Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part Four of Four Parts)

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Ballard

unread,
Dec 2, 2003, 6:45:44 AM12/2/03
to
Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

Parts One, Two and Three are contained in concurrent copyrighted
messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
(Part One/Two/Three of Four Parts)", respectively. I provide an
accompanying list of Wicca-related references in subsequent
copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List for Prospective
Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)", respectively.

<*> IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
on this Internet newsgroup.

H) I have ***much*** to say about Wiccan *Tradition*, a complex
and central Wiccan topic. Referencing "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham, pg. 203:
'Tradition, Wiccan: An organized, structured, specific Wiccan
subgroup, usually initiatory, with often unique ritual practices.
Many Traditions have their own _Books of Shadows_ and may or may
not recognize members of other Traditions as Wiccans. Most
Traditions are composed of a number of Covens as well as solitary
practioners.'

There are many valid Wiccan paths. Gardnerian Wicca was the
first Wiccan Tradition but many other Wiccan Traditions exist.
I believe that (due to economics) Gardnerian Wicca has little
relevance to 21st-Century United States society. I believe that
due to economic trends (e.g., increased cost of living due to
higher petroleum prices --> unaffordable cars) Gardnerian Wicca's
relevance will continue to decline in the United States as the
21st-Century progresses.

Scott Cunningham's text "Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary
Practioner" is well-known and well-regarded within Wiccan
circles. I interpret the term *Tradition* differently: I
interpret Tradition as refering to the Wiccan history and
rituals of _individual_ Wiccan Covens and also of _individual_
Wiccan solitary worshippers. (Nothing that I have said
_prevents_ multiple Wiccan Covens and/or multiple Wiccan
solitary worshippers from sharing an identical Tradition.)
My rationale is that Covens occasionally split because of
differences between members -- it is likely that after the
split, the resulting multiple Covens will have differing
Traditions. Similarly, a Wiccan sometimes leaves a Wiccan
Coven due to differences with other Coven members -- it is
likely that after the split the departing Wiccan will modify
his/her Wiccan Tradition to better reflect his/her individual
beliefs. Equating the term 'Tradition' to a Wiccan Coven's
and/or Wiccan solitary worshipper's individual beliefs
acknowledges that Covens sometimes split and that individuals
leave Covens. In addition, some Wiccan solitary worshippers
_never join a Coven_ -- these individuals define their own
personal Wiccan Traditions.

I believe that my usage of the term 'Tradition' is consistent
with the Wiccan philosophy presented in the text "The Tree:
The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft" by Raymond Buckland.

You need not be a Wiccan to have a Tradition.

Many witches (e.g., Dianic witches) have Traditions. Most
Pagans have Famtrads (i.e., family Traditions).

Furthermore, there are entrepreneurs who are not Wiccans,
witches or Pagans yet who deal with Wiccans, witches and
Pagans. These entrepreneurs gain knowledge of others' Traditions
as a result of their entreprenural activities.

I also want to provide an example. It is widely accepted in
Wiccan circles that if a person wishes to acquire a magickal item,
the person should pay the cost without question or argument
-- questioning and arguing dishonors both the item (reducing its
magickal value) and also dishonors the item's owner. Imagine
that a Magickian owns a silicon amulet of great power. Another
Magickian wishes to acquire the silicon amulet but believes the
cost is unfair and is not willing to pay the cost -- how should
the amulet owner respond to this implied insult?

This situation reminds me of the maxim 'An accountant
knows the cost of every thing but the value of no thing'. The
Magickian wishing to acquire the amulet respects the amulet's
fair value but considers the cost unfair. I believe that
proper tradition dictates no negotiations -- the amulet's
owner either should walk away without argument and without
subsequently employing proxies as intermediary agents, or the
amulet's owner should present the silicon amulet as a no-cost
gift. Presenting the silicon amulet as a no-cost gift honors
the amulet (increasing the amulet's magickal power) and honors
both the amulet's owner and the amulet's recipient.
***I believe that honor (and reputation) are powerful magick***.
I also believe that arguments, repeated hints and/or proxy
intermediaries accumulate into a dishonorable ending.

I believe this example is consistent with Islamic practice.
The harsh desert environment requires good faith relationships.
In the harsh desert environment, contentious behaviour is *not*
worthwhile and is not repeated -- analogous to not negotiating
with a merchant who has treated you unfairly in the past.

I) *Warlock* is a term that many interpret differently. To
the general population 'warlock' refers to a (usually male)
Magick-using warrior. Witch wars are _discouraged_ in Craft and
Wiccan Covens, however, and 'warlock' usually denotes someone
who has been ostracized from a Coven or a group of cooperating
Covens for disobedience to Coven Tradition or to the Coven High
Priest/ess's authority. [In some cases a Coven High Priest/ess
pairs Coven members (and their children) during sabbats.] The
ostracism that a warlock encounters includes social shunning,
denial of _any_ assistance from Coven members, and so-called
chaotic attacks (e.g., floods of annoyances, insults and small
injuries). The ostracism's goal is to force the warlock to
_vacate_ the locale where his/her former Coven worships,
preferably moving to another city or state. (In the Midwest
city where I grew up people talked about 'running somebody out
of town on a rail'.) I believe this ostracism occurs most
often in the case of a Pagan man who divorces or deserts his
partner, particularly if the partners have children. But the
ostracism also occurs in divorcing households that do not
include children, and in my locale non-Pagan divorcing men
also experience this ostracism.

Pagans sometimes refer to non-Pagans as 'cowans'. The
term cowan is derived primarily from Freemasonry: 'cowans'
were non-Masonic stoneworkers who either produced inferior
work and thus were not eligible to join or worked only in
drystone (without mortar), which apparently didn't count.
[Interestingly, drystone work can be *very* difficult because
individual stones are independently fitted and laid. Mortar
can act as glue and a filler to patch weaknesses in mortared
stone construction.]

As I stated previously, I believe that some Wiccans use
'The Universal Rule of Three' to justify 'vigilante lessons'
against both Wiccans and non-Wiccans, including ostracizing
non-Wiccan divorcing men regardless of whether the divorcing
household includes children. I find this ethically troubling.
Non-Pagans are *not* Wiccan Coven or Pagan Family members.
Non-Pagans took no binding oaths -- they are *not* oath breakers.
In effect, non-Pagans 'did not sign the contract', but they
are being punished for breaking oaths that they never accepted.
IMO a Lot can happen as a result of this unethical treatment.

J) Some people inquire why I associate *satanism* with Paganism
rather than with Christianity (or Judaism). I distinguish between
satanism, and Christianity (and/or Judaism). While some satanists
view satanism as a philosophy and/or a program of self-betterment,
many avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion --
"The Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey states that clearly.
IMO satanism has rejected Christianity's (and Judaism's) tenets and
has chosen a left-handed dominant path of its own. In that sense,
satanism acknowledges Christianity (and Judaism) by _rejecting_
Christianity (and Judaism).

My experience is that Christianity does not concentrate on
satan or hell. And in my experience Christianity ignores
(rather than acknowledges) satanism.

I acknowledge that satanism presents many faces. I have
read the _multiple_ satanism FAQs that appear monthly in Internet
newsgroup alt.magick tyagi (a low message volume newsgroup).
These multiple satanism FAQs are authored by members of
different satanic philosophies and/or organizations. The FAQs
generally are skillfully and clearly written, and the FAQs present
a laissez faire, 'to thine own self be true' philosophy sympathetic
to libertarianism and self-betterment. IMO these FAQs' quality
of authorship demonstrates that some satanists are _extremely
intelligent_. (My statement does _not_ equate to saying
'All satanists are extremely intelligent.')

Anton LaVey, founder of 'The Church of Satan', promotes an
aggressive, domineering style of satanism. I have read the five
popular press books written by Anton LaVey and IMO the most concise
example of Anton LaVey's philosophy is the essay 'Nonconformity --
Satanism's Secret Weapon' in "The Devil's Notebook" by Anton LaVey.
[ISBN 0-922915-11-3, pp. 63-65.] _That essay discusses the satanist
as master in a throng of weak-willed slaves._

I also observe many individuals in my locale (not necessarily
satanists) _adopting and extending_ Anton LaVey's dominant
satanic attitudes. These individuals' behaviour adversely affects
my locale's social climate, and satanism is one catalyst motivating
these individuals' behaviour. Economic issues are another catalyst
motivating these individuals' behaviour.

My perception is that satanism affects 21st Century society more
as a dominance attitude/philosophy than as a religion. IMO
21st Century society is growing poorer, and some peoples' response
is to embrace the dominance philosophy/attitude contained within
satanism. IMO satanists believe that people naturally submit to
authority, and believe that people naturally will submit to the
(perceived) authority of dominant satanists. IMO judicious authority
is not necessarily bad, but satanic philosophy implements 'To thine
own self be true', _not_ fair or equal treatment. Unfair and/or
unequal treatment are catalysts for social friction and chaos.
_And people can use chaos to further selfish personal agendas._

Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan', a fact
that associates his popular press texts with 'The Church of Satan'.
Earlier I mentioned satanism's 'left-handed dominant path'.
The following quotation from "The Satanic Bible" by Anton
Szandor LaVey (founder of 'The Church of Satan'), c1969,
ISBN 0-380-01539-0, pg. 52 illustrates this association:

"The Satanic religion has not merely lifted the coin -- it has
flipped it over completely. Therefore, why should it support
the very principles to which it is completely opposed by
calling itself anything other than a name which is totally in
keeping with the _reversed_ doctrines which make up the
Satanic philosophy? Satanism is not a white light religion;
it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal --
all of which is ruled by Satan, the personification of the
Left Hand Path."

'The Temple of Set', is a 1975 offshoot of 'The Church of
Satan'. Currently I have not reviewed any popular press literature
written by _officially acknowledged_ members of 'The Temple of Set'.
The "alt.satanism Frequently Asked Questions" message periodically
issued by bobo...@satanservice.org (tyaginator) [sometimes
satanservice.org@boboroshi (tyaginator)] on Internet newsgroup
alt.magick.tyagi _purports_ to present the 'TEMPLE OF SET
FREQUENTLY-ASKED QUESTIONS -- Satanism (FAQ)' written by
Michael A. Aquino (founder of 'The Temple of Set') and updated
by Roger Whitaker. That document states:

"[This was the case of the Temple of Set as a whole, which
from 1966 to 1975 - as the Church of Satan - was exploring the
Left-Hand Path from within J/C terminology.]"

But the referenced document does _not_ define 'Left-Hand Path'
either in terms of Judaic/Christian terminology or as used by
"The Temple of Set".

Balanone <bal...@xeper.org> apparently _is_ a recognized member
of 'The Temple of Set' and periodically issues "Balanone's Temple
of Set FAQ" on Internet newsgroup alt.magick.tyagi. The
September 9, 2003 issuance of that message states:

'"Left Hand Path" indicates that the path followed by Setians
is one of concentration and refinement of the self, leading toward
more and more individuality and more and more individualism, as
opposed to the Right Hand Path goals of growing toward some
_outwardly determined standard_ (emphasis added).'

and

"The Left Hand Path is the tradition of _spiritual dissent_
(emphasis added). It is a process of using the ideas and actions
of the Seeker to create or realize an immortal, individual,
potent, and powerful essence that will survive death. The
Left Hand Path is the quest for personal immortality, won by
hard effort _without grace of gods_ (emphasis added), even of
our role model, Set."

IMO "immortality" is a vague term. Immortality might be
considered a recognized individual contribution to the human
knowledge, arts and/or philosophy; or immortality might be
considered one's biological children. Yet I feel compelled to
point out that Biblically, 'the original sin' occured when in
the Garden of Eden the serpent (IMO a personification of satan)
led Eve to sexual knowledge. And The Ten Commandments
(Exodus 20:1-17; acquired after the Hebrews had fled Egypt)
include "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not
covet your neighbor's house; your shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant,
or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

I mention the Garden of Eden because Judaism and Christianity
(and IMO Islam) link the Garden of Eden, satan, and poverty. Both
Judaism and Christianity teach that Adam and Eve were expelled
from the idyllic Garden of Eden to earn their bread by the sweat
of their brows. The Islamic religion (like satanism) uses the
goat to symbolize satan. Islam historically blames the goat for
stripping the bark from the trees that protected and stabilized
the agricultural lands of the Middle East. Denuded of bark by
goats, the trees died. Then the arid impoverishing desert invaded
the agricultural lands and impoverished the people. IMO Islam
blames satan's trickery for causing Adam and Eve's expulsion from
the Garden of Eden and for the resultant impoverishment of the
Islamic faithful on Earth.

I mention The Ten Commandments (an "outwardly determined
standard"?) because the Hebrews received them during their flight
from slavery in Egypt. The September 9, 2003 issuance of
"Balanone's Temple of Set FAQ" also states: "Set is the most
ancient name for the Prince of Darkness, given to the Prince of
Darkness in ancient (pre-dynastic) Egypt. Whether Set exists as
an independent metaphysical being, or whether he's a symbol for
man's most individualistic attributes, is a topic always under
discussion somewhere in the Temple of Set."

In the 21st Century many people question the importance of
textual references. That something has been published
indicates that a publisher has judged that the content
financially merits publication, and indicates that a
copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content --
rough indications of content quality control.

IMO website URLs are *not* acceptable as scholarly references.
Revising webpage content is as difficult as revising a form
letter, and a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained
for later public scrutiny. (Remember the character Winston
rewriting history to fit current events in George Orwell's novel
"1984"?) In addition, offsite web hosting services are not expensive
-- IMO the existence of a website does not imply a significant
financial (or quality) commitment.

I have identified two popular press texts written by
_acknowledged_ members of 'The Temple of Set' (and additional
popular press texts written by their coauthors). Both of
these texts are termed 'out-of-stock, hard-to-find' texts
that might require 1-2 months or longer for delivery. I
choose not to further discuss 'The Temple of Set' at this time.

