By: Lorenz Kraus
NBA star Kyrie Irving launched this recent round. Infowars was forced to address it in a discussion between Eddie Bravo and Owen Shroyer. One could see Shroyer’s instinct to be a battered wife. No matter what lies NASA tells, some people will come back for more. This is common among flag-waving whites who think the US government is their ally. Has Trump passed even one law in his first 100 days? He has the Senate and House. He is a historic bust.
Now Shaquille O’Neil has laid down the law. “The earth is flat.”
It is worth understanding how a fringe idea came into the mainstream and now attains conviction. That is what makes flat earth exciting from a white nationalist point of view. It is a study in persuasion; in the efforts of a few to properly address objections, have patience, keep on moving, to break out and to win, a majority.
If flat earth can do it, why can’t white nationalism?
With Shaq bringing up the issue, now is a good time to offer my thesis on the origin of life.
The origin of life on a flat earth.
Life, being a natural phenomenon, deserves a natural explanation.
Indeed, the generation of life makes a lot more sense on a flat earth. You don’t need Darwinism, which takes a miracle single-cell as a given; and you don’t Big Bang, or Panspermia. Panspermia says life came to earth from outer space. “Serious” scientists believe that. That begs the question, how does life start?
If life starts once, it should start in multitudes; otherwise it is a one-shot miracle. There are many volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, thunderstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. These natural processes happen by the many. Life should happen by the many, as well.
Let’s lay it out.
1. The earth is flat with electromagnetic blankets above the earth which power the sun and stars.
2. The Moon and Stars are some 100 miles above the earth. (They create artificial stars now with lasers.)
3. Stars focus and discharge electromagnetic energy to stabilize and equalize the energy running through the blankets.
4. Stars provide a constant discharge. Lightning bolts don’t. This is key.
5. Since stars are close, local to, and in the atmosphere, stars have access to oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon, via the gases of the atmosphere.
6. With a constant plasma discharge, stars can create all amino acids for life to exist.
The Miller experiment presents this electrical generation of amino acids in the lab.
It’s hard to believe that no one else bothered to conduct this type of experiment to investigate life’s origins, but all the amino acids necessary for life can be formed this way. The only place we can think of it happening, naturally, is in high-frequency plasma formations in local atmospheric stars.
Here is a paper that discusses amino acids in our atmosphere, specifically, in Arctic aerosols.
Amino acids rain down on us….from the stars.
How cool is that?
Could we get a silicon World Tree by this process?
Yes. First, silicon dioxide is sand and not a gas. However, as the paper above shows, the Icelandic volcanoes discharge silicon particulates into the atmosphere at great heights. Volcanic eruptions could give the stars silicon to work with, by the same process, that forms carbon-based DNA. The stars could be the origin of both silicon and carbon forms of life. A common origin is very attractive, especially, if silicon-based life existed.
Here is the silicon world tree video that struck a chord in 2016.
It is rather interesting how people identify with stars as their origin. If stars are local high-frequency plasma discharges, there would be a rational mechanism for that. In fact, as the mix of earth’s gases change, the stars would produce different materials yielding different genomes. This might account for varied life forms and the sudden Cambrian Explosion, which may be time to abnormal levels of volcanic activity or forest fires.
Every star is a primordial pond.
If stars produce amino acids, by the same process, stars could synthesize lipids, proteins, DNA, RNA and other life-critical bio-molecules. Stars might hold onto these materials just long enough to develop DNA chains and whole cells, before they are released into the environment. Stars even look like cells. Are stars “molds” for cells?
There has to be some dynamic electrical environment. Stars provide that.
This is a much more robust theory than Darwinism, which cannot account for the origin of life, or its building blocks. Darwinism takes as a given the first cell, which other scientists believe is so random and rare, as to be impossible. This makes life a secular miracle (like Big Bang), rather than a robust natural phenomenon.
The Independent Birth of Life has special insights on how a primordial pond (or shall we call it a star cradle?) would give the illusion of descent with modification. As the chemistry of a pond evolves, it would generate life with some similarities to previous forms, along with differences reflecting the pond’s new chemistry. Applying that to star cradles, as available gases change, so would their products, with an underlying continuity.
Are we star dust? Are the stars our creators? Is there a reason for this special connection of man to the stars, and to specific stars? The mystery starts to clear up with a flat earth origin of life.
A non-terrestrial origin of life theory, the theory of panspermia, already claims that man is a product of comets and other star dust. With flat earth biogenesis, there is no need for stars billions of miles away to bring us DNA. Yet, scientists, seriously, believe that. Panspermia begs the question, how did these components come into being?
This is the whole point. In fact, because scientists have failed to establish life’s origins on earth, they seek non-terrestrial alternatives. Panspermia just assumes these life components arrived to earth, without providing a process of their formation.
Flat earth bio-genesis has a process that starts with raw materials. Star DNA becomes magnitudes more believable on a flat earth with local stars in the atmosphere. You have a testable process and the ability to gather real evidence of amino acids in the atmosphere, as the paper cited above, does.
Panspermacists have found new species of bacteria 80 km up. Where are they coming from? Stars billions of light years away, or local stars only miles away? If bacteria are found proximate to the local stars, that’s very suggestive.
What are the implications?
You wouldn’t need Darwinism anymore. You don’t need Big Bang. You don’t need billions of years of randomness. You don’t need aliens seeding us. You don’t need missing links. You also don’t need Bible-style creationism. If these are the only alternatives, secular people will stick with secular miracles. Now they don’t have to.
Life is not a one-shot generated miracle, but a process raining down on us.
Star-generated DNA provides a basis for getting vast amounts of DNA-precursor material. Not all the material that stars produce would become viable life forms. Nevertheless, this could explain why Africans started in Africa, and why Europeans started in Europe. You wouldn’t need an out of Africa theory. Of course, this seed cells of human genomes would need to be cultured, perhaps in the Black or Caspian seas, fertile locations to take the initial DNA and grow it, where seed cells can absorb amino acids and other nutrients, as if they were, wombs of the earth.
That the stars have access to our atmospheric gases and can provide a constant discharge over an indefinite number of centuries to produce all the amino acids and building blocks of life, gives great reason to believe this is the actual origin of life. Life is always being produced by the stars. New species are always being discovered. We should expect new forms of life. After mass extinctions, how did life restart? The stars were there to do it.
There are said to be millions of types of life. If we are living in an electrically-driven petri dish, life would have its own custom-made, but common origin, in the stars.
This also means that life may exist beyond our puddle to any other puddles that might exist.
With an indefinite flat earth, it begs to be explored. And wouldn’t that be worth exploring? It would be a lot easier and cheaper to go to the next puddle, than to go to the moon or Mars.
If you have trouble with this, remember Occam’s Razor. Life is a lot simpler on the flat earth.
My estimate is that a third of the public will be flat-earth fans in ten years. The process of persuasion is fascinating and fun to see. Most definitely, it is worth learning from.