Lesbians Rule!

Observations relative to male appreciation of the female designating recognition of the lesbian including an efficient discourse challenging prevalent and covetous ideologies.

Preliminary premise;

1. Publishing provided the vehicle for certain ideologists which resulted in a contamination of the collective zeitgeist.

1. Along with his inherent potentiality each male is by default guilty by association, this since the Creation is non redundant.

1. The intentionality of this statement is to efficaciously disassociate from all antecedent counterproductive scheming and inconsistency rather than denounce the nebular of incoherency and prejudice.

1. This analysis is a variegated investigation interrogating a variety of aspects and ontological dimensionality of the female in an anthropological deliberation.

Note 1:

The judiciary.

Cognition – Health – Fashion – Expertise

1.1

Intrinsic symmetry indicates that sexual orientation of males and females is not inter-convertible; this means that sexuality for the male is not the same as sexuality for the female.

Therefore what has been labelled homosexuality between males is not the same homosexuality between females; this is true since the accomplishment potential is radically different for men as it is for women.

To support this it can be said simply that; when two different beings do the very same thing the results are different; meaning that a male-male sex act is different from female-female sex act.

Similarly; when two identical beings do different things the results are different and this can explain the female deconstruction, why therefore human procreation does not promote health as it does in the zoological kingdom.

Cognitive discernment deliberates exclusively about any given error here manifesting itself as homocentric structure never effectuating authentic epistemological finality and the enigma prevails.

Such cognition bears witness to the biomechanical tendency due to the immune responsiveness such to remember the origin and hence cause of just where and what made one ill.

On the other hand a sincere male intensely understands what he must do to establish himself as specifically efficacious and methodically autonomous that is in a demonstration of complete teleonomical androrogation.

That is, he must develop the technique whereby he can integrate himself into the infallibly perfect and the inexpugnably eternal which is not other than pure logic itself and it is here where choice engenders grace.

Male cognitive appreciation is different to that of the female in that it is non tactile, whereas the female is proximal this implies that the male sexual experience is forcibly non cognitive where as the female sexual agenda is cognitive.

Any notion of engagement relationship or love with the male in a sexual encounter is pure myth, this loving male exists as a female driven projection; she projects her latent lesbian onto her male partner.

Male appreciation of the female in a sensual appointment the is pure illusion and by nature a human male in such a physical engagement cannot lay claim to genuine emotion since this not being his vocation, ergo unlike the lesbian the male must understand the female only at a distance.

Therefore emotion is such a sexual engagement is suspect as is sensibility for the female, since these two sensations are proportional opposites.

1.2

Men have no need of another man to learn about a man but only a reflective surface.

However the male does need the female because a female is all of what he is not and for the male this yields genesis to the didactic aspect of the female and of female perfection not so much as individual but a virtual universal.

It must be said that the male recognition of the female is spontaneous and residual, a male-female genital union is contradictory to cognitive valence, and this since male aesthetic appreciation is within this context counter-transcendental.

On a philosophical level such counter-transcendental exegetic of the female is a semiotic and semantic de-radicalisation, however between women such corporeal congruency does not appear to be a problem and seems to enhance to greater prowess hominine dimensionality, efficaciously establishing an intrinsic dialectic to human affairs.

The integral male is a priori faithful to the ultimate and is never satisfied by the half measure such is true a fortiori when it comes to his appreciation of the female.

It is true that what men like most of women is a posteriori the woman’s health but without this being said this aspect becomes an object of covetousness, moreover the greatest female quality is not so much her ideas but her health.

Evidently, ideas become proportionally germane with the person according to his or her health, that is to say; that humans are biochemical and that this contingency is formidable.

To pretend that a given female is healthy when she is not is like a female pretending a male to be truthful when he is not, such diagnosis is prospectively dangerous.

Or to express it with different nuance; what interests the male is not to slander an unhealthy woman by making believe she is what she is not but to legitimize sincerity since the signal is important.

When commerce is not the motive force, what a woman has to gain with an honest response is a genuine female as the man an authentic male.

1.3

Health and development express the female in exemplary quanta; potentially she can thus alternatively yield a complete female formulation, if she so choose.

The male cannot at any moment or place impose on the woman a dress ethic not only is it not his responsibility but such act will prove deleterious to his education.

Moreover it is impossible not to get the impression of how women can be misogynous, since such is rendered efficacious with certain dress; ergo a refusal of the female by refusing to express the female, nominally this is a quantitative event since this brand of misogyny manifests proportionally with the abundance in dress.

Such dress is employed to acquire hindrance to male appreciation as to just what the female is all about, apoptotic misogyny since she refuses female demonstration this important didactic aspect to the female reason of being.

The dress ethos it seems is a projection of female ubiquity here health is paramount prompting subconscious reproach of not being in possession of complete health with all that this implies, this response is testament of genuine inherent female potential.

This, the female imposes on a given social strata and being a psychological majority she pervades the collective unconscious in blaming anyone this resulting in social divisibility with a certain hierarchical value a sort of pseudo-culture or quasi-religion.

Healthier women as it were would feel less the need of superficial props either to scrupulously show to hide herself since they certainly should feel less inadequate, even to the contrary seeing that they more perfectly match Creations eternal idea of the female, which is what one could classify as the eventually feminist archetype.

Clothing can become a weapon ironically leveraged against those very same individuals who promote it, men whose very religious proficiency depends on cognizance of the female, hypocritically deny it and invent rules to dissimulate a manifest ignorance, blaming the female but mostly blaming society.

On the other hand, it seems that a timid woman can conveniently appropriate the term of religion only to elaborate a camouflage in order to escape from a non compromising world, religion here suited into a self serving definition engendering a variety of female cast misogyny.

Self hate, or is it the shame of being woman that under the pretext of religious freedom that the female can escape from society but as well escape from the world and natural objective expression a sort of disembodiment.

Proportionally such unnatural props evidently betray the didactic aspect of female demeanour, since the intention of each intervention is a diversion, a sort of mastery by confusion.

So by default the woman is a self inducing victim of her own ubiquity, under the pretext of fame she submits herself to an obsequious masquerade of servility and ridicule.

The male subconsciously knows this and takes advantage, treating the woman as a child and this she is in response, immaturity the winner on the political stage.

Such is evident in the third world or the so called developing countries where the individual is permitted to subsist as the pseudo eternal infant.

Notwithstanding this same default mode exists equally for the male pervading the arena of individuality.

