What Exactly is a Good Life?

Back in 1989 (wow, 33 years ago) I was asked to go to Stratford Ontario to give a public lecture about the Green Party. I don't really remember much about the event, but I probably gave my standard talk about how environmental concerns will grow larger and larger over our lifetime and how citizens should start taking them more seriously. If we do this, I would have argued, we will find that a great many things that we then found tremendously important would have become of far less concern. I also would have said that some of the things that we will find not as important will be economic growth and a rising "standard of living". Finally, I probably mentioned something to the effect of we can have all the really important things in a sustainable society such as friendship, artistic expression, justice and equality, scientific exploration, etc---but we cannot afford much of the frivolous stuff like tourists flying all around the world and engineering our towns and cities around the automobile.

As I said, I don't remember any of my specific language, but I do have one subjective impression of what was said---I kept a copy of an editorial cartoon from the local paper that was inspired by my talk.

I have scrap books, this was in one of them.

 

As I said above, it's a subjective response. One of the things I don't like about editorial cartoons is that their primary objective is entertainment, not information. (That's a nice way of saying that many cartoonists are just paid to be smart asses.)

Having said that, it is true that a large part of what I said then and am still saying now gets this sort of response. All of us have to make a choice about what is or isn't important. And, I would argue, the things that really are important in life can be easily supplied without creating runaway climate change---but the frivolous, dumb things often cannot. Unfortunately, many people see this as an attack on people living a 'good' life. And that's what I want to talk about in this op ed: "Just what exactly is a 'good' life?"

&&&&

Recently I've noticed something jarring about CBC news coverage of the recent global spike in inflation. Let me paint a picture. I've seen news clips of:

• someone complaining about the cost of airline travel: "$3000 return! That's five month's rent for me!" ($600/month rent---where the heck does he live?)
• another person complaining about the cost of food---he's looking at watermelons in a grocery in January
• a young guy complaining about gasoline costing $1.95/liter at CostCo and complaining---while filling up his huge gas-guzzling, immaculate (ie: not used to haul anything) pickup  

This isn't to say that I haven't seen news clips of people suffering real need. People are living on the street, food banks are emptying out, people working at several poorly-paid jobs that they drive to in decrepit cars. We have a lot of people who's heads---or even their nostrils---are just above the waterline and any inflationary turbulence risks drowning them. 

I'm not talking about these folks, I'm talking about the people who are complaining because they can't jet around the world on vacation, buy fruits and veggies that have been shipped thousands of miles, or, who drive in expensive, gas-guzzling ego props. And, I'm talking about the reporters on TV news that think these complaints merit time on the national news.

I'm old enough to remember when people didn't travel much. Indeed, in my grand-parent's generation most folks didn't travel at all unless they were going with a rifle on their shoulder or a carpet bag full of bibles (both scenarios we all can do without). In addition just about everything we ate had been raised within a very short distance of our home. We did drive gas guzzlers but only because back then all cars were---but not very far because even though fuel was cheap, we were poor. Besides, living on a farm there were always animals to feed and stables to clean.

What I'm trying to say is that people's expectations about what the "bare minimum" should be have expanded in some ways that I don't think are really healthy. This isn't an example of "old man Hulet" complaining about those "new kids" and their fancy toys. Instead, I'm saying that at least some of people's disposable wealth would be much better spent on different things than it is. That fancy new pick-up exists somewhat at the expense of a good public transit system. Those thousand mile watermelons are at the expense of people who have to go to food banks in order to not go hungry. And the money for those trips overseas would probably be better spent on building more social housing. 

The connection I'm drawing isn't clear-cut and obvious. I'm not saying Aunt Alice's trip to Italy involved dumping some stranger out on the street. If the connection were that clear people would probably be more aware of it. Instead, I'm saying that the society that creates the aspirational ideals of "travel broadens" and "whomever has the most toys when they die wins" is not the same one that would suggest "the existence of poverty is a stain on our entire community" and "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society".

Maybe in a future Star Trek utopia people will be able to do whatever they want without bad consequences for other people. But that's not the world we currently live in. There are environmental consequences from the frivolous consumption of fossil fuels. And poverty is a result of wealth stratification. In a world without "replicators" and "transporters", for one person to have far too much someone else has to get by with less than enough. Surely it's obvious to anyone with eyes to see that our current society suffers from a systemic misallocation of resources.   

Actually I'd like to go beyond this and suggest that there is a deeper issue here. Consider the following short video clip of billionaires throwing skittles into each other's mouths and listen to the banter between each of them. 

 

This reminds me of every dumb, stoned road trip I went on as a young man. I, at least, had the excuse that I was young and knew nothing at all about the world around me. But these folks are titans of industry who have enormous control over the lives of other people. And with all that power at their finger-tips, they used a significant fraction of the world's resources to spin in free fall and throw skittles in each other's mouths.

This isn't just about "things", it's also about "experiences". I once met a young man who had a good unionized job working at a menial occupation. He was making a lot of good money. Did he save it for a home, business, education, etc? Not really. Instead, he got into the habit of flying around North America to attend Rolling Stones concerts. I often wondered what the folks who fought for the forty hour work week and unionization would have thought of someone who had gained so much from their sacrifice but used it in such a frivolous manner. Some experiences cost nothing except concentration, courage, and, effort (eg: building a union)---others can be bought with the swipe of a credit card. The former build character---the latter are just another type of conspicuous consumption. 

Lots of commentators have talked about the outrageous amounts of money wasted on space tourism, but I'd suggest that the big problem isn't the money, per se, but rather the interests of the people involved. (I certainly don't consider the astronauts and scientists who work in space to be frivolous people.) Ultimately it is pretty much the same thing as when middle-class types go to some warm clime to sit on a beach. Indeed, for people who have a lot less money than Bezos and company isn't taking a jet flight as tourists pretty much the same thing? It's just a way to burn through a significant fraction of their income with no particular value except to show that they can afford to do it. At best it's a form of low-brow entertainment---like watching children's cartoons or one of those terrible movies that is all about the special effects. At worst, it's just a way of showing off to the other people in your life. Can't we come up with something better to do with our time---something that doesn't involve destroying the planet and keeping a fraction of the population poor?

&&&&

Time for the begging bowl. Writing this blog is real work and I put a surprising number of hours into it. So if you can afford it, why not consider buying a subscription? Pay Pal and Patreon make it easy to do. (Thanks Carol for being so awesome!) And by doing so, you'll be making a concrete statement about what you do or do not think is important in this world. 

