[Note: This is a follow-up article to my recent one titled ‘The Role of Destiny’. It finishes off what I could not complete in one article – the story of what was a lightbulb moment for me and one that without which, in relation to this article, would have meant that it most likely (despite my best intentions) would never have been written. But now that it has been published, may, only ‘may’ at this stage, open up opportunities for me to expand on that in future.]
While reading David Rohl’s book ‘LEGEND: THE GENESIS OF CIVILISATION’, which takes us back to the dawn of mankind, briefly recorded in many human histories and also summarised in the Bible, with details that can now be physically (in many cases) verified from both ancient history and modern memory, I came upon something that will be described below, which ignited in me the desire to express the long held thoughts I now express here. In that sense it was a moment of destiny. A surprise moment, bringing together information from a variety of sources.
I bought Dr Rohl’s book around the turn of the century for the princely sum of A$45.00 (we Australians always pay far more for books than anywhere else in the world – or so it seems) – a hardback copy, beautifully illustrated throughout with superb photography. I began to read ‘LEGEND’ back then, but as with his first book, ‘A Test of Time’, what was said did not fit into my then current studies which at the time, if I remember correctly, were based around the works of Zechariah Sitchin – having some time earlier concluded that the works of Immanuel Velikovsky, which while of great value in drawing attention to the glaring errors in conventional Egyptian history from the baseline upwards, and providing many answers to counter those errors for the later periods of that history, were also subject to the bias he held in overestimating the veracity of the timeline given in the Bible to earlier periods and making what I now know to be invalid synchronicities across those earlier periods. This has now been corrected by the work of Dr Rohl and a great number of other valient academics all working in the same field of study, which I feel sure will eventually be accepted by academia at large. Perhaps not until all the old hoary dinosaurs clinging to their wrong assessments have passed on and the younger cohort of more free-thinking Egyptologists take their place. When that happens, great changes will be required because many history books will need to be scrapped and the effects of the ‘New Chronology’, as David Rohl refers to it, will need to be used to reassess impacts on the histories of the major empires and civilisations around that era – even to the Greek and Roman times. And yes, as I mentioned in the previous part, the world’s major monotheistic religions would also need some drastic revision – which they may not be able to survive. How could the world continue to live with the old lies and misconceptions once the truth is known?
I should say, having mentioned the Sitchin body of work, that I am still interested in all of that, with appropriate reservations on certain aspects until more proof or better understanding is achieved, viewing it as background material against which to measure the changing nature of man’s earlier times, increasingly being revealed – at snail’s pace as it seems. Which is very frustrating because as you will be aware if you read my other online musings, I don’t believe we have much time left before undergoing a potentially catastrophic end to the story of humanity. That aside, I still want to know it all – the true story of our past – not the made up version concocted by elitist individuals bound by religious dogma of one sort or another in a patchwork of guesswork, labelled ‘Archeology’.
Okay, before I get too diverted again – something I constantly have to fight – here is what started these my two latest essays.
In his book ‘LEGEND’, Dr Rohl, by personal journeying to the appropriate sites of history in the ancient lands of what we call the Middle East, and most of which expeditionary work occurred prior to the devastating and continual wars of the West in this new millennium, ostensibly against something labelled by that section of the world’s nations as ‘terrorism’ but in reality for several illicit purposes directed purely towards their own benefit, including but not limited to the stealing of precious resources from the rightful owners of those lands. I personally think included in those ‘illicit purposes’ is the goal of preventing any further research into the history of mankind which is likely to reveal the invalidity of their avowed religion as being based on a rather shoddy copy of a much earlier non-religious but ‘god’ based reality. That wouldn’t suit their purposes at all. In fact it would make worthless everything they do and everything they believe – of themselves and their status in relation to the rest of us.
Continuing with the David Rohl escapades in those regions, while it was still possible (and with the hope that it may soon once again be so), the first objective was to find and identify the location of the ‘Garden of Eden’ of biblical fame. I should have said at some time prior to this (but not sure I did) that the basis of this expedition was his treatment of the older parts of the Bible as being purely a history book with the purpose of being able to verify that history as fact. That objective is something which cannot be achieved using the established timeline of recorded history as it stands. But Rohl is convinced, and I think he does a great job of proving, with the revised timeline of the New Chronology, everything fits neatly into place and many new synchronicities can be established and glaring errors – like the 400 year ‘Dark Age of Greece’ – can be eliminated. Now, that’s something worth reading about, isn’t it?
