All Your Theories Are Wrong


On today’s show! Current theories (mythological frameworks) of science that are completely wrong:

AIDS theory.
Cancer theory.
Viral theory.
Genetic theory.
Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Big bang astronomical theory and its children:
Black hole, dark matter, dark energy ‘theory.’
Plate tectonics theory.
Vaccine theory.

Current social theories that are completely wrong:

Marriage for life.
Monogamy is natural.
Nuclear family.
Prohibition (of intoxicants, plants).

Feel at your absolute liberty and leisure to walk up to any of your friends, acquaintances or colleagues and inform them of these realities:

“Oh, you still believe that? Vaccine theory was completely wrong! They’ve known that for decades! A century! AIDS theory? You’ve got to be kidding me! Was never true. Big Bang? Please! Grow up.”

Add your own. Argue it. Ask why. Read the critics.

Liam Scheff is author of “Official Stories,” drilling to the core of the gooey religious center of science.

Thank You Mike Adams and Natural News for Getting “Official Stories”

by Liam Scheff

It happens to be my birthday at the end of the month – Geminis – the communicator of the zodiac. And at a certain age, by your mid-forties, it’s hard to be surprised by a present. But I’m surprised, and gratified. Please enjoy Mike Adams’ clear and straightforward (as always) analysis of the term “conspiracy theorist,” which he correctly redefines as an “analyst” of events, history, news and data.

I also want to thank him for this:

“The correct term for “conspiracy theorist” should really be “conspiracy analyst.” Most of the people who are skeptical of official stories are, in fact, analyzing conspiracies in an attempt to understand what really happened and what took place behind closed doors.

A highly-recommended book the delves into this matter in more detail is the five-star-rated masterpiece Official Stories: Counter-Arguments for a Culture in Need by Liam Scheff.

This book will open the minds of those who still have the cognitive capability remaining to grasp it. (Sadly, the injection of mercury into babies in the form of vaccines has damaged so many brains across America that many people are now cognitively incapable of rational thought.)”

Hear, hear. Mike Adams is a hero – you might not know that. You might not understand why some of us do what we do. Or how bloody hard it is at times. And how often we’re miserably attacked by absolute phonies and cowards for trying to tell a little bit of complex reality.

You might not know how hard it is to fight, every day, to tell the buried, derided truth – call it “suppressed good evidence” – about medicine, science, food, health, governmental scams and malfeasance. It’s bloody exhausting. Nobody thanks you. You don’t make money. You just try to tell the truth of what you can dig up that industry hasn’t buried.

So, I’m deeply deeply grateful for Mike’s time and energy in looking at and understanding my book. A book I do love and am proud of, because it does what I wanted it to do: it helps you loosen the bolts of academic brain-freeze, of predigested Orwellian narrative, of patsy-by-proxy news items, of quasi-religious pseudo-scientific, pro-industry, anti-critical thinking, blame-the-victim-not-the-pesticide “explanations” for the messy petroleum-soaked world we live in. And it’s got more than a few laughs in it, because…isn’t that why we’re here on Earth? To laugh, and love and be kind.

And that list of things that are hard to do, Mike does that, every day. He runs big networks. None of us know how hard that is, how demanding. I couldn’t do it. You couldn’t do it. But he does it. And so does Ty Bollinger, and Robert Scott Bell, and Joni Abbott and others whose names you know and don’t know. These are good people. I’m very fortunate to know them and count them as friends.

Thank you Mike. And Happy birthday!

Refreshing rationality

Official Stories: Counter-Arguments for a Culture in Need

Science is Fact!

Science is Fact

Science is fact!

• Fact is data, interpreted through a worldview.

Science is observation!

• Observation is subjective.

Science is measurement!

• Measurements are linear and limited.

Science is Truth!

• Nothing is all knowable.



Liam Scheff is a journalist, radio host and author of “Official Stories,” because “official stories exist to protect officials.” 

© Liam Scheff 2014


Dr. Rashid Buttar Endorses “Official Stories” by Liam Scheff

Review by Dr. Rashid Buttar of “Official Stories”:

“Liam Scheff’s book “Official Stories” could easily be turned into 11 blockbuster movies. The book has a tasty entertaining appeal which is only exceeded by it’s stunning educational value. The awareness and realization that the reader will inevitably reach as they devour and digest the material would leave most uninitiated among us disturbed.

The facetious and humorous undertones in which the information is presented however, allows the reader to absorb the truth and assimilate the information in a manner that turns a necessary but undesirable consumable into a delicious entree’ leaving you wanting a second serving.

I personally believe that every high school student should be required to read this book before they graduate so that future generations can learn from the mistakes we’ve made and remain vigilant to prevent the same from occurring yet again. I can’t recommend this book enough!”

– Dr. Rashid A. Buttar, FAAPM, FACAM, FAAIM, Medical Director, Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research, International Best Selling Author of “The 9 Steps to Keep the Doctor Away”

Part of the Whole

by Liam Scheff

The central operating premise at the core of what we call “science” is not to discover what is true; it is that religion (especially Christianity) is wrong.

“Where do we come from, how did we get here, how do our bodies heal and work?” These are the larger existential questions that religion used to try or pretend to answer – a task now performed by ‘science.’

20th and 21st C. science, as a philosophy, gets almost all of these questions wrong because it is not, as is often claimed, a progressive, forward-thinking philosophy; it is, in its heart, a regressive, reactive anti-philosophy.

Mechanical studies and engineering, generally operating more freely and in more practical applications than medicine, and driven by “market” and consumer demand tend to be much freer – so that we’ve seen the advance in silica machining (computer chips) and video and audio reproduction. But from astronomy to virology to ‘evolution’ and biology – today’s science has most of its attention diverted, without realizing it, on continuing to reject medieval Christianity. (Nothing can be intelligent; nothing has purpose, everything is dumb, ‘random,’ blind).

The grander “sciences,” which dare to tell us how to live, who to inject, who is infected, and what to do with them, is a church. In its fight to destroy its historical parent (the medieval church), it has usurped its position. Only when any need to prove or disprove a religion has left your being can you look at something and have the freedom to try to understand what it really is.

We’re deeply, truly stupid, as a culture, because we will ourselves to be. The universe is alive, thinking, feeling – we are nodes in its being. We are alive because it is alive. We think because it thinks. It thinks us. It is us, and we are a very small but quite real part of the whole.

Official Stories excerpt: Chapter 8 – Darwin is Dead

A very, very, very, very brief alternative re-history of the planet Earth and Western Civilization. Very, very brief.

Brief alternative (but probably more correct) history of Earth.

Our current myth:

1. Earth was created out of nothing, through the “big bang’*, which somehow created dust, which somehow congealed into stars and planets, which somehow made life.

2. Then, many millions of years later, in the dusty Middle East, a Jewish guy became very important, was hung up to dry (crucified), and we’ve been fighting about it ever since.

None of the above, of course, can be true. It can only be mythology – in fact, I believe we’re stuck inside of myths. Here, in a few paragraphs, I will try to fix your rudder.

1. The universe was not born out of a ‘big bang.’ There was no ‘big bang’ – there is only, as far as we can tell, the eternal universe, with its eternal power source. We can see no beginning and end, and just because we like pretty stories is no reason to invent one. * (‘Big bang’ – “First there was nothing, which exploded!” A myth created by a priest – see Ch 9 of my book),

2. Earth was not born out of dust – it was born out of a gas giant planet (like Jupiter or Saturn) when it was a low-glow star. (Gas giant planets ARE stars – they are stars lacking electron flow (current); this is borne out by current astronomical observations (not conjectures, not theoretical maths – but observations of ‘cool’ stars, ‘hot Jupiters’ and splitting stars – see Ch 9 of Official Stories).

3. Life bloomed on the always-warm, low-gravity planet, and grew large.

4. Saturn (or our mother star) came into the orbit of a larger star (the Sun), which slowly stripped away the current powering the star (stars are electrical in nature), and ripped away the larger satellites (Earth, Venus, Mars), capturing them as their own. This radically increased gravity and wiped out most large life forms on the planet’s surface. Small animals and bacteria survived, and redeveloped into larger life forms suited to the new gravity.

5. Hominids emerged in the ‘electric evolutionary’ cycle, and witnessed the movement of the new star in the heavens – the “Sun” or ‘son’ of the heavens (the ‘son’ of God), which ‘dies’ slowly, from the peak of summer, when the days grow shorter, moving in a southern direction in the sky. The “Son” is surrounded by the 12 major constellations – “12 disciples.” It ceases to move for three days in late December – (dies) – in the vicinity of the Southern Cross (the astronomical figure in the heavens – it is ‘crucified‘). It then is ‘resurrected‘ – it begins to move again in its path northward, and the days grow longer. By the ‘equinox‘ (Easter), spring has arrived and we are ‘saved’ once again from darkness…

6. At some point in recent history, a large comet, or a moon or even a planet, released from its gas-giant mother (don’t talk about your mother that way!), passed by Earth and radically interacted with our planet – causing tidal upheavals, electrical scarring, massive continent-wide flooding and immense destruction, recorded in myth worldwide as “the Great Flood.” Our ‘lost civilizations’ were destroyed, wiped out, wiped clean from the surface, in this (or these) events. And the history we think we know is but a sliver of what was…

And we forget all of this, and live in metaphorical versions of it, because we are a myth-making animal that takes itself far too literally….

We are stuck halfway.

Astronomy Research

This investigation is expanded in Chapters 9 and 10 of “Official Stories”

A Story-Telling Species

Open a science textbook, and you will be greeted by this notion:

“First there was nothing…which exploded, or expanded, and became everything.”

This is called “big bang theory.” But it is not a theory. It fails the tests of what a true ‘science’ demands – it is not testable, reproducible or observable in experiment. It fails its own predictions.

It is, in sum, not a scientific idea. It is, in fact, a myth. And it sits in the throne at the head of the sciences – the Queen of the Sciences – astronomy. This rotten idea oozes downward through the layers of science beneath it – physics, chemistry, biology – covering all of what remains in dreck and confusion.

Why does a myth reside where a science should live? Why is there a “big bang theory?”

How does an idea come to be? Ideas come through people. Let’s ask the question: “Who invented ‘big bang’ theology?”

Answer: Georges Lemaître – a mathematician, and a priest. A Monseigneur, in fact, in the Catholic Church. A man who came to his vocation with a pre-existing script, a prior myth or story operating in his conscious and sub-conscious mind.

“First there was nothing…then there was everything.”

But why do we believe that there is such a thing as a ‘beginning’ of the universe? Can we see a beginning? Or do we simply desire a beginning of the story?

We are a story-telling species. All stories have a beginning, a middle and an end. The desire to know all parts is so great in us that we don’t mind creating the parts we cannot see or fathom, out of whole cloth.

Big bang theory is a model that cannot be tested – but for the sake of story-telling, it works perfectly. It is Genesis, remade with with just enough mathematical filligree:

“First there was darkness on the face of the deep; The Lord said, let there be light, and there was light, and it was good.”

“First there was nothing, which became everything.”

Same story.

Now, what’s really happening out there in space?

The Madness of Gravity

In the 17th Century, Isaac Newton proposed that an invisible force held the moon to the Earth, and the planets to the Sun. “Isaac, you’re crazy,” said his peers. “There is no invisible rope holding the moon to the Earth! That would resemble magic – and we are men of math and logic.”

And then Newton correctly described and predicted the trajectory of the moon around the Earth – and named the force that held it there – gravity. And his peers said, “Hurrah! Of course there is an invisible force holding the moon to the Earth, and the planets to the Sun!”

But Newton was clear in his thinking – “I frame no hypotheses,” he wrote, as to the cause of gravity. He observed the force, but did not know the source. And he did not pretend otherwise.

The Weakest Possible Notion

The force of gravity is weak – surprisingly so. You, grasping a cup or pen in front of you, can overpower the force of the entire planet on the object, and lift it in defiance of gravity. If you could build a stairway as high as the Earth’s atmosphere, (and you had a pressurized, oxygenated suit), you could walk out of the planet’s grasp.

Gravity is a weak force – it falls off quickly between two large bodies – at the square of the distance in inversion. Two distance measures becomes not half as weak, but one quarter the strength. Four becomes one sixteenth. 2 – 1/4. 4 – 1/16th. 8 – 1/64th, and so on.

Three quarters of a century later, the kindly Professor of Königsberg, Prussia, Immanuel Kant, built a ‘thought experiment’ based on Newton’s concept of gravity. Kant (and his peer Pierre LaPlace) decided that the solar system must have accumulated by the weak force of gravity, acting on dust and gas in an empty space.

Dust and gas, pulled together by a force that falls off with exponential weakness, forming ever-burning plasma fires in the sky, and the planets that circle them – is this testable? Is it reproducible? Is it observable?

Newton, Kant, LaPlace all lived in the era before humans put lightning in a bottle. Before electricity. Their model of the universe and solar system was limited by what they did not know – the electrical force.

Left – An artist’s rendition of how the galaxy formed. Dust swirled around and became planets. This is NASA’s current best scientific theory. Right – Immanuel Kant, NASA Engineer

Plasma – You’re Soaking In It

The universe is not made of nothings which explode; it is made, as are all things in it, of material – charged particles. Atoms and molecules which lose and gain electrons, and trade in them, creating electrical flow; and magnetic currents in space.

There are names for these currents, these rivers of plasma – Birkeland currents, Langmuir sheaths, double layers, magnetic pinches – all properties of charged plasmas, which are visible in the shape and energy signatures of nebulae, quasars and galaxies.

The universe is not an empty dead thing, it is not a hollow nothing in which ‘gravity’ exerts its weak force on objects, calls upon ‘black holes’ and ‘dark matter,’ and other make believe monsters invented by astronomers to make what doesn’t work – ‘big bang theory’ – make some semblance of sense.

The universe is powered electrically – the universe is an electromagnetic plasma, with more current running through a tiny fragment than we have figured out how to generate on earth in our modern era.

– Electrical currents in space

The electromagnetic force is exponentially stronger than the force of gravity, and it doesn’t emerge from large super-objects in space; it’s carried in the plasma current. The EM force is, at its maximum, about 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity. It is a thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger. Even in a dispersed plasma, where particles are far apart, the EM force is exponential magnitudes stronger than gravity.

It is the EM force which pulls stars together, and powers the electrical currents flowing through space. The EM force does more than attract, however, it separates, forms layers, divides, creates cell walls; it holds streams apart into distinct currents and cellular structures – precisely as today’s most powerful telescopes are able to see throughout the universe.

So What’s The Hold Up?

NASA scientists, who should delight in these discoveries, instead turn an icy shoulder to the electric universe, and remain dutiful servants to the 17th and 18th Century wind-up gravity models they inherited from Newton, Kant and LaPlace.

You couldn’t wake them if you tried – so it is up to all of us to do the work for them. Learn about plasma, the fourth – and most powerful state of matter. Read about the electric universe. Ask yourself the questions:

What are stars? Planets? Galaxies? What is weather? How are planets born? How do they develop, grow, change? How does it all work?

Ask questions… open your mind, expand your thinking, and read on…

Read and discuss in the cosmology blogs:

Plate Tectonics – Earth Science:

And here are some outside links to explore the topic – The Structure of Space:

The Shape of the Earth:

Evolution Research

This investigation is expanded in Chapters 8 and 11 of “Official Stories”

What is Life?

Evolution is an answer to a question – or an attempt at an answer. The question is: “What is the origin of life?”

Darwinism answers: “Accident.” Neo-Lamarckians (Epigeneticists) answer: “Feedback loops in a ‘thinking’ or at least responsive systems.” Spiritualists answer: “We’re manifestations of a cosmic, transcendent intelligence.” Biblical Creationists answer: “Yahweh.”

Some of us think we cannot ever really know the answer, not as an artifact or digit, a laboratory product – but that we can only observe the pattern of life as it unfolds. But we can weigh the current theories and ask after their validity.

Is “Yahweh” a fact, or a story? Can it be tested for? If not, then we have to get beyond any religious literalism in looking for answers.

But, is the world an accident, a giant “whoops,” as Neo-Darwinians suggest? Or does the world emerge in pattern and design?

Does all of life emerge from a series of mistakes, blunders, in a wind-up, mechanical chaos system? Are we ‘biological accidents’ whose highest calling is a struggle against death and a race to breed? Or does the Universe emerge in an endless matrix of form and energy, whose mysteries we have not begun to penetrate?

This is the question of our age, and a question that lies at the center of the fight for the soul of our culture. Darwinism, or Neo-Darwinism, today’s most popular and prevailing philosophy, states that the world is a machine brought about by cosmic stupidity – by accident. Opposed to this idea are those, like myself, who see a grander order in the Universe; a creative, and destructive, but transcendent force at work throughout.

Science is Religion in Inversion

Most of the sciences today are truly only inversions of the religious or philosophical notion that they sprouted from, in negation:

Christianity: ‘Life was created for a reason and a purpose.’

Darwinism: ‘Life was not created, and has no reason or purpose.’

These are inversions of the same philosophical position. Neither is a testable ‘science.’

The Debate is Over?

If life on Earth, and possibly elsewhere, gives evidence for a transcendent principle, that stimulates, creates, structures, orders, organizes, and recapitulates form and function, in all its variety….

