In his section on belief in God and religion in his book, The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin esteems belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God as "ennobling". He seems to view religion as a link in a developmental chain which leads toward scientific endeavor.
Throughout The Descent of Man Darwin draws parallels between animals and man in various behaviors and functions in an attempt to show that nascent attributes of man's capacities developed from lower creatures. For evidence that the religious sentiment of awe has an animal prototype, he cites dogs who revere their masters in a way that is distinct from how they admire other dogs. According to Darwin humans view God in a similar way. For Darwin the capacity to express wonder at something is the result of physical mental development along with other traits such as imagination necessary to develop religion. If religion is an attempt to explain the world around us, curiosity is the catalyst to this, and Darwin points to curiosity as a trait of a highly developed mind. He contrasts belief in complex religious systems that attempt to explain the world with the simple views of savages which do not go so far. Most savages do not believe in a God or gods and have little religion, which Darwin attributes to them having a lack of curiosity in the world around them. When high religion is viewed as the product of superior imagination to that of the indifferent savage, that is, when it is viewed from the bottom up, it doesn't look so bad.
Indeed, Darwin is right that primitive societies do not have well-developed religions. African witch doctors do not have a sophisticated theology or extensive code of morality. We would not expect a monastery to to be created by Australian aborigines or pygmies living in the Congo. Religious devotion requires strength in attention span, which is a trait Darwin casts as being indicative of a highly developed mind, as well as ability to conceive of abstract concepts. Darwin characterizes savages as having few words which relate to abstract concepts.
For Darwin not all religion is equal. It consists of a continuum progressing from brutish disinterest in the surrounding world to simple beliefs in animal spirits to polytheism to complex systems of monotheism which ultimately leads to science. The sort of belief in standardizations necessary for to make a code of ethics that is found in higher religions translates more easily to belief in absolute scientific laws than the ever shifting, capricious beliefs of savages. Intellectuals such as Prof Michael Levin have pointed out that belief in concrete rules is one of the founding principles of western civilization.
On an aesthetic level, Darwin admires the sort of devotion and sentiments which lead one to believe in God. He states that "some of the
highest intellects that have ever existed" believed in a creator. Granted, Darwin laments superstition and attributes it to minds not well developed, but overall his attitude toward religion is to appreciate it from the bottom up rather than denigrate it from the top down as modern anti-theists do.
Darwin was certainly not an anti-theist. He gives a more holistic, anthropological approach to the phenomena of religion rather than the hysterical anti-theist polemic used by New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins. Darwin's attitude toward religion is more similar to seculars like FA Hayek who doubt it on an intellectual level but admit that it often has positive aspects.
Darwin's perspective is not commonly found today. Please read the passage for yourself and let me know if my analysis is wrong.
___________________________________
Excerpt from Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man
BELIEF IN GOD—RELIGION.
There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travellers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no words in their languages to express such an idea. (74. See an excellent article on this subject by the Rev. F.W. Farrar, in the 'Anthropological Review,' Aug. 1864, p. ccxvii. For further facts see Sir J. Lubbock, 'Prehistoric Times,' 2nd edit., 1869, p. 564; and especially the chapters on Religion in his 'Origin of Civilisation,' 1870.) The question is of course wholly distinct from that higher one, whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the universe; and this has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.
If, however, we include under the term "religion" the belief in unseen or spiritual agencies, the case is wholly different; for this belief seems to be universal with the less civilised races. Nor is it difficult to comprehend how it arose. As soon as the important faculties of the imagination, wonder, and curiosity, together with some power of reasoning, had become partially developed, man would naturally crave to understand what was passing around him, and would have vaguely speculated on his own existence. As Mr. M'Lennan (75. 'The Worship of Animals and Plants,' in the 'Fortnightly Review,' Oct. 1, 1869, p. 422.) has remarked, "Some explanation of the phenomena of life, a man must feign for himself, and to judge from the universality of it, the simplest hypothesis, and the first to occur to men, seems to have been that natural phenomena are ascribable to the presence in animals, plants, and things, and in the forces of nature, of such spirits prompting to action as men are conscious they themselves possess." It is also probable, as Mr. Tylor has shewn, that dreams may have first given rise to the notion of spirits; for savages do not readily distinguish between subjective and objective impressions. When a savage dreams, the figures which appear before him are believed to have come from a distance, and to stand over him; or "the soul of the dreamer goes out on its travels, and comes home with a remembrance of what it has seen." (76. Tylor, 'Early History of Mankind,' 1865, p. 6. See also the three striking chapters on the 'Development of Religion,' in Lubbock's 'Origin of Civilisation,' 1870. In a like manner Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his ingenious essay in the 'Fortnightly Review' (May 1st, 1870, p. 535), accounts for the earliest forms of religious belief throughout the world, by man being led through dreams, shadows, and other causes, to look at himself as a double essence, corporeal and spiritual. As the spiritual being is supposed to exist after death and to be powerful, it is propitiated by various gifts and ceremonies, and its aid invoked. He then further shews that names or nicknames given from some animal or other object, to the early progenitors or founders of a tribe, are supposed after a long interval to represent the real progenitor of the tribe; and such animal or object is then naturally believed still to exist as a spirit, is held sacred, and worshipped as a god. Nevertheless I cannot but suspect that there is a still earlier and ruder stage, when anything which manifests power or movement is thought to be endowed with some form of life, and with mental faculties analogous to our own.) But until the faculties of imagination, curiosity, reason, etc., had been fairly well developed in the mind of man, his dreams would not have led him to believe in spirits, any more than in the case of a dog.
The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory.
The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods. For savages would naturally attribute to spirits the same passions, the same love of vengeance or simplest form of justice, and the same affections which they themselves feel. The Fuegians appear to be in this respect in an intermediate condition, for when the surgeon on board the "Beagle" shot some young ducklings as specimens, York Minster declared in the most solemn manner, "Oh, Mr. Bynoe, much rain, much snow, blow much"; and this was evidently a retributive punishment for wasting human food. So again he related how, when his brother killed a "wild man," storms long raged, much rain and snow fell. Yet we could never discover that the Fuegians believed in what we should call a God, or practised any religious rites; and Jemmy Button, with justifiable pride, stoutly maintained that there was no devil in his land. This latter assertion is the more remarkable, as with savages the belief in bad spirits is far more common than that in good ones.
