Demonizing Darwin

Kevin MacDonald has been called a “coward” and other insulting terms
for refusing to debate Darwinism with a writer called Jonas Alexis. Why?

An Open Letter to Jonas Alexis,
Columnist on Veterans Today

“Sorry, I am not going to deal with someone who denies
the scientific validity of Darwinism.”
— Kevin MacDonald


Dear Jonas Alexis,

I have now had time to read and reflect on the anti-Darwin material you sent me in links last week. In an email to me, dated February 12, you appeared to seek my approval for an outspoken attack you had launched on Kevin MacDonald in November last year on the Veterans Today site.

I refer, firstly, to your needlessly impolite article, “Kevin MacDonald is intellectually dishonest”. Here you made use of a header picture featuring Kevin MacDonald and David Duke. The picture carried a caption which plainly suggested that both MacDonald and Duke were “cowards” for refusing to enter into debate with you. “Cowards die may times before their deaths,” you quoted Shakespeare as saying, “the valiant never taste death but once.” You were plainly applying the word “COWARDS” to Kevin MacDonald and David Duke. It seemed to me that your assessment of their characters was unnecessarily harsh.


COWARDS die may times before their deaths; 
the valiant never taste of death but once.” 
Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

I emphasze the word “COWARDS“, Jonas, by putting it in capital letters, because it would be clear to anyone with even a smidgen of intelligence what you are doing here. By juxtaposing the above picture with that nasty quote from Shakespeare you are suggesting in no uncertain terms that both men in the picture are “cowards” — for refusing to debate Darwin with you. If this is not a vicious personal attack, what is?

(See the article here, with its picture and pointedly insulting caption)

This initial attack on Kevin MacDonald led to an even more hostile follow-up article in which you did your best to demonize Darwin and attack Kevin MacDonald for defending the great naturalist. Kevin declined to enter into dialogue with you, as was his right. For this imagined slight to your dignity, you renewed your attack on him with slightly more testosterone than was necessary. I refer now to Part 2 of your anti-MacDonald onslaught, your harshly entitled article “Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure.”  

Can you please tell me how Kevin MacDonald is a “coward”—as you slyly suggested in your quote from Shakespeare above—for refusing to enter into dialogue with you? What emeritus professor of evolutionary psychology is willing to waste his time debating Darwin with an angry young man who has called him “an abject failure” and accused him of being “intellectually dishonest”?

Here is a typically abrasive statement of yours:

“Discussing these issues with [David] Duke was almost like talking to an ATM machine. MacDonald knows better, and I think the Alt-Right deserves a better class of intellectuals…”

If I may say so without giving offense, I find it hard to understand how the author of The Culture of Critique can be cast in the role of a pseudo-intellectual by a columnist on Veterans Today!   🙂

Here you go again, Jonas, having a bash at Darwin and working yourself up into a frightful froth about nothing:

Darwinism is morally incoherent, philosophically repugnant, and existentially worthless…. MacDonald is not even prepared to deal with blatant contradictions in his own system. More importantly … MacDonald doesn’t even make an attempt to address the fundamentally (sic) problem responsibly, which is intellectually embarrassing…. 

A correspondent sent me an email earlier saying that he sent MacDonald my critique of his views to see his reaction. To the correspondent’s dismay, MacDonald responded by saying: ‘Sorry, I am not going to deal with someone who denies the scientific validity of Darwinism.’ …. MacDonald’s followers will almost certainly find these statements outrageous. Great! 

— Jonas Alexis, here

I’m sorry, Jonas, but I simply cannot understand what has gotten into you. For a man so benign and friendly at the best of times, you are displaying here an alarming deficit of charm. Attacking Darwin is fine. No problem. You are not the first person to attack Darwin. Join Bishop Wilberforce! What is totally inappropriate, however, is not so much your attack on Darwin as your ad hominem onslaught on Kevin MacDonald for declining to enter into a debate with you. Is Kevin really a “coward” for preferring to keep quiet and leaving you to your own devices? If he happens to dislike your tone and is not overly impressed with your knowledge of Darwin, surely he has a right to tactful silence?

You are an enormously talented and likable man, Jonas, and I hold you in the highest respect, so I’m hoping you will appreciate that all I have said so far is sincerely meant and for your benefit.


Like Kevin MacDonald, I have no wish to enter into debate with you on the subject of Darwin. Instead, I will append a few notes here for the benefit of other readers. These scattered observations may help to convince a few anti-Darwinists that it is time to give Darwin the respect he deserves.

The sad truth is, no one has been more misunderstood than Darwin. Paradoxically, the Darwinism of Darwin bears no resemblance to the Darwinism of his more dangerous disciples. He would have rejected their interpretations of Darwinism as distasteful. Richard Dawkins would have been an unwelcome guest at Darwin’s dinner table at Downe House in Kent. He would have had to watch his manners. The chances of Dawkins coming to blows with some of the other dinner guests, and of giving grave offense to Darwin’s beloved wife Emma, a devout Unitarian Christian, would have been pretty substantial. So Dawkins would have had to be on his best behavior in Darwin’s house.

The same applies in spades, a fortiori, to some of the more disreputable Darwinists preaching natural selection, or the Survival of the Fittest, without checks or balances. Social Darwinists like the mysterious Ragnar Redbeard, author of Might is Right, would have been given the boot almost at once if he had somehow managed to gatecrash one of Darwin’s dinner parties. So it is a mistake, a monstrous ideological error, to conflate the moderate and delicately nuanced Darwinism of Charles Darwin with the harsh, dog-eat-dog Darwinism of his more extreme and, in some cases, mentally deranged disciples. 

Unfortunately, this is what many superficial thinkers do nowadays. They think there is only one kind of Darwinism: the dog-eat-dog Darwinism of Ragnar Redbeard and his grotesque “Might is Right” camp followers.

Homo homini lupus — ‘Man is a wolf to man’ — this is the motto of the Social Darwinists. To some Darwinists who could accurately be described as “extremists”, to uppity “bulldogs” like Thomas Huxley, men in a state of nature were often likened to “tigers”. To them, nature was always “red in tooth and claw.” This bore no resemblance to the far gentler Darwinism of Charles Darwin who wrote:

“When we reflect on this struggle [for existence], we can console ourselves with the full belief that the war in nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.”

Still less is the popular conception of Darwinism—i.e., the feral “red in tooth and claw” Darwinism of Ragnar Redbeard and his ragbag of Might-is-Rightists—anything like the religiously based, God-centered Darwinism of Asa Gray, the famous 19th-century botanist, Darwin’s best friend in America. Nor is this distorted misconception of Darwinism in any way cognate to the mystical Darwinism of A.R. Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution. Wallace was even sunnier and more life-affirming in his tone than Darwin:

The popular idea of the struggle for existence entailing misery and pain on the animal world is the very reverse of the truth. What it really brings about is the maximum of life and the enjoyment of life with the minimum of suffering and pain. Given the necessity of death and reproduction, it is difficult even to imagine a system by which a greater balance of happiness could have been secured. (See here)

There are more types of Darwinism than there are colors in the rainbow. Failure to understand this, that there is a broad spectrum of views on what Darwinism actually means, will lead invariably to strident denunciations of Darwinism. Understanding Darwin is not easy, because there were times when Darwin hardly understood himself. He was modest enough to admit it. Nuance. That is the operative word here.

Getting to grips with Darwin is like getting to grips with an eel.

“The natural world has no moral validity or purpose.”

You make use of this quote, Jonas, more than once — “The natural world has no moral validity or purpose”— obviously outraged that Darwin should have uttered such a monstrous heresy. You quote Janet Browne’s magisterial  1200-page biography of Darwin as your source for the quote. (Volume 2, p. 54). However, you give the entirely wrong impression that it was Darwin himself who said this. And Darwin said no such thing.

This was only a viewpoint ascribed to Darwin by his biographer Janet Browne, so the quote lacks canonical status. It was Janet Browne, in other words, not Darwin, who said these words: “The natural world has no moral validity, he [Darwin] argued.”

There’s no need to go down the path of pessimism and assume the worst. For the truth is that the proposition “the natural world has no moral validity or purpose” is a not something most Darwinists believe. Darwin himself certainly didn’t believe that. Darwin, and certainly Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolutionism, were far more optimistic and bracing in their world views than this miserable quote you have produced (not even’s Darwin’s own words) to make Darwin look like a gloomy killjoy.                        

Paradoxically, Darwin, whose revolutionary discoveries had dispensed with the need for God as a First Cause, had nevertheless invoked the idea of God as the primal force behind existence in the final sentence of The Origin of Species. He did this by referring to “life having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” Here he is in the bravura finale of his magnum opus:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed BY THE CREATOR into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. (Emphasis added)

That memorable sentence which forms the finale to Darwin’s magnificent work of genius is infused with a moral grandeur unparalleled in the literature of science. “Endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful…” That sentence sends a shiver down the spine. It has brought tears to countless eyes down the ages. You can see that the man who wrote it is moved to the depths. How long did Darwin take to write that sentence? Thirty seconds? No, it took him thirty years.

This noble and dazzlingly beautiful sentence makes complete nonsense of the statement: “The natural world has no moral validity or purpose.”

You appear to be under the misconception, Jonas, that Darwin was a heartless atheist and crude White Supremacist who had no compassion for the old, the weak, and the sick. Nothing could be further from the truth. You conflate the gentle views of the amiable Darwin with the harsher views of Herbert Spencer and the far more extreme views of Ragnar Redbeard and his Social Darwinist philosophy as set out in his book, Might is Right.

It has often been said that the anonymously authored Ragnar Redbeard book was meant as a cruel parody of Darwinism. Indeed, as a satirical spoof. I can well believe it. The Marquis de Sade could have written it as a tongue-in-cheek literary exercise. Those who take this book seriously could be making a big mistake, unaware that their legs are being pulled. (See here).   

Like all other bona fide movements, including Christianity, it is possible to turn Darwinism on its head by pushing it to its extremes and making a reductio ad absurdum out of it. Just as Christianity can be held up to ridicule and contempt by suggesting that all Christians are hypocrites for not being perfect as Christ enjoined — “Be ye therefore perfect”— and for failing to love their enemies and giving all their wealth away to feed the poor, Darwinism can be mocked and demonized by suggesting that there is nothing wrong with cannibalism and mass murder if they promote the survival of the fittest: if they help, in other words, the strong to survive and the weak to be wiped out.

And so we have the febrile slogans of Ragnar Redbeard, an anonymous Victorian gent snickering up his sleeve as he dishes up a farrago of fine phrases that constitute a cruel parody of Darwinism. Ragnar Redbeard is Nietzsche on steroids, doing his best to make Darwinism look like a hell pit of horrors.

Here, listen to Ragnar rave:

Napoleon was Darwin on horseback. Be thou a Napoleon—do not be Christ! … Christs may come and Christs may go but Caesar lives forever.

He who saith “thou shalt” to me is my mortal foe. 

Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetence hanging on a tree.

The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. 

This world is too peaceful, too acquiescent, too tame. It is a circumcised world. Nay! — a castrated world! It must be made fiercer, before it can become grander and better and — more natural…. When men cease to fight — they cease to be — Men.

All men who would obtain freedom must obtain wealth ‘by hook or by crook’. There is a strong affinity between the criminal and the conqueror.

Women shed tears; Men shed blood. 

If a man smites you on one cheek, smash him on the other. 

— Ragnar Redbeard, quotes from Might is Right.

All this is a far cry from Darwinism. Anyone who believes that Darwin would have nodded enthusiastically over the above laughable sentiments has never studied Darwin or contemplated his heroic life struggle. Ragnar Redbeard sounds like an undergraduate in his cups who has just finished reading Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra and has been knocked on the head with a blunt instrument.


You seem to be totally unaware, Jonas, that the word “CREATOR” occurred in the final paragraph of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Though the all-important words “BY THE CREATOR” had not appeared in the 1st edition of November 1859, it had been added to the text by Darwin himself in the second edition of 1860 and to all subsequent editions during Darwin’s lifetime, right up to the sixth and final edition of 1872. These critical words — “BY THE CREATOR” — clearly demonstrating Darwin’s theistic leanings, were later to be removed without proper explanation in subsequent editions of The Origin of Species. 

The result has been to give the entirely false impression of Darwin as an out-and-out atheist, even though he himself had repeatedly rejected the atheist label. “I have never been an atheist in denying the existence of God,” he was to state flatly in a letter to his friend John Fordyce in 1879, twenty years after the publication of The Origin of Species and three years before his death. In his own words, he had “never entirely discounted the existence of God”.  In his Autobiography, Darwin tells us that by the time he had written the Origin he was already a theist who had come to believe in an intelligent First Cause. “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist,” he was to add significantly.

The persistent misconception prevails that Darwin was an atheist, despite the fact that he repeatedly rejects that label and claims to be an agnostic — an agnostic with theistic propensities.

It must be understood clearly that Darwin believed in conventional Christianity for the first half of his life. He only stopped going to church in 1849, at the age of 40. “I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age,” he says. The more he thought about religion, the more confused he became, admitting to constant “fluctuations” in viewpoint. In his own words, the subject was “too profound for human intellect.” Theology made his head spin, he confesses modestly. “A dog,” he tells his friend Asa Gray ruefully, “might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.”

Darwin’s religious views need to be discussed in greater detail. We need to consider the case of Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk who not only managed to sing hymns to the Christian God several times a day but who was also the father of genetics, acting as the essential link between Darwin and Watson and Crick, the discoverers of DNA. 

