2012 At Last!

I've written very little thus-far, about the imminent end of the Mayan long-count calendar. That's because I didn't know what it meant. Nobody did.

I trust my intuition implicitly, but not necessarily my interpretation of it. I try to keep the two things separate, as far as possible. If I was meant to understand 2012, I intuitively sensed I would, when the time was right. I didn't know when that would be, but I expected to have a pretty good idea what was coming at around six months out. I was kept waiting until just a few days ago.

The evidence of the Tzolkin reveals the ancient Maya to have been master time-mappers. If the Maya considered the end of their long-count cycle to be cosmically significant, then I believe them.

Having said that, do I expect anything astonishing to occur on Dec. 21, 2012? No, I don't. This is what my intuition has given me: The winter solstice, which occurs on the same day, is a synchronistic metaphor for the end of the long-count cycle. Now, my interpretation:

In the Northern hemisphere, people have celebrated the winter solstice since time-immemorial. Ancient customs of feasting and light survive to this day. When Christianity was being imposed on pagan Europe, even it could not dislodge them. What it couldn't kill, had to be assimilated. That is why the Roman Church adopted the older celebration of the "birth of the Sun" for their own Messiah's birthday. (Nowhere in scripture does it say when Jesus was born.)

This is what actually happens on the winter solstice: The Sun arrives at it's maximum southern declination. It is the longest night of the year. Darkness reaches full ascendancy. It is also the turning point, at which the light begins to increase. On either side of the solstice, the difference in the length of a day is only seconds. For three days, or so, the Sun's position barely changes. Then, it gradually gathers momentum until the spring equinox, when it begins to slow down again. The turning point itself, occurs in a moment; it can be timed to the second. Until that point is reached, the darkness is still increasing, but so slowly, it is barely perceptible. After that moment, the light is returning, but again, barely perceptibly.

Taken as a metaphor, this tells us that the 21st of December is important because it is the turning point. It also tells us that the change will not be visible right away, but that the light will grow at a gathering pace. The metaphor additionally tells us something about where we are now. We are now at the point in the cycle when the darkness is still growing, yet nothing seems to change. That seems about right to me. Until the turning point is reached, don't expect any improvement. Look for it afterwards, but know that it will be subtle at first.

The disinformation that TPTB and their agents have been spreading about 2012, is the exact opposite of this. The History Channel aired a documentary about it, that pretty much sums up the misinformed, and deliberately formed, confusion surrounding the fabled date. "Everything and the kitchen sink," is the phrase that springs to mind. Everything apocalyptic that is. You've got good apocalypses, (We ascend to the 5th dimension and all our happy dreams come true.) and bad apocalypses, (The Earth is destroyed by cosmic catastrophe.) and apocalypses that could be good or bad depending on who you ask, (Biblical Armageddon). There are so many flavours of apocalypse on offer, it's down-right bewildering.

There may be some event that, in hind-sight, will be seen as the trigger for the turning of the tide; or not. But an apocalypse is as unlikely as mid-summer appearing the day after mid-winter. The hysteria TPTB have deliberately generated over 2012, is designed to discredit and/or disappoint those of us who foresee the changes that will surely come for all humanity. I expect to see some highly publicised 2012-cult suicides. It is also designed to reward and encourage the cynical defenders of the status quo; "See? Nothing happened. Just like Y2K."

The solstice metaphor holds a message for us about how best to respond to the Mayan calendar end-date. Celebrate! The longest night will be behind us. Even though the darkness still dominates, it begins to lessen. The light is returning, and will grow at an increasing pace. I'm going to celebrate!

No Wild Humans Allowed

I've often wondered what it would be like to be a wild human. I've tried to imagine what wild human societies would be like. It's seems unlikely that I'll ever know for sure. There are still a few wild human groups, of course, deep in the Amazon jungle, or in inhospitable places like the polar regions, deserts or high mountains of the world. But, their inaccessibility is the only thing preventing their domestication or extinction, so I'll never get to go there. I'm probably not hardy enough to live in those places anyway.

