Contra Lewis: The Drooling Moron on Creationism and Race Realism

More Weird Science

More Weird ScienceSome guy named Todd Lewis strongly disliked my recent Counter-Currents article, Weird Science: Liberal Creationism vs. Christian Creationism. His response, hosted at the otherwise praiseworthy Attack the System anarchist website, Contra Parrott: The Emptiness of Third-Way Anthropology, was absolutely riddled with scathing insults. While I often find it necessary to look up obscure references when I’m engaged by an anti-White blogger, Mr. Lewis has the distinction of being the first critic who required me to look up an insult.

I haven’t actually taken the time to read Harold Covington’s critically-acclaimed series of White Nationalist action/adventure novels, so I had no idea what a “DM” was. According to Mr. Lewis, I’m a “drooling moron”. I’m also an adherent of Madame Blavatsky, a neo-nazi kook, a fascist, a neo-nazi-fascist, anti-Jewish, what I claim to hate, stupid, a liar, deaf, anti-social, stupid, a hypocrite, and most damning…formulaic. With so much buckshot fired in my general direction, I’m sure I’m guilty to varying degrees of some of these charges, but I object to being formulaic.

After leaving nothing but a charred spot on the ground where I had stood, he turned the label gun on himself for his closing remarks,

In conclusion I could be accused of irreverence, bellicosity, meanness, and misconstruing Matt Parrott, CC and Race-Realism. This might all be true, but this is nothing less than Matt Parrott’s SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). He takes all the leftwing crap and regurgitates it like a good Marxist drone when he is criticizing Christians, but whines when the left returns the favor on race.

My critique of Young Earth Creationism is indeed partially commensurate with the Leftists’ critiques of it. Sometimes Commies are correct. I have no compunction against plucking rhetorical appetizers from the left wing of the ideological cafeteria when it suits me. Chomsky’s critique of cannibal capitalism is great, and I quote him when appropriate. Even Marx had his share of accurate statements and conclusions, and many of his prophecies relating to capitalism becoming more destructive and alienating have come to fruition.

There are no such things as “their facts” and “our facts”, a truism which is commonly lost on rigid ideologues whose eagerness and loyalty to their factions surpass their critical thinking skills. I am not leaning on popular opinion or institutional legitimacy in my arguments against Ken Ham. My arguments do happen to have those in this case, but I believe the weight of my writing over the past decade confirms that I do not have a Standard Operating Procedure of leaning on popular fads when it suits me. Besides, I published my essay at Counter-Currents, a venue where neither the editors, the contributors, nor the readers put any weight in this regime or its pronouncements.


Mr. Lewis accused me of “criticizing Christians” when I’ve done nothing of the sort. I criticized a particular line of thinking and arguing which some Christians have been engaging in, “Young Earth Creationism”.  I’m a Christian, and my work is for Christ. If a group of Christians are doing something which is misguided and self-destructive, then it’s necessary and appropriate to correct them. They’re doing Christianity a disservice when they insist that the Christian faith is incompatible with established science. Having been a teenage atheist who rejected Christianity for nearly a decade precisely because I presumed that Christianity required choosing between it and my passion for anthropological research, I’m not budging.

True to form, he perceives my disagreement with his exegesis and concomitant sham science as an objection to Christianity itself. He insists, incorrectly, that scientific research relating to the Big Bang demonstrates that science has indeed crossed the metaphysical chasm, attempting to explain the ultimate origins. Science categorically cannot do that. Contrary to popular belief, “The Big Bang Theory” doesn’t even ask or answer the ultimate question of how existence either emerged from a true philosophical vacuum or is perhaps infinite.

“What existed before the Big Bang?”

“Where did the laws of physics which led to the Big Bang come from?”