While it is perfectly true that many prominent evolutionists have been incorrigible atheists—Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog”) and Richard Dawkins (“Darwin’s rottweiler”) are the most notable examples—it is equally true that some exceptionally gifted evolutionists have been passionate believers in God. Two of the most eminent theistic evolutionists that spring to mind are Asa Gray, America’s most renowned 19th-century botanist and a personal friend of Darwin’s for decades, and Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of the Theory of Evolution. Gray, a devout Unitarian Christian, was an ardent believer in intelligent design. Wallace, while not a Christian, was a religious mystic with a theosophical bent who not only believed in intelligent design but in a life after death in a purpose-driven (“teleological”) universe.


In attacking Kevin MacDonald, you state indignantly: “So whether Darwin and his intellectual children like it or not, Social Darwinism flows seamlessly from Darwin’s own ideological foundation, and this wicked enterprise has wrought havoc both in Europe and America in the 1920s and 30s.”

No need to work yourself up into a state about this, Jonas. Darwin was not the mastermind behind the “wicked enterprise” you describe. Nor was Kevin MacDonald in any way to blame for the “havoc both in Europe and America in the 1920s and 30s.”

Social Darwinism may be bad, but why blame Darwin for that? He rejected Social Darwinism and distanced himself from it. He was not the standard bearer for Social Darwinism.

If Darwin were the crude Social Darwinist you assume him to be, he would have had no sympathy for the old, the poor, and the sick. He would have been against Victorian Poor Law and the humanitarianism of the numerous charitable foundations that were the bedrock of the early welfare state. Yes, Darwin knew only too well that natural selection—the doctrine of the Survival of the Fittest—meant that there should be no provision for the old, the sick, and the weak in a state of nature. The Law of the Jungle, he knew, precludes a welfare state. But in actual fact, Darwin was like all other enlightened Victorians. He insisted that everything should be done to ameliorate the lot of the poor and downtrodden. He did not spit in the beggar’s bowl. He would never have said to a drowning man, “Sink or swim!”  

If Darwin had been even half the monster you have conjured up in your vivid imagination, he would have been in support of slavery. Natural selection, after all, decrees that if men become slaves, it’s because they are too weak and stupid to be anything but slaves. If they were stronger and fitter, after all, they would be slave owners, not slaves. Paradoxically, Darwin rejected natural selection, his own doctrine, in favor of a civilized altruism that sprang from moral convictions and from his early upbringing as a compassionate Christian. As a consequence, Darwin was one of the most passionate advocates for the abolition of slavery.

What better proof do we need that Darwin took natural selection, the Survival of the Fittest, with a pinch of salt? Natural selection is fine in the jungle. It’s fine in theory. But it’s not fine in practice, and it’s unacceptable in a civilized society. You don’t push the old and sick over the clifftop just to create more Lebensraum for the young and fit.

As for Darwin being a White Supremacist with condescending contempt for the darker races, as you seem to believe, that, too, is a total misconception. Darwin had a far more enlightened attitude toward the darker races than you give him credit for. If you doubt this, ask yourself: who taught Darwin taxidermy? It was a Caribbean ex-slave of African origin whom Darwin had befriended while he was still a medical student at Edinburgh University.

Read this — it may help you to undemonize Darwin:

Darwin might have never proposed his revolutionary ideas if not for John Edmonstone. A freed Guyanese slave, Edmonstone taught Darwin taxidermy at Edinburgh University. During his voyage around the world on the S.S. Beagle, Darwin collected and preserved the famed finches using the techniques Edmonstone taught him, allowing him to draw his pivotal conclusions.

Edmonstone’s vivid accounts of Guyanese rainforests might have also inspired Darwin to study natural history instead of medicine.

In 1807, Edmonstone’s master brought him to Edinburgh and freed him. Edmonstone settled in a house a few doors down from Darwin and his brother, Erasmus, earning his living stuffing birds at the Natural History Museum and teaching taxidermy to Edinburgh University students.

You see? Darwin was the very opposite of the White Supremacist “racist” you have conjured up in your fevered imagination! He got on famously with ex-slaves of African origin.

 Darwin in 1826, age 18, with ex-slave John Edmonstone


Darwinism was to have a profound influence on both Hitler and Stalin who adopted enthusiastically Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” doctrine and gave it a sinister twist that Darwin would certainly have deplored.

In Hitler’s case, Darwinism was to provide a rationale for experimental eugenics without ethical constraints, the conquest of Lebensraum, and the aggrandizement of the Aryan Master Race at the expense of other races deemed to be inferior and expendable. (See here). So it is argued by most mainstream historians. We may not all accept this, but this is how most intelligent observers see the profound influence Darwin had on Nazi Germany.

The point is, why blame Darwin for the excesses of the Nazis? 

In Stalin’s case, Darwinism, or rather its misinterpretation and corruption, offered an excuse for the messianic atheism inseparable from Communism. This was to lead to the mass murder of at least 20 million innocents, mostly Christians. This is the mainstream figure, now widely seen as an underestimate. Solzhenitsyn and others put the figure much higher, at over 60 million. These victims of Communism were essentially the peasant proletariat and the industrial working classes who opposed the grandiose “repairing of the world” — i.e., revolution without the consent of its victims — that was to end in the hideous dystopia dreamt up by Marx and his misguided followers. The descendants of these psychopaths are still, alas, very much with us today. The Stalin cult continues to flourish in contemporary Russia, mostly among atheists and secular humanists, given that Christianity and Stalinist Communism cannot possibly coexist and flourish side by side. (For corroborative details, see this informative article: Stalin’s Brutal Faith).

It was Stalin who once said: “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. All this talk about God is sheer nonsense.” (Quoted by E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, cited here). Under Stalin, over 45,000 Orthodox Christian churches were destroyed in the Soviet Union and many monks, priests and nuns ruthlessly liquidated, often being tortured to death. Stalin’s contempt for human life is best illustrated by his cynical comment: “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

 It is undeniably disturbing to reflect that both Stalin and Hitler were devout disciples of Darwin, especially of Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest” doctrine, which they used as a justification for ruthless totalitarianism. But why blame Darwin for the excesses of Lenin, Trotsky, Lazar Kaganovich, Ilya Ehrenberg, and Stalin? Darwin, after all, was not responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution or for the millions killed by Mao Tse-Tung in Communist China.

It is reported that Karl Marx once wrote a letter to Darwin, asking him for his permission to dedicate the first volume of Das Kapital to him, and that Darwin refused to give his permission. Which amounted to a cruel snub for Marx, the bearded prophet of Communism. This story has now been dismissed as apocryphal, but many still believe it. Whether the story is true or not, one thing is certain: that Darwin declined to have anything to do with a similar Communist organization, at a later date, that purported to follow the teachings of Karl Marx to the letter. (See Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, pp. 363-369). So even if Marx had not been trying to cuddle up to Darwin and obtain his imprimatur for world revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, Darwin would have indubitably snubbed Marx in any case. Darwin was a moderate; at no time would he have wished to be associated with wild-eyed revolutionaries and gulag operators.  

Darwin knew only too well that these revolutionary fanatics would be only too happy to exploit the prestige of his name in order to use natural selection as an excuse for genocide — genocide on an unparalleled scale. The false idea under which you, Jonas, have apparently fallen, is the grotesque view that Darwin was ready and willing to underwrite genocide; and that “natural selection” somehow gives everyone a right to trample on the poor and get rid of the old and sick when they become a burden. This is not the case. We are not all tigers, baring our fangs in the forests of the night. We are human beings, and some of us are vegans. Pushed to its reductio ad absurdum, natural selection, the doctrine of the Survival of the Fittest, can provide a perfectly plausible excuse for cannibalism. After all, why not eat our neighbors if it helps us to survive?

The sinking of the Titanic provides us with a striking example of how natural selection doesn’t work in civilized societies. The old and the sick, the women and children, were the ones who survived the iceberg. The men, the strongest and fittest and bravest, these were the ones who went down with the ship.  

This discussion on Darwinism is continued here : DARWIN’S DANGEROUS DISCIPLES  

Lasha Darkmoon

Dr Lasha Darkmoon (b.1978) is an Anglo-American ex-academic with higher degrees in Classics whose political articles and poems have been translated into several languages. Most of her political essays can be found at The Occidental Observer and The TruthSeeker. Her own website,, is now within the top 1 percent of websites in the world according to the Alexa ranking system.

144 thoughts to “Demonizing Darwin”

  1. The so called American Christians, who are more interested in denying science and cutting taxes for corporations than living their lives by the message of Jesus Christ, are much more likely to deny the biological validity of race, and believe in their minds that it is their calling to feed billions of negros, than take action against a single Jew in America.

    In fact, they believe in their heads it’s their duty to defend every last Israeli from the Muslims, and they in fact believe that doing so might hasten the coming of the rapture.

    Game over, guys. The Jews won. I’m just telling you how it is! I’m against the Jew, and not a single white Christian in America, NOT ONE, is interested in what I have to say.

    1. I enjoyed this article tremendously. Never a dull moment! Darwinism was brought alive for me in the opening section where Dr Darkmoon took Jonas Alexis to task for his intemperate attack on Kevin MacDonald.

      I am a great admirer of MacDonald’s work and have read his books several times, and I am also a White Nationalist, so I was not too pleased with Mr Alexis’s arrogance in expecting “debate” with Kevin Mac as if this was his God-given right.

      KM is a busy man and he doesn’t have time to enter into “debate” with every Tom, Dick and Harry. Why chew the fat with a guy who calls you a “coward”? Best to stay away from abusive guys like that. Intellectual thugs are best avoided as debating partners, no?

      Having said that, I have to say I’ve read quite a lot of Jonas Alexis’s articles and they are not at all bad. He’s a cut above most of the other writers on VT. Yes, a good writer. Very erudite and scholarly. He’s also written books. I’m told he teaches Higher Mathematics in Australia. Or is Asia? Some university or other. So he has a logical mind.

      I bet Mr Alexis will be pleased to find that Lasha Darkmoon, after attacking him, has helped to heal his wounds by offering these kind words of praise for him:

      “You are an enormously talented and likable man, Jonas, and I hold you in the highest respect, so I’m hoping you will appreciate that all I have said so far is sincerely meant and for your benefit.”

      Gosh, how nice! 🙂

        1. @ Lobro

          Your long and angry response to Sardonicus has been deleted. It would make no sense at all for you to respond to a comment by Sardonicus that was deleted over 4 hours ago.

          If you decide to leave this website, good luck!

          If you decide to stay, you will have to abide by the same rules and regulations as everyone else.

          There can be no special privileges for you.

          You will treated, as always, with scrupulous fairness — if you know how to behave properly.

          1. Uncle Toby,

            Please do me a favor and restore Lobro’s deleted comment IN ITS ENTIRETY. That is, if you have saved it. This is in the interests of transparency.

            (I hope it’s not too long and off-topic).

            Also kindly restore the Sardonicus comment attacking Lobro, because Lobro’s comment repudiating Sardonicus’s views will make no sense unless we can see what Sardonicus said first to get Lobro all worked up.

            Thank you in anticipation for your help.


            1. @ LD

              I’m sorry, Lasha, but you don’t know what you’re asking. Both those comments are deeply insulting (and totally OFF-TOPIC) and will only damage our website if we publish them so soon after our recovery from a recent attack. So what I’m going to do is to send you a couple of emails and ask you to forward them to these two guys, since you’re already in touch with them. I prefer not to get personally involved, okay?

              If you don’t approve of the emails, don’t send them.

      1. toby, while i appreciate lasha’s honesty in pushing for publication of my comment (response to sardonicus that contained couple of material corrections to the above article), at the same time i don’t see any real need, absent sardonicus’ initial provocation.
        it makes no difference to me, really, i am glad that lasha read it and i know she understood most if not all of it.
        i moreover hope that it will spur her to always give her prospective article a once-over before publication, with a somewhat jaundiced eye, in case that she missed a seriously stumbling point that might come back to haunt the article once out in public – a bit of proofreading is all.
        even if she is sympathetic to my viewpoint, in the end i weigh this potential sympathy against massive antagonism by many of the faithful, who see me as a disruptive influence out to damage the site.
        And this deinitely includes you, toby, do not deny it because i have seen it in the past often enough not to be swayed from this conviction with an easy dismissal.
        All told, every second comment i am likely to make is sure to draw these lurkers out of the woodwork, people whose only seeming goal is to attack others, without ever a cogent point to make in regard to the presented material.

        the solution?

        i will agree with every single word in every single article from now on.

        i will be your ideal poster, toby, the kind that will shoot the alexa into the stratosphere.

        ADMIN: The rest of your comment has been deleted because of its needless sarcasm. You will be on moderation until you have learned respect for Admin. Free speech, without moderation, is a privilege. You have to earn it.

    2. Im interested in what you have to say. I was not a spiritual man, but there are interesting statements, for instance there giants on the earth in those days, meaning before the great flood. For your enjoyment, read what this man has discovered….google….mud fossil university. On a side note, have you people payed any attention to the sun as it is setting? As it moves away from your point of observation the sun appears to shrink in size.The opposite is true when rising when coming at you. The sun does not rise or set, but simply moves to and away from your point of perception. That cannot happen if the sun is 93,000 000 miles away. Im spiritual now.

    3. That could be attributed to their Jewish cultivated horror of appearing “politically incorrect” while they worship Israel as it commits genocide on what was a viable, functioning country prior to it’s mandated theft by the kosher U.N. and their owners @ Rothschild’s City of London.

      Funny, a person has to re-think their “truths” as they acquire more knowledge. Perhaps that’s why I thought my parents “simple” until I hit my 2nd decade…

    4. Game over, guys. The Jews won. I’m just telling you how it is! I’m against the Jew, and not a single white Christian in America, NOT ONE, is interested in what I have to say.

      Amen to that brutha!

    5. Dolph –

      “Game over, guys. The Jews won. I’m just telling you how it is! I’m against the Jew, and not a single white Christian in America, NOT ONE, is interested in what I have to say.”

      That is not correct. You have not spoken with enough people. I have.

