Thursday, September 8, 2016

False Prophet Reboot

“We'll find out who is the real revolutionary; I don't want my people to be tricked...”
~ Bob Marley, from his song “Zimbabwe”

"False messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect."
 ~ Matthew 24:24

(last updated April 7th, 2017)

What does a modern-day ex-satanist turned into "revolutionary" (Mark Passio) and an ancient ex-Christian-bounty-hunter turned into "apostle" (Paul of the Bible) have in common?  Both, I believe, never really left their pastimes as they appeared to, both I believe are actually false prophets of the same fundamental deceptive mold; I will explain why here, starting with Mr. Passio.

 Some of you may be familiar with the work of Mark Passio, and perhaps even because of me recommending his podcasts and presentations in the past.  His latest presentation however, at the 4th Free Your Mind Conference, I definitely don't recommend.  The main topic of the presentation is "Neo-Feminism," but, as I will explain, that issue was just used as a vehicle to transmit some other very toxic ideas.  At first I was hesitant to fully acknowledge what became apparent in that presentation, but now, after watching both parts of it and contemplating such major, ridiculous and destructive flaws, flaws that are contrary to everything he supposedly stands for, I feel a responsibility to point out what apparently many others are overlooking (but understandably so, since what has occurred is very deceptive).  Mark claims to be an ex-satanist and ex-statist, but content in this presentation clearly supports both satanism and statism, clear that is if you have ears to hear it and eyes to see it, not blinded by admiration for his previous good work.  That previous good work I now see was just a set-up for this latest garbage, just the "bait" to lead many good-hearted people to this toxic "switch."  I do not say this lightly on a whim or a guess, I am 100% certain that this latest presentation is statist/satanic propaganda, because the content is undeniably so, when looked at objectively and nontangentially.  I know what it's like to be slandered without cause and so never want to do the same to anyone else; as I will demonstrate, that's definitely not what I'm doing here, what I'm doing is just pointing out the truth of what he actually said and showed in his presentation.

My posted comment on the youtube page to Part 1 of the presentation was almost immediately attacked by "trolls" that totally ignored my points, repeatedly, even after I kept pointing out they were ignoring my points.  They also engaged in other classic toxic behavior, like projection of one's own negative qualities onto another person, in this case their negative qualities onto me.  A follow-up supporter troll even came to congratulate the other troll on how well he did in debating me, which is absurd, since I clearly pointed out the lies, irrationality and immorality of the comments, repeatedly; my points were never actually refuted, and they were never actually even acknowledged, undoubtedly because there is no good counter-argument to them, so from their perspective it's better to distract others from them by attacking me personally.  So here's Part 1 if you want to see this propagandistic presentation for yourself, or you can just read on to my first comment on it here:

"Some very good content here on the divide & conquer strategies of the ruling class, but the presentation is corrupted by some major flaws:

1) Mark said we are the authors of our genetic code, which is very close to saying that we're the Creator, which, ironically, is a satanic mindset/desire. Yes I know the epi-genetic context in which he said that, but without clarifying the huge difference between having an influence on our genes and being the AUTHOR of them, he is actually playing into an anti-God tenant of satanism. (He used all-caps just like that in his presentation to emphasize our "authorship" of the human body).  Speaking of God...

2) Mark makes no mention of God whatsoever, and also misleadingly says that the supposed Anunaki are the creators of humanity, not clarifying whether we were first created by God and then had our genetics messed with by some other beings, who were also created by God.  So, more anti-God content, i.e. satanism, by this supposedly anti-satanism speaker.

3) Mark discounts the possibility that Satan is an actual intelligent spiritual being that directly influences human consciousness, by stating that most satanists don't believe in Satan as a spiritual being.  First of all, what poll of satanists is this assertion based on?  Secondly, by not even giving mention of the possibility that Satan is a wholly-evil spiritual being that actually exists (I and many others, from Christian to satanist, believe he definitely does), Mark is actually serving the Devil, since the “greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing people he doesn't exist.”  And why would Satan want help in pulling such a trick?  Obviously because he can then more easily do his work, without being recognized and rejected.  So some pro-Satan content to add to the anti-God content, making for a hat-trick of satanic propaganda.

Promoting anarchism [and other good things in his previous work] is good, but if you are actually supporting the root of the evil, “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places,” then what good is it really?  Striking at the branches of evil, but not the root, doesn't actually serve humanity.  Whether these blunders, like naming his rock band "The Founders" after the statist/slave-master/dark-occultist “Founding Fathers,” is innocent or not, I don't know.  What I do know is that this combining of crucial truth with disempowering lies (to make the lies more “digestible”), as found in this presentation, is exactly the form real propaganda takes, coincidence or not. 

Things actually got worse in Part 2, wherein he amazingly said that we need to think like psychopaths/pedophiles/satanists in order to resist them, and that every parent should read the Satanic Bible and the Satanic Witch books if they care about their children!  Thinking like a psychopath/pedophile/satanist is absolutely not necessary in order to reject the craziness and evil of that mindset properly, this idea that it's necessary is itself satanic!  The last thing you want to do is entertain such thoughts in your mind, to do so is serving the Devil, not resisting him!  It's inviting evil into your mind and heart, and the results can be disastrous, mentally and spiritually.  Reading these Satanic texts, as he strongly encourages us all to do, is, like all toxic ideas, a combination of irrationality, falsehood, and immorality; to think you will somehow be more effective in fighting evil in the world by reading satanic literature is complete nonsense; all you need to know is what evil is so you can reject it, you don't need to participate in it and get into the disgusting details of the mindset in order to do that; in fact delving into disgusting details, especially to the point of identifying with the perspective, does the opposite, it just disturbs your mind, making you a less effective revolutionary for the Good.  His supposed "solution" to the problem of the "battle of the sexes," a battle that only exists because of disturbed minds, is to read Satanic texts and to even think from the perspective of a psychopath, which will result in disturbing your mind, so, his "solution" is actually just serving more of the problem, in classic propagandist fashion.  This is made evident too by other comments people made on the video saying things like "Yes, women do that!" etc., which shows the presentation wasn't encouraging reconciliation, but just further discord. So when the content of his presentation actually furthers discord in the minds of those watching it, and furthers the very problems that the presenter is supposedly against, we have big red flags for propaganda in operation.

