So, some people didn’t believe me when I said in my last post that globalism and populism cannot co-exist.  Enter Emmanuel Macron.

As world leaders gathered in Paris to pay homage to the heroes of World War I, Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, stepped front and center and turned the event into a political football game by saying, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”  What exactly did he mean by that anyway?

Well, first let’s check out the definitions of those two terms. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines patriotism as love for or devotion to one’s country and nationalism as loyalty and devotion to a nation.  So, the two definitions are virtually identical, although usage of the two words can be slightly different.  For example, Charles de Gaulle once said that,“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate of people other than your own comes first.”

Why the wordplay or is this just another example of political correctness?  Well, to know that you have to first understand the worldview of the speaker and the audience he is speaking to. The speaker, in this case, was Emmanuel Macron and his country had previously abdicated its sovereignty to the European Union, not unlike how the French abdicated to Nazi Germany during World War II. Of course, President Trump was also in the audience as well and Macron’s remarks were certainly a rebuke of Trump’s “America First” policies which have been undercutting France, and, for that matter, the entire European Union.

Aside: As Macron told his audience, mostly European leaders, they have a responsibility to defend the legacy of world peace. More wordplay, as he actually meant world order, as in their world order.

The backdrop behind Macron’s remarks is the rise in populism, especially in Europe, and it has been upsetting the established order as populist countries turn to protecting their own interests first before the interests of the European Union.  Now, that’s patriotism to me.  As for Macron, himself, he is losing in the French polls to the populists similar to what’s already happened in Hungary, Poland and Italy, to name a few.

Accordingly, nation-states have become the enemy of globalism, simply because they put their own country first.  They are rejecting Macron’s call for open borders and the mass immigration that would follow it and destroy them all.  While there are certainly other political differences between globalism and populism, open borders really illustrates why the two sides cannot co-exist. Simply put, nation-states cease to exist without borders. The globalists are hell-bent on getting open borders, both here and abroad as open borders spells the end of nation-states (that is, they would lose their sovereignty).

Now you know why nation-states are the enemy… at least as far as the globalists are concerned.



In any event, it appears that after the upcoming French elections Macron will be out of a job unless, of course, the globalists let him run the United Nations. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that we can save the world by letting the United Nations be in charge. In that case, Macron would even run our country as well.  Maybe, then he would just invite in another 600 million immigrants or so.  It would be the humanitarian thing to do according to him.  Nancy Pelosi would love that, no doubt, and she could still be Speaker of the House (albeit for a country which no longer has any sovereignty).


“[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”  – Zbigniew Brzezinski








I was watching an interview with a political commentator recently and one of the topics was a possible future reconciliation/accommodation between the political left and the political right.  Not sure why this topic was terribly relevant just prior to the mid-term elections so maybe they just ran out of things to talk about.  Unlikely, right?

Putting aside the question of relevance, I’d like to talk about why and how there could ever be a reconciliation between the left and right.  Granted, most people are probably unhappy with the current state of affairs. Nevertheless, I would argue that getting the two sides to agree on anything would be like asking atheists and deists to agree as to whether or not God exists.

To begin with, liberals and conservatives have never liked each other, not even a little bit.  The difference in the past was at least they somewhat tolerated each other, with the party on the outs hoping all the while to get back in power.  Ever since the election of Trump, however, the two sides have been at each other’s throat. Putting aside for the moment how we got here, the question is how do we return to a saner environment?  Certainly, Hillary Clinton saying that civility can return only after the Democrats regain power did not help.  Nor did it help when Nancy Pelosi recently said that there would be collateral damage for those who did not agree with the Democratic Party agenda.

While liberals and conservatives have never been exactly bosom buddies, they have had, in the past, some important things in common.  For example, both sides were for the most part patriotic, with an appreciation of what made America great.  Both sides went off to fight (to presumably defend freedom) in two world wars with many giving up their lives for the cause.