      I know hundreds of white Christians who are against jews. I know of whole church congregations full of them in Arkansas, Tennessee and Missouri and Colorado…etc. Many of the preachers have spent years in jail for those beliefs.

      Mike Hallimore and Pete Peters(dec) and Gordon Winrod and Dan Gaymon and Charles Eidson(dec) come to mind right now.

      The ACLU and SPLC have many listed on their sites.

      There are thousands against jews here:

      Kingdom Identity Ministries (KIM) is a Christian Identity outreach ministry based in Harrison, Arkansas, which advocates racism, anti-Semitism and the execution of homosexuals.

      Its website states that it “is an outreach ministry to God’s chosen race (true Israel, the White, European peoples)”. It functions primarily as a distributor of Identity-oriented books, tracts and audiotapes. KIM also offers correspondence courses through its “American Institute of Theology” and it produces a radio program, “Herald of Truth”, which is broadcast on shortwave, satellite and Internet radio. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers it “the largest supplier in existence of materials related to Christian Identity”.

      It was founded in 1982 by Mike Hallimore and owns the copyright to a number of works on Christian Identity by Bertran Camparet and Wesley Swift.

      In addition to Christian Identity material it circulates white supremacist material, including sending out white supremacist pamphlets to rural communities in Pennsylvania and funding distribution of a white-power CD in 2007.

      That was WIKI…. Here is the real deal:


      Pete Peters’s ministry also has many thousands around the world who are against jews:

      Scriptures for America Worldwide is an international outreach ministry of the LaPorte, Colorado, Church of Christ and is directed by Pastor Peter J. Peters.

      1. Within this handy list from Wiki there are hundreds of thousands of White and black Christian folks who fight against jews and queers. Anita Bryant, former Miss America and orange juice spokesperson, made the hit-list :

        In its 2014 annual report, published in March 2015, the SPLC counted 784 “active hate groups in the United States”: 72 Ku Klux Klan (KKK) groups, 142 neo-Nazi groups, 115 white nationalist groups, 119 racist skinhead groups, 113 black separatist groups, 37 neo-Confederate groups, 21 Christian Identity groups, and 165 “general hate” groups (subdivided into anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, racist music, radical traditionalist Catholic, anti-Muslim, and “other”).

        “General hate groups” are subdivided into anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denial, white power music, radical traditionalist Catholic groups, and other groups espousing a variety of hateful doctrines.

      2. I forgot that Anita Bryant was a Miss America runner-up, not Miss America, in 1958…. but she does fight queers:
        Living in South Florida, Bryant saw Florida’s Dade County (now Miami-Dade County) pass an ordinance in 1977 granting anti-discrimination rights to homosexuals.[Citation Needed] Within four weeks, Bryant, along with supporters from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the Florida Conservative Union, had collected 64,000 signatures, many more than the 10,000 needed to put the issue on the ballot. The ordinance was successfully repealed in a referendum that passed in a landslide vote of 69% to 31%.

        Bryant said her main concern was the recruitment of children into the homosexual lifestyle, and she founded a group called Save Our Children for that purpose. It was not until 1998 that Miami-Dade County reinstated the ordinance by a narrow 7-6 vote.

        Bryant also successfully led a campaign for the Florida legislature to prohibit homosexuals from adopting children. Over two decades later, in 2004, that law was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

  2. now this is an interesting debate, something to think upon, especially since i don’t have my mind made up one way or another.
    it looks like two guys fighting for the steering wheel, one going: “sharp left! the way to the destination” and the other: “right, all the way!”, without pausing to consider the road of logic.
    i would say, follow the road and if there is a curve coming with poor visibility, reduce speed and proceed cautiously, which is what it actually looks like.
    attacking science in the name of religion is as pointless as its opposite because neither can invalidate the other on its own grounds.

    in terms of personalities, i like jonas alexis, he never minced words and has always made a lot of sense in the past.

    ok, off i go to think … and maybe come up with nothing worth reporting, notwithstanding false positives and false negatives.

    nb: as for “darwin’s dangerous disciples, hitler and stalin”, i smell the kitchen of talmud.


    1. “…as for “darwin’s dangerous disciples, hitler and stalin”, i smell the kitchen of talmud.

      There you go again ! Your simplistic black-and-white world view ! Jews are bad, Hitler (and later reportedly Stalin) were enemies of the Jews, THEREFORE they must have been good.
      Does it ever occur to you that bad people can also be enemies of other bad people, or that some (perhaps most) people are a mixture of good and bad ?

      Hitler was indeed a (racial) Darwinist. You can read that in his Table Talk. He saw his war against Russia as a Darwinian struggle between the “superior” Germans and the “inferior” Slavs. Reason why I reject him.

    2. “nb: as for “darwin’s dangerous disciples, hitler and stalin”, i smell the kitchen of talmud.”

      Exactly. In researching the essay’s sources I came across this comment about a Stalin story (myth?) which is repeated because venerated Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn used it in “The Gulag Archipelago” and regarding “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding” (Gulag Archipelago, Harper and Row edition, book 1, page 69-70):

      “Now I don’t know if Solzhyenitsyn actually thinks that happened or not (he credits it to something someone told him, but note the lack of specifics). It has the feel of an elaborate dark joke (carrying out clapping people on stretchers). In Stalin’s USSR, and to a somewhat lesser degree in Nazi Germany, there were certainly requirements on enthusiasm and loyalty, and being seen as deficient in these qualities could make one a target. But the idea of a Gestapo, or an NKVD, that is hawkishly waiting to see who stopped clapping first… it is, at best, a mockery of the kinds of surveillance and scrutiny that existed in these states.”

      I trust nothing, regardless of source, without deep research and years of verification. Even so, I occasionally find that I’m wrong and must rethink things thoroughly.


      1. Edvard Radzinsky’s biography of Stalin is well worth a ‘read’;
        he claims that there was a personal, face-to-face meeting between Stalin and Hitler in a railway carriage on the Polish/USSR border some-time in early 1940 where Stalin personally re-affirmed the German-Soviet treaty of von Ribbentrop and Molotov in mid-1939;
        that would seem to case Operation Barbarossa in some-what of a bad light, what?

      2. @ Wilkins Macawber Esq.
        @ Lobro

        I really think you need to see a psychiatrist.
        (Admin Toby)

        P.S. I don’t think Zen Buddhism is doing you any good.

      3. @ Wilkins Macawber Esq.
        It is also rumored that Molotov took Ribbentrop aside with encouraging words for the two countries to rule the world together, but note my last paragraph above. Radzinsky may not be a trustworthy source in any case considering his support of Brit operative Viktor Suvorov (Rezun).

    3. Lobro,
      The Bahai religión of Persia has an interesting point of view. It states that religión and science cant be seperated. They are one and the same. Their scripture also states that “God” is beyond human comprehension. Ill give an example. When I was 12 years old, I weighed about 100 lbs. One day our family was invited to a fiesta. We decided to take my elderly and very religious grandmother with us. At the party, all of us youngsters started bragging about how smart we were. At some point, my grandmother had enough. She said, “Quiet! I want to show you something!” She ordered me to sit in a chair. She then ordered two teenage boys to stand on either side of me with two more boys each behind my shoulders. She than told two of the boys to each place an index finger under each of my knees and for each of the other two boys to each place an index finger under each of my armpits. “Lift him up!” she ordered. They all looked at her like she was crazy. But they tried. Each of them stained for a few second and then gave up. “Now wait!” shouted the crazy old woman. She came up to me . She placed one hand on my head and her other on my chest pressing down with force while whispering what we all assumed was a prayer. Ten seconds later she opened her eyes and ordered all 4 boys to lift. To every ones amazement, four teenage index fingers easily lifted 100 lbs from the chair. For the rest of the party, us kids said nothing. My Aztec grandmother sat down enjoying a few glasses of wine and a cigar. She just smiled and said nothing. Two months later she died peacefully in her sleep.

      1. My uncle showed us how do that when I was about 12 years old. The hand on the head and heart seems to be the energetic state that makes this phenomenon work. We were farmers living in Minnesota.

  3. I agree. I never knew Darwin’s ideas could be made so exciting! 🙂

    I expected a dull essay on evolution. Instead, I found my mind stimulated to a remarkable degree by a whole range of ideas on God and his compatibility with the theory of evolution.

    I was delighted to learn that one could believed in God and Darwin at the same time. I thought they were incompatible, but this brilliant Darkmoon essay provides proof they are not!

    1. God’s Plan is perfect. Darwin is part of His plan, and inspires thought, accordingly. This excellent article is evidentiary of it – like all else we encounter in this world.

  4. There’s no doubt at all that Jonas Alexis, whatever his merits as a writer, has abused his power on Veterans Today by using it as a launching pad for a personal and sustained attack on Kevin MacDonald.

    Given the scurrility of his language — “coward”, “abject failure”, “intellectually dishonest” — Alexis has made it clear that it is more than MacDonald’s Darwinism that he objects to. He objects to MacDonald himself, as a White Nationalist leader who commands huge respect as a writer and scholar. Alexis has been conducting on Veterans Today a sustained vendetta or “hate campaign” against Kevin MacDonald that I find deeply troubling, if not scary. It needs to stop.

    Is it any wonder that MacDonald should refuse to debate Darwinism with a man who has spat in his face and called him a “coward”?

    Having said that, I agree with Lobro that Alexis is a fine writer — one of the best, in fact, on Veterans Today — but this makes it all the more necessary for Alexis to behave in a grown-up way and exercise more self-control.

    1. sard!!
      they told me that you were dead but i knew you were hiding in argentina, drinking mengele’s liebfraumilch.
      next time you head off to bardo thodol, make sure to let us know beforehand sowe can strike the proper pose of grief.
      anyway, good to have you back.

      few things, mostly tangential, bear mention.
      i always urge people that when making claims of atrocities committed against some symapthetic group, to make extra sure never to inflate the numbers for the sake of quick ideological profit but to err on the side of caution because credibility is more valuable than sheer numbers and is easily lost if bounds are carelessly overstepped.
      being of croatian ancestry, one of my grandfathers and uncles disappeared without a trace as a sidenote to operation keelhaul when the pro-axis sympathizers were forcibly repatriated from allied held territories back to the bloodthirsty communists, the isis of the day – yet, despite numerous mass graves discovered, there is still a fair bit of uncertainty about the totals, some say 150 thousand, some only 50,000, an error margin of only 300%.
      i got no problem with the lower number, it is whatever it is.

      when i saw that figure of “45,000 orthodox churches destroyed under stalin“, i decided to investigate a bit.
      Numbers are very hard to come by but it does seem rather high and questionable.
      for example, today manhattan has only 115 catholic churches, yet rc is the largest single religious denomination in nyc (still greater than jews), serving a total population of about 1.6 million.
      So how many churches could moscow have had in the early 20th century, maybe 1,000 at most?
      And they all survived the terror years of lenin, trotsky, zinoviev, yegoda, kamenov, sverdlov, parvus, radek and so on, just waiting for stalin to march in and level them all?
      note too, that much of the soviet population was of non-russian ethnicity, less so than today, due to all those muslim, asian republics that have since seceded, kazakhstan, azerbaijan, turkmenistan, kirghizstan, tajikistan …

      couple of other links with rarely accessible accessible information:
      •1 hitler’s final testament prior to taking his life, a very interesting look into his mind at the time, courtesy of irreplaceable mike king,
      •2 Jews and Communism (copy of deleted Wikipedia article), hmm, DELETED by wikipedia, wonder why- at whose behest, irresistibly interesting, check this out:

      In 1939, Stalin directed incoming Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to “purge the ministry of Jews”. Although some scholars believe that this decision was taken for primarily domestic reasons, others argue it may have been a signal to Nazi Germany that the USSR was ready for non-aggression talks.

      IF ONLY!
      the huge mystery to me is what happened to this near rapprochement, will keep on digging.

      (why am i moderated again?

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      i thought that was history … toby?)

      1. Josef Stalin began purging Jews even before Russia’s “show trials” – only to be interrupted by Barbarossa, which was likely the most successful deep intel operation in Jew history because it guaranteed both German defeat in a two front war and (temporarily) ended Stalin’s pogrom.

      2. Madame Butterfly,
        Where art thou? I fantasize about being with you intimantly on a daily basis. Please respond…..


        Just to let you know that locker room talk like this, which was regarded as “amusing” on the Darkmoon site in the old days, is no longer acceptable. This is not a sex chatroom. It is a responsible political forum.

      3. @ADMIN

        Just to let you know that locker room talk like this, which was regarded as “amusing” on the Darkmoon site in the old days, is no longer acceptable. This is not a sex chatroom. It is a responsible political forum.

        If so, this new development at the Darkmoon site hardly could be more welcomed!


        (why am i moderated again?
        i thought that was history … toby?)

        I was moderated in the past and still am. But I do not complain about it, why should you?

        Let venerable Toby correct me if I am wrong, but my educated guess here would be that butt-kissing a la dishonorable Lobro does not guarantee free pass at Darkmoon site.

  5. There is no doubt that evolution CAN take place. You only have to look at the varieties of dogs, or dahlias.

    For me the unanswered question is why has man evolved so much while most animals have remained the same? Badgers, rats and moles are all exactly as they were many years ago, but man has been transformed.

    Also the DNA double helix is unlikely to have happened by chance. Some “Thing” must have created it. That doesn’t prove divine intevention but I am satisfied that God is, (I have come to believe there is a God), amongst other things, a geneticist

    The jury is still out on this. Evolution does not explain the phenomenon of life itself. That is still a complete mystery.

    1. Stephen C Meyer’s “The Signature in the Cell” is quite an interesting ‘read’

    2. For me the unanswered question is why has man evolved so much while most animals have remained the same? Badgers, rats and moles are all exactly as they were many years ago, but man has been transformed.