Also in part 2 he says there is no such thing as human nature, and we're just "programmable beings;" this is false and actually satanic as well (satanists don't believe in the inherent goodness of humans).  The truth is we are made in the image of God with a godly conscience, that is covered up by behavior corrupted by belief in various lies that sabotage our natural loving nature.  Mark makes children out to be mere androids that need programming, for the good or the bad, before they demonstrate either.  Yet children certainly have a good nature before being "programmed" to be good or bad.  He goes nowhere near the crucial truth that it is belief in various lies that corrupts our behavior, behavior that would otherwise be naturally good, because human nature is good; and so, here he just delivers another subliminal satanic message to those watching his presentation.

And as for his supposed support of anarchism/freedom, he put an image of Mel Gibson as "The Patriot" holding the colonial flag on the slide on "good parenting," and referred to himself as a real American patriot in his presentation as well; do I even need to explain why that's a ridiculously statist thing for a so-called anarchist to do and say?  He finishes with more statist perspective talking about one "American" (himself) talking to another "American" about why the hoodie he was wearing, with a picture of a snake on it that he says symbolizes defending "our" country, is actually legit... statism is not legit, something Mark actually said in his previous podcasts/presentations, but now completely contradicts; there is no half-way with this, someone can rationalize his patriotism anyway they like, but that doesn't change it from being statist/toxic.

Again, like with Part 1, these are not at all minor flaws, they're majorly misleading and destructive flaws that actually support division of the sexes, statism/patriotism, and satanism for God's sake!  This is exactly what thoughts/ideas from the Devil always do (as you can verify for yourself if you pay attention): the exact opposite of the good they try and convince you they will do.

If you ignore all my points here and just focus on the good parts in his presentation and from his previous work, you're ignoring how propaganda is formulated and works (toxic lies sandwiched in with truth).  I won't be surprised if my comments on Part 2 get "trolled" in like fashion to my Part 1 comments, but hopefully some decent people reading this will see the validity of my points, and not let this "ex" satanist mislead them and their loved ones.

Like with my previous Front-Line Thought post on the false prophet of the "wise alien" with his statist/satanic message to mankind, Mark Passio follows suit as another false prophet, following the same short Devil's playbook that he's apparently a slave to.  Speaking of that short playbook that gets used over and over, very interestingly to me as I was evaluating the work of Passio I was doing the same with the "Apostle" Paul, and more and more I realized how similar they were:
  1. Both were active in anti-Christ activity (Passio being a Satanist, and Paul being a Roman bounty-hunter/persecutor of Christians) prior to their "change of heart."
  2. Both then began to share extremely crucial truths, but also extremely destructive/misleading lies (e.g. "Satan doesn't exist" with Passio, and "Inherited Sin" with Paul) that override their truth telling, making their overall influence evil.  Remember, anti-Christs are prophesized to deceive many, and the only way they could do that is if they speak truth along with their lies.
  3. Both talk about themselves a lot, even though they claim to be humble servants of truth and righteousness.  Egoic thinking seems to be unavoidable for those wrapped up in doing evil, and both stand out as loving to talk about themselves (Passio in interviews, Paul in his letters).
  4. Both avoid discussing the teachings of Jesus directly, which also just so happens to be a prophesied defining characteristic of Antichrists.
I will discuss Paul's writing further in an upcoming post, and leave it here for now with some closing thoughts for those who mislead so many people that actually do care; I could speak more harshly about them but won't, for vengeance is rightly God's work, not man's:
"'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.'" 
"'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.'" 
(Leviticus 19:18 & Deuteronomy 32:35)

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Fascist Foo Fighters

foo fighter; n.: unidentified flying object (UFO)

[updated September 7th, 2016]

Let's say, even just hypothetically for argument's sake, that there are fascists in the world who engineer crisis situations so their proposed "solutions" (that increase their wealth and power), can be pushed on the public.  Guess what would be a perfect scenario for consolidating their power at a global level previously unheard of?  An alien invasion.  And the aliens could come as enemies, or "friends;" either way could be utilized for the same purpose, either way could utilize the classic problem/reaction/solution dynamic/dialectic, it's jut a matter of whether they use the already-existing problem of the global environmental/health crisis they largely created, or use a new problem of aggressive "aliens."  The reaction is the same for both (mainly anger/fear/discontent), and the solution would be the same too, namely some rehashed form of fascism/communism.

Did a UFO really did crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and the technology has since been reversed engineered?  Or was that just a psy-op to prepare the public for an even grander later psy-op?

Following several mass deceptions concerning terrorism, could there be another even bigger engineered crisis/deception, similar to the "War of The Worlds" book/movie?  Could UFO's (that are really top secret military aircraft, possibly reverse engineered from real UFO's) appear and shoot powerful lasers (that the military already admits they have), and then the solution to this global crisis will be a global government, in keeping with the aforementioned ever persistent fascist agenda?  Or will they come as "saviors," that will facilitate a fascist/communist restructuring of society "for our own good?"

Here's a very interesting quote attributed to Henry Kissinger (former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, as well as the G.W. Bush Administration's first choice to direct the 9/11 Commission, a position later rejected for concern that it would be perceived as a conflict of interest):
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order.  Tomorrow they will be grateful.  This is especially true if they were told there’s an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence.  It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil.  The one thing every man fears is the unknown.  When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."

And these from Ronald Reagan:

"... when you stop to think that we're all God's children, wherever we may live in the world, I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."
- White House transcript of "Remarks of the President to Fallston High School Students and Faculty," December 4, 1985
"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."
- Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd General Assembly, September 21, 1987

Keeping all this in mind, I find it very curious that lately there has been more talk of an imminent "revelation" of aliens visiting the Earth, for example, this "transmission" from the "humans are free" (we're definitely not currently free) website-->

The important take-away from that post is the statement that "our destiny is fraternity." Fraternity is just a code word for collectivism/communism, i.e. the complete elimination of the sovereignty of the individual. 

