Jordan Peterson 'Hatred For Being Itself'

Since I posted Jordan Peterson on Root of Evil  I have been going over many more of his lectures. JBP constantly repeats various aspects of his insights as they intersect with his latest discussion.  So that led me to listen again to Biblical Series II to see if there were inconsistencies. There were none that I spotted. However that led to correcting several portions of the transcriptions. I think it is now 100% but with stammers excluded.

Then after absorbing many of the cross-references, it occurred to me that there was more to say about how his view in this area -- exploring existence -- intersects with my own.

What JBP left out and what he instilled in me to express more clearly is what has prompted this essay. I pray that some of you might gain something -- comfort? -- from reading it.

First of all there is his conclusion that the hatred of being is at the root of malevolence. See, the desire to cause pain, suffering and destruction for the joy of inflicting it is only a symptom of the subject: the hatred.  

In order to comprehend the depths of that hatred, one must answer the question "what is being?"

Well, the ultimate form of being is existence itself. There could be no greater evil committed by anyone -- if they could - than to end existence itself. Such a villain has placed his will above the rights of every other creature alive.


One need not be religious to accept philosophically that existence itself is fundamental to the book of Genesis, which opens

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." 

That's the beginning of existence as we perceive it on a macro scale as told in many a myth and tale.

What I find amazing is so few have concluded what I've long noted about the foundational grammatical parallel in John. For God's sake thinkers, it talks about The Word!

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 Why is it not clear to every religious man and philosopher what Word that is?

For there to be existence, there had to be some action taken for it to come to being. That is a verb.
Basic grammar, the infinite variations of any verb begins with its infinitive.

1. Thus The Word in the beginning, standing all alone, must be the infinitive "To Be."
2. The next step would be The Potential Prime Mover -- God if you will allow the substitution -- pondering the Word and thus turning the infinitive into the interrogative "To be?" This would be the where the Word was with God.
3. The final step is The Potential Prime Mover turns the interrogative to the Imperative. "Be!" And the Word was God.

This is further supported as related in Exodus by the answer given to Moses when he asked "What is your name." Answer: "I Am that I am."

That is the first person singular of Being. What Professor Peterson has gotten very close to but has not stated outright that I know is demonstrated below.

When Peterson concluded the portion on the root of malevolence he said:

"It wasn't unconscious. [The Columbine killers,] they'd been dwelling on this for months, plotting their revenge. And it was against for being itself, for the crime of being. "

What Professor Peterson could have said, but perhaps left for us students to realize is this

"It was against Being Himself."

Oh how I wish JBP would explore more deeply along these lines. He has a short transition to make because, as I recounted in the link above, he said this in the video that inspired my last two posts:

2:10:15.8 the root for malevolence is the desire for revenge against God for creation itself.

Conclusions
For those for whom this is merely a philosophical consideration, can you see the danger posed by those for whom existence itself is hated? Most especially if, in a moment of laxity, you fail to consider the existential threat of humanity permitting one of its own concentrated power for any stated and possibly fabricated crisis? Such as Sustainability. Should you fail to explore the downside in full measure you are failing philosophers. Unquestioned love of sophs that lead to ultimate destruction is hardly philo.

For those who have faith in Him, you really need to consider this view. The hatred of being is the hatred for Being. Failing to call out the haters for that hatred sure seems sinful. Allow the philosophers their lack of faith, and try to recruit them on their level so that they can lay the groundwork on secular grounds to awaken the misled seated near the rotten in high places. That would surely be a virtuous calling.

Put Down the Resentful; Stay Happy

The consequences of resentments are rarely explored. Shakespeare did it once; Othello was a tragedy.

I've been a flawed man all my life; and now I can add old and worn-out to my excuses for imperfection. Be there anyone who ought to thank God for the happiness He has graced me with, it is I. Consequently I fret that I fail to show adequate thanks and faith when I don't speak out, as at least one of my acquaintances demurs, because of those dear held hostage by the more powerful. Anyone who justifies their silence about wrongs they see as being "for the children" is drowning his conscience for short-term gains -- even where not delusional -- at the cost of tossing away liberty and justice to secure the long-term.

