“Know we do not have many of the answers you were told we have, and that many of the answers provided in schools, universities, and in houses of worship are deliberate distortions of a reality kept hidden from the Earth-human for thousands of years now. Seek the liberating truth.”

- A Time of Change, Volume 2

Our civilization has been afflicted with disharmony for as long as history books could recall. Earth people waging war after war against fellow man and Mother Nature, a global community extremely divided, outrageous economic discrepancies and an artificial class stratification, that did not just happen. This is not the natural order of things, and it does not have to be the way it is in perpetuity.

For thousands of years humankind has been existing according to a false perception of reality, and this too was no accident. To generate change that benefits the greater good, Earth-humans must break free from the constraints of this manufactured illusion that keeps them trapped within the current system, and to succeed they will have to figure out how we ended up where we are today.

Someone once reminded the world that a certain truth is bound to set everyone free by reconnecting us to our true origin, true nature, and to the real purpose of being. A Time of Change is an open invitation to the people of the planet to acknowledge liberating truth they have been deprived of for a long time now. Then the world will not just look different. It will be different.”

- A Time of Change, Opening Statement

“You must do something to make the world more beautiful.” – Miss Rumphius


The first of the three volumes should be made public in the spring of 2021. For more about the book see the articles and the excerpts below. To receive new posts when published, including announcements about its release, enter an email address in the window provided and submit. The blog manager has no access to your email address.

Thursday, April 8, 2021


In an article published on online recently the readers were made aware that,

"Lightning strikes on the early Earth over the course of 1 billion years could have been key to the formation of the first life on our planet, according to a new study." 

So, what was this "new study" about? A group of scientists shared with the world the "novel" idea that lightning might have started a process that led to the appearance of life on planet Earth, and yet after more than 160 years from the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species, what they mean by life is still a mystery. 

As the title of the paper published by the researchers implies the study does not come even close to explaining the formation of the first life forms. It only suggests, key word, repeat lightning strikes over 1 billion years might have been, another key word, "a major facilitator of prebiotic phosphorus reduction on early Earth." That assumed development supposedly opened the door to an alleged process of evolution that over millions and millions of year would produce the amazing diversity of life forms we have today on this planet, thousands of different mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes, insects, and yes, humans too. Except that, contrary to what evolutionists are claiming, there is zero evidence this is what happened. Meanwhile, they teach evolution in schools and universities as if it were an actual fact.

The same article says that, 

"The new study — in the journal Nature Communications — suggests trillions of lightning strikes spanning about 1 billion years helped create phosphorous, a key ingredient in the formation of life." (Lightning strikes as a major facilitator of prebiotic phosphorus reduction on early Earth, by Benjamin L. Hess, Sandra Piazolo, Jason Harvey, March 16, 2021) (axios.com)

Nature Communications is an open access science journal, and that calls for one being extremely circumspect about everything published under its patronage. Open access means, you pay, they publish your paper, the paper gains some measure of credibility because it has appeared in a science journal, and you can claim now you are a published researcher. This opens the doors to book publishing and to the lecturing circuit where you will diligently promote your book. In addition to that, somebody is going to quote from your published paper to make a point in line with the old adagio, evolution is fact, fact, fact, as the people at Axios did. In other words, you pay to have a so-called research paper stating something that someone would reference in order to make the case for evolution even though reality tells a different story about biological gradualism.

The open access science journals claim they peer-review every single submission. In A Time of Change, Volume 1, among many others, the topic of open access science journals is discussed in detail in relation to the fact less known by the large public that there are huge problems with peer reviewing. Along the time, there have been a number of tests conducted by certain scientific organizations and journals to make sure the open access system is credible and reliable. The results, however, were not exactly reassuring. 

One of those tests was conducted a few years ago by Science magazine, and to that end they used a spoof cancer study containing errors any honest reviewer would have easily caught. Despite those obvious errors, a significant number of open access science journals agreed to publish it, for there is money to be made in the science paper publishing business too, over one hundred of them, and while they claimed they were peer-reviewing everything published, many of them did not and they published the faulty study errors and all. 

About this "new study" on the effect lightning might have had on the appearance of life on Earth, Benjamin Hess, one of the authors of the paper declared that, “This work helps us understand how life may have formed on Earth and how it could still be forming on other Earth-like planets.” The first problem with his claim that jumps right at you, aside from the already mentioned here significance of evolutionists always having that "may have" as part of the sentence, is that the new theory they came up with is actually decades old and everyone knows it. This makes one question the real intent of those involved in the study. 

According to an article published in Sky News in 2016,

"For nearly nine decades, science’s favorite explanation for the origin of life has been the “primordial soup”. This is the idea that life began from a series of chemical reactions in a warm pond on Earth’s surface, triggered by an external energy source such as lightning strike or ultraviolet (UV) light." (Have We Been Wrong About Life's Origin, by Arunas L. Radzvilavicius, at the time a Postdoctoral Researcher in Evolutionary Biology with the University of Pennsylvania; On that note, another thing discussed in the book, to give the theory of evolution an otherwise false aura of academic legitimacy, as one can see, biology is no longer biology. It is "Evolutionary Biology," and yet no one could tell the difference.)

Are we to believe the scientists associated with the "new study" were completely in the dark about the fact that in the past 100 years other scientists would once in a while propose the same thing, that lightning may have caused life to miraculously appear on our planet, and that same as the authors of the "new study" none of them had any idea if this did, indeed, happen, or how it happen while other scientists have concluded based on tests conducted in a laboratory, also many years ago, that this could not have happened?

