To listen to the mainline media, you would get the impression that "the drug problem" is the strangest thing that has ever happened. You would think that no one had ever used any kind of "drug" before about 1967, and that ever since then, we have had marauding bands of drug-crazed lunatics roving the streets, preying upon upstanding citizens. And you would think that nothing like this has ever happened before. Well, it's just not true.
 In fact, there are many direct parallels to be drawn between the current drug hysteria and the "mob crime wave" of the prohibition era. Many of the same elements are there. First, there is a substance or a group of substances that people want but which are nominally illegal. Second, there are racial and ethnic groups which are denied access to opportunities in the legal business world. Third, there are law enforcement agencies that can expand their power, prestige, and funding, provided that they can keep the level of fear high among the general populace. Fourth, there are the mainstream media, which can sell more of what it euphemistically calls "news" by fueling the fires of hysteria, and confirming racial and ethnic stereotypes. Finally, there is the public, which seems to enjoy having its stereotypes confirmed, and being afraid of whatever "those people" are doing.
 To paraphrase Voltaire, if the "drug problem" had not existed, the media, the police, and the public would have had to invent it. From the point of view of confirming racial stereotypes, increasing police power, and selling news, the "War on Drugs" is literally too good to be true.
 The solution, in case anyone actually wanted to solve the problem, is to legalize the stuff. It is entirely possible for people to lead normal productive lives while being regular users of most illegal drugs, and many people do so. The violence, the crime, and the ruined lives commonly associated with the drug culture do not so much flow from the substances themselves as from the laws against them. Drugs of good quality, readily available, sold at a fair price, and with accurate information about their effects would alleviate most of these problems.
 

 It didn't happen all at once, the old woman told me, it was slow, like the change from summer into winter. The first few cool nights, you're glad of it-- a relief from the heady hotness of the summer... And we were tired, so tired, of the fighting. Our best leaders were in jail, or shot; our phones were tapped, our houses bugged. The phone would ring in the middle of the night, and you'd pick it up. And all it would be is a tape of a conversation you'd had with a friend earlier that day, in your own house... or a tape of you and your husband making love the night before... sometimes even a tape of our rituals... Yeah, we were infiltrated... you couldn't trust anyone.
 Some wanted to fight-- to shoot back... to die fighting... Hell, the whole scene made you want to die, anyway, so you might as well die fighting for good. Some didn't want to fight... said it would make us equal with them, and destroy all that we were fighting for... but they wouldn't take The Oath, either. Them they locked up for crazy... If any of them is still alive, they don't even know who they are anymore, what with the drugs and electroshock they got in those places. The rest of us, the old'uns you see around... we took The Oath... It broke our spirit.
 The Oath she refers to is not much different from the flag pledge thing we all have to do in school: "I pledge allegiance to the One God, the Father, all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing, and the Son, Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord, and His Holy Nation, the United States of America, which He made, as foretold by His prophets, to carry out his great work and will on the Earth. I pledge to uphold without reservation the Holy Flag which He inspired for us to carry forth into the battle to smite His enemies. I pledge to fight and to kill God's enemies without reservation, without mercy, yea, even to the laying down of my own life. Amen."
 It's not such a big deal, anymore. I say it, every day, but I don't believe it. Still, you gotta look serious when you say it. (I saw one kid laugh, during it, and they hauled him away for Reformation that same day.) And you gotta do the Low Salute, which means you cross your wrists behind your back. The Low Salute is like a double-edged sword. It symbolizes the Cross of Jesus, and it is behind you, so you are "going before God." It also means that God is behind you, watching you, and it reminds you that His mercy and His punishment will come from behind, blind-side, when you least expect it, like a thief in the night. Finally, it's sort of like being hand-cuffed, to remind you that you are Helpless before the Wrath of God and the Punishment of His Holy Government.

