“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

– The First Amendment of the United States Constitution


A woman walks into the break-room of her particular place of employment. She then proceeds to pull out her Bible, stand on top of a chair, and read aloud in a manner that is clearly audible to everyone in the vicinity.  Her co-workers complain about this to management. Management pulls the woman aside and requests that she stop doing this.  The woman replies by stating that management has no right to impede upon her religious freedom, and that this loud Bible reading was an expression of that.  Management replied that the nature of this reading was disruptive to others’ enjoyment of the break-room and potentially interfered with their workplace productivity.

It was at this point the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was called. For those unfamiliar, the EEOC is a federal agency established by an executive order from John F. Kennedy in 1961.  The EEOC administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, as well as investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for reporting, participating in, and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

official-seal-of-the-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-eeocThe EEOC sent an investigator to look into the complaint of discrimination filed by the Bible-reading woman.  However, much to the woman’s surprise, the investigator proceeded to inform her that her “rights” had not been violated by the employer’s request, and that her grandiose reading of the Bible may have been offensive to her co-workers and thus intruding on their “rights”.

A close friend of mine relayed this story to me, which was in turn told to her by the aforementioned EEOC investigator as a part of a corporate “sensitivity training” given at her place of employment.  Interestingly, the EEOC bureaucrat/sensitivity trainer cited this story as an example of how “protected classes” are now using their “protected” status to infringe upon the rights of others.  My friend then asked me what my thoughts were on the matter, and I can definitely say they were not what she was hoping for.

My first response was to state that Christians, especially Evangelical or Fundamentalist types (of which I am neither, but this woman obviously was), were no longer really treated as a “protected class” in the eyes of the Federal Government or mainstream culture.  Evangelical Christians have actually been labelled as “more dangerous than ISIS” by the feds and the “liberal” media.   A few examples of this “protection” of Christians were cited in a recent (2012) joint report by the Liberty Institute and the Family Research Council:

• A federal judge threatened “incarceration” to a high school valedictorian unless she removed references to Jesus from her graduation speech.
• City officials prohibited senior citizens from praying over their meals, listening to religious messages or singing gospel songs at a senior activities center.
• A public school official physically lifted an elementary school student from his seat and reprimanded him in front of his classmates for praying over his lunch.
• Following U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ policies, a federal government official sought to censor a pastor’s prayer, eliminating references to Jesus, during a Memorial Day ceremony honoring veterans at a national cemetery.
• Public school officials prohibited students from handing out gifts because they contained religious messages.
• A public school official prevented a student from handing out flyers inviting her classmates to an event at her church.
• A public university’s law school banned a Christian organization because it required its officers to adhere to a statement of faith that the university disagreed with.
• The U.S. Department of Justice argued before the Supreme Court that the federal government can tell churches and synagogues which pastors and rabbis it can hire and fire.
• The State of Texas sought to approve and regulate what religious seminaries can teach.
• Through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the federal government is forcing religious organizations to provide insurance for birth control and abortion-inducing drugs in direct violation of their religious beliefs.
• The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs banned the mention of God from veterans’ funerals, overriding the wishes of the deceased’s families.
• A federal judge held that prayers before a state House of Representatives could be to Allah but not to Jesus.

Another interesting anecdote of workplace “discrimination” involved a Muslim worker at a GAP store who prayed in the aisle daily.  In response, a Christian co-worker put a Bible on his own desk and would read silently while the Muslim employee prayed.  The Muslim employee complained about this to management and the Christian was fired without warning.  Now the Muslim GAP employee had numerous complaints against him from others due to “loud prayers” and “blocking the aisle”.  It was also apparently against company policy for religious viewpoints to be expressed within the company; however this policy appears to have been selectively enforced as the Muslim employee did not lose his job, but the Christian employee did.

Now this is not to say that other religious and minority groups have not suffered workplace persecution in the past, but now the mainstream narrative has definitively flipped (unless you’re watching Fox News).  As I have talked about in previous postings, the culture of political correctness has become totalitarian in nature, with people losing their careers and being blacklisted over saying anything that is “deemed” as racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, or “intolerant” in any way.

However, there is one group that political-correctness does NOT apply to. Think about who it is “okay” to make fun of and demonize without fear of backlash and being labelled, “racist”, “bigot”, “Nazi”, “anti-Semite”, “homophobe”, or any of the other words used to demonize those who are outside the PC mainstream.  You know who it is…  So yes, while it is true that the “protected classes” have become the oppressors, to group Christians in this category is a misleading statement at best and an obfuscation of the current power structure.

Moving back to the conversation with my friend and the story of the EEOC investigator and my response to it.  I questioned how it was the duty of the federal government to settle a private dispute between a private employer and employee on private property, and why it was the government’s job to regulate “discrimination”.  Even if you believe in the “law” of the Constitution, there is no place where the federal government is given that “right” or that responsibility.

Now I worked in the labor movement for the better part of three years, and I still believe in standing up for yourself when it comes to the workplace and the fruits of one’s own labor.  I will continuously advocate for the power of the boycott and the strike as organic expressions of free will (even if not always motivated from a “higher mind”).  However, the moral dilemma comes when the government gets involved. Government, by and large, can be summed up with two words- force and control.  This friend tends to chastise this point of view as a vehement and irrational “hatred” of government.

When it comes to labor and discrimination in the workplace, the premise behind getting government involved is to try and FORCE someone to do the “right thing” and/or, as my friend put it, “hold them accountable”, when they do the “wrong” thing.  Now, even if you believe in “rights” as a real thing, how is forcing anyone to do anything not considered a violation of THEIR RIGHTS?  That is circular logic, is it not? And what exactly is this need to “hold them accountable”, i.e. see them punished, all about?

There is a deep psychological desire for us to see quantifiable, measurable results to things. We need “closure” to move on from traumatic events.  We desire retribution towards those who have offended our ego.  This is at the root of our need to SEE “justice” done.   Even those of us who say we believe in or “know” Karma, often still feel that those who do wrong need to be punished in a way that is satisfactory to us, specifically our ego, or finite mind: “This person took something from me or caused me pain, so I NEED to be sure they will suffer as a direct result of what they did to ME”.

In other words, we want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this “wrongdoer” has indeed been punished.  We don’t want to wait for the Law of the Universe to work in Its own eternal time and fashion- we want justice RIGHT NOW.  We want vengeance RIGHT NOW.  And this sense of “justice” can be projected onto the situations of others, causing us to believe we are identifying with them, when really, it’s about US and what we are identified with and attached to.  All of these thoughts and emotions are emanations of the lower mind that is completely absorbed in the physical world and has no faith in ANYTHING it can’t see, hear, touch, taste or smell.


