The Next Civil War: A Simple Programme

Every now and again, someone important is assassinated.  Usually this does not cause utter chaos, but undeniably, sometimes it does—as in the First World War.  What follows is a program of mine showing the possible stages of such a scenario in my country.  This is not what I want to happen; God forbid.  It is what I am personally afraid will happen. 

Stage 1:  

Republican Nominee Trump’s popularity continues to grow with voters, while Clinton’s gradually shrinks.  The elites, the media, and anti-Trump rioters do everything they can short of murder to stop him; but as before, they have the opposite effect.  Trump is elected in November, quite possibly in a massive landslide. 

 

Stage 2:  

A few truly radical Trump haters have no choice left.  Trump is assassinated.  While some citizens are relieved, others are afraid or extremely angry.  Trump was already a hero to millions; now he is a martyred hero, whose blood must be avenged.  Many avid Trump supporters, civilian and military, riot and/or threaten a revolution.

Stage 3:

In response to signs of rebellion, Obama imposes martial law.  Hundreds of thousands of people are hunted down for treason, and some individuals resist violently or else flee into hiding. 

Stage 4:

Rebel factions unite and become organized.  Due to Obama’s tyranny, Texas and other states attempt to secede, and more violence ensues between these states and Federal forces.  Obama, with the help of globalist elites, usurps all authority from Congress and wages total war against the rebel factions. 

Stage 5:

The former United States is now in chaos.  Without its support and protection, the rest of the world soon degenerates as well.  Radical Islam overtakes much of Europe.  Some nations, like China, may seize the opportunity to conquer the former United States. 

Stage 6:

After millions or billions of people have been killed, someone powerful may step in to take control of the world—perhaps Putin or someone like him.  Who exactly this leader is, and what he does, will determine the fate of all remaining humanity. 

Fear, Freedom, and Political Correctness

Since well before World War 2, many leaders of the West have spoken highly of “freedom from fear.”  In the broadest sense, this type of freedom is absolutely nonsensical, since as long as the Earth continues there will always be the possibility and the looming presence of fear, from one thing or another.  Nothing humans will ever do can change that reality, at least not in this physical universe.  No matter the efficiency of human government or laws, mankind will never be absolutely insured from all fear of material calamity. 

And yet, I believe there is at least one good and truly enlightening use of this expression—and with such enlightenment, mankind discovers a hope that transcends all fear of mere physical evils. 

Fear is a powerful force, and can be used as a weapon.  Every tyrant in history has used it, by means of bare, unjustifiable threat, to bend men’s wills into submission against the voice of reason.  This is blind or servile fear, which weakens humanity ultimately to the level of a brute animal.  Man becomes totally compliant to the dictates of fear, caring more for temporal, supposed security than for justice and truth. 

But in time, strong men rise against the darkest tyrannies, proving by action that they would rather die than be constrained from right reason and justice.  We have such men to thank for fighting and winning the American Revolution of 1776.  In fact, our heritage as a nation rests on this moral strength, and when we lose it we lose the right to be called patriots. 

 

It is this strength that may be called, in the best sense, “freedom from fear.”  It is a gauge by which we can measure the moral integrity of a people, or conversely, the true power of any tyrant.  

Remarkably among Christians, those who struggle and whimper under a burden of blind fear greatly dishonor their God, who has said so clearly, “My yoke is sweet, and My burden light.”  Such Christians, rare or not as they may be, are effectively calling their God a tyrant and a liar!  Right reason is clearly a means of discovering truth, and if God wished to inhibit reason He would not be true. 

And of course, all the saints agree that inner peace is necessary to the love of God, and that love is not only preferable to fear but necessary to our salvation.  The “fear of the Lord” (which is the beginning of wisdom) is not this servile or blind fear, but a reasonable respect of God, based on our knowledge of Him and His relationship with us.  It should be, as Scripture so clearly affirms, the respect of a little child for his father.  Thus, any Christians who live in terror live not by the light or love of God, but under the shadow of the old liar, who is called Satan. 

Whether a nation is Christian or not, the simple principle applies: a free people are a brave people, and a brave people are uninhibited by fear. 

