Download best wordpress themes.
Best wordpress themes.

A Message of Death

Does it sometimes make you wonder that for the last 2000 years there have been two unalterable facts in every life that has lived in this Western (now Global) society, have been death and taxes? Our culture is based upon the message of a man known as Jesus Christ. The red white and blue of our United States Flag are the colors of the Christian Church who got them from the colors that were given to Moses when he was instructed by God as to the building of the Tabernacle.

Make no mistake, our country was founded on Christian Beliefs and our laws and mores are steeped in Christian tradition. When the Israelites made their exodus from Egypt, they were alleged to have wandered the wilderness following a convicted murderer and terrorist named Moses, who not only murdered a man and fled to escape justice, but came back to Egypt and proceeded to inflict a set of terrorist attacks against the Egyptians that make the attack on the World Trade Center look like a slap on the back of the hand. When Israel was re-established after the Second World War, millions migrated to it looking for a place of refuge and peace. Yet in less than a century the nation of Israel has become one of the most warlike and bloodthirsty peoples on the planet. Just today there was a report on the BBC in which the Israeli army used a murderous artillery shell to slay a reporter from the BBC while he was driving a car that was clearly marked “Press”. It doesn’t take long to see that the Bible glorifies the bloodthirsty practices of the Israelites which included animal sacrifice, slavery and genocide, as faithfulness to the one true god.

Who was Jesus? Was he the messiah? Or was he a rich kid with a good education who rather than go in to the family business decided to start his own cult instead? Eventually he got a few helpers like Peter who wasn’t having much luck with fishing for fish decided why not fish for men. Yes he told them some parables and did a little faith healing, and even got his disciples to spin up some good yarns about him walking on water and such. But did anything change after he came and went? No, not particularly. Paul managed to take up his story and carve out a nice consulting business for a time until he was eventually put to death. But it wasn’t until Emperor Constantine decided to use the Christian myth to further his political aims in Northern Europe that Christianity really got a foothold.

Yet when he was asked about whether taxation was fair he essentially told his followers that it was OK to pay taxes to both church and state. Let the government control your property, and let the church control your mind. This bargain was struck between government and state, and it made Christianity the perfect tool for the psychological subjugation of a people who up until that time had not only been able to resist Roman conquest, but had in fact turned the tides and even went so far as sacking Rome itself. Clearly Constantine recognized that a different kind of warfare was needed in order to defeat his fierce northern opponents. Christianity was the perfect tool for the job.

Ann Ryand on Money

From Atlas Shrugged, by Ann Ryand page 387

Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, “Don’t let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil—and he’s the typical product of money.”

Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Aconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor— your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is MADE—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the LOVE of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.”

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.

“Then you will see the rise of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of DISARMED victims—then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: ‘Account overdrawn.’

“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You are.

“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while your damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.

“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a COUNTRY OF MONEY—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.

“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to MAKE money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.

“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-as, I think, he will.

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out.”

Gender Wars

On the way in to work I was listening to my favorite radio station 91.7 WSHU as per usual. But this morning rather than having some good entertainment on or an interesting article I had the unpleasant priveledge of listening to some 50 something spinster from Austrailia drone on and on about the horible Pornography industry and how it promoted United States Imperialism because it caused sex averse cultures too much distress and was changing the way those cultures interact with each other.

Now having spent the weekend in the company of some very playful men and women and watching Porn and acting out our own versions of same, I saw nobody complaining about imperialism or exploitation from either the men or the women in the play group. We did all get a laugh or two when one of the clips had a fly in it buzzing around you know where and I suppose the fly could have considered itself to have been exploited in that it lost it’s life in the movie as it met it’s demise in one of the many thrusts, but … oh well.

At any rate this whole radio article rekindled my gander especially since it was being presented in a one sided biased manner, without a contrary opinion to balance it out. So. in an effort to tip the scales back to fair I am posting the text of an article entitled ManShortage here.

The original article can be found at this URL: http://www.geocities.com/remarksman/manshortage.html

I hear lots of whining from American women these days about the supposed “man shortage” — the unavailability of “suitable” males with whom to have “relationships.”

But it is American females who have themselves created such a “shortage.”

Thirty-five years ago, when I looked at the state of American Genderwar, I thought that men just Didn’t Get It. I scolded them for their linear, rationalistic rigidity, for their sheep-like conformity, and for their too-frequent mistreatment of their wives, girlfriends, and subordinates in the workplace.

Twenty years ago, I thought that at last men were Getting It. They still had some ground to cover, but it was clear that strong-hearted men had made enormous progress in re-inventing themselves and masculinity. At about the same time, I began to have concerns about increasingly supremacist attitudes amongst Western women.

How speedily the floppie flips in these enatiodromic days, when seeming is not, good is evil, and shit is sold as soap.

By the early Nineties, I knew the worm had turned and started digging for China. In a couple horrendous decades, men had largely Gotten It – at great personal and collective price — and a huge chunk of the American masculine had reformed itself radically, raising its consciousness on various fronts. This involved much sacrifice and courage on the part of the masculine, for manhood is ever defined according to the moment’s cultural need.

Nineteen-sixties America marks the first instance in recorded history in which men attempted to define masculinity according to their own natures and needs, instead of allowing females, kings, “nobles,” or States to fashion of us what they would – fodder if there was war, laborers if not, “fathers” that have no power, lovers sold “love.”

That nascent attempt at male self-definition terrified the West sufficiently to send it scurrying back, full tilt and blindfolded, into the ancient matriarchies. The feminine was artificially elevated and empowered, served by weak men. Authentic manhood was demonized and sent to Scapegoat PIt. There it remains, undergoing transformation.

Just as men were Getting It, women were Losing It. In this new Millenium of onrushing Genderwar, women assume their moral, spiritual, and practical superiority over males. They have now have reached “just Don’t Get It” central.

Instead of re-aligning with the transformative masculine, the feminine embarked on a rampage of vengeance, selfishness, censorship and self-entitlement the likes of which even the Paleolithic matriarchies hadn’t seen. Men got trampled, and masculinity, rather than being created anew, instead was annihilated. In the wake of the glorification of all things feminine, the scattered remnants of masculinity were driven underground – to cage, gutter, and graveyard.

