Scientists claim that whoever lives the next sixty years will be offered a chance at immortality. Man's struggle with his own mortality may be near an end... as if it ever could be. We are impermanent beings once apart of a well balanced ecosystem that requires us to die. Death is life. Life is death. If no one ever died from the time of creation, we would be stepping on top of one another and all starving. Our planet is already overpopulated.

   This idea to me is frightening, because we have already gone too far with our artificial lives. Due to technological advances we have hindered our natural evolution. For most of history people died by the age of thirty, at the latest! Today, Americans are estimated to live into their seventies and eighties (LiveScience), some even breaking the triple digits. That is over double and sometimes triple the norm. This is good right? Medicine has brought us longer lives.

   I hear people constantly complaining about arthritis, cancer, unknown pains, age pains, so on and so forth. If we all lived to be no later than thirty years old, sure we'd still experience pain, but the onset of diseases like Alzheimer's would not happen. Our bodies are not designed to live as long as people think we deserve to live. They simply cannot handle it. The everyday pains your experience is because your body is breaking down, slowly, but surely. And what do you think a midlife crisis is from? Man needs change. And wondering where life is supposed to leave you at 30 or 40 is perfectly understandable, since you shouldn't even be alive at all.

   No matter how smart we think we are, no matter how advanced science comes, our physical bodies in this existence will never be permanent. There will always be death, and no matter how unnatural the means, it is very natural. I would rather live thirty amazing years, full of passion, then seventy in pain and agony. True, there are plenty of people out there who claim to live long and wonderful lives. But there are plenty more who have not. We live longer, but we're more unhealthy. We have not only grown weak as a species, but we grow weaker the older we become. Individuals appreciate things more the less of it they have, including life.

   We'd also have less population issues, and for those of you that think more the merrier... how many people are starving to death right now because we, the humans of this planet, cannot even support ourselves. When there are too many coyotes in a certain area, they kill off all of the game. Because of this, the coyotes starve until they reach an equal number for their habitat again and the smaller animals replenish themselves. Well, we've grown far past our habitat's means. We import, we destroy, and we multiply.

(dailymail.co.uk)
   Last hump day, Wednesday 7th October, 2009, an ominous halo was reportedly seen by millions of Moscow's inhabitants looming over the Russian capital. The sighting was said to look like “a scene from the film Independence Day” by the United Kingdom's Mail Online, but Meteorologists from all over claimed it was no more than an “optical illusion” and Moscow's very own Vesti24, who published a mobile phone video of the halo submitted by an eyewitness, released an official statement to Russia Today claiming “several air fronts have passed Moscow recently, including an inflow of cold air from Arctic, and they combined to produce such a phenomenon.”

   Still in a bit of disbelief myself, I decided to do some research of my own. As amazing as this occurrence is to me, it is far from supernatural, and in fact, is some what of the norm. These clouds are call fallstreak holes or punch hole clouds. According to the Cloud Appreciation Society, these halo shaped holes appear in cirrocumulos or altocumulus clouds when the water temperature in the clouds is below freezing but the water has yet to freeze due to the lack of ice nucleation particles. When a portion of the water does finally freeze it sets off a chain reaction, due to the Bergeron process, causing the water vapor around it to freeze and fall to the earth as well. This leaves a large, often circular, hole in the cloud.


(xearththeory.com)

   This explanation for fallstreak holes is still a theory (just like gravity is still a theory because scientists are far from setting up any sort of legitimate universal scientific truth) and a site I found called xearththeory.com has it's own unique explanation for such phenomenon. Exchanging Earth Theory (xearththeory.com) claims that fallstreak holes are created due to electromagnetic fields aka electricity, and are similar to the Northern Lights (aurora borealis) and lightning. They offer no direct explanation for these electric charged clouds, but from my understanding, explain that it is no different from an electric wire in a bowl of water, which visually creates a ring around the wire followed by ripples.

   Whether the result of some odd freezing effect or electromagnetic fields, fallstreak holes are certainly a sight to behold. This is just another example of nature's true beauty, regardless of scientific or spiritual design. Don't forget to take time to appreciate the world we inhabit, which shouldn't be too hard at this point-in-time for those of you in a fall-changing area. Here in Michigan it is the best time to see the changing of the leaves as the Stag becomes the fallen and Lupercus is free to roam.

