The Big Split

According to this recent report, the human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist.
100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed.

The alarming prediction comes from evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry from the London School of Economics, who says that the human race will have reached its physical peak by the year 3000.

The report claims that after they reach their peak around the year 3000 humans will begin to regress

These humans will be between 6ft and 7ft tall and they will live up to 120 years.
"Physical features will be driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility that men and women have evolved to look for in potential mates," says the report, which suggests that advances in cosmetic surgery and other body modifying techniques will effectively homogenise our appearance.

Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men's satellite TV channel Bravo. Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry.
Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone.

The future for our descendants isn't all long life, perfect bodies and chiselled features, however.
While humans will reach their peak in 1000 years' time, 10,000 years later our reliance on technology will have begun to dramatically change our appearance.

Medicine will weaken our immune system and we will begin to appear more child-like.
Dr Curry said: "The report suggests that the future of man will be a story of the good, the bad and the ugly.

H G Wells' Science Fiction novel The Time Machine, the human race has evolved into two species, the highly intelligent and wealthy Eloi, and the frightening, animalistic Morlock.

"While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is the possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other.
"After that, things could get ugly, with the possible emergence of genetic 'haves' and 'have-nots'."

Dr Curry's theory may strike a chord with readers who have read H G Wells' classic novel The Time Machine, in particular his descriptions of the Eloi and the Morlock races.
In the 1895 book, the human race has evolved into two distinct species, the highly intelligent and wealthy Eloi and the frightening, animalistic Morlock who are destined to work underground to keep the Eloi happy.

This is interesting to read about, but I would be willing to bet that not a single one of us now reading it, will have to worry about which species we'll have evolved into by then...unless you know something that I don't!

King Arthur's Dilemma

Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.
The question?....What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end.
He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princes, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.
Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer.
But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.

The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.

The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend!

Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.

He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.
He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.

Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus: What a woman really wants, she answered, is to be in charge of her own life.

Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.

And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding.

The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened.

The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.

Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day; or night? Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?

Noble Lancelot said that he would allow Her to make the choice herself. Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time, because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life. Now....what is the moral to this story?

The moral is:
"If you don't let a woman have her own way....things are going to get ugly!"

Something To Think About

"Although there are frequent suggestions that Africans in America are too afraid to make a militant demand for liberation, Kwame Ture often reminded us that our people have repeatedly demonstrated amazing courage. Little African children faced fire hoses and police dogs in Birmingham. African freedom riders were beaten and tortured by racist mobs.* Young gun-toting sisters and brothers in the Black Panther Party confronted racist police. The record of the raw courage of Africans goes on and on.

Even if we don't acknowledge our own courage, our oppressors have always been well aware of it. Our enemies (capitalists, the intelligence agencies, the police and Clarence Thomas- like lackeys) have always believed their task to be to ensure that our courageous young people misdirect their anger. Thus, the oppressor is always pleased when young Africans in gangs direct their anger at rival gangs. The enemy becomes concerned when, as in the wake of the acquittal of police who beat Rodney King, there is an interval of clarity. Gangsters united on that occasion and directed their anger at Los Angeles city hall and the police.

Our enslavement continues in spite of our militancy and courage only because we are disorganized. Our rebellions are usually spontaneous, and temporary rather than planned and sustained. There are many in our community who have recognized this deficiency and they are working around the clock on a remedy. In the meantime however, the enemy watches us carefully and develops a number of contingency plans.

Although we lack faith in the willingness and ability of our people to unite and fight, the enemy is absolutely certain that this will happen sooner or later. The only question for the enemy is whether the masses of Africans, once organized, will attempt to reform the existing system; or to instead engage in a revolutionary process that is calculated to dismantle the existing system and build a new one. Obviously, from the perspective of the enemy, reform is certainly the preferred option. Capitalists do not want to lose their ability to reap large profits from the exploitation of the labor and resources of Africans and others in America. If they can keep all of this by appeasing Africans in some way, that is certainly their preference. It is for that reason that it is almost inevitable that we will receive reparations.

On countless occasions, skeptics in our community have voiced the now familiar refrain: "Those white folks ain't never gonna give us reparations." But if one pauses to analyze our circumstances for only a moment, it becomes crystal clear that the enemy will do just that. Used skillfully, reparations can ensure the maintenance of the capitalist status quo for many years into the future.

Most of the activists who work diligently for reparations are among the most sincere Africans our community has produced. Many of them see reparations as an opportunity for true self-determination. Some want the money to be used to ensure that African people have their own land, economy, educational system, and maybe even an independent government. Others see reparations as a source of funds they can use to return to Africa for permanent residence. Still others would suggest that reparations be used to finance insurgent movements both here and in Africa for a serious challenge to corporate power. None of these options are acceptable to the enemy. They prefer an entirely different scenario.

