Featured Post

The Declaration of White Independence: Fourth Political Theory

A unilateral assertion offered to and for consideration by the European Descended People of the fifty united States of America and all ...

16 December 2009

On Darwinism, the Multiverse Hypothesis & Mechanism

The vacuum of space is full of wispy clouds of stardust

The multiverse hypothesis is intended to make cosmology the new opiate of the masses; there's no need to fret too much about what happens here, right now - just relax, enjoy yourself, and don't think too deeply. After all, if you don't get what you want in this universe, a parallel you will get it, is getting it, or has gotten it in at least one alternate universe. There is a sense in which the multiverse hypothesis is really the mechanistic atheist's heaven. Every possible event has happened, is happening, or will happen in every possible combination: in one universe you're a Beethoven, in another you're a Stalin, in yet another a flea! You can almost see the egalitarians and materialists and Marxists and reductionists popping the cork out of the champagne bottle. Darwinism/methodological naturalism states that given enough time, mechanism can bring about life/sentience/consciousness. And what is the multiverse hypothesis if not a spatial variant of evolutionism's time game? The multiverse hypothesis contends that given enough space, mechanism can bring about life/sentience/consciousness. But space-time doesn't exist as an abstraction; space-time is part of the fabric of reality - it is a medium, as well as part and parcel, of evolution. But what are the elements, forces, laws, and entities that will manifest themselves within the fabric of space-time, and how and why will they self-assemble as they proceed to do so?

"Nature is just far more inventive in making planets than we were imagining."

The one thing that Darwinism and the mulitverse hypothesis have in common is their absolute prior commitment to mechanism, i.e., to the doctrine that holds that natural processes (as of life) to be mechanically determined and capable of complete explanation by the laws of physics and chemistry. Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are both inimical to teleology; indeed, Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are specifically crafted to eliminate any role whatsoever for teleology. Darwinism maintains that natural selection and random mutation can bring about life; the multiverse hypothesis purportedly eliminates the need for an intelligent Creator: together, Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are the twin pillars of atheistic mechanism - there is nothing but matter and time and energy and randomness and space.

Thus understood, we can more carefully scrutinize the logical flaws of Darwinism. Natural selection operates on entities that possess a survival drive. Inanimate matter does not have a survival drive; indeed, to even suggest otherwise would risk resorting to teleology and essences, something that mechanism strictly forbids. Until life somehow arises, natural selection has nothing to operate upon: Why would inorganic, lifeless, unorganized, randomized matter structure and contextualize itself so as to induce life and sentience and consciousness? The response of the materialist-atheist has to be some form of mechanism, i.e., the answer is somehow to be found in the laws of physics and chemistry. But mechanism states that there is no Creator to write the laws of physics and chemistry. Yet why do these laws operate as they do? Why do they have the parameters that they do? Why do they interact and manifest themselves so as to integrate themselves into a cosmos that can then in turn induce life and sentience and consciousness? The life engendering balancing of the laws and forces of nature flies in the face of the randomness required by mechanism: a stacked deck isn't random. In fact, the existence, the hierarchical ordering and meaning imposed on each card in the deck, and the rules required to give card games meaning, fly in the face of randomness. To say that life arose by "accident" or via random processes is like saying that I pulled the nine of clubs by "accident" or via random processes. The point is this: life had to have a teleological reality in which in to self-generate and then self-replicate; the deck had to exist before I could draw a card from it.

Synapses - where brain cells connect with each other - have long been
known to be the key site of information exchange and storage in the brain.

What Darwinism really stands for is the proposition that life can blindly arise by random processes, and thereafter self-complexify via natural selection operating on random mutations. But Darwinism has a problem with explaining how life began, as well as with explaining the origin of the bio-friendly cosmic laws and forces of nature: enter the multiverse hypothesis; all the multiverse hypothesis really is, is the mechanistic atheist's attempt to sidestep the question of the origin of life and the question of the cause of the bio-friendly cosmic laws and forces of nature; the mechanistic atheist states that there are an infinite number of universes (i.e., the multiverse), and so of course one or more of these universes will emerge in a form capable of generating and supporting life - and voila! - Darwinism's just-so story is buffeted by an untestable, question-begging supposition. Evolution understood as change over time and even as common ancestry is rational and is demonstrated by empirical evidence, but the Darwinist/evolutionist position that everything can be explained by mechanism is quite simply wrong: it flies in the face of facts, logic, reason, and even science itself!

