Solomon at Gibeon

Solomon at Gibeon

Here's a new video I just made entitled "Solomon at Gibeon contrasted with Paris and Midas."

This video explores one small corner of the question of what these ancient myths are teaching us and what their purpose might be.

In it, using examples from three specific myths -- the dream of Solomon at the high place of Gibeon described in 1 Kings 3, the famous Judgment of Paris, and the offer by the god Dionysus to Midas to grant whatever King Midas might ask -- I argue that the myths are telling us that we can ask the divine realm for help in this incarnate life, and that indeed we very much need the wisdom of that Other Realm in order to navigate this world and in order to help others and to govern in righteousness when in positions of responsibility.

However, the ancient myths from around the world also demonstrate rather clearly that we can go to the divine realm for other purposes as well -- purposes which do not help others, but rather do the opposite -- and the myths imply that requests of this nature may indeed be granted, even though such purposes are strongly condemned in the ancient wisdom given to humanity in the myths.

As I have stated in previous posts, it is quite likely that there are those who know this fact, but don't want you to know it -- see for example the following discussions:

The video explores a very important passage of Biblical scripture which I believe everyone would do well to contemplate, and some of the implications for our understanding of what the world's ancient myths are trying to teach us.

There appears to be abundant and ever-increasing evidence that awareness of this vital purpose of the world's ancient wisdom is being deliberately suppressed, by those who want to use the very real power available to us from the Other Realm for purposes which are in fact condemned by the myths themselves.

The gods are always near

The gods are always near

Above is a brand-new video I made today entitled "The Gods are Always Near."

It explores five categories of evidence found in ancient myths from around the world which demonstrate to us that the gods and goddesses work out their purposes through men and women in this material realm, and that the gods are in fact always close at hand and available to us.

Literalist Christianity has waged a centuries-long campaign to divorce men and women from the ancient gods, as well as from the rhythms of the earth and the heavens, from the power of the Invisible Realm, from the realm of Nature, from one another, and even from our own Selves.

However, we still have access to the ancient myths, scriptures and sacred stories given to every culture of humanity, on every inhabited continent and island of our planet -- and those ancient traditions show us that the gods are real, that they are present, and that they dwell in mortal men and women.

This fact should impact the way we see and interact with every other man, woman and child, in whom the gods also dwell -- and it should also impact the way we live our own lives.

Previous posts which examine this important subject include:

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel if you'd like to receive immediate notification every time a new video is published -- and please feel free to share with others you know who would also benefit from these explorations of the ancient wisdom preserved in the myths, scriptures and sacred stories of humanity.

YouTube says, "We'll give you your feed -- you just shut up and eat it"

YouTube says, "We'll give you your feed -- you just shut up and eat it"

Here is a link to a story published in just a couple days ago, on September 12, entitled "Just how effective is the new YouTube's fact-checking feature?" and written by Daniel Green.

The issues being raised in this article impact everyone and I believe the developments being described constitute an extremely serious threat to the principles of human freedom, democratic self-governance, and human rights including freedom of speech and freedom of the press as articulated in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

To that end, I have just published a new video entitled "Electronic heresy tribunals: Algorithms deployed to prevent you from hearing 'conspiracy'," discussing some of my concerns regarding the topics in this article and the infringement on the human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press which are already being implemented in the united states and elsewhere, right now, by corporations such as YouTube (but there are certainly other corporations involved in this same type of illegal activity).

As the title suggests, the subject of the article is a new feature being tested by YouTube in India which will "combat the spread of misinformation" by throwing up "information panels" containing "content to debunk misleading claims" whenever users enter a search term related to "topics typically subject to misinformation."

Examples provided in the article of subjects deemed to be "responsible for the spread of misinformation" include "geoengineering" and "chemtrails." These topics, the article informs us, are seen as being conducive to "spreading conspiracy theories and views opposing the scientific consensus."

Apparently, the "scientific consensus" on those subjects (geoengineering and chemtrails) is that the men and women who are the citizens of the nation need not be informed on the subjects of what jet aircraft might be spraying into the atmosphere over their heads -- such things need not be discussed or subjected to a vote. In fact, it would be best if the public were never informed that such things are going on, and that anyone who asks questions about spraying unknown stuff out of airplanes be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" so that no pesky public debate on this topic need ever arise.

The article then goes on to inform us that this system, being tested-out in India, is one which "YouTube intends to extend to other countries throughout the rest of the year."

However, "information panels" which appear on your search results when you are looking into a topic that someone doesn't want the "hoi polloi" to know anything about (such as chemtrails and geoengineering) won't protect you from seeing a conspiracy video which itself does not have a label -- and so the article informs us that YouTube has a different solution to "tackle this" perceived problem: altering their algorithms so that far fewer people will ever encounter videos containing "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory."

Jumping rather abruptly to the united states, the article's author informs us that:

Since changes to the recommendation system came into effect in the United States in January, views of so-called 'borderline content,' videos that misinform but do not violate the website's guidelines, have dropped by more than 50 per cent.

That should be reassuring to everyone who was worried about men and women in the general public seeing videos discussing "views opposing the scientific consensus" without helpful warning labels provided by the major news platforms.

What would we do if the people of this nation were able to see videos about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which fell into its own footprint at freefall speed (or at a speed which is indistinguishable from freefall speed by any scientific measure)? We simply cannot have people finding videos regarding that awful, murderous event without helpful warning labels containing "debunking" information from sources such as the New York Timesor NPR, which have spent the past 18 years pretending that the collapse of high-rise steel towers into their own footprints simply due to fire somehow does not oppose scientific consensus (or even the laws of physics).

