Faussette’s Genesis
Faussette’s Genesis
By
Robert E. Reis
An introduction to “The Book of Genesis from a Darwinian Perspective” by Rich Faussette, 8 Vol. 7, No. 2 The Occidental Quarterly
Richard Faussette was inspired to reevaluate the Book of Genesis when he noticed that Charles Darwin had observed that man had harnesses natural selection in the first book of the Hebrew Bible.
Faussette discerned that a Darwinian thread connected the Adam and Eve, Jacob and Esau, and the Joseph in Egypt stories.
He asserts that the entire evolutionary group strategy of the Jewish genetic clustering of the Middle Eastern genetic clustering of the non - European genetic clustering of the Caucasian genetic clustering “was collapsed into this single book hidden beneath the allegories but in plain sight once you had the proper perspective.”
Mr. Faussette treats the stories in Genesis as allegories, i.e. the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence.
What is the allegory of Adam and Eve really about?
He reminds that current scientific view of human evolution tells that “around four million years ago man’s hominid ancestors left the safety of the jungle canopy for the open African savannas. Over countless generations they evolved to walk upright on two legs. Once their hands were free and they could manipulate objects skillfully, man’s ancestors made tools and began to learn sophisticated survival strategies...When a number of individuals were required to manufacture and deploy an effective tool or mount an effective strategy, again over countless generations, our ancestors evolved speech to facilitate communications. They learned to tolerate one another in greater numbers in their efforts to organize and defend themselves from other groups of early men.
The escalating conflict caused by the freeing of the hands for technology naturally selected for bigger brains that could juggle more behavioral alternatives. The behavioral repertoire expanded rapidly. As the behavioral repertoire expanded, man found himself consciously choosing from among a growing number of behavioral alternatives and his unique sense of self emerged, a consequence of having to consciously juggle many behavioral alternatives in his struggle for survival.”
Genesis tells us that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” the “eyes of both of them were opened and they discovered that they were naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made loincloths and hid from the Lord God.”
Faussette infers that the Adam and Eve story reflects the recognition that mankind had moved from one state of conscious to another. From a hominid that lacked a sense of self, we had been transformed into the sole creature on this planet that felt shame. He emphasizes, “Without a sense of self, what would one be ashamed of?”
From hominids who instinctively knew what to do like the other animal, mankind had been thrust into a novel state of consciousness. “An organism that behaves instinctively cannot behave otherwise and does not make conscious mistakes. On the other hand, if you rely on acquired behaviors you have learned, you must consciously choose from among many possible behavioral alternatives in any given situation. You are prone to error and your awareness of that fact generates ontological anxiety.”
By venturing beyond the borders of instinct mankind was condemned to make conscious choices based upon what he had learned. For Faussette the ability to make wrong choices is ability to sin. Sin is making a wrong choice.
The Jewish patriarchs were shepherds. Charles Darwin observed that these men had domesticated, bred their animals and learned to manipulate the reproductive differences in their flocks from generation to generation. Families that acquired significant knowledge and passed that knowledge down to their sons tended to survive and prosper. Families that failed to acquire and instill in their sons the knowledge of what were fast becoming “adaptive disciplines” did not.
Faussette points out the evolutionary implications of the story of Jacob and Esau. Isaac and Rebecca have two sons. The older son acts unintelligently be allowing his younger brother to obtain his birthright for a bowl of soup and violates the ethnocentrism of Judaism by later marrying a Hittite woman.
Later Rebecca and the younger son Jacob deceive Isaac into giving his final blessing to Jacob instead of to Esau.
Deceit, deception, treachery and fraud are rewarded. Cleverness trumps honesty.
Rebecca sends Jacob to live with a relative so that he will not be tempted to take a wife outside the tribe like his dimmer witted brother.
Jacob wanted to marry Rachel, the younger daughter of Laban, but is tricked into working for fourteen years before his gets her. He also is forced to marry Leah her older and “dull-eyed” sister.
