|
FREE OPINION PAGE
Hello, and welcome to the new chucktrevino.com Opinion Page, masquerading as a
chucktrevino.com Free Music Video Page. This time around,
the "celluloid" artistic offering is a very rough-cut but utterly symbolic seven and a-half minute depiction of local color
and beauty, taken while cruising around town on my trusty bi-cycled and rapidly rusting Schwinn 18-speed steed.
Unfortunately, all of the scenes in this video were taken while I actually was riding, and I like to ride
fast; therefore, most of the shots aren't as clear and steady as I would have hoped for. Also unfortunately, in the
interests of making a statement of great social and political import, I have also had to include several scenes of sadness,
unpleasantness, and downright ugliness.
It never ceases to amaze me what beautiful things human beings can be, when you aren't annoying, exasperating, disgusting, 
threatening, frightening, assaulting, killing or otherwise displeasing them. It brings to mind one of the most truthful
truisms that I ever learned, which was imparted to me at quite an early age, something which used to be known as the Golden Rule,
which went something like this: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Such a simple yet absolutely
brilliant piece of advice I don't think I have ever come across, and yet, sadly, far too few people are taught to practice it
today, it would seem. Alas, c'est la vie (such is life, as the wise French philosophers say). And life really can
be extremely trying, as you all have probably learned by now -- I myself often find me in a spitting, sputtering, hopping
mad state of mind, especially in view of the outrageous decline of intelligent rationality that is occuring today, thanks mostly to
the influence of certain "members" of a certain "religious" organization which seems to be hell-bent on corrupting the entire
world, by forcing its "realistic values" down all of our throats. If you don't know what entity I'm referring to by now,
I think you may never know; however, in hopes of arresting this alarming incursion into our lives, I will keep on attempting to
enlighten you. Don't thank me... just keep reading.
This music video, which could also be described as a much-pained howl of indignant protest, is titled "Curse of the Satanists," in honor
of some extremely blatant operatives of that old red-skinned, two-horned, spike-tailed, goat-hooved, trident-carrying, greedy,
murderous, paranoid, vindictive, sadistic giant arsehole conquering tapeworm maggot. These strange-thinking operatives
take comfort in the brilliant conclusions provided to them by certain genius reductionists, who empirically assure us that life could only have
arisen by chance in some warm little pond somewhere here on Earth; accordingly, the aforementioned scum-bucket operatives most
definitely DO NOT believe that we were created by some unfathomably superior, supremely celestial intelligence who watches us, and judges
us according to our noble acts of altruism and not-so-noble (in fact downright disgusting) dirty little deeds. Just what scumbuckets
am I referring to here, you ask? I'm talking about those smug, smiling, suave, slimy, stockholding slugs who think they are going
to just die and get away with all of this (the one who dies with the most toys wins, eh guys?), with no price
to be paid to their Satanic master, whom they believe exists only in the minds of poor "fundamentalist fools" and hypocritical "holy-rollers."
 And perhaps they will just die and get away with it! But perhaps not. Who knows if there really is a "God," or a "Devil?" I think I do, but then again, I am crazy. Perhaps there is both... or perhaps "The Devil" is simply just the flip-side of "God." One side creates... the other side destroys?  Actually though, after contemplating the theories and conclusions of one Sir Fred Hoyle (one of the most interesting, insightful and understandable scientists that I believe was ever created, if you'll pardon the expression) it seems to me that his argument for creation by intelligent design far outweighs the argument propounded by Charles Darwin, and supported by certain other scientific bigwigs (some of whom seem to be stuck in some kind of "specialized" rut), which is that all forms of life very gradually arose by a fortuitous coming-together of certain poisonous gases that somehow combined, during a period of intensely devastating bombardment from outer space, to make simple organic molecules, which developed into primitive enzymes, which drifted around picking up other enzymes, or whatever those scientific guys say accidentally arose in that "warm little pond" (the primordial soup), stuff which eventually gave rise to the highly-ordered amino acids and nitrogenous bases that make up the DNA that contains the instructions for building the 200,000 other, different, extremely complex proteins and the 2,000 even more complex enzymes that make up the foundational building blocks of living organisms. Huh? Yeah I know, me too. But moving right along -- the late, great Sir Hoyle had a gift for making complex subjects accessible to a layman reader, and I was able to follow his explanations to a certain extent -- in spite of the fact that I am blessed with a mind that gravitates heavily towards more hedonistic thoughts than science. 
