CUTURES AND CIVILIZATIONS

 For a culture or a civilization to survive and flourish, one thing that seems quite indispensable to me is for that culture or civilization to have fairly lively ways of criticizing itself. Let's be honest here: human beings do not have it in themselves to perfect either one. That can only be done by working under divine direction which can, at least to some extent, be discerned by how any society treats those on its bottom and on its periphery. That's how this writer perceives God working. He starts at the bottom and the outer edges and works upward and inward. And God knows the quality of the human material with which He works, better than we ourselves know.
But to the point. As we look across the globe at cultures and civilizations, what do we see? Not sure about primitive, pre-civilizational cultures. On the one hand, when civilization touches them that very often breaks the 'tribe'. But, if the tribe knows and can stay close to its life-sources, it can often adapt and reconstitute itself quickly. Being small and close to the ground has its uses. Maybe that's why the ancient Israelites were, and the state of Israel and Am Yisrael worldwide today are, 'the smallest of nations' or at least among them. Collapsed civilizations, being larger and more artificial, tend to stay collapsed for longer.
What sort of self-critical mechanisms did Japan have before the West introduced first newspapers and then electronic media to them? Indeed, what did any Far Eastern culture have in that respect, including that civilizational Ancient Of Days, China? Ricardo, I may be asking you further about this. Tibet?
What about the ancient cultures of India? As Islam is still--again, on the edges and maybe on the bottom--feebly trying to recover from its intellectual suicide committed eight centuries ago, it tends to stifle self-critical mechanisms and as long as that continues, the Arab/Muslim world will stay at or near the bottom of healthy and prosperous societies, it's hardly worth mentioning here. Islamism will keep these societies at or near the bottom as it is extremely hostile to any kind of questioning. And that high hostility is something Red and Green have in common. All foolosophies which have an 'elect' or 'historical vanguard' or 'superior race' are hostile to questions and criticism.
Sub-Saharan Africa? Ubuntu is probably great at cultivating fellow-feeling and related connections, but, again, where are the self-critical traditions and mechanisms? And the native cultures and civilizations of the Western Hemisphere and Oceania? What do they have in that respect?
I look forward to what I hope and believe will be some intense and varied reactions to what I now write: the one civilization with the most vigorous self-critical mechanisms, stemming from two societies with lively self-critical traditions along with the creative tension between the two in which Western civilization was gestated and born, is indeed the remarkably adaptable conglomerate of cultures we know as Western civilization.
The two cultures I mean above are that of ancient Greece (Athens) and ancient Israel (Jerusalem). Both were fed by Egypt and Mesopotamia but they were differently shaped. Athens put a premium on accurate empirical observation; Jerusalem emphasized fidelity to divine revelation. In a way, Jerusalem had a bit more with which to work in the also-creative tension between the letter of the Law and the Spirit of that Law proclaimed by the Prophets. And both had highly vital self-critical traditions. Both of which were absorbed by the nations of Christendom. Here, too, becoming an arm of state power generally stifles the heart of both religion and science. But the state mandating items science tells us are necessary for the health (including the ecological health) of that society is quite opposite from the state trying to use science and/or religion for its own ends.
No, Western civilization wasn't born knowing it all in terms of human liberty. No culture or civilization is. Finding out more and changing society with the new knowledge is what progress is all about, right?
Yes, we also made mistakes inasmuch as we could have learned more from the cultures we conquered. And had we done so, we would've been REALLY different from all the other civilizations on the globe!
But look around the globe: is any civilization, has any civilization been, as self-critical as are the cultures of the West? And does any cultural conglomeration have the same capacity for expansion and bringing in new cultures with minimal damage to those cultures, at least initially? Think about that.
So, sons and daughters of the West of every skin color, know you are heirs to something truly uniquely beneficial--and be proud of it! It was only three centuries before enough Christian consciences caught up with human greed! Islam seems to have no such mechanism; the fourteen-centuries-old trans-Sahara slave trade continues even now under the law's radar! Would India or China have a like understanding of human dignity that could also end the slave trade and chattel slavery? If anyone knows, please let us know!
And in upholding our self-critical traditions, let your criticisms be truthfully informed! Watch out for those who have few or no facts backing up their attempts to tug your heart-strings!
As long as we remain a vigorously self-critical civilization we will be a growing and vital group of cultures. Never forget that!

FOR OR AGAINST CONSCIENCE?