 The Importance of Underground Media.
 Right now, there are fewer than fifty corporations that control most of the information you receive through print or electronic media. Their motivation, they tell us, is profit. (They tell us this to counter any charges that they have any kind of ideological slant.) The profits they make, in turn, come from other corporations that advertise. These corporations tell us also that their motivation is profit. This is supposed to make us feel better. Their logic is that they would never think of repressing any information that would help them make a buck. Of course, we can assume that they WILL repress any information that will cause them to lose money.
 Did you ever notice that one of the big sponsors for those PBS science and nature programs is General Electric? (You know, the people that "bring good things to life.") There is a lot of good information on those programs, but they never seem to mention toxic waste. Especially, they never mention that General Electric is one of the largest producers of toxic waste. In fact, if you flip through the channels, you will notice that General Electric is a major sponsor for almost all of the informational programming that might say something about toxic waste, and you'll notice that General Electric's toxic waste problem is never mentioned.
 Likewise, if you flick on the box on Sunday morning and find one of those "serious discussion" programs where old men in suits spout at one another, notice who the sponsors are. There are roughly two kinds: stock brokerage firms, and defense contractors. Notice that even with all of the "diverse views" that are presented, no one suggests that perhaps our economy should not be run by Wall Street investors, or that there ought to be serious cuts in defense procurement.
 This is why alternative and underground media are so necessary. This is a very important time in history, and individuals can and do have impact on the way things will go in the future. But the direction we take will be no better than the information we receive. If that information comes from those who have made our world the way it is and who want it to become more so, then our decisions will probably fall into that mold, and things will just keep getting worse. If we take a good long look at all of the alternatives, though, we might just have a chance of fulfilling the dream of an informed democracy.
 