When I was a very young child, I simplistically believed that merely by waving his magic wand, "God" had created the world and everything
in it, like, you know, "abra cadabra!" As I grew older and slightly more cynical, I began to wonder how "God"
had actually done it.
This curiosity grew stronger and stronger, and led me to start reading scientific books that were way beyond my comprehension, but which
intrigued me nevertheless. The science classes I took in junior high and high school had bored me to tears, as I recall; movies of
chromosomes splitting apart just didn't turn me on, not in the least. Much later, after taking an elementary but fascinating college
level science course, I began to grasp and appreciate the exquisite complexity of the manner in which a fertilized egg cell divided and grew
to become a baby person, all ready to be born. In fact, the complexity of life absolutely blew my mind. And that was supposed to
be a cursory, easy-to-understand course that skipped many complex details and made things real simple for beginners!
Armed with that simple but proven scientific knowledge, I re-read Sir Hoyle's 1983 book "The Intelligent Universe," and slowly a light started to flicker to life in my head. Among many other fascinating things I learned from this book is that viruses which carry amino acids that make up DNA can most definitely survive very long-term space travel, embedded in comets that "stream" out 
their evaporated contents when their orbits approach the Sun, distributing them in different directions, even out of the solar system, thus
making possible an exchange of materials between stars. Comets can also collide with asteroids, making smaller meteorites that fall
to Earth and burn up, releasing their contents which contain microorganisms, including bacterium and viruses, that can survive an indirect
landing through atmospheric layers that would devastate larger forms making a more direct descent. These viruses,
according to Sir Fred, are responsible for the evolution of life as we know it today, because they are absorbed by life forms (such
as humans) and can enter cells and add to the DNA that is already there, making changes in the development of said life forms. If
these viruses enter a sex cell they can be transmitted to offspring, and can be "expressed" in later generations, making evolutionary
changes. Some of these changes can be beneficial (like longer necks in giraffes); some are not so beneficial (i.e., debilitating
diseases).
The "orthodox" scientists are very quick to deny that the hand of intelligent design is involved in these evolutionary changes; they argue, sometimes simplistically, that these changes are due to things like mistakes in the copying of DNA, environmental differences, and other factors. But according to Sir Fred, "mistakes" in gene-copying and the widely-accepted "natural selection" theories of Charles Darwin (i.e., survival of the fittest) cannot account for the creation of the amazing multitude of different life forms that are present on Earth today, mainly because 
(1) miscopying of genes occurs so rarely as to be a tiny factor in evolution, and miscopyings
almost always make detrimental changes, not beneficial ones
(as has been clearly observed in the simple copying error that creates
sickle-blood cell amenia). Hoyle makes this analogy: while scrambling the letters in a readable message makes that message
unreadable, scrambling the letters in an already unreadable message will rarely create a readable message. (2) As far as natural
selection goes, Hoyle points out that natural selection requires that many different life forms already have to be present for
it to work; in other words, there had to be giraffes with both short and long necks to begin with, in order for natural selection to filter
out the shorter-necked giraffes, who could not reach the leaves on the higher branches and thus were less able to survive long enough to
leave offspring. No amount of neck-stretching could work its way backwards into the giraffe's DNA to produce longer-necked giraffe
offspring; per Sir Fred, the genes that produced those longer necks had to be assembled from materials brought from a source outside
of the Earth, i.e., the amino acids (which make up DNA) contained in viruses embedded in comets and meteorites which fall to earth, burn,
and release them.