They assume things all the time, could have/may have, because they either have no idea what happened, or they do not want to share with the public what even they know. Evolutionists are confidently throwing around 
such non-factual concepts as abiogenesis, something supposedly describing the spontaneous birth of life forms from chemicals and other amorphous material, pretty much another definition for miracle, and speciation, which is gradual evolution spelled differently. In reality, as basically even the authors of this study admit no one actually knows how life has appeared on our planet, a reminder of the fact that Darwin's On the Origin of the Species does not address the question of the origin of species and that the title of his book is a false label placed on an empty box. 

To have a life form, any life form, you would first have to have its DNA, and the origin of the DNA is a capital problem for the theory of evolution, another something no one wants to talk about. Someone did talk about the origin of the DNA, though, and that was no other than 
Francis Crick, its co-discoverer and a Nobel Prize recipient for that very reason. According to him, and he stated this in his published book, the DNA was produced outside planet Earth by an advanced civilization. Considering that the DNA contains coded information, this is something Lady Evolution and Aunt Natural Selection, two imaginary characters in a fictional story presented as fact in schools and universities, precisely how the six-day fictional creation story in the Bible is described to trusting churchgoers would be incapable of putting together. On the other hand, according to both genetics and field theory, Crick's assertion makes perfect sense

When we also consider its amazing information storying capacity, that the DNA acts during the process of reproduction in conjunction with its printout, something called RNA, and the fact that someone has placed within our general biological system genetic devices that make sure the copying of the genetic information during the reproduction process is done correctly so that no mistakes, no "evolutionary" mutations happen, it is hard to believe scientists have not yet figured out that the DNA could not be a chance product of adaptation to changes in the environment, a claim that comes in conflict with the very standards imposed by the scientific method of research. It is either that, or they do not want to admit to the reality this Nobel Prize recipient describes in his book.

Most everyone in the scientific community would agree, off the record of course, the claim that gradual biological evolution could occur spontaneously in nature and that on top of everything else it occurred over millions of years does not just defy common sense. It is biologically and genetically impossible, and, once again, one does not need to be a biologist or a geneticist to be able to understand that. Common sense does the trick just fine. 

Random natural events do not code genetic information, nor could an assumed process of adaptation cause changes in an existing genetic code during the life of the species. As most of us know, this is something only a genetic engineer could do. Then there is the indisputable fact that, to be able to exist and reproduce as a species, you would have to have all you organs together and in working condition from day one of you setting foot on this planet. If you don't, you are the last generation of your species, whatever form or shape you are in as a species since, according to evolutionists, once again, your organs and functions would be in a transitional stage for millions of years. 

As publicly admitted even by some of those on-again, off-again supporters of Darwinism, with American evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould being one of them, there has been a code of silence imposed on scientists on this subject, something similar to the UFO phenomenon 
and the contacts we made for thousands of years with extraterrestrials being a taboo topic for the media. Albert Einstein, for example, would often weigh in on all sorts of topics of great human interest. He has never discussed though evolution publicly, one way or the other, and yet we know for a fact he was well-aware of the controversy. 

The standard explanation, as acknowledged by Gould, is one does not want to tell it the way it is for that gives comfort to church creationists. For a rational human, church creationists have done actually a pretty good job at destroying the appearance of legitimacy of the institution of religion and of its dogma from the moment it was established, no redeeming chance there either. In other words, the current rule of the game is, you either support in public an otherwise undefendable theory of evolution, as described by molecular biologist Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, or you keep quiet about the huge problems with the theory. The alternative to that is you risk being ridiculed, your books are not going to be published, and you may even end up loosing your teaching job. As it turns out, though, not everyone abided by this rule.

The code of silence imposed by or rather reinforced through the academia resulted in the fact that only scientists that happen to have a very intimate association with what some would call religion, belief in some kind of deity that is not always one and the same with the god of religion are being heard speaking against evolution, and even though some of them are Nobel Prize recipients in all sorts of science related fields, the evolution propaganda machine calls them creationists and invites the public to dismiss on account of that their otherwise valid scientific argument against gradualism. 

The other problem with the fact that evolution propagandists are claiming only creationists state evolution is no fact, many churches, with the Catholic Church and the Church of England being on top of the list are officially endorsing these days evolution. As you are going to see in A Time of Change, they do not do that because they sincerely believe evolution is fact, almost nobody believes that and we have the Gallup polls to prove it. And while we have Catholic Church officials on record declaring evolution the best available explanation for the existence of the universe (obviously false) and everything in it (obviously false, biological evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe and everything in it), this endorsement comes with a caveat. The no so subtle implication is, as long as their god was in charge of the process, evolution happened the way Darwin, a god believer, said it happened. 

The actual reason why they would rather endorse evolution then have intelligent design discussed in science class is that they want to protect a status quo their multi-billion-dollar preaching industry that also happens to be a reliable instrument of mass mind-control depends on. For, and this may cause a shock to most churchgoers, the other actual reason why church creationists endorse these days evolution is the same reason why a few years ago they surreptitiously abandoned their support for intelligent design. 

Indeed, creationists and evolutionists were equally happy when at the end of the 2005 trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, a judge of no scientific expertise officially banned discussing intelligent design in public schools under the false pretense that ID was religion. Not according to Socrates, who was sentenced to die because he was critical of religion and of religious authority and who made a non-religious strong case for design some 2,400 years ago, and not according to dozens of bona fide scientists along the entire known history of our civilization all the way to present days. He also declared evolution a sound theory, for a judge's court is where you go when you want to establish if a scientific theory is fact or fallacy. Everyone needed though the ban because, in reality, ID stands exactly for what Francis Crick said in Life Itself about the origin of the DNA, and that too has nothing to do with religion: The DNA is not from Earth. It was created by an advanced civilization.

