Modern Science VS Darwin

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Darwin convinced the intellectual elite of society in his day of no need to believe in God because his explanation of "natural selection" in Nature solved all naturalistic problems for explaining design and complexity in life, so he thought. Actually, other individuals wrote and published on the subject of natural selection well before Darwin but that is another subject.

The problem that many didn't realize right away in Darwin's time is that "natural selection" has limits. Natural selection is not a creative force. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and that have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. Biological traits and variations are produced by the DNA or genetic code of species. If the genetic information or capability for a particular trait doesn't exist in the DNA of a species then there's nothing that natural selection can do to put it there. Natural selection can only work with the genetic information available in DNA and nothing more.

When it eventually dawned on followers of Darwin that natural selection has limits, they resorted to the belief that genetic mutations would provide natural selection with entirely new genetic information and, thus, evolution from amoeba to man would become possible if given just enough time.

Mutations are accidents (random changes) in the sequential structure of the genetic code and they are caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation. The problem with mutations is that they are almost always harmful since they are accidents in the genetic code. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species.

At the very best mutations can only produce variations or modifications of already existing traits, but not entirely new traits. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change those genes so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the genes so that feathers or wings develop! Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations which are rare in nature. Combinations of genes can occur by chance but that doesn't mean that the genes themselves can come into existence by chance!

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics. It would require genetic engineering to turn an amoeba into a human being. Nature does not have the ability to perform such genetic engineering.

But, didn't we all start off from a single cell in our mother's womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had all of the genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoeba don't.

Evolutionists will argue that the genetic and biological similarity between all species is evidence of a common biological ancestry. That, however, is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative genetic and biological similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

A major problem for evolutionists is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over, supposedly, millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-killing germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for limited, or horizontal, evolution within biological "kinds" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not vertical evolution (variation across biological "kinds"), especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones such as from fish to human. Even if a new species develops but there are no new genes or traits then there still is no real macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the new species would remain within the same biological "kind" even though it would no longer have the ability to inter-breed back with the original stock. Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Abortion clinics have been known to tell many young pregnant women that what they are carrying inside has not become a humanbeing yet but, instead, is only a tadpole like creature and that there is nothing to feel guilty about in terminating their pregnancy.

Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not genetically possible. Although the chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in all varieties of plant and animal kinds, the DNA or genetic program that exists in each plant or animal kind will only direct those chemicals into making more of the same plant or animal kind.

Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man creature (known as The Nebraska Man) from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying, "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!

Some evolutionists cite the fossil of an ancient bird known to have claws as an example of a transitional link. However, there are two species of birds living today in South America that have claws on their wings, but even evolutionists today do not claim that these birds are transitional links from a reptilian ancestry. These claws are complete, as everything else on the birds.

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called "missing link" and "transitional" form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales, which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appreance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn't be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different forms of life as a basis for claiming a transitional link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed.

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequence or order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their circular and unsupported arguments and reasons for why this is so.

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find millions of indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of a few disputable transitional forms that even evolutionists cannot all agree upon. And, again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species, which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

In the midst of all the arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules.

Without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! The cell is irreducibly complex. It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Once there is a complete and living cell then, of course, the genetic program and various biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how could the life or the cell have come about naturally on Earth when there were no directing mechanisms.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science,but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue! Evolutionary theory is popular because it gives everyone the freedom to do their own thing! Much of our moral and social ills in society are the result of generations of teaching that man and all life came into existence by chance and random processes. Therefore, there is no absolute truth, especially not any absolute moral and spiritual truth.

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

UFO phenomenon was strictly tabooed in USSR

The world celebrates the International UFO Day on July 2. Oleg Stolyarov became the first person in Russia who chose the UFO subject for his doctoral dissertation.

The world’s first-ever scientific work dedicated to strange objects in the sky was penned by Carl Yung, a renowned Swiss psychologist. He equated the phenomenon of the UFO with Maya myths and the symbols of unconscious collective. He returned to the subject in 50 years in his article “UFOs as Rumors.”

US professor Joseph Allen Hynek founded the Center for UFO Studies in 1974. Several other scientists dedicated their works to the mysterious phenomenon afterwards, but no one dared to do it in the Soviet Union.

“That was a tabooed subject in the USSR. Any piece of information about the flying saucers was treasured. Any public jokes about the UFO were strictly forbidden,” Mr. Stolyarov said.

The situation changed drastically in the beginning of the 1980s. Everyone in the country started speaking about the phenomenon. Newspaper articles, TV and radio programs about the UFO became plentiful. Many respectable scientists even lost their interest in the mystery because of the national boom.

The UFO Day is celebrated on July 2 in honor of the so-called Roswell incident. An unidentified aircraft, which many consider to be of extraterrestrial origin, crashed on the outskirts of Roswell on July 2, 1947.