Faussette summarizes his finding up to this point.
“We have determined from the story of Adam and Eve that man’s fall from grace was a result of his evolutionary transition from instinct to learned behavior. From that we deduced that religion is man’s attempt to learn as much as he can for as long as he lives until learning becomes intuitive and a man can stand in the presence of God without fear. In the story of Jacob and Esau the birthright goes to the most cunning and intelligent, the one “closest to God,” just as God predicted in an appearance to Rebecca who participates in her son Jacob’s treachery. Having won the birthright, Jacob dutifully obeys his mother and goes to Harran to find a wife among her relatives. Laban cunningly substitutes the dull-eyed Leah for Jacob’s first choice, the younger and more vivacious Rachel. The substitution reintroduces the theme of the elder and the younger. The elder Leah is dull-eyed, as the elder Esau was careless. Whereas Rebecca had schemed to have the younger, cleverer Jacob obtain the birthright, Laban arranges to have the older, duller Leah marry Jacob. It is the same switch—in reverse. If Leah is truly dull-eyed, and the principles of selection were at that early period attended to as Darwin and Genesis tell us, then Jacob expects the offspring of Leah to inherit the dull eyes of their mother along with the birthright. He also knows that Rachel’s sons, though gifted with their mother’s vigor and better suited for leadership, are destined to follow. It would at first appear that the less intelligent gain the advantages while the more intelligent are denied them, which is just the opposite of what had transpired between Jacob and Esau.”
Jacob worked the seven extra years for Rachel while wreaking his vengeance on Laban. Jacob deliberately weakens Laban’s flocks. He breeds only the less vigorous animals in Laban’s flocks while breeding the most vigorous animals in his own. By forcing Jacob to marry a dull-eyed wife first, Laban had weakened Jacob’s human flock. The son of a dull-eyed woman would procure the birthright and title of patriarch and will rule over Jacob’s next generation
Jacob knew he could select for desired traits in his flocks. Why would he not believe that human could also by bred for valuable selectable traits that could be passed down from generation to generation?
Faussette believes that his Darwinian interpretation of the allegory of Adam and Eve entails that “intelligence must always prevail in the Bible.”
For Faussette, “[t]he Darwinian truth of the matter would be borne out in the progeny of Leah and Rachel.”
Reuben, the first-born of the dull-eyed Leah, defiles his father’s concubine. Simeon and Levi the next two sons of Leah have spades that become weapons of violence. Their father curses them. Judah, next son of Leah, sells Joseph, Rachel’s first born into slavery, and marries a Canaanite woman.
The son of vivacious Rachel is Joseph, rightful bearer of the birthright in God’s eyes and Jacob’s eyes. Joseph rises to become counselor to the pharaoh. Joseph becomes a prince among his brothers and his brothers become subject to him—and the elders serve the younger.
The son and the grandsons of the vivacious Rachel have become the equals of the firstborn of the dull-eyed Leah. “God’s Law is immutable. The allegory of the elder serving the younger is three generations deep. Intelligence is passed down from generation to generation, and intelligence prevails over birthright.”
Faussettes errors when he states that the Jewish God “does indeed favor the learned.”
The defining quality Faussette ascribes to Isaac, Jacob, Rebecca, Laban, Rachel, and Joseph is “cunning”, not intelligence.
What is cunning? It is skill in deception. Its synonyms include trickery, intrigue, slyness, deception and guile. Cunning implies an inclination toward deceit, slyness, and trickery. Cunning implies a shrewd, often instinctive skill in concealing or disguising the real purposes of one’s actions.
I agree with Mr. Faussette that the Jewish Bible reveals knowledge that human families like sheep can be bred for specific traits. But the trait favored by the Jewish God is not intelligence or learning, but cunning.
The Jewish patriarchs religiously pursued a eugenic policy to achieve a desired outcome. For Faussette, the goal was “greater intelligence”, for me the obvious goal was guile.
