I ended the previous instalment of this evolving critique of Rachel Maddow’s news analysis of April 11 by noting the similarity between the unwritten New Covenant communication technology challenges that I and others face currently, in “the year of our Lord” 2019, and similar communication challenges that followers of Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth have had to contend with since the first century AD.
Before continuing, I want readers to know that I was not aware of Maddow’s existence until my attention was drawn to that broadcast by a Youtube notification on my mobile phone.
So, the doubts that ensued from Maddow’s somewhat wonky language use, the technology of trust communication challenge that I am seeking to resolve through this series of articles, could be construed as a matter of unfamiliarity, largely.
I had never seen or even heard of The Rachel Maddow Show until April 11, you see.
I did not know that she is one of the most highly regarded journalists in the United States.
I did not know that The Rachel Maddow Show is credited with enabling MSNBC to overtake CNN in the US news ratings.
I did not know that she is the first openly lesbian person to host a major prime time news program in the US.
I did not know she shared roots with Attorney General William Barr and special counsel Robert Mueller in the Roman Catholic faith.
All I knew about Maddow when I took issue with her language during that April 11 broadcast is what I had seen in the Youtube video, brought to my attention by an algorithm, presumably, that monitors the kind of news I am interested in.
Until then, I knew no more about Maddow than I did about the Irish journalist Lyra McKee, shot and killed in Belfast on April 18, seven days after Maddow’s reporting rocket “crashed”, like the Israeli’s Beresheet into my cognitive-affective Sea of Tranquillity.
Would it have made a difference if I had known more about Maddow?
I do not think so.
I took issue with Maddow’s use of the words “absurd” and “freelancing”, not with her gender, sexual orientation, political leanings or any other facet of her private or public identity.
So I am happy to concede that the disquiet I felt, and still feel to some extent, stemmed at least initially from my unfamiliarity with Maddow’s personal context.
I am happy to concede that though I did not get that impression at the time, Maddow may in fact share my sense of outrage at Bill Barr’s apparent perversion of the course of justice and corresponding imperiling of the United States’ and wider Western democracy.
She may be just as indignant as I am at president Trump’s effective pauperization and dismemberment of US democratic traditions: his apparent determination to “make America grey again” even as he extolls the shine of whatever former glory Americans have achieved.
In other words, I readily concede that my concerns about how Maddow characterized Barr’s behaviour, may be misplaced.
I readily concede that she may share my sense of indignation but express it in a manner unique to her: in a word, idiosyncratically.
Alternately, one could say, she may have been using Maddowspeak.
Perhaps persons more familiar with her style of presentation would have read the “text” of her facial expressions and other aspects of her speech and broader body language differently.
However my goal here, as in my tweet to Maddow, has never been to reject her analysis completely.
It is, rather, to offer an alternative, less “lighthearted”, more grave reading of the situation she is addressing.
And in line with the grave, surgical, simultaneously scientific and spiritual reading of history that distinguishes this blog and my wider holistic communications and education praxis generally, my goal is also to address matters that Maddow did not address verbally but to which details of her personal context, and especially her “sexual orientation” speak voluminously.
Consistent with my clairvoyant, cosmic cricketing sensitivity to changes in the weather and other playing conditions, my analysis is augmented by attention to ostensibly unrelated details, including, the tragic death of Trinidad born, Barbados-based journalist-broadcaster Veoma Ali on April 9; the catastrophic berth of the Israeli rocket Beresheet on April 11; the fire at the famed Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on April 15; the previously cited death of the journalist and lesbian activist McKee on April 18 and other arguable minutiae of real politik.
Minutiae or not, these “signs and wonders” have been burdening this series of articles, through which I am seeking to discharge my peculiarly prescient, clairvoyant brief for just over a month now.
And whether or not Maddow or any similarly prominent presenter with the BBC, CNN, Fox News, Reuters, Russia Today or comparable, secular Western knowledge traders think such Gaia groanings are relevantant, I will continue to draw attention to “twin” earthquakes between England and Barbados, like those that I tweeted about earlier this month, and similar, seemingly unrelated geopsychic developments.
