Eugenics?

I ended the last piece with "Welcome to the new eugenics movement." 

Eugenics? How can I say that?

It's simple. If everything leads to the stagnation or reduction of the human population, and it is by obvious design, then it has to be controlled. If it's not controlled, then everybody can potentially be wiped out, including the architects and beneficiaries of the plan. That will not do. There is no Russian Roulette in population reduction. It is targeted. It has to be.

Since the idea of everyone being wiped out is not part of the plan, then there have to be specific groups who are either targeted or protected. Population reduction is either random or it is not. That's the very definition of eugenics, removing the undesirables from the gene pool, and protecting and strengthening the gene pool of the master class.

So, yes, the zero population growth movements and the population reduction movements are eugenic to the core.

"Hold up!" I can hear some of you saying, "Did you just say 'master class?" Sounds a lot like "master race" doesn't it? Sure does, and there's a reason for that. In popular parlance, this master class is known as "the elite."

I personally hate that term because it makes them sound ethereal, abstract, and not genuinely real. I prefer the term billionaires. When people refer to the elite this is what they are referring to; the billionaires. The billionaires are a class unto themselves. They see themselves as "the elite," as a "master class"; most importantly, they see themselves as "philosopher kings." They don't see themselves as robber barons. That's unpleasant, even if true.

The billionaires club is a small club. It's a minuscule club. With a world population of over 8 billion people, only 3194 people in the world are billionaires. That's a lot less than 1%. In fact, it's only 0.000041% of the world's population. Let that sink in. And, yet, they are "the elite" who control disproportionately literally everything.

So, when some of the "elite" speak of world depopulation, there is one very small group to which this does not apply: themselves and their trusted servants. 

Depopulation applies to you and me.

So, when we start hearing pronouncements from the World Economic Forum, we are hearing from people who embrace eugenics to its core. It's why the world is obsessed with race. It's not an accident.

Have you ever asked yourself why the world is rabidly racist these days? Have you noticed that the rise in racism came right along with the rise in Critical Race Theory? And what if I told you that Critical Race Theory was developed as a weapon against the American people by intelligence agencies?

Many people believe we in the USA are on the verge of a communist takeover. I don't.

Have you noticed that we don't talk about class, but we do talk about race? In fact in the "intersectional" stew we are being fed, the one thing missing from the list of grievances is class. Race is mentioned, sex/gender is mentioned, but not class. Odd for a Communist takeover, but not for a Nazi takeover.

I believe we are witnessing the birth pangs of the Fourth Reich. That's not a joke.

Your Ol' Pal,

Devilhead

The One Thing No One is Talking About

Have you noticed the rapid and sustained destruction of everything?

We live in a time when there is no trust in our institutions. Seriously, name one that isn't broken beyond repair. I'm waiting.

Still waiting.

We are told we are on the verge of World War 3. The mainstream media appears to be salivating over this.

In the USA we have a cabal of corrupt authoritarians making decisions behind the scenes, mouthpieced by the corrupt, senile old fart sitting in the presidency. 

It all leads to death. I'm not joking.

Why do I say that? Everything these days seems to serve one agenda above all others. What is the agenda? 

It isn't anything currently being discussed in any of the media outlets.  It is not racism, sexism, heteronormism, or any of the other isms we are supposed to care about on a daily basis. 

It's population reduction. 

The silence is odd, as only a decade ago people like this asshole advocated population reduction. It used to be that our national sophists were all in favor of the zero population growth movement and population reduction. Now there seems to be an eerie silence around this topic. 

Yet, every single sweeping legislation, and every single stage-managed "cultural shift" serves this agenda. Want proof? Here's a list, in no particular order:

• Same-Sex Marriage: No matter what those who insist we "trust the science" say, the union of two males, or two females, does not produce children. = Zero Population Growth Agenda
• Queer Hookup Culture: See above. = Zero Population Growth Agenda
• Cannabis Legalization: Cannabis leads to lower sperm counts in all animals tested. (Not enough testing has been performed on humans, conveniently.) = Zero Population Growth Agenda
• Transitioning: Those who change their sex are unable to produce children. To transition is to go through a voluntary sterilization. = Zero Population Agenda
• The Plague: A certain virus manufactured in a lab that then "escaped" has led to global illness, death, and madness. = Population Reduction Agenda
• The Cure for the Plague: Young, healthy people dying for "no reason." They call it "Sudden Death." Is there a correlation with the cure for the plague? Nothing to see here folks... keep your eyes down and keep moving. = Population Reduction Agenda
• The Political Response to the Plague: When that asshole Andrew Cuomo decreed that the plague-infected be put into nursing homes, my first thought was "Well, the Nazis went after the old and infirm first... makes sense." = Population Reduction Agenda
• WW3: The mainstream media keeps telling us we're on the verge of World War 3, and they keep warning us of Russia's nuclear threat.
  War in general is, next to plague, one of the most effective ways to reduce surplus population. It always has been. Modern warfare, with nukes, remotely operated drones, robotic weapons, and weaponized viruses, is designed to swiftly and efficiently reduce the populations of troublesome people. = Population Reduction Agenda

I could go on. I'm sure you can find many more things that have become normal in the last few years that lead to the population reduction agenda.

There are currently over 8 Billion people in the world. We have been told that an ideal world population would be between 2-3 Billion, the now demolished Georgia Guidestones recommended 500 Million. So, between roughly one-quarter (1/4) to one-eighth (1/8) of the current population is recommended by those in power as sustainable, and easier to control. That's an awful lot of population reduction. In fact, it's a huge reduction.

So, why are all those who have talked almost non-stop about the need for population reduction so silent? Listen... it's graveyard silent. 

Could it be that it is no longer necessary to urge population reduction when all of the machinery is currently working in place to make it so? Maybe those who pushed this hardest are quietest because they don't want to be publicly associated with the death they advocated? Maybe they want the benefits of a nice easily controlled and managed planet of 500 Million without being seen as the bad guys? 

Could it be that maybe they don't want the public to perceive them as the eugenicists that they so obviously are? 

Welcome to the new eugenics movement. 

I'll let you chew on that for a while.

Your Ol' Pal,

Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '20: The UUA's Unambiguous Response to Rev. Todd Eklof

Remember professional drama queen and attention whore Christina Rivera?

This one: She's mentioned in these articles: HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and many other places HERE.

Her behavior was critiqued in Rev. Todd Eklof's The Gadfly Papers. We all know how that turned out. 

Rev. Todd's congregation is being pressured to let him go. Oddly, they are using his ex-communication from the UUMA and from ministerial "fellowship" with the UUA, as selling points that somehow his ministry has been tarnished. 

Of course, this is shit coming from the UUA, so... you know. The reality is that both the pathetic ex-communication from the UUMA, and the vindictive one from the UUA are badges of honor. There is a powerful group in his congregation, a group called UUnite, who very much see these as badges of honor. And they are WOKE to the UUA's methods of doing business.

Lesson for the UUA: Sometimes the UUA's vindictive shit backfires. This may be just the shove the Spokane congregation needs to leave the UUA. This is being taken more and more seriously in that congregation the more the brain-trust at the UUA pushes their agenda on the congregation. 

Other individuals and congregations are taking note.

But, fear not! The UUA has one weapon in their arsenal that always seems to shoot them in the foot. The UUA loves, loves, loves to reward bad behavior.

Full thing HERE

Rev. Todd Eklof has been shunned for being a man of integrity by the idiots who run the UUA. At the same time, those very same fanatics reward what in a sane world would be regarded as startlingly bad behavior with one of their highest honors.

The idiots who run the UUA really are that childish, and stupid. It makes me wonder if Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray is partially retarded. (I guess the world will never know.)

It's childish because by elevating someone who has caused what appeared to be intentional damage to the denomination for what appears to be nothing more than personal gain, it makes its message clear. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, we don't like you Todd! We threw you in the trash and promoted an institutional cancer instead! We prefer institutional cancer to you!" 

Yup, that is how the UUA acts. It has acted this way since at least the time of the John Buehrens/Denny Davidoff presidency. No shit. [I've been calling this period the Buehrens/Davidoff presidency because much like George Bush and Dick Cheney, we all know who the "president" was and we all know who really called the shots.]

It's stupid because now that they've made their point, they have to live with their decision. So, for instance, let's say that this behavior is repeated. (There's no reason to believe that it won't be repeated as her bad behavior has been rewarded.) So, let's say this is repeated. Well after such a glowing ass-kissy award (reward?) the UUA will be stuck defending this behavior every time it rears its head.