  References:
- Wikipedia: Moscow
- Pictured: The Independence Day-shaped cloud hovering in the skies over Moscow
- “UFO halo” in the sky baffles Muscovites
- February Cloud of the Month
- How are Punch Hole Clouds (Fallstreak Holes) formed?

(Image from Forestopia.net)

   Supernature vs Nature, surely Supernature would win right, because Superman would put a good ol' fashion beat down on just any ordinary man? Well, in this case, it does not imply any form of superiority, but simply two different ideals on creationism. The Supernatural is the belief in an underlying spiritual creator behind all of existence, and thus Natural would be the opposite, that is, that man evolved from nature through evolutionary standards. Both are very valid beliefs and both require a bit of "Faith" at this point in time.

   A supernatural creation involves a God or Gods that created the world, whether these gods are still actively involved in their creation depends on the belief system. This sort of belief explains many, many things that cannot else wise be explained in the world/universe we reside in. The problem with a supernatural belief is that even though "specialists" in the field often have degrees, there really is no empirical evidence for such an existence. The programs that one studies is a compilation of man's speculation for a certain period of time (however long it has been that we have not known the answer, perhaps always). This puts a massive damper on this sort of specialists credentials. There is hope though, as physicists uncover new things their evidence leads to a "more than physical" existence. Plus there are many (once again untrained) Paranormalists who are able to record and/or document supernatural activity (which once is again is debatable). It is possible that there is much more to this world that we don't understand and that we can't see under a microscope. Does this mean that there is a God? Well, no, not at all. It means that there is something more out there that we have yet to have the tools to measure, see, or gauge. But the very existence of "something more" goes against the beliefs of a naturalist.

   A natural creation usually involves the idea of evolution, that is, man (and all species for that matter) evolved from single cell organisms. Darwinism, Big Bang, Survival of the Fittest, these are all theories that belong to this school of thought but do not make it. This sort of creation is just as phenomenal, that we truly are children of our planet which is a child of the universe. And, out of the two, there is more evidence to back up this idea. However, empirical data for both are sadly lacking. What do I mean by empirical data? It means that neither belief can be proven within close reason, by scientific standards to date (experimentation, recreation, documentation, experience). We know that man has been around for so many years through archeological excavation, but this does not prove that we evolved, it just shows that we existed for so long. There is also evidence to things that predate man's existence. Man has similar chromosomes to other species and all species share a common physical design (eyes, nose, mouth, longs, legs, arms, etc). We have also found the skulls of what we believe to be "Neanderthals." The problem that scientists run into for this theory, is that there are no missing links, there is no proof that man evolved from the Neanderthal, ape, or otherwise. There is no rhyme or reason for a single-celled organism to evolve into a multi-celled, and there is the everlasting question of what came before? Many scientists believe without a doubt that the Big Bang Theory is how the Universe was created... well, what was before the Big Bang? How was the Big Bang created? Where did that energy come from and why did it suddenly change? These questions all lead us back to a supernatural creation.

   So are we the creation of Supernatural or Natural means? I don't honestly know, but without an open minded observation into both, there can be no answers. Atheists have to be able to understand that not only has Spiritualism existed since man's creation, but that there just is no concrete evidence at this point to prove either way. Theists have to remember that there is scientific data proving against most religious beliefs, and that scientists have been able to recreate many "magical" components of this world. Does this mean that each of these ideas are exclusive? Well, by design, yes, but realistically, no. There is no reason why a God didn't somehow, magically, appear out of thin air and set things in motion that later led to the evolution of man. There is also no reason why a God can't exist outside of evolution or even because of evolution. In recent years there has been a "New Age Movement" of spiritualists who have removed themselves from religious diplomacy, respected tradition, and opened their minds to a new kind of "faith." They accept many archaeological finds, scientific experimentation, and still hold onto the belief that there is an existence beyond our own. Perhaps this is what the world will move toward in the coming years. Personally, I think the only way to move ahead is to respect tradition, honor experimentation, and don't be too hasty to deny any possibility. Lastly, open communication on all subjects, no matter how taboo, is the only way to truly sort things out.

