Review of Netflix Series Messiah or Al Masih

Al Masih or Messiah Review by Freyashawk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In any era when slogans and 'buzzwords' dominate the entire world because of social media and the substitution of quick postings on the internet for actual newspapers and journals for the majority of individuals, Netflix has produced a series entitled 'Messiah'.  The word itself instantly creates a response in any one who sees it.  'Messiah' or 'Al Masih (in Arabic) is one of the most powerful symbols, both in the West and in the East, for followers or any of the three primary 'monotheist' religions as well as atheists and agnostics.  It resonates either negatively or positively with almost every one.

In the West, the title of 'The Messiah', even among the non-religious often evokes the wonderful Oratorio by Handel.  'The Second Coming' evokes the poem by Yeats.  The title and theme of this series are redolent of legends and age-old human hopes and beliefs that the world will end and that a saviour will descend either literally or figuratively from the clouds to save us from the consequences of thousands of years of our own irresponsible, or actively evil actions,

The absolute genius here is that the title grabs the public's attention, bu the actual series is profound, thought-provoking, and questions EVERY attitude.  It is very even-handed in terms of asking important philosophical, religious, and political questions.  It is courageous in that it dares, like Paul Findley, 'to speak out'.

More of that later, however.  I do not wish to define a series that goes far beyond political realities by that alone.  It does far more than ask political questions.  It is about religion, philosophy, ethics, and about the place of religion in science and science in religion.  It is about the power of magic and appearances, of disguises and of perception.  It is about a man who opens eyes, who asks questions, who leads various people out of a corner but does not give a destination.  It is about freeing people from their prejudices, forcing them to ask questions, but without giving any answers in many cases.

Like Jesus, when some one says he is the Messiah, his answer is:  'It is you who say so.'  The fictional character known as 'Al Masih'  really does not define himself in terms of any specific religion or organisation, nor does he really claim any special powers for himself.  He asserts: 'I only do what God wants.'

I always believed that Islam and Christianity shared the same foundation, so I instantly comprehended the ability of Al Masih to ignore the artificial lines drawn between the two great monotheist traditions.

He declares:

'Nothing shall befall us, except what God has ordained.'  (Surah at Tawba, ayat 51)

'There is no deity but God'. (The last sentence of the Shahadah: La ilaha ilallah.  لا إله إلا الله  )

He clearly states as well that:  'If you look for Truth, you may find comfort.  If you look for comfort, you will never find Truth.'

The first point that must be made apparently, in view of the reviews this series has had so far, is that this is FICTION.  Fundamentalist from every side are denouncing the series, calling Al Masih a 'false Messiah'.  In fact, no one walks the Earth as far as I know at this point in time who claims to be the Messiah, or in any case, has demonstrated any evidence that he IS the Messiah.

The title, as well as the passionate desire on the part of human beings in search of and in need of 'rescue' or 'salvation', is what drives the very concept of a Messiah. It is no accident that cults have arisen throughout the ages claiming that the end of the World was nigh, even giving specific dates, locations and times for the 'Second Coming' of the Messiah.  One of these was a woman named Ellen G. White who had a small but devoted following, including the founder of Kellogg's foods, John Harvey Kellogg.  They were members of a cult based on literal interpretations of the Bible.  Counting down using some sort of numerical system, the Seventh Day Adventists announced that Jesue would appear on a hill in Battle Creek, Michigan, in the United States, on 24 March 1843.  When Christ failed to attend the meeting, another date was 'revealed': 21 March 1844.  The followers again awaited the appearance of the Messiah in vain, and a third date was appointed as: 21 October 1844.  One would have thought that THREE false predictions in terms of the Second Coming would have demolished the cult there and then, but after a brief wobble, it continued to grow and still has its fierce, very fundamentalist members.

The Seventh Day Adventists (who bear that name because of their insistence that Sunday is not the Day of Worship decreed by God in the Old Testament, but rather must be the same as the Jewish Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.  Politically, of course, like any good literalist, they believe that the Hebrews were the 'Chosen People' of Yahweh (God), and that translates now to blind support of a Jewish State in Palestine.  For better or worse, this is an issue that has global effects.  The media in general, especially in the West is reluctant to confront it, but 'Messiah' does, and has received both condemnation and approval for its courage in asking hard questions.

On the issue of literalism or literal interpretation of Sacred Texts, I feel that this is the primary reason people become atheists.  There is a world of difference between Faith, which is based simply on a belief and things that cannot be proven, and utter nonsense.  The legends, myths and tales in Sacred Texts are NOT nonsense unless one attempts to accept them literally.   Jesus himself delivered parables on a regular basis, and this, if nothing else, should alert fundamentalist Christians to the danger of accepting any tale in the Old Testament as some kind of literal truth or event.

The series is a little uneven, but it is brilliant nonetheless.  I do not understand why the exploration of our faith should threaten us, whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, neo-paganism or any other religion or cult.   The U.S. government agent becomes extremely excited when she discovers that the man known as Al Masih originally came from Iran, and that he studied the art of illusion as a child, that indeed, he could be considered a 'master of illusion'.  What does that actually mean?  Does the fact that he can create magical illusions necessarily signify that he is a fraud?  Does it somehow disqualify his message or his quest?

