The Manifesto of the Century Rena Hammond

Of all the movements my colleagues and I have yet encountered in the untapped world of the underground, the most sweeping has been the effect brought about by an entirely unknown author. Maxim Kennit-Fox's recent publication of "21st Century Manifesto" has had an intense ripple effect on the entire world of underground thought. The web of communication created by Helm's development has surely done alot to cause this wild-fire of astonished acclaim throughout a community of thousands of people throughout the world. Already three organisations have been formed upon the social theories put forth by Manifesto. The most astonishing development is the lesser, but vast, explosion of support his privately published work has had on the main-stream world. One of the three associations was formed entirely outside of Helm's sphere of influence. Kennit-Fox has accomplished, with only five months of publication, the establishment of his work as a classic in social thought, the creation of three organisations as of yet and the terming of his insights as Kennitism. With such a short period of publication under his belt, we at Helm are in awe at how sweeping the changes are likely to be on the consciousness of the world at large.

The revelations offered by Manifesto are complex and it is up to every reader to acquire a copy of Manifesto in order to penetrate the perspective-altering power of Kennit-Fox's work. But to give an idea of the notions involved, the basic idea is summed up in a term coined by the Manifesto. That of "non-speak". In essence, non-speak refers to a separate language, insidiously ingrained and invisible, which makes it a prevalent phenomenom for human beings to speak to one another without any contact. When someone distrusts another, they will not feel it possible to say or do all that they wish to say and do. And yet, as humans we have an inherent wish to commune with others. To commune, to share all we wish to say, to do with another all we truly wish to do, that is the very meaning of communion. This can't exist if we do not feel we can do either. In this world of possible danger it is very uncommon to find situations with other people where both parties could truly never harm the other. Such a situation is the prerequisite for a level of trust that can mean true communion. And so its not practical for most to wait for such a situation. Before it may occur, loneliness may set in. And so, to fulfill this need, without need to trust the person involved, we create ways of speaking and acting to one another which simulate actual communion as closely as is possible without liberation of word and action. In other words, guarding ourselves closely, the opposite of communion, while trying to make it seem by word or action that we're unguarded, feel communion, and are having fun. The examples of this are absolutely mind- boggling, and almost every institution of society is starkly revealed as false, fake and dull in the examples of how non-speak manifests. Almost every exchange between people is done in this distrustful way which bars communion entirely, replacing it with a type of placebo. It brutally reveals the intensely lonely nature of our social worlds. As Kennit-Fox himself explains, with non-speak you "... have the knives out." It is portrayed as staring another in the face, both of you bearing knives, ready to strike at first sign of danger, yet tolerating the company of the other out of a fear of loneliness.

The term "True-speak" is also coined by Manifesto as the real language of people to one another, real communication and real communion. What we all are craving when we long for another's company. It is the true human language. The pleasure, fun, acceptance, freedom, love of true speech is what we are looking for in needing to share with another. If the knives are out and we cannot have this, it is replaced by what other forms of pleasure, fun, acceptance, freedom and love are available outside of the real manifestations of it. Hence non-speech has such elements as excessive reliance on humour, on sexual innuendo and intentions, on entertaining people, so as to draw upon non-communion forms of pleasure and fun. On social groupings which have opposition groups to feel superior to, cliquism and classism, racism, all such "isms", unify people in their distrust of others, in lieu of developing a trust of eachother. Such examples simulate acceptance and freedom to express oneself inside a trusting group. Whereas all of these examples, covering only a small degree of the infinite examples, simulate love in that the skilled practitioner of non-speech has developed consummate entertaining skills and insidious ways of cementing communities based on their distrust of other people. whether it be a class of people or people outside of a clique. In becoming entertaining and unifying under fear, love is simulated.

It should already be apparent to the reader, from conscious or unconscious consideration of daily life, how deeply entrenched this stance to other people is within our society and our perspectives. It is in fact a familiar idea, that people do not trust one another. As most of the world's thoughtful people are aware of this fact. It makes the stunning power of Kennit-Fox's work all the more unexpected in that the full magnitude of this social cancer that engulfs society is for the first time traced as the source of most of the world's inadequacies. On reflection, the irresistible need to change one's entire perspective on social interaction seems to derive from the Manifesto tracing how every one of the world's problems are social ones. And non-speak is the reason for every misery inflicted on humanity. It is a phenomenom, therefore, which deserves more than a passing thought. Manifesto covers twelve areas of society and entirely obliterates them as useless constructions of non-speak, of the very language of not doing or saying what we wish to. Therefore explicitly revealing them as things we, none of us, in fact want or need. Spelling out how serious is the harm to humanity, when we non-speak.

If you have notions of trusting a given person, Manifesto threatens to obliterate your surety. For myself, I am of those class of people who claims a large amount of close personal friends who I would assume are close as can be. And yet, with examples of how non-speak manifests I found that only two friendships stood against the symptoms and proved themselves to be examples of true friendship. Those two being my esteemed colleagues and co-founders of Helm. Of the incredibly comprehensive examples the Manifesto alludes to, I have compiled a small test for the reader to pit against their most "trusting" of friendships:

1. Do you ever feel boredom in their presence?

2. Do you ever feel a need to fill silence or replace words with silence, feeling what is being said, or the silence, is awkward?

3. Do you ever feel any of the more selfish emotions with them, even mildly, such as jealousy, envy, hurt pride, need to belittle?

4. Do you ever feel any kind of emotional upset with the them? Anger, sorrow or hurt feelings?

5. Do you ever feel any form of even the mildest dissatisfaction from being in their company?

If you've encountered even the slightest manifestation of any of the above you are speaking non-speak with the person. You may not be aware, but you have the knives out. You do not trust them at all. You certainly are not communing with them at all. In fact, you are not even speaking to them truly, and are not truly with them. You are alone with your knives. You are full of fear and utterly alone. Communion is satisfaction. To more closely simulate Manifesto's impact on the reader, there is one further test to pit against your friendship and yourself. Do you find that you pass all the above tests? Or that you do not, but in spite of feeling these things claim to know these associations are trusting and loving? As the Manifesto points out, you should consider that the level of satisfaction you have with these people, making you see it as ultimate love and trust, only seems the ultimate based on the knives being less apt to strike than has been the case with others. It is possible in this world that some have never experienced true communion. So the closest they've ever had would seem the ultimate. When really there is a level of satisfaction out there which they have never dreamt of. Having not experienced real social pleasure, the placebo pleasures offered by skilled speakers of non-speak constitute the only semblance of social pleasure in many people's lives. Creating a false definition which makes them cling to non-speak, and the "love" acquired by their adaptation to it. So someone has stabbed you less frequently than others and this makes them the definition of trust? Is that logical? But if you've never experienced an exchange which does not involve knives, it would be easy to assume this reasoning logical. Having experienced no better love and pleasure, you'd hesitate to abandon it.

The importance of what Kennit-Fox has addressed in Manifesto is summed up in a poll conducted by Nalini Sankar, which listed the most common response of readers to Manifesto as "It's true. But I had never really thought about it." The simple knowledge that people do not trust one another is addressed and the negative effects of this root cause is traced to the immense repercussions non-speak leads to. Basically, that we are all alone and not doing what we wish, saying what we wish. That even those relationships we consider ultimate in trust and love are flawed and contain a large measure of fear, distrust and hatred. Consequently that human communion is rarely achieved. Making our most primal reason for craving another's company thwarted at every angle. And all because a language is possible which makes us feel we have communion when we in fact don't. If non-speak did not exist our loneliness would force us to achieve real communion. Force us to passionately seek to never harm others, so that trust is possible. Then saying and doing what we long for with another would be possible, in a climate of trust. Yet the largest repercussions of non-speak are even more terrifyingly destructive to human happiness. For, considering symptoms of non-speak, it follows that any entity formed by people talking was likely done in a climate of non-speak. So, any of the societal institutions created by people talking had created the things we had not truly wished to create. Our societal structure, our political structure, our system of fame- idols, hero-worship, our system of economics, our revered notions of what we accept as friendship, love, marriage, social and societal norms of any and all kinds are all created by non-speak, and are not what we'd wish.

The effect of reading Manifesto on myself has been a complete and permanent change to my entire perspective of socialisation amongst us. An obliteration of almost every institution I had taken for granted as what we wish for. From the state of my closest friendships, to the prevalent ideas on love, friendship, to the economic, political and social system I am a part of. And, as the last page was turned the question that hit my mind with incredible force, as if for the first time: "Why isn't this world what we want it to be? It seems it simply should be." And Kennit-Fox, in all truth, has opened a door once closed to humanity and obscured in the mists of a social dark age. Kennit-Fox's book illustrates the only problem keeping us from the world being what we wish it to be. And in doing so shows for the first time the path to making it so. In this world of possible dangers you cannot merely trust and not be jabbed by a world accustomed to bearing knives in search of vulnerabilities. And yet, if non-speak is not allowed within oneself, speech will only run fluidly with those who themselves are not prone to non-speak, who expect communion, and who therefore are prone to trust. Those who walk this world unarmed.

Kennit-Fox refers to the age he lives in as a social dark age which he has trouble understanding and has no desire to adapt to. And by the time the reader reaches this passage they find themselves naturally agreeing with his estimation and adopting his position. The power of his work is in this profound capacity to illustrate how terrifyingly destructive non-speak is to all of us. The urgent call to action forms within your mind and you find yourself as terrified of non-speak and as keen to stamp it out at every step as you would be to extinguish a fire you have suddenly been made aware of, devouring your home with every moment. A phenomenom I'm incapable of fully mirroring within the confines of a two page article. This pressing urgency concerning eradication of non-speak is only one part of this amazing state of complete revelation which reading Manifesto produces. In my experience, such a powerful hit to the perspective, such life-altering power, is an effect unprecedented in literature. Another part of this state of revelation is the deep hope you suddenly find yourself able to entertain. When you consider the alternatives of non-speak, you clearly see the path needed to be taken to find true happiness, true love, true trust, true excitement, adventure, contentment, fun, and to accomplish with every moment what you truly wish to. The path to these things are thrust into your view of life. All at once satisfaction seems profoundly possible. It is revealed as having always been at your elbow. Obscured by an object you had never noticed, never sought to remove, and so never imagined concealed your happiness.

