Fear of Equal Money, Part 1. 03/22/2013

Would the Equal Money System confiscate personal wealth?

If history shows anything, it is that there’s no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt – above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it’s the victim who’s doing something wrong.

-David Graeber

This question appeared on the Quora board and I was asked to answer it.  It was asked by “anon user,” the now – infamous paid internet troll who suffered a massive literary beatdown at the hands of Sunette Spies (see previous post). I wasn’t going to answer it at first, but upon reflection, why the hell not? Others (without an axe to grind or a paycheck to collect) probably ask the same question. So I won’t acknowledge the p.i.t. on Quora, but I will answer it here (and dare anon user to play his game in my back yard).

Pretending that this question comes from genuine curiosity, I will say that I do not know everything that will happen with the installation of an Equal Money System. I do foresee it being installed in successive stages, over a period of many years, maybe decades, I don’t know. The current system would not accept such a shock if EMS were to be delivered all at once. But I want to discuss the overarching concern embedded within the question: “what will happen to my personal wealth?”

 This is part and parcel of the fear of loss attached to a change from the current economic system. A system where the winner takes all, and is perfectly represented in the image below:

Within this equation the question must be asked, what if your personal wealth directly contributed to the suffering of countless others? I won’t even apply any rationality or morality to the question, because it’s been exploited to death. And the cheap trick about morality and rationality is that one can set up a premise based on any foundation along a causal chain of events and attach any moral or rational “cover” or significance that can prove or justify anything, no matter cruel or unjust. “MY personal wealth is to be considered the most important thing in my life because I have given it so much value that it justifies everything I had to do to get it and keep it. I’ve given so much to this that I have identified this value as myself. So the fear of my wealth being “confiscated” is really the existential fear of having my valued personality taken away from me.”

Has our questioner ever considered to what extent the personal wealth of those who have to be stripped of all worth, economic or otherwise, to line the pockets of those in command of the system? [1] I really doubt anyone has. Because if one had even first considered the inner dimensions of such a question, it would have failed to leap from one’s mind. Then again, it could be the rank ignorance of an appalling nature. In America we have wealth “confiscated” by others every day in the form of banking fees, interest and other charges and subsidies commonly known as “corporate welfare.” That last item “confiscated” the wealth of US Citizens to the tune of $100 billion dollars in 2012. [2] The questioner may not be aware of such confiscations of wealth currently at work in Capitalism, but more likely, the question was merely a cynical trap to engage in pointless troll dickholery, which I mean to say, it may be a good question, but considering the source, it is only a question presented with a dubious malice submerged within a veneer of civility.

Critics uniformly draw lazy comparisons between Equal Money  and Communism, and often with a weak command of either subject. Of course, we have already diagramed that fear of Equality will cause one to succumb to unreasonableness – and even hostility – when presented with the notion of economic egalitarianism, and at the same time, fall into silent denial over the fact that the current system has taken so much more than Equality ever could.

Fear of Equal Money is a fear that radiates from a center of unenlightened self-interest, a sense of entitlement and a perverse need to justify the unjustifiable. Remember, it was less than a century and a half ago that human slavery  - the legal, religious and economic confiscation of a colonized people’s treasure of blood, labor and tears was abolished. And it took a bloody civil war and a 150 years of lynchings and disenfranchisement since then to nearly settle the question. Nor does the question even begin to explain,  acknowledge or bemoan the attempted extermination and confiscation of land of the Indigenous Peoples in the United States. Yet, any talk of “reparations” sends these Randian Individualists into paroxysms of rage. They will archly reply that they shouldn’t be held accountable for the sins committed in past centuries, yet they will be slow – or unwilling – to forswear any wealth or advantage gained by those same sins. This is what I meant by the “cheap trick of rationality.”

So, back to the question – I simply do not know the answer, because that chapter in human affairs is still to be written. Whatever happens will be agreed upon democratically, which would be the best method to set up the EMS. There will undoubtedly be a transition phase – and many people will be surprised how relatively easy it all could be done. But any discussion about the redistribution of wealth should not be made within cynical, jaded and lazy comparisons of what has happened in the past, but with due consideration of what is best for all. Which leaves me with a question for the critics of Equal Money: What would be better for everyone than having everyone’s basic needs in the world taken care of?