1.4

For the male, lesbianism is no problem since the equivalent of female corporeal sexuality is male cognitive philosophy.

It is evident, as all know that the equivalent to male philosophy is female sensuality, where the progeny of division is transcendence and here in unification.

That is true philosophy not to be confused with anthropology, anthropology the designated study of ideas.

The study of ideas is by the way not philosophy but anthropology, for example the study the thought of an aborigine of some reclusive abode is the same science as the study of the ideas of a said philosopher economist politician etc…,.

So why the prejudices, both are thinkers; an aboriginal man as well as a well known writer each with their particularities and lacunas?

Philosophy is the study of the Creation and inherent laws thereof.

The beginning of philosophy evidently was with Aristotle as Sappho was the introduction of lesbianism.

Lesbian expressivity to the male is the equivalent to witnessing a gymnastic or sports event with the difference being that with the lesbian there is a real existential winner where as in the sporting event all is just symbolic pretention where all is equitable in sport as in war.

It must be said that in sport and in war, men not without miracle have appropriated the female mode of self accomplishment for themselves as though it was theirs and that women are programmed to be perpetually intimidated and ostracized by such magisterial volumetric.

But this phenomenon, it might be hypothesised is nothing more than a simple reversal of roles as to modal efficiency that the given male has leveraged on the female immune system via universal domination.

This is the reversal of roles in manifest action where these individuals in a subconscious paradigm believe themselves to in fact exercise control within the context of female potentiality and thus assume female integration, which is in turn facilitated by the non existence of female articulation.

Strangely enough in return the female projects insensible submission to this delinquent male manipulation; she believes in this brute depravity to be an expression of her own universality.

This conceding acquiescence appears to be symbolic belonging to the realm of mythological obeisance that of the dominating female where as here the part is played by a domineering male.

Considering the universe to be based on logic, eventually one must ask; can I maintain confidence in those who enigmatically compromise themselves to achieve a certain end?

This evidently obliges the individual to entertain an immature sophistication, which leads to the statement; “Anthropocene: where men are girls and the girls aren’t smart!

Note 2:

The political.

History – Competence – Epigenetic – Emancipation

2.1

If it is that men customarily consider lesbianism as treachery it is most likely that he judges female autonomy an imposition on his world view and that in this female authenticity has been contaminated with male primitivism since traditionally he has considered himself her owner.

It is not strange that women are lead to belief that they are either obligated or responsible for men, since the male imposes his domination whilst refusing efficacious responsibility.

This is reinforced with the father willing to profit from the daughter by improving or maintaining his personal exhibition towards the world, such individuals normally hide such commerce behind an emotionally charged disguise labelled as; concern, futurity, responsibility or love.

Most traditions propose that the female is property of men and that the female must absolutely find an owner for; self belonging, justification even appurtenance and with this escape or ensconce into the portentous election of matrimony.

It is a fact that men generally conceive themselves as superior to the female and having exclusive authority over her; it seems that subversively some women encourage this attitude and here in can propose marriage as her contribution and subterfuge furnishing an escape mechanism from true human development.

Such superiority of men over women is the manifestation of the male lesbian complex, where the world finality eventuates into the metamorphosed female and the male is simply assimilated into this vortex, by his own neglect.

Desecration as a rule or so it seems must run the conventional gamut from, the repulsive to compulsive, the pervasive pseudo historicity and the omnipresence of male prevalence which eventuates the sanctioning of counter integration modulating a social fabric in a deformed definition of freedom and objectivity.

This explains male sexual deviance in its aggregate, from rapist to child predator, through homosexual not excluding either the male or even female transvestite.

But in a standard situation one must answer the question; why do some men get aroused when women treat them as a lesbian?

A definitive response is that this phenomenon is simply a reversal of roles more or less spontaneously proposed to the male delinquent.

If one were to theorise on why a given female become aroused one would think it might be that of an episodic actualization of an easy conquer.

2.2

Why should she believe the various politico religious personalities who through their writing suggest that her reason of being can be rendered with the sustaining of a: tribe, nation, religion or human race via reproduction.

Evidently a system which promotes the sacrifice of genuine ontogenesis or individual integrity eventuates the compromise of an ideology which values a complete genetic, but such sacrifice is the argument of these insolent and contumelious fathers, nuisance for themselves as countless others.

As we can now comprehend that these writers were subconsciously and symbolically referring to the specifically contained perpetuation of; insects, wolves, plants etc… or any variety of an alternate zoological accomplishment.

But especially that of the state whose significance consists in a conforming of any aspect of humanity into a tractable mass and therein suggesting itself to possess exclusive authorisation over the definition of responsibility.

The state by extorting humanity feeds on the Creation there in creating so called jobs and here in generating and perpetuating a voting populace.

Evidently the notion of country or nation is eminently artificial, unnatural, divisively chimerical, normalised escapism for those who adhere and therefore a temporary structure.

All in reference to the myth of democracy fiction since one cannot simply vote a truth, the adept advances the notion that truth is simply a matter of choice or expertise a masterpiece of human machination and not an ultimate or absolute.

This formulation irrevocably deprives the Creation merited definition that of substantive reality, source of consistency and law and with this recalling the words of the poet; is it better one satisfied Socrates or a multitude of contented truculent?

To believe and eventually vote in such a system is to embark on a fantastical organism an existential aberration.

As everyone knows that the only competent in law is the Creation, law is not therefore a human invention, as modern politics and politicians need pretend, that one can and must choose the truth of their comfort.

With this they pretend to be more intelligent than the Creation which is in fact the origin and source of definition, perfection, precision and truth.

So it must be said that; who therefore gages their lives in function to an artificial system effectively renounces the genuine life, hysterical or neurotic according to the sex implicated.

Worse, who submits their personal responsibility to a concocted system no matter how audacious it may appear, finally renounces an authentic existence.

Audacity elaborated as an exclusive and irrefutable social vehicle efficacious source of freedom, inviolability, protection or security.

This seeming total control over candour simply demonstrates the default mode of male potentiality and manifest failure; aspect of life having never been overcome since the dawn of humanity.

2.3

Symmetry imposes that; what is evidently female, to the male the opposite equivalent prevails such that; what is unity for the male is entity for the female inversely what is entity for the female is unity for the male.

So why does it seem scandalous when a female sells her body, but just when a male sells his mind, this when it is diametrically and proportionally the same thing?