     Due to last weeks article and current issues I'm dealing with (waiting to hear back from both Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster Online + running the info booth at Newaygo County Pagan Pride Day) I've decided to write an article about being Pagan. What does it really mean to be Pagan? Many people have different ideas on what it means to be Pagan and I will attempt to explain my definition from my own scholarly point of view (if you disagree feel free to leave a comment explaining where you disagree or how you would define it).

     What is Pagan? A Pagan is one who adheres to Paganism and Paganism is a general term for a religious archetype no different than Shamanism, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judeo-Christian. Within each of these archetypes there are different "sects." For example, Buddhism has Mahayana and Theravada; Judeo-Christian has Judaism, Muslim, Christian (and within Christian there are Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Lutheran, etc etc); and Shamanism has various "sects" as well, like those of the Native Americans. Paganism has many sects just like the others, such as, Asatru (Nordic), Druid, Celtic, Gaelic, Greek, Roman and so forth. Pagans even encompasses Neo-Pagans, or those who believe in the Pagan ideals but don't necessarily follow any particular sect, deities, or community (very similar to the Non-Denominational Christianity). From my knowledge of American Pagans, most would lump themselves into this Neo-Pagan category due to a lack of knowledge on what it means to be Pagan (and the reason for this article).

     Now Paganism is the second oldest religious archetype (the first being Shamanism) and has it's roots deep in history. The type of religion that Paganism is (with the exception of some Neo-Pagans) is polytheistic. "Poly" meaning many and "theism" means the belief in a deity. Therefore, traditional Pagan religions believed in many gods or more than one. The opposite of this would be monotheism, or the belief in one god, and that can be seen in any of the Judeo-Christian religions.

     The gods of paganism have been labeled many things by other religions, but what are the facts? Well, most Pagan gods are the personification of nature and/or emotions. For example, Aphrodite is the Goddess of Love or Aries the God of War. In nature, the God and Goddess Dianus and Diana are viewed to be the representation of the Earth, Male and Female Polarities, and/or the Sun and the Moon. This is also why the original God of the Woods was a deer (in order to help the original hunters) and as man settled down he became a bull in order to still meet man's needs as a farmer. For more information on how these "mythologies" and gods were attributed their different natural attributes look to my earlier article where I explain the myth creating process (The Myth Making Process).

     Due to man's fondness of travel, the deities of many religions have been at war for thousands of years. Christianity's Satan is a "rip-off" of Pagan Gods, not necessarily due to lack of talent, but because the Christian faith would like to convince people that Christianity is the right religion and Paganism the wrong. This is why Satan is often represented with horns and calves legs (such as Pan), a trident (like that of Poseidon), and the color red (such as Sett). This is believed to create Satan as the direct opposite of good (Satan literally translates to "Adversary"). The only problem with this is that no matter how creepy or frightening some of the Pagan Gods may appear, none of them are evil. In fact, there is no evil deity in any of the Pagan Religions (any of the main ones I'm aware of that is).

     So where do these signs of Satan worship come from? Well I already explained that other religions (especially Christianity) wanted people to accept their religion as the correct religion and thus the "evil" role of Paganism was born. Pagans historically would meet under the moon in the nude and fornicate in honor or worship to their Deities' gift of life. This has created the title of Pagans being "sensual," but is far from the truth (many Pagans today practice family friendly rituals). Pagans are also often said to give offerings, such as cutting a goat's throat. All religions throughout history have given offerings to Gods (even Christianity) and this was a representation of the times and not the religions themselves. No where is it stated that a Pagan must sacrifice to a God.