Another lesson for the UUA: When you reward bad behavior, it will not only continue, it will in all likelihood increase. Enjoy the bed you've made.

Your Old Pal,

Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: Well This Was Inevitable

Rev. Todd Eklof has been disfellowshipped from the UUA right on the eve of GA '20.

Here's the letter: [Original HERE]

Is anyone surprised? Literally, everything I said would happen did. And it ain't over yet, not by a longshot.

In the last piece, The Debacle of GA '19: What Rev. Todd Eklof and the Spokane Church Can Expect, we examined how the UUA operates. It is completely and thoroughly dysfunctional. 

It seems surprising (to people who only pay attention to words, not deeds) that the whole anti-racism movement seems to have such ugly "side-effects" of "creating justice." It doesn't seem to make any sense, does it?

Well... it does make sense when one realizes that anti-racism was created as a psyop by a three-letter agency. (I'm not making the claim that  Capitalism's Invisible Army is behind it, although there is a long and rich history of the CIA doing illegal activities on US soil. There are many, many intelligence agencies active in the US. Sometimes they work separately, sometimes together. Sometimes they work within the confines of the law, sometimes they don't.)

"But wait..."  I hear you say, "anti-racism and the whole culture that surrounds it is here to create racial justice."

Yes, indeed, that's what we've been told, (harangued really), again and again, and again.

But what if I were to tell you that all of the insane shit going on in the general public, and in our churches, is NOT the byproduct of striving toward racial justice, but rather, its purpose. 

Take a look at THIS. This is from last year's Democratic Socialist Convention, held just a couple of months after GA '19. If you notice nothing gets done. Nothing. That's the point. This only happens to left-leaning groups. It almost seems tailor-made to shut down the opposition. Doesn't it? It would do us well to remind ourselves that intelligence agencies lean right, not left. Some of them lean very right. 

What if I were to tell you that several people in high places in the Unitarian Universalist hierarchy receive payments from one, or more, of these three-letter agencies? Let that thought experiment perk. I encourage readers to look for themselves. Look at your "leaders" and ask yourselves how they personally benefit. Look carefully. You may be surprised.

Given all of this, do you think the beneficiaries at the UUA will allow a political enemy to interfere with their payola agenda? We will explore all of this in a future piece. 

It's obvious that the letter above was written for the prime audience of believers, fanatics... oh, alright the chronically deluded. It's obvious because it's filled with flat out lies. 

Let's take a look:

The first paragraph makes it clear that Rev. Eklof refused to take part in the star chamber the UUA prefers to call due process. It is to Rev. Eklof's credit that he did not bow down before the false idols they erected. The fact that this is completely dysfunctional, and the "ministerial misconduct" was a simple disagreement over the vision and direction of the association, should give one pause. But the deluded majority in the ministry won't give this a second thought.

The key part of this missive is this: 

"The Rev. Dr. Eklof has sought to focus public attention on his critiques of the UUA's approach to this work of repairing injustice." 

That's their issue with Rev. Eklof. It's right there. He was executed as a political enemy for the crimes of wrong-think [heresy] and wrong-speak [blasphemy].

But they can't say that outright [even though they literally just did] because it might upset those who finally see the hypocrisy of an organization that has historically championed freedom of religious experience and interpretation using Orwellian tactics to stifle discourse and remove a political enemy through charges of heresy. If people saw it that way, they might be upset. Hence the crimes of wrong-think and wrong-speak (aka heresy) must be polished over. It can't be about Rev. Eklof speaking truth to power. Which is exactly what happened. Seriously, who abusing all the power right now? 

Yup, in the new Unitarian Universalism, using the power and the language of the oppressor to stomp out dissent is known as "repairing justice." It's right there. Plain as text.

It gets more Orwellian. As they can't actually say that Rev. Eklof was removed from fellowship for heresy, [although they literally just said it] because there are still those in Unitarian Universalism who might get upset, there needs to be another presenting reason in place of the truth. As the truth is inconvenient, they chose to lie instead.

"Whether he agrees or not with a particular approach to this work is not the essential issue in the Committee's process or determination."

That's a lie... it's not only the essential issue, it's the only issue.

