Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • One of the reasons I supported Bernie Sanders for president was his support of family farms against the abuses of agribusiness.  Agricultural policy and food security should be at the center of our plan for the future. This makes sense because we have a large and growing global population and dwindling resources. 

    I want to discuss an article in the February 2016 issue of Harper’s entitled The Trouble With Iowa.  This article makes it clear that agricultural policy in the United States is not concerned with a quality life for farmers, promoting food security, or encouraging the responsible use of resources.  We must find a way to end the abuses of agribusiness.

    (more…)

  • Aside from the climate crisis there is general agreement that individuals on the left don’t have to share the same religious beliefs or ideology. However, that belief is misleading. A focus on Gender rights seems to be an ideological requirement. The issue of Gender rights has become a litmus test for left-ness. A realistic analysis of our allies and our opposition suggests this ideology acts as a handicap for political success.

    A Focus on Gender Rights Alienates Important Allies

    The climate crisis is rightly a major focus for the political left. Due to time constraints and the ongoing attacks on the democratic process, there are natural limits to additional issues that can be effectively addressed. These limits have to do with our indigenous allies in the fight against climate change and their consensus, or lack thereof, on our political patform.

    No one seems concerned that our allies among the Native Americans believe there are only two genders, male and female. This lack of concern is surprising, considering that globally, indigenous people are the foundation of our fight against climate change. We’ve asked them to teach us to care for the land and they’ve indicated that they’re willing to do so, but how teachable are we if we blithely carry the gender rights banner at the front of the parade?

    Would the Left Benefit From a Narrower Focus?

    In my opinion, individuals on the left have some important questions to answer. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to address a threat to the human race, or are we establishing leftist credentials? Do we behave as friends to our allies, or competing ideologues? Do we fit the Right’s definition of the ‘radical woke’ left, or are we clear-headed strategists? I would argue that if you don’t think these are important questions, either you are not serious, or you don’t understand our opposition.

    Gender Ideology is an Easy Target for the Right

    Ideologues on the right have made their opposition to gender ideology a major part of their platform, and they are unified against this issue. They also deny the danger of global warming. So, in the minds of undecided voters, denial of global warming has become inseparable from a conservative position on gender. In this scenario, the left’s focus on gender ideology is the opposite of strategic. It is a handicap.

  • Political violence is a major concern the world over. Lately, the United States seems to be catching up with the rest of the world due to manipulation of electoral outcomes by certain actors. The chief cause is corruption and dysfunctional institutions. Fortunately, there is a new theory explaining the connection between corruption and the cycle of electoral violence.

    Electoral Misconduct and Political Violence

    Electoral violence is the focus of Sarah Birch’s book, Electoral Violence, Corruption, and Political Order. According to Birch 1 a combination of electoral malpractice and political violence fosters electoral violence.

    Conceptually, electoral violence is located at the intersection of electoral misconduct and political violence. Electoral misconduct, also known as electoral malpractice, is ‘the manipulation of electoral processes and outcomes so as to substitute personal or partisan benefit for the public interest (quote by Birch p, 10)

    State and Non-state Actors Commit Electoral Violence

    Based on data collected for this study, the majority of electoral violence is committed by state actors. It addition, the study developed theoretical reasons to believe that the state shapes the settings in which this violence takes place.

    Non-state actors might also use violence to counter the attempt by state actors to exclude them from power. This is part of Birch’s integrated theory about the context that determines electoral violence.

    Violence is used  by state actors (and their proxies) mainly as a tool to exclude other actors from political power in competitive elections , and violence is used by nonstate actors largely as a means of contesting such exclusion and seeking access to power (p 5).

    How Has This Happened in the United States?

    But how does this happen in a country like the United States, where voters have had confidence in elections for more than 200 years? Even though the current trend in the US is toward more violence, voters still think of elections as a peaceful, democratic way to provide power and legitimacy. However, due to changing conditions, incumbents and candidates are unwilling to depend on the electoral system to win or hold on to power.

    Incumbents and Candidates Don’t Think the Electoral System Will Help them Hold on to Power

    Birch’s study of other countries where electoral violence is more common indicates that this is due to the presence of widespread corruption and clientelism. Methods for winning elections in the US still include open competition on the basis of policy proposals, but they also include manipulation such as vote-buying and force.  Both state and non-state actors believe that under present conditions, violence is the only way to attain or hold on to power.

