All these fashion models have slightly longish hair

I enjoy looking at fashion magazines sometimes, but I only like a few of the pictures. I look for models that meet the criteria of my grooming rules, for instance, thick unplucked eyebrows, 'unibrows,' or very long hair. (Mustaches are unthinkable. When they do appear on runway fashion models, they're fake and they are part of an 'androgynous' theme, where the women are deliberately supposed to look like men, and it's not meant to be taken seriously, and it's not meant to look natural, and it's not meant to be a way that real women on the streets in the real world are ever going to look.)

You hardly ever see very long hair anywhere. But once in a while you see slightly long hair, such as hip length. Today I was looking at Vogue magazine, the big thick one with the Spring 2011 fashion shows in it.

I flipped through a bunch of pages and was ho-hum about most of it. But then I found Roberto Cavalli's page. Here is what I saw:

http://belarusianmodels.blogspot.com/2010/09/anabela-belikova-at-roberto-cavalli-ss.html

That's just a link to another blog, but that was the easiest web page to use to show the pictures. I also looked on the Vogue website under Roberto Cavalli, but it was hard for my browser to look at the page. They're there too, under Spring 2011.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that all of these models have slightly longish hair. It's so unusual that I wondered if they had extensions added to their hair, if it wasn't their real hair. I'm still not sure if it's real.

There are web pages devoted to very long hair, and those websites would understand me when I scoff at the shortness of waist-length hair. Waist-length hair is 'too short' by my standards, and I see it as 'off to a good start, but still has a long way to go.' Still, waist-length hair is very rare in the fashion industry.

I also liked the stringy fringes on the clothing. I like fur, and the strings resemble fur. They almost look like mermaids draped in wet fabric. The fringes would move and flow like water. It's also like a hair substitute. They don't have floor-length hair, but the fringes substitute for that. If they had very long hair, the hair would hang all over the place and dangle and move like those fringes do.

John William Waterhouse is a painter who loves long hair. http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/paintings/. However, none of his models have any armpit hair or pubic hair, and that's confusing to me, because I've read from other sources that they believe female body shaving only began recently, in about the twentieth century, and those paintings are older than that. Maybe 'normal people' didn't shave until recently. But models might have shaved when they were having their portraits painted. Maybe most people didn't.

Female shaving supposedly began (according to the sources I've read, which I would have to look up again to find them) because razor companies started looking for a way to sell more razors, so they artificially created the idea that women ought to be ashamed of their body hair. Before that, nobody cared, but all of a sudden, the advertisements started brainwashing everyone to believe that they have to spend their money and buy razors.

Long hair is kind of the same way. If you do nothing at all to your hair, you aren't spending any money on beauty products. The beauty products manufacturers want you to keep your hair around shoulder-length because it's 'more versatile for styling.' You can use hair sprays, mousse, gel, de-frizzers, and anything else, but only if your hair is short and layered. If your hair is very long, you don't style it. So the magazines and televisions sell you the image of a short-haired woman ('short' being defined as shoulder length or upper back length, which is the length that almost everyone has) so that you will buy styling products. It's not because short hair is objectively better than long hair. It's because it's easier to use styling products and 'do stuff' to your hair when it's short. It's because we watch television a lot, and all of it is meant to advertise something.

There is one way that short hair is better than long hair: it's physically safer. Short hair is less likely to get tangled in a piece of machinery or something. You could die if your very long hair got tangled in something. Other than that, short hair is mostly just something that the styling product companies want you to have.

Anyway that was my pleasant surprise for the day. I actually liked the way all of those pictures looked in the Vogue magazine on that particular guy's collection, Roberto Cavalli.

a handwritten note; dreams; random topics; electronic harassment - ultrasonic attacks

8:42 PM 8/23/10

curtis - no phone, nickname, note, dream
new tables?
watching movies - a substitute for socializing
feeling optimistic, which means sjw exposure
not trying to do online dating now
flat tire
new refrigerator
dreadlocks progress

I'm not sure if I have enough mental focus to write a blog today. I have a few different things to say. I could tell the dreams first. The dreams are always fun to write about. There were a couple of sexual dreams. This happened because I gave Curtis a handwritten note. I told him that I had texted him a bunch of times the other day. He was shocked and surprised. He didn't get any of them, and he didn't get the voice mail message I left either. 'Maybe they shut my phone off already,' he said, as though he had been using it up till now and thought it was okay. His phone is being shut off temporarily because he didn't pay the bill this month. He hasn't worked enough hours to make enough money. So that was why I decided to give him a handwritten note. He told me he also doesn't have internet right now, so he's not getting his emails.

I gave him a note which didn't ask him to *do* anything specific. I told him, 'Humor me,' and handed him the note. 'Don't worry about it - it's just a reminder,' I said. In the note, I summed up all of the things which I've said to him again and again, many times, in various notes and text messages and emails that he hasn't gotten. The note's theme was, 'I always say the same things.' I always tell him that someone's blocking my emails and phone calls, so I worry about how I will reach him if he, or I, leave our jobs for any reason. I always tell him that I want to be friends with him away from work, and that I'd like to be friends with him a long time, not just temporarily. Sometimes I tell him that I love him and that I want to touch him but I don't want to make him uncomfortable.

Later that day - after he probably read the note - I walked past him, while he was standing with a bunch of people, and he was watching me with big, big, wide eyes.  I don't know whether that emotion was fear, excitement, shock, or whatever, he was just wide-eyed.  That is something I love about him, how his face, and his whole body, express his feelings in a dramatic, visible, obvious way.

He has always responded positively to my notes and to my touch. He keeps coming back and calling me pet names. He doesn't avoid me or act grossed out. In fact, several times when I've given him notes in the past, the name-calling started happening even more than ever before. I looked at his girlfriend, and I decided, yes, I'm ugly, but she's ugly too, and he's marrying her. So he's able to tolerate ugly girls.

Well, since I gave him that note, I had dreams that night. In the first dream, I was kissing a very little boy, a prepubescent child. I didn't expect to kiss him. I was just leaning over close to him and he started kissing me, if I remember correctly. Then he started rubbing against me and he had an orgasm. It was sort of unrealistic. He ejaculated a clear liquid and it sprayed up between us. Then a voice said, 'You didn't expect him to get hard.'

Then there was another dream the next day, in the morning sometime. This was a 'symbolic' dream that the voices explained to me after they woke me up. It's complicated, so I'll just tell what happened and then explain the symbolic interpretation. My ex-boyfriend Eric and I went over to 'John's' house (my brother). We were playing video games on his computer because I had a problem with my own computer at home. It was a role-playing game, something like dungeons and dragons. The character in the game was controlling an animal using magic. I couldn't tell what the animal was, from the image, but the voices told me it was a goat. It was standing up on legs and walking, so it didn't look like a normal goat - it must have been an anthropomorphic goat. That's when they woke me up, and then they proudly explained to me the interpretation of their dream.

John (my brother) = I moved into John's apartment because I was kicked out of my parents' house, so John = Carrie, Curtis's girlfriend, because Curtis moved into her house after getting kicked out of his parents' house. John represents Carrie.

Eric represents me. Eric was my 'older' boyfriend. Now I'm the older one.

I was Curtis in the dream.

(Yes, every person was somebody other than themselves, in a different role.)

We were playing a 'role playing game.' Every person was in a new role this time. The game was a sexual game, and the animal was a goat - the goat represents a penis. I had to use this computer at my brother's house, without asking his permission, because I had a computer problem at home - they told me that I would be on Curtis and Carrie's bed (the 'computer'), without Carrie's permission, instead of my own bed, because I don't really have a bed here at my apartment. And we were afraid that 'John' (Carrie) would find out that we were using this 'computer' (the bed) to play 'role-playing games' on. And the voices got even more complicated with their explanation, saying that I was controlling the goat without touching it, by magic. I'm not sure what that meant. I couldn't see what the video game character was doing to magically control the goat, because that's when they woke me up.

It's complicated when I look at what I've written. My brother John was Carrie; I was Curtis; my older-than-me ex-boyfriend Eric was me.

Those dreams weren't quite as cute as the furry black bull dream, but they were okay.

********

I can't stand to do online dating right now. There is this inhibition stopping me.

*******

My life seems to go nowhere, because the attackers constantly prevent me from thinking. I could meditate and get a perspective on my situation and quickly decide what is the best thing to do, and then do it. But I can't do that. I get zapped every time I think. They were doing it the other day, and if it were possible to kill them, I would have done it that day. I was trying to think about finding a REAL husband, not a young guy who's extremely attractive but can't be reached and already has another girlfriend that he'll be marrying. They kept forcing me to fall asleep *EVERY TIME* I tried to think about the real husband. Curtis isn't going to be my husband. He is someone else's husband. The most I could be is an extramarital affair, if that.

****
The nickname: He must have received the BAD text message (but not the good ones), because he acted like he'd gotten the message that I had sent him, telling him not to call me that name anymore. Then again, it might have also been because he called me the name in front of Stan, and I responded by acting hurt and then saying, in a slightly angry voice, 'Yeah, THAT'S ME,' and then walking away. Anyway, he either got the text message or he didn't. Regardless, he changed what he was doing. He started calling EVERYONE the nickname, at least the adjective part of it. (I wrote a blog a week or two ago saying, pretend the nickname was 'my fair-skinned beauty,' and he started calling everyone 'fair-skinned'. It's like that. It's an unusual adjective that you wouldn't use in an everyday sentence.)

He saw me walk into the back room, where I went to write a department transfer, and he was drunk on Dayquil that day, since he had a bad cold. (It was so bad, he went to the hospital the next day. I don't know how exactly he was sick, or why he needed to go to the hospital, but he did, and he said they gave him two shots, in his butt. He was limping the next day. What kind of shots do they give someone who has a cold? I hate mainstream medicine and its placebos.) So he was acting even more talkative and friendly than usual, being drunk on Dayquil, and when I went back to do the transfer, he said, 'Is that my fair-skinned.... Orry? I thought you were fair-skinned Orry.' (Yes, I'm substituting the adjective.) I said, 'Yeah, he's about the same size as me.' (Orry is short and small, but I don't find him attractive merely because of that. He's not a competitor. I'm not helplessly attracted to *ALL* small guys.)