To cut a long story short – because I am still not getting to the point of what I wanted to say – the ‘Garden of Eden’ has been identified and verified. In addition to that, the origins of the Sumerian civilisation have been discovered and the establishment of the ‘Flood of Noah’, or his much earlier established alter-egos the Sumerian ‘Ziusudra’, the Old Babylonian ‘Atrahasis’, the Akkadian ‘Utnapishtim’ and perhaps even the Greek ‘Deucalion’ (although I am not so familiar with that story as to be able pin it effectively together with the others), all of which (with the proviso just stated) refer to the same person and the same flood, which is now established as fact (though its cause, nature, and extent may still be a little vague), together with the location of the actual place of the post-flood landing of ‘The Ark’. Which location is, incidentally, more than a thousand kilometres away from where conventional Christian thought would place it. Mount Ararat being a misleading, late Christian red herring, rather than a clue, there never having been anything more than mere suggestion i.e. no actual evidence or even strong local tradition, that Mt Ararat – more properly named Aregats or Agri Dagh – that this particular mountain or even the region had anything to do with the resting place of the ark. The actual resting place of the ark being a place firmly cemented in the memories of the local people – descendants of Shem, the Semites, as are pretty much all the peoples of the region, and after whom is named Sumer – or more correctly ‘Shumer’, the first civilisation of mankind. I will need to reveal that place myself shortly as this story progresses.
You will need to read the book to gain any further insights on all that, and I can tell you it is pretty convincing evidence Dr Rohl uncovers. I don’t unfortunately have the time to go into it here, and in any case the importance of the subject matter kind of dictates that it is read from the words of the discoverer, don’t you think?. But we are approaching the region of study that is the main point of my current writing.
Dr Rohl’s ‘LEGEND’ further traces the migration of the Shemites from East of the ‘Garden’, down through the Zagros mountains – including the place of the new beginning, post-flood – and from two directions onto the Mesopotamian plain, the seat and centre of human civilisation. It must also go much further because I am only half way through reading it so far. I just stopped at this point simply to make the points that impressed me so much to make them here in these essays.
One of the discoveries made by Rohl (by personal discovery and also utilising the great work of many other researchers, past and present) has been the location of the land or Aratta, with very strong evidence to be, in his words:
The Lost Kingdom of Aratta, mentioned in the earliest Sumerian epics, is to be located within the Myandoab plain to the south of Lake Urmia in Greater Armenia
Conclusion 5 – LEGEND: The Genesis of Civilisation – David Rohl
This is a significant discovery, since Aratta (also associated with the name Urartu) was originally north west of Lake Urmia – a movement of people, not real estate. So, when the bible speaks of the resting place of the ark as being “in the mountains of Ararat” it was probably this which caused searchers to seek some mountain sounding like Ararat in that region, when the real location is to be found much further south-west. Dr Rohl actually places that location as the mountain Judi Dagh, north of Mosul and south of Lake Van. He is not the first to do so, by any means. This is also the explicit location mentioned in the Qur’an. In Rohl’s own words:
The peak of Judi Dagh, bordering upon the Mesopotamian lowlands in the region later known as Assyria is, in fact, the original traditional site of the ark’s landing as stated by numerous early authorities.
From Conclusion 11 – LEGEND: The Genesis of Civilisation – David Rohl
So, now we are here, at the exact spot where I wanted to get to. I hope the journey you have taken with me so far has been as interesting as it has been necessary, as background information (I personally find it all fascinating), because I can now tell you what this has all been about.
David Rohl was not, of course, the first European to have made that journey of discovery, which is well known in the region and highlights just one of the inconsistencies in the bible story. Gertrude Lowthian Bell made a similar journey in 1909 and left for posterity her story and photographs, here.
The area of the ark’s landing lays within the triangle of land, claimed unofficially as home, by the mysterious peoples of Kurdistan. In the specific region of Judi Dagh live the most mysterious of the Kurdish peoples – the Yezidi, also known as Yazidi, whom I was first aware of, earlier this century, as being a minority group, perhaps the most persecuted of peoples by the Saddam Hussein regime of Iraq.
