<$BlogRSDURL$>

Monday, November 13, 2006

St BrownNovember 1, 2006
An Interview with a Oaxacan Rebel
Hell is Rising in Oaxaca
By RON JACOBS
When I lived in Washington state, some of my closest friends were from
the Mexican state of Oaxaca. I have kept in touch with a few of them
and they have kept me in touch with the rebellion unfolding in the
streets of Oaxaca the past few months. After the escalation of the situation
there on October 27, 2006, when paramilitary forces shot and killed
four people (including Indymedia journalist Brad Will), I spoke with my
friends David Abeles and Hilaria Cruz who helped me contact some of their
people in Oaxaca city. Given the circumstances currently existing in
the area and the uncertainty of the immediate future because of the
military and police presence there, I felt that the best way to get
firsthand information out to the wider world would be to conduct an email
interview. The first interview is below. I hope to have another one ready in
the next couple days.
Ron: Hey Tomas. Thanks for taking the time to answer a few questions.
Would you be willing to introduce yourself?
Tomas: Hi, I would like to salute all the readers of this electronic
journal. My name is Tomas Cruz, I am a native from a community in Oaxaca
in the highlands. I was forced by the economic situation to migrate to
the States. Fortunately I gained an education at the Evergreen State
College. I also went the University of Texas for a graduate degree in
Latin American studies.
Ron: So, you've been in Oaxaca during the entire uprising? Can you tell
us the sequence of events as you see them up to now?
Tomas: I am a Oaxacan native with graduate training at the University
of Texas at Austin. I have been involved in diverse NGOs working for the
communities in Oaxaca up until the time of the Oaxacan uprising.
What we are seeing in Oaxaca is a breakdown of political system that is
completely corrupt and deliberately abuses its citizens at will, using
the legitimacy of the state to impose a government that only uses power
to advance a personal agenda and that of a very small political
oligarchy. Since the start of the present government it was characterized by
repression of political leaders, immediately killing them and imposing
its repressive mode of government.
The result of the events which are occurring as we speak began with an
every year demonstration by the teacher´s syndicate. In the 14th of
June, the state police attacked the teachers which were at the zocalo in
a permanent demonstration.
The response from the citizenry was immediate, hundreds of people
joined the teachers strike and saw an opportunity to stop the continued
abuses from the government.
I can only describe what is occurring as catharsis of the population,
especially of the immense poor population of the city, which survive.
After the attack by the state and the immense response from the
population the most remarkable event in the politics of the movement has been
the formation of a popular assembly of the pueblos of Oaxaca also known
as APPO.
The APPO organizations have been capable of resisting all the attacks
from the state government, from spots attacking the protesters as a
bunch of radicals to the death squads sent to kill people that were
protesting at night.
The response from the APPO was to develop barricades to stop the death
squads. This resulted in a historical and animated political culture,
with also a strong popular support.
In the recent days, the violence escalated in one single day in which
the international reporter died at the hands of the mercenaries payed by
the governor.
Yesterday, there was an intervention from the federal police after the
multiple deaths and probably also after the international pressure
after the death of one international reporter. The federal police killed at
least 4 people and raped one woman in the intervention. The response
from the APPO is to maintain the protest until the governor resigns and
the political system is reformed.
Ron: What groups were involved that you know of? Also, I imagine that
many people were unaffiliated. What were their reasons for joining, in
your estimate?
Tomas: This movement is composed of the poorest section of the
population. Old housewives which think of this as a parallel to the revolution
of 1910 and are ready to resist for years, beggars which are tired of
the abuses by the police, or simply sympathize with the movement because
they see no hope and future in their lives. Mechanics, civil servants,
citizens from the neighboring neighborhoods which have had their
municipal presidents imposed on them. Citizens from the poorest sections of
the city.
Ron: From my understanding, PRI and its allies were responsible for the
shootings that killed several people on October 27th. Is PRI the only
party responsible for the situation in Oaxaca or are other political
parties also responsible?
Tomas: No, the PRI is seeing its last days and with it, it has resorted
to the only thing that they know, violence.
Ron: You're in Oaxaca right now. What the hell is going on?
Tomas: Hell is rising in Oaxaca, the force of the government against
teachers, students, housewives, mechanics, peasants. The whole city and
the whole state is filled with federal police, local police, military.
Ron: How are the spirits of those in the rebellion? Where do they get
their food and water?
Tomas: There is ample popular support for this uprising which results
in a steady flow of donations from communities and lay citizens that
donate at different points. Mainly this has been coordinated by using
radio stations. At this point theres is one station left which is being
broadcast through the internet at www.indymedia.org you can listen to what
is going on as we speak, (those that can speak Spanish)
The radio broadcasters which have little experience but a huge heart
receive the needs of the people on the barricades as to what is needed.
Yesterday for example they organized the installation of medical aid
stations because the red cross got instructions from the governor and its
director not to attend the flurry of people that were shot at by the
governor´s police.
Ron: Do you think there is a potential for armed conflict (beyond that
seen already--which seems mostly to originate from the forces of the
state)?
Tomas: Hmm, if the state continues on its support of a political figure
which has lost completely popular support, especially from the poor,
then we will see an escalate on violence. because the demands of the
people after decades and some argue centuries have been unattended.
Honestly I think that this would continue in the same degree, as peaceful
opposition and hopefully we would see a more democratic state. Only if the
government continues on its escalate of violence we would see a
critical cyclical point in Mexico´s history.
If the federal forces are able to quash the rebellion, what kind of
repression do you think will follow? Indeed, based on past experiences,
after the media leaves the region, what do you foresee happening to the
movement, its participants and supporters, and the region in general?
I think that the violence is going to be targeted at the organizers and
the leaders of the movement.
Ron: In the greater scheme of things, how would you relate this to
other struggles occurring in the Americas? What relationship do you see the
demands of the protestors have, if any, to the
anti-imperialist/anti-global capitalism movements in this hemisphere and around the world?
Tomas:This rebellion reminds me of Bolivia, because of it indigenous
component. As in Bolivia, once the indigenous population determines that
it needs to be overturned, we see that they gain a determination that
has caused governments to fall. In the case of Oaxaca, the most likely
scenario is that the governor is going to be overthrown. What we are
seeing also is a political scenario that changes everyday. The news today
is that the political parties at the national level are all calling for
the governor to resign.
If the movement maintains the level and determination that we are
seeing, then we have this movement playing an important role in the national
politics and possibly a shift in the neoliberal government of Mexico.
Ron: Anything more to add?
Tomas: I was in the scene five minutes before the reporter from
indymedia was killed. I remember hearing the shots, people running all over
the place, unarmed mechanics, housewives. There was a woman there, I do
not know if she was a teacher, I only remember her words " This is our
moment, we cant go on living like this, it is enough. I went to school
barefooted and It makes me cry to see what happens here. Our only future
is the border with the United States, I makes me sad to see our young
finish a University Degree only to work as taxi drivers. This is our
moment, we can't let them continue to oppress us."
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather
Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big
Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on music, art
and sex, Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at:
rjacobs3625@charter.net

