Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Zechariah Sitchin, Reality Creation, NASA announcements, and the "literal-alien" misinterpretation of ancient myth







































image: cuneiform tablet, Wikimedia commons (link).

I believe overwhelming evidence supports an astronomical and allegorical basis for nearly every myth from ancient cultures around the world. The myths describe the motions of the zodiac constellations, of other significant constellations near the zodiac band, and the motions of the sun, moon, and planets across the heavens (these heavenly bodies primarily move through the zodiac bands as well).

Previous blog posts have shown numerous examples of myths which first and foremost can be understood as relating directly to these heavenly phenomena. These include:
The list could go on and on (in fact, it does -- there are no doubt other posts which outline other "star-myths," and many more are discussed in detail in The Undying Stars itself).

The point of the above list is to highlight the absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence which supports the understanding of virtually all ancient myth as primarily describing events in the heavens acted out by the constellations and planets -- and not as literal events, whether supernatural or extraterrestrial. 

If someone wants to argue that a myth which can clearly be shown to correspond to the motions of specific constellations is also describing a literal event that happened in earth history, then there would seem to be a pretty high hurdle to clear, given the superabundance of evidence just cited which argues that these myths were primarily describing the motions of heavenly bodies as viewed from earth. 

If someone wants to argue that a myth should be primarily interpreted literally and not metaphorically and astronomically, then that would seem to require an even higher burden of proof, especially if it can be shown that the myth appears to have a satisfactory metaphorical explanation.

I go into all of this because, in my recent interview (as pointed out in this previous post), discussion of the allegorical aspect of these "star-myths" was consistently avoided and the conversation was instead steered back to the question of whether these myths could not also have been describing literal events, and specifically whether these myths could not also have been describing ancient alien activity such as that alleged by Zechariah Sitchin.

This aspect of the interview was somewhat frustrating, in that my entire book centers on the importance of this universal system of celestial metaphor, what it means and what happened to our understanding of it. It also caught me somewhat off-guard. However, I am grateful for the opportunity to think more precisely about this particular question, because I would now say that even the assertion that the myths could "also be literal" must be qualified rather heavily, and treated with great caution.  

As I have said before (and asserted in my book on this subject), it is a possibility that some of these myths also reflect some history.  However, although it is certainly possible that some of these myths incorporate the names of historical figures (maybe), the actions in the myths can be shown to be describing the motions of celestial bodies. This is similar to the way that the plays of Shakespeare (whoever he or she was) incorporate the names and some of the outward trappings of historical figures, but the action in the plays serves a different purpose and is not intended to be taken as literal history.

And, while I was somewhat familiar with the work of Zechariah Sitchin, enough to know that I did not agree with his conclusions while at the same time admitting that anyone who tries to show that the conventional timeline of history has serious flaws is to that extent pointing out something that is true, I had not made a serious study of his work (primarily because I have found so much evidence that the ancient mythologies of the world are allegorical and esoteric that I did not need to see too much of his work to realize that it is taking a literal approach and ignoring the esoteric and allegorical nature of ancient myth).

Now, however, having thought more carefully about the corpus of Sitchin's work (as a result of that recent interview), I have reached the conclusion that his literalistic approach may be just as misleading as that forced upon the western world by the imposition of a rigidly literalistic Christianity during the centuries following AD 70. If the purpose of all the star-myths described above is to point humankind towards a shamanic view of the universe and of human existence (and I believe this can also be demonstrated quite conclusively, as discussed in The Undying Stars and as touched on in previous posts such as this one and this one), then believing that these exquisitely-crafted esoteric metaphors are all describing the  arrival of ancient aliens on earth in spaceships (and their physical manipulation of the human race) may in fact keep you from seeing the liberating truths that those sacred stories were designed to convey, and will do it just as effectively as will believing that the stories are all about the earthly actions of historical literal figures such as Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Moses, or Jesus and twelve literal disciples.

In other words, in the immortal expression of Bruce Lee, the literalistic scriptural interpretation of Zechariah Sitchin is one more way to get you to "concentrate on the finger, and miss all that heavenly glory!"

In light of this, it is worth asking where the literal interpretations offered by Sitchin actually come from. In a 2010 Red Ice interview of ancient Near Eastern languages scholar Michael S. Heiser (a well-known critic of Zechariah Sitchin), recorded while Sitchin was still alive, Dr. Heiser gives several reasons to conclude that Sitchin's theoretical timeline of ancient human history did not come from the texts themselves. (Note: mention of Dr. Heiser's expertise-based analysis of Sitchin's theories is not intended to imply that he endorses or subscribes to any of my own theories presented above regarding the primarily esoteric nature of all ancient scripture: it appears from material on his own websites that he probably does not believe that the Bible is primarily esoteric).