Like Judge Murray Gurfein, who refused to issue an injunction prohibiting publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, I feel compelled to reveal matters that Maddow and other journalists would conceal, cosciously or unconsciously.
Responding to efforts by the Nixon administration to bar the American public’s access to sensitive details of American foreign policy that informed the catastrophic Vietnam war, Gurfein wrote in his judgement of June 19 that “[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.”
I believe this “right of the people to know”, a corollary of the people empowering New Covenant, is being threatened by an emergent homosexual orthodoxy that has largely hijacked the voices and votes of gay people, consciously or unconsciously.
Like veteran Barbadian communication specialist Hallam Hope, I am deeply concerned about the political ambitions of “the gay rights movement” and especially about the fascist fathering and misandric mothering of gay orthodoxy pushing oracles like “Rocket Man” Sir Elton John.
Apparently, Sir Elton would have us believe that there is no difference between biologically based, heterosexual parenting and the legally facilitated homosexual parenting arrangements that may be Peter Thiel’s and some other gay people’s ideal “family plan”.
The pop icon John’s success at forcing the gay designers Dolce and Gabana to retract their questioning of this emergent gay orthodoxy has demonstrated the lengths to which he, Thiel, Peter Tatchell and other influencers seem prepared to go to silence contemporary versions of the second century Christian oracle Montanus: those aspiring to be direct, divine line curating and broadcasting New Covenant messengers today.
I believe that Maddow and other mainstream journalists may be aiding and abbetting a threat that secretive, “gay mafia” media elements pose to American and wider Western democracy, even as they seek to protect our democratic institutions from Trump administration threats to a free press and to political transparency, ironically.
I am concerned that Maddow, colleagues of the tragically killed McKee and other journalists may be unaware of the capacity of political homosexuality, like political atheism, political Buddhism, political Christianity, political Hinduism, political Islam, political Judaism and any other politicised ideology to induce heart hardening and brain death through freedom of conscience suppressing legalism and related infelicities.
And for all his erudition, which I applaud in principle, I believe former US president Barack Obama dropped the ball by endorsing the legalization of gay marriage with scant regard for the deep-seated legalism and related corruption and degeneration that plagues Christendom perennially, as it does all book-based faiths and scholarly sourced secular ideologies.
I believe it was a failure of judgement stemming at least in part from Obama’s and his US-born, Barbados-traced attorney general Eric Holder’s over-reaching empathy: an aspirational expression of compassion that, ignoring or not being familiar with the limitations of the law, inevitably leads to fossilization and fragmentation of faith and morality.
From such good intentions can ensue the destruction of one’s moral compass or the casting aside of one’s conscience and consequent shipwrecking of one’s faith (1 Timothy 1:19) to which the passage from the book of Isaiah that I quoted in the first article in this series speaks. It reads:
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)
The susceptibility of writers and others who excel in academics to such faith fossilization or ideological intransigence and confusion was dramatically demonstrated by England-based American bioarcheologist Stacy Hackner during a talk she gave at a London Skeptics meeting this past January.
Hackner and I had two very significant exchanges while she was taking questions from the audience.
The first occurred when I challenged her interpretation of the archeological evidence she had presented, as she had repeatedly ascribed low status to women minding children and engaging in related mothering activities.
It was only when I pointed out that motherhood entails very difficult work and is potentially the most important job on earth, that Dr Hackner conceded that she had internalized the same patriarchal view of women’s work that she was challenging.
She basically conceded that she had been ignoring and undervaluing the fact that mothers are compelled to be masters of diplomacy and are on the front lines of national security against domestic threats by virtue of the care they are obliged to provide for their families.
She had basically undermined the role of mothers in the domestic domain of national security that judge Gurfein was addressing.
And the theme of Hackner’s talk was biases in archeological depictions of ancient male and female routines and roles, ironically!
As I insisted in an April 6 Twitter conversation with Sid Rodrigues of London Skeptics, Hackner’s confusion is important because it points to a fundamental matriarchal contradiction that feminists need to address.
