The Devil Went Down to Cahokia

“I’ll give them a dance!” he exclaimed. “I know one tune. They call it ‘Returned from the Grave.”


Twelfth Night At Cahokia

It was Twelfth Night, and the French village of Cahokia, near St. Louis, was pleasantly agitated at the prospect of a dance in the old court saloon, which was assembly-room and everything else for the little place. The thirteen holy fires were alight–a large one, to represent Christ; a lesser one, to be trampled out by the crowd, typing Judas. The twelfth cake, one slice with the ring in it, was cut, and there were drink and laughter, but, as yet, no music. Gwen Malhon, a drift-wood collector, was the most anxious to get over the delay, for he had begged a dance from Louison. Louison Florian was pretty, not badly off in possessions and prospects, and her lover, Beaurain, had gone away. She was beginning to look a little scornful and impatient, so Gwen set off for a fiddler.

He had inquired at nearly every cabin without success and was on his way toward the ferry when he heard music. Before him, on the moonlit river, was a large boat, and near it, on the bank, he saw a company of men squatted about a fire and bousing together from a bottle. At a little distance, on a stump, sat a thin, bent man, enveloped in a cloak, and it was he who played. Gwen complimented him and pleaded the disappointment of the dancers in excuse of an urgent appeal that he should hurry with him to the court saloon. The stranger was courteous. He sprang into the road with a limping bound, shook down his cloak so as to disclose a curled mustache, shaggy brows, a goat’s beard, and a pair of glittering eyes. “I’ll give them a dance!” he exclaimed. “I know one tune. They call it ‘Returned from the Grave.’ Pay? We’ll see how you like my playing.”

On entering the room where the caperish youth were already shuffling in corners, the musician met Mamzel Florian, who offered him a slice of the cake. He bent somewhat near to take it, and she gave a little cry. He had found the ring, and that made him king of the festival, with the right to choose the prettiest girl as queen. A long drink of red wine seemed to put him in the best of trim, and he began to fiddle with a verve that was irresistible. In one minute the whole company–including the priest, some said–was jigging it lustily. “Whew!” gasped one old fellow. “It is the devil who plays. Get some holy water and sprinkle the floor.”

Gwen watched the musician as closely as his labors would allow, for he did not like the way the fiddler had of looking at Louison, and he thought to himself that Louison never blushed so prettily for him. Forgetting himself when he saw the fiddler smile at the girl, he made a rush for the barrel where that artist was perched. He bumped against a dancer and fell. At that moment the light was put out and the hall rang with screams and laughter. The tones of one voice sounded above the rest: “By right of the ring the girl is mine.”

“He has me,” Louison was heard to say, yet seemingly not in fear. Lights were brought. Louison and the fiddler were gone, the stranger’s cloak and half of a false mustache were on the floor, while Gwen was jammed into the barrel and was kicking desperately to get out. When released he rushed for the river-side where he had seen the boat. Two figures flitted before him, but he lost sight of them, and in the silence and loneliness his choler began to cool. Could it really have been the devil? An owl hooted in the bush. He went away in haste. There was a rumor in after years that Beaurain was an actor in a company that went up and down the great river on a barge, and that a woman who resembled Louison was also in the troupe. But Gwen never told the story of his disappointment without crossing himself.



The Scare Cure

The future looked as dark for him as his recent past had been until a woman came to him with a bone in her throat and begged to be relieved.


The Scare Cure

Early in this century a restless Yankee, who wore the uninspiring name of Tompkinson, found his way into Carondelet–or Vuide Poche, the French settlement on the Mississippi since absorbed by St. Louis and cast about for something to do. He had been in hard luck on his trip from New England to the great river. His schemes for self-aggrandizement and the incidental enlightenment and prosperity of mankind had not thriven, and it was largely in pity that M. Dunois gave shelter to the ragged, half-starved, but still jaunty and resourceful adventurer. Dunois was the one man in the place who could pretend to some education, and the two got on together famously.