And what exactly does "the safeguarding of fraternal equilibrium" mean?  Control, no doubt.  The "aliens" say "making a decision by yourself, as an individual, is your right as well as your responsibility," but then they also say that whether they will come or not (to take their "hand-hold over the Earth") is a matter of a collective decision; this is contradictory, irrational and immoral.  There is no such thing as a collective decision unless it is a consensus, and they are not talking about consensus at all, saying just a few is all that is really needed.  What about the minority (or majority) that won't want their "hand-hold," whatever that turns out to be? (again, undoubtedly control, which "they" claim to be against.)   No mention of God in that "transmission" either, though they claim to be of a "higher" sort; this subliminal anti-God content gives credence to those that believe these aliens are actually the fallen angels/demons the Bible speaks of.

Yes, yes I know there are many billions of galaxies out there, so it seems probable that there is life out there somewhere.  But before you think you're smarter than me, because you're making an assumption and I'm not (assuming is never smart btw), and/or that I'm just some "reactionary extremist" (or whatever similar label that might pop into your mind), keep these FACTS in mind:
  1.  There really are rich/powerful people that want a "New World Order," and are even pretty open about it sometimes.
  2. Some other humanoid life-form has never been confirmed; sure there's lots of people who have seen UFO's (including me, 3 times), and people who have even testified to meeting them in friendly or very unfriendly encounters, but this doesn't actually prove that aliens exist.  They could be humans (i.e. NWO engineers) with advanced costumes & tech posing as aliens, or they could even be extra-dimensional beings (a.k.a. demons) posing as aliens. 
  3. There has been a lot of information coming at the public in the past 65 years or so (in news media, books, radio/TV/movies "entertainment," etc.) about the "reality" of aliens, and at an increasing rate in recent years, and public conditioning/manipulation/deception certainly does actually go on, a lot, so skepticism about all this unusual activity is definitely rational.
Overall my 2 cents is: I wouldn't bite an "alien" line, whether it came in friend or foe form.  If anything like what's described in the above-shared "channeled transmission" does come to pass, I think it's most likely just the "elites" looking to bring in their New World Order via a grand deception, like 9/11/o1, but bigger.  And of course they would ostracize those that don't buy it as "ignorant Christians set in their beliefs," etc., but that would just be more b.s.; there are really good reasons to doubt any alien revelation, and there is really good wisdom in the Bible too by the way, the warning of false prophets (e.g. "wise aliens") who can deceive many being an example of it (Mark 13:22).

Ultimately I believe, based on a lot of research and contemplation, the key is this: if anyone ("alien" or human) offering a global "solution" isn't talking about sovereign veganic homesteads as an option for everyone, i.e. the ability to live free, naturally and nonviolently, then it's just another collectivist scheme/deception that doesn't really benefit mankind, animals or the Earth.

Never assume, to do so is to be believing the lie that you know something that you really don't, and lies are of the devil, who is here only to kill and destroy (John 10:10).

Focus on 
la paz, la libertad, la verdad, y el amor!


Here's another new article, also possibly for the purpose of mentally preparing the public for the coming fake revelation:

p.p.s. Some more perspective on this topic:

Sunday, August 2, 2015

The Bunk Science of Evolution, and the Disempowerment Agenda

[updated April 17th, 2017]

