a state of consciousness

I want nothing more than my jaded view of things to be wrong. I have children whom I hope can live in a world far different from the one I’ve experienced and continue to learn more about. There is so much beauty in this world, but it is sadly outweighed by the horrors of other more destructive realities.

Obama, in my view, is a Manchurian candidate. I believe that he has gotten himself into something he is not fully aware of. On the one hand, he could easily be assassinated, given that in my view, he is nothing more than a pawn in a larger game, someone to blame and take aim at—and certainly not to be trusted, regardless. On the other hand, he could be nothing more than a puppet used to manipulate not only the nation at large, but people of color in particular, lulling them and many around them into a false sense of security.

Neither he nor Hillary, or any of the other current candidates, would have been my choice. This nation needs to exercise the right afforded us in The Declaration of Independence. Not only, as it states, should we “declare the causes which impel” us to separate ourselves from our current State, but we have the right and inclination to change the entire system based on our reasonable observation that things are in effect getting out of control.

It states: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

These words were written in the United States Declaration of Independence. And those who wrote them were fully aware of what could happen in the future, given that they had already lived through the direst experience during their time.

We have the right to change this government. Not only by the voices of our past, but by virtue of being human. Human law trumps state law. And universal law trumps human law. There is no law above the law of nature and man and the universe. No man made law can usurp our individual rights, as long as we do not encroach on another human being. But today, many of our rights are being summarily usurped.

The current candidates, including the now nominated Obama, are all a part of a very strange circle of people who do not seem to have the best interest of this country, and the world, at heart. My heart is heavy for the future. But with every fiber of my being, I hope I am wrong. Because if I am not, we are in for a world of trouble that could far surpass the Gulags of yesterday as well as the many dozens of genocides that wiped out numerous groups of innocent peoples the world over.

Let us all hope that my vision is short and my skepticism is unfounded. And let us hope there is no Manchurian candidate, his fate and ours is not sealed, and things won’t begin to unravel into a hail storm of hunger, slaughter, unhealthy food, sickness, disease, newspeak, ministries of fiction, lies, propaganda, intolerance, religious like science, slavery, mind games, manipulation, confusion, constant fear, invisible enemies, divisiveness, wars and race wars, and a general plummeting of all nations into Third World type poverty and control with little to no freedoms.

Let us all hope…

Racism, colonialism, slavery, Underground Railroad, lynching, Apartheid, affirmative action, racial profiling, segregation, Civil Rights movement, police brutality towards minorities, diversity, multiculturalism, NAACP, Black Panther Party, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, Tony Martin, starvation in Africa, Tuskegee experiment, cultural destruction, racial purity, Aryan nation, interracial social conflicts, Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, the KKK, hunting vs. Michael Vick, Amadou Diallo, Rodney King, Elenore Bunkers, Abner Louima, Jena 6, Mary Lefkowitz, 12% of the population make up 80% of prisoners, drugs in a community where folks are too poor to access food and services much less drugs from overseas, weapons in communities where folks can’t afford to pay rent, much less purchase a gun, media instigation of racial divide; all these, and more, are ideas and terms that continue to plague us, and, even more profound, remain a part of our language. They are things we continue to struggle with most fervently.

The creation of language to describe a thing shows that that thing is in existence or is an issue in a society. One does not create language for things that do not exist. Just as in some cultures the word jail doesn’t exist, simply because jails do not exist in their society, nor the idea of a jail. All I’ve listed (terms, people, events, ideas) exist because the conditions remain which allow these words to live and proliferate; and these people and events to exist.

Although I hope I am wrong, as wrong as anyone could be, I find it hard to believe that overnight; this nation (among many) has suddenly gone from having a laundry list of issues pertaining to race (action oriented or vehemently debated), to having such an overwhelming love for Obama. I believe Obama is a red herring, a tool meant to keep us looking at the left hand while the right hand does its dirty work.

