflict is legitimate. Now you have German right-wing parties internalizing the commands of their oppressors by blaming the victims as opposed to attacking the real culprits behind the ideological curtain.[10]

But let us not forget that in the Origin of Species Darwin sort of codified the idea that that wars and conflicts are the best ways for “the fittest” to triumph over the less unfortunate.

In other words, Darwin wouldn’t be able to condemn Soros morally and logically, and Soros ideologically agrees with Darwin’s “survival of the fittest,” which quickly got morphed into a movement known as “Social Darwinism” in the nineteenth century.[11]

It is often said that “Social Darwinism” was a movement that had little or nothing to do with Darwin’s public or private beliefs, but as biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore point out, Darwin’s own notebooks “make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start—‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.”^[12]

In other words, the Social Darwinists were more consistent in following Darwin’s reductionism than Darwin consistently following the extension of his own weltanschauung. In fact, Darwin was confronted with this dilemma right after the publication of the Origin of Species.

A Manchester newspaper quickly realized that he was implicitly and subtly advertising the idea that “might is right” and that “every cheating tradesman is also right.” Like his intellectual children, Darwin disagreed with no serious justification. Yet one year before he died, Charles Darwin proved that his critics were right all along. He said,

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing 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.”^[13]

Darwin, as it turns out, was intellectually dishonest, largely because he deliberately excluded practical reason from his project. His intellectual children have never been able to recover from that intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, some of them (like Marc Hauser of Harvard) have deliberately forged lies and complete fabrications to propound their ideas. And no one wants to talk about the so-called Piltdown Man anymore because the story is now too embarrassing.[14] Ernst Haeckel’s fake drawings seems to have fallen into the same category.

The deduction we are trying to make here is that when practical reason is excluded from any intellectual project, then contradiction, blatant dishonesty, illogical leaps, and sometimes deliberate deceptions would be the end result.

Immanuel Kant quickly realized this and immediately put practical reason back into the intellectual firmament, which inevitably allowed him to come up with a much more rigorous and intellectually satisfying system known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative prohibits contradiction and irrationality precisely because it is based on the moral law itself. It states:

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”[15]

That obviously throws Darwin out the window because there is no Darwinian maxim that can logically become a universal or moral law. In fact, Darwin denied a universal and moral law. Keep in mind that this universal law does not depend on how you and I feel on a given day. It also is not contingent upon what we may think is right. This universal law is independent of our appetite and preference. In other words, we obviously did not make this universal law; we just happen to discover it.

The moral or universal law, says Kant, is what binds us all together as rational creatures. So, any system that seeks to dismiss that moral law must be wrong precisely because that system will inevitably be incoherent. Kant continues to say that for an action to be good, “it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law—it must also be done for the sake of the moral law.”[16]

Kant again kills Darwin here. But what really are the implications again? Well, politicians and states and intellectuals and policy makers must submit themselves to the moral law. There is no way around that.

Conversely, an intellectual project without the moral law is not really a serious project. It is a perversion of it. This is again my frustration with Darwin and his children: they keep shooting themselves in the toes by dismissing the moral law, but they always summon it when they get into trouble. This is actually dishonesty.

In fact, it can easily be argued that intellectual and scientific dishonesty is largely the hinge upon which Darwinism is built in academe. If you do not think so, then call immunologist Caroline Crocker, a former professor at George Mason University, evolutionary biologist Richard Stenberg, formerly of the Smithsonian Institute, neurosurgeon Michael Ignor of Stony Brook University, Dean Canyon of San Francisco State University, etc.

If you don’t get fired for criticizing Darwin, then rest assured that your arguments will be either ignored, ridiculed, dismissed without serious thought, or politically castrated.

For years, philosopher Thomas Nagel of New York University maintained that Darwinian evolution provides the best explanation for life.[17] But Nagel dropped that position in his recent book Mind and Cosmos, in which he cogently argues that “the materialist Neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”[18]

The academic community obviously owes Nagel a serious response, but no one has ever bothered to formulate a cogent counter-argument. It was really funny to watch how so-called thinking people were all interested in talking about Nagel as a person and not about the arguments he presents in the book—a classic example of a straw-man and ad hominem attack.[19] The same thing happened to mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski, who criticized some of the central tenets of Neo-Darwinism. In response, Daniel Dennett said:

“I love it: another hilarious demonstration that you can publish bullshit at will—just so long as you say what an editorial board wants to hear in a style it favors.”

