Viewing entries tagged

Welcome to new visitors from Midwest Real (and returning friends)!

Welcome to new visitors from Midwest Real (and returning friends)!

image: Khafre Pyramid, Wikimedia commons (link). Edited.

Special thanks to Midwest Real host Michael Phillip Nelson for having me over to  Midwest Real for a conversation on a variety of important and real subjects -- and welcome to all those visiting who may be here for the first time after learning about The Undying Stars via that interview!

The breadth of Michael's lines of inquiry was truly impressive, and I think that listeners will agree that the conversation covered all sorts of different terrain than that visited in other recent interviews.

I will be listening to the interview again in order to recall some of the topics that we discussed, so that I can put up some helpful links to resources to explore those subjects further.  Also, please note, that when I am talking and get going on a thought and say only "he" or "him," I should be saying "he or she" and "him or her" -- there are plenty of things during a spoken interview which I later realize could have been phrased better or more clearly!

Here is the list so far:

I hope everyone enjoys the interview -- visit again soon!

Jon Rappoport's talk on the trickster-god and creating reality

image: Seated Hermes, found in the Villa of the Papyri, Hurculaneum. Wikimedia commons (link).

One of the most important talks at the recent Secret Space Program -- among a lineup of talks that were all extremely important, each in its own way and also in conjunction with the others and with the larger thesis that was being explored from many different angles -- and one of the most memorable was undoubtedly the theatrical tour de force delivered by Jon Rappoport.

It was "theatrical" in the sense that Jon Rappoport seamlessly "channels" the voice and persona of whatever character he needs at any moment in order to illustrate his message, at times more than one character at a time (for instance, when depicting a dialogue or a debate), and at other times (after the fashion of the classical orators of antiquity) he will declare: "But I hear someone saying . . . " and then he will deliver the imagined counter-argument or challenge to his thesis, before he takes up his own voice again and demolishes their objection.

It was also theatrical in the sense that the heart of his message involved the use of "a little theater" -- as in, Let's show that the entire construct of reality is nothing but theater, a willful "suspension of disbelief" by those who have bought into it as if it were actually real. According to his argument, theater is a powerful tool by which we can "upset the apple cart," and demonstrate a different reality than the one that everyone is accepting as "the only reality" by unthinking default.

His talk was so successful in its theatricality and its delivery of his powerful message that it deserves to be seen and heard -- and I've been waiting to see if it would show up on YouTube or some other public outlet, so that I could link to the video of the presentation itself, allowing readers to go watch and listen to Jon Rappoport for themselves. However, so far it has not shown up in any public outlet that I have found, although it is available on the Secret Space Program official website, where those who purchased tickets to the event (either tickets to attend in-person or tickets to watch the streaming videos from the conference) can log in and see all of the videos of the presentations. 

So, I will discuss what I felt to be the most important points of Jon's talk, along with some quotations from the talk itself -- with the hope that if the video does become public at some point in the future, readers can go check out the entire thing.

The core of his message is at once both simple and profound . . . and so challenging that it is difficult to face, so challenging that it invites all the "defense mechanisms" of the brain to find a way to bury the message somewhere that we won't see it or have to think about it. 

His message is that imagination produces "reality."

This message is exactly what I am trying to articulate when I say that the unified message of every ancient mythology is shamanic and holographic at the same time -- but Jon Rappoport articulates this message without using either of those two terms, and in a way that is perhaps more direct, more profound, and more eloquent.

Let's "listen" to some of the most important parts of his lecture, to hear him in his own words. First, his argument that, in the most profound way possible, you are not material: that is, the part of "you" that actually makes you "you" is not the material part -- and the implications of that fact will be seen to be enormous, and will lead right into the most paradigm-upending pronouncements of quantum physics, and the "holographic universe" models that theoretical physicists have been proposing for the past forty or fifty years:
OK – so let’s take the materialist’s view of life: by conventional physics – conventional physics, OK? Everywhere’s particles. Tiny little particles. Call ‘em whatever you want: say they’re matter, say they’re energy, whatever you want – but that’s it! As far as you can go in the universe, that’s it, that’s what you’ve got when you boil it all down, you’ve got these little particles, right? Quarks and the things and the wavicles and the bah-bah-bah-bah. OK. And a conventional physicist will tell you, if you (you know) press them far enough, that none of these particles contain consciousness (what?) or the ability to understand anything – you know, what we ordinarily take to be understanding. They’re just particles, right?  This thing here? Particles. Particles, particles, particles, particles, particles, particles.  Brain? Same particles. No different! Don’t give me that – same particles.  Sorry!  So, how is it possible, then, that I’m talking and you understand what I’m saying? It’s not. Something impossible is happening here right now. Your brain is made out of the same particles mine is, same as the chair is, same as that camera, same as her lipstick, same as that strap, same as that thing you’re wearing, a bracelet. It’s all the same particles. Brain? Same particles. [. . . ] So by conventional physics (materialism, that’s the philosophy aspect of it) there’s no possible way that I could be talking and you could be sitting there understanding what I’m saying. But yet, it’s happening! Impossible! Therefore . . . you’re not material. Hate to break it to you. Neither am I. We’re inhabiting these things, but we’re not material. These things are material, but we’re not . . . and we possess this capacity to understand each other. Yes, the physical vehicle has a part to play, in the theatrical this and the that and the blueah-yuh-yuh-yuh, but that’s it. The actual understanding is non-material.  Somebody says, “WAIT a minute! I don’t like that. Don’t try to pull that one on me. I’m not non-material, my good friend.” Well, too bad. So if that’s the case, here, what we’re really looking at is a roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies, who are basically being confronted with the idea that they have extremely powerful imagination and creative power . . . That doesn’t seem like a stretch to me anymore. “Well, Hey! If I’m not really made out of matter, some pretty wild things are goin’ on here! You know? And if imagination happens to be one of those things, well why not? Yeah, I could see that! I create something, I create something!” Now somebody says, “Well, can you snap your fingers and make an elephant appear over there?” Nope! Nope! I can make him appear to me (hey, Bozo), but . . . if we go back into ancient Tibet, which is a whole other topic, I think we can see that they were on the trail of making an elephant that everybody could see – that’s another story for another time, perhaps – but the point is: it’s non-material you, asking yourself the question, “What can I do?” It’s not John Q. Patterson, of 63 Gobby-gooby Drive in San Jose, California, blah-blah, with a phone number of this, and a cell, and a pair of glasses, and a fence around his yard, and a thing, saying “What can I do?” . . . That’s not it! Because that dude has absolutely no chance! He has no answers -- he has no clue! He’s the wrong character in the play to be dealing with that issue. [Beginning at 01:10:46 into the presentation from Sunday, June 29, 2014].
In other words, once we have established that you, your consciousness, is non-material and that it is not being produced by the material physical universe of particles (it cannot be), then some pretty incredible ramifications immediately begin to force their way to the front of the crowd and start demanding we address them -- ramifications such as, "if my consciousness is not actually being generated by these particles, then is it actually dependent upon these particles, or is it somehow above and beyond them?" and "if I am not dependent upon the particles, then does that mean I can create realities with this non-material consciousness I've got? What about creating an elephant?" and "If this is true, then to what degree do we have to accept the tidy little boundaries and structures that seem to give meaning  and identity to everything?" (these questions are my extrapolations of some of the implications raised by the subject which Jon is discussing in the quoted segment above -- they are not quotations from the talk but I put them in quotation marks to point out that these are the kinds of questions that the point that Jon is making above should cause us to start asking).