If fear has any effect on them, it is a healthy reaction and resistance to the evil, not a surrender to it.  If evil raises its head, they will not cower down but stand up proudly and fight it to the death!  This freedom makes man noble, and grants him access to the superpowers of heroism.  This is, if not the basis of lasting happiness, a clear requisite for it.

 

And now we must ask: are we, as a people, controlled by fear?  Have we lost some of the integrity our forefathers held so sacred, and risked so much for?
 

Unfortunately, the answer is not quite what it should be.  As the culture of our nation, and of the entire West, continues farther away from the principles of freedom which made them worthwhile, we see fresh signs of a rising tyranny. 

 

This tyranny is Political Correctness.  And it is wielded by tyrants so cunning that we often are at a loss to positively identify or resist them. 

To see such tyranny, all we need do is look around us.  We find that many are afraid, cowering in their minds, to express not only unconventional wisdom or beliefs, but even critical thought.  

They may be afraid to question by reason what we are told by those who pose as our superiors.  And this fear arises not only from a twisted peer pressure, but a real threat of retribution! 

The retribution for Political Correctness has various forms, and perhaps the most noticeable is labeling.  If, for example, you say that illegal immigration must be resolved, you are labeled a racist.  If you wonder whether men are more competent in some areas than women, you are labeled a sexist.  In fact, if you happen to be a man who simply says anything unflattering about a particular woman, you may be branded a misogynist.  If you think that sodomy is evil, you are sure to be called a homophobe.  And, somewhat ironically, if you wonder whether there is some underlying bias or agenda in professional communities, you will be impulsively labeled a conspiracy theorist.  The list of labels goes on.  

Stereotypes reinforce generalizations.

Naturally, when one is labelled in such a way, he is put at an immediate disadvantage.  His reputation sours, and people who listen to the voices of Political Correctness will shun him.  He may lose his job, or even his entire career.  As Political Correctness reaches its tentacles into all sectors, the nonconformist will even face the real danger of legal punishment! 

It is clear to all, by now, that Political Correctness is gaining power today.  Naturally, for those of us who still believe in freedom, this is a real threat. 

If it does not threaten us so much, it will threaten our children far more.  And so again, as the heroes who gave us what freedom we still have, we must not submit to the fear of this threat.  We must absolutely destroy, annihilate it! 

You may say now that I am appealing to anger.  I answer: yes, I am.  You should be angry.  If you are not angry, all hope is lost for you.  You are angry because you listen to what reason tells you, and you listen to the demands of justice.  Or else, you are apathetic, because you listen to fear. 

Let just anger—and all the uninhibited virtues of freedom—swell within you, and embrace the vibrant incentive of a hero.  Or listen to fear, and wither submissively back into nothing.  The choice is yours. 

Abiogenesis: The Agenda

The idea that life somehow can—and did—spontaneously arise from non-life is nothing new. 

Good old Epicurus

Many ancient "creation" mythologies are based on this concept, such as the Chinese story of P'an Ku, the god who supposedly evolved from a featureless, cosmic chaos.[1]  Very similar is the Greek mythology in which Gaea, or Mother Earth, was the first to pop out of “the chaos.”[2]

However, atheistic creation stories like these were not only to be found in what our generation would label as religious myths.  In fact, the philosopher Epicurus posited that life (and everything else) arose from the random collisions of eternal particles.[3]  These particles fell through space and somehow assimilated into the earth, the heavenly bodies, all kinds of plants and animals, and us.

Theists have always criticized stories like these for their entirely unjustifiable contradiction of both common sense and observed fact.  And to this day, science (which in modern understanding is supposed to be a logical expansion on observed facts) agrees that it is physically impossible for order to arise from featureless chaos.  If we take the term “featureless chaos” literally, we can equate it to a state of disorder or randomness, which an isolated system always produces more of and not less.[4]  While chaos is by no means the same as disorder, the adjective “featureless” certainly indicates a lack of special regions or microstates, and therefore implies the randomness of entropy.  The same would also be implied, of course, by random collisions of particles.

Entropy isn't very cooperative.

Yet regardless how speculative and completely irrational Epicurus’s model is, it was held more-or-less as fact among Greek atheists at his time.  Interestingly enough, it remains very similar to most assertions by modern atheists about the origin of life and the cosmos. 