&&&&

Part of the problem, I believe, is that modern people lack the vocabulary to even conceive of or understand the issue I'm raising. Early Christianity had a language that dealt with something quite different, but in the same vein:

• "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied."
• "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of A needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"
• “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

I say different, because I'm not interesting in perpetuating the baggage that has become associated with some of the teachings in the Gospels: 

• belief in God
• original sin
• the importance of belief in Jesus as the son of God
• the resurrection
• the virgin birth
• the importance of the eucarist
• life after death
• Hell
• etc

Instead I just want to focus on one particular thing: the importance of 'intangibles' in people's lives. This isn't the same as "the kingdom of God is within you" but---to paraphrase Mark Twain---something that "rhymes" with that notion.

I'm not sure if I can actually point directly to I'm talking about, but I think I can see the footprints it leaves in the lives of the people around us. For example, consider the care that many people put into their gardens, the food they prepare for their family, the charity work they do for the community, the hobbies they pursue, the political party they support. I believe I often see it in environmental protests. It's what inspires academics to spend hours and hours pursuing the exactly apropos quote for a paper or the experiment that explains the slight variance in a predicted outcome. 

I said that I cannot directly point to what I'm talking about, but only give indirect evidence. That's because those beautiful gardens, nice meals, etc, I mentioned above aren't the important point---they are just the result of what I'm talking about. Perhaps the best approximation I can come up with is to say that that what I'm talking about is something like what some people call being "spiritual"---as in the sense of "I'm spiritual, but not religious". (Most assuredly I am not suggesting that this is what all people mean when they say such a thing. But maybe some do.)

If a person hires an excellent gardener or cook, they do not partake of the spiritual dimension of exceptional gardening or food preparation. The spiritual dimension comes from the process of learning how to grow or cook something amazing. And you can't buy the personal satisfaction and growth that comes from really paying attention to what you are doing and learning about yourself and the world around you while doing so. That's a central part of the saying "the best things in life are free".

Over the last few months my wife and I have been working at improving our health through a dedicated regime of regular exercise plus a total rethink of our diets. We were stretching the other day and part of that involved going through a series of yoga "cat/cow" exercises. In the midst of it Misha called me out for the way I was executing a subtle detail of the "cow" move. She said I was "just doing it to get it over with". She was right and I quickly took advantage of the correction. 

I want readers to linger over that phrase "just doing it to get it over with". That's an important clue to large part of what I think is wrong in our society. Please note, I'm not fixating on the end result. It's true that if you put your heart and soul into doing things the best you can the results will usually be better than if you do a half-assed job. But beyond that, I'm suggesting that the more you put into what you do, the more personal fulfillment and personal growth you will get from the process.

 

 

(Of course this is only true up to a point and once certain other necessary criteria have been "checked off". I'm not suggesting that guards at concentration camps could find spiritual fulfillment through being the best sadists possible. Nor would I suggest that slaves should grow spiritually through being the best enslaved cotton pickers they can be. And many of the jobs people work at in our society are at best absurd and at worst harmful to the planet and other people. It's also very hard to find joy in work that results in exhaustion and barely keeps a roof over your head. This whole discussion is about one particular aspect of a huge complex, booming world. But it is an essential bit---and I don't think our culture gives it anything like the attention it deserves.)

&&&&

So what has this got to do with that speech I gave in Stratford 33 years ago? 

I hear a lot of people talk as if the key to environmental sustainability is to develop electric cars so people can still live the 'happy motoring' lifestyle, and, electric airplanes so we can have an environmentally safe Club Med. Anyone who's really tried to do the math on this sort of thing quickly realizes that this is not going to happen. But we can have an environmentally sustainable world with good public transit, where there are no beggars on the streets, and, people have a lot more opportunity to develop their creativity. There would be a lot fewer "things" and "tourism" in this world---but I believe there would be a lot more happy people. I also think that there could be a lot less poverty too. 

The problem is that the society we are living in now is incompatible with the one we could have according to the ideals I've expressed above. You can get there from here---but you have to be willing to leave here behind. It's easy for a cynic to make fun of any suggestion that we should try to change the world. (Hence the above editorial cartoon.) But someone has to make the effort to suggest things could be different if we really want them to ever be different.

&&&&

There's a Zen story that goes something like this. A poor, but happy monk was out one day gazing at the moon while meditating. A robber came by and ordered the monk to hand over his possessions, which he did. When the would-be thief realized that the monk was---if anything---poorer than he was, he threw everything down and wept bitterly about his lot in life and walked away. The monk looked at him with sadness and said "if I could, I would have given him the moon".

Our society is like that thief. I feels empty so it tries to steal the riches of the earth and take from future generations. But flying to other countries, eating foreign food, and, pimping our ride won't fill the holes in our hearts. But unfortunately, anyone who has found the answer to living a good life in harmony with nature will find it extremely difficult to help the others understand. 

And yet we still try---. 

Here's a statue of Ryokan, the actual monk of the Zen story.

&&&&
 

Furthermore I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!  

Cult Smashers: Part Twenty Six

When they came up from stairs on either side, two people came out of the wings and directed them to stand in the spotlights lined up next to the mentalist. He addressed both them and the audience at the same time. “None of you have ever met me before---have you?”

All six heads nodded in agreement.

“So you’re just six people picked at random---right?”

More nodding heads.

“And yet, what does ‘random mean’? Each of us is the product of a whole series of improbable actions---our parents meet once another and get married. Thousands of sperm cells converge on one of hundreds of eggs cells---and two of them connect to create a child. We come into the world and our personalities are formed by the accidents of our personal history. A specific teacher, relative, next door neighbour, etc, can have a huge influence on our lives---yet they could just as well be someone you’ve never met.”

You could see people nodding along both on stage and in the audience.

“Or could they? Teachers from other cultures have suggested that everything we see or do is ‘ordained’ by some sort of greater plan. Maybe each of us has a fate that we simply cannot escape.”

Nate could see that some of people on stage were slightly frowning---wondering what exactly what was being said. But a couple others---including the woman who’d been sitting in front of them---couldn’t stop themselves from nodding along.

“If that is the case, then the spotlights stopped on each of these six people for some reason---and it couldn’t have stopped anywhere else. Isn’t that an interesting idea? Hmmm. Let’s take that idea a bit further---let me choose one individual person.”

He walked up and down the line and eventually stopped in front of the woman that Sally had zeroed in on at the door. She seemed happy he did and smiled somewhat manically.

“What’s your name?”

“Katy.”

“Well, Katy, how and or why did you end up in this auditorium this evening?”

“I’ve always been interested in psychics and when I found out that there was going to be one in town tonight, I had to get a ticket!”

At that point the Astounding Randi paused. “Hmmm. Well, I’m not sure that I would call myself a ‘psychic’---that’s a pretty big statement. Let’s say that I might have had a few insights that have led me to notice a few things that most people don’t.”

