A number of years ago, in one of his many interviews, my friend Richard C. Hoagland came out with a line that he has since used many times, and rightly so. It is a line whose extraordinary and elegant concision justly and aptly summarizes his decades' research on the Martian surface anomalies and their extraordinary implications: "We may well discover that we are the Martians!"

Well, within the context of his decades of research into the Cydonian and other Martian and solar system anomalies, consider the following intriguing article:

\"We May Well Discover that We are the Martians...\"

Now, while the article is talking about a seeding via a meteor, and then the conventional evolutionary development, the scientific verification of a Martian-Earth connection, even in the evolution of life, would be a startling find.

Yet, while it would tend to provide a wider contextual support to researchers like Mr. Hoagland, Dr. Carlotto, Dr. John Brandenburg, and so many others that were assembled by Mr. Hoagland in the early days of the Mars Research project, and indeed, while it would provide a wider contextual support even to some of my own research (e.g., in The Cosmic War), I doubt very much whether Mr. Hoagland or Drs Carlotto or Brandenburg would take such a scientific find as a wholesale endorsement or confirmation of the wider implications of Martian anomalies research, nor should we. They are much too smart for that.

What it would indicate is that Mars does indeed, as our own ancient legends from Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome suggest, as countless NASA and ESA photos suggest, that there is something peculiar about the Red Planet, and that our past, our future - indeed, perhaps our entire history - is intimately bound up with that planet. Again, I believe that science is calling us, as a planet, as a species, to "do the right thing" here, and to "explore the daylights" out of that planet, and to make the results of that exploration known insofar as they do not involve national or planetary security issues.

All this to say, this is a story worth watching.

See you on the flip side.

Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Chris S on April 5, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Dr. Farrell,

    I’ve enjoyed listening to some of your interviews lately and I don’t doubt your capabilities as a researcher. However, I’m more than a bit dismayed by your endorsement of Hoagland. It has been definitively proven that he..uhh…*exaggerates* his credentials if not outright makes them up. He offers bold claims but refuses to accept and respond to legitimate criticsm. And he just makes incorrect point after incorrect point.

    For example, I was looking back on a previous post of yours in which you support his claim that the Explorer 1 reached an inexplicable orbital velocity:


    However, Hoagland’s calculations turn out to be incorrect and the actual velocity vs. predicted is not particularly significant. Hoagland appears to have censored corrective responses to his math on the Dark Mission website, which are available here:



    I would appreciate your comments, for I find your credibility unfortunately tainted by association with a man who is simply unreliable.

    • Joseph P. Farrell on April 5, 2011 at 4:52 pm

      Sounds like guilt by association to me. I have many disagreements with him, and do my own thing, as anyone knows who’s read my books.

    • Vinnie on April 6, 2011 at 12:49 pm

      Whatever faults or flaws he may have, his contributions have certainly outweighed all of them. What I love is that he makes you think and challenges you to do so and he’s been proven right more times than he’s been wrong.
      In a world of coverups and liars, we should treasure him and those like him instead of trying to bury them in the rubble of lies that surround us.

      • Chris S on April 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm

        Dr. Farrell,

        It’s not “guilt by association,” if you will, but “guilt by sourcing.” IOW, it’s clear to me that Hoagland has been shown to make so many errors, exaggerations, and un-evidenced assertions that I’d only be willing to go with him insofar as he is supported by the work of others (ergo, I am open to the artificiality of the Cydonia Face because of Brandenburg, Carlotto, etc, not because of RCH).

        My question would be, do you consider Hoagland a reliable and trustworthy source? In your previous post I noted, you apparently did with regard to the math concerning Explorer 1’s velocity. It seems his calculations are in error, unless you can refute the corrections on the other site I linked. You acknowledge you have “disagreements” with him, but is that a matter of content or also of method?

        I’ll try to be fair to RCH, even though I’ve seen much that makes me think he’s just plain crazy, and so I’ve picked up a copy of Dark Mission to look through. But his credibility faces a steep uphill battle.