There was a reason for that persecution, although probably more than one, and for the general hatred of the Yezidi, particularly among Islamic groups but also generally by other religions. The religion of the Yezidi is complex and little understood. They are surrounded by enemies on all sides and yet they never accepted Islam other than at times to save their skins and yet their beliefs contain elements of many other religions including Islam, Nestorian Christianity, Zoroastrianism (Old Babylonian). A comprehensive study (though labelled a ‘Brief Review of the Yezidi Beliefs and Customs…’ is available at avesta.org – a Zoroastrian archive website – in .pdf form.
Though I have labelled the Yezidi as Kurdish they are not generally accepted among Kurds, as being ethnically Kurdish but claim for themselves to be the original Kurds, tracing their ancestry all the way back to Shem, son of Noah. ‘Yezidi’ carries the meaning of ‘made by God’ and they take that very seriously, anyone marrying outside of the Yezidi community is disowned and no longer allowed to refer to themselves as being Yezidi. They owe their allegiance to a god, or at least a ‘chief angel’, named Taus Melek, Tawsi Melek, Melek Taus, or the ‘Peacock Angel’ – alternatively known as ‘Shaitan’, Satan, or ‘the devil’. All of which may have something to do with them being so persecuted by other religious groups. The Yezidi view of Satan though is quite different from that of, as far as I know, any other religious system. Although to me and, I suspect to many Sumerians and related cultures – prior to the development of the monotheistic construct, it makes perfect sense – which even the Bible, correctly translated, would support.
In contrast to that last idea, I have seen some mention that the Yezidi religion is in fact monotheistic. I would disagree. If it is accepted that there is some form of overall creator (or ‘creative force’ or force of nature, if you want to de-personalise it), then that [let’s call it, for now] ‘creator’ – an ephemeral, invisible, intangible essence of ‘spirit’ i.e. not a physical entity – cannot logically be thought or considered capable of ‘walking in the garden in the cool of the evening’ or even being able to communicate verbally (lacking a voice box, jaw, tongue, teeth, lips or facial muscles) with a human being, and would definitely be incapable of making ‘stuff’ or simply ‘speaking’ stuff into existence (the basis of biblical claims of creation – “And God said, Let there be…”) – just a few of the many things which deny to monotheism any part of reality. In order to function correctly, the ‘creator’ would require some form of intermediary lifeform, with one foot in each of the ‘spiritual’ and ‘physical’ realms. Say, maybe, like the ‘Elohim’ of the Bible, or the ‘Seven Angels’ of the Yezidi tradition (of which Taus Melek was said to be the chief angel). Which makes neither of those lifeforms, or both if they are considered to be iterations of the same complex beings, anything other than ‘gods’ – rendering any system they may represent, as being multi-theistic, since to all intents and purposes they would be the only representations of ‘god-hood’ – assuming they ever existed at all and are not just figments of someone’s imagination (to wit we have, incidentally, no living example or even evidence of any presence at any time in the past). Not to mention that if they communicated with lesser beings like us at all, they would be speaking for themselves or, collegially, as representative for the group of like beings as a whole, not for some higher entity – who/which would, to all intents and purposes, have been made redundant. The whole idea of some invisible creator god is so ridiculously silly that it beggars belief how supposedly intelligent beings, like us, could have fallen for such clear deception for so long. Well, I will tell you how. It is all fear-based. “Fear God” is the admonition. Well, what if it is right? What if it is true? So, you are willing to live a lifetime of cringing fear and feigned ‘love’ on the basis of a ‘what if’? You are willing to give a lifetime of servitude and submission to the dictates of some self-appointed representative of a phantasm on the basis of a ‘what if’? Shame on you. What kind of ‘man’ (that’s a generic man) are you? You were born to grow into full manhood (that’s a generic manhood) as a self-directing, self-motivating individual (man or woman, with no in-betweens or intermediate stages). Have you given away so cheaply that basic human right?
Hmm… I got carried away along some diversionary track again, didn’t I? I hope it was worth it, for someone.
Let’s get back to Satan, or Shaitan – which was why I began this in the first place …and no, I am not going to try to turn you into a devil worshipper. Nothing of the sort.