Well, if it is “bullshit,” then the case is closed. No evidence needs to be provided; no counter-argument is required; no logical or scientific or empirical evidence ought to be presented. Bullshit is bullshit, and that is the end of the story. Berlinski humorously responded,

“We lost something in the literary and intellectual culture that’s no longer accessible. You get a guy like Daniel Dennett, whose greatest intellectual achievement was growing that stupid beard of his, masquerading as a scientific expert on Darwinian theory, staring at the camera, and no one is dousing him with a bucket of water. It’s incredible to me….It should be sad.”

We are constantly told over and over that “science” is self-correcting and that scientists are always open to constructive criticism. According to Crocker, you simply cannot criticize Darwinism without being fired.[20]

Why did she get fired? Well, Crocker was demonstrating that the Miller-Urey experiment, among other frauds, was almost certainly “irrelevant” to the tenets of Darwinism.[21] In fact, if the experiment were successful, Darwinism would have once again received a low blow precisely because it would have proven that it takes intelligence (namely Miller and Urey) to create life!

Once Crocker announced that there are some frauds in the biology textbooks, the Washington Post itself declared that “Gasps and giggles burst out” in the classroom. In other words, Crocker was an intellectual terrorist who ought to be expunged. But there were some good reactions.

One student by the name of Carolyn Flitcroft who thought she was getting a decent education declared: “So far, we have only learned that evolution is true. This is the first time I have ever heard it isn’t.”[22] Another student declared, “If science is the pursuit of truth, why is evolution not questioned?”[23]

Well, that was the end of Crocker’s academic career.[24] She said: “I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out.”[25]

But then some scientists would run around and declare things like, “Darwinism is true because nearly all the major scientists believe it.” This is a vacuous statement precisely because serious scientists are not allowed to touch the theory without being politically castrated.

There are more problems with the theory. In fact, one cannot take mathematics seriously and still believe that Darwinian evolution can happen by chance.[26] Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the leading mathematicians and astronomers in the last century, declared that the probability of the evolution of cellular life by chance is one in 10^40,000![27] He argued that this probability

“could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup… No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning.

“Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.”[28]

In short, Darwinism is inconsistent and contradictory from top to bottom. But the oligarchs love Darwin because he actually provided the intellectual background for immoral behavior in economics. As we all know, both John D. Rockefeller and Dale Carnegie were staunch Darwinists. Eric D. Beinhocker of Harvard writes:

“Darwin’s great insight into critical role of natural selection in evolution was thus inspired by economics. It was not long after Darwin published his Origin of Species that the intellectual currents began to flow back the other way from evolutionary theorists to economists.

“In 1898, the economist Thorstein Veblen wrote an article that still reads remarkably well today arguing that the economy is an evolutionary system. Not long afterward, Alfred Marashll, one of the founders of modern economic theory, wrote in his introduction to his famous Principles of Economics, ‘The Mecca of the economist lies in economic biology.’”[29]

Darwinism provides sophistication for capitalism, and capitalism is part of the reason why people like Soros, Haim Saiban, and Sheldon Adelson can stand behind their desks and watch their money magically copulate like ducks and chickens. Capitalism allows them to cheat the system. Then they can use that money to agitate diabolical movements and buy politicians and leaders virtually everywhere.[30]

This is also why oligarchs like the Rockefellers and the Koch brothers cannot rule out Darwin because he is the patron saint of cut-throat competition, which always comes down to survival of the fittest. As John D. Rockefeller himself put it,

“The large corporation that grew by swallowing up its smaller competitors was merely exhibiting the law of the ‘survival of the fittest…’”[31]

As suggested earlier, Soros would not have a major problem with the survival-of-the-fittest paradigm. And if Darwin is right, then Soros is doing the right thing: he is just helping his brethren to survive in what they see as a hostile environment. This could be one reason why Soros has been really using the so-called Syrian refugee crisis as a form of covert warfare in Europe. And he has been couching this diabolical plan in the language of human rights. He has recently declared in the New York Review of Books:

“The asylum seekers are desperate. Legitimate refugees must be offered a reasonable chance to reach their destinations in Europe. It is clear that the EU must undergo a paradigm shift. EU leaders need to embrace the idea that effectively addressing the crisis will require ‘surge’ funding, rather than scraping together insufficient funds year after year.

