How Darwin Swindled the World- Apes Actually Descended from the line of Man, not vice versa

CR 217/749


74. Until the global ice age around 600 million years ago, only thermal life forms, i.e. thermal bacteria, existed on the Earth in the scorching heat of the magma and lava, and these life forms were partially expelled from the hot springs of aboveground geysers as well as from small or larger black funnels or chimneys rising high up at the bottom of the sea, and to be sure, along with the other primitive forms, from which, over the course of time, new unicellular life forms could evolve, which settled in the sands of the shores of the seas and other bodies of water and evolved under or in the sand to multicellular life forms.

75. But at the same time, comets as well as meteors and asteroids as well as interstellar clouds of microbes played a very important role, once these came into the immediate vicinity of the Earth and fell down upon this, thereby bringing their microbes, etc. to the planet, which combined in part with the Earth’s already-developed life forms of a similar kind and thereby created new life, or else life forms that were independently brought from space emerged from these.

76. But in relation to the insemination of the Earth with respect to fauna and flora, it must be clearly said that what primarily relates to this didn’t proceed from the planet itself but resulted through the inclusions from outer space, and to be sure, through comets, meteors, asteroids, dust particles, and even through the clouds of chemical elements drifting through free space as well as clouds of microbes, through which all the bacteria, fungi, lichens, mosses, viruses, and protozoa of various genera and species were brought to the Earth.
77. The Earth human being first emerged much later out of new amino acid connections, etc., which resulted from the decay substances of plants and animals.

78. The earliest human forms in this regard, which emerged from the planet itself, are to be backdated to 8 to 12 million years, but the actual hominid forms first appeared between six and eight million years ago, from whose lines various human forms then developed over the course of time, but these were not of permanence and, thus, passed again.
79. Then, from the same original line, still other and similar human life forms formed, so with the related human life forms, namely the simian beings, which still exist on the Earth today in various species.
80. The human beings who walked the Earth at earlier times, such as over 20 or 120 or even more than 230 million years ago, were in no way the so-called Earth-made or Earth-created ones but rather extraterrestrials who came from the depths of space and who stayed here for a certain time or only visited the planet for a short time for expeditions or for major excursions.
81. At that time, the areas of origin and home worlds of these travelers from afar were to be found in your galaxy, so the Milky Way, but also in foreign galaxies.

So once more: from your words, it again follows clearly and plainly that humans aren’t descended from the ape line but rather apes from the human line.

82. That is correct because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, that the evolutionary line of Earth human beings traces back to apes, is fundamentally wrong, for in truth, the evolutionary line of apes traces back to human beings.

83. Darwin was a deceiver in relation to the Man-Ape Evolutionary Line Theory because he secretly worked on ape bones and ape skeletons with a filing utensil, in order to adapt them into his claim and false theory and to present it to those scientists at that time who occupied themselves with the evolution of animals and humans.

84. At first, they were completely impressed by Darwin’s “evidence” and spread Darwin’s false claims and deceitful machinations across the globe as correct and as a true sensation.
85. And once they discovered Charles R. Darwin’s fraud, it was already too late to correct everything again; consequently, everything took its course, and the fraudulently created evidence entered into the scientific annals as authenticity; thus, it also spread among the people, and the erroneous teaching was born that the human being is descended from the ape, which is the exact opposite of what corresponds to the truth and correctness, that the ape is descended from the line of the human being.

The story is well-known to me. Through his wrong machinations, Darwin probably created the greatest deception and the greatest lie that a scientist on Earth has ever created. Greater deception and greater lies were probably only created by the Americans, with their made-up first Moon-landing, as well as those through which religions and sects were created.

86. That is correct.

CR 437/749

Oh well, I have here yet another question, because someone has asked me for an answer in the bulletin regarding on what Charles Darwin, in 1859, has constructed his theory of evolution, that the human is descended from apes.
I learned from your father, Sfath, that Darwin falsified an ape skeleton in order to demonstrate his theory, whereby however his assertion, being that the human descended from apes, did not just grow out of his own rubbish.
In reality, as Sfath explained, Charles Darwin was linked with Tibetan Buddhists, who told him of the Tibetan legend, according to which all humans descend from eight different branches of apes.
Can I convey my answer in this way?
Naturally, because what my father explained to you corresponds with the truth.
Darwin was a human who craved renown, and did everything illicitly and dishonestly to greatly build up his image.
The Darwinian teaching of evolution in regard to the Earth humans, that they originally arose from the apes, is truly not based on his own thought processes or from his own research, rather on a Tibetan legend that all humans descended from eight different branches of apes.
Darwin put the legend to use, whereby he suitably filed certain bones of an ape skeleton in order to substantiate and provide a line of evidence for his deceit, and presented the whole thing to the scientific body of the day.
Darwin, as founder of the so-called modern theory of evolution, actually did study medicine and then later theology, whereby he came into contact with Buddhists from Tibet.
Indeed, he was generally dealt with as a naturalist, but that role started as he took part in the world voyage of the survey ship “Beagle”, which was underway on the world’s seas from 1831 until 1836.
From 1842, as I have read, he began to work on his comprehensive travel experiences, and systematically collected his extensive material together in regard to the origin of the species.
Geological observations, as well as those of fauna as it pertains to geography, caused him to doubt the accuracy of the traditional teachings of the inalterability of the species.
From that also arose his main work, “The Origin of the Species through Natural Selection”, which constituted a turning point in the history of biology in 1859.
With the Theory of Selection, which led to Darwinism, respectively to the Darwinian teachings of descent, he explained the purposive adaptation of forms of life to the environment.
That he thereby also tried to underpin his teachings through the fraud of his adaptation of ape bones, and that he presented the Tibetan legend – that all humans are arisen from eight branches of apes – as reality, then led to the erroneous teaching that the human descended from apes, whereby this has endured until today and even the scientists grant their belief to this deception.
In 1871 he then published two volumes entitled, “The Descent of Man”.
Darwin was born on February 12th, 1809 in The Mount at Shrewsbury in England, and he died on April 19th, 1882 in Down House, which corresponds to today’s London-Bromley.
Are these statements true so far?
All of it corresponds to that which is correct.

