Jihad and the Meeting of Cultures

Jihad for me is walking into the Mesjid. As an American, it is a good exercise for me to see the things which are deeply wrong with my culture. They aren't easy to miss. However, walking into the Moscow Islamic Center, I can't help but remember the deeper problems which the many cultures which have embraced Islam have. This is despite the vast strength and profound benefits which I believe Islam has to offer the world. (I must believe this, or I wouldn't have decided to become a Muslim.)

Islamic-culture problems like inferior treatment of women, sexual violence, a kind of "culture nazi" view of shariah, hiding in the closet in Western cultures, conflating religion and politics (sometimes to the point of violence), are easy to spot for an American observer. Part of this is because these problems are emphasized by the media. Part of this, though, is that these problems quite obviously exist. And I can't deny that. And that is why walking into the Mesjid is jihad for me.

As I journey through the world of being a Muslim, I see a great deal of hope and offering in the religion of Islam. I believe it is the best religion in the world. But it's always difficult for me to walk into the Mesjid, knowing my staunch unwillingness to discard my Stetson cowboy hat as a North Idaho Libertarian, nor to set aside my uniquely American beliefs about the world. I am an American. And I hold a far less cynical view of American culture than many of my Muslim sisters and brothers.

This makes the Eid al-Fitr gatherings and the public worship very difficult for me. Sometimes, I decide just to pray at home. It's too frightening to go to the Mosque. I willingly adopt the ideology which France would jam down my throat — I keep my religion private. I realize it is difficult particularly for my Muslim brothers, too. At first, I was hurt by the marked lack of "Aslaam-o-alikum" greetings at the local Eid al-Fitr feast. But then, upon reflection, I realized that a lot of the people there probably didn't know I was a Muslim. And, quite reasonably, they were afraid of me; a North-Idahoan wearing a Stetson cowboy hat is not someone an Arab Muslim immigrant wants to piss off. I don't want to make things this difficult for these Muslims, but I have to.

Why do I have to? Because of the ease at which the 12-year-old Pakistani Muslim came up behind me, said "Aslaam-o-alikum," and shook my hand. He treated me as a true brother: with a child's courage, undaunted by the baggage of Islamic-American relations. He will return to Pakistan with a positive view of North-Idahoans wearing cowboy hats, which insha'Allah has tremendous impact on the world's path towards peace.

Muhammad (sallallahu aleyhi wa salaam) said that the second best deed for a Muslim to do, just below belief in Allah (subhana wa t'alla) and His prophets. So I suppose I still, with the help of the more courageous of my Muslim brothers, will visit the Mesjid. Sometimes, with my punk-Libertarian upbringing, my Islamic-Buddhist beliefs, and my Stetson cowboy hat, I feel like my very existence is an act of jihad. But I have to do it. Because I feel I have a positive contribution to make. I hope, earnestly, that all these things help.

Eid Mubarrak.

**Note: Saying Islam is the best religion in the world in no way invalidates my Buddhist perspective. Buddhism has religious aspects, which I believe are Islam — or, at the very least, if you want to get technical, they are proto-Islamic. But primarily, Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a system of mind-yoga which leads to truth, including religious truth, which was formulated as a radical contre-puntal to Hindu yoga. Buddhism is a philosophical mind-training technique and world-outlook, not so much a religion.

On the Legitimacy of Israel as a State

I questioned, in a Facebook post, the legitimacy of Israel's self-proclaimed right to exist. It seems to me, anyway, that God did not give Israel to the Jews, but rather England did. And I think Palestine is the main test of Israel's right to exist.

The way Israel is treating the Palestinians is not justifiable. Israel isolates them from the outside world. It would be better if the Palestinians could leave, or become a part of Israel. But this is impossible. Why? Because Israel sees it in their best interests to isolate them. The problem, of course, is that the Palestinians probably have a more legitimate claim to that land than Israel.

Israel is forced to battle Palestine. Peace is impossible for them. Why? Because if they make peace, the Arab states will take advantage of a weak stance and attack Israel one way or another. I believe this is the case. Also, I believe that there are Arab states who might ultimately win in the conflict (if peace were made) which are worse states than Israel. States like Syria.

But really, all this is a battle more for the State of Israel than for anyone else. Israel was founded on questionable principles. The right of an ethnic-based State to be formed by an external oppressor because it's in the Bible is questionable. The right of any ethnic-based state to be formed is questionable. If Israel has any shred of legitimacy to its existence, I think the true test will be Palestine. Also, I think Israel fully realizes this, which is why they are in so much trouble about it.

Israel has very few options. They can't exterminate the Palestinians. They can't let them emigrate to Israel or elsewhere. They can't make peace with them. They can't fight them too hard. They can't fight them too soft. There are no choices for them. And the way they behave in Palestine is very similar to the way a failing regime behaves when its legitimacy comes into question. They imprison people without cause, place them in concentration camps, incite violence to legitimize violence, spend more money on security than research, and so forth. I've never been to Palestine, but from what I've read of the situation there, it's like a concentration camp. It's very similar to psychiatry. A failing regime grasping at straws to ward off its inevitable defeat.

I've had experience living in a concentration camp kind of existence. And when you're inside the concentration camp, sometimes it's a difficult decision you have to make whether to threaten or use violence or not. Because sometimes an oppressor will only respond to violence. This is a fact. I had to threaten to stab hospital wards with a pen in order to force them to bring food to my seclusion room. The decision was part of a long series of pressures I put on them (this one being the only truly violent one), which probably resulted in enough food to survive. Barely.

But oppressors all ultimately act the same. They inevitably spend all their energy on bolstering security rather than gaining knowledge or helping people. This is why fewer and fewer people choose to be psychiatrists: the pay really isn't very good, the training is exhausting, and the fact that they will be pigeonholed into an existence where they must oppress people every day really makes it hard. Why is the pay not so good? Probably because psychiatry prisons are locked down tighter than military compounds. They spend all their money on more and more traumatic seclusion rooms, rather than actually helping people, or gaining knowledge. Why don't they spend money on knowledge? Because as research comes out about psychiatry, it shows them that they're all doing it wrong; that psychiatry is an illegitimate institution.

And the fact that these oppressors act the same, when they're not bolstered by an external oppressive force, indicates that they all eventually cannibalize themselves in the end. So the smartest strategy for someone who is NOT living in a concentration camp system is non-violence. It is to put political pressure on the oppressors, forcing them to cannibalize themselves, without resorting to violence, and thereby legitimizing their oppression. The problem comes when your motivation is bad. People with bad motivation will collect up these victims of oppression and pray on their sufferings to the point of inciting them to violence. It will legitimize both oppressors, until they go to war and one oppressor is defeated. All oppressors act the same.

In a lot of ways, America is behaving the same way. But I'm not sure that the outcome for any of these oppressors is set in stone. I feel America will survive. America is a legitimate state with a troubled history of oppression. That's how I feel. But in order to survive, America has to do soul searching. This is what is happening with the Occupy / Tea Party movements. This is happening internally within the Republican Party, I'm aware, and may also be happening in the Democratic Party. Obama has made surprising decisions, such as the decision following the will of the people not to go to war with Syria. Even this decision may have been a mistake, but it's an example of soul searching.

The problem for Israel is that I'm not sure they have the luxury to be able to do soul searching, surrounded as they are by all these Arab states who do not believe in their right to exist. America is a world superpower, very rich, and having the most powerful military in the world. We can do soul searching. Allowing Israel to do soul searching for the benefit of Palestinians, unfortunately, is not very much on the to-do list for these Arab states. A lot of them are very authoritarian, and rely on strong security forces. And the problem is, these security states require some kind of propaganda to keep their publics supportive of the current regimes. Palestine is a good propaganda point for any dictator in a Muslim majority state.

So really, the right for Israel to exist is less of a test for Israel as it is a test for Arab Muslims. Are these Muslims going to point to the passages in the Qur'an which say that Jews will be hiding behind rocks and the rocks will tell them to kill them? While conveniently ignoring the passages enjoining us not to dispute with the People of the Book except by means better than mere disputation? Or are these Muslims going to work to promote more and more functional democracies at home, so they can deal with Israel intelligently? This is the test. Arabs as a nation have a right to exist on their own land, of course, but many of their states, I feel, are as illegitimate as Israel's or more so. The fate of Israel rests on the fate of Palestine. And the fate of Palestine, and Palestinians, I feel, rests on the ability for Arab Muslims to combat oppression in their own states so they can restrain their own militants from attacking Israel, and allow Israel to sort out its right to existence on its own. If Israel is purely an oppressor, the more it becomes isolated from support from the outside, the more they will cannibalize themselves. If not, they will survive, and peace will prevail.

