Moral relativism is not new. It has been used to undermine America's
culture: love for freedom and justice.
Blaise Pascal defeated it once. WHAT DID HE TEACH US?
The redirected drive that was impassioned in one of history's
greatest minds,
Blaise Pascal☼
, when he found his creations being
misused; a calling to defend one's intellectual honesty and
purpose that repeatedly confronts creative minds. This we call:
Pascal Fervor
Posted by: PascalFervor Mon 1/21/2008 04:09
Fundraising Challenge Not Only for Our Curmudgeon Regarding MSM
[Reposted Comment to EternityRoad - January 20, 2008.]
"In this regard as in all others, the best man on the podium remains Fred Thompson,
though it's beginning to look as if it will take a miracle to gain him the
nomination. Let's hope he can pull one off." -- Our Curmudgeon Emeritus writing in
Squibs and Squabbles
Tell me, is there a way to fund the Thompson campaign which doesn’t ultimately enrich MSM and aid their Pravda-esque influence on how others will choose to vote? I bet I am not alone in pondering this dilemma.
In fact, were you to provide me with a tenable answer to this dilemma, I’d be willing to match 50¢ on the $1, up to the legal limit, all contributions to the Thompson campaign that evolved from your tenable solution to that dilemma.
Are you up to the challenge Fran?
Now why did I bring this issue to Fran Porretto? Because, as I delineate below, he understands the threat from MSM. And because he has been trying to convince me for months to back Thompson. And because we used to hash out tough subjects together. And this is as tough and serious as they come.
I feel I must make clear -- and oh is this ever difficult for me -- that this is a serious issue, a serious offer, and a serious challenge. The reason I feel this way is that I have long despaired at not seeing
this issue of enriching MSM (aka Old Media) being raised by anyone, let alone laid out on the table for wide consideration to be solved. And who the hell am I to be raising difficult considerations for the Internet commentariat?
Because someone has to make a big deal about it.
Because someone has to put their money where their mouth is.
Because many otherwise thoughtful people are behaving insanely; i.e., doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
As our Curmudgeon posts on the right sidebar at his site, the Old Media is "The enemies of all that is right, true, and beautiful," and it is "they who pay the Punditocracy." And campaign season is one of those times that our hard earned money, that we donate to our favorite political candidates, for the most part goes to enrich those bastards in Old Media so they can continue to torment you by destroying all that is right, true, and beautiful.
I fully expect Fran – who takes no orders from me – to really look deep into this issue and help me broadcast my concerns and my offer widely. He'll do it because he knows I am not the only one who holds back contributions to his preferred candidates because of this dilemma.
No, I don't think he can come up with an answer himself. That is why I titled this post as I have done. I suspect that with his wider readership and understanding he can really help in publicizing this challenge so that some members of the Internet will come up with viable solutions.
And we must come up with something. The very idea that the MSM and its punditocracy, at the behest of many of its most influential customers, is trying to foist Leftist McCain, the dishonest Huckabee, and the questionable Romney or unpredictable Giuliani – in that order – on the conservatives, on the everyday ever more marginalized, decently living, life-loving conservatives of the Republican party, is simply beyond disgusting. It is tyranny. It is far better to come up with a response to little tyranny than to wait for bigger tyranny.
Posted by: Aristotle Sun 1/20/2008 23:38
How Good It Is To Have Automated Updates
[ THIS IS AN INSERTED ENTRY ]
Until my web designer, Aristotle, can unboggle what I've done to his post initiation forms, I have begun using a blogger account.
For my most recent commentaries, please follow me here: Pascal Fervor at Blogger
I hope to come back here when we can make the site more user friendly. I will reference from over there my glossary and other posts. And I will still endeavor to update my glossary over here as I've been doing from time to time, but without announcement.
Well, now that his difference of opinion has been made known to me, maybe our mutual estimations will improve.
And while I've got you thinking of such things, courage or its lacking, particularly amongst leaders in our institutions, is always a concern here at Pascal Fervor.
I was distressed when viewing the just released movie Déjà Vu. That reaction was aggravated when, upon my return, I read the Belmont Club posting about
publishing cowardice in Australia. These movie makers and that publisher were both continuing in what I and others surmise is a worrisome trend: when there are terrorists involved, somehow they just aren't from the segment that is most affiliated with terrorism. I had gone to see the movie based upon
a review I had read at The Reform Club, and let loose my pique in the comments there. I hope you will find value in the discussion Mr. Karnick and I engaged in and from the agreement we arrived at. Please go read it.
S.T. Karnick is an informative reviewer. He is also a fellow commentator on things concerning our society. He writes at
Karnick on Culture and at The Reform Club . His assessment of one of my frequently used terms – on the
importance of recognizing statists – is worth reading too.
|
Thursday, November 16, 2006.
When Iraqis Learn to Recognize the Enemy
We have one widely conceded malevolent force. It is hiding in one cave after another in Afghanistan or Pakistan. It hates the USA.
It sends out orders to its pawns to kill. Its stated purpose is terror. Civilians of the West are its targets. American soldiers are its targets. Civilians in Muslim countries are its targets. Civilians in Iraq are its targets. Civilians in Iraq may be starting to understand that aspect of their victimization and seek out friends and allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan to help solve that problem.
We have another force not yet conceded as malevolent. It is hiding in one hotel or another in Iraq. It hates the USA.
It sends out orders to its stringers to film killings. Its demonstrated purpose is to publicize terror. Its aim is to demoralize civilians of the West. Its aim is to demoralize American soldiers. Its aim is to confuse civilians in Muslim countries so that they can't recognize wanton killers from defenders. The worst casualties of its campaign – if successful – will be civilians in Iraq. It will not be much longer before civilians and others in Iraq come to understand this aspect of their victimization. When they do, friends in Pakistan and Afghanistan would be very nice to have, but the Iraqis will be solving this problem locally, thank you very much.
The following short list is meant just as a starter. It is a beginning for a wider discussion that begs for collaboration amongst those who really want to see a political shift. I see a need to shift away from what history portends is the inevitable, decadent collapse of great civilizations. I suspect that an optimistic reinvigoration of principles – a reaching for a refreshing boost from our heritage – may be the form patriotism must take from now on.
• Anybody out there know what number of Democrats
who narrowly beat (within 1% of the vote) their Republican opponents
did so by running as conservative? I think it is important. •
How many commentators have written on the difference between leaders
and managers? Please tell me where. I think recognizing the
difference is important. • Is it an absolute certainty that
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are, respectively, the next House Speaker
and Senate Majority Leader? Even if the answer is “yes,”
I think discussion of this is important.
Those who found their way here surely have some thoughts on the questions or even some answers. Or perhaps you have some additional thoughts or questions to add? Please
add them to my comments section. When applicable, include links where you've seen any of this is being
discussed. Or Trackback™ to your own wider discussions. I think
the amassed responses could be important.
17 days and still no suggestions.
Update 11/13/2006.
I'm impressed. You did so well, I now have a bonus question for you wizards to rack your skulls over.
• You mean to tell me that there's no Robert Byrd type parliamentary tricks that could remove lame duck foreign relations committee member Lincoln Chafee long enough to pass Bolton out of committee on a 9 to 8 vote?
Five dollars to the first person to come up with the correct explanation. I can't believe I have to bribe you all into thinking outside the box.
Wretchard's commentary here
speaks of a vacuum that would not exist had politicians and popular
social commentators been making a concerted effort to counter the
Malthusian poison I keep warning about.
The statements by Pope Benedict XVI, Lord Carey and
Cardinal Pell are really near-despairing expedients to fill the
aching void left by Western cultural and political leaders -- a
vacuum which has emboldened militant Islamic preachers to cross
boundaries they would have respected until recently. This erasure of
cultural borders caused by the near total desertion of the frontier
by the so-called opinion-leaders has invited the most reckless
elements of Islam across and raised the risk of real clash of
civilizations. As Lord Carey put it: "We are living in dangerous
and potentially cataclysmic times". It is a time made perilous
not only by the absence of moderate voices within Islam but by the
even more conspicuous absence of any leadership among Western
politicians. It is a failure which will sooner or later lead to
what military historians call a "meeting engagement" in
which two forces, each possessed of its own momentum, blunder into
each other with catastrophic results. A false kind of tolerance
has abolished the fence between the piggery and mosque, the adult
video store and the cathedral, the flaming match and the stick of
dynamite and called it progress. It is no such thing. It is called
stupidity.
