Kevin Annett + Common Law = The End of Goliath?

[revjohn]

So we have Kevin exposed and fair game for ridicule and disdain? All while the highnesses and the esteemed are washed white as fresh fallen snow?

Here in this thread?

If that is your allegation lay out your proofs.

I do not deny that I have said I do not find Annett trustworthy. I won't apologize for that. He is most definitely not trustworthy in this matter.

I have not lifted up any and proclaimed them white as snow. Nor have I read anyone else here make that proclamation.

At most I have said that I do not believe that the Pope, Queen and Prime Minister are guilty of what Annett alleges. That is a far cry from pronouncing them to be white as snow.

I have pointed out that the Church and the Federal Government have been found liable. Is it enough? You haven't ever heard me say it is. Am I as proud of the United Church response as some others might be? By no means. In fact you wouldn't have to work hard to find me overly critical of the United Church response.

I find your criticism, in the context of this thread to be a dishonest appraisal of the contents of this thread.

I don't think it can be attributed to any error of syntax or grammar. I'm not sure I'd even buy an error of logic.

 

[revsdd]

So we have Kevin exposed and fair game for ridicule and disdain?

All while the highnesses and the esteemed are washed white as fresh fallen snow?

George

That, of course, is an utterly ridiculous suggestion not based on anything that anyone who has participated in this thread has actually said.

 

[Delightful Life]

how do i know if a conspiracy theory is true or not?


"How to Make Sense of Conspiracy Theories" by Rob Ager (part of a multi-chapter conspiracy theory survival guide)

http://www.collativelearning.com/conspiracy theories - chapter 8.html:

"1.Reserve judgement at the information gathering stage. If you start out by assuming a conspiracy theory to be true or false while your information is still minimal then your pursuit of informational will be biased. You’ll be likely to disregard facts that don’t match up with the judgement you’ve made. Now matter how absurd or convincing the theory, begin with an attitude that it could turn out to be anywhere from wholly true to completely false.

2.Gather as much information as you can. This is essential and, if done thoroughly, will make the process of reaching a conclusion quick and easy. If your conclusion is weak and uncertain then you probably didn’t gather enough information. Generally, information gathering will be the most time consuming stage of your research.

3.Double check each detail. The slightest misrepresentation of a matter through choice of words or a slight variation in dates can completely alter the validity of a conspiracy theory.

4.Use multiple, preferably unrelated, sources. Sometimes a particular detail may seem conclusive based upon a single source, but exploring other versions of that same detail from different sources will unveil important variations. If you find consistency of detail from unrelated sources then a particular factoid can be deemed near enough conclusive.

5.Delete repetitions of the same information. Regurgitations of information aren’t just limited to verbal hearsay, internet chat rooms and blogs. They’re very frequent in the mainstream media too in that reporters often save themselves a lot of leg work by copying and rewording stories already being covered by rival media sources. One of the dangers of second and third hand information is that those repeating the information will often alter its presentation – in other word they distort it (though sometimes they can do this for the better by cross-referencing the information with contexts that the original source neglected). Where possible try to get to the original information source. See my article / video Choose Your News for more on media repetition.

6.Pay equal attention to purveyors and debunkers, regardless of their character traits. Wise, intelligent and well-adjusted people sometimes get their facts wrong and at the same time people who appear to be disorganised and impulsive sometimes get their facts straight. If a schizophrenic witnesses a real car crash and tells you about it the fact that he is schizophrenic doesn’t discredit his “a car crash occurred” theory. All claims must be considered and investigated on the possibility that they may be true or false.

7.There’s no such thing as a reliable source. The term “reliable source” is generally used to refer to academic researchers / institutions, governmental organisations, and “reputable” media sources. We generally use the “reliable source” filter to avoid double checking claims because it basically saves us time and effort. But when investigating a crime or conspiracy theory this luxury of assuming something is true based upon our personal trust of a source is unwise. There are many historical examples in which reputable researchers and even entire academic and media empires have gotten their facts severely wrong. And in those contexts the “reliable source” filter can prevent mass-knowledge correction for many years.