These are implications raised by what I would call the holographic part of the formula "shamanic-holographic." But Jon Rappoport's real gift to the world is his articulation of what I would label the shamanic -- but what he calls the artist

The artist (and the shaman) transcends the artificial boundaries of what most of us accept as "reality" -- and in doing so they actually create a new reality.

This is the message that I believe to be at the heart of all of the ancient myths of the world -- a shamanic message, a shamanic-holographic message. And, in a profound and memorable part of his talk (the most profound and memorable part, to me) Jon Rappoport made this very point by invoking the trickster god -- specifically Hermes. Listen as he describes the process by which certain people who want to control others have become very adept at "creating reality" and handing it off to people who don't know that they can transcend the limitations of those so-called realities, and how the message that the trickster god desperately wants to get through everybody's head is that this reality is just one big giant construct, and that we should be using our imagination to transcend it and to create our own!
But it is, unfortunately, the answer: Imagination. You would think, uh, well . . . I was hoping it wouldn’t be that.  [. . .]  To look at it another way: the bad guys are already using their imagination. They’ve been doing that for a long time. And what they have created is this strange thing called “reality.” Who knew, right? That’s what they do. In my book The Secret Behind Secret Societies, I go into this at, you know, excruciating and painful length. The bad guys have been painting the mural of reality for a long time, but they’re not interested in looking at it themselves, unlike an actual painter. They just want to turn it the other way and show it to everybody else and say: “This is reality! OK? This is it!” And the last thing they want other people to then do is to say: “Well, who painted that?” No -- they want to make it so convincing that people are just gonna say, “Yeah! OK! That’s reality! Yeah!  It looks like a reality – Uh, you know . . . I don’t know what to compare it to (maybe a ringing cellphone) – uh, it is, it must be reality! And I will accept it because . . . it’s here! You see, this is the requirement. We’re all intelligent people, and, so, well, we all know: Let’s see -- what’s the definition of reality? What’s here! Anything else?” What else could it be? Now, if you’re a particularly perverse artist and you produced that painting, you’re going – “Man! You see this guy? He comes up to us in the museum and he goes: ‘Uh huh, yeah, that’s reality!’” In fact, in fact – this is very important – he doesn’t just look at the painting: he walks into the friggin’ painting.  And he takes a left, and a right, and he finds a little cottage, and he says: “Can I move in?” and everybody says: “Sure!” And he moves in, and he stays there. That’s how convinced . . . So somebody else, not just one person, of course, but . . . the mural is being painted. Right? Has been, for a long time. That’s called imagination. Now we can say, “Well, we just don’t have what it takes to do a better, different mural. You know. We gotta go with the one that we got.” And what I’m saying is, “That’s all wrong, you see.” But it kind of depends on you, saying, actually, “You know, I have an imagination, and I’m going to imagine a different reality, and some means of getting there. I’m gonna do something big.” All right? Theater – let’s have a little theater. Let’s upset the apple cart for example with some theater. Poke a hole in the status quo. This is what the trickster-god, Hermes or Mercury, was all about in the ancient Greek culture. He had enough firepower to be the king of the Olympians, in that mythology, but he didn’t wanna be, because he could see that everybody else was glued to this single reality, and he wasn’t. He was passing through buildings, and cars, and planes, and whatever they had back then, he would just go through it and around it and he would look at everybody hypnotized by the, you know, the reality and he would say: “Man! Wake up! Don’t you see?” and if necessary he would resort to stealing things from people – go into their houses at night: “OK, so he put the TV here, let me move it over here – this is gonna be good, you know. And then let’s go into the kitchen cabinet, and let’s take all of the cereal, and put it underneath with all the, you know, the cleaners and the crap, right? And then, let’s see, what else, let’s take his wife’s clothes and put ‘em in his closet, and his clothes and put ‘em in his wife’s . . . yeah, right!” And that guy wakes up the next morning and he gets up and he goes: “Wha- wha- What happened!” You know? “What happened to the reality that’s been painted for me, that I’ve accepted? Everything is different! Were the clothes . . . honey, did you change the clothes?” “No, you must have done it: I didn’t do anything.” “What happened, where is this, why is this, why is the cereal under the sink, with the Clorox? Are you now putting Clorox in my cereal?” Imagination, creative power. This is what consciousness is about. And part of the so-called, you know, paranormalthat word – it really means “imagination and creative power.” So that imagination produces reality. [00:30:44. The passage at the end introduced by "This is what the trickster god . . ." begins at 00:35:27].
This is incredibly powerful stuff. This is exactly the message (I believe) of "the hidden god." That message, you recall, portrayed in countless ancient myths of the world, is that when we plunge into incarnation, we are given a "drink of forgetfulness," causing us to forget our divine nature (and what is a divine nature, if not a "reality-producing" nature?), and the message of all the myths (from the hunt by Isis for the chopped-up pieces of Osiris, to the parable of the prodigal son, eating among the swine and forgetful of who he really is) is this: "Wake up!" (or, in the words inscribed upon the stones at Delphi: "Know thyself!"). 

