Wonder Woman, Warrior Princess, the Daughter
May 20, 2016
Sidenote moan – the summers here in sunnyland (not the real name) can be, you know how people randomly space themselves out in places like beaches, parks, toilets, public transport so they can have a bit of privacy even if they’re close together? Well last year a bunch of commercial class vans set up a formation right behind us whereas everybody else was nicely spaced out on the land behind us & our neighbours. Also the back hedgerow was and still is cut down behind us only and not the neighbours so visitors behind and people on this side can look right through. Reminds me of the daffodils that kept getting their heads chopped off in front of us but no one elses. Sidenote note – we saw a lot of Spring blooms in Winter last year, t’was pretty.
Ok, when it comes to US comic book heroines (mainly from DC and Marvel) one of the oldest and most famous heroines is Wonder Woman ‘Warrior Princess’ and does it surprise me that she is the most famous and one of the most well thought out? No. She is the archetypal Daughter and everybody wants the Daughter’s favour because that apparently implies having the Mother’s blessing and not having the Dark Mother as the enemy. The problem is the story is always manipulated and abused.
In Wonder Woman Diana is the Daughter and a ‘First’ figure, not a normal birth made from clay by the Mother Hippolyta the Amazon Queen and like Pandora (Dor-, Dora, Dorothea, Dorothy, Dolly), Diana is blessed by many of the pantheon. The Dark Mother was added later as Diana’s younger sister Troia (the triplicate) Darkstar who does not feature so much in this story but is reincarnated later as a Mother/Dark Mother morph in Xena: Warrior Princess (and Gabrielle the Daughter), whose history with the gods is similar to that of Hippolyta. The writers made sure to differentiate a little by saying that Xena was not an Amazon, however she was an honorary one and Gabrielle later received the title as their Queen albeit temporary, it was also through Gabrielle that Hope was born after she was raped in Britain/Britannia by the new monotheistic One God. Hope is later a lover of Ares and bears ‘the Destroyer’ (a monster son, like that forced on Hippolyta by Ares), after their death the Furies try to bring about the death of Xena’s daughter Eve. It is a horribly, horribly twisted story, and remember it has its roots in India which was then (historically and disputed by some Indian scholars) thought to be invaded/corrupted by a Northern influence, following the changes in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Xena’s chakram is an Indian weapon, the first one referenced as a weapon of Indian gods and being one of a pair: Light and Dark, the Dark one stolen by Ares from a masculine god called Kal but as we know the Greaco-Roman cultures are copies and morphs of what was there before and the root Dark Goddess is Kali, and Ares gave that chakram to Xena, the Dark Mother figure of the story. Her second chakram is a united dual yin-yang version. Even the title for the Daughter i.e. ‘Princess’ is ‘Kar’ or ‘Kaur’ in Indian, and the root Indo-Iranian ‘Kar-‘ make, build, war – can be used for warrior (in this case that would read amazon), a middle name many Indian females have.
Wonder Woman as a Graeco-Romanized version and includes the Persephone story where the Daughter is separated from her Mother, that is a version of the older Ishtar and Inanna story. Covering all bases the ‘creators’ of Wonder Woman based her Mother’s home on Paradise Island, a direct rip off of the island/home of the Creator Divine Mother Devi Lalita and the Sri Yantra (all the old goddesses combined in one geometric mandala/pagoda which has been changed to include modern gods and goddesses). Lalitha is both the creator of the universe/multi-verse and all beings/bodies as well as the uni/multiverse it/themselves (the formed and formless way of explaining). Whilst the Sri Yantra represents all the goddess forms together and separate, it is also a vehicle. In some depictions the throne consists of the corpses of the invading and current pantheon of Hindu gods – so it is prophetic, the dark star system (Nibiru et al) being the throne of the goddess. The ‘children’/creation/workers conquered/tricked/deceived the Mother but their end is foretold/already decided.
As usual to come into the modern/Vedic world the feminine is masculanized in some way, so Diana the Princess becomes Diana Prince as her alias in the USA, the US being one big mesh of ancient Egyptian to later Graeco-Roman symbolism. Diana’s creation is also changed into a human style birth in later versions of Wonder Woman, fathered by Zeus, following deception, drugging and rape of Hippolyta and the Amazons by Hercules and his men orchestrated by Ares (when Hippolyta had wanted peace); and as usual later on Zeus also wants to rape the Daughter Wonder Woman. In the Wonder Woman story, after this massive defeat and degradation half of the Amazon population move to a fictional location in the Middle East. The is the conquering of the root Goddess/Feminine by the later God/Patriarchal culture. The father raping the daughter, and indeed continued practice of some ‘religious’ and magic practitioners as my Mother was after she was brought to Britain to be brutalised and enslaved as a child – a Living God where the family believed through her suffering and purity/good behaviour they would also benefit – very Christ like (again an Indian term) where the innocent is sacrificed/used by the many thinking they can be forgiven/redeemed that way – is constant in old/changeover cultures such as Ares being the father of Hippolyta in Amazon legend.
In at least one of the few matrilineal societies in India the inheritance goes to the youngest daughter who is supposed to act as caretaker to the rest (in practice of course older children are substitute parents) but by caretaker they mean the benefactor of the spoils; in our case the children of Mum’s generation were named after historical ages of creation and humanity via the divine god and concept names (similar to how the Wonder Woman saga is split into ages/yugas; Gold, Silver, Bronze, Modern) and after the suffering of the eldest the ‘victor’ is the youngest – my Mum used to be told how her youngest sister got wonderful things for her wedding and would be happy etc whilst Mum was forced and manipulated into marriages and got nothing. So us eldest born have all the sh*t and the youngsters are supposed to reap, just as Mum and I have always been under the breadline whereas others had benefits like learning to drive, jobs of their choosing, property. My Mother was told when she wanted to drive “if you learned to drive, you could go anywhere and we’d lose you” amongst many of the things she’s been told in her life like a mason stranger asking her to “give us Mars” and “we want to sell shares in you” (as if they haven’t already been taking pounds of flesh/stocks in the life/energy). Some masons took it upon themselves to start calling me Christina, the Divine Child, the Princess in the Pyramid, and prior to all that there was a random group of people who stopped me on a Valentine’s Day outside where we lived and asked me to be their ‘Pandora’, although a similar thing happened in New Orleans previously. Interesting enough in December 2012 the the ‘First Born’, the first child, son, of Hera and Zeus was added to the Wonder Woman story as Diana’s enemy and again copying the Lalita Indian culture – the prophecy surrounding the ‘First Born’ was that he would sit on his father’s throne with his family’s corpses around him. The use of Diana vs First Born reflects similar customs of the ‘dark’ and ‘light’ child in some Asian societies where the ‘dark’ is seen as negative and the ‘light’ positive, the ‘light’ usually being the privileged child who has the fun, prestige and honour; this yin yang symbolism is even more poignant if first borns are used and their birthdays solstices.
The story is ingrained in people, people are their stories whether they know it or not and there are people who go to lengths to keep the stories and the lines going (powerful bloodlines consider themselves god and god/alien descendents), the storytellers e.g. media and education keep them in the cultural consciousness too, adapting to the times. You don’t have to know these people to be affected by them but typically children are sold out/groomed by people in their lives.
Much twisting was utilized to include the Mother-Daughter story into the cradles of civilization and it morphed from herstory to history even more when eventually it became a tool for US American patriotism and using the ‘love’ angle to pair/confuse/distract the Goddess with an entirely unsuitable ‘partner’ to keep Her in place especially when the Goddess doesn’t mate. Steve couldn’t have any better than Diana, whereas she could have much better. She never should have left the Aegean Sea let alone by herself.:
The Surprising Origin Story of Wonder Woman
The history of the comic-book superhero’s creation seven decades ago has been hidden away—until now
“Noted Psychologist Revealed as Author of Best-Selling ‘Wonder Woman,’” read the astonishing headline. In the summer of 1942, a press release from the New York offices of All-American Comics turned up at newspapers, magazines and radio stations all over the United States. The identity of Wonder Woman’s creator had been “at first kept secret,” it said, but the time had come to make a shocking announcement: “the author of ‘Wonder Woman’ is Dr. William Moulton Marston, internationally famous psychologist.” The truth about Wonder Woman had come out at last.
Or so, at least, it was made to appear. But, really, the name of Wonder Woman’s creator was the least of her secrets.
