Ellis Washington: Driven Mad by Darwin

Buffoon Award

We heard the blaring sirens and saw the flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™ — but suddenly the device exploded. Catastrophic overload!

We rushed to the computer and found it linked to an article in WorldNetDaily (WND) — described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. It’s in their honor that our jolly buffoon logo is displayed above this post.

The article is by one of our WND favorites — Ellis Washington. Our last post about his work was WND: Darwin Caused 260 Million Deaths. The best example of his cosmic-level thinking can be found here, Scripture Trumps Darwin, when he informed us of “the syllogism that was a foundation of Western civilization”:

If A = B, then A + B = C

The typical Ellis article is a rapid romp through history, promiscuously dropping names and concepts that have no connection to each other or to the subject at hand — and often describing “trilogies” of evil people. The names comprising Ellis’ trilogies vary, but one of the three is usually Darwin. If Darwin isn’t in a trilogy, he’s always included in one of Ellis’ name-salads of evil people. But sometimes he gathers up a collection of historical figures from different eras and imagines that they’re holding a conversation. That’s what he’s done this time.

Today’s essay from Ellis is titled Symposium: Cult of acceptance. WND says it’s an “exclusive,” which we assume means that no other publication will touch it. That’s not difficult to understand, because the thing is virtually incomprehensible.

We’ve tried. Really we did, but the only analogy that comes to mind is that of a brain surgeon who is presented with a patient whose head looks like a watermelon that was dropped from the top of a ten-story building onto the pavement below. “Sorry,” he’d say, “I’m very good at my work, but there’s nothing I can do with this one.” That’s how we feel about Ellis’ latest essay.

It’s an imaginary symposium featuring a number of characters: Socrates, Jesus, Satan, and four demons: Beelzebub (the chief demon), Hedonism (lust of the flesh), Evolution Atheism (lust of the eyes), and Cult of Acceptance (the pride of life). The setting is “inside the abode of hell.” Actually, we think it’s a glimpse inside the head of Ellis Washington. Socrates begins by announcing, with our bold font:

In this my blackest, diabolical symposium, we are gathered this dark night in Satan’s abode of hell to discuss a paradox of the ages: Why are the children of men so predisposed to cast away everything of value – logic, reason, friends, family, God, the Bible, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little babies – to embrace the depraved Cult of Acceptance?

He answers that question at the end, but first one needs to read through the whole mess. We’ve already done that and we don’t want to go through it again, so we’ll leave that torturous task to you. Instead, we’ll jump ahead a bit to where the demon who is the Cult of Acceptance identifies himself. He says:

I am the Spirit of the Cult of Acceptance. My techniques are so simple, my tactics so sublime, my strategies so effective that the sons of Adam have followed my primrose path to hell for millennia but never realized the error of their ways until it was too late!

After Satan asks him to explain his methods, the demon rambles a bit, and finally gets around to saying this:

We need humanity to first change its worldview from biblical theism to evolution atheism. Our useful idiot in England, Charles Darwin, achieved this for us. In 40 years, with the help of our dutiful foot soldiers, the college professors of the academy spread the lies of evolution, atheism, dialectical materialism, social Darwinism, including natural selection, survival of the fittest, the world over.

With this atheist worldview established throughout the Earth, it was easy to establish what the Nazis called Gleichschaltung, or bringing into line, which quickly morphed into forcing into line (at threat of death). Pick any cataclysmic event in the history of the world – paganism, slavery, abortion, the rise of Islam, the Crusades, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, World War I and II. It all followed the same diabolical pattern, the same two simple techniques and strategies, Weltanschauung and Gleichschaltung. We murdered billions and billions and billions of people over thousands of years, which combined to form the Cult of Acceptance.

Do you understand what’s going on? Neither do we. Then Socrates sums it all up with the same question that began the symposium:

Let us now hear the conclusion of this matter. Why are the children of men so predisposed to cast away everything of value – logic, reason, friends, family, God, the Bible, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little babies – to join the depraved Cult of Acceptance?

Cowardice, fear, taking the easy road over the road less traveled, the praise of men are all good reasons, but I think it is an existential curse of human nature for the children of Adam to always want what they can’t have. It goes back to the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. …

The symposium wraps up with a speech by Jesus, and then Socrates concludes that the answer he’s looking for is … the Cult of Acceptance.

So there you are. We’ve been driven mad by Darwin. And Ellis Washington has gone where no man has gone before — and where no one else wants to go. Now you know why our Retard-o-tron™ exploded. Goodbye, old friend. We’ll have to get another.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

20 responses to “Ellis Washington: Driven Mad by Darwin

  1. anevilmeme

    This is so batsh*t insane it goes beyond “not even wrong” into some strange realm that I fear to tread.