And I have been urging University of the West Indies(UWI) professor Sir Hilary Beckles, the relatively rehabilitated revolutionary-turned-diplomat David Comissiong, their collaborator Dr Sandra Richards and other Afrocentrics to address similar contradictions and anomalies in their Pan Africanist educational offerings.
Among other logical transgressions, my former Pan Africanist colleagues have been advocating for reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery on the basis of sweeping generalisations about “whiteness” that equates it with evil, while associating “blackness” with innocence and virtue, implicitly or explicitly.
Like the Garveyite academic theologian Robert Beckford, they therefore mimic the robotic, ratings focused elements in Maddow’s and other feminists’ reasoning, to some extent.
And I am still waiting for a response from Phil Baty of the Times Higher Educational Supplement (or perhaps from his subordinates Duncan Ross or Billy Wong) to my request for information about the rationale by which my alma mater UWI achieved its impressive inclusion in that publication’s World University Rankings.
I made that request in January and followed it up with a tweet on March 15.
In the mean time, so far as I can tell, my former Pan Africanist colleagues continue to perpetuate the politically motivated mischief that began with the printing press and has been exacerbated by radio and other kinds of electronic broadcasting.
And just as the conscience searing coalescing of mechanistic matriarchal and patriarchal rivalries are polluting Western political discourse with poisonous, gender polarising particulates, so too gangster mentality aggregating, pseudoscientific Afrocentric simplifications are combing with their Aryan supremacist counterparts (the kind of stereotypical drivel spouted by disgraced geneticist James Watson) to produce a destructive psycho-social synergy.
I have been urging a number of Parliamentary Select Committees and other influential entities here in England to view writing as a form of elementary artificial intelligence.
However, the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has apparently not been able to grasp literacy’s potentially lethal, addictive power and corresponding capacity to immerse us in a compulsion coded virtual reality world.
Consequently, the threat being posed to the cognitive and affective development of young, impressionable children through the book-based equalities indoctrination being propagated by the gay rights activist Andrew Moffat and other Obama-like, empathy excessive educators, is therefore not receiving the critical attention of that Committee that it deserves.
That Committee’s chairman, Damian Collins MP and other members seem incapable of the holistic, interdisciplinary, joined-up thinking that the Committee’s title “digital, Culture, media and sport” encourages us to think they are capable of.
If one did not know better one might think the members of that Committee, the trade unionists, BBC and other journalists who have come out in support of Moffat’s programme, were restricting their critical thinking skills to finding fault with Christian and other religion-based “gay conversion” therapies.
Could such blatant bias be what they intend?
I am hoping to alert Maddow, Moffat, Beckles and other influential formal and informal educators to the risk they run of being “helpful idiots”, co-opted by shadowy, unscrupulous interests to advance fundamentalist feminist, glory grabbing gay mafia, popish Pan Africanist and similarly questionable political capital accumulating programs that lump or Clump people together according to gender, sex, race or religion without regard for the interior, conscience derived, DNA determined, heterosexually sourced complementarity that makes us all unique.
My goal is to assert the unlimited possibilities to which we all have access when we login to the livestream of the unwritten New Covenant’s personal empowerment.
This is the simultaneously particular and universal phenomenon that Emory University’s illustrious poet-professor Jericho Brown referenced as he praised the rooted reach of fellow oracle Christell Roach’s poetic gift.
And I would gladly share the link to Emory’s website page where I discovered that tribute to Roach, on May 1.
But it seems to have disappeared.
Yet there has ever been and will ever be only one password between us and the idiosyncratic, profoundly personalized power that is a basic biological right and the natural heritage of every human being.
And it is not a Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram or other social media password.
It is not a British or Barbadian passsport, an American visa or other certification of nationality or legal resident status.
It is not the favour of Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, or the richly resourceful Oprah Winfrey, God bless her.
Despite what the 2016 electoral success of the bigly bragging, female-genitalia-grabbing-advising current US president suggests, the cynical calculation that he and his current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson demonstrated that year has always and can only ever deliver temporary relief from the written New Testament malware that manacles and menaces true, New Covenant spontaneity and liberation.
