Written by Nevele Burnem   

HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY LITTLE FUTURE

THE PROSPECTS FOR A NEW MATRIFOCAL CULTURE

I. The Goddess and The God

Marija Gimbutas was a Lithuanian-born archaeologist and cultural analyst whose last book, The Civilization of The Goddess, is perched on my coffee table. Despite some criticism and even stern repudiation from some scholars, her notion of an Old European culture has been presented in copious detail and documentation, with corroborating support from many others who have studied the archaeological evidence. Basically, Gimbutas has posited a gynocentric (female-centered) culture which flourished across southeastern Europe from about 6500 BC to 3500 BC. According to her analysis, this culture was not warlike or hierarchical but was egalitarian and peaceful. Men and women were regarded as equals in terms of civil rights and ability to participate in social intercourse and decision-making.

Her definition of civilization stands in direct contrast to the definition conventionally given: a hierarchical political and religious order based on a strict and stratified system of social classes and work roles, along with a glorification of warfare and the worship of a male sky god. Gimbutas refers to this kind of system as androcracy. In a gynocentric system there is a horizontal social network of artists, artisans and crafts people in which the supreme being is symbolized as a great goddess. In such a system there is a high degree of personal freedom for both men and women and aesthetic achievement is prized above all else.

Gimbutas rejects the idea that war is an inevitable and inescapable condition of human civilization. In the Neolithic culture that she has explored and analyzed, no weapons of war have been found, no indication of any aggressive behavior aimed at conquest and subjugation of one group by another. Instead, she found much evidence of cooperative sharing, a frequent trading of craft goods and art works
between settlements.

The one difference between a gynocentric and an androcratic culture that I find most striking and significant is in the way a supreme being is conceived. The various images and icons of the goddess reflect the belief that the goddess is immanent in nature and is both a goddess of life and death, a goddess of regeneration and rebirth. In the religion of the goddess, there is no separation between the natural world and the spiritual world. The divine and the mundane form an integrated continuum of energies and forces that are not essentially different in kind but only in degrees of intensity and subtlety. In other words, the visible and palpable world is infused with spirit. Everything is alive and partakes of the sacred power of the goddess. Although this belief came to be dismissed as primitive animism by the scientific materialists of the modern eras, the more speculative thinkers in the ranks of advanced physics have basically affirmed the old animistic notion by proposing that matter is a gross, observable form of consciousness.

If matter and consciousness are only different in degrees of energy intensity and subtlety rather than kind, with consciousness being prior to matter as its originating source, then all observable phenomena are manifestations of consciousness, albeit at varying levels of quantity and quality. Human consciousness is then localization or focalization of consciousness, a limited form of consciousness with a potential for growth and expansion beyond ego-self consciousness. Transcendence of ego-self consciousness is possible, if source consciousness is the origin of all things. The limitation of human consciousness to a localized form is the result of its being grounded in one place and time, with a memory that tends to bind it to that place and time, along with a unique sense of identity based on an unfolding personal history. However, there is no ontological reason why the limited form of normal human consciousness cannot break through the boundary of the ego self, if it recognizes its capability to do so and makes the choice to do so.

In stark contrast to the holistic ontology of the goddess paradigm, there is the dualistic ontology of the male sky god. According to this view, matter and spirit are radically different and irreconcilable categories of being. In the goddess mythology, all creation is born in the cosmic womb of the goddess; in the male god mythology, creation is the result of blowing light and life into an otherwise dark, insentient void. The founding figures of the human race, Adam and Eve, fall from paradise into a corporeal world that is deemed to be a fallen realm, rife with temptation and sin. The natural world is not seen as being infused with the divine spirit of the sky god; on the contrary, nothing of the divine dwells there, save what the god of the distant heavens chooses to inject into it. Since matter and spirit (consciousness) are separate and opposing forms of being, and since spirit or consciousness (pneuma)
precedes matter, all material things are seen as inferior epiphenomenona to spirit. Man in the corporeal world of nature is given dominion over the natural world, which in some androcratic religions is understood to mean that the natural world is a trove of resources to be exploited. The notion of dominion does carry with it the idea of a protecting stewardship, but that aspect of dominion tends to be overlooked or ignored in the quest for valuable resources.