So whatever I did, I got him to start calling everybody the adjective. He might possibly not need to do that anymore. We sat together and talked a bit one day - I already wrote about that. Then he sat next to me again when I was on my lunch break and getting ready to go back in, and I stayed out there five minutes later than I was supposed to, because I decided that spending five extra minutes with him was more important than getting back to work on time. He is still being friendly to me, after all of this. He still acts trusting instead of afraid or 'weirded out.'

I'm not being extremely aggressive or pushy. I'm not putting deadlines on it. I'm not directly asking him to go out with me at a specific time. ('Go out' is the wrong phrase to use. I don't want to 'go out' with him. I want to spend time together with him, doing anything at all.) I'm just reminding him that I exist and that I care about him and that I want to continue being his friend even though I can't reliably get emails or text messages or phone calls to him.

*******

I had an extremely flat tire today. I had noticed it was getting flatter over the past few weeks. Today I checked it. It's supposed to be 32 psi. It was 10! It was 1/3 of the pressure it was supposed to be. It was so flat, the sides were bulging out at the bottom. I'm lucky to be alive. It could have failed while I was driving down the highway and I would have gone straight into the oncoming lane. I refilled it, and I will keep an eye on it. If it keeps getting flat, I will have to get a new tire or something.

New refrigerator? I was talking to the maintenance guy today. He mentioned that an energy efficiency inspector would be coming over, and that we were all going to get new refrigerators for all the apartments, no matter what. That's nice for me, because I still don't feel safe using the fridge after the bone marrow vapors. There's just a tiny bit left, and I don't want to ruin any food or drinks I put in there.

Dreadlocks: I started the no-shampoo experiment in January, 2009. I wrote about it in this blog. My hair gradually formed natural dreadlocks. In the beginning, I had a couple of badly formed monster locks that were too big and in a bad position. They were pulling the hair in a bad way, and it hurt, and it was hard to lie down on that part of my head when I slept. Now, they have gradually moved and mellowed out a little bit, and they're not really pulling anymore. Some of the roots connected to the monster locks have fallen out, so that the lock isn't connected to as many roots as it was in the beginning. The locks are moving to different positions on the scalp, instead of staying in just one place. But I still have a bald spot on the right top side, where there is hardly any hair, and a big empty space in between the locks. It's not 'bald,' it's just thin.

Tables: I got rid of my tables that I had at the other apartment, because they were contaminated along with everything else. I am thinking of getting new ones and putting cardboard on them (so that it's easy to clean up if they get contaminated again), and under them, so that I can set up my computer table and use it more easily to do computer projects and anything else.

Curtis said he's been watching a lot of movies, since he's disconnected from cable TV right now. I've been watching movies too. I rented Twilight - New Moon, and watched it again, and it didn't suck as much, now that I understand what's going on, and now that I've seen the first movie and read some of the first book. Movies are my substitute for socializing. I am not spending time with real people. I am watching imaginary people without having to interact with them, and they're pretty to look at, and people have a real need to look at beautiful people. I think it's natural to need to see beautiful people. That's why I'm interested in Weston Price's studies of the primitive diets and the facial deformities that make us ugly. We don't have to be ugly. An ugly person can have beautiful children if they use the diet. That is what I am hoping to do.

I think I'll post this now.

The murderers are enraging me while I wait for this blog page to load. I have been hit with St. John's Wort recently and so they are able to trigger rage. My elbow is leaning on the cardboard box where my computer keyboard is, and the murderers are shooting sonic bullets, or whatever it is that they use, to slowly make the computer keyboard slip downwards under my elbow, a fraction of a millimeter at a time, over and over, while triggering the feeling of rage. I don't know why they do the slips. It makes me want to kill them. AJH at tiworld.blogspot.com knows about this. He has the same thing happen. Clicking, snapping noises on objects near me, and my body parts 'slipping' down against a surface, without moving at all, or slowly moving, when there is, in reality, enough friction to hold them still, and they shouldn't be moving, and when it slips, it emits an extremely high-pitched, painful noise above the level of human hearing, but it's audible enough to cause me physical pain, and rage. I usually hear voices at the same moment that it slips, or just afterwards. It's like the sonic bullets are being used to 'deliver' the voices. Sometimes I think the sonic bullets are taking snapshots of an image, the image of me sitting here. Sometimes when they do this, I punch something and hurt my hand. I try not to do that, and it mostly happens if I'm having a St. John's Wort reaction.

Dating Rules

4:18 PM 8/3/10

Dating Rules

1. Be safe. Follow your instincts and avoid doing anything uncomfortable.
2. Be respectful. Be respected.
3. Be compassionate: try to understand why this person needs you.

Serial killers often kill people that they call 'prostitutes,' although, from what I've read, those people are usually homeless women, not necessarily prostitutes, and they called them prostitutes just to dehumanize them and to feel less guilty about killing them.

Disrespect: I don't want to be disrespected. I'm not a drug addict, so I'm not desperate for huge amounts of money. Therefore, I can set boundaries and I can make rules about what I will and will not do. I don't have to tolerate disrespect.

I always fought with my previous boyfriends, telling them NOT to pay for me when we went out to dinner. And I would try to pay for them instead. And I fought with them NOT to give me gifts, either. Eric always used to say, 'It's better to give than to receive,' and my feeling about that was, 'Exactly!' It's a way of making yourself better than someone else.

Don't rudely reject money. I've offered money before and had my heart broken when it was refused. It's what you do when you're desperate. It's painful to have your money rejected outright. It's the only thing that makes you feel like you have any power at all, anything to offer at all, when you have nothing.

I have never accepted money before, other than, for instance, guys paying for my meals, often without my consent, as it happened to me twice whenever I insisted that I would pay for my own meal, and the guy sneaked and paid for it anyway, and it was going to be a fight to make him *not* pay for it. Other than that kind of thing, and being given gifts after I explicitly told my ex-boyfriend several times *not* to buy me any gifts and he bought them anyway, and I warned him that I didn't buy gifts for people and that I would not buy him any gifts in return, only to have a fight later on because he was hurt whenever I didn't buy him any gifts for his birthday or Christmas - after I *told* him that I never bought gifts for anyone!

The fact that I've never accepted money before, and I cried about the idea of it, after talking to someone on the phone, made the voices say to me, 'Virgin.' It's something I've never done before. So I am a virgin to that particular thing.  (But I didn't cry just about the money.  I cried about the idea of spending time with men that I don't like.  It hurts to be with people I'm not sexually attracted to.)

Marriage is a prostitution monopoly. It means that a man pays you to stop seeing other men, and see only him. He pays you a large amount of money, every month, for the rest of your life. Child support, on the other hand, is when you keep paying a large amount of money, every month, for a certain number of years, like 16 years or so, for having, at least, *one* sexual encounter that resulted in pregnancy. So you don't even get the monopoly on her, and she's allowed to see other men, and if you don't pay the bill (for nothing, since you can't have sex with her anymore, usually) you go to jail. And 'everyone knows' that the child support money isn't needed for the child. It's usually WAY more than the minimum needed for the child, and it's calculated based on how much money the father makes, not how much the child and the mother need. Child support is... don't get me started!

There are things that I *don't* like. I don't like to be dominated in the wrong way by the wrong person; but yet, I've imagined scenarios where the right person could dominate me in the right way, and I would enjoy it. I've had bad experiences in the past where somebody talked down to me and dominated me in a way that I didn't like. It makes me feel angry. If I have angry vibes from someone, or condescending vibes, it will be hard for me to get along with them.

There are a few things that I am in danger of. I could become cynical and feel like sex is nothing. I could feel like sex isn't special. I'm not actually having sex with anyone yet, but eventually, I probably will. I don't know how someone could feel that sex was special if they were having sex with men they didn't love. You would have to somehow distinguish between the feelings of love that you have for special people, versus the type of sex you have with people who are paying you. I've never done that before, so I don't know how it would feel.

As for me, I got offered money merely to let someone pet my fur. That's what it's there for, so I don't necessarily even have to 'have sex' for real. Petting might be enough.

I won't be kissing anyone on the mouth, or any other body parts that are able to let germs in. I might be willing to kiss unbroken skin. I can't kiss people because I have some kind of herpes-like symptoms, even though I tried to get a doctor to do a test for it, and he told me the test came back negative, but that's wrong: the symptoms are real, even if the test says I don't have herpes. I get small cold sores around my mouth - they look like small pimples, but I can tell that's not what they are - and sometimes on my tongue. I also get spots on the back of my neck, and on the bottom part of my tailbone just above my butt, but that hardly ever happens, and it's only happened a couple of times. I call it herpes because that's the only explanation I have for it, and it happens when I catch a cold, just like other cold sores.

I've read about herpes, and they say that *both* kinds of herpes, or all kinds, or whatever, can appear on *both* the genitals *and* the mouth. Even if you supposedly have 'oral' herpes, it's able to appear on your genitals or get transmitted there or however it gets there. So I will not kiss or have saliva contact with anything that's able to catch germs from me. That will be reserved for my long-term bonds, people who love me so much that they would be willing to share my cold sores with me. (One of my most exciting 'bonding' moments with Curtis occurred one day when he showed me his cold sore in his mouth, and I told him that I get them too - although technically, I might have a different variation of the virus than he does. So I am still cautious.)

Marriage wouldn't be marriage if it didn't involve money and other life necessities, like food and housing. Usually, the man pays the woman to live in his house, rent-free, and she cooks the food and cleans the house and has sex with him and gives him love and intimacy. She doesn't have to pay for the food either. He pays all the bills. That is a traditional marriage. There is something good about that, which is, the mother can stay home and breastfeed. People stopped breastfeeding because they were so desperate to pay the bills, that both parents had to work, because the cost of living has gone up, and up, and up, and the rent is too high, and the taxes are too high, and people are losing their jobs. Then they forgot that there was any reason to breastfeed, so people kept on feeding them formula and they were taught that that's just how it's done around here.

