The Abject Failure of White Nationalist William L. Pierce

I’ve argued up to now that no philosophical, political or mental challenge could make sense…

I’ve argued up to now that no philosophical, political or mental challenge could make sense with out what Immanuel Kant referred to as sensible purpose (the categorical crucial), and sensible purpose can not actually exist with out metaphysical Logos, the essence of something affordable or rational within the universe.

I’ve additionally argued that any particular person who ignorantly or intentionally dismisses or ignores sensible purpose in his challenge will inexorably find yourself propounding inner contradictions, incoherency, illogical leaps, and typically full nonsense.

That’s what occurred to Darwin, and his mental kids have by no means recovered from that express blunder. What primarily saved the philosophical initiatives of thinkers like Hegel is that they knew how Logos performs out in historical past and submitted themselves to it. Hegel himself referred to as this “the crafty of purpose.”[1]

I’ve written quite a few articles on these very points.[2]However through the years I quickly found that some observers, together with the late William L. Pierce, progressively grew to become victims of their very own incoherent ideology largely as a result of they began with the premise that morality performs subsequent to no function of their enterprise.

The actions that these individuals have based are nonetheless failing miserably not as a result of they have been unable to supply individuals who perceive the political local weather, however quite as a result of their metaphysical rules have been constructed on irreconcilable contradictions. These irreconcilable contradictions ultimately led their progenitors to their philosophical and mental loss of life.

For instance, Pierce started his e book Who We Are (a compilation of essays and opinions, not a scholarly treatise) by saying, “Within the Starting was the Cosmos—and is and ever shall be. The Cosmos is the Entire, the All-encompassing.”[3]

The assertion explains nothing and is fraught with logical and philosophical errors. In truth, it goes towards what fashionable science itself is now saying. To say that the universe “is and ever shall be” is a blatant denial that the universe started to exist, and to axiomatically assert that “to start with was the Cosmos” after which say that the Cosmos “is and ever shall be” is contradictory. If the Cosmos “is an ever shall be,” then it is mindless to claim that “to start with was the Cosmos.”

Clearly Pierce, who by the way in which was an assistant professor of physics on the Oregon State College, was unable to meet up with what mathematical physicists themselves have been saying throughout his lifetime. As Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose themselves acknowledged again in 1996: “virtually everybody now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a starting on the large bang.”[4]

Extra not too long ago, famous cosmologists Alex Vilenkin of Tufts College has acknowledged: “It’s mentioned that an argument is what convinces affordable males and a proof is what it takes to persuade even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can not conceal behind the opportunity of a past-eternal universe. There isn’t a escape, they should face the issue of a cosmic starting.”[5]

Many scientists have been bewildered by the invention that the universe started to exist as a result of it clearly pointed towards a conclusion they’d been making an attempt to keep away from. Not solely did it compel them to rethink their theories, however it additionally implied a easy logical deduction: no matter begins to exist has a trigger; the universe started to exist, subsequently the universe has a trigger.

If the universe has a trigger, then that trigger can’t be inside the universe exactly as a result of that will be contradictory. This evidently destroys pantheism, which states that God and nature are the identical. If God and nature are the identical, then we’re again to a seemingly beginningless universe. The unhappy factor once more is that William Pierce was a staunch pantheist, and he couldn’t notice that the system itself violates each science and logic.

Whereas physicist Paul Davies agrees that the scientific knowledge (most particularly from his personal fields of curiosity, which embrace arithmetic, physics, and astronomy) counsel that the universe had a starting, he rejects the conclusion of what British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle would have referred to as “a super-intellect” as a result of, in his personal phrases, “I by no means appreciated the concept of divine tinkering.”[6]

For the reason that everlasting universe speculation has now been broadly deserted due to its lack of scientific and logical rigor, we’re left with two potential explanations: both the universe created itself, which is a contradiction in phrases, or another person did the job.