As stated, three organisations as yet have been founded as a reaction to the irreversible perspective-shift Manifesto creates in the minds of its readers. TIME(The Institute for Male Enlightenment) was created in London as a response to chapter 8 of Manifesto. This section of the work deals with notion of gender and particularly "Maleness". It obliterates the notions of "manliness" men are conditioned to mimic. Men in particular are encouraged to behave in such ways which are rife with non-speak. The strength of individuality and self- assurance, coupled with repression of emotion accentuate the need to avoid communion. As a result, men are left with no other recourse to avoiding loneliness but non-speak if they wish to continue being seen as a "man". Therefore men particularly are almost never doing or saying what they wish to. Kennit-Fox goes so far as to say men do not wish to behave as they do and do not wish to bring about many of the negative states of society which their dominance creates. Therefore it is not men, per se, who create the inequalities borne of their patriarchal world, but rather non-speak. "Not entirely non-speak!", Nalini Sankar says with a laugh. "He's not taking away all of the responsibility for the state of things from men." Sankar is the leader of a small feminist group in Toronto and would like to assert that the "male liberation" movement founded in London by readers of Manifesto does not at all threaten or stand at odds with the notion of "women's liberation". She is keen to impress on all feminist-leaning individuals that Kennit's ideas are identical to the concerns and the aims of the feminist movement. "If all men were free of this conditioning which encourages relations to others based on mistrust, misogyny being an example, then the problems which have given birth to the feminist movement would no longer exist." In fact, the very state of things which makes feminism necessary would evaporate with a Kennitist-style "male liberation". As Sankar puts it "Feminism is necessary. The idea of female liberation was created as a means of fighting a very real problem within our society. The type of male liberation they are seeking would get rid of the source of those problems. These liberations walk hand in hand." Since it's creation in March of 2003, TIME has grown to a membership of almost 100 individuals. Kennit-Fox's ideas have given birth to a new movement, the revolution of "male liberation".

A second organisation sprung up without the word of mouth of the Helm network to aid its exposure to Kennit-Fox. Showing how universal the effect of the work is upon its readers. The Montreal, Canada-based, association PURE (Philosophers United for the Reclaiming of Equality) draw upon the insights of the work's 10th chapter which deals with fame- cults and the worship of the famous. The head of PURE sums up the purpose of the organisation in the following way: "There is a real idiocy in worshiping people based on qualities that make them capable of making certain people money. It does not at all reflect any worth as human beings." While not at all stating that those worshiped as superior to all, by virtue of their fame, are not valuable as human beings, PURE strongly states that "Being at the right place at the right time to show a particular quality which any one of us may also have in spades, and so be lucky enough to excite the avaricious whims of a producer, and so become famous. It is no sign that someone has any right to claim or expect a notion of superiority over any of the just as talented masses." Kennit-Fox claims that the famous are more often than not the most successful practitioners of non-speak, consummate entertainers who's stock and trade is the very stuff of non-speak. Artificial satisfaction. PURE has taken this a step farther in lobbying against the deification of the famous and the worth they acquire both in human terms of superiority and the monetary boons they claim for being nothing more than famous and worshiped. "Those with worth and something to admire as well are being not only unappreciated and ignored, but are stuck in nine to five slavery. Just so immense amounts of the world's money can continue to go into the machinery of worshiping one person's marginal talents. It's complete injustice and belittlement for 99% of humanity. Any decent celebrity would loathe being the cause of this." The notion of PURE is an entirely new concept in society. One that seemingly has not even be considered, let alone turned into a legitimate lobby group.

And lastly, our own Venice correspondent, Amelia Torquato, has only last month formed the group RIFORMA, based on the 11th chapter of Manifesto which deals with the significance of art in a world of non- speak. Torquato's intriguing devotion to the dashing Kennit-Fox has inspired her to form a group of local Italians to, as Torquato puts it, "Explore the new culture of legitimacy which Maxim has given to art. Art has once again taken the spot as an advancer of society. The architects of enlightenment. I'd like to speak of the rennaisance, but now there is more of a security, theory, of why art is important." Kennit-Fox considers art to be a medium of a one-sided communion people feel drawn to use as a means of dealing with a lack of contact. With the message of the Manifesto, art is an incredibly important tool of communication, a thing which flies in the face of non-speak, apart from when it is strictly commercial in nature. To quote Torquato, "You only do art to communicate. You can't do it with people. It is almost never possible to do. Maxim knows this and so art is as important to communion as true-speak, especially when people open to it and really receive it. It is the same thing." Not only has a new association been formed by Kennit-Fox's work but a new artistic movement as well. Angelism, a painting style developed by Torquato and her fellow artists emphasises the use of mooded colours and shades as well as angles and carefully chosen levels of clarity and fuzziness to express typical scenes of social interaction. The darkness and disturbing lack of safety and security expressed by the social scenes paint a stark picture, so to speak, of what most social exchanges in fact are. Angelism has spread into the think-tank of Helm's art community as well as some communities independent of Helm's influence. Kennit-Fox has indirectly inspired art to explore itself, through RIFORMA, and inspired a new artistic style.

Given the irresistible, almost involuntary, reaction to reading Manifesto it would seem that the passing of this social dark age, which makes the world of humanity less than what is wished for, will soon pass unchecked. In it's very limited circulation, and short period of publication, the amount of people involved in Kennitist organisations has risen near to 1000. And more groups are emerging. It is only a matter of time before Manifesto is distributed around the world. And if all readers are as profoundly struck in the perspective by it, the world is in for some profound changes. Manifesto is set to become the first major work of the 21st century and we at Helm imagine it shall be on the book-shelves of all members of the 21st century. It's concepts within the mind of all future generations, the empowerment it offers for humanity will be rife in the global developments yet to come. So impressed are we with the revelations Kennit-Fox has given to humanity, that Kennit-Fox had been voted as Helm's so-called "Writer Laureate" by our thousands of members during our last editorial meeting in Bonn. And we encourage the distribution of Manifesto to book-shelves across the world. For, once read, the ideas contained within seem so basic and essential to human consideration that it seems society has always considered them. Indications seem to show that life is altered permanently by reading Manifesto. Making the ideas contained something society will from here on in need to accustom themselves to considering. Given this unique power, 21st Century Manifesto is a fitting name. Soon the entire population of the 21st century will be waging war against a dark age. We encourage all members of Helm to start leaving this social dark age. Because as Manifesto is distributed, this dark age will be vacated and you may find yourself quite alone.

Once the ridiculously manic selling power of Manifesto is realised by professional publishers, there is likely to be a row involved in securing publishing rights to the work. For now, the opportunity to receive the original self-bound, self-published copy of Manifesto is available by contacting Kennit-Fox, through our media agent. To receive a copy, fill out the order form attached and post to the address given.

Although Kennit-Fox does not directly associate himself with any of the groups inspired by his work, enquiries about TIME, PURE or RIFORMA can be made directly to Kennit-Fox, through the address given on the order form below . All three associations are open to enquiries and keen to give applications for membership.

The First Meeting of Man and Women Nalini Sankar

The meeting of our unnamed, Toronto-based women's group and fledgling Milan women's group, Sorellanza Femminista(Feminist sister-hood), met in Venice last July. Our meeting was the second sponsored by 21st Century Helm. The cost of flying the 17 of us to Venice was provided for and accomodation for the 35 of us facilitated by Amelia Torquato's idyllic Venice home. Amongst many other things, it was decided that the monthly meetings of our sister organisations would be entirely sponsored by Helm. Taking place alternatively in Venice, Toronto, Lisbon and London. It was also decided that our organisations would unite under the name Feminist Sisterhood(FS), Sorellanza Femminsta (SF) in Italian. Awareness building and solidarity campaigns were outlined in great detail. Our enthusiasm seemed at peak levels, with the inspiration of acquiring a sponsor, financial security and a newly united identity. It was an incredibly exciting week in the beautifully romantic, novelesque back-drop of Venice. The most notable development being the application of Amelia Torquato to become administrator of the Milanese SF. The exact details and developments of Venice shall be out-lined in my November article. For, what made Venice so exciting was the inclusion of a guest speaker. Maxim Kennit-Fox was recommended by Torquato to speak on the second day. Within hours of meeting him, we had invited him to remain.

There was some grumbling about having a speaker imposed on us. Particularly as Mr. Kennit-Fox is indisputably male and yet constitutes the very first speaker our group had ever invited to address us. It seemed more fitting for our group to secure a woman and a feminist as our first speaker. And even moreso in light of the widely-known secret of Torquato's more than academic interest in Fox(my apologies Amelia). You may consider it possible, Amelia, that such gossip could also be leveled at Kennit-Fox. Considering that, in spite of the acclaim he's received, he's shunned all invitations to speak apart from this occasion. Which was done expressly as a favour to Miss Torquato. As it turned out Kennit-Fox had a life-changing effect on all of us. "The Fox", as titled by the women of FS(much to his dismay), compelled us to insist he remain for the duration of our week-long conference.

As my colleague has explained, Fox's Manifesto has made him an instant icon in social thought and rests upon the concept of "non-speak". A few of us at FS had already heard of Fox's ideas. The ideas sound very elementary. And yet hearing the Fox speak of it, you understand how deeply the problem runs, how easy it is to solve and how incredibly stupid you feel for not realising it all your life. It would be an incredible tragedy for the reader to underestimate my words when I tell you that Fox's ideas will break you out of a shell for life and make your entire previous life seem terrifyingly wasted. After Fox addressed us, in his awkward, deep nasal voice, which somehow manages to mesmerise you, the women of FS met to discuss the astonishing effects of Fox upon us. And all of us said the same thing. Like losing your chastity, we felt we could not return to our previous view of socialisation, human interaction, society. Everything irrevocably changed. You see, the manifesto seems to explain to you something you've seemed to know all along and yet had never fully consciously realised. And once you do, the entire world opens up. As the perpetual wise-cracker of FS noted, You feel like booking time on international radio to announce the discovery of hope for absolutely everything. Gender relations, race relations, religious strife, the gap between rich and poor, the cause of all of it is summed up in one odd term, emerging like a messiah, "non-speak". The perpetual cycle of distrust that is the originator of all the miseries of our species.