That interview (like all archived interviews going back to the inception of Red Ice Radio) is available to Red Ice members, but for those who are not able to listen to it, here are some pertinent quotations:
  • "I think I should just be honest with people and point out, you know, what the problems are, and hopefully they'll decide on the basis of evidence not on emotion." 0:07:00, part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "There are some things where you could look at what Sitchin's doing and say, 'Well, you know, that's kind of an odd interpretation and no one else is really going to look at it that way.' But, there are a lot of things that the issue just goes beyond that, to Sitchin staking out positions and making claims, saying that the Sumerian tablets say this or that, when it's just not there, it just doesn't exist in any tablet. I'll give a few examples here. For instance there are a lot of references to the Annunaki: the Annunaki were an important sub-group in the Sumerian pantheon. But it's a complete fabrication to say that there are texts that describe the Annunaki coming from a place called Nibiru, and having Nibiru being a planet beyond Pluto that circulates through our solar system every 3,600 years. There isn't a single text, a single line of any text that says that." 0:09:20 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "One of the things I'm trying to do is to get people to primary text material, so that they don't have to take my word for it: so they can check up on me, and in the process check up on Sitchin." 0:10:45 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "So those are three examples of things where I say, 'He's just making it up.' It's not about interpretation, it's about whether these statements in the text actually exist. And I'm saying that they don't." 0:14:42 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "There's quite a disconnect between what Sitchin is trying to say . . . you know, he has every right to say it. What he doesn't have a right to do, in my mind, is to say, 'Hey, it's in these tablets.'" 0:28:00 part one/first hour of the interview.
  • "He's essentially created an alternative mythology, and married it to an extraterrestrial idea." 0:07:11, part two/second hour of the interview.
Now, if what Zechariah Sitchin describes about ancient human history does not come from the ancient Sumerian texts which he claims form the basis for his (literal) interpretation of ancient myth, then where does it come from? It does not necessarily follow that what he is saying is necessarily wrong just because it does not come from the ancient scriptures -- maybe ancient human history did include alien contact (I have not concluded this myself, but I do not rule it out as a possibility). However, it is fairly clear from Dr. Heiser's arguments that Sitchin's purported literal histories are not found in the texts (nor do I believe that we would expect to find literal history there, since I believe the ancient myths can be conclusively shown to be about something other than literal history).

It is still possible that Sitchin is telling us information that comes from some source other than ancient scripture, of course. It could all just be something he made up deliberately, in order to deceive for some reason. It could all be something he truly believed, based on his own misinterpretation of texts which were intended to be allegorical and not literal. But it could also be information that he received from some tradition which preserved it from somewhere, or received it from somewhere. If so, however, he deceived his followers as to the source of his information, since in that case it came from somewhere other than the texts that he said he formed the source for his theories.

Michael Heiser also raises in his interview the disturbing possibility that some people could deliberately misinterpret ancient scriptures as describing literal alien activities in order to promote tyranny in the future based on a fabricated arrival or disclosure of an "alien presence." He does not accuse Sitchin of deliberately furthering such an agenda, but discusses with interviewer Henrik Palmgren the possibility that deliberate literal-alien-scriptural-misinterpretation could be used that way in the future by a group of "elites" who want to claim superiority either by virtue of being selected by the alien visitors as their representative ruling body, or by virtue of being genetically superior due to biological manipulation by the aliens themselves at some time in the past:
I'm actually gonna lay this out, how I think this could work. It actually can be a very comprehensive sort of alternative worldview that could make sense to anybody regardless of who they are and everybody can go away feeling like they were right -- feeling like their religious texts were real, feeling like their religious texts weren't just gibberish. So I really feel like the idea could be quite useful tocompletely altering, again, traditional worldviews, and propping up something in its place that would be a displacement of traditional religious beliefs. The thing that troubles me about that, is, at the same time -- and here's why I think it would appeal to globalist-elitists, if we want to use terms like that -- along with that idea comes the idea that "the gods" did select certain individuals, certain human lines -- bloodlines -- to rule. And that's what the globalist-elitist thinks of themselves. 0:42:00 part one/first hour of the interview.
This line of discussion is certainly noteworthy, and very chilling, as both Dr. Heiser and host Henrik Palmgren agree during the interview. They also point out news items from the time of the interview (2010) in which powerful religious or political institutions made very public statements regarding "extraterrestrials," should they ever be found. And, here in July 2014, we know that just last week, NASA publicly declared that humanity will encounter alien life "within twenty years," and then went on to say that twenty years is probably a conservative estimate.

In light of all of this, it is useful to come back to what I strongly believe that these ancient esoteric myths are all about in the first place: they are all about telling us that the reality that we think we perceive is in many very real ways illusory and indeed holographic, and that we have the ability as poets, artists, and even shamans to transcend the illusory "realities" that are created for us and then to create our own (again, see the post discussing the powerful speech of Jon Rappoport last month). This message, I believe, was intended for human freedom and for human consciousness.

But, those who understand this esoteric message of the ancient mythologies have not always been on the side of human consciousness -- some of those who understand it best have wanted to use it for their own advancement, while keeping it from everyone else (part III of The Undying Stars is all about this aspect of history).

Given the fact that he "created a reality" which has been "bought into" by a huge number of people, it is very possible that Zechariah Sitchin was in the service of this second category. I have not necessarily concluded that this was the case, but it is a possibility that one should at least entertain and investigate, especially since he promoted an interpretation of ancient scriptures (including those of the Old Testament) that is literalistic and thus obscures the shamanic esoteric message that I believe is actually at the core of ancient myth.