Sadly, many good minds have fallen into the entice of what I name mental perversity. Thinker Daniel Dennett declares in his e book Breaking the Spell that the universe “creates itself ex nihilo,” and that, he believes, is “the last word bootstrapping trick.”[7]

Fairly frankly, it’s a bootstrapping trick, and Dennett will get caught on that trick as a result of he needs the origin of this “self-creation” to be “non-miraculous”—with no supernatural intervention in any respect.

Richard Dawkins mentioned one thing fairly comparable. In reply to the query “How do you imagine life itself started?,” he responded, “The origin of life has received to be one thing self-replicating. We don’t know what it was, however no matter it was, it was self-replicating.” When the interviewer requested him to outline what he meant by self-replicating, Dawkins mentioned, “It has to develop after which cut up, in order that it reproduces daughter items like itself.”[8]

Stephen Hawking, in his current e book The Grand Design, ascribes to that speculation, saying, “As a result of there’s a legislation of gravity, the universe can and can create itself out of nothing.”[9] Peter Adkins of Oxford likewise provides allegiance to this precept, calling it the “Cosmic Bootstrap.” For Adkins, “space-time generates its personal mud within the strategy of its personal self-assembly.”[10]

These concepts are spurious when taken to their logical conclusions. As Oxford mathematician and thinker of science John C. Lennox notes in his critique of Hawking’s view,

“If we are saying that ‘X creates Y,’ we presuppose the existence of X within the first place so as to convey Y into existence. That may be a easy matter of understanding what the phrases ‘X creates Y’ imply. If, subsequently, we are saying ‘X creates X,’ we suggest that we’re presupposing the existence of X so as to account for the existence of X.

“That is clearly self-contradictory and thus logically incoherent—even when we put X equal to the universe! To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its personal existence feels like one thing out of Alice in Wonderland, not science.”[11]

The “self-replicating” argument is necessary to many as a result of it demonstrates how far some individuals are keen to bend purpose and logic so as to justify their preexisting beliefs.

William Pierce was no exempt from the irrationality that pervades Darwinism, which Michael Ruse himself has now referred to as a “faith.”[12] He once more posited that “We will look again some 15 billion years altogether, to a singular state of the Cosmos, when it existed as a primordial ‘atom’ of infinite temperature and density.”[13]

Once more, how is that a proof for the existence of the universe and even atom within the first place? How did we get from no atom to atom? Any severe logician will inform you that even when we return far sufficient, it can’t be atoms all the way in which as a result of this can result in infinite regress, which itself is absurd.

So Piece can not summon atom so as to clarify the very existence of the factor he’s making an attempt to show. It’s a round argument. As our pricey pal and cogent author E. Michael Jones put it final October, “To say that ‘Atoms fashioned’ was the scientific equal to saying ‘Shit occurs.’”[14]


What we’re saying right here is that William Pierce’s challenge was not likely grounded in sensible purpose or logical consistency however in an ideology which ended up crippling him philosophically and intellectually. For this reason his e book Who We Are is morally repugnant and virtually nugatory.

As E. Michael Jones once more identified, you merely can not have ethnos with out Logos,[15] and folks like Pierce have been making an attempt to erect an ideological edifice with no basis in metaphysical Logos.

Since Pierce didn’t floor his challenge in Logos, he shortly fell below the spell of racial/racist ideology, which is at all times the temptation when individuals grow to be disillusioned with Zionism and Jewish subversive actions and on the similar time embrace Darwinism, a system which is arguably incompatible with the ethical order or sensible purpose.

Pierce’s incapacity to see issues the way in which they are surely was fairly disappointing, however that was anticipated in a approach as a result of his mental father, Darwin, intentionally ignored goal morality in his challenge as properly.

Based on Darwin, says historian of science Janet Browne, “The pure world has no ethical validity and function…”[16] The idea of morality once more was relative to Darwin.[17] It was not that he couldn’t acknowledge morality as a vibrant a part of human beings.[18] No, it was that he metaphysically rejected Logos and swiftly invented a system which didn’t permit him to see issues the way in which they are surely.