Breastfeeding prevents obesity. It increases a child's intelligence. It teaches the child how to feel loved and how to feel close and intimate with other people. It teaches the child how to touch. It teaches the child how to feel sexually intimate, and how it feels to give and receive pleasure at the same time. It prevents health problems. It prevents food allergies. Breastfeeding is absolutely essential. So it's a good thing when a man pays a woman to stay home when she's raising the kids, because it enables her to breastfeed instead of working. That wouldn't be a problem if the workplaces would allow you to strap your baby onto your body while you do your job, and bring it with you, and breastfeed it freely at work whenever you needed to.

But if both parents are financially independent, and they're choosing to save the planet by refusing to have children and refusing to increase the population, and they haven't read any books by Julian Simon, then, there's no reason to get married and fill out the piece of paper. The piece of paper has to mean something to you. It means that the government and the church have approved of your bond. But if you reject the government (as I do), and if you reject the church (as I do), then you don't *want* their approval for your spiritual bonds. That piece of paper would be there to enforce the law if you wanted to get money and property from somebody. It's hard to understand why you want the piece of paper if you have no respect for the government or the church, and if you're not intending to use force to take money and property and children away from someone.

About my body hair *not* being unique: My body hair resulted from my following a set of rules. The rules can be followed by anybody. There is nothing unique about this at all. I am always insisting, when the voices ask me about it, that my body hair is *not* special, although it is scarce and rare, and people don't usually choose to follow that set of rules.

I want my hair to be less scarce and less unique: I want to see huge numbers of other women doing the same thing I'm doing, following the same set of rules. I want to see a world where there is *less* competition for this particular thing. I'm not afraid that that would 'put me out of a job.' I want less scarcity, not more scarcity.

I'm still not ready to call these people back yet, but there will be a call very soon. ... I can't stand people. I can't stand talking on the phone. I can't stand men. I can't love anyone. I can't love. I can't do this. I can't date people. I can't meet people. I can't talk to people.

I hate men's hair!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but I need to rant about this. Men are utterly repulsive to me. And one of the reasons why is because sometime in their early twenties, if they haven't done it already, they shave their heads so their hair is about 1/2 inch long. And they keep it at that exact length for the rest of their lives, decades and decades, along with shaving off their beards and mustaches. I moved the age search up a couple years and looked for guys age 22-24. The younger teens still have hair a couple inches long. The mid-twenties guys have all chopped it off, forever and ever.

Why is there such a huge difference between hair that's 1/2 inch long, versus hair that's only like two inches long? You can't imagine the difference it makes! The hair is long enough to SEE. It's long enough that it MOVES. You can run your fingers through it. You can pet it and stroke it. It can hang across the face just a little bit. It shines in the sunlight. Everything about the hair is totally different when it's only a couple inches long - just a couple inches, hardly anything at all! But they all shave it off so that it's nothing at all.

Then, does this make any sense? They worry about going bald! What's the difference between going bald, versus shaving all your hair off already!!!!!! For all practical purposes, they make themselves ALREADY BALD!! There is no difference. ALL MEN ARE BALD. Why worry about losing the 'colored patch' on top of their head? Big deal. You have a 'colored patch' or 'colored area' on top of your head, and then if you go bald, you have a 'peach color' or 'skin color' or 'brown colored area' if you're brown-skinned. What's so terrible about that, in comparison to having a hair-colored patch on top of your head - if all your hair is, is just a symbol, a representation, of the fact that you 'have' hair, but you won't let it grow even an inch long enough to actually DO anything with it! Why?

I hate their hair, I hate all the beliefs they have about it, I hate everything they do with it. And this is yet another reason for me to look at teenage boys and like them more than I like adults! They haven't reached that age where they shave their heads down to 1/2 inch and keep it exactly there for the rest of their lives! It really is an official age, and I don't know who TELLS them to do it, or what signal commands them to do it, but it's real, it really happens, sometime in the early twenties it becomes forbidden to have hair longer than 1/2 inch - in other words, all sexual attractiveness becomes forbidden.

Can you see what I mean when I say that men's hair is 'just a symbol of hair?' Imagine that you had a bald head, but you PAINTED a hair-colored spot all over your scalp. That's exactly like the 'hair' that men have in the real world! Imagine how you men would feel if WOMEN did that! If ALL women did that! Why wouldn't men just shave their heads bald and then paint a hair-colored area all over their scalp? It wouldn't be any different from what they have now. Or get a hair-colored tattoo over the entire scalp representing the hair that you've shaved off. Why not!

And why do they believe that our natural instincts would LIKE people with short hair? Our bodies EVOLVED to grow long hair on BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. If we evolved that way, why would we think it's gross or ugly or unattractive? Just the opposite is true. Men with long hair usually have screaming crowds of women obsessing over them and trampling each other just to try to get one small touch against their skin. Why are all the screaming crowds at rock concerts screaming about the 'gross, ugly, un-manly, unattractive' long-haired rock stars?

The rock stars figured out that long HEAD hair is a good thing, but they still haven't figured out the long beards thing. They still want to have 'partial' beards, with some pieces shaved off while other pieces grow out, and they want to keep the beard only a ... you guessed it, a half inch long, a 'painted-on symbol' representing a 'beard.' Instead of the soft, fluffy, long beard that you can lay your head against, run your fingers through.

That's it for now.

I saw 'He's Just Not That Into You.' It seemed appropriate.

3:08 PM 7/6/10

I rented 'He's Just Not That Into You.' I was curious about that movie ever since I first heard of it, because I saw that it had something about people not returning phone calls and that kind of thing. I'd like to do a remake of this movie with a different concept, a conspiracy theory, where the people who are passionately in love with each other are prevented from communicating because an evil agency is out to destroy all love relationships and prevent people from meeting each other. The evil agency sabotages their electronic communications, while the in-person communications seem to say the opposite of whatever was said online.

Why would the evil agency want to sabotage love relationships? Maybe because people become stronger when they fall in love, and they can accomplish things they couldn't accomplish alone. They make their beliefs and ideas stronger. It might upset the status quo or change society or threaten the government if intellectuals and radicals and other 'dangerous' people fall in love.

Then again, the opposite might happen. A radical might calm down and focus on their family, instead of following the 'script' that someone has planned for them. It's your DUTY to change society, and if you get married and have kids, you'll worry about mundane things instead of doing your duty and following the script. You're SUPPOSED to be a radical, and your personal happiness doesn't matter.

'He's Just Not That Into You' - I liked it. I won't buy it and watch it a hundred times and memorize it, but I liked it enough for a rented movie that I watched once. I was confused through most of the movie because two of the main character guys looked alike enough that I thought it was the same guy. They both had black hair. The guy who didn't want to get married, who had a boat, and who was dating whats-her-name from 'Friends' for seven years, I got him confused with the 'alpha male' bartender guy who also had black hair. I don't remember any of their names and I can't remember the actors' names either, so I'm not much help on that. Near the end of the movie, like 3/4 of the way through, I finally figured out that they were two separate guys.

I liked the moment when the ... darn, I wish I could remember their names now. There's a 'cute' girl, the short-haired one, who's always confused and asking for advice about whether someone's going to call her back or not, and she's calling the bartender guy on the phone all the time - that one. I liked the moment when the happy-hour guy said 'The only thing "happy" about this hour is YOU,' and he took her phone number and then said 'I look forward to hearing from you,' and she actually stood up, and asked him to clarify whether he wanted her to call him, or whether he was going to call her. And she persisted until it became more and more clear that he didn't want to call and didn't want her to call him either.

I know how that feels, when you persistently ask someone to tell you the truth and be clear about it and get it over with. I want to hear the whole truth and I want to face it, even if it's painful. That doesn't mean that I 'want to be hurt' or that I'm a masochist. It means I want the truth, both good and bad, so that I can make realistic decisions and move on if I have to. It means I want to stop investing my energy in someone if they're not interested, so I need to *KNOW* if they're not interested, even if they're afraid of hurting my feelings. This obviously was relevant because of all the Curtis 'drama' going on right now.

(I never, ever would have even TRIED to contact him, or written him notes, or gotten his number and texted him. 'They' urged me to do those things that I would not have done on my own. I would have just enjoyed his company at work, and let him go, and grieved at his absence whenever he inevitably got fired or quit his job, because I already knew he would be impossible to contact and unable to communicate.)

I liked 'You're my exception' at the end. That was a good moment.

I already returned the movie, and I didn't watch it again. Usually I get a lot more depth out of movies, because I watch them several times and notice things I didn't see the first time. But I didn't do that, so it's only a shallow impression. The movie was good enough to not be a waste of money. I've seen movies that were awful, and this wasn't awful. It was okay.

I have to complain, of course, that all of the people were 'mainstream' and there weren't any 'weird' people anywhere in the movie. Hardly any weirdness anywhere to be found. The closest thing to a 'weird' person was the Wiccan who sat next to the 'Friends' lady at the wedding, or wherever that was, and started talking about the Wiccan religion. But that makes 'weird' people look bad. I don't like movies that make weird people look bad. It was the 'someone talking endlessly about a subject you're not at all interested in' phenomenon. This was a movie about normal people, and you have to be able to identify with normal people. I see them, I can see that they're sad or they're hurt or they're worried, these women in the movie, and I can feel sorry for them a little bit, but I also have this feeling that they wouldn't ever understand me or understand any of my problems - they could never relate to me. They would give me an 'ick' look if I ever tried to talk to them or tell them about the world that I live in. So I couldn't really feel emotionally involved in their problems as much as I would want to, watching a movie. If I watch movies about weird people who don't fit in, I feel more like I can relate to those people and they would like me in return. But these were all normal people who wouldn't like me.

Harry Potter's world is full of weird people who don't fit in, and they have to go to another secret community to find people like themselves. But even in the HP world there are weirder-than-usual people who don't fit in. So I always liked Luna Lovegood.