On July 8, 1947, many US newspapers wrote that the US Air Force found the debris of the unknown aircraft on the crash site in Roswell. General Roger Ramey rejected the information several hours later. The official explained that it was not an alien spacecraft, but a top secret space probe that crashed near the town. The probe, Ramey said, was launched within the scope of the program to observe the nuclear tests of the USSR.

Major Jesse Marcel, a former intelligence officer, said in1947 that the story with the probe was not true. The major said that the debris found on the crash site was of extraterrestrial origin indeed.

There is no evidence to prove the fact that it was a UFO that crashed in Roswell. However, over 200,000 people visit the town every year in the beginning of July to take part in seminars, lectures and the alien parade.

The UFO industry brings $5.2 million of profit to the town every year.

Дмитрий Судаков

Will SETI Find Any Aliens Ever?

Californian Institute SETI might someday host a conference dedicated to discovery of other civilization. Each year, the likelihood of this event decreases along with the loss of trust to the project designed to search for extraterrestrial life. Pravda.ru interviewed Alexander Uvarov, a radio-astronomer, to find out why.

In 1609, Galileo Galilei saw the starry sky through a telescope he invented for the first time. A year later, the famous astronomer was swamped with orders from scientists, kings and nobility who also wanted to look at the Universe through a telescope.

It has been 400 since that moment. Astronomer had a chance to peep into the farthest corners of space, but never managed to discover signs of alien intelligence. Over the last 50 years, project SETI has been listening to the radio of the Universe trying to catch signals of a developed extraterrestrial civilization, but to no avail.

Now scientists say increasingly more that project SETU was initially based on a wrong, excessively refined image of space. There can be numerous explanations as to why there is no evidence of other life. One such explanation suggests that we simply do not have any “neighbors.”

Astronomers do not rule out that the very principal of the quest is erroneous. There are no guarantees that other civilizations would use the same frequency as SETI. The radio that was considered to be cutting edge 50 years ago does not necessarily represent a standard for inter-galaxy communication.

Project SETI was based on sheer enthusiasm of people who were sure that they would achieve results in the first years of its existence. Yet, there is no single scientific hypothesis that would confirm that the method is the right one. The management of the project is not concerned about it and continues to insist that listening to space cannot be stopped, and that soon the long wait will pay for itself.

Are these expectations justified? Pravda.ru asked Alexander Uvarov, a radio-astronomer an employee of the Institute for Radio and Electronics, to share his opinion.

"The latest research reveals that theoretical signs of other civilizations should be very apparent. The fact that SETI’s search was not successful most likely speaks of wrong methods.

Currently, there are many other technologies that may help find extraterrestrial life. For instance, a marker of specific substances contained in exoplanets that can only appear as a result of complex industrial processes. I think that future research must be complex and involve consecutive application of all methods in the chosen range of space.

I would like to hope that SETI project can bring sensational discoveries in its current form. The latest technologies designed to eliminate interruptions could play a significant role in it. These technologies are now being implemented, and it is not ruled out that they will allow us to hear voices of other civilizations.”

Pavel Urushev
Pravda.Ru

Half-human creatures: What is going on?

20.02.2012 23:10

Now, Nigeria. Another half-human creature is born to a sheep. Thousands of onlookers flocked to see the creature at the Fakon Idi Veterinary Clinic...but what is going on? This is but the latest in a series of half-human creatures born across the globe. Some have suspicions that alien experimentation is at work...

The picture is from Nigeria's Daily Sun and it is clear that the creature is some kind of a mysterious mutant. The large crowd that gathered was demanding that the owner of the beast explained what had happened, suspicious that he had been having relations with the animal and that a half man-child had been born.

So furious did the crowd become that the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps had to be called, to protect the owner, who some of the crowd wanted to summarily execute. Some were shouting: "Who did do that there?" One bystander commented to the Nigerian newspaper: "This is an abomination in our land. To see a sheep give birth to a half human being is a mystery and that shows how terrible some people are. It is unimaginable that some people will be having intercourse with animals".

Experts claim that there is a perfectly logical reason for the aspect of this creature, namely that the sheep had been in labour for two days and that the lamb had become deformed. But what about the other similar cases that have happened recently? In 2010 in Turkey, a dead lamb was born with a half-human face, near Izmir. And if a sheep is in labour for two days, its lamb assumes human features? Such a notion defies logic.

Are these genetically modified organisms being let out into the wild? Are they experiments by military researchers? Is this a new form of medical exploration, trying to find donors for organs? Or is alien experimentation at work?

What is going on?

Olga Selyanina

Pravda.Ru
---------------------------

Sheep Gives Birth to Human-Faced Lamb in Turkey

12.01.2010 08:36

By Pravda.Ru writer Dmitry Sudakov

A sheep gave birth to a dead lamb with a human-like face. The calf was born in a village not far from the city of Izmir, Turkey.

Erhan Elibol, a vet, performed Cesarean section on the animal to take the calf out, but was horrified to see that the features of the calf’s snout bore a striking resemblance to a human face.