Wonder Woman is the most popular female comic-book superhero of all time. Aside from Superman and Batman, no other comic-book character has lasted as long. Generations of girls have carried their sandwiches to school in Wonder Woman lunchboxes. Like every other superhero, Wonder Woman has a secret identity. Unlike every other superhero, she also has a secret history.
In one episode, a newspaper editor named Brown, desperate to discover Wonder Woman’s past, assigns a team of reporters to chase her down; she easily escapes them. Brown, gone half mad, is committed to a hospital. Wonder Woman disguises herself as a nurse and brings him a scroll. “This parchment seems to be the history of that girl you call ‘Wonder Woman’!” she tells him. “A strange, veiled woman left it with me.” Brown leaps out of bed and races back to the city desk, where he cries out, parchment in hand, “Stop the presses! I’ve got the history of Wonder Woman!” But Wonder Woman’s secret history isn’t written on parchment. Instead, it lies buried in boxes and cabinets and drawers, in thousands of documents, housed in libraries, archives and collections spread all over the United States, including the private papers of creator Marston—papers that, before I saw them, had never before been seen by anyone outside of Marston’s family.
The veil that has shrouded Wonder Woman’s past for seven decades hides beneath it a crucial story about comic books and superheroes and censorship and feminism. As Marston once put it, “Frankly, Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who, I believe, should rule the world.”
Comic books were more or less invented in 1933 by Maxwell Charles Gaines, a former elementary school principal who went on to found All-American Comics. Superman first bounded over tall buildings in 1938. Batman began lurking in the shadows in 1939. Kids read them by the piles. But at a time when war was ravaging Europe, comic books celebrated violence, even sexual violence. In 1940, the Chicago Daily News called comics a “national disgrace.” “Ten million copies of these sex-horror serials are sold every month,” wrote the newspaper’s literary editor, calling for parents and teachers to ban the comics, “unless we want a coming generation even more ferocious than the present one.”
To defend himself against critics, Gaines, in 1940, hired Marston as a consultant. “‘Doc’ Marston has long been an advocate of the right type of comic magazines,” he explained. Marston held three degrees from Harvard, including a PhD in psychology. He led what he called “an experimental life.” He’d been a lawyer, a scientist and a professor. He is generally credited with inventing the lie detector test: He was obsessed with uncovering other people’s secrets. He’d been a consulting psychologist for Universal Pictures. He’d written screenplays, a novel and dozens of magazine articles. Gaines had read about Marston in an article in Family Circle magazine. In the summer of 1940, Olive Richard, a staff writer for the magazine, visited Marston at his house in Rye, New York, to ask him for his expert opinion about comics.
“Some of them are full of torture, kidnapping, sadism, and other cruel business,” she said.
“Unfortunately, that is true,” Marston admitted, but “when a lovely heroine is bound to the stake, comics followers are sure that the rescue will arrive in the nick of time. The reader’s wish is to save the girl, not to see her suffer.”
Marston was a man of a thousand lives and a thousand lies. “Olive Richard” was the pen name of Olive Byrne, and she hadn’t gone to visit Marston—she lived with him. She was also the niece of Margaret Sanger, one of the most important feminists of the 20th century. In 1916, Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, Olive Byrne’s mother, had opened the first birth-control clinic in the United States. They were both arrested for the illegal distribution of contraception. In jail in 1917, Ethel Byrne went on a hunger strike and nearly died.
Olive Byrne met Marston in 1925, when she was a senior at Tufts; he was her psychology professor. Marston was already married, to a lawyer named Elizabeth Holloway. When Marston and Byrne fell in love, he gave Holloway a choice: either Byrne could live with them, or he would leave her. Byrne moved in. Between 1928 and 1933, each woman bore two children; they lived together as a family. Holloway went to work; Byrne stayed home and raised the children. They told census-takers and anyone else who asked that Byrne was Marston’s widowed sister-in-law. “Tolerant people are the happiest,” Marston wrote in a magazine essay in 1939, so “why not get rid of costly prejudices that hold you back?” He listed the “Six Most Common Types of Prejudice.” Eliminating prejudice number six—“Prejudice against unconventional people and non-conformists”—meant the most to him. Byrne’s sons didn’t find out that Marston was their father until 1963—when Holloway finally admitted it—and only after she extracted a promise that no one would raise the subject ever again.
Gaines didn’t know any of this when he met Marston in 1940 or else he would never have hired him: He was looking to avoid controversy, not to court it. Marston and Wonder Woman were pivotal to the creation of what became DC Comics. (DC was short for Detective Comics, the comic book in which Batman debuted.) In 1940, Gaines decided to counter his critics by forming an editorial advisory board and appointing Marston to serve on it, and DC decided to stamp comic books in which Superman and Batman appeared with a logo, an assurance of quality, reading, “A DC Publication.” And, since “the comics’ worst offense was their blood-curdling masculinity,” Marston said, the best way to fend off critics would be to create a female superhero.
“Well, Doc,” Gaines said, “I picked Superman after every syndicate in America turned it down. I’ll take a chance on your Wonder Woman! But you’ll have to write the strip yourself.”
In February 1941, Marston submitted a draft of his first script, explaining the “under-meaning” of Wonder Woman’s Amazonian origins in ancient Greece, where men had kept women in chains, until they broke free and escaped. “The NEW WOMEN thus freed and strengthened by supporting themselves (on Paradise Island) developed enormous physical and mental power.” His comic, he said, was meant to chronicle “a great movement now under way—the growth in the power of women.”
Wonder Woman made her debut in All-Star Comics at the end of 1941 and on the cover of a new comic book, Sensation Comics, at the beginning of 1942, drawn by an artist named Harry G. Peter. She wore a golden tiara, a red bustier, blue underpants and knee-high, red leather boots. She was a little slinky; she was very kinky. She’d left Paradise to fight fascism with feminism, in “America, the last citadel of democracy, and of equal rights for women!”
It seemed to Gaines like so much good, clean, superpatriotic fun. But in March 1942, the National Organization for Decent Literature put Sensation Comics on its blacklist of “Publications Disapproved for Youth” for one reason: “Wonder Woman is not sufficiently dressed.”
Gaines decided he needed another expert. He turned to Lauretta Bender, an associate professor of psychiatry at New York University’s medical school and a senior psychiatrist at Bellevue Hospital, where she was director of the children’s ward, an expert on aggression. She’d long been interested in comics but her interest had grown in 1940, after her husband, Paul Schilder, was killed by a car while walking home from visiting Bender and their 8-day-old daughter in the hospital. Bender, left with three children under the age of 3, soon became painfully interested in studying how children cope with trauma. In 1940, she conducted a study with Reginald Lourie, a medical resident under her supervision, investigating the effect of comics on four children brought to Bellevue Hospital for behavioral problems. Tessie, 12, had witnessed her father, a convicted murderer, kill himself. She insisted on calling herself Shiera, after a comic-book girl who is always rescued at the last minute by the Flash. Kenneth, 11, had been raped. He was frantic unless medicated or “wearing a Superman cape.” He felt safe in it—he could fly away if he wanted to—and “he felt that the cape protected him from an assault.” Bender and Lourie concluded the comic books were “the folklore of this age,” and worked, culturally, the same way fables and fairy tales did.
That hardly ended the controversy. In February 1943, Josette Frank, an expert on children’s literature, a leader of the Child Study Association and a member of Gaines’ advisory board, sent Gaines a letter, telling him that while she’d never been a fan of Wonder Woman, she felt she now had to speak out about its “sadistic bits showing women chained, tortured, etc.” She had a point. In episode after episode, Wonder Woman is chained, bound, gagged, lassoed, tied, fettered and manacled. “Great girdle of Aphrodite!” she cries at one point. “Am I tired of being tied up!”
The story behind the writing and editing of Wonder Woman can be pieced together from Bender’s papers, at Brooklyn College; Frank’s papers, at the University of Minnesota; and Marston’s editorial correspondence, along with a set of original scripts, housed at the Dibner Library at the Smithsonian Institution Libraries. In his original scripts, Marston described scenes of bondage in careful, intimate detail with utmost precision. For a story about Mars, the God of War, Marston gave Peter elaborate instructions for the panel in which Wonder Woman is taken prisoner:
“Closeup, full length figure of WW. Do some careful chaining here—Mars’s men are experts! Put a metal collar on WW with a chain running off from the panel, as though she were chained in the line of prisoners. Have her hands clasped together at her breast with double bands on her wrists, her Amazon bracelets and another set. Between these runs a short chain, about the length of a handcuff chain—this is what compels her to clasp her hands together. Then put another, heavier, larger chain between her wrist bands which hangs in a long loop to just above her knees. At her ankles show a pair of arms and hands, coming from out of the panel, clasping about her ankles. This whole panel will lose its point and spoil the story unless these chains are drawn exactly as described here.”
