Spiritual envy: part two, case study

I'm now going to explain how the Blessed Virgin Mary is the greatest recipient of the sin of spiritual envy directed against her of any person in modern times. Yes, she's dead and in heaven and thus does not suffer to her face while alive the wrongs that spiritual envy induces, but remember I explained that there is a destructive influence on everyone involved, including distant second tier persons, of spiritual envy. I will make this a case study and it will help you to 1) better understand the destructiveness of spiritual envy and 2) better understand some of the false preaching that is prevalent today.

I must first say that this is a subject that makes me seethe. Those of you who are innocent and earnest in your wanting to learn more about this, understand that my seething does not, of course, extend to you, and that much of it is actually on your behalf.

Here are the two ways that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the victim of spiritual envy. I'm going to start by outlining the symptoms, and then backing you up into understanding the error and envy that these symptoms result from, and of course, the scriptural sources for correct reverence toward Mary.

1. The unbelievably frequent description of Mary, particularly around Christmas, both in "entertainment" (understandable heathen Philistines) and from the pulpits (unforgivable, and I even hear it from supposedly orthodox Catholics) as follows. I am going to let my seething come through here in the sharpness of my caricature: "Just think, Mary was JUST LIKE ANY GIRL, why EVEN YOU! She was just some poor, knocked up young girl, ignorant like everyone else in those days. She probably was nowhere near as pretty as those artists make her out to be, and she probably had dirty smelly feet and was just, you know, like some third world peasant girl. Gosh she must have been embarrassed to be knocked up by some older guy who she was only engaged to... oh wait, that's right, he isn't the father *tee hee.* So when it's Christmas time instead of reading the scriptures (all of it) and remembering who Mary really was, just imagine that you, you silly girls, COULD HAVE BEEN HER! Wheeeee!!!! Doesn't that make Mary "relevant to today!" She probably had BO too! And of course she was unsophisticated and clueless! But look how God could raise up even someone, well, you know, common and grubby like her!"

2. The Christian denomination or nondenominational (fill in the blank who) has "trouble" with "how the Catholic Church" "views" Mary. Like the Catholic Church is wrong. No, dumb wads, we actually read and believe the Bible, thank you very much.

*SEETHE*

OK, now I can relax that I took out the garbage and dumped it on the curb. Now let's get on with the actual Biblical Mary.

1. Mary was far from "uneducated" or "simple." We know this because she cites Old Testament scripture, complex and lesser known scripture, by heart as part of her indwelling by the Holy Spirit.

What Mary said:

[Mary was newly pregnant with Jesus and stated the following to her cousin Elizabeth]

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior; because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; and his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy-Even as he spoke to our fathers-to Abraham and to his posterity forever" Luke 1:46-55.

Scripture from which Mary is citing:

[This prayer was given to God by Anna, the mother of Samuel, who was the priest who anointed at God's instruction the first King of Israel, Saul, and then when God turned against Saul for Saul's sins, King David. Anna had been bullied and picked on for being unable to conceive a child. She prayed to God for a child and promised that if God gave her a child that she would dedicate that child to God's service. When God gave her a son, the boy Samuel, true to her word she kept him only until he was weaned and then gave him in service to God at the temple.]

My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies, because I have joyed in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord is; for there is no other besides thee, and there is none strong like our God. Do not multiply to speak lofty things, boasting. Let old matters depart from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of all knowledge, and to him are thoughts prepared. The bow of the mighty is overcome, and the weak are girt with strength. They that were full before have hired out themselves for bread: and the hungry are filled, so that the barren hath borne many; and she that had many children is weakened.

The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell and bringeth back again. The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth. He raiseth up the needy from the dust, and lifteth up the poor from the dunghill, that he may sit with princes, and hold the throne of glory. For the poles of the earth are the Lord's, and upon them hath set the world. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness, because no man shall prevail by his own strength.

The adversaries of the Lord shall fear him: and upon them shall be thunder in the heavens. The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and he shall exalt the horn of his Christ 1 Kings 2:1-10.

Spend some time studying the two scripture passages, which were separated by over one thousand years. Anna's prayer would not have exactly been a mainstay of regular preaching and worship in the synagogue during the time of Mary, though it would have been well known by the devout. The fact that part of Mary's canticle to Elizabeth is Holy Spirit induced prophecy while part is the most pertinent threads from Anna's prayer shows that this "young girl" knew her scripture by heart and was further able to extract from the scripture, under divine inspiration, those sentiments and prophecy most directly related to Jesus as Messiah and Mary as chosen by God for the highest favor. You can see why I seethe at all the totally un-Biblical implications that Mary was just a simple and uneducated girl; even a total dimwit can see that is not true if you actually read the Bible.

2. Mary was not just "any girl" or by any means "typical" of other girls, then or now, or EVER.

What the angel Gabriel said:

"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art though among women" Luke 1:28.

Let me explain this to you slowly. What is grace? Grace is gift and favor given to humans, who cannot merit it for themselves in any way, since all grace is the gift of God. The vast majority of people go their entire lives without receiving much actual grace at all. Grace cannot be earned, but it most assuredly is given to those who are in the process of sanctifying themselves to God (as I've explained previously sanctification is putting God first by dedicating one's day to day life to God's will and service). So the vast majority of people receive some, but not much, grace during their entire life. Yet Mary, that "young girl" of modern cartooning is heralded by Gabriel, before she even knows that she will become pregnant with Jesus, with the title, the honorific of "full of grace." Mary is already full (and full means full, as in filled up, filled to the top, filled in every part of her spotless being) with GRACE. Um, who exactly can claim that? "Just a regular girl?" I think not. No one but Jesus himself due to his being and Mary due to God's planning and proclamation have been or will be full, as in complete, in grace.

Even those who are not envious and/or in denial of Mary do make in all innocence this mistake, so beware of that, and also another mistake that I explain now: Grace is not the same as a blessing. Grace is an actual infusion of gifting and purity from God, while a blessing is good wishes that anyone can bestow upon anyone else. We even say "bless you" when someone sneezes. So some people who don't understand the difference think that the angel is blessing Mary, as in giving her a blessing. He is not. He is stating what has already occurred and what God prepared Mary for: 1) Mary is already full of grace, so she's got as much grace as she can contain already and 2) Mary is already blessed by God. That is the situation before she even has explained to her the mission of the angel and her role as mother of the Messiah and Savior. So she already had all grace and blessing before even being in this extraordinary service to God as being mother to his son.

When people fool silly and stupid people of this generation into thinking "any of you girls" can "imagine what it would have been like if they were in 'Mary's position'" they are lying and defaming Mary. No one in their right mind would have DREAMED of saying such foolish delusion prior to this incredibly ignorant and arrogant, self satisfied, ego maniacal past few generations.

It is impossible to imagine what it is like to be filled with grace because only Jesus, by God's nature, and Mary, by preparation and conferral by God, have ever been in that state of grace. So no, nobody can identify with Mary, or Jesus, to that level. Humans can sympathize with Mary and Jesus in their suffering, for example, but they cannot at all empathize with either of them, as no one can have a reference point of the perspective of someone who is filled with grace and thus filled with God's given pureness.

In the Qur'an it is written And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above all the women of the world Surah 3:42.