However, somewhere along the line, patriotism became a dirty word, for some.  Somewhere along the line, free speech became only a right for those who could shout down opposing viewpoints.  Somewhere along the line, violence was rationalized as being okay if it were in “self-defense” of their own belief systems.  As irrational as those points of view are, at least to some, those same points of view are quite permissible to others.  How did we ever get to this point?

I have been a spectator standing on the political sidelines for most of my adult life.  Perhaps, that’s why I have what I think is a somewhat different perspective on what is happening.  In my opinion, what has been playing out on the stage of American politics can be seen more clearly against the backdrop of world politics (globalism vs. populism). More to the point, a wave of nationalism has in the last few years upset the monopoly of world governments by the elite. Countries like Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Austria and very recently Brazil now have populist governments.

The wave of populism may well have carried Donald Trump into power as well.  Trump promised exactly the same thing that Barack Obama did eight years earlier (hope and change). That formula obviously really sells politically.  However, Trump’s election was almost completely unexpected in all quarters. Prior to that, the Democrats had been in power for sixteen years and had already counted on another eight years under Hillary Clinton.  It was not to be, though, and the reaction to the election loss has led to the near civil war that we are experiencing today.

The tipping point, in what I refer to as the war between two worlds, is that the left was poised to move the country further left politically if Hillary had been elected. Much further left.  I believe that can be borne out by the extreme left-wing rhetoric, violence and protests which have characterized the last two years, all of which has culminated in the rise to prominence of a new type of Democractic political superstar; namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke. Their brand of politics would create a nation without borders, a nation which would protect the interests of would-be immigrants over the interests of citizens (including previous immigrants). That brand of politics only fits the globalist model.

An article on Zero Hedge today also discussed a call for unity between the warring parties. They recommended that an uneasy co-existence of respectful disunity is the only way forward. I disagree. There is no way forward. Simply put: something has to give. As I’ve said before, globalism and populism are mutually exclusive political belief systems.  They can’t co-exist.  America can either become the new Sweden, with everything that implies, or it can try to return to its roots (both culturally and politically). It’s probably time to choose.

“Look at the tyranny of party — at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty — a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes — and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction….”  –  Mark Twain




















Economic Armageddon


If you’re living in a little bubble somewhere in the middle of nowhere, U.S.A., you, no doubt, have little to no idea what is going on in the outside world.  Therefore, let’s take a brief look outside the cocoon, as painful though as it may be:

  • Venezuela – Third world nation status. Economy and socialistic system has totally disintegrated.
  • Greece – Worst economy in the Eurozone. Leftist government has the country in ruins.
  • Russia – Falling oil prices a disaster for Putin.
  • Iran – The mullahs struggling to survive. U.S. has terminated the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions.
  • South Africa – Everything that could go wrong…pretty much has.

Then, of course, there’s Spain, Argentina and Turkey – turkeys, one and all (no pun intended).

Politically, Brexit is a disaster for both the U.K. and the E.U.  Merkel’s party is on the outs in Germany as the immigration issue comes front and center in EU politics. Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, and to some extent Italy, have already said no to more immigration.  Never mind that Sweden and France are essentially lost causes as immigration has already overwhelmed those countries since there isn’t enough money in the government coffers to pay for it all.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

For those of you who think the U.S. is safe, not so fast.  The recent stock market correction should have sobered up a lot of people, although memories tend to be awfully short. Not only is the stock market still overpriced, so is housing which is due any day now for a down cycle.  True, the stats out of D.C. are relatively better than at any time in the last decade but keep in mind that the numbers game is rigged.  Yes, fake government statistics to go hand-in-hand with fake news.  As for the dollar, it will die eventually as all fiat currencies do, now that the dollar has pretty much lost its reserve currency status.

