Creationism and The Materialists

We dance round in a ring and suppose, But the Secret sits in the middle and knows." -- "The Secret Sits" by Robert Frost




The ongoing spat between the Creationists and the Materialists is a spat between two seperate groups of cranks.

The Creationist cranks say that the Bible is to be taken seriously as an exposition of the creation of the Earth and the Materialists say that Science can explain everything in the universe.

The first group are so obviously demented that they give the advantage to the Materialists who are demented in a much more subtle way.

Anyone who says the Bible / the Koran / Whatever must be taken literally and its statements and texts as a direct statement from God about how the universe was created and how we must live is a nutter.

Either god is an idiot, a liar or a fool or the people who believes such bollocks are the idiots.

The Bible / Koran / Torah / Talmud / Whatever - are not books that reflect reality, they are books based on internal spiritual revelations of imperfect human beings and therefore (as they exist as products of imperfect and sinful human beings according to their own beliefs) are imperfect visions of a perfect god.

An imperfect human being cannot create a perfect vision of a perfect god, (just as sunlight passing through a lens suffers distortion, some refraction and is blocked and damaged by the lens or glass itself ) therefore all holy books are by their nature imperfect creations of imperfect creations of imperfect creations.

Just as the sciencists says in the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that scientists create the outcome when they measure something, the same applies to religion.

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.

Just as scientists can never fully understand reality as they themselves are part of reality and affect reality by interacting with it, the same applies to religions as the 'prophets' and people that create and write those so called holy books are themselves part of nature - AND ARE THEREFORE FLAWED CREATIONS WHO CAN ONLY HAVE FLAWED VISIONS OF GOD.

Only the perfect human can have a perfect vision of God, and until that perfect human is born then all visions of god through Men are imperfect visions of god.

What is born of Man cannot perceive or describe the perfection of God.

Therefore all visions of god and all holy books are imperfect.

Therefore those books are imperfect and as such their imperfections mean they should not be taken seriously and nor should those idiots who say they are perfect or the essence of perfection be taken seriously.

Anyone who says that the formation of the universe, the inbuilt structures of the universe that created and sustain the universe and that led to the formation of the solar system, the habitable zone and then to life and then to the creation of Man was all by chance is an idiot.

The fact that scientists cannot even define such things as dark matter, dark energy, non-locality or even how many universes their are, means we should not take them too seriously either.

Both religions and science are cults, with their own creedos and fanatics.

But at the very core of their teachings they are both talking bollocks.

Just as religion cannot prove the existence of god, science cannot prove the existence of dark matter.

Both dance around in a ring and simply mutter ever more complex gibberish to explain their stupidity.

It is the tragedy of the 20th century that we have been trapped between the lines of war between Science and Religion.

With the religious fruitcakes on one side and the scientific extremists on the other, the truth has been trapped in a Urizenic net - almost as if planned by some demiurgic force that seeks to keep small, weak and an slave.

The religions call us sinful creations, slaves to a hateful god and that Man taking charge of his own creative self evolution is a sin, whilst the scientists call us a naked slave apes in a material universe devoid of any meaning ruled by unconscious impulses focused on sex and eating.

Both are vile visions of Man and his place in the universe - both of them see us as slaves and unable to attain higher evolution through self evolution.


I see both visions as aspects of the same demiurge - the poet William Blake foresaw that the demise of christianity through science would lead to a dictatorship of materialism - that the fall of the Pope would lead to Stalin.

That as religion gave way to science a new abomination would arise out of its ashes to ensure Man remained as a slave forever.

The time has come now for the end of the dictatorships of religion and materialism.

Man must become his own God.

Man must begin he process of his own higher self evolution.

First man must shed himself of the visions of slavery that hold him back, and this means the focus of his strggle must be for higher self evolution first as an indvidual and then as a race and species.

Man must transcend this level of humanity.

The divine vision must be a divine humanity - a humanity cleansed of all inherited genetic defects so that no more children will be born with genetic defects.

No more children must be born disabled and suffering - with genetic engineering we can cleanse the entire human DNA and gene lines of all inherited diseases and thereby create a higher human race from this mishapen wreckage we call humanity.

If God made man then he must have been a dodgy engineer - as the man he made is a flawed thing iddled with inherited diseases that strike the innocent. If god made man, then man must perfect gods vision.

If Materialism made man then this imperfect creation must be transcended through our own efforts - we must perfect the flaws that Nature created.