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The hills were eroded and stained with shades of orange and blue and grey and green. We had gone looking for pieces of pre-hispanic pottery. It was here Guadalupe collected the colored earth to make her dyes. Its like a 1000 year recycling plan; The colored earth beneath our feet was the powdered remains of colored pots and figures from the distant past and would now be re-incarnated into new dyes to tint Lupe's yarns. The town nearby is called "Tlalpalpan" which means place of colored earth in Nahuatl.
St Brown

In Oaxaca
Last saturday The Cinema Domingo Orchestra accompanied a projection of mexican 'erotic films' from the 1920's. Its a special selection curated from the Filmoteca Nacional. There was nothing 'erotic' about these films they were pure porn in living black and white. Amazing how little has changed in porn films in 80 odd years. Of course the lugar was packed all ages and all sexes. When I thought about it later I realized it was quite daring on the part of the Centro Fotografico to put this on for general public in a city known for its catholic conservatism. Anybody strolling in off the street would have been greeted with jose getting a mamada on the big screen. I had suggested to the director of the center that we set up a dark room because people were going to 'tener ganas' after seeing this material. The center has its own dark room which would have served nicely. nobody took me seriously. At dinner after the event the director of the center told us the custodian had found 2 chavos getting it on in the bathroom. So I was right after all. And I finally put my recordings of frogs and thunder and ice cream trucks and fireworks to good use. (not to mention the waldorf!)

Meanwhile in Atzompa...
Mayor: Im going to build you a bridge. How about that!!
Pueblo: But Señor Mayor we have no river in Atzompa.
Mayor: Well hey I'll take of that too!!