What the upcoming mid-term elections reflect is that there is a wide chasm between the left and right when it comes to economic policy.  If in power, Democrats will increase social spending programs, especially those tied to immigration, and will want to pay for it through huge increases in taxes.  We’re talking about going down the same road as the E.U.  Maybe, the fact that some Europeans are beginning to reverse course will be a wake-up call to America.  The mid-term elections may offer a clue as to what direction the country will ultimately go in.


“In a society in which nearly everybody is dominated by somebody else’s mind or by a disembodied mind, it becomes increasingly difficult to learn the truth about the activities of governments and corporations, about the quality or value of products, or about the health of one’s own place and economy.”  – Wendell Berry


Just Like Germany


In sports, they used to say, “Just like Mike.” In politics it’s about to become, “Just like Germany.” That is, politically, America is about to go down the same road as Germany.  Recent elections in Germany reflect a growing disenchantment of the German people with their government, especially when it comes to the immigration issue.  Angela Merkel may soon have to give way to a new government, one which may have a mandate to address Germany’s ever-growing immigration issue.

Similarly, here in this country, one of the major issues for the mid-term elections is immigration, especially in light of the hype surrounding the migrant-caravan crisis. The stage has been set for a showdown on this issue.

However, the immigration issue goes beyond the polarization of politics as highlighted by the deepening chasm between left-wing and right-wing ideologies. Much more is at stake. The conflict is an extension of what is playing out in Germany and across the globe, a conflict between globalism and populism.

In this country, the conflict can best be described as between those espousing “open borders” and those who support the MAGA movement.  There are a number of arguments for and against “open borders”, but there is one argument that I think overrides all others and yet almost never gets mentioned. That is, “open borders” requires that we ultimately get rid of our nation-state.  It would be the end of the Republic as we know it.

If you want to know how other countries feel about “open borders” just go ask China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.  They all have much stricter immigration policies than we do.  And why is that, exactly?  It’s simple.  Their nations would cease to exist without borders.


All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders….”  – President Bill Clinton


Political rhetoric has really gotten to the point where no one is listening anymore, if in fact they ever were.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about why things have deteriorated so much in just the last two years.  Some blame the activists while others blame the rich, white men.  Everybody blames somebody else (never themselves) and compromise is strictly a thing of the past.

Traditionally, the political groups were generally split into two camps, liberals and conservatives. Of course, some people were liberal, on say social issues, and conservative on economic issues.  Thus, the lines were often blurred. However, these labels have become increasingly meaningless in today’s political landscape.  What could have caused such a sea change?

In just the last two years, there has been a growing trend in the election of populist world leaders including Giuseppe Conte (Italy), Viktor Orban (Hungary) and Roumen Radev (Bulgaria).  In addition, there was the Brexit vote in England to leave the EU.

What has been playing out on the world stage is an awakening of the masses against being governed by unelected bureaucrats (globalists).  The result has been the election of populists (nationalists) who put their countries first. A version of that has taken place in this country with the election of Donald Trump (a nationalist) over Hillary Clinton (essentially, a globalist).

Over time, empires rise and fall and ideologies come and go. Elections do have consequences, after all.  However, the transition from one ideology to another is often chaotic.  In this case, populism and globalism are mutually exclusive ideas. That is, they cannot co-exist.  Hang on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.


“If supranational forms of sovereignty are to be real, they can’t tolerate the ongoing existence of national sovereignty.” –  Dr. Samuel Gregg, author


When I was growing up in a working class neighborhood in Chicago, most people were democrats. Mayor Richard Daley ruled supreme. Fast forward to the present and Chicago has become the violent crime capital of the world and instead of Daly it has Rahm Emanuel as its mayor.  Boy how things have changed.

However, that’s not all that’s changed. Back then, the Democratic Party was the life-blood of the city.  Jobs and politics centered around the Democratic Party which identified itself with the average man-on-the-street. Today, it has morphed into something quite unrecognizable.