I don't remember if I blogged about this or not, but I also noticed that Kreacher the house-elf has some things in common with me. He mutters and mumbles mean, hateful, abusive 'bile' because he thinks no one can hear him. I've done that before. I used to do exactly that whenever I was writing to 'the hackers' by typing things and hoping that the keylogger would record what I typed. (A keylogger is a computer program that records every key you type, even if the letters don't appear on the screen and aren't saved in a word processing file. So it can collect passwords and other things you type.) I used to type things directed at whoever was reading the keystrokes. I typed hateful things to the hackers and they would respond by messing with the computer. I only do that if it seems like a real person can't hear me. But if I can see a real person responding to me, and showing hurt feelings, and giving me a real response, then I never, ever say hateful things to them. Not unless it happens by accident, like when I accidentally said 'Oh my God' when I saw Curtis with a cigar, because I had never seen him smoking one before, and it probably humiliated him, and I didn't mean to do that. Anyway that is how I could relate to Kreacher the house-elf.

I'm not sure what signals I use to decide that certain people are 'normal' and they wouldn't understand me. This is a social class thing, I think. In West Virginia, a lot of people have facial deformities, exactly as Weston Price described. People with facial deformities, the weak jaw and all that, are more likely to be in 'my class,' even if their beliefs are normal and mainstream. They're more likely to be nice to me and tolerant of me. They're more likely to be poorer and rural.

In Bellefonte, the people here are permanent residents, and I see a lot of semi-poor, semi-rural people, and everyone is a lot friendlier to strangers. You can be friendly to strangers if everyone around you is a permanent resident. In State College, however, you can't be friendly to strangers or make eye contact with strangers, because you'll never see them again. Most of State College's population is temporary. There are a huge number of college students, hotel guests, parents of students, people attending football games and other events, and other temporary visitors. If you make eye contact with strangers, you invest your feelings in someone who will disappear and hurt you. So as we walk around the grocery store and other public places, we don't make much eye contact with anyone. But in Bellefonte, total strangers will walk up to you and smile and start up a conversation, because they know we're all permanent residents and we're likely to bump into each other at this same store or restaurant next week.

These permanent residents of Bellefonte are more likely to be uglier, fatter, or have the facial deformities, and also 'bad' hairstyles. There are more long-haired men here, and a few women with very long hair like my own, hip-length hair, which I am always happy to see. These people are all friendlier to me. They don't necessarily UNDERSTAND me very well, and they might not be able to have an interesting conversation with me, or a 'deep' conversation. But they won't say 'ick.'

The college students in State College are less likely to have facial deformities, or they are less severe. They come from wealthier families, which means their parents probably had better nutrition while pregnant. They are more likely to give the 'ick' response to anyone who looks weird, non-mainstream, or has unusual grooming practices, dreadlocks, not wearing makeup, etc. They all have hair that ends at the upper mid-back or shorter, and almost never even reaches waist length. ('Waist' and 'hip': The waist is at the belly button level. Hip is 'butt' level, at the top of the legs. I say that, because in the past, I used the word 'waist' to describe the entire region of the body between the belly button and the thighs, so 'waist' and 'hip' were mostly the same thing. It just meant 'the lower middle region of the body.') For some unknown reason, they believe that hair can be 'too long.' It would seem that there would be an occasional person who, by random chance, would just decide to grow very long hip-length hair for the heck of it, but it never happens; therefore, there is some kind of 'rule' against it.

I could spend a lot of time writing about what I think those rules are, but I might not do that in this blog. I could write a separate blog some other time.

Anyway, the college students at PSU are more like the characters in 'Not That Into You.' They all look alike. And it's hard for me to have a conversation with them. (I wouldn't mind people all looking alike - in fact, the religious order requires everyone to follow the grooming rules - but they're looking alike in a way that I myself prefer, a look that I find attractive and beautiful for both sexes.)

About 'convincing people to believe.' Convincing the mainstream people that mind control is real, for instance. Or convincing them that in general, government intervention is harmful. Or convincing them that mainstream medicine is very dangerous and you shouldn't take all the drugs that the doctors will offer you. ('Healthy Normal' people don't need as many drugs as the unhealthy people do. They don't suffer from chronic fatigue as often and they don't catch every cold virus that goes around every week. So they're a lot older whenever they finally discover that mainstream medicine wants to give you lots and lots of dangerous drugs and can't really solve a lot of your problems.)

It's hard to convince 'healthy normal' people that something bad is going on in the world. The world that they see is a comfortable world that gives them everything they need, in general. They have problems, but they don't usually see those problems as being caused by a huge system in society, such as 'the government itself' and things like that. Problems are just individual, random events, something surprising and unusual.

Why would we want to convince them? Because there are a lot of projects that require money and knowledge from lots of people, for instance, building shields that work and that are affordable, so that electronic harassment victims can sleep at night and think their thoughts. And other projects like tracking down the attackers and stopping them. Or cleaning up drug residue contamination: I'm not the only one who has this, I'm just one of the few people who's aware of it, and if anybody else ever tried to clean up THEIR houses, they would see that it is an enormous, expensive, emotionally devastating disaster. It's so expensive, you can't even imagine how expensive it is, if you've got drug contamination on lots of nice, special, unique, heirloom furniture and antiques and things like that, things you can't just throw in the trash. Anyway I was saying we'd want to convince the 'healthy normal' people about things because we need help from them. This is the 'ultimate resource' concept: people are able to help you by sharing their knowledge and their resources and their labor. ('The Ultimate Resource' is a book by Julian Simon.) Expensive, difficult projects that require money and knowledge can be done if groups of people work together, but are almost impossible for one person to do alone.

(Today's focus is 'The Social Instinct,' as you can see. How do people benefit from being part of a group? How do people fit into a group?)

I'm looking at dating websites again. It is physically painful to imagine meeting a new person and starting all over again. Not only that, but now I am more aware than I ever was, long ago, that I really do like guys 'the skinnier the better.' Most of the men that I ever see are large, fully grown men. And they have short hair. I can look at fully grown men if they have long hair and beards - there's some texture, something soft that I can touch. You have to have something to pet with your hands, the same way you pet animals. Why would you want a bare-skinned dog or cat, so that you could stroke its bare skin? I like dogs and cats to have soft fur to touch. The same is true of humans. I run my fingers through and over a man's hair the same way I pet an animal. So even if a man has a body type that I don't like as much, he at least has a chance if he has long hair and a beard, because I can pet his hair. And I can look at it. It's more interesting than bare nothingness. It's SOMETHING instead of nothing. Hair has a texture and a sparkle and movement. It has multi-colors that shine in the sunlight. The people on the dating websites don't even have that.

There are some long-haired guys, but I am being prevented from going to them. There is this inhibition stopping me. It is partly because 'they' connected me with Curtis, bonded me with him, so that I am reluctant to go after any other guys until I know for sure that Curtis says 'no' and doesn't want to be with me at all, except as a 'temporary workplace friend,' a co-worker who doesn't matter very much, who will disappear whenever he quits or gets fired, and who will never speak to him again and it won't even matter. I'm assuming that that is what he thinks I am. That's how he sees me. For whatever reason, he wants to call me flattering names and occasionally show sexual interest, especially when I'm on the right drugs and I'm in 'aphrodisiac friendly' mode. But I can't get replies from any method of communication that I've used.

I'm not as pretty as his ex-girlfriend, his wife, for all practical purposes, since he's paying her child support. I feel like he's stepping down or something by being with me - I'm not as good as the one he was with before. She is very young, younger than he is. And she looks like Kira the Gelfling from 'The Dark Crystal.' That's the first thing I thought when I saw her for the first time.

I actually liked her. She worked at Weis very briefly. Then she had a random accident, and it was a terrible accident. Her son Caden knocked her tooth out by hitting her in the face with a toy - I assume by accident. (In other words I hope he wasn't hitting her because he was angry or something.) She had fragile, cavity-filled teeth, because she got pregnant as a very young teenager, around 14, I think, maybe 13, right at the time when your body is going through a growth spurt. So your own body is growing a lot at that time, and then it has to give minerals to the baby's body, too, so it takes all the minerals out of your bones and teeth, unless you are eating... you guessed it, the Weston Price diet. That is what happened to her. She then went to the dentist, and the dentist recommended... that she have all of her teeth removed and replaced with dentures or fake teeth. So she did. Curtis told me this story and I actually cried out loud, for real, because all of that is preventable if only people have enough money to buy healthy food. I don't know if she removed ALL her teeth. But she removed several. It's enough that she has a look, this puckered look to her mouth, when her mouth is closed. They weren't able to get her new teeth. So she took time off work because of this, and then they said they didn't want her to come back, unless she could get new teeth, because she was dealing with the public, as a cashier, and she would have to talk and smile to them. That made me angry. This is what Curtis told me.

The same thing is talked about in the Weston Price book. The natives all had healthy teeth, until and unless they started eating the white man's sugar and flour and white bread and jelly and canned foods. Then they got cavities immediately and had children with mild to severe facial deformities, narrow hips, and other deformities.  They talked about how it was considered 'normal' for most people to have all of their teeth removed and replaced with dentures.

If you believe that 'white teeth are better than yellow teeth,' think about what white teeth really are.  If your teeth are perfectly white, that means they're fake, probably porcelain or dentures.  I knew a lady who had porcelain teeth, and they were all perfectly blue-white, 'perfect' by the 'white teeth are better' standard.  Ivory yellow teeth are REAL teeth.  It means you haven't lost all your teeth and had them replaced with fake ones.  I've learned to appreciate the natural color of teeth the same way I've learned to appreciate other type of  'natural grooming,' like gray hair.  I LIKE real, imperfect, ivory-yellow teeth.  Now that I know about it, I've learned to actively dislike fake white teeth.  I'm not joking - sometimes I get 'voices' telling me they think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not.

