Sunday, January 29, 2017


The aftermath of the past presidential election in the USA has enlightened me on the state of American Liberalism and, by contrast, American Conservatism. American Liberals have morphed considerably over the last 50 years in which I have followed politics. Conservatives, however, have returned to a more traditional Republican stance on many issues. 

First and foremost, American Liberals are completely OK with violent American exceptionalism, a doctrine which was once solely Conservative. The Democrats nominated a female presidential candidate who was an unabashed militarist in favor of foreign invasion and regime change. As Secretary of State, this candidate referred to Henry Kissinger, widely considered as a participant in civilian massacres abroad, as a role model and friend. This candidate's husband, when president, deployed troops to Africa and Eastern Europe without Congressional declarations. Both interventions had questionable consequences on the ground. Liberals enthusiastically supported Obama who continued to refuse the USA's participation in the International Criminal Court, which is the only global body which prosecutes war crimes effectively. 

Liberals, especially powerful female Liberals with the notable exception of Elizabeth Warren, have supported The Federal Reserve and IMF after the financial crisis of 2008, through their unquestioning support of Obama's administration. They have become bourgeois participants in crony capitalism along with Conservatives. They have supported massive privatization of public retirement funds and public utilities. They have supported the transformation of labor unions, which once had massive popular memberships, into elitist mafias with outlandish lobbying power over local elections. Liberals have supported the mall-ing of America by participating in the stock markets which support monopolies and global homogeneity. While touting multiculturalism, American Liberals support the Americanization of the planet through military and financial aggression.

Liberals have become shameless exploiters of radical feminists, undocumented immigrants and Black anarchists. These are the storm troopers of modern Liberals. George Soros, the major Liberal donor and icon, pays radical, and often violent, protesters to disrupt society through his Open Society Institute. By bribing universities with money he obtained through the violent destabilization of poor nations, Soros has fostered a dysfunctional indoctrination of college students in the USA. It is a form of social engineering which is meant to destabilize our nation. Not for evolution and peace, but for violence and discord, the tools Soros admittedly uses to amass his fortune. 

Liberals jump to defend any religion. Perhaps this is because the Liberal fans of academia and finance cannot imagine that anyone who declares their religion actually practices its dogma or precepts. How else could Liberals, who avidly declare themselves as pro-LGBT, defend Islam, Orthodox Judaism or Roman/Eastern Catholicism? I believe it is easy. Today's Liberals judge all others by their own standard of hypocrisy. When confronted with images of gay men thrown off buildings by Islamic enthusiasts to cheering Muslim crowds, perhaps they think, "They don't really mean it." Or perhaps they simply don't think. The stoner anthem "it can't happen here" comes to mind. 

Liberals have become poisoned by their own hypocrisy. The howling at and personal demonizing of those with whom they disagree since the election of Donald Trump has been a staggering revelation of the fascism in their ranks. They have become the thought police, the type of fascists whom former Liberals despised. The one-time adversarial Liberal press, rolled over for President Obama for eight years. They became the voice of presidential indoctrination. They have become so twisted by their betrayal of their own mandate to be objective that they have no idea what they stand for. All they stand for is anti-Trump, no matter what that is from day to day. If Trump stood on a corner and handed out free ice cream to children, the Liberal press would scream that he is a pedophile. 

Liberals have sold their souls to a media establishment which has become corrupted by sly and cynical billionaires with a globalist agenda. They are the Davos crowd. They have absolutely no loyalty to anyone. They are individualists and social Darwinists. Their voiced support of refugees and migration in Europe is part of their alliance with the Middle Eastern powers of OPEC. It is not charitable. It is business. Yet American Liberals are fine with that, as long as they can point to it from a position of fake Judeo-Christian moral superiority. 