    The Main Factors Leading to Corruption and Electoral Violence

    There are many factors that lead to corruption and electoral violence and every country is different. But generally the combination of weak democratic institutions and dysfunctional informal institutions provides the setting for electoral violence.

    Elections are high-stakes affairs in states with weak democratic institutions and strong informal institutions of clientelism, patronage, and corruption. In such contexts, those in power control economic and legal, as well as political resources, such that incumbents have ample reason to fear loss of power. In addition, they have reason to fear that if they lose a critical election, they themselves will be permanently excluded from ruling, as the victors may be reluctant to allow genuinely competitive contests in future. Political orders characterized by high levels of corruption and ineffectual democratic institutions are therefore ones that are strongly conducive to electoral violence. (p 5)

    Chaos is the End Result

    If unchecked, the end result of corruption and dysfunction is a descent into chaos. Either voters don’t turn out, or they vote for things that will increase their chances of survival. This is not the basis of sound policy proposals.

    Politicians are also influenced negatively. One result is that they might become reluctant to discuss certain issues for fear of retaliation.

    Forceful manipulation of the democratic process can lead to widespread instability in the entire country or region, including civil war.

    What Can Be Done?

    In the absence of reform, the simple logic of dysfunctional democratic institutions and corruption will lead to a vicious cycle of violence and societal breakdown. However, the downward trend can be reversed by strengthening democratic institutions and punishing corruption. Knowledge of the factors Birch identifies in her book can help policy makers avoid it or recover from it.

  • We call our movement progressive. Most progressives know what that means. It’s clear to the candidates and it’s clear to the voters. Unfortunately, the Right seems to think ‘progressive’ is a synonym for ‘woke,’ and they happily use it to malign everyone, from the Democratic establishment to socialists. Progressives are not the Democratic Establishment. In addition they don’t represent the Socialist Party. However, some progressives lean toward solutions that are more socialist than capitalist.

    We Are Not Twentieth Century Progressives

    In our most important policy positions, we don’t really resemble the progressive movement of the early twentieth century either. For example, progressive reformers of that period accepted the suppression of voting rights, as well as policies restricting immigration.  On those two issues alone, we are miles apart from them. Again, this doesn’t seem to be important to the progressive candidates in the trenches. They know who they are. The Right doesn’t appear to know it however. It insists on lumping today’s progressives with today’s political establishment as well as yesterday’s socialists and communists.

    Is The Right Just Pretending it Doesn’t Understand?

    Is the Right pretending that progressives and their policies are the problem, or do they really believe it? Maybe it is a mistake, after all. Or maybe both bourgeois parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, use each other as straw men so that they don’t have to respond to the common-sense demands of progressives.

    The Church of England Thinks Same-Sex Marriage is a Progressive Project

    The easiest way to demonstrate the resulting problem in the conversation is to return to Gavin Ashenden, who with many other members and clergy of the Church of England, has left the Church over its decision to bless same-sex marriage. I don’t necessarily disagree with him on this issue, but I disagree with his analysis of the problem. I also disagree with his assumption that same-sex marriage is a progressive project.

    Same-Sex Marriage is Blamed on Feminism

    Ashenden argues that feminism is the root of the problem, and that it was always going to lead to same-sex marriage, or at least to the acceptance of homosexuality. This is an obvious disconnect. Acceptance of homosexuality is not identical with same-sex marriage. And the legalization of same-sex marriage does not naturally imply that the Christian Church must bless these unions. However, he may have a point about feminism.

    Modern feminism is a product of the bourgeois Democratic establishment. Inconveniently for our right-wing critics, progressives disagree with most of the policies of the Democratic establishment. This includes CFR and CIA feminists. They are really just meritocratic, elite hawks. That is not who progressives are.

    The Issue of Gender Rights Did Not Originate with Progressives

    Ashenden follows his logic to also lay the issue of gender at our doorstep. However, many progressives disagree that this issue is progressive. It is true that some well-meaning progressives accept it as progressive, but whatever you think of this issue it didn’t originate with us. It sort of appeared out of nowhere. That should inspire more curiosity than it has.

    So, Who are Progressives?