One problem with the sky god cosmogony is that if matter is created by the spirit, the divine breath of the god, then doesn’t matter actually contain spirit? The answer is clear: yes. And if matter is a secondary phenomenon then, while it is illogical to say it is inferior, it is fair to say it is not itself a creative force. It is the solid, three-dimensional residue or distillate of spirit or consciousness. The conclusion we must come to is that matter is just a special limited form of consciousness. Now, the idea of “breath of god” is a metaphor and not to be taken literally, but the idea that matter is the sense-verifiable, three-dimensional distillate of consciousness is not a metaphor or myth. It is the reality.

Another problem with the androcratic paradigm is what Joseph Campbell called mythic dissociation. The sky god is radically separated
from the natural world and, by extension, so is humankind. When it is said that life comes into the world, rather than out of it, the clear implication is that the creation of living things is the result of some external agent that lives off the planet. To believe this is to estrange nature from spirit (consciousness). However, if it is true that matter is a sense-verifiable, solid form of spirit (consciousness), then the estrangement is an illusion. No such estrangement is found in a gynocentric cosmogony.

What is imaged in that paradigm of creation is the cosmos as a great womb out of which all living things are born. Likewise, Earth, Mother Earth, is also a womb, out of which all earthly creatures come, including humankind. It is obvious that the gynocentric cosmogony preserves wholeness, the union of all things and harmony. The androcratic cosmogony leads to ontological estrangement, alienation, confusion and conflict. Moreover, it de-spiritualizes both non-human nature and human nature. Since the androcatic cosmogony has been dominant for several millennia, the inevitable consequence has been the rise of scientific materialism, beginning at about the 17th century. The androcratic religions, having repudiated any notion of the divine in the natural world, have actually paved the way for a materialistic paradigm that thoroughly rejects any sense of the sacred in nature or in humankind. (Only very recently have speculative thinkers in advanced physics theory begun the restoration of spirit in nature, although they prefer to speak of consciousness.) The de-spiritualization of non-human and human nature and the loss of a sense of wholeness and oneness have led to some very unfortunate and perilous consequences.

II. Paradise Lost

“Here I stand, alone and afraid, in a world I never made” is an old adage that very well expresses the feeling that many people have had for a very long time. Despite the effort of the androcratic religions to provide a viable alternative to the secular, mechanistic model of the cosmos, the notion of a male deity off somewhere in the heavens has become increasingly hard to accept for many people. The more sophisticated religionists have made the point that God is not literally a male; that reference is only a convenience of language that permits God to be imaged as an object of worship and veneration. However, the constant reference to God as a male, including the use of male pronouns (e.g.. He and Him) has made it very difficult to think of God in any other way for the majority of true believers. Beyond that problem, there is the issue of what happens when the various folk ideas and images of God are taken as literal truth.

Joseph Campbell has explained that every religious tradition across the planet has its own unique image or idea of what God is, in contrast to the universal concept of a supreme being. When those folk images and ideas are literalized as absolute truth, conflict arises between those who have one way of seeing the supreme being and those who see it in a very different way. Historically, the tendency has been to reject the idea of God that some foreign tribe or nation had, accusing the rival tribe or nation of heresy. Declaring that God is on one side or another, favoring a particular nation or race above all others, has also been a common fact of human history. As even a cursory reading of the biblical Old Testament reveals (see Kings and Numbers), much destruction and slaughter have been rationalized in the name of a particular God. (Indeed, it is fair to say that the great Russian writer, Doystoyevsky,
was wrong when he has one of his characters say, if God does not exist, everything is permissible. Everything, including persecution, enslavement and mass murder, is permissible if one tribe or race claims these acts are sanctioned by their God.)

According to Gimbutas, the gynocentric culture of Old Europe did not glorify war, conquest or subjugation and enslavement of people. While the culture was matrifocal, putting the feminine at the center of adoration and veneration, it was not matriarchal, which would have established a hierarchy of command and control by women. Men and women had equal standing, equal rights and mutual respect for one another. In addition, artistic achievement was highly valued and recognized. In short, the culture Gimbutas has described seems to approach utopia. Since neither Gimbutas nor anyone else has been able to describe this culture in full detail or with complete accuracy, it may be going too far to say it was a utopian one; however, if what she has found of the culture’s artifacts and remains has been interpreted by her with even partial accuracy, then it can be reasonably inferred that the gynocentric world of Old Europe was vastly more peaceful, just and livable than what followed it.

