2012 and the Crystal Skulls

Obviously this title would seem strange to any who have not conducted research on the subject. Even those who have researched minimally have concluded that this is simply a prediction due to the fact that the Mayans' calendar stopped on December 21, 2012. I have been researching the topic in small pieces ever since seeing a documentary a few months ago in regards to the "crystal skulls."

Let me make it clear that most of the crystal skulls that have been "discovered" have been proven to be man-made objects, as the skull is pronounced with tool marks from humans. However, a select few of these skulls lack any sign of human activity, and some are dated back as far as 36,000 years ago.

The skulls that have been dated and have not been found to have been made by humans are said to hold magical or healing powers. That part is a matter of opinion, as nothing of the sort has been proven. However, in the documentary entitled "Mystery of the Crystal Skulls," a woman claims that people who are ill or inflicted by various physical issues go to her skull (one of the few without human marks) and are healed. The only two things that I find endlessly interesting are the following:
1. If a laser is shone in a specific placement and orientation towards any of the true skulls, they cause the beam to become incredibly powerful through the skull's eyes. I do not know if it is only the eyes, but that is what I remember.
2. This interests me more than the first: The anatomy of the true crystal skulls is identical to the anatomy of a human skull.

If these points interest you, research the "Mitchell-Hedges" skull, which is the most famous and best portrays the fore-mentioned characteristics. (This skull actually resides in Canada)

To see an interesting article concerning the origin, etc. of the crystal skulls, click here. The most interesting part that I found is the following (from the article in the link):

The Mitchell-Hedges family loaned the skull to Hewlett-Packard Laboratories for extensive study in 1970. Art restorer Frank Dorland oversaw the testing at the Santa Clara, California, computer equipment manufacturer, a leading facility for crystal research. The HP examinations yielded some startling results.

Researchers found that the skull had been carved against the natural axis of the crystal. Modern crystal sculptors always take into account the axis, or orientation of the crystal's molecular symmetry, because if they carve "against the grain," the piece is bound to shatter -- even with the use of lasers and other high-tech cutting methods.

To compound the strangeness, HP could find no microscopic scratches on the crystal which would indicate it had been carved with metal instruments. Dorland's best hypothesis for the skull's construction is that it was roughly hewn out with diamonds, and then the detail work was meticulously done with a gentle solution of silicon sand and water. The exhausting job -- assuming it could possibly be done in this way -- would have required man-hours adding up to 300 years to complete.

Under these circumstances, experts believe that successfully crafting a shape as complex as the Mitchell-Hedges skull is impossible; as one HP researcher is said to have remarked, "The damned thing simply shouldn't be."

The connection between the skulls and the prediction of the world ending in 2012 SEEMS to be that the skulls were given to the Mayans by the gods or by some higher power, and that they helped to stabalize or control in some way the earth's rotational pattern. The legend, it appears, states that the crystal skulls must all be found and brought together on December 21, 2012 (the day that the Mayan's predicted as the world's end) in order to stop the world from unstoppable destruction. This is the only explanation that I remember finding, but I know that it is much more elaborate than I have presented it. I think it is a topic worth researching on your own.

The only other thing I figure is worth addressing at the moment is that crystal skulls are said to be able to hold vast amounts of knowledge, both from the past and from the future. Although I have not researched much on this part of the legend, I do know that Quartz crystal (from which the skulls are made) is, in fact, actually able to hold information, and is actually what is used (on miniscule scales) in computer chips. That is all I know about that part.

I also think that the documentary is worth looking for, whether on the internet or on DVD - very interesting.

Painful Extrapolation of Religion

This is a post inspired by many thought processes, but that has been a long time coming. I realize that I have not posted opinion rants for a long while, but feel that it is necessary now that my thoughts have come to order. It should be noted, however, that the origin of this thought process was spurred from an episode of "The Colbert Report." Yes, a satirical, comedy-based news program has led me to certain revelations.

I will start by posting the link to the video here (the portion I want you to watch beings at 1:01 and ends at 1:38). I warn you, before opening and watching the video, that it is part of a post from an overly preachy channel called "The Liberal Viewer." Let it be known prior to watching the video that I do not, in any way, shape or form, support "The Liberal viewer," and in fact condemn it as spam and accuse it of turning all issues towards the extreme. Please only consider the brief clip of "The Colbert Report," and completely disregard the nonsense provocation of "The Liberal Viewer." It was simply the only place I was able to find the clip of Colbert.