If what follows is less than a thorough examination of the resentful and those driven by resentment, it is far better that I try to convince you poorly that this is a matter of grave importance than for me to throw up my hands in frustration and stay silent.

Resentful people at all levels of society, but particularly at its highest levels, have gotten away with murder for far too long. What they murder is peace. Peacefulness allows for the pursuit of happiness by the widest number of people. Happiness, as I'm inferring, is the thing that the unhappy resent the most.

Most all translations of the Ten Commandments have errors in them. Most common among them is the way the 6th is often presented. The correct translation is don't murder, not don't kill.  After seeing so much damage brought on by covetousness, I'm almost certain the 10th commandment's listing of only material items not to covet is in error. On the other hand most translations end with "thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbors." Thus intangible things your neighbor may own, such as momentary happiness, appear to be included. (I only wish it was among the tangible things that were listed so that it was clearer.)

It seems to me that perhaps the single most important thing never to covet is happiness. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that there are as many causes for happiness as there are individuals. Unless one is completely deranged, one who aims to destroy of the happiness of another gains nothing. And the problem I'm highlighting is that there seems to be a lot of derangement being nurtured by the even more despicable.

And this brings me to why I am writing this screed. Social Justice is a lie designed to reverse what are justly held possessions and steal portions under cover of smarmy words, claiming the intent to give them to those who have less. These perpetrators claim to be contemporary Robin Hoods, but they are doing to today's legal owners what scoundrel medieval English nobility had done so that Robin Hood had to steal it back to give it to the rightful owners.

Today, as things become ever more unpleasant by interjecting politics into every aspect of life, the rogues and their ever increasing numbers of henchmen plus the usual large number of useful idiots begin to have an ever worse impact on everyone's happiness. They have made it their goal to not let anyone enjoy anything as long as someone somewhere may not be content. Lots of people see it as madness. That's become the common and cavalier way of refusing to acknowledge the evil content of most any threat. Rather than fight evil, they willingly judge the perpetrator(s) as simply mad much as our courts do when deciding not to indict for trial someone deemed insane. It's hard to discern when it is cowardice or laziness that accounts for this. It is certainly not a responsible response. 

Echoing what Jordan Peterson said in the video central to my post of last week, those who claim to be seeking social justice for all the best of reasons are effectively lying thieves. It only makes matters worse when they have permitted themselves to believe the lie. So many useful idiots, so few gallows.

For an awful example of a believer in "social justice": those who expressed satisfaction that the targets of the Las Vegas mass killer two days ago were country-music concert goers -- and thus likely "Repugnics" -- are the type who only wish for unhappiness on others to equal their own. Equality seeking at its most low.

Add to that that so few on the Left Sinister raised a voice in protest to such gross and truly repugnant public statements, and it drives home my point. The most virulent of the Social Justice Cretins (SJCs -- I refuse to call them warriors) are evil, exhibiting the most extreme meaning of the word sinister with which all the Left are rightfully tinged.

The most reprehensible, of course, are the one who get the ball rolling with the propaganda networks. They stoke dissatisfaction, always for their own sinister purposes. A formerly happy person can be made unhappy when they have reason to fear destruction of their happiness. And that makes the Sinister happy.

Iago did that to Othello. Out of resentment for being passed over he sought revenge by fabrications intended to make Othello jealous that his wife was having an affair with the lieutenant whose promotion initiated Iago's scheming for revenge.

The well-healed in our society are quite well aware of the kind of resentment and the bad consequences portrayed in that particular play. Iago even turns to the audience to explicitly guide the less than bright on how to implement such a scheme. Thus they know how to do it, and full well see the kind of tragedy that can befall a society that is constantly encouraged to covetousness and the envy and jealousies that follow. In my opinion the risk is too great that they must intend for it to be.

I have struggled to write this well enough that more will be convinced that the danger is too high that I am right. I hope it helps the rising generation punish as never before those who either seek to gain temporary happiness at the expense of others, or when unsuccessful, attempt to ruin the happiness of everyone else out of spiteful jealousy.  But the most important thing for this generation -- or any other for that matter -- is to always be skeptical enough to be wary of people who peddle dissatisfaction. Thus gladly enjoy your happiness to spite their worst attempts to ruin it.