As soon as Tompkinson was in clothes and funds–the result of certain speculations–he took a house and hung a shingle out announcing that there he practiced medicine. Now, the fellow knew less about doctoring than any village granny, but a few sick people that he attended had the rare luck to get well in spite of him, and his reputation expanded to more than local limits in consequence. In the excess of spirits that prosperity created he flirted rather openly with a number of virgins in Carondelet, to the scandal of Dunois, who forbade him his house, and of the priest, who put him under a ban.

For the priest, he cared nothing, but Dunois’s anger was more serious—for the only maid of all that he really loved was Marie Dunois, his daughter. He formally proposed for her, but the old man would not listen to him. Then his “practice” fell away. The future looked as dark for him as his recent past had been until a woman came to him with a bone in her throat and begged to be relieved. His method in such cases was to turn a wheel-of-fortune and obey it. The arrow this time pointed to the word, “Bleeding.”

He grasped a scalpel and advanced upon his victim, who, supposing that he intended to cut her throat open to extract the obstacle, fell a-screaming with such violence that the bone flew out. What was supposed to be his ready wit in this emergency restored him to confidence, and he was able to resume the practice that he needed so much. In a couple of years he displayed to the wondering eyes of Dunois so considerable an accumulation of cash that he gave Marie to him almost without the asking, and, as Tompkinson afterward turned Indian trader and quadrupled his wealth by cheating the red men, he became one of the most esteemed citizens of the West.



The Spell of Creve Coeur Lake

So they call the lake Creve Coeur, or Broken Heart.


The Spell of Creve Coeur Lake

Not far west of St. Louis the Lake of Creve Coeur dimples in the breezes that bend into its basin of hills, and there, in summer, swains and maidens go to confirm their vows, for the lake has the influence to strengthen love and reunite contentious pairs. One reason ascribed for the presence of this spell concerns a turbulent Peoria, ambitious of leadership and hungry for conquest, who fell upon the Chawanons at this place, albeit he was affianced to the daughter of their chief. The girl herself, enraged at the treachery of the youngster, put herself at the head of her band–a dusky Joan of Arc, and the fight waged so furiously that the combatants, what were left of them, were glad when night fell that they might crawl away to rest their exhausted bodies and nurse their wounds.

Neither tribe daring to invite a battle after that, hostilities were stopped, but some time later the young captain met the girl of his heart on the shore, and before the amazon could prepare for either fight or flight he had caught her in his arms. They renewed their oaths of fidelity, and at the wedding the chief proclaimed eternal peace and blessed the waters they had met beside, the blessing being potent to this day.

Another reason for the enchantments that are worked here may be that the lake is occupied by a demon-fish or serpent that crawls, slimy and dripping, through the underbrush, whenever it sees two lovers together, and listens to their words. If the man proves faithless he would best beware of returning to this place, for the demon is lurking there to destroy him. This monster imprisons the soul of an Ozark princess who flung herself into the lake when she learned that the son of the Spanish governor, who had vowed his love to her, had married a woman of his own rank and race in New Orleans. So they call the lake Creve Coeur, or Broken Heart. On the day after the suicide the Ozark chief gathered his men about him and paddled to the middle of the water, where he solemnly cursed his daughter in her death, and asked the Great Spirit to confine her there as a punishment for giving her heart to the treacherous white man, the enemy of his people. The Great Spirit gave her the form in which she is occasionally seen, to warn and punish faithless lovers.



How the crime was revealed-A Missouri legend.

Was it conscience, craziness, or fate?


How The Crime Was Revealed – A Missouri Legend

By Charles M. Skinner in 1896

In 1853 a peddler, whose pack was light and his purse was full, asked leave to pass the night at the house of Daniel Baker, near Lebanon, Missouri. The favor was granted, and that was the last seen of Samuel Moritz; although, when some neighbors shook their heads and wondered how it was that Baker was so well in funds, there were others who replied that it was impossible to keep track of peddlers, and that if Moritz wanted to start on his travels early in the morning, or to return to St. Louis for goods, it mattered to nobody.

On an evening in 1860 when there was a mist in the gullies and a new moon hung in the west, Reverend Cummings, a clergyman of that region, was driving home, and as he came to a bridge near “old man” Baker’s farm he saw a man standing on it, with a pack on his back and a stick in his hand, who was staring intently at something beneath the bridge.