Later in the story, Wonder Woman is locked in a cell. Straining to overhear a conversation in the next room, through the amplification of “bone conduction,” she takes her chain in her teeth: “Closeup of WW’s head shoulders. She holds her neck chain between her teeth. The chain runs taut between her teeth and the wall, where it is locked to a steel ring bolt.”
Gaines forwarded Frank’s letter of complaint to Marston. Marston shrugged it off. But then Dorothy Roubicek, who helped edit Wonder Woman—the first woman editor at DC Comics—objected to Wonder Woman’s torture, too.
“Of course I wouldn’t expect Miss Roubicek to understand all this,” Marston wrote Gaines. “After all I have devoted my entire life to working out psychological principles. Miss R. has been in comics only 6 months or so, hasn’t she? And never in psychology.” But “the secret of woman’s allure,” he told Gaines, is that “women enjoy submission—being bound.”
Marston wrote Gaines right back.
“I have the good Sergeant’s letter in which he expresses his enthusiasm over chains for women—so what?” As a practicing clinical psychologist, he said, he was unimpressed. “Some day I’ll make you a list of all the items about women that different people have been known to get passionate over—women’s hair, boots, belts, silk worn by women, gloves, stockings, garters, panties, bare backs,” he promised. “You can’t have a real woman character in any form of fiction without touching off a great many readers’ erotic fancies. Which is swell, I say.”
Marston was sure he knew what line not to cross. Harmless erotic fantasies are terrific, he said. “It’s the lousy ones you have to look out for—the harmful, destructive, morbid erotic fixations—real sadism, killing, blood-letting, torturing where the pleasure is in the victim’s actual pain, etc. Those are 100 per cent bad and I won’t have any part of them.” He added, in closing, “Please thank Miss Roubicek for the list of menaces.”
In 1944, Gaines and Marston signed an agreement for Wonder Woman to become a newspaper strip, syndicated by King Features. Busy with the newspaper strip, Marston hired an 18-year-old student, Joye Hummel, to help him write comic-book scripts. Joye Hummel, now Joye Kelly, turned 90 this April; in June, she donated her collection of never-before-seen scripts and comic books to the Smithsonian Libraries. Hiring her helped with Marston’s editorial problem, too. Her stories were more innocent than his. She’d type them and bring them to Sheldon Mayer, Marston’s editor at DC, she told me, and “He always OK’d mine faster because I didn’t make mine as sexy.” To celebrate syndication, Gaines had his artists draw a panel in which Superman and Batman, rising out of the front page of a daily newspaper, call out to Wonder Woman, who’s leaping onto the page, “Welcome, Wonder Woman!”
Gaines had another kind of welcome to make, too. He asked Lauretta Bender to take Frank’s place on the editorial advisory board.
In an ad King Features ran to persuade newspapers to purchase the strip, pointing out that Wonder Woman already had “ten million loyal fans,” her name is written in rope.
Hidden behind this controversy is one reason for all those chains and ropes, which has to do with the history of the fight for women’s rights. Because Marston kept his true relationship with Olive Byrne a secret, he kept his family’s ties to Margaret Sanger a secret, too. Marston, Byrne and Holloway, and even Harry G. Peter, the artist who drew Wonder Woman, had all been powerfully influenced by the suffrage, feminism and birth control movements. And each of those movements had used chains as a centerpiece of its iconography.
In 1911, when Marston was a freshman at Harvard, the British suffragist Emmeline Pankhurst, who’d chained herself to the gates outside 10 Downing Street, came to speak on campus. When Sanger faced charges of obscenity for explaining birth control in a magazine she founded called the Woman Rebel, a petition sent to President Woodrow Wilson on her behalf read, “While men stand proudly and face the sun, boasting that they have quenched the wickedness of slavery, what chains of slavery are, have been or ever could be so intimate a horror as the shackles on every limb—on every thought—on the very soul of an unwilling pregnant woman?” American suffragists threatened to chain themselves to the gates outside the White House. In 1916, in Chicago, women representing the states where women had still not gained the right to vote marched in chains.
In the 1910s, Peter was a staff artist at the magazine Judge, where he contributed to its suffrage page called “The Modern Woman,” which ran from 1912 to 1917. More regularly, the art on that page was drawn by another staff artist, a woman named Lou Rogers. Rogers’ suffrage and feminist cartoons very often featured an allegorical woman chained or roped, breaking her bonds. Sanger hired Rogers as art director for the Birth Control Review, a magazine she started in 1917. In 1920, in a book called Woman and the New Race, Sanger argued that woman “had chained herself to her place in society and the family through the maternal functions of her nature, and only chains thus strong could have bound her to her lot as a brood animal.” In 1923, an illustration commissioned by Rogers for the cover of Birth Control Review pictured a weakened and desperate woman, fallen to her knees and chained at the ankle to a ball that reads, “UNWANTED BABIES.” A chained woman inspired the title of Sanger’s 1928 book, Motherhood in Bondage, a compilation of some of the thousands of letters she had received from women begging her for information about birth control; she described the letters as “the confessions of enslaved mothers.”
When Marston created Wonder Woman, in 1941, he drew on Sanger’s legacy and inspiration. But he was also determined to keep the influence of Sanger on Wonder Woman a secret.
He took that secret to his grave when he died in 1947. Most superheroes didn’t survive peacetime and those that did were changed forever in 1954, when a psychiatrist named Fredric Wertham published a book called Seduction of the Innocent and testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating the comics. Wertham believed that comics were corrupting American kids, and turning them into juvenile delinquents. He especially disliked Wonder Woman. Bender had written that Wonder Woman comics display “a strikingly advanced concept of femininity and masculinity” and that “women in these stories are placed on an equal footing with men and indulge in the same type of activities.” Wertham found the feminism in Wonder Woman repulsive.
“As to the ‘advanced femininity,’ what are the activities in comic books which women ‘indulge in on an equal footing with men’? They do not work. They are not homemakers. They do not bring up a family. Mother-love is entirely absent. Even when Wonder Woman adopts a girl there are Lesbian overtones,” he said. At the Senate hearings, Bender testified, too. If anything in American popular culture was bad for girls, she said, it wasn’t Wonder Woman; it was Walt Disney. “The mothers are always killed or sent to the insane asylums in Walt Disney movies,” she said. This argument fell on deaf ears.
Wertham’s papers, housed at the Library of Congress, were only opened to researchers in 2010. They suggest that Wertham’s antipathy toward Bender had less to do with the content of the comics than with professional rivalry. (Paul Schilder, Bender’s late husband, had been Wertham’s boss for many years.) Wertham’s papers contain a scrap on which he compiled a list he titled “Paid Experts of the Comic Book Industry Posing as Independent Scholars.” First on the list as the comic book industry’s number one lackey was Bender, about whom Wertham wrote: “Boasted privately of bringing up her 3 children on money from crime comic books.”
In the wake of the 1954 hearings, DC Comics removed Bender from its editorial advisory board, and the Comics Magazine Association of America adopted a new code. Under its terms, comic books could contain nothing cruel: “All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.” There could be nothing kinky: “Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Violent love scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.” And there could be nothing unconventional: “The treatment of love-romance stories shall emphasize the value of the home and the sanctity of marriage.”
“Anniversary, which we forgot entirely,” Olive Byrne wrote in her secret diary in 1936. (The diary remains in family hands.) During the years when she lived with Marston and Holloway, she wore, instead of a wedding ring, a pair of bracelets. Wonder Woman wears those same cuffs. Byrne died in 1990, at the age of 86. She and Holloway had been living together in an apartment in Tampa. While Byrne was in the hospital, dying, Holloway fell and broke her hip; she was admitted to the same hospital. They were in separate rooms. They’d lived together for 64 years. When Holloway, in her hospital bed, was told that Byrne had died, she sang a poem by Tennyson: “Sunset and the evening star, / And one clear call for me! / And may there be no moaning of the bar, / When I put out to sea.” No newspaper ran an obituary.
Elizabeth Holloway Marston died in 1993. An obituary ran in the New York Times. It was headed, “Elizabeth H. Marston, Inspiration for Wonder Woman, 100.” This was, at best, a half-truth.