It's so sad, don't you think? I think it's even sadder that so few people seem to mind. I mean, who would support laws requiring the domestication of all bears or all elephants? We wouldn't let it happen to them, but we don't bat an eye when it's done to us. It's not necessary, certainly not in Canada. This is the second largest country in the world, and we have half the population of the UK! There's lots of room for wild humans here. You'd think a group of us, who'd prefer to be wild, could just leave the farm, and go make a new home for ourselves. We wouldn't have to interfere with the existing, domesticated human stock. I fantasize about doing that. I would do it, if I could. Unfortunately, the government of Canada claims that Queen Elisabeth II owns all the unoccupied land, which they manage on her behalf, and they claim to own me also. Even so, they could tolerate the existence of wild humans, if they wanted to. They won't though. If you tried to live in the wilderness, and were discovered, you would be evicted for trespassing.

A couple of local guys, Mike and Mike, tried it. They built a little cabin, just above the beach, near Palmerston Recreational Area. Here's a photo:
Its location is very remote, and hard to access. From Port Hardy, it's more than an hour's drive over rough logging roads to get to Palmerston, then at least another half hour hike over slippery, jagged rocks. (There's a trail now, but they had to make it themselves.) Even now, you'd never find it, unless you knew it was there. Before long though, the Coast Guard spotted it from the water. They threatened to burn it down unless it became a public shelter; no permanent or private residence allowed. Mike and Mike hadn't even tried to make a garden, but if they had, it would have been destroyed.

Bears, cougars, and squirrels are permitted to make homes for themselves, and freely hunt or forage for food, in the wild. But not us humans. I have never had a home that was truly my own, and I probably never will. I'm forced to pay someone else for the privilege of shelter, if I can. And I have no right to remain in it. (Our last land-lord sold our home, and so we had to move.) It's in our nature, as humans, to desire permanent homes that we can feel secure in. It's cruel to deny any creature such a basic thing. I've felt the stress of it all my life. Most people wouldn't do that to a bear.

Apparently, it's too much to ask for just a little bit of land to be set aside for wild humans. It's too, too bad. I'd love to see, somewhere, a wild human preserve. I wish there could be some place on Earth for all those people like me, who can't thrive in captivity. I bet there are a lot of us. Then we wouldn't need to fight the system. We could just leave it to its fate. We could live in sovereignty and peace, and maybe make something really great! It would be wonderful if there was such a place. I hate being trapped in this dying, so-called civilisation, waiting for it to collapse and knowing we have nothing, as yet, to replace it with but chaos and pain. It makes me want to scream sometimes.

Beware The Alternative Mainstream

A growing number of people no longer trust the MSM (mainstream media). Those of us with sufficient functioning brain cells, can no longer ignore their constant, shameless lying about practically everything. Lots of people still believe them though. They think: "If they all talk about the same thing, it must be important. If they all tell the same story, it must be true." They find it hard to accept that a small group of players, with a shared interest in controlling information in order to steer public perception to benefit themselves, could actually achieve that aim. They'll tell you there are far too many people employed in mass-media for a small group to censor effectively.

But we know differently. We know it doesn't work that way. There is rarely a need for outright censorship. All you have to do is hire and promote the right key people: those who already agree with your message, and those who are unscrupulous, clever and ambitious enough to play along. Those key people do likewise, and so on down the line. It's extremely rare for media people to step out of bounds. If they do, it doesn't matter how much popularity or industry clout they might seem to have. Who would have believed that personalities with the fan-base and exposure of Rosie O'Donnell, or Martin Sheen, could see their media careers destroyed overnight? If they can't afford to break ranks, who can? What I found especially disturbing, was the way their former colleagues turned on them, ripping them to pieces, with such gusto. Examples like theirs serve as a warning to the rest. There's no need to spell it out; message received. The MSM controls information by promoting those who are "on message" and ignoring or destroying those who are not.

The MSM is so obviously corrupt, that so-called "alternative media" is attracting a growing audience. The plutocratic control-freaks, who own the MSM, are aware of this trend. It would be wise to assume that they have taken steps to deal with the threat. The simplest solution (for them) would be to create an alternative mainstream media (AMSM). They could then continue to control information by promoting those who are "on message" and ignoring or destroying those who are not. Guess what?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but signs abound that this is the case:
Alternative carefully crafted narratives that benefit TPTB.
Alternative bullshit stories being promoted by key personalities, then taken up and repeated uncritically by all.
A pack mentality that discourages dissent.