Ultimately, Mr. Lewis is a philosopher by trade whose interest in science is evidently limited to cramming his philosophical and religious conclusions into it. Science doesn’t presume that God doesn’t exist, science is indifferent to His existence. It’s a process, a method, a tool. It can’t ask or answer whether God exists any more than a hammer can turn a screw. Hypothetically, God could prove himself by the scientific method’s rules, perhaps by placing some golden tablets confirming his existence in Bill Nye’s hat. Given that His sacred texts repeatedly emphasize the importance of cultivating faith in Him, and how predictable and amenable to scientific investigation His creation has proven to be, that seems an unlikely prospect.

Mr. Lewis is correct in noting that belief in God would lead to that being possible. My mistake. Unlikely, in my estimation. But certainly possible.

Science is about measuring and observing, then crafting hypotheses from these measurements and observations which can be tested with further measurement and observation. Mr. Lewis and the rest of the Answers in Genesis crowd would like to make a distinction between contemporary and “historical” science which can’t actually be observed. This relies on an intuitive but false reliance on our primary senses. After all, we can’t actually ride a dinosaur, sliding our hands through their feathers (or across their scales) as we gallop along the Jurassic landscape, “seeing it for ourselves”.

Contemporary science doesn’t work that way, either. Few of us (eight, to be precise) have actually pranced along the surface of the moon. Nuclear physics are pretty much entirely divorced from firsthand observation right up until the light switch works…or the blast wave jerks. An instrument which measures something to a certain degree of precision measures something to a certain degree of precision whether it’s measuring the oxygen level in the room you’re standing in or the oxygen level in the Carboniferous Period. Distant time limits accuracy, of course, but it’s a clinal rather than cladistic concern. Calling it a different kind of science altogether is a Creationist trope.

Race Realism

Speaking of different kinds of science, there is an important distinction between actual science and popular science. In actual science, medications, treatments, and prognoses are commonly tailored to a person’s biological race. In popular science, race is a vaporous social construct. The parallax is striking, and mainstream psychometricians are very careful to speak very guardedly and in obfuscated lexicon when confirming that different human population groups consistently exhibit different average brain sizes and intelligence quotients. While science is necessarily (and appropriately) silent on the policy conclusions to draw from its data, Todd Lewis betrays his ignorance of scientific research by presuming that stark racial differences are only supported by a handful of Esoteric Hitlerist “kooks”.

In a baffling bit of pseudo-intellectual effrontery, he declares that our Race Realism originated with Madame Blavatsky’s esoteric cult. How do I respond to this silly proposition, befitting an unexceptional teenager who’s sat through one too many History Channel specials? Until we produce a sensationalist History Channel documentary or populist Racialism Museum with an attractive gift shop and food court, Mr. Lewis will likely remain “skeptical”. For the curious reader, Libertarian Realist has a nice collection of sources on the topic here: Race Realism: A Primer.

Well over a century before Madame Blavatsky’s silly sideshow shtick, President Thomas Jefferson gathered a great deal of elementary research and observations on racial differences in his Notes on Virginia, research and observations which have largely been confirmed and corroborated by methodologically superior and more precise examinations since then. The Nobel laureate who discovered DNA directly declared, regarding Blacks, that “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” The inventor of the transistor, the very founder of Silicon Valley himself, dedicated his years after winning the Nobel Prize to challenging the taboo against race realism.

If “race realism” is a pseudo-science, then ours is unique among pseudo-sciences in having accumulated more Nobel Laureates, esteemed researchers, and quality peer-reviewed original research than all of the other pseudo-sciences combined. Not a single standardized test has been composed which shows racial parity in intelligence. Todd Lewis is welcome to sketch a test up in Adobe Acrobat and collaborate with a local college to administer it. If I’m really as kooky as Lewis insists, producing one single peer-reviewed and replicable would be super easy. Finding an example of somebody else on God’s green earth having done so would be even easier.

Finally, he insists that he’s on an Internet where race realist ideas are given a fair hearing and then crushed by the weight of quality egalitarian research disproving racial differences. On the Internet my computer’s connected to, comment sections of mainstream media outlets are jealously guarded by moderators who steadily work to filter out our increasingly popular position. Our blogs and outlets are growing larger year over year, with active and growing Internet communities as more and more people explore the facts and join us in our conclusions. Meanwhile, the “anti-racist” (read: anti-White) outlets necessarily have their comments on moderation, not that there’s much of a community to moderate.

