'There is nothing new under the sun,' says the Bible. How true. Here then is a brief history of population control.

Born in 1809, Charles Darwin, the second youngest of six children, grew-up in a large Georgian house in England. For 26 years of his life, he lived with his father, a non-religious doctor. Charles Darwin was baptised as an Anglican. He then went to medical school in Edenborough, Scotland where his brother Erasmus Darwin was also learning to be a doctor. Soon Charles lost interest in medicine and joined the Plinian Society whose students were materialists who were attempting to dismiss the Christian view of science. He wrote in his own autobiography ‘I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.’ There were two men who greatly influenced Darwin, Thomas Maltus (1766-1834) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Maltus believed the world could not sustain its growing population. He was a pioneer of modern birth-control and abortion. In his 1871 book, the Descent of Man, Darwin refers to Malthus and his population control philosophy. In 1877 there was founded The Maltusian League, the first of such birth-control societies. This in turn began the eugenic philosophy, where certain humans need to be made disappear.

At a time when the science of biology had only started, Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s bulldog,’ wrote: ‘One of [evolution’s] greatest merits, in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral and social life of mankind, the Catholic Church.’ Haeckel agreed with Huxley, even saying that: ‘Freedom and prosperity are opposed to their Catholicism. Either the Church wins, and then farewell to all free-science and free-thinking or else the rational state proves victorious – then, in the 20th century, human culture, freedom and prosperity will continue their progressive development.’ In his 1905 book The Wonders of Life, he wrote: ‘Those lower races (such as the Australian Negros) are psychologically nearer to the mammals than to civilised Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives.’

Well... what-ya'd know? 

The basic rule is, whenever there's a problem in the world, check to see if a Jєω is involved ?  And likely there is


Fox Nation’s Lara Logan Suggests Theory of Evolution Is a Hoax Funded by Jєωs

Lara Logan’s latest anti-Semitic dog whistle is a claim that Charles Darwin only came up with the idea of
evolution because Jєωs paid him to





It wasn’t long ago that Lara Logan was a correspondent for CBS News, which is a little hard to believe considering the types of conspiracy theories she’s been pushing since she left the network. The latest came during an appearance on the right-wing podcast “And We Know,” during which Logan suggested that the theory of evolution is the result of a wealthy Jєωιѕн family paying Charles Darwin to devise an explanation for what gave rise to humanity.

“Does anyone know who employed Darwin, where Darwinism comes from?” Logan, now with Fox News’ streaming service Fox Nation, asked. “Look it up: The Rothschilds. It goes back to 10 Downing Street. The same people who employed Darwin, and his theory of evolution and so on and so on. I’m not saying that none of that is true. I’m just saying Darwin was hired by someone to come up with a theory — based on evidence, OK, fine.”

Thread

See new Tweets
Conversation



https://twitter.com/i/status/1508448924255854597


The Rothschilds, who Logan says is responsible for the theory of evolution, are a Jєωιѕн family that often shows up in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) famously wrote on Facebook that the Rothschilds funded a space laser that started the California wildfires.

Logan and Greene share more in common than anti-Semitic comments. Both the Fox Nation host and the bigoted, virulent conspiracy theorist lawmaker have pushed Russian propaganda since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine last month. Greene has blamed Ukraine for the invasion, while suggesting the nation’s military is rife with nαzιs. Greene, however, at least made some sort of superficial effort to insist she’s not a Putin supporter. Logan made no such effort.

“Whether you like Putin or don’t like him, Putin is not willing to be a part of whatever global governing structure is coming our way,” Logan said last week on a right-wing podcast. “Vladimir Putin has been very calculating, he’s been very careful … he’s said for 15 years that he would not tolerate NATO expansion.”

“He’s the man standing between us and this nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr,” she added after rambling about Ukrainian biolabs funded by Hunter Biden.
The idea of a “nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr” constructed by Jєωs is a trope of anti-Semitic rhetoric. We’re starting to notice a pattern in Logan’s conspiracy theorizing.