      Really? Man has evolved? Transformed? Into what? Where do you get such ideas? As I watch the animal life outside my door, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, cats, hummingbirds, seagulls, I wonder if they ever might “evolve” far enough to create nuclear weapons and spend all their time obliterating each other along with everything around them. Now that’s some spicy evolution!

      I suppose “evolved” depends on one’s definition of the word. In fact as I was feeding the squirrels yesterday, one of them said to me, “when are you guys going to evolve to a point where you realize the real value of nuts?” I was stunned to hear this as I had never thought about nuts like that before.

      1. Hi Arch,
        I agree. Man has evolved, and not all for the good, but I am an optimist.

        I think the world is getting to be a better place, gradually. Even Israel seems to be coming to its senses, with Netenyahu about to be indicted. Jewish Power in America is the main threat to peace, and that power seems be crumbling.

        I live in hope.

  6. Darwin placed so many caveats and conditions on his ideas – so many “nuances” – that it could be reasonably thought of as nothing more than a thought experiment;
    Darwin was never dogmatic enough to claim that his ideas were true, rather mere possibilities;
    conversely, how-ever, it may well be some-what disingenuous to say that Darwin(ism) would not automatically lead to the genocidal excesses of the twentieth century;
    without accusing him of intellectual dishonesty, it is a fact that Darwin’s nineteenth century morality and the influence of his Christian wife (these days: she would be called “a fundamentalist” ) would most certainly have stymied him advocating any-thing remotely resembling the excesses of the well-known tyrants of the twentieth century;
    who’s to say?

  7. @Lasha Darkmoon;

    To much you write about how Jonis Alexis handles themselves with respect to MacDonald can be argued either way. But what is definitely true, is that you, yourself are as guilty as the things you charge Alexis.

    For instance, in your own words:

    In Stalin’s case, Darwinism, or rather its misinterpretation and corruption, offered an excuse for the messianic atheism inseparable from Communism. This was to lead to the mass murder of at least 20 million innocents, mostly Christians. This is the mainstream figure, now widely seen as an underestimate. Solzhenitsyn and others put the figure much higher, at over 60 million.

    is now known to be utter fantasy. Most so called historians who use this figure, have no proof to back up their claims. And using info graphics like you have done by non other another blogger of questionable repute, does not sustain your arguments. In fact, they diminish your entire narrative to semper absurda. It doesn’t help your arguments when you choose always incompetent authors, notorious for not doing their dual diligence. Post Soviet authorities including many European historians have combed through the now made public Soviet archives and show nothing like 60 million Soviets died. In fact, the number, although still tragic in it self, is under 10 million. Take for instance, Conquest, whom is one of the early historians to derive such a figure said himself on how he came up with such a figure, “… by making reasonable assumptions about how this was divided between birth deficit and deaths.” By reasonable assumptions, Conquest really meant he never used any data or statistics from source. It was all guess work. Things are not helped when notable historians like Norman Davies, author of Europe: A History, a body of work notoriously ill written and poorly backed with FACTUAL material, largely relying on third party sources, further advances the 60 million lie. Read R.W. Davies, S.G. Wheatcroft’s paper, “Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 – 33” whom counter argued this 60 million lie being pushed by many, including Michael Ellman, whom thought it more important that “Soviet policy” considerations are more important to weigh to determine the Soviet hunger of ’30s than using solid documentation and data! I kid you not, he determined history by using politics to determine what is historical fact! Here is a very interesting discourse on this very point, Stalin-and-the-soviet-famine . Note, no convenient infographics!

    Darkmoon you do have some points of order to raise (one, maybe two, but no more), but much of the foundation you represent your whole narrative is on very thin ice. Like those you accuse, you are too guilty of bias and poor understanding of the underlying subject material. Your thoughts ramble on cherry-picked “one liners”, with no solid basis of fact. In fact you use notorious, like thinkers, not real substantiated facts for your conclusions. Like in your essay, you used side arguments like immaterial things with Richard Dawkins, for heaven’s sake, take for example, “[t]here are more types of Darwinism than there are colors in the rainbow.” What is the point of that! Rainbow or not, Darwinism IS a seriously flawed theory, if you haven’t read the multitudes of REAL scientific experts on this, then you are living in a cocoon! That’s where the real discussion should be, not on whether or not how Dawkins would be received at a dinner party.

    It doesn’t help matters that historians are notorious liars. That is why, real data, and real source material are very important. Historians like Ellman, Davies and wanna-a-be writers of history like your colleague Tarbaby, only make matters worse. People like Norman Davis, are more like history’s version of Hollywood movie stars than actual historians. It doesn’t help that much of their work is highly mixed with poor narratives and imbued with sporadic factual source material.

    We have a real problem when people refuse to face facts and push misguided ideologies. As much as Jonis Alexis should be taken to task for their impropriety, you too Lasha Darkmoon are just as guilty for pushing politically distorted narratives that only miss inform people about what is the truth.

    I realize that many now, especially those whom support you, will charge me of the same. But read my links, they are works that are heavily cited with source material, NOT infographics.

    I do not deny, Stalin was a horrible and ruthless leader. Stalin had executed almost 1 million people, alone. As I said some 9 million people have been VERIFIABLELY been known to be killed during Stalin’s tenure as leader of the Soviet Union. But to push this narrative of 60 million, largely starving people, is utter false, and has been proven to be indelibly documented to be so false.

    The acts of evil that have been, and still are being perpetuated around the world need not to be exaggerated. They are horrible enough. But the real problem is that if people exaggerate and inflate the crimes of the past, it will only make the crimes of the present less note worthy. That is a horrible thing to have, where we have today, literally millions dying around the world all because monstrous Western policies.

    Whether you are Alexis, MacDonald, or Darkmoon, may well you say, Darkmoon, “..for Alexis to behave in a grown-up way and exercise more self-control”, but more importantly, how about all three you, start writing less self serving political nonsense, and more honest factual truth! Isn’t that what grown-ups with self-control are supposed to be like?

    1. @ Cold Pragmatism

      Post Soviet authorities including many European historians have combed through the now made public Soviet archives and show nothing like 60 million Soviets died. In fact, the number, although still tragic in it self, is under 10 million.

      What! Only 10 million killed under the saintly psychopath Josef Stalin? Oh gosh, surly it’s time for Stalin’s canonization if he killed and tortured a mere 10 million people to death! What remarkable restraint and humanitarian compassion the maniac with the fancy mustache must have shown for all the tens of millions he did NOT kill!

      BTW, do you a reliable source for that 10 million figure or are you just making it up?

      And if you have a reliable source, which I bet you don’t, the last people you want to trust with such statistics is the “post Soviet authorities”. Why? Because these are the evil bastards behind the Stalin cult who are doing their best to mimimize the mass murders committed by this Bolshevik beast from hell.

      1. @ Cold Pragmatism

        In fact, the number, although still tragic in it self, is under 10 million,.

        I don’t think Eustace Mullins would agree with you.
        Here, take a look, tulip:

        “The Secret Holocaust: The real holocaust was a Christian Holocaust by Jews of sixty-six million, mostly Christians.”
        By Eustace Mullins

        SIXTY-SIX MILLION, hear that?
        And Solzhenitsyn gives the same figure:

        You got any better authorities than Solzhenitsyn
        and Eustace Mullins?

      2. What you need to understand is that Stalin was a committed Communist, just like Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of his Bolshevik buddies. He shared their ideology to the last jot and tittle.
        All these guys had two things in common: a messianic ATHEISM and a blind, passionate HATRED OF CHRISTIANITY.

        Most of Stalin’s victims were Christians. They weren’t Jews,
        they weren’t Muslims. They were mostly Christians. And it was Christian churches, not mosques and synagogues, they burned down mostly.

        So anyone who professes to be a Christian, and defends Stalin at the same time, is either a bogus Christian or has sawdust instead of brains.

        In other words, he’s too damn ignorant and stupid to know that the maniac whose boots he is licking was a Christ-hating killer of Christians.

    2. For a more realistic number of Stalin’s victims, see :

      The Soviet Census of 1926 counted 147 million people. The Census of 1937 counted 162 million people, about 10 million less than expected, and that was due to collectivization and the Holodomor. So Stalin’s victims could never have been 60 million.

      1. @ Franklin Ryckaert

        Mark Weber has provided valuable notes on the numbers killed by Josef Stalin and his evil brood of Bolsheviks. The baseline figure, the barest minimum accepted by the mainstream moderates, has been 20 million. This is the figure given by Robert Conquest, Robert Service, and most other reputable Western historians. But other authorities have suggested much higher figures than 20 million. Only the Stalin apologists, in an attempt to prettify Stalin and polish up his image, like to suggest much lower figures which are obviously fake.

        Here is Note 35 from Mark Weber’s cult classic article, “The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution”, originally published on IHR and then republished on this site last year:

        Note 35. Russian professor Igor Bestuzhev-Lada, writing in a 1988 issue of the Moscow weekly Nedelya, suggested that during the Stalin era alone (1935-1953), as many as 50 million people were killed, condemned to camps from which they never emerged, or lost their lives as a direct result of the brutal “dekulakization” campaign against the peasantry. “Soviets admit Stalin killed 50 million,” The Sunday Times, London, April 17, 1988.

        J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, has recently calculated that 61.9 million people were systematically killed by the Soviet Communist regime from 1917 to 1987. R. J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (Transaction, 1990).

        [Note by LD: Weber omits to mention Solzhenitsyn’s oft-quoted estimate of 66 million. See HERE].

        Original source: Institute for Historical Research (IHR)

    3. Hi Cold Pragmatism,
      You seem to be concentrating on those killed by Stalin’s regime, but the bloodiest period of Russian History was that immediately following the October 1917 Bolshevik coup d’etat. Stalin was nowhere near as ruthless as those early Jewish Bolsheviks.

      The whole of the political opposition in Moscow, and St Petersburg were executed, usually with a bullet in the back of the head. Those Bolshevik murderers were mostly Jews, and that is never revealed by the media, or as far as I can tell, by historians.

      We live in a western society which is so frightened of Jewish Power that stating the truth is considered a crime.

      We, (and the Palestinians), will never be free until that power is broken, and it is the truth that will break it. No need for revolutions and violence, just the whole truth.

  8. I don’t believe in Darwin. He said we come from apes.
    I find that shocking. My remote ancestor an ape?
    You gotta be kidding.

      1. Actually Jews are descended from a little doll (((God ))) made out of mud. He called himself “Adam,” meaning “man,” and, well, the rest is history. I swear it’z true, you can read it in the Bible.

        So who you gonna believe, Darwin or the “holy” Bible? (The reason the Bible is “holy” is because of all the holes in the stories.)

      2. According to the sumerians the first man was named Adapa. That comes pretty close. I’m sure he must have been a jew.

  9. Ms. Darkmoon,
    The W.N. crowd in general is way too smarmy about the THEORY of evolution, basing its entire agenda upon the evolution nonsenseburger, while usually ignoring the REAL issue, which is freedom and the right of property and free association.

  10. Excellent and a very cogent article. Thank you, Lasha! I must confess I am unfamiliar with Jonas Alexis, as I do not go to VT. However I do read the OO and find KM to be a very incisive and erudite writer. Regarding evolution I have an open mind. Remember it’s a theory, albeit a very plausible one.

    One of the dangers in evaluating the works of great men is that many of their pedantic followers treat their words as gospel and use any offhand statements that they may have made to bolster their understanding, or arguments about their theories.

    We can see similar pedantry at work regarding the interpretation of scripture. Waldo Emerson says it best, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

  11. This article is more about the personal beliefs of Darwinists, rather than about Darwinism itself.
    But is Darwinism really true ?

    According to Darwinism all forms of life have evolved from primitive forms by the following mechanism :

    1) In the course of time (we are talking millions of years here) random small genetic changes in life forms take place.
    2) Most of these changes are useless, but some are useful.
    3) Useful genetic changes give an advantage to the life form in terms of survival.
    4) In the course of time more and more of such useful genetic changes accumulate.
    5) When the accumulation of those changes is so great that procreation with the former life form is no more possible, a new species has evolved.

    There are several objections to this theory. My own objection I call the non-accumulation theory, which says that small changes make no difference for survival, therefore do not bestow a greater chance for a life form to have more descendants than those life forms that did not have that small change, and therefore such small changes can never accumulate over the generations.

    Take for example a creature that should evolve into a bird (according to the Darwinists, birds evolved from reptiles). Let us call that creature a “pre-bird”. Now our “pre-bird” due to a random genetic change develops one feather on each of its forelegs. Say that in order to be able to fly as a bird it needs 100 feathers on each of its forelegs. Clearly one feather is not enough to fly. But one feather does not bestow any other advantage either, such as being able to run faster. Thus our one-feather “pre-bird” has no chance to have more descendants than the other “pre-birds” with no one feather. The Darwinist idea is that it does and that among its descendants, again due to a random change, in due time a “two-feather pre-bird” will arise, which will have a greater change to have descendants than its “one-feather pre-birds” relatives. And so on until a “hundred-feather” creature has evolved which will be a bird. The fault in this theory is to think that small changes have survival value, which is wrong. For a mechanism to have value it needs to be complete. A “pre-bird” with only one feather cannot fly, just like a “pre-giraffe” with a neck only one centimeter longer than that of a zebra cannot eat the leaves of the high branches of a tree (another apt example). So such small changes do not accumulate over the generations and evolution according to Darwin does not take place. Intermediate forms do not exist and have never been found as fossils. Sorry Darwin, but you were wrong.

    1. @ Franklin Ryckaert

      Well said!

      My short version is, given the millions of species that exist, if evolution was true, there would be so many bones from the missing links that we could pave all highways on earth with them. We have been programed to overlook the obvious.