Darwinism represents neither unbiased truth nor dispassionate science, but rather the mechanization of life; Paley and Darwin are both wrong - and for the same essential reason: the cosmos is neither watch nor machine, but instead, the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living super-organism). The multiverse hypothesis is the mechanization of the cosmos, and as such it protects Darwinism's exposed flanks. At no point does Darwinism permit teleology, and purportedly at no point does the multiverse hypothesis permit or require an intelligent Creator. But these are ideological, artificial constraints imposed on reality by the doctrine of mechanism and its evolutionist/multiverse tag team. Mechanism rules out teleology a priori, and anything and everything is interpreted through mechanism's unsubstantiated assertions and self-proclaimed parameters. But of course, none of this is science. None of this is following the evidence wherever it leads. None of this is unbiased, open-minded probing and searching out of truth. Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are every bit as close-minded, doctrinaire, and dogmatic as Marxism itself: reality mustn't be allowed to interfere with the Agenda. Conform or be cast out. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, but he didn't copyright reality. Darwin recognized that change occurs over time, and he saw nature's incrementalism from the perspective of methodological naturalism. But is methodological naturalism the only perspective from which to view nature's incrementalism? The emergence of life and sentience and consciousness, the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature, as well as the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like singularity to today's visible universe, suggest that perhaps nature's incrementalism actually is goal-based teleology. Is that really so far-fetched? Why should the Darwinian patina of metaphysical nihilism be the final word concerning nature's incrementalism? Why is the statement: "Ultimately, everything is an accident" any more or less scientific than the statement: "Ultimately, everything is goal-oriented"? Why must the brain be viewed exclusively as a piece of electrified meat? Perhaps the brain is an organ, a portal to higher dimensions, to disembodied Consciousness, but we, still with primordial mud on our boots, are unable to perceive this supra-dimensional bioelectrical teleology of the matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-spirit continuum. As Aristotle's teleology demonstrates, thinking is godlike: abstract contemplation is the highest end. Plato's Republic and Myth of Er, St. Augustine's notion of evil as distance from God, Aristotle's view on biological reproduction as somehow participating in the divine - none of these thinkers or their ideas would dispute evolution understood as change over time, or perhaps even as common ancestry, but to deny teleology?

At this point in history there really is no way to know - in an ultimate sense - if reality, as we are capable of perceiving it, is the result of randomness or purposefulness. But as intelligent, conscious beings, we have a duty to consider all the best possible evidence and, based upon that evidence, set forth the best hypothesis that we possibly can - and this is precisely what I submit to you that Transudationism is: the best hypothesis that can be made, based upon all the best possible evidence. The seed is somehow impelled to become the plant; the electron is somehow brought to orbit the nucleus - and what does intelligent imagination suggest to us what the mind might somehow be induced to do and become? Who's to say that everything - reality - is a happenstance confluence of blind mechanism, sifting through an eternity of randomized ripples? Perhaps rather reality is the sprouting of Beauty - a symphonious cosmic garden - and not a cacophonous materialistic hellhole. Perhaps the Big Bang singularity was a seed, and not a random expansion of matter-energy space-time. Is that really so far-fetched? Cosmologists and physicists generally agree that the entire visible universe expanded from a singularity much smaller than a pea. The atoms composing your body are stardust. Consciousness has quite literally emerged from the void. No, we cannot possibly Know anything with absolute certainty - at least not at this stage in the evolution of cosmic consciousness (please see Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). But yet we can - and indeed, we have a duty to - set forth our best hypothesis:

It is hereby submitted to a candid world that the facts regarding the emergence and expansion of the cosmos and of its inherent creative powers and processes - as well as the creation, maintenance, and holonic teleology of the laws of Nature and of Nature's God - self-evidently support the truth of the following assertion: Transudationism is the best hypothesis that can be made regarding the meaning and purpose of existence-reality.

09 December 2009

Roger Penrose on the fine-tuning of the cosmos

"There's got to be fine-tuning. This is fine-tuning. This is incredible precision in the organization of the initial universe."

We see seeds in nature everywhere. Is it really so outrageous to suggest that the origin of our universe - i.e., the Big Bang - was itself a seed?

For life to exist in the mesoscopic dimension of human perception, it must first evolve/arise from the microscopic dimension of the subatomic/quantum. Can it not follow, then, that there is also a macroscopic dimension, one in which the cosmos itself is a living super-organism? Logic, reason, and evidence suggest that this is a rational hypothesis.