See also  SOROS GANG: The Genesis of NATO’s Coup in Ukraine

Darwin then started to slip in inner contradictions and inconsistencies in a short time.[19] “At some future interval,” he wrote within the Descent of Man, “not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will virtually actually exterminate and substitute all through the world the savage races.”[20]

If Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is true, then aren’t the Zionists doing factor by exterminating what they see as “the savages”? If one can decide “the fittest” by “survivability,” then individuals like William L. Pierce want to return to phrases with the ethical implications of Darwinism, which, as Darwinian thinker James Rachels himself factors out, problem the very basis of ethical values and duties.[21] In the same vein, famous thinker of science Michael Ruse didn’t hesitate to write down,

“I recognize when someone says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they suppose they’re referring above and past themselves…Nonetheless, to a Darwinian evolutionist it may be seen that such reference is actually with out basis. Morality is simply an assist to survival and copy…an ephemeral product of the evolutionary course of, simply as are different variations. It has no existence or being past this, and any deeper which means is illusory.”[22]

The late evolutionary biologist William Provine of Cornell College added: “Let me summarize my views on what fashionable evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and I need to say that these are principally Darwin’s views…There isn’t a final basis for ethics, no final which means in life, and no free will for people, both.”

Take it from Darwin himself: “The pure world has no ethical validity or function.”[23] If Ruse and Provine are proper, then individuals like Pierce are in bother. Extra importantly, if Darwin is true, then individuals like Pierce ought to love the Zionists exactly as a result of Darwin himself predicted that “the strongest” will win by way of perennial battle. However as a result of he was intellectually blind, Pierce didn’t know that he was not directly deconstructing Darwin by saying,

“Ultimately, although colonialism in its day had made some Englishmen very wealthy, nothing was left besides the superstition and the softness. And due to that superstition and softness, it’s now the Indians and the opposite conquered races who’re colonizing England with out opposition from the English.”[24]

Nicely, ought to that be an issue to a constant Darwinist? Pierce and others ought to have paid extra consideration to G. Ok. Chesterton, who forcefully argued:

“As a politician, [the new rebel] will cry out that conflict is a waste of life, after which, as a thinker, that every one life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, after which show by the best philosophical rules that the peasant should have killed himself. . . .

“The person of this college goes first to a political assembly, the place he complains that savages are handled as in the event that they have been beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific assembly, the place he proves that they virtually are beasts.

“Briefly, the fashionable revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is at all times engaged in undermining his personal mines. In his e book on politics he assaults males for trampling on morality; in his e book on ethics he assaults morality for trampling on males. Due to this fact the fashionable man in revolt has grow to be virtually ineffective for all functions of revolt. By rebelling towards all the pieces he has misplaced his proper to insurgent towards something.”[25]


When the Origin of Species got here out in 1859, a Manchester newspaper shortly realized that Darwin was implicitly perpetuating the concept that “may is true” and that “each dishonest tradesman can be proper.” Darwin disagreed with no severe justification. But one 12 months earlier than he died, Charles Darwin proved that his critics have been proper all alongside. He mentioned,

“I might present battle on pure choice having achieved and doing extra for the progress of civilization than you appear inclined to confess. Keep in mind what threat the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries in the past, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and the way ridiculous such an thought now could be!

“The extra civilized so-called Caucasian races have overwhelmed the Turkish hole within the wrestle for existence. Seeking to the world at no very distant date, what an limitless variety of the decrease races can have been eradicated by the upper civilized races all through the world.”[26]

Darwin once more declared on the finish of his Origin of Species: “Thus, from the conflict of nature, from famine and loss of life, probably the most exalted object which we’re able to conceiving, particularly, the manufacturing of the upper animals, straight follows.”[27]

So whether or not Darwin and his mental kids prefer it or not, Social Darwinism flows seamlessly from Darwin’s personal ideological basis, and this depraved enterprise has wrought havoc each in Europe and America within the Twenties and 30s.[28]


Each Plato and Aristotle established the concept that human beings reside in an ethical and complete universe. This universe, they argued, will be understood by rational creatures like us. For them, rationality inexorably results in sensible purpose, and sensible purpose is just one other phrase for morality.

