Alex Jones, Prometheus and the Death of Sci-Fi


Superheroes have taken pole position in the tentpole box office derby, in front of the sci-fi blockbuster. Even an ostensible sci-fi film like Avatar was actually a classic superhero origin narrative. I bet that John Carter would have been a success had it been marketed as a superhero story (which in fact it is) than a sci-fi extravaganza, which modern audiences are a bit weary of.

I saw Prometheus and it was exactly what I knew it was going to be all along- a slick, well-made, and utterly emotionally-empty experience. It was a dazzling display of the latest technology that left me as soon as I took off my 3D glasses. It was rife with X-Files lifts, not surprising given its cowriter. All of the characters were unlikable, with the female lead being only somewhat less unlikable than all of the others.

The mission ends in tears, as all such incursions into the halls of Olympus must. The ultimate message of the film- which I'll get to at the end of this piece- is in fact the ultimate letdown, though it might have escaped most people's notice.

The takeaway of the film is the disappointment and the inevitable backlash it inspired. The film was a hit, but nowhere near the mega-hit you'd expect given the avalanche of hype that preceded it. The danger in the kind of massive pre-release pimping we see these days is that you'd better deliver. If people are left anything less than breathless, you're dead in the water. Read this:
20th Century Fox's "Prometheus" earned $51 million over the weekend with the help of a social media campaign that featured content not appearing in the film -- but the online chatter took a turn for the worse once people actually got a chance to see the movie. Facebook users largely called the movie a disappointment, raising concerns that early social buzz might have created unrealistic expectations for the movie. "You can't build the hype too much. Some fans were so excited about 'Prometheus' that nothing could live up to the movie they already directed in their heads," said Phil Contrino of
The fact that the film has been attacked from every piss-stop on the modern ideological superhighway proves that the reaction to the film is a symptom of a kind of existential malaise, once that can be laid at the doorstop of the movie moguls themselves.


Hollywood destroyed the magic of movies by making us all a bunch of mini-moguls.
We know now how all the illusion is created before the film is ever released so we unconsciously search for the seams. We go online and check the weekend grosses and determine the value of a film, a near-Kabbalist ritual once the exclusive province of agents, producers and studio heads.

With comedies and romances and kid movies, it doesn't really matter. But with science fiction movies-- the most vulnerable to the laser-beam focus of the overeducated movie-goer-- it makes all the difference in the world. We've lost our innocence and even the most impressive films never leap from the screen and into our lives, like they did in the pre-Internet, pre-hype overload days.

Sci-Fi faces an uphill struggle anyway- its books are hard to write, its films are hard to make and no one believes in Tomorrowland anymore.

Sci-Fi fandom is atomizing into sects, driven by identity politics and scientistic fundamentalism. A lot of the more prominent SF writers escaped into the more forgiving precincts of Fantasy, while are others are toiling away doing movie adaptions or writing for video games. TV sci-fi is a mess, a cultish world of silly X-Files and Lost ripoffs with little or no cultural cache left in the chamber.

Of course, Ridley Scott had the temerity to remind moviegoers that the Alien franchise- like almost every single major sci-fi franchise on Earth-- is based in Ancient Astronaut Theory. This isn't news of course, it was established a couple sequels ago. But you're not supposed to say such things out loud anymore.

"Skeptics" pretend to dismiss AAT but in fact they are terrified of it (and don't believe any different). It's been almost 50 years since it first raised its head in the popular consciousness with Morning of the Magicians, and skeptics are still struggling to explain away all of the growing gaps in the Victorian-era theories of evolution and archaeology they vociferously defend on YouTube but never actually study.

And since being a "Skeptic" is a popular as super-sizing and exercise avoidance with Millennial geeks, reminding them that everything they love is AAT propaganda was not going to go over well.


Scott's little faux pas might have fed into the backlash, but I think the uninspiring script he was saddled with deserves the lion's share of the blame. But born-again Bill Cooper imitator Alex Jones did his best to ignite a preemptory backlash against the film, though I'm not sure he was quite certain why he wanted to do so.

Maybe he wasn't certain if he wanted to do so, or was simply trying to bolster his declining audience by hitching his wagon to a well-publicized Hollywood horse. Given Jones' unfortunate reversion to revival-tent hyperventilating in the past year or so, there are only two possible conclusions we can draw from his Prometheus rant; he either didn't actually read the script as he claimed or he's pimping some other agenda we can only guess at.