    Progressives today are big-picture, internationalist progressives. Climate change, food and water insecurity, and class warfare are global problems, and it simply won’t work to save privileged islands of the global population and leave others to die. Aside from being cruel and self-centered, the world is too connected for that. We all need each other.

    Same-sex marriage and transgender acceptance, on the other hand, are not big-picture issues. Their function seems to be to annoy religious and conservative men. I think it also serves to distinguish the Democratic establishment from the Republicans.This is necessary because their policies are similar.

    The statements made in this article might decrease the confusion for progressives. Unfortunately, if the Right is purposely categorizing progressives with the bourgeois establishment, they will probably continue to do so. Nothing I have said will make any difference to them.

  • After Cardinal Pell passed away, I happened to watch a 1993 debate between Pell and Father Uren SJ. Also participating in the debate were Catholic lay people and priests on both sides of the debate. (The two sides sat in separate groups.) The debate was published by Church Militant Australia. Judging by the comments, this organization expected viewers to be sympathetic to Pell and his group. I thought it demonstrated Cardinal Pell’s delusions of grandeur.

    Fighting Vatican II and the Jesuits

    As a non-CatholicI knew nothing about the debates taking place in the decades following Vatican II, so I didn’t realize that Pell was part of a faction that has been fighting Vatican II since the beginning. Nor did I know that this faction is fighting the Jesuits in particular.

    Pope John Paul’s Encyclical on Contraception

    The debate centered on an encyclical letter from Pope John Paul, which contains his teachings on contraception. It became clear that Pell thought it was his job to bring members in line with this encyclical, even though it contradicted previous teachings. His response to objections from other participants, was to act as thought his word should be final. Many of the participants seemed insulted by this approach.

    Father Uren Explains That an Encyclical Can Be Debated

    Father Uren explained that an encyclical letter is not supposed to be above debate. But Pell argued that it should not be debated at all, at least not on television. He stopped short of demanding obedience.

    Why Did This Video Shock Me?

    I am not going to argue any of these points because I am aware that this Pell faction still exists today. What I hope to do is explain what shocked me about this video.  I was shocked because I realized that the insults Cardinal Pell has given to Pope Francis were part of this old debate. Even though this debate is now more than 30 years old, this faction is still determined to keep the Church captive to its own idea of what the Church should be. It wouldn’t matter to me if not for the fact that these people have been successful.

    Hubris is not a strong enough word. Arrogance is better. This is one of the most outrageous things I have ever witnessed. And it may even explain Pell’s support of Donald Trump.

    I thought highly of Cardinal Pell when I saw how he conducted his debate with a well-known atheist, so it pained me when he publicly supported Donald Trump’s bad behavior and criticized Pope Francis.

    There was more than one occasion when he was publicly disrespectful to Pope Francis. Now we know that he was also disrespectful in private. It has come out since his death that he was the author of an anonymous letter criticizing Pope Francis.

    Pell Tries to Influence a Our Election

    Pell’s insults to Francis were hurtful to me when I first heard them. Now that I understand what was going on I can hardly believe this man would carry his fight into the Vatican and rail against a sitting pope. And it wasn’t just Pope Francis who he opposed. He opposed the Jesuits as a group. The conservative Catholics seem to blame the Jesuits for Vatican II.

    You could say that when Pell tried to influence our election It was as if the rest of us didn’t exist. Regardless of Pope Francis’s contributions to the world, all Pell cared about was this obscure debate. Pell lost touch with everything but his own delusions of grandeur. It’s embarrassing.

  • There are three main concerns that might affect the way people vote in the coming election. My thoughts on the eve of the election include: fascism versus mafia rule; The Supreme Court’s abortion ban; and the question of how people who disagree with each other can live peacefully together.

    Fascism, Mafia Rule, or Liberalism

    In the 1924 general election in Italy, Mussolini won nationally, but the Popular and Liberal Parties won in Sicily, with the help of the mafia. So Mussolini launched an anti-mafia campaign to defeat them. He started with abolishing parliamentary elections–a main source of mafia currency. The end result was a 28 percent decrease in agricultural wages. “The fascists merely replaced the mafia as enforcers of the landowning class.”1

    The Abortion Ban

    On the Supreme Court’s new project of saving fetuses from their mothers, I think it’s amusing how young conservative men, as well as old men on the Supreme Court, assume that banning abortion will result in more babies. I think it’s more likely that single women and married couples will change their sexual habits. It’s not just the fact that they won’t be able to end an unwanted pregnancy. That will probably be a very small part of it. But thanks to the Supreme Court, the possibility of maternal death has become much greater.