“Ethical advantage,” says Aristotle, “is a state of character involved with selection,” and is subsequently “sensible.”[29] Alternative, Aristotle continues, “can not exist with out purpose and mind or with no ethical state.”[30]

Individuals who can “see what is nice for themselves and what’s good for males typically” do possess one thing referred to as “sensible knowledge.”[31] This sensible knowledge “points instructions, since its finish is what should be achieved or to not be achieved.”[32] Knowledge, not simply plain data, “should plainly be probably the most completed of the types of data.”[33]

Aristotle emphasizes many times that “the work of man is achieved solely in accordance with sensible knowledge in addition to with ethical advantage.”[34] In different phrases, if sensible knowledge is banned, then man would shortly fall into irrationality and contradiction. For Aristotle, “it’s not potential to be good within the strict sense with out sensible knowledge, or virtually clever with out ethical advantage.”[35]

With out sensible knowledge, or sensible purpose, or telos, then all the pieces turns into chaos. This telos, in a nutshell, is what saved the West alive for the previous millennia. However Darwin challenged that telos within the nineteenth century and unleashed an primarily irrational and depraved ideology onto the universe, which continues to be intellectually crippling its best proponents.

With out telos as a tenet, then you definitely’ll ultimately find yourself with strife or “survival of the fittest,” which, by the way in which, is arguably a tautology.[36] William Shakespeare appeared to have understood this precept. He wrote:

Take however diploma [or telos] away, untune that string

And hark what discord follows! Every factor meets

In mere oppunancy. The bounded waters

Ought to elevate their bosoms greater than the shores

And make a sop of all this stable globe.

Energy needs to be the lord of imbecility.

And the impolite son ought to strike his father lifeless.

Drive needs to be proper, or quite proper and flawed,

Between whose limitless jar justice resides

Ought to lose their names, and so ought to justice too.

Then all the pieces contains itself in energy,

Energy into will, will into urge for food,

And urge for food, a common wolf,

So doubly second with will and energy

Should make perforce a common prey,

And final eat itself up.[37]

Telos, which logically results in “sensible knowledge” and inexorably to Logos, is the mental patrimony of the West. Immanuel Kant picked that theme up and philosophically expanded it to the ethical universe. Kant convincingly argued that human beings can not stay rationally and persistently with out sensible purpose or morality. As he put it in his Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals:

“Act solely in keeping with that maxim by which you’ll on the similar time will that it ought to grow to be a common legislation.”[38]

This ethical and common legislation, says Kant, is what binds human beings collectively as rational creatures, and it’s on that foundation that we are able to decide individuals’s actions. So, any system that seeks to dismiss that ethical legislation should be flawed exactly as a result of that system will inevitably be incoherent and subsequently nugatory.

Conversely, an mental challenge with out the ethical legislation isn’t actually a severe challenge. It’s a perversion of it. Kant continues to say that for an motion to be good, “it’s not sufficient that it ought to conform to the ethical legislation—it should even be achieved for the sake of the ethical legislation.”[39]

Each Shakespeare and Kant kicked Darwin’s challenge out the window as a result of there is no such thing as a Darwinian maxim that may logically grow to be a common or ethical legislation. As we’ve already seen, Darwin denied a common ethical legislation and particularly excluded morality from his mental challenge. This ultimately led him to a weltanschauung which philosophically is contradictory and finally repugnant.

Darwin might make neither heads nor tails of Kant’s arguments as a result of Darwin, as he himself admitted, had “no observe in following summary and abstruse reasoning.”[40] This inexorably led Darwin to make elementary and categorical errors, similar to morality can’t be “goal and common.”[41]

See also  The Hunt for the Lethal “White Helmets”

As quickly as Darwin denied the metaphysical nature of morality, say biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore, he started to embrace “a terrifying materialism,” in keeping with which “the human thoughts, morality, and even perception in God have been artifacts of the mind…”[42]

In that sense, Darwin believed that morality was created, not found, by evolution.[43] The “ethical schools of man” aren’t one thing which might be inherent however advanced from “social qualities.”[44]

By this time, Darwin started to make use of “science” to smuggle in irrational concepts into the West. Based on historian of biology Peter J. Bowler, Darwin

