[This is an article originally published on July 14th 2018 on the National Vanguard website, which is in turn based upon the American Dissident Voices broadcast of January 11, 2014.]
To create and propagate a true and unshakable moral basis for the survival of our race is the most fundamental task of the National Alliance.
If we were to, say, elect a few pro-White politicians or repeal a few anti-White laws — as difficult as those propositions would be these days — but we just continued along with establishment Liberal morality or establishment Conservative morality, or the morality of the major churches — we would have no real, lasting effect. All our efforts would, in a few decades or years, be gone with the wind. Eventually, some temporary situation or persuasive politician would reverse all that we had done.
All our work would be for nothing because the values and morals of our people are the wrong ones. If our standard of morality is “happiness,” or “what would Jesus do,” or “the greatest good for the greatest number,” or “liberty,” then there is really no reason for the White race to survive. We might as well pass from the face of the Earth.
The morality accepted by our people today is fractured, confused, vague, and artificial. It is our task to replace it with true morality. And true morality is now, and always has been, the morality of group survival.
Morality was born, in a sense, the instant that the first self-replicating molecule came into existence. From that moment forward, some actions of the new living beings would lead to increase and further evolution, other acts (they weren’t choices yet, therefore the “in a sense”) to decrease and possibly extinction. With the rise of consciousness, a more complex morality was born, involving real moral choices though still strongly guided by instinct. As our imaginations — and the priestly class — elaborated human morality, our way was sometimes lost. Something besides our survival was elevated to the highest value.
As the writer David Sims tells us, “Morally speaking, a flaw is anything that works contrary to survival. In any proper moral system, survival has the highest value. Why? Because nothing matters to the dead. Because neither truth, nor justice, nor freedom, nor prosperity have any value at all to extinct groups. Because only to something alive may anything else be good. If a moral system gives to anything but survival the highest place of value, sooner or later a conflict will arise between survival and whatever that other thing is.”
If you want to be an agent to restore true morality to our people, you must understand certain things. The first is the evolutionary nature of life.
Life is ever-evolving, ever-changing.
Evolution is real. Evolution is not only real, it is a fundamental, necessary, aspect of life — in fact, without evolution, living things as we know them could not exist.
And racial divergence and separation are themselves essential parts of evolution. Without racial separation, therefore, there could be no life at all. Does this sound like an extreme conclusion, unwarranted by the evidence? Is it contrary to science and to the morals held by all good people? Or is it a simple truth, the realization of which can change the minds and hearts of our people, and put them on the right path once again? Let’s find out.
Evolution is real
“Without racial separation there could be no life at all.”
To understand that idea, we must first understand that evolution is real. It’s astounding that a century and a half after Darwin, this is still controversial. So much nonsense is written on the subject that I think the best way to approach it is from an entirely new angle. As I wrote earlier last year:
A creationist might not acknowledge that he is related to a chimp, but he probably would admit that he is related to his own mother. “After all,” he might say, “obviously I share 50 per cent. of my genes with her.”
But that estimate is wildly off the mark. Actually, he shares more than 99.9 per cent. of his genes with her — because, in addition to the obvious one-half direct ancestry, he shares almost all of his ancestry with her in common, because both his parents share almost identical common ancestry too. Go back a few dozen centuries, and they’re practically all the same people.
Common ancestry is the only rational explanation, and it is the full explanation, for the near-total agreement between the gene-patterns of father, mother, and child.
Common ancestry is also the only reasonable explanation for the astonishingly high degree of genetic similarity between humans and other mammals.
The genetic similarity of a man and a mouse, for example, is about 92 per cent.
It is as if you had a hypothetical 100-volume set of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, with each volume consisting of 1,000 pages of very small type on onionskin paper, 100,000 pages in all — and then compared it to another, unknown, encyclopedia, and discovered that its first 92,000 pages were absolutely identical to those in the Britannica (to say nothing of the fact that the remaining 8,000 pages had a lot of similarities too).
Could that be a random coincidence? Could the two encyclopedias have just by some sort of luck, or by the very nature of encyclopedia-writing, turned out to be that similar? I don’t think so. It should be obvious to anyone not inebriated by Maury Povich, Benny Hinn, or Jack Daniels that one was derived from the other — or that both were derived from a common source.
Mice and men share so many — almost all, in fact — of our genes because we share many, many common ancestors.
Common genes equals common ancestors. That doesn’t mean we evolved from mice. But it does mean that both mice and men evolved from a common ancestor, not so long ago in the scale of geologic time. Close enough in time to make our gene-patterns 92 per cent. identical.
The percentage of genes we share with other species is a measure of how many common ancestors we share with them — and that itself is a measure of how long ago we diverged from them.
Bearing that relationship in mind, consider that we share 44 per cent. of our genes in common with fruit flies — 26 per cent. with yeast — and almost 20 per cent. in common with a grain of wheat.
That is proof — as absolute as it is possible to get in this imperfect world — that there was a time, long long ago, when our ancestors, and wheat’s ancestors, were the same species.