The clergyman greeted him cheerily and asked him if he would like to ride, whereas the man looked him in the face and pointed to the edge of the bridge. Mr. Cummings glanced down, saw nothing, and when he looked up again the man with the pack had disappeared. His horse at the same moment gave a snort and plunged forward at a run, so that the clergyman’s attention was fully occupied until he had brought the animal under control again; when he glanced back and saw that the man was still standing in the bridge and looking over the edge of it.

The minister told his neighbors of this adventure, and on returning with two of them to the spot next morning they found the body of old man Baker swinging by the neck from a beam of the bridge exactly beneath where the apparition had stood–for it must have been an apparition, inasmuch as the dust, damped though it had been with dew, showed no trace of footprint.

In taking down the body the men loosened the earth on a shelving bank, and the gravel rolling away disclosed a skeleton with some bits of clothing on it that were identified as belongings of Samuel Moritz. Was it conscience, craziness, or fate that led old man Baker to hang himself above the grave of his victim?



Prayer for Saturday, November 16, 2019


“Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.”

Isaiah 56:11

Our politicians “know not understanding”; have no knowledge and understanding of divine things, and therefore unfit and incapable of feeding the people therewith: they all look to their own way:
to do that which is most pleasing to them, agreeable to their carnal lusts; they seek that which is most for their worldly profit and advantage, having no regard to the glory of God, the interest of Christ, and the welfare of the flock: everyone for his gain from his quarter



Tolerance DOES NOT equate to acceptance

Simply put, you cannot accept something without tolerating it, but you can tolerate something without accepting it.


Toleration can best be understood (and is similarly defined by others) as not using force or advocating the use of force against those who hold ideas and beliefs or who engage in practices that one thinks are wrong but which do not violate the person, property, or liberty of others. This classical liberal type of toleration shows proper respect for people as reasoning beings able to reach their own conclusions about the nature of the world and the most appropriate way to live and organize their lives. Recognition of another person’s right to his own thoughts and beliefs is also an essential foundation of civil discourse.

Why must I respect something in that deeper way if I think it is wrong? For example, why should the heterosexual “respect” someone who flaunts their homosexual identity? Why should the pro-lifer “respect” the abortion provider? Hate the sin, love the sinner? Sure. But “progressives” either seem to want more or is just making an argument for the old-style toleration as applied to his/her cherished views like religion while asking that people also be less “judgy” about those who share his/her preferences.

The problem with demanding something more than toleration — i.e., acceptance — for all is that acceptance is, by nature, partial. It cannot be universal. One cannot simultaneously accept the God denier and the God believer as equally correct. But toleration can and must be universal: if I demand, on the grounds of our common humanity, non-interference from those who disagree with me, I can and must do them the same justice.

So that we do not unwittingly go down the path of soft relativism or the tyranny of political correctness, it is important to recognize that toleration does not mean that we must be indifferent to, respect in a deep way, or be compelled to accept any belief or practice. In a free society, the sphere of ethical and scientific debate should be quite broad as people wrestle with questions about the proper way to live and the nature of justice. This means that — like goods and services in the economic marketplace — ideas and practices have to compete and be subject to robust criticism. If we have the confidence of our convictions, we should be open to vigorous challenge about the best ways of living consistent with our individual and societal flourishing. And we should be able to challenge others as we grope together towards truth.

Without the institution of toleration, societies will slip into ignorance or the tyranny of unthinking acceptance.

If a person feels that an action is morally wrong, then by the virtue of “acceptance”, they would be forced to ignore their conscious and believe that it is morally justified. The implication, then, is that people would be forced the let the general consensus of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable drive their own individual conscious of what is right and wrong.

By the virtue of tolerance, on the other hand, no one is obligated to believe an action is necessarily right or wrong. Rather, they are encouraged to look at issues with an objective attitude and the aim of looking for what ought to be. In the well-known words of Aristotle, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Simply put, you cannot accept something without tolerating it, but you can tolerate something without accepting it.