When I explained to my friend that people were ALWAYS “held accountable” by the Divine Law of the Universe when they acted immorally and maliciously towards others, she got pretty pissed off.  She stated that I was “looking down” from a position of “privilege” (there’s that word again).  I attempted to explain how, from the perspective of the Eternal Soul, that a person’s struggles of “oppression” may have been exactly what that person needed for their personal spiritual growth in this lifetime.  It also could have very well been the “reaping” of “sown seeds”.  With this, I was accused of being impractical and not “grounded in reality”.  In a way this is “looking down”.  It is looking down from the perspective of infinite spirit/soul as opposed to looking up from the perspective of finite body/mind.

My friend proceeded to cite examples of workplace insensitivity, which were racially-based.  These stories involved a company in which an African-American employee was “jokingly” threatened with a noose and a Middle-Eastern man was required to park in a parking spot that had been labelled “terrorist”.  While absolutely disrespectful and insensitive, and potentially even threatening, I still did not share her belief that the presence of an “entity to hold people accountable” was necessary or truly effective and productive.  The belief that such entities are needed is to affirm a position of bondage, therefore affirming the superiority of one individual or entity over another.  To top it off, forcing anyone to do anything only breeds resentment, not tolerance.

What really struck me was how the Middle Eastern man felt “trapped” because he “needed” that job to support his family.  I am “privileged” that I don’t have to worry about supporting a family and I do have empathy for this man as I understand that the basic instinctual desire to provide for one’s children can quickly put one into desperation or “survival mode”.  However, empathy is not pity.  Pity is looking upon someone as weak and powerless, rather than as a unique expression of the Divine Creator and possessing incredible creative power and potential. There are unlimited potential outcomes to any given situation, but when we are overtaken with fear, our consciousness becomes rigid and we develop a sort of “tunnel-vision”, making it much harder to see all possibilities and choose with clarity.

Unfortunately, my friend saw me as being detached and unsympathetic to the plights of others. She stated that if I had encountered real discrimination that I would not view things in this manner. Indeed my past situations of discrimination didn’t mirror those of others; they were mine.  My friend eventually became so worked up due to my stance that she stormed off.

Later she told me that the reason she had gotten so upset was because she herself was feeling discriminated against at work.  She found herself in a compromising situation with someone who was management, and now this person threatened her job if she told anyone what had happened.  She now felt she was being intentionally ostracized from various “team-building” outings in her department.  She said that the environment in the office was incredibly hostile towards her and she was afraid to go to anyone due to the manager’s threat.

I asked my friend about talking to higher-ups within the company and telling them of the manager’s conduct.  I also told her she had an option with bringing a case to the Labor Board as well (even though it pained me to suggest going to government).  I also suggested she talk to people face to face directly regarding this matter.  However, she said she was worried about her reputation in the company and “making things worse”.  She also did not want to quit this job because it was well-paying and she had only started in the last several months.

While my friend felt powerless, it was ultimately her fear that made it most difficult.  It was the fear of having to make an UNCOMFORTABLE choice that could potentially make life uncomfortable for a time.  We want life to be as comfortable and hassle-free as possible- this is the vice of the modern western man/woman.  The statement is true that “where there is a will there is a way”- it just depends on how much you’re willing to sacrifice and how open and committed you are to thinking “outside the box”.

When viewed from the finite mind, these types of situations appear to present a threat to our very survival.   Anything that appears to have the potential to threaten our livelihood is something that we associate with death on a deep subconscious/unconscious level.  But the truth is that the vast majority things that get this response from us are NOT life or death situations at all.  This is why stress-related disease is rampant in modern society.  We put up with a lot that we don’t need to because we are so terrified of death.  And it’s not even really death, but the FEAR of death- the creeping uncertainty of the unknown- that keeps us mentally imprisoned.

When people and situations arise that seem to make our work in the world intolerable, we may do well to ask ourselves; “Is this really the work that I’m meant to be doing?  Is this really expressing the highest creative potential of my soul or am I just being a cog in a machine?  Am I here because this is the path mainstream society says I should be taking with my skill set? And if so, is there something more creative and enriching I could do with my time and potential?  Am I thriving here, or am I really just here to survive?  Am I here because I love this work and it makes the world a better place, or am I really just in it for the money?”

These are hard questions that I have asked myself continuously and continue to do so.  I know that the only reason I ever feel stuck or trapped in a situation is because I have convinced myself that is the case and/or I have believed what everyone else says is the case.  This is a universal truth that is applicable regardless of your “privilege” or lack thereof.  Now this isn’t to say that some situations don’t present harder choices than others.  Nor am I saying that our decisions should be taken at selfish whimsy.  What I am saying is that at the end of the day, our state of consciousness trumps any outside factors, regardless of how imposing, powerful or monolithic those factors may appear to be.


Perspective shapes reality.  We can choose to see things from the limited perspective of the finite mind or from a higher mode of consciousness.  People only have power over us when we give our power to them.  If we believe our options in life are limited, then they will be.  Now of course, there is need to know and understand how to utilize our limitless potential, just as there is need for moral grounding so we use it appropriately.  But make no mistake about it, our potential is boundless, we just need to have faith and be fearless.  And if we do “lose”, we “don’t lose the lesson” and think our life is over.


Not all sacrifices are worth making, but a degree of sacrifice and discomfort is inevitable if we want to grow to our full potential and be free men and women.

Sometimes our calling may be to confront a petty tyrant that is persecuting and oppressing people.  Perhaps we need to shine a light on their actions or perhaps even defend ourselves or another person.  But when we do this, we would do well to check within and be sure we are acting from a place of compassion and moral clarity as opposed to fear-based self-righteousness.  Sometimes the line is VERY fine indeed.

At the end of the day, some people are going to be intolerant or bigoted or just plain assholes and NOTHING- no amount of shaming or punishment will ever change that.  We can however change ourselves, how we relate to the world and how we treat other beings.  That is where REAL change can occur.

Namaste and God Bless.





“This time Germany has forced a total war upon the world. As a result, she must be prepared to pay a total penalty. And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever! In fact—not in fancy!… the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world. . . . There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism— and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind.”

– Theodore N. Kaufman from his 1941 book, “Germany Must Perish!”



For those who may not be aware, this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, which culminated with the surrender of Germany in April of 1945 and then the surrender of Japan four months later in August. This also marks the 70th anniversary of the “discovery” of the Holocaust when the Soviets liberated the German prison camps in Eastern Europe toward the end of the war.

The celebration of the “Good War” continually saturates film screens with the release of a new World War II period movie hitting the theaters every movie season starring big name actors like George Clooney and Brad Pitt. Likewise, there is also the regular release of Holocaust films that are seemingly predestined to win an Oscar.


