Rapidly Changing Human Evolution.

Posted by Jews Try to Steal 'Good Blood' of Non-Jews on June 29, 2009, 03:37 PM | #

“So why are the Ashkenazim especially intelligent? To solve this puzzle, it may be useful to look at what we know about the DNA of the Ashkenazi Jews, because it turns out that they have another interesting characteristic. Namely, they have an unusual set of serious genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs disease, Gaucher’s disease, familial dysautonomia, and two different forms of hereditary breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and these diseases are up to 100 times more common in Ashkenazi Jews than in other European populations.”

Don’t forget about torsion dystonia, which is another Ashkenazi genetic disorder and has been proven to directly correlate with very high intelligence.

“The eugenic strategies changed over time and encompassed many aspects not covered by Harpending and Cochran.”

Jews have been using the eugenic strategy of ‘gene theft’ for a long time.  Everywhere they have settled they have sought to infiltrate the native non-Jewish upper-classes and intermarry with them, thus in effect stealing the best genes away from a particular group or nation and attempting to incorporate them within the Jewish gene pool.

Jewry has managed to genetically infiltrate the elite upper-echelons and middle/upper-middle classes of many White societies. This means that, in effect, Jews have managed to steal many of the best/elite White genes for themselves over the years, hoarding them and enriching the Jewish gene pool at the expense of the native/non-Jewish gene pool. Hence a nation is infiltrated and slowly destroyed from within as Jews become the new hostile elite of a people or nation as the old leaders are replaced, die off, or (preferably for Jews) marry or breed in to the Jewish gene pool.

Jewish gene theft has been a recurring Jewish pattern - like vampires, Jews constantly need ‘fresh blood’ to stay on top of the parasitic pyramid. It also helps them to blend in a bit more physically with the surrounding native population which they seek to dominate and exploit. It goes like this: Jews move in to a society, and slowly they acquire wealth, influence, and power therein. With this newly gained wealth/influence/power they are able to in effect buy their way in to the elite upper-echelons of non-Jewish societies. They then encourage many of these elite non-Jews to marry or otherwise breed in to the Jewish gene pool using all of their wealth and power along with massively indebting the non-Jewish elite classes (remember how many different European nobles and monarchs had all kinds of debts with Jews?), bribing them, deliberately causing political and economic problems in the country so they relent, etc.  Many times throughout history I’m sure that Jews have agreed to totally erase the ever-mounting debts of many White European nobles/aristocrats in exchange for one of their young noble/aristocratic (non-Jewish) daughters.  This noble/aristorcratic White child would have been brought in to the Jewish community when she was very young, and then eventually paired with the most accomplished local Jew(s) and forced to bear as many children as possible.

Wealthy and powerful Jewish males have also been known to impregnate beautiful and elite non-Jewish women from good non-Jewish families by enticing them with money/power and all of the personal pleasures it can buy; similarly, Jewish women have been known (and have been encouraged by fellow Jews) to flirt endlessly with elite/powerful/wealthy non-Jewish men until they relent and either impregnate or marry them...sometimes Jews have even deliberately used nubile young teenage female Jews in some circumstances to tempt or entice elite/powerful non-Jews in to inadvertently breeding in to the Jewish gene pool - yes indeed, Jews are that sneaky.

Jewish gene thievery has the added bonus of eliminating anti-Jewish feelings from the people most likely to be anti-Jewish (the native non-Jewish upper classes and middle/upper-middle classes) due to the fact that Jews are essentially replacing them in the elite portion of society - if Jews cannot manage to infiltrate their way in to a nation’s leadership class through slow gene theft, bribery, wealth enticement, and/or plain acceptance, they then resort to using crime, wars, revolutions or political unrest, economic collapses, and other deliberate Jew-caused instability to attempt to dislodge the native elite ruling classes so that they can take their place - this happened in Russia and lead to the Jew-dominated USSR, and seems to currently be happening in modern America as Jews use the current economic collapse to further cement their absolute centralized economic control over American society and eliminate or identify any potential competition which they will assiduously work to absorb and/or eliminate.

---

I was thinking about other methods which Jews use to silence their critics and competitors, and I figured out (during an ah-ha! moment) that another way which Jews manage to eliminate opposition and competition from a nation’s native elites/aristocracy/intelligentsia is simply by intermarrying with them, by slowly yet persistently attempting to absorb them in to the Jewish gene pool — I like to call this the “Jewish infiltration” theory.

If successful, this is a sure way to reduce or eliminate competition and hostility from a nation’s elites and could partially explain why Jews (especially the Ashkenazim) are, in general, more intelligent than average. Perhaps over many centuries they have managed to slowly soak up the DNA of many a nation’s and people’s non-Jewish cognitive elites (financial/intellectual/spiritual/etc.); if this has happened as I believe it has, it has allowed them to enhance their own DNA at the expense of non-Jewish peoples and is, in fact, nothing short of ‘DNA theft.’ Just think: this has the double-advantage of enriching the Jewish gene pool with the best of a particular country’s/culture’s/society’s DNA along with genetically disarming the non-Jewish masses who are/were naturally subservient to their own social/intellectual/economic/religious/political elite, royalty, or aristocracy. I even recall reading a lot about many Jewish women (especially Jewish lesbians and feminists and such) who have specifically requested to be artificially inseminated by sperm donated by very intelligent and eminent non-Jews like prominent scientists, intellectuals, businessmen, etc., especially those who are of Northern European genetic origin.

It is well known that the British royal family (and the British ‘aristocracy,’ in general) has many Jewish connections, as do many other royal houses across Europe. Additionally, in pre-1492 Spain many Sephardic Jews managed to intermarry with the Spanish aristocracy and business elite. Many of these Jews with mixed Jewish ancestry actually remained even after the mass expulsion of 1492, and some were even big-wigs in the Catholic hierarchy there for a long time. After much research, this is another historical pattern which I have definitely noticed, so take note and let me state it again: if possible, Jews manage to undermine a nation’s elites by attempting to bring them within in the Jewish fold through intermarriage, thus disarming them on many levels and squelching any possible anti-Jewish sentiments from arising amongst them and the native populace. - http://zsidozas.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/methods-jews-use-to-silence-their-critics/

Posted by Sam on June 29, 2009, 10:20 PM | #

There is a whole website made only to discuss the future of humans and what are they evoloving into !

Check it from here:

Future Human Evolution

Posted by Euro women miscegenating with Muslims on June 30, 2009, 02:13 AM | #

“Interestingly, according to EnlightenNext magazine, some northern European women are reportedly eschewing their progressive northern European male counterparts and dating Muslims, who are more like “real men.” - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce/4

Posted by Joe Smith on June 30, 2009, 03:07 AM | #

“. . . contribute to modern Ashkenazi Jews’ high intelligence and genetic disease.”

Do not conflate high intelligence with high IQ. The Jews have a higher average IQ than gentiles, not a higher “intelligence”. IQ tests measure the cognitive COMPONENT of intelligence, not any of the other elements whihc make up a person’s intellect. They do not, for instance, measure creativity, will power, mental effort, etc. Therefore, the mere fact that Jews have a higher average IQ does not mean that they have a higher intelligence. It may reasonably be speculated, for instance, that their will power and artistic creativity are somewhat inferior.

Posted by Walknut on June 30, 2009, 04:52 AM | #

Do not conflate high intelligence with high IQ. The Jews have a higher average IQ than gentiles, not a higher “intelligence”. IQ tests measure the cognitive COMPONENT of intelligence, not any of the other elements whihc make up a person’s intellect. They do not, for instance, measure creativity, will power, mental effort, etc. Therefore, the mere fact that Jews have a higher average IQ does not mean that they have a higher intelligence. It may reasonably be speculated, for instance, that their will power and artistic creativity are somewhat inferior.

There can be no doubt that this is true.  White populations have a history of producing outliers of incredible ability - the Da Vincis, Beethovens, Goethes, and so forth - but jews do not.  The best they can do is Maimonides and Einstein (whose reputation is already being assailed in our quarters).

They may have higher avg IQ but don’t have the genetic potential to obtain truly brilliant specimens.  Even with all of their “gene theft.”