Significant positive change in the way we exist on this planet is much needed, and it could only be the result of a significant improvement in the way we understand our origin, the nature of reality, and the purpose of life. Meanwhile, the protectors of the status quo continue to allow every new generation to be indoctrinated with religious irrational, at the same time issuing science papers on practically inconsequential "new studies" revealing decades-old "new theories." The studies are conducted by scientists with credentials and their inconsequential results are published in impressively named science journals to give them the aura of credibility they are after. This is how someone out there keeps the public's attention away from what is really at stake here.  

A Time of Change is a 3-volume book of knowledge that took 15 years to complete. Its first volume will be made available on this website, free of charge, before the end of spring of 2021.

Friday, March 5, 2021


 Originally published on June 6, 2020. Revised on March 5, 2021

This topic has been part of the manuscript for at least 10 years now. The discussion has evolved in form and content, and this is a sample of a much ampler analysis of slavery in America and all over the world. I am posting it because it is a subject forced-surfaced in the public's consciousness every election year and rarely before or after that. Truth is often difficult to accept not just because it changes our perception of reality, but because it leaves us with no other choice but to change the way we exist. 

"Not for a moment minimizing the significance of an institution of slavery that has been part of the economic system for thousands of years now all over the planet, one other significant fact overlooked by black ministers, black politicians, and by white politicians fighting racism during the electoral campaign yet never before or after that, not only that free blacks too owned black slaves, white slave owners were actually a minority among the white colonists. According to existing records, a majority among the white population of the pre and the post-Independence War did not owe slaves. An 1860 census shows that the year before the Civil War started even in the states of the Lower South and the Middle South, the first ones to secede from the Union, only 30.5% of the population owned slaves while in the Border States slave-ownership was even lower: 15.9%. This should give those who indiscriminately vilify today the entire white population of the country for what only a few would have been responsible of some two hundred years ago reason to revise their attitude. There is plenty of blame to go around, more so when slavery was and still is condoned in the holy books of our religious institutions, and when, once again, free blacks and Native Americans too were slave owners.

In addition to that historians do not dispute the fact that blacks have joined the anti-abolition Confederate State Army fighting the abolitionist North. The only thing they are debating over is the actual number that have enrolled and if they did that voluntarily or not.

As seen, blacks had already fought in great numbers against the American Patriots during the 1776 Revolutionary War, when the British shrewdly promised them the freedom the colonies were not yet ready to grant, and the same is true of the Native American tribes. In the battle of the Great Bridge near Norfolk, December of 1775, the war would officially start when the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 but the revolution was already a fact in Massachusetts and Virginia as early as April of 1775, black slaves volunteered to form what is known as the Ethiopian Regiment. They were fighting against revolutionary Virginians on the side of the former British governor of Virginia, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, and of the loyalists behind him.

When Thomas Jefferson became the governor of Virginia (1779-1781), he invited free blacks to enlist with the local militias, but it is unclear if any of them responded to that. At the same time, in the north, after slaves were promised freedom if they served in the Continental Army, about one-fifth of the Army was now black.

According to Gordon Wood (Friends Divided), during the Revolutionary War a minimum of twenty thousand black slaves fought on the side of the British, between 100,000 to 150,000 according to Thomas Jefferson, and if you ever visit Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, you will find there a sign reminding everyone that the Native American tribes too took the British side. Blacks would also enroll with the British troops during the 1812 war, when they once again fell for the promise of freedom made by the leaders of the red coats. The war of 1812 lasted three years, and it was during this war that the British destroyed most of the White House by setting it on fire. Its allies, the Native tribes in the north would massacre innocent, unarmed American citizens who had been promised safe passage to the colonies south of the border with Canada.

Black slaves’ fighting on the side of the British against America during the 1812 war is the reason why the third and today no longer used stanza of the American national anthem reads (my emphasis), 

Thursday, February 18, 2021

CHOOSE YOUR HEROES CAREFULLY (An excerpt from A Time of Change)

When the media makes the public watch over and over the same individuals weighing in on all sorts of topics, the public is inclined to see them as reliable, credible sources of information, men and women of great knowledge and wisdom. That perception is reinforced by the way of the publishing houses putting in print everything they submit and by colleges and universities having them constantly lecture unchallenged in front of their students. Then someone pays attention to the content of their input into conversation, and we realize science communicators Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Ney, the funny Bowtie Scientist, Eugenie Scott or Michael Shermer have not produced much in terms of scientific research, if anything at all, and that most of their input into the conversation comes in conflict with a rational logical interpretation of the know fact. 

These individuals the population of America and of the world are tricked into seeing as being the "most acclaimed astrophysicist" or the most intelligent humans on the planet are actually on a mission to manipulate the narrative on the side of the official proclamation on a number of issues of great significance for our civilization. In other words, though scientists according to their resume, same as the perpetrator of religious irrational their task is to create a false perception of reality, one that allows for the status quo to remain unchanged. That, however, is about to change. 

"In his 1989 book The Selfish Gene, Atheist evolutionist Richard Dawkins proclaims that, “Our brains are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them.” He sounds so knowledgeable and convincing that admirers hold this quote to be a gem of Dawkins superior thinking and lifetime dedication to promoting the greatness of the theory of evolution. However, the only thing emblematic for his lifetime input into the public conversation on evolution is that nothing in that statement is true, and that same as in many other instances, the ordinary people would not know it.

A rebellious brain having a mind of its own is Dawkins’ way of implying that the brain is the one that makes decisions, not our spirit/soul. This reductionist intellectualist assumption defies common sense and has no support in genetics, according to data made available in Genes, Brain and Behavior, a medical journal published by the International Behavioral and Neural Society. The other message in his statement is brains and genes are never on the same page, they are “separate and independent” of each other, says the millionaire master of misinformation who sells  pseudo-science to the trusting masses. According to the National Institute of Neural Disorders and Stroke, “At least a third of the approximately 20,000 different genes that make up the human genome are active (expressed) primarily in the brain. This is the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body. These genes influence the development and function of the brain, and ultimately control how we move, think, feel, and behave.” (Brain Basics, Genes at Work in the Brain)

Indeed, you could not be more disconnect from scientific fact and reason than Richard Dawkins is. Genuine science contradicts most everything this media glorified, this darling of the academia 12-book-published multi-millionaire evolutionist claims with confidence in front of unsuspecting audiences. He would not act on his own, though. 