For even in a case where “only” the first twenty volumes of the encyclopedia — 20,000 pages — were word-for-word identical with our Britannica, who would be so foolish as to say they had no common source?
So evolution is real. Genetic similarity proves we have common ancestors with our fellow Earth creatures. Life is what it is because it evolved. But there’s more. We have to ask the question —
What is life?
Without racial separation there could be no life at all. Before we can validate that statement we need to go one step further.
The science writer Don Kaiser came up with the concept that life is evolution. No further definition is necessary. He said (emphasis mine):
The sole characteristic that ultimately distinguishes living from non-living matter is classical Darwinian evolution. Life is simply matter that evolves.
A simple analysis of the definition of life leads to the conclusion that living matter is inanimate matter that evolves. Evolution is the sole feature that differentiates living matter from non-living matter.
Consider a definition of life from the old college days:
Life is the property of a highly organized molecular complex, the stability of which is maintained by its constant utilization of energy.
It seems a bit flowery, so to simplify:
Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization….
Energy utilization is essential to maintain the stability of life forms because, without it, life forms are very unstable and decompose into non-living matter. In fact, life forms are so unstable that, even with energy utilization, they all eventually die….
But wait —
Does the Definition Exclude All Non-Living Matter?
There are many examples of non-living matter maintained by their utilization of energy. Some examples are waterfalls, volcanoes, hurricanes, and stars. So, a definition of life requires something more to exclude such non-living matter. Adding something about reproduction might help:
Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization and a process that reproduces its structure for self-maintained energy utilization in the future….
By specifying that life must include a reproductive process, inanimate matter like waterfalls and hurricanes are excluded. However, some scientists might argue rather convincingly that stars reproduce. To eliminate stars as living matter, a process that more faithfully reproduces itself could be added:
Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization and a process that accurately reproduces its structure for self-maintained energy utilization in the future.
This simple definition seems to eliminate stars and other forms of inanimate matter….
Perfect Clones Can’t Cut It.
Any life form with a reproductive process that creates an exact copy or a perfect clone of itself would satisfy the requirement of a process that accurately reproduces itself. Such a process would always produce the same exact structure and function for energy utilization and self-maintenance in a given environment. However, in a changed environment, functional energy utilization and self-maintenance might benefit from, or even require, new structure(s).
Every Environment Changes With Time.
In order for a life form to persist through time, it must have a mechanism that provides for structural changes to function in a changed environment. Some life forms can produce exact copies or perfect clones, but most importantly, they also provide mechanisms for introducing structural changes by mutation or recombination. No life forms exist that cannot provide such changes. So, the definition of life becomes:
Life is organized matter self-maintained by energy utilization and a process that accurately reproduces its general organizational structure with a mechanism that allows for structural changes to utilize energy for self-maintenance in a changed environment.
Based on this definition of life, the sole characteristic that distinguishes living from non-living matter is a reproductive mechanism that allows for structural changes to utilize energy for self-maintenance in a changed environment.
Adaptation is Essential.
When successful structural changes to utilize energy for self-maintenance in a changed environment are produced, adaptation is said to occur. Over time, with continuously changing environments and adaptations, life forms undergo natural selection and classical Darwinian evolution. Thus, for periods of time exceeding the lifespans of individuals, the sole characteristic that distinguishes living and non-living matter is the process of Darwinian evolution. So, what is life?
Life is matter that evolves.
Most fundamentally, the definition becomes:
Life is evolution.
The two are inseparable. Given the fact that all life forms die, how do they persist through time and changing environments? Every environment harboring life forms must change, simply because of their existence, so evolution is the only way life forms can persist through time. Not only did Charles Darwin discover what makes life possible despite the fact that all life forms eventually die, he unwittingly discovered the sole feature that distinguishes living from non-living matter. Charles Darwin defined life.
Life is Evolution.
* * *
So, armed with this definition — that life is evolution — what can we conclude about my earlier claim? — Without racial separation there could be no life at all.
We have common ancestry with every living creature on this planet, if you go back far enough. So the old racialist idea of “purity” — meaning an unbroken, nearly identical lineage going “back to Adam” — was wrong from the start. Purity is the wrong word; those who used it were unaware of the ever-evolving nature of life. They were ignorant of evolution, which is a branching process; they didn’t know that all the races, varieties, subspecies, and species that ever lived are branches on one metaphorical tree — and that, going backwards in time, all the branches eventually converge into one at the root.
But at the opposite end from the root, going forward in time, they are diverging — branching apart. And the only way that new species can be born is by first going through a process of racial separation. This racial separation can be temporal, spacial, or psychological — or some combination of the three — but it must occur for evolution to happen.
All living things have gone through this process of racial separation, countless times, and they are still undergoing it. It is a natural tendency of all life. And it is ludicrous to assert that human beings are somehow exempt from it.
So racial divergence and separation are not only facts, they are also essential to the evolutionary process. Life as we know it could never have come into being without them. Now my statement should make sense to you — now you should be able to see its truth in all its simplicity and clarity: Without racial separation there could be no life at all.
All living things evolve into races, which are divided by appearance, structure, and behavior. This applies to apples and anchovies, wheat grass and wallabies, manatees and men.