(Note, every time I mention Weston Price, 'they' want me to remind people about eating bone marrow. Weston Price, and the WP website, and Sally Fallon, and other authors in this movement, along with many people on the internet, and even people I've spoken to, have all claimed that you can eat bone marrow, and it's good for you. I tried eating it, and it triggered the vomit reflex within a few minutes after eating it, and I also almost passed out and had horrible feelings that lasted for hours - actually for a whole day. For whatever reason, it wasn't edible. It can cause severe food poisoning and possibly even death. I don't know why some people claim they can eat it. There might be a different way of cooking it, perhaps cooking it at a very high temperature for a very long time, or something. I don't know. But I have to always give this warning that those books and websites talk about eating parts of the animals and organs that we don't usually eat, and if you try anything unfamiliar, it could be very dangerous, especially organs and glands that produce hormones. This is something that I want to test and troubleshoot, but I won't be doing it alone! I need to clarify WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENS when you eat the various organs and parts of the body of different animals and seafood. I know some of them are deadly, like certain parts of the puffer fish. So I must give a warning whenever I recommend the WP diet.)

That all came from talking about C's ex-girlfriend and her teeth. That was why she left Weis and isn't working there anymore. I only saw her a couple times, and I looked into her eyes, and I liked her right away. I can see why he loved her and why he'll never be 'neutral' towards her. She's always going to be part of his life.

I should post this - it's rambling a lot. I can write all afternoon because that's the easiest thing for me to do, but it doesn't mean that my writing quality is the best. This is my mediocre writing quality.

Oh - quick note. It was Vince who got his hair cut. He had slightly long very curly hair and he cut a couple inches off of it. I was watching to see how long he would grow it. He reached a difficult stage where it was starting to hang down over his eyes, and of course, it was long enough that I loved his hair, which is always when they cut it. That was the 'haircut complaint' that I was supposed to write about several days ago. He didn't shave it off completely though. I wish I could show people how to get through the 'transition stage', and I wish it was acceptable for guys to wear hair barrettes and other things that would make it easier for them to clip their hair back out of the way without cutting it, so it doesn't hang in their face during the difficult stage. Hair barrettes are about the only thing I can think of that would work with the medium-length hair that's still too short to put in a braid or ponytail. But oh well.

Googling 'Yulia Tymoshenko "fake braid"' got me lots of long hair photos, but didn't answer my question

I'm fascinated with long hair and I noticed a picture of Yulia Tymoshenko (I've never heard of her before) wearing a long braid wrapped over her head. Fake braids are 'in.' I've been seeing them in the fashion magazines. They attach some fake hair and make it look a little bit loose and messy so that the braid seems less perfect and more realistic. They even make the braids get narrower towards the end, like real hair. One of the articles quoted the hair stylist, who explained about how the hair extensions worked. So I was wondering if Yulia's hair is fake. But it might actually be real.

REAL long hair can NEVER be 'in.' It's not possible to quickly grow really long hair temporarily, just as a fad, for a year or two when it's popular, and then go back to the usual shoulder-length hair. So they have to attach fake braids. These braids, in the fashion magazines, are right around waist length or hip length, called 'classic length,' which is a sort of average length that Caucasian people's hair usually grows before the hairs fall out and start over again. (Read in the encyclopedia about how hair grows and why it only reaches a certain length before it stops.)

My hair reached its fullest length and wouldn't grow any more, so I am experimenting with dreadlocks (or dredlocks? I'm not sure how to spell it) to see if they will let the disconnected hairs remain attached to the lock, and the whole lock will grow to infinite length, according to the theory.

I still don't know if her braid is real. I tried making my own braid go up over my head like that, but it obviously gets thinner and thinner. Hers is the same thickness the whole way around, which made it look suspicious. She might be one of those lucky people who is able to grow thick, floor-length hair, and the braid might be real.

That was why the rule says that people have to grow their hair long regardless of whether it's 'in' or not. It isn't just about having some particular image. There are a lot of meanings connected with the long hair. It's a sign of self-restraint, the ability to resist impulses, to remain committed to a long-term goal. It's also about following the rule regardless of what particular results you're able to achieve. For instance, a balding man has to follow the long hair rule, even though his hair won't grow very long and it will be fragile and thin. You do what you can, with what you have. He has to be able to tolerate standing side by side with another man whose hair is longer and thicker, and not get into a destructive competition against that man. You have to also tolerate the 'loss of uniqueness,' when you aren't allowed to choose your own hairstyle anymore, to make yourself look different or have a particular 'image.' If everybody else has long hair, you don't stand out in a crowd anymore. Instead, you're surrounded by dozens of people, many of whom have longer, healthier, prettier hair than you do.

It gets even more difficult when different races try to compete against each other - African coily hair doesn't grow as long as straight textured hair. It only grows for a couple of years before it falls off and starts over, which is why black people hardly ever have hair longer than shoulder length. It can grow longer if it is matted into locks. But it's physically impossible to expect a black person to grow floor-length hair loose, not matted into locks. And you have to tolerate these differences between what people are realistically able to do. So each person is simply doing whatever they themselves are able to do, nothing more.

One concern about growing long hair is that it's physically dangerous. You really can get your hair caught in machinery, like the conveyor belt where you put your groceries at the checkout lane, or the door of a car, or the rotating fan in a hot tub. I heard a horrible true story about a lady who drowned because her hair wrapped around the filter fan in the hot tub, so I take these dangers seriously. Sometimes it could kill you; other times it could just ruin your hair so badly that it has to be cut out, and you will be terribly humiliated when someone has to help you get unstuck from whatever you got stuck in. So if and when anybody starts to follow the grooming rules, they will need to learn how to pin up their hair for safety in certain situations.

I notice that the Amish always wear their hair in a bun, no matter what. I might reluctantly say we'd have to do that, but I really don't want to. Since nobody is following the rule yet, it will be a while before anybody needs to decide how to keep long hair safe from being tangled in things.

***

I still need to talk to my managers at work and make some kind of arrangement for how many hours I'm going to work. I was having the chest pains after lifting something heavy and carrying it up the stairs. I was working a reduced number of hours at McD and I was being careful not to exert myself too much, not to run around too quickly or lift heavy things. But I went downstairs and I carried up a big box with eight bags of sugar in it, for our sweet tea. After carrying it up the stairs, my chest was hurting again and it hurt for a little while after that.

I have a doctor's appointment, but I know that the doctor won't be able to help. Also, there are things I need to be prepared for, to protect myself: for instance, there will be absolutely NO diagnostic imaging that involves injecting radioactive substances into my bloodstream, or anything like that, and no X-rays, and lots of other diagnostic methods are too dangerous to use.

I'm guessing that the problem will go away whenever I patch up the plant-poisoning residues on the carpet and my clothes. The doctor wouldn't ever be able to figure out that my problems were caused by grayanotoxin residues on my carpets and clothing, because, of course, the entire mainstream USA doesn't know the slightest thing about transdermal drugs or poisonous plants or chemical sensitivity or environmental illness. I already know about how doctors can't help - I've been there before, years and years ago.

'Environmental illness' is the large overall category that includes things like transdermal drug residues. There is a model of what causes illness or health in general. Malnutrition, not getting enough of something you need, is one category; environmental illness, being sickened by chemicals or something else in your environment, is another category; microbes, like bacteria and viruses, are another category. Those are things that you can control during your lifetime. There is also a category of things you can't control: predisposition caused by some permanent problem in your body, some deformity or defect that you cannot change.

I'm running out of time here. I could connect again here at my new apartment and have unlimited time. But I don't really want to set up my own internet connection at home again, because I waste way too much time on the internet, just reading random things and wandering from place to place. It actually works better for me if my time is limited and I have to do other things, like read books instead.

A long, silver hair

Today, by accident, I just happened to find a new silver hair that I never saw before. It happened because I temporarily wrapped my hair up around my head to get it out of the way while I was doing something. I hadn't wrapped it like that in a long time, and I was examining it because it works differently with dreadlocks. The last time I tried wrapping it that way, my hair was more like 'greasy strings' instead of actual mats. This is the one year anniversary of the no shampoo experiment, which I started last January. The dreadlocks at the roots of my hair are now longer and more visible, several inches long.

(I've had coffee but not food, so this is a 'hunger blog.' This could be long and obsessive.)

The silver hair sparkled in the light when I looked in the mirror. It appeared because the hair was wrapped in a different position than usual. I traced the piece of hair back to where it came from, somewhere near the right ear.

I've never seen any that long before. I've found short ones on my temples, the edge of my face, and they never grow longer than an inch or two before they fall off. I also have a couple of gray eyebrow hairs.

This very long silver hair has been there all this time, and I didn't even know. It is years and years and years long, at least a foot and a half, maybe longer. It brought tears to my eyes when I found it - an unexpected treasure that I didn't know I had, sparkling and beautiful and amazing, secretly growing where I couldn't see it.

