The Debacle of GA '19: This NEEDS to be Read by Everyone

Short post, going to let my "guest" speak for himself. I encountered this today, it's a perfect, heartfelt, sad and hopeful piece written by a current Unitarian Universalist. He brings up a lot.

What strikes me is the tone. This is written by someone who's been a committed Unitarian Universalist, he loves the faith, but wonders about the denomination. It's beautifully written and deserves to be read.

Here it is from Reddit: Some Musings on UU & Personal Theology

It is continued here as a downloadable pdf: HERE

Gives one much to think about.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: It Ain't Over Yet... The UUMA Exec Censures Rev. Todd Eklof for Heresy and Blasphemy

I keep getting reports about what's going on with the publication of The Gadfly Papers [buy it and support Rev. Todd: HERE] and it's dissemination at GA '19 in Spokane, WA, and as predicted [HERE], the tempest in a teapot that Rev. Eklof unleashed by simply asking everyone to look at the direction things are going and asking if that's what we really want, ain't over yet. Not by a longshot.

[My predictions are copied here for those who don't want to dig through a long-ass piece.]

These predictions sound a lot like the shitstorm of which Rev. Todd is at the center.

A few readers of the blog have sent me the link UUMA Board and Executive Team Issues Public Letter of Censure against the Rev. Todd Eklof. This letter issued two months after the initial brouhaha at General Assembly is a perfect example of the hypocritical moral posturing of the creme de la creme of Unitarian Universalist ministry.

In essence, Rev. Todd Eklof has been excommunicated by his peers for holding heretical thoughts and for having the nerve to publish them thereby committing blasphemy. 

Here's the funny thing a censure from the UUMA means absolutely nothing... it also means everything.

This is what I mean, the Unitarian Universalist Minister's Association [UUMA] is one of the most utterly useless bodies to exist. It sucks up a couple of hundred dollars from ministers every year, and gives back nothing. Seriously, look at their website yourself and tell me if you see anything of value. 

Yeah, exactly, I don't either.

I would say the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association offers a complete void of anything of value, but as this letter exhibits, the signers of the letter got an opportunity to make a safe moral grandstand that cost them nothing at all. By "safe" I mean this: two months have passed since the swirly-whirly of regurgitation and shit that calls itself General Assembly. Two months have passed to see that the issue is nice and safe to release a public statement of censure. Yup, the moral cowards exemplars at the UUMA Exec issued this rebuke when it was nice and safe for them to do so.

If you think I'm too harsh, remember I've been a UU minister. I've been to more UUMA meetings than I care to remember. I've seen the myopic political calculation that goes behind letters like this. I can guarantee that the signers of this letter all saw good political outcomes for themselves, after a two-month waiting period.

Before we go further, as these things tend to disappear from the internet once Devilhead points them out, here's the screenshot of those who signed this letter:

Devilhead's cheap advice is for anyone who's tired of this shit. If you are on a search committee, for a congregation, for a region, for a special committee, use this list along with the lists in the Special Pages section [right side of the blog] to eliminate poor candidates. These pages are a tool, feel free to use them.

Devilhead sez: "Use the Special Pages section as a blacklist if you're hiring!"

In Devilhead's opinion, this list above are the poorest of possible candidates. Not only are the ideologically hamstrung buffoons, but they are cowards to boot. 

And yet despite the utter incompetence and stupidity of those in leadership at the UUMA, it matters because there are some powerful cowards on this list. On this list we have Rev. Richard Speck [not this guy] who was a district executive for 14 years, now retired.

And we have Rev. Melissa Carvill Ziemer, who is currently the executive director of the UUMA:

She's another one who had a few years in the ministry, then jumped at the chance to work for a bureaucracy. You'll see that a lot at the higher levels of Unitarian Universalist professional ministry; people who prefer bureaucracy over parish ministry. Wonder why that is?