Sometime during the 4th millennium, an invasion of southeastern Europe began. The invaders came from northeastern Europe and Asia, according to Gimbutas. They came in waves so that the destruction of the Old European culture was not sudden but gradual. Gimbutas referred to this migration/invasion as the Kurgan hypothesis, proposing that Indo-Europeans with a patriarchal warrior culture
violently destroyed the Mediterranean culture, setting up a hierarchical model of social organization with exclusively male command structures.
The supreme being of these invaders was imaged as a warrior God who dwelled beyond the Earth. In his name, war, conquest and subjugation of rival groups were sanctioned; confiscation of the goods and resources of the conquered was also sanctioned. Centers of power were set up, with the leaders of the victorious armies at the head. Those in command took for themselves most of the treasure and natural resources stolen from the vanquished. All this is, of course, quite familiar history to any schoolboy or girl.

It’s time to sum up the differences between a gynocentric culture and a andocratic one. Gynocracy, if I may coin a term, images the supreme being as a feminine figure, benign, nurturing, immanent in nature. Men and women are social equals, and the creative arts are considered to be of central importance in expressing the meaning and value of life. The normal state of life is peace, and the bounty of the goddess, the fruits of the earth are harvested and shared by all.

Androcracy images the supreme being as a masculine figure, demanding, judgmental, given to vengeance and violent retribution against those who are disobedient or who image the supreme being in an unorthodox and heretical way. The sky god is utterly transcendent of non-human and human nature. Men are seen as the masters of women, whose main functions are feeding and breeding. The normal state of life is war, particularly against those who believe in a god by another name and image. Control of the natural resources and treasure of the earth belongs to those who worship the sky god, and they may be used as those in command see fit, since Man has been given dominion over the bounty of the earth.

Over the last three millenniums, the androcratic system has been dominant in most regions of the world, especially in those nations that subscribe to the various forms of authoritarian monotheism that have evolved out of the androcratic world view. The gynocentric worldview has survived not in its original form or with its original beliefs practiced in an overt and explicit way. However, the modern trends toward human emancipation, civil rights, peace and economic fairness and justice reflect the continuing influence of gynocracy, however unstated it is. This influence has also mitigated the more draconian effects of sky god religion, which has led to the rise of monotheistic sects that reflect some of the benign, nurturing characteristics of the old goddess religion.

It is my view that the modern history of the world, beginning at about 1600, is, in a broad sense the battle between these two worldviews. Perhaps this may be termed a meta-historical point of view, since it has to be seen as a broad overview of events, circumstances and major historical figures, all of which have been subject to many different interpretations.

At the present moment in human history, a number of serious crises have developed, most of which are the result of human activity and beliefs. The androcratic paradigm has been, in my opinion, most responsible for these crises. World hunger, poverty, resource wars,
pollution, social injustice, economic unfairness and environmental degradation are all traceable to religious and political trends that
have their origin in androcracy. The conservative and reactionary fascist movements of the last century are tragic modern forms of the sky god systems that began millennia ago. I realize that this view will be offensive to some, but I think that an honest and complete historical analysis will show that there has been consistent, albeit nuanced and rationalized behavior based on the androcratic paradigm previously summarized.

In the final section of this essay, I will discuss why I think the androcratic paradigm is in rapid decline and will pass away at some future point. This may be good news to many, but I hasten to add that its passage will be neither easy nor peaceful. Indeed, its death throes will be likely catastrophic, at least in the short run.

III. Perils and Prospects

It may have occurred to anyone reading this piece that its title, “Have Yourself A Merry Little Future,” is a bit of tasteless sarcasm. Let me assure you, dear reader, that I intend no such effect. I sincerely believe that a merry future is possible, but, to coin an old adage, it’s always darkest before the dawn; and we are going to have to endure a rather dark night. Speaking personally, as someone approaching the biblical three score and ten (I will turn 70 at the end of next March), I don’t expect to see the future I am predicting.