“was making an attempt to show morality right into a department of biology by way of the proposal that our instinctive conduct can solely be understood as a product of pure processes which have tailored us to a specific lifestyle based mostly on the household unit as a method of elevating kids.”[45]

Darwin’s mental kids are nonetheless clinging to biology so as to clarify morality,[46] a philosophically vacuous enterprise that at all times locks them into an mental mumbo jumbo. If all the pieces, together with morality, is the artifact of the mind, if our conduct is “instinctive, programmed by evolution into the very construction of our brains,” and if “morality is merely the rationalization of those social instincts,”[47] then there is no such thing as a ethical duty in any respect.

In response to Plato’s “mandatory concepts” of fine and evil, Darwin mentioned, “learn monkeys for preexistence.”[48] Right here we see many times that Darwin was primarily deconstructing Plato and Aristotle, and one can logically argue that Darwin’s Descent of Man, which got here out in 1871, despatched the West into an mental darkness or perpetual battle, which ultimately gave rise to the eugenic motion in Europe and America.


So it’s no accident that Pierce, an ardent proponent of Darwin, couldn’t clear up the ethical drawback. The distinction between Friedrich Nietzsche and Darwin’s mental kids is that Nietzsche understood that when morality is rooted out of its metaphysical matrix, then claiming that one thing is true or flawed is simply flimflam.[49]

Different metaphysicians like Jean Paul Sartre got here to comparable conclusions.[50] In truth, Sartre declared that when morality is out of the equation, discovering ethical “values in an intelligible heaven” is loopy. Man, subsequently, is a ‘ineffective ardour.”[51]

Sartre, who bragged about having been “in whorehouses everywhere in the world,”[52] added that “Nowhere is it written that good exists, that we should be sincere or should not lie, since we’re on a airplane shared solely by males.”[53]

The attention-grabbing factor is that Pierce learn Nietzsche however he didn’t appear to know what Nietzsche was saying when it got here to the metaphysical implications of rejecting morality. Once more, if we take Nietzsche’s Superman significantly, then Zionism or Jewish subversive actions are proper, since we don’t even know whether or not this Superman is a Zionist or some Jewish revolutionary. In truth, Nietzsche agreed with Dostoyevsky that if God is lifeless, then goal morality is over and that reality can grow to be a lie. Nietzsche mentioned:

“To be truthful means utilizing the customary metaphor—in ethical phrases: the duty to lie in accordance a set conference, to lie herd-like in a mode compulsory for all.”[54]

Based on E. Michael Jones, Nietzsche intentionally contaminated himself with syphilis in a type of demonic pact.[55] All through a lot of his life, Nietzsche sought to overthrow the ethical order within the West. He even disliked Socrates as a result of he thought Socrates was a proto-Christian thinker. As Jones places it, “Nietzsche portrayed Socrates because the villain within the cultural historical past of the West.”[56]

Nietzsche’s personal time period, the transvaluation of all values, was an idea which sought to overthrow the ethical values of the West, and he thought that music was the principle car to convey that about. Nietzsche additionally changed the ethical order with the Dionysian insanity, which he sought by way of the music of Richard Wagner, most notably Tristan and Isolde. Wagner’s conversion to Christianity was a breaking level between the previous buddies and revolutionaries.


Curiously sufficient, Nietzsche was the one that had a tremendously highly effective affect on Pierce. Pierce even thought that individuals can based mostly their qualities “on Nietzschean values” a swell. When he was requested “What sorts of qualities are on the high of the dimensions as you see?” he responded, “Knowledge is one—knowledge grounded in objectivity, the flexibility to see the world because it actually is. And there’s braveness, not being fearful or cowardly. Self-mastery is one—actually, that is most likely probably the most worthwhile trait an individual can have.”[57]

What we’re seeing right here is that Pierce was a crummy and unscrupulous thinker, and I don’t say this flippantly. The Nietzschean worldview is the anti-thesis of all the pieces the West represents, and Pierce was making an attempt to erect his edifice based mostly on that weltanschauung.

