The pursuit of crappiness

"Yes, it's worth getting trampled over just to get them what they need."

Cosmic Evolution & Happy New Year!

Three articles & a bunch of quicklinks:

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here

Make a New Year's resolution to open your mind to different ways of thinking; "by any means necessary" is a phrase that comes to mind. The third President of the former Republic had this to say: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." So let the shit hit the fan. The right of revolution is inalienable. No "court" can take it away, no "leader" can outlaw it, no bought Whore can legislate it away. The Bastards have created a world that is rotting from the inside out, and the Bastards are determined that it go on. No nations on Earth wield the sword as do America and Israel. The banausic plutocrats and the Ziopaths (i.e., Zionist psychopaths) are on the warpath, literally. Peaceful and legal resistance is the sane, humane way to oppose them; if things spin out of control, the tyrant bears the responsibility.

None of this means stupid violence in opposition to them.

The same people who have been lying to you about everything else for decades, somehow possess motivations that are beyond reproach when it comes to their massive investment in the production, creation, intensive promotion, and maintenance of "multiculturalism" and "diversity"; as if somehow, when dealing with these specific issues, they are magically, spontaneously transformed into saints, whose motives and ethics thereto can't even be questioned. Really? The lying, duplicitous, police-state imposing Bastards become nice-guys, and really care, and really are compassionate, and really are concerned, because, when dealing with "multiculturalism" and "diversity," there's a big "poof!" - and Hyde becomes Jekyll. Has it ever occurred to anybody that what the Bastards really are doing is creating a "society" in which effecting meaningful change, as well as offering genuine opposition to their tyranny, becomes well-near impossible. : due to Hydeal selling these ideas to the rubes

oped diary

Darwinian evolution (evolutionism/mechanism) is bottom-up ateleology; i.e., neo-Darwinism is a Weltanschauung that perceives reality to be the product of ultimately unguided, undirected material processes – but is evolutionism the only viable Weltanschauung? One possible alternative is teleological evolution (≈ vitalism), which is perhaps best understood as cosmic self-organization whereby the visible universe – comprised of nested hierarchies, planes, and dimensions – emerged from a seed-like singularity and appears to be undergoing an unfolding expansion and self-integration, so as to coalesce and become capable of inducing ever more complexity, e.g., life, sentience, and consciousness. Teleological evolution (cosmic self-organization) is a process permeated by, immersed in, and teeming with meaning and purpose. The universe is perhaps best perceived as a living organism (and if there is a multiverse, it is perhaps best perceived as a living super-organism). Arguably, the radiation and subatomic particles engendered by the Big Bang (Big Seed) underwent a cosmic process of what might be termed “evolutionary transubstantiation”; the universe self-organized (though at the expense of an overall increase in the entropy of the universe): matter transformed into ever greater order, until eventually it became self-aware, and it is submitted that this complex, specified transformational ordering might be capable of progressing until consciousness detaches from its material vessels as Spirit/Geist (or less happily until some or all of the material vessels become extinct) to join with whatever entity/force “planted” the Big Seed. It is in this sense that the hypothesized Creator might perhaps best be conceived of as a spiritual gardener. Perhaps consciousness is not an epiphenomenon; instead, matter might be a kind of “way station” that houses awareness as awareness moves along the matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-Spirit continuum; from this perspective, it is submitted that the raison d'être of the universe is to evolve disembodied/free will Consciousness. Hegel was essentially right side up all along; it was Marx who turned Hegel upside-down.

Any project that attempts to interpret a sacred text (e.g., the Bible), so as to wed it to the nihilistic, reductionist acid of atheist metaphysics (ateleological neo-Darwinian evolutionism-materialism), seems doomed and irrational. Darwinism qua Darwinism is meaninglessness and purposelessness. Christianity as espoused by its adherents purports to represent meaning and purpose. “Evolutionary Christianity” therefore seems to be oxymoronic, akin to claiming to be a carnivorous vegetarian. Darwinism qua Darwinism denies immanency and transcendency: for ateleological evolutionism, reality is but matter in motion – there is nothing but matter and the forces that act on matter; but what is Christianity (or any expression of spirituality) once immanency and transcendency are stripped away? Of Aristotle’s four causes, evolutionism accepts two: the material and the efficient, hence the proposition that there is nothing but matter and the forces that act on matter. But if there is a matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-Spirit continuum, material causes and efficient causes are incomplete; also required are formal causes (represented perhaps by the specific forms living entities assume over time, e.g., species, subspecies, etc.) and final causes (speculatively, the point at which some sort of “bioelectrical ascension transudation” occurs, i.e., when matter-encapsulated consciousness crosses the threshold to disembodied Spirit, developmentally analogous to the point at which insentient matter transforms to sentient life).