So, seriously educated and influential people involved, the writer credited with being pivotal in the invention of the lie detector and if you’ve seen the first two seasons of the most famous serialized tv adaptation with Lynda Carter (from Phoenix [winged fireball], Arizona) – it’s almost all war propaganda. Like with almost all Mother Goddess story based media I’ve seen there is an expectation there, a right to have ownership of the Divine Mother/Daughter/Dark Mother, to have her seeming consent and validation whilst treating her/them like crap yet still want her/them to rescue, forgive, even love unconditionally and let them continue as if nothing happened/changed. In Wonder Woman – Diana is a founding member of the Justice League, she stands up for the Allies and is the connection between the human world and Paradise. If you’ve known masons, you might have noted the obsession with doors; opening doors for people and generally being chivalrous and courteous is part of my nature but in one particularly masonic town Mum and I have noticed people rushing to go through doors/fences etc at the same time as us e.g. if they’re in front they will slowly go to the door, look back at us continually and if we stop they stop, if they make it first they wait until we get there for us to open the ‘portal’/’link’, if we overtake them they’ll speed up to catch up and even push themselves through with us. Or a shop/place of business can be empty and then suddenly people will hurry to go through at the same time. Symbolism and the appearance of ‘permission’ and ‘partnership’ is very important to these people. We don’t open doors for anybody anymore but it’s hard to go through by ourselves, ironically the front door to our residence there became very hard to open/close after we moved in, the opposite to another place we lived where the front door was fine when we went to see the place before moving in (being renovated) but when we moved in it had become too easy to open/close (being an expensive security door the people weren’t willing to change it [again] after we noted it) but we didn’t live alone there so access may have been made easier for those who wanted to be in the same place.
It’s silly and might as well be superstition, wishes of the desperate, but that’s ritual for you and we’ve come across numerous rites of passage. These are people who want to be seen talking to us, seen/living nearby, or when part of our conversation is repeated by people standing 20ft further down the road when we walk past them, shops that are empty that fill up when we go in them and I’ve had shop owners say to me “you’re my lucky charm”, “you bring in business”, people who walk past seemingly just to cough or laugh right at us. Then there’s the cars; there’s been times when I was walking in car parks or as proper on the side of country roads and suddenly turned around to almost have a car bump into me and then decide to use the rest of the road, once a driver laughed, another time a van almost drove into Mum’s arm, other people follow you in their cars like one occasion where a woman stopped her car to ask us what we were doing (we’d stopped to take a break, and when she stopped another car coming from the opposite direction stopped to watch) then invited us to have tea at her place, described where it was (same place we were staying), winked and drove there. We didn’t go, the next time she was with her partner and children and they stopped us on that same road to ask what we were doing and what religion we were (we’re not religious) and this time asked if we wanted a lift. We declined, they still wanted to know if believed in any god, I was declining and politely trying to stop the conversation but Mum said the Goddess Kali and then they got really questioning, wouldn’t leave us alone, stopped traffic three times to crawl along at our pace, stopped and parked twice further down the road to stop us and ask about Kali and why we wouldn’t tell them anything about her, why were were being so ‘nasty’ to them, how there is only Christianity and their God yet they were ones wanting to follow us not the other way round – we’d said to look online and leave us alone because they were harassing us down the 1.5 mile road. Then there’s the vehicles that don’t go anywhere, they drive past on the road, turn around and come back and as they pass stare at us; at another place there was one van that always came and went when we did, it didn’t matter what time of the day/night, one time we came back really late 4am-ish and it still hurtled past. Another place we went camping, no space for vehicles where we camped but as soon as we left the next morning and got to the road all the drivers parked there started up and left too. Thankfully the idiots dressed in Black (yes it sounds ridiculous, and it is) aren’t as obvious anymore, one occasion two particular dummies actually zigged zagged after us in a field – when we went one direction they did, changed direction so did they, stopped to look at the ducks, they did too, started to go, so did they – and then I looked to the road on the side and lo and behold there’s another guy, this one with sunglasses on a cloudy day, keeping pace with us on the other side of the bushes and looked away as soon as I saw him. Another time we were returning to a place after visiting the beach and on the way back a MiB (ack that is such an embarrassing term) was staring at us from an alley whilst on his phone and as we passed we heard him say “they’re on their way back”, that was after another one of them was sitting behind Mum on the beach throwing pebbles next to her.
We’re peaceful people who listen to meditation music, read a lot and live a non-harm ethos.
Speaking of US American Patriotism
From 1982 the World Wrestling Federation started using the Wonder Woman logo as their base.
Obviously the world of professional sports entertainment and in particular wrestling is full of ‘characters’; a soap opera with stuntpersonship but also a heck of a lot of rivalry and feuds, the backstage comes into the ‘squared circle/ring’ at times. It sometimes seems like the gods, monsters, demons, demi-gods, spirits etc live on in comic books and manga related media but the heroes and villains are the stars, superstars, faces, and heels in wrestling too – especially since it’s so pantomime. Elaborate characters, costume, names/moves, themes – all very gladiatorial amphitheater entertainment as if Romans were still around. Hey I used to watch a lot of it myself when I was much younger. In regards to the logo it symbolically implies they have the blessing of the goddess, no they didn’t and they don’t, and I’m glad the World Wildlife Fund took exception to them as well (for sharing the same acronym) forcing the World Wrestling Federation to change their name in 2001. Nature beats wannabes any day 😛 (Though I don’t like some of the key people behind the now called World Wide Fund for Nature, same goes for any company/corporation/financial institution/major charity, when I say ‘Nature’ I mean actual nature over the orchestrators.) The WWE, ECW and TNA even used an Indian man who calls himself ‘The Great Khali’ (initially along with his ‘manager’ and partner ‘Tiger Raj Singh’). You’re dreaming, posers.
Just as names are important for people, names and logos are important for companies, especially big companies from Starbucks using the Abraxas two ‘legged’ serpent god icon as is but to a modern person it looks like a mermaid but it goes with their name – star worshipers wanting your resources – to Apple (knowledge) and Windows (portals) and both those logos are split into colours/levels.
I originally mentioned about the book Freemasonry and the Hidden Goddess in this post. The following quoted post looks at it a bit more.
I’ve just finished reading a book called ‘Freemasonry and the Hidden Goddess’ by William Bond. Mum’s had the book for a few years but for some reason I’ve only just gotten to it. He highlights via the internal masonic artwork (that is artwork by masons for masons), archaeological sites and historical events that Freemasonry is actually a Goddess religion but a religion within a religion. This is true of all the major religions and belief systems in general – the more you advance the more you are privy to e.g. learning a subject in depth in secondary school compared to primary, re-learning the rules in college and re-evaluating the whole subject in university before being allowed to credibly postulate. Meeting fundamental requirements to progress and know more otherwise there’d be no point in a job progression, everyone/thing must have their place. In terms of culture and religion young versions of older beliefs and the oldest belief system that we know of on this planet is the Mother Goddess.
William goes further however to say that whilst Freemasonry is patriarchal (and only recently allowing female members en mass though there had been exceptions and female lodges/orders) it allows its members to practise and learn about any other religion or belief system too, contains very obvious Goddess mysteries and symbolism and that there are/may be or have been members that were knowingly Goddess worshippers. Additionally that they knew they were following Goddess religion hidden in a Father God religion to prevent them from being hunted for example by their old enemies the Roman Catholic Church.
This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has studied prehistoric cultures and root cultures as I call them (prehistoric and early overlapping cultures with the cradles), the cradles of civilization and history since then but I think it was good to go back to my early days of discovering this group and focus on concentrated symbolism like this for a while. Having spent so long looking at the distribution formats e.g. religion, media, governing bodies, orders etc I was having a ‘crisis of faith’ in that I haven’t had any since I started learning about this ‘stuff’ and it was starting to seem like that wasn’t ok anymore. Like many others I’ve always been looking for sense in the contradictions, for the truth regarding changes, if there is any, but I was never convinced I’d found it. I know a bit about the roots and prehistory but I can’t really know let alone enough about those people/their beliefs to believe like they did, knowledge and belief don’t have to go together but they do for me. I don’t have to believe and I’ve not looked for something to believe in specifically but for a while life was making it seem like I should.
Even for those not interested in symbolism or the meaning of symbolism, the artwork alone might be interesting for those into conceptual and surreal art, yet artworks that follow patterns/code. Additionally the information on archaeological cover-ups e.g. closing sites, changing management and sponsorship is informative and William’s questions in general shows more deference (ironically, but hey we can’t say they’re not ingenious) to the effort put in than those masons who just see it as a big social club.
