Church of Nomenus confidential report's topics - tribe.net

Nomenus membership application # 5

Widdershins 3 — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:10:55 GMT

Had a lovely chat with Nomenus President Zakk, at the Sanctuary. Word is it is o.k. to send in another membership application. If so, of course I will still advocate for the excluded.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 4 replies

still No RadDish for the Bannished

beastwilliam — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:02:46 GMT

as of today
july 16th 09
the handful of Faes and 'Friends'...
who have PROMISED to make sure that Rick and i got copies of the Raddish in which our memberships were revoked (and we were Slandered) ... and the subsequent Great Circles... we have been banned from ...
HAVE NEVER BEEN DELIVERED (or offered)

It has been communicated, that there is some sort of pact to make sure we never see those RadDishes... so that the Hanouse nature of the deeds of betrayers, may be kept under wraps... if it was an "EGALITARIAN, "TRASPARENT" Org... there would be no Need for such GOP Style contortions.

...and we are accused of being 'Paranoid'... LOL...
Only A 'Paranoid' would think there was a Deep Seated Conspiracy right?
well MANY Know better... because they were a part of it...
it will be No Surprise to them when it happens to them some day...

Those who Feel "EQUAL" Now that Rick and I are Driven out of our Church of Fagot Brotherhood ... (Now turned Bi Brother/sistahood)...

Should know that Rick and I NEVER agreed to, or tried to, Drive ANYone out...
Not even Rula, Random, Mucwart, or EV ... even when they showed what Despicable people whey truly were... and stood by and let their asembled Mob Rob Rick and I of the place where it was safe to BE Ourselves.

We NEVER told ANYone that they should leave the CHURCH.
we Tried to protect it... and look what it got us...

this is what Fae means now...

William

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 4 replies

Nomenus Great circle

Widdershins 3 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:24:51 GMT

The good news out of the Nomenus Great circle this past weekend was that their confrontational Corporate Secretary Rula was voted out of his sitting position on the Church of Nomenus board of directors.
I've heard from several participants that a majority of the Nomenus Great Circle was devoted to discussing the fall-out from Rula's closed-door campaign to remove William and Rick from their church membership and participation.
Even though William and Rick were the top topic of debate at the Church of Nomenus Great Circle, both were denied participation in the proceedings about them, to be able to speak in their defense.
It was also posted in the Church of Nomenus Newsletter that "complete" minutes from the "special meeting" Rula called to oust William and Rick from their membership are available by request, except to William and Rick. Why does the Church of Nomenus work to keep from William and Rick what they allege William and Rick said in Rula's " Special Meeting?'
Since the Church of Nomenus is a 501 C-3 non-profit which mails out the Nomenus newsletter to Libraries and Universities, which Government agencies have access to these secret minutes withheld from the accused?
I'm also on the Nomenus heretics list, and have also been the butt of Nomenus malicious legislative process.
This is why we wish to sunlight these acts of malice worked against members of the Radical Faerie community by officers operating out of the Church of Nomenus.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 8 replies

Nomenus Named

artwit — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:21:31 GMT

In working up an article for Mark Thompson's anthology of faerie,
happened upon a diary with dates, and found for 1984:

"
12 Sep Performance of Mahler's Eighth on its 74th anniv. with SF Symphony.
13 Sep Naming Circle at Touchstone (981 Haight St. in San Francisco,
[home of Mica] Wm Stewart, Lin Maslow) for
the non-profit religious org: `` NOMENUS '' is named.
"

I recall the process that we all lay down on the floor in darkness and vocalized syllables and names.
Some influences were Om, Phallos, Omphalos (the navel of the world at Delphi),
Nomen (Latin for "name") and so on.

David Kerlick, before he took on the name Persimmon in 1985.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 1 reply

Caretaker training

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:16:07 GMT

Caretaker training. - 2006/08/22 09:07 This next cumbersome bit is an interesting thread started by Iz, a Sanctuary resident soon to be Sanctuary Caretaker.
This thread was from the tribe "Wolf Creek faeries" tribe, and was deleted there. I saved it, understanding then the nature of the hit and run tactics used by Iz.
The context was in another tribe thread a faerie named Daisy posted about her concerns over alcohol abuse seen at the Sanctuary. I posted about a recent Sanctuary visit after an event where there were a lot of empty beer cans and bottles. I also had money stolen out of my wallet while there.
Iz then started a thread titled "Tossing shitballs-faerie style" which I archived and now re-post here for the record.

#
While it's encouraging to see that anyone can say anything at anytime, here; I find myself smeared by a faerie. And, while it's a faerie, it's not "very Faerie."

I could spend hours typing in specific examples of how a particular person has, over and over, abused our process, treated others with a shoddiness that he wouldn't stand for, and cast aspersions far and wide about people he sees twice or thrice a year.
But, it wouldn't change anyone's perspective...

This movement is supposed to be about disempowering outmoded behaviors; it's about planting new modes of relating, based around subject-subject consciousness.

If we hear someone talking smack, we need to ask ourselves why they're saying what they're saying; and, what's the reality beyond their meta-messaging?

To be specific, how can someone I don't live with, or associate with, throw out the kind of schmear I've read about myself, and my community, this week? And, what kind of duty, or right, do I have to defend my actions and reputation?

I know what my issues are. I know my own vices and shortcomings. I don't know what gives some broken-spirited, consistently mean, trash talker the right to indict my lifestyle in the middle of a sister's open heartshare about dealing with sobriety inside of the Faerie culture.

The Sanctuary is not a brothel or bar, no matter what anyone says. It's not OK to be a mess, make a mess, or leave a mess. Pass it on. It is not Shangri-La-la, so many of our sisters bring their baggage with them. And, I don't know if anyone else noticed, but drugs and alchohol are serious issues for Gay culture, and many of us are engaging our issues around them. I'd rather talk about creative approaches to those issues, than whether or not some tired queen is right in her vitriolic attack on her sisters.

No one is running a still on our Sanctuary, no one has turned into a thief by being there, and no one is guaranteed healing just by drinking the tea (as much as I wish it were so).

I have met so much family through the Land, and have had so many opportunities to touch and be touched, spiritually. I'm not at all surprised that someone would try to steal that joy, or sour my love for ALL OF US. I'm not surprised that someone like that would still be coming to the Land; there's lots of love there, and maybe the disruptor needs to see what Love really looks like. I need the lesson. I need to learn to love self-haters and abusers. Love them enough to let them go, enough to trust that the Process will change them, just by the nature of being exposed to it. I also need to love them enough to call them out, to shine while they name their demon. And, to not confuse their issues with my own.

I took extreme care in how I called out our sister, only to have him act out my expectations of him. Was I wrong to name them? Was it in poor taste to refute gross misstatements about OUR SANCTUARY? Have I gone out of my way to sting or hurt? I must've spent an hour trying to focus on issues, instead of insulting or badgering. To be upbraided again, by some hurting soul, still looking for someone else to fault for not feeling connected or potentiated.

I'm sorry I responded to Angie's vituperative. Most of us know him well enough to take his stories with rolaids. I can only ask that each of us examine our lives, our works, our words, our attitudes, and act accordingly. No one has to take abuse, especially not around the subject of SANCTUARY.
posted by:
view Iz's profile
offline Iz
California
62 friends
reply
#
Vaughn
Vaughn
offline 77
Crows in the corn
Wed, February 8, 2006 - 11:26 AM
in response to: Tossing sh*tballs...faerie-style
This is just sad that you are using this forum for your character assasination of me.
Daisy posted her recent experience seeing substance abuse at the Sanctuary, I shared mine,
and in your own words you chose to call me out, and lied here about such as my involvement with Nomenus or an outing into town with my boyfriend.
For the record, the contentious day at Great Circle to let Fritz in as a member I was not even a part of. I also understand there were fireworks at the last COTL about Beast and Rabbit, no involvement from me there either.
How sad you have chosen me for your enemy.
Is that what you go to Sanctuary for?
And how are your concerns about substance abuse on the Sanctuary different than others?
My friend Star is recovering from a brain injury, his lover had recently died, and you chased him off the Sanctuary, claiming he was using heroin, when none was ever found, and he had never been seen using it.
Your concern about this substance abuse was so important to you that you changed the rules targeting certain substances.
I've spoken up in defense of friends who have been banned from the Sanctuary, often based on rumor or gossip, or who certain people wish to see living at the Sanctuary.
Why do you keep insisting on "calling me out" and using this public forum for your revenge?
Stop this madness now.
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
Re: Crows in the corn
Wed, February 8, 2006 - 11:36 AM
in response to: Crows in the corn
P-YEW......
As tha Crow flies................
reply
#
Saki
Saki C
offline 56
whatup
Wed, February 8, 2006 - 9:37 PM
in response to: Tossing sh*tballs...faerie-style
miss izzt crow are you still in oakland? lets get together just tell me when your in the city of sin and we shall sin together!!!!!!!!! love you much much much!!!!!
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
Re: whatup
Wed, February 8, 2006 - 10:13 PM
in response to: whatup
Ya can have some sin throwin' Iz's shitballs at faeries!
reply
#
Vaughn
Vaughn
offline 77
Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 3:34 PM
in response to: Re: whatup
I am still troubled by this character assassination on this forum here against me by Iz.
I had shared by recent experience on Daisy's thread about alcohol abuse on the land. I am not alone in saying this.
From Zeus in a recent Nomenus Co-Co email:
"Why did he(Rabbit) (and others) allow the druken
madness to continue thru out last summers mens
gathering. No ONE person is responsible for dealing
with that issue but seeing as how such an issue can
and should be addressed within the paarameters of his
caretaker proposal I feel it is important and
reasonable to question his reslove on this issue. THAT
IS WHAT I SAID,,, Hugs, Zeus

and there were other posts I've read about concerns over alcohol use,There were several on the Samhain tribe that were deleted. yet Iz is singling me out just for sharing my opinion.
As Iz at great Circle kept talking over me, and trying to shut me up just for sharing my opinion.
I did not block any proposals.
I resigned as Corporate Secretary because I could not face the hate and judgment Iz was throwing at me. I was not involved with Nomenus for that, so I left.
There has been a pattern of abuse against certain individuals at Wolf Creek over the years.
The faerie who was hand-cuffed in heart circle by the sheriff during a gathering.
The police being called onto the land by a hysterical faerie two summers back, police officers walking into the circle at the fire pit during a new moon ritual.
I've had friends banished from the land based on gossip and community politics of those privileged to live at Sanctuary.
Part of the banishment process is to objectify the individual with some filthy term like "psychic vampire" to justify this action of exclusion to the group.
I've worked to heal these rifts, to find a better way, believing as faeries we are capable of creating incredible magic as solutions to what life gives us.
As we all do I've made miss takes, and I've tried to make the best of them.
Last summer Iz decided a friend of mine then at the Sanctuary was using heroin. None was found, none was seen, but this campaign of character assassination drove my friend Star off the Sanctuary. Star was with me when I first set foot on the Sanctuary at Wolf Creek way back in 1986, at the start of Nomenus. Star has had serious head injuries so he talks a little slow or has trouble walking. His lover, Peanut, had died a few months before, and after cleaning up their estate he went to Wolf Creek for Sanctuary. Star had been one of the first residents after Nomenus purchased Wolf Creek.
My lover at the time, Gidget, had moved to San Fransisco from Short Mountain in 1981. Ted organized several "field trips" from San Fransisco to Short Mountain, which fired the desire to form n
Nomenus and create Sanctuary here on the West Coast.This was the time Sis Mish moved from san fransisco to Short Mountain.
Faeries wanted a safe space to hold gatherings at a land owned by faeries, so we would not have to ask permission and give money to the non-faerie world we must exist in.
So, Iz, after seeing this pattern of you singling me out to "call me out",I ask you to stop.
Nomenus will survive me.
Wolf Creek will survive me.
So stop your vendetta now.
In honored tradition with all respects paid, what you put out against me will come back at you threefold.
Ted's ashes are at Wolf Creek, as are the cum, blood, ash, and bone of many a beloved brother and lover.
There is an odd history at Wolf Creek of playing "survivor" singling out one who's absence would make the land a "better community."
I told Iz his character assassination of my friend was wrong, he did not like hearing it, so today he still feels the need to "call me out" in forums such as this.
So, Iz, after seeing this pattern of you singling me out to "call me out",I ask you to stop.
Nomenus will survive me.
Wolf Creek will survive me.
So stop your vendetta now.

In honored tradition with all respects paid, what you put out against me will come back at you threefold.
reply
#
Aster
Aster
offline 58
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 6:38 PM
in response to: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Hey Iz,
No matter what the whiner whines, you've got me in your corner, Lady!
reply
#
daisy
daisy morrigan
offline 54
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 7:01 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Are people really taking sides over this?
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 7:24 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
I don't feel much love comin' from the faeries here.
Who knew a flower could fart!
reply
#
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 7:25 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
OOOPS, I did not mean Daisy!
Tha flower before_
See what these stinky threads make ya do?
reply
#
Dona...
Donatella S
offline 119
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 7:33 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
all of those events compressed together actually sound very entertaining, were this a reality TV show. just think of it. there'd certaintly be an interesting cast of characters.
reply
#
Aster
Aster
offline 58
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 7:33 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
I'm not "taking sides" just reaffirming my loyalties to a friend who just got trashed here.
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 8:04 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Who started this thread talkin" trash?
reply
#
Dona...
Donatella S
offline 119
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 9:14 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
who knows, let's just blame you, Sqweegle. who wants to be a sacrificial scapegoat? you do, don't you sweetheart?
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 9:19 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Lets jus' sacrifice Miss Linah ta that big monkey on tha back that lives at Wolf Creek!
reply
#
Dona...
Donatella S
offline 119
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 10:02 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
why would the gods want Linah Cocaine, sqweegle? THINK! she's like a sacrificial fruitcake, they'd wrap her up and regift her
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
new post
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Yesterday, 11:01 PM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Tha funny part a this thread is earlier tonight fer real in tha "pretty pixie paradise" tribe we was talkin' about tha shitballs in Donatella's closet!
And here he is in Iz's shitball thread - friend ta pixie.
But no sides, please.
That is such grotesque behavior!
reply
#
Dona...
Donatella S
offline 119
new post
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Today, 2:31 AM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
i EAT shitballs, Sqweegle. there's a price for everything and everyone, and even though my price for scat is high, you could still afford a go at it with your tax returns. mmmmm, dirty, corn-chunky, shit-smeared lipstick kisses
reply
#
Sqwe...
Sqweegle Wink Dinkie
online 51
new post
Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
Today, 5:44 AM
in response to: Re: Stop the shitballs, Iz
OOO down an' dirty daddie a delight Donatella!
Oh please keep talkin' that delicious smack ta me!
Yeah!
Call me out an' talk real,real dirty ta me!
Yeah-
#uhn#
#uhhhhhhhhhhhh#
UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
OH-
Yeah-
OH_
YEAH!
BABY!
YE-AH!!!

This is why our dear Donatello is such a talented professional
that richly deserves ta be amply compensated by tha big bucks.

This is so much more fun than shit-balls, faeries.
'Cause at tha end a tha day what are ya left wit?
Shit on yer balls!

Stop tha shitballs, Iz

Gary
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/22 16:32 One really depressing aspect of this is that the same people who habitually trash and slander other faeries are the ones who become caretakers or officers of the organization. I wonder if this is the cause of the problems or a symptom of something else? I hope we can get more faeries involved in this discussion because here we can say pretty much anything we want and not be deleted or censored. Back when the Raddish was the sole venue they had control over what got into the Raddish and what did not. I get the feeling these folks are accustomed to operating without accounability.
X Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/22 17:29 Here's the problem, as I see it......

WC is a fucking high school. You've got the popular kids, you've got the clowns, and yu've got the outcasts. You've got cliques, you've got gossip whores, and then yu've just got whores.

I hear a lot of talk about subject subject conciousness, but just because you're looking me in the eye, doesn't mean you're treating me with the same respect you feel you deserve.
A certain casretaker. on that land, used to look me in the eye ALL THE TIME, and tell me how much he loved me............... come to find out later, that the only reason he did this, was so he could have a place to crash in PDX.

Is THAT what subject subject is all about? Apparently so. As a matter of fact, I was the one who called WC a bathouse/nightclub. I just call it like I see it. The only complaints I EVER heard about were that certain people wouldn't fuck other certain people, and that meant they were discriminating. No, it means I don't want to fuck you for WHATEVER reason, usually it's the skeezy approach that turns people off.

I see a LOT of fey there using sex magic as an excuse just to fuck. What energy exchange is there? Are you meditaing on an intention while telling me to take it? Are you doing any healing work with this? The answers are an emphatic HELL NO!

I decided, after seeing the TRUE nature of a LOT of those people, to take my energy elsewhere. I got tired of being lied to, being talked about behind my back, and just the general shit judgemental attitudes of the ones who claim to be so enlightened.

I've said it before and I'll say it again........

That place might as well be a Catholic church. It's got enough candles and hypocrisy to be one.

Gary
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/28 09:23 You are right about the high school like atmosphere and popularity. A few years past I saw a clear examlpe of how popularity effects faeries. None of the current caretakers were there at the time. In 1997 a long time faerie, Earl came to the sanctuary to spend his last days on earth. Earl lived in a trailer near the pumphouse. One of his interests was the language of Esperanto in which he was fluent. He had a goal that before he died he wanted to translate and put on line queer writings in Esperanto. To accomplish this he requested a temporary phone line to ascess the internet. One of the caretakers at the time, Sterling (Mike?) was adament that no phone line would be allowed because of environmental concerns and how "ugly" a phone line looks.

At about the same time a young faerie named Chango was visiting the land. Chango was about 20 years old, a model and a had a "sought after" body.
He was allowed to build three large sculptures without consensus, sculptures that could be easily seen from most points on the land.

If one is young and desireable you can do just about anything. If you are older and not on a caretaker's agenda then even a nonintrusive phone line is out of the question.

I am happy to report that another faeire and me measured out the distance and ran a temporary phone line from Garden House to Earl's trailer for 3 days and Earl did get some of his wirttings on line because of the phone line. Up until this post nobody even knew the line had ever been there. (the other faerie and I reached a consensus decision to take action) The remainder of Earl's work was put on disks and later placed on the net.

I guess playing favorites is a human tendency, but at a sanctuary we should be more aware of how these tendencys affect people who need sanctuary.

Vaughn
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/28 10:28 The term I've heard being used a lot for the Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary now is "Faerie farm"
Farms are fabulous, but there are so many of them, yet only one Sanctuary called as safe space where Gay men as Gay men can explore and develop our unique history and culture.
The barn sits today unfinished as is the kitchen, no new work there in near a year. A soon to be caretaker is using one of the hot tubs to raise guinee fowl in in back of the unfinished section.
People's personal living spaces they have claimed at "Sanctuary" are mostly kept neat, while such common spaces as the gardens mostly are going fallow.
X Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/28 14:17 Everyone thought that someone would do it. Someone figured that anyone would do it. When in fact, nobody did it.

Widdershins3
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/28 19:41 Thank you for your input here.
We have not yet started to actively publicise this Association.
There will be several interesting posts here the coming weeks, and this work will grow as the roots are established.
The growth here so far has been steady, and as we reach critical mass we will start posting links for this Association to other faerie sites.
we have recieved many positive responses to this privately, so far.
Yes, we do take this seriously. Earlier this year a faerie calling himself "dirty" went to the Wolf Creek Sanctuary asking for Sanctuary. His need for Sanctuary got in the way of the resident's homesteading efforts,
he was told to leave, and shortly afterwords he committed suicide in a friend's bed in Eugene.
What was "dirty's" story?
X Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/28 19:45 Can we also talk about the fairy, who last year, got busted on for touching a child? Can we also talk about how this was kept on the downlow and that I STILL see this fey around once in a while? Nothing was done, no report made, nothing at all. Sanctuary indeed!
reply | quote | delete
unsubscribed
User
Posts: 8
graphgraph

Click here to send a Private Message to this userClick here to see the profile of this user Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/29 09:10 a friendly sugestion;

some of us cast ourselves out some were cast out

but

the name "outcasts of nomenus" might make some hesitate to join this association for fear that doing so will cause them to be cast out by the current crew of caretakers.

this may be why some faeries contact you privatly.

X Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/29 14:51 The fact that people are afraid of to speak up, is exactly why this place needs to be here.

Vaughn
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/30 01:10 The "Outcasts of Nomenus" name will change on the six month anniversary of the founding of this Association,
when we plan to take this from out of the wilderness.
On the three month anniversary we plan another surprise here.

Post edited by: Vaughn, at: 2006/08/30 01:12

Gary
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/30 09:52 Thanks for starting this association. I think we are all describing what we see as the problems. I would like talk about what our intentions are. Do we have any hope of causing any real change? Right now I think that if the caretakers and leaders respond at all it will be to dig in their heels and reaffirm the current regime.

I hear what Rodney and Masked are saying about putting the gender wars aside for awhile. The problems listed here go right to what used to be the heart of the organization.

It looks like caretakers are now chosen for their narrow "homesteading" vision rather than for taking care of the land, providing sanctuary and preparing for gatherings. I have no general objection to caretakers involvement in other projects, but those projects have now become the raison d'tre of the organization.

How can we get the focus back to the original intent of providing sanctuary?

Post edited by: Gary, at: 2006/08/30 09:53

Vaughn
Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/30 11:07 Thank you for your input here, and we have been pleased with the growth and intent of this Association. We have been talking with those who were there when the Church of Nomenus was first called as a safe space for Gay men to come as Gay men, to learn from our unique spiritual and cultural positions. There has been much support for this Association, which is growing as the church of Nomenus in excile.
X Re:Caretaker training. - 2006/08/30 11:34 My intent, is to do whatever it takes to call out those who are on soap boxes, with a mouth full of shit, and bring them back to reality. I'd like to see all my fairy friends happy again.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 8 replies

The excluded

Widdershins 3 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:52:23 GMT

What happens when one is turned away from a Radical Faerie Sanctuary?
Where do those excluded Faeries go whom are turned away ?

Here is the story of five recent faeries known to have been excluded by executive fiat off the land of today's Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary,first a little Faerie history lesson:

The 80 acres where today is established the Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary was purchased back in 1975 by a Gay man with a vision to establish a rural commune as a safe space for Gay men in the wane of the Back to Land Movement of the 1970's. This area of Southern Oregon sprouted many radical communes of varied cultural stripes and political/spiritual persuasions. Rural land then sold cheap, and Wolf Creek's location was central to major population centers off the Interstate 5 Freeway from Washington to California.
During the height of the era of identity politics,many Gay men were involved in the effort to pass the Equal Rights Amendment for gender equality. An active area of the then Women's movement were many women-only communes and circles: communities called by women for empowerment, healing, spirituality, and history.
Naturally, Gay men asked the questions of how to manifest such parallel circles of focus and intent for Gay men.
At an age where played emphasis to tear down-male only organizations and institutions, the questions were asked by those living at the fringe of the Gay rights movement:
What is this cultural/historical/creative/spiritual same-sex energy often called Gay Spirit?
As Gay men, we worked to reclaim our history, suppressed and burned often by the dominate religion or society.
So, this leads into my personal story:

I first fell in with the Radical Faeries while living in early 1980's San Francisco. "The Faeries" for me was a good fit, as it was for many Gay men then who swam counter to the mainstreaming of Gay culture.
I became involved with an energizing circle of intent to fully document the role and legitimacy of same-sex oriented individuals as spiritually unique.
Regular "Vision circles" were held, Faerie gatherings were called, and fund raising events hosted towards the means of purchasing rural property
to establish as a West Coast Radical Faerie Sanctuary. Many Faeries living in San Francisco had personal connections with the early Radical Faerie community at Short Mountain, Tennessee.
The San Francisco Vision Circle lobbied the IRS successfully to incorporate as the Church of Nomenus, a tax exempt 501 C-3 California based church, created by Gay men to be a Gay men's spiritual circle.
These were also the dark early days of the HIV pandemic, so using mostly funds bequeathed to the Church of Nomenus for the intent to purchase a Sanctuary for Radical Faeries, the 80 acres at Wolf Creek were purchased from the original owner,who then himself was passing from HIV.
The Wolf Creek property had by then hosted several Faerie gatherings, and a history of mostly Gay male rural commune politic and cast of characters.
The Church of Nomenus has a vision statement " to create, preserve and manage places of spiritual and cultural sanctuary, for Radical Faeries and their friends to gather in harmony with nature, for renewal, growth and shared learning. "
The sticky widget in that paragraph is the "and friends" inclusion. Holding an all-male space was even controversial for the Gay men who called for an all Gay male space.
I first visited the Wolf Creek Sanctuary property in 1986 with my then partner Gidget, an early organizer for the Church of Nomenus, and Star,
a friend who later became one of the first Sanctuary Caretakers.
Gidget had moved to San Francisco from the Short Mountain Faerie community,and organized several caravans to bring San Franciscans to Short Mountain, so as to organize a similar Radical Faerie Sanctuary on the West Coast.
The Church of Nomenus structure was based upon the teachings of Harry Hay about a Subject-SUBJECT consciousness-based ethic.
Hay saw objectification as a barrier, emotionally separating an individual (subject) from another individual by dehumanizing them, (object.)
Hay believed a subject-SUBJECT way of viewing the world as the most valuable contribution to the greater society by a same-sex spiritual ethic; by empathizing with all people, relating to each other as equal to equal.
The decision and business policy was decided through a consensus process meant to keep power in the Church of Nomenus from becoming too centralized.
even visions most virtuous in an open decision making process can become compromised by those politically ambitious.
Through the 1990's debate flared over what a Gay male spirituality centered Church means.
Here let's go back to the part in the Nomenus vision statement which states:
" spiritual and cultural sanctuary, for Radical Faeries and their friends "
As those friends who did not identify as Gay men men came to what they were told was Sanctuary, where they developed their own relations and personal rituals, the concept of holding an all-Gay male spiritual circle
became controversial from within and without.
Faeries who did not identify as Gay, openly chastised Gay male identified Faeries as sexist and misogynistic.
Till 2000 whom could live on the property at Wolf Creek, organize events, and collect donations was decided through an at times lengthy participatory process open to all Church members. The problem for some was that the membership in the Church of Nomenus was limited to Gay men.
During a Nomenus membership semi-annual meeting in 2000, attended by under a dozen Church members, policy was changed to give the right to decide what events happen, and who lives at the Wolf Creek Sanctuary, to those Church members who live on Sanctuary land.
To put this more simply, from that point forward the Church of Nomenus became the rubber stamp for the needs of those who chose to live on Sanctuary land, in a role titled as " Caretaker."
Those of us who first organized this Gay male centered spiritual circle all had women friends involved in women-only spiritual circles. Holding a Gay male centered spiritual circle was intended as an act of empowerment for our community;
so many Gay men involved with the early Radical Faerie movement died during the burning times of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
These were years of memorials, of rituals we created ourselves, because as Gay men it is still common practice to exclude us from organized churches.
Today this even includes Radical Faerie churches.
In the soil of Wolf Creek mix the blood, come, and funerary ash of many passed faeries, including Gidget who was there with me when i first set foot upon Sanctuary soil.
For many this would be the definition for sacred space.
As the vision for holding a Gay male Spiritual circle became a derisive topic point for more and more faeries now claiming Wolf Creek as Spiritual Sanctuary, power in the Church of Nomenus centralized to a few individuals.
The trick is, Nomenus is registered as a 501 C-3 tax exempt Church by Gay men for Gay men, complete with a set of corporate by-laws.
As the needs for a non-Gay identified community came into prominence,
those wanting to figure out what a Gay male spiritual circle is about drifted off to better promise.

It was common practice for those of us involved with Nomenus process to be able to step back and take a break. A consensus-based decision making process is akin at times to slogging through a bog.
2005 I was active in the Church. I helped organize the summer men's gathering,the " Spiritual Gathering of Radical Faeries." This one gathering, usually now only a week, is the only time of the year when Gay male only space is held at the Wolf Creek sanctuary.
I also was elected as Nomenus Corporate Secretary that year, one of the required positions of the corporate by-laws.
A regular event called the Wolf Creek "Naraya' rents out the Sanctuary property once a year for exclusive use. The Naraya is based on revised interpretations of Native American religions, operates from a top-down hierarchy of "elders," and is closed to all who have not first had their spiritual intent interviewed and judged by a ring of "Gatekeepers" who operate on a model of enforcing the Narayan orthodoxy.
Many who now claim Wolf Creek today as their spiritual sanctuary are active members in the Naraya, which operates as a secret society.
In 2005 I was asked to participate in a Naraya event at Wolf Creek.
At the start of that Naraya, my friend Star who was there when I first visited Wolf Creek in 1986 showed up asking for Sanctuary from what he thought was his community.
Star's partner had recently died, Star then took care of burying him,
packing up what was left of their life together into one car, and drove to Wolf Creek, believing there he would find Sanctuary.
The Narayan Gatekeepers judged him as lacking, and turned Star away that night, off of Sanctuary, into a rainstorm, alone.
I withdrew my participation in the Naraya, and wrote of my experience in a blog. I asked questions, which marked me.
I learned at that same Naraya, closed to Nomenus members not cleared first by a " Gatekeeper," the Nomenus bank account was used to clear a donation made to a French Faerie community in the planning stages.
This was done in the shadow of the hysteria after 9/11, when domestic non-profits were under scrutiny by Homeland Security.
As Nomenus Corporate Secretary, when I asked about this transaction made by Narayans using the Nomenus bank account at an event closed to the general Nomenus membership, I was told to "not worry," and everything was "o.k."
By asking this question, and writing of my experience with the Naraya,
the process of banishing me out of Wolf Creek began.
The Narayans operate an in-group network they call the "Prayer Warriors."
Over the next few months I experienced an escalating level of threats posted on-line in chat rooms and the Nomenus email board.
I had been given cash to produce the Nomenus newsletter, which had been months behind publication. I rented production space, paid for software to be able to produce the Nomenus newsletter named the "RadDish."
Without notice or meeting, I had the editorship of the RadDish taken from me, I got a phone call from a Wolf Creek "Caretaker" threatening legal action against me if I did not pay back the Money I used in producing the Nomenus newsletter, which I did. I was blocked from putting this action on the agenda at the next Nomenus meeting.
I was also threatened with legal action if I did not pay for materials I used when I helped renovate a drag closet at Wolf Creek earlier that season.
Out of frustration I resigned as Nomenus Corporate Secretary. The Caretaker named I.C., who had taken the most active role in using the Church of Nomenus as a weapon of his intent against me, recited a banishment ritual against me in the Nomenus general meeting.
Harry Hay's dream of a Gay orientated SUBJECT/subject consciousness based church be damned.
For the last three years, I've had my membership applications to Nomenus refused. Here-say about me is published in the Nomenus newsletter, which is mailed out to the larger faerie community, research libraries, and other institutions.
I've even had my full legal name and address published and posted by Nomenus "Caretakers," who block me from refuting their charges against me in Nomenus forums. The Church of Nomenus is now a grown-up church, complete with a heretics list,
because I'm not the only one.
I heard of the suicide of a faerie named Ortus from a friend who lived in Eugene, a friend who's bed Ortus took his life in while my friend was out of his apartment. Ortus had gone to the Wolf Creek Sanctuary for sanctuary, and instead found a political process that turned him away at a time when he was most vulnerable.
Those who turned Ortus away posted a rosy story, peppered with assumptions such as that Ortus was suicidal anyway, and left on his own.
Yet my friend in whose bed Ortus killed himself was the last to speak with Ortus alive, and Ortus told a story of being viciously turned away.

Bennett for decades was a known personality at many Faerie Gatherings and Sanctuaries. Bennett was a drifter, a vagabond gypsy who could both inspire and infuriate those around him. A housemate of mine was on the Wolf Creek Sanctuary when Bennett also got forced off the property by a " Caretaker."
From Wolf Creek, Bennett went to a homeless camp which he had set up in the Ashland watershed. A record December freeze hit the area; Bennett died in the woods, alone, while trying to keep warm. His partially burned corpse was discovered about a month and a half later. He was identified by hand-puppets found with his body, which he had used to beg for money on the streets of Ashland.

William and Rick are the two latest faeries to be voted out of the Church of Nomenus,by a secret ballot manipulated by a few "Caretakers," in a hastily-called meeting illegal by the Church of Nomenus's own by-laws.
Same pattern as was done to me: Here-say published as fact in the official Church of Nomenus newsletter which is mailed out to individuals and institutions. Those heretic faeries who have the here-say published about them are blocked from participation, or to be able to defend themselves to the membership against the charges and allegations published about them by often un-named sources.
Most people go to Wolf Creek for a few days a year, and have a lovely outing away from the city, and thank those who hold the keys to the property,often by donating money to the church. When a caretaker in charge,speaking for a church, starts drawing up heretic lists and outrageous allegations, there is no conventional forum for checking this ambition and abuse of authority over a vulnerable population.
Caretaker I.C. boasted in the Wolf Creek chat room of "Sweeping out the trash" when he worked to exclude and banish me.
This was the same Caretaker present when Ortus and Bennett were treated as I was, to be "trash that gets swept out."
Today Caretaker I.C. lives off the Wolf Creek property, but still is active within the Church of Nomenus.
In the Wolf Creek chat-rooms, when Gay men post about Gay male space, the common response is to slap them down with posts such as this one which singled out one of the founders of the Church of Nomenus:
" I pray to the Goddess that she comes down from her web and sucks the tiny bits of soul left in your bodies, so that you will leave the earth and allow the real revolutionary faggots to take there rightful place in the prophacy, til then shame on you suffer suffer suffer, you have cursed yourselves. "
It is too common in these forums for Gay men to be called spiritually un-evolved, or locked into "identity politics."
As would be worked today against Gay men by any number of Christian-identified denominations.
Yet today, Gay men are denied over an estimated 1100 Federal and State rights and privileges in our personal relationships.
Rights and privileges our Heterosexual family and friends take for granted.

In the planning notes for Beltane 2009 at Wolf Creek, the heterosexual privilege which now is practiced by the "Gay men's Church" sets the tone for the Maypole ritual as:
" this holiday is all about penis-in-vagina sex...dress it up, psychodrama
play with that edge by holding a sacred wedding!
May King and Queen
symbolic union of a female butch and male queen "
This planned "penis in vagina" sex show will play out with many varied intoxicants, and a special Mayday "punch."
Children are now also brought to this event by those who do not identify as Gay men.
So today, in a Sanctuary intended as safe space for Gay men, where Gay men could ask the questions about our spiritual connections; heterosexual privilege and sexuality is openly practiced.
Once again, Gay men have to ask permission from heterosexuals, now to participate in Radical Faerie Sanctuary space.
Gay men are tarred as heretics in a Church created by and for Gay men.
I'm sure by writing this, there will be more curses recited against me, more pagan rituals posted by "Caretakers" and "Prayer Warriors" with my name included in the Church of Nomenus's heretics list, except when the Church of Nomenus goes fund-raising in the Radical Faerie community.
Churches tend to act that way.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

BELTANE 2009

Widdershins 3 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:45:13 GMT

From the planning minutes for Wolf Creek Beltane:

" THE GREAT MARRIAGE
this holiday is all about penis-in-vagina sex
very edgy for a bunch of queers
inherently funny
let's play with it
dress it up, psychodrama
play with that edge by holding a sacred wedding!
May King and Queen
symbolic union of a female butch and male queen
ritual consummation "

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 5 replies

Harry Hay at the Sanctuary Conception

Widdershins 3 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:16:09 GMT

I'm moving to this site several historical perspectives on the Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary, originally posted on our sister site at Free Association.

This next historical writing concerns the early intent for creating a Sanctuary for Gay Men to explore their unique place and spirituality in their many societies,
as many of us feel being Gay is more that a collection of sex acts.

From "Nobody Gets Out of Here Alive"

By Steve Jackson
Article Published Mar 2, 2000

In part because of his conversations with Gourley and other young gay activists, Hay had decided to put in motion something he had been thinking about for some time. He called it A Spiritual Gathering for Radical Fairies, to take place in the desert near Tucson later that summer. It was the chance to examine the spiritual and political side of being gay, Hay said. He had been careful to choose each word for the event carefully: Spiritual, to emphasize that this was to be more than a party in the wilds; Gathering, which seemed to denote a coming together of equals; Radical, which Hay was always reminding Gourley meant "to the root," in that they would be exploring the root of their gayness apart from their sexuality; and Fairies, partly to "reclaim" a word that was derogatory when applied to gays, but also because it evoked images of the elusive, magical creatures of folklore.

The gathering of a couple hundred went off beautifully. Big on ceremony, queens were all over the "mud ritual" of worshiping Mother Earth by smearing their naked bodies with the stuff and dancing around in the warm Arizona air. Hay was so pleased with the outcome that he immediately put Gourley in charge ofplanning a second gathering for the following summer in the mountains of Colorado.

But danger was on the horizon. Its first warning came to Gourley after the spiritual gathering that fall.

He and his boyfriend at the time, an emergency-room physician, grew hallucinogenic mushrooms. They liked to take them before heading off to the bathhouses, which they viewed as the ultimate playgrounds. One night Gourley ate a new batch of the hallucinogens, more powerful than he was used to dealing with. Inside the bathhouse, he began freaking out and made his way to the outdoor part of the facility, hoping that cool air might help bring him down. But it only got worse.

Demons appeared, looking like gargoyles. They danced toward him, their long purple and pink tongues protruding from grinning mouths and distorted faces, their tentacles and hands reaching, grasping. They were everywhere, whichever way he turned. If they caught him, he thought he would surely die.

Gourley quickly left the bathhouse and rode his bike to the home of his best friend, Don Gorman. Gorman had a technique for bringing friends down from bad trips: He made them sit in a corner and peel an orange. If that didn't work, he made them peel another, until the concentration and isolation brought them back to the world.

The technique worked for Gourley, but he never again used recreational drugs -- not so much as a joint of marijuana. He eventually went back to the bathhouses, but he couldn't shake the idea that in an altered state of consciousness, he had picked up on some negative energy that had invaded the baths, evil spirits or bad karma. Something terrible was happening.

The cops were polite, if somewhat nervous. "We had some reports of nudity," explained one.

Pat Gourley tried not to smile. Three hundred gay men...running around in the forest...dancing to drums...and there was nudity? What a surprise!

The second Spiritual Gathering of Radical Fairies had gone off without a hitch -- or any cops -- until the fifth day of the convocation. Fortunately, most everybody had gone home, and the rest were obviously packing to leave; otherwise, the cops might have gotten an eyeful, and he'd be spending the afternoon bailing a bunch of irate fairies out of jail.

Not that the gathering, at a campsite near Buffalo Park, Colorado, had been one long orgy. Far from it. For a bunch of eccentric queens, they'd gotten down to some serious business.

Gourley had been put in charge of the local organizing team. He'd had to find the site, secure the permit from the forest service and rent two large tents for those who hadn't brought their own. He'd had to make sure that planning and buying breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks -- all vegetarian to please the widest range of tastes -- for 300 were covered, as well as arrange transportation from Denver (to keep down the car traffic at the site) and for those flying in from the far corners.

As local organizer, he was subjected to all sorts of advice on the agenda from Harry Hay and other movement luminaries such as Mitch Walker, who in the mid-'70s had written Men Loving Men (a gay equivalent of The Joy of Sex) and whose more philosophical book, Visionary Love, had just been released.

Hay had decided that the time was ripe for reviving one of the pet projects he had first envisioned decades earlier. The project, Gourley wrote in the pamphlet announcing the gathering, involved establishing a "permanent Sanctuary, through Community Land Trust, for all of us." Hay's vision was a gay homeland, a rural commune as self-sufficient as possible, almost Amish in austerity, though no one suggested that queens be told they would have to wear black. He wasn't advocating total separation from straight society -- that wasn't practical. Besides, it was his dream that someday straight society would recognize gays and lesbians for their contributions.

For decades Hay had argued that gays and lesbians were distinct peoples -- different genders entirely from their counterparts in the hetero world, a cultural minority that went back as far as time itself. In late-night conversations in Gourley's kitchen, they'd talked about the sanctuary as a place where gay men could withdraw for a time and wrestle with philosophical questions and ideas about presenting what they learned about themselves to the world outside. Maybe it would be in some sort of spiritual way, Hay said, noting that stereotypical or not, gays were often drawn to "helping professions." For example, gays traditionally had been attracted to the clergy and often assumed important roles in Native American religions. When they finally knew what they were about, Hay envisioned gays from the sanctuary offering their services to the rest of the world. Maybe as mediators to resolve issues, he mused.