     Early I stated that Paganism is the second oldest religious archetype (next to Shamanism). Paganism has been around for possibly as long as 10,000 years (if not longer)! Paganism found it's start from Folk-Religion. Folk-Religion is a structure of beliefs adhered to by local inhabitants of an area. A lot of "witchcraft" started out as man's attempt at keeping a relationship with the Earth in order to live in harmony. Farmers who had a "green thumb" would often study nature, the stars, and sun to figure out how to best grow their plants. Travelers (and sailors) would study the stars in order to know where they were going and many could "read the sky" for knowledge of oncoming weather changes. Medicine men would use various herbs to cure and prevent illnesses and injuries. Alchemists (the forefathers of Science) attempted to study the planet in order to alter metals and stones for the betterment of humanity. The myths and folk-lore that surrounds Paganism were due to an unscientific community attempting to explain why certain things (especially bad luck) happened. All of these things were passed down from generation to generation orally and were rarely recorded. Christianity (and all of the Judeo-Christian religions) is actual unique in the sense that from it's very beginning there was scripture to follow.

     Folk-Religion, and Paganism, is a religion that evolves around nature. Due to this, Pagans tend to honor natural events as much as they can (such as Equinoxes, Full Moons, and Seasons). Pagans tend to have a natural love for the Earth and prefer to use all-natural products. They also prefer to give back to the Earth and focus more on a spiritual relationship instead of a physical. This is the exact opposite of materialism (as stated by some dictionaries). Pagans follow their beliefs everyday, they live them, and don't just practice them on sacred days. They attempt to live a life as spiritual as possible and therefore are very religious, even if they don't tend to congregate on a normal basis like other religions.

     Finally, Paganism is far from a rare religion. Pagans do not have a need to convert or outwardly express their belief system. Therefore most Pagans go unnoticed. When Judaism was created, majority of Europe was Pagan. Almost every scholar, politician, and philosopher believed in a pagan religion. This means that historically Pagans were very civilized, knowledgeable, and often times wealthy (and actually most Christians in the time of it's inception were the opposite, they were poor and unschooled... even some of, if not all, the apostles were illiterate).

     I hope you have enjoyed Paganism 101 and hopefully now whether you're a Pagan or otherwise you will be informed when addressing the matter. As I have stated before, it is up to the Pagan community to tell others what being Pagan means, and not let others decide what it is for them. Knowledge is power, so empower yourself. Much love as always and I hope the Harvest finds you all in good spirits!

There are many people who believe that we, humankind, are in a state of 'awakening.' According to the dictionary awake is to come or bring to an awareness; become cognizant (often fol. by to): She awoke to the realities of life. Well, what are these realities and who has the authority to teach them?

Christians, Pagans, Scientists and Occultists all claim to have the 'right' answer, the truth of the matter. Well, who decides if these people are right or wrong? There is no board of knowledge that decides the realities of humanity, instead these decisions are made by you and me. We decide these truths!

How do we decide? There are plenty of books out there written by AUTHORities, Authors who claim to have the answer and the only authority for these claims are the author's alone. Usually the author that becomes the most popular is the one who swings the biggest pen. Is this right?

Well most would agree that through experimentation, or experiences that involve analysis truth can be found. Scientists tend to take the cake in this department due to their careful, considerate examinations or at least, these virtues are accredited to them thus.

Many scientists have been wrong in the past. At one time the world was flat. At another, the Earth was the center of the universe. And believe it or not, there is still no defined Scientific Law. Not all scientists have even agreed on Gravity, and yet, the average person takes it as fact.

Likewise, many religions have come and gone. Christians at one time were hunted down and burned... then it was the witch at the stake, and now it appears that God has once again been subjected to his own crucifix, perhaps all the gods with him.

Governments as well have risen and fallen. The Romans once ruled the known world. England and Spain at one time controlled the seas and numerous other countries. Alexander the Great was once a force to be reckoned with and Hitler was feared by all.

All of these authorities have taught very different ideas. Does this make any one of them wrong? Not necessarily, and yet we have found many to be so. To this day nations are influenced by the laws of Rome, philosophers by the insights of Greece, and scientists from their reported formers.

I love to teach, and some day I hope that I will be blessed enough with an audience to listen to my lectures, but what makes me a teacher? For starters, I am also a student. I am willing to learn and be corrected. I am willing to be taught by other teachers, students, and the in between. I pride myself on my ability and willingness to learn, and because of this, I am my own AUTHORity, front and foremost. Due to my sense of morality, I seek the truth, as many, and will not stop at any whim to find it. This is what I write and this is what I teach. Through this teacher/student and student/teacher mentality I hope to relate to you as I relate to myself.