The simple fact is that the most vocal American Liberals are part of the economic elite, just like their Conservative foes. Each group is grappling for the same unattainable moral high ground on every issue. The fact of their general economic superiority and comfort precludes their ever attaining any real morality based in any fair standard of human ethics. Their social outrage is defensive and phony. Their true outrage is provoked when they cannot borrow more money on their equity to spend a month in Tuscany. Their true disappointment is based in the poor handling of their BMW SUV. Their deepest emotional bonds revolve around text messages on a smart phone. Their deepest fear is someone blocking them or, even worse, calling them out on Facebook or Twitter. 

Saturday, January 28, 2017

POST No. 1501

Happy 4714, Year of the Rooster. Today also marks The Practical Humanist's passing the 1500-post mark. Like Pepys Diary in its time, The Practical Humanist is an obscure record of one man's experience of his time. Millions of writers, painters and composers work on in solitude to express themselves without notice year in and year out. This is what I call 'personal process', or a way of living, rather than 'product', something that is completed and displayed for recognition and/or profit.

I have been publishing on line since 1998, when I first registered my former domain, paulcreeden(dot)com, which is now a domain name owned  and unused ("parked") by an optometrist in Iowa, I believe. What's in a name? My first on line site was a weekly digest of cartoons, poetry, short stories and five serialized novels. I published it for five years. Then I discovered one day that my domain host had allowed my domain to be hijacked for the advertising and sale of rather seedy hillbilly pornography. An early example of Dark Web abuse. I surrendered the domain name immediately. I wonder if my namesake has taken his site down for similar reasons.

Buddha's Pillow premiered in 2006. Its 567 posts led to The Practical Humanist in September of 2010, as I began to perceive myself as less sectarian (Buddhist) and more secular in my approach to life. My involvement with Greg Epstein and Rick Heller at The Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy, now The Harvard Humanist Hub, was extremely helpful to me in this self sorting and reshuffling. My involvement with a writers' group of HIV+ men and women at that time also inspired many of my posts. 

I could not tell you why I persist in speaking to the wind in this way. I wish I could say that I have some grandiose desire to help humanity, to spread peace and love, or to change the course of human history. I try to never lie, so I cannot claim any of that. I write my posts when a voice within tells me I should. The stimulus for that voice to speak is usually some inane radio piece I hear or some other medium I read/watch. I am that voice's ventriloquist dummy, transferring its dictation to the page with a good share of typos, since my typing is atrocious.

That voice is a rather cynical old thing. I was once told many years ago by a disembodied spirit through a human medium that mine is an Old Soul. My blushing appreciation of that appraisal faded quickly when the voice told me ... in front of a roomful of spectators ... that my Old Soul is in part a foul thing which once inhabited a mad high priest in ancient Egypt who committed genocide in the name of a minor deity. Bummer. So, when my internal disembodied voice dictates this blog, I am always a vigilant and skeptical transcriber. 

Surviving HIV for 33 years now and cancer for the last 14 of those years has informed the editing of my inner voice's dictation as well. Psychologists or psychiatrists might call this an "observing ego". Whatever it is, I do wish I could find more of it in other on line work. I have never been a fan of James Joyce's stream-of-consciousness style. Twitter and other forums abound with it. I aim for fewer, more crystallized ideas, precipitated by research, meditation and reflection.

I welcome comments on  my posts, but the general lack of them confirms my suspicion that most people arrive at them by making a typographical error in a search box. I don't pay much attention to statistics. In fact, I took my visitor counter off this blog because I never consulted it. This isn't about likes and numbers for me. If that were my passion, I'd dress up in a funny costume and go on Youtube, an idea which I consider from time to time. My drag name might be something like Sherriah Hagg or Wanda Rinck Handz. 

Monday, January 23, 2017


I remember a brief Facebook interaction last summer after Bernie Sanders bowed to Hillary Clinton. I had made a statement that I would never vote for Hillary Clinton. One of my female Facebook contacts took umbrage. I explained to her that I would prefer to see someone like Donald Trump elected because he would precipitate real change. I said at that time, if I recall accurately, that I was not sure if I would vote at all. I did vote, but for neither Trump nor Clinton. I would have voted gladly for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. 