“Having said that, let’s see what I can notice now.” He stood to the side of Katy and placed both his hands at his temples. He rubbed them slowly and just as slowly gently rocked side to side. Then he held out his hands to Katy and she reciprocated---allowing him to hold hers.

----

At this point Nate realized that Sally had pulled out a small pair of binoculars from her purse. She had been carefully scrutinizing both Katy and the Astounding Randi. She leaned over close to Nate, handed him the glasses and whispered in his ear. “He’s feeling her hands for callouses or manicured nails---they will tell him something about her work or hobbies. Use the glasses to see if you can notice anything else about Randi.”

----

Randi started his patter again. “I’m sensing that you are connected to the soil in some way---it could be directly, it could be indirectly through someone else, it could be an on-going activity or something just recent.” He stepped back and looked at Katy for a while with his head slightly off vertical.

She instantly responded, “yes, that’s right. I have a huge garden in my back yard. I was working in it today!”

Randi quickly changed the focus of the conversation. He rocked a bit more sideways. “I’m sensing something else. You are associated with children too. You could be a parent, or maybe an aunt who is close to someone else’s children. There’re children in there somewhere---”.

“Oh, that’s right! I’m a kindergarden teacher and I also have a son. In fact, he recently graduated from university and now has his first job---in Montreal.” Katy was beaming at Randi’s uncanny ability.

----

Sally leaned over and whispered in Nate’s ear “Barnum statements plus deduction and volunteered information”.

----

Randi stopped and gazed absent-mindedly at Katy. “What more can I say---. Has there been some turmoil in your life recently? Something that you have had to think deeply about? Is it work? Or deeper---something that’s made you reassess your life choices?”

Katy gaped. “Yes. I’ve been thinking about retirement and selling my house---. How did you know?”

----

Sally whispered in Nate’s ear. “Notice how she’s never mentioned a husband. It’s safe to think that her son was the focus of her life. She’s also a school teacher, which means that she probably has a good pension. She also said that she has a big back yard. Probably her house is too big for her alone and is worth a fortune in today’s real-estate market. She volunteered that her son is out of school and has a job in another city. At her age just about everyone is thinking about retirement. All Randi did was make some shrewd guesses based on information she’d already volunteered.”

----

Randi looked at her deeply. Then he spoke. “Isn’t it true that you’ve gone a bit further than ‘thinking’, haven’t you already put your home up for sale?”

Katy gasped, “How do you know? You must be psychic!”

Randi stepped back and shook his head. “That’s what you say.” He smiled and moved onto another person. The show continued for another hour.

&&&&

Moreover I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

Cult Smashers: Part Twenty Five

 

Sally choose a seat right behind the woman they’d seen at the entrance.

Before long the room filled, the lights went down to a spotlight on the stage, and, a single figure stepped into view. At that point an announcer came over the sound system and said “In town just this night and on a tour that includes Chicago, New York, Toronto, and, Montreal---let’s give a big round of applause to the Astounding Randi.”

“The Astounding Randi” was about five foot ten in height, had brown hair that was long enough to cover his ears and was combed-over to the point where it was lightly touching the over-sized, almost owlish-looking glasses. He had a prominent nose, somewhat protuding teeth, and a weak chin. He was dressed in a blue sports jacket, with a diagonal stripe tie, over jeans and wore expensive moccasin loafers. The spotlight made his especially pale white skin almost glow in the dark. When the applause began to tail off, he began to speak in a quiet voice---one that people had to strain to hear. This caused more and more people to quickly quiet-down. The audience quickly became silent.

“---the human mind is far greater than most of us imagine. If it is trained and harnessed to the will, people can see far more around them than they think they can. Does this mean that someone can read another person’s mind? I’ll let people make up their own minds on that score.”

“But first, let’s get the lighting crew to randomly select some people from the audience. These will be the folks I can talk to and pursue my investigations with.”

At that point other, other spotlights came on and started to play across the audience.

“As I look across the faces before me, I am trying to get a sense of what people are feeling. It’s like trying to sort through a beach to find a single grain of sand. It’s possible to do, but requires focus. It can be done, but I need to quiet my mind and centre it into a tighter and tighter beam.”

At this point the irises on the searching spotlights shrank a bit, leaving smaller, hotter lights playing across the audience.

“And at the same time that my focus becomes tighter, I can sense people’s feelings more clearly. There are people that come through a little better than others. I think I have them now. Stop the search!”

At that point the spotlights stopped moving and focused on six different individuals---one of which was the short woman in front of Sally and Nate.

“The six people that the spotlight has stopped at---I think that I might have a little better luck connecting with them. If you want, why not walk up to the stage so I can see if I can ‘read’ you?” The man on the stage smiled and gestured with his hands. At that point some pleasant music came out of the speakers that lined the stage and coloured spots formed a line with him in the middle. While this was happening, the six individuals---including the woman in front of Nate and Sally---got up and walked to the stage.

&&&&

Moreover I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

The Cloud Cuckoo Land in Pope Francis' Mind

A couple weeks ago I published an article about the Pope's "apology" to the First Nations, Metis, and, Inuit of Canada. In the process of researching that piece, I came across something particularly weird that I thought justified it's own article. As part of his statement to the delegates in Rome, Francis mentioned the term "ideological colonialism". I'd never heard that phrase before, so I decided to do some research to figure out what he was talking about. I found some quotes that gave me an idea of what he meant and I partially explained this in the original article. But to learn more, I decided to read a book on the subject that both he and the previous Pope (Benedict) have repeatedly encouraged others to read. 

"This is ideological colonization," Francis told reporters. "They introduce an idea to the people that has nothing to do with the people. With groups of people yes, but not with the people. And they colonize the people with an idea which changes, or means to change, a mentality or a structure."

Inspiring the pope's vision is one of his favorite books, Lord of the World, a 2016 work [sic---someone didn't double-check the date!] by the Rev. Robert Hugh Benson, a British Catholic priest who had converted from the Church of England. In the novel's dystopian future of the 2000s, global powers impose what Francis has called an "imperial form of colonization" that leads to the end times.

Pope Francis attacked cancel culture. It sounds better than 'ideological colonization.':  National Catholic Reporter, Jan 19, 2022

When I made the effort to read it I found that I'd fallen down a rabbit hole and was in a worldview as nutty as anything that Lewis Carol envisioned when he wrote about the adventures of Alice in Wonderland. The only---yet extremely significant---difference being that Carol's whimsical world wasn't meant as a dire prediction, but Benson's was. 

&&&& 

The cover notes tell us what the Pope thinks about the book.

