Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

G'day. Solomon, Jack Robertson and I disagreed on the cross media issue in 2003. His piece for Webdiary, published on June 24, 2003, is Rupert Shmupert - open the floodgates. Webdiary's 2003 cross media debate archive is here. In November last year I published the final drafts of the 3 chapters about the 2003 cross media debate in my book Not Happy, John! Defending our democracy at Waiting for the great leap forward, Closing the door on your right to know and Unholy alliances. My intro:

G'day. For me, the most pressing issue for our democracy right now is the seeming inevitability of the abolition of our crossmedia laws. I'm still thinking about how to approach dissent to this in the new circumstances. It is important to dissent, because even though the odds of success are minimal, it would be tragic for Australia if we lost a foundation stone to our democracy - an independent, diversely owned media - without a struggle. Besides, when the odds are impossible, creativity is the key, and that's got to be interesting. All ideas welcome. In the meantime, I've decided to publish the three chapters in my book on the matter, so interested readers can get a solid background on the history and political dynamics of the issue. Here is the final draft of the first.

Further to the missing piece on Opus Dei, today’s Crikey has a story on the original. The author was Kate Mannix. Crikey’s link to the SMH article also leads to a blank page. The Miranda Divine link, to which the piece is essentially a response, works just fine.

John Augustus the SMH rarely pulls stories once they are up, and any that are pulled are usually done for technical reasons. Which makes me wonder why this one has gone. Kate, former editor of the progressive Catholic e zine Online Catholics did manage to upset George Pell over the gluten-free wafers but I think George Pell's curses have a use-by date.

The Crikey version is substantially what was in the original story which I saw before they pulled it. I read it with great interest in view of the publicity about the extreme Right in the Liberal Party and the Webdiary thread on their influence on the Brogden mess.

If the story has been censored then I think we need an explanation as to why since there is nothing defamatory in Kate Mannix's original piece.

No doubt the topic of Kate's article is a good one to continue discussing here.

Am just pondering on that last point of J.H. Calvinist re substituting. It says, I think, that you have to define knowledge and knowledges fairly closely.

For example, "real" media diversity in current affairs would be the sum of, say, Margo Kingston, Pilger, The Guardian, Monbiot and some of the broadsheet columnists.

It would be pointless to add ACA, "TediaDT" or "60 Adverts" to this list because they, despite the (rude) claims of their proprietors, actually exists to DIS-assemble information or even exploit it in the way Barthes suggests, by subtly altering grammatic structure to impact on context, to operate as propaganda unbeknownst to the audience or readership.

Take the myth, the "War of Terror". It is likely a furphy, but has been repeated so often that it is taken as fact, and a basis for all opinion following, although its basis is in fact contentious.

Therefore, when we speak of "diversity" we actually seek to discern a difference in quality BETWEEN the GENUINE outlets. E.g. we could compare, say, Monbiot and Pilger, as to depth and relative accuracy; within a spectrum that is described as "accurate", relative to "News of the World" suggesting that one concentrates on poleconomy more while another other is more specialised as to ideology. That is, hypothetically-speaking; you would have to be an expert to understand the subtle difference between the Pilger approach and Monbiots', and I haven't the time at the moment.

This a different sort of division to, say, Kingston and 7.30 Report. One collates, the other commentates. In turn we scrutinise Lateline against 7.30 Report, for efficiency in collation which entails a different set of criteria again, with one commentating directly after the news and the other dealing with refining earlier broad news and initial commentary.

Yet again different criteria exist in categorising tabloid media. For instance, which outlet out of the Australians' Op-ed page and the Telegraph, is more innefective at obfuscating information. And then there would be comparing the Sun Herald with Alan Jones and TDT across different media.

Peter Woodforde dealt with that aspect above, while Jozef Imrich was comparing western media against the conditions of a developing world set of audiences, institutions and problems, the like of which could be so specific as to be beyond any hope of our understanding.

And as someone said to me once on a Media course, against ALL of the above, you always must then take into account the obscured factor of the "complicity" of the audience.

Thanks for picking that up Dee. You bet it makes one wonder why it has gone. There are three criticising letters in today’ SMH, including one from Malcolm Turnbull MP, for an article that’s been ‘pulled’. What does that say?

My recollection is that the original was much stronger in content than the Crikey extract, with a machine gun blast of the social outcomes that she believes Opus Dei would like to see.

So the issues raised now are first who was so offended so as to want the piece pulled, if that’s what happened, and secondly how do you get a piece pulled, if that’s what happened.

If Opus Dei is up for reasoned debate, then here’s as good a place as any to start - The ABC’s Religion Report 7 September 2005 with Stephen Crittenden talking with David Clarke, MLC, Liberal Member of the NSW Upper House.

Here are some extracts:

"Stephen Crittenden: Are you not at the centre of a highly co-ordinated campaign to bring conservatives, religious conservatives, in fact, into the New South Wales Liberal party, and in fact to drive people of more moderate, progressive views, out of office, through preselections and so on?"

"David Clarke: I’m not seeking to drive anybody out through preselections, but I do believe it is the responsibility of Christians to involve themselves in public affairs, and the political process, and that’s something that I encourage. I see Australia as a Christian nation in the Western tradition, and I believe we have nothing to be ashamed of. I believe that Christian values are at the foundation of our nation and I encourage Christians of all denominations to join the political party of their choice."

"Stephen Crittenden: I’ve been reading your maiden speech, which is on your website, and it’s very interesting. You express great concern about our democratic institutions and our democratic way of life, and you say that shouldn’t be surrendered to international organisations and foreign bodies. What about international organisations and foreign bodies like the Vatican and Opus Dei?"

"David Clarke: Well look, I’m talking about the handing over of the legal power to govern Australians. That’s a very different thing from people giving their spiritual allegiance to a denomination where the headquarters may be overseas. So I don’t see any conflict there at all; giving allegiance to a denomination is a voluntary thing, whereas handing over power to a political institution overseas is a very different kettle of fish altogether."

"Stephen Crittenden: Are you a member of Opus Dei?"

"David Clarke: I’m a Co-operator of Opus Dei, which means that I assist the work of Opus Dei through prayer, through time, through effort and through finances."

"Stephen Crittenden: I don’t think I’ve ever heard an Australian politician make an admission like the one you’ve just made."