One of the chief defining characteristics of a modern androcratic civilization is the aggressive pursuit and consumption of vital natural resources. Capture and control of these resources has been one of the main causes of war during the last 150 or so years. Whether it has been coal, oil, natural gas or precious ores and minerals, the largest and most industrially advanced nations have been engaged in their pursuit and ownership. The competition has grown ever more intense as the advanced nations developed bigger and more complex technologies requiring greater resource inputs to maintain these technologies, nearly all of which have been made up of electro-mechanical devices and systems. In some cases, the capture and control of resources has necessitated the use of force. Among the formally democratic states, the resource wars have been presented to their populations as wars of liberation, or wars of national security and defense. The internal state record of policy and strategy has often concealed the real reason: securing resources seen as vital to the economic interests of the state.
I am not being cynical when I say that all powerful nation states have only two real rules of conduct and action: 1) Survival and perpetuation of the state by any means necessary; 2) Refer to rule one. I do not mean to be funny when I say that.

Vital natural resources are, of course, limited, finite commodities that will at some point run out. In the present period, petroleum resources have begun to run out. Some experts say that oil production has peaked and will begin to dwindle very soon. The same has been said of natural gas, although large deposits are located in the central Asian region, one reason for the current U.S. military involvement in that region, a reason not officially acknowledged by national leadership. Since advanced, electro-mechanical technologies depend on these resources, the pursuit of these precious materials has become quite intense and even desperate. Since many industrially advanced nations have crucial resource needs, the potential for international conflict is quite high.

The consumption of carbon-based fuels has had a very powerful negative and dangerous feedback: air, soil and water pollution. A majority of climate scientists have agreed that climate change, or global warming, is another even more dangerous consequence of carbon fuel consumption. Although alternative renewable energy resources are available (e.g., solar, wind and geothermal), research and development has been slow and uneven, with only a small fraction of the energy need being met by renewables.

Another negative feedback from advanced electro-mechanical technology is the high incidence of cancer in the industrially advanced states. While there has been no entirely conclusive health study that proves a definite link between exposure to various kinds of advanced technology and cancer, many health researchers are convinced of a link.

Of course, other factors, such as diet and tobacco use, account for a great number of cancer cases. Beyond that, there is the physical and mental stress associated with daily life in busy, competitive, largely urbanized environments, most of which suffer from congestion and over-crowding. Stress has been shown to be a significant factor in the development of cancer.

Overall, it is fair to say that advanced industrial states tend to be carcinogenic for all of the reasons cited above. They also tend to produce cardio-vascular problems in great numbers, along with pulmonary disease and other degenerative diseases, most of which are traceable to an advanced industrial culture that has many kinds of health risks and stressors.

Mohandas Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Western Civilization. His reply was that he thought it would be a good idea.
Mr. Gandhi’s sardonic humor was right on the mark. The conventional definers of civilization have too often neglected to note how flawed the orthodox model of civilization is in its essential form. The pyramid structure, with its stratified layers of top-down control, insures that, even in formally democratic states, command and control reside mainly at the apex of the pyramid. Those in command can too easily manipulate the consent of the governed. Moreover, the androcratic paradigm of civilization, which takes as a given the right to treat the world as an endless supplier of natural resources--a right sanctioned by the sky god—-has led to gross exploitation and abuse of the natural world. This abuse was only to be expected, since the natural world was not viewed as the sacred domain of a feminine deity, as was the case in the gynocentric civilization of Old Europe. (The recent notion known as The Gaia Hypothesis sees the planet as a living organism, a scientific way of re-affiriming the old gynocentric worldview.)

Despite the efforts of orthodox monotheistic religion, human beings in an androcratic system tend not to follow moral preachments in a stable and sustainable way. For example, the pursuit of wealth and power has generally been accepted as a valid goal of life, and success in that pursuit has been assumed by some religious sects to be a sign of God’s favor. Obtaining great wealth is not necessarily a bad thing, provided it has been done in an ethical and responsible way, a way that results in some benefit to the society whose human and infrastrucual resources have been used to obtain wealth. The problem, however, is that, for some people, the pursuit of material wealth has become a compensatory substitute for a failure to grow in spirit and consciousness. The further problem is that compensatory substitution does not really work, since, as Erich Fromm said, you can never get enough of what you really don’t want. Failure to understand that increases the desire for more, until it becomes an insatiable craving, an addiction that can never be satisfied. When that happens, the pursuit of wealth becomes an end that justifies any means to fulfill it. This has given rise to an epidemic of white-collar crime that has caused much damage and suffering in many parts of the world. The other major issue is that only a few (1%) have enjoyed a fabulous prosperity. The majority of citizens (99%) have had only a very modest increase in income over the last 30 odd years. This gross economic imbalance has immiserated and impoverished great numbers of people worldwide.