Certainly to keep ignoring the threat or placating the threateners
only forestalls the inevitable. Forestalled and the inevitable will
be decidedly worse, (“cataclysmic” says Lord Carey) as if
Burke and Santayana and WWII never existed.
Oblivion is courted says I. The malaise that a significant number
of the well-to-do have for life is too obvious to ignore.
So why do politicians in the West avoid fighting this malaise? Perhaps because they are even more pessimistic than the people
at large. A terrifying number of everyday people I question believes
with a force as powerful as that of any true believer that the world
is overpopulated. The most common code word for battling human
populations now is voiced (though quietly) as “sustainability.”
It seems far too many are resignedly welcoming this “meeting
engagement.”
Oh yes, the Wikipedia entry is pretty good and makes
sustainability sound smart and modern. But it's a new word for a
pessimism older than the paganism which had formalized it into the
death worship cults that Judaism attempted to eradicate. So it is
likely that our officials are even more pessimistic than the people
at large. And now that vast numbers of people believe it all or in
part, the politicians won't dare fight it even if they began to doubt
the need for anti-natalism (and worse.) Yes, it is that well
entrenched. The paradigm shifted long ago in many institutions; they
have seen to it that the idea was embedded well in the baby-boomers.
The jury is still out on their 2.1 offspring and grandkids.
Now Pope Benedict has stepped into the void. That may awaken a
large number who've otherwise been lulled or misled. I have my doubts
that this is what Wretchard was getting at, as he avoids this issue
like the plague. He knows the mind of opinion makers, like Hewitt.
They give him visibility that he'd like to keep. I personally think
they need him more than he them. But as it's a risk, why should he
take it? But as he seems to sincerely lament the pox that in the
process of decimating humanity, it seems so sad that he does so all
the while leaving a major cause uncommented upon directly.
Now I anticipate, as I've warned many time before, and
again quite recently, that criticism of Christianity and
Judaism will rise. It will come not just from the Islamists, but also
from those wedded to atheism for the reasons Episcopal Bishop Spong
voiced
so well: “The
God of the Bible commands us to be fruitful and multiply. This is not
a loving God because his commandment is absurd. ”
Atheists and their political
wings, along with aid from the not so faithful will turn violently
against those who refuse to drink the Malthusian Kool-aid. Especially against
the religious who believe that “God will provide.” “Damn
those breeders!”
The Western Left
is already near fully aligned with violent Islam. It leaves me to
wonder about how commentators like Prager and Medved can make a show
of wondering how it's so odd, uttering lines like: “Don't they
know the Islamists will come after them first?” Drinking that
Kool-aid has driven the radical Left mad and those talkers keep
avoiding what has made them mad. Which should lead a rational man to
ask: “Have these talkers drunk it too?”
If I believed in
God I'd easily say God bless Pope Benedict. So I say it not so
easily. May his risk shame our vacuous leaders and reawaken the world
to fight for optimism.
Bottom line: Your living will may legally bar family and family physician from having any say in keeping you alive just a little bit longer. Read it and compare it to what I've found and presented here.
I offer for your safety and that of your loved ones, the following example of our postmodernists in action. I also offer you a solution.
I envision no earthly reason why this development will stay within the borders of the state of Florida unless more people get wise and resist the spread of similar documents to their state.
Update August 31, 2006:
Michael Savage, at the end of his second hour today, was reading the form supplied by the state of California. For the most part it reads like the one from the state of Florida. There have been so many times that Dr. Savage had expressed concerns along the lines I've explored here at this site, I should be forgiven for wondering if he was reading Pascal Fervor and not crediting it. Well, apparently he hasn't read this article at least. What he mostly did was wistfully muse over the document. He did not discuss the deadly implications that I've discovered and shared here. I will try and call in tomorrow and see if his screener will be willing to explore this matter further.
On a positive note, my uncle happened to call just after I'd heard the broadcast. I told him about it and he didn't believe me when I told him the living will provided by the state does not allow your family members to have any say in the matter. Well, he called me back. Sure enough, he had signed the standard form without considering the dangers. He's getting it changed tomorrow.
Saturday, 5
August 2006. (Edited 060815)
At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What
Animates Its Critics.
By Pascal Fervor
Judaism and Christianity have one very important thing in common.
They are life-affirming religions.
How do we know this? Before I start, let's be clear here. For the purposes of this essay, none of
the following Bible stories need to be accepted as factual. For the sake of
understanding what the message is, it all could be treated as
legendary. What is of utmost importance to the creed is meant to be conveyed by this story, so it matters little whether it's factual or mythological. Ethos represented by mythos is long accepted practice.
Should one choose to extend their skepticism right up to
considering what the moral of a legendary story pretty clearly is,
then the rest of the world ought rightly, logically, be skeptical of what gives rise to such skepticism.
Most of what we need to know about the common root of these two monotheistic religions comes from Genesis 22.
This is the chapter wherein Abraham was asked to bring up to the place of sacrifice his
son. This was not any son. This was the one for which Abraham and
Sarah had prayed for a very long time. In seeking this child they had
undergone many moments of doubt and ordeal and waited such a very
long time that Sarah was 90 years old (Abe 99) when she gave birth.
What does God ask of Abraham? Bring up that
son to the place of sacrifice. Child sacrifice was the rule and not
the exception in the ancient world of Abraham's time. If not
childlike innocence, it was virginal innocence. But we are assured
that it was innocents who bore the brunt of these practices. There
are other legendary stories which tell us that Abraham himself had
survived a fiery ordeal to which he was sentenced by Nimrod. In attempting to
rescue Abraham, Abraham's brother perished. From this
obligation, Abraham took his brother's son Lot as his ward.
Again, none of this need be taken as anything but myth. Maybe this
back-legend was created to help explain Abraham's inclinations. But in
reality, such an explanation is not of itself necessary. All that is necessary is to
understand that one man DID choose to break with
established traditions. It is from this traditional break that the
very best humanitarian ideals gained a chance to flourish. Many others
have argued that human progress itself stems from this break.
Interesting thoughts worth pursuing, but not now and not here.
Now I come to the essential part of the story. This is where
Abraham starts a revolution for which the ancient world never forgave
him or those who followed his creed. I think it is for the very same
reasons that so much of the modern world has renewed that hatred. In
fact, that's at the end of this essay, so you'll have to wait for it.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tells Abraham “do not
harm the lad.” Because Abraham didn't hold back what was most
precious to him, God tells him that He now knows that Abraham is the
right choice for starting the life affirming religions that He wishes
to see spread across the earth.
What did these two have to endure to have proven their worthiness?
On the way up to the sacrifice, Isaac asks his father where the
lamb is for the burnt offering. And Abraham tells Isaac that God will
provide His own offering. Abraham doesn't deny that Isaac may be it,
but their demeanor suggests they are determined to face up to this
together. After all, any seven year old may easily elude a centenarian.
We already know from previous episodes that Abraham had harbored
doubts before. He wound up suffering from the consequences derived
from those doubts. So it seems that now he is past them. But the
same cannot be said for Isaac. His mettle has yet to be tested. One
may be forgiven for doubting that this was a happy time for him. He
likely had doubts about his father just as Abraham and Sarah had
once harbored them toward God and His promises.
When they get there (where the Dome of the Rock is sited today),
Isaac is bound and placed on the alter. Other than a three day journey
to get to the base of the mountain where they leave the servants behind,
we are not told of how long this ordeal took to
unfold. The passage in the bible is simply stated, without drama.