He always seemed to be the intercessor of those who sought to control the narrative, to create another false perception about the origin of humans and life forms in general on this planet, a highly deceptive alternative to irrational religious belief, hence him having open access to TV shows, the lecturing circuit, and publishing houses, all that despite the fact that scientists with a backbone have repeatedly mocked his work exposing it for being not just irrelevant but, most importantly, ridiculously nonsensical. Nevertheless, because of individuals like Dawkins, members of two generations of Earth-humans have been tricked into living according to non-truth and half-truth that has significantly influenced the way they saw themselves and the purpose of being.

When one repeatedly makes false claims in public, sooner or later the people are going to catch on to that and things will inevitably get embarrassing for both perpetrator and his enablers. Seven years after he wrote that “Our brains are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them,” in yet another Dawkins best-selling book derided by the non-affiliated segment of the scientific community, something he titled The God Delusion, he claims now, also without producing any proof, that matter and living things preceded intelligence, meaning intelligence has appeared later during the process of life development on this planet. 

This was meant as a subtle jab taken on intelligent design, except that nothing of what he says in this instance too makes sense. Among many others, neither Dawkins, nor the theory of evolution he swears is fact and that you are stupid if you don't believe him can explain human subjective thinking, or why human intelligence is so advanced when compared to that of the ape, our alleged immediate evolutionary relative. 

In the end, and there will be more in the pages ahead on Dawkins’ bizarre, when not irrational, more often than not incoherent input into the debate, the badge-of-honor quote from The Selfish Gene turns out to be an emblem for the state of confusion and lack of honesty when it comes to the theory of evolution characterizing a Darwinist community he would represent. Just in case anyone wonders, church creationists do not earn any points on account of his failures."
                                                         (A Time of Change, Volume 1, Chapter 13)

A Time of Change is a three-volume book of unusual knowledge that took 15 years to complete. Volume 1 will be released in 2021 under to be established circumstances. Look for an announcement on this blog and  other locations on the Internet.

Thursday, February 4, 2021

JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS! THE REAL STORY (An excerpt from A Time of Change)

We were once told, "the truth will set you free." So, do not act offended by the truth. You deprive yourself from an opportunity to become free of a false perception of reality you were deliberately trapped into from the moment you were born. After all, this is a time of change.

Something no trusting churchgoer is aware of, when certain Christian churches proclaim their love of Jesus and claim their institution and the Christian religion is a product of what Jesus taught, they are inviting everyone to worship a falsification of who Jesus was and what he stood for. So how did the bishops come up with the notion that Jesus’ death on the cross wiped clean the sin slate for everyone for generations to come?

To begin with, it is worth repeating it, Jesus did not die on the cross and we have the evidence to prove it. For hundreds of years now the people have been told this was what happened and since believing is easy, they believed that. As seen, though, their new so-called universal religion had very little literature to work with and basically no church Christianity traditions. In order to attract to their store of dangerously addictive illusions and false hope a larger segment of the market of believers, as seen here in detail, the early church bishops would take entire books, as well as holidays, rituals, and symbols that belonged to other religions, made them into something other than what they originally were and then put the label Christian on them. This was precisely what also happened in the case of the story about Jesus alleged death on the cross for our sins. 

According to an old Judaic custom, once in a while the people, as well as the Sanctuary, the innermost chambers of the Tabernacle had to go through a cleansing ritual. The way the temple priests and the ordinary people did that was by sacrificing a goat, something repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament. The goat sacrifice was good business for the goat herder that sold the goat to the one taking it to the temple to be sacrificed, and for a priest who would get to keep the best portions of the sacrificial goat. In fact, the priest ended up selling goats and other sacrificial animals at the gates of the temple, this way more than doubling his profits. That little moneymaking scheme aside at the end of the day the customers were sin-free and apparently happy, unaware that like all religious rituals this one too was a meaningless act of no spiritual or moral value.

In Leviticus 16:15 we are told that, “Aaron must slaughter the first goat as a sin offering for the people...” As seen earlier, this was done to celebrate the time when their god allegedly killed the Egyptian firstborn male children and the firstborn among their animals in order to free the Jewish people from slavery. Exodus being a fantasy story with no historicity to it aside, the sins of the Israelites and the uncleanness of the Sanctuary were somehow transferred unto the goat. The priest would then kill the goat and the blood spilled was supposedly giving the person who had paid for the goat a clean conscience for another year or so. This way he was escaping the haunting shadow of his guilt, with this ridiculous ritual being the origin of the word scapegoat. Again, nothing makes sense, but that is religion for you. When in Leviticus 16:21 we are introduced though to the entire process, things get extremely hilarious.

On the Day of Atonement, the priest takes the goat to the altar where he would “lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites – all their sins – and put them on the goat’s head.” Imagine the priest dressed in ceremonial garb talking to a goat and telling the poor soul, listen, we humans did some bad things, and guess what, you are going to pay for that. You are going to die so we atone. Would you buy that if you were the goat? Once again, though, killing goats to atone for one’s sins was good business for the priests. The Christian bishops, however, decided to lower the bar of rationalism even more and replaced the goat with Jesus, the alleged son of god. So, don’t blame the Monty Python people for making fun of religion in general and of Christianity in particular. It certainly had it coming.