The politician specialises in an exploitation of gullible women and inversely the courtesan specialises in the exploitation of degenerate men.

But as everyone knows; the first lesson of philosophy is that of qualification the Creation is not automatic.

In life sciences the automatic is the apoptotic mode, but the Creation necessitates qualification and works of parasitism or prostitution is an ostensive refining of disqualification.

Paradoxically the parasite ultimately feeds on its own quantification whereas the prostitute is revealed as feeding on its own qualification.

Following the structural symmetry between the sexes we can admit that what is male institutionalism is ontologically proportional to the female epigenetic; the male quasi generic becomes an institution, whereas the female quasi specific manifests as epigenetic.

With this the supposition as to symmetry between the epigenetic and a given institution both limiting health, wealth state or place; deformed institutions provoking epigenetic deformation.

Feminists hope to be valorised by and through some new social or political structure where women would be recognised by the authorities as being equivalent to men, are birds equal to fish?

They are thus in quest of some automatic recognition scheme a contrivance of a sort of artificial intelligence other than herself.

Such a structure is far from Utopic exhibiting a simple compromise to self valorisation since it does not involve the definition to an ultimate accomplishment.

Why do women respect such an enterprise renouncing the more radical solution which includes a complete engagement?

Here arises two questions;

1. Why do these men have such an importance for the feminist?

2. Why does the feminist need to be valorised by these men?

Now there presents two problems;

1. Women do believe in an artificial world order forced through by unqualified men.

2. Women do not believe they possess an adequate or efficacious opinion independent of a traditional male discourse.

Thusly there arises two constants;

1. The female is waiting for the male to invent the woman for her which may be understood as the Pinocchio complex.

2. The irony persists that each woman knows that the economical-political construction of the world is built on a disqualifying slope such that if the thing in question is other than gratuitous it is disqualified as for meaningfulness.

2.4

So it appears that the United Nation’s women’s watch theme “Women in Leadership Roles” is less than genuine.

It seems at a first glance that it is nothing more than an attempt to ignore the postulate of an authentic female and simply to clone her into a traditionally contrived male niche.

You have to really believe in this so called inequality of women; pretending to realise the mannequin apparently much easier than ones proper potentiality.

This generally accepted conclusion might however prove true if when equality is gauged proportionally to arrogant men, the operator in this case is arrogance.

The equality of women in question is that of women who thus aspire to be equal to arrogant men whom the infallibly hold in esteem and since the symmetrical antithesis of arrogance is ignorance this will effectively yield an ignorant woman.

Further in response to the United Nations theme “Violence against women: How can we overcome this persistent human rights violation?”

The response must be; given any situation where a woman is not completely happy; order, nation, company or marriage, she simply needs to exercise her right of veto.

The beauty here is that the woman can and must decide without the need of a man to intervene, moreover if there is any fear of a female conspiracy against men then she would certainly not be in agreement with a male forged solution for women.

This veto is imposed as a;

a)  Refusal to furnish a vote in the case of rogue world order.

b)  Refusal to furnish a population in the case of an unjust nation or society.

c)  Refusal to furnish work in the case of a less than efficient company or work place.

d)  Refusal to furnish a conjugal union in the case of a non desired husband or marriage.

Certainly all women are in agreement with this postulate as this is evidently the natural methodology, since here all women without exception have total intrinsic control and this explains why this is the only possible remedy to violence rendered to women.

Evidently any situation where the woman feels less than totally comfortable she would certainly not impose a given situation on another person especially a child, so here there is never a problem since the female can exercise genuine feminine intelligence.

So what should be universally undisputable is the fact that a woman is her own expert and what she maintains as perfection for herself no man should doubt or imply that she may be mistaken or strive to improve her definition, even if she wants you to.

Note 3:

The medical.

Ecology – Evolution – Reproduction – Parthenogenesis

3.1

Ecology of comportment can enumerate four factors that exercise on the female subject preference as to the choice of fitness; proof of worth, the war effort, a social cohesiveness and the healthier partner.

Proof of worth stemming from a low self esteem calling to mind perfection of the universal female, the war effort to combat the enemy her lesbian lover is confounded in the mind as the enemy, social cohesion to draw attention from ones acquaintances and the healthier partner as source of intimidation.

In the conjugal union the male is a stand-in for the lesbian lover and is subconsciously apprehended according to the institution and this diversity of choice would be advanced according to the ensuing bias of the subject; the world in the universal case, the enemy in the generic case, the group in the individual case or the athlete in the specific case.

Such expediency reveals a male clad in a shroud of female immune constellation, but ironically a given female must feel it comfortable for it to work.

Instead this should however lay claim to certain repugnance on behalf of any given female?

The so called mythological primitive consciousness has it that the female regards the male as her lesbian lover, in this case she does not see herself as possessing her proper ontology this vital aspect is overshadowed by the male and is by definition pretention.

Strangely enough the delinquent male does not see the difference, for he has chose to forfeit his cognitively efficient transcendence, insignificant and without interest neither the world nor his partner and this by definition is ignorance manifest, in economic terms a long.

When the female compromises her achievement and renounces her personal accomplishment as a genuine female in order to raise the offspring for a male or male social system this is called by evolutionary biology as genomic dilution, in economic terms a short that is, selling what she does not have in order to buy it back when the price drops.

Evidently the challenge of being a woman is included in the beauty to choose which male thinker that she deems the most perfect, this is the equivalent with the male to choose which females are the most complete.

If the error is as catastrophic for the female as to manifest on her integrity as radical as to decide on her genome, one must only reflect on how equally devastating or mind blowing as it must be on the male i.e. as a total compromise on his socio-political configuration.

3.2

Evolved transcendentalism makes it that the male has out grown coition whereas the female now grows into coition, experience of which men have stolen from women and women have bartered.

Speciation is evolving qualification, men and women must each evolve into their respective species and as philosophy is the male modality of speciation, lesbianism is the proper female methodology where choice begets grace and grace engenders choice.

So taking the ideal is a given in Creation, human sexuality evolves from producing someone else to pure self production and such must be the case for female evolution as is foreshadowed by the lesbian.

The lesbian is a veracious self-governing individual without whom there is no claim to feminism, apparently the woman who relies on some male institution or contrivance risks to contradict to the definition.

Where axiology qualifies, ontology quantifies and such ontological quantification is exemplified in reproduction moreover this reproduction radicalizes each human act towards total specificity.