The mainstream acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory as fact demonstrates the power of forceful persuasion.  If a false idea is pushed on people repeatedly from "experts," and any questioning of the idea is immediately and forcefully called "absurd," "unintelligent," "irrational," etc., trying to intimidate people to accept their view, many people will be intimidated, and are then less likely to do their own research and discover that the idea being pushed is false.  This is exactly what you find with those pushing Darwinian evolution, they often resort to name-calling/slander, coupled with irrational falsehoods, like billing the debate as "Science vs. God" (as if those that believe in God are necessarily anti-science, when they're not).  But if you get passed that manipulation and misinformation (on Wikipedia, social-media, popular magazines, in State-issued textbooks, etc.) and take a close look at the evidence refuting the so-called "proof" of Darwinian evolution, you can find a lot of technical scientific literature, and common sense, showing that basic tenets of evolutionary theory don't fit with reality; the following is just a brief summary of some of the main problems:
  • No real fossil evidence of transitional forms between species/kinds at all; "Lucy" and other so-called "evidence" of a transitional species is laughable in quality and has been thoroughly refuted, as the videos and listed books below, along with many other sources, show.  Whether pointing to an ancient bird fossil and saying it's "half reptile" without scientific basis (plus a useful/good reptilian leg mutating, becoming less useful, while slowly becoming a good wing over generations, doesn't help their survival chances by the way!), or pointing to parts of a verified ape species and saying they're human, it's all just a mess of so-called evidence that has been scientifically disproved time and time again; every supposed "transitional fossil" turns out not to be so when you look deeper into it (getting passed all the misinformation).  If there were really all these transitional species, there should be massive numbers of examples of them (since the process of gradual evolution supposedly happens over millions of years), but the Darwinian evolutionists can only point to artist renditions and things like a single tooth of "Nebraska Man" (that turned out to be from a pig!), "Java Man" (that turned out to be a human), etc.  This is probably why those pushing Darwinian evolution tend not to talk for long about specific fossil evidence of transitional species from one kind of animal to another, they try to change the direction of the conversation very quickly in my experience!  Speaking of this commonly encountered tactic of avoidance of scientific evidence, interestingly in the 2015 "Mistakes and Hoaxes" issue of Popular Science magazine they have two separate articles on bunk evolutionary science: the first on the "Piltdown Man," declared as another "missing link" but turned out to be a hoax, and the second article on how the idea that man evolved from apes doesn't actually hold up to the evidence.  Admitting these facts is very good, yet, for no scientific reason, they still insist there is a "common ancestor" between humans and apes, even though they cite no specific evidence for one!  They just say there is, and that's it.  That's not real science.  This heavily slanted irrationality is typical of false belief, rather than of evidence or experience taking precedence with one's claims about reality.  They refuse to let go of the evolutionary theory which has been proven bunk over and over, and side-step the reality, referencing nothing in particular, and apparently hope no one will notice!  This same exact thing is found in the recent HBO documentary Questioning Darwin, in which they speak of "infinite evidence," but then don't get into the details of any!  Again they just expect you to believe the "experts."  This "science" documentary, just like the very misleading PBS TV Series Evolution, completely ignores all the scientists that reject Darwinian evolution as unscientific.  Also showing its scientifically hollow core, it is filled with long tangents on the romanticized life of Darwin, plus a few cherry-picked Christians that believe in an absolute literal interpretation of everything in the Bible; the makers of this documentary were clearly trying to discredit the idea of intelligent design (and Christianity), but, to anyone with some basic awareness of the issue, obviously failed, just as the PBS series failed, though both will sadly probably still work as effective propaganda on many.  It appears the alternative possibility of intelligent design is so unacceptable to these evolutionary theory propagators that they will continue to twist (or just declare!) so-called facts to fit an evolution/atheist world-view so that design appears "disproven," even after it has been admitted in mainstream publications that it's their own previous claims on evolution that are the only thing that has been proven false.
  • Related to the above problem of lacking fossil evidence, there is no satisfactory explanation/evidence for how Darwinian evolution mechanisms could have facilitated the "Cambrian Explosion."
  • Other evolution theorists posit "cladogenesis" (i.e. one species jumping to/"branching out" to be another kind of animal without transition) as an alternative to the problem of lack of evidence for transitional species, but they also deliver no solid evidence/observation/explanation for their idea; in fact all that has been observed is the extinction of many species over time, not new ones popping up from older ones via physical birthing; therefore this other aspect of evolutionary theory is also not scientific at all, and it also contradicts the very definition of evolutionary theory!  These evolutionists now say evolution occurs suddenly without transition (hence the "genesis," no irony using that term huh?), but that's exactly the opposite of what the theory has been proposing: gradual changes in species that result in a whole new species!  When someone never admits real mistakes and they just keep coming up with additional irrational explanations to defend their ever-changing position, that's a clear indicator that false beliefs are what's really driving their ideas, not the scientific method.  Evolutionists seem to care more about steering away from anything that might indicate intelligent design is at play (because of their atheism belief) than they care about discovering what the facts of life really are.  (Worth noting: That dynamic of never admitting mistakes and engaging in one irrational diversion after another can be observed outside of science debates too, it's a hallmark of deep-seated denial based on false belief.)
  • Changes within a species has been observed (like the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or change in coat-color of beach mice), but not a mutation that causes one species to become another kind of animal, let alone a more complex one; different doesn't necessarily mean more complex.  There has been no observation or evidence of mutation creating a new kind of animal, and yet this is given as the main means of evolution!  Mutations have only been observed to recombine already existing information, or to result in a loss of information; it doesn't add new information to the genome that would account for molecules-to-man evolution; the mutation-creates-greater-complexity-of-life theory is scientifically baseless.  Evolutionists claim that so-called "micro-evolution" leads to "macro-evolution" (i.e. Darwinian evolution of one kind into another), but again this is just speculation without confirmed observation.  The common claim by evolutionary theorists that "from one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" is a baseless statement (no authoritative specific evidence, only circumstantial); that's not good science!
  • No scientific explanation for the immense complexity of DNA (or the brain, etc., of all of the incredible life-forms found on Earth) occurring via random mutations.  To say the immense complexity that comprises all the life-forms of such awe-inspiring beauty and functionality could come into existence simply via mutation, random chance and time is baseless irrationality (basically equivalent to saying a whirlwind in a junkyard could produce a fully functioning and polished Ferrari, if the whirlwind just had enough time!)... it's evidence-less theory, that also goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics (we observe material things to decay over time when left to themselves, not become more ordered).  To posit that the amazingly functional biological complexity found on Earth happened by Darwinian processes alone is accepting probabilities that are so astronomically low as to be impossible for all practical purposes; for example, based on the observed complexity of DNA, in order for that to exist by chance as it is in its fully functional and amazing form in even "simple" organisms, it's been calculated that we're talking about something like a chance of 1 in 10-to-the-600th power (1 followed by 600 zeros), a number so ridiculously large it's well beyond any comprehension, or relevance.  And regardless, on top of this mathematical implausibility, the idea of DNA manifesting randomly contradicts what scientists have discovered about DNA:
  • No evidence that DNA can exist without already existing DNA to create it; all observation shows no DNA manifestation from existing material substances.  Both DNA replication and correct reading of its code require highly precise enzymes, enzymes that are precisely specified by the DNA itself; absolutely no by-chance creation of DNA by something of lesser complexity has ever been observed.
  • Shared DNA is not proof of speciation (i.e. one species becoming another species).  An analogy:  Shared lego building blocks between lego creations doesn't prove that one lego creation can transform into another lego creation.  Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, but that doesn't prove that Humans and bananas have a common ancestry, it only proves that they share some of the same building material.  
  • The problem of "irreducible complexity," i.e. if you backtrack one step in the supposed evolutionary process of an organism, like say remove one of the components of the flagellum (a whip like appendage that moves around to propel a bacteria, spun by a precise biological motor), it wouldn't work at all, so the species would be at an extreme disadvantage, e.g. not being able to move.  Evolutionists respond that some of the flagellum’s component structures can be found in other organisms.  This is just a re-hash of the similarity = speciation idea just mentioned, which has several obvious flaws; to build on my last point on building materials: a) the right organization is just as important as the right components, b) the components are usually not compatible at all, and there would still be missing components in the complete "evolved" and functioning organism (new needed components are unaccounted for), c) the mechanism of perfect transformation is unexplained and unobserved.  In Darwin's book The Origin of Species, in the "Difficulties on Theory" chapter, Darwin said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."  And that's exactly what has been demonstrated by the flagellum, along with other biological components (see also book references below for even more details).
  • Darwinian theory has no solid explanation for consciousness.  As already noted the theory has plenty of problems trying to explain how life started and how one species supposedly evolves into another, and on top of that, it gives no explanation for how consciousness came about.  Speaking of consciousness, use your own to ponder this question: How could dead matter evolve into consciousness?  And related to this, where did our conscience come from?  Darwinian evolution theory, and the ultra-materialist anti-spiritual perspective that goes along with it, seems to be even against the idea of the obvious fact of our consciousness, and against the obvious fact of our free will, by saying that we're governed simply by chemical processes and survival instincts.
These rational scientific observations are repeatedly ignored and sidestepped by Darwinian evolution proponents, who in my experience often resort to hate-filled name-calling at this point in the conversation, along with statements like "If you believe in God prove its existence!" or they will otherwise just give sweeping statements like "We're all related!" and "Evolution is a fact!" (as if that's fulfilling the request for specific evidence!); all of the replies like these totally abandon the science of evolution as the topic of discussion, a debating failure/loss.  Some even seem to be trying to redefine the meaning of science (just as they have also tried to redefine the meaning of evolution with "cladogeneis" and redefine the term species to "prove" evolution between two species that are really still the same species)Science is: "The evidence-based study of the material/physical world/universe, using observation and experimental investigation utilizing the scientific method," so saying that being able to produce solid evidence, reproducible experimental results or mechanistic/physical explanation isn't necessary is quite a stretch of legitimacy.  In so doing (along with their dubious redefining of terns), they are showing what's really going on beneath their scientific veneer: they're actually pushing a false belief, not a science, and their hateful attacks on people that believe in a Creator, and/or others who are simply pointing out the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution, is just lame and dumb (making their slanderous remarks on those intelligently questioning Darwin a clear example of psychological projection). 

