Direct Link to Latest News


Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

August 6, 2013

James Perloff shows why Darwinism
 makes no scientific sense.

By James Perloff

"We are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories... Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism." (Protocols 2:2-3)

The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God and to obey the Ten Commandments.  They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.

In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution.  I know some say "I believe in evolution and God."  Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.

However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone.  The public has been told evolution is "science," on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.

As author of two books on Darwin's spurious theory, I know one cannot discredit, in a few paragraphs, an idea which the Illuminati have spent millions to indoctrinate society with.  But let's dent it, shall we?


Darwin claimed life began eons ago from chance chemical processes. From the first living cell, all life evolved.  This might have been plausible in Darwin's day, when cells were considered simple.  But no longer.  Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins ­- each composed of hundreds of amino acids in precise order.  Francis Crick, who co-discovered DNA's structure, estimated the odds of getting just ONE protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260 - a number beyond imagination.  

To function, cells require the genetic code, which is far more complex than Windows 8's codes.  Would anyone argue the latter could derive from chance? 

Further, the primordial cell must have perfected - in the span of one lifetime - the process of cellular reproduction; otherwise there never would have been a second cell.  Yet, despite mathematic implausibility, and a dearth of supporting evidence, schoolchildren are still taught that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals.

According to Darwinism, single cells eventually evolved into invertebrates (creatures without backbones like jellyfish), then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and finally mammals.  Darwin said this occurred from creatures adapting to environments.

The discovery of genetics threatened this claim.  New organs require new genes.  Just moving into new environments doesn't give you new genes. 

This initially stumped Darwinists, but they eventually found a solution.  Random mutations - copying mistakes in the genetic code - occur very rarely, but DO alter genetic information.  So modern evolutionists said animals gained new genes by chance mutations, which made them more fit, and which they adapted to evolve into higher forms.

Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for years at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, discredits this in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Spetner demonstrates that random mutations destroy genetic information and function - never increase it.  Mutations are to the genetic code what typos are to a book. In humans, mutations cause sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, and thousands of other diseases.  Spetner shows that even the rare "beneficial mutations" evolutionists trumpet - such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics - actually result from functional losses.

If, as evolutionists claim, bacteria evolved successively into invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, there must have been countless "transitional stages."  Think about it.  For a fish to become a land creature, turning its fins into legs would require new bones, new muscles, new nerves - and while it was adapting to life on land, a new breathing system.  Since this supposedly happened from chance mutations - very rare events - innumerable creatures would have to live and die during the intermediate period.

So where's EVIDENCE for these transitionals?  Not in the living world.  Among bacteria, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, there are many thousands of species, but no intermediate species between these groups.  That's one reason why Carl Linnaeus, father of taxonomy (the science that classifies the living world) was a creationist.   Evolutionists try to explain the missing intermediates by saying "they all became extinct" (a convenient euphemism for "we ain't got proof").  A more apt reason for their nonexistence: they never existed.

Evolutionists therefore rely on fossils of extinct creatures as their evidence for these transitional stages.  Yet while fossils show variations within types, they do not validate the transitions between major animal groups Darwin's theory requires.

For example, while billions of invertebrate fossils exist, fossils illustrating their alleged evolution from simple ancestors are missing. Furthermore, the study of fossils has a storied history of error. In 1912, the announcement of "Piltdown Man" led the New York Times to exclaim in a headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True."  For four decades the British Museum displayed this supposedly 500,000-year old "apeman" - until it was exposed as a hoax: an orangutan jaw and human skull had been planted together, stained to look old, with their teeth filed down.

Genuine fossils can be equally deceiving.  Evolutionists called the coelacanth - a fossil fish claimed to be extinct for millions of years - a transitional form between fish and amphibians, its fins said to be "limb-like."  Then people started catching live coelacanths, and they were 100 percent fish - no amphibian characteristics.  Why are fossils tricky?   Because, as molecular biologist Michael Denton notes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 99 percent of an animal's biology resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils.  This disposes them to subjective interpretations.

