Okay, now that we have the "cartoon wars" going on....here's a sermon.....

[forwarded from my forum hyperlucidity, where this and a lot more
gets written in drabbles as the news goes on...]
=================================================================

Personally, I think this debacle over the Danish cartoons has done
more than anything in the mind of the average rational person to
discredit the stance of those rioting and getting violent over them,
despite whatever the official statements and apologies and such have
been so far. No one religion/culture deserves special kid-glove
treatment unless all do, and we already know that the most vocal
factions in the Islamic world are unfortunately not those calling for
respect for other faiths and nations or treating them with civility.
It's more like, actually....hmm, the Republicans in Congress accusing
the Democrats of partisan politics when they vote against legislation
that is itself hostile and partisan from the start.

Now....personally, I'd like to leave any question of the United
States' virtue out of this -- we know my opinions on the war, and we
know that I have no fondness for the way that national foreign
policies have hobnobbed conveniently with princes and dictators (as
it suits their agendas) while worsening the plight of the average
working stiff in any aid-dependent nation.

But that has had nothing to do with religion...rather, religion has
been used as an excuse and a popular cause for retaliation, as much
so as national pride. It's not that kind of personal, people -- it's
not a matter of repeating the Crusades, and even there the factor of
faiths was a smaller thing than the matter of underlying greed and
striving for territorial control. Liberate the Holy Land? -- sure,
as much as we liberated Iraq...it's the same basic thing, when
ideologies are trumped up to rouse the public spirit, and governments
are just as willing to kill and suppress people of their own basic
creed (and even nation) if they happen to get in the way of the
greater plan.

But to have such a pricklish sense of vested dignity that one thinks
it justified to run amok and riot over the use of a holy figure in a
cartoon is...a bit much. A bit thin-skinned, a bit childish, a bit
spoiled in the demand for respect where none is given and much bile
is spewed on a regular basis. And, reasonable minds must admit, the
satirical points made were not devoid of truth.

If having an attitude of fanatical extremism exposed and pricked by
mere cartoons -- and this goes for ANY belief -- is too much to take,
so much that mobs must rise and chaos ensue in protest, then that
only proves that those who are quivering with outrage and fury at the
jab and the insult, hell-bent on demanding apologies and reparations
and capitulations are all the more deeply and tragically WRONG.

Strong words, right?--afterall, moral terms and absolutes aren't
supposed to be brought into the politics of nations and global
affairs anymore, not so long as hairs can be split and legalities
dissected and prerogatives claimed within the dry technical
boundaries of law. But this *is* moral, and the law has lost its
sense of moral discernment, had it bled dry by design to let
hypocrisies reign. Strong words must be used again, and strike to
the core of the matter.

Extremism is inherently wrong and pathological, no matter where it
arises and what creed (or lack thereof) it claims. Claiming
orthodoxy ("right belief") as one ideology's possession and all other
faiths, paths and philosophies as misguided, inferior, immoral and
right to destroy, is inherently wrong -- no matter from where the
impulse comes. One's beliefs may be worth dying for personally, but
they are never worth condemning others to death. Never. Claim
the "divine right" of spreading your way by force through all the
world, and you step over the line of morality. Any credo
of "manifest destiny" -- whatever its form -- is wrong, was wrong,
will always be the wrong way to conduct human affairs.

Unfortunately, though...

Unfortunately, Islam is one of those religions in the world whose
origin and history from the very start has been marked by reactionary
resentment and a quest for ascendency over the faiths and cultures
that preceded and surrounded and dominated it. In claiming
supersedence of both Judaism and Christianity by virtue of a superior
prophet and scriptures, it announced itself as being in struggle from
the start, emerging out of the inferiority complex, if you will, of
the Arabic peoples who lacked a unified and respected monotheism of
their own in a predominantly monotheistic world. Not just an
assertion of "we-too", but a "we-better-than-you" -- as with all
movements when they assert the chosenness of their mission over all
others.

And this has nothing to do with finding ultimate truth within Islam,
mind you -- I have every respect for those who can find their truth
personally and live it honourably *for themselves* -- but it is an
immensely unrefuted and uncontested point within most of the Islamic
world, that Islam must and will triumph over all faiths.

As it is within America's so-called "heartland", that American
conservative fundamentalist Christianity must and will win out in the
end (and better fight for its aims sooner than later, 'cause the
Rapture's a-comin')...but then, most of the vitriol there is aimed at
domestic purported enemies than global ones, except for enforcing
their version of "moral values" in policy wherever the U.S. holds
effective sway...

At any rate, the idea is a backwards one that badly needs fighting-
against. *Not* that there's no value in people's religions, no
transcendent worth, nothing worth preserving, but that the ingrained
idea of any one religion -- or nation, or ideology -- being supreme,
perfect, and sacrosanct from all reproach or challenge or levity MUST
be brought down wherever it exists. Because that is the root of all
fanaticism. If you've ever read or seen _The Name of the Rose_, you
might recall that the root cause of all those apocalyptically-themed
murders was to protect against the dissemination of blasphemy in the
form of laughter, with comedy, satire and travesty being perceived as
insults against the dignity of God.

Which, of course, *always* needs fierce defending by the faithful...

I remember hearing on the radio one morning a few years ago that Pope
John Paul II had chosen not to sign to a declaration of religious
human rights, on the grounds that it would compromise the Church's
missionary efforts.

No faith is supremely perfect. No institution is supremely perfect.
Anytime an ideology becomes more important than the community of
people it's applied to, it loses its way. The reason revolutions
devour their own children is that maintaining the purity and control
of a philosophy becomes more of an ideal than maintaining and
bettering the state of humanity.

So that's the thing -- really, no one should get away with putting
their own religion on so high a pedestal that they themselves can't
tolerate laughter or an unflattering truth. People who are so deadly
serious are also bloody immature, and a danger to others around
them. Idolatry at its core doesn't consist in whether or not a
picture or a statue is allowed, but in the worship and importance of
images above their realities.

In preserving the sanctity of a symbol while ignoring or violating
that which it ought to represent. In using the Ten Commandments as
an excuse for social tyranny. In taking the name of Jesus as a flag
for trampling on one's brother, or extolling the virtues of the
Virgin Mary while demeaning and repressing the women who are real and
alive in the world around. Or invoking the spectre of the Holocaust
as the one atrocity that can never ever be equalled or even compared
with, keeping it in hand as a constant justification for every deed
of oppression, violence and chauvinism thereafter. Making it a crime
to burn the American flag -- stop me if you've heard this one --
while systematically unraveling all the liberties and justice and
greater human possibilities that it was made to serve as the banner
for in the first place.