The failure to realize a higher consciousness that enriches the spirit is attributable to religious systems that provide no methodologies for such growth. The sky god religions emphasize a faithful and rigorous adherence to doctrine and commandments, with obedience and discipline held as prime virtues. While some growth of spirit may occur from such a regimen, the realization of higher consciousness rarely if ever occurs under this kind of marshal system. In fact, higher consciousness, to the extent that it brings about a full realization of identity beyond ego, is sternly rejected by orthodox androcratic religions. Full realization of transegoic identity reveals that the sky god is an illusion, thus invalidating the androcratic conception of God, and by clear implication the entire androcratic civilization model. Why is this so?

It is so because androcacy is predicated on a cosmology that posits a heavenly stratification of divine power, with the male sky god at the summit. The mundane model of command and control is a replica, on Earth, of the heavenly model. Invalidate the one and you invalidate the other. (I hasten to say that even in atheistic systems, such as the old Russian communist regime or the Chinese communist regime, the influence of the androcratic paradigm prevailed, due I believe to the deification of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. Both men were treated as gods, following the male god model of absolute authority and command. The result was a crypto-theocracy, which, following their deaths began to ·wither away. Democracy movements in both countries have challenged the old systems, with some limited success.)

Once again I need to summarize the points made. The androcratic civilization model is deeply flawed and has become dysfunctional for the following reasons:

· Dominionism with respect to the exploitation of natural resources
uses up these finite resources, creating a fierce international competition for them. This leads to destructive resource wars and great loss of life. The rationales for these wars have been deceptive and dishonest, thus degrading the democracies that have engaged in these conflicts.

· The over consumption of carbon-based fuels has caused massive pollution of the atmosphere, soil and water. It has also led to a climate change condition via the greenhouse effect. This condition has dire consequences for life on this planet.

· Electro-mechanical technology and the fuels it depends on have led to an epidemic increase in degenerative diseases, especially various kinds of cancer, heart disease and lung disease. Poor diet and tobacco use have also led to a variety of health problems.

· The androcratic religious sects do not foster growth in spirit or consciousness. Due to that failure, many people have pursued a compensatory substitute: great wealth. This pursuit has often become an end in itself with no redeeming social value to justify it. As an addiction for some, material wealth becomes an end that justifies any means necessary, thus leading to widespread criminal behavior.

· The vast and widening gap between rich and poor in most parts of the world has resulted in a dramatically shrinking middle class and a condition of poverty for many people. The reduction of consumer demand has led to a contraction in the production sectors of various states, which further weakens their economies, thus eliminating jobs.

The conclusion is clear: the androcratic model of civilization doesn’t work; it does not lead to a safer or healthier world or human race; it does not enable spiritual evolution toward realization of higher consciousness; it does vastly increase criminal behavior; it does lead to exploitation of the poorer nations by the wealthier and more powerful; and it impoverishes many people in states that do have great wealth but have allowed it to be concentrated at the top sectors. Mr. Gandhi was right; civilization would be a good idea, but not andocracy.

Is there any hope for a transformation, a civilizational shift into something radically different and better? Yes, but it will probably require an almost complete breakdown of the current paradigm.
The bad news is that it seems to be coming; the good news is that what may emerge on the other side could be a modern restoration of the gynocentric, matrifocal world of the goddess. Out of the rubble and chaos of the dying civilization, we may see a leadership group emerge, a vanguard of enlightened men and women who understand the need to bring their brothers and sisters into a new world. They will understand that the old top-down centralized command and control structure is neither practically viable nor morally just. They will see that small is beautiful, as the wise and wonderful E. F. Schumacher once said. What will be needed will be small settlements that are horizontally organized into social cooperatives. A continental network of such cooperatives could be created---perhaps a regional network to begin with. Sharing and trading could go on between settlements; the electronic communications technology we now have will hopefully still be available.

Commerce and business will be on a small scale with ownership being limited to settlement-based entrepreneurs and producers. Some businesses, especially in retail sales of goods and services, may choose to be co-ops. Ownership of certain services, such as public utilities, will be cooperative. Corporations, if they do exist, will be settlement-based and responsive to the needs of the settlement.