Yes, I’m jaded. But nothing about the events in history over the last 3,000 years has led me to believe that race has somehow become a moot point for Americans, or Europeans in general. Africa is still owned by everyone but Africans, save for about five countries. The aborigines culture is slowly, but surely, after 20,000 years, being destroyed by European influences. Indians no longer have any real say about the land they’ve lived on for hundreds of years. Colonization by Europeans and Americans continues to ravage the planet of its indigenous peoples. Yet, in America–one of the many founding countries of black slavery–a country that still requires a Bill of Rights for blacks to be equal, rather than affording them the unspoken right that all others in this nation have, we must somehow believe that racism has disappeared from the landscape of our minds, and the nation now embraces–with warm and gushy love–a black man, who also is subjected to a Bill of Rights we should not need. After all, this new America is no longer racist, right? So if that is the case, then burn the Bill of Rights. Because everyone now knows what is right and will act accordingly. This is the climate being peddled by the media, and by what many claim are legitimate votes for Obama.

This entire circus feels like a Florida flashback in many respects. I can see many countries around the world looking on and laughing. It takes a lifetime in therapy for an abused person to heal. But an entire nation, without therapy, no longer has issues with race. I don’t buy it. In order for an alcoholic to take the first step toward recovery, he must first admit he is an alcoholic. Yet, not one person in America has been reported in the media (or anywhere else) as saying, I am a racist and I need therapy. There is never any admittance of racism. It is just as the alcoholic tells his family, What are you talking about, I’m not a drunk? As he swigs down another Jack Daniels.

Racism has miraculously disappeared. And Obama has become the panacea for the people of America. He has anointed the heads of Americans everywhere with the elixir of equality. All are healed and will never perform a racist deed again. All deeds are forgiven. Nothing to admit, because it has been washed away by the black political Messiah.

As I said, I’m jaded. But unlike some who spout their opinions, I hope, in all honesty, that I am wrong about what seems to be a very odd transformation in this nation.

I feel that something shady is afoot and only time will reveal what is on the horizon. Let us all hope it isn’t what I imagine.

A little debate between friends.

Gentleman Number One…

I thought you might enjoy this one. I did.

In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the
move.

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State.

When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated “so has the pastry chef”.

Gentlemen Number Two’s Response…

Hey Guy,

I wish you’d start getting used to the idea my friend! Pastry Chef, Chief Cook and Bottle Washer, maybe even the Pet Groomer! It really can’t be worse than the current occupant - your party’s “standard bearer”. Geez, I’d be embarrassed.

I do sympathize with you though, you’ve got NO ONE running that’s worth getting excited about.

You can fall asleep listening to Thompson, Learn to add the numbers nine and eleven with Giuliani (again, that’s better than your current leader), build a fence around the entire US with your guy Tancredo, Jump back and forth over that fence with your guy Romney depending on the political winds, Break down the fence and give amnesty to all illegals with McCain… Let’s see… who’s left? Oh, there’s Dr. Strangelove “War-Machine” Duncan and your spiritual leader Huckabee. You DID keep your bible from Sunday School didn’t you? You’ll need it, a retina scan, and red, white and blue lapel pins, underwear, and sock suspenders in America if one of THOSE gets elected.

Thank “whomever” for Hillary, Obama, Biden, Edwards, and the 70% percent of Americans who want to keep this land free!

Just say NO Guy!

Say NO to theocratic rule.
Say NO to Burkhas for Women and compelled conversion to Christianity for everyone.
Say NO to databases with ALL of your information available to the highest bidder
Say NO stealing my tax dollars to equip tyrants around the world.
Say NO to stealing my tax dollars to destroy the tyrannical regimes we’ve created
Say NO to stealing my tax dollars to rebuilding the bombing ranges (AKA Sovereign Nations) we paid to create in the first place. Did you hear King George’s definition of sovereign? I cringe FOR you dude! Every time he opens his mouth.

Love you maan! Happy New Year! GO HILLARY! GO OBAMA! Can we celebrate together over a nice drink on the 3rd of November? I’ll get you a nice Obama t-shirt and a fresh copy of the Constitution. I fear the one you have might be a bit tattered.

We’re off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz. Should we be?

In Oz, everyone believes the Wizard is all powerful and runs everything in the land. They follow the instructions of the Wizard, even when the Wizard’s requests seem rather unreasonable. No one questions the Wizard, because they have been fooled into believing that he controls their lives. Only one was aware and was not hypnotized by the manipulation of the Wizard; guess who?

The dog. That’s right folks, it was only the dog who was aware and could clearly see the man behind the curtain pretending to be all powerful. The truth was, he was a powerless, wrinkled up old man who had nothing but his bells, whistles and lies.