In the interest of trying to explain to those who have not read Manifesto the effect of Fox's ideas upon the perspective, I'll attempt to re-hash my colleagues explanation of Manifesto in the context of gender relations. It is a nearly impossible task for me. For it is truly a work which must be read in order to be understood. The state of humans never doing what they want to has absolutely marinated society. It's an incredible realisation. Racism, sexism, classism, every social cancer, are things we don't want as human beings, even the most bigoted among us. So steeped are we in the utilitarian need to act in ways which aren't fully, or even close, to what we wish or what we are that we cling to it. Even if someone offers us the chance to act otherwise. It becomes who we are and we're operating on what we've gotten used to. A primal need to fear what will harm us, cling to what gave us satisfaction without having to ever feel free of the fear. Are we a troupe of baboons, mindlessly chasing food and mates, while avoiding the dominant member of the troupe and running from predators? Are we really no more than baboons socially, after all the millenia, after all the advancements and pretensions humans have erected? I would now be prepared to tell those with the greatest pretensions to civility that unless they've read Fox's words with their pretensions unscathed, they are nothing more, socially, than well-trained baboons.

Sexism, the schism of gender relations that has existed since history was first recorded, shows that we are no more advanced than the ancient Egyptians or the Sumerians were. Fox thrusts this fact in your face, indirectly, through his theories. It is true we have had stable and progressively more "enlightened" societies, more or less, through the twentieth century. Relative peace and ease within the developed nations had allowed for development of intelligentsia that were privileged enough to have the knowledge and power to see the irrationality of denying basic human rights to individuals based on such things as gender. Hence the allowing of women to vote and have equal legal rights. Yet, consider for a moment the possibility that the development of sexist thoughts in anyone's mind is caused by a basic social problem. A problem in the very way human's interact. If that is the case, no advances have been made since history began. For it hasn't changed. The causes of sexism have never been addressed. There is proof of no advances whatsoever in the fact that anyone could ever make a sexist comment. That anyone can objectify and demean a woman in this day and age. If sexism occurs as readily in the mind as it did before it became legally frowned upon then past activists intent on change had not only failed, they even failed to identify the enemy. That sexism can still exist anywhere. at any time, shows that we have not socially changed, since the time of the Pharaohs. The primitive unchanged approach to interaction with other human beings which produces sexism remains unaltered. Hence the continued persistence of sexism, even if tethered as it is now by the rule of law and legislation promoting equality. That is the first realisation Fox impressed upon FS. The problem has been entirely unaddressed. As the Fox put it himself. "Activists have been putting their swords to the fire from the dragon's mouth, in an attempt to slay the dragon." Coupled with the secondary realisation already alluded to, that of society in a very real way not being remotely what they wish to be, the direction of FS's attention became startlingly clear. Gender relation problems, in their multitudes of separate issues on the political, legal, economic, human right fronts are all washed away. These issues continue to be of the utmost importance but the problem is extremely simple. Men do not wish to behave as they do. But they're accustomed to it. They have gotten rewards by acting as society has told them to. Aggression gives material rewards. The "love" of women conditioned to find uncaring independence, mixed with sex, desireable. Fox made a point not to exonerate certain men for their behavior and their tragic influence on the lives of multitudes of women. But he clearly identified to us the nature of the beast we have been seeking to slay, in it's well-hidden den.

The combined realisation was that complete liberation of human beings is not at all complicated. It's made so by the ridiculous use of non-speak which is brought into being by nothing more than distrust. The liberation of humanity is as simple as talking true speak. Including a liberated view of gender, from both men and women. For men may cause problems in fearfully behaving in a way society will sanction. A way unlike them and at the same time very harmful and prone to illicit hatred. But women also perpetuate these problems by having come to expect men to be this way, and consider men who don't conform to this mould abnormal, unattractive. Really, the men who do conform to this mould are not normal. They've abnormally mutated their manliness. And they are in fact the weakest and most cowardly of men. For not doing what you wish, not being who you feel you are, and conforming to a mould is a symptom of the fear which makes non-speak feel like a necessity. They are terrified of people and so do not say anything, even if talking constantly. They resort to non-speak; rely on it entirely. It is as if they are not even there; something else is there. In this sense, Fox is the first man I have ever met. And the blissful week he spent with the women of FS was the first meeting of man and women in who knows how long. Perhaps ever. It is no small wonder we were all so compelled by Fox. It makes us wonder why women must suffer from the malady of being surrounded by men, and yet never meeting one in the sense that Fox had truly met us.

As my colleague Rena Hammond has already said, the simple but mind-blowing question comes to mind: "Why aren't things as we wish? Why am I not doing and saying what I wish to? What else am I alive for?" It spills over powerfully into gender relations. Because men are more targeted by society to speak non-speak than women generally are. The stereo-type of the trusting woman affects a large percentage of women, saving them from the insidious life-long addiction to non-speak. Non-speak only means, to my mind, not satisfying yourself out of fear. The only way to free oneself is to free oneself of fear. The only way to do that is to seek to never harm others. That is the only way to be trusted by them. When the day comes that you meet another unarmed member of humanity, your life has begun. For only when both sides trust can they be truly free. It is true with people, and true with men and women in general. Any sort of desire to harm or oppress is a symptom of dissatisfaction, a symptom of the continued reliance on non-speak. The reasons for the feminist movement being necessary at all is completely wrapped up in Fox's notion of non-speak.

Fox's effect on our entire notion of what the feminist movement is fighting warrants it being the full focus of, this, my October article. "Non-speak" is not as simple as it sounds. Something unrealised by the majority of society is not a simple thing, even if it is simple in of itself. I cannot explain the society-altering significance of Manifesto. I implore all readers, feminists in particular, to read Manifesto. It is as if Fox, as an artist, was a blind-folded archer and happened to hit the target of perfect expression to explain something that has never been explained by words in all of human history. Bringing to light a never-painted element of the human heart. It paints that part of you with light and suddenly it's there. The explanation he happened to hit is earth-shattering. It is human to the depths of humanity. It is why art has so devoured the Fox. Torquato began the already alluded to Angelists. And one of our member, upon return to Toronto, founded the "Blinded" style of painting which has spread through the Toronto art community. Blinded painting rests on the metaphor coined by FS that Fox happened upon this explanation which liberates you. He hit a perfect explanation of a part of oneself which exists, but is not consciously seen. He paints it for you and suddenly you're keenly, always, aware of it. As if before-hand you had walked without realisation, an animal on instinct, unaware of the fact that no matter how clever your behaviour is there's one thing you don't know. Making all this cleverness ridiculously wasteful and inept. You're shooting yourself in the foot every day. Blinded painting seeks to accomplish what Fox has done, somehow expressing in a limited medium an intangible, universal element of humanity that goes unrealised. Making all our conceptions delusive. To use art to shoot the arrow and somehow paint this revelation for all humanity to benefit from, in just one glance. For, after reading Manifesto, you realise how blind you've been. You almost want to cry over the wasted years of self-imposed misery and loneliness. Who knows how many other great leaps into the human heart are yet to be painted? Who knows what miseries we still consider inescapable, normal, even after Fox's Manifesto. Blinded art seeks them.

Summing up, the June meeting of FS established many things. But none so epic as the realisation that throughout it's history, feminism had never identified its enemy. With the help of our beloved Fox, we have clearly identified it. All our sisters, united in solidarity for the cause of equality, as well as all our brothers and sisters of society, think of it seriously: Why are things not as we wish? Why do you sit in company, bored? Why do you hate anyone? Why do you fear or feel emotional turmoil with anyone? What are you here on earth for? Is it to do nothing you want to do? Well, realise now. You can do anything you want. Just avoid non-speak. All it takes is a genuine wish to never harm others. This is easy when you realise that, finding another so inclined, you can say, do, anything your heart craves. It's as easy as communion. All hatred, all injustice, all inequality are brought about by frustrated communion. By non-speak seeming so close to actual communion. The subconscious feeling that you're entertaining an illusion of communion. That you're alone in a crowd. And it is not normal, it is not human, it's only one lack of realisation we are laboring under. All your dreams, including allowing and natural equality, are possible. They're right in front of you. You choose to perpetuate inaction. You choose it with every word of small talk you say. This dark age of social confusion, it is like sitting still and starving to death for the lack of knowing you can walk. Walk, pluck a fruit from a tree and start munching. Destroy the social dark age and equality will come naturally. This social dark age has wasted your whole life up to now. Realise, unite and begin to live.

My purpose in this article has been to make clear a new revelation extremely pertinent and helpful to our causes. Details of the decisions of the Venice conference shall be given next month. For now, our purposes will be sufficiently gained by our readers acquiring a copy of Manifesto. Read it for yourself and realise for yourself that our purpose in being feminists can be accomplished with one stroke, when so many have devoted their lives to a million strokes. Now that the heart of the beast we've battled has been revealed. Feminist organisations around the world should benefit from the insight and the explosive productivity FS has enjoyed since weeding out the patriarchal institution of non-speak from it's ranks and pitting our newly united resolve against it. Till November, solidarity to all our sisters.

The Brain of Humanity Re-activated Adrian Wall

Before I begin my article, I would like to reassure the reader that I will be refraining from any direct reference to Mr.Kennit-Fox. This in the interest of this issue of Helm not being entirely and solely about him. Although I must confess that he is indirectly related to what I will be discussing. In the climate of the underground at this point in time it is almost impossible not to bring up his influence when discussing contemporary events. I am refraining only in the interest of covering other topics relevant to the underground of thought. It is not an indication that I am in the least bit disapproving of Kennit-Fox's very positive influence upon society at large.