And in that respect, all those who show themselves willing to resort
to threats and violence and destruction over the implications of mere
images are truly and pathetically idolaters. They have lost the way,
whatever their way -- if ever indeed they had it.

_______________________________________________________________

[Hmm....anyone else wanna pitch in some thoughts? I know I'm being
rather bold and absolute in my assertions of truth, but hey--I ain't
gonna execute anyone for not going my way....>:)...]

Paranoid gold in a gilt-plastic world....

...which may very well be the next subtitle of this blog. I like it, and I think it likes me, and maybe just maybe it'll get me some decent attention for being all witty and such. At any rate, I know that this blog shouldn't be lying fallow, especially when I have so much stuff that I'm posting within my own groups that I need to forward here.

Update: my little news/commentary forum hyperlucidity--the eternal pathology is growing rather well, though I could always use more interested parties to get commentational with. This is a group/list for 'liminal' people who have a vested interest in current affairs and political developments but don't always have the means to cull out the news that applies to them, or to see the lines that show what it implies, where it leads on to, where it looks like things that have happened before. Patterns and history -- pretty important stuff there, no matter what minority is on the bottom or what controversy's on top. This is also where most of my best articles for here tend to come from, after a little expansion and polishing-up.

Also, I'm going to start posting more of my own poetry and fiction selections here, because it ain't much fun to just have me wittily dissecting how the world's falling apart. You might as well have a chance to see how I do think the world ought to be, or at least the more personal side of why it bothers me as it is now. If you like my writing, tell me so, and tell other people too. Even better, help me get it published...you know, I'm not too fond of the idea of sitting off in a near-deserted corner of the Internet prehumously accumulating my posthumous works.

Anyhow...yes, time for a change and time for a lot of updates and regular throwing-in of fresh material. Not trying to please anyone but to satisfy the demands of that impulse which pushes things out from thoughts to page, from one mind to another, just on the off change that something will come of their being brought to light.

Regarding The Da Vinci Code.....>:)

[Admittedly, this is a very "religious" topic, but it does have a lot
of bearing on modern politics--well, on politics and civilization and
history overall...not to mention the state of modern popular
fiction...]

Whatever other controversies there are over whether it's accurate or
cobbled-together or what, I think there's one very good reason that
the central premise of The Da Vinci Code -- the "sang real" or "royal
blood" interpretation of the Holy Grail -- makes no sense atall in
terms of Christianity, and that's that it expressly undermines
everything progressive and 'enlightened' about the principles that
Jesus taught.

I'm not going to take on the question of whether he really existed in
history or not -- from the colloquial tone and idiosyncratic events
in the Gospels, not to mention their multiple iterations, it seems
clear to me that he did, and it's common knowledge to scholars that
the story was gathered and edited after the fact. If you don't
believe that, then whatever -- he was a minor Jewish rabble-rouser in
his time so far as the Roman authorities knew, so one could hardly
demand him to have a larger footprint in their histories.

Anyone who has read the Gospels at any length will notice that Jesus
specifically rejected any idea that the claims of blood and family
were stronger than those of individual faith itself, and that many
times he said that anyone who placed father or mother or spouse or
children higher than him was "not worthy" of him, even refusing to
recognise his own mother and (adoptive) siblings once when preaching,
saying he had none. When a woman in a crowd called out, "Blessed is
the womb that bore you and the breasts that gave you suck," he
replied, "Rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep
it." I.e., blood relations get no special favours or grace on that
count alone.
Certainly, the Old Testament is full of lineages and chosen heirs and
such, but that's the prior history, not part of the original
Christian message -- and everything of the divine right of kings,
right down to Queen Elizabeth II, is founded off the Old Testament
tradition and scriptural justifications, not the New, despite this
being an accepted concept of "Christendom" for most of its history.

I'm not even going to address the issue of whether Jesus had sex with
Mary Magdalene....or any other of his disciples, for that matter, as
I think that his personal silences speak louder than later-official
words on quite a few matters of 'moral values'....but I think that
one thing that he himself would definitely not have done, given any
divine foresight, is have any issue of his own lineage, because
they would automatically (given human nature to cling to any visible
status) be regarded as superior to others and be looked to for
leadership, in a way that had nothing to do with their own personal
virtues and would undermine the entire concept of equal/paradoxical
rank in the Kingdom of Heaven, where "the first shall be last and the
last shall be first," and "he who would be master must be the servant
of all."

In the case of Islam, Mohammad's children and their marriages and
descendants complicated the matter of religious authority and its
succession immensely because of different factions both claiming
priority by virtue of a blood-relationship with the Prophet -- this
being the origin of the Sunni vs. Shi'ite strife that underlies much
Middle Eastern conflict.
In Roman Catholicism, the institution of the papacy has certainly had
much disputation and was even split between Rome and Avignon at one
time...but the consequences of that have been much diminished by
time, seeing as the feuding popes in question had no heirs/resulting
bloodlines to keep fighting over the rightful succession after one
had gained a lasting ascendancy over the other.

Apart from the inevitable claims of nepotism when one does recognise
family members as having a higher moral/religious authority (let
alone a more-divine-than-thou essential nature), it seems more
prone to subsequent corruption and/or stagnation of one's original
message (whatever it is) to let one's offspring be assumed as moral
heirs rather than choosing persons of proven understanding and
discretion. Therefore, anyone who does have a higher path of truth
to share would be wisest to never have children atall, lest they be
recognised and taken for something which they were not.

Whatever strategic errors Jesus made in his ministry (with cohorts of
the kissing kind, for example...), it is utterly against the grain of
his teachings to think that he would have himself established any
bloodline that might have served to dilute and co-opt the
significance of what he was trying to do. Moreover, even just on the
symbolic level, having the secret lie in a "royal blood" rather than
a sacred cup essentially rejects the concept of communion for that of
a categorical rank and distinction -- which highlights even more that
it is not something Jesus would have wanted nor perhaps even
permitted.....yes, and I can just see him arguing with Magdalene over
this, assuming a physical relationship there....

In the popular alternative reading of things where Jesus never died
atall but emigrated off to France instead...(and why France *anyhow*,
except by retro-adoption by the royal line there?)...well, perhaps in
a safe obscurity they might've had kids. I don't think that that
happened, though, considering how much of the significance of
Christianity rests on the whole death/resurrection idea. So maybe
there was a pregnancy and he didn't know about it before the
crucifixion....though, given the recorded events afterwards, that
hardly seems too likely....the thing is, with any grain of divine
common sense, he wouldn't have wanted there to be any known
descendants.

