Wednesday, October 27, 2010

John Robert's America

Frank Zappa performs "I'm the Slime" on SNL

So, how are you enjoying the continuous outflow of noxious political ads coming non-stop from every broadcast channel on television? You say you're sick of it? Maybe even disgusted? Well, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Welcome to John Roberts' America. Thanks to the Supreme Court's 5-4 partisan ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations were granted individual citizenship, including all First Amendment rights to speech. The majority's decision said that limiting corporate spending in an election is "governmental regulation of political speech." It's a reach rivaling that of Nixon's secretary Rosemary Woods to equate "political speech" with giant wads of cash. In 2009, The Federal Campaign Finance Law restricted an individual's political contributions to $2,400 per federal candidate, and $30,400 annually to a party's national committee. By what logic, legal or otherwise, is it suddenly permissible for international conglomerates to pump billions of dollars into TV advertising to influence our elections, while a typical citizen is legally forbidden to exceed a gift of two large to his congressman? What makes the decision reek even more of plutocracy and cronyism is that the producers of these televised grotesqueries, which look like Halloween Spooktaculars, don't even have to disclose where the money comes from. If you watch these ads with the sound off, you couldn't be blamed for believing that we were being invaded by space aliens.

The Roberts' court decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, which was about the last piece of useful bi-partisan legislation we've seen lately. But acting to make the system better is not the court's agenda, and they have started a financial hurricane that has topped our nation's faulty levees and flooded the landscape with bilge water masquerading as political speech. Any group, from the Klan to the Heaven's Gate Cult, could be paying for these spots, or stains, and the Court says you are no longer entitled to know that information. How did this happen? When George W. Bush had to withdraw the name of his hausfrau Harriet Miers from consideration, he cast his myopic eye on Sam Alito. But when Justice William Rehnquist suddenly died, Bush hastily elevated Rehnquist law clerk, John Roberts, to the position of Chief Justice. His cherubic look and photogenic family can't hide an ugly agenda. Roberts is a corporatist, and every court decision concerning business regulation or tax relief  has gone the way of the company store, just as the Bush neocons intended. This nastiest of elections is but a harbinger of things to come. The stakes in 2012 will be much higher.

Conservatives counter that the Democrats brag about their record fundraising efforts during the Obama presidential campaign and that billionaire donors like George Soros regularly finance progressive causes and campaigns. The flaw in the logic is that Obama raised a huge war chest from online donors giving an average of $35 per individual. He had plenty of corporate help as well, but this was before the Citizens United ruling, and thus within established law. Credit Obama's fundraising success to a savvy tech crew who tapped the Internet's potential for seeking individual contributors, especially young voters. While the Republicans' big benefactors are readily identifiable; Murdoch, Koch, Coors, Forbes, Bechtel, and others whose splinter groups have financed the Tea Party movement, the conservatives always point to George Soros as if he were a sinister operative from the Elders of Zion. In actuality, most of the people who throw around Soros' name as some sort of international puppeteer wouldn't recognize him if he walked into the room, and before 2004, they never even heard of him. Soros was involved in currency speculation and philanthropic projects until he entered politics in 2004, with the specific intention of denying George W. Bush a second term. If the Hungarian Holocaust survivor has such Machiavellian influence, how come he couldn't pull that one off? Now you hear conservatives drop Soros' name like Karl Marx and the Rothschild's. Saul Alinsky is another right-wing whipping boy constantly on the lips of the propagandized, though I'd bet my house that the majority of Fox viewers who consider Alinsky a modern socialist menace don't even know that he's been dead for 38 years. And Soros just donated $1 million to California's Proposition 19 to legalise marijuana.

In Memphis, we have to be getting the worst of it. Wait, I take it back. The ad that scrapes the very bottom is Nevada's Sharron Angle accusing Harry Reid of helping sex offenders and child molesters get free government Viagra. But in Memphis, we get the ads from North Mississippi and Eastern Arkansas as well. Our Senate seats aren't in play, but the Tennessee Governor's race has become such a joke that I plan to abstain from voting for either man. If you believed the allegations made about candidates in the surrounding counties, you'd insist that they be immediately arrested. And the Mississippi Republicans, through their anonymous surrogates, make an issue of running against Nancy Pelosi. As many problems as our neighbors currently face, I doubt that Nancy Pelosi is high on anyone's list of concerns in the Magnolia State other than possibly Haley Barbour. One bluedog Mississippi Democrat runs ads boasting of the over 260 times he voted against Pelosi. If people hated politicians before, this relentless barrage of putrid visuals will create disgust and loathing beyond measure. People watch TV to relax, not to be repulsed. The only people pleased about this money tsunami are the ad agencies and your local TV station. They are "On your side."