If you are going to escape that malware matrix of virulent virtual reality and access the unwritten New Covenant code in which poets, mystics and others conversant in oracular, glossolalic communication live and move and have their being (Acts 17:28), you need only one password: honesty.
Maddow, “America’s wonkiest anchor” reputedly, projects that honesty to a significant degree.
I want to help others enjoy a similar degree of balanced self-acceptance and self-criticism.
It is what I believe Joshua, the incarnator of the New Covenant expects of me.
And it’s Bart out to bat
It is toward the goal of encouraging honest communication that I cited academic theologian Bart D Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus, marketed as “The story behind who changed the Bible and why” in part “a” of this article.
I value Ehrman’s work to the extent that it illuminates the similarity between the unwritten New Covenant communication technology challenges that I and others face currently, in “the year of our Lord” 2019, and similar communication challenges that followers of Joshua have had to contend with since the earliest days of Christianity .
However, I was also careful to note that Ehrman “may not be as pained about the damage Christianity, its Jewish antecedent and its Islamic and other book-based successors have been doing to themselves and other segments of humanity as I am” because he probably “has not grasped the fact that the greatest, most catastrophic misrepresentation of Joshua’s life and work consists in the confusion of the UNWRITTEN New Covenant with the WRITTEN New Testament.”
I thereby invoked and bore witness, indirectly, to a truth articulated by the second century “Church Father” Tertullian who has given us this exquisite enunciation of the contribution of Christian martyrdom to the 2000+ year-old Judeo-Christian family tree: the blood of the martyrs is seed.
Yet this awareness of the biological basis of faith was apparently not enough to steer Tertullian away from an excessive creed coded course.
It is apparent that the confounding of Joshua’s New Covenant message by Tertullian and other consciously or unconsciously fascism prone Church Fathers was tantamount to putting Joshua’s and his life’s work to death in perpetuity.
And the perpetual martyrdom mirroring misrepresentation of Joshua’s message, the shedding of his blood in perpetuity, consists in Barr-like behaviour of Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and other male Christian clerics, with the conscious or unconscious complicity of the misanthrope mothers who, among other tragedies, have made the abandonment of their motherly potential and, at its worst extreme, the legalization of abortion a cause celeb of civilized, democratic, “developed” countries.
The arc of the covenant that these men and women have constructed jointly, and for which every generation of them since the first century have been washing their hands like Pilate and refusing to take responsibility,re runs through the prolific scribe Tertullian’s bibliography, literally.
Actually, as I note in The Bible: Beauty And Terror Reconciled (TBBTR) it was Tertullian, whose surviving works date from between 196 and 212 AD who first referred to written materials as the “New Testament”, Latin novum testamentum.
“By so doing”, I argue “he either initiated the confusion of the New Covenant with written matter or else, through his sanction as a recognized leader in the early church, made official this confusion which may have already existed in the minds of many Christians – as a result of their preoccupation with these scriptures.”
And this is in fact a very useful insight into the workings of written material induced faith fossilization, heart hardening and brain death, if I say so myself!
Also, considering the complicity, conscious or unconscious, direct or indirect, intentional or unintended of Roman Catholic and Protestant literalism in the death of Mckee, another ancient saying comes to mind poignantly: the letter killeth.
Attributed to the apostle Paul, these words, found in 2 Corinthians 3:6, summarise the lethal capacity of literacy when mismanaged in religious, academic and similar potentially volatile political contexts.
They underscore the difference between the unwritten New Covenant, a metaphor for conscience, and the written New Testament, as I argue in TBBTR.
And my suspicion that Ehrman, who is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is unaware of the catastrophic confusion of the spiritual New Covenant with the literal New Testament has been strengthened by the apparent absence of the name Montanus from his book.
I have only read up to page 63 of his 218 page text so far. But Ehrman’s preoccupation with the reliability or not of the written New Testament as an accurate record of Joshua’s teaching does not suggest that he is aware of the significant body of evidence, including evidence associated with the charismatic oracle Montanus’ story, which suggests that Joshua probably never foresaw or intended the creation of the New testament.
