Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Christians Cannot be Democrats

If you are a Christian - you cannot vote Democrat.  It's that simple.  You either love the Lord or the Democrat Party but you cannot do both.  

Democrats tried to drop God from their party platform in the 2012 convention.  They were shamed to put God back in.  Democrats work hand in hand with groups whose sole purpose is the elimination of Christian worship.  

Democrats write laws that defy God, outlaw prayer, the Ten Commandments, etc...  They force Christian to choose between government handouts and Christ. Democrats claim they are protecting the mythical Wall of Separation between church and state - it's a lie, and it's hypocritical.  Democrats work to expand rights and government protections for Muslims, atheists, while simultaneously turning a blind eye and ear to Christian rights.  Choosing to not believe in a God is a religious choice!

Democrat offer government handouts to buy the votes of people who are told they are victims.  We are lectured - "it's not their fault they are poor" even when the recipient of the money does nothing to improve their lives and condition.  Not working and not assuming self responsibility betrays Christ's message.  Yes, Christ did say help the needy, but he said much, much more about personal responsibility.  Not being a drain on your neighbor is another commandment some Christians and Democrats ignore.  

Christ never said it is okay to pretend you're a victim to escape responsibility either.  So, taking welfare money long term - defies Christ's message.  What is long term?  One year is illegitimate.  It is okay to go to church and receive help from the church membership.  They will help you become self sufficient - as Christ instructed.  And, you'll get more for inspiration.

Ministers - you must choose.  God or Democrat Party.  You must refuse welfare money as that money is tainted.  It is given you by your enemies.  Any short term gain will be wiped away once you are no longer able to operate a church.  The time is now.  Pick a side.  

Union members...  take back control of your unions.  Get rid of the Democrat operatives who sell you and God down the river.  Make a fist and move the union to the party who offers real choice - not guaranteed government handouts/jobs to union members. That money is washed in the blood of Lucifer.  

Everyone may suffer financially if Democrats are removed from office.  That's life.  You helped Democrats destroy this country and a vibrant economy for your own personal gain. Did you not think there would come a day when the debt must be paid?  

No one ever gives away anything for free.  Keeping people and families dependent upon government is the new slavery.  Remember - it was Democrats who objected to Lincoln, opposed the civil rights laws, and rejected equal opportunity.

Importantly - Opportunity is NOT affirmative action guarantees.  You can thank Democrats for that too.  Blue collar whites took the place of blacks once AA laws were scribed. Did Christ ever suggest prejudice and injustice are OK?  Democrats want blacks and Hispanics on welfare and dependent.  Getting educated and employed allows a person to make up their own minds.  They won't always vote Democrat and Democrats couldn't risk that.  

Black on black murder is a Late Term abortion to Democrats.  This explains why Democrats really won't work to end those crimes.  Democrats pay lip service to these crimes.  What explains why they persist in ignoring them?  The children who escape being killed in the womb, but are murdered later, are one less problem child they must incarcerate, or provide an abortion to for the children they may later produce, or ???  Did you know if abortion was never made legal the black population is 50% larger today?  That is the kind of compassion Democrats offer.  Democrats are not interested in minorities - they hate them - but need their votes!  If anyone actually examines what Democrats do, and how they "Care" for the voters they claim to adore, you discover Democrats have done virtually nothing to change the policies and practices they have always used to control and keep them oppressed. Democrats are Lucifer's disciples.  

Saturday, March 14, 2020

What Precipitated the USA's Fall -

The following is culled from my first journal - circa 1991 - 


To all those who influenced my life and perspectives:

Jesus Christ, Omni (who knew the value of succinct strength) Moroni, and Aamon.

Musicians: Frank Zappa (for providing objective genius) John McLaughlin, Jeff Beck, Peter Gabriel (and the Chamber of thirty‑two doors), Percy Jones, Dave Holland, Lowell George, Mick, Keith, Charlie, and Bill, The Boys in the band.

Writers: George Orwell, CS Lewis The Marquee De, Herman Melville, Carlos Casteneda, Adam Smith, Tony Burgess ‑ who brilliantly provided direction for my life.

Artists: Max Beckman, Jan Van Eyck, Leonardo da Vinci, Ludwig Van,

Stanley Kubrick,

Dr. Tim Altenhoffen,

My children - for their forgiveness and love while I wasn't there.

My wife - Proof God Loves Me  

My buddy the Wease; whom I have not seen in 35 years - without his love, companionship, and inspiration I would never have chosen nor would I have survived ‑ Thank you all. 


Greetings and good tidings.  If you are reading this, there is a distinct possibility that you may actually complete this work; if I successfully straddle a few issues and manage to grasp your attention at this crucial juncture.  Therefore, I beg your indulgence and encourage you, particularly the female reader, to pay close attention to this forward.  For contained herein is knowledge, indeed, true insight.  This insight and knowledge are crucial to understanding this tome.  Without this insight, you will go on to amass incorrect, assumptive conclusions about your narrator's preferences.  My preferences (for the record) are not of my own choosing.  I have, over time, through trial and error, arrived at an understanding of the true and real meaning of life ‑ as life pertains to me.  Make no mistake about this.  What the following story pages hold were the ingredients of my understanding.  My preferences and perspective were constructed from these.  So, with some distinction, you might respect that I am responsible for some good deeds.  Additionally, there have been many, many instances when females, who shall remain anonymous, enjoyed the benefits attendant my company.  Although, at this juncture, and undoubtedly hereafter, they will, like Peter of the New Testament, deny any knowledge of my existence, let alone admit to having known me in the context of that ancient scripture.  So be it.  