This branching process is simply what life does: It evolves. It forms races. Those races separate and evolve further. Some go extinct and some become new species. This is happening — continually — to all living things.
Life could not exist without this process. One might even go so far as to say that life is this process.
Since racial separation is essential to life, I believe it is proper to say that, if anything is sacred, racial separation is sacred.
* * *
A racially mixed — part Black and part White — actor from Britain, Dudley O’Shaugnessy, recently posted this statement about racial mixing online:
“If we weren’t meant to mix, whoever put us in this earth, if we weren’t meant to mix… we would be on different planets. But we are not, we are on the same planet.”
I think O’Shaugnessy’s statement, incoherent as it is, is pretty typical of what young people are being taught today.
But what he said is the opposite of the truth. Golden eagles and fish eagles and bald eagles are all on the same planet. Were they “meant to mix”? Preposterous. They can, but they practically never do in Nature. And, if they did on any large scale, it would mean the end of these unique creatures.
Evolution, as I said, is a branching process, and, once the divergence reaches a certain point, the branches don’t recombine. Forcing them to recombine — as is being done to the European peoples today through propaganda and social policy — is unnatural, anti-life, anti-evolution, and it is also genocide.
There was a time, a million or more years ago, when a certain tribe of proto-humans became separate and ceased to mate with the sub-humans around them. Had they not done that, we would not be here today.
Nature is always forming new subspecies. They are always branching, separating, becoming new species. This is as true for grass and gazelles as it is for humans. This is natural and necessary and good. To oppose it by advocating racial mixing is the ultimate in human folly, and egotistic hubris against Nature.
* * *
So this is the core of our Cosmotheist spirituality.
The evolution of life has led to the evolution of consciousness. We are the consciousness of the Universe coming into being. The upward evolution of this consciousness, so far as our present understanding allows us to know, is our purpose. And this upward evolution can only happen through a process of racial divergence and separation.
Our spirituality is in harmony with the discipline and the discoveries of science. Our spirituality is — unlike virtually ever other faith — not only compatible with our race’s survival, but, properly viewed, it regards our survival and upward evolution as imperatives.
Armed with this understanding and this faith, we can and will change the world.
By Kevin Alfred Strom
# # # #
If you are based in the USA, please write to Kevin Alfred Strom at National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. The National Alliance welcomes your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people.
Herbert Wright
- Edit
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. That is all.
John Murray
- Edit
As I said in a comment on the previous article, Herbert; it must be hard for religious people to justify their beliefs now with the mountain of hard evidence for evolution staring them in the face. I guess denial is the easy option for you.
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
And there we have it: what passes for critical thinking in Herbert’s branch of Abrahamic monotheism. As sterile as the deserts from which it slithered.
Herbert Wright
- Edit
In the previous article you were told you descend from apes who descended into black men who evolved into the white men that we are today. In this article you are told that you share a common ancestor with mice, make up your minds? Fret not, if we have ‘understanding’, better still faith in all of this nonsense then we have the ‘armour’ to change the world, according to the last sentence here.
You wonder why your movement moves nowhere except backwards?I posted this before, it didn’t appear yet Max Musson had the confounded nerve to claim he allowed all my comments.
Ho, ho, ho. What fun.
John Salisbury
- Edit
It’s even worse than you think, Herbert: not only are we descended from apes, we basically are apes. Although, it’s more accurate to say that we and modern apes share a common ancestor. And yes, we also share a common ancestor with mice. Actually, it turns out that all life on Earth is related, and we all share a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), so we can also say that we share a common ancestor with dolphins, tulips and E. Coli. I see no shame in this, and I find it hard to understand why some people find it so upsetting. Maybe you can explain?
Herbert Wright
- Edit
I have a spirit, a soul and a body. Do you think you only have two out of three?
Max Musson
- Edit
Some people might respond with, ‘two out of three ain’t bad!’, but seriously, what is the distinction you make between a spirit and a soul?
John Salisbury
- Edit
First I’d like to applaud Max on his Meat Loaf reference, which gave me a chuckle. Second, I’d like to ask Herbert a few questions.
Herbert, how do you know you have a spirit and a soul, and what are these? We know we have bodies because we can easily detect them. We can demonstrate the existence of the atomic nucleus, which we can’t see, with Rutherford’s famous scattering experiment or by otherwise testing the predictions of nuclear physics and finding we really can use it to produce working atom bombs and fission reactors (in the words of Richard Dawkins: “it works, b*tches”). I’ve never seen evidence even remotely as impressive as that for the existence of souls or spirits.
Why do you use the word “have”? I don’t think I (or you) “only have two out of three” because I don’t think there are three things to have, but also because I disagree with the grammar of “having” these things in the first place. I would think it much more sensible to say “I am a body” than “I have a body”. If you believe you “have” a spirit, a soul and a body, then what exactly are you? Are you yet another entity on top of these three things? If so, can you demonstrate that? How does it work?
Finally, what would you say to someone who said “I have a spirit, a soul, a body and a ghost. Do you think you only have three out of four?”