Gourley liked the idea of going to the sanctuary himself. Maybe it was the old farm kid in him, but he saw himself working in the fields and participating in the great debates to feed both the bodies and the minds of his brothers. He wasn't quite as optimistic as Hay about straight society recognizing gays' attributes and welcoming them with open arms, but it was a nice dream.

For years the idea of a sanctuary had lain dormant in the mind of Hay, who thought the gay community was too absorbed in sexual liberation. But now he thought the second gathering would be the right forum to reveal his plan. Gourley had plenty of help from other activists such as Phil Nash and Tim Offutt, one of the rare "out" members of the gay black community, working out the logistics. His best friend, Don Gorman, who nearly a year earlier had brought him down out of the bad mushroom trip, did the art for the flier -- a mandala with its concentric rings depicting mountains, mushrooms, dancing stick figures and flying fairies tooting horns. For the front of the "tips" flier, he drew a man looking through a kaleidoscope at another mandala, a tribute to Hay and Burnside who, in Los Angeles during the Summer of Love, had owned a factory that made kaleidoscopes to sell to hippies. Of the two, Gourley was the more political and, if not for the balance Gorman brought to their friendship, could have easily tipped into reactionary politics, where everything is black and white and issues are placed over humanity. But Gourley could always count on Gorman's ability to put things into perspective. Oh, Blanche, sit down and do your nails, he'd say when Gourley climbed on his horse. But it was possibly what they didn't do that had the most profound effect on Gourley: Despite their closeness, they were never lovers. It wasn't about sex.

And while Gourley was fond of saying that he got his nursing degree from University Hospital and his "Ph.D. in Queerdom" from Harry Hay, he had a difficult time getting his mentor to discuss his concern about gays' hedonistic sexual behavior. Hay found discussions about sexual behavior counterproductive to his principle theme that being gay was more than "where you put your dick." He was fond of shocking listeners by declaring, with a twist on the old gay adage, "We have nothing in common with straight people except for what we do in bed." In one of the rare times he did discuss sexuality with Gourley, Hay noted that gay men's behavior had changed radically over the years: They now had more anal sex, in part because of the opportunity provided by the bathhouses.

That was one of the reasons Gourley noted on a flier for the gathering that "the fairies planning the gathering ask that there be no drug or alcohol use on the site." They wanted to remove the gathering -- physically and psychologically -- as far as possible from the party scene that defined the liberated gay lifestyle of the '70s.

The campsite permit forced them to limit the number of participants to 300, some of whom arrived in Denver early and headed for Gourley's home in Five Points, where Hay and Walker were soon leading discussions. The other participants arrived, coming from major metropolitan areas and small towns all over the country; there were even a few from Canada. All were taken to the fifteen-acre campsite at the end of a box canyon where Gourley's two tents were set up near a large fire pit.

The evenings were social and spiritual in nature. Taking their cue from the lesbians, who Gourley joked with friends were a "more highly evolved life form than gay men," there were a lot of pagan and wiccan influences in their rituals, a lot of evoking the "Great Mother" and worshiping nature. The weather -- which had been alternately cloudy and rainy -- put a damper on another mud ritual (making Gourley glad that he'd warned participants that at 8,000 feet, even in summer, it was a good idea to bring down coats and rain gear in addition to "your entire wardrobe of flowing non-hetero garb"). A big hit was the drumming and dancing, which reached its peak when Offutt appeared on a hillside one evening dressed from head to toe in a magnificent buckskin outfit, pounding on a large drum. Soon participants were dancing around the fire like wildmen.

The days had their hours for hiking, quiet contemplation and simply building a sense of community by networking with like-minded gay men from all over the country. There were, of course, several "fairy circles," in which the men would gather to discuss issues, some dressed in dresses and skirts or nothing at all. The workshops dealt with more serious matters. The idea of the gay sanctuary was a big hit and, while not everyone agreed on how best to go about it, the consensus was that the gay community needed to move beyond sex as the issue that defined gay culture both to themselves and the straight world. There were also discussions about health concerns and the relationship to the bathhouse scene.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 7 replies

"Not just a State Theatre"

artwit — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:34:42 GMT

Back when I was involved in N., I had a dream of being at Wolf Creek, and
down by the parking area, there was a big cinema building with a marquee, and on it was:

NOMENUS
Not just a State Theatre

Well, we certainly don't lack for drama, but some
of the acting is really bad, and not in a good sense, either.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

how come these questions never get answered?

beastwilliam — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:03:04 GMT

another repost from WC tribe:

Speaking of Codes of Conduct

Who do we email about Rula's conduct?

I would like to report a few violations... LOLOLOL!

Rula you are SUCH a Hypocrite... honey you make me Laugh so hard...

You TOOK the power to CENSOR your Peers on the CoCo list... AND YOU DID, even though you KNEW it was Wrong to do it.

You have wanted the power to Excommunicate members for Life...

why not come clean... it would be good for your soul.

WHY did some one refer to you as "RULER" at that "witch hunt"/"kangaroo court" and why did you sit back, let them do what they did ... when you KNEW it was a Violation of the Bi Laws?

I Noticed that the MOMENT that rick and I were Swept aside... you said ... "OK Now I want to be secretary" I guess that did not work out the way you planned Huh? sorry... you know what they say ... the best laid plans of mice and ...

Rula... I think it is time that some one asked you what YOU think the Fae movement is about?
do you REALLY think it is about Egalitarian Non Hierarchical Subject/SUBJECT consciousnesses? OR NOT?

I would like to hear (and I think others would too) how these behaviors have been examples of that?

1) Censoring the words of your peers on the CoCo List and in other forums of this org?

2) blocking a Peer from reading the Definition of the word "Egalitarian" as part of a Great Circle Opening ritual?

3) unplugging a conference call at a NOMENUS Meeting (more than once i think) when you did not like the way some dialog was going?

4) SCREAMING at a Member of the org (that would be RICK) who had driven hundreds of miles to be at GC, that he "did not belong" and should "leave the org because NO ONE LIKED HIM"?

5)trying for 4-5 Great Circles in a Row to get the GC to define "Cessation" as Permanent ... when the GC said Over and Over that it was "Not the Faerie way"?

6) why some one who quits the org (in a Huff ) should be banished for Life... when Officers like you, have quit (mid term) over and over, leaving the org in the lurch, should be re elected again?

7) why a secritary who rarely (if Ever) published Minuts to the CoCo List... or brought paper agendas for board members to GC should ever be alowed to hold the office again?

8) Standing in the parking lot (at a gathering) Screaming "Help! Help! call the police" in the middel of the night when you were in no danger?

9) Used her role as a Secretary, to access the Mailing list (that regular members apparently do not have access to)... so that you could Slander members of the org, to the rest of the membership... remember "Horsemen of the Apocalypse" (Voodoon Term for "Infidel" right? or so I am told by a Voodoon Friend)?

as you see it ads up...

Omega

so ... Codes of Conduct...?
come on Rula... we are waiting to hear the answers. don't skip any... it will make them stand out like a sore thumb.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

The RadDish today

Widdershins 3 — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:39:23 GMT

Reposted from the Wolf Creek tribe:

One of the products out of the Church of Nomenus as a tax exempt 501 C-3 Church is the publication of Church meeting minutes in a newsletter titled the " RadDish."
Besides the membership of the Church of Nomenus, The RadDish is mailed out to other faerie Sanctuaries, the larger faerie community, and government agencies such as libraries, universities. The libraries and universities recieve the RadDish for research and historical pursuits.
So, when officers of the Church of Nomenus single out individuals by name to catalogue as troublemakers or worse, in the publication of the RadDish, these Church officers are reporting these faeries to the government.
Recently, I had my full legal name and home address published in an attack letter by officers of the Church of Nomenus.
The last three years, these same officers of the Church freely publish their opinions of me in the RadDish, which I'm blocked from responding to heresay published about me in closed, often secret, Church of Nomenus meetings.
The current Nomenus Corporate Secretary a few years back published five pages of his malice against me in the RadDish, this is relevant because the same pattern of abuse is being worked against members of our faerie community today.
Now, in the RadDish, Church officers are publishing their opinions about William and Rick.
Of course there will be more Church heretics fearsome to the Church Patriachal power structure.
Nomenus is a big Church now, reporting to the government those "troublemakers" in our community.

Another example from a recent RadDish:

"" Background: In most of our meetings in recent years, there has been a significant split and conflict between William & Rickster and other participants; much of our meeting time has been spent on issues involving them."

" all speak in support of William leaving our meetings"

" W & R angrily denounce the proposal, meeting, and process. They repeatedly interupt the discussion, so there are periods where the facilitator is unable to be heard."

" No blocks or other concerns(excluding W&R); widespread approval."

" Everyone agrees, I think, that it was a painful and unfortunate, though most I've spoken with also believe the alternatives are worse."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 2 replies

Consensus process

Widdershins 3 — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:38:01 GMT

The term " Consensus process" is used a lot in this tribe. Consensus process was the core structure before of the Church of Nomenus,
before it was twisted in a nearly unreconizeable form by the current Church of Nomenus administration.

Here's a good, if exasperatingly long definition from Wikipedia:

Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both: a) general agreement, and b) the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process.

Purpose

Some have said that true consensus involves "meeting everyone’s needs." Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. The method also increases the likelihood of unforeseen or creative solutions by juxtaposing dissimilar ideas. Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently.

Consensus decision-making is also found in groups where participants have different areas of expertise but are working toward a common goal. Examples of this include high technology project design teams which must integrate the opinions of people with different areas of expertise.

Minority views must be considered to a greater degree than in circumstances where a majority can take the action and enforce the decision without any further consultation with the minority voters. It is often thought that consensus can require more time and effort to achieve. Thus some groups may reserve consensus decision methods for particularly complex, risky or important decisions. However, there are many examples of groups who employ consensus decision-making in ways that enable them to both consider minority views and make decisions in a timely and efficient manner. These will be outlined in the section below on Examples of consensus decision-making.

Consensus decision making could result in group polarization, where team members make more extreme decisions compared to their prior individual positions (Isenberg, 1986). This could potentially have beneficial effects on team decisions (enhance commitment and conviction), or detrimental effects (escalate towards greater risk or greater conservative behaviors). Use of computer-mediated communication could further heighten the effects of group polarization (Sia et al., 2002).

Key principles

Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument.

This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy.

Egalitarian groups that seek to reduce the amount of power delegated to leaders, chairpersons or agenda setters often use consensus methods. Such methods can reduce the amount of harm or loss imposed on minorities (or individuals) by a majority. Consensus methods may be appropriate when personal (or emotional) risk to members is high, trust is low[1] [2], and time is available for a prolonged discussion. Consensus may be used to remedy patterns of decision-making based on habit, subservience or carelessness.

Alternatively, it can be argued that in a situation of abundant trust - in which each party assumes that any objections or reservations regarding a proposal are meaningful - consensus methods may not only be appropriate, but necessary.

Like any group decision-making, consensus decision-making can disempower those not present in the debating forum, as they cannot expect to have input on the new measures that are proposed (whereas they might have had the opportunity for input into the known alternatives prior to the debate). Accordingly, most systems of consensus decision-making place a premium on participation.

Three key issues tend to define a particular type of consensus decision-making:

1. degree of agreement or unanimity required;
2. timing of presentation including division of time among urgent versus important matters;
3. follow-up to action including the monitoring that arises from dissent, and from claims of majority proponents whose preferred course of action is being taken over minority objections.

There is also the question of facilitation or process leadership, which is handled separately at the end of this article.

If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?

A healthy consensus decision-making process usually encourages and outs dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities. It also often assigns a role to the dissenter, e.g. the Vatican used to assign the role of Promotor Fidei to a specific priest who argued against beatification of a saint, to ensure the case 'against' remains well represented. After the decision, the dissenting minority may have some role to play in monitoring the decision. In the Supreme Court of the United States, both the majority opinion and minority opinion are equally well documented, as the legal grounds for agreeing with either may exist in some court in future.

Many groups consider unanimous decisions a sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity. However, there is evidence that unanimous decisions may be a sign of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate. When there are concerns about these aspects of unanimity, various alternatives can be pursued. These include the following:

* Unanimity minus one (or U-1), requires all delegates but one to support the decision. The individual dissenter cannot block the decision although they may be able to prolong debate (e.g. via a filibuster). The dissenter may be the ongoing monitor of the implications of the decision, and their opinion of the outcome of the decision may be solicited at some future time. Betting markets in particular rely on the input of such lone dissenters. A lone bettor against the odds profits when his or her prediction of the outcomes proves to be better than that of the majority. This disciplines the market's odds.
* Unanimity minus two (or U-2), does not permit two individual delegates to block a decision, but tends to curtail debate with a lone dissenter more quickly. Dissenting pairs can present alternate views of what is wrong with the decision under consideration. By focusing on a pair of dissenters, and allocating less time to lone wolves or 'consensus thugs', a U-2 system tends to form stronger bonds among those who find themselves "alone on an island" with each other. Pairs of delegates can be empowered to find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decision-blocking, voter to join them. If the pair are unable to convince a third party to join them within a set time, their arguments are deemed to be unconvincing, immature or self-interested. If two people dissent against some common measure, it is more likely that the discussion between them can be extended to third parties easily, since it is already verbalized and illustrated. Western European court systems recognize this by strongly encouraging criminal defendants or civil plaintiffs to get an attorney's aid, so that their case can be fully heard out long before the decision.
* Unanimity minus three, (or U-3), and other such systems recognize the ability of three or more delegates to actively block a decision. However, there is controversy over whether a small group of dissenters, (e.g., militants or terrorists), is morally different from a large minority, (e.g., an opposition party with support of double-digit percentages of the population). Accordingly U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as: 80%, mean plus one sigma, two-thirds, or greater than half (majority) levels of agreement. Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article. (see also consensus-seeking decision-making)
* The IETF working group process has a tradition of "rough consensus", where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough", but it is left to the judgment of the working group chair. This makes it harder for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, but puts a lot of responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to angry debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified.

Timing

The quality of alternatives considered is, all else being equal, proportional to the amount of time spent gathering and comparing and combining them. The term deliberative democracy reflects the deliberation that underlies all good consensus decision-making. Ralph Nader and others have advocated deliberative measures to extend the time for "sober second thought."

A fictional example of deliberative democracy is the Entmoot from J. R. R. Tolkien's novel The Lord of the Rings. The Ents, who are large ancient living intelligent trees, spend days discussing the issue of whether to go to war, in their verbose and many-syllabled language. This is an example of a decision for which the stakes were high, the individual risk also high, and coercive force difficult or lacking; therefore suited to consensus methods.

Timeliness of decisions is an important issue. In some cases, a wrong decision taken in time can be better than a good decision taken later. Key responsibilities of facilitators of any decision making process, but particularly in consensus decision-making, include:

* Establishing measures to place items on the agenda, or deny them time on the agenda.
* Setting deadlines for changes to the agenda (e.g. can the agenda itself be changed during the meeting?).
* Agenda forming and presentation of issues at the right time, when there is sufficient time for their debate.
* Ensuring that less urgent issues are excluded from the debate, but dealt with at another time.

To achieve a balance between urgency and importance, it is common to reserve enough time for matters that are not urgent, but are nevertheless important, (for e.g., the decision process itself, which takes care to maintain). Consensus decision processes tend to accelerate as rising trust over the course of the meeting, combined with fatigue, increase individual tolerance and the cost of dissent. Placing difficult agenda items first tends to speed a meeting, with the risk that important, but less complex decisions will not be achieved before adjournment.

Decisions about when to split up into working groups, how to handle agendas, how to deal with changes to agendas or working groups from the floor, etc., are affected by the allocation of the group's time to urgent versus important matters. These procedural matters are held to be crucial to the survival of a consensus decision process, along with issues of safety, fairness, and closure which arise from their application in practice.

Action, monitoring and follow-up

Action is the point of decision; without action, the decision is just talk. Military leaders from Alexander the Great to the present have emphasized that orders simply do not get carried out unless they are personally followed up by the commander. The same applies to group decisions, perhaps even more so.

One would not expect the opposing minority to do a good job of ensuring that a measure is carried out, but they can ensure that problems resulting from it are well-documented, and that inconveniences of its implementation are contained. However, they can also take steps to ensure that the inconvenience of implementation is maximized, so as to make the point that the measure was impractical and ill-advised from the beginning. A major issue in consensus decisions is whose view of the actual outcome to trust, and who to permit time to present their view.

Consensus decisions are especially vulnerable to sabotage of all kinds, so the assignment of action roles, monitoring (from the original majority and minority opinion to some future time when the results of both sets of predictions can be debated), and other follow up (e.g. assessing support of the public for a party after it has taken and publicized a particular measure), is a key responsibility of consensus decision leaders.

Leadership

Aside from these abstract factors, one must consider the practical matter of the facilitation process. A hierarchical point of view is that leadership or management of the process (as opposed to leadership of a faction or party) is required.

The role of a facilitator in a consensus decision-making process can be much more difficult than that of a simple-majority-party leader if group members distrust each other or unconsciously use manipulative techniques. For a proponent of any given alternative, reducing objections to their plan by eliciting information or preferences from proponents of other alternatives is difficult if people distrust each other. Manipulative opponents can find it advantageous to misrepresent their concerns or refuse to negotiate - an analogous problem to that of strategic voting. For these reasons, consensus processes usually require trust among participants and skilled, patient facilitators able to synthesise the state of a proposal.

An argument against consensus decision is that few motivated facilitators are willing to assign themselves a role guiding processes rather than pursuing and promoting specific measures empowering themselves. Dee Hock said of his role at Visa International - an organisation focused on making profit - that it was something that anyone could do, but almost no one learned to do well, and which was largely thankless. Similar sentiments have been echoed by many "leaders" of organizations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, which tend to have diffuse benefits, and concentrated costs (an instance of the tragedy of the commons issue in political economy, and of the public good problem).

However, leaderless organisations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, where trust builds up and where different participants are encouraged to learn facilitation skills, find that consensus decision making is a practical and powerful tool. An example of a prominent organization that uses consensus-seeking decision-making is the Green Party.

Some organizations have abandoned consensus decision-making for simple majority, judging that the difficulty of building a process to formally weigh all of these factors is not worth it, and that these factors can be handled better informally (i.e. in offline discussions before and after debate) than through the process of consensus itself, at the risk of creating a de facto clique that makes the real decisions.

An important issue for groups to consider, before considering a consensus decision-making process, is the feasibility of building up sufficient trust among participants and the willingness of participants to learn facilitation skills, and whether or not these are compatible with the operational structure of the organisation. For example, an organisation with a President who hierarchically controls operations could only be compatible with consensus decision-making if the President could be expected to sincerely respect the consensus decision-making process.

It has been claimed that it would be intrinsically difficult for a competitive organisation to use consensus decision-making, since consensus is a cooperative process, not a competitive process. There does not seem to be consensus on whether or not an organization focused on competition with other organizations can be internally cooperative.

Criticisms

There are a number of criticisms of consensus decision-making. Some but not all of these amount to a different choice of values - for instance, the relative importance of protecting minorities from majorities, or keeping issues in active discussion when disagreement exists, regardless of how long this situation remains.

The consensus process can lead to a situation where a relatively small number of people, (a faction), can block action that is desired by the majority (see Minoritarianism). In this situation, the process is arguably non-democratic, as the will of the majority is being thwarted by a minority. Where such a dynamic exists, whatever state of affairs already exists in the organization becomes the default with the faction holding a veto over the will of the majority. In such cases an organization can find itself saddled with formal consensus long after a majority of members would gladly switch to another system, yet find it impossible to change because of a small faction's ability to repeatedly veto any move towards change.

Another often-cited problem is a result of the power of factions over the process. In effect, whatever group within the organization is least willing to accommodate the desires of the other groups ends up with a larger degree of power over the group. In effect, decision-making becomes a game of "chicken" where the group with the least investment in the positive outcome of the decision-making process can be the most intransigent, and thereby get its way the most often. The result is that those members who most want the group to make decisions and take positive action may end up compromising a great deal to accommodate a small intransigent group. (These individuals are sometimes called "consensus thugs".)

