One of the world’s greatest genetic mysteries is how a DNA marker present in Europe reached North America, leaving no clear trail through Siberia or Alaska.
Scientists have been baffled by how Haplogroup X arrived more than 12,000 years ago, raising new questions about how the Americas were first populated.
Haplogroup X is a rare maternal DNA lineage, passed down from mother to child, found in both Europe and North America.
Its unusual presence suggests that early Americans may have arrived in multiple waves, challenging the traditional view that all Native American maternal lineages came solely from Siberia via the Bering Land Bridge.
Other haplogroups provide a clear picture of the Asian origins of most Native American maternal lineages, which makes Haplogroup X’s unusual distribution all the more striking.
The mysterious DNA marker’s unusual presence suggests that early Americans may have arrived in multiple waves, challenging the traditional view that all Native American maternal lineages came solely from Siberia via the Bering Land Bridge (pictured)
‘That rarity makes it a powerful clue for tracing human history,’ Kostroman said. ‘When an uncommon marker appears in distant, disconnected regions, it signals a shared connection in the deep past.’
Haplogroup X is rare in Siberia and Alaska, with some researchers suggesting that it represents an earlier migration, possibly via a coastal route.
VASECTOMY…It Is A 24 Billion Dollar Industry. Doctors Profit From Men’s Long Term Health Being Totally Destroyed.
70% Of Men Develop Autoimmune Disease.
40% Increase In Dementia & Aphasia.
20% Diagnosed With Aggressive Prostate Cancer.
33% Suffer Permanent Chronic Pain…
You’d be hard pressed to find a urologist willing to be upfront about the risks associated with vasectomy – it’s a 24 billion dollar industry.
A survey of 1,500 urologists in the US reported that 90% of doctors would not stop performing vasectomy, despite numerous reports of vasectomy being linked to prostate cancer & plenty of other medical conditions.
After a vasectomy, the natural duct for sperm is closed off. The testicles continue to produce 50,000 sperm per minute. The sperm build up pressure in the epididymis of the testicles, which eventually ruptures from pressure. Research shows as high as 33% of patients experience long term post vasectomy pain.
What happens to all those sperm cells? This is where the immune response comes in. The sperm are still produced & still burst out, but now they have nowhere to go except into the bloodstream, where they were never intended to be.
Certain organs – including the testes & the brain – exist in what is the equivalent of a gated community in the body. Tiny tubes within the testes (in which sperm are produced) are protected by a physical barrier of Sertoli cells. The tight connections between these cells prevent blood-borne infections & poisonous molecules from entering the semen.
After a vasectomy, however, the protective barrier is broken & semen mixes into the bloodstream. The immune system recognizes the sperm as invading foreign agents & produces anti-sperm antibodies in 70% of men.
If your head is often boiling with ideas, associations, memories, signs and signals from people and the world around you and you love it but maybe it’s driving you crazy… and you have a partner who is similar or at least understanding, then you will love FIML and become good at it if you try.
A great and very successful day in Alaska! The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up. President Zelenskyy will be coming to D.C., the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people’s lives will be saved. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Fox News host Bret Baier was given exclusive access to President Trump during the much-anticipated summit in Alaska.
Baier interviewed President Trump on Airforce One going to Anchorage and during the day’s events. In this interview, Baier asked President Trump what his expectations were going in. Trump noted it is not his place to negotiate the terms of a ceasefire on behalf of Ukraine; however, he is willing to be an intermediary in a focused effort to stop the conflict.
Stopping the killing is President Trump’s main priority and peace is the elusive prize. In the background, as previously noted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the administration accepts the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a proxy war between the former Biden administration officials, NATO warmongers, international banking interests and Russia.
In a moment of genuine sunlight upon the backstory, President Trump notes he told President Putin, “There’s no way we are going to make a deal” … “impossible” … “because I have wise guys who created a phony deal,” the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, “and until those things are settled up” a reset in the relationship with Russia is impossible. WATCH:
This framework essentially validates what a small group of deep weeds walkers, including myself, have suspected. From the perspective of Trump and his big picture objectives, the recent Russiagate releases and declassifications are not so much to get accountability upon the perpetrators, but rather to make the backstory so well known that a strategic reset with Russia is no longer impeded by manufactured domestic issues inside the USA.