I watched a Russian series about Rasputin recently as well.  It is interesting to watch from the perspective of comparison of the admittedly sketchy facts about the life of one of the most influential characters prior to the Revolution with the character of Al Masih who has not even been identified conclusively.

Rasputin was from Siberia.  He always evidently was interested in religion but at one point in his early adult life, he actually left his family (including wife and children) to wander throughout the land, exploring the religious experience.  In other words, he looked for God.  He has been accused through the last century of every possible crime, and yet, no crime ever was proven.  He became an effective healer, and he managed to change lives.  Whether he used traditional herbal remedies and medical advice, or whether indeed he was a 'faith healer' never will be known.

Do you believe in miracles or not?  That is one of the questions embedded in the history or depiction of the life of any semi-divine or divine personage, any saint, any one who has done anything that is not fully explained by our own scientific knowledge as it currently exists.  The various arguments often remind me of Mark Twain's depiction of a man who went back in time to the Court of King Arthur, and was able to use his knowledge of a solar eclipse to convince the people in that era that he possessed special magical powers.

In the case of 'Messiah' or 'Al Masih', there are viewers who dislike what they feel is the insertion of the supernatural, and yet, I dispute this as a 'fact' here.  We do not know the basis of the character's actions and whether or not he actually 'controls' the weather like Gods throughout the ages, or whether he simply has foreknowledge of these events with the aid of a very rich individual or organisation.  In the latter case, his appearance at the location where a tornado occurs might be based on weather reports using sophisticated technology.  It is no secret that the technology exists to actually cause rain by a process known as 'seeding clouds'.  Furthermore, television stations and other media have been giving 10 day forecasts for years now.  Al Masih evidently arrives in the States on a private jet.  This suggests that he has some significant funding.  To me, the questions that he asks are more indicative of an individual who is NOT affiliated with any specific government than one who is.  He asks questions that put every nation on the spot.  It is far more likely that he is funded by a rich individual who wants to 'make a difference' in the world.

He declares:  'Everybody worships.  The only choice is what you worship.  Some people kneel to money.  Others to power, to intellect.'

One of the messages I see in the series is that the need to place total faith in any other individual or any religion ultimately is doomed unless you are prepared to take responsibility for yourself and your own destiny.  You must 'own' your own decisions and actions.  Another truth: most people prefer to be led than to lead.  Telling any one else that you know the way to salvation is a daunting prospect for any one with a grain of social or personal sense of responsibility.

There was a time when I worked as a Counsellor both for individuals and for couples.  Most of the time, the people who came to me for advice or help wanted definitive ANSWERS.  They wanted me to tell them what to do.  I had to refuse.  I had to let them know that I only could show them the paths they could take in any given situation but that they themselves had to decide their own goals and how to reach them.  This disappointed and even angered some people.  They wanted security and somehow to be given the permission NOT to have to take responsibility for themselves and in some cases, their families.

For me, one of the essential hints as to the character's relationship to the question of personal responsibility was when he took the rifle from the father of the little boy with the injured dog and shot the dog himself.  Here he does perform an action that places responsibility squarely on his own shoulders and yet it is not the action that is expected of him.  The boy and his father expect that the 'Messiah' will perform a healing, akin to the Biblical and Qur'anic miracles performed by Jesus/Isa of restoring vision to the blind or mobility to the paralysed.  Instead, Al Masih ends the suffering of the poor animal by shooting him.  It is the only 'natural' solution in the circumstances.

This brings me to the 'walking upon water' and other magical 'tricks' or 'illusions' he performs.  They serve a purpose as well by directing the public to the essential questions he asks.  Although we have to wait for the second season, I believe that they are NOT miracles either.  They are the acts of a performer who is demanding attention.  The focus then is not on him but on the important even vital social and political issues he raises.

For any student of history, legend, myth, religion, literature or film, this series is rich in symbolism that alludes to events that are recognisable instantly and therefore resonate in our souls.

Among others:  Moses/Musa leading his people through the desert from 'slavery' to 'freedom', T.E. Lawrence (probably recognised more from the film 'Lawrence of Arabia' by David Lean than his own book, 'Revolt in the Desert') leading his army of volunteers through the desert to Aqaba for a very significant surprise attack from the land.

The battle of Aqaba was NOT sponsored by the British, but instead was a plan Lawrence conceived and he himself took the initiative to act on behalf of Faisal with Sherif Nasir, crossing 600 miles of desert.  It was a turning point in the war for Arab Nationalists.  Ultimately, however, the Arab tribes simply changed one Occupation for another, as few of the Arab nations won any sort of self-determination due to the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Much of my own life has been spent in pursuit of spiritual truth, in the study of comparative religion, and in attempting to reach God, or at least move towards the Divine rather than going in the opposite direction.  Al Masih therefore appealed to me personally from the start.

Some of the dialogue is brilliant, and some is less than superior.  The visual images are striking.  When al Masih 'walks on water' on the Pool of Reflection in Washington D.C., it is not only dramatic but very beautiful.  The crash landing in a field of red poppies likewise delivers some unforgettable images.  Symbolism is strong here as well.  The Poppy traditionally is the flower of the Underworld, of Persephone/Proserpine.  The 'resurrection' of the Israeli Mossad agent is appropriate in such a setting, and yet was he actually dead???