8.Ignore persuasion cascades. Quite simply this means discarding the assumption that the higher the percentage of society who belief in something the more likely it is to be true. Most people will not have done the research into a specific matter that is required to reach a well-formed conclusion of their own. They will have formed their opinions based upon rumour and mass media dissemination of an idea.

9.Beware of missing contexts. Often small chunks of information are used to promote or debunk a specific conspiracy theory. This might consist of a few lines of quoted text taken from a long speech or a few seconds of video in which the events leading up to the footage are not communicated. Vague language, circumstancial details or unspecified dates, locations or names can also be misleading.

10.Claims are not proof. This may sound obvious, but we actually build a great portion of our perceived reality based upon the claims of others and it can be difficult to switch off the habit. If you partner comes home from work and tells you about their day, chances are you’ll believe every word of it, even forming mental movies to accompany those words. But in reality we don’t really know what happened in our partner’s day, despite their best explanations. When it comes to investigating crimes or conspiracy theories, every single claim should be checked against external, sensory verifiable sources, when possible.

11.Never invest 100% belief. Always allow for the possibility that something can be proven or disproved. As soon as you psychologically shut off a particular possibility information to the contrary will become filtered out of your awareness.

12.Avoid the guru trap. This is a variation on the “there’s no such thing as a reliable source” filter. In the realm of popular conspiracy theories, some investigative journalists and researchers have reached high levels of fame. They are then put on a pedestal of trust in the same way that some people trust their favourite broadsheet newspaper or news channel. There’s nothing wrong with expressing respect and appreciation for the efforts of a conspiracy researcher who, against great odds, has successfully disseminated quality information. But don’t fall into the trap of letting that person do all your research for you. Double check their claims as you would with any other source.

13.Use visual aids to organise complex information. Especially when attempting to understand large organisational hierarchies or detailed event chronologies, mind-mapping, list making and categorizing of information are essential. Don’t just do this once either and don’t rely on a single map. Try different ways of mapping and remapping your information based upon different organising principles.

14.Don’t over-simplify in your conclusions. Forget Occam’s Razor; the idea that simple explanations are preferable to complex ones is merely a device of short-term perceptual convenience. Reality is incredibly complex. If you over-simplify your conclusions, for example to claim that a specific conspiracy is wholly true or wholly untrue, then you are basically falling into the polarization trap. Many conspiracy theories, when explored in detail, turn out to be complex sequences of events. Some of the players involved may have immorally engaged in conspiracy from the start, while others were either unaware, made a poor choice out of good intentions, were wilfully ignorant of it or were afraid to challenge it. A conspiracy may have started out small and then grew into a sequence of cover up after cover up that got out of hand. There are a lot of middle ground possibilities.

15.Familiarize yourself with the psychology of crime, corruption and social/corporate/legal/political hierarchies. Conspiracy theories are often presented on the premise that groups of people secretly sit down and openly agree among each other to plan and execute a major crime, consciously knowing that what they are doing is fully immoral and being fully aware of how people will suffer in consequence. Premeditation of this nature can certainly occur, carefully planned bank robberies for example, but an essential part of criminal psychology is that many criminals do not see themselves as criminals, but as victims, and they hardly ever think of themselves as evil. A group of bank robbers may consider a major bank to be a criminal organisation that deserves to be robbed and that, on that basis, their own crime is justified. A vigilante murder may have been carried out due to frustration with how the authorities have dealt with a criminal. And a government may consider that character assassinating a particular regime through misinformation is a necessary step to pursue a foreign policy that the public is too uneducated to otherwise approve of. Sometimes criminal behaviour is genuinely driven in positive yet misguided ways, but it is also human nature to lie to ourselves about the nobility of our intentions. This is true of even the most intelligent people and it is especially true of criminal gangs and tyrannical regimes. Members of such groups will reinforce each other’s illusions of morality in complex ways – coining conveniently worded justifications and sticking to them to the point where they actually believe them at the conscious level."