In This Article: Anti-Semitism, Lara Logan, marjorie taylor greene 

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/lara-logan-theory-of-evolution-anti-semitism-1328721/

Some fascinating excerpts from Francis Parker Yockey's book Imperium on this subject. Although I personally dislike Yockey because he seems to be the first dissident right winger after WWII to push a "Red-Brown Alliance", his statements on this subject from the realm of natural reason (since he was not a Catholic) are spot on and corroborate cassini's OP. It's an interesting thing to note that sadly many non-Catholic dissident right wingers lack the common sense Yockey demonstrates here; it is typical of the modern DR follower to assert evolutionist doctrine (and even for DR Catholics to do the same!), seemingly without realizing that this doctrine was fabricated by the very same anti-Western forces they are so awake to on other subjects. 



"This is only the foreground, for actually the road from Darwin back to Calvin is quite clear: Calvinism is a religious interpretation of the "survival of the fittest" idea, and it calls the fit the "elected." Darwinism makes this election-process mechanical-profane instead of theological-religious: selection by Nature instead of election by God. It remains purely English in the process, for the national religion of England was an adaptation of Calvinism." (pg. 44)



"In the first place, there is no "Struggle for existence" in nature; this old Malthusian idea merely projected Capitalism on to the animal world. Such struggles for existence as do occur are the exception; the rule in Nature is abundance. There are plenty of plants for the herbivores to eat, and there are plenty of herbivores for the carnivores to eat. Between the latter there can hardly be said to be "struggle," since only the carnivore is spiritually equipped for war. A lion making a meal of a zebra portrays no "struggle" between two species, unless one is determined so to regard it. Even so, he must concede that it is not physically, mechanically, necessary for the carnivores to kill other animals. They could as well eat plants — it is the demand of their animal souls however to live in this fashion, and thus, even if one were to call their lives struggles, it would not be imposed by "Nature" but by the soul. It becomes thus, not a "struggle for existence," but a spiritual necessity of being one's self." (pgs. 45-46)



"As a factual picture, this is easier to refute than it is to prove, and factual biological thinkers, both Mechanists and Vitalists, like Louis Agassiz, Du Bois-Reymond, Reinke, and Driesch rejected it from its appearance. The easiest refutation is the palaeontological. Fossil deposits — found in various parts of the earth — must represent the possibilities generally. Yet they disclose only stable specie-forms, and disclose no transitional types, which show a species "evolving" into something else. And then, in a new fossil hoard, a new species appears, in its definitive form, which remains stable. The species that we know today, and for past centuries, are all stable, and no case has ever been observed of a species "adapting" itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which "adaptation" then resulted in more "fitness" for the "struggle for existence," and was passed on by heredity, with the result of a new species.


Darwinians cannot get over these facts by bringing in great spaces of time, for palaeontology has never discovered any intermediate types, but only distinct species. Nor are the fossil animals which have died out any simpler than present-day forms, although the course of evolution was supposed to be from simple to complex Life-forms. This was crude anthropomorphism — man is complex, other animals are simple, they must be tending toward him, since he is "higher" biologically.

Calling Culture-man a "higher" animal still treats him as an animal. Culture-man is a different world spiritually from all animals, and is not to be understood by referring him to any artificial materialistic scheme." (pg. 46)



"The Darwinian analogy between artificial selection and natural selection is also in opposition to the facts. The products of artificial selection such as barnyard fowls, racing dogs, race horses, ornamental cats, and song-canaries, would certainly be at a disadvantage against natural varieties. Thus artificial selection has only been able to produce less fit life-forms.

Nor is Darwinian sɛҳuąƖ selection in accordance with facts. The female does not by any means always choose the finest and strongest individual for a mate, in the human species, or in any other."
(pgs. 46-47)




"The utilitarian aspect of the picture is also quite subjective — i.e., English, capitalistic, parliamentarian — for the utility of an organ is relative to the use sought to be made of it. A species without hands has no need of hands. A hand that slowly evolved would be a positive disadvantage over the "millions of years" necessary to perfect the hand. Furthermore, how did this process start! For an organ to be utile, it must be ready; while it is being prepared, it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian." (pg. 47)