It is a message that we are prone to forgetting, even after we have learned it once -- we may have remembered at one point that we could be an artist, transcending boundaries and creating new realities, and then somehow forgotten it and settled down inside the boundaries of someone's artificial construct again, and accepted our circumscribed little identity inside of it. That's why we need the trickster god to come "upset the apple cart" and show us that those "realities" are actually nothing more than a bunch of conventions that everyone is giving power to by their acceptance of them, but that once such acceptance is withdrawn, the conventions will melt away into the insubstantiality they always were to begin with.

The trickster-god in mythology is like the "clown" in the plays of Shakespeare (whoever he was, or whoever she was, or whoever they were . . . if the plays of Shakespeare are the products of someone or "someones" other than the Bard of Avon). The clown (or fool) is allowed to say things to those in power (including and especially the king) that no one else dares to say -- and the king welcomes it -- in fact needs it. The clown shows that the entire structure, which certainly seems to have a "reality" of its own (and a reality that is enforced by real steel bayonets and the real threat of death for those who try to resist it), is nothing more than a great big social construct, a fabrication given its power by the very acquiescence of everyone who subscribes to it. It is a power that is derived, for the most part, from words themselves -- and the clown characters of Shakespeare are past masters at playing with words, punning upon the ambiguous meanings of words, taking words too literally or otherwise twisting their meaning around to subvert their original intention, and otherwise showing that the whole thing is a great big artificial reality to which the clown refuses to subscribe and in which the clown refuses to settle down like everybody else.

In other words, the clown is trying to wake us up from our doltish acceptance of the artificial structures that limit us -- that may, in fact, have been "realities" that were spun for us by wielders of "mind control," as Jon Rappoport indicates in the quotations above. A delightful modern movie in which a "clown" character illustrates the concept of "mind control" is (appropriately enough), entitled The Court Jester.

What's more, virtually every ancient myth-system around the world has a trickster-god, and (as Jon Rappoport indicates in his discussion of Hermes quoted above), that trickster-god is an extremely important god: in many ways, the most important of all of them (think, for example, of the fact that the tradition of Hermetism or Hermeticism and Hermetic wisdom have an origin attributed to Hermes, or more specifically to Hermes Trismegistus: Hermes recognized as the Greek god who is identified with Thoth of ancient Egypt). 

In Norse myth, for example, the god associated with Hermes is in fact the most powerful of all the gods: Odin himself. "Odin's day" (or "Wotan's day") is our Wednesday, which is the day of Mercury (or Hermes) in the Latin languages (for example, it is Miercoles in Spanish). Odin is a boundary-crossing god: he famously (shamanically) transcends the boundaries of the physical body by hanging himself on the World-Tree of Yggdrasil for nine days and nine nights, until he has a vision and "sees" the twigs on the ground turn themselves into runes (remember that Thoth, the Egyptian god associated with Hermes and hence with Odin, was the god of writing and of scribes and the giver of the gift of writing to humanity also). Odin passes through the boundaries to retrieve knowledge from the "other side" -- he brings into being "new realities." He is also constantly depicted in Norse myth as having to break his word and having it trouble him very deeply.

Not only that, but Odin is blood-brother to a sort of evil twin, the real trickster-god of Norse myth: Loki. If one were asked which Norse god was the counterpart of the trickster-god Hermes, the most obvious answer would seem to be Loki, not Odin. But the Norse myths tell us that Odin and Loki each opened a vein in their arms, and Odin let his blood and the blood of Loki flow together: hence, in a very real sense, Odin and Loki are actually both two sides of the same god. 

Loki, like Hermes, is a distinctly hermaphroditic god: we are told that of all the gods, his shape-shifting abilities are such that he can even take on the form of female creatures (Loki once famously turned himself into a mare in order to distract the work-horse of a threatening jotun -- and then when Loki became pregnant by that jotun's stallion, Loki became the dam of Odin's marvelous eight-legged steed, Sleipnir). So, Loki is a "boundary-crossing" god as well. In fact, Loki (like Odin) is constantly breaking his word, although unlike Odin he never seems to feel any remorse about it.

It is also interesting to note that, while Hermes is often portrayed as a slender, beardless youth (such as in the famous Seated Hermes statue shown above, which was discovered in the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum in Italy, a town like Pompeii on the slopes of Vesuvius, and which was horribly buried under fiery volcanic ash on that fateful day in AD 79), he is also portrayed in earlier art such as the Greek red-figure cup shown below as a bearded man with a wide-brimmed hat. Odin also famously wears such a hat in Norse mythology as well. In the scene below, Hermes is the one holding a caduceus staff -- the one topped with the twinned serpents intertwined into a figure that almost looks like a "figure eight."

image: Attic red-figure cup thought to date to the period 480 BC - 470 BC. Wikimedia commons (link).

Other trickster-gods in mythology are no less central and no less important. Among the tribes of North America, the most-important god is often Coyote, a famous trickster. When it is not Coyote, the trickster-god is often Raven. Significantly, these trickster-gods of the Native American myth-systems are the ones described as creating the world: in other words, they are creators of realities. But then, in the myths that follow the creation series, they are also the subverters of realities: the one who, by his actions, seems to say to the rest of the gods and to humanity, "Don't take this reality that you say I've created too seriously! Don't fall into the trap of imprisoning yourself inside of its artificial boundaries! You're supposed to take my example and then go forth and do likewise for yourselves!"

Among the Polynesians, including the Hawaiians and the Maori of New Zealand (Aotearoa), the central god is Maui, and he too is a trickster god. Once again, in both Hawaii and in Aotearoa, Maui is the one who creates the islands themselves, fishing them up out of the deep with his magical prepotent fishhook. But, once again, he is also a trickster, and as such he can be seen to be trying to wake everyone up to the same message that Hermes wants to convey, or Loki, or Coyote, or Jon Rappoport! In Maori mythology, too, Maui is more specifically also a shamanic god: frequently turning himself into birds, an attribute of shamans around the world, and an especially common transformation used by both Odin and Loki in the Norse mythologies.