Who says species says; taxonomic specificity, which is like saying; the thing and itself, animal reproduction reinforces specificity, but for the human this means himself only being a radicalism contained ontology in a sort of complete autarchy.

Further applying the concept of symmetry to what constitutes the ontology of male specialisation implies that the female ontological equivalent would be not so much a specialisation but a generalisation.

The Creation is efficient of the individual, but strangely enough the individual in order to be countenanced before a scrutinizing society has to be doubled up into a convenient conjugation, a sort of nitrification.

The one partner marriage fallacy appears to be just another hangover of a domineering male imposition, which is not more than symbolic within species of the animal realm.

The average human is invited to reproduce some zoological conformity in order to demonstrate social acceptation similar to a sort of pheromone contiguity amongst certain insects of a given colony.

3.3

Modern medicine introduces itself by dissimilating culpability and in blaming non obstante the Creation as being guilty for human genetic lacunae, therein profiting in a self valorisation.

Dissimulation an extraordinary mitigation for slander since it is obstreperous pretension for the male mind to entertain such an hypotheses.

However; culpable for genetic defalcation depends on those whose accomplishment potential such generation belongs and with this observation induction imposes that any pervasive perception that the Creation as being the responsible dissolves.

Or is it worse to disregard liability and in so doing perpetrate injustice and contribute to dysfunction by failing to recognise human potentiality, but rather proposing a vector of guilt but who so ever fails to recognise fault does neither recognise success or what they recognize as success is entirely something else.

The result looks something like a sort of female conspiracy which is mounted by following this path and where the puppet master has become the first slave.

A posteriori; contrary as with animals plants insects etc…, heterogeneous generation cannot be identified as the agent for the completion human health, as this would spurn health as a variant of human potential and in so doing present a risk of further genetic disintegration.

Exclusively, the cognitive engagement precludes control where as with heterogeneous generation the human female has vouchsafed this control so where intellectual in-put is lacking neither is there a concluding result.

In the best of all worlds, the female should have exhibited total control as generating dynamism, but evidently this is contradictory when it is about a genuine acting human, since the individual here in has chosen to relinquish.

The less convincing resultant melds witness to such manifest absence and the apparent ersatz, ergo genetic deficiency of the human heterogeneous generation reveals it to be undignified of the human.

The male must possess his own reason of being and not therefore consign on a mother, wife, daughter or servant to supplement, structure or support axiological or teleological incompetence.

The human when in contrast to animals is not just a human by default he is any of the contrary and it is in this where he achieves self qualification; without which he would be nothing more than a mechanical conscienceless device.

What excludes the married woman from the definition of feminist is in her persistence to disregard the definition of species and to revert back into the animal mode of automatic existence.

Sexism is defined as someone whose ambition is to control another through sexual appropriation, discrimination, domination and exploitation, this definition makes sexism to be the major tool of a married woman.

A priori there is no part time feminist, since there is no part time ontology; usage of the word feminist obliges fidelity to its definition and exquisite nature.

6 is that it is an open loop system; the copulating individual trades himself off  to another individual that is the offspring, with this very same responsibility the resulting individual is in turn morally and ethico-politically saddled by the worsened genetic condition.

Human reproduction becomes sort of perpetual reboot mechanism appears acceptable when the individual in question is of an indiscriminating nature, ergo; fish, penguins, walrus etc…, never articulating the human as finality.

However as for the intellectually potential Creature such ideology is retrograde to true valorisation of an inherent and genuine reason of being.

As alternate conjugation contradicts such efficacy with the event of trading off ones inherent ontology to a different being, in this case the offspring, who in their turn are relegated this very same human qualifying necessity but with genetic recession and aggravated incompletion.

A surrogate donor methodology of human reproduction would demonstrably be no different from the conventional methodology undoubtedly yielding a similar result as with the variety of sickness if not more just as in standard generation.

3.4

Enter parthenogenesis!

Parthenogenesis is the potent opportunity for total and immanent female emancipation.

Is it true therefore what the philosophers say; that human parthenogenesis is more efficacious, that is healthier than the conventional heterogamous reproduction?

They suggest that the recombination or hybridization of two female genomes will generate a unique healthier female genome; naturally the synaptonemal complex selecting the best genetic component, the deficient being as it were extruded by the more perfect.

Genetic symbiosis eliminating the ever so frequent mistakes: babies joined at the head etc…?

Moreover; if hybridization generates a healthier person, heterogamous reproduction in so far as for humans, is in fact counter optimal.

If in fact hybridization does indeed put back the female so to speak then this reveals that since the onset of all those people since say Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon were in fact doing it wrong and that they might have only been contributing to the plethora of disease when they could have been better defining the human.

Theoretically parthenogenesis eventually and astonishingly implies evolutionary efficacy, this since a healthier person is the result.

It might seem a priori that technical intervention proves somewhat unnatural?

With this the reply might be said that; what is unnatural in the animal realm is perfectly natural in the human realm.

Or what is natural in the animal realm is semiotic transcendentalism in the human realm.

Technique yielding testament to human ingenuity, women can finally possess their own aetiology and logic.

It should be noted here that this analysis is not novel, that Simone de Beauvoir has said the same thing somewhat differently.

The logical implication is important; without parthenogenesis female generation is impotent and illusory.

Justifiably it can be implied that the female genome is a by-product of male sexual input and has for effect to segregate ad infinitum the female into a multiplicity of aspect and not always with a beneficial result.

Surely this is the message Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley had intended to express in her Frankenstein, where the champion Frankenstein is in fact the author’s archetypal lesbian nemesis, the proof being that the synthesis of two females combines the healthier of either.

Note 4:

The economical.

Religions – Responsibility – Coition – Spirituality

4.1

It may not be that surprising how some have equated the conjugal matrimony system as equivalent to a surreptitious form of “murder-suicide”?

One of the partners here is attesting a more or less conscious jealousy of the other partners; health, wealth, state or place wishing to appropriate the other thus and this other permitting such appropriation through shame.

The term “murder-suicide” can be replaced by “jealousy-shame”, analogy substantiated by the fact that an authentic human qualification necessitates a genuine contribution to the definition of speciation rather than bypassing this selectivity and personal intrinsic accomplishment.

If a woman pretends to be jealous of any male or even of another woman when this later is acquiring knowledge as to the health attributes of any female including herself it becomes apparent that her disposition is gauged on mounting a commercial ideology; she is preoccupied with a generalised intention to profit through manipulation.