Which brings us to our closing point.  Evolution is not a science like physics or chemistry, which comprise repeatable, testable knowledge.  Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade.  This can be tested countless times.  If I argued that water boils at 75 degrees, you could easily test and disprove my hypothesis.

But take evolutionary claims.  Darwin said we lost our body hair because our apelike ancestors preferred mates with less hair. How do you disprove that?  How do you disprove that "Lucy" (fossil bones found in Africa) was our ancestor?  Laws of physics and chemistry can be tested in present time.  Evolution, however, mostly constitutes opinions about the past, and one cannot test the past with the same authority as the present.

I'm out of time - but you're not.  For more information, see my book Tornado Junkyard, or my short Case Against Darwin, or websites such as  and

James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior,  is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government.  It is available here on Kindle.


Darwin's theory of evolution: good science or a steaming pile of dung?

James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, available in Kindle format, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. - See more at:
First Comment from Dan:

Perloff's right.  Charles Darwin had an agenda.  He didn't come up with Darwinism, he was just the messenger. 

Darwinism is the cosmology of Freemasonry.   See 2001: A Space Odyssey for the Masonic version of Genesis, in which Cain is the 'good guy' and Abel is the schmuck.  Darwin's grandfather had attempted to pass off evolution as a science hypothesis in the 18th century.  In his version, all life came from a single microbe.  That never got traction, so a generation later, grandson Charles gave took another run at it.  Charles was bipolar and lacked charisma, so the orator Thomas Huxley took up the lance of 'Darwinism'.  A genius publicist, the press dubbed him "Darwin's Bulldog".

Darwin's famous book was originally titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  

The title is very important.  He didn't simply propose that species change over time, but that 'fitness' is the only qualification for survival.   In one stroke the human race becomes on par with animals.  The highest authority in an indifferent Universe is the creature with highest kill ratio.  Morality becomes what you can get away with, etc, etc. 

Erasmus Darwin was initiated in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland, 1758.   As 3rd generation (at least) Charles Darwin qualified for the invisible secret society above exoteric Freemasonry. 


Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam"

Tom said (August 9, 2013):

I don't know what to think of God or the devil, I've never met either as best I can recall.
However, I do think there are people that believe in both and others that don't believe
and yet use the mental constructs of God and the devil against those that do. Considering
what we know of Darwin from the historical accounts (for what they're worth) he could
very well been Illuminati/Satanist as it seemingly fit well with his disdain for humanity
and the world.

What are we to think of the fossil record as it exists, with all of its' flaws and holes?
Were all of the known variations created in one fell swoop? On such and such a day
by God? Were all of the variations on man and ape alive at once? There seems to
me no perfect theory. This topic will always be an intriguing but insignificant one in
my rather short lifetime. Without having the answer to the diversity of life on Earth,
I can conclude that Darwin was what you and I would "classify" as an evil man.

NN said (August 8, 2013):

Medical expert Dr. Cuozzo wrote "Buried Alive" about evolution's smoke-filled rooms. Richard Leakey refused him to see any Kenyan fossils
in 'The Chapel' as Leaky termed it lol.

Evolutionists are priests. Their religion is Hinduism, which is Masonry, which is Mormonism. Hindus are OK with Jesus, he's just another god to
them, there are millions more, and you too can evolve into godhood.

Early evolutionists were occult. They work the scam like Masonry - here the porch Masons are materialist scientists.

I always figured satanists made evolution their antithesis to Christendom. Come antichrist we'll get synthesis splashed on big media.

Right now, seeding happens on out-there media like Coast to Coast AM.

The website backdrop says it all. Note to Noory, William Lyne got Illuminati offers to write phony ancient alien history like Sitchin.

The satanists will march out Ivy League profs saying so sorry, we had it wrong, humanity is the spawn of ET genetic engineers on orders Cosmic
Consciousness Central (you-know-who to the insiders). They'll flash new Dead Sea scroll discoveries and whatnot, some fresh from Photoshop, or trot out giant skeletons hidden under the Smithsonian. Resistance is
futile, submit to Great World Savior Politician and Approved Religion, shun neighbors who won't, history has been rewritten, it's the dawn of a
New Age, etc. - while they turn us into slaves.