  2. I hope there is no lasting severe damage to our good Curmudgeon’s mind from reading that wonderful web of Time Cubism.

  3. Tundra Boy says: “I hope there is no lasting severe damage to our good Curmudgeon’s mind …”

    I kept hoping that it would turn into a silly creationist rant, but no — it just kept descending into darkness. I’ll be okay, I think. But the Retard-o-tron™ is shattered.

  4. It’s no crazier than Henry Morris’ story about Satan holding a PowerPoint presentation where he teaches Darwinian theory to evil King Nimrod in an astrological temple emblazoned with demonological symbols atop the Tower of Babylon.

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    I’m betting Ellis Washington has leaked the script used for the double secret initiation rites used to induct politicos such as Rick Perry and Sarah Palin into that New Apostolic Reformation cult.

    Satan! Get thee behind me!

  6. Why are the children of men so predisposed to cast away everything of value – logic, reason, friends, family, God, the Bible, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little babies – to embrace the depraved Cult of Acceptance?

    So when has science and its adherents cast out logic, reason, friends, family, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little bables? Sure, some don’t believe in God or the Bible, but so what. God or the Bible are not relevant to science, or Darwin for that matter.

    Rather, it would appear Ellis Washington and his kind are the ones embracing the Depraved Cult of Acceptance.

  7. Why are the children of men so predisposed to cast away everything of value – logic, reason, friends, family, God, the Bible, the Constitution, a meaningful life, innocent little babies – to embrace the depraved Cult of Acceptance?

    He forgot Cheetos! How could he forget Cheetos?!?

  8. The whole truth

    The maniac (washington) who wrote that mess said:

    “Pick any cataclysmic event in the history of the world …”

    Okay, I pick the biblical flood that allegedly killed almost everyone and everything on Earth. I also pick the biblical slaughter of the Canaanites and other cultures, and the biblical plagues, and all of the other biblical ‘cataclysmic events’ perpetrated/commanded by ‘God’. I pick all of the tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, diseases, famines, accidents, ice ages, asteroid/comet/meteor impacts, etc., that have ever occurred in the history of the world that were/are ‘acts of God’, not humans. I also pick the inquisition, so-called ‘holy wars’, child rape, and all of the other ‘cataclysmic events’ perpetrated and/or enabled by followers/worshipers/promoters of ‘God’.

    “I think it is an existential curse of human nature for the children of Adam to always want what they can’t have. It goes back to the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. …”

    And where did that “human nature” come from? According to the bible it comes from ‘God’. After all, ‘God specially created humans (especially adam and eve) in his own image’, so that must be ‘God’s’ nature too. According to the bible ‘God’ created absolutely everything and knows about absolutely everything and is present at absolutely everything, so isn’t it ‘God’ who is responsible for absolutely everything?

    I wonder what Darwin would think if he could be brought to life and see how much some people hate him for no good reason. I doubt that he ever thought that he would be so vigorously demonized and blamed for all of the world’s ills for so long after his death, with no end in sight. The gargantuan, irrational hatred and erroneous, malicious blame directed at Darwin, evolution, and evolutionary theory by god zombies is totally insane.

  9. Looking back, I notice that your Buffoon got exactly zero comments about his equation as the basis for Western civilisation. I wonder why?

  10. ‘I have received, in a Manchester newspaper, rather a good squib, showing that I have proved “might is right,” and therefore that Napoleon is right, and every cheating tradesman is also right.’
    Darwin letter to Lyell, January 4?, 1860

  11. TomS says: “Darwin letter to Lyell, January 4?, 1860”

    I found it here. It’s said to be a letter to W. B. Carpenter. You can find it by searching at that link for “Manchester newspaper.”

  12. I disagree with the interpretation of “might is right” as noted above. When a person or group exerts sufficient influence to dominate the situation, then “might is right.” That doesn’t confer a morally superior interpretation to the situation, only that all obstacles have been overcome and the power that be is in charge, at least for the time being, and until that power regime is changed by another person/group who can overcome the current power structure/situation. However, it is true that while one person/group is in power, they will certainly claim the moral high ground. Then that begs the question, what is the moral high ground? Or is there a moral high ground? And what does that mean for biology/evolution, or does it mean anything?

  13. Curm,

    I believe the correct reference is May 4, 1860, to Lyell; see here. It is a PS to the letter to Lyell; the letter to Carpenter comes after.

  14. Why does this genius equation “evolution atheism” with “lust of the eyes”? Is that some kind of theological reference, e.g. scientific curiosity is evil because curiosity is “lust of the eyes”?

    Like is there some reference to Augustine or Martin Luther calling curiosity “lust of the eyes”? I know Martin Luther refers to “reason and the things of the flesh”, thus equating reason with physical lust, but perhaps we can find a specific reference to “Lust of the eyes” in Augustine.