Jones thoughtlessly assigns "occult" motivations to the scientific overclass, who have been downright Maoist in their drive to annihilate any thought contagion outside of their rationalist/reductionalist orthodoxy, and have been using fronts like CSICOP (with its links to the international pedophile underground) and the JREF (whose co-founder was recently convicted of fraud in Federal court) to stamp out any traces of occultism since the early 70s.

Jones also dredges up old USENET chestnuts like "Revelation of the Method", an imaginary doctrine invented out of whole cloth by a neo-Nazi of distinctly contemporary vintage, "Illuminati mystery religion", (a ridiculous misnomer given the only significant group we can confidently identify as having called itself the Illuminati professed rationalism) and "Externalization of the Hierarchy", a scare-term from the 70s-vintage conspiracy-theory catalog inspired by the toothless Lucis Trust.

I can't help but wonder who is really pulling Jones' strings these days, because at the same time he's fulminating against that all-powerful, sexy, sorcerous, quite-enviable Illuminati (who has nothing in common with the miserable, workaholic materialists pulling the Globalist stops) he's pimping pure, unalloyed Ancient Astronaut Theory, making special care to let his Fundamentalist Christian fanbase know the Bible itself is ripe to bursting with ancient astronauts (which, of course, it is).

Jones also fails to dismiss or debunk AAT, a major no-no with his predominantly religious following.

He then goes on to let his followers know that those rich, powerful geniuses from the glory days of the British Empire bought into AAT whole cloth, a dubious claim if ever there was one. If this isn't a classic case of reverse psychology, it sure looks like one.

Do androids crap their electric pants?


However, the problem is that this movie is typical anti-elitist, anti-scientist Hollywood popcorn fodder, just like previous blockbusters such as Avatar, Scott's Blade Runner, and the Jurassic Park films. The message is that man's attempt to play God will always end in ruin.

The "Illuminati" is embodied here in the person of Peter Weyland and David, his android son (why Weyland would use a middle-aged man as the model for an android rather than a 20 year-old is a mystery to me). Of course, they are instantly and unceremoniously dispensed with once they meet the sole surviving Engineer, their reward for spending all their time and treasure in search of their alien makers.

The sole survivor of the mission is the good Christian girl, who's next order of business is zoom to the Engineers' homeworld and kick some ancient astronaut ass.

So Jones's so-called "Illuminati" are shown to be fools and dupes, whose goal to equate themselves with the gods is that oldest of sins, hubris. And just as you see in the old Greek tragedies, nothing is more offensive to the gods than hubris. David deigns to speak the language of the gods and has his head ripped off as punishment for his presumptuousness (something many Frenchmen dream of when confronted with American tourists, surely).

Weyland-- who Jones features so prominently-- dies in utter despair. His biological daughter, Meredith Vickers, is crushed under the crashing Engineer spaceship. It's the working class heroes-- one black, one Asian, one played by an actor of Middle Eastern descent-- who destroy the Engineer's ship.

An interesting bit of symbolism, given that the Engineer's are white as ivory.

So everything that Jones is claiming about the film's message is totally debunked; not by me, not by a skeptic or atheist, but by the actual movie itself.


The other religious objection to Prometheus is the scene in which Elizabeth performs a caesarean section on herself to extract a xenomorph that her infected boyfriend had impregnated her with. That scene went viral with this news story:
A man named Jorge who attended a recent showing of Prometheus got a politically charged spoiler alert from the employee who was tearing his tickets. "I have to warn you," Jorge recalls the employee telling him and his guest. "Halfway through the movie, the main female character will perform a self-induced abortion."

This happened at Regal Cinemas Thornton Place Stadium 14 in Seattle. "I asked some other people entering the same auditorium if the same guy had warned them about the contents of the movie, and they said he did," says Jorge, who asked that we not use his last name.
Of course, what we are really seeing in the film is not an abortion- the xenomorph was viable and grew to monstrous proportions later in the film-- but a high-tech exorcism.

Elizabeth's boyfriend was possessed with the demon seed which he implanted in her womb. She cast the demon out, and enjoyed a remarkably quick recovery-- but the demon then remained to haunt the "house" (Vicker's sumptuous private pod) of the film.


What needs to be said about the film is that what's being put onscreen isn't Ancient Astronaut Theory per se, but simply directed panspermia, a considerably more respectable theory.