Bioelectrical harmonic bio-immanence

For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.

new oped article

We Are ALL Egyptians Now

http://www.opednews.com/author/quicklinks/author69040.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57328202/video-police-pepper-spray-passive-students/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15807441

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/11/hundreds-injured-as-police-clash-with-protesters-in-tahrir-square.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/19/us-lobbying-banks-idUSTRE7AI0YA20111119

Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result

The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.

If confirmed by other experiments, the find could undermine one of the basic principles of modern physics.

The first announcement of evidently faster-than-light neutrinos caused a stir worldwide; the Opera collaboration is very aware of its implications if eventually proved correct.

"Great Lakes" Discovered on Jupiter Moon?

Hidden inside the thick, icy crust of Jupiter's moon Europa may be a giant saltwater body equal to the Great Lakes (map) combined, NASA announced today. Lying about 1.9 miles (3 kilometers) from the surface, the ice-trapped lake may represent the newest potentially habitable environment in the solar system—and one of the best prospects for the search for life beyond Earth.

"For decades scientists have thought Jupiter's moon Europa was a likely place for life, but now we have specific, exciting regions on the icy moon to focus our future studies," Don Blankenship, senior research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin's Institute for Geophysics, told National Geographic News.

Discovery: Cosmic Dust Contains Organic Matter From Stars

A new look at the interstellar dust permeating the universe has revealed hints of organic matter that could be created naturally by stars, scientists say. Researchers at the University of Hong Kong observed stars at different evolutionary phases and found that they are able to produce complex organic compounds and eject them into space, filling the regions between stars. The compounds are so complex that their chemical structures resemble the makeup of coal and petroleum, the study's lead author Sun Kwok, of the University of Hong Kong, said. Such chemical complexity was thought to arise only from living organisms, but the results of the new study show that these organic compounds can be created in space even when no life forms are present. In fact, such complex organics could be produced naturally by stars, and at an extremely rapid pace.

The new universe is born

Scientists: Bolshoi universe simulation most accurate to date

The "Big Bang" was an autotelic cosmic seed, and the universe is an organism for cultivating Consciousness

According to scientists' current best theories, tentacle-like "filaments" of dark matter formed the scaffolding upon which normal matter coalesced to form the stars and galaxies that we see today.

America 2011: A Totalitarian Multicultural Police State

America 2011:

A Totalitarian Multicultural Police State

This should be the location of our "Liberation Square" moment: the day when the whole rotten, stinking, viperous domain of scoundrels is chased out of Washington D.C. - and our Republic is restored.

"As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap"

NASA: DNA Found on Meteorites Indicates Life May Have Originated in Space

The cosmos is a living organism...

There is a sense in which Darwinism (ateleogical reality) represents the mechanization of life. But is the cosmos really best characterized as a watch or a machine? Is it possible the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living "multiverse" super-organism)? What is the multiverse - if it exists - but self-replication on the grandest scale? The multiverse hypothesis, as explicated by ateleological reality adherents, is the mechanization of the cosmos, and as such it protects Darwinism's exposed flanks. Darwinism (ateleological reality) does not permit teleology, and the multiverse hypothesis purportedly does not require an intelligent Creator. Ateleological reality (mechanism) is a paradigmatic-hegemonic, de jure ideology, imposed by the reigning paradigm's Power-Structure, purposefully designed to render teleological reality (vitalism) unthinkable. Mechanism rules out teleology a priori, and anything and everything is interpreted through mechanism's unsubstantiated assertions and self-proclaimed parameters.

new math

"If the Big Bang was the start of everything, what came before it?"

It is respectfully suggested that a discussion of our cosmic origins demands a passionate, determined exploration of ultimate questions: Why are we here? Why does reality exist? Where did reality come from? It is submitted that reality had to come from somewhere, that there must be meaning and purpose behind it all: not out of wishful thinking, but because the fact that consciousness has emerged from the void self-evidently favors meaning and purpose.

Please closely examine the punctuation mark im­mediately at the end of this sentence. The moment before the Big Bang, the entire visible uni­verse – everything you see outside of you and within you – existed within a point less than the size of a punctuation mark period. Logic suggests – indeed, Darwin’s own method of scientific reasoning has as a key principle – that if you’re trying to explain something in the remote past, you should invoke a cause or causes which are known to produce the effect that you’re trying to explain. It is therefore submitted that the most rational way to perceive the Big Bang is as a seed: a teleological, autotelic cosmic seed, with disembodied free will/consciousness as its fruit.