But, knowing human nature and its shortcomings, surely every moment
had to be excruciating for the father who so wanted this son. It
seems fair to think it was arguably more so for the son. He had to
be dedicated to follow the faith of his father. Isaac's proof was
demonstrable in his self-offering. And certainly, demonstrably, this
was to provide a pattern for all those who followed these two in
spirit (though not always by blood).
The rest of the story is the part from which I have found
particular meaning. What has troubled me for so long was how to make
the connection to the modern world meaningful for my readers.
Abraham has Isaac bound on the alter. He has the knife extended in
his hand prepared to slit his son's throat. Abraham receives the
Godly message. The message is not only to stop what he thinks he has
no other choice to do. But he is directed to where the ram that the
Lord has selected has been hidden. It was off-camera, caught by its
horns in a thicket. It was there all along, but it just was not easy
to find. Abraham's faith was rewarded. Isaac's faith in his father
and his father's faith stood well for him.
Once again, it matters little if this story is all or partly true.
What matters is the essence of the creed it represents.
In all the crises that come to threaten you, have faith that a
solution will be found short of taking innocent human life.
The ram you need is there somewhere, wanting to come out, but caught
up by circumstances unforeseen.
This creed seems to anticipate the dilemma we find ourselves in today: the fear of overpopulation.
Postmodern☼ thinking heavily focuses on that fear. This is exhibited by it frequently seeking and then widely publicizing the worst case forecasts of ramifications stemming from that fear. E.g., global warming, ozone layer depletion, water shortage, waste management, pest control, etc. By emphasing worst cases, the social
engineer may know he's abusing his strongest persuasive tool for overcoming the public's resistance to change, but justifies it by rationalizing that the ends justify the means. By fanning fears of those incompletely schooled or none in the complexities of the various phenomena makes them deaf to those closest to them who have enough education to see the illogic but who don't see or who discount the effectiveness of the ploy.
Nevertheless, repeated applications of extreme pessimism coupled with wide and repeated disseminations has brought about serious distortions to institutions we established in our progress to greatness. Were music to accompany each of these inroads, you'd hear an instrument like a slide flute shifting from a vibrant major chord to a sad minor.
For these institutions were founded to sustain our commitments to personal liberty in pursuit of happiness, and most of all, to all the marvelous wonders that only human life can appreciate. We dedicated them, typically: to foster and preserve human life, to identify and advance the best so the public would benefit from superior influences in all fields, to inculcate morality and to encourage procreation so as to involve the greatest number with the on-going thread of life.
But now, with a postmodernism incipiently taking control we typically see our institutions discourage procreative sex, teach that all morality is relative, hinder the best in many fields from attaining positions of influence, degrade rigorous public health practices such as quarantines and judicious application of antibiotics, and increasingly refuse to differentiate between aggressors and defenders. In short, our institutions are being directed on precisely the course "Progressive" leaders would chart once they were unalterably convinced that population has no other solution but life reduction.
The preferred method is the passive aggression typically exemplified by so many world leaders. For instance, look for the U.N. to claim moral authority to be guardian of the lives of the world's downtrodden, and then watch it adopt a non-interference stance toward almost any murdering agent that may arise. Look for them to consistently equate violence initiators with those reacting in their own defense.
I suspect the same fears -- but more local -- abounded in Abraham's time. I cannot prove it. However, simply consider what we've discovered in the archeology of the Mayans. It is certain they didn't have a rebellious Abraham to save a portion of that civilization from the devastating practices its fears institutionalized.
I think it is easy to see that the root of the Judeo-Christian creed means to preserve optimism
about life. It prods us to keep looking for solutions for what I suspect has been a worry from time immemorial. It fosters that belief most assuredly to stave off the pessimism which leads to what it long considered unconscionable events.
Nowadays, unconscionable events our culture once reviled and consistently held up as proof of how much better we have it here, seems to go on daily (Zimbabwe, Sudan) without most of us noticing. And how has our once moral voice been silenced? Vicious stalkers prowl for any moral voice raised in protest. Then they quickly descend to drown it out with shrieks or, where sound has no effect, to scar the messenger with a plethora of unfounded calumnies. On one hand we are assailed by those who deny we have any right or reason to lead resistive forces against evil, while on the other hand, there are others ever-ready to upbraid us, shouting that it's offensive to ridicule the rest of the world for doing not one thing to stop the atrocities.
So naturally those who try to make an effort where we arguably have a strategic reason to do so (the Middle East) are condemned certainly by those who think life-saving efforts are counter-productive. But we also are condemned by those who have so embraced pacifism they refuse to see that pacifism would allow murder to go on unchecked. So many death heads have piled up in the shadow of pacifists who tirelessly build obstacles for those who would confront aggressors, that most assuredly such pacifists will find they are granted the saint-hood they so richly deserve – but by hell.
And one thing is certain. When you believe that there is nothing you can do, you won't look
for a solution. And the tragedy of that is you won't ever see the ram awaiting you.
In Thomas Malthus' time, he predicted widespread death by famine to be 50 years in the future. But a few years later, the ram of the agricultural revolution convinced even him his was wrong. About a century and half later, Paul Ehrlich was predicting even worse in only 20 years. And then the ram came again.
So what is this ram? Wherefore does it spring? Is it Abraham's God in action? Certainly the faithful think so, and are dutifully grateful to Him for the rest of us. But there is a natural explanation too. Our ram is the one that is ever emergent from human ingenuity and man's will to survive.
But the "scientific" thinking going back to Malthus' time never really went away. That is, there are those who use science and math to justify their own limited thinking. They have worked diligently to convince all of mankind. And much of mankind has come to believe it too. Too many scoff at technology, saying it cannot always solve the problem. What I find so ludicrous in these pessimists' thinking, is they think of their considerations as paramount. Their fear that man's ingenuity must eventually give out is daily reflected in policies and actions of, in my opinion, far too may institutions. They don't believe we'll ever conquer outer space and the planets and find relief for large populations. They don't believe we'll ever achieve fusion that would permit us to convert anything we have in abundance to anything else for which we are running short. And then there are the haters of humanity who constantly buzz in the ears of all these pessimists. Those who would be optimists are constantly being indoctrinated into becoming pessimists like our "greatest" thinkers. I am convinced this is a major reason that the "intelligent" world works tirelessly to belittle and eliminate the influence of Judeo-Christian ethics.
Meanwhile, to those who follow Abrahamic creeds, or the others who have adopted the optimistic view he helped create, the proof of your faith is that you do not deliberately take innocent human
life. And the sacrifice of each new generation is to dedicate
themselves to doing all that they can do to protect innocents. No matter whether it's God
gifted or by nature given, human intelligence is humanity's greatest resource. A second
gift, though I fear too many have been encouraged into believing it's a
shortcoming, is humility. You are not God. This humility comes with
understanding that one is not the source of his own intelligence. Humility should help prevent the overly bright from thinking
they are like God. It unfortunately rarely appears in those who need
that gift the most.
And from all that is derived what major wars have already been
fought over and worse ones may yet be fought. That no man, and no
lesser god, has the right to decide who may live and who may die in
the same manner that herds of animals are kept in check.
The difference between a life affirming religion and all the other
belief systems is this central message.
Our secular world has been indoctrinating the whole globe with the
notion that the world is endangered by it being burdened by too many
people. It does not see that human intelligence is our greatest
resource. It sees greater and lesser lights. It decides who is better and who is worse.
Its influence has redirected society's concerns: from discouraging people from harming
themselves and others into encouraging the human to explore wherever he feels inclined;
it tries to belittle or obscure histories that warn of consequences from poor or risky
choices. It shrugs at NAMBLA and is angered by the Boy Scouts.
It decides who should be saved and who should not
be. It decides whom to come to the aid of and whom should be abandoned.
Who is innocent and who is not becomes one of being deemed so by
those who play god, not by anything unthreatening the subjugated
creature chooses to do or not do. Those who believe in the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob clearly pose an obstacle to those who don't
believe that such a God exists. “Since no such God exists, who
will do the providing? No. NO. Stand aside. Let us brilliant ones,
unencumbered by an outdated morality, take on the role of God.