So, whether there were indeed any lineal descendants of Jesus of
Nazareth or not, the great secret of Christianity's cosmic
significance does not and should not lie there, in so easily gotten
and easily tarnished a thing as blood-relationship. The only
familial relationships that Jesus ever extolled in his ministry were
those of fellowship in the spirit...everything else so commonly
praised -- even his own ancestry as recounted in the 'Begat-itudes'
(little in-joke there)-- would be merely termed an accident of birth,
not a status of the spirit itself.

So--there's my little bit of Biblical exegesis on that matter, which
certainly comes down against reading too much into that novel as a
revelatory theory. I said more or less from the start of reading it
myself that it was only "second-level insight" (turning things upside-
down, where rivers are not rivers and mountains are not mountains),
even though it's fairly clear to most students of religious history
that the emergent Christian religion edited out a lot of the more
revolutionary and egalitarian aspects of the original movement in
order to present themselves in the most acceptable light as an
institution -- this including the re-subordination of women as in
traditional Jewish culture, and turning that all into canon law.
Second-level insight is easy to find, and not that difficult to
write -- any basic student of conspiracy theories knows how to play
the what-if game, if only to set up a field of alternatives to
the "official" story.

More specifically so than that, though, it is essentially untrue to
the preserved essentials of Jesus' message (all the red-letter
material in some Bibles) that its significance should be potboiled
down to a union of male and female energies (and centered on the
merely biological level, to boot) when it's fairly easily discernable
that he was getting at the transcendence of that duality, both
socially and intrapersonally.

Anyhow. You certainly don't have to believe any of this, but I think
it makes a lot more sense on a practical and a theological level than
literally believing what you read in The Da Vinci Code. On a wild
guess that most of the people who have made it a bestseller are not
given to reading primary-source material in either religion or
history, I offer this as a scripture-based clarification that
perpetuating himself genetically is never what that personage called
Jesus had in mind as any great sacred mystery for people to ooh and
aah about two millennia later.

Though, there's certainly gotta be some book out there already
speculating on cloning Jesus from his blood out of a relic....perhaps
even building a Biblical-era amusement park around it....though,
elementary chaos theory and the laws of fiction dictate that a
cloned Jesus will inevitably run amok and turn into an Antichrist....

*snickers*

Yeah, that'll make a great movie.....

__________________________________________________________________
P.S. -- Pass this on if you like, but please do make sure that I get
the blame for it.

Breed no more Bushes...

============================================================
> Report: NSA eavesdropping wider than White House admitted
> By Reuters -- http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24215626.htm
============================================================

There's been a lot written about this since it came out, on every
side and angle of the political fence, so here's the highlights/main
opinions:

Some people say that since the primary filtering process being done
was essentially pattern recognition and not mainly/initially content
examination, that it was a completely justifiable and essential
course of action. Others say that the sheer volume of communications
data collected, plus the lack of guidelines for its (total) retention
sets a bad precedent in general for accumulating information on
citizens, since there is no guarantee limiting how it will be used,
especially seeing as this administration has also been keeping tabs
on a great many non-terrorist activities that it disapproves of.

In general, there's a fine line of technical
legality/constitutionality that has been invoked here, and even that
has proven to be untenable as a by-the-books defense....so, the
interests of leadership and national security have been highlighted,
and the need for utmost speed and efficiency therewith to pursue
them...but all this doesn't mitigate the fact that not only did Bush
avoid the normal warrants court in seeking to gain private
communications intelligence, but that he firmly and defensively
believes it his right as President, as leader, to have such
immediate powers without question. Which, no matter what sort of a
crisis we're in, does not sit well with the explicit structure of
this nation as one under a consistent and balanced-between-the-
branches rule of law (though, neither does the constant
pressure "from the White House" on the legislature to enforce its
agenda, or "from the White House" on the media to negotiate the terms
of its news exposure). As some columnists have commented, it would
have taken little time and practically no obstacles to get warrants
for these taps through the formal court already in place, so why
avoid the legal process -- unless to make a show and a sticking point
of executive authority, as he is now doing?

I suppose the most instinctive thing to say in response to all this
is, "Who does he think he is??" -- does he really believe that as
President he is above the law? And I think the answer to that is a
resounding, "Well, obviously....." -- judging from the way he has
reacted to criticism and challenges from the start of his first term,
and from the insularity and sycophantism that he cultivates (has been
cultivated to) within his circle of advisers. We have seen already
that this has had an extreme influence on policy, leading informants
from various fields to shape their reports to match the results (and
dependent agenda) known to be preferred by the administration. It
has already corrupted the stream of intelligence, and in more areas
than just the sphere of the now/still-ongoing war. Science itself,
logic itself, is under pressure to conform to the wishes of a
temporary (one hopes) regime, instead of holding to the closest
truths it can achieve. That in itself is cause for alarm, especially
in a nation where the structure and succession of power are supposed
to eliminate the perpetual dominance of any single ruler or
dynasty, and to force all politicians to stand or fall on their own
merits, not as part of a party bloc.

The American constitutional ideal of politics is that of public
service done on behalf of the people of the nation (all of them), in
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States -- and no higher
power than that. Not even God, technically, despite those who have
some crackpot idea that this country's Manifest Destiny is to become
an experiment in theocracy instead of in human reason and dignity.
Even the plan (in the Texas redistricting affair and Tom DeLay's
campaign money laundering) for a "permanent Republican majority", by
the literal terms of it, is an arrogant breach of the ideals that the
nation was based on, in spirit if not in clearly-evidential clause,
because the structure was always and ever intended to change to serve
the people, and intending to establish any nominal party or agenda
as a "permanent" controller of government flies in the face of a free
democratic system, announcing itself as a wanna-be Reich whether its
proponents will admit it or not. To an honest politician (wherever
there is such a thing) it's not about the party but about the
people's needs, and not about aggrandizing power but responding aptly
to the changes of the nation itself. The fact that so much, here,
has gone into the gathering of both power and information, clearly
angling to the needs of this administration as if it were the only
one that ever need be considered, sincerely begs the question of
whether aspiring presidents and all politicians ought not only to be
limited in their terms but prohibited from procreating at all (or
adopting, like Julius Caesar did Octavian), so as to spare the nation
the burden of supporting their family dynastic ambitions, and the
secret avuncular grooming of blood-heirs to the perceived throne.
The more obstacles that can be placed in the way of politics-as-
power, the better for us -- it should no more be an adjunct of wealth
and caste than teaching, farming or collecting the trash and doing
what best can be done with it. If that means proposing that the U.S.
Congress and all the highest federal agencies and branches be not
approached with 'family' loyalties in tow, then perchance the
seriousness of that demand would help deter those who have only their
own self-service and permanent empire-building in mind.