Gray hair means 'I survived.' It means I didn't get killed doing something stupid, or having an accident, or committing suicide, or being destroyed by any of the terrible things that have happened to me. It means that either I'm lucky, or I know what to do and what not to do. It means I care about my life.

i'm creating a new religion (work in progress)

they've been using my screen name, retmeishka, to refer to this particular new religious sect. we've tried different variations of the word, such as 'retmeishkan.' however, i'm seeing this as just 'internal jargon' for the time being, and it might not be the final name for the religion. the final name could be decided by consulting with several people who join it, once it exists and once people have been invited into it. i want the word to roll off the tongue easily enough. i'm able to say 'retmeishkan,' but maybe not everyone feels comfortable with it. and it sounds like 'red martian' or 'red munchkin' if you're not familiar with the word. you tell people 'i'm retmeishkan,' and they say 'what? you're red munchkin?' so, that might just be a temporary word until the final name has been decided, but for now, internally, we're referring to it as retmeishkan. so when i say 'retmeishkan,' it feels like sort of joking, not serious, but that's how we're referring to it for now. it won't be that way permanently, not set in stone.

i have been identifying the religion. i was going to go to 'beliefnet' and see, but i forgot to do that. i want to identify what makes this religion similar to, and different from, other religions.

it began because they wanted me to get rid of my mustache. when they first started attacking me, they didn't bother me much about not shaving my body hair, but the mustache in particular was always what they complained about (the voices). i started bleaching it as a compromise, but i was not willing to shave it or wax it or remove the hair. and bleaching a very long mustache doesn't look good - you end up with very long, highly visible bleached-white hairs instead of long, highly visible, dark brown hairs. but i chose that, instead of removing it, because i was very strongly against it, because of my beliefs and values and what it means to me.

i read an article talking about how women like men who have slightly feminine attributes, instead of liking the men who are extremely masculine. but the article went on to say that eyebrow-plucking (on women) was attractive, because it was still true that men like women with 'feminine' faces, and thin eyebrows are feminine, whereas thick eyebrows are masculine. they made it sound as though it was scientifically, objectively proven that we must pluck our eyebrows in order to look feminine, and that 'arched' eyebrows are more feminine, too. i can't STAND 'arched' eyebrows. they don't look like anything human to me at all. they don't look 'feminine,' either. the most beautiful women i've seen are the ones with whole, unplucked eyebrows, even when the eyebrows are thick, even when they go across the nose. those look real to me. (but 'we' don't have any disagreement about that. that's 'beating a dead horse.')

it's articles like that which make people believe things like 'humans lost their body hair because less hair means you're more intelligent than an animal, and it means we're not animals ourselves, and it means we are ABOVE them, and it's "more evolved" than animals.' like losing hair is 'progress,' instead of merely 'uniqueness' or 'some strange quirk of our species.' i see the hair loss as just a unique, strange quirk of our species. and i like the 'aquatic ape theory,' too - that humans might have lived at the edge of the sea, and were seafood hunters, spending most of their time in the water, or we might have lived by a huge lake when we evolved, and we lost hair, like the whales, dolphins, and seals, and we got subcutaneous fat, to be like sea mammals. it's just a quirk, not 'better,' not 'more progress,' not 'above the animals.' pigs don't have hair, rhinos and hippos don't have hair, some breeds of dogs and cats, whales, dolphins.... lots of mammals don't have hair.

well, what about 'being retmeishkan?' what does it mean to be retmeishkan? is it a noun, an adjective? are you A retmeishkan? i'm not sure about all that yet.

to clarify what's different about my religion, i ask these questions: why don't i just join some existing group? there are similar groups, and i've thought about joining a religion, but i feel dissatisfied with the ones that exist - they're not what i want.

a few examples:

amish: don't want to study the bible exclusively. i think a wide variety of books, both modern and old, teach about right and wrong, and how to live. i also want men with long hair. at least in the mainstream, men are permitted to grow long hair, whereas in the amish, they are not. however, just because they're permitted to, doesn't mean they do it. so my religion requires them to, and sees long hair as normal.

mennonite: similar reasons. i do drive a car, so i could be mennonite, but i have the same issue with physical appearance and seeing the christian bible as only one out of many books to read and follow.

so the bible is not the exclusive, one-and-only source of spiritual guidance. yet there is good information in there, but you can't refer to the bible as one whole, single book, as it was written over many years by many different people. the bible itself is already many different authors, many different books, and there are also large sections that are excluded from some versions of the bible, the taboo sections which are not known to most people, but are known to people who study religion. i don't recall all the names, but i think it's the gnostics and the book of thomas and others, which were sometimes part of the bible, and other times were taken out.

*christian bible is only one out of many different books that give spiritual guidance. bible was written by humans, who are fallible. human guidance IS valuable and trustworthy, but at the same time, it is not perfect, and there are many variations, many options, that are just as good, but different.

*men should have long hair and beards; male beauty is similar to female beauty; this is very important, not trivial, not just personal preference or being picky. male beauty matters a lot.

this was deeply repressed, in my beliefs, until the voices began questioning me about it. i stopped trying to convince my boyfriends to do what i wanted them to do with their hair. i already tried. it always triggered a rebellious 'I CAN DO WHAT I WANT!' response - or at least, i'm thinking of eric, who definitely would be described as 'defiant' and 'rebellious,' a rule-hater if there ever was one. he was formerly catholic, and doesn't like being micromanaged. but i have many years of experience with frustration about guys' hair, and about nobody respecting my wishes, and i gave up on it. they always just acted like hair was trivial and unimportant, and my desires were unimportant, and it didn't matter what i wanted.

so, this is being incorporated into the religion. there are people who enjoy following rules, and are happy to be told what to do, especially if the rules have a good reason and good intention behind them. i like rules where you can see the positive consequences yourself. follow this rule, then observe how much it helps you - like the feingold diet, which will work immediately on the first day you use it - you feel drastically better instantly - i can't rave loudly enough about the diet.

long hair isn't as obvious as to the 'why', because i have emphasized, over and over, while talking to the voices, 'no, growing long hair and beards WILL NOT guarantee that you get girls or get sex, if you're already having trouble with women. it will most likely just add to the attractiveness of men who are already attractive, while not doing much of anything for the men who are already seen as unattractive.' if someone is looking for the magic key to reliably seducing women and getting sex, then the natural grooming standard DOES NOT guarantee that. it might do the opposite: there will be many mainstream women who think it's AWFUL to grow long hair and beards. (*note, when i mention beards, i also include groups like native americans, and some asians, who don't grow beards. they're still included. i greatly value racial variety, in fact it's one of my highest priority values. i'm planning on adopting some nonwhite children, once i have my family settled.*)

*racial variety is a high value. this is another attribute of 'retmeishkanism,' (i say that word with a little smile, with cognitive dissonance) a word that's still just internal jargon to refer to this unique, tiny, not-yet-existing religion, with its one single follower - me. conscious, deliberate racial variety, instead of racial purity.

jewish: i have dietary restrictions similar to the kosher rules. i like the kosher food rules. however, i believe the intention behind them was to protect against illness, not just to unquestioningly obey a rule handed down by god, a rule which has no purpose other than 'god said so.' avoiding trichinosis is the reason why they don't eat pork. so if preventing diseases and parasites is the purpose of the rules, i have a lot of rules to add to the kosher rules. but i like the idea of voluntary regulations on food quality and how it's prepared and handled, and i agree with some of the kosher food rules i've seen. protecting our food quality is very, very important for health.

*'retmeishkanism,' (once again, said with a little smile, as it's not quite right, and probably won't be the final word, and i feel a bit silly) is what i might call a 'lifestyle regulating' religion. it isn't a 'liberal' religion. the protestant religions, and even catholicism and the other christian religions, don't regulate your daily life very much at all. you go to church on sunday, but then, you live the rest of your life freely, and nothing much is expected of you. you're allowed to eat whatever you want, look however you want, go to school wherever you want, and so on. there is very little lifestyle regulation at all. it's hardly any 'micromanaging.' retmeishka, this religion, DOES have micromanaging about some things: what you eat, how you look, and maybe perhaps how you dress, but the clothing question is not yet settled, and i am also a nudist, so there are two sides to the clothing question. nudism on the one hand, and on the other hand, what types of clothes do we wear whenever we're cold and need clothing, and when we go to the town and interact with mainstream people who require clothing. both sides need to be settled.

*nudism within the community is permitted (but not required, as of yet), and some form of modesty, some compromise with mainstream society, in public. there may be regulation of what types of clothing look good, and are healthy or unhealthy (i don't know if wearing polyester fabrics is good for you - that's probably no big deal, but i'm at least asking the question whether certain fabrics might have chemicals or something.). i strongly dislike most american clothing styles, and i desire some kind of change, but haven't settled on that, and would like to consult with the eventual new adherents. it's a work in progress.

disagree with jewish circumcision. some jews also disagree with that: there are groups of jews organizing to oppose circumcision, while still remaining jews - i've read about it.

*anti-circumcision. protect the wholeness of the body. this includes all organs and all medical treatments that remove or change parts of the body, including teeth.

some other religions forbid you to get medical care for certain health problems. i don't know much about this or what specifically they forbid you to do. i don't know whether i agree or disagree. there is such a thing as good medicine, and bad medicine. nowadays, i'm totally disgusted with almost everything that happens in a hospital or a doctor's office. however, that doesn't mean that all medical care as such is necessarily always bad or incompetent. i don't necessarily want to just accept god's will, if someone has an illness or injury. this question has not yet been settled. in fact, i'm interested in healing the sick, and i know someone who has diabetes type I and uses insulin, and i would like to find some alternative for his synthetic insulin, something like eating only protein foods, or something. there is such a thing as knowledgeable, competent, effective, moral medical treatment, but it isn't easy to find in the mainstream hospitals nowadays, under 'government medicine.'

there really are right ways, and wrong ways, of doing things. and there are also 'different but okay' ways. 'different but okay' means: i'm wearing orange clothes, and you're wearing green, and there's nothing wrong with that. strangely, loving the color orange is something that seems to run in my family. aunt jeannie loves orange (but she likes it on the pink-coral side) and my brother and i both love it, and we love redheads too. i think the weasley family is great. however, i include this in 'loving variety' instead of just loving redheads specifically. anyway, that's 'different but okay.'

and, with regard to medical care, it requires a lot of knowledge to decide. so here is what will probably happen in the religion: different sects will do different things. this is a 'sectarian differences' religion. we tolerate, encourage, and welcome dividing off into another sect if you disagree. we aren't the one-and-only way of doing things. religions, and intentional communities, as such, are SO BADLY NEEDED in this society, that i'm not going to stop someone from forming a new one and making their own. just having some kind of rules to follow, and some kind of community to support you, is so important and so badly needed, that we are glad, and grateful, to have somebody with a different opinion who will go form their own sect and make their own rules. so some of the rules for medical care might differ from sect to sect, because it requires so much knowledge and expertise, and there are different ways of doing things.