The Guardian UK reports that over $3.7 billion dollars will be spent in this election, the country's most expensive ever. What's frightening is that the political parties and special interest cabals are just testing the water on the Roberts ruling. With only a short time left in this election cycle, the mega-corporations have to be high-fiving each other in their disbelief that the referees have really left the field. They not only escaped accountability, something that companies like Target had to face in the recent past for their funding of anti-gay candidates, they don't even have to prove what their ads say is true. The Supreme Court has granted them anonymity and the big corporations have reacted like every kid who grew up in the 50s just had his fondest dream come true; They're like Superman now, they're invisible. It's a short step from running greasy ads smearing a rural candidate's character to hiring Hollywood directors to film cinema verite tearjerkers for some corporation's choice for public office in 2012. The flip side, however, is the Tarantino-like expose of a candidate's secret perversions with soundtrack from the 1970s. 2012 looks to be the Superbowl of elections. People who don't care about the game will tune in just for the commercials and the halftime pop stars like Jon Voight and Lady GaGa. With unlimited corporate funds to spend, it could get spectacularly ugly, maybe even in 3-D. Just like they got Al Capone for income tax evasion, maybe we could temper corporate expenses for political advertising with fines for air pollution. The Supreme Court, with the most overt political act since Bush v. Gore, has succeeded in polluting the airwaves as surely as BP bespoiled the Gulf of Mexico.

31 comments:

Wildcatman said...

Makes me proud to be a reader of this blog! Thanks, Randy.

g said...

Nice piece, RJ. You nailed it. Again. The only thing that might turn this tide is for a change in the Court. I stop at that statement.

We'll see if we can assemble a critical mass in DC on Saturday. Will that be enough to "energize" the voters necessary to mock the big money? Wouldn't that be loverly.

I'm inclined to look for fights that can be won and the game is so fixed now that I don't want to put what little money I've got on the line. This is emotional currency obviously. It is so exhausting to experience the piling on and the piling on and the piling on of total ignorance onto the downed runner of human decency. Makes me want to just get my ball and leave the field. Game not fun anymore. Have to think I can win somehow is the fuel I need. Any way possible makes it possible, but the money behind this Republican Tea Party Demolition Squad of Meanness and Madness and Raving Fucking Loonatics is too much. It's like a swarm of angry bees in the garage. You just gotta get the hell outta there until they settle down.

Or burn the garage down and "smoke em out".

Maybe we just need to head for another Joe McCarthy moment. Maybe it has to get that bad. Maybe they'll fry themselves again with so many elected nincompoops that make W look like a Princeton professor and even the folks with IQs of 100 will say to themselves, "that guy/gal is a fucking fool! Jesus H!" -----Maybe then we get another little beam of light.

Worse than tiring now, the kind of crap that you outlined today. The whole loss of integrity is beginning to become so prolific that it is getting boring.

Anonymous said...

Don't blame ad agencies! At least not regular ones. These campaigns are created by political specialists who have no scruples. Ad agencies are held to explicit standards of truth in advertising. I don't know why political ads aren't held to those standards, too.

People should have risen up nationwide to protest that outrageous Supreme Court ruling. I feel it has doomed the tattered remnants of our democracy.

g said...

Just watched your Zappa selection from SNL. Nice seasoning, RJ. You're good, old man. Very good.

Stay alive a long time, partner. Who knows? Maybe we'll have reason to celebrate a few National things some time in the future.

By the way, as I am sure you are aware, this "National" thing will have to go at some point, as well. It's part of the problem.

Alan said...

Why wouldn't the Obama 2008 campaign release the names of the $50.00 and under donor names? If we need transparency, then release all names. Just out of curiosity could you name some of the decisions the Robert's Court has made that are so bad. I know about the campaign finance, but name some others. By the way the reason for the Citizen United decision was the government argued a point that brought into play the final decision. If the Gov. had not used this argument the decision would have been more limited.

Alan said...

