I make no excuses for this follow on from “Bullshit”. It has largely been inspired by tedious revelations in comments sections, and sometimes the posts themselves, of other blogers I encounter. There is the unhealthy trend of echoing staple facts of old. If information is antique, commenters and blogers assume it must be true and unblemished as there were no rogue journalists then. Every writer prior to distant memory had absolute integrity. They never made things up then. They never constructed truths. And, for the most part, it was either absolute truth or absolute fantasy (when analysing myths, fables and parables). No, no, no! Writers of ages past were just as devious, biased and lacking in overall integrity as they are today. It is all about what the writer could and can get away with. When Flavius Josephus described Herod Antipas as having a gangrenous penis and a host of other exotic ailments he was not telling the truth. Herod could not have survived five years in such a condition. He would have struggled to have survived five days. Instead, Josephus was expressing prosperity outcomes where, in his morally correct world, Herod would have been inflicted with the greatest menace in karmic retaliation against his behaviours.
By a similar vein, perhaps information pertaining to the one million documents burned via the Constantine purges in Alexandria and other places is not true. Perhaps fifty six thousand documents were actually destroyed or perhaps just fifty six, but these were so important it was as if a million had been excised. This is the problem. Could it not be propaganda [in different measure] compared to, say, modern estimates on the civilian deaths as a result of conflict in Iraq? Okay, modern statisticians do not like ‘round’ figures, but same deal. The armchair commenters, and occasional bloger, massages nonsense into their “pitch”. Good old non-facts [presumptions] are anchored as “evidence”. From the dawn of time, humans have always had agendas. It is the nature of man. Modern commenters and blogers carry an arsenal of presumptions in their war chests which are invariably poorly used for blitzkrieg debates. Constantine was not about destroying Christianity. He merely, logically upgraded it to conform to his perfectly good Sol Invictus code. As a consequence the only ghostly remnants of pure Gnosticism can be found in the Gospel of John, even though ancient documents suggest it was a work that was not tampered with in the contemporary period. Whereas the Nag Hammadi scrolls are so adrift of anything in the New Testament; they are the evidence that Constantine excised all known literatures. Like Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, all the historian has to measure is what isn’t there so whether fifty six or one million documents no longer exist is superfluous. It is ironic that the Dead Sea Scrolls have buried the mystical Jesus who was already an urban legend at the turn of that millennium. The miracle maker would have worked his spells about 196BC but was the inspiration for those behind the Messiah. The miracle maker could have been a Viracocha, or equivalent, or even a permanently channelled Pleaedian light being (D10+ Archangel Michael) validating Mark’s Son of God concept. Or perhaps he was a plain, ol’ human being with some irregular talents. Jesus of the Biblical tradition was a Gnostic, Roman construct involving multiple entities.
For the Old Testament, the Book of Enoch arrived by accident when the explorer James Bruce returned with a bounty from old Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1773. Richard Laurance published the first English translation in 1821. Nevertheless, academic references dating back to fifteenth century (and presumably prior) suggest the book was not unknown but had been lost and became the speculation of renewed interest in light of the reformation movement. This is important. Where there is thread, there is likely to be truth. As the Dead Sea Scrolls do to the New Testament, the Book of Enoch puts the Old Testament into a whole new perspective.
The culture for censorship is not a modern thing. It stretches right back to the Pharaohs. The Dark Ages are not so called because nothing was recorded. Plenty was recorded. It is just very little survived. That was a time of great purging to obscure the transition of the Roman Empire to a black monarchy behind the Catholic Church. Those who aren’t seen are the safest. However, the evidence of a bitter war between the Aryan Cathars and their Merovingian Kings and Catholicism is sufficient for credible research. The United Kingdom was, then, ear-marked as the new Promised Land under the Union of Jacob and finally sealed with the successful Norman conquest of William Conqueror in 1066. However serfdom had never been effectively imposed, as the Anglo-Saxon Celts made rebellious slaves. Formal enslavement of the Irish (Celts) began with James II (of England) sale of 30,000 prisoners (note – figure presumed reliable, but ‘rounded’) to assist with the construction of the New World in 1625. To satisfy “civilized” Victorian society (nineteen century) slaves were reinvented as servants.
