Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Did the Watchers have any real choice in their approach to their problem? Part 4 of ?
Those who read here regularly will know that, except for an
oblique reference or two recently at the other shop, I really last looked at
the, how can one describe them, the master magician logisticians of the
centrifugal dynamic, seeded into the world by those called the Watchers and….
……By some serendipitous synchronicity just as I fingered
them out here in
Northerntruthseeker fired up, which I parked out here in
Apiru clue? Unfortunately the original blog is gone really!!!!, thankfully NTS has saved
part of the detail here, at the part about Menorah and donkey dicks .
So what comes next, started over at the other shop,
though the remainder in this house
stands independent of that blog, is for your delectation.
The Apiru, conveniently obscure and hidden from recorded
history. I would posit that that is what you would expect them to be, that our
given history would keep them, the important, the key, occulted, in camera,
though their principals would know exactly who they were and where they were on
the mission, the great enterprise.
We have two groups here, one invisible in the crypt(Watchers
and/or their divine stewards), one out on the trail(Apiru, the dusty red, donkey
drivers). This is the kernel of the system to steal the world by divine
instigation disguised as monoheathenism, AKA monotheism.
There is one big problem with my thesis; that this system
carries on to this day after 10,000 years or so. I know you are thinking about
it as well. How do they keep the lineal continuity going? The unbroken lineage.
Well this is where we come to something that I started to
bang on about more recently. What is it that we’ve been misdirected about that
could explain their peculiar breeding habits, what are we being gently nudged
away from that could help explain their multi-kulti-millennial continuity?
Lamarckian selection. Which I last touched on at Archons,Archetypes and Arch Angels. Part 3 of ?
A little resumé of Lamarck then.
“"Do we not therefore perceive that by the action of
the laws of organization . . . nature has in favorable times, places, and
climates multiplied her first germs of animality, given place to developments
of their organizations, . . . and increased and diversified their organs? Then.
. . aided by much time and by a slow but constant diversity of circumstances,
she has gradually brought about in this respect the state of things which we
now observe. How grand is this consideration, and especially how remote is it
from all that is generally thought on this subject!"
Text of a lecture given by Lamarck at the Musée National
d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris ,
May 1803
Lamarck's scientific theories were largely ignored or
attacked during his lifetime; Lamarck never won the acceptance and esteem of
his colleagues Buffon and Cuvier, and he died
in poverty and obscurity. Today, the name of Lamarck is associated merely with
a discredited theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired
traits." However, Charles Darwin, Lyell,Haeckel, and other
early evolutionists acknowledged him as a great zoologist and as a forerunner
of evolution. Charles Darwin wrote in 1861:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject
excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his
views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to
the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic
world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition.
Who was this man, and why did he inspire such conflicting
attitudes?
Biography of Lamarck
Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck
was born on August 1, 1744, in the village
of Bazentin-le-Petit in the north of France .
He was the youngest of eleven children in a family with a centuries-old
tradition of military service; his father and several of his brothers were
soldiers. The young Lamarck entered the Jesuit seminary at Amiens
around 1756, but not long after his father's death, Lamarck rode off to join
the French army campaigning in Germany
in the summer of 1761; in his first battle, he distinguished himself for
bravery under fire and was promoted to officer. After peace was declared in
1763, Lamarck spent five years on garrison duty in the south of France , until
an accidental injury forced him to leave the army. After working as a bank
clerk in Paris
for a while, Lamarck began to study medicine and botany, at which he rapidly
became expert; in 1778 his book on the plants of France, Flore
Française, was published to great acclaim, in part thanks to the support
of Buffon.
On the strength of the Flore Française (and
Buffon's patronage), Lamarck was appointed an assistant botanist at the royal
botanical garden, the Jardin des Plantes, which was not only a botanical garden
but a center for medical education and biological research. Aside from a stint
as tutor to Buffon's son during a tour of Europe in 1781, Lamarck continued as
an underpaid assistant at the Jardin du Roi, living in poverty (and having to
defend his job from cost-cutting bureaucrats in the National Assembly) until
1793. That year, the same year that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette went to the
guillotine, the old Jardin des Plantes was reorganized as the Musée National
d'Histoire Naturelle (National Museum of Natural History), which was to be run
by twelve professors in twelve different scientific fields. Lamarck, who had
called for this reorganization, was appointed a professor -- of the natural
history of insects and worms (that is, of all invertebrates), a subject he knew
nothing about.