The demonstrations over the past weekend have encouraged me. I do believe Donald Trump is a change agent. I do not believe that Barack Obama was a significant change agent beyond his breaking through the race barrier in American presidential politics. For some detailed facts on the Obama presidency, look at this Stephan Molyneux wrap-up

For most people, I suppose, that was enough. I have never been racially fixated about evaluating job performance, so I expected him to do a better job than he did. I specifically criticize his failure to move single-payer health care through a Democratic-majority Congress in his first two years of office. As head of the military, he continued America's wars of aggression and regime change in other nations, despite his Nobel Peace Prize. Obama's expansion of  a corrupted welfare system, rather than reforming it significantly, did a disservice to the nation's health and well being. His catering to the financial sector was obvious after the debacle of 2008, for which no major player was prosecuted and jailed. Obama continued the Bush bail-out scam. He continued catering to The Federal Reserve and its international counterparts. 

Donald Trump is not presidential in the least. No argument there. He is no statesman. Agreed. But how well has humanity been served by statesmen in the big picture of human history? 

Richard M. Nixon was one of America's most loathed presidents. I loathed the man almost as much as I loathed his predecessor, Johnson. I have to acknowledge that Richard Nixon was a very effective president. He coalesced a limping anti-war movement. He opened the door to a non-hostile relationship with Communist China. He started the EPA. He expanded Medicare. He established OSHA. He desegregated schools. He started anti-ballistic-nuclear talks with the USSR. And more. Frankly, next to Richard Nixon, Obama looks like a president of very limited accomplishments.

Nixon's greatest accomplishment was awakening the public to the corrupting influence of power. This man who had done great things condemned himself to the historical label of "crook" because he wanted too badly to win. Hillary Clinton may have fallen to a similar fate, not as a crook so much as someone who misunderstood the public's mistrust of her and her husband. Trump's victory was not a reward for his megalomania. It was simply a better application of his megalomania over Hillary Clinton's. 

This brings me to the much overused, and abused, concept of "hope". 

Obama's election posters shouted Hope and Change in cartoonish simplicity, reminiscent of Stalin-era propaganda. Perhaps the hope that he would not make things worse was realized. However, change was not his strong point. Hope is a poor substitute for vigilant participation in government. Change only occurs when those who are presumed by the powerful to be governed refuse to be governed to some degree. Institutions should be governed (administered) in a true democracy, even in a true republic like the U.S.A.. The people should not. The people should choose policy and procedure by keeping their hands upon the shoulders of those they elect. 

Donald Trump has awakened some women and minorities to fear of being governed against their interests. This awakening is long overdue. The false post-racialism of the Obama years, made all too evident by the anger of the Black Lives Matter protests, had lulled many coastal Americans into a false sense of security within the status quo, which Obama spooned out with his calm rhetoric. As wages and benefits continued to drop, Obama calmly spoke of new jobs and a recovering economy. As The United Kingdom roiled with the Brexit debate, Obama cautioned against change there. As the U.S. military and CIA contributed to debacles in Libya and Syria, Obama preached a false gospel of restraint and non-aggressive caution. 

Trump is a creature of different stripes altogether. Trump roars at America's door. And America the Average is waking up. Those who are awakened begin to see their world as it has become. Some, like bourgeois White women, filter what they see in terms of discrimination against them. They shout for equal pay and increased benefits at a time when working-class women are struggling with an unemployed husband, working themselves at Walmart for peanuts, and children badly educated in public schools. And Black Americans have awoken to a country which has left them even farther behind. LGBT Americans have awoken to the fact that marriage and military service have not been panaceas. They also realize that their grip on righteous indignation over injustice has loosened, especially if they are White and bourgeois. 