Meanwhile, theistic Greeks like Aristotle  realized that cosmic

A "closed-minded" theist

chaos is an inadequate explanation for life, and argued that a “Prime Mover” (whom he also described as an eternal intelligence) must be ultimately responsible for all motion, including that of observed life.[5]

But the idea of life arising from non-life has been an obvious necessity for atheists of all generations, and the more academic ones have tried admirably hard to keep the claim up-to-date, at least by appearances, with our contemporary understanding of physical science.  Not surprisingly, the claim itself has meanwhile taken on different names.  A couple of centuries ago, it was called spontaneous generation, a very accurate and precise descriptor for life arising “naturally,” without any deliberate intervention.  More recently, it is commonly dubbed abiogenesis—a term that is used only implicitly, and not precisely, to denote that no prior life was in any way needed for the process to occur.  Since this represents an unnecessary ambiguity, I personally prefer the more accurate scientific synonym for spontaneous generation, autogenesis.[6] 

Contrary to what many atheists and even non-atheistic scientists assert, the idea of autogenesis may be roughly categorized under “evolution,” or the “General Theory of Evolution.”  This was defined in 1960 by Prof. Gerald Kerkut

Kerkut in a jolly mood

of the University of Southampton as “the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”  Modern biologists may not agree with Dr. Kerkut’s choice of terminology, but their consensus in regard to life on earth is definitely the same.  Significantly, Dr. Kerkut goes on to admit, “the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.”[7]

So as of 1960, not only does Dr. Kerkut cede that the conglomeration of evolution, universal common descent, and autogenesis isn’t even scientific theory; he specifies that the reason is a lack of strong evidence.  In my opinion, that is a humorous way of putting it.  By the end of this article, it will be apparent that he made the understatement of the century.

Even calling autogenesis part of a “working hypothesis” is dubious.  As the scientifically literate know, a hypothesis must be testable to be scientific; and when it consistently tests negative, it must be discarded.  That in mind, it is no secret that autogenesis, when directly attempted, has always tested negative!  

Too cool to need logic.

The best answer that any atheist can give to this inconvenient truth is, as Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson once mused, that what is difficult in the science lab may be very easy for nature.  Well then, if we must take such atheist celebrities as Tyson seriously, we are left with a bit of a conundrum: is autogenesis testable, or isn’t it?  For ultimately, the only sure way to get around the problem of the potentially imperfect laboratory would be to observe autogenesis in nature!  This, as all scientists know, always has and always will produce negative results.  These considerations alone should be enough to persuade any rational person, especially one who fancies himself a skeptic, that autogenesis is:

a) untenable, and/or

b) not within the scope of contemporary science. 

In simple, honest terms, it just doesn’t happen.

Commendably, numerous evolutionary experts have admitted the speculative, improbable, or even completely implausible nature of autogenesis.  A few examples will suffice:

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix—

 

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle…”[8]

And further—

“Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”[9]

Dr. Hubert Yockey, in a peer-reviewed journal—

 

“Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted…”[10]

And in his book 15 years later, regarding “primeval soup”—

“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.”[11]

Microbiologist Dr. Martin Line, in a peer-reviewed journal—

“Hence the enigma: an origin of life on Earth appears highly improbable, an origin elsewhere is highly conjectural.”[12]

Sir Fred Hoyle—

“The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”[13]

Antony Flew, famous atheist philosopher— 

“It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”[14] 

There are many more such instances, from peer-reviewed Journals and elsewhere.  In fact, while some of these academics go on to explain that they firmly believe in autogenesis regardless of the clear evidence, others (such as Flew and Hoyle) have gone so far as to recant the idea, and subsequently atheism itself.  The point of my citing them, of course, is to penetrate through the bias-driven myth that all educated people believe in what Kerkut called the General Theory of Evolution, or that you must do so to be “scientific.” 

Then again, why spend time on these scientists when we can get down to more hard evidence of modern science against autogenesis?  That which is perhaps the most basic scientific problem with autogenesis is not difficult to grasp.  We needn’t assess all the chemical blocks, the self-replication difficulties, or that the earth had the wrong atmosphere for it at the supposed time.[15]  There’s no need to quibble interminably about entropy and localization and open systems, either.  In fact, we can pretend the laws of thermodynamics don’t even exist!  For the basic problem with abiogenesis is simple probability. 