This all shows that a) their theory is not actually sound, and b) they are more interested in defending their ideology than in following the scientific method and honoring whatever the truth is.  They want people to believe bananas are our distant cousins (which is an extremely incredible idea, whether you are religious or not), and then ignore requests to show solid evidence for this claim.  This inability to point to specific evidence is ongoing as I add this additional note now; the comments I keep receiving on this post from the Darwinian-evolution-defenders consist of one diversion after another and/or one personal attack after another, but still no solid scientific evidence.  Here's a good comment I found in reply to some of the aggressive/slandering anti-science pro-Darwinian evolution trolls that abound online: "You should not make comments. You aren't helping the evolutionists' cause because all your speech is filled with hatred and scorn but no actual scientific refutations! LOL. Also, NO! - the things in this video [below] have certainly NOT been debunked. You are either lying or are just ignorant."  The slanderous non-scientific comments being referred to, that I have also seen many times, just add further support to the scientific position rejecting Darwinian evolution as fact.  When Darwinian evolution has been put on trial by those who care more about the truth than pushing an atheistic world-view, it has been found clearly guilty of impersonating solid science.


As I said at the top of this post, the theory of Evolution has been pushed very forcefully on the population, by supposed experts, and so many "educated" people just take it as fact because they "trust the scientific community."  In the same way, people follow the blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation version of Christianity that is pushed on them via the church establishment, because they trust in that too.  Misplaced trust in the hierarchical and authoritarian institutions of society is a long, sad and tragic story that continues to this day, disempowering and misleading countless people, generation after generation. What is so disempowering and misleading about the theory of Evolution?  It's simple and subtle, but powerful.  The main take-away from this theory, that remember says humans evolved from a "primordial soup," is: "You came from pond scum."  Therefore the subconscious association made is "You are scum."  And therefore also "There is nothing Divine about you," also supporting, "God does not exist."  A short aside on the latter belief:

Many atheists point to evils in the world as proof that there is no loving Divinity.  This perspective operates on certain assumptions, though as far as I've seen, never directly stating the assumptions, probably because they recognize at some level that their perspective would become instantly less intelligent-sounding if they did:

Assumption #1: "There is no evil force opposing the Creator."  This is quite an assumption, being that it goes against thousands of years of theology, history and psychology that clearly point to exactly the opposite.

Assumption #2: "A good God wouldn't permit evil."  And you know this without a doubt... how exactly?  You know the entire metaphysical reality and what is ultimately necessary and/or for the best?  This is basically the "I'm enlightened" atheist perspective... yet I'm pretty sure they're not enlightened/omniscient.

Assumption #3: "Natural Disasters and Birth Defects prove there's no loving Creator and that Intelligent Design is false."  A study of the Earth's amazingly complex and against-all-odds life-sustaining operations makes fixation on natural disasters irrational, and also ignores their  unavoidable existence within the Ecology/Earth Sciences that is overall life-preserving (e.g. Plate Tectonics: "For life, advanced or primitive, to exist for more than a few million years, a planet’s crust must easily crack into moveable plates that can slide both past and underneath one another.")
As for birth defects, again this is irrational fixation, ignoring the fact that the majority of babies are, against immense odds of so-called "random mutation," etc. born perfect.  It also ignores the fact that leading causes of birth defects are caused by evils of human society that were not part of the original natural design at all, e.g. chemical/radioactive weapons, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, x-rays and other tools of modern medicine, etc.  So Assumption #3 ignores the details of physiological/geological reality and history, and that does not make for a good basis of argument (nor does any assumption).

Returning to the reality-ignoring theory of Evolution, the main affect of this theory on humanity, like all malevolent propaganda, is disempowerment.  Think this evaluation of Evolution theory as propaganda is a stretch?  Well, the reality is:  Transmitting a very simple and subtle, but also very detrimental false idea, repeatedly and forcefully to your subconscious mind, is the very hallmark of effective propaganda.  Darwinian Evolution theory which is pushed on the population fits that formula perfectly, it is "Big Lie" propaganda that is pushed out in the open (like the official 9/11 story, from which the main subconscious takeaway is "I need the Government to protect me, the Government = the good guys.").  There are of course other subtle forms of propaganda out in the mainstream too, like the popularized "revolutionary" street artists who's main imagery depicts common people as rats/vermin, or who plaster the word "Obey" everywhere, neither of which is revolutionary at all, despite whatever "clever" rationalizations are given in explanation.  The subconscious doesn't deal with those rationalizations, it deals with "I'm scum," "I'm vermin," "I should obey," and "Government is good/needed and keeps us safe."  Those that seek to control populations (yes, there really are such authoritarian people, if you doubt this read a little history), especially in current times, seem to know that the power of belief serves them better than anything else, and if you get the population to believe extremely disempowering ideas like that of scum-of-the-earth Evolution and distorted blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation Christianity, then the masses are much much easier to control; both science and religion have been clearly manipulated via establishment institutions to serve the purpose of mind/population control.  You can dismissively call this a conspiracy theory, but then that would just ironically reveal another false belief you've been indoctrinated to hold, i.e. that conspiracies don't actually happen on a regular basis; conspiracies (i.e. people working secretly together for a selfish/harmful purpose) are commonplace in the corporate, political and economic realms of society; that's just a common-sense fact.  Once you see clearly how the main scientific and religious ideas pushed on us are complete bullshit, and you see why those ideas would be pushed, it's no stretch of the imagination, it's actually waking up to the truth.