 

Lord of the World was published in 1907 (I wonder if the reporter in the National Catholic Reporter actually knew the real date of original publication) by Robert Hugh Benson. It's hard to categorize, but the most accurate thing I can think of to say is that it's a work of Edwardian science fiction by an extremely conservative Roman Catholic.

It is set in the far distant days of the early 21st century. According to people like the Pope, this book is a dystopia. But when I read it, I was struck by how much I liked parts of it. Britain, all the European nations (except Ireland and Rome), and, both of the Americas have elected democratic socialist governments which have eliminated poverty while still keeping all the benefits of a real liberal democracy. The air is clean and unpolluted. Everyone has a home, and it's easy to travel just about anywhere using fast, convenient public transit. In addition---with one significant exception---peace reigns supreme across the continents of Europe, and, both North and South America. 

In short, the earth is something like the Star Trek utopia. There are problems---but they are based weirdly on the prejudices of a 19th century particularly conservative person. 

First of all, there's an evil empire of the East where all the Eastern "pseudo-religions" have bonded together under the leadership of a co-joined Chinese and Japanese empires. These folks have already conquered all of Russia East of the Ural Mountains plus India and Australia. And now they are threatening a war with Europe that would be catastrophic because of the existence of new extremely powerful explosives that can be dropped from aircraft. 

Please pay attention to what is going on here. At the time of publication, among reactionary elements of society, a fear of Asians existed and was known as "the yellow peril". The idea was that Asians were inscrutable subhumans who manifest no sense of individuality. Left alone, they will breed like flies and eventually erupt out of the East under the control of some devious despot. This army could overwhelm "Western civilization" through sheer numbers. This paranoid, racist fantasy fostered a whole literature of things like the "Fu Manchu" novels of Sax Rohmer and is also part of the H. P. Lovecraft worldview. 

The situation was indeed as serious as it could be. That huge Empire, consisting of a federalism of States under the Son of Heaven (made possible by the merging of the Japanese and Chinese dynasties and the fall of Russia), had been consolidating its forces and learning its own power during the last thirty-five years, ever since, in fact, it had laid its lean yellow hands upon Australia and India. While the rest of the world had learned the folly of war, ever since the fall of the Russian republic under the combined attack of the yellow races, the last had grasped its  possibilities. It seemed now as if the civilisation of the last century was to be swept back once more into chaos. It was not that the mob of the East cared very greatly; it was their rulers who had begun to stretch themselves after an almost eternal lethargy, and it was hard to imagine how they could be checked at this point. There was a touch of grimness too in the rumour that religious fanaticism was behind the movement, and that the patient East proposed at last to proselytise by the modern  equivalents of fire and sword those who had laid aside for the most part all religious beliefs except that in Humanity.

(Lord of the World, Robert Hugh Benson, p-60)

Also, pay attention to the fact that Benson is a chauvinist in that he simply dismisses Buddhist, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, and, every other non-Catholic religion as being simply false---for reasons he never really bothers to share with the reader. Moreover, he felt the same thing about Protestantism for slightly different reasons.

It is perfectly true that Protestantism is dead. Men do recognise at last that a supernatural Religion involves an absolute authority, and that Private Judgment in matters of faith is nothing else than the beginning of dis-integration. And it is also true that since the Catholic Church is the only institution that even claims supernatural authority, with all its merciless logic, she has again the allegiance of practically all Christians who have any supernatural belief left.

(Benson, p-47) 

Take the time to really think through what Benson is saying here. First, Christianity is a supernatural religion, next that it requires an absolute authority, and, Private Judgment in matters of faith is nothing else than the beginning of dis-integration. And, that the Catholic Church uses the merciless logic of "supernatural authority" to become the leader of all Christians.

Let's take the time to critically review the ideas that Benson is pushing around like vegetables in a bowl of cold, bad-tasting soup. As David Hume pointed out long ago, anything that is "supernatural" is---by definition---something that is so oddly out-of-step from the normal state of affairs that unless there is a lot of very strong evidence it makes more sense to assume that it didn't happen than to believe it did. This is another way of saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Frankly, neither Benson in his book nor the Church in any form that I've seen has come up with the extraordinary evidence that would back up the extraordinary claims that would support belief in a supernatural religion. 

And what exactly is an "absolute authority"? It would be someone you have to follow no matter what. And "what" is it that makes someone question an authority? In my experience it comes down to wondering if the person who sets out to be an authority over me is either wrong and/or is lying. If so, then isn't the point of "absolute authority" ultimately that you do what you are told---even if you think the person is wrong or lying? Then what's an "absolute authority" other than a dictator? Does this mean that if we follow absolute authority in a supernatural church we are pretty much doing the same thing as following a despot like Caesar's governor Pontius Pilate and the Jewish Sanhedrin (ie: the people who crucified Christ)---or for that matter, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or, Putin? 

Actually, you don't even have to reach into politics or history to find people who have taken on the mantle of "absolute authority". How many of us have had the experience of meeting some family member who goes nuclear if you even question their religious opinions? Isn't the sort of thing we see in this clip from Family Guy the logical result when we start throwing around the idea of "absolute authority"?

 

I'd agree that allowing for "private judgements in matters of faith" is probably going to lead to the "dis-integration" of communities ruled by dictators who require absolute obedience when it comes to believing things that require extra-ordinary evidence---evidence that is missing. But I wouldn't call that a "bug" of modernity---I'd call it a "feature".

Another dystopic element introduced by Benson is the legalization of euthanasia. I suppose in the world of his novel there are individuals who are suffering horribly because of incurable illness, but the reader never sees any reference to that sort of thing. Instead, we see several absurdist "straw men" examples raised to ensure the naive reader never strays near the reason why sensitive, moral people might support the procedure.

When one of the characters, Mabel, witnesses an airship (a "volor") crash in front of her, a nearby hospital doesn't see fit to send first aid but rather mobilizes to euthanize all the injured survivors.

Down the steps of the great hospital on her right came figures running now, hat-less, each carrying what looked like an old-fashioned camera. She knew what those men were, and her heart leaped in relief. They were the ministers of euthanasia.

 (Benson, p-69)

If this image isn't enough to make the reader take pause, Benson really grinds the message home later on the novel. When Mabel decides that there is something "off" about her society, she decides to have herself killed rather than fight to make things better. Under the relevant legislation, this isn't seen as a frivolous reason, but rather perfectly legitimate. She checks herself into a facility. Part of the regulations involve a strict rule against the authorities letting anyone know about her intentions---this ensures that friends and family, like her husband, are kept from trying to talk her out of the dying. 

If this wasn't enough, Benson goes on to parenthetically mention that things are now much better. In the past, the god-cursed scientists used the euthanasia system to pursue their own twisted ends. 

She had suffered again for an hour or two from a more concrete fear; the memory came back to her of those shocking revelations that ten years ago had convulsed England and brought about the establishment of these Homes under Government supervision —those evidences that for years in the great vivisection-laboratories human subjects had been practiced upon—persons who with the same intentions as herself had cut themselves off from the world in private euthanasia-houses, to whom had been  supplied a gas that suspended instead of destroying animation. . . . But this, too, had passed with the return of light. Such things were impossible now under the new system—at least, in England. She had refrained from making an end upon the Continent for this very reason.

(Benson, p-353)

Think about the stupendous ignorant arrogance of Benson's worldview. I have known various members of both the medical and scientific communities in my short life and every single one of them were profoundly ethical people who put the well-being of both patients and the general public at the very top of their agendas. Benson's moronic assumption that scientists, doctors, and, nurses are licking their lips in anticipation of killing hordes of people and even worse, torturing them in experiments absolutely boggles the mind---especially considering all the scientists and medical researchers who have historically been threatened by the "absolute authority" wielded by Christian groups like the Inquisition.  

(Might I point out at this point that it was an MD, Dr. Peter Henderson Bryce---not a priest, nun, or, Bishop---who tried to blow the whistle on the residential school system in 1907. And he got kicked out of the Public Service for his pains. He didn't leave his complaint to gather dust in some neglected archive, either. He instead wrote a book about the subject The Story of a National Crime. If we are to believe Benson, it's amazing that he didn't instead try to dissect the children under his care instead of trying to help free them from the diabolical clutches of the "absolute authority" wielded by a "supernatural religion". My guess is that Bryce was one of those evil bastards who rely upon the "private judgement" that inevitably leads to "dis-integration" of the Church.) 

Just in case you didn't have the term on the tip of your tongue, Benson is trying to use a "slippery slope" argument. That is the idea that society is never able to place effective limits on something once any particular part of it is allowed. That's why---according to this cracked way of thinking---if a person in extreme agony is allowed to end their suffering through medical means before you know it ambulance attendants will euthanizing people at accident scenes and people will be put down if they suffer a mild case of the blues. 

This is fallacious reasoning, and shouldn't be used by anyone with a good education and a modicum of ethics. And yet, I hear it very often in public discourse. Remember the officials who used to say "cannabis is a gateway drug" to heroin? (If you think that might be why we have an opioid epidemic, I would suggest reading my article on the subject---or at least watch this YouTube video.) That's another slippery slope argument too. Does anyone actually believe it anymore?

In addition, Benson's socialist utopia/dystopia is riddled with Masonic conspiracies. Indeed, the secret society has wormed its way so deeply into society that at one point in the novel Benson describes a public political gathering in London. After describing banners brought in from the four corner of the city showing representation by "mutual aid" and "democratic" organizations, one of the speakers starts the gathering in singing the "Masonic Anthem".

Lord Pemberton came forward, lifted his hand and made a signal; and in a moment the thin cheering died under the sudden roll of drums beneath that preluded the Masonic Hymn. 

There was no doubt that these Londoners could sing. It was as if a giant voice hummed the sonorous melody, rising to enthusiasm till the music of massed bands followed it as a flag follows a flag stick. The hymn was one composed ten  years before, and all England was familiar with it. Old Mrs. Bland lifted the printed  paper mechanically to her eyes, and saw the words that she knew so well: 

 “The Lord that dwells in earth and sea.” . . . 

She glanced down the verses that, from the Humanitarian point of view, had been composed with both skill and ardour. They had a religious ring; the unintelligent Christian could sing them without a qualm; yet their sense was plain enough—the old human creed that man was all. Even Christ’s words themselves  were quoted. The kingdom of God, it was said, lay within the human heart, and the greatest of all graces was Charity. 

She glanced at Mabel and saw that the girl was singing with all her might, with her eyes fixed on her husband’s dark figure a hundred yards away, and her soul  pouring through them. So the mother, too, began to move her lips in chorus with that vast volume of sound.

(Benson pp-100-101)

The idea that the Masons are a dangerous secret government is the grand-daddy of all modern conspiracy theories. The historical fact is that secret societies like the Masons and the Illuminati came about in the 18th century mostly to create a space where upper-class individuals could freely discuss so-called "radical ideas" (eg: science and democracy) without running the risk of persecution by the minions of absolute monarchs or counter-reformation Christians. And because of the freedoms we now enjoy in modern democracies, they have become not much more than groups devoted to philanthropy, mutual aid, and, recreation. 

What is particularly galling about the Masonic conspiracy that Benson is complaining about is that it isn't about locking children in the basement of a pizzeria so the political elite can harvest adrenochrome from them. Instead, it's the "humanist" idea that we meet God through self-reflection and the greatest grace is charity (eg: "unselfish love of fellow man"). Make no mistake, Benson's Roman Catholic ideal is really different from that held by many---if not all---"liberal" Christians

Fear of masonic conspiracies is still extant among the idiot fraction of the population (I have worked with people who believe in them), but I think the best statement about the subject is a Simpsons episode (guest starring the incomparable Patrick Stewart).

Please note that promoting conspiracies is not a "value free" activity. It has consequences. People who believe in Q-Anon supported Trump's abortive coup attempt. The Holocaust was pretty much wholly based on a conspiracy theory started by the Imperial Russian secret police (the more things change, the more they stay the same) and spread by their forgery: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So while it's easy to make fun of the Masonic conspiracy lunacy, it's important to remember that when belief in this sort of thing gets out of hand the results can be horrific. Indeed, under the NAZIS Masons were also persecuted----thousands were imprisoned in concentration camps.

&&&&

Here's me putting out my begging bowl. I put a lot of hours into researching and writing this essay. I think my perspective is probably very different from what you will read on more mainstream news and opinion sources. If you can afford it, why not sign up for a subscription? I can use the money (I have expenses like everyone else---for example, my bike got stolen last week). Patreon and Pay Pal make it easy to do.

&&&&

The basic plot arc of the novel involves the arrival of a mysterious figure named Senator Julian Felsenburgh. This fellow has the weird, supernatural ability to convince everyone who meets him to love him and do whatever he wants. For example, the world is on the brink of a cataclysmic war between the "yellow peril" and the West but when Felsenburgh meets the leaders of the various nations they quickly decide there's no need to fight. Indeed, shortly afterwards all the governments of the world---both East and West---decide to make him lifetime President of everything. 

Benson argues that the reason why this extremely strange set of events doesn't catch the attention of the vast majority of politicians and ordinary folks is simply because they have turned their backs on Roman Catholicism. 