Randy you believe the right is all bad and that honorable men and Women on the Supreme Court are just patsy for the right. Have you ever considered that there can be honorable decisions that you just disagree with. The Supreme Court is made up of highly respected Lawyers on both sides. If the law was black and white and no grey we would not need a Supreme Court. Their purpose is to interpret the law based on the Constitution. Ginsberg and Roberts look at the Constitution from different angles. Roberts is a strict constructionist and Ginsberg is not. That is not to say one is right and one is wrong. That is for the American People to decide. They decide through the Ballot box. When they voted for Bush got got Roberts, when they voted for Obama you got Sotomayor. That is the system that works better than any other system in the world.

Alan said...

According to 60 minutes, Justice Ginsberg & Justice Scalia are best friends. I find it hard to believe that if Scalia is as bad as you think, how could they be good friends.

Anonymous said...

'G', I can't believe that a liberal is complaining about loss of integrity. What a joke. One more thing. By saying that the 'National thing' will have to go and that it is part of the problem, are you saying that America (and all sovereign nations) must be dissolved? If so, you are beyond radical. I think that treasonous would be a better term. Tell me it ain't so.

Outside Observer said...

The Supreme Court ruling cuts both ways. Now Soros and other wealthy radicals can pour their mega-millions into the Democratic coffers as well. You seem to imply that the ruling will only benefit Republicans. By the way, read 'Shadow Party' by David Horowitz if you want some inside skinny on Soros and the Democrat Party. As an aside, you come across as an insufferable know-it-all in regard to political matters. And EXTREMELY one sided. I would say even arrogant. A little humility coming from you every once in a while would be refreshing. But, that is a spiritual issue. My interest in this blog is that it depicts the idiocy of liberalism so beautifully. Keep it up. It's a hoot.

Sputnik57 said...

Dear Mr. Outsider,
I don't know it all. Just more than you, asshole.

Outside Observer said...

Judging by your response, I should have added 'childish' when I pointed out your arrogance. Do you also stick out your tongue and chant 'nanny, nanny boo-boo, I can't hear you' at those who differ with you politically? I think that your psychological state is referred to as arrested development by psychiatrists. In fact, Dr. Lyle Rossiter recently wrote a book entitled 'The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness' that does a detailed analysis of the pathology of the liberal mindset. Read it. Maybe you can get some help.

Zarathustra said...

You liberal/progressive types really should do some research into your predecessors. Much of progressive ideology is drawn from the works of H.P. Blavatsky and her disciple Alice Bailey. They are the godmothers of the modern New Age movement which is the spiritual basis of progressivism. Interestingly, Hitler was a devotee of Blavatsky and studied one of her great works entitled 'The Secret Doctrine'. If you will look into this you will understand how Hitler came to his views on race and eugenics. His genocidal master plan began with the Jews, but was going to extent to Christians, blacks, and many other groups to get the 'flies' out of the evolutionary matrix. American progressives were all about eugenics and euthansia and were virulently racist until Hitler blew their cover. They left these ideas behind, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they just put these issues on the back burner until they can gain sufficient control on a global basis. To get a fuller picture you will have to look into the works of Blavatsky and Bailey. A book entitled "False Dawn: The United Religions Initiative, Globalism, and the Quest for a One-World Religion" by Lee Penn is a good start. The first half of the book deals with Bishop (Episcopal) William Swing's efforts to create the equivalent of a United Nations of religions that is called the United Religions Initiative. It is an effort to produce a syncretic world religion to go along with the New World Order of the United Nations. The last half of the book deals with Blavatsky and Bailey, and their modern counter-parts Pierre De Chardin, Robert Muller, Maurice Strong, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Neale Donald Walsch, Mikhail Gorbachev, Benjamin Creme, David Spangler, and others. Neophytes seldom are privy to the plans of their higher-ups. In most cases, most neophytes are just useful idiots for those who are above them. Bottom line, you neophyte progressives need to find out more about the plans of the master progressives. You might just become a little less starry-eyed and enthusiastic about your mission. Like I have said before, there will be some big surprises once the progressive's power has been consolidated on a global basis. It will be too late for all of us then. The battle is cosmic in scope and the stakes are quite high. Suspend your fascination with political bullshit for a while and spend some time looking into the big picture.

Outside Observer said...