St Brown

I work out of fear of lonliness.
when you work you are less lonely
then when you dont work.
--Rainier Werner Fassbinder
When the acrobats equilibrium is threatened, we make a wish
and this wish is strangely double, and null
We hope he will fall
and we hope he wont
and this wish is necessary
we are incapable of not having it.
--Jean Luc Godard

Friday, August 19, 2005

vvvvhome | current issue | archives | search | about us | contact | links

ON JAMES WHALE and THe BrIdE of FRANkENsTEIN


No institution — society, religion, marriage, or heterosexuality — was safe from the penetrating queer eye of James Whale. Make way for the homosexual creator!

BY GARY MORRIS

James Whale's initial refusal to do a sequel to his immensely popular Frankenstein (1931) eventually faltered when he discovered a strategy for creating a commercially viable product that would also — in subtext — subvert existing mores. The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), in the guise of a comic horror tale, assaults the notion of the sanctity of standard sex roles and "family values."

While hindsight is rightly suspect as a critical tool, particularly when it's a cover for revisionist views that expect an earlier era to reflect contemporary values, Whale's campy masterpiece almost demands to be treated as one of the historical high-water marks of sexual subversion. The Bride can be read from a modern perspective as a homosexual joke on the heterosexual communities Whale — a gay man — served and benefited from: his "masters" at Universal and the mass audience to whom he could present unconventional images and ideas and see them unknowingly endorsed and approved in the most direct way possible: from the moviegoer's pocketbook. This is not to suggest a diabolical, schematic plan on Whale's part — it's more that a genre effort like The Bride, full of fantasy and monster-outsiders, was clearly the perfect medium for indulging the most radical aspects of a gay sensibility, a fact the sophisticated Whale — judging from the mountain of evidence within the film — was aware of on some level.

The film teems with homosexual presences behind and before the camera and within the narrative itself. In addition to the director's well-known orientation, there are major characters played by gay or bisexual men: Ernest Thesiger, one of the most outrageous queens of '30s movie queendom, and the rumored bisexual Colin Clive. Even the bride's (Elsa Lanchester) true-life husband, Charles Laughton, was a noted gay masochist, a fact that fits her nicely into the film's schema of the camp assault. Secondary characters like the maid Minnie (Una O'Connor) come off like shrieking drag queens, while the only successful, loving (if woefully brief) relationship in the film is that between two unmistakable outsiders, both men — the monster and an old blind hermit (O. P. Heggie) — who set up house like the blissful married couple they might, in a more just society, be permitted to be.

Some critics have complained about the opening sequence, where Mary Shelley sits in a plush parlor sewing and chatting with her husband Percy Shelley and their friend, Lord Byron. This scene, allegedly irrelevant to the narrative, actually goes far in establishing Whale's tone of homosexual revenge on his patrons. The two men are heavily made up and look, talk, and act with an outlandish, caricatured femininity that has no discernible purpose except as camp comedy. The elegance of the interior, the high-pitched humor of the scene, and the relaxed, amused, adult relationship of the three present a model of what might be read as Whale's ideal family: two gay men and a sympathetic but sexually undemanding female; three intelligent, creative beings on an equal footing. It's significant that this scene which radiates not only archness but also wholeness, pleasure, and satisfaction, cuts — through Mary's storytelling — to one of heterosexual horror, a violent tableau of a mob wreaking havoc on a "monster" it can't comprehend.

The film posits Henry Frankenstein's experiments with resurrecting the dead as above all a threat to the "normal" functioning of the chief straight (at least theoretically) relationship here, that of Henry and fiancee Elizabeth. She states it plainly: "The figure of death seems to be reaching for you, as if it would take you away from me." The seductiveness of "death" threatens to part them. But "death" here can also be read as a heterosexist vision of homosexuality, a kind of barrenness, the inability — or worse, indifference — to producing children. Henry's crime, and his lure, is therefore: homosexuality.

When Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) arrives, he becomes part of a trio that echoes the opening scene of Mary, Percy, and Byron. Again, Whale shows us two "queens" — the mincing Pretorius and the emotionally overwrought Henry, whose attempts to marry and enter into conjugal hetero bliss with his wife are endlessly thwarted by the film. Thesiger plays the part as the grand dame he was in real life; in the film he is the diabolical ticket for Henry's re-entry into the demi-monde of fantastic homosexual creativity that finds its ultimate visualization in the stunning "creation of the Bride" sequence that ends the film.