NOTES

[1]  For some perspective how the US government has colluded with the US banking system in taking public money to give to the banks, please read Ellen Brown’s excellent Internet article for Global Research, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History; How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System.“

[2] From the Libertarian Cato Institute report, a think tank as neoliberal as they come; Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget .

Fear of Equality, Part 5. 03/12/2013

THE impression forces itself upon one that men measure by false standards, that everyone seeks power, success, riches for himself and admires others who attain them, while undervaluing the truly precious things in life.

Thus begins Freud in his book, Civilization and its Discontents. We can speculate some other time about what the “truly precious things in life” may be, since such things are wholly subjective and would prevent us from cleaving to the matter at hand. But Freud does reveal a tendency or a trait within human beings, that we are often given to measure our relationships, environment and thoughts by false standards, through manipulation, ignorance and wishful thinking.

This has been my thesis so far: people fear Equality because differing groups of people fear the domination or misuse by other Groups.

There can be no vast accumulation of wealth within a system of relationships of equal cooperation. There is no rational explanation of how massive social inequality could exist within cooperative relationships within the Group. Thus, the idea of Competition, rather than cooperation, was used  to justify and protect the wealth and property of the haves from the have-nots; a framework that makes sense only within the paradigm of Capitalism.

This fear of the Group is channeled and misdirected into elevated, metaphysical conceptions as values of competition, liberty, free will and Individualism. Of these, liberty, free will and the Classical Liberal deification of the Individual are thought experiments that can only be measured and compared through the signification of vocabulary or artful terminology. Of these, only competition can be considered an event taking place in reality, since competition has very real consequences and effects that can be measured, seen and experienced. The others are mental projections that are used to justify the means and ends of competition.

Managing the Trinity of Fears

There is a Trinity of great Fears that predominately exist within human beings, and they are:

(1) knowledge that each one of us has needs that must be met in order to survive.

(2) Nobody can be trusted, and,

(3) Survival is wholly dependant on access to money or those with money.

To deal with these fears, and more importantly, matters of survival, it is believed by social scientists that early social Groups were formed within relationships of cooperation to deal collectively with the issues of survival. As Society grew more complex and advanced, competition was introduced. How did this occur? The easiest answer has to do with man’s capacity for greed and desire for power over other groups and the environment. Wars and establishing controls over groups became the accepted standards for managing people and resources. There is even a saying about the realities of war that confirms this: to the victor goes the spoils. [1] Capitalism provides the incentive to compete, survival is the motivator, the point between life and death, as well as the attainment of value through the fulfillment of desire via “winning” (acquiring property, sex or fame).  The “loser” is accorded the loss of value, since the loser’s value must be extinguished and consumed by the winner.

It was a very neat and fiendishly clever trick to convince the Group that an existential “winner – take – all” competition for survival was the best and most efficient mode of living. Yet for over 500 years, modern Capitalism has reigned as the winner over all other economic systems. But it required a lot of help from the philosophers, economists and science to do so.

Conceptions of Society

Philosophers, scientists and churchmen have all had their own ideas about forming the perfect society; The major thinkers include Plato, Augustine, Marx, Lenin, etc.. In Plato’s Republic, the cornerstone of society would be “justice.”  Plato’s perspectives were informed by his aristocratic status in Athenian society, and he had a suspicious and disapproving view of democracy, preferring his utopia to be ruled by elite philosophers.

Augustine believed that the ideal society would be one entirely devoted to Christian principles in order to gain entrance into the City of God in the hereafter. Augustine believed that if the State followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, justice and peace would ensue.

By the 18th Century, philosophers like Jean – Jacque Rousseau and others proposed that a perfect utopian state existed before being debased by European culture. Rousseau envisioned a future community that linked political “freedom” with education, but at the same time was pessimistic that self-interest could be overcome to a point that would allow such a reality to unfold.

Karl Marx proposed that “true freedom” could not be found through individual means, but only through the community. Marx’s ideal community would be a classless one of equally shared property and resources, which would only emerge after the conflicts that will cause the collapse of Capitalism.

Amazingly, small – scaled experiments of egalitarian communities were formed in Europe and America in the 19th Century by Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet and others.