Rather ecclesiastical, yes, on the face of it -- though, I'm not so
stupid as to think that celibacy in itself is enforceable nor
wise...just that one not have children to pass on one's reputation
and expectations to, or that will feel obliged to give favours or
follow orders as given by a parent. Or, the (over the long term)
extended politically-influential family that bears some good fruit
and some indifferent, some bad, but all bearing the same trade name
to be grouped by. Neither am I in favour of shamelessly shilling for
one's wife's (or husband's) political career after one's own terms of
office are done.

Politics, in this country out of all others, ought never to be a
means of constructing a false royalty, nor a false sense of
superiority to the citizenry at large. And that, precisely, is the
crisis of political breedership that we have on our hands right now.

What?--you mean it's really all about getting more MONEY?

===============================================================
[commenting on this article]

Study: Illegal Immigrants Not Drawn by Jobs
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A11

===============================================================

Okay, so here's how it goes -- U.S. corporations "legally" send their
factories (and jobs) south and overseas to not have to pay as much,
and Mexican illegal immigrants get themselves north so that they'll
get paid *more* (much of which they often send home to remaining
family in Mexico, effectively drawing on one national economy to
support another one)...thereby increasing competition in the U.S. for
a lessening number of labouring, factory and other semi-skilled
jobs. That part is true.

Which has led to, and will lead to more of, a decline in the general
working-class standard of living, aided and abetted by the higher
birthrates typical of people with less schooling, earlier ages of
marriage, and stronger religious/cultural mores. A 'positive' view
would be that this will help to equalize the economic conditions
between the U.S. and Mexico and the other 'Third World'/developing
nations it likes doing its business in -- but I doubt that that'll
happen peacefully, and I don't think that many people here would
consider it an improvement. [The current administration's proposal
(the "guest worker" program) of granting an effective amnesty to
people already here illegally seems to omit any clear requirements or
even polite requests/preferences (in contrast to official immigration
and visa standards, should anyone care to examine them) that the
persons thus admitted should be an asset and not a drain to the
nation's infrastructure and economy and overall productivity. [dated; research in detail if desired] Which
makes me come off sounding pretty protectionist, I suppose....but
then, the best ways to make and keep a nation strong involve
maximizing the existing population's potential -- not waging a "race
to the bottom" via mutual economic exploitation.

If anything, American companies raising wages in their foreign-based
locations (and attending to human rights for their workers, too)
would be one of the best ways possible to encourage people to stay in
their own countries and take pride in them where they are, rather
than heading off to other lands for the sake of economic opportunity
without any intended allegiance to the host nation itself. Though,
that does require a certain illogical amount of national loyalty on the part of
the so-called "multinational" corporations, to realize that their own
home country/ies' best interests are served by not taking advantage
of others' homelands. It might even require a certain amount of
loophole-closing and honesty on a global scale -- but beginning with
national governments having some dignity and pride in their own
people, and refusing to let them be exploited and sold short for the
sake of illusory economic progress -- i.e., that kind that is
currently measured out on stringent terms of domestic de-
stabilization by the IMF, but whose benefits tend to either remain in
the hands of foreign investors, or never to trickle down through the
government agencies who have been dis-encouraged (subtly or not) from
taking care of their own people's needs. Governments do not and
should not exist for the sake of serving the government's needs but
those of the people, without whom they would not exist.

And whom do corporations serve, then, in these days of borderless
buying and trading and investing and maximizing profit margins? I'm
inclined to say they're largely guided by the interests of pirates.
By which of course I mean those who intend to take all they can via
their dealings in other people's labour and goods, with as little
restraint as possible.

Though, back in the good old days, pirates risked their own lives for
their plunder (gad, it's the least they could do!), and even had
governments out hunting for them, and stiff penalties--like death--
for their crimes. These days, they have the government so in their
pocket that they're not only going unpunished but rewarded for
squeezing the most they can get out of investments they never put in
a day's labour for. Capital gains and investment dividends don't
just come from nowhere....somewhere, somehow, someone is paying far
more than they should so that someone else is paying as little as
they can get away with. And a lot of people are working for
practically nothing so that others can get money for doing no work
atall. If the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as
any supposed representative democracy would seem to recognize, then
why tolerate the assumption that any socioeconomic elite, no matter
how powerful or pampered from birth, is exempt from the laws that
govern the less-powerful, or somehow too important to ever suffer
full penalties for their deeds, no matter whom they injure, ruin, or
even kill through their choices.

A long way of rhetoric from illegal immigrants from Mexico...but
really, maybe not. After all, everyone's just trying to get ahead,
and we ought not to let the sheer convenience of "hating the
foreigner" get in the way of seeing the underlying reasons why people
do what they do, and what's really precipitating and enabling the
situation. Those caught in the middle at the borders and in the
cities aren't the ones in control, and perhaps they ought to look a
bit harder at those that are.

Again with blaming the gays......(latest Vatican directive)

Article in question:

In Strong Terms, Rome Is to Ban Gays as Priests
By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: November 23, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/international/europe/23vatican.html?
th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all
________________________________________________________

Hmm...please do note the specific wording of this declaration, as it
seems to specifically ban not only active homosexuals and those
of "deep-seated" tendencies, *but also* those who "support the so-
called 'gay culture.'" Meaning, straight allies aren't safe, and the
Vatican is definitely trying to eradicate all pro-gay/pro-acceptance
influence from the church hierarchy.

Which also means that it's official--gays are being used as
scapegoats for pederasts, when it's been stated time and time again
that pederasty and molestation are not the same thing atall as an
adult homosexual orientation. And yet....it's just so *easy* to
blame sexual orientation for this in the popular eye, when really
it's not about sex or gender at all but about control and abuse of
power over others.

Just like in prisons, dare I say, very little of these sexual abuse
scandals had anything to do with whether the priests in question was
attracted to males per se. The one thing we can state for certain is
that they were attracted to the proximity of young persons under
their religious authority, who could be easily manipulated, coerced,
and shamed into keeping quiet. That's not about sex, it's about the
lust of power--and any organization that preaches itself as
infallible and puts individual conscience in the finest of fine print
can be accurately diagnosed as being possessed by the lust of power
itself. And ridding the Roman Catholic Church of gay and open-minded
priests will not exorcise the real sickness that persists at its
bureaucratic heart.

Hmm....scapegoat, scapegoat....you know, that reminds me of something
in the Bible....:-?