        For what it’s worth, I’ve enjoyed the interviews on The Byte Show, which I’m now a little over halfway through, and you got me ready to read through some of the ancient texts myself. I’m not trying to equate you with RCH – I take you far, far more seriously than I do him! That’s why I’m perplexed and troubled, because really I’m not quite ready to take him seriously at all.


        What contributions? When and how has he been proven right? Based on my readings, he was wrong on the Explorer 1 calculations, he’s wrong on the 19.5 degree latitude pattern, he’s wrong on the occult timing of NASA mission launches, his mathematical relationships argument for the Cydonia “City” is flawed, he has presented no evidence for his “space Nazis,” and he’s wrong about the so-called “wall” on Iapetus. Some treasure…

        • Christine on April 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm

          “he’s wrong about the so-called “wall” on Iapetus”

          how so? The photos show a pretty obvious wall like thing, actually
          looks more like a giant welding seam, all around half of it if not more.

  2. marcos anthony toledo on April 1, 2011 at 11:09 am

    The problem is what was the original line up of the planets and has there been changes to that alinement Velikosky and with the new discoveries about three of Jupiter largest moons plus two of Saturn the whole idea of a golddylocks zone is thrown into question. How can we sure a private space venture would be more open than a state sponcer one given this country is really run by the rich and the powerful what we need is a open and honest public and private sectors to do the job.

    • Concerned Friend on April 2, 2011 at 11:56 am

      We couldn’t be sure that they would be open…but at least it would be open to more than one firm, as opposed to a single national space agency taking care of all space related agencies. Plus the incentive to reveal new findings is amplied by the potential additonal investment by the finance community that may come about as a result of revealing new findings (and opportunities to capitalize on them). Unfortunately, since NASA’s paycheck comes from the government, they are subject to whatever the “higher ups” want done.

  3. Paul De Gagne on April 1, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Remember the TV series, “My Favorate Martian” with Bill Bixbe and Ray somebody, I forget his name? Every once in a while this somebody would reveal his true identity to the tv audience. Two antennas would pop up out of his head. It was real funny.

    What isn’t so funny sometimes is: I know the reaction in many circles if I start mentioning some of Farrell’S work around my neighborhood given the low level, dumbing-down of Our Culture in America.. I will confirm my neighbors mildest suspicions. They will start looking at me like I had two antennas sticking out of my head. Like I was some kind of strange being from Mars. NOW THAT IS STRANGE!!!!!!!!

  4. Lily on March 31, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Um, national security?!? Are you crazy?!? What, are you a partisan of the national security state — a wannabe Nazi, then?!!!! Stop right there. You are making me sick!

  5. Bill on March 31, 2011 at 4:59 am

    In my view, we are the Martians. We colonized that planet in paleoancient times. The “Martians,” after some centuries, established their independent sovereignity (perhaps as the original Aryans, from their word for Mars, Ares?). The Cosmic War put an end to the Martians, the remaining Earthers, and possibly the exploded planet “Krypton.” Modern clandestine and powerful elitists are now in the process of recapitulating or in some way continuing that ancient Cosmic Interplanetary War as they sow the seeds of that formerly lost paleoancient physics for much the same reasons that our once great ancestors had done. Seems to be human nature, like it or not!

  6. Christine on March 30, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    To vinnie, I looked over Gary North’s article, and I have already read
    North decades ago and later rejected most of his crabbed position.

    1. nothing seemed to be preventing the phenomenon of business
    such as the Venetians. Though there was opposition to prideful
    ambition and lust for riches, and rightly so, and to outrageous range
    of profit from underpaying your workers, there was plenty of business
    going on.

    The industrial revolution DID depend on technology, and partly on
    the Calvinist heresy insofar as they could persuade themselves that
    they were doing the right thing when they underpaid and overworked
    people in England. But it also depended on improved communications
    like the printing press, and a greater range of discovery and sharing
    information, and certainty of getting paid for your inventions without
    having to hide them and use and sell the results only yourself.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent check on this. the patent phenomenon
    goes back to ancient Greece, and, surprise surprise, turns up in
    Renaissance Italy.

