Science and the Suicide-Cult: The Irrationalism of Richard Dawkins

Tobias Langdon


The basis of science is the same as the basis of life: pattern-recognition. Even plants recognize patterns in the weather and the attacks of insects. The difference between scientists and trees, or scientists and sharks, is that scientists use reason and method, not instinct and other forms of biological automation.

Mathemodels of reality

Scientists try to identify and understand patterns in the world by creating patterns of their own: they perform experiments, they model and analyse data using mathematics, trying to create symbolic patterns that behave like real ones. Astronomy is the paradigm of this endeavour. There was sufficient regularity and permanence in the heavens for the ancients to predict lunar and solar eclipses. Ptolemy had an effective mathemodel of the solar system in the Second Century A.D.; Copernicus put forward a better one in 1543; Newton refined and expanded it in 1687. The power of Newton’s mathemodel was confirmed by the successful predictions it made: there were undiscovered planets out there. Neptune was mathematics before it became matter.

Stale pale male Charles Darwin

Biology proved much more difficult than astronomy and other branches of physics. The great pattern of evolution escaped the notice of Aristotle before Christ and Linnaeus long after, and when Darwin and Wallace recognized it in the nineteenth century, their description was linguistic, not mathematical. Their logic was good and their evidence substantial, but evolutionary biology didn’t become a proper science until it had a solid foundation of mathematics. Stale pale males like Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and W.D. Hamilton (1936–2000) built mathemodels of biological systems that behaved like the real thing and made good predictions. Indeed, biology turned out to have a mathemodel of its own: the three-dimensional double helix of DNA carries a two-dimensional genetic code, which synthesizes proteins, evolves, and protects itself from error in ways that are illuminated by the human mathemodel of information theory.

Digital Dawkins

As Richard Dawkins puts it: “The essential difference between classical Darwinism (which we now understand could not have worked) and neo-Darwinism (which does) is that digital genetics has replaced analogue.” Dawkins will need no introduction. He’s much more famous than Fisher or Hamilton and a much better and clearer writer than his late rival, the Jewish Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002). Dawkins’ line about Darwinism comes from the lecture “Science and Sensibility,” which is collected in a new book of his called Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist (Bantam Press 2017). I’ve enjoyed the book and it’s reminded me again both of what I admire about Dawkins and of what I deplore.

Powerful pattern: The DNA double helix

First, a little of what I admire. Dawkins is not a genius, but he has a lot of learning and wears it lightly. After the “sonorous imponderables” of Stephen Jay Gould, writing like this is a delight:

If a time machine could serve up to you your 200-million-greats-grandfather, you would eat him with sauce tartare and a slice of lemon. He was a fish. Yet you are connected to him by an unbroken line of intermediate ancestors, every one of whom belonged to the same species as its parents and its children. (Science in the Soul, “The Dead Hand of Plato,” p. 292)

Dawkins is making an excellent point in easy language: species can be distinct without being discontinuous. There are huge differences between human beings and that ancestral species of fish, but the genetic gradient from fish to fishermen has always been very gentle. The same point can be made about distinct races among human beings. It’s easy to find or imagine a smooth genetic continuum between Tibetans and Tongans or Swedes and Somalis. That does not make these distinct races “the same under the skin.” Race is a real biological pattern, whatever Gouldean Marxists and their dupes might say. And mirabile dictu, here is proof from Science in the Soul that Dawkins recognizes the obvious pattern of race:

Whenever the exodus [from Africa], there has evidently been time for humans to adapt to non-African conditions. Arctic humans are different from tropical. We northerners have lost the black pigmentation that our African ancestors presumably had. There has been time for biochemistries to diverge in response to diet. Some peoples – perhaps those with herding traditions – retain into adulthood the ability to digest milk. In other peoples, only children can digest it; the adults suffer from an unpleasant condition known as lactose intolerance. Presumably such differences have evolved by natural selection in different culturally determined environments. If natural selection has had time to shape our bodies and biochemistry since some of us left Africa, it should also have had time to shape our brains and our values. (Science in the Soul, “The Values of Science and the Science of Values,” p. 53)

By “peoples,” Dawkins effectively means “races.” By accepting that natural selection could have shaped “our brains and our values” to fit different environments, he is explicitly rejecting the Psychic Unity of Mankind (PsUoM) and saying that differences between African and non-African psychology can have a genetic basis. Apparently he no longer believes in what I once called “Dawkins’ Demon,” the supernatural entity that has been crouching in the human neck for many millennia, swatting away environmental influences on brain genetics.

In other words, Dawkins is committing crime-think. Compare what he wrote for the New Statesman in 2014:

But human beings have only recently shown how very special they are. Fifty thousand years ago we had the same bodies and brains as today and we probably had language. … That changed around 40,000 years ago, when the archaeological record shows a sudden magnificent flowering of art and even musical instruments. Cultural evolution – which outpaces by orders of magnitude the superficially similar genetic evolution that had given rise to our big brains in the first place – went into overdrive. (Apes with big brains: Richard Dawkins on what makes us human, The New Statesman, 6th January 2014)

That was goodthinkful Gouldeanism: all differences in human behaviour and intellect are explained by culture. But was it sincere Gouldeanism? Dawkins wasn’t reasoning straight. If human beings fifty thousand years ago had “the same bodies and brains as today,” then they certainly had language. He goodthinked like that in 2014; now he rejects the PsUoM, as that quote from Science in the Soul proves. Dawkins doesn’t believe that all human brains are necessarily the same beneath the skull. But he’s still failing to reason straight.

Deplorable Dawkins

Yes, here comes about what I deplore about Dawkins. The claim of liberal atheists like him to be “rationalist” is about as solid as the claim of North Korea to be a “Democratic People’s Republic.” Here is some of Dawkins’ reasoning in an essay that asks “Is Science a Religion?”:

One of the problems is that our culture has been taught to become tolerant of [astrology], even vaguely amused by it – so much so that even scientific people who don’t believe in astrology often think it’s a bit of harmless fun. I take astrology very seriously indeed: I think it’s deeply pernicious because it undermines rationality, and I should like to see campaigns against it. (Science in the Soul, p. 271)

So that’s Dawkins’ sternly rationalist attitude to astrology: it’s “deeply pernicious” and he would like to see “campaigns against it.” But what is Dawkins’ sternly rationalist attitude to mass immigration by adherents of a much more pernicious ideology than astrology? Has he or any other liberal “scientific rationalist” ever pointed out the lunacy of allowing millions of Muslims to colonize Western nations like Britain? On the very first page of Science in the Soul, Dawkins is sneering at the “petty smallness of the Abrahamics, the three squabbling cults which, through historical accident, still afflict the world.” (“Author’s introduction,” p. 1)

By “the Abrahamics,” he means the Abrahamic faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the three monotheistic religions that acknowledge Abraham as their founding father. At the beginning of the twentieth century the Western world was only “afflicted” by two of those Abrahamic cults, Christianity and Judaism, both of them much weaker than in the past. By the end of the twentieth century, the third “Abrahamic” had joined them. And Islam retains its fangs. It truly is an affliction: from the murderous rejection of free speech to organized sexual slavery, from female genital mutilation to the denial of evolution, even as a relatively small minority Muslims have launched a determined and effective assault on every tenet of liberal democracy and scientific rationalism.