Another reason I found the series compelling was the courage shown by its exploration of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from both sides.

It dares to question the fundamental principles on which an apartheid, essentially racist State not only were built, but continues to be supported.  Like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky, it reveals elements of the truth in a world situation where the Truth is silenced constantly.  In fact, the first review of this series that popped up on Google was written by some non-entity who does not even write a proper review but simply shouts out 'anti-Semitic' and thereby obtains attention from the public, as well as unjustly branding a series that is anything but anti-Semitic.

Let us remember, as so many fail to do, that the Arabs and Jews share a common 'semitic' heritage.  In fact, more Arabs are truly semitic in terms of their ethnic background than many Jews, as Jews are divided between the Ashkenazi or European branch, and the Sephardic or so-called 'Arab' branch.  Why this fact is considered unseemly or politically unspeakable by some should make one question how any facts should be censored.  If indeed the State of Israel is based on justice and equality, why should its proponents or supporters silence that?  Why should not the basis on which it not only exists but continues be open for discussion like any political State or system?

As the series continued to be discovered by viewers, however, more reviews have emerged with different perspectives.

Some Christian fundamentalists declaimed against Netflix, asserting that the series preached a 'false' Messiah.  Some Muslims similarly have lashed out against the series, claiming that the character known as 'Al Masih' is NOT a Messiah, but 'al Masih ad Dajjal', a false Messiah in Islamic tradition.  None of these appear to acknowledge the fact that the series is FICTION.  It is an exercise in provocative thought, not an attempt to create a new cult.

Moreover, the character is identified speculatively as an Iranian named Payam Golshiri.  I do not think the choice of National identity is random.  It places the character outside of the main players in the Israeli Occupation and continuing plight of the Palestinian refugees.  At the same time, it is no accident that this series explores a quest by a (possible) Iranian to change perceptions by the citizens of the U.S., one of the greatest superpowers and one that threatens the heart of Iran itself at this point in history.

Al Masih quotes both the Bible and the Holy Qur'an.  He speaks AGAINST violence and against war.  He declares quite plainly: 'Weapons are not the solution' and calls upon the President of the United States to withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign nations.

It is not only the very volatile international situation that he addresses.  He allowed himself to be placed in detention as an alien, and submits to an American Court for judgement.  This brings the entire topic of U.S. immigration laws and programmes into the series.  He has committed no crimes, and yet he could be held indefinitely in a detention centre without legal representation and help.  What he does actually is refuse the attorney's plan to make his detention a media event and a cause célèbre.  There are in fact many situations he refuses to exploit.

I would like to include part of a review written by Ali Reza for 'Al Hakim', a London publication.  With reference to an hadith by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) that deals with the last days of this world, similar to the Book of Revelation in the Bible, he quotes Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who declared:  'My dear people!  These are but metaphors.  Those who are blessed by God with insight will realise their true significance, not only with ease, but with some relish.  Literal interpretation of such subtle and profound metaphors is like distorting beauty into monstrosity.'

Ali Reza writes:  'Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad showed that in reality, the Messiah was to stop the Jihad of the sword and begin the Jihad of the pen.... he not only addressed Abrahamic religions, but every other religion, including Hinduism and Buddhism.'

This reinforces my own belief that the Divine presence is available to ALL.  What Al Masih does, however, is to attempt to create unity, to assert that we take responsibility ourselves for our own world.

Ultimately, the real point of this series is his question:

'Is your world good?  Is it evil?  Ask yourself: Who is guilty?  Who is innocent?  What are you?  Now look at your neighbour.  Look at your neighbour.  Be brave enough to see yourself.  Your own reflection cast back at you.  Each... reflected in each.  Look where you stand, in a shining city on a hill, in the land of the free and the brave, standing for liberty and justice.  How true do those words ring for you?  When did you bring liberty?  Where did you cause justice?'

Here is the review of the film by Ali Reza:

Messiah Review by Ali Reza for Al Hakam

Al Masih by Ali Reza

The Cancer Industry

I had a follow-up with the Oncology (Chemotherapy and other cancer medications) people today, after having my follow-up with my actual surgeon last week.  What a difference in outlook and treatment recommendations.

My surgeon did a physical exam of my right breast and pronounced it free of tumours.  She said this was a slow-growing cancer that would appear first in the surviving breast if anywhere, and therefore frequent exams would make all the difference.  She said if it were to appear, it usually would do so within the first two years.

Today, the doctor was not even there.  I saw a Nurse Practitioner, who instantly told me about the 'baby cancer' bits floating throughout my body that put me at risk because I refused chemotherapy and was not taking any of the cancer-inhibiting tablets.  She threatened and attempted to bully me into taking the newest experimental 'anti-cancer' drug.

When I asked for a repeat prescription for Lorazepam, a mild anti-anxiety and muscle relaxant, she went off the deep end instantly with a diatribe about its addictive powers and how her mother ended up psychotic in a mental institution because of this particular medication.

Does she not understand that it was not the drug but some inherent insanity in her own family that caused her mother to migrate to a psych ward?  Did she not understand cause and effect?  Furthermore, how could she fail to comprehend that applying a personal situation to a medical diagnosis and personal prejudice was simply UNPROFESSIONAL?