Paradoxically male jealousy of the female provides the structural basis of team sport where in an entirely symbolic endeavour each alternating squad incorporates either of a lesbian couple, male shame of the female is exemplified in an equivalent manner in war where each enemy attempts to defeat the other.

Excluding Judaism there are perceptibly four major religious systems two of these are protestant to Judaism and are direct derivatives from Judaism, the other two are of eastern origin but the inferences are no less engaging.

Each of these four religious systems has been conceived entertaining a particular male attitude toward women.

The genesis of these four religious systems are realised according to the kinetics of male potentiality and succumb to one of the four enervations and are classified syntactically as; jealousy, scorn, shame and distrust.

The Creation is pre-programmed into a necessary apoptotic default mode, this imposes on male potentiality essentialist nature where a choice of non-accomplishment is not allowed and without which all the Creation would produce would be an automaton.

Somewhere over the course of events there would arrive the choice to renounce the excellence of the other as well as surrender one’s own plenitude thus settling on some inferior calibre where mediocrity is the norm and shielding oneself from an engaging world.

Male axiological defection occurs when the husband entertains the notion that he can win as it were a recreational person a living toy; the wife and the enigma stultifies with his owning of a toy person as with progenitor.

Is it that female axiological defection occurs as when the wife achieves ontology with a real person in her owning of a husband so it must be then that female axiological defection occurs in her owning of a toy person as with progenitor?

Indeed; the real attempt of men and women here is to achieve their respective ontological plenum, how each can conveniently succumb to something else is of an individual odyssey.

4.2

The oral contraceptive does indeed provoke murder as does the infamous morning after pill if one considers the foetus as a serious living entity not simply amusing oneself with the semantics to the definition of  human potentiality and accomplishment therein.

The establishment of this definition is instrumental in relieving the foetus of the burden of transporting human potentiality, the fact being that the foetus is not a potential human or a human in the wings or in the waiting so it must therefore be a presents – this situated at the symmetrical extremity of potential.

Human potential is by definition the exclusive realization of either male axiology or female ontology.

Insensitivity as to originality eventuates in to insensitivity as to the finality, plenitude of being amputated on both extremities proportionally.

The oral contraceptive as everyone is aware does not inhibit or prevent conception, which takes place in the fallopian tube far from the effect of the drug.

The oral contraceptive takes effect only when the already conceived foetus migrates to the uterus for further development.

It is here in the uterus where the oral contraceptive prevents the foetus from installing itself to the uterine membrane the endometrium.

The foetus would then simply be evacuated into the toilet and ergo death to the foetus.

Is this effect not dissimilar to pushing someone off a balcony and blaming gravity on any ensuing injury?

Or is it that civil law gives precedence to age, implying that the older a person may become the greater his worth independent of personal accomplishment an effect of osmosis as it were?

You would suspect that civil law was written by someone with intent on protecting himself, but an analysis of the famous oral contraceptive lays testimony to the fact that the human has conveniently relegated to the foetus the responsibility of his own potentiality resulting in his own native contempt.

How can it be that such a theocracy has established it that automatically the foetus is worthless and exponentially human value increases as though through inflation?

It seems that it works with in such an efficacy imitating a climactic event but then declining as though life was established according to the axe of the orgasm male or female.

From conception here grace of the oral contraceptive the human being can be sarcastically measured in true economic terms as a product of consumption.

With this what can be understood is that the sentient human is automatically absorbed into a social system which is dominated by a biological contingent and the enigmatic relinquishment to transcendence in the name of justifying collectivism.

4.3

A difficulty with the logic of male-female marriage is that of physiological symmetry evidence being that genital  symmetry is better between females; evolution is intelligibly revealing the fact that the woman is better satisfied with another female than with a male, this in contrast to the animal kingdom where the male-female element is contained within a parity of beings.

Who is more efficacious in hygiene to explore and integrate than one’s own self same being, so what are a more logical complement to the woman than woman and exclusivity to the female archetype.

Hygiene is interspecies responsibility making lesbianism nature’s female integer, rather than the male another female would be infinitely more efficient; this makes lesbianism the evolved state.

The definition of concupiscence is then demystified to denote no more than personal hygiene, important with which women establish themselves and maintain their health.

With this interest the shift is evident that is not so much to please a man or a politician or any artificial model, but ones caretaker, this reinforces the thesis that; lesbianism is for those women who care for themselves.

Lesbian coition is unique when compared with alternate animal observations; for instance the bonobo does indeed employ tantric routine and in so doing thus renders the human female-female encounter not dissimilar to that of an individual species

Prospectively the lesbian occupies a place in nature not only real but ideal, envisioning female completion and who says anatomical symmetry waives equally psychological symmetry.

Any female-female sexual encounter is exemplified within the animal realm, this since total specificity is respected and selected for fitness; the lesbian experiment should possess potential to express the entirety.

The lesbian can therefore transcendentally extirpate herself from the complexity of biological systems, articulating female originality and evolved spirituality as Creations justice.

4.4

For the post contemporary female as it is exemplified in the animal realms all men manifest an aspect of her lesbian syzygy.

Not having unzipped herself into a more inclusive conformity she would be without doubt totally consumed by jealousy so she must ask herself what makes these lesbian dudes look on other women.

This must be quite intimidating if not frightening for the female, one can imagine her on a perpetual adrenaline blitz.

Taking this into consideration one can abstract how she believes that she is required to engage the male to implement her latent spirituality.

It is evident that the lesbian needs no special permission to either express or to exist, lesbianism is by definition advanced ontogeny.

Any thesis counter to this effect would ironically epitomize a satirically implausible situation over and above any prejudging society.

Society seems to be retrograde to the dividing and refining intentional absolute and teleological ultimate action of evolving human perfection; this is because this other humanity is in fact contingent to a zoological substructure.

Nature herself has supplied the star gate to administer to any and all undesired situation and where the well being of women is compromised, for women universally and individually here the boycott is an efficacious and entirely human response to improve her world.

Forcibly men evolve from democracy to science and women from science to democracy, self expertise men have understood and have applied rigorously to themselves.

As for her personal expression or her individual personalisation, what needs to be improved on this is the best of all worlds and what other resources she may be in requisition of is between her and her destiny.

Philosophically it is normal for a woman to be lesbian, by the same token it is not normal for a woman not to be lesbian and who says philosophical agrees to submit to all and satisfy any logical limitation.