A whole bunch of people think they've woken up, but they're just dreaming a different dream. Oh, you didn't buy that lie? How about this one? Sold! Have you noticed what happens to anyone who tries to expose a false AMSM narrative, or criticizes a member of the AMSM clique? Did you notice the treatment of Judy Wood? It was almost like she had committed some crime. Did you see what happened to Henry Makow? I never liked him. I think he's ignorant, paranoid and delusional; the AMSM should have ousted him for those things. But they didn't. He was ostracised by the clique for criticising Rense. I thought it ironic, since Makow's complaints, in this case, seemed justified. What's even more ironic is way the AMSM openly congratulates itself for doing this. In a reversal of truth worthy of the original MSM, they claim that those who challenge any member of the clique are the probable enemy agents. "We should be united," they say; "We can't afford to argue amongst ourselves." They behave as though there were no possibility of cointelpro agents within their group. What breath-taking arrogance! (If not: stupidity, and if not: a lie.)

Just as in the MSM, this sort of careless toe-crushing is rare. Most AMSM clique members know better. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," is the rule. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fate of humanity at stake here? Should suppressing legitimate criticism, to spare people's feelings, really be a top priority?

I don't mean to suggest that every member of the AMSM clique is a conscious agent of the control system. I sincerely hope not, and I don't believe it. On the other hand, enough of them are, that they can render harmless, or eliminate, any serious threat to the system. In other words: many are sincere, but misinformed, and thus considered harmless to the agenda of the real PTB. If I had to guess, I'd put David Icke in that group. I think he's sincere, and has many fine qualities, but I also think he's a manipulator's dream because, he's a bad judge of character. Surely, even he has to admit that. How many times has he been betrayed by those he trusted? The answer: more times than he suspects.

By contrast, Jordan Maxwell is one of those Icke shouldn't have trusted, but did. Maxwell's "research" is a mixture of cherry-picked anomalies and out-right fabrication. He has spawned a veritable army of replicant minions. The only research they've ever done is listening to Maxwell. None of them bothered to check his information, and all of them owe Maxwell for their otherwise inexplicable fame. They're counting on you not knowing the difference between repetition and corroboration. Maxwell is the primary source for some of Icke's weakest assertions. Yet Icke is freely ridiculed, while Maxwell is pretty much untouchable. Why is that?

It seems to me that some areas of inquiry are more heavily controlled and infiltrated than others: religion/astrotheology, 2012, ufology, alternative history, etc. Heavy infiltration and control reliably indicate important secrets that must be kept. Therefore, I think we need to focus more attention on those subjects, but starting from the assumption that the dominant narratives are false.

If we really want to discover the truth of humanity's plight, we're going to have to resist the efforts of the controllers to foist their alternative lies upon us. Some things I'd suggest are:
1. We could stop being so tragically naive. Acknowledge the fact that the AMSM is being controlled in the same way as the MSM, and treat it accordingly. Admit that the field has been infiltrated. Start attending to the who, where and why.
2. We could be more suspicious of any story that's being over-sold. Everybody saying something doesn't make it true, in the AMSM any more than in the MSM. In either case it's more likely to be a diversion or a psy-op. Furthermore, oversold stories usually indicate the particular areas of heaviest infiltration.
3. We could stop discouraging debate. Sincere seekers of truth don't fear a challenge. They welcome it. The people pressuring everyone to play nicely and get along are the ones we should be wary of. We need less politics and more honesty.

Ideas And Their Names

Language is like money and electricity: nearly everybody uses it, but hardly anyone really knows what it is, or how it works. When I read what people write, or listen to them talk, it's often obvious to me that very few understand the difference between words and ideas. If people did understand the difference, they would take the time to define many of the words they use. They would regard it as necessary.

Here's a useful analogy: If ideas were people, words would be their names. Imagine you're having a conversation with Pat about another person called Mike. Trouble is, each of you is talking about a different Mike. At first, neither of you notices, because the two Mikes have a lot in common; they both work in factories and are married to women named Debby. Then, Pat starts saying things about Mike that you know aren't true, and vice versa. Eventually, you both realise that you're discussing two different Mikes. Now your conversation turns into an argument over which Mike is the real Mike.

