Conference hydra::dejavu

    Oh yes Joe...I read that and wasn't it interesting.
    
    Oh yes you are so wonderful for sharing this with us...
    
    (I just got sick of looking at my entry being ignored...)
    

    
    Hi Joe,
    
    At the end of your note you asked the question if anyone else had read
    the report.  Usually people only response affirmatively if they have,
    otherwise they hit the next unseen button, thus implying that they have
    not (read it) and didn't want to use up unnecessary disk space.   You
    took it as people ignoring you, which I really don't believe was the
    case.  My own note about Paul Brunton (a few back) went unanswered for
    quite a while, and is still empty in a few other conferences I put it
    in, just so you don't feel alone in this.  (;^)
    
    BTW, I have never read the report you mentioned.
    
    Cindy

    Joe,
    
    	I have not read the book.  However, I *was* ignoring you. ;)
    I'm sorry - The Devil made me say that!
    
    Cindy,
    
    	I've not heard of the person you mentioned.  However, it
    doesn't surprise me.  I'm just an out of touch kinda guy.
    
    Richard

    
    Sorry, Joe....I've never read that book and don't intend to.  I have
    come to similar conclusions based on discussions with various people
    that I have met.  But I find the whole idea of "secret Satanic conspir-
    acies" rather annoying and I'd rather not devote much energy to the
    subject.  At any rate, thanks for entering the note.  I'm sure many
    people found it interesting.
    
    guy

    I just thought is was well written and put alot of things nicely
    into words...
    
    Just wanted to bring it to your attention...

    
    Thanks for thinking of us, Joe.
    
    Cindy

While  I read the list as soon as it come out, I also scan the Net looking
for things associated with Rush and I found this out of the alt.rock-n-roll.


    
    I'm not sure if this is a good place for this, but what the heck.
    This was written by Neil Peart of Rush after they were accused of
    backwards masking on the song "Anthem" (around 1975).  This editor-
    ial is at least a couple of years old....I think.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                  ROCK GROUPS HARDLY SATANISTIC
 
Editor's note: The following column was submitted by a member of the
rock group Rush in response to Jim Hankins' July 19 coverage in The
Daily Texan of a seminar entitled "No One Here Gets Out Alive."  The
seminar was sponsered by the Longhorn Christian Fellowship and
centered on the theme that many popular rock music songs are trying to
turn American youth against Christianity toward satanism or other
religions.  The group contended that either blatantly or through
subliminal means, musicians convey satanic messages in their songs.
 