Posted by Robert Reis on June 30, 2009, 05:24 AM | #

Muslims form a religious group, not a race.

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2009, 08:26 AM | #

Harpending and Cochran then discuss the most politically contentious aspect of their research: the enhanced intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews that came about as a result of eugenics and economic necessity in Eastern Europe for hundreds of years—eventually reaching an average IQ of about 115. [...] However, this Jewish asymmetry in intelligence is mostly ignored: the nature/nurture debate continues to focus primarily on the Black/White IQ gap.

That’s one of the great things about this book.  It avoids the most contentious nature/nurture issues.  Somewhere on the blogosphere someone referred to this as a highly subversive book.  It really is.  You can recommend it to (or buy it for) nearly anyone in the multicult and not have to worry that you’ve outed yourself as a ‘racist’.

It’s been a while now since the Ashkenazi IQ paper was published.  I’m wondering when we’ll finally see some data testing the hypothesis; the experiments are relatively simple.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 30, 2009, 01:10 PM | #

“Einstein (whose reputation is already being assailed in our quarters).” (—Walknut)

Henri Poincaré was the towering giant of the Special Theory of Relativity, not Einstein.  Poincaré is the man who first did all the theoretical/mathematical work on it and brought it to completion — in all its details without exception (building on Hendrik Lorentz’s foundation).  Einstein was a Johnny-come-lately and in fact had a shallower understanding of it than Poincaré.  The Special Theory of Relativity was discovered by Poincaré, not Einstein.

Einstein was the discoverer of the General Theory of Relativity, with lots of help from, I would say mainly, Herman Minkowski (who was Jewish) as well as David Hilbert (who wasn’t), in that order.

Einstein was of course a great scientist who made great discoveries in physics including explaining the Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and General Relativity. 

Poincaré (building on crucial foundational work by Lorentz which he always fully acknowledged) was the discoverer of Special Relativity.

Period.  Full stop.  End of story.

The following adjustment in terminology should be made:  the Special Theory of Relativity should henceforth be called either that or the Poincaré-Lorentz Theory of Relativity.  The General Theory of Relativity should henceforth be called either that or the Einstein Theory of Relativity.

Posted by Q on June 30, 2009, 03:04 PM | #

The Darwin devotees may be interested in this - or maybe not:

Making a Monkey Out of Darwin
by Patrick J. Buchanan
06/30/2009

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32510

Posted by Adam West on June 30, 2009, 05:59 PM | #

Why should I read what a politician (not a scientist) has to say about Darwinism, you creationist piece of shit?

Posted by Dasein on June 30, 2009, 07:16 PM | #

Buchanan is totally hit or miss.  His last essay on California was excellent, this is complete rubbish.  So many straw men, so much guilt by association, I just don’t know where to start.  You have to wonder why he’s writing this, since the Catholic Church has largely made its peace with Darwinism.  Hasn’t Pat heard?

Posted by Desmond Jones on June 30, 2009, 07:22 PM | #

Does Pat suggest a link between Darwinism and David’s sacred war of extermination against the Amalekites? Was David’s belief founded on an underlying, crude, might-makes-right, social Darwinism?

Darwin was no social Darwinist.

Posted by Q on July 01, 2009, 12:09 AM | #

Re: Pat Buchanan’s article. I especially liked the comments section; in particular this comment:

I am not here going to venture an opinion whether Darwinism is scientifically true.

That issue aside, it is PLAIN that Darwinism has had a DISASTROUS social effect on the 20th Century.

Pat correctly states that both Marxism and Naziism were products of applied Darwinism.

Darwin pulled out the stops on genocide and here’s how:

Prior to Darwinism, the world was philosophically Acquinistic—that is to say, heir to the thought of Thomas Acquinas, the great Catholic philosopher of the Middle Ages.

Acquinas proved why God must exist. He argued from First Cause. He said, everything that is, is either made or created. And all things that are made ultimately must come from unmade but created sources. And if things are created, there must be a Creator; therefore God must exist.

This compelled a great Age of Faith. For ultimately, if there is a Creator, there also must be, at least in all likelihood, a system of post-death reward and punishment, and therefore it behooves one to behave properly in this world.

Acquinas forced a world to believe in God, however grudgingly, and this forced

people to try to behave well, despite their inclinations to the contrary.

However, Darwin gave us an excuse to cut God out of the picture. With Darwinism, creation could be justified as the result of natural processes. No God was required at all.

But if there’s no God, there is then no reason to restrain one’s own behavior. On the contrary, there is only every reason to behave exactly as one pleases. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die!” was the creed of the Epicurean school of philosophy in ancient times. And the reason the Epicureans felt that way was because after we die, there is nothing else. Death ceases everything, so therefore one ought to live it up while, and for as long as, one had life within oneself.

Darwin gave the world an excuse to become Epicurean again. And the world obliged, and the result was the tremendous crimes of death that plagued the 20th Century.

A murderer once said to me, what’s the big deal about murder, anyway? Everybody gotta die sometime. If I kill somebody, it’s only a little bit earlier than they would have died anyway. So what’s the big deal?

In a godless, Epicurean world, what indeed is the big deal about killing?
Jun 30, 2009 @ 04:43 AMJames A. Nollet, Milkowice, POLAND

Atheists/Darwinists believe existence sprung out of nothing. Intelleigent design asserts there is a creative force outside the realm of existence that acually created the existence we reside in.

Which of the two is more rational?

Posted by Jon Diamonds on July 01, 2009, 03:40 AM | #

Q:

To be fair, Creationism/intelligent design is for shitheads. There’s no getting around. Stop peddling your creationist idiocy here.

Posted by Robert Reis on July 01, 2009, 05:42 AM | #

“This also includes the Islamic world that managed to lose what may have been a more advanced civilization at one time, but was eventually sunk back into a primitive state with increased sub-Saharan African genes from the slave trade (my causal speculation).”

Living where I do, in the heart of the Arab world, visual inspection has shown that a very small proportion of the local population has distinctively Negro features.

Posted by Edwards on July 01, 2009, 08:19 AM | #

Robert Reis:

No asked for your opinion, jewboy.

[Reis is a jew last name. get out of this website. Find your home somewhere else, you aint welcome here]

Posted by Steven E. Romer on July 01, 2009, 09:47 AM | #

I found that the comments posted by “Jews Try to Steal ‘Good Blood’ of Non-Jews “ were excellent. I though of much the same thing you did—but I thought that the intense emotions and drives of jews easily envolop and use the superior genes of other peoples as weapons against them in concert with the Jewish genes and patterns. It is like gathering genetic “intel” in their war on other people’s. Part of their genetic strategy. Emotional genes driving slave genes if you want to view it that way.

Posted by Lurker on July 01, 2009, 10:58 AM | #

Who are all these guys popping up who are so worried about Creationism. Really from our pov in everyday life it doesnt matter whether its 100% true or completely false.

Its only liberals who get upset about Creationism normally, then they get to act the tough guy on evolution. When I see someone getting red faced and upset about creationism I usually see a race denying liberal.

Posted by Q on July 01, 2009, 01:11 PM | #

Stop peddling your creationist idiocy here. —Jon Diamonds

The only idiocy around here are those that don’t know the difference between Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design. I’m a subscriber of the later, not the former.

Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 01:48 AM | #

KMac has a post up at TOO replying to Buchanan’s nonsense.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Windchy.html

One thing I noticed though is that KMac seems to be conflating Darwinism and Mendelian inheritance.  The competing methods of inheritance were Mendelian and Lamarckian (inheritance of acquired traits), with Mendelian inheritance winning out early in the last century.  Lamarckism is making something of a comeback today, due to interest in epigenetic inheritance (http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_specter_of_genetic_communism/). 

KMac says:

The inheritance of acquired characteristics is the exact opposite of Darwin’s view that the basic mechanism of evolution is natural selection — the selective retention of genetic variants because they result in increased survival and reproductive success.

This is not true, as IAC is compatible with natural selection, and in fact Darwin considered this as a possible explanation.

Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 02:19 AM | #

KMac has a post up at TOO replying to Buchanan’s nonsense.

