Welcome to Starve the Matrix!

matrix-animated-imageThe world in not what it seems. The movie, The Matrix, released in 1999 is but one of the latest in a very long list of many attempts (spanning thousands of years) to alert and remind sentient beings on Earth as to what is going on.

The Gnostics were perhaps the closest to exposing the situation, however they are long-gone and most of what they uncovered and revealed has been lost to the ravages of time and suppression by forces that wish for sentient beings to remain ignorant of "the terror of the situation".

Many theories and ideas have been put forth over the ages trying to explain "how we got here", and while this website does touch upon a few of these (see here, here, and here) our focus is on what can be done to reverse the deception, division and domination which controls human life on Earth and continues life in the Matrix.

Wilhelm Reich (1897 – 1957) helped to uncover (see here, here, and here) the primary reason for man's inability to break-free from a life of illusion, stunted being and wrong work of centers, but he too was suppressed and imprisoned (and died in prison shortly before his scheduled release!) and much of his work was actually burned by U.S. authorities in 1956!

Mass Psychology of Fascism

mass_psych_fascismReich wrote in Mass Psychology of Fascism:

"From the standpoint of social development, the family cannot be considered the basis of the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which support it. It is, however, its central reactionary germ cell, the most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes the most important institution for its conservation.

"The maintenance of the authoritarian family institution requires more than economic dependence of wife and children on husband and father. This dependence can be tolerated only under the condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is extinguished as far as possible in women and children.

...

"The basic religious idea in all patriarchal religions is the negation of the sexual needs. Only in very primitive religions were religiosity and sexuality identical. When social organization passed from matriarchy to patriarchy and class society, the unity of religious and sexual cult underwent a split; the religious cult became the antithesis of the sexual. With that, the cult of sexuality went out of existence. It was replaced by the brothel, pornography and backstairs-sexuality.

...

"Originally and by nature, sexual pleasure was that which was good, beautiful, happy, that which linked man with the whole of nature. With the splitting up of the sexual and the religious feelings, the sexual became inevitably that which is evil and infernal.

...

"Infants do not believe in God. The belief in God never takes root in them until the time when they have to learn to suppress their sexual excitation which makes them want to masturbate. Thus they acquire a fear of sexual pleasure. Then they begin not only to believe in God and to fear him as a supernatural being which knows everything and sees everything; they also begin to invoke his protection against their own sexual excitation.

"All this serves the function of avoiding masturbation.

"This, then, is the way in which the anchoring of religious ideas takes place in childhood. But these religious ideas would not bind the child's sexual energy and transform it into the opposing forces of moralism and sex-negation if they were not attached to the actual figures of father and mother. When a child does not „honor his father,“ he „sins“; in other words, if he does not fear his father, and indulges in sexual pleasure, he gets punished. To the child's thinking, the strict, denying father is God's representative on earth, his executive organ."

Reich and Gurdjueff – Sexuality and the Evolution of Consciousness

top_sexedDavid Brahinsky, in his book Reich and Gurdjueff – Sexuality and the Evolution of Consciousness, begins to explore perhaps the most powerful suppression of a child's individuality. In his discussion of Hostile Suppression of Genital Play, he writes,

"Reich came to believe suppression of sexuality is of fundamental significance in armor formation and development of emotional illness. Sexual feelings are extremely powerful and until suppressed, are experienced as normal, very pleasurable sensations. Children have no idea that those feelings that give such pleasure are so ‘wrong.’

"Not all suppression of sexuality is carried out with overt violence or obvious hostility. But when it is, infants and children are put in the position of having to defend themselves. First of all, the infant or child must inhibit its behavior as a means of self protection. Of course, hostility can come in various forms, the form of overt violence — an adult might shout at or strike a child when the child touches its genitals or engages in sex play with other children, for example — or the hostility can be more subtle — the adult might express disgust, moral indignation, shame, or indifference. When children are inhibited in sex play they are forced, to begin with, to pull their hands from their genitals. If the inhibition is consistent, they become afraid to touch their genitals. This means they must keep their hands away from ‘there,’ even when an impulse to touch arises, particularly when in the company of others.

.....

"It can be seen then, that behavior on the part of adults that we consider perfectly reasonable, moral, and in the best interests of the child — suppression of genitality which, in children, of course, cannot result in pregnancy, often the rationale given for suppression of adolescent sexuality, leads to chronic muscular armoring. Suppression of sexual feelings is crucial therefore, not only because it is suppression of a powerful, essential urge in itself, which feels to the one being stifled as if their very being is at stake, but also because suppression of this urge leads to massive armoring, armoring of the entire body in all the segments.
.....