Nietzsche received his concepts from Arthur Schopenhauer, who ended up hating his mom and contracting syphilis, presumably as a type of revenge of their turbulent and sad relationship. Syphilis had already taken a toll on figures and writers like Schubert, Donizetti, Paganani, Manet, Baudelaire, Maupassant, and many others.[58]

Schopenhauer’s relationship along with his mom had a strong affect on his philosophy, which he fleshed out in his well-known work The World as Will and Illustration.

“We start within the insanity of carnal want and the transport of voluptuousness,” writes Schopenhauer elsewhere, and “we finish within the dissolution of all our elements and the musty stench of corpses.”[59] Schopenhauer considered the world not in a Emblem-centric approach however in a meaningless void which some writers have referred to as “vitalistic irrationality.”

Just about all the pieces is a manifestation of pure will, which has no final telos however which has the potential to magically create issues such because the universe. Some writers have argued that “The roots of Schopenhauer’s misanthropy and pessimism needs to be sought within the traumas of his childhood and youth quite than his Kantian-Buddhist philosophy, whose conclusions merely served to substantiate his pessimism.”[60] This appears to be true.

Nietzsche learn Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Illustration in 1865, and that had a strong affect on the newly appointed professor. The e book had such an affect that Nietzsche expanded it in his personal e book, The Will to Energy. Right here once more Schopenhauer’s tone will be simply acknowledged in Nietzsche’s personal philosophy:

“I felt for the primary time that the strongest and highest Will to Life doesn’t discover expression in a depressing wrestle for existence, however in a Will to Warfare, a Will to Energy, a Will to Overpower.”


The logic is fairly simple right here: Nietzsche attacked Socrates and the ethical order; Pierce loves Nietzsche, and Pierce was advocating white nationalism in America. So, the place was Pierce actually main his followers? Might it’s that Pierce’s white nationalism are primarily an extension of Nietzschean ideology?

And if that’s the case, might it’s that Pierce’s motion was contaminated by a diabolical worldview which categorically rejects the ethical legislation and order and substitutes “The Superman”? If that is also believable, then might it’s that Pierce’s white nationalism metaphysically results in insanity, chaos, and typically ethical and religious loss of life? Might it’s that Pierce’s white nationalism was born out of a worldview which was hatched in a demonic pact and a sexually transmitted illness often called syphilis? Pierce married a minimum of 5 occasions, and I ponder if he was making an attempt to additional some objectivity or the Superman from that enterprise.

When requested the query, “The Superman—what does that idea imply to you?” Pierce responded:

“The Superman doesn’t exist as but. He’s not but born. However he might be born out of mankind. He isn’t some sort of separate or transcendent being. So it comes right down to an evolutionary job, a breeding job, which is to be accomplished over, most likely, an important time period. The duty of these alive now could be to arrange the earth for the Superman, pave the way in which, serve this course of. Do you see what I’m saying?”[61]

Individuals like Pierce try to concurrently retain their cake and eat it: ethical claims are relative, they chirp, however it’s universally and ontologically flawed for Zionists and the state of Israel to slaughter harmless males, girls and kids within the Center East!

Full nonsense.

Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche’s most meticulous biographer, mentioned that Nietzsche “felt that the loss of life of God threatened human life with an entire lack of all significance.”[62]

Kaufmann moved on so as to add that “Nietzsche prophetically envisages himself as a madman: to have misplaced God means insanity; and when mankind will uncover that it has misplaced God, common insanity will get away. This apocalyptic sense of dreadful issues to return hangs over Nietzsche’s pondering like a thundercloud.”[63]

Pierce couldn’t see Nietzsche’s metaphysical deduction right here as a result of Pierce was morally and intellectually blind. Nietzsche appeared to have foreseen in Thus Spake Zarathustra that when people kill metaphysical Logos, they begin plunging “backward, sideward, ahead, in all instructions” and so they begin “straying as by way of an infinite nothing.”

See also  Imran Khan Interview with Russian Television Anchor

That assertion characterizes the lifetime of William L. Pierce, and it’s actually unhappy that a few of his devoted followers even at present do not need the ethical and mental perception to understand that Pierce was main them into “an infinite nothing.”