She could, of course, be mindful of the fate of her predecessor. The Rev. Don Southworth who was shitcanned from the UUMA Exec and is now unhirable in any Unitarian Universalist context because he simply questioned the direction of the Anti-Racist Psyop Initiative. Mind you, he never questioned the motives of the program and its handlers, which were/are far from pure.

It's entirely possible that she wouldn't want to face the same fate.

After all, the same thing happened to former UUA President Rev. Peter Morales. Unhirable. His crime? He simply questioned the speed and direction of the Anti-Racist Psyop Initiative. 

Devilhead would like to end this rather rambling rant with a question that is seldom asked. 

When did the meaning of racism change from being actively against people of color, to meaning simply disagreeing with or questioning a person of color? 

When did that happen?

In all cases, these people, Rev. Todd Eklof, Rev. Don Southworth, and Rev. Peter Morales, simply disagreed or questioned the current establishment paradigm.  

When did the simple act of questioning make one a racist?

When indeed?

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

Calling Bullshit on the UUA: Why only 40%?

Has it struck any of the readers of this blog as odd that an institution that has given itself completely and wholly to the psyop work of anti-racism, and has decried the white supremacy psyop culture that it finds in its midst, that the UUA Board has set the goal of UUA staffing at only 40%?

Reddit, as always, has something interesting to say about this whole thing. Goal: 40% of UUA Leadership and Management to be People of Color. It's a worthwhile read.

And here's the UUA World's gushing piece, here.

I keep coming away feeling like the whole thing is playing out like a psyop. Seriously, just look for yourself:

If the goal is truly to dismantle the perceived "White Supremacy Culture" from the UUA, will piecemeal efforts truly achieve their goals?

It seems to me that a lowly goal of 40% is designed to drag this whole thing out for a decade or more. Because once the "revolutionary, groundbreaking" goal of 40% is reached, they will discover that 40% isn't a majority. 

Here's the problem, having a goal of only 40% maintains "white supremacy." 

I know that basic math is not the forte of anyone on the UUA Board, or of the UUA Staff for that matter, but here it is: 100% - 40% = 60%. So, if the goal is actually reached and 40% of people working at the UUA are people of color, that still leaves 60% non-people of color.

So, again, I have to ask myself if the goal of 40% people of color at the UUA isn't just something cosmetic? It seems designed to stretch out the problem and keep white supremacy in play at the UUA.

"White Supremacy" makes a great devil hand-puppet in the yarn the UUA likes to spin. It keeps everyone in line. But what would happen if they actually took care of the problem?

If the UUA were to actually take care of the boogyman of white supremacy culture, for instance by instituting a goal of 51% or greater people of color at the UUA, they would have to find something else to use as a bogeyman when they want to frighten their "stakeholders" into doing their bidding.

However, in setting the goal at a ridiculously low 40%, one wonders if the goal is not so much to appease "stakeholders" as to mollify slaves. Could this be the case? If it is, what does that say about the validity of "white supremacy" culture at the UUA? Maybe it really does need to be dismantled.

40% isn't a majority, it isn't even close. To present 40% as some revolutionary act, when the reality is that it still keeps people of color in the minority and oppressed, is verbal sleight-of-hand. In other words, it's complete bullshit made to look like something worthwhile. How much gold spray paint did it take to cover that turd? The whole thing nevertheless smells like hypocrisy. 

Maybe we need to ask Rev. Rob Eller-Issacs. Wasn't he on the UUA Board when the whole 40% thing was instituted? 

Or maybe we need to ask Rev. William Sinkford, who was used by the UUA's propaganda arm to sell the bullshit here in the article and photo published by the world. [Article Here]

Seems to be selling more white supremacy to me.

For those who want to make this hypocrisy seem like a bargain, please remember that 40% is people of color... all people of color. Not just black people, or latin people, or native people, or (whatever) people... no, it's everyone, absolutely everyone. All People of Color at 40% compared to Non-People of Color at 60%. 

Still seem like a bargain?