Yes, Buchanan is nonsensical ...  but only in the opinion of the the nonsensical.

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 02:58 AM | #

Yeah because all of us creationists are idiots.

Posted by Garbage on July 02, 2009, 05:28 AM | #

Creationist trash. This is a blog for INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION. Don’t post your anti-Darwinist filth here. Get out. Go back to Jewtown or wherever the fuck you came from you kike-a-like.

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 11:55 AM | #

Would you mind intelligently explaining the origin of the universe to me?

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 12:09 PM | #

Or the divergence of the sexes and how exactly it happened simultaneously and conferred advantage?

Or perhaps the Roche Limit?

Or perhaps you could explain how creatures went from cold blooded invertebrate to simple hearted amphibians to three chambered alligators? Do you know how complicated an alligator heart is and why it doesn’t really “fit” in the evolutionary scheme?

Did cows evolve placentas then turn into cows or did they lay eggs for a period of time?

You obviously know nothing and nobody really can because organs don’t fossilize you fool.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on July 02, 2009, 12:45 PM | #

I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 02, 2009, 01:02 PM | #

Daniel,

If you are looking for God, you must first grant evolution its full sway.  Look for the law-giver, but grant the law.  None may break it, even the Giver.

By extension, religion as the impulse to worship falls within the evolutionary ouerve.  It’s there for fitness gain.  God is not in the place you expect Him to be.  He is not where He can be interested in you personally, can judge you, set behavioural standards for you, demand your belief, and transport you elsewhere when your brain dies.  There is no one to worship, no one to serve, no one to fear, no one to obey.  We are alone, living in conformity with Nature’s laws.

On the other hand, whether a man (not Man) is complete and all that he might be is another question, and whether as all that he might be he may fulfill some other purpose - say, a creative purpose, even in relation to the divine - is another.  But about both of these questions popular religion has simply nothing to say.  And nor, of course, does evolution, unless one grants that man as creator (not Creator) could bestow gain upon all his people.

Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 01:26 PM | #

I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman.

And only an asshat fool would beleive with absolute certainty in a THEORY devised by a flawed man [Darwin].

Posted by Fr. John on July 02, 2009, 01:31 PM | #

‘Why should I read what a politician (not a scientist) has to say about Darwinism, you creationist piece of shit?’- Adam West

Thanks Batman. Quite erudite.

‘Buchanan is totally hit or miss.  His last essay on California was excellent, this is complete rubbish.  So many straw men, so much guilt by association, I just don’t know where to start.  You have to wonder why he’s writing this, since the Catholic Church has largely made its peace with Darwinism.  Hasn’t Pat heard?’ – Dasein

That may be, but Romanism is not the Catholic Church. Just ask the millions of Orthodox Christians in Russia, who lived through 70+ years of forced Darwinian evolution as the ‘state religion’, and are now in droves coming back to True Christianity - in short, repudiating their religious Lysenkoism, if you will.....

Do they know something y’all in the West are too damn dumb to figure out- perhaps that Darwinism is not, nor cannot be ‘science,’ but is mere cult?

“To be fair, Creationism/intelligent design is for shitheads. There’s no getting around. Stop peddling your creationist idiocy here.” – Jon Diamonds

“Creationist trash. This is a blog for INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION. Don’t post your anti-Darwinist filth here. Get out. Go back to Jewtown or wherever the fuck you came from you kike-a-like.” – Garbage

“I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman.” – Friedrich Braun

Looks like it’s a religion to me, what with such ‘devout believers’ as Batman, Trash man, and Mr. CZ weighing in…. And you know what they said about things “Brown”, don’t you? “If it’s brown, flush it down.”

Clearly, these men all are vulgar, very low on the ‘evolutionary ladder,’ one could say, to ‘hate on CHristians so,’ to have to use such blatant pornographic speech (instead of ‘Intelligent Discussion’), and more nearly exhibit the very sort of ‘knuckle-dragging trailer trash’ that Liberals condescendingly ascribe to red-state inhabitants.

In short, the very obverse of ‘survival of the fittest.’

On another front, we read:

“Darwin was no social Darwinist.” – Desmond Jones

I think I’d beg to differ, as my blogpost showed.
http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/charles-and-harriet-sittin-in-a-tree/

“Its only liberals who get upset about Creationism normally, then they get to act the tough guy on evolution. When I see someone getting red faced and upset about creationism I usually see a race denying liberal.” – Lurker

Good one, L. They have the most to fear when Truth shines under their worldview rocks. They usually run like cockroaches. Which is about where they are on the ‘evolutionary ladder.’

YHWH God, on the other hand, says that His Creation is godlike, and was created perfect. Adam was so unique, God sent His son to be the Second Adam to restore a fallen Creation, brought about by Satan. Now, seeing how ‘evolution’ advocates act, and seeing how ‘Christian’ advocates act in a non-moderated discussion, which one is less apt to ‘push the button’ in a nuclear holocaust? Truly, the world needs the sanity of Christian minds, whether the pagans like it or not….

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 02:58 PM | #

If you are looking for God, you must first grant evolution its full sway.  Look for the law-giver, but grant the law.  None may break it, even the Giver.

I’m looking for someone to intelligently answer my questions.

The most militant evolutionists are unable to convince they know anything about the subject.

I’m willing to discuss it with someone civil like you GW, but the rest make it evident that those of us White folks blessed with the faith gene will be forced into killing off those unencumbered after the revolution.

Temporary allies we are with only transient EGI.

Posted by Darwinism would've stopped WW II on July 02, 2009, 03:01 PM | #

And at least some wars would not have occurred if the war mongers had been good Darwinians. For example, the Civil War was a cousin’s war fought between closely related men from different British sub-cultures. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa. (See here.) Militarily, the war with the Confederacy was the greatest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans. From a Darwinian perspective it was a disaster in which mass murder of cousins was rationalized by a moral ideal. 

Or consider World War II, the subject of Buchanan’s brilliant The Unnecessary War. It was indeed an unnecessary war — and one that would not have been launched by a British Darwinian. Buchanan is quite correct that Winston Churchill should live in infamy for his role in promoting both World War I and World War II. But did Churchill and the rest of the British elite who jumped over the cliff with him act like good Darwinians? 

Buchanan is quite correct to point to Churchill’s bellicosity, his vanity, and his desire for personal power; and there are strong hints of his corruption as a result of being rescued from near bankruptcy after the stock market crash of 1929. But if Churchill was a good Darwinian, he would have been able to control these all too human impulses and think rationally about the long term good of his people. (Yes, evolutionists do believe that humans can control their primitive tendencies.) It simply made no sense to go to all out war with the closely related Germans over German hegemony over the continent — especially because in order to win, Britain had to make an alliance with the Soviet Union, the most murderous regime in history. The victory of the Soviet Union, made possible by military aid from the West, then subjected Eastern Europe to decades of brutality and economic stagnation, and it led to a prolonged and destructive Cold War. But from the standpoint of the West, all this sacrifice was endured in order to destroy genetically closer Germans. Churchill himself seems to have reveled in the destruction even of German civilians.

No Darwinian would have done this. But Churchill — an egomaniacal, short-sighted, vainglorious war monger unaware of his ethnic genetic interests — loved it.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Windchy.html

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 03:05 PM | #

I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman.

First you defend Jew blind, sanitized White Nationalism and then, in the very next breath, declare the religious your very own untermensch. Inspiring commentary.

Good luck in Deutschland Frederick and thanks for the hand of friendship to a brother in the struggle.

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 03:07 PM | #

extending the hand of friendship…

Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 03:52 PM | #

Yes, Buchanan is nonsensical ...  but only in the opinion of the the nonsensical.

Tell me what you liked in his article.  Was it the attack on Darwin’s character?  Attempting to refute a theory by suggesting (however tenuous the link) that some bad guys liked it?  This was not a serious critique of Darwinism.  Pat is playing political games.  The same type of useless distraction that has people devoting all their energy to fighting gay marriage while the country is turned into a Thirld World cesspool.

For 150 years, the fossil record has failed to validate Darwin.