The gradual advancement of Helm has been happening alongside the so-called "passing of the social dark age". Due to this greater development, the effects of Helm growing exponentially have gone largely unnoticed. Before Helm began, the under-appreciated minds of the world had no voice and no reason to believe the world would hear of their personal advancements or ever come close to giving life to their visions of the future. The future was entirely in the hands of academia, the media and the corporate world. Helm has already changed that. Our success is finally entirely manifest and the climate of advancement is becoming exciting to my colleagues and I. It should also excite the inspiration of all the brilliant and dynamic visionaries in the world who are, or are soon to be, connected with Helm. The voice of the underground is getting louder with every passing issue of Helm. Those who have the intelligence, the vision and the power to influence society's direction in the most positive ways are being given the outlets to do so. Regardless of circumstances, class or education, the validity of theories and what they have to offer is the focus of Helm. Averageness is not a word known by this underground community. The majority of Helm's brightest thinkers have altered society's perspective through publication in Helm and opportunities to network with other creative and visionary people. Most would have been considered "average" members of society before they encountered Helm. This societal label is more the cause of a self-imposed state of "average-ness", rather than a fitting label for most of us. It is a terminal perspective society had been horribly encumbered with before Helm united the underground. Brilliant theories and visionary input upon what the direction this society of ours; They had been considered worthless from all but the specialist intelligentsia. One's thoughts have little value without qualifications. This is a blatantly ridiculous attitude for a society to take. I have attended post-secondary educational institutions and can vouch for the lack of intelligence required to acquire qualifications. I successfully completed my doctorate in Architecture while involved in a half dozen infinitely more difficult projects. With 10% of my attention I acquired the privilege to attach Doctor of Philosophy to my name and my words upon architecture are considered equal to the word of God. With 80% of my time devoted to an independent study of architecture, during a period equal to my doctoral study, I'd be alot more qualified to speak upon architecture. Regardless of my lack of qualifications. In exactly this way many brilliant individuals who do not enjoy the privilege of appending "doctor" to their name are more qualified as an architectural consultant than I could ever be. I attempt to draw examples of the need for the talents and efforts of individuals to be fully utilised in order to best direct society's future. Those willing and passionate about researching the possibilities for humanity deserve to have the fruits of their zeal displayed to the world so that the world itself can decide upon the directions to be taken. The more options given to all of us, the better for our future.

The developments that will be the focus of this article give some idea of alterations to the future of humanity which Helm's unified underground are now set to create. I wish to impress on all interested visionaries who would be empowered to direct their genius towards society's betterment with the help of Helm that these developments and those of the future are entirely open to them. We require more of the world's insightful minds to complete the huge task of main-streaming the underground and continuing to exert our influence. To create a society who's direction is decided by the most capable, creative and visionary minds available to humanity; rather than the concerns of partisan societal institutions with hidden agendas, tunnel-vision and a personal interest in maintaining the status-quo. Especially to those who labour under the self-fulfilling vision of their own "averageness". Join Helm and negotiate an initiative with the underground. You will realise that your potential to be an architect of the future is as much a reality as has been your potential to be "average". That is what Helm is here for. You are a part of the underground. Untapped resources, they are the reason for our societal stasis. Your resources are needed by society. It is society's negligence of you and multitudes of other insightful individuals which is creating our stasis and our confused and uncertain direction as a society. The underground must unify, share ideas openly, create visions of our direction and speak out. Helm is making the underground a strong player in the global arena.

Life in Lisbon has been exciting. The self-designed estate which I have recently completed has come to be the first official meeting place of Helm-united underground gatherings. My colleagues Rena Hammond and Amelia Torquato were present to celebrate the birth of Helm's first official home. And an assortment of western Europe's brightest stars within the underground were present to celebrate the first ever official home, created for the unnoticed and marginalised underground. One of the stars in attendance was Noel Thomas, a French astro-physicist who has come upon his influence over space technology research in French academia in spite of his purely amateur expertise in such matters. Thomas has the intellect of the world's most recognised space technologist, times ten. At 45 his life had involved his family, his extensive library, which couples as a small-scale observatory, and his job as a construction site foreman. He has a clinically documented photographic memory and a complete mental record of humanity's space-related knowledge/advancements. At 47, Thomas arrived at Helm's Lisbon residence to discuss his campaigns. Thomas, his academic and his underground colleaques had formed a lobby and research organisation to link the personal discoveries and theories of the world's most brilliant physicists, amateur and otherwise, to concoct a blue-print for the main goals of space exploration and colonisation for the 21st century. His lobby organisation is an immense conglomeration of individuals, many of them in the main-stream academic world. They span France, Benelux, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece and England. His organisation has begun campaigns to mainstream the expertise of visionary scientists. Mainstream science is a tool of the prerogatives of the established societal institutions and the original visionary element of the scientist is entirely lost in established scientific institutions. This view is the crux of Thomas' organisation. The example Thomas had drawn for me, from out the rich encyclopedia of his mind, was the relatively recent discovery that it would be possible to make Mars an inhabitable planet within several hundred years. It was postulated that, if projects were begun relatively soon, the atmosphere of Mars could be so altered as to allow for a breathable atmosphere, capable of supporting earth-born life, within the next couple of centuries. Thomas' group has researched these claims and have come to the conclusion that estimates are overly pessimistic. They suggest that the estimates failed to observe the advances in technology already occuring and likely to occur over that several hundred year period in the areas which pertain to the machines proposed to be used for the purpose of altering Mar's atmosphere. Consequently, they postulate the period of circa 2150ad as the latest date of complete pre-climate-change levels of earth- like green house gases and the subsequent creation of safe amounts of "air" on Mars. The embarkment of our grand-children on shuttles to a safe and fertile Mars is a complete possibility and it is considered a non-issue by the head architects of humanity's future. "Does this reflect the wishes of most of society?" was the question Thomas posed to me. Unable to answer, I could only think to myself that it really didn't matter anymore. Thomas and his organisation has united the physicists and space-related scholars of west europe. Now they are using their voice. All I could feel in response to his question was a profound relief that Helm had given voice to Thomas, who had the makings of a visionary and world leader beneath the hard-hat of a Paris construction foreman. A feeling of deep and justified gratification which I had never expected to be the result of our initiative when we had created Helm. The conference which Thomas' Paris-based group held with those representatives of Helm who were present has led to our organising the funding and administration of a scientific conference to be held, open to the public. To discuss with society at large the discoveries made in recent decades and share ideas on the direction society can begin to pursue and lobby for as far as space exploration goes. The date of the conference is as yet unslated. It is proposed to take place in Paris and will have "internet podiums" which will allow any of the world's interested individuals to attend the conference "virtually". This is the first attempt to achieve public consensus on the future of humanity, as far as space goes. In response to being for the first time addressed, Thomas' group hopes it will give society a taste for making decisions about the direction of their own society and the future of their species. Give those knowledgeable of such matters the chance to aid humanity's options by offering forth their expertise. And give the visionary scientists of the world, recognised or no, the chance to share the visions of the future which the possibilities of science offer. As Thomas put it, "Try to imagine humanity as a single individual and then consider the theory that humans use a small percentage of their brain. The percentage we use is immense compared to this individual of humanity who is using one billionth, at most, of it's brain with every decision made about humanity's direction. It is a huge lumbering dim-wit with not the intelligence to make a wise decision on where it is going. This is because our collective intelligence is not utilised in making decisions. One out of a billion, at most, chooses our direction for us. The state of humanity would be Utopian if this individual of humanity could use as much of it's brain as a normal human being does, when it is deciding where it should go next."

Another shining star of the underground who was in attendance was the wispy girl known as Keltie. Keltania Kovalainen, the Finnish Poet and daughter of the well- respected biologist. She had accepted Helm's invitation to be flown from Joensuu to Lisbon to enjoy a week's hospitality at Helm's new home. She had joined Helm at 17, upon discovering her father was on the then-selective mailing list. At 21, Keltie has gone through a productive formative period which has led to the Karelian community of Poets which now operate under Keltie's leadership. She has fused her passion for poetry and literary arts with a passion for science she had learned from her father. Her organisation is focused on influencing the art and literary community away from the businesses the two institutions have become. Poetry is likened to science, in that the purpose of poetry is to explore the potential for expression of experience through words. The explorative aspect of poetry is allied to the explorative nature of science. Keltie sat in her high-back chair, over-looking Lisbon at night, and demonstrated to me her mastery of words in explaining the revolutionary work of her group. "For years we have revived the tool of poetry as a means within the repertoire of human advancement. But it has always been more than that. We have always felt there is a dark age upon us. The poet is not only a scribbler. The poet is trying to dig into life and discover what she can do. Discover how much can be done with our resources as human beings. In this age there is very little of that in any area of society. Science is rigid, dogmatic, unexplorative and lacks vision. It is a being which creates machines and never thinks to use them. The possibilities are never explored seriously, only theorised over. The world's institutions decide. Science is a lap-dog, not allowed to think for itself. The true scientist is a poet. Not only does he dream, he dreams for an ultimate reason. To achieve liberation of some kind. He dreams the poetry of nature. And with his two hands he writes poems through what he has discovered is within the scope of the human mind. Those scientists I spoke of are poets who don't write." Keltie and her Poets have come into their true element with the recent deconstruction of the so- called "social dark age". She has achieved a rapport with the Canadian organisation of PURE. They reflect her long- held beliefs on the stasis of society being brought about by the reverence of institutions which do not offer anything liberating, new or explorative to the state of humanity. PURE focuses on the Kennitist notion of idol-worship. They focus in particular on the dominance of media idols as the primary holders of human worth in society. But in purely Kennitist terms, such false idols could include, specific to the case involved, the various fragments of the academically- dominated scientific establishment. PURE adopts Kennitist notions that any institution or idol which does not possess worthwhile contributions to society does not deserve the worship and the monetary resources of humanity at large. Such compulsions are seen as a kind of clinical condition of society. Tantamount to offering food and sacrifices up to a God which has given no proof of it's favors or even its existence as a God. The informal meeting of Keltie and Helm's three representatives was concerned with an idea Keltie and other members of the underground have been considering. The establishment of the "Festival of Dreams". An initiative Helm is very interested in sponsoring. The gathering is planned to take place in London sometime in 2004. With a festival atmosphere that would include music and other forms of artistic entertainment, the Festival of Dreams would be more than a simple festival. Once again the Kennitist notions which have come to dominate thought in the underground is an immense driving force behind the creation of the festival. The liberating notions which are associated with the passing of the social dark age have led people to attempt, en masse, to achieve a Kennitist style societal liberation. The festival will feature forums and committees which will allow for participants to form their own organisations to bring about the changes which they and like-minded festival-goers have always wished to pursue. The lack of empowerment which keeps people from such dreams shall be obliterated by the atmosphere and mass cooperation the festival provides. Resultant organisations will be full-fledged, legitimate, entities in the world stage. The festival representatives are available to direct potential organisations on the paths to legitimize their newly- formed groups. The resultant organisations shall also retain the privilege of appealing to the dream festival organisation for aid and advice. The event will grow exponentially, every year. The organisations created last year will attend subsequent festivals and report on their successes or difficulties while new one's are born out of the new year's festival. This festival, needless to say, operates within the law. Utilising established channels of lobby-group formation; rejects all violent or illegal strategies to societal change as counter-productive to acquiring an influence. In addition, the festival does not cater to those who's visions of the future involve notions contrary to Kennitist notions of the social dark age. Violent, intolerant or otherwise anti-social notions of how society should be changed are flatly rejected as representative of the social dark age which the festival is intended to dissolve. While Kennitism is not held up as the purpose of the dream festival, the passing of the social dark age which affects all society, certainly is. Our meeting with Keltie laid the groundwork for Festival of dreams, 2004. Future issues of Helm will report on the developments. As is the case with all underground projects, the dream festival is entirely open to all people who may be passionate about the initiative. Experience with such things are not essential as any help with the festival shall be delegated based on a mutual decision on where an individual's help would be most enjoyable and most productive to the festival. From an "average" Finnish school-girl to the co-creator of a new notion in festivals, which will surely sprout multitudes of influential groups such as her own, Keltie has certainly proven the falsehood of the notions of "averageness" rife in society.