 

[GeoFee]

Well.... consider me dressed down specific to my baiting questions, following six short paragraphs expressing, in the simplest possible terms, what we face as responsible persons. May I take it that there is no quarrel with those six paragraphs?

Let me tag on an assumption I bring to the conversation. Only a small fraction of behaviours directed to the suppression of indigenous cultures on this continent, as on other continents, may be considered aberrant. The large portion was undertaken by resort to means established by law and implemented by administrative determination. In effect, all that transpired did so under the jurisdiction of government with tacit, if not explicit, consent of diverse religious institutions.

Have I got this wrong?

George

 

[revjohn]

Well.... consider me dressed down specific to my baiting questions,

Speaking only for myself I responded to no baiting question.

I responded to your deliberate false witness.

Dress it up however you wish

 

[GeoFee]

Yet here you are, nibbling at the herring.

For the information of all present. I have here been accused of "deliberate false witness"; dress it up however you wish.

"... and a ruler full of the spirit of improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end perhaps otherwise unobtainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement."

This is John Stuart Mill on Liberty. The concept served as a keystone in the architecture of assimilation. It continues to inform the national pride by which we are styled champions of liberty and truth.

Bring me before any just tribunal. Compel me to testify. For this purpose I am called and sufficiently equipped.

George

 

[Delightful Life]

 

[Ritafee]

QUEEN ELIZABETH II: British Monarch Celebrates Coronation Jubilee with Gulf Despots and Dictators
By Finian Cunningham
Global Research, May 18, 2012
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/queen-...jubilee-with-gulf-despots-and-dictators/30894
When Queen Elizabeth II receives her guests at Windsor Castle today to celebrate 60 years as head of the British state she will be greeted and fawned upon by some of the world’s most ruthless dictators.

 

[Carolla]

@UnDefinitive ... are you hoping for discussion of what you've posted above? I'm not clear on your purpose ...

 

[chansen]

When I look up "globaltesearch.ca" later, what am I going to gind out?

 

[revjohn]

Yet here you are, nibbling at the herring.

If you think you are playing me think again.

Bring me before any just tribunal. Compel me to testify. For this purpose I am called and sufficiently equipped.

Who in this thread lifted up the highnesses as whiter than snow?

Quote them.

If it was me, quote me.

If it was Steven, quote him.

If it was chansen, quote him.

If it was Alex, quote him.

If it was unsafe, quote her.

If it was Waterfall, quote her.

It is well past obvious that it wasn't UnDefinitive or yourself.

 

[GeoFee]

I have no interest is playing you, or any other. Only observing a distinct tug on the line once I dropped two questions into the water.

I alone spoke of "highnesses". None other.

What is it about the phrase, in its context, which would warrant the rather grave accusation of false witness?

Here is my substantive allegation:

Only a small fraction of behaviours directed to the suppression of indigenous cultures on this continent, as on other continents, may be considered aberrant. The large portion was undertaken by resort to means established by law and implemented by administrative determination. In effect, all that transpired did so under the jurisdiction of government with tacit, if not explicit, consent of diverse religious institutions.

Would you affirm or refute the allegation?

George

 

[revjohn]

I have no interest is playing you, or any other. Only observing a distinct tug on the line once I dropped two questions into the water.

That being the case you would have noticed that all who tugged on your line tugged at the same point which is not your quote below.

What is it about the phrase, in its context, which would warrant the rather grave accusation of false witness?

Mendalla, Steven and myself all quoted the phrase we took issue with. All three of us responded directly to the content which we quoted. It is that allegation which I have labelled false witness.

You can pretend we were responding strongly to something we chose not to quote.

You can choose to believe we were all pricked by the portion of your post we did not quote or argue with.

If that is the way you decide to read the conversation thus far then you aren't conversing with any who have responded to you thus far.

 

[GeoFee]

Hi John,

Yes, three of you called me on the red herring*. I responded by admitting to being put in my place. Perhaps it will bring benefit if I apologize for pronouncing an ironic indictment of the "highnesses and the esteemed". I will work towards not repeating such offense. Should I fall short, I will appreciate being set right by you or any other.