Of course there were options – there always are. One could hide behind the wife’s hem, or one could whore oneself to the very institutions whipping one’s back, and the back of one’s brothers. I chose the latter — though a combination provides the greatest social protection for males.

In Femamerica, the new matriarchy, every male became fair game for the Empowered Witch, who wears the armor of a “War on Women” while wielding the legal knife.

By 1990 I knew that the nation had gone mad, and that the Empowered Witch ruled unopposed. The remnants of “patriarchy” were conserved only in organized athletics, and the neo-matriarchy was entrenched, back in business, an extraordinary coup pulled off virtually without resistance. The few men who did resist were – and are – easily isolated and picked off. Even the most docile attempts at brotherhood were either banned or ridiculed into extinguishment.

The Battle of the Sexes has been over for more than a decade now, in case you’ve been busy watching “Law and Order” or “Ally McBeal.” Women won.

It was a slaughter. One side was Empowered, the other trussed and muzzled. The modest advances made by masculinity over the paltry last few thousand years now have been neutered. No aspect of the culture, with the exception of athletics and a little art, authentically reflect the needs and values of the masculine. Everything else – law, relational customs, education, commerce, communication – though fronted by men — are institutionalized to serve the feminine.

After hearing for so long how it’s a “man’s world,” it comes as a shock to modern Western men to learn that civilization is not really about them. It’s about women and “their” children — the matriarchal kinship unit. It takes no magus to scrye the signs, only an ability to confront the everyday reality of a culture fractured into a thousand points of greed, triple-think, and identity politics, where excellence and merit fall prey daily to the mediocrities of entitlement, privilege and power.

The new caste system in America is gender, with class running a distant second.

San Francisco, my city of residence during the Eighties, is the politically correct capital of the West, along with its near northern satellite Berkeley, and distant satellites Eugene and Boulder. Denigration of the masculine became an art in San Francisco during the Eighties, and The City was not the open, fun place advertised. It was, in fact, a hellhole for single masculinity, tolerant only if you were the correct gender.

I wish I had a buck every time a raging single female in San Francisco told me, “There are no single men in The City. They’re all either gay, married or losers.” Now I knew lots of available single guys, including myself. So this mantra translated was: “I can’t attract the males I want, therefore I will subtly demean all of them, including you. That way my problem becomes your fault, and I get to unload my dumptruck of psychic crap on you. You, of course — being male — are prohibited from defending yourself. That’s why we have laws, you know.”

It’s the same interpersonal strategy a three-year-old employs: I can’t Get My Way every instant, therefore You’re an Asshole.

Amazingly, these same females would become even more enraged because I wouldn’t ask them out. Talk about Not Getting It. By then, I was exhausted from two decades of feminist girlfriends. I’d run clean out of apologies for being born male.

Any chance comment in the workplace could easily cost me my job. It all depended on how any female within hearing range “felt” about it. Ditto for the universities. To varying degrees, they enacted “interpersonal behavior codes.” On some campuses, if I even looked at a female I was liable for disciplinary action, including expulsion. Again, it all depended on how any female “felt” about it.

Astoundingly, American females never stopped to consider what their agendas of complete control might have on my desire to interact with them.

While living in Portland during the mid-Nineties, I noticed a subtle shift in the dynamics of power and desire between American males and females. Women, flush with victory and its spoils of power and wealth, were becoming much more aggressive in initiating relational contact. To be sure, by the standards of initiating to which men are held, the signals of women were, and are, weak indeed. But they were definitely making overtures less deniable than before. Additionally, I began to notice that females in their twenties were increasingly loathe to embrace the gender-supremacism of their Baby Boom elder sisters. The new generation had witnessed the destruction that feminism had wrought in their own families, schools and workplaces, and they wanted no part of that brand of “liberation.” Meanwhile, however, their elder sisters clung tenaciously to their privileges, preferences, furious attitudes, and airs of victimization and moral supremacy.

Where, asked these Baby Boom women, were all the men? I could have told them, of course, where the men were and are, but being already in possession of all correct wisdom — not to mention Incarnated Goddesses — no female ever bothered to ask me. To date, not one has. What could I know? I am, after all, only a male.

The men – what’s left of them — are in hiding, of course. That’s what any refugee population does when war is made on it, and its homeland is laid to Waste. Sister, understand: only the weakest of males serve the totalitarianism of gynocracy. No real man, confronting his betrayal by American culture and femininity, will teach in your schools, for the lessons are false, and he knows he is conditioning more kids – especially more boys – into further betrayals. No real man will drone in your corporations, corrupt collectivities hiding behind the stained skirts of “market forces.” Go to any indigenous town on the planet. The market is the locus of women, their interests and their power. As for the coercive “forces” of the market — well, modern American men know all about social coercion.

Man shortage? Fuckin’ A there’s a man shortage. America rapes anything even vaguely masculine.

Sister, you’ve spent the last four decades codifying masculinity out of existence. You carry our balls in your purse, and now you’re infuriated because we don’t feel like having sex, much less a “relationship”? As recent census figures confirm, men spent the Eighties and Nineties backing away from women, and right now they are in Full Flee — not in vengeance, but in self-preservation.

Across the Pond, the song’s the same. Five-hundred women responded to an Edinburgh restaurant’s promotion for a Single’s Night mixer in “honor” of Valentine’s Day 2002.

Two males responded. TWO. The owner of the restaurant – a woman – said: “We’re a bit disappointed because we thought we’d get so many more guys than girls – after all, they’d have a room full of single women. But I think men take themselves too seriously these days.”

Ms. Owner Does Not Get It. Western women criminalize masculinity, emasculate their men, assign males fourth-class citizenship (behind females, “their” children, and household pets) – and then are stunned that men are not crawling after them, demanding “relationships?” Single women have spent the last forty years relieving Western men of their jobs, houses, children, money, basic civil rights, and self-respect. Under highly advantaged conditions, enforced by their State, females now “compete” with males for the necessities of survival.

From a position of assigned inferiority, we must deal with over-empowered single females in every facet of our lives. Why would we voluntarily pay to enter a room with FIVE HUNDRED of them gathered in power? For a “romantic relationship?” Under tyranny of the matriarchate’s interpersonal, sexual and social Gulag?