Fortunately for all those who might have been worried that men and women might "stumble across videos in their feed" (as the article puts it, without a hint of irony) which don't come with helpful debunking material provided by the corporate-controlled media, the engineers at YouTube are on the case, and they have created algorithms which drastically reduce the chance that anyone might "stumble across" something so distasteful in their "feed."

The word feed, by the way, when used as a noun typically signifies grain and other material given to cattle or hogs in large troughs (as well as to horses, who sometimes get their "feed" in a "feed bag," one per horse -- in a kind of individualized fashion, more akin to the "feed" that is provided to individuals by the algorithms at YouTube).

So, rest easy: YouTube has come up with some excellent screens to ensure that you won't be getting any nasty bits in your individualized feed.

In fact, the article informs us, YouTube's algorithms are so effective that "views of so-called 'borderline content,' videos that misinform but do not violate the website's guidelines, are down by more than 50 per cent."

That's quite a drop! I know that if YouTube's revenues were to be "down by more than 50 per cent" in some quarter, the investment world would not like it very much.

Of course, the makers of videos which have been judged (in secret, apparently) to "misinform" probably do not even realize that they now have sophisticated algorithms working overtime to ensure that nobody sees the content they are creating and putting out on YouTube. They probably have absolutely no idea that they have violated some undefined standard, since (as the article informs us) these algorithms are set to find content that does not violate any actual published guidelines.

As I note in the above video, I myself have mentioned "chemtrails" and "geoengineering" many times before on this blog (you can do a search for these terms and find many photographs I took myself, which apparently makes me someone who "spreads views opposed to the scientific consensus," which the subject of chemtrails apparently indicates).

I have also mentioned my deep concern about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the past, including during the period prior to a ballot initiative in my home state of California which would have required food manufacturers to inform buyers when genetically-modified ingredients are present in their food. That ballot initiative was defeated: there are a number of very powerful interests which are adamantly opposed to the men and women of this country knowing the extent to which their food contains GMOs (which might lead to political action).

I would not be at all surprised if videos discussing negative aspects of GMOs might be categorized as "misinformation" and actively suppressed by the algorithms in question -- although we have no actual way of knowing, since these algorithms do not judge videos based on any public guidelines (as the article explicitly states), but rather based on some sort of secret criteria known only to the shadowy adjudicators who have taken it upon themselves to steer you away from "borderline content."

I would in fact be very surprised if mention of inconvenient facts such as the collapse of Building 7 at freefall speed were not included in content considered to be not just "borderline" but actual "conspiracy theory," which must never be mentioned in any arena that would alert the majority of men and women in this country to an issue that they should look into as having a great deal of relevance to their own lives.

Judging by the fact that mainstream news sources such as the New York Times or the Washington Post have spent the past eighteen years studiously ignoring (or even ridiculing) the overwhelming evidence which points to the conclusion that the conventional or "official" narrative of the events of that awful day is completely bankrupt (a narrative which still frames their reporting on the subject of 9/11, as you can see from any of the articles they had on their site this past week discussing the anniversary and the "war on terror"), you can be fairly certain that YouTube (which gets its "content to debunk misleading claims" from the major media corporations when it plasters warning labels on searches about chemtrails in its India beta-test, as noted above) has its algorithms set to make it more difficult to find videos by those who offer evidence that challenges or refutes the "official" story.

I'm sure the same applies to video content which challenges or refutes the "official" story surrounding the events of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, or the massacre at Jonestownin 1978. If someone doesn't want you to know about the information that refutes the accepted doctrine about these events, then YouTube is ready with algorithms to prevent the people from encountering any heresy.

Now, I am perfectly aware of the arguments in favor of creating algorithms and warning panels to combat deliberate misinformation (note that I have not achieved perfect awareness in all realms of human endeavor, but I am certainly very much aware of the arguments for the institution of some kind of counterbalance to false and misleading YouTube videos, which can and do influence the opinion of certain demographics in very significant and sometimes very harmful ways).

In this article, published in the New York Times about a month ago (please note that mention of the New York Times, which I have just criticized for continuing to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of 9/11 -- and they continue to promote the bankrupt narratives of the other important events mentioned in preceding paragraphs as well -- is not ironic here: this article and others like it provide the basis for the argument in favor of the kind of censorship described in the above-mentioned article, which I oppose, and I oppose the New York Times position if indeed they are in favor of YouTube censorship), the power of YouTube to spread lies which lead young men (primarily young men) towards acceptance of fascistic arguments (in this case, in Brazil -- leading to the election of Jair Bolsonaro) is brought home to the reader very strongly (research credit for this story on Brazil and YouTube goes to the indefatigable Dave Emory, whose decades of invaluable research in opposition to the spread of fascism -- especially in the united states -- can be found at his website at

After reading the above New York Times article about the use of misleading YouTube videos in Brazil, I can understand the impulse of well-meaning men and women to say, "We need to counter these kinds of outright fake headlines and YouTube videos that are leading impressionable young men (primarily young men) into the dangerous and despicable cesspool of fascist dogma."

However, I would argue that the implementation by YouTube (and other tech firms) of secret algorithms designed to dramatically reduce traffic to certain videos is wrong for the following reasons (much as I detest the use of misleading videos to drive disaffected young men towards fascistic beliefs, as described in the New York Times article):

  • First and foremost, secret algorithms or secret panels determining what is and what is not "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory" and then severely restricting the ability of such content to be found flies in direct violation of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. The concept of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not simply "American" rights: they are universal rights. Secret algorithms that drastically impede the ability to find a video are a form of direct infringement of the First Amendment articulation of freedom of the press. This is illegal, according to the highest law of the land in the united states (ie, the Constitution itself). So, no matter how much of a "good idea" it seems (on the surface) to restrict the ability to find a video based on the principle of preventing fascistic content, the founders recognized that this seductive idea is absolutely inimical to a free and democratic society -- hence their decision to enshrine the absolute protection of a free press in the very First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Secret panels or secret algorithms which stymie someone's video (without their knowledge of what protocols they have violated) as soon as it is published is a clear violation of freedom of the press (the printing press in 1776 and 1787 did not just belong to big corporate media concerns such as the New York Times: individual citizens such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine could print out their arguments and distribute them widely, using the printing press -- but under the new algorithms implemented by Google / YouTube, their pamphlets could be squelched before they ever reached a large number of citizens).