Now, divide up the 40% into the various identity groups, and each shareholders' stake gets smaller, much smaller. It's conceivable that with four different stakeholder groups, that each identity group would only get 10%. More stakeholder identities and we're looking at less.

Stakeholders, or slaves? Is this a revolutionary gesture, or, are your murmurings merely being quelled? You tell me.

Have the shit-peddlers sold you more shit? And did you buy it? At what cost?

Cheap Advice That Will be Ignored Because of Institutional Hubris:

My cheap advice to the hoo-hahs at the Unitarian Universalist Association is really this simple, shit or get off the pot.

Institute a revised goal of 51% or greater people-of-color.

That would show you're actually serious about dismantling systems of oppression and white supremacy culture at the UUA. 

Everything else appears cosmetic.

Or, maybe that's the fucking point and has been the whole time.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

By the way, I'm aware that the fires surrounding Rev. Todd Eklof have been fanned. We'll be examining this further. 'Til then.

The Debacle of GA '19: Those Who Refused to Sign

I've heard from several people close to Rev. Todd Eklof. The reports are that he's getting it from all sides.

In our last piece, we looked at who signed, and asked the question if any of them had read the book first, or at all. [The answer to that query: some read the book while the vast majority did not; it seems that all claim to be experts on the contents of the book, however.]

In the lists of those who signed the essential book ban and character assassination of Rev. Todd Eklof, there are some striking omissions. Given that to be fully, completely, irrationally on-board with the anti-racism psyop initiative is the only way to have a career in UU-land, it is surprising that some key names are not on the various petitions.

Why?

In the current hysterical atmosphere at the UUA not signing a popular petition makes one stand out. The ideal at the UUA that it wants all congregations to adopt is groupthink. It makes very little sense not to sign a petition.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to refuse to sign particularly if you have been one of the architects of the current situation.

Why for instance is Rev. William Sinkford not on either list? 

He was our first "black" president. This was a fact screamed from the rooftops. 

He was also brought back when Rev. Peter Morales was  shit-canned to be part of a tripartite (trinity?) occupying presidency. This is not ancient history. The man is labeled a leader, is brought back to lead after the ousting of his successor, and yet, does NOT sign a letter denouncing the racism of a book that is being treated as if it came from Satan's bowels. 

What's up with that?

Does Rev. Sinkford not find the book racist? If he doesn't find the book rayciss, maybe he should say so.

Does he not believe that Rev. Todd Eklof is racist? If he doesn't find Rev. Todd Eklof rayciss, maybe he should say so.

Rev. William Sinkford was a driving force for the "justice" of anti-racism work. In fact, he was one of the main pushers and beneficiaries of anti-racism in the UUA. 

Why, when his colleague, friend, and campaign manager, the Rev. Rosemary Bray-McNatt signed the UUMA letter, would Rev. Sinkford not sign it?

Can you see how this is a big omission?

Is he having second thoughts? 

Is he beginning to look at what he's wrought and questioning his role?

Nah... Rev. William Sinkford seems incapable of holding an opinion that hasn't been carefully handed to him. Ask any member of his congregation. [That's what some of them are saying.]

Is Rev. William Sinkford racist?

Maybe he did his part, helped to fertilize and plow the ground from which this harvest of toxic fungus grows, and having done his part, handed the reigns over to the useful idiots and true believers who will complete the process. He's no longer needed, he fulfilled his role as a key player in the anti-racism psyop initiative. 

And having done his part fades into the night. If you let him. Why are you letting him?

Or maybe people realize that trans-racial grandpa has nothing relevant to say anymore? 

If this is true, he may simply never have been approached.

Another name that is noticeably absent from this list is that of Rev. Rob Eller-Issacs. Rev. Rob "Anti-Racism" Eller-Issacs is not a signatory?! What the fuck is up with that? I mean the man's been on the ground floor of this stuff since the candidacy of Rev. John Buehrens for president, and was part of the closed-door meeting that gave BLUU 5.3 million of the UUA's money... with no strings attached! And he didn't sign? 