The feeling of religious devotion is a highly complex one, consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence (77. See an able article on the 'Physical Elements of Religion,' by Mr. L. Owen Pike, in 'Anthropological Review,' April 1870, p. lxiii.), fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other elements. No being could experience so complex an emotion until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least a moderately high level. Nevertheless, we see some distant approach to this state of mind in the deep love of a dog for his master, associated with complete submission, some fear, and perhaps other feelings. The behaviour of a dog when returning to his master after an absence, and, as I may add, of a monkey to his beloved keeper, is widely different from that towards their fellows. In the latter case the transports of joy appear to be somewhat less, and the sense of equality is shewn in every action. Professor Braubach goes so far as to maintain that a dog looks on his master as on a god. (78. 'Religion, Moral, etc., der Darwin'schen Art-Lehre,' 1869, s. 53. It is said (Dr. W. Lauder Lindsay, 'Journal of Mental Science,' 1871, p. 43), that Bacon long ago, and the poet Burns, held the same notion.)
The same high mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual agencies, then in fetishism, polytheism, and ultimately in monotheism, would infallibly lead him, as long as his reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various strange superstitions and customs. Many of these are terrible to think of—such as the sacrifice of human beings to a blood-loving god; the trial of innocent persons by the ordeal of poison or fire; witchcraft, etc.—yet it is well occasionally to reflect on these superstitions, for they shew us what an infinite debt of gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason, to science, and to our accumulated knowledge. As Sir J. Lubbock (79. 'Prehistoric Times,' 2nd edit., p. 571. In this work (p. 571) there will be found an excellent account of the many strange and capricious customs of savages.) has well observed, "it is not too much to say that the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure." These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest faculties may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Why Big Business Promotes Diversity at its own Peril
There was an old word called cosmopolitanism which meant a universal ethic among all peoples. It would allow for people of different beliefs to overlook differences and interact more fluidly. In modern times, cosmopolitanism is required in the business world, where markets seek to expand to nations which are different from the West such as China or Singapore.
Diversity within an organization artificially arranges things so that people of different backgrounds have to constantly work together rather occasionally on business trips. This would seem to make interactions with dissimilar business partners much easier because of already having to relate to different people is already a necessity within the company.
But like cosmopolitanism, diversity tends to make people become worldly, consumerist, and less focused on "dirty" beliefs of religion and aesthetics-- beliefs that function as a selectively permeable membrane to things which are irrelevant to the success of the corporation and that serve only as potential barriers.
This is probably why corporations, who seek loyalty from workers even above religion, race, and ethnicity, don't mind if such allegiances are diminished. The company and other companies can thrive on the void left in their wake, which will presumably be filled with consumerism. And from consumerism comes the real payoff from diversity: profits.
Whether the loss of "dirty" beliefs will hurt people in the long run can only definitively be seen in the future. But forces like gender and racial equality which underpin the going diversity/cosmopolitan ethic would seem to prove dangerous in time.
For example, feminism leads to fewer children being born, and non-feminist cultures would seem to proportionately replace feminist ones. Moreover, an atmosphere of racial equality permits races of lower potential population IQ to mix with those which have higher average IQ, thus lowering the proportion of people suitable to fill highly skilled occupation necessary for the functioning of the modern world. So, a society reduced in number and genius may find itself reverting invariably to "dirty" beliefs of religion and ethnic identity as the potential for functioning of business and science is reduced.
Paradoxically, preservation of the mental material needed to sustain a cosmopolitan society seems to require the very same beliefs of religion and ethnicity which cosmopolitanism seeks to wear away.
But markets, along with cosmopolitanism, are focused on the present. The question is how long the present will last.
Diversity within an organization artificially arranges things so that people of different backgrounds have to constantly work together rather occasionally on business trips. This would seem to make interactions with dissimilar business partners much easier because of already having to relate to different people is already a necessity within the company.
But like cosmopolitanism, diversity tends to make people become worldly, consumerist, and less focused on "dirty" beliefs of religion and aesthetics-- beliefs that function as a selectively permeable membrane to things which are irrelevant to the success of the corporation and that serve only as potential barriers.
This is probably why corporations, who seek loyalty from workers even above religion, race, and ethnicity, don't mind if such allegiances are diminished. The company and other companies can thrive on the void left in their wake, which will presumably be filled with consumerism. And from consumerism comes the real payoff from diversity: profits.
Whether the loss of "dirty" beliefs will hurt people in the long run can only definitively be seen in the future. But forces like gender and racial equality which underpin the going diversity/cosmopolitan ethic would seem to prove dangerous in time.
For example, feminism leads to fewer children being born, and non-feminist cultures would seem to proportionately replace feminist ones. Moreover, an atmosphere of racial equality permits races of lower potential population IQ to mix with those which have higher average IQ, thus lowering the proportion of people suitable to fill highly skilled occupation necessary for the functioning of the modern world. So, a society reduced in number and genius may find itself reverting invariably to "dirty" beliefs of religion and ethnic identity as the potential for functioning of business and science is reduced.
Paradoxically, preservation of the mental material needed to sustain a cosmopolitan society seems to require the very same beliefs of religion and ethnicity which cosmopolitanism seeks to wear away.
But markets, along with cosmopolitanism, are focused on the present. The question is how long the present will last.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Pagan Symbols at Easter do NOT Celebrate Evil Things
Some Christians believe that secular and/or pagan symbols of Easter are mutually exclusive with the Christian celebration of Christ's resurrection. They want to change what has become a largely secular celebration of Easter into "Resurrection Sunday", a solely Christian celebration of the without peeps, eggs, and bunnies. Some even refuse to celebrate Resurrection Sunday, claiming that Easter was an attempt to Christianize an irrevocably pagan holiday.
Whether the peeps and bunnies are idolatrous is a good question, but the concepts behind them are not necessarily antithetical to Christian life. In fact, these symbols represent things that could be considered a precondition of the Christian life.
First, some background. The peep represents new life on earth for obvious reasons. The rabbit represents fertility since to breed like a rabbit is to have many children. Indeed, these symbols celebrate earthly life and not the salvation that Christ accomplished by dying for us at Calvary. But new life on earth isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is a necessary condition of future salvation since there cannot be salvation among people who haven't been born.
People usually think of salvation in terms of saving souls otherwise destined for damnation, thus limiting the number of those sent to hell (or the grave if you don't believe in Hell). But the famous Italian Catholic priest Padre Pio, in one of his remarks, thought of salvation in additive terms. He viewed marriage as a means to "populate the earth and paradise" with saints [emphasis mine]. The Bible seems to affirm expansive procreation--but not in the context of salvation. It presents salvation more as means of preventing people from perishing, "that none would perish," rather than a way to add more souls to heaven. The idea that one should have children just to populate heaven with more Christians is an interesting concept but is not really found in scripture. Having many children could be a way of investing in future missionaries, assuming more than two children become missionaries. This might be called salvific investing.