As a result of the previous two problems, organizations that use formal consensus have a tendency to reward individuals who are the least accommodating and punish those that are the most accommodating. The paradoxical result is, therefore, that formal consensus decision-making tends to attract the most stubborn and intransigent individuals and repels those who are most willing to negotiate compromise between different points of view.

Because of the above problems, formal consensus decision-making tends to take enormous amounts of time to come to decisions because the process often boils down to a dialogue between the majority and an intransigent minority where some sort of common ground can be found. This is directly related to one of the claimed benefits of consensus - that it protects minorities from the majority. Indeed, systems of formal consensus often only work in practise by developing systems of informal control that will allow the majority to limit the ability of individuals to thwart the will of the majority. In North American native groups that use consensus, for example, it is often the case that tribal elders are able to exert enormous informal pressure on individuals who tend to disrupt consensus. (This is often missed by outsiders.) In some organizations using formal consensus, there is an informal process where people who do not "toe the party line" on issues seen as key to the organization's identity or purpose are encouraged to leave.

Even if an individual is not told to leave because they are out of step with the majority, because of the problems listed above, formal consensus decision-making tends to exclude people from participating who have limited amounts of time and energy to devote to process. As a result, members may leave altogether, or stop taking part in the decision-making process and leave decision-making up to those individuals who have the time and energy, effectively producing an oligarchy which may not be controlled by formal democratic means. For these two reasons, critics claim that formal consensus tends to become an exclusive rather than an inclusive system. While similar claims have been made of representative democracies, citing instances of low voter turnout, critics of the consensus distinguish between the two. They contrast a consensus process with decision-making systems where people are encouraged to clearly state their opinions, vote, and then abide by the majority decision. According to this argument, formal consensus does not foster the two values of "agreeing to disagree" and "I got my say, so I'm ok with it".

A related claim is that consensus decision-making can lead to pathological group dynamics in which participants are discouraged from expressing dissenting views out of concern that this would break consensus. This can lead to a situation known as groupthink. In an extreme case, a majority or even the entirety of the group may believe a decision to be flawed, but no one is willing to express this idea because they are under the mistaken impression that everyone else in the group supports it, this point being the moral of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale about The Emperor's New Clothes.

Some critics argue for majority voting systems on the grounds that these help participants learn social skills which allow individuals with very different viewpoints to work together on a common cause, and disagree with advocates of consensus who make similar claims. They argue that formal consensus gives individuals the impression that everyone should always get their own way, and that there is no reason why anyone should feel obliged to "bury their differences". As a result, the system tends to perpetuate differences of opinion long past the point where an organization that makes decisions by voting would have decided the issue "old".

Similarly, those who hold minority points of view in formal consensus are socialized that they have a perfect right to dissent from the majority point of view, which some critics see as a serious problem, leading to minorities ignoring the will of the majority and instead "doing their own thing". They argue that this makes it extremely hard for large institutions to pursue difficult projects - or indeed to operate at all - if the decision-making process is based around consensus.

Finally, consensus decision-making can fail in situations where an issue is divisive enough so that consensus simply cannot be reached.

Examples of consensus decision-making

One of the first documented applications of the Consensus method is perhaps the Deliberation of the First Fathers in 1539 when the founding fathers of the Jesuit Society, waiting in Venice to leave perhaps for the Holy Land, discussed during months to formulate, on a consensus basis, the fundamental structure and rules of the new society.

Consensus was used among certain Native American/First Nations peoples. For example, the Haudenosaunee (commonly called "Iroquois") required unanimity in decisions of the Confederacy.

Decision-making arrived at by finding a "spiritual consensus," rather than voting, was developed by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) early in the 17th century and is in use to the present day.

There has been considerable development in consensus decision-making recently. For example, Quaker-based consensus has been adapted to a variety of settings in recent years (for example, anarchist political groups). Also, various intentional communities have developed processes which they describe as both inclusive and effective. Three such approaches to consensus decision-making are outlined below:

Quaker-based consensus

The model used by the Quakers is said to be effective because it puts in place a simple structure that moves a group towards consensus. The Quaker model has been well-received when employed in secular settings because it gives everyone a chance to speak while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind).

The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process:

* Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
* Discussion involves active listening and sharing of information.
* Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
* Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
* Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
* The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision.
* The group as a whole is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the group.
* The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
* Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.[3]

A belief in common humanity and the ability to decide together are key components of Quaker-based consensus. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge. By articulating the emerging consensus, members can be clear on the decision, and, as their views have been taken into account, will be likely to support it (see External links below for more information and materials related to Quaker-based consensus).

Use of colored cards

Many intentional communities use consensus decision-making. In many cases, with cohousing groups, business must be transacted within time constraints. Thus efficiency is important. If the group genuinely wants to make decisions by consensus, a method is needed that is both efficient and effective. An open discussion needs to be animated by a process that moves towards a timely, and sound, decision that is supported by all. Various techniques have been developed whereby this can be achieved. One such method involves the use of color cards (green, yellow, red).[4]

In some groups, the cards are used in two ways; one for discussion and another for decisions:

For discussion

A group member who wishes to speak, holds up a card:

* A green card means "I have something to say" or "I have a question." When several group members hold up a green card, they are noted and placed in a "stack" of people waiting to speak. Each person speaks in turn, in a way that is similar to Quaker-based consensus.
* A yellow card means "I can clarify" or "I need clarification (on what was just said)."
* The red card is the process card. A red card, when raised, asks members to look at the process. For example, an individual who displays a red card might say: "Are we getting off track, here?" or "What is our objective in doing this?" or even "How about we take a break?" It gives all members an equal chance to be facilitator.

For decisions

Following discussion, the facilitator articulates the proposal and calls for a show of cards:

* The green card means: "I agree."
* The yellow card means: "I can live with it." This is often referred to as "standing aside"
* The red card means: "I don't agree, but am willing to work to find a better way, taking into account what has been said by all group members." Thus holding up a red card does not block progress, it signifies that the person who displayed it will work with others on the matter in question and bring it back to a subsequent meeting. This tends to ensure that red cards are not used lightly.

If groups agree to apply methods such as these, and all group members are willing to work at it, consensus decision-making can be both effective in meeting a group's goals, and time-efficient.

Use of hand signals

In lieu of colored cards, some consensus-based groups use a system of simple hand signals. While the nature, meaning and popularity of such signals changes from group to group, there is a common 'vocabulary':

* Twinkle: Wiggling of the fingers of one or both hands, with palms facing downward. Used by non-speakers to indicate agreement with the speaker. Also often used as a replacement of a raised hand to indicate a 'yea' vote to a proposal.
* Triangle: Forming of a triangle with the thumbs and index fingers of both hands. Used to indicate a point of order or procedure to the facilitator.
* Crossed arms: Forearms crossed with hands in fists. Used to indicate a strong disagreement with the speaker or to cast a 'block' vote to a proposal.

The IETF Rough Consensus model

In the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), decisions are assumed to be taken by "rough consensus."[5] The IETF has studiously refrained from defining a mechanical method for verifying such consensus, apparently in the belief that any such codification will lead to attempts to "game the system." Instead, a working group (WG) chair or BoF chair is supposed to "recognize it when I see it."

One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of humming rather than (countable) hand-raising; this allows a WG to quickly tell the difference between "one or two objectors" or a "sharply divided community", without making it easy to slip into "majority rule". However, hand-raising is also used, especially in larger meetings, but actual counting is frowned upon.

Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on mailing lists, where all parties can speak their view at all times; the social dynamics of mailing lists is worthy of a study in itself.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Nomenus membership application # 5

Widdershins 3 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:51:07 GMT

I'm strongly considering sending in my Nomenus membership application # 5.
The prior 4 were rejected generally without explanation, except to deny that I even sent in any membership application.
My last attempt at sending in a membership application resulted in one Nomenus member posting in the Wolf Creek tribe that I was making it up, till another Nomenus member corrected him online that I had sent in a membership application. Still, no action was taken, as I have been given the bums rush by a few faerie control queens in high places who know and practice the dark arts of process manipulation to serve their desire of enforcing faerie social controls.
Please remember this when these same queens come with hands outstretched asking for "donations."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 1 reply

Running on empty

Widdershins 3 — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:42:36 GMT

http://www.missionfish.org/charity/charity.jsp?NP_ID=18857

There are currently no categories with listings on eBay to benefit NOMENUS

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 6 replies

Naraya

Vaughn — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:04:29 GMT

By Angie O'Sperm

Speaking freely from the heart to my brothers.
Representing noboby but himself and a family gaggle of pixies.

I had gone to the Wolf creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary to be with my boyfriend Randerella and help the land prepare for a truly busy gathering season. My stay began with the official business of Great Circle where the operations of the church of Nomenus meet the needs of maintaining this cultural/spiritual sanctuary for radical faeries and their friends to gather in harmony with nature, for renewal, growth, and shared learning. That is from the Nomenus mission statement, which was adapted years past to include others in this vision of of a gay male Sanctuary, as the vision of the church of Nomenus was to create a sacred and safe space for gay men to explore the history and potential of gay male spirituality.
Oh, as we know, the debate about this has at times been most lively and spirited over the years. Many compromises have been reached. Many have been disheartened by the radical process of consensus that is at the core of the decision making process of both the church of Nomenus and the Sanctuary that it created and manages.
And there is a lot of physical work needed to maintain the Sanctuary infrastructure, such as pulling poison ivy and hauling out garbage and recycling, as people do tend to bring and leave a lot of garbage at the Sanctuary.
I offered to help facilitate the special needs aspect of Garden house, an interior space set aside for those with health or mobility concerns that inhibit them from roughing it in the wilds of the woods. As a lot of the Sanctuary founders have died from the ravages of AIDS, keeping Garden house access able for those in our community journying the rivers of life and death has been an important practice of maintaining the aspect of Sanctuary.
Recently Garden House was beautifully expanded to better the stay of the beloved sick and aged members of our community, whom it is important to include as often they are our living history.
For several years a group of individuals including many closely associated with the Sanctuary and it's history have hosted an event called the "Naraya".
This has been an Ernest attempt to adopt native American Spirituality into the Radical Faerie vision, as the two spirit and third sex, the berdache, the shamans, many of these native traditions included and embraced those who walk the different paths in this life we all must travel. Harry Hay and others heavily borrowed from many native traditions in helping organize the Radical faeries many years back, a vision that bore the fruit we today call the Wolf creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary.
As it should be the hosts of this event prepare and present it most seriously with respect. A circle of gatekeepers have been established to quiz each participant thoroughly about their spiritual intent and focus, and if the gatekeeper determines that you are not spiritually focused enough, or that is not the place for you, you are excluded from the event. These decisions are not to be questioned, as the gatekeepers are given ultimate authority to decide who can stay at the Sanctuary during the time that they rent it for their private event. The word is a lot of people get turned away by this seeding out process. It all feels pretty safe, as most everyone knows each other, sorta like a faerie gathering with the crusts cut off.
I volunteered to help with the kitchen and cutting the firewood for the main ceremony and the needs of the elders who were set up in Garden House. My boyfriend Randerella was involved with Naraya, and I wanted to stay with him, and as I'd been at the land living and helping the community there, helping out in the kitchen for the Nayraya felt natural.
I had to go through the process of being interviewed by a gatekeeper to question my intent, my spirituality, and if I met the unstated standards expected of those included in this private event.
The night before the first day of Nayraya cold showers pelted the Sanctuary and those setting up the event. The electrical circuits kept getting tripped by too many people plugging into the pump house in the parking lot, and through the grapevine I heard a person with advanced AIDS was staying in the parking lot. I wanted to know why he was not in Garden House, and was told Garden House space was filled up with the elders brought in for this event, and that this individual was set up o.k. in his vehicle for the night. Since special needs is an important commitment to me in creating sanctuary, and as I've much personal experience dealing with the needs and concerns of those affected by H.I.V., I decided to Gage the situation about this individual with a life threatening illness who was forced to stay out in the parking lot.
The next morning in the back of the Barn sitting in a section of funked-out couches I started speaking across to someone whom I'd seen about and recognized, but could not quite remember the context of how we had met before. I knew those eyes, those beautiful, deep eyes that showed right to his heart.
I asked him his name and he said of course I knew him, that years back we had sex upon a shear cliff face in the Columbia river gorge during a hike, as the winds howled about our bodies clinging and moving on the rock that dropped hundreds of feet below us, at one point almost falling backwards into the great expanse of sky. For this story I'll call him "Star", a shortened version of one of his many names.
My jaw dropped in utter shock as several friends had told me Star had passed years back, and I had believed him to be dead.
Back when I had first moved to Portland in the late 80's Star had been close to both me and my partner Gidget. Gidget and I had been together for close to eight years before he had died in 1994. Gidget and I first made love in the back seat of Star's black 1969 Cadillac as we drove north late summer 1987 as wildfires burned in the hills beyond the freeway, after looking to create a faerie artist colony near Wolf creek. The Sanctuary then was fresh and newly minted, Gidget and Star both were there at the creation of Nomenus to ensure the Wolf creek Sanctuary's survival and future as faggot sacred space, as the land itself had a long history of faerie events, inhabitants, and gatherings.
This was when a lot of faeries were dieing of AIDS, and many left their estates with the intent of preserving the Wolf creek Sanctuary as a place for their brothers to safely hold ritual and space in a world openly hostile to the needs and history of our community.
And Star had lived there at the beginning, and helped lay the foundation that has grown into the community that tends the Sanctuary and the needs of it's visitors today.
The poor thing was even President of Nomenus once.
At the point my partner Gidget first became sick with a series of high fevers we faced homelessness, and in my circle of friends then it was Star who made sure there was a roof over our heads till we were able to find an apartment. That is the sort of kindness that saves lives, and forever will I love Star for how he was there for Gidget and I in our dire hour of need.
Star is a free spirit who shines upon many pathways, and I had lost track of him, then heard that he had died.
Imagine my elation at finding him back home, as back when I was a boy and first set foot in the parking lot by the sweep of the meadow, he was there.
Then he told me why he was there. Two months past his lover Peanut had died in his arms. A grotesque misplacement of breathing tubes led to Peanut filling up with black mold, and my brother Star held his lover as he passed from this world.
Star cleared out their things, saw that Peanut was buried in the grove of trees where he had wished to be buried, (ironically across from Charles Shultz's tombstone, with "Peanuts" characters inscribed upon it)
and had a vision that he needed to be with his community at Wolf creek, as Star also comes from a Native American tradition, and knew many of the Naraya participants. Star had left several messages with the Naraya organizers, and was prepared to meet with a gatekeeper that would decide if he could participate.
We shared some history, then I had to be off to facilitate the gathering of firewood for the opening ritual.
I found Star later, crying. He had been told to leave, told that this was "not the place for him to be".
In his time of need.
With his friends and family.
In sacred faerie space he helped create.

"Not the place for him to be."

He was told to leave and come back later. I found a Sanctuary caretaker and told him what had happened, and he said the decision was totally that of the gatekeepers, then he through his hands up in the air and walked away real fast.
I went to one of the honored elders, an individual whom I had shared many giggling ecstatic rolling-off-the-bed sexual trysts back in the heart of the eighties, and told him. Star had also been intimate with this individual, who had given him his spirit name. Star had given him the first drum that he made.
Well, about the most that he said was that the decision of the gatekeepers is final and not to be questioned.
I went to the gatekeeper who was over me in the kitchen crew and told him my concerns. If this gatekeeper thinks you are in the wrong spirit in the kitchen, you will be asked to leave. He was prickly to me asking questions, but did offer to speak with this particular gatekeeper who had told Star to leave. I said that I had conflicts preparing food for people who would turn away our brother, a beloved member of our community, in his great time of need. I could tell from the gatekeepers body language that I had clearly crossed the line, and I felt marked for daring to ask about how my friend was treated. I was again reminded that this was a "private event"
I found Star, and we spent a lovely afternoon next to the spring on the hillside, picking through the spring-smoothed rocks as the years fell away.
Close to dusk we parted and I went to talk with the gatekeepers, but first was reminded that I had offered to chop the firewood for the elders in garden House, as several people who had promised to bring firewood did not deliver the goods.
Chop chop chop.
I found the Kitchen gatekeeper, who said the decision that Star must leave was final. I told him the conflict that this created with me, and he shot back"Do not bring conflict into the kitchen!"
I told him I would leave.
Walking back to the parking lot the evening ritual was beginning down at the bridge memorial. Back in 1996 when the current bridge was constructed, faeries pledged money for this work to include the names of our deceased brothers and lovers that had been taken from us during the bad days of the AIDS pandemic upon a memorial. My friend Judy Jetson designed the alter, and I made the tiles and scribed into them the names of the dead. My deceased lover Gidget had made the many tiny porcelain vases that decorate this memorial that has become the focus of many a ritual upon the land. Star also knows many of the names intimately that are inscribed upon this memorial, those of his brothers and lovers, people we still share stories about. Myself I believe that a person is not truly dead till the living memory of all they have touched has also passed. Writing my lovers and brothers names upon this memorial involved an obligation from the rituals to create this memorial to honor their memory, for a while to keep their memory in spoken history, and to look after those whom they had also personally loved. Their brother and lover Star was there, and had been told to leave.
The ritual was a blend of Native American and voodoo traditions, the dead were called out into a little boat fashioned of twigs, and led in a candled procession towards the North star, to the firepit where the main ritual commenced.
It was heart rending for me to watch, to watch my dead lover Gidget called out as his close brother Star was told to leave alone in the night by the callers of these dead.
I found Star, shaken, crying, trying to pull himself together, unsure where to go to stay.
I helped ground him as best I could, to clean up the psychic garbage dumped upon him by this "gatekeeper".
I went to the Barn, fixed Star some coffee, and helped him prepare to leave. we were alone there, as the Narayans drummed and sang into the night in a ritual involving our dead brothers.
Oh, I forgot, "private event".
I held Star as he sobbed, I wonder how long it had been since anyone had held him, maybe this was the first time somebody had truly held him since his lover, his star, had died in his arms.
Star composed himself, and drove off the land in the middle of the night to sleep alone in a battered down car at a rest stop on the side of I-5.
Alone.
"This is not the place for you to be."
Alone at a rest stop.
Sick.
Crying.
Cold.
Denied Sanctuary at faggot sacred space in his great time of need.
I know a lot of good people are involved in Naraya with the best of heart, but where is the heart, the compassion, in this cold dead machine that turned away my brother in his great time of need from faerie sanctuary?
What the hell is the good of your little dance if those gatekeepers are so dead in their hearts that they would turn away our brother to shiver alone sick in a rest stop in the cold of the night?
An interesting historical first is that the gatekeeper who told Star to leave is a woman, the first time in the history of a gay male radical faerie Sanctuary, of creating a safe space for our brothers for Sanctuary, that a woman ordered a gay brother to leave in his greatest need for community,
to leave crying,
in the night.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 11 replies

A brief history of bannishing faeries from off Sanctuary.

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:20:54 GMT

A brief history of banishing faeries off the Sanct - 2006/08/27 07:14 From Wolf Creek Confidential
An underground novel from the Wolf Creek pixie campaigns.