I recommend that the complete article be read by the Majority Rights community.
Comments (24) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
Sir, I hope you noticed Jacob’s method to produce the right colored lambs that were to be his according to the contract with his employer. It had to do something with colored sticks and sympathic magic. The episode shows that Jacob had no idea of genetics and selection. Well, it was 4000 years ago and even a generation ago people had some funny ideas about genetics, like black blood jumping generations and showing in the third generation or Jews were not White.
Jews are not members of the European gentic clustering of the Caucasoid race. The are mebers of the Middle Eastern genetic clustering of the non-European genetic clustering of the Caucasoid race. They are simply misplaced Palestinians.
Posted by Robert Reis on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 01:30 PM | #
j,
Is it your ridiculous thesis that techne and magical thinking cannot be coeval in a given culture or a given person’s mind? If so, then please explain to me the development of human civilization despite the presence of magical thinking.
I thought the jews were more clever than that.
Posted by Captainchaos on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 03:25 PM | #
Jews in fact are starting to move away from claiming “white” identity as the (largely Jewish-invented and Jewish-pushed) Eurospherewide demonization of whites gains ground. A growing number are starting to look at themselves as non-"white," understandable in light of (Jewish-pushed) Eurosphere phenomena such as this:
One of the organizations cooperating with the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency is the Swedish left-wing organization Expo, which most of my readers should be familiar with. One of the co-founders of Expo, Tobias Hübinette, wrote this in 1996:
“To feel and even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regard to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, racially mixed and classless ecological society! Long live anarchy!”
According to his CV, Tobias Hübinette worked for Expo until at least 1997. In other words, he continued doing research for this “anti-racist” organization after having advocated the extermination of whites and the violent destruction of an entire civilization. Hübinette has continued promoting “Multiculturalism,” even received awards, and is currently working for the Multicultural Centre of Botkyrka, Sweden. To some, “Multiculturalism” apparently means “death to white people and their culture,” nothing more and nothing less.
I take Tobias Hübinette for a Euro, not a Jew, and he is of course the kind of pathology no society is completely free of which the Jews do all in their power to promote and strengthen until it develops into an abscess on the societal body.
Lots of Eurosphere Jews don’t sign onto the demonization of whites. Some are outright alarmed by it. But they’re not the ones who are in control of “the Jews.” The ones who support it, and push it for all they’re worth, like Abe Foxman of the ADL, like the Jewish media owners and honchos, and countless others, are the ones who are in control of “the Jews” and present the public face by which the Jews are judged by all who are closely observing them, such as myself.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 03:56 PM | #
There’s the following also, which is very important not to lose sight of:
“Whites" here refers to Euros, not Jews. Jews don’t want race-replacement of themselves. When Jews hyped the “Whites are the cancer of history” idea for forty years they intended “whites” as a code word for their age-old ethnoracial enemy, Eurochristians. They weren’t hyping the idea that Jews were part of that cancer of history. Definitely not.
The Jewish four-decade-and-counting attack on “whites” is not meant to target Jews. “Whites” is Jewish code for Eurochristians. Most Jews sort of instinctively grasp that and either aren’t too alarmed by these “attacks on whites” or fervently join in in support, understanding they’re an attack on their ethnic enemy, not on Jews too. It’s an ethnic attack on what one ethnicity, the Jews, sees as its mortal enemy, Eurochristians. Imagine Ulster Catholics launching an attack on Ulster Prods, or Cypriot Turks launching an attack on Cypriot Greeks, or Iraqi Sunnis launching an attack on Iraqi Shi’ites, or Orthodox Serbs launnching an attack on Moslem Kosovars, or Turks launching an attack on Armenians: Eurosphere Jews launching an attack on “whites” — i.e., on Eurochristians, their ethnoracial enemy — is exactly like that: an ethnic attack by one ethnic group on another.
Now that the attack has succeeded to what must be a gratifying extent in the eyes of the Jews who launched it, lots of Jews are backing away from the option of being considered “white,” for several reasons, at least a few of them obvious.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 04:20 PM | #
Well.
