The human race showing signs of splitting into two species

The human race may one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling, rich group and an underclass of dim-witted, fat, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist. The political party each belongs to will also fall into two categories: Conservative/Independent and Liberal/Socialist.

In a few thousand years up to 100,000 years into the future, sexual selection could mean that two distinct breeds of human will have developed. It’s signs are already here.

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.

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

Enlarge the image

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-colored skin tone. The fat, dumb welfare state people, those most likely to be Democrats in America, Labour Party in England and Socialists in the rest of Europe are becoming evident.

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.

Today you can see the split. Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, Barbra Boxer, and Henry Waxman are among the Liberal/Socialist party of trolls. While Bush, McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill O’Rielly and Sean Hannity are the Conservative/Independent party members.

It’s just a theory, of course.

–NIALL FIRTH interviewed Dr. Curry.

Advertisements

Jimmy Carter blames the U.S., Israel and E.U. for favoring Fatah over Hamas. Says we should recognize Hamas

Mick Gregory

According to Jimmy Carter, the United States, Israel and the European Union, must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who took his prize at the same time as Yasser Arafat, was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Is Carter sactioning this thug-controlled election like he did for Hugo Chavez?

Hamas fighters routed Fatah in their violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last week. The split prompted Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing government with his rivals in Hamas and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the West Bank.

Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an “effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples.”

The disgraced president doesn’t know right from wrong. The two peoples are killing each other, mafia style.
Someone should tell Mr. Carter that Hamas raided Arafat’s former home and stole his Nobel Peace Prize. Imagine the irony?

Carter reminds me of the traitor in the blockbuster film “300.” Not only his facial features, but more important, his support of terrorists.

Jimmy Carter a Disgraced President

by Mick Gregory

I just listened to Jimmy Carter on NPR this morning. The former Democrat president was trying to say that his statement on page 213 of his new hate and blame book, Peace Not Apartheid, was actually just an error.

“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”

(Carter is now saying there was a misplaced word, a mistake that will be fixed in future editions).

Which word is it?

Ladies and gentlemen, here is a test. Let’s see which word or words can change the meaning of Carter’s endorsement of murdering Jews?

…end terrorism when (replace with if)
…end terrorism when (when, if ever)
…end terrorism when (when pigs fly)

As a writer and editor, I can not find any way to read this sentence that does not clearly condone the murder of Jews on busses, in pizza parlors and in shops, until Israel follows former President Carter’s prescription for peace. This book caused 12 of Carter’s staff at his library (paid for by Arab foundations) to quit in disgust.

This is a major event. Imagine if you will, if Ronald Reagan or George Bush had written that?

It sheds light on the disgraced president — Carter is clearly on the side of terrorists and may have been his whole life. There are now stories coming out of Carter giving special leniency to a former Nazi SS soldier’s family in the U.S.

Carter supported the politics of Danny Ortega and Yasser Arafat.

Was that why Carter let the Islamic fascists take over Iran during his presidency?
Why did Jimmy Carter give the Panama Canal away?
What did the Camp David Accords accomplish?

These questions were not asked Carter:

What NPR didn’t ask Carter
Jimmy Carter was interviewed this morning on NPR. The interviewer pressed him on his use of the word ‘apartheid’, an obvious and reasonable question. However, there are a few other questions, also obvious and reasonable that were not asked. For example:

Do you think that you were influenced in any way by the millions of dollars you personally and the Carter Center received from Arab sources?
You said in your book that the Arabs must recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace. Don’t you think that it’s reasonable to expect an end to terrorism before Israeli concessions are made that compromise her security? Wouldn’t it be irresponsible for the Israeli government to give up territory while rockets are falling?
The thrust of your arguments is that Israel is responsible for the conflict as a result of her occupation of ‘Palestinian land’ in 1967. How do you account for the Palestinian terrorism against Israel (and the pre-state Jewish presence) since at least 1920? Don’t you think that the Arabs — both the Palestinians and Israel’s neighbor states — must bear some responsibility for the sustained terrorism and war that they’ve waged against the Jews over the years?
Update (1453 PST): Read Kenneth Stein’s review of Carter’s book. Stein was Executive Director of the Carter Center from 1983 to 1986, and the Center’s Middle East Fellow until 2006, when he resigned in protest of the book.
Visit: fresnozionism.org