Degenerate Times

I think it is important to note a couple of things about Buddhist prophesies. First and foremost, a prophesy is not a death sentence. We in the West are so particular about details that we often think of prophesy in the strictest possible terms. Thus, we see it as equally prophetic if Buddha prophesizes that we will live to be 10, as if I or someone prophesizes that my dog will eat a bagel at 2pm Eastern Standard Time next Monday before taking a walk. But Allah is greater than that. We can't simply confine prophesy to strictly worldly terms without any room for freedom of choice.

The two prophesies I would like to mention are Buddhist prophesies: the prophesy of degenerate times, which I believe dates back to the Buddha himself, and the Kalachakra prophesy.

In the prophesy of degenerate times, it is prophesied that our life-span will degenerate gradually over the next thousand or so years until we live to be only 10 years old. Then, there will be a 7 Days War, which of course will last seven days. It is said that the slaughter will be so great that afterwards humans will be so rare that when they encounter one another, they will kiss each other on the mouth. And after this 7 Days War, people will be so profoundly affected by the killing that they will vow never to kill again, at which point the life-span will increase to 14 years.

Gradually, over the period of a couple thousand years, people will renounce evil after evil, and the life-span will increase until it reaches 80,000 again, which is what it was before people began to degenerate. To this, I will add a couple of senses of my own: people I think will be drinking Boyds Coffee, and some will be doing Yamantaka practice. Those were what have been revealed to me through valid cognition and observation.

Now, there are a couple things to note here. As I said: a prophesy is not a death sentence. If someone were to ask me to sum up my philosophy while standing on one foot, I would tell them: it is possible to use the energy of degeneration to one's advantage. That is the prime focus of everything I've been seeking to expound upon for my entire life, and I suspect insh'Allah it will be until I die. I can't imagine me trying to teach anything else, what with my peculiar experiences. And it is an important fact.

All prophesies, including the most damning, are empty of inherent existence. So on some level, we don't know fully what they are talking about. Will the Earth be a desolate wasteland, devoid of life, after the 7 Days War? Will it be like the movie Mad Max taken to an absolute extreme? I contend no. The prophesy, I think, applies mainly to humans qua humans. It does not apply to humans qua yakshas, humans qua nagas, humans qua devas, and humans qua Buddhas. In addition to this, the prophesy applies only generally. People will probably live to be as old as maybe 30, or even older, during these times. And while human-to-human contact may be rare, a survivor human may well encounter many nagas, devas, and Buddhas in his or her quest to find other humans. The Earth will not be a desolate wasteland, but will remain rich with life. This is my opinion.

Furthermore, we have to understand an important point regarding degeneration. It is not our fault that we will live to be only 10 years old. And, we will still have brain technology as is being developed even today to make our lives more meaningful. A wandering 10-year-old after the 7 Days War may well make contact with another human over Facebook telepathically using brain technology.

The other point regarding degeneration leads into my discussion of the Kalachakra prophesy. According to this prophesy, in India, a Muslim will rise to power and claim to be the heir of an Islamic prophesy. A vast force, led by Buddha Manjushri, will then descend from the heavens, engage in holy warfare with this Muslim and his followers, and defeat them. After this, all non-Indic invaders will be routed from India, and humanity will begin to recover from the degenerate times.

As you can see, the two prophesies are related. They both refer to the point at which society ceases to degenerate. The relation is important, because it points to the very heart of the nature of degeneration. I recently became a Muslim, in addition to being a Buddhist, and my intent is to learn the very heart of this religion, as it is important to me. (I have had more intimate connection with many more Buddhas through Islam than through all my 15 years as a Buddhist.) Obviously, then, I am against the view that the Kalachakra prophesy prophesizes the downfall and defeat of Islam. But I don't think the prophesy is inauthentic.

From what I've observed of Muslims today, the ongoing trend seems to be that while they are practicing their religion, they are subtlely involved in what I would call "the cult of the white water." Ordinary water, as a metaphysical substance, is a metaphor for emptiness. In other words, emptiness is like water. It dissolves all things. It is clear. Many creatures live in it. It is vast as the sea. It forms rain. It carves mountains. And so forth. But what color is water? Well, ultimately, water is clear. However, it is also very highly correct to say that water is white. When it freezes, it is white. As it moves about, it froths at the tips of waves, and reflects lights, and ends up becoming white.

Muslims want to be like white water. They want to purify themselves to the utmost extent, become fully distilled of every little stain, and rub themselves clean all the time. They want to be at the tips of the waves, reaching into the void. But one thing they may perhaps overlook is that water is also black. It is equally correct to say water is black as it is to say it is white. Why? When water is gathered together densely in one place, if you peer into its depths, it is black. In a way, water is as black as it is white, but no less pure.

The West, for myriad historical reasons, seems to be deeply involved in "the cult of the black water." The West likes to examine physical things to their depths and uncover their deepest secrets. It also is far less concerned with purity, and riding the tips of waves, seeking to deeply immerse itself into physical phenomena.

What happens when "the cult of the white water" meets "the cult of the black water?" The result is the 7 Days War, which will culminate in at least some small realization that really, water is clear. It may manifest as white, or as black. But ultimately, it is clear. Following this, I suspect life will be much like the famous Andy Warhol movie Chelsea Girls: one side black, one side white. And the result will be purity. Clarity.

I suspect that with regards to the Kalachakra prophesy, Western countries, particularly the United States of America, will play a very important role with regards to the cult of the black water, in answer to India's cult of the white water. Manjushri, in my opinion, will probably come from America.

It is not good to become overly involved in either the cult of the white water or the cult of the black water, because water is clear. However, recognizing and honoring water manifesting as black or white, or as rainbows, and so forth, is important. Light refracted in water, or reflected, or absorbed, still remains light. And ultimately, we are beings of light. My ideas, as they stand now, have to do with blackness. I feel this is important, because too many people are overly concerned with white, while we have a natural tendency to avoid blackness. This is a mistake.

It is a human mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and as equally dangerous as any mistake, potentially costing real people their lives. I suspect that today many people in Pakistan are dying unnecessarily because overly religious Islamic zealots want their society to be pristinely pure and white in color. The Taliban won't let people listen to music, or make art, or do pretty much anything, because they want to wear robes of white. It is so dangerous to be a Muslim today, I feel, because of the resistance to experiencing Western society, which is the dominant and globalized form of society in the world today. I'm worried that concern with issues such as playing music, or drawing representative art, will condemn foreign muslims to poverty and powerlessness. Why? Because it is impossible to move the hearts and minds of the people without making movies, and you can't make movies without drawing pictures and writing music. Period.

Purity is important, but it is not that important. We have to remember that good Muslims are like doctors, and that they do not come to the healthy, but to the sick. And anyway, it is impossible to be one hundred percent pure. Frankly, the fact that the religious people most concerned with purity are the ones who do the most damage convinces me that purity is sometimes a worse evil than sin. If this isn't true, then why are so many terrorists going around calling themselves Boko Haram? The lesson from this is what I consider to be my most important and, hopefully, enduring contribution to moral knowledge everywhere. This is why, I'm certain, I have lived my life. And there is far greater to share and more contributions as well. I'm not always the best at keeping the faith, but I hope my message has reached at least some people in the right way. That is my wish.

The Super-Rich Are More Rich than They Need to Be

Society is degenerating, partly because people who could be accumulating wealth if given the opportunity do not have the opportunity. This is because money is being syphoned to the super-rich, instead of growing among the poor and middle-class. The very wealthy accumulate wealth without regard for the greater good of the economy, which is becoming more and more suitable for small businesspeople.

However, part of the problem is the attitude of the poor and middle-class. Throughout my life, I've observed the attitude of others with regards to changing the world. With rare exception, everyone I've come across simply has no wish to change the world. I don't know if this is because public school beats it out of them, or if it is because of a hereditary attitude that has been promulgating itself since the time when people would be hanged, crucified, or burned for trying to change the world, or perhaps if it is just a personal lack of conviction in their own ideas. Whatever it is, I think it is a problem. Part of the reason the rich can get away with accumulating wealth that should've been ours is because 99% of people are at a loss for what to do with extra wealth when they get it. Maybe a new home theater system. A Winnebago. A trip to the Bahamas. Start a business? Make a film? No, no. That is for people who want to change the world.