"Rather, the refusal to engage in dialogue with others and to be accountable  for his actions [Devilhead's emphasis] through the MFC process was the context for the Committee's review and the basis for which it has now removed his fellowship."

In other words, even though Rev. Eklof was removed for the crimes of heresy and blasphemy, for questioning the direction of the association, Rev. Sarah Lammert as a writer of this letter chooses to blame Rev. Eklof for bad process. 

Rev. Lammert I think you're a sack of shit. I'm not surprised. In my time in the ministry and out I've never heard anyone speak highly of Rev. Sarah Lammert's ethics. I guess the above is an example why.

And although the above lie is obvious, I guarantee that the majority in the ministry will parrot the line that Rev. Eklof didn't want to be held accountable.

What Rev. Eklof  and the Spokane Church Can Expect:

What no one says, but I'll tell you here because I've seen it happen time and again to political enemies of the UUA, is that removing Rev. Todd Eklof from fellowship was a given.

What would have happened had Rev. Eklof met with the Ministerial Fellowship Committee?

It would have been a meeting where he was guilty and tried before he even entered the room. The MFC is a Star Chamber, make no mistake about it.

It would be a browbeating "dialog" [one way communication] with the only goal to shame him into admitting he was wrong. With these three results, and only three, possible:

1. Rev. Todd Eklof would stand firm in his position. With the result that he would be disfellowshipped for heresy and blasphemy. And the result that they would have to make up a different lie as to why he was disfellowshipped. This would have been the most likely scenario.
2. Rev. Todd would be shamed into submission. The MFC would then hand the good Rev. a laundry list of things to do, a very large laundry list, a list so large God might have a hard time doing it all. To make things more interesting, should he actually attempt to do the list, a time limit will be placed on things. And... each item on the list will have to be validated by someone in the borg collective. End result: Rev. Eklof is removed from fellowship for either not completing the list, not doing it in a timely manner, or not making his judges happy. [In reality, Rev. Todd was aware that this is how the Star Chamber of the MFC works. Which is why he chose not to legitimize a kangaroo court.
3. Rev. Todd would be shamed into submission. The MFC would then decide that they "gave him every opportunity" but he's beyond redemption. End result: Rev. Eklof is removed from the ministry just cause they don't like him.

Now one would think that being removed from fellowship would be enough.

But, no. They want him out of the ministry.

As we speak, and I know this for a fact having heard from a congregant recently, the new approach is to badmouth Rev. Eklof by suggesting that since he isn't in fellowship, he's not really a good minister. The congregation can do better. The usual bullshit claims that there are all sorts of good fellowshipped ministers in the pipeline. UUA and Region honchos are actually involved with spreading this manure around right now as I write. Yup, real scumbags.

We'll pick this up next time.

Your Old Pal,

Devilhead

The Debacle of GA '19: What Rev. Todd Eklof and the Spokane Church Can Expect

I've had enough requests asking me to comment upon the situation of Rev. Todd Eklof, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Rev. Todd Eklof's ministry is over. It may seem presumptive to say this because Rev. Eklof's congregation is largely behind him. In a sane world in which congregational polity is respected, that would be that.

But the UUA has no respect whatsoever for congregational polity. None. If you doubt this, pay attention to the UUA's actions, not their words. Their words are usually lies, their actions speak the truth; albeit a far different truth than their narrative allows.

Put very simply, but not inaccurately, it's not over because the UUA hasn't gotten what it wants. As the UUA has no respect for congregational polity it will stop at absolutely nothing to get what it wants.

And what the UUA wants is twofold: 1) Rev. Todd Eklof out of the Unitarian Universalist ministry with prejudice, and 2) The Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane to join the borg collective the current thinking of the UUA.

Nothing else will do. The "leaders" at the UUA will stop at absolutely nothing to make sure that happens. It's already begun.

Without further ado, here's what Rev. Todd and the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane can expect:

First off this is going to be one absolutely miserable fucking year for Rev. Todd Eklof. As it is, he's already been publicly pilloried for wrong-think. The cherry on that shit-sundae was the UUMA Executive Committee in a startlingly visible act of cowardice censuring the Rev. Todd Eklof. 

Dead white males all be rayciss. Nothing to see or consider here folks.

There are some standing with him: The Board of Trustees of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane, his good offices person (Isn't it interesting that he would need a good offices person for the crime of thinking for himself?), most of his congregation and the president of the Board of Trustees.

