A certain perception has been pushed, selectively constructed from Darwin’s ‘The Origin of Species’–the notion that the human race evolved up through the apes, in an unbroken, linear pattern of growth and adaptation, predicated on random genetic mutations; additionally, that the human race as we know it is the only intelligent species to ever inhabit the planet, and has never been in direct contact with intelligent species of any other kinds.
Nobody seems to be challenging, for example, the notion that mastodons or dinosaurs once roamed the Earth.
Challenging The Norm
But what about testimonials and evidence from the past that challenge this perception of our history? Say, for example, a native North American tribe claiming that their ancestors regularly dealt with giants?
Stories of this nature are certainly considered to be true history by the people of the tribes themselves; but of course when they are talked about in our society, they are relegated to the status of legend, myth or folklore.
Let’s look at an example from a New York Times article from 1902:
It is only after the authority swoops in to take possession of, and then hide or destroy physical evidence, such as the giant bones discovered above, that their narrative of skepticism and discrediting of native ‘legends’ takes place.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that landowner Luciana Quintana expects to be able to find thousands of skeletons based on the historical information passed down from native tribes during early Spanish invasions that ‘have detailed knowledge of the existence of a race of giants that inhabited the plains of what now is Eastern New Mexico.’
The tone again reinforces that this information was accepted as history, not legend.
Stories Of Giants Are Ubiquitous
Such histories are not the isolated imaginings of one native American group either. This article alone details similar testimony from the Choctaw, Commanches, Navaho, Manta, and Paiutes.
The point is that the tribes whose histories bring them back to the time when these giants were to have existed all give remarkably consistent testimony not only of their existence, but also of their appearance, customs, and behaviors.
Why are we not open to view these claims as historical fact the way we do with the more uncontroversial data about the past we are provided with? For only one reason–the well-established discomfort of ‘cognitive dissonance’, a temporary mental anguish that comes from having the perception of reality we were born into threatened in our minds.
And our authority uses this phenomenon to deepen the programming of their controlled perception, using fear, ridicule, shame, and other thoroughly-researched social and cultural mind-control techniques to keep us on the straight and narrow.
But before Darwin’s work on the origin of species was slowly co-opted and transformed into a random, godless universe in the early 20th century, it is quite possible that people openly accepted the possibility that giants existed in North America at some time in our past.
Certainly, this reflection on Niagara Falls by Abraham Lincoln in 1848 reveals an open-eyed, serene knowledge of the presence of Giants in an earlier time:
“It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent — when Christ suffered on the cross — when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea — nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker — then as now, Niagara was roaring here.
“The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Co[n]temporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastadon—now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara.”
The reason that many people today do not believe in the giants of the past is the result of efforts to remove from public sight the physical evidence of giants, as part of the larger effort to remove the physical evidence of anything that does not fit the controlled perception of human history.
And the reason they are trying so desperately to preserve this perception?
Simply stated, and without getting into details that have been elaborated upon in some of my previous articles, this perception of our human history lends itself best to our being controlled and enslaved by our authority.