Despite the failure of these communities to survive, the common notions of economic and political equality would never completely be lost, although these principles would live on in diluted and distorted forms within the various stripes of socialism (which has never escaped the gravity of market capitalism, thus keeping the social inequalities in place).

The fear of Equality is based on a false, mental reality that has produced severe material and physical consequences for humanity and the environment. These consequences are fast approaching the line of no return that will endanger our civilization in ways that are scarcely imaginable, most likely in permanent, unpleasant ways. We need to find a way out of this date with a dystopian destiny before that line is crossed. Perhaps, if we could finally see and understand how a community based on common sense and Equality could become a workable, comprehensible reality, we can begin to fashion an alternative that will be to the benefit of all.

NEXT:The Natural Law Argument Against Equality

NOTE

[1] A peculiarly American political idiom that arose in the mid – 1800′s to describe a rewards – system that benefitted the winning candidate’s supporters with government jobs.

Fear of Equality, Part 4 03/10/2013

The United States is the Darwinist capital of the capitalist world. A head afraid is a head haunted. A head haunted is a head hunted. Run for your life. Run from the guillotine to a head hunter who saves your head and raises your salary—so you’ll be caught in the red of the fishmarket buying gadgets to distract your fragile imagination that is cut in the red market of blood—running and escaping—running again—changing your resume to update the fear you feel of being unemployed tomorrow—in the streets—and from there to welfare—and from there to begging. - Giannina Braschi, “United States of Banana,” AmazonCrossing, 2011.

Survival of the Fittest

There is one error in Braschi’s otherwise excellent undressing of the Capitalist system in the USA, and that is the allusion that Darwin and the term “survival of the fittest” are connected. The two items are, but more through myth and misconception than in reality. The term, “survival of the fittest” actually originated with a Liberal philosopher named Herbert Spencer in a work he published as “Principles of Biology” in 1864 after he read Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species.” [1] Since the mid – 1860′s, opponents and proponents of Capitalism have used the terms “Darwinism” and “survival of the fittest” as simple metaphoric codes to express complicated, intertwined  sociological, political and economical realities. In the process, their meanings has been defaced and distorted, producing further misconceptions are misunderstandings that have darkened and fudged any kind of  accurate analysis of our current problems.

But how was “survival of the fittest” originally used, what has it become to signify and is there anything that can be learned from a correct and clear understanding of the concept.

The Original Conception

As I’ve just mentioned, the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 after reading Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. Spencer was a social scientist  with a liberal utilitarian bent who was influenced by the social evolutionary theories of Auguste Comte. The popular belief among these early social scientists was that societies tended to evolved from simple, primitive, superstitious states into more complex, sophisticated, enlightened civilizations. It should be remembered that the md-1800′s saw the Industrial Revolution bring rapid social, technological and economic changes to the developing countries in Europe and America. In the eyes of everyone, society was changing. The mechanical, much more efficient and robust, was replacing the natural, and this was seen as progress.

Different social theories on the significance of this “progression” abounded. Spencer was concerned with moral aspects of society which informed his utilitarian theories. A liberal first and a utilitarian second, Spencer believed that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people in society was subservient to the moral superiority of the rights of the Individual, for society exists for the benefit of the Individual, not the Individual for Society and the Individual should not be restricted or regulated by social institutions. It is somewhat surprising to read what Spencer had to say about what “survival of the fittest.” As a good liberal, he had a basic mistrust of government intervention:

“Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever.” [2]

What this sounds like is Spencer predicting that the more complex society becomes, the more dependent it becomes upon government which will be more concerned with maintaining than the best interests of the people, which becomes reliant on whatever their governments give them. This sounds quite different from the common understanding of this phrase (which we will get to momentarily).

However, Spencer was not above heartlessness when it came to the plight of the poor. The great industrialist Andrew Carnegie who was an ardent follower of Spencer’s works, was reportedly appalled at Spencer’s perspective that there was no moral difficulty in allowing the poor to die since, according to Spencer, they were ill-equipped to compete in the ruthless Capitalist arena (Carnegie was born into terrible poverty). And competition, according to Spencer, was a “Law” of the Natural World, thus it was neither good or bad, just a reality in existence. So much for the so-called “morality” and altruism of the Spencer’s Liberal Enlightenment.