People stumble when suddenly awakened. I predict there will be a lot of stumbling and grumbling as people in the U.S. wake up, stumble around and stub their toes on each other's selfish issues. But blaming the rooster for not waking you up earlier doesn't solve anything. 

Trump is that brash rooster. But the solutions to the problems he has made all too clear lie with the people, whether they voted for him or not. Whether the people are capable will be shown in due time. Will they stop buying gas-guzzling SUV's? Will they stop buying too many things with too much credit? Will they continue to depend on exploited non-American labor to support their materialism? Will they fight for universal health care, universal public education of the highest quality, universal fair compensation for employment in healthy environments? Will they change their habits to support a healthier global ecosystem? I have been awake a long time, and I have my doubts. 

Sunday, January 22, 2017


Why is it that people who perceive themselves as oppressed by some generalized oppressor choose to act this out in ways to insure they will not be taken seriously by thinking human beings? 

In Gay Liberation of the early 1970's, many of us fought hard to present ourselves as anything other than the contemporary stereotypes of homosexual men and women. The media would have had our fellow men in dresses and our lesbian sisters in construction gear. And there was a minority in our ranks who would readily oblige, but we tried to take the focus off them. We started speakers' bureaus, and we went out like missionaries to the heterosexual hinterlands. I think it is fair to say that the exposure of heterosexuals to everyday gay men and lesbians,  the "out factor", was the foundation of today's expanding wave of rights for homosexuals. I personally wish today's homosexuals were more worthy of our efforts. 

Protesters of various causes today have seemingly taken to the opposite tactic. They have played to the cameras with the most ludicrous and thoughtless clownishness. Protests, with the exception of the occasional riot and looting, look like elementary-school pageants.The Women's March in Washington, D.C. on January 21, 2017 was a stunning example.

My heart goes out to the intelligent women in society who have quietly liberated themselves from what they may have been conditioned to be as women by parents or communities who are steeped in ignorance, fueled by mindless conformity, religion and/or socio-economic deprivation.  I have known several truly liberated women. Their path is not easy or lined by cheering male or female supporters. They, like the Black, Asian and gay men I have known with similar personal liberation, do not seek approval or applause in parades. They have hunkered down and dealt with their own demons. They have rolled up their sleeves to change their lives rather than sitting around in pity-parties waiting for "the oppressor" to stop pushing them down.

A simple fact of life is this: Growing up and taking care of your own needs in life is hard. 

Walking down the street in a pink giant-Muppet vagina while decrying rape culture is simply infantile and frankly insane. It is even more infantile than walking down the street dressed as a prostitute and daring men to touch you. This latter approach displays some semblance of adult, albeit sado-masochistic, sexuality at least. Yet waving a red flag in front of a bull will still get you gored faster than simply avoiding the bull in the first place. 

A wise friend suggested that these women have a simple solution in front of them. They should all become intentional lesbians. What better way to avoid male oppression? My solution is more pragmatic, since I am of the belief that sexual preference is largely involuntary. I see the solution as self-sterilization. Women who may enjoy sex with men without the liability of procreation can live the life of their gay male brethren, with whom they seem quite happy in neo-feminist circles. Women without children and with education easily exceed any wage-gap limitations in the workplace. Problem solved.

The pink giant-Muppet vagina of marches is perhaps displaying the uncertainty of women about what to do with this organ. Is it a shield? After all, women throughout the ages have reveled in the fair-sex defense whenever the going has gotten rough. Is it a vulnerability? Some women seem to experience their own organ as an unlockable door, an indefensible gate. Yet neo-feminists seem to endlessly call attention to this portal with the cautionary yell, "This pussy grabs back." Why not just cover it up and carry a weapon or take martial arts classes? Is it a large navel? Some women seem obsessed with their vaginas in the way that some men are obsessed with their cocks or, in the case of gay men, anuses. There are volumes of psychological and psychiatric texts on this, if any neo-feminist wishes to read some. However, such learning may trigger a disturbing awareness that the oppressor lies within. 