My general theory of modern neo-feudalism

[NOTE: Yes, this is actually something current I'm posting from my
little newsgroup....feel free to forward/link it on, with due
credit/blame of course.]
________________________________________________________

In hyperlucidity, "K. Aurencz Zethmayr" wrote:

Yes, there has been a lot of stuff going on in the world, despite the
fact that I've posted on very little of it.

Take, for example, Bush's proposal of a pan-American free trade area,
which met with loud popular protests and a more or less tacit
division of political leaders at the recent summit in Buenos
Aires....the idea is still not settled, and it is one that bears
careful examination before being adopted, especially considering the
current state of these economies and the typical "flight patterns" of
corporations trying to maximise their profits and cut labour costs.
Unless there is an effective and relevant trade union presence in the
U.S. and a majority of other countries that might be disposed to
side with the Bush administration and sign onto this (Mexico, for
example, or anywhere else significantly dependent on the goodwill of
the U.S.), it would be a very convenient reason to outlaw
trade/employee unions altogether as an untenable obstacle to
the 'flexibility' (upward for the big guys, downward for the small)
of economic activity and interaction. That's something that bears
watching.

My general take on the direction of things is that the Bush
administration and its allies are trying to implement a neo-
feudalism -- and in case we all haven't had a thorough grounding in
medieval socioeconomics, I'll summarize:

Feudalism is a hierarchy of authority and allegiance in which the
common worker (peasant or landed serf/slave) is utterly beholden to
his direct employer, who in turn is under the thumb of a larger state
or corporate entity, who in turn (possibly skipping a few levels up
the food chain) is under the utter authority of a political,
commercial or religious leader, who are at the top all bound in a
more-or-less common collusion of interests to keep everyone else
under control--though if they are in conflict, all persons involved
are supposed to act with total loyalty and obedience to their lords
and masters. There's no appealing to anything like a universal democratic
process or outside authority (or outside judicial or legislative
trend, as Bush and some of the Supreme Court justices want to
solidify firmly, as the world gets more socially progressive in
Canada, Australia, Europe, etc.)...there's no effective standard of
values besides that which those in power choose to implement and
promote (and may or may not follow themselves). There's not even the
assumption that a ruler of one country is actually 'loyal' to that
country and its needs--he may just be playing it as a pawn for
increase of territory elsewhere, or perhaps for a nice fat golden
parachute (in the business world)--or guaranteed security for life if
he lets the corporations have their way in all things at the people's
expense.

Things like the oft-cited code of chivalry, in modern or medieval form (loyalty to lord and Church, compassion to the poor, protection of women and children, etc.), are policies (just like every set of rules and policies, pragmatically speaking) designed to officially address known, existing and commonly-accepted behaviours in their time--not to set up anything like a standard of social equality. And in the olden days, the peasant or serf did have the right to depend on the protection of his lord's fortress against raids and warfare--these days, to the contrary, there is no sense of "noblesse oblige", no responsibility in authority. The peasants are sent off to be cannon fodder in war (okay, persuaded to by circumstance--afterall, it is a volunteer army these days), and bear the brunt of every downturn that the rich can absorb and/or avoid for themselves -- and yet they are expected to remain loyal and diligent and compliant.

The communications and transportational infrastructure (*cough*
Amtrak funding *cough* HDTV conversion *cough* FOX News...) is
typically eroded or rudimentary in feudalism, making the common
populace in general dependent on the opportunities,
knowledge/attitudes and social structure of their home areas, with
radically low opportunities for regional mobility except in wholesale
moves/migrations. In addition, the 'social welfare' function in
feudalism is completely delegated to religious or private interests,
enforcing arbitrary moral standards of acceptability/compliance for
any shelter, food, medical attention or job assistance -- "parish
work", in short. This is what dismantling and/or privatizing/de-
secularizing the entire social security/welfare structure means in
end result.

Other typical social symptoms of feudalism (though not limited to it)
are: massive insularity within communities, fear/hatred of minorities
and foreigners, repression of deviancy or difference within their own
(even/especially superior deviance), low education as a norm (with
accompanying mistrust of the overeducated), early marriage/breeding,
generalized social/political/religious inferiority of women (with a
few token decoys to keep the rest in line), and blind belief in
whoever's setting the religious/political rules -- because that's all
they've got to depend on.

So....if this sounds familiar to anyone, I think I'd suggest you read
up on the Middle Ages and the things that brought about the gradual
end of the feudal system in Europe -- like religious heterodoxy,
sudden decreases of population/birthrate (thank you, Black Death and
birth control...), world exploration and broader cultural
contact/learning, widespread scientific inquiry, increases in
education and literacy, diverse sociopolitical philosophies, the
expansion of trade and commercial structure to enable small merchants
and artisans to become a solid middle class rather than dependants to
a lord (or unprotected itinerants), and the erosion of religion-based
social determinism in justifying injustice (as in "divine
right", "subhuman" races, etc.).

And support all those things at their best that stave off the "Dark
Ages" from our lives. History's still going on, and there are a lot
of ways that some people and entities are trying to turn back the
years on the rest of us...the unnerving thing, really, is how close
they are already to accomplishing it.

You know what's really wrong with protests...?

It's all the lengths that people in authority will go to to prevent them having any effect. Tomorrow is the day that thousands of people are going to converge in Washington and have a demonstration in front of the White House. The object of their attentions, their pleas and demands will be nowhere in the area.

He's a stinking coward.

Not that he's avoiding any physical danger, but that he's evading his own responsibility as head of state. When the people, as per their constitutional rights, "gather peacefully to petition the government for redress of grievances," don't you think the government perhaps ought not to ignore them? Or, as I've just today learned via one of the main groups organizing the demonstation, to restrict the news media from covering the event at a decent proximity so that it doesn't occur in a mainstream-media vacuum?

Here's (part of) what I got in my email today--it's an appeal for emergency donations:

We really need your help right now. All the major antiwar groups are coming together for this action at the White House, but only one organization, the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, has the financial responsibility for the powerful unity rally - for the stage, sound and setup. Now we have the opportunity to have this massive outpouring broadcast to millions - if you can help!

We have learned that C-SPAN is planning to cover this incredible assembly of opposition to the war. They will broadcast to millions - but there's a catch. The government is restricting C-SPAN's access on one side of the rally site, and their satellite trucks, which provide the live feed, are now only authorized to park much farther away.

In order for C-SPAN to have a live feed of the rally, hundreds of feet of additional cable as well as cable ramps must be rented. This will cost many thousands of dollars, on top of the tens of thousands of dollars that must be spent for the joint rally stage and sound to reach the huge number of people assembling, for the thousands of placards, hundreds of thousands of flyers, port-a-johns, the buses, banners, flags and everything else that it takes to make a demonstration successful.