This distinction goes a long way in explaining why the Engineers want to destroy humanity- they want the planet for themselves. That's the message of the film being told onscreen, despite whatever other interpretations you want to draw from the film.

They seeded it with life for their own purposes and the rise of the human race was probably an unfortunate development in the terraforming process. We are basically the Asian carp in their Mississippi River and the xenomorphs are a kind of antibiotic for the infestation.

I know that interpretation doesn't really lend itself to late night contemplation, but I have to credit Lloyd Pye with putting the idea in my head- and quite possibly the makers of Prometheus' heads- in the first place.


  1. Hiya, so this is off-topic for the post, surely, but I guess I was really looking for a "contact" link. I've been perusing your blog for awhile, not my usual reading material but trying to sorta keep track. In the meantime, I was reading the Anastasia/Ringing Cedars of Russia books ( by Vladimir Megre) which make regular mention of the idea of the Sun being a dark, cold body, which gains its heat and brightness from the thoughts and actions of beings on Earth - apparently this is also discussed by Gurdjieff.
    Then , in my Youtube meanderings and relivings of my teenage years of the 80's, I come across this, and thought I'd offer it up (the Invisible Sun, by the Police - Enjoy!):

  2. Chris,

    It seems the objections many have with the Engineers are their utter lack of care in any form towards their accidental children. That's not entirely true, as their visits to Earth show, but did none of the Prometheus ship's crew ever read Lovecraft? (Did the audience?) The cosmos is amoral, our appearance as a species (at least, in the movie) accidental. To what love are we entitled from such beings? Yet everyone thinks like Weyland, that we must be gods, must strive for godhood, because we are the children of the gods. Invitation as misread eviction notice.

    But these accidental deities are a bunch of sloppy Johnny Appleseeds who sow in all directions. And what does an apple man do when an orange tree appears in his orchard, a misplaced seed come to fruition? Why, reach for the axe, of course.

    I'll posit an alternate view, that in Prometheus we were the intended result, but the experiment got away from the Engineers. We were never meant to advance technologically to the point where we could travel the stars, lest we knock on the doors of Olympus. Perhaps this movie should have been titled Bellerophon.

  3. Scott makes the point that these are not necessarily the engineers that made us. Instead, they are akin to the dark angels from Paradise Lost.

    In any case, the movie makes it clear that the Engineers - or the God they serve - intended to make humans. The process for that is very sketchy, though.

    However, in the first act, the entire evidence is a star map shared by a dozen different cultures from 5,000 to 20,000 years old. In each of these, there is a depiction of a giant human - an engineer - communicating with the people of that culture.

    So, obviously, they had been guiding our development for a long time. Then they left and around 2,000 years ago - the supposed time of Christ - humans did something that triggered the extinction agenda.

    Unfortunately - or fortunately for us - when they broke out the super-goo, somehow these genius genetic engineers were not able to contain the substance and it killed almost all of them. And, apparently, there was no plan B to stop humans from continuing to develop to nearly the same level of technology.

    Of course, the movie is full of stupid stupid behavior and a hundred questions with only bad answers, so it really doesn't matter what the mystery is in the end since the filmmakers really didn't care to flesh it out very well.

  4. Honestly, what I thought it would be about is kinda Arthur C Clarke meets HP Lovecraft.

    Forget the religious overtones - instead, this is simply a vast experiment by the engineers to see how they developed. When David asks the idiot Holloway (note: Hollow Way = "Darwinism"; by the way, the people who believe in evolution don't call it Darwinism. They just call it evolution. Darwinism in the US is primarily a label applied by Creationists and the more militant Intelligent Design theorist) - anyway when the android asks the anthropologist (or archeaologist - the movie wasn't very clear as to exactly what the scientists were studying) why men made him - the answer was, obviously, among other things, to determine the nature of what is human and what is not.

    Why not the same question for the godlike engineers. Imagine a race that has been advancing so long, they have completely forgotten their origins and decide to seed a planet with their DNA and create a species mimicking their own in a grand several thousand year long experiment to see how they developed. To see, in fact, if there was some purpose inherent to their own origins ("Who made the engineers?" Shaw asks, and the next question is "Do they know who made them?")