Invasion by immigration

And this affliction by Islam is no “historical accident.” Western elites have deliberately imported Muslims and subsidized their colonization of great cities like London, Paris and Berlin. Dawkins and other liberal atheists haven’t merely acquiesced in the lunacy: they and their fellow liberals actively support it by decrying all opposition as “racist” and “xenophobic.” On any rational ground, their behaviour has been staggeringly misguided and hypocritical. Dawkins wants “campaigns” against astrology, for Darwin’s sake, but he has never lifted a finger or written a word to oppose a prolonged and continuing invasion by the most irrational, backward and pernicious religion on earth. Any evolutionist understands that this invasion of different peoples is completely analogous to an invasion of a sub-species in the natural world: it will change gene frequencies and result in natural selection in favour of the invading sub-species at the expense of the previously dominant sub-species.

But the behaviour of liberal atheists is irrational even by “culturalist” standards. If non-White Muslims were “the same under the skull” as Whites (and they aren’t), their presence in such large numbers would have ensured that their illiberal and anti-scientific culture was impossible to overcome. But Science in the Soul proves that the liberal atheist Richard Dawkins has rejected pure culturalism: he now accepts that evolution in different cultural and physical environments has “shaped brains and values” in different ways. For example, the clannishness and criminality of Muslims, which are so antithetical to liberal democracy, likely have a partly genetic basis as do virtually all human behaviors. Science in the Soul pours seething contempt on Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, creationists, astrologers and those who voted for Brexit. It doesn’t let fall a drop of criticism, let alone contempt, on the Muslims merrily inter-breeding with their close cousins in Bradford, London and many other Western cities. Dawkins has written that astrology is “pernicious” and that it is deeply wrong for parents to “force their religious opinions” on their children. But he doesn’t campaign against consanguineous marriage, the horrors it inflicts and the expense it imposes.

Imported cane-toads in Australia

Trump-supporters, creationists, astrologers and Brexit-fans aren’t, of course, going to come for Dawkins with machetes or machine-guns when he criticizes them. Muslims might well do so if he ever follows his own principles and begins to acknowledge the harm they’ve done to the West. But Muslim aggression wasn’t so dangerous in the 1960s and ’70s, when Dawkins and other liberal atheists should have begun condemning the lunacy of mass immigration by Muslims. Christianity was mostly defanged by then. Even if Islam seemed harmless to those too ignorant and lazy to investigate its homelands and its history, why on earth take the risk of importing it? Biologists knew what havoc imported species can wreak on new ecosystems and if Dawkins disliked the “Abrahamics” for their “squabbling,” adding a new and aggressive Abrahamic to the West would obviously make the scope for that much worse.

Sanity vs suicide

It didn’t require great intellect or powers of reasoning to know that mass immigration by Muslims was a very bad idea. The failure of liberal atheists to oppose it explodes their claim to “rationalism.” Indeed, they reacted to mass immigration exactly as Western theists did. The three “Abrahamic cults” now in the West aren’t “squabbling”: self-serving Jews and self-harming Christians welcome Muslim colonization, celebrating it as a vibrant enrichment of stale pale nations like Britain, France and America.

Is science a religion? No. But liberalism in its corrupt modern form clearly is. As a liberal, Richard Dawkins has been far more irrational than any of the fundamentalist believers he has so often scorned. Fundamentalists don’t belong to a suicide-cult: their beliefs and behaviour advance the cause of fundamentalism rather than undermining it. Liberalism, by contrast, is a dedicated suicide-cult. It welcomes mass immigration from the most illiberal, misogynistic and superstitious regions on earth, then covers up the inevitable results in places like Rotherham and Cologne.

Science in the Soul contains some good examples of the psychology behind the liberal suicide-cult. The book concludes with a eulogy called “Honouring Hitch,” in which Dawkins lavishes praise on the scientific rationalism and moral courage of the late Christopher Hitchens. For example, who were Hitch’s “favourite heroines in real life”? Dawkins quotes Hitch’s answer: “The women of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran who risk their lives and their beauty to defy the foulness of theocracy.” (p. 416) Thanks to liberals like Dawkins and Hitchens, “the foulness of theocracy” is now firmly re-established in the West, oppressing women and attacking free speech.

The “foulness” of superstition and science-denial is also firmly re-established in the West. Take Sweden, a small nation that, like Scotland and Hungary, has produced a disproportionate number of great scientists. Mass immigration from countries like Somalia and Iraq has done entirely predictable harm to Swedish education and science. It has also done entirely predictable harm to Swedish women, despite the feminism that flourishes there.

Islam vs science

Or rather: because of the feminism that flourishes there. Feminism is central to the liberal suicide-cult, constantly wailing about imaginary rape-atrocities committed by stale pale males, while resolutely ignoring the real rape-atrocities committed by vibrant non-White males. Richard Dawkins himself has been one of the stale pale males targeted by feminists: he was heavily criticized when he suggested that an atheist woman over-reacted to a pass made by a stale pale male at a World Atheist Conference in Dublin. He was also heavily criticized when he pointed out that the Muslim world as a whole has produced far fewer Nobel prize-winners in science than Trinity College at Cambridge.

He was right, but he didn’t attribute Muslims’ backwardness in science to their genetically mediated low average IQ (Heaven forfend!). Instead, he attributed it to the pernicious influence of Islam. But if Islam is so antithetical to science, how on earth could any supporter of science agree with mass immigration by Muslims? Science in the Soul includes a mocking piece called “Fundraising for Faith” (pp. 361–5), which attacks Tony Blair and his support for “faith schools.” Dawkins think they’re a very bad  idea. But liberals like him think that mass immigration from the Third World is an excellent idea. It’s enriching to import millions of Muslims who utterly reject liberal democracy and female rights. At the same time, liberals like Dawkins want the children of Muslims to have a strictly secular education extolling the sacredness of liberal democracy and female rights.

Oh, and we also have to battle Sharia courts and such horrors as honour killings and FGM. Short of setting up a police state, I don’t see how we can do any of that. If a school is controlled by Muslims, as numerous Western schools now are, it will follow Muslim principles. If a First-World nation allows mass immigration from the Third World, it will acquire Third-World pathologies. But who could have seen any of that coming? Liberal atheists could have. If the Abrahamic religions are so pernicious, how on earth could it be a good idea to import a new one? But in fact the West already had a new one by 1900. It was called Marxism. The liberal atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out that Marxism is a Christian heresy in A History of Western Philosophy (1945). Which is ironic, because Dawkins celebrates the Marxist Christopher Hitchens as a spiritual heir to Russell and other rationalist giants in his eulogy “Honouring Hitch.”

Rabbinic psychology

As I pointed out in “Gasbags Are Not Great,” the verbose and self-righteous Hitchens had a rabbinic psychology arising from his Jewish ancestry. His devotion first to overt Trotskyism, then to crypto-Trotskyist neo-conservatism, satisfied not his reason but his taste for violence and self-righteousness. Bertrand Russell would have understood Hitchens better than Dawkins ever did. Here’s some of what Russell said after he met Lenin, Trotsky and other prominent Bolshevik leaders:

Bolshevism is a close tyrannical bureaucracy, with a spy system more elaborate and terrible than the Tsar’s, and an aristocracy as insolent and unfeeling, composed of Americanised Jews. No vestige of liberty remains, in thought or speech or action. I was stifled and oppressed by the weight of the machine as by a cope of lead. Yet I think it is the right government for Russia at this moment. If you ask yourself how Dostoevsky’s characters should be governed, you will understand. Yet it is terrible. They are a nation of artists, down to the simplest peasant; the aim of the Bolsheviks is to make them industrial and as Yankee as possible. Imagine yourself governed in every detail by a mixture of Sidney Webb and Rufus Isaacs, and you will have a picture of modern Russia. (From a letter to Lady Ottoline Morrell about his trip to Russia, 25th June 1920)

Rufus Isaacs (1860-1935) was a Jewish lawyer who became a very successful politician in the British Liberal party, serving at various times as Viceroy to India, Foreign Secretary, Lord Chief Justice, Solicitor General, Attorney General and British Ambassador to the United States, before becoming the first ever Jewish Marquess. He and another successful Jewish politician, Herbert Samuel, were prominent in the Marconi Scandal, in which members of Lloyd George’s government allegedly conspired to enrich themselves by buying shares before a government contract was awarded to a company managed by Isaacs’ brother Godfrey.