Meanwhile on television, there is a continuous stream of “historical” documentaries that likewise portray the brave nobility of the Allied forces and the satanic evil of Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and their “Axis of Evil”. In fact, one regular program that airs on the “American Heroes Channel” (a cable channel aimed at veterans which seems to play World War II programs almost non-stop) is entitled “Nazis: Evolution of Evil”. Unlike a seemingly sparse selection of films and programming on Vietnam, Korea, or any other war that the U.S. has been involved in, Americans cannot seem to get enough of World War II (the British love it, too).

Why is that?

Unlike Vietnam or our recent incursions in the Middle East, World War II has been painted as a war we can “feel good” about. It is labeled as “the Good War”, where we literally fought the incarnation of Satan on Earth. But history is written by the victors, and there is perhaps no more shining example of this simple truth than World War II. The cartoonishly simplistic American narrative around the Second World War goes something like this:

World War II was the most JUST war EVER fought! It was fought by the GREATEST and BRAVEST generation ever! Yeah, the whole atomic bomb thing was kinda ugly, but… IT SAVED MILLIONS OF LIVES! REMEMBER DECEMBER 7th?! The Japanese sneak-attacked us at PEARL HARBOR! And they were allies with HITLER and the NAZIS who were the most EVIL and WICKED MONSTERS EVER, so they deserved it! Don’t forget, Hitler was the ANTI-CHRIST and killed 6 MILLION JEWS for no good reason AND he wanted to TAKE OVER THE WORLD and TAKE OUR FREEDOMS! But we BEAT HIM and EVERYTHING we did was JUST and GOOD!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!!


This narrative is an incredibly black and white, over-simplified and one-sided view of history. History, especially history around war, is NEVER that simple. While the Germans and their allies were FAR from angels, the Allies were perhaps even further from sainthood. This is the hard truth.


Arguably the most out-and-out brutal (although the Americans were close) were the Soviets and their leader, Joseph Stalin. Referred to as “Uncle Joe” by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Stalin enjoyed a special relationship with his administration and its supporters. While the Roosevelt administration and the media were demonizing the “murderous Hun” of National Socialist Germany over a decade before any reports of a “Holocaust” surfaced, Stalin was committing genocide among his own people, while FDR looked the other way.

deak_1-032113In 1933, the “Holodomor”, or “extermination by hunger” was perpetrated on the people of Ukraine. The primarily agricultural denizens of the region were forced to give up their crop yields at gunpoint, forcing an estimated 2.5-7.5 million people to die of starvation. This was done largely to pay back Wall Street and the City of London (not to be confused with London, England) for financing the Bolshevik Revolution. With the exception of a few select newspapers, no public outcry or condemnation of this act occurred anywhere. To this day, most people are not even aware that this even happened.

In the book “My Exploited Father-In-Law”, Roosevelt’s son-in-law, Col. Curtis B. Dall explains this fuzzy relationship may have had to do with communist infiltration into FDR’s administration. Communist infiltration was already taking place in D.C., as it was in Europe and Asia during the 1930s under Communist International- an organization based out of the Soviet Union that sought to establish a worldwide communist “empire”.

cominternStalin himself was paranoid and obsessed with preserving his own power and was brutally oppressive towards his own people. The Stalin regime was responsible for the instituting the vast network of GULAG prison camps that operated throughout the Soviet Union. From petty criminals, to political prisoners, these camps were designed for anyone seen as an “enemy of the state”, i.e. ANYONE seen as a threat to Stalin’s power. This included soldiers who made decisions during combat that weren’t ordered by a superior. Independent thought and action was seen as a threat to the regime. GULAG prisoners were literally worked to death in abhorrent conditions that made any of the German camps look like a country club.


In his book, “Stalin’s Secret War”, Russian author Nikolai Tolstoy contends that Stalin himself was responsible either directly or indirectly for the majority of the 25-30 million Russian war dead of the Second World War. However, this isn’t the story we’ve been given.  The narrative is this: Nazis were the bad guys. Allies were the good guys. That’s it. Case closed.

But history isn’t Hollywood, and Hollywood isn’t history- regardless of whether or not it’s Steven Spielberg that directs it.


It was with the blessings of the United States government, that the Soviets, particularly the second-waive troops from Asiatic Russia, raped and tortured German and other European civilians in great numbers during World War II. The documented stories surrounding these “liberators” are some of the most horrible I have ever heard.

ww2-Nemmersdorf-massacreThe following is an excerpt from the book “Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany 1944-1947” by author Thomas Goodrich in which an eye witness describes such horrors to army physician Lt. Heinrich Amberger (warning: this is incredibly disturbing):

“In the farmyard further down the road stood a cart, to which four naked women were nailed through their hands in a cruciform position. . . . Beyond . . . stood a barn and to each of its two doors a naked woman was nailed through the hands, in a crucified posture. In the dwellings we found a total of seventy-two women, including children, and one old man, 74, all dead . . . all murdered in a bestial manner, except only a few who had bullet holes in their necks. Some babies had their heads bashed in. In one room we found a woman, 84 years old, sitting on a sofa . . . half of whose head had been sheared off with an ax or a spade.”

Jewish Soviet writer, Ilya Ehrenburg cheered on the Red Army in his book, “The War”:

Ilya Ehrenburg“The Germans are not human beings. . . . If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day. . . . If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. . . . [T]here is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses… Kill, Red Army men, kill! No fascist is innocent, be he alive, be he as yet unborn.”

The Soviets were also responsible for the largest maritime disaster in history with the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff; a German cruise liner filled with some 8,000 women, children, elderly and infirmed refugees that were attempting to escape torture and annihilation in late January 1945. Some 7,000 civilians were lost in the frigid Baltic Sea in a tragedy that dwarfed that of the famous Titanic disaster. However, no multi-million dollar Hollywood productions have been produced around this story. We only have the forgotten testimonies of the few survivors like Eva Luck who recalls her family’s attempts to escape death:

“My mother had forgotten to put her shoes on, and I moved clumsily on high heels towards the iron rungs of the ladder going up the ship’s inside. People around us were falling about as the ship moved but I was able to grasp the rungs and haul up my little sister. . . . My mother followed us to the upper deck. When we got there it was terrible. I saw with horror that the funnel was lying almost parallel with the sea. People were jumping in. I could hear the ship’s siren and felt the ice-cold water round my legs. I reached out to try and grab my sister. I felt nothing but the water as it swept me out and over the side.”

MV-Wilhelm-Gustloff2The Americans and British however were not that far behind the Soviets in wartime barbarity. In fact it was these allies that changed the “rules” of war by creating planes that were specifically designed for bombing civilian populations (it had been standard practice to attack military targets before that point). The fire bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and a slew of other cities burned women, children and elderly alive in a way that made the London bombings look pale in comparison. It should be noted that it was Britain, not Germany that began the practice of bombing civilian targets during the war.