Worse than that, however, was the way she was peddling a new anti-cancer drug as though terror alone should be sufficient to persuade me to enroll in a programme that was essentially experimental in nature with yet another anti-cancer medication that had far more dangerous potential side effects (including CANCER!!!, STROKE!!!, DEATH!!!) than the small quantity of Lorazepam I had taken in the past and had proven helpful.

It never ceases to amaze me how certain buzzwords can rob otherwise sedate, presumably intelligent individuals of ALL dignity and capacity for logic.  Does she not realise this is more of an indictment of her own family genes than of me?  To me, addiction is only as powerful as the desire to be addicted.  When the necessity for the 'addictive' item no longer exists, one ceases to use it.  Sometimes there are brief, uncomfortable moments, but living in constant pain is far worse than any withdrawal from a drug.  Has no one ever made THAT comparison?

Postscript:  I complained about her to my General Practitioner, and received not long after this, a survey from the network that employed the Oncology Nurse Practitioner and was able not only to give her a rating of zero out of ten, but to explain why I was doing so.   I truly believe that this woman either needs to transfer to an area that does not require patient-practitioner interactions, or to learn how to speak to cancer patients.  To tell me essentially that I was DOOMED if I did not surrender to an experimental scheme of treatment was unethical in my view, as well as inaccurate.  I do not wish to ruin this woman's professional career.  I simply wish to make her employer aware of the need to educate her a little in ethics as well as essentially how to behave in a professional manner, and not drive an individual who has lived in absolute terror and gone through hell to leap off a cliff in despair.

The Faces of the Goddess

For the first time in a long time, I have resumed my quest for knowledge of the ancient mysteries in a very real way.  When I think of the Great Goddess, I think first of meteorite, and I do believe that the sacred stone of the Kaaba is meteorite.

There are a number of sacred stones that were regarded by the ancients as somehow more than ordinary minerals, and in most cases, dedicated to the Gods or Goddess.  The traditional necklace of power for pagan priestesses (which is one of the most ancient symbols or attributes of the Goddess, and one that had to be surrendered to Death at the Gate by Inanna, is made from alternating Jet and Amber.  Both are transformed substances that originally existing on this Earth in a different form.  Amber is the fossilised resin of Trees and Jet is the fossilised form of Coal.

Meteorites are stones that the ancients experienced as attacks from the Gods or as dangerous gifts from the Gods, huge, heavy stones hurled at the Earth from the heavens.  Throughout the world, one can find meteorite metal mixed into warriors' blades and symbols of kingship or priesthood.

Yet, the ancient Egyptians used Basalt.  It is a much softer medium, of course, kind to the carver, far easier to move or transport once a statue of a God or Goddess has been fashioned, than an enormous hunk of skystone.

The origin of many Gods is perceived or known by tradition as a Cave.  This is true of the Great Mother, the Goddess Cybele, and this is true of Jesus Christ, born in a 'stable' that actually probably originally was a cave behind an Inn in Bethlehem.  The meaning of the town's name is 'House of Meat' and it is very interesting to read the description of Inanna's descent in the context of the significance of the birthplace of the Christ.

For it was in the Underworld, to which access for the Sumerians always was given through a sort of underground house with steps, that Inanna first surrendered all her attributes and symbols of power and then was hung upon a meathook to be tormented by flies.

Rocks, underground temples, caves, goats, wine, evergreens, sacrifices of manhood or womanhood... dismemberment of gods... all these must be explored.

Today I found a quote about goats:  This is from a book entitled 'The Riddle of the Earth' and focuses too much on the religion of the Hebrews, but even so:

Aaron made images of Golden Calves at Mount Sinai, a Volcano, for the same reason, and Mt. Seir, as the passages show, Goat Mountain, was anotgher volcano.  'Little Goats' is still a term employed by the Spaniards to indicate meteors, and comets or meteors, 'gods that came newly up' were the centre of a cult which as dolmens and cromlechs, pillar stones and round temples of upright stone yield evidence, prevailed throughout Europe, particularly in the British Isles, Brittamy and Normandy and are traced as far afield as America, India, and Japan.'

Hell with it... just add photographs of the text for now:

What interests me here most is the term 'little goats' for use with meteorites.

The Perils of Honesty

Honesty, where my family is concerned, simply elicits anger now, but in truth, this past year, overshadowed in every way by the ugliness and grief caused by Cancer, has made me feel I exist in a sort of limbo at the moment, between the doors of Life and Death.

I do not feel 'lucky' or 'fotunate'.  Perhaps I shall, if I can be given another scan that shows my entire body is clear of Cancer, instead of being told by a student doctor that my 'entire body was filled with baby cancer cells'.

My Mother died of Stage 4 Lymphoma in January.  I was diagnosed with Stage 3 Breast Cancer in September, a year ago.   Being a Virgo and discovring my cancer a day after my birthday, I could measure this as a year of hell from September to Septembe.  Or I can try to restore a less mad calendar, beginning afresh perhaps after Samhain, symbolically celebrating a festival of the slaughter of all of the animals that cannot survive the cold of Winter as a sort of sacrifice to the Gods selfishly for my own survival... or wait for the Winter Solstice and the Celebration of the birth of the new King... or indeed, wait for the Western New Year on 1 January.  What difference will it make in reality?  None whatsoever... it is the Fear that keeps me from seeing a 'new beginning', especially as I have lost part of myself physically to this monstrous disease, as well as a part of my heart, when I lost my Mother.