God blessed Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28, telling them to be fruitful and multiply. Normally, in the Old Testament, children are seen as a blessing. For example, Abraham and Sarah were blessed with their son Isaac. Job was blessed with a family due to fidelity to God after losing his previous one. Psalm 127:3 states that "Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him."*
In the New Testament, there is no conflict with child-bearing, but in some instances, it may seem that way. The apostle Paul writes that it is better for a man not to marry so that he can focus on doing God's work. Not marrying obviously means having no children in the Christian moral paradigm. But Paul's opinion is not a commandment because he permits those who cannot control their urges to marry rather than burn with passion. Paul then esteems childbearing for such people in 1 Timothy 2:15 by writing that a woman "shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety."
We should add that opposition to the bearing of children within the confines of marriage seems to be forbidden in scripture, as in the case of Onan who deliberately tried to frustrate the act of sex in marriage and thus won the word onanism as his namesake. Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930, states quite blatantly that “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children .” The Bible seems to echo Pius XI's sentiment that a child born and trained to serve God is a blessing. In Luke 1:14-15, an angel tells John the Baptist's mother-to-be that "thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." In other words, the Gospel of Luke seems to affirm the idea of bearing children who go on to be servants of God. But because there are no similar verses, we must consider that it is not a prime concern of the gospels at large.
At the very least, childbearing is not necessarily discouraged in the New Testament and is even commended as long as the children are brought up by a God-fearing wife. In the Old Testament children are seen as a blessing. So, the phenomenon of new life on earth should not be disdained. Furthermore, life on earth is a necessary but not sufficient condition of salvation, since believing in and living for Christ is the sufficient condition.
Indeed, pagan symbols should not overshadow Christian symbols at Easter. Maybe it is inappropriate to idolize fertility in the Spring. But without fertility, Christians would die out. They would either run out of potential pagan converts by evangelizing all of them, or they would go out of existence with only pagans left in their wake. These pagans may come across a written copy of the Bible and convert, but there will be no one around to mentor them. It seems necessary that there be some childbearing as an investment in a Christian future.Thus, the baby of childbearing should not be thrown out with the bath water of pagan symbolism.
In other words, the pagan symbols of Easter can be done away with if they are bad, but the concepts they celebrate should not be seen as antithetical to Christianity.
Whether the peeps and bunnies are idolatrous is a good question, but the concepts behind them are not necessarily antithetical to Christian life. In fact, these symbols represent things that could be considered a precondition of the Christian life.
First, some background. The peep represents new life on earth for obvious reasons. The rabbit represents fertility since to breed like a rabbit is to have many children. Indeed, these symbols celebrate earthly life and not the salvation that Christ accomplished by dying for us at Calvary. But new life on earth isn't necessarily a bad thing because it is a necessary condition of future salvation since there cannot be salvation among people who haven't been born.
People usually think of salvation in terms of saving souls otherwise destined for damnation, thus limiting the number of those sent to hell (or the grave if you don't believe in Hell). But the famous Italian Catholic priest Padre Pio, in one of his remarks, thought of salvation in additive terms. He viewed marriage as a means to "populate the earth and paradise" with saints [emphasis mine]. The Bible seems to affirm expansive procreation--but not in the context of salvation. It presents salvation more as means of preventing people from perishing, "that none would perish," rather than a way to add more souls to heaven. The idea that one should have children just to populate heaven with more Christians is an interesting concept but is not really found in scripture. Having many children could be a way of investing in future missionaries, assuming more than two children become missionaries. This might be called salvific investing.
God blessed Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28, telling them to be fruitful and multiply. Normally, in the Old Testament, children are seen as a blessing. For example, Abraham and Sarah were blessed with their son Isaac. Job was blessed with a family due to fidelity to God after losing his previous one. Psalm 127:3 states that "Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him."*
In the New Testament, there is no conflict with child-bearing, but in some instances, it may seem that way. The apostle Paul writes that it is better for a man not to marry so that he can focus on doing God's work. Not marrying obviously means having no children in the Christian moral paradigm. But Paul's opinion is not a commandment because he permits those who cannot control their urges to marry rather than burn with passion. Paul then esteems childbearing for such people in 1 Timothy 2:15 by writing that a woman "shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety."
We should add that opposition to the bearing of children within the confines of marriage seems to be forbidden in scripture, as in the case of Onan who deliberately tried to frustrate the act of sex in marriage and thus won the word onanism as his namesake. Pope Pius XI, in Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930, states quite blatantly that “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children .” The Bible seems to echo Pius XI's sentiment that a child born and trained to serve God is a blessing. In Luke 1:14-15, an angel tells John the Baptist's mother-to-be that "thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." In other words, the Gospel of Luke seems to affirm the idea of bearing children who go on to be servants of God. But because there are no similar verses, we must consider that it is not a prime concern of the gospels at large.
At the very least, childbearing is not necessarily discouraged in the New Testament and is even commended as long as the children are brought up by a God-fearing wife. In the Old Testament children are seen as a blessing. So, the phenomenon of new life on earth should not be disdained. Furthermore, life on earth is a necessary but not sufficient condition of salvation, since believing in and living for Christ is the sufficient condition.
Indeed, pagan symbols should not overshadow Christian symbols at Easter. Maybe it is inappropriate to idolize fertility in the Spring. But without fertility, Christians would die out. They would either run out of potential pagan converts by evangelizing all of them, or they would go out of existence with only pagans left in their wake. These pagans may come across a written copy of the Bible and convert, but there will be no one around to mentor them. It seems necessary that there be some childbearing as an investment in a Christian future.Thus, the baby of childbearing should not be thrown out with the bath water of pagan symbolism.
In other words, the pagan symbols of Easter can be done away with if they are bad, but the concepts they celebrate should not be seen as antithetical to Christianity.
Monday, February 25, 2013
The Virtue of Mr. Magoo
Blindness to peril helps one move around in the world.
Doing dangerous things without knowledge of their danger is not necessarily brave or valiant, because the actions are done out of simple ignorance. This would describe the actions of Mr. Magoo, the cartoon character who does daredevil things mistaking them to be every day actions due to his nearsightedness. Luckily for him, he always gets by without suffering any serious harm.