IMO satanic concepts permeate 21st Century popular culture
and broadcast entertainment. I urge anyone who doubts this
statement to view the VCR tape "Haxan: Witchcraft Through The
Ages" by director Benjamin Christensen. This 1929 film depicts
witches as brides of satan (women who have made a binding
commitment to satan) and is laden with 1929's satanic concepts.
View "Haxan: ...", compare its satanic concepts with 21st Century
popular culture and broadcast entertainment, and judge for
yourself whether satanic concepts permeate 21st Century popular
culture and broadcast entertainment.

I also want to state that IMO a binding commitment to satan
(like legal marriage) is severable (like legal divorce). The
strongest bonds in 21st Century society are financial bonds.
IMO in the 21st Century a binding commitment to satan can
be broken *at some cost*. The magnitude of that cost depends
upon the friendly resources the bound individual has --
friendly resources do not cost.

A baptized inactive Methodist, I view satanism as a cultural
influence rather than a religious influence. My views of satanism
are tempered by the fact that I have traveled on three continents
and personally have viewed several different cultures. My views
of satanism also are tempered by the fact that I matured in the
late 1960's / early 1970's, a time of a diverse and dynamic
counterculture emergence in the United States. These experiences
affect my cultural opinions, including my opinion of satanism.

I (simplistically?) view satanism as a culture that states
"Most people automatically submit to authority" -- i.e., most
people take the easy (submissive) right-hand path. Satanists
use dominance to assert their authority and to force other
people to submit to their wishes. This is my (simplistic?) view
of satanism's dominant, left-hand path, but this view is
reinforced by popular language usage in my locale. In my locale,
many people equate the exclamation "Right!" to "Submit!" -- e.g.,
individuals attempting to win an argument use the exclamation
"Right!" at every opportunity, much as dwelling seekers in my
locale emphasize the (aforementioned) exclamation "You two!"
In pugnacious encounters between males in my locale, the aggressor
male often will attempt to 'she it' -- that is, to force the other
male to live like a submissive sissy. Dominant females in my locale
sometimes use repeated nuisance calls to the police and to social
service agencies in efforts to 'she it' (cow) their neighbors.
Dominant individuals also have been known to make nuisance calls
to the IRS triggering unwarranted (and timewasting) income tax
audits. These 'she it' examples are good reasons not to covet your
neighbors' spouse or property.

My observations of diverse cultures cause me to believe that
all cultures are not equal -- some cultures have greater
cultural substance, integrity and value than others. My
observations of diverse cultures also have taught me that
all cultures are not equally suitable to my personal goals
and desired lifestyle.

The 1960's / 1970's was an era when the United States was a
cultural 'melting pot' -- immigrants to the United States were
expected to become members of a strong and homogeneous
United States society. One of the issues of the 1960's / 1970's
United States counterculture emergence was that subcultural
groups had the right to determine their own subculture. This
issue increasingly is accepted in the 21st Century United States,
but the issue was very controversial in the 1960's / 1970's.

I find satanism's dominant subculture personally *not* appropriate.
IMO the right to define one's own personal culture includes the
right to exclude aspects of other's cultures from one's own
personal culture. Satanists dogmatically dominate and often
attempt to insert satanic concepts into other peoples' personal
culture -- an infringement upon other peoples' right to define
their own cultures.

At the same time, individuals must deal with the dominant satanic
concepts and attitudes that increasingly permeate 21st Century
United States society. (As the United States' domestic economy
continues to downsize, so-called 'cutthroat businesses' will assert
their own types of dominance when dealing with employees. And
beleaguered employees might respond with their own dominant actions.
Regardless of the victor, the consumer ultimately will pay the cost.)
Dealing with these dominant satanic attitudes often requires that
individuals assert greater personal dominance than they
otherwise would.

What is the difference between being a dominant satanist and
rebuffing dominant satanic attitudes and behaviour through your own
personal dominance? IMO the difference is that you choose your
friends -- an individual should not have to assume dominant attitudes
and behaviour to cope with friends. And ultimately a person draws
the line at his/her residence's front door.

Some people question the appropriateness of my providing _any_
comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
believe that detachment is valuable -- _not_ having vested interests
can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
information can be ignored with little effort***. I do _not_ tell
people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
newsgroups threatens no one.

*****End of Part Four*****

The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).

I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.

I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Combatting Cult Mind Control"
by Steven Hassan

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 11:05:58 AM1/14/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.

Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

Parts One, Two and Three are contained in concurrent copyrighted
messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
(Part One/Two/Three of Four Parts)", respectively. I provide an
accompanying list of Wicca-related references in subsequent
copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List for Prospective
Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)", respectively.

IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.


On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
on this Internet newsgroup.

H) I have ***much*** to say about Wiccan *Tradition*, a complex
and central Wiccan topic. Referencing "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham, pg. 203:
'Tradition, Wiccan: An organized, structured, specific Wiccan
subgroup, usually initiatory, with often unique ritual practices.
Many Traditions have their own _Books of Shadows_ and may or may
not recognize members of other Traditions as Wiccans. Most
Traditions are composed of a number of Covens as well as solitary
practioners.'

<*> There are many valid Wiccan paths. Gardnerian Wicca was the


first Wiccan Tradition but many other Wiccan Traditions exist.
I believe that (due to economics) Gardnerian Wicca has little
relevance to 21st-Century United States society. I believe that
due to economic trends (e.g., increased cost of living due to

higher energy prices --> the new poor can afford to heat the
house or can afford to feed the car, but not both) Gardnerian

and

<*> I have made several comments concerning juvenile nutrition and
impoverished women's responsibility to raise their children. My
comments reflect my situation: I am a single man with no living
children and I do not want to argue feminist issues. But in my
locale, most often I observe impoverished children accompanied by
their mothers. This observation makes me believe that in 21st Century
United States society, the responsibility for raising impoverished
children most often falls upon their mothers.

<*> IMO the continued United States occupation of Iraq makes this
issue increasingly important. I believe that the United States
occupation of Iraq is a long-term police action that will continue
to heavily load the Armed Forces Reserve and the state National
Guard units, and that might reinitiate Selective Service drafting
of young men (including married men). I believe this long-term
police action will cause the breakup of many (military) families,
leaving many women "Separated or Divorced With Children" in a
downsized United States domestic economy offering few high-paying
jobs either to men or to women. Credit cards offer limited credit,
and home equity stretches only so far.

<*> Money spent rebuilding Iraq is not building new jobs, new
opportunities and better education in the United States. The
outsourcing of United States jobs to foreign countries (e.g.,
contract manufacturing to the Pacific Rim nations, and outsourcing
of computer programming and of telephone customer service jobs
to India with its quality education system and its significantly
lower cost-of-living) is very common in the currently downsizing
United States economy. (At the same time, the nation of Mexico
is a good neighbor that provides petroleum to the United States
in return for NAFTA jobs.)

<*> I believe that the true cost of the United States occupation
of Iraq will be paid in broken families, lost homes and several
generations of impoverished United States citizens.

*****End of Part Four*****

The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).

I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.

I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com

Last book reviews: "Necronomicon" & "Necronomicon Spellbook"
by Ed Simon

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 1:56:55 PM1/14/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.

Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

In article <20040114110535...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

>Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.


>Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
>Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
>with a <*> marker.
>
>Parts One, Two and Three are contained in concurrent copyrighted
>messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
>(Part One/Two/Three of Four Parts)", respectively. I provide an
>accompanying list of Wicca-related references in subsequent
>copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List for Prospective
>Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)", respectively.
>

>IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
>On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
>"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
>on this Internet newsgroup.

<snip>

>Some people question the appropriateness of my providing _any_
>comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
>believe that detachment is valuable -- _not_ having vested interests
>can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
>information can be ignored with little effort***. I do _not_ tell
>people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
>their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
>upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
>and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
>newsgroups threatens no one.
>

<*> IMO history often can be explained in terms of economics,
and similar economics brings similar societal responses. IMO
the United States today faces an economic situation similar to
the situation faced during the latter parts of former President
Lyndon B. Johnson's Administration. During President Johnson's
time, the United States economy had been drained by long
involvement in the Vietnam War. Today the United States economy
has been drained by involvement in Bosnia, in Afghanistan and
now in Iraq. At the same time, today the United States has greater
dependence upon foreign nations for energy and for manufactured
goods -- both economic weaknesses.

<*> My own personal political philosophy is capitalistic because
I believe in meritocracy. But people seek different political
solutions during troubled economic times. Already United States
citizens look to socialized medicine and to Canadian pharmaceuticals
in an effort to reduce their health care costs. And rapidly
increasing gasoline prices (my local television newscaster is
speculating about $3.00US per gallon gasoline this summer) will
_radically_ change some peoples' lifestyles for the worse. Marxism,
a set of political philosophies born from harsh economic conditions,
had vocal advocates during the Vietnam War era -- those Vietnam
protests were more than 'flower power'.

<*> IMO worsening economics during the United States occupation
of Iraq _will_ cause increased United States' citizenry interest in
Marxist political philosophies (particularly in college students).
This increased interest in Marxist political philosophy _will_ raise
concern in anti-terrorism and Homeland Security circles (been there,
seen that), and might raise civil liberties issues inside the
United States.

<*> I have referred to the United States' occupation of Iraq as
'a police action' (much as the United States' long involvement
in Korea often is called a police action). IMO the term
'police action' is appropriate for another reason. United States
involvement in Somalia and then in Bosnia were peacekeeping
missions. In these missions United States military forces performed
police functions and evolved techniques to militarily pacify/police
_entire countries_. The United States' occupation of Iraq began
with war but has evolved into a pacifying police action. The
techniques the United States military uses to pacify entire
countries continue to evolve in Iraq.

<*> If a United States citizenry interest resurgence in Marxist
political philosophies raises antiterrorism and Homeland Security
concerns, IMO United States Armed Forces might play a greater role
in quelling political protest within the United States than the
Armed Forces performed during the Vietnam War era (despite the
current existence of the Federal 'Posse Comitas Act').

*****End of Part Four*****

The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).

I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.

I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 7:05:57 PM1/14/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.

Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

In article <20040114135648...@mb-m11.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

>Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.


>Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
>with a <*> marker.
>

>In article <20040114110535...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
>rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
>

>>Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.


>>Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
>>Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
>>with a <*> marker.
>>
>>Parts One, Two and Three are contained in concurrent copyrighted
>>messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
>>(Part One/Two/Three of Four Parts)", respectively. I provide an
>>accompanying list of Wicca-related references in subsequent
>>copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List for Prospective
>>Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)", respectively.
>>

>>IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
>>On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
>>"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
>>on this Internet newsgroup.

<snip>

>>Some people question the appropriateness of my providing _any_
>>comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
>>believe that detachment is valuable -- _not_ having vested interests
>>can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
>>information can be ignored with little effort***. I do _not_ tell
>>people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
>>their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
>>upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
>>and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
>>newsgroups threatens no one.
>>

<*> IMO other factors that weaken the current United States
domestic economy are the emphasis on Homeland Security since
the tragic events of September 11, 2001; and the recent emphasis
on computer software security upgrades.

<*> Security does _not_ produce a salable service or product --
at its best, security facilitates "business and life as usual".
Since 9/11/2001 the United States has invested heavily in
Homeland Security activities. This Homeland Security investment
is necessary, but the investment does _not_ produce salable goods
or services. Instead the investment drains resources from
productive activities and weaken the United States domestic
economy.

<*> The "Year 2000 Computer Software Modifications" are analogous
to our current Homeland Security activities. The Year 2000 Computer
Software Modifications permitted computers and communications
to operate normally beyond January 1, 2000, but these modifications
did _not_ produce additional salable goods or services. The Year 2000
Computer Modifications cost approximately one percent of one year's
United States Gross National Product, resources drained from
productive activities.

<*> I do not know the (direct and indirect) costs of
Homeland security, but IMO Homeland Security activities
weaken the United States domestic economy in an analogous
(and continuing) manner. And many Homeland Security activities
are labor-intensive -- mechanized savings opportunities are minimal.

<*> The last five years also have featured a flood of Internet-based
attacks on computer software, and a flood of effort to counter
these attacks quickly and economically. IMO real progress has
been made in this area. Increasingly computer software security
upgrades are made automatically over the Internet, and the
increased mechanization is quick and economical. Computer
software security upgrades also are a continuing expense, but
their cost is being reduced by user education (e.g., avoid bad
Internet websites) and by increased mechanization.

<*> IMO, United States recent involvement in Bosnia, in Afghanistan
and Iraq, coupled with the expense of imported petroleum and
manufactured goods, continuing Homeland Security activities
and continuing computer software security upgrade activities has
burdened the United States domestic economy equivalent to the
economic burden the United States faced during the Vietnam War
at the end of former President Lyndon B. Johnson's Administration.

<*> Summarizing, many factors contribute to the current weak
United States domestic economy. A weak domestic economy produces
few new jobs, and produces poverty rather than affluence.
Impoverished people have fewer options, and impoverished
people seek political remedies. IMO the current weak United States
domestic economy could trigger protests similar to the Vietnam War
protests. In Iraq and elsewhere the United States military is
evolving techniques that might be used to suppress these protests.
Military and police using these techniques (including domestic
surveillance without Court-issued warrants) might restrict civil
liberties (including freedom of speech and freedom of worship)
through intimidation, entrapment, selective enforcement of
existing regulations and laws, anonymous defamation of
character and reputation, and chaotic implementation of
Murphy's Law.

*****End of Part Four*****

The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).

I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.

I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com

Medusa

unread,
Jan 14, 2004, 8:49:12 PM1/14/04
to
What the fuck are you babbling about? What does 9/11 have to do with Wicca?
Are you insinuating that Wiccans are to blame for poverty, war, and the bad
economy?

In other words, "So, waddaya tryin' ta say?"

Medusa Slox

"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote this crap

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 15, 2004, 8:53:29 AM1/15/04
to
In article <bu4ris$dnrdr$1...@ID-221003.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Medusa" <f...@foo.com> writes:

>What the fuck are you babbling about? What does 9/11 have
>to do with Wicca? Are you insinuating that Wiccans are
>to blame for poverty, war, and the bad economy?

I was discussing how bad economic conditions might cause
Government to restrict civil liberties, including
Freedom of Worship.