"Infants and children obviously have no understanding of what is happening to them when adults condemn their natural expressions and can take the hostile reactions in only one way, as an expression or a statement, that what they feel is “bad,” that what they wish to express is “bad.” In other words, such suppression is taken as a comment on their very essence, that they, in essence, are bad. This attitude towards the living is very well expressed in the popular conception of the doctrine of original sin, which is an obvious cultural and institutional expression of the feelings of a large segment of the adult world towards infants, children, sexuality, and life itself.
.....

"Adolescence
By the time we reach adolescence, our character structure has become a many-layered labyrinth. At the “bottom” are the core or essence drives which continue to pulse. On top of them or surrounding them, the armor used to inhibit these drives which is layered according to the time the various impulses were suppressed and the intensity of the suppression. This layer is covered over by the facade, the “face” we present to the world and to ourselves.

"To speak of armor as a labyrinth is to imply that it is not neatly layered but that the combination of core drives, suppressed emotions and impulses, anxiety, and the facade, intertwine in ways that are often confusing. The nature of the labyrinth depends on the timing and the severity of the suppression, but generally, according to Reich, as mentioned, the earlier the suppression occurs, the deeper will be the armoring.15 It develops differently if repression occurs when the impulse is at its peak of intensity or if it occurs when it is weaker. These and other factors determine the type of labyrinth that develops, the “character type.”16

"Is it any, wonder that adolescence is a difficult time? During this period sexual impulses become organized around the genitals and the urge to superimpose or mate with a lover begins to surface. The labyrinth of armor is already well formed and added to the tension this produces is the fact that these genital impulses are not allowed free expression.

"Teenagers are not told that this is a wonderful time to explore their sexuality. Parents don’t offer their homes for uninhibited, guilt-free sexual activity — condoms provided. This sounds ridiculous or horrible to most of us; immoral. Thus the damage done by sexual suppression in childhood is intensified in adolescence, and the armoring needed to deal with such suppression can only evolve and rigidify. In Gurdjieff’s terms, false personality and the buffers gain in strength at the expense of the essence."

Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex

children_of_the_futureFrom: Sexual and Sensual Rights of Infants & Children

A book about the sexuality of children and teens, published by the University of Minnesota Press, has attracted national criticism even before its planned release in May 2003.

Press officials said they have received unprecedented opposition to Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" -- 100 calls, e-mails and letters from across the country so far.

Levine's book argues that protecting children and teens from knowing more about sex does more harm than good -- and that not all sexual interaction between adults and those youths is bad.

Kathryn Grimes, a University Press spokeswoman, said Tuesday that while some controversy was anticipated, reaction wasn't expected to come before publication.

The book's promotional message said Levine "challenges widespread anxieties" such as pedophilia, stranger kidnapping, Internet pornography and "sacred cows" such as abstinence-based sex education and laws on statutory rape. The university literature said the book offers "fresh alternatives to fear and silence."

Levine said Tuesday that she supports the age-of-consent law in the Netherlands as a "good model" -- it permits sex between an adult and a person between 12 and 16 if the younger person consents. Prosecutions for coercive sex may be sought by the young person or the youth's parents.

"Can little children under the age of 12 have sexual experiences with adults that are positive? I would doubt it," Levine said. "The Dutch law does two things: The law does balance that young people are sexual and they behave sexually under their own will.

"At the same time, they are weaker than adults and therefore they can be vulnerable to adult exploitation. So the law protects them from that exploitation."

Grimes said most of the criticism of the book grew from a Newhouse News Service article last week that quoted Levine as saying that a sexual relationship between a priest and a youth "conceivably, absolutely" could be positive.

Levine said that her comments had been taken out of context and that she disapproves of any sexual relationship between a youth and an authority figure, whether a parent, teacher or priest. However, she said teenagers deserve more respect for the choices they make in consensual affairs.

The Newhouse article has been debated on local and national talk radio shows and Web sites, leading to the pre-release criticism.

"The response to the book is unprecedented for us; however, it has been based on a misrepresentation of the book," Grimes said. "We hope that people will take the time to read the book and it becomes the start of a debate instead of an attack based on inaccurate information."

The manuscript was reviewed by five academic experts, instead of the usual two, she said, to make sure its argument was based on research, not opinion.

Levine, 49, a journalist for 25 years, said Tuesday that her book is about adults learning to give children realistic, practical advice about sex "that talks about the ways of how children can grow to be happy, healthy sexual beings while being safe in the process."

She writes in her introduction that if educators want to be credible about sexual responsibility, "they have to be forthright about sexual joy." She also writes that if parents want their kids to be happy, it's their duty to help them learn to love well.

"For our part, adults owe children not only protection and a schooling in safety, but also the entitlement to pleasure," she said.