The value in Russiagate declassification and information releases, is more about laying the groundwork for a reset – and stopping the political opposition therein. That’s the Big Picture value to President Trump.
That is quite a big and significantly magnanimous position to take by President Trump.
Hopefully, the MAGA base will eventually come around to this understanding, because right now they are intensely expecting criminal accountability. That’s not President Trump’s goal, he’s thinking much bigger and more consequential that holding the irrelevant gnats accountable.
Apparently, Hillary Clinton can see that. It’s such a big altruistic position her tribe appears genuinely stunned. Hopefully, the base of MAGA will also accept this strategic purpose.
Here’s a long piece about why Whitney Webb’s Epstein book and podcast interviews have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s grasp of the Jeffrey Epstein story than the censors could ever dream of having:
A book or any other printed material needs to be precise and as brief as possible in order to properly convey the material therein. A smart writer knows this and endeavours to reach that goal. It is no good to say “but I had to include everything so that people will understand” instead what should be done is to get a really good understanding of the material so that one might express the essence of it with just enough backing history that the reader can have faith that the material is accurate.
When attempting to baffle with bullshit, however, authors and lawyers often use a simple trick: bury their mark in unnecessary documentation. Overload the senses, use too many words, offer too much documentation.
The aim, of course, is to make the reader or target feel that there’s no way they can actually verify the information or even absorb it all.
Often this trick in itself is evidence of foul play or malfeasance, however it could be that the person producing the material is simply ill equipped to handle the case they are working on and so they throw everything into the mix hoping that the sheer volume will confer some sort of legitimacy on the work. I’m not commenting, in the case of Webb, on her intentions.
Part 2
Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
The point of that tale is to demonstrate that a group of people will go along with a delusion if ‘popular’ people embrace it first.
Where real life differs from the tale is that in real life, if someone comes along to point out that the whole group of people were fooled, more often than not the group will turn on the person pointing out the truth rather than awaken from their shared delusion.
This is what has happened with Whitney Webb and her book about Epstein. She wrote this huge and unreadable book (which no, I haven’t read) and immediately got invited onto popular shows (Glenn Beck first) to receive high praise for it. This was ‘The King’ endorsing the new invisible fashion.
Soon the commoners (even though they didn’t read past the first chapter, let’s say, of the book) wanted to look smart & informed so instead of admitting that the book was a cloud of verbal flatulence they joined in the adoring chorus.
The truth is that Tracey’s critique is valid.
He doesn’t go far enough in his warnings about it, though. His aim is not my aim. It appears to me that Tracey just wants to discredit links to Israelis and Jewish intelligence (not sure). In my case I want people to realize that the truth of Epstein not only includes links to Israel, but also to the world of science (progress) / transhumanism / AI and probably to much darker stuff. That his links to Howard Lutnick are not properly investigated. Etc.
When Webb goes on podcast after podcast with her flood of info and in her grating manner (the combination of which sets one’s teeth on edge and makes their eyes glaze over) she serves a more dangerous role than would a censor of info about Epstein and his connections.
She makes people believe that they’ve got the full story, but also that that story is too complex to grasp, and in the end they slip back into “muh egg-shaped penis” titllation instead of ever really reaching understanding.
This has been my sense of Webb as well. I also have not read her book for the reasons given above.
We should all be wary of influencers while also taking in whatever information is good.
I, for one, accept the fact that we are living in a world run by elites; and with that in mind I offer qualified support to whichever side or faction of the elite seems pragmatically best to me.
To put that another way: would you ever really want to live in a real democracy? wherein every moron alive who knows nothing can determine the fate of a nation?
It’s just as well we have pretend elections which amount to public opinion polls at best.
AI may change the game but, so far, elites have always ruled and still do. ABN
ARECENT GROUNDBREAKING EXPERIMENT in which anesthesia was administered to rats has convinced scientists that tiny structures in the rodents’ brains are responsible for the experience of consciousness. To pull it off, these microscopic hollow tube structures, called “microtubules,” don’t rely on our everyday flavor of classical physics. Instead, experts believe, microtubules perform incredible operations in the quantum realm. Citing the work of earlier researchers, the study infers that the same kind of quantum operations are likely happening in human brains.