Now some atheists have made the “mistake” of assuming that since life exists in the universe, the probability of abiogenesis occurring must be 1/1.  This is a disgusting abuse of the science of probability.  It is circular reasoning making abiogenesis an implicit premise, and is too intellectually insulting a claim to be addressed any further, even by a complete amateur like me. 

As Hoyle indicated, for autogenesis to occur we not only require all the correct polymers, but the correct program, in which the bits must spontaneously assemble in the absolute correct order for life to be possible.  Thus, even ignoring all chemical problems, the maximum probability for the simplest biological life arising spontaneously can be calculated from an estimate of the minimum known required simultaneous factors which must be in the correct order.  These are:

20 amino acids,[16]

387 proteins,[17]

and on average, ~10 conserved amino acids.

No honest biologist will object to these factors as being too numerous; again, this is about the most generously small estimate contemporary science can possibly allow.  Other processes aside, the probability for these factors converging in the correct order is:

20^(-3870) = 10^(-3870*log20) = 10^-5035

Thus the probability of autogenesis occurring is a maximum of one in 10⁵⁰³⁵.  That is, one over one followed by 5035 zeros. 

There is not nearly enough space on this page to write that out the long way. 

To remove all doubt whatsoever that these odds are actually insurmountable within the known universe, let us compare them to the theoretical number of reactions possible in this cosmos.  There are approximately:

10⁸⁰ atoms in the known universe,

10¹² atomic interactions per second,

and 10¹⁸ seconds, according to the standard big bang model.

Which gives us 10⁸⁰ * 10¹² * 10¹⁸ = 10¹¹⁰ possible interactions in the history of the cosmos.  That’s quite a lot, but divided out over the odds against abiogenesis, we still get 1/10^-4925.  And again, it would take multiple pages to write that without scientific notation. 

Some may still speculate that the input factors for autogenesis are too great, based on an extreme misunderstanding of science.  In fact, while many papers defending autogenesis attempt to mitigate the distinct, chemical problems, others attempt to reduce one or more of the factors above by the collusion of some other process, which is of dubious enough value in reducing the odds.  But even if the inputs are significantly reduced, we still get astronomically poor odds. 

Those who teach autogenesis, or “abiogenesis” as they prefer, carry a burden of proof to demonstrate that it is statistically plausible in this universe.  Until such time as they do, it is literally insane to believe in it.  And until such time as they show that it is not only plausible, but somehow likely, they have absolutely no excuse to teach it in our classrooms or anywhere else.  Autogenesis is, and always has been, nothing but a dogmatic agenda of atheism.

Footnotes:

---

 

[1] http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/creation_myths.html

 

[2] http://www.greek-gods.info/theogony/chaos/

 

[3] http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/atomism.html

 

[4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html

 

[5] http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm

 

[6] http://thesciencedictionary.org/abiogenesis/

 

[7] Kekut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p.157, 1960.

 

[8] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/crick.html, emphasis added

 

[9] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/crick.html

 

[10] Yockey, 1977. A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology 67:377–398.

 

[11] http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/, emphasis added.

 

[12] http://mic.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/micro/10.1099/00221287-148-1-21?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf

 

[13] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/hoyle.html

 

[14] http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_antonyflew.htm

 

[15] Flowers, C., A Science Odyssey 100 Years of Discovery, William Morrow and Company, New York, p.173, 1998.

 

[16] http://proteinstructures.com/Structure/Structure/amino-acids.html

 

[17] http://www.pnas.org/content/103/2/425.long

The Pledge of Allegience to Just Rebellion

I pledge, before God and man, that I value the Truth above all things. 

I pledge myself to honesty, in three facets--sincerity, humility, and courage.

SINCERITY, to avoid deliberate deception of myself and others.

HUMILITY, to acknowledge fully my own capacity for error in seeking the Truth, as well as to avoid judging rashly. 

COURAGE, to resist and attack that which attacks the Truth, and to admit when I am wrong. 

In this spirit I will uphold the Truth against all odds, with the strength given me by the grace of the One Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos. 

I therefore spit on the dictates of fashion, of opinion, of pride, of human respect, of convenience, and of everything else, great and small, whenever these things defile the Truth. 

May my rebellion always be Just.