If there is no reason to follow a moral code then we are reduced to the animal state and our instincts guide our morality.

The base instinct of humanity is to do the easiest and most pleasurable thing, the path of least resistance, and isn't that almost always the amoral path ?

If humanity had fallen back on instinct, instead of producing a moral code based on his belief in God, where would we be today ?

The Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman empires were filled with debauchery of any imaginable sort and while there was great scientific progress in those cultures they all ended in destruction.

These are the persistent claims of Christians horrified of the idea of morality without God. Without God, the idea is we'll all be running around acting like the Japs during the Rape of Nanking.

Rubbish. How does morality without God work? Its pretty easy if you view your racial group as extended family. How many athiests do you know who have (for instance) bashed in their sister's head on impulse just because "there's no God to judge them?" If family is sacrosanct, why would an athiest WN treat a white stranger any differently than his immediate sister? The white guy with the broken-down truck on the side of the road is family, too.

Most athiests I know are pretty boring people. There is not a spectacular hedonist in the style of a Nero or Caligula anywhere among the bunch. In fact, there aren't any hedonists among them at all. They obey common morality because they were able to integrate those particular values into their inner selves early on in life. People who fail to do that are what as known as SOCIOPATHS, not athiests. Most athiests don't bash in people's heads and bugger their corpses because they are capable of thinking about what the loss of that person would mean to their families, to society, etc. Some people apparently need the threat of a higher power over them to keep them in check...but not everybody, and perhaps the majority, do not.

The Christian God is basically an invisible Abe Foxman in the sky, anyway. If we gotta have higher powers, would Odin or Dagda or Svernog or Lugh or Jupiter suffice? Or are Odinists fated to suddenly replay the Rape of Nanking because all non-Christian or athiest societies inevitably fated to collapse into a gator pit?

So, you are saying that there are fossil records that indicate all these monkey people actually existed? Understand the dilemma; there are millions of people and millions of monkeys of every stripe alive today. Also, we can recover the bones of countless dead chimps, niggers, orangutans, chinks, etc. Strangely none of these monkey people exist today, and even more strange, there are no bones. But there should be tons of fossils, just like the pteralactoryllsaurus and the chimps and the niggers are easy to find. Why no monkey people?

Please provide links to actual photos of the bones - not reconstructions based on a single tooth, or a bit of thigh bone. You see, these things should be easy to find, yet they are not. According to your THEORY, there have been an infinite number of intermediary species between chimp and man. Your theory doesn't even allow for a single line of evolution from chimp, but claims there are unlimited branches of different species in every evolutionary direction. Monkeys that may have evolved feathered wings, for instance. There must be millions of diverse monkey/man species in various sizes and shapes. Some should have developed multiple pairs of arms and the proverbial eyes in the backs of their heads. WHERE ARE THEY? Your answer: "they never got fossilized". Really? How convenient. This "evolution" theory is as valid as creationism. FAITH - nothing less.

Why no monkey people?

The space aliens took em for their evil experiments.

So, you are saying that there are fossil records that indicate all these monkey people actually existed? Understand the dilemma]

Why the hell should they be easy to find? It's very hard to form a fossil--first off, the thing can't rot, meaning anoxygenic conditions.

There are not millions of man-monkey hybrid species, sorry. It doesn't apparently take millions of species to lead from ape to man, maybe forty or so.

Why aren't they around anymore? Because they're all dead! Why the hell aren't the dinosaurs still around? They're dead!

No mammal has ever evolved feathers. That's a strictly avian/saurid development. Mammals had fur before the first birds evolved. Mammals also have never deviated from the four-limb standard because of something called the Hox gene-complex. There are no mutations we know of that are capable of generating extra limbs, eyes, etc. in mammals or birds. Of course, mammals/birds are born with extra limbs and eyes, but that's due to degrees of conjoined twin phenomena. Siamese twins are caused by fuckups during embryonic development, not actual genetic mutations.

Winged monkeys--bad idea. The monkey would have to sacrifice a lot to evolve flight--probably including its intelligence (don't bother correcting me about how dumb monkeys are--I'm comparing them to bats, here). Streamlining is a bitch, plus the monkey would have to shrink. There's a reason bats are the size they are. It's probably a better idea, evolutionarily speaking, to just remain a tree-bound, highly intelligent (by animal standards) monkey.