       But since we're being honest here (and I do mean honest), you must be aware that what you glean from the tiny black characters appearing on the recycled cellulose planes where this story resides, are modified.  After-all, what follows is often excruciatingly graphic.  Suffice to say all the good parts actually happened and remember how Shakespeare referred to the rose.

      Next comes the cruel and sometimes boring, sleepy pages of truth that are the author's prerogative.  However, I promise to limit them to no more than ten.  Be forewarned; without learning the insight contained therein, you will not only miss the point and actively seek to denigrate my character; you will find yourself more deeply embedded in the "Politically Correct".  For without this insight you will, through your debate, anonymously serve those interests who would rob you of your freedoms and thereby restrict your actions and thoughts at some future date.

 Our History:

      Throughout the first one hundred eighty years of the United States, (ignoring periodic economic downturns), progress was the hallmark.  Behind the plows; on the Mississippi riverboat; operating the locomotive; cotton gin, combustion engine, etc…  at Melrose Park; on Wall Street; on the field of battle; everywhere you looked, society and the people who comprised it deferred to MEN.  Men forged the vast majority of accomplishments and comprised the majority of the written history of this nation.  Fairness, and modern, politically correct, perspectives will not alter it.  The opinions of politically motivated social engineers matter not.  Men, primarily White Christian Men, are responsible for that history – supported by their women.  The bulk and indispensable components of the female contribution to the nation, communities, and families were not made in these primary arenas.  Pay close attention here…  The female contribution was essential to all that occurred; and more.  The integrity and moral conscience of our families and society were the primary domain of the female.  None of what transpired in the history of this great nation was possible without women.  We owe the wives and mothers of our fathers and our father's fathers a vote of thanks and unlimited respect.

      One hundred and eighty years hence, the wealth and character of the nation was at its zenith.  We ruled!  No if, ands, or buts… we ruled.... period!   What has occurred since then is open to speculation - how and why our nation, or perhaps more correctly our society, fell into the disjointed, materialistic, self-serving, dysgenic, special‑interests placating, sexually confused quagmire that now typifies life in America.  Well let me tell you, my brothers and sisters, there are four elements which, when scrutinized, provide insight. 


      This conflict stands alone in that it represents the birth, chronicles the consequence, and clearly evidences the extent to which the politically correct, Neo‑Man will go to avoid offending any interest and thereby escape physical conflict/harm.  Around 57,000, fifty‑seven thousand American Men, and a few women, sacrificed their lives to defend the rights and privileges of cowards.  Cowardly Neo-Men denied them the wherewithal to resolve the Viet Nam in victory.  Their actions will forever cast the shadow of doubt; and prompt secret whispers in dark places - that degrade the brave souls who stood up when called, and served their country.  These men were denied their mothers bosom at death, suffered mutilations; physical and mental, witnessed their brothers in arms vaporize, and had their vengeance voided.  They were and remain despised.  Building a wall to their memory does not excuse or repair the damage done to them.  However, the Viet Nam Vet did, in anonymity, service at least one agenda ‑ the Media.  Like most purveyors of carrion, the media packaged, prepared and (through a clever marketing campaign that bordered on treason), served up a corrupted reality that precluded dissenting opinions. The media preyed upon nightmares and fostered fears.  The country was force-fed the horrors of war – the means and numbers of the dead -- on videotape and in print; daily.  This main course was always complemented with defamatory comments that denigrated the actions of the soldiers fighting in Viet Nam and proponents of that war.  The media sequaciously sought to squander the lives of America's youth to bolster sagging Nielsen ratings and to gain favor with Marxist Americans.  The media suffered from their own lack of perception and attention; and their undaunted allegiance to the political left – Socialism/ Marxism/ Communism.  The objective was to graphically display the most vigilant version of the evisceration occurring in the Vietnamese peninsula.  The media sought to dictate opinion and leverage the actions of the government for their own ends, ignoring the needs, and lives of our servicemen. 

   F.Y.I.:  The Viet Nam war, to the LBJ administration, was a business decision that made Lady Bird Johnson a millionaire many times over.  Have you heard of Halliburton?  Halliburton recently purchased Kellogg Brown Root (KBR) – a company in which Lady Bird held the majority of shares.  No bid contracts?  Indeed.  The Johnsons gained the family nest egg thru a series of deals made during the depression.  KBR grew out of those deals.  KBR was a no-bid contractor for the Viet Nam war.  Why would the Johnsons want that war to end?

       Our Viet Nam Vets endured all this and so much more that I am not privy to know; and still, they fought to protect.  I'm certain those veterans who remain alive take solace in the knowledge - as a consequence of their valor, they promoted the Johnson family wealth, the Nielsen ratings, and the re‑election efforts of spineless, self-serving, seditionists. The seditionists continue to endorse regulations that dictate the fitness and proper manner of thought and conduct from their marble-lined confines on Capitol Hill.  This, they graciously afford their constituencies while synchronously exempting themselves from compliance to the legislation(s) they scribe.