However, that is only one possibility. Sitchin could be entirely innocent of any such designs, even if (as I believe) his theories were mistaken. Even if he was completely innocent, I believe that the possibility that some evil actors could try to use a false "literal-alien" misinterpretation of ancient scriptures at some point in the future should be considered very carefully, and guarded against.



Monday, July 21, 2014

Some reflections on my recent Project Camelot interview, and the errors of Zechariah Sitchin

















Having now re-listened to my recent interview on Project Camelot, the thing that struck me the most about my interview is the fact that it seems to have devolved into a tug-of-war between my attempts to explain an esoteric theory, and the interviewer's desire to turn the conversation back to what I would classify as the literalistic.

The entire thrust of my theory centers around the following points: 
  • That the ancient scriptures from cultures around the world are esoteric, and that in fact they all follow a unified esoteric system of celestial allegory (some clear and examples of this system can be found in this previous blog post and in the posts linked therein, as well as in the first three chapters of my book, which are available online here).
  • That this ancient system of "star myths" can be shown to contain evidence of a view of the universe that includes the amazing concept that the material world which we inhabit is actually a sort of projection of information existing in a "hidden realm" (or "seed realm") -- a concept that the recent Lego Movie actually dramatizes in a very amusing way, and a concept which theoretical physicists in the twentieth century began to articulate as the "holographic universe" model in response to some of the evidence from what we now label "quantum physics."
  • That the ancient sacred traditions make it clear that it is not only possible for the human consciousness to cross over the boundary between these two realms (what we would today call the shamanic journey) but that it is in some ways essential (see for instance the quotation from Mircea Eliade in the previously-linked post discussing the Lego Movie, as well as posts such as this one and this one). This ability can be described in terms of breaking through the artificial boundaries of an "illusory reality" and of creating "new realities," as described most powerfully by Jon Rappoport in much of his work.
  • That this ancient wisdom appears to have been a legacy of some extremely advanced "predecessor civilization" about which we know very little and about which at this time we can know very little, as they left no written records but only incredibly intriguing monuments located at significant points all around our planet -- monuments which clearly suggest that they knew the size and shape of our spherical earth. While it is certainly possible that these monuments indicate contact with beings from other planets or star systems, it is by no means necessary to conclude that, nor have I to this day seen evidence which definitively points towards such a conclusion. 
  • This ancient shamanic wisdom appears to have been in full operation right up until the time of the creation of literalist Christianity, which rejected the esoteric nature of the scriptural texts and replaced them with a literalistic hermeneutic (including the most central doctrine of literalist Christianity, the incarnation of a literal Christ figure, as opposed to the esoteric understanding of a "Christ in you," the teaching of the divine spark incarnated in each man and woman which all the esoteric ancient myths can be shown to teach, discussed in previous posts such as this one and this one and this one). 
  • There is strong evidence that the imposition of literalist Christianity was accomplished by a specific set of historical circumstances involving the arrival among the highest circles of power in the Roman Empire of a group of people who understood about the shamanic "creation of reality" described above, and their subsequent takeover of that Roman Empire (through the twin vehicles of Mithraism and literalist Christianity). They then created the institutions of religious power and political power that would control western Europe right up to the present day . . . and would spread overseas to impact the rest of the world, with catastrophic results for many previously-shamanic cultures.  
Thus, the concept of the esoteric (and shamanic) nature of the ancient myths is absolutely central to my thesis. Unfortunately, the conversation was never allowed to delve into the esoteric, because although I tried to head towards the esoteric from my very first comments in the interview (referencing the "esoteric" nature of Montessori, which I believe to be a good example of the purpose of the esoteric technique), none of the esoteric subjects that I tried to raise, including examples which demonstrate that the Bible is composed of star-myth from first to last, which is not just a nice theory but can be shown to be absolutely incontestable or the fact that the undeniable connection between numerous ancient goddesses (including Ishtar) and lions strongly suggests that these myths are talking about the zodiac (where the constellation of Virgo follows the constellation of Leo) were explored with any follow-up questions or conversation.

Instead, the conversation was steered more than once towards whether or not I subscribed to the theories of Zechariah Sitchin, and (related to that) whether my esoteric approach has room for literal interpretations at the same time.

As I tried to explain during the interview and will explain a bit further below, I do not subscribe to the theories of Zechariah Sitchin, and the primary reason that I do not is that Zechariah Sitchin's hermeneutic is a literalistic hermeneutic, and I believe it is mistaken. He interprets the ancient scriptures (in this case, the myths of ancient Sumer and Babylon, but also the Old Testament scriptures which contain parallels to the myths of Sumer and Babylon) as describing literal history. Although the literal history that he believes the ancient myths (including those of the Bible) describe is a different history from that which most adherents to historic literalistic Christianity in its various permutations have taught down through the centuries since the takeover described above (a takeover which was essentially completed during the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine), his books nevertheless take the ancient myths to primarily describe actual ancient history.