To be fair to Lamarck, we should mention that since the time
of Linnaeus,
few naturalists had considered the invertebrates worthy of study. The word
"invertebrates" did not even exist at the time; Lamarck coined it.
The invertebrate collections at the Musée were enormous and rapidly growing,
but poorly organized and classified. Although the professors at the Musée were
theoretically equal in rank, the professorship of "insects and worms"
was definitely the least prestigious. But Lamarck took on the enormous
challenge of learning -- and creating -- a new field of biology. The sheer
number and diversity of invertebrates proved to be both a challenge and a rich
source of knowledge. As Lamarck lectured his students in 1803, after ten years
of research on invertebrates:
. . . we perceive that, relative to the animal kingdom, we
should chiefly devote our attention to the invertebrate animals, because their
enormous multiplicity in nature, the singular diversity of their systems of
organization, and of their means of multiplication, . . . , show us, much
better than the higher animals, the true course of nature, and the means which
she has used and which she still unceasingly employs to give existence to all
the living bodies of which we have knowledge.
Lamarck published a series of books on invertebrate zoology
and paleontology. Of these, Philosophie zoologique, published in 1809,
most clearly states Lamarck's theories of evolution. The first volume
of Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans vertèbres was published in
1815, the second in 1822. Aside from Lamarck's contributions to evolutionary
theory, his works on invertebrates represent a great advance over existing
classifications; he was the first to separate the Crustacea, Arachnida,
and Annelida from
the "Insecta." His classification of the mollusks was far in advance
of anything proposed previously; Lamarck broke with tradition in removing
the tunicates and
the barnacles from the Mollusca. He
also anticipated the work of Schleiden & Schwann in cell theory in stating
that:
. . . no body can have life if its constituent parts are not
cellular tissue or are not formed by cellular tissue.
Lamarck even found time to write papers on physics and
meteorology, including some annual compilations of weather data.
But Lamarck's works never became popular during his
lifetime, and Lamarck never won the respect or prestige enjoyed by his patron
Buffon or his colleague Cuvier. While
Cuvier respected Lamarck's work on invertebrates, he had no use for Lamarck's
theory of evolution, and he used his influence to discredit it. Most of
Lamarck's life was a constant struggle against poverty; to make matters worse,
he began to lose his sight around 1818, and spent his last years completely
blind, cared for by his devoted daughters (he had been married four times).
When he died, on December 28, 1829, he received a poor man's funeral (although
his colleague Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire gave one of the orations) and was buried in a rented
grave; after five years his body was removed, and no one now knows where his
remains are.
Lamarck's Scientific Thought
Beginning in 1801, Lamarck began to publish details of his
evolutionary theories.
Where men like Buffon had hinted at the possibility of
evolutionary change, Lamarck declared it forthrightly. In 1801 he wrote:
. . . time and favorable conditions are
the two principal means which nature has employed in giving existence to all
her productions. We know that for her time has no limit, and that consequently
she always has it at her disposal.
What was the mechanism for evolution? "Lamarckism"
or "Lamarckianism" is now often used in a rather derogatory sense to
refer to the theory that acquired traits can be inherited. What Lamarck
actually believed was more complex: organisms are not passively altered by
their environment, as his colleague Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire thought.
Instead, a change in the environment causes changes in the needs of organisms
living in that environment, which in turn causes changes in their behavior.
Altered behavior leads to greater or lesser use of a given structure or organ;
use would cause the structure to increase in size over several generations,
whereas disuse would cause it to shrink or even disappear. This rule -- that
use or disuse causes structures to enlarge or shrink -- Lamarck called the
"First Law" in his book Philosophie zoologique. Lamarck's
"Second Law" stated that all such changes were heritable. The result
of these laws was the continuous, gradual change of all organisms, as they
became adapted to their environments; the physiological needs of organisms,
created by their interactions with the environment, drive Lamarckian evolution.