The significant thing is that in 150 years the theory has not been invalidated.  The fossil evidence collected so far (no matter how incomplete) is consistent with Darwin’s theory.  Gaps are being filled, and not by the hoaxes Pat mentions.

I’ve got nothing against people trying to defend YEC or ID. I’m not a materialist; there is plenty of room for God without having to create a God of the scientific gaps.  Some things will never be known and will be a matter of faith.  But this is just not a good argument that Pat is making here.

Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 03:53 PM | #

First quote was from Q, second was from Pat’s essay.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 02, 2009, 05:07 PM | #

No Darwinian would have done this.

Evolution does. Ironically, war is proximate as Darwin suggested.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 02, 2009, 05:22 PM | #

Darwin, who had to be pushed and prodded by Huxley to get this book in print, wrote ‘Origin’ initially, NOT because he believed in the ‘theory of evolution,’ BUT because he viewed the Black and White races as equal in GOD’s EYES, and wanted to prove it ‘scientifically’!!! HE BELIEVED not IN THE THEORY OF Evolution, but in THE THEORY OF MISCEGENATION as ’survival of the fittest’!

Fr. John,

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day!!

Chuck can’t win. Klinghoffer , Stein and Auster are aghast because Master Charles wrote that the civilized races will exterminate the savage races over time…

The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing.

and now you suggest that his grand theory was miscegenation. WOW!!

Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 06:34 PM | #

HE BELIEVED not IN THE THEORY OF Evolution, but in THE THEORY OF MISCEGENATION as ’survival of the fittest’!

Funnily enough, this is the conclusion that some race-mixing enthusiasts may draw from the 2nd chapter of this book, which deals with Neanderthal introgression (i.e. the incorporation of Neanderthal genes into the European sapiens genome).  The Neanderthal introgression theory is interesting and seems plausible on the surface.  They suggested that some of the increases in European brain size might have come from limited mating between the two species.  Now, if we got good genes from mixing with Neanderthals, the race-mixer will say, what could possibly be wrong with mixing with every possible race and producing one massive, diverse gene pool that can produce a higher form of human.  Maybe it could be called degenerate eugenics, because it would ignore EGI.  And the current environment our Westen elites have given us makes dysfunctional behaviour adaptive.  So there are a number of reasons why it’s a bad idea, but I can see some race-mixers holding it up as a historical precedent (even if not proven yet).

Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 06:43 PM | #

Dasein,

The fact is, gaps have not been filled. There isn’t anymore physical evidence today that links the evolution of one species into another (macroevolution) than there was 100 years ago. However fossil records prove there is intra-species evolution(microevolution) - there’s plenty of that.

I do beleive the Theory of Evolution is credible science; but the last time I checked, it has yet to be proven.

That said, I look at Intelligent Design as the synthesis between Creationism and Darwinism.

Darwin bases his theory on random natural selection. Intelligent design asserts order in the physical world is not random, but has its basis in intelligent cause, or intelligent design.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

This makes allot of sense due to the fact that there is a great deal of order in nature particularly at the molecular level ... mathematics too. See here:
http://goldennumber.net/

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 02, 2009, 07:29 PM | #

I do believe the Theory of Evolution is credible science; but the last time I checked, it has yet to be proven.

Science does not gains theory status by proof but by falsifiability. It is scientific theory because it has the potential to falsified.

Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

First law of intelligent falling is not to fall upon your head.

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 08:24 PM | #

It is scientific theory because it has the potential to falsified.

It doesn’t really.

It also rest upon the purely and entirely philosophical notions of empiricism and materialism.

Posted by Dasein on July 02, 2009, 09:10 PM | #

Daniel, you’re drifting into solipsism.

Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 09:33 PM | #

Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Impressive, Desmond, but it dosn’t compare in magnatude to Dr Morgus’ discovery of “the speed of dark.”

Author’s note: I was overwhelmed by this staggering revelation by Dr. Morgus. My mind was numbed for several minutes. He went on to explain many things which I cannot divulge at this time, and I accepted with humility and honor this assignment bestowed on me by those of the Higher Order. More at a later date…

Q: What do you consider to be your most important contribution to mankind?
A: The scientific jury is still out on that question and it will not be known until sometime in the future when I am summoned before the executive committee of the Higher Order. However, my latest scientific discovery may rank at the top. As every high school student knows, the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second; I, Morgus, have discovered the speed of DARK!

Q: Doctor—the speed of DARK? I didn’t know there was a speed of dark.
A: Of course you don’t know! No one else in the world knows either, except me, and I am keeping it a secret for one of my future lectures on television. This alone has ‘Nobel Prize’ written all over it...(he chuckled).

http://www.morgus.com/mrgntrvw.html

Posted by Q on July 02, 2009, 10:56 PM | #

the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second

Frank Beckmann asks Jack Lousma, Astronaut, about
the size of the Universe:

http://wjr.com/article.asp?id=873578

Posted by Q-not on July 02, 2009, 11:15 PM | #

Intelligent Design is Creation Science through the backdoor.

Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.  The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.  Intelligent design’s leading proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. – Wikipedia

X-ray image of an atavistic tail found in a six-year old girl.

“A radiogram of the sacral region of a six-year old girl with an atavistic tail. The tail was perfectly midline and protruded form the lower back as a soft appendage. The five normal sacral vertebrae are indicated in light blue and numbered; the three coccygeal tail vertebrae are indicated in light yellow. The entire coccyx (usually three or four tiny fused vertebrae) is normally the same size as the fifth sacral vertebrae. In this same study, the surgeons reported two other cases of an atavistic human tail, one with three tail vertebrae, one with five. All were benign, and only one was surgically “corrected” for cosmetic reasons (image reproduced from Bar-Maor et al. 1980).”

“Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa.”

Posted by ... on July 02, 2009, 11:29 PM | #

WJR personalities include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ken Brown, and Dr. Laura.

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 11:38 PM | #

Daniel, you’re drifting into solipsism.

No, materialists are just camped out in the Objectivist Forest.

(Not being contrary with you either. You’re entirely respected by me, but I respectfully disagree with your assessment.)

Posted by danielj on July 02, 2009, 11:40 PM | #

All that matters is whether or not ID is falsifiable.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 02, 2009, 11:59 PM | #

I take it as axiom that, as C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even were all known regarding the material universe, that would still not allow one to definitively disprove the existence of God.

Posted by Q on July 03, 2009, 12:14 AM | #

“Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa.”

Q- not,

If you want to make your case, provide some peer reviewed papers by credible experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Unsubstantiated assertions of a dubious website doesn’t cut it..

Posted by Q on July 03, 2009, 12:26 AM | #

Excellent, Captainchaos, excellent!

Posted by Captainchaos on July 03, 2009, 12:56 AM | #

Furthermore, the Mormons of Utah seem to be the only Nordic people in the world interested in reproducing themselves.  I think that not a coincidence.  And Mormon fundamentalists are racists.  Come what may, they will never cede Utah, which they believe was given to them, people of their racial stock, by God.

Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 01:30 AM | #

Although I must admit I was initially repulsed by the abrasiveness of the filthy Kraut he makes more and more sense every time he puts down his thoughts. God bless me with his curse.

Lest it be confused for simple flattery let me make it explicit that this is another call for the Cap’n to log some main entries.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 03, 2009, 02:08 AM | #

Even Nietzsche had his self-avowed spirituality (creativity and probity) and his dogma (the will to power).  The faith-gene, linked to memes that boost inclusive fitness, provides “sanctification” to subsistent nature.  That belief is important, because, really, our nature, in the grand scheme of things, is not really all that subsistent.  So if not that, why not then transhumanism?

Posted by bob on July 03, 2009, 02:55 AM | #

“Would you mind intelligently explaining the origin of the universe to me?”

Sure. A bearded, berobed man - meaning, a “god man” - who lives in the sky made it.  Ditto with cows, etc…

Posted by Matra on July 03, 2009, 03:41 AM | #

I’ll add my two cents. If you’re a creationist knucklehead, you’re not polite company. To me an anti-Darwinist is the closest thing to a subhuman.