  • It should be abundantly clear that removing the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press is in no way an appropriate counter to fascism: on the contrary, the ability to squash every expression of an opinion other than the "official" narrative is clearly an attribute of fascism itself.

  • The proper way to combat fascism is to remove the conditions in which it thrives. Ask any expert in the study of the conditions conducive to fascism and they will probably mention high levels of unemployment or underemployment, particularly of young men, and a feeling of economic despair or anxiety (leading to the feeling that you don't have a fair shot at obtaining economic success within the normal channels of the economy). This previous post discusses the work of economists such as Warren Mosler and Michael P. Hudson, who explain ways to provide for true employment, as well as lowering the crushing debt burdens which prevent young men and women from getting married, buying a house and having the kind of confidence in their future which is probably the strongest antidote to fascism, which is an ideology born of despair and desperation.

  • One of the most important ways to combat the rise of fascistic and extremist tendencies among young adults in their teens and twenties is to squarely oppose the policies of austerity and scarcity which create the kinds of despair and desperation mentioned in the preceding point. I have written numerous previous posts discussing my opposition to the politics of austerity, many of them referencing the absolutely critical analysis of Professor Michael P. Hudson, including: "Austerity is an affront to the gods," "Collaborators against the gods," "Thor's visit to Olaf Tryggvason," "Privatization vs the gods (and the people)," "Transforming everyone and everything into commodities," and "All this has happened before," (among many others). The real way to combat fascism is to remove the conditions in which it tends to grow -- not to remove freedom of speech and freedom of the press (itself a fascistic move, and one which clearly violates human rights as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution).

  • When videos lead to violence, or even the communication of threats, then those responsible for that violence or those threats can and must be prosecuted under the law. There are laws against "communicating a threat." But quashing the videos of anyone deemed to be talking about subjects judged by some secret panel to be "spreading conspiracy theories" or "in opposition to some amorphous 'scientific consensus'" is wrong and must be opposed. Prosecute those actually calling for violence or communicating threats, without violating the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

  • Ultimately, the most organic and powerful way to prevent odious ideologies from gaining traction in society is to create an environment in which the vast majority of men and women see such ideologies as detestable and in which the vast majority of men and women make their opposition to the despicable propaganda of proponents of fascism and racism known in no uncertain terms. This type of natural reaction is immortalized in the famous scene from the movie The Blues Brothers, released in 1980 (perhaps the last year before aggressive austerity policies began to be implemented on a scale never seen before in the united states, and thus a movie which captures an attitude among the people of the nation which is now becoming more and more a thing of the past):

In such an environment, nobody feels the need to ask YouTube to create algorithms to combat detestable racist and fascist videos, because the vast majority of the population sees such ideology as hateful and harmful, and react to it in the way we see the people reacting to similar propaganda in the movie clip shown above.

The only way that ideologies such as those being espoused by the fascists in the clip above will find any foothold is if the economic environment is characterized by despair and hopelessness, brought about by deliberate institution of policies of austerity, neoliberalism, and privatization, as well as conditions which lead to ever-increasing indebtedness (including opposition to deficit spending by governments free to implement their own fiscal policy, as discussed in this previous post), as well as the kind of unemployment and underemployment which characterize policies of austerity and the reduction of fiscal policy as a tool for aiding in the growth of the economy -- all of which can be fixed without imposition of algorithms from YouTube suppressing freedom of speech for everybody in the name of (supposedly) combating the rise of fascism.

Indeed, without the economic policy fixes described above (and in the posts linked in the above paragraphs), implementing a bunch of YouTube algorithms to suppress certain types of videos will have little positive effect -- while at the same time violating the First Amendment and constituting a grave threat to democracy and the ability of men and women in the electorate to find and hear opposing views on important issues.

On the day I graduated from West Point, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

It is my considered opinion that the institution of secret "tribunals" (including secret tribunals implemented by impersonal algorithms and artificial intelligence) which have the ability to suppress and quash the visibility of videos which contain "misinformation" (even if violating no written guidelines) constitute a grave threat to democracy and to the human rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.

As I say in the above video, there is virtually no difference if we change the term "conspiracy theory" to the term "heresy," and empower secret tribunals to implement algorithms drastically reducing the visibility of any video deemed to be promoting "heresy" (or even "borderline heresy"). If the united states were to implement such heresy tribunals, there would be no difficulty seeing that move as a clear and unequivocal violation of the Bill of Rights.

And yet that is exactly what appears to be taking place in the united states (and around the world) right now.

We had better wake up and ask ourselves if we want to live in a world governed by this kind of secret tribunals deciding what information we are or are not allowed to see (in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights).

Either that or just go back to our "feed" and take what we get.

original image: Wikimedia commons (  link  ).

original image: Wikimedia commons (link).

Returning to Skeptiko: a sometimes-contentious discussion ensues

Returning to Skeptiko: a sometimes-contentious discussion ensues

Thank you to Alex Tsakiris for having me over to his Skeptiko podcast and channel for another discussion about stars and myths.