The world's major religions all put a voodoo-superstition spin on reality, but there is absolutely no need for this; it stems from a time in human history when we simply didn't know anything about the origin of the universe or the information storing capacity of DNA. The cosmos is beautiful enough, is mysterious enough: the fact that life/sentience/consciousness - indeed, the entire cosmos - emerged from a minuscule singularity is fascinating enough; there's no need to cling to a two thousand year old fairy tale about walking on water, pulling copious amounts of bread and fish from a basket, resurrecting the dead - and all the rest of it. If some people are determined to believe in yarns, so be it - they have every right to do so. They might very well be correct, but there's not a shred of evidence to prove any of it. And blind faith in any religion is as bad, perhaps even worse, then blind faith in mechanism/Darwinism and the multiverse.

Genuine enchantment is to be found by viewing the cosmos through the eyes of a child, but with the mind of an adult. Nowadays, most everyone is a jaded pedant, a materialistic automaton - corrupt to the very bone. Spontaneity, joy, beauty, love, truth, goodness - these are the things that make us human, that provide ALL living creatures with meaning and purpose and hope, that fulfill and express our innermost humanity. Who murdered these sublime qualities? I maintain that those who are fixated with Jesus are just as guilty as those who are fixated with Darwin. Both camps are dug in deep and refuse to grant the other the principle of charity; they're like children taunting each other in a sandbox. They flaunt their credentials and mouth the talking points of their respective warlords (i.e., Jesus and Darwin) - and meanwhile precious life circles the drain. Because if you look closely, if you listen carefully, you know that our cosmic oasis, Earth, is dying.

Transudationists say: Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

And where does the evidence lead? Directly to the prime hypothesis - not the law, not the theory, but the hypothesis - of Transudationism: the Big Bang was an autotelic seed.

And regarding the Big Bang/autotelic seed, the truth is this: I don't know who or what "planted" it, and neither does anyone else. And if anyone does claim to know, shield your intellect and grasp your wallet, because that's what they're after. When science becomes the domain of dogmatists and propagandists, when religion becomes an arena for hucksters and voodoo, when academia is turned into a postmodern three-ring circus, it's time to pull the plug: stop subcontracting-out your thinking, and think for yourself; you can do that without believing anything I say.

Is there anyone out there with an open mind?

The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.

- Albert Einstein -

08 December 2009

People prefer partners with similar ancestry: Let's turn the world right-side up

People mysteriously marry those with similar ancestry, U.S. researchers say. Study leader Neil Risch of the University of California, San Francisco, says mysteriously, the correlation of physical characteristics linked to ancestry - such as skin pigment, hair texture, or eye color - are actually below what is required to fully explain the phenomenon. Also, geography or socioeconomic status could not explain the ancestral influence on romance. Not only are there similar ancestry patterns between spouses, an imprint of many non-random associations of genes between original ancestral populations is found within the genomic architecture within each individual.

This is natural and normal. It's not "hate." It's not "racism." It's not "intolerance." And to force/indoctrinate people to do things that go against the laws of Nature and of Nature's God is not love, or brotherhood, or inclusiveness: it's immoral. There are a lot of people - very, very powerful people - who want to criminalize the laws of Nature, and they want to outlaw anything that falls outside of their strict, dogmatic atheistic mechanism. Many of them state with absolute certainty that there is no God. And then they force the rest of us to live according to their mechanistic atheist creed, according to the ideology that they've successfully pawned off as science; they have
succeeded in defining science as mechanistic atheism. That is the source of their condescension and derision. That is the secret to their power. That is what enables them to strike poses as valiant Protectors of the Faith - the Faith being their unquestioning, absolute prior commitment to atheistic mechanism, because in their minds, to question atheistic mechanism is to question science itself.

These people have done what every good Marxist knows how to do: use words to paint their enemies in corners. But strike at their definitions, challenge their unsubstantiated assertions and their self-proclaimed parameters, it's at that moment that they start shrieking like school girls seeing their first horror movie. All there is is space, energy, time, randomness, and matter, and under no circumstances whatsoever is atheistic mechanism to be questioned; it has to provide all the answers, all the time - to everything.

Ask the mechanistic atheist how the first living entity arose, and - bang! - he knows. But this is a peculiar kind of knowing, because it is strictly negative: we don't know how life arose, but we know that it didn't arise X way. And how do we know this? Because mechanism says so. And how do we know that mechanism is correct? Because it has to be, because we won't consider any other possibility. And that's really the extent of it. Ask the mechanistic atheist how life arose, and he'll talk a lot about chemistry and randomness and the laws of Nature and so on. Ask about the origin of the cosmos, and he'll speculate about the multiverse. His ideology defines his reality. This is the real point that must be understood.