  12. Lasha, thank you for this incredible peek into your mind and heart! Such a gentlewoman you are! Remarkable intelligence and talent.
    A credit to your sex, race and culture. Proof of the evolution of thoughtfulness.

    Small wonder your family holds you in such high regard and sweet caring..

  13. Kevin may not have read what Darwin wrote in his works published – 40 years – after his voyages…. pushed by others with an agenda.

    Darwin proved natural selection, but not evolutionary species changes.

    Below is proof that Darwin was guessing… as given by Darwin’s own arguments AGAINST his own theories(guesses).

    *Darwin even stated in his book – in numerous places – that… NO geologists of acclaim agreed with him.

    Darwin’s Book: “ORIGIN OF SPECIES”
    **(actual book page numbers, not the pdf reader numbers)

    CHAPTER X: Imperfection of the Geological Record

    p. 333
    I endeavoured, also, to show that inter-mediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of – NATURAL SELECTION – through which new VARIETIES continually take the places of and EXTERMINATE their parent-forms.

    But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must(guess) the number of intermediate VARIETIES, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.

    (cont’d p.334)

    ”Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?”


    -Absence of Intermediate Varieties-

    p.346 (whole section)


    -Sudden Appearance of Whole Groups of Allied Species-
    The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.

    We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent palaeontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species.


    CHAPTER XI: On The Geological Succession Of Organic Beings
    On the Forms of Life Changing Almost Simultaneously Throughout the World
    p.373 (whole section)


    -Summary of Preceding and Present Chapters-

    He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will RIGHTLY REJECT my whole THEORY.

    He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited:
    I can answer this latter question only – HYPOTHETICALLY – by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world – MAY – have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, – MAY NOW – all be in a metamorphosed condition, or – MAY – lie buried under the ocean.

    Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with MODIFICATION through – NATURAL SELECTION.

  14. A very impressive article, Lasha. Jonas Alexis’ articles are just about the only reason I still check in at VT occasionally, but his critiques of Darwin and Darwinians do sometimes go overboard.

    My Dad had a first edition of Darwin’s Origin…. I sold it to buy cigarettes and beer.




  16. The Darwin “debate” is yet another case of Jews setting ’em up and Jews knocking ’em down. It was religious Jews that invented the (((God))) so many follow today and it was communist Jews that embraced Darwin’s theory to refute their own (((God))) so that belief in the divinity might be replaced with the authoritarian god of state. Imagine, no Jews – no (((God))) and no arguments of this nature; perhaps that should be about nature.

    To clarify my position, I’m no low-forehead believer in molecular accident and happenstance, nor am I a Bible thumping believer in a (((god))) that made little mud dolls and breathed life into them. Anyone can observe organisms altering their behavior to accommodate environmental changes and extrapolate the idea if the change goes on long enough, it will create genetic alterations in the organism. As I wrote:

    Extrapolate this horror of the sacrifice out over the generational millennium and you have the foundations of a psychopathic blood-lust that is not a preference, not a peculiar, incidental twist in a few exceptional personalities, it is a culturally inbred condition, one that can neither be altered nor escaped. This culture of blood has permeated the very core of Judaism until it has become a genetic component of their race.

    If ever there was a case of Darwin’s theory in action, the Jew’s unnatural attraction to horror, slaughter and bloodlust is it!

    There is something that designed this universe, as it takes intelligence to create intelligence (we’re assuming here man is “intelligent”). Whatever it is, is far beyond man’s minuscule ability to comprehend such scale. So let’s quit endlessly spinning in circles of thought about matters that can never be resolved by man’s limited intellect and perceptual capacity and get on with life! God? Darwin? Of course! Do you want fries with that?

    1. “There is something that designed this universe …” …. ??

      God is the active process of Universal Power.
      Logos is sentient life in harmony with God.

    2. @ Arch Stanton

      Extrapolate this horror of the sacrifice out over the generational millennium and you have the foundations of a psychopathic blood-lust that is not a preference, not a peculiar, incidental twist in a few exceptional personalities, it is a culturally inbred condition, one that can neither be altered nor escaped. This culture of blood has permeated the very core of Judaism until it has become a genetic component of their race.

      If you are referring to the bloody sacrifices of the Jews in their temple, all peoples of Antiquity had such bloody sacrifices, including the Greeks and the Romans. Nothing special. As for your idea that because the Jews had such sacrifices for many centuries, bloodlust became “inbred” in them, it is a fundamental rule of genetics that acquired traits are not inherited. You cannot inherit cultural traits by genes (only by education). So your idea is nonsense for two reasons.

      1. Other ancient people found their way away from the sacrifice or, like ancient Mesoamericans, simply disappeared. Jews were wrenched from their sacrificial blood lust, first by Jesus and then by the destruction of their Temple, acts for which Jews still demand Christian goyim sacrifice to this day. (Note, Jews want to reconstitute the blood sacrifice in their so-called “third Temple.”)

        For the most part, Jews went much later in history with their copious quantities of blood sacrifice to the gods than the other ancient people you mention. Jews are also the only ones outside Mesoamericans to base their entire culture and system of government around the blood sacrifice.

        it is a fundamental rule of genetics that acquired traits are not inherited.

        Really? Who made that rule?

        Read Ceaser Tort’s book Day of Wrath to see the results of such trauma imposed on young children and the “bicameral mind” that led to such insanity. With Jews, it begins shortly after circumcision.

        To my knowledge Jews are the only technologically advanced culture still practicing the blood sacrifice – with children no less! Tell me again their history has no cultural/genetic basis, that this is not hard-wired into their genetic history, but has just carried on with no other basis than mommy teaching the little children to hate with vengeance and destroy the goyim, ’cause I’m having trouble with the idea that this is all just religious fervor and cultural happenstance.

        Of course, one could always chalk it up to Jews being alien lizard people.

      2. @Arch Stanton

        All your remarks are wrong, so I have to respond to all of them.

        1 ) “…Other ancient people found their way away from the sacrifice or, like ancient Mesoamericans, simply disappeared…

        The other ancient peoples from the Middle East and the Mediterranean lost their practice of sacrifices because they converted to Christianity (later on some to Islam). Until the time of emperor Constantine (4th century AD), who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, the pagans continued making animal sacrifices.

        2) “…Jews were wrenched from their sacrificial blood lust, first by Jesus and then by the destruction of their Temple, acts for which Jews still demand Christian goyim sacrifice to this day…”

        Jesus never “wrenched the Jews from their sacrificial bloodlust”, he only agitated against the money changers inside the temple precincts, which he considered a sacrilege. The practice of animal sacrifices itself he never attacked, nor did the first (Jewish) Christians.
        The destruction of the temple is the only reason why the practice of its animal sacrifices was discontinued. I am not aware of any demand by the Jews for “reparations” for the destruction of their temple 1948 years ago.

        3) “… (Note, Jews want to reconstitute the blood sacrifice in their so-called “third Temple.”)…”

        There is a Jewish organization in Israel,The Temple Institute, that advocates for the reconstruction of their temple, and among them there is a discussion if the practice of sacrifices should be renewed. But that is only a small group. Most Israelis are secular and not interested in such matters. Jewish religion is no more centered around sacrifices, but around study, that’s why it is called rabbinic Judaism. Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) are centers of study, not of sacrifice.

        4) “…For the most part, Jews went much later in history with their copious quantities of blood sacrifice to the gods than the other ancient people you mention…”

        Not true. See my answer to 1).

        5) “…Jews are also the only ones outside Mesoamericans to base their entire culture and system of government around the blood sacrifice…”

        If you mean modern Jews or Israelis, then that is blatant nonsense. As I said, after the destruction of the temple, Judaism became a book-religion, with no more sacrifices. And Israel’s government is a modern democracy that has nothing to do with sacrifices.

        But if you mean the ancient Jews, their cult centered indeed around the temple with its sacrifices, (just like all other pagan peoples of that time), but the elaborate details of that cult which you can find in the books of Exodus and Leviticus give a wrong impression of their scope. The relevant passages in those books were written by the priestly class itself, which had an interest in exaggerating them. Most people were poor and sacrificed only doves, not sheep or cows. The “entire system of government” of the ancient Jews of course centered around the king and his palace, not around the temple.


        Certain changes occur in the structure or function of the body parts due to environmental factors. Such changes in somatic tissues are acquired traits that do not involve germ cells and genetic material (DNA). Therefore, these changes are not passed to the next generation. The traits are only inherited if changes take place in the genetic material. › CBSE Class 10 › Class 10 Science

        Physical or emotional traumas are not transmitted by DNA to following generations. If that were the case, then the whole of humanity would by now consist of physical and emotional wrecks, because most people experience some traumas during their life, and all those traumas would – cumulatively – be transmitted to the following generations.

        7) “…To my knowledge Jews are the only technologically advanced culture still practicing the blood sacrifice – with children no less…”

        Circumcision is widely practiced in the US by non-Jews. And of course by the 1,5 billion Muslims, but those are not “technologically advanced”. Whether circumcision of newly born boys causes a trauma-for-life or not, that trauma would not become heritable (see point 6 above).

        7) Culture is transmitted by education, not by DNA. A Chinese child reared by English speaking foster parents does not know Chinese because it is racially Chinese, it would have to learn it.

        You don’t understand the basics necessary for this discussion.

      3. There may be more enthusiasm for animal sacrifice in a rebuilt 3rd Temple than you believe. In New York, 50,000 chickens are slaughtered each year for Kapporot:

        In articles about rebuilding the 3rd Temple, the resumption of animal sacrifice is usually given as one of the primary reasons for rebuilding: “Orthodox Judaism believes in the rebuilding of a Third Temple and the resumption of Korban (sacrificial worship), although there is disagreement about how rebuilding should take place.”

        Some claim that POST traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is inheritable as Pre-TSD:
        Some argue it’s cultural, some that it’s genetic.

        I will say that in the internet age it’s possible to find support or refutation for just about anything.

      4. @Carnaptious

        There are 2 million Jews in New York. If each year on Kaparot 50,000 Jews slaughter a chicken, then that is one for every 40 Jews.

        The population of the US is 323 million. Each year on Thanksgiving Day 45 million Turkeys are slaughtered *). That is one for every 7 Americans.

        Who are more “bloodthirsty ” ?

        *) “The number of turkeys killed each year for Thanksgiving feasts has fluctuated around 45 to 46 million each year, the National Turkey Federation estimates. And so has the number of the millions of turkeys produced in the U.S. in recent years. While the number has fallen from 285.6 million in 1998 to 244.5 million in 2017, it has remained consistently around 240 million for the last decade”. Google : Here’s how many turkeys are killed each year for Thanksgiving.

      5. @FR

        I’ve never seen a US citizen swing a live turkey overhead, cursing it with the sins committed by that citizen, then cut its throat and throw it away. But maybe they do things differently in your neck of the woods.

      6. Kaparot is an ‘occult’ sacrifice which unfortunately works. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. There are also many many more of them who wish they could do this metaphysical ritual correctly to reap the result which is a partial canceling of karma. A canceling of many accrued seedlike reactions from their sinning. This is what it is. Hardly the quirky, harmless, eccentric, hijinks it’s portrayed as. And most certainly it is no small feat, by any standards. Magic from waaay back. Secret stuff, let alone the wherewithal to pull it off. Even then, like everything else here, it’s temporary. A tiny extension of future shenanigans to come.. Big whoop, eh?

  17. @Franklin
    You are on the right track of your fundamental critique of darwinism as a theory that explains the evolution that apparently took place over millenia and eons.
    1. Random mutations, in a newtonian universe, would only lead to devolution and extinction.
    In a newtonian universe, no kind of evolution should be possible at all, since the universe is doomed to die of due to enthropy, so no driving force for evolution exists, nor can Newtons theories account for the universe being there in the first place.
    2. random mutations could never account for the evolution of complexities such as the eye, or wings on a wingless lizard. How could you have a gradual evolvement of such things via “random mutations” unless there was indeed some intelligent plan for reaching the goal of achieving wings or eyes?
    So, if we accept evolution took place, darwinism explains nothing, except the obvious, survival of the survivors (the fittest is a subjective interpretation) its just scientific mumbo jumbo=bad religion.
    Dawkins is a terrible proponent of this nonsense, a true believing atheist, not a scientist.
    Some true believing darwinians were so desperate to find the “missing link” that they faked their own, the Piltdown Man.
    What really makes it all move, evolve, and exist, we really dont know much.

    As for inheriting traits, I am sure I have aquired some traits from my genetic forefathers, and am subject to some degree how their experiences formed their beingness.
    Same goes for my previous incarnations.
    If someone says reincarnation is unscientific belief, they will have to explain away why some people have access to memories from previous lives, and that investigations confirmed their memories in the real world.
    Which they of course will do.

    It is my belief that behind such as Newton and Darwin stood the forces of darkness and spiritless materialism, as part of an agenda to deny the existence of Spirit and Soul.
    The Great Grinder:

    Too bad Alexis went out on a limb in his attack of KM and DD.
    He writes many good articles. and is a brave and outspoken truthseeker on the topic of the ziocon/abrahamist/talmudic toxic scum.

    Urban Fool

    1. Is not the creation a reflection of the designer? Man’s machines are a reflection of his intelligent design and he strives mightily to develop autonomous machines, why not the universal designer? Is it not possible the design is set to be self-administering, that evolution is simply part of the autonomous design?

      The entire universe works on a cyclical nature. Look at the star systems, can anyone believe there is a (((god))) personally creating and destroying star systems? (Never mind, rhetorical question) Everything in the universe functions on a self-replicating cycle – everything.

      Everything is created, (i.e. born), matures and dies. The remains are then recycled into new objects, working very much like the recycle bin outside your front door. In fact, outside the myths of virgin birth, the human body is a self-replicating, self-repairing organism. None of the cells you were born with are present the day you die. All have been replaced when worn out or damaged.

