On the origins of "evolution" and its ideological domicile in modernity.

I have for many years been pointing out that much (if not all) of "modern culture," is in fact rehashed paganism marketed as "progress" and/or "new." "Rights" for men who engage in same gender sex acts, for example, is assiduously portrayed in this manner with opposition being portrayed as "old fashioned," or stemming from some former, "antiquated" era hopelessly mired in "ignorance." Except the complete converse is true. Sodomy, or as it's now marketed "gay rights," and infanticide were for millennia features of society throughout the ancient pagan world; a world which aggressively and often brutally repressed Jewish and Christian philosophy for opposing such behaviors.

"You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices." - Lev 18:3.

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." - Lev 18:21.

Truth: Laws allowing sodomy are in reality regressive; i.e., a return to old fashioned, indeed "ancient," pagan practices. Laws against it stemming from Judeo-Christian precept, and which ended millennia of vile and depraved pagan customs, are those which are "new" and "progressive." But good luck telling that to anyone with the converse, historically and morally baseless, perspective.

But that's merely one example, part and parcel, of a comprehensive regression of the modern world into ancient paganism. In addition to the reemergence and cultural acceptance of practices like sodomy, infanticide, promiscuity, Gaia worship ("going green," "environmentalism"), etc., most people today have seen images like these their entire lives within textbooks, the media, and popular entertainment (which frequently convey this motif).

As such most people would immediately recognize the concept, with which they have been assiduously deluged for many years, that land animals like man long ago evolved from sea creatures, which themselves long before that evolved from a pool of various chemical compounds referred to today as the primordial soup; "a liquid rich in organic compounds and providing favorable conditions for the emergence and growth of life forms."

They would also naturally tell you that the concept of "evolution" is derived from "modern science," e.g., the work of revolutionary minds like Charles Darwin, and Alexander Oparin; the Communist biologist to whom the origin of the term "biological soup" is attributed in 1924; the Communist biologist who stated that the origin of life was a "philosophical struggle which reflected the underlying struggle of social classes." Because that's what they've all been taught for generations now; atheistic "science" being assiduously juxtaposed with theism portrayed as antiquated and anachronistic. Except, again, the complete converse is true. What we call "evolution" is just another ancient, pagan myth, relabeled and peddled as "new."

Enter Anaximander of Miletus. Anaximander proposed that "Animals originated from inanimate matter, by the action of the sun on water, and men originated from fish." "From warmed up water and earth" according to Anaximander, "emerged either fish or entirely fishlike animals. Inside these animals, men took form and embryos were held prisoners until puberty; only then, after these animals burst open, could men and women come out, now able to feed themselves."

Sound familiar? From a molecular reaction catalyzed by the sun on liquid, which sounds remarkably like Alexander Oparin's "primordial soup," came fish, and from fish came man, postulated Anaximander approximately two and a half millennia before Oparin. (But we can't very well expect Marxists to go around acknowledging that can we? It would contravene the "modernity" of Marxist precept; one of its major marketing points.)

Go here to see Anaximander's two and a half millennia old concept, conveyed through an interactive graphic provided by a "modern" American university, which is part of their "in-depth course on the science of evolution."

On display is that conspicuous self-contradiction so paradigmatic to leftist thought. If Christ's philosophy, which is two millennia old, is "antiquated" and "out of step" with modern society (as they so often assert), then what does that make of Anaximander's which is approximately five centuries older?

And so the modern world regresses into Greco-Roman paganism, and increasingly readopts the flawed and reprobate dialectics thereof, all the while claiming it "progress." And scarcely a soul seems aware. As all one need do to market old and failed ideas and principles to a populace of ignoramuses is change the name. All one need do is say, that which was unacceptable yesterday is acceptable today, by using the term "science" in association with it.

Man is indubitably, to any objective observer, identical to his antecedents one millennia, or even ten millennia ago, in virtually every way (save the circumstances in which he finds himself). Yet the belief that modern man is better and smarter than his antecedents, and "progressing" or "evolving," has become pervasive in "modern" America.

We've discussed the origins of this belief, but why is this belief now common in "modern" society? Simply, Marxism. Leon Trotsky once described what he believed the effect of Marxism on the Russian people would be.

"Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser and subtler; his body will become more harmonized, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise." - Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, 1924.

Man under Marxism according to Trotsky, is constantly becoming better, eventually becoming what we might describe as "superhuman;" a motif now constantly being inculcated into American minds through our schools (evolutionary theory) and (an equally subverted) popular culture. If you're struggling to think of an example of Trotsky's ideal of an "evolving" humanity, which perpetually surpasses his physical and intellectual limitations being pushed here in America, you're simply not thinking very hard (or dumb as a brick).

Anaximander's concept, through the prism of Trotsky's (Communist) vision, is now a staple of modern American entertainment, and as a result, thought. As one woman said to me when debating the legitimacy of spanking children in America, "we are smarter now" than our ancestors who spanked in ignorance of the deleterious consequences. Only we're not smarter. Indeed, all existential evidence is conspicuously to the contrary. 

"A Newsweek study asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take the nation’s official citizenship test, and [...] 43 percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights, and a startling 40 percent did not know America fought Japan and Germany in World War II. Also, 73 percent did not know communism was the main concern of the Cold War, and 67 percent couldn't identify capitalism as our economic system."

Under pagan evolutionary Socialism, America is declining, and ultimately stagnating, in virtually every way (just as the Soviet Union before it); because Marxism is physiologically, intellectually, and morally vitiating. Marxism has taken "one of the freest and most enlightened nations in the world," as described by Tocqueville, and reduced it to a spectacle of abject stupidity, effeminacy, and vice. Once a bastion of Christian liberty, America is now thronged with sodomites flaunting their depravity, harlots who murder their children by the millions (because their existence is an impediment to their mother's whoredom), and ignoramuses who struggle to grasp even the most obvious truths as a result of socio-politically induced mental retardation.

(Revealing Marx's assertion that "religion is the opiate of the masses," is like every other aspect of Marxist theory predicated upon a flawed understanding of man, and the complete opposite of truth. It is religion, and not Marxism, which instills in people the concept of transcendent principles. A concept Marxism rejects in favor of relativism. There are no transcendent moral principles in Marxist theory, and therefore no basis for immutable rights for man. Right and wrong are dictated by the circumstances at any given time, and being that Marxism elevates the State to supreme authority, inevitably what benefits the interests of those administering the government.)

But the opponent of spanking to which I allude cannot, and never will, acknowledge that truth; because she's been imbued with the false postulate that "science" (and anything associated with it) is by default "progress," and that science and religion are mutually exclusive. And from whence does this notion come? Again, Communism.

"The Party cannot be neutral with regard to religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda [...] because it stands for science, while [...] religion is something contrary to science." - Joseph Stalin, interview with the First American Trade Union Delegation, 1927.

But since scientific understanding has generally increased with the passing of time, an erroneous corollary often occurs in the minds of Marxists, that the improvement of man morally, epistemologically, and even physiologically, and chronological progression are inherently reciprocal; a premise utterly refuted by the fact that, in an age in which access to information has never been greater, human ignorance not only still exists, but abounds. The common man has not been intellectually elevated to the level of an "Aristotle" by Marxism. Quite to the contrary Marxism results in a culture of obscurantism (rivaling and exceeding any such produced by religion), in which men become neither Aristotle nor Marx, but regressive, visceral cretins, incapable of either the empiricism of the former, or even the pseudo-intellectualism of the latter.

(Originally posted August, 2015.)