A year after the diagnosis, a few days ago, I went for a test to see if Cancer had invaded the right side.  I was given a clean bill of health in that very specific area.  I wonder if I am the only person who did not feel like leaping for joy.  In fact, I was suffocated by a sense of despair almost afterwards.  It was a promise of nothing.  It really meant very little in fact.... or at least that is my understanding, now that I have been told that the left side of the body is entirely separate from the right.  The left was invaded by Cancer to the point that it had gone into the lymphatic system, which means that it may have invaded the rest of my body (never mind left and right now.... the lymph system knows no divisions in that respect, rather more similar to blood veins than to flesh. )

Every one appeared to be angry with me, however, when I did not demonstrate any joy over this reprieve for the right breast.  The reconstructive surgeon somehow managed to persuade me to allow him to cut into the right breast, even though it was perfectly sound, to perform what he described as a little 'nip and tuck' to match it to the rather horrible artificial breast that had taken the place of the original on the left side.  One is hit by something like Cancer and intelligence and logic often retreat... the 'nip and tuck' he described so blithely consisted of actual removal of the nipple, to replant it higher, so that there are stitches all round it, as rather as a large incision at the bottom that looks depressingly like the one on the left from which they removed all of my breast.  So I feel like Dr. Frankenstein's monster and for what?  It cannot be for vanity's sake in all truth.

Every time I watch any film or series on the telly now, it appears that they must insert at least one character who is going through chemotherapy, whether male or female.  To me, that is blatant advertising by one of the biggest businesses of all.  Cancer is a big business.  When I refused chemotherapy on the valid grounds that I was allergic to the steroids that had to prepare one for the actual poisons they use, I was told I had no desire to live!  And yet, chemotherapy treatments do CAUSE cancer and certainly the 'anti-cancer' drugs they continue to invent can cause cancer as well.

Is it any wonder I do not believe in a future when the very medical profession peddle their treatments so aggressively that I am told I haven't a chance unless I surrender?  My mother had the same cancer when she was 42.  Same breast as well as same infection of the lymph nodes.  She had a slightly different experience with the radiation, as well as the amount of flesh that was carved from her body.  They now admit women in those days were given far too much radiation, but what does that really mean?  After my own radiotherapy, I first was told that it would remain active for a fortnight after treatment ended...  When the blistering, redness, pain and so on reappeared after two months, I was told not to worry.  Effects could last or reoccur up to two years after treatment.  Now, I am told that the radiation remains active in the body FOREVER and side effects can continue until the day you die.

So why should I believe in any of the myths, legends and fairytales that are fed to us as cancer patients.  The medical profession is trying everything.  For some, the motive is noble.  For others, it is commercial.  Whatever the motive, the chances of success are like throwing a dart into a board with a blindfold over the eyes.

Chance of survival, in my own opinion, after a year of this, is random, based more on the patient herself or himself than any treatment undergone.  I have heard far too many tales now of sisters who went through the precise same treatments.  One survived and the other died.  When you know this, how can you possibly submit to drugs that actually can CAUSE new cancers to develop?

Anyway, this post is not dedicated to cancer treatments but to the psychological effects of the disease on me.  I once was a fairly brave individual who trusted in destiny, trusted in fate, trusted in God.  Now I live with the cold breath of FEAR upon me from the moment I awaken until the moment I fall asleep.  I wonder if I can turn it round, if I can begin to believe in some future again.

The receptionist at the Cancer Centre went through breast Cancer and ALL the treatments twice.   I asked her if the fear has lessened now... the answer sadly was in the negative.

I can see how the old way of waging war, charging into battles could be LESS terrifying than this endless waiting for Death to creep into one organ or another.  Beheading is the act of an instant.   Being run through with a sword... very quick.  What always terrified me more was the threat of mutilation and now I have experienced precisely that at the hands of surgeons.  Little by little, being whittled away, but worse than that is the crack in the wall of protection that allows other diseases to make their way into the body.  I am not much in love with this sort of existence.  Like Keats, it would be easy to be at least 'half in love with easeful Death'.  I will not surrender.  I will continue to fight to live, but I cannot say that I really believe in any of it now as far as THIS life is concerned.  As for any afterlife, that is just a gamble really.  'Some call on Jehovah, some cry out to Allah.  Some wait for the boats that still row to Valhalla... but too soon, it's over and done.  And the Man for all Seasons is lost behind the Sun.'

Victorian Biblical Damnation and its effects

Welcome to my bizarre world.  In a situation that ought to be simple, where two individuals linked by blood ought to mourn together and work together to alleviate a common grief and a number of serious property issues that will end in utter ruin for every one if there is no cooperation, these are the responses I have been receiving lately.

Some one told me once that it is some one who can conceive of a specific crime who often will accuse another of that crime or act.  I have found this to be the case more than once since then.  When I worked almost as a volunteer at a local shop, I was shown by the son of my employer once how to falsify receipts and sales...  it never would have occurred to me, nor did I have any interest in doing anything reprehensible or dishonest.  At the same time, the three children were busy collecting and hiding valuables from one another and ordering my silence...  It is not I who has 'borne false witness'.  It is not I who covet the whole.  I actually want to be fair and try to keep my emotions and my attitude free from anger.

