Graham Hancock - TEDx Talk - DMT, Life after Death & Consciousness
Graham Hancock - TEDx Talk - DMT, Life after Death & Consciousness.
Graham Hancock - The real widespread war the rages every day is a war not for anything more than our consciousness and it affects everyone under the top 1%.
Take hold of humanity by the balls and the mind and you've got them in a non real trap - supporting a system the kills and plots bloody murder each day and hides the tracks of it's existence to cover and distort the truth and to keep YOU from finding the simple answers to free energy and the simple answers to cancer cures and to keep you bound by the state affairs called 'the economy' that is completely manipulated.
A wise man once said - the devils greatest trick is convincing you that he doesn't exist. Most men and women today fall at the feet in Stockholm syndrome fashion begging for mercy to the lord money.
It's no wonder that life follows the events written out in the bible - for life is predictable and the cycles of it are also predictable - many people know more than we could possible hope to know about the reality we live in - as the events that occur follow the book to the word like a comical magicians tale - we buy into different factions of the same system, be it through science, religion, or history.
Money was never the solution and is fast becoming the demise of this planets eco systems and health for profit. Little do we know that we have enough food, we have enough resources and we have enough health to be able to achieve monumentally amazing feats of life if we worked together.
Unfortunately the entire system is designed to keep us from discovering any truth. Business is built on secrecy and without it - it could not survive.
The evolution of Open Source and Free Energy are putting a strangle hold on the system. While the top bankers of the world are committing suicide "being killed" we stand by and watch ... as we've been programmed to do by fear mongering governments who constantly put out a barrage of fear each day in the air in forms of audio, sound and energy in the air.
Any person who is slightly spiritual will tell that fear in it's single powerful form is enough to keep you from experiencing almost all things spiritual or scientific.
The real human deficit is lack of human experience and lack of knowledge and lack of spirituality. The universe is a spiritual "conscious" thing, we are a mirror of the universe. We must align or be forgotten.
Understanding is easy if you have the ability to really questions your "knowledge" and "beliefs" ... and have the balls to create new ones the SERVE the planet and that SERVE humanity as a whole.
Only then can we truly experience our greatest potentials that lay dormant and suppressed by thousands of year old Science invented to do just that. Control the masses for the gain of the minority.
Harvard Medical School scientists need a female volunteer willing to give birth to a genetically modified Neanderthal.
(NaturalNews) One of the world's leading geneticists wants to bring back an extinct human species by Cloning it from reconstructed DNA, then implanting the resulting embryo into the womb of a human woman.
I think the children belong to one of the guys that came to help him with the work at his new DAL. Sometimes he has his grandchildren with him though. If you would have listened to the part before ....
I think the children belong to one of the guys that came to help him with the work at his new DAL. Sometimes he has his grandchildren with him though. If you would have listened to the part before the skit you would have seen Kent introduce the young lady as the daughter of one of the guys. I am assuming that the boys in the skit are her siblings. They must have practiced this before they showed up. I thought the message in the skit was very anointed by God. I'm hoping somebody gets it anyway. May the blinders come off of all who hear this.
If you thought for a second that the political forces that are against Donald Trump are going to stop even if they succeed keeping him from running against Hillary, you better watch this video, and pass it on. There's more at stake than the ignorant duma$$ Republican traitors backing Hillary in the POTUS election. Thanks to Obama, and Geo. Bush the Government is littered with the enemy like the one highlighted in this video.
Can't imagine why she is surprised by the hard looks, and stares from people who read constantly about groups forming on the street, or in a restaurant, and to have someone from a particular persuasion join them only to be blown up because that person had explosives hidden in there clothes.
No excuse for the half brain jerks with half a brain.
Posted on November 17, 2011
The Declaration of Independence declared the position of our Founding Fathers that all men have been “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” This is one of the most important, but perhaps the most overlooked, ideals set out by the Founding Fathers. Many suppose that we could hold to the ideals of the Founding Fathers without a belief in God. In other words, they believe that we can fight for individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (or of property), while denying that these rights have been granted by a divine power, or that a divine power even exists.
Yet this idea that a Creator, or God, granted these rights, although often overlooked as poetic phrasing in the Declaration of Independence, is the first foundational building block of the philosophy of our country. For, if these rights were not granted by our Creator, where did these rights originate? If these rights were granted by our Creator—who possesses power and authority far greater than any found on earth—then no power on earth can remove those rights and no one can, with impunity, infringe on the rights of others.