Perhaps the key to life--or one of the keys to it--is being ignorant enough to get out and do potentially dangerous things, like Mr. Magoo does, but to be lucky enough to survive them without significant loss. Some live, some die, and some stay home, but in a sense you can't live without leaving home and being like Mr. Magoo to one degree or another. Maybe this is the sense of altruism that entrepreneurs, explorers and mountain climbers take into consideration when they take risks. They might bear in mind that even if they fail, as long as there are many people trying making it possible for one person to succeed, then all of humanity will succeed.
Increasingly, it seems that blindness of social status, class, etc., can be necessary for people to move around in the world and to make their lives interesting. Blindness of static status may be necessary for both improvement and, potentially, loss.
But, if asked, many of those who've died or suffered because of taking a risk--however great it may be--would probably say that they should have stayed home, at least to the extent that they wouldn't have ended up in their present, sad condition. Maybe being like Mr. Magoo isn't all that great.
Mark Twain wrestled with this idea as he wrote of his leisurly steamboat trip down the Mississippi River as a newcomer to the mighty river. Later, after he became a steamboat captain, he learned of all the perils of guiding a steamboat, including signs of shallow water below which lay jagged rocks that would sink the boat and leave stranded those on board. How stupid he thought of himself to have once been ignorant of the danger in the river and to have even regarded signs of shallow water as elegant expressions of nature. His eyes now manically scoured the water signs of danger, but in a sense, he longed for the ignorance..and hapiness... he once had.
Shakespeare was right that all's well that ends well, and whether one goes about life with caution and refrain or happy Magoo-like rambling, the present consequences of the actions taken seem to shed either shadow or illumination on past actions.
If any conclusion can be drawn, those who've have fortune enough to take risks and live should be humble and remember all those who strived similarly but were not so lucky.
Doing dangerous things without knowledge of their danger is not necessarily brave or valiant, because the actions are done out of simple ignorance. This would describe the actions of Mr. Magoo, the cartoon character who does daredevil things mistaking them to be every day actions due to his nearsightedness. Luckily for him, he always gets by without suffering any serious harm.
Perhaps the key to life--or one of the keys to it--is being ignorant enough to get out and do potentially dangerous things, like Mr. Magoo does, but to be lucky enough to survive them without significant loss. Some live, some die, and some stay home, but in a sense you can't live without leaving home and being like Mr. Magoo to one degree or another. Maybe this is the sense of altruism that entrepreneurs, explorers and mountain climbers take into consideration when they take risks. They might bear in mind that even if they fail, as long as there are many people trying making it possible for one person to succeed, then all of humanity will succeed.
Increasingly, it seems that blindness of social status, class, etc., can be necessary for people to move around in the world and to make their lives interesting. Blindness of static status may be necessary for both improvement and, potentially, loss.
But, if asked, many of those who've died or suffered because of taking a risk--however great it may be--would probably say that they should have stayed home, at least to the extent that they wouldn't have ended up in their present, sad condition. Maybe being like Mr. Magoo isn't all that great.
Mark Twain wrestled with this idea as he wrote of his leisurly steamboat trip down the Mississippi River as a newcomer to the mighty river. Later, after he became a steamboat captain, he learned of all the perils of guiding a steamboat, including signs of shallow water below which lay jagged rocks that would sink the boat and leave stranded those on board. How stupid he thought of himself to have once been ignorant of the danger in the river and to have even regarded signs of shallow water as elegant expressions of nature. His eyes now manically scoured the water signs of danger, but in a sense, he longed for the ignorance..and hapiness... he once had.
Shakespeare was right that all's well that ends well, and whether one goes about life with caution and refrain or happy Magoo-like rambling, the present consequences of the actions taken seem to shed either shadow or illumination on past actions.
If any conclusion can be drawn, those who've have fortune enough to take risks and live should be humble and remember all those who strived similarly but were not so lucky.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Summoning Boyz II Men, a Good Move for Putin
A lot of people are making fun of Russian President Vladimir Putin for bringing in the R&B group Boyz II Men to Russia to encourage Russians to have more children. It is indeed and odd gesture, as the "sophisticates" mocking it allege. But overall, it was good because it brought publicity to the Russian people's birth rate which is clining toward their ethnic extinction.
Russia's fertility rate is said to be 1.6, which is below the 2.11 necessary for replacement. By no means is this as low as some other areas of Europe, such as Italy, where it is 1.4 and even lower than that in Northern Italy.
Russia is also not in danger of becoming a cold weather Saudi Arabia, like Germany, Denmark, and Holland. It is not losing entire areas to Mohammedan immigrants like France and Sweden are. There are no ghettos where non-Moslems are not safe to venture, like there are in Paris.
However, 1.6 is still a cline toward extinction. At this rate, there will be half as many Russians in sooner than three generations. With terrorists like Pussy Riot publicizing a poisonous ideology of feminism, which is demographically self-refuting, Putin must go on the ideological warpath to save Russia from extinction. His first challange is to get publicity, and he has succeeded in doing that.
Russia's fertility rate is said to be 1.6, which is below the 2.11 necessary for replacement. By no means is this as low as some other areas of Europe, such as Italy, where it is 1.4 and even lower than that in Northern Italy.
Russia is also not in danger of becoming a cold weather Saudi Arabia, like Germany, Denmark, and Holland. It is not losing entire areas to Mohammedan immigrants like France and Sweden are. There are no ghettos where non-Moslems are not safe to venture, like there are in Paris.
However, 1.6 is still a cline toward extinction. At this rate, there will be half as many Russians in sooner than three generations. With terrorists like Pussy Riot publicizing a poisonous ideology of feminism, which is demographically self-refuting, Putin must go on the ideological warpath to save Russia from extinction. His first challange is to get publicity, and he has succeeded in doing that.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Marxists Against Affirmative Action?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.
Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.
Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.
(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)
However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.
Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?
Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.
Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.
The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.
Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.
In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.
Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.
Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.
Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.
(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)
However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.
Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?
Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.
Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.
The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.
Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.
In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.
Friday, February 1, 2013
How to Invade a Country that has Nukes
It is impossible for a nation to conquer nation that is armed with nukes. Even if the would-be invading nation has nukes, it will not attack because it is in both nations' interest to avoid the devastation of a nuclear war. This is the basis for the Stability-Instability Paradox that reigns in modern times.
However, there is a much simpler way to invade a country with nukes, but it cannot be done by a nation, and it takes longer than even the (so far) 11 year old US Afghanistan war. Indeed, it takes generations, but it is more efficient than any military campaign. It boils down to immigration, miscegenation, and multiplication.