"Stephen Crittenden: There’s a view that Opus Dei in the past decade or so has been largely unsuccessful in its attempts to infiltrate the Catholic right wing of the Labor party in New South Wales, that it’s been largely unsuccessful in its attempts to infiltrate the Commonwealth Public Service in Canberra, and that now it’s turning its attention, through you, to the Liberal party."

"David Clarke: Well I think that’s a very fanciful idea. I don’t believe that as far as I can see, that Opus Dei is attempting to infiltrate anything. Opus Dei, as I understand it, sees its mission to promote the doctrine of the faith, to do personal apostolate for greater holiness of the laity, and to try and help people achieve sanctification through their daily work."

You have raised the issue of Brogden’s demise. Wasn’t there something unusual about Barry O’Farrells sudden withdrawal from the leadership race? Could these whispers from the SMH have anything to do with it?

"...the affable, straight-shooting MP was faced with a scandalous, deeply damaging allegation: that pornography had been found in his office about 12 years ago."

"At the time, O'Farrell was state director of the Liberal Party and the material had apparently been turned in to Bill Heffernan, then the party's state president."

"Heffernan, now a senator and vocal morals campaigner, yesterday confirmed 'an incident involving a publication', saying it had occurred during a time of internal staff problems."

Paul Walter, thanks for the expansion/commentary on my point. And, despite the fact that readers might all hold individual viewpoints as to the sources of real diversity in our media...I suspect very few would contradict your essential argument here.

What I would like to reiterate - and expand upon - though, is the economic side to the argument I was making, which no-one seems very interested about... Market theory, following Adam Smith, is built upon fully-substitutable goods... commoditities being the prime exemplar. And, even here, that theory - at base - ASSUMES the absence of market power... ie a plethora of directly-competing small traders. So, any situation deviating from this, Smith assumed, would defeat the value of competition - whether that was inherent power differentials (as between employers/employees or between small and big business).

Smith was quite blunt on these issues - and its a damn pity the left never read him today - which is one reason why I find these (entirely orthodox) economic arguments the best to use against right-wing apologists for corporate power. Sadly, Solomon - in depressing himself over public apathy - has failed to engage with the basic point that NO business can be trusted with the kind of market power Murdoch and Packer have... even leaving aside the critical social/informational role of the mass media...

Time to start using economic orthodoxy against these swine, I reckon. Besides... it'll be (very) funny to watch how the apologists tie themselves in knots trying to pretend that this is some Marxist thing!

all the best

Jack H Smit , it occurred to me this morning that this piece isn't actually optimistic at all. My conclusion, though not explored all that much, is that over-diversity of media means that people can seek out forms of media that reinforce their own prejudices and inclinations. I don't think it is easy, or even likely, that most people- even educated people- are likely to change their habits unless they are forced to.

More profound than media consumption, is general human behaviour and the kinds of stimulus people see out; In my first piece, actually written about a year later than this one, I was trying to get something across about the way in which we limit our worlds, by the repeated paths that we walk down. Any advertising student knows that when people go shopping, they rarely notice most of the products on the shelves and will usually only go for what they usually buy. Most advertisements are merely reminders, for repeat customers, more than anything else.

I'm just thinking now the same principle applies to the media but also to all human behaviour. Think what sort of a line it would draw, if you had a trail following your every move.

Ah, Janet. I have grown an affection for The Australian , after the initial shock at realising it was propaganda. With the exception of Miranda Devine, who I'm also growing in affection for, it has more personality than the SMH and often has quality articles that I'm eager to read. Its major problem for me is not in its bias, which I can accept; it is in its overall laziness. It takes on the easy prey.

Your own article makes it clear that you intend to tell people what they want to hear and that you ascertain that by drawing inferences from election results. Anyone can do that. It's not journalism and it's not good opinion-writing.

I've never believed that The Australian influences public opinion, only that it influences amateur politicians, through the confines of their existence and disconnect from the electorate. I think it could be crucial in factional wars, to win over the suckers that have not been properly schooled in the ways of the media.

The only thing I take exception to in your piece is that your paper reflects what people think; It's an inference, based upon the same evidence as the lefties you deride and is therefore equal in its value and in its sloppiness. I'm not convinced anymore, that you actually believe what you write, which is why it is always remains unconvincing. It comes very close, sometimes, and then falters. Being neither right, nor left, nor anything else, I find it patronising.

Ordinary folk may not think about academic lefties at all, however they are not thinking about you either. Your audience are the media/politicians. The elite. If you can accept that and stop trying to talk down to people, you'll do fine. What I'm sensing here is confusion between the ambitions and purpose of the paper and the needs of the audience. The intended audience has been contrived and the real audience insulted.

John Henry Weber-Tawney, you are a blighter. Will be off the air for the rest of the night following up stuff on the internet discussing aspects of your comments. Headache here I come!

UPDATE

Crikey again with an apologia from Opus Dei head honcho Richard Vella.

Is this an aggrieved response from a misrepresented organisation or is it damage control?

So far official silence from the SMH

Here is the SMH reply to my e mail. Note that the article is in the 13th September print edition.

Recently you contacted ReaderLink. Your interest in the newspaper is appreciated.
The following information outlines the Herald's response:
The opinion piece was removed from the website for legal reasons. It is available in the September 13 print edition of the Herald.
Your ongoing feedback and opinions will help us publish a better newspaper.
Please quote ----- if you wish to contact ReaderLink again regarding this matter.

Regards,

ReaderLink

I recall there is another religious cult that is also notorious for suing its opponents.

John , I don't understand economics, nor trust it. I've read various analyses of the media and always leant towards the psych/sociology texts as the most enlightening. One text that I've referenced, The Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication is one of the best books I've ever read. I'm talking about much more than public apathy, I'm talking about the way people think and process information. It will happen regardless of apathy; someone could be active and thoughtful, yet vulnerable to influence through their own habits or limited experience.

I'll leave market analysis to those that understand it. The major cut that I want to make in the Webdiary woodcarving is to convince people to put away Orwell and start looking at the media as a science that has been studied extensively and professionally.

I'll throw Adam Smith on to my reading list, somewhere in between Chomsky and Monbiot. Right now I'm reading Steinbeck's East of Eden , which is blissfully free of politics and theory. I love when language is used for the sake of the beauty of language.

In April 2004 the SMH reported that the college was being used as a recruiting ground for Young Liberals with the aim of stacking Eastern suburbs branches.

This description of the College appeared in the Herald the next day under the by-lines of the same reporters.