    Calvinism, insofar as it is economic, preaches a doctrine not unlike
    that of Job’s comforters, explicitly denounced by God in Person
    towards the end of the book, in that supposedly wealth shows you
    are virtuous and poverty that you are not virtuous. A little adroit
    selectivity and twisting of Scripture, and you can feel holy while
    you sip imported tea, eat off of gold plates, wear imported silks, and
    your inferior workers barely manage and those who couldn’t find
    work, or were made ill by work and can’t work, are obvious inferior
    and unvirtuous and it is not your place to interfere in God’s work
    in their lives and your own.

    2. The excessive interest in building wealth and the easy life,
    especially if done without consideration to sharing with the less
    fortunate, is a vice. Usually we hear of the self made man or woman,
    which is a nonexistent thing. Everyone gets where they get because
    someone will hire them, advance them, or buy their wares, not to
    mention that we stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, the
    inventors, the scholars, the teachers, etc. etc.All this is sin of pride
    and vainglory.

    And having sown the wind we are reaping the whirlwind, in the
    illness of sedentary life (I just read that type 2 diabetes didn’t exist
    70 years ago), and if you think the elites and those who pursue
    empire by economic means the bankers aren’t part of this whole
    thing, guess again.

    Everything you and Dr. Farrell – and I – decry on the world economic
    scene, and the military industrial complex and banksters, etc., is
    the result of such people pursuing their SELF INTEREST and
    managing to get laws written and interpreted so as to render
    themselves free of any meaningful oversight, in other words, they
    have near absolute liberty.

    Calvinism as far as economics goes,

    • Concerned Friend on March 31, 2011 at 2:41 am

      “managing to get laws written and interpreted so as to render
      themselves free of any meaningful oversight, in other words, they
      have near absolute liberty.”

      Liberty at the expense of another’s Liberty is not Liberty at all. This is a perfect example of cronyism.

      And they get these laws passed because their statist, paid-for intellectuals confuse the terminology that masks their actions and leads to people such as yourself to decry the supposedly “free” market without a thorough understanding (or even desire to understand) exactly what you are saying/advocating.

      • Christine on March 31, 2011 at 2:55 am

        what people do. world over, to ensure their self interest, is to engage
        in cronyism. that is why we have anti trust laws and stuff like that.

        that is why what we consider corruption and nepotism and bribery is
        endemic as tradition throughout Asia and Africa. Nothing to do with race,
        opposition to it exists there also.

        the uncontrolled free market without supervision, is at the mercy of
        the cronyists. that is why they scream for deregulation and privatization,
        so they can loot us more effectively, without easy means of redress.

        I used to believe the way you do about the free market, nearly non
        existent govt. as ideal, and so forth. That was a blind falling into
        the arguments of ideologues bolstered by a sense of know it all
        certainty. Thank God I have gotten away from that.

        The issue is not, is it done by govt. or private sector, but is it
        good or bad, does it work or not? doctrinaire “principles” invented
        out of thin air and advocated most loudly at various times by elitists,
        except when it is in their interest to argue otherwise, is useless.

        Notice something about the North article, unless I missed it, he
        NEVER mentions patents? THOSE when they are in play are
        what really advance societies, because when a person discovers
        or invents something, and has a patent, he or she has a govt.
        (meaning enforceable by practical force, not mere moral lectures)
        claim to prevent anyone using it without paying him or her, so
        no longer hides it from the world.

        As Liberty with a capital L, to say that what I describe is not
        liberty but cronyism, you miss the point. the elites have liberty
        FOR THEMSELVES. and that is all they care about. a little
        research will show you, that the Reagan era was the playground
        of the elites.

        • Concerned Friend on March 31, 2011 at 3:38 am

          “the uncontrolled free market without supervision, is at the mercy of
          the cronyists”

          Absent a true, free market banking/monetary system, potentially. But clearly the idea of market barriers means nothing to you.

          “The issue is not, is it done by govt. or private sector, but is it
          good or bad, does it work or not? doctrinaire “principles” invented
          out of thin air and advocated most loudly at various times by elitists,
          except when it is in their interest to argue otherwise, is useless.”

          According to whose morals? The ones created by the elites in ancient times? The only “principles” that the elites advocate are statist, through and through.