Oh they may promise you Utopia if you but heed their siren calls. But remember this about Sir Thomas More when he wrote his novel. He knew it was a lie, and hence the translation of Utopia is "no place." My favorite proof that Utopia is allegedly the place where everyone is happy. But if that were so, where would the misanthropes and practical jokers be? Their little secret is that the practical jokers convince large numbers to go there, and only after there do they discover that the misanthropes are running the place.

On the bright side, there seems to be a meme on resentment making the rounds. Since I published Vengeance of the Power Elites Pleases Satan, I stumbled across emissions at two other blogs, Declination and  Liberty's Torch, who wrote about the resentful and resentments of the kind needing to be battled much more severely. I spotted a third too, but lost it.

The first of these was inspired by a comment Dystopic received, so that makes 3 people in a short time span. What caused me to notice the first blog piece was that the commenter could have been quoting what Jordan Peterson said in the video published only a couple of weeks ago (Sept 12, 2017), but didn't credit him. All innocent enough because it could simply be that Professor Peterson himself had not started the ball rolling. He simply rang a bell that resonated well with a lot of thoughtful people, and many more heard it because of his renown had risen in great part due to him having been a publicized target of the SJWCs.

So I consider it good that the dangerous emotion known as resentment is getting more attention today. But the attention given it so far doesn't appear to do to much more than provide one more reason to distrust those in power and those seeking it. And that's an old distrust, at least to the political Right of this contemporary world.

What I'm advocating -- and this is different from the others who've dealt with the resentment meme -- is an offensive move in behalf of righteousness for the sake for happiness itself, and not solely to protecting material gains and property (true justice in law) as the SJC would have the world believe.

Those who are unhappy for any reason should not be permitted to destroy, without comeuppance, whatever happiness us poor souls can enjoy. It's long past time for such an offensive to be mounted against them and the rulers and would-be rulers who gain by their demands. The value you place on life hangs in the balance.

Defeating the Progs and Critical Theorists

The thought that follows this introduction began as a comment to What is Cultural Marxism and What is Critical Theory? that Redbaiter posted at his blog, TrueblueNZ. This is not the first time RB has written about the Left's nihilistic tendencies, particularly its employ of Critical Theory to bring Western society and culture to its knees. But this time he brings to our attention a newer video "What Is Critical Theory" that he pleads that his readers watch so as to gain more familiarity with the tactic even if they are largely aware of it already. His reason for desiring that more of us are better educated and aware of the enormity of the threat he makes clear at the end. "They [Cultural Marxists and Critical Theorists] are a massive force, but we can defeat them if we unite in that one purpose and that one understanding. Go out there, and fight the Cultural Marxists at every opportunity. If you don’t, everything is lost."

I largely concur with that request. But I also know what a daunting task it is he is wishing that many more of us will take on. Daunting because overcoming denial of the very real existence of evil is far more difficult today when the religions that traditionally stood against it have been eroded both from within individual institutions and in the minds of the huge percentage of adherents it has lost.

So in the interest of building up RB's case I tried to show what was missing from the video he featured and what more can be accomplished once we look at what was not said. I ask that you read RB's post and view the short video, and including comments left by AF and EAD. I think it will help you greatly understand what I think is an important lesson to be learned.


As I think you know RB, I love history. With my recall and ease at synthesizing connections between the past with the present I can bore even you before you gain an inkling as to why I am mentioning some story -- say, from ancient Greece.

Speaking of boring. While this video's narration is somewhat informative even for me who has familiarity with Critical Theorists, it will bore a lot of viewers in part because of something critically missing from it.

The narrator in the video says “defining or categorizing Critical Theory is exceptionally difficult.” His reason — essentially that it’s too complex — misses the mark set by the title of the video. “What is” is not really answered dammit. When I’m done here — it won’t take long — I hope you might say it is his own intellectualism that gets in the way of getting to the point.

Yes the narrator finally decides to provide listeners with an oblique definition that I’ll shorten just a bit to aid clarity “Critical theory is the searching for … instruments of social transformation.”

Transformation of Western Civilization to what? This video leaves that out too.

Let me grant that he does do something very well. He lists most all the common varieties of attacks on Western Civ. But he never classifies it for what it is. Let me do that.