Warrane College was established in 1971. Apparently the reporters were either intrigued at such a medieval establishment existing in a 21st Century Australian public university or they had collected a fair amount of material. However warning bells about Opus Dei have been rung in progressive circles, both in politics and in the Church, since the 70s.

It (Warrane College) is a residential college affiliated to the University of NSW and owned by the not-for-profit Educational Development Association. Pastoral care for its 125 young men (women are not permitted past the ground floor) is "entrusted" to Opus Dei, a prelature of the Catholic Church

Perhaps the best summary of Opus Dei from an Australian perspective along with a penetrating analysis from Jesuit Professor David Schultenover from Marquette University came in this Religion Report on Radio National.

Professor Schultenover traces the beginnings of the retreat to conservatism in the Church to the 19th Century, where Rome was faced with political restlessness and change.

One reaction was ultramontanism. Another was the promulgation of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. And Schultenover reveals yet another couched in the model of the Mediterranean famiglia.

Of its founder Escriva he says:

...Escriva would have been far happier in the ancient regime of the pre-Enlightenment, with its wedding of Church and State, than in the post-French Revolutionary world that divorced Church and State. So he strove as far as possible to maintain his Opus Dei centres and his disciples within the thought-world of the ancient regime, and the monastic style of life that characterised that world.

And indeed the monasticism or devotional practices of Escriva himself were unusual to say the least. He was, according to this watchdog site, in the habit of flagellating himself until he bled despite the Apostle Paul's admonitions against "excessive asceticism" as practiced by the Colossians and the medieval reform of religious orders to this end undertaken by St Benedict.

SMH sub-editor Tim Wallace has a piece in today's Crikey loudly defending David Clarke, Opus Dei poster-boy.

I am not sure where Wallace stands on the political spectrum but people might like to read his offerings in Online Opinion. Nice that I had such a quick response to my e mail though, even if the response wasn't in the SMH. This way the paper can distance itself from the controversy while still attempting a defence of its unwarranted censorship.

The problem with Wallace's defence of Clarke is that rumours about Opus Dei and its connections with the extreme Right have been around for over 30 years. So were the activities of the Uglies, which he attempts to dismiss. At the time of their activities in North Shore branches of the Liberal Party there were still a large number of Holocaust survivors, immigrants from the Balkan states whose relatives had fought the Nazis and war veterans, many of whom were members of both major parties and who would have had good reason to be angered that an alleged war criminal and collaborator was up close and personal with major officials of the Liberal Party. Questions were raised in the Commonwealth Hansards at the time by Labor members and Jewish members of Labor branches raised the matter at branch meetings. It is reasonable to suspect that their counterparts in the Liberal Party did likewise.

Is Wallace outing himself somewhat in this paragraph?:

As for the bizarre act of self-punishment, well, I went on an Opus Dei retreat many years ago and the only acts of corporeal self-mortification I had to subject myself to were getting up early and trying to stay awake during the homilies of the priest, whose accent was so thick his commentary on the gospels were mostly lost on me.

Was he there as a reporter or as a member? Inquiring minds need to know.

As for the Vatican connection one could be of two minds about this. When monolithic Communism dominated the political landscape part of the way the Catholic Church saw its role was as a bulwark against it. This tended to take attention away from any dissenting voices on the "Right" because the Church needed them. It could thus for instance live with a repressive Catholic Fascist regime like that of Spain and then turn around and welcome the restoration of democracy on Franco's death. At the same time it felt duty bound to silence its "Left" in the form of interdicts against progressive theologians and teachers.

The collapse of Communism coincided with a resurgence of the "Right" and the growth of traditionalism and pietism in the form of Opus Dei and the even more conservative Society of St Pius X. Both groups are personal prelatures, the message there being it is better for the Vatican to keep them under the watchful eye of the Pope than to risk possible schisms. Opus Dei, unlike SSPPX, does not appear outwardly to have a problem with either the post-conciliar Church nor its rituals and practices, and members are encouraged to be active in their local parishes.

Interestingly enough Hans Urs von Balthasar, Pope Benedict VI's favourite theologian, described Opus Dei as "a concentration of fundamentalist power in the Church.” ABC election analyst Antony Green seems to agree somewhat when he says:

... religious observance is one of the strongest indicators of conservative voting preference. So you might think it would serve the interests of politicians, particularly conservative ones, to make a show of their faith.

But that tends not to be the way in Australia, unlike, say, the US. In Parliament House, Canberra, God moves not just mysteriously, but very discreetly.

Solomon...(re your original reply) - just exactly how 'ordinary' are "ordinary Howard-votin' citizens"...and, just why should the vast number of citizens who didn't vote for Howard & co. be forced to (actively) seek-out dissident voices should they want to hear anything bar a cheerleading squad?

Particularly if they - like most - would prefer a competent, non-intrusive government that actively seeks their best interests...rather than (purely) catering to market power & actively supressing dissent...and expect(!) that, if they hear little to the contrary, then that is basically what they are getting.

However much they may be doubtful on the details re same...

This is - exactly - the practical/ideological rationale for diverse media ownership...and the wishes of a 'disenfranchised' intelligentsia (in which I necessarily include both of us) for a less "passive" electorate have little (or nothing) to do with it. And...I, too, have little sympathy for dystopian exaggerations...but these are (frankly) irrelevant to my points.

If you'd - genuinely - like to understand exactly how the mass media affect the (vast bulk) of well-meaning citizens on common-good issues, however, I strongly recommend Diana C. Mutz's marvellous "Impersonal Influence: how perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes" (Cambridge University Press: 1998), which proves - through very careful & exhaustively documented research - that most voters rely MORE on media statements re common good issues than on their own experience...thus disabling the very mechanism on which democracy relies (if the mass media fail to accurately report on same).

And - if you're in Brisbane - I'll lend you my copy, as I'm (very) curious to hear your response.

By the way...if you'd like just one - key - example where the ABC/Fairfax/Murdoch/Packer all let us down in unison, then try the COMPLETE failure of said outlets to give any prominence to 'underemployment' rather than so-called 'unemployment' figures...the latter (in an age where part-time work is so prominent) being - of course - purely a joke as any useful measure...

And...re your reply to Jack H Smit...I certainly never thought your original column was optimistic - and I do agree with you that there is a danger that engaged voters will entirely lock-into like-thinking web forums...thus forestalling genuine debate. However, you (still) fail to acknowledge that genuine mass media diversity can aid in forestalling this outcome...at least, to some extent.