Interestingly enough, all of the constellations which most likely find their mythical personification in the trickster-gods of the various world mythologies (such as Loki, Coyote, Raven, Maui, and the rest) seem to be located in a particularly significant portion of the sky (and boundary-line in the annual zodiac wheel).

The double-hemisphere "full sky star chart" shown below is not as helpful as it perhaps could be, in that it "curves" the constellations near its edges to replicate the curve one would find on an actual globe or celestial sphere (click here for an enlargement, but without my added constellation labels), but in it one can see that near the constellation Virgo there is a prominent "Coyote" constellation (that is to say, Lupus the Wolf constellation is my informed opinion as to the origin of the trickster-god Coyote) and not far from that Corvus the Crow (that is to say, my informed opinion as to the probable stellar origin of the trickster-god Raven; to see Corvus a bit better and to get some help in locating him in the night sky, see this previous post).

Note that I have already established (to my own satisfaction, at least) the identification of Loki with the constellation Boötes -- see the arguments put forward in this previous post. The myth that most firmly establishes Loki as the embodiment in myth of Boötes is, in my opinion, his antics that bring a smile to the lips of Skadi (who is clearly playing the role of Virgo, as that post demonstrates: the stars of Virgo having a famously coy smile and one which appears in many other world star-myths, including the myth of Amaterasu in Japan and of Sarai/Sarah in the Old Testament). However, the identification is strengthened (I would even venture to say, proven) by the myths of the theft by Loki of the necklace of the goddess Freya and of the theft by Loki of the hair of the goddess Sif, both of which are next to the constellation Boötes and also, of course, to Virgo (whom each of these goddesses is portraying in her turn). These theft-myths are discussed in this previous post: "Brisingamen, the necklace of Freya." 

Maui too can be identified with Boötes, for he has as his consort Hina, who is almost certainly Virgo. Thus, we can see that a great many of the most-important tricksters of the world's mythology (including Loki, Maui, Coyote, and Raven) are located in one very specific part of the sky.

Why would this particular part of the sky furnish the trickster-gods of the world's star-myths?

I would argue that the answer lies in the fact that these constellations are all very near to Virgo and to the crossing-line of the fall equinox (the equinox that lies, in the ancient system, at the juncture point between the sign of Virgo and the sign of Libra): 

This would be the point marked by the red "X" on the right-hand side of the above zodiac wheel, which (for observers in the northern hemisphere) is the equinox at which the days begin to be shorter than the nights, the equinox which marks the point of descent into the nether regions -- on the way to the very Pit of Hell at the winter solstice at the bottom of the wheel.

I would argue that the reason all of these "trickster-gods" are clustered around this part of the sky is that this juncture was mythologically portrayed as the very "crossing point" or "boundary" at which the soul (metaphorically speaking) plunges into incarnation (the ancient myth-systems allegorized this point on the wheel as the point of descent from the realm of the spiritual into the realm of the material and the incarnate -- see the discussions here and here for more on that concept). 

This boundary is critical to the trickster-god, because it is at this juncture (in the mythological system of using the majestic motions of the sky as a sort of Montessori teaching-aid to convey profound and abstract truths) that consciousness is robed in a physical body (made up, as Jon Rappoport so memorably told us, of "particles, particles, particles, particles, particles, particles"). It is thus at this very point (and during the incarnate life which follows the point of incarnation, when we toil through the "underworld" of this human existence in a body) that we are most vulnerable to being tricked into believing that the structures themselves are real and insurmountable! (By the way, as an important aside, I do not believe that boundaries are inherently bad or evil: boundaries can actually enhance creativity, as discussed in this previous post. The boundaries on a tennis court, for example, give the structure that enables the players to display their skills and their "artistry." When boundaries are agreed-upon as a positive enhancement of human liberty and creativity and freedom, then they can serve a very positive purpose. But, when artificial boundaries are created to limit human freedom, and when these artificial limiting boundaries take on an air of "reality" and insurmountability, then they are harmful).

But they are not ultimately real, and they are not ultimately insurmountable! This is the universal message of the trickster-god (who will go to great lengths to try to convey this message to us, subverting the apparently rigid "order" of the universe in whatever way he needs to in order to get his point through our thick skulls). 

Mainly, he will get this point across using jokes, ridicule, the ridiculous -- just like the clowns of Shakespeare are wont to do.

And here we see another important reason why the trickster-god comes from this particular point in the zodiac wheel (the point of incarnation): because incarnation itself, in many ways, is something of a gigantic joke that is played upon us! As Jon Rappoport so powerfully put it in the portion of his talk cited first above, "what we're really looking at is a roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies." 

That's funny! That's a situation that is just fraught with all kinds of potential comedy.

And, although he was addressing the roomful of non-material beings inhabiting bodies that happened to be physically there and listening to his talk at the moment, he could have just as easily said: "what we're really looking at is a world full of non-material beings inhabiting bodies."

And to return for just a moment to the symbology of Hermes discussed briefly above, we see that Hermes of course is the bearer of the caduceus, that staff up which run the intertwined serpents, which has become the symbol of medicine (the treatment of the human body). If he, like the other trickster-gods, is associated with the point of incarnation (the point where all the non-material beings get their bodies to inhabit for a time), then the caduceus (symbol of the profession that treats those inhabited bodies) would be the perfect symbol for Hermes. 

But that's not all, because of course it has been pointed out since the era of the modern model for the DNA molecule that the double-helix structure of this information-carrying self-replicating molecule resembles nothing in the world of symbol so much as it resembles the caduceus of Hermes. We could almost say that the wand carried by Hermes represents the DNA by which the trickster-god reminds us of our incarnate state -- and at the same time reminds us that this body (this product of DNA) is not all that we are, that even though it does limit us in certain ways it does not ultimately define us -- and that we can and must transcend those limits, and that in fact we will.

What a message!  

(And, of course, Hermes is after all the divine messenger).