The super-rich are going to become more meaningless over time, because our cultural consciousness and economy are becoming decentralized, making centralized wealth less important. But what will replace our major corporations if nobody wants to change the world? They will be replaced with a bunch of mindless sheep begging to be invaded by people with the chutzpah to actually do things. I hear complaints about how Americans aren't accumulating wealth like they used to. I complain about that, because I tend to get stuck in the economic doldrums spending all the money I get on rent and utilities. But I complain about it because I actually have ambitions to change the world, which cannot be realized without extra wealth. Unfortunately, I'm a minority. Most people could care less about accumulating extra wealth, because they are more concerned with living comfortably and quietly smothering themselves with their own down pillows.

I don't care if you want to be a follower rather than a leader. We need followers just as much as we need leaders. All I ask is that if you are going to be a follower, at least try to follow people who are changing the world, rather than just paying a salary. Follow people who challenge you. Follow people who reward enterprise and good decisions. Follow people with a conscience, and with vision. To survive, society needs to constantly change. And it won't change unless we change it. People who refuse to change the world, even if they're not natural leaders, aren't doing anyone any favors.

Mainstreamology (Or: Why I'm Committed to Being an Indy Filmmaker As Opposed to Hollywood)

The idea of being mainstream has a different conceptual geometry than independent. Consequently, I don't believe that independent people will ever become mainstream, nor will mainstream people become independent, at least not without giving up their former status as independent or mainstream respectively. The two are mostly mutually exclusive. Here's why.

When you make a choice to become mainstream or independent, you choose to adopt something and discard something. Choosing to become mainstream means you adopt quantity of audience and discard unity within the individual. Choosing to become independent means you adopt unity within the individual and discard either money or the thing which brings it—quantity of audience.

Unity within the individual can be seen as vertical. Quantity of audience, of course, is horizontal. Thus we have independent movies, for instance, which are very deep. The word "deep" is not a misnomer: they're deep because each idea expressed in them was very personal to the artist, and thus touches the artist very deeply. Unfortunately, what this means is that the artist cannot and will not be accessible right away to anyone who does not already think like the artist. That is why quantity of audience is sacrificed. It isn't because the artist is unwilling to make money, it's because the artist's commitment to him- or herself as an artist is greater than his or her commitment to money.

Hollywood movies, on the other hand, are made for the purpose of garnering a large quantity of audience, and also money. What this means, of course, is that the movie must resonate on some level with a large number of people, many of whom think very differently about just about everything. This is why Hollywood movies are so very collaborative. Hollywood is a business. People are measured by the amount they cause something to sell. And causing something to sell is determined not by how much you listen to your soul, but by how much you listen to other people. This is why Hollywood likes the apprentice system—climbing the Hollywood corporate ladder starting as a prop boy means you listened very carefully to a large number of salaried employees for decades, and now you know how to make money.

This is where it gets interesting. Observe: listening to your soul and listening to others are both virtuous. But they're different and complementary kinds of virtues. This means that it's possible and even desirable for two people to be in the same room, one of whom is very adept at listening to his own soul and the other very adept at listening to others, and for both of these people to be very virtuous, not lacking a whit in virtue. Obviously, if they both were film directors, the former would probably be an independent film director, and the latter a Hollywood director. The former would also probably sustain himself on a second source of income, while the latter may bring in millions of dollars. This is the natural way of things.

It is possible, though very rare, for an independent movie to make it big. But this will only happen one of two ways. Either 1) some big name with a lot of influence is somehow touched by the film because it speaks personally to her, and she uses her influence to manufacture an audience for it, or 2) it just so happens serendipitously and inexplicably to strike a nerve with a large number of people, probably in a way that the director and others making it could never have foreseen.

This creates a difficulty for directors in both camps (independent and Hollywood). Hollywood directors sometimes decide they want to be more independent, and independent directors very often want to be mainstream. But I wouldn't recommend expending too much energy in either respective direction. Hollywood directors should stick to Hollywood, and independent directors should stick to independence. Hollywood directors who try to be independent don't often succeed. Though there's no harm in making a foray into independent production, there's also no harm in sticking to Hollywood. I'm not saying that introspection as a spiritual quality is bad for Hollywood directors, but rather that introspection will probably just make you a better Hollywood director rather than a truly independent voice. Likewise, a foray into Hollywood may be great for an established independent director. But the "boulevard of broken dreams" is filled with people who unwisely tried to take on Hollywood while remaining true to their idiosyncratic independent commitments. And the idiosyncratic directors who make it big in Hollywood are never truly accepted as independent voices by the people whose opinions in this regard really matter.

Note that these ideas, I think, can be extended to every area where the independent vs. mainstream dichotomy applies, which is pretty much everywhere. Thus, in politics, we have people like Senator Bernie Sanders and former Senator Hillary Clinton. The Clintons are very mainstream, while Sanders is very independent. They're both good at what they do. But I don't think either of them could or would want to switch places. The fact of the matter is, if you want to be mainstream, you're going to have to cater to mainstream opinions as much as possible. And if you want to be independent, you're probably better off in the House of Representatives. Obama may be an "independent," but he got lucky. (This is, of course, my perspective as a lifelong independent-minded Democrat who voted twice for Obama.) (It's important to note, also, the reason why this political perspective is important. People often get the mistaken idea that being an independent voice is ipso facto better than being mainstream, most vehemently, I think, in the realm of politics. But this is not true, and nobody I've talked to seems to have the slightest hint as to why it isn't true. It's not true not because compromise is good, or because sincerity comes from introspection or long-held ideals. It's not true because either you're good at being mainstream, or you're good at being independent, or you're mediocre at both. There's really no middle ground here.)

Being independent requires a specific type of mind, as does being mainstream. Neither should switch spots too often. As far as filmmaking goes, the independents have a long history of very intriguing and high-quality art films which people should try to watch. Independents should, and probably do, study these. Hollywood directors, on the other hand, have a long history of films of equal but different quality. Hollywood was conceived as epic ("Birth of a Nation") and because of the Depression, they took on the role of national cultural therapists. I love independent art films, but they don't make me cry. Hollywood almost always does—even the low-quality low-art films. The problem is, I don't always want to cry about the state of our country. Sometimes, I need fulfillment in other areas. I'm sure that many other people feel the same, and this is why we need both the independents and the Hollywood folks.

Bottom line: stick to what you're good at. Hollywood directors: it's better to make people cry with low-art movies than go broke making independent films. Independents: it's better to blow people's minds with simple, low-budget, high-art films than go broke trying to make an action flick which you intend to sell to an uninterested Hollywood exec. An "independent" Hollywood film will leave the true art critics gasping for air (in a bad way). A "Hollywood" independent flick will run you out of business (and leave the true art critics gasping for air, in a bad way). Don't do it; stick to what you're good at. It's better that way.

A Modest and Measured Defense of Freemasonry

Now it is possible, according to certain logical arguments involving ethical uncertainty (i.e. "you don't know what you're getting into" arguments), to argue that joining a secret society (for everyone) is an unethical act. I actually have a fairly specific and well-founded argument for this. However, that's not the purpose of this post.

Interestingly enough, this post is actually in defense of Freemasonry (and therefore, by extension, the choice to join the Freemasons). My motivations for this I'll save for later. More important, right now, is the argument. Freemasonry, I'm fairly certain, is among the class of things of which it is capable of being objective. (Despite their secrets.) And I think, despite the fact that I'm not a Freemason, in this socio-political climate it's a good idea to make a measured defense of Freemasonry. Or, at least, to ward off a couple of specific attacks leveled against it.

There are all sorts of attacks against Freemasonry which propose a lot of hogwash. For instance, that they're trying (or have succeeded) in enslaving humanity. The less disturbing form of this argument is that they are actively involved in conspiratorial acts. However, there is no evidence of this whatsoever. No one has ever, to my knowledge, produced a single bit of evidence that they were trying to overthrow or control the government, with the exception, of course, of the American revolution itself. However, it's quite a stretch to call this a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of nation building. And it's a little hypocritical for the people who level this argument, as they often do, to go on and defend the constitution, Democracy, and even ordinary workings of the United States Government in its natural (noncorrupted) state.

