Santa Claus

nemo

Jedi
Roughly a year ago I saw the following documentary:
The Pharmacratic Inquisition on googlevideo.
I enjoyed it enough to buy the accompanying book Astrotheoloy & Shamanism (Unveiling the Law of Duality in Christianity and Other Religions)
by Jan Irvin + Andrew Rutajit. Two things have to be noted though. One, the authors are not academic historians but laymen in their own search
for truth. Second, in their case that in involves the historical exploration of the use of entheogens through time and very likely the experimential
use of same (which, admittetly is somewhat contrary to this site). It`s been heavily influenced by John Marco Allegro, author of The Sacred
Mushroom And The Cross (1970). Allegro, a linguist, was part of the translator team of the Dead Sea Scrolls and his heredical book (in the eyes
of the church) pretty much ended his academic career.
In light of informations later found on the SOTT pages, I`d like to distance myself somewhat from the path the two authors are wandering upon.
I`d still like to share some of their findings regarding Santa Claus and Christmas, if only for your entertainment.
I assume much of their findings to be faulty - but then again - lack of knowledge on these matters prevent me from making a final judgement.
I leave that to the more learned forumites, who are hereby invited to debunk the following (dis)-informations.
Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit said:
It seems as though an important Christmas tradition is to never question the origin of the traditions themselves.
Why do we bring a tree into our house to celebrate xmas (abreveations by nemo)? If it is a christian holiday, then, where in the bible does it say to
bring a tree into our house?. In addition, why does it have to be a pine or other coniferous tree? Why do we decorate it? Why are the xmas colors red,
white and green? Why do we put red and white presents UNDER the tree? Why do we hang stockings on the hearth of the fireplace? Who is this Santa
character and why does he do the strange things that he does? Did a man in a red and white suit EVER crawl down someone`s chimney with a sack
full of goodies?
Here they quote Paul Devereux, The Long Trip: A Prehistory of Psychedelia, 1997:
According to Rogan Taylor, perhaps the most amusing hint of amanita-based shamanism may well be enshrined, perhaps by accident,
in the popular contemporary image of Santa Claus. The figure of father Christmas evolved over centuries out of pagan traditions, but the modern
image of Santa owes most to the elements cobbled together in the 1820ies by Professor Clement Clark Moore of Albany, New York, along with
illustrators Thomas Nast and Moritz von Schwind, both of Germanic descent. Taylor feels that some traditional elements got drawn into their vision,
perhaps from the professor`s wide reading, or from the illustrator`s Old World links - or both. He points out that Santa`s robe of red, edged with
white, contains the colors of Amanita Muscaria, and that the idea of Santa clambering down the chimney evokes the entry via the smoke hole into
Siberian yurts during winter. Moreover, the reeindeers that pull the sleigh can be seen as a link to the reeindeer-herder tribes who took the magic
mushrooms. And the magic flight of Santa Claus through the midwinter night sky is a superb expression of the basis of all shamanism - ecstasy,
or the flight of the spirit.
And finally, on the Christmas Tree:
Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit said:
The xmas tree is not just a symbol for eternal life, which is what many christian children are told. It is literally the
Tree of Knowledge from the garden of Eden. Metaphorically, Jesus "comes from the trees" by saying that his father was a carpenter. The Amanita is
a fruit of this Tree of Knowledge/Life because neither the A. muscaria nor the Amanita pantherina can grow without a tree as their host. The A. muscaria
mushrooms flourish under pine trees and other coniferous trees such as spruce, larch, cedar and fir. Also, they flourish under betula trees such as the Birch.
These trees remain undisturbed summer and winter. The A. pantherina prefers to grow under quercus trees like the Oak. The major differences between
these two are that A. pantherina is smaller, blackish in color, is 4X more potent than its muscaria cousin, and prefers oak trees. These mushrooms are quite
literally the fruit of the tree because of the mycorrhizal partnership that they have with the roots of these particular types of trees. Just as Mother Nature
needs trees to grow apples, she also needs trees to grow these sacred Amanita mushrooms ...This is why the worship of these trees is so profound in
ancient mythology.
The mushrooms are dried in the sun before the shaman returns home with them. One way to do this is to find a tree in a central location and hang the
mushrooms on the tree and let them dry out in the boughs or the branches of the tree while the shaman continues to hunt for more mushrooms.After a period,
all these mushrooms hanging in the tree resemble a decorated Christmas tree. It appears as though the pine tree is bearing fruit. It can even look as though
candles have been placed throughout the tree, with the red cap representing the flame and the stripe, the candle itself. Today...most who celebrate xmas.....
continue to use the symbolism of the musahrooms in many ways. In the Middle Ages, when Alchemy was at its peak, mystery plays often featured decorated trees.
Tradition tells us to put wings on top of our xmas tree by placing an angel on the top. The xmas tree is the microcosmic representation of the world tree or a
representation in the microcosm of the world tree - the axis of the world (among other things). Tradition also tells us to entwine this tree with ribbons...Entwining
the xmas tree like this shows that the snake is climbing the columns to the wings at the top. The xmas tree is the caduceus, symbolizing the very drugs
(mushrooms) that grow underneath it. Again, it is as above, so below.
 
