Science says that man is getting smaller, weaker and dumber. Scientists say that this is because of negative mutations in our genes. However, they have never been able to adequately explain exactly why this happens. Let me tell you a little story.

Once upon a time man was very primitive.  He often lived in caves.  Then, overnight in evolutionary terms, homo sapiens suddenly appeared.  He was bigger and smarter than his predecessors. He became a farmer instead of a hunter.  It takes millions of years for a species to evolve, but in just 10,000 years or so man went from cave-dwelling to exploring outer space.  Such a spike in evolution is unheard of.  The explanation for this, therefore, obviously lies outside the bounds of normal evolution.

So, how did this happen and how do you reconcile this with the fact that man is now getting dumber? Here’s how.

At various times, man received a contribution of DNA from outside his own species (think: Directed Panspermia).  Man went from a hominid to a fully-formed human. That new DNA was primarily responsible for man’s ascension to the top of the evolutionary ladder.  The problem was, however, that the donation of DNA was limited and the majority of humans remained at lower levels of evolution.  Over time, the number of people with advanced DNA became a smaller and smaller percentage of the total population, especially as populations grew.

NOTE: Of the seven billion people on the planet, six billion were added in the last 200 years, as living conditions improved dramatically.

Man was still relatively backward as late as 1600 AD (the end of the Dark Age) as the Sumerian Civilization of 3500 BC was actually more advanced. Man had actually de-evolved for a period of about 5,000 years.  Then we went into the Age of Enlightenment and soon thereafter the Industrial Revolution. Uber-geniuses like Edison, Einstein and Tesla were the driving force behind the rise in man’s living standards. For example, it was only in the last 150 years that we got electricity, telephones, cars, airplanes and computers.  Yet, science says that man got dumber.  Why?

In genetic terms, it’s really very simple.  The burgeoning world population, for the most part, produced progressively dumber people. Fewer and fewer people retained the advanced DNA that propagated our species in the first place.  So, the intelligence of the “average” person went down. Eventually, man will return to his DNA state from before the injection of new DNA.  In other words, we will continue to get smaller, weaker and dumber until we return to our “natural state.”

Unless, of course, we get another injection of DNA.

 Here’s a link to a related story –  

“The secret of DNA’s success is that it carries information like that of a computer program, but far more advanced. Since experience shows that intelligence is the only presently acting cause of information, we can infer that intelligence is the best explanation for the information in DNA.” –  Jonathan Wells, biologist

California is ablaze today, but the politicians are incendiary.  Even AOC chimed in saying, “This is what climate change looks like.” There are a couple of problems with AOC’s statement.

First and foremost, there has been no climate change in California.  The summer was, in fact, quite pleasant.  The fires themselves were directly or indirectly man-made.  Light a fire and blame it on climate change.  Nice. Finally, the fires are almost impossible to control because of decades of environmental mismanagement by the State of California.

AOC went on to say that things will only get worse unless we reduce carbon emissions by half in the next ten years. What happened to us all dying in 12 years unless carbon emissions are reduced to zero?  Seems like she’s seriously backtracking here.  Furthermore, the U.S. has actually been reducing emissions, unlike the two serious polluters in the world, China and India, where carbon emissions are getting worse every year. Maybe, AOC and Greta Thunberg should consider taking their dog and pony show to China instead, where it might actually do some good.

Perhaps, however, they should just stop propagating their false claims of climate change altogether. After all, AOC’s former chief-of-staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, has publicly admitted that the Green New Deal was not primarily about the environment; that it was about changing Western Civilization’s economic system. Guess who else agrees with him- the United Nations.  Referring to the Paris Climate Accord, Christiana Fuentes, former head of the United Nations global warming agency, said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model (capitalism) that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”  



The world isn’t going to be devastated in 12 years. Miami is not going to disappear in a few years due to rising sea levels (as AOC has stated) and brush fires is a problem that man has created, and can therefore fix himself. The kicker is that CO2 is actually good for the planet because plants/crops need it to grow. That’s a scientific fact. Besides, the average global temperature is currently much lower than it’s been for most of the last 600 million years. 

Some of the environmental problems that the world has experienced in the last 50 years or so were indeed man-made. Many of them, however, were created intentionally to promote a political agenda. That is, you create a problem and then when people demand a solution, you give them one, something that fits your ideology and goals. As environmental scientist Delgado Domingos said, “The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control …Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.” 