Man must fight disease in all its forms - and at the same time must also demand that all humanity live in harmly with Nature and the planet - the Natural Order must replace the New World Order.

The primary struggle of the 21st century will be in the struggle of the visionaries of a higher humanity against the slaves of religion and science.

Man must stop reproducing like maggots upon the planet - we must impose reproductive responsibility upon the planet.

Those that spawn beyond the carrying capacity of their own lands must be given a choice - either accept contraception, education and limits to their demographic growth - or they must simply be left to starve.

No more must we subsidise such reproductive irresponsibility - those in the developing world that take development aid and yet still spit out ten children should not be subsidised to continue breeding.

Either live in harmony with their environment - or perish in the disasters they create for themselves through such feckless and irrespnsble breeding.

The religions that preach compassion for their irresponsibility must be swept away, and the science that seeks to support such reproductive irresponsibility (such as through GM crops designed to sustain ever growing human population numbers) must be stopped - for the religions encourage reproductive irresponsibility and the scientists seek to reward and sustain it.

The end result of both religion and science will be the death of the planet, the destruction of the bio-sphere and the extinction of Man.

They are both insane ideologies which together will destroy us all.

The time has come for Man to break free from both, and to see in himself his own salvation.

Only when the vision of a Higher Humanity replaces the death cults of religion and science will Man and the planet survive.

Man must never agin be ruled by priests, kings, popes, Imams, Rabbis, economists, scientists and the whole system of demiurge slaves - Man must seek self evolution and the Higher Humanity as the way out of his prison cells.

Only when the first child is born who no longer carries a single gene that carries an inherited illness, disease or disability will Man be at the brink of liberty.

Until then we are all the slaves of slaves.

Religions divert Man away from the spiritual, and science diverts Man away from the vision of divine universe.

I see the creation of the universe as itself a divine manifestation, and the meaning of that manifestation is the creation of Life leading to Man.

Life itself is the manifestation of the divine within the material universe.

The creation of the universe was a divine creative act, and that the laws of physics and evolution were put in place as mechanisms to ensure the creation of life.

Man is the bridge between Life and the higher divinity of the Spirit - and Man himself must see himself and in his existence as becoming the pathway to the divine spirit.

Only when Man becomes united with that divine spirit, will the true meaning of the universe be revealed.

The true meaning of the universe is the objective incarnation of the divine creative spirit in the soul of Man - and Man and God will become One.

Until then the meaning of life is Mans struggle towards Self Divinity through creative self evolution.

It is this struggle that defines Mans greatness.

" Onwards and Upwards to the Perfecti ", must be the cry of all free humans until that first perfect being is born and the first step is taken towards that Great Race of higher humans to come.

Why Marx and Engels Were Wrong

It was Marx who had first discovered the great law of motion of history, the law according to which all historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical or some other ideological domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes, and that the existence and thereby the collisions, too, between these classes are in turn conditioned by the degree of development of their economic position, by the mode of their production and of their exchange determined by it. This law, which has the same significance for history as the law of the transformation of energy has for natural science.

Engels, Preface to The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1885)



And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove:

(1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production,

(2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,

(3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

Marx, Letter to Weydemeyer (1852)



Opening line of the Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”.



Theory


Marx moved to London in May 1849, where he was to remain for the rest of his life.

It was in London that most of his political and economic theories crystallised.

The question is, as an German emigre, how much did Marx truly understand about the nature of the society around him.

At that time in Britain the Working Class was comprised primarily of the displaced descendants of the Anglo-Saxons who were removed from the land by the Norman aristocracy, the Celtic English and also Celtic Irish immigrants who worked for the Norman aristocracy.

The Middle Class were mainly Anglo-Saxons whilst the Upper Class, Aristocracy and financiers were primarily Normans, and the Celts were the Working Class. This is due to a simple fact, that those with the land had the money.

The Anglo-Saxons who were dispossessed after 1066 had their lands taken from them and given to Norman nobles by the Norman King. Therefore they had to work for the Norman barons as landless tenants, and the landless Celts had to work as labour for the Anglo-Saxons.

It was Engels' book, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, which led Marx to conceive of the historical dialectic in terms of class conflict and to see the modern working class as the most progressive force for revolution.