Reading these texts, one could be amused by the Victorian tone, the biblical language... if it were not for what they represent in terms of the mind of the writer.  If serious, it portrays a descent into a sort of insanity in my view.  As Cary Grant said in 'Some Like it Hot':  'nobody talks like that!'  'False witnesses who have risen up' conjures an image of zombies or the final trumpet blast on the Day of Judgement rather than ordinary people who have been subjected to considerable verbal abuse and cruelty by the individual who created these texts.  Meanwhile, from a distance of thousands of miles, other problems presented to me personally recently include a dead, decomposing possum and a broken door.  I am not a magician.

Saying 'No' to some one does not constitute hatred, but that is how it translates in the mind of this individual.  Three years older, I loved and still love this person dearly but never was open to much manipulation or intimidation by her.  That never will change.  I had hoped that years of therapy would have given her a less embittered and negative attitude towards life and others, but evidently the therapists simply reinforce her own vision of herself as the unique 'heir to the throne', some one who is potential prey to 'destruction' by every other member of the 'royal' family.    A friend of my mother's remarked that AA has a description of some of their members as 'terminally unique'.  That really does hit the nail on the head.  We were told always that we were special, that we had a very high destiny in our future. 

We are not that special, alas.  And we are growing older now.  The so-called promises of youth becomes unfulfilled desires and dreams.  Instead of raving about false witnesses and covetousness, people need to grow up after 60 decades, and recognise the limitations of reality.

Fear (Explicit)

Each night, now, Fear comes creeping to my bed,
Demands I fellate its hideous head,
At first, beaten and cowed, I took it in,
Consumed the poison, accepted the sin.

But now I resist, memorise its face,
Record each rape, each vile incursion into my space,
Whatever masque it wears, I know it now:
Whether to end my pain or drive me mad, I refuse to bow.

Soul-Searching and Honesty

'I have not been myself for the past six months'.  That was what came to my mind instantly as a response when I apologised to a good friend for a poor decision I made in a situation in an online game where I had control and opted to be strict rather than forgiving.  Yes, it is a game, and I was struggling to make sense and to organise a new, rather complex option in that game and I felt that we needed some fairly strict rules to provide a fair atmosphere for every member in our Community, but...

First of all, my friend was urging compassion and forgiveness.  She saw the human behind the player who had broken the rules.  I was struggling to deal with two horrendous situations:  the medical diagnosis of Stage 3 Breast Cancer for myself and Stage 4 Lymphoma for my mother, but is that not MORE of a reason to try to be as forgiving and compassionate as possible of others???  Instead, I felt pressured, pushed against a wall, felt that the player was taking advantage and simply not respecting the rules we had created...  in retrospect, I regret the decision I made to remove her from the group.  Whether or not she was taking advantage a little, whether or not she respected our rules... she still was a human being who had gone through her own real life difficulties and upsets recently and it would have been 'more like me' or the me I like to think I can be, to have been kind and let it all slide.

So this made me consider the entire concept of 'I have not been myself.'  It has no validity whatsoever.  A person who is in a good situation in life may find it easier to be the 'best' self he/she can be, but a person who is in the very worst situation in life still is the same person and how one deals with that situation is another aspect of the same SELF.  So I cannot excuse anything by claiming that 'I have not been myself' the past six months even though I do not FEEL like me, do not respond in the ordinary ways to life and have undergone profound sea changes in my soul because of the cancer.  I am sorry that I could not be better than I have been.  I have not been cruel or mean deliberately to any one, but perhaps I could have been more patient and forgiving in certain situations.

It grows very tiresome when people keep banging on about keeping a 'positive attitude' where cancer is concerned and even worse when one is told that a positive attitude is essential to survival.  I have NOT had a positive attitude.  This cancer should have been caught two years ago.  It did show on my mammogram but the tumour was ignored.... so that, for a start, rather put me in a less than positive frame of mind.   Then there are the lies and half-lies and propaganda of the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies who are making money hand over fist because of cancer.  If one blindly accepts all of the pronouncements and treatment options, perhaps one could have a positive attitude, because that is one of them and people who look upon physicians, 'experts' and indeed any authority figure almost as a god probably would be able to have a positive attitude because there would be blind faith, a sort of general safety net for sorrow, pain and despair.

Unfortunately, many of my own physical disabilities could have been avoided or at least made less severe if I had received GOOD medical attention long ago.  I therefore am not disposed to believe in any diagnosis or pronouncement from any one in the medical profession.  I do have doctors whom I respect and whose advice I usually will follow, but I do my own research and I have avoided some potentially deadly results because of it.  Doctors do not read the patient's charts comprehensively and often will prescribe a medication to which the patient is allergic.  That is fact.  A new drug is released and promoted... how many doctors really study the details before they prescribe it?  In all fairness, allergies to medications are not that common, but even so, potential side effects, and especially serious long-term negative effects should be considered and that is not done.

Cancer treatment is a case in point.  There is a protocol that is followed and it is rather rigid.  Treatments depend on number and size of tumours, whether or not lymph nodes tested positive... and I think there are a number of factors that cause doctors to follow these protocols rigidly rather than questioning them too much.

