In that sense, and whether he notices it or not, Putin was implicitly or indirectly attacking the Neo-Darwinian ideology, which states that objective morality is an illusion and has no metaphysical basis.
It is here that we find again that Neo-Darwinian metaphysics is intellectually useless and worthless because it denies the very essence of a moral universe.
If evolutionary theory “explains how warfare contributed to fitness in the course of the evolution of Homo sapiens,” as scholar Bradley A.
Thayer maintains, then how can a serious Darwinist say that social Darwinism or even Zionism is really bad on a consistent and logical basis?
The West is Gomorrah.” Putin said: “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values.
Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.
Putin also portrayed Russia as a staunch defender of ‘traditional values’ against what he depicted as the morally bankrupt West.“That is why the Western propaganda machine is calling him names.” Barrett continued to argue cogently: “It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of God…. “The shock troops of the NWO’s war against religion and tradition (and Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives.Putin’s reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists. Operation Gladio terrorist Michael Ledeen explains: “‘Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad.Thayer, of course, struggles mightily to rationally defend the thesis that “Warfare contributes to fitness” and that “people wage war to gain and defend resources” while maintaining that social Darwinists were wrong in taking social Darwinism to its logical conclusion.He says that “social Darwinists perverted Charles Darwin’s argument” and “distorted evolutionary explanations because they misunderstood Darwin’s ideas and were ignorant of or consciously chose to ignore the naturalistic fallacy.If all future food were Pablum, we would probably be better off without teeth. If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down.