Today, the party has been taken over by the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and Beto O’Rourke and left-wing protests are often organized by Antifa and party candidates increasingly get their funding from people like George Soros. Then there’s the use of agent provocateurs such as Linda Sarsour, who masquerades as a supporter of women’s rights when she is really a Muslim who believes in Sharia Law. I doubt that most women understand what that truly means. The really scary thing is, though, that today there is no longer room in the Democratic party for moderates and even liberals are not considered far-left enough. For example, Ocasio-Cortez will not support Bernie Sanders presidential bid for 2020.

The political landscape is changing by the day.  According to students at Cal Berkeley, violence is justified as a means of self-defense when someone offers up beliefs that run counter to their way of thinking. Even people of minority groups like Milo Yiannopoulos or Kanye West are publicly humiliated or not allowed to speak.  What we’re experiencing is mob-rule. Of course, some people don’t want to hear that expression and, accordingly, it’s been banned by certain parts of the mainstream media.  It’s politically incorrect, I guess, even though recent polls show that a vast majority of minority groups are opposed to political correctness.

So, if the Democratic party increasingly does not represent the average American, since minorities are beginning to move to the right politically (blacks and hispanics oppose immigration) and since the party conspired to deprive Bernie Sanders of the party’s 2016 presidential nomination, exactly who does it represent (other than perhaps illegal immigrants, that is)?

One thing is for sure, though, it surely doesn’t represent me.


“The far Left has totally hijacked the Democratic Party. The socialist message will resonate with some naïve, far-Left voters, many of whom are economically ignorant. A big part of this problem is that colleges today are more interested in teaching kids how to become professional protesters than they are teaching them anything about economics or finance.”  –  Kristin Tate, political commentator


So, I’ve had a plethora of questions about my recent post, “ Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat.” It’s a tricky question about Schrodinger’s cat.  Was it alive or dead? Before I give you the answer, though, a little background is probably in order.

The universe is made up of atoms, right? Then there are electrons and quarks which are the basic building blocks of the atom (i.e. sub-atomic particles). However, scientists say that even with the electrons and quarks, the atom is essentially empty space. So, what does the universe consist of if everything is empty space?  The thing is, though, that empty space isn’t really empty. You see, empty space is teeming with life.  Teeming. It is a hotbed of constant creation and destruction which is the very fabric of reality (and all matter).

Let’s backtrack, though, for a second. Science is fundamentally a process of observation and measurement. In that regard, science has what some scientists refer to as a measurement problem. It’s all the fault of the atom. You see, the atom is the most mysterious object in all of creation.  That is, it only appears after it has first been observed and measured!!!

Aside: You might recall that an observation and measurement were at the heart of the Double-Slit Experiment that I mentioned in “Dr. Einstein, Reality and Schrodinger’s Cat” which prompted many of your questions.

Here’s the conundrum. An atom does not exist, as an atom, until an observer looks at it.  That is, the act of observation and measurement creates the atom, and by extension the whole universe. As physicist John Wheeler put it, “The universe does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators.”

So, how does it all work, then?  Putting aside all the theories, the fancy formulae scribbled on chalkboards and the myriad of science textbooks, what exactly is reality? Well, physicist David Bohm says that the quantum field is the true source of our reality. However, according to this theory, our physical world is a projection from another realm, a deeper source of reality which is beyond space and time.  A projection you understand.  Holographic no doubt.  As John Horgan explained though in his book The End of Science, it is not possible to observe what exists beyond space and time by simply observing nature. Ah, yes, there’s the rub. The really scary thing is that scientists will never be able to prove what lies beyond space and time since they can’t observe beyond space and time.

