by Robert Frenz

10 August 2000

The Theory of Evolution is just that – a theory. A theory is a system of ASSUMPTIONS, ACCEPTED principles with a set of rules used to predict or explain some phenomena which is PERCEPTIBLE to the SENSES.

An assumption is something which is taken WITHOUT PROOF.

Accepted means that whatever is under consideration, there exists a batch of hairless apes which all nod their heads in approval. It has nothing to do with truth although on rare occasions, it does happen.

If you do not know what perceptible to the senses means, then drop an anvil on your foot. Your senses will not ignore the event.

If, at this point, you cannot accept the fact that a theory may or may not be related to fact, then study the preceding before continuing. Theories, over the past, have shown a remarkable preference for hot air which seems to be desirable by those who are offended by fresh air.

Evolution is an achieving process which takes place SLOWLY. You must remember this. On the very rare occasions where a mutant springs upon the scene it is not to be considered part of any slow process.

The Theory of Evolution does not represent fact. Otherwise it would not be a theory. Since it is not fact, then it is at bottom an opinion. With opinions, we may agree or disagree for only factual statements can be graded true or false.

The question is then: Who is closer to truth, those who agree with the theory or those, such as myself, who think it is about as valid as Spielberg's laughable docudramas concerning World War II?

Insane people are often quite energetic in pursuing whatever tickles their fancy. Charles Manson, like Jack the Ripper, didn't just hang around the park feeding the pigeons. Charles Darwin was a very busy man. He discovered what anyone with a brain could have noticed if he shouted, "The first person here will get this brand new $100 bill!" The best adapted at running, tripping others and smashing competitors in the mouth, will grab the cash. A farm boy would also notice the phenomena when the pig trough is filled – something like watching women at an underwear sale. The best adapted are called the "fittest" and the selection is quite natural. Really, did your need old man Darwin to tell you something about the survival of the fittest?“

Evolution will not occur if a system is at equilibrium. Some condition must be introduced – usually a change in the food supply or in the protection needed to prevent the possibility of being eaten – so that the weaker end of the spectrum can no longer have a part of what is in the slop trough for eating is a requirement for living. The weak drop dead and the "fittest" are left to breed thus raising the average ability to keep other hogs from the trough. If the food supply remains constant – which never stays that way for long – we should see an unending improvement in the group. This doesn't happen. (One can readily notice the ample food supply of the Americans but biologically, they are on a rapid downward path.)

The cheetah has to run like hell to catch the very fast and nimble gazelle. The fastest cheetahs catch the slowest gazelles which raise the average running ability of the gazelle population. Since the gazelles can now run faster, the slow cheetahs die and the cheetah group begins to run faster. Thus, both cheetah and gazelle "evolve" – towards the speed of light, I presume – due to this leap-frogging natural selection process. But, we have only considered the ADULT gazelles. Adults just don't pop onto the scene like another batch of gas chamber survivors with extortion on their mind. Herbivores – those who get eaten – have never shown any strong desire to provide protection for each other. They are somewhat like the typical American. Immature gazelles have always been fairly easy pickings and here we might find a reason why cheetahs are not running at the speed of light. If the gazelles really responded to Darwin's fittest notion, somewhere during the past thousands of years, gazelles might have discovered that banding together would have slowed down their mortality rate.

The giraffe evolved a very long neck in order to reach the high branches. Right? For some odd reason, they ignored the shrubs and grass which browsers and grazers make use of and they all live in the same neighborhood. But why the giraffe? Is there something in the hereditary makeup of antelope which prevents them from evolving long necks? If so, then what does this do to the Darwin's theory? He claimed "All species are not immutable." Now, the juvenile giraffe could not reach the highest branches and so it must have eaten the lower ones. Did mama giraffe studiously avoid these so as to provide a food supply for her young? Since the adult was more fit than the young, then why didn't they eat the lower branches and evolve shorter necks?

The part about life evolving from some primordial sea soup is an even harder cud to chew. Essentially, what we know about the sea is that teeny weeny isty bitsy things are the basis of the much touted "food chain". Big things eat little things and bigger bigger things eat that which just ate smaller things. It's just a happy circle jerk so I ask what might have happened to upset this party and cause SOME critters to seek adventure on land? Let's suppose that the New York Times told them that if they deserted their sea home they'd find oodles of lox and bagels on land.