PLAUSIBILITY STRUCTURES AND THE MYSTERY CULTS
 Sociologists of religion have coined the term "plausibility structure," and then proceeded to argue over the construct they have made. Roberts's text defines plausibility structures as "social interactions and processes within a group that serve to protect and sacralize the shared meanings and outlooks of the group."  He then breaks down the idea into two parts, both a bit vague, and neither of which is particularly useful in analyzing the Mystery Cult phenomenon. He says, "Belief systems, if they are to survive, must be rooted in a social base and reinforced through a sense of sacredness or absoluteness about the beliefs."  Thus the burden of plausibility is laid squarely on the shoulders of the religious group or ideology. The only tools he allows them in this struggle are social homogeneity, ("...rooted in a social base...") and faith ("...sense of sacredness or absoluteness...") Implicitly, he holds constant the reality matrix in which the group or ideology attempts to survive. The first problem is that reality changes. It is not constant. The second problem is that for most people at most times and places in human history, religion has less to do with any non-rational sense of sacredness or absoluteness than it has to do with empirically derived truths about the surrounding reality. Religion, magic, and superstition are words we use here and now for the science of the past and of other places. Science is the word we use for the lens through which we view and attempt to make sense of our reality, that is, our religion. Science and religion are arbitrarily differentiated names for the same thing: the attempt of humans to figure out what is going on.
  Christianity, Gnosticism, and countless odd mystery religions all came about at about the same time and place. They seem to have in common a rejection or downplaying of physical reality, a focusing of attention on some other mystical plane accessible through ecstatic vision or through death, a reliance on mystery, paradox, and non-rational thinking, and in the Jewish context, a reexamination of the role and character of Yahweh. The question is why. Why did the Mystery Cult phenomenon occur at that time and place?
 One explanation, very common at the time, is that the Spirit of a real God was moving and inspiring people, which sent out ripples of mystic strangeness in all directions. Another explanation, which seems more common among Roman intellectuals of the time, was that the conquered peoples of the Empire, being somewhat stupid and impressionable, had begun to follow raving madmen who claimed to represent the God of their ridiculous superstitions, and were themselves being driven even madder than they already were.  Modern New Age mystics might offer an explanation such as this: the barbarity and decadence of the Romans sent out strong and strange vibrations, which opened the doors of perception of some sensitive people to the Astral Plane. Followers were attracted to these sensitive people by their auras. (The auras are not mentioned in the Bible, but all of the Medieval paintings of Jesus and the saints have auras.)
 None of the above explanations, of course, is true, (except possibly that of the Roman intellectuals, which has passed virtually unchanged into the writings of modern intellectuals.) The only true explanation that can be offered for the Mystery Cult Phenomenon is that of Science; all other explanations are either silly superstition or heresy.
 The above sarcasm is intentional, and has a purpose. The purpose is to expose our own "plausibility structures" as what they are: a deeply rooted view of reality that we accept and internalize, not so much on faith, but as empirical truth. When the reality matrix that surrounds us changes and exposes the clay feet of our plausibility structures, the impossible happens. The pillars of the universe quake, and the world as we know it literally comes to an end. This is what happened to the Jews and others under the Roman occupation. This is the explanation for the emergence of the Mystery Cults. The Mystery Cults are evidence of rational people attempting to adjust their plausibility structures to a bizarre and impossible reality.
 Jehovah was a war God.  In the historical books of the Old Testament, he is forever smiting his enemies and giving the victory to his people. That he could allow the Romans, with their sinful ways and obviously false gods, to occupy the promised land and to oppress his chosen people was clearly impossible. Some of the Jews assumed that this state of affairs resulted from the sin of Israel. Their response was to castigate those whom they saw as sinners, (eg. Pharisees, Sadducees.) Some responded more extremely with asceticism, (eg. Essenes, of whom John the Baptist allegedly was one.) Others believed that God would soon send a military leader (a king) who would drive out the Romans with the sword. According to the Gospels, some thought Jesus would be this Messiah. Clearly, many were ready to take up arms against the Romans; some were content to wait for God's Messiah to lead them into battle, and some were not. Simon the Zealot, one Jesus' Disciples, was part of a revolutionary group plotting the violent expulsion of the Romans. In today's parlance, he would be called a terrorist. Others, particularly after the destruction of the Temple, thought that the world was about to end. This Apocalyptic tradition runs strong in the Canonical and Gnostic Gospels, and in the more explicitly apocalyptic texts such as the Revelation of John and in the various Apocalypses in the Nag Hammadi Library.
 But despite the spiritual masochism of the ascetics, despite the efforts of the Pharisees to put society back on track, despite numerous attempts by numerous Messiahs to defeat the Romans, and despite earnest preparation for the end of the world, nothing helped. The Romans remained. Uprisings only brought the sack of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, and the world did not end.
 It appeared that God was not listening, did not care, or was powerless to help. Some, perhaps most, could still explain God's abandonment as the result of sin, or as a test of faith. But those who were marginal, either in their belief structures (like the Essenes,) or their social position (like the Samaritans, who produced Simon Magus,) or in their psychological stability (arguably like Saul of Tarsus) were unlikely to accept such an explanation, especially if the "test" or "punishment" continued over several generations.
 It was only natural that traditional religion became unsatisfactory to many people, and that new portrayals of Yahweh might paint Him as impotent, evil, blind, or stupid. It became apparent through a kind of religious empiricism that whoever or whatever was actually in control of the Universe was not taking an interest in the physical world of these people at this time, and thus the Mystery Cults tended toward transcendentalism, paradox, and other-worldliness. To put it into more modern terms, reality had become so bad that people began to retreat into their own minds, and into hopes about the afterlife.
 This brings us full circle: the above description of the Mystery Cults, as a particular and somewhat exceptional approach to reality which became necessary in a time and place of acute stress on accepted plausibility structures, sounds remarkably like modern substantive definitions of "religion," with their reliance on such other-worldly notions as "the sacred." What could be described as an emergency stop-gap measure in plausibility structures nearly two thousand years ago has become our plausibility structure today, but relegated by science to an odd little field called religion.
 
 
 

HUMAN NATURE
April 2 1993
 Most of the time, when I hear the expression "human nature," it is used as a catch-all excuse for some irrational or unkind act which someone has committed. It is almost never applied to anything good: acts of love, heroism, or self-sacrifice are presumed to rise from something besides human nature, and presumably opposed to human nature. To me, this constitutes a continuation of the dualistic approach to life and morals that characterized Christian theology. The concept of rationality has replaced what used to be called "good," and "human nature" has replaced what used to be called "evil."
 I think this is really silly. In the first place, we cannot assume that the "good" things we do are rooted in something besides our nature. Perhaps we have a concept of the divine, or of "good," or of the way things "ought" to be, but how do we know that this basic "positive" impulse is not part of our nature? And what is the source of the prejudice that it must be something else?
 First, we must examine what is referred to as the "self-serving bias." The self-serving bias is simply that we tend to assume moral responsibility for our acts that we think are "good," while seeking to separate ourselves from acts that we think are "bad." This tendency is as all-pervasive as it is stupid. We all do what we do. None of us can be certain of the outcomes of what we do.
 Part of the problem comes from our belief in linear causality. This is the idea that every phenomenon is in some way "caused" by something else. Usually, even ignoring the question of the validity of any form of linear causality, we vastly underestimate the number of contributing factors in any given phenomenon
 