Chapter two: A brief history of banishing faeries off the Sanctuary.
“There be trouble in Union city!”
From “The Music Man.”
From “Gingers briefs” in vol.2, issue 1 of the Faerie Home Companion: “…Creekland Sanctuary seems to be going through some labor pains in this birthing process. There are accounts of various Radical Faeries being tossed off the land…”
“That’s a capital “T”, and a capital “R”, and that spells trouble!”
From a Faerie Home Companion article about the Nomenus Great Circle held in Seattle in 1988:” The great undealt with issue of what authority does Wolf Creek resident Assunta really have in deciding to throw faerie brothers off sanctuary land kept getting put off. Part of the deal when the sanctuary was purchased was that Assunta, because of her years of association with the land, would always have a place on it.”
Assunta, whom Nomenus sort of inherited with the land when the purchase was made, was the first to cast faeries from off the land after the summer 1986 gathering. After the summer gathering was over a collection of the party faerie contingent stayed on the land and shacked up in the cabin called “Theresa” where they continued the Gathering spirit.
During the heat of the afternoon this faerie party moved down the creek to the swimming holes known as the “tea-cups” where they met up with several local boys. The locals were wearing rainbow beads so the faeries there assumed them to be cool, and drugs were discussed, and later these same boys showed up to the land uninvited and looking to score some acid. Assunta intercepted them, escorted them from off the land, then Assunta flew into Theresa in a rage and chased the remaining faeries off of the Sanctuary. Gidget/Ted was one of those hapless faeries. During the prior year’s summer gathering Gidget had gotten bitten by a brown recluse spider in the drag tent, and Assunta was the one with the knowledge to get Gidget to the hospital for the needed anti-venom. Feelings were hurt and sides were taken about the newly banished faeries who formed “The wayward order of the Sisters of Theresa “ as a support network that spun legends and rankled the newly formed Nomenus corporate authority. Ardhan/Len was established as the first “caretaker” to facilitate faeries visiting the Sanctuary while Assunta and the San Francisco Nomenus clique fought bitterly about Assunta’s right to live at the Sanctuary as his “home”. Threats were made, opinions solidified into stone, and after many heated exchanges Assunta moved off the property. Several years after Assunta moved off the Sanctuary he attended a circle in the Barn where the then Corporate Secretary of Nomenus, Joey Cain, flew into a shouting rage and cast Assunta off the Land. Joey held a tumorous grudge against Assunta from some alledged threats made during Nomenus’s negotiations with him about living on the Land. Assunta was the first faerie to be banished out of the Nomenus circle, Assuta who had just a few years earlier cast out “the wayward order of
7
the sisters of Theresa” out of Theresa. Oskarr moved into Theresa from San Francisco, bringing his healing skills and open heart, and slowly a community on the land began to grow.
From Ardhan/ Len’s “Wolf Creek report” published in the Faerie Home Companion of March, 1988: “Faeries have their own land to do what they want. It is here in Wolf Creek awaiting them in love. The land needs more hands. Hands to plant trees and seeds. Hands to remove debris so mother can reclaim. Hands to build a swimming hole in safety on the property. Hands to unite in a purpose of unity for our future and trust. Circles of words are so useless when lovers part and hearts break and feelings, like memories, bring about awkwardness and discomfort. Building anew all the time and the action is NOW. Hands on for whatever energy you have which goes into a collective work. That is not forgotten. Letting the mother be is nice, but our loving hands and minds also can work with the mother to give us; a protective sanctuary of trust and comraderie for the rest of our lives.”
From the first, who was welcome and who was not grew as a feculent blight hidden in our lovely faerie garden that Harry Hay dreamed of for our beloved Creekland. A malevolent schoolyard bully mentality of prejudice and preconception crept into faerie circles, smoking circles, hen parties; gossip guised as incontrovertible evidence against faerie brothers who were either not popular or were acting out in strange ways. Part of Creekland’s mythos is that being there can unexpectedly pull out strong emotions. Some faeries showed up on our Sanctuary doorstep wounded, or needy, or on a bad drug trip. I had always believed that we had the healers necessary within the diversity, comity, and strength of our circle to deal with our problems without calling in the police to take away our brothers in handcuffs. A lot of faeries just wanted a place that they could show up, have sex and party without being bothered by anybody exhibiting a spiritual crises. The torch and pitchfork brigade were waiting in the shadows ready to run any monster out of paradise.
A friend of mine came under attack, here’s my letter about this published in the November/December 1985 edition of the RadDish
November 19,1995
“ I have never been threatened by Todd Bales. Quite the contrary, I’ve been inspired.
I’ve sat upon the upstairs porch of Garden House visiting with friends or contemplating the beauty and magic of our Sanctuary.
Todd built much of that porch.
Other times I’ve looked through books to read from the bookcases he built for Garden House. On Samhain a group of revelers fired up the rocks for the sweat lodge that Todd built back below the Barn.
Maxxine’s altar that Todd made inspired me to build something similar when I returned from this summer’s gathering.
Todd can build and play intricate musical instruments with his hands. I go to gatherings partly to meet creative people like him. I don’t know why Todd got so upset. When I spoke with him I felt he was processing a lot of pain and loss as we have all experienced at our Sanctuary. There the blood, come, piss, and ash lie of so many dear brothers and lovers ripped away from us by this damned holocaust. Our only connection left with these brothers are the memories that ride the winds through our Sanctuary. What would it
8

feel like to get banned from this place? To be told “if you’re not happy, just leave!”
Why was Todd so upset? Could it be…judgement?
From the RadDish Vol. 4, #9, page #3: “emotionally disturbed and violent faerie.”
And page #4: “The faeries long term problem about being dysfunctional about refusing to set limits for people who abuse us… The few people who can’t deal with the vast majority who want to set limits on “fucked-up” behavior just hold the rest of us hostage.”
Are we talking about our faerie brothers, or Newt’s Republican Congress? From page #7: “When a faerie who was having severe emotional problems violently attacked the gathering for the remainder of the night…so faerie brothers, if you are violently insane please refrain from coming to our gatherings, or at least take your medication.”
RadDish Vol. 4, #10, page #3: “If someone becomes insane or violent… who is responsible for having a plan to deal with and dealing with the situation.” From page #4: TODD BALES has his own headline and section now and is accused of “spraying people in the smoking lounge with a garden hose and making death threats.” I was there when Todd threatened our lives with a garden hose. There was a severe fire danger for the land’s dryness, and Todd was damping down the area for safety. I think if Todd intentionally wanted to spray anyone, we’d still be picking their drag out of the creek.
The rest of the section is about banning him and setting limits, three day passes, and if Todd could be “trusted” back on the land. From #12 of the 11-95 Great Circle Agend-a-matic: The terms used to describe Todd are “two day long manic psychotic episode, violent and abusive to nearly everyone there.” I had a good experience visiting with Todd,and did not see him attack anyone. And also from # 12: “The reality is that the vast majority of faeries who cannot and should not have to deal with violent, psychotic, abusive behavior and are held hostage at gatherings by the small number of faeries exhibiting incredibly fucked up out of control behavior and those who support their presence at gatherings.”
Well, I’m one of “those who support their presence at gatherings.” I have always been able to talk with Todd, he is a friend. Please, dear brothers, don’t use psychobabble terminology to label him for being his friend. Please don’t ban me, set limits on me, or issue me a day pass to visit our Sanctuary.
Also, does the “violent, psychotic, abusive behavior tag apply to a certain Corporate Secretary who earlier this year screamed, swore, and threatened one of his nemesis out of a circle at the Sanctuary?
When I first became involved with the faeries, a big turn on for me was Harry Hay’s concept of “subject-subject” relating to our brothers, instead of the “subject- object” objectification imposed upon us too often by general society. Labeling hurts. Maybe Todd was scared to talk and open up to people who so casually would label and dismiss him.
Can we as individuals who have valid concerns please talk to people who concern us instead of talking about them? Could we not cast judgments and pop psychology labels against our brothers? And never use again any group process to malign or ban any of our brothers in need during this cold season of death.”
Brrrrrrrrrrrr! The stark prophesy of that letter sends chills to my spine! Already the
9

Torch and Pitchfork brigade began to draw up their lists of who is naughty or nice: a
purge of faerie undesirables to forge a new faerie master race to party in paradise. The unpopular children are not invited.
Todd was eventually chased of the Sanctuary. The community on the land began tweaking the Nomenus by-laws to grant them more and more authority of when to execute the ultimate faerie judgment of banishing bad brothers out of the faerie community. The community on the land also gave themselves the power to decide who can live at the Sanctuary, a decision that originally had been decided by the membership at Great Circle. Now one individual with an agenda that they don’t have to disclose can block anyone from entering our Sanctuary. One person can now decide through the Nomenus process who must leave our Sanctuary under threat of arrest by the outside law enforcement machine. Deciding Sanctuary residency at Great Circle was said to be cumbersome , uncertain, and open to problems. This was when the community on the land began to grow autonomously apart from the original Nomenus vision of a sacred faggot space. Nomenus became all about community. THEIR community.
Oskarr who had been such a skilled and loving peacemaker on the Sanctuary passed. Gary Reagan/ Aunt Dottie moved into Theresa and continued manifesting many of Oskarr’s gentle ways. The “pixie chronicles” said this about Gary “One of the best lies of all time was when the President Emeritus (now in exile), with a nail through his nose and hair full of sardine oil, greeted the law while a big old scrotum burning ritual was taking place at the fire pit. Dozens of male virgins with hymens intact, intoxicated elders, disembodied spirits, and the like were nakedly displaying their genitalia and drumming hedonistically. Contraband was strewn about and openly displayed. Really incriminating contraband, not just misdemeanor stuff.
The President Emeritus stopped the law in their tracks as they drove up lights flashing. As they approached the garden, the President stares them down with a gentle smile and shook their hands. A few nods later they drove off. The president later confided that he lied through his teeth to move them along so quickly… Without the President Emeritus lying boldly and courageously, the Land would have been lost to developers and many of us would still be in jail. Thank you for lying Mr. President!” This is my remembrance of Gary that was published in Vol.13, #5 of the RadDish: “I still keep Aunt Dottie’s business card in my address book, it reads: Gary J. Reagan (Retired) No Phone No Address No Service No Complaints No Business No Worries No Money No Prospects
I remember Gary in the spring methodically pulling the young burr plants by hand from under the Maple tree so faeries at later summer gatherings would not get their drag snagged. He also removed the poison oak from areas like the smoking lounges so no unwary city faeries would get a bad rash from their gathering experience. He practiced many such considerations to better the magic of faerie space, Quietly seeking no credit. When Gary lived in Theresa he maintained a open door policy where anyone anytime could go and chill if the gatherings overwhelmed them. If somebody was going through a bad trip Aunt Dottie was there for them. Hr always kept a stash of cold sodas in the fridge of Theresa for visitors. It was like visiting a favorite eccentric aunt , he generated what is best about family and community. When he would crawl up into his loft to sleep often there would still be a party of friends underway in Theresa. Aunt Dottie never asked
10

anyone to leave.
I can still see myself sitting on the steps of Theresa with Gary, my arm around his shoulder, watching the first bats of the evening flip and swoop after insects attracted to the light from the porch. Hearing the laughter of faeries drifting up across the meadow from the barn. Hearing the droning song of crickets living in his garden. The smell of sage on warm summer breezes turning autumnal. Aunt Dottie………….”
Once in a circle on the land a stupefying faerie stood and stated that he did not want to be in circle with anyone who is H.I.V. positive, to make some stupefying point. At the time my lover Ted was back home slowly dying, and I fled the circle in tears. Aunt Dottie came and found me crying on the upstairs porch of Garden house, and he held and rocked me. Gary knew and cared. Gary touched people that way. Another fond memory of Gary: when he came, his body was so hypersensitive and he would vibrate so much I was afraid he would fall off the bed if not outright fly through the ceiling when he orgasmed.
Certain interests began to push to get Gary to leave the Sanctuary. Voices were raised about his health. To date he was the only caretaker to be charged rent for living in Theresa. Voices said that no faerie should ever expect to live long term at the Sanctuary. Finally one day Gary packed up his truck and drove of Creekland, never to return or be involved with the faeries again.
The whorls and swirls of red dust kicked up by Gary’s truck as he drove across the bridge for the last time birthed the big bang of the pixie campaigns. The flutter of a butterfly’s wings that culminates in hurricanes.

A brief history of banishing faeries off the Sa - 2006/08/27 07:40 Gary, aka Aunt Dottie, passed a few years back, having never returned to the Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary.
I included this because back then one of the key movers against him was now senior Caretaker Rabbit. One of the arguments used against Gary was no one should expect to live long term on the Sanctuary. Living on disability, Rabbit and others moved to have Gary pay rent.
Today Rabbit has lived on the Sanctuary going on nine years, Nomenus pays for his room and board living in a lovely cabin on Sanctuary. Rabbit also collects a stipend from money donated to Nomenus and the Sanctuary, while working full time for the ---- ----- ---. Rabbit also sells herbs and extracts, often harvested from the land itself.
Surely Rabbit can afford to pay rent.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 3 replies

Nomenus fundraiser

heretic — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:10:39 GMT

During this gathering season,
as Nomenus comes begging
for faerie gold,
remember that
monies received
may be rendered into
torches and pitchforks
to deal with
Church heretics.
Think of it
like your tax dollars,
getting spent blowing up
civilians
in Iraq.

Just saying.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Reconciliation process

heretic — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:19:48 GMT

Here is an interesting bit from the Wolf Creek tribe history vaults.
A faerie elder had posted of his early experience at the Wolf Creek Sanctuary,
and a faerie who today is an active Nomenus member,
wrote a rather musical note of response.
I wonder,
did this current Nomenus member have to go through a reconciliation process also?

"20 some odd years ago, I attended my first Breitenbush Gathering
known as Northwest Men in the Woods - some of you were there.

It was announced at that gathering the effort we now know as
the Nomenus Sanctuary at Wolf Creek, Oregon was just getting
started ... as the purchase of the land was being negotiated.

It was announced at the time, the sanctuary space would be men
only.

Fast forward to August 14th, 2005 (last year) I visited the
land near Wolf Creek surprised to find females (gender) there.
I don't know the event, if there was one, but I felt completely
out of place.

That night I slept in my truck ... and quietly left mid morning
the next day ... thinking will I ever return? So far, I have not
made the effort to do so.

From Wolf Creek tribe:

Mon, August 14, 2006 - 6:32 PM
Old Mc Pussy had a farm
eee--- i --- eee ---- i ---- oh
and on this farm he had some pussy
eee--- i --- eee ---- i ---- oh
with a pussy pussy here
and a pussy pussy there
here a pussy there a pussy
everyewhere a pussy pussy
Old Mc Pussy had a farm
eee--- i --- eee ---- i ---- oh

But Nomenus said
There's no pussy here
and none of the girls
can live on the land
even if we do dishes
and suck a mean cock
and cook a good dinner
and our pussies (and hands) are clean
and we are a good spinner
eee--- i --- eee ---- i ---- oh

Old Mc Pussy had a farm
eee--- i --- eee ---- i ---- oh

*Written by a couple faeries that have pussies at Wolf Creek Naraya
WITH SO MUCH LOVE (and respect too...)"

Guess which current Nomenus member wrote that!
I also have a rather shocking curse which he also posted against the Church of Nomenus.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 6 replies

Welcome

Widdershins 3 — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:41:30 GMT

to all of our recent visitors here, our hope is always for healing and growth. This site is creeping up the first page when you google "Nomenus," an indication of how many hits this site receives.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 5 replies

Nomenus membership application # 4.

Vaughn — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:24:12 GMT

I sent by special courier my Nomenus membership application # 4, two before were sent by mail, and One I delivered personally.
All rejected.
Oh what response, if any, will I receive?

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 4 replies

Another recent email sent to me by a current Nomenus member

heretic — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:35:26 GMT

Again, I leave off the sender's name, to spare them the wrath ot the PNEs (Pissy Nomenus Elders).

"Well, I was curious what the situation was. Thanks for sending that,
it
clarifies the issue for me. Rest assured I'm not involved, other than
that
I love you and like to see you happy. You & I have been friends for a
long
time and frankly I don't really care beyond that, except that when
people
post vitriolic bits it harshes my joy. (YES, I'm can be a SELFISH,
hedonistic faerie like the rest!)

I resigned from Nomenus myself once-stating I wouldn't rejoin until
membership was open and non-discriminatory. Since, my perspective has
changed and I value certain exclusive interactions; they didn't blink
at a
renewal membership form from me. I'm surprised anyone even responded
to
yours. Beyond that I think "Nomenus" is dead, so who cares?

You know my number, and if you'd like a registration form to the "Other
Faerie Clan," the one that doesn't piss away everything anyone has ever
worked for, I'll send you a form; I'm pretty sure I could get it
through the
committee. Even though you're a cantankerous old cuss."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 1 reply

Bennett remembered for puppets and humor

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:30:13 GMT

I was very sad to hear about Bennett leaving this wold. I have many fond memories of him. Here is one from 1986.
There was a big faerie party at Golden Gate House, a huge flat in San Francisco where David Kerlick, Jim, the late Leo Ayrs (sp?) and the late Gary Compton and at various times other faeries, lived. Harry & John were there, visiting from LA.
About 10 PM, and it's a cold foggy night, Bennett, naked at the party, walked out the door in the buff. It was an African-American neighborhood at the rime, and myself and others were worried what might happen to Bennett wandering the streets buck naked!
About 1 AM Bennett returns with a big smile on his face, naturally prompting several of us to inquire about his adventures.
Bennett, said," I walked to the park (Alamo Square) a few blocks away and laid down face down on a bench. Then I waited a long, long time.
It was cold, but the colder it got , the hotter I got! Then I saw there was something there. It was a man! "
Bennett did not have to tell the rest of the story. We, like Bennett, now all had smiles on our faces.
xxoo,
Jerry the Faerie

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 4 replies

Fan mail from a non-Nomenus member about Nomenus policy

heretic — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:23:09 GMT

I also have a lot of support from faeries outside of Nomenus, here I post another recent email sent to me, concerning the distortion of Nomenus Church law worked by about two PCEs, (Pissy Church Elders) to vilify me to the community. Again, I leave off the sender's name, out of concern of actions executed by PCEs.

"Vaughn, I appreciate your post and find your words and intention profound. I can think of no one better or more honored to be labeled with a scarlet H.

You GO!"

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Rula on the go

Vaughn — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:58:11 GMT

Since Rula, Nomenus's current Corporate Secretary re-assumed his position (between Great Circles without involvement of the Nomenus Membership) after resigning in a huff several years back, he has actively blocked my membership.
I had withdrawn my membership to Nomenus to take a breather after coming under some rather vicious personal attacks and threats.
( note-my resignation letter as Corporate Secretary was refused publication in the official record, and my posts censored by Rula. I will post the relevant ones here.)

From the Nomenus Co-Co meetings, where I'm blocked from defending myself against Rula's lies against me, by Rula.
From last summer:

"The Bylaws, as written, I don't find the least unclear. I'm sorry that the annoyance I'm feeling led me to express myself in a way you find offensive. These dramas just seem to go on and on and I must learn to take them as an opportunity to practice patience & just say, "Well bite my tongue, here comes another bruhaha about nothing much."

Thank you for your response and I hope that all of this, legal opinions and whatnot, succeed in making the Bylaws clear to you.

the Buzzard

On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Chip Hair wrote:

> Buzzard-
>
> My agenda, in case it wasn't clear, is to have
> the Bylaws clearly understood in a consensual
> way, and to have them followed equitably.
>
> The fact that Angie/Vaughn resigned without
> realizing the consequences of his action, and the
> fact that I don't like him personally are not
> stopping me from making this a consensual
> discussion and decision. In fact I have been
> transparent about the whole process from the
> beginning.
>
> As soon as I read the section in the Bylaws, I
> contacted Paradox, Free Daddy, and others to get
> their "read" on it. I had the Bylaws read aloud
> at Great Circle so that all participants would
> know exactly what the language it contained is.
> You yourself supply a definition of cessation
> where it can mean "stopping forever".
>
> This is not a "biased interpretation of
> language", it is seeking consensual clarity. The
> fact you can't see beyond personal agendas says
> more about you than it does about me.
>
> Rula
>
> --- Jack McDonough <thebuzzard1@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, really! I will not be available for the
>> next Coco as I will be
>> visiting NE & NY between July 11 & August 22
>> but I will be extremely
>> disappointed in the Coco if the promotion of a
>> personal agenda by a
>> biased interpretation of language finds any
>> support. Cessation means
>> "a ceasing or stopping, either forever or for
>> some time" (Webster's
>> New World Dictionary). Let's be real about
>> this; we do know why it
>> is being made an issue. I hope we are a
>> tolerant people and will
>> always try our best to find a way to allow
>> anyone who has in the past
>> ceased being a member to rejoin our Faery
>> Family.
>>
>> I would much appreciate it if someone would
>> read my brief statement
>> at the appropriate time during the Coco
>> meeting.
>>
>> Blessings,
>>
>> the Buzzard
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>

Happiness cannot be traveled to, owned, earned, worn or consumed.
Happiness is the spiritual experience of living every minute with love,
grace, and gratitude.