Saturday, January 14, 2017


It is in the interest of those who hold power to keep people divided and thereby conquered. As the world becomes overpopulated and under-resourced, competition for those things which bring quality to human life will increase. There is no infinity when it comes to the boundaries of sustainability. No water into fine wine. The extinction of countless species by human overpopulation is the ignored (by humans) evidence of that simple fact.

Religion and the autistic grandiosity of some scientists are often cited as excuses for just letting it all go its course. God's will. Our fate. Those are the answers of simplistic religious minds. We can do anything we put our minds to. That is the simplistic thinking of scientists who have successfully cracked a biological threat or developed a program which makes a machine into a butler or chambermaid. The Big Picture is not the strong suit of either camp.

Mass migration was predicted in popular press several decades ago by strong thinkers who anticipated the growing disparities between First World and Third World (Northern Hemisphere vs Southern) populations. When those disparities became shared through global digital media (Skype, etc.) in the hands of billions who could afford a smart phone, the rush to the doors of the developed countries was inevitable. Politicians and their media groupies like to blame war and famine, caused by someone else, as the accelerators of mass migration. This may be true, only in part.

Mass migration is a stampede, similar to the rush in a discount store when the public address system announces an irresistible bargain in one aisle. Welfare benefits, health care, clean streets, bathrooms, running water, constant electricity, available food, etc.. These are the irresistible bargains which drive people to hop on sinking boats in Libya and freight trains in Central America. They are not seeking back-breaking labor. They have that where they come from. They do not understand that these "bargains" are paid for by generations of taxpaying citizens of the developed nations. 

The politicians who urge tolerance and generosity on the part of a beleaguered constituency are just continuing their malfeasance as useless parasites on the public teat. Given that they have been told for decades that worldwide measures must be taken to educate women and raise them from the poverty of having too many children, looking at their actual accomplishments in this area reveals them for the useless, self-aggrandising bureaucrats they are. They fly in comfortable jets and attend global summits in five-star hotels. They are groomed by make-up artists and stylists. They are represented by publicists. In short, they are phonies, hollow celebrities, like the aristocrats of old. 

Yes, dividing and conquering the masses is relatively easy. It is certainly easier than saying "No." to one or several of your wealthy political peers, upon whom you may have to rely to maintain your luxurious lifestyle at some future date. Ask Bernie Sanders. He certainly found that out in the recent U.S. Presidential election. The two most divisive candidates of the large initial field of competitors became  the equally disgusting choices for the American electorate. Divide and conquer.

Nationalism is labeled "bad". Globalism is labeled "good". Yet, nobody in the elite ruling class is talking about what will actually work for the greater number of human beings. Nationalism is equated wrongly with racism and xenophobia. Globalism is equated wrongly with trade and correctly with leveling the global quality of life to the lowest common denominator. Cooperation, real cooperation instead of competition/conflict, between nations on a global level is never given serious thought. The United Nations has become a useless private club for the political elite, like the E.U. government in Brussels, like the U.S. government in D.C.. 

Journalism has generally been transformed by capitalism into propaganda-for-sale. Whether you consume the processed 'news' of Symone Sanders or Alex Jones, you are consuming the journalistic equivalent of junk food. The worldwide acceptance of crony capitalism as a given is largely due to the buying off of objective journalists, who have chosen celebrity and high incomes over a duty to inform without bias. Like American doctors, who have chosen to prescribe, rather than heal, for greater incomes, journalists have chosen to be part of the surviving elite over the threatened masses. 

You see, those with education and ongoing investigation for current information based in observable reality see the train wreck of crony capitalism in a deteriorating world ecosystem on the horizon. Whether or not they acknowledge it verbally or even consciously, they realize that environmental disaster approaches. A worldwide collapse of insect pollinators, for example.  A tipping point in the pH and toxicity of the oceans. A coastal earthquake in this time of sea level rise. An uncontrollable human virus in an overcrowded population which causes mass insanity (encephalopathy), akin to a zombie apocalypse movie. Any of these is possible at present. 