As the recent meetings of an organised underground in Lisbon has illustrated, Helm has expanding its significance from that of a tool toward communication and cohesiveness between the underground communities to the facilitators of action. Helm hopes to raise the resources to establish estates in all the cities in which it possesses editorial correspondents. And so establish accessible meeting places for interested underground members to organise. And with the interest of establishing unity between all of the world's constructive underground, hopes to eventually tap into all of the unutilised ingenuity which our collective humanity has to offer. At the same time giving a legitimate voice to this ingenuity as having some say in our future. In hope that the societal individual spoken of by Thomas shall at some point possess the unified intelligence to choose steps wisely.

More consultations with organised members of the underground are slated to happen now that Helm has an official meeting area. Two large public gatherings are set to address society as a result of the two that have already occured. It was such developments which compelled us to release Helm to the public. The members of the underground have finally been united enough to realise they do not constitute the underground. All the members of society possess some sort of potential which is representative of the incredible wealth of the untapped resources of the underground. Under any hard hat, the roof of any of the world's high schools, may be concealed the potential to direct society in once undreamt of, positive, directions. The underground has realised that you, as a society, are the underground. We are all impaired by your absence. It is time for Helm, as the facilitator for unity of the underground, to realise this as well. It should be understood by all interested parties that the stance of Helm is the same as that behind the above- mentioned festival. The Festival of Dreams facilitates the creation of empowerment through formation of groups, and offers continued support and expertise to registered groups. But it claims no control or direct association with any of the resulting autonomous groups. In exactly the same way Helm does not seek to be the head institution of the underground. We are not your representative. We are here to give the facilities and connections to establish unity and aid to disempowered visionaries so they may establish their own unity. But as of the publication of this, the 50th issue of Helm, membership is open to all members of society. And any of the initiatives or groups associated or discussed in Helm are similarly open to you. The only requirement is a constructive vision of society's future. With that one tool it would be no difficulty to come into contact with like-minded people within the network of Helm's underground contacts, regardless of your area of focus.

Please feel welcome within our community. We welcome all applicants, subscriptions or enquiries concerning any group or topic which is covered within our pages. Direct all enquiries by post or email to our media agent:

Mr. Alexei Russell or [email protected]
Suite 628
W1T 1JY, 14 Tottenham Court Road
London UK

The Invention of the Angelists Amelia Torquato

Living in Venice, there is deep connection to the development of art. History has seen alot of it's artistic development centered on Venice. It continues into the present day. The modern art festival which occurs every two years unites the modern artists of Europe. It brings me much satisfaction as an artist to feel I have contributed to the artistic history of Venice. My colleagues and I have recently established the school of Angelism. It was originally coined Angle-ism by a London artist. A reference to the generous use of angles to express moods. It was the whimsical consensus of my fellow Angle-ists that Angelism was a more evocative label.

Angelism was inspired in three ways by the writer and visionary, Maxim Kennit-Fox. The message of 21st Century Manifesto is such an insightful one that it is beyond the resolve of any artist who has read the work to not have a degree of Kennitism leak into their work. The life altering message changes your views irrevocably as far as the society is concerned. The externalisation of oneself which occurs in art depends largely on your view of the outside world. Any major changes in your view of the world, whether by Fox or otherwise, will filter the tones and the messages of this outward expression. This is one way Kennitism has influenced Angelism and art in general. Another is the specific message of Manifesto. The style of Angelism attempts to explore the ways in which social interaction manifests itself. Using colours and angles, degrees of clarity and lack thereof, an Angelist work seeks to express the levels of distrust and artificial lack of contact which is occuring in the social situations. Lastly, Fox's views on art give to the artist community as great a degree of legitimacy and significance in the causes of human advancement as science and technological advancement. This third way ascribes two purposes to art which make it more significant. One is the way that art is seen as an explorative medium in which to bring about the realisation of what can be expressed and accomplished by human ingenuity. The same purpose as science and other forms of barrier-pushing research. The second way that art is seen as profoundly important has to do with the "social dark age". The non-speak which destroys society's effectuality is remedied by true speak. Art is seen by Fox as the same as true speak. It is an attempt to commune. To express what is not common or sanctioned to be expressed in day to day social exchanges. It is my belief this is the reason for the passionate need artists feel to pursue their art. It is a satisfactory amount of expression to compensate for the lack of it available in our lives here in the social dark age. This artistic passion is in fact a stifled passion for communion which the artist has been lucky enough to satisfy through her experience and skill within an art medium. In all these ways the Angelists have been influenced and brought into being more by Fox than by the artists of Venice or myself.

Artists enjoy a new legitimacy and a greater inspiration. Like the changes in gender dynamics which are shown by such things as the popularity of TIME. The intriguingly permanent effects of reading Fox's work leaves views altered. And so, also are all the areas of your life, be it love, or your areas of expertise. Be they art or otherwise, they all need to adapt to a new view and experience change. The change in the art of the underground has proven itself a positive one. The most striking being productivity and a more ready inspiration borne upon the feeling that your work is an essential function for social health. Both in yourself, and in the clearer view of life you have come to express outward. To the benefit of your audiences. To speak of audiences, I have been very happy since the decision was made to publicise Helm. I am over-joyed to have access to greater amounts of artists. My message of this issue is of concern to all artists. But I would like to give a special welcome to my new audience and address you specifically with my article.

Last week in Venice, I met Fox for our frequent talks in Venice's many riverside cafes. It is possible I have more of a view into his insights than the Manifesto provides. With my ready access to the man himself. Over his usual espresso machiatto, he went over his own response to the two artistic movements begun by his Manifesto. In addition to the Venice movement, an artist associated with Nalini Sankar has begun the style of "Blinded" art. Seeking to accomplish Fox's coup in expressing with one work something which turns life on it's ear. A work which breathes life into the expression of something humans have never consciously realised about themselves and their society. The Blinded artists seek to do so in visual mediums.

"I can imagine why your Angelists are
putting your insights into your work. But
I don't understand the Blinded school. It
isn't a new thing to try to express a thing
perfectly through some artistic medium. I
admire them. But I don't understand why
they have to form a separate movement
when all art is for this purpose really."

I countered Fox with a realisation which
Fox himself would seem to have forgotten.

"You said that most of the problems aren't even
realised by most people. Non-speak is so much like
the real thing you can go your whole life without
talking to anyone. I think you'd be wrong to assume
art always knew of why it existed. So true speak
existed for a long time. But till now was anyone
aware of it really? Even those who stumbled on it.
They're saying they're blinded with their own
label. They're trying to begin to be artists,
because they feel they hadn't been so before."

Not for the first time, I had cornered the Fox. He nervously took another sip from his machiatto and smiled his defeat at me. I humbly submit that my Angelists are not so deep to the heart of the passing of the social dark age as the Blinded artists are. They are seeking to disentangle humanity from the psychological pitfalls which makes all of our actions so self-destructive and negative to society. Even with the new world after Manifesto, the lack of concern shown by an unknowing world before it was written illustrates that there are perhaps millions of other big delusions left that need to be discovered and purged. The Angelists just get a kick out of bringing to form the dark web of fear that we've now seen as constituting social life. We are for the first time fully aware of it and we are admittedly fascinated by how ugly the real face of sociability within this world is. Now that we've been freed of the enchantment which put a beautiful and desirable face over the ugliness. We are artists, and such people can't resist putting an incredible new experience into their medium. It's a form of emotional release. Our emotional release from fear and our wonderment at the new world we see must come out. That is what created Angelism. It is like a therapy group for artists who have encountered Manifesto and must be helped to deal with the transition to a new world.

"But what is different about the Angelists? It's
another topic of art, sociability. There's always
been topics. Whatever, nativity, mythology, the
Parisian cafe life, I don't think the angelists are
'Kennitist'(god I hate that word), they're just
artists with another passing topic. I'm not the
founder of anything. I find that really annoying."

I laughed out loud at Fox, drawing that all too
familiar raised eyebrow. That habitual dignity
and childlike transparency which is Fox's face.