Before progressing further regarding the true nature of Mary, let me reintroduce the point about spiritual envy. It is obvious that many people, both individuals and groups, in modern times (the past several generations) have a wrongheaded view of Mary that can only be attributed to spiritual envy. No one can claim to be Christian and be so stingy and denying of the God given grace and purity of Mary that deserves continual praise and role modeling, and that does not take one iota "away" from Jesus. What believer in God thinks that anything even can be "taken away" from God? How is adhering to what the scripture most clearly in black and white shows, for anyone to read, giving "too much to Mary" and "taking away" from Jesus? That is the very transparent and lame excuse, and I know first hand, for spiritual envy of Mary herself and also the institutions that continue to honor, love and revere her as she actually was and remains, now, in heaven.

3. Mary as prophetess.

We have already seen in the first scripture how Mary prophesies in her canticle to Elizabeth, even before Jesus is born, how the ongoing salvatory impact of Jesus will demonstrate God's mercy from generation to generation. Mary also, in a way, receives prophetic insight from the Holy Spirit regarding when it is time for Jesus to perform his first miracle. I marvel (not in a good way) about how many miss this point in the miracle of the wedding at Cana.

First I will tell you what happens using common speech. They are at a wedding and when the groom, the host, runs out of wine, Mary nudges Jesus to do something about it (and she does not mean his charge card; obviously this would have to be a miracle). Jesus rebukes Mary that it is not his time to go public with his miraculous abilities, but Mary overrides his objections and tells the wedding steward to do whatever Jesus tells him to do. Jesus obliges and performs the miracle.

This is an example of how one grace filled person can "know" when to urge the other grace filled person to action. Think about it. If you were just the average guy or gal who hung around with Jesus, would the first "miracle" occur to you to recommend to Jesus when you are at a wedding and they've run out of wine? Huh? Absolutely not. The "average" person would think of many much more dramatic or urgent situations to urge Jesus to perform his first miracle. But none of them would be ultimately as fraught with grace and meaning as the turning of water into wine miracle. Only Mary, filled by God with grace, would have been able to discern that moment, hearing and knowing and "magnifying" that moment and that place and that situation. Why was it so important? Read Luke 20:9-19, the parable of the vine dressers (the fruit of the vine being, of course, grapes for wine). When Jesus told that parable the chief priests and Scribes sought to kill him (Luke 20:19). Soon after that Jesus at the Last Supper took the cup of wine and said "take this and share it among you; for I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God comes" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you" (Luke 22:17-18, 20).

Mary by virtue of her fullness of grace hears the Holy Spirit and triggers the moment of Jesus' first miracle, which will be the foundation of his ministry, as Messiah and Savior, as both the true vine and the fruit of the vine.

And on the third day a marriage took place at Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now Jesus too was invited to the marriage, and also his disciples. And the wine having run short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "What wouldst thou have me do, woman? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the attendants, "Do whatever he tells you" Luke 2:1-5.

Do you better understand what a disservice it is to, at best, willfully marginalize Mary's role in faith and salvatory history? After all, none of his newly called disciples realized that this was the time and the place where Jesus should perform his first miracle. Only the woman full of grace, his mother, could hear the prompting and be bold enough to insist that Jesus do so and he complies. Let me address the reason that Jesus seems to first object. I bet now you understand it, though. Jesus is not really objecting, he is saying "My hour has not yet come." That refers to what happens to the son, the cornerstone who is rejected, and is killed by the vine dressers, as I cited for you to read on your own in Luke 20. In Bible speak Jesus is not refusing, but saying that this is the beginning indeed that will lead to the hour that has not yet come, but will.

4. Mary as constant disciple to Jesus.

While those who are in error or those who are spiritually envious of Mary emphasize her low key presence and lack of much "mention" in the Gospels, what is actually emphasized is the continuity of her continual presence throughout Jesus' ministry. Mary did not sit around at home wondering how Jesus is doing while he traveled: she was there. By the way, notice how Mary was invited to the wedding at Cana and "Jesus too was invited" :-) The wedding at Cana needs to be understood as the turning point, as this was when Jesus performed his first miracle and thus his God given authority, having just been baptized and having called the first disciples. Jesus attends the wedding that Mary was invited to, and him also. Mary urges him to perform his first miracle in relation to the fruit of the vine-the wine-and Jesus does so. From this point onward Mary is following him as his most constant disciple, and Jesus has now by action, not by words, proclaimed his public ministry.

Now, you need to understand about Biblical life to understand this next part. Mary, as a widow, had to be supported by her son. Mary thus could not sit around back at the homestead, even if she wanted to, as Jesus was her source of support and Mary tended to him as they would have had they been at home. Mary and the brethren of Jesus were the core of the growing Christian model of the group accompanying Jesus in his ministry while at the same time providing the necessities of life along the way. Ha, you say, how do you know this? Yep, "it's in the Bible." This is why with Jesus' last breath on the cross he gave Mary to the Apostle John as John's mother, and John as her son, as Jesus had to hand over both that symbolic and literal role to John! It's not because they needed to update their business cards to say that John was now the son of Mary since Jesus had been crucified! It was because in those days the eldest son, (and thus, obviously) the only son, provided for his mother, whether at home or "on the road." Mary was with him throughout. I've blogged about this before but this is why Jesus had such pity for the widow who had just lost her only child, her son, and thus decided when encountering the funeral procession to raise him from the dead. Mary and Jesus were in exactly that same position where Jesus, ministry or not, had to support and provide for Mary, his mother, at all times.

Mary remained in the background, as did most of the many nameless disciples, so that those who would freshly hear the words of Jesus could press to the front. This is why you do not hear "mention" of Mary any more than you hear mention of the dozens of unnamed disciples who followed Jesus and the Apostles. She was with them on the outskirts whenever Jesus was about his business. You can read about this when Jesus uses the time that Mary and the brethen (Jesus' other relatives) wanted to speak with him but could not get through the crush. Jesus was not rejecting them, but rather (since he saw them all the time accompanying him) he delayed speaking to them so that he could show the crowd that those who follow his word are his family too.

Likewise when a woman raises her voice in the crowd and praises Mary, Jesus is not rejecting praise of Mary, but as per his ministry, redirects the praise to God. These are examples of how Jesus role modeled how believers must always look toward God, not from any rejection of Mary, of course, but from the ease with which the crowd could understand that the closeness of Mary and the brethren of Jesus to Jesus was now being extended to themselves, through Jesus. In other words, Jesus is saying that instead of focusing on the specialness of himself or of Mary, to start to think of yourselves as special family to Jesus and thus to God through your faith. This is as far of a marginalizing of Mary as you can get; rather, people are invited by Jesus to share in that specialness of closeness to him held by Mary and the brethren of Jesus (and all those unmentioned disciples who also were continually present). Thus Mary is continually present through the ministry of Jesus, through the crucifixion, and after his resurrection, through Pentecost, and then accompanying the Apostle John in all his ministry. The thought of Mary settled in some village is bogus and reflects a total lack of understanding of the handing over of Mary's care by Jesus on the cross to John. The care of Mary meant Mary's constant accompanyment of John, even in her advanced age to the area that is now the country of Turkey, as John unceasingly performed his evangelizing to his own great age of one hundred.

5. Protestants have no reason to marginalize Mary. but historically they have and still do. They should not and first of foremost, because Luther loved and revered her too.