By replacing the goat with son-of-god-Jesus and by making him the sacrificial lamb that allegedly dies to pay for everyone else’s bad behavior, the founders of the Christian religion were killing actually three goats with one stone. First, they were offering the paying customer a more dramatic, more impressive story, and because of that supposedly a more convincing religion. In the process, they would confuse everyone about the real symbolism behind crucifixion. The third and the most malefic accomplishment of all was, with the help of this made-up story they were able to falsify Jesus’ true mission and message.
(A Time of Change, Volume 1, Chapter 11; a work in progress)

With this being only an excerpt, there is much more evidence in the book regarding the true origin and the actual intent behind this false claim. On that note, there is a reasonable possibility A Time of Change, Volume 1 will be released in 2021 under to be determined circumstances.

Tuesday, January 26, 2021


A work in progress. Edited 01.30.2021.

What we perceive as reality is the consequence of a process triggered in the realm of extra-sensory at the subconscious level of our being. Nothing exists before we observe our creation. Nothing truly exists outside our inner being either. The world is a collective holographic projection of many individual thoughts, a reflection of our understanding of what we observe, an understanding instantaneously manifested as reality. This is the result of our spirit energy being connected to all spirit energy in a dimension of the spiritual known as the collective subconscious.

Everything of the so-called material, life forms included, is made of the same elementary energy units. Everything perceived as being of the material is by and large made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. The quark, the smallest element of all is considered the fundamental constituent of matter. It was not directly observed but its existence was predicted based on experiment. Quarks too are charged electrical, scientists say.

Trees, fishes, plants or humans, everything is made of the same fundamental constituents, and everything is energy. The difference is in the way those fundamental energetic constituents are arranged, and how they end up in combinations that are specific to every material form is the key to solving the mystery of the origin of everything perceived as material, life forms included.

Both the body and the spirit/soul of a living organism are forms of energy. The spirit is high- frequency energy. The soul is spirit energy temporarily trapped in the material vibrating at a lower frequency than the spirit energy does. The material body is low frequency energy, with every one of its organs having its specific frequency.

Nothing comes out of real nothing. According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy could not be created in terms of the total energy that makes our universe, and yet all energy must have a source. The same law says no energy is ever destroyed, as in lost, meaning in its particular ways our spirit/soul energy too is eternal. In a good number of Edgar Cayce readings, the “Creator,” the “Maker” is described as being a “God-force,” or “the Creative Force called God.” This is not the personal god of religion, with force being a synonym for powerful energy, an energy that at the instigation of religious institutions the Earth people call God. That means what the term god actually stands for is something other than what people in houses of worship are made to believe it does.

Similar to what we find in Maya traditions, some of the Cayce readings reveal that what Earth people call god is actually an incandescent source emanating an infinite of super-fine information carrying energy fields. This source is endowed with what could be described as super-consciousness, and under favorable pre-established, as in programmed circumstances, the coded information carried by these energies manifests as an illusion, as complex holographic images of material forms, life forms included. This is actually how all universes come to be, and one hundred years ago, Max Planck, the German theoretical physicists who in 1918 was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering the energy quanta stated that “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” 

What we have here is Planck admitting to the indisputable reality of design. Other than that, this force the existence of which Planck acknowledges based on a rational logical understanding of observable facts, “the creative force called God,” as described in the Cayce reading, as well as those high frequency information-carrying energies, they all belong to what we call the spiritual, a reality misrepresented in religion and dismissed by the empiricist scientists as being a superstition. 

The key to understanding the phenomenon called life is the realization that everything material is information carrying energy vibrating at its specific frequency, energy and information emanated from a source that does not talk, think, speak or write books. That source and the way IT operates was intentionally misrepresented in religion, where IT is now a miracle-producing he-god with fictitious supernatural powers and a knack for killing the enemies of his worldly ambitions or people he simply does not like. Despite what genuine science reveals, the materialist scientist claims that only what we could detect with the help of our five senses exists and has labeled the spiritual and IT-the-Source a superstition associated with the occult. The Mayans, on the other hand, are on record acknowledging that, similar to what we were told in this and other Cayce readings, the human-like gods and the sacred animals of their traditions are symbols, metaphors for astral and telluric energies and for the laws that govern the earth plane and the universe.

Information carried by the life energy during an initial process governed by the principles referred to in The Book of Manu generates what we perceive as living material forms, animal or plant. This is all part of a much larger picture, of a complex existential mechanism conceived in realms of reality we are not able to access at this time but are not inaccessible to us. The necessary elements that make the biosphere of our planet function the way it does are not here by chance, and the system as a whole did not put itself together randomly. In the beginning the input of information is of the natural. Later on, the process can be and is often replicated by highly advanced intelligent beings, something Earth people too will be able to do one day. Or, as Max Planck explained the logic behind reaching this conclusion, “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

The two or three-dimensional images projected on our computer screen are made of little dots called pixels. The so-called material is made of tiny specs called quanta. Things are because cosmic consciousness energy originating outside the material universe entices those pixels and quanta to arrange according to the pattern encrypted in the information carrying energies emanated from the source or created by a non-supernatural entity capable of replicating that. This was perceived by the Earth people of the old as being an act by a creator god with supernatural powers, then someone took advantage of that and created religious institutions to use the Earth people’s induced inclination toward believing things to his advantage.

Is it truly possible that one super-evolved human could acquire the knowledge and develop the skills that would give him or her the ability to create amorphous and life forms out of an apparent nothing? To begin with, there is no such thing as nothing. As seen, everything is energy and information, and these days we are looking at pretty amazing virtual reality games and holographic imagery created by program designers getting better and better at what they do. Considering the progress we have made in the last six decades as a civilization regarding our comprehension of what reality is and how reality is produced and works, including the fact that our consciousness plays a central role in this process, that we can build now digital devices that one hundred years ago would have made us look like gods with supernatural powers in the eyes of the early inhabitants of a life-sustaining planet somewhere in this or other universes, we are definitely looking at a rational logical possibility.

