In fact, you were lied to.
A New Moon message from Planet Waves.
This is Planet Waves on Substack. If your subscription is directly through Planet Waves, you will find this content in the My Account feed on our website. If you read the preceding sentence, you will be less confused. Thank you for your business and your trust. — efc
Dear Friend and Reader:
The seemingly hot new meme — the way to build audience and game the algos and rack up paying subscribers — is to tell people they were lied to. This is now big business — the modern version of P.T. Barnum’s big top.
I’ve been tracking this trend for several years. It started seeming absurd, but now it’s built to a frenzy. A feeding frenzy, and you’re being served for lunch. The latest emerging market: de-education. The lies came through education, so now you need to have all of that erased. Then we can enjoy the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.
Maybe you’ve heard some of this. Maybe you’re into it, staying up late at night following the clues, in hot pursuit of the truth.
Ohhhh! The Earth really isn’t a sphere. In the “corrected cosmology,” “outer space” does not exist. Gravity does not exist. Einstein was an idiot and a fraud. Nobody has ever “isolated” an atom, so there’s no such thing as an element. Biological cells do not exist; you’ve never seen one, have you?
It’s All Lies! And it Gets Worse…
Not only is Paul McCartney dead, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones never wrote a song, and the reason that’s true is far scarier: the entire Sixties was programmed like a playlist. Nothing that happened was real; nothing anyone said or did was sincere. It was all the result of social engineering. You were merely reading from a groovy script.
The Grateful Dead of all people went along with the plan; they were just drug dealers. Robert Hunter never meant any of those words he didn’t actually write. “Eyes of the World” and “Uncle John’s Band” were made up by advertising executives.
Nobody really cared about anything back then. They didn’t care about stopping the war or creating a fair society. It was all fake, and you fell for it. The astrology did not matter (Uranus conjunct Pluto opposite Chiron.)
Of course, that Paul McCartney allegedly never wrote a song serves as rationalization for the fact that you probably never wrote a song, certainly not one that people love and can sing from memory.
Now you can feel better about yourself. And all those songs you love — if the songs were not real, neither was your love nor the good feelings you felt. It was all just a stupid Coca-Cola commercial.
Of Dinosaurs and the Atomic Bomb
Not only that, they lied to you about the dinosaurs. They didn’t really exist. All the bones and fossils you saw in museums are fake. You were fool enough to believe it. The question is, why exactly does this matter? I mean actually matter. Raise your hand if you can tell me.
Next case: the atomic bomb isn’t real; we old folks were all worried for nothing, hiding under our school desks and building bomb shelters. There’s no threat, and there never was.
All those people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t really evaporate in a millisecond, or get radiation sickness. Conventional weapons were used — yes, somehow an airplane carried 15,000 tons of TNT and dropped it all at once. (Somehow under this theory, that makes mass murder OK.)
The American servicemen and civilians subjected to more than 100 above-ground nuclear bomb tests in Nevada and New Mexico were lying too. None of it ever happened. Animals allegedly subjected to the Nevada and New Mexico tests never had their irradiated meat sold on the market, because they weren’t irradiated. They were never there.
The latest breaking story: turns out Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who ran the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1953 and 1954, and destroyed the lives, careers and reputations of many, was given a bad rap. He was actually a good guy. You were lied to about him too.
This is About the Effects of the Internet
The list goes on. Many of the issues already existed; they have been retrieved and amplified by the internet — the place where acquired knowledge and human experience come to die, and where everything is totally true because someone said so.
As if it were not enough that digital technology has the approximate effect of LSD, we now have the computer programs to hallucinate for us, to make up newly minted fake knowledge, and to fall in love with.
This is not about technology. What counts is what technology does to people — to you — and to your sense of being, and your relationship to existence. Older people are weakened by 30 years of overexposure to the digital environment, projecting themselves onto the synthetic astral plane. Younger people don’t know what they missed except maybe the sound of a telephone equipped with an actual bell.
Prior to that, the fantasyland of TV had already turned everyone into the director and producer of their own lives. This meant living in ways that were played out in faux dramas, just like TV shows are make believe.
And now, because you’re allegedly so stupid, congratulations. You need artificial intelligence, like an artificial limb.
The Fundamental Contradiction
Note the fundamental problem with the “they all lied to you about everything” genre.
All of these presenters are merely giving their opinion and not providing proof. I’ve watched many of these presentations and they are barely worth a good laugh. Their followers, who take opinion or pretend evidence as fact, are falling into the same trap again — the trap of belief.
This is about being passive. All you have to do is sit and listen and be amazed by the next generation of bedazzling bullshit.
You’re not being encouraged to go to Utah and find your own fossil. You’re not being given several sides of any issue. You're not being encouraged to go to Hiroshima, or to read the official reports on radiation experiments. If you want to know the truth about these matters, it’s available, though you will have to work to find it.