He does not interpret the events described in those myths esoterically.

For example, on page 171 of his first book The Twelfth Planet (published in 1976), Sitchin writes  the following in his discussion of a famous passage in Genesis chapter 6 (I will put all of the passages from Sitchin's book in blue, so that the reader can clearly distinguish between his writing and my comments upon his writing):
the sons of the gods
saw the daughters of man, that they were good;
and they took them for wives,
of all which they chose.
The implications of these verses, and the parallels to the Sumerian tales of gods and their sons and grandsons, and of semidivine offspring resulting from cohabitation between gods and mortals, mount further as we continue to read the biblical verses:
The Nefilim were upon the Earth
in those days and thereafter too,
when the sons of the gods
cohabited with the daughters of the Adam,
and they bore children unto them.
They were the mighty ones of Eternity -- 
The People of the shem.
The above is not a traditional translation. For a long time, the expression "The Nefilim were upon the Earth" has been translated as "There were giants upon the earth"; but recent translators, recognizing the error, have simply resorted to leaving the Hebrew term Nefilim intact in the translation. The verse "The people of the shem," as one could expect, has been taken to mean "the people who have a name," and, thus, "the people of renown." But as we have already established, the term shem must be taken in its original meaning -- a rocket, a rocket ship.
What, then, does the term Nefilim mean? Stemming from the Semitic root NFL ("to be cast down"), it means exactly what it says: It means those who were cast down upon Earth!
Clearly, Sitchin in the above discussion is taking the passage to be a literal account of some beings who physically came from another planet to this planet. That this is Sitchin's interpretation is completely clear from the rest of that book, and the fourteen others he wrote. Later in the same book there is a chapter entitled "Landing on Earth," and details such as the following descriptions:
Based on complex technical data, as well as hints in Mesopotamian texts, it appears that the Nefilim adopted for their Earth missions the same approach NASA adopted for the Moon missions: When the principal spaceship neared the target planet (Earth), it went into orbit around that planet without actually landing. Instead, a smaller craft was released from the mother ship and performed the actual landing.
As difficult as accurate landings were, the departures from Earth must have been even trickier. The landing craft had to rejoin its mother ship, which then had to fire up its engines and accelerate to extremely high speeds, for it had to catch up with the Twelfth Planet, which by then was passing its perigee between Mars and Jupiter at its top orbital speed. 281-282.
Clearly, a credible demonstration that the myths of ancient Sumer and Babylon (as well as the accounts in Genesis) were primarily descriptions of the motions of the sun, moon and planets among the background of the zodiac stars (the sun, moon, and planets always move through the zodiac band, along a pathway known as the ecliptic) could be seen as very damaging to the literalistic interpretation of the myths that Sitchin is offering in the above quotations and throughout the rest of his other books. 

I believe that such a demonstration is possible: in fact, I have offered such a demonstration in my own two books. 

In my first book, the Mathisen Corollary, I have an entire chapter on the Gilgamesh series of texts, demonstrating that the events and adventures described in the Gilgamesh epic primarily concern the motions of the planets among the zodiac band, as well as the motions of the great central axis of the sky which pierces the north celestial pole and which can be seen to have become "unhinged" due to the motion of precession

A few examples of evidence supporting such an assertion include the fact that Gilgamesh chops down the "tallest cedar in the forest" (the one whose top pierces the sky) and then uses it to fashion a special door, one "through which only gods can pass" (a clear reference to the gate of the equinox, where the ecliptic path crosses the celestial equator, encoded as a gate in numerous ancient myths from  cultures around the world -- and the Ishtar Gate of Babylon is almost certainly such a symbol as well, since Ishtar is almost certainly Virgo, and since the sign of Virgo occupies the point of the fall equinox), as well as the fact that Gilgamesh slays the Bull of Heaven and then throws the haunch of the bull in Ishtar's (or Inanna's) face (an event with clear celestial implications, as Taurus the Bull is a prominent zodiac constellation, and the haunch or "hindquarters" of the Bull was an ancient myth-code for the Big Dipper in both ancient Egypt and in the symbology of Mithraism). 

In my more recent book, The Undying Stars, I spent quite a bit of time demonstrating that the stories in both the Old and New Testament are also star-myths. Included is an extended discussion of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve and the Serpent, with clear connections to specific constellations and their motions across the sky. This story was not intended to describe a literal event, but is an esoteric allegory, as were other events discussed by Sitchin as if they were literal history (a literal Noah, taught agriculture for the first time after the flood by the alien visitors figures prominently in Sitchin's imagined history [see for instance his Twelfth Planet, page 413], but I demonstrate that Noah is a counterpart of other flood-surviving figures in other mythologies who are clearly connected to a specific figure in the zodiac, and that their agricultural endeavors can be clearly linked to the symbols associated with that zodiac figure).

The very "descent" of the Nephilim, "cast down" to dwell upon earth, can be demonstrated to have a very clear esoteric and allegorical meaning: these passages describe our human condition in our incarnate state! 