    "I am writing in response to an article which was written by your
reporter Jim Hankins in your issue of July 19, "Group seeks to show
rock 'n roll Satanic."  It was awhile ago, but the article was sent to
me through several intermediary steps.  Besides, it's never too late
to discuss a matter like this, and as I happen to be a member of one
of the groups mentioned, perhaps I can interject a little rationality
and truth into such a hysterical exercise in propaganda.
    Satanism.  Now here is a word that should be kept away from some
people the way you should keep matches from children and guns from
jealous husbands!
    There is a certain trait evident in human nature which some people
seem to possess in greater degrees.  It derives from a state of
insecurity and low self-esteem and shows itself in the actions of
those who wish to make themselves look good by making others look bad.
You see it everywhere once you start to look for it.  People who can't
gain respect for their own merits feel obliged to try and tear down
those who do.  We see it in the failures who try to prove their
aloofness by criticizing the actions of those who actually *do*
something, or in cases like this one where the weak and pusillanimous
prove their righteousness by trying to punish the "less-righteous."
    A big advantage to such an attitude is that it keeps them so
involved in other peoples' lives that they need not examine their own.
    So these are the grim-faced hypocrites who are stirring around in
the dark places of life hoping to find something - anything - dirtier
than their own reflection.  And if they can't find anything - no
problem - they'll just make something up!
    And here they are accusing rock musicians of being sincere and
dedicated satanists attempting to poison the souls of America's youth
with subliminal messages of devil-worship.  You know that's almost a
very good joke!  Almost.
    As one who knows many of these "demonic figures" personally,
especially some of those mentioned in the article, the idea of some of
these sold-out, burnt-out, cynical, strutting peacocks being so deeply
and religiously committed to *anything* (save their "image" and chart
numbers) is also a bit of a joke.  And a pretty lame one at that!
     These nameless mercenaries don't even demonstrate that kind of
commitment in their *music*: why on earth would they be bothered to go
to all that trouble to put anything else into it?  All they need (and
care) to do is find a kind of lowest common denominator of commercial
"acceptability."  Yes, you Christian crypto-fascists, it *is* a joke!
The only problem is - *you're* not laughing.
    I'm not laughing anymore, either.  I've started to receive too
many questions and letters from confused and impressionable young
people wanting to know if it's true that we worship the devil.  Who is
it that is corrupting the minds of young Americans?
    Let us not for one minute forget that this is the same
self-righteous mentality that has put itself to work persecuting
witches, Christians, Jews, Quakers, Indians, Catholics, Negroes,
Communists, hippies and capitalists down through the ages.  There's
always somebody to kick you when you're down.  It seems like every
group has taken its turn at one end of the stick or the other.  From
the bitter oppressed to the righteous oppressor is a very short step.
    Speaking for myself, as lyricist and drummer for "Rush", and one
of those accused of this heinous crime, I must object, Your Honors.
Far from being a closet Satanist, I confess crudely, I don't even
*believe* in the old bastard!  I wonder if that's better or worse in
your eyes, Grand Inquisitor?
    I can certainly assure you that my lyrics contain no "demonic"
secret messages or cleverly concealed mystical commercials.  Nothing
like that, I'm afraid.  It is not only absurd and pathetic, but it is
also totally incompatible with my philosophy, my work and my beliefs.
    I get all kinds of letters from people like this whose perceptions
are narrowed and distorted by pre-set values and ideas, telling me the
most fantastic things that they have somehow "discovered" in *my*
words!  As is ever true - they find what they *want* to find.  Fair
enough.  I know what I put in there.  It isn't that, and it isn't this
either.  Period.
    I don't wish to offend anyone's genuine beliefs, as it is a
fundamental tenet in my philosophy that people should believe what
they *choose* to believe.  It must be stated, though, that when you've
"got" religion, like Siddhartha, you find it everywhere you look.  And
when you've got evil, you'll find *it* everywhere you look, too.
    Ah!  It's the old "recorded backwards" trick again, is it Watson?
Ha!  I'm sure you could play "The Star Spangled Banner" backwards and
find a secret message there too.  Wouldn't Francis Scott Key be
surprised at your cleverness!  How do you suppose *he* knew what it
said in 1812?
    Don't you think something as vague as this is rather like a
Rorschach ink-blot, or cloud shapes?  Interpretation is based on the
perceiver's state of mind - *not* on any objective reality.  An
ink-blot is a cloud is a song - frontwards or backwards.  One finds
what one *wishes* to find.
    Yes, there's something subliminal at work here all right.  The
subliminal and poisonous sickness that dwells in the minds of these
fearful and pompous so-called Christians.  And they even call
themselves a "Fellowship."  Think about that for a minute.  Then think
about what this paper and others have accomplished by giving innocent
ink and paper over to this kind of drivel.  You readers don't know
that I would never even use the kind of *grammar* that these people
have attributed to me, let alone the insipid and valueless supposed
message.  Listen to this: "Oh Satan, you, you are the one who is
shining.  Walls of Satan, walls of sacrifice; I know it's you are the
one I love."  That's disgusting.  I mean *really*.  You just *know*
these people have to be sick.  If you don't believe me, ask my Mom!"
 
----

RE: .7

    He made some good points.  Too bad he buried them in a great mound of
    ad homina.  "Slugging" back simply keeps things at the level of
    personal confrontation.