>In other words, "So, waddaya tryin' ta say?"
>
>Medusa Slox

Bad economic conditions reduce both individuals' lifestyle
options and also Government liberalism and largesse. In
order to "keep the lights on", individuals sometimes are
forced to accept situations they normally would reject.
(Have you read John Steinbeck's classic novel
"The Grapes Of Wrath"?) In order to maintain domestic
tranquility, Government might seek to restrict civil
liberties. (Again, have you read John Steinbeck's classic
novel "The Grapes Of Wrath"?)

The solution? I can not speak for Government, but an
individual who lives frugally is not forced by extravagence
into surrendering their civil liberties.

My Italian grocer friend has a saying that translates to
"First we eat". This holds true even in wartime. A strong
force can be starved into surrender. Do you remember
reading about "The Berlin Airlift" conducted by the
United States after World War II? The Soviets had blockaded
Berlin from resupply in an attempt to force the Western
allies (the United States, England and France) to surrender
their Berlin sectors to the Soviets. President (and former
Five Star General) Dwight D. Eisenhower instituted the Berlin
Airlift -- a mission to supply Berlin's needs via aircraft.
We did not submit, the Berlin Airlift kept Berlin alive (I
remember newsreel footage that showed aircraft landing and
taking off with almost as much frequency as cars entering
an Interstate Highway), and the Soviets finally stopped
their blockade attempt.

More below.

>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote this crap
>

Zsarnok

unread,
Jan 18, 2004, 9:19:26 PM1/18/04
to
Welcome to the frustration of trying to find sense in a RB post.

Zsarnok

Medusa

unread,
Jan 18, 2004, 9:21:35 PM1/18/04
to
BTDT. He just doesn't know it yet. :) I broke him once.

--
Medusa Slox
"Zsarnok" <zs...@nok.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:O8HOb.14527$i4.1...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 18, 2004, 10:50:06 PM1/18/04
to
In article <buff01$h1j4d$1...@ID-221003.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Medusa" <f...@foo.com> writes:

>BTDT. He just doesn't know it yet. :) I broke him once.

Odd, I feel remarkably whole.

More below.

>--
>Medusa Slox
>
>"Zsarnok" <zs...@nok.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:O8HOb.14527$i4.1...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Welcome to the frustration of trying to find sense in a RB post.
>>
>>Zsarnok
>>
>>Medusa wrote:
>>
>>>What the fuck are you babbling about? What does 9/11 have to do with Wicca?
>>>Are you insinuating that Wiccans are to blame for poverty, war, and the bad
>>>economy?
>>>
>>>In other words, "So, waddaya tryin' ta say?"
>>>
>>>Medusa Slox

Tersely, I am saying that Homeland Security reactions to the
tragic events of September 11, 2001 and other events have
the potential to threaten civil liberties within the United States.

I also am saying that in a domestic United States economy
burdened by high energy, defense and security costs,
impoverished people have fewer options. I am disappointed
that poverty is not a high visibility issue in this season's
Presidential election politics.

Zsarnok

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 10:12:10 PM1/19/04
to
So that's what happened.... ;)

Zsarnok

Ze alluring ailurophile

unread,
Jan 19, 2004, 10:16:59 PM1/19/04
to
>From: Zsarnok zs...@nok.earthlink.net


Haha! It's true! She broke him sooooo beyond repair. She had him skipping
around all over the place!


Zsarnok

unread,
Jan 20, 2004, 10:39:53 PM1/20/04
to
Oh! Well duh, and welcome back.

Zsarnok

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 26, 2004, 10:24:32 AM1/26/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040114110535...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

>Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
>Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
>Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
>with a <*> marker.
>
>Parts One, Two and Three are contained in concurrent copyrighted
>messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
>(Part One/Two/Three of Four Parts)", respectively. I provide an
>accompanying list of Wicca-related references in subsequent
>copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List for Prospective
>Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)", respectively.
>
>IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
>On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
>"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
>on this Internet newsgroup.

<snip>

>I) *Warlock* is a term that many interpret differently. To
>the general population 'warlock' refers to a (usually male)
>Magick-using warrior. Witch wars are _discouraged_ in Craft and
>Wiccan Covens, however, and 'warlock' usually denotes someone
>who has been ostracized from a Coven or a group of cooperating
>Covens for disobedience to Coven Tradition or to the Coven High
>Priest/ess's authority. [In some cases a Coven High Priest/ess
>pairs Coven members (and their children) during sabbats.] The
>ostracism that a warlock encounters includes social shunning,
>denial of _any_ assistance from Coven members, and so-called
>chaotic attacks (e.g., floods of annoyances, insults and small
>injuries). The ostracism's goal is to force the warlock to
>_vacate_ the locale where his/her former Coven worships,
>preferably moving to another city or state. (In the Midwest
>city where I grew up people talked about 'running somebody out
>of town on a rail'.) I believe this ostracism occurs most
>often in the case of a Pagan man who divorces or deserts his
>partner, particularly if the partners have children. But the
>ostracism also occurs in divorcing households that do not
>include children, and in my locale non-Pagan divorcing men
>also experience this ostracism.

<*> In my locale, feminists often speak of 'shame man ism'
(a word play on the term 'shamanism') as a process intended
to force a warlock (or other seemingly unsympathetic male)
back into the fold. 'Shame man ism' is an organized process
of social shunning by feminists and their sympathetic (?)
partners and family members.

<*> In my locale the goal of 'shame man ism' is summarized by
one of our civic ordinances: "No dogs without leashes".
A single male with no living children is remarkably free,
a status that troubles some less fortunate individuals.

<*> 'Shame man ism' is one area where magick and science
overlap, specifically in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle. 'Shame man ism' causes changes, however the
shunners do not always appreciate the direction those changes
take. Once a person is shunned, that person has little reason
not to speak openly and frankly about perceived social inequities.
And being the target of organized shunning permanently changes
the target individual's perception of the shunning community,
the community's values, and _the community's current and
future value_.

<*> Some people might question the existence of organized
social shunning. Historically, shunning has been used in
_(para)military organizations_ (nobody covers your back);
English boy's schools; rough sports teams (e.g., football,
rugby, ice hockey -- again, nobody covers your back); and
in communal societies (e.g., the Mormons and the Oneida
Community). In communal societies situated in harsh
environments, extreme shunning can result in death from
starvation, dehydration or exposure to freezing weather --
you can't come in out of the cold. In magickal circles,
warlocks (so-called oath breakers) routinely are shunned
by the overall magickal community. In my locale, divorced
men (especially those with living children) often are treated
as oath breakers regardless of the situations motivating
the divorce.

<*> Some people might question apparent cavalier responses
to organized social shunning. I acknowledge that humans
are social beings and that humans prefer good companionship.
But good companionship is defined by the individual, and
definitions change with experience.

<*> I explain cavalier response to social shunning using
the backpacker analogy. The backpacker walks towards the
horizon. If the backpacker chooses to look backwards, the
people and things the backpacker leaves behind appear
ever smaller as time passes. Now, if the backpacker's
friends, relatives and associates shun the backpacker, these
people's collaborative social shunning makes them appear
_even smaller_ to the backpacker in terms of personal integrity,
in terms of potential trouble, and also in terms of
_questionable future value_ as good companions. And if
these people are shunning the backpacker, why should
the backpacker bother to look backwards as s/he walks
towards the horizon?

<*> Increasingly in 21st Century society, the unraveling of the
"social safety net" provided by Government has popularized
socialism political concepts -- many people feel that fortunate
individuals are bound to invite less fortunate people to live
within their private homes. My reaction to these socialism
political concepts is twofold. First, the concepts are contrary
to the individual civil liberties guaranteed by the United States
Constitution. Second, nothing kills charity faster than coercion.

>Pagans sometimes refer to non-Pagans as 'cowans'. The
>term cowan is derived primarily from Freemasonry: 'cowans'
>were non-Masonic stoneworkers who either produced inferior
>work and thus were not eligible to join or worked only in
>drystone (without mortar), which apparently didn't count.
>[Interestingly, drystone work can be *very* difficult because
>individual stones are independently fitted and laid. Mortar
>can act as glue and a filler to patch weaknesses in mortared
>stone construction.]
>
>As I stated previously, I believe that some Wiccans use
>'The Universal Rule of Three' to justify 'vigilante lessons'
>against both Wiccans and non-Wiccans, including ostracizing
>non-Wiccan divorcing men regardless of whether the divorcing
>household includes children. I find this ethically troubling.
>Non-Pagans are *not* Wiccan Coven or Pagan Family members.
>Non-Pagans took no binding oaths -- they are *not* oath breakers.
>In effect, non-Pagans 'did not sign the contract', but they
>are being punished for breaking oaths that they never accepted.
>IMO a Lot can happen as a result of this unethical treatment.

<snip>

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 26, 2004, 11:04:58 AM1/26/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040126102424...@mb-m15.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

<snip>

English boy's (boarding) schools (which have a military
tradition); rough sports teams (e.g., football, rugby,


ice hockey -- again, nobody covers your back); and in
communal societies (e.g., the Mormons and the Oneida

Community) to encourage conformity (i.e., so-called 'right
thinking'). In communal societies situated in harsh


environments, extreme shunning can result in death from
starvation, dehydration or exposure to freezing weather --
you can't come in out of the cold. In magickal circles,
warlocks (so-called oath breakers) routinely are shunned
by the overall magickal community.

<*> In my locale, divorced men (especially those with living


children) often are treated as oath breakers regardless of

the situations motivating the divorce. The Roman Catholic
religion (which has a long European military tradition)
discourages divorce among its members. And I wonder how
the career military community treats divorce among its members?
(Service personnel returning from extended duty in a war zone
are greatly changed. An epidemic of postwar divorces within
the career military community would be very disruptive to
the military.)

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 5:00:45 AM1/27/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040126110449...@mb-m22.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

<snip>

religion (which has a long European military tradition and
whose practices include 'Excommunication' -- denial of
The Sacraments) discourages divorce among its members.


And I wonder how the career military community treats
divorce among its members? (Service personnel returning
from extended duty in a war zone are greatly changed. An
epidemic of postwar divorces within the career military
community would be very disruptive to the military.)

<*> The current Iraq police action draws heavily upon the
Armed Forces Reserves and the National Guards -- (often
married) citizen soldiers. In its current 'maintain and
rebuild phase', eighteen month Iraq tours of duty appear to
be standard operating procedure. The Iraq police action
is in its early stages -- at this time, few soldiers have
completed their Iraq tours of duty.

<*> IMO the financial burden borne by soldiers now serving
in Iraq will not be evident until standard rotations and
returns to the United States become commonplace. I am not a
military historian, but IMO the demographics of the current
Iraq police action resemble World War II and the Korean
Conflict more than they resemble the Vietnam War or Operation
Desert Storm (the war in Kuwait). Operation Desert Storm had
relatively short duration and relied heavily on air power --
no long occupation with overseas reliance upon the Armed
Forces Reserve and the National Guard. The Vietnam War
occured in an era where a baby boom of late teen / early
twenties young men were available for the military draft --
little overseas reliance upon the Armed Forces Reserve and
the National Guard.

<*> World War II and the Korean Conflict were soldiered through
extensive military drafting of civilians. This extensive drafting
included heavy reliance upon _married soldiers_ whose families
endured at home and suffered economic hardship throughout the
fighting. World War II and Korea were large scale conflicts
affecting the entire civilian population -- _the entire
United States civilian population (the taxpayers) pulled together_.

<*> The current Iraq police action places heavy overseas
reliance upon the married soldiers of the Armed Forces Reserve
and the National Guard (whose service pay often is
_significantly less_ than their civilian job salaries). The
soldiers and families of the Armed Forces Reserve and the
National Guard currently are facing _economic hardship_ similar
to that faced by the overall population during World War II
and the Korean Conflict. But the Iraq police action affects
the overall United States population primarily through its
'printing press financing' and resulting inflationary cost
increases -- not popular. The entire United States civilian
population (the taxpayers) is not yet pulling together to
support the soldiers serving in Iraq, and these soldiers will
end their tours of duty and return to the United States with
_little remaining cash, credit or home equity_. Poverty breeds
unhappiness, discord and civil strife; and without unified
taxpayer support for these returning military personnel in
the form of _significantly increased veterans' benefits_, many
Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard marriages will end
shortly after soldiers' Iraq tours of duty end.

<*> During World War II and the Korean Conflict, domestic
United States housing construction was at a standstill. A
housing shortage existed at the end of these conflicts and
Government subsidy of housing construction was included in
veterans' benefits. In the 21st Century, the Iraq police action
is raising the cost of housing construction in the United States,
and money spent rebuilding Iraq (a moral issue) is not available
to build housing in the United States. Housing shortages
breed poverty, discord and civil strife that prevents or
destroys marriages and civilized society.

<*> When military priorities create 'marriage adverse' financial
situations, do former military personnel who divorce deserve to
be treated as shunned oathbreakers? When reduced veterans'
benefits create 'marriage adverse' financial situations, do
former military personnel who divorce deserve to be treated as
shunned oathbreakers? And without increased veterans' benefits
to offset the financial sacrifices of members of the Armed Forces
Reserve and the National Guards, how will these institutions
be sustained in the future?

<snip>

*****End of Part Four*****

Last book review: "The Blood Countess: A Novel"
by Andre Codrescu

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 6:22:07 AM1/27/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040127050033...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

<snip>

<*> What happens if veterans' benefits are not increased? The
best analogy I know is that after four years of fighting in the
Civil War (The War Between The States), Confederate soldiers
returned to their Southern homes to face financial ruin and a
period of painful Reconstruction. And without increased veterans'


benefits to offset the financial sacrifices of members of the
Armed Forces Reserve and the National Guards, how will these

institutions be sustained as contingencies against future needs?

<*> When military priorities create 'marriage adverse' financial
situations, do former military personnel who divorce deserve to

be treated as shunned oath breakers? When reduced veterans'


benefits create 'marriage adverse' financial situations, do
former military personnel who divorce deserve to be treated as
shunned oath breakers?