Someone must!”
These
two messages are incompatible.
There will be conflict over this. It has already begun.
I hope I have made clear where the conflict appears to me to be. Dear reader, it is best to know which side
you stand with. It should be obvious that one side isn't taking
prisoners.
At comment number 15 here
at Eternity Road,
Francis Porretto responded to a challenge. Being necessarily short
because it appeared in the comments section, Fran's answer displayed
more curmudgeonly quip than his normal erudition. However, that
commentary segues well with a theme I'm working on and have not yet
completed, [subsequently completed] on sacrifice, and I do not want to miss this
opportunity to merge some of the best in the religious world's
principles to the secular world's problems(something I have
gotten from Fran in the past and have repeatedly urged him to do
more). Think of this as a precursor to what, at number 2 of my own
comments here,
I expect to finish soon.
Matthew 19:23-24:
“Truly I tell you, it will be
hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you,
it is easier for a camel [rope]* to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
The critical questions here are why?
and how does the context color this? The rich of Judea
in Christ’s time were mostly morally compromised, either with
the ruling elite of the priesthood or with the Roman occupation. But
one can also legitimately suggest that Christ did not depend on that
context—that He intended the statement to apply more widely
than to first-century Judea. In which case one must ask: what
about wealth would make it hard for a rich man to find salvation?
The answer is gluttony:
the obsession with material things. Yet one can be rich yet not be a
glutton, just as one can be fat yet not be an overeater. Riches
themselves don’t condemn a man; they merely add to the array of
temptations to neglect the life of the spirit he must face. Note how
many of Christ’s parables feature rich and upright men, and
ponder why He would have chosen such examples to illustrate his
themes. Ponder also the Parable of the Talents, and the Parable of
the Sower, and what they signify for the serious, respectful
treatment of the things of this world.
Let me first define sins in secular terms: those
thoughts and actions which propel us past sound principles (rules proven to lead to
better consequences) due to the allure of other flashy or less demanding
attractions. You know, behavior described by phrases such as “throwing care to the wind,” or the ultimate
in rationalizations “we must be pragmatic.”
At the top of the reasons that the seven capital sins
are called deadly, among which gluttony and greed are listed, is the
harm the sins do to pursuit of the Cardinal virtues: prudence,
temperance, courage, justice. Of these four, it is the last where
that is solely about proper conduct with other men.
I contend that this
passage from Matthew best applies to men who were morally compromised not just in
Christ's time as Fran stipulated, but also in our own time and,
indeed, throughout all time. And why? Because it is so easy to fail
to pursue justice when confronted by the fear of loss of what one has
worked so hard to acquire. Money displaces courage perhaps. But
assuredly the very thought of looming sacrifices they themselves might have to
endure – “For what? For whom?” – becomes so very hard for
someone who has forgotten privation and the injustices that often
accompany it.
See where I'm leading? Here is my answer to why a
rich man finds it hard to find salvation: He blocks reforms to
justice.
Why? Is he heartless and callous? No, not from the
start. But why is it not clear how satisfaction with what he has is so easily accompanied by fear that reforms will put it all at risk? It is highly probable (unless he's deeply spiritual) that his
circumstances makes it hard for him to permit changes. To the
well-to-do, changes that do not work directly for him are suspect.
And this is true of even the otherwise good man; leave aside the bad men who
have other reasons for thwarting justice. Let it be understood, that
in this thing at least – the thwarting of justice – both otherwise good
men and bad men are allies.
Frequently, Fran, as we have discussed our nation's
problems and what blocks reforms to them, don't we have a label for
it already? Isn't this indicative of what is at core the problem of
what we call Establishmentarianism?
Recall the closing lines of the Declaration of
Independence? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge
to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Most
all of these men had much to lose but were willing to do so. They
understood sacrifice and were willing to do so. And we know they were
opposed by many others. They might have called all of them as Tories,
even those for whom nothing more than acceptance of continued “but
not necessarily increasingly harsh” dominance of the
Crown meant they could keep most of what they had. For the satisfied
it became a question that made siding with the crown easier: “after
all, who are the loyal subjects and who were the rebels?”
Now
let's take the issue to the contemporary world. What is wrong with
the Republican Party? Don't we almost all bemoan the party's
dominance by the Rockefeller wing, the country-clubbers? That they
are too far removed from the virtues of our great republic? Yet by
virtue (!) of their wealth and influence, they demand that the party
and its elected officials (and even “conservative” media
pundits) veer from conservative principles on an increasingly regular
basis: “you must be pragmatic (or your funding dries up).”
Whose companies' pay for the ads that keep afloat the otherwise
failing, statist propagandizing, mainstream media. Worse, through
their foundations that live on past their lifetimes, they notoriously
fund some of the most virulently anti-American Leftist organizations
in the country. And those groups go on to fund and staff the
Democratic Party which stands in opposition to us conservatives in
every way imaginable, and well beyond reason -- into slander and
worse.
From
this unholy alliance of money and fear of real change comes
travesties and illusions. Among the worst? Things and groups that
have been granted the label Progressive are in actuality
progressively repressive (e.g., government programs of every
variety). Things labeled as Liberal are anti-liberal (e.g., speech
codes and campaign finance “reform”). And their money
also enables extortion and and paying scaremongers for screeds to
help them keep control (e.g., the “urgency” of supporting
the Establishmentarian's front Arnold Schwarzenegger over Tom
McClintock (who would have challenged $billions in energy contracts)
by enlarging the Bustamante Bogeyman). All because the well-to-do
fear upsetting things as they are (“yes it's not good; but it's
not necessarily increasingly harsh.”), or reversing ill gains
(and the reforming of a system that allows them) as in the case of
supporting which California governor? The one who might challenge
questionable business/government energy contracts and practices or the one who
didn't? And as if the cost of the contracts weren't bad enough, just look at
what else the wealthy actor and Kennedy family member has gone on to
promote in order to gain accolades from people who dislike him anyway -- the radical (redundant in California) Left. Californians are now saddeled with additional
hare-brained environmental schemes and shameless counter-family promotions by the rich-man's choice for a governor simply because
he committed not to challenge the system under which those rotten contracts were permitted. All as bad or worse than the principled Right had warned!
Is
this phenomenon of the well-to-do the only limit to reforms? Hardly.
But I am aiming to help get the rest of our world to understand what
is limiting us. I believe Matthew 19:23-24 provides a good window on
that. To that we cannot continue to live with a GOP party (please
forget 3rd parties!) that is too influenced if not totally
controlled by that which that supports both parties because it suits
their agenda (maintain the status quo at least) and serves poorly or badly the vast
majority of citizens.
I have no illusions. Challenging this system would require much effort and even sacrifice by us littler guys. Certainly more effort than we are currently exhibiting by waiting for the
“party leadership to do it.” Because they aren't going to
do it. Why? Because of the lesson to be gained by interpreting this
passage as it probably was meant to be understood.
O.K.
Fran? Can you please take it from here? How about the rest of you?
*[totally
separate side note and not the intent of this commentary]: I may be
going out on limb here, but I
am not alone in seeking this correction. That camel is almost
certainly a well-entrenched mistranslation from the Greek. It is
unfortunate because the camel may add to the passage's meaning that
it is impossible for the well-to-do to repent. For while a rope may
be trimmed (repent, reform), a camel is simply inappropriate to a
needle to begin with. However, Jesus was quite clear
about the possibility for the most wretched of men to repent and ask
forgiveness. Hence rope is aright with the idea of trimming our load
in this world, while the use of camel, aside for making a terribly
mixed metaphor, lacks any suggestion for repentance which is near
core of the Nicaean creed. [end side note]
After Rally Report: "Pinko de Mayo" Serves
Strike-While-the-Iron-is-Hot Capitalist.
By Pascal Fervor
Frankly, I was exasperated last week. I heard not one
“conservative” talk-show host link the Leftist organized
“economy crippling” rallies called for May 1st to
the traditional Communist celebration. Now I expected such a link to
have long ago been dropped down the memory hole by Leftist media, but
not the People's Right media. Et tu Brute? I almost posted a
complaint here that the call screeners had to be keeping people like
myself from making the connection, but time didn't allow.
