Got an email upon wake up this morning that did double duty. First, as opposed to the last guy, the insight in this one made me smile. It also re-enforced my view on an important issue; this is always a relief (‘no, actually, I’m not nuts’ kinda thing). I’ll give you ‘bits and bobs’ (see my addendum below) from my email exchange with… let’s call him ‘George.’
‘epigenetics’? can’t they just admit Lamarck was right?
Brilliant – that comment made my day. Lamarck was something of a hero of mine at school – I’m British since you ask.
See, our exchange was regarding evolution, and George had written this in his previous email:
In other words the ability to adapt to ecological changes over the lifetime of an organism and the ability to pass this on to ones offspring (now known as ‘epigenetics’).
The Rockies. Gotta get back here before the snows….
As above, I replied re this remark: ‘epigenetics’? can’t they just admit Lamarck was right?’ (Lamarck was a 19th century naturalist who theorized that acquired traits can be passed on: Giraffes have long necks from generations of stretching for high leaves kinda thing… he was brutally denounced by the Darwinists…)
George liked that, obviously. George then went on and his words are so insightful that I’ll paste ‘em in here:
…My objection to NeoDarwinism is not the theory – theories are a good basis for enquiry. it is the unscientific near-religious zeal by which it is propagated and defended despite the lack of any weight of evidence.
I think on a macro-scale this sort of theory, along with others the equally unproven sieve that is the ‘big-bang’ theory, have held sway for nearly a century because they suit (or have suited) our western society (and its rulers). They believe that everything is an accident, such a big explosion (don’t mention entropy), or a mutation – a series of random events in which you have no say – generates a passive and accepting mindset in the population ‘there is nothing you can change, everything is predetermined, it is too complex for you to understand, experts have agreed it is so etc etc’
Right on!
So this stuff made me smile. More important, though, is George’s line, ‘I’m British since you ask.’ See, the day before, as part of my email I asked him if he is indeed British, which is what I suspected. In fact, I would have bet serious bucks on it.
Why? In his first email, George wrote this (‘Evolution’ in the Subject Box):
Pleased to note your interest in this subject – indicative of a healthy mind and the ability to follow the logical course of an argument in my opinion. Until I went to University, Evolutionary Biology was among my favourite subjects; it quickly became clear to me that it was considered a ‘closed book’ and in the book was written ‘The raw material for evolution is random mutation; the tool is natural selection).
What a rubbish system…
Rockies culture.
George then went on with more insightful stuff. But do you get it? What I’m talking about? ‘Until I went to University…’ Only a Brit (or Aussie, etc.) would write those words. And (pretty much) ditto his use of the word ‘rubbish.’ (Come to think of it, his later use of the word ‘Brilliant’ was also very British.)
But why is this important? Well, if George had said, ‘No, I’m from rural Texas,’ I would have gotten upset. Very upset. Remember my Open Letter to Miles Mathis? Right. I busted ‘MM’ partly on his use of ‘Britisms’, given he claims to be born and bred (plus educated) in rural Texas.
Addendum: My scare quotes around ‘bits and bobs’ above are a reference to this issue. ‘Miles Mathis’ (a spook committee likely out of Tavistock, England) is so rattled by my outing him that a recent essay was titled ‘Bits and Bobs’ (a very British term, apparently). He starts the thing off with a direct reference to yours truly:
Yes, I am using the British term for my title, just because I can. And just to piss off you-know-who.
The ‘you-know-who’ presupposes that I’m well-known enough amongst ‘Miles’s’ readership that it’s no longer necessary to name me.
There’s danger, too, in beautiful places, like the Rockies.
My point, though, is not to brag about how I’ve really upset a major disinfo psy op. No, now wait. It is partially that; I do love aggravating spooks to the point where they make the error of giving me ink, thus goosing curiosity about me, which leads to folks doing searches and finding my Open Letter – which of course contains much more than the ‘Britisms’ tell.
Or maybe not. Maybe I should be careful about congratulating myself and consider that maybe all the MM references to my sorry ass are not mistakes. My mistake might be in underestimating those scumfucks.
What do you guys think?
Allan
Shit. I just realized that there was an even more obvious Britism in George’s email: His spelling of ‘favourite.’ All I can say is that I didn’t notice it until this very moment. Whatarya gonna do? Does this ruin the post? Fuck it.
A quick by-the-by (as the Brits say): ‘Miles Mathis,’ in the last four days (between August 3 and the 7th) has posted two essays totaling well over 10,000 words, one on Woody Allen, the other on Lawrence of Arabia, meanwhile adding stuff to a ‘Guest’ essay pubbed between those dates. Does anyone on the planet believe one guy could do 10,000 words on two such diverse subjects in 4 days? Plus living his life as a super-dedicated ‘portrait artist’? It’s not the word count as much as the density of the research. (Utter crapola but uber-dense utter crapola).’His’ use of ‘Guest’ essayists is a way of distracting us from the utter impossibility of the output, but it still is an insult to our intelligence. (But no matter: Those who want to believe in Miles Mathis will continue to do so.)