      Therefore, while the observable evidence presents proof that our universe is self-administering, it provides no evidence at how it came into existence and therein lays the confusion.

  18. I hope any misunderstanding between Lasha and Jonas doesn’tt lead to any resentment or emotional agitation for either of you, which only opens the door to the evil one. We also know that “divide and conquer” is one of his chief strategies.

    I’m no expert on Darwin, but Christian tradition teaches us this, which you, Lasha, may probably already know:

    The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. If nevertheless there is a disagreement. it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

    As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

    In 1868, John Henry Newman, later to be made Cardinal, corresponded with a fellow priest regarding Darwin’s theory and made the following comments:

    As to the Divine Design, is it not an instance of incomprehensibly and infinitely marvellous Wisdom and Design to have given certain laws to matter millions of ages ago, which have surely and precisely worked out, in the long course of those ages, those effects which He from the first proposed. Mr. Darwin’s theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience and Skill. Perhaps your friend has got a surer clue to guide him than I have, who have never studied the question, and I do not [see] that ‘the accidental evolution of organic beings’ is inconsistent with divine design—It is accidental to us, not to God.

    Here’s more, if anyone’s interested:

    I get the impression that the misunderstanding between Lasha and Jonas may stem from the wide spectrum of the various “Darwinisms” that there are, and that if Darwin did indeed believe in a Creator, as you quote in your article, then his theory may indeed be possible, and would be consistent with both scientific evidence and Christian revelation, which of course can’t be said about many of his so-called disciples.

    I do agree with you, though, that Jonas was wrong in calling McDonald and Duke “intellectually dishonest” and cowards. He should apologize for that.

    All the best in overcoming this misunderstanding and in your work in presenting and defending the unpopular truth. I’m praying for both of you. Say one for me too. Thanks.

    1. Well said, Darrell. I’d like to assure you that the words “BY THE CREATOR” occurred in the last sentence of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Not in the 1st edition of November 1859, where it was left out for some reason, but in ALL subsequent editions of Darwin’s book during his lifetime, i.e., in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th editions.

      This is an intense embarrassment to the Atheist Lobby who have actually gone out of their way to DELETE the words “BY THE CREATOR” in subsequent editions.

      By this they prove their dishonesty, trying to claim Darwin as one of their own sickly brood.

  19. “Darwinism is morally incoherent, philosophically repugnant, and existentially worthless….”

    This is the kind of comment I would expect to hear from a liberal when one explains evolution theory in detail. I tell my liberal friends that evolution is the science of inequality. They usually end up retreating to egalitarian fiction, philosophical obfuscation, or religion. Religion unfortunately implies a pathological altruism that does not work well with multiple competing tribes.


    This article is more about the personal beliefs of Darwinists, rather than about Darwinism itself.

    Exactly. Also as indicated by Lasha’s title Demonizing Darwin”.
    I skipped over most of it once it became apparent it was about two “Millennials” arguing about their feelings.

    For those like Lobro who are undecided and appreciate reason, the best source of scientifically grounded argument is David Berlinski

    Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University.

    A guy who knows what he is talking about and a tremendous wit.
    Look him up on youtube.

    Arch Stanton said

    There is something that designed this universe, as it takes intelligence to create intelligence (we’re assuming here man is “intelligent”). Whatever it is, is far beyond man’s minuscule ability to comprehend such scale.

    The only scientifically minded person I know of who raised his awareness and brain function through the natural evolutionary mechanism present in all of us, the late Gopi Krishna, stated that modern science “has it backwards”. Intelligence did not evolve. Cosmic intelligence (aka God) directs evolution, and directed it to the formation of intelligent beings. This is compatible with theories about random cosmic ray gene mutation. He also stated that DNA was not even half the story – well before the era of epi-genetics that dismantles the main thesis of genetics. He also stated that the human brain is in continuous evolution during the decades when science denied it, though now science has flipped to Krishna’s viewpoint.

    1. By the way, there appears to be no mention so far of the true founder of the theory of evolving species and hero, Alfred Russel Wallace.

      Unlike the privileged Darwin, Wallace was a working class man, who through grit and entrepreneurial spirit funded his way to conduct research in the jungles of Indonesia. He was the first to publicly put in print the theory in a letter to Darwin. The rest of the story is Jew media.

      1. @ Flan O’Brien

        “He [Wallace] was the first to publicly put in print the theory in a letter to Darwin. The rest of the story is Jew media.'”

        This is incorrect. Darwin had already formulated his theory of evolution over 20 years before the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859. He sat on his findings for 20 years because he was nervous of the impact they would have on society.

        There is not only documentary proof for this in Darwin’s own voluminous notebooks but in letters to other scientists many years before the much younger Wallace had even arrived on the scene. A letter from Darwin to Asa Gray, the famous American botanist, in July 1857, established (if anything) Darwin’s priority to the theory of evolution.

        If Wallace had been the first to discover the theory of evolution, he would have said so. Never once did he lay claim to the discovery, but was only too grateful to be granted the honor of co-discoverer. Darwin was generous enough to grant Wallace co-discovery status and Wallace thanked him profusely for advancing his claims. Darwin even managed to wangle a generous pension for the impecunious Wallace of 200 pounds a year (worth 25,000 pounds today or $35,000).

        These are well-known facts.

        if you check, you will find there are many instances in history of scientists working independently who have arrived at the same startling conclusions at roughly the same time.

        My assertion was based on a BBC documentary about Wallace. “BBC Two – Bill Bailey’s Jungle Hero, Wallace in Borneo”

        Wallace wrote a letter *** containing the theory *** to a publicly renowned expert, namely Darwin, sharing his knowledge. Thus he was, as I stated, “the first to publicly put in print the theory”. (Note: I chose my words carefully)

        Darwin was then spurred on by the event of this letter to publish, admittedly more widely.

        1. @ Flan O’Brien

          Well, I cannot change your mind if you are determined to believe this nonsense. You are confusing a “letter” with a “manuscript” with a “printed book.” If you don’t wish to believe me, that’s fine. But I am stating the facts here for other people so that they don’t get the wrong end of the stick from you and fall for the silly conspiracy theory that Wallace was the great mastermind behind the theory of evolution and that Darwin was a plagiarist who sneaked in and stole the credit. Anyone who believes that crap is much to be pitied.

          Here, I assure you, is the correct sequence of event:

          1. Darwin had been working on his theory of evolution for over TWENTY years before the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1959. He wrote his first essay on evolution in 1842, aged 33. Wallace was only 19 years old (!!!) at that time and had done NO WORK in science. A total amateur.

          2. 1856. On Charles Lyell’s advice, Darwin begins writing up his views for a projected big book called “Natural Selection”.

          3. 1857. The whole year is spent writing chapters of the species book.

          4. 1858. In June Darwin receives a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace who is collecting specimens in Indonesia. Wallace encloses a HAND-WRITTEN manuscript essay (not printed) on species and varieties that mirrors Darwin’s own theory of natural selection. Darwin is shocked. “I never saw a more striking coincidence,” Darwin wrote to friend. “If Wallace had my MS sketch written out in 1842, he could not have made a better short abstract!”

          5. 1858. It was decided by mutual agreement, and with several other scientists presiding, that BOTH Darwin and Wallace should claim equal status as co-discoverers of evolution. Extracts from Darwin and Wallace’s writings were presented by Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July. Neither Darwin nor Wallace attend. The papers were then published in “Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. This established officially that Darwin and Wallace were co-authors.

          6. November 1959. Publication of “The Origin of Species” in 1200 copies which sold out on day 1. Darwin became famous overnight. Wallace didn’t, because Darwin had produced a gigantic and impressive tome packed with facts and Wallace, in comparison, had produced nothing in manuscript or print of comparable stature. Wallace had gotten the same “idea” about evolution as Darwin, but Darwin had gotten the same “idea” about 20 years before Wallace. Darwin also had far more samples, fossils etc to back up his research. In a sense, Darwin did Wallace a generous favor by agreeing to accept him as a co-discoverer. If he’d been a trickster, he could easily have delayed showing others Wallace’s 1858 manuscript essay or even conveniently “lost” it.

  21. BTW I just discovered an excellent 2 minute short of Berlinski.
    “Destination: Get Expelled – Berlinski Movie Clip”

    If you like it, watch something more substantial:
    “Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism”

  22. Why would anyone want to argue or debate someone that does not want to argue or debate? There has to be something more productive to do like determining why the original title of the “On the Origin of Species” was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” 🙂

  23. realistically, none of us on this blog know whether darwinian evolution
    is real or semi-real or not.
    surely there are some flaws in the charles’ person’s background that could be
    used to slant his ‘scientific’ theories but the same could easily be
    said for any religious organization promoting its own theories about
    either way, the scientific approach to it all will yield in time the
    authentic results.
    the answers to our origins and our destiny are in the DNA spiral…
    however, things being the way they are with any typical pyramid power
    structured ‘society’, the proles will likely get as little real truth as
    possible from any of those usual suspects…
    corporate state, big religion, major academia – don’t expect any of them
    to tell you the whole story about anything..
    theology? c’mon now – exactly WHAT are you talking about?
    creation? the pantheist will tell you he knows there is no such thing.
    monkeys? we are probably gm splices between extraterrestrials and the ape. that’s why they’re called the ‘prime mates’ – just guessing… the gm process could be the original meaning of the word ‘rape’, which includes the ‘ape’…
    darwinian evolution? can a hurricane tornado go through a junkyard and have all the pieces fall back to earth assembled as a jumbo jet, even in an infinity of time?
    well, with infinity anything’s possible…
    social evolution? not until people drop all their superstitions. better hurry up because the biosphere’s rapidly running out of time..
    natural selection? it’s only logical that those who couldn’t survive are no longer here. but that doesn’t prove anything.
    scientists tell us as much – that the earth is 4,000,000,000 years old, while the jehova witnesses say it’s only 6,000. i’m telling you they’re both FOS…
    because science is still so polluted with religion it’s suppressed that the planets are cooled stars… no?
    darwin is chosen as a foe of religion. they think he helps keep it alive…

  24. If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes.

    I seem to have a inability to stay away from Posts, despite the inner voice telling me to.

    1. @ Harry

      If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

      Good question. What are YOU doing here
      if evolution has taken place? 🙂

    2. The “missing link” connecting the evolution of apes into humans has never been found, because there isn’t one. We should stop insulting the apes.
      The truth is that life on this planet is one big horrible experiment, created and controlled by some form of intelligence beyond what any of us can even begin to imagine.

    3. The “missing link” connecting the evolution of apes into humans has never been found, because there isn’t one. We should stop insulting the apes.
      The truth is that life on this planet is one big horrible experiment, created and controlled by some form of intelligence beyond what any of us can even begin to imagine.

  25. As a matter of interest, do you do this on Mark Glenn’s site?
    I mean, jabber on about Stalin at every opportunity and try to derail discussion on the Ugly Truth? Or do you watch your step carefully and suck up to Mark Glenn?

    Ok, Sard, my friend, the second best, most trusted friend after Lasha, so happy to see you survived the Gobi badlands with your logic and spirituality not merely intact but much improved.
    Let’s deal with this, one thing at a time.
    When I am banned and every post instantly trashed and therefore UNABLE TO RESPOND – I am a COWARD. Of course.

    The subject of Lasha’s essay is Darwin. NOT STALIN! So what better way to insult Lasha than by waffling on about Stalin ad nauseam?

    Except for those 2-3 who bothered to actually READ Lasha’s article, toward the end is a 246 word paragraph on Stalin on whose personal directive 45,000 Orthodox churches were burned, not to mention the 66 million Christians crucified.
    How do we know that? Easy, historians who absolutely knew what they were talking about, so honest and knowledgeable that ZERO corroborative evidence is required, state this.
    For example, your favorite, whom I never read and never will – I freely admit my past, present and future ignorance when his works are mentioned.

    Yemelyan Mikhailovich Yaroslavsky was an ethnic Jewish Russian revolutionary, Communist Party functionary, journalist, and HISTORIAN.
    Yaroslavsky also headed the Anti-Religious Committee of the Central Committee.
    A bit from one of his works follows.

    After handing over the division he still retained a detachment of his own, with which he began his raids in the Ukraine in the beginning of 1920. This was a new phase in Makhno’s struggle against the Soviet government. It was characterized by pogroms, raids on Soviet institutions, murders of Communists and Red Army men. This period is very vividly portrayed in the diary of Makhno’s mistress, who traveled with him. Here are some excerpts from this diary::
    Dec. 12, 1920. A raid on Berdyansk. In the course of three hours the Makhno anarchists, led by Makhno himself, killed 83 Communists, including Mikhalevich, one of the best Ukrainian workers, twisting their arms, hacking off legs, ripping up stomachs, bayonetting and hacking them to death.
    Dec. 16, 1920. A train was derailed between Sinelnikovo and Alexandrovsk. About fifty workers, Red Army men, and Communists were killed.
    Such is the horrible unvarnished truth about the activities of the anarchist Makhno and his henchmen. After this, will any honest anarchist say that Makhno was a revolutionary leader and “our comrade”?