Welcome to any new visitors who are here for the first time after listening to the interview, or watching it on YouTube. Here is the page on the Skeptiko website where you can download the audio to a mobile device (you can also do that at the Skeptiko iTunes webpage here).

This conversation is a little different from other podcasts I've appeared on, because Alex didn't want to spend much time discussing the actual evidence that the world's ancient myths can be shown to be based on a shared system of celestial metaphor. He thinks that I've already established that thesis with my writing, and discussed it extensively on other podcasts, so he wanted to focus on where that system might have come from and what its purpose might be.

This subject can make for a very profitable discussion, but perhaps I was not clear enough in stating my position that there is a sharp divide between what I believe I can "prove" (or at least what I can support using overwhelming evidence), and what must remain speculation at the present time until we have more evidence.

I can prove -- or at least establish with overwhelming evidence -- that virtually all the world's ancient myths, scriptures and sacred stories, from cultures on every continent and inhabited island on our planet, are built upon a common, worldwide system of celestial metaphor, one which is exceedingly ancient (indeed, it is already fully-formed in the most ancient extant texts known to us at this time, including the early clay tablets of ancient Mesopotamia containing the Gilgamesh cycle and the Enuma Elish, or the Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt which incorporate elements of the Osiris and Horus cycle).

On the other hand, I cannot state at this time exactly where this ancient system came from. Indeed, no one can tell you where it came from!

Anyone who tells you that they know for certain where this ancient system came from is either lying or mistaken.

The reason they cannot tell you for certain is that it clearly originates prior to any civilization known to conventional history at this time -- perhaps thousands of years prior to any civilization known to conventional history at this time.

The origin of this world-wide system of celestial metaphor may be so ancient that it originated in a culture that was more ancient to the earliest dynasties of ancient Egypt than those earliest dynasties are to our own civilization! In other words, if the earliest dynasties of Egypt were about 5000 years prior to our own time, the ancient origin of the world-wide system of celestial metaphor may have been more than 5000 years prior to the earliest dynasties of Egypt.

For example, below we see a seal attributed to King Den of the First Dynasty of Egypt, who is thought to have died in approximately 2995 BC:

image: Wikimedia commons (  link  ).

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

As I explain in my most-recent book, The Ancient World-Wide System, the above imagery is unmistakably celestial in origin, based on specific constellations, as are virtually all of the characters and episodes described in the ancient Egyptian myths.

King Den lived approximately 5000 years ago, from our perspective today in the year 2019. And yet the amazing stone circles of Gobekli Tepe, which only began to see the light of day again in the late 1990s and early 2000s of our present era, appear to have been deliberately buried not later than the year 8000 BC -- and its creation must of course have been prior to its burial, meaning that it could be a great deal older than that. In other words, Gobekli Tepe is at least 5000 years prior to the time of the First Dynasty King Den, indicating the existence of a previously-unknown culture capable of engineering an enormous and mysterious field of massive and precisely-planed, astronomically-aligned stones (some of them adorned with sculpted high-relief representations of animals such as the pillar shown below) existing as many years before the life of King Den as the life of King Den is before our own time in the present day.

image: Wikimedia commons (  link  ).

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

There is simply not enough information about whatever culture lived so long before the first civilizations known to conventional history (so long before the time of ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia, ancient India and even the Indus-Saraswati Civilization) for us to make any definitive pronouncements about how they lived or whether or not they are the originators of this ancient world-wide system (although it certainly indicates the existence of sophisticated and extremely ancient cultures which are completely outside the current historical paradigm and which may well point us towards the answer to the question of where this ancient system of myth might have originated).

Additionally, no one can tell you dogmatically and with certainty the original purpose of this ancient world-wide system. Anyone who confidently and self-assuredly tells you that they can is either mistaken or they are lying to you.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that this world-wide system exists, that the evidence is overwhelming and conclusive, and that the existence of this system demonstrates that the conventional timeline of ancient history is fatally flawed and in need of radical revision.

I cannot tell you dogmatically that I know for certain where this system originated or even what it ultimately means -- what its original and complete intended purpose was.

After studying it for ten years, I certainly have some likely suggestions and strong opinions about the answer to these questions, but I will not dogmatically assert that I know for certain (and, again, I believe that anyone who tells you that he or she knows the answer with certainty is either naive and mistaken because they do not understand the full scope of the subject matter yet, or else they are a charlatan who is lying to you).

In the above interview, Alex appears to be quite willing to accept the evidence that I have been presenting for the past several years in my books, blog posts, videos, and other podcast interviews which demonstrates the existence of an ancient world-wide system of celestial metaphor underlying the myths, scriptures, and sacred stories of cultures around the world (and reflected in ancient artwork as well). He is so willing to accept it that he did not want to focus on that evidence during the interview, instead pushing into the areas of where it came from and what its purpose might be, even though on those topics I can only offer suggested possibilities rather than dogmatic assertions (as I've just explained).

Indeed, he apparently feels that my research validates a possibility about which he is very excited --visitation by extraterrestrials -- and he was very eager to get me to agree with him on that explanation.

However, as I've explained in many previous posts, my years of research on the world's ancient Star Myths do not conclusively indicate extraterrestrial origin at all. In fact, I have reason to be deeply suspicious of many vocal extraterrestrial advocates from the past several decades (predating the Second World War but increasing dramatically in the decades following the putative end of that conflict), who almost universally argue that "the ancient myths actually document extraterrestrial contact" and that "the beings described in the myths as gods were actually visitors from other planets."

The evidence that I have been writing about actually refutes and even disproves that widely-repeated hypothesis (that the supernatural beings and marvelous events described in the ancient myths are extraterrestrials) by showing that the figures and episodes described in the world's ancient myths are metaphorical, rather than literal.