The oldest text on yule celebration in Denmark goes back to Harald Hårfager in the late 800's. The text talks about drinking Yule at sea and not about celebrating, giving presents or decorating a tree indoors -evenhough the decorating of trees in the wild was done at the time and is still being done today. We used to celebrate the midwinter, but it doesn't seem like it was on one particular evening, but rather a series of parties during the winter. The first christmas tree in Denmark was in 1808 and was abdopted by the Germans, so this tradition doesn't go back that far.
The first Santa Claus came with the reformation in the 1500's and was based on one of their saint Nikoloas, who visited the nice children on the 6th of december. From what I can find, Santa Claus hasn't got anything to do with pagan traditions, but is rather someone who was invented as an excuse to make people christian.

That it should all be linked to mushrooms, seems too far fetched to me.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
the_hammer said:
That it should all be linked to mushrooms, seems too far fetched to me.
I agree, and please note, nemo, that discussing the use of controlled substances (illegal in the U.S.) be they 'natural' or synthetic, is strictly against forum rules. It sounds like Jan Irvin & Andrew Rutajit and Paul Devereux, are just trying very, very hard to romanticize and legitimize their drug use.
 

nemo

Jedi
anart, your above statement obviously prevents me from further commenting.
I wrongly assumed that a more academic discussion regarding these not so irrelevant matters from a historical,
mythological, therapeutic and scientific point of view were well within the framework of these discussions.
I also thought that it`d be legitimate to talk about illegal activities so long as one isn`t personally involved in them
or propagates said activities (I admit to be slightly confused about the aspect of illegality since illegal activities
such as manipulating elections, killing people, committing genozide etc. are subjects which are widely and
controversely discussed in these pages).
So please let me apologize for overstepping said framework. I`ll regard the subject
as taboo from now on and will do my best to abide by the rules.
I wish you and everybody else on the forum happy holidays! :)
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
nemo said:
anart, your above statement obviously prevents me from further commenting.
I wrongly assumed that a more academic discussion regarding these not so irrelevant matters from a historical,
mythological, therapeutic and scientific point of view were well within the framework of these discussions.
This is a rather self-important comment, nemo. It also assumes that any of the information you presented above falls even vaguely into the category of 'academic discussion' or a 'scientific point of view'. Your self-importance has been ever so slightly bruised, so you respond in a subtly derogatory manner.


nemo said:
I also thought that it`d be legitimate to talk about illegal activities so long as one isn`t personally involved in them or propagates said activities
You were mistaken. The thought behind this is very clear, actually. This forum and these web pages are the target of consistent harrassment and observation. As such, it is necessary to stay very far away from any subject matter that could be construed as legally incriminating in any way whatsoever. This has been previously discussed at length on the forum.

nemo said:
(I admit to be slightly confused about the aspect of illegality since illegal activities
such as manipulating elections, killing people, committing genozide etc. are subjects which are widely and
controversely discussed in these pages).
See above - so far it is not technically illegal to discuss such things. You are 'arguing' your point, again - seemingly based on a belief that you are 'right' and what appears to be a feeling of bruised self-importance since it was pointed out to you that you are not 'right' in this instance.


nemo said:
So please let me apologize for overstepping said framework.
After what you've written above, this comes across as rather insincere.


nemo said:
I`ll regard the subject
as taboo from now on and will do my best to abide by the rules.
All we ask is that members abide by the forum rules - that is why they are listed.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
Actually, Anart, Amanita Muscaria mushrooms are totally legal in the U.S.. However, they are classified as dissociants, so their use would be inimical to The Work.
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
While that is true DJH, many people associate eating mushrooms with drug use, and would attack without looking into the different definitions of each kind of mushroom. Their is a negative connotation there, and while that may be unfair, we have to protect against known modes of attack. Thus, the rules against discussing drugs and anything which could be construed as that. Certainly amanita muscaria mushrooms fall into the latter category. We are careful not to fall into black and white thinking though, as their may be cases when it is OK to be discussed, but I don't see this one as such.
 