Then science must be allowed to follow the evidence where it leads.

I hope you’ll join the discussion, and learn more about what Darwinism actually says, actually proposes – not just what you imagine it does.

Official Stories Chapter Excerpt – Survival of the Fittest

A preview of “Official Stories,” from Ch. 8 “Darwin is Dead.” What is Darwinism? What does it actually offer? Is it a science, or a philosophy? We’ll explore the question – and get some hard answers in the book.


Survival of the Fittest

by Liam Scheff, from “Official Stories.”

We have grown up with the expression. We use it when we see someone fail at something so miserably, so spectacularly, that we can only acknowledge the triumph of disaster. It is the phrase that college boys use to mock a fraternity brother who falls down the stairs drunk, or leaps off a hotel balcony into a pool below, hitting the diving board on the way down, breaking some number of bones in the process, having consumed more alcohol than is almost physically possible.

“Survival of the fittest!” The phrase is now commonplace. It has been employed in schoolyards, by scientists and leaders of nations, alike. Its philosophy has been embraced by the likes of Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Which should bother people, but doesn’t. So, what does it mean?

Darwin saw that the island finches were different, slightly. Some had longer beaks, some shorter. Some birds were a little taller, larger or smaller, with a little more or less of a wingspan. Some really hated “Sex and the City” while some found it tolerable, though it really described the lives of the gay men who wrote the show more than actual women in New York. I mean, come on, a new guy every week? That’s boy’s town.

Because Darwin had to exclude the idea that things had always been this way and that these changes had been made by magic, or a god or spirit, he had to come up with a naturalistic explanation. And he tried. He called it “natural selection,” which is pretty tricky. Because it turns the old Christian God into “nature,” and makes you think that it didn’t. But almost no one noticed, because they so wanted to get rid of the damned Church, meddling in everybody’s bloody business.

I mean, really. Burnings at the stake, witch-huntings, endless taxation. Scandal after scandal with the clergy. Some of the monasteries were more like jelly-making whorehouses than places of reflection and worship. “Screw them,” said the new scientific elite. “We’ll support the best contender, even if it is a dog.”

And here it is: “Natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” Let’s unspool it in a little dialog I call, “Define your terms.”

Critical Thinker: What is natural selection?

– Darwin: It is the process by which some are selected for survival.

CT: Who does the selecting?

– Darwin: Nature.

CT: But what is nature?

– All the things that happen in the natural world, that men do not create.

CT: Isn’t that a little broad? What things?

– Life, birth, death. All natural processes.

CT: That’s a bit circular, isn’t it? So, what is “nature?” How does it work?

– Nature follows natural laws. “The laws of nature.” I’m sure you’ve heard the expression before.

CT: Sure, I’ve heard it. But isn’t that a little self-defining? Okay, fine, I’ll bite. “The laws of nature.” And who upholds the laws?

– Nature does.

CT: But, how? Can you go to jail if you break a law of nature? Are there “nature police” to keep you in line, if you try to get around, say, gravity?

– Don’t be ridiculous! You can’t break a law of nature. They’re immutable. It’s just the way things are.

CT: You mean, there are patterns and forces in place that are constant. You don’t know how or why. And you don’t call that a supernatural force? You’re saying that life exists and so do planets and galaxies. You call all of it “nature.” You then deny its intelligence, or will. You then label it “accidental,” despite it being in every part, impeccably ordered and wildly creative? And you call this “random chance?”

I have discovered that this line of inquiry quickly makes Darwinists fume and either curse you out for “misrepresenting their ideas,” or turn away in angry silence.

But it’s a fair question. What is this thing they call “Nature?” As Darwinists use it, it’s a stand-in for “undefined cosmic intelligence,” and because it’s not spelled G-O-D, Darwin got away with it. But don’t say this to Darwinists, they’ll hiss and cry like intemperate foxes. But, more on that later.

Good Breeding

In Darwinism, “nature” “selects,” those who are “fit.” And so the “fit survive.” Which brings us to the famous phrase. Darwin didn’t pen the expression, his cousin did, but it stuck and soon Darwin was using it too. And “Survival of the fittest” became the catch-phrase of two world wars and the 20th Century.

Darwin said that competition among members of a species winnowed out those who were not “fit,” and allowed the “fittest” to, yes, “survive.” The next generations, therefore, looked more like the “fit” than the “unfit.”

And man, did this idea take off. So much so that an entire science of “fitness” boomed in the early 20th Century right here in the United States. “Eu” (good) “genics” (breeding) was the name of the game. Eugenics. The science of good breeding – and everyone wanted you to be into it.

Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was deeply in favor of the reproductive rights of those most “fit” people to procreate. And very opposed to the baby-making of the “unfit.” She wanted them to be assigned to “concentration” camps, where they would be sterilized and freed from the terrible burden of their unfitness.

She also called them “feeble-minded, imbeciles, morons” and “idiots,” too. But, remember, these were the scientific terms of the age. You can look it up.

In 1939, Margaret founded the Negro Project and drew in African-American ministers and leaders to spread the gospel of birth control to the masses. Well, the masses of African-Americans, who were, to her way of thinking, over-breeding and probably not “fit.”

But not just African-Americans, also the very poor. It was seen as very important that the very poor also were given all of their rights to be prevented from baby-making, as a matter of “fitness.” As this science grew, doctors and scientists founded centers of research in universities throughout the country, in institutions of advanced medicine, like Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton, with big funding from big names like Carnegie, Rockefeller and Harriman (Brown Brothers Harriman was a bank that really helped Germany get on its feet in the 30?s and 40?s – see Chapter 2).

Even the Supreme Court judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, was a fan. In 1927, he voted against the right of a young woman named Carrie Buck to make babies. At 17, she had been raped, became pregnant and given birth to a healthy child. Naturally her foster-parents had her committed to an institution for “epileptics and the feeble-minded” because of her “promiscuity.” (The rapist was their nephew, by the way). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with their ruling. She was given a surgery to cut and remove her fallopian tubes. Because, said Justice Holmes, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

And maybe it was. Hey, I wasn’t there. Certainly Carrie Buck didn’t agree and from my admittedly strange quasi-libertarian point of view, I think that really should have mattered more. But, whatever. It was science. And law.

And there’s nothing like obeying the law! Thirty-three states ratified the Holmes decision and brought sterilization to their citizens. By 1981, 65,000 people had been sterilized in the U.S. Fitness abounded!

The fashion spread to Europe, where Sweden, Switzerland and even Germany, if you can believe it, embraced the science of “good breeding,” and began forcibly sterilizing the “idiots” who weren’t fit, by the tens of thousands. Sweden really got into it, sterilizing 63,000 people, mostly women, by the mid 1970s.

Germany took it even further and had a great time with it. They not only sterilized – they actually went the next logical step and started euthanizing (which is like “putting to sleep,” or “killing”) mental patients and disabled children. Which they kind of did in secret. Which is surprising, because it was scientific and they should have been proud as they were helping the “fit” to “survive.”

But this one bit of shyness didn’t prevent them from really taking it all the way and developing a system to just get rid of all the idiots and unfit people all over Europe. The gypsies, homosexuals, artists and protestors and, you know. The Jews. All the Jews they could round up. They brought in millions of them!

And they got IBM to tattoo numbers on people’s wrists to keep track of who was unfit and who was to be “put to sleep” (and also cooked, gassed, shot, buried alive, tortured, experimented on, made into soap and lampshades and buried in mass graves or incinerated). And it was a big success.

Problems with Survival of the Fittest

If I am quoted from this book, I hope the reviewer will note that the above passage exhibits a form of extremely bleak humor called “irony.” Because that is what happened. The Holocaust, the most shocking, disgusting, disgraceful, heart-shattering episode of depravity in our collective memory, was a medical and scientific project.

You can squirm and protest and say that they were “perverting the science.” But you’ll agree that eugenics was the science of the day and the Holocaust was, in the coldest sense, a logical extension of “fit” and “unfit,” if from an entirely sociopathic point of view. A point of view, however, embedded in Darwin’s idiotic philosophy. Because it was never a science.
.        .        .

Buy “Official Stories” online, shipping worldwide.

It will be available In Europe on Amazon (as of 6/3/12) and will be on Kindle in late July, 2012

Read (and write) reviews for “Official Stories”

Follow “Official Stories” on facebook

Electro-Biology to the Electric Universe – Video

Stars and planets are born electrically. Lightning is the electrical equalization of the planet with space, not ‘ice crystals rubbing together in clouds.’ And life itself is an electrical, field-directed event, not a gene-determined, reductionist dead end…

Liam Scheff and Robert Scott Bell talk about the paradigm-cracking new science of Electro-Biology – electricity shaping the formation of life in the embryo – and its natural progression to the Electric Universe: Stars, Planets and Galaxies formed from intertwining, coursing Electro-Magnetic currents.

The Electro-biology model signals the final death knell for the (long-dead) Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian models of biological transmutation; The Electric Universe ends the make-believe of Black Holes and Dark Matter, and unifies our understanding of the universe as an organic, electrically-powered, field organized living system…

We also discuss the HAARP controversy in light of our misunderstanding of the electrical nature of the planet and space. Find Liam Scheff on the web, and on radio, at

Join National Radio Host Robert Scott Bell at daily from 12 to 2, and at

Read more about the electrical universe at and

Science is Modern Myth (Or, How “Arguable” Trumps “True”)

“Science does not have to be true to be accepted. It only has to be ‘arguable.’ In fact, it can be observed that the more arguable (the less plausible or logical) a scientific idea, the more funding it will require.”

What is science? It is modern myth, wrapped in technological diversion…

by Liam Scheff

We are asked to believe that ‘science’ somehow equals ‘truth.’ But today’s science functions exactly as myth did in the ancient and medieval world. Science is myth, but with the added dimension of experiment through technology.

Technology is tool-making, at an increasingly complex level. It is something humanity does by nature. We make objects into specialized tools. We are very good at it. We develop tool-making to a level of precision detail that is truly impressive. But technology is not ‘truth.’ It is an object – a manipulation of a material substance.

Today’s religion – science – dresses its myth in the garments of this highly-specialized tool-making. This makes it even harder to penetrate than the myths of old. By combining mythic belief with technology, we have invented a priestly class of ‘scientists,’ who cannot be questioned even by learned citizens.

“But science is proven by experiment!” I hear you cry. This is, at least, what we are told to believe. If something that can be ‘experimented’ with – by playing with volumes of liquid, metal or gas – it therefore must be “true.” We even define the term with itself – it becomes “scientific,” which we use as a synonym for “accurate” or “true.”

But what if the central theory in which the experiments are based is false? Then the experiment does not reveal a deep truth, only a deepening confusion.

Let’s take an example from today’s scientific priesthood. “The Big Bang.” The start of everything. Is this a ‘scientific’ idea, or a myth?

Astronomers today believe, like the priests of old, that the universe formed from nothing – a null point – which somehow burst into being — everything! They call this hypothesis “The Big Bang.” To quote author and satirist Terry Pratchett, “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded!”

Is this a new idea? It is as old as human society. It is the exact mirror of the Biblical Genesis – ‘First there was nothing, and then God turned on the lights!’ So how did Big Bang Theory come to be regarded as science?

The idea of a ‘scientific Genesis’ emerged in the 1920s, from an astronomer named Georges LeMaitre. This stargazer was more than a mathematician – he was also a priest, a Monseigneur in the Catholic Church. Abbé Georges LeMaitre was devoted to his math, and to the ancient myth of Genesis, and wanted to reconcile his two pursuits.

He arrived at his ‘scientific’ studies with a pre-existing myth in hand: “First there was nothing, which became everything.” He postulated that a ‘cosmic egg’ was the source for the universe. His hypothesis was at first rejected, for being so transparently Biblical. But, then, a funny thing happened.

Scientists who had abandoned the old myths for the myth of ‘pure science,’ began to support this barely-disguised notion. They formed proofs, set up complex mathematical structures, opaque to the layman, which argued, ad nauseum, a “somehow” that was confounding enough to keep critics at bay.

And today, all astronomers are stuck with this notion – an untestable recapitulation of the Biblical creation myth.

But Big Bang ‘theory’ can be disproven by a grade-school student, if he or she is permitted to think about it critically for a moment. First, it is not testable. It can’t be proved, or observed. This is a bad place to start a theory…

Second, it predicts a uniform, homogeneous shape of the universe. But the universe is arrayed along traveling ‘clumpy’ power-cords, Birkeland currents of electromagnetically charged and shaped material, coursing through space.

Third, it is said to be ‘proven’ by observing a quality of stellar light called “red shift” and “blue shift.” The idea was that red light was always moving away, and that blue was always approaching. In observation this turns out to be false, and red and blue shift seem to indicate a more complex energy dynamic, and not simple distance.

But you see, we’re already under the microscope, arguing sub-theories. This is how today’s science – and yesterday’s religious dogma – confounds the mind and silences critics.

If the theory is wrong – not testable, clearly based in a pre-existing mythic notion – then how can a quality of light be correctly interpreted to support one and only one idea? Answer: It can’t. Not realistically, not with a clear head. Not logically…

But it can be argued, to eternity.

Our major scientific theories are rarely true, but they make up for it by being “arguable.”

“In the beginning there was nothing – which exploded!” “Now,” Say the Ph.D. candidates, “Let’s argue thirty fragmentary points till dawn, and return no wiser than when we started!” Goes the old college cry. “Let’s talk about nothing for years – for decades! And collect grants all the while…”

And this is precisely what is happening in graduate schools today. We’re funding a thousand circular and bottled arguments about entirely mythical, and quite illogical propositions.

Take your pick from the “Science Bible”:

  • “Injecting children with proteins and chemicals drawn from animal cells and industrial labs protects them from illness.”
  • “HIV is a singular wily, fragile, ever-shifting particle; it is the cause of all of the illnesses called AIDS.”
  • Nothing exploded, by accident, (which is why we’re all here).”

Are any of these true? Not in the details. Not when examined in context. But they all breed a torrent of argument.

The ability to be ‘argued’ to distraction makes up for missing the central point, by having ten-thousand technical sub-arguments for every (incorrect) major thesis…

AIDS, plate tectonics, Big Bang, Darwinism, vaccine ‘theory’ – take your pick. They are all contradicted by observation. They are all entirely consistent with pre-existing dogma and myth. But they are all protected from criticism and hidden behind a thousand layers of highly technical, jargon-heavy ‘sub-theories’ meant to excuse the failings of the overriding idea.

Science does not have to be true to be accepted. It only has to be ‘arguable.’ In fact, it can be observed that the more arguable (the less plausible or logical) a scientific idea, the more funding it will require.

In other words, a failed hypothesis, like “Big Bang theory,” which managed to gain popular support within the scientific priesthood, is even harder to challenge than a truly new and revolutionary idea – because it will be defended by a generation of researchers, whose reputations would be incinerated if the theory were to die a public death.

The worse off a popular theory, the more it can be ‘argued,’ the more ad-hoc ‘solutions’ or rubber patches can be applied, the more research grants written to “unravel the continuing mysteries”…the longer a rotten idea stays afloat.

But for most of us, challenging the priesthood is uncomfortable. We need our myths. And so, for the most part, we don’t disturb the myth-makers with devastating questions or serious criticism.

But we are silent at our own peril. What we don’t know does hurt us, when scientists create massive public policy campaigns based on broken ideas. We pay in taxes to support their research, and with our health as we suffer the results of their gross misunderstandings.

We can do better. We have to ask ourselves to increase our level critical thinking concerning the pronouncements of today’s science. We must think more deeply, more argumentatively, about what we are told, if we want today’s “great truths” to be more accurate than yesterday’s dogma.

Further Reading

The Other Model of the Universe (Are You a Child of Saturn?)

by Liam Scheff

Today’s astronomers ask us to believe that the universe emerged, by accident, from a null point – a nothing – which expanded or exploded, and slowed, and sped up, and now is doing something confusing…

They call this the ‘Big Bang': First there was nothing, which exploded.”* (How Biblical!)


The model continues down its path. Stars and planets were formed when dust balls somehow piled up and became nuclear furnaces in space (stars), or rocky globs rolling around them.

This model was proposed by various philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, in the 1700s. And it is what NASA holds to be true, 250 years later. The trouble is, none of these ideas has proven testable, and none has proven true by observation of the universe through modern telescopes.

Left – An artist’s rendition of how the solar system formed. Dust swirled around and became planets. This is NASA’s current best scientific theory of how the Earth came into existence. Right – Immanuel Kant, NASA Engineer

Electricity Versus Gravity

The “Big Bang” model is based entirely in the notion that gravity, a very weak force, is the only power at work in all the universe. Astronomers have no idea how gravity works, or what powers it, only that it exists. Gravity is a force whose power of attraction falls away at the square of the distance (it weakens exponentially with distance). But NASA misses the forest and the trees. Outer space is not ‘gravity only;’ it is electrified plasma.

Space plasma is a low-density mix of atoms and molecules, in which electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei. The nucleus becomes a positively charged ‘ion’ and the free electrons are negative ‘ions.’ These charged particles attract, repel, squeeze and shape material in outer space.

Space then, is a web, a field, a series of flowing, layered, pinching, rotating currents, rivers and oceans of charged, powerful particles. Powerful because the attracting force does not fall off at the square of distance. And the electromagnetic attracting force is 10 to the 39th power stronger than gravity.

