The authors begin with the assumption that archeologists are fundamentally of good faith. Nevertheless, little by little, they demonstrate a systematic destruction of proofs that show another reality than that the official story. Falsifications and even destruction of such proofs has been common for more than two hundred years.

In their first essay "The Hidden History of the Human Race", Cremo and Thompson push back our horizons not just thousand years, but millions of years into the past, and show that almost everything we have been taught to believe about the origins and evolution of our species rests on a highly selective sampling of research.

The two authors then set the record straight by showing all the other research results that have been edited out, not because there was anything wrong about them, but simply because "they did not fit with prevailing academic opinion."

Anomalous and out-of-place discoveries reported by Cremo and Thompson in "The Hidden History of the Human Race" include convincing evidence that anatomically modern humans have been present on the Earth not just for 100,000 years or less (the orthodox version), but for millions of years, and that metal objects of advanced design have been in use at equally early periods.

SCIENTIFIC CENSORSHIP

The authors describe an ongoing social process of knowledge filtration that at first sight appears quite innocuous, but has a substantial cumulative effect. Certain categories of evidence simply disappear from view.

This pattern of data suppression has been going on for a long time. For instance, in 1880, J. D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. The implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, in formations ranging from 9 million to over 55 million years old.

W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal critics of these California finds, wrote:

"Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated (that humans existed in very ancient times in North America), notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted."

In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded.

I shall give here some examples of these discarded paleo-archaeological elements:

In a report delivered to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1881, H. Slopes, F.G.S. (Fellow of the Geological Society), described a shell, the surface of which bore a carving of a crude but unmistakably human face. The carved shell was found in the stratified deposits of the Red Crag, which is between 2.0 and 2.5 million years old.

One should keep in mind that in terms of conventional paleontological opinion, one does not encounter such works of art until the time of fully modern Cro-Magnon man in the Late Pleistocene, about 30,000 years ago. 

On August 2, 1890, J. H. Neale signed the following statement about discoveries made by him:

"In 1877 Mr. J. H. Neale was superintendent of the Montezuma Tunnel Company, and ran the Montezuma tunnel into the gravel underlying the lava of Table Mountain, Tuolumne County. . . . At a distance of between 1400 and 1500 feet from the mouth of the tunnel, or of between 200 and 300 feet beyond the edge of the solid lava, Mr. Neale saw several spear-heads, of some dark rock and nearly one foot in length.

On exploring further, he himself found a small mortar three or four inches in diameter and of irregular shape. This was discovered within a foot or two of the spear-heads. He then found a large well formed pestle, now the property of Dr. R. I. Bromley, and near by a large and very regular mortar, also at present the property of Dr. Bromley."

Neale's affidavit continued:

"All of these relics were found. . . . close to the bed-rock, perhaps within a foot of it. Mr. Neale declares that it is utterly impossible that these relics can have reached the position in which they were found excepting at the time the gravel was deposited, and before the lava cap formed. There was not the slightest trace of any disturbance of the mass or of any natural fissure into it by which access could have been obtained either there or in the neighborhood."

The position of the artifacts in gravel close to the bedrock at Tuolumne Table Mountain indicates they were 33-55 million years old. 

In 1844, Sir David Brewster reported that a nail had been discovered firmly embedded in a block of sandstone from the Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry in Scotland. Dr. A. W. Medd of the British Geological Survey wrote to the authors in 1985 that this sandstone is of "Lower Old Red Sandstone age" (Devonian, between 360 and 408 million years old). Brewster was a famous Scottish physicist. He was a founder of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and made important discoveries in the field of optics.

In his report to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Brewster stated:

"The stone in Kingoodie quarry consists of alternate layers of hard stone and a soft clayey substance called 'till'; the courses of stone vary from six inches to upwards of six feet in thickness. The particular block in which the nail was found, was nine inches thick, and in proceeding to clear the rough block for dressing, the point of the nail was found projecting about half an inch (quite eaten with rust) into the 'till,' the rest of the nail lying along the surface of the stone to within an inch of the head, which went right down into the body of the stone."

The fact that the head of the nail was buried in the sandstone block would seem to rule out the possibility the nail had been pounded into the block after it was quarried. 