  15. Diogenes asks:

    Why does this genius equation “evolution atheism” with “lust of the eyes”?

    I donno. Perhaps you should engage in correspondence with him. That should be rewarding.

  16. Indeed it was Augustine, Confessions, Book 10 chapter 35, here. The phrase “lust of the eyes” is a reference to the first epistle of John 2:16. St. Augustine equates it to scientific curiosity, or the urge to experiment, the “malady of curiosity” which causes people to “search out the secret powers of nature” when they should instead be praying and praising God.

    Augustine: “In addition to this there is another form of temptation, more complex in its peril. For besides that concupiscence of the flesh which lies in the gratification of all senses and pleasures, wherein its slaves who “are far from You perish,” there pertains to the soul, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious longing, cloaked under the name of knowledge and learning, not of having pleasure in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh. This longing, since it originates in an appetite for knowledge, and the sight being the chief amongst the senses in the acquisition of knowledge, is called in divine language, “the lust of the eyes.” [Latin: concupiscentia oculorum] (1st epistle of John 2:16) For seeing belongs properly to the eyes; yet we apply this word to the other senses also, when we exercise them in the search after knowledge. …And thus the general experience of the senses, as was said before, is termed “the lust of the eyes,” because the function of seeing…the other senses by way of similitude take possession of, whensoever they seek out any knowledge.

    55. But by this is it more clearly discerned, when pleasure and when curiosity is pursued by the senses; for pleasure follows after objects that are beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for experiment’s sake, seeks the contrary of these,—not with a view of undergoing uneasiness, but from the passion of experimenting upon and knowing them. For what pleasure is there to see, in a lacerated corpse, that which makes you shudder? And yet if it lie near, we flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. …From this malady of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence do we proceed to search out the secret powers of nature (which is beside our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. [St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, Book 10, chapter 35]

    A commentary on this passage is here.

    So Augustine cites the 1st epistle of John to equate scientific curiosity = physical lust = evil.

    Then Ellis Washington cites St. Augustine to equate “evolution atheism” = scientific curiosity = physical lust = evil.

    Can’t get much more anti-scientific than that.

  17. Diogenes quotes Augustine:

    there pertains to the soul, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain and curious longing, cloaked under the name of knowledge and learning, not of having pleasure in the flesh, but of making experiments through the flesh. This longing, since it originates in an appetite for knowledge, and the sight being the chief amongst the senses in the acquisition of knowledge, is called in divine language, “the lust of the eyes.”

    Repent, Diogenes, while there is still time!

  18. Here is a comment I wrote at WND:

    “The reference to “Evolution atheism” as “the lust of the eyes” is deeply anti-scientific, and aptly expresses the religious opposition of creationists against science, experimentation and investigation. The phrase “the lust of the eyes” [Latin concupiscentia oculorum] is from St. Augustine’s “Confessions”, Book 10, chapter 35, in which he attacks human curiosity, which leads to experimentation and investigation, by which humans “search out the secret powers of nature”. Augustine opposed scientific investigation into or experimentation on “the secret powers of nature” and thus he called curiosity about nature “the lust of the eyes” and equated it with physical lust. Augustine in turn was referencing 1 John 2:16.

    Notice here Ellis Washington is blaming “Evolution atheism” for “the rise of Islam” and the Christian crusades, and paganism. In short, he’s blaming atheists for inventing religion and religious activities. At least he is conceding that religion is a bad thing, so he got one thing right.

    Washington also includes SLAVERY in his list of things he blames on atheism– but the Bible clearly sanctions slavery– is Ellis calling the Bible atheist? And every Christian theologian in the American South pre-Civil War (and some post-Civil War) not only defended slavery, but accused the OPPONENTS of slavery of being atheist.

    Conservative Christians, pre-Civil War: “Opposition to slavery is atheism!”

    Conservative Christians, post-Civil War: “Atheists are to blame for the slavery sanctioned by our Bible!”

    As for World War I and II, Christians started both of those, but atheists helped end them by cracking the Enigma code and inventing the atom bomb. In World War I in particular, both sides said that God was on their side. The German army had “Gott mit uns” [God is with us] on their belt buckles in both World War I and II, and Hitler was constantly attacking atheists and materialists and portrayed himself as the defender of Christianity against those evil liberals (yes, he said liberals.)

    Is there any Christian crime WND will not blame on atheism?”

    Here is WND’s response, in red:

    You do not have permission to post on this thread.

  19. Diogenes was told by WND: “You do not have permission to post on this thread.”

    Maybe my suggestion that you engage in correspondence with Ellis wasn’t such a good idea.

  20. Mark Joseph

    @Diogenes:
    As Richard Dawkins said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”