- The Facts:
Bernie Sanders, who espouses 'Democratic Socialism,' is one of the frontrunners for the Democratic Party nomination.
- Reflect On:
If the United States became more of a socialist country, would this actually impact, for better or worse, the real source of the problems America is facing?
Socialism seems to be the only thing that mainstream media wants to talk about when they interview Bernie Sanders: Are you a socialist? Will the United States be a socialist country under the Democratic party if Bernie Sanders is President?
Yes, in part, this is mainstream media’s way of trying to dumb-down the conversation for its viewers. To be clear, Bernie Sanders is not afraid to say he is a socialist, but in mainstream scrums he prefers to be specific about what he is in favor of: free national single-payer healthcare, free post-secondary education, and a higher minimum wage. But to look into whether Sanders is truly a socialist, and whether it actually matters, let’s start by defining and distinguishing between socialism and capitalism in order to gain clarity on the ideological context that Sanders is dealing with in the United States.
This Investopedia article helps provide context:
Capitalism and socialism are the two primary economic systems used to understand the world and the way economies work. Their distinctions are many, but perhaps the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism lies in the scope of government intervention in the economy. The capitalist economic model relies on free market conditions to drive innovation and wealth creation and regulate corporate behavior; this liberalization of market forces allows for the freedom of choice, resulting in either success or failure. The socialist-based economy incorporates elements of centralized economic planning, utilized to ensure conformity and to encourage equality of opportunity and economic outcome.
In a capitalist economy, property and businesses are owned and controlled by individuals. The production and prices of goods and services are determined by how in demand they are and how difficult they are to produce. Theoretically, this dynamic drives companies to make the best products they can as cheaply as they can, meaning that consumers can choose the best and cheapest products,. Business owners should be driven to find more efficient ways of producing quality goods quickly and cheaply.
This emphasis on efficiency takes priority over equality, which is of little concern to the capitalist system. The argument is that inequality is the driving force that encourages innovation, which then pushes economic development. In a capitalist economy, the state does not directly employ the workforce. This can lead to unemployment during times of economic recession.
In a socialist economy, the state owns and controls the major means of production. In some socialist economic models, worker cooperatives have primacy over production. Other socialist economic models allow individual ownership of enterprise and property, albeit with high taxes and stringent government controls.
The primary concern of the socialist model, in contrast, is an equitable redistribution of wealth and resources from the rich to the poor, out of fairness and to ensure “an even playing field” in opportunity and outcome. To achieve this, the state intervenes in the labor market. In fact, in a socialist economy, the state is the primary employer. During times of economic hardship, the socialist state can order hiring, so there is full employment even if workers are not performing tasks that are particularly in demand from the market.
In reality, most countries and their economies fall in-between these two extremes. Some countries incorporate both the private sector system of capitalism and the public sector enterprise of socialism to overcome the disadvantages of both systems. These countries are referred to as having mixed economies. In these economies, the government intervenes to prevent any individual or company from having a monopolistic stance and undue concentration of economic power. Resources in these systems may be owned by both state and individuals.
The American Context
One could rightly say that socialism, not capitalism, was the first system brought to American soil by European colonists. When a group of early settlers arrived at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620, their plan was to establish collective property ownership. Their charter called for farmland to be worked communally and for the harvests to be shared. The results were frightening. Many settlers were unwilling to work hard for the common good, and then those who were doing their share lost their motivation to continue to ‘carry the load’ themselves. As a result, many fields were largely untilled and unplanted. Famine came as soon as they ate through their provisions. After famine came plague, and half the colony died.
In his memoirs, Plymouth governor William Bradford explained what happened next:
At length, after much debate of things, the Governor… gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves… And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end.
This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. (source)
Not only did the colonists work much harder, but they were motivated to innovate. They traded with the Indigenous population and were eager to learn from them how to plant maize, squash and pumpkin and how to rotate these crops from year to year. This resulted in bountiful harvests. On the strength of this real-world experience, and other similar ones from surrounding colonies, the American identity of hard work and innovation was founded, having a significant impact not only on their thirst for independence, but on the content of the Constitution on which their Republic is based.