I'm curious as to exactly why you do not acknowledge this (simple) point?

And (similarly), so can Webdiary...after all, most regular commentators here are (much) more left wing than either of us - and yet, this IS a space for genuine democratic debate, is it not?

As to whether "The Australian" influences voting, well...read Mutz & weep is all I can say, because you're entirely mistaken on this point, as her (very carefully-designed) research proves... I'm also uncertain - as I should be - re your (implicitly) insulting comments re "neither right, nor left". As a radical centrist (democratic pluralist) myself, with a whole swathe of concrete policy ideas outside the mainstream - yet deeply congenial to small-business owners from experience - I certainly think you should be a little more careful in your languge re this (badly simplistic/outmoded) dichotomy...

And (finally)...I'd have to say - and, as a historian, I'm bound to say! - that Adam Smith is (provedly, eh?) already much, much more important than either Monbiot or Chomsky... The former - to my mind - is a (fairly sensible) green-left thinker, who has (recently, mind you) cast off what was unfortunate baggage from his past to propose some genuinely useful centrist/democratic approaches in his latest book. In contrast, Noam Chomsky is an (implacably) rationalist/idealist thinker...whether in linguistics or in politics...

In consquence, he has a (truly rotten) record in acknowledging his mistakes in both areas. Which means that:

1/ Despite the fact that almost all consider his arguments re some "language organ" in the brain are based upon evidence re children's acquisition of language...almost all groundbreaking work in exactly this area over the last few decades has been outside the framework he endorses.

2/ On Cambodian history...and - for said victims - waiting for the 'reliable' Noam to retract his (heartfelt) support for Pol Pot must've been a (very, VERY) protracted process.

So...please read (old) Adam first...not to mention Diana, whose findings you should (really) have already encountered in your undergraduate work...rather than the (dubious) mix of speculative relativism and hard-nosed professionalism I deeply suspect you were subject to. And (lest you mistake me) I - too - markedly mistrust economics...as I do ALL 'specialist' disciplines that presume to offer us advice as to how we should live our lives...

And, so should we all.

But - where (relatively) pure questions of self-interest are concerned - I feel that a familiarity with the basic arguments underpinning economics (ie what I was explicitly citing here) can be a useful tool...if wisely used in conjunction with a (necessary) plethora of other - simple & well-supported - theories from all other relevant disciplines...

And, by the way, my sole (academic) areas of expertise are in zoology/psychology/history - NOT economics - so, I do understand your (further) reply here. But 'trust' has nothing to do with it. I just think that the problem is somewhat more complicated than you have yet acknowledged...and that mass media ownership is much more problematic than you make out in this piece.

Looking forward to further debate.

OPUS WHA'?

Richard Vella, Opus Dei
Vella has a fantastic line in his Crikey "apologia" linked by Dee Bayliss 14/9/05.

Him was whalloping Christian Kerr's calls for OD to lift "the veil of secrecy."

Vella reckons: "Accusations of 'secrecy' are absurd. Opus Dei has its own website and information offices in every country in which it conducts activities. Opus Dei members do not go around flaunting their membership or wearing a uniform because we are ordinary Catholics who don't want to be treated any differently. [to what, or to whom, Dick?] Members are trying to have a go at seeking holiness through their work and ordinary lives.

Yep, and J Winston Howard and creepy Ruddock and Crusader Dubya probably have global hook-ups and websites too, Richard. And those bludgers aren't at all secretive, are they?

Of course, we accept that the Prime Minister must have complete privacy (preferably in the White House or Kirribilli's gent's rest room), when he pisses in the pocket of the most powerful maniac in the world.

Hope you don't think comparisons with the above unholy trinity is in any way defamatory, Dick. We know that youse, and all de bruvvers what is or was Popes LOATHE their dirty money-grubbing wars as among the vilest of mortal sins. Not to mention their wickedly uncharitable acts towards refugees, prisoners and others suffering.

No dead-set dinky di Oz Mick would hang around any of these evil turd-headed anti-Christ reptiles, Dick.

And sorry mate. Don't believe ya on the above blub to Christian Kerr about secrecy. Some of us remember the furtive QLP and Bob Santamaria and all the weird stuff with cottages swathed in vines and olive trees and donkeys.

Or were they Liberal Party mules? Let's get Giordano Bruno to go through the archive paperwork.

Get a life, Dick, a holy one if necessary, but don't try to kid us that youse is camping out near the Ustasha wing of Mr Howard's unholy shysters for the benefit of your (and everyone else's) immortal soul.

Your brand of politics, and most others just ain't like that, bro'. Shake 'em off before they drag you over the Styx, dear Richard, brother in Christ.

As ever, you will stay in my prayers.

God bless
Monsignor Peter Feisal Woodforde of Medina
an infidel, one suspects.

And fanks, Dee, Keep on truckin'.

Peter, Richard Vella has “responded to a supernatural vocation by making a commitment to God”. End of debate. Show some respect. Dubya got the same call. You could be next.

Dee Bayliss is telling us the SMH 'pulled' an investigative article on Opus Dei? I think there is a bit of this going on myself, as a consequence of politics being so badly dislocated since the last election re balance of power.

Am just recalling a good book I read last year, a nineteenth century classic by the French writer Stendhal, set in the ultra conservative France of 1830, called Red and the Black. The backdrop to the story of the rise and fall of an unfortunate young fellow and his mistresses, is the unholy alliance of the authoritarian monarchical state and its ideological enabler and dumber-downer which it protects, the reactionary French Catholic church, with its all-pervasive "congregations". These hold a virtual monopoly of ideas and subtly and not-so-subtly ensure not only adherence but acceptance from the people in a sort of 1830's "1984", way. It seeks robustly to prevent any wavering away from doctrines through deviant "self examination."

Medeival thinking concerning faith versus reason informed this approach and the rationale from ancient dogma was that the roman church, as self-proclaimed guaranteed esoteric and exclusive facilitator, as confirmed via scripture, between the individual and God; obviated any profane or secular text as inevitably less valuable, likely to corrupt and at best inferior and thus still deserving of removal. Sound vaguely familiar?

There is too much of a similarity between the events the book and those Dee Bayliss relates, for this writer to not feel vaguely uncomfortable. And that is curious, given the time span involved.