You see, these groups--these people--don't organize rallies and marches just for the hell of it. They are putting their resources into trying to make a difference--trying to reach the nation's leadership, trying to reach the rest of the country and the world--and yet constantly, from Day Zero and before, they have been given the shaft in terms of the very goal of communication itself.

"We won't give you the permit--you'll ruin the grass in Central Park."

"Okay, we'll give you the permit, but you have to take your route all the way over here where no one has to see you, and we won't let anyone join you from the sidewalk."

"Okay, we'll give the the permit, but there won't be anyone there listening and we'll keep the media from getting any decent coverage."

And that's assuming that the counter-protests--the pro-Bush demonstrators scheduled to take the field concurrently and the next day--won't send in any of their own to infiltrate the peace rally and try to make trouble under other groups' names. Not that I want to give them any ideas, of course.....but I'm certain that it's happened with trade protests already, the sort of violent outbursts and vandalizing that work to give protestors a bad name. In reality, protests these days are so law-abiding and decent that the only thing they got majorly arrested in Chicago for was peacefully blocking Lake Shore Drive...just the obstruction of the everyday itself.

But I'm sure the conservative rallies will have all the mainstream news coverage they want.....meanwhile, in the four years since 9/11, I've seen better coverage of U.S. peace rallies on BBC World News than on the local network affiliates. To coin a phrase, isn't that just a bit....obstructionist? As in, obstructing and defusing all the legal rights of assembly and petition and demonstration that were clearly included in the Constitution. I mean, it does specifically say "redress of grievances" and not "just to show support for the administration and kiss ass"....

But that's the thing--the rich and the powerful will do whatever they have to--get whatever guards and police on the case, move their trade meetings to an island (or a secret fortress or whatever), live as far away fom the cities as they can--to avoid dealing with, hearing, or seeing the people their actions affect in real life. To not see what they don't want to see, to not hear things they don't want to hear--and truth and ethics be damned, even though that's all that the "other side" is counting on to prove their cause.

"A little revolution, now and then"....would actually be refreshing. It's a shame to see the majority of the truly "law-abiding" people in this country on the opposite side from the ostensible law.

___________________________________________________________________________

Links:

"War Protesters Seek to Put the Heat on Bush" - Yahoo News

ANSWER Coalition

United for Peace and Justice

--and I'm not including more publicity for the Republican damage-control groups on my blog, but they're mentioned and linked in the Yahell article listed first here.

Re the latest on homosexuality in the priesthood....and here's my own theories

In hyperlucidity@yahoogroups.com, "K. Aurencz Zethmayr"
aureantyev@y...; wrote:

First of all, just to express my essential lack of surprise--
afterall, as a traditionalist, the new Pope is hardly likely to buck
the kneejerk trend of conflating all pedophilia with adult
homosexuality, or to take every opportunity of "purging" the ranks of
all who might possibly compromise the virtue/image/mission of the
Roman Catholic Church (a bit late for that, overall, but hey...call
it a second Counter-Reformation).

Two points, though:

A, all self-respecting sexual deviants reject juvenile predation and
coercion--and likely with very good personal reason--therefore,
anything that is a non-consensual sexual violation by an adult of a
minor is an unjustifiable abuse of trust and authority.

And B, where the hell would the Roman Catholic Church be without
the thousands, millions even of men who found their spiritual and
intellectual vocations there through the ages in the absence of
being able to have a "normal" life, i.e., marriage with the duty of
fecundity and ruling a family? Just read even one Andrew Greeley
novel, for example (I recommend "The Cardinal Sins"), and you realize
that especially in America, the priesthood has long been the only
acceptable way for a good Catholic boy to honourably sublimate and
conceal his homosexual identity--and some repress or exercise their
needs more honourably than others, whatever their basic tendencies.
The many who prefer men and use discretion therewith should not be
tarred for the few who molest boys and teens and further abuse them
with the pressure of a guilt they do not deserve.

In Europe, sexual "deviancy" in general had long been tacitly tolerated under
the aegis of the Vatican, and so long as it was reasonably discreet
and was not molestation--anything forced or abusive that could force
a scandal--it has caused no essential problems save those of
favoritism to one's lovers or preference to the children of one's
mistress--take the Borgias, for example. Concubines both male and
female were tolerated and/or politely ignored, and the main issues of
contention when they did arise were hypocrisy (well, of course,
though the faithful in the lower social classes were hardly in the
know of who was sleeping with whom) and simony--technically the
buying and selling of church appointments, in this case for sexual
favours (either directly or indirectly, as in granting a bishopric to
the son of a mistress).

The particular rise of molestation cases in the U.S. can be
attributed to two main things, besides the technical (and arguably very
politically-based) requirement of celibacy itself -- the longstanding
exclusion of women from the Vatican choirs, an example which in
Europe caused both the flowering of boys' choirs as a tradition and
the musical trend of cultivating castrati for both religious and
operatic music (meaning that young boys and/or the fabulously glam
castrati superstars became prime objects of sensual attraction if
they hadn't been before--there aren't any more castrati divi,
but the all-boys' choir is still a fixture) ....

.... and then the social pressures of transplanting Catholicism via
immigration into the more crowded and suspicious territory of urban
America, which naturally made the gaining of any romantic or sexual
satisfaction a bit harder for everyone. And, seeing as the United
States was by then mainly set in the social pattern of Puritan-borne
Protestantism, the moral and social absolutes were more stringent in
a common-law sense, much less tolerant of difference or
sensual indulgence.

My view is that the social pressures of trying to maintain
Catholicism and its older ethnic traditions (in parish enclaves
within an often disdainful overall WASP milieu) added to internal and
external pressures on all those with any conflict with the
neighborhood parish=close-knit village culture. Both the priesthood
and the veil appealed as always to those not suited to raising a
family, but with far more a component of social coercion because of
the (pervasive) urgency to marry and bring more babies into the
Church. Thus, there was even more tendency for personal sexuality
(even if not practised in itself) to find a haven away from these
demands -- so, for gay men, for lesbians, and also for those who had
more an instinct for power and predation than for any honestly
physical relationship and its responsibilities. I.e., the real
sexual and emotional predators who should ideally not have been around
children or anyone so vulnerable in the first place in any role at
all. Not that they can't make very impressive priests and high-level clerics, though...

