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 ...

31 August 2010

Are we living in a designer universe?

The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today ...

The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an "intelligent designer" monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.

However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a "multiverse" where different regions of space and time may have different properties (the strength of gravity may be stronger in some and weaker in others). If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more ...

This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural".

The entire article can be found here.

Science, philosophy, and religion are going to converge directly on aspects of the Transudationist paradigm:
  • the "Big Bang" was in actuality a "Big Seed"
  • there is a Creator, but we do not know the identity of the Creator
  • Nature, from the very small to the very large, is permeated by essences and holonic teleology
  • matter evolves to Spirit via evolution
  • evolution is correct, scientific, and undeniable; evolutionism is, on the other hand, merely metaphysical nihilism: the emergence of life/consciousness/sentience from the void, the exquisite balancing of the forces, laws, and substances of Nature required to induce said emergence, as well as the progression of the cosmos from a seed-like, minuscule singularity to today's visible universe - self-evidently support this assertion
  • the multiverse hypothesis (in all its theoretical permutations) does not refute the above assertions, because the multiverse hypothesis has three fatal flaws: (1) it is not falsifiable, (2) it begs the question, and (3) it violates Occam's razor. Furthermore, even if there is a multiverse, we can never know if we're "microorganisms" - or if our universe is a "microorganism" - existing within a "super-organism" multiverse, or if life is teleologically intended to seed the other constituent universes composing the multiverse, or if the other consitutent universes composing the multiverse aren't already themselves too teeming with life processes. The multiverse hypothesis merely raises the entire issue to a higher level of abstraction; it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to answer the ultimate questions raised through rational inquiry into the nature and origin of reality
  • Lastly, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the author of the above-cited article is correct - i.e., that there is a multiverse and that our universe was designed, via the Big Bang, by beings with minds similar to ours - the question still remains as to who/what first set the entire process in motion
Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

Thomas Jefferson

24 August 2010

Space is the final frontier for evolution, study claims

Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force of evolution. He imagined a world in which organisms battled for supremacy and only the fittest survived.

But new research identifies the availability of "living space", rather than competition, as being of key importance for evolution. Findings question the old adage of "nature red in tooth and claw". The study conducted by PhD student Sarda Sahney and colleagues at the University of Bristol is published in Biology Letters. The research team used fossils to study evolutionary patterns over 400 million years of history.

Focusing on land animals - amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds - the scientists showed that the amount of biodiversity closely matched the availability of "living space" through time.Living space - more formally known as the "ecological niche concept" by biologists - refers to the particular requirements of an organism to thrive. It includes factors like the availability of food and a favourable habitat.

'Lucky break'

The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals. For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst. Similarly, the extinction of the dinosaurs left areas of living space wide open, giving mammals their lucky break. This concept challenges the idea that intense competition for resources in overcrowded habitats is the major driving force of evolution.

Professor Mike Benton, a co-author on the study, explained that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution".

More here.

22 August 2010

Two Dates That Dr. Chuck Baldwin Chose To Ignore

By Kyle McDermott

In his latest column, entitled "Dates That Destroyed America," Dr. Chuck Baldwin discusses "dates that have each inflicted unconstitutional, socialistic, and sometimes even tyrannical action against the States united and have, therefore, contributed to the destruction of a free America."

Dr. Baldwin doesn't see fit to list the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act and the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act - the two pieces of legislation that have in large part destroyed the Jeffersonian White confederated/constitutional Republic and have eviscerated the American White middle class: the two pieces of legislation that will, in time, result in the subordination and elimination of Whites and Western Civilization from the North American continent; the ongoing demographic transition, the continuing concentration of power into the hands of the federal government, and the growing domination of the federal government by segments of the population brought into America by the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act and subsequently nurtured and empowered by the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act, are the death knell of the old Republic.

Injustices were committed in the history of the United States, but they could have and should have been remedied humanely and with compassion and sincerity. There was no need to murder the old Republic; the Judeo-plutocracy simply exploited these injustices by using them as ruses to transmogrify America into a cash cow that today exists to serve the agenda of plutocratic powers and world Zionism: open borders, cheap labor, balkanization induced through bogus "diversity" and "multiculturalism," the concentration and centralization of power into a federal Leviathan, the supremacy of global financial interests, and unquestioning and unqualified support for the Zionist entity of Israel - to cite just a few of the Judeo-plutocracy's nation-wrecking machinations.

As a further response to Dr. Baldwin, below is an article, presented in its entirety, written about eight years ago that discusses some of the impetuses and ramifications of the 1965 Immigration "Reform" Act and that, in so doing, implicitly suggests the real, long-term objectives of the 1964 "Civil Rights" Act:

America's current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50's, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group's existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of "racism" and "imperialism," they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack "discrimination," did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy assured jittery senators that "our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting "the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much." Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

The 1965 "reform" reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950's rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, members of Congress managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two "sentimental" provisions. Under the bill, immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees would face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.

Yet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy wrote in a letter to the
New York Times, "The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system." As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney (D-Ohio), insisted the bill was "more beneficial to us." In fact, the 1965 bill made "family reunification" - including extended family members - the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.

The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called "the accident of birth." It de facto discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.

Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics' worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960's.

Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as attorney general, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy's prediction.

Senator Hiram Fong (R-Hawaii), calculated that "the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population." Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for 3 percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)

The only remaining congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler (D-New York), insisted, "There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country." Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.

Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy's promise that, "Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total," Mexico sent 20 percent of last year's immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.

As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott (R-Pennsylvania), opined, "I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states." Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 American-born citizens departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area's dominant minority.

Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, "No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge." However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is heavily welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin's 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.

Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments "will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed - except by the same economic analysts at
Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks - is that immigrant participation lowers wages.

Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill's supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be "genocidal," a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them become dominated at one end of the scale by low-wage immigrants and on the other, by well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

These results were unforeseen by liberals easily misled by good intentions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B'nai B'rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus.

Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today's population is the result of yesterday's immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers' assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of "prejudice" and "tribalism."

The factual, reality-based existence of racial classifications has been put to evil ends - but the factual, reality-based existence of racial classifications can also be used to engender a harmonious, beautiful world of true diversity, real brotherhood, and genuine, ecologically sustainable material and spiritual prosperity. No civilization worthy of the name can be built on lies: Have we fallen that far that even this simple truth must be repeated? The global Judeo-plutocracy wants to annihilate the beauty of true human diversity and replace it with homogenized cattle: the Judeo-plutocracy talks about "diversity" and "multiculturalism," but what it really wants are docile wage slaves, obedient serfs, and dumbed-down populations: all with the ultimate objective being the creation of a planet populated by deracinated automatons that can offer no resistance to the Judeo-plutocracy's global agenda of a New World Order - the real "evil Empire." This is the fight that needs to be fought, because it's only by preserving mankinds' diversity that we can ALL save ourselves - our respective pasts, our respective present-days, and our respective futures - and that includes the Jewish People. Treat the label of "anti-Semitism" for exactly what it is: a canard and a smear used by organized Zionists to villainize and discredit those who oppose the Zionist agenda.

19 August 2010

A dark illimitable ocean, without bound

A dark illimitable ocean, without bound

Eventually it will become a cold, dead wasteland with a temperature approaching what scientists term "absolute zero".

Professor Priyamvada Natarajan of Yale University, a leading cosmologist and co-author of this study, said that the findings finally proved "exactly what the fate of the Universe will be".

But yet, where there is life, there is hope - and the cosmos is a living organism - or perhaps a living super-organism; life/sentience/consciousness can strive toward and eventually undergo Ascensional Transudation: indeed, the universe was created with this objective in Mind.