Max Musson
- Edit
Interestingly, the character who is currently posting on here as Herbert Wright, has the same IP address as someone who used to comment in a similar vein under the name ‘Julian’ and who emailed me to complain over some issue a while back under the name ‘Julian Peters’.
This ‘Julian Peters’ has also been sending me emails attacking Alison Chabloz and declared, when I told him to go away in no uncertain terms, that he would begin a similar smear campaign against me.
What do you say to that Herbert?
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
“You shall not […] deal falsely, nor lie to one another” (Leviticus 19:11). “He who works deceit shall not dwell within my house” (Pslam 101:7). Eh, ‘Herbert’?
Stephen Ambartzakis
- Edit
Maybe, John, you can explain to me how an upright, barely sentient being from central Africa wandered north into Europe and suddenly turned white? I think that you confuse evolution with adaptation. Living as I do on the southern tip of Africa I cannot accept the precept of an LUCA. Skin colour is not like a coat of paint, it comes from your very DNA and brings with it all of the responsibilities of being white
John Salisbury
- Edit
It’s funny that you should mention DNA, Stephen, because the vast majority of DNA we share with other races proves beyond doubt that we share a common ancestor.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
Certainly race mixing or miscegenation is being actively encouraged in the Western World, where it is asserted that race does not exist biologically but is only a social construct. It is asserted that their is only the human race and that the observed differences of outward appearance such as skin colour or phenotype is superficial.The tremendous achievements of the European peoples are disregarded or denigrated as exploitative and considered to be dependent on the African slave trade.The failure of the other races to match the achievements of the European peoples is merely attributed to the unfair advantages enjoyed by the latter, notwithstanding the ancient civilisations of the Chinese and Indians.
It is significant that mas immigration is being deliberately encouraged in Europe and the New World, on the pretext of accepting alleged refugees who are migrants seeking economic advantages.During the height of the migrant crisis of 2015, Victor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, observed that the relentless movement of people was being
deliberately orchestrated, and he stated that even in his position he was reluctant to identify those sinister forces.it is further significant that NATO General, Wesley-Clarke had effectively stated that homogenous European populations are a matter of the past and must give way to “Diversity”.
From the above it can reasonably be argued that there is an intention of replacing the European peoples with other races, through mass immigration, higher birth rates and miscegenation.There are no other people or races which are threatened existentially, as are the European peoples.No such threat exists in China, India or Nigeria. Miscegenation is actively promoted through the education system,the world of entertainment, advertising, and government policy.
The culture, heritage, customs, traditions and identity of the European peoples are denigrated as “racist”, xenophobic and intolerant, while the culture of non-Europeans are freely celebrated.
In the UK are response to the above challenges have been feeble due to the fractured nature of nationalist politics, while encouraging signs have been seen recently in Italy, France, Germany and especially the Visegrad countries.
There is little doubt that this tsunami of migration will continue. Only the resolute action of countries like Hungary give cause for hope without which very little hope would remain for the European peoples.
John Beattie
- Edit
If we came from apes, why are there still apes ?
Max Musson
- Edit
Domestic cattle have been bred from wild breeds, yet there are still wild breeds of cattle.
John Salisbury
- Edit
And if Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? It never ceases to amaze me that people who’ve clearly read nothing about the theory of evolution all think they have a knock-down argument against it – and yet scientists are the ones accused of arrogance. Incredible.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
While not intending to promulgate the creationist arguments, neither Max or John Salisbury have validly refuted it from their own assertions above. Domestic cattle have been bred by man, an agent of action, and wild cattle have been allowed to exist.Arguing from that perspective, for the sake of illustration, God could have been said to be that agent of action to allow both man and Apes to co-exist and have been always separate. Likewise Europeans travelled to America and became Americans merely by geography, and to assert that from this that the continuing existence of Europeans explains why both apes and humans exist if one had “evolved” from the other is a misapplied argument and comparison.
Like all theories in science, evolution explains many things and has a degree of coherence, but has limitations. Evolution may be considered pragmatically as the best option available, but a
future paradigm shift may alter our understanding beyond recognition.We must not be too categorical or certain, otherwise we merely emulate the religious fundamentalists in their own certainty and intransigence.
John Salisbury
- Edit
Alec, we didn’t make any assertions about evolution and nor did we set out to prove it; we simply responded to a fallacious argument from John by demonstrating the fallacy.
We can say that man was the agent of action in breeding cattle because we know that men have and continue to breed cattle, we know the mechanisms by which this occurs and we see the selected-for characteristics in great abundance in domestic cattle as compared to their wild counterparts. We can’t say the same for “God” and other species because we don’t know that God exists, let alone any mechanism by which it could select for characteristics, nor what characteristics those would be.
It’s not an “assertion” that Europeans continue to exist if a number of them go off to become Americans – it’s just an obvious fact that logic forces you to accept. If you wish to argue that sub-groups of individuals can never split off and diverge, that would be an assertion which needs demonstrating. By the way, so what if wild cattle were “allowed” to exist? The absence of an agency to wipe out a population is the default state and doesn’t need explaining.