Originally written in German as Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England, it is a study of the working class in Victorian England. It was also Engels' first book, written during his stay in Manchester from 1842 to 1844. Manchester was then at the very heart of the Industrial Revolution, and Engels compiled his study from his own observations and detailed contemporary reports.

By 1841, a tenth of the city's population was Irish and many lived in the district known as "Little Ireland", a slum area in the Ancoats area of Manchester which Engels labelled in his 1845 'Condition of the Working Class In England' as "the most disgusting spot of all!". This area of the city was so overcrowded that the sudden Irish influx during the Potato Famine could not be accomodated and had to turn to other English cities, notably Liverpool and Birmingham.

Engels wrote, "The New Town, known also as Irish Town, stretches up a hill of clay, beyond the Old Town, between the Irk and St. George's Road. Here all the features of a city are lost. Single rows of houses or groups of streets stand, here and there, like little villages on the naked, not even grass-grown clay soil; the houses, or rather cottages, are in bad order, never repaired, filthy, with damp, unclean, cellar dwellings; the lanes are neither paved nor supplied with sewers, but harbour numerous colonies of swine penned in small sties or yards, or wandering unrestrained through the neighbourhood. The mud in the streets is so deep that there is never a chance, except in the dryest weather, of walking without sinking into it ankle deep at every step. In the vicinity of St. George's Road, the separate groups of buildings approach each other more closely, ending in a continuation of lanes, blind alleys, back lanes and courts, which grow more and more crowded and irregular the nearer they approach the heart of the town. True, they are here oftener paved or supplied with paved sidewalks and gutters; but the filth, the bad order of the houses, and especially of the cellars, remain the same.".

Marx's view of history, which came to be called historical materialism, was wrong as it was based on the principle that the fundamental proposition of historical materialism can be summed up in the following:

“ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. ”

—Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.



This is false as it misses entirely the fundamental social and human reality which is that all life and all social existence is predicated on the energy exchange process.

No energy = No Life

Human life, human consciousness and human society are all dependent upon energy - from calories to keep one alive to energy to create and maintain social complexity and social entelechy.

All human societies are not driven by the dialectic of class war, they are driven by the neccesity to secure, utilise and expend ever increasing amounts of energy from the environment in order to maintain human life, human social complexity and for all forms of human society to evolve.

Hegel was wrong (and so was Marx) in that what he and Marx defined as Class War as the principle that drives the dynamic dialectic of society, was in reality an ethnic struggle.

At the time Hegel wrote his book 'The Condition of the Working Class in England' the place he based the research on and, also the place which provided the theoretical basis of the principle of Dialectical Materialism, was Manchester.

In Manchester at that time ;

The Working Class were the descendants of the Celtic Irish and landless Anglo-Saxons.

The Middle Class were primarily Anglo-Saxon working for the same rich Norman families and aristocrats in factories owned by them and on land owned by them or in businesses owned by them.

The Upper Class were primarily Norman and those married into the Norman aristocracy. If the English are predominantly Keltic, it is likely the upper-middle and aristocratic classes of England are disproportionately Germanic.

The Anglo-Saxon overclass separated itself from the Kelts by an elaborate system of Apartheid. Subsequently, the Norman race, that other branch of the Germanic family, implemented a similar system in their subjugation of the English. The present British aristocracy is largely descended from these tribes of Germania from the Northmen (Normans) which were Scandanavian Vikings.

Therefore Class Struggle is in reality Ethnic Struggle.

The Class Struggle that Hegel defined was in reality the Norman aristocracy ( The Upper Class ) using the Anglo-Saxons ( Middle Class ) to rule the Celtic peoples (Working Class). Those Anglo-Saxons that became impoverished were also made serfs alongside the Celtic peoples, and amalgamated to form the Working Class of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore the true statement is ' All hitherto history of all human societies is the struggle to secure energy in order to ensure individual and social survival and also the history of ethnic and racial struggle '



http://libcom.org/news/article.php/land-ownership-right-roam-uk-10032006

The Norman conquest of England in 1066 saw all land taken under the ownership of the monarchy. To this day the monarchy - in theory at least - owns all the land. The Normans changed the ownership of land with the King giving land as tribute to Norman lords and barons and depriving the Saxons. The Domesday book was the first audit of land. And the resulting system of feudalism exacted free labour, goods and produce and free military service to the land-owning classes for the rest of the middle ages.

