Dear Sparks, I’m so thankful for your interest. And I highly value your input and perspective (!).
Not to mention this lightning bolt assistance with the Testament of Shane Norte, as posted at his church website, that you linked to this page - first - observing:
<
red letters on black are almost impossible to read (for me) >
And then quoted as you have now (complete). And in so doing, made wonderfully easy reading - out of hard.
“The fruit of the poor lemon is impossible to eat” as a song has it. But (lyrical oversight?) - it makes good lemonade. And I am refreshed.
It’s wonderful you’ve helpfully retrieved Norte’s narrative from its ‘red on black’ eyestrain. And have now reproduced it here for reference (“tonight, for the first time anywhere”) - in less visually merciless form.
The quality of mercy neither knows any strain, nor inflicts any AFAIK.
But the red-on-black ‘squint graphics’ web design made an arduous struggle (either needlessly, or …?) torturous almost, to just try and read.
As you first reflected:
<
most of it unreadable on site >
And now, have corrected.
What’s daunting to just try reading, as offered - isn’t very conducive either (bordering on inhospitable) to the prospect of any closer, more careful look.
And pausing to reflect:
If I had some typically spell-casting narrative for soliciting attention, to gather myself a little following (for 'uniting' with a great big one, of the fellow right-minded) - it occurs to me: I might consider a need to minimize risk of drawing not only moths to my flame - but also possible ‘wrong’ type notice to what I’m doing and how (for my self-interest). I doubt I'd want any ‘smart aleck’ taking any closer, more intensive look at my sermon - on doubt (not faith). And not just skepticism, maybe downright suspicion. What a dilemma, nothing new as such. But as a tactical matter, I wonder how I might go about - attracting right type attention, while also repelling any wrong kind - all in the same stroke.
Stepping back from that interlude (through the looking glass) into this real world X-file:
I wonder (not on idle curiosity) why anyone with an ostensibly important message as Norte’s would - in the act of cordially inviting whoever to read - make it so difficult to do so?
For starters.
Second, in general (and regardless of rhyme or reason why) – categorically:
Who does that?
Disclaimer (the bias of my investigate perspective):
Needles so easily hidden in a proverbial haystack (of ‘spiritual’ verbiage) can be just as hard to find - famously so. Even under best conditions i.e. ON alert to the fact (or likelihood) of a needle in there somewhere. Much less OFF alert, neither knowing nor perhaps (at worst) even suspecting.
That goes double in absence of an adequate ‘needle search image’ - what to be 'on lookout' for, and how to recognize it (on sight).
Forensic ? considerations - made ? spiritual:
“They come unto us all blessings, with fleece as white as snow - actually whiter (radiantly blinding enough to make Mary’s Little Lamb look like Bah Bah Black Sheep). But that’s on the outside “for sake of appearances.” Inwardly they’re more like wolves - predators not prey species” (an ancient verse out of someone’s bible - freely paraphrased).
I figure, they fool “some of the people some of the time.” Not everybody always and forever.
Besides, fleece is "only skin deep." There’s other stuff that goes “to the bone.”
And hence there can be little ‘moments of truth.’
The ‘fake brushstrokes’ in a ‘rare Rembrandt’ for sale @ ‘bargain price’ aren’t what its solicitor directs a potential buyer’s attention to. And they would generally go without being seen, maybe not even checked for - except by some 'smart aleck' with a microscope (and a Hoyle's Pocket Guide To Brush Strokes Of The Masters).
Likewise with anything in “sheep’s clothing,” the ‘zipper’ down the back isn’t the ‘show’ feature.
It’s the ‘tell.’
Aka ‘the devil in the detail.’
Aided now by your yeoman duty Sparks (so well done, thank you) I'm picking out a passage from Norte's website 'testimony' you've retrieved from its original eyestrain hazard, and brought here. Not in order to 'open that' in this reply. Rather, to just offer some preview sense of where exactly I find the worst most troubling indications arise - the 'end zone' I'll need to work my way toward.