The more disturbing form of this argument is what I would call a conspiracy theory. (As opposed to what I stated above, which is not a theory, but a hypothesis.) A theory is defined as an understanding of the workings of a studied thing based on empirically observed principles which lead to predictable results. A conspiracy theory, as I understand it, is a specific sort of theory involving the workings of a studied thing (generally the United States or even the world or universe itself) which postulates a conspiracy as one of the central principles governing its predicted behavior. Thus we get the schizophrenic ramblings of deluded people who say things like, "The Illuminati are the darkest of the dark forces of nature, a demon who has been around since the beginning of time, physically incarnated here on Earth, for the purpose of controlling the light of wisdom and keeping everybody in the dark." This is subtlely different than a conspiracy hypothesis. Hypotheses generally have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's what makes them testable. Principles, on the other hand, which are constituent to theories, are generally not really testable. That's why we say that theories are statistically reliable, as opposed to fundamentally true.

Conspiracy theories are disturbing because it is impossible to postulate a change in a theory. Theories may be true or false, but they pretty much don't change. The only way in which they change is by being elaborated upon, or built upon. Therefore, if you really believe in conspiracy theory, as a theory (and not merely a tentative hypothesis), that implies that the situation you're proposing is fundamentally unchangeable. Which further implies that any fight against evil is ultimately futile. Now perhaps this belief is the result of racial trauma from when the Anglo Saxons had a pagan belief system in which evil ultimately triumphed over good, so perhaps it's understandable. But it certainly isn't true. And anyway, blaming a particular group for being a constituent of this kind of a theory is totally ridiculous, and honestly, it says more about you then it does about them.

Now it may be reasonable to say, "Nathan, let's look at the evidence." Okay, fair enough. I've given the statement of negative evidence, that there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an institution is reprehensible, which in our legal system anyway, is enough to exonerate the accused. Nevertheless, it might be good to examine the positive evidence, since I have to a small degree, informally, studied The Craft. What exactly is Freemasonry? From what I understand, it is a moral philosophy based on a certain set of principles. Central to Freemasonry is the allegory of Hiram Abiff, who was according to legend the chief architect of the Temple of Solomon. He was murdered, the legend goes, by three workers who wanted access to secrets so they could gain a higher status. However, they repented, and prayed for death, at which point they were killed by King Solomon. Apparently this is central to the initiation rites or rituals of Craft Freemasons. It is said by Masonic scholars that this story is constituent of an understanding of the universe: that we are all separated from God, and that the ultimate divine knowledge has been cut off from us, but that we may yet have some chance of obtaining divine light through the use of our intellectual capacities as human beings. Frankly these ideas don't contradict anything in any Abrahamic religion, so they should come as no surprise. The story may be similar in some respects to a conspiracy theory, in that it postulates that the workings of the universe involve a conspiracy. But subtle distinctions are important. If you recall, a conspiracy theory involves a conspiracy as an active constituent of the universe: it is a conspiracy which has been present since the beginning of time and is yet continuing. This story, however, involves a conspiracy which has already been completed. It isn't the conspiracy which is constituent of the workings of the universe, but the effects of the conspiracy. In my opinion, as an archetype, it reflects the belief that our sufferings are the result of previous conspiracies which we are working to repair. The fact that it happened may be permanent, but the karmic results of the conspiracy nevertheless are not, as implied by the "glimmering light in the East" (the fourth section of the Temple of Solomon which was not guarded by one of the murderers of Hiram Abiff). As an archetype, it is merely the acknowledgement that conspiracies exist; that suffering exists; that self-condemnation exists. It goes no further than that. Unless, of course, I am mistaken. And in any case, such a story and understanding of the universe in no way implies any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Masons. If a Freemason, perchance, were to engage in a conspiracy, it is probable that they would be considered as equal to the party who killed Abiff, and worthy of contempt.

So much for Craft Masonry. One might say that while, perhaps, the Craft Masons are not part of "the conspiracy," they are in fact low ranking Masons, and that if we really want to get the culprits, we should look at the Templars. But, again, there is no evidence that the Templars are conspirators. Unfortunately, I know very little about the content of the rituals of this group but for one piece of historical evidence. If memory serves me right, Aleister Crowley had a run-in with the Templars when he was forming his secret society, the Ordo Templi Orientis (the Thelemites). Some of the initiation rites he composed apparently infringed on the intellectual property of the Scottish Rite (Templars), as it was too similar to one of their own. After some correspondence, Crowley rewrote most of the rituals. Since Crowley was principally interested in the occult, this leads me to suspect that whatever the Templars profess, it has something to do with the occult. (Otherwise, why would Crowley even approach the subject?) However, this is hardly conclusive, and not very important anyway.

The real evidence I'd like to consider is the historical / circumstantial evidence. The Knights Templar was formed by the Poor Knights of Solomon, who were a militant group of Catholics who participated in the Crusades. From what I hear, they were ordered to travel all over the place in the Holy Land. Some have postulated that this is because they were searching for the holy grail, or some other magical object. Whatever the case, they made the decision to flee from the Holy Land, declare themselves Freemasons (who were at that time a challenge to the power of the Catholic Church), and establish themselves in Scotland. Now it could be that they actually found the holy grail, and that their intent was an occult, magical dominance of this Planet Terra. But I find it far more likely that the sight of Jerusalem drenched in blood so deep you had to wade through it really hit home, and they had some kind of realization of the futility of the Crusades, or perhaps of war in general, and decided to form a loyal opposition to the Catholic Church.

And even if they were involved in the occult, it is certain that the Catholic Church was also involved in the occult. The difference is that while the Catholic Church has always been involved in occult domination of a purely intellectual nature, the fact that the Scottish Rite declared themselves Freemasons (stoneworkers), and the general understanding of particularly British philosophies involving empiricism and rationality over subjective intellectualism, it is quite probable to my way of thinking that the occult commitments of the Scottish Rites involve a declaration of defense for Mother Earth. With the Catholic Church ordering people to perform insanely expensive occultist acts (such as moving gigantic Egyptian obelisks around), the same sort of superstitious nonsense which led to the extinction of the people of Easter Island, I could see, even at the time of the Crusades, a basic understanding that this sort of behavior, or even at least some aspects of the philosophy behind it, is simply unsustainable.

So now, let's sum up. We have, in our midst, people who believe in a conspiracy hypothesis but have no evidence, demanding justice for crimes while having a lower standard of evidence than the criminal justice system they so vocally oppose. Either that, or they believe in a deep conspiracy, which somehow involves Freemasonry, and yet, from what I've described, any evidence for what Freemasonry actually is declares that such a theory is unacceptable. Which means that not only are these theories in no way about Freemasonry, but they also do not even reflect any evils which are fundamental to Freemasonry (at least, according to the evidence). As stated, Craft Masonry does in fact involve conspiracy in a deep way. But, ironically, anyone who adopts a conspiracy theory is expressing their own belief in the part of Masonic morality which is fundamentally reprehensible. Which implies that the conspiracy theorists are themselves THE Masonic conspiracy. This is why it's so important, I think, to make the right distinctions, even the subtle ones, as often as you are able. Otherwise, frankly, whatever the problem is, your ideas are not the solution.

As for my motivation: it's really quite simple. I have Freemasons in my family, as well as occultists. And I support the Occupy movement, as well as Tibetan Buddhism. I also (I think) have at least some understanding of Freemasonry—at least the general ideas. I therefore get a little perturbed when I see anti-Masonic sentiment within those movements and spiritual philosophies (i.e. Occupy, anti-psychiatry, and Tibetan Buddhism) I support. I am not a Freemason myself, so I honestly see no pressing need to defend Freemasonry (other than in a modest defense of my family). More pressing, however, is the need to defend the social movements I believe in from idiocy. Particularly, I'd like to avoid the people wherever they may be who claim to defend Mother Earth but do nothing to defend the people who may actually defend Mother Earth, who believe in doing occult magic but hate the people who probably do magic (and the ones who certainly do magic), and who profess a belief in a Supreme Being but reject every single philosophy and religion in the history of mankind who actually professes a monotheistic belief. I find this kind of mindset a little annoying.

The Era of Great Pain

It is possible that we are entering an era of great pain. This is an era where:

• Every concert is a "recreational activity."
• Every day of work is a "job."
• Every formal learning experience is an "education."
• Every animal is a "pet."
• Every blog post is "self-expression."
• Every tennis match is a "hobby."
• Every computer is a "computer."
• Every piece of food is "food."

Every hallelujah is cold and broken. Every experience is psychological. Every activity is a behavior. And every dissenter is "mentally ill."

Look. Concerts are NOT "recreational activities." They are LIFE. In short, everything is pain. And "living in the moment" has lost all meaning apart from forgetting everything, as though the phrase holds little more promise than recreational drug use.

Work is not a "job." It is LIFE.

Learning experiences are not "education." They are LIFE.

Animals are not "pets." They are LIFE.