If this sounds hard to believe, it's because of literary "world-building". Benson's novel isn't the real world, instead it's based on his assumptions about how the world operates. And in his world, people have no internal compass or ability to think things through for themselves. That means that if they aren't being told by the Pope what to think, they instantly latch onto some other authority. 

This weird aspect of the novel is reflected in other ways. For example, he mentions---totally without any explanation---that all the universities of the world have been shut down. He also never mentions science or technology as a force in his world---even though he takes for granted a broad range of world-changing new inventions. It's as if he thought that new things like pollution-free electricity, mass transit, fast air travel, and, weapons of mass destruction just sprouted up like mushrooms after a summer storm and he couldn't be bothered to ask where they all came from. 

This aspect of the novel's world allows Benson to dismiss people's ability to think for themselves from the get-go. This in turn makes it easier to accept the idea that a "yellow peril" unification of both China and Japan, plus all the major Eastern religions "just happens". It also allows him to shrug off the emergence of an individual politician who is able to magically get everyone to voluntarily give him complete authority over the human race. 

I've written about how world-building is valuable as a propaganda tool with regard to white nationalism. The four part series begins with the profound influence that William Luther Pierce's Turner Diaries had on the emergence of white nationalism. In that book racism is actually real because the characters and plot has been have been written this way. In Lord of the World, Benson's people are literally human sheep who must be led. If it's not going to be the Roman Catholic church, then it's going to be the Anti-Christ in the form of Felsenburgh. A person without faith in the Church is totally adrift---like a plastic bag caught in the wind.

via GIFER

And how does someone keep their faith? Here's a long passage where a man who eventually becomes the Pope attempts to help a priest regain his faith.

“You think it my fault, of course,” said the other sharply. 

“My dear Father,” said Percy, motionless in his chair, “I know it is your fault. Listen to me. You say Christianity is absurd and impossible. Now, you know, it cannot be that! It may be untrue—I am not speaking of that now, even though I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely true—but it cannot be absurd so long as educated and virtuous people continue to hold it. To say that it is absurd is simple pride; it is to dismiss all who believe in it as not merely mistaken, but unintelligent as well—” 

“Very well, then,” interrupted the other. “Then suppose I withdraw that, and simply say that I do not believe it to be true.” 

“You do not withdraw it,” continued Percy serenely. “You still really believe it to be absurd: you have told me so a dozen times. Well, I repeat, that is pride, and quite sufficient to account for it all. It is the moral attitude that matters. There may be other things too—” 

Father Francis looked up sharply. 

“Oh! the old story!” he said sneeringly. 

“If you tell me on your word of honour that there is no woman in the case, or no particular programme of sin you propose to work out, I shall believe you. But it is an old story, as you say.”

“I swear to you there is not,” cried the other. 

“Thank God then!” said Percy. “There are fewer obstacles to a return of faith.” 

There was silence for a moment after that. Percy had really no more to say. He had talked to him of the inner life again and again, in which verities are seen to be true, and acts of faith are ratified; he had urged prayer and humility till he was almost weary of the names; and had been met by the retort that this was to advise sheer self-hypnotism; and he had despaired of making clear to one who did not see it for himself that while Love and Faith may be called self-hypnotism from one angle, yet from another they are as much realities as, for example, artistic faculties, and need similar cultivation; that they produce a conviction that they are convictions, that they handle and taste things which when handled and tasted are over-whelmingly more real and objective than the things of sense. Evidences seemed to  mean nothing to this man. 

(Benson, p-79)

Look through the above. It's sheer sophistry. 

First, Percy says that Catholicism can't be absurd because respected people believe in it. This is the logical fallacy of "ad populum". It doesn't address the question of why people do or do not believe that Catholicism is absurd. Moreover, it misses the point that lots of respected people actually do think that Catholicism is absurd. 

Secondly, Percy tries to smear Father Francis by suggesting that there was a "woman involved" or some other "sin" that he wants to indulge in. This is blind, screaming arrogance on the part of Percy. First of all, he is simply dismissing out of hand the idea that Francis might actually have legitimate reasons for losing his faith. If that's allowed, then Francis might be equally justified in suggesting that Percy has motivated reasoning himself---a lot of priests and ministers no longer believe in God, yet continue in the role simply because they like the prestige, money, perks, etc, or, they are afraid of losing their friends, profession, and/or family. Indeed, there is an organization---the Clergy Project---that is designed to help religious leaders leave their present positions with minimal friction---and they say that 20% of the people they deal with stay in their positions as religious leaders, even though they no longer believe in God. 

Next he suggests that Francis' loss of faith is simply "pride". This is an interesting comment, and I think that it's important readers zero in on it. One man's "pride" is another person's "moral courage". There's an episode of Star Trek: the Next Generation where Captain Picard is captured by the Cardassians and ends up being interrogated by an officer in their secret police. In order to break Jean-Luke, he tortures him and only asks him to say one thing. Over the Inquisitor's desk there are four electric light bulbs---if Picard will say that there are actually five, he will be given a respite. 

But Picard's sense of self is bound up with his sense of honesty. This means that he believes that if he starts "bending it" to fit the situation he's in, he will begin a path that will lead to him betraying the confidence placed in him by Star Fleet. To that end, he steadfastly refuses to say there are five lights right up until the point where he is rescued.

This fictional drama is based on real situations that have played out over and over again in both courtrooms and dungeons. It happened to Galileo and Bruno, it happened in NAZI Germany, Stalin's (now Putin's) Russia, and, Mao's China. It's happening in lots of other places right now. And in many of them I suppose other people have said the people holding out for the truth as they knew it were also suffering from "pride". But if you'd asked the victims themselves, they'd probably have said that it was instead "integrity".

Finally, Benson has Percy mention the solutions of "prayer" and "humility"---which Francis suggests are merely "self-hypnosis". This is an important issue, one that goes far beyond the scope of this already ballooning article. Having said that, I do think that it is worth a little explanation.

Oddly enough, I did an undefended Master's thesis on the role of cultural conditioning in religious experiences. And one of the things I found out from my literature survey is that there are significant and very important differences between types of "mystical" experiences---based on the specific tradition. The Jewish tradition emphasizes that God is separate from man, so that's how Jewish mystics experience him. Yogic teachings talk about the unity of God and man---so that's what their mystics experience. Moreover, if you look at different Roman Catholic religious orders you can see that people have different experiences not only based on the particular religious community they inhabit (eg: Jesuit versus Franciscan)---but also according to the specific type of practice one follows (eg: meditating on the Song of Solomon seems to have encouraged some groups of Nuns to have visions about their marriage to Christ). Moreover, if someone has experiences that contradict official church dogma, bad things often happened. (Meister Eckhart---someone I have repeatedly seen quoted by Roman Catholic teachers---died in prison while on trial for heresy because he preached on the basis of religious experiences that at least some officials believed contradicted some core church teachings.) 