I suggest that anyone reading this should skeptically assess where he/she stands in the potential eventuality of a worldwide collapse or threat. Do you consider yourself vulnerable or invulnerable? If there is no government to help you, what could you do to survive? For most of us, the answer is simply "Nothing.". This is the real danger of alienation, propagated by our government officials. This is the real danger of simply going along with a chosen partisan mindset while the real dangers to the quality of your life go unaddressed. Yes, human rights matter. But all our lives are in jeopardy when we cannot see the forest for the trees. 

Monday, January 9, 2017


Last evening's love fest in Los Angeles, The Golden Globe Awards, exemplified the vacuous and hypocritical nature of the award culture in the U.S.. These awards are foreign-press-in-Hollywood awards. In other words, they are awards bestowed by a corrupt press mafia who are deeply indebted to those who host junkets and give out preview tickets. These scions of media and the arts can hardly be seen as objective journalists by any measure. So, what do their awards mean?

In general, award galas are all held by and for mafias. In-groups award the most in, or those with the most clout within the mafia in question at that moment. This is a fleeting glimpse of a constant competition for who is at the top of that particular pyramid, or who is on the ascent to the top. But those pyramids have slippery slopes. Today's award recipient often becomes tomorrow's flunky. 

This clear light on award ceremonies makes the pompous denouncements against Donald Trump at last night's Golden Globes particularly offensive. It was rock-tossing between glass houses: Globalist Hollywood vs. Trump Tower. 

I am sure that Meryl Streep and Hugh Laurie felt superior in their homilies aimed at Trump. They took no risk in making them in front of foreign lackeys of their business. They also, I am sure, did not take into account the many Trump supporters who have feathered their beds. They were voicing the discontent of their own pyramid, which depends on the type of government-funded projects which Clinton would have prefer over Trump.

It is important to understand that Hollywood has learned to profit from the funding of film by foreign governments around the world. Governments use their production funding to facilitate their political and social engineering. China and E.U. are avid supporters of film. If you watch their sponsored productions skeptically, the subtle propaganda flow is always there in the art. Hillary Clinton would have been more likely to import this methodology for force-feeding her globalist agenda to the American public.

And what was the big winner in last evening's ceremony? La La Land, an homage to Hollywood itself. Hollywood, a land of legendary false promise where the pretty go to be stars and end up selling their asses on street corners.  

Show biz awards are not the exclusive examples of award hokum. Award ceremonies from local Rotary Clubs to The Olympics are tainted by the human capacity to corrupt any ideal with greed and egoism. Awards are used to curry favor, further careers and raise money. They are not pure acknowledgments of dedication, accomplishment, or humanity. They are far from objective measures of a person's worth to society or to the people in their lives. They are testaments to political skill, manipulation of media, seeding exploitable relationships, and securing fame/fortune which can be shone subsequently upon those who bestow the awards. Awards are sometimes investments and even payoffs. 

The greatest award of Roman Catholicism is sainthood. U.S. Presidents can be awarded by having their face on a mountainside or getting the biggest memorial library or a Nobel Peace Prize. A statue in a square satisfied earlier political figures. The reality behind all these awards is complicated and bears no glistening shine or halo when examined up close. The most sustaining human award is understanding oneself and living truthfully in the light of that understanding. Perhaps Meryl Streep possesses that award as well. However, in my experience, those who live truthfully in the light of self-knowledge are less likely to make overly sanctimonious speeches about the personal eccentricities of others, simply because they disagree with their politics. 