That is, the attraction in a plasma is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity to begin with, and does not fall off quickly, but only with distance, not distance squared.

In this universe, then, gravity is not king, or even queen. Plasma and electromagnetism rule – but NASA has not rolled the Big Bang model over yet, and so does not figure this reality into its 18th Century model of stars and planets.

– Electrical currents in space

The Plasma Model of Planetary Formation

There is an alternative argument to this 18th Century ‘gravity dust accumulation’ notion of planet and star formation. The theory goes like this: Small rocky planets aren’t dust balls that slowly build up, but are born in one piece, ejected from stars, in a process of electrical fissioning. That is, stars expel, or really give birth to planets, and even other smaller stars.

There is astronomical evidence to support the theory: Stars that were single, suddenly revealed to be twin suns, as though one split or was ejected from the other. Add to that the very high number of binary (twin) stars in general, indicating this electrical ‘fissioning’ is a common phenomenon. And gas giant planets (or low-glow stars) appearing where they should not be – in close orbit around larger suns – indicating that they were fissioned or split off of the larger, brighter star.

And then there is the plenitude of tiny ‘planetary’ systems – rocky moons, asteroids, and debris rings swirling around our gas giants – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The great rings of gas giants, and those circling nearby stars may, in fact, be cosmic ‘afterbirth’ of mass expulsions and fissioning of material.

– Saturn’s Rings – Gravitationally Attracted Debris or Expelled Planetary Placenta? (Credit – NASA)

What does this mean in our Solar System? If the proposed model is true, then the small planets around our current Sun – Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury – were ejected from Saturn or Jupiter, and stolen by the larger star at a later point in time. And that our odd assortment of gas giants in the outer solar system may have been captured by our larger sun at intervals, electromagnetically.

The model is called various things; “The Saturn Myth” among them. It is interesting, as it is embedded in the observation of the universe as an electrical field, a plasma sea, charged particles forming an endless series of circuits.

It is, in that sense, testable, or at least, testable by observation, and in laboratory experiment with electrified plasma. The Big Bang and ‘gravity collapse’ model of stars and planets is not. It’s a ‘singularity.’ A one-off, a stunt. Or, at least, nothing like it has ever been observed.

Star Birth, and Planets Too?

Astronomers observe that stars are formed in the hot dense plasma ‘forges’ of nebulae. And, the competitive theory argues, planets are born – ejected – from red and brown dwarf stars.

In the words of Plasma Cosmologist Wal Thornhill:

“The smallest and coolest stars are known as red or brown dwarfs. Astronomers view them as “failed” stars but by flaring and forming polar jets they refuse to lie down. The reason is simple. All stars continue to receive electrical energy from the galactic electrical umbilical cords that gave them their existence. And the flaring of brown dwarfs signals the birth of a planet.”

The model then goes like this:

The inner planets were ejected from one of the gas giants in our current solar system. They were satellites of that gas giant.

To quote Thornhill:

“At different times in the dim past, Earth, Mars and other satellites were ejected from their flaring parent brown dwarf star to form a compact planetary system within the extensive anode glow of their star. That dwarf star drifted into the huge electrical environment of a much larger star (our current Sun), which switched off the red anode glow of our dwarf parent and forced it into the role of a discharging cathode, or comet, drawn toward the Sun.

That gas giant dwarf star (ie Saturn, Jupiter) came into proximity of a much larger star (our current Sun), which drew the ion flow, and reduced the glow of the dwarf star.

Hot Jupiters
– Jupiter or Star? Both… Note, the scale of this artist’s image is incorrect; the glow of a brown dwarf is huge, and, to quote Thornhill, “is able to accommodate orbiting planets within a natal cocoon.”

The model of stars here is electrical. These large electromagnetic bodies are the anode, the receiving end of a galactic flow of electrons – charged particles. This means that stars are not nuclear bombs in space, but rather electrical collection or attraction points. Is it so? If stars were heated from the outside, then they would have to be hotter on the outside than on the inside. Hotter still above the surface, where electrical power lines converge.

Stars are Hotter on the Outside?

Astronomers, faced with realities that they cannot fit into current models, fudge and fidget and stuff them into unresolved “problems.” Here is the uncomfortable observation: Stars, and our sun, are hotter, by a factor of millions of degrees, far above the actual body, than on or below the star’s surface. Astronomers call this the “solar corona heating problem.” And they cannot explain it by their model. They try, by breaking all laws of heating and physics, but mostly, they ignore it, and hope nobody notices. (So, pay attention).

But it makes sense in the plasma model. Stars are anodes – receivers of galactic charge – and the circuit lines, running as a plasma through space, converge on the stellar body, bursting into the bright glow of ‘arc mode’ plasma, of varying intensity and color. So, let’s bury the fiction of ‘dust clumping together to form nuclear furnaces.’ We have a better model: Stars are electromagnetically driven bodies, and not ‘nuclear bombs.’

Sun - hotter on the outside
– The Sun’s temperature increases with distance away from surface, then drops off.

So, where does that leave us?

Plasma researchers, looking at ancient human civilizations, have come across a series of repeated motifs, or etchings, images, cave-paintings, all around the globe, at the same historical point. They look like – well, you can have a look – kind of like oddly dancing human, or quasi-human forms. And then a series of concentric circles. And then a pillar reaching up to the sky, where those circles are.

And these researchers make some interesting points.

The dancing men look like plasma discharges in space. They look entirely like the shape of a plasma torus or a predictable, reproducible shape of electric current flowing through space, as seen from a distance, from one angle or another.

The concentric, and then off-center rings look like an alignment of planets in an ‘eclipse’ formation; but figure large in the sky, and were so stable so as to burn into memory worldwide. That is, they were so often repeated, goes the hypothesis, that they were a constant figure, and therefore were drawn, sketched, carved, and became central figures in world mythology.


I was a little averse to the above theory when I first entered a study of plasma cosmology. But I will admit it has a strong attraction over time. The idea that Earth has changed dramatically is evidenced in the different gravity the planet has, or must have had, if dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Paleontologists will tell you that the beasts were too large to function or even exist in current gravity.

Too Big to Fly
– Too Big to Fly (Gravity was Less Powerful)

The presence of forests in the Antarctic, of great polar shifts, of mass extinctions, of global catastrophe, all struggle to find a rationale in any current explanation. But they can be understood in a volatile, electrical universe.

Couple these observations with the worldwide fascination with the pillar building to the sky, worshiping the plasma charged passing bodies – mythologized or interpreted as sky gods, issuing thunder and lightning… it builds in the mind, and perhaps the mythic memory.

Plasma Men
– Dancing Plasma (Credit: Anthony Peratt, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science)

– Wheels in the Sky (Credit and Copyright: Rens van der Sluijs)

In any case, please have a look into it. At least for the plasma science – it’s resilient, testable, and makes sense of the world we live in, from the microscopic to the interstellar, where our current gravity-only models fail entirely.

Fissioning Stars, by Liam Scheff

– Fissioning Stars, artwork by Liam Scheff

Further Reading

Thanks to Wal Thornhill, Michael Gmirkin and others for a helpful proof-read and suggestions.

* To paraphrase Terry Pratchett: “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.”

Radio This Weekend – The Official Story

Join Liam Scheff and guests for this weekend’s radio shows:

Listen live or download MP3 for later, on the Intel Hub.

Toll Free Call In Number: 1 (877) 598-8549 or 646-727-3387.

  • Saturday 2PM EST: Treating Vaccine Damage. Liam welcomes special guest April Boden, mother of a vaccine-damaged child, and author of Aydan’s Road to Recovery. Are there solutions and treatments that can help reverse vaccine damage?

Thinking Critically about conspiracy theories on the Investigation with Liam Scheff

  • Are there conspiracies? What is a conspiracy?
  • What are the essential qualities of the human species that define us?
  • Curiosity, acquisitiveness, tribal hierarchy? Belief, myth, logic?
  • Is it useful or realistic to talk about “illuminati?” The great big “They” who do all evil in the world?

We explore and answer many of these questions… Right Click and Save to Download or Clcik to Play

Vaccines are not magical. They are made of …….. Do you want to know? ……!!!!

Scientific Fundamentalism
by Liam Scheff

When science is wrong, and does not admit it, it does more damage than when religion is wrong, and does not admit it.

While religion brainwashed with ideas, science injects with heavy metals. While religion suppressed emotion and expression, science suppresses life itself, by creating terminator seeds. While religion offered palliative myths to large existential questions, science offers palliative care, with deadly drugs, to prove its failures true.

All fundamentalisms are dangerous, and perhaps evil. Science has reached a stage of fundamentalism in our society, where vaccination, HIV testing, and pandemic hysteria have achieved the status of occult objects, of religious ceremony.

Science, today, as it is practiced, from Big Bang theory, to Darwinism, to AIDS, to Vaccination, is a fundamentalism. And must be opposed, challenged, its weaknesses exposed and understood, and reformed around better, newer, more open, flexible ideas.

Science needs a Reformation.

HIV, The Happy Exosome

“HIV” – A Case of Mistaken Identity, Political Profiteering, and Pharmaceutical Murder

by Liam Scheff

What is AIDS

The AIDS mainstream butters its significant pile of bread with the notion that there is in existence a single particle, which they call “HIV,” which is known to do one thing, and that is to “kill T-Cells.” But behind the public pronouncements of HIV-AIDS-sex-panic-mania, the details in the published research paint a different, and frankly more interesting picture.

The mainstream will tell you that AIDS is caused by HIV, and HIV is the cause of AIDS; and you’re left with a tautology – a circular definition that doesn’t define either term.

In real-world use, AIDS is “immune deficiency,” and it’s real enough, but is has no one cause. AIDS is a brand name for fatal poverty in the ‘third’ world, and for major drug abuse, and the attending illnesses, in the West.

HIV, too, is a kind of brand name. This time, for a group of laboratory artifacts and events; a collection of proteins drawn from experiments with leukemia cells, that were mixed with tissue that came from gay men who were sick.

“Previously Healthy Young Gay Men”

The young gay men who were the first AIDS patients were drug users of a very high order. Life was a stream of party drugs, antibiotics, and a ‘fast-lane’ lifestyle, that encouraged life as a non-stop good time, in the urban ‘gay ghettos’ of the 1970s (and now). This bit of history is ‘forgotten’ by papers like the New York Times, which likes to pretend that it was “previously healthy gay men,” who mysteriously fell ill.

But the medical and social literature of the era tells the non politically-corrected truth. The first illness called AIDS occurred in young gay men who using too many drugs, having too many partners – dozens to hundreds per week in the ‘fast lane’ life, having a pile-up of STDs, and taking so many antibiotics so regularly, that they gutted themselves, stripped their intestines of all protective layers, and became susceptible to every illness.

Drugs, STDs and Antibiotics, not Sexual Identity

But it wasn’t all gay men who got sick. Missing from the first AIDS (or GRID – Gay Related Immune Disease – as it was called) cases was the vast majority of gay men – those who did not live in the ‘fast lane.’ It wasn’t sexual identity that caused the various AIDS illnesses. These were caused by the lifestyle of a very specific group of people responding to the availability of drugs in the ‘liberated’ ideology of the 1970s. It was post ‘sexual revolution,’ post-Vietnam War, post-Nixon America. That is to say, were were a discouraged, cynical, and drug-addled nation.

Gay activists don’t like to hear the toxicological arguments about AIDS; they consider it “homophobic” to talk about how drugs and antibiotics ruin a system, for some reason. But this isn’t an indictment of gay men. It’s a description of toxic compounds working in the body. (I personally support gay marriage, rights, and all that attends).

The urban gay population was a ghettoized, isolated, and rather ‘incestuous’ non-stop party in the 1970s, in the thrall of deep drug use and multiple partner swapping, specifically in the inner city ‘islands’ of New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. These were safety zones where young men would flee to for protection, from the violent and mortally-dangerous homophobia that was rampant in the US.

But this reality was politically altered by activist groups in the early 1980s, who were pushing back against the ultra-conservatives, who claimed that homosexuality was a sin, and that AIDS was a “punishment from God.” Given a spiteful Right wing, and a conservative, pharmaceutically-minded Left wing, the gay community, in tatters, chose the lesser of two real evils.


Through carefully-crafted propaganda campaigns, like that created and expedited by amFAR, under Dr. Matilda Krim, we were made to believe that everyone was at risk for immune deficiency from having sex. The ‘sexual AIDS’ notion was a political maneuver, and not a scientific principle, and has been revealed as such time and again in the press, inazt = death official documents, and in medical studies. But the culture at large took to it. It was as though we needed some moral bulwark to reframe sex, in the wake of the morbid and depressing “anything goes” era of the late 60s and 70s.

In no time, the medical authorities cast the “AIDS” diagnosis over a wider group of drug users – including heroin addicts, and then expanded it to Hemophiliacs, and then the poorest of the poor Africans. So, AIDS became any illness in “populations at risk.” But, “at risk” for what? “At risk for AIDS!” is the answer. And we have our second circular definition in the AIDS campaign.

It’s not politically-correct to talk about AIDS as a toxicological illness; but that’s what it is. It’s also highly treatable, when treated as an illness of toxic overload. When it’s treated as a ‘one cause viral infection,’ however, it proves fatal. Because the drugs used on the body to “treat” a “virus” are deadly, and do not rebuild the immune system…

LAV, er, HTLV-iii, um, “HIV” Loves, em, Kills? T-Cells….

But, back to the 1980s. Cancer-virologists were mixing cells from “AIDS” patients to see what they could get. Different labs took these different leukemia T-Cell mixtures – called “immortal” because they didn’t die, and then siphoned out some proteins, and decided, over time, that some proteins were more important than others.

Some labs found a 25, or a 24, or a 41, or 120-ish kilo-dalton (really small!) protein in their drug-addled patients cells, once they’d stimulated them and mixed them with a line of cancer cells. Did they ever find one, resilient, consistent particle?

Some labs decided that they had a class C particle. Others a class D. Some had protein 51, and some had protein 25, and some had protein 17. But it was “together,” (though separately), that they “inferred” their “killer virus.”

The presence of a “single virus” was never observed strictly by the old-fashioned “purification and isolation” process. It may surprise the newcomer to discover that in the entire annals of “HIV” research, you can’t find a purified sheet of particles, anywhere, that can be passed on, and re-purified, and then is demonstrated, bio-mechanically, to kill or eat or bite or pinch T-Cells.

The mainstream knows this, but has ready excuses. From the start, they claimed that “HTLV-iii,” or “LAV,” as different labs called their cell mixtures, was considered to be “too fragile” to purify. That it tore itself apart after popping out of the cell wall; that it would be “difficult to transmit.” Beyond that “it’s” genetic material always seemed to be different.

So, a theory was born: The cellular garbage, debris, and the various proteins were given a new name: “HIV.” And the press would report that it was “wily,” and “always mutating,” and “fragile!” And yet somehow it still killed T-Cells.

But remember, to this day, these special proteins (which get called “HIV”) are grown in T-Cells. “Immortally.” For any serious-minded researcher, the end of AIDS theory was the beginning. T-Cells and whatever researchers are calling “HIV” have nothing but warm regards for one another.

Tiny Bubbles

htlv-iii in your spit?Even though researchers couldn’t isolate and purify their golden goose, they could take pictures of stimulated cells in lymph tissue, popping out protein bubbles. These bubbles, some of the time, and in some cases, they called “LAV” or “HTLV-iii,” and later “HIV.”

Funny thing though, they could find these same protein bubbles in human saliva! Which means that all 8th graders are now at risk for the deadly AIDS plague!! (If the little bubble causes immune deficiency, by killing T-Cells).

Does it? Let’s find out.

First, let’s go to a response from the researchers at Rethinking AIDS to Robert Gallo, the multi-millionaire inventor of the AIDS paradigm. What do they have to say?

“Until recently, prevailing dogma said HIV causes AIDS by killing T-cells. Most people, including Robert Gallo, still adhere to this belief even though there is no evidence to support it. On the contrary, the wealth of evidence available clearly shows that HIV does not, in fact, kill T-cells. This is not surprising since the hallmark of retroviruses (HIV included) is that they do not kill cells [1, 2].

The discoverer of HIV, Luc Montagnier, heads [3] a list [4-6] of virologists who have confirmed that HIV does not kill T-cells in culture. Neither does it kill T-cells in human beings. Mario Roederer of Stanford University said in an editorial in 1998 [7] that the results of Pakker et al. [8] and Gorochov et al. [9] “provide the final nails in the coffin for models of T cell dynamics in which a major reason for changes in T cell numbers is the death of HIV-infected cells.”


The fact that HIV does not kill T-cells has caused a remarkable about-face in mainstream thinking. Commenting on a recent paper by Hellerstein et al. [12], Guido Silvestri and Mark Feinberg summarized in 2003 the latest speculation that HIV causes AIDS not by killing T-cells but by over-stimulating the immune system [13]. Silvestri and Feinberg inform us that, “Prevailing views…have shifted from models that focus primarily on direct HIV-mediated killing of CD4+ T cells to models that emphasize the pathogenic role of generalized immune system activation.” In other words, HIV no longer causes AIDS by killing our immune cells, as Gallo contends, but by boosting our immune system.” Rethinking Rebuttal

Huh! So, “HIV,” however they’re quantifying or qualifying such an entity, used to kill T-Cells. But now it “activates our immune system?” That’s what we call an “about face!” And it means that the mainstream should certainly retire the T-Cell theory.