On another note, John Henry Calvinist's recall of "underemployment" has me in mind of that series of threads in Webdiary that ran earlier in the year. A few hardies like Ross Gittins and Kenneth Davidson tried to raise it as did SMH journo John Garnaut - but nothing changed.
I asked the Sydney Labor MP Tanya Plibersek about it years ago in an e-mail and the basic set of figures sent back demonstrating the extent of the difference betwen underemployment and employment was a depressing but expected surprise.

John , I've not forgotten you here, I'm still mulling over the issue. I think if any discipline can offer us advice on how to live our lives it’s zoology. Someone told me it’s all happening at the zoo...

Paul you have done well to contrast Stendhal's reactionary medievalist French Catholicism with certain trends observable today. France was still feeling the after effects of its own seminal Revolution followed by attempts by the former revolutionary Bonaparte to restore the monarchy recast in his own image. But currents of change were stirring all over Europe, with Chartism in Britain and movements for change throughout Italy and Germany, among others, prompting the institutional Church (both Catholic and to a lesser extent Protestant) to become philosophically and politically even more legalistic and backward-looking, a movement which continued well into the 19th Century and which culminated for the Catholics in the anti-modernist movement and for Protestants in the birth of modern Fundamentalism in the US.

Restlessness, economic and social change and the challenges to established institutions seem to bring on these sorts of movements, either reactionary or revolutionary. Christian reformers, many of them Evangelicals, addressed grassroots political issues such as working conditions and the plight of children in newly industrialised societies. Pope Leo XVIII issued his Bull De Rerum Novarum which contained the embryonic beginnings of Catholic social justice teaching, churches in the US were active in both the anti-slavery movement and in movements to reform labour laws and for a while it seemed as if the newly emerging movements for political freedom and organised religion would find sufficient common ground for social partnerships. It is perhaps an irony that Bush's "faith based initiatives" represent a gross distortion of these ideals though of course Bush himself would see them as an extension.

Simply put, Fascism and Communism both represented political responses to the turmoil and social change that religious anti-modernism and reaction was also addressing. Fascism and the anti-modernists looked back to a romantic vision of the past; Communism to a future idealised and centralised worker's state, but all movements were alike in that the interests of individuals and communities was subsumed by the needs of the organisation. Paradoxically in pursuit of this aim both Fascism and the Church deified the notion of family, and "family" became a microcosmic representation for the State itself, with the patriarch (leader) at the head and his obedient satellites (wife and children)

Catholicism's reaction to the 60s and into the 70s was Vatican II, strangely coinciding with that other monolithic faith's leader Mao's exhortation to the Chinese to "let a hundred flowers bloom". Both movements were overturned very soon after, Mao's by the Cultural Revolution, the Church's more subtly by a procession of increasingly conservative popes.

The marriage of conservative political ideology and religion was not so much seamless but rather more a case of two institutions marching in tandem but in separate spheres until the collapse of Communism and the growth of secularism. With no more alien monolithic enemies to fight the conservative churches turned to their own societies and the evils as they saw them of scientific materialism and political and sexual freedom.

Paul and Pope Peter the Great with this as background we can probably see how in the conservative and backward-looking West of today that politicians, in particular conservative politicians, seek both to attach themselves to a particular conservative moral world view and to advocate a need for one in the community even though that need for one does not exist. Hence the furore over "values", the attempt to promote religion disguised as pseudoscience to schools, and the resurgence of the murky ultra-right and its mythologies. There is not exactly an unbridgeable chasm between the views of the moral crusaders and the social model of Nazism and Fascism, based as they were on national myths of race and hegemony.

Hence Opus Dei and conservative politicians associated with it attempts to minimise its role and function (‘we are harmless, really’) and to make out that they are not anti-gay and anti-women despite allegations to the contrary here and here.

And the steady infiltration is not confined to Australia. The Exclusive Brethren, a tiny ultraconservative and reclusive sect which normally would not have appeared on anyone's electoral radar since like the Jehovah's Witnesses they do not vote, seem to have established a relationship with the New Zealand Nationals as the New Zealand elections loom. They and Nationals leader Don Brash have seemingly cosied up, all in the name of "values" of course (for values of course read anti-women's rights, anti-gay rights, promotion of superstition in schools and repression of indigenous rights). And they have now managed to get the attention of John Howard. Howard likes to employ others to do his dirty icky electoral work for him - in that way he can distance himself when the excrement hits the Brinsmead, as he did with Pauline Hanson.

Events in NSW have suited him and his agenda just fine and have sent a message to the moderates in his Federal party as well as cowing those in the NSW party. And after all if things do not work out he can ditch the godly and blame them.

It also gives him an opportunity as seems to be happening with Bush in the US, to cement another layer of authority between the Government and the people. Such a world view says that no more will voters deal directly with an accountable government. Sandwiched between them and the Government will be a moral authority of a conservative cast. It doesn't matter either to Howard whether the "authority" is Christian or not. He had problems with the Muslims because no cleric speaks for all of Islam; he overcame that by handpicking his designated "good guys"- no matter that he thus ignored many of the non-Arab Muslims who in any case largely vote Labor. It doesn't matter that his chosen spiritual leaders are not comfortable with either gays or women because in Howard's social model these gr

Dee Bayliss, good post! It's nice to see someone contributing with a broad historical outlook. Probably my main quibble would be with your dismissal of those looking for 'values'... as that particular social move is characteristic of economic periods like this (unemployment up/job security down/crime up/egalitarian wealth-distribution down, etc)... as ordinary people narrow their focus and - aside from clinging-on like grim death - look for some pattern of meaning they can easily believe in. The evidence is discussed here.

Personally, I find David Hackett Fischer's evidence/arguments extremely compelling, otherwise, I certainly wouldn't have bothered reproducing same at length.

And, Solomon, the same goes for my piece on Melvin Konner/ behavioural biology.

Please note that, as an anthropologist/biologist/doctor, he has no time for simplistic single-discipline explanations of human behaviour. What we need more of is (exactly) scholars of this sort... who are willing to rope in all the best theories around in their search for understanding. And, I'm sorry to disillusion you, but zoology is merely one such field. No short-cuts to understanding, I'm afraid...

Apologies, Paul... Kerri has already emailed me that the links have been fixed - but there still seems to a glitch in the works. I'm not used to HTML - a friend handles the tech end of my site gratis - and I'm still trying to work out how to post working links!

Glad you (also) liked Dee's post. You never know, we might just manage to get some civilized/informed debate going here... if the spoilers don't (belatedly) interrupt us...