“I’ve seen mutations with cows and sheep before. I’ve seen a one-eyed calf, a two-headed calf, a five-legged calf. But when I saw this youngster I could not believe my eyes. His mother could not deliver him so I had to help the animal,” the 29-year-old veterinary said.

The lamb’s head had human features on – the eyes, the nose and the mouth – only the ears were those of a sheep.

Veterinaries said that the rare mutation most likely occurred as a result of improper nutrition since the fodder for the lamb’s mother was abundant with vitamin A, CNNTurk.com reports.

In Zimbabwe, a goat gave birth to a similar youngster in September 2009. The mutant baby born with a human-like head stayed alive for several hours until the frightened village residents killed him.

The governor of the province where the ugly goat was born said that the little goat was the fruit of unnatural relationship between the female goat and a man.

"This incident is very shocking. It is my first time to see such an evil thing. It is really embarrassing," he reportedly said. "The head belongs to a man while the body is that of a goat. This is evident that an adult human being was responsible. Evil powers caused this person to lose self control. We often hear cases of human beings who commit bestiality but this is the first time for such an act to produce a product with human features," he added.

The mutant creature was hairless. Local residents said that even dogs were afraid to approach the bizarre animal.

The locals burnt the body of the little goat, and biologists had no chance to study the rare mutation.