There is a sense in which 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 also a sense in which the multiverse hypothesis is really the mechanistic atheists' 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, and 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, and consciousness. But what are the elements, forces, laws, and entities that will manifest themselves within space-time, and how and why will they self-assemble as they proceed to do so?

It is respectfully submitted that Gould's concept of religion and science as "nonoverlapping magesteria" is a fallacious paradigm: reality is an integrated, holonic totality; science, philosophy, and religion tend to compartmentalize reality and therefore each tends to view reality from its own perspective - and each is tempted to mistake its own limited perspective as embodying the true, complete understanding of reality. To a significant extent, however, reality is analogous to a Gestalt image: the viewer sees what she or he chooses to see. The anthropic principle offers perspectives that attempt to explain the existence of observers capable of recognizing that the laws and forces of nature are bio-friendly; the "explanation" offered is that the laws and forces of nature must be bio-friendly - otherwise no such observers could exist. But the fact that the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature have induced conscious beings capable of observing them is self-evident; such reasoning merely begs the question: Why are the laws and forces of nature bio-friendly?

Darwinism (understood as ateleological reality) and the mulitverse hypothesis seem to have in common a 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 seem suspiciously crafted to eliminate any role whatsoever for teleology. Darwinism maintains that natural selection and random mutation can bring about life, sentience, and consciousness; the multiverse hypothesis purportedly eliminates the need for an intelligent Creator: together, Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are the twin pillars of atheistic mechanism – ultimately there is nothing but matter and time and energy and unguidedness and space.

Natural selection operates on entities that possess some kind of a "survival" drive, or impetus. How and why would the plasma/radiation released by the Big Bang self-organize into the visible universe? Sir Roger Penrose maintains that an incredibly high degree of "fine-tuning" (i.e., amazingly low entropy) existed in the organization of the initial universe: how and why would the visible universe emerge from an unguided expansion of space-time? Unguided plasma/radiation and inanimate matter do not have a "survival" drive, or impetus; to even suggest otherwise seems to risk resorting to teleology in some form, or "essences" of some kind, both of which mechanism forbids; until life somehow arises, natural selection has no self-organizational impetus to sculpt: how and why would inorganic, lifeless, unorganized, unguided plasma/radiation structure and contextualize itself so as to induce life, sentience, and consciousness? The response of the materialist-atheist is invariably 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. Why then do these natural 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, sentience, and consciousness? The life engendering balancing of the laws and forces of nature seems to fly in the face of the unguided processes required by mechanism: i.e., a stacked deck isn't unguided. 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 unguidedness. To say that life arose by "accident" or via unguided processes seems analogous to stating that someone pulled the nine of clubs by "accident" or via unguided processes. It seems self-evident that life had to have a teleological reality in which to self-generate and then self-replicate; the deck has to exist before someone can draw a card from it.

What Darwinism (ateleological reality) stands for is the proposition that life can blindly arise by unguided 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; the multiverse hypothesis seems to have been designed by mechanistic atheists in an 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; it seems popular now among mechanistic atheists (ateleological reality adherents) to maintain the existence of an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes (i.e., the multiverse), and but of course it follows that one or more of these universes will emerge in a form capable of generating and supporting life - and voila! - Darwinism's (ateleological reality'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 clearly demonstrated by empirical evidence, but the Darwinist/evolutionist (ateleological reality) position that everything can be explained by mechanism seems wrong: it flies in the face of facts, logic, reason, and even science itself.

There is a sense in which Darwinism (ateleogical reality) represents the mechanization of life. But is the cosmos really best characterized as a watch or a machine? Is it possible the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living "multiverse" super-organism)? What is the multiverse - if it exists - but self-replication on the grandest scale? The multiverse hypothesis, as explicated by ateleological reality adherents, is the mechanization of the cosmos, and as such it protects Darwinism's exposed flanks. Darwinism (ateleological reality) does not permit teleology, and the multiverse hypothesis purportedly does not require an intelligent Creator. Ateleological reality (mechanism) is a paradigmatic-hegemonic, de jure ideology, imposed by the reigning paradigm's Power-Structure, designed to render teleological reality (≈ vitalism) unthinkable. Mechanism rules out teleology a priori, and anything and everything is interpreted through mechanism's unsubstantiated assertions and self-proclaimed parameters.

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, 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. 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 mankind, still with primordial mud on their 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 Timaeus, 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 seem to dispute evolution understood as change over time, or perhaps even as common ancestry – but to deny teleology?

At this point in history there seems to be no way of knowing - in an ultimate sense - if reality, as mankind are capable of perceiving it, is the result of unguided processes or of purposefulness. But as intelligent, conscious beings, mankind have a duty to consider all the best possible evidence and, based upon that evidence, set forth the soundest hypothesis they can - without appeal to revelation. 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 unguided, 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 an unguided expansion of matter-energy space-time. 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. The cosmos is a holonic hologram.