Since science has reached it’s physical limitations, we live in a time when the great geniuses of science are, by necessity, theoretical physicists. That inevitably will probably lead to a philosophical discussion about God. However, at the moment, scientists typically avoid addressing the God question, especially since many scientists are atheists, though it does come up if only through some oblique references. Here’s a few examples:

  • “Life is the most mysterious of all the wonders of creation because atoms  have been assembled in such a way so that they can ponder their own existence.” – Martin Rees, astrophysicist (and an atheist)Aside: That’s exactly what we all have been doing since at least the time of the great Greek philosophers. Pondering our existence.  Needless to say, it takes intelligence to ponder one’s own existence.  That’s what sets man apart from all the other species.
  • “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” – Carl Sagan, astronomer (and an atheist) Aside: How does the universe know itself without intelligence?
  • “Super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” – Antony Flew, a former atheist

So, one does not have to mention God (or even believe in God apparently) in order to understand that Creation could only have been facilitated through intelligence.



Back to Schrodinger’s cat. Actually, quantum mechanics says that Schrodinger’s cat was both alive and dead.  Both, you understand.  That’s because unobserved phenomenon can exist in dual states, or, as I would prefer to say, in an intricate web of infinite possibilities. That is, an atom is merely a possibility until it, the atom, is observed.  Pretty cool world, right? Of course, quantum mechanics also has the “many worlds” interpretation but that may be a bridge too far.

In the end, Schrodinger’s cat is all about choices since, as John Wheeler said, we are the observer. You have to choose.  You can either choose the blue pill or the red pill, but either way, it’s your choice.  As Morpheus said, “But I can only show you the door.  You’re the one who has to walk through it.”


“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.”  – Bernard d’Espagnat, physicist



When I was a kid, we used to watch Superman on the TV. In Superman’s world, people couldn’t believe their eyes when they looked up in the sky and saw him.  It just wasn’t possible, they would say.

Today, as an adult, I look up in the sky and I also see something that is impossible – the moon. That is, I look up in the daytime sky and I see both the sun and the moon at the same time. The impossible part is that when the moon and the sun are directly across from one another (e.g. if the sun is in the east and the moon is the west), you don’t see a fully illuminated moon.  Sometimes, it’s only partially lit.

Science has always explained the moonlight by saying that the moon reflects the sunlight.  Even if that were true, which it’s not, the reflective part of the moon would by necessity indicate the direction of the sunlight and, therefore, the direction of the sun.  Accordingly, if the moon and the sun are directly across from each other during the day, you must always be able to see a fully illuminated moon. By necessity, you understand.

This same logic somewhat applies at night as well.  For example, if the sun has recently set (say two hours after sunset), the night sky is pitch black.  There is no sunlight whatsoever.  If the earth was a globe you would explain that by saying that the sun has disappeared over the horizon in the west.

However, if the cycle of the moon was such that it was low in the eastern sky two hours after sunset (and for that matter the rest of the night), then there would be no line of sight between the moon and the sun and no sunlight would be reaching the moon. By definition, the moon would have to be in a new moon phase.  That is, you couldn’t see it because there would be no sunlight reflecting off of it.

Funny thing, though, because when I look up in the sky under those circumstances, I do see a moon. Sometimes, the moon is full even though the sun is obviously not directly across from it in the sky.  Even worse, sometimes the moon is partially lit. Why even worse? Well, the side of the moon that is illuminated is pointing away from the sun. By definition, that’s impossible, you understand.

All this flies in the face of accepted scientific theory and almost any science book will parrot the same discourse.  I said scientific theory you understand. The problem is that one does not have to be a scientist to look up in the sky and see the sun and the moon as I described, and if you really think about it you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that they, therefore, have been lying to you. It’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about…but, of course, now you know.


“Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”   – Michael Ellner

Another Q Anon


Well, now we not only have one Q Anon, we have two.  How wonderful.

An anonymous source who supposedly works on the White House staff supposedly wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times. I say, supposedly. MSNBC ran with the story without verifying it and interviewed Steve Schmidt, a campaign strategist by profession (in other words, a political hack). Given that an anonymous person had just publicly attacked a sitting American president, Schmidt took the liberty to do a complete butcher job on him.  At least, he labeled himself for what he is, a member of the Resistance.  While I don’t doubt that there are people working on the White House staff who don’t support Trump politically, I seriously doubt that this anonymous person is real.  It’s simply a way to vilify the president for political gain.  How convenient.