Friday, January 6, 2017


Lana Wachowski 

Sense 8 is a Tom Tykwer and Lana Wachowski collaboration for Netflix. It is a flashy fantasy of social-justice-warrior culture wherein eight characters are psychically linked through their simultaneous spiritual birth from a spiritual mother, or something like that. Frankly, trying to put it together coherently would give me a headache. The characters materialize in the minds of each other and have conversations with or even inhabit each others' bodies in times of danger. 

Sound schizophrenic? Well, it may well be. Or it may have something to do with the persistent references to heroin and alcohol consumption. Or it may have to do with the overuse of social media. 

Of course, all these multinational psychic siblings are buff and beautiful. They have an orgy in the last installment, a teaser Christmas special, which is meant to peak interest in the coming second season in May 2017. Yes, a psychic orgy with heroin addicts, a lesbian couple which is half transgender, a stunningly sexy Latino male couple, and various straight-ish people. Black, white, yellow,'s all good. I like soft porn as much as anyone, but this isn't deep and great art. It would make a great music video. 

I suppose Sense 8 portrays the aching need of some to merge identity with everyone. A Facebook paradigm of sorts. An Angela Merkel world, where we're all just the same and need no boundaries or budgets or rules. These characters are never really alone, even the Korean martial artist in solitary confinement. 

The visual Tykwer brand (Run Lola Run, Winter Sleepers, Cloud Atlas) is unmistakable. It is sexy, stunning, flashy...perfectly geared to the ADD mindset of a browser-based culture. He is Swiss, after all. Clockwork precision comes with the background. I assume the 'sense8ibility' comes from Lana Wachowski, the broad-shouldered Hollywood darling with clown hair, whose own transgender advocacy is legendary. She and her brother are becoming the Weinstein brother-sisters of their generation. 

On a purely artistic level, Sense 8 is a decent production. On a cultural level, it is pure saccharin for those who subscribe to the new feminism, in which every individual is a worthy victim of something or someone and The Group is invincible.  Focusing on individual choice and the responsibility for the repercussions of those choices is "mean" in that "sense8ibility". It is an invitation to remain childishly entitled and co-dependent forever. If a government were to promote this, it would be called fascist or oppressively controlling.

What is the senseless ache of deprivation which drives the movement of real-life social warriors? After all, most are from middle class backgrounds. Most of them are initiated in universities, not the harshest of environments. Many of the women of the movement vehemently identify with male-to-female transgender people. This seems strange in a feminist movement, since male-to-female transgender people are highly gender-conscious (obsessed?) and sexist in their concept of gender roles. 

I could theorize that this subcultural wave of fear of alone-ness is fallout from jihadist terrorism. But these neo-feminsts would scream shrilly that I am being Islamophobic, despite the fact that many of them would be beheaded, stoned or simply locked up in an orthodox Islamic world. I could theorize that they have caught onto the deference paid to gay/lesbian people after the AIDS epidemic and Matthew Shepherd's politically exploited execution by homophobic yahoos. Victimhood was commercialized by AIDS service organizations into a major industry which reaped profits and celebrity for some. The tsunami of public sympathy which resulted from mass media penetration by AIDS organizations and their celebrity advocates was a wave upon which gay lobbyists (HRC, for example) climbed to surf to gay marriage legislation and court decisions. They are having a harder time transposing their influence on transgender issues, which are clouded by the opposing need of a vast majority of people to accept their birth gender as organically natural. 

This senseless ache (neurosis?) of bourgeois victims in the prosperous and lethally militant U.S.A. is narrow-minded, to put is nicely. Sense 8 tries to make it sexy by psychically superimposing it on the whole planet through its hunks and hotties. The scary and sadistic bearded old White guy is the perfect villain who is trying to break up this perpetual pity-party, strewn with fireworks and lubricant. Perhaps, like Dorothy in the Oz books, these fused beauties will eventually waken to individual adulthood. How frightening. But it seems more likely they will remain children forever in a Peter Pan world of group denial and group self-excuse. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity will have to move on without them.