Does existence have meaning or is reality mean­ingless? Is everything inside of you and outside of you, from quarks to quasars, all the result of unguided, acciden­tal happenstance? Is the exquisite, life-consciousness engendering balancing of the cosmic forces of nature a fluke? Could reality as we perceive it have manifested itself into existence on its own accord, from a singular­ity or from nothing? The multiverse hypothesis does not seem to resolve the issue, because the multiverse hypothesis is not dispositive: it’s not falsifiable, it violates Occam’s razor, and it begs the question (see, for example, Sir Antony Flew’s There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind). Moreover, even if – and that’s an awfully large if – there is a multiverse, we can never know whether the other universes too are teeming with life processes, and even if there is a multiverse, we’re still faced with the question of what set it in motion, and even if there is a multiverse, how do we know life was not teleologically intended to seed its other constitu­ent universes too? Furthermore, there seems to be no way to know with reasonable certainty precisely what happened before the Big Bang, nor likewise to know what, if anything, comes after the heat death of the uni­verse (or, alternatively, what, if anything, comes after the “Big Crunch”). Many of the world’s foremost sci­entists (cosmologists, physicists, etc.) have developed a theory that the universe-Creation occurred from a singularity or from nothing. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the Big Bang brought forth an integrated, teleologi­cal reality-totality capable of inducing self-generating and self-replicating life, sentience, and consciousness.

It is respectfully submitted that the Big Bang was not an unguided expansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was not an event analogous to a “bomb” “exploding”); rather, it was an ordered ex­pansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was an event analogous to a “seed” “sprouting”): therefore, it did not “explode” – it sprouted. As to who or what “planted” it, there is no way to know. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s notion of the unmoved Mover (or God, if you prefer) is a sound hypothesis. Therefore, adherence to a theistic-spiritualistic-teleological paradigm is just as, if not more, sound than is adherence to an atheistic-materialistic-evolutionist paradigm; note please the use of the term evolutionist: evolution of course is true, scientific, and undeniable. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the philosophy of nihilism: evolutionism is nothing more than atheist metaphysics.

Perhaps Darwin didn’t per­ceive the larger, all-encompassing order – the layered, nestled, hierarchical space-time matter-energy bioelec­trical harmonic webbed nexuses of holonic planes and dimensions – in which the processes of evolution un­fold, without which the processes of evolution could not engender ever more complex life, sentience, and consciousness: but for the proto-order somehow embedded in the Big Seed, blind, unguided evolu­tionism seems incapable of producing anything other than chaos. Evolution seems more a cosmic process, initiated by whatever entity/force begot the Big Seed; it seems undeniable that the cosmos has gradually, incrementally self-organized - from the very small to the very large - and that we are a teleologically unfolding part of that gradual, incremental, self-organized expansion.

It is respectfully submitted that this perspective successfully defends the proposition that adherence to a paradigm of theism-spiritualism-teleology is just as, if not more, sound than is adherence to a paradigm of atheism-materialism-evolutionism.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but – upward.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn From “A World Split Apart,” Delivered At Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises, Thursday, June 8, 1978

gff

By Kyle McDermott













LINKS: HERE & HERE

The alleged financial tsars like "Brzezinski, David Rockefeller and the trilateral commission," which monitors the cooperation between the United States, Europe and Japan, "groom politicians so that when a crisis arrives, they have a number of politicians ready to go that they can put into action and Obama is one of these."

And when Netanyahu makes a major policy address and concedes the equivalent of nothing - what happens? Obama praises him, but of course.

Shortly thereafter all hell breaks loose in Iran, with the Western media acting as the amen corner for yet another color revolution.

Welcome to the planetary Platonic cave.

There are media big shots in attendance too. Ask yourself: What kind of democracy is this? People we don't even know, making momentous decisions, free of public scrutiny. And whatever decisions they make will be sent out over the airwaves of their corporate, controlled media, to the compliant, sheeple. Meanwhile, they will do whatever it takes to protect Israel - you can be sure of that. Freedom? There is no freedom. We're all just serfs on their global Judeo-plutocratic plantation. These people and those they represent are the real masters of this planet; the so-called "nations" are just their administrative units. They have constructed a global matrix of control, exploitation, and manipulation.

The American people cannot have informed opinions on any issue of vital importance when the media is so controlled and manipulated by Jewish extremists who support Israel’s agenda over America’s true interests. War with Iran would be catastrophic; even more catastrophic for America than the “War for Israel” in Iraq, a war started by Jewish extremists such as Perle and Wolfowitz and aided by their powerful allies in American mainstream media.