Personally, I think it's a sick system overall to demand and enforce
these rules en masse, but a lot healthier to allow private affairs
between consenting adults than to force all urges underground even
further. A lot of people, and family of mine, will hail this as a
purification of the Church -- but it will A, not solve the problem of
sexual abuse of power in itself, and B, lead to a great many
gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and even whole LGBT-supportive parishes
leaving the Roman Catholic Church decisively, unwilling to be blamed
for all the crimes of hypocritically pious individuals. Incidentally
undercutting whatever good Pope John Paul II did with his single
exhortation for love and personal acceptance regardless of sexual
orientation. Not that he didn't consider homosexuality "objectively
disordered" as in the catechism (see second article cited), and not
that this policy wasn't in the works under his reign -- but at least
he tried to be socially-conciliatory on the surface.

On the other hand, though, that may have done more harm than good
over the years in allowing people to feel complacent about their own
faith, rationalizing that it's okay to be gay and still Catholic, or
that the (lately) single most temporally-powerful religious figure on
the planet was a "good man" for his tolerance and bridge-building
even though it was only of a thinly social nature, still condemning
the official sins as he proposed compassion and the non-withdrawal of
parental love to the sinners....a magnanimous gesture, that.

I was surprised, after the death of Pope John Paul II, to see how
many people in the online groups I'm in regarded him as such a
positive social figure. When it comes right down to it, the only
thing that I ever had cause to respect him for was condemning the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (though these days a pope's temporal
authority doesn't make or break wars like it used to
when "Christendom" was assumed as Catholicism...) -- point is,
many of these are people with no reason atall to be grateful or
conciliatory towards a religious structure in itself that condemns
many or most of their personal beliefs and practices. A structure
that both would eliminate them from the world if it could and has
tried it with great zeal before. Why give the persecutors such
credit, and their "infallible" leader, moreover?--isn't that a blow
against your own validity? In my opinion, the very best part of
Roman Catholicism is the Franciscan Order -- closest to nature,
closest to their fellow human beings, closest to the ideal of a faith
lived in action, not just in words and dependence on top-down
authority.

Unfortunately, I could very well see them being the next on the
chopping-block, with all their human rights involvement and actual
respect for others....not exactly orthodox, these days.

===============================================================
Inciting Articles:

Vatican to Check U.S. Seminaries on Gay Presence
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 15, 2005

New Vatican Rule Said to Bar Gays as New Priests
By IAN FISHER and LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 22, 2005
__________________________________________________________________

The majority and theoretical material of this post was first "published" at my news/current events/shape-of-things-to-come group hyperlucidity -- the eternal pathology on 16 September 2005.

Yeah, there's a war on--here, let me /show/ you just how one-sided this one is....

Mainly because it's been being fought under our noses and out of sight of TV screens, where far too many of us still get our news pre-digested, not even able to read between the lines of a printed page, never taught to test for truth. Maybe because there's that other war-- or two, or three--that has been built up and given the spotlight as an honourable cause--America against this, against that, a sanctioned outlet of us versus them, us versus evil. The war that goes unspoken or derided as a mirage is the one that is U.S. versus us--the steady erosion of rights and dignity and the welfare--yes, literally, the well-fare, the well-being--of the ordinary American citizen.

The one who doesn't have an escape pod for every disaster, resources and insurance and medical provisions to cover every loss without hassle or delay, names and connections to get a job in a pinch whenever he or she needs one--or hell, just wants one for the credentials. The one whose name is not a passport to perks and privilege, whose labour is for the sake of survival not amassment of landed wealth. The common man--whether common or not in skills, intelligence, honour and personal virtue--who is being edged steadily back to the feudal ages, under the triple thumb of state and church and all-powerful-&-unquestioned "employer" from whom he must beg his daily bread. Leave God out of it--he's only a name in this machine, a placebo to make people think there's someone looking out for them, a source of true justice and unbiased, unstinting love. Bullshit, at least for the daily grind--only a pill one takes with all the others, and now on the pretense that it'll help one's health, lower one's blood pressure, increase one's life expectancy--and for what? For more of this crap, this technicolour pablum, this sham of a culture, this artifically sweetened and chemically fertilized, hyped-up, accessorized, wholly inconsequential vanity of vanities that is the existence of the American consumer-subject?

iPods and circenses, my friends....an armory of mass distraction--and the unwitting accomplices in it are twofold.

There are the willing marketers, salesmen, trendsetters, survey-takers, test panels--paid and unpaid alike, selling themselves for these corporate gods, external idols, false saviours for whom one will lie, cheat and steal to get a buck, to win a prize, to land the big one, anything to replace the real with the synthetic, the essential with the persuaded luxury, the energy of integrity for the dregs of ephemeral fame, attention, something from the Powers That Be.

And there are the well-meaning but all-too-ambitious politicians who voice their outrage in every moment but the ones that might have counted in the first place, thinking so much for the long-term and the interest of lasting harmony and stability (and political tenure for themselves) that they refuse to take a firm stand against the thousands of little encroachments, erosions, cracks and lapses that the enemy has given them an ostensible choice on--and that they refuse to lead any firm alternative or argument to sway the other side of the aisle, letting the battles be lost and thinking that they have a positive war they're fighting all the same--trying to win support and dollars from the people for their moderation, when it is their very moderation that has let the fox into the henhouse and approved him having his way--ah well, bargaining and quibbling over a wing or a leg here and there, but mounting no decided objections to his presence in itself.

There is a war going on. It is the war of power and wealth against those who are ignored, underrated, have little or no voice, little choice in their lives. It is the war of privilege against a common humanity, of moral hypocrisy against a common decency. Of paperwork against people, the letter of the law against the very virtues that it was supposed to support and encourage. The administration is destroying the people--and it does not care one whit more than it has to for a good soundbite, a dramatic photo opp, another little token to keep the wool pulled over the eyes of those who want to believe that they live in a system that makes sense. But no "god in a machine" is coming down to set things right, and the fox is still feasting in the henhouse. Criticism alone won't get him out.

If you think that made no sense...(assuming you traced it)

...then what else is new in this world? I'm rather used to having people not get what I mean, and even more so when it builds off the elaborations of cerebral duality.

Nonetheless, I'll maintain that it does have truth, even though of course I can demand no recognition of the fact. I try very hard to keep fact and fiction distinct -- not always segregated, but clear at least. Hyperlucidity is one of the places I try to deal more with the "real" world as the issue, even though some of the things inside may seem weird to a stranger's reading. Others may seem too mundane, straight repostings from the daily news -- so what's my motive, what's the purpose here?--I mean, there, or anywhere I try to explain?