Mr. Premise

The Living Force
Totally agree. Plus they cause dissociation. To be super-clear, I have never consumed them and would never advise anyone to. But they are really pretty to see in the woods. But so are the white amanitas that are deadly poisonous.

beau said:
While that is true DJH, many people associate eating mushrooms with drug use, and would attack without looking into the different definitions of each kind of mushroom. Their is a negative connotation there, and while that may be unfair, we have to protect against known modes of attack. Thus, the rules against discussing drugs and anything which could be construed as that. Certainly amanita muscaria mushrooms fall into the latter category. We are careful not to fall into black and white thinking though, as their may be cases when it is OK to be discussed, but I don't see this one as such.
 

nemo

Jedi
anart,
I wished I could just have thanked you for the cold shower, but it would have been dishonest.
I really tried to formulate a much shorter reply, but failed in doing so without opening doors for further misunderstandings. So I take the more wordy option in the hope of making myself clearer, though I`m aware
of the risks. For clarity`s sake, not out of a feeling of any superiority, do I feel I must "argue my point" again,
so please bear with me.
Forum rule says:
Two, please don't post messages about your illegal pastimes and habits. Signs of the Times
does not wish to appear to condone such practises, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if a
little common sense is applied.
anart said:
please note, nemo, that discussing the use of controlled substances (illegal in the U.S.)
be they 'natural' or synthetic, is strictly against forum rules. ... As such, it is necessary to stay very far
away from any subject matter that could be construed as legally incriminating in any way whatsoever.
Did I really broke forum rules with my post?
It referred to an historical event in the far ago past, set at a time and locale were said substances were
as legal as red wine is in most countries today. In no way am I condoning such practises.
I wish the rules were a bit more elaborate on that matter. It seems very much like the "legally incriminating"
bit varies considerably from country to country. Subjects which are freely discussed on these pages would be considered "legally incriminating" in my country. (It would be illegal in Germany for example to publish a book with a cover that compares Bush with Hitler or "slandering" government leaders). Up till now I was not aware
that drug related issues are such an exceptional no-go area in the States. Which I will keep in mind from now on!
DonaldJHunt said:
.... so their use would be inimical to The Work.
Though I suspend any judgement on people who walk a different path, I fully agree with your statement. Otherwise I wouldn`t be here.
anart said:
nemo wrote:
anart, your above statement obviously prevents me from further commenting.
I wrongly assumed that a more academic discussion regarding these not so irrelevant matters from a historical,
mythological, therapeutic and scientific point of view were well within the framework of these discussions.

This is a rather self-important comment, nemo. It also assumes that any of the information you presented above falls even vaguely into the category of 'academic discussion' or a 'scientific point of view'. Your self-importance has been ever so slightly bruised, so you respond in a subtly derogatory manner.
I did not make it clear that I referred to a more general discussion on this topic. Had I wanted to start a general debate, I would have chosen a more suitable opener. I thought the story to be fitting with that time of year.
While it`s not an academic piece I found it to be intriguing and amusing enough to share it here.
Your reading of my second post is often right on the mark. Yes, I`m "guilty" in displaying self-importance.
I`m working to reduce it though.
In your first post, anart, you pointed out my violations in a neutral way. Then you stated your opinion on a matter, which I was forbidden to further comment on. This feeling of subtle absurdity caused by the juxtaposition of two very different statements in your first post led me to regress to a little kid who got reprimanded by its parents, excuses itself for its violations and then goes on insisting: "But I wanna...I wanna!!!" Childish, I know.
(also fits to my avatar :)
anart said:
You are 'arguing' your point, again - seemingly based on a belief that you are 'right' and what appears to be a feeling of bruised self-importance since it was pointed out to you that you are not 'right' in this instance.
Yes I am, true. Bruised self-importance - true, as well. I`m not sure what "being right" in the second part
of your sentence refers to exactly? In general I don`t believe in right or wrong. When it comes to the more general aspect of my original post, my position is that I don`t like to blend out aspects of human existence, independent of the valuation of said aspect. In that regard I wouldn`t say that I have a belief to be right on
any matter whatsoever. It`s more the case that I have questions regarding certain matters.
That does not mean that I feel to be entitled in any way to get what I want.
If for (external) societal reasons certain topics have to be avoided on this forum then I`m all for it!
This dialogue here made it very clear which subjects to avoid in the future. It wasn`t so clear before, alas.
The insincerity of my original apology, which has been correctly analyzed by you, anart, stemmed from
a feeling of frustration, caused by above mentioned confusion.
In no way would I intentionally harm this forum; on the contrary!
Please accept my very sincere apologies for any inconvenience my fist post has caused.
anart,
is it not possible to regard this argument as a clash of different attitudes towards a specific topic, which my ignorance regarding US law/confusion about forum rules prevented me from NOT posting in the first place,
mixed in with some misunderstanding (on my part)?
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
nemo said:
For clarity`s sake, not out of a feeling of any superiority, do I feel I must "argue my point" again,
so please bear with me.
Your self-importance is showing again, nemo and making much more of this than it needs to be.


