Ancient Skull from China May Rewrite Origin of Humans

New analysis of an ancient hominin skull found in China may prove that humans originated in Asia or that two lines of Homo sapiens formed independently.

Source: Ancient Skull from China May Rewrite Origin of Humans

and the research journal publication for additional credibility:


Such is just further weight towards the notion that you must question everything!  It is never enough to believe what you are told — you must research, investigate, and analyse for yourself.  Draw your own conclusions.  Trust the words of a man in a lab-coat as much as you would those of a man wearing a sign stating “the end is nigh!”.



Cruel is nature

Check out  this video on YouTube:


Nature is obscenely cruel.  The very fact that nature is this insanely cruel also shows some of the reality of how the world around us operates.  Man currently functions as a virus, destroying its host — the Earth.  The insane parasitic infection within the mantis shows how many parasites elect against destruction of its host,  An intelligent parasite realises its reliance upon its host and fosters a co-dependence where it controls and receives all it desires of its host in exchange for allowing the host to continue to thrive and fulfil its essential nature: to procreate.


When will man evolve from virus into intelligent parasite?

Mysteriously, our genetic code stopped evolving 3 billion years ago | Ancient Code

Source: Mysteriously, our genetic code stopped evolving 3 billion years ago | Ancient Code


An interesting article.  Does such a cessation in DNA evolution imply a teleological origin for our DNA and perhaps suggest that Timothy Leary was correct in the notion that our future possible evolution, both as physical forms and as a consciousness, are already present and awaiting an activation within our DNA?


Where is the natural law?  In Mesopotamian myth, the gods created disease and other means by which the population of man would be restrained.  How has man then grown to such an extent that we outstrip the means of the planet to provide for our needs?

The tough question that must be asked is:  Is our humanity ultimately our weakness?  Evolution is impossible where the weak and feeble outnumber, subsequently overpowering through democratic fallacy, the strong.   What we have here is an ant-hill where the Queen is ruled by the workers.  Nothing ever gets done.

In humanitarian aid, do we stay the hand of natural law that otherwise would keep the population to manageable numbers and prevent overpopulation from ultimately bringing about our destruction?  The sustainability eco-warriors want to save everyone and everything, yet true sustainability comes only through adherence to natural law.  Sustainability is less of an issue if humanitarian socialism were to interfere less.

I vividly recall many Wildlife on One episodes, where David Attenborough explained how it was not the place of the camera crews to intervene in natures ways as they left some wimpering young animal to perish beside its dead mother.  We willingly practise euthanasia upon animals.  Why do we hold all of man to be above the natural?  To do so, we defy the basic law of evolution.  Such sees the herd outnumber the elite.  Democracy results from such a situation.   Socrates warns of the descent of government into it’s lowest form — that of democracy.  Out of democracy, the great tyrant shall arise and impose his will, birthing a new aristocracy.


Game of thrones indeed

Survival of the fittest. The smartest or strongest will win out. To the victor goes the spoils- to breed and harvest. The triumph and power.

This is Darwin. This is Nietzsche. This is Redbeard. The game of life is what we play and only those with the strength or intellect will emerge victorious. Plankton outnumber the whale shark by millions to one, yet the shark consumes at will.

Play the game well. Make your own rules. Step upon the throat of your vanquished enemy and ascend. That is the evolution of the species.


It is important that we allow the evolution of knowledge. Too much is reverence laid upon the teachings of the past and never given to contemporary thought.

Crowley, Nietzsche, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Levi etc… all lived and formed their great works somewhere in the region of 100 years ago. These seminal minds and works were entirely relevant then and remain so to this day. However, it must be held that the world is an entirely different place to that which was known by them- we have had two world wars, the nuclear age, the space age and the internet age have all dawned. We have began to witness the fruits of the seeds of mankind’s abuse of the ecosystem. It is therefore vital that we acknowledge and allow for certain aspects of the teachings of the great minds to be no longer valid- the herd has changed. The environment has changed.

We must accept that some philosophers and adepts will evolve the ideas formed 100 years ago and in doing so- make them more refreshed and relevant to the present. The mechanisms have altered and the theories must be adapted accordingly. It is incorrect therefore to dismiss the ideas of a contemporary simply because we place greater reverence of the old masters. The testament of time is not a hallmark of brilliance- it is simply an easy assessment criteria for those unable to make their own critical reading of the works. If you cannot discern what remains relevant and adopt or evolve that which does not- then you may be better off not wasting your time reading works beyond the full comprehension of your intellect. Nietzsche did not accept the works of his predecessors- he read them critically and evolved his work out of agreement or disagreement to them.