AOC Unveiled


AOC is a congresswoman, a social media darling and the face of the socialist movement in America. Recently, she came out and supported Bernie Sanders and made a personal appearance at his campaign rally. So, the big question is why Bernie?  Why an old, white man and not a woman of color? What’s the strategy?

Of course, politics is rarely what it appears to be to the unwashed masses. As a senior House Democratic aide said about AOC, “She’s only a woman of color when it’s convenient.” To make matters worse, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is at odds with AOC for targeting minority lawmakers.

The real strategizing in politics is about the backroom deals that create political alliances, even between rivals.  However, Bernie Sanders is dying, politically speaking that is.  He’s in third behind Biden and Warren.  Further, his age and his medical condition don’t help matters any.  So, why would AOC be interested in Bernie? Why? What’s in it for her?

To begin with, AOC considers herself as representing working-class people.  The problem is that her actions in Congress belie that, to wit:

  • She spearheaded an effort to keep Amazon from moving their offices to her home congressional district. As a result, her congressional district lost thousands of jobs that would have benefited the working class there. 
  • She supported a higher minimum wage which Harvard and Stanford studies have proved that a higher minimum wage hurts the very people that it was intended to help. 
  • Ditto rent controls.

So, if her public profile of representing the working-class is a smokescreen, who does she really represent?  Well, the CBC let the cat out of the proverbial bag when they disclosed that AOC was beholden to the white, liberal elite.  You see, in politics, it’s all about money and power. Politicians can get the power if they can get the money, as political campaigns are extremely expensive. The old adage is still true: just follow the money trail.

AOC’s campaign manager in her 2016 election and her first chief-of-staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, helped to form the far-left Justice Democrats. AOC ran on the Justice Democrats’ platform, with their financial backing. You didn’t think that AOC came up with the Green New Deal did you? AOC is simply the cover girl with the Wizard of Oz lurking behind the curtain.  Chakrabarti’s politics is not about winning elections per se.  He has a much grander political vision. To be more precise, it’s about revolution – to fundamentally transform the country. The goal is have the government control all facets of the social, economic and financial lifeblood of the nation.

And, of course, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than Chakrabarti.

So, what does any of this have to do with AOC’s endorsement of Bernie Sanders? Well, it’s a political power play. The target is Elizabeth Warren.  Bernie is just a convenient pawn in the chess game. Everyone is playing 3-D chess.  Everyone except AOC, that is. She’s on a whole other level (4-D).  Warren is the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate and AOC wants a seat at the Warren table.  She wants to be the power behind the throne.

So, the talking heads, no doubt, will fill up the airspace with all sorts of pablum. They will wax elegantly about why Bernie and AOC make good sense. However, it will be just an attempt to obscure the fact that there’s another agenda at play behind the scenes.  It’s an agenda that you were never meant to find out about… but, of course, now you know.


The Blue-Eyed Gods


Some Australian aboriginals have blue eyes.  So, where did they get them from? From Africa? Not a chance.

The “Out Of Africa” theory concerning the evolution of Homo sapiens was popularized in the 1980s with the work of molecular biologists Alan Wilson and Rebecca Cann. They have since said that their initial conclusion was incorrect. That’s because advances in DNA studies has changed the scientific landscape. A recent DNA study by Watson and Cann shows that the origins of man can be traced back 400,000 years to Australia through Australian aboriginal mitochondrial DNA.  In other words, life began in Australia, mate.

So, where did some of the Australian aboriginals get blue eyes (and blond hair) from, especially since blue eyes and blond hair are recessive genes. Since recessive genes can only come from a different ancestral gene pool, blue eyes, therefore, had to have come from the “gods”.  In scientific circles, it’s sometimes referred to as Directed Panspermia and it’s the brainchild of Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for coming up with the double-helix structure of DNA.  

Note: Of course, no one even mentions that the Australian aboriginals themselves said that they came from the Pleiades. 

That’s not to say that all humans came from the same ancestral gene pool. Obviously, there was more than one Mitochondrial Eve. After all, where did Homo sapiens get their different skull types from and what is the origins of Rh negative blood? Science has never been able to answer those questions. With respect to skulls, science has obscured the fact that historically certain people on this planet had an elongated skull, including King Tut of Egypt and, yet, King Tut has been linked through DNA tests to most people currently living in Europe (Caucasians, that is). The truth is that King Tut was Caucasian, with an elongated skull!  