The inescapable result of my study on the subject tells me that Francis is quite right. A lot of "spiritual training"----especially of the sort Percy is recommending---is not much more than self-hypnosis aimed at "tamping down" your faculty of reason (or what one professor I studied under called the "bullshit detector"). 

&&&&

As for the main issue---the "ideological colonialism" that got me interested in this book---the clearest description of what I think Francis is talking about that I could find comes in the following passage.

The second main argument was addressed to reason. Persecution, as all enlightened persons confessed, was the method of a majority of savages who desired to force a set of opinions upon a minority who did not spontaneously share them. Now the peculiar malevolence of persecution in the past lay, not in the employment of force, but in the abuse of it. That any one kingdom should dictate religious opinions to a minority of its members was an intolerable tyranny, for no one State possessed the right to lay down universal laws, the contrary to which might be held by its neighbour. This, however, disguised, was nothing else than the Individualism of Nations, a heresy even more disastrous to the commonwealth of the world than the Individualism of the Individual. But with the arrival of the universal community of interests, the whole situation was changed. The single personality of the human race had succeeded to the incoherence of divided units, and with that consummation—which might be compared to a coming of age, an entirely new set of rights had come into being. The human race was now a single entity with a supreme responsibility towards itself; there were no longer any private rights at all, such as had certainly existed, in the period previous to this. Man now possessed dominion over every cell which composed His Mystical Body, and where any such cell asserted itself to the detriment of the Body, the rights of the whole were unqualified. 

(Benson, p-340)

It's extremely hard to understand this mushy porridge of words, but as near as I can tell Benson is trying to say that once the world became just one huge socialist utopia under the benign leadership of Julian Felsenburgh, there was no longer any room for points of view that disagreed with the dominant way of looking at things. I think this is the "ideological colonialism" that the two Popes find so frightening. 

I have some sympathy for the concern being raised---but for very different reasons than the Bishops of Rome. There's a real contradiction at the heart of mass democratic societies: the dynamic tension between individual people's freedoms and their responsibility to society-as-a-whole.

Consider the COVID pandemic that is now hopefully tapering off. The federal, provincial, and, municipal governments of Canada had a responsibility towards the entire population---including the elderly, the sick, and, others with greater susceptibility to the virus than the general public. To that end, they created mandates that said "if you want to engage in this activity, you must show that you have been vaccinated". This directly conflicted to individual people's "bodily integrity", or, the right to refuse any sort of invasive medical treatment.

The above isn't really much of a special case, however. The same conflict arises over and over again in society. During war, the state often drafts people to fight and seizes personal property to aid the struggle. It also levies taxes against individuals and businesses to fund public projects even during time of peace. Again, there are also environment, health and safety, etc, regulations that constrain the freedom of individuals to do as they wish in their place of business. 

I think that for a lot of people the sort of regimentation and control that human beings have to engage in must seem tremendously irritating. I know in my own case that when I was working I found myself constantly grinding my teeth in anger at the things I had to do to make a living---many of which seemed to range from stupidly absurd wastes of time to others that seems downright against the well-being of humanity and life on earth in general.  

But I accept that many of the obligations that society places on us are useful and often necessary. The difference is that I judge each individual one on its own merits using the criteria of evidence and logic. If something "passes the sniff test", then I will accept it. That's what the people running the government usually do too. No one liked having to wear a mask, for example, but most people saw them as a necessary evil during the height of the pandemic. 

I suspect that the problem for Benson, Francis, and, Benedict vis-a-vis "ideological colonialism" is that they don't have something like the evidence and logic sniff test to separate what they believe is a good constraint from one that they consider bad. That's because the most important thing in their life simply can't be supported either by evidence or logic. Instead, they've built their lives around "supernatural religion" and the "absolute authority" of tradition and the ecclesiastic hierarchy. 

This is the corner that revealed religion has painted itself into. In a world where everything is governed by arbitrary authority---like in the time of divine right of kings---it functions just fine. But in a world that is increasingly democratic and governed by science, there's just less and less room for this type of spirituality. 

The thing to remember, however, is that there are many different ways of experiencing transcendence in our lives. Academic researchers are often motivated by a deeply felt interest to find truth. Many politicians devote their lives to making their societies more fair and just. Lawyers and doctors can also be deeply caring individuals who want to help individual people facing terrible problems. Artists, musicians, craftsmen of all types, etc, can use their calling to bring beauty into the world. And many spiritual people have tried to base their religious beliefs on their own conscience and personal experience (ie: they are "spiritual but not religious".) In my own case, I believe I have a real vocation to try to help people make sense of a complex and confusing world---hence the many hours I spend researching and writing every day. 

So when the world steps in and says to the church "you have to stop discriminating against gays and women" or "no, we won't use the coercive power of the state to stop women from having safe abortions", it isn't because the state is forcing an ideology down the throat of a people. Instead, it's involved in a conversation with humanity where it tries to do the right thing as much as possible---based on the best evidence and most rational argument it can find. The problem with church teaching isn't that it is different from the majority viewpoint---it's because it doesn't make any sense and the church cannot come up with anything like a persuasive argument in support of it. 

That's why Benson's language is so turgid. He's trying to justify his position but he doesn't have any evidence or logical reasoning to support it. Instead, all he can do is muddy the water and hope the reader doesn't catch on. And that, ultimately, is all the Pope can do too. 

Celebrities hate it when the general public calls "bullshit" on their actions and make so big a fuss that their careers suffer. That's why they've come up with that nonsense term "cancel culture". This isn't to say that no one ever gets unjustly accused of something they didn't do. I've suffered myself from this sort of thing. But whatever anger people feel against the unjust smearing should include some understanding that there are a lot of "little people" who have been humiliated by the powerful and just had to "suck it up" because that's what it means to be "little people". Just remember that "cancel culture" only really became a "thing" when the "little people" found they could push back against the Bill Cosbys, Jeffrey Epsteins, Harvey Weinsteins, etc of the world. And very few people have listened to the First Nations when they mentioned what happened in residential schools either.   

I believe that Pope Francis' shuck and jive about "ideological colonialism" is just a fancier way of saying that he thinks the Church should be still be able to ignore what the little people say. So I call "bullshit" on this too----. 