On June 22, 1844, this curious report appeared in the London Times:

"A few days ago, as some workmen were employed in quarrying a rock close to the Tweed about a quarter of a mile below Rutherford-mill, a gold thread was discovered embedded in the stone at a depth of eight feet."

Dr. A. W. Medd of the British Geological Survey wrote to the authors in 1985 that this stone is of Early Carboniferous age (between 320 and 360 million years old).

(Ed. Note: Cornelius B cites many more examples which I excised in the interest of brevity.)

"Forbidden Archeology" was first released in 1993 and quickly became an underground classic. Today it is a bestseller, with foreign editions in over a dozen languages, presenting both accepted and anomalous scientific evidence defying the traditional view of human evolution. This is a fascinating intellectual excavation of a vast store of hidden knowledge.

I'll let you judge their proofs sustaining the human evolution. What is the purpose behind this disinformation if not mind control, and therefore social engineering?

Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process. Instead, we observe a behavior similar to the totalitarian attitude of the ancient priesthood clique in Egypt. To better illustrate this affirmation, I present the case of a science journalist, Richard Milton, initially an ardent believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day.

After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realized that there were many disconcerting elements in the theory. He decided to put every main classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results were hard to believe -- he found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigors of routine investigative journalism. Next, he published a book titled "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism".

Milton says:

"I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand - it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, as "loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting."

Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 25 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?

Without a doubt Dawkins is part of the "secret societies brotherhood" invested with high power. Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. This advocate of aetheism is a classic "Brain Police" storm-trooper, patrolling the neurological front lines. 

According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece. 
 

DARWINISM AS MIND CONTROL

The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwin's home country or in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper published.

Darwin's theory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum. This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that "71% of the American public say biology teachers should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory." Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach. 
 
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far the « brothers scientists" will go to guard orthodox tenets. 
 
McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more. 
 
The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait "crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist's tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories. 
 
Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but because this woman was intellectually honest, she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she lost a teaching job at an American university. 

CONCLUSION

Thus, as we may conclude from the information provided here, Darwinism, the theory of the survival of the fittest and its twin sister, the theory of human evolution, together with the official version of the Paleontology and Archaeology such as they are practiced, are pseudo-sciences.

In fact, they are tools for mind control of the masses. Their main purpose is to cut off the roots of the true history of humanity, and promote a naturalistic and mechanistic view of life as "survival of the fittest." They promote atheism as a means of destroying Christian civilization.

We find the same hate of God and of Christianity in Marxism and Freudianism.

A very interesting read is the book of Richard Wurmbrand "Marx & Satan" where we discover that Marx was a Satanist priest with a deep hate of God and desire for the ruin and annihilation of the human society. How can we explain this deep hated nourished in the hearts of these men? Was it satanic possession?

I will close with this fact -- at the funerals of Karl Marx, in his speech Frederich Engels compared Marx to Darwin as titans of the human mind, and this suggests the high probability that Darwin was Karl Marx's "Luciferian brother".

By Marie Henrie

(for Henrymakow.com)

Born in Ireland on July 3,1883, Denis was the youngest of three sons of the devout Catholic couple Timothy and Brigit Fahey. He was an avid reader with a keen intellect and was educated by the Holy Ghost Fathers. Denis Fahey chose to join their Order at the age of seventeen and was accepted to the novitiate in France. He was ordained to the priesthood in Rome in 1910.

  Fr Fahey studied world history in depth while in Rome, and analyzed the push to "Modernism" being imposed upon society. Undoubtedly he was influenced by the struggles of the current Pope of his time, Pope Pius X, whose writings included: Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists (Lainentabili Sane) in 1907, Modernism (Pascendi Dominici Gregis) in 1907, Our Apostolic Mandate (On the "Sillon") in 1910 and The Oath Against Modernism 1910. Fr Fahey realized that the Pope was battling the stealth philosophy of Modernism, which is Organized Naturalism. 

Organized Naturalism can be more clearly understood as the foundation of Freemasonry. Naturalism is a materialist philosophy that rejects the existence of the soul or a universal moral order created by God.

Fr Fahey studied the Protocols of the Learned Elders Zion and recognized it as the evil blueprint for a New World Order.  Mankind is viewed as a herd of cattle rather than possessing the unique soul created in the image and likeness of God. For Fr Fahey a Catholic priest, this enemy must be challenged.