Who, or what, is Satan? Well, let’s start with that basic image, from the Bible, of a god creator occasionally walking in a garden he made (does no-one question the ‘walking’ or the ‘he’ part of that, or even how he ‘made’ a garden?) and at some stage talking (is no-one prepared to ask ‘how’?) to a man and woman he also ‘made’ and laying down some arbitrary rules as to what they should or should not eat, threatening them with death if they disobey (but he ‘loves them’, of course). Later, a serpent comes along (where from? nothing to suggest it was also ‘made’). The serpent (mostly imaged as a snake, why? don’t ‘Snake Lives Matter’ as well?) talks to the woman (if the serpent really is a snake, how?) obviously knowing who the boss is in this team, persuading her (not demanding or threatening, just using logical reasoning) to do what the creator told her not to do, with the promise that death would not result. It didn’t. So the serpent then persuaded her to get the man to do the same. He didn’t die either as a result of disobedience to the fake threats of the creator, but both of them (man and woman) suddenly felt different. They had come alive and could now think for themselves and decide what ‘they’ wanted to do, not what they were directed to do. The creator, when he found out what had happened (which, despite being a self-styled all-knowing, all-seeing being, still required another walk in the garden to become aware of it), was furious and, despite his natural inclination to sizzle them out of existence on the spot (at least he had convinced himself he might be able to do that) he decided to banish the pair from the garden (that would surely spoil their day). And so Adam and Eve left the garden and headed East to the land of Nod, skipping hand-in-hand along the road, marvelling at how wonderful life had turned out to be and how they were free to live it however they chose from that day forward, having thrown off the shackles of religious bondage. Of course the loving pair soon discovered life wasn’t all they had hoped for once they started having children. And the serpent? Well, the creator, convinced it was a snake, condemned it to slither on its belly from now on. The serpent, however, knowing it possessed wings and dragon breath, and spent little time on the ground in any case – unless it was sleeping – was not at all perturbed about this.
I’m sorry if I have offended anyone by making the story sound more like a fairy tale, but, really, look at it. Isn’t that what it is?
Of course there is truth about it. There always is, about any story. What it is saying is that the supposed creator, who wasn’t a creator at all (hint: it was the serpent who made everything), was actually no friend of the human couple. In fact he hated them and would have sizzled them if he could. The serpent, who loved the human pair, as the pinnacle of his handy-work, was dedicated to seeing them get the most out of life that they could. The humans, their eyes now opened to see their true potential, joyfully took advantage of that, without giving enough thought to what the consequences may be. I think you know the rest of the story, and there is not even a hint of fairy tale about it. I will tell you how I know that. It is all written down in the historic records from our own early history. Records that have long been hidden from us. And many that still are hidden. Will we ever know the whole truth?
Perhaps the most important idea I want to portray – well, there are two really. The first is that in those hoary old times, not so very long ago really, about which men have always conjectured, there actually were ‘gods’ – or people thought to be gods for some reason. That thought has been much denigrated and reduced to the idea that mankind needs something to look up to and worship, which seems to be pure bunkum to me. I have no wish or give even fleeting thought to the concept that there is any being of higher authority over my life than myself. Yes, I reluctantly give away some of my self-organising authority to appointed others in order to live in some comfort within a human community, but that is not an acknowledgment that these people are ‘gods’ or that there is one supreme god above them all. Such ideas simply do not fit in with the truth of life I have accumulated over a lifetime. I do acknowledge that there are some really powerful and knowledgeable people and can see that to certain folk of simpler tradition and so far unrealised development (though in modern times such are rapidly progressing beyond that stage), those elevated individuals (rightly or wrongly, or simply by birth and position) may be seen as gods by some. None of those humanity elevated ‘gods’ would be able to live out a life without some sort of failure of character or error of judgement, which I suspect to be the main reason to project super-godhood to some invisible being incapable of such flaws (or at least whose flaws could not be seen). That was our, or whomever’s idea it originally was, first and most disastrous mistake. We have given away our power to an invisible phantasm, and since that time have lived a life of servitude to an idea. How stupid are we?
So, no invisible ‘God’, but even now, as in history, very visible, but vulnerable, ‘gods’ – the first of which were the gods of the first civilisation of man. I am not going to get into who they were or where they came from or whether they were human or not (maybe another time), since many books and theories abound on that subject. But they did exist, as very physical beings. Whether human or not you can decide for yourself. They lived among the people they ruled and, according to translated materials, also originally created – in a much earlier account than is recorded in the Bible, which appears simply to draw on such stories for its own account. The written accounts about them, their influence and capabilities, their shortcomings, moods, desires, and moral inconsistencies are available to us, courtesy of the first written records of mankind. And it is a recorded heritage for all of us, not just for one small insignificant section of mankind self-elevated to have a ‘selected’, ‘chosen’, or even ‘exceptional’ status.