It becomes exceedingly apparent therefore that lesbianism is Creations revelation of its superior being, so there must therein exist a lecture exclusively articulated exemplifying superlative cosmic symmetry albeit; aero-dynamism categorically metaphysical.

Competitive evolution concerning deferential lesbianism is essential to philosophy of nature, this since such persistent originality is Creations paradigm explaining the relative symmetrical contemporaneousness of Sappho with Aristotle.

The mystery is as such that evolution has it that virginity is the ultimate immanent female potential generic and the beauty is that the female can remain or develop virginity whilst promoting a complete authentic lesbian expressivity.

In an attempt to achieve greater impetus to this resigned descriptive counter association, it may prove important to elicit various parameters as to what differentiates an authentic spirituality from pseudo spirituality of which every religion pretends.

Who says spirituality says the intrinsic being; this means that spirituality is a specifically contained configuration; therefore the concept of homosexuality is redeemed by the lesbian as implying for the female genuine spirituality, contrary to what most male carven religious cannons proclaim.

This does not mean that there is no male spirituality it just means that male spirituality is sculpted into reality and organically transcending in contrast to the entity oriented spirituality as it subsists between women.

RRK

A primary reason evolution is believed by many is because what is thought to be the alternative, religion, is feared, dreaded and unthinkable. And it is true that scientific advances only occurred because knowledge was wrested from the autocratic clutches of religion. Our age of wonderful technology came at a cost of great persecution and brought us out of the cave and off the pews into the light (fluorescent).

>

The memory of clerical obscurantism has been riveted upon the human subconscious. Religion – and by association anything paranormal or spiritual – is rejected out of hand because it is associated with dogma, bias, charlatans and moral confinement, not openness and intellectual advance. Religion and metaphysics are seen as retrogression, capitulation and surrender.

If we look back, the gods and creeds that were used to explain the knowledge voids of the past were jettisoned one after another by the march of science. I know, I know, the time can be pointed to when holy book thumpers and skeptics ranted that man would never fly, that the sun circled the Earth and that electric light was evil – and of course how the dogged march for scientific truth proved them wrong. So it is an easy step from there to conclude that if there is something we don’t know, materialistic science will come to the rescue.

There is a lesson there, agreed, but again, a molehill should not be made into a mountain. The fact that we discovered that disease could be caused by germs and not from skimping on tithes, is no reason to think that there is no barrier to knowledge. Humans are finite, the universe is infinite. We are constrained by definition. The fact that we discovered the wheel is not proof that we will one day be omniscient any more than the ability of a dog to roll over on command proves it will one day do calculus. As quantum mechanics has shown, reality is not even physical. As physical creatures we will always be dogs just doing fancy tricks. Yes, we should forever test the limits with our sciences, but at the same time remain wise enough to see that there are limits.

When it comes to the question of origins, materialists assume that anything that cannot be caged and poked at or surveyed with an instrument and carried out to the twentieth decimal point should be rejected. But in their haste to flee from the spiritual into the arms of evolution, materialists leave behind the rigors of the scientific method – there are no observations, experiments or predictions applied as proof that life arose from nonliving matter and that creatures can transmutate into one another.

Moreover, logic and evidence forsake materialism at the fundamental level of reality and when applied to the question of origins. As I have explained previously, the materialist reaches limits and must resign to unanswered questions about first causes. He has reached no intellectually advantageous position whatsoever by leaving gods and swooning over matter.

Admitting ignorance and incapacity or acknowledging intellect beyond our own need not mean that we must return to the dark ages or begin sacrificing lambs, blowing ourselves up in a Jihad or kissing the boots of church leaders. Nor does evil, suffering and injustice in the world preclude an underlying intelligence. If there are dimensions, powers, intellect and purpose beyond our scope of understanding, that’s okay. It just means either we must swallow a bitter ego pill and accept limits or that exploration may only be possible by means other than microscopes and telescopes.

Evolutionists must be careful that they do not fall victim to the very thing that is repugnant to them and blindly remain devoted to an ideological shrine in spite of the evidence. Unfortunately, in their zeal to escape the perceived irrationality of religion, evolutionists dig irrational holes under their own feet with shovels of faith, bias, bigotry and even fraud.

For further reading, or for more information about, Dr Wysong and the Wysong Corporation please visit www.wysong.net or write to wysong@wysong.net. For resources on healthier foods for people including snacks, and breakfast cereals please visit www.cerealwysong.com.

Materialism can no longer claim to be a scientific philosophy.

Arthur Koestler, the renowned Social Philosopher

(Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up, New York: Vintage Books, 1978, p. 250.)

How did the endless universe we live in come into being?

How did the equilibrium, harmony, and order of this universe develop?

How is it that this Earth is such a fit and sheltering place for us to live in?

Questions such as these have attracted attention since the dawn of the human race. The conclusion reached by scientists and philosophers searching for answers with their intellects and common sense is that the design and order of this universe are evidence of the existence of a supreme Creator ruling over the whole universe.

This is an indisputable truth that we may reach by using our intelligence. God declares this reality in His holy book, the Qur’an, which He inspired as a guide for humanity fourteen centuries ago. He states that He has created the universe when it was not, for a particular purpose, and with all its systems and balances specifically designed for human life.

God invites people to consider this truth in the following verse:

Are you stronger in structure or is heaven? He built it. He raised its vault high and made it level. He darkened its night and brought forth its morning light. After that He smoothed out the earth… (Surat an Naziat: 27-30)

Elsewhere it is declared in the Qur’an that a person should see and consider all the systems and balances in the universe that have been created for him by God and derive a lesson from his observations:

He has made night and day subservient to you, and the sun and moon and stars, all subject to His command. There is certainly Signs in that for people who pay heed. (Surat an-Nahl: 12)

In yet another verse of the Qur’an, it is pointed out:

He makes night merge into day and day merge into night, and He has made the sun and moon subservient, each one running until a specified time. That is God, your Lord. The Kingdom is His. Those you call on besides Him have no power over even the smallest speck. (Surah Fatir: 13)

This plain truth declared by the Qur’an is also confirmed by a number of the important founders of the modern science of astronomy. Galileo, Kepler, and Newton all recognized that the structure of universe, the design of the solar system, the laws of physics and their states of equilibrium were all created by God and they arrived at that conclusion as a result of their own research and observations.