I will not regurgitate what Colbert plainly stated in this clip, as it is obvious that I agree with him. I will, however, elaborate my own opinion, and lending to my theory that organized religion is as corrupt as it was in early Europe.

Sure the Pope no longer relies on selfishness and lies, and no longer conducts sins as his predecessors once did, but the modern church is corrupt nonetheless. I have my beliefs. I do not parade around announcing my beliefs to those who do not ask to hear them, but they do exist. I do not, however, believe it IS in fact necessary to parade and advertise my own system of beliefs and morality in order to prove that it does exist. This is one of my reasons for rejecting organized religion. I feel that many people feel that they are more religious or a bigger part of their religious communities simply because they attend church on a weekly basis. What they do not promote is the fact that many of these "dedicated" religious people, or even the "extremists," do not truly follow their religion. Allow me to elude to the original video. A modern-day extremist would condemn homosexuality, abortions and other such activities. Where in the respective Bible does it do so? Who are we to extrapolate from the Bible and to then pass judgement as "the will of God?" It is mindless and it stems from the basic human condition that humans are 1) never satisfied, and 2) always striving to be right, no matter the cost.

The "organized" church forces theories and mindsets down its "community's" throat. Many of these mindsets are not actually mentioned in any respective Bible. Most are constructed by modern-day religious leaders. Does this seem reasonable?

I also believe that it is truly impossible to follow a church or religion's teachings without wavering. We earn values and morals through life experience. We do not gain all of our life teachings from one man preaching to the sky. Because of this, no two men will have the same morals. Men can intend to do good and intend to have a positive impact on the world. However, without sharing common specific goals, common moralities or common fundamental beliefs, the church would have you believe that two men who share the common struggle for what is right are too different to be the same. Why can't men waver, so long as they do fight for what they consider to be right? Who's to say that one man is wrong for considering something right while another man considers it wrong? They were raised and grew to believe in different points of view. They do not share a single mindset. Isn't that part of the wonders of the Christian God? That all men are created equal, but also consistently unique?

Believe what you will, but I will continue to do so in private, and by my own terms.

Kudos to mankind, we have failed.

I am Jack's

Anonymity is a beautiful thing. The universalization of a simple feeling or urge, of a thought process or realization - all explained through "Jack."

I am Jack's raging bile duct.
I am Jack's cold sweat.
I Am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I Am Jack's smirking revenge.
I Am Jack's broken heart.
I am Jack's disturbed nightmares.
I am Jack's overwhelming rage.
I Am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection.
I am Jack's deflated happiness.
I am Jack's lost youth.
I am Jack's insane mind.
I am Jack's wasted life.

Feel free to add any that I have missed.

Meaning Through Anonymity

Let's begin with brief background to the relevance of the anonymity. Chuck Palahniuk, author of Fight Club, makes it very clear that he narrator is meant to be anonymous. The character, usually referred to as "Jack" (or Joe, in the novel), due to his constant references to "Jack's (blank)" from Reader's Digest articles referring to organs and bodily functions, stating "I am Jack's ..."

"Jack" (as I will refer to him in order to simplify this post) is anonymous for, in my opinion, two reasons:

1. His anonymity relates to the idea that the individual does not matter. The individual does not single-handedly create or destroy. The individual is irrelevant. It is the collective authority or potential of a group that leads to true creation or destruction. "Project Mayhem" - a group created for the destruction of corporatism - relies on the existance of a collection of individuals, anonymous AS individuals. Their personal traits or personal attributes mean nothing to the greater cause. They are separate from what is necessary. As my cohort, Mr. Szott, put it: The anonymity has nothing to do with the individual, but everything to do with what the entity stands for."
"Tyler Durden" is attributed a name not because of his individual accomplishments, but because Tyler Durden is a concept. He is not human, he is a basis and inspiration of corporate destruction.

The individual is insignificant to the cause, the collection of individuals is necessary to the cause.

2. His anonymity makes the story and concept of anti-corporate movements universal. A name or identity is irrelevant, it is the movement that is crucial. One can not in any way be like "Jack," but may hold the anti-corporatist ideals that he exemplifies through his extreme and dramatic notions of destruction.