Needless to say, Americans have historically rejected socialist doctrines, and for similar reasons have vehemently rejected and fought against the influence of communism, which was seen by Marx as the logical endpoint of socialism. To be seen as a ‘socialist’ in American politics has long been a campaign-wrecker.
So Why Is Bernie Sanders Popular?
Note in the ‘Special Considerations’ section above that the economies of most countries fall between the ‘extremes’ of capitalism and socialism. That is because in its purest form, unbridled capitalism inevitably leads to an ever-increasing wealth disparity between the haves and the have-nots, while pure socialism, as in the above example, stifles motivation to work, learn and innovate. Both of these ideologies, in extremes, can lead to a complete disintegration of social and economic order.
The reason Sanders has gained popularity in recent years is that the United States is nearing the breaking point in terms of wealth disparity between the rich and the poor, with the middle class rapidly eroding. Bernie Sanders preaches a brand of socialism he calls ‘Democratic Socialism,’ in which he alleges ‘the people’ will control the means of production rather than the financial elite who are at the top end of the wage disparity.
Details about how this actually works are sketchy. Amid fears that socialism really centralizes the power within ‘Big Government,’ the Democratic Socialists of America website had this to say:
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Of course, logic dictates that it would be very unwieldy and inefficient to have the country run by popular consensus, and that a massive and all-powerful bureaucracy within a centralized government would currently seem inevitable. While Sanders uses examples of different countries in the world considered to be socialist in nature, he hand-picks small and specific successes in certain countries, like universal healthcare or free education, but is not able to point to any particular country that has fully and successfully implemented ‘Democratic Socialism.’ Countries like Sweden, which is often used as an example, actually credit a return to some capitalistic principles to explain their return to economic viability in the past few decades. (source)
Why It Doesn’t Matter
Many of the ideals of socialism may be appealing, but as we saw in the Plymouth example, they are not easily implemented in the real world. In all likelihood, if Bernie Sanders is elected President and he maneuvers the United States into some kind of socialist country, he will only be shifting the power from private corporations and banks to a centralized industrial-governmental entity that controls the means of production, which would wield unprecedented power in the American economy. In practical terms, that means the corrupt global elite who bribed, threatened, and murdered their way into controlling the American economy will just start to shift roles and arrange to occupy the seats of this new power. In other words, the Deep State will still be in charge. And consolidating power within a large bureaucratic institution makes it much easier for that power to be insulated and maintained.
In addition, I believe Bernie Sanders is really a political hack who is only interested in getting a prime seat within the ruling class. Why do I say that? Simply by the fact that, after becoming aware that the 2016 Democratic Party nomination was literally stolen from him by Hillary Clinton and her full control over and illegal activities within the Democratic National Committee (a committee that is supposed to be neutral and impartially supportive of all candidates), he did not do what some of his more ardent supporters wanted him to do: disavow the DNC, lambaste Hillary Clinton, and perhaps even take her to court and run for the presidency as an independent. Instead, he remained quiet and eventually supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, just like someone who had been promised the moon to toe the party line. And in supporting Clinton and remaining with the Democratic Party, all signs indicate that he is aligned with the Deep State and will be prepared to do their bidding if he gets elected, whether he wants to call it ‘Democratic Socialism’ or anything else.
No, Bernie Sanders and his version of socialism are not the answers to the woes of American citizens. The matter at hand is not whether to choose capitalism or socialism, or even finding a way to strike the right balance between the two. The matter at hand is overcoming Deep State control and enslavement and restoring the power to the Constitution and the freedom of individuals that it protects. While Donald Trump could be accused of many things including engaging in crony capitalism, a growing number of people believe that the main reason he decided to run for President in the first place was to help an alliance of insiders take down the Deep State. If this turns out to be true, and they are successful, then this is where the resurrection of the United States of America, and perhaps even the world as a whole, will be found.