More good information on the theory of evolution for evaluation here:

  1. The Edge of Evolution by Michael J. Behe
  2. Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
  3. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer
  4. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
  5. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God by Lee Strobel
  6. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong by Jonathan Wells 













"Scientists Prove Human Evolution Being a HOAX." 

Part 1:

Part 2:







"Frog to Prince"




"The attempt to explain the origin of life solely from chemical constituents is effectively dead now.  Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence.  Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy.  Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information.  Only intelligence can.  I think that realization is going to progressively dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology. ... Information is the hallmark of mind.  And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own--a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative.  There's no getting around it."
                    ~ Stephen C. Meyer

"No one has ever seen a quark, and we believe that no one ever will.  They are so tightly bound to each other inside the protons and neutrons that nothing can make them break out on their own.  Why, then, do I believe in these invisible quarks? ... In summary, it's because quarks make sense of a lot of direct physical evidence...  I wish to engage in a similar strategy with regard to the unseen reality of God.  His existence makes sense of many aspects of our knowledge and experience: the order and fruitfulness of the physical world; the multi-layered character of reality; ... the phenomenon of Jesus Christ... I think that very similar thought processes are involved in both cases.  I do not believe that I shift in some strange intellectual way when I move from science to religion. ... In their search for truth, science and faith are intellectual cousins under the skin."

~ John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, p. 98-100

"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind.  Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical."
~ Sir John Templeton

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Why Letting Go of the Lie of Biological Races is Key for Fighting Racism Effectively

[updated October 5th, 2016]

When speaking and acting against racist injustice I've come to realize that it's very important to keep in mind three important facts:
  1. Rulers, for centuries, have used the strategy of divide & conquer to further entrench their power and control.  By having the people turn against each other, those in power, who are often the very cause of the conflict, are not blamed.  Not only are they not blamed, they, and the institutions of slavery that they impose on the population, are even sought to solve the problem, to bring justice to the very thing that they created.  This is a sad irony, an irony that undoubtedly makes rulers laugh with arrogance at the tears and blood of those they oppress.  Their power would be useless without control, and one big way they reinforce their control is through the people they control actually asking to be more controlled.
  2. Divisive lies don't serve social-justice (or anything good in the world), rather they serve the aforementioned powers-that-be.  Lies are actually the main tool of evil in the world (most people wouldn’t support evil if they believed it was evil, the two biggest examples being statism and carnism considered acceptable); lies misdirect good-intentioned people from ever discovering real truth and real solutions.  This being so, it's critical that social-justice activists acknowledge falsehood, making sure that they aren't incorporating any lies into their activism.
  3. Race is defined as: "Any of the different varieties of human beings, distinguished by physical traits; any distinct group of people."  Putting that together we have the idea that there are distinct groupings of people, that are distinguished by their physical characteristics.  Ethnicity on the other hand, is defined as: "A designated group of people having common customs, characteristics, language, etc."  In other words, the general grouping of peoples are distinguished as of different ethnicity by non-physical characteristics.
Keeping those points in mind, I'd like to focus on an element that has been nefariously mixed into social-justice activism, and that is the idea that, on a biological/physiological basis, distinct human races actually exist, when in fact they don't.  The term race itself is actually part and parcel to racism; believing that such a thing exists is in large part the very foundation of a racist culture.  You have to first believe in distinct biological races before you can believe that some of them are superior to others.  When most people talk in racist ways, they are implying a biological inferiority, they are not just being critical of the different cultural/ethnic qualities (e.g. arts and language of that culture).  This is a crucial point usually not talked about!  Yet I know the immediate reaction this focus on the non-existence of races will often instigate, something like: "Oh you're saying that we're all one race, and so you're belittling the history of racist persecution of minorities," and/or "You're trying to derail our own narrative and dissolve our cultural identity, autonomy, and heritage, pushing assimilation into a colonial mainstream."  If you're having a reaction like any of that here already, please calm down and read this article carefully, you will see I am not doing any of that.  I love and respect cultural diversity, and fully recognize the reality of racism, a reality that can be very different for people of different ethnicities.  So please hold off with putting words in my mouth or beliefs in my head and allow me to more fully explain myself; be open to the possibility that any immediate negative spin-off conclusions that you may already be having may actually be reactionary assumptions.

If it's technically a lie that there are such things as distinct races on a biological basis, why is this important to keep in mind?  Why is it important to not condone that falsehood

For one thing, the lie of distinct biological races supports racial injustice and statist domination of the lower classes; "Race talk" serves in large part as State propaganda. Notice after these repeated cases of police brutality there is almost no mention in the mainstream media of how the social-system itself enabled the brutality to take place, no mention of the fact that in order for there to be an abuse of power, some people have to have unnatural power in the first place (e.g. cops). Instead the media keeps it within the framework of "racial tension," tension that serves the divisive divide & conquer strategy of those that perpetuate the social-systems that enslave us all.

Additionally, as I already stated, the false belief in distinct biological races is a main motivating factor in the manifestation of racist discrimination and violence, whether committed by officials or non-officials. Many people who commit racist violence probably have a thought-process something along the lines of "They're of this inferior race who are inherently bad, so they have what's coming to them." Yet, how can one person be superior to another person on the basis of biological race, when there is no such thing as biological race?  They can't!  So when racist people really realize this fact, it can go a long way in eliminating their delusion.  And we can support that process by making it clear when talking about racial issues that distinct biological races don't actually exist, but varying ethnicity and cultures do exist, with their unique histories.  Racial discrimination is called for in the very definition of race, pushing the lie of distinct biological groupings of humans; once that erroneous distinction is made, a false hierarchy of superiority and inferiority is then usually made, i.e. the person starts thinking like a racist.

People are all fundamentally similar biologically, we are all of the same exact species.  Everyone's brain is grey, everyone's blood is red, and there is no link between any moral or intellectual superiority and the relatively minor biological differences between individuals Yes there are different blood-types and bone-marrow types, but neither of these can be linked to biological races; people in the same family, supposedly of the same "race," can and do have different blood and bone-marrow types, so pointing to either as proof of biological races is obviously completely bunk. 