“Spending a large amount at the outset would allow the EU to respond more effectively to some of the most dangerous consequences of the refugee crisis—including anti-immigrant sentiment in its member states that has fueled support for authoritarian political parties, and despondency among those seeking refuge in Europe who now find themselves marginalized in Middle East host countries or stuck in transit in Greece.”[32]

Think about this for a moment. If Soros is really concerned about human rights and dignity, why hasn’t he told the Neoconservative Mafia and even Washington to stop implementing covert warfare in Syria? Why is Obama planning to send more troops in Syria?[33] Why hasn’t Soros told the CIA to abort its “Plan B” in the same region?[34] In fact, America’s “moderate rebels in Syria,” as journalist Bilal Abdul Kareem put it back in 2014, grew out of “criminal gangs.”[35]

Second, if Soros is really interested about preserving the lives of the so-called Syrian refugees, why hasn’t he even challenged Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia to accept some refugees? Why do they all have to move to Europe?

As we all know by now, both Israel and Turkey wanted the prolonged war in Syria. In fact, Israel wanted to remove Assad since the beginning of the war.[36] Recent evidence has shown again and again that this was the case. The Jerusalem Post itself has reported that the Syrian rebels/terrorists sent an ultimatum to the Assad government saying that if Assad would come to terms with Israel, then the war would come to a swift end.[37]

Israeli ambassador Michael Oren made it very clear that the Israeli regime preferred “the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”[38] The question is simply this: who were and still are the bad guys fighting Assad? The Chinese? North Koreans?

None of the above. The bad guys are ISIS and al-Nusra. Oren admitted:

“We understand that they are pretty bad guys. Still, the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc. That is a position we had well before the outbreak of hostilities in Syria. With the outbreak of hostilities we continued to want Assad to go.”[39]

We also have seen how Turkey is sleeping with terrorist organizations such as ISIS.[40] Soros, as far as the record shows, hasn’t said a word about this. What is still on his mind is the Syrian refugee crisis. He wants to use it to beat the Goyim in Europe over the head and to create more bloodshed in the continent.

In a perverse and diabolical way, he concludes his piece in the New York Review of Books by saying that “The refugee crisis poses an existential threat to Europe.”[41] In the same vein, the New York Times “the refugee crisis is humanity’s crisis.”[42]

Well, Dark Lord Soros, who created that “existential threat”? Who created this “humanity’s crisis”? And can the crisis really exist without the Neoconservatives playing with people’s lives in the Middle East? Why doesn’t the New York Times call Jewish Neocon Daniel Pipes and ask him why he said that the United States needed to support both Assad and the Syrian rebels/terrorists?

Could Obama make the “worst mistake”[43] of his presidency (the toppling of Gaddafi) without people like Bill Kristol beating the war drum and saying perverse things like “we have to win Libya”?[44] Didn’t Kristol explicitly declare that “No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power” and “and we won’t leave Gaddafi in power”? Didn’t Mossadist philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy propound the same thing ad nauseam?[45]

Soros may not support Netanyahu explicitly, but his essentially Talmudic ideology is not much different than what Netanyahu has been implicitly propounding in Israel. He wants chaos, bloodshed, and death in Europe.

“European cities including London are riven by lawless ‘no-go’ areas as a result of high migration, Hungary’s government has claimed. The British capital is named alongside cities such as Paris, Stockholm and Berlin as home to ‘more than 900’ areas where the authorities have ‘little or no control.’”[46]

The moral of the story? When chaos looms in Europe, George Soros praises it and financially supports it. In that sense, he is part of a global subversive movement. He is a member of what Gordon Duff would have called “a world-wide criminal organization,” which many have argued got its start in the first century and which ended up creating one disaster after another in later centuries, most specifically in Russia.^[47] What is the solution?

Do not allow people like Soros to subvert the moral and political order in any society. The converse is also applicable: any country that allows people like Soros to take over the moral and political atmosphere will do so at their own peril.

For more than fifty years, countries in Europe and America have deliberately given power to the Soros of this world who in turn used their power to destroy countries in the Middle East. Civilta Cattolica warned hundreds of years ago that these people always seek “to plunder, corrupt, and trample”[48] the moral law and order. Perhaps it is time for Europe and America to bring back Sicut Judaeis non on the table.

[1] For scholarly studies on some of these issues, see for example Peter Schafer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007); Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered (Coeur d’Alene, ID: Independent History and Research, 2008).

[2] Quoted in Jonah Mandel, “Yosef: Gentiles exist only to serve Jews,” Jerusalem Post, October 18, 2010.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Quoted in Lazar Berman, “5 of Ovadia Yosef’s most controversial quotations,” Times of Israel, October 9, 2013.

[5] Quoted in Dan Murphy, “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, in his own words,” Christian Science Monitor, October 7, 2013.

[6] See for example Norman Finkelstein, Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Assaults on Gaza (New York: OR Books, 2014).

[7] For recent developments, see for example Avaneesh Pandey, “Israel Expands Settlements in Occupied West Bank, Seizes Large Track Near Jericho,” International Business Times, March 16, 2016.

