Half as old as Time + 200 years

On this day, exactly 200 years ago, on August 22, 1812, the first Westerner (that we know of) set eyes on Petra, "the rose-red city, half as old as time"*. It was Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, a Swiss-born explorer that died only five years later, aged 32, a victim of dysenteria.

His account of the discovery reveals a state of mind considerably less romantic than one might imagine - but I still envy him. Profoundly so.

Here is an excerpt of his travel diary pertaining to what we now know for certain was Petra.

In following the rivulet of Eldjy westwards the valley soon nar­rows again; and it is here that the antiquities of Wady Mousa begin. Of these I regret that I am not able to give a very complete account: but I knew well the character of the people around me; I was without protection in the midst of a desert where no traveller had ever before been seen; and a close examination of these works of the infidels, as they are called, would have excited suspicions that I was a magician in search of treasures; I should at least have been detained and prevented from prosecuting my journey to Egypt, and in all probability should have been stripped of the little money which I possessed, and what was infinitely more valuable to me, of my journal book. Future travellers may visit the spot under the pro­tection of an armed force; the inhabitants will become more accustomed to the researches of strangers; and the antiquities of Wady Mousa will then be found to rank amongst the most curious remains of ancient art.

You can read the rest here.

* John William Burgon's fabulous "half as old as time" poetic figure (from his award-winning poem Petra, 1845) was actually a quote from Samuel Rogers' poem Italy ("A Farewell"), written in 1822: 

And now a parting word is due from him
Who, in the classic fields of Italy,
(If haply thou hast borne with him so long,)
Through many a grove by many a fount has led thee,
By many a temple half as old as Time;

The Man Who IS an Island

If you were unwise enough to read about the non-event of August 4th in our previous post, this should cheer you up.
For all the "love & light" that is messing up with people's heads, there's also genuine love - as in joie de vivre - and genuine light - as in bright - breaking the old molds of thought and living.


Here is a man who has built himself an island and is now working towards making it a country - an itinerant, floating country of his own.





Godspeed, Richie & Co.! 

MM: the Self-Perpetuating Machine

If you're expecting an adoring essay on Marilyn Monroe... turn away.

It was fifty years ago today that Marilyn Monroe was living the last 24 hours of her life. The date of her death is usually listed as August 5th, but it seems much more likely that she died in the late hours of August 4th.

Why are we even remembering her today?

Because she is an icon - meaning a public figure easily recognised, and even more easily reduced or "summarised", in just a few traits. The fewer traits are needed to signal the figure, the more iconic it is.
(Hitler is another such icon - probably the most iconic figure of the entire 20th century. The fact that a house has been found to look like him says it all.)

But icons are not born. They are made. Whatever efforts the "icon" has invested in its own making (as it is the case with MM), they are ultimately codified and perpetuated by others. And so, it's no surprise that icons tell more about those who gaze upon them than about the - often paltry - self hidden behind the Wizard-of-Oz-like facade of the icon.

MM was made after her conveniently early death at age 36, by the likes of Andy Warhol and, especially, the lying over-compensating braggart that was Norman Mailer, may he rest in peace, and later appropriated by all sorts of "interest groups", becoming the glamorous queen bee of losers.
In effect, she glamourised loss.

[One of the most surprising - and surprisingly stubborn - incarnations of the icon are the allegations of supposed "feminism" in MM (all the while uncritically perpetuating MM's own fibs and gross exaggerations about her childhood abuses and assorted abandonment "issues").

This was the woman who said: "Joe is the head of our family, we'll go wherever he says" and "I don't mind being a girl as long as I can live in a man's world", and who relished in calling herself "Mrs Joe Di Maggio" and "Mrs Arthur Miller".

There is nothing wrong with that per se; it's certainly a few planets removed from who I am, for example, but everyone has their own path in life, so I am not going to judge. At all.
It is, however, more than a little ridiculous to try and bend her into a feminist icon.

It seems to me that many of these third-generation self-proclaimed "feminists" (I consider myself a feminist - which to me means no "agenda" and certainly no man-bashing - therefore no quotation marks for me) need an excuse for indulging in the sort of "old-fashioned" femininity she incarnates (and it certainly is old-fashioned, not to mention very limited and limiting). 

Well, sisters, if you really need excuses freely to enjoy the forever ambiguous interplay of hormones and mind... let me tell you, you aint' much of a feminist.]

But why MM?

There were and are better looking faces, better looking bodies and, God knows, much better actresses, then and now.

She had a bone structure that photographed well: expanses of flat surfaces that reflected the light. That "minor" cosmetic surgery to enlarge and bolster her chin that she underwent around 1950 - after having been called "the chinless wonder" by studio bosses - was anything but minor; it proved a pivotal point in her career. Because it gave her a more photogenic face it also gave her the edge of confidence that is needed in order to concentrate on projecting one's image. An image that was constructed from within but needed the lights of a film or a photo shoot set to appear. 

MM wasn't an actress - she was an illusionist.
However, the "luminosity" that was caught by the camera - and live when she turned "her" (the MM persona) on - was not entirely physical. It was the residue of the energy she summoned to create a vision of all the intangible yearnings and glimpses of bliss that are our main driving force through this life as they were hers.

She gave up on attaining any of that - if she ever really thought they could be hers. (She seems to have had remarkably little talent for happiness - and I am quoting her, albeit loosely.) 
Instead she gathered the scattered flickers of that eternal warming light and projected them into an image. She offered that image to the world outside her to receive in return the reflected light and warmth of other people's intimate yearnings. Those yearnings, of course, weren't about her - but they could be projected onto her, and she could bask in their reflected warmth and light.

"Being liked" was her main goal in life (that could be expressed in words).
This compulsion, based on the absence of any feelings of self-worth, was so strong that apparently she didn't even care that the "love" she received was illusory. It gave warmth while it lasted, and that was enough.
Until it wasn't.

