I just learned about a very REFRESHING book!

It's not a brand-new book, but it's an intriguing one. And I stumbled upon it accidentally as I was doing a Google search to determine which of the world's nations still were hobbled by mindless taboos regarding casual sex.

Published in 2001, Taboo: Sex, Religion & Magick, by Christopher S. Hyatt, Ron Milo Duquette, Diana Rose Hartmann, and Gary Ford appears to be quite an unusual and delightful digression from the usual treatment of sex, as noted by several customer reviewers. Including this review from Amazon, written by a person calling himself, "A Customer:"

The following is a review of this spicy little bombshell written by Leticia Marquez of Magical Blend Magazine:

Robert Anton Wilson says of "Taboo"...

"I assure you that what you are about to read is obscene, lewd, blasphemous, subversive, and very interesting, and that all right-thinking people will agree that it should be banned, bowdlerized, censored, suppressed, and burned by the public hangman...I think it is safe to predict that almost every organized group of idiots in this country will regard this book as extremely dangerous."

Wilson is probably right, Taboo's challenge to unite sexual and religious practices probably won't go over well with the New Right. But for the rest of us, the authors present a roller-coaster of a read complete with case histories, theories, and secret sex rituals of interest to both "adepts' of esoteric sex cult societies as well as "ordinary" people. Full of interesting quotations and anecdotes from alchemists, sex magicians, and vampires -- not to mention old Yawey himself -- this is a fascinating a colorful work that seems predestined to upset many people in our sex-negative society. Those who believe that taboos are made to be broken, however, should find Taboo and enjoyable and entertaining read.

The above review is pretty typical, and any contribution to breaking down the abject mindlessness of taboos regarding sex gets my vote! Taboos born of ignorance indeed do deserve to become extinct. Just as quickly as possible. (And it's good to keep in mind that those whom the reviewer called "right-thinking people," above, are the repressive loons of the RRR Cult -- the "Religious" Radical Right. And that's not the way that normal Christians typically think. Normal Christians generally are sensible and tolerant people. And the noisy and noisome pseudo-Christians of the RRR Cult comprise only 5% of the American population.)

So how does the USA stack up in terms of making progress out of the repressive morass of Puritanism, according to this book's authors? Well -- you'll have to read the book.

And remember, seven more years have gone by since this book came off the press, so hopefully, even more progress in that direction has already taken place since then.

Barack Obama's Serious "Mask" Problem...Is he a "Bargainer" or a "Challenger?"

Shelby Steele, author of "A Bound Man," shares something with Barack Obama that most blacks don't. They both have white mothers and black fathers. But beyond that, the similarities fade and diverge. Obama grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii in more modern times, after segregation in the American South had become a savage blot in the history books, and the older Shelby grew up while segregation still prevailed -- ironically on the south side of Chicago (now Obama's home turf), which might as well have been Birmingham, Alabama for all the racial tensions that prevailed there during that earlier era.

Steele is concerned that blacks are almost expected by both their peers, to be either white-accomodating "bargainers," or more edgy and confrontational "challengers." Often, the bargainers are seen by their fellow blacks in a disparaging way, because today's bargainers used to be regarded derisively as "Uncle Toms" by their peers. Sellouts to their own race. And are still perceived that way by millions of blacks.

Steele is proud of his race, and of his black heritage, and rightly so. He looks back on such people as George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr., and a host of other accomplished blacks as major contributors to both their race and to society as a whole. He says that, even though he's of mixed racial blood, he grew up in a society where the "one drop rule" prevailed. If a person had so much as one drop of black blood (much less the 50% that he has), they were black, plain and simple. No wiggle room. Black! That was it!

Both Oprah Winfrey and Bill Cosby are excellent example of successful bargainers who have managed to very successfully have great appeal to both races. However, Cosby has more recently seemed to have become far more of a challenger. Which Steele thinks is a mistake, because Cosby had been riding a very successful horse as a bargainer... and now both races really don't quite know what to expect from this edgier and more confrontational person.