There's really not a lot of point in going on. You stated on the previous thread that true knowledge was essentially impossible, and I'm too tired to explain how evolutionary theory differs greatly from faith. God could've put all the fossilized crap there to test our faith, or the world could have been created last Thursday with our all memories created intact in our brains. Evolution is simply our best guess about what occured in the past, based on deductive reasoning. Nobody's forcing you to believe it if you don't want to. I'm just glad you are a definite original when it comes to your disbelief. It's hard to find someone who doesn't believe in evolution who isn't a wacky Judeo-Christian, so I think your skepticism is a worthy thing.

 

These are the persistent claims of Christians horrified of the idea of morality without God. Without God, the idea is we'll all be running around acting like the Japs during the Rape of Nanking.

Rubbish. How does morality without God work? Its pretty easy if you view your racial group as extended family. How many athiests do you know who have (for instance) bashed in their sister's head on impulse just because "there's no God to judge them?" If family is sacrosanct, why would an athiest WN treat a white stranger any differently than his immediate sister? The white guy with the broken-down truck on the side of the road is family, too.

Most athiests I know are pretty boring people. There is not a spectacular hedonist in the style of a Nero or Caligula anywhere among the bunch. In fact, there aren't any hedonists among them at all. They obey common morality because they were able to integrate those particular values into their inner selves early on in life. People who fail to do that are what as known as SOCIOPATHS, not athiests. Most athiests don't bash in people's heads and bugger their corpses because they are capable of thinking about what the loss of that person would mean to their families, to society, etc. Some people apparently need the threat of a higher power over them to keep them in check...but not everybody, and perhaps the majority, do not.

The Christian God is basically an invisible Abe Foxman in the sky, anyway. If we gotta have higher powers, would Odin or Dagda or Svernog or Lugh or Jupiter suffice? Or are Odinists fated to suddenly replay the Rape of Nanking because all non-Christian or athiest societies inevitably fated to collapse into a gator pit?

Your viewpoint is narrow.

The lowest common denominator is the majority.

"High minded" people are a tiny minority.

You world view works for intelligent and decent people, that is not the vast majority of any branch of humanity.

Wipe out everyone with less than a 125 IQ and your world view starts to work, until then mankind needs something that binds them to a moral code.

Edit: swapped majority for minority typo
.

Your viewpoint is narrow.

The lowest common denominator is the majority.

"High minded" people are a tiny majority.

You world view works for intelligent and decent people, that is not the vast majority of any branch of humanity.

Wipe out everyone with less than a 125 IQ and your world view starts to work, until then mankind needs something that binds them to a moral code.

.

AH. Okay, I see where you were going with this.

Good points. Yeah, I agree.

Your viewpoint is narrow.

The lowest common denominator is the majority.

"High minded" people are a tiny minority.

You world view works for intelligent and decent people, that is not the vast majority of any branch of humanity.

Wipe out everyone with less than a 125 IQ and your world view starts to work, until then mankind needs something that binds them to a moral code.

Edit: swapped majority for minority typo
.

Yes. That's hit home for me since I am seeing a little of my own ascention into what is called the "ivory tower." All the people I'm around all day are among the brightest people from all over the country/world. You have to be mindful of how dumb and goyish they are (no wonder jews see them as cattle), and that they form a good White basis for a society.

Maybe I just see it that way because I came from plain folk who got married young and were blue-collar by nature.

You have to be mindful of how dumb and goyish they are (no wonder jews see them as cattle), and that they form a good White basis for a society.

I don't really understand this part of your post.

I do not see white people as "goyish" but I certainly have lived long enough to know that the lowest common denominator is the majority of all races and that even if you get rid of all the niggers and jews in the universe there are plenty of whites that will follow the base instinct, the path of least resistance.

If our race were completely altruistic then there would be no such animal as the wigger or the race traitor female that sleeps with anything non-white, so we have to face the fact that there is need for a moral code that binds together the lowest common denominator of our race and helps to keep their base instincts in check.

Either that or have a eugenics war to get rid of those that are not high minded.

The anarchic concept of self government only works if you have a population that self governs via the morality that comes with intelligence.

Unfortunately, at this stage of human development there are far too many that cannot self govern.

.

I'm going to ask those of you who are interested in or doubt the fact of evolution to read this fairly short article. Does the earth rotate around the sun? Is that a theory or a fact. Evolution is as much a fact as that. Who would say otherwise? Only someone who has little or no idea what evolution is, what biology is, what science is -- or/and someone who has an agenda that they're pushing and whose agenda is discredited by the FACT OF EVOLUTION. I'm talking about what some would characterize as a certain jewish religion -- Christianity.