Friedrich used to be a fanatical fanboy of Hitler now he loves philosemites like Geert Wilders. A year or two from now he’ll suddenly conclude that Christians are more pro-white than the fashionable Richard Dawkins/SWPL crowd and suddenly denounce his anti-Christianism. The entire WNist online ‘community’ is filled with such people. Instead of humbly accepting where they have been wrong they jump from one certitude to another.

Posted by Matra on July 03, 2009, 04:05 AM | #

Furthermore, the Mormons of Utah seem to be the only Nordic people in the world interested in reproducing themselves.  I think that not a coincidence.

But Mormons are both religious and (for the most part) Anglo-Saxon. Those are two vices WNists cannot accept. I mean, like, what about all the poor excluded Irish Catholics, Poles, and Greeks? My God, we can’t have anything like that.

Posted by the Narrator... on July 03, 2009, 08:49 AM | #

Furthermore, the Mormons of Utah seem to be the only Nordic people in the world interested in reproducing themselves.  I think that not a coincidence.  And Mormon fundamentalists are racists.  Come what may, they will never cede Utah, which they believe was given to them, people of their racial stock, by God.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 03, 2009, 12:56 AM

As of 2007 Utah was *officially* 82.3% “non-hispanic White”. What the unofficial percentage is (and what the percentage of actual White people are there) is anybody’s guess.

Utah’s Hispanic population surges 51 percent

SALT LAKE CITY (AP)—New U.S. Census figures show that Utah’s Latino population surged by half to more than 300,000 in the past eight years.

In some counties the growth rate was more explosive. Washington County logged a 121 percent increase in Latino residents since 2000.

Salt Lake County contains more than half of Utah’s minority populations, or nearly 237,000.

San Juan County, which holds part of the Navajo Nation, was Utah’s most ethnically diverse county with more than 60 percent of the residents belonging to a minority group. In no other county did minorities make up a majority.

Officially, Latinos now make up nearly 12 percent of Utah’s population, and experts agree the actual number is higher than documented by the Census Bureau.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3955250

That article is a year old.

So it looks like the White Mormons have already ceded their state just as the Whites in other states ceded theirs.
The economic collapse of California will also start an exodus of jobless minorities from that state to neighboring states and beyond. And many illegals who would have headed to California will now head for greener pastures in other parts of the country.

Just wait till after the new census info starts coming in next year and analyzed.
Demographically our situation in America is much, MUCH, worse than even a lot of White Nationalists realize.

...

Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 11:19 AM | #

Sure. A bearded, berobed man - meaning, a “god man” - who lives in the sky made it.  Ditto with cows, etc…

So you also know nothing about evolution but believe it based on blind faith in “experts” then don’t you?

It is an honest question.

What is a transitional form between a cold blooded, egg laying reptile and a warm blooded mammal that gives birth to live young?

These are, in engineering terms, “complete systems” and I find the notion that there is anything in between them utterly ridiculous. Evolutionist materialist believe “there must” be something in between them even though they have no fucking clue what it is. I’m sure we could figure it out by picking out something from the “numerous transitional” forms couldn’t we?

Perhaps there isn’t “numerous transitional” forms but “punctuated equilibrium” and then we can explain away the Cambrian Explosion too?!

Fucking hypocrites all.

The entire WNist online ‘community’ is filled with such people. Instead of humbly accepting where they have been wrong they jump from one certitude to another.

Extreme certainty is just a sickly manifestation of the faith gene. It is repulsive. A human being that has no room for doubt is no fun to drink with.

So it looks like the White Mormons have already ceded their state just as the Whites in other states ceded theirs.

My instincts tell me you are right about this.

Idaho and Montana will be next.

Posted by bob on July 03, 2009, 01:53 PM | #

“A human being that has no room for doubt is no fun to drink with.”

Good luck with your movement. These stirring words encapsulate the socio-political theory that will rally your people and drive you onward to victory.

Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 01:58 PM | #

Good luck with your movement. These stirring words encapsulate the socio-political theory that will rally your people and drive you onward to victory.

The bar is the third world in between home/hearth and work/church and it is important.

The two oldest bars in my country, the Bell in Hand and The Green Dragon were essential for stirring up Boston Patriots.

Regardless, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the extremely certain are dangerous, true believer types that are exhibiting a particularly exaggerated form of the faith gene and have some Cartesian Sickness they got as a result of bouncing back from the extreme of Satre’s Nausea to another even more sinister extreme.

OUR people will never be rallied.

Welcome to the New Dark Ages.

Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 03:40 PM | #

I take it as axiom that, as C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even were all known regarding the material universe, that would still not allow one to definitively disprove the existence of Centaurs.

Ridiculous.

I take it as axiom that, as C.S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, even were all known regarding the material universe, that would still not allow one to definitively disprove the existence of God.

If all was known, there would be no reason to think.

If you want to make your case, provide some (a) peer reviewed papers by (b) credible experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Unsubstantiated assertions of a (c) dubious website doesn’t cut it..

a.  Old Testament
b.  Oriental prophets.
c.  Neo-conservative talk radio

Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 03:42 PM | #

But Mormons are both religious and (for the most part) Anglo-Saxon. Those are two vices WNists cannot accept. I mean, like, what about all the poor excluded Irish Catholics, Poles, and Greeks? My God, we can’t have anything like that.

I dropped the WNist label a while back, but I think that unfair, at least the religious part.  I suppose it depends on how you define WN, I guess.  The narrower (and more radical) the definition, the truer that becomes.

But as an ethnic nationalist, I sure don’t have a problem with religious racialists as long as they reciprocate my live and let live attitude.  Why would I?  A man who believes in a higher power and an afterlife is far more likely to sacrifice for his race than an atheist or agnostic, ceteris paribus.

Man, where does all the fucking BAGGAGE come from?  I just want freedom for my people for crying out loud!

NOT COMPLICATED.

Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 03:48 PM | #

I sure don’t have a problem with religious racialists as long as they reciprocate my live and let live attitude.

Impossible. It is also one of the fundamental tenets of liberalism.

A healthy raico-cultural entity will defend its central positions with vigor and punish those that do not adhere to the imposed interdicts.

Forceful, Mosaic Law and all that jazz is the tie that binds the ties that bind.

Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 03:49 PM | #

Instead of humbly accepting where they have been wrong they jump from one certitude to another.

You’re CERTAINLY right about that Matra ( ).  Everybody seems to think he’s the second coming.  I mean, I consider myself an opinionated, cantakerous, stubborn S.O.B. but I’m a wallflower compared to what seems the average Stormfronter.  Man you should see some of the crazy shit to come out of their keyboards (most here have probably seen their share).  Just gets old sometimes.  Hell I’m sure half the commenters at Sailer’s site would like to throttle me for similar objections.

Posted by Svigor on July 03, 2009, 03:52 PM | #

A healthy racio-cultural entity will defend its central positions with vigor and punish those that do not adhere to the imposed interdicts.

Its central positions?  What, all one of them?  Pretty short list there.  “Uhm, yeah, like, we’d like to survive and be free and stuff.”

Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 03:56 PM | #

Oh Captain, Our Captain! 

A “Filthy” (Non-Believing) Kraut Is Needed To Defend Our Stupid Belief System!

Bones from the atavistic hind-limbs of a humpback whale. A. From top to bottom, the cartiliginous femur, tibia, tarsus, and metatarsal, arranged as found in situ in the whale. B. Enlarged detail of the femur and tibia shown in A. (scale is not the same as A). C. Detail of the tarsus and metatarsal shown in A. (Image reproduced from Andrews 1921, Figures 2, 3, and 4.)

Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 04:10 PM | #

No evidence for macroevolution?

Human fetus

“Early embryos of various species display some ancestral feature, like the tail on this human fetus. These features normally disappear in later development, but it may not happen if the animal has atavism.”

Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 04:35 PM | #

No evidence for macroevolution?