The Diggers sought to challenge the ‘Norman Yoake’ and return the land to common people. As one Diggers’ pamphlet proclaimed ‘Seeing that the common people of England by joint consent of person and purse have caste out Charles our Norman oppressor, we have by this victory recovered ourselves from under this Norman yoake…and the land is to be held no longer from the use of them [the commoners]’ Their attempts to build communal farms were persecuted by local landowners and the Diggers were dispersed. The Diggers obtained nothing from the new Republic which eagerly sold off Church and Royalist land – the spoils of war – to its own loyal aristocrats. The redistribution of land was so enormous that Charles II under the Restoration could not undo the redefined status quo.

In the 1870s a political argument took place on the question of land ownership between the radical liberal John Bright and the conservative aristocrat Lord Derby. Bright had argued that very few – about 150 aristocrats - owned half of England and that this group used the Corn Laws to stop the importation of cheaper corn. For Bright this amounted to a subsidy to this class. Lord Derby -himself a very large landowner -claimed that land ownership was much more widespread and consequently Bright was wrong. The result was an enquiry into land ownership.

In 1872 the British Government published The Return of the Owners of Land, which is only the second audit of land to have taken place in British history, the other being the Domesday book in 1086. After 2 years of gathering all the information the returns found that 1 million people owned freeholds, about 5% of the population. The ten leading Dukes in the Kingdom owned over 100,000 acres each with the Duke of Sutherland owning 1,350,000 acres. The Duke of Northumberland owned 186,000 acres then and still owns 132,000 acres. Both sides claimed victory, and the land-owning class realised that they had given up too much information about their assets and wealth.

Since 1872 there has not been an audit of the land and the state effectively screen landowners from any enquiry into their activities, and their colossal wealth. The Royal Commission into the wealth of Britain set up by the Labour government just before Thatcher hoped to examine land ownership but found a paucity of information on the question. Thatcher abolished the commission on coming to power. None of the major political parties in the UK has any policy to redistribute land, with one exception; the Green Party.

This situation is indicative of the cosy relationship that those whose arses grace the seats in the Palaces of Westminster have with the land-owning elite. On the other hand the Green Party believes that: ‘Land, the primary source of all real wealth, is the common heritage. We acknowledge that land is held in trust by human society on behalf of other species and future generations, and that land should not be treated as a capital investment nor traded for speculative profit.’ One only hopes that Jonathan Porritt CBE; Charles Windsor’s environmental advisor inculcates this advice into the prince’s ear!

Wealth, Land and Power

Lord Derby declared in 1881: “The object which men aim at when they become possessed of land in the British Isles may, I think, be enumerated as follows. One political influence; two, social importance, founded in territorial possession, the most visible and unmistakable form of wealth; three power exercised over tenantry; the pleasure of managing, directing and improving the estate itself; four residential enjoyment, including what is called sport; five the money return – the rent”.

Derby’s point of view concerning land was not only indicative of the time, but certainly abounds amongst landowners today. The Land Reform Act (Scotland) of 2003 that gives Scots the right to roam and also the right for communities to purchase land that would benefit them. It caused strong reactions from the land-owning elite, with one of them commenting that ‘the only countries in the world left with this kind of thing are North Korea and Cuba’.

Over the centuries the land-owning class has created vast wealth for itself from its holdings. This wealth has been derived from agriculture, forestry, rents, mining and hunting and sport, and since the later part of the 20th century tourism.

They have always pursued their profitable goals against the common interest and at the expense of ordinary people. The Highland Clearances led to the displacement of 500,000 Highland peasants and crofters in the early part of the 19th century, being replaced by sheep.

Crofters were denied rights to seaweed, or access to summer pasture for their animals. Enclosure of England’s Commons and wasteland that began at the time of the Diggers was to last into middle of 19th century. Enclosure occurred at a greater rate in those counties where profits were larger, in particular for produce demanded for the ever-expanding urban industrial areas.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9575.html

A system of racial segregation imposed by early Anglo-Saxon invaders in England may have massively boosted the breeding of the Germanic interlopers, much to the detriment of the native Celtic race, researchers claim in a new study.

Genetic analysis of men in modern-day central England shows that more than half of them possess a Y-chromosome that can be traced to a Germanic region – what is now Germany, Holland and Denmark.

Historians argue that fewer than 200,000 Anglo-Saxons invaded the population of about 2 million Celtic Britons during the 5th century. All things being equal, this number should account for just 10% of the gene pool being Anglo-Saxon.