Read this article from beginning to end. It's not long. It's not complex. It quotes biologists on this question. Of course, if you think biology -- one of the hard sciences (we're not talking sociology or political science here) -- is not the truth, is jew science -- there's not much hope for you and you need to question whether you yourself are White.

Science was created by the White race as a means to determine the Truth of the universe -- via actual objective observation (inductive reasoning) and deductive reasoning (logic premised on observed factual premises) -- deductive reasoning, for the uninitiated, is a form of MATHEMATICAL PROOF -- deductive reasoning allows man to prove that which is beyond the physical possibility of current observation. Using deductive reasoning, we can determine what happened on earth three billion years ago or what happened at the beginning of the universe 15 billion years ago. Deductive reasoning, as consciously applied logic, was, of course, invented/developed by White men. Indeed, only White men would have even thought of the concept of science itself. Only White men are sufficiently unafraid of the implications of true truth to have conceived of science. The Race of Truth.

Set your childish fears aside and read this article, White Man:

-------------------------------------------

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould [color="Red"][yes, Gould is a fucking jew, but he makes sense here -- though I'll keep him on course as necessary] has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's [color="Red"][probably stolen from a White man's] theory of gravitation replaced [color="Red"][that's a bit strong, Gould] Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

-----------------------------------------

Here's the thing to keep in mind. Given that the evidence supporting the fact of evolution is HUGE -- for you to disprove evolution, you would have to disprove this evidence AND replace evolution with another explanation or theory for the existence and relationships and variability of species and subspecies and prove both its existence and its mechanism in a way that is superior to the proof for evolution and for its mechanisms. Want to try that, creationists? Good luck.

"No. I don't care what you say or show or about any of the evidence or reasoning. God created cancer viruses and rats and dolphins and eagles and streptococcus bacteria and chimpanzees and niggers and White people."

Oh. When did he do that -- in each case? What proof do you have for this? How exactly did he do that? Please explain the mechanisms of his creation. What specific proof do you have that these mechanisms were actually used? If the species were separately and uniquely and permanently created, how do you explain the continual individualization and variation within each species, which is readily observable? And won't that on-going variation lead in time to NEW SPECIES? Etc.

The point is that evolution and its theories of mechanisms DO ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS -- and more -- and have withstood the test of time for 150 years.

By the way, for God to have created the species would have required a series of miracles -- events contrary to the known physical laws of the universe (evolution and its mechanisms are consistent with the physical laws of the universe, as I've shown). What evidence can you show that the physical laws of of the universe have been similarly broken on other occasions? Jesus' resurrection? Prove it. What are the implications for this being an ordered and predictable universe, premised on fundamental inviolable laws?

So you'll need to answer these questions and others, creationists, if you're going to RE-establish creation as the more plausible explanation for the origin of species than is natural evolution.

All that article says Devere is that the seven day creation didn't happen. Well, nice, but that means very little to people who never believed in it anyway.

Evolution is primarily based on the idea of species change over time based on some purely mechanical action. That requires some mechinism, which has not been demonstrated. Without demonstration it remains unproved. Unlike gravity which can be demonstrated as acting according to certain principles, even though we don't know what causes gravity, we know its effects. This is not true for "evolution". That there are different species walking around now than there use to be and they seem to share similar features doesn't prove any purely mechanical basis or laws. If some prime occult force directs the changes which can happen almost over night (which is a viable theory) then how can science cope with that?

It can't. It is outside scientific perview because you cannot foretell the change that will be wrought. Unlike dealing with gravity, the force might exhibit will. It might indeed be nothing more than will. A viable theory of the mechinism, the force behind the change. No one knows. Mine fits the facts just as well as anyone elses.

Read Shaw's (White man), the new methusala, or any one who believed in vitalism (WHite men). I mean what is will? From whence does it proceed? How can science account for it? Is it an occult force like gravity that cannot be seen beyond? Is gravity just the less refined will of matter? (And what matter is itself is still much debated.)

See Schopenhauer (white man) if you want to read pure genius on the matter. Beyond the purely material what exists? First we have to establish the nature of matter. But what is matter in and of itself? That is unknowable.

P.S. Darwin was a Christian, and evolution to a certain degree is a reaction against Christian and jew religious dogma. For those outside both, it no longer becomes a theological battle between the believers in the jewish boogey man in the sky and the priests in lab coats, but just a quest for the supreme experience of knowing.