Ekaterina BogdanovaKomsomolskaya Pravda

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

IMPORTANT -The United States and its Dark Passenger

The United States and its Dark Passenger

John Grant

February 19, 2012 I could have been a vicious raving monster who killed and killed and left towers of rotting flesh in my wake. Instead, here I was on the side of truth, justice and the American way. Still a monster, of course, but I cleaned up nicely afterward, and I was OUR monster, dressed in red, white and blue 100 percent synthetic virtue. -Jeff Lindsay Dearly Devoted Dexter I teach creative writing in a maximum security prison in Philadelphia. During the week I scour two thrift shops for 35-cent paperbacks that I haul in to stock a small lending library I created for inmates. Amazingly, the prison had no library. In the process of collecting used books, I've surveyed the crime, mystery and noir genre of popular fiction. I collect some books for myself and have read many in part or end to end. The range of quality in such a genre runs from garbage to genius. I'm a Vietnam veteran and a veteran anti-war activist who follows the US war news closely. The psychological and mythic forces of Eros and Thanatos (Death) interest me and how they play out in popular culture. Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents writes about "the struggle between Eros and Death, between the instinct of life and the instinct of destruction." Eros is the force that brings humans together and Thanatos is the force that drives us apart. "This struggle is what all life essentially consists of," Freud writes. Chris Hedges also writes of this split in his great book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. The other day I picked up Jeff Lindsay's second book in the Dexter series -- Dearly Devoted Dexter -- about a Miami police department forensic expert by day and psychopathic killer by night. Lindsay's Dexter novels have spun off into a popular Showtime TV series. The Miami Herald called the book about a lovable serial killer "A macabre work of art." Personally, I wouldn't pay the full cover price for this book. Still, Lindsay is a fine prose writer whose characters are well drawn and set within a fast-paced plot that ping-pongs from the sweet, personal and mundane to the truly horrific blood feast. Dexter as first-person narrator speaks in a tone of light, ironic gallows humor with the reader assumed as a friendly confidant. His day job is as a blood-spatter expert with the Miami-Dade Police Homicide Department. Dexter author Jeff Lindsay, actor Michael C. Hall and a John Hoagland shot of a body dump in El Salvador circa 1985 In this book, Dexter has a relationship with a woman named Rita who has two kids, a boy and a girl, Cody and Astor. All three are wounded from abuse by her ex-husband. Interestingly, Dexter makes it clear he doesn't care so much about Rita and is not interested in sex. At one point, this disciple of Thanatos is drinking beer and finds himself in bed snuggling with Rita and succumbing to the Erotic. "She was just so nice and smelled so good and felt so warm and comfortable that -- Well. Beer really is amazing stuff, isn't it?" What Dexter really cares about is Rita's kids, especially the boy Cody. On a fishing trip, he notices Cody taking pleasure in plunging a knife into a flopping blue runner. He learns from Astor that little Cody killed the neighbor dog for pooping in their yard. "I had a son. Someone just like me," Dexter says. "I wanted him to grow up to be like me -- mostly, I realized, because I wanted to shape him and place his tiny feet onto the Harry path." Harry was Dexter's "wise foster father," the man who recognized in the teenager a psychopathic need to kill and channeled that destructive impulse onto the noble path of killing only those who deserve to be killed. This is pure genre writing so, predictably, Dexter's "Dark Passenger" (that's his Mr. Hyde killer persona) is faced right away with the need to kill a hideous pederast who duct tapes young boys, then rapes and kills them on his boat, finally dropping them into the Gulf Stream to never be seen again. It's clear this man deserves to die. The formula is that Dexter never kills anyone mourn-able; his prey is always someone demonized beyond any degree of human sympathy. I don't want to make a case for the immorality of the Dexter series, although I think one could easily make that case. Devotees of Dexter glibly toss off any questions of immorality, saying, hey, it's fiction. Lindsay says he's like Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan; his character has grown into an icon that now belongs to the greater culture. He puts the Dexter attraction this way: "It's having the bully on your side to finish your battles for you. People love that. If someone bothers you, you can say that's all right, Dexter will take care of this, and the people like that." What's interesting to me is looking at the Dexter phenomenon as a component of mass pop psychology and national myth that deals with the use of lethal violence as a more and more acceptable solution to problems. In that sense, it's disturbing how much Dexter's motivations and self-justifications as a necessary killer mirror the current US military doctrine centered on Special Operations hunter-killer teams. The New York Times reported this week that Admiral William McRaven, a former Navy Seal and now commander of US Special Operations Command, is lobbying that his hunter-killer Special Ops units be given a larger role in US military strategy. He wants greater authority to employ these sophisticated hunter-killer "cells" outside of normal Pentagon deployment channels -- that is, increasing secrecy and diminishing accountability vis-a-vis the American tax-paying, voting public. US Special Operators and Admiral William McRaven speaking recently to the National Defense Industrial Association This is the super secret world of military and intelligence operatives that has evolved out of the paranoid, post-911 Bush-Cheney years. It is the legacy of Vice President Dick Cheney's famous statement that the times required that the nation not shrink from going to "the dark side." The pop culture Dexter novel really gets interesting when its major plot element opens up. It seems a homicidal torturer from the 1980s US war in El Salvador -- Dr. Danco -- has gone rogue and is operating in South Florida to get revenge on those who betrayed him. Back in the 1980s, the evil Danco had worked in Salvador with Miami-Dade Police Sergeant Doakes, then in US Special Forces on loan to the Salvadorans, and with federal operative Kyle Chutsky. Dexter refers to the 1980s as "a homicidal carnival" in El Salvador, a time when death squads flourished and bodies were common in the streets. Dexter points out that Sergeant Doakes, now his partner in the hunt for Dr. Danco, "would have been one of the ringmasters." The plot twist is that Danco was sold out to the communist rebels, who turned him over to the insidious Cubans. In the Isle of Pines prison in Cuba he was tortured to the point he joined forces with Fidel. The beast is now loose in South Florida in a white van seeking revenge on those who sold him out, to include Doakes and Chutsky. Danco specializes in surgically severing all a person's limbs and parts, leaving a hideous living head and torso tied to a table doomed to look at what's left of himself in a wall size mirror. "Once you go over to the dark side, it's forever. You can't go back." That's what Chutsky tells Dexter, referring to Danco. The Salvadoran Option I was raised in rural South Dade County as a kid, so many of the streets and locales of this novel are familiar. My South Florida was living, fecund and wonderful and not the moral holocaust of this novel. As a photographer, I traveled quite a bit in El Salvador during the 1980s and 90s. So I heard many first-hand stories of the horrors Lindsay dredges up for his narrative. One example: A woman told me about finding her daughter's body skinned in a body dump. I had a terrible time absorbing that image. The fact is, the genre nonsense of this Dexter novel aside, the people tortured and killed by death squads in El Salvador were not monsters themselves; they were generally peasants and reformers hoping for a fair shake and the lifting of years of violent repression -- all supported, of course, by US policy under Ronald Reagan. I was also in Iraq in 2003 and early 2004 as a journalist when the US military invasion force began to realize the mission had not been "accomplished" and it faced a powerful and growing, internally-generated insurgency that wanted the US to leave -- especially in Falluja and the Sunni area of Anbar Province, which I traveled through four times in a fast-moving GMC truck. The US counter to that insurgency became known as "the surge." General Stanley McChrystal ran the counter-insurgency operation. Insider reporters like Bob Woodward called it "the secret weapon." Others called it "the Salvadoran option," as in war by death squad. So it wasn't a "surge" of troops that turned back the insurgency; it was the establishment of special operations assassin teams. It was "the dark side." All the rest was public relations to clean things up for home consumption. No one really wanted to think of our boys working as common assassins. The critical factor was the use of both highly sophisticated and crude methods of intelligence gathering (to include torture) to identify the leaders of the insurgency and then to send out hunter-killer units supported by air power, satellite communications and whatever else would help the mission. And the mission was to kill or capture leaders and other people critical to the insurgent effort. As counter insurgency expert William Polk has made clear, the most successful counter insurgency campaigns in history have relied on scorched earth tactics focused on the troublesome population. That, of course, is impossible in today's world. So, the next best thing is to focus on systematically eliminating the leaders of an insurgent movement. General MyChrystal's tactics were successful in at least slowing down the insurgency enough so US military public relations could claim it controlled the area. No matter whether one holds onto the notion of "the surge" or what one chooses to call it, the tactic was focused on identifying and killing key people in Anbar who simply wanted US soldiers out of their neighborhoods. Since sovereignty means not having to answer to anyone, especially in a "war," such killing was not characterized as "murder" and soldiers were praised and got medals. This isn't to question the toughness or bravery of these soldiers. The issue is the mission and, on a disturbing level, how the justifications for these killings are not unlike Dexter's pop culture "red, white and blue 100 percent synthetic virtue."  From the "granular level" of Anbar Province circa 2005, the so-called Salvadoran option advocated by Vice President Joe Biden and others is fast becoming national military doctrine. Admiral McRaven wants to base hunter-killer "cells" in Asia, Africa and Latin America. While the traditional big unit military is being squeezed, special ops budgets are rising. The nation is in the midst of a major shift. Recently, very competent and trained Special Ops teams have been used in well publicized rescue missions of people held captive by Somali pirates, and of course the killing of Osama bin Laden. These missions are public relations gold dished out to the media as gourmet feasts of positive imagery. The problem is, only military insiders know what's going on in the huge and growing secret, unaccountable realm of the US military. As with any new tool or weapon, people tend to find uses for it. All thats required in this instance is the establishment of an "enemy" -- someone demonized or inconvenient to the point of warranting assassination. The challenge is to keep the action secret and anonymous -- like the virtually certain recent Israeli murders of five Iranian scientists.  The United States government and its lethal military operate vis-a-vis its citizens in two distinct modes: Public Relations or Secrecy. Trust us, it says. We have your best interests at heart. And, besides, opposition is futile. So enjoy your bread & circus and don't ask any questions.   Meanwhile, US imperial prestige is ebbing in Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East. Latin America, led by a booming Brazil, is no longer intimidated by the United States. Globalization is breaking everything down. Despite Clint Eastwood's half-time riff at the Super Bowl that America is ready to roar back for "its second half," decline is real. The struggle is between the exceptionalist expectations pandered to by American politicians and the harsh realities of the coming world. The financial and human resources spent out of fear on Thanatos and the forces of destruction only further erode the life-giving forces of Eros that, tragically, are so weakened but needed in a time of national crisis like we're living through. US war makers are completely in synch with Dexter's rules. Because, in a way, a sovereign government in fear of the future is not unlike a psychopath. As long as it can keep things quiet and under the radar and project a clean image, it can do anything and not have to answer to anyone. The challenge is to work the dark side and get away with it "dressed in red, white and blue 100 percent synthetic virtue." When Dexter's psychopathic mentor Harry "squared away" his foster child, he told him, "There are rules, Dexter. There have to be. That's what separates you from the other ones." Harry said to "blend in" and "clean up, don't take chances." Finally, what's most important for Dexter's stable future as a psychopathic killer, "You have to be sure before you start that this person really deserves it. ... Get some proof. -------------------------------------------------------