That said, let us move the conversation forward. Just now it is you and I. Perhaps others will chime in. I will welcome any perspective on the matter in view.

So... do you affirm or refute systemic wrong doing on the part of State and Church in their ideological determination to suppress, if not eradicate, indigenous culture on this continent as on other continents?

To be plain, I have no interest in pretending, nor do I choose to believe anything along the lines you suppose above.

George

* The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic.​

 

[Ritafee]

@UnDefinitive ... are you hoping for discussion of what you've posted above? I'm not clear on your purpose ...

In keeping with the gist of this thread ... just another article that reflects that the Queen 'as she chooses' ... chooses to celebrate her 60 years of 'highness' by a wine and dine with some of the worlds most ruthless dictators.

If below is not just another conspiracy theory ....

• All physical land in Canada is the property of the Crown, Queen Elisabeth 11. There is no provision in the Canada Act, or in the Constitution Act 1982 which amends it, for any Canadian to own any physical land in Canada. All that Canadians may hold, in conformity with medieval and feudal law, is “an interest in an estate in land in fee simple”. Land defined as ‘Crown land’ in Canada, and administered by the Federal Government and the Provinces, is merely land not ‘dedicated’ or assigned in freehold tenure. Freehold is tenure, not ownership. Freehold land is ‘held’ not ‘owned’.

• Canada, a vast territory dominating the north of the North American continent, was colonised by the British from 1497 when Cabot left Bristol and reached New Foundland. Subsequently, most of Canada fell under French control. In 1759, at the result of a single battle at Quebec, Britain took Canada from the French. In 1867 Canada became the first Crown colony to obtain self government within the Empire as a Dominion. Throughout most of the 19th century, it was the stated policy of the American political parties to annex Canada. They were prevented from doing so only by the threat of British sea power. Canada is now, with Britain, America’s closest ally, despite some differences. The policy of annexing Canada has been shelved because not even America could afford the bill from the Crown, about $16 trillion. Canada is a federation of 13 provinces.

• The British Queen and her son Prince Charles enjoy a veto power, by which they can annul any new laws being drafted against their interest in the government, it has been revealed.
  
  The revelation came after the coalition government lost the battle to keep information about the level of royal interference in politics secret.
  
  Governmental papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers showed that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals’ little-known power to approve or reject new laws.
  
  The documents also revealed that the power has been used to abolish planned legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.
  
  The documents, named as the internal Whitehall pamphlet, were only released following a court order and revealed that ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of lawmaking than was originally understood.
  
  The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from Elizabeth II or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.
  
  In one incident on the matter, the Queen completely banned the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member’s bill that required the transfer of power from the monarch to parliament to allow military strikes against Iraq.
  
  The British monarch was also asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the legality of a civil partnership that would bind her.
  
  “This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role,” said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives

And ... If in fact, child molester Savile had enjoyed an unbelievable level of access to the Royal Family for 40 years.

Is it still a wonder that I am inquisitive and concerned as to the character of the earthly powers that be and the company that they keep ? To all intents and purposes ... they own all of us ...

The Treason Felony Act 1848 makes it illegal to even imagine overthrowing the Crown. Just because
The act – which makes it a criminal offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to advocate abolition of the monarchy in print, even by peaceful means – has not been deployed in a prosecution since 1879 - does not mean that it it cannot be deployed. The Ministry of Justice said: “Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 has not been repealed. Why does this law need to remain on the books ? Kevin Annett is not threat enough for them to use this ... the Queens Loyal subjects will take care of him for her by ridiculing him to the point of incredible.

 

[revjohn]

Hi George,

Perhaps it will bring benefit if I apologize for pronouncing an ironic indictment of the "highnesses and the esteemed".

Thank you.

I will work towards not repeating such offense. Should I fall short, I will appreciate being set right by you or any other.

I will render whatever assistance I can in that regard.

So... do you affirm or refute systemic wrong doing on the part of State and Church in their ideological determination to suppress, if not eradicate, indigenous culture on this continent as on other continents?

I affirm it.

