Wednesday, August 02, 2006:
When I was about fourteen, we were studying Plato in school. The ancient Greek philosophers, particularly the most famous ones, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, were elevated in US culture as being perhaps the three most intelligent people to come in succession in all history. Our culture was imbued with the thought that we owe our democratic roots to the ancient Greeks who were the basis upon which Western society and civilization sprang up. Our culture imbued in us a direct connection between the existence of our democracy and the absence of extremely harsh dictatorial rule that we were further instructed automatically follows from giving over absolute power into the hands of one ruler. We were taught that these are absolute truths.
During my studies, however, two things came out about Plato, with one in particular standing way out, that contradicted the above.
First, Plato was in favor of having a single philosopher king invested with absolute power. Plato qualified his vision by describing how this king being a (supposed) true philosopher, free to allow his unencumbered, pure mind to reach the heights of the good, so to speak, would be the most desirable form of governor, the most beneficence and most conducive to the best governance and order, etc.
Provided this philosopher king had overcome, this is not a bad vision.
The second contradiction was literally startling to me at the time. After all, Plato was held so high. The long introduction to our culture, the long political-socialization build-up never hinted at anything dark in Plato. The revelation about Plato was startling, because truth had been given to us as being quite literally a sacred thing, the sacred thing. Truth was an Americanism. Well, Plato put forth the philosophical argument that feeding the masses the opposite of truth, even the truth of admitting ignorance on a subject, was a good and proper thing. Making up a story, a myth, to feed to all of us, telling all of us that it wasn't a made-up story or a myth but a recitation of factual events, was a necessary thing since the real truth is unfathomable.
How disillusioning! There is no tooth fairy. Santa Clause doesn't come down all chimneys in the world in one night. What credibility remains after you discover that your parents deliberately fooled you and had a great time doing it along with the rest of the culture? Do you ever have confidence again? You've now been taught to lie. Now that you are old enough, don't spoil the fun of deceiving others by telling them that its all a deception.
This is no way to run the world.
Instantaneously upon learning of this inherent deception of Plato shattered his image with me.
What I believed at the time was that his idea was so stupid that I felt that there was no way that any intelligent person or people would buy it. I certainly had no instant feelings of fear that Americans had been or could be duped under such an obviously fatally flawed concept. I had some excellent reasons for feeling that way I thought.
There remained all the pillars of our culture: Democracy and truth as sacred, etc.
We had also just gone through WWII and in order to defeat the Nazis and other fascists around the world, we had defined ourselves as the epitome of all things solidly antifascist. We condemned Hitler for his Big Lie. How then could we ourselves ever employ such blatantly evil devices. We were on the inevitable path to greater truth. We were coming out of the darkness. There had been mistakes in our history, but we admitted them in truth and grew and changed and were constantly becoming better and on and on. This is what our society processed into itself.
Whenever Machiavelli was mentioned, a dark pale would descend. A great awareness of the identification of all things evil and sinister would be obvious. It was as if the man in all black with his long mustache that he pulled and twisted had just shown up with the pure and innocent damsel he was about to tie to the train tracks. Everyone booed in his or her heart at Machiavelli's name for all the evil ideas he represents.
Machiavelli didn't even bother with Plato's cover of qualifications. Why waste time and energy on trying to come off as lofty. Down to raw power and call it raw power for raw power's sake.
Plato, Machiavelli, and Hitler can sit in the dark together debating the best path to hell. There is no redeeming escape hatch once the lying begins.
As a youth, I thought the likes of Plato, Machiavelli, and Hitler could never rise in America. The people just couldn't be fooled that way, I thought. I was young and naÃ¯ve.
Come to find out, however, we have always had, and still have, men and women allowed into high places, and sometimes the highest, because they imagine the darkest things they can and push the system to do those dark things to preempt the possibility of being on the receiving end. In other words, it is the philosophy of beating the other person to the punch or draw regardless of whether or not that other person has any aggressive intention. It is the philosophy of beating, killing, and taking over so as to be on the side dishing out pain, suffering, and fear rather than receiving it. It is the philosophy that imagines that it is a sure thing that someone will be evil, so it is better to be evil first.
This isn't doing unto other as you would have them do unto you. This is lower than many Satanists who say their rule is "do unto others as they do unto you." No, this is lower than that. This is do unto others as you want and excuse it all by saying they could do it unto you.
It is the philosophy that someone and some group is going to be the worst and it hurts to be on the receiving end so it is best to beat everyone to the punch or the draw to be inflicting rather than afflicted. If you don't want to be tortured, be on the side with the power and control over those who do the torturing. To not be on the receiving end of the most selfish, you must be the most selfish. It is consistently a large part of the cause of all corruption: Self-interest without knowing self.
How can that system boo the one tying the innocent to the railroad tracks? How can it laud the hero who unties the innocent and never stoops to villainy?
Now, consider the following.
The most evil deliberately imagines the most evil in others. It doesn't exist there at that moment. It exists in the mind of the ones conjuring it up. It comes out of the darkest recesses of that one's selfishness. The most evil wants those weapons he imagines and those he pays to imagine weapons.
Now, you are not of the most evil unless you want to do the things I've just described that they have been doing and are doing. However, this does not shut down your ability to imagine, based upon history and the trajectory of history, just what weapons they have imagined and the dastardly deeds they have done and will do. In other words, you are right to imagine that the worst things you can imagine have also likely occurred to them already. After all, they are preoccupied with it. They strive for it.