But, finally, today, they started letting callers through with the
observation.
Now we know what the American hating left wanted: to hurt the
country economically. And it may hurt to some who so cowed that they
closed up shop.
But quite the opposite happened to one store owner - in the heart
of Los Angeles. Mere blocks from MacArthur Park no less -- where
eager TV kept trying to tell us there were hundreds of thousands, but
the cameras never seemed to show more than a few thousand. In the
densest county in the country; with arguably our country's largest
illegal population to boot.
I was working late at home when eldest child surprised me with a
visit. We were both hungry. I had forgotten about the rallies when I
went out to my favorite Mexican restaurant to pick up something to
bring back. When I pulled into the parking lot, it hit me. Wow! It
was packed with cars, and the drive-up too was jammed. And this
wasn't peak dinner hour either: It was more than half past 8.
I was lucky to grab a spot and went inside. Had to wait 15 minutes
to give my order. I noticed the salsa was almost all gone. More than
half the dispensers were empty of napkins, and I snatched the last
few out of another.
I asked the manager how come the big crowd? He guessed many stores
had closed up and he got the overflow. Betcha most of 'em were
marchers who got hungry. Had to call in extra workers to help. Where
did he get them? Well, let me put it this way, all his help speaks
Spanish. I don't know if he was paying them overtime, but he'd not
lose money if he did.
Oh, marchers and workers seemed quite happy to see each other.
Isn't America great? Let's give her a chance at staying that way.
Build the wall NOW Congress; all the rest is a stall orchestrated
both by the desperate and unhinged Left and the greedy, slave-wage
lovers who control the Right and extort conservatives.
“We used to say live and let live.... [Now we] say live
and let die.” -- Paul McCartney
In a world perceived to be overpopulated, what would one expect to
find? How would it differ from the one before such a notion were
widely accepted? It is my opinion that little could unflinchingly be
accepted to be what it claims to be.
Individuals want to be treated as individuals, and they generally
value their own life. Who hasn't stopped to consider what life would
be like if there only wasn't so much crowding or traffic or whatever.
How few of us have the power to actually accomplish the depopulating
feat? Who will be upfront about implementing such a program? Quite a
few actually. They have conferences and are well attended. Yet those
people most of us tend to consider as oddities and think no further
on the subject. Unfortunately for many, they are not only oddities.
Whom may you trust?
In a country like the United States, personal freedom is pretty
much taken for granted. The latitude of leaders to forcefully reduce
the population as is being done in China and Zimbabwe, to name two,
is not an option. But misleading people into destructive and other
non-family oriented lifestyles seems to be working well for those who
would like to encourage smaller numbers of people. It also works well
for those who crave ever more power. The confluence of these concerns
and desires makes for a natural alliance of which few are willing to
speak publicly about. Long before Malthus, there were leaders who
hated people. So sweet for them that they now may so well cover their
megalomania and label it a public service.
Leaders who knowingly, and subordinates who unwittingly, perform
that public service send out quite clear signals. They exude an
attitude different from that of leaders in our past. They display
with the people they associate, employ and honor. What they speak up
for and what they speak against may offer us a clue. But what they
actually do about that favorable and unfavorable stance
provides the sign of most consequence. Should you wish to continue to
be misled – should you actually believe the world is
dangerously overpopulated (and many do) -- you will not long consider
how probably dangerous what I am saying truly is.
The following is a list I promised reader Cindi. It begins a random scrutiny of so many things that are not now functioning as they once did. They are going on all around you in forums everywhere from local to worldwide. The list
is by no means perfect or even complete. I already know that the items are never going to convince many of the danger these abnormalities portend;
I pray mostly that it is reasonably clear enough to get a few more decent men to start thinking up effective countermeasures. These shameful acts are far worse in total than each individual act may appear to be by itself. The sum is worse than its parts. Particularly take note of both items A and D. They are cross-linked in a number of ways that I haven't tried to explore today.
A.) Personal thoughts, ideals and values; on their being attacked
by political correctness.
1.) Being accused of
intolerance for warning others of danger. Raising hurt feelings to
a higher level than danger of physical harm. Replacing community
awareness and concern for welfare of its members.
a. e.g.: Charges of
Homophobia: for warning of the dangers statistically linked to male
homosexuality.
b. e.g.: Charges of
Xenophobia: for wishing invasions be prevented.
2.) Crimes are apt to be
invented as new concepts of intolerance are recognized. Giving rise
to acceptance of what used to be known scornfully as kangaroo courts,
where men acquire power by abusing the principle based in English
common law of “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
Replacing the right to fair notice of what is and is not acceptable
so that you can avoid committing a crime.
3.) Elevation of minor
infractions to major ones. Chilling the right to free expression for
fear of consequences from being in disagreement with
hurting the feelings of someone or some group favored by those in
authority.
4.) Once an accusation of
such intolerance is accepted by someone in authority, you are treated
as if having been convicted. Replacing both innocent until proven guilty and the right to trial by jury of
one’s peers.
5.) Hiding identity of
accusers. Replacing right to face accusers.
6.) Suppression of
evidence for you and hiding of exculpatory evidence acquired by the
prosecution. Replacing right to a fair trial based on the
evidence.
B.) Language
1.)
Great effort and expense to allow foreigners to have less need to
learn English. Replacing past practices which forced people to work
to understand what each other said. At least when they were struggling to
speak the common language they could have a chance to comprehend what
was said, be able to know what to disagree with and be able to offer
alternatives. The current course is precisely the prescription for
incivility.
a. A demagogue’s
dream. Whereas politicians of the past could say two different things at the
same time, or different things to different people, this situation
makes it difficult to expose the duplicity and for like minded
individuals to come to agreement on common ground against their
common foe.
b. Makes it far
easier to divide and conquer the governed. People disagree even
understanding each other’s language. How much easier for the
ruling creeps to misrepresent what others say or do?
2.)
The destruction of English and redefining of words has been a
prerequisite for undermining the limits placed on those in power by
the constitution that is the central pillar of our republic.
3.)
The meaninglessness of labels. Progressive represents not advancing
civilization, but advancing agendas. Liberal relates more to the
growth of power allegedly to protect individual liberty rather than
to individual’s liberty itself.
4.)
Confusing of words like notable and notorious. One is more apt to be
ignored, or worse, put in jeopardy for being notable (a target for
thieves), than for being notorious. The notorious get more press, and
often are made celebrities. Admiration for the notable? For the
honorable? For the heroic? Look at the way our founders are viewed
today for a clue. Question: what sort of encouragement is that for
the young? To gain celebrity: be bad.
5.) Projection
has become the norm. Frequently flinging charges that disclose what
the charger feels. Things such as hate. In retrospect, most chargers
of hate are themselves full of hate. This whole commentary is, after
all, about hatred for humanity.
C.) Education – How many ways has this been destroyed? What
surer way to empower misleaders could there be?
D.) What concepts, like innocence, would take on new meaning? At
what point will someone’s productivity become the measure of
innocence in a world worried about limited resources? In many
instances we’ve already seen where this is headed.
E.) Would self-defense become a crime in some circumstances.
Already, in the words of Kevin Baker,
there are places on the globe like
England and Australia where the freedom to act in self defense has
been “chilled.” Certainly, this of all things, is a
strongly probable stance by rulers who have population control among
their worries.
F.) How would the practice of medicine be affected? Medical schools
have altered the Hippocratic Oath so that the swearing off of causing
harm has been removed. Experimentation on volunteers has begun; in
some quarters, they may not know they’ve volunteered; in some
nations, body parts are taken from living prisoners and sold on the
open market. American medicine is not asking too many questions.
G.) How would crimes and criminals be viewed in light of this meme?
