Calm It Down, Church Lady

Tactically, I don’t understand his logic on this.  Polling in the US has been indicating that a very high percentage of Americans agree with the notion of a wall.  And last time I checked, a very high percentage of Americans considered themselves Christian (including the Evangelical base who are in large part, supporting Trump).  So in declaring Trump “not a Christian” for supporting a wall, the Pope has by extension declared millions of Americans to be no longer Christians.  …Do you really think this was a smart idea for you Pope?  How are you endearing Catholicism to the US by being as base as the rest of us?  Especially since you were already on tenuous ground with a large swath of Evangelicals who regard the perversion of Catholicism as the Great Harlot cult, and thus, not Christians either.

He is supposed to be the vicar of Christ on Earth, and this insight was about on par with a basement church lady in Oklahoma.

The Pope understands walls.  Whether literally or figuratively, The Pope is ensconced behind a cascade of them.  He has his bullet proof glass go-go cart.  His own private police force Corpo della Gendarmeria.…plus that weird albino thing from The Davinci Code.  He has the immense walls of St. Peter’s Basilica.  He has the purview of The Holy See.  He has his own country, with lines on a map, and a de facto military by way of The Pontifical Swiss Guard.  Last time i checked The Vatican isn’t accepting Mexican migrants either.  They’re not even accepting their regional equivalent – the Syrian refugees.  Maybe Italy is, certainly Sicily.  But The Vatican itself isn’t housing any number (beyond what may be for show, the typical m.o.).

But maybe the most disturbing aspect of the Pope’s hypocrisy is the sheer amount of wealth he has walled up.  If he were to make that potential energy kinetic, he could solve all of Mexico’s problems and thwart the need for anyone to even flee the country.  He could pay the administrative and adoption fees for the tens of thousands of migrant children who crossed the border in the 2015 crisis.  Is this Christian behavior, to hoard a vast amount of wealth when Catholics all over the developing world are in misery?  You’ve been more than happy to take collections and tithings from mothers who have to drink out of a puddle of water someone else just shit in for hundreds of years.  Why not auction off some of your rock and roll gowns and paintings like the real Madonna?  You could buy some Saudi desalinization plants and pipe clean water to all of Brazil.   This was illustrated best by unshorn devil Jew Sarah Silverman here in her “Sell The Vatican” campaign.

And slow your roll homey.  You are just a man.  Most of us are not under a fervent spell of you being divinely anything.  So you thinking you had some kind of don’t-hit-a-girl-back protection because you’re a Pope isn’t going to hold holy water.  You’ve made yourself a fair target in the now shit-slinging pig stye of American politics.  You’d better get some stain remover for your Papal vestments, cuz a lot of this shit’s gonna stick.  …And enough with over-praising him for pondering that gays might be equal….it’s like he’s in the special Olympics of thinking and we’re supposed to cheer on his subpar revelations.

It was my understanding that Christianity was a virtual feedback loop of sin and forgiveness of sin…and that if only those among us who had sinned were Christian, then no one would be.  So why couldn’t Trump have had this errant thought but maintained his Christianity?  What sassy set of rules did the Pope whip up just for The Donald today?  Would not have a more compassionate (and accurate) comment have been something along the lines of “having open arms to all who are in need is the most Christian response”?  A response affirming the virtues of Christian teaching would have been far more becoming of the Pope than this muck-mired tort that is so terrestrial, so basic, and just like everyone else.  …But that is because he is just like everyone else, and we’d all be behoothed to glimpse through this wizard’s curtain if you haven’t already.  There is no magic here.  Just one more bitchy queen in shimmery clothes.


Crucifying A Straw Man

It will always be a motivation in my heart to arm any LGBT people, especially teens, in the arguments they undoubtedly face in society from people who meet them with ignorance and bigotry.  Part of me will always be an awkward teenager in a MidWestern class room staving off mental, physical and psychological/ideological abuse from 30 people all at once + a teacher.  I will always have persons in that state of vulnerability in mind when writing about LGBT matters.  I hope that what I write could help someone somewhere, in asserting or protecting themselves…in feeling that they are less alone, and not having to have an answer for everything all the time, as the screed of prejudice is endless and comes from more directions than one person can be prepared for.

In keeping with that motivation, I have recently come across another blog regarding the writer’s irritation at all these Gay people who are perverting the definition of marriage.  He couldn’t be bothered with the fact that they feel oppressed and seek equality, and had this to say about it.

I left him 1 comment, which as of now, is viewable on his page.  He responded.  This is where the real unveiling begins.  His response was replete with presumptions, lies, and the typical rhetoric that we are often faced with.  It is for this reason that I wanted to publish my 2nd response to said commentary in order to serve as an Antidote because I am AntiDolt.  At last I checked, my comment was idling in ‘waiting to be approved’.  I suspect he will not have the honesty or courage to publish it, so I am publishing it here.  If he remains an ideological coward and does not publish the comment, I will quote & post his entire article precipitating the comments here as well, but for now, it is viewable in the link above and here.