Celebrated” British Prime Minster Winston Churchill stated the following in regards to the bombing of German cities:

“German cities . . . will be subjected to an ordeal the like of which has never been experienced by a country in continuity, severity and magnitude . . . [T]o achieve this end there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go.”


Herbert Brecht, a survivor of the fire bombings of Hamburg recalls the results of Churchill’s “ordeals”:

“The burning people who were being driven past our bomb crater by the storm could never have survived. Eventually, there were about forty people lying in the crater. There was a soldier in uniform near me with a lot of medals. He tried to take his life with a knife. . . . About this time, I noticed that a car had driven into our crater and had buried some people beneath it. . . . I hadn’t seen this happen. It was only through the
crying of a small boy that I noticed it. He was lying with the front bumper of the car on top of him. . . . The screams of the burning and dying people are unforgettable. When a human being dies [like that], he screams and whimpers and, then, there is the death rattle in his throat.”

A survivor of the Darmstadt fire bombings recalls finding the remains of a woman who was “lying like a statue, her cold heels in their shoes stuck up in the air, her arms raised . . . , her mouth and teeth gaping open so that you did not know whether she had been laughing or crying.”


On the other side of the world we had decimation of civilian populations in mainland Japan, starting with the napalm (a sticky combustible chemical developed by DuPont and Standard Oil chemical companies) fire bombings of Tokyo. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey described the attack on the 84.7% residential (and made primarily of wood structures) city:

“The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated, turbid, burning vapors . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over 15 square miles in 6 hours . . .. The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure or its contents escaped damage… The mechanisms of death were so multiple and simultaneous… that probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly.”

800px-Tokyo_kushu_1945-2A police cameraman named Ishikawa Koyo described the streets as “rivers of fire . . . flaming pieces of furniture exploding in the heat, while the people themselves blazed like ‘matchsticks’ as their wood and paper homes exploded in flames. Under the wind and the gigantic breath of the fire, immense incandescent vortices rose in a number of places, swirling, flattening, sucking whole blocks of houses into their maelstrom of fire.”

97,000 people were killed, 125,000 people were injured and 1,200,000 were left homeless as 15.8 miles of the city of Tokyo was reduced to ash. Later, the civilian population of Osaka would find themselves facing a similar fate, if on a “smaller” scale (4,667 dead and 8,463 injured). Civilian bombing, once referred to as “inhuman barbarism” by President Roosevelt, had now become standard practice for American warfare.

Then in August of 1945, there was the release of the atomic bomb upon Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki three days later. The pilots of the Enola Gay had no idea of the destructive capacity of the weapon they were unleashing on the civilian population. Co-pilot Robert Lewis wrote of the silence that filled the plane after the mushroom cloud burst. He could taste the lead-like atomic fission. Turning away to write in his journal, he said to himself, “My God, what have we done?

The survivors of the atomic bombings described it as “living Hell in this world”. Survivor Kats Kajiyama described the scene:

“There were buildings burning. All the telephone poles were knocked down. Buildings had their roofs torn off. And people who had been outside when the bomb went off were running around, screaming and blind, with their flesh hanging off their bodies like ribbons.”


People in the immediate vicinity of the blast were exposed to flash burns, causing their skin to literally melt off. Wandering dazed and dying, these people were referred to as “the procession of the ghosts”. One survivor describes their condition:

“In order to keep their red, exposed flesh from sticking, people thrust their arms in front of them like ghosts. Their skin, like the thin skin of a peeled potato, hung from the fingernails, where it was still attached.”

black rainOne survivor describes finding a mother with her children:

“The mother has died, sheltering her two babies, whose clutching fingers have cut into their mother’s flesh.”

Others described rivers choked with the bloated, discolored bodies of the dead. One man describes crossing a bridge and seeing “red, blue, green, and purple corpses swollen three or four times” floating under the bridge.

The torturing pain of the varying degrees of sickness caused by the radiation lasted for weeks, months and even years. People dying of thirst as the fires vaporized the world around them, welcomed the “black rain”, not realizing it was showering radioactive debris.

One woman describes the agonizing death of her younger brother weeks after the bombing:

“He returned home on August 20th. On around the 25th, his nose began bleeding, his hair fell out, and small red spots appeared all over his body. On the 31st, he died while vomiting blood.”

Estimates are that a total of 300,000 people died as a result of these attacks, which were later deemed as “militarily unnecessary” by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946, as well as by General Eisenhower and many others. It was clear to many that Japan would have indeed surrendered before the end of the year without this sort of action. So why was this done, really?

There is much evidence that this was first and foremost a show of might by the American arms machine. President Truman (Roosevelt had died by this time) did not have the same sort of warm and fuzzy relationship with “Uncle Joe” Stalin as his predecessor and there was a good deal of mistrust, which was the beginnings of the Cold War.

It is also interesting to note that there were two different types of bombs used: one uranium and the other plutonium. There was also discussion about dropping it on a populous and developed city in order to observe the destructive capacity of the bomb on the infrastructure and the population. This was an experiment done on a mass scale that dwarfs anything that was “found” at the Nuremberg Trials.

Hiroshima_victim1This has been a hotly debated issue, even though never labeled as a “war crime” – the only nations charged with war crimes in World War II were Germany and Japan. How does a surprise attack on a military base (Pearl Harbor) justify a brutal attack of such magnitude on a civilian population? U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara reflected on the comments of General Curtis LeMay (who was charged with ordering the atomic bomb attack):

“’If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say we were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?”


Back in Europe, the rank-and-file German soldiers were being given a taste of “justice” by the Allied victors in what has become known as the “Eisenhower Death Camps”. Here, German P.O.W.s were kept in fenced in fields and left to starve to death by the millions. Then-sixteen year old German soldier, Hugo Stehkamper described his experience:

“I only had a sweater to protect me from the pouring rain and the cold. There just wasn’t any shelter to be had. You stood there, wet through and through, in fields that couldn’t be called fields anymore—they were ruined. You had to make an effort when you walked to even pull your shoes out of the mud. . . . [I]t’s incomprehensible to me how we could stand for many, many days without sitting, without lying down, just standing there, totally soaked. During the day we marched around, huddled together to try to warm each other a bit. At night we stood because we couldn’t walk and tried to keep awake by singing or humming songs. Again and again someone got so tired his knees got weak and he collapsed.”