April 5
Philosophical Musings.
 Nothing exists by itself. Everything exists within a context. When the context changes, the thing itself changes. This thought, in my head, is qualitatively different from the same thought on my computer screen, or on a piece of paper, or in an ancient scroll of papyrus. In your hands, in your head, it is different from what it is now, as I write it, or what it was before as I thought it.
 Everything serves as part of the context for whatever is around it, and vise versa. When any one thing changes, it changes everything around it. And everything is changing, all of the time, and would so in any other context.

 All things that are are lights, that is, energy. Matter is merely a pattern in the dispersal of energy, a pattern imposed by consciousness.
 The first thing was energy. Energy looked at itself, and hallucinated, and saw patterns. Where it saw patterns, it said, "This is Order." Where it did not see patterns, it said, "This is Chaos." The discrimination between the hallucination of Order and the hallucination of Chaos became the hallucination of consciousness. This is paradox: consciousness is hallucination, but only consciousness can hallucinate. The primal energy is aware of this paradox, but is having fun, and does not worry about it.
 The ancients were aware of this paradox. It is the meaning of the snake eating its tail, the Star of David, the Yin Yang, and the 69 sexual position.
 
 
 

 Jack sat near the back of the classroom, taking notes on auto-pilot. The teacher droned on. "The Chinese Atheist agents had successfully infiltrated Southern politics. Radicals and heretics dominated the scene, saying that God was dead, and that coloreds were equal with white people. God spoke to Reverend Lincoln, saying "The Southern people have turned against me. They move in the ways of Satan. They seek to move as equals with the heathen inferiors I have given them to be slaves. They commune with the Chinese, who know not the name of God. For this, thou will smite them a terrible blow, that all may know that I am God. I will show you how to make a terrible weapon. It will lay waste entire states. It will be called the Bomb of atoms. I will place my wrath into special atoms, and when my vengence is released, it will indeed lay waste to my enemies. For such is the power of my wrath, that did I place it into anything larger than atoms, none would be spared, yet for the sake of the remnant do I make atoms the cup of my wrath." Reverend Lincoln made the bomb of atoms, as God instructed him. It was placed inside a rail car, and taken to South Carolina, where it was detonated. The wrath of God was so great that the state of South Carolina, as you know, is an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland to this day..."
 Jack knew better, from the secret teachings of the Unbroken Circle. He knew that the Union forces had been fighting against slavery, and not for it. He knew that the atom bomb was not developed and used until some eighty years later. He knew that South Carolina had been rendered a wasteland by nuclear accidents and waste late in the last century, when most good Christians there were cashing in on the certain knowledge that the Lord was about to return, and it did not matter how much they abused the Earth. He also knew that the Christian Lord had failed to show up.
 But Jack was not thinking about this. He was thinking about the Initiation, which was scheduled for that night. It was the Spring of his seventeenth year: the Time of the Initiation. He had heard many stories about the Initiation, stories of blood sports and sex games, of drug-induced mind trips from which some did not return. The stories, he knew, were meant to frighten him and make him uncertain: this was part of the Initiation. He was not supposed to know what to expect. But he did know a few things: it usually lasted a weekend, sometimes a bit longer, and sometimes people did not come back.
 This is what Jack thought about as he walked home from school. The acrid haze of fossil fuels was beginning to thin, since there had been a few weeks of warm weather. He walked through town, and then through portal to the "Place of the Unclean." This was the ghetto of the racially mixed, and those whose lifestyle or level of orthodoxy did not meet with community standards. It was a safe enough place to live, a bit less so to visit.
 A semi-secret agreement existed between the ghetto's grey-to-black business community and the leaders of the town. The business people kept street crime to a minimum in the ghetto and nipped in the bud any major sources of trouble, like organized labor or renegade churches. In exchange, the police stayed out of the ghetto, and headed off vigilantes. For two weeks out of every year, as part of the agreement, the evangelists were given safe passage in the ghetto to save souls. This was officially called the Festival of Healing, though the denizens of the ghetto called it "healfest," and things worse. The prostitutes said it was the second best time of the year for business. The best time of the year for business was The Time of the Masks, which occurred in late October, an ancient tradition from the dark and heathen past which all clergymen maligned, and during which all good citizens stayed at home behind locked doors, or at least claimed they did. The Time of the Masks was a week-long collective catharsis during which everyone wore a mask. Every year there was a Crusade to Stop the Time of the Masks, and every year, after much prayer and soul searching, the City Elders voted by secret ballot to let it continue. This is what passed for a major scandal.
 

     February 8 1993
 The logic begins to take on an inescapable quality. Human society is ruled by elites. Right now, those elites are mutating. They are becoming corporations, and not people. (On the other hand, one could argue that the corporations are only the tools of people...) In any event, it does not matter. Individuals cannot do anything about it. Perhaps the best effective political philosophy is merely attempting to live one's life as best one can.
 Government and art are the same, in a way. Both are about transforming one person's imagination into another person's reality. Perhaps this is why there always seems to be a fundamental opposition between government and art.
 Put another way, government is an attempt to control the imaginations of a group of people, and art is an attempt to free the imaginations of a group of people.
 Some would say that government has more to do with force and control of behavior, but this is mainly a question of definition. Let's say that government is an instrument of force and an agency of service which functions in response to the will of the populace. This is a best-case definition of government, operating only in the minds of some Enlightenment-era political philosophers. It is a utopian view. But still, it begs the question, where does this "will of the populace" come from? I suggest that this "will" is rooted in imagination. Certainly, this "will" also reacts to physical stimuli: hungry people wanting food, for example, is not a function of the imagination. On the other hand, the idea that well-fed people ought to help to feed hungry people certainly is a function of imagination.
 Specifically, to continue with the same example, many people have an ideology or a world-view which says that well-fed people ought to help to feed the hungry. This ideology or world-view is in turn a function of imagination. We imagine the world and ourselves as we think we are, or should be, and develop ideologies toward that end.
 It follows, if one can accept this line of reasoning, that those who control the imaginations of the people control the government. (Here we sidestep the question of unequal power, but please bear with us.)
 Most people acknowledge the importance of religion in society, to bring people together, to establish a point of departure for debate about values, etc. (Or alternatively, people acknowledge the importance of religion as the opiate of the masses.)
 

   Feb. 9 93
 It's a bit of an ethical quandary. When I get worked up, like I was until yesterday, I sort of operate from the assumption that it is my job to solve all of the problems in the world. When I'm more mellow, I am more willing to let the world alone.
 I like it better mellow, because the range of actions and attitudes effectively available to me is larger. That is, I can speak my opinion, OR keep my mouth shut. It becomes not my responsibility to evangelize the world with my unique perspective.
 That's the ethical quandary. How responsible am I, personally, for the state of the world? More specifically, is there a moral wrong implied in allowing someone else to think something that I think is wrong, stupid, and dangerous, without making some effort to "set them straight?" Or do I manufacture an ethical rule requiring me to "set them straight" in order to justify my compulsion to invade their space and evangelize them? Or would my semi-legitimate attempt to save the world work better, be more effective, if I took a more low-key angle? This last approach is good, because it saves me getting stuck in my motivations.
 How does one examine one's own motivations? I mean, I am so used to thinking that whatever I do is right, or at least defensible, that it's pretty easy to amass arguments for that position. It's also pretty easy to see where maybe I have other secret motives, like a desire to "impose" my ideas on others, more for the sake of the imposition than for the sake of the ideas. And then again, perhaps my "real" motivations are somewhat mixed, but I am nonetheless "bound and determined" at this time and place to do what I do. (As though, this is just who I am and what I do, and the Why's and Wherefore's are secondary.)
 

  NEW THING SAME DAY.....
 I asked the Goddess what the hell is going on, here, why the human race is so screwed up.
 She said that everything was OK. Things are on schedule... THE HUMAN SPECIES IS IN ITS ADOLESCENCE!!!!
 ......................
 I mean, hey, it makes sense.