It’s not just me. Mainstream voices in media and academia are claiming that the Internet is a “hotbed of hate” where “hate groups are on the march” and so forth. Even farther out on the limb, in the application of identitarian ideas to public policy, Mr. Lewis’s position is on the defensive. The Swiss just passed a major border control law. John Boehner solidified the GOP’s retreat from amnesty last week. Europe’s nationalist parties are rapidly gaining strength and the gatekeepers of acceptable opinion are panicking.

Anarchism and the New Right

The site, Attack the System, is an anarchist collective, under the aegis of Editor-in-Chief Keith Preston. While Preston’s neither a Christian nor a White Nationalist, his particular flavor of anarchism and open-minded disposition leaves him tolerant of Christian and race realist positions which the self-styled paragons of “Tolerance” would never tolerate. His “anarchism” deserves a separate term to distinguish itself from the Marxist farce which has effectively usurped the label.

According to Preston’s conception of anarchy, a global patchwork of relatively small organic collectives would emerge, typically around ethnic identity, religious affiliation, and culture. You know, …the kind of stuff people actually gravitate toward when a powerful state doesn’t preclude their doing so with its network of incentives and disincentives. I’ve joked about it, but there’s some truth to my claim that his “anarchist” label and my “fascist” label largely boil down to semantic quibbles over defining the “state”. I also joke, and there’s also some truth to my claim that I’m a “Situational Anarchist”. I’m as opposed to this state as he is, and much more so (in both theory and practice) than most self-styled “anarchists”.

I appreciate Todd Lewis taking the time to kick off the debate between divergent factions of the New Right (or Dark Enlightenment or Dissident Right or whatever). If I do happen to be drooling, it’s because I’m salivating at the prospect of a constructive dialogue with a fellow Christian political dissident. I’m not, as he imagines, an evil racial supremacist hellbent on whipping up a totalitarian regime of some sort. I’ll happily debate him to the hilt on any relevant political topic he prefers. If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly concede. If he catches an error of mine, I’ll gladly correct myself (as I did once above).



Don’t sweat the mental midgets. Anyone who would quote any Harold Covington ANYTHING isn’t even worth the time to be bothered by.

Matt Parrott

If you have any thoughts on the Creationism debate, I would love to hear them, Mike.

I don’t want to create the impression that I’m speaking ex cathedra on the topic and should probably explicitly make clear that Young Earth Creationists are welcome under the umbrella.


Well I approach Creationism the way the Orthodox Church always approached it.. in an allegorical manner. The Orthodox never squabble over the details of Creationism. There were some Church Fathers who would be considered “Young Earthers” today, and many who took the Creation narrative as allegorical Truth. They never seemed to let the details concerning its literalness or lack of take away from the Truth that there IS a Creator, and that He is God Almighty. The “how” He created or the method or the time periods seemed less important to them. I never saw any dogma or any fighting over the details, that I am aware of. The most important thing, it seemed to them, is simply knowing that God created; that there is a Supreme Energy and Essence along with the Logos and Spirit that brought all things into being.


I can boil down the crux of the issue into a one word quote: ‘stark.’ Matt P you claim the racial differences are stark, as do many ‘race realists.’

I tend to think just the opposite, and posit that there exist strands of difference at the ends of the spectra. Those strands, in my schema, probably account for what translates into what become vast differences. I am an amateur (and they in fact are all amateur) sociobiologist, and consider that lens far more useful in analyzing racial differences than a strictly determinist biological model – which I do not think is popularizing at all. In fact, I sense that making a biological fetish of race is self-destructive for Whites. Which is not to accuse TradYouth of doing this. Where I differ in the broader field of defining Whiteness with TradYouth is in the tribal and cultural levels.