"Too much modesty is what is annoying! Look at
it this way, you discovered something, a shot in
the dark. The Angelists are addressing what
you found, not you, so don't get your anti-fame
sentiments in a knot. Artists like the Blinded
realised not a new topic of art, but what it is
Art can actually do. Permanently change life."

Not for the last time, I silenced the Fox and he looked out at the passing faces, a kind of childish vexation on his face. I am inclined to inflate Fox's accomplishment in Art because of a contrariness to the man. He seems to be terrified of acquiring fame. Thus I encourage his fame and the deserved acknowledgment that he has permanently altered things. A thing his grotesque over-modesty refuses to allow.

The point being that art has acquired, among these developments in Venice and Canada, a new perspective on how much art can influence society's consciousness. Like Manifesto, wisdom that is perfectly expressed, mysteriously accepted as sound by all, is something which can be brought into being through art. The inspirational period in art's history which has just begun has encouraged the Angelists to invite artists from within Helm's influence to create a forum that will allow them to meet, compare views on the ultimate purposes art can aspire to. This initiative is in the planning stages, however. Therefore I invite all artists, in particular the artists which Helm's public issue now gives me access to, to write in and make suggestions. What we are trying to accomplish is a group, meeting and organising through Helm, that can represent the unknown artists of the world. The main purpose has to do with what has happened with the creation of Blinded art. We need a forum to grease the wheels of what it is we're doing as artists, and what we really truly seek to do. Artists are an important faction of society, we can change the world by bringing to light, bringing to people's eyes, the greatest truths of humanity and reality. We need artists with these passions to help us begin this group. The end result could be art festivals to show- case your art as well as meet other artists to inspire your own development by their own.

Specifically to the millions of you who I am addressing for the first time. The recent passing of the social dark age has given art a complete identity crisis. The result of this change has made us consider the need for consensus among artists. And we have a vision of culminating this group into a public art festival aimed at bringing together the artists who now feel their purpose is to liberate society through their gifts. We imagine a group that focuses on using art as a tool and, at times, a weapon in which to do so. Your artistic talents can help our fledgling group to accomplish the images of truth we need. In addition your exposure and contacts as an artist can only grow as a result of helping us organise and carry out the festival. I welcome you all to the underground. To offer us support or make enquiries, contact our media officer.

Poetry and Science Selim Baraja

There was a time when poetry was the area of human advancement, bar none. People of the past had no outlet for advancement but the development of their poetry. They had no science and religion is generally static. Advancement on what human ingenuity could create was summed up by the worlds of imagination. The secret reaches of a person's internal world. The perfect expression of a wise insight into the state of being alive. All of this was possible with poetry. Poetry has little to do with rhyming. It has nothing to do with the pretensions people give it. It is a technology that once discovered rhyme, once discovered a style that people in later times cling to as sophisticated. Poetry is a normal function of being human. To anyone who has the need to advance. Poetry to them is like speech. You can be silent only so long. Poetry is a technology. It's a technology pushed into the background since the development of its sister technology of natural science. They are the same, but one is tangible and one is not. There is not really a difference between the two as far as application goes. Both are means for discovery of how far human accomplishment can go. The need to push forward. Humanity is elated when science pushes forward our views on how far human ingenuity can go. Once this occurred at the advances of poetry and literature, altering society for the better. Humans are on an eternal learning curve. Human ingenuity and intelligence will never know it's limits. For I don't believe our potential holds a limit. The links of poetry's comparative decline alongside the advance of natural science's scope demonstrates their similarity. That human need to prod and penetrate into life is satisfied more readily now by science than poetry. Science's technology has developed enough to make advances from here on in far more accessible. In poetry, technology had never advanced to that degree. My point in this article is two-prong. The first prong shows that science doesn't address enough of life to give us human satisfaction to satisfy this passion for advancement. The second is to discuss something never addressed. A poet's technology.

People adore life in a shell. There are a million shells we dwell in. Think of why it is that science should be thought the ultimate outlet for liberation and understanding? If you scoff inherently at poetry being in any way as pertinent, you are within a shell. A shell of reasoning which you've been conditioned to adopt. For, taking a few steps back and looking at it objectively, there's no reason to consider the internal reality we dwell in, as less of our lives than the physical world surrounding us. Society ignores everything but the world outside. Everything but science. They ignore it because they don't understand it. Science is the only thing they understand. If they lived in the world before science they certainly would not have been the ones to create it. These brilliant minds that created the theories that have led us to the amazing human accomplishments to which natural science's technology has allowed us. They created these theories with no initial understanding. They did not ignore what they didn't understand. If they had done so, we would not have natural science within our communal intellects. We would not have science's technology, which you can experience in this age even without any notion of natural science. To get back to the shell. If you possess the shell against poetry's relevance you do not possess a truly scientific attitude to life. In the age before science you would be within the shell of creationism, thinking it would be idiotic to suppose humans can create any technology which God has not already sanctioned for us to create. You would have crucified Copernicus, drawn and quartered Darwin, thrown anyone with a telescope or a microscope into the darkest dungeons as dangerous heretics. To ignore the blatantly obvious fact that human life involves more than the outside world is to insist to me that you don't exist. What about you? Aren't you there observing the world? Even if you are a scientist on the verge of a great leap forward. You are there doing it. I can not imagine a sane individual denying that. Incredibly obvious, say you, the sane ones within my audience. Apparently not. If you felt any condescending contempt for the notion of poetry being akin to science. I understand that scientifically-minded people see the behavior of human beings as instinctually pre-determinate. What exists in the internal world unchangeable, in all it's instinctual manifestations. So our sex drives, our warring natures, our various "sins" are perfectly natural and therefore not pertinent areas to explore or to do anything about. Apart from the keeping of the peace insofar as we can manage it. Yes, run around the brambles, swing in the trees, mate, fight, experience what life is meant to be. Get on your mobile phone and call another ape in another tree, jump down and drive your BMW to the savanna to close a deal with the apes over in the other jungle. Make an agreement to launch the shuttle which will plant banana trees on the moon, making room of course for your fully-equipped team of Ape scientists and astronauts. But wait a moment? Unless my recent holidays caused me to miss out on alot, mother earth hasn't provided apes with BMWs, mobiles or an intrinsic grasp of science. If you want us to get natural and do nothing about the state we're in, which is good enough as being human, then burn the science books, let the technology erode and there you are. Our perspectives on life may be human, but our advanced perspective would be just as much so. It's ironic that pre-science preachers of conservatism exclaimed that science and it's technologies were unnatural and inhuman. Whereas now we hold up such things as the crown of humanity. It is what makes us the smartest species on earth. It has now come to be seen as very human. Even more human then we were before science, when our human potential was entirely unrealised. Poetry is the same. If pre-science technology periods can be said to be, as they are, dark ages then the period we live in is a social dark age. Science does nothing to address pushes forward in internal understanding of life while they map out the expanses of our external life. It is only because they don't know where to start. There are no theories or technologies in that field to allow a person of average intelligence to accomplish anything. But in a world of so many brilliant scientists, why is that an issue? It more has to do with the attitude that was always science's enemy. If you don't understand it, ignore it. Natural science's technology only covers half of life. It doesn't cover enough area of life to satisfy the human need to probe into the possibilities of life and our potential.

I 've already shown that it is a clouded view, a shell similar to that had always retarded science, that would deny that our life has an internal half complimenting the external half which science explores. And have shown the error of thinking our internal nature is human, good as it is for being human, and so does not at all require theories for advancements. For this view seemingly says we did not require our external world to technologically flourish. Because we were terminally human before science. No technology, this must be human. Both these points should be clear by now. If you still state internal life has no significance as half of life then go on and deny the fact that you are in existence and deny your internal life absorbs these words I am giving you through the medium of your external world. Deny that humans can get past the behavior they now possess, as it's instinct. That these states can't be changed. Then read this next sentence which you would have been better off not being able to read for want of the invention of language. A state we were once in. Given your views, we must still be in that state. Considering our intrinsic human stasis. Deny your existence and stop reading this article. I can only say I hope for the sake of the rest of us that you are right about the fact that you don't exist. The innovators of this century do not need puritans any more than the scientists did in the previous century. Hop in your BMW, make a phone call and tell your friends how happy you are life is simple. By these rationales I hope to break the saner amongst us out of the conditioned response of seeing advances in the external world as the only "technologies" that humans can create. Such a mind-set could have robbed you of your luxuries, if past innovators had thought that way.

One thing which causes the confusion that may tempt you to dismiss poetry as being not at all similar in function to science is the confusion caused by how the word "technology" relates to poetry. I admit it is a difficult adjustment to make. So permit me to explain. What image is conjured to mind with the word technology? A machine, an electrical and physical device that is a wonder of science. Something which uses an understanding of the external world to give us the means to greater ease and satisfaction. What technology actually is. It is the application of laws of how the external world, tried tested and true, operates. It is made for the benefit of humanity. Even when it is a group of humans who are enemies to other groups, technology is always used by its inventors to help the humans involved. Technology is entirely utilitarian, meant to make life easier for someone. The internal world has laws too. Here is the stumbling block for most of you. Internal laws are not physical. Therefore the technologies of the internal world would not be physical. This flies in the face of most people's ideas of what "technology" means. No, this would be no beeping machine with flashing lights that helps you move furniture. This technology would be of no help with anything physical, like moving furniture. If science's technology are physical aids which are born of discoveries that have made up our knowledge of the laws of the physical world. So "poetic" technology are internal aids born of discoveries yet to be made that will make up our knowledge of the internal side of earthly existence. Technology works because laws were discovered. Laws meaning unfailingly true and reliable trends. The laws, those things always true in the functioning of our internal world, remain to be found. Are there any scientists to find them? I will commit the act of bringing up a man who has been over-exposed in this issue of Helm. Maxim Kennit-Fox is a pioneer of internal science. Not only did he discover a few of the many undiscovered laws of the internal world. His Manifesto is the first poetic technology to be made in millenia. You read it and you are transformed. You cannot deny his message. Because they are laws. They are true for all humans. You cannot surpass them within your internal world. Just as you cannot surpass gravity in your external world. Such art, such literature, such poetry is poetic technology. The ease and help of humanity. That is what the physical technologies are created for. Manifesto lends more ease and help to your life than any physical technology. Because suddenly you see straight. The primitive impurities within you that could keep you from ever making any positive use, for yourself or others, of technology, be it a phone or a car, are swept away. Having it all there to help you physically is of no use if you are so unempowered in your internal world that you could never make the life you dream of from out this technologically flourishing physical world. A poet's technology are words, music. An image or an atmosphere that perfectly explains a law of the internal world. A law which is a law, therefore no one can deny when being shown it. It clears away the internal ignorance which keeps you from being happy, empowered and utilising the potential of life. Giving humans much help and ease.