    You can tell them the rest, Sard, having dutifully read every word ever by Yaroslavsky, everyone rejoice at the next article on the theme.
    But being an evil backstabber that I am, I challenge you to produce even a tiniest bit of factual evidence for 45,000 churches destroyed and 66 million murdered Christians, BY STALIN, i.e., NOT BY HIS TROTSKYIST PREDECESSORS, whom you and my other best friend are so reluctant to blame, lest their crimes diminish Stalin’s.
    By the way, Factual: being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory; “real objects”; “real people; not ghosts”; “a film based on real life”; “a real illness”; “real humility” – can you wrap your giant mind around this apparently new concept, Sard?
    Because you see, I stand ready to accuse you and my other best friend of employing every single trick in the Holy Holocaust Book, right down to 6 million dead jews, beheaded, gassed, burned, lampshaded, soaped and so on.
    Everything based on hearsay, be it the Nobelist Wiesel or Nobelist Wisenthal – hey, did McDonald ever win Nobel? If he didn’t, he doesn’t merit the same credibility, since your only way of assigning credibility is on such things as tenure, Alexa ratings, snob appeal (Tom Sunic, Holy Mother of God! Oops, but he is an avowed anti-Christian), maybe in the similar citation league as Deborah Lipstadt, another mighty historian who disdains facts – FACTS? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING FACTS!
    Or if someone does present facts, such as an actual nose count, census data, you will immediately attack them as fabrications – they are fabrications because I, Sardionicus say so!
    Well, Sard, we come to the loggerheads. Because I am a DENIER.
    Go on, denounce me to authorities, Yaroslavsky has already signed off on the sentence.
    My other best friend has my email address, someone named Carlyle has ready access to it, maybe can pass it on to Yggdrasil or Circassian, you know how it’s done.
    Example: Circassian calls Harold Smith a bible thumper, you pick up the beat (thumps), call Harold a bible thumper – next thing you know, Harold disappears.


    It’s a lovely circle you are part of, Sard. Lovely. What Yaroslavsky started, you finish, standing proud next to Yaroslavsky, whom I refuse to read.
    Let’s go just a bit further before I wind this up.
    My next best friend (MNBF) quotes this (oops, no, there is no mention of Stalin until I brought the subject up, I’d never call you a liar, would I, so let’s say I snuck it into the article)

    Stalin’s contempt for human life is best illustrated by his cynical comment: “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

    Taken from this link

    Estimates of how many Russians Stalin killed in the process range from 3 million to 60 million

    in other words, superbly accurate, how dare I question such a tight error margin, give or take 57 million.
    In yet other words, it could have been zero, well within the stated range but we won’t mention that in the article – why confuse readers with facts?. And also btw, the linked webpage states that the 45,000 churches were CLOSED, NOT DESTROYED.
    And were reopened, as per this quote

    But during World War II, Stalin eased up considerably on religion. He allowed for tens of thousands of Russian Orthodox churches to reopen, adopted an official policy of tolerance toward Muslims, and re-established the hierarchy of leadership in the Russian Orthodox Church. There were even rumors that Stalin had reconsidered his own personal relationship to religion when he took a “mysterious retreat” in 1941.

    Again, why let a bit of unnecessary intellectual honesty spoil an otherwise absolutely truthful article?

    As a farewell gift, Sard, just so you never forget how unspeakably evil I truly am, let me say this.
    “The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic” is a statement of profound wisdom and I totally agree with it, it shows Stalin’s phenomenal insight into human psyche.
    Here is a recent example: somewhere in Central America, someone videoed a young psycho who threw a helpless puppy into a crocodile infested lake, where the thing was promptly devoured by a waiting croc.
    The horrific video went viral on all the social networks (feel free to look it up) millions of voices of outrage poured invective on the psycho and in sympathy with the unfortunate pup.
    And then they discussed it over a quarter pounder cheeseburger with helpings at the nearby Burger King.
    The anguished terror of nighttime murder, 365 nights a year, of hundreds of thousands of equally innocent animals, cows, pigs, chickens, and yes, dogs, never gave them pause, not a millisecond.
    Why not? I can’t remember the answer,


    And with that I take my leave, heading off to Gobi to either pick up your trail of enlightenment or die trying.

    I wouldn’t give this better than 25% odds on being published, but nevermind, I will save it in some folder for when it might see the light of day – LIGHT, LIGHT, GIMME LIGHT!

    (and please Sard, bother me no more, give me a chance to depart in peace, without your calling me a COWARD because i am banned and unable to respond, like challenging a wheelchair bound quadriplegic to a muay thai kickboxing match – but it wouldn’t surprise me)

  26. Darwinism is patently deficient. It can’t explain origins because it is an empirical enquiry, whereas genesis involves a metaphysical question. How do we get from nothing to something, from non-life to life? Well, soup plus time plus imagination is not enough. The miracle is unprofaned, the mystery remains.

    But reassuring to hear that Darwin went to church and had a blackie pal, and was inspired by the grandeur of it all. A little salve for a tortured conscience.

    It’s sad to see the familiar distorted reasoning the unbeliever wreaks in petulant denial of the creator. To espouse darwinism is really to confess to intellectual dishonesty and craven self-service, to throw in one’s lot with the enemy.

    God gave critters the power of choice and capacity to adapt and grow. The true choice is the path of Christ, the overcoming of self. Don’t waste yourself with philosophy and vain self-deceit. Turn to God now.

  27. wow
    this is great!
    darkmon is up and running again!!!
    may the lord blind the eyes and smash the fingers of those who were behind this horrible attack on my favourite website
    keep it running please and great efforts, i reckon
    keeping this justice seeking place running, in islamic terms means hundreds of HASANAT!
    i hope i, as a palestinian am still able to say my favourite line

  28. Update: Jonas Alexis has published this article on VT, writes that he will respond to the article tomorrow.
    Alexis refers to Dr. Darkmoon as an “opponent”…

    Quite a few comments on the article – for VT – and most of them appear to be quite rational (not always the case at VT, or here for that matter). Will Dr. Darkmoon publish Jonas Alexis’ response? Tune in for tomorrow’s exciting episode of “Dueling over Darwin”! 🙂

    1. An “opponent”, huh? That sounds ominous. Hope he’s nice to Lasha! 🙂

      Actually, I think Alexis is a damn good writer. One of the best on VT.
      This is not the first article by LD he has published on VT under his byline.

      Jonas rocks!

      Trouble is, Jonas has a bee in his bonnet about Darwin. Can’t stand him. Thinks he’s a really evil guy.

      I mean, let’s face it, Darwin is insulting the whole human race by saying we’re all descended from apes. You want your great great great grandmother to be called an orangutan? And your great great great grand daddy to be compared to a gorilla? It ain’t right!

      I’m in revolt.

      Grrrrrrr…………………….!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

      1. I should have noted that Jonas calls LD a “dear friend and talented opponent” in the introduction to the article. I’m looking forward to reading his response even if that means dealing with VT’s annoying (somewhat new) format.

        If it wasn’t for the articles by JA I wouldn’t spend any time at VT. Today, VT featured what was touted as video of a US attack on Russians. Several readers noted it looked an awful lot like a video game demo from a year or so ago… Someone linked the video game demo, and all I can say is that the resemblance was remarkable.

        Duff said a few years ago that VT was 40% disinformation. I’d put it closer to 70% – 80% now.

        Mark Twain argues in his satirical “The Damned Human Race” that the human species is actually a devolution from other animals. He also noted that “While the rest of the species is descended from apes, redheads are descended from cats.” An astute observation, IMO. 😉

  29. Kevin MacDonald dindu nuffin!

    I take it Jonas Alexis is a Creationist?

    If so, and according to his holy Bible, black skin is a curse… a la “the Curse of Ham”.

    BTW, who the heck is Jonas Alexis? Is he is real person or cutout?

    Has anyone seen him in a live video interview?

    Not to be a racist or anything as politically incorrect as that, but his bio on Veterans Today (i.e. black math teacher in South Korea) is either a joke or insider code for military intelligence and SPOOK!

  30. I know that Kevin MacDonald is NOT a coward!! He is a hero and an intellectual giant who was able to articulate the methods of propaganda used by Jews to destroy American culture through criticism. I hope Kevin MacDonald’s side wins every argument, and Jews lose…. What is it about Jewish culture that makes the Jews so susceptible to so many really bad ideas…let’s immigrate to the U.S. to criticize it and destroy the American culture… is that a great idea…no it is not a great idea. Let’s create a culture of porn so that pedophilia explodes and children can no longer walk to school or the grocery store because the predators make it unsafe… good idea, no bad idea. Let’s take higher education and get rid of all the great writing because it’s associate with white men… another bad idea. Let’s promote transgenderism… let’s take babies away from their mothers…let’s destroy the American family… let’s vaccinate everyone by force. It’s all so bad it blows my mind.

    I know there are some arguments against Darwinism, and probably it isn’t a perfect theory, given that it was written in the 19th Century (by a dead white man). Still, it might have more validity than a lot of theories that will fall sooner like the Big Bang theory, which doesn’t seem to have much science behind it. And then there is the theory of anthropogenic climate change, better known as ‘”the world is warming due to CO2.” So many bad ideas and no wonder Kevin MacDonald doesn’t want to waste his time having an argument.

    1. Kapoore’s hit the nail on the head again. This lady talks the talk and walks the walk. I am sooooo jealous of her! 🙂

      No, but seriously, she’s right. She full of wisdom. And I sit at her feet like a disciple.

      But I question one of her ideas. Her skepticism over the Big Bang. This is where we’re at right now. The steady state theory is out of date. So my prof told me.

      Where are we right now? Not just ONE Big Bang, but an infinite series of Big Bangs. Expanding universes followed by contracting universes. Multiverses, each universe like a bubble on an Infinite Ocean of bubbles. Universes in which time runs backward.

      Who knows . . . maybe everything’s just a computer simulation? Maybe we’re just characters in someone else’s movie? Ever thought of that?

      Time for drinkie-winkies! 🙂

      1. @ Jackie Harper

        According to Jesus, the jew’s daddy is the devil. See John 8:31-44.

        Abraham gets a pass since he never wrote anything down. The jews, as you have accurately described, could lie however they wanted to about him since they had control of the record that they created.

      2. @Pat

        In OUR image
        In OUR image

        Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular, and is commonly translated as “God”, and capitalised. For example, in Genesis 1:26, it is written: “Then Elohim (translated as God) said (singular verb), ‘Let us (plural) make (plural verb) man in our (plural) image, after our (plural) likeness'”. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or “Royal we”).

      3. Thanks, Franklin – –

        “Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians” have their own obvious reasons for writing that, to more tightly secure the ‘chosen’ status for the damnable jews. They construct premises at the jews’ bidding.

        I am not willing to fall prey to their pretty words.

        I claim that they are guessing with the rest of us. 🙂

    2. @ Kapoore

      “What is it about Jewish culture that makes the Jews so susceptible to so many really bad ideas…”

      The answer without getting religious:

      “A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love, and in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying to others and to yourself.”
      — Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)
      Source: The Brothers Karamazov

      1. Jews, Jews, Jews. Been there, done that, seen a lot, got sucked in, spit out, appreciated the experience. I recommend Judaism Discovered, a major work by Michael Hoffman. Tells the deeper truth and mechanics and “logic” about that game called “Judaism”. The “logic” goes far beyond the insights of “Lewis Carroll” (Symbolic Logic) and hides beneath “Principia Mathematica (Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead), all destroyed by Godel’s Proof! Look into a mirror and see the Devil Incarnate! NOT!!

        How about Mind, Soul, and Body, for a domain and a forum for exchange of ideas on popular topics?

        Genetics, no GOD, evolution, biomechanics, epiphenomalism — if so, then why NOT SSRIs? Let us just alter brain chemistry, everything will be all right! If all you be is your “body”, then have at it, as most of all those I know seem to do! Miller time!! You only go around once. So?????

        On TOO, atheistic pronouncements seem de rigueur, Kevin MacDonald not a theist, or a Catholic, or a GOD-fearing man. Nor be I. As I posted recently on TOO, push come to shove, I’d self-identify as a pantheist, given the array of choices presented on TOO, here, and elsewhere. Otherwise, I take the passed-down words of Master Jesus, such as they be in translation, editing, and so forth, as good guidance, given the alternatives!


      2. Alan –

        King James would agree with more than one god:

        —King James Bible—
        And God said, Let us make man – in OUR image – after OUR likeness:
        and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

        in OUR image
        in OUR image

  31. So sorry to be so late to this comment board. I had to read, carefully, the remarkable, powerful, informative, educative post above to its phenomenal finale. Impressed, blown away am I with LD’s remarkable interposition between the several, inciting posts of Jonas Alexis and the work of Kevin MacDonald! Darwin did indeed lurk therein!! What an exposition!

    I had read each and all the posts of Mr. Alexis, a denizen of Veterans Today despite my expulsion from VT by Gordon Duff, who declared “me” as a “troll”. I do remain in communication with VT’s Jim Dean, assuming that the man does not block my e-mails to him at AOL. I forwarded to Mr. Dean links and an alert for his providing to Mr. Alexis’s post.

    I also posted on TOO a request for Kevin MacDonald to engage recent attacks by Mr. Alexis, despite his earlier dismissal of Mr. Alexis’ attack RE Darwin.

    Glad to witness this boxing match, the rules of the ring still in force, I hope! I forwarded all this to correspondents, emphasizing the requirement for openness of mind and heart.


  32. The media is the tribe.
    And the opposition to humanity.
    Their allegiance is with the egregore.

    Who Controls Big Media?
    Summary: Of the twelve (12) senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations, nine (9) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations by a factor of 37.5 times (3,750 percent).

    Who Controls Hollywood?
    Summary: Of the sixty (60) senior executives of the major Hollywood studios, trade unions, and talent agencies, fifty (50) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Hollywood studios, trade unions, and talent agencies by a factor of 41.5 times (4,150 percent).

    Who Controls Television?
    Summary: Of the sixty-four (64) senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies, fifty-seven (57) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 89%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies by a factor of 44.5 times (4,450 percent).

    Who Controls Music?
    Summary: Of the fifty (50) senior executives of the major music labels and trade organizations, thirty-nine (39) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 78%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major music labels and trade organizations by a factor of 39 times (3,900 percent).

    Who Controls Radio?
    Summary: Of the forty-six (46) senior executives of the major radio broadcast networks and station owners, twenty-eight (28) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 61%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major radio broadcast networks and station owners by a factor of 30.5 times (3,050 percent).