I also get the sense that I have been relegated to the spam dungeon, the cyber doghouse if you will, here at TradYouth. Oh well. You deserve my criticisms, rude bitchiness included.

While I am not 100% certain about the white mainstream’s reception of race realism heavy, as opposed to lite or supporting role-filling, I’m somewhat certain that to serve it up as the main meal will have a negative net effect.

Orthodox Mike

I agree with much of what you say. Biological determinism doesn’t make a People. It doesn’t make a Folk. It is a mere component in a holistic and metaphysical mosaic of Mind, Body, and Soul.


Thanks for that, Mike. I find myself feeling like the odd woman out among most pro-Whites (or whatever we are) in that my touchstone isn’t really any one rigid dogma, like race realism, or religion, etc. A mosaic is a good word, although if I were to find the closest one that sums up how I ‘identify’ it would probably be tribe. This strong sense of my people seems to come from growing up in the northeast, where a stalwart tribalism pretty much grounds most people’s social interactions and self-concept.

I once declared on Amren, “I am a woman of my tribe,” to a mostly positive reception attended by a few itinerant hard core race realist lectures about how we are above being tribal.

I am most definitely not and love my people with a passion and defiance that would probably fit better in Europe, although here in the northeast US I got to kind of pick and choose from among the organically-formed mosaic of my larger tribe, the northwestern europeans aka germanic or anglo celts. This way I could pick and choose from what my larger ‘people’ had to offer and from how we assimilated with one another.

In our hearts we are one, though. I know this as a yankee, and as a full-blooded germanic celt mutt 🙂 I don’t know how much agreement I’d get here at TradYouth, but I stick around and add my unsolicited and seemingly ignored two cents anyway.

It’s odd to me that Matt P, and Tom can express what seems like such myopia and in that, what feels like a fetishization, of who I experience ‘us’ as being. The clash hits me most on issues of gender, as the white anglo germanic celt men who raised me were so peaceful and loving in their dealings with me and girls and women generally. I have a spanish and hungarian friend who accuses me of chauvinism and I cop to it gleefully. My men are the absolute best in the world to women and I wish ‘WN’ or ‘pro-White’ men of my tribe would think on this more deeply.

That is not to disrespect other european tribes or races, I’m just calling things from where I stand, in my land and of my people.


The only mainstream race realist is Tom Wolfe. Did you read Bonfire of the Vanities? He says you can’t understand black NY policemen until you realize they’re really Irish, because of the intense Irishness of police culture. (Of course that is now pretty long ago.) So biological race is not primary on its own, but because it is usually (50+% of the time?) aligned with culture and group loyalty relative to other groups.

Matt Parrott

Name a time and platform, Meister Lewis. I’ll plow through your flimsy arguments like a texting teenage girl through your buggy. 😀


Of course Lewis has no ethical position from which to argue about politics, other than, perhaps, a feel-good-ism so common among antinomian Evangelicals.

Prepare yourself for re-hashed, ad-hoc, dogma…

Todd Lewis

You can try.

Also here is a list of topics Keith cooked up. Why don’t you pick which one you would like.

“Among the potential debate topics thrown out so far have been “traditional conservatism vs. white nationalism/racialism,” “conservatives vs. fascists,” “traditionalists vs. nationalists” (there is a difference), “Christians vs. neo-pagans,” “social conservatism vs race realism” etc.”


How about:

“A well thought-out and hard-earned political position vs. knee-jerk dogmatic zealotry.”

Todd Lewis

Sure if you like.

I would hope that Matt and I would use well thought out positions otherwise its just a farce, like arguing with leftists.


I know this is an old post, but I’d note that I’ve often thought a quick litmus test of whether or not someone was a modernist was to present them an alternative scientific paradigm then gauge their reaction.

If, as is the case in this article, it’s assumed there are indisputable scientific “facts”, usually proclaimed via jargon like: “We now know…” or “Science tells us…” … then the person is a modernist who hasn’t been affected (yet) by the devastating blow Postmodern theorizing leveled against the “certainty” of accepted scientific paradigms.