The core issue here is whether you choose to seek understanding or are content just believing things. Where belief is present, understanding cannot be. They are fundamentally opposite. What you believe, you do not understand. What you understand, you have no need to believe.
You Were Lied To — About Yourself.
Here’s my take. You were lied to — about yourself. None of this bullshit matters. You were also lied to when you were told to trust authority and not find out for yourself — and listening to a YouTube does not qualify as such.
You were lied to about your creativity and your ability to do meaningful, beautiful things. You were lied to about the power of critical thinking, and denied the basic rudiments. You were lied to about money and denied basic financial literacy.
You were lied to about your body and its ability to heal. You were lied to about your capacity for love. You were lied to about your sexuality as a means of developing intimacy and bliss. You were told it was all about sin, politics and civil rights.
You were not told that you contain the only direct connection to God that matters to you, and that you don’t need anyone else to get you there. Most likely, the ‘anyone else’ in the form of a spiritual leader, is a distraction.
If you are spending your nights “investigating” these things, or if you believe any of them without firsthand information, that’s the perfect ruse. It’s the cover story — for your own spiritual quest. These “issues” are all obstacles in the way of gaining an understanding of who you are. These are all distractions from your prime directive, which is to know thyself — and to know how to take care of yourself.
With love,
Your faithful astrologer,
(Special note about the allegedly “flat Earth.” Whether the planet is a sphere is not what you would have to determine; you would only have to understand how GPS works, or how any eclipse of the Moon or Sun can be accurately predicted. Then you will have your answer. And if you’re worried about Paul McCartney, stop thinking. Put on side 2 of Abbey Road and listen straight through for all 22 minutes — in the dark. You will have your answer. As far as the dinosaurs are concerned, it only takes on fossil to prove it. If you really cared, you would go out looking for it, specifically, to Utah. The skeletons in the museums are mostly fake, but that does not prove or disprove anything.)
Second comment.
A critique about some of your arguments.
You have to be careful about arguments like "you have to understand GPS or how eclipses work to understand why the Earth is a sphere" because they will tell you that's a circular argument. The GPS and the current model for eclipses assume that the planet is a sphere. First, you need to establish that the premises of your argument do not assume what you want to show, which is that this planet is a sphere. Second, that the premises are true. Third, that there is a necessary and sufficient connection between the premises and the conclusion. It may be better to say that GPS works because the Earth is a sphere. Premise: sphericity; Conclusion, GPS works.
On the other hand, the earth should resemble more an ellipsoid, than a sphere, because of the poles.
One problem of flat earth people is that their positive argument, which they hide, is impossible. The esoteric argument is that the Earth is infinite. It has no beginning and no end. Also, infinite depth. So that's five out of six directions or senses of the space. The last direction is "Heaven" or "air" or the rest of the universe.
So, in reality, their argument is that the Earth-Heavens system is equal to the totality of what exists.
It is difficult to prove an argument that appeals to infinite lengths, infinite areas and infinite volumes. Has an infinite volume ever been isolated and purified, bro?
One way to attempt this barbarity, is proof by exhaustion. One has to disprove all other competing arguments, including "the Earth is a ball at the center of the Universe" and its variants. And disproving all arguments is a lot of work.
My impression is that the flat earthers do not believe the earth is flat. Not to mention what they mean by flat is not the usual meaning of that word. What they are doing is a campaign of marketing and education, inviting people to learn marketing techniques by example, for the purpose of increasing understanding. Try to watch some of their arguments to disprove the earth is a body of finite surface and finite volume, using the lens of marketing: "the speaker is trying to use some marketing technique to persuade me to buy this product."
Also, realize that if anyone claims "the flat earth is an spy agency psyop" that person would be asked to produce probatory evidence. Which is difficult at this moment. Maybe in the future, 50 years from now, there is a FOIA request that receives declassified documents that prove that the spy agencies created the flat earth theory. Of course this is not useful to us now. So... how do we know that it was the spies?
Maybe the anti-semites have the easiest (albeit flawed) argument: there are many Jews in the flat earth space, so it has to be the spies who invented it.
With regards to atoms. If they are composed of parts, they are not atoms. And it is a problem that there are so many elements. Each element should have specific and characteristic properties, but that is not what element theory says today. What it says is that all the chemical properties of atoms are explained exclusively by the electrons of the outermost shell. The valence electrons. So, in reality, there is nothing chemically different between Calcium and Magnesium. The difference is physical: the atomic number. The number of protons. The atom of one element has more mass than the atom from another element although they belong to the same group (or column.) But, this doesn't explain why we are told that beryllium compounds or lithium compounds are toxic to animals. The idea here is that these atoms compete with Sodium and Magnesium because they have the same electronic configuration. Thus, biological processes that depend on Sodium cations and Magnesium cations are stopped. Poisoned. No more cellular energy. Animals die from asphyxia. Nice theory, very Germanic. But, is it true? Is it the correct explanation why those compounds are toxic? Same argument can be done with Fluorine and Chlorine. Or, in ionic form, fluoride and chloride.