The Jewish lawyer Rufus Isaacs

Traditionalist Catholics like G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc claimed that the scandal was proof of how Jews corrupted British politics and wielded excessive influence there. Bertrand Russell’s comments about Bolshevism show that some liberal atheists were suspicious of Rufus Isaacs too. But Russell went further: he attributed the “close tyrannical bureaucracy” of the Soviet Union, with its “elaborate and terrible” “spy system,” to an “insolent and unfeeling” “aristocracy” of “Americanised Jews.” As a student, Christopher Hitchens belonged to a Trotskyist party called the International Socialists (IS). So did his brother Peter Hitchens. If the party had won power in Britain, we would have had a similar Jewish “aristocracy” imposing a “tyrannical bureaucracy.” After all, the IS and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) into which it developed were headed by a man whose nom de guerre was Tony Cliff but whose real name was Yigael Gluckstein.

Atheists for Judaism

The over-representation of Jews both in Marxism and in financial scandals is a clear pattern that respectable commentators don’t discuss. In Science in the Soul, Richard Dawkins repeatedly criticizes “ideologically motivated scientists” (p. 27) like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose. Dawkins says that he stands “by every word” of the harsh review he gave the book Not in Our Genes, an error-laden attack made by Lewontin, Kamin and Rose on sociobiology in 1984 (“The Values of Science and the Science of Values,” p. 38). He and the New Scientist were threatened with a lawsuit at the time and there’s no doubt that Dawkins is very familiar with the intolerant, dishonest and cultish psychology of those four Marxist comrades. Does he think that their Jewish ancestry has no bearing on their psychology and their “science”? And did he fail to see the same psychology in Christopher Hitchens?

“Death to the goyim!” — the Passover Angel

If the answer to both questions is “No,” then Dawkins’ powers of pattern-recognition have failed badly. Elsewhere, however, he does acknowledge an interesting pattern of Jewish behaviour: “Many people proudly call themselves Jewish atheists and observe festivals, holy days and even dietary laws” (“Atheists for Jesus,” p. 274). Jewish festivals and holy days often celebrate violent triumph over the goyim (see Passover, Purim and Hanukkah). The violence was overseen by a tribal deity whom Dawkins has described like this: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: … a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Apparently Jewish atheists don’t mind associating themselves with such a character, perhaps because they don’t mind violent triumph over the goyim. As Kevin MacDonald points out in “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” there’s a good case that Jewish Bolsheviks were motivated by ethnic hatred and Christophobia in the violence and oppression they directed at native Russians and Ukrainians. The scientific rationalist Bertrand Russell might well have agreed. But the scientific rationalist Richard Dawkins would condemn such claims as racist and anti-Semitic. Those labels aren’t scientific or rational: to call someone a racist or anti-Semite is the modern equivalent of calling someone a blasphemer or heretic. It’s designed not to persuade, but to intimidate and silence.

The curse of mass immigration

Dawkins is among the intimidated. In a footnote to his criticism of Lewontin et al, he says this:

I’d find it hard to justify research into alleged correlations between race and IQ. I’m not one of those who thinks [sic] that intelligence is unmeasurable or that race is “non-biological”, a “social construct” (see the distinguished geneticist A.W.F. Edwards’ splendid take-down of this claim in “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy”). But what could possibly be the point of investigating alleged correlations between intelligence and race? Certainly no policy decisions should ever be based on such research. (“The Values of Science and the Science of Values,” p. 27)

That last line is risible. If research proved the genetic basis of racial differences in IQ, of course policy decisions should be based on it. The research would justify not only the dismantling of the massive coercive apparatus of “anti-racism” and egalitarianism, but also an immediate end to mass immigration by groups with low average IQ. But we don’t need such research to know that anti-racism is a racket and that mass immigration is a curse. They both cause serious harm to liberal democracy and to the scientific rationalism that Richard Dawkins claims to hold dear.

Executions for blasphemy

That’s why I don’t think history is going to judge Dawkins and his allies well. In the sixteenth century, Giordano Bruno braved the wrath of the Catholic Church by freely expressing his theological and scientific opinions. That wrath eventually fell upon him in its most terrible form: he was burned alive in Rome with a wooden gag on his tongue to silence his “wicked words.” Galileo escaped a similar fate by recanting his support for the Copernican theory and submitting to permanent house arrest. What did liberal atheists risk in the twentieth century for opposing mass immigration by Muslims?

“Death to the kuffār!” — mainstream Muslims

Not death or imprisonment, but social disapproval and accusations of “racism.” Liberal atheists didn’t follow their own principles and resist irrational and intolerant Marxists as they began importing millions of Muslims and their illiberal and anti-scientific culture. The result is that executions for blasphemy have returned to Europe: witness the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. A prime candidate for the next assassination is the “Islamophobe” Douglas Murray, a homosexual liberal who nevertheless opposes mass immigration and understands the incompatibility of liberalism and Islam. He has also criticized Jewish support for mass immigration and Muslim colonization. He isn’t a scientist like Dawkins, but he has a far better ability to recognize important cultural patterns. And he may well pay a heavy price for his pattern-recognition.

The wisdom of H.L. Mencken

Dawkins should join Murray in opposing mass immigration and criticizing Jewish support for Muslim colonization. I doubt that he ever will. The inside back cover of Science in the Soul says this: “In 2013, Dawkins was voted the world’s top thinker in Prospect magazine’s poll of 100,000 readers from over a hundred countries.” That’s as ridiculous as the claim by the book’s editor, Gillian Somerscales, that Dawkins is “reason’s prophet” and “our ceaseless watchman” (p. 15). Dawkins and other liberal atheists have collaborated with the suicide-cult of liberalism and helped to undermine scientific rationalism. They are not worthy heirs of men like Bertrand Russell, nor of the great American atheist H.L. Mencken (1880–1956), who made these eminently rational and scientific comments before World War I:

I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding, supervision of environment and education, extending over many generations, it might be possible to make an appreciable improvement in the stock of the American negro, for example, but I must maintain that this enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it. (See Men versus the Man, 1910)

Like Douglas Murray, H.L. Mencken wasn’t a scientist, let alone a biologist. But he recognized patterns of human psychology and intellect far better than liberal biologists like Richard Dawkins ever have. Like Murray today, Mencken was defending Western civilization and the science that is central to it. Dawkins has preferred to collaborate with a suicide-cult intent on the destruction both of Western civilization and of science.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

53 Comments to "Science and the Suicide-Cult: The Irrationalism of Richard Dawkins"

  1. Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
    June 27, 2017 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

    May I just say a few things:
    1) Bertrand Russell was an egregious liar when he said Marxism was a “Christian heresy”, since it is quintessentially Jewish, as even rabbis assert.