But how do they know what “HIV” does, if they can’t purify it? Answer – they “infer.”

When researchers talk about “HIV,” they’re not talking about a particle. They’re talking about finding evidence of an agreed-upon consensus-described protein, or an enzyme. And that’s it. Not a biting, toothsome little particle. Not even a soft, happy little protein bubble. Just some “p24″ or maybe “p41.” It depends on who’s doing the study, and what their limited criteria are.

No joke, that’s how it works.

So, “p24,” (or “HIV”) doesn’t kill T-Cells? But, maybe we’re giving those RA guys too much credit. Let’s see what mainstream AIDS researchers think about T-Cells and “HIV/LAV/HTLV-iii.”

Dear Experts, How Does “HIV” Smash Up T-Cells?

From the inception of the paradigm in 1984, to the present, the answer is the same: “We don’t know, but keep sending money”:

•  “We are still very confused about the mechanisms that lead to CD4 T-cell depletion, but at least now we are confused at a higher level of understanding.” — Dr. Paul Johnson, Harvard Medical School (Balter 1997)

•  “We still do not know how, in vivo, the virus destroys CD4+ T cells…. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the loss of CD4+ T cells, some of which seem to be diametrically opposed.” — Joseph McCune, immunologist (McCune 2001)

•  “Despite considerable advances in HIV science in the past 20 years, the reason why HIV-1 infection is pathogenic is still debated… There is a general misconception that more is known about HIV-1 than about any other virus and that all of the important issues regarding HIV-1 biology and pathogenesis have been resolved. On the contrary, what we know represents only a thin veneer on the surface of what needs to be known.” — Mario Stevenson, virologist (Nature Medicine 2003)

•  “Twenty-five years into the HIV epidemic, a complete understanding of what drives the decay of CD4 cells – the essential event of HIV disease – is still lacking…. The puzzle of HIV pathogenesis keeps getting more pieces added to it.” — W. Keith Henry, Pablo Tebas, and H. Clifford Lane (Henry 2006)

So, it’s still a “puzzle” to the mainstream. Do T-Cells die when in the presence of “HIV” DNA? (Which is always different!) No. Or, “We’re confused at a much higher level of understanding” is the official answer.

Here’s a paper from 1994, ten years after terrifying the world with their ‘discovery.’ Gosh, they do seem to be having trouble…

Indirect mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis: how does HIV kill T cells?

Although twelve years have passed since the identification of HIV as the cause of AIDS, we do not yet know how HIV kills its target, the CD4+ T cell, nor how this killing cripples the immune system. Prominent theories include direct killing of infected CD4+ T cells by the action or accumulation of cytopathic viral DNA, transcripts or proteins, or by virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and indirect killing of uninfected CD4+ T cells (and other immune cells) by autoimmune mechanisms, cytokines, superantigens, or apoptosis. In the past year, studies have provided tantalizing clues as to why infected cells may not die and how these infected cells kill innocent bystander cells. [LINK]

Huh. “Infected” cells (those that test positive some garbage protein or another), “may not die?” Do tell! “Theories include” either “direct or indirect” killing of T-Cells. Maybe. Maybe not! “Tantalizing clues” are offered as to why they don’t! Well, golly. How very…expensive.

What you’re reading in that single paragraph is billions of wasted tax-payer dollars. And hundreds of thousands of patients killed by extremely toxic drugs, used to “kill the virus” that “kills T-Cells.”

“Life-Saving” Life-Ending Drugs

AIDS drugs are strong and toxic. They can wipe out a fungal infection faster than most chemicals, which can bring temporary relief to people with chronic Candida (a symptom of a ruined intestine and lowered immune and cellular strength). But they very quickly work on the patients body. These drugs dont’ differentiate between your proteins and those of a bacteria or fungus.

The drugs given to AIDS patients don’t kill any viruses. That’s the advertising lie under which they’re sold. They kill cells and tissue tissue in which ‘virus’ is supposed to replicate. That tissue is bone marrow and blood vessel, liver and spleen, stomach and intestinal lining, skin and heart, and, well, you get the picture. AIDS drugs kill AIDS patients. That’s not really in doubt – not even in the mainstream AIDS ‘theology.’ They just accept the death of patients based on their “model.” (You can find the thousand complaints by patients taking the drugs at sites like

But if the model would change from “angry virus” to “toxicological damage,” then treatments focusing on reversing intestinal and organ damage could be promoted- and lives could actually be improved. Wouldn’t that be “tantalizing?”

I bet it would to people given the AIDS death sentence. It would also be a lot cheaper than drugging them to death. (That also means, “less profitable for drug companies”- and maybe you can see some of the obstacles to taking this road!)

But that was 1994. Let’s look at a more recent paper, from 2003, having all the same troubles. Now we see the “models are shifting.” In other words, well… the old theory is dead. Long live the new (old) theory! (Which is a “model.” ie. Not real).

“Prevailing views concerning the pathogenic mechanisms of AIDS have shifted from models that focus primarily on direct HIV-mediated killing of CD4+ T cells to models that emphasize the pathogenic role of generalized immune system activation. The observation that increases in T cell turnover seen in HIV-infected individuals primarily reflect increased proliferation of effector-memory T cells supports the concept that chronic immune activation plays a prominent, if not predominant, role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.” [LINK]

At a certain point in any journey, you’ve got to make a decision. Do you stay on the road you’re on, or do you find a new path? You might think we can more than fairly say that the “HTLV-iii/HIV/LAV/crazy protein garbage kills T-Cells” road is dead. And the mainstream is pretty close to agreeing with you. And now they want to kill something new.

Exosome, Not HIV

Let’s visit a passage from Janine Robert’s excellent 2008 book, Fear of the Invisible. Remember, “HIV” (whichever consensus-agreed protein any one researcher is talking about), is supposed to be a “retrovirus.” Here, Janine explains that the mainstream is coming to understand that retroviruses are not ‘viruses.’ They are They are messengers.

“The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that retroviruses ‘are so irregular and so labile that we have been unable to apply the tools of structural analysis to good effect.’ It also reported that retroviral DNA ‘closely resembles a cellular mRNA’ messenger vesicle. Retroviruses are also said to be unique among animal viruses in that some groups exhibit considerable polymorphism in receptor usage. They are thus particularly well suited for carrying messages – as they can deliver ‘irregular’, or varying, code ‘similar to’ mRNA to many kinds of cellular receptors.” [LINK]

That is, these particles, these bubbling proteins, fragile and sensitive and ever-changing, are flexible precisely because they have to be. They are message carriers, not specific pre-determined entities. They change from cell to cell, and function to function.

Here’s the quote from the NIH:

“The continuing mystery of retroviral structure reflects less a lack of will—or skill—on the part of researchers than on a quirk of nature. Mature virions are so irregular and so labile that we have been unable to apply the tools of structural analysis to good effect.” [LINK]

In other words, “the damned things change too much to be classified.”

“Retroviruses are unique among animal viruses in that some groups exhibit considerable polymorphism in receptor usage among otherwise closely related viruses.” [LINK]

Again, they come and go. They’re flexible. They carry genetic messages of variable size and code. They’re never the same. They don’t eat T-Cells. They carry messages. So, are they “viruses?” or “retroviruses?”

Retroviruses Are Exosomes, and so is “HIV”

Take this quote from the latest “HIV” research. “HIV is an exosome?” (What does it mean? What is an “exosome?”)

“Hildreth now proposes that “the virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word.” Others have found that HIV particles contain MHC, but by the exosome hypothesis they may also contain proteins that exosomes use to fuse with target cells and to avoid attack by complement. As Gould points out, an exosome makes a perfect vector for HIV, because an exosome “is not just proteins in a vesicle, it’s something that is meant to traffic.” [LINK]

An “endo-some” is a protein bubble (vesicle) made inside (“endo-“) the cell, for carrying information, or goods and services, to another part of the cell. An “exo-some” is the same thing, but for use outside “exo-” the cell.

In other words, exosomes are a non-toxic part of every living thing on earth. They are little protein bubbles which are made by the cell, of the cell, for the cell; for healing, transport, messaging. For evolutionary adaptation!

And so is “HIV.” “Fully an exosome, in every sense of the word.”

The mainstream has now given up on the delusion that there is anything abnormal or unnatural occurring in “HIV” pictures. They now relate it to normal cellular processes. And so now, in their infinite wisdom, they want to kill all exosomes.

No, I’m not kidding. Now they want to create drugs that destroy your exosomes.

“To block all entry, suggests Hildreth, perhaps the MHC should be the target. Alloimmunization—immunization with a wide range of MHC and other protein variants (e.g., by injecting killed leukocytes)—might allow a newly infected individual to mount a quick attack on the incoming HIV, which is packed with foreign MHC. Gould even suggests, “this is why we have tissue rejection responses— [they evolved] to protect us from retroviruses.” He points out that alloimmunity predates and thus could not have arisen from adaptive immunity.”

What is MHC? “Major Hisocompatability Complex.” It’s part of the genome of most and maybe all living things. AIDS researchers are now devising ways to destroy it in AIDS patients. What could possibly go wrong? (You excited to find out? Me neither).

“The more extreme idea of xenoimmunization does work in monkeys, which can reject SIV grown in human cells. And for Thomas Lehner (Guy’s Hospital, London, UK), who has been pushing the idea for several years, alloimmunization “is far better than anything we have at the moment.” But it has languished since the monkey experiment, perhaps based on fears that it would prevent later transplants, cause rejection during pregnancies, and fail to catch a handful of HIV particles before they replicate and thus incorporate self-MHC.”

Huh. “Rejection during pregnancies. Prevent transplants.” And who knows what else.

So, yes, having discovered that “HIV” isn’t “HIV,” and doesn’t kill T-Cells, AIDS researchers now want to “block all” exosomes. But, didn’t we just learn that exosomes are required for life? Yes. Yes, we did.

Why the Hysteria?

Why are these researchers so hell-bent on the idea that one particle, which is clearly not one particle, has to be responsible for every of the dozens or hundreds of illnesses lumped together and called AIDS?

Why do they cling to the notion that something that is clearly a normal part of the body, an “exosome, in every sense of the word,” is also eating T-Cells? Or, stimulating the pants of off them? Or….whatever it was that Jay Levy said. “Returning to normal!

It seems to me that if the original researchers – Gallo, Montagnier, Levy, Weiss, Francis, etc – had been honest from the start, they would have said the following:

“Well, of course the genetic material we’re finding is always different; we’re just smashing up cancer cells and mixing them with tissue from sick people, and measuring DNA fragments. And we find something different, and call it the same thing! That’s crazy!”

But they didn’t say that, because they really, really wanted the idea of a single particle that caused cancer to be true.

When “AIDS” was “Cancer”

When you think of AIDS, you’ve been programmed to think of a sex-virus. But the first AIDS disease in the young gay men who were the first ‘AIDS’ cases was a cancer – Kaposi’s Sarcoma. And the cancer researchers really wanted to prove that a virus was the cause, because they’d been trying to prove it for years and years. They’d spent billions of dollars. And it had all been a bust. And then, the young gay men came around with their broken immune systems, and they saw an opportunity – and took it.

That is, cancer-virologists had failed for 10 years or more to demonstrate that viruses caused cancers. In the waning days of their tax-payer funded excursion into oblivion, young gay men turned up with suppressed immune systems. These men had been taking handfuls of drugs, antibiotics and had a pile up of concurrent STDs. And some of them also had a cancerous growth, a sarcoma – a big ruddy purple spot on the skin.

The cancer researchers really, really wanted it to be caused by a virus, so they elected their own failed experiments to prove it. Robert Gallo recycled his HTLV-i and HTLV-ii, and decided that in these same cultures, was an new one, which he called…HTLV-iii.

Physicians at the time said that the sarcoma was caused by a mutagenic drug, called “poppers,” that these young, feverish gay men had been huffing all night long, for years on end. But, remember, the cancer virologists really, really, really wanted it to be caused by a virus. So, that’s the theory they supported.

By 1994, everyone admitted that the sarcoma was not caused by any of the whatevers that they called HTLV-iii, or LAV, or “HIV.. It was probably – you guessed it – caused by the mutagenic, DNA-damaging drug they were huffing all those many nights.

Instead of working on preventing toxic damage, AIDS researchers have targeted human cells, organs and tissue with truly deadly cell-smashing chemotherapies, in the hopes of killing all retro-elements, or, as they’re now called, “exosomes.” The result has been drugs that kill bone marrow, peel skin, and cause morbid disfiguring illness, organ failure, and slow, painful death.

They’ve even taken pictures of their accomplishments, though they hide them when they advertise “Product R(ed).”

Product Red Buys AIDS Drugs; These Are AIDS Drugs

Save the Exosomes!

Will killing exosomes bring back the dead? That seems to be the purpose of all AIDS research – to stop what happened to rescue the poor souls who drugged themselves to death, and then were finished off in hospitals. The result has been to kill of an entire generation of young gay men with drugs like AZT, and to re-create a Eugenics movement in Africa, under the banner of the ‘red ribbon.’

If we now kill all exosomes, will poor Africans suddenly have food and safe water to drink? Will young gay men who overdo drugs or pharmaceuticals rebuild their immune systems? Will heroin addicts suddenly be rendered healthy? Because these are the people targeted with the AIDS brand.

The medical and social literature admit that AIDS patients can be successfully treated by intensive immune-rebuilding programs, and that they slowly die without such intervention. It’s also well-known that AIDS drugs kill, either quickly or slowly.

It is time for AIDS patients to turn away from the medical establishment in seeking more “cures” that kill, and start to look toward long-term, intensive and rigorous immune-restoration protocols. These won’t be endorsed by the AIDS mainstream for some time, but you don’t need their permission to get better. And figuring out how to make people better – not sicker – should be the central work of anyone working on this issue. And that means, letting go of bad theories, and starting to look at actual, living immunity, which starts in the intestine, and not under the microscope.

Further Reading: – click on ‘recovery’

Notes for the RA citation:

1. Rubin H, Temin H. A radiological study of cell-virus interaction in the Rous sarcoma. Virology 1958,7:75-91.
2. Weiss R, Teich N, Varmus H, Coffin J. Molecular Biology of RNA Tumor Viruses. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Lab. Press; 1985.
3. Lemaitre M, Guetard D, Henin Y, Montagnier L, Zerial A. Protective activity of tetracycline analogs against the cytopathic effect of the human immunodeficiency viruses in CEM cells. Res Virol 1990,141:5-16.
4. Langhoff E, McElrath J, Bos HJ, et al. Most CD4+ T cells from human immunodeficiency virus-1 infected patients can undergo prolonged clonal expansion. J Clin Invest 1989,84:1637-1643.
5. Anand R, Reed C, Forlenza S, Siegal F, Cheung T, Moore J. Non-cytocidal natural variants of human immunodeficiency virus isolated from AIDS patients with neurological disorders. Lancet 1987,2:234-238.
6. Hoxie JA, Haggarty BS, Rakowski JL, Pillsbury N, Levy JA. Persistent noncytopathic infection of normal human T lymphocytes with AIDS-associated retrovirus. Science 1985,229:1400-1402.
7. Roederer M. Getting to the HAART of T cell dynamics. Nature Medicine 1998,4:145-146.
8. Pakker NG, et al. Biphasic kinetics of peripheral blood T cells after triple combination therapy in HIV-1 infection: a composite of redistribution and proliferation. Nature Medicine 1998,4:208-214.
9. Gorochov G, et al. Perturbation of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell repertories during progression to AIDS and regulation of the CD4+ repertoire during antiviral therapy. Nature Medicine 1998,4:215-221.
10. Grossman Z, Herberman RB. T-cell homeostasis in HIV infection is neither failing nor blind: modified cell counts reflect an adaptive response of the host [see comments]. Nat Med 1997,3:486-490.
11. Hellerstein M, Hanley MB, Cesar D, et al. Directly measured kinetics of circulating T lymphocytes in normal and HIV-1-infected humans [see comments]. Nat Med 1999,5:83-89.
12. Hellerstein MK, Hoh RA, Hanley MB, et al. Subpopulations of long-lived and short-lived T cells in advanced HIV-1 infection. J Clin Invest 2003,112:956-966.
13. Silvestri G, Feinberg MB. Turnover of lymphocytes and conceptual paradigms in HIV infection. J Clin Invest 2003,112:821-824.

How Life Came to Be – My Rough Draft

I’m jotting this down, so that when it gets stolen, and somebody wins a Nobel prize for theoretical physics, or some such thing, you’ll be able to point back and say, “Oh yeah, wasn’t Liam saying something about that?” This comes about over years, with a great debt owed to the following:

Rupert Sheldrake, who pointed out the problems with Darwinism, and offered a ‘field theory’ of morphogenesis.

Wal Thornhill and the group, who made it clear and apparent that the universe is electric, that stars are electric, that they fission and spit out gas giants (or red and brown ‘dwarf stars,’ which in turn fission and spit out (or expel) rocky planetoids).

So, in a few words, a rough draft of my major hypothesis.

