Very early in the Cassiopaean contact, “myself in the future” began to use quote marks in a rather unusual way; that is, a manner that did not strictly follow the accepted rules of grammar and punctuation. I became curious about this and asked:
Q: (L) I have been poring over this material and it occurs to me that certain words have been put in quotes for a reason, yes?
A: We put in quotes what we want further examined.
I didn’t realize then that I was going to be teaching myself this “universal language.” I began to keep a notebook of these quoted words and my studies in their interpretations. I began with simply looking them up in the dictionary and discovering the fullest possible meaning or varieties of meanings. This then led to tracking the words back to their roots and discovering other words that “grew” from the same roots, and often this involved working in other languages. It was utterly amazing how connections became clear in this way. For example: consider the term “Emerald Tablets.” Emerald: variety of Beryl — ME + OF — Emeralde — VL + L — smaraldus/ smaragdus — Gr — amaragdos meaning “of oriental origin.” So, we go to “orient.” Oriental — L orientalis — Eastern. Then we look at “eastern” and find: Eastern — IE base “aues” — to shine — whence Aurora — dawn/east — and aurum — gold. Moving on to “gold,” we find: Gold — IE base “ghel” — to shine, to gleam, symbol Au — Aurora, lover of Orion. And then, finally, we look at “green.” Green — IE base “ghro” — to become. So, what we have found is that a great many ideas come into play in considering the “Emerald Tablets,” and this will later become very important.
At the same time, I noticed that, very often, a word that began with a specific meaning became reversed over time. I also noted that the various alphabets in use by human beings had certain relationships that were either similar or antagonistic. I also discovered that, at a certain point, letters were added to several 22 letter alphabets to make them 24 letter alphabets, and at about the same time, the zodiac was tinkered with, a sign was added and another one split in two. And, this very period of time was related to all of the issues that lead us to the problem of the Grail. It became clear that someone or some force or tendency was at work here that resulted in the “Babel Syndrome,” as I came to call it. I could see the “tracks” of some influence that was determined to make the solution of the mystery as difficult as possible by tossing extra puzzle pieces into the pile; pieces that would lead generations of searchers astray. I knew that I needed to find some sort of “standard” by which to evaluate these clues, so, I inquired about this:
Q: I am tracking the clues through the various languages and alphabets. I would like to know which of these alphabets, Runic, Greek, or Etruscan, preceded the others, and from which the others are derived?
A: Etruscan.
Q: Well, who were the Etruscans?
A: Templar carriers.
Q: What does that mean?
A: Seek and ye shall find.
Q: Well, how am I supposed to do that? I can’t find anything else on the Etruscans! What are Templar carriers?
A: Penitent Avian Lords.
Q: What does that mean?
A: For your search. All is drawn from some more ancient form.
[…]
Q: Well, I think that a HUGE key is in the tracking of the languages...
A: The roots of all languages are identical...
Q: What do you mean?
A: Your origin.
Q: You mean Orion?
A: Interesting the word root similarity, yes?
Q: Well, the word root similarities of a LOT of things are VERY interesting! It is AMAZING the things I have discovered by tracking word roots...
A: The architects of your languages left clues aplenty.
Richard Rudgley tells us in The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 different languages in the world today. This fact echoes the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel. The question is, of course, was there ever a single language in our remote past that would suggest a global antediluvian civilization? As a matter of fact, there is.
One noted linguist, Hans Pederson, has expressed the opinion that there is a definite relationship between the supposedly distinct and independent language families of Indo-European, Semitic, Uralic, Altaic and even Eskimo-Aleut. He posits that all these language groups were in fact descended from a remote language ancestral to them all which he called Nostratic, from the Latin noster, meaning ‘our.’ In this language, there are many words associated with agriculture and husbandry, which suggests a farming economy. However, among the 2,000 roots of the Proto-Nostratic lexical stock, we do not find words suggesting acquaintance with agriculture or husbandry, but we do find many terms associated with hunting and food gathering.
In other words, it could be suggested that Proto-Nostratic belongs to the post-diluvian world which is designated by mainstream science as the ‘Neolithic revolution,’ while most of its descendent languages belong to the Neolithic epoch of food-producing economy.