    2) As a Christian, I think Dawkins’ description of the bloodthirsty deity of the Judeo-Islamic Old Testament is correct, because Yahweh/Yareah is actually Kali/Shiva, as Christians will one day discover.

    3) Only Judaism and its proxy branch Islam are “Abrahamic”. Christianity begins with Christ & the New Testament, Christ & the New Covenant, and the compassionate Heavenly Father of whom Christ teaches. When Marcion, the First Protestant, compiled the First New Testament from the writings of the Apostles available in 140 AD, gaining a vast following by teaching that the Moon Deity Yahweh of the Old Testament was not the same as the Heavenly Father of whom Christ taught, he was denounced as a heretic by the Jewish-established Catholic church based in Rome and Alexandria, who destroyed his writings and replaced his New Testament canon with their own.

    4) Dawkins is wrong: I am not descended from a fish!

    • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
      June 29, 2017 - 1:53 pm | Permalink

      @ Bramble

      Interesting to have a follower of Marcion around in 2017. What are the scriptures you accept as authoritative? We can then judge the nature of Christ and the content of the New Covenant. Can anyone join?

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        June 30, 2017 - 7:26 am | Permalink

        Judging from other comments you have made, it appears that you are: 1) anti-Christian, so your questions about the New Covenant are not serious, and therefore require no response, and 2) you are in favour of eugenics, so here’s an interesting quote from Bertrand Russell:

        “…in the final phase of the conspiracy the government will consist of the king-despot, the Synagogue of Satan, and a few millionaires, economists, and scientists who have proven their devotion to the Luciferian cause. All others are to be integrated into a vast conglomeration of mongrelised humanity, by artificial insemination practiced on an international scale – ultimately less than 30 percent of the female population and 5 percent of the male population will be used for breeding purposes. Reproduction will be strictly limited to the type and numbers required to fill the needs of the state.”
        (pages 49-51 “The Impact of Science on Society”)

        • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
          June 30, 2017 - 1:26 pm | Permalink

          It doesn’t say that- I just looked it up:

          A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do
          things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were
          more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were
          more inclined towards the sort of atrocities than I have in
          mind. They were said — I do not know with what truth — to
          use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds
          of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If
          they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to
          scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice
          will, within a generation, secure great military advantages.
          The system, one may surmise, will be something like this:
          except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per
          cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilized.
          The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the
          years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to
          secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemina-
          tion will be preferred to the natural method.

          • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
            July 2, 2017 - 7:54 am | Permalink

            @TJ – Well then I must stand corrected, because my quote was taken from a secondary source.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          July 1, 2017 - 3:44 pm | Permalink

          @ Bramble

          The passage attributed to Russell is faked, the first part of which is based on “The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion” which the distinguished philosopher-mathematician did not accept as genuine.

          Early and modern Christian scholars argue that the wealthy heretic Marcion twisted the New Testament canon. Having a long open-minded interest in these matters, I was pleased to discover Marcionite websites. Because of its anti-Jewish stance and depiction of Jesus as a Divine Hero who descended among humans, it has been suggested that the Gospel of John had a Marcionite origin. It seems pretty clear from recent research of Jo-Ann Brant, George Parsenios and others that this magnificent work of ancient Greek literature is essentially a Religious Play, though Marcion himself is not thought to have made much personal use of it.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            July 1, 2017 - 10:39 pm | Permalink

            Because of its anti-Jewish stance and depiction of Jesus as a Divine Hero who descended among humans, it has been suggested that the Gospel of John had a Marcionite origin.

            Please cite one passage in John’s Gospel unambiguously demonstrating the alleged depiction, as opposed to casual references to the profundities of “recent research.” Perhaps then what you call “pretty clear” would become at least a little bit clearer to others.

          • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
            July 2, 2017 - 6:58 am | Permalink

            PS – In response to a request for a passage (you need to read the whole document, and its many demonstrable comparisons with specified Hellenist dramas) from the Gospel of John that depicts Jesus as a Divine Hero, who descended among humans, start with its beautifully poetic antiphonal prologue: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”. His heroic battle on cosmological scale is to “take away the sins of the world”.

            For a brief balanced, if conservative, appreciation, see e.g. Barry L. Blackburn, “Divine Man/Theios Aner”, in Craig A. Evans (ed), “The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus” (2010), pp.164-168. Many other references can be cited, not casually, but after considerable research which, as Euripides thought, makes a man happy. Jo-Ann Brant’s Mennonite “Dialogue & Drama” (2004) is a good place to begin.

            The Fourth Gospel could – and perhaps should – be presented not unlike the Oberammergau Passion Play, but as a new Opera in a Greek theater (like “La Boheme at Taormina”). Who of TOO readers would not welcome a Thingspiel comeback?

            “John” – like Wagner’s “Parsifal” – also helps to answer those who see only a total contradiction between Christianity, and the Pagan or Classical traditions of the European Aryans.

          • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
            July 2, 2017 - 8:26 am | Permalink

            May I recommend the 2013 book “The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon” by Jason BeDuhn, Professor of the Comparative Study of Religions at Northern Arizona University, USA. The Gospel of John is not mentioned by Marcion. Although Prof. BeDuhn is to be commended for his exhaustive research, his personal atheistic and Gnostic leanings make him substitute gnostic words and concepts in his translations, and the book seems designed to undermine the reality of Christ’s divinity, which was never Marcion’s intention, nor the intention of the later theologian Arius, also denounced as a heretic by the Jewish-controlled Catholic church in Rome & Alexandria.

            As a Christian, I do not agree with Marcion’s idea that Christ’s divine soul did not enter a human physical form and experience human birth, but just miraculously appeared as an adult. However, Marcion was right to teach that the compassionate Heavenly Father of whom Christ taught was NOT the same as the Bloodthirsty Jewish Yaweh=Yareah the Moon God of Jericho. Christianity was a completely new and separate religion from Judaism, constantly fighting off Judaic attempts to seize control of it to deflect it away from Christ, and back toward the secret Judaic worship of Kali the Cannibal Death Moon Goddess and her Toyboy “Moon god” Shiva/Satan. It was Marcion’s vast following amongst early Christians in both East and West that alarmed the Jewish-controlled Catholic church in Rome & Alexandria, who were busy trying to promote the human Mary to “goddess” status, which is why they denounced him as a heretic, as they did later to Arius and 300 years of “Antiochan” Christianity.

          • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
            July 2, 2017 - 2:38 pm | Permalink

            @David Ashton – That’s all very well to wax lyrical about the Pagan Traditions of European Aryans, but where were they when the Islamic Hordes attacked? While Christian Warriors such as Charles Martel of France were heroically defending European civilization on the battlefield time and again down through the centuries, your favourite Pagans were busy worshipping TREES.

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          July 3, 2017 - 4:03 pm | Permalink

          Russell on Eugenics from “ICARUS” (1924):

          “Birth-control may become nearly universal among the white races; it will then not deteriorate their quality, but only diminish their numbers, at a time when uncivilized races are still prolific and are preserved from a high death-rate by white science.”

          “Eugenics…may aim not only at eliminating undesired types, but at increasing desired types…[but] in the hands of State officials [who] would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative.”

          Of this adverse prospect was discussed, like many others, in eugenics publications – up and until the time that the post-WW2 UK Eugenics Education Society was pressured by “state officials” (!) to moderate its aims and restyle itself “The Galton Institute”.