Levine, who has written articles in Ms. magazine and other national publications and founded a feminist group called No More Nice Girls, said Tuesday from New York that she began working on the book in the mid-1990s. She acknowledged that with the recent sex abuse scandals involving clergy members and young people, this is a tough time to argue that American children can have positive sexual experiences.

Levine said Tuesday that she had sex with an adult when she was a minor. In the Newhouse story, she said that "on balance it was a perfectly good experience."

In the introduction to her book she writes that " 'Harmful to Minors' launches from two negatives: Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors; and America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

Several media commentators and activists have accused Levine of condoning child abuse.

Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C., is urging the University of Minnesota to fire the University Press officials who decided to publish the book.

The institute's mission is to "bring biblical principles into all levels of public policy," its Web site says.

"The action is so grievous and so irresponsible that I felt they relinquished their right to academic freedom," said Knight, who has described the book as "very evil."

The University Press is an independent auxiliary of the university, Grimes said. Its publication costs are paid mostly through sales revenue; funding from the university contributes less than 2 percent, or about $100,000, of its annual budget.

Levine said Tuesday that the book does not endorse pedophilia or any type of sexual abuse.

"I deplore rape, sexual abuse of children and any way that a person is forced to have sex against their will," Levine said. "I am a feminist, and I am glad that our legal system has laws against rape.

"For anybody to say I promote child abuse is absurd."

Levine said that while it's good that safeguards such as statutory rape laws are in place, more has to be done through honest and open communication.

"You can't watch your kids every minute," she said. "You need to arm them with the tools of how to be a good person and how to protect themselves, including giving them comprehensive sexual information.

"My main point: Ask them. Don't assume."

Human progeny are neotonic

From: http://www.metahistory.org/guidelines/HowMetahistoryWorks.php

(The truth is, children can resist with determination what they are told to believe, but with no one to confirm their resistance and support their dissent, they gradually comply and come to forget their objections, stifling the feelings that came with them.) In adopting beliefs, children naturally identify with those who share those beliefs, and who insistently impart them. The transmission of belief, hugely celebrated in high-toned rhetoric about spiritual and cultural "tradition," is actually one of the great, unadmitted tragedies of the human condition.

Unlike other animals, human progeny are neotonic, taking a long time to mature. When we are born, the brain is not yet developed as an organ. It takes many years to ripen a brain. While it accounts for the exceptional scope of learning and innovation of our species, this neotonic handicap makes offspring excessively dependent upon what is inculcated in them by adults. The sight of children cramped in a madrasa, an Islamic kindergarten, nodding like zombies and repeating the Koran eight hours a day is only one example (an obviously flagrant one) of how children are programmed to believe. Such practices, which exist in many forms in diverse cultures and religions, ought to be regarded as child abuse.

Neotony offers to our species the unique advantage of a reverse transmission of generational assets, from younger to the older members of the tribe. (This is the theme of my book, Quest for the Zodiac.) In other words, nature requires the long-term maturation of human offspring so that the evolutionary potential to learn and innovate embodied in the new generation can be shared with the older generation. Children come into the human tribe for us to learn from them, not for us to tell them what we believe. We are all tulkus.

From: http://www.metahistory.org/GAIA%20SOPHIA/visionperverted1.php

. . . because breeding happens for the wrong reasons and continues unabated, without conscience or foresight. I object to unlimited procreation of our species, as did Gnostics who condemned human breeding habits as ignorant, joyless, and irresponsible. Those ancient seers and guardians of the Mysteries were dedicated to fostering the genius of our species through education, vocational training, and visionary practices aligned to the living earth. In that role, they opposed the breeding of future generations merely to serve the existing one. In short, they objected to human use of progeny as a means to an end. Sadly, this is just how it goes with almost all breeding in the human population. But no solution to this problem can be achieved through eugenics programming or a geopolitical mandate, only through individual accountability.

You're the Target: Why a War on Sex?

target1From: Chapter 1

The familiar expression "culture war" is part of the problem.

It suggests two sides of equal strength lined up in a series of battles, honoring more or less the same rules of engagement, wanting to conquer each other.

But what we commonly called the "culture war" is not like this at all. Those who fear and hate sexuality ("erotophobes") are attacking those who appreciate or tolerate sexuality ("erotophiles"). And while erotophiles are not attempting to force erotophobes to live more sexually adventurous lives, erotophobes insist that both sides--everyone--live according to their erotophobic values. Erotophiles say "if you don't want to go to a nude beach, don't go, but don't shut it down to prevent me from going." Erotophobes say "I don't want to go to a nude beach, and I don't want you to have the option of going either, so it must be closed."