Other titles by this author:
Mermaids, Witches and Amazons
Gospel Of The Goddess
The Matriarchal Tao
He doesn’t include much metaphysical, emotional and mental symbolism at times, he mentions meditation but doesn’t really go into the exploration of the consciousness and soul, he mostly sees the sexual symbolism and is a bit simplistic about male and female behaviour/characteristics. I can see why to an extent since sexual symbolism tends to be either promoted or suppressed but there are more contexts and where he gets stuck when trying to express something as sexual and finds it doesn’t work mostly then tries to find another way it could be sexual or sexual politics rather than something else. I say mostly because in some cases he’s talking in prophetic terms and I don’t know what to make of those. In the final chapters he talks about the mind but as an active tool for control. His opinion on how Freemasonry has behaved isn’t set, it changes throughout the book and contradicts, like he’s learning whilst explaining, I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing here because it means he can see exceptions to general trends though at the same time like all of us has his opinions on how people relate to each other. For example he’s against the belief that masons influence society and then gives example after example of how they have through government, religion, science and technology and named powerful, public members. Also he speaks about the contradictions/misuse of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits but asserts them himself, basically he sounds confused and I can see why. We can see the evidence of peaceful and sophisticated Mother Goddess societies and civilizations before and at the same time as the cradles of civilization but they were conquered, incorporated, changed and we’ve been at a stagnant, frustrating never ending state of unrest, fighting, misuse of resources, and fear ever since and knowledge of these societies is taboo, restricted, defaced, sites kept closed and destroyed. He states civilizations with male and female or just male gods end up war torn with some rich and many poor people, people and other animals have lost their dignity. There seems no solution or end to it.
So we’ve got all this evidence, what to do with it? I can see that Goddess Consciousness has been emerging in people/the media and it’s good that we’ve been learning about how history is changed and different depending on where you are, it’s ‘written by the winners’. But of course not all goddesses (or anyone) are created equal, many have been created or changed within a patriarchal framework, many characters aren’t even gods anymore they’re demons, saints or amalgamations. I don’t like all of the goddesses I’ve come across just as I don’t like all women just because I’m female. I think it’s important to know about past and original history but in one of the best info spreading methods – the entertainment media – I’m tired of all the hidden (and not so hidden, some films are ridden with seemingly unnecessary symbols all over backgrounds like product placement) info delivered in typical masonic fashion i.e. like a secret language for ‘those in the know to those in the know’ so they can ‘get’ the message if it’s meant for them whilst everybody else just thinks in terms of fails and flops – did it manipulate/move you emotionally enough over what did it mean? I just want these language masters to come out and say what they intended. I think to myself look at how long everything has been waiting, I feel more and more people are wanting a big change for the better though they don’t know and can’t agree on what better is. In my opinion the Mother Goddess left Earth or hasn’t been here in a long time, or isn’t here in the way we think/hope.
I can’t see where to go from here and I think a lot of people feel like that, there’s long been a situation of false hope vs hopelessness i.e. belief in things you can’t change yourself vs apathy or even despair for some. Sure there’s practical solutions in terms of education and application but it would take big lifestyle changes en mass with people caring about so much more than themselves to yield results. I’ve never been into the ‘for our children’ ‘through our children’ ‘the next generation(s)’ mindset, to me each and every generation matters and I’m not interested in saying ‘in the future’ whilst we all continue to suffer in the meanwhile. I don’t want to put off to some tomorrow what I can do now and I want to do it myself not as a parent, I don’t want children in any way, it’s unnatural to me and I never want that to change but obviously I care for their welfare and am certainly not deficient in sympathy and empathy. I’m sad that I can’t envision beneficial change in society in my lifetime but I’m not the kind of person who thinks ‘my child/children will continue my goals’ and I’m not interested in hoping to pass on my characteristics and re-doing the whole thing again through another body so to speak.
William’s thoughts focus on the future a lot to the point of prophesising, he seems to have a lot of certainty. For example whilst our history hasn’t been long enough to tell he talks about matriarchy and patriarchy as cycles one turning into the other through eventual disenchantment, going on and on in seemingly pointless cycles and how he states that women need to be masculine and men feminine to understand each other. I can’t see a coming matriarchal female supremacy age as he does especially since so many females have perpetuated/enabled/actively participated in female suffering but he has a different mindset and much longer view encompassing people forming definite sides, plus uses the terms matriarchy, matrilineal, feminism, egalitarian and supremacist interchangeably with a foresight I don’t have and indeed hindsight but he does include a letter from author Vicki Noble regarding Catalhöyük and in line with local Turkish scholars she believed that site and matriarchal societies lacked warfare but due to the common usage of matriarchal implying just female patriarchy other terms such as matristic or as I posted from Max Dashú (HERE) ‘mother-right’ societies may be more fitting.
Unfortunately reading this book didn’t bring me any closer to an answer in terms of whether I should believe in anything, what and why. Thinking over Mum’s and my lives I know that there a lot of people who love the yo-yo effect they have on others, what I call the ‘push and the pull’, e.g. they like to keep you constantly confused or distracted so that you can’t see their influence yet they always have to be close to you in some way. For example on one job I worked for two departments at the same time and then later a third, early on one of the managers showed me a large tattoo he had of the all seeing eye and the other manager I had tried to be a mother figure to me and a co-worker who started on the same day yet wanted to completely control me whilst the guy she favoured even to the detriment of his other co-worker. She constantly said he and I were like the real children she had and so treated us the same, I was more independently respectful yet in her opinion lacked ambition so apparently needed more control and dominance, he was good at schmoozing so was treasured. The manager wasn’t happy that I was devoted to my Mother over her, I then found she and two other females had formed a physical triangle around me and became my ‘mirrors’ taking nicknames that were versions of my name, my looks, my interests and the she still wasn’t happy that I didn’t feel the need to join in with a ‘king of the castle/hill’, overly sexual, looking down on all I survey mentality of all the managers and their assistants nor a yes’m/sir personality; apparently being hardworking, capable and efficient wasn’t enough. Once in a group conversation about life I said that I couldn’t personally accept the pick’n’mix nature of religions membership where there’s either a strict set of rules governing every part of a person’s day or the opposite – being affiliated just so you ‘belong’ and had met the basic requirement for benefits, I should of known better even though I was quiet and reflective in my comment (the manager & their assistants were always the most boisterous) but she got up and proclaimed for the whole office that she didn’t care about me or what happened to me or what I thought and walked out (it wasn’t unusual for at least one of the three triangle women to have a tantrum). Shortly after she tried to match make me with an older man who had an ancient name I instinctively found repulsive, and then a younger man who was practically called Christ the God. When I finally left she didn’t participate in my leaving meals because I hadn’t asked her if I could leave but still showed gratitude, one of the others in the triangle in charge of the leaving card signing didn’t choose a ‘wish you well/sorry you’re leaving/good luck’ card but a Dorothy Gale surrounded by her ‘friends’ card (you know the story) (which actually is a version of my name) and then she wasn’t in for the goodbye meals, so one didn’t participate and the other ‘couldn’t’. It was a strange place with stranger people, the job I was experienced in was given to a man whose wife had influence, he did nothing but filing because I and another young woman did all the work, everybody had access to the area we worked in except me, I had to knock on the door each time even though I was entitled to access like everybody else. The second job I was going to get there was given to the woman who [later] did the leaving card though she had no experience in it. Her promotion was done by one of my former bosses without the consent of the hiring manager and caused permanent friction between them. The promoted triangle woman had previously worked in the cleaning dept and her successor also decided to move into a totally unrelated job which necessitated a lot of training for both of them, and I was assigned that job to do separate to the teamwork I did, this pleased the wannabe ‘mother figure’ woman who started calling me her ‘cleaning lady’ (I wasn’t doing physical cleaning). After that was sorted the triangle point sitting behind me got up in such a way that she rammed me into my desk, looked past me like I wasn’t there despite her colleagues comments and walked off and was always to try or take anything that was meant for me i.e. from desk cabinets to my chair. Later on an inspection it turned out that when I started work that my ‘mother figure’ manager nor the office administrator or their manager had shown me the induction papers and I was escorted out to read through and sign whilst supervised otherwise I wasn’t allowed back in to where my personal belongings were. I was asked why hadn’t I signed them before but I hadn’t been working there when they were introduced so didn’t know and it was their responsibility to go through it with each new employee, and newer employees names were on the list but not mine. There were lots of stupid things like that, even being told to sign another agreement everybody else had without reading it (though I was still within the deadline), I read it, queried it which seemed to undo its significance because once I queried they had to explain that most of it didn’t actually apply to those signing. However – I was surprised by one person who saw me reading a young adult, superficial alchemical fiction book and said “Are you interested in alchemy?” Before I could answer said he’d give me a book and left. The next day he gave me an encyclopaedia with so many Masonic images in it, printed on glossy paper many in full colour and their orthodox meanings. Prior I hadn’t even realized there was more to Alchemy than Chemistry and modern sterile science, nor that it was a codename for Masonic symbolism and when I left my managers were surprised because they’d been under the impression that I couldn’t/didn’t make ‘friends’ outside of their ‘circle’ but after I announced I was leaving found people from various depts even ones I didn’t work it, unrelated ones and from other sites came to visit or sent me well wishes. I have no issue making friends and getting on with people, I just don’t like being property. I’ve come across too many that love the yo-yo effect they have on others, e.g. we lived in one place, were burgled, were moved to a building on the opposite side of the road, got burgled again even though it was a secure building, secure floor and we were the last residence on the floor so the full length of the corridor away with other residences in between the entrance door and our place by the wall. A similar thing happened later where we moved to the opposite side of the road but the situation stayed the same (getting rags jammed up our drainpipes, neighbours with generators underneath us, stolen property, strange things happening on the 21-22nd of the month etc. Ironically when we were moved, the people who took our last residence started using our identities to buy goods/services and it was the postmen who told us about it (though they weren’t allowed to under their rules – thank you to those postmen) because they knew us and didn’t want to deliver those false letters. Mum was once chased by a person in a flashy Mercedes in that area and almost pushed into a van on another. Long before she was kidnapped by a group once when she was coming back from school, they claimed they were wealthy from the vehicle industry as usual big heads but she managed to call ‘home’ (ha, ‘home’, such a wrong word since it has loving connotations – how would she know was simply between abusers) and told them to call the police, which they did and the police surrounded the place. A generic example that many people can probably relate to is if you’re in a relationship and it’s going well they’ll try to cause issues, if it’s not going well they’ll try to get you back together to sort it out, and it goes back and forth, to and fro until it somehow ends.