      This is the legacy of Viet Nam.  Ignoring the plight of servicemen in Viet Nam, several entities took the flagrant opportunity - to proffer their personal agendas.  They took advantage of the moral confusion created by the media and the radical Left fringe.  The Left saw the opening and simultaneously competed for attention and funding: The gay, minorities, the women's movement, the ecologically inane, and the students/sycophants at institutes of higher learning, who, out fear of military service, demanded their wont ‑ to escape the draft at any cost.  They conspired to establish laws that prohibited any conflicting moral beliefs with their own; and, of course, cessation of the war.  They distracted and convoluted the attention of the Nation (and portions of the Government) that rightfully belonged with those fighting and dying to protect our country's interests.                                                               

      Championing the self-deluded, morally incontinent, garrulous, niggling, nihilists, the media expanded its power and influence.  From that base, they continue to promote their special brand of fascism ‑ Political Sensitivity ‑ a self-serving embargo enacted upon logic, opinion, and action.  Rather Big Brother like -- Eh, What?  Their stratagem seems a blatant attempt to create an environment where everyone will fail at some point -- this provides a news resource.  It fuels conflict between special interests (another news resource) and simultaneously threatens anyone who might challenge their wont - yet another news source.  The media's propensity to lord their authority, intimidate and inculcate hysteric masses of humanity to parrot their defective deductions like mindless automatons they have created in their own image, is for one reason only.  This is their truer ambition, to be the One and Only, the Omnipotent and Omniscient ‑ the great I Am.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.) 


          This insidious little monstrosity has functioned well beyond its original application ‑ that being for married women to plan their families.  These days, fourteen-year-olds use it to regulate their periods (and experiment with sex).  The pill affords women the ability to conduct sex without consequence; a contradiction with which they have yet to cope.  It allowed women to postpone childbearing in lieu of a career; which spiraled inflation upwards, and, generated reams of legal documents and restrictions for the workplace - that added to production expenses, which further fueled inflation.  Working women, in their desire to escape criticism and achieve advancement (through means other than merit), have created an environment in the workplace where anything, (and I do mean anything) can be construed as sexual harassment.  Additionally, women in the labor force have precluded many fathers from fulfilling their primordial directive of providing for their children and families ‑ a consequence of affirmative action.  The pill promoted divorce because women could, through trial and error, and without fear of pregnancy, audition their replacement spouses or simply live off of, or augment their incomes, with alimony and/or child support while continuing to experiment sexually and expose their children to a parade of sexual partners.  The pill prompted a change in fashion to more audacious attire bent on promoting sexual promiscuity.  The pill allowed one-half of two generations of children to grow up without the benefit of their fathers, and forty years ago created a sexual dilemma that at times was thoroughly amusing, if not an atrocious display of how many females would conduct themselves in pursuit of personal gain utilizing the sexual chip.


      This legislation, well-intentioned as it was, is another example of the manner through which Congress attempts to legislate around a quandary ‑ static analysis.  These bozos are so enamored with their position and stature they actually believe that should THEY enact a law, (with tall hats they listen, with small hats they think) everyone will obey it.  To the contrary, when normally law-abiding citizens are confronted with legal duress they find legal means to avoid compliance.  Such is the case here.  When homeowners were no longer permitted to exclude what they considered undesirable elements from their neighborhoods, they fled those neighborhoods and relocated in ones where the purchase price would exclude what they no longer could through choice.   Odd how the Left demands Choice for abortions but few other topics.

Note: Check the price increases of the average single-family home between the years 1968 ‑ 1975. 

          Those increases are on the magnitude of 4 to 5 fold and have tripled again since then ‑ a rather comfortable barrier; well beyond the resources of the aggregate populace of all minority groups.  Understand, laws cannot, in and of themselves, change behavior.  They can modify behavior in those arenas where legal redress is viable.  However, at home or away from intrigue, people's prejudices (which, fortunately, are protected under the constitution,) flourish. Most people prefer to live in neighborhoods populated with members of their particular raceIt's human nature.  Precisely, birds of a feather will do anything and pay any price to avoid living next to THEM - unless those people happen to be in a similar economic strata ‑ then it's tolerable, but ultimately undesirable.  The tolerance premise is loosely constructed around the idea that those individuals who share similar economic bases will also share concerns in other areas – including morality and political preference.  Why did numerous minorities choose to live in white communities? Because they fear living next to their own race – fact!

      The fences are invisible these days but they are more than effective.  Bye the bye, when the price of housing went through the roof so to speak, so did everything else.  Remember; when women entered the workforce there was an increase to the available workforce which drove down wages. But the truly unusual effect was that additional disposable income, per household, increased simultaneously. Business attempted to locate the price ceiling of their target audience ‑ the American family. Add in a fuel shortage… and the economy slid or shifted but the net effect was everyone lost wealth or spending power.  As a consequence, working for most women is no longer an option.  They have through their own desires harnessed themselves to a self-defeating dilemma.  For married women, the extra money they earn through employment is primarily confiscated by day care.  The additional income is just adequate to permit her to enjoy a marginal increase to her wardrobe, and borrowing ability, at the expense of her family and children.  It’s no secret drug use became rampant ‑ it was an entertainment bargain.


      Those of us born between the years of 1950 ‑1958, and probably several years thereafter, were robbed.  We were robbed of the wives our mothers taught us to seek;  robbed of the ability to secure gainful employment in our youth;  robbed of security for our families; and robbed of our dignity as fathers and providers.  And… we were confused. We were really confused: sexually, morally, and socially.  I for one believe men and women continue to suffer from the confusion spawned in the great social experiment of the sixties.  Unfortunately, the repercussions of that experiment are still with us.

       Eight thousand years of human behavior that remained virtually unchanged, rightly or wrongly from today’s socially corrupted perspective, cannot be dismissed or ignored.  There were, and are, bonafide reasons why men provided and women nurtured that extend beyond personal choice. These are instinctual, biological directives that exist within us all.  Everyone, except the socio-psychopath, politically ambitious, academic totalitarians, or journalistically inclined (which are often mutually synonymous) experience this confusion and anxiety whenever these thresholds are breached ‑ it's unnatural.  Consider: Despite many valiant attempts war has not been eradicated, nor poverty, nor bigotry, nor any of the "social ills" that are in reality intuitive human behavioral traits and the negative outcomes that arise when government attempts to control innate human behaviors.  For the most part, we are born with these persuasions; and rightly so.  These behaviors have preserved us as human races.