That said, I have no clue how to rectify the situation.

For some, it appears that the evil is deliberate and calculating. My perspective suggests that evil of that kind is distinguished whereas there is an every day run of the mill evil which is banal by comparison.

The impulse driving the Residential Schools program was, in its day, considered a noble effort. it was an attempt to improve upon. It was a misguided attempt to be certain and we may speak of genocide as a result. I am not convinced that genocide was the aim or the intent. Nor do I think that Christians of various denominations signed up for that work because it afforded them with the opportunity to brutalize or subjugate an unworthy race.

Without a doubt some wolves found their way into a flock and were able to ravage it. If all had been wolves no sheep would have survived.

And there are stories out of the Residential Schools which point to real people, with real hearts full of love who went as agents of grace to serve.

So here we sit, in the midst of a mess where pain and suffering are palpable and multiply with each new generation.

There is an impulse to assign blame which is fairly easily done.

There is in that impulse a drive to keep monsters as monsters and for some that impulse means monsters must become more monstrous still.

Miroslav Volf discusses this in pieces in "Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness and Reconciliation" themes from which he fleshes out later in "The End of Memory--Remembering Rightly In a Violent World" and much of that comes out of his experiences in Croatia.

Both are very thoughtful and powerful works. I commend them to you.

In both Volf points to the phenomenon of demonization, making the banality of evil that much worse. In the process we use our pain and suffering as a springboard to invent reasons for why that suffering exists.

So, it is not enough that the Federal Government embarked upon a program that would ultimately prove to be disasterous it must be that the Federal Government is not simply ignorant of potential consequences they must be devious and plan them.

There is no healing in that path, indeed there never can be because the whole point of that path is to make what is bad that much worse.

Regrettably the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that we held did not have any (that I am aware of) who were actually responsible for the outrages which happened step forward to take responsibility for that. I suspect that has something to do with our process taking place in a context where balance of power never shifted.

I know I heard from a lot of colleagues a desire to go none appeared to be so thrilled to stand as accused so much as to stand with/for/as the victims.

In that, I am particularly critical of a Church which trumpet social justice but is very deliberate not to place itself where it may be on the receiving end of justice. As a denomination we excel at wanting it enforced and our ability to accept that it might be directed against us is feeble.

So we never stand as accused we ensure we stand as accuser.

We are never the publican in the temple beating our breast and confessing our sin.

We are always the pharisee who points to the publican and thanks God we are not like he.

Indeed, what would we do with that kind of humility? It would get in the way of all our denominational back-patting as we celebrate our list of firsts which becomes less impressive as time wears on.

 

[GeoFee]

I have been reading Hannah Arendt's "Responsibility and Judgement". Last evening Barbara selected a movie to watch as we relaxed after a day of yard work. She choose a film called "Hannah Arendt". Difficult to follow the German, poor subtitling, but the gist came through well.

The film centres in Hannah's offer to provide a narrative on the Jerusalem Eichmann trial for the New Yorker. She attends the trial and reflects on what she heard, saw and thought. Her observations, which are conditioned by a strong critical rigour, find favour with many. The hostility of some in the Jewish world also followed publication.

I mention this in response to your notice that the bulk of evil expressed and experienced is banal, which Arendt affirms. Ordinary persons performing their duty before the jurisdiction of the state and benediction of the church.

With you I acknowledge that the problem frustrates our aspiration for a world set free from the misuse and abuse of power. Two voices encourage me in my own press for remedy.

Camus proposes that we have no hope of obtaining the full realization of divine opportunity in history. Even so, he offers the joyful solidarity of companions determined to discovery and expression of what is true and what is good in the lived experience of freedom and responsibility.

Arendt concludes her disciplined participant observer narrative by speaking to the failure of thinking as a precursor to and necessary condition of totalitarian pretentions. I find this verified in my own experience.

As to the perpetrators, the accomplices and the gullible masses I have no indictment. Each inherits the fruit of seed sown along the way. I have no interest in ferreting out either guilt or punishment. My aim is set for the unearthing of ideas by which imaginations were/are fed and priorities established.