Which brings me to the second major idea I mentioned.
We know the family structure of the first ‘gods’. I reluctantly refer to them as ‘gods’ because that is how they are viewed in the fogginess of the modern mindset, which also thinks in terms of ‘temples’ and ‘worship’ and ‘prayer’ and ‘offerings’. I was about to include “and ‘service'” into that list but realised that particular aspect of how mankind views the gods would be the one exception to delusion if I included it. We were, according to the records, specifically created – through a long period of trial and error in some medical laboratory (which I may elaborate on at some other time) – to be a servant race for the liberation of ‘gods’ from menial tasks like cooking and cleaning, keeping things tidy, and perhaps, well, almost certainly, for mining duties – over which (it is said) there was some minor revolt by minor ‘gods’ employed in those important duties over the onerous nature of their tasks.
There were no temples, worship, prayer or offerings. In reality there were homes of the gods – places they actually lived – not their ‘cult centres’, but their homes – which required all of the services usually attributed to some powerful leader holding court, adjudicating rules of governance and making provision and education for the welfare of their local subjects. I don’t believe there was anything more to it than that – in terms of the general setup of the situation at least. What we see as ‘temples’ were actually ‘dwellings’ or perhaps more a ‘precinct’ for godly activity. Such activities as: not worship but work; not prayer and supplication but holding court; not making offerings but preparing food for the gods – they were big eaters and mostly carnivorous in appetite it appears. That is because they were actual beings of flesh and blood just as we are. We were made in their image – but without the immortality (actual longevity – they were not immortal but long lived) – and, initially, we were made without the capability to procreate and possibly lacked self-awareness (both of which were granted later). That later allowing us the ability to procreate and be self-aware, was the undoing of the gods – and the chief reason for them to eventually leave. Leaving behind just one of their number, the god Marduk and an untold number of demi-gods of various levels of mixed heritage which having grown weaker over the intervening two to three millennia, is virtually undetectable (if it hasn’t died out completely) today. We were never given, apart from a few select individuals (as recorded in the records and in the Bible), the ‘immortality’ we craved and which our new-found self-awareness demanded. It has to be realised, in order to gain some perspective on the immortality issue, that this whole story played out, in some reckonings, over the preceding 450,000 years leading up to our own times. All of the original gods mentioned in this story, lived, and remained alive, throughout that period. Whether they are still alive now (and where they may be) is anybody’s guess but there are reasons to suggest that, before they left, some of them were beginning to age. Will they be back to see how their prodigies turned out? Well, that is also another story.
And that is all I want to say on that subject here because it is just more background to what I am leading toward.
Back to the family structure of the first ‘gods’ …and what I am about to say is hardly disputed territory but is generally accepted as being factually recorded in the records unearthed mostly over the past century or so.
The chief ‘god’ was named An or Anu. He was not the first such chief, having deposed the earlier Alalu (whose story I will leave untold). Anu fathered two sons and a daughter. The first son being named Ea, also known as Enki, was offspring to one of Anu’s secondary wives (so far unnamed I think) and would have inherited Anu’s position but for the fact that his later half-brother Enlil gained succession rights, being born to Anu’s primary wife Antu. Completing the family unit was Anu’s daughter Ninharsag, a prominent figure in god-human relations. After some territorial and authoritorial dispute some time later, the three top gods, Anu, Enlil and Enki drew lots (short straw type of thing) to determine who actually ruled (Anu, having responsibilities elsewhere, having taken a back seat on Earth). While each retaining their administrative and home precincts in the ancient cities of the ‘between two rivers’ region of Mesopotamia, Anu was given the northern latitudes to govern, Enki – drawing the short straw and further exacerbating his resentment – was given the ‘Abzu’ as his realm (ostensibly the mostly water covered southern latitudes – including southern Africa where the primitive workers were developed and first put to work in the gold mines), while lucky Enlil was given the central tropical latitudes and, on top of that, overall supremacy over the whole planet. Whether planned or not, that was now a recipe for disaster – for both gods and man.