When I think about the volume of vicious, vindictive people in Mum’s/My life who control and manipulate via a hidden yet obvious hand reading through this book reinforces to me that I’d be totally fine in a ‘boring’ harmonious, kind existence. Mum gets weird people trying to get weird information from her e.g. a man who came upto to her in a supermarket and started talking, he tried to befriend her and later said that she had lived in a currently famous and disputed temple, that he had been the gardener and that Shiv-Vishnu-Brahm[a]-Indr[a] were her bodyguards and she automatically said “NO, they are my enemies”. Later he admitted that she was right about them being enemies. On another occasion a woman sat next to her on a train and introduced herself as a so-called 33 degree mason and asked how to contact aliens, Mum said she’d heard from online sources that you can see them with night vision glasses and she didn’t know anything else, Mum then asked her about ‘chemtrails’ and pollution/toxifying the planet and the woman looked p*ssed off and said she had no idea about any of that, Mum changed seats to move away from her. Then there was a guru asking her the finer points on ancient gods to self-proclaimed exorcists asking what happens to people when they die! Without even trying or wanting it she’s like a magnet for weirdos, we’ve just lived like everyone else, not stood out and the hounders still pile up (and for some reason like to come & go when we do, sneeze and cough at us). Many years before that I remember finding out that some people in the area we lived in were spreading rumours calling us prostitutes and witches, it turned out people in my school were doing the same and I was so naive, Mum hadn’t told me about menstruation or sex and she’d always been quite religious (well not religious anymore, spiritual instead) and old fashioned so not fodder for such gossip, by the time I got to college I still barely knew anything except the little taught in school whilst everybody else was talking casually about it with terms I didn’t know and my sister is younger, I told her about menstruation but that was it. That said I’m used to groups ganging up on me whereas people are intimidated by Mum and sister although those who try to befriend us or were in our lives at some point aren’t shy about wanting gifts/charity even though it’s obvious we’ve almost always been under the breadline. Mum and I don’t ‘do’ cliques so that shouldn’t be very ‘interesting’ but I guess it doesn’t matter how you behave, people will find or make things to gossip about.
Where we really don’t agree
He describes Siva being a victim and prehistoric and constantly refers to the most popular image of Kali where in his regular phrase ‘she walks all over him’. William should have easily found along with that image is that by that stage she was unconscious and he conscious, he could afford to lie back and enjoy what we think of as masochistic sexuality, he’s actually the winner there. She destroyed the obvious enemies but you can only sustain certain states for so long and when reaching one level in trance state your head automatically goes back and the tongue sticks out (the protruding tongue being her trademark.) By the time she gets to him she’s not conscious at all and doesn’t know what’s going on and he safely looks like the passive non threatening party. Even the non-questioning believers realize that she’s lost control, though it’s explained as ecstasy – but who has sex with an unconscious/unknowing or asleep or confused person?.. Not someone who respects you. It’s like saying to a person ‘you asked for, you wanted it, you begged for it, you came here, it’s your fault’ [smirking about it in his case since it was so easy to sacrifice those he didn’t need – a ruthless person will weaken, trick, outnumber the opponent first before facing them, if they need to face them at all]. With him ushered in the male and consort Shakti triad. The native peoples were conquered. Also the ashes William refers to that some priests wear are from death and purification rituals not about becoming a White person (Shasan Kali is the one that wears ashes, the cemetery Kali, not all the Kalis that make up the whole Kali) though he’s on the right track with the colour and nudity of statues. But as he does find the Black goddess is so important and innate to people worldwide that she had to survive and did, demoted to controlled aspect of a consort. She hasn’t been destroyed but has been long tortured, there are many things worse than death and death on this planet is described as transitional recycling it’s not even an end – it just goes on and on until you’re ‘enlightened’ and surprise surprise, you become something else that is aware of ‘oneness’ rather than dissolving into it. People are obsessed with immortality.
I don’t agree with quite a bit of his interpretation; he acknowledges that Kali is the oldest goddess, indeed oldest deity in the world, how she is or represents our much more ancient culture, predating history and that goddess and matriarchal cultures as he calls them weren’t war like, they were peaceful and yet he states Margaret Thatcher would have been a perfect example of a Kali follower. That was almost the last straw… He contradicts himself because later he calls Thatcher out for being completely ruthless, selfish, anti-feminist and her way can’t and didn’t work and yet he sees some of the stories of Kali as prophecy, so her & in his opinion Thatcher’s way will apparently work and then if/when we achieve the Mother’s way (after the Dark Mother) he then says it can’t work because it’s boring (a so-called 33 degree mason called Shiv[a] actually tried to associate himself with Mum – whom she met at a very poignant, atrocious court trial – pretending to befriend whilst not being friendly really, and stated “it was boring when you were here, we didn’t like happiness, I preferred crime otherwise there was no business’, and on another occasion “why did you come back? [Back from where?] Will you take me to your home?” Mum answered “How?” He didn’t reply, instead he decided “I’m not going to help you [with anything/life in general/nothing at all.” Ha like anyone’s ever helped anyway. It’s amazing how that guy claimed all kinds about himself but told her nothing about her except like her so-called parents used to tell her when she was little that she was married to the male god triad. B*stards. Mum didn’t even know who Kali was her whole life up until a few years ago, when she was little her ‘family’ always used other names, she didn’t even realize that massive statue that scared her was Kali at the time and her ‘family’ made her worship the male triad specifically, yet they had no problem telling me about Kali – although in their twisted ‘wife of Shiv[a]’ version). I can see that many people on this planet find harmony boring but saying Thatcher would make a good example of a Kali follower to me is like saying Hilary Clinton and despicable women like her are what we need, make things better, have our best interests at heart, will wake us up. No thanks. If you don’t know something just say so. When I don’t know something, I say it much to the annoyance of everybody, especially since I don’t do it based on who I dis/like (I’ve upset Mum a lot because she loves Kali and I’m just looking to understand but Mum also has the ‘know thyself’ harmony and strength which I don’t but greatly admire, even if not understanding makes it difficult).