nemo said:
Forum rule says:
Two, please don't post messages about your illegal pastimes and habits. Signs of the Times
does not wish to appear to condone such practises, for reasons that should be pretty obvious if a
little common sense is applied.
anart said:
please note, nemo, that discussing the use of controlled substances (illegal in the U.S.)
be they 'natural' or synthetic, is strictly against forum rules. ... As such, it is necessary to stay very far
away from any subject matter that could be construed as legally incriminating in any way whatsoever.
Did I really broke forum rules with my post?
Yes, you did. Now, you are legalistically nitpicking. There is far too much at risk here to even enter this area of conversation (illicit drugs) - this is not about nemo and what nemo wants - this is about what is in the best interests of the forum. You do not see that because you see only what nemo wants. While we may err on the side of 'strict' in this area, we do so knowingly and for very good reason. You cannot see this because you see only what nemo wants.



nemo said:
I did not make it clear that I referred to a more general discussion on this topic. Had I wanted to start a general debate, I would have chosen a more suitable opener.
Ah, but by now you should know this forum is not for 'debate'.

nemo said:
I thought the story to be fitting with that time of year.
This is fine - but you did not think enough about the forum and its rules, you thought only about what nemo wanted to discuss.


nemo said:
Your reading of my second post is often right on the mark. Yes, I`m "guilty" in displaying self-importance.
I`m working to reduce it though.
Writing a long post arguing your point because you are having trouble accepting that you were 'wrong' in this instance does not appear to be 'working on it though' - it appears to be bolstering and defending that self-importance - the false personality of nemo who thinks that if something he posts was inappropriate - he is inappropriate. This is not the case, (nemo is not inappropriate, what he wrote was inappropriate for this forum) - but your self-importance has caused you to identify with what you've posted and with it being 'ok' that you posted it - reacting in the manner you have reacted.


nemo said:
This feeling of subtle absurdity caused by the juxtaposition of two very different statements in your first post led me to regress to a little kid who got reprimanded by its parents, excuses itself for its violations and then goes on insisting: "But I wanna...I wanna!!!" Childish, I know.
(also fits to my avatar :)
And here you are defending your self-importance - your false personality - almost amused by it. It is not amusing, though - 'I wanna, I wanna' is not indicative of anything other than extreme service to self. You did not (and do not now) think of the forum, you thought only of what nemo wanted to discuss.


anart said:
You are 'arguing' your point, again - seemingly based on a belief that you are 'right' and what appears to be a feeling of bruised self-importance since it was pointed out to you that you are not 'right' in this instance.
nemo said:
Yes I am, true. Bruised self-importance - true, as well. I`m not sure what "being right" in the second part
of your sentence refers to exactly?
It refers to the fact that, often, one's self-important false personality identifies wholly with whether they are perceived to be 'right' in any situation. Such a person will go to great lengths to prove they were not in 'the wrong' - that they were 'right' in what they did or what they said. They might even write long legalistic posts about it.

nemo said:
In general I don`t believe in right or wrong.
what? You don't believe in 'right or wrong'? Methinks nemo's false personality is working REALLY hard here to spin this situation to preserve his version of 'right man syndrome'.



That does not mean that I feel to be entitled in any way to get what I want.
Yes, you most certainly do - this is clearly evidenced in what you have written. You are lying to yourself because seeing what is really going on is too painful - it is called a buffer.


nemo said:
If for (external) societal reasons certain topics have to be avoided on this forum then I`m all for it!
Odd, considering this lengthy post.


nemo said:
In no way would I intentionally harm this forum; on the contrary!
Then, perhaps putting what is best for the forum ahead of what nemo wants might be a good place to start. There is far, far too much at stake here to risk anything - that is the reason for such strict moderation and forum rules. It has much less to do with what country's laws we're abiding by - it is about impeccability and being and staying vigilant. This is not a game, nemo - it is deadly serious, so what nemo wants tends to pale in comparison.
 

nemo

Jedi
Being aware that any further posting including this post serves self =( I`ll refrain myself from commenting
your reply and take a little time off instead to further reflect on what you`ve being saying.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
nemo said:
Being aware that any further posting including this post serves self =( I`ll refrain myself from commenting
your reply and take a little time off instead to further reflect on what you`ve being saying.
Remember to not be too hard on nemo (that's the flip side of self-importance). What happened here is really no big deal - but what you've been able to do is learn from it - or work toward learning from it. Isn't that really the whole point? I'm not exaggerating when I say that I make mistakes every single day - it's the only way I learn - but the point is the learning. You really can't beat that, from my perspective. ;)
 

macyk

The Force is Strong With This One
Сouldn't find a better place, so I'll post it here

 
Top Bottom