Indeed, criminals are now allowed to gain from consequences resulting
from their criminal act. In the past, it was long standing common law
that this could never happen. Criminals shot in the commission of a
crime have been awarded large sums by courts. Even if criminal loses
his case, he has further intruded into the life of his victim. In
past practice, a civil case of this sort could never make it in the
door. Related to the chilling comment above under E.
H.) How would the morally straight be viewed? Foolish? Or
cynically? Or as hiding something? The religious would be given less
understanding than a criminal (The subject of my next post is on anticipated religious persecution returning to the West)
I.) Consider the crowds protesting executions of some of the
countries worst murderers. Worried about cruel and inhuman punishment
are they? Or worried that terror and death dealing cretins might be
chilled in their unofficial tasks? The same people did not care that
Terry Schiavo was starved to death by court order. A media eager for
the latest “advance” waged a propaganda campaign.
It convinced large numbers of Americans that concerns about her
husband were less important than the idea of “who would want to
live like that?” It didn’t matter her parents loved her
and would take care of her and even would let her husband keep the
money for her care. It was probable that her husband, were he guilty
of some crime, would be fearful she could be revived? Sure. But none
of that mattered. Is it not probable to be suspicious because
no autopsy was allowed? Certainly none of the parties involved, the
husband, the courts, the doctors, the misanthropes, seemed to want to
take any chances that they were wrong in their decisions.. But in a
world which no longer considers human life sacred, no surprise there.
Indeed, in a world fearing overpopulation, such a concept inspires
laughter and ridicule.
J.) What other behaviors would be encouraged or made easier? “If
it feels good, do it.” What would be discouraged and
obstructed? Organizations like the Boy Scouts.
K.) How would merit be treated? Increasingly we see schools
and unions caring less about merit, and more concerned about hurting
the feelings of those who are less than the best. What sort of future
does that portend? How will kids raised in this sheltered atmosphere
ever deal with adversity when they eventually encounter it? By
whining that you have hurt their feelings? You bet! It happens in the
work place now.
Enough for now. This is way longer than I intended, and its format
has “evolved.” More on another day.
Believe me yet? How compliant with your own murder do you wish to
be? Just how comfortable can you be when a scientist is lauded for
megalomaniacally advocating the murderous elimination of 90% of the
earth's population?
My friend and colleague Fran Porretto has compared my tone with
Jeremiah. For those who don't know, Jeremiah was the prophet in the
Old Testament who predicted the destruction of the first Jewish
temple should the then inhabitants of Jerusalem continue to fail
their faith. He was lamentably unheeded and scorned, but he was
right. The Jews failed, their temple destroyed, and they suffered
generations in captivity by the Babylonian Empire.
But they, for the most part, lived. That is not what Professor
Pianka and his wildly approving audience expect you to do. To be kind
to the planet earth, they wish you to die.
For heavens sake (no pun intended), I have not been calling for
you people to rely on the supernatural as Jeremiah did, or even in
the manner as Fran tends to lean and lead. I have merely pointed to
the evidence available to everyone and wondered how so many can
remain silent as their own demise looms towards them.
To be frank, Fran is too kind to me and not fair to Jeremiah. I
simply lack enough faith in my ability to convey my view to put in
the time to demonstrate how all these things have been mounting. I am
just not a good engine of compelling writing.
But I have made up lists of questions of what to expect of the
leaders of our institutions as we are misled to our own demise, and
passed those lists on to others without argument to sustain them.
Just rhetorical points.
Then I have relied heavily on Fran in particular (but others too)
to put together coherent arguments out of many of those points.
Fran was excellent in his warning series that began with
The
Convergence of the Death Cults(correctly predicting that the Western Left would be
openly supporting terrorists and their aims), and in his character
encouraging series All
You Can Be(how Western
ethics gives meaning to human life).
If Fran's vision was not entirely as my own, at least it provided
me with a good reference to which I could point. What must have been
shocking to Fran was the lack of interest in the two series. After
all his work, the poor response had to be even more appalling to him
than it has been depressing to me. Thus the lack of response to my
January
27th plea was
not unexpected; but I still had to write it.
And now we have this latest advance of the nihilists, and I have
to wonder:
Do the God-fearing see the assault upon them mounting still
more (for their life preserving belief that God will provide as
promised in Genesis 22)?
And God-fearing or not, can the rational, conservative, and
truly liberal readers and writers on the Internet remain silent
still?
Well?
(Should I get requests, I'll make my latest list of
self-destructive institutional expectations available here soon.)
Most everything I have written, or have wanted to write, has been
driven by my disgust of the general decline of ethics I have
witnessed. Sometimes the things I have failed to write about was
because I feared I would provide too many ideas -- only because I
complained -- to those too stupid to figure out a new scam on their
own.
In other words, I have more qualms about what I write about than
the majority of journalists and their publishers. In fact, should you
ever wish to turn away a journalist, feel free to quote this: “I
can’t tell you because your probably too stupid to know not to
repeat it.” (If nothing else, this will get their competitors
to fawn over you in an effort to get you to spill the beans. Well, I
did mention how they were stupid. Test: Is it an honor to be elevated
or denigrated by the stupid?) Not clear enough? Should you wish an
example of precisely what is not ethical, you need look no
further than near all Mainstream Media. It taints whomever it favors.
The man who set the pattern for my expectations and personal
standards passed away this morning.
In business from the end of WWII until his retirement in the late
70s, my Dad was not religious and didn’t hold in high esteem
most who made a big show of their religiosity. However, Dad conducted
himself in such a manner that it would seem he felt he had Someone
watching him at all times. He would say it was he himself.
He never made a big killing in business, nor did he try. This
despite him having known some hard times as a kid and later, as a
family man, when he couldn’t be sure whether or not he
could make ends meet. But somehow he managed to live comfortably and
put three kids through school and keep him and his wife comfortable
and traveling wherever they wished for the remainder of his life.
A story about my Dad came to me from his colleagues. At this time
he was the sales manager for a moderately sized, closely held
manufacturer. Every once in a while they would come up with an item
that was very hot and in demand by retailers large and small. Like
all in his line of business, the procedure was to make the sales
before the retail value of the property had a chance to be known.
Some lines they might guess to be good, and price accordingly, and
others were standard fare that they’d sell again and again from
year to year. Standard business practices. You must make profit to
survive. Sizable profits preferable to smaller -- no big surprise.
Well this one time there was a line that became unexpectedly hot.
Everyone wanted some. Buyers, being human, would do what they could
to bring the line into their stores.
Now Dad made a habit of being a man of his word, and felt it
important that he stick by a commitment once made. And I’m not
talking written contracts; verbal only. Now such a man – I have
since learned on my own – are attractive targets of some who
are of the belief that every man has his price. It’s like a
game to them.
Well, this one, Super Buyer, figured he’d discover my Dad’s
price. Dad had told him the line was taken up, but that in the
reruns, if Super Buyer would wait, he’d be happy to sell some
of those to him. How many did Super Buyer want?
Apparently that is either too risky in the business, because the
item’s hot marketability can run out, or buyers are simply
looking to beat each other out (or whatever, I’m not really
sure since that isn’t and never was my business).
Anyway, Super Buyer made a suggestion to my Dad to cut the throat
of another known and smaller retailer for additional buys of some of
Dad’s other slower selling items. Dad told him, sorry, he
didn’t do business like that. But Super buyer keeps
talking. And Dad, not wanting to be uncharitable or rude or
alienating, lets him talk. Now I know, being his ever-loving and
limit-testing son, that there is a limit to Dad’s patience. And
business or not, there could be a problem.
I am not sure where, but at some point Dad smiles. Whereupon
Super Buyer gets up to shake Dad’s hand.
“I knew you were a smart
businessman,” says Super Buyer.
“Nah,” says Dad, “I
fear I’ll never be as smart as you.”
At which point Dad grabs Super Buyer by the collar and the
seat of the pants and throws him out of the showroom.
Well, in case you think that’s the end of the story, you’d
be wrong. Super Buyer is miffed; he knows it can’t be
him. “What’s wrong with that salesman” he’s
thinking. So he complains to others. “Do you know what that
crazy salesman did to me?”