But why couldn't those amino acids that make up DNA have been assembled here on Earth in some warm little pond or something, and kick-started the building of more complex molecules and enzymes and things like that without "outside" intervention? Why would they have to come from some force outside of the planet? Well, according to Sir Fred's mathematical calculations, the few billions of years alloted for these things to happen is just too short a span of time for such development to occur, left to its own devices. The roughly 200,000 proteins and 2,000 enzymes which our bodies use are highly-regimented arrangements of amino acids that work as software and hardware in a process somewhat like a military operation, the enzymes being the hardware. Sir Fred calculates that the mathematical chance of even one of the essential 2,000 enzymes our bodies use having arisen by accident would be roughly equivalent to the odds of a gambler rolling 50,000 straight sixes, using unloaded dice (not to mention the other 1,999 or so enzymes we use)! Enzymes are super-critical to the assembly of the complex proteins that make up higher life forms; without them, such assembly would simply take too long. They also do things like speeding up the digestion of the food we eat; without those complex enzymes to help speed up metabolic processes, an organism would die of starvation before it could digest the food it ingested. But wait, there's more... a hell of a lot more, actually. In fact, I'm only going to cite a few more items from Sir Fred's book because I don't have all the time or space in the universe to list more. So have this, Darwinists... Charles Darwin wrote that "Natural selection was daily and hourly scrutinizing," looking for "the slightest variations, rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good, silently and insensibly working...". This implied that evolution always proceeded at a constant, though extremely slow pace, without intelligent intervention. His supporters cite the fossil record that shows the gradually increasing sizes of animals like horses; however, these were of basically the same genetic structure, and changes in size could have been caused by external factors, like nutrition (apparently Hoyle didn't consider the loss of toes or the transition from a toenail to a hoof in forerunners to the modern horse to be large enough to count as a crucial change [although this still doesn't rule out evolution by genes delivered from outer space]). 
What Sir Fred says we should be looking for are very large,
crucial changes that occurred step-by-step in the fossil record, such as the transition from wingless to winged insects, the transition
between the two main types of winged insects, or the transition from reptiles to mammals, none of which had been found at the time of
his book's publication in the U.S., 1984 (if such crucial changes have been found since then, sorry; just shoot me in the eye, ok?).
He cites the example of Archaeopteryx, a mysto creature that was half-reptile, half-bird and was much acclaimed for being the "link"
between the two; per Darwinism, there should be a wide range of creatures transitioning from reptiles to birds preserved in the fossil
record, but as of 1984 at least, no other slightly similar such creatures had been found (once again, if I'm wrong go bang a gong, ok?).
What the fossil record does bear out, however, and what Darwin himself acknowledged to be a thorn in his theory's side, was what he called evolution "per saltum," or evolution by major leaps that occurred all at once, followed by long periods of stability. Per Sir Fred, this would indicate that the changes were caused by the sudden arrival of genes from outer space, not by continuous errors in the copying of DNA. Darwinists tried to get around this idea by saying the DNA copying errors didn't need to create new genetic structures; they could have brought into operation already assembled genetic information that was just lying around. But again, this ducks the issue of how the perfectly assembled and fully-functioning gene sequences that caused the abrupt major changes originated in the first place by small DNA-copying errors, or "point mutations." The only explanation for evolution by "jumps" is if that information came from outside the system, says Hoyle. 
Another very convincing factor backing the "genes from space" theory is the fact that since these gene-carrying viruses don't intentionally seek out
specific victims, the same sets of genes will end up in many different life forms that have evolved separately, such as plants, insects,
and even humans! These might be "psuedogenes," or genes that aren't immediately used, or "expressed," but lie dormant in the organism's DNA,
waiting to be used later perhaps; over 95% of human DNA consists of such psuedogenes. This explains the fact that gene sequences
that produce the blood of animals are also present in plants, which don't use blood. A good example of this inexplicable sharing of
the same exact gene sequences can be seen in a spider that is colored exactly like a flower; it can hide in that flower, fooling a pollinating
insect into thinking it's not there, and then, zap! Dinnertime. How could two organisms from entirely different kingdoms
have evolved by chance the same exact highly-structured gene sequences through random point mutations? It is so unlikely that it seems
impossible, as Sir Fred points out, but it can be explained by the arrival of these genes from an outside source. Also: the
genes that color the beautiful wings of butterflys also exist in humans, but are not used by us; why would we have or need them? There
are many, many examples of completely different organisms sharing the same sets of genes, even if they are not being used.