(In this reply, I'll begin with two lower intensity 'first degree' questions - one already posed: the Unsolved "Why" Mystery of this red-on-black eyeball scrambler presentation - after posting the following passage).
I've CAPITALIZED 3 select bits in this brief passage of ‘high’ alert (5 alarm) status, as recognizable to me - if only based on a modified ‘Howard Baker Watergate standard’ - “what I know and how I know it" (feeling like I walk on some tightrope 'between humility and hubris'). 'These 'highest' alert notes, as I'd rank them, might not be recognizable as such ‘red flags' minus a certain depth of background study, knowledge and familiarity with a deep, dark ‘big picture’ context - nothing indigenous, rather the ‘psychedelic underworld’ (as I encounter it).
Here's where ‘red alert’ signaled for me in Norte’s exposition reaches its ‘5 alarm’ peak:
In that time I also started the Church... and recently had invited the Co-founder CARLOS PLAZOLA of the DECRIMINALIZE NATURE OAKLAND, who helped pass unanimously the Decriminalization of Ethenogenic [sic: ENTHEOGENIC] plants, including fungi, to come and pray at my church. In my scope, that passage ^ stands as the innermost ‘last layer’ to peel back. For methodical questioning, it can figure like a course heading and final destination. By English lit analogy: Colonel Kurtz’ outpost in Conrad’s HEART OF DARKNESS.
Now, having 'advance spotlighted' that passage (as a preview) - I need to begin at the entrance to this maze, with lightest shades - mere ‘pink’ alert. Once again with help of your input, backtracking to your first reply:
< The YouTube channel is "
Shane Micheal (sic) (not
Michael):
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgM32Up50z8kXrjhqza2Gow >
Thank you for that spelling correction. Not only does it put my mistake right, it trains a spotlight upon this ‘Shane Micheal’ channel - and name.
I can't help but notice: all the vids uploaded by “Shane Micheal” (12 total by my count) feature Shane Norte, his narrative and scenes in which he centrally figures.
One might almost think - at whatever peril - that there logically might (must?) be two Shanes. If so, the first name match would logically constitute mere random coincidence.
Yet if that were the case, I’d expect some variability in vid subject matter and content. And that I'm not seeing.
That every “S. Micheal” uploaded vid is instead another edition of the “Shane Norton Show” sure beats the hell out of odds I'd set (if I were a gambler) - maybe defies them.
For the explanatory scenario of two persons, both represented by their real names - vs just one (Norte, using 'alternate' last names) - it would all strike me as ‘too coincidental to be coincidence.’
Between first name match, and the vid content being solely Norte activities I can only tentatively conclude by deduction - subject to contrary evidence (if any) - that channel uploader ‘Shane Micheal’ is none other than Norte. The inference - hypothetical (pending further evidence) - almost draws itself. Without a brain cell of mine having to lift a finger.
The seeming strangeness of this apparent staging (as I might interpret it) provokes curiosity (a nice word for it) amid a queasy uneasy feeling all through my gutty-whats.
This is the ground of my second (of two) 'starter questions' that arise, just by what meets the eye, on first impressions and without having to 'go deeper' (referencing background inextricably woven in).
I wonder if you (or anyone here) might shed any light of speculative interpretation on this irregularity, from your own perspective and wisdom. Or from any old angle.
Why would or should Norte use - what I’d distinguish as - an alias - of ‘special purpose’ i.e. for video uploading, exclusively (unless - ?).
Why (logically) might Norte have fictionalized his last name in that acting capacity?
What meets the eye at a glance doesn’t add up by my arithmetic. No matter how I slice it. Unless the two names aren’t the same “Shane” person, which – all things considered (lots not yet introduced in evidence) - I find difficult to think.