Snakes

“Snakes are elongate legless carnivorous reptiles of the suborder Serpentes that can be distinguished from legless lizards by their lack of eyelids and external ears. Like all squamates, snakes are ectothermic amniote vertebrates covered in overlapping scales. Like lizards, from which they evolved, they have loosely articulated skulls and most can swallow prey much larger than their own head. In order to accommodate their narrow bodies, snakes’ paired organs (such as kidneys) appear one in front of the other instead of side by side, and most have only one functional lung. Some species retain a pelvic girdle with a pair of vestigial claws on either side of the cloaca.”

These are the immediate, top of first-page results of a simple Google search.  Almost all results contained links to substantive material.  Above-average intelligence and perseverance were not required to locate this information.  Yet Majority Right’s pre-eminent cutnpaster, Q, writes the following:

If you want to make your case, provide some peer reviewed papers by credible experts in the field of evolutionary biology. Unsubstantiated assertions of a dubious website doesn’t cut it..

Posted by the Narrator... on July 03, 2009, 04:56 PM | #

So it looks like the White Mormons have already ceded their state just as the Whites in other states ceded theirs.

My instincts tell me you are right about this.

Idaho and Montana will be next.

Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 11:19 AM |

Of course I hope I’m wrong. And things can (and do) change.
Who knows, with the current economic problems out there and the migration that is likely to ensue because of it, California might be 90% White in 30 years.
Stranger things have happened.
We just never know how AND when the tide will turn.

...

Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 04:58 PM | #

No evidence for macroevolution?

“An experiment with chicken embryos found that with the stimulation of a recessive trait, chickens could grow teeth just like their ancestors did.”

Imagine MR’s proponents of Creationism and its red-haired step-brother, Intelligent Design, scrambling frantically to refute this easily acquired information with cutnpaste content from “peer reviewed papers by credible experts in the field of evolutionary biology.” Hysterical, isn’t it?  It is almost as hysterical (and exploitive) as asking the “filthy” non-believing Kraut, CaptainChaos, to defend them for the sake of a non-existent political unity.

Scientists Find Chickens Retain Ancient Ability to Grow Teeth

Chickens are in the news yet again, although not for the reasons one might suspect.

Scientists from the universities of Wisconsin-Madison and Manchester, U.K., have reason to rejoice after a successful experiment, which caused hens to grow conical, saber-shaped teeth.

This curious experiment was carried out by researchers studying the ancestry of birds and their evolution from flying, nonavian reptiles to the feathered creatures we now know.

“I was looking for feathers on the head of a mutant chicken embryo, and I noticed these formations along the edge of the beak that looked like alligator teeth,” said lead researcher Matthew Harris, who specializes in the study of evolution and development.

The mutant chicken embryos that Harris studied possess a recessive and lethal trait called talpid2. As embryos, they can survive in eggs for as long as 18 days, but they never make it to the hatching stage (chickens normally hatch after 21 days). During their incubation, these mutant embryos begin to grow nascent teeth, like those found in ancient bird fossils.

When Harris and his colleagues “turned on” the talpid2 gene in the oral cavity of a normal chicken embryo, they found that the mutation caused the tissues in the embryo’s jaw to initiate the formation of teeth, very much like those belonging to the bird’s ancestors.

What makes this experiment unique is the fact that, unlike earlier experiments, it involved no grafting or tissue transplants from a mutant chicken.

John Fallon of the University of Wisconsin, who oversaw the project, said “These results provide clear evidence that these chickens possess the memory of the past; they have retained the ability to make teeth, under certain conditions. What I am describing is evolution.”

Fallon’s specialty is developmental biology, particularly vertebrate limb development and pattern formation.

The scientists discounted the possibility of this experiment having any direct medical application (to stimulate tooth regrowth in humans, for example). But they insisted on its importance to the human understanding of evolution, with Harris arguing that “the results of this experiment hit home, highlighting the potential in our genes to re-form what once existed.

“There are so many examples of such atavistic traits—snakes with vestigial limbs, horses with three toes, even human beings who have hair growing all over their body and face,” he said. “As far as I am concerned, this experiment vindicates the theory of evolution as it exposes the evolutionary history of birds. Supporters of intelligent design will have to scramble to explain this one!”

Posted by Q on July 03, 2009, 05:22 PM | #

Q-not,

Where are the fossils Darwin said would be forthcoming?

Oh wait...I know, they’re in an undisclosed location (a micrcommunity), still being cooked up in a home made kiln.

Posted by Q-not on July 03, 2009, 06:21 PM | #

No evidence for macroevolution?

There is greater affinity between the skeletons of whales and camels than between whales and fish.

Whale skeleton

Camel skeleton

Fish skeleton

More evidence for macroevolution could be provided, but there is no point:

Where are the fossils Darwin said would be forthcoming?

Oh wait...I know, they’re in an undisclosed location (a micrcommunity), still being cooked up in a home made kiln. grin

For evidence ignored there is the Darwin Award.

Posted by danielj on July 03, 2009, 06:54 PM | #

with the stimulation of a recessive trait

Yeah I wonder who did the stimulating?

Probably wasn’t mother nature…

They didn’t fucking survive anyway.

Read your own ridiculous attempts at “proof” before you “cutnpaste” from Google searches.

There is greater affinity between the skeletons of whales and camels than between whales and fish.

Similarity is obviously in the eye of the beholder because none of those three fossils look similar. Regardless, “similarity” doesn’t “prove” anything.

Show me the “countless” and “numerous” transitional forms in between a horse and a whale and describe how something goes from living outside the water to living in deep water. Complete systems in between each stage, all conferring evolutionary advantage every step of the way. You’re a dreamy retard to believe that shite with absolutely no evidence.

Posted by Q on July 03, 2009, 08:03 PM | #

No evidence for macroevolution?

“An experiment with chicken embryos found that with the stimulation of a recessive trait, chickens could grow teeth just like their ancestors did.”

“These results provide clear evidence that these chickens possess the memory of the past; they have retained the ability to make teeth, under certain conditions. What I am describing is evolution.”

LOL!

This is clear evidence of microevolution; i.e. evolution within a species.

Try again, Geno.

Posted by Svigor on July 04, 2009, 03:03 AM | #

The problem with asking for transitional stages is that you’re kinda asking for evolution to stop working so it can prove itself to you.  It makes more sense for a “transitional” stage to continue its transition and better adapt to its environment.  The “transitional” stages you’re looking for are everywhere, but they’re still in transit.  As for evidence of these less progressive transitional stages in the fossil record, well, I don’t know how sure a thing fossils are (be delighted to be informed); that is, how likely is such a creature to be a) fossilized and b) recovered?  Given we may be talking about a very small population, i.e., size of population might well be correlated with its evolutionary age (as measured from beginning of “transition").

Or I might just be full of it, I’m only speculating.

Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 10:47 AM | #

Fossils are just unlikely period.

Organs fossilizing are even more extraordinary.

It just doesn’t happen.

Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 10:48 AM | #

Additionally, the only thing you know from a fossil, is that something died and we already know that everything does.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2009, 02:20 PM | #

Q-not,

Ridiculous.

Centaurs are not posited as the conscious, non-material, uncaused first cause, but a mythic or perhaps real part of the created material universe.  Semantics is important for clarity of thought.

If all was known, there would be no reason to think. 

My contention, along with Lewis, is that thinking about the physical universe vis-a-vis the physical universe can only really lead to definitive knowledge regarding the physical universe - in a strictly scientific mode of thinking.  But, let us assume all relevant to the “music of the spheres” were made manifest to us, there would still be the pleasure of beholding the harmony and beauty of the divine creation.

Oh Captain, Our Captain! 

A “Filthy” (Non-Believing) Kraut Is Needed To Defend Our Stupid Belief System!

LOL!

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 03:05 PM | #

My contention, along with Lewis, is that thinking about the physical universe vis-a-vis the physical universe can only really lead to definitive knowledge regarding the physical universe - in a strictly scientific mode of thinking.  But, let us assume all relevant to the “music of the spheres” were made manifest to us, there would still be the pleasure of beholding the harmony and beauty of the divine creation.

I’ve heard this before, but I never thought I’d hear it from you. I’m impressed.

I more or less suspect the races were created separately somehow out of Adam and Eve in a way that isn’t recorded - or at the least it’s taken so many thousands of years that it’s a rich genetic tradition beyond comprehension. So to me the races are almost holy and diversity of nations intended. With all certainty

How is it you value the Nordic race so much and yet still cling to evolution?