    • James's Gravatar James
      June 30, 2017 - 12:04 pm | Permalink

      You are ignorant to deny evolution. And are approaching this from the same bias as Muslims and Jews. Also true judaism is not marxist. Judaism is a very ‘might is right’ social Darwinist religion. Jews and their religious end game doesn’t call for a Marxist world it calls for a hierarchical world under Jewish leadership and Jews are to serve God while all non-jews only need to follow noahides 7 laws. Their end game isn’t slavery of gentiles but rather governing gentiles in a benevolent fashion as it is said the gentiles will want to be led by Jews. Jews in theory form the upper crust elite of the world. However they are to follow 613 commandments their God laid down to them. So in a lot of ways the gentiles have more freedom.

      And again I am approaching this from a completely secular view point of someone who has studied the 3 major Abrahamic religions.

      • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
        July 2, 2017 - 2:08 pm | Permalink

        This analysis of Jewish religious (notably Chabad) plans for the world, already reflected in the US “Education & Sharing Day”, is closer to reality than the fantasy that the Jews are engaged upon physically wiping out all White Gentiles. The last thing for which Jews can be reproached is an enthusiasm for removing any geese that provide golden eggs.

        As for Marxism, and the subsequent worldwide communist leaders of the early 20th century, this is actually quite a complex matter. There is a good review of the attitude of Old Whiskers himself by Julius Carlebach, “Karl Marx & the Radical Critique of Judaism” (1978). His article on “The Russian Loan” in the NY Daily Tribune, January 4, 1856, is something that might later have been penned by Hitler or Rosenberg (who probably were never aware of it).

      • Bramble's Gravatar Bramble
        July 2, 2017 - 2:29 pm | Permalink

        @James – Well, thanks for clearing that up! I must say it’s a relief to know that all of us Goy Cattle can rest assured, knowing we will be ruled in an entirely benevolent fashion by our Jewish Slaveowners, who will be “obeying God” by enslaving us. And all we have to do is obey the Jews instead of God, and their “Noahide Laws for Goyim”. You forgot the bit where anyone who disobeys the Noahide Laws will be DECAPITATED, but other than that, what’s not to like?

        • David Ashton's Gravatar David Ashton
          July 3, 2017 - 6:58 am | Permalink

          @ Bramble (2)

          Deuteronomy 28 & Isaiah 60 play their important part in Jewish religious psychology, and their “supersession” by Christian spiritual universalism is often resented as ipso facto “antisemitic”.

          By the way, I have never “waxed lyrical” about paganism or tree-worship, but have previously noted various savior hero & rising god traditions, in northern and southern Europe, receptive to Christian themes, and in the latter case more than ready for a fresh, culturally elevating operatic revival (cf. Edward Elgar, “The Apostles” (1903); Philip Oakeshott, “Jesus on Stage: John’s Gospel & Greek Tragedy” [2015]).

          The Muslim invasion of Europe was directly mainly at Christians, not pagan idolaters (as in India); and we can indeed be grateful for the later efforts of Charles Martel and also a Society named after him.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            July 3, 2017 - 9:40 am | Permalink

            Elgar’s Apostles, an oratorio (ever hear it?), is as much an opera as John’s Gospel is a poetic drama. Even a few (((Wikipedians))) know that the forms differ and how.

  2. June 27, 2017 - 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Before me, courtesy of this fine essay penned by Tobias Langdon, I ponder three closed doors, one labeled Suicide and other two Accident and Murder.

    I remind myself of real-world forensic cases in which someone discovers, sooner or later, a lifeless human body or one so perilously close to Death’s Door that its demise seems certain. An investigation ensues, first involving specialists in pathology and toxicology, others focused on the scene, its contents and elements. Experts in human factors and biomechanics may join the impromptu, multidisciplinary adventure in science and engineering. Sleuthing, my dear Doctor Watson, think of it as “mental sleuthing”.

    In the meantime, and in mean times do we live, legal types also become integral to the “investigation”: law enforcement officers, district attorneys, other lawyers representing “interested parties”, investigators from insurance companies, especially those potentially liable “interested parties”. Statements get collected, interrogations of “persons of interest” and “suspects” proceed, and, depending on the identity, worth (alive or dead), and the eventual reported “cause and manner of death”, detectives and investigators proceed to roam near and far and wide in search of even more data. Eventually, criminal charges get filed (or not); lawsuits get launched claiming loss and demanding compensation, even punitive damages; and still the question may persist unanswered by science or other rational discipline: Suicide, Accident, or Murder?

    In the case of “Kultural Marxism” (my spelling), I lean toward picking the door labeled Murder. I myself can easily rule out “ignorance”, “incompetence”, and “stupidity”. Murder is a “specific intent crime”. Evidence for deliberation and malice aforethought seems abundant. I think it no Accident at all, therefore. On the contrary, written and recorded predictions and boasts of fate and consequences abound!

    Finally, I suspect those responsible will ensure their own safety, far removed from the scene of the crime. They seem not suicidal in the least, nor desirous of being fingered, then collared by the long arm of the Law — at least, not any time soon.

  3. John King's Gravatar John King
    June 27, 2017 - 2:14 pm | Permalink

    I first realized that Richard had some serious lapses in his ability to think in evolutionary terms when he said somewhere that it was irrational to be afraid of death. Watching an ant trying to avoid being stepped on should have taught Richard that this fear has nothing to do with irrationality.

    • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
      June 27, 2017 - 10:20 pm | Permalink

      The survival instinct is the strongest instinct in all living beings, and yes that includes fear of death. One may call that “irrational”, a person claiming to be an “evolutionary scientist” should understand that this fundamental instinct is the major mechanism in evolution. Collectively, it is in order to survive under new circumstances that species develop new qualities and thus evolve. Individually, beasts of prey prefer to run for their life rather than be devoured by a predator. But perhaps Dawkins condemns that as “irrational” ?

    • axander's Gravatar axander
      June 28, 2017 - 1:29 am | Permalink

      ‘Fear’ of death is clearly an adaptive trait. Irrespective of how it may be manifest.

      • June 28, 2017 - 9:50 pm | Permalink

        Reading Nietzsche at the age of 70 years, I suggest you look into the concept “WILL TO LIVE”, which, upon introspection, I think trumps “fear of death” by an order of magnitude or more!

    • HK Wills's Gravatar HK Wills
      July 4, 2017 - 4:09 pm | Permalink

      I think Dawkins was probably referring to the human fear of what comes after the moment of death: death in the sense of eternity not the moment when the organism no longer functions. Certainly the process of dying can be wretched and prolonged and it is rational to fear it. However it is irrational to fear what one cannot experience. Since, to atheists and others, experiencing anything requires a living functioning brain it follows one cannot experience death – again in the eternal sense. It is also certainly rational for evolution, or as Dawkins would put it, the genes, to equip their survival machines with a strong hard wired aversion to death. Those with it would overtime leave more descendants.

  4. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    June 27, 2017 - 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Everything exists in 3D. That said, DNA information storage is actually linear. I am chemist and know this much. The two pairs carry the same information and are there only to autocorrect and help with replication.

  5. FrankC's Gravatar FrankC
    June 27, 2017 - 4:45 pm | Permalink

    I like to refer to the three Abrahamic religions as the Three Evil Sisters. Modern Christianity de-balls the west; Judaism (through Jewish activists-primarily in academia and the media) subverts the west; and Islam (through Muslims) physically invades the west.

  6. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    June 27, 2017 - 5:05 pm | Permalink

    Another excellent article regarding race denial, and irrational liberal intellectual illusions. To cut to the chase, White liberalism is essentially a racial death wish !