I don’t completely agree with your final paragraph. While I accept and often say that it’s important to remain skeptical and withhold certainty at all times, there are some things we will simply never discover were wrong. We might discover that the universe is bigger or contains more stuff than we thought, but we won’t discover that galaxies don’t exist. We will never discover that the Earth isn’t round. While we surely will find out new things about evolution and what drives it, we will never learn that organisms don’t evolve or that natural selection doesn’t happen, and so I suspect that a paradigm shift that could “alter our understanding beyond recognition” simply isn’t possible in this regard.
Dafydd Ellis
- Edit
If we came from apes, why are there still apes? Or why did they stay as apes and the other “apes” make the quantum leap to become humans; and every other species such as domesticated cattle and horses that have been bred from wild breeds, yet there are still wild breeds of cattle and horses, which still remain as similar breeds of cattle and horses to domesticated cattle and horses without such an evolutionary quantum leap.
Cattle remain as cattle and horses remain as horses; but apes became human? And the other apes stayed as apes?
“It is far easier to deceive someone, than to convince them that they have been deceived”. Mark Twain
Max Musson
- Edit
Dafydd,
Humans and apes both evolved from an ape-like common ancestor. This can be demonstrated using the morphology of the skeletal remains that have been discovered and it can be demonstrated through analysis of the DNA found within modern humans and apes.
Not all of the ape like ancestors evolved in the same way because they became geographically dispersed over time and came to live in different environments with different selective pressures acting upon them. It’s quite simple. One group lived in an environment in which those with an ape-like morphology were best suited to survive, whereas our ancestors lived in an environment in which greater intelligence was required.
Dafydd Ellis
- Edit
New Genetic Study Seriously Challenges Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/04/new-genetic-study-seriously-challenges-darwins-theory-of-evolution/
John Salisbury
- Edit
Congratulations for re-posting a link without having actually checked the source material for the claim being made. This paper is talking about the relative usefulness of mitochondria in defining species, saying that there was mitochondrial uniformity (not total genetic uniformity) in the recent past, and doesn’t remotely contradict the idea of evolution by natural selection.
If this was a serious challenge for evolution, don’t you think the title would be a little more clear on that basis than “Why should mitochondria define species?” and don’t you think the scientific community would be making some noise about this?
Dafydd Ellis
- Edit
Congratulations on not clicking on the link provided which has six and a half pages of references rather than jump to conclusions before reading the whole thing through critically before jumping to conclusions.
This is akin to stating that Fred Leuchter (The Leuchter Report), and Germar Rudolf (The Rudolf Report) were not conclusive in their scientific findings in debunking the official narrative we are fed 24/7, as if they were don’t you think the scientific community would be making some noise about this?
The world we live in doesn’t work like that, and if you knew how this world actually works you would not ask such a stupid question.
Let’s look at the implications of the study, which you can read in full here.
Why should mitochondria define species?
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf
John Salisbury
- Edit
Yes, you’ve just linked to the study the article you linked was referring to. I read the paper – you clearly didn’t, and must have just assumed it backed up what the article said. It doesn’t present serious problems for evolution.
John Wrawe
- Edit
If you take a quick glance over this ‘collective evolution’ website, you soon see articles promoting psychoactive drugs, magic and how to experience lucid dreams. This appears to be a very degenerate website and probably can’t be trusted on that alone.
Dafydd Ellis
- Edit
If you take a proper look at the website you will see articles like the following which are directed at brighter people and not the perceptively dull who lack any real discernment.
And should look properly and you will note that these articles from authorative sources.
Discarded “Briefing Binder” Reveals Corrupt, Deceptive Practices of Powerful Dairy Lobby
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxvzKQkSXczjTmdNPtlMLNXhpTDw
The Archbishop Currently Exposing Vatican Pedophilia Fears for His Life & Flees the Country
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/08/30/the-archbishop-currently-exposing-vatican-pedophilia-fears-for-his-life-flees-the-country/
New Study Reveals Many Cancer Patients Are Killed By Chemotherapy & Not The Cancer
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/05/04/new-study-reveals-many-cancer-patients-are-killed-by-chemotherapy-not-the-cancer/
I suppose to you these article articles are degenerate, because they go completely over your head.
Finally:
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool. than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.”
John Salisbury
- Edit
Whether or not the website has good articles from decent sources has no bearing on the truth of its assertion that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution. This claim is not true and was not backed up by the paper referenced.
Do not assume that when someone disagrees with you, the subject has gone over their head. I suggest that you consider the possibility that it’s instead gone over yours, and take your own advice when it comes to the opening of mouths.
Dafydd Ellis
- Edit
The theory of evolution is just that a theory, as it has not been proven conclusively. This is why it is called the theory of evolution.
What is it you do not understand about this very simple assertion which any objective person can grasp in two minutes?
Now there should be hundreds if not thousands of fossils of the various stages of evolutionary development from ape to man.
Pray provide evidence of the “many” fossil records as they seem to have been missed by the many.
And being a critical thinker I want and need evidence to back assertions being made.