Blog posts are not "self-expression." They are LIFE.

Tennis matches are not "hobbies." They are LIFE.

Computers are not "computers." They are LIFE.

Food is not "food." It is LIFE.

We cannot go on as though everything is meaningless. We simply can't continue as a species if everything is trivial and forgettable. NO. Every experience should be profound and meaningful. We MUST take every form of being, doing, experience, and so forth AS SERIOUSLY AS THOUGH OUR LIVES AND THE ETERNAL SALVATION OF OUR SOULS DEPENDED ON IT. When we feel upset, or when we need a little pick-me-up, we cannot simply say, "Recreational activities help pick me up. I should choose a recreational activity that will pick me up. I think I'll go to a concert."

I can't think of any more meaningless thing we could possibly ever think. It is absolutely cynical and wrong. We should NEVER think like that. We should go to a concert because it will ROCK OUR WORLD, or we shouldn't go at all. We should get a job because it will FUNDAMENTALLY IMPACT EVERYTHING, or we shouldn't get a job at all. We should eat food because it will ALLOW US TO COMPLETELY REJUVENATE THE WORLD, or we should eat red-hot balls of iron. There is no excuse. Either you're part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

If you're part of the problem, you're part of the Great Pain. You'll do nothing but cause everyone around you great pain. If you can't enjoy life, GTFO.

The evil of the machine thrives on insecurity. We feel we have to be "hip enough to be square." But there is NOTHING that makes life more beautiful than insecurity. And if we can't recognize that, then we should demolish all the Universities. We should set fire to all the schools and libraries. We should forbid all scientific and academic inquiry. Because all it will do is make the human race more cynical, more painful, and more evil.

Science is for risk-takers. Knowledge is for risk-takers. Comfort is for risk-takers. Otherwise it is the purest form of curse. And I believe our society is currently cursing itself. I wish EVERYONE would take a moment to LIVE IN THE MOMENT—which, properly understood, means NOT forgetting everything, but THROWING AWAY scientific knowledge, security, money, food, computers, "recreational activities," "jobs," "education," as UTTERLY MEANINGLESS, and living completely in the state where it is possible that the world will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've trained for will DISAPPEAR. That everything you've worked for and earned will DISAPPEAR. And you should live the rest of your life that way.

Ironically, if you don't do that, it would be better if it DID disappear, because all it will cause is Great Pain.

Cloud, Entrepreneur, Cloud

A couple of weeks ago, I started working at a place called Brick and Mortar, here in Moscow. Working not in the sense that I have a job, but in the actual sense of the word—I work here. Anything, including writing this post, which I consider "work," I tend to do here. Another kind of work I can do here, which I haven't yet done but which I intend to do, is contract through a service called oDesk.com. Both of these platforms—B&M and oDesk—are related in a deeply philosophical way, which I will examine below.

Let's start with Brick and Mortar. B&M is advertised as a community workspace, or a co-working space. But these concepts don't really get to the heart of the matter. "Community workspace" is especially far off. I might be able to see it as meaning that it is both a community and a workspace, but the lexico-grammatical meaning of the phrase seems to indicate that it is exactly what it says: a "community workspace," where "community" is an adjective and "workspace" is a noun. And "community" as an adjective indicating "this workspace is a community" is a very esoteric reading of the word indeed. More likely, it indicates that B&M is a workspace intended for use by the general community, which isn't quite right.

But even if the esoteric reading is correct, and B&M chooses to market themselves as a workspace which is a community, or workspace community, I still think this misses the mark. The library is a workspace community. The University of Idaho is a workspace community. Hell, every single business in America is a workspace community. It just doesn't seem to do the idea justice.

So I propose a new way of thinking about it.

B&M is not just a workspace community, but a specific kind of community. Now I'm going to draw my inspiration from one particular office here. It is a more or less typical office, of course, where a person named Jordan sits down and does his work. But it is not just an arm of B&M; it is an actual business, fully operational and (I assume) independent. A sign sits on the interior office window: "Palouse PC Computer Repair." A sign is a sure sign of independence.

The implication of this business within B&M is that B&M is the kind of place which independent businesses are intended to grow out of. In this way, it's much more like a business incubator than a workspace community. Yet it goes farther, because the full implications of the word "community" remain intact. It is the kind of place where "business incubator" and "workspace community" are fused inextricably together. This entirely new kind of concept, the likes of which I've never seen before, may represent a dramatic shift in the business dynamic of America.

There are three different phrases I've come up with to describe what B&M is. One is, "entrepreneurial bank." It's a bank, not of money, but of entrepreneurial spirit. Collected here at the workspace is a reserve of freelancing, independent, entrepreneurial spirit. See, Moscow is a young person's town, and a lot of college kids live here, many, if not most, of whom have an overabundance of entrepreneurial spirit. Some of that has found its way here, and so what we have is an excess of entrepreneurial spirit, which we then loan out to the world at large.

But the fact that it is gathered here in one place, in one specific building, is significant. It leads me to my next characterization: "non-academic university." In a university, each of the professors is pretty much independent, just like the workers here. Nevertheless, they organize themselves into co-working groups, which do research in teams for the purpose of furthering human knowledge. That is their goal. Strip out the "knowledge" part of that goal and replace it with the more general word "progress," and you basically have B&M—a non-academic university.

But my favorite phrase, because of its currency, involves the most groundbreaking human achievement of our age: the Internet. In this vein, B&M is an "entrepreneurial cloud." Just like Amazon's EC2 is a computing cloud, B&M is a cloud of entrepreneurs. But B&M hasn't yet realized what I believe is a serious groundbreaking prospect for this kind of place. An "entrepreneurial cloud," to be more like a "cloud computing platform," seems to indicate that the community at large here in Moscow, if they so choose, can upload specific limited-time requests to the cloud for the us to perform.

Say, for instance, that the Moscow Arts Commission, a wing of the Moscow City Government, decides they want to make Moscow, Idaho a national hub for the arts—just as, through the U of I's Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival, the city is a national hub for jazz music. What they could do, if our workspace grew big enough, is contact B&M with a request for proposal. B&M then, as a community, could identify each individual entrepreneur or freelancer in the workspace who has any applicable skill, and if they agree to sign on, contract with them to fulfill the goals of the Arts Commission. Once the goals are fulfilled, just like Amazon's cloud computer, B&M will return to its natural state, ready for another project. All further gruntwork, if there is any, would be taken up by a dedicated entity—probably a wing of the Moscow City Government, or the local arts business community, or whatever.

Now this idea in itself is exciting enough. But there is yet another exciting prospect based on a simple fact: B&M is made up not of computers, but of people. And people can actually originate goals, rather than merely fulfill them. It's still like a cloud, but more like a storm cloud, which makes lightening of entrepreneurial inspiration. The end result may perhaps be that Moscow Idaho, or any other city which seriously entertains this approach, will become among the most interesting places on the planet.

As said earlier, this is an entirely new idea. And it has stunning and broad-reaching implications. Like the Internet, it may harken in a completely new era in business. See, on the Internet, there are websites like the afore-mentioned oDesk—cloud-compute inspired businesses. oDesk's innovation is called "homesourcing:" businesses, anywhere in the world, can "homesource" work to any individual anywhere in the world, practically instantly. Thus a budding fashion design shop can quickly assemble a team of customer service agents without setting up a physical call center, for example. One agent may be in India, another may be in Idaho; it doesn't matter because it's all done "on the cloud."

But oDesk is different from B&M. While B&M stresses entrepreneurial spirit, oDesk stresses contracted labor. When you work at oDesk, you are very much working for a boss at a (more or less) established firm. But when you work at B&M, the assumption is, generally, that you are the firm. This isn't a rule, of course; anyone here can work for whomever they choose. But the point is that B&M is a hub for entrepreneurial spirit, whereas oDesk is a platform for contracted labor.

And both companies say something profound about us in the United States. Taken together, oDesk and B&M represent a new way of thinking, a dual modality of American labor. The old way of thinking goes like this: Nathan Foster applies for a job at CostCo. The new way of thinking goes like this: America applies for a job at America. Places like B&M, across the country (and yes, there is more than one place like this), form entrepreneurial ideas, and contract out to places like oDesk. Thus we can all contribute to a vast cloud of "business happenings" everywhere around the world, simultaneously.