    A change of sexual habits will be much harder on men than on women. You might enjoy chapter three of Stefan Zweig’s book, The World of Yesterday. 2 The social expectations of his time were nothing like today. The middle class youth of that day were expected to be celibate until marriage.Zweig tries to empathize with the women of his time, but the trials of middle-class men as he describes them were much worse.

    French Catholics and Rene Guenon

    According to Peter Brooke, Guenon believed in a “great world tradition of which Christianity is simply a part. Guenon himself, in Cairo, became a Muslim, but he argued that the only two valid expressions of the tradition in Western Europe (for ‘Frenchmen and occidentals’) were Roman Catholicism (not any form of Protestantism) and Freemasonry. For other peoples other religions constitute the ‘religious reality and sole traditional spirituality’. But perhaps more obviously dangerous from an ordinary Catholic point of view is the idea that at a particular point in history, and a long time ago at that, Christianity ceased to radiate spirituality.” 3 (p. 221)

    …[Albert] Gleizes had definite ideas about Thomas Aquinas. He saw him as the intellectual personification of a period, the thirteenth century, in which the primacy of spirit is giving way to the primacy of the senses…

    Gleizes lost some valuable friendships over his adherence to these convictions, and much of the blame falls on his loyalty to Guenon.  In his last letter to Gleizes, Pere Jerome apologizes for his part in the breakup of their friendship. But then he says,

    On the other hand, you can’t be surprised that I react when I hear you say, for example, that ‘the whole of theology needs to be taken up again’, or certain ideas on the subject of the Person and of the reality of Christ which the Church does not and never will allow…

    I read Peter Brooke’s biography of Albert Gleizes as history, but not as a historian. I was sympathetic to Gleizes’s discoveries in art but more so to his Catholic friends who disagreed with him and at the same time, commissioned work and gave him opportunities to teach. But I didn’t see it as a current debate. When I first mentioned Guenon I thought he was part of an old conversation that had been settled, but apparently not. I recently read that King Charles III has taken up Guenon’s ideas.

    When you vote tomorrow, vote for a world where we have the time and the will to talk about such things.

     

    1. James Cockayne, Hidden Power: The Strategic Logic of Organized Crime. Oxford University Press; 1st edition, October 1, 2016. ↩︎
    2. Cassell and Company LTD. London, Toronto, Melbourne and Sydney. ↩︎
    3. Peter Brooke, Albert Gleizes For and Against the Twentieth Century. Hong Kong and Italy, 2001, p. 221. ↩︎

  • It seems to me the American left has some housecleaning or path-clearing to do, historically speaking.  Important questions must be asked if we want to feel confident about our course of action. Hopefully, answering these questions will supply the energy the left is lacking.  These questions have to do with the basis of American democracy and what is required of American citizens. In other words, what is necessary to preserve American democracy and what can be changed? For example, is it logical to criticize the Enlightenment, as I have done in the past and at the same time defend American democracy, which is based on Enlightenment principles? If we question the Enlightenment, what philosophical basis do we have for defending democracy? This question is a matter of self-defense today.  A main focus of the Enlightenment was to defend the right of self-governance against the influence of organized religion and the regime it supported.

    Is the left on solid footing regarding the Enlightenment? I think it’s safe to say Marxism didn’t experience the Enlightenment in the same way the West experienced it. Does the Marxist left have a philosophical basis for defending American democracy? What is that basis and what would their democracy look like? We should talk about that.

    The claim that we owe American democracy to the Enlightenment has definite implications about organized religion as well. The institution of the Catholic Church was part of the ruling regime the Enlightenment helped to replace. The Church doesn’t have that role any more, but historically the rise of democracy was at odds with organized religion and especially with the Catholic Church. Luckily, we’re not talking today about religious allegiances or beliefs. Thanks in part to the Enlightenment, we’ve overcome that inflammatory epoch. I propose that we should be talking about what makes political sense in our nation’s past, and therefore what makes sense for American defenders of democracy moving forward.