I read above that you’re a husband and father. I’d imagine those things are important to you. The next time you think about Religious opposition to Gay Marriage, consider that for a very long time that they have made it impossible for other men to be in those 2 aforementioned roles that are obviously of great import to you. How hard would you fight for the right to be married to your wife? How hard would you fight for the right to adopt or have your child? Unless you believe that a homosexual is somehow innately flawed or less humane than you, you must understand that they want for the same things that came to you without contention. Imagine what your life would be like, how void, if you lived in a Theocratic nation that was not a Christian one, and they disallowed you from your lifestyle “choice” – that being to practice Catholicism, marry your own kind, and raise a child in a household with your chosen beliefs.

Jeff Walker:

Thank you for your comment and I apologize for the delayed response. I am a husband and a father as you point out. In that part of your comment you were correct. However, where have you read anything written or said by me in which I object to gay marriage on religious grounds? After that assertion you present a series of hypothetical questions and then attempt to bait me into saying that homosexuals are “somehow flawed or less humane” than I am. Using your style of argument I can assume that you’re in favor of burning churches and threatening people of faith believe in “Jeebus Crispy”, but I reject that style of argument and false assertions. Here’s an idea: instead of trying to neatly cast me into a stereotypical role so that you may quickly dismiss anything I say and justify your prejudices, you try to communicate in a more honest manner instead.

I do not object to SSM solely on religious grounds as you say. I object to the dishonest attempts to remake the world in your own image in order to destroy a foundation of civilization. In 2013, there is no ban on homosexual civil rights. In all fifty states homosexual citizens stand equally before the law and their civil rights are unequivocally protected. LBGTs can live alone or together, vote, run for elected office, open any bank account, live anywhere they choose, buy property, eat in any restaurant, attend any play, enjoy picnics in any park, choose to start their own or join a religious community that blesses their relationship(s), choose any workplace, write any binding contract, seek any physician, attend any hospital, visit a domestic partner in any hospital, buy any car, travel freely, gather freely, protest any cause, start any business, join the military, buy health insurance from any one of 7,400 insurers that offer domestic spousal benefits, contract to designate legal inheritances, write any legally binding will, and make legal end-of-life contracts. Contrary to published, widespread misinformation, the IRS recognizes community property. It is not possible, however, for a homosexual citizen to extend citizenship to an illegal, same sex partner — but that illegal partner can obtain citizenship through established, lawful means. There are no inequalities for LBGTs in government benefits or rights. Marriage grants no advantage that legal domestic partnerships, legal reciprocal beneficiaries, or legal same sex unions do not provide. Hence the repetitive mantra that equates homosexual choices with Jim Crow “separate but equal” atrocities is not valid.

I object to the dishonest attempts at destroying a word in the name of obtaining something already attainable in this nation. The “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto written in 2006 states that legal equivalence (marriage) will not satisfy most LGBTs and gay marriage is not the end goal — “it is a way station on the path to a post-marriage society.” The end goal, according to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” is not to have the same recognition, rights, and benefits as heterosexual married couples, it is to legalize a radical redefinition of marriage that includes unlimited diversity of families until the very idea of traditional marriage itself is “stripped of meaning.” (

Tell me, please, what is it that is truly wanted by gay marriage proponents if not the redefinition of a word. And be honest instead of setting up straw men. Don’t take away my chance to listen.

My currently banned rebuttal:

I’m going to have to do a line by line interdiction of your response in order to be thorough.  It is beleaguered with false assumptions on your part about my opinions.  As well, I would describe the integrity of your facts as leprotic.

You state:

“where have you read anything written or said by me in which I object to gay marriage on religious grounds?”


Your blog.

You State:

“I do not object to SSM solely on religious grounds as you say.”


….But you do object to them even in part on religious grounds then?  Your words — so which is it.

All the opposition you have stated is based on conflict between the Biblical view of Marriage and Gay marriage.  All of your statements of “redefining” are new definitions in contrast to the original Biblical one.  I would consider that religious grounds.

You state:

“Using your style of argument I can assume that you’re in favor of burning churches and threatening people of faith believe in “Jeebus Crispy”


It is not possible to be a Catholic who is against Gay Marriage unless you believe that sex between people of the same sex is a sin.*  A sin of homosexuals.  To call this act/lifestyle/choice a sin would be synonymous with saying that they are flawed and therefore accountable for enacting this sin.  Do you seriously want to tell me that the act of homosexuality is not flaw in the homosexual?  ….Or perhaps you also share this flaw.  Do tell….

A sin is an ontological flaw or imperfection, let’s not quibble over minutia…

Because if you don’t believe that Homosexuality is a sin, yet you still wish to disallow Gay Marriage, then you’ve got some serious accounting for prejudice and bigotry to do.

 *(and don’t bother to dig up people who are 1. Catholic  2. against Gay Marriage 3. but don’t think gay sex is a sin.  I don’t find the Chris Christie political approach to this to be ingenuous at all, and I will shoot that down the moment you attempt it).  ….More on that gluttonous Catholic later.