Super Buyer quickly made a legend of Dad. It didn’t hurt his
company either. In fact the owner sold the company within two months
of Dad’s retirement.
Four months into Dad’s retirement, he gets a call from the
new owners. Would he like his old job back at some increase in
salary? No. Well, how about the same deal and he doesn’t have
to come into work: he can stay there in Florida and just call into
the office and manage things from down there? No. Well, how about the
same deal, but you just consult with us from down there, and help us
keep your clients happy? No. But he did offer them some advice.
Apparently they didn’t take it. They didn’t believe
him. And they didn’t keep Dad’s clients.
And I know many if not most of you don’t know why yet –
I’m
working on it -- but I also believe that those of you who
are fully convinced that the world is overpopulated are
probably not going to gain much from what you just read. And the
truly ethical may find comfort in that.
How the
Poisonous Propaganda in the Word “Overpopulation” Feeds
Anti-Americanism
By Pascal Fervor
Clearly (at least to me) the very word
“overpopulation” was coined containing an assertion that
such a thing is not only possible, it is a certainty in need of
“fixing.”
As I see it, the possibility of
overpopulation is in direct contradiction with the very core of
Americanism: to the recognition that each innocent individual
has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
Americanism is dedicated to building and maintaining institutions
that foster and protect these rights.
I have attempted for many years to write a
short, clear, and compelling rallying essay [if there is a good word
for such, I will supplant the words “rallying essay” with
it] that will overturn the hegemonic pessimism and anti-humanism that
this rotten word, overpopulation, seems to instill on a great number
of otherwise decent and often bright people.
I have failed.
So now I turn to you, and any who you may
know who feel as I do, to write what I cannot.
I will publish it here gratefully or you
can publish it elsewhere and not give me any credit. I really don't
need the publicity. What matters most to me is that a call to mount a
relentless counteroffensive be written and that it reach decent
people everywhere. Humanity, and those who admire what America has
always promised and what is at the core of the best in the
Judeo-Christian tradition, needed this yesterday. I fear we may be
running out of time, but I remain optimistic. I know some of you, or
even one of you, can make a difference.
I will consider offering a small sum (I am
not rich, but I am desperate) for what impresses me in 500 words or less.
Please be very aware that fighting all
that is implied by “overpopulation” is not very popular.
As my friend Fran Porretto made me aware in one of the many essays
when he has written on the subject of the very busy death cults, here
is what one renowned proponent of population control said, in alarm,
when it was first rumored that a source of clean, unlimited energy
had been discovered:
It is, in my humble opinion, important to
your health and those you love to understand that the idiot child to
whom Dr. Ehrlich referred most definitely includes those who are not
politically astute enough to sign on to the “Age of Limits”
ideology as only those gifted like him understand. The Age of
Reason seems to have produced two very important fruits: Americanism
with its implied optimism, and its bitter rival, pessimistic
Malthusianism and much else consequent to it.
Please help me ally all optimists in a
most important reawakening.
New Orleans Coverage Leads to Exposure of NY Times' Part in Blocking Levee Improvements
Also: Suggesting a Formula For the New Media to Expand Its Competition With the Old Media to Reach a Wider Audience
The NY Times' most recently revealed inconsistencies broadly exposes it to charges of being ruthlessly in the
forefront of promoting environmental policies dangerous to human life. These are
policies one would expect to find among deathist negative-population-growth proponents. A moral humanist would
hope these were not the efforts of the leading newspaper of the world's strongest power.
Sadly, New Orleans appears now to be the most grievous natural consequence of the Times' efforts yet.
I see no surprise that the Times leads the MSM chorus of projecting their own guilt upon those
who have really been trying to save lives.
The Filibuster V. The Law's Meaning Is Clear and Invariant
This is about situational ethics. When two principles
collide, the proper course of action is to decide which rule has prominence. If you know much about Blaise Pascal -- and Dear Readers of this site, I hope you do by now -- this is very appropriate here indeed.
Which of two rules being fought over their alteration do you think deserves more protection by the citizens of this great nation?
Interviewee: Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong with new book "Sins of Scripture."
A reason for the interview: Official who derides his
church, indeed all Judeo-Christian core thought, for being
hopelessly stuck with traditional dogmas.
Provocative statement: Paraphrased from memory:
"God is about love. The God of
the Bible commands us to be fruitful and multiply. This is not a
loving God because his commandment is absurd. Following that
command would have people overpopulate the earth leading to its
destruction and theirs. Thus the commandment discredits the
compiler of that text. The commandment is hopelessly outdated. This
proves all Bible text needs to be seen from modern viewpoints and
adapted to modern mores."
Core of my irritation: Mr. Medved let the assertion
stand unchallenged.
Commentary: Mr. Medved is a tremendously effective debater.
There are few commentators who I've heard who can pick up the
polemics of any adversary and counter their words with his own
polemic so instantaneously. When he moved from Left to Right he
brought all of his skills and passions. But I have to ask: so what?
Medved could have turned the Bishop's beliefs into hash instantly
by pointing out so many things of which I know he is aware: 1. That
Thomas Malthus' thesis has been disproved time and again. Malthus at
least admitted his error. But not those who picked up his baton.
2.That the modern Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, also was challenged in his
time and proven completely wrong in his predictions of world-wide
famine. It pains me so in no small part because I am sure that Mr.
Medved could quickly add to my meager list. 3. There have been many other thinkers afflicted with the Malthusian bug in between Malthus and Erhlich; and they persist still. I believe they'll continue to be proven wrong but they will doggedly pursue this rotten remedy of theirs believing that otherwise they must eventually be right.
This means that those who disagree with this vision mustn't shy away from battling the pessimists. I am absolutely sure that Mr. Medved is wonderfully situated to do so, and to do it with a flourish I lack. And he may reach so many more than I could ever hope.
But Mr. Medved remained silent.
If I recall correctly he
typically reaches, on his show, at least 300,000 listeners every 15
minutes. It could easily be much more, but nevertheless let's say it
is that. That 300,000 could not hear me yelling at the radio (please
forgive my frustration Michael): "You useless tool Medved: What
good are you to the values you claim to stand for? You just sit there
and say nothing?”
Don't you see, Mr. Medved, that you let this dehumanizer spread
his life-poisoning messages to ears you cannot presume understand the
threat to them? When one leader (you, Mr Medved) remains silent
whilst another “leader” asserts the most damning of all
his assertions, your followers will think there is something
worthwhile in that basic premise? You, by not cutting out from under
him his flawed foundation, allowed the stinking poison to seep passed your filter into the minds of your own followers. “Oh, the words of God
regarding the sacredness of human life must be reconsidered in light
of modern human 'wisdom.'”
Medved's listeners are not hearing the others who understand the
threat this sort of thinking portends, indeed, is in alliance with
those who advance it across the globe. Only Mr. Medved could have,
should have, oh how I wish he would have instantly informed maybe
over half of his then active listeners that this thinking carries
with it a death wish for a very large number of people.
Death wish for a large number of people? Yes. The bishop is
an outspoken proponent of a “new” paradigm☼, against which I've railed
before, “that, for the good of the world, large numbers of people be encouraged to engage in activities that assure negative population growth.”
For instance, this bishop wishes to promote
homosexuality as a legitimate choice of lifestyle. I say it is
obvious that he sees that homosexual interests redirects the normal
life-sustaining forces endemic to any living thing from the lowest plant to
the most complex animal. Anything that dissipates the non-corrupted
sexual urge to couple with the opposite sex and waste that energy on
liaisons that have no chance of resulting in a new human being he
sees as beneficial to the new world's (read his) societal goal.
Another idea is that he wishes to promote abortion as a heroine's
choice: ending her child's life so others may live in a less
cluttered world.
Another idea is the altering of medical ethics to allow incipient
forces to end the lives of people who are deemed nothing but a burden
to the rest of society of their brave new world.