America is Oz. Those who run government and media are the perceived Wizard. The ones who can see the man behind the curtain, are the ones who everyone ignores and perceives as ignorant and incapable of seeing truth or communicating reality. Sadly, the truly aware are the ones pulled around on a leash and never asked for direction. Yet, they are the only ones who can see the man behind the curtain, and are fully aware of how powerless he truly is. If only everyone could see that he exists back there–covered through deception–things would be much different. Once he was discovered, the jig was up. He was outnumbered and could no longer continue the charade, lest he be flogged by the majority.

Folks, there is a man behind the curtain. There is no all powerful Wizard, nor an all powerful government. And the sooner the gentle folks of this modern Oz realize that, the better off they will be, and the sooner they can take back their lives.

Just click your heels three times and say it with me, there is no Wizard, there is no Wizard, there is no Wizard. There is only a deceptive man behind the curtain who wants to control your every move.

1. YOU WILL RECEIVE A BODY You may like it or hate it, but it will be yours for the entire period you’re around.

2. YOU WILL LEARN LESSONS You are enrolled in a full-time informal school called life. Each day in this school you will have the opportunity to learn lessons. You may like the lessons or think them irrelevant and stupid.

3. THERE ARE NO MISTAKES, ONLY LESSONS Growth is a process of trial and error, experimentation. The Failed experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiment that ultimately works.

4. A LESSON IS REPEATED UNTIL LEARNED A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it. When you have learned it, you can then go on to the next lesson.

5. LEARNING LESSONS DOES NOT END There is no part of life that does not contain its lessons. If you are alive, there are lessons to be learned.

6. THERE IS NO BETTER THAN HERE When your There has become a Here, you will simply obtain another There that will, again, look better than Here.

7. OTHERS ARE MERELY MIRRORS OF YOU You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to you something you love or hate about yourself.

8. WHAT YOU MAKE OF YOUR LIFE IS UP TO YOU You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to you. The choice is yours.

9. YOUR ANSWERS LIE INSIDE YOU The answers to life’s questions lie inside you. All you need to do is look, listen and trust.

10. YOU WILL FORGET ALL THIS Unless you consistently stay focused on the goals you have set for yourself, everything you’ve just read won’t mean a thing.

Source Unknown

Thanks But No Thanks, Caroline
by Charlene Brown

Coming in late on this lovely endorsement. I must say that I couldn’t care two-naked-sheep less about who inspires Caroline Kennedy.

First of all, for people who claim that they are tired of being dictated to by the “same families” why then should the endorsement from the Dynasty o’ Kennedy mean a thing? What truly makes this man the one? I’m sorry but I still don’t see it. My pick is not set in stone for anyone but the one I’m not heading for is him. He’s too whishy washy. Too damn concerned with what groups think of him. I have yet to see this man take a real stand except when his wife and him slam the Clintons. I still remember Mrs. Flip-Flop stating how she’ll be a wife and mother in the White House. What the heck was that supposed to mean? If she wants to play the June Cleaver role then do that mess elsewhere.

Secondly, between Hilary and Obama there are nations that won’t even look at them let alone sit down with them to have a discussion. It’s all pretty to have “change” in the US but how fake can we truly get when the Bible Belt and the Redneck states rather go leaderless than have a Negro and a “girl” as head of the country. One should be swinging high while the other bare-foot and pregnant in the kitchen keeping the beers cold and the possum hot (which takes which role is still up for grabs).

Lastly, the president - no matter who - is merely a picture to post in international papers. This person can do not one thing without the consent of either the Senate or Congress or both. For the simple fact that the Republicans run this country for the time being; they could put Jesus Himself in there and if neither side likes what He has to offer, stuff just won’t get done. It’s called filibustering. They simply BS their way through sessions until it’s time for vacation and don’t have to pass not one damn law until they feel good and ready. That’s why the Senate & Congressional elections are more important than anything we ever do. Most Americans are too stupid to realize that and that’s how so many losers get in the seats they do. They last longer than the presidents. Only if scandal hits does the president put their people in. Then the Supreme Justices do their own thing until retirement or death, then hopefully a sensible president is in place to shove some old person in there until they die soon.