Of course, it cannot be that males are simply avoiding females, out of disgust and very real fear. That is an unacceptable conclusion, not to mention inappropriate and offensive.

Despite confirmation by the last American census, Western cultures MUST pretend that nothing is amiss between males and females. To admit that males are desperately seeking escape from females and the neo-matriarchy is to admit that the West’s endless empowerment of females and disempowerment of males may not be the progressive, everybody-wins bonanza that was, and is, shoved down our throats each day.

As Ms. Restaurant Owner smugly asserts, the problem – as ever – is with men. This time, we are “taking ourselves too seriously.” Females and Western feminist cultures, as always, share no responsibility for the sundering of male and female.

Western females want to rule over males, and simultaneously expect – not want, but EXPECT – men to repond to them with chivalrous, puppy-dog romantic devotion. They do not understand why their slaves do not to love them.

Much of the “man shortage” also stems from the fact that females rarely “trade down” in social and financial status. Despite their protestations they want, as ever, for their mates to inhabit higher positions of power than themselves. Empowered women of the new female upper middle class – the SUV Set – do not want janitors, fry-cooks, and hospital orderlies as intimate companions.

As females were artificially awarded positions of power in the West, the pool of “acceptable males” from which to choose shrank drastically. As formerly middle-class males were divested of their jobs, kids, bank accounts, homes, and self-esteem by the matriarchate and its servants, women began to find the pickings falling somewhere between slim and none – and Slim didn’t leave town, either. He sleeps in its streets, under the very noses of his empowered sisters. He’s not feeling especially romantic.

While you were busy “liberating” yourself, dear Sister, our streets and prisons – the Male Shelter Movement — filled up with the men whose jobs you took, under legally advantaged circumstances. The remaining tatters of masculinity went underground. Now you own the SUV, own the house, own the children, and own the nation. The Escapees are no longer interested in, or restricted by, your versions of sexuality or relationship. They love women, but make no mistake: Things Have Changed. Romance is the furthest thing from their minds, as well it should be, for romance is a predatory ideology in sheep’s clothing, a subjugation of the masculine and a deification of the feminine. The feminine must be elevated ONLY upon merit, not by coercion, the mass shaming of males, or codification. When the feminine is elevated by force, or self-elevates, the Empowered Witch of the negative feminine is constellated. Given any opportunity or pretext, the Empowered Witch will proceed to wreak bloody vengeance on the masculine, and upon all Creation, ever under cloak of righteousness, goodness, and the “protection of children.”

The Baby Boom Generation wanted to revolutionize the world through love, to bring heaven to earth, but when push came to shove, it found – literally — that it lacked the collective cojones to pull off the transformation. Instead of male leadership, the Boomers produced Bangin’ Bill Clinton and his scary wife.

The spoiled Boomers thought Eden would be rebuilt in a day, and when it wasn’t, and the Powers broke out the Big Nightstick, they turned tail and ran back to institutional America. The revolution – that still must be borne — quickly fractured into identity power politics, fundamentalism, intolerance, hypocrisy and coercion. Led by feminism, the Left imploded and began, like the Right, to feed on its own citizenry, by instituting domestic tyranny and calling it “progressiveness.” Expecting heaven to reappear spontaneously, the Boomers faltered in 1968 when the Powers laid the Boot on them, and went scurrying for fundamentalist hideyholes, cocooning with desperate denial and isolationism.

Likewise Boomer women – even while chanting the mantras of peace and love – instead chose power and made war. White females rule America. They own everything except love. Now their bank accounts are jammed, their careers have peaked, their wrinkles have deepened, and suddenly they’re Ready for Love – whatever they decide that now means.

Now the “Women Seeking Men” columns in the personal ads often exceed the “Men Seeking Women.” Overwhelmingly, the women placing ads are Baby Boomers. Four decades of sending the best of American masculinity to the prisons, gutters, and graveyards, and suddenly the culture has recognized a problem … not that masculinity was massacred, of course … but that there seems to be a “man shortage.” Which is to say, there’s now A Problem because females are beginning to be impacted and dissatisfied.

Indeed. But there’s been a Man Shortage in the land for decades. I can walk all day in America without encountering a real one.

The survivors of American masculocide — The Escapees – have been underground a long time now. These men who have opted out of Femamerica, who have repudiated its Empowered Witch and Toxic King, are left with only one sovereignty, only one area of culture and existence not under subjugation. Their love is their last prerogative, and they will no longer have their love – nor their bodies — used against themselves. They will no longer permit relationship by commerce, much less pay for sex, either overtly or covertly. Who needs a “date” when one might as well arrange to be financially mugged? When one can be arrested, and imprisoned, merely upon the word of a female or a child? As for marriage, males are finally recognizing it for the matriarchal institution it is. They are learning the hard way – as they had to learn eons ago under the yoke of matriarchy – that feminine institutions like marriage will not protect their sons, nor themselves.

Nolo me tangere said the Christos, following his betrayal and resurrection. Touch me not. He was still within the magnetic fields of materia, not yet “ascended to the Spirit Father.” Likewise, The Escapees will no longer let unclean hands — the hands of power — touch them.

Only American women, in the madness of their powerlust and self-absorption, could imagine that men would repay betrayal with slobbering romantic submission. Recently, one notices desperation creeping into Madison Avenue advertising spins, especially in liquor and automobile commercials. American men are constantly told how fabulous and superior women are, how we should fall all over ourselves seeking female favor, how we should be pulling our brothers down so we can ascend the bloody man-rungs and win the favor of the Alpha Female. Buy my car and women will love you! Drink my beer and the babes will go ga-ga!

Same old game – males pay for “love,” and then are supposed to feel grateful and lucky. What kind of worm begs, mewls, and pays for “love”?

The “Man Shortage” – the lack of authentic masculinity in the modern West – is at the root of our cultural problems, especially amongst American boys. And no wonder. Manhood has been systematically denigrated, outlawed, and destroyed by the culture in the past half-century. The void of authentic masculinity is filled by gangs, suicide, violence, substance addiction, depression, and schoolyard shooters.