The Unseemly Spectacle of Patriot Turf Wars

By Mike James on February 19, 2012

By Mike James in Germany – 19 February 2012

Over the course of the last forty years, our lives have been torn asunder and our hearts have been broken by what has happened to our once sovereign nations.

We struggle to understand why the world is turning around Satan’s counterfeit version of Israel. We feel ourselves remorselessly crushed by the dead-weight of multiculturalism, political correctness and the intrusive legislation and technologies of burgeoning police states. We find ourselves indentured to a rapaciously parasitic banking system, which destroys wealth, enterprise and hope by shackling our bodies and our souls to Mammon, rendering us as little more than tax slaves and consumer tit-feeders.

We know that all these things have come to pass not by accident, but by design, for, if it were the former, happenstance would have smiled more kindly on us and the evil we sense quite palpably would not bear the all too obvious signature of invention.

We seek an explanation as to why such calamities have beset us, degrading the proud societies in which we once lived, corrupting the natural order of human relationships and perverting all governments, which have surrendered any pretence that it is the patriotic interests of the people and not the banking and corporate cartels they serve. In so doing, we turn to the internet, for even seasoned journalists who work for the print media or television networks believe not a single word they themselves write or say.

Explanations of varying shades are to be found in abundance and for this we must thank the many thousands of dedicated patriots who have devoted the best part of their lives to making such information available to all who seek the truth, and at no charge whatsoever.

Having exercised discernment in studying the vast wealth of literature accessible with just a few clicks of a mouse, the reader who is not frightened by his realisation that almost everything he was taught as a youngster is a lie now finds himself at liberty to decide whether or not he wishes to do something practical with his new-found knowledge and sense of outrage. There is however something he should be advised to bear in mind.

The internet is the saviour of no man, let alone those who regard themselves as patriots. It is merely a tool that provides for rapid access to valuable information and which additionally serves as a means of communication. At its best, that is all it is. It is also a double-edged sword that can be used against you. Primarily developed to serve the needs of the scientific and military complex, the Net was made available to the world by the self-same powers who currently use it to spy on you and regulate every aspect of your life.

