Omni:Is Darwinian evolution true

Category

Other Religions

Question

Is Darwinian evolution true?

Source(s)

Eugenics, Evolution, Spirituality

Author

HP. Hoodedcobra666

URL

https://ancient-forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=65306#p65306

Content

Darwin's opinion on the subject of evolution is a specific one [he arrayed this theory], but this does not invalidate the greater reality of evolution around the universe, or nature and reality itself. For whatever reason, everyone has only accepted and was forcefed the "Darwinian" take on the said evolution, which is coarse, slow, and limited, but has some actually valid points in it, which are based in nature, which in turns make it partially appealing.

It is just not valid in the time spectrum and understanding we now do possess. Lifeforms 'evolve' or 'spring out' naturally, as microbes or other types of life that simply 'results' when the certain conditions to a specific form of life arise. They also likewise evolve, as this is a natural process.

What was done here is take this greater general concept, and apply it to human beings, a lifeform which is quite advanced (But was not understood as such in the latest centuries scientifically) and try to enforce this brutally on humans as well, a species of life which seems to be a bit more ahead than quite a few other species, and also a species which has heightened (But rejected to the general public) abilities to actually facilitate and control it's own evolution.

One example the dumbest and the most ignorant here on our time and era can understand for the sake of argument, is the ever rising tide of genetic augmentation, or DNA alteration. Primates do not possess this technology, nor do fish. Therefore by default, we have a different relation to evolution than other species.

In the case of Whites, it doesn't even stand, and it appears to not stand in general to humanity as a whole as well. We did not evolve from apes in Africa, and there is no substantial evidence to prove that we actually did. All our ancient cultures were based on the fact we were what is today called 'genetically engineered' and came from another planetary systems, by beings that descended to evolve and give birth to us.

The fact that we were genetically engineered by ET's is really something we knew for a very long historical 'while'. The situation is access to that knowledge is only a recent phenomenon, of the 20th and 21st century, as prior to that, the Jewtrix has kept us completely oblivious to the fact of our own origins. The Sumerian epic is essentially this type of procedure of us being created by aliens or extra terrestrials, who did what we know today to be Genetic Engineering. When the Gods came here, they found species on this planet. Progressively, man was created.

[...]

And yes, we are still 'evolving', and 'de-evolving', or rather, advancing or dwindling, but not in the Darwinian sense of the term 'evolving', which rules out that other ways towards evolution do actually exist, one of which ways, meditation, which is something in India the yogis know for thousands of years now. Darwin's time scale theories are also extremely bunk.

It's also known to them if things are left in chance, we take steps in an excruciatingly slow manner, with an emphasis on deterioration, but meditation actually helps us advance. We might as well call this process "evolution" or "acceleration" of this process. On our own, nothing like that really happens.

The fact that the National Socialists did not buy the Darwinian theories as influenced by Eugenics is simple, it's the fact they tried to generate through atavism the higher types that existed before, by breeding specific Nordic Aryan individuals.

From Darwin's standpoint this would be a joke and pseudoscience, but the National Socialists knew better here than to follow this theory, which says that no matter how or what one breeds, one is still left with the prior stock, without many opportunities for sudden or great development. Also, according to this theory of Darwin, it doesn't matter what we do or do not do, as our influence on this process is really minimal and decided solely by nature.

Darwin would get into a coma if Himmler told him he was trying to reverse engineer clearer Nordic types of people, who would in a few generations time, resemble the Gods more and more in all respects. This process is to be coupled by spiritual processes which the SS was already developing. Indeed, this is nothing strange here than what it was in let's say the Vedic or Aryan Hindu times with the so called 'higher upper class' which was essentially aristocratic, or let's say simply the best and most qualified beings in regards to plentiful and quality life and existence.

[...]

Darwin has went through many misconceptions of his own theories by loosely studied people, such as people linking him with the theory of "Survival of the Fittest". However, Darwin didn't really say "Fittest" as in most intelligent or anything like that, "The Best", but in the most prolific in regards to birth. Ie, those who are the 'fittest' as those who can reproduce, and that's it.

This has nothing to do with the quality of said species. Cockroaches can be considered "Fittest" in their survival, as they reproduce at alarming rates. The rate of production of a species in regards to it's existential quality may even be reversed, as the stupidest and those on the general lower level of any so called 'desirable qualities' do prolifically procreate, while others do not. By Darwinian theory these people would be the "Fittest", while those who are let's say the aristocratic, or exceptional birth, would be lows.

Our conception of Darwin was from the first time literally reversed. For example, when we said fittest (or when the 20th century thinkers said "Fittest") they really meant the most advanced or most evolved, aka, the bottom of the Darwinian ladder, ironically. The jew for example, is the "Fittest" in the environment of usury, or in deceiving stupid people, on a civilization scale.

As from a natural scale, a scale or abilities, or inherent value of life, one can argue they are closer to bacteria, or parasitic viruses.

[...]