In addition to Mike Wallace, the executive producers of 60 minutes are Jeff Fager and Don Hewitt, dedicated Jewish supporters of the Zionist State.

60 Minutes is famous for supposedly exposing corruption and deceit, yet as this C-Span tape shows, 60 Minutes itself is corrupt. Americans must demand a free and unbiased media in the United States, not simply one huge propaganda tool for the Zionist agenda.

There is only one way out: Revolution.

The fine-tuned universe

He writes: “If this underlying physical foundation for the natural order did not gradually evolve by the process of natural selection into its present format, if indeed this foundation of life-supporting laws and constants emerged out of the Big Bang, perfectly fine-tuned and ready for action, then it means that some other explanation besides Darwinian evolution has to be found for the perfect setup of nature’s fundamental constants.

The anthropic principles describe a universe whose origins and purpose are still veiled in mystery, but one that seems to favor life, beauty and contemplation. Some feel that we have only just begun to plumb the depths of that mystery. The late Dominican Fr. Cletus Wessels, author of Jesus in the New Universe Story, told me in an interview several years ago: “In light of these recent discoveries, some might say the emergence of human life is the primary goal of the universe story. But we humans have emerged late, much has gone on before we arrived, and certainly the story has not ended with us. It goes on into an unknown future, perhaps for billions of years.

“Even to say that the coming of Jesus is the ultimate goal is a shortsighted vision of the story. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus had a powerful impact on Western culture and the Christian community, but the God of the universe story unfolds within the vastness of the unknown future in ways beyond our comprehension. What is essential is to recognize the intimate, loving presence of God unfolding from within the whole universe.”

There is a real point of convergence between science and spirituality. Each is telling us something about the miraculousness of our existence.

The fine-tuned universe: Part one
The fine-tuned universe: Part two

The "Big Bang" was actually a Big Seed;
the universe is a living organism

reality is the sprouting of Beauty

reality is the sprouting of Beauty

Perhaps Darwin didn’t per­ceive the larger, all-encompassing order – the layered, nestled, hierarchical space-time matter-energy bioelec­trical harmonic webbed nexuses of holonic planes and dimensions – in which the processes of evolution un­fold, without which evolution could not engender ever more complex life and consciousness: but for the proto-order somehow embedded in the Big Seed, blind, random evolu­tionism seems incapable of producing anything other than chaos. Evolution seems more a cosmic process, initiated by whatever entity/force begot the Big Seed; it seems undeniable that the cosmos has gradually, incrementally self-organized - from the very small to the very large, and that we are a teleologically unfolding part of that gradual, incremental, self-organized expansion.

They all fear the Israel lobby

"They all fear the Israel lobby" says political analyst John Mearsheimer; "it's a quite remarkable phenomenon."

Here's Mearsheimer's quote in its entirety:

I sometimes think that at some point in the not-too-distant future, some American politicians, some prominent American politicians, are going to stand up and say "the Emperor has no clothes," and once this is out in the open and people start talking about it, that will mean real trouble for Israel, but so far that's not happened, because basically American politicians have no backbone; they're a spineless lot. They're unwilling to stand up for the American national interest, and they kowtow to Israel at every turn, because they all fear the Israel lobby; it's a quite remarkable phenomenon.

If the Israel lobby has that kind of power over such a vital area of American foreign policy, it is not unreasonable to inquire as to whether other vital foreign and/or domestic areas of American policy formulation are also, or have been, similarly affected by the Israel lobby: immigration? open borders? endless and immoral wars? racial balkanization? elitist engineered neo-feudal "globalization"? the engendering of polarized societies of super-rich and super-poor and along with it the demise of the middle class? the legitimacy of non-white identities (e.g., Black, Hispanic, and Asian) and the simultaneous taboo classification of White identity?



Since the conclusion of World War Two, the international Judeo-plutocracy has wielded extensive influence over and exercised significant control of White nation-states and Western civilization - and thereby the world at-large; sixty-six years of rot, decay, depravity, dispossession, wars of aggression, rank hypocrisy, and shameless lies later, the results are clear to see: Western civilization is heading toward an abyss, Western economies are heading toward collapse, the global environment is heading toward socio-economically destabilizing crises: in short, the planet is heading toward a meltdown. Just take a look around.

If the West is to survive, the reigning paradigm that enables the Power-Structure's "status quo" must be smashed. How it is smashed, as long as it is accomplished within humane moral and ethical constraints, is not as important as that it is smashed. Patriots of all Peoples and ethno-cultures can agree to this - and to much more too, such as the kind of world that should emerge from the decomposing wreckage of the Second World War.