>>><*> Some people might question apparent cavalier responses

Nevermore

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 10:05:07 AM1/27/04
to
In <20040127050045...@mb-m03.aol.com> Richard Ballard wrote:

> The Vietnam War
> occured in an era where a baby boom of late teen / early
> twenties young men were available for the military draft --
> little overseas reliance upon the Armed Forces Reserve and
> the National Guard.
>

Richard, I think in this paragraph you have bought into the pervasive
anti-war myth that the Vietnam conflict was some how fought by wave upon
wave of young urban minority draftees. That's sort of the "official"
story amongst those that disliked the war but it just was never true.

At the time Vietnam was fought (and keep in mind that, unlike our more
modern wars, US combat involvement in Vietnam spanned nearly a full
decade of intense fighting) the US Army had its largest proportion ever
of volunteers. A full 77 percent of those that fought in Vietnam
volunteered. The average age of those killed in Vietnam was also the
oldest of any conflict we had fought since the Civil War.

The average age of those killed in Vietnam was 22.8 years. The largest
age group to die was the 22-year-olds (18-year-olds were ninth and fully
97 percent of the 18-year-olds who died in Vietnam were volunteers).

To get a sense of how much history has been distorted (and was distorted
at the time) ask your nearest aging hippy how many of the 60,000 names
on the Wall in Washington DC they think belong to 18-year-old black
draftees? Most of them will give you an answer in the thousands (one
guy I did this to actually guessed 20,000).

The correct answer is seven.

Nevermore

Cricket

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 5:15:58 PM1/27/04
to

"Nevermore" <bur...@thestake.net> wrote in message
news:20040127100...@news.valley.net...

I'll accept your numbers, since I'm too lazy and too busy to check (not that
I doubt them) - also I'm soaked to the skin from blowing snow, not conducing
to successful reasoning. But I did want to mention something that I noticed
at the time - a lot of my contemporaries who volunteered, did so because
they were pretty sure of being drafted, and wanted some chance to get into
something besides the infantry. There was a high percentage (actually, of
those I knew from my graduating class, none had planned on joining until the
fear of the draft hit) of volunteers to try to avoid something worse (didn't
always work). I have no idea how pervasive that was, we were a bunch of
degenerate hippies, after all, but I'm guessing the fact of the draft gave
the volunteer numbers a kick in the butt. I have no idea if it was a
significant kick, but since it definitely was among those I knew, I thought
I'd mention it.

Oddly enough, long haired hippy freaks as we were, I don't recall anyone I
knew heading for Canada - there may have been some after I lost track of
people after graduation, but I truly can't think of any. Odd...


>
> Nevermore


Cricket

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 5:21:30 PM1/27/04
to

"Nevermore" <bur...@thestake.net> wrote in message
news:20040127100...@news.valley.net...
> In <20040127050045...@mb-m03.aol.com> Richard Ballard wrote:
>
> > The Vietnam War
> > occured in an era where a baby boom of late teen / early
> > twenties young men were available for the military draft --
> > little overseas reliance upon the Armed Forces Reserve and
> > the National Guard.

Weird - that last one took off on it's own...anyway, I was going to add that
the draft ended the year I graduated, so those from my actual class that
joined up were probably pretty put out...their older brothers certainly
were, drafted or volunteers.

(That was freaky - zip! post just ran away...I don't suppose it has anything
to do with dead ladybugs stuck in my keyboard...). Will be interesting to
see if it got here, or if I have to send it again so this last bit makes
sense...

Nevermore

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 7:20:39 PM1/27/04
to
In <7686e$4016e315$43d90ae0$24...@msgid.meganewsservers.com> Cricket
wrote:

Actually, I'm sure that's a valid point to an extent; however, the
notion that everybody who was drafted ended up as cannon fodder is also
something of a myth that grew up about Vietnam. Vietnam saw the highest
loss of officers per capita of any conflict (twelve generals died in
Vietnam, more than in World War II) and many of those that were killed
were in elite combat units that people had to volunteer for and compete
to get in once they were within the military. A lot of draftees drove
trucks and cooked meals in rear area cafeterias. A lot of combat
"grunts" were volunteers.

Again, just to touch on the race issue even though no one here is
bringing it up, black soldiers actually died in an amount that was
slightly low compared to both the national population at the time AND
their representation within the military and the majority of the 7,700
or so African Americans killed in Vietnam were volunteers. Not to
minimize their heroism or sacrific in the slightest - just to point out
that a lot of people's agendas have clouded the historical facts of the
conflict.

Cricket

unread,
Jan 27, 2004, 9:16:04 PM1/27/04
to

"Nevermore" <bur...@thestake.net> wrote in message
news:20040127191...@news.valley.net...

Oh, I totally agree that they weren't all on the front lines - in fact, I
don't believe anyone I knew was - all cooks and motor pool and such (of
course, as volunteers, they had a little more input, apparently, but not
much). My point was that that was the perception that everyone had at the
time. I kind of knew better - my dad had been a gunnery instructor in
France in WWII, and he often mentioned how the front lines are very much the
tip of the iceberg - but scared kids who might get drafted don't think that
way.

>
> Again, just to touch on the race issue even though no one here is
> bringing it up, black soldiers actually died in an amount that was
> slightly low compared to both the national population at the time AND
> their representation within the military and the majority of the 7,700
> or so African Americans killed in Vietnam were volunteers. Not to
> minimize their heroism or sacrific in the slightest - just to point out
> that a lot of people's agendas have clouded the historical facts of the
> conflict.

I wonder if that wasn't somewhat spotty, being as draft boards were drawn
from the communities. That is, if you lived in a community with a draft
board that didn't care for black folks (or cared more for white, anyway),
you'd notice the discrepancy. My mother remembers the number of black kids
in the paper (they always had a little blurb on who had just gone in - don't
know if it made a difference volunteer/draftee) being way over the ratio of
our local population - but you can't go much by a sample size that small, in
one low population density area. She did say that well over half of the
patients at the VA when she went there to do evaluations, and later as a
volunteer, were black. That isn't necessarily reflective of the draft ratio
at the time, of course.

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 28, 2004, 9:34:39 AM1/28/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040127062153...@mb-m04.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

<snip>

<*> One reader commented that 'running somebody out of town
on a rail' is juvenile and not believable. Purr haps, but
it hap pens. Furthermore, in the accompanying message
"Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part Three of
Four Parts)" I provide excerpts from "A New Wiccan Book of
the Law: A Manual for the Guidance of Groves, Covens, &
Individuals"; Compiled and edited by Lady Galadriel;
© Copyright 1992 by Lady Galadriel; Moonstone Publications;
PO Box 13384; Atlanta, GA 30324 USA. Among the excerpts I
provide are so-called rules stating IMO that a Wiccan Coven
has the (governmental) right of Eminent Domain to seize a
malcontented Coven member's real property (for cash payment)
and that the malcontented Coven member should vacate the locale
(i.e., get outta town!).

>>>><*> In my locale, feminists often speak of 'shame man ism'
>>>>(a word play on the term 'shamanism') as a process intended
>>>>to force a warlock (or other seemingly unsympathetic male)
>>>>back into the fold. 'Shame man ism' is an organized process
>>>>of social shunning by feminists and their sympathetic (?)
>>>>partners and family members.
>>>>
>>>><*> In my locale the goal of 'shame man ism' is summarized by
>>>>one of our civic ordinances: "No dogs without leashes".
>>>>A single male with no living children is remarkably free,
>>>>a status that troubles some less fortunate individuals.
>>>>
>>>><*> 'Shame man ism' is one area where magick and science
>>>>overlap, specifically in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
>>>>Principle. 'Shame man ism' causes changes, however the
>>>>shunners do not always appreciate the direction those changes
>>>>take. Once a person is shunned, that person has little reason
>>>>not to speak openly and frankly about perceived social inequities.
>>>>And being the target of organized shunning permanently changes
>>>>the target individual's perception of the shunning community,
>>>>the community's values, and _the community's current and
>>>>future value_.

<*> One reader stated (an ad hominem attack?) that Wicca is not
about _me_ personally and that 'Shame man ism' is nonexistent.
I can not speak globally, but 'Shame man ism' _does_ exist in
my locale. The social safety net traditionally supplied by
Government is unraveling (e.g., 'five years and you are out'
Welfare and Aid To Dependent Children), and on numerous
occasions I have been (_aggressively_) approached separately
both by men and by women seeking charitable handouts who justify
their requests by tersely stating "We're Moms!", as though that
simple statement was sufficient rationale to force a handout
from a single man.

<*> One reader asked if I intended to go completely off topic,
substituting my 'socioeconomic political rant du jour' for
on topic discussion of Paganism and Wicca. This document
section concerns Warlocks (so-called oath breakers) and how
the Pagan/Wiccan community treats oath breakers. IMO oaths
can _not_ be viewed outside the 'real world' environment.
For example, a person could take an oath to fly merely by
flapping their arms without other mechanical aids, but few
would credit that oath. Similarly, the viability of a
socioeconomic or political oath is affected by the changing
socioeconomic and political climate.

<*> My discussion has included how accused oath breakers
(including non-Pagan and non-Wiccan men who divorce their
partners without living children and regardless of reason)
are treated in my locale, how the worsening domestic
United States economy reduces peoples' lifestyle options --
lifestyle options are freedoms (including transportation
options supporting freedom of assembly and freedom of religious
worship), and how Governmental security activities initiated in
response to the tragic events of 9/11 have nonproductively raised
the cost of living (less lifestyle freedom for the impoverished)
while hindering civil liberties [e.g., hindering freedom of
assembly in Times Square on New Year's Eve 2003 through an
(inadvertantly?) threatening display of force where riot
gear-equipped police armed with assault rifles were proactively
visible as strolling crowd controllers].

<*> I have pointed out that heavy use of the Armed Forces Reserve
and the National Guards in the Iraq police action is financially
hurting overseas service personnel and their families. IMO this
financial burden for Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard
personnel used overseas is an unequal and unfair loss of financial
freedom not (yet) offset by _significantly increased veterans'
benefits_ -- a debt that the taxpayers owe these people. IMO all
of these topics affect Pagan, Wiccan and United States residents'
freedom of assembly (the impoverished have fewer transportation
options) and freedom of worship (loss of freedom of assembly
discourages group worship). IMO rather than being off topic,
I believe that I have hit the bullseye.

Nevermore

unread,
Jan 28, 2004, 12:42:48 PM1/28/04
to
I just think a lot less people would have been inclined to come to Times
Square the past couple of years if there hadn't been a massive and
visible security presence.


> <*> I have pointed out that heavy use of the Armed Forces Reserve
> and the National Guards in the Iraq police action is financially
> hurting overseas service personnel and their families. IMO this
> financial burden for Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard
> personnel used overseas is an unequal and unfair loss of financial
> freedom not (yet) offset by _significantly increased veterans'
> benefits_ -- a debt that the taxpayers owe these people. IMO all
> of these topics affect Pagan, Wiccan and United States residents'
> freedom of assembly (the impoverished have fewer transportation
> options) and freedom of worship (loss of freedom of assembly
> discourages group worship). IMO rather than being off topic,
> I believe that I have hit the bullseye.
>

Well, with you Richard I don't know how anybody would decide what's off
topic; however, it's pretty clear that the Army needs to add two more
divisions back to the mix in the coming years - a combat division and a
support division. I also think it's pretty clear that after the next
presidential election the Congress is going to put those two divisions
into the budget regardless of who wins.

Nevermore

Nevermore

unread,
Jan 28, 2004, 12:39:10 PM1/28/04
to
In <20040128093439...@mb-m18.aol.com> Richard Ballard wrote:
I just think a lot less people would have been inclined to come to Times
Square the past couple of years if there hadn't been a massive and
visible security presence.

> <*> I have pointed out that heavy use of the Armed Forces Reserve
> and the National Guards in the Iraq police action is financially
> hurting overseas service personnel and their families. IMO this
> financial burden for Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard
> personnel used overseas is an unequal and unfair loss of financial
> freedom not (yet) offset by _significantly increased veterans'
> benefits_ -- a debt that the taxpayers owe these people. IMO all
> of these topics affect Pagan, Wiccan and United States residents'
> freedom of assembly (the impoverished have fewer transportation
> options) and freedom of worship (loss of freedom of assembly
> discourages group worship). IMO rather than being off topic,
> I believe that I have hit the bullseye.
>

Well, with you Richard I don't know how anybody would decide what's off
topic; however, it's pretty clear that the Army needs to add two more
divisions back to the mix in the coming years - a combat division and a
support division. I also think it's pretty clear that after the next
presidential election the Congress is going to put those two divisions
into the budget regardless of who wins.

Nevermore
>

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 29, 2004, 8:17:09 AM1/29/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040128093422...@mb-m18.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

<snip>

<*> The current Iraq police action places heavy _overseas_


reliance upon the married soldiers of the Armed Forces Reserve
and the National Guard (whose service pay often is
_significantly less_ than their civilian job salaries). The
soldiers and families of the Armed Forces Reserve and the
National Guard currently are facing _economic hardship_ similar
to that faced by the overall population during World War II
and the Korean Conflict. But the Iraq police action affects
the overall United States population primarily through its
'printing press financing' and resulting inflationary cost

increases -- not popular with the taxpaying civilians.

<*> The Iraqi police action is the first long term occupation
where the Armed Forces Reserve and the National Guards
(the State Governors' militias) have been heavily utilized
_overseas_. Members of the Armed Forces Reserve and the
National Guards were _not used heavily overseas_ during
the Vietnam War. And many of the veterans' benefits
(e.g., educational, health care, home purchase assistance
and survivors' benefits) available to Vietnam War veterans
have been _discontinued or greatly reduced_ in the name of
'downsizing government' and 'reducing the deficit' since the
Vietnam War era. IMO these benefits are a valid cost for
operating the United States Armed Forces, the Armed Forces
Reserve and the National Guards.