The point of this two-prong assault is to impress upon readers that we are medeival masses. All of us are. Da Vinci is a crack-pot for conceiving of such ridiculous notions as the helicopter. For cutting open animals and deceased people in an attempt to map out natural anatomy. Perhaps he is even an heretic, in cahoots with the devil for every thinking that life is more than what it is now. For not focusing on working, mating and so on. Someone who does not know that life is all about working, mating and going to church must pose a threat. That is how Da Vinci's contemporaries viewed him. Now anyone not clever enough to understand a helicopter or to consider a knowledge of anatomy as being normal are the ones who are something less than human. And now life is about working, mating, for some going to church, and for all, worshiping science. Baraja is a crackpot for considering that humans can write poetry, music, create art that could be called a technology. Can lead to an age where people are as unencumbered by ignorance and instinctual behaviour as they are unencumbered by having the aid of cars and mobiles to move and acheive contact. Perhaps he is one of those "hippy dippy" people who want to try to tell me that life is not only about working, mating and using my mobile. Perhaps he's insane for not knowing that is all there is to life. I hate to liken myself to Da Vinci. Alas, such metaphors are too relevant to avoid. Art is ghettoised for a reason. It is confused in it's intentions for a reason. For the same reasons people ghettoised lunatics like Copernicus and Da Vinci. Fear and Status quo. So people must realise that art is not art. As you conceive of it, that is not what it is. It is not entertainment, not an excuse to consider yourself within some mystifying definition of "cultured", not even only about self-expression. Not an anarchic panorama of arbitrary images. It is no more that than early science was. Art is an undeveloped and ignored science, alive within a dark age. Science was undeveloped and ignored in Da Vinci's time. A glimmer of coming realisation in a scientific dark age. Now it is not a tecnological but a social dark age where humans interact like animals. Purely on instinct. Just as our grasp of the physical world was once purely instinctual and basic, lacking technology. Animals made more dangerous by our one-sidedly gaining knowledge only of the external world. So giving to these animals many dangerous new ways to achieve a primal dominance over one another. This is why the Poet's Institute of Technology, PIT, had been created. Because humans are coming to understand life more with each passing century. The technology we have has helped us all. The pioneering work of the scientists of the past left more of a legacy to humanity then even their broad and ingenious minds could have guessed. But until humanity is finished, our advance will not stop. The biggest shell humanity suffers from is the constant, with every generation, feeling that we've advanced as far as we can go. That there are no more frontiers. Just because we had not always known that the continent of America existed did not mean it was not there. Just because we have not discovered time-travel yet doesn't mean it's not there. Just because we have not yet made Mars inhabitable does not mean we will never colonise it. Just because we are running around like beasts in a huge technological jungle, killing eachother, raping eachother, torturing eachother and starving eachother, doesn't mean this is what life is meant to be. Just because we ran around the jungle without technology some day long passed did not mean that we were destined to always be that way. Poetic technology is a reality, and we at PIT are commited to creating the art of the new century. The art that will give to people internal clarity, with just one read, one glance, one listen. So that we can have ease and help in both our external and our internal lives. For it was an inspiration borne of experience, not put into words, paints or music, that inspired all great people to do great things. The scientists who had the clarity and inspiration, the orderliness in their internal world, have created the paper you have in your hands. Created the device that printed it. Created the language you are reading. This inspiration, this view and utilisation of how the laws of internal worlds can create incredible results with a life were brought together by a life of experience. If they could have painted what perspective gave to them the state of mind to be so creative, our world would be full of wonders. That is our purpose. To put this into the world's art. That is our technology.

Poetic technology was recently proven and given alot more validity by Mr. Maxim Kennit-Fox, who has been made an honourary member of PIT. I invite you to join PIT and begin to discover the technologies that will be left to our future generations. Meet and discuss the pioneering work to be done to develop internal science. Meet and consider the technologies society can one day create. Contact PIT through Alexei Russell, our London Media Agent.

Greeting from Haylie

Greetings to all! This is Haylie Barre reporting from deep in Louisiana. I'd like to make it clear to those poor disoriented souls who are reading Helm for the first time that my article always marks the beginning of the "spiritual arm" of Helm which constitutes myself and Volodymyr Pohorecky. A term which has been coined by Helm's underground is "human potential theory". Helm wants to avoid ambiguous labels such as "new age" and even "spiritual". As some people approach such words with a closed-minded scorn. Meeting the perfectly valid curiousity about human potential with ridicule and contempt. The articles of Pohorecky and I do deal with spirituality and at times the disparaged area of "occult" science. Yet they are nothing more than a delving into what the human mind and soul(if you're of the belief) can accomplish and aspire to. So either of these labels are not only subject to ridicule by closed-minded people but also can be misleading. We refer to it as "human potential theory".

Amen to the great Why. Volodymyr Pohorecky

The relevance of religion is being brought down with the dawn of the new century. Yet Danuc is still dominated by religion. Most of my new readers are from Western nations where religion has been brought further away from the mainstream than has been the case in the East. The philosophers of the previous century had already come to the conclusion that "God is dead" long before the end of the century arrived. My own religious beliefs are not threatened by such assertions. Not due to fundamentalist mentality. I am a rational human being who does not cling to mythology for the sake of clinging to it. Much of religious tradition must be admitted as true myth by anyone capable of reason, be they religious or no. I am not threatened because to me religion is a question of empowerment. It is personal empowerment by the use of motivation and inspiration at how profound the universe may be. Questions are not as yet answered so far as the "why" of our life here on earth existence is concerned. Given that, I must personally search for the answer. That is my reason for being what could be called "religious". Obstacles such as the declaration God is dead only give me one more question to search through. It makes no change to the purposes of my religion. The reason for my religion is a question of searching. Of unanswered questions. And religion seeks five answers. It deals with what has created us. It deals with feelings of purpose and meaning given to the life of the worshiper. It deals with the question of what occurs after our deaths. It deals with morality. It deals with the help offered by feeling protected and empowered.

If "God is dead" it is because of science. The reasons for our coming into being has been proven as in accordance with science's laws. Creationism is much less logical and entirely unproven in comparison. So religion lost one part of it's original function. Explaining the creation of ourselves and the universe. The advent of scientific reasons being discovered for much of our nature as humans and the development of the earth, if not conclusively the universe, have dashed away creationism. But of the five functions of religion which I have alluded to, this is only one function. There remains four functions science has not come close to breaching. In addition, this one function isn't entirely usurped by science, for the following reasons:

1. If you are Atheist or Agnostic, the function of finding a creative force which regulates our creation and our existence and sustains the laws that created us is only given a new identity, natural law. God is not dead, but given a new name. The "religious" need to seek and find one's creator is just as rife throughout science.

2. Many rational people who naturally accept science's discoveries but still are unclear on the why or the reason for creation consider the reason for these laws. If the impossibly intricate results of these laws are controlled by a greater mind. They may see the flawlessness of nature as reflecting a God's omnipotence. Many scientific organisations of the past depicted God as a brilliant mathematician or architect. Expressing the vastness of his mind in the creation of intricate laws.

3. Many people of the three judeo-christian religions, such as the Animists and the Sufists where always of the belief that God composes everything. A notion taken from the original mono-theistic religion of Hermes Trismegistos which considers us all to be thoughts in the mind of a magnificent all-encompassing mind. This is God. So the discoveries of what mental creations God had initiated, the way we were created, has no relevance within the question of God's existence. Particularly as these schools do not give a physical form to God. They consider the communal existence of all things created to be what makes up God. To refuse the existence of God in such a context is to refuse the existence of all. The communal nature of how and by what laws we came to be are just God's thoughts. Such groups are of the belief God wishes for us to seek Him and grow to larger and more divine thoughts within His mind. To them science is positive. As it reveals God's ideas;bring us more into alignment with His mind.

The only question lies in the conception of whether or not the creator, whatever force created and sustains natural science's laws, has consciousness or is mindless. It is a judgment upon whether or not the universe has meaning. In this age, that is the difference between the religious and non-religious person. But religious sentiment, the choice to believe the universe has meaning, is no longer focused on established religion so much as it once was.

Returning to the notion that God is dead, the deconstruction of alot of religious Myths is the reason for this belief. People who believe in the meaning of the universe do not necessarily flock to the churches. There is no longer as much of a trust in the church possessing the only path to the discovery of life's meaning. Because the mythology which once gave people a secure reliance on religion has been proven by science as being false conceptions. But then where do the masses of people turn who believe inherently in a purpose behind living? This brings us to a second point of what religion deals with. The feeling that you have meaning in your life. A purpose for being born and living your life. In the same stroke, we can deal with a third reason for religion's necessity. The assurance that you have an ultimate purpose also brings to mind the assurance of ultimate destination.