Matt Parrott

I spent like a week immersing myself in the Flat Earth hypothesis when I was a teenager with precisely that sort of concern in mind, and have actually attempted to clear my head and ponder to myself how I’m so certain that “Japan” actually exists.

In morals and metaphysics, the presuppositionalist’s skepticism about axioms and preconditions pays off against the web of bullshit woven by Enlightenment philosophe windbags and humanist merchants of mercantile moral madness.

In matters of science, one should never entirely abandon those sorts of rudimentary questions. Those who categorically disallow questions are being decidedly anti-scientific in their “defense” of science. Science is anti-fragile, and the truth is capable of defending itself if it’s merely let free, something which is as true in the laboratory as it is in daily social interaction and religious study.

But I can say with a great degree of certainty from my study that the world is pretty much spherical, Japan exists on it, and it’s been spinning around for billions of years.


…and there are some little girls who are psychologically certain wolves live under their bed.

The modernist fear of postmodernism, rightly founded, is that on postmodernism all truth disappears entirely. The challenge is finding some non-arbitrary way of stopping the postmodernist.

In my view, that requires a word from God in some form or other, be it mysticism, church authority, or some confusing tangle of hermeneutic strategy. But what I want to avoid is the whole: “…Science says…” If anything’s certain, it’s that “science” isn’t a person and can’t say anything at all about anything. It’s people who do the talking.

Matt Parrott

If you’re holding the Bible in a manner which requires you to conclude what experimentally and experientially has been confirmed to simply not be so, then you’re obligated to rotate the book and adjust your glasses prescription until the two means of discerning truth are aligned. Sticking to an exegesis when it quite firmly contradicts observation is right up there with numerology, prophetic quackery, gnosticism, and other esoteric perversions of the Christian faith.

I get what you’re getting at with postmodernism, radical relativity, and presuppositionalism, but I think “but…but…science!” is a perfectly Christian exclamation. After all, the Christian God created this finely tuned material realm and then invited us to explore and exploit it. A Christian footing is a more secure footing for a rigorous scientist than humanism, nihilism, existentialism, or whatever, framing the context of it all so that the scientist can carbon date rocks without concerning himself about whether the rocks are just illusions in a Matrix dream or what-have-you.


I wont say anymore about this (here), but as a last point: there’s no experiment or empirical observation of any kind (nor any mental phenomena either) that does not include a wealth of philosophical assumptions to be intelligible.

Consider the proposition “I exist” for example. There’s notorious controversy among philosophers about what an “I” experience even is and whether we can track it intelligibly over any given succession of moments. Questions about the so-called “problem of personal identity” lead philosophers like Hume to posit a “bundle theory” of mind, a theory that says there is no “I” at all, but rather a series of “I” experiences that may or may not be causally related. But on top of those sorts of questions, we must know what “exists” means and we must also know how to relate the “I” to the word “exist”…a wealth of blind assumptions are required.

If even the most basic of propositions requires that sort of speculation, then imagine what complex scientific theories require.

The so-called Scientific Method itself includes a wealth of metaphysical assumptions – or, as I like to say: religious assumptions. Certain Buddhists, Hindus, some transcendentalists, and other monistic metaphysicians, are unable to hold to their chosen metaphysical / religious view and also utilize the supposedly assumption-free method. If they do, they’d be violating certain tenets of their own Faith by presupposing things like the uniformity of nature, fundamental discrimination between particular objects, certain theories of time, etc…all necessarily assumed by the “bias-free” method.

No, there is no experiment that can be done outside the context of some metaphysical view or other.

The question I have for modernists is why they choose to operate within the post-Christian, naturalist, “scientistic” metaphysic. Usually, it’s because that’s what they’ve been taught in school and it’s the view they have to adhere to if they want that sainted of all trophies: respectability.

Leave a Reply