Critical theory is the application of criticisms beyond what those with common human decency call “constructive criticism:” criticism intended to aid the person or project criticized. Therein lies the answer to the question. Critical Theory aims for destructive criticism. Criticism for the sake of criticism. The social transformation sought by its adherents is the destruction of happiness, seeking to make everyone dissatisfied with life. Its ultimate end is the destruction of human life. Their perfect outcome would have every man at every other man’s throat.

What I’m suggesting is that Critical Theory serves a definition of evil that I’ve seen (most often in novels and film) but about which I’ve never seen written before. I think it was Mortimer Adler who defined love as the emotion wherein another’s happiness is essential to your own (others may recognize in it a similar line used by Robert Heinlein in one of his fictions). The form of evil we see behind critical theory is the emotion wherein everyone else’s misery is essential to your happiness. In other words, what I'm defining is beyond hate. It's love of hatefulness. Critical Theorists will not rest until everyone else is dead or wishing they were.

If you can see what I’m saying, then you know there is an antidote RB.  The problem lies not in that we people most inclined to behaving decently couldn’t win the battle. The problem is that most of us are too civilized to believe that such rotten people exist. But they are currently thriving. And they are doing so it at our expense, with the cooperation of many of us and with the unawareness (if not denial) of most of us.

The antidote is found in the basic decency code of the Judeo-Christain ethos. Critical Theorists have worked hard at undermining a lot of Western thinking, but never more hard than at undermining the fundamental message of the Western creeds. They do this by relentlessly using Alinksy's rule number 4 against western religions by as many angles as each religion has adherents, because every man will simply will fall short of the ideals they profess. Those failings provides an endless supply of low-hanging fruit. The relentless criticism achieves its destruction first by always focusing on the failings no matter how minor. Then they go on to downplay all the magnificent benefits to living that resulted from the civility induced by the religions into the individuals that provided those benefits.

The consequences of all of this criticism is that the very gains that have made living easier and the means by which they were achieved are belittled.  We are witnessing a large segment of the latest generation being misled into discarding it all. In essence they've been inclined to aligning with the notion that less civilized would make life better. Nihilism being mainstreamed. Proving that the Critical theorists' campaign has been supremely effective.

Think of it as Chinese water torture applied to personal morality. One gift horse after another has its mouth inspected by the torturers, linking any flaw, real or imagined, to the self-interests of the giver. No good deed goes unpunished is the message they have imbued in too many of us, but especially the current youngest generation. The Critical Theorists understood before the rest of us that anyone who takes them seriously will find it hard not to become invested in the same death spiral as our torturers.

Now here is where I begin to address all those who continue to value the older ways that have led to all the good things our Western Civilization has delivered. To you who continue to strive to make life better for yourselves and those around you.

When next you experience callous ingratitude, the sort suggesting dismissal of the many benefits you have provided others, I think it is where "turn the other cheek" has the power to change the world one ungrateful soul at a time.

Those who continue to provide comforts and warmth and happiness to others in the course of their lives mocks the efforts of these rotten death dealers.

And then there will be the time where the enemy, the neighbor who no longer can tolerate your happiness no matter how large or small, will have gone too far. Each of you at some point will come to recognize that no matter how many cheeks you offer to the enemy they will remain the enemy of common human decency forever. Each enemy will have clearly inscribed his name to his own proscription.

Love the Lord your God with all of you heart and all of your might and all of your soul.
And love your neighbor as yourself.

These two sentences can be stated in a secular manner.

Love that you have life; be grateful for the abilities with which you've been endowed to discover all about it that you can; strive to learn to feel to your depths life's worth and value it with your utmost to do so.
And offer to help your neighbor learn to strive for himself; because it will be harder for you to enjoy life when your neighbor does not know how and is afraid to try. It is in your best interests to carry him for a time whenever you are able. Make him aware that you are offering only a starter course and that he will signal its end.

Do these things as much as it is in your power to do so and you will have thwarted the Progs in ways far beyond any reachable by argument.

A wonderful insight and a related observation

Wow.