What ideas inspire and animate our lived experience?

What must we do to distinguish ideas that hinder from ideas the help?

What is the sense of addressing secondary, derivative, matters while primary matters are unidentified and therefore unaddressed?

 

[revjohn]

What ideas inspire and animate our lived experience?

As I thought upon this question a still small voice asked me to define "our." As I turned my attention to the communal I noticed what I perceived to be a chink, a fatal flaw which brings about our undoing. We are social creatures and we like the packs that we put together. Even I, as strongly introverted as I am, have a need for the closeness of some other.

Natural drives and natural desires are nothing to be ashamed of nor flaws to be corrected.

And yet, those drives unexamined lead to behaviours which do not facilitate the common good.

One darkish drive, a banality, is the pervasive nature of those individuals in groups to presume responsibility falls upon another. We are big on getting our fair share, our rights and our privileges are things that we will fight for. Meanwhile there is almost an equal and opposite force which resists giving our fair share and none demand that they have duty or obligation to the wider community.

So it would appear that much of our communal time is parasitical rather than symbiotic.

We have lost a balance. We do not think of community in terms of individuals.

It is not enough for me to find a group and have it tell me what I should value and how I should think. What I value and how I think should be the means by which community is formed around me. Of necessity I will be changed by my interaction with others just as they, of necessity will be changed by their interaction with me. Rather than address the rights of what each member may expect to receive perhaps it makes more sense to address the duties that each member will be expected to perform?

Which takes me out of a consideration of shared (our) experience into the consideration of what inspires and animates me as an individual.

In an earlier day in the context of camps I taught others how to survive. I borrowed, from one John Wiseman, an acronym called PLAN. PLAN is about the necessities for survival. Protection (having shelter), Location (knowing your terrain), Acquisition (food and water), Navigation (how to get from where you are to where you want to be). I believe that there are spiritual counterparts to these very material needs and I find myself thinking about these four items.

What protection can I count on?
Where am I?
What nourishes me?
Where am I going?

Starting with that I can work towards a community and if I am by myself or with several others each element has applicability.

Operating out of my Christian faith then I arrive at the following answers:

The only protection I can count on is my Lord and my God. All other shelter may be suitable for certain limited purposes only my God can keep me safe through all things.

I am where God has placed me and I will make where I have been placed a refuge.

I am nourished not by bread or water but with the true bread which came down from heaven and the water of life. I have both in abundance and can, should it be necessary, feed thousands with what I have been so generously given.

I am going wherever I am called and I will stay in that place until I am called to go elsewhere.

While that sounds large my experience is that it is not. My world extends only as far as my reach. I may see further and I may hear things that are farther away but it is only what I touch that I can change.

I am not called to change all things.

A fundamental flaw, I see in our communal enterprise is that it spends so little time focusing on where it is and when it is. To be precise it spends a lot of time on pie in the sky ideas. Currently the denomination is caught up in the idea that a structural change is the solution to all of our problems.

From above that would be the P element from PLAN. If it was a matter of insufficient or inappropriate shelter then structure is what needs attention.

I have not heard that lifted up as a major concern. What I hear, more often than not is a lack of people.

That suggests to me that we have more shelter than is needed (empty pews indicate too much shelter rather than not enough). If we cannot sustain our numbers it is most likely a problem with the A element. There are simply not enough resources to feed all mouths. Simplistically in a communal environment that means that there aren't enough bodies foraging or hunting (it could also mean that the bodies working at that task are not suited for that task).

If we are losing members because there is not enough to eat building a new structure is, in a word, foolishness.

How does that apply to the conversation which begins the thread?

For that we have to borrow from the L and N elements. We need to know where we are now and we need to know where we want to be.

Using the simplest of terms let us identify where we are now as "broken" and where we want to be as "whole."

How do we get from here to there? Do all need to make the same journey?

Speaking personally. I never experienced the Residential Schools nor did any member of my family. I'm not broken because of it. It will never work for me as a point of reference it is not a part of my journey. As a historical event it impacts upon me at a communal level. It simply is not my burden.