Do you really “think” that theologians and so forth do not understand and refute DNA and so forth?
They have a different take on how life originated on earth and do not refute evolution in the evolutionary sense, you ignoramus.
This individual was referring to the degeneracy of the website, which is of course is absurd to any reasonable person, and has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, so stop grasping at straws.
The article in question gave a link to what was written by two academics from two independent universities, but a nothing like you know better?
You and your ilk accuse religious people of being dogmatic, and that is precisely what you are, but you are too close to the wood to see the trees.
Science is the new religion, such as global warming and the carbon footprint; but a little research and reflection will indicate that it was warmer in the middle ages which of course did not the carbon footprint (motor vehicles) and so forth.
But they use science to back up their assertions about global warming.
I was only offering some interesting input, but you replied with a patronising, condensing response, which of course says everything about yourself, and nothing about me, with your reactionary response.
I repeat: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt”; which obviously apples to you. As the saying goes, if the cap fits, wear it.
Had you read the article properly rather than being subjective, you would have noted the link to the research paper in the first place; then there would be no real argument as they were putting forward an interesting thesis, which adds to our understanding; but quite evidently not yours, as you are intellectually challenged.
Now, run along and stop wasting my valuable time, as I have far better things to do with my time; as no one who knows me including academics who were my lecturers, would or do `make the impotent assertions that a nothing like you make about me; as I do not get these arguments outside the lunatic fringe.
When the media makes these assertions about the lunatic fringe, it is a truism as I have observed myself, so everything they state is not all lies and smears. And the likes of you are the epitome of this; this is why racial nationalism gets now where, as the civic nationalist attract the more intellectually rational, hence their far greater success in Europe.
You spend your worthless existence arguing the toss, while Rome is burning to give your worthless existence meaning while Rome burns.
We will be a minority in the UK by 2050 due to demographics and the high Muslim birth rates and so forth, but a loser like you want to spend their time and effort boosting their fragile insignificant wretched egos.
I am making money from investments by being in contact with winners andnot losers and deadbeats like you who are and will go nowhere.
Britain First, For Britain, Democrats and Veterans, UK Unity and UKIP don’t want the likes of your ilk, as you will hold them back with your nit picking and point scoring to make your insignificant life have some meaning.
I am not an egotist, as an egotist is an inadequate who tries to make themselves appear important; and what does this point scoring mean in the great scheme of things? Nothing!
Your “opinion” of mean means nothing, as you are just an impotent loser and oxygen a thief.
John Murray
- Edit
This is actually a reply to your comment below; I left it here as there is no reply function in the other comment.
I think it’s quiet clear from what you’ve written to Mr Salisbury that you have lost the argument and have proceeded to throw the baby out with the bath water and just throw insults around.
Your main points of course are completely wrong, i.e: evolution, global warming and religion vs science.
I’m not sure how you can quote the fossil record as some sort of evidence against evolution when it is the exact opposite of that. All religious people have to do is to find just one single fossil on this Earth that is “out of place” to form an argument and of course you have never been able to do that. Every fossil we have found is exactly where we would expect to find it.
You say that Theologians have a different take… well, I don’t care what they think as opinions count for nothing without evidence, and they have none to back up their ideas of an invisible sky fairy.
Regarding Global Warming, I will posit that you have never read a climate paper in your life and like most people get their information from blogs and other sites that continuosly get it wrong on this issue. I on the other hand have studied both sides of the debate (there is no longer any debate on this issue) for years now and can categorically tell you that there is no conspiracy at play and that it is very real.
As for the rest of your insults to Mr Salisbury, I can only take a guess that you were drunk when you wrote the comment and considering Mr Salisbury’s high intellect, calling him an “ignoramous” amongst other things is quite ridiculous.
The man is a giant among men in nationalist cirlces when it comes to knowledge and intelligence so when he speaks or offers advice on something it would be extrememly wise to listen.
John Salisbury
- Edit
Hi Dafydd
I’ll refrain from responding to the ad hominems and incredibly rude statements you made in your comment, and restrict myself to addressing your evidentiary concerns.
You think that there should be hundreds of thousands of fossils relating to human evolution. I’m not sure how you calculate this, as many factors influence how likely a fossil is to form – the conditions have to be just right, and so we expect far from every organism to be fossilized. Here is a link listing all the fossils relating to human evolution which have been discovered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
For sources, you can follow the citations given. As for what you said about climate change, I can only suggest you read down the list of most used climate myths on the left of this website:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/
The list contains rebuttals (also sourced) to all of the old chestnuts we hear about global warming, including your assertion that the middle ages was warmer.
I did read the link you originally posted and I did follow its own links, as I was interested in finding out its source for the assertion that evolution had serious problems, expecting that it must have quite compelling evidence to be making such a claim. Imagine my disappointment.
I’m not sure why you think theologians are a good source of scientific information, as they specialize in an entirely different area. In any case I believe that most respectable theologians accept the scientific evidence and try to fit their faith around it, rather than simply denying it as you have done.