That's the vision, anyway. And I believe the new way of thinking, more accurately and concretely than any discourse I've yet seen, expresses the American concept of "honor." Honor, to me, is loyalty plus leadership. And while in the old way of thinking these two were completely separate (i.e. the job applicant has loyalty while the employer has leadership), in this new age each individual can have both qualities simultaneously. A person can simultaneously contract with oDesk and originate ideas in exactly the same space, among exactly the same people. I can come from the cloud, into entrepreneurship, and go back into the cloud, seamlessly. This is the fundamental innovation these two businesses represent, and needless to say, I'm excited about the prospects of both.

Clarifications of Buddhism: Nonviolence, not Anti-Violence!

One of the problems faced by American Buddhists today, I think, is that we are too peaceful. Many of the teachings of Buddha indicate a strong central value of peace. But to many, this kind of peace simply means inaction.

Instead of trying to be grossly peaceful, we should try to be subtilely peaceful. We should have a deep and meaningful sense of peace.

Consider the Dorje Shugden controversy in Tibetan Buddhism. Dorje Shugden is an enlightened, wrathful protector whose worship The Dalai Lama has outlawed. He outlawed this practice, according to Wikipedia, because he read a story about Dorje Shugden saw, wherein the deity saw a bunch of Gelugpa Buddhists studying Nyingmapa Buddhism, and so he slaughtered them, because Dorje Shugden is a Gelugpa Buddhist and wanted to maintain the purity of Gelugpa Buddhism.

I can definitely understand the pressing need for Tibetan Buddhism to be adopted by Westerners, and I can definitely see how Buddhism may not have been so easily introduced if His Holiness didn't adopt such a firm perspective. Far be it from me to criticize the Dalai Lama.

But honestly, what's so bad about slaughtering people? Slaughtering people is something human beings do, and we need to recognize this. We can't just take our human nature lightly. There's an important lesson in our violence.

In my opinion, if we're going to slaughter people, we should do so in a mutual hatred stemmed from mutual respect. As Sonny said in the classic Dog Day Afternoon: "The guy who kills me... I hope he does it because he hates my guts, not because it's his job." We shouldn't kill people dispassionately, leaving them confused about why they are victimized for no apparent reason, and leaving us with a spiritual crisis because we don't understand our actions or the meaning of our lives. If we kill people, it should be because we fucking hate them. And because they fucking hate us. Period. End of story.

The Maoris, whom I have studied a bit, built a well-developed warrior ethic based on this idea. They are warriors. They hate people, and they kill them. They also send them medics to lovingly heal them up and make them strong and ready to fight, not because they love them, but because they hate them and want to fucking kill them. In this deep hatred is a profound feeling of love. If a Maori wants to kill your fucking guts, you should take it as a compliment.

But if an American wants to kill you, unfortunately, it's probably because his boss wants a little higher of a profit margin. Understandably, as Americans, this leaves us a little disoriented. Should I identify as an American, despite this desperate cynicism, or should I adopt a wholly new culture? Being American is thus difficult for us. However, unfortunately, this difficulty in being American, due to people's natural tendency to overgeneralize and miss the point of things, results in an unwarranted extension of the idea of restraining violence into the territory of anti-violence, which disregards not only the cynical American approach to violence, but the wholesome Maori approach as well. In this way, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

So if Dorje Shugden wants to slaughter people, so what? He's enlightened; he can do what he wants. We should be less concerned with whether or not slaughtering people is justified, and more concerned with opening up to the other, and being receptive when the other opens up to us. There are teachings we must learn from others. And we Buddhists have wholesome things to contribute. Being anti-violent is actually a kind of closed-mindedness.

If we decide to be nonviolent, that's great. But how does this apply to others? This is our moral choice. Not theirs. It is far more important to be open to the ideas of others. And here's a crucial point. When we are open to others, and their wishes, belief systems, and so forth, we will begin to see the actual basis for nonviolence, rather than our mere projected basis for it. We will begin to see the most appropriate way to express our inner wishes, and we will see that regardless of violent intent, on either side of a dispute, if we are truly open to each other, the most equitable and intelligent way to resolve the dispute will come to light. And this way will probably (though not certainly) have no violence. In other words, the resolution will certainly be non-violent, but not anti-violent.

Moral codes are not dogma. Moral codes are a system of restraint that we apply to develop a sense of higher importance. Dogma, on the other hand, is the belief that a certain moral value has an essential quality by the virtue of which it is completely infallible and must be followed in every circumstance without fail. I tend to think instead of nonviolence as a guiding moral principle, we Western Buddhists tend to adopt anti-violence as dogma.

Blueprint for a Just and Creative Society: Part 2

The two sides of the coin described in the previous article have to do with creativity and justice. I can summarize it like this: 1) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice doesn't matter, it is important to make a choice and stick with it. 2) When one can choose between two or more social institutions, and the choice is important, it's best not to choose between the institutions themselves, but rather choose the most ethical point of view, and the institution that happens to be most in accordance with that point of view. Choice 1 makes society creative, choice 2 makes it just.

I think it's also important here to touch on one particular choice in the second category that we must make as a society. The choice has to do with a kind of unity. When we make choices of the first category, it is important that we as a society do so in a context regarding sociocultural institutions, agreements, understandings, and so forth that we can trust. While it's important that personalities do not get all mashed up, we have to have some common ground which invites us to view other personalities, and for other personalities to view our own. This gives meaning to everyone, regardless of their choices. (I'm using the word "personalities" here instead of "people" in light of the statement that we form our identity, or our personality, according to the loyal choices we make that do not matter.)

In order for this to happen, we have to be able to trust one another. For there to be common ground, or a level playing field, we have to agree on certain codes of conduct, according to each person's differing ability to accept things. There are a number of these common grounds, like the fact that one dollar is worth the same everywhere in the U.S., the fact that arguments can't escalate to the point of lethal violence, or sexual violence, and so on. The most important of these, of course, is a legal system we can trust to institute our just demands.

But there's another aspect to this as well—an internal aspect. We can't simply rely upon external things like laws and financial institutions to ensure that all our interactions are positive. We also have to have an internal sense of trust for each other, and an internal sense of goodwill. We have to truly have warm-hearted, good feelings for one another. Love and compassion. Then we can get into fights without really fighting. And anyway, if we don't have these feelings, no number of laws can cover every contingency. We have to trust that we can trust each other.

Thus we should be able to have multiple different personalities, some of which radically opposed to one another, in all aspects except the ones which are important, in which case we should be in accord. And these personalities should interact, through the medium of social exchange which we can trust as an ethical baseline. We must all have a sense of trust for one another, as well-founded as it can be. If this isn't possible, neither is a just and creative society.

A Silver Lining on Wisconsin: My Analysis

The results of Wisconsin's recall election are understandably upsetting. However, there is some silver lining. We can't judge too quickly that American democracy is dead, because the richest 1% is, perhaps, not as monolithic and negative of a force as we may think.

Yes, the richest of the rich spent $63 million to buy the recall election. The bad news is, that's a lot of money. The good news is, that's a LOT of money. In fact, it is so much money that, I would argue, as long as activists continue to fight for democracy, buying elections like this is a) unsustainable and b) not necessarily effective.

The Voters

There are around 5 million people in Wisconsin (Wikipedia). Around 1/2 of them voted (Huffington Post). That's 2.5 million votes. Walker only won 4% more votes in this election than his 2010 election (Huffington Post). That means, all that money spent was worth around 100,000 voters. That's about $630 per voter. (If you count all citizens in Wisconsin, it's around $315 per voter, but according to what I was told by Democratic Party campaign officials, most campaigns don't even bother to spend money on people who never vote.)

Now keep in mind that the only counties which did significantly better for Walker were the Republican counties (Huffington Post). So that means the voter pool is even smaller.

Of course arithmetic like this may not mean much, but it should give us some kind of ballpark idea of how much money must be spent to buy every single important election nationwide. If people continue to mobilize like they did in Wisconsin, it will force the richest of the rich to spend a LOT of money, probably in the hundreds of billions, every couple of years. Simply multiplying half the American public by the $650 figure gets us almost $100 billion, and this figure assumes, of course, that Americans cast 150 million votes.

And note that this doesn't assume that Americans will cast 150 million votes in a single election. No, it assumes something more like casting 150 million votes in EVERY election. Every two years, voters must decide state senate, state house, gubernotorial, federal Senate, federal House, and Presidential elections, not to mention judiciary elections. And each of these elections is important. Wisconsin proves this, if nothing else. And the more public offices voters must consider, the more money must be spent on each voter. The $650 figure only applies to a single candidate in a single election.