    The basic problem remains–American religion doesn’t play nice with democratic politics.  The Trump regime is a case in point, not to mention the Supreme Court. The justices are not at all conflicted in their adversarial relationship  with American democracy. As we contemplate their blatant efforts to enslave the population, it must be understood that the civilization they have in mind has nothing in common with Christian civilizations of the past. And even if it did, the United States doesn’t share any of the history behind the European civilization they claim to love. When the left resists their efforts it is truly conservative in the American context.

    By contrast, a faction of America’s so-called “conservatives” wants to obliterate American democracy. It’s as if their ‘Church’ has become the United States.  Strangely, these Conservatives ignore their pope’s efforts to guide the Church on the path of Vatican II, and instead they spend all their time and energy strong-arming a democratic people into religious obedience. Considering they don’t hold themselves to an ethical Christian standard, they seem to be cementing in place an upside down world. How can we hope to have a coherent narrative if we fail to mention such incoherence?

    Maybe because of its history, the left resists religious sympathies in the progressive conversation. It seems to me this is a peculiar weakness on their part. And what about Marxism? Not only does America not share Europe’s feudal past, she doesn’t have a strong Marxist or atheist tradition. On the other hand, the Christianity they use to oppose Marxism is not quite Christian in many ways. Americans are products of the Enlightenment, whether they know it or not. They are also religious.

    I can’t end this post without talking about the Freemasons. The Freemasons were at the forefront of the Enlightenment. Furthermore, they had a lot to do with the formation of our government. Does that translate into authority on their part?  Is this nation tied to the mythical past of the Freemasons’ and their peculiar version of democracy and religion?  Can their mythical (and secretive) past lead to the future we need?

    The point of all of this is to sound the alarm. We don’t have a coherent notion of where we’ve been and where we’re going.  Worse, we on the left are not clear about the basic assumptions of our allies. The future has never been so hazy, and we can’t afford to remain unclear about our foundations. Hopefully the political right is not beyond our reach, but at the least we can try to shape our own faction. Together we must clear the path ahead.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is one of the men who have stepped up to bristle and bar their teeth at the new sane direction the world is heading. If saying outrageous things and playing the media were enough to make things go his way he would have already won, but now he feels his hold on power slipping away. To drive his point home (his point of being the boss) he does real harm by stirring up his followers into a frenzy. He will happily damage democratic institutions beyond repair if that’s what it takes. He’s already tried to destroy the land. Bolsonaro has relished demonstrating his power over the entire world by harming everyone on it. He has satisfied his ego by destroying the Amazon, the very thing needed for the survival of the human race. He does this I suppose, because…then…he wins.

    And now he has shown the depth of his madness.  While caught up in some kind of diabolical frenzy, he publicly challenged God to “oust” him. He clearly has no conception of the sheer evil he has demonstrated as president of Brazil. Does he think he is waging war against the left, that he’s making a political statement?  Does he think God approves of such cruelty in the name of his right-wing hubris? If Bolsonaro had any self-understanding at all, if Bolsonaro knew God at all, he never would have uttered those words.

     

     

  • Accusations of leftist magic leveled by right-wing members of Congress led me to research the question of whether magic is really a leftist thing. The closest connection I was aware of was the association of the drug culture of the 1960s with shamanism. But I have always understood the Right’s connection to magic to be more of a thing. I think it would be more more correct to call right-wing magic ‘the occult’. In the end, I was not  really surprised to find that the story of magical politics in America begins by blaming the Left for the whole phenomenon. Both-siderism is apparently the handmaid of American politics, even its weirdest manifestations. This is the story of Rosicrucians, Fallen Angels, and American politics.

    Egil Asprem’s Magical Theory of Politics

    One of the first results on Google was Egil Asprem’s article about the magical theory of politics. True to historical patterns, the magic war serves a right-wing agenda. It seems the Left is only included in the discussion because it’s such a perfect target.

    The Cult of Kek, The Magic Resistance, and the Magic Reaction

    Asprem distinguished three camps of ‘belligerents’ in the magic war over Donald Trump: The Cult of Kek; the Magic Resistance; and the Magic Reaction. The Magic Resistance is where the Left comes in. He cites an article published February 16, 2017 on Medium by Michael M. Hughes, a left-leaning author and lecturer. It was entitled A Spell to Bind Donald Trump and All Those Who Abet Him. The article suggested that a ritual be performed at midnight on every crescent moon until Trump is removed from office.

