John Major Jenkins / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page John Major Jenkins.

Franchesca (guest) 20 Mar 2011 15:19

Ok, I understand that there's some dual interests, and there are some flaws with what he's saying. He doesn't support the "apocoliptic" ending to the world. If you've read his books, or watched his interviews, you'd understand that he beleives that the "selfishness of mankind" will be changed. He's never predicted that the world was going to end or that humankind was going to end. He doesn't think that its going to be some magical epiphany. His exact words are, "humankind is going to be on a precipice, and we have the decision on where to go. We can't wait until 2012, we can start making a difference now". Maybe you should fully understand what your talking about before you go off on a rant. Actually read his books possibly.

DieselHorseLAW 20 Mar 2011 17:01

Not speaking for anybody else here. I personally have no real problem with JMJ though. I have not read his books but I have watched videos about him and read his websites. I have even sent an e-mail to him with a question about something, but didn't get a reply. He does indeed on his websites and evidently his books too (I haven't read them so I can neither confirm nor deny that) speak out against some disaster or something big and bad happening in 2012. He has a passage on one of his websites saying that the Maya never predicted doom or anything of that sort for 2012.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

obaeyens 20 Mar 2011 17:13

He doesn't support the "apocoliptic" ending to the world. If you've read his books, or watched his interviews, you'd understand that he beleives that the "selfishness of mankind" will be changed.

Actually that is the exact same claim I heard for the year 2000.

TheGreatJuju 20 Mar 2011 17:37

Ok, I understand that there's some dual interests, and there are some flaws with what he's saying. He doesn't support the "apocoliptic" ending to the world. If you've read his books, or watched his interviews, you'd understand that he beleives that the "selfishness of mankind" will be changed. He's never predicted that the world was going to end or that humankind was going to end. He doesn't think that its going to be some magical epiphany. His exact words are, "humankind is going to be on a precipice, and we have the decision on where to go. We can't wait until 2012, we can start making a difference now". Maybe you should fully understand what your talking about before you go off on a rant.

Is there some specific point on the Jenkins page you'd like to dispute? Because from where I'm sitting, the only rant here is coming from you.

Actually read his books possibly.

Maybe you should try actually reading the article you're criticizing.

"Publicly, Jenkins does not support the idea of an apocalypse in 2012."
…
"He can be harshly critical of the "2012 Doomsday" camp…"
…
"Jenkins calls producers of 2012 documentaries 'doomsday pimps', ignoring the fact that some of his own 'essential books for exploring Maya perennial wisdom for 2012' attribute apocalyptic views to the Maya for which he now says there is 'zero evidence.' Adding to the confusion, Jenkins asserts that [2012] is about a sea change that probably won’t bear fruit for many decades, while also stating that the Maya only 'suspected' this."

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

snorks (guest) 20 Mar 2011 18:50

I have read his books. My problem with the man is that he thinks that he is outside of the norm to be criticized by either scientists or anthropologists. His ego seems to get the better of him and has called people who disagree with him "energy vampires".

I think the problem with him is that he is way off in his science - galactic alignment stuff that he insists that the rest of us should believe in. Once we do, then it opens us up to believe 2012 and other such nonsense.

I also have a problem with his ideas of George W. Bush is to blame for everything. And somehow he is the 7thMacaw guy that the hero twins are supposed to overcome. (Note: I am not a Bush supporter.) I have found that strain of thought in a few of the New Age writers concerning 2012. The perceived excesses of his administration is proof that we are ready for an enlightenment. That he and his supporters are responsible for all the ills of mankind. I personally found that to be very simplistic and offensive to my intelligence. Also extremely political for a group that claims to be pure and above the fray such as JMJ.

Dove of Shekinah (guest) 30 May 2011 16:46

Interesting that someone had nothing better to do than spend time, energy, and resources bashing one of the greatest minds of our time. Maybe the 'author' could receive some enlightenment from his work… What a waste…

Tomy2011 30 May 2011 16:59

Jenkins? "One of the greatest minds of our time"? We said in the article everything he claimed for 2012 and debunked it with facts. Can you point out an error? ;-)

Tomy2011 30 May 2011 17:03

Oh, but I won't bother you with facts. You like being enlightened by spiritual forces, not by facts… right?