    Who Controls Advertising?
    Summary: Of the forty-six (46) senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations, thirty-one (31) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations by a factor of 33.5 times (3,350 percent).

    Who Controls the News? (Part 1)
    Summary: Of the sixty-seven (67) senior executives of the major television and radio news networks, forty-seven (47) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 70%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major television and radio news networks by a factor of 35 times (3,500 percent).

    Who Controls the News? (Part 2)
    Summary: Of the sixty-five (65) senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines, forty-two (42) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 65%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major newspapers and news magazines by a factor of 32.5 times (3,250 percent).

    Who Controls Social Media?
    Summary: Of the twenty four (24) senior executives of the “Big Players” in social media corporations, eighteen (18) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the “Big Players” in social media corporations by a factor of 37.5 times (3,750 percent).

    By declaring war on the media, Trump has in fact declared war on Jews. Of the four hundred & thirty four (434) senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations along with Hollywood, Music, Radio, Television, Newspapers, News Magazines & Social Media Three hundred & twenty six (326) are Jews or or have Jewish spouses. The over representation by Jews as the CEO’s & senior executives in all these associations averages 3700% including the trade unions, talent agencies, production companies, broadcast networks, station owners, advertising corporations and trade associations. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population. Therefore Jews and spouses of Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the aforementioned media corporations by a factor of 37 times (3,700 percent).

    1. @ Jackie Harper

      Two excellent summaries. All good info that most do not know.

      However, you left off some really important areas like money creation and finance, the medical (sick) industry, Big Pharma, ed-jew-cation, Freemasonry (judaism for gentiles), pornography, constitutional governments, etc. The list is almost endless and almost timeless with a host of empires from the Egyptian Empire onward destroyed through deception, subversion, and usury. “Mullins’ New History of the Jews” lays it out nicely. Today, anyone who pulls the string on a significant problem long enough will come across the cult of the devil, judaism, at the end of the string after pulling through jewish stooges and lackeys. Common denominators are important when sourcing problems.

  33. So who declared war on whom?
    Who really started the Second World War?
    Was it who you believed it was?
    And… where does Germany stand primarily? In the ranks of the attackers or the attacked?

    And by the way Hitler did not start the war. Lunatic left wing Zionist’s influencing England and Poland did. Check your archived news papers. Judah declared war on Germany in March 24, 1933. England declared war on Germany Sept., 3, 1939 11:00 a.m. along with that left wing state France at 5:00 p.m. Zionist controlled Poland Declared War on Germany at Midnight 31st August – 1st Sept 1939. Now you might get the drift why Hitler harboured a disdain for Jews along with the fact that the Jewish led Commissars from Russia murdered 11,000,000 Ukrainian Kulacks on the Steppes of Europe next door to Germany in in 1932 over a period of 18 months. Plus the fact that left wing Jewish led communists were raising supreme hell in Germany around this time led by Zionist Rosa Luxemburg.

    Hitler never declared war on any country until April 6, 1941 when they declared war on Yugoslavia.

  34. Jews, Jews, Jews, everywhere and all at once! Jews controlling banks — a special talent, given by GOD — and Jews controlling all functions of society BENEATH higher tasks of the putatively ruling elite, of whichever race or kind or persuasion. After all, someone has to do the Work. The secret work, of course, takes place, continuously, beneath your notice and level of initiation. Read all about it — start with an oldie but goodie, Rose Cross Order, 68th Convocation, published 1916.

    I have to conclude that this “Jew-bashing” thing appears more a thread-bare version of modern “fake news” than a legitimate complaint. I have no doubt that “Jew-bashing” posts serve (((TPTB))), targeting websites and blogs for extermination. Do you have a six-pointed star embroidered on your comment board?? Watch as sites a bit more adventurous than disappear from YouTube, from the “internet”.

    Stop the “Jew thing” — it’s a trap.

    1. Jackie Harper is right. Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way round. So Germany attacked France to defeat a declared enemy.

  35. Dear Laksha Darkmoon : As usual i enjoy Your writings ..including this .. I always learn something new .. presented in an intelligent cultured manner .
    I though .. find your attack .. on some social Darwinists .. a bit farfeched … as their ideas found inspiration and also scientiffic foundation in ..exactely … DARWINS Theories . Thats why these theories were met with such consternation by established Religion ..especially JUDEO CHRISTIANITY … a Religion which in its current form ( and may be allways ) is geared to DESTROY WESTERN WHITE MAN …
    In this context I would like to direct Your attention to this Web Site : .. where the Inital sentence reads like this :
    “I worship no god but the god of solitude. My religion is knowledge, truth, and wisdom. I do, however, honor, revere, and pay tribute to the Gods, my ancestors, and the collective forebears of my race. ”
    An excellent Article is for ex this
    If You have not stumbled over this website previously ..i am sure You will find much interesting argumentation in its Articles ….
    Personally my road to similar thinking arose when I realized the Nature of North East Asian Religion as practised .. and its EVOLUTIONARY and RACIAL SUPERIORITY … and how WE , EUROPEANS have had our IDENTITY , CULTURE and ROOTS DESTROYED by JUDEO CHRISTIANITY. This never occurred in the EAST where Pagan Tolerance of Belief has allowed peacefull and supplementary coexistence of subsequent religious and social thought. But who NEVER lost awareness of the IMPORTANCE of RACIAL COHESION.
    A development we Europeans may envy !

    1. Ole –

      The same is correct for the ‘Americas’ before they were named such.

      The Popes’ Discovery Doctrines FORCED the suffering of Judaeo-Christianity and International Law and Admiralty Law on all cultures.

      In the courts of the United States:

      In the 1823 case Johnson v. M’Intosh Chief Justice John Marshall found a “universal recognition” of a so-called Discovery doctrine that held that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.

      Spain did not rest her title solely on the grant of the Pope. Her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with Great Britain, and with the United States, all show that she placed it on the rights given by discovery. Portugal sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title.

      Most of the opinion is dicta; thus, all that the opinion holds with respect to aboriginal title is that it is inalienable, a principle that remains well-established law in nearly all common law jurisdictions.

      This decision was upheld in the 1831 case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, giving Georgia authority to extend state laws over Cherokees within the state, and famously describing Native American tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” This decision was modified in Worcester v. Georgia, which stated that the U.S. federal government, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs, but it maintained the loss of right to title upon discovery by Europeans.


      The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M’Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall explained and applied the way that colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government (- ‘gods’ -) whose subjects traveled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch.

      The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions (of theft) invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial (otherwise criminal) governments.


    Circassian calls Lasha Darknoon a “foolish woman” but provides no evidence for this apart from the fact that her opinions on Stalin do not coincide with his own. This is the troll who called LD “Queen of the Shithouse” when he first infiltrated this website 2-3 years ago and informed us that all Lasha was fit for was being a “lavatory attendant”.

    Circassian is a man who think you are intelligent only if you agree to fall on your knees and worship Josef Stalin with him. If you are disagree with him and think Stalin is a genocidal psychopath, as many people justifiably do, then you are evil and stupid and deserve consignment in the seventh circle of Dante’s hell.

    Stalin worship is apparently compulsory in the unsavory circles in which Circassian moves.


      1. Toby,

        “The article you have just published
        is about Stalin, not Darwin.
        Just thought I’d let you know.”

        I think you are in the wrong business, Toby.

    1. Admin Toby, you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you have conscience, Toby? Perhaps, you fancy that conscience is some kind of nonsense to be adhered to by others but not by you. If so, you are gravely mistaken, brother.

  37. Jonas Alexis has posted a response to this article: A Challenge to Lasha Darkmoon (Part I) The article is quite long, and apparently not yet complete given that it is “Part 1”.

    A cursory review suggests little will be resolved with this discussion, and some, perhaps much, could be lost….

  38. Latest development in South Africa: ‘We are not calling for the slaughter of white people – at least for now’

    This is a lesson in the consequences of maladaptive behavior. If (or when ) white people become a minority in the EU / USA / Australia / NZ / Canada, thanks to people like Barbara Lerner Spectre who push “multiculturalism”, this is what WILL happen.

    A couple of questions to consider: Who in 2018 South Africa holds the moral high ground? Do these events support or undermine Darwin’s theories?

    1. Here are even later developments. I don’t know how they will be doing this in real life. Walk from suburb to suburb and door to door and kick out the whites? They will be busy a long time. There are more farms and houses than in Rhodesia and now it is post Cold War time. Looks like here the ANC has overplayed its hands and going by readers comments in the mainstream media they have now tarnished their reputation irrecoverably in the eyes of the international community. It is quite fun to read leftists readers comments of how they try to justify this. They can’t. When one speaks of white owned land, it is not only farmlands. It is everthing. Including seizing foreign owned properties and businesses. For instance Germany has huge investments in South Africa. In the 1970’s – 1980’s Germany was the largest trading partner of South Africa (still learned it in geography at school). A large part of Boer blood is German blood. When the Dutch arrived at the Cape in 1652, German soldiers arrived at the same time and married Dutch girls. When one speaks of Germans in South Africa, one also speaks of a large amount of originally Austrians and some Swiss but they were all chunked into the category “German”.

      1. This may be old news to you. A young Canadian woman, Lauren Southern, made a documentary about what is happening now in South Africa. It’s called Farmlands, and can be seen here:
        The site seems to be under constant attack, but YouTube hasn’t yet deleted the trailers from that channel.

        Anyone who thinks this isn’t a vision of things to come if whites become minorities in traditionally white nations – a globalist NJWO goal – is not paying attention.

  39. From Protocol No. 2

    Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism (Evolution), Marxism (Communism), Nietzsche-ism (Socialism). To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM.

  40. “Paradoxically, Darwin, whose revolutionary discoveries had dispensed with the need for God as a First Cause,…” LD

    What revolutionary discoveries? Isn’t being the Creator being the First Cause?

  41. Insulting people is an evolutionary strategy devised by Jews to evade logical argument.
    By the way, I’ve never seen an attack on Darwinism that gave me the impression that the author had ever actually read Darwin.

  42. @CARNAPTIOUS 3-3-2018[11]

    Yes, indeed! I have alerted a very select subset of correspondents to this “debate”, though, to date, bow-crossing volleys seem too informal to warrant the term “debate”. Nonetheless, as I wrote to others, I think this encounter presages a discourse and discussion to which one might well lend an attentive, if not eager, ear! Let those with ears, hear, I say boldly, having safely sailed past Purim, unscathed and unrepentant.

    (I hope the following does not extend beyond a reasonable length of a post.)

    [Correspondent], you may well appreciate as food for thought, if not an incendiary stimulus to contemplative pondering (to which I feel prone if not also genetically predisposed [!!], my Self having experienced a soulful joy, a remarkable mental quickening upon reading these first two bow-crossing volleys, an on-going exchange of bow-crossing views. In fact, I can think of none other than you who would join me as a voyeur! The several links below, along with comments contributed by informed observers, kibitzers, and others, provide the opening of what I hope proves a prolonged and satisfying debate, one probably irresolvable for the participants — though we shall see! I shall also attach PDFs that, depending on the “friendliness” of the site to PDFing, will contain all or most of the posts.

    To ensure a complete reading, therefore, access the posts by links provided. You might find it useful to browse Kevin MacDonald’s magnum opus (The Culture of Critique) and other essays by Mr. Jonas Alexis, too, depending on time available, fortitude, and, as always, interest (simple or compound)!

  43. “What is totally inappropriate, however, is not so much your attack on Darwin as your ad hominem onslaught on Kevin MacDonald for declining to enter into a debate with you.” I agree, and calling Kevin MacDonald a coward is one of the most ridiculous statements anyone can make. Like David Irving, Kevin MacDonald has sacrificed reputation, a much more lucrative career and subjected himself to many years of threats and abuse for seeking the truth. There are very few people in the world with such courage, willing to sacrifice so much.

    Although Professor MacDonald has done great work, perhaps some of the most important work ever done, so far the Jews have been able to keep his work and himself a secret from most of the world. Jonas Alexis would be better off finding someone the world has heard of to debate. Besides, Professor MacDonald is a busy man, writing another book and administering one of the most important websites on the internet. No offense to Jonas.

    1. @ Peter

      I agree with you. Why the hell should Kevin MacDonald debate Darwin with a writer on VT? He has better things to do with his time.

      LD also said she was not “debating” Darwin with Jonas, just giving her own views on Darwin and putting in a good word for Kevin. I understand Jonas was rather annoyed with her for not dealing with his arguments forensically, point by point, but just pointing out 2-3 of Jonas’s factual errors. He ended up by saying that discussing Darwin with LD was pretty “disappointing” because she didn’t bother to address his arguments or deal with them adequately, which was true.

      What I find amazing about Jonas is his bizarre insistence that calling Kevin MacDonald a “coward” wasn’t in any way a “personal” attack upon him.
      Nor was it a “personal attack” to accuse Kevin of “intellectual dishonesty”. Unbelievable! 🙂

  44. None of the above? (lol)
    Cremo (Drutakarma das) said the same thing, and more..

    “What is a human being?” Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit).”

    “Human Devolution illustrates how the self originally exists on the level of pure consciousness, in harmony with the personal source of all conscious beings. When a conscious self relinquishes its connection with the source of all conscious beings, it becomes covered by the lower energies of mind and matter. Cremo calls this devolution. But devolution can be reversed, and consciousness can be restored to its original pure state by a process of spiritual evolution.”

    1. Great reference, hp

      Cremo was born in my neck of the woods when I was growin up as a young hawkling – Schenectady NY, same as my younger brother – Mohawk country

      Crermo maybe part Mohawk like Brownhawk
      Him father military Intelligence WW2 like Brownhawk father
      Him wise man


Comments are closed.