      Survival… Like it or not, everything, absolutely every human act is based upon survival, and/or as a consequence of a perceived threat to that survival.  Some might argue pleasure is a strong motivator.  It is.  But survival will always be the root of motivation for most.  We turn to pleasure when we do not perceive our survival is threatened.  Now then; there is the element of risk which warps the survival perception and many have written volumes of materials trying to explain the means to that end, so we needn't explore it here; simply be aware of it ‑ some people are stupid.  Preparation for survival purposes influences all behaviors.  It dictates life's roles, prompts domicile location, mandates procreation, supports the theories of natural selection, and most definitively guarantees Survival of the Fittest.

       Society now exists in an artifice.  No matter how finely crafted this artifice, it is recognized in our sub‑conscious for what it is ‑ artificial. We delude ourselves into believing that if we pretend, others may also pretend with us; so is today's society based.  Society exists so long as the pretense is supported by a majority.  But when a majority of societies' members prefer and pursue an alternate course, that survival mandate comes raging back to the forefront so quickly, history tells us the consequences are very often disastrous.

     We are at once teetering on the brink of social and economic collapse.  Men are no longer men ‑ it's rendered illegal.  Men have lost their God given rights and authority in society.  Those rights have been usurped in lieu of a more politically correct, limp wristed, even-handed approach to survival.  When this phenomenon reaches its logical conclusion we can expect the following:

1.  An absence of male aggression and desire to protect. 

2.  Children suffering in poverty because their mothers miscalculated their litigious leverage and the impact divorce would have upon the fathers of their children. 

3.  Sexual dysfunction - not so much from physical malaise as from ill-defined roles that confuse and mentally emasculate.

4.  An exaggerated sense of fashion.

5.  Increased homosexual conduct.

6.  Ineptitude in the workplace ‑ a result of attention to compliance as opposed to efficiency and production.

7.  The absence of power conflicts in the workplace (which foster creativity and efficiency).

8.  Technocratic employment that facilitates compliance with the plethora of employment regulations as opposed to production.

9.  The demise of a manufacturing base that requires physical strength as a course of employment.

10.  Rendering Fathers optional or nonessential to a family structure.

11.  A lack of respect for the male’s contributions to the family and generic denigration of males in general.

12.  Generations of apathetic children who cannot discern in the slightest who (or what) they are or where they belong.


I continue to listen with great amusement to complaints from women who declare there are no "Good" men left.  I suppose they may be right.  Through a cynical, protracted, self-gratifying course of action that had more to do with abating their own sense of confusion resulting from the moral dilemma that arose out of indiscriminate sexual conduct, women felt compelled to secure it all.  Women correctly surmised that men of quality, the type of men they wanted for mates, would label them sluts.  Women knew their chances of depending on these men were slim and the other males were intolerably lame.  Women believed they had to have it all: the job, the opportunity, the power.  Women made the government their surrogate protector and provider.  They convinced themselves they no longer needed men.  They believed the government would legislate their desires ‑ it did.  In a matter of a few years, women destroyed a system that had worked for eight thousand years so they could exercise sexual and professional freedoms.  It didn't quite suffice, though, did it?  Relationships and family are now constructed on a different plane; a plane that is legally qualifiable; a plane that gratifies self-interests in opposition to the good of the family; a plane that continues to deny people the rewards they need most ‑ a sense of being needed, loved, and special ‑ morally significant.  These issues confuse women.  Men are confused as well, but some men, myself included, have managed to cling to their last bastion with a vengeance ‑ instinctually compelled.  Moral significance, this is why men placed women on pedestals and treated them with respect.  Once women shed their moral matrix no man really wanted them for keeps ‑ they were defiled - for motherhood. The one and only reason men marry women with sexual histories these days? It's because they have limited options.  So the majority of men choose women whose sexual pasts they consider the least offensive. Women realize this phenomena. That is why women continually work to cloak the depth and breadth of their sexual activities.  It's sad really; both parties suffer from the same circumstance that inhibits their truer natures.

      Of late, we have further compromised our integrity and solvency in our eagerness to ignore the whole and service the few.  Our government is a Republic - designed to service the interests of the majority and must be directed to that end.  We can no longer afford to service each and every sacrosanct entity created by Affirmative Action that screams for attention and money no matter how compelling their arguments.  We need a return to the past morally, consciously, and fiscally.  

     Women refuse to recognize a simple fact. Men I'm going on record here for all of us - we men allowed women to do this.  We are equally responsible for the deplorable state of affairs that exists in society today.  We assisted women and their goals.  Our penises, as always, took command of our better judgments.  We mistakenly assumed we'd acquire more sex as a consequence of our complicity.                                                                                           

      Consider:  If our forefathers had not so eloquently constructed the government that promotes the society we function within, the female revolt would have never been possible.  Look around, you don't see it elsewhere.  Sure, there are those nations who depend on us so heavily that they create some illusion of compliance to placate our government so their interests remain intact, but afford women full rights and privileges in every corridor under the law - No Way!  We're the only ones stupid enough to punish our children and families that way.  But remember, it's our system.  We can reclaim it.  We owe it to our progeny.  The stability of this country lies in the balance.

