…by Jonas E. Alexis
We have argued elsewhere that the New World Order’s most enduring legacy is contempt for morality and what Immanuel Kant calls practical reason in the comprehensible universe, which was created by what Aristotle calls the Unmoved Mover.
Using reason alone, Aristotle deduced that this Unmoved Mover—“something that moves without being moved”[1]—is the “first principle” of natural philosophy and “the maker and father of all.” Without this Unmoved Mover, Aristotle continued, the physical world could not exist.
If the physical world could not exist without this Unmoved Mover, then man as a rational human being could not exist either. If man could not exist, then the moral and political order is a myth. This Unmoved Mover or unchanging being, Aristotle posited, is responsible for order in the universe. The Unmoved Mover also provides a telos in the sensible world as well.
It must be emphasized that Aristotle was not a relativist. He did believe in objective morality, which is part of the essence of all things reasonable. So from the first principle of philosophy, which Aristotle calls metaphysics, we can deduce that morality, which binds us all together as human beings, is not relative but objective. In a nutshell, this is the essence of the West.
Darwin, as we have argued elsewhere, challenged the metaphysical principle upon which the West was based when he proposed a number of theories which turned out to be counterproductive. Darwin’s intellectual children have been toe-dancing around this moral puzzle for more than a century, and no Darwinist has ever been able to flesh out a coherent moral philosophy.
Darwin, as E. Michael Jones points out, set the stage for the Anglo-American empire.[2]Both Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell agreed that Darwin’s theory “led to the glorification of free enterprise, laissez-faire economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism…”[3]
Like Frankenstein the Anglo-American empire, which is sprinkled with both Darwinian and Zionist ideology, is now devouring its finest creators, who dropped morality in the political realm and embraced “survival of the fittest,” which G. K. Chesterton called “survival of the nastiest.”[4] Andrew Carnegie is a classic example of this.[5]
Carnegie declared in his autobiography that when he gave up on morality, “I came fortunately upon Darwin’s and Spencer’s works … .I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear.”[6] John D. Rockefeller saw Darwin or survival of the fittest in a similar light.
“The growth of a large business,” JDR said, “is merely a survival of the fittest…The American Beauty rose can be produced in the splendor and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. This is not an evil tendency in business.”[7] As one writer puts it, for JDR “The large corporation that grew by swallowing up its smaller competitors was merely exhibiting the law of the ‘survival of the fittest…’”[8]
David Rockefeller, the only survival grandchild of JDR, was kind enough to tell us in his Memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”[9]
*******************************************
Nothing works in the political universe without morality or practical reason. The only politician who obviously realizes this is Vladimir Putin. He declared last October:
“What I’ve said now may be more dangerous than a nuclear bomb. Therefore, no matter what we’re doing, we must never forget about the moral and ethical basis of our business.”[10]
That certainly does not sit well with the New World Order ideology, which incessantly violates the moral order and substitutes something dark and diabolical. For the New World Order, what is up is down and what is down is up. If the moral order dictates that dialogue is to be pursued to resolve conflict, the New World Order says that dialogue is to be avoided.
In fact, the New World Order prefers destruction, violence, the demolition of countless homes,[11] the annihilation of nations, families, and even livelihood. We have already seen numerous examples of this in the past two decades, particularly in the Middle East where New World Order agents decimated countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
We are told that the once thriving and ancient city of Mosul, Iraq, is now “a pile of rubble.”[12] Iraq in general also “lies in ruin.”[13] New World Order agents are largely responsible for this. They wanted to do the same thing in North Korea. Historian Bruce Cumings of the University of Chicago wrote back in 2003:
“I was in Seoul when Koizumi’s summit was announced, a day or two after John Bolton (the so-called ‘Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control’ in an Administration that has wrecked arms control) arrived to denounce Kim Jong Il personally and his regime more generally as evil, a menace to peace, the greatest security threat in the region etc.
“He did this again in the summer of 2003, as six-party talks on the North Korean problem were about to be held in Beijing. A brutal tyrant had North Korea in the grip of ‘a hellish nightmare’, he said, causing Armitage publicly to distance himself from Bolton’s rhetoric.
“When a reporter from the Times asked Bolton what the Bush policy was towards the North, ‘he strode over to a bookshelf, pulled off a volume and slapped it on the table. It was called The End of North Korea, and was by an American Enterprise Institute colleague. ‘That,’ he said, ‘is our policy.”’[14]
The logic is pretty clear now: New World Order agents want to end any country they do not like. They do not care whether their diabolical moves will cost too much or... READ MORE>>>>
You need to be a member of Saviors Of Earth to add comments!
Join Saviors Of Earth