” There is no God but the law of the strongest... ”

... and Darwin is its prophet : The true religion of the West

A (disturbing) article by Laurent Guyénot in Réseau International

In 1854, five years before the publication of The Origin of Species, Arthur Schopenhauer foresaw that the ambition of the zealots of natural science to reduce life to mechanical and chemical laws "threatens to lead to a gross and stupid materialism" and to a "moral bestiality." Twenty years later (1874), three years after The Descent of Man and the Selection in Relation to Sex by the same Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche predicted that if such ideas "are thrown at the people for one more generation, no one will be surprised if the people perish of selfishness and pettiness, ossified in the sole preoccupation with themselves."

In 1920, Bernard Shaw was already seeing the damage: in its political applications, he wrote, Darwinism “has produced a European catastrophe of such appalling magnitude, and such unpredictable scope, that as I write these lines in 1920, it is far from certain that our civilization will survive it.”

Where are we a century after this dire prediction, and half a century after Richard Dawkins proclaimed in his global bestseller The Selfish Gene: “We are survival machines, robots blindly programmed to preserve these selfish molecules called genes” ? He congratulated himself in a new preface in 1989 that his theory “has become textbook orthodoxy.”

Well, now we have Yuval Harari, the world star of what can be called trans-Darwinism, that is, neo-Darwinism coupled with transhumanism. In ’Sapiens. A Brief History of Humankind’ (2015), he hammers home the point of Darwinian morality: “Life has no script, no author, no director, no producer – and no meaning.” We are nothing but assemblages of algorithms.” Hence the very “natural” idea of ​​self-tinkering. In Homo Deus (2017), Harari announces the self-deification of (rich) man through the miracle of high technology, the upgrading of men into gods: “having lifted humanity out of the brutality of the struggle for survival, we will seek to raise men to the rank of gods, to transform Homo sapiens into Homo deus.”

How is that?

“bioengineers will (…) seize the old body of Sapiens and deliberately rewrite its genetic code, rewire its brain circuits, modify its biochemical balance, or even make it grow new limbs. (…) Cyborg genius will go further, and merge the organic body with non-organic devices, such as bionic hands, artificial eyes or millions of nanorobots that will navigate our blood vessels, diagnose problems and repair damage. (…) A bolder approach is to do without organic parts altogether in the hope of creating entirely non-organic beings.”

Harari is “the most important thinker in the world,” Le Point assures us on the occasion of the release of his new book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. The Socrates of post-modernity, homosexual and moreover Israeli, and therefore brilliant squared. He’s a hot commodity! Klaus Schwab made him his mentor, Macron was anointed with his brain oil.

If human beings are the result of a blind and random evolutionary process (simple accidental errors in the duplication of chemical molecules), then why would man, now endowed with a powerful brain, not take the direction of his own evolution, to do better than chance? This logic is simple and difficult to contest. Even more obvious is the moral consequence of Darwinism: there is no other moral law than the law of the strongest.

Most people educated in the Darwinian catechism since primary school do not draw this logical consequence, because their moral conscience prevents them from doing so: there is a cognitive dissonance between Darwinian dogma and the intuition that there exists after all another moral law, that of compassion for the weak.

Thus, the average Westerner, convinced that Darwinism is a natural law as firmly established as heliocentrism, believes that natural law and moral law are two independent orders of things. Darwin would therefore be scientifically right when he explains that human races are the result of natural selection, but he is morally wrong when he draws this kind of conclusion: "In a future period, not so distant and measurable in terms of centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."

Most people raised on Darwinian catechism would be scandalized to know that Darwin also wrote:

"We civilized men (...) do our best to control the process of elimination; we build asylums for the idiotic, the crippled, and the sick; we institute laws that protect the poor; and our physicians exercise all the power of their talent to save the life of each, until the last moment. (...) Thus the weak members of civilized societies reproduce themselves."

Simply put, good people think that Darwinism is true, therefore good, but that its social or political applications are bad, therefore false. One must be a Darwinian, but not behave in a Darwinian manner. Funny religion!

These people are confused and do not think clearly. Consistent Darwinians, who follow their ideas through to the end and aspire to be "the fittest", believe on the contrary that natural law, which is an objective, absolute and infallible truth, takes precedence over all moral law and all legal law, which are only arbitrary human conventions. If natural law is that the fittest crush the least fit, so be it. These Darwinians have, in their dishonesty, the honesty to live in accordance with their belief, and to behave in a Darwinian manner (but with art, using all the Darwinian tricks such as cryptism or mimicry). I am sorry to tell you, but if you are a moral Darwinian, you are probably not very intelligent, or else cowardly.