*new sects are encouraged, to deal with disagreements. some disagreements are viewed as 'different but okay.' communities and religions, as such, are so helpful and so important, that we'd rather see people branch off and form a separate group, so that we end up with two groups. that's better than just seeing the original group crumble apart and cease to exist. both groups can still exist, and cooperate with each other, and shop at each other's markets, and talk to each other. shopping at each other's markets is important: economically, 'the more the merrier' - the more people who are cooperating economically, the stronger and more self-reliant your community is. for instance, i might live close to a group of amish people, because in the amish community, there are small markets all within horse-carriage distance - it's a small, local community with a greater degree of self-reliance. everything you need is somewhere close by. i'm not amish, but i'd cooperate with the amish and buy products from them. that's just an example. i might not literally do that, but that's the idea.

how is it self-reliant to buy products from other people? well, self-reliant might not be the right word to use. i could use a different word. i want to distinguish it from: relying on fiat money and government money and borrowed money, which is what we want to get away from. we want to know that as the fiat money system bubbles happen over and over again, we will still have jobs, and food, and houses. we might have trouble paying our property taxes in fiat money, though, and we might end up being unofficial squatters on our land when the government wants to evict us. it could happen. but we will feel more secure knowing that locally produced food is available from people who are willing to help us, willing to cooperate with us, willing to give and receive from us, even if we do not use fiat money.

the borrowed-money system is so unstable, and jobs and businesses only exist for a couple years before they do layoffs or go bankrupt, and this is what i want to protect against. 'self-reliance' meant that we won't need to go to the government, asking for welfare checks, or unemployment compensation, which the mainstream people will have to do. mainstream society will be lining up around the block at the unemployment office trying to get their checks, or trying to get hired for jobs which are being created by the government ('let's build a giant bridge from altoona to bellefonte!' *note - to get that joke, you have to understand that altoona and bellefonte are two towns without any water in between them, and no reason to build a bridge. this wouldn't be obvious to someone who wasn't familiar with pennsylvania. let's build a big bridge from one point on the land, to another point on the land, just to have something to do!*)

i'll write down the other differences, which i wrote on a piece of paper, that distinguish the 'retmeishkan' religion.

*small, new, local sect with few followers. i'm the one and only adherent to this religion. there are many other adherents to the 'idelogical cluster' or 'beliefs cluster,' groups of beliefs which tend to occur together, such as anarchism and long hair and anti-circumcision. but this particular, small, local variant is my own unique little sect with its small differences from people who are in a similar beliefs cluster.

*anarchist, minarchist

*intentional community. groups of people will live together physically. this is different from, for instance, mainstream christianity in the united states, which doesn't have groups of people living together unless they are monks or nuns. however, there might be more than one intentional community, in different places, with 'my' religion. so they aren't all necessarily local to this particular place, but can be local groups in many different places.

*health, diet, lifestyle regulation. very strong rules, such as 'bottle feeding is against our religion.' breastfeeding babies is so important, it is not at all trivial, it is a VERY BIG DEAL in capital letters. bottle-feeding, and formula-feeding, and feeding anything other than human milk, causes a lifetime of obesity, health problems, allergies, and almost every other problem which is common in society today. along with vaccines, which are also a huge major cause of chronic diseases.

breastfeeding is so important, that if a mother has a problem that makes her unable to breastfeed, she is expected to find a wet nurse. and the community is a close, local group of people cooperating, so a wet nurse will be available. you aren't just told to go find one when there aren't any available. this is planned ahead of time. anyway, health-diet-lifestyle regulations are a very important part of this religion, which makes it different from 'liberal christianity' in the usa today, which doesn't tell you anything about how to eat or how to raise your babies, or anything like that. since this will be a local community, it will be visible and obvious to everybody if, for instance, somebody isn't breastfeeding their baby. it will be visible to everyone, and the response will be 'oh my gosh, you need help. let's find someone to help you.' immediately. it won't be something where nobody notices, for months or years, that you're doing something harmful, and nobody steps in to help. that is why a local-community lifestyle really does have health benefits for its members.

another difference: i oppose using synthetic vitamins and minerals. i do not advocate going out and buying a bunch of vitamin pills to make you healthier. in fact, i think those pills are dangerous. i've used them, and i react badly to them: they are toxic. synthetic vitamins and mineral pills are very dangerous. and they might cause other problems, which i have read about: there is a theory that breast density, heavy breasts, are associated with synthetic multivitamin pills, and this is visible on mammograms. i'm sure there are other things that these synthetic multivitamins do to the body, but i don't have time to get into it now. synthetic vitamin d, in particular, causes symptoms of vitamin d deficiency, strangely enough - i've read that it does, but i can't find the reference anymore.

(also, i haven't mentioned this before, and it might seem trivial, but i think children shouldn't be given pacifiers, either. they're made of plastic, and you shouldn't have plastic in people's mouths - no plastic dental fillings, no plastic retainers, no plastic pacifiers. the plastic is swallowed, in tiny quantities, and goes through the mouth surface directly, and affects the body, and might cause obesity and other endocrine problems. just let kids suck their thumbs, and let them do extended breastfeeding for many years. there's no reason why they have to have pacifiers instead of sucking their thumbs. i was told that my dental deformities, my malocclusions, were caused by thumb-sucking, but i don't believe that to be true. i was told that thumb-sucking caused me to develop an overbite. i think this is wrong, but i can't prove it right now. i'd show them weston price. and how is sucking a pacifier different from sucking a thumb, with regard to the teeth?)

*physical beauty. physical beauty is a sign of good health. 'ugliness' is usually a sign that somebody is sick or has a problem. there are variations in how people look, but in general, as a rule of thumb, 'all healthy people are beautiful.' i know that in reality, it doesn't always seem that way, but that's the general idea or intention behind it. healthy is beautiful, and 'ugliness' is a sign of illness or other problems.

however, my interpretation of physical beauty is one of the differences between my religion and other religions, and the natural grooming rules, including long hair on men, is something that makes this religion what it is. you can recognize a 'retmeishkan' if the men, women, and children are all following the natural grooming rules. i haven't settled yet on questions about how to wear our hair, for instance, in a bun, or combed versus uncombed, or what to do with the afro texture which is so different from my own. there are some variations there that are still within the standard. but that is part of my definition of what is beautiful. 'regulation of physical beauty' is an attribute of this religion. noticing it, paying attention to it, placing a high importance on beauty as a sign or symptom associated with good health. and also, a particular physical appearance indicates that you are a member of this community. and making rules for how to improve and protect health and beauty - that is different from mainstream christianity in the usa, which does not notice or regulate physical beauty, or even talk about it very much.

*the body. some religions (based on unhealthy enneagram type ones) tend to suppress the body, destroy the body, or see the body as evil. retmeishka (retmeishkanism? the awkwardness of my internal jargon) sees the human body as 'animal.' and there is nothing wrong with being an animal. animal isn't evil. i am a prude, and i know that i'm a prude, and i hide my sexuality and my feelings, and i am somewhat quiet and timid about talking about these things or expressing them, but still i actually believe in acceptance of the body and seeing the body as a healthy, normal thing, not something evil and sinful. that is supported by objectivism and nathaniel branden as well.

*family, fertility, sex, childbearing. this is different from mainstream usa culture. based on julian simon. i don't agree with every single word he says - for instance, i disagree with him about pesticides - but i agree with much of the spirit behind it and with almost everything else that he's arguing for. julian simon argues that pesticides like DDT aren't as bad as they've been portrayed. i disagree: they're WORSE than they've been portayed! not just DDT, but *ALL* pesticides, are *SO BAD* for humans, animals, insects, etc, that they should not be used - it affects us directly, because we would like to go *hunting* and eat the food that we hunt. eating wild animals and insects is what we want to do, so pesticides affect us directly, and are not just some abstraction of 'maybe it will possibly do something bad to some obscure species of animal someday,' but rather, it makes human beings sick, right here, right now, all of the time. ... anyway, as for fertility. i agree with his concept that increasing population, as such, is *not* the root of all evil. there are other problems: government regulations, taxes, and other laws are the cause of many things we see happening, for instance, how wastefully the land is used, and how people do monocropping and corporate farming and other things. anyway, this religion advocates having large families, and pregnancy and childrearing is of central importance.

mainstream culture believes that having children is a burden and it takes away your freedom. it's true that once you have children, you can't, or shouldn't, do certain things. you shouldn't move around a lot from place to place when you have children - it tears them away from their friends and all the people and places they know. and i know, because i remember when we moved from greensburg pa to scott depot wv, in 1983, and how traumatic that was. and i remember, before that, when i was held back and wasn't allowed to go into kindergarten because my birthday was past the cutoff date, so i had to wait another year, and all of the kids i was with in nursery school went on to kindergarten, and i had to go to nursery school for another whole year, and then i was a year older than everyone else in my class. i know how it is to be torn away from all of the people you know. i actually remember the thing about waiting another year to go into kindergarten, even though i can remember hardly anything else from back then, from that early in my life, from that young of an age - that's the one thing that i clearly remember. i remember being surprised and confused and not understanding why all of the other nursery school kids went on to kindergarten, and i didn't, and i had to let all of them go. it seemed stupid and pointless and i didn't understand it. it was really, really bad. they said i wasn't mature enough, and my birthday was past the cutoff date. the immaturity would be because of my ADHD, my hyperactive behavior.

anyway, you shouldn't tear kids away from everyone they know. so yes, it limits your freedom to move around from place to place. 'you can move when you get older.' it isn't as bad to move away, if you're old enough to decide it on your own, and have control over it. but you shouldn't be forced to leave because your parents decide it, and you have no control over the decision.

anyway, that's not the only way your freedom is limited by having children. there are many things you can't do or shouldn't do, after having kids. but the mainstream culture believes that 'having your freedom' is so much more important than anything else, that women are viewed as 'liberated' if they stay single and 'childfree by choice.' this is not viewed as a loss, but something to be proud of, something higher, more educated, better, 'more evolved,' 'more human,' more intelligent, higher class. having lots of children is viewed as low-class and uneducated.