"The Jews inflicted two great wounds on humanity: circumcision and conscience." Adolf Hitler

 There is a war going on.       .
When you look below the surface, you may discern that this war has been going on for millennia. It is a war between those who have come to understand that conscience, the awareness of having done wrong, is a gift from God and those who, very often violently, reject that idea and make it as clear as they can that they want no part of conscience but they want freedom--almost always only their freedom--without accountability. And for the past century and quarter this planet has been haunted by those con artists who promise to remove conscience from the minds of their marks. Movements have arisen largely powered by that desire to be free of conscience and the false promises of those who purport to fulfill that evil desire!
Bolshevism is the oldest one. It looks as if it didn't start out that way but that's where it went. Fascism and Nazism begin and end there and make no bones about it. So, too, do Islamism, White 'Christian' Nationalism and MAGAtry as well. Not to mention MAGAtry is the heart of White 'Christian' Nationalism. The most recent outgrowths use the language of religion to mask what they're really after.
And not all their devotees know this by any means. Some actually believe they want to bring back either the Donna Reed show and related 1950s programs, or when 'Myrka was great Just For Them or the purported glory days of the Caliphate--days largely fueled by slave labor as was the antebellum American South.
And as agents against conscience, they all have a common enemy: the Jews. And, today, the state of Israel which is the Jewish state and the refuge and shield for all Jews worldwide whenever that refuge and shield might be required. Which in turn renders Jewish solidarity all the more necessary.
But Israel and the Diaspora are also beset from within. One of the greatest gifts of the Jews is the tradition of speaking out against power when it goes against justice--at least justice as the speaker sees it.
The intifadas, especially the second one, have largely expended any moral capital Fatah might be seen to have among Israelis. Most Israelis still believe they have no partner for peace but only those who desire to finish the Shoah. But Israel is still mandated to pursue justice, at least to those who believe in the God of Israel.
The foes of conscience also seek to use consciences as a weapon against those who have them. Hamas's using the civilians of Gaza as a shield is the current #1 example of this.
I must ask myself: do most Islamists, and the remaining 'Christian' supersessionists, believe that, without Jews, conscience and history will be their handmaidens? I wonder. Islam seems to make an attempt to sanctify the most evil human desires as does White 'Christian' Nationalism.
While there is precious little difference between those two, between the main body of Christianity and that of Islam, there seems to be a small but important difference, Yes, Christianity once did bless and sanction conquest of other peoples and countries ostensibly for Christ. But so far as I can tell, such conquest has never been as integral to Christianity as it seems to be to Islam. If I am mistaken in this, let me be shown how and why. And be warned in advance: I can tell when I'm being given a lot of empty verbiage.
The struggle is between those who honestly seek to do justice and understand that conscience is a gift from God and those who only want their most evil deeds and desires to be no longer seen as evil, if not actually sanctioned. As I write, they want freedom with no accountability and the greatest obstacle for them having that is the Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora. And remember: asking the question, Cui bono?--who benefits by A, B and/or C?--is a vital part of pursuing justice!
So, my readers, choose. Will you understand conscience as a gift, or will it be simply a bother as you seek to grab all you can, however you can?

SEX IS A BIG FAT BUST FOR (SOME) MEN TOO

 I hope this post is yet another broadside against the (mostly rich) White Male Patriarchy.
Two things no one tells you about; indeed, many of those who feel them may deny feeling them. Or deny such feelings exist. But they do. And if you want to be a real man and not simply an Adult Male Hominid, or, worse still, a Standard Male S**t, you must be honest about them.
Before I articulate the feelings, let me just say this: for me, three qualities make a man out of an Adult Male Hominid, to be written henceforth as an AMH. They are:first, integrity. You tell the truth and, with God's Help (available on request, sometimes called prayer) are honest about yourself and who and what you are, while also acknowledging what you may not yet know about yourself.
Second, responsibility. You acknowledge your mistakes and at least express the hope that you've changed since making them. And you do what you can for those close to you. Ask them what they need from you; unless you need serious work on anger issues it will almost never be your absence. Maybe not even then.

Third and last, courtesy. Unless someone is being an a**hole before your very eyes, treat them with the courtesy and civility with which you'd want to be treated. Be civil with both judge and janitor alike.