I don't want to get too far afield from the main point, so I will leave it to you to research, if you want to, the depth of feeling that Luther himself had for Mary. I raise the point about Protestants, though, since we are left with the following fallout:

o "Anything but the Catholic Church" syndrome has falsely led many Protestants to marganalize Mary due to rejection of and spiritual envy of the Catholic Church. This is an example of what I alluded to in my first post on this subject, which is that once one is of a mindset toward spiritual envy, one starts to cherry pick scripture, highlighting those parts that seem to support one's view (the two instances I gave where Jesus is viewed, incorrectly, as rebuffing Mary presence and praise of her) while eliminating all reference to the remaining basis for legitimate and consistent reverence for Mary's role in the Church.

o "No one is as good as Mary was supposedly, so she could not have been so either" or "I could have been Mary too" syndrome has latched onto the first syndrome and is rampant in modern times. This too is based on spiritual envy of Mary. Here people deny that someone as Mary was really did exist (the usual attacks on her Immaculate Conception, the snarky comments that she "must have been sinful too" because "all humans are sinners," thus ignoring the "full of grace") thereby concluding that the biblical Mary was not really as she really was. The whole point of Mary is that she WAS the one and only; she was, as both Gospel and Qur'an attest, the purest and totally unique. Spiritual envy blinds many today to that obvious truth because they are, incredibly, jealous of the purity of the mother of the Savior.

Even more ludicrous is the notion that while no one could have really been as pure and good as Mary, therefore the "Mary claimant and imitator/imposter" field is wide open. People start to think if Mary could not have been as unique, predestined, God filled in grace and purity, if she must therefore in their minds be something "less" than that, this "opens the field" to people claiming to "channel" Mary or to be "reincarnated" Mary. This is all, again, spiritual envy based. It is back to my original exposition of the links where envy leads to denial and then coveting. Many modern people envy what Mary really was and remains (step one) so they deny that she was exactly as the Bible and the Qur'an state (step two) and then, having "cut her down to size," they next figure they can claim some portion of the spirituality of Mary that they so envy and covet (step three). Thus you have egregious and blaspheming charlatans who lay claim to a spiritual identity that belongs (as each does, of course) to only that one and only original person, but they do so only after denying and diminishing it enough that they can think they can reasonably claim it as their own.

I hope that this helps you, dear reader, to understand through this crucial faith case study how spiritual envy is a terrible sin full of actual destructive power that resonates through generations and erodes genuine faith even in those who are not fully culpable and participating. As I pointed out above, I've been shocked (hardened and saddened as I am) by proportedly orthodox thinking Christians, including Catholics, who bought into the barefoot dirty waif who though ignorant and ordinary becomes baby Jesus momma. Let's put it this way. I would be willing to bet you an awful lot that Luther, when he died and faced his maker, was very glad that he never lost sight of who Mary was, and what reverence and love is due to her. It would be wise to make this the last Christmas where knocked up "I can relate" Mary baby Jesus momma is promulgated in entertainment and preaching. Yes, tired as I am I got to seething again here, as I do whenever I think of that plain out insulting image of Mary. I won't lie, I've wanted to punch some preachers in the nose when I hear that rubbish and Hollywood, I'd totally given up on them anyway but seething remains.

Young people, hi again, hope you've hung in there through this long exposition and that it's helpful to you. Do not be afraid to believe the truth that genuine God given purity and goodness did exist on earth and remains so, of course, in heaven. All this in the praise of the name of Jesus.

Vampire "entertainment" etc not harmless

“Vampire” literature and other entertainment of this theme is not innocent escapism.

For years there has been a huge supply and thus growing appetite (pun intended) for vampire themed entertainment, especially books, but obviously pushed also on TV and via the movies. For years, too, I have been very concerned about this, since it is not just innocent imaginary escapism. Again, far from being a prude who is against edgy themes, I am warning of a very serious crime that takes place (in addition to the rotting of the minds of those who read this trash, of course).

There are many cultists who drink blood or use it in ceremony or “protective amulet” purposes, and the popularization of vampire literature acts as their “cover.” Deep inside they know that what they are doing is wrong, so by pushing it in the entertainment industry they rationalize that they are being “open” and “honest” that they exist. It’s a kind of technicality mentality, where they substitute a symbol for what is the actual truth and thus feel they are not lying or committing a crime.

By the way, astute readers of my series on “hell, demons and sin” can now recognize each occurrence of sin. First is having the foolish thought that drinking blood is ever an acceptable thing and having that occult belief. The second sin is looking at other humans, again, still in the mind, as being potential cult blood suppliers. The third individual sin is to identify potential useful sources of special blood, such as based on the potential victim’s astrology chart. The fourth individual sin is to actually obtain the blood directly or to induce someone else to sin and to obtain the blood on your behalf. The fifth individual sin is each and every possession of someone else’s blood and each and every “usage” of it. Thus dozens of individual sins are committed with each occurrence of the thought, planning, belief system and execution and usage of another person’s blood for occult purposes.

Blood using cultists have connections in hospitals and other medical care facilities, and are also eager supporters of blood drives. I wish I was joking but I am not. They thus are able to identify people that they think have special blood for their occult purposes, based on the person’s astrology chart, name and other characteristics that make these folks think that the person is someone particular from a so called bogus “past life,” etc. They then “sample” from legitimate blood collection processes. As you can guess, I’m a favorite source. Being someone with long experience in knowing what is normal procedure and what is not, I recognized a long time ago that a tremendous amount of my blood was being drawn relative to the medical procedure’s needs. I put two and two together and thus figured out what was going on when I was doing my undercover exploration of New Age and other beliefs, since they kept being directed to my attention (back when people thought I was a moron who just didn’t realize that the world was filled with ‘aliens,’ ‘reincarnated or old souls,’ ‘indigo children,’ and the pagan pantheon of so called gods and idols). One of the primary people I encountered had a professional connection in the hematology functions of health care and it was not too long for me to figure out the connection. They are obsessed with Mars/Ares (blood, so called god of war, etc) so even Stevie Wonder could have seen this one for what it is and yes indeed, even with my modest IQ, I figured it out.

They like to schedule blood drives and so forth on astrologically significant times, too. They are nothing if not attentive to detail. Ironically, they count blood drives as some of their “good deeds” and being “loving of neighbor” and “charitable,” since, like I said, they have a technicality approach to everything, including their totally sinful and doomed false view of divinity and the cosmos. God frowns on all of this, you know, the real God.

So parents, don’t encourage your kids to be fascinated with vampire culture because you are not only allowing them to waste their minds and souls on bogus and even sinful crap, but you are also enabling an industry that, partly consciously and partly unconsciously, thinks it is providing cover for some really awful witchcraft and occult activities. And for any readers who still have these dreadful mindsets I’m just going to tell you one thing. There simply is no truth to any of what you are doing. If you think you have “seen results” it has only been because of natural reasons, not because of your blood usage or consumption. Don’t send yourselves to eternal damnation for something that is totally bogus in the first place. No one has spiritually significant blood, including me.

Whether you are a Catholic, or even a Christian (nominally, obviously, if you believe in and practice this outrageous activity), this Lent would be a really good time to stop not only the activities but the thoughts associated with vampirism and occult attitudes toward blood, and if you are a Catholic this ought to be high on your Confession list.

President Obama: 1st step back to USA dignity

Congratulations on the closing of Gitmo declaration and the statement that the military should never torture and instead stick to what they are supposed to, which is the Army field manual. These steps are a first step back to dignity, morality and decency, after years of having gone far over the edge.