  7. Adjudged's Gravatar Adjudged
    June 27, 2017 - 9:33 pm | Permalink

    Neptune was mathematically predicted, but Uranus was observed – not predicted.

  8. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    June 28, 2017 - 12:07 am | Permalink

    Good article. I do, however, find the fish-to-fisherman thesis as likely as the Charlie Hebdo one.

  9. White Devil's Gravatar White Devil
    June 28, 2017 - 5:48 am | Permalink

    An excellent article. I agree with 100% of it. I refer to liberalism as the “cult of left wing thought”. For that’s what it is: just as irrational and arrogant as any religion.

  10. Nice Guy Eddie's Gravatar Nice Guy Eddie
    June 28, 2017 - 10:12 am | Permalink

    Dawkins, despite his supposedly fearless reputation, is in my opinion a bit of a coward. Like many of the so-called “new atheists” he condemns the genocidal god of the “Old Testament” – which everyone of course identifies with the Christian bible – but fails to draw attention to the very relevant fact that those scriptures are first and foremost Jewish/Hebrew in nature.

    An example of how reluctant Dawkins is to directly confront the Jewish character of the religious tome he hates so much can be seen in this BBC Big Questions programme from 2011:

    Is The Bible Still Relevant Today?

    Starting at 21:00 the presenter, Nicky Campbell, quotes Dawkins criticizing the “misogynistic, homophobic, racist, genocidal” nature of “the god of the Old Testament”, and Dawkins immediately turns the conversation away from the murderous Jewish deity to “the god of the New Testament” who forgives mankind for its sins by offering up his own son as sacrifice. According to Dawkins this is “the most disgusting idea you ever heard” – more disgusting apparently than the hatred, intolerance, violence and mass murder of innocents recounted ad nauseam in the Jewish scriptures.

    You might have thought that such an intrepid warrior for truth and rationality would have turned to the woman sitting next to him, rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, daughter of the despicable child abuser Greville Janner, and scolded her for following such a wicked religion – but no, like so many others in the public eye Dawkins knows which side his bagel is buttered on.

    It’s notable how easy a ride the rabbi gets not just from Dawkins but from the other panelists, the presenter and even the audience, one of the benefits no doubt of belonging to the “chosen people”.

    Another example of Dawkins’ reluctance to offend the Jews is an article on his website headlined “Why don’t I criticize Israel?” where among other gems he hilariously claims that “So, when we’re talking about the consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least of the least offenders.” Tell that to the Palestinians.

    “World’s top thinker” – don’t make me laugh! But hey, he’s an Aries, so I guess we must make allowances. :)

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      July 1, 2017 - 10:42 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for this highly revealing account of Dawkins in action.

  11. DH's Gravatar DH
    June 28, 2017 - 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Micro evolution is true and observable.
    Macro evolution is not. Never proved or observed.
    We do not come from fish. Fish do not come from bacteria. Bacteria do not come from unicelular organisms. And these were not created randomly and spontaneously out of dead matter. Believing that is a religion.

    • Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
      June 28, 2017 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

      It’s wasn’t spontaneous… It’s was rigorously pre-predicted.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 28, 2017 - 3:07 pm | Permalink

      Macro evolution is not [true and observable]. Never proved or observed.

      I wasn’t yet ten years old (this was in the early fifties) when I saw a headline in one of the two or three newspapers my father read daily. It ran somewhat like this: “Archaeologists Claim ‘Missing Link’ Has Been Found.”” My first question to the old man, “what’s an archaeologist?” got me an age-appropriate answer. My second question, “what’s the missing link?” drew this reply: “nothing to hold your breath about.”

      Now, almost sixty-five years later, it’s still the soundest advice he ever gave me.

  12. JPS's Gravatar JPS
    June 28, 2017 - 1:31 pm | Permalink
  13. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    June 28, 2017 - 1:56 pm | Permalink

    Mathematics is not final judge to prove that something exist or that something is “scientifically” proven. The fundamental function of math is to measure, to know the dimensions of something, its quantitative value or to create models of procedure to build some thing. Indeed we don’t need the mathemodel to prove that human races exist but mathematics has been used exactly as “final scientific evidence” and also/specially to delays what seems too obvious to be denied. In the Protocols of Zion have a chapter where “‘they”‘ talked about “to create theories to distract the ‘brighter’ among the goym”.

    • June 28, 2017 - 6:13 pm | Permalink

      Science proves nothing — by both philosophy and design. Godel put to rest the yeoman’s effort of Whitehead and Russell to show otherwise (Principia Mathematica). In fact, the good Reverends Bayes and Dodgson pointed the way long before! Of interest in this context, Rubin and Rosenbaum [Harvard statisticians] developed a practical method of incredible worth to epidemiologists (propensity score analysis): Whereas correlation does not necessarily predict causation, causation necessarily predicts correlation! I myself had occasion to apply that (now) mainstay to real-world problems, putting mathematical models of “proposed causation” to the test!

  14. Ger Tzedek's Gravatar Ger Tzedek
    June 28, 2017 - 8:43 pm | Permalink

    There was a time little before year 1000 when king Vladimir the Great of Kiev considered converting to Judaism. In personal conversations, I have often heard prominent Jews say that their history would have been totally different had that happened.

    King Vladimir — Where is your homeland?
    Jews — In Jerusalem. God chastised us and spread us over many countries.
    King Vladimir — You have been chastised by God. How dare you teach morals to anybody? We don’t want to lose our fatherland.

    How prescient. Khazaria converted to Judaism and eventually Khazarians lost their fatherland. USA can be thought of like modern day Khazaria. USA was once a country 100% owned by WASP who made it great. Jews weaseled USA out, and now WASP are yet another bunch of rootless cosmopolitans. Jews have 1/3 of Supreme Court, 1/3 of “Federal” Reserve and much of academia. That’s why the finances, laws and academia have become pig’s breakfast. And how about WASP? Singled out for extinction, already disempowered.

    I have realized that the Chinese are very well aware of the displacement of WASP. They daily tell me stories about the best universities in the US, Ivy League and other prime universities. They only hire half-assed Jews in top positions. They create the position for the person. They still need slaves who pulls the chart, whence they still need Whites in humble positions. If you watch the online MIT course in quantum mechanics, WASP Allan Adams is a master of it. The same cannot be said for (((Barton Zwiebach))).

  15. Les's Gravatar Les
    June 29, 2017 - 6:32 am | Permalink

    Richard Dawkins refuses to be sceptical of the holocaust even though the official story is full of holes. That is what made me sceptical of him. You could say that holocaustianity is his religion.
    https://forum.codoh.com/viewforum.php?f=2

  16. Dave's Gravatar Dave
    June 29, 2017 - 4:38 pm | Permalink

    My favorite Dawkins books are The Selfish Gene, and The Extended Phenotype. A major theme throughout both books is “successful organisms favor those in relation to their shared fraction of genes”, (cucks go extinct). There must be a large fraction of genes devoted to kin detection for the purpose of being nice to them over anyone else. (The family, social structure (tribes vs. lone wandering) are two examples of Extended Phenotypes, like a spider web or beaver dam.) I cannot understand how he can say with a straight face some of things he says about the irrationality of racism. Racism at it’s most primitive level is arguably the foundation of his major works. No one is saying murder the ‘others’, but to say it’s irrational to want England English is absurd.

    If you haven’t read those two books I highly recommend them. Dawkins is a brilliant writer and those books red pilled me long before I was politically red pilled. Paired with Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy they provide a wealth of solid physics and historically based logic for the Alt Right.