Does anyone suppose that these rights originated with the first person that is believed to have developed through evolutionary theory? This would stand in direct violation of nature’s laws. Evolution is based on natural selection, not equality. In natural selection, the more dominant person would be seen as wielding greater power and influence. Most of the history of human society has demonstrated that natural selection is the standard for elevating one person over another and justifying the domination of one group over another. The group with greater power and technology is able to exert influence and control over those groups with less power and technology. It is impossible that such “unalienable” rights could have originated from a process of natural selection. Had those rights originated from such a process, they would, of evolutionary necessity, be prominently regarded throughout all societies.
If these rights are not to be found in evolution, then, it seems, these rights are contrary to the natural and unchecked development of humankind. The natural development of humankind has always run contrary to the laws of God. Whereas the nature of humankind tends towards selfishness and domination, the laws of God teach us to seek a higher level of civilization. This level goes beyond the fulfillment of needs and includes a level of morality that transcends the restriction of action, which can be imposed by government. It leads people to change the intentions of their hearts.
If we were to suppose that these rights were granted by evolution, we must also suppose that they could be removed by the same principle as soon as someone with greater power determines that these rights are no longer suited to the ongoing survival of our species. Only through our Creator, and not through evolution, are these rights maintained.
Perhaps others suppose that the Founding Fathers gave us these rights at the foundation of the country? Yet this supposition suggests that the Founding Fathers had the power and authority to grant these rights in the first place. If they provided these rights to us, from whom did they receive the authority to bestow these rights on us?
Certainly, the Founding Fathers were not allowed these rights by virtue of their status as citizens of the colonies of Great Britain, for it was complained in the Declaration of Independence itself that this was not the case and that these God-given (not government-given) rights were violated. Had these rights been observed by Great Britain, there would have been no basis for the declaration to be issued and we may assume that the Founding Fathers were rebels attempting to usurp power that was not their right to possess. However, if God had granted these rights to each individual, including those in the American colonies at that time, then they were justified in their declaration of their intent to govern themselves, rather than to continue to suffer the abuses of which King George was accused.
If these rights had been granted by the power and authority of a government, established by the actions of mortal men, then a government could likewise determine that it was no longer in the interests of that government to maintain those rights. That government would be justified in such a decision, as the authority to remove rights would be inherent with the source that granted those rights. Again, it is only through our Creator, and not a government or its leaders, that these rights can be maintained.
A question came to my mind was: What do we expect from life? Many will give answers about providing for and raising a family, living in peace, enjoying friendships, pursuing interests, being productive, living according to our own conscience, or practicing our religion. In response, I would ask the questions:
To what extent could government be helpful in pursuing these ideals?
At what point does government begin to inhibit the pursuit of these ideals?
As we consider how the rights to life, liberty, and property help us to pursue these things, we must also consider how government can best serve us by protecting us from those who would infringe on these rights. At the same time, protection from others must be balanced with limited loss of these rights to the government itself for that protection. Otherwise, what purpose does the government serve if we would lose less to each other in a state of nature than we would to the government?
The purpose of a government is not to provide us with life, liberty, or property. God has already endowed us with these rights. The purpose of a government is to protect the rights we already have from those who would unjustly take them from us. When the actions of another take away my property, he is also violating my right to that property. When a person prevents me from the free exercise of choices according to my conscience, that person is also violating my right to liberty. When the choices of another threaten my life, they also violate my right to life. When these rights become skewed and a government is assumed to provide a right, rather than preserve it, the ground is tilled for tyranny.
Instead, when the role of a government is limited to protecting rights, rather than providing us with their outcomes, the rights remain with the individual to care for according to their stewardship to God, who granted those rights.
Well, I'd say it's because the aliens posing as the 'elites' at the top level (there are plenty of human flunkies though) don't want us to know the truth about any of our history and consequently give that 'science' carte blanche, to make up versions that fit their agenda.
And I'd say, it took those 'gods' probably around 2,000 or so years to adapt us, since they manipulate energy at the molecular level and so can adapt DNA stuff and yes, they considered their need for us (just the body part) critical.
More accurately, people of European descent and all others are "devolving" fast which is the opposite of what the theory of evolution purports. Natural selection is able to sometimes protect the genome and weed some of this "devolution" out, but does not add new information to the dna which would be required for actual "evolution" to take place, something which is indeed mythical.
I think Stephen Meyer has made an excellent case for Intelligent Design with his two recent books.