Without the Net, the pro-Zionist colour revolutions backed by the CIA and US Sate Department in the nations of the former Soviet Union would not have been possible. It was additionally deployed to initiate and then control the outcomes of more violent revolutions in the Arab world, including one which saw fanatically deluded militants and globalist stooges in Libya foolishly work in concert with NATO to destroy the factories, public utilities and transport infrastructure built by themselves, their parents and their grandparents, effectively guaranteeing lucrative reconstruction contracts for parasitic French and British real estate gangsters.

Outside of China and Germany, the internet has remained largely uncensored for a very good reason. Data mining companies, consumer profilers, corporate lobbyists, political research groups, social engineers and intelligence agencies have profited enormously from the free flow of information that has allowed them to build a fairly exact picture as to who you are, the friends that you have, what you consume, your state of health, what you believe and, by means of predictive programming, what you will do when the proverbial shit hits the global CPU fan.

Not that it really matters. Without electrical power all modern systems of surveillance, control and repression can be switched off at the flick of a switch, so to speak, and those who are serious about shutting down the life support systems that animate the European Union and other global leviathans of an unlawful and totalitarian nature are in training to do just exactly that. They use a modality of the internet of which few people are aware and though they cooperate with one another through code, each participant is blind to the identity of the others.

Back up here on the “visible” internet, the sooner we realise that there is not and never was a cohesive anti-Zionist and patriotic “truth” movement (for the truth is in and of God and he requires no explanation by means of organised human agencies), the sooner we shall thwart the globalists in their building a nearly completed New Babylon.

The sooner we realise that unity is neither possible nor desirable, and which indeed mitigates against the fierce spirit of individualism that breathes life into the battle cries of all true warriors who know that the monster which has enslaved humanity will be slain not by a single mortal blow but by a plethora of strategically inflicted wounds, the sooner we shall commit to an already functioning and fearsome Leaderless Resistance predicated on necessarily secret and untold individual acts of daring and courage.

The sooner we realise that laying the best laid plans makes mice of men and that those who elevate themselves as spokesmen for a “movement” rather than working as studious and humble facilitators of truthful information are to be treated with sceptical circumspection, the sooner we shall stop expending precious vigour in judging others and losing ourselves in endless debates, caught in the World Wide Web of our own vanities, our own despair, our own wantonly tragic inaction.

Journalists or, as in my case, former freelance journalists who write voluntarily for the Net all too often forget that they are nothing more than the information and inspiration they impart to others, must accept editorial constraints commensurate with the web portal’s house-style and should not seek to make of themselves a cult of personality. Some of the best writing on the Net is either penned or presented by those who have had absolutely no journalistic or investigative training whatsoever.

I speak of the diligent and largely ignored Holger Haffke (gnosticliberationfront.com) whose courageous and passionate dedication to freeing his fellow citizens from the squalor and poverty of ignorance has cost him his health, and of the inestimably brave Brother Nathaniel, with whom I had the pleasure of collaborating during my crisis year of 2008, and who, even down to his last few cents, phoned me four times from New York to speak not only of the constant threats to his life but to also reassure me that the harassment I myself was enduring would, by the Will of God, be cut short.

I could speak of many others (thousands of them) who contacted me in the years when my e-mail and home addresses were made known to all and sundry, some of whom I came to care about deeply, not just as friends out there in the ether, but as close fellow combatants, anxious sons and daughters who came to me for advice.

Patriots who command an esteemed presence on the internet do a great disservice to those who derive inspiration from them by arguing unnecessarily among themselves, creating suspicions where none should exist and allowing discord, petty bickering and back-biting to poison the wellspring of good intentions and brave deeds.

We who are opposed to Zionism, the European Union, the New World Order and the effeminate Jewification of Celtic-Saxon culture are, by nature, quite unlike the international socialists, liberals and soft-bellied conservatives who have sold our people into slavery. We are, in the main, militant freeborn individualists, gnostic free spirits, Christians without a church or denomination, pugnacious scrappers and unashamed politically incorrect troublemakers who are unafraid to offend the fragile sensibilities of those in authority. Let us therefore not take affright when we offend each other.

Those who have artfully crafted the unnatural and anti-human consensual mode of existence by which we live in a world informed by a Luciferian and liberal Zeitgeist mediated by the decadent and corrupting influence of Zionism in all of its manifestations fear nothing more than the fully awakened and spiritually assured individual who, no matter how humble or penniless he may be and without regard to his own personal welfare and the status accorded to him by his slave masters on the global plantation, seeks to tell the truth as he perceives it so that his compatriots are enlightened as to the illusions under which they travail and are forewarned of the fate that surely awaits them.

Before sewing discord in the hearts of those who yearn for freedom, the slave masters invariably attempt to unite them in order to infiltrate, subvert, co-opt and thereby control the forces of opposition to their schemes. They know that they must discourage individuality and a strong faith in the only leader to whom men should look for guidance, liberation and, ultimately, salvation: God Almighty.