"Masks" are the problem, as Steele sees it. Most people in those two races still think of themselves racially first, and simply as individual human beings second. And more often than not, a black person finds himself compelled to wear a "mask" that hides his true sentiments, in order to get along. Obama wears the mask of bargainer almost all the time among whites, but when speaking to crowds made up mostly of blacks in Harlem and South Carolina, he's worn the challenger mask.

Challengers usually are more successful in getting along with their peers because that's where most blacks think that their power lies, as a race. That if they confront, they are perceived as more capable of achieving their goals. Obviously, that doesn't play too well with whites, even though that's what most whites in the 21st century have come to expect that from the blacks.

This year, blacks have a real problem. Steele points out that for a long time, now, 92% of blacks have voted Democratic, because social liberalism has been good for them, and their advancement in society, in many ways. But now what do they do? They are faced with choosing between a black candidate for the first time ever, and a woman, for the first time ever, who both are social liberals -- to possibly become their next President of the United States. Obama has race going for him, among the blacks, along with vigorous youth and a drive to make real changes in Washington. On the other hand, Hillary's husband, Bill, has for a long time been regarded by blacks as "the first black President," because he had such strong empathy for them, and sought to help with their problems. If you're black, and vote Democrat, how do you make a choice like that, in the primaries?

Further complicating things for Obama (and favoring Hillary's chances) are two other racial factors. The first is "hidden" racism among whites. In Iowa, under the caucus system, people literally had to stand up and be counted, publicly, in front of their precinct neighbors. What white American wants to be identified as a racist in this century; to be labeled as a bigot by his very own neighbors? That would be worse than embarassing. It would be humiliating! Especially in a 96%-white, northern state like Iowa. So Obama, having this advantage going for him, won the Iowa Democratic Caucuses. But New Hampshire -- now that was an entirely different breed of cat! In that state, the voters were able to vote their secret hearts and sentiments in the privacy of a voting booth, with secret ballots. And if a given white voter were afflicted with racism, he could let that all hang out in the ballot box, with impunity, and no fear of ever being found out. There's no way to prove that this was the key factor, but I'm guessing that this very well may be why the pollsters and pundits were so egregiously far off in their predictions of a huge Obama victory, even scant hours before Hillary beat him by three percentage points and won the primary. Publicly, the white voters -- including whatever racists were among them -- had been coming out in droves to see and hear Obama. But in the case of the racists, their motivation may just have been great curiosity about this strange phenomenon. And then came the secret balloting...

The second racial problem that Obama faces, and will face more and more intensely as the race progresses -- especially if he becomes the Democratic nominee, and then the Republican attack dogs come after him (which might make the Swift-boating of John Kerry in 2004 seem like heaven by comparison!) -- is his "mask" management. More than ever, now, he'll be walking an increasingly tenuous tightrope as he chooses carefully between accomodating the blacks, who can make or break him in this race, and making the whites (who can do likewise) comfortable, by alternating between being an edgy challenger and an appeasing bargainer. Oprah Winfrey is an attractive and established bargainer, and most people of both races are delighted with her. But Obama doesn't have that luxury. All Americans want to know what to expect of him if he gets to be President, and racism in this nation, unfortunately, still is far from being interred

Complicating this even further for Obama is media scrutiny. In the past, he's been able to be a challenger in front of a black crowd in Harlem, and get away with it. But from here on, whichever mask he wears will be seen by the whole nation, virtually instantaneously, thanks to a hungry news media that will be watching him, just like all the other front-runners. like a hawk. And will be broadcasting sound bites like mad. To the entire nation! And that doesn't even take the additional exposure afforded by the Internet into consideration.

My conclusion in light of all of this is that, unless he is an extremely talented politician, Obama may not be able to keep switching masks and pull this off. People will increasingly be demanding to know the REAL Obama, and learn precisely what he intends to do for the country. Very specifically. And that will make it difficult or impossible to reconcile with both races in a still-too-racially-sensitized nation.