‘..The big stuff, wars, moon landings, civilizations, doesn’t matter. Everything has been reduced to the lowest common denominator of personal insecurities masquerading as politics and entertainment reduced to fame for fame’s sake celebrities. All of it is calculated to match the workday routine of a twenty-something female college graduate working in media. Because that is mostly who writes it.
…Our enemies have set out big goals. We must set out bigger ones. We must become more than conservatives. If we remain conservatives, then all we will have is the America we live in now. And even if our children and grandchildren become conservatives, that is the culture and nation they will fight to conserve. We must become revolutionaries. We must think in terms of the world we want. Not the world we have lost.’

Daniel Greenfield

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/this-is-america-we-live-in-now.html

H/T Crusader Rabbit.

That’s an orthodox Jew perspective if I’ve ever seen one and it’s one of the best things to learn from the faith: it fully recognizes the hegemony of Natural Law so a reader doesn’t even have to be of their faith.

It reminds us that Abraham himself was a revolutionary.

Too bad his seed had so much in-fighting, usually involving jealousies and covetousness.

Ike hated by Ish, Jake hated by Esav, Joe hated by his bros, the Israelites hated by the Amalekites, set the pattern that is merely a repetition of what is endemic in the whole of the human race.

The last commandment, thou shalt not covet, were it strictly adhered to, would likey lead to the end of war.

People who admire others and don’t covet what the others have or can do are usually the most productive and loving people I know.

So what do we have now? Western Civilization hated by its current rulers for much the same reason as those revealed in scripture. Hence there is why our governments are also at war with Judeo-Christianity and its scriptures. It exposes how their actions are in parallel with all the evil-doers there.

Hence Greenfield is correct.

Attack On the Big Bang Theory Was Inevitable — Updated

I read today how the Big Bang theory is under attack.

The Big Bang cosmological model is in trouble, but its adherents, reluctant to abandon the theory, are busily attempting to shore it up. – “All Effect and No Cause”: Colliding Branes, Bouncing Universes, Promiscuous Singularities, and Fashionable Nothings — Five Versions of How It All Began.

I'm a much too simple man. I figured out long ago that this day was coming.  See, even before that, the young fool in me thought of the question, 'Well if you think the answer is simply that God created the universe, who created God?'

As I got older and a little bit wiser, the words recorded by a shepherd who claimed to have spoken with God had rattled around in my little head long enough.

It occurred to me that there was a simple way to align current axiomatic cosmological physics to Judeo-Christian theology, and it also answered the question of which that juvenile thought was only a quip.

The axiomatic portion was that it all started with a big bang. That would be the beginning of recorded time if records could have been kept.

But just like that juvenile quipster who asked who created God, these great minds are troubled that time could actually have a beginning, even though they'd never be satisfied with the answer. (Sounds like rent-seeking cosmologists if you ask me, but who would bother asking, and what do I really know of what sort of character would hide out in the sciences?)

Anyway, just for the record, here is how what Moses told us fits the Big Bang.

Moses recorded that God told him His name was I Am.

"I Am that I am." 

That is He Is, but in the first person singular.

Now this is at that time in history, right? And -- well I'm talking to the non-religious to anti-religious now -- it's all come out of the mind of a poor goat herder; right? Nothing really of significance could possibly be there, right?

YET? Yet that goat herder seems to have arrived at the same place so many brainy scientists have taken  (you should forgive the phrase) as gospel for the last 50 years or so. How's that? Here's how.

Recognize that the infinitive of  is is to be.
For those who insist on a single word to be a name, let's choose the French Etre.

• Theologically we have God on one hand, where Etre has yet to complete and implement His plan. 
• On the other hand we have, in cosmological physics, The Great Potential to be the Universe. 

• Theologically, Etre would ponder a move from the infinite infinitive. 
• Cosmologically, the Universe, it says nothing.

• Etre's ponders are essentially splitting the infinitive into the interrogative:

• To Be? 

• OTOH: The Universe -- it says nothing.

• Etre stops pondering, and converts the interrogative into the imperative:

• Be!

• The Universe -- it bangs biggly.

God: I Am.
Universe: It Is.


Let's face it folks. The big bang was in trouble with the secular anti-theists from the very beginning. But it was propounded in the day when Statism was hardly a word ever spoken or understood, let alone about to burst upon the scene openly.

Since the philosophical environment in which the Big Bang theory was introduced is no longer the case, well – the Big Bang just has to go. QED

Someone once avered: Liberty will be lost not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Thanks to a comment from the above link's author, Mike Gray, I have an ***Update*** after the break.