Jack McDonough"

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 3 replies

More recent fan mail sent to me by current Nomenus members

heretic — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:22:18 GMT

Here is another email sent to me by another friend who is currently involved with Nomenus, shortly before this past Nomenus Great Circle in Portland, from which I was barred, where at any stranger could discuss my membership in Nomenus: Everyone except me.
I again edited out the senders name,
to spare them the wrath of those two PNEs, (Pissy Nomenus Elders).

"You're such an eloquent wordsmith Vaughn. So-what's stopping you from
filing the membership form, & going to G.C.? Is anyone specifically
rejecting your form at this time? Last time I went to G.C. I filled
one out
at the door; I'm hearing on the list that it would be accepted without
opposition. I'm just wondering if it could possibly be put to bed, for
what
it's worth, although I'm not sure what that would be."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Your private information and Nomenus

heretic — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:30:15 GMT

One very shocking tactic used by those in Nomenus is to print one's private information onto public forums. On another tribe last summer, Rula acting as Nomenus Corporate Secretary, started an attack thread against me in which he posted my home address, very against tribe rules. When I posted that Rula had broken tribe TOU rules, Rula re-posted the same thread without my home address.
In the letters Nomenus members post about me they freely post my home address today, and I'm blocked from having my personal information made public, by mostly two very bad faeries doing very bad things behind the alter of the Church of Nomenus.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

For the record

heretic — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:10:42 GMT

In the latest issue of "The RadDish," the official newsletter of Nomenus,
which the issue of my membership fills the whole issue,
everyone there can speak their opinion about my membership to Nomenus,
everyone except me, as I am barred from all Nomenus meetings about me,
as I am blocked from responding to the official Nomenus printed minutes about me,
which go into a lot of public archives.

When I last approached Nomenus Great Circle,
after being given the call-in number from a current Nomenus member ,
when I called in, Rula forced a motion for me to "Shut up," which Iz seconded.
The whole motion was designed to shame me publicly in front of the Nomenus membership.
I was blocked from saying one word, as Rula and Iz put on record their VULs (Vaughn Urban Legends).
Of course,
later in the printed Nomenus minutes
it was written that I called up
"To disrupt the circle."
Rula and Iz's "Shut-up" motion was conveniently glossed over.

That is why it is called dark-mirror craft, people.
Charlatans showing in smoke that which they wish you to see.
Very bad stuff for a subject/subject 501 C-3 based Church.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Fan mail from Nomenus members

heretic — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:25:55 GMT

During Rula and Iz's holy Church war against me, I have received a lot of supportive mail from current and former Nomenus members. Always, I ask people not to take sides, that I am capable of speaking for myself, and I believe that creating warring factions works against our greater assets of creative non-violence. Rula and Iz, using dark-mirror craft, have used their position in the Church of Nomenus to damn me in the face of community, using the reactions of this community to their elaborate fictions, or VULs. ( Vaughn Urban Legends).

Here is one such recent letter of support which I received from a Nomenus member, I won't include their name because of concern of reprisals by Pissy Church Elders (PCE)s.
"I just wanted you to know, you so have my vote if needed. I think the whole deal is flawed and needs a fresh new looking. I think a great deal of you Vaughn and you really helped me out in one of the most difficult times of my life and I thank you.."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Hiding behind the Nomenus flag

heretic — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:09:43 GMT

Rula, Iz, and Mugwort
in official Nomenus business
post that I am "At war against Nomenus,"
which is one of their Vaughn Urban Legends (VULS).
Poppycock!
I today have several friends actively involved in Nomenus,
I was a founder of Nomenus,
helped organize the first Nomenus Great Circle in Seattle, then two in Portland, where for about seven years, each month I hosted regular Nomenus meetings at my home.
I was once even Nomenus Corporate Secretary.
what I do speak out against is
the malicious actions a small gang,
cloaking their personal vendettas behind Church policy,
using a Church to damn heretics in the time-honored traditions of scoundrels and self-appointed moral udges.
Look at Rula's tribe profile- he bills himself as "The Den Mother of Wolf Creek...assigned to keeping it real."
Rula sees this as his role in the church,
to route out heretics,
try them,
judge them,
then damn them.
Iz justs sees me as a threat because I dared question Iz when he bannished a friend of mine from off Sanctuary. Iz said someone saw him "shooting up" in the Garden House bathroom, yet this person who saw the alleged action was never revealed, or spoke up themselves. Trial by rumor. This friend of mine which Iz chased off was also one of the first Sanctuary caretakers, who had established several alters still enjoyed at Wolf Creek today. He suffered from a stroke, had recently watched his lover die, and simply went to Wolf Creek for Sanctuary.
Iz targeted him for his own reasons, and used his position at the Sanctuary to first libel, then act against this honored faerie elder of the Sanctuary.
I said this was wrong, so Iz chose to go to war against me,
using a Church of which I helped found,
with my friend of whom Iz works against.

Bad subject/subject interpretation, Church Elder Iz.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Love letters from Nomenus not sent

heretic — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:30:20 GMT

Leaked to me by a friend in Nomenus,
a letter which was supposed to be sent to me,
which was not,
which was supposed to be sent to me months ago,
which it was not,
because the then Corresponding Secretary for Nomenus
suddenly resigned. (?)

This letter was written by faeries
who did not first speak to me,
in a committee from which I was blocked
from speaking to, dealing with Rula's and Iz's gross allegations against me.
According to Nomenus minutes, for over two years now,
Nomenus members ( mostly Iz and Rula) regularly in meetings from which I am blocked,
repeat gossip against me as if it is truth.
Of course, using consensus process to ban my membership, from defending myself to the Nomenus general membership against the vicious lies posted in Nomenus minutes against me by Rula and Iz,
is not subject/subject consciousness, or heart space.

The Church of Nomenus today is a hate-group
in ugly faerie-drag.
Nomenus members were still arguing over this letter at last Nomenus Great Circle.
Nomenus had to pay for a conflict mediator to counsel this past Nomenus Great Circle, from which I was blocked from attending.
And-
The Nomenus newsletter this month is full of more lies in print about me- nearly the full issue!
And about by-law violations, there have been a LOT of Nomenus by-law violations. All officer positions have been unfilled at various points these past few years, usually when an elected officer splits or resigns-as Rula himself resigned mid-stream a few years back in a huff as Nomenus Corporate Secretary.
Now-
That damn poison- pen letter which Nomenus has yet to send to me:

A few months ago, CoCo asked Atomic to write a letter to Vaughn.
Enclosed is the draft Random and I have come up with. We'd like to send it
soon, since GC is approaching.
Any feedback?

A public letter about the Vaughn situation was also requested. We're waiting
to see what response Vaughn makes, before drafting that one. It'll also be
sent to this list for comment.

(As usual, copy/pasting Word into email doesn't look as nice as the attached
Word file.)

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Vaughn Frick (Angie O'Sperm)

Dear Vaughn,

Coordinating Council asked us to write you about your Nomenus membership
applications.

We see that the first reply was sent to you in June '06. We're sorry this
follow-up has taken a while.

As you know, the wheels of our organization turn slowly, especially when
Great Circle is involved; it took some discussion to arrive at an agreement
on how to proceed. So far as we know, this is the first time in 20 years
that somebody has resigned and re-applied for membership; usually, they
write their poison-pen letter and are never heard from again.

We regret to inform you that the Bylaws, as agreed-to long ago, prohibit you
from rejoining. Having resigned, the only way you could become a member
again would be for us to amend them. The relevant portion states (IV.1.D):

Any of the following events may cause the cessation of membership: 1) by
resignation of that member, 2) exclusion of a member by consensus of the
other members at a semi-annual meeting or at a special meeting called for
that purpose...

Note that resignation is in the same category as consensus-minus- one
removal, so the "cessation" here is clearly intended to be permanent —
resignation is treated differently than a membership that's lapsed.

Three Great Circles discussed your application and the broader question it
raises. There is widespread agreement that we want some way for a former
member to apply to rejoin: he'd talk with our representatives, who would
then make a recommendation to Great Circle. Who he would meet with, and what
level of agreement would be required within GC, remain open questions, and
no formal decision has been reached.

There was, however, widespread sentiment against granting approval in your
case. Given the bitterness with which you left, and the public attacks
you've thrown against Nomenus in the years since, this should be no great
surprise. You haven't been "banned" – the membership has thus far declined
to change the long-standing rules in order to bring you back.

If you want to communicate with Great Circle, you're welcome to send a
letter, which will be brought to the whole group. (Had your applications
been accompanied by a letter, it would have been discussed by GC.)

Given that GC will be in your hometown this month, this seems like a natural
time for you to meet with the assembled members to discuss this situation.
Whether that meeting takes place at GC will be a decision made by GC, based
on whatever letter you send us. (Correspondence that might not arrive in
Wolf Creek in time for the trip to Portland may be emailed, to
mugwort@pobox. com) If you wish, we'll phone you (at what #?) as soon as it's
known whether GC would like to meet with you and when.

The Sanctuary isn't a members-only club; you're still as welcome as anybody
to visit the Land for retreats or Gatherings.

In closing, we should point out that about one-third of the active core of
Nomenus members are Faeries who've been around since before the first Wolf
Creek gathering. So it hardly seems fair to accuse the group of blithely
disregarding our founding principles and history, based on rumors. The
Radical Faeries, like the larger Gay community, have changed over time, but
our Gatherings would be instantly recognizable to any who were there in the
early years. If you hear wild accusations about what's taking place at the
Sanctuary or in meetings, please consider whether the source is reliable.

We wish you harmony in your life's journey.

On behalf of Great Circle and Nomenus,

Mugwort, President
Random Chance, Secretary

MW: Nomenus/Vaughn letter.doc

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 1 reply

Pixie Great Circle

Widdershins 3 — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:54:23 GMT

I received this to post from Dinkle Tinkle Do,
who is Food and Style Advocate General for the Portland Faeries,
and in the past acted as a pixie ambassador to the faeries.

PIXIE GREAT CIRCLE IN PORTLAND
January 18 till about the 21st

As the organization of Nomenus today suffers from a cancer of exclusion of which it is in denial about,
As the organization of Nomenus today has strayed far from it's original vision of creating a Sanctuary that is safe space for Gay men,
As the organization of Nomenus today is controlled by the hostile personal agendas of a few "radical" faeries who steer the organization of Nomenus for their personal benefit and advancement:
We of the perpetual twilight league of pixie arts and crafts
host our very own "Great Circle"
to giggle at such buggeries,
and to color outside of the lines.
We ask Nomenus to:
Stop being a tin man and find a heart.
Heart Circles are wise things that should not have been tossed aside as inconvenient.
Stop using the organization of Nomenus as a vehicle for some faeries in Nomenus roles of authority to spread gossip, rumors, and other psychic garbage against individuals in the faerie community which these officers choose to victimize.
Stop using the structure of the organization of Nomenus to exclude applicants to membership based on how a few individuals who are in power positions of Nomenus choose to judge said applicants.

Remember the truth and wisdom of subject/subject consciousness

We are currently working up flyers to leaflet the neighborhood with,
mail to the Great Circle neighbors,
and a press release version with contact information to submit to the local media.

For the love that dare not speak it's name:
dinkle tinkle do
pixie ambassador to the faeries.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Opening circle

Widdershins 3 — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:42:18 GMT

This was a project originally started over at Free Association, a tribe alternative that has slumped recently in activity as most of Free Association's founding members have returned here to tribe. Many people wrote me wanting to see this material over at a more visible site. By popular request, we are moving the most popular threads from there to here to start.
Welcome.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 9 replies

How was the men's gathering 2007?

artwit — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:43:14 GMT

I was in Alaska, psending the summer solstice aove the Artcic Circle, thinking of men that may have
assembled at Wolf Creek.

I think the future of W.C. as a gay men's site, as envisioned by itse founders, depends on
the abvility of mens gatherings to sustain themselves and attract a following and grow.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 1 reply

One year

Widdershins 3 — Fri, 18 May 2007 04:43:38 GMT

It has been close to a year since we called open this circle as safe space from the politics of Nomenus.
Do we keep this circle open?

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Visions and Dreams

healingtime — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:20:59 GMT

My vision is that we are always in heart circle wherever we go. Having the vulnerability to be ourselves in every moment, no matter who we are with. I wish for us all that we can find acceptance for our true selves with eachother, even for expressions of emotion that we judge to be wrong, bad, or misplaced. I hope that we can root out the places within each of us that we hate within ourselves and project onto eachother. I ask that we can bring healing and loving acceptance to these parts, for after all, these parts are still small children, and need alot of love, kindness, and compassion to grow up and take responsibility for their actions.

Many blessings,
Daisy

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 1 reply

When I left Nomenus

Vaughn — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:20:28 GMT

This was what I wrote,
after coming under heated attack by several Nomenus members,
as there is a tradition in Nomenus,
on ganging up on fearies.
In the past when things got hot,
it was tradition to step back and take a breather.

Now I'm blocked from rejoining,
by Rula,
who also had resigned,
as Corporate Secretary,
a position he walked back into,
between Great Circle,
AGAINST the Nomenus by-laws.

This is what I wrote,
which was censored.

"This is my resignation from Nomenus and Wolf creek.
After a tense three days at Great Circle where I was
made to feel in the way,was singled out by Rabbit
again as a problem(Rabbit published in the RadDish
that I am a physical threat to people's safety, and
had me banished from the Sanctuary for several years.)
Beast, who has been posting such things here to me as
"drop dead, kiss my big, fat ass, eat crap, your on
drugs, everybody hates you,...etc." is allowed to post
these attacks without mention.
I get jumped on for talking about women on the land
and too many empty beer bottles.
President Dave follows me about feeling he must
"correct" me and call me a liar whenever he disagrees
with me.
Was one kind word said to me for all the sickened
faeries I looked after last summer? The faeries that I
speak up for when the torch and pitchfork brigade
singles out a new charge? The poison oak I pull from
the paths because other's won't? I feel instead I'm
blamed for people being upset about SGRF.
I'm not phsically safe on the Sanctuary, as when I
last went there to finish the drag coup I was robbed
of fifty dollars.
So, I choose to be with my friends."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Nomenus today

Vaughn — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:22:04 GMT

Nomenus is host to far more problems beyond the eternal gender-a-round. Last year I dropped out after an active Nomenus member kept sending me email threats such as "drop dead." My concerns about such treatment was ignored, so I withdrew for a breather. Now My membership back is blocked, meetings are held about accusations against me I'm not allowed to respond to or be participant to, accusations are printed against me in Nomenus minutes I am blocked from responding too. One individual in Nomenus is using his power of position to enact his personal vendetta against me. Hardly in keeping with Harry Hay's vision of a circle of loving companions.
When I was a member, every month I would check in to see if we got any notices from the State board of forestry over impending logging actions on the state lands backing the Sanctuary, which by law must be sent out. Once I was pushed out, my concerns over logging were ignored, and we missed the comment period, which is the best time to block potential logging. If enough complaints are sent in, the sale gets shelved as too costly, and the state then moves on to the next parcel, as the goal is to raise revenues from state lands.
I was pushed out, blocked from posting information how to block this logging, and now we are facing chain logging on the hillside above our meadow. Chain logging is of the worst kind, all lesser trees in the way are removed, the money trees cut, fitted with chains, then dragged up the hillside, ripping open the earth to future erosion.
It seems when men do take control, beautiful things get raped and cut apart for booty.
Nomenus has failed,
both me,
as a Gay man and organization founder,
and now the Sanctuary....
Nomenus today is about power,
and exercise of male position.
As a Nomenus founder,
now experiencing the treatment given my sisters,
I am seeing this through their eyes.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

We have started a new tribe...for the Pangenderist Homeland Search...

Sean — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:19:20 GMT

This is exactly what it says it is. And yes, we are serious. After Jerry's post (in the CA trbe), I find I no longer have the stomach to debate the issue any further. Let's get our own land... The one rule of the New Tribe is *NO* mudslinging. That is the one thing that will get your post deleted. The link is :
tribes.tribe.net/panhome

Peace and Love, and complete Seriousness..
AAOO (Sean)

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

The download lowdown

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:26:07 GMT

To fire this tribe up I've reposted several threads from the Free Ass Outcasts of Nomenus site.
http://free-association.net/index.php?option=com_associations&task=displayAssociation&id=670

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Questions and discussion points

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:23:36 GMT

Questions and discussion points - 2006/08/22 10:20 I would be interested in seeing when in Nomenus history these bannishings of faeries became so commonplace. I am not convinced yet that just one person is responsible for this atmosphere where exclusions become routine. I see that some blame Rabbit, but I think it goes beyond one personality. It is true that Rabbit has built a little fiefdom and wields some influnce, but the problem is more systematic. One solution might be to put a time limit on how long any caretaker can remain, perhaps 2-3 years.
Another symptom occured last year in a discussion over on Tribe. During one heated exchange the president of Nomenus (Paradox at the time) unleashed a tirade of "fuck you" when he disagreed with my posting.
Besides it being unplesant for me and other readers, I was suprised that others failed to call hiim on his rude behavior- not just on my behalf, but how ot looks for the president of an organization to be treating someome in a public forum.
I think it is aslo time to renegotiate the deal with Naraya. Perhaps Naraya should be limited to a portion of the land so that faeries in need of sanctuary cannot be turned away. Or maybe Clyde could be persuaded to loosen up and agree to restrict his gatekeeping only to those who are participating in Naraya. The need for Naraya to hold their ritual should not interfere with faeries ascess to the land

I'll post more later, I'd like some discussion of what can be done to affect some change.

Vaughn
Re:Questions and discussion points - 2006/08/22 14:28 That post Paradox fired at you was soon deleted, as a lot of these personal attacks soon get deleted, as the point of such posts is the act of firing off a salvo.
I learned to save such for future record, so this is that post from August 15 of last year I edited out your name -V)

"Fuck you ---- fuck you for your continuing twisted interpretation. Fuck you for your willingness to bitch on this Tribe and NEVER do anything constructive to make the changes you want. Fuck you for alleging something about a majority that doesn't exist. You haven't been on the Land or at a gathering since when? How the hell would you know what any large number of people associated with Wolf Creek would want"

The President was on a bad roll that day, as this was from another post he made:

"Of course, I doubt if you have the balls (or the boobs, depending on your gender) to say any of this to me face-to-face. "

The act of bannishing faeries from off Sanctuary was practiced by such as Nomenus's current Corporate Secretary, Rula, who word has it wishes to return living at the Wolf Creek Sanctuary.
Senior Sanctuary Caretaker Rabbit exploited an existing bad trend for his personal benefit, as Nomenus pays his room and board, and he collects a "Stipend" from each dollar donated.
And with such focus now on paid events such as Naraya, money is to be made there.
The moderator of the tribe Radical Faerie tribe posted this on June 28:

"so the past few times when i've gone to Wolf Creek and given my money to the caretaker, i've said explicitly: "This money is for Wolf Creek Sanctuary and the community on the Land. It is NOT intended for Nomenus.""

X Re:Questions and discussion points - 2006/08/22 17:57 As for their financial situation.................

Last I was there I saw an extreme amount of wastefulness in the kitchen, food is not cheap. When you over order and it rots before cooking it, that's waste. When you make 100 lbs. of coleslaw, and it rots in the fridge, that is waste. When there are leftovers out the ass from dinner and someone goes and cooks up a huge lunch and doesn't incorporate any left overs and they rot in the fridge, it's waste. I witness 100's of lbs of produce getting chucked in the bin. THAT'S WASTE!

I have no sympathy for people who are so wasteful, when they bitch about being broke.

btw, what's up with the styrofoam containers I saw all over the land? Are these fey such hypocrites that they'll bitch about pollution and saving mother earth, yet pollute their own land with styrofoam? I guess that's a yes.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

History lesson # 1

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:18:44 GMT

This is from the September 2000 edition of the RadDisha mostly monthly newsletter of Nomenus, where amongst other things the minutes of the meetings are published.
The Sanctuary is selling a newly minted disk of all RadDish back issues now.
Here is where the now senior Caretaker Rabbit, then calling himself "Deadly Nightmare," closed the church doors after him.
I hope we can open this door back up.