As discussed at length in my book, and in numerous previous posts (many of which have been linked above), the ancient scriptures of the human race were so insistent on allegorizing the motions of the stars in part because they saw the plunge of the stars from the ether of heaven into the earthy or watery horizon (the western horizon) as the perfect metaphor for our incarnate condition: we are each carriers of a divine spark (our individual spirit) which has been plunged into a material body made up of "earth and water" (the "clay" out of which Adam was fashioned in Genesis). We are the Nephilim! We are the ones who came down from the world of spirit, enticed or seduced by the receptive (that is to say, allegorically speaking, female) world of matter. The very word "matter" (as many have pointed out) contains a feminine connotation, related as it is to the word mater or "mother" (as in, "Mother Earth").

This esoteric interpretation of the passage from Genesis 6 would seem to rather undermine the entire thesis of Zechariah Sitchin. 

As I said in the interview, I believe it is commendable to note that our ancient history on this planet is almost certainly very different from what we are taught by the conventional historical paradigm.  To the degree that Sitchin realized this, and sought an answer that was different from that forced down our throats by the proponents of conventional history (in spite of the criticism that was leveled at him for doing so), I believe his efforts can be seen as commendable (as long as they were honest efforts, and not intentionally deceptive, in that they read as literal texts which clearly are not intended to be taken literally).

However, I believe his literalistic approach was wrong, and that the myths he used to fashion his theories can be clearly demonstrated to be metaphorical and esoteric.

I also believe that, to the extent one follows the literalistic theories of Zechariah Sitchin, one will miss the real shamanic-holographic message that the ancient myths are intended to teach -- as surely as one will miss it through the literalistic hermeneutic imposed by conventional forms of Christianity since the second century AD (and especially since the fourth century and the reign of Constantine). 

I can only hope that, in my most recent interview, the constant steering of the conversation away from the esoteric had nothing to do with a desire to avoid getting into the shamanic and holographic truths of the ancient myths. Whatever the reason behind it, the unfortunate thing is that we never did get to discuss that subject to any significant degree at all.

At the top of this post is an image from an ancient Babylonian cylinder-seal. I have never analyzed this seal before, but to one who is familiar with the system of celestial allegory present in the world's mythologies, certain interpretations suggest themselves, and I would hazard to point them out as yet another example of the fact that the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian art and myth was primarily describing zodiac figures (as part of a profound spiritual allegory, and not as a description of the flight paths of ancient alien visitors):


























In the above version of the same seal (the resolution is higher in the image at the top of the post, and you can find the original image here), I have added my own labels. This interpretation may not be correct (I just looked at this particular seal for the first time today), but I would be willing to defend this interpretation and can offer more back-up evidence for the above labels (from other myth systems around the world) than I have time or space to offer here.  

Very briefly, it is quite evident that we are probably looking at a zodiacal metaphor from the fact that the figure under the foot of the man on the far right of the seal is bull-like (despite its anthropomorphic face). It has bull-horns on its head, and a reclining bovine body. It is probably Taurus, as will be supported in the further analysis below.

The figure with its foot upon the back of this bull-like being is probably the Sun itself. This figure is holding out a cutting implement with his right hand. As Alvin Boyd Kuhn demonstrates, and as I discuss in The Undying Stars, the sun was allegorized in ancient myth as an axe or cleaver, because it cuts a path across the sky. This symbol of the solar axe is prevalent in ancient Minoan art, for example, but also in other cultures as well.

The first figure in the procession of figures coming in from the left of the image is holding in his hands some kind of smaller animal, as if offering it to the figure on the far right whom I have identified as the personification of the Sun. This animal appears to resemble a sheep and probably signifies the sign of Aries. 

The fact that the cleaver or cutting-tool of the Sun is positioned between the bull-animal (which is being trod down) and the lamb-animal (which is being offered) probably indicates the "crossing point" of the spring equinox, and the advent of the precessional Age of Aries. The Age of Aries followed the Age of Taurus, which is why the bull in the seal is being stepped on (debased or put down -- his precessional Age is over). This imagery was likewise featured in the Mithraic temples (in Mithraic iconography, the Bull was being slain).

If the order of the imagery as we go from right to left is correctly identified as going from Taurus to Aries, then the next sign as we proceed would be Pisces. Here we see a woman-figure, rather than the two fish we would expect for Pisces. This seems to be a problem for this interpretation! But look at the way the woman is holding her hands, up and parallel to one another -- very representative of the constellation Pisces. And, in fact, Alvin Boyd Kuhn has convincingly demonstrated that ancient mythological allegory depicted the annual zodiac year as having not one but two mothers: one at Virgo and one at Pisces (the two signs just before the equinoxes). See his discussion in Lost Light on pages 14 and 15, for instance. Thus, the woman with her two hands in a gesture suggestive of the two fish of the constellation Pisces may well be identified with that zodiac sign, especially since she is in the correct location if the two animals are indeed Taurus and then Aries (going from right to left).

Behind her, we see another figure, striding along and holding a sort of baton in such a way that it seems to be pointing into his side. I have labeled this Aquarius, which is correct if we are right about Taurus and Aries: Pisces would come next (the woman with her hands raised parallel) and then Aquarius behind Pisces. There are good and cogent reasons to believe that this man behind the Pisces figure is indeed Aquarius -- not least that mysterious baton going into his side.