There are multitudes of inexplicable examples of animal and insect behaviour that can't be explained by point-mutations or Darwin's gradual building-up and weeding-out theories; the dance a bee does to tell its fellow bees where it found some appealing source of nutrition; the "false eyes" markings present in some animals that warn others not to eat or otherwise mess with them; the ability of birds raised in lonely captivity to construct complex nests; the complexity of the webs that spiders build by instinct, and many other strange things that would be more of a hindrance, or even a danger in their early formative stages to the animal slowly developing it by errors in gene copying, or "point mutations." Example: what good would a single or very few strands of a spider web do to a hungry spider trying to trap prey in a web? It would only be useful in its fully developed stage. And the rudimentary beginnings of a "false eye" marking would only make an animal more easy to spot, thus increasing the likelihood of its being eaten. But these things are plenty useful when they appear all at once! So what gives here? I could go on and on with these examples (Sir Fred certainly does), but I don't want to bore you and make you go away before I make my final point. So let's briefly examine Sir Fred's theories as to what caused Darwin's nobly-intended but clearly erroneous theories of evolution to gain so many adherents, before I end this webpage with a grand flourish. In his forward to "The Intelligent Universe," Hoyle points out that ever since the invention of the microscope in 1673, and the resulting ability to study the hitherto-unseen world of tiny little guys, there has been a conflict between science and religion regarding the subject of evolution, with the scientists challenging the religious dogma that all species were created separately. This dogmatic reasoning had been used by the Church to support powerful autocrats throughout Europe, who believed they were fixed in their high-faluting places by divine ordnance; the autocrats used that logic to justify their suppresion of the less fortunate commoners (with the help of the Church). The Industrial Revolution of the 1860's helped to create a "middle-class" composed of commoners who gained some relief from the bullying of the "nobility," showcasing a different sort of selection, artificial (requiring intelligent input) rather than natural (just randomly occuring with no intelligence required), illustrated by the coming and going of different types of products, improvements in accordance to the needs of the market. Hoyle states that even though this "artificial selection" required intelligent input and was not random as in natural selection, the similarities of the two concepts made it easier for society to accept natural selection, with no questions asked. And so it went. The same dogmatic reasoning that the Church used to suppress the "commoners" way back when is, in my opinion, still being used to this very day to suppress populist movements that try to resist rich powerful bullies, but in an opposite way, it seems to me. Nowadays, the rich and powerful monopolists see the popular belief in a "God" as a negative thing, which evil anti-satanic religious leaders use to incite God-worshipping people to do bad things, like fight back against the apparently Zionist-controlled United States when it invades their countries, pollutes their cultures and destroys their lives. The last thing these monopolists, or plutocrats, or oligarchs, or financiers, or whatever you want to call them (I call them Satanists, myself) want is for poorer people to start believing that an all-powerful, moral and righteous "God" wants them to stand up for what is right, see the Satanists for what they really are, unite and start trying really hard to resist them. But that's when the Satanists aren't actually using the Church to their advantage, as can be seen in the religious right's anti-abortion movement (yes, the religious "right" is influenced and controlled by the Satanists, same as all the rest of us); since arresting the mindless propogation of unwanted children constitutes a real threat to their total Satanic control over those aforementioned poorer people, the Satanists seek to outlaw abortion in order to flood society with poorly-educated "motherless children" who are too busy just trying to make ends meet, and have no time to learn the nature of the Satanists' money-printing/power-buying game. This explains the popularity of the Church-influenced "kill the abortionists" movement pretty clearly, to my way of thinking. It would also, by my reckoning, explain the amazing abundance of "credible" authorities who frenetically scream their opposition to anyone even listening to the words of people like Sir Fred Hoyle and his clearly scientific views, to the extreme point of enacting legislation forbidding educational institutions from even considering the possibility of creation by intelligent design! This would be be akin to teaching "religion" instead of "science," they insist. However, if you take a closer look at who or what is actually doing the frenetic screaming, you begin to see a pattern developing. News sources that are obviously and blatantly controlled by the Satanists (as evidenced by their non-stop groundless and hysterical editorializing about "anti-satanic" evildoers who criticize Israeli lobbying entities such as the too-powerful AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], while developing a sudden inexplicable muteness about fascinating subjects such as the Mossad agents who seem to have carried out the terrorist events of "September 11th" and were mysteriously exonerated and allowed to return to Israel, or the culpability of the illegally contrived Federal Reserve in regards to the financial crises that have and still are occuring in this country [and a hell of a lot of others, too]) are clearly at the forefront of this opposition to reasonable scientific debate about evolution. 