To those new to this subject or my blog, follow the "torture" label to my post of February, 2007 (yes, two years ago) on this subject, explaining that "we need the information" scenarios are fallacious "justifications" for torture as a policy.

Now the American people, especially the media, need to understand that torture is never a "tool," it is always a mental disorder and one of the signs of the warping of the human soul. Thus it is not "entertainment." I was disgusted to see torture quickly glamorized in early episodes of "Lost" (you know, the dark hero Iraqi Republican guard character 'had' to try torture because they 'needed' the information). I never watch "24" but understand it has much in it about torture, thus mainstreaming it as entertainment.

I don't even need to point out that the glut of violent slasher films have all polluted a generation of young and older viewers into seeing torture as entertainment.

Torture is a sign of humanity's great potential for depravity. Some of it results from mental disorders, as you see in criminally insane cases. The other potentiality for torture resides in the reservoir of the darkness that almost every human is capable of (witness the experiments where the subjects will happily torture people using electrical shocks for absolutely no reason whatsoever). With the potential for torture within humans they have absolutely no reason to crow about how evolved, enlightened or "clear" they are.

The elimination of torture as entertainment is a critical next step. In the meantime, congratulations to President Obama for being a man of his word and decency.

Case study for creative artists/viewers re: MLK

I mentioned before about the difference between creating good entertainment based on historical and current figures and bad entertainment that distorts the setting through which the story telling takes place. Here’s an example about a movie that I would not go to see about Martin Luther King, and one I would go see (hence I’m presenting a new case study story line for your consideration).

I would not go to see a movie that starts with looking at MLK and his circle of supporters, and then pans to show some anonymous white guy or gal in the background who is then revealed to be a “secret supporter” of MLK and his Civil Rights agenda through his or her “supernatural powers.” This dreadful bore of a movie that would be an embarrassment to walk by the theater showing it, say nothing of go inside, would “reveal” that the pale guy or gal is in “actuality” the “reincarnated descendent of the Queen of Sheba,” who is white in “disguise” (or maybe the Thetans aren’t so good with colors). Thus this movie would “inspire all who view it to know that steps in are everywhere, and you are never really alone.” You’d also figure out that those Afro-American dudes would never have gotten anywhere without their secret step in whitey pale pals who (wink wink!) have “Solomon and the Queen of Sheba’s blood to help them.”

Here is a movie I would go to see and be proud to write and produce. Some average white guy ends up hearing MLK speak. It moves him, but he has a regular life and doesn’t want to get into the activist movement since it is, obviously, dangerous at that time. He gets the idea that to help he and his wife will adopt Afro-American orphans, say a brother and a sister. Now, that would be an astonishing decision during that time and the movie would follow their struggle to actually get this adoption approved. The narrator could even be the grown up child, one of the two, looking back on it all. “Dad sure didn’t know what he was getting into.” The movie then follows how such an adoption would have worked and how the family grows. This should be placed in the South, I guess, because I’d like to see how they raise their children with their biological relatives nearby and how they straddle the two worlds. So the movie would show what worked, and even humorous things, and a lot of drama and unexpected consequences, all mirrored against historically accurate timeframes of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s to the present. There would be tie-in’s between the events in MLK’s life, and his memory after he is assassinated, and events in the kid’s lives and their growing families. The kids make decisions about career and so forth that are fraught with meaning because of their duality of cultural and racial raising in a time when that was by no means as accepted as it is today. I’ll leave as some creative curiosity and suspense from what vantage point and ongoing life events the narrator is telling his or her family story.

Now THAT is a movie I’d like to see!

Case study for creative artists/viewers (2)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Case study for creative artists and viewers

Help! I can’t stop teaching! LOL. I love to teach, not because I am a smarty pants, but because I’ve noticed that people have slipped into a very sad mode of learning, and I wish to change that. So here is another case study that addresses those in the creative arts, both producers of creative arts (such as the entertainment industry) and consumers (watchers of TV, movies etc, so they can demand better and not assume that they are getting the best). I in particular want to address, as always, the young people, the students and those who are starting out in these creative arts fields.

I wrote a previous case study of how one can write an interesting science fiction or fantasy type of story without being dark and depressive, but still being creative and edgy. The case study I presented was my story idea for a planet that has only yellow flowers and a traumatized Iraqi vet is sent there for some therapy. I have another, more developed story line that I thought of today to use for this case study. With this story line you can start to weed out of your own creativity tendencies toward unnecessary darkness and depression and instead restore it with genuine edge, drama and creativity. Too many moderns have grown up with two generations of entertainment and other creative arts professionals who equate edge, drama, suspense and deep plot lines (all great things) with darkness, sadness, fright, depression and depravity of thought or action (not too good things). Thus they weave into all their creative works enforced turns in the plot and underlying “messages” that are bringing everyone down and ultimately not really providing the edge that a really creative person craves in their works. So here is my new story line.

An average American returns from Iraq or Afghanistan wounded. Now when casting this person I mean what I say that he or she is genuinely average from an average family, so the protagonist can be male or female, straight or gay, white, Afro-American or Hispanic, from any part of the country. When you reach the parts that explore his or her past all of it will be perfectly ordinary, no reasons exist for what is about to take place because it remains a mystery throughout the story line and is never resolved.

The person comes back with severe wounds and severe post traumatic stress disorder, but while the wounds heal at a normal pace, he or she literally “gets over” his or her post traumatic stress disorder in a matter of a day or two. He or she does not do anything special, but one day doctors (and the vet him or herself) notices that “Voila” his or her PTSD is totally gone. They wonder about it but think nothing of it, figuring that either he or she is just extraordinarily resilient or it was not such a bad case of PTSD in the first place.

While in the hospital or rehab facility the patient, who is now being treated just for the physical wounds, socializes with other wounded vets. Suddenly, everyone notices, including him or her self, that every patient that he or she speaks to socially, not in a therapeutic way per se, suddenly is healed of their PTSD too. That becomes the story line, NOT the “why” or “how” but what does one do with such a “gift.” But because it is natural and not a supernatural or talent infusion, it’s called the knack. He or she has a knack for somehow saying the right thing that almost magically seeming eliminates and cures a fellow patient’s PTSD.

So the drama and edge comes from two components of this story line. One is to show the before and after of those he or she deals with and “cures.” It’s not like it rubs off from him or her where he or she just needs to be in the room, so it’s not miraculous curing. And it is not like he or she is using therapeutic and behavior modification psychological principles. Somehow he or she just says the right “ordinary” things and the PTSD is gone. So there can be a series of scenes where he or she converses about just ordinary things, what they did in the war, where their family is from, favorite hobbies and childhood memories, and somehow in those ruminations for each patient the one with the knack hits on saying something (different in each case) that works. For example, one vet may talk about a great play he made in a baseball or football game and feel bad that he, due to physical wounds, might not play sports again. But then after that vet has reminisced about the one great play, after the conservation and like a day later his PTSD is gone, even though they never discussed it. So there is great fertile ground for many scenes of ordinary conversation mysteriously resulting in an extraordinary PTSD cure.