Immigration
Obviously, getting foreign nationals into a country can be difficult. Also, they'll be coming from many different nations which may not get along. However, in places like the England and France, Muslims will constitute a majority within a matter of decades (unless immigration is curbed). If they create a new Islamic Republic via democracy, it may become a member of the Arab League. It likely would not be ruled by an established Moslem nation, so the invasion would not be an imperialistic venture. But it would be almost guaranteed to re-carve the invaded nation into one more friendly to the nations whence the immigrants came.
Multiplication
If immigrants multiply fast enough, then they can ally with similar immigrants to displace native peoples. They might use government to open up immigration more, once they gain a 51% majority. They may not need a majority if they can get some native sell-outs to go along with them. This coalition would push for either more overall immigration or more immigration from specified nations, which would presumably be Islamic nations in the case of England and France. In the case of the United States, they may vote for increased quotas for Latin American countries. But first they'll need some generational gestation before they can spawn a takeover of the native population.
Protestants in 20th century America worried about being displaced by Catholic immigrants from nations like Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Poland along with other Catholic European countries. These immigrants, particularly the Irish, had huge families, as was encouraged by Catholic Doctrine and priests. Eventually, Catholics began to practice birth control, and some started marrying Protestants. In fact, today modern Catholics of European descent probably have much lower birth rates than protestant southerners. Moreover, the heart of Catholicism, Rome, nestles in the nation of Italy which has one of the lowest birthrates world-wide.
However, Latino Catholics still have very high birth rates. The question is whether they will end up like the European Catholics or whether they will continue to have a lot of children. In the case of Europe, the Muslims are a more sequestered group, and may be immune from the cultural influences of feminists and materialists, so they will likely retain high birth rates with only a few of them spinning off into a life of childless European modernity.
Miscegenation
Miscegenation, or sexual race-mixing, is the fait accompli of conquering a nation. The descendants of mixed couples usually identify with the one they look like most. Because Moslems come from stock bearing genes that are phenotypically dominant over European genes, the child will look more like the Muslim parent and thus will identify more with him. As an American example, Barack Obama looks more like his black Islamic father than his white atheist mother. He did not become Muslim, but he did identify more with his father's race because he looks more like his father. So, even if the products of miscegenal unions do not identify as Muslims religiously, they will identify as middle-easterners, Africans, Asians, etc. In all modern cases of immigrant invasion, miscegenation is far more of a subtraction of the native population than of the immigrating one, not to mention the fact that the natives would already be shrinking due to birth rates below replacement rate.
As a matter of anthropological fact, the immigrant population will also endeavor to miscegenate with the native population for several reasons. For one, the immigrant population may consist more of men than of women, and because men are usually the initiators of a relationship, the men will resort to coupling with native women. This will seem easy because the native women will look better than immigrant women for a number of reasons. The native country will be European and most of the immigrants will not be. Surveys in anthropology reveal that all races consider the nordic female to be the most attractive type of woman. Women of European countries obviously tend to be more nordic-looking than non-European immigrant women, and they would presumably be more available since there will be relatively more of them compared with the immigrant population which would consist more of men.
Also, there is greater use of plastics in England and France, and these have estrogrenaical effects on women, making them look more feminine and attractive. As proof of this, look at any highschool yearbook of white women from 1935 or earlier and you'll notice that the young women look far more masculine than they do today. Poor, immigrant-generating countries have little to no exposure to plastics, so their women do not tend to be as estrogenaicly-pumped. Estrogen from plastics affects native males by blocking their testosterone, so they will seem less pheromonally attractive to native females than immigrant males, despite on the net being more physically and socioeconomically attractive.
Native males also come from areas that have more Internet access and are thus more likely to see a lot of high-speed Internet pornography. Excessive viewing of high speed porn causes people to experience a decrease in dopamine levels which leads them to be less interested in real girls because dopamine is the hormone which helps men have drive to chase after girls they like. Furthermore, pornography may take the place of real women in native men's minds or may raise the bar in terms of beauty so that native men ignore native women they would otherwise find attractive if their standards hadn't been artificially been raised by porn stars or females in movies and print.
In some cases, immigrant males may practice more sexual license with native women if they view them as part of an inferior, immoral culture or an "infidel" religion. This phenomenon has been observed in the rape epidemic in Sweden being perpetrated by third world Mohammedan immigrants. This mentality would not provoke miscegenal unions, but it may result in pregnancies from one-night stands.
As a final note, European women are terrified of being called racist, so many of them will be unable to think of a moral justification for refusing the advances of immigrant men. If a frustrated immigrant calls a native woman a racist for refusing him, she may relent to his appeals to prove her non-racistness. Once he makes sexual advances, she becomes physiologically linked with him and may stay with him despite having other ideals in mind. There's also the syndrome whereby an immigrant may tell endless sop stories to a native woman, leading her to take him in out of sympathy.
For the reasons mentioned in the prior two paragraphs, miscegenation is inevitable given present biological and sociological conditions.
Conclusion
The three-pronged attack of immigration, multiplication, and miscegenation takes generations to complete, but it is the only way to successfully invade a nation with nukes.
However, there is a much simpler way to invade a country with nukes, but it cannot be done by a nation, and it takes longer than even the (so far) 11 year old US Afghanistan war. Indeed, it takes generations, but it is more efficient than any military campaign. It boils down to immigration, miscegenation, and multiplication.
Immigration
Obviously, getting foreign nationals into a country can be difficult. Also, they'll be coming from many different nations which may not get along. However, in places like the England and France, Muslims will constitute a majority within a matter of decades (unless immigration is curbed). If they create a new Islamic Republic via democracy, it may become a member of the Arab League. It likely would not be ruled by an established Moslem nation, so the invasion would not be an imperialistic venture. But it would be almost guaranteed to re-carve the invaded nation into one more friendly to the nations whence the immigrants came.
Multiplication
If immigrants multiply fast enough, then they can ally with similar immigrants to displace native peoples. They might use government to open up immigration more, once they gain a 51% majority. They may not need a majority if they can get some native sell-outs to go along with them. This coalition would push for either more overall immigration or more immigration from specified nations, which would presumably be Islamic nations in the case of England and France. In the case of the United States, they may vote for increased quotas for Latin American countries. But first they'll need some generational gestation before they can spawn a takeover of the native population.