The ancient myths may indeed be describing gods and goddesses who are very real, but they are not literal, physical, extraterrestrial visitors arriving in mechanical craft to visit our planet. The gods and goddesses who move through the world's myths are realities and powers of the spiritual realm, an Invisible Realm which interacts with and indeed interpenetrates our physical realm, but their attributes are explained for our understanding using a sophisticated metaphorical code based upon the constellations in the heavens, because through the imagery of the stars which we can see we can understand truths about the Infinite Realm which we cannot see (and pause for a moment to consider what an ingenious choice this was, because when we look into the stars of the night sky, we are indeed looking into an infinite realm).

A few previous posts I've written in which I voice my misgivings about the "ancient aliens" hypothesis and about ascribing the origin of these myths to extraterrestrials include:

I have also created a fairly detailed and lengthy video discussing the famous "vision of Ezekiel" found in the Old Testament scriptures of the Bible, an episode in the ancient text which is often cited by proponents of the ancient alien hypothesis as evidence for ancient extraterrestrial contact -- a video in which I demonstrate that the text is clearly based upon celestial metaphor, containing a sophisticated description of the turning of the heavens throughout the year which matches very well to the models of celestial mechanics which we call an "armillary sphere," and describing the yawning of the ecliptic path above and below the celestial equator at the two points of solstice, and the intersection of that same ecliptic with the celestial equator at the two points of equinox during our annual orbit around the sun. The "four living creatures" introduced in Ezekiel chapter 1 and verse 5 clearly correspond to the zodiac constellations stationed at these four important points of the year (the two solstices and the two equinoxes).

In addition to that video on the vision of Ezekiel, I also wrote another extended blog post exploring its significance and its clear origin in celestial metaphor which can be found here, and there is also a discussion of this important passage in my 2016 book Star Myths of the World, Volume Three: Star Myths of the Bible.

The frequent subject changes of this particular interview, and the fact that I sometimes take too long to try to explain a point when it would be better if I just stated my view clearly and succinctly, meant that I did not really sketch out my suggestion of where I believe this ancient world-wide system might have originated (although I did attempt to present some discussion of my view on that question). I have elaborated on this topic at greater length in my 2014 book The Undying Stars.

Very briefly, in that book I explain that I would divide the timeline into three very broad segments:

  • the time in the far distant past (long before any written records we have in our possession at this time) when this ancient system was understood and informing an extremely ancient culture (or cultures) which far predates any of the known civilizations and which may have been destroyed by some type of tremendous cataclysm (the deliberate burial of the massive Gobekli Tepe complex may point to the same conclusion),

  • the period after this culture disappeared (likely due to some catastrophe) during which remnants of the ancient system survived (and during which remarkable civilizations such as those of ancient Sumer and ancient Egypt appear to have been informed by some preserved knowledge from that much more ancient period -- perhaps because they were a kind of "re-start"), during which the ancient myths were revered by the various cultures of the world, each of which maintained a set of sacred traditions that can all be seen as utilizing this same ancient system of celestial metaphor, and finally

  • the period after the rise of Literalist Christianity, during which the ancient wisdom contained in the myths was deliberately and aggressively stamped out, beginning in the region controlled by the Roman Empire around the Mediterranean, and then expanding into western Europe and northern Europe, resulting in a tragic disconnection from the ancient wisdom, and leading to the establishment of feudalism in Europe (and as far east as Russia) and eventually to the establishment of colonial powers (primarily situated in western Europe) who then continued to expand around the globe and work to stamp out connections to the ancient wisdom wherever it had survived (usually replacing them with Literalist Christianity, which is a political, empire-building system), a process which continues to this day.

I believe it is very likely that the profound system of ancient esoteric teaching, which appears to have originated in the first period described above (long before any civilization we know of, and perhaps separated from all the civilizations we know about by some tremendous catastrophe), contained the keys to greater harmony with the universe around us, including the cycles of the heavens and the energy of the earth itself, as well as harmony with our own essential self, through whom (the ancient myths appear to tell us) we have access to the divine realm: the Infinite Realm, a realm of pure potential -- the realm of the gods. It may be that these myths not only help us to recover our connection to Self, but they also point us towards the realization of potential that today lies mostly dormant.

Some of the original purpose may well have been preserved following whatever disaster led to the almost complete disappearance of that "predecessor culture" described in the first bullet-point above, during the period described in the second bullet-point (the period informed by the ancient myths, prior to the rise of Literalist Christianity). However, the rise of Literalist Christianity reveals the undeniable presence of forces who want to sever our connection to the ancient myths, and our connection to the gods and goddesses described in the "original instructions" preserved by virtually every culture on the planet (the term "original instructions" is one that I borrowed from a lecture by the important and incredibly insightful author Peter Kingsley).

It should not be very controversial to argue that Literalist Christianity has as an explicit goal opposition to the gods described in the ancient myths, and that the agents of Literalist Christianity have gone around the world seeking to eliminate reliance upon the "original instructions" and replace that reliance with acceptance of the doctrines of Literalist Christianity (in one form or another), and that this went on for centuries and still continues although to a lesser degree. Following the decline of mass acceptance of literalism, I would argue that other proxies were adopted to continue the mission of disconnection from the incredible power available in the ancient myths -- and it is very possible that the "ancient aliens" or "extraterrestrial" movement (which at times can very much resemble a fundamentalist faith, its proponents arguing its certainty with a kind of missionary zeal and fervor) has been fostered with this exact purpose in mind (note, as mentioned above, that a great majority of the proponents of the "extraterrestrial faith" insist that the ancient gods and goddesses were simply alien visitors who exist in the material realm, just as we do).