 You State:

“I object to the dishonest attempts to remake the world in your own image in order to destroy a foundation of civilization”


Wow.  Destroy a foundation of civilization?  No one wants to stop Heterosexual Christians from marrying each other first of all,…only you are interested in doing that to others.  No part of Marriage Equality is to pursue a Federal Ban on Traditional Marriage.  That’s your schtick.  And whilst I freely admit, as would many others pro-SSM, that marriage and families do provide value and stability and growth to society—the inclusion of an additional form of union toward that same ideal does not take away anything from one man/one woman.  That is unless the foundation you speak of is not nearly as sturdy and effective in its segregated form as you would suggest.  I think your real fear lies in the insecurity you have about the veracity of your own Religious worldview—that being the necessity of traditional marriage and traditional values to be upheld in order for an ideal society to even exist.  I think the light being shed in on this by your own disastrous divorce rate of 50+% must be a frightening indication to you that these arcane notions of control are being evolved out of, and your jig is up.  If 50% of the straight married couples truly believed that divorce was a sin and could put them in Hell like a good Catholic does, then 50% of the married couples would not be getting divorced.  …It must really eat you up when that many people, of your own kind, are thumbing their nose at you.  This, is where the real seat of your protestations lie.  That you have lied about Protestants, reform, and evolution at large, since time immemorial.  The scent of death is on the Catholic worldview.  It is impossible for you to maintain the breadth of lies that you have with consciousness being as connected as it’s about to be.  Adieu.

Furthermore, what is dishonest about two people wishing to have their love recognized by law?  Isn’t that what you’re doing when you get married?  And the bit about remaking the world in “your own image” is histrionic, baseless and presumptuous, which is I believe something you chastised me for earlier.  I am not Gay.  And I have never even heard of a Homosexual stating that they are for Marriage Equality because it will alchemize the world into their own Gay image.  Such degrading rhetoric is why you encounter the dismissive opinions that you complain about.

 You State:

“In all fifty states homosexual citizens stand equally before the law and their civil rights are unequivocally protected”


What an utter load of horse spit.

…And that is to say nothing of the additional discrimination that Trans people face.  Nor are these two links meant to imply

the extent of how Homosexual citizens are unequal under the law.  This was that integrity of fact problem I had alluded to before..

The research you could do to edify your self on this manner is abundant, and would not have been difficult.  Your abdication of effort in doing so suggests a viewpoint rife with the very prejudices and bigotry that you chastised me for assuming you had.

You State:

A litany of things that Gays can do under Civil Unions that are the same as the Marriage Equality they desire.


Here is a litany of things that are not the same:

You State:

“the repetitive mantra that equates homosexual choices with Jim Crow “separate but equal” atrocities is not valid.”


Yes it is.

You State:

“I object to the dishonest attempts at destroying a word in the name of obtaining something already attainable in this nation.”


As was elucidated to you, an equality in Marriage is not already attainable. And I still have no idea what you mean to imply by calling the attempts ‘dishonest.’  There is no agenda in the pursuit of equality beyond equality.  To suggest otherwise is to fraught your argument with a level of irrationality that I think you’d like to think you are above.  No one wants to destroy anything.  They just want to be included in what you claim that they want to destroy.  So can we sit for a minute and see how your assertion doesn’t make sense…

 You State:

…What are tantamount to out right lies regarding the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement.

This has to be the low point of what you’ve written here, as you purposefully mislead your readers in a way that can’t be construed as anything other than biased and nearly hateful.  You actually put into quotations two derisive statements that are not contained anywhere in “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement that you linked to.  They were:

“it is a way station on the path to a post-marriage society.”


“it is to legalize a radical redefinition of marriage that includes unlimited diversity of families until the very idea of traditional marriage itself is “stripped of meaning.” ”

Neither of the phrases in quotation are found ANYWHERE in the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” statement.  In fact your first quote is from a FICTIONAL conversation made up by blogger Stanley Kurtz on the right wing blog EPPC.  It is NOT a statement quotable to “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage”.  It was someone else’s writing meant to express his interpretation of opinions he didn’t agree with.  It was never in fact, stated verbatim by anyone.  In addiction to that intentionally misleading plagiarism, your entire second paragraph was lifted as well.

It is amazing to me that you began your rebuttal with, and I quote: “Here’s an idea: instead of trying to neatly cast me into a stereotypical role so that you may quickly dismiss anything I say and justify your prejudices, you try to communicate in a more honest manner instead.”

Absolutely shameful.  

…And to think you are to be representing the ideals of an honest Catholic man.
You have portrayed content as your own, intentionally mislead, and outright LIED.
Congratulations on nullifying your own viewpoint beyond any way I ever could hope to.

Homosexuality Will Be The Cure For Religion

I came across this: DNA Proves Homosexuality Is Not A Race Issue But A Choice – We Are Responsible For Our Choices

What’s interesting is, while I do see truths in the Bible encoded in a more metaphorical and metaphysical way, something like that post ironically comes across to me as Satanic. (Or egoic in the meta sense), and completely the opposite of Christ’s teachings, which are the Diamond in a lump of Biblical coal.