It's not the same as Pravda, at least--though, how can you not love Pravda (at least for the reading of it)?--the firm credulosity, the determined weaving of observation and science and folklore into one proudly authoritative package...it breathes new life into the meaning of the word "superstition." No, I am not Pravda -- though, this is not to say that I make no claim to truth (in-joke, that's what "pravda" means). It just takes going about it in a different fashion, more dissection with less conclusion. I'd rather suggest lines of thought than lay them down firmly in every detail, and though I can certainly write a manifesto or a catechism doesn't mean I have any present use for doing so. I'm mainly just trying to - make people think.

Of course, for some people that's an unbearable torture. Those people never last long with the kind of conversations I tend to get into (not bragging, just saying...) -- they haven't enough mental foliage to comprehend the canopy nor the marshy undergrowth in mine -- nor do they have the woodscraft to penetrate into the heart of the forest. Best to lose them at the gate lest they get into trouble.

But, if this intrigues you rather than confuses altogether, maybe you ought to come in a bit deeper into the jungle, off the beaten path. It's more dappled in here, but you can see the roots much more easily, and multiple strands and limbs and tendrils...connections are closer, though tangled, and you run across more at a time.

But all that's just a sheer metaphorical ramble. Suffice it to say, I have a (fairly new) new group where I talk about things that connect to the outside world, but (intendedly) geared to address concerns closer and more relative to us -- and who "us" is, as a matter of fact, a rather interesting and controversial topic.

Which, again, I think I'll refrain from spelling out too clearly right now....

Scientology -- I got the dirt on how it works...you wanna read more?

Here's the crux of the matter, and the reason behind Tom Cruise's
immoderate behaviour of late: Scientology split his brain apart, and
he doesn't think or act the same anymore as what we would call
a "self-aware" person.

If you want to know more about my research and theory on Scientology,
either write me privately or apply to the newsgroup 'Hyperlucidity--
the eternal pathology' ....the relevant post on this is in the message archive there at
message #277 , and I have even more extensive material (the full account of my work on this when I
delved it out) in my thesis Language and Selfhood: Power and
Coercion in the Art of Words.

_________________________________________________________
Note: I don't accept people with blank profiles into my private online groups unless they've introduced themselves sufficiently
beforehand, enough to know that they're not, you know, crazy religious fanatics or government spooks or totally fluffed off their heads. And please do be sure to read the description first, of course.....we don't want to confuse people who were just looking for a simple chatty coffee-klatsch about nothing atall of deeper consequence.

"Post-Modern Evolution" (the foundational proposal)

Original Date: Fri Jun 3, 2005 5:42 am "Post-Modern Evolution" by K. Aurencz Zethmayr / posted June 3, 2005 at my LJ blog and thence to hyperlucidity [If the content of this bothers or offends you, then go away and forget about it--though I warn you that your belief or skepticism will have no effect on the validity of these concepts, or on their operation in the world and people around you. Those who do not believe in evolution are condemned to...well, become extinct...>:)] My newest theory, and one that ties into everything subcultural as well...not to mention providing that direct reason why we're logically in the direct firing line of the Religious Right. Post-modern evolution--or, to spell it out, having arrived at a point in the human species' evolution where it is experimenting and exploring at an unprecedented pace. And, in that process, exploring and revisiting all that has come before--including things not even in its own direct genetic lineage. Before birth, a human fetus recapitulates every stage of evolution that has led to this shape, from gills to a tail. Now, we're doing something even more creative, and which has vast implications for the range and diversity and interconnectedness of all life itself. We're finding inside ourselves that which may have never existed on this planet or plane, but which is still "part of us"...we're consciously living as territorial and feral entities, whether creating new packs and clans or moving as loners through the world....we're learning more and more that there are myriad forms of energy sustenance besides just caloric intake, and that some of us need that in high and specialized degree. And that's not even taking into account anything distinctly "spiritual", though I think I can say that a great many of us, the more sensitive ones at least, suffer greatly from a sense of alienation from the normal round of human society, its priorities, even its developed emotions themselves. Whether we feel as angels above it, or as therians and fae indifferent to its shiftings--or as empathic vampires all too tangibly aware from the outside of that which we somehow cannot completely share ourselves...these are only hypothetical perspectives, feel free to add on--there is a sense of being essentially different, and of that difference causing pain because there is no sense of a place in the world for us--hardly even a way to express the anomie of knowing you're "abnormal" in such a way that cannot be medicated away (though there's always other things to drug for), cannot be simply persuaded out of, converted away from, swept under the rug of conformity and the expected course of things. Even those closest to us, sometimes, though genetics don't happen purely out of the blue...they do not know who we are, what we are--how on earth can they help and ease the growing pains, when they know so little, and when we ourselves have (I speak in general) far more a tendency towards rules than reasons, towards clan ideologies rather than continued searching--and moreover, so little a sense of destiny overall. The only ones who speak pervasively of destiny are the Starseed, Indigo, Crystal demographics...and bluntly speaking, a lot of it comes off as wishful sci-fi crap, just as much as Scientology--and written by regular New Age human adults (female of course, though no offense intended) who think we all oughta worship the little enlightened genii who'll show us the way. But I'm an Indigo myself, by the way--one of the older ones, whose mission is to try to cut the crap and translate to people what's really going on in a practical way, to lead them clearly. As a matter of fact, I know very clearly that's my task, as it was told to me. And I have very little illusion about that being a glamourous or even well-respected role--I'm a bit of a rebel gadfly of a cerebral leader, more goading than dictating, more outside than inside even when I'm in the middle of things. But I can see the whole picture--and no one else seems to have done that yet. Anyhow, we're the waves of the future gathering, in a world that's not ready to grow. What is that gonna mean?--a whole lotta repression and suspicion (especially here in the U.S.), a lotta chafing against the status quo and its patterns, a lotta going underground, so to speak--catacombing, communing, creating our alternative families and support systems as best we can. It's been done before, after all--and not to sound too :uber-psychic, but I've been hooked on that theme for years, and it's always been my ideal to gather that way, though never forcing too hard upon the needs of solitude. So...those are the lines I'm thinking along, together with greater advocacy in the areas of education, social identity (gender, sexual orientation, religion), and basic civil rights altogether, particularly by those who are articulate enough to be taken seriously by all. It's not even a matter of intelligence so much as clear and well-mastered communication, something that a lot of the right-brain dominants among us (and I think most of us likely are either close-to-the-middle, balanced, or right-brain dominant) just haven't got as a useful habit, not when it comes to trying to reason with the outside world. ______________________________ Anyhow...that's the start of my manifesto-manifestation. More to come. [from Aureantes Talks... ]