I personally am very suspicious that the popular extraterrestrial narratives, which actually began to appear well before the Second World War and which have a long history of overlap (of ideas and of proponents) with detestable racist and elitist movements such as the eugenics movement, might well be a tool of the same groups who are fighting to preserve the kinds of feudal and colonialist mechanisms of exploitation and oppression brought about during that third phase described above (the period following the rise of Literalist Christianity). I mention some of these racist and elitist connections (such as those described in the despicable doctrines promulgated in the "Urantia Book") in a fairly-recent video entitled "Literalism and 'Alien Contact'."

Despite the sometimes-contentious nature of the above interview, I'm grateful to Alex for having me over to Skeptiko for another visit. I think that Alex is very appreciative of the evidence connecting the stars and the myths, and is very excited by the ramifications of that evidence (even if he and I have some disagreements about all of the details of those ramifications). He wants to jump straight from the evidence of a world-wide system of Star Myths directly to a supposed validation of extraterrestrial visitors, because that is a topic that is apparently important to him (even though it is one about which I have serious misgivings, as described above).

But I am convinced that disagreements and even debate can play a very positive role in forcing greater clarification of one's points (and, when necessary, re-examination of positions and the evidence in order to see where conclusions may need to be changed, or where additional analysis may be necessary).

I believe the most important distinction I would like to reiterate is a sharp dividing line between the clear evidence I have found which demonstrates the existence of a common world-wide system of celestial metaphor informing the myths of cultures on every inhabited continent and island of our planet and indeed forming their foundation, and the question of where this system came from and what it could mean (questions about which I have some definite opinions, but upon which I refuse to be dogmatic because I argue that we cannot possibly know at this point with the evidence that we have at hand -- probably because the origin of this system is far earlier than any civilization about which we have extensive evidence or any written record). We may well have more evidence about this second subject area at a later date, but at this time I do not believe anyone can speak dogmatically about it.

However, the myths themselves contain a wealth of evidence which helps us to begin to grasp more and more of their incredible and profound ancient message for our lives. And I firmly believe that the more we can learn to listen to them in the language they are actually speaking, the better opportunity we have to hear more of what they are trying to say -- and that the language that they are speaking is a celestial language, an esoteric language, and a metaphorical language, based on an incredible system of extreme antiquity, a precious inheritance from ancestors so distant we do not even know what to call them, but who are speaking to us in a language which we can actually decipher: the language of the stars.

The above interview was recorded on August 15, 2019. You can see the interview of my first visit to Skeptiko (from January of 2017) here.

"The bamboozle has captured us"

"The bamboozle has captured us"

bamboozle quotation.jpg

Above is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001.

The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.





Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building -- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).

This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.

Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building 7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.

Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence which points to the same conclusion.

Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).

However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.

For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan, whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.

Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11, which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.

I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the Guns and Butter podcast archive here. These interviews, from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.

I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as (in his opinion) likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of 9/11 researchers (note: I myself do not personally have enough evidence to verify that particular allegation by Kevin Ryan -- I mention it here primarily to emphasize that I do not necessarily agree with every opinion given by every guest on any particular radio show or podcast that I suggest, even if on the whole I believe that show to contain extremely important information for consideration, and to urge everyone to use her own or his own critical judgment when listening to interviews). James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.

In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled "Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative?" which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019.

That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996), is particularly noteworthy -- even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken.

This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).

This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self, sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here.

The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo. Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.

Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the divine realm.

If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm. Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must be corrected.

In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.

Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution, forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes a very clear penalty for treason.

When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.

The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September 11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.

When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and women.

Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001 -- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 -- but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.

Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.

But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle still has us.

Don't be bullied by Literalist Apologetics!

Don't be bullied by Literalist Apologetics!

Above is a new video I've just published entitled "Don't be bullied by Literalist Apologetics."

Apologetics is a word which combines the Greek prefix apo- (meaning "away from" in a spatial sense, as in to "propel something away") and the Greek word logos (meaning "word" or "speech" or "plea" or "principle"): thus, a "word" or "speech" which "pushes away" -- a "defense."

The word apologetics is most frequently used to mean a defense of Literalist Christianity using reason, or a "reasoning in defense" of Literalist Christianity.

In other words, it is an argument or series of arguments in defense of a literalistic reading of the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (so-called) -- arguing in defense of a series of doctrines and dogmas derived from a literalistic interpretation of those ancient texts.

However, because these scriptures are not in fact literal, and can be shown with overwhelming evidence to be based on celestial metaphor (rather than on literal and terrestrial history), these literalist "arguments in defense," as well as the doctrines and dogmas derived from literalistic hermeneutics, often distort and even invert the esoteric meaning of the ancient texts themselves.

Present-day Literalist Christian apologists such as Dr. Frank Turek, a video clip of whose arguments is discussed in the above video, travel to university campuses and high schools in order to argue in defense of Literalist Christianity, to teach seminars on literalistic apologetics, and to convert others to their literalist interpretation of the ancient scriptures of the Bible, without realizing that the characters and episodes described in those biblical scriptures are based on the very same ancient system of celestial metaphor which underlies the myths and sacred stories of virtually every other culture on our planet.

And, despite the etymology of the word apologetics described above, which implies the use of speech to "push back" or "stave off" attacks (in other words, a defense), Literalist Christianity and Christian apologetics are inherently offensive in nature, actively seeking to convert those outside of Literalist Christianity to their literalist dogmas, including those still following the original or Indigenous traditions of their ancestors (such as those raised in the Hindu traditions of present-day India).

Dr. Turek's website's own definition of the concept of apologetics indicates that it is not only defensive but offensive in nature, defining the word as "the communication that Christianity is true, and should be believed" -- a statement that goes on the offensive and argues that if you are not presently assenting to the interpretations of Literalist Christianity, then you should change your beliefs in order to assent to them (you should believe them, implying moral obligation, and if you do not then you are doing something you should not do).