Searching for the answer to the question of who or what has created the universe and man is an exciting challenge to take on. Many were told, and they believed it, that the Bible god did the whole thing in six days by snapping his divine fingers. Others were convinced by individuals with a degree in science that everything we see around us on the planet and up in the sky is a product of chance, of random acts of adaptation in the case of the members of the animal kingdom, and that the universe is the result of a huge explosion. They would be surprised to know that nowhere in the Book of Genesis are we told how god made the universe or why, and that many scientists are not so sure the Big Bang theory accurately describes the beginnings, and most importantly the origin of the universe. As a result, we must keep a wide-open mind as we continue to look for answers we actually do not have yet.
(A Time of Change, Volume 1, Chapter 8)

A Time of Change is a three-volume book of unusual knowledge that is still a work in progress. Volume 1 will be released in 2021 under to be established circumstances. Look for an announcement on this blog and  other locations on the Internet. 

Thursday, December 10, 2020


Of a religious, political, or any other nature, humans taking sides in a debate that turned into a dispute accept as true by default every single claim made by the members of their adopted community. Also by default, they cry "False!" about everything stated by an opposition they were made to see as being the enemy. The mentality is, we are always right and the others are always wrong. To the unattached observer things look though the way they actually are. Each side is sometimes wrong and sometimes right, with neither one being willing to honestly acknowledge true for being true and false for being false when that does not serve its agenda.

In line with this reality not everything stated by a human universally accepted as being an evil person is false, and not everything ever written or claimed by someone whose knowledge and judgement society has come to admire is true and logical. Let us take, for example, the case of British philosopher Bertrand Russell when it comes to his opinion on immortality and soul.

The go to source is What Is the Soul?, a piece he apparently originally wrote in 1928. There is an 1947 and a 1957 version of it, and while he made a number of stylistic and terminology related adjustments, one thing these three versions have in common is him being wrong about mind/soul and physical body being one and the same thing.   

In the 1928 version, right from the beginning Russell admits that, "When I was young we all knew, or thought we knew, that a man consists of a soul and a body." What happened next apparently unbeknownst to him too, an extremely reductionist materialist segment of the scientific community has hijacked the conversation, something supposedly done under the guise of addressing the false claims made in religion about the immortality of the body. 

'The rising of the dead' still preached in many churches implies currently dead human beings will one day rise in spirit and body from their grave, the other implication being the soul and the body are one. In essence, the position taken by materialist scientists and church theologians is very similar. The only difference consists in the stories they tell, respectively, based on what both erroneously describe as being fact. 

The way empiricists have found it fit to address this nonsense was by assuming that either such a thing as soul does not exist, or that since the soul and the body are one, when the body decomposes after our passing, so does the soul. In reality, the immortality of the soul and the false immortality of the body preached by some religious institutions are two different notions materialists decided to treat as one and the same thing. 

As demonstrated in A Time of Change, not only that materialists and theologians are wrong, the fact that both of them directly or indirectly deny the separation of the soul from the body and the immortality of the soul is no accident. As a way of controlling the people of the planet, this coordinated misrepresentation of the nature of being human as part of a scheme meant to hide from them their true origin and potential has generated a false perception of reality. This false perception of reality determines the way we live on this planet, the consequence of it being the state of constant crisis humankind have been experiencing for thousands of years. 

With the advent of the quantum physics, many scientists would conclude now material reality is not really material, or real, and that what we perceive as material is the product of a mind over matter phenomenon. As a result, philosophers relying heavily on good science were of the opinion that, in a sense, the body too was a product of the mind, and that meant the mind was, indeed, something apart from the body. However, as Russell writes in 1928, "The philosopher (...) was not taken seriously, and science remained comfortably materialistic." What same as others at the time and even later on he did not realize was that not everyone within the scientific community was "materialistic," with some theoretical physicists making actually a very strong case for Intelligent Design, on one hand, and, on the other, for the origin of what we perceive as material being in a non-physical phenomenon. Some quantum physicists would also make the case for the existence of the soul and for consciousness, the essential aspect of all life forms being the true creator of what we only perceive as a material world. 

Bertrand Russell navigates at times aimlessly within what seems to be an extremely choppy sea of conflicting ideas, and not once does he mention consciousness. He works, in this instance, with what others had to say on the question of the existence of the soul: "physicists assure us that there is not such thing as matter, and psychologists assure us that there is no such thing as mind." Even though under other circumstances (What I Believe, 1925) he would make the case that mental activity is all about chemicals and electrical impulses, at this moment he admits that "there are, however, various difficulties in the way of reducing mental activity to physical activity." Then within the same paragraph, he makes a stunning admission concerning our physical aspect: "What we can say, on the basis of physics itself [he probably meant to say 'on the basis of science'], is that what we have hitherto called our body is really an elaborate scientific construction not corresponding to any physical reality." 

That happens to be true. This is also a statement in support of the notion of Intelligent Design, and yet Russell was no fan of religion. As we can see, though, he describes the human body as being a work of science and not a product of supernatural miracles.  

Russell somehow concludes that "modern science gives no indication whatsoever of the existence of the soul or mind as an entity." First, it is obvious that same as other materialists, Russell was looking for empirical evidence, for something he could detect with the help of measuring devices. The soul and the spiritual in general, however, is energy vibrating at much higher frequencies when compared to the frequencies of the material, frequencies that are inaccessible to our sensory. As a result, for now one has to look for evidence in a rational logical interpretation of what is observable. 