Whether you agree with the above interpretation or not, I believe it is very likely the correct interpretation of the Babylonian seal. In any case, it is a far more likely and a far more supportable interpretation than that the figures represent space aliens. I would argue that other seals from ancient Babylon and Sumer, which Sitchin uses in his analysis to support his case, are more likely allegorical and zodiacal (or planetary, in some cases) than literal.

I believe that the bigger lesson here is that one cannot use the events described in scriptures to try to support literal histories: the events described in the ancient myths are esoteric and allegorical, and not literal. It is not surprising that many look towards a literal interpretation of some sort, almost as a first instinct: that is the way they have been interpreted in western culture since the Roman Empire and the dawn of literalistic Christianity, an approach which has powerfully shaped western civilization since the second, third, and fourth centuries AD.

But, I believe it is an approach which has distracted and diverted us from the real message of the ancients, and the real treasure hidden in the ancient wisdom of the world's mythologies: the shamanic message, and a message of breaking out of the limitations of a false reality and creating new and positive realities to change things for the better. 

It is too bad that this literalistic tendency was able to divert and distract the course of my recent interview, to the point that we never really discussed that shamanic message, that reality-creating message. To that degree, the interview was reflective of much of western history for the past seventeen centuries.


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Project Camelot interview from July 18, 2014



Above is the YouTube version of my interview with Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot, recorded live on the air on Friday, July 18, 2014.

Please feel free to head over to the YouTube address for the above video to give it a "like" and add comments. You can also of course give feedback on this or anything else I publish here on the blog or in my books via Facebook or Twitter.

Hope you enjoy the interview!

note: There were some aspects of the interview which I believe were regrettable and resulted in the sidestepping of the central (esoteric) aspect of my overarching thesis. As a result, listeners may want to check out a post I wrote after the interview was over, entitled: "Some reflections on my recent Project Camelot interview, and the errors of Zechariah Sitchin" -- I would recommend giving that a read either before or after listening to the interview (probably before).

Also, when the MP3 for this interview becomes available, I will provide a link to that below, so that those who wish to download it to a portable device in order to listen while away from an internet connection will be able to do so.

MP3 is now available: click here to stream or download the MP3, or go to the original page on Project Camelot which contains the same link.

The (shamanic) Lego Movie?
































Legos become a metaphor for . . . human existence?

How is that even possible!?!

Spoiler alert: if you haven't already done so, you may want to go watch the Lego Movie before you read any further.

Disclaimer: yes, it's a movie about a corporate product (Lego happens to be a privately-held company, founded in 1932 by Kirk Kristiansen in Denmark). For some reason this will immediately cause some people to turn the movie into their own personal political football and argue that it perfectly illustrates whatever agenda they themselves are trying to advance, or whatever bogeyman they most deeply oppose. 

To some, it will be reviled as too "pro-business" (or as some kind of gigantic advertisement for Legos, mind control for children, etc). 

To others, it will be attacked as subversively anti-business. 

However, I am now going to reveal what the film is actually all about (again, read no further if you want to go watch it first and figure out its meaning for yourself, which may be completely different from what I am about to propose).

I can tell you what the film is actually all about, with 100% certainty that I'm right because . . . I'm special.

And so are you. 

So it may mean something completely different to you (see examples above: pro-business, anti-business, pro-libertarian, anti-libertarian, pro-kids, pro-dads, pro-sisters, pro-pirates, pro-rainbows, pro-Batman . . . you name it). 

But I know with 100% certainty what the movie is about to me. 

Here it is: the Lego Movie is about the shamanic. Transcending barriers. Creating worlds. Altering "reality."

It may seem at first glance that the movie is traveling the well-worn path of saying that "everyone is special" (and it does say that), that childlike-creativity trumps stultifying misguided perfection-seeking adulthood (and it does say that as well), or that you just need to "believe in yourself" (yes, it says that too). 

But not only does the movie convey those messages in ways that go way beyond the typical movie cliches, and in ways that hilariously send-up those same cliches at the same time, but it conveys a message which goes way beyond those messages as we've become accustomed to hearing them or seeing them presented on the screen.* 

Because the Lego Movie is about breaking through the fabric of "reality" and learning to create your own.

This movie is The Matrix using Lego sets.

The protagonist of the film, the hero if you will, is a completely ordinary guy named Emmet, who doesn't seem to have any special talents at all, other than going along with everything that is handed to him and buying into the reality that's handed to him to such a degree that, when his co-workers are interrogated by the police regarding the details of his personal life and character, they describe him as "a little bit of a blank slate," if they can even remember who he is at all. He follows the instruction manuals slavishly and is lost if he doesn't have "directions."