Western civilization has been hijacked. Our new Overlords can't and won't turn back now. Whatever else might be said, White people of European descent - the Peoples of the West and the ethno-culture only they can create and bear - have a right to survive and go forward; this right applies equally to ALL the Peoples of mankind, including the Jewish people. Therefore, the right to survive is universal, ethical, moral, and just.

A "quite remarkable phenomenon," indeed.

Lose your fear. Free your mind.

What will the U.S. be like when Whites are no longer the majority?

A balkanized totalitarian multicultural police state.

Pope: Humanity isn't random product of evolution

"If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," he said. "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason."

Given that modern humans began to emerge something like 200,000 years ago, that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, and that the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, it therefore seems obvious that any written material purporting to relate the history and meaning of the visible universe was composed long, long after the events in question; in cosmic terms, until very recently, there were no humans around to witness the ongoing emergence and expansion of the visible universe. It also seems obvious that all the words ever written – including all of mankinds’ sacred texts – are products of human minds and human hands. For example, the Bible was compiled and edited over centuries, by human minds and human hands, and there is no way to know whether all or any of these human minds and human hands were somehow inspired by a supreme entity; divine revelation is not testable: there is nothing we can look at or manipulate in nature to prove that the Bible, or any sacred text, is the word of God. People of course are absolutely entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, but it is most respectfully submitted that to acquire a rational understanding of our place in the cosmos, why we are here and why reality exists, we have nowhere else to look but nature – without appeal to revelation.

Darwinian evolution (evolutionism/mechanism) is bottom-up ateleology; i.e., neo-Darwinism is a Weltanschauung that perceives reality to be the product of ultimately unguided, undirected material processes – but is evolutionism the only viable Weltanschauung? One possible alternative is teleological evolution (≈ vitalism), which is perhaps best understood as cosmic self-organization whereby the visible universe – comprised of nested hierarchies, planes, and dimensions – emerged from a seed-like singularity and appears to be undergoing an unfolding expansion and self-integration, so as to coalesce and become capable of inducing ever more complexity, e.g., life, sentience, and consciousness. Teleological evolution (cosmic self-organization) is a process permeated by, immersed in, and teeming with meaning and purpose. The universe is perhaps best perceived as a living organism (and if there is a multiverse, it is perhaps best perceived as a living super-organism). Arguably, the radiation and subatomic particles engendered by the Big Bang (Big Seed) underwent a cosmic process of what might be termed “evolutionary transubstantiation”; the universe self-organized (though at the expense of an overall increase in the entropy of the universe): matter transformed into ever greater order, until eventually it became self-aware, and it is submitted that this complex, specified transformational ordering might be capable of progressing until consciousness detaches from its material vessels as Spirit/Geist (or less happily until some or all of the material vessels become extinct) to join with whatever entity/force “planted” the Big Seed. It is in this sense that the hypothesized Creator might perhaps best be conceived of as a spiritual gardener. Perhaps consciousness is not an epiphenomenon; instead, matter might be a kind of “way station” that houses awareness as awareness moves along the matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-Spirit continuum; from this perspective, it is submitted that the raison d'être of the universe is to evolve disembodied/free will Consciousness. Hegel was essentially right side up all along; it was Marx who turned Hegel upside-down.

Any project that attempts to interpret a sacred text (e.g., the Bible), so as to wed it to the nihilistic, reductionist acid of atheist metaphysics (ateleological neo-Darwinian evolutionism-materialism), seems doomed and irrational. Darwinism qua Darwinism is meaninglessness and purposelessness. Christianity as espoused by its adherents purports to represent meaning and purpose. “Evolutionary Christianity” therefore seems to be oxymoronic, akin to claiming to be a carnivorous vegetarian. Darwinism qua Darwinism denies immanency and transcendency: for ateleological evolutionism, reality is but matter in motion – there is nothing but matter and the forces that act on matter; but what is Christianity (or any expression of spirituality) once immanency and transcendency are stripped away? Of Aristotle’s four causes, evolutionism accepts two: the material and the efficient, hence the proposition that there is nothing but matter and the forces that act on matter. But if there is a matter-body-brain-mind-consciousness-Spirit continuum, material causes and efficient causes are incomplete; also required are formal causes (represented perhaps by the specific forms living entities assume over time, e.g., species, subspecies, etc.) and final causes (speculatively, the point at which some sort of “bioelectrical ascension transudation” occurs, i.e., when matter-encapsulated consciousness crosses the threshold to disembodied Spirit, developmentally analogous to the point at which insentient matter transforms to sentient life).

On the Meaning of the Vatican & Italian Space Agency's New Website

"If the Big Bang was the start of everything, what came before it?"