Materialism: A 19th-Century Fallacy

The reality of the creation of which we speak has been ignored or denied since the earliest times by a particular philosophical point of view. It is called “materialism”. This philosophy, which was originally formulated among the ancient Greeks, has also made an appearance from time to time in other cultures and has been advanced by individuals as well. It holds that matter alone exists and that it has done so for an infinity of time. From these tenets, it claims that the universe has also “always” existed and was not created.

In addition to their claim that the universe exists in an infinity of time, materialists also assert that there is no purpose or aim in the universe. They claim that all the equilibrium, harmony and order that we see around us are merely the product of coincidence. This “coincidence assertion” is also put forward when the question of how human beings came into being comes up. The theory of evolution, widely referred to as Darwinism, is another application of materialism to the natural world.

We just mentioned that some of the founders of modern science were faithful people who were in agreement that the universe was created and organized by God. In the 19th century, an important change took place in the attitudes of the scientific world with respect to this matter. Materialism was deliberately introduced to the agenda of modern science by various groups. Because the 19th century’s political and social conditions formed a good basis for materialism, the philosophy gained wide acceptance and spread throughout the scientific world.

The findings of modern science however undeniably demonstrate how false the claims of materialism really are.

The Findings of 20th-Century Science

Let us recall the two assertions of materialism about the universe:

The universe exists in infinite time and, because it has no beginning or end, it was not created.

Everything in this universe is merely the result of chance and not the product of any intentional design, plan, or vision.

Those two notions were boldly advanced and ardently defended by 19th-century materialists, who of course had no recourse other than to depend upon the limited and unsophisticated scientific knowledge of their day. Both have been utterly refuted by the discoveries of 20th-century science.

The first to be laid in the grave was the notion of the universe existing in infinite time. Since the 1920s, there has been mounting evidence this cannot be true. Scientists are now certain that the universe came into being from nothingness as the result of an unimaginably huge explosion, known as the “Big Bang”. In other words, the universe came into being-or rather, it was created by God.

The 20th century has also witnessed the demolition of the second claim of materialism: that everything in the universe is the result of chance and not design. Research conducted since the 1960s consistently demonstrates that all the physical equilibriums of the universe in general and of our world in particularly are intricately designed to make life possible. As this research deepened, it was discovered each and every one of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, of the fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism, and of the details of the structure of atoms and the elements of the universe has been precisely tailored so that human beings may live. Scientists today call this extraordinary design the “anthropic principle”. This is the principle that every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible.

To sum up, the philosophy called materialism has been utterly refuted by modern science. From its position as the dominant scientific view of the 19th century, materialism collapsed into fiction in the 20th.

How could it have been otherwise? As God indicates “We did not create heaven and earth and everything between them to no purpose. That is the opinion of those who are disbelievers.” (Surah Sad: 27) it is wrong to suppose that the universe was created in vain. A philosophy so utterly flawed as materialism and systems based on it were doomed to failure from the very beginning.

The evolutionist claim that Homo floresiensis represents a separate species to modern-day man continues to retreat in the face of increasing objections. The Times Online, the Internet edition of The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers, summarised the latest developments on the subject in these terms:

“A find heralded as the greatest discovery in anthropology for a century has degenerated into one of its greatest rows.” (1)

The development that fuelled the flames was the way that other experts have supported the views of Indonesian scientists who object to H. floresiensis being depicted as a separate species from Homo sapiens. Heading the list of these are the Australian scientists Dr. Maciej Henneberg and Dr. Alan Thorne, and researchers from Chicago’s Field Museum in America.

The new objections, like those of the Indonesian scientists, stress that Flores Man may have suffered from the neurological disease known as microcephaly. One important piece of support for this view came from Professor Maciej Henneberg, an anatomist and expert palaeopathologist of 32 years’ standing. Henneberg, head of the Department of Anatomical Sciences, the University of Adelaide, Australia, first examined the Flores Man skull measurements published on the Nature magazine website. At that point another skull with a similar structure came to the scientist’s mind. The skull in question was a 4,000-year-old Homo sapiens specimen unearthed on the island of Crete. This skull, belonging to a H. sapiens individual, possessed rather small dimensions, and scientists examining it had already described it in terms of microcephaly.

As a result of statistical comparisons he performed on 15 skull measurements, the Australian scientist revealed that there was “no significant difference” between the two. Henneberg, whose objections were reported in the well-known US journal Science (2), concluded that the Flores Man skull measurements stemmed from microcephaly. The researcher also noted that Flores Man’s facial anatomy was within H. sapiens limits.

Another study by Henneberg that revealed striking results regarding Flores Man was his calculations regarding a forearm (radius) bone found in a cave. From the length of the bone, determined as 210 mm (8.3 inches), Henneberg calculated that its owner would have been between 151 and 162 cm (4.9 – 5.3ft) tall. These figures were rather greater than the 1 metre (3ft) attributed to Flores Man, and were within bounds considered normal for present-day human beings. Henneberg announced the conclusion he had reached as a result of these analyses:

“Until more skeletons of the purported ‘new species’ are discovered, I will maintain that a well-known pathological condition was responsible for the peculiar appearance of the skeleton.” (3)

As described by scientists, the differences in both skull size and jaw structure between Flores Man and Homo sapiens can be explained in terms of microcephaly.

Another eminent human evolution researcher, the anthropologist Dr. Alan Thorne from the Australian National University, stated that the Flores Man finding merely showed that “no one would have predicted that something like that was out there,” and noted that it was stretching the facts to claim that H. floresiensis represented a separate species. (4)

Robert Martin, a primatologist from Chicago’s Field Museum, and the archaeologist James Phillips made the following statement in support of the microcephaly theory with regard to Flores Man’s small brain volume:

“The lone skull came from a woman who had microcephaly, a rare disorder that causes a tiny head and brain. Microcephaly causes the face to grow at a normal rate, but not the head. People wind up with a sloping forehead and no chin — just like Hobbit.” (5) (Hobbit: The nickname given to Flores Man taken from the film The Lord of the Rings.)

In the face of these objections, the groundlessness of the description of Flores Man as a separate species from H. sapiens was once again revealed. Henneberg’s analyses were certainly largely responsible for this: given that the 4,000-year-old H. sapiens individual was announced to have suffered from microcephaly, why should Flores Man, with identical skull measurements, be described as a different species?