The cosmos, the universe - everything - originated from a singularity much smaller than a pea; the Big Bang spawned reality, ultimately birthing life and sentience and consciousness. But yet the mechanistic atheist knows that this is all just an accident: the bio-friendly laws of the cosmos, the life-enabling laws of physics and chemistry, the exquisite fine-tuning that induces sentience and consciousness, the order and structure and holonic integration that engenders and constitutes reality, the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like singularity to today's visible universe, it's all just an accident - because mechanism says so.

Perhaps it's time for ideology to no longer define reality. Instead, let reality define ideology.

I challenge my readers to consider the points made above, and then to read through the blog posts below this one. This world has been turned upside-down by Marxist, materialistic, mechanistic atheists. They define reality such that to challenge their paradigm is to be a heretic - and truth and Reason be damned.

We've had enough of the mechanistic atheist's Wonderland and his concomitant multicultural, multiracial dystopia.

It's not "hate." It's not "racism." It's not "intolerance." It's respect and fidelity to the laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

Let's turn the world right-side up.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to build a wall on the border with Egypt to prevent African migrants from changing Israel's racial balance.

Netanyahu believes building a wall along the southern borders with Egypt is an "unavoidable and strategic" measure, which Tel Aviv must take to ensure that thousands of migrants do not cross over from Africa, Israel's Maariv daily reported Tuesday.

According to Maariv, the prime minister sees the migration of Africans as a problem that may escalate in the coming years and disrupt the demographic balance of southern Israel.

The paper writes that from Netanyahu's point of view migration from Africa has already changed the faces of the two cities of Arad and Eilat in southern Israel.

03 December 2009


Dr Martin Schaefer from the University of Freiburg in Germany led the research. He and his team found that blackcaps that migrated to the UK for the winter were in the very earliest stages of forming a new species. He explained that some blackcaps (Sylvia areicapilla) would always have migrated "a little further north" than others and eventually "ended up in Britain in the winter". "But those birds would have had nothing to eat," he said. It was when garden bird feeders became more popular in the UK, that an evolutionary division began to emerge. "As soon as the British provided a lot of bird food, those birds would have had a much higher probability of surviving the winter." And because the UK is closer to their breeding ground, those birds would also have returned earlier to claim the best territory. The researchers, from Germany and Canada, set out to discover if the birds that spent the winter availing themselves of garden bird-feeders were in fact a distinct group. To do this, they studied the blackcaps at a breeding ground in Germany. The team were able to use a chemical "signature" from the birds' claws to identify where they spent the winter, and what food they ate. "Then we took blood samples and analysed those to assess whether ... we had two distinct populations. And that's exactly what we found," said Dr Schaefer. "To a very large extent the birds only mate [with] birds with the same overwintering grounds as them." This initial "reproductive isolation", Dr Schaefer explained, is the very first step in the evolution of a new species. "This tells us that by feeding birds in winter we ... produce an evolutionary split. And we have produced these initial steps in as little as 50 years." The team also observed differences in the birds' beaks, wings and plumage.Blackcaps that migrated along the shorter route to the UK had rounder wings, and longer, narrower beaks. The scientists said these differences were evidence that the birds had adapted to their shorter journey, and to eating seeds and fat from bird-feeders, rather than fruit from shrubs and trees. But, Dr Schaefer pointed out that the evolution of a new bird species "could take 100,000 to a million years". "At this stage this is reversible," he added. "And it's hard to envision a species change, because if there's another economic crisis and people stop feeding the birds, the whole system might just collapse.

Humans have moved into the evolutionary fast lane and are becoming increasingly different, a genetic study suggests. In the past 5,000 years, genetic change has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period, say scientists in the US. This is in contrast with the widely-held belief that recent human evolution has halted. The research has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Professor Henry Harpending, an author of the study from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, US, said: "The dogma has been these [differences] are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influences." "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin," he added. "We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity." This is happening, he said, because "there has not been much flow" between different regions since modern humans left Africa to colonise the rest of the world. And there is no evidence that it is slowing down, he added. "The technology can't detect anything beyond about 2,000 years ago, but we see no sign of [human evolution] slowing down. So I would suspect it is continuing," he told BBC News.

European Descended People - and ALL the Peoples of humanity - have the right to survive.

cosmic evolution