Maybe it's because Solomon has such a nice line in chat going with Noeline, eh?

All the best.

Just how far have you gone with your education, Dee Bayliss?! Your response to my post was a remarkable exegesis truly a thing of beauty and joy to behold.

The history of Catholic Labor in our country now seems truly poignant doesn't given its once-proud history.

I guess the icing on the cake came with the shrewd observation concerning Howard’s' subtle heavying of the NSW lib 'moderates'. Most people of my ilk will have had their attention diverted by the unfortunate abduction of Scott Parkin. But here are a group of people I might not have made a connection with, or at least forgotten all about in the turmoil of recent days, who are also feeling isolated (public servants, too?) There must be dozens of scattered sub cultures across the country being heavied simultaneously without people in the others knowing it.

Secondly, the problem of Brash including that acute backgrounding in your blog. Watched the NZ election story on Dateline this week and the sight of him horrified me, as did the story on the election itself including the vulgar Australian interference in it. Texta colour smears but lots of white still showing.

John, there was far too much in it for me to properly absorb right now, though I scanned over it and agree with his general approach. Keating said something along the lines of valuing a good "generalist" and he is one politician that I've been drawn to, because of his weariness at excesses of information.

Solomon... so, my difficulties in losing my middle-aged centre have finally caught me out. Damn... and I was intent on presenting such a svelte profile!

Hope you found the Melvin Konner stuff interesting. Rest assured, his book is the very best current source re behavioral biology in its proper context.

Ok, John, I acknowledge that a lack of "genuine media diversity" can forestall debate. My piece disputes any lack of media diversity in the present and predicts even more in the future. Practically all Australians have access to the ABC and this, in my opinion, is all that is required to counter commercially or politically driven media in a democratic society. Beyond that I think it ought to be a question of community engagement and individual responsibility. I suppose this is a political statement, rather than an academic one, though I had no particular such motive when writing it. As such I'm less interested in meandering through the details, than I am in directing towards the practicalities for change.

I think those that are anti-Murdoch are so because of a political motivation, rather than for any predominate motive of diversity and that some may simply have contempt for the electorate, to borrow Latham's phrase. I remember Bob Brown once said that he felt that the major parties couldn't change because they were kow-towing to Murdoch, for the sake of getting elected. I felt ill listening to that and vowed never again to vote Green, since it struck me as extremely self-serving and territorial.

Dee, I don't find you or Paul as any heavier than Noelene, just different in temperament. I'm not sure Webdiary is just a place for erudition or scholarship, either, though I must say I'm relieved to see so many more professional and academic material cropping up this past week or so. John is very much a heavy, and as such, it takes me much longer to process and respond to his arguments.

I'm also schooled in advertising and as such tend to be more sympathetic to frenzied spray.

Thanks Paul, I actually started a Masters in History a long while back but all the marriage and kids stuff intervened. At the moment study-wise I am into IT.

There is a lot of subtle racism under the surface in New Zealand, and unfortunately Brash has tapped into it. It ranges from the usual pakeha/Maori stuff to demonising the tiny population of resettled asylum seekers to some social one-upmanship between Maori and Islanders.

JH Calvinist, I enjoyed your eclectic site and was happy to go off and read up on Fischer, who seems to be pretty much a mainstream historian except for his economic theory, which I am going to have to investigate further as the Latham revelations have been taking up my Webdiary time. I also owe Craig Rowley a response in the Telstra discussion.

Paul we are the heavies. I never mistake frenzied spray for erudition and scholarship.

Thanks, JH. Am ALWAYS relieved when someone else 'fesses up concerning these electronic brutes.

Remember as a lad at high school if sex talk started up? Everyone was a man of the world. No one ever dared admit that he hadn't got lucky yet. Rather you just sat there and shrivelled inwardly, hoping no one would spot it. Urrreechhh!

Or out having a coffee with friends and everyone talks postmodernism and so one oscillates between speaking and remaining silent, lest one's own bucolic ignorance is revealed: "Yeah, yeah, obviously what Derrida infers; contra Foucault deconstructing the signified blah blah blah..."

(Will it fudge or am I finally 'gone'?).

Yes, I can hack Noeline, but am glad the heavies avoid the backwaters. Not enough people here to irritate or drag into their disruptions, for them. A little thread is beneath their dignity, anyway. After all, its not the subject matter concerning a given thread that's the main game, but the attention-seeking and the thought they are disruptive; that's the adrenalin-kick, isn't it?

The peace when arriving at these is always a tangible relief.

Paul, a (belated) reply to my confession... and, by the way, the links now function, thanks to the good work of our (overworked) editors. On 'sex talk', I have nothing to add to your insightful point. However, re postmodernism, I'd like to give you a (very) straightforward primer as to its fundamental mistake... albeit this will doubtless get you (unfairly) dismissed by many, should you choose to retail same.

The veritable guts of postmodernism - read: Derrida/Lacan/Foucault - are all 'poststructuralists'; ie critics of the trend in cultural analysis started by Saussure and turned into an academic industry by Levi-Strauss and Barthes. All such are built upon the 'langue/parole' distinction...which reifies language as a self-contained 'system'.

Trouble is - as any fool could tell you - language is no such thing. It's merely a strongly context-dependent symbolic approach to communication... and said context is the highly-social/cultural life of our species... so, no self-contained 'system' to overturn.

But, poststructuralism accepts Saussure's basic argument, only to turn it on its head and argue that all the debris which falls out (when we do so) is conclusive evidence that there is no useful way to approach such concepts such as truth, meaning, value, etc... except via critique. This is also aided by the (ridiculous) standards of 'proof' which Descartes successfully foisted upon the philosophers.

See my website for further arguments/evidence, if you'd like to read same...

Me... I think that such an isolate/hermetic attempt at critique-mongering merely proves they oughtta get out more. And, that their horrible, jargon-laden prose is the key to why they've managed to build an academic industry out of this nonsense...

So, forget the inferiority complex... and treasure your 'bucolic' innocence. 'Cause this is one fashion that's already in decline - especially amongst postgrads - according to my academic sources overseas... so, wasting time 'understanding' it (except as a symptom of intellectual failure) is hardly a useful way to spend your time.

And, Solomon. If (like me) your laziness excludes well-written books that help us understand things then, keep an eye on my website... especially the book reviews. Having spent most of the last decade depressed and with my nose buried in non-fiction books - following my apostacy from humanities academia - I'm now (just) finally starting to deliver re my personal reasearches.