And the absence of Montanus’ name from the index of Ehrman’s text also supports the conclusion that even though the former evangelical Christian turned evangelical atheist (or at least agnostic) is probably familiar with Montanus’ story, as one would expect of any New Testament scholar, frankly, he apparently has not grasped its relevance to Joshua’s oracular, unwritten New Covenant mission, method and related existential realities.
I am therefore inclined to view Ehrman’s scholastic achievements as a shipwreck in progress.
I question the soundness of the trajectory of his Beresheet rocket.
But readers should bear in mind that this inclination is based on my very limited knowledge of Ehrman’s work, especially of his more recent work (efforts to contact him have so far proved fruitless).
Whether or not he mentions Montanist in the book I am reading, Ehrman’s account of the various kinds of scribal errors that underly the composition of the New Testament is very informative and I am as grateful for it as I am for Maddow’s analysis.
Yet I cannot help but lament Ehrman’s apparent scholastic shortcomings because as the references to Montanus in TBBTR indicate, I believe Montanus’ story provides indispensable insights into how Joshua’s familial formations focused, freedom of conscience affirming New Covenant teaching was initially submarined by conscious or unconscious Barresque misquoting and misreporting.
So, from my perspective, limited as it is, while Ehrman is to be applauded for his attempt at a “deep-dive analysis” of the history of the New Testament, his analysis, like Maddow’s remains rather shallow, at least in this important respect.
Moving with Montanus and Maddow: dance dialectics
And I have appropriated the term “deep-dive analysis” from a 2017 Rolling Stone article in which journaist Janet Reitman describes the format and vision for Maddow’s show on MSNBC.
From my perspective, the story of the Maddow foreshadowing, second century news broadcaster Montanus and the Montanist movement that he spawned, with the aid of two other oracles, Prisca and Maximila, his main collaborators, provides vital insights into how Joshua’s message, like Mueller’s report, was consiously or unconsciously distorted, first by Joshua’s brother James, probably, then by others who similarly claimed to know Joshua best and love him most.
(And the award-winning television series Everybody Loves Raymond comes to mind here for more reasons than may appear initially.)
Apparently, Montanus, who rose to prominence in Phrygia in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) found himself immersed in a communication technology challenge somewhat like Maddow’s, McKee’s, Barr’s, Ehrman’s and my own because of his New Covenant affiliated belief that Joshua incarnated or initiated a church-based dispensation of divine, direct, spoken word messaging through what he and his followers, the Montanists, called New Prophecy.
I celebrate Montanus and his “New Prophecy”, an oracular, transcendental cousin of jazz music, and of jazz’s improvisational scatting particularly, in a poem named for him in my 1994 collection Standing.
The first stanza of that poem reads:
Speak Montanus, speak/today/the things you know, and understand/better than/another man,/who in times past spoke/aloud,/and now is read behind a/ shroud/which oft veils the simple light,/giving way to heart’s/deep night.
And readers of this discourse who may have been struggling to see Montanus’ relevance to this discussion of America’s current democratic deficit and related free press undermining, fake news reporting phenomena, may now be beginning to see the parallels between the submarining of Montanus’ New Prophecy doctrine and the attempted torpedoing of Mueller’s report, by his long time friend Barr more clearly, hopefully.
Certainly, with the redacted Mueller report now in the public domain, it is now clear that despite those two men’s shared Roman Catholic faith and long years of friendship, Barr’s four page summary of that report has shrouded its content audaciously.
Maddow is to be congratulated for drawing attention to Barr’s dereliction of his democratic duty, even if her rhetorial rocket ultimately crash landed, from my perspective.
And therein lies a fundamental difficulty of this treatise: the challenge of appropriately praising Maddow’s effort even as I criticize it firmly.
Having the very high regard that I do for academics and academia, I want to ensure that like journalist-musician Tom Sturm I give Maddow, “a graduate of Stanford University and Oxford and recipient of a Rhodes scholarship”, the honour due her “extensive and impressive” academic achievements.