The second component of the drama and edge is what do the various components of the society as a whole, such as the military, the government and others “do” with this person with the knack? Again, resist the urge to turn it into a dark “secret weapon” or the “drug manufacturers try to kill him or her” trite formula of paranoia, as is the standard today. Think about what we as a whole would genuinely “do” with such a person. That is the source of the second layer of drama and edge. Does he or she want to leave their normal life and go around the country or even the world doing nothing but “curing” people of PTSD? Would the military try to force her, cutting new orders so long as he or she is in the military to do such a thing? I would assume that he or she wants to help being, like I said, an average person, but he or she also wants a normal life too. How do they find the balance? Suppose he or she already has a spouse and children. Does the military create a new position just for him or her? Some comedy and irony would be appropriate in this entire “balancing act” too. The best edge is from genuine drama with the genuine gentle humor of human nature, including the funny and somewhat pathetic, LOL.

What would the government “think” about such a person? Thank goodness I am giving all of you this idea post-Bush administration so that Bush lovers and haters don’t ruin my great story line with distorting it to suit political agenda! The edge and drama of this is that normal people with normal capabilities are trying to now figure out what to do with a normal person who has one extraordinary knack and capability. Insurance companies, what would they do? Offer him or her lots of money to work at diminishing their payout to PTSD patients who require long treatment? Would non governmental charitable agencies try to get him or her as an employee to travel the world curing PTSD among poor villagers and war refugees?

There is so much here that it could be a great movie but also a long running TV series. That is because the edge and the drama comes from each interaction with a PTSD patient, the attempt of the person with the knack to have a normal life too, and the continuing series of governments, agencies and others with a vested interest in his or her knack.

See? One can have an incredible story line with a great plot and lots of potential for edge without alien possession, insane insurance agents trying to kill him or her, everyone is depressed and miserable in the end, and robots rule the world. One also learns to be a mature creative artists and consumer where you are interested and even fascinated with the plot but not because one must ever find out “why” or “how” he or she “does” it. It’s just there; it’s one of those fascinating mysteries about human individuality, not some overblown spiritual or superpower thing. This keeps it real, because this is close to the real world, with its problems of war and other causes of PTSD, but also entertainment because it is dramatic and inspiring and lifts one a bit out of the ordinary, through this knack, but not into warped fantasy. It is edgy too because one continually can’t help but wonder “how,” just as the protagonist him or her self wonders, but not so much because like I said, there is no explanation. No “reincarnation and past lives,” no “embodied aliens,” no “mutant superpowers gained from radioactive rays on the battlefield,” sheesh, for goodness sakes. And the pressure on the vet with the knack does not drive him or her to insanity, drugs, crazy sex and other dark depressive escapism, just to “work those themes” into what is supposed to be entertainment. The vet’s best friend does not need to be an assassin or a drug dealer.

This case study of an original story line is thus an example of how great creativity can provide edge, drama, mystery and humor without the same tired paranoid and depressive tools used by just about everyone in the industry today. There is nothing more fascinating than ordinary and real people (not contorted caricatures of “keeping it real”) who have one, maybe two, extraordinary circumstances to deal with.

I hope that you have found this helpful and interesting!

Capitalism/financial crisis with history excerpt

Today I want to explain a kind of catch bag of economic concepts. While I am fully aware of professional terminology such as “the fundamentals” and “money velocity,” I’m not going to use them for the reasons I’ve explained previously, which is they are definitions used to describe warped and skewed capitalism, not genuine capitalism as it first emerged in its true form. I had the misfortune of working with highly paid and arrogant bank economists and I observed first hand that their education, and subsequent “Unreal Greed Street” job experience, hardened their misunderstanding of the origins of their own profession. Also, I obviously am not trying to train the people who read my blog to do more of the same of what has not only not worked, but was incorrectly crafted in the first place. However, I mention my background so that I can reach out to economists who genuinely do wish to do well and help the country-and all of the people and also, by implication, those in the world who depend upon the health of the USA to ensure their own. There are so many well formed ideas that I have, and so much background information that I would need to convey, that this is why I decided to lightly touch on a number of topics rather than go in depth in any one of them today. I know both the financial experts will get what I am saying nonetheless, as will those who have been following what I’m teaching as concerned citizens. I especially want at this time to reach out to local governments (states, cities, towns, counties, parishes and so forth) in order to help them cope and be heartened that there is a reasonable approach to solving our problems, one that is still firmly grounded in the Constitution.

So here I will introduce and explain a number of topics, in no particular order, just as they occur to me today, having been on my mind for many years.

The first is to understand money (in the form of currency, not theoretical measures of wealth) and how to properly assess the best uses of it. The trouble with money, and let’s use the American example of the dollar bill, is that like I’ve explained previously, people jump too quickly to thinking about some end goal without considering how the dollar bill has made its way there. Think of a dollar bill in an analogy (you knew one was coming, didn’t you?) Let’s think of a given dollar bill as an old fashioned antibiotic, such as penicillin. I’m not selecting penicillin as a hidden symbol of the dollar bill being less effective or out of favor, but because penicillin was the world changing discovery that first allowed humans to treat themselves successfully against infection. Likewise the use of standardization of currency was a wonderful development that allowed humans to do many things they could not otherwise do. Also I’m not implying that only the sick need a dollar bill, LOL, (though it seems like only the sick are the money managers, but that is a whole other problem!) I want to use the analogy so everyone can understand how a dose of money works its benefit throughout the economy and just as importantly, how it does not work as a magic cure all for every situation.

When doing some important financial planning task, such as trying to stimulate a local economy, there is a concept of looking at how quickly a dollar bill moves within that area, and whether it stays in that area, and how many hands touch and presumably benefit from it. This is a wise concept but one that has been totally misapplied and has become misunderstood. Would be economic planners sometimes think that if a dollar touches, let’s say ten local merchants, that it has done more “good” for the “local economy” than a dollar that touches two or three local merchants. But that is not always true. Using the penicillin analogy, if the penicillin touches ten local merchants, but only one of them was sick, what was the benefit of that? It’s almost as though the genuinely sick merchant was lucky to get a touch of the penicillin dollar bill. Suppose the dollar bill that touched “only” two or three merchants, however, was targeted to touch those that who were genuinely sick. Therefore the analogous penicillin dollar bill proved the wiser investment where it touched “only” two or three genuinely “sick” merchants than the dollar bill who touched ten merchants, only one of whom was “sick.” Economists, local planners and the hidden money plutocrats and mandarins who pull the strings behind the scenes both innocently and deliberately misunderstand this concept and abuse it accordingly. So my first lesson is that money that does not touch the right hands and settle in the right places does not perform its function.

Now, before I hear the howls of those who accuse me of wanting to “redistribute wealth,” you are totally wrong and I am not saying that. I am telling you how to invest your money properly, not trying to take it away from you. I have seen over the decades people make what they think are both wise and compassionate investment and charitable donations, and who might as well have burned the money in the parking lot, because they did not understand what I have just explained. I’m not trying to “redistribute your wealth,” I’m trying to be the wise investment planner that you never had as your partner. So whenever one assesses a dose of penicillin dollar bill, do not be tempted by visions of that dollar bill going from let’s say gas station to grocery store to bank account to paycheck to buying some home furnishing and compare it to some other use of the dollar bill and immediately conclude that since the first use, to use a baseball analogy, “touched five bases” that it is automatically more “stimulating” to the community that let’s say a dollar bill that went into a much need school repair. In the latter case, that dollar bill might only have moved “once,” from the payer hands to the contractor payee (and to keep the comparison pure, let’s assume the contractor sent the earned dollar out of state and had brought supplies in from out of state), nonetheless that dollar bill might have had a cascading economic benefit that was as if one hundred dollar bills “magically” appeared. The wise penicillin dollar bill might have kept a few more kids in school who might have dropped out and turned to crime, it might have stimulated more after school scholarly or sports activities for a dozen other kids, it might have avoided some insurance payout due to decaying school conditions, and thus avoided a future loss, etc. I know for a fact that hardly anyone understands and uses that concept of measuring a penicillin dollar impact on a local community or in fact in any given fiscal problem. Instead they retreat to the standard talking points, which over time they have come to believe, which are, to list just a few, “trickle down,” “keep the money local,” “stimulate local business,” “give back to the community” and so forth. Thus both the left and the right totally misunderstand how to properly gauge and manage the best impact of any penicillin dollar in either their personal planning or their community, or national, fiscal spending.