When Jesus Christ came into this world to relate a blindingly simple message of freedom from material bondage and spiritual tyranny, the religious elites and the secular Idumean-Jewish power network, horrified at this potential challenge to their wealth and status, sent out spies and tricksters who sought to find evidence sufficient to the task of incriminating him for sedition or to discover ways in which he could be accommodated to their own political advantage.

In their hearts the revolutionary zealots, the Pharisees, the religious separatists, the Messianic “truth” activists, the Sadducees and the Hellenist freethinkers and philosophers of the day all saw the advantage of recruiting Jesus into their respective ranks or at least having him endorse them as legitimate and worthy of men’s allegiance. They were to be bitterly disappointed.

In their ignorance and in the lusts according to their own selfishly legalistic obsessions, they murdered the messenger who spoke the Word through which, resurrected forever in the hearts of those who had the childlike faculties to understand, all men and women, for all time and retrospectively backdated, were set free from the bondage of ignorance and granted direct access, without any human mediator, to the unbounded grace of the Creator of all things.

It is no coincidence that in America, Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and in other enclaves of Celtic-Saxon culture, the rate of social collapse and disintegration is directly proportional to the loss of faith in Christ and the replacement of naturally intuited moral correctness with the blasphemous depravity of political correctness.

It may have escaped your notice, but let me remind you that our kind is assaulted daily by the Serpent Race, those who say they are Jews, but are not: those who came from the East and whose forefathers were never inhabitants of a land that God forbade the original Jews to ever enter again, the Ashkenazim, all puffed up, cunning, manipulative, deceitful, skilled in the arts of financial trickery and political fraud on a scale that defies the scope of any one of their many slick Hollywood productions.

For too long now we have allowed them to debase all that was decent, proper, virtuous and good about our way of life. Their financial alchemists whispered into the ears of our kings and regents long ago, sequestering for themselves the sole right to issue currency and charge interest against loans conjured up out of thin air as if by kabbalistic magic, which is really all it is, thus enslaving entire nations to an anti-human money system that denies all of us the bounty of living in joy, with each of us working only for those things necessary to sustenance and the attainment of a future for our children while living fully in the Present, enjoying the God-given gift of life to the very full.

I am heartbroken by what they have done to my nation, England. For the love of a woman, I left those shores twenty years ago, returning only once, and yet I am enraged by the despoliation of the greatest race of men, the fairest among the fair, the salt of the earth, the hardiest of souls that walked and still walk in the loving Shadow of Greatness and who, despite all of their endearing shortcomings and their self-effacing denial of innate moral excellence, painted upon the canvas of this earthly domain a portrait of their own creativity and compassion for all of the races of humankind.

We, the Celtic-Saxon peoples of this world, were born as lion cubs, brave and free, emotionally and temperamentally unsuited to servitude. We owe it to our children and our great-grandchildren to fight, and fight we shall.

This world was given over to us as a charge, as a keepsake; and for this reason, even before the foundation of all things, God predestined those who now speak English as of their indigenous and cultural inheritance to give every thing on the face of the earth, every thing below it and every thing above a name, and also to teach the other races to do the same. If it were not so, then why is it that the Asians, the Negroes, and the Jews cannot make themselves understood at an international level unless they speak the language that was, even seen within an “evolutionary” scheme of things, the fittest to survive by means of the moral excellence of those who first spoke it?

Therefore, let there be no discord between you, for these are perilous times. My people require that all avenues of communication are open to them without fear or favour, and let no patriot who fancies himself as a writer of repute to be emulated stand in the way on account of his own ego or personal vanities, for, in the final reckoning of things, all will be counted against him.

The people of my nation, England, yearn for freedom. They dream that, one day, they may live as a people secure and prosperous within their own God-given country, liberated from the impositions of parasitic foreign hordes, strange religions, utopian European projects and the psychotic vicissitudes of international financial alchemy that has robbed them of their wealth and natural inheritance.

Let us not for one moment weaken in our resolve to ensure that they get it.

———-
Michael James, an English republican patriot, is a blacklisted former freelance journalist resident in Zionist-occupied Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland. He advocates a Leaderless Resistance to destroy the Soviet European Union and prays for a free and independent England, shorn of all alliances with the EU, UK, NATO, the UN, WTO, IMF, Israel and any other treacherous international cabal or entity.
———-

IMPORTANT -"Sovereignty and the UFO"

Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall
"Sovereignty and the UFO"
Thursday, January 19, 2006
12:00 p.m.

Mershon Center for International Security Studies
Wendt&Duvall, Draft 1: p.1
Alexander Wendt is the Ralph D. Mershon Professor of International Security Studies at the Mershon Center, and Raymond Duvall is Professor of Political Science and Associate Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change/MacArthur Interdisciplinary Program on Global Change, Sustainability, and Justice at the University of Minnesota. They gave a talk entitled “Sovereignty and the UFO” at the Mershon Center, addressing the puzzle of why it is that modern states do not take Unidentified Flying Objects seriously.