There are virtually no respected historians anywhere who dispute the FACT that the HolocaustTM occured exactly as the jewish "survivors" say.

There are virtually no respected historians anywhere who dispute the FACT that the HolocaustTM occured exactly as the jewish "survivors" say.

1. The "holocaust" is a PROVABLY (by objective evidence and reasoning) fictitious recent event. Evolution is a scientific theory painstakingly developed by truth-oriented scientists to explain speciation, a process that has been on-going for hundreds of millions of years. Entirely different and NOT comparable matters.

2. It is ILLEGAL in nearly all Western nations to scientifically analyze the holocaust. Historians have gone, are going, and will continue to go to jail just for scientifically investigating the question. In America, you will lose your job and reputation, and if you continue to insist, your career, if you scientifically investigate the truth of the holocaust. SO ALMOST NO HISTORIAN EVEN INVESTIGATES IT, much less takes a public stand against it. If you do say the holocaust didn't happen, you will be branded a "Holocaust Denier" and go straight to jail or career loss.

This is not the case with evolution. There is no legal or reputational penalty for investigating it -- or taking a stand for or against it -- and for 200 years, scientists from all over the world have been doing precisely that. In other words, if a scientist were able to show ONE PROVABLE INSTANCE that was inconsistent with the theory of evolution, evolution would be out the window. There has been no such provable instance, NOT ONE. And if you do somehow prove that evolution doesn't and didn't happen, you will win a Nobel Prize.

There's no rational comparison to be made between these two issues. If the level of scientific inquiry were allowed re the holocaust that is allowed and has been directed at evolution, the holocaust would be disproven and thrown in the trashheap within one week, if not one day.

Making this comparison, Joseph, is what is known as an emotional red herring -- throwing emotional irrelevance into the minds of WN's who want to seriously consider the standing of evolution so they can't think straight about it.

I disagree. There are scientific theories promoted by the establishment that most individual researchers would be fearful of challenging. Going along to get along is a very common problem in scientific circles. One example is the 9/11 case. I work with many engineers, civil and structural, who agree with the PBS special on exactly what caused the WTC towers to collapse. Even in the face of evidence, such as free-fall speed collapse, these "experts" would NEVER openly challenge the status quo. Similarly, in certain company, I myself might be compelled to agree with the official explanation of the 9/11 event. I might even artificially agree with the evolutionists in the course of advancing my career. We know that there are historians who have learned the truth about the holohoax, yet continue to publicly support the hoax. Just look at this forum. How many WN can openly and publicly declare their beliefs about race? How many VNNF members would even share their name with anyone here? More importantly, how many Whites go along with their own destruction to avoid immediate confrontation?

I guess I've painted an ugly picture there, but my bottom line is; citing the preponderance of experts who agree with a lie, adds nothing to its ostensible validity.

I disagree. There are scientific theories promoted by the establishment that most individual researchers would be fearful of challenging. Going along to get along is a very common problem in scientific circles. One example is the 9/11 case. I work with many engineers, civil and structural, who agree with the PBS special on exactly what caused the WTC towers to collapse. Even in the face of evidence, such as free-fall speed collapse, these "experts" would NEVER openly challenge the status quo. Similarly, in certain company, I myself might be compelled to agree with the official explanation of the 9/11 event. I might even artificially agree with the evolutionists in the course of advancing my career. We know that there are historians who have learned the truth about the holohoax, yet continue to publicly support the hoax. Just look at this forum. How many WN can openly and publicly declare their beliefs about race? How many VNNF members would even share their name with anyone here? More importantly, how many Whites go along with their own destruction to avoid immediate confrontation?

I guess I've painted an ugly picture there, but my bottom line is]Again, you're lumping evolution in with job-losing, jail-going, maybe even life-losing issues. Of course, on the holohoax and 9-11, issues that can reveal jew power and world tyranny -- you're going to have to watch what you say on the job, particularly academia.

Evolution is an altogether different order, so to speak. There may be some pro-evolution pressure -- because you are going against not jew doctrine, but the clear truth. When you take a stand contrary to clear truth, people will think you're a Christian nut case. And they might be right. If you don't like to be thought of as a nut, you'll be cautious about exposing your nuttiness.

That's utterly different from going to jail for exposing that you're an anti-semitic Holohoax Denier or a 9-11 anti-government dissident/possible terrorist.

No rational comparison. Evolution isn't in the same ballpark.

I doubt that we're going to agree on this, Joseph. You have a White man's right to be wrong and pretend you're right, though.