Protestants in 20th century America worried about being displaced by Catholic immigrants from nations like Italy, Ireland, Germany, and Poland along with other Catholic European countries. These immigrants, particularly the Irish, had huge families, as was encouraged by Catholic Doctrine and priests. Eventually, Catholics began to practice birth control, and some started marrying Protestants. In fact, today modern Catholics of European descent probably have much lower birth rates than protestant southerners. Moreover, the heart of Catholicism, Rome, nestles in the nation of Italy which has one of the lowest birthrates world-wide.
However, Latino Catholics still have very high birth rates. The question is whether they will end up like the European Catholics or whether they will continue to have a lot of children. In the case of Europe, the Muslims are a more sequestered group, and may be immune from the cultural influences of feminists and materialists, so they will likely retain high birth rates with only a few of them spinning off into a life of childless European modernity.
Miscegenation
Miscegenation, or sexual race-mixing, is the fait accompli of conquering a nation. The descendants of mixed couples usually identify with the one they look like most. Because Moslems come from stock bearing genes that are phenotypically dominant over European genes, the child will look more like the Muslim parent and thus will identify more with him. As an American example, Barack Obama looks more like his black Islamic father than his white atheist mother. He did not become Muslim, but he did identify more with his father's race because he looks more like his father. So, even if the products of miscegenal unions do not identify as Muslims religiously, they will identify as middle-easterners, Africans, Asians, etc. In all modern cases of immigrant invasion, miscegenation is far more of a subtraction of the native population than of the immigrating one, not to mention the fact that the natives would already be shrinking due to birth rates below replacement rate.
As a matter of anthropological fact, the immigrant population will also endeavor to miscegenate with the native population for several reasons. For one, the immigrant population may consist more of men than of women, and because men are usually the initiators of a relationship, the men will resort to coupling with native women. This will seem easy because the native women will look better than immigrant women for a number of reasons. The native country will be European and most of the immigrants will not be. Surveys in anthropology reveal that all races consider the nordic female to be the most attractive type of woman. Women of European countries obviously tend to be more nordic-looking than non-European immigrant women, and they would presumably be more available since there will be relatively more of them compared with the immigrant population which would consist more of men.
Also, there is greater use of plastics in England and France, and these have estrogrenaical effects on women, making them look more feminine and attractive. As proof of this, look at any highschool yearbook of white women from 1935 or earlier and you'll notice that the young women look far more masculine than they do today. Poor, immigrant-generating countries have little to no exposure to plastics, so their women do not tend to be as estrogenaicly-pumped. Estrogen from plastics affects native males by blocking their testosterone, so they will seem less pheromonally attractive to native females than immigrant males, despite on the net being more physically and socioeconomically attractive.
Native males also come from areas that have more Internet access and are thus more likely to see a lot of high-speed Internet pornography. Excessive viewing of high speed porn causes people to experience a decrease in dopamine levels which leads them to be less interested in real girls because dopamine is the hormone which helps men have drive to chase after girls they like. Furthermore, pornography may take the place of real women in native men's minds or may raise the bar in terms of beauty so that native men ignore native women they would otherwise find attractive if their standards hadn't been artificially been raised by porn stars or females in movies and print.
In some cases, immigrant males may practice more sexual license with native women if they view them as part of an inferior, immoral culture or an "infidel" religion. This phenomenon has been observed in the rape epidemic in Sweden being perpetrated by third world Mohammedan immigrants. This mentality would not provoke miscegenal unions, but it may result in pregnancies from one-night stands.
As a final note, European women are terrified of being called racist, so many of them will be unable to think of a moral justification for refusing the advances of immigrant men. If a frustrated immigrant calls a native woman a racist for refusing him, she may relent to his appeals to prove her non-racistness. Once he makes sexual advances, she becomes physiologically linked with him and may stay with him despite having other ideals in mind. There's also the syndrome whereby an immigrant may tell endless sop stories to a native woman, leading her to take him in out of sympathy.
For the reasons mentioned in the prior two paragraphs, miscegenation is inevitable given present biological and sociological conditions.
Conclusion
The three-pronged attack of immigration, multiplication, and miscegenation takes generations to complete, but it is the only way to successfully invade a nation with nukes.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
TV Channels Christians Should Ban
If you want to avoid evil programming, don't get cable or satellite, and don't watch network TV aside from sports, news, and local shows. Also, be forewarned that computers and smart phones with Internet are potentially far more dangerous than TV.
But if you must have cable, there are some channels that are heads above rest in terms of the evil they promote. Christians should use the controls of program menus to block the channels listed below.
However, if you block them, your children may see them at a friend's house and may wonder why you don't get them. If they asked, you would have to tell them that you blocked the channels. Your kids may develop a forbidden fruit mentality with respect to such TV channels and may want to watch them more than if you hadn't blocked them. So it is best not to get cable at all, so that the collection of cable channels will be out of sight and out of mind, so to speak. But if you must get cable, here are the channels to ban:
BET
MTV
MTV2
VH1
VH1 Classic
Fuse
CMT
GAC
Comedy Central
SPIKE
G4
IFC
E!
Oxygen
All movie channel packages including: HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Sundance, STARZ, FOX Movie Channel, etc.
Any other channels you see fit to block.
Explanations
BET (Viacom) BET used to have a show called "BET Uncut", which featured rap videos with sexual themes. They used to have prosperity preacher infomercials come on right after it. Anyway, programming may revert back to such shows as Uncut. At present, some comic shows exhibit lewd jokes about sex.
MTV, MTV2 (Viacom) Obviously, this is one of the worst channels in terms of glorifying degenerate behavior. It is marketed to teenagers, so it is particularly dangerous. Jersey Shore is worse than the Real World was, because the Jersey Shore people are a rare breed of "sophisticated" partiers who do nothing with their lives other than party. The Real World characters also partied a lot and had more sex to boot, but they were a little more human. Teen Mom puts the focus on girls who've had premarital sex and illegitimate children, quite a model of the family for young viewers. There's also the Jackass type shows. Jackass is more gruesome and disturbing than anything the proto-Jackass character Tom Green ever did. The PBS documentary, The Merchants of Cool, identifies people who do such degrading things for attention as Mooks. The mooks on Jackass influenced some of my friends growing up, as they would mimic them by doing goofy daredevil stuff. There's also shallow shows like Made, which teach young people not how to do good things but rather how to be cool. In sum, these shows promote the antithesis of what most people want their kids to become. This is not to mention the relationship to pop music these networks promote, all of which is derived from voodoo, and which is naturally conducive to immorality and sometimes Satanism. (Rock, pop, rap, Jazz, the Blues, reggae, and some techno are part of the voodoo-derived family tree.)