Science does nothing to reassure people of what will occur to them after death. And in doing so offers no consolation concerning your purpose apart from the evolutionary needs to eat, sleep, drink, breathe and mate. These purposes of God are not satisfied by the demi-god of science. Unless you believe in the lack of meaning of the universe you do not have an adequate replacement for religion in science alone. But the answer to where you may turn is already apparent. Take a look around you. Look at the advancement of the so-called "new age". The spiritual revolution that has taken place alongside the scientific revolution. It correlates exactly. People are no less religious than they previously were. The churches are merely slow in adapting to new revelations in religion, which is why they are seeing the religious people of the world devoting themselves to other outlets for their religious sentiments. If it seems to be otherwise it is only because people do not like to use the word religious. The word has been separated from religious sentiments. As it brings to mind old religion. If I may be so bold, it brings to mind the ignorance that existed before the nature of God's laws were realised by humanity's science. It is a shame, because the aspersions cast at old religion do not have to do with the actual messages of the prophets. It has to do with more petty utterances. The refusal to accept the world was round; that evolution and hence genetics are a reality. The refusal to accept that we are composed of star-dust; The refusal to accept the moral justification of a life-saving heart transplant. Science's discoveries have always been viciously fought by religion. It is seen therefore as wanting to preserve humanity's technological dark age. To keep humanity from discovering the universe. It is also a shame given the fact that in the Christian Bible itself it is written that God had looked down upon the world of men and wondered if there were any among humanity's masses who would understand and seek God. This one passage in of itself should lead anyone who recognises the New Testament to embrace a science which has revealed the workings of a universe which no one of any judeo-christian tradition would deny is God's creation. The New Testament itself states this to be the will of God. The word religious is in danger of becoming defunct and translated into an anachronism of the technological dark ages. This is in danger of occuring in spite of the masses of people who have religious sentiments. The word should not be associated with established religion. As a Christian I have even more of a desire to make this so. Because the word now brings to mind the mistakes of churches who have no reason to be judged inadequate in the validity of their messages alone. The disentangled mythology of the religious texts should not be an issue as far as the validity of it's messages are concerned. It is like ridiculing an artist for depicting an unrealistic and unlikely scene rather than seeking the truth or the beauty the artist is expressing. It is like condemning a story for being fiction rather than seeking the moral of the story or the insights the imagined scenario has to offer. The texts concerned are historical and much of it is based on fact. But the parts which are not should not be seen as reason for judging the insights of the prophets who are just as justified in using metaphors to express their revelatory ideas as any of us would be. Any poet would tell you that metaphor is sometimes the only way to express a revelation. The greater and more sublime the revelation; the more necessary are the recourses to metaphor. Until religion can shake off the memory of mistakes not relevant to the validity of their scriptures the religious will not wish to call themselves religious. Religion must not be associated with these mistakes. The word must become a general word to denote religious sentiments. To denote the basic state of believing in the creative force, no matter what it be, behind our natural laws has a consciousness and hence a purpose in creating us. Religion should mean what it in fact means. A belief that life has meaning. No matter the context. Because people are not given satisfaction of the need to explore their life's purpose and ultimate destination through the discoveries of science. The world is full of "religious" people who no longer feel they have claim to the word, so are now operating under a different name.People are looking for their purpose and their ultimate destination more than ever now that science has encouraged them to seek and discover. The basic need for those who believe in a purpose for being alive to seek and discover is no less prevalent. If seen as what it truly is, people still are of the belief life has meaning. The world is still full of religion and religious people. Only now the very human needs which were once, all five of them, only addressed by the churches, are addressed by many things. Personal religion, which I do not deem a destructive trend, is now alot more common and socially acceptable. Seen in trends such as "new age" movements, it gives freedom to explore ever deeper into life. The church would have alot of work and alot of soul-searching to do to once again be able to monopolise all five human needs.

The last two functions of religion can also be paired together. The question of morality. The question of feeling protected and empowered. For morality it would be wise to quote the author Maxim Kennit-Fox, who is dominating Helm's underground at the moment. I feel I must bring him up, however. As an area of his work as yet uncovered is his 12th chapter dealing with morality. The religious need to act morally is for the first time justified in a non-religious way by Kennit-Fox. It is explained clearly for the first time. Without reliance on blind faith or the fear of eternal hell-fires to prod us on into behaving well. According to this chapter we wish to behave in moral ways. Morality is entirely a social question. What one does to oneself has always been a grey area in religion. Suicide is frowned upon. But is not considered nearly as serious as harming another person. And the penitent activities of some saints, who would putrify their food or scourge them- selves was seen as saintly forms of self-harm and self-mutilation. Intended to show how entirely the pleasures of the flesh had been surpassed. According to Kennit-Fox, our wish for others is only a wish for true human communion. This is the only form of satisfaction we seek when we wish to be with others. If we come to wish anti-communion sources of satisfaction it is only because of the pains of previous frustrations in achieving communion. Or a complete ignorance of communion. The language of "non speak" will then become the outlet of pleasure in all it's possibly harmful, stunted, manifestations. The true communion is only possible when we trust and are incapable of harming others and these others are incapable of harming us. Imagine that you are encountering the tenets of morality for the very first time. Is it not an amazing coincidence that morality relates entirely to how you treat others? Any commandment our religions offer us are concerned with not bringing physical or emotional harm to others. Morality is avoidance of non-speak. But there is one major obstacle to this statement. Like religion, the word morality has come to mean something apart from what it actually means. Morality is wrapped up in the Kennitist ideas of true speak. All of the world's religions have had similar messages. But morals have also developed along cultural lines and often have little to do with avoiding non-speak. Passages in the bible which give instruction on how long a Godly man should wear his hair have little to do with harming others. As a Christian I place no significance on this passage. It is clearly a remnant of the prevalent fashions of a long-passed period and I would never acknowledge that a Prophet would waste his words on such instructions. If you can ignore the cultural influences and the archaic social period in which the texts were written, then you can see the basic, original messages of morality and how Kennitist they are. Read the Bible and examine the commandments, they can all be seen as a wish to avoid harm. Lying can manipulate and bring harm to the all-important levels of trust which keep communion alive. Coveting another's wife can be an expression of wishing to give to her affections which she does not desire. Or taking from the man a good deal of his happiness. In an age where marriage was the only socially sanctioned form of male/female relationship it is now tantamount to stating that you shall not interfere in the relationships of those who are bound to one another emotionally or spiritually. At the time marriage was the way conceived to keep us humans from operating by a brutal sexual anarchy. In this day and age we are more enlightened and able to operate with marginally more civility in these matters. But at the time this commandment intended to avoid physical or emotional sexual harm. The obvious commandments against physical harm blend with the commandments which condemn common situations where a good deal of emotional harm is possible. Several others, such as worshiping false idols did not have their basis on notions of Kennitist morality. But the basic wishes of the religious to act morally are exposed by Kennit-Fox. People wish to act morally because they can sense that behaviour to the contrary gives them no trust. It keeps communion from them. Following Kennitist revelations, it therefore gives them no way to say or do what they wish in another's company. It bleeds all the fun from living. It leaves them to a life of half-satisfactions, it leaves them to the isolation of non-speak. In fact non-speak correlates with the notion of evil behaviour. Sums it up as frustration.

The example of Kennit-Fox's treatment of morality indicates that morality is not a notion or a compulsion monopolised by the churches. Any human being who wishes for another's company is craving the conditions for true communion with them. The word morality must be redefined as well. Religions have offered it without explanation. It does not mean religion has not therefore been the cause of much true communion through history. But it is not a notion only religion claims rights to. Everyone who craves communion craves morality. And Kennit-Fox has offered an explanation for why it is we need and crave morality. As a means of wrapping up my examination of religion and why it exists, re-define these terms:

Religion is not an association with the churches; Religion is the basic belief that life has meaning. Morality is not acting in accordance with the traditions of an established church; Morality is the desire to commune with other human beings. To say and do all you may wish. To achieve the level of trust this requires.

It is possible for established religions to make you feel life has meaning. It is possible for the tenets of these religions to make you behave in a way which will inspire communion. But the only thing which makes people think that God is dead is this confusion of terms. These five needs are no longer supplied only by the church and people have been left confused by this. But the five reasons for needing religion still exist, as I have shown. Re-defined, the world is still a religious place. The fifth reason for religion is the feeling of protection and empowerment which the established religions have always provided. Having said that the reason to claim God is dead is a result of the branching out of these five needs outside of the church. I have not written of the notion of God in relation to the still ever-present needs of religion. God is a term long in need of re-definition as well. The best way to sum this up is in the belief held by some of our colleagues in Danuc. Over uncharted ages they have contemplated God and come the conclusion that communal consciousness is orchestrating everything. The communal mind is regulating the universe. This mind, made up in it's constituent parts by each of the universe's consciousnesses, forms an ultimate consciousness. When they pray to God, they pray to every one of our minds and hearts. United as we are into one great mind. Atheists thank the particles of the universe for their existence. They thank the laws that cause the fluxes that have allowed for their fleeting existence. And if you can imagine a person who is obsessed only with acting in predictable ways. Then the great structure of natural laws could be said to be a being of laws. It's only purpose happens to be in the continuation of it's predictable activity. This is a God of science. And the scientist reveres and honours his creator. Religious people give their thanks to the God who unites us all under the definition of his creations. And pays homage to God to always do His will. My colleagues give thanks to each of us for being a part in the directing of all things. They revere as one being our magificent will. Regardless of context, a creative force offers empowerment in it's being sought out. Offers protection in the explanation of living which it may offer us. This is all the four impulses put together. The sum of the universe, the source that makes it flux. The mysterious pleasure of communion, the unity. The feeling we have a purpose, in life as well as a destination after life. The reason for our creation. It is all a unity of things, of people to come up to the purpose of the whole summed up by the purposes of individuals. God is purpose. If we have a purpose then we wish to be empowered and protected so as to traverse our paths. And through understanding this idea of universal "God" I have painted we are liberated, empowered and safe-guarded. By virtue of all five of these impulses we feel as if we are penetrating our purposes. And God is the great purpose for it all. It can be a divine being, or a concept, or a great immutable scientific law. But God is "why". And a purpose always has a "why". No one in the world is devoid of a purpose. Everyone has a "why" and is seeking one.

God is alive therefore. But before you can see that you must examine the five needs of religious sentiments and redefine religion, morality and God. The five religious sentiments may no longer only have one outlet, the church, but they live on. Religion has given many faces to five deep human sentiments. Many faces and names to God have obscured God's intangible face. So that we can lose sight of the forest for the trees. God would be the entity arrived at by the satisfaction of these five questions. No matter what separate institution the five are satisfied through. Understanding this, it is clear that God will be alive so long as a "why" exists in the universe. If you are convinced of this, you may now be able to conceive of God's immortality.