Jon Rappoport has done humanity a tremendous service by framing this message so powerfully, and by bringing to bear every metaphor and every theatrical technique he can muster to convey this message to our hypnotized minds. It is a message that we all need to be reminded of, again and again (the ancient mythographers knew this, and told us we have amnesia, in no uncertain terms). If you have access to the video stream from the Secret Space Program conference, I would suggest you watch his talk several times, once every few days or every week, so that you remember it and so that it can penetrate our natural "defense mechanisms" that want to push this message out of sight and out of mind. If his talk is put up on any public video forums, I would suggest you do the same thing -- watch it again and again, at regular intervals.

Finally, Jon Rappoport has been articulating this very same message in several of his blog posts on his website since the conference (and some of those leading up to the conference). Some of these include "The Church of Progammed Perception," "And God appeared on a mountain; or maybe it was an actor," and "Beyond all structures" (in this one he discusses the role of Hermes). 

I can personally say that his message has greatly sharpened my own understanding of the concept I am trying to articulate as the holographic and the shamanic (or "shamanic-holographic"). The fact that he has done it using the trickster-god reinforces my conviction that the ancient sacred scriptures of the world were a legacy to humanity to promote "consciousness," the awareness that the universe is in a very real sense "holographic" and made up of vibrations, and that we can and must transcend those  boundaries (the "shamanic"). The ancient sacred scriptures were meant to point the way to human freedom. 

But somewhere along the way they were subverted by people who knew their message, and how to use their knowledge of the shamanic and the holographic to create artificial constructs for others, artificial realities, that did the exact opposite of what the scriptures were originally intended to do. To enslave rather than to liberate. The fact that Jon Rappoport sees the deliberate creation of an enslaving artificial reality as the root of the problems we face today reinforces the conclusions that I have also reached, conclusions which involve history going back at least to the early Roman Empire and the creation of the Flavian dynasty. And, if those conclusions about history are correct, we should expect different analysts to arrive at them from all kinds of different avenues of investigation.

Thank you, Jon Rappoport, for your courageous pursuit of the truth for decades as an investigative reporter, for your ongoing investigations and articles, and for your clarity in articulating the message we all need to hear: that imagination creates reality, and that the antidote and solution to those who want to use their imagination to enslave is this -- for people, en masse, to become artists:
But if people, en masse, began to say: “Oh! Oh – I see: you guys are artists, right? You’re artists, and you’ve got your own museum and your own theater, and you’re making reality because you think that’s what I want! You think you can sell me your infomercial about the cosmos! I get it! No thanks.  Not interested.” 
“Why? Ultimately, because I’m making up my own. Yeah, I’m making up my own. I don’t need yours. Yeah, it’s pretty impressive – I’d like to take the tour, I’ll give you a buck, whatever, you know . . . does lunch come with that? You have a ticket I can have? You know?  But as far as enrolling? And becoming a . . .? Nahhh. Because, come into my studio – you see what I’m painting here? Come into my office – you see what I’m building here? Come into my . . . whatever, my pasture, you see what I’m creating here? Come into my world – you see what I’m creating here? This is far more interesting to me than what you’re making for everybody.”
[Jon Rappoport, Mind Control, the Space Program, and the Secret Theater of Reality, June 29, 2014, Secret Space Program and Breakaway Civilizations Conference, San Mateo, California. Quotation begins at 1:07:38].

A Memorial Day meditation on natural universal law

By almost all accounts, Memorial Day began in the United States at the conclusion of the Civil War, or shortly thereafter.  It was originally often called Decoration Day, and was a way to remember those who had lost their lives during that conflict.  Activities almost always included decorating their grave sites.  For some time Memorial Day was celebrated on the 30th of May, when flowers would be in bloom in abundance (according to sources cited here), but was officially changed to the final Monday of the month of May in 1971.

The American Civil War involved two extremely important issues of natural law: whether or not human beings could be held as property, and whether or not human beings could be compelled to "submit to, and support, a government that they do not want" (in the words of abolitionist philosopher and lawyer Lysander Spooner, who was an outspoken proponent of the concept of natural law's superiority in all cases to "artificial" or "human law").

Today, it is generally recognized that the idea that human beings can be held as property is a gross violation of natural (or universal) law.  However, it is not generally recognized that the idea that human beings can be compelled to submit to and support a government that they do not want is also a violation of natural universal law.  

Spooner argued that both are gross violations of natural law, and argued that while it was lawful to use force to stop slavery, and that the American Civil War was lawful to the extent that force was initiated to stop that hideous violation of natural rights, it was not lawful to initiate force to keep someone under a government that they did not want, and that it was regrettable that the justification of the war was usually framed in those terms by those who were arguing for it (rather than as a war against slavery).

Unlike other abolitionists of his day, Spooner argued that the Constitution of the United States did not and could not make slavery legal in any way.  William Lloyd Garrison, one of the most prominent abolitionists of the time, believed that the Constitution did indeed sanction slavery, and for this reason Garrison publicly burned a copy of the Constitution during an anti-slavery rally on July 4, 1854 (150 years ago this July).  He also publicly called the Constitution a "Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell."

Spooner, however, argued that no human law could sanction crime, violence, or wrongdoing -- either by governments or by individuals -- and then went on to demonstrate rather conclusively that this proposition was firmly established well before the ratification of the US Constitution, that all of accepted human law was based upon this principle (and here he cited clear quotations from the accepted authorities of the day, including Blackstone), and that both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution could be clearly demonstrated to have "freed every slave in the country" at the time of their signing, even if it could be argued that there were any legal slaves prior to the Declaration or the Constitution (and, he added, he firmly denied that there could have been any legal slaves even prior to those dates).  

Spooner published his argument that slavery is unconstitutional and that the Constitution in no way supports it in The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, 1860.  This important text can be read in its entirety online here (in the form of a pdf) and here on the site of Project Gutenberg (in various online formats).

While these debates may be seen by some to be relics of the nineteenth century, now that the idea that human beings can be legally made into property has been rejected (or has it?), in point of fact the natural law issues Spooner argues in his treatise are every bit as relevant today as they were in 1860 when The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was first published.  