The Evolution of a Theory

Not surprisingly, the two theories which were conceived by Spencer and Darwin eventually borrowed from and fed each other until most people took them to mean virtually the same thing. We know that Spencer published his social evolutionary theories years before Darwin’s Origin of the Species appeared, and that Spencer was intrigued by Darwin’s theory of natural selection, seeing it as a confirmation of his thesis of social evolution through struggle and competition. Darwin’s natural selection theory did not have the benefit of being informed by genetics, the significance s of which would only be discovered at the beginning of the 20th Century. Natural selection proposed that it was the adaptive nature of an organism to its environment that allowed it to survive and produce offspring. While Spencer took Darwin’s “natural selection” as vindication of his thesis that social evolution evolved from struggle, conflict and competition, he seemingly ignored Darwin’s point of the adaptable relationship the organism maintains throughout its evolutionary path, and was content to be a leading light that allowed the Victorian – era Capitalists to rest assuredly that if the Law of Nature was with them, who or what could be against them?

As a good Liberal philosopher, Spencer parrots the official Liberal line:

“Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”

Which would be a fantastic thing if freedom actually existed between men. However, with the emphasis on competition, struggle and conflict, the Capitalist system of economic Darwinism (where the wealthy dominate, subjugate and demonize the poor) guarantees to never, ever allow any type of freedom in the relationships between men to exist, mainly because of the Fear of Equality, which is in essence, the fear of the Group.

The war against the Group is based on fear, and the weapon used against the Group is fantasy. It is the worse kind of fantasy to assert one can speak intelligently of rights and freedom out of one side of their mouth while speaking of social Darwinism of survival of the fittest out of the other. It suggests a mental instability. There is no balance in the scales nor is there an acknowledgement of what everybody knows; the playing field is uneven and most of us will never have a chance to live like the very wealthy lives. While most people accept this as a fact of life, we also accept that survival of the fittest is much like a rigged game in a casino. Or the stock market. The only “freedom” available to people is the amount of freedom that can be bought. If everyone truly had “equal freedom,” human relationships would change and competition between groups would no longer exist. Talk of “freedom” would no longer exist because in its place would stand Equality. A lot of fear must be removed from the definition of Equality first. One way of releasing the fear of Equality is to understand how little we know about principles of “freedom” and other values in our lives and how that ignorance has allowed us to be controlled and manipulated into mistaking falsehood for something real.

NEXT: The Trinity of Fears

NOTES

[1]  Spencer wrote: “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection,’ or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac. 2002).

[2] Herbert Spencer; Truxton Beale (1916), The Man Versus the State: A Collection of Essays,

Fear of Equality, Part 2. 03/03/2013

People fear equality because we fear each other within the competition of survival

The Belief that Man (and Earthly existence) is Inherently Evil (Original Sin doctrine).

This notion was codified in the West by Augustine of Hippo and was expanded upon by Christian theologians through the centuries and accepted as a “truth” ever since. The opinion of Augustine was that human sexual desire was the engine that made Man into a depraved, immoral and hopelessly sinful creature that needed the salvific  intervention of Jesus Christ to be saved from eternal damnation in Hell. In this teaching Augustine traced the fallen state of Man to the Fall of Adam and Eve after they “sinned” against God in the Garden of Eden. [1]

Running along this cultural stream is another complimentary or competing idea that the evil in the world is necessary because of the existence of Free Will in humans, which allows and justifies evil within a scheme of metaphysics that claims salvation comes in choosing the good over the evil, thus following the example of Jesus Christ and earning one’s way to Heaven.

Due to our so-called “fallen nature” combined with “free will,” Man is thus free to commit any act he wishes, regardless of the consequences an act may have on one’s self or others. People are intimately aware of their own inner demons and destructive impulses, so we are certain others are aware of theirs and our own, as well. The question is always present when we enter into any relationship – who can be trusted?

Equality is feared because somehow there exists a belief that such a state will increase MORE suffering and misery for people  in the world. The person I encountered in the previous blog on PolicyMic held such ideas. Mr. Green stated;

Once perfect equality is achieved it will soon dissolve by human nature and talent within hours, to maintain equality for a longer period requires totalitarian force and oppression while leveling down the lifestyle of some to starvation poverty of others. Your equality comes down to petulance of wanting others to suffer, somehow your hatred of those wealthier then you will be abated when this occurs? What will you an internet user do when your opulent lifestyle needs leveling down too?