This is not saying that "we're all the same" in a societal sense, negating cultural differences and the obviously different histories and current realities of racist oppression and persecution.  (I always find it frustrating that when I mention to someone that there's no such things as distinct races, they immediately bring up the reality of racism, as if I'm so dumb to think racism isn't real!)  What this biological observation is saying is that the lie of distinct races is used to fuel the delusion of false superiority, and "justified" violent thought & action.  The lie of distinct biological races fuels racism, and thereby racist violence.

Racism is of course very real, it's a real delusion many people have and act upon; in fact it's a double delusion.  Firstly a delusion because it's a false belief that there are these distinct human sub-species called races, based on physical characteristics.  This is clearly scientifically false, there is no actual material line between what people call White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc.  Again the second half of the racist delusion that follows from the first is that the "race" of oneself is superior to the other "races" (a false sense of superiority which has led to massive amounts of persecution, slavery and murder).

Many people nowadays are talking at length about the issue of "white privilege," but what they seem to miss is that white privilege is fundamentally just another form of racism; it's not really some totally different category that needs to be dealt with, as it is usually presented.  Think about it, when you say white privilege, what are you talking about?  You're talking about some people being treated differently than others based on their perceived race, i.e. we're still talking about racial discrimination.  And so the key question is therefore "What is the best way to defeat racial discrimination?," (and I hope that's what you actually want to do, not being an unproductive drama-addict).  Like with any disease, we need to find the root cause in order to cure it, rather than just trying to cure symptoms, and so, the best way is obviously by pointing to the root of racial discrimination, the foundation of the whole delusional racist mindset, which is: the lie of distinct biological races of human beings.  Worth repeating again, before anyone can think their race is superior to another race they have to believe that such things as races exist in the first place!  And yet I almost never hear this mentioned by "radicals" who have talks/workshops/papers, etc. on racism as white privilege; in fact, if someone brings up the issue of this foundational lie it's usually disregarded as irrelevant, "because of the reality of racism"!  Hello?  Anyone else see the irony here?

Of course people of the same ethnicity, with generally similar external/superficial physical characteristics, and generally the same national heritage, have been subject to particular persecutions (just as people of the same religious faith have been).  That is a fact, but the idea that there really are, on a biological basis, actual distinct races, is fiction.  So I am just separating fact from fiction, which there is really no good reason to be upset by (yet many are, spinning off in presumption).  And the reason why I've found this separation of fact from fiction to be so important, is because of the three points I started this article with, along with the fact that any reasonable person would have to admit that this idea of distinct biological races, operating on even a subconscious basis, is very divisive in a negative way.  When one starts thinking that way they are usually thinking combatively/divisively (e.g. a superiority complex), and those thoughts are usually accompanied by feelings of pride, hate, anger, fear... any number of the negative emotions, certainly no love.  So, therefore, we're talking about a lie that fosters anti-love feelings.  Anti-love.  Lies.  The devil is in the details.

Speaking of crucial details, have I ever received privilege from others who are racist because of my physical appearance.  Definitely.  Have I ever been treated in a racist way by a person of color?  Also definitely; though of course a much less dominant experience compared to the privilege; in both cases though it's the same thing in operation: racism.  But what I find amazing is when a person of color reacts to even the idea of racism coming from someone like themselves as preposterous, as if it can't even really happen!  Well it does!  There isn't some law of physics that prevents it from ever happening!  The term “reverse racism” is used to describe such racism against people of generally European heritage, though even the term itself implies that when a person of color is racist toward a “white” person then that that's not real racism, so therefore it deserves a whole other level of a descriptor ("reverse racism"), that even just the mention of is met with immediate eye-rolling disgust by some people of color (I've seen this first-hand).  A racist act is a racist act, who is committing it to who doesn't change the fact that it's a racist act; totally redefining the definition of racism is not legitimate or rational.  There really isn't a fundamentally different type of racism that deserves a different name like “reverse racism,” there's just racism.   Here's the quoted definition as a reminder:

racism n. the practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc.

That's it, short and simple, from the ol' Webster's dictionary.  Nothing there about who's committing the racism toward who being relevant to the reality of racism, and redefining racism to mean only institutional racism, and not also one-on-one racism, as many "radical" activists have been trying to do, is not valid or rational.  You can't just redefine words to exclude yourself from deplorable behavior!  The irony here too is that it's of course good to point out institutional racism, but by doing so in a way that includes a distracting and divisive lie ("People of color can't be racist."), it does nothing to actually solve the problem of institutional racism; promoting anarchism would do that, but of course we don't hear about that from these "radicals."  (Somehow they've left out critique of the institutions in their critique of institutional racism; making for another intellectual fail.)  The idea that one-on-one racism can't come from a person of color is so obviously false I'm surprised so many people are running with this toxic idea; any time a person of color says or does something racist, that's racism.  Of course the context and origins of that behavior can be completely different, like a “white” person growing up in a racist family that taught her or him they were of a superior race than people of color, vs. a person of color becoming racist because of all the terrible racist persecution that people that look like themselves have experienced.  But the context and origins of an always-ignorant-and-evil-act (e.g. racism) doesn't change the fact that it's ignorant and evil.  What I've observed at times is this irrational, untrue and unethical perspective that some forms of racism are okay, while others remain not okay; thinking like that is itself a completely racist mindset.  To assume that discrimination, whether in the form of immediate and repeated dirty looks, immediate and consistent totally unequal treatment, racist remarks, or worse, is totally irrelevant or even nonexistent when committed against a “white” person, especially a “white” male, is just stupid uncaring bullshit. 

Therefore, although this isn't an aspect of the race issue I originally felt worthy of including in this post, since like I said racism has certainly not been a personally dominant experience for myself or for others that look like myself in this country, I feel a need to mention it now because of a significant observable increase in “reverse racism” in recent years (undoubtedly fueled by the many acts of racist police brutality in these same recent years).  Prior to a couple of years ago, I don't recall ever being looked at with such immediate scorn (sometimes coupled with hateful speech) by people of color I don't know (mainly politicized youth), but now it's become a somewhat regular occurrence; this along with lesser examples like definitely being “sized-up” immediately in a negative/racist fashion, and if I try to engage in a radical discussion in a friendly way, their racist revulsion is palpable, being disrespectful to me immediately for no good reason at all.  