First of all, it is by no means clear that one can separate the proposition that no human being can be made into property (the first important natural-law issue at stake in the American Civil War) from the proposition that no human being can be made to submit to and support a government which he or she does not want (the second important natural-law issue at stake in the same war).  Is holding someone in a club, association, group, or political state against his or her will consistent with human freedom?  Spooner argues persuasively that it is not, and demonstrates that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution agree with his position.  

Second, while the immoral laws which supposedly made slavery "legal" during the time Spooner was writing his anti-slavery arguments have now been stricken from the books in the United States, his larger argument that illegal laws -- that is to say, those which violate what he on the very first page of his treatise terms "natural, universal, and necessary principle" -- have no true force of law, is still an extremely contentious and important subject for consideration.  Spooner argued that no man or woman has an obligation to obey an immoral -- and hence unlawful -- human statute, and that in fact he or she has an obligation to resist it and to stop it from being immorally enforced in violation of the rights of others.

Spooner's clearest expression of this principle can probably be found in the second chapter of his Defence for Fugitive Slaves, published in 1850, which argues against the law requiring citizens in the northern states to apprehend fugitive slaves or face legal repercussions. There, he writes:
The rescue of a person, who is assaulted, or restrained of his liberty, without authority of law, is not only morally, but legally, a meritorious act; for every body is under obligation to go to the assistance of one who is assailed by assassins, robbers, ravishers, kidnappers, or ruffians of any kind.
An officer of the government is an officer of the law only when he is proceeding according to law.  The moment he steps beyond the law, he, like other men, forfeits its protection, and may be resisted like any other trespasser.  An unconstitutional statute is no law, in the view of the constitution.  It is void, and confers no authority on any one; and whoever attempts to execute it, does so at his peril.  His holding a commission is no legal protection for him.  If this doctrine were not true, and if, (as the supreme court say in the Prigg case,) a man may, if he choose, execute an authority granted by unconstitutional law, congress may authorize whomsoever they please, to ravish women, and butcher children, at pleasure, and the people have no right to resist them.
The constitution contemplates no such submission, on the part of the people, to the usurpation of the government, or to the lawless violence of its officers.  On the contrary it provides that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  
 [. . .]
To say that an unconstitutional law must be obeyed until it is repealed, is saying that an unconstitutional law is just as obligatory as a constitutional one,-- for the latter is binding only until it is repealed.  There would therefore be no difference at all between a constitutional and an unconstitutional law, in respect to their binding force; and that would be equivalent to abolishing the constitution, and giving to the government unlimited power.  27-28.
In the Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Spooner reiterates the same argument, saying that if all laws are defined as being legal by the simple fact of their being enacted as a law, then:
Under this definition, law offers no permanent guaranty for the safety, liberty, rights or happiness of anyone.  It licenses all possible crime, both by governments and individuals.  The definition was obviously invented by, and is suited merely to gloss over the purposes of, arbitrary power.  We are therefore compelled to reject it [. . .]. 14.
This is an extremely important subject, worthy of careful consideration, as pertinent today as it was when Spooner published those arguments in 1850 and in 1860.  They should cause us to ask ourselves what "laws" today are actually in violation of natural law, and to what degree we ourselves are guilty of what Spooner called "submission, on the part of the people, to the usurpation of the government, or to the lawless violence of its officers."  

In the United States, it is certainly possible to celebrate on Memorial Day the fact that those who fought to stop slavery were fighting on the side of natural law, but it is also possible to ask whether those who fought to take the lands of the Native Americans, a task that the US Army took up in earnest not long after the Civil War was over, and a task that was led by many former Union generals, were also fighting on the side of natural law (the answer is clearly "No").  The same question can be asked of the use of the US armed forces to take over the Hawaiian Islands or the Philippine Islands in the decades following the subjugation of the remaining Native American tribes in the western US (and the same answer is clearly "No" in both of those of those cases as well).  

More recent history raises similarly disturbing questions, when considered in light of the subject of natural universal law.  Spooner argued that everyone naturally has an innate sense of natural law, and recognizes violations of it.  Most notably, he makes this argument in his 1882 tract entitled "Natural Law, or the Science of Justice."  But if this is the case, we must ask ourselves how egregious and widespread violations of natural law are tolerated by so many?  

If slavery is so obviously a violation of natural law, why was it so widely tolerated in the United States during the years that Spooner was writing his tracts and William Lloyd Garrison was burning copies of the Constitution?  If taking the land of the Native Americans by force, and violating every treaty made with them, is so obviously an example of arbitrary and illegal use of force, then why was it so widely supported in the United States during the years following the Civil War?  The same can be asked of the heinous atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis and by other murderous state entities during the twentieth century, all clear and egregious violations of natural law which were to some degree tolerated before they were stopped.

One answer to that question is the fact that Spooner's argument that "laws" which violate natural law have no actual legal force, and that men and women have a moral obligation to oppose such laws at all times, is not widely understood -- and is even opposed in many circles.  Another answer is given by Spooner himself at the end of the 1882 tract just cited (on page 20), in which he states that human legislation which is in violation of natural universal law almost always makes use of what he calls "pretences and disguises" by which violators of natural law "attempt to hide themselves" (hide the illegality of their actions and usurpations).  

While he does not elaborate upon these "pretences and disguises," it has been argued on the pages of this blog that these pretenses and disguises can be grouped under the heading of "mind control."  The argument that forms of mind control almost always accompany violations of natural law follows the line of argument advanced by Mark Passio, who is cited in previous posts such as "Blackfish and mind control" and "Lysander Spooner, natural law, and human consciousness." 

Such pretenses and disguises often include a "false narrative" or a false history, discussed at some length in this previous post.  An obvious example would be the narrative known as "manifest destiny" which was used to gloss over and attempt to hide the atrocities perpetrated against the Native Americans during the second half of the nineteenth century. Enough people in the United States bought into that narrative to prevent them from opposing the activities taking place in the western states, or even from seeing them as the gross violations of natural law that they so clearly were.

Prior to the Civil War, one of the false narratives which was used in order to disguise the criminality of holding human beings as property (in other words, in a state of slavery) was the argument that slavery was sanctioned by the literal interpretation of ancient scriptures (in particular those in the Old and New Testaments) -- a literal interpretation of the scriptures to which large portions of the populace subscribed.  