If you want to know why rock music is bad, watch Pastor Joe Schimmel's They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll, read David Tame's The Secret Power of Music, Fr Basil Cole's Music and Morals, Fr Basil Nortz's Music and Morality, E. Michael Jones's Dionysus Rising, watch Br Michael Dimond's Abortion and Rock Music, watch Pastor Mike Hoggard's The Occult in Christian Music, read the Music and Morality tab on the Ob Lure, and most importantly, consult your own conscience.
VH1, VH1 Classic (Viacom) These networks aren't quite as bad as MTV but still have similar garbage reality shows and feature pop music.
Fuse This network actually aired a show called "Dance Off Pants Off", a competition in which people danced to music while stripping off all their clothes, or, in other words, an excuse to attract viewers with more explicit pornography than what is aired on MTV. Whether or not shows like this are presently aired, the network should be banned for its promotion of pop music.
CMT (Viacom) , GAC Modern Country music is nothing but rock music with air horns and twangy singing. Often, the same themes in rock and rap videos such as Jay-Z's Big Pimpin' with lots of bikini women are found in some country music videos. Also, the songs usually concern mundane things like sitting around a campfire and drinking beer. In any case, because modern country is rock music and therefore descended from voodoo, it should be avoided.
Comedy Central (Viacom) This network has a history of bad programming. Its most recent addition is Tosh 2.0. The comedian Tosh has a good wit, but he is too cruel and gruesome. Comedy Central is where "The Man Show" originated, which compacts manhood into beer drinking and lusting after pretty women. South Park is creative but rudely debauched. Humor is fine, but there's no need to fill it with extreme sexual perversion, indifference to murder, and general inhuman themes. The movies aired follow suit with the shows, as is the case with movies shown on MTV, VH1, and Fuse.
SPIKE TV (Viacom) This network fancies itself as The Man Show turned into an entire network. Programming is similar to Comedy Central, with The Man Show being formerly featured, as well as movies like American Pie.
G4 In the past it has aired The Man Show, and presently airs Campus PD, which displays delinquent and criminal behavior in college kids.
IFC Before airing commercials, the network was uncut and would often show movies rife with nudity like Dancing at the Blue Iguana. Other movies included those too disturbing for mainstream cable, such as Quills, Requiem for a Dream, Hostel, Boys Don't Cry, over-the-top grotesque horror films, and demented films with real-life drag queens as the main characters. People may think they're being cool by watching artsy independent films on IFC because they're getting off the beaten path of feature films tailored to the dumbed down masses. But most of these artsy movies are moral garbage no matter how artful they may be. Moreover, their artfulness is more image than real artistic quality. IFC used to air documentaries with sexual perverts who would glorify sexual perversion in film. They cast filmmakers who showed nudity and perverted sexual behaviors as pioneers. Presently, bad films are still shown on IFC, although now they are somewhat censored because of commercials. It's better to fill the limited time in your life with other things.
E! This network has the typical cold-blooded paparazzi shows with hosts joyfully mocking the periodic personal struggles of celebrities. Also, the Kardashian reality TV shows proliferate, along with the Comic Chelsea Handler who joked about an abortion that was performed on her. Today they air censored Sex in the City episodes, but these are nothing compared with the shows of the past, namely, the perverted "Howard Stern" and the risque "Wild On!" But the shows of the present are still bad enough to warrant blocking the network.
Oxygen This should be banned primarily for its history of airing infomercials at night selling the sort of stuff found in adult bookstores.
Movie Channel Packages HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Sundance, STARZ, FOX Movie Channel, etc. Besides airing soft core porn from time to time, these networks have plenty of uncensored R movies. However, TMC should be no worse than what is aired on network TV.
Additionally, channels not mentioned here may become worse in the future, so use your own discretion. Moreover, blocking the channels listed above won't keep all of the demons in Pandora's Box away from your home, and it's up to you as to what degree of malevolence you'll tolerate from them. In any case, the channels above must absolutely be barred from your TV if you want to protect your children and yourself from wasting your lives with a view to a heightened evil. Finally, if you decide to block these and other channels, don't neglect implementing a block on Internet because it is far more dangerous than even these channels for obvious reasons. Just don't screen out the Oblure ;-)
But if you must have cable, there are some channels that are heads above rest in terms of the evil they promote. Christians should use the controls of program menus to block the channels listed below.
However, if you block them, your children may see them at a friend's house and may wonder why you don't get them. If they asked, you would have to tell them that you blocked the channels. Your kids may develop a forbidden fruit mentality with respect to such TV channels and may want to watch them more than if you hadn't blocked them. So it is best not to get cable at all, so that the collection of cable channels will be out of sight and out of mind, so to speak. But if you must get cable, here are the channels to ban:
BET
MTV
MTV2
VH1
VH1 Classic
Fuse
CMT
GAC
Comedy Central
SPIKE
G4
IFC
E!
Oxygen
All movie channel packages including: HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Sundance, STARZ, FOX Movie Channel, etc.
Any other channels you see fit to block.
Explanations
BET (Viacom) BET used to have a show called "BET Uncut", which featured rap videos with sexual themes. They used to have prosperity preacher infomercials come on right after it. Anyway, programming may revert back to such shows as Uncut. At present, some comic shows exhibit lewd jokes about sex.
MTV, MTV2 (Viacom) Obviously, this is one of the worst channels in terms of glorifying degenerate behavior. It is marketed to teenagers, so it is particularly dangerous. Jersey Shore is worse than the Real World was, because the Jersey Shore people are a rare breed of "sophisticated" partiers who do nothing with their lives other than party. The Real World characters also partied a lot and had more sex to boot, but they were a little more human. Teen Mom puts the focus on girls who've had premarital sex and illegitimate children, quite a model of the family for young viewers. There's also the Jackass type shows. Jackass is more gruesome and disturbing than anything the proto-Jackass character Tom Green ever did. The PBS documentary, The Merchants of Cool, identifies people who do such degrading things for attention as Mooks. The mooks on Jackass influenced some of my friends growing up, as they would mimic them by doing goofy daredevil stuff. There's also shallow shows like Made, which teach young people not how to do good things but rather how to be cool. In sum, these shows promote the antithesis of what most people want their kids to become. This is not to mention the relationship to pop music these networks promote, all of which is derived from voodoo, and which is naturally conducive to immorality and sometimes Satanism. (Rock, pop, rap, Jazz, the Blues, reggae, and some techno are part of the voodoo-derived family tree.)