<*> The entire United States civilian population (the taxpayers) is

not yet pulling together to support the soldiers serving in Iraq,
and these soldiers will end their tours of duty and return to the
United States with _little remaining cash, credit or home equity_.
Poverty breeds unhappiness, discord and civil strife; and without
unified taxpayer support for these returning military personnel in
the form of _significantly increased veterans' benefits_, many
Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard marriages will end

shortly after soldiers' Iraq tours of duty end. And both the
Armed Forces Reserve and the National Guards will dwindle
to a close without new enlistments and reenlistments, unless
the taxpayers provide _significantly increased veterans' benefits_
to reward the sacrifices these soldiers and their families make
while serving the United States.

<*> If Armed Forces, Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard
participation is _not_ rewarded through better salaries and
significantly increased veterans' benefits, I believe that the
Federal Government will be forced to reinstitute military
conscription by _reactivating the Selective Service Draft_.
The Draft was deactivated after the unpopular Vietnam War.
Apparently the local Draft Boards formerly used to operate the
Draft have disbanded. And reactivating the local Draft Board
system and military conscription would be a _Herculean task_.

<*> During the Vietnam War era, the Selective Service Draft
included the possibility of total deferment from being drafted
for disability, for (rare) religious and (rare) conscientious
objector status, or for the sole surviving son of a family having
other members who died in military service. During the Vietnam War
era, the Selective Service Draft included the possibility of
temporary deferment from being drafted to allow completion of
high school or college education. _And the Selective Service Draft
applied only to males._

<*> 21st Century United States society is more complex than
Vietnam War era society. Societal complexity (including the
changes in women's socioeconomic status and proliferation of
religions) complicates the draft deferment issue. IMO if the
Selective Service Draft is reactivated, a service alternative
to military service also will be created -- a period of National
domestic noncombat service. Males not qualifying (or meeting
greatly restricted deferment requirements) for military service
will be drafted into a period of National domestic noncombat
service. IMO females not wishing to join the military (when
noncombat military vacancies exist) also might be drafted into
a period of National domestic noncombat service. (I believe
that during World War II, Quaker religious societies provided
formal organized service alternatives for their members seeking
conscientious objector deferment from military service -- e.g.,
volunteer service in local hospitals). Other than age, prior
military service, or prior participation in the Selective Service
Draft (e.g., participation in the Vietnam Era draft lottery
without being drafted), IMO if the Selective Service Draft is
reactiviated there will be _few opportunities for total deferment_
from conscription -- no marriage deferment and day care provided
for conscripted mothers.

<*> If the United States Selective Service Draft is reactivated,
I believe the resulting universal sufferage will be organized
using the model provided by the Armed Forces of the State
of Israel -- universal sufferage with _very few deferments_.

<*> Should petroleum imports into the United States be disrupted
for a long period of time, National noncombat service draftees
might be used to help control the resulting societal disruption.

<*> Despite the fact that female Israeli soldiers receive combat
assignments, and despite the proliferation of women kick boxers
in the media, I do _not_ believe that United States female soldiers
will receive combat assignments in the foreseeable future. Let
us hope we _never_ again have large scale infantry wars similar
to World War I and World War II.

Richard Ballard

unread,
Jan 29, 2004, 9:35:22 AM1/29/04
to
Copyright 2003, 2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
New and significantly changed paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.

In article <20040129081648...@mb-m21.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

<snip>

objector status, or sole surviving sons in families with military
deaths. Men working in crucial defense or infrastructure jobs
also were deferred from military service. During the Vietnam War


era, the Selective Service Draft included the possibility of

temporary deferment from being drafted to allow education
completion. _And the Selective Service Draft applied only
to males._

><*> 21st Century United States society is more complex than
>Vietnam War era society. Societal complexity (including the
>changes in women's socioeconomic status and proliferation of
>religions) complicates the draft deferment issue. IMO if the
>Selective Service Draft is reactivated, a service alternative
>to military service also will be created -- a period of National
>domestic noncombat service. Males not qualifying (or meeting
>greatly restricted deferment requirements) for military service
>will be drafted into a period of National domestic noncombat
>service. IMO females not wishing to join the military (when
>noncombat military vacancies exist) also might be drafted into
>a period of National domestic noncombat service. (I believe
>that during World War II, Quaker religious societies provided
>formal organized service alternatives for their members seeking
>conscientious objector deferment from military service -- e.g.,
>volunteer service in local hospitals). Other than age, prior
>military service, or prior participation in the Selective Service
>Draft (e.g., participation in the Vietnam Era draft lottery
>without being drafted), IMO if the Selective Service Draft is
>reactiviated there will be _few opportunities for total deferment_
>from conscription -- no marriage deferment and day care provided

for children of conscripted mothers.

><*> If the United States Selective Service Draft is reactivated,
>I believe the resulting universal sufferage will be organized
>using the model provided by the Armed Forces of the State
>of Israel -- universal sufferage with _very few deferments_.

<*> People validly can question my prediction of universal
sufferage. In the Vietnam War era, draft deferments to
complete college education were controversial because few
poor people could attend college. In the eras of the American
Rovolution and the so-called Civil War (The War Between The
States), wealthy families could purchase for cash their sons'
deferment from militia service. But 21st Century United States
society is more _volitile_ than Vietnam Era society. I predict
significant civil protests if deferments favoring the affluent are
instituted as part of reactivating Selective Service military
conscription.

<*> IMO freedom of assembly and the Constitutionally guaranteed
right of 'Habeas Corpus' have similarities. Consider the police
response to the civil demonstrations at the 1968 Chicago Democratic
National Convention, and to the (Los Angeles) Watts riots. The
police response (including mass internments) fanned the flames of
civil disobedience. And poverty is _not_ a crime in the United States.

Figinnn

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 10:04:05 AM2/1/04
to
"Cricket" <cc...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:7686e$4016e315$43d90ae0$24...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...

My father was something like that. He went ahead and made arrangements with
the Navy prior to being drafted. Right after his number came up, he signed
the paperwork and took the oaths and all that. He had hoped to avoid being
in the Infantry.

Of course, several months of basic training got him keyed up and he
volunteered to serve in CINCPAC anyway, even though he would have had a nice
Med cruise in his future. Ended up doing 9 months on the ground in 'Nam and
3 more months aboard a destroyer providing infantry support.

Figinn


Richard Ballard

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 6:55:40 PM2/1/04
to
In article <Fz8Tb.31238$9p5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
"Figinnn" <Figgy_don't_care_...@whatever.com> writes:

>"Cricket" <cc...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
>news:7686e$4016e315$43d90ae0$24...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
>
>>"Nevermore" <bur...@thestake.net> wrote in message
>>news:20040127100...@news.valley.net...
>>
>>>In <20040127050045...@mb-m03.aol.com>
>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Vietnam War
>>>>occured in an era where a baby boom of late teen / early
>>>>twenties young men were available for the military draft --
>>>>little overseas reliance upon the Armed Forces Reserve and
>>>>the National Guard.
>>>
>>>Richard, I think in this paragraph you have bought into the
>>>pervasive
>>>anti-war myth that the Vietnam conflict was some how fought
>>>by wave upon
>>>wave of young urban minority draftees. That's sort of the
>>>"official"
>>>story amongst those that disliked the war but it just was
>>>never true.

I said NOTHING about "young urban minority draftees". I recall
that the Vietnam War was an issue at the 1968 Democratic
National Convention in Chicago, and the protesters had varied
backgrounds.

>>>At the time Vietnam was fought (and keep in mind that, unlike
>>>our more
>>>modern wars, US combat involvement in Vietnam spanned nearly
>>>a full
>>>decade of intense fighting) the US Army had its largest
>>>proportion ever
>>>of volunteers. A full 77 percent of those that fought in Vietnam
>>>volunteered. The average age of those killed in Vietnam was also
>>>the
>>>oldest of any conflict we had fought since the Civil War.
>>>
>>>The average age of those killed in Vietnam was 22.8 years.
>>>The largest
>>>age group to die was the 22-year-olds (18-year-olds were
>>>ninth and fully
>>>97 percent of the 18-year-olds who died in Vietnam were
>>>volunteers).

Yet military conscription (the draft) was one of the hottest protest
issues -- freedom of choice in an increasingly unpopular war. And
while I have no references to offer, my memory is that the percentage
of volunteers dropped as the war continued. The mid-1960's featured
John Wayne, Sgt. Barry Sadler, and The Green Berets in popular
entertainment. The early 1970's featured Grace Slick and The
Jefferson Airplane. Public sentiment changed as the war dragged on.

>>>To get a sense of how much history has been distorted (and was
>>>distorted
>>>at the time) ask your nearest aging hippy how many of the
>>>60,000 names
>>>on the Wall in Washington DC they think belong to 18-year-old
>>>black
>>>draftees? Most of them will give you an answer in the thousands
>>>(one guy I did this to actually guessed 20,000).
>>>
>>>The correct answer is seven.

Once again, I did _not_ bring race into this issue. My issue was
in order to save the institutions of the Armed Forces Reserve and
the National Guards (the Governors' militias), the taxpayers need
to fund increased Armed Forces salaries and significantly increased
Veteran's benefits (such as existed in the Vietnam War era). My
issues are _not_ racial issues, they are taxpayer issues. And to
my knowledge, the Iraqi police action is the first conflict since
the Korean Conflict where the Armed Forces Reserve and the
National Guards have been heavily utilized _overseas_.

Within the past several days I saw a television news clip
discussing how the United States Army is undergoing a
major reorganization to create additional combat units --
the most significant reorganization in fifty years. The
Korean Conflict was ending fifty years ago.

>>I'll accept your numbers, since I'm too lazy and too busy to
>>check (not that
>>I doubt them) - also I'm soaked to the skin from blowing snow,
>>not conducing
>>to successful reasoning. But I did want to mention something
>>that I noticed
>>at the time - a lot of my contemporaries who volunteered, did
>>so because
>>they were pretty sure of being drafted, and wanted some chance
>>to get into
>>something besides the infantry.
>
>My father was something like that. He went ahead and made
>arrangements with
>the Navy prior to being drafted. Right after his number came up,
>he signed
>the paperwork and took the oaths and all that. He had hoped to >avoid being
>in the Infantry.
>
>Of course, several months of basic training got him keyed up and he
>volunteered to serve in CINCPAC anyway, even though he would have
> had a nice
>Med cruise in his future. Ended up doing 9 months on the ground
>in 'Nam and
>3 more months aboard a destroyer providing infantry support.

My father served in the military during the Korean Conflict.
I was a winner in the draft lottery during the Vietnam War
years -- 1A but my number never was called. I kept my
draft card indicating that I had passed through the draft lottery
successfully -- I still have it today.

Cricket

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 8:12:35 PM2/1/04
to

"Figinnn" <Figgy_don't_care_...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:Fz8Tb.31238$9p5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

But by then he had a thousand percent better idea of what he was getting
into (though I suppose no one ever *really* knows...), and that's got to be
just better all the way around.


>
> Figinn
>
>


Figinnn

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 8:35:05 PM2/1/04
to
"Cricket" <cc...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:b45cc$401da403$43d97e45$30...@msgid.meganewsservers.com...

I don't really see what you're getting at there. He was 20 years old when
his number came up. If he had known what he was getting into, he woulda
stayed in the Med ... ;) My Grandpa was just smart enough to encourage him
to make the best of an inevitable situation.

Figinn


Cricket

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 6:47:08 PM2/2/04
to

"Figinnn" <Figgy_don't_care_...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:dPhTb.6315$07....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

Just that too many people think the military is "Private Benjamin" (I was in
basic with a few...) and by the time someone gets to swapping MOSs, they've
at least got a notion of what the military is like, if not all of it. I
think people that go in with at least that much knowledge are both going to
cope better, and be better at what they're doing. We had women in our
platoon who got all bent out of shape because they weren't allowed to wear
their earrings in basic, for pete's sake - um, newflash folks - compared to
someone shooting at you, it's a minor thing...though I don't think it's
something I'd have volunteered for, myself - but I've been shot at, and come
to the conclusion that I don't like it one bit! ;>)


>
> Figinn
>
>


Nevermore

unread,
Feb 3, 2004, 10:23:20 AM2/3/04
to
Well, your point is well taken, and I think it's clear that we are going
to have to stand back up two full Army division above what we have now -
one combat division and one support division. I think the big problem
right now with the way the Guard and the Reserves are mixed is that
prior to 9/11 we put a lot of esoteric functions like force security,
translators, water desalinization, trucking and logistics, and even
tactical intelligence specialties into the Guard and Reserve because we
were still geared toward fighting one big fight - like Gulf War 2 or
World War 3 some day in the unforseeable future. The shape of the War
on Terrorism and Homeland Security is entirely different - it's 24/7 for
years and years of sustained, highly mobile, continuos presence
operations. Full time op tempo requires full time forces. We are going
to have to put alot of these functions back into the regular services
and figure out what we can reasonably delegate to the part-timers.
Since we are still critically short of heavy lift capabilty and since
"big wars" are still every other year or so (Afghanistan, Iraq - maybe
next up North Korea, Iran, Syria, Indonesian areas, etc.) we could put
airlift, air-to-air refueling, ground transport, and sealift off into
Guard and Reserve even more than we have and put more of the security,
specialized support functions, C4I, and "killers" back into the regular
units.

Richard Ballard

unread,
Mar 6, 2004, 12:45:33 PM3/6/04
to
Copyright 2003-2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.

Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

Parts One, Two, Three and Four are contained in concurrent


copyrighted messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan

Novices (Part One/Two/Three/Four of Five Parts)", respectively.


I provide an accompanying list of Wicca-related references in
subsequent copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List
for Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)",
respectively.

IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
on this Internet newsgroup.

J) Some people inquire why I associate *satanism* with Paganism
rather than with Christianity (or Judaism). I distinguish between
satanism, and Christianity (and/or Judaism). While some satanists
view satanism as a philosophy and/or a program of self-betterment,
many avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion --
"The Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey states that clearly.
IMO satanism has rejected Christianity's (and Judaism's) tenets and
has chosen a left-handed dominant path of its own. In that sense,
satanism acknowledges Christianity (and Judaism) by _rejecting_
Christianity (and Judaism).

My experience is that Christianity does not concentrate on
satan or hell. And in my experience Christianity ignores
(rather than acknowledges) satanism.