How life happens

People, especially Christians and Darwinians, love to argue about how life came to be.

Christians: The all-powerful Creator did it.

Darwinians: It was all dumb luck, there is nothing creative about it.

It’s not difficult to see that these two emerge from one philosophical argument. They are the same notion in opposition, on a single coin – A coin minted by religious literalism.

One embraces the universe as alive, in a sense, but also “created” or set into motion, in a describable moment. The other rejects the idea that “creativity” or the presence of “mind” existed at all. But, they accept and in fact, rename, that ‘describable moment,’ from “Genesis,” to “The Big Bang.”

These are two views of the same mythic description.

In review, Christians are more correct, but wrong in the details – that is, they embrace a literal reading of some rather confusing texts, to guide them through their understanding of what a ‘creator’ must be. And literal reading of myth is never a good idea.

The Darwinians have simply inverted the Christian theme, ie: “We don’t believe in your idea of God; therefore there is nothing creative about the universe. It’s all ‘random chance, happenstance and dumb luck. Flip of a coin, and so much pollution, etc.”

All of these notions, though – ‘chance, randomness, coin flips,’ etc, are all based on a human, anthropomorphic projection or understanding of life. That is, before you can have a ‘coin flip,’ you’ve got to have:

1. A Universe
2. A solar system
3. Gravity
4. Life
5. People.
6. A mint that produces flippable coins.
7. And hopefully, some clothing for the coin flipper. And everything that attends. Food, industry, society, machinery, bureaucracy, corruption, media, and socks.

So, what is ‘random’ about a ‘coin flip?’

If you think I’m missing the point, and that all of what they offer is “analogy,” then let me correct you, and them, and explain that analogy is a construct of mind. And mind is what Darwinians fudge about the margins trying to erase.

But, it’s no good, and even they’ve had to give in to “neo-Lamarkism.” ie, the thing is smarter than we are, and is so actively. So say the new reports, “Darwinism” is dead. (And, “long live Darwinism.” – ie, we were wrong! But we remain right!)

But, never mind the politics. That’s short-term stuff. The universe is intelligent, it is thinking – it is thinking us. Clever semantic games about ‘accident’ and ‘chance’ are only that. So, let’s get away from either worshiping Christian literalism – or making a religion of rejecting it, as the Darwinians do.

The Universe is Alive

Evolutionary theory is moribund, because it does not understand what the universe is, and so cannot see the larger connecting forces, or energetic sources.They believe in Newton’s dead, wind-up universe – a gravity-only device, run like clockwork.

But that’s not what the universe is. (Well, what is it, you grumble!). It’s electric – electromagnetic, in fact.

The universe is an electrified plasma. Plasma is a field of charge-separated particles. That is, atoms in which electrons have left, leaving a positive core (a positive ion), and in which the freed electrons form a negative ion.

In a charged plasma, magnetism and electricity are king and queen. Movement is constant, flux is the rule, and there are patterns that follow the energetic pathways of ‘plasma’, the fourth, (or really, first, by volume), state of matter.

The patterns of plasma are seen in all natural phenomena: They are helical, fractal, tubule, branching, and cellular.

Electromagnetic (EM) current flows in sheets, and in winding helices, called ‘Birkeland currents.” These wind around each other, attracting closer and closer, and scavenging or drawing in more material and energy.

They don’t collapse into one undifferentiated clump because EM currents, unlike gravity, Repel, as well as Attract. They repel at a near point, and attract from a across great distance.

– Plasma structures in space and around planets

Genesis or Big Bang?

Some people imagine that they can put a date on the beginning of time. I am not one of those people. I think we have to accept that it is simply not in our ability to see such an event. We witness, in the universe, an endless and growing system of filaments, each formed from millions of galaxies, in a single network, with uncountable stars formed in galactic forges. The universe, as far as we know and can tell, has always been. And we have as much chance as unraveling the “how” of its existence, as an ant has of explaining the origins of the human species to an owl. Or, worse. I’d put my money on the ant, before we ever come up with an answer.

You may find this to be a flaw in the theory – an unknown and unknowable non-variable. A given. The universe “is.” I think that is more realistic than saying “nothing exploded, or, er, um… expanded.” And more honest than a literal reading of “God said ‘turn on the switch,’ and so the switch was turned on – 6,000 years ago!”

Let’s leave metaphor behind as much as possible. I accept that the universe is, and that its origins are unknowable. I’m willing to call it, ‘eternal’ from our point of view. What powers it is out of our reach to know or explain. But it is powered, of that there can be no doubt.

How Life Comes From All Of It – My Hypothesis:

Let’s review. The universe is not dead, quiet, empty, cold and silent. It is a living, breathing, pulsing star forge and inter-galaxial network of current. We have electromagnetic ropes millions of light years long; we have a cellular, living and breathing shape and nature to the ever-growing, threaded, filamentary universe. Information, then, is carried with ease, everywhere, all the time.

I consider, in loose terms, the entire project to be a carrier of a kind of digital signal. I think that the signal ‘unwinds’ or manifests, in the rather holographic world of water. That is, through the prism of H2O, this digital signal unravels, and expresses itself.

That signal is, in a real sense, timeless, or as eternal as the universe, carrying the impressions or information from the eternity of expression. Upon winding into, through and around a ‘new world,’ – a warm and, here’s the most important bit – WET – rocky planet in the anode glow of a friendly star, that signal is split into variety, by the nature of the liquid. The liquid doesn’t have to be water; I’m sure many liquid states would do.

The ordered and creative formation of matter from energy is first evidenced in the fractaline, helical formation of the elements, which express or manifest in crystalline patterns. These, binding with liquid, driven by the electrical circuit of the universe, give rise to hybrids; joint ventures between a variety of elements. These, in turn, binding with or forming a shell around or vessels holding liquid, H2O on Earth, form mechanisms to “digest” electricity; often by first re-routing electricity into ion borrowing and lending machines.

None of these forms or patterns originated on any given planet. The pattern of formation is inherent in the EM signal, manifested in varieties depending on environment.

No Accidents. No Pure Invention. Only Innovation

Darwinism has it that life originates by a bizarre series of universal gaffs, from the creation of a duck’s webbed feet to the origin of the universe itself – it’s all a big mistake.

Christian or Biblical Creationism believes that the universe is intentional, and that it was created in a particular moment, by a particular God, and that its creation is unique.

What I’ll call “electric evolution” argues a very different concept. Life is no accident; it is endemic. It is not unique, and was not a one time creation by a Prime Mover; it is an eternal, energetic process, some of whose mechanisms can be deciphered, analyzed and modeled.

Life doesn’t “evolve” as much as it “unfolds.” It traces patterns in the embedded signal, but makes alterations based on local topography, geography, geology, chemical and physical environment.

It does this with respect to the gain and loss of material, through time; access to energy and building material; the structure and nature of those available materials on any given planet; the energy provided by the local star; and the change in local environments, over time.

That is, all of Darwinism is wrong – life does not accidentally come into place. It does so willfully, or, by its nature. But neither is it ‘created’ in a model form, as Christians, and even those seeking a ‘Platonic ideal’ might imagine. It comes into being, with reference to all that has preceded, or that is contemporary with it, but with respect to the particular matrices (minerals, crystalline patterns, liquid sources) on the wet rock in question.

There will always be similarities in all life forms. The desire for growth will always express itself in similar form; so will the need or desire for locomotion create analogous forms, and limbs; analogous over distance, inexplicable by Darwinian material reductionists.

Life unfolds in a building process, from small to large, over time, in increasing complexity and diversity. But, an irreducible complexity is present at the outset, because life doesn’t start from nothing; nor does it start ‘stupidly,’ or by accident. Life is never, ever a “simple” structure.

A single-celled organism is more complex than a fighter jet. The “simplest” creature is beyond our ability to design and manufacture as a machine run on batteries.

But, we will never know the origin of the code. We can only study and witness its unfolding.


This theory is untestable in many places; we can’t visit other planets. But we can observe how and where life occurs here, and we can see the analogous forms repeated throughout all that exists, over and over and over again.

If we take the universal energy source as a given, then do we also take as given the collection of elements? If matter is already in place, and directed by EM currents, then how is EM energy directed and divided in a liquid? What is the nature of water? Can this ‘prism-ing’ concept be tested?

Another limitation for further study: I can’t tell precisely where the signal is embedded, or how precisely it is un-encoded from its carrier wave, or energy source. If research energy were directed toward this venture, we might spot that signal. Or, we might find it is everywhere, and does, as I contend, ‘unravel’ in a liquid prism. Perhaps the signal IS the energy that we view as the EM force. As sunlight, as all of it.

Perhaps the energy flow itself simply unravels and, in the prism/holographic state of water/liquid, becomes that driving, energetic, ever-altering re-creation of what we call life.

But, the whole thing is alive, of course. That’s the point…

In Summary

The universe is electrical, and from our perspective, infinite. We cannot spot the beginning or end. We can only see local phenomena in a galactic system. Life is the expression of the digitally-encoding band of EM energy, or thought, or creativity, through the prism of liquid, on a wet, warm, rocky planet in the anode glow of a friendly (suitably stable) star.

Life occurs everywhere that these conditions are met, and unfolds over time, through a repeated process of “building up” from the simple, to the complex, by re-using form over and over again, in what Rupert Sheldrake describes as “nested hierarchies.”

I predict that those needing a “beginning” to feel secure in understanding how life “evolve” (or really “unfolds”) will be perpetually out of luck; or worse, writing new myths to deal with their insecurity and need for a narrative.

For your consideration. The Nobel committee can send me a check in advance, for whatever turns out to be entirely correct.

Radio This Weekend – Space Monsters, Charles Darwin and Vaccine Horse Hockey

Listen live or download MP3 for later, on the Intel Hub.

Toll Free Call In Number: 1 (877) 598-8549 or 646-727-3387.

Saturday 7PM EST
– Join investigative journalist and researcher Liam Scheff as he delves into NASA fictions: Black Holes and Big Bang theory. Is anything NASA spends your tax money on real? Or is it a case of hypothetical “monsters in space?”

Sunday 7PM EST – What’s wrong with Charles Darwin? An introduction to thinking critically about evolutionary theory.

Monday 5-7PM EST – We beat the hell out of the vaccine myth! Two hours of revealing the giant fraud known as the vaccine industry.

Radio Expanding Earth!

Radio This Weekend!

Saturday Dec. 11, 2010, and after that downloadable for your MP3: This Expanding Earth! Geologist and philosopher of science, Don Findlay discusses the effects of spin and expansion on the planet… this GROWING planet, argues Findlay, with great, compelling evidence. We will also take a bite out of the myth of Plate Tectonics, and talk about the rotten borough that is the sciences today… Read Don Findlay’s writings at his websites,, which links to his premiere website at Don Findlay grew up in Scotland. Graduated with his doctorate in structural geology from the University of Glasgow in 1971. Entered the mining industry in Western Australia the same year. Has provided independent contracting/ consulting geological services in Perth since 1986.

Click to Listen and Download

Sunday: 15 Questions for Jon Stewart! Click to Listen

When Jon Stewart, “America’s Most Trusted Man” is asked questions about the free-fall implosion of WTC building 7, or the violent pulverizing explosion of the entirety of both steel and concrete megaliths of the Twin Towers… or about any other facet of the 9/11 staged attacks, he answers with the following:

“I don’t know…Because I think Al Qaeda did it?”

But is that a sufficient answer to the questions left for us, in evidence?

Tonight we comb through the pile of rubble, and the mountain of evidence, to see what American journalists fail to report when they parrot CIA and Bush Administration fairy tales about that bloody Tuesday in September. Click to Listen and Download

Read 15 Questions for Jon Stewart at

And, for your edification:

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know…

by Jonathan Elinoff
New World Order Report
January 6, 2010

Article with links LINK

1. The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).

2. The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society’s secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.

3. MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a “truth serum” to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

A short video about MK-ULTRA from a documentary called Secrets of the CIA:

4. Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to ’70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

5. Manhattan Project: The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942–1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The project’s roots lay in scientists’ fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret. With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history. Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that. The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years. Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

6. Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time – asbestos causes cancer.

7. Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn’t until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.

9. Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up a U.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.

Author James Bamford, “A Pretext For War”, discusses the declassified “Operation Northwoods” documents revealing that in 1962 the CIA was planning to stage phony terrorist attacks on the US and blame it on Cuba to start a war:

10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A 15-year-old girl named “Nayirah” testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but — despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory — it was later discovered that the testimony was false. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony.

It turned out that she had taken acting lessons on request of the CIA and was actually the niece of a major politician in Kuwait. Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Congressman Tom Lantos was co-chairman, had been responsible for hosting Nurse Nayirah, and thereby popularizing her allegations.

When the girl’s account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors, Lantos replied, “The notion that any of the witnesses brought to the caucus through the Kuwaiti Embassy would not be credible did not cross my mind… I have no basis for assuming that her story is not true, but the point goes beyond that. If one hypothesizes that the woman’s story is fictitious from A to Z, that in no way diminishes the avalanche of human rights violations.” Nevertheless, the senior Republican on the Human Rights Caucus, John Edward Porter, responded to the revelations “by saying that if he had known the girl was the ambassador’s daughter, he would not have allowed her to testify.”

11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s: COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI’s stated motivation at the time was “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.”

According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women’s rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled “New Left”, including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those “seeking independence for Puerto Rico.”

The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert “white hate groups,” including the Ku Klux Klan and National States’ Rights Party. The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” the activities of these movements and their leaders.

This is a documentary on COINTELPRO:

12. The Iran-Contra Affair: In 1985 and ’86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Israeli government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. The plot was uncovered by Congress in 1987.

13. The BCCI Scandal: The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The Bank was registered in Luxembourg. Within a decade BCCI touched its peak, it operated in 78 countries, had over 400 branches, and had assets in excess of US$ 20 billion making it the 7th largest private bank in the world by assets. In the late 1980?s BCCI became the target of a two year undercover operation conducted by the US Customs Service. This operation concluded with a fake wedding that was attended by BCCI officers and drug dealers from around the world who had established a personal friendship and working relationship with undercover Special Agent Robert Mazur.

After a six month trial in Tampa, key bank officers were convicted and received lengthy prison sentences. Bank officers began cooperating with law enforcement authorities and that cooperation caused BCCI’s many crimes to be revealed. BCCI came under the scrutiny of regulatory bodies and intelligence agencies in the 1980s due to its perceived avoidance of falling under one regulatory banking authority, a fact that was later, after extensive investigations, proven to be false. BCCI became the focus of a massive regulatory battle in 1991 and was described as a “$20-billion-plus heist”.

Investigators in the U.S. and the UK revealed that BCCI had been “set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection.”

14. CIA Drug Running in LA: Pulitzer Prize Award winning journalist Gary Webb exposed this alongside LAPD Narcotics Officer turned whislteblower and author Michael Ruppert, CIA Contract Pilot Terry Reed, and many others. In August 1996 the San Jose Mercury News published Webb’s “Dark Alliance”, a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series which alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras.

Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras, but he did document that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel. “Dark Alliance” received national attention. At the height of the interest, the web version of it on San Jose Mercury News website received 1.3 million hits a day. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the series became “the most talked-about piece of journalism in 1996 and arguably the most famous—some would say infamous—set of articles of the decade.”

15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats. This was also the single most important reason for the escalation of the Vietnam War. After Kennedy was assassinated, the Gulf of Tonkin gave the country the sweeping support for aggressive military action against the North Vietnamese. The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression”.

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night…” In truth, Hanoi’s navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2. In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: “For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there.” In 1981, Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheer re-examined Herrick’s ship’s log and determined that the first torpedo report from August 4, which Herrick had maintained had occurred—the “apparent ambush”—was in fact unfounded.

In 1995, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap, meeting with former Secretary of Defense McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2. In the Fall of 1999, retired senior CIA engineering executive S. Eugene Poteat wrote that he was asked in early August 1964 to determine if the radar operator’s report showed a real torpedo boat attack or an imagined one. In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors.

November 9th, 1995 New Clip on Gulf of Tonkin:

16. The Business Plot: In 1933, group of wealthy businessmen that allegedly included the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, the DuPont family and Senator Prescott Bush tried to recruit Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler to lead a military coup against President FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States. And yes, we’re talking about the same Prescott Bush who fathered one US President and grandfathered another one. Smedley Butler was both a patriot and a vocal FDR supporter. Apparently none of these criminal masterminds noticed that their prospective point man had actively stumped for FDR in 1932. Smedley spilled the beans to a congressional committee in 1934.

Everyone he accused of being a conspirator vehemently denied it, and none of them were brought up on criminal charges. Still, the House McCormack-Dickstein Committee did at least acknowledge the existence of the conspiracy, which ended up never getting past the initial planning stages. Though many of the people who had allegedly backed the Business Plot also maintained financial ties with Nazi Germany up through America’s entry into World War II. In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup.

One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler’s allegations of the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

On July 17, 1932, thousands of World War I veterans converged on Washington, D.C., set up tent camps, and demanded immediate payment of bonuses due them according to the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924. This “Bonus Army” was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The Army was encouraged by an appearance from retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, who had considerable influence over the veterans, being one of the most popular military figures of the time.