That last one's a two-edged sword. The current board president of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane is, in my opinion, the single worst person in the congregation to be board president at this time. This is someone who gets bogged down in microscopic minutia. This is also someone who really loves her minister. 

Because of that, Rev. Todd Eklof will not lose his job while the current board president holds the office. In fact he's very safe, this year. The president would consider it a personal failing of hers if she were not able to "save the ministry" of Rev. Eklof.

At the same time, every single complaint she or the board receives regarding Rev. Eklof will be given careful, minute, painstaking, detailed investigation. Each time to exonerate Rev. Eklof. This leads inevitably to two parallel results leading to a third:

1) The constant, and I do mean constant, investigations into this or that aspect of Rev. Todd Eklof's ministry will sap the time from anything else. It will be very difficult for him to get any actual ministry done with meeting after meeting dealing with utter bullshit. As a result, Rev. Todd will begin to feel and show signs of burnout. 

2) Each and every investigation into Rev. Todd's racism, and other recently uncovered failings in his ministry, will start to cast doubt on Rev. Todd. It doesn't matter if Rev. Todd Eklof is racist or not, the constant investigations will either uncover, or manufacture, Rev. Todd's racism.

Both of these lead to 3) Rev. Todd's burnout will be seen as evidence of his guilt. Which changes the tone of each and every investigation.

"But, he wasn't guilty." you say. When has that ever applied to a scapegoat? The scapegoat's job is to take on the sins of the community and be expelled into outer darkness (aka away from the religious fold).

As the Spokane church has a president who has no ability to sort and pick important issues from the general stuff that swirls around controversy, everything will be given equal detail. Everything.

The big issue of whether Rev. Todd Eklof is a racist, did not originally come from inside the congregation. Literally no one in the congregation ever felt that Rev. Todd is or was a racist. That, however has changed because of the above and what follows.

We're going to take a little time to look at this as it shows how the Unitarian Universalist Association operates. Warning... it's ugly.

In the beginning, there was Rev. Todd Eklof and the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. Both were happy with each other. The Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane is -- whatever else it's shortcomings and failings -- one of the few Unitarian Universalist churches left in the country where free thought is encouraged and practiced. 

I can personally guarantee that everything that Rev. Todd Eklof presented in The Gadfly Papers was discussed with his congregation, through sermons certainly, but more importantly through all of the various discussion groups, think tanks, philosophical discussion groups, and on and on. The ideas in The Gadfly Papers were discussed and refined in the congregation's numerous talk groups. So, while it is safe to say that everything that Rev. Todd wrote and published is his, it isn't entirely his own. These are ideas that were refined in the congregation. The congregation owns them as well. Hence the need to scapegoat.

And I personally guarantee you that if The Gadfly Papers was met with enthusiasm by the borg collective GA attendees, the congregation would own as much of it as they could. As it is, it was rejected explosively, and now the congregation feels embarrassed. Not for the ideas, but for the reception the ideas received. And there's the chink in the armor. 

Do not for a nano-second believe that the UUA is going to sit on its hands and watch the show from the sidelines. Nope. There is a golden opportunity to get rid of a political enemy (that's really how the brain trust at the UUA sees it), and that opportuity has been seized with both hands.

It started subtly, after the fracas at GA '19, when they discovered that they hadn't ordered enough hug boxes for the chronically triggered. At GA itself, delegates were approached by various hoo-hahs with faux concern about what happened. Initial contacts were presented with care and concern. You know the deal, "It's such a shame that such a nice congregation that would never harbor such horrible ideas has had your minister put you in this terrible situation."

Over the summer, several leaders in the congregation received "pastoral" phone calls from region and national leaders, each on the surface seeing how everyone's weathering the storm. 

In all cases, information was gathered, weak points were probed, and the person contacted left the conversation with these salient points firmly established in their heads: 1) this is entirely Rev. Todd Eklof's fault, 2) as a result, the congregation is an innocent bystander/victim, 3) we're with you emotionally as you face this trial with your minister, and most importantly, 4) should it not work out... there are a lot of great new ministers in the pipeline. 