In the above video, I argue that the overwhelming evidence which shows that the world's ancient traditions are based on a common system of celestial metaphor indicates that Literalist Christianity is built upon a misguided attempt to interpret that which is esoteric as if it were literal, historical, and terrestrial. Based on this, the 1700-year campaign to convert people to acceptance of the doctrines and dogma of Literalist Christianity is itself misguided -- as are aggressive forms of Literalist Christian apologetics which continue to the present day.

Personally, I am not on a campaign to go around and argue with those who accept various literalistic interpretations of the biblical scriptures, and try to convert them away from their literalist beliefs -- but if someone chooses to aggressively start trying to argue me into acceptance of literalist dogma, then I believe it is completely appropriate to counter those arguments with the abundant evidence which points to the conclusion that the biblical scriptures, in common with virtually all the other ancient myths and sacred stories around the world, are based on an ancient system of celestial metaphor designed to convey profound truths (with all of them pointing towards the same truths around the world, including the stories in the Bible, although Literalist Christianity has arrived at a completely different and diametrically opposed set of teachings, due to the fact that it is founded upon a misguided attempt to interpret metaphorical and esoteric texts as if they are literal, historical, and terrestrial).

Therefore, if you or someone you love (such as one of your children who is now in college or high school) is being subjected to aggressive forms of literalistic apologetics, please feel free to share the above video and the material in this blog and in my website Star Myths of the World with them, if you feel it would be helpful to them.

This Labor Day, take a bit of time to listen to Michael Hudson, Warren Mosler, and Ellen Brown

This Labor Day, take a bit of time to listen to Michael Hudson, Warren Mosler, and Ellen Brown

Monday, September 02, 2019 is the observation of Labor Day in the united states, celebrated on the first Monday of September since becoming a federal holiday in 1894.

As I have written on numerous previous occasions, the ancient wisdom provided to all peoples of the earth in their myths and sacred traditions very clearly proclaim that the natural resources of a country are gifts from the divine realm, the realm of the gods.

Of these natural resources, perhaps none is so precious as the people themselves, the gifts and talents and labor inherent in the people, which have their source in the Invisible Realm.

In the myths of ancient Greece, the grain of the fields and the produce of the land was seen as a gift from the goddess Demeter. The grapes and wine were understood to be a gift from the god Dionysos. The art of weaving and thus the production of textiles was a gift from the goddess Athena -- as was the gift of the olive tree, prized for producing both the olive fruit and the vital olive oil. Horses were understood to be a gift from the god Poseidon and sacred to him. All the riches under the earth belonged to the god of death, whose name was rarely spoken -- instead, he was usually referred to as Plouton, "the wealthy one."

The gift of children was seen as emanating from the divine realm as well. The goddess Artemis was present at every birth and was seen as allowing each and every child to be born into the world -- each thus understood to be a precious gift from the gods.

Thus, to the degree that men and women cannot find work which allows them to use their particular gifts to the fullest extent possible, those divinely-given resources are being squandered, an insult to the gods and a catastrophe for those individuals themselves, who find themselves unemployed or underemployed and frustrated from reaching their true potential.

One would have to be willfully blind to not see that we have a tremendous problem in this regard as the nation celebrates Labor Day in 2019. Tents line the off-ramps from many major interstate freeways in the state of California where I live, and can be seen under the overpasses of many major cities, filled with homeless men and women -- and many more do not have tents for shelter but simply sleep out directly on sidewalks or empty parking garages or stairwells or in parks or riverbeds.

image: Wikimedia commons (  link  ).

image: Wikimedia commons (link).

This terrible problem can be remedied with fairly simple solutions, which have been very well and clearly explained by tireless figures such as Professor Michael Hudson, Professor Stephanie Kelton, Professor Bill Mitchell, former hedge fund manager Warren Mosler, and public banking advocate Ellen Brown, among others.

Whether the public will ever wake up and demand the implementation of these solutions is the real question, and the more men and women do wake up to the soundness of the arguments of these economists and writers, the more vigorously their opponents try to counter those arguments in order to scare people away from their sound proposals.

This Labor Day, therefore, I would strongly recommend spending time exploring some of the work of each of the individuals mentioned above. Because, of course, Labor Day is also traditionally a day for picnics and relaxation, it would be impossible to delve too deeply into the works of all of them, so I will recommend just three links which can easily be included along with any other activities of the day.

First, take the time to listen to Warren Mosler explain his "transition jobs" proposal, which has also been called the "job guarantee program," in the interview below:

If you are unable to spend an entire 26 minutes to listen to the entire interview, you can hear Warren explain the "transition job" concept beginning at about the 9:20 mark in the video.

The concept of a transition job is very straightforward: the federal government provides the funds to purchase any idle labor in the economy, by offering completely voluntary jobs to anyone who wants to work in exchange for a fixed level of compensation at a living wage including benefits and paid time off, with no opportunity for increased compensation above a periodic cost-of-living adjustment for inflation.

As Warren explains here and elsewhere, very few employers will hire someone right off the streets who has been jobless for months or years. The transition job program allows men and women to build an employment history, if they choose to do so (no one would be forced to take a transition job, and those who didn't abide by the standards of employment would find themselves in the same category as those choosing not to take a voluntary transition job -- ie, they would not get to keep their transition job). The transition job provides a way for people to transition into private sector employment, should they choose to do so.

Such a program would immediately reduce almost to zero the number of men and women who are involuntarily unemployed.

The immediate rejoinder by those who for one reason or another would oppose such a program is almost invariably a complaint that "we can't afford to pay for" such a program.