Where we agree to disagree
I’m glad I read it because my own words have really sunk in, I don’t need or want to believe in the same things as people I don’t like/don’t agree with their ‘ethics’, everyone studying our past/present knows that history’s been changed/re-written/coded/hidden and that conflicting truths are kept in our consciousness in one way or another by influential people. I’ve known and learned that a lot of high level influential people really do believe in their own public information machines, the religions they’ve made, the official line in academic subjects, their titles/dress/ritual codes and aren’t deemed (let alone lesser levels) as needing to know about root cultures and prehistory or timelines/calendars so unless they study outside of their lifestyles and find out it’d never occur to them that they’re going along with the bravado circus show as well. There’s a lot of confusion but if some of them really know about and in believe in root cultures and prehistory and have gone to all these efforts to preserve the info and pass it along but in ways they wouldn’t be persecuted for I realize that I can’t reconcile the methods they’ve gone to, chameleon like undercover scenarios being like their ‘enemy’ to survive. They’re not the everyday people who’ve kept their household oral and keepsake traditions alive, there were and are plenty of those in any place where there’s a culture change but the majority of prior belief survivors are those who’ve had the resources, the power and ability to keep it going against other equally or thereabouts powerful, wealthy, resourceful people. Like I’ve always said it’s a [ongoing] struggle for world power and I’ve never had any desire to dominate or control, to own the world or anything, nor have I ever wanted anyone/thing to own/have any claim/right to me, I don’t want to be a part of the ‘game’. I also realize that if it was a fight between real egalitarian people from the old days vs the warlike people who conquered then the former would have died out or wouldn’t be in positions of power to spread their message. The internet has been a ‘game changer’ – obscure information and information available previously only to academics and security has been made available to those who decide to read it amongst the masses of superficial items too (like in any library or shop). But I’ve never believed the ‘end justifies the means’, the ‘means’ makes you who you are, you can reach the same goal by different means and not be anything alike. William says as much too but doesn’t seem as bothered by the power struggle and puts his faith in the ‘type’ of women and male supporters he doesn’t seem to like in order to get to a Mother culture that perhaps he would like.
At the crux
Technically we’re not all masons but in practise anyone from any belief system is masonic, you don’t have to be a paid up member of a lodge or honoured with a title of some sort (that includes professional and academic titles that come with respected influence) let alone higher up the ladder. Being masonic is simply being part of any organisation that has influence in society and using their tools/information/services so I guess we all are to extent, you can’t get away from it, even walking on the road you’ll come across the signs, the names, people, the architecture, there are territorial ownership markings and rules everywhere (and where ownership isn’t obvious conflicting interests manage to ‘share’ the area like the Antarctic. It’s a crime to be a ‘vagrant’, to be homeless, public spaces they’ve deemed as ultimately theirs under prefecture. All the land and water and air, even outer space, there’d be nowhere left with the way people behave. So they’ve made us all masonic in looks at least and a lot in mind. You can’t abstain, abdicate, opt out otherwise you can’t live in society, have anything to do with it because you won’t be allowed to and most of society won’t want anything to do with you, so mutual peace is out because your existence is a threat to society’s paranoid reality – people that have opted out and tried to be self-sustainable get infiltrated and labelled as a cult that are put down military style or tribes that are culled in the name of big business and public need for resources, it’s terrible and moreso given that all the popular, accepted, tolerated systems in societies are cults, just bigger. I would like to abstain, abdicate, not fight, live in peace and harmony, and I don’t see why actually I couldn’t; I’m a well behaved, reliable, loving, trustworthy, caring person but technically I couldn’t because I couldn’t be a member of any society since every society wants your full agreement/cooperation/surveillance or ignorance to participate or have access to anything on the planet, that’s what makes you a good citizen, it’s not about being a good person.
So I just keep getting on with it like everybody does, but I won’t believe and it’s not out of my own ‘free will’ – a concept invented to be compromised. You wouldn’t have to assert it if you weren’t born with it already used on your behalf. It’s contract law and with obvious trade most people aren’t against that. ‘The Law of One’ or the ‘Ra Files’ don’t apply because people are not the original beings that lived like that and Ra or the beings who used that name, those aligned with the ancient Egyptians weren’t like that, even if they claimed they were we’ve seen they were just another empire. Maybe we don’t have to be original beings but we don’t have their abilities and non-harm ethics, and when we don’t have those we’re just living (and not necessarily thinking/fully conscious) tools/weapons. I personally think this planet had more than enough not to need it yet we’ve come to know scarcity and poverty as normal and some people would have spread us even further into non colonised areas of the planet (of which there are plenty) and outer space to manage hence driving out/killing off the other animals who do live there, causing more soil erosion and changing the environments. It’s not like we’d go and live there sustainably, no we want to have the lifestyles that cause pollution and dead zones. We’d import ourselves, the animals, and plants we like/want/need and then do the same thing all over again. We can’t fix anything until we fix ourselves. We do need help but I don’t know who/what from and whilst I haven’t solved the initial conundrum – things are getting clearer.
Sidenote – Jupiter Ascending
Enki is known as a wisdom god (and hence William refers to him as such which made me remember this film), a ‘scientist’ or ‘chief engineer’ and obviously high level and who brings about the freedom of Inanna Queen of Heaven, and that the character Tammuz was her lover. Like with ‘the Passion of the Christ’ (2004) and notably witty casting of Jim Caviezel as Jesus Christ, Jupiter Ascending took that further. The main characters in that film were a mish mesh of names from different cultures, though many had British accents, in overlapping sequence e.g. Channing Tatum as Caine Wise (both the ‘mark of Cane’ and Enki the Wise, a ‘splice’ and a dog one like Joshua the educated avid reader and loner in tv series in Dark Angel, 2000-2002, who also ended up killing his brother). The actress Niki Amuka-Bird as Diomika Tsing or should we say Norse-Indian Demeter Singh played by a Black woman – Demeter being the mother goddess who rescues her daughter from the underworld in a later version of the Inanna story which then became the Ishtar version and then the Persephone version where she’s actually married to the God of the Underworld who by that time is male (Isis was also the Queen of Heaven and Quan/Guan Yin is also related to the story), Tuppence Middleton as Kalique a White skinned ‘Kali’, they very definitely made Jupiter a cleaner and since it’s the job of the Daughter (smaller/younger version of the Mother) to understand the suffering of creation though in practise that means others relish having her as an ignorant servant undermining any chance she has of rectifying the situation. Maximilian (many and long standing over the millennia Mother) Jones in Father form who just happens to have and pass on cosmic interest and in this film with the desired control of the Daughter the Mother-turned-Father is removed early and the false Mother shown as the real Mother due to birth is kept and used as insurance against the Daughter confusing the whole meta-narrative. And an actress that looks like the famous Tomb Raider i.e. someone who goes under/in-ground and revelations happen based off oh big surprise Indiana/Inanna Jones. And Balem I mean Baal as the mother killing son. They’ve basically ‘rescued’ the ‘Fallen Goddess’. Fallen Goddess – to Earth (the Underworld to Inanna) – Scenario so they could of used any Wisdom goddess or Sophia herself but no, that would be asking too much, they had to make her out to be pretty damned unsavoury instead being guilty of the crimes of human and Human/Sacred Worker-turned-God i.e. being predators and efficient ones making life into a business. Very modern.