While the mechanism of Lamarckian evolution is quite
different from that proposed by Darwin ,
the predicted result is the same: adaptive change in lineages, ultimately
driven by environmental change, over long periods of time. It is interesting to
note that Lamarck cited in support of his theory of evolution many of the same
lines of evidence that Darwin
was to use in the Origin of Species. Lamarck's Philosophie
zoologique mentions the great variety of animal and plant forms produced
under human cultivation (Lamarck even anticipated Darwin in mentioning fantail pigeons!); the
presence of vestigial, non-functional structures in many animals; and the
presence of embryonic structures that have no counterpart in the adult. Like
Darwin and later evolutionary biologists, Lamarck argued that the Earth was
immensely old. Lamarck even mentions the possibility of natural selection in
his writings, although he never seems to have attached much importance to this
idea.
It is even more interesting to note that, although Darwin tried to refute the
Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance, he later admitted that the heritable
effects of use and disuse might be important in evolution. In the Origin
of Species he wrote that the vestigial eyes of moles and of cave-dwelling
animals are "probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided
perhaps by natural selection." Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the
sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has
now been largely abandoned -- but until the rediscovery of Mendel's laws at the
beginning of the twentieth century, no one understood the mechanisms of
heredity, and Lamarckian inheritance was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
Several other scientists of the day, including Erasmus Darwin,
subscribed to the theory of use and disuse -- in fact, Erasmus Darwin's
evolutionary theory is so close to Lamarck's in many respects that it is
surprising that, as far as is known now, the two men were unaware of each
other's work.
In several other respects, the theory of Lamarck differs
from modern evolutionary theory. Lamarck viewed evolution as a process of
increasing complexity and "perfection," not driven by chance; as he
wrote in Philosophie zoologique, "Nature, in producing in succession
every species of animal, and beginning with the least perfect or simplest to
end her work with the most perfect, has gradually complicated their
structure." Lamarck did not believe in extinction: for him, species that
disappeared did so because they evolved into different species. If this goes on
for too long, it would mean the disappearance of less "perfect"
organisms; Lamarck had to postulate that simple organisms, such as protists, were
constantly being spontaneously generated. Yet despite these differences,
Lamarck made a major contribution to evolutionarythought, developing a theory
that paralleled Darwin 's
in many respects. Rediscovered in the middle part of the 19th century, his
theories finally gained the attention they merited. His mechanism of evolution
remained a popular alternative to Darwinian selection until the beginning of
the 20th century; prominent scientists like Edward Drinker Cope adopted
Lamarckianism and tried to apply it to their work. Though his proposed
mechanism eventually fell out of favor, he broke ground in establishing the
fact of evolution.” Source
The current state of Darwinian natural selection, indeed the
given paradigm, is always studying the lower forms of life with the hidden
agenda of brain washing the human herd into believing that we are nothing more
than lowing live stock. All backed up with a massive psyop called man made
global warming/cooling/whatever fits.
Now the bit in the above quotation that interests me is this
line.
“Lamarck viewed evolution as a process of increasing
complexity and "perfection," not driven by chance; as he wrote
in Philosophie zoologique, "Nature, in producing in succession every
species of animal, and beginning with the least perfect or simplest to end her
work with the most perfect, has gradually complicated their structure."”
Did you see that bit, “not driven by chance”?
Now then, let us reverse the usual Darwinian perspective
which is nature applied to animals and replace nature with Watchers and animal
with humans. So Watchers applied to humans, a closed system, within an open
Darwinian system.
Note that the closed system is now a higher system with
human beings raised way above all other animals, the opposite of the Darwinian
mindfuck for the rest of humanity.
What advantages does the Lamarckian system give to those
benefitting from this approach to selection? As a corollary of getting away
from the animals we shall focus on one of the great secrets which falls out
from this view. We are abandoning the corpus here; we are focussed on mens et
spiritus.
Well let me list the things that the Watchers required from
this system, which is at work to this very day, as an unbroken chain. Though we
are required to believe there are “Dark Ages”. For you and me all those
centuries ago, perhaps, but the bitchboys in charge lived it up elsewhere. The
are distributed at vast cost to themselves.
There has never been a dark age. Only engineered lights out.
They haremed it up elsewhere when our gold and silver had been slaved out.
Slaving?
I’ll bet you do not have a clue.
Do U?
Do you really think that ARPANET is new? The wetware?
The red, dusty, donkey drivers did it all and more millennia
ago.
APIRU. TBC
Sunday, 5 August 2012
A real sparker from MT.
As I remarked at the other shop, rather flippantly, but
certainly entertaining the idea,
The full nine yards are required of course.
Friday, 3 August 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