All the best.

Dee, it was neither lack of appreciation nor indifference to your detailed post that has seen the days slip away, but rather a lot to do with the scope of your links, and stayin’ alive. Thanks.

Perhaps the link not yet posted is Opus Dei itself.

By way of completion of the SMH saga, here is the apology about the pulled Kate Mannix article. It certainly speaks for itself.

My thoughts on Opus Dei are still in gestation and revolve around these sorts of issues:

1. First, there is the belief that “The Christian is a child of God by virtue of baptism”. What does this say about the non-baptised, let alone the non-Christian?

2. To be given a 'vocation', a special calling by God, in itself sets up several issues not the least of which is a belief in ‘specialness’ and the use of God’s name for many an agenda.

3. “Also, to imitate Jesus Christ, they try to acquire a spirit of penance. This points to a belief in guilt (not only in man but in Christ) and therefore a belief in salvation through sacrifice, with all that implies.

This iceberg is a big one.

JA I cannot recall a reference to the people mentioned by the SMH retraction in the original article. Is that John McCarthy mentioned the same John McCarthy who is/was an ALP branch member in the Inner West? I suspect so.

Had Kate Mannix not mentioned those people (and had the SMH sub-editor done his/her job) then the article as it was would have stood.

To quote from the apology:

Some may have understood the article to connect Opus Dei with branch-stacking and fronts for right-wing proselytising.

Well so it seems. No one has attempted to legally gag anyone who was interviewed on television over the Brogden matter including State MLC Patricia Forsythe, Federal MP Joe Hockey and former Howard staffer Grahame Morris.

At the end of the piece, the SMH mentions the names of three individuals mentioned in the article and apologises to them. But leaving the individuals named to the side, I will rephrase this quote from the apology:

Some may have understood the article to state that Opus Dei (my insertion) is hostile to the rights of others to conscientiously hold opinions contrary to Catholic beliefs and hostile to democracy and pluralism

.then that statement still stands.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of "Catholic beliefs". It has certainly highlighted the fact that Catholicism is a big unruly beast which contrary to popular conception is not as monolithic as the official Church would probably want people to believe. Many within the Church would point to the ability of Catholicism to encompass liberation theologians on the one hand and Opus Dei and the Traditionalists on the other as proof of the vitality of the Church. Some on the other hand could quite rightly argue that the Church is treading into political and secular areas of public life into which it is hazardous to go and which compromise the spiritual focus of the Church.

Some readers may have understood the article to state that Opus Dei members were secretive and lacked candour in their professional lives.

You could equally state that of members of other Boys'Clubs like the Masons or fratboy dungeon clubs like the US Skull and Bones. My numerous Masonic relatives did not walk around and declare their membership to all and sundry. Years ago during the time of the Split dark things were muttered about Freemasonry and Jewish conspiracies and the like and the loony Left/Right conglomerate at the far end of the anti-globalism movement have dug up these old propaganda/conspiracy chestnuts as if they were new.

A realist would probably say that if men want to dress up and do comical S&M things to themselves and each other then it is no sillier than 40 year old baldies with beer guts punishing themselves with veteran Rugby or Masters athletics.

The problem is that Opus Dei is a bit more than just a kinky Boy's Club as a thorough reading of your links will reveal.

1. Indeed the first link points to the primacy of the baptised. No acknowledgement that other faiths (and those of no faith) can have equally valid social beliefs, and in fact the social compass is not the important idea. The baptism is.

The section declares "Thus the formation provided by the Prelature seeks to foster among the Christian faithful a deep awareness of their being children of God, and helps them act accordingly." No mention of the Body of Christ nor of the Eucharist which are generally considered the teaching vessels of the Church.

2. I assume you are pointing to the "sanctifying work" section. Notice that in this section the order departs somewhat from the conventional Catholic idea of "good works", which were specifically charitable activities. Charity is dealt with in a separate section. The last sentence in the Charity section in effect says that part of the "charitable work" is finding solutions. For a Catholic this certainly gives legitimacy to any political activity you might both advocate or undertake. So since all activity is of equal value this allows both the marginalisation of women into a domestic role ("In the eyes of God what matters is the love that is put into work, not its human success.") and the promotion of dubious political activity as "God's work".

3. The penance part is the bit that grabs outsiders thanks to Dan Brown. "Also, to imitate Jesus Christ, they try to acquire a spirit of penance offering sacrifices, particularly those that help them fulfil their duties faithfully and make life more pleasant for others, things like renouncing small pleasures, fasting, almsgiving, etc." "The etcs" encompass the bodily mortification aspects. Physiologically, if you take those mortification practices to their extremes you can produce a heightened state of physiological arousal which is usually read by the brain as sexual arousal, hence the appeal of such practices and related ones in all religions. Hence the probable appeal of all religious practice.

Even full-on evangelical preaching can produce a similar reaction in susceptible people. This is why people at "healing services" sometimes have vaso-vagal reactions which are then interpreted as the work of the Holy Spirit. I hate to rain on anyone's parade of conceptions about spirituality but if you critically study religious visions and apparitions then compare the accounts to accounts of delusional behaviour from people suffering from psychiatric illnesses, there is a very considerable similarity.

Plus the act of renunciation and sacrifice is in itself an act of submission. Which again can have a sexual component.

The latter points I have made certainly do not imply that there is anything sinister in people who do may practice these activities any more than there is anything sinister in most adult sexual activity. However I cannot help thinking that this aspect of Opus Dei, harmless in itself, probably accounts for much of the recruitment success the organisation has. One only has to examine its preferred target group-young single men. If you are imposing compulsory celibacy on young people you have to have some compensatory mechanism, and embracing celibacy voluntarily for anyone has never been about just spiritual jollies and heavenly rewards no matter what spin people put on it.

And the idea of accessing the perceived political and social power through the mentoring and sponsoring process that occurs must appeal to idealistic and probably deeply religious young men as well.

The problem with Opus Dei lies in its historical origins, with the ties to Franco's Fascism, its comfort with, embrace and promotion of very conservative and retrogressive social policies and its disregard of the notion that not only the government but the political process in a democracy belongs to all citizens.