It's almost midnight at the ball. The REAL Obama will soon have to stop swapping masks, and show us all who he truly is. And in the case of race, that means letting us all know whether, at bottom, he's a bargainer or a challenger. And then we'll all have to see how that plays out.

If he gets very lucky, he may get to beat Hillary for the Democratic nomination. But if that happens, then from that moment on, he'll need to become a miracle-worker to keep from being converted into dog meat by a Republican Party that has proven itself to be very adept at deception and viciousness.

I'm sorry to have to draw this conclusion, because it's a sad commentary on a society that still has a lot of racial growing up to do, but for all the reasons above, I believe that on the Democratic side, only Hillary is truly electable to the Presidency in November. Since John Edwards no longer has much of a chance of being nominated. And then only if she can sucessfully run the gauntlet certain to be emplaced by potent and proven Republican corruption, and their hackable electronic voting machines.

If America is to turn away from the downhill slide to tyranny that the Republicans have potently initiated, I truly believe that there is only one fork remaining in that road, and that our ONLY chance will be to elect a Democrat to the White House this November. And it will really help if the nation can become determined between now and then to chuck a LOT of Republican rascals out of Congress at the same time! (And that has to be their own rascals, or it won't work. Whining about other peoples' rascals accomplishes nothing! If you have a Republican rascal in Congress that can be voted out this year, then it's up to you to get that job done. Your very own rascal. Ousted at the ballot box by you! THIS year, let's DO it!)

Perception of Women as Equals...What CENTURY is this?

by "Mysticsister" in the Huffington Post website -- 1/9/08

If a woman shows emotion, she's weak. If she doesn't, she's conniving. So tell me, how do we win? How do we play the game and beat a man, any man, at anything? Because as soon as you show that you're tough, intelligent and ready to take them on, they start bashing your brains in. And women are worse. We don't seem to want other women to be leaders. As long as this double standard isn't focused on and brought to light, it won't stop. Cry? Who wouldn't?!! Being relentlessly attacked because of the fact that you want to be president is one thing. But attacking her for being a woman who wants to be president is hard to watch. There could be a dialogue about this -- that would use up some air time. But no -- it's more fun to watch her have a so called "break down." What year is it again?

My Comment: You're right on the money with this! Hillary can't win for the losing. She shows she's human, and she gets stomped on for it. Same if she talks tough. Then she gets accused of being a witch with a capital "B." What do people expect from her? Lukewarmness? THEN who would vote for her? And -- it never ceases to amaze me how vicious women can be toward other women. E.g., I'll bet women get referred to as "sluts" far more often by their fellow women than by men. (Usually behind their backs!) Go figure!!

Are we going to have to wait for the 22nd century for society to grow up?!?

Here's how EUROPE was lucky enough toescape infestation by the RRR Cult

To appreciate the full magnitude of the content of this article, I encourage you to click on each of its internal links, as you read it.

America's internal terrorists are the leaders and lemmings of the RRR Cult. The UN-Christian "Religious Radical Right." America's very own, personal-liberties hating, home-grown version of the Taliban.

And as unlucky as America is to be infested by it... Europe is lucky enough to have completely escaped it! Talk about dodging a very sociopathic bullet!

Ironically, it is the very structure of the RRR that saved Europe from it! And which will continue to protect the hundreds of millions of people living on that very fortunate continent. Because the RRR Cult is different from all other cults, in one very important way. A factor that enabled it to infest American society and threaten our freedoms -- while simultaneously preventing it from infesting Europe.