Feb 16
 Is it really just about power?
 Today in Psych class, the lecture was about Operant Conditioning. It had largely to do with punishment and reinforcement. Put another way, operant conditioning is about using the power one person presumably has over another person to alter that person's behavior.
 Of course, this control runs both ways. A child throws temper tantrums as a way of manipulating the behavior of adults. Adults, in turn, attempt various strategies to manipulate the behavior of the child. Often, parents throw temper tantrums as a terror tactic against their children. On the level of a nation, the imposition of martial law, or an inquisition, or a "crack down" are also temper tantrums. Riots, insurrections, strikes, and other forms of non-state political posturing are also temper tantrums.
 A temper tantrum is a test. It is not unlike the "challenges" to the mating pair in a pack of wolves or other animals. It is a test of several things:
 Absolute Power-- The maximum power the individuals or groups involved can bring to bear.
 Will to use this power-- This is why the most absolutely powerful do not always win. A parent has the power, in theory, to kill an unruly child, but usually lacks the will to do so. A little power can be as effective as a lot if the user has a lot of Will. When a person or animal is cornered, and has clearly nothing left to lose, Will approaches its acme.
 Cunning-- This takes in deception, trickery, feints. Each opponent in a conflict has absolute limits to power and will, and each has a perception of those limits in the other. Manipulating that perception is a large function of cunning. Generally, the rest of cunning is tactics.
 We use cunning to make our power and Will appear larger than they are, usually. Occasionally, though, we may use cunning to appear more harmless than we are.
 I think these three factors work to equalize effective net power. Those with a great deal of absolute power tend to lack either will or cunning or both, and vise versa.

 This triangle: Power, Will, and Cunning, is an interesting tool for understanding human power relations.
 In gender roles, for example, excessive use of cunning is considered effeminate. Girls are taught cunning, and boys are taught to shun it as beneath their dignity. Boys are taught will.
 

 The bottom line is, I can increase my power by increasing my cunning.
 
 

Feb 18
A huge pot sat on the stove, quivering, boiling, cooking away any living bacteria that might remain inside the mason jars. The jars sat in a neat octagon on a wire rack in the pot. The jars contained apple preserves, and several thousand colonies of microbes, now dying in a plague of heat. Emma wiped the sweat from her face with the bottom of her apron, a very un-ladylike gesture, and futile as well, the apron already being soaked from previous wipings.
 She walked through the screen door at the back of the kitchen, allowing it to flop shut behind her.

3/11
 It has been suggested to me that a religion must or should possess internal logical coherence. In a court case (Somebody v. Africa) a U.S. court determined that internal coherence is a criterion, legally, for determining whether what someone claims as a religion is indeed a religion. This is nonsense.
 There has never been a religion, as far as I know, that has not been riddled with contradictions; (call them paradoxes if you want.) People, likewise, are riddled with contradictions.
 In the end, religion is a pursuit of truth. Is truth logically coherent? It seems to me that humans try to make it seem so, and succeed, by ignoring, in every instance, around 95% of their own experience. There is little coherence in what we see.

3/12
 Reading about research on animal behavior... really interesting stuff, with some serious implications about human psychology. Of course, these idiots can continue to insist that there is a real difference between people and other animals... Well, there is such a difference, but not more so than the difference between rats and pigs.
 In another life, I'd like to study some quantum physics: non-linear, non-local causality... causality non-local in both time and space. In other words, something happening on the West Coast TOMORROW causes something to happen on the East Coast TODAY. And Quantum Inseparability: everyone you have ever met continues to have impact on your life: not just as a memory, however buried, but in a direct way. Not only that, but it works BOTH WAYS in time: everyone you WILL meet has ALWAYS had impact on your life, and you on theirs. This would be interesting as metaphysics or as mysticism; as science, it is compelling.
 