Evolution is a SLOW process. How do gills, for example, SLOWLY evolve into lungs? Surely, there must have been 6,000,000 "things" who had part-gills and part-lungs. If one had 10 percent lung and 90 percent gill, could it still survive underwater? If you say 'yes', then why wouldn't gills evolve to becoming smaller since 10 percent wasn't needed? We are told time and time again, in biology class, about all of those "vestigial structures" which are on their way out from lack of use. If the 10 percent lung critter couldn't make out in the ocean why do you think 10 percent lung would make it on land? Come to think of it, perhaps there is some validity to the vestigial structure theory as evidenced in the average American relative to his brain.

To top all of this asylum babble about evolution from sea to land, we are also told that SOME land critters de-evolved to live in the sea. Again we are left with the problem of whales, sea snakes and dolphins living in the sea with lungs. They certainly would be more successful if they didn't have to interrupt their meals by racing back to the surface for air. I was never told how long it would take a whale to evolve the obviously more underwater efficient gills.

Darwin used the term 'species' which is a category of lifeforms revealing common attributes. He chose attributes which fit his theory. All scientists do. That's why they think they are so smart. On the Galapagos Islands, Darwin classified several species of finch, some of which cannot be distinguished by eye alone – they are not perceptible to the senses. The reason for different species categorization hinged upon as little as what food they ate. Yet, those indoctrination centers we call "schools" push the idea that Black people and White people belong to the same species in spite of the massive differences our SENSES reveal to us. To make this Red propaganda more ludicrous, innocent minds are being filled with this sheep dung to the extent that White people EVOLVED from Black people by the simple expedient of wandering away from Africa to Europe. The Asians who wandered from mainland Asia to North America, where the climate was similar to Europe's, failed to "evolve" into White people. Odd, don't you think? Or don't you think at all anymore?

When was the last time you saw a bird nursing its young? Birds, in the classification arena, precede mammals. Mammals evolved from birds, so the theory goes. The process was slow, since it was evolutionary. Parent bird catches something and then brings it home to junior. Junior has the same menu as papa and mama. Wasn't that nifty? It sure beats wearing tits and being bothered by all of that bumping and sucking. Somewhere in this maze of fantasy, some birds apparently were coaxed by powers yet to be discovered, that having mammary glands would increase family values. If mammary glands were such a great improvement then why would birds also evolve to lose their feathers; give up egg laying and have their wings sprout toes – all at the same time? Whatever it was which evolved from bird to mammal, doesn't it seem logical that there must have been thousands of intermediate forms to bless us with their fossil remains? Where are their bones? Furthermore: Which particular bird evolved into which particular mammal? A swan to a moose, perhaps?

What, pray tell, was the mysterious procedure whereby sharks stayed sharks for aeons while the relatives of the porpoise left the sea, "evolved" again, and returned to the water? What mysterious process caused the evolution of cold-blooded critters into warm-blooded critters? If being cold-blooded is such a survival drag, then why are so many lizards, fish and frogs still running about all over the planet?

Now consider how critters with external skeletons, such as insects, evolved into critters with internal skeletons. How did that skeleton slowly migrate from the outside to the inside? Suppose the skeleton got stuck half-way? The critter would then have the best of both worlds like the bisexual perverts of today.

The existence of b.s. is not surprising. What is surprising is that so very few people ever bother to question it. They take whatever ZOG dishes out and accept it as truth when they should be asking themselves, cui bono?

It is easy to make a brain dysfunctional by presenting the individual with propaganda which conflicts with their God-given senses and perceptions. This is the case today relative to the young. A very large percentage of our young people have been deliberately brain-washed to the extent that they can no longer act in their own best interest. The insane body mutilations and mindless gyrations and screeching at drug concerts give evidence of this. Suicides are at an all-time high and debased and degenerate activities, such as race mixing and faggotry, are promoted. Cui bono? Not the young. Not anyone except that gang of evil people hell-bent upon world Red domination and the ONLY people who stand in their way are self-sufficient people proud to be White.

If you remain tolerant of the termites, your house will assuredly fall. If I could only have one prayer that would be answered, it would be this: Wake up, before the gate slams shut!

Also read Eric Thomson's Darwinism: Another Unwieldy Tool of the ZOG.