All zero of my readers may have noticed that I've written more about zoology recently than usual. While this may seem off-topic, for the most part an understanding of zoology, especially paleozoology, is very important for an understanding of reactionary thought. Reactionary thought is realist thought, and for that to coalesce properly, the subject must have a good background in evolution theory, among other things.
While posts about poor reconstructions of protowhales and feathered dinosaurs might seem like a distraction from the real purpose of this blog, they are good examples of how evolution is taught in a dogmatic, mystical manner*, rather than as a rationalized series of cause-effect relationships. These posts are intended to show that someone with only a basal understanding of the subject (i.e., me) can use a well-developed sense of rationality and intuition to make correct assertions about evolution and paleozoology. I know hardly anything about early cetaceans, yet it is blindingly obvious that Rodhocetus in the post on April 2nd is horribly wrong, if you merely examine it as rational fact, not dogma.
Also, it's my damn blog.
*This may be why creationists so vehemently oppose it. Progressivism has ensured that the majority of people encounter scientific (especially evolutionary) theory as a dogmatic assertion, rather than a rational one. Two dogmas cannot occupy a space at the same time, and thus, you have protests in Bible Belt states, etc. There are numerous examples previous of contradictory science and dogma getting along just fine, mostly through the use of a narrative handwave.