I don't know if Carl Gustav Jung ever wrote about her or even remarked her - he died in 1961, so he may have (however keep in mind that her "iconic" status actually evolved after her death) - but I am sure he would agree that her strength (as a public image) was the absence of her own Self. By being absent, barely there, almost non-existent, Norma Jeane made room for Marilyn Monroe: an appealingly light empty space that acted as a mirror. Marilyn Monroe exemplifies Jung's concept of anima perfectly. Her strengths are all borrowed from other people who willingly invest her image with them. They see themselves in a mirror - and they like what they see. Even her weakness. Or especially her weakness. We all want a little respite; and we all want to be acknowledged as the wounded innocent children we were and still are.

And this is also the reason why many people cannot stand MM.
They see the process - the projecting - that is going on, and they resent the lack of attention that they deserve too, and for the same reasons.
They want their own vulnerability, their own wounded childhood, their own yearnings - their own beauty - to be acknowledged, too. 
And they have every right to it.

So, my friend, on this day that marks the fiftieth anniversary of the birth of an icon - a flicker of borrowed light that is coming from you - look around and find that same beauty, the same wounds, that very same "special" quality, that very same light in others, including yourself. It is there, and I don't mean it metaphorically.
You owe it to yourself to find it and revere it, instead of showering praise and virtual flowers and tears for your own self on the shadow of an image.

No, it's not an "iconic" image.

If you'd like those, visit this marvellously rich blog from where it was snatched.)

FURTHER READING:

If you though this was harsh (which, of course, it wasn't), let me know what you think of Clive James's marvellously chiselled essay, Mailer's Marilyn (a lot more than "just" a book review). Give it a read; it will be time well spent.

The Olympic Bet: Why "First Contact" Did Not Happen

If you 've been browsing around the "alternative" media these days, you may have found an announcement by a "Galactic Council" - from Andromeda, I think - that on August 4th, 2012, at the Olympic Games in London, they, the "Galactic Council of Light", will make "full contact with humans" that will be observed by everyone. (I believe "mass landings" were mentioned.) They will do this "to assist Gaia's ascension".

This was decided on July 25th, 2012, at a meeting of said Galactic Council of Light. (Where exactly the meeting took place is unknown.)

We are usually very forthcoming with links and references here, so you may be surprised why we aren't offering any.

In truth, there is no good reason.
There is A reason: we don't want to drive attention to any website or blog in particular that mentions this announcement. They are easy enough to find anyway. (Just go through the links in our previous post.)
And it's hot. Hot and somewhat sticky, which makes us, forget-me-nots, very lazy.
So there.


EDIT TO ADD:


OK, here's a brand new video for your enjoyment. 
The inscription "Gaia is sick and it's time they intervene" was simply irresistible. Call us cynics; we do.





(Oh, and the council is Pleiadian, not Andromedan. Our apologies to both councils and all those affected.)

It is August 3rd today, yet we here - being evolved enough to peer outside time - dare to predict that "full contact" did not happen on August 4th, or if it did, it wasn't observed by all, as announced.

It's the purported reasons for this failure (yet another one) that escape us at this point. Not that there are very many possibilities. We are leaning towards:

1) The announcement above was a forgery maliciously conveyed to Earthlings - via "channels" - by a competing galactic council (the Galactic Council of Dark Matter?).

2) The announcement was a test... of some sort. We are probably not enlightened enough to see its reasons and eventual benefits to our underdeveloped souls. We will in time, fret not.

3) The "full contact" has been suspended until further notice for reasons of the photo-galactic order that we are not enlightened enough to comprehend (even if they list them, as they probably would if this scenario is chosen).

4) The "full contact" DID happen and WAS observed by all... who were enlightened enough.

5) The "full contact" DID happen and WAS observed by all... but the mainstream media obliterated all testimonies about it.

6) The "full contact" DID happen and WAS observed by all, but - for our own protection, of course - the direct memory of it was obliterated by some esoteric galactic means. (We probably have been "upgraded" all the same, mind you. DNA-wise, that is. OR maybe dimensionally. Or both.)

Of course there is always another possibility, but the likelihood of this one ever being announced is practically nil:

7) It is all a fairy tale for adults who care not - dare not - see the reality as it is, in all its messiness and magnificence.

Take your pick.



UPDATE 
(August 5th, 2012):


If you're interested in how this is going down among those who believed, have a look here.
But beware: it's depressing. 
No joke. It is deeply depressing.

Here are two snippets for a preview:

I want to share a channeling from the Pleiadian Council on why the rumors of the alleged Olympics landings are not true, and why humanity is not ready for official landings yet:

http://lightworkers.org/blog/164620/channeling-kaleidos-pleiadian-c...

"We will not perform a public landing on Earth during the Olympics. Nor will any of our enlightened friends. It is due to the simple reason that humanity is not ready for it, and that the time has not come yet. The energies on Earth are not the right ones for the first major official visit to take place. That day, when the visit will take place, it will happen together with the very most enlightened people on Earth, who have reached highest in their spiritual development. It will happen together with tomorrow's representatives and leaders of humanity who will bring humanity into the New Age. It will not happen during any event that is linked to the Matrix [such as the Olympics].

And from a different poster:

I've spoken with Ambassador Tanka from the planet Dakote, the same star system Taygeta, as is the planet Erra;

I've spoken & confirmed with Ambassador Iekara {eye ka-rah} from the planet Erra - who said his people would NEVER issue an "ultimatum" attempting to force [ET] "Disclosure" on any planetary governmental bodies. He said, "...we do not interfere in Earth governmental affairs.

Are you happy, Gene Roddenberry, wherever you are?