Sunday, September 20, 2026

Mystification

 


This is some kind of silly mystification which feels so 1970´s (or earlier). 30 years ago, the creators of conspiracist TV series "Dark Skies", Zabel and Friedman, were contacted by a mysterious character just called JC from US Naval Intelligence. He gave them a sheet of paper containing "the secrets of the Universe" and told them to stash it away in a safety deposit box for 10 to 15 years. It remained there for three decades but have now been published at some alternative-inclined website.

Yeah, OK.

It seems the "secret" is a badly scribbled version of the seven chakras and the three kundalini-related energy channels, probably in a Golden Dawn or Theosophy version. In other words, nothing new. Standard Western esotericism freely based on Indian yoga. Indeed, the diagram could be based on a garbled memory of the cover of a book by Israel Regardie!  Note also that the initials "JC" sound familiar somehow. Could it be Jesus Christ? ChatGPT claims that it´s indeed a standard abrreviation for the Christian Redeemer in Rosicrucian works...

And Friedman apparently practiced kundalini yoga.

If mysticism is your thing, maybe the chakras can be used to reach higher levels of Spirit. But it seems mysticism always have to be marketed through mystification...  

Cryptid art

 


Interesting but inconclusive. Skeletons or live specimens sorely needed!

Kraschlandningen

 


Det verkar som att alla småpartiröster är sammanräknade nu...

De små ytterhögerpartierna gjorde tillsammans ett rekordval

Ragu


Måtte Krishna förbanna dig, fräcke avgudadyrkare! 

Edward Blom gjorde ragu av Gynnings påfågel: "Riktigt gott"

Saturday, September 19, 2026

Eternally yours

 


So Trump´s "eternal" deal with Denmark about Greenland doesn´t contain anything that couldn´t have been accomplished through NATO or through normal diplomatic channels c/o Copenhagen? Tells you a lot about this guy´s public relations approach...

What will happen when some heavy lifter calls his game? Maybe they already have. That too would explain a lot of things, wouldn´t it?

The wisest of demons

 


Is the Biblical / post-Biblical demon Asmodeus really a displaced Vedic storm god who entered Middle Judaism through Zoroastrianism?

No idea, and the video above isn´t scholarly, but it´s an interesting idea, to be sure! Note also the peculiar ambivalence towards the Asmodeus character in Judaism. Solomonic grimoire magick, anyone?  

Är det officiellt nu?

 


Är det officiellt nu? Eller kan man fortfarande trixa lite med utjämningsmandaten så att detta inte är sant? 

SD skyller sitt valnederlag på "islamister" (alltså invandrare), men om nedanstående stämmer är det (ironiskt nog) deras oförmåga att stoppa just "islamisterna" (invandringen) som lett till den nuvarande situationen. 

Ett "Jimmie Moment" de uppenbarligen inte vill ha. Den som tittar bort när dolkstöten utdelas, kan inte sprida dolkstötslegender... 

De små ytterhögerpartierna (etc)

Friday, September 18, 2026

The day of her wrath

 


The demise of the (non-avian) dinosaurs was truly apocalyptic and even worse than we imagined, essentially hell on earth. It seems the Destructrix is a hard task-master...

En DÖP:s klagan?

 


Skulle vara intressant att få veta vad skribenten anser om adoptioner. Fast strängt taget bryr jag mig inte. Jag är nämligen inte en DÖP (Dunham-överintresserad person). Har väl bara kommenterat henne typ två gånger tidigare på den här bloggen...

Lena Dunham har köpt ett barn på postorder

Trimurtix?

 


From Wikipedia: "The female-centric Shaktidharma denomination assigns the eminent roles of the three forms (Trimurti) of Supreme Divinity not to masculine gods but instead to feminine goddesses: Mahasarasvati (Creatrix), Mahalaxmi (Preservatrix) and Mahakali (Destructrix)."

Ahem, are "Preservatrix" and "Destructrix" real English words or some kind of strange neologisms? Let´s find out, chat. Let´s ask our amigo!

[ChatGPT comments]

Yes. “Preservatrix” and “Destructrix” are understandable English formations, but they are not ordinary, established English words. In the Wikipedia passage you quoted, they are essentially neologistic/feminine formations, apparently created to parallel “Creatrix.”

The linguistic pattern

The three words are:

  • Creatrix — an established English word, historically borrowed from Latin crēātrīx, “female creator.” It has genuine dictionary usage, although it is uncommon and somewhat formal/archaic.
  • Preservatrix — formed from preserve + the Latinate feminine-agent suffix -trix. It means “female preserver,” but is extremely rare and is not a normal English vocabulary item.
  • Destructrix — similarly formed from destruct + -rix/-trix, meaning “female destroyer.” It is also extremely rare and not standard everyday English.

So the Wikipedia terminology is essentially:

Creatrix — Preservatrix — Destructrix
Creator — Preserver — Destroyer

with the last two deliberately feminized to make the Sanskrit theological triad grammatically parallel.

Interestingly, the terminology is not merely an invention of the Wikipedia editor. The exact sequence appears in English translations/discussions of Śākta theology. For example, an English translation of the Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa uses “Creatrix, Preservatrix and Destructrix” in describing Devī's cosmic functions. John Woodroffe likewise uses “Creatrix, Preservatrix, and Destroyer” when discussing Śakti.

But “Preservatrix” is particularly odd

Preservatrix is morphologically transparent, but English normally says:

female preserver

rather than preservatrix.

The suffix -trix comes from Latin feminine agent nouns, as in:

  • creator → creatrix
  • administrator → administratrix
  • executor → executrix
  • aviator → aviatrix

But preservatrix and destructrix never became comparably established English nouns.

There is also a slight morphological awkwardness with destructrix. Classical Latin has dēstrūctrix (“female destroyer”), so the form isn't linguistically nonsensical; it is a perfectly plausible Latin-derived formation. But its English use is exceedingly uncommon.

And there is an important Wikipedia issue here

The wording makes it sound as though “Creatrix, Preservatrix and Destructrix” are traditional Sanskrit theological titles. They aren't.

The underlying Sanskrit concepts are much more straightforward:

sṛṣṭi — creation
sthiti — preservation/maintenance
saṃhāra / laya — destruction/dissolution

And in Śākta theology Devī/Śakti herself can perform all three functions. The Devī Bhāgavata, for example, describes the Goddess as sṛṣṭi-sthiti-anta-kāriṇī — essentially “she who performs creation, preservation and dissolution.”

The specific assignment

Mahāsarasvatī = Creatrix
Mahālakṣmī = Preservatrix
Mahākālī = Destructrix

is the English-language presentation of the feminine Tridevī/Trimūrti scheme, rather than a set of Sanskrit technical terms corresponding literally to those English words. The current Wikipedia article itself presents exactly that scheme.

So I would translate the passage more naturally as:

Mahāsarasvatī — the Creator
Mahālakṣmī — the Preserver
Mahākālī — the Destroyer

even though all three are goddesses.

If one wants to emphasize their femininity, “Creatrix, Preservatrix, and Destructrix” is legitimate as a deliberately Latinate stylistic choice—but it sounds much more like theological English coinage than ordinary English.

And there is a particularly interesting point here: “Preservatrix” may actually be a better clue to the source tradition than “Mahalaxmi” itself, because that triplet reflects a specific modern English Śākta presentation of the Tridevī rather than the much more widespread Hindu identification of Lakṣmī simply as Viṣṇu's consort and goddess of śrī/fortune.