For me it begins at the city and state levels. This is where these senator and congressmen come from for the most part. This is where they build their names. If they are crappy then they will be crappy later. But if we as a nation do not make it our business to know who the hell is leading us from way down there, then should we really be surprised when the same fool climbs to the White House? Present Bush was a crappy Governor but so many did not know his antics until after his name spread like wildfire. I’ll even skip the fact that most of those in office came from the same fraternal organization and they look out for self automatically. So we need to stop allowing ourselves to fall for the “catchiest tunes” and realize the real deal. Are these promises the candidates spitting out reasonable? Will they even get them accomplished? Are the goals outrageously high to be set in stone? are they truly saying what we want to hear? Are we only voting for them because of how they look or what celebrity endorses them?

I am seriously disturbed by the rallying around Obama. For me he’s saying nothing, but yet it feels like the majority of Blacks are backing him simply to “see a brotha in the White House,” or because Oprah likes him. I don’t care what race you are, if I feel that you can’t hold yourself together and voice your opinion no matter who doesn’t like it, then how they hell are you going to handle nations not liking you? This is no longer a high school and you no longer have to feel the need to please everyone around you in order to win Homecoming King - buck up!

In closing, the Kennedy’s would not have been my prime choice to do a jig with. How great the family of drunks, murderers and the king of Using the Oval Office to get your rocks off. After the world tried to make Billy feel shamed for getting his skin flute played at work, the world must now honor the endorsement from the child of the man who shared his mistress with his brother and the mob. Thanks but no thanks, Caroline.

———————————————————————-

A President Like My Father

Endorsement from Caroline Kennedy.

The existence of living things on earth is an incredible and overwhelming reality. Even more incredible is the existence of human beings, a unique species, although not more or less important than any other creature on earth; except for claims of cognition unique to us, a claim that is still being disputed today. When one considers all the planets in our solar system and our inability to easily bump into other types of life in the universe, it seems that our existence is a mathematical impossibility. Yet, here we are. Moreover, it is because we are here why it is not a stretch to realize that anything is actually possible.

Evolutionists believe all things evolved from a very basic, possibly single celled organism. The flaw in their argument is, however, that they cannot explain how that initial organism got here. Creationists believe that all life was created by a supreme being that stands aloft in the universe watching over its creations. The flaw in their argument is the same as the creationists’, they cannot explain how that entity came into being. It is hard for each side to admit that they simply do not know. Nevertheless, this is the crux of the discussion.

Carbon-14 dating only has the ability to date living matter back to a little more than 50,000 years. Beyond that, the data becomes unreliable. This 50,000-year period does not fit in with the creationists’ or evolutionists’ theories. Creationists believe the earth is approximately 5,000 years old, while evolutionists believe it is millions of years old. Here it is, however, on the table. Why can’t each concede that the methods of dating, including those other than Carbon-14 dating, are simply showing certain facts, and beyond that, we simply don’t know?

It is a baffling thing. Why can’t humans acquiesce to not knowing? What is it within us that drives us to attempt to fit data into our belief systems, rather than let the data guide our thinking? Why do we presume the earth is millions of years old, and then attempt to prove that? Why do we presume a god exists and then attempt to prove that? Why can’t the things that are knowable to us be the only marker we utilize, and admit that we have no clue under the sun how we got here?

The universe, based on our existence here, and based on the many things we’ve come to know and discover over the centuries shows that there are an infinite number of possibilities. Knowing this, why have we stopped considering other possibilities and landed on only two? That’s right, two–two out of millions of possibilities. Some will say, well, we have no way of knowing what we don’t know, so these are theories we have to go on.

But those theories have no greater significance than any other possibilities or theories we could attempt to postulate. We don’t know that we don’t know about these ideas either, evolution and creation. But we have placed every effort into only these two, assuming that we have within our grasp, the wisdom and foresight to gauge these possibilities as the only feasible possibilities.

This is not to say that we cannot seek out information on our theories. But we cannot make an assumption about the age of living things on the planet when there is no data to back up those theories. It is all conjecture at best. Yet, somehow, the so called great minds of our age have decided that if it doesn’t fit, they’ll carve it until it does.

I believe the only way we can make true strides as human beings is to be humble. We need to be humble enough to admit that we simply don’t know. We need to step back and have the wisdom to recognize that when something doesn’t fit into our theory, we should not force it to fit. Life will not change how it began to suit our sensibilities. And we cannot think that the series of events that led to our existence, events that were and still are entirely out of our control, can be manipulated by us to our pleasure or comfort. A rat in a lab experiment cannot decide its fate, especially if it doesn’t even know it is in a lab experiment. No, this is not to imply that there is some cognitive force out there experimenting with us. It is simply an analogy that shows we are attempting to manipulate an environment that we had no part in producing. Unless one understands, clearly and without guessing, the circumstances under which they came to be, they cannot manipulate it. So to try to get creation or evolution to fit into what we wish to believe is like believing that a rat in a maze will somehow know that it is, in fact, in a maze, and can get out and be free.

Finding the key to our existence needs to start with admitting that we don’t know how we got here. We then must realize that two possibilities out of millions is not a productive way to uncover our existence. To have a discussion only within the realm of two possibilities on a planet we still have yet to learn about is ludicrous at best. It is time we open our minds and consider the wealth of other possibilities swirling around in the universe, waiting to be discovered. We cannot discover them if we have subconsciously limited ourselves to the only two that make us comfortable, or more rightly, the only two that have been given us. Frankly, why do we need to wait for anyone to “give” us ideas about how we began? We are all explorers and thinkers, and have the right to propose ideas. The universe is not engaged in our comfort, nor does it care if we have a degree in this or that. It does not give revelations only to those who study science, or those who sift about in the ancient dust of times past. The universe is a truth that sits out there, just the way it is, ever changing and unchanging, waiting, or maybe not waiting at all. It will not adjust what it is to make us feel safe and secure. We need to adjust to the realities of what the universe is, of course, once we discover those realities, and how we can live symbiotically within it.

All written, it is time we begin to truly explore and stop limiting ourselves to what a handful of human beings have decided to propose to us. Or, what gives us comfort.

Something light. A poem I wrote that speaks to the importance of our elders, whom in the past were the lifeblood of our villages. Today, in some cultures–that evidently do not know better–the elders are placed in homes and seen as having no use. This is a tragedy and could be a major part of the destruction of this and many other nations that have gone away from a deep respect for our elders.

The Elder

Today, a child was born
Her birth, unlike many
Was not painful
She pushed and stretched
And yawned into this world
Awakening from a long
Gestation
This child was born
Full grown
She broke through the walls
Of her womb and stepped
Into a life of wisdom and strength
She opened her eyes and
Saw this world anew
This birth took the village by storm
It was a grand beginning
It was a day to rejoice
It was to be marked on calendars
And celebrated at each new moon
Today, amidst the cries
Of infants
An Elder came into the world
She was born full grown
She pushed and stretched
And yawned into this world
Awakening from a long
Gestation
A fifty, sixty or seventy year
Gestation
Today, a child was born
An elder child
Her birth, unlike many
Was not painful
She broke through the walls
Of her life womb and stepped
Into a life of wisdom and strength
Today, we celebrate the birth
Of our Elder
Our new and welcomed
Child of the universe
She was born full grown
Gray haired and aged well
She opened her eyes and
Saw this world anew
Her birth took the village by storm

A Plot to Control History?

The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.

“THE BRAIN POLICE” AND “THE BIG LIE”
by Will Hart © 2002

Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical about conspiracies–unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.

The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber’s unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.

The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is “The Big Lie”–and the bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements that:

1. there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage;
2. there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC;
3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;
4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into account;
5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations.

Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!

Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid

In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the “water erosion controversy.” An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.

Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West’s preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.

Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world’s foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being “ignorant and insensitive.” That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.

But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and “personalising” the debate is a highly effective strategy–one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist’s assessment would hold more weight on this particular point.)

A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.

This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment’s arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.

Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process.

Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.

This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove their longstanding disputed theory–that it was built using the primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.

Why hasn’t this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.

We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist that they prove their own proposals.

Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.

Since the theory of “cultural evolution” has been tied to Darwin’s general theory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored? Yes, it does. The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.

Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru

Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrera received a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica, Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to the average villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera. He recognised it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity. He purchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them near the river after a flood.

Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence and potential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the doctor had amassed thousands of “Ica stones.” The sophisticated carvings were as enigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men fighting with dinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing operations with surgical equipment. They also contained drawings of lost continents.

Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated to remote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only existed for about 100,000 years.

The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of controversy. Archaeologists criticised the Peruvian government for being lax about enforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real concern). Pressure was applied to government officials.

The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; he claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exact location to authorities, or so they claimed.