    Then, to their horror, when primal humans turned out to behave in eeriely familiar ways - when it became clear that the gene and their own DNA actually does have some sort of innate programming regarding the acquisition of culture, knowledge and technology - the Engineers freak out.

    First, just like the old Garden of Eden myth, God and his angels are afraid that if Adam and Eve, who've tasted of the tree of knowledge, then take of the tree of life, they will be as gods themselves.

    Second, the human race itself flies in the face of the idea that their own evolution was completely random. In other words, it places them in the same position the humans find themselves, and that David is in. They are the creations of something else and they don't know what the purpose of that creation is.

    Therefore, we become scientific evidence that the "mainstream" finds abhorrant - an abomination of science that must be eradicated.

  5. Chris,

    Prometheus was a giant who stole the fire from the Gods. Prometheus was a Titan.

    I think the engineers got "jealous" when they saw us rescuing them in the space ship. They must have felt like "wtf, how did these guys come to our level so fast?" And when the engineer saw the robot talking to him in his own language that topped it off.

    Yes I agree the movie didn't meet the hype but it did deliver something to think about. DNA is a technology. That's what i got from the movie. It could have evolved on its own and seeded the galaxies or it could have been designed by super super super mind beings of energy (who knows). But one thing for sure DNA is a powerful technology that can transmit information. I mean who are we to argue the idea "we, the entire race, the entire earth life forms and their actions and the rise and fall of each and every species and the eventual man and the individual man and his life are nothing but programs being played through DNA" ????


  6. Hey Chris - great post. Put me in the Prometheus apologist/supporter camp, though. Its script was poorly executed, even botched, in terms of mechanics and character - but, I dunno. My reaction to it was that it was perhaps the ONLY summer/special special effects tent-pole movie I've seen in years that actually didn't evaporate immediately into thin air when I took off the glasses. I mean, nowadays movies are either AWESOME or SUCK and nobody remembers then a week or two later. But the sheer amount of fierce contention, debate, and strong emotion that Prometheus inspired is something that I respect. I find myself liking it, warts and all, more as time goes by; it strikes as the closest thing we have today to the slightly clunky but glorious classic sci-fi cinema of the fifties like Forbidden Plant.

  7. Ridley Scott is a great director, but more in the visual sense than in the narrative. If you go back and watch the making of Alien documentary, it's clear that Dan Obannon and the other writers were much more interested in keeping the story on track than Scott. His interest was in the visual.

    So, it's pretty much the same here except you didn't have a writer who really knows how to round off a story.

    Now, thinking of DNA as technology is interesting but problematic. If it is technology, then are atoms also technology? Subatomic particles? If it is technology, then that pretty much confirms that the Engineers were themselves "engineered" since they are made out of DNA as well - Holloway's point. If DNA is tech, but the particles that make it up are naturally occurring in the sense that there is no intention behind their structure, then what does that say about the creators of DNA? Did they emerge naturally from the blind chaos of the cosmos?

    Also, the idea that human beings are some sort of intended "end" from the Engineers in the way it is depicted is hard to buy since there have been innumerable lifeforms emerging over billions of years - most of them now extinct - from plants to animals to fungi and bacteria, each of which is composed of DNA and just as complex as we are.

  8. Yeah, agree with Tristan. As fun and entertaining as the comic inspired super hero flicks are, such as The Advengers, there's really not much to keep the conversation going for weeks and weeks. Despite the flaws of Prometheus, it's been spurring a lot of discussion. In that respect alone it definitely stands above the crowd.

  9. Still, compared to other summer movies of this generation, it seems a bit more about ideas, but compared to the movies that the film actually references, especially 2001, it's suffering congenital mental defects.

    If you go back and watch ALIEN and ALIENS, the Ancient Astronaut theory is not an intentional part of it. The reason the Alien in the first film looks humanoid is that HR Giger designed it that way and Scott really liked it. There was nothing to it other than aesthetics and for years movie monsters were men in suits and had to look human. This one, at least, looked far more alien than most at the time.

    Same for the "Space Jockey" - he looked "cool." It didn't matter that it looked human too. There was no intent on the writers' or directors' part that it was actually a giant human being inside there. Much of the design and story in that scene was an homage to Bava's PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES which Scott really references hard in PROMETHEUS, especially the suits.

    ALIEN 3, almost 15 years or so later, felt compelled to answer why the "xenomorph" looked humanoid and their answer was that the creature followed the embryo to fetal development of its host. In Alien 3, the host was a dog, so the Alien was a kind of dog monkey ape looking thing.