Also now, you are not to do this thinking for the sake of physically arming yourself with the weapons they've imagined or to use those weapons against them to do harm to them before they harm you under any guise. To do that is to become them and to even take their place as the one bring forth the worst.
The reason you are to be aware is to avoid doing just that and to actually be empowered to bring forth the exact opposite.
You see, the people really don't want to live a lie. They really do want the real truth. There really is real truth to be had. Plato was flat out wrong. Leo Strauss was flat out wrong. All the neocons are flat out wrong. There is no doubt about it.
Jesus is the furthers thing from a neocon there is. Think about it. It's true. Read the Gospels and plug neocons in wherever Satan, serpents, vipers, liars, demons, etc., are mentioned. It's a perfect fit for a good reason. They are one and the same. I say this with just cause. It is not judging or condemning them. I want them to turn. I say it openly.
Contemplate something else too. The myths they use they use them in their entirety. Now consider that they never, ever, use the entirety of the message of Jesus. Those openly advocating lying to the people avoid the entirety of the message of Jesus as if to them it is a plague. They even hope that their select use of religion will never rise above the myth level. They call their myths myths. You will notice that the myth makers in high place never say that the message of Jesus is part of the myth. It isn't because they want Jesus's message to be the stealthiest of all, the one that will sucker the most people. It is revealed as the one message that when taken in its entirety is real truth.
They now it, but they just can't bring themselves to be angels of light on the inside. They are afraid to trust. Fooling and being fooled is so much the way of this world that they just can't bring themselves to trust what they deliberately avoid for fear of being duped yet again. If it comes from human beings, it has to be false. Jesus was human. I can't trust him. He may have been duped. It doesn't look that way, but there is just some sinister thing in operations there that I can't quite imagine. That's where they are.
It's Team-B type thinking. The Soviets weren't using sonar; therefore, Team-B claimed they had to have developed a superior technology so that the US would move to develop such a new technology. However, the Soviets hadn't developed any such technology.
Just because you haven't figured out how Jesus is fooling you doesn't mean he hasn't fooled you. Fooled us into not being greedy, violent, or sexual depraved? Fooled us into wanting to feed all the hungry of the world? Fooled us into loving you and forgiving you despite the evil things you have done and are even still doing? Fooled us into believing in the golden rule? Fooled us into striving to eliminate hypocrisy in all our actions and our hearts? How long does it take before one realizes that here is the one path that won't dissolution, in which one may place one's infinite confidence, eternally?
It doesn't mean you will stop being evil. It doesn't mean you won't harm and offend those who believe in the new commandment. It means though that those who follow the new commandment are headed to being treated as they treat others even as they endure deserved and undeserved negative consequences.
We don't need to live a myth. We need to live the truth. The truth is unselfishness. It is self-evident.
The Big Lie and so-called pious lie or noble lie philosophy is backwards. Nothing good as ever come of it. Nothing good ever will. Only evil comes of it or ever will.
Let's have the new commandment as our unanimous law of the whole of humanity. I vote for that.
Let's understand that best self-interest is fine but that real self is all of us with God.
Sunday, November 05, 2006:
One can see Machiavelli at work in the recent breakup of some of the neocons. Each has his wet finger in the air. A number of them have concluded that the spirit has turned against their cause. They are scrambling. They are attempting to salvage their credibility by cannibalizing their members.
Several prominent neoconservatives have turned on United States President George Bush days before critical midterm elections, lambasting his administration for incompetence in the handling of the Iraq war and questioning the wisdom of the 2003 invasion they were instrumental in promoting.
Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, who were both Pentagon advisers before the war; Michael Rubin, a former senior official in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans; and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, were among the neoconservatives who recanted to Vanity Fair magazine....
They all call the Bush-43 administration "dysfunctional." However, remember that it was Richard Perle who called for "total war." Michael Ledeen, Perle, and other neocons clamored for total war. They wanted, and still want, the US to start wars everywhere at once against Islam. They see Zawahiri as the mortal enemy of Israel and want to subjugate all Arabs and Muslims forever. It's very Old Testament. We say Old Testament since it totally lacks an understanding of the meaning of the New Testament words, "Blessed are the peacemakers."
The war will come. Zawahiri is the enemy, a follower of Satan, the destroyer of worlds; but, nevertheless, blessed are the peacemakers.
They now have heavily and openly criticized Condi Rice for incompetency as the National Security Advisor. Of course, they think Rice is a token (intentionally raised up by the right and appointed decidedly to deflect charges of racism). Rice knows this, but she's willing to be used in this way for her personal gain. All the so-called conservative Republican blacks who have risen within those ranks fall into the category of token. The black community knows this. They speak of it openly amongst themselves. It just doesn't get coverage, because that wouldn't serve the purposes of the elite who have been planning and working their plan to buy the hearts and minds and souls of their former slaves, those who are still enslaved within the system of greedy, violent, and depraved capitalism and who must be freed by the spirit of Jesus Christ into the real community, the real humanity.
They criticize the State Department and CIA for disagreeing with them concerning how to prosecute the invasion and regime change.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rove had the president's ear. He followed their lead. He did not build any consensus within his administration.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)