Bohdan said (August 7, 2013):

Just as the “illuminati”- sponsored cross-species evolution lie is rammed into brains through perverted educational systems, so is those miscreants’ lie about the interspecies evolution of man into different races (skin colors) under the ages-long impact of different climates. Moreover, among the many lies, cover-ups and deliberate omissions propagated for naive populace in full majesty of (c)astronomy “science” is the widely accepted ‘understatement’ that the planets circle stars (like our Sun) in relatively static circular or elliptical orbits.

Let the masses better not realize that the suns (mostly binary systems anyway) also speed around their respective speeding galaxies and that these revolutions in space-time represent constantly advancing spiraling motions, which means that neither the stars nor their planets ever re-trace the same paths. But who cares? No one cared for centuries when the primitive dogma deceived them that the Earth was flat and central. So it is now, even if in a different dead-end mews.

I wonder how many of us would entertain an idea of diversified life as we know it being created in myriad ‘locations’ across the Multiverse and then simply ‘inserted’ onto this planet over the past billions of years, albeit with some humanoid ‘inserts’ being clearly evil to the bone as offshoots of, let’s say, illegal experiments. They unfortunately tend to displace the good Creation just as "bad money drives out good". They must know that their only raison d’être is through deceptive propaganda, including theory and practice.

Robert Geis said (August 7, 2013):

Excellent piece on Darwinism. My 2007 book On the Existence of God has three chapters which, I believe, incinerate Darwinism. I do not move into the illuminati question, just address the issue from a cytological/probabilistic angle. The fact that the book was never reviewed indicates to me the agenda thesis among the literati is alive and well.

Linda said (August 7, 2013):

There is a fantastic organization called the Institute for Creation Research that publishes a free monthly magazine called Acts & Facts.
If one can read the well researched articles in this publication and still hold to the THEORETICAL tenets of evolution, then one has a different agenda and bias than merely wanting to understand the science behind the origins of life.

I encourage you and your readers to give this publication a try. Educational and inspiring.
Here is the link:

Adrian said (August 7, 2013):

The late Gopi Krishna had a Revised Theory of Evolution.

1. Evolution is directed by a super-intelligent force which operates through a biological mechanism in the human body known to yoga theory as ‘kundalini’, and by many other names in a wide variety of ancient and esoteric texts.

2. Evolution, including human evolution, is therefore not ‘random’, but a deliberate act on the part of an invisible cosmic intelligence or organizing power and has a ‘target.’

3. The target of evolution is to produce a virtual superman or woman who will live in a permanent state of bliss, possess a genius level of intelligence, and various other attributes seldom seen in the population at large such as psychic powers.

4. Since the kundalini mechanism is a biological mechanism, given a properly conducted research program based on a serious scientific study of a group of suitable candidates, it should be possible to measure the biological and intellectual changes using suitable tests and equipment.

5. The existence of the kundalini mechanism explains the origin of the religious impulse in man, and therefore heals the schism between science and religion.

Anthony Migchels said (August 7, 2013):

Perloff's case is devastating.

Recently a friend gave me another example of how ridiculous the evolution theory really is.

He told me that the Human Genome requires 10^100 mutations.

The Universe is said to be about 15 billion years old. That amounts to (roughly) 10^20 milliseconds.

Meaning there would have had to be 10^80 mutations per millisecond since the beginning of time to create the genome that we have now.

It seems Evolution is only slightly more difficult to refute than Usury.

Isn't it mind boggling how group think and conformity chain our brain?

Adam said (August 7, 2013):

The concept of evolution is a fantasy and its methodology is sheer idiocy which is hidden behind a smokescreen - the required passage of vast amounts of time.

The fantasy is, that enormously complex and highly ordered, highly organized structures displaying excellent control processes and mechanisms have manifested from simple forms. The concept is repugnant to and a violation of reason.

The methodology takes the form of random,chance, undirected, uncontrolled events. This is the stuff of lunacy.

The methodology is hidden behind the smokescreen of vast amounts of time in an attempt to provide it with some credibility. It fails utterly as the element of time makes no difference to the methodology.