With all of that said, who do I believe? Who have I found with the 'real truth?' Honestly, no one. However, I have found many like-minded individuals who have dedicated their lives to figuring out what is NOT real. This is quite a fete indeed. In a world of naysayers, people are genuinely on guard. Firms, institutions, scientists and clerics all preach for the individual to fear knowledge that sounds foreign. How many times in your life have you heard something and discredited it immediately?

Skepticism is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is the tool one uses to learn. Who told you that the sun will rise again everyday? Who told you the books you read are true or not true? Who tells you that food tastes good or bad to your taste sense? Questioning the objects that you already believe yourself to know can teach you whether you're justified in your beliefs or not. True, our parents initially convince us of many things in our life, but are our parents not as faulted as the rest of us?

You are the final teacher to yourself! You decide if you've “learned” a fact, possible fact, or a falsity. There are innumerable amount of proclaimed professors out there that use intentional and/or unintentional brainwashing to present their point; egotistical, pompous, holier-than-though, and more 'enlightened' or 'awakened' than the rest.

If I'm passionate or nonsensical about the subject, then I must be right. If I do not give you room to question what I say, then you will believe it, and there will be no debate. If I tell you only idiots believe otherwise, then you feel embarrassed, vulnerable, and silenced. In this weakened state I can subject you to what ever 'truths' or 'lies' I please. This is the way many people are taught and is even how the military breaks down and recreates their perfect soldiers. Well soldiers only follow orders, a machine, that does not question right or wrong. Are you a machine?

In the land of technology, we have infinite amounts of luxuries. Computer chips now do thousands of things for us, so that we are free to be more productive. Gas lines are run to my house, a furnace lights the gas, and keeps my house warm. I no longer have to build a fire place by hand, cut logs, scavage for kindling, stack it just right, and use a flint and tinder or rub sticks together to ignite it. What a wonderful amount of time I've saved! Once again, these are machines. Machines designed for a purpose and only capable of doing what I program them to do. Their knowledge is the knowledge of their developer and their action is the action decided by their designer. A furnace cannot decide to refrigerate soda or transport me from point a to point b. The same goes for a refrigerator and an automobile. Are you a machine?

I hope not. I hope that I am speaking to the conscious of individuals and not flesh-blood robots. I implore you to heed my words, but you are the one who decides whether I'm genuine or malarkey. I am at your whim as a teacher, and you mine as a student. I would die for you, and yet, until the proclaimer meets the catalyst, who are you to believe me so? Who am I to believe myself?

So on track with my lesson of the day. Who has the right or wrong answers? If I wrote a book declaring that Hillary Clinton won the last election, and no one wrote anything to state otherwise, then later individuals would believe it so. If I met a serial killer and documented how much of a caring and loving individual he was, and no one ever caught him, then he would be reported thus. If I give one homeless person the coat off my back, but refuse to help the next, then to one I am an outstanding guy and to the other I am an apathetic asshole.

Subjectivity and perception plays a major role in the documents we are taught from. This is why many scholars find it important to research the author as much as the text. This explains why a person might believe one thing or another or be influenced to write something as so. Sometimes it is for the 'betterment' of all that information is left out, but once again, who decides what is best for me and what is best for you? This is why one must be ever so careful when jumping to any conclusions. The best knowledge is presented as a thesis with an antithesis, hand in hand. The observer decides the answer, not the mentor. So as a 'teacher' of truths, what is your answer?

Many declare me as unorthodox, unusual, and unruly. Other teachers are threatened by what I have to say, and by those like me. I often find myself sitting on the outside of the circle, with ears and eyes turned elsewhere. Well, if my greatest gift is to be the antagonist, then let it be so. I just pray that it's not in vane. If you want the unprecedented and unbiased knowledge that is available and free, then welcome to Witchmoot. Thank you for taking the time to read what one humble practitioner has to say, and please take the time to read what the other authors have decided to present, I promise it is all raw, educational, and unique.