The first and most potent counterpoint to make when faced with the misguided ideology of people like this person is this:

The Religion You Choose To Follow Is Just That – A CHOICE…
…and for this body of persecuted people to begrudge anyone else for making a lifestyle choice that isn’t sanctioned is:

1. hypocritical
2. comical
3. witch hunt-y
4. devilish
5. egoic
6. fattening

If you are Christian and have a bug up your ass about Gays choosing to be gay, cool your heels and do not continue to utilize this meme as justification for you to enact your bigotry and persecution. It can’t matter that gays choose to be gay if it doesn’t matter that you choose to be religious. You were once persecuted, crucified, fed to lions for sport — all because a less tempered and enlightened society than ours felt the same way about you as you are toward LGBTs. It does not matter if being Gay is a choice. Being Christian is a choice. And our law allows for you to make that choice and be protected from persecution as well as there being any law that would forbid you from worship (which is the exhibition of your lifestyle).  Consider extending this same courtesy to us, lest you be considered anachronistic thwarts against progress and a civil society.

One of my favorite dumb nuggets in this posting of his is that at the bottom, it refers to another article of his called

“DNA is Evidence of God – Ordered Information Light years Beyond Our Comprehension -Lee Stroeble” (

In which he quotes: “DNA is a coded language so sophisticated that our greatest minds still can’t fathom it fully, and those most familiar with the ongoing work say we will be deciphering it for the next 100 years.”

Yet he’s wasted no time in condemning Homosexuality as a moral error because there is no DNA evidence for it.  This to me is an infallible example of the typical agenda-driven science and moral compass of the wayward religious right.

Was it not possible that in the dimension of DNA that is “light years beyond our comprehension”, there would exist the components expressing homosexuality? How could you miss something so obvious unless you were starting at Leviticus and working backwards, with the fuel of Biblically-inspired bigotry.

Now, all that being said, being Gay is of course not a choice. And the fact that it is not a choice is not necessarily predicated on finding a gene for it. For all we know, there could be metaphysical DNA in our souls that can’t even be registered on instruments. This could be the seat of such concepts as Karma, past life memories, intuition and psychic abilities, personality and sexuality….all the juicy things that make us more Human than our house plants. So in the meantime while we are down here figuring ourselves out, I suggest to you, that you speak nothing, do nothing, that would dampen the natural expression of, or threaten the well being of, any of God’s creations, however He created them.

Your article is persecutory and a hideous affront to the Divine intention for peace on Earth.

Cathloholics Anonymous: A Sobering Communion With Facts

With the selection of a new Pope, certainly a lot of mention is being made of the Catholic Church sex scandals. It was a matter of time before someone took the crass easy shot of making sure homosexuality stays blended with molestation in the minds of the auto-pilot public. Leave that to Bill O’Reilly, who this week, took it upon himself to ‘whoopsie daisy’ conflate homosexuality with molestation (more on that later).  Alas, I figure it’s worth clarifying this matter as this poison calls for an antidote.  It is often said that the two have nothing to do with each other, and just as often silently assumed that they do. But it is never explained how the two got conjoined to begin with. Here’s how:

1.  Absolution of sin by proximity to God.

If you’ve grown up in a Catholic family/country, then you’ve been immersed in a culture that makes certain you are aware that any deviation from heterosexuality is an outright sin, and one that you should be immensely ashamed of.  The prolonged internalization of this feeling can cause some men to ‘hide’ from persecution on the the two fronts they face it on:  1. society/family and  2. God himself.  By entering the clergy, the men, who are deviants by Catholic measure, are ‘excused’ from displaying any normal sexuality because they are to be chaste, therefore, no suspicion is ever aroused that they are homosexual since they don’t take wives.  The same modality is applied the molestor-types, as obviously taking a child partner would never be possible.  That is the the model of deflection used toward society.  And for their personal concerns, they can assuage their guilt and sinful nature through their constant communion with and proximity to God working in the Church.

2. Law Of Attraction – if you were to describe the Cardinal signs of Catholicism, they might be: sexually repressed, and guilt ridden.  Who else might be feeling this way? Those who are told their sexuality is sinful. Life is set up in a way that people who are of a similar feather flock together. What an irony then that this grand institution has focused so much energy into fear and judgement that it has become the most vibrationally similar element to that which it condemns.

Obviously homosexuality is not a sin against anyone.  This differentiates it from the configuration of sexuality which imposes upon a victim through molestation.  It is unfortunate that Catholicism has erroneously condemned Homosexuality to be such a sin, and it is because of this that the Homosexuals – who are innocent of any sexual immorality – are subjected to the same feelings of shame as those who are actually inclined to sexual crime.  So…it ends up being people who internalize shame that gravitate toward the clergy, although their reason for harboring this shame is MARKEDLY different.

Religion & Science

I see one person who knows how to speak his language, and another person who only knows how to write in his language.  They’ve both just seen a plane fly by and they’re trying to explain it to each other.

Which one is correct in their explanation?

There is validity to each approach (religious & scientific) because the truth is an integration of both systems.

Religion [spirituality] is to physical law/science what the human body is to mechanics/technology.  It is the most advanced manifestation possible in this realm.

Spirituality is the most technologically advanced science.

It is such because it represents a confluence of truth on all aspects of existence in all dimensionalities experienceable and influenceable upon Human life.