Nietzsche, says Kaufman, “referred to as himself ‘the Antichrist,’”[64] which to us means the alternative of metaphysical Logos and which St. Athanasius would have referred to as Satanism.[65] In a way, Pierce and his followers have been knowingly or unknowingly following a depraved precept largely as a result of it was taken from Nietzsche’s Antichrist.

Like Nietzsche, Darwin ultimately realized that the elimination of Christianity would ultimately result in ethical chaos, “and Thomas Henry Huxley, of all individuals, elected to the primary London Faculty Board, argued strongly for spiritual instruction in state college.”[66]

Each Darwin and Huxley have been residing on borrowed rules as a result of their very own system didn’t have an ethical mechanism to maintain itself. That’s embarrassing sufficient, however Pierce was in a worse form as a result of he categorically denied and attacked Logos in all its manifestations.

  • [1] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World Historical past (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 1975 and 1998), 35.
  • [2];;;;
  • [3] William L. Pierce, Who We Are (Revisionist Books, 2014), Kindle version.
  • [4] Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of House and Time (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 1996), 20. For additional research, see John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Precept (New York: Oxford College Press, 1988); Martin Rees, Simply Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Form The Universe (New York: Fundamental Books, 2000).
  • [5] Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Seek for Different Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176.
  • [6] John Lennox, “Challenges from Science,” Ravi Zacharias, Past Opinion, 118.
  • [7] Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Faith as a Pure Phenomenon (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), 244.
  • [8] Nick Pollard, “The Easy Reply,” Third Approach, April 1995, 16-19.
  • [9] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010), 180.
  • [10] P. W. Atkins, Creation Revisited (New York: W. H. Freeman & Firm, 1993), 143.
  • [11] John Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking (London: Lion Books, 2011), Kindle version.
  • [12] Michael Ruse, Darwinism as Faith: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution (New York: Oxford College Press, 2017).
  • [13] Pierce, Who We Are (Revisionist Books, 2014), Kindle version.
  • [14] E. Michael Jones, “The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism,” Tradition Wars, October 2017.
  • [15] E. Michael Jones, “Ethnos Wants Logos: or Why I spent three days in Guadalajara making an attempt to persuade David Duke to grow to be a Catholic,” Tradition Wars, June 2015.
  • [16] Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Energy and Place (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 2002), 54.
  • [17] Ibid., 342.
  • [18] See for instance Janet Browne, The Quotable Darwin (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 2018), 191.
  • [19] For additional research on this, see Gertrude Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds: A Examine of Intellectuals in Disaster and Ideologies in Transition (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1952 and 1968).
  • [20] Darwin, The Descent of Man, 112.
  • [21] James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Ethical Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford College Press, 1990).
  • [22] Michael Ruse, The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its Historical past, Philosophy, and Spiritual Implications (New York: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
  • [23] Quoted in Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: A Biography, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 2002), 54.
  • [24] Pierce, Who We Are, Kindle version.
  • [25] G. Ok. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996), 52-53.
  • [26] Quoted in Himmelfarb, Victorian Minds, 319.
  • [27] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 2009), 429.
  • [28] For additional examine on this, see for instance Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Decline of Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill: College of North Carolina Press, 1990); Robert C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and Fantasy in Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple College Press, 1979); Paul A. Lombardo, ed., A Century of Eugenics in America (Bloomington: Indiana College Press, 2011); Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court docket, and Buck v. Bell (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins College Press, 2008); Nancy Ordover, American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism (Minneapolis: College of Minnesota Press, 2003); Edward J. Larson, Intercourse, Race, and Science: Eugenics within the Deep South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins College Press, 1995); Daniel J. Kevles, Within the Title of Eugenics: Genetics and the Makes use of of Human Heredity (Cambridge: Harvard College Press, 1998); Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Historical past of Eugenics (New York: Oxford College Press, 2010); Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, Eugenics and the Welfare State: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland (East Lansing: Michigan State College, 2005); Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Mannequin and Nature as Risk (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 1997);. Peter Dickens, Social Darwinism (Buckingham: Open College Press, 2000).