If you want to know why rock music is bad, watch Pastor Joe Schimmel's They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll, read David Tame's The Secret Power of Music, Fr Basil Cole's Music and Morals, Fr Basil Nortz's Music and Morality, E. Michael Jones's Dionysus Rising, watch Br Michael Dimond's Abortion and Rock Music, watch Pastor Mike Hoggard's The Occult in Christian Music, read the Music and Morality tab on the Ob Lure, and most importantly, consult your own conscience.
VH1, VH1 Classic (Viacom) These networks aren't quite as bad as MTV but still have similar garbage reality shows and feature pop music.
Fuse This network actually aired a show called "Dance Off Pants Off", a competition in which people danced to music while stripping off all their clothes, or, in other words, an excuse to attract viewers with more explicit pornography than what is aired on MTV. Whether or not shows like this are presently aired, the network should be banned for its promotion of pop music.
CMT (Viacom) , GAC Modern Country music is nothing but rock music with air horns and twangy singing. Often, the same themes in rock and rap videos such as Jay-Z's Big Pimpin' with lots of bikini women are found in some country music videos. Also, the songs usually concern mundane things like sitting around a campfire and drinking beer. In any case, because modern country is rock music and therefore descended from voodoo, it should be avoided.
Comedy Central (Viacom) This network has a history of bad programming. Its most recent addition is Tosh 2.0. The comedian Tosh has a good wit, but he is too cruel and gruesome. Comedy Central is where "The Man Show" originated, which compacts manhood into beer drinking and lusting after pretty women. South Park is creative but rudely debauched. Humor is fine, but there's no need to fill it with extreme sexual perversion, indifference to murder, and general inhuman themes. The movies aired follow suit with the shows, as is the case with movies shown on MTV, VH1, and Fuse.
SPIKE TV (Viacom) This network fancies itself as The Man Show turned into an entire network. Programming is similar to Comedy Central, with The Man Show being formerly featured, as well as movies like American Pie.
G4 In the past it has aired The Man Show, and presently airs Campus PD, which displays delinquent and criminal behavior in college kids.
IFC Before airing commercials, the network was uncut and would often show movies rife with nudity like Dancing at the Blue Iguana. Other movies included those too disturbing for mainstream cable, such as Quills, Requiem for a Dream, Hostel, Boys Don't Cry, over-the-top grotesque horror films, and demented films with real-life drag queens as the main characters. People may think they're being cool by watching artsy independent films on IFC because they're getting off the beaten path of feature films tailored to the dumbed down masses. But most of these artsy movies are moral garbage no matter how artful they may be. Moreover, their artfulness is more image than real artistic quality. IFC used to air documentaries with sexual perverts who would glorify sexual perversion in film. They cast filmmakers who showed nudity and perverted sexual behaviors as pioneers. Presently, bad films are still shown on IFC, although now they are somewhat censored because of commercials. It's better to fill the limited time in your life with other things.
E! This network has the typical cold-blooded paparazzi shows with hosts joyfully mocking the periodic personal struggles of celebrities. Also, the Kardashian reality TV shows proliferate, along with the Comic Chelsea Handler who joked about an abortion that was performed on her. Today they air censored Sex in the City episodes, but these are nothing compared with the shows of the past, namely, the perverted "Howard Stern" and the risque "Wild On!" But the shows of the present are still bad enough to warrant blocking the network.
Oxygen This should be banned primarily for its history of airing infomercials at night selling the sort of stuff found in adult bookstores.
Movie Channel Packages HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Sundance, STARZ, FOX Movie Channel, etc. Besides airing soft core porn from time to time, these networks have plenty of uncensored R movies. However, TMC should be no worse than what is aired on network TV.
Additionally, channels not mentioned here may become worse in the future, so use your own discretion. Moreover, blocking the channels listed above won't keep all of the demons in Pandora's Box away from your home, and it's up to you as to what degree of malevolence you'll tolerate from them. In any case, the channels above must absolutely be barred from your TV if you want to protect your children and yourself from wasting your lives with a view to a heightened evil. Finally, if you decide to block these and other channels, don't neglect implementing a block on Internet because it is far more dangerous than even these channels for obvious reasons. Just don't screen out the Oblure ;-)
Friday, January 4, 2013
Guns Don't Kill People; Spears Kill People?
The following story illustrates the errant focus of gun-grabbers.
According to an ethnography by Robarchek and Robarchek on the Waoroni people of the Ecuadorian rainforest, the Waoroni had one of the highest homicide rates known to man. They didn't use guns to kill each other; they used spears.
Here's why the murder rate was so high. The Waoroni lived in small tribal groups, and if a tribesman got bitten by a snake and died, (not a rare occurrence in the jungle), the tribe members didn't know how to cope with it. An infectious rage would build among them. Often, one of them would accuse a a person from a neighboring tribe of engaging in sorcery to send a snake to bite the tribe member. Their simmering rage would ignite into a murderous frenzy, and, gathering up their spears, they would spear people from the neighboring tribe, often murdering many.
This practice continued until Christian missionaries made contact with the Waoroni and implored them to "follow the one who did not spear", i.e. Jesus. After meeting the missionaries and adopting Christianity, the practice of mass murder died out among the Waoroni. I have the impression that if a gun grabber had had first contact with the Waoroni, he would have said to them "Gentlemen, hand in your spears."
According to an ethnography by Robarchek and Robarchek on the Waoroni people of the Ecuadorian rainforest, the Waoroni had one of the highest homicide rates known to man. They didn't use guns to kill each other; they used spears.
Here's why the murder rate was so high. The Waoroni lived in small tribal groups, and if a tribesman got bitten by a snake and died, (not a rare occurrence in the jungle), the tribe members didn't know how to cope with it. An infectious rage would build among them. Often, one of them would accuse a a person from a neighboring tribe of engaging in sorcery to send a snake to bite the tribe member. Their simmering rage would ignite into a murderous frenzy, and, gathering up their spears, they would spear people from the neighboring tribe, often murdering many.
This practice continued until Christian missionaries made contact with the Waoroni and implored them to "follow the one who did not spear", i.e. Jesus. After meeting the missionaries and adopting Christianity, the practice of mass murder died out among the Waoroni. I have the impression that if a gun grabber had had first contact with the Waoroni, he would have said to them "Gentlemen, hand in your spears."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)