The universe is encoded with patterns.  If you were to climb up a strand of DNA, compositing an image of its plan one base pair sequence at a time, you would eventually be able to extrapolate the whole and have an idea of what’s going on.  I believe we can approach reality the same way.

Both science and religion mirror each other along the Human timeline in terms of how their ‘truths’ have been defined (in the case of science) or depicted (in the case of religions).  It’s interesting how science has changed just as much as religion (and why should science change? – It’s science and supposed to be factual and unmalleable once deemed as fact).  Yet many concepts have come and gone from medicine and astronomy –  at the same time religious doctrines have been revised and adapted to serve better the civilizations that were participating in them.  New religions emerge, and new pseudo-sciences emerge.  Why should the inerrant word of God be any more revisable than an agreed upon scientific fact?  Yet this is cyclically the case.  The world cannot stay flat forever.  Ironically, sometimes it is a person’s faith that a fact is different from what is being purported, that leads to new scientific discovery.

Staging Ground

So, after 10 years of war, have you any idea what it was for?  To borrow a line…..”Ask yourself,…are you better off?”

I had to do a little mental addition…of all the conspiracy theories, main stream media talking head arguments, administration justifications, and independent conversations I’ve heard that have produced the precise ‘reason’ we have been straddled in war for the last decade – and I’d have to say that there must be 10 irrefutably accurate reasons why we did what we did, all correct, and all mutually exclusive, naturally.

How the hell is this possible.

How can we be mired in war on 2 fronts for 10 years and yet if you ask around, either no one knows why, or they state something completely different than the last person you just asked.   How can something as ominous and last resort-ish as war exist in a bubble of ambiguity… What is the precedence for this?  When was this ever possible before this new strange time period? ….So what does it mean…

I reviewed some of the aforementioned theories – mainstream and conspiratorial – in my living room tonight with some opinionated friends. And I came to a realization: the only measurable outcome from having engaged and sustained these conflicts is the hemorrhaging of American wealth.

So why would this be happening… If nature abhors a vacuum (the one where our money used to be), by whom and for why is this void in our power being created?

Someone must be creating a staging ground to swoop in and ‘save us’ from the very problem that they created.

Do you care that Iraqi women have the right to vote? Do you care that Afghan girls can go to school? Do you care that democracy is now the burgeoning political modality in Iraq (joke)? Can the average American even point out Iraq on a map yet? …Probably not.  So don’t tell me that our populous ever cared about the goings-on of some countr(ies) that they weren’t even thinking about until they were told to.  Millions are unemployed, removed from their homes, and are we supposed to believe that any of these people think this scenario was worth giving some foreigners the right to vote?  Hardly.  They should’ve fought and died for it just like we did.

Nothing of the good accomplishments we achieved there will be sustainable. It was never the true intention to revolutionize their way of life for their own sake to begin with, and it is impossible to forcefully evolve another society. This must happen from within to be authentic and sustainable. Our country cannot change their sociological philosophy for the better anymore than you could authentically invade someone’s home at gun point, murder their abusive man of the house, rob their valuables, and then sway them that the reason this was all made possible was because of the God-given bestowments of Democracy that you have that they don’t but now they should try it out too.

What are we in for…. because we haven’t been told the truth.

Traditions: at Once Unifying, and Causing Separation – The Original Sin

When I hear men reference “traditional marriage” and a more “traditional” American culture I immediately reflex in thought that what was “traditional” in terms of human behavior toward another has always been exactly what un-becomes tradition and evolves the fastest.

“Traditional” to me can be a lovely thing when it is describing the practices man has over inanimate objects; like how to prepare a turkey, how to dance a jig, how and when to sing a hymn, how to cuss in your grandparent’s language, etc.  I notice how it starts to get a little dangerous when tradition envelopes Human will and appears to rightfully trump free will when deciding what is ‘better’ for certain people to do with their lives.  Traditional values, traditional marriage, are things that come to mind.  And so I have noticed a bit of a logical conflict here – it seems the people most interested in maintaining a traditional lifestyle are the people who are leading Biblically centered lives, yet in the Bible the entire premise for man’s bothering to be brought into existence is to exercise free will.  So why then, impede God’s plan for Humans to have free will by being so insistent that people adhere to a particular set of values?  Isn’t this innately defiant to the creator you believe in?

Furthermore, it is hard not to notice that the leaving-out of anyone who cannot accommodate a certain traditionally presupposed lifestyle would mean that those who can are separating themselves from those who cannot.  This to me is seemingly the least Christ-like behavior, as it is a clear repetition and re-manifestation of the Original Sin – Separation from God.  How can you be Holy if you are constantly premising your existence on separating yourself from other creations of God, by way of you religion, your lifestyle, your politics, your values, etc?  The act of separation by self-espoused liturgical people seems to me to be an utterly devilish act.

I’d have to also point out that the only thing that makes a concept traditional is its repetition.  And a lot of very bad things get repeated.  So this cannot be the only logical anchor point for tradition – and yet it is.  Any number of hideous practices have been filed as tradition and reverently so.  Mayans cut the heart out of their sacrificial neighbor, cut their head off and rolled it down temple steps.  Obviously this would bring good crops and is a wonderful tradition.  It has been tradition in India for families to arrange the marriage of their offspring.  Women love this and it has nothing to do with them being seen as property or beneficial to extending a family line and funding said family through a dowry.  It is one of America’s newer traditions – but some Mormon men traditionally perpetrate the brainwashing and use of underage females for service as a wife, homemaker, sex-haver, baby farmer and general subservient to the male ego and sex drive.  But the women love this.  It is called a “traditional” life style in the Mormon faith, adhering to their earliest (read: 180 year old) tenants, and therefore it must be good.  It uses the word TRADTIONAL.  Aren’t you listening?  Traditional means good.  It is synonymous only with turkey, Christmas, Jesus, national anthems and nothing that can ever hurt you.  It has been in no way involved with the perpetuation of some bad ideas that have hurt or limited people anywhere in the world ever.  Just call something tradition, and you will have incited a magical incantation hypnotizing the sheepeople into a relaxed, receptive lull, wherein agreement to what ever you just said is rufied into their date-rape ready mind.  And they were asking for it.

If it were really God’s Law to live in a certain manner, then it couldn’t be violated.  Wouldn’t it stand to reason that God’s Laws would outrank the laws of physics?  Try violating gravity and see what happens.

So then there really must not be any true laws from the creator governing the soft-tissue of our social lives.  Whites can marry blacks, men can marry each other, Jews can eat shellfish, and the world is not knocked off its axis and the sun still came up tomorrow…which reminds me of another set of actual inviolable laws, those of nature…including Human nature.

So the next time you hear someone refer to a deviant lifestyle as violating “traditional” values, or that it is against God’s Law, you can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that both are abstract concepts in the minds of men, and always have been.  Guess it’s just tradition.

Gay Marriage: Bend Over And Take It

Why allow gay marriage?
The reason is this: marriage as we know it today is an abstract of mans thinking – and therefore a created institution.  We already recognize that we cannot disallow minorities from any institution.
Marriage, as it stands now, is no more similar to original Biblical marriage than gay marriage would be.  there is enough philosophical difference between the two constructs (Biblical vs. modern) to make them equally as reprehensible, damn-worthy, heretical and wicked to the pre-medieval sensibilities.
As readily as it would be recognizable to the modern mind that disallowing a racial minority from marrying a majority, or owning property, or a having a license of any kind (which are all man-made abstractions), would be persecutory, bigoted and illegal – it should so too be immediately recognizable that disallowing any minority from the licenship to marry is just as foul. None of these abstract ideas we commonly use to partition and govern our lives are real.  You cannot touch a marriage, put a piece of land in your pocket, see a religion, or prove the value of money.  All of these are abstract ideas that exist fleetingly as agreements between people.  Not agreements between the same one God of North America and ALL of earth.
So – given that marriage, as it used today, is as much a man-made institution as anything, barring admission to a non-hetero couple is culturally and legally unacceptable.
The rub is this:  marriage is not innately sanctimonious.  People sanctify their agreements by adhering to them.  That is the only magic in the mix – that fulfillment of a ‘promise to a people’ is a God-like gesture and thus aligns you with the Universal Law of Truth and alchemizes your live(s) with that Virtue.  Heterosexually-configured humans are not bestowed with any special privilege of experiencing a Truth that anyone else is not.  We bring sanctity to our unions.  We bring sanctity by fulfilling our intentions and agreements under Love, and that is all that is happening when a marriage is done right.  The benefit to this construct was never ‘given’ by God, a church, a government or a piece of paper downtown.  It was earned and maintained by the couple involved.
There is no such thing as rote, automated sanctity.
It is time to bring awareness to this dirty trick that whitey has played: “allowing” what marriage means to evolve from it’s inconvenient earlier state to something much more suitable to how white men would like to live their lives – is a farce of the eons.  Once upon a time the word of god was considered inerrant.  Then the word of God was spellchecked by the arc of female temperament that has come into the fold in western societies – and revised marriage to be less male-centered, and rightfully so.
By now it has experienced innumerable revisions.  They can call it  “sanctimonious”, and then disallow its benefits and inclusiveness to whomever whitey deems to be the outsiders de rigueur. This community-by-disclusion trick has gotten old.  It is tribal and even animalian before that.  Shunning what is different to reinforce what is same is the farthest departure from anything Christ like.
And so why does it matter?…..what actually is – at a measurable level –  the effect of / reason for not resigning to the term ‘civil union’ even if it including everything?:…Language.
And that is reason enough.  Language is the currency of thought between people.  And that system wouldn’t work either if your dollar isn’t worth the same in your hand as it is in mine.  We must be equal in thought.  Our language informs the way that we regard one another, and if any minority, at the onset, are described in a manner that exists them even slightly outside the boundary of inclusion, then it makes them the likely candidate for the ‘community by disclusion’ instinct in human beings.  This would set in motion an archaic cascade separatist thinking.  Beginning with anti-social behavior, and ending with bigotry.  Then ending again at violence if remaining unchecked. It all begins like one cancer cell – one malignant thought can metastasize into a nightmare for a people if a non-wholistic way of thinking is given fertile ground in our hearts and minds.

Dream Cell

About Following Your Dreams….

I’d like to explore the importance of following your dreams and becoming who you really are as a matter of 1. metaphysical imperative 2. national importance and 3. a global necessity.

It’s a quaint truism; “follow your dreams”; and as many cute, rote, over-repeated sayings go, it may have had its importance bleached out and rendered inert.  So what is uncovered if you delve into the ramifications of applying this ideal?  And what were people noticing in life that ever made them sew such momentum into the concept, that they made it an adage and have been repeating it forever…

I believe it starts at the cellular level.  If every cell in your body does what it is ‘supposed’ to do, your body works well.  You experience health.  Health would be the equivalent of a ‘dream fulfilled’ if cells were to dream.

But cells don’t have free will.  They are orchestrated and animated by an unknown guiding light that it seems everything is tapped into.  So what happens if the conglomeration of cells – the person – has free will?  Are we still under the protective guidance and guardianship of this directive light?  Perhaps we are, but in exchange for free will, our connection to the light is (potentially) dimmed.  It’s as if the training wheels are off and we have to become willing to find our own way, unlike the cell, who is continuously shepherded into its right place – because its level of awareness is not consummate with the responsibility of staying on path on its own.

So when we, as a conglomeration of cells, experience health when our most basic building blocks follow their dreams – what then, would a society look like if its building blocks – people – all were following their dream?

And expounding this out further to the species-level – what would the global impact of a world full of people who made the choice to tap into this metaphysical field animating everything and ‘follow their dreams’ be?


Gun Violence & Titties

Without a greater awareness of the mechanics of reality – whether on a philosophical, spiritual, or religious level – how could one ever measure the amount of evil (read: wrong doing/crime) in a society without a gauge on whether or not “evil” can transmute form and outlet itself through another channel.

Who is to say that if a gun is not available to a disturbed person that his crime doesn’t manifest by way of a fertilizer bomb?  Where is the defining metric on this that an anti-gun perspective must have in order to be certain that a ban on firearms is the solution?

To me, this current conundrum of gun rights points to a deficiency in the understanding of the spiritual mechanics that govern our reality.   This deficiency – is entirely enabled by America’s predilection toward religiosity, and its enmeshment with politics that self-sustain the problem in a bio-hazardous sphere.

Our rights were endowed by the creator…..the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights gives us the right to bear arms…..If you’re a Christian you believe God gave you this right and if you are a Christian you are more likely to be on the Right – and here is where a dangerous opportunity to subscribe to cattle-thought is created.  It’s a double drug dose of “fitting in”  – both by party and religion – (and by further extension – nationalism) that becomes irresistible to the type of person who was already inclined to lull into organized thought-forms, gaining comfort and community in a life that is on cruise-control when it comes to independent thinking.

But the caveat here is this: although the aforementioned cast of characters is primarily responsible in the enabling of gun access, they are not primarily responsible for the gun crimes that are committed.

This reveals quite a fascinating philosophical vacuum:

 1. the money to support the gun lobby comes from wealthy right wingers for whom conviction of gun related homicides are next to nil.

 2. the people who are not only more often the victims of gun related violence, but also the perpetrators of gun violence are people who A) aren’t supposed to have guns in the first place and B) don’t pay the most money towards the platforms that support gun rights.

So if the availability of the gun itself were the problem, shouldn’t the rate of criminality be the same wherever guns are showing up?

Not unless inanimate objects can somehow take dominion over man and choose who and when they want to kill.

I often hear people outside the US criticize America’s high gun homicide rate as if it is only made possible by our right to bear arms.  They often point to irrelevant comparisons like Nordic nations where gun violence is an extreme aberration and almost never occurs.  But no one ever talks about how homogenic societies are not stimulated to commit gun violence.  On the matter of individual gun crimes (as opposed to mass shootings, which I believe occur for entirely different reasons), It typically takes a divide between a shooter and a victim to catalyze violence, and in a homogenized society there simply aren’t any.  In Norway, almost everyone is racially and ethnically unvaried, speaks the same language, are closer in economic cast in their mixed economy, and are irreligiously dispositioned.  They are not, The United States of America, with 300 million people strewn across every imaginable economic incarnation, gradation of education, and every other adjective you can metric a population with.  But differences alone still cannot account for what is an astronomical firearm related death toll as compared to other nations of the First World.  Canada for example, has also a racially and economically varied populace and a high rate of gun ownership, but only 1/100th the number of annual deaths from firearms as compared to the US.  What have we been missing from this equation? 

Our genetic makeup.  

I believe that the melting pot of American DNA has been seasoned with people who have certain personality traits, which many studies show to be genetic, but would influence nurture just the same.  There are genes common in the formative peoples of America; lending themselves to similar behaviors in whom these genes are present. I.e.: go-getter gene has dark side of violence, conqueror/explorer gene has weak spot of becoming a non-descript terminator. Breaking points attach to these alleles and the problems we’re seeing are where those breaking points are.  So how did this arise…..

  1. 1.     America has traditionally been seen as the preeminent staging ground for success and freedom.  This would be attractive to and attained by emigrants who most doggedly pursued that vision.  What types of personality traits would people who left behind the life they knew, sailed for months, started a new life with little support in a new world, and actually succeeded, have?  Drive, doggedness, determination.
  2. 2.     Continued fighting and conquering: if not the British from the east then it was the Native Americans from the west, but they all had to be mowed down.  What traits would 150 years of tumult, combat, conquering and slaughter attenuate in a person?  Perhaps resiliency, survival instinct, and triumph.

Now, whilst ambition and force can certainly have their proper applications, what do you suppose is the dark side of someone whose traits are dogged determination, survivalist, and combative?  They might be ego, fear and violence.  As our society has been tempered over time, there is less of an outlet for the surges of aggression that these traits we still harbor apply on personalities.  Sometimes those impulses are transmuted to athleticism, hunting, or video games.  Sometimes they are not transmuted in a healthy way at all, and an act of violence is where it culminates.  That is why the aggressive impulse is still salved by defensive behavior, such as owning a gun in the first place. Look how much Americans love football.  Look at how aggressive football players have to be.  Look how much the NFL loves guns (80% ownership rate).  The gun is the manifestation of the trait. 

There is always a new Wild West lurking in the medulla oblongata.  Today it is Big Brother and/or someone else with a gun.  America is still becoming. There are many groups and viewpoints vying for a realization of their vision of America to become the dominant one. This unspoken stance/motive is embedded in our collection subconscious and culture. And it’s what keeps our ‘perimeter defenses’ activated. We are perpetually in threat-assessment mode, which means we are running old instinct scripts like alerting our tribe to something that is different, feeling fear and then attacking it.

But, a balance  must be found.  Although our fears can be irrational and unconscious, the world is imperfect  and some immunity most be maintained so that we can be protected against worst case scenarios without always having to dwell on them. 

Appalling as the rash of recent gun crimes have been, I do not believe it is wise to interpolate them into the cause to revise our right to bear arms.  I think people are overlooking a real time example of what can happen to a civilian population if they cannot defend themselves from a tyrannical government: Syria.  26 dead is a tragedy.  60,000 dead is incomprehensible, and would alter life forever if it happened here.  Our right to bear arms, when it is administered with the right dose and methodology, works exactly like a vaccine against a larger danger. 

The gun itself ought not be the measurement of gun violence.  It is a far more complex amalgamation of human inclinations that inform the larger picture of what the having of a gun will mean.

If I point at a woman downtown and yell ‘witch’, nothing will happen. That wasn’t always the case. …And this is due to an evolution. They do happen. Religion has either created or endorsed nearly every societal ill that has befallen us. From manifest destiny, to slavery, to women remaining subservient, to diminished LGBT rights to now this – a consensual misappropriation of blame for gun crime. It was just ‘evil’. And that’s it. Don’t think past that point you’re done. …It’s all you have to say. Never mind an actual examination into why these aberrations occur, just use the matter to further the agenda of Religious Regressives to corral the masses toward religion by prodding them with fear and the abdication of having to think.  Meanwhile, the real causality loop lies between mental health concerns and a legal age limit that needs to be adjusted.  But these tributaries that cause and permit gun crime will remain unaddressed as long as people are done with their examination of the matter before they’ve started it, having concluded it was ‘evil’, and under the purview of the churches.  And perpetrating that lie just allows us to create a villain and line them up as the next person to shoot, which is our new favorite pastime in America.  

….The notion that one is adult enough for any concern of life when they are 18 – or 21 if it’s titties – is anachronistic. ..Amazing that if you’re 18 you’re old enough to acquire an instrument to easily end a life, but you’re too young to peek at dangerous titties.

If we could reexamine this antiquated standard, that at 18 one is permissed into all of adulthood, a reduction in gun crime would occur quite organically.  

I propose two new (additional) standards to be met before gaining the privilege to bear arms:

1. applicant must be a homeowner -or-

2. applicant must be 30 years of age or older

Why? Schizophrenia.

It is not evil that is causing people to go into schools and the like and open fire.  It’s mental illness.  And forms of schizophrenia are being realized as the most frequent common denominator in otherwise unrelated criminal demographics or possible motivations.  A requirement for a gun owner to be age 30 would mean that they are statistically past the point of likely onset of schizophrenia, which 75% of the time develops between ages 16 and 25.  This should be screened for in schools like scoliosis, and people should be given preventative health care that is so badly needed but thwarted by a fear of mental illness stigma.  Add to that the noxious notion that it is all caused by ‘evil’ and you’ve got a wide open schism for these outbreaks of mass violence to keep occurring.  

Furthermore, the laxation in gun law allowing civilian ownership of assault caliber weaponry is indefensible.  There is no nobility in the fact that a boy wants a toy. You are not in a trench staving off invasion from deer. The combat weaponry and armament that is available now would provide more firepower than some classes of warships at the time the 2nd Amendment was added.  It isn’t in keeping with the spirit of the amendment to believe that boys have ‘rights’ to such toys.  You can defend you and yours, you can arm yourself and take your spot in the South Shall Rise Again militia, but you cannot, singlehandedly, feel entitled to amassing a private armory that mirrors the imagined grandeur of your (actual) tiny penis.