Others do have this as a point of reference in their journey so those others are the best resources for understanding that terrain. My job is to not get in the way of their progress.

It would be irresponsible of me to attempt to offer navigational help because never having been in that spot I have no idea how to get from that starting point to the ideal ending point. Those on the journey will know far better than I what is necessary so my best effort is spent listening and whenever possible providing necessary provisions.

That may be temporary shelter and/or it might be food and water for the journey. Apart from that, I've never been to that place so I don't know how to get out of it.

Those making the journey are going to have to decide how they want to travel. Are they intent upon carrying all baggage with them from start to finish? Do they want to travel light? Can they abandon things along the way that serve no purpose? It isn't up to me to tell them how to travel and/or what they have to leave behind.

I can ask if what they so desperately cling to is a help or a hindrance.

Which is, to be candid, where Kevin Annett comes back into the process. Is Kevin interested in the journey coming to a right and proper end or is Kevin interested in keeping folk on the move towards some impossible goal? Has Kevin ever shared any point of reference on the journey? Is Kevin a reliable guide?

Is Kevin Annett a help or a hindrance in the journey our First Nations brothers and sisters find themselves taking?

Are warnings against leaning on such unreliable support a help or a hindrance in the journey our First Nations brothers and sisters find themselves taking?

The journey has been started and some will be further along than others. It is also not my journey. At best I can offer assistance to do that I need to listen more than I talk. Sometimes the Church would profit from doing more of the same. For the most part our involvement in this particular journey was to cause it to become necessary. Our help may not be that highly valued in getting away from brokenness to wholeness.

 

[Delightful Life]

UnDefinitive,

on love of monarchies, I notice that one of my favourite books is the Lord of the Rings

the people I am supposed to cheer for and feel all warm and fuzzy for are MONARCHISTS :3

(thank goodness for the hobbits, who are the only ones with the right stuff to be able to carry the One Ring to its final destination)

If you have the chance, watch Stephen Fry's documentary "Out There", where he tours the world, checking out how homosexuals are treated...there are some gob stopping moments what certain officials say on camera

I have a friend who has immigrated here from the ukraine & russia & what he has told me has both amazed me, made me feel warm n fuzzy & saddened me...he non cynically says that Russia is full of slaves -- the Russian people have been conquered & conquered & conquered & the conquering force rewrites their history & that Russians are trying to find their culture right now...

R Buckminster Fuller had an interesting idear as he looked into the history of earth, that of the Great Pirate, who were these people who knew a lot aboot a lot (as opposed to specializing), who were very good at being secretive (they had to--because they had to sleep sometimes), and who knew almost everything aboot their area of influence. Concepts like countries were created as a stable pool of employees, monarchies to police & protect these countries & to protect themselves against other Great Pirates, things like universities as a pool of smart employees. He thought a very big problem today is that even though the Great Pirates are extinct, the world is still operating as if they were still around (kinda like Fred Saberhagen's 'Berserker' concept--the First Ones ancient race is gone, but their fearsome machinery remains...)

Check out his short book "operating manual for spaceship earth"; that's where his riff on Great Pirates comes from :3

 

[GeoFee]

Hi John...

Thank you for the response. It offers opportunity for reflection and appreciation. I will pick up only one point.

And yet, those drives unexamined lead to behaviours which do not facilitate the common good.

John Macmurray, in "Interpreting the Universe", speaks about the challenge confronting human being in and through nature. Here is a snippet which speaks to the problem of "drives unexamined":

"It would seem as if history were driving us, under the pressure of necessity, to attempt the deliberate planning of our social life. The theoretical basis of such an effort at social reconstruction must be philosophical. If the philosophy which guides it is unconscious, we shall be at the mercy of unconscious forces, which, because they are unconscious, are uncontrollable."

Jesus looks on those who conspired to accomplish his murder as being ignorant (unexamined/unconscious) and therefore not to be held accountable. I will not quarrel with Jesus on this point. I will do all that I am able to provoke awakening to the responsibility by which freedom is energized and validated.

George