A major and usually ignored issue with that is in the idea of other, stronger, more able predators they need to eat, need to snack, to consume, need their medicine, cosmetics, research carried out too – they’re just trying to live and you can’t blame them for that, do you expect them to wipe themselves out for their prey’s benefit? Would you get rid of humanity for the sake of all the animals that we commonly change the names of to disassociate them from what they were and then consume/use them (e.g. cow to beef, birds to poultry, pigs to pork), howabout for the sake of all the lab animals (professionals call those they test on ‘subjects’ which dehumanizes/deanimizes them and makes being result orientated easier), the endangered, extinct? Look at a body part picture of a cow and see how none of it is wasted. Everyone that eats veal and lamb can’t really complain to something that wants to eat their children right? Even if they streamline the ‘harvest’ and say only take a certain amount at spaced intervals, only a few, maybe even the ones we don’t want or offer up as a sacrifice, how about if they only take a bit from each so each sample can recover and live a healthy life afterwards? ‘To be fair’ they don’t have to be so nice but could farm and kill us humanely and even say ‘thank you Earth for this meal, I truly appreciate it and thank it for its life, it nobly gave up its life to keep the circle of life going’ and then ‘lovingly’ prepare the meal/youth product or whatever. As long as you’re sincere and thankful that makes it ok right? Nope? Well, had to ask. They have every right to live too don’t they if we’re all ‘god’s creatures’ (which is well up for debate), it’s not their fault (or is it) they’re atop of the convenient food chain/pyramid; we are mighty tasty, some of us even sweet, a delicacy, we should be honoured they desire us so much. That doesn’t float your boat either? Hmm like the saying goes if abattoirs had glass walls more people would be put off. They also like us for sexual purposes too and perhaps body snatching both us and other animals… That is – ‘mixed-race’ but it’s not ok when we put it like that is it. In the film the ‘something must be done’ is conveyed as ‘oops sh*t got smashed up big time as a side effect’, the usurping one’s creator-parent is still there but doesn’t go back far enough. The ‘do unto others as you would unto yourself’ aspect isn’t addressed, we’re told it’s just like slaughtering a herd of cattle or taking eggs from chickens but we’re never faced with the point that if we’re to have ‘justice’ over our slave masters then the same could/should happen to us. In the meantime (just some side irony here) some of them e.g. the competitors of the Abraxas (Abraxas implying archons from Gnosticism, which would ‘explain’ why the other aliens involved were beneath them) family are looking for pets to oo and ahh and ‘aren’t you SO cuuute!’ over, it comes with totally adorable habitats free plus clothes, toys and all the food you can eat. Any takers? 😉
The reincarnation through exact genetics was interesting, not something I’ve heard before and reminds me of cloning but there were so many unexplained plotholes for the sake of a Fifth Element (film, 1997, where the rescued goddess figure is played by another Mila-named actress) mega love distraction undoing all the profound parallel that humans treat other animals in the same ways they’d protest to on this ironic farm/prison planet of abundance where no creature should be homeless of hungry and what it’s like to see shop displays of food or shelter and not understanding why you aren’t allowed near, why you’re ‘vermin’ and even exterminated for being cold and hungry like that’s the crime rather than the fact that there shouldn’t be masses of vulnerable at all let alone with everything paraded in their face. Also the fifth element is not love as they well know and in this day and age quite frankly life force can easily just be hormones which can ironically and terribly be increased/decreased manually in a body regardless of a person’s judgement/consciousness. She was supposed to clean up on the macro scale not go back to the cage leaving everything as it is for what a boyfriend getting his wings back and being able to fly around in anti-gravity boots?
At least up until the ending Jupiter was extraordinary; impressive balance between an ‘average person’ and someone super strong, she handled the situation with exceptional fortitude, bearing and intelligence, far better and with more conscience than many in nowhere near such a situation. As for all those wondering how the Queen of the [location] could be a cleaner and looking down on her for it – how much housework do you think the royal family has done and look at how popular they are. Look down on yourself for cleaning up your homes and for the people you care about, or all the cleaners who clean up after us. It reminds me of the aristocracy in the US who are so proud that their ancestors arrived on the Mayflower and at not being one of the people they sent ahead to do their dirty work. Although at least the film showed that even the one man wrecking machine Caine needed help, everybody does no one is an island.
I found it strange though that a US film had the protagonist from a Russian family and the British accents of her helpers. Also, due to the honey bee comparison I’ve heard some think honey is representative of blood, more specifically plasma. Blood isn’t the only life force, each part of the animal body has a function (as we know because we use body parts in our own medical treatments and indeed ritual magic) and symbolism; the colour and texture of the ‘fountain of youth’ bath in conjunction with the symbolism of the bees suggests to me that honey represents the ooplasma in ovum and that was the avenue to finding Jupiter, that and/or possibly the female vaginal fluids i.e. mucus, white blood cells, remains of old cells and a liquid that is like sweat (but unless filtered the bath was more water like).
The end scene shows Venus and Mercury together in the sky or Venus as Mercury – Inanna (who they’ve called Jupiter) is depending on which culture you look at was the morning and/or evening star, and the flying boots represent Mercury/Hermes. Caine wore them when he didn’t have his wings otherwise he would have been the winged messenger. It’s an awkward (the film is) telling of the story and I would have preferred Ninshubur (Inanna’s assistant) shown and her and Inanna rather than a twist of Inanna and Caine/Dumuzi (the earlier version of Tammuz). Dumuzi was supposed to be taken to the underworld and left there.
And another thing
The whether to believe scenario has heightened for people with the [finally] admitted existence of Nibiru and I’m not one of the people that is clinging to something just in case or for certainty as to what will happen but I don’t know what the admittance and multiple theories about its orbit means, especially when it’s closest to Earth and its effects as it leaves. I just feel ignorant even with all the info of its past effects. I just think = this planet and all its residents, all their hopes and fears concentrated…
Here’s a screenshot from perhaps an old favourite of many:
Poignant isn’t it, the same old story and packed into boy meets girl/girl meets boy for some reason, most likely that obsession with immortality and inheritance/or calling it inheritance (‘that person believed/did/had enough for the rest of us’ mentality) as usual but in a more ‘acceptable’ version for people.
I’d written the bulk of this post but didn’t know where it was going, much like my conundrum. I knew I was leaning on the side of being against ‘destiny’ whatever plan that is of other people, or various people’s competing plans but I was trying to keep an open mind.
Whilst I disagreed with or felt uncomfortable about some of William Bond’s words there was a lot I identified with and knew I sounded similar the only real difference being he was confident in the future, in his certainties of it whereas I didn’t and still don’t, but that’s ok because I’m certain of me in my present.
I’ve also just read a book that reminded me of the tv show ‘Early Edition’ (review HERE) where the main character is at a crossroads and suddenly receives a ‘calling’, he doesn’t know anything about the people behind this higher purpose but they know when & where he is and how to use him. They make him help and rescue other people, to be an unsung hero, a ‘real’ everyday hero who could put glorified heroes to shame but they know everything and so have control over him, they could turn him in (probably to people who work under their level) and have him ruined as a vigilante, he’s a Manchurian Candidate waiting to happen. They operate with military precision, in secrecy; through coercion, intimidation, thrill and reward and ultimately they orchestrate the situations so as to groom/create the characters they want for their ongoing storylines. The view is to make people into better people, more caring people, giving them a hard yet doable choice to get past apathy and walk the walk. The protagonist doesn’t have convictions, he’s a smart alec with even more cynical and droll friends (except one) and demanding/mouthy bosses/families, they mostly don’t have goals and are listlessly going through an unsatisfactory life; they’re bored, disappointed and frustrated. The protagonist shows serious potential after piquing the interest of a controller type character and gets the chance to change things. It’s not leading or living by example, to show people they can do the same since it’s covert but the book bills it that way. The problem is the controller is playing both or all sides, creating conflict, trauma that both desensitizes people and drives a few others wanting it to stop but not being strong enough to do something about it unless pushed further. The over arching theme is romantic/sexual relations, yearning for it, hiding from it, abusing it. As a constant reminder and by using it as a reward the protagonist sees the tougher challenges as bearable and even worth it, tinting the perspective so he believes it is his calling even though he learns the situations are manufactured. The author might as well have said ‘pain and suffering for the greater good’.
You know how we’re told we can’t prioritize who gets treated first based on who is crying the loudest, it’s not always true but from what I’ve seen (and in this book) some who’ve suffered the worst suffered in [near] silence because they couldn’t (in so much pain) or wouldn’t for numerous reasons including not wanting to be a burden or seen as weak and hence increasing their chances of being left behind yet quietly hoping someone would notice their plight. That kind of thing just can’t continue, no one should have to fear being left behind or forgotten and no one should be sacrificed/have to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the many who wouldn’t/couldn’t go through the same let alone want to know about it (when they do it’s usually for the salacious feeling of intel/gossip rather than sympathy/empathy, and any of which is temporary, quickly fading for the next story.
I’ve come across enough loss to see that others can be used as a satellites; horrible things happening to them in order to get a reaction out of another like they only matter because you care about them. Like they’re toys. Like they’re nothing unless they’re acknowledged. I hate that. It’s not easy being the one left behind bearing the burden either or being in a situation where you remember and many around don’t for various reasons such as trauma, medication and indoctrination; nor when those who know what happened remind you of it to make it harder sometimes using others similar to those lost for re-enactment. People with the personalities, drive, ability and resources to make things happen and they choose this tailspin of drama and relief (when you’ve been greatly frustrated or upset over a long period of time even a little relief at moments can make things seem much better, make you feel able to continue and that’s the rub because if it does continue you’re used to it). And all for what – to feel like they’re creating, doing something, making progress? With ability like that they could make things better themselves, not worse to get possibly better via someone else – do they sit around betting on the results? I don’t condone it, not at all. Even if I don’t know what I believe in, I know what I don’t; I don’t believe we exist to be players and pawns and that disbelief is belief enough.