Reading between the lines reveals a nightmare for those who fear Equality as an existential, authoritarian and human destructive force where freedom of choice, and more frightening, loss of privilege will wipe out human initiative, and more important, degrade the current lifestyle of those who now benefit from inequality within the system today. This fear of degradation of the current lifestyle is the major concern here, although it seems to float upon Green’s subconscious. I don’t know if he aware of the ramifications or the implications he’s made in this comment.

Why does Equality conjure up in the mind of such frightening images of nameless, existential “ totalitarian force and oppression?” Because we are so distrustful and fearful of each other, we consider ourselves so depraved and hopelessly evil, that this belief has become hard – wired into our brains: Equality can only be achieved through militaristic and draconian measures.

By the way, the same can be said to accurately describe the current Capitalist State. Competition (over diminishing resources) is seen as the smarter choice than cooperation. Logically, one could map out the consequences of the destructiveness and  irrationality of this kind of thinking. However, it is more important to maintain the status quo of near-immediate gratification for those who can afford this, and so the must consequences must always remain incoherent, unexpressed and exist in some untouched future for others to deal with. Equality is a direct threat to the status quo and will be pushed back, not through superior logic or intellectual power, but through emotional expressions of greed, fear of loss, hatred and mistrust of Man against Man. When John Mackey complains that Capitalism has been under unjustified attack by intellectuals, his response is likewise a feeble emotional romanticism of a mythical Capitalism that is making the world a better place for everyone. This form of Capitalism obviously only exists within his mind, and yet, because he has systematic value (wealth), he’s going to influence others to adopt his religion of “compassionate” Capitalism. It is unfortunate, and another obstacle to overcome as we spread our ideas of Equal Money and Equality to the world.

NEXT: FEAR OF EQUALITY, PART 3: The Myth of Liberty

NOTE

[1] Augustine based his teaching on his interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5:12-21

2012 Mayan Endtimes Prophecy. Day 6 and Counting…

So 6 days until the biggest day of the year. 7 days if you count the day AFTER December 21, 2012. Perhaps we should make December 13 a Holiday! I can see it now, December 23 parties, December 23 trivia games, December 13 greeting cards, and we can do it every year forever! December 23 will be the next great American holiday, right there with President’s Day and Arbor Day. T-shirts saying, “I made it past the Mayan Doomsday 2012, but all I got was this shirt!”

6 days to go. Will YOU be READY for Ascension on the space pods?

 

 

 

2012 MAYAN PROPHECY ENDTIMES. DAY 7 AND COUNTING…

McKanna’s Timewave Graph. An amazing testament to one man’s desire to create the evidence that makes him right.

What we have with this specious New Age quackery called the “Mayan Prophecy Endtimes 2012,”is a case of wishful thinking, bad science, junk philosophy and drugs. Jose Arguelles (dubbed, an “academic shaman,” whatever that meant) published “The Mayan Factor” back in 1987.  Arguelles was not an expert in Mayan culture. He was however, prepared to say what he believed and insisted his beliefs were true. Many New Age authors follow this practice. Eckhart Tolle being one of the most glaring example. So when Arguelles claimed that it was proper to treat Mayan legend as “history,”it was very easy for him to claim the Mayans were from another planet, and it was just as easy to get many people believe it. Arguelles also claimed that the Mayans would return on December 21, 2012 apparently to bring about the cosmic “shift” in consciousness.

Fortunately for Arguelles, he died in 2011 before his prophecy could be debunked, pulled apart and discredited on December 21, 2012. He would have endured the same “perp walk” that Rapture prophet Harold Camping had to endure.

The other giant of the propagation of  the Mayan Prophecy was also not an expert on Mayan culture. Terrence McKenna devised his 2012 theories through the use of hallucinogenics (mushrooms) and throwing the I-Ching. That’s right.  According to Nowick Gray,

“The theory of Timewave Zero was revealed to Terence by an alien intelligence following a bizarre, quasi-psychedelic experiment conducted in the Amazon jungle in Colombia in 1971.”[1]

McKenna’s notion (which he predictably promulgated as fact) was that somehow, December 21, 2012 was an attractor or an end-point of time – a singularity that time rushed towards. McKenna used and manipulated all sorts of mathematical sequence to prove it, yet ultimately honed in on the Mayan 2012 thing.