It is respectfully suggested that a discussion of our cosmic origins demands a passionate, determined exploration of ultimate questions: Why are we here? Why does reality exist? Where did reality come from? It is submitted that reality had to come from somewhere, that there must be meaning and purpose behind it all: not out of wishful thinking, but because the fact that consciousness has emerged from the void self-evidently favors meaning and purpose.

Please closely examine the punctuation mark im­mediately at the end of this sentence. The moment before the Big Bang, the entire visible uni­verse – everything you see outside of you and within you – existed within a point less than the size of a punctuation mark period. Logic suggests – indeed, Darwin’s own method of scientific reasoning has as a key principle – that if you’re trying to explain something in the remote past, you should invoke a cause or causes which are known to produce the effect that you’re trying to explain. It is therefore submitted that the most rational way to perceive the Big Bang is as a seed: a teleological, autotelic cosmic seed, with disembodied free will/consciousness as its fruit.

There is a sense in which 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 also a sense in which the multiverse hypothesis is really the mechanistic atheists' 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, and 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, and consciousness. But what are the elements, forces, laws, and entities that will manifest themselves within space-time, and how and why will they self-assemble as they proceed to do so?

It is respectfully submitted that Gould's concept of religion and science as "nonoverlapping magesteria" is a fallacious paradigm: reality is an integrated, holonic totality; science, philosophy, and religion tend to compartmentalize reality and therefore each tends to view reality from its own perspective - and each is tempted to mistake its own limited perspective as embodying the true, complete understanding of reality. To a significant extent, however, reality is analogous to a Gestalt image: the viewer sees what she or he chooses to see. The anthropic principle offers perspectives that attempt to explain the existence of observers capable of recognizing that the laws and forces of nature are bio-friendly; the "explanation" offered is that the laws and forces of nature must be bio-friendly - otherwise no such observers could exist. But the fact that the bio-friendly laws and forces of nature have induced conscious beings capable of observing them is self-evident; such reasoning merely begs the question: Why are the laws and forces of nature bio-friendly?

Darwinism (understood as ateleological reality) and the mulitverse hypothesis seem to have in common a 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 seem suspiciously crafted to eliminate any role whatsoever for teleology. Darwinism maintains that natural selection and random mutation can bring about life, sentience, and consciousness; the multiverse hypothesis purportedly eliminates the need for an intelligent Creator: together, Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis are the twin pillars of atheistic mechanism – ultimately there is nothing but matter and time and energy and unguidedness and space.

Natural selection operates on entities that possess some kind of a "survival" drive, or impetus. How and why would the plasma/radiation released by the Big Bang self-organize into the visible universe? Sir Roger Penrose maintains that an incredibly high degree of "fine-tuning" (i.e., amazingly low entropy) existed in the organization of the initial universe: how and why would the visible universe emerge from an unguided expansion of space-time? Unguided plasma/radiation and inanimate matter do not have a "survival" drive, or impetus; to even suggest otherwise seems to risk resorting to teleology in some form, or "essences" of some kind, both of which mechanism forbids; until life somehow arises, natural selection has no self-organizational impetus to sculpt: how and why would inorganic, lifeless, unorganized, unguided plasma/radiation structure and contextualize itself so as to induce life, sentience, and consciousness? The response of the materialist-atheist is invariably 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. Why then do these natural 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, sentience, and consciousness? The life engendering balancing of the laws and forces of nature seems to fly in the face of the unguided processes required by mechanism: i.e., a stacked deck isn't unguided. 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 unguidedness. To say that life arose by "accident" or via unguided processes seems analogous to stating that someone pulled the nine of clubs by "accident" or via unguided processes. It seems self-evident that life had to have a teleological reality in which to self-generate and then self-replicate; the deck has to exist before someone can draw a card from it.

What Darwinism (ateleological reality) stands for is the proposition that life can blindly arise by unguided 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; the multiverse hypothesis seems to have been designed by mechanistic atheists in an 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; it seems popular now among mechanistic atheists (ateleological reality adherents) to maintain the existence of an infinite (or near infinite) number of universes (i.e., the multiverse), and but of course it follows that one or more of these universes will emerge in a form capable of generating and supporting life - and voila! - Darwinism's (ateleological reality'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 clearly demonstrated by empirical evidence, but the Darwinist/evolutionist (ateleological reality) position that everything can be explained by mechanism seems wrong: it flies in the face of facts, logic, reason, and even science itself.