Now that I have the hard copy of that article Dee, I have a better perspective on it. It is a direct response to Miranda Devine’s piece opining that Opus Dei is a “mainstream” Catholic movement. Kate Mannix’s agenda appears to me to be to counter that statement by alleging that Opus Dei is not mainstream by virtue of (her belief) it being secretive, not having evidence of broad support, of extreme social conservative values, involved in private Catholic higher education so as to graduate carriers of its particular values, and giving no sympathy for pluralism.

She named many including John Clarke, MLC, whose association with Opus Dei is clear from his own words. How the same John Clarke, MLC, deals with traffic incidents may or may not reflect his vocation. The John McCarthy named in the apology is Catholic barrister John McCarthy QC, president of the St Thomas More Society, the guild of (mostly) Catholic lawyers, which recently celebrated its 60th anniversary. The society is named after the lawyer and politician beheaded by Henry VIII in 1535 for refusing to accept the king's claim to be supreme head of the English church. Members include the High Court Chief Justice, Murray Gleeson, and the former governor-general, Sir William Deane, a man for whom I have enormous admiration.

John McCarthy, QC, in reference to a Papal message to the locals, said the Pope's message underlined the role his society had to play in shaping public policy and promoting justice as a "personal virtue as well as a social and legal relationship".

Interestingly, the Mannix article finished off with a reference to direct (my emphasis) attempts to interfere with the autonomy of the state being against Church teaching since the 5th C Gelasian Doctrine, fittingly the doctrine of two swords. This is now getting to the bottom line. Having sworn myself off entering the debate on another WD thread, there’s no such hesitancy here, with this assertion: “The secular doctrine of the separation of Church and State is not part of the Church's teaching. It never has been. It is not now”, with a recommended reading here.

Now speaking generally, and without inference to any individual, whatever the history, whatever the economics, whatever the whatever, the combination of a the small ‘t’ trinity of baptismal ‘specialness’, a calling from God (well, the God that chose Catholicism as the only true Church), and moreover the drive to action that is fired by a belief in guilt (and presumably more guilt for passivity), there seems little doubt to me that public agenda influence is a certainty.

Oh, and regarding your references to the physiology of suffering, submission, arousal, ecstasy and the like, again, I think the driving force here, often described as the imitation of Christ, is less about the physiology of pain or deprivation, but a lot to do with guilt about a sinful body and a deep distrust of pleasure. My personal belief is that Jesus transcended suffering.

Dee, with a very busy few weeks ahead including travel, I didn't want to let this slide without a thanks for the chat, and we'll pick it up in the front pages when it resurfaces, as surely it will. And yes, yes, it's a male thing, but do you discount women having similar thoughts, or are they given expression in a different way? Thanks for the insightful Abbott link - time, and the nausea from perceived hypocrisy, have stunted my reading, but note he refers to "our duty" at top page 2 when referring back to the Democratic Clubs. I'll flag a hello when I return.

JA, I would agree with Kate Mannix's summary. You of course mean David Clarke not John Clarke. John Clarke is that very funny man who appears with Brian Dawe and sends up politics on the 7:30 Report. There is nothing in the least amusing about David Clarke.

The Thomas More Society of lawyers at first glance seems pretty 'mainstream' in Catholic terms and as you said actually has had speakers such as Bill Deane at its functions and seminars. If Labor or moderately-inclined lawyers are members as well, it is doubtful if any of them would be members of Opus Dei, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. This organisation seems to have the full blessing of the hierarchy; whether it may or may not have any connection to the more shadowy organisations is not certain.

There is a group called the Thomas More Centre which publishes the online magazine AD2000. This organisation does not appear to have an episcopal patron (unlike the St Thomas More lawyers) and has links to to the late BA Santamaria and the unlamented National Civic Council. Its message seems targeted at students.

Kate Mannix could well have been referring to this group which is unashamedly conservative and pretty much fixated on pelvic politics, though judging by their online magazine Utopias the jurists are not far behind in the conservatism stakes.

The first link on the topic of Church-state separation belongs to a St Mary's solicitor who is some sort of traditionalist with a particular beef against the Parramatta Catholic Education Office and its innocuous religion programme.

That second link on the separation between Church and state is interesting. The organisation in question appears to be either conservative or traditionalist since there is a disclaimer on the top of the site affirming that it is not officially affiliated with the Archdiocese of Seattle, and a perusal of the other articles on the site, including a condemnation of the former Archbishop and a diatribe about supposed links between the child sexual abuse scandals and homosexuality suggests at least the former.

As far as the Thomas More Centre goes it obviously had enough clout to have had Tony Abbott speak at this function in Adelaide where judging by its website it had the most activity, though no one seems to have updated the websites for some time.

The Lyons Forum is another shadowy group whose last definitive membership list appeared some time back. There seems to be a considerable crossover between the aims and philosophies of the conservative Catholic Right in its myriad of presentations and the interdenominational religious Right as represented by the Lyons Forum as a whole. The Unholy Trinity (abortion, women and gays) are there as well as the family and foetus fetishes, and underlying all this a view of the role of religion and government that closely matches those of the links you posted. Bob Wall's recent review of Marion Maddox's God Under Howard in Webdiary discusses the Lyons Forum in more detail. And I don't really believe it has vanished completely as a political actor.

Now the last paragraph of yours gets into the realm of the philosophical and spiritual beliefs. So just to concentrate on the here and now for a bit but to draw in what you have said as well:

What are the characteristics of these conservative strands and their organisations? Firstly they are overwhelmingly male. Secondly they are regressive in terms of both their view of the relationship between religion and secular government and in their notions of society.

As far as the Catholic groups, specifically Opus Dei but also traditionalist groups with an equally conservative and hegemonic socio-political agenda, there is almost a Manichaeistic flavour to their spirituality, and this brings in what you were saying about the whole notion of guilt and suffering. The conservative groups practice an asceticism which ranges from fasting of various degrees (not just meatless days here and there which is the norm with mainstream Catholics) to extreme Opus Dei practices. In itself fasting will produce what you might call an 'altered state of consciousness' (which is also another way of describing the sensations induced by bodily mortification).

In order to carry out what they see as a divine mission these organisations promote a seemingly loving acceptance of the neophyte, personal mentoring via spiritual directors, ongoing spiritual exercises and allocation of tasks. All of these practices are adapted from and characteristic of the spiritual formation practices of religious orders, but differ from them in that the aim is to produce activists in the lay world and not hierophants in a spiritual brotherhood. In fact it is somewhat reminiscent of the behaviour of cults.