I acknowledge that satanism presents many faces. I have
read the _multiple_ satanism FAQs that appear monthly in Internet
newsgroup alt.magick tyagi (a low message volume newsgroup).
These multiple satanism FAQs are authored by members of
different satanic philosophies and/or organizations. The FAQs
generally are skillfully and clearly written, and the FAQs present
a laissez faire, 'to thine own self be true' philosophy sympathetic
to libertarianism and self-betterment. IMO these FAQs' quality
of authorship demonstrates that some satanists are _extremely
intelligent_. (My statement does _not_ equate to saying
'All satanists are extremely intelligent.')

Anton LaVey, founder of 'The Church of Satan', promotes an
aggressive, domineering style of satanism. I have read the five
popular press books written by Anton LaVey and IMO the most concise
example of Anton LaVey's philosophy is the essay 'Nonconformity --
Satanism's Secret Weapon' in "The Devil's Notebook" by Anton LaVey.
[ISBN 0-922915-11-3, pp. 63-65.] _That essay discusses the satanist
as master in a throng of weak-willed slaves._

I also observe many individuals in my locale (not necessarily
satanists) _adopting and extending_ Anton LaVey's dominant
satanic attitudes. These individuals' behaviour adversely affects
my locale's social climate, and satanism is one catalyst motivating
these individuals' behaviour. Economic issues are another catalyst
motivating these individuals' behaviour.

My perception is that satanism affects 21st Century society more
as a dominance attitude/philosophy than as a religion. IMO
21st Century society is growing poorer, and some peoples' response
is to embrace the dominance philosophy/attitude contained within
satanism. IMO satanists believe that people naturally submit to
authority, and believe that people naturally will submit to the
(perceived) authority of dominant satanists. IMO judicious authority
is not necessarily bad, but satanic philosophy implements 'To thine
own self be true', _not_ fair or equal treatment. Unfair and/or
unequal treatment are catalysts for social friction and chaos.
_And people can use chaos to further selfish personal agendas._

Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan', a fact
that associates his popular press texts with 'The Church of Satan'.
Earlier I mentioned satanism's 'left-handed dominant path'.
The following quotation from "The Satanic Bible" by Anton
Szandor LaVey (founder of 'The Church of Satan'), c1969,
ISBN 0-380-01539-0, pg. 52 illustrates this association:

"The Satanic religion has not merely lifted the coin -- it has
flipped it over completely. Therefore, why should it support
the very principles to which it is completely opposed by
calling itself anything other than a name which is totally in
keeping with the _reversed_ doctrines which make up the
Satanic philosophy? Satanism is not a white light religion;
it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal --
all of which is ruled by Satan, the personification of the
Left Hand Path."

'The Temple of Set', is a 1975 offshoot of 'The Church of
Satan'. Currently I have not reviewed any popular press literature
written by _officially acknowledged_ members of 'The Temple of Set'.
The "alt.satanism Frequently Asked Questions" message periodically
issued by bobo...@satanservice.org (tyaginator) [sometimes
satanservice.org@boboroshi (tyaginator)] on Internet newsgroup
alt.magick.tyagi _purports_ to present the 'TEMPLE OF SET
FREQUENTLY-ASKED QUESTIONS -- Satanism (FAQ)' written by
Michael A. Aquino (founder of 'The Temple of Set') and updated
by Roger Whitaker. That document states:

"[This was the case of the Temple of Set as a whole, which
from 1966 to 1975 - as the Church of Satan - was exploring the
Left-Hand Path from within J/C terminology.]"

But the referenced document does _not_ define 'Left-Hand Path'
either in terms of Judaic/Christian terminology or as used by
"The Temple of Set".

Balanone <bal...@xeper.org> apparently _is_ a recognized member
of 'The Temple of Set' and periodically issues "Balanone's Temple
of Set FAQ" on Internet newsgroup alt.magick.tyagi. The
September 9, 2003 issuance of that message states:

'"Left Hand Path" indicates that the path followed by Setians
is one of concentration and refinement of the self, leading toward
more and more individuality and more and more individualism, as
opposed to the Right Hand Path goals of growing toward some
_outwardly determined standard_ (emphasis added).'

and

"The Left Hand Path is the tradition of _spiritual dissent_
(emphasis added). It is a process of using the ideas and actions
of the Seeker to create or realize an immortal, individual,
potent, and powerful essence that will survive death. The
Left Hand Path is the quest for personal immortality, won by
hard effort _without grace of gods_ (emphasis added), even of
our role model, Set."

IMO "immortality" is a vague term. Immortality might be
considered a recognized individual contribution to the human
knowledge, arts and/or philosophy; or immortality might be
considered one's biological children. Yet I feel compelled to
point out that Biblically, 'the original sin' occured when in
the Garden of Eden the serpent (IMO a personification of satan)
led Eve to sexual knowledge. And The Ten Commandments
(Exodus 20:1-17; acquired after the Hebrews had fled Egypt)
include "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not
covet your neighbor's house; your shall not covet your
neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant,
or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."

I mention the Garden of Eden because Judaism and Christianity
(and IMO Islam) link the Garden of Eden, satan, and poverty. Both
Judaism and Christianity teach that Adam and Eve were expelled
from the idyllic Garden of Eden to earn their bread by the sweat
of their brows. The Islamic religion (like satanism) uses the
goat to symbolize satan. Islam historically blames the goat for
stripping the bark from the trees that protected and stabilized
the agricultural lands of the Middle East. Denuded of bark by
goats, the trees died. Then the arid impoverishing desert invaded
the agricultural lands and impoverished the people. IMO Islam
blames satan's trickery for causing Adam and Eve's expulsion from
the Garden of Eden and for the resultant impoverishment of the
Islamic faithful on Earth.

I mention The Ten Commandments (an "outwardly determined
standard"?) because the Hebrews received them during their flight
from slavery in Egypt. The September 9, 2003 issuance of
"Balanone's Temple of Set FAQ" also states: "Set is the most
ancient name for the Prince of Darkness, given to the Prince of
Darkness in ancient (pre-dynastic) Egypt. Whether Set exists as
an independent metaphysical being, or whether he's a symbol for
man's most individualistic attributes, is a topic always under
discussion somewhere in the Temple of Set."

In the 21st Century many people question the importance of
textual references. That something has been published
indicates that a publisher has judged that the content
financially merits publication, and indicates that a
copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content --
rough indications of content quality control.

IMO website URLs are *not* acceptable as scholarly references.
Revising webpage content is as difficult as revising a form
letter, and a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained
for later public scrutiny. (Remember the character Winston
rewriting history to fit current events in George Orwell's novel
"1984"?) In addition, offsite web hosting services are not expensive
-- IMO the existence of a website does not imply a significant
financial (or quality) commitment.

I have identified two popular press texts written by
_acknowledged_ members of 'The Temple of Set' (and additional
popular press texts written by their coauthors). Both of
these texts are termed 'out-of-stock, hard-to-find' texts
that might require 1-2 months or longer for delivery. I
choose not to further discuss 'The Temple of Set' at this time.

IMO satanic concepts permeate 21st Century popular culture
and broadcast entertainment. I urge anyone who doubts this
statement to view the VCR tape "Haxan: Witchcraft Through The
Ages" by director Benjamin Christensen. This 1929 film depicts
witches as brides of satan (women who have made a binding
commitment to satan) and is laden with 1929's satanic concepts.
View "Haxan: ...", compare its satanic concepts with 21st Century
popular culture and broadcast entertainment, and judge for
yourself whether satanic concepts permeate 21st Century popular
culture and broadcast entertainment.

I also want to state that IMO a binding commitment to satan
(like legal marriage) is severable (like legal divorce). The
strongest bonds in 21st Century society are financial bonds.
IMO in the 21st Century a binding commitment to satan can
be broken *at some cost*. The magnitude of that cost depends
upon the friendly resources the bound individual has --
friendly resources do not cost.

A baptized inactive Methodist, I view satanism as a cultural
influence rather than a religious influence. My views of satanism
are tempered by the fact that I have traveled on three continents
and personally have viewed several different cultures. My views
of satanism also are tempered by the fact that I matured in the
late 1960's / early 1970's, a time of a diverse and dynamic
counterculture emergence in the United States. These experiences
affect my cultural opinions, including my opinion of satanism.

I (simplistically?) view satanism as a culture that states
"Most people automatically submit to authority" -- i.e., most
people take the easy (submissive) right-hand path. Satanists
use dominance to assert their authority and to force other
people to submit to their wishes. This is my (simplistic?) view
of satanism's dominant, left-hand path, but this view is
reinforced by popular language usage in my locale. In my locale,
many people equate the exclamation "Right!" to "Submit!" -- e.g.,
individuals attempting to win an argument use the exclamation
"Right!" at every opportunity, much as dwelling seekers in my
locale emphasize the (aforementioned) exclamation "You two!"
In pugnacious encounters between males in my locale, the aggressor
male often will attempt to 'she it' -- that is, to force the other
male to live like a submissive sissy. Dominant females in my locale
sometimes use repeated nuisance calls to the police and to social
service agencies in efforts to 'she it' (cow) their neighbors.
Dominant individuals also have been known to make nuisance calls
to the IRS triggering unwarranted (and timewasting) income tax
audits. These 'she it' examples are good reasons not to covet your
neighbors' spouse or property.

My observations of diverse cultures cause me to believe that
all cultures are not equal -- some cultures have greater
cultural substance, integrity and value than others. My
observations of diverse cultures also have taught me that
all cultures are not equally suitable to my personal goals
and desired lifestyle.

The 1960's / 1970's was an era when the United States was a
cultural 'melting pot' -- immigrants to the United States were
expected to become members of a strong and homogeneous
United States society. One of the issues of the 1960's / 1970's
United States counterculture emergence was that subcultural
groups had the right to determine their own subculture. This
issue increasingly is accepted in the 21st Century United States,
but the issue was very controversial in the 1960's / 1970's.

I find satanism's dominant subculture personally *not* appropriate.
IMO the right to define one's own personal culture includes the
right to exclude aspects of other's cultures from one's own
personal culture. Satanists dogmatically dominate and often
attempt to insert satanic concepts into other peoples' personal
culture -- an infringement upon other peoples' right to define
their own cultures.

At the same time, individuals must deal with the dominant satanic
concepts and attitudes that increasingly permeate 21st Century
United States society. (As the United States' domestic economy
continues to downsize, so-called 'cutthroat businesses' will assert
their own types of dominance when dealing with employees. And
beleaguered employees might respond with their own dominant actions.
Regardless of the victor, the consumer ultimately will pay the cost.)
Dealing with these dominant satanic attitudes often requires that
individuals assert greater personal dominance than they
otherwise would.

What is the difference between being a dominant satanist and
rebuffing dominant satanic attitudes and behaviour through your own
personal dominance? IMO the difference is that you choose your
friends -- an individual should not have to assume dominant attitudes
and behaviour to cope with friends. And ultimately a person draws
the line at his/her residence's front door.

Some people question the appropriateness of my providing _any_
comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
believe that detachment is valuable -- _not_ having vested interests
can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
information can be ignored with little effort***. I do _not_ tell
people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
newsgroups threatens no one.

I have made several comments concerning juvenile nutrition and
impoverished women's responsibility to raise their children. My
comments reflect my situation: I am a single man with no living
children and I do not want to argue feminist issues. But in my
locale, most often I observe impoverished children accompanied by
their mothers. This observation makes me believe that in 21st Century
United States society, the responsibility for raising impoverished
children most often falls upon their mothers.

IMO the continued United States occupation of Iraq makes this


issue increasingly important. I believe that the United States
occupation of Iraq is a long-term police action that will continue
to heavily load the Armed Forces Reserve and the state National
Guard units, and that might reinitiate Selective Service drafting
of young men (including married men). I believe this long-term
police action will cause the breakup of many (military) families,
leaving many women "Separated or Divorced With Children" in a
downsized United States domestic economy offering few high-paying
jobs either to men or to women. Credit cards offer limited credit,
and home equity stretches only so far.

Money spent rebuilding Iraq is not building new jobs, new


opportunities and better education in the United States. The
outsourcing of United States jobs to foreign countries (e.g.,
contract manufacturing to the Pacific Rim nations, and outsourcing
of computer programming and of telephone customer service jobs
to India with its quality education system and its significantly
lower cost-of-living) is very common in the currently downsizing
United States economy. (At the same time, the nation of Mexico

is a good neighbor that provides energy to the United States


in return for NAFTA jobs.)

I believe that the true cost of the United States occupation


of Iraq will be paid in broken families, lost homes and several
generations of impoverished United States citizens.

<*> IMO history often can be explained in terms of economics,
and similar economics brings similar societal responses. IMO
the United States today faces an economic situation similar to
the situation faced during the latter parts of former President
Lyndon B. Johnson's Administration. During President Johnson's
time, the United States economy had been drained by long
involvement in the Vietnam War. Today the United States economy
has been drained by involvement in Bosnia, in Afghanistan and
now in Iraq. At the same time, today the United States has greater
dependence upon foreign nations for energy and for manufactured
goods -- both economic weaknesses.

<*> IMO other factors that weaken the current United States
domestic economy are the emphasis on Homeland Security since
the tragic events of September 11, 2001; and the recent emphasis

(in past five years) on computer software security upgrades.

<*> Security does _not_ produce a salable service or product --
at its best, security facilitates "business and life as usual".
Since 9/11/2001 the United States has invested heavily in
Homeland Security activities. This Homeland Security investment
is necessary, but the investment does _not_ produce salable goods
or services. Instead the investment drains resources from
productive activities and weaken the United States domestic
economy.

<*> The "Year 2000 Computer Software Modifications" are analogous
to our current Homeland Security activities. The Year 2000 Computer
Software Modifications permitted computers and communications
to operate normally beyond January 1, 2000, but these modifications
did _not_ produce additional salable goods or services. The Year 2000
Computer Modifications cost approximately one percent of one year's
United States Gross National Product, resources drained from
productive activities.

<*> I do not know the (direct and indirect) costs of

Homeland Security, but IMO Homeland Security activities


weaken the United States domestic economy in an analogous
(and continuing) manner. And many Homeland Security activities
are labor-intensive -- mechanized savings opportunities are minimal.