          “THOSE when they are in play are
          what really advance societies, because when a person discovers
          or invents something, and has a patent, he or she has a govt claim to prevent anyone using it without paying him or her, so
          no longer hides it from the world.”

          So true. Just ask the pharmaceutical and energy conglomerates.

          “elites have liberty

          Also the liberty to get their paid for intellectuals to scream “regulate! nationalize!” so then can configure rules that limit competition and give their own interets special protection.

          • Christine on March 31, 2011 at 3:59 am

            but they DO NOT scream regulate and nationalize! They scream
            free market and DE REGULATE and PRIVATIZE!
            what well have you been hiding in? Go research what went on
            under Reagan and later in the 1980s and the present scheme
            to privatize social security!

            They are not statist through and through. They are for themselves,
            through and through, and when statism works for that, they are
            statist. and when anarchism works for them, they are anarchist.

            the market is not a force of nature or a conscious and kindly
            demigod. It is merely the sum total of actions of individuals, and
            those actions are highly amenable to irrationality and to
            advertising and so forth.

            The reason an uncontrolled, unregulated situation is at the mercy
            of cronyism, and the elites fought tooth and nail against all govt.
            regulation until they were able to get in place there, look at the
            history of the union and worker safety movement before there
            were any laws to protect workers, and the more recent movements
            to prevent us being poisoned, the reason non control puts us at
            the mercy of cronyism, is

            1.if there are no controls, there are by definition no controls on
            how these people can get together and conspire against us,
            which is what Adam Smith said businessmen’s associations do,
            and he also said they should be illegal.

            2. since the self interest of anyone devoted to making money and
            ensuring constant growth, is to prevent competition, they will
            do so, using violence if necessary, and making sure that rules
            of evidence and such like laws make proving them guilty of anything
            impossible, and the law gets bribed anyway.

            3. without govt. providing patent protection, to force users of
            stuff under patent to pay to manufacture and sell them, inventors
            will go back to keeping secrets.

            May I add, back to what started all this, that if you are going to have
            privatization of space, not allow private efforts but not allow anything
            EXCEPT private efforts, it is going to be Halliburton and Bechtel
            with Xe (nee blackwater) and even worse out there running the scene.

            Assuming they aren’t already.

            Because these are the only people competent to do this in the first

            Or have you forgotten the whole Bankster-Nazi-etc. spectrum in
            Dr. Farrell’s books? I guess you haven’t connected the dots to the
            Republican machine’s darlings and all that.

    • Vinnie on March 31, 2011 at 9:09 am

      The point is that it’s individual liberty that allows for all the advances in technology and our material well being to happen. Unfortunately, those who always attach themselves to the productivity of others now have a vast amount of resources at their disposal to do what they always do…plunder and surpress others.
      What you need to come to understand is that there is a cause and effect between liberty and prosperity. The less liberty, the more privation and suffering for all of mankind.
      I don’t mind if you reject your own natural rights and liberties, but please, get out of the way of others who wish to peacefully contribute their talents and abilities to making their lives better, and as a biproduct, make the lives of countless others better as well.

      • Michael on March 31, 2011 at 10:10 pm

        Why are you squabbling about economics, when the article is cleary not an issue of money?

        • Vinnie on March 31, 2011 at 11:45 pm

          My original question was while it might be a great idea to explore the solar system, the most important question has to be who pays for it? If it’s done privately and without subsidies or tax money, I have no problem. My objection is purely the fact that to take someones hard earned money to shoot into space is no more moral than to wage war or welfare. When you talk about “exploring the daylights” out of something, it most certainly involves and comes down to money and who pays. How many billions would you consider to be the right price?
          Besides, I don’t see this as a squabble about economics. Just asking a question that no one has been yet to answer. Want to give it a shot?

          • Christine on March 31, 2011 at 11:51 pm

            a. who pays is whoever is involved in it, and in the case of taxes
            the public has generally been gung ho on space, besides, we
            have taxation WITH representation so as to control tax depredations.
            In an environment like ours, anti tax on principle is a concept that

            b. it is far more moral to take tax money for space than to wage war,
            and welfare is more moral still.

            c. in the interests of peace here, I am ignoring you.