You see, almost all other cults recruit their lemmings and immediately isolate them with the other lemmings, within the cult. Sometimes so extremely as to isolate them from most of the rest of society. But the RRR's crafty leaders did exactly the opposite, right from Day One, back in the 1970s -- when the late Jerry Falwell (to his eternal shame) started the cult, and called it the "Moral Majority. (What a misnomer that was, since the cult he started was never even remotely a majority... and today still comprises only 5% of the U.S. population. Nor was there anything "moral" about it.) The RRR primarily targets the more ignorant folks who have already been conned into populating the congregations of fundamentist churches. I could have said "Christian fundamentalist churches," but those are often far more UN-Christian than Christian. After all, how Christian can any church or denomination be which rejects Christ's clear command that we show compassion to our neighbors? But instead espouses and promotes such loathsome agendas as the one that seeks to force girls and women to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to term against their will? Which would deprive millions of them of countless of their pre-ill-timed-pregnancy future opportunities.

The cult infests those churches from within -- and then, here is the key to its success -- it leaves its lemmings in place, where they can influence and convert their other congregants into adopting the cult's heinous agendas.

The United States has always had a pretty stable percentage of Christian believers, and a solid percentage of those are church-goers. That's a good thing in its own right, and as a Christian myself, I could hardly think otherwise. In fact, per a recent Gallup Poll, fully 83% of Americans profess Christianity. OF that number, 94% are actual, normal, senisible, relatively-intelligent and generally-tolerant, actual Christians. While the remaining 6% are the lemmings of the RRR Cult, who subscribe to the loathsome agendas of the cult's oligarchical leadership and organizations.

No one seems to be sure why there is such a disparity between the Americans and the Europeans with respect to numbers of Christians, and numbers of church-goers. But I have a theory.

European history goes back thousands of years, and except for Native Americans, that of the USA only 400. And the beginning of this nation was hugely influenced by the ultra-conservative (to the point of being downright nutty) Puritans. Any ducking-stool mentality that can be found in today's RRR cultists can likely be traced back through time to that cult.

So Europe was far luckier. At least as far as being threatened by a ubiquitous, continent-wide, liberty-threatening cult is concerned. Because, thanks to its long history and its great diversity, the following important comments and aspects pertain to it:

[Phil Zuckerman wrote]: "The last time I was in Europe, I was told by two different sets of friends that we would be 'going out to the church' for the evening. In both cases (one in Oban, Scotland, and the other in Cologne, Germany) the churches turned out to be religious institutions in facade only; both were former churches that had been gutted and turned into popular pubs and night clubs. Indeed, throughout much of Western Europe--with the unique exception of Ireland -- churches are being turned into bars, discos, warehouses, and laundromats. Not only is church attendance way down, but so is religious belief."

* In Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1851, 60 percent of the adult population attended church; in 1995 that was down to 11 percent (Bruce 1999).
* In 1899, 98 percent of Dutch citizens claimed to belong to a particular church. In 2001, only 40 percent did so (Grotenhuis and Scheepers 2001).
* Only 34 percent of West Germans, 31 percent of Belgians, 24 percent of the British, 17 percent of the French, 11 percent of Finns, and 9 percent of Icelanders attend church at lease monthly (Inglehart, Basanez, and Moreno 1998).
* Only 6 percent of Danes, 7 percent of Swedes, and 9 percent of Norwegians attend church at least monthly (Bruce 2000).
* Only 2 percent of Danes, 2 percent of Swedes, and 2 percent of Norwegians attend church on an average Sunday (Bruce 2000).
* 12 percent of Danes claimed to "never attend church" in 1947; that was up to 34 percent in 1996 (Bruce 1999).
* 32 percent of Swedes and 33 percent of Norwegians claim to "never" attend church (Bruce 2000).
* The percent of the population in the United Kingdom in 1900 which had attended Sunday school as children was 55 percent; in 2000 it was down to 4 percent (Bruce 2002).
* Among West Germans in 1967, 42 percent believed that Jesus is the son of God; this dropped down to 29 percent in 1992; among East Germans, the number drops as low as 17 percent (Shand 1998).
* 43 percent of the British in 1940 claimed to believe in the existence of a personal God; that dropped to 26 percent in 2000 (Bruce 2002).