Another German P.O.W. from an Allied prison camp near Remagen stated:

“The latrines were just logs flung over ditches next to the barbed wire fences. To sleep, all we could do was to dig out a hole in the ground with our hands, then cling together in the hole. . . . Because of illness, the men had to defecate on the ground. Soon, many of us were too weak to take off our trousers first. So our clothing was infected, and so was the mud where we had to walk and sit and lie down. There was no water at all at first, except the rain. . . . We had to walk along between the holes of the soft earth thrown up by the digging, so it was easy to fall into a hole, but hard to climb out. The rain was almost constant along that part of the Rhine that spring. More than half the days we had rain. More than half the days we had no food at all. On the rest, we got a little K ration. I could see from the package that they were giving us one tenth of the rations that they issued to their own men. . . . I complained to the American camp commander that he was breaking the Geneva Convention, but he just said, ‘Forget the Convention. You haven’t any rights.’ Within a few days, some of the men who had gone healthy into the camps were dead. I saw our men dragging many dead bodies to the gate of the camp, where they were thrown loose on top of each other onto trucks, which took them away.”

powauschwitz89uxThis is a stark contrast to the treatment Allied P.O.W.s received at the hands of the Germans in their prison labor camps. The British P.O.W.s, for example, had a soccer team; there was a swimming pool at Auschwitz; this was due largely in part to the National Socialist philosophy that a well cared-for worker was a productive worker. However, these are all things you don’t commonly hear about or see portrayed in any Hollywood re-enactments.


The images and narratives the American public was given during World War II, was entirely geared toward the dehumanization of the enemy- a tactic that has been used by the promoters of war for a very, very long time. The idea is to make the enemy appear as far from “human” as possible, so the general public will easily despise them and the soldiers will have no problem killing them. In fact, they will see the death of the “enemy” as making the world safer and better.

However, World War II was able to take this tactic of demonization to a whole new level with the evolution of Hollywood as a way to condition the attitudes and opinions of the public. We see this idea continuing and evolving to this day with modern war propaganda films like “Zero Dark Thirty” and of course, the unending promotion of the “Good War” of World War II. The “Nazi” continues to be dehumanized and portrayed as the greatest evil the world has ever seen to this day in film and television.


I am writing this out of no disrespect to my grandparents’ generation, who had the heart to survive a Great Depression and a World War and continue my family line so I could be here to write about it.

Likewise, I have the utmost respect for those men on all sides who did what they needed to do to protect their brothers and displayed courage, honor, and at times, mercy and compassion during the most abhorrent of circumstance.

I am writing this in service to truth and understanding.

The “Good War” narrative has shaped the consciousness of the western world to the point where we don’t question it. It has given birth to what is known as the “Military-Industrial Complex”, and the formerly non-interventionist United States has been in a continual state of war and empire-buliding ever since, erecting military bases across the globe- all to “preserve democracy”; all to preserve freedom of speech while demonizing ALL dissenting opinions on the world crafted out of the ashes of nationalism.


Honestly looking at institutions like the CIA, the NSA, the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organization, and the UN; all of which arose out of this war, one can’t help but ask themselves, “Did the ‘good guys’ really win?”.

Perhaps it is time we begin to question whether the path the Allied “victors” took is the one we want to continue on.


WRALDA’S Blessings unto you and yours.





“Tao gave birth to One, One gave birth to Two, Two gave birth to Three; Three gave birth to all the myriad things.

All the myriad things carry the Yin on their backs and hold the Yang in their embrace, deriving their vital harmony from the proper blending of the two vital Breaths.”

– Lao Tzu; “Tao Teh Ching”

The topic of race and “racism” is one that seems to saturate every area of dialogue in modern society. From press, to academia, to politics and even the workplace, the conversation around race has become increasingly pervasive as well as divisive. Charleston, Baltimore, Ferguson, White Privilege, the “Knockout Game”, Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, and Immigration Reform- these things permeate the (Western) Mass Mind to such a degree that we are undoubtedly far more sensitive about race now than we ever have been. But is this manufactured hypersensitivity necessarily a “good thing”?


As I stated before, the conversation around race has become increasingly DIVISIVE, and this has led to some foreseeable results. First, the general narrative presented to the “non-white” races, (specifically those living in western countries and those wishing to immigrate to them) is that the white man has continuously oppressed and taken from them and now it is their “right” to take from the white man what they are “owed”, be it through legislation or immigration or other means.

This narrative causes a reactionary feeling of resentment and entitlement towards white people, which has played out in often-violent means. One needs only to look at the not well-publicized but unquestionably racially motivated violence in modern-day South Africa to see the results of racial resentment, institutionalized entitlement and promotion of victimhood.


The narrative given to white people is similar, stating that white people are responsible for all of the evils of the world, past and present, as well as stating that now they need to pay “reparations” in various forms to “repent” for their “White Privilege”. This view has saturated academia and pop-culture to such an extent that it has created a self-loathing and insecurity amongst the millennial and younger generations. The new documentary being released by MTV entitled “White People” showcases and perpetuates this idea of white privilege and guilt. As one interviewee in the documentary, a 23-year old young woman named Samantha states:

“We’ve never had to internalize what white people have done in here in America, but here, you can’t escape that.”


Internalizing guilt has never been healthy, and being forced to do so usually causes one of two reactions- either a hysterically apologetic form of self-loathing as demonstrated by the crying millennials in “White People”, or anger and rage at having guilt thrust upon you that you feel isn’t yours to own. There has been a backlash amongst many over the “White Privilege/White Guilt” narrative that has become so dominant in the West. Dylan Roof can be seen as the extreme of how far that can go, if you believe the “official story” regarding the Charleston Shooting, which the jury’s still out for me.

However there is a less “extreme” form of organic backlash coming out of various alternative media and political movements spearheaded by “white people”. And while much of this has been productive for creating a more open dialogue, there is still at times a very vehement resentment towards people of the “black and brown” races that comes through.


The dominant dialogue coming out of mainstream is that white people stole everything, and are undeserving of the status they have held in civilization. The reactionary dialogue is that white people built everything of substance and that the other races essentially reaped the benefits of “white civilization” and didn’t really contribute anything of merit on their own. Both arguments are flawed and one-sided from my perspective. Both preach entitlement. Both preach resentment. So now let’s look at this from an esoteric perspective. What’s REALLY going on here?

bd503c6dfac04842b3476848a2d13f66The Civil Rights, Feminist, Sexual Liberation and Environmental movements that spearheaded in the 1960s and became institutionalized in the 1990s can be seen as various aspects of one overarching, mega-event: the resurgence of the Divine Feminine into the forefront of human consciousness and civilization. This is a primal and primordial archetype that exists beyond the realm of perceived “good” and “evil”. That being said, this primordial force is one that can be directed and utilized by those who understand Her workings. This means that HOW the Divine Feminine manifests can be steered by steering human consciousness on an individual and collective scale.

So what exactly does racial conflict have to do with the awakening of the Divine Feminine? In order to explain this I am going to summon another primordial archetype- that of the Taoist diagram of the T’ai Chi T’u (Supreme Ultimate), aka. The Yin and Yang symbol. The neo-Confucian philosopher, Chou Tun-I explained this symbol in his treatise T’ai chi t’u shuo (The Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate Explained):

“The Supreme Ultimate through movement produces the yang. This movement, having reached its limit, is followed by quiescence, and by this quiescence it produces the yin. When quiescence has reached its limit, there is a return to movement. Thus movement and quiescence, in alternation, become each the source of the other. The distinction between the yin and yang is determined, and their two forms stand revealed.”


