
I have argued elsewhere that if a political or intellectual project is not logically coherent and consistent, then it is not viable and is therefore existentially worthless. It is not enough for a system to be coherent in one particular area—it has to be metaphysically or universally coherent.
If it is not universally coherent, then the system itself will inevitably lead to self-contradiction and will eventually deconstruct itself in the moral and political universe.
That is my fundamental problem with Darwin and Darwinism. The reason I reject that system is because it is metaphysically incoherent, and no one—I mean not a single scholar or writer or journalist—has made a serious attempt to solve its blatant contradiction and incoherent premises, which I have meticulously detailed elsewhere. Some of the proponents of Darwin and Darwinism metaphysically declare that ultimate purpose and meaning is a lie, but the same people want their followers to have ultimate purpose and meaning. This is a blatant contradiction.
Consider a similar example. Suppose you walk the streets of Manhattan and come across a person who is constantly talking to himself although nobody is around. So you approach him and ask, “What’s going on, dude? Why are you talking to yourself?” He answers, “I am angry with my wife.” Further into the conversation, however, you realize that the man never had a wife.
You then ask, “How can you be angry with an imaginary wife?” If he responded with, “Life doesn’t seem fair,” would you be satisfied with such an answer? You would immediately think that the guy is at least out of touch with reality, if not psychologically disturbed.
If people are comfortable with living in contradiction and cherishing an ideology at any cost—even in the teeth of evidence and logic—then they are more than welcome to embrace Darwin and Darwinism. Far be it from me to even make an attempt to stop them because they have every right to embrace intellectual suicide. But these people should stop deceiving themselves into thinking that they are within the realm of logic and reason.
Similarly, the reason I reject the New World Order ideology is because it is metaphysically incoherent. Its finest proponents have never bothered to address its incoherence either. Double standards, contradictions, illogical leaps, inconsistency, are obvious signs that a system is internally incoherent and failing. These issues are never discussed in Michael Isikoff’s recent book, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.[1]
New World Order agent Megyn Kelly has recently interviewed Vladimir Putin again, but she didn’t flesh out anything new at all. She asked the same old questions about hacking as if the United States should never be placed in the same position. Russia has to admit that it “hacked” the election, the argument goes, but the United States should never be challenged on the same issue. It is totally irrelevant.
I wish I could persuade Kelly and other New World Order agents to concentrate on the fundamental issues and stop flip-flopping. Here is what Kelly needs to focus on: even if we grant the ridiculous idea that Russia “hacked” the election, so what? The United States has been doing this since the beginning of time! This is again coming from the New York Times:
“Bags of cash delivered to a Rome hotel for favored Italian candidates. Scandalous stories leaked to foreign newspapers to swing an election in Nicaragua. Millions of pamphlets, posters and stickers printed to defeat an incumbent in Serbia.
“The long arm of Vladimir Putin? No, just a small sample of the United States’ history of intervention in foreign elections.
“Most Americans are understandably shocked by what they view as an unprecedented attack on our political system. But intelligence veterans, and scholars who have studied covert operations, have a different, and quite revealing, view.
“‘If you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,’ said Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A., where he was the chief of Russian operations. The United States ‘absolutely’ has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, ‘and I hope we keep doing it.’
“Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars, who began his career in the 1970s investigating the C.I.A. as a staff member of the Senate’s Church Committee, says Russia’s 2016 operation was simply the cyber-age version of standard United States practice for decades, whenever American officials were worried about a foreign vote.
“‘We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947,’ said Mr. Johnson, now at the University of Georgia. ‘We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners — you name it. We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers. We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.’”[2]