A few days after Butler’s arrival, President Herbert Hoover ordered the marchers removed, and their camps were destroyed by US Army cavalry troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year’s election. In a 1995 History Today article Clayton Cramer argued that the devastation of the Great Depression had caused many Americans to question the foundations of liberal democracy. “Many traditionalists, here and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism; many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism.” Cramer argues that this explains why some American business leaders viewed fascism as a viable system to both preserve their interests and end the economic woes of the Depression.

BBC – Whitehouse Coup (Part 1)

17. July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler: Among another 20 some odd attempts, this one was one of the largest conspiracies involving hundreds of loyalists in the highest echelons of Hitler’s inner circle. Near the end of WWII, things were rapidly going south for Germany and the time seemed ripe for guilt-ridden Nazi officers to assassinate Hitler and overthrow his government. Colonel Henning von Tresckow recruited Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg to join the conspiracy in 1944. The plot to take out Hitler and then all of his loyal officers was called Operation Valkyrie.

The plan was to use the Continuity of Government Proceedings during an assassination on Hitler’s life to take over full control of the government in Germany. The assassination would be blamed on the Nazi SS and therefore allow Stauffenberg to take full control of all aspects of the government. It almost worked.

In July 1944, Stauffenberg was promoted so that he could now start attending military strategy meetings with Hitler himself. On more than one occasion Stauffenberg planned to kill Hitler at such a meeting with a briefcase bomb, but he always held off because he also wanted to take out Hitler’s two right-hand men, Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler. On July 20, he went for it anyway and exploded a bomb inside Hitler’s conference room with a remote detonator. Hitler survived only minor injuries.

18. Operation Ajax: For years, Britain had a spiffy trade deal with Iran regarding their prodigious oil fields. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was basically a giant money machine for the Anglo half, while the Iranian half got shafted. That all changed in 1951 when Iran nationalized the AIOC and the Iranian parliament elected Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister. Mossadegh was relatively secular, something that pissed of Iranian clerics, but he was also very nationalistic. He was a democratically elected, pro American figure but the West saw his nationalizing of the oil fields a communist move(something Mossadegh thought was the right of the people to profit and pay for services in the country with).

Those oil fields were under the control of British Petroleum, but unfortunately Mossadegh overruled this long standing business control. The United States sent Kermit Roosevelt, FDR’s nephew and CIA coordinator in to figure out the mess. The best he could come up with was to confront Mossadegh and have him overthrown and this was accomplished by bringing in what the agency refers to as “jackals.” The United States backed the return of the Shah of Iran, one of the most brutal dictators the country had ever seen and intentionally overthrew years before with the democratic leader, Mossadegh.

Until 1979, that is, when a pissed off Iranian populace finally revolted and replaced the monarchy with an anti-West Islamic Republic. The result was a violently anti-American revolution lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini which overthrew the Shah and took hostage US Embassy workers, many of whom were involved in the plot with Kermit Roosevelt that installed the Shah. The planning for the Coup took place largely in that embassy, but Americans were told this was due to the rise of radical Islam and rise of democracy hating Muslims, which of course was far from the truth.

Part 1 of a video done on Operation Ajax history:

Part 2 of the video:

19. Operation Snow White: Some time during the 1970s, the Church of Scientology decided that they’d had enough. Apparently, the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history. Ever. 5,000 of Scientology’s crack commandos wiretapped and burglarized various agencies. They stole hundreds of documents, mainly from the IRS. No critic was spared, and in the end, 136 organizations, agencies and foreign embassies were infiltrated.

20. Operation Gladio: Gladio is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO “stay-behind” operation in Italy after World War II, intended to continue anti-communist resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organizations, “Operation Gladio” is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organizations, sometimes called “Super NATO”.

The role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to right-wing terrorist attacks perpetrated in Italy during the Years of Lead and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation. Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter. What can we prove about that role? Thousands of documents, depositions and testimony as well as recorded conversations and admission by the highest levels of government in Italy. That’s about as credible as it gets, regardless of the CIA’s adamant denial it ever happened.

What took place? The shooting of innocent civilians, terrorism and assassinations all blamed on leftist communists were actually apart of well coordinated, “black operations.” Black operations are typically involving activities that are highly clandestine and, often, outside of standard military protocol.

“The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.” Black ops missions often fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or – most often – black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred. Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal.

The methods used in black operations are also used in unconventional warfare. Depending on the precise situation in a given case, and the level of authoritarianism of the national government or other responsible party, some tasks will be conducted as black operations, while there are usually other activities that can be admitted openly. Black operations may include such things as assassination, sabotage, extortion, spying on allied countries or one’s own citizens, kidnapping, supporting resistance movements, torture, use of fraud to obtain funds, use of child soldiers, human experimentation, trafficking in contraband items, etc. Since 9/11, many black operations and long time unethical standings have been approved for legality in the war on terror.

In other words, since September 11th, 2001, it is no a longer conspiracy for any of this to occur, a simple decision by a top level military or CIA official is enough, without oversight or even one thread of admission by the Government or Private conspirators. Much of the Black operations today are performed by private contract companies like Blackwater (now Xe).

This is a documentary banned in teh United States that was allowed to air on BBC. It was an investigation into Operation Gladio:

21. The CIA Assassinates A Lot Of People (Church Committee): The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church in 1975. A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair. The Committee uncovered, among many other things, that the CIA had violated its charter to perform only gathering of intelligence. For example, the assassinations of Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran.

Assassinations against Central and South American leaders and revolutionaries, as well as Africa, Middle East and East Asia. The list was tremendous. They even declassified a “Heart Attack Gun” the Agency had made for the use of killing someone without it being detected. Cancer, car accidents, skiing accidents, suicide, boating accidents, heart attacks, and just plain being shot were common assassination methods.

The hearings, although recorded in full in congressional record, the mainstream media and official policies, is still largely not taught in American schools on recent history. The American public still has no idea this was ever actually confirmed or even took place. It is common for people to still refer to any of these assassinations as a joke or made up conspiracy.

Watch the one-minute video below for the description of a former CIA secretary and Congressional testimony on this secret assassination weapon which caused heart attacks.

22. The New World Order: This popular conspiracy theory claims that a small group of international elites controls and manipulates governments, industry and media organisations worldwide. The primary tool they use to dominate nations is the system of central banking. They are said to have funded and in some cases caused most of the major wars of the last 200 years, primarily through carrying out false flag attacks to manipulate populations into supporting them, and have a grip on the world economy, deliberately causing inflation and depressions at will.

The people behind the New World Order are thought to be international bankers, in particular the owners of the private banks in the Federal Reserve System, Bank of England and other central banks, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. Now, although this conspiracy theory was ridiculed for years, it turns out that the Bilderberg does meet and requests no media coverage. They receive no media coverage. The world’s elite meet every year and it goes largely unreported, for what?

Discussions at the meetings include the economy, world affairs, war and in general, world policy. After the financial collapse, the Bilderberg played a key role in proposing that the world prepare for a new world order and have a standard world currency. This was propsed shortly after by almost all attendees of the Bilderberg meeting.

During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term “new world order” to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic or liberal proposals for global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and N.A.T.O., and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism.

In the aftermath of the two World Wars, progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice. American banker David Rockefeller joined the Council on Foreign Relations as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirs wherein, on page 405, he wrote:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement bent on creating a “real” new world order. A number of Fabian socialist intellectuals, such as British writer H. G. Wells in the 1940s, appropriated and redefined the term “new world order” as a synonym for the establishment of a full-fledged social democratic world government. In the 1960s, a great deal of right-wing conspiracist attention, by groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby, focused on the United Nations as the vehicle for creating the “One World Government”, and contributed to a conservative movement for United States withdrawal from the U.N.

American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, “international bankers” would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated “international Jewish banking conspiracy” masterminded by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

American televangelist Pat Robertson with his 1991 best-selling book The New World Order became the most prominent Christian popularizer of conspiracy theories about recent American history as a theater in which Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.

After the turn of the century, specifically during the financial crisis of 2007–2009, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, and Barack Obama, used the term “new world order” in their advocacy for a Keynesian reform of the global financial system and their calls for a “New Bretton Woods”, which takes into account emerging markets such as China and India.

These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in former Clinton administration adviser Dick Morris and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity arguing on one of his Fox News Channel programs that “conspiracy theorists were right”. In 2009, American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order, a critically-acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists, such as American radio host Alex Jones, who are committed to exposing and vigorously opposing what they perceive to be an emerging New World Order.

May 24, 1992 Report on New World Order:

23. Kennedy Assassination – the 2nd Investigation by Congress Few People Know About, United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA): The HSCA was established in 1976 to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated by a conspiracy involving the mob, and potentially the CIA. The House Select Committee on Assassinations undertook reinvestigations of the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1979, a single Report and twelve volumes of appendices on each assassination were published by the Congress.

In the JFK case, the HSCA found that there was a “probable conspiracy,” though it was unable to determine the nature of that conspiracy or its other participants (besides Oswald). This finding was based in part on acoustics evidence from a tape purported to record the shots, but was also based on other evidence including an investigation of Ruby’s mafia connections and potential CIA and/or FBI connections to Oswald. To this day, many conspiracy deniers are unaware that the Congressional investigation into JFK’s assassination concluded beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a conspiracy. What made them come to this conclusion? Aside from reading the report, many witnesses (some of whom were CIA agents and station chiefs in Dallas that morning) were killed the night before testifying.

For example, George de Mohrenschildt was a petroleum geologist who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald during the months preceding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He also worked for the CIA. He also blew his brains out the night before he was to testify to the committee. The committee also uncovered, among many things, that Oswald left the marines where he learned how to speak fluent Russian (at the height of the cold war). He was given money by the State Department to travel to Russia where he stopped off in Japan at a top secret US Military facility. The Warren Commission even mentioned this part.

What most people do not know is that he probably was working in the Cold War infiltrating the Russians as either a “dangle,” “double agent,” or “defector” of some kind. What is interesting is that upon his return he got more money from the State Department to buy a house and work with an ex FBI Chief and CIA officials in training anti-Castro Cubans for an invasion.

In Louisiana, where he was working, the CIA was involved in Operation Mongoose, Where Oswald worked under CIA Agent David Ferrie, who killed himself before testifying in a trial on the Assassination as well. Operation Mongoose worked closely with Southern Mafia figures largely because the casinos in Cuba, which were shut down after Fidel obtained control over the country, were epicenters for control on the island. The CIA even hired the mafia to assassinate Fidel on many occasions, 3 attempts which failed are common knowledge. What is funny is that figures who worked very close with Oswald either ended up dead (over 100 of them connected to the assassination died within a few years of unusual circumstances) or they ended up in other conspiracies.

For instance, E Howard Hunt (CIA Agent) confessed to being involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy on his deathbed. E Howard Hunt was one of the Watergate Burglars. Barry Seal, who worked with Oswald and Ferrie ended up being one of the largest cocaine smugglers in the United States during Iran Contra, as a key player for the agency and informant for the DEA. There is so much more to get into, but there just isn’t enough time. Oswald’s tax returns are still classified top secret to this day. Why? Perhaps he was still getting $$ from the United States, which places him on the payroll. That money trail leads to figures, many of whom were murdered, that would have blown the story wide open. For 14 years, most didn’t know this. The HSCA investigaitons by congress went against the findings of the Warren Commission and both reports are from the same source, Congressional Committees. Which is true? Why do we only teach one to our children in school?

December 30, 1978 Report on HSCA Findings:

24. 1919 World Series Conspiracy: The 1919 World Series (often referred to as the Black Sox Scandal) resulted in the most famous scandal in baseball history. Eight players from the Chicago White Sox (nicknamed the Black Sox) were accused of throwing the series against the Cincinnati Reds. Details of the scandal remain controversial, and the extent to which each player was involved varied. It was, however, front-page news across the country when the story was uncovered late in the 1920 season, and despite being acquitted of criminal charges (throwing baseball games was technically not a crime), the eight players were banned from organized baseball (i.e. the leagues subject to the National Agreement) for life. There are hundreds of other conspiracies involving throwing games, sporting matches and large scale entertainment events. It is common knowledge for many, this list would have to go into the thousands if we included all of them.

25. Karen Silkwood: Karen was an American labor union activist and chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, United States. Silkwood’s job was making plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. After being hired at Kerr-McGee, Silkwood joined the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union local and took part in a strike at the plant. After the strike ended, she was elected to the union’s bargaining committee and assigned to investigate health and safety issues. She discovered what she believed to be numerous violations of health regulations, including exposure of workers to contamination, faulty respiratory equipment and improper storage of samples. She also believed the lack of sufficient shower facilities could increase the risk of employee contamination.

In the summer of 1974, Silkwood testified to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) about these issues, alleging that safety standards had slipped because of a production speedup which resulted in employees being given tasks for which they were poorly trained. She also alleged that Kerr-McGee employees handled the fuel rods improperly and that the company falsified inspection records. On November 5, 1974, Silkwood performed a routine self-check and found almost 400 times the legal limit for plutonium contamination. She was decontaminated at the plant and sent home with a testing kit to collect urine and feces for further analysis. Oddly, though there was plutonium on the exterior surfaces (the ones she touched) of the gloves she had been using, the gloves did not have any holes.

This suggests the contamination did not come from inside the glove box, but from some other source, in other words, someone was trying to poison her. The next morning, as she headed to a union negotiation meeting, she again tested positive for plutonium. This was surprising because she had only performed paperwork duties that morning. She was given a more intense decontamination. The following day, November 7, 1974, as she entered the plant, she was found to be dangerously contaminated — even expelling contaminated air from her lungs.

A health physics team accompanied her back to her home and found plutonium traces on several surfaces — especially in the bathroom and the refrigerator. The house was later stripped and decontaminated. Silkwood, her partner and housemate were sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory for in-depth testing to determine the extent of the contamination in their bodies. Later that evening, Silkwood’s body was found in her car, which had run off the road and struck a culvert. The car contained no documents. She was pronounced dead at the scene from a “classic, one-car sleeping-driver accident”.

26. CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas: August 23, 1987, in a rural community just south of Little Rock, police officers murdered two teenage boys because they witnessed a police-protected drug drop. The drop was part of a drug smuggling operation based at a small airport in Mena, Arkansas. The Mena operation was set up in the early 1980?s by the notorious drug smuggler, Barry Seal. Facing prison after a drug conviction in Florida, Seal flew to Washington, D.C., where he put together a deal that allowed him to avoid prison by becoming an informant for the government.

As a government informant against drug smugglers, Seal testified he worked for the CIA and the DEA. In one federal court case, he testified that his income from March 1984 to August 1985, was between $700,000 and $800,000. This period was AFTER making his deal with the government. Seal testified that nearly $600,000 of this came from smuggling drugs while working for — and with the permission of the DEA. In addition to his duties as an informant, Seal was used by CIA operatives to help finance the Nicaraguan Contras.

The CIA connection to the Mena operation was undeniable when a cargo plane given to Seal by the CIA was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of weapons. In spite of the evidence, every investigator who has tried to expose the crimes of Mena has been professionally destroyed, and those involved in drug smuggling operations have received continued protection from state and federal authorities.

27. Bohemian Grove: For years, many conspiracy theorists were saying that the rich and powerful met every year in the woods and worshiped a giant stone owl in an occult fashion. It turns out, ABC, CBS, NBC, and many other credible news agencies investigated this and found out, its true. It is said to be just all fun and games, like brotherhood style fraternity stuff. These news clips can be viewed by clicking here.

For more clips on the Bohemian Grove including comprehensive investigations by the mainstream media, clik here…

28. Operation Paperclip: Operation Paperclip was the code name for the 1945 Office of Strategic Services, Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency recruitment of German scientists from Nazi Germany to the U.S. after VE Day. President Truman authorized Operation Paperclip in August 1945; however he expressly ordered that anyone found “to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism” would be excluded.

These included Wernher von Braun, Arthur Rudolph and Hubertus Strughold, who were all officially on record as Nazis and listed as a “menace to the security of the Allied Forces.” All were cleared to work in the U.S. after having their backgrounds “bleached” by the military; false employment histories were provided, and their previous Nazi affiliations were expunged from the record. The paperclips that secured newly-minted background details to their personnel files gave the operation its name.

29. The Round Table: British businessman Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire reannexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an “Imperial Federation” to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace. In his first will, of 1877, written at the age of 23, he expressed his wish to fund a secret society (known as the Society of the Elect) that would advance this goal:

“To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.”

In his later wills, a more mature Rhodes abandoned the idea and instead concentrated on what became the Rhodes Scholarship, which had British statesman Alfred Milner as one of its trustees. Established in 1902, the original goal of the trust fund was to foster peace among the great powers by creating a sense of fraternity and a shared world view among future British, American, and German leaders by having enabled them to study for free at the University of Oxford.

Milner and British official Lionel George Curtis were the architects of the Round Table movement, a network of organizations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies. To this end, Curtis founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in June 1919 and, with his 1938 book The Commonwealth of God, began advocating for the creation of an imperial federation that eventually reannexes the U.S., which would be presented to Protestant churches as being the work of the Christian God to elicit their support.

The Commonwealth of Nations was created in 1949 but it would only be a free association of independent states rather than the powerful imperial federation imagined by Rhodes, Milner and Curtis. The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1917 with a group of New York academics who were asked by President Woodrow Wilson to offer options for the foreign policy of the United States in the interwar period.