				    Topher

    
    Yes, that's one way to look at it.  Personally, I admire his honesty.
    He wasn't denying his feelings underneath a cover of intellectualized
    niceties.
    
    guy

RE: .9 (guy)

    >Yes, that's one way to look at it.  Personally, I admire his honesty.
    >He wasn't denying his feelings underneath a cover of intellectualized
    >niceties.

    Neither is the fellow who gets fed up with his life and takes an
    assault rifle down to his local shopping mall.  :-)

    Seriously, he vented his spleen but he did nothing to help the
    situation but to add to the polarization.

				    Topher

    
    Those folks with the assault rifle may have spent too long under
    a "system" (real or imagined) that left no room for personal,
    emotional expression - then broke out of that pattern in rebellion.
    They experienced *too much* control.  
    
    I imagine Mr. Peart is in control of his bodily functions.  If he
    were completely stoic, he might not have written such nice lyrics.
    
    guy

RE: .11 (guy)

    However understandably, he responded with verbal violence.  Yes, he
    was responding *to* verbal violence, and so I can't really be too
    judgemental, but his response accomplished nothing useful.  Instead
    of showing that the *ideas* expressed were vacuous, hurtful, etc.,
    and using his powers of expression to make that overwhelmingly obvious,
    he chose to make speculations on the motives of those who attacked
    him and expressing those speculations in as pejorative a way as he
    could think of.  The result: he probably felt good from having gotten
    in a good "punch", those of us who agree with his viewpoint can stand
    around and cheer, and those who lean towards his "opponents" can feel
    justified in believing that he is a Satanist who is only interested in
    attacking "good God-fearing folk" who have attempted to "expose" what
    he is "up to".  He may have convinced some fence-stradlers -- more
    likely to the anti-Rock side -- but mostly he just further polarized
    the conflict rather than reducing it.

    Making someone look like a jackass in a conflict like this only works
    if they look like a jackass from *THEIR* perspective.  When he made
    substantive points he made them well (i.e., that most of the people
    so accused do not have the fortitude to show the claimed dedication),
    but his (IMHO accurate) discussions of their presumed motivations just
    makes them martyrs without really "hurting" them at all -- after all,
    the Devil obviously told him to say those things so why pay any attention?

				    Topher

    
    Topher,
    
    So by being "nice" and intellectualizing a bit more, he would have
    convinced a few more to change sides?  I doubt that.  For most of
    the people on the other side of the argument, I doubt that the form 
    would matter as much as the content.  "Satan is clever, and takes many 
    forms," they might say....
    
    I could be wrong, but I imagine he wrote what he did more for his
    fans than anyone else (besides himself).  They would most directly
    benefit.
    
    guy

    How did his fans benifit?  By being entertained?

    Who said anything about being intellectual?  I simply said that he was
    wasting his time yelling insults.  By attacking the *ideas* in whatever
    way he wants -- intellectually, emotionally, satyrically -- he looks
    better, and he does not push relative moderates into extremes and
    *might* convince a few moderates-just-on-the-other-side-of-the-fence
    to come over to the real world.

    The outcome of the response that he did make, was to entertain some
    people who agree with him, confirm the opinions of some people who
    don't, and probably leave the situtation just a little bit worse than
    if he hadn't written anything.  He could have handled it so the
    situation *might* have been just a little bit better if he had avoided
    the name calling.

					Topher

    
    Okay. :-)

Actually, I found what he wrote both amusing and refreshing ...
and convincing.

Collis

         Well, being a fan and knowing the lyrics to quite a few Rush
    tunes, I found his reply to be true to his style of writing (IMO) and
    let it not be said that I should/would judge someone for honesty.
         Also, don't you think that the past few replies prove the point of
    his reponse.  Each person interprets/percieves the world
    (music,art,lyrics,articles) around them in their own way?
    
                                                   Capt. Scott

    
    re: .17 (Capt. Scott)
    
    Good point.
    
    guy