Fahey wrote, "These forces are three in number, one being invisible, the other two visible. The invisible host is that of Satan and the other fallen angels, while the visible forces are those of the Jewish Nation and Freemasonry."

(The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, p. 61) 

Quoting the writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Fr. Fahey wrote:

"Naturalism denies the very existence of revelation. It follows that the inevitable law and the obstinate passion of Naturalism is to dethrone Our Lord Jesus Christ and to drive Him from the world. This will be the task of Anti-Christ and it is Satan's supreme ambition.

(The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism. Pg. 3)

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/fahey.htm

He also wrote,"Modern History since 1789 is, to a large extent, the account of the domination of state after state by the naturalistic supra nationalism of Freemasonry, behind which has been steadily emerging the still more strongly organized naturalistic supra nationalism of the Jewish Nation."

(The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism)

 http://www.traditio.com/fah.htm 

Fr Fahey was smeared as an "anti-Semite", the stop think phrase used by those who have no equal term for those who discredit pious Christians of any denomination and even Moslems who oppose the racism leveled against Palestinians.

 The argument rages on today whenever anyone in Catholic circles writes about Fr Fahey.

http://catholicism.org/catholic-world-of-fahey.html 

"Two nations for whom Fr. Denis had a deep love were his own nation and the nation that gave birth to the Messiah, the Jewish nation. Loving Christ and His mother as he did, Fr. Fahey was deeply hurt by the calumny that he was anti-Semitic in any way."

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/fahey.htm

Even more so because that calumny came from people of his own Faith as it still does today. Fr Fahey clearly defined his position in, On Anti-Semitism when he endorsed a review of my book The Kingship of Christ or Organized Naturalism, which appeared in the Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica (Rome, March, 1947).

  "The author wants a clear distinction to be made between hatred of the Jewish nation, which is Anti-Semitism, and opposition to the Jewish and Masonic naturalism. This opposition on the part of Catholics must be mainly positive by acknowledging, not only individually, but socially, the rights of the supernatural Kingship of Christ and His Church, and by striving politically to get these rights acknowledged by States and public life. For this indispensable undertaking ... the active and effective union of Catholics ... is absolutely necessary."

http://www.cfnews.org/Fahey-AntiSemitism.htm 

 In his book, The Rulers of Russia, Fr Fahey who was avidly anti Nazi makes a case against the international bankers' religion based on racial worship, which we now refer to as Zionism.

One reviewer comments,"This essay is also interesting for its discussions of banking, the gold standard, and the role of international finance and racial idolatry in the affairs of the modern world."

http://www.amazon.com/Rulers-Russia-Dennis-Fahey/dp/9998341981

Also, in 1950 Fr Fahey republished a work by Msgr. George F. Dillon, DD.

" War of Anti-Christ with the Church and Christian Civilization." After being read a summary, Pope Leo XIII approved of the work and funded the publication of the Italian version. He openly denounced the collaboration between the Bavarian Illuminati and the Freemasons, as well as the  collaboration between Lord Palmerston and the Carbonari. He was also critical of the Alta Vendita document, Napoleon Bonaparte's supposed ties with the Masons, and the secretive character of the Fenian organization."

http://wapedia.mobi/en/George_F._Dillon

The republished book was entitled, Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked as the Secret Power Behind Communism.,1950.

"The central theme of the book alleges that atheistic Illuminism, through the infrastructure of Grand Orient freemasonry, driven by the ideology of the philosophes laid the foundations for a large scale, ongoing war against Christendom in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The document claims that this had been manifested primarily through manipulating the outbreak of various radical liberal republican revolutions. Particularly those which are focused on atheism or religious indifferentism in their anti-Catholicism."

http://wapedia.mobi/en/War_of_Anti-Christ_with_the_Church_and_Christian_Civilization

As his Wikipedia entry shows, Father Fahey, who died in 1954, was a tireless crusader for God. Fahey promoted the Catholic social doctrine of Christ the King, and was involved in Irish politics through his organization Maria Duce. "Fahey firmly believed that "the world must conform to Our Divine Lord, not He to it." This often saw Fahey in conflict with systems which he viewed as promoting "naturalism" against Catholic order--particularly communism, freemasonry and rabbinic Judaism."