Friday, March 6, 2020

Darwin's Theory Revisted

The Age of Enlightenment was a welcome diffraction from the Dark Ages. The Renaissance and technological gains awoke the simmering human potential - plagued by plague, feudalism, and an oppressive all-powerful Church. Reluctantly - scientific discovery eventually upended centuries of religious beliefs and Fact. The orthodox Eucharist was shown outdated and wrong. The Church was compelled to incorporate reams of new discoveries and silently acknowledge problems resident in past scriptural dogmas and adjust their beliefs. Technological innovation propelled the Age of Enlightenment into numerous scientific discoveries.

      The aristocracy benefitted most from the new technologies as they could afford to play benefactor and enjoy the fruits of their investments. Acumen and the knowledge base in the aristocracy soared to new heights. So did the bastard stepchildren of expanded investigation and discovery – carnality and lust. The aristocracy’s technological gains brought a behavioral dilemma. The aristocracy was expected to set an example for their subjects that aligned with the church’s views on appropriate behaviors - morality. Increasingly the aristocracy balked. They wanted science and technology to free them from the moral restraints the church imposed upon their behaviors – and pocketbooks.

      This conflict came to a head in 1531 during the reign of Henry the VIII. Henry officially rejected the Catholic Church for personal reasons borne of appetite. The break with the Papacy codified the Church of England, the C of E. The King assumed control over the direction and dogmas of the C of E. Henry’s actions did not permanently quell the debate. It cracked the foundation of religious continuity. Sinful desires remained. The conflict between the aristocracy and the Church expanded and grew in intensity until three-hundred years later, the stage was set for a ship’s scientist aboard HMS Beagle to compile and publish Origin of Species.

      The use of science to destroy Christianity and Murder God began aboard Beagle. The object used to advance the murder, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, remains more virulent today than ever. I want to believe Darwin was unable to predict how his theory would be misused. His motivations in constructing the theory are an entirely different matter, and one that exposes the weaknesses in all men – even respected scientists. Darwin’s legacy exceeds the gains he calculated. Every discipline of science must pay fealty to, and genuflect before, “The Theory” – Darwin’s theory of evolution. Importantly, the organizations that set professional standards of acceptable methods, materials, and conduct/behavior for science infused The Theory ubiquitously, such that, any research that might weaken or embarrass The Theory is not so subtly ignored. The researcher is considered an intellectual heretic and black-listed into a nether land from which there is no return, and no publications forthcoming. Darwin’s Theory is a effectively a quasi-religious liturgy. Disrespect towards The Theory results in evolution’s purgatory. Science’s ecumenical councils demand adherence to that Theory with a vigilance last seen with the Spanish Inquisition. If a field of study intentionally, or unintentionally, runs afoul of The Theory, it’s deemed incredible, unworkable, overly hopeful, or another insulting, disparaging assessment before it is permanently banished.

      Practitioners of philosophy saw the notoriety and financial gains Darwin achieved. Thirty years after the first publication, philosophy formally declared “God is Dead”. Philosophy thought they would gain science’s respect and expand the footprint of their influence into science, and the aristocracy’s pocketbook. Philosophy was wrong. Philosophy’s central questioning tenets make it too uncontrollable, too open-minded, and not rigid enough to perpetuate The Theory as science, and their benefactors needed. Philosophy was quietly kicked to the curb, once science found sufficient evidence and support to exclude man and his thoughts. First as problematic with, and then antithetical to, the “revised” (Darwinian) Scientific Method. An new scientific lexicon arose based upon Darwin’s theory.

      More restrictions followed. Scientists attempting to infuse their work with philosophy eventually had their efforts questioned. British Physicist Fred Hoyle learned this when his Steady State universe was theorized and argued. Science faced a problem. Darwin’s Theory didn’t extend back to the creation of the universe. That exposed an opening for God. To insulate The Theory at the universe’s origin, the Big Bang was theorized and codified. Science invented The Big Bang to silence Hoyle and others like him who didn’t work to eliminate God. Ironically, a Belgian Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaitre, a man that Einstein respected - argued in favor of the Big Bang theory. (Lucifer is at times very, very good - and effective.)  Fred Hoyle was an agnostic. Hoyle’s career was dominated by controversy, but not the bad kind of controversy. Hoyle argued contrary positions on a wide range of scientific issues. Hoyle took opposing positions no matter the opinions and evidence faced, or asserted, by the collective opinions of the Official scientific community: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle - cite_note-28

      Hoyle was a legitimate, credible scientist. His choices, decisions and behaviors were mandated by science - perpetually question every subject. Nothing is sacrosanct. If ever a scientist proclaims: “the science is settled” – he has resigned his profession and moved to propaganda agent. Circumstances, opportunity, time, technology, and curiosity define science. The integrity of the evidence is perpetually subject to potential change under the influence of  these factors. Scientific evidence is conditional, contingent, and impermanent. Until man goes extinct, all evidence is subjective. Science mandates continual re-examination - and re-interpretation.

      Fred Hoyle explained why the Big Bang stood cosmology, classic physics, and philosophy on its proverbial head. It required scientists and physicists to ignore fundamental facts and tenets (accepted properties like gravity and mass) to enable constructing a new weapon to protect The Theory – Darwin’s theory, and keep God dead. The Big Bang is a weapon provided The Theory’s adherents to intimidate doubters. The practice of considering philosophical elements - like truthfulness, general inquiry, or expanding investigation when evidence supporting The Theory failed to accrue, were quickly dropped from the revised Darwinian Scientific Method.