While erotophobes acknowledge this recurring theme--that there's a huge range of opportunities for erotic stimulation, satisfaction, and imagination that they want to deny everyone, not just themselves--erotophobes also claim, paradoxically, that they are victims.

They say they are the ones who are tired of being attacked, their values and way of life undermined. Through "indecent" entertainment, changing fashions, recent court decisions, easy Internet access, and a range of contraceptive technologies, they say they are being force-fed sex. They can't, they say, turn on a TV, go to a mall, boot up a computer, or even go to work without being assaulted by sexual images. And that when they aren't being confronted literally, they are still forced to abide others' private sexual activity next door and all over America--behavior that is immoral, disgusting, and sinful.

This is, undoubtedly, true for them--but irrelevant to the governance of America. Nowhere in our founding documents is there any mention of regulating anything considered immoral, disgusting, or sinful. In fact, the U.S. was founded on the idea that people could choose what to do and with whom to associate based on their personal values and ideals-not those of a king, feudal lord, or religious hierarchy. Nor even, as James Madison, declared, a tyrannical majority in their own town, state, or country.

When our fellow citizens say they want to eliminate entertainment, fashion, medical technology, bedroom activity, and businesses that are "immoral" or "sinful," they are calling for a dramatic shift in American law. Such major changes in the rules of American life would bring us far closer to modern Saudi Arabia, the former Soviet Union, Taliban-era Afghanistan, and Nazi Germany.

Historically, American society has tried to balance the needs of individual freedom and community responsibility. And so you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Another fundamental American principle is that the law should address actual crime and actual victims, and it should be drafted in ways that limit unwanted or unanticipated consequences when solving a problem.

Today's War on Sex seeks to change this balance, and it has already succeeded in many ways. Historically, it was against the law for someone to actually kill your cow; now it's as if there's also a law against someone thinking about killing your cow, or doing something that makes you worried about someone killing your cow.

And so attempting to criminalize abortion, for example, isn't enough for conservatives; now they are trying to prevent over-the-counter availability of emergency contraception, saying wider distribution would "encourage promiscuity."

Liberals rush in with scientific data that clearly shows it won't, and one more battle is joined. As is common, the erotophobes have no data with which to counter--but they do have "concerns" and "feelings," which are now considered seriously in public policy debates.

We must ask directly: so what if a medication does "encourage promiscuity"? In a country devoted to individual choice, this shouldn't be a problem. And yet sexual jihadists have actually made this a consideration in American policy debates. The latest example is their attempt to block pre-teen girls from getting the HPV vaccine that would prevent cervical cancer. The Religious Right and "morality groups" don't claim the vaccine is dangerous, just that it will make sex less scary and thus "promote" promiscuous behavior.

Although our country makes cars safer in case of accidents, has school athletes wear helmets in case they fall awkwardly, and establishes poison centers in case toddlers get into cleaning supplies, erotophobes don't want to reduce the consequences of unauthorized, unprotected, or unlucky sex. They say that doing so encourages bad sexual choices. That's like saying seat belts encourage dangerous driving, and poison centers encourage sloppy parenting.

The politically powerful in America know that if you can get people looking at the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what answers they come up with.

And so those who are trying to "clean up" America say they're fighting for a number of critical reasons: children, the family, marriage, morals, education, community safety. But this isn't really true. It's a war against sex: sexual expression, sexual exploration, sexual arrangements, sexual privacy, sexual choice, sexual entertainment, sexual health, sexual imagination, sexual pleasure.

Most Americans care about their children, families, morals, and community safety. They are, understandably, easily drawn into a social conflict using terms like these, focused on the things that matter to them and about which they often feel powerless or confused.

And so religious and other conservatives have Americans lined up behind them fighting a war that is not in their best interest. The public is manipulated into fighting sexual expression, not sexual ignorance or poor sexual decision-making. It then supports public policy that often defeats its own ostensible purpose. Kids who learn abstinence-only have just as much sex--only they use condoms less often. Limiting the availability of contraception doesn't reduce sexual activity--it just increases unwanted pregnancy. Closing swing clubs doesn't decrease swinging--it just destroys the ongoing community providing safety, supervision and social norms.

Some people say that Americans are stupid, that we don't really care about the facts. I believe Americans do care about facts--but we need a context in which to understand these facts. When it becomes clear that the culture wars are not being fought on our behalf to preserve our families, but are being fought against us to undermine our expression, health, and choice, Americans will care about the facts.

Today's domestic conservative/fundamentalist political and social movements present a clear (though horrifically distorted) picture of sexuality. It's a narrative of danger and, therefore, of fear; a narrative of sin and, therefore, of self-destructiveness. Erotophobes typically describe their fear in socially acceptable terms: protecting children, supporting marriage, preventing disease, honoring women, sympathizing with the problematic "male sexual psyche".