It's like he wants to be invisible. Well, I suppose cockroaches hate the light.


This one's getting long and will need to be continued... Just wanted to let you all know I haven't forgotten about these motherfuckers. And then there are those ministers who have connections to the Spokane church, none of whom signed. Yeah, there's more to come.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

Spreading the Word

I'm attaching a screencap from our comments section:

I'm spreading the word.

Your Ol; Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: Those Who Signed

The controversy surrounding Rev. Eklof and the publication of The Gadfly Papers continues unabated. From my observation and experience, the controversy won't end until Rev. Eklof is out of the ministry. That's the only outcome tolerable to the hoo-hahs at the UUA. You know that and I know that. Rev. Todd knows that. [If anyone is interested, I can do a piece on what Rev. Eklof can expect from his colleagues and denomination, and the cancerous effect that will have on his congregation.]

In re-reading some of the responses to The Gadfly Papers, I noticed something odd among the signatories. There were those who signed the various papers calling Rev. Eklof and his book, racist, sexist, ableist, whatever-other-ists-would-stick-to-the-wall-when-hurled-against-it, etc.

And there were those who didn't.

In both cases, there were some interesting surprises on the list. Everything I'm about to point out has already been public knowledge. I'm just connecting dots and asking questions.

On the UUMA People of Color and Indiginous Chapter Statement, is this name:

Who, as it says, is President of Starr King School for the Ministry.

In the Open Letter from White UU Ministers, is this name:

Who, as it says, is President of Meadville Lombard Theological School.

Questions:

Does it strike anyone as odd that presidents of both Unitarian Universalist seminaries signed respective letters, calling The Gadfly Papers damaging?

The implication to me is that we have the presidents of the only two Unitarian Universalist seminaries that serve the UUA calling for the ban of a book.

Is this true? If it is, what does that say?

What about the idea of reading the book critically and then debating it? Why are the presidents of the UU seminaries not calling for this?

What of the future of Unitarian Universalism if this is how the future leaders are being trained?

The Unitarian Universalism you knew and loved is quite dead. 

As to our future leaders, here's another name from that list:

That's right, Isabel Call, who was the outgoing Intern Minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. WTF? She was supervised by Rev. Todd Eklof, and in leaving the church signs a petition that calls the book and her mentor racist. 

What is going on here?

A few possibilities, either she had a good relationship with Todd and the church, or she didn't. She could have had a great relationship with her mentor, and at the same time saw the realpolitik of the UUA and knew that she had better sign... or give up any hope of the ministry. (Not kidding, it really works that way.)

Questions:

Did Isabel Call see the writing on the wall as to the realpolitik of the UUA? Is that why she signed?

Does she believe the book, the minister and the church are racist? Does she believe any of them are racist? Is that why she signed?

It seems from the Spokesman-Review article that Rev. Todd Eklof was surprised by the presence of his church's Interm Minister on the list. Is this how we treat colleagues? Do we sign petitions instead of seeking honest dialog with our colleagues? 

What of all the others who signed? How many of them sought an honest dialog with Rev. Todd Eklof?

To be more to the point, how many of them read the book before signing the petition? How many?

How many of them have read the book at all? How many?

And, how many of them still haven't read the book, and have no intention of reading the book, and yet signed the petition calling for the book to be banned? How many?

If you are a congregant in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, do you want your leaders signing petitions against a book they have not read?

What does all of this say about leadership among the Unitarian Universalists?

If your minister is on either of these lists as signers, you need to ask them if they read the book before signing the petition, if they read it at all. If your minister admits to having signed the petition without having read the book first...

