TRUE AGE Part 2 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ #trueage

TRUE AGE Part 2 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ 


There’s no need to micro-manage the natural unfolding of knowledge, data or information. Words are just labels and put things into boxes but there are more emotions than there are words to describe them and nothing has an independent nature.

However some people call any spiritual information New Age information but other people know that ‘New Age’ originally referred to a precise lineage of information from very particular and limited original sources (some of whom had questionable intentions and/or morals).

Some people are aware that quantum physics has blurred the line between science and spirituality however it does not, in my humble opinion, it does not prove that there is what the Abrahamic monotheistic religions would call a God.

Students and writers who are interested in spirituality and/or quantum physics who are not restricted by New Age dogma, nor the dogma of Newtonian physics, who are interested in facts and/or personal experience, may want to distance themselves from the term “New Age”. I have not yet decided if I would rather use the term True Age. These essays are not entirely an exercise in my ego trying to help define a new area of research, these essays are an exercise in working out whether or not that is a good idea.

See part 1 here -> PART 1

xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx









I feel that the spiritual movement needs a new objective and open-minded focus as it has been quietly guided Theosophical dogma, Zechariah Sitchin, and channelled information (which could be true in some exceptional circumstances but in other circumstances ‘channelling’ could sometimes just be a way of egotistical people getting gullible people to listen to everything they say) all of which has been accused of being false to one degree or another with compelling evidence to support those allegations.

I have no problem with Theosophy in general and I have little issue with channelled information in general but to assume that they are always correct may be, and I am aware that my wording here is strong, assuming they are always correct may be foolish.

Zechariah Sitchin’s ‘translations’ of Sumerian texts are responsible for such things as the widespread beliefs that humans were genetically created by aliens to mine gold for the Annunaki and the belief that ‘Nibiru is coming to get us’. Those beliefs create an inferiority complex in people and create fear, both vibrations which serve no one but the power-elite who also believe that most of humanity is subordinate and use fear to control us. Unfortunately the fact that Sitchin has been accused by another scholar of at least mistranslating and quite possibly deliberately misleading people is still not yet common knowledge. More fervent conspiracy theorists have accused Sitchin of being a member of being a member of the ‘I’ word to maintain my credibility I won’t go into that – and just in case they’re real – to maintain my safety for now – I won’t go into that.

Suffice to say the New Age has had its positive manifestations in my eyes, a resurgence in Goddess worship, a resurgence in ancient wisdom and a re-prioritising of spiritual ideals. Indeed all of this is beneficial in the long run because everything is beneficial in the long run. But I mentioned the term New age on a forum recently and somebody just labelled the whole thing ‘Luciferian’ (ie Satanic. It’s not. Well some of it is, but most people who use the term New Age do not mean the original usage of the word which some would define as Luciferian.) Although that was clearly the emotional response of an all-or-nothing mind stuck in the duality of ‘good or bad’ I can see why someone would say such a thing.

Labels, names, data. Perhaps by trying to create the title ‘True Age’ to define pragmatic investigation of spiritual sciences and/or scientific spirituality I am just creating a new label, a new name, more data to be redefined and tarnished at a later date? Almost certainly, but I do what feels right and now it feels right to try. Humans tend to like their labels, when I stop thinking and relax it doesn’t really matter what label people put on my work, my writings or my investigations or who my work, writings and investigations are associated with.

Therefore I ex-communicate myself from the New Age, establishing a TRUE AGE, where belief will not be stated as fact and opinion will not be stated as truth, where the scientific method will be respected as a method to find truth but not necessarily trusted dogmatically to have always or infallibly found truth because reality is evidently ever-changing variables. If Sitchin turns out to be correct – fine, I will adjust my belief and/or knowledge, you can believe everything Sitchin says and still be part of the True Age but acknowledge that it is belief and opinion and neither fact nor truth, and you can only call yourself True Age if you have also looked at the evidence to the contrary as well. If you live in fear of Nibiru and yet have not questioned where that belief comes from perhaps there is a way to stop living in fear. If you are content with fear that is fine, if you know nothing of Sitchin or Nibiru that is fine, “there is no need to control the natural unfolding of knowledge or information.” I am merely inspired to provide another flow and/or conduit of information from pragmatic researchers such as Mark Passio, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell, Daniel Tatman and (arguably) David Wilcock and provide a platform for the Divine Masculine to find himself and worship the Goddess.

Essentially True Age is just another label, just more data in the stream. That’s fine, but the Tao that can be described in words is not the true tao. So maybe this is an exercise in pointlessness but it felt good to write it and maybe it will inspire some much needed dialogue.