This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corrupt politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute and imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he then recanted his story and “admitted” to having carved the stones himself. That seems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and there were 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately carved with animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had knowledge of without being a palaeontologist. He would have needed to work every day for several decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the underlying facts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were labelled “hoax” and forgotten.

The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under “hoax,” the enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with, as it did in the next example.

Censorship of “Forbidden” Thinking: Evidence for Mankind’s Great Antiquity

The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man’s antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.

The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a documentary.

In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, which featured material from Cremo’s book. The reaction from the scientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from irate scientists who called the producer “a fraud” and the whole program “a hoax.”

But the scientists went further than this–a lot further. In an extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the federal government and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again.

This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never hear the end of it.

The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:

At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science education can be established.

I think we have some good leads on who “the Brain Police” are. And I really do not think “conspiracy” is too strong a word–because for every case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labelled “error” and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day.

Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico

Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.

McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist’s finding was 250,000 years or more.

The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait “crossing” theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist’s tossing Steen-McIntyre’s results in the circular file and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.

Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she lost a teaching job at an American university.

Government Suppression and Ethnocentrism: Avoiding Anomalous Evidence in NZ, China and Mexico

In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a law forbidding the public from entering a controversial archaeological zone. This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark Doutré.

However, as we will find (and as I promised at the beginning of the article), this is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists trying to protect their “hallowed” theories while furthering their careers are not the only ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the situation gets sticky.

The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an archaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori–a fact that the tribe was not happy with. They learned of the results of the excavations before the general public did and complained to the government. According to Doutré, the outcome was “an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention by New Zealand government departments to withhold archaeological information from public scrutiny for 75 years.”

The public got wind of this fiasco but the government denied the claim. However, official documents show that an embargo had been placed on the site. Doutré is a student of New Zealand history and archaeology. He is concerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an earlier culture which preceded the Maori are missing from museums. He asks what happened to several anomalous remains:

Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair), originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years? Where is the giant skeleton found near Mitimati?

Unfortunately this is not the only such incident. Ethnocentrism has become a factor in the conspiracy to hide mankind’s true history. Author Graham Hancock has been attacked by various ethnic groups for reporting similar enigmatic findings.

The problem for researchers concerned with establishing humanity’s true history is that the goals of nationalists or ethnic groups who want to lay claim to having been in a particular place first, often dovetail with the goals of cultural evolutionists.

Archaeologists are quick to go along with suppressing these kinds of anomalous finds. One reason Egyptologists so jealously guard the Great Pyramid’s construction date has to do with the issue of national pride.

The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western China is another example of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unaccounted-for Caucasian culture was suddenly unearthed in China. The arid environment preserved the remains of a blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived in pre-dynastic China. They wore colourful robes, boots, stockings and hats. The Chinese were not happy about this revelation and they have downplayed the enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried alongside the Caucasian mummies.

National Geographic writer Thomas B. Allen mused in a 1996 article about his finding a potsherd bearing a fingerprint of the potter. When he inquired if he could take the fragment to a forensic anthropologist, the Chinese scientist asked whether he “would be able to tell if the potter was a white man.” Allen said he was not sure, and the official pocketed the fragment and quietly walked away. It appears that many things get in the way of scientific discovery and disclosure.

The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always posed a problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the colossal heads come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on the stele in what is Mexico’s seed civilisation? What is worse, why aren’t the indigenous Mexican people found on the Olmec artifacts? Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problem by making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads–which generations of people of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance to Africans–were really representations of the local tribe.

STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this… Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn’t those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is “a science fact” that is accepted by “virtually all reputable scientists in the world”, and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not “creationists” but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, “A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism,” on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry “Fritz” Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin’s theory:

Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.

We have seen this same “unscientific” approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where “scientists” simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of “the facts”. It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin’s theory.

Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.

Milton became a regular visitor to London’s famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.

The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:

I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand.it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as “loony”, “stupid” and “in need of psychiatric help” in response to purely scientific reporting.

(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)

Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a “mole” creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book “character assassination” tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.

According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: “Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack.” Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a “creationist”, and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece.

Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as “sacred cows” and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum.

This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, “71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory.” Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach.

It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a classic “Brain Police” stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological front lines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwin’s home country or in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper published.

The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; it merely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts of his theory of evolution.

Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in the prestigious Scientific American, “The Amateur Scientist,” a task he gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazine’s editor Jonathan Piel then learned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian magazines. The editor called Mims into his office and confronted him.

“Do you believe in the theory of evolution?” Piel asked.

Mims replied, “No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould.”

His response did not affect Piel’s decision to bump Mims off the popular column after just three articles.

This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The writer never publicly broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the “stormtroopers” now believe they have orders to make sure “unapproved” thoughts are never publicly disclosed.

TABOO OR NOT TABOO?

So, the monitors of “good thinking” are not just the elite of the scientific community, as we have seen in several cases; they are television producers and magazine editors as well. It seems clear that they are all driven by the singular imperative of furthering “public science education,” as the president of the Cambrian Institute so aptly phrased it.

However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect the public from “unscientific” thoughts and ideas that might infect the mass mind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of the article; now we should add that it is also “unwholesome” and “unacceptable” to engage in any of the following research pursuits: paranormal phenomena, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy and all the rest of the “pseudo-sciences.” Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes of religious zealotry?

Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing the inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world? It is all but impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian ramifications to be published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is also just as impossible to get the “taboo” subjects even to the review table, and you can forget about finding your name under the title of any article in Nature unless you are a credentialled scientist, even if you are the next Albert Einstein.

To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that data already prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the established community have replaced objectivity, access and openness.

Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology: “Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool.” Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement.

In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more documented cases and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.

References and Resources:

* Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology, Govardhan Hill, USA, 1993.
* Cremo, Michael A., “The Controversy over ‘The Mysterious Origins of Man’”, NEXUS 5/04, 1998; Forbidden Archeology’s Impact, Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing, USA, 1998, website http://www.mcremo.com.
* Doore, Kathy, “The Nazca Spaceport & the Ica Stones of Peru”, http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm; see website for copy of Dr Javier Cabrera’s book, The Message of the Engraved Stones.
* Doutré, Mark, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, Dé Danann, New Zealand, 1999, website http://www.celticnz.co.nz.
* Milton, Richard, The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, Corgi, UK, 1993, http://www.alternativescience.com.
* Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, “Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in Mexico”, NEXUS 5/05, 1998.
* Sunfellow, David, “The Great Pyramid & The Sphinx”, November 25, 1994, at http://www.nhne.com/specialrepots/spyramid.html.
* Tampa Bay Tribune, October 12, 2001 (Darwinism/evolution quote), http://www.tampatrib.com.

About the Author:

Will Hart is a freelance journalist, book author, nature photographer and documentary filmmaker. He lives and does much of his research in the Lake Tahoe area in the USA, and writes a column titled “The Tahoe Naturalist” for a regional publication. He has produced and directed films about wolves and wild horses.

Republished with permission from: Nexus Magazine

The goddess, Gaia, earth spirit and earth mother looks on in sadness. She is trying to understand why we do not appreciate her, why we do not love her. Everything we are comes from her core, the core of mother Gaia, her womb. Yet, we disregard her wisdom.

She whispers to us in our dreams, let the egregore of peace rise within you. We hear her, but shake it off as yet another silly dream. She tries again on many nights, but we are so steeped in the machinations of our world that we now believe her to be nothing more than wind through the trees, and what we perceive as meaningless sound that serves no purpose.

But everything speaks to us with meaning. The wind, the trees, the rock, the plant, the water, the air we breathe. It all speaks to us and wants us to see with our third eye. It wants us to open our higher senses, that which all of us possess and have access to, and hear the voice of Gaia telling us that we are dying.

She is trying to save us, but we cannot hear her weeping for the future she hopes will never come. She wants us to unite. But we cannot. Because we cannot see the pain we are causing. We cannot tell each other, I am sorry brother for what those before me have done to you. I am sorry sister for those who have unknowingly harmed you today. I am sorry child for those who will harm you in the years to come. No one stops. No one says thank you brother, I forgive you. Thank you sister, I forgive you. Thank you Gaia for giving us abundance.

Everyone continues to ignore Gaia and her message to us. They continue to ignore her gift. We sadly cannot realize that our pain becomes Gaia’s pain. Our unwillingness to forgive and ask forgiveness is like a sickness that weakens the very essence of Gaia. It is a plague on mankind. We stand afar, hearing only the quiet whispers, as Gaia weeps.