Devilhead's advice would be for you to work as hard as possible to get rid of your minister. No one needs human garbage in the ministry. Don't worry about where you're going to find your next minister, as the UUA promises again and again, there's always more in the pipeline.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: What No One is Really Talking About

So far, the discussion surrounding the publication of Rev. Todd Eklof's The Gadfly Papers has focussed almost solely on whether the book is racist or not. That's not a big surprise as this narrative spin tends to favor the dominant voices in the UUA.

Is The Gadfly Papers racist?

Not at all. 

That hasn't stopped the professionally aggrieved from hysterically shrieking that it is not only vile racism of the lowest order, but dangerous to boot. So dangerous that people shouldn't read it. They have been told that not only shouldn't they read it, but if they want to know what's inside they need only listen to one of the aggrieved as they tell you what it's all about. 

Readers may notice a similarity between this viewpoint and that of the Medieval Church in regards to people reading the Bible for themselves. It was thought too dangerous, and so the Bible had to be mediated through priests. Does that sound familiar? Who does that benefit?

As a cherry on this shit sundae, it should come as no surprise to readers of this blog that many of the aggrieved who are happy to denounce the book as racism haven't bothered to read it. (I guess reading is rayciss.)

Welcome to today's Unitarian Universalism.

Here are a couple of pieces from the Spokesman-Review, Spokane's paper of record. [Here and Here]

Lost in the rush to denounce Rev. Todd Eklof as a racist, and make sure that no one reads his book and become infected with opposing viewpoints, is what happened in the meeting he had with the Right Relations Team.

Here's Rev. Eklof's account:

And here's the version from the Spokesman-Review, which was given verbatim from the UUA:

 And:

Notice a difference?

This from a Redditor [Here] makes the timeline clearer:

My favorite part is, "Someone on the Right Relations team did not like the outcome of this meeting, and went above the Right Relations team."

That, my friends, is the whole fucking story right there. A meeting occurred, things were agreed upon, then someone on the very team who initiated the meeting had issues on the ride home, and went above everyone's heads. Remember, this is the new Unitarian Universalism. Rules are rayciss. 

So, who's on the Right Relations Team? Here is the official web blurb. Interesting, it doesn't mention who's on the team, although it does have a few pics of previous Right Relations Team members.

Yup, the moderators were members of this team.

Here's what no one is talking about, but at the same time is the issue: the piss-poor boundaries of the leaders at the highest levels of the association.

Let's just go through this again:

Rev. Eklof hands out copies of his book at GA. Some were offended. Some tried to stop this book from being read altogether, but settled on it not being distributed for free. Rev. Todd agreed not to distribute the book. Meeting over, decisions reached. In a sane society that would be the end of it.

Except that Unitarian Universalism is populated by the emotionally damaged. Except that the whole anti-racism CIA Psyop initiative is deemed too important to follow rules. It has to succeed, and it doesn't matter if it does so on a lie. The rules don't matter if they stand in the way of naked political grasping. From this, we wind up with declaring that Robert's Rules of Order are rayciss.

[On that:

That's from a retired Unitarian Universalist Minister. How things have changed.]

A meeting did occur, someone didn't like the outcome. Most likely couldn't find a way to virtue signal, or even more likely, realized that they would have to deal with the sniveling of the professionally offended for the rest of GA. (And there probably weren't enough hug boxes in the safe room for everybody.) That's how the professionally offended get their way. They cry and throw tantrums until they get what they want. 

And that's what happened. The official pronouncements are making it all about Rev. Eklof. You may notice they don't mention the names of the others present. What are they hiding? The reality is the unprofessionalism of the people on the Right Relations Team (whoever they are), the UUA Board member (whoever that is), and a co-moderator (whoever... wait... he? Mr. Barb Greve?) calls into question all of the processes and professionalism of the UUA.

Seriously, if you can't trust the word of your elected leaders, or trust that your leaders behave ethically, what the fuck do you have?

If this incident has proven anything, it's that the UUA leaders at the very highest levels can't be trusted and cover for each other.

That's what no one's talking about.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

Happy 4th! Maybe it is time to dissolve the Association.