Even Nietzsche had his self-avowed spirituality (creativity and probity) and his dogma (the will to power).  The faith-gene, linked to memes that boost inclusive fitness, provides “sanctification” to subsistent nature.  That belief is important, because, really, our nature, in the grand scheme of things, is not really all that subsistent.  So if not that, why not then transhumanism?

Exactly!

Even though politically I’m so furiously opposed to your approach, culturally you understand the pressing issues of our day.

Reg. the Mormons, I’ve heard they’re going PC - ah their mainstream institution/church seems to have been taken over by the race mixers.

-

Reply from our other debate regarding why a person puts a child first over a superior member of the race: because that’s how our nature works. The indirect route is best for the race overall - man can’t take the logic to do otherwise. However, the state ought to ensure a system is designed for the benefit of all as a whole that takes this nature into account. So, the family continues to put its children first within a system designed by the state. That’s my reply.

In response to Chronicles I opposed Dr. Fleming’s localism out of concern it would undermine national identity and interests, btw. So, I’m not a wacko localist even if I think localism serves the nation best - that is a balance of the local and the rooted with the power of modern society. Too much of either is unhealthy for the nation for various reasons which you could probably see on your own.

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 03:16 PM | #

Maybe I praise you too highly. I’ve been obsessed with the threat of transhumanism for years, and anyone who notices the threat I tend to see as a brother, haha.

Only a nation that declared itself unwilling to mix out would be capable of resisting the coming transhumanism, which realistically we have very little chance of surviving against.

People won’t perceive the moral threat it poses until there are already designer babies in our midst - the moral threat being that men will no longer be viewed as having souls or otherwise being of value and similarly that the bounds that we stand upon will be opened and a much more chaotic reality will arise as man’s very nature is even altered.*

People too often dismiss this as sci-fi fiction as if because they can’t imagine such thing it could never happen. Does it require some level of IQ to see the obvious moral threat? Or perhaps it’s too scary for people to face so their minds shut down.

Anyway, I’m really impressed. No matter how much I rant on the subject, few seem to ever take it seriously, assuming I fear bioengineered monsters and diseases when those are nothing compared with the moral threat you mention in your post.

*Also, the genetic tradition you so highly value will be in danger of being lost, but I have difficulty understanding just why you’re so attached to it. I understand why I’m attached to it, but I’m a deeply religious person. How can value it without the religion? It baffles me.

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 03:21 PM | #

Hungry Catholic Writer has written on it for awhile too, though you’d probably dismiss him as a “religious nut”. He doesn’t seem to mind my views btw. We religious folks aren’t as anti-Nordic race as you might think. I say I’m religious, but I fear I might be somewhat of a heretic. I have my own views on some things, and I haven’t hashed everything out yet…

Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2009, 04:41 PM | #

but I never thought I’d hear it from you.

Frank, I’ve respected you as a thinking man dedicated to his people since I became aware of the depth of your thought on these matters.  Whatever gamesmanship I engaged in was not intended as a personal affront but for the benefit of the peanut gallery at other blogs.  Sometimes it is necessary to verbally flog the nonsense out of the lemmings.

How is it you value the Nordic race so much and yet still cling to evolution?

Our affinity for our own kind is evolved or created, depending on how you care to look at it - it is adaptive or arguably “sanctified”.  A man does not suppress his own inclination if it be “noble” or adaptive, in light of reason and evidence.

Even though politically I’m so furiously opposed to your approach,

For good or ill, I felt the need to shake up faileocon major, and then faileocon minor.  GW does it often in the comment sections of London rags.  Seemed like fun, and sometimes productive.

Reg. the Mormons, I’ve heard they’re going PC - ah their mainstream institution/church seems to have been taken over by the race mixers.

Yes, I was and am aware.  I qualified my mention of Mormons helpful to racial preservation as “fundamentalists.” Warren Jeffs may be a nut, and his polygamy system is inherently unstable, yet despite all that, he ran a pretty tight ship consistent with racial separation and preservation.  Dare I say a “microcommunity.”

“The indirect route is best for the race overall - man can’t take the logic to do otherwise.”

Never denied that.  As Desmond Jones has repeatedly pointed out, for that to be our altruism, which makes our congenial civilization possible, would have to be self-defeatingly degraded were it rendered so.

However, the state ought to ensure a system is designed for the benefit of all as a whole that takes this nature into account. So, the family continues to put its children first within a system designed by the state.

A system to the benefit of all, the ethny, must guard against dygenics - perhaps best done at the esoteric level.  Yet, in extremis, all those loyal are expected to form up in defence of the one best man, the Leader, and fight to the last.  That is an indispensable principle, as the Greeks understood, as did Hitler, as he demanded of his men, as the best of the Germans remained loyal to the end.

People too often dismiss this as sci-fi fiction as if because they can’t imagine such thing it could never happen. Does it require some level of IQ to see the obvious moral threat? Or perhaps it’s too scary for people to face so their minds shut down.

It obviously takes the intelligence to comprehend the material, and, as GW has pointed out to me, the manly courage and integrity to face it and oppose it.  Takimag and Chronicles is were the lemmings and the effete congregate, Frank.  I should think that would be no place for you.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 04, 2009, 05:09 PM | #

Further, you wonder why I so often dwell upon National Socialism.  I’ll explain.  Because it is the most resent, pure, and maliciously strategically pathologized manifestation of the heroic ideal of society.  If a White man cannot at least understand, cannot sympathize with to a degree, if not celebrate and seek to embody that, he is not a White man in any ideal sense as the best of us have always postulated.  Now, obviously, from the perspective of statecraft, this must be balanced by prudence, by realpolitik.  Yet, if the best of us lack even a hint of that, they are not their better selves.  And if they lack the potential for it, they are not the best of us.  So, a bit of a litmus test then.  That is why I so often asked at Takimag, “are you a White man?”.

Dasein, whose fine feathers are ruffled by my “abrasiveness,” heeded the call. 

Y’all niggas be feelin’ me now?

Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 05:10 PM | #

Frank, have you seen this: Adam and Eve as Mulattos, First Word critiques Ken Ham’s “One Blood.”

I think you will find it worthwhile.

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 05:55 PM | #

“For good or ill, I felt the need to shake up faileocon major, and then faileocon minor.  GW does it often in the comment sections of London rags.”

I too do this - it’s very effective depending on the site. My approach and target audience for this are a little different though. I focus on the Republican drones and those being misled by neocons for this, and a lot of people do this too. The Internet is not an Orwellian technology, so it is important that we make good use of it by undermining the TV and Radio prop.

“depth of your thought on these matters”

I have depth, but I can’t rise up to be of much use atm - I have a Scarlet A brightly emblazoned on my chest, haha. I used to say Francis didn’t start writing until he was 30, but I never thought it might actually take me until 30 before I made a worthwhile impact. I’ve still a few years to beat him though.

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 07:18 PM | #

DanielJ,

races do naturally arise out of nonhuman species and seek to maintain this separation. So, it isn’t any surprise that humans do this too. Without question this was intended.

I don’t think an Aryan coming from a mulatto over 100000 years upholds “The mulatto is genetically unto something else, not an end in itself” because both the white and the black are of the same species and would have produced like from like over time.

Pagan myths of origin abound and were popular all over stating that various peoples and clans were distinctly descended from some ancestor or source. Christianity reveals that we all came from Adam and Eve, entertaining row B is too radical, but I wonder if there isn’t another part of the story that was left out. Before Babel we were tribally organised, but how did we get like that? And would it be surprising to learn that each preexisting race was given a different language? And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel?

I don’t know that we even need to know each of these answers. We can derive from nature that it’s natural to separate into races, and we can derive from Babel that God approves. The Jews upheld their purity as best they could, Jesus was pure; and Christ did not go against this natural order.

The only other question of interest seems to be Row A v. Row B, but again that’s too radical of a question.