Increasing energy prices also raise business costs -- if demand
and sales are low due to un(der)employment and credit exhaustion,
rising business costs reduce profitability. IMO if the
United States domestic economy continues downsizing, businessmen
increasingly will say "We can not afford additional security".

<*> The last five years also have featured a flood of Internet-based
attacks on computer software, and a flood of effort to counter
these attacks quickly and economically. IMO real progress has
been made in this area. Increasingly computer software security
upgrades are made automatically over the Internet, and the
increased mechanization is quick and economical. Computer
software security upgrades also are a continuing expense, but
their cost is being reduced by user education (e.g., avoid bad
Internet websites) and by increased mechanization.

<*> IMO, United States recent involvement in Bosnia, in Afghanistan
and Iraq, coupled with the expense of imported petroleum and
manufactured goods, continuing Homeland Security activities
and continuing computer software security upgrade activities has
burdened the United States domestic economy equivalent to the
economic burden the United States faced during the Vietnam War
at the end of former President Lyndon B. Johnson's Administration.

<*> My own personal political philosophy is capitalistic because
I believe in meritocracy. But people seek different political
solutions during troubled economic times. Already United States
citizens look to socialized medicine and to Canadian pharmaceuticals
in an effort to reduce their health care costs. And rapidly

increasing gasoline prices (domestic refinery capacity already is
at a maximum, gasoline demand is everincreasing, and my local
television newscaster speculates about $3.00US per gallon gasoline


this summer) will _radically_ change some peoples' lifestyles for
the worse. Marxism, a set of political philosophies born from harsh
economic conditions, had vocal advocates during the Vietnam War era
-- those Vietnam protests were more than 'flower power'.

<*> IMO worsening economics during the United States occupation
of Iraq _will_ cause increased United States' citizenry interest in
Marxist political philosophies (particularly in college students).
This increased interest in Marxist political philosophy _will_ raise
concern in anti-terrorism and Homeland Security circles (been there,

seen that), and might raise civil liberties issues inside the
United States.

<*> If a United States citizenry interest resurgence in Marxist


political philosophies raises antiterrorism and Homeland Security
concerns, IMO United States Armed Forces might play a greater role
in quelling political protest within the United States than the
Armed Forces performed during the Vietnam War era (despite the
current existence of the Federal 'Posse Comitas Act').

<*> John Steinbeck's classic novel "The Grapes of Wrath" contains
examples both of impoverished families forced into starvation,
and of local Government using coercive force (under the banner
of 'maintaining domestic tranquility') to prevent workers' rights
of assembly and peaceful protest, and to prevent unionization --
the exact opposite philosophy of The Berlin Airlift that former
President (and Five Star General) Dwight D. Eisenhower used to
keep the citizens of Berlin fed and free.

<*> In Iraq and elsewhere the United States military is developing
societal control techniques. Military and police using these


techniques (including domestic surveillance without Court-issued

warrants -- e.g., context-sensitive Internet monitoring using
Raptor technology) might restrict civil liberties (including
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of worship)
through intimidation; entrapment; selective enforcement of existing
regulations and laws; anonymous defamation of character and
reputation; use of high visibility, low impact social issues (i.e.,
divide and conquer) to distract voter attention from high impact
economic issues; and chaotic implementation of Murphy's Law.

<*> Summarizing, many factors contribute to the current weak
United States domestic economy. A weak domestic economy

produces few new jobs and produces poverty rather than affluence.
Impoverished people have fewer options and impoverished people


seek political remedies. IMO the current weak United States

domestic economy could trigger labor protests, and could trigger
antiwar protests similar to the Vietnam War protests. These
protests might trigger defensive Homeland Security responses.

*****End of Part Five*****

The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).

I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.

I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.

I got no problems.


Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com

Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg

Richard Ballard

unread,
Mar 6, 2004, 12:45:02 PM3/6/04
to
Copyright 2003-2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

Parts One, Two, Three and Five are contained in concurrent


copyrighted messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan

Novices (Part One/Two/Three/Five of Five Parts)", respectively.


I provide an accompanying list of Wicca-related references in
subsequent copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List
for Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)",
respectively.

IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
on this Internet newsgroup.

H) I have ***much*** to say about Wiccan *Tradition*, a complex
and central Wiccan topic. Referencing "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham, pg. 203:
'Tradition, Wiccan: An organized, structured, specific Wiccan
subgroup, usually initiatory, with often unique ritual practices.
Many Traditions have their own _Books of Shadows_ and may or may
not recognize members of other Traditions as Wiccans. Most
Traditions are composed of a number of Covens as well as solitary
practioners.'

There are many valid Wiccan paths. Gardnerian Wicca was the
first Wiccan Tradition but many other Wiccan Traditions exist.
I believe that (due to economics) Gardnerian Wicca has little
relevance to 21st-Century United States society. I believe that
due to economic trends (e.g., increased cost of living due to
higher energy prices --> the new poor can afford to heat the
house or can afford to feed the car, but not both) Gardnerian
Wicca's relevance will continue to decline in the United States
as the 21st-Century progresses.

Scott Cunningham's text "Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary
Practioner" is well-known and well-regarded within Wiccan
circles. I interpret the term *Tradition* differently: I
interpret Tradition as refering to the Wiccan history and
rituals of _individual_ Wiccan Covens and also of _individual_
Wiccan solitary worshippers. (Nothing that I have said
_prevents_ multiple Wiccan Covens and/or multiple Wiccan
solitary worshippers from sharing an identical Tradition.)
My rationale is that Covens occasionally split because of
differences between members -- it is likely that after the
split, the resulting multiple Covens will have differing
Traditions. Similarly, a Wiccan sometimes leaves a Wiccan
Coven due to differences with other Coven members -- it is
likely that after the split the departing Wiccan will modify
his/her Wiccan Tradition to better reflect his/her individual
beliefs. Equating the term 'Tradition' to a Wiccan Coven's
and/or Wiccan solitary worshipper's individual beliefs
acknowledges that Covens sometimes split and that individuals
leave Covens. In addition, some Wiccan solitary worshippers
_never join a Coven_ -- these individuals define their own
personal Wiccan Traditions.

I believe that my usage of the term 'Tradition' is consistent
with the Wiccan philosophy presented in the text "The Tree:
The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft" by Raymond Buckland.

You need not be a Wiccan to have a Tradition.

Many witches (e.g., Dianic witches) have Traditions. Most
Pagans have Famtrads (i.e., family Traditions).

Furthermore, there are entrepreneurs who are not Wiccans,
witches or Pagans yet who deal with Wiccans, witches and
Pagans. These entrepreneurs gain knowledge of others' Traditions
as a result of their entreprenural activities.

I also want to provide an example. It is widely accepted in
Wiccan circles that if a person wishes to acquire a magickal item,
the person should pay the cost without question or argument
-- questioning and arguing dishonors both the item (reducing its
magickal value) and also dishonors the item's owner. Imagine
that a Magickian owns a silicon amulet of great power. Another
Magickian wishes to acquire the silicon amulet but believes the
cost is unfair and is not willing to pay the cost -- how should
the amulet owner respond to this implied insult?

This situation reminds me of the maxim 'An accountant
knows the cost of every thing but the value of no thing'. The
Magickian wishing to acquire the amulet respects the amulet's
fair value but considers the cost unfair. I believe that
proper tradition dictates no negotiations -- the amulet's
owner either should walk away without argument and without
subsequently employing proxies as intermediary agents, or the
amulet's owner should present the silicon amulet as a no-cost
gift. Presenting the silicon amulet as a no-cost gift honors
the amulet (increasing the amulet's magickal power) and honors
both the amulet's owner and the amulet's recipient.
***I believe that honor (and reputation) are powerful magick***.
I also believe that arguments, repeated hints and/or proxy
intermediaries accumulate into a dishonorable ending.

I believe this example is consistent with Islamic practice.
The harsh desert environment requires good faith relationships.
In the harsh desert environment, contentious behaviour is *not*
worthwhile and is not repeated -- analogous to not negotiating
with a merchant who has treated you unfairly in the past.

I) *Warlock* is a term that many interpret differently. To
the general population 'warlock' refers to a (usually male)
Magick-using warrior. Witch wars are _discouraged_ in Craft and
Wiccan Covens, however, and 'warlock' usually denotes someone
who has been ostracized from a Coven or a group of cooperating
Covens for disobedience to Coven Tradition or to the Coven High
Priest/ess's authority. [In some cases a Coven High Priest/ess
pairs Coven members (and their children) during sabbats.] The
ostracism that a warlock encounters includes social shunning,
denial of _any_ assistance from Coven members, and so-called
chaotic attacks (e.g., floods of annoyances, insults and small
injuries). The ostracism's goal is to force the warlock to
_vacate_ the locale where his/her former Coven worships,
preferably moving to another city or state. (In the Midwest
city where I grew up people talked about 'running somebody out
of town on a rail'.) I believe this ostracism occurs most
often in the case of a Pagan man who divorces or deserts his
partner, particularly if the partners have children. But the
ostracism also occurs in divorcing households that do not
include children, and in my locale non-Pagan divorcing men
also experience this ostracism.

<*> One reader commented that 'running somebody out of town
on a rail' is juvenile and not believable. Purr haps, but
it hap pens. Furthermore, in the accompanying message

"Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part Three of
Five Parts)" I provide excerpts from "A New Wiccan Book of


the Law: A Manual for the Guidance of Groves, Covens, &
Individuals"; Compiled and edited by Lady Galadriel;
© Copyright 1992 by Lady Galadriel; Moonstone Publications;
PO Box 13384; Atlanta, GA 30324 USA. Among the excerpts I
provide are so-called rules stating IMO that a Wiccan Coven
has the (governmental) right of Eminent Domain to seize a
malcontented Coven member's real property (for cash payment)
and that the malcontented Coven member should vacate the locale
(i.e., get outta town!).

<*> In my locale, feminists often speak of 'shame man ism'
(a word play on the term 'shamanism') as a process intended

to force a warlock (or any seemingly unsympathetic male)


back into the fold. 'Shame man ism' is an organized process
of social shunning by feminists and their sympathetic (?)

partners and family members. IMO 'shame man ism' is a chaotic
and informal form of the 'intervention therapy' sometimes used
by psychologists and by organizations such as
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).

<*> In my locale the goal of 'shame man ism' is summarized by
one of our civic ordinances: "No dogs without leashes".
A single male with no living children is remarkably free,

a status that troubles some burdened individuals.

<*> 'Shame man ism' is one area where magick and science overlap,
specifically in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
'Shame man ism' causes changes, however the shunners do not always
appreciate the direction those changes take. Once a person is
shunned, that person has little reason not to speak openly and
frankly about perceived social inequities. And being the target
of organized shunning permanently changes the target individual's
perception of the shunning community, the community's values, and
_the community's current and future value_.

<*> One reader stated (an ad hominem attack?) that Wicca is not
about _me_ personally and that 'Shame man ism' is nonexistent.
I can not speak globally, but 'Shame man ism' _does_ exist in
my locale. The social safety net traditionally supplied by
Government is unraveling (e.g., 'five years and you are out'
Welfare and Aid To Dependent Children), and on numerous
occasions I have been (_aggressively_) approached separately
both by men and by women seeking charitable handouts who justify
their requests by tersely stating "We're Moms!", as though that
simple statement was sufficient rationale to force a handout
from a single man.

<*> Some people might question the existence of organized
social shunning. Historically, shunning has been used in

(para)military organizations and police (nobody covers your
back); boys' (boarding) schools (which often have a military


tradition); rough sports teams (e.g., football, rugby,

ice hockey, even basketball); dangerous occupations (mining,
construction and fire fighting) and in communal societies


(e.g., the Mormons and the Oneida Community) to encourage

conformity (i.e., so-called 'right thinking'). Within communal


societies situated in harsh environments, extreme shunning can
result in death from starvation, dehydration or exposure to freezing
weather -- you can't come in out of the cold. In magickal circles,
warlocks (so-called oath breakers) routinely are shunned by the
overall magickal community.

<*> In my locale, divorced men (especially those with living
children) often are treated as oath breakers regardless of
the situations motivating the divorce. The Roman Catholic
religion (which has a long European military tradition and
whose practices include 'Excommunication' -- denial of
The Sacraments) discourages divorce among its members.

I wonder how the career military community treats
divorce among its members? (Service personnel returning
from extended duty in a war zone are greatly changed. A

postwar divorce epidemic within the career military


community would be very disruptive to the military.)

<*> The current Iraq police action continues to draw heavily upon


the Armed Forces Reserves and the National Guards -- (often

married) citizen soldiers whose military salary usually is
_significantly less_ than their normal civilian salary. The Iraq
police action is in its early stages. At this time, few soldiers
have completed their Iraq tours of duty, few new jobs are being
created within the United States domestic economy, and Armed Forces
Reserve personnel and National Guardsmen are listed as 'employed'
although they are not drawing their normal civilian salaries.
I predict additional un(der)employment when Armed Forces Reserve
personnel and National Guardsmen begin returning in large numbers
from their Iraq tours of duty.

<*> IMO the financial burden borne by soldiers now serving

in Iraq will _not_ be evident until standard rotations and


returns to the United States become commonplace. I am not a
military historian, but IMO the demographics of the current
Iraq police action resemble World War II and the Korean
Conflict more than they resemble the Vietnam War or Operation
Desert Storm (the war in Kuwait). Operation Desert Storm had
relatively short duration and relied heavily on air power --

no long occupation with overseas reliance upon the Armed
Forces Reserve and the National Guard. The Vietnam War


occured in an era where a baby boom of late teen / early
twenties young men were available for the military draft --

little overseas reliance upon the Armed Forces Reserve and
the National Guard.

<*> World War II and the Korean Conflict were soldiered through
extensive military drafting of civilians. This extensive drafting
included heavy reliance upon _married soldiers_ whose families
endured at home and suffered economic hardship throughout the
fighting. World War II and Korea were large scale conflicts
affecting the entire civilian population -- _the entire
United States civilian population (the taxpayers) pulled together_.

<*> The current Iraq police action places heavy _overseas_
reliance upon the married soldiers of the Armed Forces Reserve
and the National Guard (whose service pay often is
_significantly less_ than their civilian job salaries). The
soldiers and families of the Armed Forces Reserve and the
National Guard currently are facing _economic hardship_ similar
to that faced by the overall population during World War II
and the Korean Conflict. But the Iraq police action affects
the overall United States population primarily through its

'printing press financing', resulting inflationary cost
increases, and deferral or cancellation of both Government
and business (questionable demand in a downsizing economy)
development projects -- not popular with the taxpaying civilians.

<*> The Iraqi police action is the first long term occupation
where the Armed Forces Reserve and the National Guards
(the State Governors' militias) have been heavily utilized
_overseas_. Members of the Armed Forces Reserve and the
National Guards were _not used heavily overseas_ during
the Vietnam War. And many of the veterans' benefits
(e.g., educational, health care, home purchase assistance
and survivors' benefits) available to Vietnam War veterans
have been _discontinued or greatly reduced_ in the name of
'downsizing government' and 'reducing the deficit' since the
Vietnam War era. IMO these benefits are a valid cost for
operating the United States Armed Forces, the Armed Forces
Reserve and the National Guards.

<*> The entire United States civilian population (the taxpayers) is
not yet pulling together to support the soldiers serving in Iraq,
and these soldiers will end their tours of duty and return to the
United States with _little remaining cash, credit or home equity_.
Poverty breeds unhappiness, discord and civil strife; and without
unified taxpayer support for these returning military personnel in

the form of _significantly increased veterans' benefits_, IMO many


Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard marriages will end

shortly after soldiers' Iraq tours of duty end. And both the


Armed Forces Reserve and the National Guards will dwindle
to a close without new enlistments and reenlistments, unless
the taxpayers provide _significantly increased veterans' benefits_
to reward the sacrifices these soldiers and their families make
while serving the United States.

<*> If Armed Forces, Armed Forces Reserve and National Guard
participation is _not_ rewarded through better salaries and
significantly increased veterans' benefits, I believe that the
Federal Government will be forced to reinstitute military
conscription by _reactivating the Selective Service Draft_.
The Draft was deactivated after the unpopular Vietnam War.
Apparently the local Draft Boards formerly used to operate the
Draft have disbanded. And reactivating the local Draft Board
system and military conscription would be a _Herculean task_.

<*> During the Vietnam War era, the Selective Service Draft
included the possibility of total deferment from being drafted
for disability, for (rare) religious and (rare) conscientious
objector status, or sole surviving sons in families with military

deaths. Men working in crucial defense or infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities) jobs also were deferred from military service. During


the Vietnam War era, the Selective Service Draft included the
possibility of temporary deferment from being drafted to allow
education completion. _And the Selective Service Draft applied
only to males._

<*> 21st Century United States society is more complex than
Vietnam War era society. Societal complexity (including the

changes in women's socioeconomic status, controversy about
the legal definition of 'marriage', and proliferation of


religions) complicates the draft deferment issue.

<*> If the United States Selective Service Draft is reactivated,


I believe the resulting universal sufferage will be organized
using the model provided by the Armed Forces of the State
of Israel -- universal sufferage with _very few deferments_.

IMO if the Selective Service Draft is reactivated, a domestic


service alternative to military service also will be created --
a period of National domestic noncombat service. Males not
qualifying (or meeting greatly restricted deferment requirements)
for military service will be drafted into a period of National

domestic noncombat service. (During World War II, pacifist Quaker


religious societies provided formal organized service alternatives
for their members seeking conscientious objector deferment from

military service -- e.g., volunteer service in local hospitals.)

<*> The following discussion addresses emergency conscription
possibilities. During World War I an informal elder 'home guard'
supplemented services normally provided today by local police.
People with prior military service are subject to _lifetime_ recall
by the United States military. And although the Vietnam Era draft
lottery freed lottery-winning 1-A participants from further
possibility of military conscription, promises and policies change
in case of national emergency. IMO if the Selective Service Draft
is reactivated, there might be _few opportunities for total draft
deferment_ (other than for age). IMO females not wishing to join


the military (when noncombat military vacancies exist) also might

be drafted for a period of local domestic noncombat service with
day care provided for children of conscripted mothers (e.g., as in
Israeli Kibbutzim) and no marriage deferments for women.

<*> People validly can question my prediction of universal
sufferage. In the Vietnam War era, draft deferments to
complete college education were controversial because few
poor people could attend college. In the eras of the American

Revolution and the so-called Civil War (The War Between The


States), wealthy families could purchase for cash their sons'
deferment from militia service. But 21st Century United States
society is more _volitile_ than Vietnam Era society. I predict
significant civil protests if deferments favoring the affluent are
instituted as part of reactivating Selective Service military
conscription.

<*> Should petroleum imports into the United States be disrupted

for a long period of time, shortages develop as 'business as usual'
breaks down and Homeland Security attempts to control the resulting
societal disruption might require activating Selective Service
conscription.

<*> Despite the fact that female Israeli soldiers receive combat

assignments (and despite the proliferation of women kick boxers
in the media), I do _not_ believe that United States female soldiers


will receive combat assignments in the foreseeable future. Let
us hope we _never_ again have large scale infantry wars similar
to World War I and World War II.

<*> During World War II and the Korean Conflict, domestic
United States housing construction was at a standstill. A
housing shortage existed at the end of these conflicts and

Government subsidy of housing construction (i.e., VA loans)
was included in veterans' benefits. In the 21st Century the
Iraq police action is raising the cost of United States housing
construction [materials and skilled (heavy equipment operator)
labor shortages], and the money spent rebuilding Iraq (a moral
issue) is not available to build (or rebuild depleted) housing in


the United States. Housing shortages breed poverty, discord and
civil strife that prevents or destroys marriages and civilized
society.

<*> What happens if veterans' benefits are not increased? The
best analogy I know is that after four years of fighting in the

so-called Civil War (The War Between The States), Confederate soldiers
returned to their Southern homes and farms to face financial ruin
and a period of impoverished Reconstruction under the watchful eyes
of empowered, exploitive carpetbaggers. And without increased
veterans' benefits to offset the financial sacrifices made by
Armed Forces Reserve and the National Guards members, how will these

<*> Increasingly in 21st Century society, the Government social
safety net's unraveling has popularized socialistic political
concepts -- the idea that fortunate individuals are bound
to lodge less fortunate people within their private homes
is gaining popularity. [It is interesting to speculate how
in case of extreme military housing shortages in urban areas,
the military might 'encourage' families of draftees (and hungry
civilians in times of scarcity) to lodge soldiers within their
private homes.] My reaction to these socialistic political concepts


is twofold. First, the concepts are contrary to the individual

civil liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution and
its amendments. Second, nothing kills charity faster than coercion.

*****End of Part Four*****

Richard Ballard

unread,
Mar 6, 2004, 2:21:52 PM3/6/04
to
In article <20040306124436...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

>Copyright 2003-2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
>Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
>Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
>with a <*> marker.
>
>Parts One, Two, Three and Five are contained in concurrent
>copyrighted messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan
>Novices (Part One/Two/Three/Five of Five Parts)", respectively.
>I provide an accompanying list of Wicca-related references in
>subsequent copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List
>for Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)",
>respectively.

Starting this issuance, I provide an accompanying list of


Wicca-related references in subsequent copyrighted messages
entitled "A Reference List for Prospective Wiccan Novices

(Part One/Two/Three of Three Parts)", respectively.

>IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
>On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
>"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
>on this Internet newsgroup.

Sorry 'bout dat.

Richard Ballard

unread,
Mar 6, 2004, 2:21:55 PM3/6/04
to
In article <20040306124510...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:

>Copyright 2003-2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
>Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
>Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
>with a <*> marker.
>
>Parts One, Two, Three and Four are contained in concurrent
>copyrighted messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan
>Novices (Part One/Two/Three/Four of Five Parts)", respectively.
>I provide an accompanying list of Wicca-related references in
>subsequent copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List
>for Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)",
>respectively.

Starting this issuance, I provide an accompanying list of


Wicca-related references in subsequent copyrighted messages
entitled "A Reference List for Prospective Wiccan Novices

(Part One/Two/Three of Three Parts)", respectively.

>IMO sexuality is an integral part of Paganism and Wicca.
>On a monthly basis I provide copyrighted messages titled
>"A neo-Tantra Reference List (Part One/Two of Two Parts)"
>on this Internet newsgroup.

Sorry 'bout dat.

Richard Ballard

unread,
Apr 11, 2004, 2:37:21 PM4/11/04
to
Copyright 2003-2004 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.

Parts One, Two, Three and Five are contained in concurrent
copyrighted messages titled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan
Novices (Part One/Two/Three/Five of Five Parts)", respectively.
I provide an accompanying list of Wicca-related references in
subsequent copyrighted messages entitled "A Reference List for

Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two/Three of Three Parts)",
respectively.

<*> Societal traditions are changing. Same sex marriages
recently have raised controversy -- their legal status has
_not_ been fully established and many people wish to preserve
the traditional defiition that marriage denotes a formalized
man/woman pairing. Some states have proposed an alternative
institution (so-called 'civil unions') in an attempt to formally
legalize same sex pairings while simultaneously preserving the
traditional marriage definition.

<*> I am not qualified to provide legal opinions, but IMO
'Civil Unions' raise new questions. Powers not expressly
delegated to the Federal Government by the U.S. Constitution
are reserved for the states -- individual states will decide
if and how to define Civil Unions within their state. And I
know no law stipulating that Civil Unions must be limited
to two adults ...

<*> And a Federal law signed in 2004 by President
George W. Bush grants separate legal status to 'unborn babies'.
I do _not_ know the implications of this Federal law. To my
knowledge this law has _not_ yet been challenged in the Courts.

I) *Warlock* is a term that many interpret differently. To
the general population 'warlock' refers to a (usually male)
Magick-using warrior. Witch wars are _discouraged_ in Craft and
Wiccan Covens, however, and 'warlock' usually denotes someone
who has been ostracized from a Coven or a group of cooperating
Covens for disobedience to Coven Tradition or to the Coven High
Priest/ess's authority. [In some cases a Coven High Priest/ess
pairs Coven members (and their children) during sabbats.] The
ostracism that a warlock encounters includes social shunning,
denial of _any_ assistance from Coven members, and so-called
chaotic attacks (e.g., floods of annoyances, insults and small
injuries). The ostracism's goal is to force the warlock to
_vacate_ the locale where his/her former Coven worships,
preferably moving to another city or state. (In the Midwest
city where I grew up people talked about 'running somebody out
of town on a rail'.) I believe this ostracism occurs most
often in the case of a Pagan man who divorces or deserts his
partner, particularly if the partners have children. But the
ostracism also occurs in divorcing households that do not
include children, and in my locale non-Pagan divorcing men
also experience this ostracism.

One reader commented that 'running somebody out of town


on a rail' is juvenile and not believable. Purr haps, but
it hap pens. Furthermore, in the accompanying message
"Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part Three of
Five Parts)" I provide excerpts from "A New Wiccan Book of
the Law: A Manual for the Guidance of Groves, Covens, &
Individuals"; Compiled and edited by Lady Galadriel;
© Copyright 1992 by Lady Galadriel; Moonstone Publications;
PO Box 13384; Atlanta, GA 30324 USA. Among the excerpts I
provide are so-called rules stating IMO that a Wiccan Coven
has the (governmental) right of Eminent Domain to seize a
malcontented Coven member's real property (for cash payment)
and that the malcontented Coven member should vacate the locale
(i.e., get outta town!).

In my locale, feminists often speak of 'shame man ism'


(a word play on the term 'shamanism') as a process intended
to force a warlock (or any seemingly unsympathetic male)
back into the fold. 'Shame man ism' is an organized process
of social shunning by feminists and their sympathetic (?)
partners and family members. IMO 'shame man ism' is a chaotic
and informal form of the 'intervention therapy' sometimes used
by psychologists and by organizations such as
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).

In my locale the goal of 'shame man ism' is summarized by


one of our civic ordinances: "No dogs without leashes".
A single male with no living children is remarkably free,
a status that troubles some burdened individuals.

'Shame man ism' is one area where magick and science overlap,


specifically in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
'Shame man ism' causes changes, however the shunners do not always
appreciate the direction those changes take. Once a person is
shunned, that person has little reason not to speak openly and
frankly about perceived social inequities. And being the target
of organized shunning permanently changes the target individual's
perception of the shunning community, the community's values, and
_the community's current and future value_.

One reader stated (an ad hominem attack?) that Wicca is not


about _me_ personally and that 'Shame man ism' is nonexistent.
I can not speak globally, but 'Shame man ism' _does_ exist in
my locale. The social safety net traditionally supplied by
Government is unraveling (e.g., 'five years and you are out'
Welfare and Aid To Dependent Children), and on numerous
occasions I have been (_aggressively_) approached separately
both by men and by women seeking charitable handouts who justify
their requests by tersely stating "We're Moms!", as though that
simple statement was sufficient rationale to force a handout
from a single man.

Some people might question the existence of organized


social shunning. Historically, shunning has been used in
(para)military organizations and police (nobody covers your
back); boys' (boarding) schools (which often have a military
tradition); rough sports teams (e.g., football, rugby,
ice hockey, even basketball); dangerous occupations (mining,
construction and fire fighting) and in communal societies
(e.g., the Mormons and the Oneida Community) to encourage
conformity (i.e., so-called 'right thinking'). Within communal
societies situated in harsh environments, extreme shunning can
result in death from starvation, dehydration or exposure to freezing
weather -- you can't come in out of the cold. In magickal circles,
warlocks (so-called oath breakers) routinely are shunned by the
overall magickal community.

In my locale, divorced men (especially those with living


children) often are treated as oath breakers regardless of
the situations motivating the divorce. The Roman Catholic
religion (which has a long European military tradition and
whose practices include 'Excommunication' -- denial of
The Sacraments) discourages divorce among its members.
I wonder how the career military community treats