Saturday, July 26, 2014

The Cheap World System

Last week I came across a book called Cheap, all about how the real crushing feature of a shitty economy is how cheap people are. If we'd all get on board with just paying for what a thing is worth then things would just be better. I don't disagree with much of the principled arguments made.

After skimming through it a bit, I came across something very interesting on page 196. It was so significant that I'd scribbled a note about it, there, when I had the book in my hands, but I've come to find that I've misplaced that note. Instead of just jotting down again what I saw there, I thought I'd just blog about it. Why not. The number of things I see the World System doing in its duty to fulfill Cain's legacy is huge. And I frequently make little notes about them, stuff them in a folder, and a few do actually make it into my web work. Well, how about if I just share this little note with you right now.

Right there on page 196 of Ellen Ruppel Shell's Cheap was a remark related to the chapter about outsourcing and cheap labor and how companies make their goods overseas and do it on the extreme cheap and of course sweat shop laborers suffer and there's all kinds of exploitation and all the rest of it. And please, forgive me, again, I am not at all unsympathetic to cause of elucidating the destructive nature of labor oppression.

The striking passage was along the lines of this -- I'm putting it in quotes but understand this is the most brutal paraphrase, but the key idea is still fully intact:

"There really is no international law or anything like that to make this all proper and better. The only thing working now, really, is guilt. These companies should be made to feel guilty to keep them treating laborers properly. There is no real program or institution to enforce such a thing, but there is one that is very capable of it: the Vatican. But, last I saw, it wasn't in the workplace inspection business."

Right after that the author keeps right on railing against the bad stuff with outsourcing and exploitation and on and on, you know, but says nary a thing more about the Vatican. Not a thing.

The random yet extraordinarily meaningful mention of the main ecclesiastical body charged with cracking heads of any and all World inhabitants says a ton.

First, Rome indeed doesn't send inspectors dressed in official inspection attire with official inspection checklists to these places, but it still does use the guilt thing as a prominent weapon in its sin management arsenal. Problem is the guilt thing only works to gird the legitimacy of the operation, not to really do anything about the actual exploitation. Look at the migrant crisis on the southern U.S. borders. Look at how splendid the Catholic Church is made to look for rescuing poor oppressed children when the Church has been fomenting the environment for such an eventuality for centuries.

Second, remember, the inventor of international law was an 17th century Jesuit scholar named Francisco Suarez, so anything you see about international law is a testament to the phenomenal work of the Society to govern with extreme prejudice. International law sounds so good and wholesome -- and it is!.. For the ruthless adjudication of uncooperative provincials. Again, it is all arranged merely to make the Caesars look good by keeping people in a state of rebellion to justify any of the most merciless law enforcement actions required, without there really being any teeth in the law to begin with. I mean, did you note Shell's resignation? Quite reasonable.

Quite reasonable because this is what we all see: What good is international law? What's the good of guilt accusations? What is the Vatican but a bunch of hifalutin guys in all sorts of fancy robes?

But there is a lot to see in the deep politics.

And after you see that, you can do one of only a few things. Really, there are only those things.

One, you can rage and rage and rage some more, and then go tell Rome's priests or Washington's technocrats or someone you know running the System to just go make things better dammit, there're exploited people out there! Errrghckk!

Two, you can close your eyes and ears, tune out -- or if some of it seeps into your psyche you can blap to someone some pithy thing you've had swirling around in you mind that's pithy and smart and pithy. And, then, well, there ya go.

Or three, you can immerse yourself in God's word and find out what the Kingdom is like, as well as the way to understand, to know, and also, probably the main thing of all...

To actually love...

And then to reach out and meaningfully, significantly, righteously impact the lives of any who are exploited and oppressed and whatever else affects the souls of people who God loves with His life.

That's it. There it is. There's the note. I'm sharing it with you now, so you can know about it too.

I can't help but keep thinking, though...

...How nice it would be to see people writing, sharing about seeing people being Christ to others...

...Really, actually, truly...


(August 26 2014 note: Guess what. I found that note. An added item about the above reference from Cheap. That remark about the Vatican doing international law stuff? It was from Richard Locke of MIT.)

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Retarded Science

I was skimming through an amazing article about the ALMA telescope array high in the Andes, an intricately arranged set of radio telescopes designed to gaze at parts of the universe never before seen. I am wholly impressed by the work that goes into it, the ingenuity it takes to use it, and the discoveries derived from the information gathered by it.

Now, that's the beauty of the ALMA program.

Then there's the retarded part of science.

That's the part that says, "All of this space stuff just spilled out into existence by chance" as well as a hundred other inane scientific blappings that don't as much come from these fine scientists but from the people who've told them to believe those things. Oh, don't worry. Those things are perfectly rational. It is indeed perfectly rational for people who want to give the fullest vent to their sexual gratifications to concoct an entire world view that supposes God's not there and that we're just megaglops of atoms surging around in ultimately uncertain formats.

Just because the water cycle described in the 104th Psalm isn't as elaborately considered as the ALMA work doesn't make it less scientific. Funny, I was reading the fifth chapter of John the other day -- phenomenally scientific. Oh sure 98% of those hypnotized by Jesuit indoctrination would blither the standard "Wull um ahum -- um, science looks at how things work while religion looks at why" crappola. But if you read that passage -- here it is, go ahead, read it, the whole thing -- you'd find that Jesus is indeed speaking very scientifically. Why is what He's saying here any less significant than what a standard science book says about something like the operation of photosynthesis?

It isn't.

Which is how we get to the "retarded" part of science, as in the use of the word "retarded."

See, it is very politically incorrect to use the word "retarded" now. And to be honest, I can see why. I actually agree with the sentiment, I do. To insult someone by telling them they're retarded as in they are just as mentally handicapped as something with severe disabilities is just mean, and yes, sincerely, I believe unacceptable. I'm great with that.