“Interestingly enough, this might lead to what some would consider to be a politically incorrect worldview. That is, the difference in races is caused by man’s evolution from more than one gene pool. In other words, not all of our genes came “out of Africa.” Now, you may be wondering why you haven’t heard about this before.  Like I said, it’s politically incorrect – a dirty little secret that has been intentionally suppressed from the history books…but, of course, now you know.” – The Ethical Warrior, Does God Have Blue Eyes?

It’s a great political double play combination: Clapper to Beto to AOC. The headlines tell the story.

Headline: James Clapper Admits Obama Made Deep State Officials Spy On Trump

Comment: On a CNN interview, Clapper said that it was okay to spy because the Russians were supposedly coming. I call it committing treason in the name of so-called “national security.”

Headline: Beto Says That Police Will Go Door-To-Door To Confiscate Guns If Americans Don’t Surrender Them

Comment: Of course, knives would have to be banned next because more knives are used to murder people than even guns.

Headline: Democrats Vote Unanimously To Protect The Syrian Border – But Zero Votes To Protect U.S. Border Two Weeks Ago

Translation: We want war and illegal immigration.

Headline: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Learns To Love War: Blasts Trump’s Syria Withdrawal

AOC says, “We can pursue a strategy to stop our endless wars without endangering the lives of innocent people.”

Comment: Innocent people? How about the lives of our troops? The only way to stop “endless wars” is to not commit the troops in the first place. What a sellout AOC.

Up until very recently, very few people knew who Tulsi Gabbard was.  After the last Democratic debate, that has no doubt changed. The media can no longer ignore her and the DNC will have trouble excluding her (again) from future debates.

What changed? Well, Gabbard rocked the latest Democratic debate by telling the American people the awful truth about our nation’s military interventionism abroad.  As a result, Gabbard was attacked by CNN, the New York Times and Hillary Clinton.  Hillary accused her of being a Russian agent.  The pushback from Gabbard was stunning.  Gabbard responded to Hillary saying,  “You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.”

I know you’re probably asking how this is different from any other toe–to-toe between two politicians. The answer is that Gabbard is an anti-war candidate who does not support the Green New Deal, making her a pariah within her own party.  Virtually all of the other Democratic presidential candidates support endless wars abroad (and the Green New Deal).

Here’s what this all means…

Those who support endless wars are agents of the Deep State. So, for example, all the candidates other than Gabbard are for protecting the Syrian border but are against guarding the U.S. border.  Does that make any sense to you? Of course not.  All of the other candidates are for the U.S. bankrupting itself in order to be the world’s policeman while ignoring the needs of its own citizens; the very people who elected them to office in the first place.  

In politics, you have to ask this question: Who benefits? Well, for starters, the U.S. doesn’t benefit fighting a war in the Middle East. It’s simply not in our national interest. That’s been proven through two Gulf Wars (in Iraq) and one in Afghanistan.  Besides, the U.S. is now energy self-sufficient and doesn’t have to rely on Middle Eastern oil so that excuse cannot be used anymore.

To be clear, this issue of endless wars is not a political issue (Democrats vs. Republicans) as there are plenty of Republicans who support endless wars (e.g. John Bolton) who are also agents of the Deep State.  The Deep State controls both parties…but they don’t control Tulsi Gabbard.  The Tulsi Gabbard Effect will be on full display from now on.  The Deep State, and its Mockingbird Media, will not want to discuss endless wars but it may be unavoidable now that Gabbard is a serious candidate who can no longer be ignored.  

Besides, I was getting tired of the candidates continually trying to explain why socialism would be good for America.  Now we have a real race – Hillary vs. Tulsi.  The “endless wars” establishment vs. the anti-war candidate. So much fuss over just a couple of thousand troops in Syria, but now you know what the real issue is (war vs. no war).  It’s a dirty little secret that the establishment has been trying to obscure…but, of course, now you know.

“That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me.”   -Tulsi Gabbard

Charles Hugh Smith authored an article entitled “ Democracy Is Now a Hindrance To The Imperial State.” You can find the full article at

Here’s some excerpts of what he wrote:

  • We have a “counterfeit democracy which matches our counterfeit capitalism.” Comment: Our economic system is actually fascism, but people like to disguise it and call it capitalism as part of their blame game.  The very people who are complaining about our economic system are the very ones who created the problem in the first place.
  • “…Swapping which party controls Congress doesn’t really change the policies of the Imperial State….” Comment: The Imperial State is more appropriately called the “Deep State.”
  • “The corporate mass media is the PR machine for the Imperial State.” Comment: That’s why there is so much “fake news.”

We are a democracy in name only; everything is disguised, smoke and mirrors to the extreme.  As a result, the American public would never guess who runs our government, regardless of which party is in power and regardless of who might be president.  It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.