Evolution is an impossibility. All reproduction is based on a pool of fixed and established information. The process of reproduction contains three distinct error correction procedures.This facility serves to prevent "evolution". In spite of this safeguard, mistakes in reproduction do occur but they are always either detrimental or neutral in effect. They are never beneficial to the organism as it exists.

The increase in the level of information that has been gathered about the life forms on this Earth which display attributes and abilities like for example that possessed by the bat and also the dolphin both of which live in contrasting environments and which leave us gasping at their abilities serves only to demand the obvious conclusion that life forms on the Earth have been made.

The cause of the concept of evolution is explained in Prov.19:3 "The foolishness of man perverts his way and his heart frets against the Eternal."

The human body has been described by many as "a marvel of engineering". It is a composite of marvels and excellence. It is utter folly to suggest that attributes such as these are the result of random, chance, undirected, uncontrolled events.

Marcos said (August 7, 2013):

I suggest your readers check the book "The Edge of Evolution", by Michael Behe. It's impossible to continue to hold on to Darwinism after reading the many proofs he gives. Basically, what he says is that Darwin didn't have computers or genetic science, and that both have destroyed Darwin's ideas.

However, the elite has a card in their pocket: Aliens. They know Darwinism is doomed, and they will now say that aliens created our species by genetic manipulation. Just check the many movies about it: Prometheus, Mission to Mars, Star Trek New Generation, etc.

Maurice said (August 7, 2013):

I recently wondered why it is that, seeing how people in general don't trust politicians, corporations, the media etc., why it is that 'scientists' apparently get a free pass from society. It's as though what these "false-prophets?" say is almost always believed. Put a white lab coat on anyone and automatically what they say is near gospel.

Robert said (August 6, 2013):

What One Famous Scientist Said About Evolution.....

Part of a keynote address given at the American Museum of Natural History by Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) in 1981. Unpublished transcript.

"One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this evolution stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was some- thing wrong with “Evolutionary theory.”

Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me.

The question is: Can you tell me anything you KNOW about Evolution? Any one thing? Any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was SILENCE.

I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of Evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing, it ought not to be taught in High school.”

Kirk said (August 6, 2013):

The idea of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is certainly one of the most tested and proven of the laws of physics.
Otherwise intelligent people often think that, given enough time pretty much anything can happen can't it?

The second law states that in any closed system, in any process, free energy must decrease. Time is measured by natural processes, there is no other way to define the passage of time. Therefore, time is a MEASURE OF DESTRUCTION, not creation.

Evolution is impossible to begin with, but gets LESS POSSIBLE as time goes on.

Postulating some time or place where the second law does not apply has no more meaning than postulating the existence of a god who created everything. Neither hypothesis can be tested within the present creation.

Victoria said (August 6, 2013):

The website, addresses this issue very well, in my opinion. Perry Marshall, who runs it, was trained in science but, eventually, couldn't ignore the creation stories with which he had been raised. He asks atheists to answer the question how it could be that, while there are recurring patterns in nature (like snowflakes, for instance), there are no known examples of naturally-occurring codes, since codes are always produced by a conscious mind. So, since DNA is a code, until such time - if ever - we find a naturally-occurring code - it must be assumed that we are the product of Intelligence. Thus far, after five years and counting, he says that no atheist has been able to come up with a satisfactory answer to his question.

For me, completely untrained in the sciences, it seems obvious that there must be a combination of creation and evolution. First, we explored one theory, then the other; perhaps the time has come for a synthesis? I believe there must have been a moment of creation (the 'big bang'?) but that all species, just as humans do, seem to evolve physically, mentally and, perhaps, spiritually, over time, in response to catalysts in their environments.

Certainly, the belief in God (and for mystics throughout history it is not just a belief, but knowledge) adds fullness to one's life and gives it a sense of purpose greater than oneself. The latter idea, in particular, as James Perloff suggests, makes believers much less susceptible to manipulation by the 'elite' who seem to think of themselves as gods and probably resent the competition. It is probably a question that can only be answered through personal experience and, to my knowledge, there are only atheists who become believers and not mystics who become atheists.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at