Now for some more down-to-Earth data: My reading of a study by Gregor A. Huber and Kevin Arceneaux ("Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising") is that you're probably not going to get much more than 8 or 9 percentage points no matter how much advertising you use. Nate Silver also suggests that there is a diminishing return on advertising, as people eventually find it annoying, as well as the deleterious effect of the perception that a candidate is buying his office. Of course the effect of the advertising probably also depends on a large variety of factors, including the effectiveness of the ad campaign, the likability of the candidate, and so on. But this is important, because it means, in theory, there are some elections that money simply cannot buy.

There are other variables, too.

First of all, Walker's campaign is a recall campaign, not a general election campaign. This is important because, as the New York Times tells us, 60% of people believe that recall elections should only be held because of official misconduct, and 10% believe that recall elections should never be held at all. Understandibly, these people were more likely to vote to keep Walker in office. If this were a general election, the results might be different.

Also, lest we forget, Walker and his legislation had to get pretty brutal to hold onto his seat, and he may face indictment for corruption (Current TV). All things considered, this is by no means a landslide victory for Walker. And he had to outspend his opponent by at least 7-1 to obtain this far from decisive victory (MSNBC).

Patrons of Our Democracy Store

So far we might have assumed that corporations and the 1% are some kind of united, monolithic Republican force. That every single 1%-er will cough up his or her fair share of the hundreds of billions of dollars they need. But this may be giving them too much credit. The Sunlight Foundation and Forbes and New American Gazette show us that not every rich person is necessarily political. And of those that are political, not all of them are Republicans. And corporations respond to the demands of the public more often than we may think, because they are more interested in making a profit than buying an election most of the time.

And even of the monolithic Republican contributors, it seems highly unlikely that they can or want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every couple of years. If they wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, they might as well just pay taxes and leave elections alone, because it will likely cost about the same, and it's less dangerous. Why is it less dangerous? Because it's less likely to produce large-scale protest movements.

Street-Wise Democracy

First of all, it's important to note that the Wisconsin and Occupy protests are getting it right. They're permanent, non-violent, and large. The question is, of course, will they have any effect. According to Paul Schumaker ("Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands"), either community support and intra-group support individually will predict a positive outcome more than either agency, elected-official, or media support individually. According to Schumaker and Michael O'Keefe ("Protest Effectiveness in Southeast Asia"), some factors correlated with positive response include whether the regime is democratic, and whether the group is permanent or whether it's large. In other words, the Wisconsin protests have everything going for them.

Conclusion?

I recognize that the information I've presented is not very conclusive, largely because of its speculative nature, and because the different studies seem to be measuring different things. For example, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies seem to be studying the policy response of the government, while the advertising studies seem to be measuring election outcomes. Also, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies do not measure the interrelatedness of the various correlations.

But we can be sure of one conclusion: giving up is NOT the proper response. Protest movements may take time, but they are effective. One thing the data clearly do not show is that deep media influence necessarily trumps protest movements. There is a silver lining: We may win yet.

Debates on Brony Sex

Just got back from my trip to Ponyland in Equestria. A particularly American conceit is to assume that our actions here have no effect on other countries. I want to emphatically say that Equestria CARES about the American Brony scene. They pay attention, and it is wrong to assume they don't. And the debate over there is fascinating. I'll share with you a couple articles lifted from the Equestrian media about sexual objectification of ponies, particularly Fluttershy.

---

"Be Kind to Fluttershy: Don't Assume." By, Twilight Sparkle.

It is unfortunate that in today's culture a pony cannot escape sexualization. Of course, I'm no stranger to sexuality. In the 21st century, it's becoming increasingly obvious that none of us are. In fact, that's partially my point. Lets face the facts: ponies are becoming increasingly sexually liberated. Once modern medical science and the industrial revolution brought about the pony condom and the ability to cure some and detect most pony sexually transmitted diseases, Equestria responded my loosening the sexual mores of the past. It's unnecessary to elaborate. Suffice to say that Fluttershy's sexuality, like that of many ponies in Equestria, is probably multifaceted. And active.

Now one may argue that because a pony's sexuality is active, actively seeking attention from others, that he or she must necessarily invite sexual objectification to fulfill his or her desires. An incredulous Brony may say, "I have a right to respond to the sexual activity of ponies. If they cast sexual attention on others, am I not simply returning the favor?" Leaving aside the presumptuousness of assuming a pony wants to have sex with you, or any human for that matter, the difficulty in this statement lies in the distinction between open sexuality and forced projection of sexuality.

Sexuality should come with no expectations, no presumptions, no expectations. For Fluttershy to continue to be the confident woman pony she is, she must operate on a level plane of autonomy. Fluttershy must respond to the objective challenges she faces as they are, without laboring under other people's expectations and presumptions. She cannot live to please others: she must live to be herself. Although Fluttershy has a penchant for consideration of others, she consistently does not allow this consideration to degenerate into obsequious self-deprecation. It is one of her more notable talents. But unfortunately, the very virtue of consideration for others invites social pressures. It is unfair for us to add to them, especially in the emotionally potent arena of sexual activity.

It is okay for a human to be attracted to Fluttershy, or any other pony. Again, she is sexually active, and invites sexual attention. But, if you objectify her, and presume that she must fulfill sexual roles on demand, this violates her autonomy and increases unfair pressures, making it difficult to for her to fulfill her obligations as a citizen of Ponyville.

What's the alternative? Simply this: open Brony sexuality. Attraction without expectations. It may take some decolonization, but it should be achievable with practice. Don't make the mistake that I am anti-male, anti-Brony, or anti-pony sex. But as a society, we must lessen the pressures on Equestrian females. It is the only way for Equestrian civilization to grow and progress.

---

"Wake Up! Sex is Dialectic! A Response to Sparkle." By, Princess Luna

It is difficult for me, being in a position of authority, to write an opinion piece like this, for fear that it may come across as an edict. Let me begin by saying I share some sympathies with Twilight; I am well aware of the need for sexual liberation of woman ponies, as well as the need to fight off the Brony invasion any way we can. I find it undignified that humans from a different planet have the gall to steal away our young maidens for sexual intercourse. But this is all beside the point. The real reason I am writing this is to point out the blatant logical fallacies Sparkle uses to advance her case.

Sparkle's argument rests entirely on the distinction she draws between sexual objectification and sexual "openness." I find that no such distinction exists. Any sort of "level plane" one tries to imagine falls apart upon close inspection. Why? Because openness, to her, essentially means lack of initiative. If one pony does not advance him- or herself upon another, no sexual interaction can take place. "Advancing" is essentially a verb: it is "verbial," if you will. And what does a verb require? An object. A sexual object in this case.

Sex is dialectic. It requires give-and-take. One pony or person advances upon another, and then the other responds, and the first responds to the response, and so on. The kind of vision Sparkle advances, while well-studied, is naïve. It sees sex as a kind of static thing, which somehow miraculously arises from a state of non-relativity, which means non-motion. No action can take place in such a state.

While I do not respect the Bronies and their motives, I do at least understand their nature, which is not much different from our own. When a Brony expresses sexual desire for a pony, he is by necessity objectifying her, and it is not this which I object to. This is natural. And while a Brony should not be allowed to interfere with our Equestrian national self-determination, he should at least be given the same essential rights we respect in Equestria. One of these rights is freedom of speech. If a Brony wants to objectify Fluttershy based on her obsequiousness, which is a weakness of her character, it is not for us to decide whether he can express this. And the fact of this expression alone is not reprehensible. It is not as if by sexually objectifying Fluttershy a Brony is spreading some kind of malicious lie or destructive cultural meme. Again, objectification is natural and necessary. If Fluttershy does not like to be objectified in the way she is, she should work on her character. But she and her friends should not attack Bronies' freedom of speech. Rather, attack the cultural co-optation and colonialism they advance on us; this is the real issue between our species.

I believe Fluttershy is right that she has a right to sexual liberty. But this does not require freedom from objectification. When somepony makes the free choice to objectify her, she has the free choice to respond or not. If the first pony or person forces the choice, and violates her liberty, then we have a problem. But otherwise, she has no right to try to force the first person or pony's thoughts and beliefs. Even if they are a Brony.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 4: Psychiatrists

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Psychiatrists

In my opinion, psychiatrists are the single biggest threat to any open society in alignment with the principles of openness. They represent a perversion of every principle of openness. (I'm referring to my Principles of Openness.)