&&&&

I've written a lot in the above to try to explain to readers what the novel is like. I've done this because I think it's a window into the mind of Pope Francis. This is important because it is extremely hard to figure out just what exactly is going on in the minds of other people---especially famous ones. For example, just think about how completely Jian Ghomeshi and Bill Cosby's public image seemed to be out-of-step with their real private lives. The public relations machine that insulated them is much, much thicker for a Pope. The only chance that anyone who isn't extremely high in the Roman Catholic church is going to have to evaluate what he really thinks about any given subject is through things like the books he recommends people read. 

That's why it is so disturbing to read Lord of the World. I don't think that I'm exaggerating when I say that it is just as much of an intellectual dumpster fire as anything I read when I was doing my series on white nationalism. The only real difference is that I'm willing to cut Robert Hugh Benson some slack over the casual racism, etc, because it was written so long ago and people were very different back then. But the Pope doesn't have that luxury. He's supposed to be the absolute best representative of the Catholic Church (after all, some of his pronouncements are supposed to be infallible---which, of course, is part of the problem). Moreover, for all intents and purposes, he's that "absolute authority" that at least Benson believes must be followed even if it contradicts one's one personal moral intuition.

&&&&

My wife calls me a "sickening optimist", which I suspect is right. I'm constantly trying to find the best spin on people and situations. As a result, I've tried to snatch some evidence of wisdom or good intention out of things that various Popes have said during my life. When Francis has said things like "Who am I to judge?", I have been tempted to think good things about the Church and it's doctrines. But that's foolishness. Real change doesn't come easy---it requires deep contemplation and contrition. And if you believe that you have all the answers on what it means to be a moral person it is damned hard to look in the mirror, admit that you have done wrong, and, try to honestly figure out how you can change to become better. 

And the Catholicism revealed in Lord of the World is as far from what I would believe is an honest and humble understanding of the wrong done by the Church as I could even imagine. Having read it myself, I can only see it as evidence that the Pope Francis we see in the media is not the real man. Any prelate who would recommend this book seems to me to be totally and utterly incapable of genuine repentance for the ill done in the name of the institution he heads.

&&&&

Again, like a lot of people, I wanted Pope Francis to be a positive influence in the world. Many of the elders that met him in Rome obviously wanted him to be this too. But regardless of whether or not he is personally a kind, good man (I suspect he is), the institution he serves is not a force for good in this world. I don't want it to be forced out of existence, but I do not want it to have an out-sized influence either. What I do want is for it to enter into a genuine conversation with everyone else. A real conversation, one in which it honesty tries to use the principles of honest conversation---facts and logic---instead of being able to use rhetoric and nonsense to bamboozle people into getting its own way.

The Pope is going to be in this nation over the summer and will be visiting sites across the country as part of his "apology" tour. I hope that there will be something more than vague, hard to understand, and, confusing language. But I'm not holding my breath.

&&&&

Moreover I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with.

Cult Smashers: Part Twenty Four

Eric had been a member of the Dancin Folz for several years before someone he’d never met before asked him what he was doing to make a living. He had finally gotten a job stocking shelves at the local Walmart, but that hardly paid for the gas he used to drive to work. As a result, he was a little reluctant to say. But when the local chapter leader walked over and suggested to him that the new guy was “worth talking to”, he opened up.

He never gave his name, and Eric thought he’d have been annoyed if anyone had asked him to say it. But there was something about him. He wore jeans like everyone else, but those snakeskin cowboy boots weren’t cheap. Neither was the hat on his head. No doubt about it, the guy had money. And he was interested in Eric. So he told him the truth.

“Have you ever thought about a job in law enforcement?”

“Not really, I always assumed that after being fired from the town I would never be able to get hired. I also figured those jobs all went to vets anyway.”

“There might have been problems, but with the right friends a bright guy like you shouldn’t have any trouble getting into the local force. There’s an opening and I’d be willing to pull some strings to get you hired. You see, the Dancin Folz likes to have some people on the inside of the police force. That allows us to know what’s going on before nasty surprises pop up---if you know what I mean.”

“I think I do. Are there any ‘catches’ I should know about?”

“Good question. I’m glad you asked first. You see we need someone who can do things on the QT. If we have you on the inside, you can’t go to any events or meetings like this anymore. Instead, you would just answer to me. Mostly, you’d just have a job in the police force---but if you see something that I want you to tell me about, you do. Similarly, there may come a time when I want you to do something for me.”

“What sort of things?”

“Well, if the police get a line on Black Lives Matter planning a protest, I’d like to hear about it too. And as for more active things---it’ll be like the secretary I’m going to ask to change your city personnel file to erase any mention of your being fired, fill out the form so you have the best grades on the aptitude test, and, then move your application to the top of the pile.”

“Oh!”

“The Dancin Folz are a team and I think it’s time to get you off the bench and onto the field.”

&&&&

Furthermore I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

Cult Smashers: Part Twenty Three

When Nate and Sally got to the auditorium they were greeted at the door by some nice folks who sold them some tickets. They’d showed up a bit early, so there wasn’t much of a rush. That meant they had a little time to chat with the ticket people. They asked if they’d like to hear about other, similar shows? If so, they had a sign up list where they could leave their names and email addresses. Before Nate could say anything, Sally stepped right in. “That’d be swell, my name is Barbara Yatzy and my young nephew is named Fred Whitehand. My email is B.Yatz@operamail.com.” She looked over at Nate and asked “Why don’t you give them your email, Fred?” He tried to hide his initial surprise at the fake names and address, but he was quick on his feet, so he played along. “Yeah, it’s NotHereNow@gmail.com.”

There was a table with coffee and cookies near the ticket sellers, so Sally headed straight for it. Nate followed along. She whispered to him as she handed him a cup of coffee. “I gave you a shove and you didn’t lose your balance. Good. Now I want you to play along with your new identity all night. You are Fred Whitehand and nothing more. We are just local yokels here for a lark. Now I want to loiter here around the coffee and see if we can hear a little more about the other people who come in.”

Sally had the two of them indulge in fake chit chat until she saw a short, dark-haired woman show up. She wore a bright, embroidered vest, very ostentatious First Nation’s mukluks, a big silver celtic cross around her neck, and, a flashy gold ring with the zodaic sign for Aquarius on her left hand. Her face had a peculiar quality, almost like she had a smile permanently painted on it---like a child’s rag doll or an old-fashioned marionette puppet.

Nate noticed that she was very animated and spent a lot of time talking to the people selling tickets. It was obvious that she agreed to share her contact info, because the two ticket sellers wrote down her info on a clip board. After she’d left the two of them, she went straight to her seat up front. Sally noticed that the person with the clip board made a point of going back to the clip board, pulled out her cell phone, speed-dialed a number, and , left a text message.

She turned to Nate. “Let’s get seated. I want us to be directly behind that woman up front.”

&&&&

Furthermore I say unto you, the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!