    By the way, look up the fanfic "Killing Elvis" for the most hilarious outcome of Weyland Yutani's attempt to weaponize the xenomorph.

    So, anyway, Scott, for years would say that he was more interested in the Space Jockey than the Alien, but obviously he had no idea what it was. Then b-movie new screenwriter Spaights came up with an Alien prequel, which actually takes a lot from Alien V Predator in my opinion, saying that the Space Jockeys created the alien and also created or interfered with the human race at some point.

    Scott, who apparently thought that Ancient Astronaut Theory was a new or unheard of idea - maybe he wasn't paying attention to the story when he saw 2001: A Space Odyssey - decided that's the movie he wanted to make and hired Lindeloff to make it all about the Engineers.

    In the end though, it's all about the space goo which probably was simply eggs and the Xenomorph in the original prequel script.

  10. One would tend to see Alien as basically just the cream of the crop alien-as-monster flick, and yet then there's the scene where Ridley Scott features the winged solar disk symbolism in far more than subtle manner.

    Now in Prometheus this emblem of Weyland Corp. gets a face lift to where is no longer the ancient classic winged solar disk, as presented in Alien, but instead portrays a trinity of triangles instead of a solar disk at the center.

  11. Hey Chris,

    Sorry for the delay with the comment, but I've been ill and life has been crazy stressful as of late. While I really enjoyed Prometheus simply because I'm a sucker for epic sci-fi, I agree with most of what you write here. It was a very uneven film with unlikable characters and a plot that made little sense.

    But, you know, Noomi...I'm a fan. I totally agree with you that sci-fi is dying. I'm a Doctor Who fan though, and I still consider the current incarnation of that show true sci-fi. Because mostly, you can tell that it's makers love all that shit. I don't really get that feeling from sci-fi movies anymore.

    In Prometheus, while I enjoyed the riffs on Blake and Milton, the film was garbled as all hell. The biggest theme I noticed in the movie was Necromancy, which I discussed briefly on FB. Which kinda makes sense considering the film is, as you point out, about Angels and their created Demons. But you know, I doubt this death-magic theme was a conscious storytelling choice. Whereas in Dark City, for example, necromancy and demonic possession are pointed details of the plot.

    Finally, your insight into the Directed Panspermia concept, rather than true AAT, is also quite interesting. For me, Ancient Astronaut Theory (Or Ancient Companion Theory) is the elephant in the living-room. It's all over our mythology, our art, and obviously intertwined with our minds. If you really follow its premise through to the end, it suggests the presence of magic and untapped potential in this world. I guess that's why the Empty Suits who run Earthcorp are so terrified of it.


  12. Not quite sure where you get the idea that Jones has a declining audience. From what I've read of radio audience stats and the views his videos get on youtube, a few of which have gone viral, I'd say it was the exact opposite: his audience is mushrooming. What's your source for the decline claim. I'd like to check it out.

  13. It's not just directed panspermia in the movie. If the engineers just seeded the planet and left, then we would not have the glyphs from a dozen different cultures from earliest man to Ancient Greece. These show the humans interacting with engineers pointing to a location in space. So, obviously, the engineers were visiting and interacting with cultures from the "dawn of time."

  14. Despite the concrete points about the film being an emotionally and spiritually void experience, full to the brim of "existential malaise," to my mind it has purpose: and that purpose would seem to be seeding the consciousness of the population at large with strong and viral meme, brute force style; that may occlude a deadly and classic plot twist.
    As in; “It’s not them, it was us all along…”

    Whether though direct contact with the experience of the film itself, or second-hand through discussion with those who had seen it, the film has a mission.

    Through no real intention of my own I've seen the film two further times after I sought a showing out initially (the second and third times were to accompany friends who wanted to see it. Though I certainly didn't complain much about seeing it again). It seems to keep reaching out and pulling at me bodily. Despite the agreements - provisionally - I may have rogerv's excellent deconstruction of the film's message (in that it’s main message is obvious and totally non-occult; as in not hidden) and John Henning's astute reasoning on why the Engineer's want humanity dead; I find myself chasing potentially esoteric messages in the narrative.

    Particularly mindful of the notion that a prime, central point is being driven through the main thread of the story to the audience.
    Until I heard Elizabeth Shaw state that "...their [the Engineer's] genetic material predates our's...", and that it is exactly the same as their's, I had the strong impression that they wanted to destroy us as we has created them.