Anu, the chief god, was never a present functionality figure within the history of mankind, making only three recorded appearances across several hundred thousand years of our history, albeit at important moments. So it was the inevitable conflict between the two brothers Enki and Enlil, as a result of the succession issue, which features most broadly across the whole spectrum of our history (completely missing in the last 2-3 millennia) and centrally within the current monotheistic religions of the world, the gods having been melded in the minds of man into a single invisible (because they are no longer around to be seen) godhead figure with multiple personality disorders.
The story goes that it was the scientific mind of Enki, capably assisted (did the actual work) by his sister Ninharsag – gaining the epithet ‘Ninti’ (Lady who gives life) and ‘Mammi’ (Mother goddess) – who engineered the creation of the ‘primitive worker’, our original forebears.
Broadly speaking, Enlil, whose disembodied essence is most commonly taken as being the core of the ephemeral YaHWeH (YHWH), Jehovah, Allah, or simply El, is seen as the central ‘God’ figure of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This despite the fact that Enlil actually hated mankind (presumably because it was not his creation but that of his ‘no love lost’ half-brother Enki) and was instrumental in forming the plan to destroy mankind – or at least not warn or rescue it from the coming flood which almost did destroy our kind. Whereas Enki is most commonly taken to be the oppositional Satan figure (whether that is in some spirit form or a more grossly disfigured physical being – which would be somehow more scary – I think nobody has any clear idea, preferring not to think about such things). This despite Enki being the actual creator (maker, manufacturer, experimental physicist) of mankind who, the picture emerges, actually loved (loves?) his creation. To the extent that he, imitating Yahweh’s warning to the biblical Noah of the coming of the flood, providing instruction as to how to safely avoid it, spoke to the ‘reed wall’ in the assembly of the gods (thus not infringing his promise to the assembly not to warn the humans). He had previously told the Sumerian Noah figure named ‘Ziusudra’ (Akkadian ‘Utnapishtim’) to wait there behind the wall and to listen. Thus enabling Ziusudra to go away to make similar arrangements as what Noah did in the later and more widely known Hebrew Bible version of the story. Copied by Jewish scribes during Israel’s captivity period.
Enki is also seen as the serpent figure in the garden of Eden story which saw mankind joyfully liberated from that detention centre. A story in which the serpent – the Bible uses the Hebrew term ‘Nahash’ which can mean serpent but also ‘one who knows secrets’ – tells Eve that God was lying about the death threat and that it was perfectly safe, in fact very beneficial, to eat the forbidden fruit. In the Sumerian version of the tale, Enki, in collaboration with his son Ningishzida (a name which has aspects of the artifacts of life), also a scientist, provides mankind with the capability of procreation. What one thing could give life more purpose than that?
And so it is, and I hope I have adequately shown that to be the case, that we, having muddled and meandered our way from our ancient past, left to our own devices by those flesh and blood and much cleverer and wiser forebears of ours, whose origins and existence we do not seem to be able to accept, while never generally losing or abandoning the fear of the unknown and/or beings more powerful than we, still cling to the delusions of the need to worship and give obeisance to those unknowns or to the unscrupulous vendors of false authority, vested in themselves, of those who claim to represent them and to whom we are obliged to listen and obey. We haven’t progressed very far have we?
We impugn with the epithet of all that is evil, the one figurehead we should be looking up to as being our loving creator, Enki, the Shaitan of the Yezidi (whether they know it or not), and the one who endowed us with what knowledge we have – not to worship or to bow and scrape to, but to acknowledge the truth and be thankful for what has been given – which possibly could have saved us from our current narrative of self-destruction. While we grant all reverence, worship and service to the other figurehead, whom we call ‘God’, the actual embodiment of hate, destruction, death, and all things abhorrent and evil of Enki’s half-brother Enlil (El). Giving, mostly sullenly and without much thought and feeling, our time and money, in service to an idea that is neither true nor wholesome nor beneficial in any way to our continued existence, but which has told us through its self-appointed clerics to go out and destroy or subjugate everything that is not in agreement with the things we have been taught.
And we fell for that? How stupid are we? Is that what is to mark our destiny? Do you, deep down, find any of this surprising?
That, in essence is, I think, and because I can’t go on writing for ever, all I wanted to say here.
Make of it what you will. But I can tell you with some degree of assurance that it is far less of a fairy tale than those which feature more prominently and are more firmly embedded in the lore of mankind handed down to us today from the past. Far less.
Not Something Else 
Leave a Reply