Not that the Jews of today are in any way related to the Hebrew Patriarchs of yesterday.
Nor that the Bible’s stories of election (a case of “Divine SUPER-natural selection’) can in any way compete with the ‘blind forces of chance,’ that is the Evolutionist’s ‘god.’
Nor that God ‘opted for cunning’ as a character trait among the Elect, unless you wish to attribute that trait in its’ most positive light to say, the Celts, who stand as much to be called “Israelites” as those whom St. John says: “I know those who say they are Jews, but are not” [Rev. 2:8,9]....(the etymology of “Hibernia” is related to the tribe/man name Iber, or the root for “Hebrew")
I’ve discussed the racial phenotyping of the Chosen People (Adam and his posterity, as distinct from the ‘goyim’ of the world) from a theological perspective, and come to much nobler conclusions than this sort of ‘pseudo-science’ that evolution’s devotees continue to spew forth, from time to time.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-season-of-incarnation-2/
(and all the way up to post 13 of this same series)
While there certainly was a lot of brain matter used in conjecturing this idea, it sadly is misdirected, and continues to apply falsely the moniker of ‘chosen people’ on the wrong ‘genetic cluster’ at the same time.
Why are whites continuing to die because Jews placed us in harm’s way by forcing integration on us and continue to be the biggest obstacles to anyone’s undoing that scourge? Why don’t they force integration on themselves? Why don’t they import all U.S. Negroes into Israel and force all the Jews there to become Negro murder and rape victims and leave Eurosphere whites alone in Eurosphere nations?
Why aren’t the Jews forcing Negroes onto themselves if they love them so much? Why are they only forcing them on everyone else? Anyone know the answer to that? Could it be they’re using Negroes as a weapon, a bludgeon?
Of course the other question is why are whites putting up with it? Well, whatever the explanation, they aren’t going to much longer.
(Hat tip.)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 04:55 PM | #
Just an aside, but I never really got the big “clash” between Darwin and Genesis. It’s not too hard to reconcile them, at a certain level at least. God made man from dirt in Genesis and The Origin. God made lower life forms first (oceans before land) in both as well. God differentiated one sex from another in both. I mean it’s obviously coincidence but a happy one for some parties. Only fundies seem to have a problem, but WTF is up with literally interpreting things that make no sense literally? 6 days to make the world before populating it? C’mon, grow up already!
like black blood jumping generations
You mean like that white girl who married a white guy and conceived a mulatto baby by him? She had a negro in her woodpile and didn’t know about it until her baby was born swarthy.
Posted by Svigor on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 05:09 PM | #
Tobias Hübinette - Korean
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~myhan/kaf0306.html
Posted by DW on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 06:45 PM | #
Thank you very much for that information, DW. So, this man was adopted into a nation, culture, and race which raised him from infancy, loved him, cared for him, educated him, which he is now repaying how? By stabbing them in the back.
What a filthy swine.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 07:01 PM | #
You have to wonder why Fjordman didn’t mention Hübinette’s race. As a politically-knowedgeable Swede, he cannot be unaware of it. FJ’s problem is he continues to force artificial race-blindness onto himself in the misguided belief morality requires it. That’s too bad, as it ultimately disqualifies him as any kind of leader of his people, and leads him to confusion in his own thinking and to be a cause of confusion in the thinking of others who read his essays. FJ wants Europe’s Islamization to end. That’s all he wants. He has no objection to its Negrification. None whatsoever.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 07:07 PM | #
Tobias Hubinette, take a look at a real hater.
His adoptive parents did not do him any favors by removing him from his genetic heritage, Korea. Now he hates the people that raised and educated him.
But the Swedes just take it, again from a hater that wants them to die in an orgy of blood. Just ask yourself, how would the Koreans deal with a Swede raised in Korea, and ends up spewing hate and death to the Koreans?