The world cannot be viewed through rose-colored glasses. We are all to blame for corporatist influences and corporatist control upon all aspects of life. By universalizing a concept such as anti-corporatism, we allow our eyes to be opened past ignorance.

Thanks to Chris for his insight on the matter. View his blog:
Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction

Also, I apologize for the jumping around in this post, my mind is exhausted.

Kudos to Mankind: We Have Failed... Kudos to Mankind: We Are Insignificant

While I tend to focus in on human philosophies, human detrements and cynicism, and the history that supports it all, a friend of mine tends to focus his mind outwards to a broader spectrum, taking into consideration that the points that I dwell on, while interesting, may be completely insignificant in the big picture.

From his blog (The Daily Ramblings from the Master of Confliction), I find these links that I thought to be very interesting and that have managed to interest me to the point that I may begin to search outwards instead of inwards for the answer to the big picture (note that this is not an easy accomplishment).

This may put the insignificance of our existance into perspective
(If the browser minimizes the photo, zoom in)

This may put the comparable insignificance of our impact on the universe into perspective
(As Chris has had me do, consider specifically the notion that "From the burst's perspective, Earth's formation lay 8.5 billion years in the future.")

If this interests you, take the time to look through his blog and consider that my spectrum of thought is incredibly narrow compared to a necessary wider view.

Coincidal Destruction

I recently attended The Citadel's production of Julius Caeser.
I have to say it was absolutely brutal! They completely bastardized the play! Allow me to rant:

The dialogue was kept in tact for the most part, which was nice to see. Having said that, many names were mispronounced. I am aware of both the latin pronunciations of those names, and of the English interpretations of those names; what those actors were spewing were neither.

Later on in the play, after the unnecessarily short assassination of Julius Caeser, and the war began between the two resulting leaders, guns were brought into the scene. Let me rephrase that: semi-automatic weapons were used, as well as allusion to large explosives. On top of that, the uniforms worn were a cross between Star Wars uniforms and Soviet Russian. Not to mention Anthony’s, which was basically an American WWII uniform. I was disgusted by their lack of respect for not only Shakespeare’s interepretation of Julius Caeser’s assassination, and its effects, but also for the true events that occured. But think about it, in Shakespeare’s play, all dialogue alluding to murder, or suicide, pertained to stabbing or blades. The play kept true to this dialogue. Therefore, it made no sense, and had no relevance to introduce guns and (what I can only assume to be) supposed futuristic uniforms.

Furthermore, the Citadel’s version of the play did not once mention the most important part of the story: Julius Caeser’s assassination was the effective end of the Roman Republic, and of the Roman Empire. His assassination lead to an entire nation’s downfall.

There are many more concerns to be addressed, but none that I choose to address at this moment.

Rome may not have been built in a day, but its destruction took less than 24 hours.
The 3 hours endured watching the Citadel’s interpretation of Julius Caeser was, by every means, a destruction of theater, and a bastardization and dramatic display of disrespect towards both history and Shakespeare’s inspiring interpretation of said history.

Societal opposition

I was recently having conversation regarding societal constraints and the effects of opposing these constraints, and found it fairly interesting. So I figured I was give some insight into my own personal philosophies regarding the issue.
Also see my rant on manners and politeness for more on this philosophical view.

As long as one is giving into social conventions, and agreeing with a pre-designed set of rules that were put in place without any consideration to the individual, and without noticing an individual's existence, but instead viewing the world as an organization rather than a community of many, one cannot truly win.

It is only once one opposes the masses that victory becomes a possibility. When one conforms to societal constrains, defeat is not necessarily at hand, but victory is completely out of reach as no competition exists. Victory cannot take place without opposition. My views don't strive for agreeance, or feel the need to be praised or proven right, but I have a higher chance of victory than general society as I choose not to conform. I choose not to conform in a different manner than most "individualistic" people these days do. Those who choose not to conform through outer appearance, such as clothing, are in reality conforming to one-another. I choose to separate myself through philosophies and mindsets. Although I may have millions at my opposition, I emerge victorious because I make the conscious choice to have opposition.


Although many may portray agreeance to these previous statements, they are really just portraying another form of conformity through the need of acceptance. It is only once one cements within themselves personal philosophies on issues and areas such as this that they can truly call themselves indivualistic.