    • June 29, 2017 - 5:58 pm | Permalink

      There be some (too many, too well organized to my mind) who warrant the murder of “others”. Jump off that cliff, or I shall execute you, one way or another. Else, work for me until your day be done, once and for all Time.

      I contend that molecules do not move men. As Nietzsche portended — no pretending about Zarathustra! — atoms, their aggregates, and their conglomerates do indeed APPEAR to propel and and otherwise motivate lesser men, even the few of the “higher man” among us.

      SPIRIT, MIND, and BODY, a holy triangle explicative of so much — nay! a Universal Law. Predicated on philosophy alien to humanity, the “selfish gene” and the rest convey only nonsense, unless you abandon that bequeathed to you, knowledge and awareness of your true worth, a spiritual being having a “human experience”.

      If you ever have the opportunity, a single, unanticipated chance in time, to choose your Teacher judiciously if not wisely, then know that such moments rarely come, even more infrequently twice in a human lifetime. After 70 years on this planet, I so attest.

  17. Ritual's Gravatar Ritual
    June 29, 2017 - 5:43 pm | Permalink

    I think Mark Twain in “The Tragedy of Puddin’ Head Wilson” was as savvy as H.L. Mencken on race issues.

  18. Jack Highlands's Gravatar Jack Highlands
    June 29, 2017 - 10:34 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for this excellent article, Mr. Langdon. 34 years ago, reading ‘The Selfish Gene’ had a major influence on my life and though I did not become an evolutionary psychologist as I thought I might at that time, there is a direct line from there to the profession I did pursue, and more significantly, the crimethinker I eventually became.

    In the last ten years, I have frequently taken note of Dawkins’ moral and intellectual cowardice, which you have well described. The frustration was augmented by the knowledge that this was a man, more than almost any other, who could have done so much for the cause of the truth about human biodiversity, yet let base self-interest be his guide instead.

    I think fear of suffering the fate of James Watson has been his major motivator in the wrong direction, and interest in, and tacit acknowledgment of, the kind of work done by Cochran and Harpending, his minor motivator in the right direction. Unfortunately, fear won out. Unfortunately too, he might not realize that, had Watson shown more strength of character, his reputation would have suffered far less than it did (ie, never apologize, it only raises (((their))) thirst for blood).

    One small point of grammar: “I’m not one of those who thinks” is actually correct. The first person pronoun and the negative are distracting but the verb does go with ‘one’, as in “one of those who thinks,” or even more simply, “one who thinks.”

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      June 30, 2017 - 10:42 pm | Permalink

      “I’m not one of those who thinks” is actually correct.

      No, it isn’t. The verb does not “go with ‘one.'” Put otherwise, you cannot simply posit an identity of meaning between “one who thinks” and “one of those who think,” discard the elements of syntax and word choice that you consider a distraction, and declare the matter settled. The English language doesn’t work that way, except in public education.

      The relevant part of the original quoted sentence with Langdon’s grammatical disclaimer reads thus:

      I’m not one of those who thinks [sic] that intelligence is unmeasurable …

      As I say, you have declared the clause as reproduced grammatical by changing the words; that is not a legitimate procedure. What is legitimate, however, is merely to reorder the words as they stand in order to make syntax and structure plain. Such a reordering yields this:

      Of those who thinks [sic] that intelligence is unmeasurable, I’m not one …

      QED.

  19. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    June 30, 2017 - 9:51 am | Permalink

    I cannot take Richard Dawkins, as an evolutionary biologist, seriously. That Neanderthal DNA is absent in Africans leaves us with 2 possibilities: 1) the “out of Africa” theory is wrong; or 2) Neanderthals were not human but the Africans bred with them. Add to that, recent discoveries that place the oldest pre-humans in Europe
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm
    we can hopefully see the last of the out of Africa theory.
    As others have noted much of what passes for evolution is not evolution, but adaption. Plants battling insect infestation do not become carniverous plants like the sundew, much less evolve into animals.
    While atheists may tout the big bang theory and Dawkins style evolution, they have explanation neither of the origins of what exploded, nor why there are different chemicals. In other words, how do inorganic materials or elements evolve?

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      July 1, 2017 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

      As others have noted much of what passes for evolution is not evolution, but adaption.

      Amen.

      Perhaps you too have seen something that I noticed (with a reaction compounding repugnance and wrath) as long ago as the nineties: that “evolve,” with its hardly subtle implication of scientifically inevitable processes at work, now bids fair to replace “change” as the default choice in the family of verbs denoting “to make or become different.” When CNN or the New York Times refers to the “evolution of the West into a white-minority region,” it’s plain that propaganda is the force driving word choice. But when a (((news))) radio personality refers to “convenience stores evolving into drugstores and supermarkets,” determining the proportions of propaganda and pig-ignorance in play is a bit tougher.

      These and thousands of similar Orwellian misadventures have made me regret that my younger and more able bodied white fellow citizens spend so little time studying the concussive effects of a properly wired block of C-4 on the headquarters skyscrapers of CBS and the New York Times here in Manhattan.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        July 2, 2017 - 8:25 am | Permalink

        Now that you mention it, it is one of of many long term annoyances I have had about (((newspeak))). Others include opening stories (fairy tales?) with patently false narratives to promote our demise, and ignoring rampant black on White “hate” crime while declaring any less than pleasant White interaction with a non-White, as an example of White supremacism.

    • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
      July 5, 2017 - 7:26 am | Permalink

      Fighting pitbullls and friendly labrador dogs for the blind are completely different in behaviour, which clearly arises from the different wiring of the breeds, which in turn can only be explained by each breed having a different set of genes from the gene pool. The differences are very profound and only took a relatively short time to arise by natural selection – without any NEW genes appearing. ie all the differences can be explained without invoking evolution.
      The point of this is that you simply do not need evolution (involving NEW genes) to explain differences in humans. All you need is natural selection. So there is no need for an ardent atheist and a Bible-believing Creationist to disagree that people ARE different just as much or more than dog breeds are.

      • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
        July 6, 2017 - 6:33 am | Permalink

        Your example is problematic. Dog breeds, like goldfish are created. My brother in-law bred Rottweilers, and a friend bred and raced sled dogs. Both put down pups that did not have the desired temperament. What you see in dog breeds, even pit bulls, is un-natural selection, because virtually all of the non-desired temperament is eliminated in litters. As a child, a neighbour’s “friendly” curly haired non-breeding Labrador was anything but, and my cousin’s “friendly” St. Bernard was put down for biting kids.
        Behaviour, whether human or animal, can be caused by the lack or excess of certain chemicals or micro nutrients in the body, irrespective of genes. The same is true for disease processes. Homeopathy is based on this principle. Dr. Terri Wahls cured her MS with a “Paleo” diet that she had to find the right foods for her body.
        The matter is much more complex than the simplistic natural selection theory.

        • July 7, 2017 - 11:52 am | Permalink

          @Curmudgeon and @pterodactyl and @ T.J., too
          I perceive that we tend to miss a link both in thought-full-ness and in “consciousness”, namely, our employing of Mind to understand All, including Mind ItsSelf. Beyond Nature and Nurture, we have Intelligence, likely generated in a triangular relationship described traditionally as SELF-SOUL, MIND, BODY. Dogs have “mind”, too, I assert, if only (as some postulate) an “overmind” or, as I have discovered, Big Dog. Let us not forget, there being “No accidents in the Universe”: “GOD” is “dog” spelled backward in uppercase letters! Better than a piece of dung, any day, Zen Buddhist humor notwithstanding.