Originally envisioned as a British-American group of scholars and diplomats, some of whom belonging to the Round Table movement, it was a subsequent group of 108 New York financiers, manufacturers and international lawyers organized in June 1918 by Nobel Peace Prize recipient and U.S. secretary of state, Elihu Root, that became the Council on Foreign Relations on 29 July 1921.

The first of the council’s projects was a quarterly journal launched in September 1922, called Foreign Affairs. Some believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is a front organization for the Round Table as a tool of the “Anglo-American Establishment”, which they believe has been plotting from 1900 on to rule the world. The research findings of historian Carroll Quigley, author of the 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, are taken by both conspiracy theorists of the American Old Right (Cleon Skousen) and New Left (Carl Oglesby) to substantiate this view, even though he argued that the Establishment is not involved in a plot to implement a one-world government but rather British and American benevolent imperialism driven by the mutual interests of economic elites in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Quigley also argued that, although the Round Table still exists today, its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I and slowly waned after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis. Today it is largely a ginger group, designed to consider and gradually influence the policies of the Commonwealth of Nations, but faces strong opposition. Furthermore, in American society after 1965, the problem, according to Quigley, was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.

American banker David Rockefeller joined the Council on Foreign Relations as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirs wherein, on page 405, he wrote:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents … to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Barkun argues that this statement is partly facetious (the claim of “conspiracy” or “treason”) and partly serious – the desire to encourage trilateral cooperation among the U.S., Europe, and Japan, for example – an ideal that used to be a hallmark of the internationalist wing of the Republican Party when there was an internationalist wing. However, the statement is taken at face value and widely cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Council on Foreign Relations (itself alleged to be a front for an “international banking cabal”, as well as, it is claimed, the sponsor of many “globalist” think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission) uses its role as the brain trust of American presidents, senators and representatives to manipulate them into supporting a New World Order.

Conspiracy theorists fear that the international bankers of financial capitalism are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the U.S. by subordinating national sovereignty to a strengthened Bank for International Settlements with the intent to “create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole”. In a 13 November 2007 interview with Canadian journalist Benjamin Fulford, Rockefeller countered:

“I don’t think that I really feel that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can’t imagine that there would be any likelihood or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world … There have been people, ever since I’ve had any kind of position in the world, who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crackpots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn’t true, and won’t be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible.”

Some American social critics, such as Laurence H. Shoup, argue that the Council on Foreign Relations is an “imperial brain trust”, which has, for decades, played a central behind-the-scenes role in shaping U.S. foreign policy choices for the post-WWII international order and the Cold War, by determining what options show up on the agenda and what options do not even make it to the table; while others, such as G. William Domhoff, argue that it is in fact a mere policy discussion forum, which provides the business input to U.S. foreign policy planning.

The latter argue that it has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group; all the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers; and as far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives.

30. The Illuminati: The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded on May 1st, 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria), by Adam Weishaupt, who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. The movement consisted of freethinkers, secularists, liberals, republicans and pro-feminists, recruited in the Masonic Lodges of Germany, who sought to promote perfectionism through mystery schools. As a result, in 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the monarchy and state religion.

In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being enlightened absolutists who were attempting to secretly orchestrate a world revolution in order to globalize the most radical ideals of the Enlightenment: anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism.

During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent. Although many say that the Illuminati was disbanded and destroyed so long ago, it is well known that the Rothschild dynasty following the family’s involvement in the secret order in Bavaria received much attention for its major takeover of Europe’s central banks. The Rothschild dynasty owns roughly half of the world’s wealth and evidence suggests it has funded both sides of major wars, including the United States Civil War.

31. The Trilateral Commission: The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973 at the initiative of David Rockefeller, who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time. The Trilateral Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations. In July 1972, Rockefeller called his first meeting, which was held at Rockefeller’s Pocantico compound in New York’s Hudson Valley.

It was attended by about 250 individuals who were carefully selected and screened by Rockefeller and represented the very elite of finance and industry. Its first executive committee meeting was held in Tokyo in October 1973. The Trilateral Commission was officially initiated, holding biannual meetings. A Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at the 1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, called An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance, said: “Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system.”

Another Commission document read: “The overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which interdependence proceeds, and checking some aspects of it. More frequently however, it will call for checking the intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both economic and non-economic goods.”

32. Big Brother or the Shadow Government: It is also called the “Deep State” by Peter Dale Scott, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. A shadow government is a “government-in-waiting” that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event. It turned out this was true on 9/11, when it was told to us by our mainstream media. For years, this was ridiculed as a silly, crazy conspiracy theory and, like the others listed here, turned out to be 100% true. It is also called the Continuity of Government.

The Continuity of Government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event. Since the end of the cold war, the policies and procedures for the COG have been altered according to realistic threats of that time. These include but are not limited to a possible coup or overthrow by right wing terrorist groups, a terrorist attack in general, an assassination, and so on. Believe it or not the COG has been in effect since 2001. After 9/11, it went into action. Now here is the kicker, many of the figures in Iran Contra, the Watergate Scandal, the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, and many others listed here are indeed members of the COG. This is its own conspiracy as well.

The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World is a book written by Air Force Col. L fletcher Prouty, published in 1973. From 1955 to 1963 Prouty was the “Focal Point Officer” for contacts between the CIA and the Pentagon on matters relating to military support for “black operations” but he was not assigned to the CIA and was not bound by any oath of secrecy. (From the first page of the 1974 Printing) It was one of the first tell-all books about the inner workings of the CIA and was an important influence on the Oliver Stone movie JFK. But the main thrust of the book is how the CIA started as a think tank to analyze intelligence gathered from military sources but has grown to the monster it has become.

The CIA had no authority to run their own agents or to carry out covert operations but they quickly did both and much more. This book tells about things they actually did and a lot about how the operate. In Prouty’s own words, from the 1997 edition of The Secret Team: This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base structure.

They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called “Communism.” It will be interesting to see what “enemy” develops in the years ahead. It appears that “UFO’s and Aliens” are being primed to fulfill that role for the future. To top all of this, there is the fact that the CIA, itself, has assumed the right to generate and direct secret operations. “ He is not the first to allege that UFOs and Aliens are going to be used as a threat against the world to globalize the planet under One government.

The Report From Iron Mountain is a book, published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press, that states that it is the report of a government panel. According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years.

Iron Mountain is where the government has stored the flight 93 evidence from 9/11. A member of the panel, one “John Doe”, a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public. The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace “could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it.” War was a part of the economy.

Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended “blood games” and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out of control pollution.

Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery. U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he ‘hit the roof’ and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy. Project Blue Beam is also a common conspiracy theory that alleges that a faked alien landing would be used as a means of scaring the public into whatever global system is suggested. Some researchers suggest the Report from Iron Mountain might be fabricated, others swear it is real.

Bill Moyers, the American journalist and public commentator, has served as White House Press Secretary in the United States President Lyndon B. Johnson Administration from 1965 to 1967. He worked as a news commentator on television for ten years. Moyers has had an extensive involvement with public television, producing documentaries and news journal programs. He has won numerous awards and honorary degrees. He has become well known as a trenchant critic of the U.S. media. Since 1990, Moyers has been President of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy. He is considered by many to be a very credible outlet for the truth.

He released a documetnary titled, The Secret Government, which exposed the inner workings of a secret government much more vast that most people would ever imagine. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives of powerful groups in the hidden shadows of our government.

Here is that documentary:

For another powerful, highly revealing documentary on the manipulations of the secret government produced by BBC, click here (view free at link provided). The intrepid BBC team clearly shows how the War on Terror is largely a fabrication. For those interested in very detailed information on the composition of the shadow or secret government from a less well-known source, take a look at the summary available here.

33. The Federal Reserve Bank: The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability. The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild. If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments – again, promising to make the crashes more mild.

The period leading up to the American revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England. Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy. The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over. The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties. Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764.

“The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit.” The result was a true free market of currency – each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment. Of course, they didn’t have 24-hour digital Forex mar

Radio This Weekend – Shakespeare and Expanding Earth

Join me on TheIntelHubNewsNetwork Saturdays and Sundays at SEVEN PM EST for The Investigation. This weekend:

Saturday 7PM EST – “Expanding Earth?” We talk with Tokyo-based journalist, long-time writer for the Japan Times, 20 year ex-patriot in Japan, former US Navy air-traffic controller, 9/11 activist, and all-around nice guy Jeff Ogrisseg, for a report on the fiction of “plate tectonics and the remarkable changes that planet Earth has undergone in its life-cycle. (Read Jeff’s Japan Times article on “Our Growing Earth.”)

Sunday 7PM EST – “Nothing is Truer Than Truth!” We talk with film-maker Cheryl Eagan-Donovan about her upcoming documentary exploring the hidden reality of Shakespeare’s true identity – that of the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere. Eagan-Donovan’s new film is based on the wonderful book, “Shakespeare by Another Name” by Mark Anderson (who I’ve interviewed Here).

Download the episode (Right click and ‘save’)

Says Donovan: “The film is about Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, A-list party boy on the continental circuit, who spent a year and a half in Venice and traveling in Europe, learning about commedia dell’arte and collecting experiences that would become the plays…

Material filmed to date includes interviews with many renowned Shakespeare scholars and actors including Sir Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, and a tour of Castle Hedingham, the ancestral home of the de Veres family since the days of William the Conqueror…

The film focuses on the eighteen month period when de Vere escaped the confines of life at Elizabeth’s Court, and traveled the continent from his home base in Venice. NOTHING IS TRUER THAN TRUTH will introduce today’s students, tomorrow’s writers, to Edward de Vere, a man whose life story is the greatest story ever written.

The Shakespeare myth is about to undergo a huge paradigm shift, and what it means to be the greatest writer in the English language will never be the same.

Visit the film’s website at:

Nothing is Truer Than Truth (Trailer) from Cheryl Eagan-Donovan on Vimeo.

PBS – The Public Brainwashing Service – a Public Challenge

Proposition: Public Television is the propaganda arm of government (that’s taxpayer-funded) science. PBS gets its information and marching orders from the riders of the academic gravy train…and what is that?

It’s the academic elephant walk that fills university labs with bespeckled, dutiful grad students, suffering insult, overwork and injury from the deadbeats who runs the lab and the program at their expensive university.

Each of the grad-lackies shucks and jives, and jumps-as-high as required to get their wildly constrained research assignments in on time — overtime, underpaid, and over-worked as they are. They allow their limited results to be stolen for years, by their ‘betters’ – their academic mentors and superiors in the lab and in the department – so that they can get a share of the tiny bit of glory:

A mention in a paper. A name below the title with five, ten, fifteen other names. Is it ‘science’ they’re after? Or just a little ego recognition?

And what dictates the course of their research?

Answer: Same old bastards who ran university programs and “mastered the heights” while blue-collar fathers were working hard to put their bright progeny through college. It’s still the same old 17th Century bishop’s school. The same old church, with a little more emphasis on chemistry versus alchemy — but both do just fine to obfuscate their wildly empty theoretical gesticulations:

  • Does getting bitten in the groin by parrots cause weight loss? Let’s do a study.
  • Is doing drugs for 10 years in a row ‘immuno-suppressive?’ Let’s hire some deadbeat college drop outs, and publish!
  • How about feeding AIDS patients a great variety of nutrients, and giving them natural products to kill any candida they have?

“Now, we can’t do that! Because HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, and the only cure, or treatment, is strong Black-Box ’till death do ye part,’ drugs. Silly munchkin. You’ll learn!”

  • Well, surely we can see if there are any invisible things in space that we cannot see or measure, which also must have infinite energy (in order to explain the ‘big bang doesn’t work at all Paradox’)?

Yes! Yes we can. Let’s dip into the ol’ tax-payers wallet, and do that research…

And who knows? Someday, PBS may feature YOU, YOU, yes YOU, young pup, in a ‘documentary’ on…oh…”Dark Matter!” Or, “constantly mutating retroviruses that prove how accidental, blind evolution really must be true!”

We’ve got a million of them. And that’s where PBS gets its information. That’s what NOVA is. A collection of rubble, spewed out of the rear end of fading careers, locked into cracked and broken paradigms, held aloft by the vanity, mortgage and car payments of the permanent residents of the Ivory Tower.

And if you buy what you pay for (because you are paying for it, tax-dollars) on PBS science television, then you’re ending up with the greasy end of the pole.

Don’t agree? Then try me. List your favorite “best science” PBS program below – from the NOVA series, or Frontline, one of their big-budget one-offs, like this eugenics project…

And I’ll come back with a brief analysis.

If you agree that PBS managed to miss at least one very important exception to what they will most certainly claim to be ‘the best current theory,’ then you can buy me…oh… I don’t know. A puppy.

Or, something at A book, a bauble, or something fun, like a pornographic magazine made of gold.

Or, you can just say, “okay, you got me.” And we’ll be square.

Awaiting ye science noids with your love of jargon. I thank you for your relative politeness up front, and will return what I receive in kind.


Liam Scheff

Rules: Be polite. Post your show’s URL, and make your claim. IE – “This fairly and accurately represents the best research being done in [Fill in the blank] studies. No great exceptions were missed, and it presented its critics views fairly.”

If I cannot find one glaring omission that falsifies or severely damages the program’s major premise, I will acknowledge this and give the episode a gold star and a special write-up in a separate blog.

How the Earth Works: Plate Tectonics – A Beginner’s Guide For Experts

by Liam Scheff
July 2010

“From Soup to Nuts, Science Has it Covered” – Me.

“`Cheshire Puss,’ she began, rather timidly,as she did not at all know whether it would like the name:
however, it only grinned a little wider….Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?’
– Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland

“Earth is the only planet where subduction is known to occur. Without subduction, plate tectonics could not exist.” – Wikipedia – “Subduction”

Continue reading How the Earth Works: Plate Tectonics – A Beginner’s Guide For Experts

Japan Times Breaks Earth, Terrifies Science Elite

Extra! Extra! “Mainstream Newspaper Reports on Failures of Geo-physics; Skeptic Magazine, and Scientific Elite Get Big, Big Wedgie and Have Fit, and Scream and Call People Names, As Science Demands.”

How in the World…

Late last year, the Japan Times allowed its readers inside of one of the gigantic-ist fist-de-cuffs in the sciences as they pondered the question – Where did Milwaukee come from?

But not just Milwaukee – all of North America – and South America too! And even…Sri Lanka!

And that is the question: How did the Continents that we live on get to where they are today? Were they always as they are now? Have they moved? And if so, how did they do it? And why?

The Japan Times gives voice to a difference of opinion in the sciences, each representing ancient philosophical points of view.

The Ancient Argument

Two ideas have provided answers to the human imagination since time immemorial:

1. Things have pretty much always been this way. Nothing changes very much at all, and nothing changes quickly. God and/or Nature does not make leaps (or do anything to upset priests and scientists). Call it “Uniformitarianism.”

2. “Panta Rei” – Everything is Flux, (and that is the way of things, and the creative process, and even the Creator, however you name it).

The first idea has been the most popular with governments and churches and financial institutions, because their job is generally to take your money, and tell you that it’s good for you that they do so. And in order to do this, they have to tell you that everything is going to be alright, and it’s all under control.

The second idea is where reality makes its home. Everything changes. And that idea is…unsettling. And it does not speak easily of well-established anythings, but of a world and a universe which is inventive, expansive, and thinking, changing, creating….and destroying.

So, there have been two ideas of Earth’s formation:

1. It was always like this, just as it was made.

2. It has changed.

The Absolutely Truthful and Factual Scientific Mainstream Theory

The current “true and scientific” textbook-approved idea tells us calmly and assuredly that the Earth has always been the same size. The Earth does not grow, nor does it shrink. (This is very important to remember, because it is a “fact”).

But…the continents DO move.

That is, Africa/Europe and North-South America were once neighbors. More than neighbors…Oh, let’s just tell it like it is – They were living happily together, nous deux…And then….they grew apart.

– Reasons for the break-up: “I understand they just wanted to see other people.” “They seemed so happy together!” “It’s such a shame. I heard she was tired of his colonial oppression.” “Can you blame her? Did you ever hear the way he talked! Worse than Mel Gibson!” (please feel free to insert your Africa-America break-up joke here. Prizes will be given at the door, as you head to the parking lot. Remember to tip your waitress, and watch for bears, we’ve had some problems).

So, they “drifted apart.” Yes, tens of thousands of miles of deep thick massive continent set sail for parts unknown, over and over again. Seem strange? Well, it is a “fact,” so you are allowed to think it…and must believe that it’s true…But it wasn’t always so.

In truth, this very theory was once violently rejected by the scientific elite: “Impossible!” They screamed! “We can discover no mechanism that would make this so! Continents do not MOVE!!”

And as all good scientists do, they buried the notion for fifty years and called it “debunked, discredited and disgraced!”

And then they accepted it. But only after the originator of the hypothesis (poor Alfred Wegener) had died a lonely death on expedition in farthest Greenland, taking measurements, doing actual observational field work (if you can believe such a thing), trying to find evidence for his theory. And fifty years was about enough time for everyone to forget that it was the same elite that now claimed his work, who had decades earlier buried his research, before he was in actuality, deceased.