And I am quoting here from “Wonk and circumstance”, an article published by Sturm in 2010.
And Maddow’s response, when asked by Sturm if she sees higher education as an essential key to success, is instructive.
She says “Everybody’s got to find their own path, and there are a lot of great ways for people to prep for careers. That said, I think that rigorous, classical liberal education is a form of intellectual training that helps in just about every career, and in life. The Enlightenment is a really handy inheritance for, you know, civilization—it’s worth deliberately learning its lessons.”
What Enlightenment lessons do Maddow have in mind?
Might those lessons explain the collegial relationship she had with the late, latterly disgraced misogynist Chairman and CEO of Fox News and Fox Television Stations, Roger Ailes?
My evolving knowledge of Maddow’s seed, the crossword puzzle, if you will, of her life and work that I am piecing together to reconstruct the trajectory of her largely impressive but ultimately ill-fated 11 April Beresheet analytical journey, is also indebted to the Reitman interview cited previously.
And it is Maddow’s insistence in that interview that she is “a liberal for sure” that I find a key cause for worry.
I can only hope that her lesbian “liberalism” does not predispose her to Obama and Holder approximating oblivion to the fascist tendencies of Sir Elton and other proponents of gay parenting orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, Maddow’s confessed fascination with the Republican Party suggests that like John she may be on course for a gender, race and religion racketeering “rocket man” catastrophy.
Explaining her fascination with that party she told Reitman:
I’m like a sociological student of the Republican Party – even absent Trump. There is a robust, well-funded, decades-old, superorganized, focused, competent conservative movement that exists outside the Republican Party that yanks the party’s chain whenever they want to. The Republican Party is like an old burned-out husk of a Ford Pinto that blew up ’cause its gas tank was in the wrong place, but it’s attached to a giant jet engine. The Democratic Party is like a Honda Civic. It putters through the world in a predictable way, and you like it or not depending on if you find small, unpowerful things cute. But the Republican Party has this incredible propulsion and no way to steer it.
I believe that a key component of that “giant jet engine” is the 2000+ year old Judeo-Christian faith in which Maddow was schooled as a Roman Catholic.
I believe she has experienced the workings of that belief system intimately.
And I believe her battle with depression is evidence that she is both a beneficiary and a casualty of that faith’s constraint by written creeds.
And having learned just recently (May 10) through a CBS interview of Maddow’s fascination with guns, which fits with the information offered by Reitman about a G.I. Joe she owns, my sense of the warrior woman instinct that motivates Maddow is more or less complete.
Her comparison of the cameras beaming her image into televisions (and phones, as in my case) like a bullet could therefore be considered an unneccessary accessory.
Maddow was already dressed to kill, so to speak.
Coincidentally, I recently posted a question on the social networking site for scientists and researchers Researchgate, asking if it matters that Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth probably never envisaged the creation of the collection of writings called the “New Testament.
Explaining the rationale behind the question, I suggested that the answer to it has implications for “the battle of the sexes”, as intimated by Charles Dickens’ succinct denunciation, in his novel Oliver Twist, of the Victorian legal notion that men always have the final say in their marriages.
Through his character Mr Bumble, Dickens declares “If the law assumes that, the law is a ass!”
That marriage can be a kind of martyrdom, has always been clear to me.
And thanks to the excesses of fundamentalist feminists like Barbados’ Reverend Sonia Hinds, it is becoming increasingly clear that Tertullian’s belief that the blood of martyrs should be expended on the maintenance or expansion of church membership needs to be revisited radically.
How does that belief differ from the Islamic State’s, Boko Haram’s or other violence rationalizing Jihadi Joe’s recruiting strategy?
As I insist in my open letter to the theologian Bonfiglio, the family, not the church, is the primary soil in which Joshua’s New Covenant seed germinates and should grow.
Does Maddow’s and her partner Susan Mikula’s decision not to get married, mentioned in the CBS interview, suggest that they share this perspective?
Might Maddow be a “closet” Christian, despite all her claims of liberalism.