      Why did science do it? Science claimed God’s mantle with Darwin’s Theory. That science adheres to Darwin’s theory with no evidence of special evolution discovered – nearly two-hundred years later - reveals a gaping hole in the theory’s linear accretion and reinforces the glaring contradiction in science and its Darwinian Method(s). Every other hypothesis or theory that failed to accrue fundamental supporting data, or information, specified by the Theory’s author, was eventually discredited and dropped. Viable scientific studies like intelligent design are not afforded the latitude of Darwin’s theory - despite the copious and credible evidence, that match, and in some instances, exceed Darwin’s. Any objective or idea that so radically drives men to betray their principles and declared mission, so much so they resort to lies, deceit, and torture accepted methods of proof (to preserve the idea) must be seriously flawed and re-examined thoroughly. Darwin’s theory could not survive a thorough examination today if its entirety is questioned.

      The Theory’s genesis arose aboard the HMS Beagle. It included curious and heretofore unseen (subjective evidence) creatures and several variants of the same species in a limited geographic area. The Galapagos Islands delivered Darwin’s his “evidence”. A Galapagos Finch notably impacted Darwin’s work. On three separate Islands, three separate version of Finch were discovered; each had a slightly different beak. One island had hard nuts, and the Finch had a large, strong beak to crack the nuts. On another island, the food sources were diverse and plentiful. The Finch’s beak formed a traditional shape – or – vice versa. These and other anatomical variants within the same species excited and prompted Darwin to consider broad, universal, causality for the variants. Darwin also saw the Galapagos Iguana swim in the ocean – a never before witnessed phenomena with these reptiles. Darwin presumed the variants of species and unique behaviors not seen elsewhere were examples that explained how one species might possibly transform into another species – and give rise to causalities for the transformation. Darwin also suspected ”Niches” provided opportunity and delivered change. He interpreted the Finch food environment variants moved animals to adapt to specific environment variables - niches. That part was correct. Animals do adapt. Special change, however, is an entirely different animal – literally.

      Darwin almost got it right, but he went too far. He had to. Had Darwin’s theory not included special transformations – he remains a significant – if not great, biologist. Importantly, Darwin retains his integrity with God. Darwin was an astute scientist. His sensibilities likely included gauging the winds of social change, or he learned of the aristocracy’s desired outcome. The Origin of Species – Darwin’s book outlining evolution - included evidence and opinion that opened a debate on God. If animals naturally adapted, each species wasn’t individually created. If they evolved by happenstance, God’s role in creating or seeding them was questionable. Darwin’s theory introduced doubt. God’s existence and influence could officially, scientifically, be questioned. The theory’s obvious underpinnings permitted more than one interpretation - God may not “necessarily” exist, or evolution was one of God’s options for effecting change.

      The European aristocracy and many peers within science lauded Darwin’s conclusions. They immediately disregarded the latter option for their own purposes and set about applying the first to free themselves from the restraints the church and its morality imposed. The aristocracy held enough wealth to purchase the work and allegiances of regarded scientists, who, if they published papers supporting Darwin ‘s conclusions, stood to receive the wealth and fame the aristocracy could arrange. The interpretation and postulate God did not exist, rapidly assumed preeminence.
      Conveniently… if God does not exist, God’s morality does not exist either. The aristocracy was freed to indulge their immoral appetites and desires unencumbered; at least in private, or in the company of the theory’s adherents. Curiously, after the aristocracy funded the opinions murdering God, the aristocracy collectively ended across Europe. By 1920, every Royal Family was displaced, or murdered.

      Science has much more information; better tools and technology than were available in 1860. However, the evidence required to validate The Theory has failed to appear. Paleontologists have searched the globe and found numerous examples of fossil evidence of life forms spanning the time since the earth was first capable of supporting life. In all the examples of the variety of life forms discovered not one example of phylum evolution was discovered. Paleontologists have searched specifically for examples of phylum evolution in vain. Phylum evolution is the lynchpin of evolution. The Theory fails without it. What is phylum - it's a taxonomical category that broadly defines organisms into groups Examples include - fish, reptile, mammal, insect, bacteria, etc.  

      What is it? Phylum evolution is an example of an organism changing from a previous category to its new “evolved” category - literally a different animal. A mutation half fish and half reptile would qualify as an example. A wolf/whale is another. These two examples are both are theorized and documented as the path evolution followed – per science’s evolutionary standards. These mutations represent science’s official conjecture on an original organism and the evolved organism. Phylum evolution is requisite to validate Darwin’s theory. None is found. Not even a shred of phylum evolution evidence exists. NONE! This absence of evidence means each species came into existence separately. Evolution played no role in how each new organism/species came to exist or was transplanted on earth. Some of the postulates advanced in “Darwin’s Theory” are preposterous. Others are impossible.

      Per Darwin, the forces driving evolution includes: Random happenstance, Mutation, Competition, and Adaption to fill a niche. The evolutionary niches are areas an organism can exploit. Exploitation is enabled due to, or when, minimal competition exists in a specific environment or geographic area. Both are alleged to drive an organism to seek food, shelter, or another benefit, that individually, or collectively better enables and sustains the organism’s life. The alternative causality is promoted as arising from pressures - the host environment became hostile to life, and, only through adaptation (evolution) could the organism survive. Darwin’s conjecture in this area remains unsupported, invalid, conjecture. No one can KNOW the environment or "pressures" present a million years ago.