Setting aside for a moment the salient fact that "we" are already "paying for" unemployment (those who are unemployed are already in the "public sector" by virtue of the fact that governments pay unemployment), Warren Mosler explains in the above interview -- and in much greater detail in the books and articles he has written, all of which are available for free in the "mandatory readings" section of his website at Mosler Economics -- there is absolutely no reason why a sovereign issuer of the currency (such as the federal government of the united states, as empowered by the original language of the Constitution) cannot buy all of the resources available for sale in that country, including the critical resource of idle labor.

Those who argue that "we can't afford to pay for" such a program usually argue that budget deficits, created when a government spends more than it collects in revenues (primarily taxes), are inherently dangerous and even morally "bad." However, as Warren Mosler explains in the above-linked interview, unemployment itself is a sign that either taxes are too high or government spending is too low, or both. In order to understand why, you must understand what Warren calls "the money story," which is perhaps more than you want to absorb during your Labor Day, but which he explains very clearly in the "mandatory readings" provided on his webpage and linked above for your convenient reference later.

Indeed, as Warren Mosler and the other economists mentioned above including Professor Michael Hudson, Professor Stephanie Kelton, and Professor Bill Mitchell have labored to explain for decades at this point, budget deficits are actually the normal condition for a growing economy, because only by spending more than it collects in revenues (primarily taxes) can a government add currency to the economy: taxing more than it spends withdraws currency from the economy and would eventually drain all the currency altogether, leaving none in the private sector.

This brings us to the second recommended Labor Day link, a brief interview with Professor Michael Hudson, author of the essential J is for Junk Economics, which has been discussed and recommended many times previously on this blog (see for example here and here and here). In the video interview embedded at the top of this blog (and linked here), Professor Hudson explains that the real opponents of deficits are the private lenders (the word "private" in this sense referring to those entities outside of the public sector, in contrast to the use of "private" to mean a company that is not "publicly-traded" on the public exchanges, which is different -- some of these private ie non-government lenders are in fact publicly-traded and hence sometimes referred to as "public companies" but that does not mean they are in the public sector but is just a kind of short-hand or slang for the longer and more precise descriptor of "publicly-traded") -- in other words, banks (for the most part).

As Professor Hudson explains in that interview, when a sovereign government is prevented from creating enough money through deficits (greater government spending than collected revenues from taxes etc), then the shortfall in the private sector will be made up with borrowing, which will come from the banks. Reducing deficits will drain the money from the private sector, leading to greater debt levels in the private sector. The end result of this process, as Professor Hudson explains in the above video, is greater privatization of the resources that should be public. Thus, those who benefit from privatization (at the expense of the general public) and those who benefit from greater indebtedness among the people are usually the loudest in their arguments against deficits.

As Professor Hudson says in a different article (linked here for your future reading on a different day), when those who for their own vested interests inveigh against deficits as being irresponsible and immoral, "the press follows this hand-wringing, urging governments to balance the budgets to restore 'fiscal responsibility.'"

Professor Hudson in that same article flatly states: "the effect of less public spending into the economy is to force the private sector more deeply into debt." And, as he says in the short video linked and embedded above, when workers are as strapped with debt as they are today, they are much less able to ask for higher wages, and much less able to leave one job to look for another -- leading many men and women to being less able to achieve their full potential (perhaps their talents and education would make them perfect for an opportunity somewhere else, but their level of indebtedness makes it impossible for them to make that transition).

As Professor Hudson says in the same article, "What is really responsible is for the government to spend enough into the economy to keep employment and production thriving."

But as long as people do not even understand how money actually works, they will continue to be bamboozled by arguments that deficits are "irresponsible" (for an example of this kind of article from the media, demonizing government deficits as immoral and even subtly equating government deficits to nuclear bombs, see this typical piece from the Wall Street Journal from June 13 of this year).

Note of course that there is a fundamental difference between the sovereign issuer of a currency and the private households and businesses (and even states in the united states, as specified explicitly in the Constitution) who are the users of that currency when it comes to deficits: it may well be disastrous for a user of a currency to run a deficit for any extended period of time, but it is a completely different story for the issuer of the currency. If the issuer continuously runs a surplus instead of a deficit, then the users of the currency will go into greater and greater debt and eventually there will be no currency left in the system at all. Those who don't want governments to run deficits, however, typically conflate the two and argue that what applies to the user of the currency also applies to the sovereign issuer of the currency, in hopes that most people will not understand the difference (as part of their campaign to get you to think that government deficits lead to catastrophe).

Finally, I will round out my three recommended Labor Day resource links with a recent article from Dr. Ellen Brown, who for many years has been one of the most tireless advocates for the establishment of public banking, a theme which fits into the sweep of the arguments expressed above.

In that article, drawing on research presented in Professor Hudson's most recent book, she explains that public lending has a history going back to ancient Sumer, and that in fact their system has much we could learn from today -- that is, if we actually wanted to learn from it. There are obviously very powerful interests which would prefer to keep men and women in greater levels of debt and prevent them from knowing the things that you will know if you study the works of the three thinkers linked above.

Those who benefit from spreading misinformation about this critically important subject are actually causing a terrible waste of the precious resource of the gifts and talents given from the divine realm to the men and women of a country (even as they give lip-service to Labor Day each year). Such squandering of the gifts of the gods is never viewed favorably in any of the ancient myths provided to humanity around the globe, and such behavior never fails to bring awful consequences.

This Labor Day, please take a little time to begin to look at these matters from what is perhaps a very different perspective, and then follow up with further research as the spirit moves. The more men and women who truly understand this subject, the sooner we can begin to enact change for the better.