I’m reminded of one of President Grant’s stories from his memoirs and will repeat it here because you will see how that mindset crept into society as it happened. Here Grant sees himself as the average educated white man who understands money (this was in the beginning of his Army career), so please do not read this with the usual prickliness about racism, but consider that he thought he was actually observing an ignorant practice by the local Native Americans. That is one of the problems with today (I first observed it in my Ivy League university in 1971-5), which is that people refuse to read any further and learn from historical literature if they think the author was, despite the context of the times, “racist” or “sexist.” So if you want to own your own mind you need to learn to read without wincing and prejudging the observations that people made during certain times in history, period.

OK, so think about the penicillin dollar when you read this.

When I was stationed on the Pacific coast we were free from Indian wars. There were quite a number of remnants of tribes in the vicinity of Portland in Oregon, and of Fort Vancouver in Washington Territory. They had generally acquired some of the vices of civilization, but none of the virtues, except in individual cases. The Hudson’s Bay Company had held the Northwest with their trading posts for many years before the United States was represented on the Pacific coast. They still retained posts along the Columbia River and one at Fort Vancouver, when I was there. Their treatment of the Indians had brought out the better qualities of the savages. Farming had been undertaken by the company to supply the Indians with bread and vegetables; they raised some cattle and horses; and they had now taught the Indians to do the labor of the farm and herd. They always compensated them for their labor, and always gave them goods of uniform quality and at uniform price.

Before the advent of the American, the medium of exchange between the Indian and the white man was pelts. Afterward it was silver coin. If an Indian received in the sale of a horse a fifty dollar gold piece, not an infrequent occurrence, the first thing he did was to exchange it for American half dollars. These he could count. He would then commence his purchase, paying for each article separately, as he got it. He would not trust any one to add up the bill and pay it all at once. At that day fifty dollar gold pieces, not the issue of the government, were common on the Pacific coast. They were called slugs.

Now, here is what Grant meant by saying the Indians would pay for each item. Suppose you went to the grocery store to buy milk, bread, meat, a carrot and an apple. You let the check out clerk total your purchases and you pay once the total, receiving change. However, the Indians would have the clerk ring up the bread, and then pay for the bread, ring up the milk, and then pay for the milk, ring up the meat, and then pay for the meat and so forth for the five full separate transactions. Grant said it was because they did not trust the clerk to add up the total correctly, but you know, do you not see now, that it was more than that. The Indians maintained control and value judgment over each item piece by piece. The value of each individual item was not hidden in the total. It’s not that they just didn’t trust the adding up of the total (and I bet they had good reason to not trust in many situations!) Even if someone could prove that the clerk was always honest and that the total was the same as each price individually, they still would have stuck to the individual payment of individual items. This is because despite being “ignorant” they instinctively understood both a benefit and danger of capitalism. The benefit of capitalism was money they could trust (even though the slugs were not minted by the government, they were based on the gold standard) and so they readily accepted as wise that development of capitalism, which was a trustworthy standard means of exchange of a precious metal. However, they instinctively recognized that a danger of capitalism was the tyranny of the “sum total” mentality. When one manages money using sum totals, the meaning and wisdom of individual purchases is hidden and indeed lost. We all experience this feeling ourselves when we “throw a few things in the grocery cart” and then find a higher price than we expected at checkout, just because we no longer pay attention to either the individual item’s merits of purchase or the running sum total. Now, imagine an entire people, and entire world, that only looks at sum totals of millions of individual decisions, never analyzing the impact or the wisdom of any one of them. That is what I call the tyranny of the sum total.

So I’ve introduced to you here two concepts that it is important that everyone genuinely understand. One is the need to examine alternatives when deciding how each “dollar bill” is used in order to truly discern the best usage, and not to implicitly assume that frequent rotation through a lot of hands is “good” when in fact it is often what I call a “shallow” use of money. Money that is used shallowly is flash money, usually paid for transitory goods and services that is usually justified as “adding salaries to the community” yet does not “stick” to any place in the community where it can genuinely generate on its own “new dollars,” almost out of thin air. The second concept is the tyranny of the sum total, which we see everywhere from the problem of the bloated and still ineffective Federal budget, all the way down to a business man or woman accepting a plan from one of their staff that is “bottom line” and has not been examined not just for accuracy but more importantly for more substantial individual choices of expenditure and alternatives that could be more meaningful.

It is critical that today’s money managers, no matter how great or small your budget or investment pool, look at each item, rather than the sum total, and act as though you had never heard of such a thing, and need to be persuaded anew that this is a necessary or wise usage of funds. That’s the third concept that I want to introduce which I call “what if” financial analysis. It’s different from the concept of “valuation,” the “value chain” or “value analysis” because it constantly questions the chain of production and assumptions itself, rather than valuing the pieces of production that one takes for granted and never questions. People are incredible creatures of habit and easily slip into both information overload and what we call in the vernacular “being on auto pilot” in our decision making. A lot of this is not malicious, but those who have ruined the economy are guilty of this kind of thinking themselves and at the same time exploiting it in others. Here are some examples so you know what I mean.

The entire problem of providing social services and welfare is an example of sides that hardened into two alternatives (“provide welfare” or “make them work”) and the result is a horrible and at times dastardly mess. This is the tyranny of sum total thinking that totally lacks “line by line” “what if” thinking. Welfare is an example of “one miserable disaster fits all” sum total planning. I don’t need to list how many ways welfare as it is constructed today has failed individuals and society as a whole, especially the children. Yet whenever someone mentions that welfare is the nightmare that it seems as though we will never wake up from, the “other side” can’t wait to jump in and have a hardness of heart that is shocking. Both sides are “wrong” because both are enslaved to sum total mentality combined with a lack of visionary and genuinely well intentioned “what if” analysis of real alternatives within the system. It would take me about one hour to list ten different scenarios for providing necessary services for the needy, tailored to the actual context of the needy that we are discussing (their community setting, for example) rather than assuming that throwing penicillin dollars, to go back to our analogy, hits the right hands. Yes, in one hour I could give people a list of at least ten alternatives that they could select from that would address a particular welfare based problem or case study. Yet no one even tries to come up with a third alternative these days, they just fall into arguing their two sides, each atop an ignorant sum total tyranny. Welfare as it is structured today is a disaster, and so is the touted “put them to work” “alternative.” I cannot believe how willfully ignorant humans seem to have become and what miserable failures everyone has become at analysis and problem solving based on both wisdom and compassion.