That last bit wouldn't happen, of course, unless both of you were completely irrational. You wouldn't struggle to understand that more than one person could be called Mike. Instead, you'd agree to use surnames, or something, to distinguish between them. Or else you'd agree to discuss the same Mike. It wouldn't happen if you were talking about a person, but it happens all the time with words like: freedom, democracy, faith, morality, god, love, enlightenment, I, ego, real, anarchy, etc. Clearly, a lack of common definition makes true communication impossible. I mean to say one thing, and you hear something else. In my experience, it's the reason for most arguments.

If English were a perfect language, this wouldn't be a problem. A perfect language would have a unique and specific word for each idea. Mathematics is a perfect language in that respect. The range of ideas it can represent is restricted, but there is zero ambiguity in the meaning of its terms and symbols. Sadly, English isn't like that. Many English words do too much work.

In Orwell's "1984," party members use a modified language called "newspeak." The aim of newspeak is an overall reduction in the number of words in use. Those words targeted for elimination are any that are unnecessary for communicating the party's ideology. I'm not alone in noticing a shrinking of vocabulary in general use. Orwell got that right. However, there is a parallel pruning of meanings that Orwell didn't predict in his book. Take the word "spirituality" for example. The idea that I associate with that word is: awareness of the Universal centre, and the direct knowledge that arises from that awareness. In common usage though, spirituality has come to mean: religion. Those are two completely different ideas. The second idea already had a name: religion. Now it has two, but the first idea has no name. An idea with no name cannot be discussed. Not only that; as Orwell explained, we normally think in words as well, so ideas with no names are difficult to entertain, even in our own minds.

Because of my interest in philosophy, I feel this mutilation of language rather keenly. It has become a source of constant frustration to me. It is the reason my unfinished and abandoned blog posts outnumber my published ones. I've often been struck entirely dumb by it. I'd prefer to remain silent rather than be misunderstood. I feel like, allowing myself to be misunderstood amounts to involuntary lying. That's because I'm trying to tell the truth, though. If I wanted to lie, if I were a politician, or other propagandising pundit, I'd be delighted. Cui bono? The ambiguity of English is probably being deliberately employed as a vector of ponerisation.

I don't see a way to alter this course. The accepted definition of words is a matter of consensus, and all mass-communication channels are in the hands of professional liars. I do have faith, though. (I define faith as: trust in the intelligence of Universe.) In the long run, the machinations of TPTB will fail, since they run counter to Universe's clear intention to realise Itself. Evolution (meaning: the tendency of Universe to develop forms of increasing complexity and range of awareness), is triggered by crisis. Transcend or die. Evolution happens when it must. It may be, that our present linguistic mode needs to become critically malfunctional, before a more evolved mode can emerge. Something that incorporates telepathy perhaps?

There is no reason to rule out such an occurrence. For one thing, telepathic ability already exists in a minority of humans. They may be analogous to the first few people to get telephones. For another thing, telepathic ability would be enormously adaptive at this time in history. Imagine how many problems could be solved if there was no need to guess about anyone's true intentions. If a sufficient number of humans were to acquire telepathic abilities, the people currently in power would lose their positions. I can't resist also mentioning a connection with the end of the Mayan long-count calendar on Dec. 21 of this year. End-of-the-world doomsayers always forget to mention the beginning date of the count: Aug. 11, 3114 BC. Whatever happened then, is what now completes itself. We know that date did not mark the creation of the world. However, one thing that did begin, right around that time, was writing.

Possibly, it's already started. Maybe the psychopathic liars who rule the world know it has. What if their EMF and chemical neurotoxin assault on us is an attempt to prevent it? It would make sense.

Perhaps there are ways we could prepare ourselves for a change like that. I would advise paying more attention to the meaning of the words we use. Words are only symbols of meaning. Word/symbols can pass, even through our own minds, with little, or poorly formed, meaning attached to them. There's a simple way to find out if you're doing this. Try to define your words. If you can't define the word, you don't know what it means. Telepathy depends on clear meaning. It's a good practice in any case. It improves mental clarity and makes it harder for manipulators to confuse you.

The Return of Torquemada

Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh. There was a headline on Press TV yesterday that read: "UN must implement resolutions against blasphemy: OIC". After checking the calendar to make sure it really was 2012 and not 1512, I read on, and it was even worse than the title implied. Apparently, what I'm about to say may already be illegal according to the UN.