Of course, society will not tolerate such stuff and Pretorius tells us, in typical smirking, superior homosexual style, that he was "booted out" of the university "for knowing too much." His dislike of conventional love is oft-repeated; when he shows Henry the miniature people he's created, he points to a king and queen and says, "Even royal amours are such a nuisance." His stance of amused disgust at not only straight relationships but the religious institutions that buttress them is revealed when, somewhat shockingly for a 1930s movie, he mocks the bible and says things like, "Sometimes I wonder if we'd all be better off being devils, and no nonsense about angels."


The "gods and monsters" of The Bride
relax and enjoy tea and art in this rare
shot from the film.

The monster (Boris Karloff) can be seen as the terrifying "child" of the unholy "marriage" of Pretorius and Henry — Henry the father in giving it life, Pretorius a mother-figure who nurtures it. The monster is society's paranoid vision of the logical outcome of a homosexual tryst. It is a child in many ways: inchoate, demanding affection and attention, unreasonable and violent when crossed. Like a child, too, his sexuality is unsettled, bisexual, his attentions captured equally by the male hermit and his possible female bride. Henry exhibits an overall revulsion toward his "child," alternately excited and repulsed by what he has produced; Pretorius is the monster's more involved, but manipulative, even abusive parent figure — the embodiment of society's fears of the vast damage the homosexual, nefariously moving into the role of domestic caretaker, teacher of social values and sex-role attributes, is capable of doing.

Whale's own Pretorius-like distaste for the heterosexual model of domestic bliss is evident in the sequence of the monster and the blind man. Their scenes together are extraordinarily powerful, resonant on several levels: as satires of the nuclear family, full of the little familiarities and comic-sympathetic interchanges supposed to be typical of families, and one of their chief pleasures; and as a bitter view of society's ultimate responsibility for seeing intelligent, sensitive people — read: homosexuals — as cripples and monsters. Whale moves brilliantly between pathos and humor in these encounters, with their ultimate effect being to cast the monster into a highly sympathetic light.

Unlike the censorious society around him, the blind man — the monster's first mate — is not judgmental. He assumes that Frankenstein is a criminal, or someone in trouble, but says, "You needn't tell me about it if you don't want to." He is in fact open and loving: "I have prayed many times for God to send me a friend ... I shall look after you, and you will comfort me." He even refers to the two of them as children, hence innocent: "Out of the silence of the night ... you've brought two of your lonely children together." No mistake — this is a marriage, and a viable one. The monster wants to learn, the hermit wants to teach, and both are driven by a need for acceptance and love. But Whale reminds us quickly that society does not approve. The monster — the outsider — is driven from his scene of domestic pleasure by two gun-toting rubes who happen upon this startling alliance and quickly, instinctively, proceed to destroy it.

The rest of the film continues to find Henry and Elizabeth separated. First it was Henry's supposed death that stood in the way. Then it was his obsession with death and forced friendship with Pretorius. Then it was Elizabeth's kidnapping by the monster. Finally, the film allows the relationship to proceed, but ironically only after offering another strikingly bizarre tableau of marriage: the bride in her tattered, bandagey version of a wedding dress, given away by substitute father Pretorius, to the tune of Franz Waxman's mock-wedding bells. The final shot of Henry and Elizabeth united outside the ruined castle cannot eradicate the fantastic vision of the bride's hissing hatred of her "mate," the monster.

Rejected by his betrothed, the monster in a sense grows up, becomes able to make moral decisions. He decides to dispatch himself along with Pretorius and the castle-laboratory. This allows Whale to return the world to "normal" as convention and his bosses at Universal would have dictated; it lets Henry and Elizabeth emerge finally as a successful — mated — couple. Still, Henry seemed much more at home as the hysterical scientist tampering homosexually with "God's plan" of creation.