This last is both the most important piece of information a UUA/Region leader can impart and it's a flat out lie. What this means is not that there are plenty of good, qualified ministers in the pipeline, but rather that there is a glut of completely mediocre ministers who pass the UUA's political litmus test. These people may literally fail in any and all aspects of ministry (and frequently do) with the exception that they have completely bought into the psyop that passes for enlightened discourse in the UUA these days. And as a complete coincidence nearly all of these political hacks are subsidized by the UUA in the form of "Consulting" or "Contract" ministers. 

That is correct... the only thing looked at for fitness in ministry is political ideology. Seriously, that's it. Anyone hiring from this new pool is begging for trouble. 

To the UUA leadership's understanding, the Spokane church initially supporting their minister was (and is) seen as the church being racist to the core. I absolutely, positively, guarantee that when (not if, when) Rev. Todd leaves, the only candidates for interim ministry will be extreme hard-liners for the UUAs chosen political philosophy. Should they accept one of these stooges, and the congregation starts to inevitably falter, they will be offered a "partially all-expenses paid" consulting minister. The way thes work is since the UUA pays for part of the minister's salary, they feel it is their bought-and-paid-for right to control the direction of all of the congregation's ministry.

In order to help further this along, the helpful souls at the UUA/Region will suggest their own consulting team to come in and assess the congregation. As this is partially paid for by the UUA/Region... you know the rest. 

That's what we're going to see this year. 

In the next few pieces we'll look at the documented proof of what's going on with Rev. Todd and the Spokane church, and examine the calibre of the ministers the UUA pays for through their consulting (and other welfare programs for failed ministers) ministry program. All of which forces me to question whether the good folks at the UUA believe in the first principle...

One last thought. I happened to drive by the church a few times and noticed that their marquee out front was empty... all week long.

This photo was taken at 11am on Saturday morning (Feb. 22, 2020) It had been like this all week.

Let that sink in.

Your Old Pal,
Devilhead

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.

The Debacle of GA '19

I have the feeling the Unitarian Universalists have hit a historic point. It's not the historic point anyone would want to make, I'm sure, but a historic point has been made. 

Rev. Todd Eklof, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane. is at the center of a fucking shitstorm.

Given the absolute outrage over Rev. Todd Eklof's actions, one might expect that he is a serial sexual predator or a molester of children,  but apparently, he's done something worse, much worse. 

His crime, the response of which is deafening, doesn't come close to being a serial sexual predator. The UUA/UUMA continues to keep predators safe. How else can one explain the large number of people with piss-poor sexual boundaries in the ministry? (One of them had his congregation leafleted by an irate husband of the congregant our minister was sleeping with, on Easter morning no less. That one is still in the ministry, although not in that church. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.)

The response to Rev. Eklof's crime to date has been louder and more psycho than usual. Certainly more so than the situation around that cancer Christina Rivera, or those surrounding the swift axing of Rev. Peter Morales from the UUA presidency, and that of Rev. Don Southworth from the UUMA presidency.

Moreso than the arrest and conviction of confessed pedophile Rev. Ron Robinson. That one barely had a peep made. It was pretty quiet, and some defended his character. So, Rev. Todd must be horrible.

Rev. Todd Eklof's crime was in publishing a book called The Gadfly Papers, [available on Amazon, purchase it] which called into question some of the methods of the "white supremacy" bullshit that is a part and parcel of anti-racism. [Kindle edition here.]

Before we go any further, let's examine what happened from the core documents that are out there:

Here's the backlash:

An Open Letter from White UU Ministers

An Open Letter from UU People of Color

A Statement from LREDA

And one from DRUUM:

So, that's the official channels. Reddit is off the hinges. I've never seen this community so up in arms:

I love Reddit. In no particular order:

The Death of UUism by the Numbers

Rev. Todd Eklof's First Sermon Following the Release of the Gadfly Papers

Why You Should Read the Gadfly Papers

"White Fragility" Smacks of Psychological Abuse

Coverage of the Eklof Controversy from a Spokane Paper

This is, by Far, the Best Critique of the Gadfly Papers I've Read So Far

Curious About the Process of the Book Ban and its Rescinding

Telling Our Stories: The Failure of The Gadfly Papers

What is Going On?

The Gadfly Papers

General Assembly is Happening Right Now!

Well, that should give us all something to chew on. 

Next time, we'll unpack some of this stuff. And being Devilhead, I'm interested in looking at the stuff no one's talking about.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead