SCHMUCK ONTOGENESIS

As we peer from our crib, we see that monster-sized thing called "dada." Dada knows best, at least this is what we grow up to believe. He usually directs the family traffic because of the constant threat of his very large foot. As youngsters, we do whatever it takes to avoid getting a "lifter" from one of those feet. In fact, this practice was so common when I was young, that our high school principal was nicknamed "Foot Weber" due to this proclivity.

At an early age, our beliefs are molded relative to our responses following the threat of, or application of superior force. No one is taught to question dad no matter how objectively absurd we might consider his pronouncements to be. In fact, it is decidedly to our advantage not to question dad. Later on, we are subjected to our benevolent system of compulsory education (political indoctrination of the 'weez all be eekwalls' variety) where the people with the big feet are called teachers. Whether you get bashed on your knuckles with a ruler, as I often was, or threatened with low grades, one soon learns that might is right and going along brings decided advantages. The pressure does not end there.

Many of us are dragged off to other centers of intimidation and introduced to priests, ministers, and other icons of intellectual freedom whereby the threats take on a more nebulous form. We are threatened with some variety of heavenly rage for doing this or doing that and are told that we shall be denied the ultimate goal of life if we stray too far from the golden path. God is watching!

Overriding all of this, is the mental intimidation of "science" which is encroaching upon the domain of the religious sheep herders. We might be skeptical of the dictates of Father Conable but hell forbid our questioning of Dr. Strangelove, Barnaby Twat Ph.D., or Professor Emeritus Cyrus Peckerwhacker of the University of Scientific Science.

Since the whole society is geared in this manner, it is absolutely amazing that anyone retains any ability to think, which of course, would lead to politically incorrect questioning.

The authority of dad was trashed decades ago. Teachers were soon to follow and the religious are on the way out except for a few who manage to retain "flocks" (appropriately named) who are hoping to buy tickets to a future heavenly concert, or holocaust, as their personal taste requires.

Science had its origins in magic and tomfoolery. A few practitioners managed to toss in enough logic and reason to make it quasi-respectable. When science and its handmaiden technology managed to come up with a remote-controlled toilet seat, the world went gaga and developed another religion – the end-all of that set of seemingly endless beliefs. Science not only can, but will, solve everything which pops into the noodles of the wishful thinkers – so the advertisement goes. Question dad; question teachers; question priests; question the gods; question everything but never question science or the ranting of its many deranged spokesmen. If you are told that some things are older than the universe, then accept it. If you are told that "worm holes" connect one universe to another, then accept it. If you are told that "black holes" can swallow up everything including light, then accept it. (What happens when one black hole meets another black hole on a dark night?) If you are told that the bottom of a black hole contains an infinite number of "neutron clusters" with infinite mass and no dimension, then accept it. After all, you are no scientist and thus are not privy to the secrets of the scientific universe anymore than you were privy to God's secrets whereby you needed a middleman to tell you all about them.

If you are told that all dogs (Canis familiaris) "evolved," or are descended, from the wolf (Canis lupus), then accept it even though a fragment of time spent in a questioning contemplation would lead you to bewilderment. All dogs? Good grief, Greta, what do we have here?

Let's ponder this quote from a scientific source as it appeared in the latest edition of the encyclopedia Britannica: "It is difficult to imagine that a large Great Dane and a tiny poodle are of the same species, but they are genetically identical with the same anatomic features." Read that again! Difficult to imagine? You bet! Same species? Huh? Genetically identical? What's that? The great diversity of the dog group evolved from the non-diverse, one-species wolf? What?

The theory of evolution informs us that the wolf, for the sake of survival, evolved since it was no longer viable in a changing environment (the caribou went south to Miami Beach for the winter). Thus, the dog popped up after a myriad of intermediate forms which are conveniently neglected in the "gee whiz, ain't it amazing" discussion. If things went so poorly for the out-of-touch wolf, then how come it is still around? Did the environment do an about face? Or are we witnessing some Star Wars time-warp?

Since the coyote (Canis latrans) is very similar to the wolf, then why couldn't our dogs be descended from the coyote?

Each kind of dog has its own special behavioral patterns which accompany their obvious differences in appearance – just as with Homo the Sap. The German Shepherd runs while always having some foot on the ground. The Greyhound and Dalmatian run with a portion of their gaits having all four feet off the ground – all that cantor and gallop sort of thing. This leads me to wonder what odd mechanism was at work when the wolf evolved into a Dalmatian – spots and all. "Ah," said the Dachshund, "my ancestors were wolves." It all reminds me of Juan Chavez claiming to be a descendent of Norway's Eric the Red or Robert, the Bruce of Scotland. Let's see: "La Pucelle," (Joan of Arc; Jeanne d'Arc) evolved along the same "human" line as Genghis Khan and Bill Cosby. The next time some nitwit mentions "the human race," ask him when it starts and how much the tickets cost.