What made them change their minds?

War! What is it good for? Making new stuff, that’s what.

Undersea radar developed to hunt submarines during WWII gave oceanographers images of the deep sea floor. And they discovered that oceans, all over the world, are divided and demarcated by thousands and thousands of miles of volcanic ridges – fissures in the planet where the Earth upwells hot material and builds underwater mountains. Which they think look about like this:

“Golly, it sure looks like you could slide these continents right smack back together…don’t it?”

They’ve since dated the rocks in the picture, using magnetic changes as clocks, and colored them to show what’s new and what’s old. They now believe that the growth at ridges not only goes up, but also out – and pushes the oceans further apart. And so they’ve decided that the Earth is, in fact growing. (And now they get to ignore researchers who say that the ocean floor dating is not accurate – but that’s science!)

And so, “facts change.”

But, remember, the Earth cannot grow, because this is a scientific fact. And so, while they embraced ocean growth whole-heartedly, they also re-wrote the theory.

Because if the Earth were believed to be growing….well…It can’t be. Because that would just ruin EVERYTHING! Not only in the earth sciences, but in physics, chemistry – even in religion. If the Earth grows – if planets grow – then…gosh….Everything we think, or have thought about our place in the universe has to be re-examined. The universe grows, is creative, expansive…alive…??

No small thing. And not something anybody in the taxpayer-funded, ego-driven, reductionist sciences really wants to encourage. And so, the Earth does not grow. (And that’s a “fact” that must be defended).

The Hungry, Hungry Earth

The scientific elite embraced the idea of “expanding oceans,” and invented a model which would make sure that the Earth stayed the same size – in theory. They called it “subduction,” and it goes like this:

The continents would sit on the ocean’s floor (which is made of miles-thick dense, hard basalt), and this basalt would be EATEN – chewed up, sucked down into the bowels of the Earth – at precisely the same rate as it is created along those 70,000 KM of ocean ridges. Yep, it would be crunched under, masticated, and dropped into the depths of the planet –  the mantle .  (Where no one can ever check up on it, to see what is really happening. Very flexible data is ‘interpreted’ to fit the current model – and when it doesn’t fit with the model? Well, you’ll see).

– Super-flexy conveyor belt of scientific truth and factuality! (Actual planet may not resemble model. See your local agent for details).

In fact, these “subduction zones” have to be three times more destructive than the Earth is creative. That is, they must eat the planet’s 10 to 40 mile thick plates of ocean-wide rock three times faster than the ocean ridges can make them – because there are three times more ocean ridges than there are subduction zones. Go figure! That’s some craaazy planet!

“Munch Munch Munch!! Feed me ROCK!” – Mainstream Factual Earth Science Theory.

So crazy, in fact, that the blighted Wikipedia – where the scientific elite posts their edicts – has to say the following:

“Earth is the only planet where subduction is known to occur. Without subduction, plate tectonics could not exist.” [Wikipedia: “Subduction”]

Hey, that sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? (Does it matter that other planets do seem to grow?) Nope! Because Earth is special. Just like the Pope told Galileo. Special! And that’s science – true, factual, honest, and never arrogant. Never!

The Changing Truth

But, oh, sadness, sadness! Malheureusement, things have never gone well for this model, and most of these zones don’t really ‘subduct’ anymore.

What happened? Well, the model has changed, you see, because the model wasn’t working out. It wasn’t making accurate predictions, so they had to…change it. They couldn’t get RID of it! Don’t be absurd! Because the Earth cannot change size! Which is the most important thing, after all.

So here’s how it goes now: They’ve added something called “Flat Subduction,” which means that the big plates of Earth’s crust aren’t really “eaten” anymore, they just sort of ‘slide under’ the continents.

This is from a web posting by a Ph.D. candidate who is having to adjust her thesis model using the ‘flat subduction’ approach. It leads to…spectacularly speculative inferences:

“A resurgence in this magmatism resulted from more changes in the subduction geometry; in one model, the down going Farallon plate began to steepen again at ~40 Ma, allowing for more decompression melting and magmatism under the western United States; and in another model, only part of the plate steepens (like ripping a part of a sheet of paper in half, keeping one half horizontal and pulling the other down).

This model suggested that the “rip” or warp in the plate propagated south as the plate subducted, which accounts for the patterns of volcanic deposits produced during this interval (moving south and west-to-east at the same time). The second idea also explains the lack of volcanism south of the igneous “front” by having the steeply-dipping portion of the down going plate on the north side of the front, and the gently-dipping plate to the south.”

– Flexi-Tearable Split Paper Rubber Rox – It’s Science!

Ever see stone do that? (Me neither). But, it’s a “factual” theory, not “pseudo-science.” Can you tell the difference?

I’m going to take a walk later, and see if I can rip the road gently into two long strips, because I’d like one side of the road to go more steeply downhill, as it would make for a more exciting jaunt. It’s a scientifically factual possibility, after all.

Our Squiggly Play-Doh Planet

And so, it remains a “proven fact” that the Earth has always been the same size, and that the continents with their 400 to 600 kilometer deep solid granite roots have somehow split up and gotten back together, over and over again through inferred Earth history. They move, they shuck, they split, they jive, they squirm, they squiggle, they disappear and reappear.

You can watch the “factual” reconstruction, provided by National Geographic:

Hey, it’s a fact. And science doesn’t lie.

(Except when it does…which is whenever it has to protect itself from criticism and bolster a failing model…which is ever-so-slightly very very really super very often. Can I say “always?” Yes. I think I can safely say that today’s science “always” lies. But, it’s in our best interests, I’m really very slightly certain).

Let’s See What’s Behind Door Number Two

Here’s the alternative: The Continents have, in fact, stayed where they are, embedded with their 400 to 600 kilometer deep roots into the Earth, with the Earth expanding – growing – from underneath. Here’s how the artist and researcher Neal Adams presents it [Click].

And here’s an academic version [Click] by James Maxlow – a student of Sam Carey, who pioneered this field. Oh..right. Sam Warren Carey.

Sam Carey kicked the mainstream establishment’s derriere in the 50’s and 60’s to re-examine their burial of poor Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis. He’s the reason we have this theory. But he added: The continents fit together because the planet has Grown. And the mainstream…right. Buried him.

Maxlow’s Reconstructions

So, good for the Japan Times, for being out of the reach, for a moment, of the Papal-Scientistic Elite, who do everything they can to kill free intellectual discourse and examination of today’s ruling theories.

And what d’ya know, say the Devil’s name, and he appears. “Skeptic” magazine, that great defender of academic “facts” is here to let everyone know how absolutely criminal it was of the foolish Japan Times to talk out of turn:

“Case in point – three articles by reporter Jeff Ogrisseg in The Japan Times about the pseudoscientific notion that the earth is growing. I understand that The Japan Times generally has a good reputation as a serious news outlet, so that lends a high profile to the nonsense Ogrisseg is spreading.

I don’t expect science journalists to be experts – just to have a working knowledge of how science functions, and some idea how to figure out which ideas have merit and which are fringe.

Ogrisseg gets everything wrong, most significantly in how he misrepresents the process of science and how consensus is achieved in science.”

“Piddly Posh!! He just gets everything wrong! Boo Hoo Hooo!! Won’t somebody stop him?! Don’t listen to the bad, bad man!”

Want to meet the scientific elite? You can tell them by their wet diapers.

So, go read the articles by Jeff Ogrisseg at the Japan Times. They are very good, fair, and honest. They are a nice introduction to the controversy, to Expanding Earth theory, and to some – and far from all – of the failings of plate tectonics/subduction theory. The writer is open-minded, curious, and critical, and in today’s academic and news climate, that qualifies as being something else – Brave.

And so, I’ve written a friendly…oh, maybe not so friendly note to the manufacturers of “fact” at Skeptic. And so can you, if they’ll post what you write. They haven’t posted mine!

And I’ll leave you to do your own reading…

More on Tectonics, Torsion, Subduction Troubles, Sea-Floor Dating, Planetary Growth, and More…



In the Dark with Dark Energy, A Letter to Smithsonian Magazine

Smithsonian Magazine, the enjoyable and informative publication of the Smithsonian Institute, devoted some 6+ pages of glossy print to Richard Panek’s article on “dark matter” and “dark energy,” (a teaser for his impending book on the invisible subject).

Don’t know what dark energy is? It’s invisible. It can’t be measured. It can’t be seen. It exists because astronomers say it does, because they need it to. Why? Because it holds their version of the universe together. (Their version? Yes, their version – not the observable universe, but their current approved theory).

Am I being too hard on the dear lads at NASA? Let’s test my appraisal. The article features the following image, which will tell you all you need to know about “dark energy,” (which does not exist).

“- Michael Turner coined the term “dark energy” in 1998. No one knows what it is.”
Continue reading In the Dark with Dark Energy, A Letter to Smithsonian Magazine

Darwin's Free Lunch

Most people think that Charles Darwin invented or discovered the theory of Evolution. What he did, in fact, was to propose that, in essence, some things screw before they die, and some things die before they screw.

He called that equation “natural selection.”

Darwin took “change,” as in variation, as a given. It was ‘just so.’ No mechanism was described which might account for the modulation of protoplasm into structured form of every variety (‘most beautiful,’ says Evo-Devo, and I agree). That is, “the theory of evolution” which is to meant to explain the ‘why and how’ of ‘change over time,’ takes as a given ‘change over time.’

Q: What is Darwin’s theory of evolution?

A: Things change over time.

Q: How do they change?

A: Yes, they do.
Continue reading Darwin's Free Lunch

What is a “Law of Nature” – a Question for Neo-Darwinians

What is Nature?

(Neo)-Darwinists always talk about the ‘laws of nature.’ No question is too difficult to answer, because the answer is always the same…

Q: How did oxygen precipitate from a barren, heat-scorched earth and bind with nitrogen and hydrogen to somehow magically combine to make the first, and second, and two-hundred-fiftieth amino acid?

A: “Natural processes.”

Q: How did hardened, arrayed, differentiated, multilayered calcium outcroppings (teeth) emerge in soft tissue?

A: “Natural selection.”
Continue reading What is a “Law of Nature” – a Question for Neo-Darwinians

Endless Darwinism, Most Flexible

Endless Darwinism, Most Flexible;
A non-Darwinian philosopher’s review of “Endless Forms, Most Beautiful,” by Sean B. Carroll.
by Liam Scheff

published by W.W. Norton and Co. 2006
Amazon link.

Dr. Carroll likes his rock and roll, and he’ll give you an unwanted lyric from time to time, to let you know that he’s cool, as well as really smaht. The under-title of the book, and its constant refrain throughout – the rhyming, new-wave rock-sounding “Evo Devo,” gives the biggest hint as to what’s wrong with this ‘new’ science.

The clever, cloying catch-phrase will now be employed by undergraduates, and Ph.D. candidates everywhere, to describe a myriad of processes that they don’t understand. (They’ll just sound cute and clever saying it). Carroll throws it around blithely, to cover a variety of sins.

The trouble with the book isn’t what Dr. Carroll gets right. Indeed, things develop! There are patterns to that development. Those mechanical patterns can sometimes be elucidated, even described, even tinkered with to produce horrible, horrible animals (that researchers should be remorseful for causing to suffer, but don’t seem to care much at all).

The reductionists have named genes, described some intermediary functions, given clever, populist names to their ideas: Hox genes! Toolbox genes! Do they control the birth and regulation of the entire organism? Are the great mysteries solved at last!? Continue reading Endless Darwinism, Most Flexible

Are You a Polyphasic Liquid Crystal?

– Collagen Molecule

I want to share with you excerpts from several items I’m reading, more or less unfiltered. It goes like this:

We’re all connected, right? Everybody says so – somewhere beneath the surface, we’re ‘one,’ part of a single organism, being, entity. Everybody’s had an experience – touching, sensing, feeling, knowing – transmitting information, thoughts, feelings, ideas, images, across a room, in the presence of a friend, or someone you’re just meeting, or in a place, or waking from a dream, or in a dream itself… We’ve all had bits and images of feelings of connection and knowing and transcendence despite our rational selves…. Despite our ‘scientific, modern’ idea of an accidental, mechanical world – something we inherited from the 17th Century, caught in the wake of René Descartes’s Enlightenment discoveries of logic and method.

But to prove it? You can only say it, know it, feel it. Share it with people who understand. But prove it? Is there a ruler, a graph, a measuring stick for this sort of thing?
Continue reading Are You a Polyphasic Liquid Crystal?

Survival of the Survivingest, or Test Your Knowledge of Evolutionary Theory!

You believe in evolution, no? Yes? Right?

Right, of course you do. You’re an educated individual…

So, have you read Charles Darwin? It’s not so hard to do. You can read his work – all of it – for free, online, at various websites, if you have a computer (which evolved from the abacus, of course).

So, have you read Darwin? Maybe not? Probably not. But who needs to? Evolution is true. That’s apparent. Things change. Animals change over time. Legs become fins, fingers become wing struts, scales become feathers. And vice-versa. It’s just so. We come from things that we used to be. We used to be other things. Things change! And life is connected.


Sure, why not. Life is connected, certainly – to life, to itself. And it comes from… itself. It evolves from itself into…itself. Just differently. How simple! How self-evident.

But, what is the theory of Evolution?

Well, what about it? It’s self-explanatory. It’s not a theory, it’s a fact. And you do know it, even if you think you don’t. Venture a guess?

Survival of…
Continue reading Survival of the Survivingest, or Test Your Knowledge of Evolutionary Theory!

Peer Review Reviewed

I quote her with care, as she derails easily, but it’s a well-stated opinion:

“If there is any one way to confess one’s own mediocrity, it is the willingness to place one’s work in the absolute power of a group, particularly a group of one’s professional colleagues. Of any form of tyranny, this is the worst; it is directed against a single human attribute: the mind–and against a single enemy: the innovator.

The innovator, by definition, is the man who challenges the established practices of his profession. To grant a professional monopoly to any group, is to sacrifice human ability and abolish progress; to advocate such  a monopoly, is to confess that one has nothing to sacrifice.”

– Ayn Rand, “The Return of the Primitive”

Take that, peer review

On that note, and after years of observing it, I can agree that the value of peer review truly seems to be to repress movement. “Reproducibility” should be the measure of success in any venture, and reproducibility can be seen by any 3rd grader…

John C. Greene and Ernst Mayr, Dueling Philosophies of Science

I am just reading this: Debating Darwin – Adventures of a Scholar, by John C. Greene.

A wonderful mind. I regret that I didn’t look him up in 2007, when I first picked up the book…

Of all the writing in this book, his correspondence zings loudest and clearest, (as it does with many of us – we know our audience, and are trying to make our point with wit and force). His mind so nicely, cleanly and lucidly understands and separates the biologists’ fiction of having it both ways: That we have a supernaturally all-powerful, choosing, remaking, selecting and altering “nature,” always spurring on life to ‘greater’ accomplishment and ‘higher’ levels of expression; which we also and simultaneously must, by definition regard as a dead, ‘chance-driven’ evolutionary machine.

The book takes the form of several essays, together with long excerpts from considerable correspondences with two evolutionary biologists, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernst Mayr. Below is an excerpt from one exchange with Mayr.
Continue reading John C. Greene and Ernst Mayr, Dueling Philosophies of Science

The Dawkins Delusion

The Dawkins Delusion
Salvo Magazine, Spring 2007
by Liam Scheff

Everybody’s favorite atheist has been on the road selling his new book, The God Delusion. I’m talking about sharp-witted author and Oxford scholar Richard Dawkins. This is his latest in a long series (starting with The Selfish Gene in 1976) sharing a common theme – to expound the truth about life, the universe and everything, according to Richard Dawkins. Continue reading The Dawkins Delusion

Giant Steps – Dr. Lynn Margulis on Science and Evolution

Are accidental genome shifts the engine of change in evolution? Is species evolution a process of tiny steps?

“No,” says Dr. Lynn Margulis (Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst), in her stellar book Acquiring Genomes (written with Dorian Sagan), from their catalog of excellent work, which includes Microcosmos and her remarkable Five Kingdoms (a personal favorite, because it so satisfies the naturalist in me).

And so, what has led us in the wrong direction? What limits scientific practice and thought?

Politics, fragmentation and self-isolation. Continue reading Giant Steps – Dr. Lynn Margulis on Science and Evolution

Science Crossfire

By Liam Scheff
Salvo Magazine – Summer 2006

Here are three ideas that you will never see debated by the major media:

  • Was a bird-flu pandemic ever really likely?
  • Is AIDS in fact a sexually transmitted disease?
  • Does current evolutionary theory truly explain the diversity of life on earth?

Each of these widely-promoted beliefs is contradicted by more competing evidence than you can shake a stick at (from wide and varied sources), but you’ll never hear about it from the major outlets for science news – the New York Times, PBS, NPR, the BBC, or CNN – because the media simply doesn’t question the received scientific wisdom.

Because the major media doesn’t do science journalism the way it reports news.

When watch the news, we expect to hear crossfire and flak. We’re not flustered by divergent takes on policy. We feel that government business should be aired and battled over in the public sphere. We expect policy-makers and government officials to regularly submit to hard questions from the press, and to take the hot seat on the news shows.
Continue reading Science Crossfire