Please Medved: let nobody be mistaken. I do not understand how you
don't alert your listeners as to how the death cult theme runs rampant
through all this. This Bishop's comments seem to me so emblematic of
many little men who wish to play God. How can you continue to remain
silent? You say you love the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible
pledged that He will provide. Do you think He is untrustworthy? Men
like this Bishop, firmly convinced of and corrupted by Malthusian
pessimism, will work -- usually with far less candor than this Bishop -- to see to it that the world of the future, with the help of their duplicities and machinations, will indeed be able to
provide for those people worthy of surviving.
They, unlike moral men
of the past, will not work to save troubled individuals from their worst excesses.
But as if that isn't betrayal enough to what most people innocently expect of kindly seeming leaders, these people cannot even be satisfied that many individuals, even after numerous warnings from true friends and without anyone deliberately misleading them, will entangle themselves in activities that lead towards their own
destruction.
Those who precisely wish to promote destructive activities frequently enjoy accolades as grand benefactors to society. Meanwhile, in our traditional moral code, such schemers are easily identified as evil. How can there be any wonder, therefore, that the secular giants have been actively seeking to silence those who wish our society to sustain its moral codes which clearly didn't hinder our country's rise to greatness, and argues greatly for its goodness?
But please let there be no mistake about the sadness of the vision of which I am so dismayed was not deflated in a timely manner. The pessimistic thinking, revealed by this bishop but held in semi-secrecy by so many others, plans the death of the common man. It may take many more men who are willing to admit their aims as this bishop has before the threat becomes clearer. Such men need to be identified and forced to argue their positions out in the open where the common man may judge for himself whether their plans for him are just. Let us see if the common man worships the demigod as much as the demigod worships himself.
Will someone who speaks better than I and thinks comfortably
and clearly in debate, please challenge Michael Medved with this
critique of his silence? Thursday is disagreement day.
April 17, 2005
Wisdom and Anti-Wisdom
By Pascal Fervor
I've been finding it difficult to write clearly on this subject. Part of the reason for that was the need to coin a word: "anti-wisdom." Willful ignorance, impressed ignorance -- neither can make the grade. After speaking with my friend Francis W. Porretto today I could keep it unpublished no longer.
I will try to keep this short. I have two demands that I think
will carry considerable political force if some of us will only try
to build up a bloc that presses them. I doubt that I am the first to suggest much of this. But since there seems to be no sizeable body that is marching towards a solution, I'd thought I shake the bushes and see if anybody is out there who is really working hard. Maybe now they're disappointed or even angered that I don't know how much and what they've tried to do already.
Typical agent of the Death Cults: any
convicted killer.
Process: Killer wins one
full hearing after another on the grounds of any evidence or grievance or procedure
overlooked that a criminal lawyer can dream up.
Result:
killers, as a class, gain protection.
Every effort is made to preserve the life of the
condemned man until all appeals have been exhausted.
That protection is institutionalized to the extent
that justice is delayed to the point that justice is denied.
Whatever deterrence that executions have to
suppress murder is diminished.
Not an agent of the Death Cults: a disabled
woman unable to speak for herself; for whom a former family member is
assigned as guardian by the court, a guardian who aims to kill her;
loving family members prevented by the courts from protecting her.
Please. Please. Please. Would somebody please draw up a
similar listing that would make clear who is a “Typical Target of
the Death Cults?” Describe how that targeting is incrementally being institutionalized in America. Netherlanders, here we come.
I cannot currently think of a good example that a
majority of Americans can't be misled into believing isn't such a
target.
--Despair
03/01/05
The Aim of Moral Relativism
By Pascal Fervor
It takes a legal system incrementally separated from
its moral underpinnings, seeing itself neither obligated to seek
justice as it is commonly understood nor to shield the weak and
innocent from the strong and aggressive, to make the aim of moral
relativists as clear as it is today.
We have a judge, his fatal rulings upheld on appeal
after appeal, consistently denying plaintiff's motion after
motion, to do what? Spare the life of a craven torturer and
murderer? Of a serial killer?
No....
Please continue reading by clicking
here.
You may add comments.
This was prompted by a piece by Francis W. Porretto that
attempts to convince us that abortion is a choice we should not wish to
make; and that it is one we should try to persuade, not coerce, our
fellow citizens not to make. I agree, and maintain that coercion is indeed counter
productive. Indeed, much of our current discourse on the subject
is intentionally divisive.
Okay dear readers. Please forgive me my
long despondence over consolidating my ideas. It's the price of
being an optimist in a world constantly bombarded with pessimism
and cynicism and worse.
I've been off roving at other
web-sites, making comments at a few, contributing more than a few
ideas to the blogosphere which have leaked out from there to the
world at large.
I have finally brought them back home
where I have the freedom to piece together the puzzles of this
world as I see them. Please feel free to comment.
I have
had complaints over my multisyllabic language. I am sorry if I use
words that many are unaccustomed to, but I refuse to talk down to
you. (Well, I'm sure even the saints got frustrated from time to
time, and I'm no saint).
The English language is filled
with history that tells a story in single words, Such words are
precious to me; I wish they would become so to many many more. So
please use the glossary I have provided for you. (I promise to
clean it up by shortening the entries by relocating the expansions
to separate essays).
Ask me to expand upon any word you
see fit. I won't think badly of you: many dictionaries, even
unabridged, don't clear up the meanings anyway. If you contact me
I will recommend a good old synonym dictionary. The
clearest lessons on history and nuance can be found in such a
tome
Now, please read my contribution to the national
reflection of 9/11 by clicking the following excerpt:
The forces which wish us harm are not solely those of Radical
Islam. As we fight the Islamofascists we must also watch our
backs. But be cheerful about it. Those rascals at our backs are
the most craven of cowards. Warn your children.
Those
who have God in their heart cannot be dominated by others.
Those who would hide the 10
Commandments are fearful that we, whom they wish to dominate, will
hearken to the message of the very first commandment "Thou
shall have no other god before Me."
Each of us, who would evaluate our own lives free
from the dominion of others, may learn and understand the blessing
bestowed upon each of us in this life when we come to see
the infinite love inherent with "Thou shall have no other god
before Me."
Those others would limit our choices to decide,
specifically wish -- under the best of utilitarian principles --
to impose upon us their judgments as to whether or not our lives
are worthy.
The Ten Commandments are universally understood to
be delivered by Him who gave us life -- the same Creator who
granted each of us, individually, the freedom to choose to do with
that gift of life as each of us sees fit. Oh, if only other men
would not stoop to doing the worst evil: to think they are so
clever, and just, and all knowing, that they are fit to play as
gods. Yet, such gods know their inferiority, and so, out of their
own wretchedness, fearfulness and blindness, cannot tolerate that
others of us know of God. To them, He is seen as Competitor, not
as Provider. For they know, that for us, He is their Leveler.
I urge you to see the folly of this last bit of
unleveled arrogance. This wish to be as gods, parades today under
the guise of progressive utilitarianism, and that Blaise
Pascal saw this overreaching developing in his time. His
understanding drove him to expose the proponents of what he would
call Godlessness so others could see as he did.
I believe that modern thinkers, should they regain
the faith of their fathers, might begin to retreat from our more
advanced horror that Pascal saw developing, and might very well
choose a similar altered course, one that would provide
civilization yet again one more chance. (9/11/2003)
We've never been harmed like this
before, High taxes, our jobs trimmed to the core. It's
time to get up off of the floor, Gray Davis's recall's right.
...
How
Easy Is It to Slant A News Report? Where
two contributors from Free Republic ask and answer --How Easy Is
It to Slant A News Report? -- by dissecting one story covering
the 2002 California gubernatorial race.
Social
Engineering The Social Engineering
Modeling Technique - a bit of humor aids understanding this
analogy of why "Progressives" work as they do. A
nascent analytical method for explaining how those who have
influence and power may be measuring and controlling conditions
for motivating and benefitting from the actions of political
extremists.
Pascal
Fervor's Offer- Providing for you what was
granted Blaise Pascal: anonymity. [ofr 5/27/2002]
URL:
http://www.pascalfervor.com/ Updated: 1/26/08 B