When Emmet accidentally stumbles across the "relic" which can save the world from destruction, he is hailed by the secret Master Builders as "the Special" who will lead them to stop the evil mastermind who has been putting up barriers between the worlds and who is planning in three days to freeze everyone and take away the last vestiges of their autonomy. But they quickly discover that, unlike all the other Master Builders who manifest extraordinary and unique talents which combine acrobatic martial arts, witty one-liners, and the ability to build anything out of anything, Emmett has difficulty creating anything original at all. Even mustering up an original thought seems to be a challenge for him.

And yet, Emmet turns out to be truly special, and in a way that surpasses all of the incredible Master Builders that he meets. He has one gift which he didn't even realize that he had, a gift so unique that  when he mentions it in an offhanded sort of way, none of the Master Builders can believe it.

(This is your final spoiler alert of this blog post: stop reading now if you haven't seen the film and don't want to know in advance what sets Emmet apart from every other Lego figure in the world of Legos). Scroll down below the Lego Movie trailer to learn more . . .



Here it comes:

Emmet, alone among all the other Lego characters in the Lego world of the film, can transcend the boundaries to the other world.

That's right. Without even realizing it, Emmet is a sort of Lego-shaman.

He has moments in which he enters a trance-state and sees hazy visions of the actual place where flesh-and-blood human beings are playing with all the Legos that inhabit the various worlds of the film. He even sees a kitten at one point.

And, what's more, he is actually able to move around (with great effort) in that other realm during the film's critical moments, and in doing so to change events on the other side. This is the only way that events in the "regular world" (that is to say, for the Lego characters, events in the Lego world) can hope to be put right: on their own, even the combined powers of all the Master Builders are unable to stop the implacable Will Ferrell. And, this talent (however un-sought-out it appears to be in the character of Emmet, who just seems to possess it without knowing where it came from) marks Emmet as a shamanic character.

In Mircea Eliade's landmark examination of shamanism around the world, entitled Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy and first published in French in 1951 based on research and first-hand accounts collected during the first half of the twentieth century and the end of the nineteenth, when more shamanic cultures were available for study than remain today, the author defines shamanism in a very restricted sense, as the technique of actually traveling to the other world.

It is not the same as dealing with spirits, or with magic, or with the realm of the dead. Although shamanism involves all of those things, Eliade explains that one can interact with spirits without being a shaman. The difference is that the shaman has the ability to go to the spirit world and return. The shaman transcends the world of stasis (the world of the static, or stationary) and possesses techniques of ecstasy: techniques of transcending the static world:
A first definition of this complex phenomenon, and perhaps the least hazardous, will be: shamanism = technique of ecstasy.
[. . .]
Magic and magicians are to be found more or less all over the world, whereas shamanism exhibits a particular magical specialty, on which we shall later dwell at length: "mastery over fire," "magical flight," and so on. By virtue of this fact, though the shaman is, among other things, a magician, not every magician can properly be termed a shaman. The same distinction must be applied in regard to shamanic healing; every medicine man is a healer, but the shaman employs a method that is his and his alone. As for the shamanic techniques of ecstasy, they do not exhaust all the varieties of ecstatic experience documented in the history of religions and religious ethnology. Hence any ecstatic cannot be considered a shaman; the shaman specializes in a trance during which his soul is believed to leave his body and ascend to the sky or descend to the underworld.
[. . .]
Shamans are of the "elect," and as such they have access to a region of the sacred inaccessible to other members of the community. Eliade, 4-7.
Seen in this light, the Lego Movie is clearly a shamanic movie. Note that the antagonist character in the Lego Movie has a chilling plan: to make everything static -- permanently static. He has already implemented the creation of barriers "between the worlds" which the Lego characters resent and which restrict their freedom to create and to grow and thrive. His ultimate vision is to freeze everything in place, and in doing so to destroy creativity and dynamism forever. This plan is only thwarted by a character who can transcend the ultimate boundary: the boundary between the Lego world and the "people world." Ultimately, Emmet defeats the threat of the static through the technique of ecstasy.

As it turns out, the plot and themes of the Lego Movie parallel the message which I believe lies at the heart of every ancient sacred myth and scripture of the human race: a message that this realm we inhabit is in some ways a "construct," a "projection," even a "hologram" (to use a metaphor which serious theoretical physicists began to apply in their models of the universe, models which were proposed in response to the often-disturbing results of experiments such as those which gave rise to what we now call quantum physics).

Those scriptures teach that there is another realm, a "seed realm," a realm of the neters, a realm of the gods, a spirit world. It is this other world that contains the "pattern" for everything in this realm. And it is to this other realm that the shaman must sometimes travel, in order to effect changes which will manifest themselves in the physical world or the "ordinary world."

So, in the Lego Movie, which realm is which? Clearly, the Lego world (where Emmet starts out, and where most of the film's action takes place; the realm in which most of the characters spend all of their time) becomes in the film a metaphor for our world. The Lego world, like our world, is in some sense "just a construct." Plato might describe the Lego world as a projection of ideas or patterns that come from or which reside on the other side (the realm of the ideal, in his terminology).

The "people world" where Will Ferrell and his son actually play with the Legos and turn their ideas into reality becomes, in the movie, the allegorical representation of the ideal world, the spirit world, the world of the gods, the world of the patterns that will work themselves out in the Lego world, the constructed world.