[8] “A large majority of US Senators, both Republican and Democratic, ask President Obama to increase military aid to Israel give increased regional defence challenges,” European Jewish Press, April 26, 2016.

[9] This is obviously the case with Black Lives Matter.

[10] “‘Not part of Germany’: German right-wing AfD party adopts anti-Islamic manifesto,” Russia Today, May 1, 2016.

[11] For studies on this, see Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Carl N. Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Robert Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979); Peter Dickens, Social Darwinism (Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000).

[12] Desmond and Moore, Darwin, 1.

[13] Ibid., 319.

[14] See for example J. S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

[15] Emmanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1959), 39.

[16] Emmanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Torchbooks, 1964), 390.

[17] Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130-131.

[18] Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

[19] I personally have had interactions with people like that. A friend of mine ticked me off last November precisely because he kept ignoring every single evidence I presented on ISIS and perpetual wars in the Middle East and then asked me to have a dialogue with him virtually every week! “I don’t want to talk about this anymore,” I finally said. “Our conversation is going nowhere, since evidence does not matter to you at all. We both have busy schedules and let us use our time wisely.” He kept bringing up similar topics in subsequent weeks, and I kept my mouth shut. It was hard for me to realize that some people will not listen to reason and evidence, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence actually is.

[20] Shankar Vedantam, “Eden and Evolution,” Washington Post, February 5, 2006.

[21] See for example Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2000), chapter 2.

[22] Vedantam, “Eden and Evolution,” Washington Post, February 5, 2006

[23] Ibid.

[24] She recounted her story in her book Free to Think (Port Orchard, WA: Leafcutter Press, 2010).

[25] Vedantam, “Eden and Evolution,” Washington Post, February 5, 2006.

[26] For further studies on similar issues, see or example John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2000); Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (New York: Mariner Books, 2006); Dean L. Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, Publishers, 2001); William Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

[27] Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York Simon & Schuster, 1984), 24.

[28] Ibid., 24, 30; see also Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering and Science, November 1981: 8-12.

[29] Desmond and Moore, Darwin, 479-480.

[30] See for example Ali Gharib, “Does Hillary Clinton Have a Haim Saban Problem?,” Jewish Daily Forward, November 27, 2015; “Israeli media magnate Saban hints Clinton opposes Iran nuclear deal,” Jerusalem Post, April 18, 2015; Annie Karni, “In letter, Clinton condemns Israel boycott movement,” Politico, July 7, 2015.

[31] Quoted in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds: A Study of Intellectuals in Crisis and Ideologies in Transition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), 317.

[32] George Soros, “Europe: A Better Plan for Refugees,” NY Review of Books, April 9, 2016.

[33] Reshmi Kaur Oberoi, “What lies behind Obama’s decision to increase US forces in Syria?,” Christian Science Monitor, April 25, 2016.

[34] “CIA ‘Plan B’ for Syria would give rebels MANPADs to ‘counter Russia’ – report,” Russia Today, April 13, 2016.

[35] “‘America’s ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria formed mostly from criminal gangs,’” Russia Today, October 17, 2016.

[36] Herb Keinon, “’Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,’” Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2013.

[37] Maayan Groisman, “Syria’s grand mufti: Opposition offered ceasefire in exchange for appeasement with Israel,” Jerusalem Post, April 5, 2016.

[38] Keinon, “’Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,’” Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2013.

[39] Ibid.

[40] For a recent development, see, “US must do all it can to stop terrorist flow from Turkey to Syria – Russia’s UN envoy,” Russia Today, April 13, 2016.

[41] Soros, “Europe: A Better Plan for Refugees,” NY Review of Books, April 9, 2016.

[42] Brad Evans and Zygmunt Bauman, “The Refugee Crisis Is Humanity’s Crisis,” NY Times, May 2, 2016.

[43] Tina Nguyen, “Obama’s ‘Worst Mistake’ Could Be Bad News for Clinton,” Vanity Fair, April 11, 2016.

[44] William Kristol, “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby,” Weekly Standard, March 28, 2011.

[45] See for example Charlotte Higgins, “Lévy’s Libya: a philosopher’s phone call to arms against Gaddafi,” Guardian, May 25, 2012.

[46] Larisa Brown and Corey Charlton, “Migration ‘has created 900 no-go areas in EU’: Devastating report shows order breaking down – including in London,’” Daily Mail, April 1, 2016.

[47] See for example Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); other writers seem to be saying the same thing: Michael Miller, Rabbis and Revolution: The Jews of Moravia in the Age of Emancipation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011).

[48] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014), 1173.

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>