Hunker down for the long haul, ladies. Pickings are going to be scarce for quite a spell to come. The “Man Shortage” ain’t goin’ away. Men are goin’ away, and many have no intention of coming back. The Escapees will not meekly tiptoe back into the fold, begging forgiveness like the pathetic “Promise Keepers.” Many of the Escapees do not want relationship with you under any terms – even if you could break the addiction to your Rules, your privileges, your power. Which you cannot.

The good news about Genderwar? Some young women are beginning to rebel against the feminist party line. Our true Sister, who loves us without reservation, is constellating, composing herself like a walking symphony. At last Gretel has sighted the Empowered Witch, and she will yank her Brother from the oven if she can.

Baby Boom females want to believe that men have abandoned them in search of fresh, nubile young’uns. There is some truth to that – it’s a bio-evolutionary fact. But the deeper truth is that we are dead tired of your Me-First act – backed up by the increasingly totalitarian forces of your State.

“Man shortage?” You bet there is, baby. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Five hundred single females, and two males. Consider and get used to it.

Leading feminists have stated explicitly that the world would be better off without males. Perhaps they will get their wish.

The dyas, the unit of the couple which has dominated since the late matriarchies, is broken. The dyas, the twosome, is the fundamental unit of civilization, and of the family. It is also the primordial expression of the opposites in human beings, which means that the couple as foundation of social structure necessitates Genderwar.

It is the responsibility of the feminine to share her home in matter with the masculine. This is the balance for the sacrifice of male body and spirit. If the feminine shirks her responsibilities, the masculine will withdraw first spirit, and then body — perhaps for a very long time.

Not a day passes that I do not fail to pray that women and men will conjoin under new – and radically different – agreements. I hope that real love will grow from this cultural dung and blossom again. A new world groans in its birth-pangs, but it will remain inanimate until female and male finish their War.

Although women won the Battle of the Sexes, modern bi-lateral Genderwar is only now taking full shape. Feminism has constellated the Empowered Witch and her Toxic King. Likewise, it has awakened the male from his slumber in cultural chains. Now, he too stands up. He too scents his freedom.

That will not please women, and it will not please the Powers. Both feed from male body and spirit. There will be conflict of unprecedented proportion and kind. This primal confrontation between female and male cannot, and should not, be avoided.

This time around, Genderwar will force all the cards to the table. Face up.

To borrow from David Crosby, it’s been a long time coming, and it’s going to be a long, long time gone.

Toxic Relationships

One of my biggest personal challenges has been avoiding toxic romantic relationships. What do I mean by a toxic relationship? Well the following link has a good basic description of what a toxic relationship is: Don’t Keep it Bottled Up

In the above article Dr. Glass answers the question: what makes a toxic person tick?
She says:

“They’re people whose feelings of insecurity and inadequacy make them jealous, envious and uncaring, so they end up sabotaging your projects, your relationships, your happiness-even your soul journey!”

This about sums it up for the last two significant romantic relationships I have been in. I have a friend at work who I spoke with about this, she seems to really have a great time in life and is a very self actualized person. Her thoughts on the subject is that she simply keeps a distance between herself and people who aggravate her. Good advice so it would seem.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Dr. Glass at “Toxic Relationships and How to Handle Them

Dr. Brewer: A toxic relationship is one in which you are feeling harmed either emotionally or physically.

David: What is it that causes us to get involved in toxic relationships?

Dr. Brewer: There are many reasons why we choose toxic relationships. We may have grown up in a toxic household, we may have been taught that we are not deserving of happiness, or we may have learned to take responsibility for others. One of the most important things to remember about being in a toxic relationship, is that you do have choices and you can get out!

David: Can you give us some examples of a toxic relationship?

Dr. Brewer: Wow! That’s a big question! But here it goes.

A toxic relationship is one in which you are chronically tired, angry, or frightened. A relationship in which you worry about a safe time to talk to your partner. A relationship in which you do not have the “right” to express yourself. In short, a relationship that is abusive in any way, may be a toxic relationship.

David: Many get involved in these types of relationships and find it difficult to break away. What is it inside ourselves that keeps us from being able to do that?

Dr. Brewer: Often, we stay in relationships because we do not understand that we have rights and options. Low self-esteem can be a factor in remaining, as well as depression, fear of being alone, or threats from the hurtful partner. Sometimes, people stay because the toxic relationship so much mirrors their lives as children, that they truly may not have a sense that it is a toxic relationship and that life can be better.

David: What is it that makes a toxic person tick? What motivates that person to hurt others?

Dr. Brewer: Low self-esteem. Although low self-esteem can be a very complex experience, the bottom line is that the person does not have a good and clear sense of themselves, and so it is almost impossible, without clinical intervention, for that person to understand that there is a better, healthier way to be.

Part of why the toxic person hurts, in addition to having to do with their own low sense of self, is that fear of being out of control and the fear of what exposing the true self would mean.

The following excerpt is taken from a book called Dance of the Wounded Souls by Robert Burney:

This dance of Codependence is a dance of dysfunctional relationships - of relationships that do not work to meet our needs. That does not mean just romantic relationships, or family relationships, or even human relationships in general.
The fact that dysfunction exists in our romantic, family, and human relationships is a symptom of the dysfunction that exists in our relationship with life - with being human. It is a symptom of the dysfunction which exists in our relationships with ourselves as human beings.

And the dysfunction that exists in our relationship with ourselves is a symptom of Spiritual dis-ease, of not being in balance and harmony with the universe, of feeling disconnected from our Spiritual source.

That is why it is so important to enlarge our perspective. To look beyond the romantic relationship in which we are having problems. To look beyond the dysfunction that exists in our relationships with other people.

The more we enlarge our perspective, the closer we get to the cause instead of just dealing with the symptoms. For example, the more we look at the dysfunction in our relationship with ourselves as human beings the more we can understand the dysfunction in our romantic relationships.

According to Wikipedia:

A “codependent” is loosely defined as someone who exhibits too much, and often inappropriate, caring for persons who depend on him or her. A “codependent” is one side of a relationship between mutually needy people. The dependent, or obviously needy party(s) may have emotional, physical, financial difficulties, or addictions they seemingly are unable to surmount. The “codependent” party exhibits behaviour which controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party’s condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.