The film's major set-piece is the creation of the Bride, shot (by John Mescall) in a spectacular studio lightning storm with dazzling forced perspectives, tilted angles, and wide-angle close-ups of the crazed participants. The mixture of comically portentous music and wild visuals create a symphony of creation — but of what? This is the final flowering of the Pretorius-Henry "forced marriage." They work together to "give birth" to a woman, two homosexuals replacing the heterosexual model of male and female parenting and replacing God — annihilating those noxious enemies of homosexuality, society and religion, in one blow. Whale's magical rendering of this scene, one of the greatest in Hollywood history, validates the power not only of Pretorius-Henry's homosexual creativity, but also of his own tremendous abilities as a gay artist. His orchestration of the creative elements of filmmaking — acting, music, camera, cutting — mirrors the orchestration of the elements of life by his stand-ins, Thesiger and Clive. The intense dynamism of this scene serves as Whale's reminder to the audience — his Hollywood bosses, peers, and everyone watching — of the majesty and power of the homosexual creator.

July 1997 | Issue 19
Originally appeared in issue 11 (1993) of our discontinued print edition
Copyright © 1993, 1997 by Gary Morris

Friday, August 05, 2005

"Champions of the double moral, the right plans to impose on the (mexican or_______________write in your home country) society a system based on exclusion in the stead of inclusion,on the philosophy of soap operas in the stead of scientific knowledge, on intolerance in the stead of respect for the different, racism instead of human values, charity in the stead of justice, on the closet in the stead of manifest freedom, on hypocrisy in the stead of honesty...All told its the Middle Ages again , with internet and High-Definition TV."
---from Read a Video
subcomandante marcos

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Storm in Amsterdam

Minutes before we began to play B expressed misgivings . He said he was nervous about singing this particular song. We were about to rehearse a piece from the Tuxedomoon repertoire with a group of Five teenage Moroccan musicians. We chose this piece as a possible second song to do because originally we had recorded it in the studio with two Moroccan musicians. And with its arabic feel it seemed a likely choice as a piece to rehearse together with the Moroccans for the next days’ performance. At a certain point in the song B breaks into a solo chant. On the record one of the Moroccans had sung this part. The chant is sung like a call to prayer a kind of incantation. Sometimes B will sing Allah Hu Akbar in the course of his solo. He had been greatly inspired by Sufi singers and in fact had himself lived in a Sufi commune in San Francisco. For him as a Sufi it was not extraordinary or of questionable taste to sing the Muslim call to prayer. As soon as it came to that part in the song there in our rehearsal space in the basement of a place called Illuseum in Amsterdam the first syllable of A l l a h came out and it dawned on me what B had been nervous about. I hadn’t even thought about him singing this above all at this place and time. Within seconds the leader of the group stood up and began shouting. The other boys didn’t seem the least bit upset but this one had to be followed and they all stormed up the stairs. B sitting on his amp, me behind the organ, P in other room with his bass, and Luc standing with his trumpet. The music stops. We stare as one of the youngsters the red haired wild one stops at foot of stairs and presumably trying to reassure us says they are taking a cig break. It was a half ironic gesture on his part, the more so since none of them smoked.
We remained frozen there for a minute. Later the boys were grouped across the street. Alex Ivanov the noble cameraman documenting our participation in the festival decides to go speak to them. It’s clear something must be done and the rest of us are immobile. B offers to go with him and would later recount what transpired. He had explained to the leader that he was a sufi and when he sings Allah Hu Akbar it is in earnest and with respect. The youth replies that you cannot sing this in secular music. (B would later refute this to us citing the example of Nasfrat Ali Khan) He recommends that B sing ‘Habibi Habibi’ instead if he wants to sing something in arab. Two different points of view in this mini religious congress on With de Witstraat in west Amsterdam. After their discussion the boys come back downstairs and we play music together. The leader takes over the piano and they play us some of their tunes. Quite interesting, a kind of Moroccan salsa. We rehearsed once more a TM song (different one) we were to do together the next night at the Melkweg concert ,bid adieu and that was the end of another long day in the Nieuw Atlantis Festival. A happy end to a very tense situation. It was indeed a noble move on their part when they returned to rehearsal after the outbreak. Everyone was relieved. They behaved in a mature way. But the day of the concert they didn’t show up. We heard later that they had called asking about money of which there had been no mention, and were referred to speak directly to us. They never did. Was this just a ruse to not show up? The real reason being religious based? Perhaps. Or simply a beginning bands bravado in action? Chalk it up as another arabesque in all our lives. What is true is that the explosive rehearsal took place on 8 July. Later we would learn that on 7 July a subway train and a bus were bombed by Al Quaida in London leaving some fifty dead.
Amsterdam
July 2005