Perhaps the most striking interpretation of this debate over Flores Man came from Robert Matthews, an experienced science writer for the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph. Supporting the microcephaly view, Matthews criticised the desire to describe Flores Man as a separate species, and cited the Nebraska Man affair, one of the greatest scandals in the history of paleoanthropology, in revealing how baseless that desire was. Under the headline “Big Claims, meagre evidence; welcome to palaeontology,” Matthews wrote:

“Another week, and another spat between scientists over some old bones and claims to have found yet another new, further, different species of human. This time the controversy centres on the discovery of 18,000 year old bones belonging to a 3ft-tall type of human on Flores island in Indonesia.

… the scientists who dug them up had a paper in the journal Nature, declared them to be a new species of human, and given them a fancy-sounding Latin name: Homo floresiensis.

Then, in time-honoured tradition, other scientists lined up to dismiss the claim as premature. One leading expert on palaeoanatomy told the rival journal Science that the 18,000 year-old grapefruit-sized skull was similar to a skull found on Crete belonging to a 4,000 year-old specimen of boring old Homo sapiens with secondary microcephaly, a condition characterised by an abnormally small skull.

… Secondary microcephaly has a host of causes, from viral infection during pregnancy to injury or malnutrition shortly after birth. The specimens were found in an cave on an island. Who is to say that the island hadn’t been swept by an viral epidemic 18,000 years ago that had caused an outbreak of the condition? Or perhaps the occupants had fallen prey to it elsewhere in the Indonesian archipelago, and been banished to Flores because of their odd appearance.

Nor is it inconceivable that those with secondary microcephaly could survive and even breed: the condition is not ineluctably linked to low intelligence. Indeed, neither is small brain size per se: the most important factor is the amount of grey matter. As this is not preserved in fossil remains, we have no idea whether those “hobbits” were bright, stupid or indifferent. What is clear is that palaeontologists are worryingly keen to base big claims on decidedly meagre evidence. It is a penchant that has not served them well in the past. In 1922, the American fossil expert Henry Fairfield Osborn made headlines by announcing the discovery of what he declared to be the first anthropoid ape ever found in America, which he named Hesperopithecus (“Ape from the Land of the Evening Sun”).

The distinguished anatomist Professor Grafton Elliot Smith of London University went further, insisting that Hesperopithecus was nothing less than “the earliest and most primitive member of the human family yet discovered”. And what was the basis of these dramatic claims ? A single fossilised tooth found in Nebraska.

Prof Smith’s response to those doubting the wisdom of relying on so little evidence was remarkably similar to that now being wheeled out by the discoverers of the Hobbit-Men of Flores: “One would regard so momentous a conclusion with suspicion”, Prof Smith opined, “if it were not for the fact that the American savants’ authority in such matters is unquestionable”.

Such bluster did not deter the American Museum of Natural History from searching for more evidence. It duly turned up in Nebraska, and revealed “Hesperopithecus” to be nothing more than an extinct pig. Prof Smith later distinguished himself by creating the popular image of Neanderthals as knuckle-grazing morons, while backing claims that skull fragments found in England in 1912 belonged to the earliest-known ancestor of H. sapiens. It later emerged that Smith’s “typical” Neanderthal was actually a decidedly atypical male forced to stoop by severe arthritis. As for the skull fragments, they came from a quarry in Sussex known as Piltdown; need one say more.

None of this appears to have dulled the enthusiasm of palaeontologists for dangling ever more “species” off the family tree of mankind. All one needs is some unusual bone fragments plus a decent Latin dictionary and a place in palaeontological history is assured.

It all appears to hang on whether or not the bone fragments are deemed so “unusual” that they lie outside the limits of any known species. One shudders to think what conclusion palaeontologists would reach if presented with the bones of a modern-day pygmy and a Texan oilman.” (6)

Conclusion:

The fact revealed by both the latest scientific developments regarding Flores Man and by Matthews’ warning lesson from history is this: Evolutionist scientists and media share a great desire to describe and report newly discovered fossils as new species. As a result, just about every fossil discovery is announced to the accompaniment of a huge media furore and sensationalism, although these claims are then silently refuted in the period that follows.

These words by Robert Locke, executive editor for the magazine Discovering Archaeology, regarding research in the field of palaeoanthropology are like a description of the uncertainty and fanatical propaganda that pervade studies in this sphere:

“Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.” (7)

However, the imaginary scenario of human evolution, maintained by means of propaganda, demagogy, distortion and even falsehood, is condemned to be eliminated in the face of modern scientific findings. That is because concrete scientific discoveries reveal that life is too complex to have emerged by chance, and that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection cannot account for the existence of the genetic information in species’ DNA. The claims of evolution in that regard are left with no foundation in the face of discoveries made on an almost daily basis. It is therefore inevitable that the endeavours of those who imagine that recounting imaginary tales regarding the past based on similarities between bones is science will end in failure.

Man is a being created by God, together with all his flawless systems. This is revealed by God in the Qur’an:

He Who has created all things in the best possible way. He commenced the creation of man from clay; then produced his seed from an extract of base fluid; then formed him and breathed His Spirit into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show! (Qur’an, 32: 7-9)

Under the pen name of Harun Yahya, Adnan Oktar has written some 250 works. His books contain a total of 46,000 pages and 31,500 illustrations. Of these books, 7,000 pages and 6,000 illustrations deal with the collapse of the Theory of Evolution. You can read, free of charge, all the books Adnan Oktar has written under the pen name Harun Yahya on these websites www.harunyahya.com

1- Nigel Hawkes, “Kidnap marks the latest chapter in Hobbit’s story,” Times Online, December 4, 2004; online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1386936,00.html

2- Michael Balter, “Skeptics Question Whether Flores Hominid Is a New Species,” Science, Vol 306, Issue 5699, 1116 , November 12, 2004

3- Maciej Henneberg, “Why The ‘Hobbitt’ May Not Be a New Species of Humans;” online at: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/000884.html

4- Heather Catchpole, “Tiny Human a Big Evolutionary Tale,” October 27, 2004; online at: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20041025/tinyhuman.html

5- Jim Ritter, “Experts here knock claim of new ‘Hobbit’ species,” Chicago Sun-Times, November 16, 2004; online at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-human16.html

6- Robert Matthews, “Big claims, meagre evidence; welcome to palaeontology,” The Telegraph, December 8, 2004; online at: http://gardening.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/12/08/ecrqed08.xml

7- Robert Locke, “Family Fights,” Discovering Archaeology, July/August 1999, pp. 36-39