Only our discernment of the true source of the problems in America and throughout the world gives us the context to evaluate whether a move to become more of a socialist nation really matters. In the case of Bernie Sanders ever becoming President, corruption and control from the top would likely be left unchanged. As we continue to become aware that unelected powers have long enjoyed massive control over our social and economic fate, we become agents of change that will help bring down these forces, leading us to a much higher level of freedom and prosperity no matter where on the continuum between capitalism and socialism we decide to operate from.
The Most Senior Vatican Official Ever Convicted of Child Sexual Abuse Loses Appeal
- The Facts:
Tomorrow, it will be decided whether or not Cardinal George Pell's guilty verdict will be appealed. If his appeal is successful, he will be let go and the charges of sexual abuse against children will be dropped.
- Reflect On:
Although awareness is being created, the most powerful people in the world and the authorities we turn to in order to stop these activities may also be implicated.
*UPDATE: Cardinal George Pell has lost his appeal
The sexual abuse of children connected to high ranking Vatican officials is nothing new. Multiple popes have been implicated or involved, including Pope Francis. For example, Carlo Maria Vigano, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States and Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City was the last one to do that. You can read more about that here. Decades of sexual abuse were reported in a choir that was led by the retired pope Benedict’s brother. It’s interesting that all of these revelations and accusations of violence, child abuse and pedophilia coincided with the time of that pope’s resignation. You can read more about that specific case here. According to Malachi Martin, an Irish Catholic priest, writer on the Catholic Church, and Professor of Palaeography at the Vatican’s Pontifical Biblical Institute, “the incidence of Satanic pedophilia – rites and practices – was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites.” The list of examples is long, and the topic could fill books that deal with pedophilia, torture, murder and ritualistic abuse.
The latest example to make public headlines is Cardinal George Pell. Pell was just convicted on five counts of child sexual abuse. He has now become the most senior official ever to be found guilty, serving as an advisor to Pope Benedict as well as Pope Francis. He’s one of the Vatican’s most powerful officials.
Who knows what Pell is really involved in, how deep his involvement goes, and what other crimes he is guilty of committing?
As the Guardian pointed out:
The jurors heard Pell sexually assaulted the two boys after Sunday solemn mass at St Patrick’s Cathedral in Melbourne in the priest’s sacristy. Pell orally raped one of the boys during this incident and indecently assaulted both of them. Pell offended a second time against one of the boys one month later, when he grabbed the boy’s genitals in a church corridor, once more after Sunday solemn mass. He was convicted on four counts of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and one count of sexual penetration with a child under the age of 16.
Pell appealed the court’s decision, and if he wins he could be set free. The decision is set to be announced tomorrow. The Senior Vatican official has been in custody in Melbourne since his sentencing to 6 years in prison earlier this year in March.
Pell’s appeal was heard in June before a full bench of the supreme court including the chief justice, Anne Ferguson, the president of the court of appeal, Chris Maxwell, and Mark Weinberg. Only two of the three judges needs to agree as to whether Pell’s conviction should be overturned. (source)
The recent NXIVM case along with the Jeffrey Epstein saga has certainly brought more attention to this type of thing and how big of a problem it is within elite circles, particularly the sexual ritualistic abuse and trafficking of young women and children.
But will things change? Does it make a difference if Cardinal George Pell will be set free, or if not set free become another ‘fall guy’? Will this help stop the problem or does something grander need to happen? Does our focus need to shift away from one person onto an entire entity and organization, like the leaders Catholic Church/Vatican?
Based on my research, many high level people are involved in this type of activity, including many whom authority figures go to in order to solve these problems. These people have amassed tremendous amounts of power and a few convictions here and there. Awareness may not be able to solve the problem, but that’s not to say it’s not a giant leap forward to share this information…
When it comes to Vatican officials, it’s quite clear that many people have been aware of this type of thing for a very long time. This is evident by many examples throughout the years, and this clip of Pell debating scientist Richard Dawkins is a great example of what I am talking about. You can see the crowds reaction when ‘little boys’ are mentioned.