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

St BrownJust saw The Weather Underground a documentary film by Sam Green and Bill Siegel. I bought the DVD in US to see it and to play it with sp subtitles in Cinema Domingo in Mexico.
The immediate parallel I found myself referring to was the Cockettes Documentary. Stylistically they resemble one another--newsreel or amateur footage from the time, newspaper clippings,contemporary interviews with the survivors...In addition the time period covered was the same..late 60s to mid late seventies. I was thrilled and inspired by both groups. I worked in one of them (the Angels of Light...daughter of Cockettes) I think somehow in our own ways we believed that what we were doing was just as profound in a political social and cultural way as what the Weather Underground was about. For one thing the Angels were an anarchist vegetarian tri-sexual gender fuck commune or cadre . Visitors passing through regularly. At one point there were many many communes in San Francisco buying food from a food coop. there was a commune that ran a community off set printing press , another that baked bread, music communes, we did free theater, and simply groups of free spirits living together whose day to day lives were works of living art and hence political. Had the Weather Undergrnd had the same appeal as the Angels of Light I dont think I would have hesitated.
In the documentary the murder of Black Panther Fred Hampton is covered. The film points out that Hampton was a powerful and dynamic speaker and rapidly galvanizing the black community. It was decided to take him out he was 21 when he apparently died in his sleep in his home at 4am riddled with police bullets. I saw Hampton speak at rallies in Chicago. This was the time of the Chicago 7 Conspiracy trials and there were rallies for that and against the war all the time in Chicago. I saw the young Jesse Jackson speak on various occasions. He was hypnotic and charismatic and sexy. A fotog friend of mine gave me 8x10 b&w prints of him once. Iwas 16 years old and living in the very white suburbs. Still I could feel the force resonating in the inner city. Iwanted to learn more..I really wanted to be a part of this energy this struggle for liberation for lack of better words. I took super 8 films of the rallies. I first saw the controversial new picasso in Chicago at a rally in front of the Federal Building.
In 1971 I drove with carload of student friends from Macomb Illinois to Washington DC to get arrested in the MayDay anti war -Shut Down D.C- demonstration organized by SDS president(?) Rene Davis. I made a film that I would show back at W.I.U. on 3 screens with stereo sound...
A few years later I was doing sci-fi drag musicals with a free theatre group in san Francisco.
Now looking back it seems a logical step.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

St Brown
INTHE BEGINNING

Inthe beginning God created heaven and earth, and the lights in the sky and the thundering seas and the beasts of the earth and air and water. And he created a man named Adam and set him in a fair garden and said to him: "Adam you are the crown of my creation . Your duty to me is to be happy but you must work for your happiness discovering that it is in work that happiness lies. Your work will be pleasant work, that of tending this garden wherein all manner of pleasant fruits and roots have been planted by my Divine Hand for your delectation and sustenance. And you shall overlook the lives of the beasts that none may pray wantonly on another. And this must be so death may not come to the garden, for it is a garden wherein immortality must flourish like the rose." And Adam said " I do not know these words death and immortality; what do they mean?" And God replied: "Immortality means that each day will be followed by another day and there will be no end to it. But death means that you would not be able to say: 'This I will do tomorrow', for the existence of death means the doubting of the existence of tomorrow. Do you understand?" Adam in his innocence said that he did not but God said it was no matter.
One evening when God was walking in the cool of the garden Adam spoke boldly and said "Lord I am lonely." the Lord exclaimed at that and said "Lonely? How can you be lonely that have my love, that were created to ease my own loneliness for in you I see the liniments of myself and in your voice hear something of my own voice." But Adam said . "Lord I would that you created one like to myself endowed like myself with speech one that could tend the garden with me and at day's end eat and drink and rest in companionship, two of one kind the one like to the other. And God said ,"It is right that I made you Adam because you conceive of things whereof I do not conceive. It shall be as you ask. Eat, drink, retire to rest and when you wake with the sun you shall find lying beside you one like to yourself who shall be as a companion to you and his name shall be Yedid whose meaning is friend."
And it was as God said for while Adam slept God took of the dust of the earth and breathed life into it and when Adam awoke there lay by him one like unto himself and in joy Adam was compelled to grasp his companion in love and kiss him with the kiss of his mouth. God saw this and wondered, for Adam had learned that fullness of heart for another that He the Lord God felt for Adam.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?