This evolutionary business has always been hilariously interesting. Animals, and plants, exhibit camouflage. The prey wants to be hidden so it won't be eaten. Predators which enjoy camouflage, have such because they are sneaks and don't want to be noticed by their prey until it's time for dinner. It seems that integration leads to something devouring something else.

Tigers have "evolved" stripes so they will blend in with the tall, coarse grass. Leopards have their spots which resemble stippled shadows. And so it goes. But what about predators who don't sneak about, hunt in the open and therefore have no need for camouflage? The African wild dogs (also known as Cape or Hyena hunting dogs) only hunt after masses of its prey notice them. There they stand: blotched yellow, black and white colors – for all to see. The evolutionists then quickly say "But, the colors evolved so that they would be noticed." Do you really mean that wildebeests are so removed from reality that they cannot tell a wild dog unless it is gaudily dressed?

The stripes on the zebra are "used" to confuse the lions who appear not to be confused when they tackle one. How often have you heard the poppycock that certain African antelopes leap, and "prong," so that they can show the pursuing lions how fit they are and that the lions should chase something else? (I wouldn't think it would be easy to change any hungry lion's mind.) I guess that the bounding, and twisting rabbits are communicating the same message to the eagle which is dropping in on them.

When we question the theory of evolution, we start to detect an odd aroma. Some things just don't make sense! Moreover, recent discoveries in cell biology have indicated the chemical impossibility of certain "evolutionary" jumps.

Spaced-out outer space physics is another batch of gobbledegook and most of it stinks also.

While contemplating the extremity of some protrusion in Einstein's rubber sheet time-warp silliness called a black hole, basket-case Steven Hawkins (now occupying Isaac Newton's Chair at Cambridge!) mentioned that "we" would have to develop a new physics just to understand the bottom of a black hole. Hey Stevie, how deep is a black hole anyway? The "stretch" of a black hole, like a condom being filled with water, apparently depends upon how much of the universe was "sucked" into it. Given enough time, nothing would be left except an infinite complex of black holes, occupying an infinite number of universes, which, by then, might just have turned grey due to age. When a snake tries to swallow its own tail, then what is the ultimate result? Oh well! That's astro-physics.

My hope it that the evolutionary nonsense of biology someday gets "sucked" into the nonsensical black hole of jewish physics.

A society can tolerate its quasars, quarks, quantums, queers and quacks, as long as they don't have political power. But alas, they do and that spells a lot of fun and games as we readily observe. The trend is not easily reversible, if at all. In fact, there is nothing which can be reversed without it first coming to a screeching halt. We are in the middle of a rebellion – a rebellion of the botched. Here in America, for every tiny increase in technology there is a corresponding, and greater, increase in social instability, dishonesty and incompetency. As our dwindling resources are poured into the flames of the ever-hungry, ingrate turd-world, one might ask how long this can continue. I don't know, but one thing is certain: there will never be an infinite number of people on this planet, not even in an infinite number of centuries. In Liberty Bell 1965, Dr. Revilo P. Oliver emphasized a maximum of 5 billion. One of my articles placed a tongue-in-cheek estimate at 30 billion. A few biology professors at R.P.I. claim 15 billion is the greatest number which can form a starvation bounded equilibrium.

On a TV science show this past week, I heard mentioned that the number of different combinations of adenine, guanine (purines), cytosine and thymine (pyrmidines) in a human chromosome is about 30 billion. (That's the AGCT/DNA business we've heard so much about.) What this means is that a population over 30 billion will have unrelated members which occur as identical twins, or clones. I find this amusing since I based my 30 billion on the ridiculous scenario of an earth containing only featherless bipeds and soy beans. Perhaps this is God's limit which I wandered into, or onto, depending upon which foot was involved.

The future will be an interesting turmoil. Some of us will come and some of us will go. The winds will blow here and the pigeons will crap there. Most things which go up, will come down. In other words, it will be life's cynical balderdash as usual. Some will enjoy it. Others will not. But that's life! In the middle of its confusion, I do hope that all of you take the time to examine those scientific pills carefully before you consider swallowing them. That's what an Aryan brain is supposed to be about, isn't it?

Robert Frenz

9 April 1998