          • Michael on April 1, 2011 at 12:37 am

            Sure, the money they use does not come from us. By ” us ” I mean the people if the USA who are not super rich. All of the money average Americans put into the system goes to pay the national debt. I am willing to bet not one dollar of your ” taxable income ” ,on the federal level, has been put twards NASA. You may believe it is but that is a lie, plain and simple. So your disgust with were your money is going is ill placed. Your argument is erroneous, and quite frankly your wasting valuable space on Josephs server.

          • Michael on April 1, 2011 at 12:40 am

            That goes for Christine and yourself.

          • Vinnie on April 1, 2011 at 7:21 am

            Then to you, Christine and Michael, don’t read what I have to say if it upsets you so much. Continue to quibble over where your money is spent, but don’t object to it being taken from you or others by force. Enjoy participating in the theft and distribution of stolen goods. Too you both the very best. I can live with all the misconceptions you’ve both got.

  7. Vinnie on March 30, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    An answer to
    Christine says:
    March 30, 2011 at 6:26 pm
    a mix of private and govt., with mining paying for it.

    in fact, we could solve our financial problems, if the govt.
    would just use some of the military manpower to mine
    resources in fed. owned lands, and distribute the results
    supercutrate to the general populace, as well as issue
    money backed by such, combined with capping and
    in some cases (medical and some other stuff) rollback
    laws on prices.

    Why reinvent Rube Goldberg’s wheel when the market will perform far better than any one of us or group of planners could begin to imagine? Liberty does work best wherever it’s been tried.

    • Christine on March 30, 2011 at 8:25 pm

      because it has already shown that it doesn’t. the market in fact often
      produces a total lack of liberty, when there is no oversight to control
      the depredations of debt slavers and price gougers, whose deeds
      are now so established as commonplace that our standard of what
      constitutes price gouging doesn’t incl. what is going on. The medical
      industry first, leading the pack, and the rest later, took up the weird
      accounting practices that Eddie Fitzgerald (discoverer of the $600
      toilet seat, remember?) said in The Pentagonists was developed by
      contractors, to guarantee that prices would increase year by year,
      whether they had to do so or not.

      usury is typical of the credit card industry, at 19 to 26% and this
      is legal because of some loophole.

      Total liberty and Zero oversight, would quickly mean a return to the
      conditions of the 1800s, and indeed, we would have to reinvent the
      wheel and reestablish what first unions fought for, and later legislatures
      mandated. Meanwhile countless people would suffer and die as
      happened back then.

      True, with an increase in infant and birth context death, and shortening
      of the lives of those who could not afford care, we would see the
      population decrease. Among the poor and borderline poor. Eventually
      the elites might notice they were getting short of workers and make
      modifications, because as Michael Moore in his hilarious history of
      the usa video says, the white people were afraid of hard work.

      oh, yeah, total liberty and no oversight and a free market and freedom
      to brainwash with advertising and propaganda you can afford to pay
      for, and freedom to fall for it and nothing to protect you against
      yourself, slavery would be back in play.

      It already is to some extent in other parts of the world, and even here,
      under cover.

      you live in a fantasy land, vinnie.

      • Christine on March 30, 2011 at 8:32 pm

        by the way, I am not talking about micromanaging PLANNING,
        but moderate intervention. handing out a “negative tax” and
        putting caps and rollbacks in place with free housing as
        compensation for those who can’t pay rent and require absolutely
        no one in management level is paid more than $200,000 a year,
        is not what is contemplated by elites. And it is not fascist
        economics, because it is not nationalizing all heavy industry and
        transportation and stuff of use to military future plans, and it is
        not communism for the obvious reason that a free market in
        the small level, private ownership, and so forth continues.

        But do you know why Russia had such a collapse? It was only
        partly because they sunk too much into trying to outspend us
        on military stuff, after all, that money gets paid to someone who
        spends it in the economy.