The enemy's plan probably looks something like this: First, the government will resist all demands for reparations for as long as possible. As poverty, mass incarceration, police violence and other problems escalate, the anger in African communities will rise as well. It is only when Africans are on the verge of organized mass rebellion that the first hint of a willingness to grant reparations will be given. Government officials will refuse to negotiate with the "radicals" but they will speak with "responsible" Black leadership (i.e., mainstream civil rights leaders). Although a great show will be made about negotiations, corporate and government accountants will have, in advance, worked out an acceptable monetary figure that is calculated to impress the impoverished African masses, and at the same time not pose a threat to corporate profits and the government's treasury.

When the "negotiations" are completed, the President will host a grand White House ceremony where he will shed crocodile tears about White America's sins. Those in attendance will include all members of the Black leadership elite. With smiles and champagne glasses galore, they will announce great plans for use of the reparations money to develop corporate executive training programs for African young people that include guaranteed employment with Fortune 500 companies. Black-owned companies will be given new contracts with large corporations. Corporations will provide all Africans thousands of dollars in gift certificates. As they seek to preserve the status quo, they will give us lots of bangles, beads and opportunities for our children to be co-opted into their system. They will not give us power and independence."

~Mark P. Fancher is a writer, lawyer and activist. Books he has authored include: Misplaced Loyalty - Why U.S.-Born Africans Don't Believe They Are Africans Anymore; and Genocide With A Smile - The Campaign To Destroy Africans Born In America.

* An organization for which another of our presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, was the legal counsel.

Who were these heroes? The bulk of critics, whether they be on the right, left or survivors of the Panther group itself, agree that this militant organization was made up of — as one writer close to the action put it — an “amalgam of street hustlers, ex-convicts and disenchanted student radicals.” At their peak, the Panthers had around 5,000 committed members in 20 chapters around the country, plus legions of supporters, sympathizers and wanna-bes. They could mobilize mobs of 25,000 and more. Panther ideology, according to former member Salim Muwakkil writing in the Chicago Tribune, was a combination of black separatism, Marxism and other ideological “odds and ends.” A keynote of Panther speeches was a call for killing white leaders, beginning with President Nixon on down the ranks to San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto. They were allied with communist movements around the world and were particularly close to Fidel Castro. The militants were not joking in their advocacy of armed struggle, as they often proved. In one raid on a Panther arsenal, police seized more than 1,000 weapons ranging from machine guns to grenade launchers. No less violent toward their own than toward the “oppressors,” the Panthers disciplined those within the party using bullwhips and chains, if the targets were lucky, and executing others. Such an execution brought Hillary Rodham and Bill Lann Lee to Panther defense. Alex Rackley, a member of the New Haven chapter who was thought to be an informer, was clubbed, burned with cigarettes, doused with boiling water and stabbed with an ice pick before being taken out and shot twice in the head by his comrades. The ensuing campus protests were not about guilt or innocence but to express concern that the Panthers, as prisoners of war, “should not even be tried in the courts of the United States at this time,” as Hayden put it. The leader of the Panthers was Huey Newton, described by his close friend of that era, Ramparts magazine coeditor David Horowitz, as a “convicted felon with a history of violent crimes [who] had built a paramilitary organization dedicated to opposing police.” Newton was a master of the game who charmed wealthy and influential liberal and leftist whites. He was a centerpiece guest at Hollywood parties attended by Candice Bergen, Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda and others, a favorite of famous conductor Leonard Bernstein and depicted by academic allies as comparable in stature to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. At the same time, according to Horowitz, Newton was snorting prodigious amounts of cocaine, abusing women in the manner of medieval nobility and organizing the takeover of drug and prostitution rackets from his penthouse command post. Horowitz split with the Panthers as a result of the killing of Betty Van Patter, a Ramparts bookkeeper whom he had recommended as an auditor for various Panther enterprises. “In pursuit of answers to the mystery of Betty’s death, I subsequently discovered that the Panthers had killed more than a dozen people in the course of conducting extortion, prostitution and drug rackets in the Oakland [Calif.] ghetto,” Horowitz wrote. “While these criminal activities were taking place, they enjoyed the support of the American left, the Democratic Party, the Bay Area Trades Union Council, even the Oakland business establishment.” Horowitz, haunted by a belief that his own ideological blindness had led to Betty’s death, bought a 9mm Glock pistol and a sophisticated alarm system for his car and has only looked back in anger. Newton, accused of another killing and the target of a death contract by Oakland-area pimps, fled to Cuba. Other Panther leaders also fled the country or were killed in confrontations with the police; some did jail time and returned to society as political, spiritual and academic leaders, writers or entertainers.

Maybe you are thinking that all of this about black separatism, reparations, Obama, and Hillary, have nothing to do, one with the other. I'm not so sure. For one thing, our country has been, and is, in big, big trouble when it comes to social issues. My nightmare is that Hillary will become President, and Barak will become Vice President...then what?

There is unrest, feelings of inequality fueled by not only Black leaders, but the politically correct, far leftists.
There is violence, and crime, commited by those who think that something is owed to them, therefore, they feel they have a right to take it. It has gotten so out of hand, that the politicians are trying to convince everyone that the only solution is to take the guns out of the hands of the citizenry, or at least, they are pushing to pass laws that will make it impossible to obtain them, and if already in possession, to take them away.

Think about it.