On top of that, a recent experience at the 2015 Resistance Ecology Conference showed me that if this racism is not kept in check, it just grows, and people end up spreading the very same evil that they deplore, and the divide & conquer strategy of statists goes on in new formOne of the things on the conference schedule was a “Vegans of Color-Only Meet Up,” meeting in the “Common Area” of this public university “Union” building.  The irony of the location was apparently lost on the organizers, as was the fact that bringing back racial segregation in public places isn't exactly radical! (note: apparently not all the organizers were on board with this idea though, one of the conference representatives I met said she did agree with me that it wasn't a good idea when I inquired about it).  The perspective that “justifies” this racial segregation is undoubtedly something along the lines of “People of color have been victimized by a brutal racist white supremacist society, and so therefore having their own space, free of the “trigger” of a white person, is an understandable requirement.” (I glean this also from the fact that the conference program also included mention that “active listening volunteers include no white men.”)  So apparently in the name of accommodating a sort of PTSD condition that some people of color may have, or to "compensate" for racism by some people of European heritage, we're bringing back public racial segregation?  Does the history of racism in this country (of which public segregation became the #1 policy issue in case you forgot!), make the return of racial segregation today at a public conference somehow magically legitimate?  What's next, a “Colored Only” vegan bakery that refuses to allow “white” people to sit at the counter?  Should we dust off and re-use the “Colored Only” signs used decades ago in the segregated South, this time their use being copacetic?!  Lunacy like this is what happens when “reverse racism” (or any other lie-based behavior) goes unchecked, it inevitably grows in destructive scope.  I've even heard some "radical" activists say that racism is only white supremacy, i.e. there is no other type of racism possible.  That's clearly irrational and false.  The reality is that anybody can be racist toward anybody, e.g. some people (that look like myself) being excluded from a public meeting at a public conference for no other reason than our physical appearance, is racist.  Yes, even with the history of slavery, and all the continued racism against people of color in this country, even with privilege.  And why is that?  Because racial discrimination and segregation are with the very definition of racism, and because I'm an individual that's why!  I'm not equivalent to every other person of similar physical appearance!  And I'm certainly not a slave-master, a genocidal colonial general like George Washington, a member of the KKK, or a cop committing acts of racist violence!  To generalize me as equivalent to such is absurdly ignorant and straight-up racist, no matter what "radical" way you slice it.  

To be against racial profiling by police (profiling which is often accompanied by a form of preemptive attack), and then do racial profiling against people of a different body-type and heritage (e.g. European heritage), is completely hypocritical; it's practicing the same fundamental evil that you are deploring, and that complete moral contradiction shows that you've been misguided.

More irony lost on the conference organizers can be found in their “Notes on Creating a Safer Space” section of the leaflet-program, wherein they state “an inclusive space is one in which participants actively work to confront problematic behavior—whether racist, misogynist, albiest, classist, transphobic, homophobic, bullying, or just plain disrespectful.”  The irony being that excluding white males from various aspects of the conference is racist and not at all an inclusive space for such individuals; they should have added to the leaflet: “(Exception: Racism and disrespect toward white males is acceptable however.)” So consider this my “active participation” toward that stated goal against racism that was asked for elsewhere in the program. The mistake of condoning the idea of biological races was made again when they also said: “Please understand that participants come from a wide-variety of backgrounds and experiences—including but not limited to gender, sexual, racial, ethnic...”; my response is please understand that by including the bunk term race alongside real categories like gender and ethnicity, by letting that divisive lie slip in, you're thereby operating on and condoning the false belief in biological races, which necessarily leads to supporting racism, as you yourselves demonstrate with the implementation of racial segregation at the conference.  

The key mistake is in not differentiating between ethnicity and race, and not realizing that the latter is based on lies, specifically the lies that: a) actual distinct biological races of humanity exist (that can be utilized to generalize about people of similar heritage and physical appearance), b) that some of these so-called races really are superior or inferior to one another in some way (morally, intellectually, or whatever) and c) physical appearance and heritage are what makes a person a person.  To think racial discrimination is somehow okay when directed at people of European heritage is totally ignoring that racial discrimination is, at its core, a hateful and ignorant thing to do, based on lies, and it is not enjoyable at all to be on the receiving end of.  Perhaps lack of such awareness, coupled with racist thinking and behavior, has been more dominant in recent years among younger “black” people than older (something I've personally noticed), because of the media-highlighted string of recent acts of police brutality, but also because many more of the older generation personally experienced a much more severe version of racism first-hand in their everyday life than the following generation has, and so they know how evil it really is, and so are wiser than to take on a racist view themselves; they usually don't see all “white” people as the same, because they know how destructively ignorant it was for people to see and treat individuals such as themselves in a similar way.  In any case all racism and racial segregation are still not good things, and it's disappointing that I even have to point that out to anybody today, let alone those putting on a radical conference.

If you're looking to do coalition/community building of any sort, like via a social-justice conference, incorporating racism/racial segregation within it accomplishes the exact opposite of that goal, public segregation and public coalition building aren't at all compatible!  And that's the rub with destructive/evil lies, they aren't just false, they are the complete opposite of the truth.  We need to stay alert and vigilant against such divisive lies as best as we can, so we can recognize them as soon as possible, call them out and reject them; the devil is always looking for a point of entry in the minds of humanity, and don't think he doesn't have a strategy for the radical-minded too; the evidence shows he does, and he's been successful once again. (A book recommendation on enlightening that point further: The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.)

So what language can we use that doesn’t further this divisive and propagandistic purpose?  It's not that complicated, we just need to be more accurate, no longer using the term race as if such a thing really exists, and no longer limiting ourselves to simplistic and false labels like Black, White, etc. that imply the existence of distinct biological races.  Why say something that supports a divisive lie?  Why not use the term ethnicity instead of race, since the former doesn't contain a divisive falsehood in its definition?  Why not talk of heritage or nationality instead of this nefarious and presumptuous lie called race?  If we did that instead there would still be the specificity that's needed to associate with varying realities and histories of people of similar external/superficial physical characteristics and national origin, without supporting racism yourself; there can still be the honoring of the wonderful diversity of cultures, along with their disparate struggles, without pushing lies that actually serve brutal racism and tyrannical statism.  Statism, also based on lies, it's worth repeating, is what enables destructive racism more than any other external thing; it continues to be the evil that diverse people of conscience should be uniting against, instead of wasting their time looking at themselves and others through a destructive lens of lies.