I have just paused for a minute in order to resist slipping into one of my rants about the freak show society. What triggered it was what a woeful spectacle “job creation” has turned into, and I dearly hope and pray that with the new administration they recognize that meaningful jobs are not just the means of getting a paycheck for producing more garbage to throw into society as the “product.” In other words, I totally support the vision that the new administration seems to have of real jobs related to infrastructure and schools, for example, rather than enabling shake your money maker entertainment “jobs.” Entertainment is a vital sector of the economy and you might be surprised to hear that I do not oppose entertainment such as casinos, on principle. But the incredibly shallow output of much of American “entertainment industry” rather than infrastructure entertainment, such as Boys and Girls clubs or local sports and music programs is shocking. So when one argues that people need to “get a job,” its more than just a job because in this economic crisis, those who can make these decisions at the federal, local, corporate, agency and individual levels must make some wise decisions based on alternatives, for once. Here is an example.

Suppose that I have one hundred penicillin dollar bills, and I want to create a business so I can earn a good living, create some jobs and help the community. I decide to manufacture violent video games because it will “provide the poor with good jobs.” Huh?

That’s not free market, despite the fact that both the left and the right will argue that, saying “Well, if the public didn’t want violent videos they would not buy them.” Yeah, but you could have thought about creating a business that is genuinely “free market.” How about if I had used the one hundred penicillin dollar bills to open a Boys and Girls after school club where they could apprentice making video games under ethical teachers? I could have generated salaries (the teachers), made money (by selling the supplies), and gotten dozens if not hundreds of local kids to learn skills (video making and also business and creative skills) and best of all, THAT is free market. After all, suppose you had a thousand students in your business lifetime. Many would not go into that career but it was character building. Some might have become young entrepreneurs themselves in civic areas since you did not bind them to just learning the lowest common denominator of product. For example, one of your students might have developed an idea for a video game that teaches local kids how to discover areas of pollution in their community and how to be a genuine activist! A few might go on to make violent video games, LOL, but that is free market in truth, not brainwashing. Maybe you would not be a video game millionaire. But see, that’s the problem with the mindset today. I referred to that in earlier blog postings as being the “make a killing” mentality instead of the “make a good living” mentality that capitalism is genuinely founded upon, and needs as its basis, not greed, or it is doomed to dismal, crushing moral and fiscal failure.

I’m just painting a vivid example but one that is not too far off of the mark.

I’ll say “it’s a wrap” on this particularly posting, having introduced three economic concepts, and there’s of course much more, but these are essential to reorienting the thinking that is killing this country. I hope that you have found this helpful. To summarize:

1. Always analyze the flow of dollars and do not assume anything about the benefit of any particular dollar volume, location or frequency without examining purported benefits and alternatives thoroughly, especially looking for dollar usage that beneficially “sticks” and generates new dollars.
2. Beware of the tyranny of the sum total and wherever possible examine each item, questioning if a better usage or placement of dollars is possible on that “line by line” basis. Use "what if" analysis to generate alternatives for even what one thinks are obvious inherent portions of investment.
3. Genuine free market means the open ended creation of both jobs and skill sets that are wisely discerned and targeted for maximum benefit and both economic and civic worthiness.

When "soul stealing" is not superstition

This post kind of falls into a “thought for the day” topic, though it is specifically about one of my ongoing subjects, which is how did we get into such a freak show society, to put it bluntly. I decided to write about an observation I’ve made for many years now because I think people are receptive to looking at things differently and more clearly.

Most people know from watching old movies the old stereotype about “natives” who first encounter the “white man” with a camera at first fear the camera because the natives believe that it “steals their soul.” (Again, it’s a sad truth that most of people’s knowledge of culture and history, such as it is, comes from the old movies who inadvertently preserved some truth in addition to their purpose of entertainment and escapism.) So yes, it is true that many native people feared cameras because they did believe that it stole the soul. Have you ever thought about the fact that while superstition is, in general, just false beliefs based on “magical thinking,” that this one example of “superstition” has proved out to be startlingly true??

Here is my standard declaimer: I am not about to bash photography or photographers in general and I enjoy good photography and like to snap landscapes myself. But if those of you who are cell phone with camera manufacturers AND those of you in the mainstream media, both entertainment and news, feel a little uneasy about what I’m going to say, you would be showing good instinct.

Let us first look at photography in general when it first came into usage during news reporting. I’d like to talk about one famous photograph, just to work with a familiar example. There was a famous, heart breaking and seminal photograph taken during the Vietnam War of a small girl, naked from her clothes being burned off by USA dropped napalm, screaming as she runs down the street, burned over her body. This is an example of an outstanding photograph because of its capturing of a pivotal truth in Vietnam, which was the brutality of the collateral damage. It also was outstanding because she became a stark representation of the mostly nameless and faceless civilians, and everyone who saw the photograph was correctly shocked and moved. It also was outstanding by the measure of personal photographer skill and luck in combination, as he or she was in the right place at the right time to take an incredible photograph, and do so skillfully. Just about everyone would agree that the photograph of the girl is one of the most important photographs of the century.

But what about her soul? How would you feel if forever and ever you had been defined as being a naked and burned girl running down the street? So obviously I am not saying that her soul was sucked into the photograph. I am asking you to think about what a slippery slope the camera and media have taken people on, reducing the total identity of both public and private figures to one shot, to one image, to one message. You are probably also thinking of the other famous Vietnam photograph, of the kneeling Viet Cong man being shot in the head by the standing South Vietnamese army colonel or whatever. Again, it was one of the most important photographs of the era since it brought into people’s homes what a battlefield and some would argue a crazed and unjust execution looks like, what it really means to “have one’s brains blown out” by a bullet. (Gore fans, it does not actually show that, but the shocking moment when the impact of the bullet causes his head to move and his face to contort). And now, forever, this Viet Cong guy is preserved in a photograph that summarizes his entire life as the moment the bullet hit his brain.

When such “message oriented” photography first became popular, people had only the mainstream TV news channels and the news papers and magazines for their news. So in a way it was a manageable problem and this is why it never occurred to the photograph takers and publishers that perhaps even the greatest photograph has a problem of distilling an entire person’s life and identity into one visual image of trauma and degradation. People would see such a photograph and be shocked, obtain the news or message from its viewing, and then turn off the TV or eventually throw away the newspaper or magazine that published it. So these first early incredible news photographs, often taken in war, had an impact but they as an object of reduction of the individual’s entire life did not linger. One would have to do some research in order to see that photograph again.

But now everything has changed. First of all, we’ve gone from professional photographers to millions of amateurs who want “the money shot.” Now our children are taking naked pictures of themselves and each others and instantly messaging them to each other. Second, instead of naturally encountering sadness or horror, let’s say on the battlefield, or in a crime ridden neighborhood, our children are staging “beat downs” and “bum fights” so that they can film and photograph degradation. Third we have stalkers who photograph their victims and who have no constraint at all. Young people, those of you born too young to remember the times of the camera that needed development, this was how stalkers and perverts were kept in line. People who worked in development centers, far from getting giggles from dirty pictures would turn such film over to the police. This is how we used to be able to stay on top of the perverts who photographed children, or naked neighbors. Decent people were outraged and that’s why we didn’t really have stalking laws in those days: it was very self-regulated. A pervert who photographed his or her naked neighbor, or who stalked children with a camera, was not able to develop his or her own pictures, in general. So the appetite for such behavior was cut in the bud the first time a pervert took his or her pictures in for developing, and ended up getting a visit from the local police, who would personally know the victims. So now, thanks to both the technology and the prurient coarsening of values, we have just about smoothed and paved and enabled the way for everyone to be a pervert, even cultivating those desires in our children. This sort of stuff was kept under control by the lack of enabling technology and by the personal involvement of the decent citizens who would not stand for having such pictures taken of their children, neighbors, family or even acquaintances or strangers. Therefore we now see that victims of child pornography, both professional porn makers and amateurs, have their pictures circulated for years and years, being reduced to “that child” in “that room” “doing that sex act.”