With sketchy information or sources a plenty, how to decipher the truth? Dates, events or general information are always questionable. Nothing is sacred. The only way to be objective is to apply religious cross referencing. When I speak publically, I occasionally say, “This is my only source”. In other words, the information is so rare, so unusual I have found no counter-references. Where possible I find multiple views. For instance, if a date is wrong, invariably a number (of sources) will dispute it for various reasons. A researcher must be a detective. As with Josephus’ description of Herod Antipas, the researcher must also balance the style of conveying information at the time and discover protocols. Ancient chroniclers, for instance, were more interested in deciphering a series of “signs” acting as a comprehended compass for a given chain of events as the creation of resolving scenarios than any modern “scientific” appraisal. This is why some readers of ancient texts are confused into believing they are being guided by spiritual morality. They are not. That is how the ancient chronicler’s resolved their truths. Therefore empirical chronology can be almost non-existent. Protocols of ancient times assured things happened for reasons. They didn’t just happen. Genesis Adam’s “fall from Grace” was not a constructed parable. He and his wife took an illicit drug which gave them channelling powers (deep knowledge) and they lost their inhibitions because they were blanked off their faces. The message was in the perceived morality. Interestingly, as an aside, there was some other substance that halted the aging process (eternal life). I wonder if the “brotherhood” knows what that is.
Two hundred years ago the panda was a myth in China. Explorers used to talk of these mystical beasts round a camp fire. No shortage of scorn was directed at the believers. Just as today’s mountain ape supporting nut jobs, the panda con was the focus of that time. Around 1869 the con turned out to be anything but when Father Jean Pierre Armand David informed the grapevine that one had been shot. A stampede headed for Ya’an in Sichuan province and history was changed forever. Actually history remained unaltered. It was only the official record that changed. Ironically a mountain ape suffered a similar fate to the Ya’an panda back in the 1960’s. Lloyd Pye’s Everything You Know is Wrong describes his own eye witness experience of a “human faced” beast preserved in a block of ice in its makeshift mobile display. It had been shot by a trapper who charged $1 per view of the corpse. Sometime in 1970’s the trapper and his corpse disappeared into the annals of time never to reappear. Hopefully Lloyd has overcome his cancer scare as he is a credit to humanity.
One who deserves a cancer, in comparison [reflecting on Josephus’ karmic wisdom], is Richard Dawkins. He is a living example of censorship and the progression of ideas in spite of evidence. His determination to fulfil his version of Darwin’s evolution theory has violently added to partisan Archaeology. Though, this is nothing new. Compelling Mexican evidence suggesting Homo erectus had a multi-lateral planetary development in opposition to the establishment [and Dawkin’s] preference for an Out of Africa hypothesis is now “lost”. Indeed Mexican authorities have built over the excavation site to ensure dead bones remain covered indefinitely. Dawkins refuses to recognise, as one of a litany of examples, the discovery of a range of stone tools which date back at least thirty million years and gauging their sizes/weights would have been used by extraordinarily strong beings at least five times the size of modern man. The tools satisfy all modern measurement standards. So, only if measurement standards are wrong can the tools have been incorrectly evaluated.
My final part of this essay concerns the personal touch. Some are born mechanics. They can just look at a car engine and know how it works. To focus on a more sublime example; how to evaluate the development of an expert on pillows? Firstly, a rudimentary understanding of materials and styles would be gauged. Then a more detailed in depth cataloguing of the numerous scenarios could include being able to gauge a pillow type by feel. At some point of great expertise, neither the inner fillings nor the outer cover should ever be touched as necessary for an accurate appraisal. The expert would lock into to the essence of the pillow and understand its energy – inherently. Just as the musical prodigy has the learned professor agog, so too in all other areas there is inert understanding which is so fundamental it is beyond challenge. Of course laws of due diligence rightly do not account for prodigy [which is easily corrupted], but for this essay to be complete the phenomena needed to be mentioned. The researcher must use his or her noddle, be careful, never assume and believe in intuition or experience. Conclusions must always be working, and where evidence or intuition is lacking, truth is provisional.
There is no easy way to decipher the truth. It either feels right or it doesn’t, bias and prejudice notwithstanding.