You've done it now, Zarathustra. Sputnik will stamp his foot, stick out his tongue at you, and call you a stupid asshole. But, considering his stunted erudition, that is to be expected. You know what they say about small minds, especially in one who additionally has a Napoleonic complex. These types tend to have hissy fits when their ideas and positions are challenged. Brace yourself for a tantrum.

Alan said...

Both sides on this blog need to start thinking. Those on the Right tend to argue about the extremes of the Left and concentrate only on the extremes. The same is true of the left. The vast majority of people on both sides, just have different ways of looking at problems. The idea of open discussion is to listen to the other side and try to see it from their prospective. If we look at it this way, maybe you can have a rational dialogue instead of both sides preaching to the choir.

The Watcher said...

I appreciate your sanity, Alan. Some of the off-the-chart rhetoric is just gamesmanship, though. Verbal sparring. No harm intended. Politics is not for those with a weak stomach. Sputnik and his rad buds can take it.

Anonymous said...

Read Shelby Steele's article in the Wall Street Journal on 10-28.
A Referendum on the Redeemer

This dear ones says it ALL.

Anonymous said...

Where is the outrage in your piece about the political power (aka money) of the Unions?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:30am, you don't get it. This blog is not about presenting a balanced, truthful assessment of government and politics. It is one-sided, yellow journalistic, demagoguery that favors only the progressive point of view. This is NOT about truth. These are some of the 'by any means necessary' folks. Others of their ilk are busy right now with voter fraud. In New York they are the ones who are disenfranchising the military. Nothing that you can say will change their mission one iota. They are impervious to truth.

performs said...

I beg to differ with Anon’s comment that this blog is not about truth. I contend that it is about truth. Its writer sincerely presents the truth as he observes it and as he is moved to take a stand on it. I feel certain he and others would be thankful to have his observations corrected with greater wisdom or more accurate facts, but simply attempting to denigrate progressive political ideas in general using Corpublican/FauxNews talking points, or likening his messages to Hitler, fall far short of enlightening.
Speaking from your heart, please try to explain the motivation behind representing the utterly selfish, shortsighted interests of the basic corporate agenda. This would truly enhance my understanding why the world-views in our country are so divided.

Anonymous said...

Performs, who is pushing the Corpublican values? I am much more interested in Main St. than Wall St. The Wall St. boys can all be lined up and shot as far as I am concerned. As far as Republicans go, they are contemptible. Bush was a closet progressive and a disaster for America. It is just that the Democrats are beneath contempt. There is no choice, actually. I am resigned to watching the ship of state sink. I believe that the free world is beyond hope, but not so much because of the politicians. It is that too many people in the free world have lost their soul. The political class is just a reflection of the condition of the people. As an example, you can't blame 'The Prince of Fools', aka Obama. You have to blame the confederacy of fools who elected him. At this point, a clever Manson clone could be elected to the presidency in America. The free world is all but dead in the water and is ripe for dictatorship. It shouldn't take that much longer. You just can't out run the karmic law. We are about to experience some really extreme retribution. By the way, who is likening Sputnik's views to Hitler? Where did that come from...some spook in your head? Sputnik is merely a garden variety progressive, nothing more or less. There is plenty of wisdom to counter the progressive point of view. But, no amount of wisdom will change the progressive view point one iota. We are going to have to wait for the harsh fruits of that agenda to change the mindset of any progressives. Not to worry, it is all coming down the pike. The problem is that when it is time for the progressives to take off the mask, it will be too late for everyone. Progressive neophytes, which constitute around 98% of all who call themselves progressive, have no idea what is actually on the agenda. Tighten your chin strap. Parenthetically, I just finished reading about Robert Muller, one of the really higher-up progressives. If you can stomach it, check out Muller's view of what the future world should be like. He is the author of the World Core Curriculum for schools which has currently been adopted by 38 states in America. In the intro to this curriculum, Muller confesses that its philosophical basis is derived from the teachings of Alice Bailey who in turn received her revelations from her Tibetan spirit guide called DK, one of the so-called ascended masters of wisdom. This info is all in the public domain. Do your own home work on these issues. I was deeply involved in a New Age cult for 9 years and am familiar with all of it. Zarathustra was right to say that the garden variety progressive dum-dums should find out what their higher-ups are really up to.

performs said...