So there you have it. The Mayan 2012 phenomenon was begun decades ago by dilettante hippies who probably took too many drugs. The amazing thing is that on the scantiest of evidence, people around the world are gripped in fear and irrationality, contemplating suicide, building escape boats or burning through their life savings.  The Mayan Prophecy and soon to be BUST will hopefully make believers a little more suspicious of New Age religion and the high-minded myths promulgated as truths.

Note

{1] Nowick Gray, Timewave Zero, http://alternativeculture.com/spirit/timewave.htm

2012 Mayan EndTimes Prophecy. Day 8 and Counting

NASA is at it again. The American Space Agency has released a video meant to be a Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah video allegedly to be released the day after the Mayan Apocalypse! The social networks were less concerned about the content of NASA’s video and focus more on why the video was released 10 days early.  With only 8 days left to the planet, it seems the blogosphere is getting quite antsy. At the beginning of 2012, this blog foresaw the ridiculous antics that would emerge as the hallowed date drew nearer and nearer. So, submitted for your approval:

IT’S not the end of the world, but it is embarrassing.

NASA scientists are so sure that the Mayan Apocalypse won’t happen, they’ve made a video saying “We told you so”.

Only problem is, they released it 10 days too soon.

The video looks like it was meant to be aired on December 22, the day after the Mayan Apocalypse.

Titled The World Didn’t End Yesterday, the four-minute clip explains how the idea of the Mayan Apocalypse is a huge hoax and how the rumours began.

But, as several bloggers have pointed out, if the video was meant to be seen on December 22, the day after the Mayan Apocalypse, why release it 10 days early?

Was it a genuine mistake? Or are the NASA boffins unsure about whether anyone would be around to see the video on December 22?

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/mayan-apocalypse-2012/fail-nasa-releases-day-after-mayan-apocalypse-video-10-days-early/story-fngjq0bi-1226535948509#ixzz2Eua4DIgq

2012 Mayan Prophecy EndTimes… Day 9 and Counting.

Can you believe it? Only 9 days to go!!!

Here’s an interesting web article on the upcoming 2012 Mayan Apocalypse published on the Global Research site, and I would like to share it with you now. Implicit in this review is that the Mayan priests claim that the 2012 Doomsday hoax was perpetrated by interests in the West and not by them

End of the World: Hear the 2012 Prophecy … Direct from the Mouths of the Mayan Priests

Ignore Second-Hand Information … Hear the Real Prophecy

By Washington’s Blog

Global Research, December 09, 2012

Washington’s Blog

Region: Latin America & Caribbean

Theme: Culture, Society & History

While educated adults obviously don’t believe the 2012 prophesy, many children are terrified, and NASA reports that some are contemplating suicide.  So please spread this as a Public Service Announcement. Many people are talking about the Mayan 2012 prophecy. But few know what the Mayan priests actually said about 2012. In reality, Mayan elders say something very different from what you might have heard. For example, Wakatel Utiw – leader of the National Council of Elders Mayas, Xinca and Garifuna (the Xinca and Garifuna are non-Mayan tribes in Central America), Day Keeper of the Mayan Calendar, and 13th generation Quiche Mayan Spiritual Leader -  says that the end of the Maya calendar has nothing to do with the end of the world. He also explains that December 21, 2012 might not even be the end of this cycle of the calendar:

Contrary to popular belief the living elders of the Maya do not agree that December 21, 2012 is the end of their calendar. A new “Sun” represents the beginning of a new Long Count cycle in the calendar system of approximately 5,200 years, which they say may not happen for many years.

And see this. (A brand new film called “Shift of the Ages” tells the Mayans’ beliefs in detail … and gives their true warnings.) Similarly, Tz’utujil Mayan elder Tata Pedro Cruz says that the world will not end in 2012:

Mayan elder and priest Carlos Barrios – who has extensively studied the Mayan calendars –says:

Anthropologists visit the temple sites and read the inscriptions and make up stories about the Maya, but they do not read the signs correctly. It’s just their imagination. Other people write about prophecy in the name of the Maya. They say that the world will end in December 2012. The Mayan elders are angry with this. The world will not end. It will be transformed.”