Did You Notice We Changed Structure?
By Mugwort

This year's tiny Spring Great Circle left us with challenges to look at. But there's one decision in particular that ent by without much notice, and which is important! What may be the biggest organizational change in Nomenus'history was made by five people, without community discussion; many of us probably haven't noticed it's implications, since it sounds small at first.
Normally, I think you either make it to Great Circle or don't dish the decisions made there- weneed to delegate responsibility to the members who attend, and trust that they, by consensus, will discuss and arrive at policies that represent us well. Sometimes, however, this breaks down and mistakes are made, or process gets neglected in the heat of the moment. When these happen, the rest of us can and should speak up.
This particular case qualifies on both counts.
I'm not writing to trash the people involved, (in fact, I think the residential community is turning out nicely.) Everybody slips up occasionally, and all were in a difficult situation: with only one voting member (so I'm told) besides the four residents, and one of those heavily drugged after an injury, they were left alone to take the place of a circle of 20 or more. When stuck with a rump meeting, all you can do is try your best to deal with the situation.
In case you didn't read all 8 pages of minutes, item 12.d adopted the proposal:
"Caretakers are approved in Community On The Land Committee, per our usual consensus process and Great Circle will give half-yearly revues of the community, as a whole."
Why do I think this is a damaging decision we should reconsider?
This one sentence proposal drastically changed the structure of Nomenus: individual Caretakers are no longer approved by, or directly accountable to, the larger community.
Discussion about an ongoing or new Caretaker isn't even allowed at Great Circle, as I read the Raddish:
They're referred to the COTL, which means we can't hear and respond to each other; no general discussion. Great Circle's only participation is to "review" the community as a whole- which may be taken to mean we can comment,but don't have the power to say if thatresidential community gets renewed!
Many of us have tossed around the question of how to give the Residentsmore autonomy;
certainly, they should have the primary role in deciding who lives there. Butin this one-sentence proposal,autonomy went from zero to total. Regardless of whether the rest of us think a Caretaker is serving the tribe well, he can only be removed by a decision of the other Caretakers. I think that level of independence is inappropiate for Wolf Creek, which was bought with the donations (and bequests) of hundreds of faeries, and whose purpose is Gatherings first, then Retreats, and then a residential community.
There is a loophole: in theory, anybody can join the COTL to participate in the discussion and decision-making. COTL has always been a very small committee, which means it can't represent much of a cross-section of our active members. In fact, it's last non-resident member resigned this year, leaving just caretakers (and a candidate). In theory, you can show up at a meeting and give input; but to meaningfully participate in the committee, and certainly to have a decision-making role, it's necessary to show up every month, which few people can do.
Given the history of our first ten years, I think it's a breathtaking leap of faith to cut off any public discussion of, or Great Circle participation in, the bringing in or renewing of Caretakers.
Things are running smoothly now, but it hasn't always worked that way.
I believe the poor decision was partly a result of lax process; for several reasons, this item should have been deferred to the Fall Great Circle.If I'd been able to participate by phone, and had known the proposal was actually going forward (which I never dreamed would happen), I'd have opposed it for any one of these processproblems.
First of all, a rump meeting should only make the decisions that are unavoidable; although technically able (as a legally-constituted board meeting) to do whatever it wants within the bylaws, it doesn't have a genuine quorum to be able to represent the full community perspective. Deadly's proposal wasn't urgent; there could easily have been discussion and then a referral to the next, larger Great Circle.At most, it could have been an interim policy, to expire in the fall.
Similarly, the more important the decision, the more it needs to have community input, discussion, and reflection. You know how we like to talk things over! There've been topics discussed at a larger Great Circle and still deferred to the next one, so we could talk more among ourselves. This proposal appeared in the May RadDish
(aftr the disolution of inactive committees and clarification of food money on p.18). Submissions deadline for the next issue was seven days before Great Circle, leaving no chance for give-and -take.
Boards and voting groups usually have a conflict-of-interest policy, it's because no need was felt to formalize such matters. I think it's a widely-accepted principlethat a decision to give somebody money or power, for example, shouldn't be voted on by that person. By this standard, the Residents COTL might propose that we give them full autonomy, but then they should stand aside from the actual decision. At May's Great Circle, such stand-asides would have left exactly one voting member. And this for a major organizational shift which hadn't been widely discussed!
I do think the concerns behind Deadly's proposal are valid. I personallyhad the dubious pleasure of facilitating that lovely part of last Fall's meeting, when one member wanted to block Deadly's renewal out of anger at being told he couldn't extend his stay on the land;it took some minutes of hard work and anxiety before he was persuaded to stand aside.
Before this Great Circle came along and made it all moot,I'd been thinking about ways to address both this problem (which has come up only once in twelve years) and the broader "Star Chamber" effect.We could make it explicit that you shouldn't ask questions about somebody's private life ( like who on the land they've had sex with). Maybe create a new role for this part of the meeting, like a special type of vibes-watcher (you could call it "Advocate"): someone whose job it is to interrupt or challenge intrusive or hurtful questions, so the candidate doesn't have to. Change the renewal process so one person can't toss a Caretaker off the land.(I've long thought that was a lousy setup, very disempowering):
require that two people, or three, or 10% of those present are needed to not renew an existing resident. Last Fall , this would have avoided the whole trauma: we'd have listened to the member's complaints, heard he wanted to block, and asked if anybody else agreed. Clearly, none did.
There's the broader question of how to tell when it's time for a Caretaker to move on. We haven't figured that one out yet; to my knowledge, no resident has ever been formally asked to leave. Instead, it all happens in whispered conversations, and the long-standing pattern is for some Caretakers to stay long after their fire is spent, while others depart in a huff and leave everybody else in the lurch. (Some few actually leave at the right time, and with good feelings.)
I'd like to see us clarify the relationship between Caretakers and the rest of Nomenus.
What are their responsibilities? Who nominates or seeks out new residents? Can the residents be accountable to the tribe, and responsible for vital functions, without making them secretaries at the beck and call of any pushy queen?(It's happened.)
What do we ask of a Caretaker (In commitment and time), and what can we offer? Who sets priorities for what jobs will be done (for example the RadDish)?
How can concerns about a Caretaker be addressed? Do we want them to be permanent, or rotate out after a time?
Let's also think about how to make it possiblefor more of us to attend Wolf Creek Great Circles. Designate a carpool coordinator? Creat a fund for donations to cover participants who can't pay for the Green Tortoise? schedule Great Circle to be just before, or at the start of Beltane?(We could claim exclusive use of Garden House upstairs during those days.)
Borrow a speaker-phone that works, run a phone line to the meeting, and let a member ask to be called when a particular agenda item comes up? Get a trained facilitator for Fall Great Circle, so we get back in the habit of working quickly and smoothly.
What are yor thoughts?

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Faggots and class struggle

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:09:29 GMT

I'm moving this whole thread here from Free Association

Faggots and Class Struggle. - 2006/09/05 05:03 This past Labor day marked the thirtieth anniversary of the first gathering called upon the Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary, "Faggots and Class Struggle". 140 fags,sissies and pansies gathered at creekland on laborday 1976 shortly after George Jalbert first bought the farm. Out of this gathering grew the Radical Faerie tree of today. There is not much online of this seminal event for the Radical Faeries. I found two quotes from attendees, which echo the different interpretations of Faerie gatherings evident still to this day.

"5 of us were living in Mulberry House, 2 queer couples and me. We drove to Wolf Creek, Oregon in 1976 to the “Faggots and Class Struggle” conference in a mail jeep. Steering was right hand. We had a great time meeting other like-minded faggots at the conference in the country. I met many people from San Francisco who became friends – Larry, Michael, Rick and others. It was a very colorful and festive gathering as well as political."

And this from a Gay history circle
"Isensee: A number of us went to this conference called �Faggots in Class Struggle� in Wolf Creek, Oregon, in [the] summer of 1976. It was a very stormy conference. The sissy-identified men went on strike because the male-identified men weren�t doing any of the cooking.
[laughter all around]

And there was this big storm between the country faggots and the city faggots. The city faggots thought the country faggots were all just off being hippies. And the country faggots said that the city faggots were just exploiting the city and the environment. And then there was this heart circle kind of maze thing that they made everybody go through, which culminated in an orgy in the teepee, apparently. I missed out on the orgy. But the next day somebody took the Talking Stick.
[laughter all around]

And demanded to process the fact that he had felt very left out in the orgy at the tepee because of all the ageist and looksist and sexist attitudes of the orgy."

Gary
Re:Faggots and Class Struggle. - 2006/09/05 09:34 A discussion of class issues has been needed for awhile. When raised in the past some faeries deny that there are even any class differences at all. Not suprising since there is widly held myth that there are no classes in America. A handy myth for the rich to perpetuate since they are greatly out numbered by working people. Just as there is a class line in the world there is a class divide at the sanctuary. I think the divide can be seen in the competing visions for the land. One vision wants the land to be for homesteading and see a cash cow. The other vision is for a sanctuary. The homesteading expierment has been a total failure by any measure.

Getting back to the original vision should include a discussion of class issues. How can we make the land a place where faeries from different class backrounds can share the land? Equally.

Post edited by: Gary, at: 2006/09/05 09:36

David Kerlick

Re:Faggots and Class Struggle. - 2006/09/12 08:52 I didn't go, but there was a communique from that gathering, which I think I gave to Nomenus, some of that stuf may have ended up at the U of O in Eugene. Typical of the times, there were concerns about infiltration by the national security state &c.

The listed sponsor was the "Lavender and Red Union" at U of O.

I hadn't heard about the orgy (I guess that was off the record) or the issue of looksism raised that early, later nastily dubbed "David's Problem"

Vaughn

Re:Faggots and Class Struggle. - 2006/09/12 09:27 The best I've been able to locate from the "Faggots and Class Struggle" was a full report published in a movement publication of the day called "Morning Due."
I hope to get that issue when I go to San Fransisco soon, and plan to scan and post it here.
In talking with attendees, and having grown up on the West Coast, ( I came out 1979 ) I've heard of this event for decades. There still are a good amount of the original attendees.
This as far as I believe was the first "Faerie" gathering called. The structure, intent, and even drama +politics resemble those of today. These were the same hippies who were a part of the original Rainbow Gatherings, which also mirror much of the modern Faerie gathering. These hippies, back then usually meeting at Rainbow Gatherings in a "Gay Ghetto" in the San Fransisco Rainbow family camp,
dared to ask the most radical of queeries,
One that still challenges fierce today;

"What would happen if Gay men called a gathering for just Gay men in a safe space for Gay men."

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Faerie history for sale

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:05:14 GMT

Just an interesting bit; I've been finding early Radical Faerie literature for sale on several esoteric web word markets.
The directory for the 1986 "West Coast Tea Symposium"
is selling for $30.00.
This was the last big Faerie Gathering called on the Wolf Creek property during the final months of legal work needed for the Gay men to gain a Sanctuary.
A flyer or call for another Faerie Gathering called to raise money and intent for the Wolf Creek Radical Faerie Sanctuary is selling for $25.00

"A gathering of radical faeries, August 23, 24, 25, to benefit Nomenus Land Trust. Faeriestock, San Francisco. [1985], 8.5x14 inch flier with map to the Marin Headlands and two drawings, folded twice for mailing purposes (addressee and cancellation on verso).
Price: $25.00 Cat.No: 103301"

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Consensus process

Vaughn — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:02:43 GMT

Consensus when honored is very democratic,and is based on long established traditions from tribal communities. I have seen it work very well,and other times not.
A hammer can build, or knock apart.
Americans want things fast and quick and easy to pop into their mouths, and sitting around in a circle of people trying to hash it out for hours does not fit the fashion or lifestyle of the modern American consumer.
People easily watch passivly hours of television each day, yet are loathe to sit and participate in a meeting for several hours.
This I feel makes Americans far more easy for the harvest, but now I digress.
From Wikipedia's entry on Consensus:

Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both: a) general agreement, and b) the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process.

Purpose

Some have said that true consensus involves "meeting everyone’s needs." Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. The method also increases the likelihood of unforeseen or creative solutions by juxtaposing dissimilar ideas. Because it seeks to minimize objection, it is popular with voluntary organizations, wherein decisions are more likely to be carried out when they are most widely approved. Consensus methods are desirable when enforcement of the decision is unfeasible, such that every participant will be required to act on the decision independently.

Consensus decision-making is also found in groups where participants have different areas of expertise but are working toward a common goal. Examples of this include high technology project design teams which must integrate the opinions of people with different areas of expertise.

Minority views must be considered to a greater degree than in circumstances where a majority can take the action and enforce the decision without any further consultation with the minority voters. It is often thought that consensus can require more time and effort to achieve. Thus some groups may reserve consensus decision methods for particularly complex, risky or important decisions. However, there are many examples of groups who employ consensus decision-making in ways that enable them to both consider minority views and make decisions in a timely and efficient manner. These will be outlined in the section below on Examples of consensus decision-making.

Consensus decision making could result in group polarization, where team members make more extreme decisions compared to their prior individual positions (Isenberg, 1986). This could potentially have beneficial effects on team decisions (enhance commitment and conviction), or detrimental effects (escalate towards greater risk or greater conservative behaviors). Use of computer-mediated communication could further heighten the effects of group polarization (Sia et al., 2002).
[edit]

Key principles

Rather than simply list known alternatives, debate for a short time, vote, and then accept or reject by some percentage of majority (ex. over 50%, over 2/3), a consensus decision-making process involves identifying and addressing concerns, generating new alternatives, combining elements of multiple alternatives and checking that people understand a proposal or an argument.

This empowers minorities, those with objections that are hard to state quickly, and those who are less skilled in debate. Therefore, consensus decision-making can be seen as a form of grassroots democracy.

Egalitarian groups that seek to reduce the amount of power delegated to leaders, chairpersons or agenda setters often use consensus methods. Such methods can reduce the amount of harm or loss imposed on minorities (or individuals) by a majority. Consensus methods may be appropriate when personal (or emotional) risk to members is high, trust is low[1] [2], and time is available for a prolonged discussion. Consensus may be used to remedy patterns of decision-making based on habit, subservience or carelessness.

Alternatively, it can be argued that in a situation of abundant trust - in which each party assumes that any objections or reservations regarding a proposal are meaningful - consensus methods may not only be appropriate, but necessary.

Like any group decision-making, consensus decision-making can disempower those not present in the debating forum, as they cannot expect to have input on the new measures that are proposed (whereas they might have had the opportunity for input into the known alternatives prior to the debate). Accordingly, most systems of consensus decision-making place a premium on participation.

Three key issues tend to define a particular type of consensus decision-making:

1. degree of agreement or unanimity required;
2. timing of presentation including division of time among urgent versus important matters;
3. follow-up to action including the monitoring that arises from dissent, and from claims of majority proponents whose preferred course of action is being taken over minority objections.

There is also the question of facilitation or process leadership, which is handled separately at the end of this article.
[edit]

If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?

A healthy consensus decision-making process usually encourages and outs dissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodating the views of all minorities. It also often assigns a role to the dissenter, e.g. the Vatican used to assign the role of Promotor Fidei to a specific priest who argued against beatification of a saint, to ensure the case 'against' remains well represented. After the decision, the dissenting minority may have some role to play in monitoring the decision. In the Supreme Court of the United States, both the majority opinion and minority opinion are equally well documented, as the legal grounds for agreeing with either may exist in some court in future.

Many groups consider unanimous decisions a sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity. However, there is evidence that unanimous decisions may be a sign of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives, or plain impatience with the process of debate. When there are concerns about these aspects of unanimity, various alternatives can be pursued. These include the following:

* Unanimity minus one (or U-1), requires all delegates but one to support the decision. The individual dissenter cannot block the decision although they may be able to prolong debate (e.g. via a filibuster). The dissenter may be the ongoing monitor of the implications of the decision, and their opinion of the outcome of the decision may be solicited at some future time. Betting markets in particular rely on the input of such lone dissenters. A lone bettor against the odds profits when his or her prediction of the outcomes proves to be better than that of the majority. This disciplines the market's odds.
* Unanimity minus two (or U-2), does not permit two individual delegates to block a decision, but tends to curtail debate with a lone dissenter more quickly. Dissenting pairs can present alternate views of what is wrong with the decision under consideration. By focusing on a pair of dissenters, and allocating less time to lone wolves or 'consensus thugs', a U-2 system tends to form stronger bonds among those who find themselves "alone on an island" with each other. Pairs of delegates can be empowered to find the common ground that will enable them to convince a third, decision-blocking, voter to join them. If the pair are unable to convince a third party to join them within a set time, their arguments are deemed to be unconvincing, immature or self-interested. If two people dissent against some common measure, it is more likely that the discussion between them can be extended to third parties easily, since it is already verbalized and illustrated. Western European court systems recognize this by strongly encouraging criminal defendants or civil plaintiffs to get an attorney's aid, so that their case can be fully heard out long before the decision.
* Unanimity minus three, (or U-3), and other such systems recognize the ability of three or more delegates to actively block a decision. However, there is controversy over whether a small group of dissenters, (e.g., militants or terrorists), is morally different from a large minority, (e.g., an opposition party with support of double-digit percentages of the population). Accordingly U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as: 80%, mean plus one sigma, two-thirds, or greater than half (majority) levels of agreement. Such measures do not fit within the definition of consensus given at the beginning of this article. (see also consensus-seeking decision-making)
* The IETF working group process has a tradition of "rough consensus", where there is no specific rule for "how much is enough", but it is left to the judgment of the working group chair. This makes it harder for a small number of disruptors to block a decision, but puts a lot of responsibility on the chair, and has frequently led to angry debates about whether rough consensus has in fact been correctly identified.

[edit]

Timing

The quality of alternatives considered is, all else being equal, proportional to the amount of time spent gathering and comparing and combining them. The term deliberative democracy reflects the deliberation that underlies all good consensus decision-making. Ralph Nader and others have advocated deliberative measures to extend the time for "sober second thought."

A fictional example of deliberative democracy is the Entmoot from J. R. R. Tolkien's novel The Lord of the Rings. The Ents, who are large ancient living intelligent trees, spend days discussing the issue of whether to go to war, in their verbose and many-syllabled language. This is an example of a decision for which the stakes were high, the individual risk also high, and coercive force difficult or lacking; therefore suited to consensus methods.

Timeliness of decisions is an important issue. In some cases, a wrong decision taken in time can be better than a good decision taken later. Key responsibilities of facilitators of any decision making process, but particularly in consensus decision-making, include:

* Establishing measures to place items on the agenda, or deny them time on the agenda.
* Setting deadlines for changes to the agenda (e.g. can the agenda itself be changed during the meeting?).
* Agenda forming and presentation of issues at the right time, when there is sufficient time for their debate.
* Ensuring that less urgent issues are excluded from the debate, but dealt with at another time.

To achieve a balance between urgency and importance, it is common to reserve enough time for matters that are not urgent, but are nevertheless important, (for e.g., the decision process itself, which takes care to maintain). Consensus decision processes tend to accelerate as rising trust over the course of the meeting, combined with fatigue, increase individual tolerance and the cost of dissent. Placing difficult agenda items first tends to speed a meeting, with the risk that important, but less complex decisions will not be achieved before adjournment.

Decisions about when to split up into working groups, how to handle agendas, how to deal with changes to agendas or working groups from the floor, etc., are affected by the allocation of the group's time to urgent versus important matters. These procedural matters are held to be crucial to the survival of a consensus decision process, along with issues of safety, fairness, and closure which arise from their application in practice.
[edit]

Action, monitoring and follow-up

Action is the point of decision; without action, the decision is just talk. Military leaders from Alexander the Great to the present have emphasized that orders simply do not get carried out unless they are personally followed up by the commander. The same applies to group decisions, perhaps even more so.

One would not expect the opposing minority to do a good job of ensuring that a measure is carried out, but they can ensure that problems resulting from it are well-documented, and that inconveniences of its implementation are contained. However, they can also take steps to ensure that the inconvenience of implementation is maximized, so as to make the point that the measure was impractical and ill-advised from the beginning. A major issue in consensus decisions is whose view of the actual outcome to trust, and who to permit time to present their view.

Consensus decisions are especially vulnerable to sabotage of all kinds, so the assignment of action roles, monitoring (from the original majority and minority opinion to some future time when the results of both sets of predictions can be debated), and other follow up (e.g. assessing support of the public for a party after it has taken and publicized a particular measure), is a key responsibility of consensus decision leaders.
[edit]

Leadership

Aside from these abstract factors, one must consider the practical matter of the facilitation process. A hierarchical point of view is that leadership or management of the process (as opposed to leadership of a faction or party) is required.