having few children, or none at all, is seen as 'having a wider perspective about the effects of overpopulation.' my mother and father both believe that the world is overpopulated, and that we'd all be better off if a few billion people were suddenly wiped out by a nuclear bomb or something (that would be mostly dad saying that, i think - mom believes it but is less violent or extreme about it, however even *she* doesn't strongly oppose the idea that 'killing a whole bunch of people is a good thing.'). they both believe that there are too many people, and they both believe we'd be better off if a very large number of people died. this belief is seen as more educated, and superior, to 'small-minded' people who are 'thoughtless' about the 'harmful consequences' of having children, especially if you have more than two children (replacing the parents). julian simon blows this argument out of the water, totally destroys it - it is illogical, even the idea of 'replacing the parents,' which is meaningless when you look at what everybody else is doing, and how it's impossible to calculate or predict how many children are going to be born by all the people who you have no control over, and why is it that maintaining this particular number of people is good, but a lower number, or higher number, is bad. 'replacing the parents by having only two children' is meaningless. but mom and dad both believe in it. and the belief is seen as superior, high-class, higher-educated.

there is a common belief in the united states that 'low class people,' 'stupid people', 'poor people,' and 'uneducated people' are having large numbers of children, while smart, educated, superior, high-class, wealthy people are knowledgeable enough to restrain themselves and educated enough to know that unprotected vaginal intercourse leads to pregnancy (which the poor people supposedly don't know). you can google 'madeleine hoax' - darn it, i can't remember her name. madeleine somebody, an anthropologist, who visited other countries, and there was this one place where they hoaxed her, and told her that they weren't aware that sex leads to pregnancy. they pretended not to know that having sex makes people get pregnant, and she believed them, and wrote a book about it, which influenced all of 'white people' culture's views about primitive cultures, and is still there today in the 'educated' attitudes about primitive cultures, the contempt they have towards them, their own superiority, their seeing them as 'ignorant.' maybe her name's not madeleine. and i don't know how to spell it. i'll remember it later.

there's a belief that the number of smart people is decreasing, because smart people are smart enough not to have children, whereas stupid people are too stupid to restrain themselves. i've seen this belief in a lot of places, and i used to believe it myself before reading julian simon.

so, my religion opposes all of those views and attitudes about having children. large families should be supported by a close community, where your friends and neighbors participate in raising your children, babysitting them, breastfeeding them if you cannot, taking care of them when you have a problem, and educating them at home instead of sending them to public schools.

*economics, financial security. we oppose the fiat money system, the banking system, and the current way of borrowing and lending money (although there might be better ways to borrow and lend money, which will be decided later). we believe that people should trade using whatever money or barter they want, which will be decided locally, not globally, and it should not be enforced by law. we advocate a smaller, more local economy, in an intentional community.

*ecologic view. i am not comfortable with a lot of environmentalism, after reading julian simon: i don't like it if it says that you should make more government laws and bigger, more universal laws that apply to everybody - for instance, 'everybody everywhere should reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.' i think that law is wrong and misguided. however, my religion does have something of an ecological view, except it will be decided at the community level - we want healthy people, so we don't want to be living right next to a big factory putting out lots of smoke, or chemicals, or something. and we don't want pesticides, herbicides, etc. so, there is something resembling an ecological viewpoint here. but it is not exactly like a lot of the environmentalist movements, it's somewhat different. i'd say my emphasis is on economics: that the reason why a lot of the environmental problems happen is because of the monetary system and the laws. if you remove the laws and the money system, those problems won't happen anymore.

*psychology, personality. it is a 'meditative' or 'spiritual' religion. we are not necessarily 'praying to god,' but we do meditate, and search for the true self. understanding yourself is important to this religion. there are many books and many different sources of information about this. some of it is from psychology - the myers-briggs personality types, the enneagram, and other books, and nathaniel branden. lots of self-help books and self-improvement books.

the religion is distinguished from other religions because: electronic mind control is explicitly talked about and accepted as reality, as something caused by humans. hearing voices is interpreted as coming from living humans using technology, instead of coming from god, deities, demons, spirits, guides, ghosts, or anything else. that is part of our psychology and our search for our true selves, for free will and individuality, for controlling our own minds and bodies, for protecting ourselves against being controlled externally by other people using technology, for understanding what we really want and how we really feel. protecting ourselves, finding countermeasures, building shielded areas, talking about it, teaching it to our children: this is central to the religion, central to how we meditate, central to how we view ourselves. that is something that distinguishes my religion from other religions.

again, much of this came from asking the question 'why don't you just join so-and-so?' why not just join the amish, the mennonites, jewish, jehovah's witnesses, mainstream christianity, etc? why not just join another intentional community, like earthaven? the answer to that question is: because i want something slightly different, which none of those places are doing. there are certain things which are specific, unique, belief clusters occurring together in a particular combination. i like the idea of 'belief clusters.' it's really true, there are certain groups of beliefs and practices which tend to cluster together, when you read them on the internet. like anti-circumcision, and natural childrearing, and 'baby-wearing,' and co-sleeping, and extended breastfeeding, and other childraising practices. so, i'm saying that i don't see any other places which have ALL of my chosen belief clusters, occurring all together in one place. i'm not totally unique, however i do have a particular combination of belief clusters which doesn't appear in many other places.

*defensive pacifism with omnivorous diet. we are pacifistic, not aggressive, but also, we are probably going to fight back if some burglar (or government agency??? children and youth services? this is a very likely scenario which i am worried about, after seeing what happened at the FLDS ranch - i agree, it fits the definition of genocide) breaks into the house and tries to kidnap the children, or something. self-defense, family defense. mostly pacifistic, not aggressive, not making war with other sects, not initiating wars, not participating in government wars.

this religion is *intended* to provide an excuse, when the government drafts you, that you can tell them, 'i am retmeishkan. fighting in a war is against my religion.' this will be a 'sincere' religion, where you can clearly look at someone, and notice that their physical appearance and lifestyle is drastically, obviously different from the mainstream. the men have long hair and beards, and they dress differently, and raise lots of children, and live in an intentional community together. it is clearly, obvious a sincere belief system, which is present in their everyday lives, highly visible. it isn't just something that they spontaneously wrote on the paper in order to be 'too cowardly' to go fight in a war for the united states, or because they're 'betraying' the usa, or being 'unpatriotic,' or whatever. retmeishka (apologies, just the temporary name) will be a visible, obvious religion affecting every moment of their lives.

omnivorous diet, as part of this 'pacifism': some pacifists believe that you shouldn't kill any animals. this variant of 'pacifism' has to do with cooperating with other humans, but it doesn't include not killing animals. we see humans as an omnivorous, almost carnivorous species, and it is not wrong or immoral for carnivorous animals to kill and eat other animals. sharks, lions and tigers, other carnivores - we don't tell them 'you're immoral for eating that antelope.' we accept ourselves as an omnivorous animal. we believe carnivorous behavior is part of our nature, and we do not go against our nature. we believe that the human diet is healthiest when it includes some kind of animal or insect meat, especially for pregnancy and childrearing. we believe humans are 'just another animal,' although we see ourselves as a special, wonderful, unique, amazing, interesting animal.

*social behavior, social norms. there is some regulation of this in the religion, but i haven't gone into detail yet. i just jotted it down on a piece of paper. this has to do with community life, how we make decisions, etc, and also how we talk to each other. no details yet. and i'm in a hurry now because i have to eat before going to work.

*glossolalia, new words, new language. glossolalia is something that i do, that i have always done since childhood, making up new words and new sounds that have no meaning in english. this is associated with music writing, and with learning new foreign languages. in this religion, glossolalia is seen as a normal, healthy thing. it might be accepted and encouraged in children. i don't mean that everybody is required to do it. i just mean, it will be seen as 'normal' or 'something that happens,' and not a sign of mental illness or strangeness. it will be known, familiar, and accepted, but not required of everyone.

*imagination and pretending. make-believe. that was associated with glossolalia above. making something new, pretending. this is part of child psychology. i have read about pretending, in children, and using imagination, and i want to include that as something we accept and encourage as part of learning and living, even in adults. it would be 'green hat thinking' to edward de bono, but it's more than just that. it's also play-acting, role-playing, 'mantle of the expert,' etc. more details later.

*transdermal contamination theory. this has come to be of such huge importance to me personally that i want it to be a phenomenon that my community knows about and is familiar with. i can't find *anyone* on the internet who has written about a situation where they merely handled some medicinal herb seeds, and contaminated all of their carpets and clothing and belongings, *merely from seeds*, ephedra in particular, and had reactions as the chemical went through the skin, and the chemical lasted for *years* and did not biodegrade (ephedrine is like that - it doesn't biodegrade - it's very, very stable and long-lasting and has a long shelf life). i want this knowledge to be taught to others, and i want doctors to be aware of how it can explain some health problems such as erectile dysfunction (caused by prescription drugs and psychiatric drugs) and obesity. i want this to be less obscure, less esoteric, more well-known, and used for troubleshooting health problems. follow a decontamination protocol for curing people of illnesses and symptoms.

i jotted down a bunch of notes, but i'm in a hurry now, so i'll just write them here quickly. i've already said some of this stuff.

'prophets':
-drawn from variety of authors, ideologies
-use internet to locate ideas which are hard to find locally (hard to find in mainstream)
-not just one prophet or one book
-humans are fallible, make mistakes; and yet, humans are our guides. we should see the consequences of following some particular rule or piece of advice. rules are meant to be general, universal, and long-term (rules about how to be healthy, for instance), but they are not perfect or eternal, and they can change, or differ from place to place.
-mission/outreach? helping the sick, the poor, severely obese, people with ADHD or autism or other diseases caused by modern society

-some nomads, hunter-gatherers? traveling people, traders?

-not 'pagan'? different from pagans, doesn't do 'earth worship.' doesn't view 'nature' as a god, doesn't focus so much on the theme of 'the planet is a living organism and humans are violating the planet' belief system. doesn't do 'earth magic'. paganism might be more liberal, with fewer rules and regulations, but i'm not sure. paganist beliefs have many different variants, so i'm not sure - i'd have to read about it.

okay, i have to go eat, and i have to put gas in the car, or i won't be able to drive across town to go to work - i'm running on fumes, there is almost nothing left and the orange light is on.