The best available empirical research reveals is that secularization is unambiguously observable in most of Western Europe, but not in the United States. In fact, religion remains remarkably strong in the United States. For instance, more than 95 percent of Americans claim to believe in God or a universal spirit or lifeforce, compared to 61 percent of the British; nearly 80 percent of Americans claim to believe in heaven, compared to 50 percent of the British; 84 percent of Americans believe that Jesus is God or the son of God, compared to 46 percent of the British (Gallup and Lindsay 1999). Comparing additional traditional religious beliefs, over 70 percent of Americans believe in life after death, compared to 46 percent of Italians, 43 percent of the French, and 35 percent of Scandinavians (Gallup 1979). And over 70 percent of Americans believe in bell, compared to only 28 percent of the British (Greeley 1995). Concerning traditional religious participation, nearly 45 percent of Americans attend church more than once a week, compared to 23 percent of Belgians, 19 percent of West Germans, 13 percent of the British, 10 percent of the French, 3 percent of Danes, and only 2 percent of Icelanders (Verweij, Ester, and Nauta 1997).

The referenced sources of the above information, and the data itself, can be found here.

Very interestingly, if one of the Puritans had chopped a hole in the bottom of their ship while it was still in mid-Atlantic, he likely would have been one of the greatest American heroes of all time -- without ever having even reached America! And we'd never even have known his name.

Without the influence of the Puritans at the very inception of American society, it is highly probable that the United States today would be very much like Europe in this regard... and that the RRR Cult would never have existed.

And that if Jerry Falwell had existed, and had tried to organize that loathsome faction under those circumstances, he almost surely would have been told, very properly, to go fly a very large kite.

Finally -- what about Canada? With whom we share a common border over 4,000 miles long. Did it escape the RRR Cult, despite its adjacency and proximity? For the most part, yes! Very fortuitously! As pointed out by Zuckerman:

"Interestingly enough, Canada maintains a sort of middle ground between the United States and Western Europe concerning traditional religious belief: In 1995, 70 percent of Canadians claimed to believe in God or a universal spirit, standing between over 90 percent of Americans and 61 percent of Britons; 61 percent of Canadians claim to believe in heaven, standing between 78 percent of Americans and 50 percent Britons (Gallup and Lindsay 1999). Concerning church participation, 30 percent of Canadians attend church weekly (Bruce 1999), standing between 45 percent of Americans, 19 percent of West Germans, and 13 percent of Britons."

It wasn't as good as having a vast ocean seperating them from the land of the Puritans, as was the case for the Europeans. But developing as a separate nation undoubtedly afforded the lucky Canadians a great deal of protection against such repressive and irrational hatefulness. A strong enough filter, through which an insufficient amount of the cult's poison was able to pass, to result in an infestation.

For example -- there is nothing more harmless than same-sex marriage (SSM). It doesn't make people gay. It doesn't cause gay people to have sex any more often than they already do. (Not that that's anyone else's business than theirs; RRR cultists are some of the world's worst busybodies. And busybodyism & abject ignorance go together!) And there is no way in the world that SSM could do on one whit of harm to opposite-sex marriage, or to the marriage of any opposite-sex couple. Any notion that opposite-sex marriage somehow needs to be "defended" against it is one of the RRR Cult's most blatant and loathsome lies. Yet -- in the still-too-Puritanical USA, that hateful cult has scared Congress and state legislatures into passing so-called "Defense of Marriage" laws and state constitutional amendments. How utterly MINDLESS!

But by stark comparison, Canada fully legalized same-sex marriage. With no significant opposition from within its borders. As has a growing number of European nations. Intelligence and the RRR Cult are mutually-exclusive. Nor does the RRR emanate any compassion. Just a ducking-stool mentality and hateful irrationality.

There is very little that is Christian about America's very own Taliban.