Anon you, “There is plenty of wisdom to counter the progressive point of view. But, no amount of wisdom will change the progressive view point one iota.”
Plenty? How about offering some rather than selling the assumption that it exists. Spill it, Brother. Don’t keep resorting to weird notions that there exists some hierarchy of progressives.
It is hierarchical thinking that has plagued this country for so long. Actually the whole world forever! It is the cornerstone of Laurance J. Peter’s brilliant principle (my spin on it): One who aspires to move up in his delusion-created, cultural hierarchy will rise to the level of his incompetence. Maybe I should, also, add “his corruptibility.”
So how shall relate and treat out fellow beings? And then, how do we get there?

Anonymous said...

Surely you jest when you ask me to provide you with counter-points to the progressive point of view. If you need me to do that you must not do much reading, or you don't care to look in areas that refute your world view. That is perfectly understandable. In regard to the contention that much of the progressive agenda is not known to the masses has nothing to do with hierarchy. I didn't mean to imply that progressivism is some sort of ancient mystery school with levels of advancement and revelation. Much of the progressive ideology is derived from New Age teaching, though. The information is out there. It just takes a little bit of initiative to look for it. Some of the other postings have given clues. I'll bet you this much. Sputnik is acquainted with the New Age teachings and sees their application to progressive ideology. He doesn't come out and say it, but he has alluded to it. By the way, if you are anti-hierarchy then you must be pro-freedom. If you are pro-freedom, then you must be in favor of private property and the free market. If that is the case, then it is hard for me to see how you could be a progressive. Progressives, and leftists in general, tend to prefer a command and control economy. A command and control economy undermines individual freedom. For an explanation of that, read F.A. Hayek's 'The Road to Serfdom'. You asked for something concrete, so there it is. Also, Zarathustra apparently knows something about the relationship of New Age teachings to progressivism. I happen to have read the book by Lee Penn that he mentioned. It is a lengthy tome, but does a good job of revealing the endgame of New Agers and hence, progressives. Just skip the first half of the book that deals with the United Religions Initiative and read the second half that focusses upon the New Age. That is another concrete suggestion. Let me know what you think after you read those books and then we can go from there.

performs said...

Now, look you’ve done it again: “Surely you jest when you ask me to provide you with counterpoints to the progressive point of view. If you need me to do that you must not do much reading, or you don't care to look in areas that refute your world view.” No, I seriously thought it would enhance the conversation if you actually mentioned even one refutation rather than continuing offer the tiresome assumption that it is so well known it does not require mention.
But maybe I am being unfair asking you to speak from your heart, for yourself. Maybe I have not done that for myself. My basic world view is based upon an inherent oneness of all beings and life. It is what lies behind the apparent manyness of things. The oneness is the very being of all beings, eternal and infinite in its nature. Hence it is beyond the limitation of intellect. [I bet at this point your “New Age” alarm is sounding.] Any way my experience of this oneness is that It is love and truth. Acting in accord with it, which long to learn to do, requires me to treat others as I would wish to be treated, to treat others as if we were One, loving, generous, cooperative Family. I would not expect anyone without some sense of this experience to be inspired to act similarly. However, I am convinced that all can, and ultimately will, come into this experience, and experience it far beyond what mine is at this point.
Anonymous, since you seem to be stuck on either/or thinking and balk at both/and thinking, let me ask this:
Which do you value more:
A) comfort, convenience, certainty, status, control, conflict
or
B) connection, generosity, humility, honesty, peace, contentment
There you are, six of one and half of a dozen of another.

Anonymous said...

Looking at 'A', it is certainly not status, control and conflict. I am lazy, so I like comfort and convenience. I don't care for certainty, because that takes the spontaniety out of life. Basically, I am a freedom fetishist. That is what drives everything else. Call it a weakness. Otherwise, I ascribe to all of 'B'. I have never been a corporate type. I have strong left-brain tendencies, but am actually much more right brained. I have always been a proponent of simple living and high thinking. Though I left 'hippiedom' about 27 years ago, there is something in my nature which inclines me to that vibe no matter how stringent my political views. I have always been something of a feral nature boy. I know what you are saying because for many years I swam in the waters that you now inhabit. I have just made some adjustments along the way. Driven by life experience actually.

performs said...

