By the acts that established the Church of England, the Mass was outlawed; it was made illegal to hold any service, except those contained in the Book of Common Prayer. In 1571, Parliament made it treason to bring into the country any papal bull –literally or metaphorically (wouldn’t you imagine?)– or to call the queen a heretic. If you wanted to go abroad for ordination, forget it. And if you thought you could venture overseas and bring back tokens, crosses, pictures, beads or other devotional objects from the Bishop of Rome-you had another thought comin’. Gone also (officially) –by 1581– was any possibility of reconciling oneself or anyone else to the Catholic Church with the aim of dissolving allegiance to the monarchy. By 1585 it was treason to be a Catholic priest, and by law it was illegal –a capital offense– to harbor priests. If you were with them you were against the monarchy-so giving aid or comfort to the criminals was a Big Time Boo Boo (as in No No). Failing to attend Protestant services would put you in the proverbial Poorhouse with astronomical fines.

Around the turn of the century what was considered the greatest form of “comfort” –blowjobs given to priests– was so deeply frowned upon that collective punishment for an offender’s family was not uncommon. Yes, fallatio ruled. Just like today, as it is with politicians in most quarters. But as before –forced or voluntary– it is done. It is done under the Umbrella of all sorts of names filled with rage, righteousness, and radical rant. With great intelligence and wit and oh-so serious browsweat in many cases. But we are all undone vis-a-vis these means which simply culminate in self-congratulatory cum shots/stain and social elevation in some form. Everyone’s just getting off-on both –all– sides of the fence. Knowingly or in ignorance. And spreading the sexual-like disease.

Everyone except Derrick Jensen, with two hand(s on)jobs of others at best, it seems.

Richard Oxman, rmoxman@yahoo.com, is a big fan of both volumes of Derrick Jensen’s Endgame. But not of the “civilized” aspects of Elizabethan England. Is blowjob legitimately one word or two? Isn’t it always a two-way proposition? Is doing formal, traditional battle with one’s political foes/nemeses simply getting everyone’s rocks off in different ways these days? Is it not that the intercourse allowed is mutually satisfying, but intended to omit both Love and The Wild? No changing of the beds any more than there can be a changing of the guards. Whatever the case, it seems as if screaming about fallatio of/with the ferocious (or anal sex with the assholes!) falls on deaf ears these years. Bootless, hootless cries. Political discourse as rape which is mutually agreed upon remains the standard. And all that’s Left is getting off the Bad Guys is the thought here. Is you open to confidential contact? Or is you too correct?