His argument is largely based on information bearing properties of DNA and RNA. Random forces can only produce so much specified information. It seems even the most simple biological organisms require a lot of specific information in order to function.
I think if cells and their structural hierarchy were determined by a bunch of complex chemical reactions then Darwin's theory, for the most part, would have more ground to stand on for explaining the history of life. It seems to me Darwin's theory only superficially explains the origin of species.
Cells are not just complex chemical reactions. The genome has digital codes that direct functions much like hardware and moving machines are directed by binary code.
After reading his books, it has become common sense to me.
Sometimes, things go tits up. Things have definitely gone tits up with me in the past. I’m saying this because when I was 15, I asked God if I can understand life, and eventually after all of my troubles, I believe that I really do understand life! All the same, life is really good when we understand it.
I have to be honest, I don’t believe in God anymore. What I do believe in is respect, because even if I don't believe in God, God may exist.
If you would like you read the introduction, and first chapter of a book I'm writing, please do. I have a page on Facebook called ‘The Understanding of Life’.
Scientist and evolutionist have concluded that evolution should be an on going process, but it is not. Both parties have come to recognize and admit that life is a continuous cycle of producing sp ....
Scientist and evolutionist have concluded that evolution should be an on going process, but it is not. Both parties have come to recognize and admit that life is a continuous cycle of producing species that are specific to their own kind. This is in harmony with and consistent with what the Bible says in it's first book called Genesis. The 1st chapter of that Bible book backs up these scientists and some evolutionist say that: All things are produced according to their own specific kind.
As far as the adaptability of humans living under different environments and areas on the earth, we were created that way. Our human body is amazingly equipped to survive under mild to adverse conditions as long as we have the necessary things that will sustain us.
Due to hereditary factors and not evolution, insignificant subtle changes like color, size, and small physical changes will take place over a period of time. Due to cross breeding or inbreeding of the same species these very insignificant and subtle changes occur over a long period of time due to hereditary factors of that particular breed or species.
Someone gave the argument in support of evolution saying: "Look at the vestigial organs animals have." They said, "Whales have wrist bones and fingers in their flippers. The blow holes in some whales have tiny vestigial nostrils next to them, the remnants of a land dwelling mammal's nose." In support of Creation by a loving God, I reasoned this way: If that's the case why don't or haven't people today inherited the same features and characteristics of the whale. Why aren't half whale, half humans born today? After all they are suppose to be our so-called alleged ancestors from the waters of the earth. The infamous myth of a mermaid or merman.
How do you account for no evidence of an orange evolving into an apple, or pear? Everything is produced or was/is created according to it's kind; thus evolutionist and their supporters have no concrete, logical, clear proof or evidence that life as we know it is a result of the falsehood of evolution.....In response to my reply this person said: "People are not born that way because that's not how evolution works. Species branch off and separate. Humans and whales branched off a very long time ago....." My response to this person's reply was: If that's not how evolution works then creation is definitely the rule of thumb. Everything according to it's kind, breed, species or type never really evolved. Again factors of hereditary come into play....Also, why is it that we as humans cannot swim at the deep depths that a fish or whale can for long periods of time? How did humans skip from being water mammals to land breathing mammals or humans? Where's the concrete connection? HOW COME OUR DNA AND RNA IS NOT LIKE THAT OF A WHALE OR EVEN LIKE THAT OF AN APE OR MONKEY our so-called ancestors? SHOULDNT/WOULDNT THERE BE A LINK CONNECTING US TO OUR WATERY SO-CALLED ANCESTORS? THERE ARE NONE :). Why can't fish and whales live for long periods out of water? Why didn't they adapt to land and why didn't we adapt to the water and be able to swim like the fishes and whales of the sea and ocean deep? The simple truth is, is that in both cases, the whale and humans were created distinct from each other. The whale was meant for the water. Humans were created to live on the land.
Evolutionist and their supporters are making a very simple explanation of how man came about, into a very confusing, mind boggling riddle that is open to all kinds of human reasoning and eventual discoveries of fraud.
The simple plain answer and truth about mankind's coming into existence is right at many peoples fingertips....The Bible, in it's first book called Genesis and the first chapter.
Challenge the message and not the messenger! The first person to resort to name calling and personal attacks automatically loses the debate! Personal attack is often the best indication that the writer knows his logic is flawed and therefore tries to deflect attention by attacking the opponent, instead of attacking the arguments of the opponent.
Forum Stats: forum viewed 2,141,467 times 5,386 messages 623 topics topics per page limited to: 20 average number of messages per page: 174 31 pages