First, some definitions to avoid misunderstanding. Morality is the exercise of conscience. Conscience is the means by which we directly perceive the difference between good and evil. Conscience is a sense, like sight or taste. However, instead of representing the physical world, it is designed to reveal moral rightness or wrongness.

Some readers here may wonder why I give book-based religion such a hard time. See, a lot of people have been conditioned to believe that these religions bring something worthwhile to the table. If you request specifics, they're a little hard to come by. However, one justification given, is that religions teach people to be moral. Oh cruel irony! Religion destroys morality. Yes, you read that right. I detest religions for a lot of reasons. Their horrific and ongoing crimes are really reason enough. What their followers have done to those outside their cults, is beyond sickening. But they've also done a lot of harm to their own. They have ruined their followers' minds with their systems of contradictory beliefs that subvert the intellect to the point that it gives up in despair. And then there's the moral damage that they do.

Religion destroys morality by substituting a psuedo-morality of rules for the true morality of conscience. The ten commandments of the Yahwists are a prime example. Religions define morality as: following the rules. Religions have been so successful in this substitution that even the non-religious have come to accept their definition. Thus, "morality" is widely viewed as archaic, arbitrary, oppressive. It is all these things by religion's false definition. Religious believers manage to ignore this because, generally speaking, many of the rules are in line with natural conscience. Prohibitions against killing, lying and stealing, for instance, lend legitimacy to the rules. (In real life there are always exceptions, which is one reason a living conscience is superior to any list of rules, no matter how exhaustive.) Sometimes though, and to varying extent, religion's rules run counter to the voice of conscience. Then the believer must choose. Typically, these choices are faced by young children, who are in no position to resist religious pressure to give preference to rules over conscience. They are actively encouraged to distrust their inner knowing. They are told that the voice of their conscience is actually Satan trying to lead them astray! Eventually, their awareness of conscience atrophies from lack of use and bothers them no more.

In light of the foregoing, it should surprise no one that religions have caused more death and suffering than any other single cause. In every case their atrocities were justified on "moral" grounds. If morality means following the rules, and you're the maker of the rules, then moral conduct is whatever you say it is. The Gods-who-write-books never speak audibly in the presence of witnesses. What if, somewhere along the line, the person claiming to speak for your God was actually schizophrenic, or worse, a psychopath? If you didn't have a conscience, you'd never know the difference. Who seriously thinks that possibility is too remote to consider?

No thanks to religions, but fortunately for us all, most people do have a conscience, even if it is barely functional. A few of us don't, and those people are called psychopaths. Religion can't cure them. For them, religion is just another tool to control others and get what they want. Religion's version of morality harms people of conscience and does nothing to curtail the predations of the conscienceless. Religions need to be called out and exposed for this, not protected from all criticism by law! The window for doing so appears to be closing.

Resonate This

Am I the only one who's getting annoyed by all the "resonating" going on lately? I don't have a problem with resonating per se. However, I object to the idea that resonance is an acceptable substitute for critical thinking, fact-checking, or evidence of any kind. What we've got here is an idea spread by repetition until it is so wide-spread, it passes without question. Ever time I turn around I hear things like:
"That resonates with me."
"Don't believe everything you hear. Just take what resonates and leave the rest."
The obvious, but unspoken assumption is that one can judge the accuracy of received information by whether one "resonates with it" or not.  In the absence of thorough self-knowledge, (a much rarer thing than the inclination to resonate), this just isn't so. Most often, people "resonate" with information because it agrees with what they already believe, or because it makes them feel good. Neither of those represents a valid measure of truth. Instead, they are a recipe for self-delusion. Errors are compounded as untrue belief holds the door open for whatever reinforces it, and refuses entry to conflicting data. False ego has free rein to remake universe in its own image. No need to bother with evidence, logic or rhetorical debate anymore. A declaration of resonance is now sufficient. What a boon for the New Age, fantasy free-for-all! Not much help with the collective insanity though.

It's sad that the principle of resonance has been misused and trivialised in this way. Resonance means vibrational sympathy. It is extremely important. It can teach you a great deal about yourself. An ability to objectively sense it, can reveal energetic patterns and sympathies. Resonance is the basis of technologies that would seem like magic. It just isn't a barometer of truth. Sorry.