He left behind a large body of work that upheld his view that mankind is indeed under siege by powerful Satanists.

---

Related: "The Popes Against the Jews"

Father Denis Fahey Archive http://www.traditio.com/fah.htm

"Chinese women were so approachable and didn't appear to hate men. [They are shockingly] sweet and feminine."

(Wholesome Refuge in China--Another View)

COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!! COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!!

Chinese women are only so because, in the initial stages, they want to trap you; later properly married they put the screws on you.

I am Max. I was teaching English in China. I was attracted by the advertisements calling to teach English in China, and for exotic locales and adventure. I got that alright. Now back home in the US I am completely pissed off and unhappy. I honestly wished to God I had not gone to China and tangled with Chinese women. They are the most cunning and manipulative in the world. I am now left with a whole hole in my life; and a great sense of having been used and abandoned.

Like Tom I initially thought I found heaven. Indeed, I fell head over heels with my Chinese wife, one of my students at English class. She was so sweet and nice. After marriage, things changed ever so slightly but surely. She became ever so unhappy with my job as English tutor. She said it was 'a job with no future'. She said it was 'a low class job' with little pay and gave her no 'face'. She egged me to go home to the US telling me how wonderful life would be there. Besotted with my 'sweet' wife, I became more and more uncomfortable in China when even her parents and relatives became 'cooler' towards me, just after a half year of marriage. I decided to go back to US with my wife, moving to San Francisco thinking she would be happy there, many Chinese.

Indeed in the first year back I thought I found heaven. My wife immediately started to get to know the local Chinese community and started working in the Chinese restaurant, starting as dishwasher and moving on to assistant cook, keeping long hours. Her earnings were not much; how much can you get from a Chinese restaurant? But she was happy and did not have much complaints. She insisted though to get her 'green card' as spouse of an American citizen; and I was proud of her to do so, thinking that this proved her commitment to me and my country. Little did I know.

My 'sweet' wife got her US citizenship and things changed from thereon, overnight and never looked back until she left me.

After she got her citizenship papers my wife asked me, demanded me to get her parents and relatives over, to sponsor them. I told her I cannot get her parents over as I was not earning enough; what are they going to live on? At this she laughed and said that 'in China men took care of the family and wives hold on to what they earn'. She would not give what she earned, she laughed at my job and earnings saying that most Chinese think Americans are 'well off', 'Now she really knows this is not true. I was the example.' This really hurt me bad. She then nagged me to sponsor her brother and family over; he is a computer technician. To keep the family peace, hoping things will go back to the good old sweet days I agreed. I went through hell and high water to get them over. She, my wife, was ecstatic to see her brother and family. But things did not really change. She worked long hours, scarcely gave me time and mixed even more with her brother's family.

She kept egging me on to get her parents and a cousin over. She kept on saying my job and earnings were 'a disgrace'. I could not even help her take care of her parents. I was 'indeed a great disappointment'. She kept on being cold to me and spent little time with me. I was not able to get her parents over; but I did manage to sponsor her cousin. This was my greatest mistake.

It turned out that he was not her cousin after all. He was a smooth looking young man with a computer science degree. Six months after her 'cousin' came over; my wife just quietly left the flat. I came back one evening and all her clothes and things were cleared out, clean. I searched hell and high water for her, I could not find her. Six months later, I received papers from a lawyer in Chinatown for divorce. It turned out that her 'cousin' is now her partner. The last I heard of her is that her parents are now over here. Her 'cousin' and her brother had got them over.

"Chinese women were so approachable and didn't appear to hate men. [They are shockingly] sweet and feminine."

This is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. They are only so because they want something from you. They want to get 'a green card' to a Western country, and they want to get their parents and relatives over to have the good life here, also to sponge of welfare and the pension. I have seen this many times from many friends. Same experience. Once they get the green card the will leave us 'hairy gweilos'. They think we are rich; once they realise we are not, they change overnight. They look down on you.

The best ladies my friends tell me are Filipinos. They are more westernised and they are actually prettier. They are warmer, have more 'heart'. They really love Americans. Many of my friends are turning off the East Asians - Chinese, Koreans, Japanese. They are too rich now. They look down on you. Filipinos and South East Asians like Laotians are better. Particularly FILIPINOS. They know American culture better; and they love us. They have more 'heart'.