As hard as I tried not to I found myself a dependent in my last relationship. I knew I was a good father, but I allowed myself to be convinced that I needed the help of another person to provide the female side of the mix for my children’s sake. In the end, the relationship between this person and my daughter grew quite toxic to the point that my daughter became increasingly depressed.

Related to the notion of Co-dependence is the concept of obsessive love:

Wikipedia has this to say about obsessive love:

Moore, Forward and Buck believe that rejection is the trigger of obsessive love - also known as love addiction or relationship addiction. They state four conditions to help identify it, namely, a painful and all-consuming preoccupation with a real or wished-for lover, an insatiable longing either to possess or be possessed by the target of their obsession, rejection by or physical and/or emotional unavailability of their target, and being driven to behave in self-defeating ways by this rejection or unavailability.

Two characteristics indicative of obsessive love are:

  • Obsessive lovers believe that only the person they fixate on can make them feel happy and fulfilled.
  • Persons close to the love-obsessed can also be greatly affected. Witnessing a friend or family member suffer from the disorder can be distressing.

The site goes on to characterize the phases of obsessive love:

The initial phase of ORP is characterized by an instantaneous and overwhelming attraction to another person. It is at this point the relationally dependent person becomes “hooked” on a romantic interest, usually resulting from the slightest bit of attention from the person they are attracted to.

Phase one: Attraction phase

  • An instant attraction to romantic interest, usually occurring within the first few minutes of meeting.
  • An immediate urge to rush into a relationship regardless of compatibility.
  • Becoming “hooked on the look” of another, focusing on the person’s physical characteristics while ignoring personality differences.
  • Unrealistic fantasies about a relationship with a love interest, assigning “magical” qualities to an object of affection.
  • The beginnings of obsessive, controlling behaviors begin to manifest.

Phase two: Anxious phase
This phase in considered a relational turning point, which usually occurs after a commitment has been made between both parties. Sometimes however, the relationally dependent person will enter into this phase without the presence of a commitment. This happens when the afflicted person creates the illusion of intimacy, regardless of the other person’s true feelings. The second phase of ORP behaviors can include:

  • Unfounded thoughts of infidelity on the part of a partner and demanding accountability for normal daily activities.
  • An overwhelming fear of abandonment, including baseless thoughts of a partner walking out on the relationship in favor of another person.
  • The need to constantly be in contact with a love interest via phone, email or in person.
  • Strong feelings of mistrust begin to emerge, causing depression, resentment and relational tension.
  • The continuation and escalation of obsessive, controlling behaviors.

Phase three: Obsessive phase
This particular phase represents the rapid escalation of this unhealthy attachment style. It is at this point that obsessive, controlling behaviors reach critical mass, ultimately overwhelming the RD person’s life. It is also at this point that the person being controlled begins to pull back and ultimately, severs the relationship. In short, Phase Three is characterized by a total loss of control on the part of the RD person, resulting from extreme anxiety. Usually, the following characteristics are apparent during the third phase of ORP.

  • The onset of “tunnel vision,” meaning that the relationally dependent person cannot stop thinking about a love interest and required his or her constant attention.
  • Neurotic, compulsive behaviors, including rapid telephone calls to love interest’s place of residence or workplace.
  • Unfounded accusations of “cheating” due to extreme anxiety.
  • “Drive-bys” around a love interest’s home or place of employment, with the goal of assuring that the person is at where “he or she is supposed to be.”
  • Physical or electronic monitoring activities, following a love interest’s whereabouts throughout the course of a day to discover daily activities.
  • Extreme control tactics, including questioning a love interest’s commitment to the relationship (guilt trips) with the goal of manipulating a love interest into providing more attention.

Phase four: Destructive phase
This is the final phase of Obsessive Relational Progression. It represents the destruction of the relationship, due to phase three behaviors, which have caused a love interest to understandably flee. For a variety of reasons, this is considered the most dangerous of the four phases, because the RD person suddenly plummets into a deep depression due to the collapse of the relationship. Here are some of the more common behaviors that are exhibited during phase four of ORP:

  • Overwhelming feelings of depression (feeling “empty” inside).
  • A sudden loss of self-esteem, due to the collapse of the relationship.
  • Extreme feelings of self-blame and at times, self-hatred.
  • Anger, rage and a desire to seek revenge against a love interest for breaking off the relationship.
  • Denial that the relationship has ended and attempting to “win a loved one back” by making promises to “change”.
  • The use of drugs, alcohol, food or sex to “medicate” the emotional pain.

I personally love to be touched and value the warm bond of intimate love. I feel as though it is healty to have this in my life. Sex is a critical part of our psychological well being. However, sex can also be used by a co-dependent as a lure to the love trap.

I can definately say from personal experience that my last relationship followed these phases almost like an instruction manual. Once you become involved with a co-dependent person they begin to knock out your defenses like an attack on Iraq. First they go after your friends so that you don’t have a sounding board to see outside of yourself (e.g. they remove your external voices of reason), then they play on guilt, fear or sense of duty to further reel you into their coils. They play you like a chess board.

One thing I have learned from this is that any relationship that cuts you off from your friends should throw up a big red flag and make you take a step back. One of my friends puts it this way. Sometimes the screwing youre getting isn’t worth the screwing they are giving you.

Sex = good. Love = good. Obsessive love = trouble.

So that’s my lesson learned for the month. Any comments?

On Thought And Reason

A few months back I received an abstract from GetAbstract.com in my inbox entitled Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell. Even though the message in my inbox was spam I read the abstract anyhow. Originally I had posted a link to this abstract thinking that it would be a win win situation and that the abstract being thus linked to would receive more ‘airtime” so to speak and would thus promote interest in Mr. Sowell’s book. However upon receiving a nasty letter from Arnhild Rasilier Vice President, Rights Director of getabstract.com, claiming that posting the link was an infringement of their copyright I realized that they were apparently unfamiliar with the meaning of their own abstract. So the link is gone now and the basic takeways quoted from the link have been removed from this site. Apparently Getabstract.com would prefer that Mr. Sowell’s work remain as obscure as possible.