Movement and stillness. Active and receptive. Positive and negative. Heaven and Earth. Sun and Moon. Conscious and Subconscious. Male and female. Light and dark. These principles are present and reflected throughout all levels of creation including the races of men. I will again remind folks of the Hermetic axiom; “As above, so below; as below, so above.”

I have stated in previous writings that men and women are manifestations of the male and female aspects of the Divine Consciousness. I am going to build on this by postulating that this is also true for the different races, which I am going to group into two categories- the light-skinned or “Yang races” and the dark-skinned or “Yin races”. And no, I didn’t arbitrarily do this just because the Yang side is white and the Yin side is black. Far more than the “social construct” some attempt to label it as, race goes beyond the physical body and is something beautiful and vital to the expression of the Divine here on Earth.

Throughout recorded history we see over and over again from the Indo-European migrations to the Roman Empire to Colonialism, the continuous movement of the “Yang races” all over the world. Ever moving and expanding, the Yang races in their positive aspect brought many of the higher gifts of civilization such as agriculture, science, architecture and invention to the world. In their negative aspect, they brought exploitation and various forms of enslavement. Their prime deities were masculine in nature, i.e. the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.

aryans-14AE142C8697D36AED0These Yang races have historically been explorers and empire-builders. Their civilizations have very much characterized the masculine aspect of consciousness, specifically as it “acts upon” the world, active and seeking in similar fashion to the conscious mind acting upon its surroundings as well as the subconscious mind.

As the Yang races explored and settled, they have come into repeated contact with indigenous dark-skinned peoples. These Yin races were people who generally lived as hunter-gatherers with close ties to the Mother Earth and Her creatures. They often knew much of the various plant medicines and how to live in harmony with the plants and animals. They often revered the Goddess in her many forms, recognizing she was the living Earth and the patterns of nature. Keepers of archaic knowledge through the Shamans, these were people who had a natural tendency for creative expression through song and movement.

Picture 1While there were “empires” within the Yin races, such as the Aztecs and the Zulus, they were not as a whole prone to exploration, expansion and altering their environment in the same way the Yang races were. Conversely, the Yang races also had tribes and peoples who reflected aspects of the Yin. This is explained in the T’ai Chi T’u through the “lesser yin” and the “lesser yang”. These inner circles inside the greater yin and yang represent how each “opposing” force also contains within itself its opposite. This “seed” can also be related to genetics, as the genetic traits of the Yin races are dominant, with dominance being a Yang trait, and vice versa.

The meetings and intermingling between the Yin and Yang races mirrors the interaction between the male and female polarities: At times it was a beautiful dance with the mutual sharing of knowledge and trading of goods that allowed for the growth and development of people. However, at other times it produced conflict and a violent clash of misunderstanding, ending in wars, genocides and other atrocities. Unfortunately it is this latter experience that we are given to dwell upon.


Humanity is the product of the Divine Marriage of Heaven and Earth. Even materialist science has correlated this, noting that we humans contain elements from the stars within our DNA. Through this marriage of the elements of Heaven and Earth, some of us got more from “Dad’s side”, i.e. Heaven, and some of us got more from “Mom’s side”, i.e. Earth. This does not make anyone “superior” to anyone else, it just means we have different strengths and play different roles in the spiritual evolution of Earth and man. Again, “As above, so below…”

This creates a far more profound understanding of race than either looking at in terms of an imaginary construct that is only due to society and melatonin, or the social Darwinian and materialist point of view of eugenics.


Italian philosopher and mystic, Julius Evola explained:

“In the mystery of our blood, in the depth… of our being, resides the ineffaceable heredity of our primordial times. This is not heredity of brutality of bestial and savage instincts gone astray, as argued by psychoanalysis, and which, as one may logically conclude, derive from ‘evolutionism’ or Darwinism. This heredity of origins, this heredity which comes from the deepest depth of times is the heredity of the light.”

What I am conveying here is that race has MEANING; it isn’t happenstance. There is a reason you are born into the family you are born into, and there is a reason you are born into the race you are born into- race being an extension of family, of kin, of blood- both in a physical and a non-physical sense. Evola explains how there is purpose to this:

“Thus, (racial awareness) invigorates and renders tangible the concept of tradition; it makes the individual get used to observing in our ancestors not just a series of the more or less illustrious “dead,” but rather the expression of something still alive in ourselves and to which we are tied in our interior. We are the carriers of a heritage that has been transmitted to us and that we need to transmit – and in this spirit it is something going beyond time, something indicating, what we called elsewhere, ‘the eternal race.’”

I feel that it is necessary that we take in the fullness of this incarnation in order to make the most of it. Knowing and understanding folk and tribe and race gives us keys to unlock our full potential, reaching for the Heavens, while remaining rooted to the Earth. Rituals and spiritual traditions of our ancestors can provide the key to finding an organic spiritual path that best fosters our spiritual growth. And while we understand that at our core, that we are ultimately beyond race and creed, these things were given to us as unique expressions of the One manifesting into the many as a means of understanding our unique task or “destiny” here on Earth.

That being said, it is important that we maintain the ability to look at these things with both an open heart and a clear mind, and not allow the waters of consciousness to become muddied with social and political ideals like “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” that are indeed nothing more than social constructs.

I realize that this perspective breaks from the dogma of racial “sameness” that many have grown to tenuously believe. I realize that this may make people feel uncomfortable. To that I am going to quote Jose Vargas, the director/producer of MTV’s “White People”: “Good, let’s all get all uncomfortable together.”

Namaste and God Bless.





“Equality is one of the primary ideological tactics that Empire uses to maintain control in the modern era. The practical application of equality dissuades people from the revolutionary business of true personal liberation. It shuts down inner unfoldment and concentrates day-to-day thinking and activities on outside distractions. It keeps people on the hamster wheel.

Here’s my take on it. Equality does not exist – because the universe has no need for it. The only thing that we all have in equal measure and of equal value is our state of aliveness. That aliveness brings a unique opening for growth as spirit descends temporarily into matter. On this expedition, the depth and quality of our being, through growth and purity of presence, is the only measure of value that is worth a damn. That is our equal opportunity. What we do with it is up to us. We generate our own value and it cannot be known by another. Everyone is at a different level of inner attainment and becoming. The animal, the soul, and the divine seek union in their own time, in their own way.”