A good example of a consistent Darwinian is Jeffrey Skilling, one of the ENRON executives indicted in 2006 in the biggest financial fraud of all time. His favorite book was Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene. Dawkins protests that Skilling has misunderstood his book, but no one is fooled: it is rather Dawkins who pretends not to understand his own book. Dawkins, it is true, is a bit inconsistent. In The End of God, he describes the God of the Old Testament, “jealous and proud of it,” as an “ethnic cleanser,” a “bloodthirsty revenger,” a “moody and malicious tyrant,” without realizing that the people who have given themselves such an immoral god must logically be “the fittest” of all peoples, Darwinianly speaking.

In my opinion, Dawkins is not much smarter than Harari, who is an idiot. Generally speaking, people who write books about Darwinism (theorists) are less smart than people who apply Darwinism (the practitioners). Karl Popper actually demonstrated that Darwinist theorists are dull-witted, since they cannot be made to admit that their theory has no predictive power and therefore does not obey the criterion of “falsifiability” that distinguishes science from pseudoscience. Darwinism is a tautology: all it claims to have demonstrated is the survival of the fittest. But no Darwinian has ever been able to document a single case of accidental genetic abnormality conferring any selective advantage.

Darwinism is based on the postulate that life is reduced to chemical reactions. According to Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner for his contribution to the discovery of DNA, "The ultimate goal of modernity in biology is in fact to explain all biological phenomena in physicochemical terms."

Darwinism is therefore opposed to the conception defended by the "vitalists" who, at the time of Darwin, did not deny the evolution of life, but attributed it to a "vital impulse." Schopenhauer was a vitalist, who denounced the "incredible absurdity" of the modern biological postulate: "for in this way, even the vital force is denied, and organic nature is degraded into a mere game of chance of chemical forces."

Henri Bergson was also a vitalist. He wrote in Creative Evolution (1907):

"The more one fixes one's attention on this continuity of life, the more one sees organic evolution approaching that of a consciousness, where the past presses against the present and makes spring forth a new form, incommensurable with its antecedents."

The Darwinian theory of an evolution produced by a series of chances sorted by natural selection is today more absurd than ever, given current knowledge on the extreme complexity of life.

The biochemist Michael Behe ​​therefore feels compelled to subscribe to the hypothesis of "intelligent design." He explains in his book Darwin's Black Box that the simplest known organism is "of a frightening complexity": "Synthesis, degradation, generation of energy, replication, maintenance of cellular architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication: all these functions take place in practically every cell, and each function itself requires the interaction of many parts." It is mathematically impossible for such complexity to be the result of a series of accidental errors in gene replication, even over millions of years. Stephen Meyer points out in his book Darwin’s Doubt that the revolution in biochemistry led to the realization that life is not fundamentally matter, but information. And information can only be produced by intelligence.

Rupert Sheldrake distances himself from the theory of intelligent design, which he accuses of perpetuating the monotheistic model of a creator external to his creation, and opposes it with a form of pantheism: it is life itself that is intelligent, and increasingly so. Sheldrake also professes a “dynamic Platonism,” which attributes morphogenesis to “morphic fields,” a kind of Platonic “ideas” or “forms” in perpetual evolution.

But, despite its obvious absurdity, and despite its profound crisis in the scientific community, Darwinism remains the catechism of disenchanted modernity, taught to three generations of Westerners since primary school. It is therefore not surprising that today there are many Darwinians who are not only believers, but also practitioners. The history of Catholicism proves sufficiently that the influence of morality on behavior is independent of the rationality of dogma.

Darwinism has colonized the collective psyche of the West. Freud, who saw in the sexual drive the engine of all human thought and action, based himself on Darwinism. Marx found in it "the historical-natural foundation of our conception."

I think that Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Shaw were right. The Darwinian vulgate is largely responsible for the widespread psychopathy of the elites who govern us today: in a society that has made Darwinism its fundamental truth, it is normal for the psychopath to be at the top of the social pyramid.

Even more serious, Darwinism is also largely responsible for the transformation of the collective West into a monster that devours civilizations. Western geopolitics is strictly Darwinian, and no one in high places is fooled by its moral rhetoric intended for mass consumption. Samuel Huntington sums it up perfectly:

“The West has won the world not by the superiority of its ideas, its values ​​or its religion, but rather by its superiority in the application of organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never forget it."

Laurent Guyénot