I envision popularly elected settlement councils as governors of each settlement; however, every member of the settlement would be invited to meetings of the council and be given an opportunity to contribute. The councils will make decisions on matters pertaining to community interests and issues, but referendums will be held in some cases, such as expansion proposals and use of natural resources. I foresee the creation of settlement food and clothing banks that would insure that even the poorest family would have the necessary means to live securely and in comfort. The food banks could be funded in several ways: by lotteries, by asking for donations from settlement citizens who can afford to contribute, or by suggesting a kind of tithing that is used by certain Christian churches.

Now, one very important precedent condition must be met for any of this to work: the leadership groups for each settlement must be cognizant of and accept the need to use some kind of methodology for the realization of higher consciousness. What method is used will be a matter of individual choice. No one method fits all. If they can agree to use one method for small group meditation, that would be good. Group meditation strengthens each persons practice. There are supposedly electronic technologies that can speed up a realization experience; they should be examined and evaluated for their effectiveness, if they are available. As Arthur Schopenhauer wrote, the foundation of morality comes out of the recognition that each person born is a reflection of the other, a personal centering of the same consciousness from which all things come. When that understanding is strongly experienced, the egoic boundary is seen as an illusion, a mere contrivance of mind that falsely separates people from each other, thus breeding suspicion, fear and enmity.

It is possible to bring about what I have proposed without an enlightened leadership group, but I don’t think the settlement
cooperatives would last too long before disagreement and strife
damaged and destroyed them. The leadership groups would hopefully grow larger as more and more people would become enlightened, until a majority of the population would be in a state of higher consciousness.
Hopefully a time would come when all settlements had an enlightened majority, and then perhaps the entire regional or continental network.
If that happened, mass meditation would be possible, bringing forth what now seems inconceivable and impossible: a mental technology capable of creating physical structure.

Such an idea has been found almost entirely in the realm of science fiction, but at least one individual in India (Satya Sai Baba) has been witnessed creating solid objects out of pure thought. Skeptics have disputed Sai Baba’s ability to do this, but there is some theoretical basis for the notion of thought creating matter. As I mentioned before, several speculative physicists have stated that matter is just a sense-verifiable, three dimensional solid form of consciousness. Advanced meditators have demonstrated some remarkable skills in interactions with material objects. These powers, known as sidis among yogis, are quite common in India and other parts of Asia. One can only imagine what a large number of meditators could do, working in tandem. Faith may or may not move mountains, but if enough concentrated mental energy were focused on such a task, who can say what would happen. A mental technology would make the use of many finite materials unnecessary, thus relieving the planet of much environmental stress and strain. Just as important would be the creation of foodstuffs and garments so that no one would ever be ill-fed and ill-clad. The fishes and loaves story would become literally true.

I realize that this entire scenario sounds like an impossibly idealistic fantasy, but I would remind critics of these ideas that the world we live in now would have sounded just as impossible to the men and women of just a few short centuries ago. Jet planes, cars, telephones, computers, manned spacecraft to other worlds—absurd, ridiculous! Suggesting a mental technology that provides an abundance of goods and gadgets via thought creation may be the cutting edge of a world we can hardly imagine. As I said before, I don’t expect to see any of these things come to pass, but one never knows. One thing we have learned from evolution is that major developments may begin slowly and sporadically, but they begin to accelerate as more and more members of an evolving species learn the new faculty.

So, there you have it; a blueprint for a new civilization. I am not so vain to think that my ideas will actually bring forth this new paradigm. Actually, I can’t take credit for too much of this; I’ve just put a bit of a new spin on some very old ideas. If Gimbutas was right in what she saw in the artifacts, art and remains of Old Europe, those people had a civilization that I have only updated with a few new wrinkles. One may ask why I would subtitle this essay “The Prospects For A New Matrifocal Culture.” My answer: to envision the cosmos as a great womb of source consciousness out of which all manifest existence comes is to re-affirm the goddess mythology that places the feminine at the center of creation. For those who get an esthetic inspiration out of using the goddess image of deity, I say by all means use it. Metaphors are powerful; they should be used. The literalization of deity is an archaic practice that may been useful in its time; but to persist in it marks one as a throwback, as a child in adult’s clothing. Long past time to put away childish things, say I. Time to grow up and work for a new rebirth of freedom, human decency and good will. Goddess bless us, everyone!