But they really fear sexuality, as they understand it--its awesome power, the temptation to sin, the inevitable destructive decision-making surrounding it, the clear distinction between acceptable activities and unacceptable activities. And so they have launched a War on Sex. Not just their own sexuality-everyone's. Their goals are consistent, their strategy coherent. They can frame it in any civic language they want, but it's actually a War on Sex.

The goal of this war is to control sexual expression, colonize sexual imagination, and restrict sexual choices. It seeks to restrict our choices and shape the political/cultural/psychological environment in which we make those choices. It is at this moment changing our norms, culture, laws, vocabulary, and our very emotions.

In their never-ending quest to eliminate as much eroticism from American life as possible, erotophobes have enlisted the aid of the largest government in the history of humanity--contemporary American government. Their allies include school boards, zoning commissions, city councils, state legislatures, military leaders, the U.S. congress, and a series of American presidents. Our current President proudly aligns himself with this side against its enemy, and he prays--literally--for a day when those who want to mind their own business (and allow others the same privilege) are conquered by those who want to mind everyone's business, imposing their fears and values on the vanquished.

The outcome of these historic battles will determine how our children live--today, and for decades to come. It will determine what books they read in school, what they learn to fear, what private entertainment they're allowed to enjoy, what they know about their bodies, and how much they control their own fertility.

Millions of Americans are afraid of sex. Some admit it, some don't. Millions more hate sex. Again, some admit it, some don't. To deal with their fear and hate, some have declared a war on it. Some admit this, some don't.

If you're interested in sex, you're part of the war whether you like it or not. If you watch TV, use a sex toy, go to the movies, need an abortion, own a website, play sex games, use contraception, enjoy spicy online chat, want a physician trained in sexual medicine, or have a child in school, the cannons in the War on Sex are pointed at you.

This book is about that war.

America's pluralism is hated by fundamentalists around the world--including those right here in America. And sexuality is among the last human activities to enjoy the extraordinary, revolutionary promise of American pluralism. So this book is named America's War on Sex, not Jerry Falwell's War on Sex or The Catholic War on Sex or Congress's War on Sex. Because America's two centuries of history have been liberating more and more people to drink from the astounding well of democracy. Because it is imperative that we start asking the right questions, right now. And then the answers will matter.

And then we'll end the War on Sex.

And the American people will win.

Kids, Sex and the State

sex_offenders_registryFrom: Deoxy.org

Partial & slightly edited transcript of a talk 1  – by Judith Levine from The War on Sex.

In 2002 I wrote this book Harmful to Minors  and it argued that the things that we do in America to try to protect children from sex are way more harmful to them than sex itself—which is actually a great part of growing up—and that the things that we do such as criminalize kids sexuality, or put them into jail, or put them in psychological counseling, or giving them abstinence-only education—these things really have terribly grave consequences for kids.

I wish I could say that that book made a difference in a positive direction but it didn't. Things have gotten way worse since 2002. Since that time almost every single state in the union has vigorously strengthened their sex crime statues. These laws are intended to protect children from sexual exploitation but they disproportionately affect teenagers.

The age group with by far the largest number of convictions for sex offenses are people between 14 and 20 years old. These are, almost all of them, consensual acts of sex between kids with somebody who is about 2 or 3 years younger than them. There are 19,000 minors on sex offender registries nationally. 19,000! Some of these people are as young as 11 years old.

In every state of the union if you have sex and you are a minor you are likely committing a felony. I will repeat this. If you are 16 in the state of Georgia and have sex with another 16 year old person you are committing a felonious act. You can be put in juvenile detention and after that you can be put into adult prison and after that you will be on a sex offender registry and once you're on a sex offender registry your life is effectively over.

  • You can not get a job.
  • You can not live in most places.
  • You can not go into the military.
  • You can not get into college.
  • You can not get a loan for a college.
  • You can live almost nowhere because there are these residency restrictions.
  • You can't really have a relationship or have a family because you're not allowed to be near children, ever really, even your own children should you have them.

These laws are very easy to get on the books. No amount of facts will stop them. Now these have been on the books for a long time, several decades, so there's a lot of evidence that shows they really don't protect anyone.

The way sex panics work is that once you have more laws you have more enforcement. When you have more enforcement you have more arrests. What the laws do is they generally broaden the definition of a crime. For instance it used to be child pornography to take a picture of somebody who was under 12. They didn't really find enough child pornography and they had this big machine to go out and arrest people so then they made it 14 and then, still not quite enough, 16, and now 18. So you broaden the definition of the crime, you get more cops, you make more arrests, soon people are feeling like gosh there's a lot of crime. There's a perception of more crime and so they start to clamor for more laws and once they're on the books they're almost impossible to get off the books.

Increasingly what the states are doing is not just punishing people, and especially minors, for sex—they're curing them!

This conflation of punishment and cure also goes back a long time with overlapping religious and psychological cures. So you have this kind of slippage of different definitions of criminal, psychological and moral categories of sexual abuse, as they call it, and once you start to put these two things together there's a really twisted logic that's a tautology that kind of circles around and around on itself. So here's how it goes: According to sex abuse therapists, prosecutors, police and some journalists, even some parents, the behavior that kids are doing is wrong. It's wrong because it's illegal. Why is it illegal? Well it's illegal because it's wrong.

But the really pernicious part of this is once you start to cure kids there's a whole industry of doing sex abuse therapy. The whole idea of offender treatment is already a conflation of these two agendas—the punishment agenda and the treatment agenda. These conflated terms are the lingua franca of the whole abuse industry. For instance there's a group called the National Adolescent Perpetrator Network which had a task force and they put out these standards of what they call sexual molestation. A criminologist named Frank Zimring did a really great book called An American Travesty and he takes all this stuff apart and he said, "According to this task force a majority of American men and boys have committed multiple acts of child molestation by the time they reach their 21st birthday. This aggregation of such behavior into one single category child molestation is an extraordinary abuse for an organization of therapists."

What do they do with kids when they're in this therapy?

The first axiom of it is that the therapist is not really there as a therapist on the side of the patient. The patient is actually seen as a kind of antagonist because he has broken the law, and the therapist's confederate is not the person in the room with them but the law, the prosecutor, so anything that the kid says to the therapist can and is used against him.

What they do in these therapies is they make the kids rehearse over and over and confess the molestation that they've done, the fantasies that they have, the times they've masturbated, the times—should they be so lucky to actually have sex—the times they've had sex. They have to tell new people over and over, a new therapist, a new prosecutor, a new board of psychologists, and they're supposed to also reveal it to anyone that they might be thinking of having a relationship with, so that kind of cuts off the possibility of them kind of moving on out of this thing.

What do they learn from it? As one kid who went through this said, "I learned that sex is bad."

The assumptions of this system about sex and the protection of innocence and the dangerousness of sex offenders and about the appropriateness of state intervention in the sex lives of minors either through criminalization or through this pathologizing of teen sex, these assumptions are so widespread, so hegemonic, that even those people who critique the system use its own logic to do so.

The argument against putting kids in jail and on sex offender registries is that it's unnecessary because treatment works, that's what they say, treatment works! Teens, it turns out, have the lowest recidivism rate of any class of sex offenders. Well it's obvious to me why they have a low recidivism rate. The reason is they get out of jail and they're no longer minors, so they are statutorily unable to commit the crime for which they were put in jail in the first place.

The criminalization of teen sex is only the most extreme edge of a spectrum in the ways in which the state tries to protect kids by punishing them. The other things, you could say, really affect a lot more kids much more broadly and maybe even in a longer term way and one of these things is abstinence-only education which the federal government has spent 1.5 billion dollars on since 1982. That's when they passed what was called "the chastity law". It's the only money the federal government has ever in history put into sex education, and guess what, it didn't work either. Kids didn't stop having sex and in fact teen pregnancy is up in 26 states.

Why is all this happening?

Why are we so fucked up about sex? To tell you the truth I don't know because you go anywhere else in the world and people are really flabbergasted by us. I think the anarchist idea that the state needs to justify itself in order to perpetuate itself works really well when you're thinking about moral surveillance. You pass these laws, these bureaucracies get set up, and not just bureaucracies in the government but there are NGOs on the side and then there's professional organizations and there's therapists and all the rest and then there's the prison industrial complex—and then they need to have a reason to exist. So they have to do that both in their actions—they actually have to arrest a lot of people, and they also have to do it ideologically, discursively—that the culture needs to change for people to feel that this stuff really is wrong and it really is harmful. By this time it's really hard to find a parent who says, "Sure of course my kids are going to have sex and I want them to use birth control and don't want them to get any sexually transmitted diseases but this is wonderful I mean this is part of the great pleasure of being a kid and they'll stumble and they'll learn". It's really rare to find that.

The ideological forces that try to repress sex are flexible.

They're able to kind of change the target. In the 80s the big target of protection were women so there was a whole anti-porn movement at that moment. It didn't really take hold. People didn't sign on to it. There were two anti-porn ordinances that tried to pass in the Midwest in the 1980s but both of them were found to be unconstitutional. The advocates of censorship didn't just roll over and die. They changed their strategies and really started to hone in on kids—on protecting kids from sex. There was no adult left, no homosexual, adults were saying, "Look, it's consensual, leave me alone!"

The advocates of censorship

I give a little catalog of how they change their names, because it's kind of interesting. How they went from protecting what they call "decency" to protecting children. So the Citizens For Decency Through Law became the Children's Legal Foundation and then that changed its name to the National Family Legal Foundation. The American Family Association was previously called the National Federation for Decency and then it got the word "family" in it. The National Coalition Against Pornography spun off into the National Law Center for Children and Families. The Justice Department's National Obscenity Enforcement Unit was rechristened the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.

They set up this vast surveillance for child pornography.

As I said before it was hard for them to find enough child pornography so they kept on widening the net. They brought in these vigilante groups like Perverted Justice. Do you remember? Some of you may have watched To Catch a Predator. Still couldn't get enough people so then they also started to say that a morphed image, a cartoon, an image in which there is no actual child being used to create pornography was also criminal. I just recently helped a couple in Kansas City who were arrested for child pornography. When their lawyer finally looked at the images they turned out to be pictures of naked Ken dolls. By this time their children had been taken out of their home and kept away from them for 4 months.

Kids are being arrested for taking naked pictures of themselves — this is called sexting — and sending them on their cellphones to their friends. So the person can be a perpetrator and a victim of child pornography production at the same time! Then the friends who receive the images are now in possession. This happened in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Similar prosecutions have taken place in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Texas and Utah, at last count. But there was a survey done of kids about their online behavior and 1 out of 5 kids said they had done sexting. So that's 20% of kids are doing some sort of a crime.

Being caught for child pornography is no small thing.

It is a federal crime and the penalties for it are four times higher, in general, than they are for murder. So if a kid gets prosecuted for one of these things they are in deep trouble and, as with all sex crimes, they will be on a sex offender registry afterwards.

The criminalization of teen sex is very good for prisons and juvenile detention centers many of which are private. From 1985 to 1995 youth detention grew 72% in America. Whenever there's money it's good for government corruption. It's a sort of private/public hybrid. In Pennsylvania two judges were charged with receiving kickbacks of 2.6 million dollars over 4 years for sentencing kids to juvenile detention. These places are really torturous. Kids have died in them.

What can we do about this?

I think people in this room would probably agree that the state should stay out of consensual sex altogether for kids or adults. As for these crimes of passion I've been working on these issues for decades and really things have only gotten worse and I feel despairing about it. I don't know how it's going to change. I think the only way it's going to change is that it's going to get worse before it gets better.

It turns out in Texas there's really a disproportionate amount of conviction, and this is true in California too, of Chicanos and Mexicans for having consensual relationships. Because it's pretty common, especially among working class and poor Mexicans, to have relationships in which the men are quite a bit older than the women. So it's really interesting, when you look at the names of people under surveillance in the state of California, there are a huge number of Hispanic names. These people get pulled into this thing and they're really astonished that the state could do this to their kids. It's completely heartbreaking. They've lost their children, they've lost their family, they've lost every penny they've got, their families are shamed in their neighborhoods, they have to move, and they get radicalized by it. The most radicalizing experience you can possibly have is to be on the other side of that gate. Once you are arrested you are no longer human.

I think that in order for this kind of thing to change, you know, politics is not really rational—it's an emotional thing. Social movements are mobilized by feeling and once people start to have this tragic experience finally they may say, "ENOUGH!" I can tell you that we're probably getting to that point fast because I'll leave you with this statistic: At present 1 out of every 220 American men is under surveillance of the criminal justice system, in one way or another, for a sex offense.

People who have found themselves victims of a crazy tragic time in American social and legal history.

Judith Levine, author of Harmful to Minors, talks about kids, sex, and the national panic over their connections.

"The panic surrounding youthful sexuality can perhaps best be compared to the war on drugs: Both are based on ideology rather than science, and no amount of evidence can change the minds of true believers. Both mask underlying social agendas in which concern for children is used to control the behavior of adults. And both engender problems of credibility as young people reject exhortations to do as I say, not as I did."—What Judith Levine is Really Saying

"What used to be called “playing doctor” for young children or thought of as normal sexual experimentation for older teens is now enough to get a kid arrested, taken away in handcuffs, put in juvenile jail, subjected to draconian psychological “treatment,” and put on a sex offender registry, often for the rest of his or her life! This is not just for aggressive or violent behavior, but for innocent, consensual play among giggling kids."—Criminalizing Child’s Play

"Since the late 1900s, America has become an increasingly punitive society that sees fit to lock up its people—now almost one percent of us. Sex offenders are the latest category of villains for whom no sentence seems too harsh. The US federal sentencing guidelines make it official that photographing a 17-year-old boy with an erection earns a penalty about twice as severe as attempting to kill him—and about four times as severe as beating him up so badly that he accidentally dies."—Throwing Away the Key