    The Left’s Social Medial Coordinated Protest Movement

    It can’t be determined from Hughes’s own comments how serious he intended this effort to be. Asprem defines it as “a social media-coordinated protest movement leveraging the trappings of magic and witchcraft to mobilize resistance against the incumbent United States president and his administration.” But however you look at it, the magical resistance was hard to ignore. The first event took place on February 24, 2017. The ‘movement’ was given coverage on social media and in magazines such as Elle, Dazed, Vanity Fair, and Vox. It’s not clear how many people actually participated in the initial event, and the numbers quickly diminished. But the movement had enough participants, or enough publicity, to earn it equal billing with the Right in the magical drama. And this supposedly inspired the Magical Reaction.

    4chan’s Ominous Numbers

    But in my opinion, the most disturbing discovery in Asprem’s article is a date that connects Donald Trump’s nomination as GOP presidential candidate, with 4chan’s /pol/ board. It is possible that intelligence operatives are fueling political divisions, and the magical war in particular, including the Cult of Kek, 4chan, 8chan, and q anon. Consider an unlikely occurrence on 4chan concerning Trump’s coming victory in the presidential race. Asprem explains that there is “a particular form of playful superstition on 4chan”.

    Posts on 4chan are consecutively given an identifying number (currently nine digits, reflecting the fact that the total number of posts number in the billions). Due to the very high posting frequency (over one million a day, in 2018), it is impossible for a user to predict exactly what the last few digits will be when posting. This has given rise to a phenomenon where certain numbers, patterns, and repetitions of numbers–especially repeating digits, labeled “dubs,” “trips,” “quads,” and so on–are considered particularly auspicious. This phenomenon is related to a wider practice known as GET, by which posters on an image board would attempt to score certain integer sequences considered “special” (e.g. posts number 123456789, 1000000, or 555555555). Themes, memes, or users that frequently “GET,” or that just score many dubs and trebs, are considered special, allowing for hidden patterns and connections to emerge in the minds of users. During the primaries and the presidential campaign, a perception formed on /pol/ that Trump and Pepe memes were doing just this. For example, on 19 June 2016, a post on 4chan’s /p/ board with the text “Trump will win” achieved the remarkable GET 77777777. A web of significance was gradually spun, in the usual post-ironic way, in which Trump was divinely selected, the god selecting him was Kek, and the Pepe meme was one of the god’s many manifestations.

    Trump’s Nomination and the Fallen Angel Azazel

    Asprim may not be aware that July 19, 2016 also connects the Rosicrucians to the current political turmoil.  That is the date when the fallen angel Azazel was supposed to rise from his earthly imprisonment.

    There was an unusual scene at the Republican National Convention surrounding Trump’s nomination.

    Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions put Trump’s name up for the nomination shortly before 6 p.m. ET. The nomination was seconded by New York Rep. Chris Collins, the first member of Congress to endorse him.

    “Donald Trump is the singular leader that can get this country back on track,” Sessions said while nominating Trump.

    (It is likely Jeff Sessions is a 33rd Degree Freemason.)

    Particularly outraged was the Washington, D.C., delegation, which held its convention in March and attempted to award 10 votes to Marco Rubio and nine to John Kasich. But convention officials announced the rules merit Trump be award all 19 delegates from the nation’s capital.

    “This is an outrage, and this is a reason the Republican Party is turning off a lot of voters,” a Kasich delegate from D.C. said on MSNBC.

    After Trump had clinched the nomination, the Alaskan delegation contested how its vote total was recorded. They originally requested 12 votes go to Ted Cruz, 11 to Trump and 5 to Rubio, but the RNC recorded all 28 votes to Trump. However, the appeal was unsuccessful because, Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus said, all the votes went to Trump because Rubio and Cruz suspended their campaigns…

    The official nomination came on the second day of what has been a rocky start to the convention. An effort Monday to protest Trump’s candidacy on the convention floor fell short, but not before images of chaos unseen in recent conventions played out on live television.

  • Rosicrucians, Fallen Angels and American Politics

    Accusations of leftist magic leveled by right-wing members of Congress led me to research the question of whether magic is really a leftist thing. I have always understood the political right’s connection to magic to be more of a thing, and it wasn’t hard to find evidence of this association. This is the story of Rosicrucians and Fallen Angels.

    (more…)

error: Content is protected !!