No one, not even society, should be able to have control over another individual’s conscious. The free exercise of conscious is essential towards preserving one’s moral integrity. It is the innate ability to feel and give weight to the moral emotions. It is the “common sense” at the heart of common sense moral philosophy. The fact that a general consensus towards an action can drive an individual’s conscious not only signifies a movement towards authoritarianism, but it also signifies movement towards social moral depravity. We need to stop forcing people to be accepting of one another and their actions and start encouraging people to tolerate one another. Whether or not someone is willing to accept something is up to their own conscious. America was built on the notion of freedom of thought and personal liberties. While forced acceptance is a violation of this ideal, tolerance is integral towards preserving it.



Wake up and smell the coffee

All the trappings of the American dictator state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.


The question, of course, is what effect does such blind consumption have on one’s mind?

Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

The real zombies are not the Deep Staters calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

When all is said and done, the poor and the underclass are growing. Justice and constitutional rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. We have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

So where does that leave us?

We who are awake need to create a wake-up call for freedom.

That’s the key right there: we need to wake up our unconscious friends, neighbors and family.

Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.

The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.

The War on the American People, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.

The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

All the trappings of the American dictator state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.

If the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords succeed, it is only because “we the people” sleep.


Beware the military-industrial complex

But why would a
people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the
same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people
stupid.

Fear is the method
most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as
most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern
America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so
on.


Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.

We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.

But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people stupid.

Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.

Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.

Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?



Mirage of Freedom

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

We’re living in two worlds, you and I.

There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

All is not as it seems.

In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by mercenaries working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the Deep Staters, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

Likewise, billboards, movies, videos and television blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

When viewed through truthful perception, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers).

They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.

They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?




Jesus, Mohammad and Buddah, (with a side of chicken fried rice)

These types of religions are like fast food because they both taste or feel good and come with a toy or prize, but do not go very far in providing actual (physical or spiritual) sustenance.


Today, the accusation of being a “cafeteria believer” is flung around with the same zealousness as the term “heretic” was at one time. Passionate traditionalists troll online discussion boards and blogs seeking to attack women and men who do not give their full assent to each and every teaching of the “Chosen religion”, (Be it Muslim, Christian or “other”).

Self-appointed gatekeepers of orthodoxy believe it is for the glory of God and the good of the church that all questioners be denounced.

They are the rebels who do not take a strict approach to following their faith. It implies that the person in question cherry-picks which of the principles of their belief system they intend to adhere to and assembles their personal dogma from what makes sense for their ego.

They posit that any attempt to follow every rule in Scripture (no matter how obscure or outlandish) to the letter is impossible and that pretty much every religious person is a cafeteria Christian/Jew/Muslim of some kind no matter how fundamentalist they claim to be, and cafeteria faith is really the only tenable kind.

And yet, the accusation of hypocrisy contained in the term “cafeteria religionist” makes perfect sense on a theological level. If you believe it’s your God, and your God is infallible, you can’t throw out some of the rules, just because you don’t like them.

Religions of all stripes has clear-cut rules for its followers. “Cafeteria Believers” are “Believers in name only,” and ignore any aspects of religious doctrine that they disagree with, such as proscriptions against abortion, birth control, divorce, gay marriage, marriage for priests, and ordination of women.

People who are accused of being Cafeteria Believers may be quite committed to their faith, but are choosing to interpret its tenets through their own particular lens. They will focus on those parts of Scripture that support their interpretation while ignoring those that they find to be in conflict with their approach. They tend to follow the teachings found in an episode of “The Simpsons”;

Have you ever sat down and read this thing? Technically, we’re not allowed to go to the bathroom!
—Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons

Religions today tend to embrace a “fast food” approach and have proceedings that are supposedly presented as entertainment first and worship services second. Music is seen as pleasant and sermons are supposedly short, allegedly focused on “happy” topics like love and peace rather than serious topics which demand that worshipers actually consider difficult ideas, like personal sin.

These types of religions are like fast food because they both taste or feel good and come with a toy or prize, but do not go very far in providing actual (physical or spiritual) sustenance. The problem here is that modern society overall wants easy rewards and that fast-food religion is part of this trend. The downfall is that fast-food religion emphasizes what the congregation likes rather than what they need for salvation.

It might be better if we remembered that the “People of the Book” were given the ten commandments… not the ten suggestions.