You (Anon) say, “I don't care for certainty, because that takes the spontaneity out of life. Basically, I am a freedom fetishist. That is what drives everything else. Call it a weakness.”
I want to comment on these two points, but first, I am wondering, being new to writing on this or any blog comments’ section, is it appropriate to comment off the theme of the blog?
There is another connotation of “certainty” that I am thinking of which is not about intellectual beliefs or opinions, but about creating stories that obscure the facts or the truth. There is a habit nearly all are more or less addicted to that wants to know the meaning of the circumstances--to judge whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, a blessing or a curse, etc. This tends to take one away from what is, here and now, and to make assumptions or presumptions about the significance of a situation. The human ego thrives on this desire for certainty where none exists.
As regards freedom, I have been embracing the notion for some years now that we are all slaves, and that the only freedom to be exercised is choosing what we are a slave to. Having the choice is often not known. Generally, one is either a slave to his patterns of thinking, wants, and ego identity, or one chooses to serve, as a “fortunate” slave, his highest recognized principles, conscience, inner guidance, loving heart. Whatever we think, say, or do serves one these “masters.” Limited freedom offers no lasting satisfaction. The limited freedom of one always interferes with the limited freedom of others. Conflicts will always arise.

Zarathustra said...

'Performs', there are spiritual excercises that will help to focus a scattered mind. You may know what you are saying, but there is a breakdown in the transmission process from mind to manifestation. Pick an object and focus your mind upon that object for as long as possible. When your mind wanders, bring it back to the object. Eventually, this should help you with mental focus and with generating coherent thoughts. If this doesn't help, let me know and I can pass on other excercises that may help.

Anonymous said...

It has been a long time since I have heard such confusingly expressed New Age gobbledy-gook. More please. It is a hoot. What else does the Cosmic Muffin whisper in your ear? I agree that it would help if you were to tighten your focus upon the Akasha. Parenthetically, it just came to me that while focussed within, you are the universe. While focussed without, you are a cell in the universe. When transcending both, there is simply being, both within and without when they are transcended...a still, silent, fluid awareness that moves in the transient while situated within the unmoving constant, also called Truth or Source or Seed Of Life. That just came through from my spirit guide whom I fondly refer to as Swami Profundinundicomemondayandevery subsequentdaynandi.

Maitreya said...

Anon 11:16 am, I think that this is what you were trying to say. We are entering the vibration of the seventh ray of cosmic evolution. It will elevate those who are currently suspended between Beingness and Nothingness, thereby allowing them to enter the Void which is the fullness of everthing. From this point, one is enabled to enter into Nirvakalpa samadhi beyond the five senses and the ego death and from there come to the realization of Advaita or the Non-dual Truth of Existence. At this point, the physical vehicle will no longer be necessary. Each initiate who successfully rides the Kundalini Force to the next evolutionary level will become a disembodied ethereal energy vortex wearing one of those little beanies with a propellor. All ethereal energy vortices who are beanieless will be seen as counterfeits, and sent back to Earth to live thousands of additional incarnations during which they must perform endless cunnilingus upon Nancy Pelosi. To avoid this fate, each beanieless being must redouble his efforts by watching endless re-runs of Deep Throat while chanting the OM to become better aligned with the evolutionary ray. This will enable him to overcome flaccidity and to become more erect on a number of different levels. Do this and you will be assured of the coming planetary initiation, and of getting your authentic beanie.

performs said...

It appears to me that I may have written about what Anon, Mait, and Zart are not yet ready to take seriously. Your resorting to flippancy when confronted with spiritual-mindedness is a natural reaction. The following is the final bit of a letter (XI) from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis:

“But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical. Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny. Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it. If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest armour-plating against the Enemy that I know, and it is quite free from the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter. It is a thousand miles away from joy it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect; and it excites no affection between those who practice it.”

http://members.fortunecity.com/phantom1/books2/c._s._lewis_-_the_screwtape_letters.htm

Anonymous said...

C.S. Lewis' writings were all in regard to Truth. He would not defend New Age fairy tales. I am sure that he would be very flippant in their regard.

The Watcher said...

The setting for the characters in C.S. Lewis' 'Screwtape Letters' is hell. The format of the book centers around dialogue between Satan and his demons. The purpose of the book was to make Christians aware of Satan's deceptive tactics so that Christians would be forewarned and not be deceived by him. New Agers do not believe in hell or Satan and they take a very dim view of Christianity. It is odd that a New Ager like Performs would use a book by a Christian and written primarily for Christians to defend New Age heresy from flippancy and ridicule.