As it happens, the most ancient center of Neolithic economy in western Eurasia was situated in southwest Asia which leads to a preliminary hypothesis that Proto-Nostratic was spoken in southwest Asia at a period prior to the ‘Neolithic revolution,’ while most of its daughter -languages belong to the Neolithic epoch, and their spread over large territories of Eurasia and Africa was connected with the demographic explosion caused by the ‘Neolithic revolution.’
Now, pay careful attention here: The implications of the Nostratic hypothesis are mind-boggling. The theory proposes that most of the peoples of Europe and those in a large part of western Asia and parts of Africa were speaking Nostratic languages way back in prehistory, before the advent of agriculture.
The project of reconstructing the vocabulary of the Nostratic language takes us deep into the Upper Paleolithic period, the latter part of the Old Stone Age! If the Nostratic language hypothesis is right, then it must be more than 10,000 years old and is likely to be nearer 15,000 years old.
The linguists are actually getting quite daring because there is another even more controversial hypothesis, which is that of a Dene-Sino-Caucasian language that includes languages as diverse as Basque, Chinese, Sumerian, and Haida. If this is shown to be a genuine language group, then it must, like Nostratic and Eurasiatic, be of Upper Paleolithic age.
Some linguists even propose that they can reconstruct the primordial ancestor of all the world’s languages, a language called either Proto-Global or Proto-World. Some of them have assembled etymologies which they believe indicate a connection between all of the world’s language families showing a correlation in respect not only of the meaning of the words but also of their sound.
Many “mainstream” scientists are amazed and troubled by the fact that these correspondences exist across time and space and that languages found as far field as the deserts of southern Africa, the Amazon rain forest, the Arctic and the cities of Europe still retain links from a remote time when they must have all been closely connected. But they cannot deny what is being proposed. Repeated accidental resemblance of both meaning and sound on a global scale is too unlikely to contemplate. That such parallels exist between language groups in distant parts of the world is striking and is hard to dismiss simply as mere coincidence. In fact, this hypothesis takes us back over 20,000 years to some time before these two macro-families must have split to go their separate ways.
This is why word studies are so important. If we hypothesize an ancient high technology, and that myths and legends are disjecta membra of this civilization, coming as close to the original meaning of words is of crucial importance.
The conclusion is that the various proto-languages that are said to belong to the Nostratic group could have dispersed from the zone in which agriculture seems to have first developed, namely the Near East and Anatolia. In this scenario the expansion of these languages beyond the region would be directly associated with the spread of farming. The parent language, Proto-Nostratic would thus be located somewhere in the core region and obviously to a time preceding the origins of agriculture.
Farmers vs. Shepherds. Cain and Abel. As I was reading through all the myths, I was struck by this conflict and also how an older “shepherd” myth was often transformed into an “agriculture” myth with concomitant reversal of imagery and meaning. I asked the Cassiopaeans - myself in the future - about this:
Q: One thing I do want to understand, since it is involved in all of this, is the idea of the ‘Shepherd.’ All of the ancient legends and stories and myths lead, ultimately, to something about the ‘shepherd,’ or the ‘Shepherd King.’
A: Shepherd is most likely to be struck by lightning, due to staff, and thus “enlightened,” or “illumened!!”
Q: Funny spelling! But, what is the contrast between the concept of the shepherd and the agriculturalist? This goes back to the very roots of everything — there is Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael... and others that are even older from other cultures....
A: Are not you “abel” to figure this out? Have you not learned to explore your ideas without prejudice?
Indeed, this is one of the great keys to tracking the Grail. This transition from “hunter-gatherer” to “agriculturalist” is considered to be one of the great “revolutions” or evolutionary steps of mankind. But is it necessarily so? Richard Rudgley noted in passing:
The study of the sample of skeletal remains from South Asia showed that there was a decline in body stature, body size and life expectancy with the adoption of farming. ...Of the 13 studies, 10 showed that the average life expectancy declined with the adoption of farming.
But there is a much deeper implication to this, and it is reflected in the inverting of certain words in our languages as well as inversion of concepts as expressed in our myths. The understanding of this inversion could be the single most important concept to be grasped by man in all of his existence, and it is this understanding that the Cassiopaean transmissions enabled me to grasp. It was clear that, in order to “become myself in the future,” I had to do the research to acquire the same level of knowledge as the Cassiopaeans, as my future self, exemplified. And so, I went to work to “balance” my current effort with “my” input from the future.
... continued next post