  20. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    July 2, 2017 - 5:06 am | Permalink

    “is that scientists use reason and method, not instinct and other forms of biological automation.”
    This is certainly how it is meant to be done, but how often is it done this way?

    “neo-Darwinism (which does[work])”

    This itself is not as settled as many ‘believe’ and ‘believe’ is the right word, as this is an area where belief systems and science meet each other, and in such a zone true science is easily ousted. And I say this as an agnostic or non-believer who is open to ALL theories and who does not jump and then cling to the one that bolsters a belief system, when in this field (of where we came from) it is better to say ‘we do not know’. We should be open to other theories, and blocking out evidence that questions the theory of nat sel evolution serves to prevent/or delay the application of true science, as if nat sel evolution fails as a theory, it forces us to look for alternatives.

    There is plenty of evidence to say that natural selection and gradual genetic change over a long time could NOT have produced all current life forms. This is done by making predictions from the theory, and then testing them, and every time a prediction is not fulfilled it weakens the theory or even disproves it.

    One prediction is that dogs will eventually talk, as their is intense selection to be more like humans. Instinctively we feel this will not happen as we suspect that all we are doing in dog breeding is taking them to the extremes that are already provided by the current gene pool, and that they can go no further. Nat sel evolution predicts there is no such limit. In a million years of time if dogs are dogs still and still cannot talk, this will be another unfulfilled prediction.

    This does not however detract from the arguments in the article. For example, pitbulls and labradors are clearly different breeds that are different in behaviour and this is from the wiring that comes from the genes. If you raise a pibul pup in a litter of labradors, it will still grow up with different behaviour from its wiring. It will still be a ‘lower’ animal whilst a labrador is a ‘higher’ animal one in terms of social behaviour, cooperation, and higher thought processes. A pitbul sees another dog and thinks ‘I will fight it for no reason’ and other dogs add extra thoughts – how big is the other dog, did my master say no fighting etc, ie higher behaviour in the sense of more sensible and sophisticated. So clearly lower behaviour and higher behaviour has a genetic basis. For example, prisoners think of the present not the future. This is a trait in their wiring.

    Another prediction of evolution by nat sele – the theory predicts that the initial conditions in which life originated and developed can be reproduced in the lab (any energy supply, any chemicals, any environment). In the 70s this was hailed as an imminent breakthrough time and time again, ie a confirmation that spontaneous evolution was possible. The holy grail of evolution – yet this prediction of the theory has not materialised. Huge resources were committed to it. The scientist who did this (made spontaneous collection of microbes/genetic material that reproduce themselves and become more complex) – such a scientist would be as famous as Watson and Crick and would receive prizes and adoration. But this prediction has never been fulfilled, despite all the efforts.

    There are many other predictions of the theory, also unfulfilled. The point is, they are never debated or discussed. In the same way the notion of men and women being intrinsically different in behaviour is never discussed in university social science courses. In the same way that could criminals possibly be criminals due to bad genes is never discussed in criminology courses. In the same way that evidence for and against AGW is not allowed in university courses. All these theories (evolution by nat sele, innate sex differences, AGW) have walls of protection around them to PROTECT them from proper scientific scrutiny. We can easily see the walls around AGW and men/women differences, and we laugh and mock as scientists make fools of themselves as they say with a straight face to their students ‘the only reason more men drive lorries and operate cranes is due to society’s prejudices’. We laugh at their anti-science attitude and at how they have readily abandoned true science due to their politics, but then why do we suddenly trust them when they also declare ‘evolution is a fact because most of them believe it’. Surely the fact that they never give phD grants to anyone who wishes to question it, or publish any articles in their journals to challenge it, surely this sets off alarm bells?

    There is a theory that evolution was pre-programmed so that new genes became ‘revealed’ or exposed that were already there and waiting to emerge at the next stage, so this is still evolution but not by nat sel. Why do we never hear about this? Many Russian scientists actually support this theory today. Their motive might be dubious, but the theory is worth exploring. They like it as it bolsters Russian Lamarck as oppose to British Darwin, (environment is the trigger to release the next stage, so environment is the guide as Lamarck suggested) yet at the same time they tie themselves in knots due to their atheism. This is called pre-programmed evolution. If humans wanted to colonise life on anther planet, this seems the best way to do it.

    As I said, I am not a believer or an atheist as it is valid to say ‘we don’t know’. An approach we should be exploring more is mathematical explanations. For example, the genetic code for a human is a 4 billion digit number. This is in effect putting us in the category of being definable by numbers, and numbers can be found by trial and error. There is another number for any extinct creature that ever existed. These numbers are not huge and can fit in any modern laptop. If we
    have a computer to simulate the chemistry and physics of our world, we could ‘discover’ these numbers. Even a simple laptop could eventually discover them – provided the simulation was accurate and there was enough time. This does not even require a higher intelligence, just as the old Spectrum computers from 40 years ago with their 48K memories could ‘discover’ winning moves in chess and beat an expert. These simulators can achieve outcomes higher than their own intelligence, merely by discovering what already exists, instead of working it out. The Spectrum looked ahead and ‘discovered’ winning moves without actually ever thinking about them. The codes for all life forms could be discovered in the same way with certain provisos (time, accuracy of simulator) even though the simulator/computer had no idea why these gene sequences produced an animal. They just had to pick out these pre-existing numbers from the complete set.

    Another avenue to explore is that of the late John Wheeler’s ‘genesis by observership’ which suggest the universe is mathematical in basis and can only exist as long as it is observed by humans, and this suggest that is our purpose – to allow reality to exist.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      July 3, 2017 - 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Creation “versus” evolution? How about both? Look at technological innovation. The higher evolved from the lower- TV from radio- yet both were created. How about Creative Evolution?

      The insane mutation theory says screw-ups can act as a quasi-creative power.
      One cannot make a distinction between the living and the dead- especially when one believes that there is no consciousness, and that consciousness can have no causal efficacy. My big idea- life is a process of taking raw materials, and making something out of those raw materials. Same for evolution. There is no passive life, and there is no passive evolution.

      CONSCIOUSNESS PLUS RAW MATERIALS EQUALS CREATIVE EVOLUTION.

      Maxwell’s Demon is of major interest. [James Clerk] Maxwell claimed that entropy could be reversed without violation of the second law of thermodynamics, as no work would be done. That is, chaos could be de-randomized without going against laws of nature. This demon works with similarities and differences- so does consciousness. Indeed, the two may be one and the same.

      https://www.google.com/#q=maxwell's+Demon

      It has been decades since I thought about this topic.

      Now, I spend my days thinking about jews, negroes, and mexicans.

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        July 5, 2017 - 7:20 am | Permalink

        T.J. If more people though about the things you do, the West would not be in such a mess. Unfortunately the young people are not a bit worried about these things, as their TV tells them everyone is the same, and the only problems there are arise from white racism.
        As for entropy – within a bin of decaying filth, maggots emerge and then flies. These represent increasing order (a fly) arising from a system with less order to start with (the bin of rubbish and a fly’s eggs)

  21. July 7, 2017 - 9:23 am | Permalink

    I read recently that snakes originally had legs but due to the evolutionary process, lost them, are these people nuts! Would I be happy to lose my legs and slide around on my belly? Could someone please explain evolution to me, a product of a Jesuit upbringing, [or should I say a lucky escapee], in simple terms, for instance, find me a fossilised short-necked giraffe, just curious….

Comments are closed.