    A central motif of the film is that of children wanting to kill their parents - or rather, their progenitors - David directly references this.
    Did Elizabeth Shaw's mother die in childbirth, or was it ebola, like her father?

    The Alien (a bit character in its own origins mythos), seeks to destroy its maker, and the mother that carried it to term.
    Vickers almost merrily – in typically cold joy fashion – sends her father to his death.

    I had a strong and sure absolute certainty (until Shaw's comment on the preeminence of the Engineer's genetic material over our own) that humanity had created them as enhanced beings to travel the universe, super-soldiers, super-astronauts, with a purpose to seed life wherever they found conditions suitable.
    One possible reason why the "Engineer" (nee, Replicant) broke his own body in the waters of life on an obviously nascent, and violently fresh, planet.

    As if under command....


  15. My reasons for thinking this are the apparently clone-like, and almost insect-drone like, nature of these so-called “Engineers,” their seemingly exclusive male hierarchy, the last remaining live specimen encountered by the crew of Prometheus and his intensely violent reaction to David, a creation, an android (takes one to know one, perhaps?) – this one scene alone led to me to speculate that they abhorred the idea that their creators were creating again.

    “More slaves!” I imagined he roared, as he tore David’s head off.

    Goliath killed David this time round….

    What reason would I have for thinking this? Well, I think that this is a kind of Gnostic fable, and that humanity depicted in Scott’s story has forgotten something – namely, that we were once a great and world spanning civilization, with technology beyond our ken. We seeded life on other worlds through our clone species, now erroneously thought of as our Engineers, and that a great catastrophe of a global type destroyed our civilization, most of our true knowledge, our technologies, and science.

    What remains is a mish-mash cobbled together from fragments of fragments. This is why disparate cultures have the maps showing the star system in question – because we made the maps and sent them there, to create the weapon now known as The Alien. Otherwise why would these Engineer’s give us a map to a military installation where a super-weapon is being created to with the potential to destroy us? Even totally intended to destroy us?

    Maybe we even sent them there with a weapon we knew would destroy them? That was the intention as our super-spacemen creation was escaping our control? And this is a prime motivation for their malevolence, perhaps?
    Not entirely sure myself, but my musing strikes me as having something to it.


  16. Mankind’s amnesia – not entirely of the traditional Gnostic type - here relates to our role as a hobbled giant, enfeebled, and so old and senile that we do not remember our progeny; who now free from our control after many thousands of years seek to lay waste to their parents.

    The hint ancient civilizations Sumer, Egypt, etc, all linked to great flood mythology (forgotten history), and The Isle of Sky – perhaps being a flood remnant cut off from the ancient, ancient mainland super-continent, preserving the most ancient example of our forgotten knowledge – prompt my flight of fancy here.

    Anyways Chris, I thought that certain key memes in the film might have further prompted your mentioning them. Such as the crew of Prometheus being comprised of 17; the two instances of severed head iconography (one being a replicant/android, the other to my mind also being one, of the so-called “Engineer.”), the stilted, marked mythological tone of the story-telling, basically each key scene seems to be an excuse for highly vulgar symbolic ritual drama set-pieces – as rogerv may have stated, no subtlety *appears* to be in Scott’s tale here.

    Apart from the notion I have that this may camouflage a subtle twist in the heart of the narrative.
    The thematic echoes of 2001: A Space Odyssey (Weyland so much appears an analogue for Bowman at the end of Kubrick’s movie, especially in the scene where his daughter Vickers delivers the King must die in order for the King to live speech), the nods to sex role reversal (the fact that Vickers has a med-pod intended for male use only suggests the obvious and logical reason that it was only intended for her father, yet the fact’s imposition posits a certain connotation about Vickers.), the constant visual referencing of suits, space suits, man suits, human suits, exoskeleton suits, The Alien finally appearing after cutting through the "Engineer suit," etc;

    Anyway, for the reason I have listed, whether they may be seen as fallacious flights of fancy, make me believe this film says something important.

    My theory has a major logical flaw in it, namely Shaw’s genetic material dating, but…It’s what I choose to believe, as Shaw herself says.

  17. We are the regular reader of your blog your blog is very nice have very information very useful about AAT Courses we are waiting your next update