– Neil Kramer, British philosopher and esotericist from his essay, ‘Cult of the God Men’

Every human being is born with the free will to choose his or her path in life. All human beings are equal insomuch as that they are all expressions of the same Divine Force that manifests itself in a myriad of ways and is at its core, Light. Human beings too, are at their core, this same Divine Light. This is where the concept of equality, which in our current understanding equates to a “right” to live the same way someone else does, ends.

There has been debate for a long time as to what rights people do or do not have. Some debate whether people actually have rights at all. Do people have the right to bear arms? What, if any, is the extent of the right of free speech? Is it a right to get an abortion? Is it a right to be able to obtain goods and services from a private business if said business does not want to associate with you based on your race, religion or lifestyle?

Bill of Rights straight

The whole concept of “rights” originated as an essentially western European concept, and really took form during the Enlightenment period of the 18th century (although the Magna Carta, did serve as somewhat of a pretext back in the 13th century). Rights were, for all intents and purposes, a construct to counteract what were becoming viewed as the “non-rights” of monarchy and government. The most famous institution of this idea is of course, the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution. More recently we have had the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which serves in essence to affirm that all human beings have a right to the same standard of living and dignity.


I have really begun to question this whole notion of rights as of late, particularly after listening to a recent interview with a brilliant philosopher by the name of Neil Kramer. Do we really have “rights”, or is this indeed a “social construct”? After contemplating upon the Laws of Nature and Creation, I came to the conclusion that in truth, we do not have “rights”, as this idea does not seem to exist elsewhere in Nature. Rather, much of what we have come to see as “rights” are instead a combination of personal responsibilities and “non-rights”. For example, it is our responsibility to speak up for what we see as right and wrong and no one has the right to prevent us from doing so. Another example is that it is our responsibility to protect our privacy and no one has the right to violate that.

Let’s look at the much-maligned “right to bear arms”, which is basic right of self-defense. I don’t have a right to own a gun any more than I have a right to own a car or a computer. However, I do have a responsibility to defend my family and myself. Likewise, no government or individual has any right to keep me from doing so through force, coercion, theft, etc.

Let’s look at the natural world for a moment: no animal claims it has the right to defend itself or its offspring, but if it wants to survive and continue the propagation of its species, it better learn do so effectively. Again it is that animal’s responsibility to defend itself by any means it can. A lion does not see an antelope’s “right to live”, it sees it as food. The antelope doesn’t think, “Hey, this lion is trying to impinge on my rights.” The antelope simply knows he has the responsibility to outrun that lion if he wishes to live. Similarly the lioness has the responsibility to defend her cubs against a hyena. She doesn’t take the hyena to court. She does whatever she needs to do at that moment to ward off the attack, and then she goes about her business. Likewise, the pride does not go seeking out and eradicating (or even more laughably, attempting to imprison) the hyenas to ensure they don’t attack again. While rights do not exist in nature, the freedom to act does.


This applies to humans as well. If a person is causing or attempting to cause harm right then and there, we have the responsibility to defend our family, loved ones, others who may ask for our help in the moment, and ourselves. When the threat is neutralized with the least amount of force possible in the moment, then we go about our business. If we were all taught how to defend ourselves adequately and how to defend those who were unable to (children, elderly, handicapped, etc.), then this business of “hunting down” criminals would be unnecessary. Unless there is a direct attack going on, we should remain true to the “non-aggression principle”.

This idea of rights may have been a way to verbalize this concept in a simplified form so that it could be coded into law to “protect” the citizen against overreach of government and “mob” power, however it appears to have transformed into something else. I have continually stressed that nobody a “right” to force anybody to do anything against his or her will, regardless of whether or not we feel it is the “morally right thing” for them to do. This now brings us into the touchy waters of “civil rights”. This is the idea that “everyone” has the right to be treated “fairly” regardless of ANY qualities that any other individual or group would view as negative or undesirable, and not wish to associate with. This is the idea that everyone is entitled to exactly the same social and economic opportunities as everyone else.

While this utopian idea may tug at the emotional heartstrings and sound like a wonderful thing, it should be understood that this idea of “equality” is completely foreign in Nature. In Nature, it is the strong, fit, and most importantly, intelligent, that has greatest chances to survive and thrive. I am not saying that we as humans should behave strictly according to our animal nature (even though that may be a step up for many). What I am digging at here is how “right” has become code for “entitlement”. In essence it is saying, “I deserve a good life just because I was born, and if I do not have the same social and economic status and opportunity as that person or that group, it is because my ‘rights’ have been violated. It is not due to any fault or error or lack of initiative on my part.”

It is ultimately the responsibility of the individual to learn and grow from his or her own life experiences. If one takes the mantle of perpetual victim-hood, rather than recognizing their contribution to their lot in life and their potential to change it, then they will remain as “victims” to their perception of life. If folks do not align their consciousness with the deeper forces of Nature and Creation, they will remain acting as “pawns” on the chessboard for those who do. The requirements for obtaining this understanding are simply an open and questioning mind, an empathetic, caring and honorable heart, and the will to live a life that is devoted to something greater than selfish gain- a life with meaning. That’s pretty much it.

Human beings are subject to the consequences of their actions in this life. We can also postulate that past lives play a factor and that there are indeed those who are incarnated who have been around much longer than others. One can choose to look at childhood trauma and hardship as a sort of “penance” for wrongs committed in a past life, or as an opportunity to grow through trial. Personally, I find the latter perspective more productive and practical, even though I personally feel both to be true.

Human beings are also capable of incredible acts of creativity and resilience, despite the most overwhelming of obstacles. This is a truth that is beyond any setback that can be imagined due to race, sex, religion, orientation, class, physical or even mental capabilities. There have been great men and women that have risen out of the most abject poverty and oppression. These are ultimately men and women who, at some level, understood and used the Laws of Nature and Creation to their advantage. The Law cares not of your race or your wage. It is not overly complicated or difficult to understand. It just requires your time, patience and willingness to work with it.

With the unlimited resources of information available at the fingertips of even the poorest individual (at least in this country), there is really no reason that knowledge of the Law and the workings of the world cannot be obtained. There is no reason that knowledge of how to heal oneself and grow spiritually cannot be understood. The fundamentals are simple. However, if we choose to have such a level of self-importance that we are solely consumed with how our life “isn’t fair”, then we will fail to see the inherent opportunity that is written into the very Fabric of Creation. This is opportunity that those who strive for social and economic control can NEVER take away.


Am I saying that it is a good thing to say, “Hey you’re gay”, “ or “you’re black, so I’m not going to do business with you.”? No. Unless you know this individual or specific group of individuals to behave in a particularly deplorable and unhealthy fashion, there is no reason to continue the cycle of fear and resentment. Secondly, it is bad business, and it will work against you in this day and age. There is a good likelihood that your profits will be negatively affected without any form of government intervention. The consciousness of the people has already shifted to the point where they will simply vote you out of business by taking their money elsewhere. There is not a need for intervention of government force. No one has a right to say someone can’t receive goods or services from anyone. However, no one has a right to another person’s goods or services any more than they have a right to anything else they own.