5 thoughts on “TRUE AGE Part 2 – neither ‘New Age’ nor ‘Old Science’ #trueage

    1. Thanks man! I’m still working it out but I think the real reason this resonates is because I’m not claiming to be sure about anything and I’m ready to accept if I’m wrong. But I do love the fact that it resonates, if it feels right please share far n wide and lets see if we can collectively replace the New Age bullshit with the True Age newness (that we never really know what THE truth is, just what OUR truth is! lol) Stay blessed Mr Elis 🙂

      1. It’s New Years Eve, 31/12/2014 and I am adding the following epilogue to both TRUE AGE articles; Regarding Zechariah Sitchin.
        I have received quite a bit of information on the subject of Sitchin particularly recently and will add an epilogue of sorts shortly. First, here is a Krishnamurti quote about naming things (I’m criticising myself here).

        “…when you name something you separate it…”

        I wasn’t going to bother posting Sitchin’s strongest detractor here cos the point isn’t to get people to agree with me but to question both sides of the argument and make their own minds up but as I singled Sitchin’s info out as info that I personally find suspect (don’t take my opinion personally, believe what you want) I apparently have to back that up and qualify it. This is the problem with data, I don’t really care but other people do so avoid further arguments (as if) I shall show both sides of the debate as much as I can be bothered to at this point.
        Michael Heiser is a professional scholar of Babylonian, Sumerian and Hebrew texts if I remember correctly. He has a website (hilariously) titled Sitchiniswrong dot com. where he challenges people to find fault in his translations of Sumerian texts and challenges Sitchin’s translations.
        One of my friends offered this talk to express the fact that Heiser has his own narrative and agenda – – which shows Heiser has a Christian background himself and therefore has a bias to a particular story and also shows that Heiser is opposed to ‘Utopian’ ideas. However after actually watching the video in full it shows to me that Heiser still has a very scientific, pragmatic approach to the source material despite his religious persuasion and his objection to utopian ideas is only where they are used politically to further the political ideals of the New World Order – fair enough. Actually rather than making me afraid that Heiser was a scary Christian who only disagreed with Sitchin because it challenges his Christian views the talk actually just made me more convinced that Heiser is clued up about the New World Order and it’s tactics and more convinced that Heieser is working for the collective benefit. But I’m sure we all are, even when we think we are not.
        Also I wrote that I think Jordan Maxwell is one of my favourite pragmatic researchers. Yet apparently Jordan Maxwell also believes that humans were genetically created by aliens. Fine. He’s one of my favourite researchers but I do not have to agree with everything he says. And it’s the details that make the difference. Maybe we were created by aliens. Maybe we did mine gold. But maybe we were genetically modified by aliens and then mined gold at a later date. It doesn’t feel right that we have these lives, these narratives of reincarnation and ascended masters, and it all started with some gold obsessed aliens making some slaves in a petri dish. Maybe we were on our own divine path with divine destiny and some race came along tinkered a bit, abused us and used us and moved on (or stayed). Or maybe it just didn’t happen at all. Truth is I don’t know. But just cos I like Jordan Maxwell, doesn’t mean if Jordan Maxwell said it I gotta believe it. He very well could be just reading Sitchin’s translations.
        So Sitchin isn’t the only one talking about ancient aliens, and although I disagree with the detail of Sitchin’s “humans only existed to mine gold” narrative I do find the ancient aliens theory intriguing over-all and the elite do seem to be obsessed with gold even to this day. But that’s all the more reason for me to be suspicious that the elite WANT us to THINK we were born to mine that shit for them.
        Anyway, it doesn’t matter. It’s just a point of view, just data, just thoughts, feelings and emotions.
        My point of view doesn’t have to agree with yours. It’s when you state your point of view as fact or truth that you stray away from the TRUE AGE and towards dogma. This whole thing was an exercise in pointlessness, mainly because I expressed a point of view of data that highlighted for me how we can get lost in arguing about the details if our egos are identified with data rather than identified with the universal consciousness and open intelligent that data arrives in, from and goes back to. My opinion on this data isn’t going to change your day and my expression of my opinion probably will not change your opinion on the data. But my expression about the consciousness that this data arrives in, hopefully that may change your perception on EVERYthing, not just this data.
        So maybe Sitchin is right, I don’t actually care that much, but are you open minded enough to look at the other information to the contrary and/or are you open minded enough to not care who is right?

    2. Thanks! I’m blogging on Steemit now and trying to create a community of like minded people.
      Someone I trust said Steemit is better than (and less corporate than) FB and a related site called DTube is better than YouTube. Both reward you for your contributions in a cryptocurrency called Steem. Seems cutting edge, subversive and solution-focussed.

      So today I uploaded some epic content onto #Steemit and #DTube! Some funny stuff and some deep stuff on #philosophy, #politics, #cryptocurrency and #spirituality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: