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.


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.

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.