1. They appear not to, but they represent an undue extension of authority. They appear not to because anyone, presumably, can become a psychiatrist. And psychiatrists can change careers, move between jobs, etc. The position appears to be open. But. It's open to everyone except the most important person—YOU. YOU cannot become your own psychiatrist. YOU have no authority over what the psychiatrist diagnoses and prescribes. Psychiatrists affect you. But they have no formal accountability to you. By all rights, if you need to change psychiatrists, you should be able to, but all to often, you can't. And in cases where you can, like in Portland Oregon, psychiatrists actively oppose any peer-run psychiatry clinics on the fundamental belief that psychiatric patients should have no say in who gets to treat them.
2. They appear not to, but they represent closing off the ability to participate. Psychiatrists work under the common assumption that they're doing good science. And that their experiments are not a "black box" in any sense. "Black boxes" are strictly forbidden in any open system, and the institution of Western science is such a system. But. There are multiple black boxes in psychiatry. First, there's the black box of the observed. The observer can observe the symptoms, and describe them, but she has no idea what they signify. No psychiatric science ever has been able to describe what symptoms signify beyond subjective and arbitrary labeling, and the ASSUMPTION that this labeling represents a license to take complete control over all aspects of the patient's life. Then, there's the black box of the symptoms themselves. No one has any idea what theoretical basis drives the symptoms and their respective diagnoses. They're just arbitrary labels.
3. They appear not to, but they hold secrets. When you go into a psychiatrists office, since psychiatry is supposed to be a science, and medical, and approved by society, you'd expect no shady secrecy going on in your interactions with psychiatrists. But. Psychiatrists LIE as a normal part of their profession. As much as they may try to convince themselves otherwise, they know that there is no scientific basis for their diagnoses and prescriptions. So if a psychiatrist knows you have depression but no psychosis, and they want to prescribe you an anti-psychotic, they will LIE to the authorities to do so. And if they think you need to be hospitalized but they don't feel they have sufficient evidence to prove you're a danger to yourself or others, they will misrepresent, bullshit, and LIE to get you institutionalized. And most importantly of all, if they feel you don't deserve to know what they're deciding on your behalf, they will LIE to you to keep it secret.

I cannot stress enough how much psychiatry is the antithesis of openness. It is the biggest long-term threat to our democracy. Already, children are being medicated simply because they defy authority. They are being medicated under the pretext of an invented illness because they're bored. THESE are the change-makers, who are being snuffed out due to this travesty of science. And furthermore, since the institution of psychiatry seeks full autonomy in deciding whether to incarcerate or otherwise control people with "mental illness" on a whim, based on their "objective" (read: patently subjective) diagnoses, we can all expect key activists, politicians, and change-makers to be locked up for invented illnesses, just like they do in Russia, if we allow psychiatry any more legal leeway. Republicans already like to say Liberalism is a "mental illness." Surprise surprise. Psychiatry is an illegitimate institution—the product of Western obsession with control and a repressive and arbitrary suppression of the use of psychoactive drugs for psychological (and not psychiatric) purposes.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 3: Compassion

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Compassion

Due to the fact of the two previous points, particularly the first, it is necessary to insist on higher standards for compassion. Yes, that means compassion for murderers, rapists, adulterers, kidnappers, drug dealers, and so on and so forth. We all like to villainize people for certain things. But the fact of the matter is, you never know anymore whether the information is accurate, or whether the act was more pitiable than hateful. At the very least, I tend to think we should be even more careful not to judge. Cyberbullying is a terrible risk with the Internet.

Principles of Openness

A while ago I did some philosophical grunt work trying to nail down what it means to be "open" in the style of Occupy, open source software, the Internet, etc. Here's a paraphrase:

Everything should be open. Including all societies, groups, corporations, governments, etc.

What does it mean to be open?

• No undue extensions of authority
• Everyone has a chance to participate
• Nothing of substance is secret

What is an "undue extension of authority?" Any authority which violates the principles of open authority. Here are those principles:

• Either the authority must change,
• or the people in authority must change.
• And when a change is made, the choice must not be limited in any way.

What does this mean? It means that if you create a position of authority, like say, logo designer, it must be a temporary position. If it is an office like the presidency, not a temporary position but permanent, the person who fulfills that office must change. There must be some kind of formal mechanism for ensuring that change does occur when needed, for instance term limits, or votes of no confidence, etc.

In substance, if someone wants to be in a position of authority, that person must be allowed a reasonable pathway to do so. If the position of authority rules out anyone arbitrarily, that is an undue extension of authority and violates the principles of openness.

What does this rule out? It rules out monarchy, because the person in authority (i.e. the president) does not change frequently. Rather, he's allowed to serve for as long as he wants without any change.

It also rules out nepotism or the "revolving door" for congresspeople, because when a congressperson is hired as a lobbyist in return for policies of deregulation, for instance, that position of lobbyist is not open to anyone—it is offered specifically to the congressperson. Ideally, the position of lobbyist should be open to any person or group, so that all people get their voices heard in congress.

Some Thoughts on an Age of Aquarius Part 1: Ignorance

All parts include: Part 1: Ignorance; Part 2: Seduction; Part 3: Compassion; Part 4: Psychiatrists; Part 5: Hacking vs. Lying.

Ignorance

The Internet has to do with completely open information. There is no unopen information on the Internet, because even if you hide things, by virtue of being "on the Internet," it can be found. Unfortunately, this has it's problems.

For one thing, there are certain pieces of information which aren't true. I ran into this problem on Facebook just recently when my friend Gideon caught me in an untruth. I had shared a picture of an indigenous South American who was crying, purportedly because the Brazilian government refused to listen to him, and moved forward with a plan which would destroy his homeland. Actually, he was crying because it was his cultural practice to cry when visited by distant relatives. I had shared the picture assuming everything said about it was true, when in fact, it was not. Which brings me to a point about the age of Aquarius: information is everywhere, but it isn't vetted by any authority. Therefore, it unfortunately may be false. Thus there still needs to be some respect for the authority of facts, or information will become meaningless. This is ignorance of individual things.

There is another kind of ignorance at play on the Internet. Because you have access to ubiquitous information, you may be lulled into a kind of false sense of security and believe you know all the truth when you in fact are ignorant. This is a general kind of ignorance. This happened to me too.

Back when Fukushima melted down, I found a website with very studied and learned people who came to the conclusion that Fukushima was essentially a media lie. Meaning, Fukushima posed no danger to the public, while a corrupt Western media continued to repeat maliciously that it did. They went to great lengths to secure their own trusted media outlets, and stream several of them simultaneously, watching and taking notes. They also studied the blueprints of the Fukushima reactor in depth, and proved why a core meltdown would be completely impotent in terms of human danger. Needless to say, this was all wrongheaded. The facts came to light, and, of course, Fukushima is now known as one of the more serious nuclear accidents in history. The people, including myself, who participated in this orgy of fact finding were not wearing the condoms of skepticism.

Both these kinds of ignorance result directly from the democratic nature of ubiquitous information. One should be careful about aquarian information, and make sure it is in fact correct.

Criminality and Society

It seems to me that the criminal has a dangerous road. To some extent, he has given up society and gone "underground" if you will. Society may seem constricting, but it is useful in that it provides a construct for being good to people. There is a sense that what's good for society is good for everyone, so in a very real sense, someone who civilizes himself is working for the good of everybody. But the person who gave this up to pursue criminal purposes is probably working only for himself. Society teaches us to think about other people, instead of just about ourselves. This is why it is good to impart in people a sense of being civilized.

In some cases, movies and television glorify criminal life. Particularly, there is an idea that violence is justified, even if it is illegal, as long as there is a sense of moral violence. This is bad on two counts: it justifies violence, and it justifies criminality. Anyone could get the sense that doing this or that is bad in most circumstances, but in my case it is okay. In fact, this is quite common, and quite mistaken.

Now I think a fundamental precept of democracy is to maintain a dialogue which constantly tests the values of the government. In reality, almost nobody is good all the time, and this includes those who run the government. Democracy admonishes every citizen to take an active role in policy-making. It makes explicit the fact that politicians must answer to their constituency. Thus laws can change. Some people make the decision to be a criminal, I think, because they are destitute. This is understandable, though regrettable. But some people decide to become criminal simply because they feel society is wrong — society requires too much work, or society doesn't solve everybody's problems, or society has made mistakes. This is incorrect. Even if this were true, turning criminal is not the right answer. People who behave like this legitimize a harsh penal system, and further disenfranchise the destitute who turn criminal because they have no other choice. Because of people who behave like this, destitute criminals who have no other choice are given little sympathy. In the end, if one feels society is wrong, one should find legitimate ways to change society, because turning criminal does no good.