TheGreatJuju 30 May 2011 18:17

Interesting that someone had nothing better to do than spend time, energy, and resources bashing one of the greatest minds of our time.

Interesting that you think being an idiot qualifies someone as "one of the greatest minds of our time."

Maybe the 'author' could receive some enlightenment from his work…

You must be referring to all the claptrap addressed on the very page you're commenting on. You know, all that stuff you want to stomp and flap your arms over, but can't be bothered to point out one thing that's wrong (because you can't).

What a waste…

Jenkins is a colossal waste, yes.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

john (guest) 02 Jun 2011 06:08

Having just read this mans (jmj) book I find it rather interesting, but I think before anyone critisizes this man they should actually read.

Gary A 02 Jun 2011 09:18

but I think before anyone critisizes this man they should actually read.

How do you know nobody here has read his books? Personally I couldn't give a rats ass about the opinions of jmj, I put him in the same bracket as Raymond (I'm a ranting lunatic) mardyks. Neither appear to advocate a doomsday, and while I find their "galactic alignment" and "spiritual enlightenment" kind of stuff to be the work of people living in their own little world, it doesn't particularly bother me because at least it appears as though they aren't trying to scare people.

If your enamoured by these claims such as "LSD can open your mind to different dimensions" (no kidding, halucanagenic drugs make you feel weird, wow) then that's your decision, but I doubt you will find anyone here agreeing with you.

---

The great thing about science is, it's true whether you believe in it or not.

TheGreatJuju 02 Jun 2011 16:12

Having just read this mans (jmj) book I find it rather interesting, but I think before anyone critisizes this man they should actually read.

Maybe you missed this. If you object to something written there, feel free to let us know, but vague, hit-and-run "criticisms" like yours above are meaningless.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

CaneLaz 02 Jun 2011 14:13

JMJ perplexes me. He claims to be the one with the science of 2012 and beats that idea into the mind of the reader in "2012 Story." He attempts to only use scholarly material unless it's too convenient for his "thesis." I particularly love when he gets defensive of a critique on him by scholars. In this review of David Stuart's book, he takes a few swings at Aveni as well.

I also love his comments about physics. He states in the review that "physics should not be left to the physicist, because they cannot see outside their limited reality bubble. Physics should be supervised by metaphysics. The metaphysicians have mastered mere physics and go beyond it to a larger transcendent paradigm that embraces physics, allowing for higher orders of cognition."¹

Ok John, just don't get offended by our review of your work and your hallucinogen use.

Footnotes

1. http://update2012.com/review-stuartsbook.html

Last edited on 02 Jun 2011 14:17 by CaneLaz Show more

Dove of Shekinah (guest) 07 Jun 2011 01:53

you need to eat some shrooms and you will understand, lol, clearly you are still in the old paradigm

DieselHorseLAW 07 Jun 2011 02:27

So you are in the new one? Is that like being in the future?

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

TheGreatJuju 07 Jun 2011 02:37

you need to eat some shrooms and you will understand, lol, clearly you are still in the old paradigm

That just might be the lamest argument ever offered on this board.

I know, I know — that's a bold statement.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

JamesJJlm 07 Jun 2011 12:35

very bold, but I agree.

Teo Graca (guest) 13 Jun 2011 12:12

I heard John Major Jenkins say on a "Decoding the Past" program about 2012 make a statement, which was then summarily changed by the narrator to confuse what John had said. What I understand is: our sun was actually in perfect galactic alignment with the center of our galaxy in 1998, but 2012 represents the Earth-to-Sun Axial Precession alignment (solstice). John had said the later, and the narrator said the former, but quoted the date as 2012, not 1998. Its no wonder there is so much confusion on this issues. I think I covered it well in my article "2012 and the Mayan Calendar", which to me proves "much ado about nothing".