There is a sense in which Darwinism (ateleogical reality) represents the mechanization of life. But is the cosmos really best characterized as a watch or a machine? Is it possible the cosmos is more akin to a living organism (or perhaps a living "multiverse" super-organism)? What is the multiverse - if it exists - but self-replication on the grandest scale? The multiverse hypothesis, as explicated by ateleological reality adherents, is the mechanization of the cosmos, and as such it protects Darwinism's exposed flanks. Darwinism (ateleological reality) does not permit teleology, and the multiverse hypothesis purportedly does not require an intelligent Creator. Ateleological reality (mechanism) is a paradigmatic-hegemonic, de jure ideology, imposed by the reigning paradigm's Power-Structure, designed to render teleological reality (≈ vitalism) unthinkable. Mechanism rules out teleology a priori, and anything and everything is interpreted through mechanism's unsubstantiated assertions and self-proclaimed parameters.

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, 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. 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 mankind, still with primordial mud on their 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 Timaeus, 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 seem to dispute evolution understood as change over time, or perhaps even as common ancestry – but to deny teleology?

At this point in history there seems to be no way of knowing - in an ultimate sense - if reality, as mankind are capable of perceiving it, is the result of unguided processes or of purposefulness. But as intelligent, conscious beings, mankind have a duty to consider all the best possible evidence and, based upon that evidence, set forth the soundest hypothesis they can - without appeal to revelation. 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 unguided, 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 an unguided expansion of matter-energy space-time. 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. The cosmos is a holonic hologram.

Does existence have meaning or is reality mean­ingless? Is everything inside of you and outside of you, from quarks to quasars, all the result of unguided, acciden­tal happenstance? Is the exquisite, life-consciousness engendering balancing of the cosmic forces of nature a fluke? Could reality as we perceive it have manifested itself into existence on its own accord, from a singular­ity or from nothing? The multiverse hypothesis does not seem to resolve the issue, because the multiverse hypothesis is not dispositive: it’s not falsifiable, it violates Occam’s razor, and it begs the question (see, for example, Sir Antony Flew’s There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind). Moreover, even if – and that’s an awfully large if – there is a multiverse, we can never know whether the other universes too are teeming with life processes, and even if there is a multiverse, we’re still faced with the question of what set it in motion, and even if there is a multiverse, how do we know life was not teleologically intended to seed its other constitu­ent universes too? Furthermore, there seems to be no way to know with reasonable certainty precisely what happened before the Big Bang, nor likewise to know what, if anything, comes after the heat death of the uni­verse (or, alternatively, what, if anything, comes after the “Big Crunch”). Many of the world’s foremost sci­entists (cosmologists, physicists, etc.) have developed a theory that the visible universe-Creation occurred from a singularity or from nothing. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the Big Bang brought forth an integrated, teleologi­cal reality-totality capable of inducing self-generating and self-replicating life, sentience, and consciousness.

It is respectfully submitted that the Big Bang was not an unguided expansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was not an event analogous to a “bomb” “exploding”); rather, it was an ordered ex­pansion of space-time matter-energy (i.e., it was an event analogous to a “seed” “sprouting”): therefore, it did not “explode” – it sprouted. As to who or what “planted” it, there is no way to know. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s notion of the unmoved Mover (or God, if you prefer) is a sound hypothesis. Therefore, adherence to a theistic-spiritualistic-teleological paradigm is just as, if not more, sound than is adherence to an atheistic-materialistic-evolutionist paradigm; note please the use of the term evolutionist: evolution of course is true, scientific, and undeniable. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is the philosophy of nihilism: evolutionism is nothing more than atheist metaphysics.

Perhaps Darwin didn’t per­ceive the larger, all-encompassing order – the layered, nestled, hierarchical space-time matter-energy bioelec­trical harmonic webbed nexuses of holonic planes and dimensions – in which the processes of evolution un­fold, without which the processes of evolution could not engender ever more complex life, sentience, and consciousness: but for the proto-order somehow embedded in the Big Seed, blind, unguided evolu­tionism seems incapable of producing anything other than chaos. Evolution seems more a cosmic process, initiated by whatever entity/force begot the Big Seed; it seems undeniable that the cosmos has gradually, incrementally self-organized - from the very small to the very large - and that we are a teleologically unfolding part of that gradual, incremental, self-organized expansion.

It is respectfully submitted that this perspective successfully defends the proposition that adherence to a paradigm of theism-spiritualism-teleology is just as, if not more, sound than is adherence to a paradigm of atheism-materialism-evolutionism.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man’s life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?

If the world has not come to its end, it has approached a major turn in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will exact from us a spiritual upsurge, we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life where our physical nature will not be cursed as in the Middle Ages, but, even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon as in the Modern era.

This ascension will be similar to climbing onto the next anthropologic stage. No one on earth has any other way left but – upward.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn From “A World Split Apart,” Delivered At Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises, Thursday, June 8, 1978