But here, why can't I just use the word to describe people whose spiritual intelligence is just, well, retarded, as in backwards, not as advanced as it should be, stunted.

I'll tell you why, because there is a whole legion of thought police officers, many of whom are well-trained and deputized to shovel heaps of guilt on top of anyone who transgresses the law.

Here's a good one.

I watched Song of the South with my family last night. I know, a criminal offense. In fact, we had to watch some kind of transferred, maybe even pirated version of the DVD because it just isn't anywhere. The thought police have browbeat Disney into distancing itself from this wonderful motion picture about childhood and imagination and graciousness and wisdom and a number of other tremendously positive elements.

But noooooo. You're supposed to think the film very baaad, and it is mostly because it portrays blacks of the antebellum period as -- ::gasp::


That I even have to feel like I must write the disclaimers "Slavery is awful" "Blacks were horribly mistreated" "Institutionalized racism is wrong" -- all of which are slam dunk truths -- gets to the heart of how much we're pounded into pathetically mindless obsequium and smothered by utter confusion about what's really going on in the World System. My son even mentioned how Song of the South is so profoundly marginalized while a film like Django Unchained -- a wretchedly violent hatefest -- is so enthusiastically embraced. Talk about the most egregious inanity.

What's this got to do with science?

It is because of this question: How scientific is the whole movement towards the mentality that we must revile certain authorized things we're supposed to revile, like Song of the South? My answer may surprise you.

Many will say it isn't scientific at all, it is all philosophy, and as such the scientists who say they're all about science and only science as the sole determinant of truthful things are being logically inconsistent. Booyaah! Gotcha you retarded scientists. That's the idea anyway.

But you know? The fact is, the reason they and all the typical politically correct zanies spew all that about how we really should think and feel about things is that it is scientific. It really is! The issue is that very few people know exactly how that is!

It is scientific to the extent that God not only established principles that govern the physical world such as planets, mountains, animals, and molecules, but He established principles that govern how human beings think, feel, behave, and interact with one another. Is it all deterministic or do we still have free will? Oh, another question from the ages and for the ages. We'll have to leave that one for now.

But how about we look and see and hear and listen and do so trying to see what each one of us says and does that is perfectly rational -- and understand. How about we also get a bead on what the real distinction is between the stuff we think is pretty good and the stuff that makes us more uncomfortable, and that is

Whether it is righteous or not.

Someone with a Jesuit-instilled world view has the worst time trying to grasp that principle, because they don't really believe in God anyway. I'm not even talking about atheists! Some of the best churchgoing people are zealous humanists who believe in a fairy-tale god either to get in good with religious people or gird a standard-bearer for the wholesome crusade or gather support for splendidly pithy things said to keep everyone in line and feel a bit better about their god club.

But all that God stuff is still a fairy tale to them -- nothing to bother with after all.

Except that God shows Himself brilliantly in word and in creation. He furthermore set up a World System to constrain people who refuse to call on His name. He went out of His way to tell us about laws which, should we follow them, would result in a pretty decent society.

Except that He knew we'd never be able to keep those laws, and that what we really want is fellowship with one another and with Him. So He sent His only Son to die as the penalty for our own destructive injustices, and because He rose from the grave He proved that we could too if we just tell Him we want that.

All very scientifically established.

And one of the proofs of that? Experimental proofs even?

Just look at the way people live.

Just watch. You'll see. Watch and listen and talk with them.

You'll see it.

And you can be the best scientist yourself, how about that.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

The Science of Governing Reprobation

I saw a film called Snowpiercers last night. I'd seen some thing about it, then saw that the reviews were pretty good -- it was said to be a science fiction and political film, perfect, I love that stuff.

While it was kind of goofy and very preposterous at times, it did a decent job of keeping my suspension of disbelief intact. It was also extraordinarily violent, but then, when you make a metaphor of the earth out of a train, there's bound to be some bloodshed. A lot of bloodshed. And in this instance, the bloodletting is in tight cramped quarters. Especially grisly.

Anyway, just wanted to mention it was quite the bright elucidation of the World. To wit:

- Human sacrifice is arranged and augmented by the System and for an ordained purpose, one that is indeed, quite spiritual in nature.

- People are deliberately moved to live in benighted indigence to keep them in a simmering state of protracted rebellion, providing the necessary legitimacy to a System required to crack heads with extreme prejudice.

- It doesn't matter who's running things, they are doing so in the service of Cain, they are doing so as an instrument of judgment established by God Himself, and they will utilize the greatest technological advancements to achieve their ends.

- Should they genuinely recognize this unbearable truth it will bring tremendous anguish. The lead character endured this recognition at the end of the film, and the film stayed true to the inevitable consequence displaying prominently all over this character's psyche.

Funny, he'd be a bit better off if he knew of The One Who Was Pierced.

He's the only way out, the only way to life in this situation.

Huh. Snowpiercer. Quite an interesting title of a film.

Monday, July 07, 2014

The Science of Righteousness

Only blogging now to introduce my latest home page piece. After seeing quite a lot of philosophical silliness in and around the spectacular effects elucidating perfectly fine scientific discoveries in the popular primetime series Cosmos, I wanted to add a few thoughts of my own.

Yes, there is a science to righteousness. Surely many will holler about the evisceration of the romance and beauty of such a sublime thing, but the enthusiastic pursuit of what it actually is takes nothing away from that. Science is merely about "knowing," which is what the origin of the word means anyway.

Do you know about this thing righteousness? What would you need to do to find out more? And please, don't bother with all that "I'm not so dogmatic" crap. Are you dogmatic about your rejection of dogma? Come on. Lose the pretense.

Knowing something is about embracing some truth.

So, again, which "truth" are you embracing?