8/26/92 Re: Cultural war: ideo-historical perspective
 I have seen the faces of America, betrayed, bewildered, baffled. They believed in a dream, and an ideal: that if you worked hard and did as you were told, you might, at the end of your life, have a few years of relative bliss and security; that THEY would take care of you. It was an unspoken contract, a trust, between master and servant, with its roots in the Medieval serf system and beyond.
 The Christian faith served as a model for social structure: blind belief and obedience would be rewarded with merciful treatment, and forgiveness of the "manifold sins and wickedness" all were presumed to have committed. Thus, from a very early age, all were conditioned to the habits of fear, guilt, dependance, and obedience.
 The nuclear family structure reinforced the overall social structure. It was not without reason that the nuclear family was called the building block of society. First, the entire responsibility for feeding, clothing, and sheltering the family unit was placed on the shoulders of one man, and he would do what was necessary to secure life for them. He would work the hours required of him, under any conditions, for any pay, provided that he believed it would secure the money necessary to feed his family. He would swallow bitterness like bile. In exchange, he was allowed to rule his family like a monarch: the frustrations of his life he could vent as he pleased upon his wife and his children, and the indignities he suffered by day, he could pass on to his family by night, sowing the seeds of fear and guilt which would maintain the system through the next generation.
 Growing up in such a system, one learned obedience and endurance. Secretly or otherwise, one yearned for the day when he in turn could vent rage on another generation, burning their hearts while stealing their fire. One also learned the habit of obedience, and the habit of occupying some low-to-medium spot in a patriarchal hierarchy; and one would never feel quite comfortable without a father figure.

For Green newsletter 9/92
 Institutions are man-made entities. They are "tools," in the abstract, designed, built, and reenforced socially and politically by and for the elites of society. When such a "tool" becomes obsolete, it is put aside and the elites make a new and shiny institution to serve their interests. This is what is happening right now. We are witnessing an institutional shift in the structures of political and economic power in the world. The elites are tossing aside one tool, and bringing forth another which is more nearly perfect for their purposes. Just as the base of European power shifted during the Reformation from the Church to the newly emerging nation states, now the base of power is shifting from national governments to multi-national corporations.
 Multi-national corporations and banks enjoy many advantages over governments as seats of power. They are not tied to any particular piece of land, nor to a population, and they are largely untouchable by any democratic means. If workers unionize and demand higher wages or better conditions in one place, then corporations can move to another. If the government of one nation passes laws to protect its land, resources, people, or currency from corporate excess, then corporations can move to another. Corporations are not responsible for the public good of any nation or group, nor for the preservation of any land or resources in any place. They are only responsible for making money for their stockholders. These stockholders, in theory, are actual people who have invested money. In truth, though, most stock is controlled by other corporations, like banks, mutual funds, and insurance companies. Individuals may ultimately own the stock, but actual control is a seamless web in which members of the actual public, even the class rich enough to have "investments," take no real part.
  Governments are completely at the mercy of corporations, and their balance sheet logic. They quickly learn that if they wish to keep their populations employed, their currencies stable, and the campaign contributions for individual politicians rolling in, then they had better not cross the corporations. Governments with semi-democratic institutions like our own must bend to the will of the corporate interests that control them, while making it appear that they are at least trying to work in the best interests of the people who elect them. The result is the kind of smoke and mirrors, the name-calling and blame-slinging you see in our Presidential elections. The corporations do not really care who gets elected. Corporate donations and lobbying control both of the major US political parties. Most of the time, the control is fairly subtle, but there are times when it becomes more blatant. If a charismatic leader gains power independent of corporate control, and does not do the "right thing" from the corporate point of view, then he or she can be removed from office; (eg Allende in Chile, Ortega in Nicaragua, and possibly the Kennedys in the US.) Sometimes, the cost/benefit analysis of removing a given leader shows that it is not worth the trouble, (eg Castro in Cuba, Hussein in Iraq,) and in these cases the corporations settle for isolating that country economically and politically, thus "punishing" the people of that country for allowing the leader to remain in office.
 As governments cease to be the instrument of choice for corporate power, we see nations become smaller, weaker, more easily manipulated. Every change in the world map over the last five years has had the effect of fragmenting nation states, except for the unification of Germany. Free trade is a buzzword all over the world. Soon, a corporation ripping resources from the ground in Bolivia, employing Pakistani labor on the edge of starvation, and marketing their product in the chic shops of Paris and New York will face no resistance to this activity from the governments involved. As corporations shed their national identity and become trans-national, the tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers that they have demanded for their protection for the past century have become more of a hindrance than a help. But free and stable trade is not always the goal: corporations are able to thrive on chaos. There was an attempt, recently, on the part of the nations of the EC to control the wild fluctuations in currency exchange rates. (Trading in fluctuating currencies is one of the main ways corporations have of making huge profits without producing anything and of keeping individual nations weak and unstable.) The attempt to control those fluctuations, in the interests of stable international trade, was sabotaged by the German bankers.