Greta Thunberg says that the science is settled. So, why doesn’t NASA and the World Meteorological Organization agree with her?

Headline: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Proposes Zero-Carbon Airplanes

Comment: Good luck with running planes on anything but fossil fuel, especially if we only have 12 years left.  A good first step, however, would be to eliminate private jets. Unfortunately, the climate alarmists will never allow it because the elites, and the climate alarmists themselves, would lose their favorite means of transportation. Going to Davos, anyone?

Headline: Greta Thunberg In Iowa City: U.N. Climate Action Summit A Failure

Thunberg said world leaders are uncomfortable standing behind the science.

Comment: Actually, world leaders are uncomfortable standing behind a hoax, even one propagated by the U. N. itself. The reason is that they can see that it will destroy their own country.

Headline: NASA Admits That Climate Change Occurs Because of Changes In Earth’s Solar Orbit, and Not Because of SUVs or Fossil Fuels

Comment: It’s called the Milankovitch Cycles, for anyone who wants to research it.

Headline: Global Warming: Britain Braces for Coldest Winter in 30 Years

Comment: Some meteorologists are saying that the 2019-2020 cold spell could be as severe as the winter of 1963, believed to have been the coldest in 200 years (dating back to the last mini ice-age).

Headline: Top Level Climate Modeler Criticizes Nonsense of Global Warming Crisis

Comment: One of the world’s top meteorologists is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura from Japan who earned his Doctor of Science from MIT. He’s come out against the theory of global warming and the climate crisis proclamations of Greta Thunberg and AOC.


Recently, over 500 scientists and climate professionals wrote a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations appealing for an open debate on climate change. This is what the letter said:

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”

And why does the U.N., itself, say that climate change has nothing to do with environmental science but rather is a solution to a political issue? And why do climate alarmists ignore what the U.N. has openly admitted themselves?

Quote of the day

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Delgado Domingos, environmental scientist

They brought it up and by now they are no doubt regretting it. As the saying goes: “Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” Today’s headlines tell the story:


Headline: Obama Officials Including Ambassador Discuss Toppling Ukrainian Government and Replacing Officials With Biden’s Approval

Comment: Obama officials, but in particular the CIA. Who runs the CIA, anyway?

Headline: Oliver Stone Flick Exposes Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s Successful Coup in Ukraine

Comment: Filmmaker Oliver Stone made a documentary exposing the Ukraine scandal but the Police State (Deep State/Mockingbird Media) stonewalled him.

Headline: Audio, Email Evidence Shows DNC Colluded With Ukraine To Boost Hillary By Harming Trump

Comment: Yet, Hillary is still promoting the discredited Russia-collusion narrative.  

Headline: Intel Community IG Stonewalling Congress On Backdated Whistleblower Rule Changes

Comment: The CIA got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  Can you spell C-O-U-P?

Headline: Barr: Intelligence Community Management Is Behind Whistleblower Saboteurs

Comment: In other words, the Deep State.

Commentary: And Joe Biden’s campaign is going up in Ukraine-related flames….so Hillary gets the mantle.

The New Politics


Politics is an ever-changing exercise in chasing windmills. It’s all about obtaining and keeping power, a game of identifying whatever political positions can get a politician elected. Today’s headlines tell the story:

Headline: AOC Unveils Manifesto: A Just Society Means Rent Controls, Abolish Prisons and Welfare For Illegals

Comment: “Just” for who? AOC wants criminals and illegal aliens to have more rights than tax-paying citizens.

Headline: Hillary Cites Russia Conspiracy Theories In Case For Trump Impeachment

Comment: Is Hillary one of the few people who still don’t understand that Russia-collusion was a political ruse to interfere in the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary, herself?

Headline: Hillary Floats Putting Constitution In The Shredder

Comment:Plan B is to get rid of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Commentary: If you’re wondering why I’m covering Hillary Clinton now, it’s because she’s now the preferred presidential candidate of some Dem donors and supporters. Biden will drop out due to all the scandals and Warren isn’t electable. So, the top Dems realize that Hillary is they’re best shot. Unfortunately, Hillary isn’t electable either, so what to do? That’s where the idea of “President Pelosi” comes from. She’s third in line of succession to the office of president. That is, if something were to happen to both Trump and Pence, Pelosi would become President and then could give way to Clinton. You may think that sounds like too much like a conspiracy theory, but there is method/logic to the madness. After all, why is Trump calling up the Marines?