"America’s War on Sex is a comprehensive, well-coordinated attack on sexual education, entertainment, expression, health care by a large number of groups: local, state and federal government as well as morality groups, decency groups, right-wing media and right-wing think tanks."—Dr. Marty Klein

Conclusion

socrates-raphaeldetjpg

Aeschines and Socrates Created by Raphael

“The secret to change is to focus all your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new.”  – Socrates

There is a dearth of information regarding how children become slaves at the moment of birth, and the central role this plays to the continuation of the Matrix. This is most likely due to the confirmation bias that the great majority of people hold regarding having children. Becoming a parent is almost universally accepted as a fact of life (something that cannot be avoided), and thus little thought is ever given to the consequences of creating a new human being.

Children are the last of the slaves to be freed. Why is this? Is it because they are ubiquitously seen as anything / everything but slaves?

They have no lobby seeking to free them from their life as, first their parents slaves, then as they begin to mature, as slaves of society. In fact, there are powerful forces / groups / organizations aligned to keep them in their place — as slaves without rights, chained first to their family, and if that fails, chained to a foster home. As minors  by law children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world.

Most children are created for some kind of selfish purpose on the part of parents; most are a means to at least some further end: "emotional satisfaction, to provide extra work force for the family, to have someone to transmit the family name, to guarantee support in old age, to obey God's commandments, to gain self-esteem or reputation for virility, as a vehicle of status and conspicuous consumption, a source of consumable entertainment, mere emulation of others, and an illusory sense of immortality. Also note the extremely common case in which conception is not intended at all, but is the greatly regretted (but ultimately accepted) by-product of sexual activity undertaken for its own sake.

Starve the Matrix – Unconscious Procreation creates Matrix Consumer Zombies

The Gaian Army

gaia_armyTo put the idea of the Gaian Army into context, a conventional army, the Dominator's Army, exists to control and conquer by force and violence. Destruction, killing and war are its hallmark. The basis of its organization is to enforce loyalty, obedience and unquestioned sense of mission. Unfortunately, the Dominator's Army is also an option to young men and women (especially the less advantaged) looking for stability, a career, a place to call home and a well defined and predictable future, and for a young person without many opportunities, this often becomes their best option.

The Gaian Army is an alternative whose purpose is to train youth to learn to overcome the brainwashing and programming of the STS (service to self) world in which we live. Beginning with the family, then education, religion and life in general, a child is shaped and manipulated to fit in with the status quo.

The Gaian Army exists to prepare youth to become Real Men and Women who live in Real Moments. It offers a similar sense of belonging and mission, as well as a future.

Related, what are the choices facing young people as they become adults? Leaving aside the choices for men, those for females seem even more limited. In my opinion, an almost universal reason that women decide to have a child is a sense of security that it is commonly believed a child will bring to their life. I believe it is a similar need for security that motivates people to join the army, or become a monk or nun. I also believe that the Dominator society controls people through their children.

In the Dominator's Army, young men (and women) are paid to learn, train, practice at and preform killing other human beings.

Nowhere in society is there a similar place for youth to go and be paid to learn, quite the contrary in fact — an education must be paid for. In the Philippines, for example, even elementary schools charge for admission.

Once one's education is completed, or once the money runs out to continue, youth must find a job, and spend most of their waking hours "working for a living" which leaves little free time to pursue a higher education, even in self-study.

So, who though up that scheme? The Dominators of course!

Telestic mission to teach, enlighten, guide, enrich — in short, to encourage and cultivate human potential.

Definition of telestics:
1. the study and application of aims, intentions, purposes.
2. the art of detecting and formulating aims or goals.
3. the practice of open source guidance or self-direction, based on a clear choice of goals framed in an abstract paradigm or a guiding narrative, a vision-story.
From Greek telos, "aim, purpose, goal." Related to the designation used among ancient seers and teachers in the Pagan Mysteries, the telestai, "those who are aimed."

from Chapter XLII, The nonlinear dynamics of love and complex systems - Debugging the Universe

So, let's state the hypothesis. The only reasonable hypothesis that I can state is that one which comes from the unknown system taught by Gurdjieff. This system tells us that the World has a certain purpose. It tells us that not everything works well. It tells us that there are certain "bugs" in the construction.

It is quite possible that using the meta-language one can prove that any program on that scale must have bugs. So, the Universe is a program, a program which has bugs, but which has the built-in capacity for self-improving.

There are, therefore, certain units that are brought to existence with this specific purpose: to self-evolve to a degree high enough to be able to find out the methods of debugging.

So, let's get on with Debugging the Universe, starting with our minds.