Posted by torgrim on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 09:52 PM | #
“Now he [Tobias Hubinette] hates the people that raised and educated him.”
This is similar to the way the fowl odorous, BO (Barrack Obama), threw his white grandmother—the one who raised him—under the bus for reasons of political expediency.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“But the trait favored by the Jewish God is not intelligence or learning, but cunning.”
Sounds to me like you’re referring to Satan, not Jesus (God incarnate).
Posted by .357 on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 10:32 PM | #
Spelling correction: I meant foul, not “fowl.”
But then again, BO, IS a “jive ass turkey.”
Posted by .357 on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 11:21 PM | #
You have to wonder why Fjordman didn’t mention s race. As a politically-knowedgeable Swede, he cannot be unaware of it. FJ’s problem is he continues to force artificial race-blindness onto himself in the misguided belief morality requires it. That’s too bad, as it ultimately disqualifies him as any kind of leader of his people, and leads him to confusion in his own thinking and to be a cause of confusion in the thinking of others who read his essays. FJ wants Europe’s Islamization to end. That’s all he wants. He has no objection to its Negrification. None whatsoever.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 07:07 PM | #
Fjordman claims to be a Norwegian. There is no reason to believe this as he is a coward who pontificates anonymously on a website run by people who are at least fanatical Zionists and at worse crypto-jews. He may simply be a Hübinette’ of a different color.
Posted by Robert Reis on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 04:12 AM | #
“Of course the other question is why are whites putting up with it?” (-Fred Scrooby)
This to me, is not “the other question,” it is THE question. From an evolutionary perspective, if a species lacks the ability to defend itself--or the ability to even know that they’re under attack--then nature will in turn, not see them fit for “selection.” IOW, there’s a defect within Western Man which requires fixing (fixing meaning spiritual mutation). If this defect didn’t exist, Euro man would not be in this situation. So, this struggle we’re currently in was inevitable. Something happened during our evolutionary history which made us vulnerable to this situation.
What this struggle ultimitly is, is the process of forcing Euro man to evolve by ridding itself of its weaknesses. That’s it, that’s all it is. In 500 years our future bloodlines will look back and describe this time as we currently do when thinking about the so called “Enlightenment.” The “Enlightenment” period was a changing of how people thought. And that is exactly what is needed to today. Just as we study “the Enlightenment,” our future kin will study “the Awakening.” If we can’t change how we think, then we’ll have no future ancestors to look back at this time. But if we can spiritually mutate, we will be a stronger race for it, and our future in this universe will be limited only to what our people can think up.
Its very simple, we either evolve and mutate in order to be selected, or, we go extinct?
Nature’s laws are perfect.
Posted by 2R on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 09:37 PM | #
http://spiritwaterblood.com/
“To the Darwinist, “Sin is making a wrong choice,” which also fits with Barack Obama’s definition of sin (see above), and “man’s fall from grace was a result of his evolutionary transition from instinct to learned behavior.” This article contains some awe-inspiring balderdash, but it’s interesting that even the Darwinist can detect the story of generational separation in the book of Genesis, and that these shepherds, who gave as much care to the breed of their animals as a farmer gives to the breed of his grain, knew that they had to pass similar knowledge and customs and pure blood to future generations - and so a people was born.”
Posted by Joseph Whiteman
29 Jun 2008 0 Comments
Posted by Robert Reis on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 02:06 PM | #
Evil men will corrupt any system.
Good men will make any system great.
Therefore there is no system worth protecting. You cannot fight for democracy, freedom, equality, capitalism, free speech, or the Constitution. A system is nice, but it’s also meaningless, because it must be composed of men. A black democracy and a white democracy are completely different things. Zimbabwe will never be Switzerland.
The goal is not ants with the right to free speech, or centipedes with democracy. The goal is a state particularly suited to us, for us, by us, that we and our children can enjoy living in and thrive under in perpetuity. A white homeland is the only worthwhile goal, I could care less about the entire rest of the earth.