It’s not on any narrow legalistic ground I wonder. Because AFAIK there’s no law against that. Merely a refractory question that emerges from between the lines, standing tall and casting long shadows upon a landscape of current developments I dismally feel I know too well (for my liking):
Why i.e. with what intent, motive or purpose might Norte call himself ‘Shane Micheal” for his (as I infer) youtube channel (assuming Shane Micheal = Norte) - pursuant to his purpose and mission - as educatedindian worded it (beautiful as
Atropa belladonna):
<
promoting psilocybin, shrooms in slang terms, for healing and spiritual use >
The “why” question about this weird name duality might glare in plain light of day. But it fluoresces under UV - mine at least (albeit decent quality gear).
Especially in terms of how that particular ^ missionary cause (as nicely summed up by educatedindian) stands relative to:
(1) genuine native interests and authentic traditions, on one hand - and on the other
(2) the entire idiom of the post 1960s psychedelic 'community' and movement in terms of its rhetoric and narrative, the entire 'regularly scheduled programming' of the Psychedelic Broadcast Networks (and all local affiliates acting in voluntary cooperation with the 'revolution that will not be televised' - thinking globally, acting locally) - verbatim.
As reflective of the intents and purposes of a post 1960s psychedelic movement - its agendas, ambitions and history. As in history the real thing. Not the 'community' bedtime story (propagandizing narrative) - heraldry (cheering its heroes, jeering the zeroes) masquerading as history - while systematically expurgating the 'inconvenient' truth - myriad 'dirty little secrets' which prove to be the larger portion of what has actually gone on.
Whatever the rhyme or reason of that red-on-black reading ordeal as presented - about like some subliminal 'weed out' test question (how 'serious' are you about wanting to read this?) - I wonder if you or anyone here might think there’s some person other than Norte (but doing his youtube uploading) named ‘Shane Micheal’ posting these vids, all featuring Norte front and center - promoting his ‘message’ and activities (etc)?
The question as I ponder it only gains weight considering that what I'm see and hearing with Norte just happens to correspond 0% to anything I know from native traditions – compensated by a 100% precision match with key talking points of the big psychedelic push - our brave new 21st C “Renaissance” resurrection of the Timothy Leary “dream” which by the 1960s end had already proven to be - a nightmare not a dream.
This red-on-black question (of a potentially 'centrifugal separation' effect picking the winners to draw in while repelling the 'losers') - and this ‘double identity(?)’ name game - are the two starter questions I find like entrances to the maze, right at the surface (without need for any extensive background) - ‘minimal depth’ questions of the first layer to peel back, before next layers further in.
These two questions languish in wading shallows ankle deep, close to the shore. Where light penetrates effortlessly to illuminate everything, leaving nothing in shadows – and revealing for me a clear sense of unclear riddle or puzzle.
Past ankle-depth near shore there's a ‘drop off’ further out. There, the waters get deep and rather darker, particularly in terms of notes I’ve capitalized from Shane’s website exposition (which you’ve so helpfully copied here).
At those great depths, what I encounter crosses an ‘event horizon’ - descending into darker questions, difficult to call merely gray. More like “Gravitational Singularity Black’ - of 5 alarm ‘red alert’ (on my radar).
Quoth educatedndian:
<
One grey area I see is some of the church members are not Native. Some are wartime vets. I know there are cases of Native inviting white army buddies… >
The grayscale has its “lighter, lighter” shades and “darker, darker.”
And inviting vets, however gray an area - strikes me as one thing. Gray enough.
But to have invited this CARLOS PLAZOLA - with his profile and Person of Interest activities... is something else completely different, and a whole ‘nother magilla.
A proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ (“send in the blind men”).
Thank you for correcting my wrong spelling of Micheals. And in the process fortuitously allowing for focus on Norte’s youtube presence and presentations - an ideal starting point from my angle of view – with wide frame (for ‘big picture’) and narrow aperture (for ‘depth of field’) with figure-and-background both in nice sharp focus.
With appreciation to everyone here for all you do.