Cancer is a killer and the world is desperate to hope there can be a cure.  The world is desperate for FAITH in the current treatments.

So you have:

Chemotherapy
Radiation
Drug treatments (tablets for a five year or ten year stretch)

If you have been diagnosed with Stage 3 Breast Cancer, you will be told you need all three of these.
Never mind that chemotherapy basically consists of pumping the patient's body full of poisons, after prepping that body with steroids.  Never mind that chemotherapy actually can CAUSE cancer.  Different cancer or in different places, yes, but deadly cancer nonetheless.    This beyond the nausea, loss of hair, depression, and whatever else is associated with chemotherapy.

I could not accept chemotherapy because my body does not tolerate steroids, so that was the end of that.  Before the doctor explained that chemotherapy actually required steroid treatments, though, my surgeon was infuriated that I even questioned the details of chemotherapy and its effectiveness.

What I have seen, more than once, sadly, is that you can have two patients with the same breast cancer, same stage, and both undergo the very same treatments.  Three years later, one has survived and the other has died.  Even in the case of two sisters, where biological foundation was similar: one died and one survived.  So what does this do to that very loud statement:  CHEMOTHERAPY WILL DESTROY ANY CANCER THAT IS IN YOUR BODY EVEN WHEN IT IS TOO SMALL TO DETECT.  It is a false statement!

Radiation now is a different matter.  It causes its own problems, but I do see some validity in the idea that the place where the cancer lived must be cleansed of any remaining particles, and especially if the cancer had grown to a point where it was very close to other organs.  They call it 'safe margins' and whether or not radiotherapy is prescribed has to do with the size of those margins.  I had almost no safe margins so I agreed to the radiotherapy.

Six weeks of it, five days every week.  Every one at the Cancer Centre was very kind, gentle, sympathetic, but I must complain about one aspect of the propaganda...  Radiotherapy can and does cause nausea for many patients and yet, when they asked me about nausea and I told them, quite honestly, that it was so bad that I barely could eat anything, the response inevitably was:  'That is surprising.  Radiation does not cause nausea ordinarily!'

Why say that when it is very much documented that, although not every patient will experience nausea, many do?  It always made me feel somehow inferior or that I was being doubted or that they felt I was some sort of hypochondriac.  Really upsetting to be honest, especially when it was the same response each week when they asked the question.

I changed my diet.  I did everything I could to minimise the nausea, but still would be awakened in the middle of the night with it on occasion...

In any event, that treatment is done but radiation can continue to be active for three weeks after treatment stops, and I definitely can attest t . My skin now will become irritated in a new spot that never was afffected for a day or two, so somehow it still is active in there.  Almost three weeks now though.  I pray that all of the symptoms, including the residual nausea I continue to experience, will stop soon,

Finally, the anti-cancer drugs that are given in tablet form.  There are four that are given for breast cancer.  Mainly because I wanted to demonstrate willingness after the chemotherapy rejection, I tried to work out a choice with the chemotherapy doctor in charge of all aspects of chemical treatment.  It turned out that two of the drugs were steroids and the third actually caused blood clots.  As I experienced a blood clot a couple of years ago, he said it would be very dangerous to take that drug now.  So that left one drug... and it is an extremely dangerous medication that can cause uterine cancer, inter alia.

I had an allergic reaction to it.  My tongue became so swollen I thought I would choke.  My throat felt as though it were on fire.  I had terrible headaches.  I took benedryl to try to counteract the allergic reactions, and cut the tablet in half... I struggled with this for about a month, and still nothing became easier.  Finally, the chemo doctor told me to stop taking it.  I feel that was a GOOD decision.  When the body rejects something that violently, it cannot be positive, and I do not have any desire to trade breast cancer for uterine cancer.

This was not supposed to be about cancer treatment, however.  I was writing about the idea that I have not been myself for six months....

Well, obviously, physically, I have been a different person, with the nausea, the other side effects both of the cancer and the treatments.  I am extremely emotional now, weeping on a daily basis at the drop of a hat.  This is partly the cancer, but I know it is partly real sorrow over the loss of my mother.

In fact, I began to suffer, thinking of my mother's ordeal, even before I discovered the breast cancer.  From July of last year, I was tormented by her situation.  The doctors diagnosed many different problems, and some of them were not communicated accurately to me.  I lay awake night after night, literally worrying myself sick about her.  Then the actual diagnosis of her lymphoma at the same time as my cancer diagnosis, and I began a new path of torment.  In a way, I was affected more by her situation than my own.  She flirted with the idea of chemotherapy, mainly because all of her friends and family believed it actually could cure her.  They do say that it is the only possible solution for lymphoma and it can rid the body completely of the cancer.  True?  Who knows?  All I know is that gradually, I came to a realisation that she had absolutely no intention ever of undergoing chemotherapy.  She kept making new appointments, then changing them.  She kept every one in a state of hope, I guess, but she knew she was not going to do it.

So who is this woman who cries every day?  I hate crying.  Always have hated it.  I become congested and it gives me a headache when I cry, and yet, I cry and cry.  I cry alone in my room... something will remind me of my mother or I will think about my own future, fraught with insecurity and hard decisions and the tears will come again.  And again.