The positive thing about all of the awareness and transparency that’s hitting the mainstream with regards to this type of activity is that it’s simply becoming more known. We’re talking about people that the world has been made to praise, idolize, and look up to. We are talking about people that have tremendous amounts of power and influence over political policies and major corporations that are continuing to destroy our planet and perpetuate war.
This is immoral behaviour, and there are many parts of our world that are a reflection of that. But things are changing, and awareness is the first step to that. We are in the process of change and uncovering the truth, and not turning a blind eye is key to that.
At the end of the day, blame and punishment are also not the answers. We must dive deep and ask ourselves why these people do such things. Did it happen to them in their upbringing? Is putting someone in a cage the solution, and can that help someone heal?
Scientist Discovers Cells That ‘Ingest’ Vaccine Aluminum Are The Same Cells Found In Autistic Brains
- The Facts:
Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University explains what happens to aluminum when it is injected via a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Are doctors learning and up to date with the latest publications on vaccines? Why have there been no safety studies to prove that it's safe to inject aluminum, let alone the many other ingredients that are present in vaccines?
What’s happening in our world with regards to the censorship of information is unbelievable. It’s truly Orwellian, as we now have multiple ‘ministries of truth’ that are determining what is real and what is fake, what’s legit and what’s not. You would think that human beings are capable of determining on their own what’s considered ‘fake’ news, shouldn’t we the people be allowed to decide?
The truth is that this censorship of information is happening on all fronts, and it’s not really about media integrity, but more so about silencing and censoring information that doesn’t fit the accepted framework of certain political and elitist agendas.
News browser extension NewsGuard, for example, promises to help readers pick out fake news. However, NewsGuard is funded and run by individuals tied to the CFR, Atlantic Council and other prominent elite figures. Get the picture?
This is also why Wikileaks’ Julian Assange has been silenced, because the truth often threatens various corporate and political agendas, which are extremely unethical and immoral.
Many topics are being censored and labelled as ‘fake news.’ This includes presenting information that’s getting published by reputable academics in peer-reviewed science journals. Any type of information that goes against the medical establishment/industry is getting censored. Many papers have been retracted to protect the industry and corporate profits.
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)
Vaccines are a big topic, and mainstream media is constantly bombarding any paper, publication or information that calls into question the safety of vaccines. Social media giants are censoring articles–no matter how well sourced, presented and credible they are–that paint vaccines in a harmful light. Tactics currently used by the mainstream are simply ridiculing anybody that questions the safety of vaccines and labeling information that paints them in a harmful light as “anti-vaccine propaganda.”
There is never any mention of the actual concerns being raised regarding vaccine safety, there is only ridicule and character assassination of those who are creating awareness.
There is a reason why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid nearly $4 billion to families of vaccine injured children, and that’s because they are not completely safe for everybody, this is not a ‘one size fits all’ deal.
Furthermore, vaccine ingredients have never been tested for safety. You would think that injecting an infant would first involve the appropriate safety studies to see where these ingredients are going in the body, and what they are doing to our biology.
Why have we been prevented from even questioning vaccine safety? How is that scientific?
A number of scientists have started to recognize this and are thankfully taking matters into their own hands. One of the best examples is Dr. Christopher Exley, a Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University who’s considered by many to be the world’s leading expert in aluminum toxicology.
One ingredient that hasn’t gone through appropriate safety testing is the aluminum adjuvant that’s used in vaccines.
A study published in 2011 makes the issue quite clear:
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. (source)
The key takeaway here is that “medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor.”
After this study, more research came out to help us better understand what happens when aluminum is injected into the body. It has been found that injected aluminum does not exit the body; in fact, it stays in the body and travels to various organs in the brain, where it remains. This isn’t surprising since it’s the adjuvant, it’s designed to stay there or else the vaccine doesn’t work.
As the groundbreaking study in 2015 emphasized:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.