John
John Salisbury
- Edit
I’d like to add that “evolution is just a theory” is one of those things which people can say if they want to betray they know nothing whatsoever about science. The word “theory” has an entirely different meaning in science to on the street. In science, a theory is a framework for understanding a set of facts about the world, which produces accurate testable predictions. On the street, a “theory” is akin to a hypothesis or a guess.
For comparison, see the THEORY of relativity (solidly demonstrated to be accurate), the germ THEORY of disease (basically undisputed), Newton’s THEORY of gravitation (very accurate in non-relativistic regimes) and plate tectonic THEORY (absolutely undeniable). None of these things are mere guesses without evidence, and nor is evolution.
I also want to link specifically to the full list of common arguments from global warming skeptics:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
You’ll find yours thoroughly refuted at position 27 on the list.
By the way, if you really think I’m doing this for ego, you could make it a little less easy for me.
John Salisbury
- Edit
This article presents an interesting and thought-provoking argument, and while I don’t think it gets all the science completely right, I’d like to commend the author in this case for making the effort to ground his ideology in the science, rather denying any science which is inconvenient as most people do.
I would caution against trying to derive too much deeper meaning, morality or purpose from evolution. I think evolution is simply a fact of reality: not a good or bad thing in itself, and certainly not a conscious force deliberately engineering intelligence, but rather aimlessly stumbling upon new biological inventions, making myriad mistakes and running into plenty of dead ends along the way. Let’s not forget that for the vast majority of life’s history, evolution did not give rise to intelligent beings, and has very nearly wiped them out more than once in the time they’ve been around. There’s no indication that this is what evolution is for, or even that it is “for” anything at all. In my view, it simply is.
To put it more simply, it’s often said that you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”, and I think that especially applies here. I know that many people crave an ultimate purpose and wish for a being or perhaps a theory to provide one for us. However, I think it’s liberating to realise that while studying nature can tell us how to get what we want, it can’t tell us what we should want in the first place. Our purpose is not decided for us or dictated from on high, whether by gods or the endless blind tinkering of natural selection. In this respect, we are the most privileged of all of the five billion species that have ever lived on Earth. We get to choose our own destiny.
It’s a fairly mind blowing point made near the end of the article that evolution has led to conscious matter – as Carl Sagan pointed out, we are a way for the cosmos to know itself. While I wouldn’t go as far as calling this “the consciousness of the universe” (it is after all a vanishingly small fraction of the universe which is conscious through us) it’s certainly something worth pondering. It’s also a wonderful demonstration that the truth of the universe alone is enough to be awe-inspiring. Spirituality doesn’t depend on churches or myths or gods; it’s already in us, and there’s plenty of splendour in science to bring it out.
John Stephens
- Edit
Without trying to be contentious, Scienctists and “experts”, merely find things, or note that things are already in place. Thus, have no, or ignore, their own natural instincts.
Additionally, many of our instirutions, are corrupt, thus, any assumptions that proffer “we now know that scientists have proven that life started from a single explosion”, or “there is much evidence through expert analysis”, of whatever field they are in, is in itself, often wrong, or purposefully misleading.
“Piltdown Man” is a perfect example. Others include supposed experts changing their minds years later, over foods or beverages that were once deemed bad for us.
Considering how our “movement” is packed full of those, (myself included), who bemoan this situation, many of our people use the very intellectual enemy/treacherous statistics, to justify their own agendas or point of view. Thus, the whole healing process is fractured from the first grain sown.
If the “Big Bang” caused the origins of life in the Universe, one must then look at what/who lit the fuse. Also, the post Jewish “Christian Bible”, is where creationists get it wrong. The desert tribes whom had their first experiences of the single God entity, were rotten to the core. God actually berated them, and cut them off.
Christ came from the essene people, and was more like a Med or Greek person. Many of the moral codes, and uncanny warnings, such as “God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth”, are far more credible than Marxist/Zionist, and generally Left-leaning “experts”.
The Ten Comnandments alone, prove that the pre-Christian God of the Old Testament, had plans for a moral human existance. Left-Wingers could be considered almost Paganistic, were it mot for their anti-nature, anti-White agenda. They are quite happy to destroy land that is/was virgin, or productive farmland.
Nationalist Pagans, and Nationalist Christians, have two major common goals. Let’s become one, and fight for both…. our land and its people.
John Salisbury
- Edit
Can you possibly be serious in saying that scientists and experts only note things that are already in place? Have they never discovered anything new, invented anything, or come up with any new theories to explain things? By the way, I don’t think any scientists assume that “life started from a single explosion” – I’d be interested if you could quote one saying that. If you’re referring to the Cambrian explosion then this isn’t an “assumption”, it’s a matter of biological record – we can see the fossil evidence for the rapidly increasing number of species during this time.
You speak of the discovery of hoaxes and of experts changing their minds as some sort of irredeemable weakness of science. However, this is precisely what makes science such a good method of arriving at truth compared to religion – science progresses and changes its explanations as new evidence comes to light, and isn’t afraid of exposing its prior mistakes. Science lives at the boundary of knowledge and ignorance; a scientist’s day job is trying to find out things we don’t know and solve known problems with our existing models. No prizes are given out for telling us what we already know – the biggest prizes in science are in fact awarded for completely overturning the existing understanding.