And as long as that cult continues to infest America, and weild its influence upon our courts and our elected representatives, it is imperative that we keep this analogy in mind:

The RRR Cult : Society :: 5% Arsenic Solution : Glass of Drinking Water

Just as segregation infested and poisoned the South, 50 years ago, this insidous, loathsome, and ignorance-laden cult threatens vital and important liberties of tens of millions of Americans today. Blacks were the targets before. Today, it's gays and girls & women.

And just as society outgrew and rejected segregation, we need to fight, outgrow, and reject the toxic RRR Cult and its hate-laden agenda today. What a sad commentary on America that such an infestation can still manifest itself and survive into the 21st century!

Almost ALL of USA's 14 Million ILLEGAL Aliens OUTwithin a Month's Time? Yes! Here's How to Do It!

This is my proposal for solving America’s illegal immigration problem without bloodshed and at virtually no expense.

The first presidential candidate who states categorically that he will do THIS just might win the nomination, and then the election, handily!

Before getting into that though, I remind everyone that any person who's not already a U.S. citizen who enters the USA without documentation has broken a serious law. The moment he does that, he becomes a criminal! Anyone who thinks that these criminals should be given some sort of "amnesty" needs to ask himself this question: "Would you favor an amnesty program for burglars and bank robbers?"

A criminal act is just that. Something for which a penalty must be paid, in almost all cases. This plan provides a reasonable way for those 14 million criminals to avoid prosecution by simply choosing to leave. Any reasonable proponent of amnesty should love that! And so should everyone else! Here it is:

Pass a federal law that mandates a minimum of one year of penitentiary time and a $25,000 minimum fine to be assessed to any employer who either hires, or continues to employ, any illegal (undocumented) alien. These penalties to be enforced upon both the personnel manager who does the hiring and the head of the company, for companies that have personnel managers. No exceptions! The buck stops at the top!

This would make it impossible for any illegal aliens (other than a handful of them having sugar daddies) to survive in the USA, and thus, we could expect to see almost all 14 million of them scrambling back south of the border within a month or so after this law takes effect.

NO wall or fence necessary, and NO risk to any officers, since there'd be no need for forcible deportations.

Finally, rescind, retroactively, the citizenship status of all "anchor babies," regardless of their age, even if they've become adults. If they were born here to illegals, then they are illegal, too, and are therefore automatically rendered unemployable. This already is constitutionally legitimate. Per the U.S. Constitution, those "anchor babies" never had legal citizenship status in the first place. (Thus, no "anchor.) See the response to this article that immediately follows it in this posting.

This plan would end almost ALL illegal immigration overnight, and do so bloodlessly, at virtually no taxpayer expense.

Once back outside of the country, they could apply for legal immigration (including legitimately-obtained work visas), and, in the process, get in line behind everyone else who's doing it the right way.

And the first candidate of either party to promise their serious intention to accomplish this could very well become our next President!

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

In Yahoo! Answers, a person calling himself "hockey g" gave this in-depth and substantive response to the above proposal. (If he gives me permission to give him proper credit by citing his actual name, I’ll replace the paragraph you now are reading with that.) ---

I agree 100%. Rescind all citizenship that was unconstitutionally granted in the first place. The 14th amendment, and specifically the citizenship clause, was carefully worded such that it denied citizenship to "foreigners and aliens."

This is how it was introduced to the 39th congress by the author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard. If you read the debates that ensued, as recorded in the Congressional Globe, it is clear to anyone of average intelligence that the Congress that passed the 14th amendment did not intend to hand out citizenship like some kind of cheap carnival prize.

The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

There are other cases referring to minor details of the question. In essence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant, at the time the amendment was written, a person having a reciprocal relationship of allegiance and protection with the United States government. It was thus understood not to apply to persons whose presence in this country is transitory or illegal.

That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here. The courts have also long recognized an exception for the children of foreign diplomats, which exception would be unconstitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment granted automatic birthright citizenship to everyone.