That kind of interpretation of the existing evidence led scientists with the University of Virginia, for example, to conclude after analyzing almost 4,000 cases over four decades now that reincarnation is real, meaning the soul is real. Then we have the new science of transpersonal psychology establishing that consciousness is, indeed, high frequency energy apart from the body. 

Had Russell lived another decade, he would have become familiar with how computers work. Computers function based on the same principle everything else in the universe operates on, a principle that was out there from the instance the universe was born. Something acknowledged by many along the time, the human body is a perfect mirror of the universe. As a result, similar to the software making the hard drive into an operational computer, when the soul is downloaded to the physical aspect of a human at birth, it turns the new human body into a human being. This is why what we really are is the spirit within the body and not the body itself.

Because he believes that what some call soul or mind is one with the body, Russell is firmly convinced "There can not be reason for supposing that either a piece of mind or a piece of matter is immortal." His reasoning is based though on false assumptions, such as the notion that "the most essential characteristic of mind is memory." He then argues that since basically everything related to memory is associated with the brain, something that, as you are going to see in A Time of Change is totally false, and since "this structure decays at death, there is every reason to suppose that memory also must cease." 

Apparently, unlike Albert Einstein who was an admirer and a student of her writings, Russell was unaware of what a contemporary by the name of Helena Blavatsky, an erudite philosopher some would disparagingly and conveniently describe as being an "occultist" was stating in reference to the Akashic Record. The existence of the Akashic Record or the Akashic Field has been acknowledged for thousands of years, and in recent times books on science and the Akashic Field by eminent philosophers of science were made available to the large public to read and draw its own conclusions. This field contains the memory of everything that ever happened in the universe, including the memory of what every single soul has experienced during its many life cycles in the earth plane. The soul is connected to the record at the subconscious level all the time, as it was proven to us by individuals like Edgar Cayce there are ways of gaining access to it, and, as a result, not only is the spirit energy aspect of the human immortal, it never loses the memory of everything it has experienced during its many lives. 

In the end, like most materialists, Bertrand Russell embraces the position that life is limited to whatever happens between birth and death, and that everything beyond that is completely inconsequential to us: "we shall have to admit that what is going to happen many millions of years hence has no very great emotional interest for us here and now." As many of us know by now, according to illustrious scientists like Einstein and to field theory-based common sense, past, present, and future is one and the same continuum sequence of events. Because of that everything we have experienced in the past and everything expected of us to accomplish in the future is of great consequence for how we live our personal and the collective here in now moments. 

A Time of Change is an unusual book of knowledge. It took 15 years to complete and volume 1 will be released in 2021 under to be established circumstances. Look for announcements on this blog and on other locations on the Internet.


Sunday, November 15, 2020


"The academia leadership has put the label science on the theory of evolution despite the fact that no rational institutionalized religion-despising human being could state in good scientific faith molecular biologists have provided a single ounce of credible evidence in support of that. They also put natural selection in science books when in reality natural selection is a fictional character in a story that similar to the miracles of the six-day creation in the Bible is the account of something that does not happen in nature.

To unify masses of people that were beginning to awaken into the hidden for centuries liberating truth into one confused entity that would be as easy to manipulate as those divided by the way of more often than not antagonistic religious beliefs, someone else came up with the similarly irrational idea that it was okay to believe god created man by the way of gradual evolution. The intent was to make the public believe in their equally fact and rational logic defying miracle-depending ways both religion and gradual evolution have diligently addressed the question of the origin and the purpose of life. Then the people were made to believe these two otherwise truth-falsifying explanations were the best and most importantly the only choices they had.

That induced state of mind resulted in more disharmony and allowed for the perpetuation of a system that operates on social and economic inequality, forces people to compete against each other and generates constant global chaos. This is where we are today as a civilization."

A Time of Change, Volume 3
A work in progress; to be released in 2021-20212 under yet to be established circumstances.

Friday, August 21, 2020

THE INFAMOUS "PROJECT STEVE" (An Excerpt from A Time of Change)

People are made to believe two false explanations for the origin of man and the purpose of life, biblical creationism and Darwinian evolutionism are the only choices they have. This is no accident. Taking sides keeps the population of the planet divided, as everyone is fiercely protecting his chosen "truth" convinced the others are in the wrong. Little do they know they both are.

A couple of years into this project I was conversing with someone in the self-publishing business. Before we could talk contract, I had to give them the first thirty pages of the manuscript so they could showcase their editing skills. Much to my surprise, the would be editor sent a note letting me know that while he subscribed to my position on religion, I had to change everything I wrote about evolution. Evolution was fact, he said, my book was making the case for the theory of evolution being a fallacy, and even though I was the one paying for the service they were not going to publish that. 

My response was, I am not the only one seeing the things the way I do. Based on an abundance of evidence presented in the book this is how things actually are, and the reason why I was writing this book was precisely to tell what was provably the real story. There are bona fide scientists out there that have reached the same conclusion I did, and I mentioned the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism signed by thousands of men and women of science. His reaction was, there are a lot more scientists supporting evolution than scientists that are against it, and he referenced something I had never heard about before called Project Steve. Needless to say, there was no deal and no contract. Who would want to pay for a book with his name on it conveying to the public a message that was demonstrably false. 

Everything happens for a good reason. When I looked into what Project Steve was and what it did, I found out about the shocking amount of deceit associated with the propagandistic support for evolution expressed by what in reality is a difficult to gage size-wise segment of the scientific community. Based on that I began to see the creation v. evolution orchestrated debate in a different light, and would I dedicate an entire subchapter to Project Steve. The following is a small excerpt from this subchapter. 