Religion, on the other hand, rigidly and dogmatically clings to ancient revealed “truth” of dubious provenance and prefers pretending that new evidence doesn’t exist to changing its doctrines to accommodate it. Those who try to revolutionise religious understandings are more often executed than rewarded.
I have never heard any scientist claim that the Big Bang caused the origins of life in the universe. The Big Bang was an event in the very early universe, far earlier than there were even the right chemical elements for organic chemistry, let alone life. This and the fact that you talk about it like a literal explosion tells me that you haven’t read very much about it at all. It is not wrongheaded to ask what caused the Big Bang, and cosmologists think about this all the time – search up on cosmic inflation for a taste of this.
I am sorry to say that there is no convincing evidence that any God exists, let alone the God of the Bible. I’m not even convinced that Jesus was a real historical figure, although I know this is a controversial point amongst historians. However, the least I can say for sure is that the Ten Commandments in the Bible (I might ask which ten, as they are presented in several different versions) prove absolutely nothing. There is nothing in the commandments or even in the entire Bible that could not have been written by a person of the time, operating with the knowledge available at the time.
For example, the first three commandments are simply concerned with protecting God’s ego and jealousy. There is no commandment prohibiting slavery, a system we know to be immoral. There are injunctions in scripture not to eat shellfish, but no explanation of microorganisms and diseases, information which would certainly have been useful to the primitive societies of the time. The first chapters of the Bible contain a hilariously stupid version of events to try to explain the origin of the world, immediately rendering the book at best a highly questionable source of information, and at worst a collection of silly and dangerous fairy tales. Personally, I would much rather get my understanding of the world from a decent science textbook than the Bible.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
You have clearly a good understanding of science at one level, John consistent with your degree, although you may not be so familiar with the philosophy of science. Your understanding of the Bible is perhaps as simplistic as those who take the texts literally. Much of the Bible is clearly allegorical, and the Hebrews understood “Truth” not in terms of a strict assessment and analysis of observed fact but rather with reference to rich cultural enhancements.
The rational West would prefer to reduce phenomena to its basic building blocks while the East has always taken a wider and holistic approach.
The pagans communicated “truths” through legends and myths and J.R.R. Tolkien argued that the legends were the most creative and satisfactory devise to describe reality rather than being circumscribed by the “rational” world.
Tolkien had argued that through over analysis we have lost our creative ability to develop new myths.
John Salisbury
- Edit
I am less familiar with the philosophy of science as I have no formal training in that regard, but I have read one or two books and listened to a fair few lectures on the subject. I don’t pretend to have a fantastic understanding of the Bible, nor the Koran or the Torah, as I don’t consider there has been any demonstration that they are useful books to understand. There are of course many other books I haven’t even heard of. How am I to decide what to dedicate large amounts of time to understanding?
I’m glad you see much of the Bible as allegorical, and not as revealed truth as some do. However, I don’t particularly care how the Hebrews understood “Truth” unless it can be shown that theirs is a useful way of thinking. The fact is that talking about scientific truth in terms of observed fact is a demonstrably useful process which produces theories with explanatory and predictive power. The Bible does no such thing.
It’s not just a preference that drives us to reduce phenomena to basic building blocks – it’s what really works. Matter really is made of atoms which are made of subatomic particles which are vibrations in quantum fields. Quantum Field Theory has produced some of the most exquisitely accurate and precise predictions in history, such as the anomalous electron dipole moment, giving us extremely good reason to think that it’s a correct way of talking about the world at that scale. If you can show me a similar correct prediction that’s come out of the Eastern “holistic approach” then I’ll be impressed.
I’m inclined to agree with Tolkien that legends are more creative, but certainly not that they’re more satisfactory. In any case I don’t really care what he thought about it. Why do you prefer making up whatever story feels more satisfying to learning the actual truth about reality?
Alec Suchi
- Edit
I have always defended science when it has come under attack from Relativists who claim that it is merely offers one of many possible outlooks and is not deserving of any special consideration. These Relativists would wish to understate the internal coherence of the physical sciences and deny its “relative” objectivity.How ironic that the observer affects the outcome of an event and is never entirely detached from it.
However science makes certain fundamental assumptions, namely that the physical world is separate from the observer and exists in its own right. This may seem an absurd point but the Idealist school of Philosophy denies the reality of the physical world which only exists in the mind.
You speak of observed facts, but this requires clarification.Science only proceeds when what is observed is placed in some organising structure and making connections between what may be considered as obviously separate phenomena, such as the relationship between electricity and magnetism or matter and energy.
Science certainly provides much insights although the “new” physics is entirely counter intuitive to our daily experiences and perceptions. I was not necessarily claiming that religious texts had value, per se, but literature can provide some counterbalance to a world of measurement and precision.Hence the value of legends.
Your point that I prefer fabrication to reality is simplistic and is answered above.
John Salisbury
- Edit
Fiction certainly has value, just not in helping determine the laws of physics.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
Indeed!