  • [29] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics (New York: Oxford College Press, 2009), 103.
  • [30] Ibid.
  • [31] Ibid., 106.
  • [32] Ibid., 112.
  • [33] Ibid., 106.
  • [34] Ibid., 115.
  • [35] Ibid., 117.
  • [36] Right here is the way it goes. How did it survive? Nicely, as a result of it’s the fittest. How have you learnt it’s the fittest? As a result of it survived! Individuals like Michael Shermer attempt to circumvent that tautology by saying that “Typically tautologies are the start of science, however they’re by no means the top. Gravity will be tautological, however its reference is justified by the way in which this principle permits scientists to precisely predict bodily results and phenomena.” Michael Shermer, Why Individuals Consider Bizarre Issues (New York: Henry Holt & Firm, 1997), 143. Maybe chemist and Nobel Prize winner Manfred Eigen would have had snigger about these guys making an attempt to avoid what one should name a sq. circle. Eigen wrote: “At some point my Japanese colleague and pal, Motoo Kimura, got here to me and requested me [a] query. He mentioned, as I keep in mind, ‘Manfred, shouldn’t we reformulate the Darwinian precept as ‘the survival of the luckiest’?  My reply was: ‘Sure, Motoo, we could achieve this; however then we’ve so as to add that the ‘luckiest’ at all times must be a member of the very elite membership of the fittest.’” Manfred Eigen, From Unusual Simplicity to Complicated Familiarity: A Treatise on Matter, Info, Life and Thought (New York: Oxford College Press, 2013), 195.
  • [37] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Barren Steel: A Historical past of Capitalism because the Battle Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Constancy Press, 2014), 489-490.
  • [38] Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1959), 39.
  • [39] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Torchbooks, 1964), 390.
  • [40] Browne, Charles Darwin, 392.
  • [41] Ibid.
  • [42] Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Lifetime of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), xvii.
  • [43] For additional research on this, see Peter J. Bowler and David Knight, Charles Darwin: The Man and His Affect (Cambridge: Cambridge College Press, 1996), 183-184.
  • [44] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 1981), 162.
  • [45] Bowler and Knight, Charles Darwin, 183-184.
  • [46] See for instance Frans de Waal and Stephen Macedo, Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Advanced (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 2006); Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin Books, 2003).
  • [47] Bowler and Knight, Charles Darwin, 85.
  • [48] Adrian Desmond, James Moore, and Janet Browne, Charles Darwin (New York: Oxford College Press, 2007), 38.
  • [49] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Moveable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin Books, 1976), 515–6; see additionally Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1926 and 1961), 401-402.
  • [50] Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotion (New York: Kensington Publishing, 1985), 18-21.
  • [51] Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness (New York: Philosophical Library, 1956), 615.
  • [52] See Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky (New York: HarperCollins, 1987), chapter 9.
  • [53]  Sartre, Existentialism and Human Feelings, 22.
  • [54] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Moveable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin, 1954 and 1982), 47.
  • [55] E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Beginning of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), chapter 2.
  • [56] Ibid., 58.
  • [57] Griffin, Lifeless’s Man Deeds, 58.
  • [58] See Nigel Rodgers and Mel Thompson, Philosophers Behaving Badly (London & Chicago: Peter owen Publishers, 2004), 69.
  • [59] Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays on Aphorisms (New York: Penguin, 1970), 51-53.
  • [60] Rodgers and Thompson, Philosophers Behaving Badly, 49.
  • [61] Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Lifeless Man’s Deeds An Up-Shut Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce (Bloomington: 1st E book Library, 2001), 58.
  • [62] Walter A. Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Thinker, Psychologist, Antichrist (Princeton: Princeton College Press, 1974), 101.
  • [63] Ibid., 97.
  • [64] Kaufmann, Nietzsche, 102.
  • [65] See E. Michael Jones, “The Nice Devil and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Tradition Wars, July/August 2015.
  • [66] Ruse, Darwinism as Faith, Kindle version.