Like Neo in The Matrix, Emmet is somehow blessed with the ability to see beyond the projected world, the constructed world. He can look into the side where the patterns reside, and he finds that he can even effect changes there. Similarly, in The Matrix, Neo can look into the "source code" that creates the mundane world -- and he finds that he can actually effect changes to that source code, effect changes in the "other realm" and by doing so make changes in the projected world.

Neo is "the One." Emmet is "the Special."

These are not just cliche'd terms. This is not a movie that just proclaims "everyone is special," although it does send the message that everyone can actually transcend the artificial limitations and create realities -- and that everyone should. Perhaps not everyone can be a shaman, per se, but everyone can be an artist (we see that in the fact that in the Lego Movie, the Master Builders can create incredible vehicles and devices using their creativity and imagination, even if they cannot like Emmet travel to the "other side" in a state of shamanic ecstasy).

And this, too, is the message of all ancient myth and sacred scripture, even though those myths have often been twisted to mean something completely the opposite (twisted, in fact, to send a message that is remarkably like the chilling vision of the maniacal villain in the Lego Movie, who wants to create rigid un-crossable boundaries around everything, and who wants to put everyone into a charming pose and then freeze them in that pose forever).

It is a vision which has perhaps been articulated most powerfully among modern writers and speakers by Jon Rappoport -- read through this examination of the barrier-breaking talk he delivered at the Secret Space Program conference at the end of last month and see if the themes in the Lego Movie involving the creation of entirely new worlds and new realities does not resonate with what he is expounding, and what he argues the trickster-gods found in almost every ancient mythology was trying to tell us.

The Lego Movie's opening sequences depict a world of stultifying conformity, of mass surveillance, of happy distractions, and of a brutal police state wedded to the goals of enormous corporations and willing to use violence and torture to further diabolical ends and to rob individuals of their inherent dignity, creativity, and spark of divinity. It seems to argue that the solutions to these terrifying conditions involve -- even require -- the individual to transcend the artificial barriers erected to keep them from creating new worlds and new realities.

And, like The Matrix, it invites us to explore the possibility that this world is in some ways a construct, a projection, even an illusion. By understanding its interdependence on the seed realm, the realm of patterns, the ideal realm, or the spirit realm, and the fact that changes which are made on one side can effect changes on the other side, we can understand a lot more of what is going on around us . . . and how to thwart the plans of those who have declared themselves to be the enemies of human freedom, consciousness, creativity, and divinity.







----------------------------
* (And by the way, if you're thinking of taking your young children to see it, here's another caution to those who haven't seen it yet: it's scary! At least, I got scared, when they started freezing Liam Neeson's parents and wiping out his face and parts of his personality. But maybe your kids are used to seeing that kind of stuff in films and it won't bother them -- I don't know).

(There's also a melting-chamber for Legos).  (Yikes!).



Friday, July 18, 2014

The Undying Stars on Project Camelot!

























Looking forward to my conversation this evening with Kerry Cassidy of Project Camelot beginning at 7 pm Pacific!

Details on how to tune in are available there at the Project Camelot website at this location, and I will be sure to post links to the replay here once that becomes available.

Note: The interview is now posted.

















Thursday, July 17, 2014

Joseph Hill says: "World Peace."


Joseph Hill and Culture, "World Peace," 2003.
Album: World Peace, 2003.

Respect -- Rastafari.



Welcome to new visitors from Memory Hole (and to returning friends)!
















Special thanks to Professor James F. Tracy for posting my "Paging Dr. Zaius" essay over at his Memory Hole blog site.

I personally believe that his site and his own talented analysis are extremely important at this particular juncture in history, and that people around the entire world (and certainly those of us in the United States) owe him a particular debt of gratitude for his courage and diligence in analyzing areas that for a wide variety of reasons some people would like to cover up.

Regular readers of this blog should familiarize themselves with his work, if they have not already.

For readers coming here perhaps for the first time from his website, the following previous posts attempt to give some broad overview and contain lists of links to various subjects covered on these pages:
Additionally, visitors familiar with Memory Hole may find the following posts to cover subjects of particular interest:
They may also want to check out the recent interview on Red Ice radio in which I discuss some of the topics covered in my latest book. Posts published subsequent to that interview, which also discuss the "Roman conspiracy" include:
There is also a series of recent posts detailing the astonishing fact that all the ancient scriptures and sacred traditions of humanity -- across an incredible geographic dispersion and across centuries and even millennia of time -- can be shown to share a detailed system of celestial metaphor, including the scriptures we know today as "the Bible." For reasons related to the imposition of a system of control across western Europe (eventually spreading much farther than that), those connections have been suppressed and replaced with the dominant "literalistic" interpretations. To dive into the discussions of that topic, any of the recent posts discussing that common ancient system will contain links to many of the others -- good places to start include "Vajra: the Thunderbolt" or "Brisingamen, the necklace of Freya."

Finally, this blog is fully searchable (use the small window in the upper-left area on most devices and screens), so you can look for posts associated with keywords of your own choosing.

Hope to see you back again soon!