If anything, you could argue that the elements are: neutrons, protons, electrons and maybe gluons. Four elements to explain everything material. Nifty. But that's not the game we are playing.
But maybe the subatomic bodies or particles are also unnecessary to explain mass, charge, electrostatic force, etc. And maybe they do not exist outside a blackboard in a classroom.
There was a man named Ernst Mach. He was and old scientist, very influential, from the mid 1800s. He opposed atomic theory by the end of the century and the first years of the 20th, when he was already old. He argued that it was not necessary to invent those categories to explain anything about chemistry or physics. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ernst-mach/ and https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-7288-0_13
Basically, Mach was arguing like Tesla: science is human action. It has to be bound by our human senses. (Not unlike astrology only makes "sense" on this planet.) Planck and others expelled Man's senses and psychology from the theory of Nature. That's at the bottom of this very interesting issue.
I guess this is interesting to your theory of digital conditions. The electric shift, let's say. Because, the hard line atomism is meant to eliminate any and all metaphysics. Any and all reference to the mind, the spirit, life force, non-corporeal entities, etc. It's very difficult to speak about spiritual things from atomism.
If so, psychogenic illness is impossible.
Also, notice that the philosophical standard of today is that the mind does not exist. It doesn't have an ontology. The mind is ***only*** a product of the brain. This view also seems to be a basic premise assumed by all neuroscientists.
Which is a problem, in many ways. In particular, it can be argued that there is no objective morality if there is no mind. It's all a matter of opinion. So, rape may be legalized, right?
Were spiritual concepts and the idea of the mind invented long ago just to put a limit to violence between humans by deriving good and bad moral action from those concepts?
So, why would any atomist argue that it is immoral for industries to pollute the air, the water, etc? Based on what? The only possibility here is that they atomists opine that it is preferable to not have pollution. A simple matter of personal preference.
This all leads to the debate of value-free science and humanistic science, which is far too long.
Last critique. With respect to Atomic bombs. I have Kurt in my mind. Dresden received a firebombing a few months before Japan. Quote "135,000 thousand Hansels and Gretels were baked like Gingerbread men" from Mother Night. That number has been revised down a few times. Isn't it weird how people fight over numbers of victims? And no one feels offended by the shrinking of the number because they were Germans and they deserved it, right?
More than 700 British aircraft bombed the place in a series of raids. About 4,000 tons of explosives and incendiaries. Freeman Dyson wrote that it was all the British doing. Not the Americans.
So, unless the 15 kiloton TNT equivalents is false, and they needed much less to attack Hiroshima, the 7 big B29 aircraft bombers that were officially used would not be enough to deliver enough conventional bombs. Maybe, those huge airships can throw 10 tons of conventional bombs each. It is not impossible for the Americans to exaggerate blast yield, and to hide many aircraft. But it is a difficult argument to prove.
However, there is the radiation issue. There are pictures of American commanders visiting Hiroshima in August or September 1945. And there is the argument that the levels of radiation measured do not match the amount of Uranium used. Which leads us to the argument that most of that Uranium (and also the Plutonium in Nagasaki) was not consumed in the reaction. So, the efficiency of the atomic bomb, if it was an atomic bomb, would be much smaller than that official 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent suggests.
It can also be that Michael Palmer is repeating counter-propaganda from that American/British Doctor who made the argument first. That it was interesting in the 1940s for the Americans to create the impression that maybe the bombs were not as perfect as the official version claimed. So, which propaganda is more false: the bombs were perfect, the bombs mostly failed, there were no bombs?
In the end, it all boils down to whether one believes the word of the US Military or not. Because the credibility of the evidence they provide depends on how credible their word is.
Hello Eric.
I have subscribed to make two comments: one observational, other critical.
First comment
March 14 1879 11:30 Local 48N24, 10E0
That's for Albert Einstein birth chart. Like you, a Pisces rising Cancer. Many scientists birth charts have show planets in Pisces. Moon is in Sag and Jupiter is in Aquarius, house 8 ot 9 depending on the system.
There is something rather surprising: Jupiter Square Pluto in Taurus.
Surprising because, don't they say that Jupiter Square Pluto means irrationality?
Also, just imagine the inner monologue of Pluto in Taurus. Yikes!
Then, there is Neptune also in Taurus. Double whammy.
Also interesting Asc conjunct Vesta. A pacifist?
I have read in some places that Cancer is a good sign for mathematicians. Because: a) intuition, and b) fluid intelligence for problem solving (mammalian brain you commented the other day.)