FIGU Special Bulletin 32

Reader’s question
If it is said that the human did not descend from the apes, how was it then, really?
Mariann Uehlinger Mondria, Switzerland
Excerpt from conversations in the kitchen of August 27th, 2006
The original lineage of the primates – the coming into being of humans and apes
Originally the ape-beings and the humans descended from one single primal lineage, which, as a physically billowing form, respectively, a composition, formed as a primary state and was enlivened by an impulse-energy spirit-form, as that which is characteristic of plants.
This impulse-energy spirit-form is, respectively was, originally like a primal lineage from which the primates came forth, because it – in this physically billowing essence, respectively, in this first essence which was neither animal nor human, rather just a slimy, billowing, plant-like mass – still could not beget, respectively give birth to, an instinctive, or aware, consciously evolving spirit-form.
Only when this kind of entity was sufficiently broadly and highly developed into the primate, so that it had an actual brain at its disposal, was it capable of taking up, in its now developed brain, a primal combination of an aware evolution-consciousness and an instinct-consciousness.
With this combination of evolution-consciousness and instinct-consciousness – emerging, through evolution, out of the primal form of the impulse-consciousness – it dealt with an ambiguous spirit-form, out of which emerged two new spirit-forms, and therefore two new lineages and developments, and indeed a hominid, out of which came about an aware consciousness and therefore the conscious consciousness of the human, capable of evolution, as a result of the block [ie: mass/volume] of collective consciousness, whereby, however, in certain contexts, the forms of instinct-consciousness and impulse-consciousness were maintained.
In regard to the other spirit-forms, these developed as pure instinct-spirit-form, with an unconscious, and therefore not conscious, evolution-capable instinct-consciousness, as in the apes, whereby, likewise, a part of the impulse-consciousness was maintained.
And if it is now taught: “… Originally, indeed the apes and the humans descended from one primal lineage, from which emerged the primates.
… Already early, however, a pronounced evolutionary separation succeeded, whereby only one single species retained its three forms of consciousness, and these, through evolution, made a single union of consciousness, out of which the human species came into being.”
… And finally, yet to explain, is that on all the worlds in the universe which bear higher and high life, the evolutionary path to humans – respectively becoming human through evolution – is the same. Consequently, primate beings, respectively primary beings, come into being everywhere; out of which, on one hand, through further evolution, the human species develops, while the remaining primary-beings succumb to a degeneration of the form of consciousness, and thus remain primates, respectively, become ape-beings, as they are called by Earth humans.”, then the following is to be understood:
… In the origins of the development of the primate beings, these were formed in such a way in their form of consciousness, that their consciousness was aligned with an aware evolution-consciousness, as well as with a form of instinct-consciousness and an impulse-consciousness.
The human sprit-form is, after the shift out of the one primal lineage, in a state of being a primate, and therefore a form, in its first body-type origin, which can develop positively as well as negatively, if that is told as an allegory in respect of the unconscious instinct-consciousness of the ape beings and the animals in the sense of negative, as well as in respect of the conscious and aware evolutionary consciousness of the human in the sense of positive.
Principally, with the initial coming into being of every spirit-form, it emerges from an evolutionary shift of an unconscious impulse-consciousness, respectively, out of a impulse-spirit-form capable of shifting higher and it develops, in an ambiguous stage, initially towards an essentially conscious human or unconscious animalistic spirit-form, as in the allegory with the material forms of life, which, in the initial stage of conception, respectively, procreation, and the coming into being, exhibits a neutral form, and only through further development does it develop towards positive, respectively masculine, as well as towards negative, respectively feminine.

2 thoughts on “How Darwin Swindled the World- Apes Actually Descended from the line of Man, not vice versa

  1. This design is spectacular! You obviously know how to keep a reader amused. Between your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own blog (well, almost…HaHa!) Great job. I really enjoyed what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it. Too cool!|


  2. Man didn’t descend from apes.

    What is closer to the truth is that our knuckle-dragging cousins descended from us.
    That’s one of the shocking new theories being drawn from a series of anthropology papers published Friday in a special edition of the journal Science.

    Scientists say a 4.4-million-year-old fossil called Ardi – short for ardipithecus ramidus – is descended from the “missing link,” or the last common ancestor between humans and apes.

    The 4-foot, 110-pound female’s skeleton and physiological characteristics bear a closer resemblance to modern-day humans than to contemporary apes, meaning they evolved from humanlike creatures – not the other way around.

    The partial skeleton “is probably the most important find we have had yet,” says Owen Lovejoy, one of the primary authors on the journal package.

    Among other things, research on Ardi suggests humans are far more primitive in an evolutionary sense than today’s great apes – like chimps and gorillas – which have continued to evolve from the missing link.

    “In a way we’re saying that the old idea that we evolved from a chimpanzee is totally incorrect,” he says. “It’s more proper to say that chimpanzees evolved from us.”

    Lovejoy says chimps experienced more profound evolutionary changes in their backs, pelvises, limbs, hands and feet as they adapted to life in the trees than the hominid line of upright species that evolved into humans.

    “Hominids, it turns out to be, are pretty primitive,” he says.
    “The anatomy behind this behavioural combination is very unexpected and is certain to cause considerable rethinking of not only our evolutionary past, but also that of our living relatives, the great apes.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s