If she has retained the faith of her parents, as I suspect, might her decision to keep that to herself be an expression of her liberal, lesbian instinct.
Might she be less like Montanus and more like Valentinus: an extraordinarily gifted gnostic.
One benefit of being mindful of the cyclical, or as I like to say spherical, dimension of communication technology challenges like Montanus’, approximately two milennia ago and Maddow’s and mine today, is the peace and tranquility that it can bring to those anxious about the current global climate of technological turbulence and related sociopolitical disruption and violence.
Accordingly relatives and friends of the late scribe and oracle McKee might find some consolation in the New Covenant knowledge sharing of Prisca and Maximilla, the two women who worked with Montanus closely.
The environment in which the trinity sought to practice and propagate their faith was at least as hostile as Belfast today, or London, if you are a member of the Black and Minorty Ethnic (BME) community.
And I have previously noted that the threats of air pollution, road traffic accidents, Brexit exacerbated racism and other gender, race and religion related tensions mean that life in England can be just as hazardous as life in Afghanistan and other war zones for many of us.
Martyrdom was a distinct possibility for Montanus and his fellow oracles, as it was for all members of the emergent Christian sect in the second century AD.
Yet where the Israeli Beresheet rocket failed to reach its intended physical destination, the lunar Sea of Tranquility, Montanus, Prisca and Maxililla can be said to have succeeded spiritually.
Long regarded as a heretical faction by institutional, orthodox Christianity, the Montanist missilic message of direct connection and communication with God, challenging the need for the clerical class that eventually dominated what Ehrman has called proto-Christianity, was in fact largely vindicated in its own time and is being vindicated today increasingly, especially through comparisons with the modern Pentecostal movement apparently.
Academics like Jonathan Taplin, Director Emeritus of the Annenberg Innovation Lab at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, can also find some comfort in the knowledge that humanity has faced and survived the suppression of the unwritten New Covenant for more than 2000 years, despite the designs of succesive generations of Thiel type misappropriations of notions of interiority and privacy.
Taplin is the author of Move Fast And Break Things, a study of “How Facebook, Google and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy”.
But I think Mark Zuckerberg, Jeffrey Bezos, Thiel (or should that be Thief?) and other disruptive fast movers can usefully be viewed as extraordinarily slow moving learners of ancient, tried and tested principles.
Considers how impervious they seem to the historical principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Similarly, I am suggesting that Maddow and other mainstream journalists, especially those propagating what I call a fundamentalist feminist worldview, have been moving fast and breaking things, consciously or unconsciously, for at least a century!
And as in my landmark Fundamentalist Feminism essay, first published on the eve of International Woman’s Day 2005, and resurrected last March, with an overture to the regrettably inflexible Marxist feminist oracle Selma James, my concern is that Maddow, James, Barbadian prime Minister Mia Mottley, poet Margaret Gill, UWI’s Sir Hilary, his popish Pan Africanism preaching comrade Comissiong and other feminists or feminist sympathizers may not only be colluding, consciously or unconsciously with Barr, US Vice president Mike Pence and other Trump administration officials in a subversion of American democratic institutions but also accelerating the threat that a jaundiced jihadi, perversely politicised practice of feminism poses to women, men, the family and ultimately humanity.
My concern about the threat that fundamentalist feminism and its Pan Africanist, white supremacist and other ideological counterparts pose to human ecology, not just to women and men, is shared by the much abused British Women’s Refuge founder Erin Pizzey, who features in my FF essay prominently.
It may also be shared by Joseph “T-Bone” Burnett, an American music industry veteran who endorses Taplin’s analysis of the rocketing recklessness of the technology giants enthusiastically.
Burnett’s comments on Taplin’s text are relevant here to the extent that he appreciates the threat that too rapid technological “progress” poses to human ecology, that is, our survival as a species.
Burnett writes “Move Fast and Break Things goes on my bookshelf beside a few other indispensable signposts in the maze of the 21st Century—The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul and The Medium is the Massage by Marshall McLuhan. I pray the deepest and highest prayer I can get to that this clarion warning is heeded. The survival of our species is at stake.”