Europeans are the greatest race of mankind. Their art, science, productivity, creativity, beauty, morality, even their generosity proves this. They are also MY race, and therefore where they go I go, my fate is intrinsically tied to them. We must not lose our race and all its accomplishments to the tides of ignorance, stupidity, violence, superstition, and deviltry. We must not give up our instinctual, intrinsic allies, our coethnics, in a world full of hostile enemies who would slaughter, rape, and steal from us if ever they see the chance. We must not lose the chance to be loved and accepted into a truly connected community full of people like us, who will look after us, protect us, trust us, sympathize with us, share our likes and dislikes, celebrate the same history and traditions, honor the same ancestors, and share the same values.
The goal must be the preservation of the white race by any means necessary. Fjordman and crew still think ‘concepts’ or ‘systems’ are what’s worth fighting for, however no concept or system has any meaning outside of a race that can maintain and uphold it.
Only whites can live a white system or understand white concepts. We are a unique people with a unique heritage and unique insights. Our creative potential dies with us, everything we created will be buried with us. Our self-love ends at the borders, the rest of the world is a sea of envy and hate. And lastly, we will never be happy without each other. Homogeneity, not diversity, is the happiest state of mankind.
Posted by Diamed on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 08:36 AM | #
Give or take one or two minor non-essential details Diamed is basically a hundred percent correct.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM | #
Dear God, is this such a surprise to any of you? I was 17 when I realized that the book of Genesis was written to explain matters and issues of the development of mankind to a relatively simple natured audience, with the liberal use of both allegory and mysticism, because the complexity of the subject was at the time of it’s composition (and up to 1850), beyond cognitive comprehension for the great masses.
The important thing is faith that there is a creator; not the hour by hour account of His work.
That we are a separate species from our nearest relatives is shown by the inability of these “relatives” to write a sonnet, duet with Amy Winehouse or order his Divisional commanders to cross the Polish border, sparking a world war.
http://worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com/
If you or I were accused of half the things the Jews have been accused of (financing endless wars, corrupting society, sacrificing young children in quasi-satanic ceremonies, drinking the blood of those whom they are about to kill, poisoning the desert wells of their neighbors, murdering Palestinian children for the fun of it, stealing land that doesn’t belong to them, being out for their own selfish gain regardless of the consequences to others, false flag attacks against the US to drag us into their never-ending foreign wars to name but a few of their many unique qualities) then I’m damn certain WE would DEMAND the right to confront our accusers so we could PROVE them liars and/or madmen for the entire world to see - and put and end to such ‘vile rumors’ for ever. It’s becoming increasingly odd to folks that the Jews response is simply to try to put these allegations beyond debate by generating taboos around them. One would have thought (if they had nothing to hide) that they would have been only too happy after so many thousands of years of being reviled and persecuted, to avail themselves of a great opportunity to set the record straight. Yet they won’t. And I believe now that ordinary people are beginning to wonder - why the deafening silence?
Posted by Phaedrus:
Posted by Robert Reis on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 07:51 PM | #
“That we are a separate species from our nearest relatives is shown by the inability of these “relatives” to write a sonnet, duet with Amy Winehouse or order his Divisional commanders to cross the Polish border, sparking a world war. “ (Harry)
Can you explain what this means?
Posted by 2R on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 09:25 PM | #
What 2R said.
Im afraid youve lost me Harry.
Posted by Lurker on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 12:02 AM | #
http://myblahg.com/?p=1932#comment-37270
Robert McClelland Says:
March 4th, 2007 at 2:07 pm | |
When the State starts rounding up my Jewish neighbours, I’ll speak up.
Not me. People like Klownsella, Chernyuk and Smeagol the Jew have taught me it’s not worth getting involved. When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame
Posted by Robert Reis on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 05:15 AM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Enhorabuena España
Previous entry: Cognitive elitism makes its play for the cultural elite
Posted by j on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 10:21 AM | #