The good thing about all of this is that the principle of like attracts like has shown itself here. Had I not received the corporate email I would not have revisited this posting. Had I not done that I would not have learned that Mr. Sowell is a darling child of neoconservative thinking. While his facts and fallacies book seeks to apply logic to economics which I thought was an interesting approach, he falls down on many points. One of his biggest fallacies is assuming that people in the United States have equal opportunity. Unfortunately that is not the case. Those with money to hire good lawyers will always prevail over those who do not. Until legal services, medical services, and access to government are made equally available to all, it will be a fallacy to think that opportunity will be equal. This is a point that is sorely overlooked by Mr. Sowell.

Well no matter, as I read through the abstract it I found the concepts therein quite compelling. This led to a discovery process that took place upon reading the abstract and that is what is important. The basic take away is that bad thinking habits lead to bad decisions. For example, when Getabstract.com treated their content like a finite resource and set about to hoard their content, they have accomplished a contrary purpose. By being greedy they have helped to condemn the content to obscurity, and rather than having a link showing the value of what they do, they have prompted the crafting of these paragraphs instead.

At any rate this book led me to thinking about many of the disagreements I have had in the past and identifies for me at least the root of many relationship problems I have encountered during my minstry. So I started Googling on “fallacy, reason, thought”. I wanted to see what else was out there on the topic.

The first stop on my Journey was an article entitled Seven fallacies of thought and reason by Jason Braithwaite PhD.

At the opening of his article he states that:

“There are many forms of logical fallacy, errors, and mistakes of reason. In addition to this many fallacies co-exist and network together in yet further complex combinations. The net consequence of this is a conviction and feeling of coherence in the views being held - a sense of things making sense! This feeling of ‘everything making sense’ in the absence of any evidence, logic or reason, is an illusion based in the collective impact of unstructured thought.The level of the delusion is often far greater than the sum of its underlying parts. The mistakes of though and reason listed here have been chosen and highlighted on the basis that they are the most common. Therefore, these errors are so prevalent, they have permeated and perverted the public’s perception of science the most.”

He goes on to detail these seven fallacies in reverse order:

(7) I am entitled to my opinion (used to support the truth of the opinion) The crucial point with this error in argumentation is that an individual’s entitlement to hold a viewpoint is no indication at all as to its validity or truth. In fact it is completely irrelevant.

(6) Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy.

This logical fallacy basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed to being towards the issues being discussed. The basic strategy is “attack the messenger not the message”.

(5) I’m offended! (A special case of the red-herring fallacy)

When a core belief is under threat from a good counter-argument, it is common for many to defend the core belief by stating “I’m offended”. The basis of this fallacy stems from the fact that often people become so attached to their beliefs that to question a core belief is to question them personally.

(4) Science cannot explain everything and does not have all the answers.

This argument is a lie wrapped up in truth. The truth is on the surface: it is true that Science does not have all the answers nor can it explain everything. But keep in mind that Science never claims to have all the answers - just a reliable and useful method for revealing them.

The lie inside the truth comes from the fact that Science has some built in limitations intended to keep it from answering specific questions concerning certain issues, but this limitation is used by some to gain leverage for claiming ‘truth’ by these other knowledge systems.

Just because Science cannot prove that Unicorns like chocolate ice cream better than cheesecake, doesn’t lend any credibility to the assertion that they do. The fact that Science can’t answer the question as to what dessert a Unicorn prefers doesn’t lend any credibility to someone else asserting an opinion either way or even to the idea that they eat dessert at all.

(3) Science is often wrong, and has been shown to be wrong before, therefore it could be wrong about this issue now.

This fallacy is not only common to people who stand against science but an inverse fallacy exists within many who support the Scientific status quo. The root of this fallacy comes from the false belief that Science is about absolutes and definite proof. But Science is not in fact about these things at all. Science is about finding the most plausible, probable and likely explanations based on the evidence available at any given time.

(2) Science cannot disprove that such and such a thing is true - therefore, this failure is, by default, support for the truth of the thing.

  1. argumentum ad ignorantiam
  2. a misunderstanding of the difference between the evidence of absence and the absence of evidence
  3. a misunderstanding of the principles of falsifiability and sufficiently
  4. a shifting of the burden of proof

(1) Scientists and skeptics are closed-minded and are not open to other possibilities (not open minded).
Contrary to popular opinion, being open-minded does not mean accepting all manner of claims and ideas equally. Not all ideas and claims have equal evidential weight. To accept each claim equally, in the absence of supporting evidence, is not being open-minded, it is being credulous.

So number 2 lead me to refine my search and found a treasure trove of links off of this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#See_also

This link takes you to a table with an incredible assortment of fallacies.

Here is another great link that lists them and explains each one:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm

The one thing that is obvious to me from all of this is that diciplined thinking is sorely lacking in modern discourse. Marketing and sales gurus have for centuries taken advantage of undiciplined thinking to get people to accept all sorts of incredulous ideas. Often these people have been duped out of their property, their freedom, even their very lives.

Millenia ago Aristotle identified 13 fallacies to reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistical_Refutations

I wonder sometimes what our world would be like if most people (as opposed to a very few) understood these fallacies and diciplined themselves not to fall prey to them. What sort of world would we have, what would our news media have to hawk? How would democracy behave if people understood the basics of sound reason? The brave men who wrote our constitution believed that those who helped run our democracy would in fact understand the principles of reason. How unfortunate that most of us have forgotton these things.

A Lyrical Inspiration

By Fionndamnh

Once upon a time I was a member of a poetry club.  I wrote poetry, read other peoples poetry and in general had a good time each Sunday in a coffee shop now out of business in downtown New London.

Once I shared the following set of lyrics with the head of the poetry club who subsequently tore it apart as being bad poetry.  Perhaps he was right, perhaps he was wrong, but never the less when I heard these words delivered in the song from which they come I found a great deal of personal inspiration.

The words I am speaking of are by a math metal rock group knowin as System of a Down, and they come from their Toxcicity CD.  The song is called Aerials and here are the words:

Life is a waterfall,
We’re one in the river,
And one again after the fall.

Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We loose ourselves,
But we find it all?
Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,
And we are the ones that want to choose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Life is a waterfall,
We drink from the river,
Then we turn around and put up our walls.

Swimming through the void
We hear the word,
We lost ourselves,
But we find it all?

Cause we are the ones that want to play,
Always want to go,
But you never want to stay,

And we are the ones that want to choose,
Always want to play,
But you never want to lose.

Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.
Aerials, in the sky,
When you lose small mind,
You free your life.
Aerials, so up high,
When you free your eyes,
Eternal prize.

Why you might ask do I find these words so meaningful? Well I can only say what they mean to me and how I found them instructive.


Life is a waterfall,
We’re one in the river,
And one again after the fall.

Waterfalls to me connote a slow change or transformation.  Water is often associated with the womb, or the well of creation.  In the beginning we are all aware of the fact that we are all one, and in the end we will remember this once again.  I am reminded of the void mentioned briefly in Genesis of the Christian Bible, but probably more eloquently put by John C. Lilly in his essay “Before the Beginning“.

But what happens in the mean time? 

We drink from the well of creation, and then begin to put up our walls.  We forget that we are all one, and begin to think of ourselves as individal separate entities, grasping, consuming, and trying to build up our own brand of organization, accumulating ever greater numbers of monads in our private little empires of ego and delusion.  All the while forgetting that ours may not be the ideal configuration for every mondad in the Universe. 

Ultimately as Friedrich Nietzsche puts it: “the center does not hold”.  Eventually the empire collapses, and death and decay follows.  The empire whether it be a tiny protozoa or a global corporation, dissolves because of the increasing dissatisfaction of the monads that make up the empire.  Each of them senses in it’s own way that all is not bliss in Smallville.

The rest of the song simply reinforces the idea that letting go is important to salvation (per se).  Letting go of beliefs that do not satisfy, letting go of life when it no longer serves you to be alive, letting go of material things when the accumulation of those things causes destruction of the very things that sustain your ability to live.  Letting go.

I always listen to this song when I find myself clinging too much to things because in some way it helps me to let go. 

Check it out and see if it doesn’t help you do the same.

 Bright Blessings

On Witchcraft

By Fionndamnh 

There are those within the NISC congregation who proudly bear the signification Witch; hence the URL norwitches.org.  But to understand what this means to us we should first consider the etymology of the word “witch”.

Theorists have come up with many viable origins for the word “witch”. The most popular of these are the Proto Indo-European Theories. They are weik, weik and weid.  Most English dictionaries will use one of these three sources to describe the origins of ‘witch’.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, weik actually has five distinct etymological branches but only the two are attributed to the supernatural. In contrast, the Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, proponent of the ‘weid’ premise, states that ‘witch’ primarily comes from the word ‘witan’ through a series of phonetic changes.By combining these 5 elements of the etymology we can begin to discern the true heart of a witch.  See: http://www.agnosticwitch.catcara.com/witch-etymology.htm

1. A witch is one who first and foremost desires to see and to know.  Witches typically set thier own moral compas and march to their own drum.  We are out of the box thinkers who strive to find that which is best for us and not to allow others to dictate the path that we follow.  We share knowledge responsibly but we do not try to force others to adopt our beliefs.

2. Secondly, a witch seeks to learn the ways by which they can bend or fold.  Sometimes this involves certain kinds of magical pracices whereby the odds of a certain event happening are “bent” in “favor” of the witches desire.  This sort of bending is often referred to as the Lesser Magick.

More importantly a witch seeks to bend and fold themselves like a fine sword until they become strong and flexible human beings capable of discernment and inspiration.  This personal growth strategy is often referred to as the Greater Magick.

3. Many (not all) witches feel that there are non corporeal intelligences which can be of benefit to the witch as they follow their path.  These “divine” intelligences are often referred to as Gods and Goddesses, or Angels, or Demons depending on the practicioner.  It is interesting to note that the word “divine” (e.g. “Supernatural” Intelligences) and “divination” (To discern the present and find guidance for future action) share a common root.

4. Witches sooner or later come round to the idea that their body is a temple and that by extension so is their life.  Thereby we often conclude that it is best to choose activities that are wholesome and build us up in a clean and pure way.  We frequently adopt the view that our wholesome choices not only serve us but by extension serve the universe at large.  Much the way that a tree grows straight and tall so that it can satisfy it’s hunger for sunlight, but by doing this it also provides benefit to the environment around it.

However witchtes being the independent creatures that we are learn for ourselves in our own way that which is right for us and that which is wrong.  A cactus will never thrive in a swamp, nor can a lillypad thrive in the desert.

5. Finally a witch practices magick, but what is magick?  To get a good grasp of what this word means to a true witch we can look at the very well spoken definition given by Alestair Crowley in his thesis “The Book of Thoth”:

“Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the Will.  In other words, it is Science, Pure and Applied.  This thesis has been worked out at great length by Dr. Sir J. G. Frazer.  But in common parlance the word Magic has been used to mean the kind of science which ordinary people do not understand.  It is in this restricted sense, for the most part, that the word be used ill this essay.

The business of Science is to explore nature.  It’s first questions are, What is this? How did it come to be?  What are its relations with any other object?  The knowledge acquired may then be used in Applied Science, whichs asks: How can we best employ such-and-such a thing or idea for the purpose that, to us, seems fit?”

So as witches we are first and foremost dedicated to the principle of independent exploration into the divine and the natural.  We dedicate our lives to the betterment of ourselves and the consequential betterment of the world around us.

Blessed Be

Who (what?) is God?

By Fionndamnh 

My roots and ordination are tied to the Universal Life Church.  So to begin this essay it seems only proper to look first to the definition that the ULC gives to “god” or the “almighty”. 

Typically the term has come to be accepted as being a reference to a supreme being, or creator.  In other words a divine intelligence from whence all things spring.  In the Judeo-Christian realm, this intelligence has largely masculine qualities hence the term “god the father”, other qualities that have been attributed to “God” by the predominate religious institutions in this Country are:

  1. God is omnipotent - all knowing all seeing
  2. God is love
  3. God is the creator of all that exists
  4. God is jealous and will not tolerate anything having a higher place in the hearts and minds of men than himself.

In Islam, there is the belief that “Allah” (e.g. god) is everywhere and has no form or gender.  The Islamic belief in god is more akin to a belief in a super-intelligent field that permeates the universe and is the root cause of all things that happen. 