Furthermore, in 2018, a paper published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry found that almost 100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum in mice as vaccine adjuvants was absorbed into the systemic circulation and traveled to different sites in the body such as the brain, the joints, and the spleen, where it accumulated and was retained for years post-vaccination. (source)
Exley has been interviewed multiple times about this subject, and all of these studies and his research point to the same findings: Aluminum in vaccines does not exit the body, and it has been linked to multiple diseases, which can develop immediately post-injection or up to decades later in life for certain neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s.
A study by Exley and his team published in 2018 should have made headlines everywhere, as it discovered historically high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains. The study was conducted by some of the world’s leading scientists in the field.
Other studies by multiple scientists in this field have shown massive damage to motor neurons in the brain of mice and sheep as a result of the aluminum when injected, as well as behavioural abnormalities in mice and sheep along with cognitive decline.(source)
In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was:
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.
The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty seconds mark.
The British academic was recently blocked from raising funds to further his study on aluminum in vaccines, apparently after “protests by other scientists.” (source) Robert F Kennedy Jr. made a great post regarding the recent blockage on his social media platforms, which is how I first became aware of it.
He who stifles free discussion secretly doubts what he professes to believe in is really true.” — Wendel Phillips. GoFundMe today shut down Dr. Christopher Exley’s crowd funding campaign to study aluminum in vaccines. Dr. Exley, the world’s leading authority on aluminum toxicity angered the Pharma Cartel when his autopsies discovered astronomically high aluminum concentrations in the brains of children with autism. His other studies link aluminum in Merck’s Gardasil and other vaccines to dementia, Alzheimer’s and autism. Exley joins a long list of scientists silenced for questioning the Vaccine Orthodoxy. While White House Republicans censor climate science at the EPA, congressional Democrats clamor for censorship of vaccine science. It’s strange, to me, that these politicians don’t understand that censorship is incompatible with democracy. Given purchase, censorship will spread virally until it infects and kills democracy. SCOTUS Justice Potter Stewart called censorship “the hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” Heinrich Heine’s observed, “Where they have burned books, they will, in the end, burn human beings.” (source)
You can read more about that story here.
It’s okay to question vaccine safety. Despite all of the manipulation by mainstream media and the big entities using mass marketing to ridicule anybody who questions the safety of vaccines, it’s something important we must all do. It’s okay not to trust your doctor when it comes to information on vaccines. Why? Because they aren’t really knowledgable. Sure, they can explain how a vaccine works, but as far as research and furthering their education, it’s rare to find a doctor who has gone beyond their education and really looked into these subjects. They are trained to believe that vaccines are unquestionably safe, and if they openly question vaccine safety they are in danger of losing their licence. How crazy is that?
The example above with regards to aluminum is one of many concerns that are being ignored. If aluminum in vaccines, for example, is safe, then why don’t our federal health regulatory agencies simply conduct the studies to prove it?
Are Human Beings “Extraterrestrial?” Did We Come From Somewhere Else?
Are we alone in the universe? The obvious answer coming from mainstream science these days is a big no. It’s quite clear that we’re not alone, that’s the general scientific consensus. The next questions to ask are: Has advanced ‘super intelligent’ extraterrestrial life visited our planet in the past, and is extraterrestrial life visiting our planet now?
For years, if you believed that intelligent extraterrestrial life has visited our planet, you would have been put in the ‘conspiracy theorist’ category. But today, that’s not the case. Perhaps this ridicule was as a result of something specific–the very first director of the Central Intelligence Agency said that there was an “official campaign of ridicule and secrecy” when it came to the topic of UFOs.
UFOs are no longer taboo, and their existence has been disclosed thanks to millions of pages of unclassified government documents from around the world. They’ve been photographed and recorded on video as well as tracked on radars. They’ve performed maneuvers and were clocked travelling at speeds no known aircraft on Earth can travel. Furthermore, there are many witnesses, from astronauts to civilians to high ranking military personnel to academicians and more, who have been creating awareness and putting all of the evidence out there for us to see.