The role of a facilitator in a consensus decision-making process can be much more difficult than that of a simple-majority-party leader if group members distrust each other or unconsciously use manipulative techniques. For a proponent of any given alternative, reducing objections to their plan by eliciting information or preferences from proponents of other alternatives is difficult if people distrust each other. Manipulative opponents can find it advantageous to misrepresent their concerns or refuse to negotiate - an analogous problem to that of strategic voting. For these reasons, consensus processes usually require trust among participants and skilled, patient facilitators able to synthesise the state of a proposal.

An argument against consensus decision is that few motivated facilitators are willing to assign themselves a role guiding processes rather than pursuing and promoting specific measures empowering themselves. Dee Hock said of his role at Visa International - an organisation focused on making profit - that it was something that anyone could do, but almost no one learned to do well, and which was largely thankless. Similar sentiments have been echoed by many "leaders" of organizations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, which tend to have diffuse benefits, and concentrated costs (an instance of the tragedy of the commons issue in political economy, and of the public good problem).

However, leaderless organisations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, where trust builds up and where different participants are encouraged to learn facilitation skills, find that consensus decision making is a practical and powerful tool. An example of a prominent organization that uses consensus-seeking decision-making is the Green Party.

Some organizations have abandoned consensus decision-making for simple majority, judging that the difficulty of building a process to formally weigh all of these factors is not worth it, and that these factors can be handled better informally (i.e. in offline discussions before and after debate) than through the process of consensus itself, at the risk of creating a de facto clique that makes the real decisions.

An important issue for groups to consider, before considering a consensus decision-making process, is the feasibility of building up sufficient trust among participants and the willingness of participants to learn facilitation skills, and whether or not these are compatible with the operational structure of the organisation. For example, an organisation with a President who hierarchically controls operations could only be compatible with consensus decision-making if the President could be expected to sincerely respect the consensus decision-making process.

It has been claimed that it would be intrinsically difficult for a competitive organisation to use consensus decision-making, since consensus is a cooperative process, not a competitive process. There does not seem to be consensus on whether or not an organization focused on competition with other organizations can be internally cooperative.
[edit]

Criticisms

There are a number of criticisms of consensus decision-making. Some but not all of these amount to a different choice of values - for instance, the relative importance of protecting minorities from majorities, or keeping issues in active discussion when disagreement exists, regardless of how long this situation remains.

The consensus process can lead to a situation where a relatively small number of people, (a faction), can block action that is desired by the majority (see Minoritarianism). In this situation, the process is arguably non-democratic, as the will of the majority is being thwarted by a minority. Where such a dynamic exists, whatever state of affairs already exists in the organization becomes the default with the faction holding a veto over the will of the majority. In such cases an organization can find itself saddled with formal consensus long after a majority of members would gladly switch to another system, yet find it impossible to change because of a small faction's ability to repeatedly veto any move towards change.

Another often-cited problem is a result of the power of factions over the process. In effect, whatever group within the organization is least willing to accommodate the desires of the other groups ends up with a larger degree of power over the group. In effect, decision-making becomes a game of "chicken" where the group with the least investment in the positive outcome of the decision-making process can be the most intransigent, and thereby get its way the most often. The result is that those members who most want the group to make decisions and take positive action may end up compromising a great deal to accommodate a small intransigent group. (These individuals are sometimes called "consensus thugs".)

As a result of the previous two problems, organizations that use formal consensus have a tendency to reward individuals who are the least accommodating and punish those that are the most accommodating. The paradoxical result is, therefore, that formal consensus decision-making tends to attract the most stubborn and intransigent individuals and repels those who are most willing to negotiate compromise between different points of view.

Because of the above problems, formal consensus decision-making tends to take enormous amounts of time to come to decisions because the process often boils down to a dialogue between the majority and an intransigent minority where some sort of common ground can be found. This is directly related to one of the claimed benefits of consensus - that it protects minorities from the majority. Indeed, systems of formal consensus often only work in practise by developing systems of informal control that will allow the majority to limit the ability of individuals to thwart the will of the majority. In North American native groups that use consensus, for example, it is often the case that tribal elders are able to exert enormous informal pressure on individuals who tend to disrupt consensus. (This is often missed by outsiders.) In some organizations using formal consensus, there is an informal process where people who do not "toe the party line" on issues seen as key to the organization's identity or purpose are encouraged to leave.

Even if an individual is not told to leave because they are out of step with the majority, because of the problems listed above, formal consensus decision-making tends to exclude people from participating who have limited amounts of time and energy to devote to process. As a result, members may leave altogether, or stop taking part in the decision-making process and leave decision-making up to those individuals who have the time and energy, effectively producing an oligarchy which may not be controlled by formal democratic means. For these two reasons, critics claim that formal consensus tends to become an exclusive rather than an inclusive system. While similar claims have been made of representative democracies, citing instances of low voter turnout, critics of the consensus distinguish between the two. They contrast a consensus process with decision-making systems where people are encouraged to clearly state their opinions, vote, and then abide by the majority decision. According to this argument, formal consensus does not foster the two values of "agreeing to disagree" and "I got my say, so I'm ok with it".

A related claim is that consensus decision-making can lead to pathological group dynamics in which participants are discouraged from expressing dissenting views out of concern that this would break consensus. This can lead to a situation known as groupthink. In an extreme case, a majority or even the entirety of the group may believe a decision to be flawed, but no one is willing to express this idea because they are under the mistaken impression that everyone else in the group supports it, this point being the moral of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale about The Emperor's New Clothes.

Some critics argue for majority voting systems on the grounds that these help participants learn social skills which allow individuals with very different viewpoints to work together on a common cause, and disagree with advocates of consensus who make similar claims. They argue that formal consensus gives individuals the impression that everyone should always get their own way, and that there is no reason why anyone should feel obliged to "bury their differences". As a result, the system tends to perpetuate differences of opinion long past the point where an organization that makes decisions by voting would have decided the issue "old".

Similarly, those who hold minority points of view in formal consensus are socialized that they have a perfect right to dissent from the majority point of view, which some critics see as a serious problem, leading to minorities ignoring the will of the majority and instead "doing their own thing". They argue that this makes it extremely hard for large institutions to pursue difficult projects - or indeed to operate at all - if the decision-making process is based around consensus.

Finally, consensus decision-making can fail in situations where an issue is divisive enough so that consensus simply cannot be reached.
[edit]

Examples of consensus decision-making

One of the first documented applications of the Consensus method is perhaps the Deliberation of the First Fathers in 1539 when the founding fathers of the Jesuit Society, waiting in Venice to leave perhaps for the Holy Land, discussed during months to formulate, on a consensus basis, the fundamental structure and rules of the new society.

Consensus was used among certain Native American/First Nations peoples. For example, the Haudenosaunee (commonly called "Iroquois") required unanimity in decisions of the Confederacy.

Decision-making arrived at by finding a "spiritual consensus," rather than voting, was developed by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) early in the 17th century and is in use to the present day.

There has been considerable development in consensus decision-making recently. For example, Quaker-based consensus has been adapted to a variety of settings in recent years (for example, anarchist political groups). Also, various intentional communities have developed processes which they describe as both inclusive and effective. Three such approaches to consensus decision-making are outlined below:
[edit]

Quaker-based consensus

The model used by the Quakers is said to be effective because it puts in place a simple structure that moves a group towards consensus. The Quaker model has been well-received when employed in secular settings because it gives everyone a chance to speak while limiting potential disruptors (e.g., people who want unlimited airtime, or who have a particular axe to grind).

The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process:

* Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
* Discussion involves active listening and sharing of information.
* Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
* Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
* Differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
* The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a minute of the decision.
* The group as a whole is responsible for the decision, and the decision belongs to the group.
* The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
* Dissenters' perspectives are embraced.[3]

A belief in common humanity and the ability to decide together are key components of Quaker-based consensus. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge. By articulating the emerging consensus, members can be clear on the decision, and, as their views have been taken into account, will be likely to support it (see External links below for more information and materials related to Quaker-based consensus).
[edit]

Use of colored cards

Many intentional communities use consensus decision-making. In many cases, with cohousing groups, business must be transacted within time constraints. Thus efficiency is important. If the group genuinely wants to make decisions by consensus, a method is needed that is both efficient and effective. An open discussion needs to be animated by a process that moves towards a timely, and sound, decision that is supported by all. Various techniques have been developed whereby this can be achieved. One such method involves the use of color cards (green, yellow, red).[4]

In some groups, the cards are used in two ways; one for discussion and another for decisions:
[edit]

For discussion

A group member who wishes to speak, holds up a card:

* A green card means "I have something to say" or "I have a question." When several group members hold up a green card, they are noted and placed in a "stack" of people waiting to speak. Each person speaks in turn, in a way that is similar to Quaker-based consensus.
* A yellow card means "I can clarify" or "I need clarification (on what was just said)."
* The red card is the process card. A red card, when raised, asks members to look at the process. For example, an individual who displays a red card might say: "Are we getting off track, here?" or "What is our objective in doing this?" or even "How about we take a break?" It gives all members an equal chance to be facilitator.

[edit]

For decisions

Following discussion, the facilitator articulates the proposal and calls for a show of cards:

* The green card means: "I agree."
* The yellow card means: "I can live with it." This is often referred to as "standing aside"
* The red card means: "I don't agree, but am willing to work to find a better way, taking into account what has been said by all group members." Thus holding up a red card does not block progress, it signifies that the person who displayed it will work with others on the matter in question and bring it back to a subsequent meeting. This tends to ensure that red cards are not used lightly.

If groups agree to apply methods such as these, and all group members are willing to work at it, consensus decision-making can be both effective in meeting a group's goals, and time-efficient.
[edit]

Use of hand signals

In lieu of colored cards, some consensus-based groups use a system of simple hand signals. While the nature, meaning and popularity of such signals changes from group to group, there is a common 'vocabulary':

* Twinkle: Wiggling of the fingers of one or both hands, with palms facing downward. Used by non-speakers to indicate agreement with the speaker. Also often used as a replacement of a raised hand to indicate a 'yea' vote to a proposal.
* Triangle: Forming of a triangle with the thumbs and index fingers of both hands. Used to indicate a point of order or procedure to the facilitator.
* Crossed arms: Forearms crossed with hands in fists. Used to indicate a strong disagreement with the speaker or to cast a 'block' vote to a proposal.

[edit]

The IETF Rough Consensus model

In the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), decisions are assumed to be taken by "rough consensus."[5] The IETF has studiously refrained from defining a mechanical method for verifying such consensus, apparently in the belief that any such codification will lead to attempts to "game the system." Instead, a working group (WG) chair or BoF chair is supposed to "recognize it when I see it."

One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of humming rather than (countable) hand-raising; this allows a WG to quickly tell the difference between "one or two objectors" or a "sharply divided community", without making it easy to slip into "majority rule". However, hand-raising is also used, especially in larger meetings, but actual counting is frowned upon.

Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on mailing lists, where all parties can speak their view at all times; the social dynamics of mailing lists is worthy of a study in itself.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies

Harry Hay and the Sanctuary conception

Vaughn — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:06:50 GMT

Harry Hay at the Sanctuary conception - 2006/09/03 22:48 This next historical writing concerns the early intent for creating a Sanctuary for Gay Men to explore their unique place and spirituality in their many societies,
as many of us feel being Gay is more that a collection of sex acts.

From "Nobody Gets Out of Here Alive"

By Steve Jackson
Article Published Mar 2, 2000

In part because of his conversations with Gourley and other young gay activists, Hay had decided to put in motion something he had been thinking about for some time. He called it A Spiritual Gathering for Radical Fairies, to take place in the desert near Tucson later that summer. It was the chance to examine the spiritual and political side of being gay, Hay said. He had been careful to choose each word for the event carefully: Spiritual, to emphasize that this was to be more than a party in the wilds; Gathering, which seemed to denote a coming together of equals; Radical, which Hay was always reminding Gourley meant "to the root," in that they would be exploring the root of their gayness apart from their sexuality; and Fairies, partly to "reclaim" a word that was derogatory when applied to gays, but also because it evoked images of the elusive, magical creatures of folklore.

The gathering of a couple hundred went off beautifully. Big on ceremony, queens were all over the "mud ritual" of worshiping Mother Earth by smearing their naked bodies with the stuff and dancing around in the warm Arizona air. Hay was so pleased with the outcome that he immediately put Gourley in charge ofplanning a second gathering for the following summer in the mountains of Colorado.

But danger was on the horizon. Its first warning came to Gourley after the spiritual gathering that fall.

He and his boyfriend at the time, an emergency-room physician, grew hallucinogenic mushrooms. They liked to take them before heading off to the bathhouses, which they viewed as the ultimate playgrounds. One night Gourley ate a new batch of the hallucinogens, more powerful than he was used to dealing with. Inside the bathhouse, he began freaking out and made his way to the outdoor part of the facility, hoping that cool air might help bring him down. But it only got worse.

Demons appeared, looking like gargoyles. They danced toward him, their long purple and pink tongues protruding from grinning mouths and distorted faces, their tentacles and hands reaching, grasping. They were everywhere, whichever way he turned. If they caught him, he thought he would surely die.

Gourley quickly left the bathhouse and rode his bike to the home of his best friend, Don Gorman. Gorman had a technique for bringing friends down from bad trips: He made them sit in a corner and peel an orange. If that didn't work, he made them peel another, until the concentration and isolation brought them back to the world.

The technique worked for Gourley, but he never again used recreational drugs -- not so much as a joint of marijuana. He eventually went back to the bathhouses, but he couldn't shake the idea that in an altered state of consciousness, he had picked up on some negative energy that had invaded the baths, evil spirits or bad karma. Something terrible was happening.

The cops were polite, if somewhat nervous. "We had some reports of nudity," explained one.

Pat Gourley tried not to smile. Three hundred gay men...running around in the forest...dancing to drums...and there was nudity? What a surprise!

The second Spiritual Gathering of Radical Fairies had gone off without a hitch -- or any cops -- until the fifth day of the convocation. Fortunately, most everybody had gone home, and the rest were obviously packing to leave; otherwise, the cops might have gotten an eyeful, and he'd be spending the afternoon bailing a bunch of irate fairies out of jail.

Not that the gathering, at a campsite near Buffalo Park, Colorado, had been one long orgy. Far from it. For a bunch of eccentric queens, they'd gotten down to some serious business.

Gourley had been put in charge of the local organizing team. He'd had to find the site, secure the permit from the forest service and rent two large tents for those who hadn't brought their own. He'd had to make sure that planning and buying breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks -- all vegetarian to please the widest range of tastes -- for 300 were covered, as well as arrange transportation from Denver (to keep down the car traffic at the site) and for those flying in from the far corners.

As local organizer, he was subjected to all sorts of advice on the agenda from Harry Hay and other movement luminaries such as Mitch Walker, who in the mid-'70s had written Men Loving Men (a gay equivalent of The Joy of Sex) and whose more philosophical book, Visionary Love, had just been released.

Hay had decided that the time was ripe for reviving one of the pet projects he had first envisioned decades earlier. The project, Gourley wrote in the pamphlet announcing the gathering, involved establishing a "permanent Sanctuary, through Community Land Trust, for all of us." Hay's vision was a gay homeland, a rural commune as self-sufficient as possible, almost Amish in austerity, though no one suggested that queens be told they would have to wear black. He wasn't advocating total separation from straight society -- that wasn't practical. Besides, it was his dream that someday straight society would recognize gays and lesbians for their contributions.

For decades Hay had argued that gays and lesbians were distinct peoples -- different genders entirely from their counterparts in the hetero world, a cultural minority that went back as far as time itself. In late-night conversations in Gourley's kitchen, they'd talked about the sanctuary as a place where gay men could withdraw for a time and wrestle with philosophical questions and ideas about presenting what they learned about themselves to the world outside. Maybe it would be in some sort of spiritual way, Hay said, noting that stereotypical or not, gays were often drawn to "helping professions." For example, gays traditionally had been attracted to the clergy and often assumed important roles in Native American religions. When they finally knew what they were about, Hay envisioned gays from the sanctuary offering their services to the rest of the world. Maybe as mediators to resolve issues, he mused.

Gourley liked the idea of going to the sanctuary himself. Maybe it was the old farm kid in him, but he saw himself working in the fields and participating in the great debates to feed both the bodies and the minds of his brothers. He wasn't quite as optimistic as Hay about straight society recognizing gays' attributes and welcoming them with open arms, but it was a nice dream.

For years the idea of a sanctuary had lain dormant in the mind of Hay, who thought the gay community was too absorbed in sexual liberation. But now he thought the second gathering would be the right forum to reveal his plan. Gourley had plenty of help from other activists such as Phil Nash and Tim Offutt, one of the rare "out" members of the gay black community, working out the logistics. His best friend, Don Gorman, who nearly a year earlier had brought him down out of the bad mushroom trip, did the art for the flier -- a mandala with its concentric rings depicting mountains, mushrooms, dancing stick figures and flying fairies tooting horns. For the front of the "tips" flier, he drew a man looking through a kaleidoscope at another mandala, a tribute to Hay and Burnside who, in Los Angeles during the Summer of Love, had owned a factory that made kaleidoscopes to sell to hippies. Of the two, Gourley was the more political and, if not for the balance Gorman brought to their friendship, could have easily tipped into reactionary politics, where everything is black and white and issues are placed over humanity. But Gourley could always count on Gorman's ability to put things into perspective. Oh, Blanche, sit down and do your nails, he'd say when Gourley climbed on his horse. But it was possibly what they didn't do that had the most profound effect on Gourley: Despite their closeness, they were never lovers. It wasn't about sex.

And while Gourley was fond of saying that he got his nursing degree from University Hospital and his "Ph.D. in Queerdom" from Harry Hay, he had a difficult time getting his mentor to discuss his concern about gays' hedonistic sexual behavior. Hay found discussions about sexual behavior counterproductive to his principle theme that being gay was more than "where you put your dick." He was fond of shocking listeners by declaring, with a twist on the old gay adage, "We have nothing in common with straight people except for what we do in bed." In one of the rare times he did discuss sexuality with Gourley, Hay noted that gay men's behavior had changed radically over the years: They now had more anal sex, in part because of the opportunity provided by the bathhouses.

That was one of the reasons Gourley noted on a flier for the gathering that "the fairies planning the gathering ask that there be no drug or alcohol use on the site." They wanted to remove the gathering -- physically and psychologically -- as far as possible from the party scene that defined the liberated gay lifestyle of the '70s.

The campsite permit forced them to limit the number of participants to 300, some of whom arrived in Denver early and headed for Gourley's home in Five Points, where Hay and Walker were soon leading discussions. The other participants arrived, coming from major metropolitan areas and small towns all over the country; there were even a few from Canada. All were taken to the fifteen-acre campsite at the end of a box canyon where Gourley's two tents were set up near a large fire pit.

The evenings were social and spiritual in nature. Taking their cue from the lesbians, who Gourley joked with friends were a "more highly evolved life form than gay men," there were a lot of pagan and wiccan influences in their rituals, a lot of evoking the "Great Mother" and worshiping nature. The weather -- which had been alternately cloudy and rainy -- put a damper on another mud ritual (making Gourley glad that he'd warned participants that at 8,000 feet, even in summer, it was a good idea to bring down coats and rain gear in addition to "your entire wardrobe of flowing non-hetero garb"). A big hit was the drumming and dancing, which reached its peak when Offutt appeared on a hillside one evening dressed from head to toe in a magnificent buckskin outfit, pounding on a large drum. Soon participants were dancing around the fire like wildmen.

The days had their hours for hiking, quiet contemplation and simply building a sense of community by networking with like-minded gay men from all over the country. There were, of course, several "fairy circles," in which the men would gather to discuss issues, some dressed in dresses and skirts or nothing at all. The workshops dealt with more serious matters. The idea of the gay sanctuary was a big hit and, while not everyone agreed on how best to go about it, the consensus was that the gay community needed to move beyond sex as the issue that defined gay culture both to themselves and the straight world. There were also discussions about health concerns and the relationship to the bathhouse scene.

posted in Church of Nomenus confidential report - 0 replies