 And now for these feelings. The first is not a good feeling. When you enter a woman and your body seems to ask you, 'What am I doing here?' it's time to pull out and tuck it in. I speak from hard experience. I didn't and I learned later that my partner was ill for some days after. I admit I've no empirical evidence for a connection there; only my own hunch.
The second is this: a time may come when you feel that sex is simply not worth everything that comes with it anymore. I suspect you won't feel this way while you're young; it 'll probably be mostly middle-aged and old men like me who feel this way. Yes. There comes a time when you may feel that sex just isn't worth all that comes with it. When it comes, if you'll pardon the pun. Such a time is here for me.
For me, sex is just not worth all the hysterical drama that, at least in my case, comes with it. And that doesn't only apply to my wife; I feel I've no reason to believe it'd be much different with any other woman of any legal age.
When this happens, you realize something: you have no major reason to consider other men as your rivals or competitors. Some will ask, why don't I ditch my wife? A number of reasons. First, she says she still loves me. Second, I'm not into breaking anyone's heart, especially one that breaks as easily as does hers. Even when a woman has her own livelihood, Malachi's dictum to the ancient Jews can still apply: 'Don't you know that, when a man divorces his wife, he overwhelms her with cruelty?'
My late first wife told me of her divorce from her first husband and boy, did it ever sound like what Malachi was talking about! We promised, at least implicitly, that we wouldn't visit that on anyone. And I silently promised God and myself I would never visit such a thing on anyone. And for me, a big part of being a man is to keep such promises. So there are two good reasons not to part, I'd say.

In D.H. Lawrence's work titled We Need One Another, he also had harsh things to say about what he termed  'men and women smashing each other to bits', and he continued, 'All I ask is that they pause and consider.' I guess those lines sank pretty deeply into what was then my young man's brain.
I'll go further and say, when men find themselves feeling this way about sex, that doesn't mean, by any stretch, that they are 'lesser men'. If anything, I suggest it may be indicative of growing into deeper adulthood. Such freedom from sexual compulsion can give men a chance to be better brothers to one another and truer protectors of those humans smaller, weaker and not yet as knowledgeable as they.
And, thus, to do their part in tearing down the patriarchy that shields evildoers who are rich, white and male. And under NO circumstances will I term them 'men'!
A growing number of women have been increasingly vocal about being fed up with males in general and wanting nothing from them but to be let alone. Well and good. Now, I'm speaking up as a man who now feels much the same about females and perhaps speaking for other men who feel the same way. I can clean according to my liking, I enjoy cooking for myself. And at my time of life, it's very unlikely I'll have children. There were times when I wanted that but I never had enough money on which to have a family. 
So, with sex not worth the effort anymore, I can be content in my life with my current spouse and our pets.

WHY NOT? THINK ABOUT IT

 Who do we want, who do we need to lead the snowballing movement to preserve, strengthen and, aye, extend democracy?
What sort of experience does such a person need?
Certainly we want one who will know what we're supposed to be about as a country. For myself, that means the above. And that means putting on the gas for 1) strengthening and extending the safety net for all of us 2) adding all adults to the voting rolls 3) the 'greening' of our economy, pushing renewable energies and regenerative agriculture forward 4) an abject apology to our traditional allies, reopening USAID and behavior abroad much more in line with what we profess and/or aspire to be.
We DON'T want anyone with connections to interests tied largely to the obscenely rich. This last will probably exclude most white male politicians and officeholders, so we may have a problem with getting the group I call doughfaced dinkyjohnnies on board. But will we need them? Unsure about that.
And how much 'political experience' would such a leader need? If we're holding out for officeholder experience, it may have to be either a woman or a man of color.
But allow me to ask a question: at any game, who actually sees the most of what's actually happening? The participants or the spectators? Think about it.
What about someone who has watched politics since a young age (twelve, in my case) but didn't dive in because they already saw the amount of actual public service time diminishing and the time spent raising campaign funds mushrooming, and said 'no' to that?
Again, think about it.
For myself, I would LOVE to see Jasmine Crockett, on whom I have a positively tremendous (political?) crush and whom I call 'Queen of the Texas frontier', win a presidential election! Question is, is that possible yet? We Democrats ran women twice and narrowly lost both times, thanks largely, imo, to the group I call 'doughfaced dinkyjohnnies' which, again imo, explains why they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman!
In any case, I have NO connections to ANY billionaires or other power brokers. I have watched politics since I was almost twelve and I hope I've 'loined' a thing or two about them. I would do all I could for the four urgencies I've listed above. While it's not a job I really want (I have history I want to write at some point and I ain't no spring chicken, as the saying goes) I feel duty-bound to at least put myself forward as willing to serve our country if called to this. And I am an aging pale male with an impeccably English family name. And religiously Protestant into the bargain.
Feel free to ask any questions and please share this post widely.