      Let’s play Devil’s Advocate - Consider, if the host environment became hostile to the life forms resident in it, and evolution was the only way to avoid death due to the increasing toxicity of the host environment, wouldn’t all, or a majority, of the life forms in the hostile environment, perish?  Timescales used in evolution span tens, or hundreds of millions of years. An immediate dire change does not permit evolution’s time needs. That renders the causality of toxicity, or lethal environment, highly suspect, or… impossible. If the oceans became inhospitable to life, and some fish evolved into reptiles or amphibians to avoid destruction, the fish and other organisms that didn’t, or couldn’t, evolve are destined to die; are they not?  None of the host environments where a stark change in life forms is required for the life forms resident to survive outside that host environment show evidence of absolute destruction of the former life forms. Fish remain. Octopi remain. Stromatolites remain. Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, insects and all other phylum types remain viable life forms.

      If land mammals returned to the sea to escape lethal pressures on land, how did the mammals' science proposes were the forebears of whales and dolphins (wolves or large ruminants) continue to thrive on land?  Additionally, why do certain animals perish while others thrive?  The Woolly Mammoth is an example of a creature that died out. The Musk Ox remains. Caribou remains. Other furry mammals persist in arctic climes. They all are herbivores. Why did the Mammoth and sloth perish?

      Insects and shellfish are exo-skeletal life forms – their support structures are on the exterior of their bodies. No other life form shows any resemblance to exo-skeletal morphology. Bones provide structure in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc.  Where is the animal that moved its bones to the outside of its body, or the reverse scenario?  Nothing evidence is discovered.

      Importantly, a rudimentary, essential, unresolved evolution hurdle for evolution is the inability of science to explain why and how single-celled organisms chose to confederate into more complex organisms. The amoeba swimming in a pond has no need to confederate. He is a contented and operative organism. The amoeba lacks complexity in all its body parts. It is simplicity defined – saved the chemical processes of digestion it shares with other organisms. The Amoeba is satisfied with, and satisfies, its environment. If not, if the environment is toxic or otherwise unsustainable, the amoeba dies. The amoeba lacks the physical skills or morphology to pursue, or compel another amoeba to confederate. Psssst! The Amoeba has no brain, per se. Moreover, no motivation exists to push the Amoeba into seeking another more complex life form.

      Confederations of single-celled animals – like the Stromatolite - do not qualify as an organism seeking to evolve or change. They are opportunists who find a viable place to exist and multiply or were compelled to share their space when another Stromatolite floated along and affixed themselves to the same outcrop. It is the lack of viable space that compels their shared location.

      More - there is no evidence of single-celled creatures or assemblies of single-celled animals evolving into complex animals. This is conjecture on a process that is highly complex and specifically problematic. For example, what determines the final placement of the single-celled creature’s morphology - brain, lung, muscle, bone, etc.?  How did the single-celled creatures decide which of them would perform the various and specific organ functions needed. These single-celled creatures had no experience as a complex organism or organ. None was fit to assume the biological functions in the new complex organism as a component part. No evidence exists of the evolutionary processes alleged either. Organs require highly specific functionality and single-celled creature display no inclination, or an physical ability, to fulfill those requirements. Haphazardly arranging single-celled critters and expecting them to evolve and “learn” the functions of a brain, eye, lung, heart, etc., and adapt physically to provide the needed function is nonsensical. The origin of the complex organism, within evolution’s criteria, remains a mystery, or… the evolution postulated never happened.

      Mutations are another potential Darwinian causality that ostensibly explains how evolution may occur. NOTE: Mutations are not homogenous. Happenstance and other variants of the mating pair produce mutations. Genetic irregularities arising from natural or environmental causes, or pure chance, can produce mutations. A mule is an example of one form of a genetic mutation. The mule is the product of horse and donkey mating. Organisms similar enough can breed successfully and produce a mutation. However, these mutations are always problematic. One significant problem - the happenstance mutations used to advance Darwin’s theory – random chance mutations arising from a mating pair - are typically malformed, weakened, genetically damaged replicas of the parents. That’s why they are labeled MUTATIONS. Those mutations often contain monstrous malformations and die prematurely – long before the mutation can reproduce. More problematic - one mutation is not enough. A mating pair is ALWAYS required for the mutations to reproduce and perpetuate the mutation. Importantly, animals are genetically, and generically, predisposed to not breed with relatives or malformations. This mandates acquiring and breeding with, a mate that is not from the "mutants" genetic ancestry. Adding to the difficulties, the majority of mothers that bear offspring (as opposed to egg layers) typically kill the mutation or abandon it to inevitable death. “Normal” animals sense the mutation and eliminate it for the sake of preservation of the phylum/species. Moreover, malformed organisms will not find a mate. Normal, healthy animals avoid mating with mutations. The fittest mates are chosen for breeding. Mutations with malformations are also typically easy prey. Still, more problems exist. In the example of the mule, the mutation does not contain reproductive abilities. This reproductive problem arises when similar species of animals mate. The above, and other practical realities, imperil, or eviscerate Darwin’s evolutionary conjecture.

      The more complex pathways to evolution ALWAYS require a mating pair that is inexplicably united to ascend to evolution within the environment – against all odds. They must locate one another and agree to mate despite the problems listed above. The two must survive numerous inherent dangers. Hypothetically, the mutant pair must mutually choose to leave their natural, host environment, (like water) - with no experience in the new environment – Example: land. The pair has no knowledge of where to locate food and shelter. The gills that enable their life underwater do not function on land. The likelihood of success in this random event, even allowing for tens or hundreds of millions of years for opportunity, go astronomical - and then - disappear. More troubling, consider the second scenario - the natural environment was hostile and destined to become lethal to the life forms resident. Why then, do fish remain in the oceans and rivers today? Analogously, if the mammal left the land to re-enter the ocean as evolutionists claim; to created the whale, dolphin, etc. why do mammals and other land animals remain?