We are in a process of ‘disclosure,’ a slow one, and it’s a subject that leaves no aspect of humanity untouched. The implications are huge, from spiritual to technological to scientific and beyond. It really opens up pandora’s box.
The question of whether or not we are alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in the history of mankind, along with how we got here and who created us. Perhaps they are all interrelated? We have yet to answer these questions, yet God as well as the theory of evolution seem to be heavily pushed on the population in an almost unquestionable manner, leaving humanity in a divide, constantly disagreeing with each other without ever being able to find common ground.
Did we come from outer space? I don’t watch Ancient Aliens, but I am sure many people are aware of the biblical, ancient, and indigenous lore of human beings coming from outer space. There are no shortage of stories regarding this, but it’s a perspective that we never really hear about and one that is never addressed within mainstream academia. That being said, anybody who truly has a passion for this subject is going to go down that rabbit hole.
Dr. Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the moon, said he “happens to be privileged enough to be in on the fact that we are not alone on this planet” and that we have “been visited many times.” He is one of many astronauts to express this. It was while coming across his comments that I stumbled upon the comments of Al Warden, who said in a TV interview:
We are the aliens, but we just think they’re somebody else, but we’re the ones who came from somewhere else. Because somebody else had to survive, and they got in a little space craft and they came here and they landed and they started civilization here, that’s what I believe. And if you don’t believe me, go get books on the ancient Sumerians and see what they had to say about it, they’ll tell you right up front.
He seemed pretty confident in his knowing.
He’s not the only one to assert such things, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology for Medicine “for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material,” and they also shared this belief.
In his book published in 1982, Life Itself, Crick argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have gotten its start here on Earth and that it had to have come here from somewhere else. Within the mainstream scientific community, the generally accepted theory is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Francis, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and a British chemist, Leslie Orgel, published their paper on it in July of 1973.
Their theory explains that, “organisms were deliberately transmitted to earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.” (source)
As far as Crick’s thoughts on the theory that we are the result of accidentally bumping into each other, he thinks this was as likely as the assembly of a jumbo jet hit by a hurricane in a junk yard. In other words, he thought the theory held little to no credibility.
The theory of evolution is taught today as a fact, when in reality it has little backing. In fact, 500 scientists in several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” There are countless studies being published calling into question the theory of evolution. Not long ago, we wrote about a new genetic study that did exactly that, you can read more about that here.
A recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggests that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originated from the stars. This is another example of how the theory of evolution would be thrown out of whack.
“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)
There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets that talked about the study:
With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.
The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as panspermia.
What about giants? There are several examples of evidence that exist in support of the idea that giants once roamed the Earth. For example, stored in the vaults of the medical school at WITS University, Johannesburg, there is part of an upper leg bone with a hip-joint that would have stood approximately 12 feet tall. It’s been there since the early 1960’s and was found by miners in Northern Namibia. It is one of the most precious and rare specimens available today that clearly indicates the existence of giants in Southern Africa more than 40,000 years ago.
That’s another story in and of itself, and you can read more about that here.
The point of this article is to show you that there is a lot more to the human story than what we’ve been told, yet we are still taught that there are only two acceptable possibilities. The truth is that we don’t know, and the evidence points to the fact that what we are being taught and what we are learning from a young age doesn’t hold nearly as much credibility compared to theories that don’t even get mentioned within the mainstream.
Perhaps there is much more to human history and the story of our origins than what we’re told? Perhaps intellectual authorities have been involved in concealing this information from humanity because it would completely change the collective worldview and the controlling mechanisms used to enslave humanity?
Everything We Eat & Drink Are Completely Controlled By These 10 Companies (Infographic)
Scour the aisles of the grocery store, and you may be astonished to find just how many types of Pringles...
CIA Document Confirms Reality Of Humans With ‘Special Abilities’ Able To Do ‘Impossible’ Things
Cases of mind influencing matter have been reported throughout history and across many cultures, more specifically in regard to ‘supernormal’ abilities...