But I am not done yet in my criticism since I’ve only discussed the problem with photography. We now must look with honesty at the entertainment industry and celebrity “PR.” What a vicious circle of negative feedback that has become, doing nothing as noble as even what the early Vietnam War photographs genuinely claimed to be. Actors and actresses run on a hamster wheel, where they do incredibly stupid surgeries to “enhance their looks,” who when that is not enough have standard use of air brushing, pancake makeup and “lighting” to look as “hot” as possible, only to then “dress down” to “get into role” of looking like, you know, the ordinary freaks of society that they are supposedly portraying in their films. It’s viewed as “bold” if someone in a film looks “natural.” Suddenly being larger than a Size 0 dress is “making a statement,” you know solidarity with the unwashed fatsos. So actors and actresses role model doing sick, depraved and false things to their own bodies to look “hot,” and then they use technology to make the resulting images even more impossible to achieve, and THEN they act like they have talent to look like the “ordinary, unbeautiful people.” If that is not a “loss of soul” due to the slavery of the photographer or cinematographer, I don’t know what is. Even more disturbing, then, is the backlash of now defining the “money shot” as being celebrities in “embarrassing poses,” such as blowing their noses (due to colds not cocaine, LOL), wearing something unflattering, or having an unsightly bulge. I’m not even talking about self inflicted disasters, such as scum boyfriends who make and sell personal sex tapes. I’m talking about the expectations of the viewing public, where photography is used to build up and/or tear down a person by making an image that millions view, that lasts and that “defines them” in the triviality of the real or artificial moment. They teach millions of fans and role model to young people the schizophrenic views of themselves, and also by example tell them “not to mind” and instead “work with it.” And then we wonder when our own children use cell phones to be violent stalkers and perverts. These celebrities and their handlers have taught “how to have your soul stolen via photography and cinematography.” There is, however, a difference because the big money making celebrities outlive bad photographs and their poor choices, while the “average person” aspires to be like them, but having to live with the real coarsening and consequences of their willing or unwilling posing.

So now we must look at the whole problem of the film making industry. The problems are so obvious (the violence, the perversion, the boring dismantling of real families and substitution with hip vampire zombies) that I’m not going to discuss them here except in support of my point about the soul stealing nature of photography. Compare the films of the past forty years with the films of prior to that time. As silly as some of the epic films were of the “good old days,” one can actually watch them without having one’s soul stolen. People “back then” were trying to provide entertainment and that’s why it came to be called the entertainment industry. Sure, they wanted to make money too, but in general, despite the celebrity hi-jinks and personal bad decisions, actors and actresses of those times were moving within a stable set of cultural values and did not have an agenda of coarsening and depravity, of either themselves or their audience. Even an old fashioned horror movie tried to scare the viewer with a specific situation, not an implied depressive impending Armageddon that is inevitable and cannot be escaped. Actors and actresses today have used their faces and bodies to “brand” false and depressive soul stealing scenarios that are repeatedly mass marketed and forced upon the public. Even stinker films make money, either overseas or going straight to DVD. They exploit people’s genuine and normal hunger for escapism and entertainment. But knowing that people are constantly hungry, to use an analogy, they teach them to only accept depressive polluted food.

See, in the really olden days, when people used to go to live theater and vaudeville, if you saw something awful once, it may have an impact, but when you walked out the theater you did not take with you a video and an action toy for your children. The liberal and conservative dummies who defend the depravity and depressiveness of the entertainment industry like to point to violent Greek plays, for example, or the opera (even calling science fiction “space opera.”) They imply that violence and depravity were always strong themes in entertainment. Well, um, yeah, duh, but they did not film and photograph them, since the tech did not exist, and so a one time strong “entertainment” experience did not live on forever and ever. People used to walk to observe a street or a stage performance, view it, and leave. That is why even strong entertainment in pre-electronic media times was valid, authentic and self regulated, because the experience was not created and preserved in order to indoctrinate to coarseness and traumatic (or at best mindless) agendas. For the past forty years I have resisted viewing just about every movie for exactly that reason. Folks, I’m not one of the sheep. I know exactly what has been going on all along, and I hate seeing the damage that has been done to two generations now. The unbelievable explicit violence of “realism” that infects even the most worthy of films is excusable. Just when I think, “Oh, here is a great film about a US President that children could learn from and enjoy,” there is an obligatory “body covered with pox sores” scene or “leg being blow off in navy battle” scene. I have a surprise for you. In ancient theater they did not try to make the awfulness of battle, illness or crime as “realistic as possible.” I mean, duh, think about it. It’s entertainment to get away from the hopefully unlikely viewing of some such thing in reality. I don’t need, and my kids certainly would not need, to see puss sores being carved off of a suffering dying boy when they want to see a film about President John Adams. Even if one staged a strong scene in live theater, at least it’s not on film to hold the viewer hostage again and again.

People need entertainment and they need movies. But people are also broken and prone to coarsening and addiction. I do not understand the soul stealing and soul losing decisions of forty years of film (and TV) makers who have a deliberate agenda of imagining themselves as the Vietnam War era prize winning photographer and who instead codify dehumanizing thoughts, feelings and behavior. It is not exactly a coincidence that many who erupt in violent crime watch reinforcing films over and over again. Defenders of the crap in the media try to argue those instances are rare. That is not the point because the point is not the ones who erupt, but the vast majority of the viewing public that have become indoctrinated to depressive, explicit and negative agenda ridden “entertainment.”

Not a day goes by that local news somewhere does not report a young mother, father or “boyfriend of the mother” who doesn’t sexually abuse or just torture and beat the living shit out of a crying helpless baby. Every time comments are allowed, normal people are, of course, enraged. But there are always those who just focus on the “unfit parent” aspect. Well, duh? These are the generation who view a steady diet of people as being unreal, of pain and rage as works of art, as justifiable. So a crying baby enrages these people, and they beat the shit right out of that crying baby. You have two generations now of young people who have been deprogrammed of normal feelings of restraint, self comprehension and empathy. Liberals want to teach “empathy” in the classroom, while they stir the depressive rage and depravity on the “silver screen” and on the TV. In Boston an aunt has been arrested for beating her niece, including stuffing frozen hot dogs up her vagina. Everyone makes excuses for individual “drowning” such as this without admitting that the past two generations have been already swimming in the tidal tsunami of dehumanizing depressive sewage called “entertainment.” That’s not being “realistic” and it’s not being “edgy.” I don’t even go to the movies yet I cannot avoid knowing the “big scenes,” you know, like sexual ejaculation being in the hair of an actor or actress, and that is in a “light comedy.” Or, are you really so blind and not self aware that you do not see the correlation between endless mortuary, CSI and "slab" scenes of "forensic" entertainment and the ability of a young man or woman to take that stupid demanding ugly crying baby and bash every rib, poke out her eyes, and just get her to shut the hell up? Fill a person with rage and teach them that humans are props, and that is what you have as a result, just look around and stop denying for the sake of your craving of false power and money.

So those unsophisticated and naïve quaint natives were not so far off base when they feared the camera as being soul stealing. It’s been done.