      There is a profound reason why no phylum change evidence is found in the fossil record. None exists. The millions of years foisted as a buffer for evolution to work its magic, is not necessarily a panacea. A very old organism, the Horseshoe crab remains today as it did hundreds of millions of years past. It is unchanged from what can be determined from the fossil record that reveals the slightly changed organism. Why is that so?  If organisms are constantly looking to exploit a niche and improving themselves is written into their DNA, why are that animal, and other animals unchanged?  One must accept a primitive organism like the crab would be the first to perish in the overloaded or potentially toxic oceans, or, be one of the first to evolve.

      What is true? Animals must and do adapt to their environment. Darwin’s Galapagos Finch is an example. Animals on the periphery, or facing a changing environment, do adapt. Birds like the Finch developed different beaks. Other birds have no predators and stop flying – BUT they retain wings. Other birds went extinct when environmental pressures killed them off. Notably, the majority of animals within the fossil record, science speculates approximately 95%, are extinct. Rather than support evolution, these extinct animals combine to show extinction, not evolution, is the more prevalent outcome for hostile environments and other pressures. Importantly, even within the fossil record, birds remain birds. Reptiles remain reptiles. Fish remain fish. There is no evidence of radical phylum change occurring. At least one example would be discovered, were it a viable concept and factual. In your author’s considered opinion - that evidence does not exists in the fossil record.

      Darwin’s theory, re-examined today, using rigorous scientific standards (sans the systemic exceptions incorporated to preserve it) the Theory fails to reach the minimum threshold of evidence required to remain a credible theory. When it was first accepted, Darwin’s theory was endorsed with a caveat – evidence of phylum evolution (required to validate the theory) would (soon) be discovered. Inexplicably, Darwin’s theory remaining vibrant today, unmarred, and unquestioned, reveals ulterior motivations for keeping it. Science, and allies of science work to protect and keep the theory because it axiomatically (and theoretically) belays God and extends control over truth and fact to science and men. As the holders and givers of fact and truth, science assumes the authority resident in an omnipotent and benevolent supreme being, God. Science was not then, nor will it ever, be prepared to assume those Divine authorities. Man in his best character, cannot remove the cloak of humanity that weights his physical form, and choices. The appetites that assure man survives in the hostile environs and circumstances of life on earth are branches of the same instincts and impulses that move man to seek pleasure and comforts - and sin. Removing the appetite removes them all. The branches cannot be pruned without killing the organism unless a supreme being provides the therapy and nutrients required to sustain the organism without an essential ingredient. The best science or man can do, when replacing God, is to rely exclusively upon the absolute standards God developed, and pray nothing substantial changes that require new standards. God may not, must not exist. Otherwise, science loses the control and authority over mankind it absconded. Some scientists, a minority, have not abandoned God. They are comfortable with God and view apparent contradictions a temporary condition. What they cannot explain, they know will eventually come to pass, when man learns more, or God provides new revelation – as he has done since the dawn of man. Unconscionably, scientists that refuse to disparage God are treated as a pariah. The organizations of science marginalize and limit, or refuse to publish their work and findings. Seeking publication, as it leads to continued employment, some walk a fine line in defending their assertions while remaining silent on evolution or other secular twaddle.

      Interestingly, Darwin was a religiously minded man who lived to regret the confusion, and misinterpretations his theory spawned. That confusion provided a sufficient void to insert purposeful propaganda - misinterpretations, and conclusion taking Darwin’s theory and analysis much farther than Darwin anticipated. He tried to amend his book - The Origin of Species at its third publication. Copy-write laws at that time exclusively conveyed to the publisher. Darwin lived out his life with considerable wealth and the notoriety his theory garnered; while regretting the destruction his efforts wrought upon religion and mankind. Darwin learned the wisdom and security, directly or indirectly, contained in God, his commandments, morality, and the contentment and peace derived from them, must not be challenged. Perhaps his trust was betrayed. Inevitably, Darwin’s hypothesis enabled mankind indulging the vilest behaviors they can conceive, tempt or convince their fellow man to tolerate and indulge. Evolutionary conclusions opened science to irrational and unsubstantiated conjecture in other areas of science. With God dead, lying and deceit became tolerable, pervasive and eventually a necessity for science - to fill the moral vacuum.

      The dynamics and self-imposed restrictions science once obeyed, in deference to the credibility of their craft, ended with the God-less environment Darwin enabled. Darwin's "Theory’s" importance to science’s global objectives compelled them to absolve and indemnify The Theory. New conclusions desired by science (and others/benefactors) moved the Theory from the subjective periphery to center stage. A world sans God’s restrictions became an “enabling” environment for all scientific pursuits. Preservation of Darwin’s theory became indispensable and omnipotent – like God!  Darwin’s work was integrated into the Scientific Method - then inter-woven within the standards and references of disciplines old and new. No amount of convolution, deceit, or the torture of logic, suppressed and ignored facts (required to maintain the Theory) surpassed The Theory’s importance and relevance. Science’s fealty to Darwin’s theory exceeds the dynamics of most religious orthodoxy. Each new investigation - only possible absent God’s morality, incorporated novel interpretations of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Science became the definitive authority for the conventions mankind revered and used to conduct society. They assumed dominion over fact and truth. Science’s influence became omnipotent and omniscient owed to Darwin’s suspicions. Science rose to the new challenge and adopted “uncertainty” as its central tenet; then issued it to mankind. God and religion became a conditional entity retained to appease and placate those men too weak to accept the new reality. Absolutes ended. Excellence was subjectified. Secular Humanism arose.