"Project Steve was named after Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), a prominent and at the same time controversial American evolutionary biologists. A frequent major flip-flapper, Gould was an on again, off again supporter of evolution, reason why most of the time unofficially and on occasion quite openly the rest of the evolutionary lot was quite angry with him. Among others, Gould is on record stating that falsely claiming total unity among scientists in their support for evolution did not benefit progress in science. 

In a May 1981 Discover Magazine issue, Stephen Gould was warning fellow evolutionists that it was not good for science, or for the scientific community to pretend such monolithic support existed when, in reality, the claim that biological and genetic transmutations by the way of natural selection had once occurred in nature during an alleged process of adaptation was an idea arduously debated over. “For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature,” he wrote, “to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.” (“Evolution as Fact and Theory, By Stephen Gould) 

In other words, the one chosen by NCSE to be the patron of a Project Steve intended, among others, as a way of demonstrating all scientists agreed evolution was fact was not so sure there was any conclusive evidence evolution was fact. As a result, what the NCSE did when it chose Stephen Jay Gould to be its patron was basically what the bishops of the Christian church did in the case of Jesus. To keep the masses in the dark about the fact that he was teaching against religion, they made him into a god that was to be worshiped at a church its founders were falsely claiming was established on Jesus's teachings, teachings they had actually abandoned from the moment they set up shop in the Roman Empire.

So, what is this Project Steve anyway? Project Steve is a ruse created by diehard evolutionists to help them hide from the public the fact that the actual evidence is stacked against evolution, the actual reason why to this day they continue to refuse to accept the challenge issued in the text of the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism. In other words, their response to that invitation to having an honest debate 
on evolution in a public forum was a propaganda device meant to cover up for their inability to address the many problems with Darwin's theory. 

Concocted by a group of scientists of dubious ethics and analytic abilities acting as if they were the supreme authority in the matter, Project Steve represents indisputable evidence evolutionists do not want to be put in a situation where they have to respond publicly to the pertinent criticism of Darwin’s theory issued by other scientists. To draw attention away from that, they decided that unlike in the case of the Dissent issued by Discovery Institute, only scientists named Steve or whose name was similar to Steve were allowed to sign under their proclamation. 

NCSE wanted to prove that even when handicapped pro-evolution activists would have no problem getting a lot more signatures in support of evolution than the promoters of the Dissent did. It is worth repeating it, though, in matters of science it is completely irrelevant how many supporters or critics a theory has. The only thing that matters is that the argument is proven true by real facts and a rational logical interpretation of them. By playing the numbers game, they were hoping the public would not pay attention to the content of their argument, or to the fact that the Project Steve statement was a collection of false claims and of statements afflicted with a serious case of defective logic.

This was the NCSE’s Project Steve response to the Scientific Dissent on Darwinism:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools. (Project Steve, ncse.com)

The first question one would need to ask NCSE is why call evolution fact when according to your Project Steve “there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution.” In other words, on what basis do they claim “there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred” when they admit scientists cannot even agree on how evolution works? For if you don’t know what “patterns and processes” are associated with evolution, common sense says when you state that “evolution occurred,” this is an assumption, not a scientific fact. 

Secondly, if “the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry,” where is the common ancestor? Why one hundred and sixty years after Darwin published a book deceptively titled On the Origin of Species no one has figured out yet the identity of that alleged common ancestor? Contrary to what NCSE’s Project Steve claims, otherwise a well-known fact even among evolutionists, overwhelming scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that same as the six-day creation in the Bible, common ancestry is another 
unproven evolutionary assumption based on the assumption that biological gradualism, for which we have zero real evidence, is how we got our millions of species.

And how is natural selection “a major mechanism in its occurrence” when even the most vocal among the supporters of evolution had to admit natural selection is not a real player. Ironically, as you are going to see, no other than Project Steve’s patron, Stephen Jay Gould, made it very clear, before he would contradict himself, again, natural selection is a figment of an evolutionist’s imagination.

Then why is intelligent design “creationist pseudo-science” when one of the leading scientists making the case for design, Michael Behe, is a university professor, a molecular biologist who happens to be a declared rejector of creationism. In Darwin’s Black Box he builds a solid case for intelligent design with the help of an abundance of certified scientific data anyone could look at and analyze, and not once is he making references to something that could even remotely be construed as religion. Intelligent design is not religion because some religious leaders decided to use it, before they recanted on their argument, to make the case for a designer god. After all, for pure political reasons many churches have also decided these days to endorse evolution. Does that make evolution religion? It does not, and yet, since the pro-evolution argument is actually entirely based on belief, for many out there this is precisely what evolutionism is. 

Last but not the least Project Steve statement says that to debate over the validity of the theory of evolution would be “pedagogically irresponsible.” According to NCSE, doubting Lady Evolution to her face in science class is bad manners and a scientific debate over the premises for the conclusions reached by Darwin would be “inappropriate.” Who knew Evolution was so thin-skinned, and that the only ones to be allowed to enter debates should be individuals that have similar opinions on the topic debated over? Of course, claiming criticism of evolution is "pedagogically irresponsible" and "inappropriate" was about evolutionists covering up for the many false claims made in support of evolution and about the academia disallowing dissenting voices to be heard in schools and universities in order to protect the status quo.

Their attitude is similar to religious cults forbidding an internal debate over the religious dogma. There is also a not so subtle threat of excommunication and of experiencing all sorts of dire consequences when found guilty of apostasy."

A Time of Change, Volume 2, Chapter 13

A Time of Change is an ample, under current circumstances underground book of knowledge. At this time the author intends to make it available here and possibly on other Internet platforms free of charge. The first of the tree volumes of the book should be released sometime this year. That will be followed by the individual release of the other two volumes over a span of twelve months. To know when the first volume comes out, enter your email address in the window provided on the home page. An announcement will be made at the time of its release.