While today it is generally assumed (and taught) that the defense of slavery using the Bible was most prevalent in the southern states, the carefully documented study of this question published in 1987 by Professor of History Larry E. Tise entitled Proslavery: A history of the defense of slavery in America, 1707 - 1840 argues that this view lets the rest of the country off the hook, and is in itself a false historical narrative which was created after the war was over.  His research reveals that the institution of slavery was widely accepted and defended across the US prior to the Civil War, notably by members of the clergy in both the north and the south.  The book presents evidence that the clergy in the prewar US were an important "moral elite" and powerfully shaped opinion in the towns and counties across the nation, and that their support of slavery was a major factor in its acceptance by the populace.  

Professor Tise notes on page xvii the unpleasant fact that "ministers wrote almost half of all defenses of slavery published in America" prior to the war (and that this number only counts the defenses of slavery by ministers that were formally published, and does not count the even more widespread support given in sermons or in informal conversations).  Supporting his assertions with tables of evidence, he also demonstrates that the most outspoken of "proslavery clergymen on the whole were among the most successful members of their profession," and that: "Many of the officially designated heads of American churches -- bishops, moderators, and others in the national counsels of almost all churches -- were proslavery ministers.  Among churches with hierarchical structures, they could almost always be found at the top" (162-163).

Today, many would argue that the support found by those ministers for a gross violation of natural law in their interpretations of ancient scriptures were in fact misinterpretations of those texts.  All the more reason, then, to ask whether ancient scriptures, including those in the Old and New Testaments, are still being misinterpreted (albeit in other ways) in the present day -- and to ask whether they are being misinterpreted in ways which gloss over or even provide support for modern-day violations of natural universal law.

Memorial Day reminds us that these issues have real and very grave consequences.  Men and women are asked to fight and even to die for these causes.  In light of that extremely serious fact, the issues raised by Lysander Spooner regarding natural universal law -- and the ways in which pretenses and disguises have been used throughout history to cast a false veil of legitimacy over illegitimate and illegal violations of natural universal law -- are most appropriate for careful reflection on this Memorial Day.

October 6 is the birth-date of Thor Heyerdahl

October 6 is the birthdate of Thor Heyerdahl (1914 - 2002).  His insights, analysis and expeditions provided some of the most important evidence for what is often called the "diffusionist" theory versus the "isolationist" theory.  

The diffusionist theory argues that ancient peoples had the capability of deliberately and repeatedly crossing the oceans, including the Atlantic and the Pacific, and that they did so as far back as the time of the ancient Egyptians.  It thus stands agains the isolationist theories taught by most conventional academicians today, which categorically rejects any suggestion of the possibility of cultural contact between peoples from different continents in ancient times, despite abundant evidence around the world that seems to suggest such ancient contact.  

Thor Heyerdahl entered into this momentous question by several happy circumstances beginning in his early life, which -- when brought into contact with his boundless curiosity and irrepressible optimism and adventurous spirit -- led to several famous adventures and discoveries of tremendous significance.  

This webpage from the Kon-Tiki museum explains that as a young student at the University of Oslo, Thor Heyerdahl met Bjarne Kroepelien, who had traveled to the South Pacific, a part of the world that had fascinated Heyerdahl since childhood.  Kroepelien assisted the young Thor Heyerdahl when Thor and his new bride Liv decided to try to live on an undeveloped island (Fatu Hiva) in the Marquesas to study the local flora and try to determine the route that had brought the various species to the island.  

It was Kroepelien's letter to the Tahitian Chief Teriieroo which enabled Thor and Liv to spend a month with Teriieroo on Tahiti, for practical training in the traditional methods of living off the land.  They stayed a year but insect-borne disease forced them to seek medical attention on neighboring Hiva Oa.  There, another Norwegian who had permanently settled there on a coconut plantation showed Heyerdahl some stone statues in the jungle, which -- along with his friend's suggestion that similar statues could be seen in Colombia, in South America -- fired Thor Heyerdahl's imagination and started him on the pursuit of theories that went against the settled opinion of the historians and anthropologists of his day, and launched him on the many adventures and investigations that would become his life's work.

Heyerdahl became convinced that the islands of the Pacific had been peopled originally by people from South America, perhaps a people who were the predecessors of the Inca, who had traveled eastward on balsa rafts, and who were later joined by another wave of people from the northwest tribes of North America, who had traveled southeast on double-hulled canoes.  These two peoples later mixed (sometimes peacefully and sometimes violently) on the various islands of the wide Pacific, leaving a distinctive Polynesian culture that stretched all the way from Easter Island (Rapa Nui) to New Zealand (Aotearoa).  

Meeting solid opposition from those who said this theory was impossible, Heyerdahl in 1947 undertook his most famous adventure, the Kon-Tiki expedition, to prove that long-distance travel over the open ocean in balsa rafts was not only possible, but extremely practical.  In his best-selling account of that expedition (still thrilling reading today), he explains the origin of the expedition's now-famous name:
Virakocha is an Inca (Ketchua) name and consequently of fairly recent date.  The original name of the sun-god Virakocha, which seems to have been more used in Peru in old times, was Kon-Tiki or Illa-Tiki, which means Sun-Tiki or Fire-Tiki.  Kon-Tiki was high priest and sun-king of the Incas' legendary 'white men' who had left the enormous ruins on the shores of Lake Titicaca.  The legend runs that the mysterious white men with beards were attacked by a chief named Cari who came from the Coquimbo Valley.  In a battle on an island in Lake Titicaca the fair race was massacred, but Kon-Tiki himself and his closest companions escaped and later came down to the Pacific coast, whence they finally disappeared oversea to the westward. . .  18-19.  
Heyerdahl explains that the existence of strong traditions as far away as the Marquesas of a founding anscestor named Tiki, who had come to the islands "from a mountainous land in the east which was scorched by the sun" (18).  Hence, his voyage and the vessel he and his companions used in order to prove such a direction of travel was possible, even over the vast distances and mighty ocean swells of the broad Pacific, was dubbed the Kon-Tiki.