        It is because when the damn Heritage Foundation got in there,
        they persuaded them to move directly from a controlled economy
        where at least meat and bread went where it was needed, even
        if you had to stand in line for it, to an entrepreneurial system,
        for people with no notion of how to do it, and there was food
        lying by the road because there wasn’t a buyer any more where
        it normally would go.

        But at least the people did not own their houses with mortgages,
        or rent them, and therefore, they had a soft landing. They did
        not get evicted into the streets to freeze while they starved.

      • Vinnie on March 30, 2011 at 9:19 pm

        Might I suggest that rather than pulling pronouncements directly out of your hat, you should probably first do some serious reading in economics, free market economics so you’d understand how they work and that what you’re describing is a combination of corporatism and mercantilism, the very opposite of free markets and spontaneous order.
        I’ve followed your many posts and believe you should know that it’s not a crime to admit you don’t know everything.

        • Christine on March 30, 2011 at 10:22 pm

          I do not claim to know everything. But I have been doing serious
          reading for decades, incl. buying into the stuff you still believe
          in. I did not say that I valued total free markets and spontaneous
          order, nor is that mercantilism which we already have when
          a govt. contracts for services with a private company that does
          the govt.’s work for it in some sphere.

          I was watching things develop in Russia as it went along, and reading
          what people who were on site had to say, on the news. The rise
          of the Russian Mafia was faciliated by uncontrolled and unsupervised
          transition to free market stuff.

          The free market in a large measure has produced the kind of elite
          controls we have now, and always will. In a power vaccuum, in an
          economic vaccuum, the most competent rise to the top, and they
          may be those most competent at manipulation and killing.

          And, SELF INTEREST dictates they do not allow competition of
          any credible sort.

          • Vinnie on March 30, 2011 at 10:36 pm

            The problem we’re having is probably one of definition. If it wouldn’t be too much to ask, how about reading this link to get an understanding of what it is I’m talking about rather than a series of stories and anecdotes? Thanks in advance.
            “The Most World’s Important Unanswered Historical Question: “What Changed in 1800?”
            Gary North”

          • Michael on March 31, 2011 at 10:01 pm

            Why are mommy and daddy fighting?

  8. Dashiell Cabasa on March 30, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Well, Von Braun and co certainly thought so didn’t they Jo. That they were Martians that is. but as per with that crowd, didn’t include all of us of course.

    Parsons and crew also i seem to recall…

  9. Joe on March 30, 2011 at 11:51 am

    “explore the daylights” out of that planet, and to make the results of that exploration known insofar as they do not involve national or planetary security issues

    They always will

  10. Vinnie on March 30, 2011 at 7:35 am

    As fascinating and interesting a topic as this subject is, the question of “exploring the daylights” out of it boils down to one detail that never is fully explained… who pays for it? What justification is there for taking the money and the food out of the mouths of any of us trying to support ourselves and our families, to go to other planets, wage endless wars, transfer massive amounts to well connected corporations in the military/industrial complex, or for that matter to transfer wealth from one american to another? There are larger questions involved regarding little things like justice, property rights and individual liberty that never seem to be factored in when making up our personal list of pipe dreams. There are many things all of us would love to see, but we have no right to make anyone else pay for them. Unless someone is willing to pay for something, to take what is his by force is usually called theft.

    • Concerned Friend on March 30, 2011 at 9:27 am

      So then, let’s industrialize space. Let private parties launch ventures into space

      • Vinnie on March 30, 2011 at 10:42 am

        That of course is always the correct answer. But I doubt that a trip to mars at this time would be feasible without enormous and wasteful govt subsidies, which given the level of economic understanding of the american public would be considered one more bit of “stimulating” the economy. The saddest part is that no one seems to challenge the assumption that govt should have any involvement in “planning” the economy.

        • Concerned Friend on March 31, 2011 at 2:34 am

          With the physics and technology that Dr. Farrell writes about, it could potentially be feasible. Besides, how do you know that enormous incentives to industrialize space (such as new resources, space, “ruins”, etc) aren;’t being deliberately hidden from us by the Elites, only to be revealed if absolutely necessary?

      • Christine on March 30, 2011 at 11:23 am

        Riiiiiight. Here comes Weyland-Yutani Corporation (or the equivalent, say,
        Bechtel and Halliburton) with weapons department, rampaging lack of
        ethics, mad scientists, and, oops, xenomorphs running amok in short
        order, or some equivalent disaster.

        Some kind of government involvement and oversight is important, because
        the people, the public, have a direct claim on government, in theory, that
        they do not on private business venture. The press keeps things transparent.
        the people get upset. legislatures act, or existing rules are enforced.

        The value of democracy and a free press, is not so much that the voice of
        the people is the voice of God (it isn’t), but that more moral people in one
        location, who get outraged, can through the central government impact
        less moral people in another location, consider for instance civil rights
        and desegregation and women’s rights (other than abortion), and the
        periodic anti corruption efforts.

        • Vinnie on March 30, 2011 at 5:56 pm

          The question again is who pays for it?

          • Christine on March 30, 2011 at 6:26 pm

            a mix of private and govt., with mining paying for it.

            in fact, we could solve our financial problems, if the govt.
            would just use some of the military manpower to mine
            resources in fed. owned lands, and distribute the results
            supercutrate to the general populace, as well as issue
            money backed by such, combined with capping and
            in some cases (medical and some other stuff) rollback
            laws on prices.

          • Michael on March 31, 2011 at 9:51 pm

            That’s a somewhat misplaced question, the “what” is paying for it is much more interesting. Do you think all the money, or shall I say power, supplying these organizations is on the up and up? I would say no. Then again if you do not think in terms of dollars, because currency is just a symbol, what is fueling this machine? I would say dishonesty is what fuels this whole operation, if look at from its most base level, and the whole structure of dishonesty is quite profitable. Just take televangelism for instance.

  11. Antoine on March 30, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Avatar test

  12. Dave Walton on March 30, 2011 at 6:26 am

    It would seem that linguistic and etymological evidence exists that man came from Mars – although we may not have come alone. Both man (the vanquished) and, well, something else (the victors), settled on earth, via the moon, after the cosmic war. Thus we have two elites that survived, man and something else – the hybrids of which became the ancient kings. We have governments which consists of the upper house (representations from the gods) and the lower house i.e the “commons” in the UK (representatives of man). Government by a “covenant” (also where “coven” derives from) – why Britain are the people of the “covenant.” So what is the basis of this covenant between these two surviving elites? Herein lies the true nature of the global satanic network… of human sacrifice and blood drinking occult rituals engaged in by the elites (see Belgium Detroux case). The legend of the vampire is just that, a myth….right? Of course this is pure idle speculation… 🙂

    • Dave Walton on March 30, 2011 at 2:10 pm

      • Dave Walton on March 30, 2011 at 2:11 pm

        The Marc Dutroux sex slave case in Belgium named high ranking officials and Bilderbergers who were involved in Satanic pedophilia

    • Christine on March 30, 2011 at 2:44 pm

      two house governments derive from an accomodation between feudal
      hereditary landholders and monarchy and suchlike, and the common
      people (lower house). The hereditary situations developed over time,
      originally feudal lordship held from the king depended not on heredity
      but on showing one could fulfill the feudal duties that one’s father
      had done, as well as he had done, or it would go to someone else.

      as things settled down, and immediate military competence was less
      important, vassal landholding turned into a hereditary thing. Monarchy
      got more and more along with the uppermost class into a hereditary
      unchallengable position.

      Some monarchies were hereditary from the gate, others derived
      from a conqueror, for instance, William the Conqueror, illegitimate
      son of someone important, was not royalty, but became the first
      Norman king of England. The nonhereditary guarantee sort of
      thing tracks back to the dark ages.

      I think the Russian monarchy was less inclined to demand royalty
      of origin in its marriage choices, being still a bit barbarian ergo
      practical on the one hand, and perhaps due to the subtle anti
      snobbery influence of Orthodoxy (though it caved into that also).

      The original hereditary rulers who claimed divine blood, whether
      hybrid whatnot or pure b.s., were not likely to be too accomodating
      to peasants and hoi polloi, but perhaps to militarily competent
      immediate next down class.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events