I understand that I cannot have my life back.   What is gone is gone, and yet, there are things that matter to me from my past and I do not want to lose them.  As some one who is quite disabled physically, my world is for the most part reduced to whatever surrounds me.  Little material possessions that are attached to people, memories or stories mean a lot to me.  Those are the things that keep me sane in the dark moments.

The world is divided between collectors and what now are called 'minimalists'.  My mother was a collector.  I am a collector.  Where other people want to clear a space, I want to fill it.  I want to see memories and beauty and imagination at work.  I need that to breathe.

What is extremely difficult is living in the house of some one who is a minimalist.  What is difficult is not having a place of my own, always living on the edge of uncertainty, under threat of eviction.  I know things could be far worse, but at my age, what I would like most is some place that would be mine completely, where no one could challenge my use of the space or put me down for my love of little things, of pretty things, of unusual things.

What I have collected through the years never was based on monetary value.  In fact, I consciously devalued some of the items in order to make them less vulnerable to possible sale by any one who looked at things, not for their beauty or interest but strictly for their financial value.  So there are no dolls that are NRFB (Never Removed from Box) or at least very few, because I wanted to enjoy them and because I did not want them to be seen as 'collectibles'.

Now that my mother is dead, there are people who look at her home and see a lot of clutter or 'junk' but if I have any control over the situation at all, I am not going to allow some Ebay vulture to go through everything and put it up for sale.  Those items have significance, not only to her but to myself and possibly my sister.  We need to go through them to separate what is invested with familial or personal meaning from those items that simply may or may not be able to help pay off her debts.

Again, though, I have gone off the track I mapped for myself.

I HAVE NOT BEEN MYSELF OF LATE.  PLEASE FORGIVE ME.

How easy to make that claim and in many ways, one has not been the SAME self one was prior to all of this.  I cannot allow myself to justify less than stellar behaviour with this, however.  If I have been impatient or less than fully invested in life, please forgive me, but cancer and loss are not an excuse.  They are a REASON but there are no justifications on this earth,.

I do not believe that now that I have pondered this, and searched my soul.  The people who go about shouting and heaping abuse upon others are responsible for their actions and the hurt they cause.  That is what I believe.  Moreover, I know it is a deliberate course of action that makes them feel powerful, better, whatever... but that is no excuse either.  You do not hurt other people to make yourself feel better.  That simply is not on.

There is some truth to the idea that, if you loved some one, you should have treated them properly while they were alive.   When some one goes about talking about the deceased as though she were the centre of your existence, the most amazing person in the world when in fact that person ABUSED the deceased verbally, emotionally, and possibly even physically by withholding pain medication and medical aid to me is one of those situations where the feather of Maat will weigh down the scales to convict.

I really tried to be good to my mother before she died.  I tried very hard not to let my own cancer make me less than patient with her.  She was opinionated, critical, and infuriating, but I loved her dearly, and I now see that her refusal to look at reality squarely was born of her own ordeals in her youth.  She had breast cancer when she was 42, and she survived four more decades after that.  She created her own mythology that allowed her to have a good life.  'I was born happy', she would declare.  I think she simply stuffed everything else down as far as it could go into the hidden depths of her soul, and focused on a surface that was bright and lively.  She did this primarily by being a very social individual.  She could not stand to be alone.  She could not survive any intense soul-searching, really.    She never apologised for any wrongdoing, for any of her defects as a parent, for any cruel or unkind words to any one... but I think she was incapable of doing so.  She had created a coat of armour to protect herself and it had to be solid.  If she admitted any mistakes, the floodgates would open and she may have been destroyed.

I have not been myself...  my mother never said that, incidentally.  She very much was herself to the end.

I WILL NOT BECOME THE THING THAT I HATE.

That is another aspect of 'being oneself'.  All my life, I have experienced temper tantrums from others.  My mother was very fond of them.  She said a good temper tantrum was better than a cup of coffee to awaken her properly in the morning.  Early every morning as a child, I was awakened myself by the clash of pots and pans, and loud cursing by my mother.  What glorious freedom of expression that represented...

There was only one person who was allowed to have a temper tantrum, however.  The only time I tried it, I was punished severely, whipped with the little red belt.  (In those days, corporal punishment was not prohibited.)   So I learned quickly it was not an option for me.

There was one point in my life, however, when I was involved in a relationship with some one who was so gentle and passive that I could have screamed and shouted at him without ever fearing any physical or even verbal retaliation.

To my shame, I did throw a glorious, fully-fledged tantrum that obviously had been building inside me for decades.  It was a wonderful feeling of freedom, but followed instantly by intense shame.  I realised I did not wish to become the thing I hated most.  I would not become an abuser, a bully, a person who felt entitled to behave badly for whatever reason.   I would not be any of that ever.

Once in awhile, when my cats are particularly naughty, I shout a little at them.  Fortunately, they are not intimidated in the least.  They do not cringe.  Sadly, the bad behaviour does not cease either, but even those small outbursts make me feel bad.  They do not really deserve that much drama simply because one of them tried to eat a piece of plastic and spewed it up onto the floor.

Recently, I have seen a new trend in British television particularly, which is to go to a train or underground station and scream as a train goes by.  How I would love that!!!  That is a valid way of expressing all of that emotion that cannot be dumped on innocent bystanders.  Sadly, not a train in sight...