During their rat brain experiments, scientists at Wellesley College in Massachusetts gave the rodents isoflurane, a type of inhaled general anesthetic used to induce and maintain unconsciousness for medical procedures. One group of drugged rats also received microtubule-stabilizing drugs, while the other did not. The researchers discovered that the microtubule-stabilizing molecules kept the rats conscious for longer than the non-stabilized rats, which more quickly lost their “righting reflex,” or the ability to restore normal posture, according to their findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal eNeuro in August 2024.
The Wellesley study is significant because the physical source of consciousness has been a mystery for decades. It’s a major step toward verifying a theory that our brains perform quantum operations, and that this ability generates our consciousness—an idea that’s been gaining traction over the past three decades.
Done properly, FIML takes the worst parts of communication and treats them as the most interesting. And they are interesting. I guarantee you will see yourself and your partner very differently after a few months of FIML practice. Vague impressions and uncertain emotions, many of which you may not even be aware of, will give way to an increasing fineness of detail and definition in your communications with each other. And this will have a major impact on how you view yourself, and how you talk to yourself. The same will be true for your partner.
Another way of looking at FIML is to understand that you and your partner are creating your own micro-culture. What is in your culture and how it works is up to you. I don’t think it will work well or last long if you do not have an ethical basis for it, but beyond that, the rest is up to you. As a side note, FIML cannot possibly work if one partner is dishonest. There is no point in doing it if you plan to lie. Please see How to do FIML for a complete explanation of what is meant by honesty and what its limits within FIML practice are.
As partners progress in FIML practice, they will notice that each FIML query becomes a sort of example that expands within the mind. Once you notice a mistaken impression in one area and have dealt with it, you will probably notice that that same mistake is being repeated in other areas. This will strengthen your initial insights and make it easier to correct other occurrences of that mistake. Once you succeed in this a few times, you will experience significant feelings of relief and an increase in mental and emotional energy because your mind is no longer working against itself in that area.
And all of this will make FIML practice easier and more fluid in any other areas that come up. Just knowing that you have done FIML successfully and that both partners are willing and able to benefit from further FIML discussions is a huge relief. Not much is going to bother either one of you because you both know that you have the tools to deal with whatever presents itself.
Remember that FIML is not about judging. FIML is not about consciously or unconsciously importing structures or judgments from the large culture around you into the micro-culture you are co-forming with your partner. An example of what I mean could be tone of voice. If your partner’s tone of voice bothers you, start a FIML query, but do not expect or look for them to apologize for it. Rather, look for them to explain it while you explain to them what you think you heard. If you heard derision, say, where none was intended, the mistake is probably all yours, though your partner may want to reflect on that tone of voice anyway. Both of you can decide how to deal with that tone of voice in the future. Do you want it removed from your micro-culture? Do you want to keep it but understand it differently? The choice is entirely up to the two of you.
Notice how important it is in this example that both partners be completely honest about what they meant and what they heard. If one partner lies and says there was no derision in their voice when there was, your FIML practice sucks. This is so very important because partners not only can but must co-form their own micro-culture. Another way of saying that is we do not want to import anything thoughtlessly from the larger culture. We want our micro-culture to be clean, clear, and honest. We want it to be something that both partners agree on without reservation or hidden motives. If one of you is lying, none of this is possible. A lie is essentially a hidden standard, a standard one partner imports in secret without telling the other.
To continue our example, another important point can be made about tone of voice in this context. Basically, who can say what is “derision” in someone’s tone or not? A flat sounding, no-nonsense, here-is-the-info tone of voice can easily be misinterpreted as derision when it is not. If you import the false notion that any flat, no-nonsense tone is derisive, right there you are placing a huge limit on you and your partner’s capacity for full and open communication. Not having any strong, no-nonsense tone in your micro-culture more or less condemns you both to not being able to get your own facts and make your own decisions for yourselves. It may very well cause or perpetuate a passive attitude toward your existence and your place in the world. Decide for yourselves what your tones mean and how to deal with them. Of course, we have to keep the standards of the larger culture in mind, but not so much that we surrender our wise autonomy to them.
FIML practice works because it integrates and focuses linguistics, psychology, sociology, and interpersonal communication all at the same time. We use our speech to find sound data points that can be calmly and reasonably discussed. This exposes our psychology while providing us with sensible feedback from our partners. This helps partners co-form their own culture without having to conform unnecessarily to the culture of someone else. And all of this frees our interpersonal communication from blockage, misunderstanding, fear, and so on.
American Buddhist Net 