Ezekiel 25:17

'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides with the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon those with great vengeance and with furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know that my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.'

Cynicism in a World of Decay

I choose to remain cynical.

I am cynical by choice.

Cynicism and pessimism are two very different breeds of depressing. Cynicism, in all reality, is not true depressing, while pessimism is. Pessimism puts a negative spin on everything; cynicism sees the world for what it is. Unfortunately, in the world that we live in, things are not so great. Because of this, people seem to believe that cynicism is no more than depressing. I say cynicism is rejecting what was never there. I admit to having a cynical point of view, but at least there is on chance that I be accused of being ignorant. Ignorance is as much of a choice as cynicism; I choose the lesser of two evils.

I was once taught by a man who claimed that only children could get away with, or afford to be cynical. They have no other burdens in life, and are therefore not weighed down by the decay of society. I respect the man to no end, and regard him as a true genius in a world full of superficial genius. I also understand where he is coming from. I choose however to reject it and replace it with my own mindset. I fully understand the burden and eventual effects of cynicism. I also understand that consequences that exist while wearing rose colored glasses. I choose to be cynical. This is not a pessimistic choice. My life may not be as joyful as anothers, my thoughts may be heavier with burden than a child, but I am not ignorant, and cynicism aids me in that rejection.

This was a short post, but I think it was necessary following accusations of pessimism.

Kudos to mankind,
we have failed,
the only difference between you and I is that I accept our failures.

Evolution - The UNDENIABLE Truth

So this will be a fairly short post, and it relies on information and thoughts provoked yet again from G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.

G.K. Chesterton discusses the inadequacy of evidence denying evolution (which I included in my previous post), and manages to deliver a conclusion that evolution actually intensifies the existence of God than if no evolution were to have existed. Paraphrasing his words:

If man simply came to earth one day with humble beginnings through Adam and Eve and ate the apple to create sins, life would be much LESS simple and extraordinary than if we accept evolution as our past.
If man were to have evolved over thousands of years then our story is much more exciting and supernatural. If man were in fact just another animal who managed to evolve from the constraints that animals have upon them, gaining our free will, our advanced (and constantly advancing) society, and developing into civilized, highly communicative beings, then that is not only highly believable, but it is a credit to the human race, and to God. See, evolution is more natural than an inclination that we were simply dropped onto an earth, already made without us. The natural, in that sense, actually becomes more supernatural than what is perceived as being supernatural. (That last concept was a direct paraphrase of Chesterton's main idea presented).

He then continued to explain that evolution does not destroy man's past. "Cavemen" were never actually found to live in caves. Caves were found with paintings on the wall and it was deduced that cavemen used these caves as homes. But isn't it is much more reliable and sensible to say cavemen used caves, and they painted animals and such on the walls. That is what we know of their caves. This makes cavemen HUMAN. Art is a human construct fed by human intuition and, in some people, instinctiveness. So they were artists and used their natural environment to spread this art. Yet were are constricted by these theories that cavemen were brutal beings who beat their women and had no communicative dialect other than grunting. They're also followed by their discovery of fire and of the wheel. I can guarantee you that neither of these discoveries were accidents or coincidental. One final argument in favor of our past as that there is no way for us to determine a "primal being's" (such as a caveman's) brain map. There is no way to definitively determine that they were in fact barbaric and were not as advanced as us. They did not speak English, that does not mean they didn't communicate. Through anthropology, we know that their skeletal structure was very different from ours, and was actually more comparable to a primate. We also know that their outer appearances were more comparable to a primate. What we don't know is a definite answer to their intellectual capacity or civilized society.
It is logical to assume that they weren't as evolved as we are now, it is not logical to assume we have a past of mindless apes who made fire and beat women before killing sabretooth tigers with clubs.

Chesterton was ahead of his time and managed to accept evolution while keeping within the constraints of religion. C.S. Lewis (possibly the most notorious religious writer) agreed with Chesterton's writings and supported them.
There is too much evidence supporting evolution to deny it. But accepting evolution can be done within the constraints of religious belief. It is much more impressive to have us evolve from what we know as "cavemen" than to have us simply appear on earth one day.

It seems the more we evolve and the more we are learned, the more we consider ourselves wrongfully superior. Our behaviors and lifestyles are right for our time, but were not necessary in the past (and most still aren't truly necessary).

The minds of men are not inclusive.