If you check the editorials of such obviously Zionist-controlled news sources such as The Atlantic, The Guardian, The New York Times, The
New York Post, Scientific American, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, the National Center forBiotechnology Information (NCBI),
The Monthly Review, etc., you'll see that they all seek to stop the impartial science-based debates on whether Intelligent Design
should be considered in academic curricula, a "smoking gun" response to attempts to really understand the nature
of evolution, and who or what might have caused it. They are also conspicuous in their frenetic insistence on Darwinism
as the only explanation possible. Very interestingly, none of the editorials I have read mentioned Sir Fred Hoyle,
who in my opinion represents the epitome of unbiased scientific analysis of the subject, being free of religious implications regarding
"who" or what the Intelligent Designer could be.
And now we come to the concept of morality... a virtue the Satanists despise, and for good reason. It runs diametrically opposite to the rat-like philosophy of the Satanists, who stated that "the ruler who governed by the moral code was not a skilled politician because he left himself vulnerable and in an unstable position. By the laws of nature, right lies in force." Also, "the word right is an abstract thought and proves nothing." To me, by this same reasoning someone bigger and stronger than I am can break into my house, beat me up and take anything he wants from me; he would be entirely and blamelessly right in doing so, you see, because "right lies in force." It's just natural, man! Once more, in his forward to "The Intelligent Universe," Hoyle first points out the fact that the more sentient people often ask themselves, "what is the real purpose in life, if there is one?", then states that biology, as influenced by Darwinism, answers that question thusly: "only to produce the next generation. Nothing matters except continuity of existence." He next asks what use is the moral code that is present in all human societies, then? Would it not be more advantageous to the survival of those societies to abandon the concept of morality? Biology might answer that the moral code exists only to help people work together in groups, which promotes that group's survival. But Hoyle delves further by asking the question "why does morality persist when, after all, cheating is often more profitable than truthfulness?" He then states his opinion that Darwin's concept of natural selection is an open charter for any form of opportunistic behaviour, including cheating and even murder. I couldn't agree more; the words of the Satanists themselves ("By the laws of nature, right lies in force") confirm this. You can clearly see how an insane mind can make use of the concept of natural selection to justify anything evil it chooses to do; it's natural; its "real." A famous zoologist named Richard Dawkins, in his book "The Selfish Gene," concluded that morality is simply just a manifestation of genes that mathematically balance the two conflicting concepts of morality and immorality (altruism and selfishness, as Dawkins refers to them) in order to have a better chance of survival, citing the examples of certain worker bees that carry out rotten portions of bee cells in the hive and "sacrifice" their right to reproduce for the sake of all bees. This would appear to be what real people call "reductionism" (the reducing of everything in life to the interaction of small basic chemicals) in its finest form. Great, man. However, I personally witnessed Richard Dawkins, in a video called "The Great God Debate," state that a belief in God caused religious fanatics led by Osama Bin Laden to fly airplanes into three skyscrapers and disintegrate them (two skyscrapers, actually; the third one somehow fell all by itself!). Since anybody who has even half of a brain can tell right away that the events of September 11th were a sham farce, it would appear that Dawkins is either abysmally stupid or, much more likely, is in the employ of the Satanists who were actually behind that sham farce. Either way, Dawkins has a serious credibility problem and his opinions, and the opinions of other bought-off "authorities" bear little weight on this, or any debate. Having said that, however, I must admit that I have learned from harsh experience that in an imperfect world, a compromise must sometimes be struck between the moralist view and the realist view; morality is a delicate matter, as Hoyle points out. I say, better a balance between the two than a complete abandonment of morality, as the Satanists seem to espouse. The question then seems to be, "how much morality should be abandoned?" To that I would answer thusly: "Play it as it lays" (heh-heh, snicker snicker). In other words, it depends on things like the severity of the situation at hand, and the amount of guilt you can live with after doing something bad or screwing over your fellow man. The changing conditions of an imperfect world dictate that "rules are meant to be broken" sometimes. It has been said that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions," and obviously, you can't always go by the book. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't stray too far from the "book," or you risk become an SS-DG Zionist yourself! But there is another factor that I have to deal with, that the Satanists don't consider; the wrath of whatever it is that created everything, if the Darwinists are indeed wrong as the evidence shows: "God." For reasons which I am about to lay out, I have come to believe (realize would be a better word) that this "God" guy, whatever He is, really does exist. At the risk of being taken for a liar and/or a madman (No!), I am hereby stating that some kind of unearthly force has revealed itself to me many, many times, in the form of "signs" that I can no longer ignore. These signs take the form of strangely-timed coincidences which, because they have occurred so often in my life, I can no longer see as being "coincidences," and I am forced to consider that they are symbolic revelations meant to make me see myself, and the mistakes I continually make, through God's eyes. I have received so many of these "signs" that, as of this point in time, I believe that I would be a God-forsaken idiot to doubt the existence of this God, or Creator, or whatever you want to call Him. This "realization" has influenced my thinking and my behaviour so profoundly, especially over the last five or six years, that I am now extremely hesitant to do anything that would offend this Guy, because I know that He knows that I know that He really does exist, and deliberately displeasing Him now would amount to blatantly slapping Him in His face, something I really don't want to indulge in anymore, thanks to some extremely serious consequences that have happened to me when I did so in the past. And now we come to the crux of all this. The crux of all this typing is that if people could see that there really was something out there, whether it be a lone entity or a "committee" of some sort, or something else that we just can't conceive of, people would think twice, as I do, before doing some of the really bad things that people are doing today. Of course I'm talking about, you guessed it... the Satanists. I truly believe, using my powers of observation, inference and imagination, that the Satanists at the top of the secret power pyramid are beyond redemption, and wouldn't fear God if He came down from "Heaven," wherever that is, and tapped them on the shoulder, grinning. They are deeply entrenched in their situation, and probably rightfully fear execution for their enormous crimes against humanity, especially over the last 100 or so years. However, they are so confident of their power over the rest of the world, power gained mainly through the manipulation, theft, and knowledgable application of money, that they have little fear of ever being overthrown, and are thusly highly unlikely to change their mass-murdering and socially deleterious ways. It is their immediate underlings whose minds I am appealing to here; the ones that protect and serve them, most importantly the guys that control the standing armies (which our Constitution forbade us to maintain in times of peace) and launch the nuclear missiles. If these people could only realize what I realize about what a mean motherfucker this anthropomorphic, personal "God" can be when He's mad at you, they would most definitely think twice about their fates in this life, and especially in the next, before they gave themselve carte blanche to do any and all sorts of evil murderous things. Far too may people reject the notion of an almighty, all-seeing God because they expect Him to be some kind of Santa Claus from Disneyland; that, I have found through painful experience, He is most definitely not. But how could an intelligent Creator, if there is one, punish someone whose life form has perished? Is a person's "soul" separate from their actual brain? And does a knowledgeable, highly-educated and insightful scientist like Sir Fred Hoyle, a man who doesn't preach religion but goes by the scientific method, have anything to say about this concept of an "afterlife?" Actually, he does. However, if you have read this far I am assuming that you are an intelligent, thoughtful person, but a person who has a lot of other pressing things to do that require your time and attention. Therefore, let us stop right here for the time being, and return to this subject in Chapter Two of this Free Music Video webpage, which may or may not have a different music video... depending on my time and attention span. Thanks for reading this! Here's the free music video I promised you so long ago. The background song is called "Little A's." Please go easy on the song; it was one of mine and Eddy's first musical recordings, done on extremely inexpensive equipment (try to forgive the funny sounding "Casio Keyboard" drums!) Alright then... see you little droogies next time. Click this link to download: Curse of the Satanists Click here to go back to Index Text, photos and music video "Curse of the Satanists" Copyright 2020 by Charles Adrian Trevino. The song "Little A's" copyright 1990 by Charles Adrian Trevino and Eddie Perez. God bless... and good luck! This is chucktrevino.com. |