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 07:24 PM | #

What I mean by this: “And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel?” is “Was every race truly united at Babel or were only those from a single area there?” That might not even be that interesting of a question though. It’s in the same vein as “Was the entire Earth covered by the flood?” and that row B question: “Were there others in addition to Adam and Eve?”

Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 07:34 PM | #

I don’t think an Aryan coming from a mulatto over 100000 years upholds “The mulatto is genetically unto something else, not an end in itself” because both the white and the black are of the same species and would have produced like from like over time.

I think he was assuming a young Earth, although I might be mistaken.

I also think he meant that creating simply reproducing mulattoes in order to achieve something else violated principles of Godly order and the principle of “equal yoking” would either ensure the Aryan never arising if followed or would allow allow for his arising by violation of Godly principle.

Pagan myths of origin abound and were popular all over stating that various peoples and clans were distinctly descended from some ancestor or source.

Sometimes a god.

Before Babel we were tribally organised, but how did we get like that?

The Bible, through revelation seems that although being tribally organized we were probably mono-racial.

And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel?

Before the dividing of the Earth in Peleg’s day. Pangea.

We can derive from nature that it’s natural to separate into races, and we can derive from Babel that God approves.

This is definitely the hammered nail.

Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 07:36 PM | #

would either ensure the Aryan never arising if followed, or would only allow for his arising by a violation of Godly principle.

The Bible, through revelation, seems to indicate that although being tribally organized we were probably mono-racial.

Posted by Frank on July 04, 2009, 08:00 PM | #

You write:

would either ensure the Aryan never arising if followed, or would only allow for his arising by a violation of Godly principle.

Outside Young Earth, I don’t see this.

I wrote:

Before Babel we were tribally organised, but how did we get like that? And would it be surprising to learn that each preexisting race was given a different language? And how did Aborigines get to Australia from Babel?

I was thinking here that the flood didn’t cover the entire Earth… If the flood did cover everything and if this event is as ancient as you say “Before the dividing of the Earth in Peleg’s day. Pangea.”, then it isn’t difficult to piece together.

Posted by danielj on July 04, 2009, 08:38 PM | #

You went over my head a bit. Sorry. I tried.

Outside Young Earth, I don’t see this.

Why not?

Is it necessary that the Mulatto give rise to the Aryan? Also, do blacks have the genes to give rise to the Aryan given enough time?

Racial diversification is really genetic loss when you get down to brass tacks.

If the flood did cover everything and if this event is as ancient as you say “Before the dividing of the Earth in Peleg’s day. Pangea.”, then it isn’t difficult to piece together.

I take a young Earth position (approx. 13,000 years old) so even Pangea, in my scheme, was only disrupted recently.

I’m leaning toward assuming that the miraculous division of languages at Babel also included some miraculous genetic division.

Posted by Bob on July 04, 2009, 10:41 PM | #

“The bar is the third world in between home/hearth and work/church and it is important.”

For expendable whites, unable to learn from their betters or adapt to reality, I imagine that’s right.

Posted by Q-not on July 05, 2009, 12:39 AM | #

Centaurs are not posited as the conscious, non-material, uncaused first cause, but a mythic or perhaps real part of the created material universe.

Posited.

Oxford/Harvard semantics and leather armchair lolz.

Let’s have tea, shall we?

I hereby “posit” centaurs as the conscious, non-material, uncaused first cause of the material universe.  The authority/number of subscribers to the statement is irrelevant.  The statement is non-scientific.  It cannot be falsified.

Consciousness is awareness of something which preceded one’s conscious awareness of it.  The authority/number of subscribers to the statement is irrelevant.  The statement can be falsified.  The statement is either true or false.  Evidence supports the former.

Semantics is important for clarity of thought.

Your evasion of the point regarding centaurs is as obvious as this politically-motivated defense of the idiotic Q’s belief system and the nose on your face, although I suspect ego is involved as well.

Is the intelligent believer fooled by your condescending attitude toward him?  Of course not.  Your service to him is tolerated merely for reasons of expedience - it saves him the time/trouble of refutation.  Why expedience?  Because God trumps race.  Always.  Past, present, and future.  Belief trumps non-belief.  Always.  Past, present, and future.  The intelligent believer despises you, but is perfectly happy having you serve him. 

You’re not a fool.  Quit acting a tool.

Posted by Q on July 05, 2009, 01:11 AM | #

Posted by Q-not on July 05, 2009, 12:39 AM | #

GT, you’re totally, socially, weird!

Posted by Captainchaos on July 05, 2009, 12:08 PM | #

The statement is non-scientific.  It cannot be falsified.

Yup, thought I made that clear.  Nietzsche also made clear that the scientist is rightly a tool in the hands of the philosopher, the value creator, or at least most adept value discerner.

Let’s have tea, shall we?

Civility amongst ourselves is one of the great glories of our race and its civilization.  The Spartans did not appreciate Athens, yet the Athenians could appreciate the virtues of Sparta.  Both went into the ash can of history, as did NS Germany and Victorian England.  The racial stock of the latter two hangs by a thread.

Consciousness is awareness of something which preceded one’s conscious awareness of it. 

Your assuming that consciousness cannot also be projected into the future, and that consciousness necessarily need be time-bounded.

Your service to him is tolerated merely for reasons of expedience - it saves him the time/trouble of refutation.

My service to him is predicated upon his service to the race.  I don’t doubt Frank’s or DanielJ’s dedication to their people.  And if Solzhenitsyn were still kicking around I wouldn’t be inclined to tell him to piss up a rope either. 

Belief trumps non-belief.

There must be acted upon belief in the ultimate sanctity of our race that mandates its preservation.  You believe our race should be our religion.  So, for you too, belief always trumps non-belief.

The intelligent believer despises you, but is perfectly happy having you serve him.

Yet there must be cooperation in attaining goals held in common - racial preservation.  I do not believe that said is impossible, as you seem to.  A system, a zeitgeist that puts racial preservation in a position of importance, which will necessarily entail a materialist mind set to achieve it, puts non-believing (in the transcendent) materialists in the driver’s seat.  That is unless you desire a civil war between faith-geners and non-faith-geners. 

Quit acting a tool.

If Nordic people are still around a century from now, with all of their lands still to their name, I’ll not consider my meager efforts to securing that end toolish.

Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 02:29 PM | #

For expendable whites, unable to learn from their betters or adapt to reality, I imagine that’s right.

Close up the bars!

No more softball or Golden Tee either! No fun for anyone dammit! Budweiser is the evil corporation that is standing resolutely in the way of our Stoically ascetic, racially aware utopia filled with philosopher kings!

Do you despise all those “expendables” or just the ones that imbibe?

Posted by danielj on July 05, 2009, 02:32 PM | #

Oh Captain, Our Captain!

A “Filthy” (Non-Believing) Kraut Is Needed To Defend Our Stupid Belief System!

I don’t think he was doing that.

I think he was defending the idea that we can and should work together.

Posted by Q on July 05, 2009, 03:35 PM | #

I think he was defending the idea that we can and should work together.

That’s exactly correct DanielJ. We all should be working together. The battle line is drawn between white preservationists vs. white destructionists. Anyone that is for white preservation is on our side. That means anyone and everyone regardless of race religion or creed. Geno Freak thinks he will be judged as more sophisticated by his WN peers if postures himself an uber-atheist. Well, I personally don’t care if you’re an atheist or A theist as long as you’re a white preservationist. But Geno Freak wants it his way or no way. That’s okay Geno Freak, when we band together under the white preservationist cause and win this war, we’ll allow you to live away in your microcommunity ... in fact we will insist on it.

Posted by Captainchaos on July 05, 2009, 05:06 PM | #

Q-not’s fear of a resurgent theocracy riding the tide of racial awareness in which the “secular” will be “drawn and quartered” for their apostasy is misplaced.  DanielJ, Frank and Q do not subscribe to a vision of their religion that entails that.  Also they in fact believe their faith demands racial preservation.  Q-not just doesn’t like Christers.  So long as it can be agreed that each get their own sandbox, much ado about nothing then.  Besides, wasn’t it Q-not’s idea for a new committee of correspondence?  Chances are some of those correspondences would be with Christers - just sayin’.