In the aforementioned religions there is a shared belief that if you do not submit to the will of “god” and declare your belief in him to be first and foremost in your life, that ultimately you will be punished by exquisite tortures in an afterlife that follows.  The interesting thing to note here is that while these belief systems declare on the one hand that you have been made by perfect “hands” to fulfill a specific purpose preordained by your creator, you have been given a nature by those hands that leads you to behave in a way that is displeasing to the creator and will ultimately cause you to be punished eternally unless you subscribe to a belief system that teaches you to deny your nature, and adhere to a set of practices that for most of us feels quite unnatural. 

It is only by behaving in a manner that is out of sorts with the way your perfect creator has made you that you might find salvation from “his” wrath.

Many who follow the path of Wicca (an increasingly popular spiritual belief system in this country) see “god” as a duality consisting primarily of a male aspect (e.g. the Lord) and a female aspect (e.g. the Lady).  This has the interesting benefit of allowing both sexes to have the same kinds of polar relationships with “god” that were only available to nuns of the catholic church.  

It is a very difficult thing for a purely heterosexual male to think of himself as the “bride of Christ” in the same way that a purely heterosexual female is able to.  However it is no great stretch for a heterosexual male to think of himself as a corporeal “consort” to “the Goddess”.  This brings back a sexual dynamic between man and divinity that had previously only been available to women, and homosexual men.

So the Wiccan way gives each sex a two parent family essentially whereas the Christian faith relegates the role of the female in the divine family to a purely reproductive capacity (a.k.a Mary) or a reformed Whore (a.k.a. Mary Magdalene).

The Buddhists see “god” as the re-integrated synthesis of all enlightened souls who have achieved a state of ultimate bliss and been re-integrated into the universe.  As such, they are closer to the belief that we are all a part of the mind of god.

The followers of the Church of Satan (ala Anton LaVey) see “god” as an unconscious force or field which acts upon all things in a pair of forces “sa” and “tan” loosely related to the oriental concept of “yin” and “yang”, or the Hindu paired forces of “creator” and “destroyer”.

Thus Satanists see “god” as a motivating and balancing dark force in nature.  Satan is also described as being the “Black Flame”, representing a person’s own inner personality and desires. Satan is seen as synonymous with the nature and even, metaphorically, with certain conceptions of a supreme deity or God.

Satan is said to appear in mythology and literature around the world as a trickster, rebel, and hero. Figures such as the Greek Prometheus are said to perfectly exemplify the qualities of Satan, the prideful rebel. Other deities, such as Ahriman, Apep, and Loki, are seen as examples of different manifestations of the same archetype.Satan is seen as the powerful individual who acts regardless of what others might say.

The word satan is Hebrew for “adversary”, and Satanists claim to be adversaries of mainstream behavior which they define as “herd conformity”, seeing it as stifling to individuality, creativity, and progress.

Satanists do not believe that Satan is a god; rather, the function of God is performed and satisfied by the Satanist him/herself. That is, the needs of worship, ritual, and religious/spiritual focus are directed, effectively, inwards towards the Satanist, as opposed to outwards towards a God.

LaVey proposes instead that as all gods are creations of humans, worship of an external deity is worship of its creator by proxy. He suggests, then, that the rational Satanists should instead internalize their gods and therefore worship themselves; hence the Satanic maxim, “I am my own god.”

The Thelemic tradition most widely popularized by Aleister Crowley takes a slightly different bent on the subject of who or what is “God”.  To best illustrate this viewpoint, consider for a moment that all things that are part of what we commonly perceive as “existence” or the “universe” are composed of infinetesimally small elemental objects called monads (for those of a classical training in the sciences atoms will do for the purpose of visualization so long as you keep in mind that even a subatomic particle is actually comprised of possibly millions of monads).

These monads, are unchangeable in their most elemental form, they have the properties of locality, and dimension, as well as motion.  Furthermore, they have the properties of thought, and memory and bliss.  Consider that these monads are each and every one a god in their own right, in that they are unchanging and have been here all the time.  Consider further that they participate in combinations of increasing complexity from subatomic particle, to molecule, to man, to archilect (the synthesis of many intellects interacting in superorganizations such as Gaia).  The purpose of this is to explore the ramifications of these combinations to essentially find the most blissful pairings (kind of like finding your soul mate(s) but at a microatomic level).  It is interesting to note that should all the monads in the universe achieve such a bliss, that this might be akin to the notion of Heaven on Earth, or Kingdom Come, or even the Hindu postulate of ultimate Nirvanna.

Such a viewpoint certainly explains why a universe could be created in which there is disease, death and war.  The monads are not terribly interested in preserving any particular configuration (e.g. people, nations, worlds) but in experiencing new combinations.  War, death, disease, old age, extinction, planetary destruction… these sort of cataclysmic events do tend to reorient large sets of monads into entirely new and possibly more interesting configurations.  This is not unlike the notion of evolution.

I am reminded of an interesting quotation at the end of the book “Stranger in a Strange Land” in which the main character looks into the eyes of a grasshopper as he is being beaten to death by a crowd of people who simply don’t like the religeon he is teaching and says to the little grasshopper “thou art god”.

So what is God?  Nearly everyone who believes in a supreme being sees that being as the driving force behind the course of their life, some see god as benevolent to them because they subscribe to a particular set of beliefs and practices and malevolent to anyone else who doesn’t fit in, some see god as benevolent to all and tries to do what is best for each and every individual insofar as it is possible given that we often have competing interests, some see god as an indifferent architect who has no particular interest in any one individual but simply has a divine plan which “he” seeks to unfold.  One thing that all “believers” in god have in common is that they see  god as the “one (group?)  in charge”. 

There is greater distinction as to where exactly the throne of god sits (e.g. Inside each of us, or outside somewhere). Some see god as a being that is separate from us and watching “over” us.  Others see god as a manifestation of the best in each of us (e.g. god comes from within).

Maybe one reason why so many religions fail to ascribe a particular name to god is due to the intangiable “unknowable” nature of god.  It is sort of up to you to decide who or what god is now isn’t it?

It’s Alive!!!

Welcome to the Norwich Independent Spiritual Congregation.  We are finally up and running.  We hope that you will find this site of value to you as you find your own way as a unique star in the universe. 

We seek to provide a tool to you the indepentent spiritual thinker to help them walk your path and find your true will. 

“Do what thou wilt”.

« Previous Page

marijuana detox