Leonzo Barreno – a Guatemalan native who was trained by Mayan elders to read the ancient calendars – says says the ‘apocalypse’ concept is a false interpretation of the Long Count calendar, that the Mayan elders taught him that December 21 this year simply marks the start of a new calendar:

‘There are two sides to the story,’ he told CBC. ‘The one that we know is this apocalyptic meaning that has been given to the Long Count.

‘The other side of the story is the Mayan side, which you rarely see on media articles, because they never interview my own people.’ ‘For them it’s a joyous event, not an apocalyptic event. What is coming is the end of a calendar and the beginning of a new one.

Ricardo Cajas – president of the Collective of Native Organizations of Colectivo de Organizaciones Indígenas de Guatemala – said the date did not represent an end of humanity or fulfillment of the catastrophic prophecies, but that the new cycle “supposes changes in human consciousness.” (Translation). Pedro Celestino Yac Noj – a Mayan sage living in Cuba – says:

The 21st is for giving thanks and gratitude and the 22nd welcomes the new cycle, a new dawn.

Rather than being the end of the world, Mayan priest Jose Manrique Esquive believes that 2012 may bring a transition to a better time for humankind. And AP noted in 2009:

Apolinario Chile Pixtun is tired of being bombarded with frantic questions about the Mayan calendar supposedly “running out” on Dec. 21, 2012. After all, it’s not the end of the world.

Definitely not, the Mayan Indian elder insists. Chile Pixtun, a Guatemalan, says the doomsday theories spring from Western, not Mayan ideas. And if you don’t believe what the current Mayan leaders say, please remember that archaeologists recently found a cache of ancient Mayan calendars which goes thousands of years past 2012. And see this. Note: The Mayan elders do make prophetic warnings, but it has nothing to do with 2012. Specifically, they warn that we need to rein in war or pollution or we will destroy ourselves. Given that numerous end of the world prophecies have come and gone without incident, and that the Pope has declared that – due to a miscalculation – we are currently in AD 2016, not 2012 – it is smart to take all date-specific predictions with a spoonful of cynicism.

2012 Mayan Endtimes Prophecy. Day 16 and Counting…

 

 

16 more days until the end of the world. I’m sure that everyone is excited and awaiting the Endtimes with expectant enthusiasm, although I’m sure there exists doubtful minds that consider the Mayan 2012 Endtimes prophecy as a farce and a deception.

Which of course it is. Think of the Mayan 2012 Endtimes Prophecy as the New Age’s version of the Christian Rapture. The rapture in turn was another metaphysical speculation based on passages of the Book of Revelations.

2012 Mayan Prophecy Endtimes. 17 Days and Counting…

 

Usually, I am loath to believe anything the US Government has to say about ANYTHING. But I had to smile and nod in agreement at the USA.gov blog today. For those of you who dislike clicking links, here’s the kibosh:

Scary Rumors about the World Ending in 2012 Are Just Rumors
False rumors about the end of the world in 2012 have been commonplace on the Internet for some time. Many of these rumors involve the Mayan calendar ending in 2012 (it won’t), a comet causing catastrophic effects (definitely not), a hidden planet sneaking up and colliding with us (no and no), and many others.

The world will not end on December 21, 2012, or any day in 2012.
Unfortunately, these rumors have many people frightened, especially children. NASA has received thousands of letters concerned about the end of the world. David Morrison, a planetary astronomer and senior scientist for NASA who answers questions from the public about astrobiology, says, “At least a once a week I get a message from a young person ― as young as 11 ― who says they are ill and/or contemplating suicide because of the coming doomsday.”
According to NASA, the old mystery-planet-collision rumor year was 2003, but when 2004 arrived safely, the rumors changed to 2012. So what end-of-the-world year will the rumor mill make up next?

Let me guess… someone will get the populace worried about the year 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, etc., you watch. And there will be countless people who will toss common sense aside and blindly chase after the folly of the day.  If Religion and Metaphysical speculation can ever be put aside, superstitions like the Mayan Prophecy can die a merciful death. What a glorious day that will be.