So, now we have two Q Anons when one may be one too many.  However, perhaps, this was simply an indirect way of discrediting the other Q Anon. Whatever. That’s why I rarely comment on politics.  Hats off, though, to the New York Times for running a creative story even if it was fake news, although that’s why they have become just another failing media institution.


“Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”

                – Michael Ellner

Despite previous posts, I continually get questions as to who the Sumerians were. Same goes for Caucasians. To clarify, they were, more or less, one and the same thing.  That goes for the Yazidis as well. Ditto King Tut. Ditto most North Africans. Ditto the ancient Israelites.

However, let’s first define some of these names so that we are perfectly clear. The term Caucasian is generally applied to the white race or someone of European ancestry, although it has a much broader meaning.  According to Wikipedia, the Caucasian race is a group of people including some or all of the ancient and modern populations of EuropeWestern AsiaCentral AsiaSouth AsiaNorth Africa, and the Horn of Africa (mostly settlers from Holland and other parts of Europe); in other words, white to brown skin, light to dark eyes and blonde to dark hair. More specifically, a Caucasian refers to a person with a Caucasoid skull, of which the commonly known Nordic skull is one of three Caucasoid types.

The term Caucasian came about because of the belief that Caucasians originated from the Caucasus Mountains in West Asia, in the area between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea (which currently includes countries like Georgia, Azerbaijan and the southernmost part of Russia).  While many Caucasians lived in this area at one time (and still do), their history goes much deeper than what is in the history books.

It’s important to note that the Sumerian civilization preceded the Greek Civilization which is widely credited as the birthplace of modern/Western civilization.  However, the Sumerian Civilization was far greater than the Greek Civilization ever was and the origins of civilization actually go back to Sumer. If you want to read up on the Sumerian Civilization, I would suggest Stanley Kramer’s book History Begins at Sumer.

Actually, the Greek Civilization was a remnant of the Sumerian Civilization.  People like Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were all descendants of the Sumerians, who migrated westward thru the Mediterranean to places like Crete, Cyprus and Greece (which are a stone’s throw from Mesopotamia, the homeland of the Sumerians).

When the Sumerian Civilization dispersed, it went in all directions including east to China, as the Caucasian mummies of the Tarim Basin are a testament to. Their descendants were some of the great figures of ancient history, including Alexander the Great, Abraham (from the Bible), the Roman emperors, the European kings and some of the Egyptian pharaohs/royalty (like King Tut, Akhenaten and Nefertiti). The Sumerians were eventually known by many names.  For example, the Israelite tribe of Dan migrated through Russia to Germany, to Scandinavia (the Vikings) and eventually on to the British Isles.

One of the legacies of Sumerian Civilization is language. The languages of the Sumerian descendants is referred to as the Indo-European family of languages – everything from Sanskrit in the east (India) to the Romance languages of Europe in the west, as well as two of the great languages of the past three thousand years (Greek and English).

So, perhaps this has answered the questions of some of you and peaked the curiosity of others.  Yet, some will no doubt ask what the relevance is of this look-back in history.  Well, there is a link and it’s this: In some circles, descendancy from the Sumerian kings gives those people what they feel is a divine right to rule. You might be surprised to know that a majority of Americans are Sumerian by ancestry and all U.S. presidents are descended from European/Irish/Scottish kings (even Barack Obama) and are therefore descendants of the ruling Sumerian elite.  They all have what I call the DNA of the gods.

This history is also tied in to a recent call by some to eradicate the white race. This rhetoric, oddly enough, comes from other white people. Of course, this is simply a ploy since those whites calling for the eradication of their own race are not going to set an example by killing themselves first; far from it.  The real reason is… well, I’ll let you connect the dots.  You see, it’s a dirty little secret that you’re not supposed to know about, although, now I think you know.

“With stunning abruptness… there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden… the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world.”

   – Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God