Later in his life, Heyerdahl undertook similar voyages across the world's largest oceans in ships built of traditional materials and design, including the Ra voyage across the Atlantic and the Tigris voyage across the Indian Ocean.

For previous posts referring to some of Thor Heyerdahl's arguments against the isolationist theories, see also:
For a partial list of some of the overwhelming pile of evidence which supports the "diffusionist" theories and casts serious doubt on the "isolationist" theories, see the links in this previous post entitled "The Calixtlahuaca head."

Also, while October 6 is an important date because of the birthday of Thor Heyerdahl, October 5 (still the date here in California as this is published) is even more important, as it is the birthday of my father -- Happy Birthday!  He taught me to make Norwegian crepes, which I had for breakfast this morning.  He also introduced me to the love of looking at the stars, beginning with the wonderful book Find the Constellations, by H.A. Rey -- and plenty of trips outside together to look up at the night sky and try to find the constellations ourselves.

Pacific volcanoes and the problems with the plate tectonic theory

Above is a diagram of the conventional tectonic view of "subduction" -- the action of one plate supposedly diving beneath another plate.  This diagram can be found on Wikimedia commons, and there are many more like it which all show roughly the same concept.

According to the conventional view, when one plate runs into another, it will sometimes dive beneath the other plate, creating a trench (marked in the diagram above) along the line of subduction.  Additionally, the conventional theory asserts that the diving or subducting plate is subjected to intense heat and pressure, which often causes it to melt as it dives deeper and deeper, turning into magma which then works its way towards the surface and creates a chain of volcanoes (these are also shown in the diagram above). 

Note that these volcanoes, according to the conventional theory, should be located on the side of the trench belonging to the plate that is not diving.  The magma is coming up from the melting of the front edge of the subducting plate, which is now underneath the non-diving plate (the edge of the diving plate is now on the far side of the trench from its plate, and as it melts its magma bubbles upward on the side of the non-diving plate).  

In other words, in the diagram above, we see a subducting plate coming from the left, and a non-diving plate on the right.  The volcanoes should form on the right of the trench, in the plate on the right, but they are the product of the front edge of the plate coming from the left.  The front edge of the left plate, which is subducting and is now under the right plate, creates the magma that forms the volcanoes.

Below is another diagram showing almost the same process, but this time instead of taking place near a coast, it is taking place at sea and the volcanoes are forming on the ocean floor instead of on the continent.

Again, this diagram comes from Wikimedia commons, and again there are many other variations on this diagram that one can find on the internet, all illustrating the same general concept.  

Most people learn these fundamentals of the conventional plate tectonic theory in school, and the explanation sounds fairly reasonable.  However, there are many reasons to challenge this basic explanation for the formation of ocean trenches, and to question the very existence of such a process as "subduction."  

Dr. Walt Brown, the originator of the hydroplate theory, has challenged this conventional explanation and provided numerous examples of evidence which argues against this explanation.  He discusses these reasons in depth, along with his alternative explanation for the evidence, in this chapter of his book on the hydroplate theory, which is available online in its entirety (and available for purchase from Dr. Brown and other book-sale channels).  In fact, he lists seventeen reasons that subduction is an extremely questionable explanation for the evidence that we actually find in the deep oceans, where most of the supposed subduction zones are located on our planet.

Some of the problems with the subduction theory of tectonics have been addressed in previous blog posts, such as this one, this one and this one.  Another problem with the tectonic explanation that has not been addressed directly on this blog before is the existence of volcanoes on the Pacific floor that do not appear to fit the theory -- or the diagrams above -- at all.

As Dr. Brown writes in his book, 
On the western Pacific floor are 40,000 volcanoes taller than 1 kilometer.  They lie among trenches, not on only one side of trenches. [. . .]  If subducting plates generate magma that forms volcanoes, then volcanoes should lie on the side of the trench above the descending plate.  [See Figure 85 on page 150].  Actually, most volcanoes in the western Pacific lie on the opposite side of trenches.  Also most volcanoes in the western Pacific are interior to a plate -- contradicting plate tectonics, which says volcanoes should usually form near plate boundaries.  
The above quotation comes from pages 154-155 of his 8th edition, and can also be found online about a third of the way down this webpage, under the heading "Scattered volcanoes."

Below is an image from Google maps showing the southwestern area of the Pacific ocean floor.  You can see for yourself the volcanoes which Dr. Brown is discussing in the quotation above, and consider whether the plate tectonic explanation is a good one for the evidence that we actually find, and whether the reality looks anything like the subduction diagrams shown above:

In the map, you can clearly see trenches toward the west (left) side of the image -- some of the deepest ocean trenches on our planet, in fact.  The conventional view is that the plate to the right is subducting under the plate to the left to create these trenches, although how it makes those arcs and cusps is another huge problem with the tectonic theory.  However, more to the point of the volcano-location discussion, notice all the volcanoes scattered across the floor of the Pacific to the right of the trenches, some of them extremely far away from any supposed "subducting" activity.  The Hawaiian Island chain is one series of volcanoes in the image, but there are many others that you can see, none of which look like they support the subduction description of events at all.

Dr. Brown believes that the magma that created these volcanoes does not come from a subducting plate -- the magma came from the catastrophic events surrounding a past global flood on our planet.  According to his theory, the entire floor of the Pacific was pulled towards the center of the earth by the physics involved in the flood event.  When this happened, the intense shearing and heat generated magma around the entire edge of the subsidence -- a ring of magma known today as the "Ring of Fire."  The same forces also "depressed, cracked, and distorted the entire western Pacific.  Frictional melting produced large volumes of magma that spilled out on top of the Pacific plate.  Some of that magma formed volcanoes" (154).

This explanation does a much better job of accounting for all the evidence that we actually find in the Pacific.  The tectonic theory, while better than what came before it, has enormous problems.  The "subduction" explanation is one major problem with the tectonic theory, but it is not alone.  Scientists should overcome their aversion to "catastrophic" explanations and consider the hydroplate theory of Dr. Walt Brown, which provides very comprehensive and satisfactory explanations for the evidence we find on our amazing planet Earth.