And while I have not yet read Taplin’s timely testament I would happily endorse Burnett’s comment – if I could be sure that his concern about the threat that technological innovation poses to the survival of humanity is matched by a corresponding concern about the threat posed by fundamentalist feminism and its militant, perversely political homosexual orthodoxy advocating extremes.
From my vantage point, Burnett’s musical collaboration with the artist-activist Sir Elton, who, again, apparently sees no distinction between biologically based heterosexual procreation and legislation based “reproduction” of that unique product of heterosexual complementarity raises serious questions about Burnett’s views on technology.
From my perspective, the Grammy-award winning producer Burnett’s comments, like Maddow’s commentary, may be clouded by a failure to distinguish between reality and “virtuous reality” consistently.
But that does not undermine and should not distract from the cosmological correlation and essential agreement between the title of Taplin’s book (and Burnett’s endorsement of it as a check on indecently hasty, reckless embrace of risky technology) on the one hand, and the democracy derailing, rocket wrecking risk that is one of this articles central themes.
The link should be as clear to and as instructive for the commonest clairvoyant in Israel, the US, the UK, Barbados and elsewhere as it is for me.
I note that Taplin came to my attention (or one could say landed softly or stealthily on my cerebral Sea of Serenity) through what I described in an April 2 tweet as the “#ImprecisePrecisionPassing, via retweeting” of an apparently ardent politics and comical camel-riding enthusiast calling him/herself Shai (pronounced like Chay?), retired academic Chris Salewicz and Paul Carroll, associate professor of media design at the School of Art, Media, and Technology at The New School’s Parsons School of Design.
And while I am cautious about the weight I give to my own clairvoyant capacities, as some British law enforcement authorities are aware, I am inclined to label the 11th April crash of the Beresheet rocket a lesson to the heavy footed, hardline taking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his tough talking American ally president Trump.
I believe the wrecking of that rocket, coinciding with Maddow’s metamimetic messaging malfunction at a critical moment in the socio-historical evolution of Western democracy, was a signal to the hawkish Netanyahu, Trump and other hardliners about the care needed to ensure a “soft landing” in a hostile territory.
And the metaphor extends to Barr’s reading of the Mueller report with something like time transcending relevance, given the Hebrew name of the Israeli rocket, Beresheet, which means “a beginning” or genesis, and is the name of the first book of the Torah and the Bible.
Consider too the implications of that providentially(?) aborted rocket’s ruined berthing: the implications for the Netanyahu-Trump marriage and its expected or unexpected offspring.
What precise or imprecise message might the lesbian-anchor- activist Maddow have been passing to them, consciously or unconsciously, through her cloudy commentary?
And what shall we make of the fire at Notre Dame Cathederal on April 15: Our Lady of Paris consumed amidst her renovations; the spectacle of her missilic spire on fire, crashing into a pyrotechnic papal see.
I have also addressed the tragic slaying of the journalist McKee and the hijacking of her and Maddow’s lesbianism, possibly, by gender, race and religion privateers and racketeers who traffic in the political capital of contested identies, consciously or unconsciously.
I believe McKee, like Joshua, riskes being martyred in perpetuity by Barr-like summarisers of her report to humanity.
Those matriarchal, patriarchal, Pan Africanist, Papist, Protestant, Capitalist, Communist and similar low blow landing, label leveraging thieves excell in the kind of flesh fraud fake news falsifications and unwritten New Covenant “counterfeiting” that the French academic painter William Bouguereau graphically depicts in his painting Dante et Virgil (Dante and Virgil).
As the Musée d’Orsay website informs, that painting was inspired by “a short scene from the Inferno, set in the eighth circle of Hell (the circle for falsifiers and counterfeiters), where Dante, accompanied by Virgil, watches a fight between two damned souls: Capocchio, a heretic and alchemist is attacked and bitten on the neck by Gianni Schicchi who had usurped the identity of a dead man in order to fraudulently claim his inheritance.”
If they do not respect origins, how could they possibly respect originality?
To be continued…