I feel these same principles were true back when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1968. Regardless of political spin and government intelligence activity at that time, there was still an organic movement that had been growing among Americans since the end of World War II. White Americans were already moving towards acceptance of African-Americans as fellows in business and social life long before Lyndon B. Johnson decided to take advantage of the political climate (people really weren’t liking him on the whole Vietnam thing) in 1968. At the forefront of this were organic boycotts of businesses that refused to serve blacks.

Were there still problems on BOTH SIDES? Yes. But government always moves far behind the consciousness of the people like a lumbering dinosaur, and always for its own agenda and political gain. I dare say that things like the Civil Rights Act, Affirmative Action, and even Political Correctness, however well intentioned at the grassroots level, only serve to hinder discourse and freedom of association, and have potentially caused more problems than they have solved.  Again, organic free movement of the people will always be more effective in enacting real change than the inherently controlling mechanisms of government.


The real problem has been with government making laws saying what people can and cannot do to the point of absurdity and people giving government that power. Be it “Jim Crow” or “Civil Rights”. We don’t have to agree with what someone says or does, but it is not our right to silence them (as is being done through “political correctness”) or force them to act against their will just because what they say or do hurts our feelings or offends us. Unless the individual is promoting or perpetrating real violence (not just saying “I don’t like them”) on an individual or group, there is no justification for interference in their lives.

There is of course, the issue with attempting to restrict movement of people in public territory, stating where people can and cannot go (city bus seats, city restrooms, etc.). However, the idea of “public” and “private” in terms of property and business has become obfuscated as the state continues to declare that it basically owns everything. Back to nature for a moment: animals are territorial and humans are no exception. It is natural to claim territory for one’s self and to utilize said land. No one has the right to impede upon the territory that someone is utilizing without invitation. When we begin to say “I have a right to occupy your territory”, this inevitably creates conflict. This is when we should behave as adult humans and not animals or children. Animals will quarrel in bloody conflict over territory. Children will run to the authority figure and have them settle the dispute, as they do not have the mental faculties or emotional maturity to settle the matter peacefully amongst themselves.

I’m sure someone somewhere will disregard the above statements as coming from someone with “White Male Privilege”, and that’s fine. Any “privilege” I may have (i.e. being a white male in a country whose infrastructure was founded by white males; above-average intelligence; artistic talents, etc.) has been earned through lifetimes of incarnation and a general understanding of the Laws of Nature and Creation. Any “disadvantages” I may have (born to rural working-class economic status; unstable family life; being bullied growing up; addiction, etc.) are due to Karma and choice, and are opportunities to be tested and grow spiritually. I am unapologetic for my “privilege” and I work to be un-resentful towards my “disadvantages”.

Now I am not going to deny that there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with the way that the modern human society and the economic forces that drive it are structured. Nor am I going to deny that the financial elite have used the economic power and ingenuity of the western nations to pillage and exploit the people and resources of the tropics for several centuries (I highly recommend people watch the miniseries or read the book ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ to see how geography likely played a major role in allowing for this seeming “inequality”), while using various cultural institutions to justify this practice amongst the masses.

This system of control acts in near-polar opposition to any sense of the Laws of Nature and Creation. While other animals do fight amongst themselves for dominance within a group, there are no other animals that prey on their own kind in the way that certain humans do. Not even the warlike chimpanzee (yeah, chimps are pretty brutal and have tribal wars) act in the sort of predatory manner that has made up much of the foundation of “civilization”. The wars between races are akin to lions trying to completely wipe tigers off the face of the Earth. And NO species has the sort of self-loathing and self-hatred that is present within the psyche of SO MANY human beings and shows itself in our media and institutions, as well as our collective interactions with one another.

While we strive to further our evolution and realization as beings of Divine Light, we would be wise to maintain a close contact and understanding of the rhythms, patterns, and workings of nature; while at the same time not letting ourselves be guided solely by easily triggered and manipulated emotions which can fall prey to utopian ideals that are more about entitlement, jealousy and a playground concept of fairness, rather than about any true form of compassion or love for our fellow man.

Everyone has the choice to see life as a classroom or as a prison, regardless of whether they are in the suburbs, the ghetto, or a jungle village in Guatemala. Everyone has the choice to allow the Light to shine in them or to give themselves over to the darker, base desires and resentments. No matter how intense the fear or oppression, everyone ALWAYS has that choice.

To understand how this modern notion of equality (i.e. “sameness”) that drives much of today’s conversation around rights is an “alien” concept, we need only look at our celebrated institutions of athletics and academics. There is a natural hierarchy present in these things (and yes, there is undeniably a racial component to it as well, sorry). However, natural IN-equalities aside, every human being, regardless of race, gender or creed has an innate skill, talent, passion and purpose. Every human being has a gift to give the world. In some, this may be more obvious and seem to flourish naturally. In others it may take more time and effort to develop or even discover what it is. Even then, we will inevitably find others out there with similar talents and skills that are more skilled than we are. That is a natural occurrence, and no one has the right to impede anyone’s self-determination. However, it is up to us to either work harder in attempts to reach that level, or be creative and carve out a niche that is unique to our strengths and what we have to offer the world.


We are only “equal” in the fact that we are all born of and possessing the same conscious Light that is present within all beings throughout the universe. Everything else is earned. Earned through knowledge, skill, understanding, heart, perseverance, honesty, desire, honor, compassion, and love. Like snowflakes or facets on a diamond or cells in an organism, we are all unique perspectives and individuations of the One Divine Light that extends itself into creation. No one is “the same”.

A good life is earned, again, through understanding and utilizing the Laws of Nature and Creation. It is not a privilege granted by a piece of paper or by a group of people that claim to be a “governing authority. No matter how unjust things may seem it is up to us as individuals to make them better, organizing with other like-minded individuals to create our own systems that are more natural to human life and expression. While at the same time understanding that we do not have the right to force our will on others who wish to be left alone.

It is the responsibility of everyone to conduct themselves with respect, honor and compassion towards other beings (human, animal or otherwise); regardless of whether or not they happen to be a member of your “tribe”. This harmonious expression of the better angels of our nature can never be achieved in any sort of real or lasting way through force or coercion (from government or otherwise). The unwanted imposing of will upon someone else’s way of life will inevitably breed resentment and nothing else. It can only be achieved through the principle of “live and let live”, and simply treating others as we ourselves would honestly want to be treated. The better we understand this, and the better we understand the other Laws of Nature and Creation, the better we will be able to create a positive existence for ourselves and others, regardless of whatever shit the world wants to throw at us.

Namaste and God Bless.