Footnotes: http://articleadvocates.com/ArticleAdvocates/Display.cfm/13474

bikenbeer2000 13 Jun 2011 13:09

Its no wonder there is so much confusion on this issues.

That's true, but your article hasn't got it right either. You're not alone because in my experience very few people have a proper grasp of this.

There are two distinct locations in the sky, the galactic centre and the point where the Sun's path (the ecliptic) crosses the galactic equator. The galactic centre is over 5° south of the ecliptic. Therefore, the Sun never passes exactly over this point, but is roughly near it every December 18th (not 21st), so you can call this a vague alignment if you like.

Precession causes the solstice point to move westwards along the ecliptic and the solstice crossed the galactic equator in 1998. The Sun passes the galactic equator and the solstice point every year. Therefore in 1998, these two events happened the closest together in time. By 2012, they happen several hours apart. 2012 is therefore of no significance whatsoever in this respect.

which to me proves "much ado about nothing".

You're quite correct. Jenkins and others are clutching at straws to make the year 2012 astronomically significant, compared with other years. It isn't.
It might help you to read the Galactic Alignment article on this site.

obaeyens 13 Jun 2011 13:21

What I understand is: our sun was actually in perfect galactic alignment with the center of our galaxy in 1998, but 2012 represents the Earth-to-Sun Axial Precession alignment (solstice).

What center?
The location where the black hole is?
The barycenter of the Milky way?
The galactic equator?

fulandodetal (guest) 15 Jun 2011 11:44

Just to tell you that YouTube has taken down the video "Deborah Skye: Busted!" that you mention in the part about her cover-up. YouTube says it violates the TOS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny3C3WISA7A

TheGreatJuju 15 Jun 2011 11:59

It probably didn't violate any TOS, but flagging and false-DMCA reports are a bit of an epidemic on YouTube — the easy road to censorship — so it really isn't a surprise.

Thanks for the information. I've made a note of it in the article.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Another guest here (guest) 12 Sep 2011 17:30

If you want to read Deborah Skye's side of this, you can find it by searching for

"Deborah Skye You Tube Violations: Take Legal Action Or Let It Go? June 17, 2011"

3WMElliott 12 Sep 2011 17:42

My skeptism-o-meter just shot up on this.

We've an old thread about the Deborah Skye Busted video, and a quick search of YouTube points to what I guess (still researching) is their side of the story - it sure doesn't sound like the series of events Deborah Skye suggests if we are talking about the same event…

2012hoax 12 Sep 2011 18:13

Hm… her 'point' appears to be that her 'business name' is copyrighted…

A man who I personally do not know has made a video of me with my name in the SEO conent[sic] and using my copyrighted business name in the video tag to place his video at the top third when people come to view my own personal videos on my Youtube channel.¹

Further down she gripes that the video took her work and made it appear flakey and new-agey. Go figure… it is flakey and new-agey.

Perhaps her lawyer should introduce her to the concept of 'Fair Use'.

Since Ms. Deborah Skye King is apparently based in Toronto, Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_copyright_law

The video clearly fell under the 'Criticism' section. If the author appealed to YouTube he would probably get it overturned. However, since he has expressed a lack of time and desire to do so, I think that the original video will remain offline.

Footnotes

1. http://www.savorthesuccess.com/blog/deborah-skye-king/you-tube-violations-take-legal-action-or-let-it-go

Last edited on 12 Sep 2011 18:19 by 2012hoax Show more

bikenbeer2000 12 Sep 2011 21:22

As a disciple of John Major Jenkins (or maybe it's the other way round), Deborah Skye King evidently shares his dislike for any criticism and works on the principle of 'If you can't refute it, get rid of it'.
From the profile on her website:
"Author of Discovering & Living Your Soul’s Purpose along with Awakening To Your Divine Self, a magical Past Life Regression Therapy Meditation CD."
If that's not flakey and new-agey, then what is?