Wendt and Duvall offer what they call an “epistemology of UFO ignorance” to explain why modern states systematically resist the notion that extra-terrestrial life forms might both exist and travel to earth. They emphasized their militant agnosticism about whether UFOs really are extra-terrestrial, saying that they are interested only in how and why the ignorance is maintained.

They said that the authoritative public sphere discourages taking UFOs seriously, and that this is ignorance masquerading as knowledge. There has actually been little scientific research on the subject, meaning that we do not know whether or not UFOs exist. Lack of evidence for UFOs’ existence does not mean that they do not exist, Wendt and Duvall argued, and skepticism regarding UFOs – that extra-terrestrials would be unable to reach earth, that UFOs would land on the White House lawn, that we would know if UFOs had been on earth – is not sufficient. Instead, the burden of proof ought to lie with disproving their existence.

Wendt and Duvall explained why they would expect UFOs to be taken seriously. First, if UFOs were found to prove the existence of extra-terrestrial life, this would be the most important event in world history. Second, aliens pervade popular culture, making it clear that people are interested in the phenomenon of UFOs. Third, states have historically been very willing to label things security threats, because the presence of more security threats increases states’ power in order to deal with them. Last, natural scientific curiosity would seem to make research about UFOs interesting and desirable. Despite all of this, very little is known about UFOs, and the modern state shows no signs of encouraging otherwise.

Wendt and Duvall argued that the authoritative epistemology of UFO ignorance is necessary to maintain modern governance, because intelligent extra terrestrial life that can make itself known on earth is a threat to human-centered science and rule. They said that UFOs constitute a metaphysical threat to human power, making ignoring them the only alternative acceptable to modern states. They divided their argument into three parts. 

First, they situated modern rule as “governmentality.” Governmentality is what Foucault describes as non-coercive rule, or power that functions not by violence or physical oppression but through control of knowledge. Both science and the state rest upon an anthropocentric metaphysics, whereby human conduct is all that matters. A regime of governmentality may also have a sovereign or coercive face, however, which deals with the physical threats that arise (but rarely).
Second, they discussed how that sovereign face functions. They said that there are sometimes physical threats to governmentality, and that, in these exceptional circumstances, the state must resort to coercive behavior. 

Third, they said that the UFO poses not just a physical threat, to which a modern state could respond with its sovereign behavior, but also a metaphysical threat. Even if a UFO and its occupants had benign intentions, its unique otherness (in being non-human) would require a world government, united against the other, and this new universal sovereignty would replace the modern state as we know it.
Wendt and Duvall repeated that phenomena requiring exceptions to normal governmentality fall into two categories: physical (e.g. conquest) and existential or ontological threats (e.g. the existence of a non-human world that would extinguish the viability of individual nationally sovereign states). They said that the state cannot decide how to deal with UFOs as an exception, because even acknowledging their possible existence would call into question the state’s role as the sole securitizer, and this leaves only one option: the existence of UFOs must be denied.

They also noted that the study of UFOs, even if it were not actively discouraged politically, may be a difficult task. The UFO poses what they called a “threat of unknowability” to science, on several grounds. First, UFOs are random and seemingly unsystematic. Second, UFOs appear to violate the laws of physics, making them “impossible” per the laws of science that would be used to study them. Third, the UFO raises the possibility of a non-human subjectivity, making an understanding of UFOs potentially unassayable.

Wendt and Duvall said that modern states’ ignorance of UFOs need not be conscious, as conspiracy theories would suggest. States might unconsciously repress UFOs as taboo, so as not to reveal their existential insecurities. Wendt and Duvall identified four mechanisms by which states, whether consciously or unconsciously, authoritatively repress UFOs.
--First, epistemic authorities may simply announce that we know UFOs not to exist.
--Second, they may announce that UFOs do not and cannot constitute a security threat (on the grounds mentioned earlier, e.g. UFOs would not be able to reach earth, etc). These claims might be supported by secrecy, such as the non-reporting of cases or redactions from official reports.
--Third, they may denounce UFO research as inherently pseudo-science. They may do this by systematically denying federal funding to any grant proposal about such research, or by otherwise exerting pressure on scientists to self-censor to avoid ridicule.
--Last, epistemic authorities may practice pseudo-science, themselves. For example, the U.S. Air Force commissioned a report on UFOs in the late 1960s, and the panel undertaking the research was stacked with skeptics whose bias rendered their findings unscientific. Even while suffering from serious methodological flaws that biased findings against the existence of UFOs, the study had a 30% failure rate at explaining them. This failure rate hardly warranted the study’s summary, which declared that UFOs do not exist.

Ultimately, Wendt and Duvall characterized UFOs as a political problem first, rather than a scientific or sociological one. In order to address UFOs, the taboos against such research must be lifted. They said that once there is real scientific research underway, it should be possible for science and the state to diverge on the question of UFOs’ existence.