God's Condemnation Made Flesh

The overall trend of American government is now out of control of "We the People."

I know there are a great number of people who agree with this assessment. And they are not all Republicans, or republicans or conservatives let alone big and small L libertarians.

What's most alarming is that most of those agreeing with me won't even bother raising an eyebrow.

In such inaction lays the seeds of posterity's condemnation of this generation.


For you God-fearing types: have you ever considered that God Himself resides in your posterity? Hmmm?

An unimportant aside follows after the break.

Be Grateful

At this time of year there is a shared theme in the religious proceedings of both Judaism and Christianity. Passover and Easter each contain a reminder for us to revisit that weakest of human emotions -- gratitude.

For the older religion there is the reminder that ancestors were all slaves who were freed from bondage so that they could go on and live their lives in freedom. Many today really do appreciate that freedom, but sadly many do not. Facing up to freedom and its consequences are found in the something a child who whines about their lessons: "It's too hard!"

For the offspring religion, there is the reminder that One took on the burdens so that souls could be freed of the sins (the falling short of perfection) that arise in this world to first mislead and then confound each individual soul during the life of the body it inhabits.

In the Jewish sedar proceedings, there is a song known by its repetitive segment. Dayenu*. It is pronounced Dai-Yay-Nu. It means "It would have been enough." Enough for what? To praise the Lord. To show gratitude.

The whole song (hard to find -- it can go on and on as people think of another event) is a vessel in which to remember each of the gifts and miracles and justice that had to transpire for the children of Israel to be released from bondage under Pharaoh and to be free to seek the Promised Land. After each miracle performed, the Dayenu refrain follows, which is a way of saying "It would have been enough -- and yet there was more." It's about being reprieved from the foolishness of generations that had grown soft and allowed themselves to become slaves.

I'm not that familiar with specific popular Christian songs that relate the similar theme that grants release for the immortal soul as purchased by Jesus' sacrifice for the sins of humanity. (Handel's Messiah seems mostly about Revelation's finale.) However, I'm pretty sure the word Hallelujah is tied to it. It's another Hebrew word that is rarely defined for English listeners. But it essentially means "praise the Lord."

The Gospel words "For God so loved the world He gave up his Son so that everyone who trusts in Him shall not be lost, but shall have eternal life" are supposed to be remembered today. I pray that more will come to understand and actually be grateful. Really.

So try. Try hard to be grateful.
Wherever you are, for your life itself, and more.
For having been given the gift, however it has been offered to you, which if accepted, would allow that your soul might know peace.

---
* see the whole lyric after the break here
CHORUS:

Dai, da-ye-nu,
Dai, da-ye-nu,
Dai, da-ye-nu,
Da-ye-nu, da-ye-nu,
da-ye-nu!


Dai, da-ye-nu,
Dai, da-ye-nu,
Dai, da-ye-nu,
Da-ye-nu, da-ye-nu!

 The English translation for the stanza follows. (They are quite melodic in Hebrew as you heard when you clicked the link above in the body of this post).

Had he brought us out of Egypt, but not split the sea before us,
Brought us out of Egypt, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]

Had he split the sea before us, but not fed us in the desert, Split the sea before us, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]


Had he fed us with the manna, but not brought us to Mount Sinai, Fed us with the manna, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]


Had he brought us to Mount Sinai, but not given us commandments, Brought us to Mount Sinai, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]


Had he given us commandments, but not led us into Israel, Given us commandments, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]


Had he led us into Israel, but not given us the prophets, Led us into Israel, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]


Had he given us the prophets, but not built for us the Temple, Given us the prophets, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]


Had he built for us the temple, but not promised the Messiah, Built for us the Temple, well then--Dayenu!
[Chorus]

Better Late Than Never (Glenn Beck)

This morning I heard Glenn Beck issue a warning about the danger to any who hold Judeo-Christian views. This was prompted by Obama's current assault on Catholic Church managed health providers. He wants listeners to stand with the Catholics. I concur. [UPDATE: Attack On Our Care for Posterity is the new follow-up to this post.]

My own formal warning on this, posted at my old website (PascalFervor.com) in 2006, often cannot be brought up from the WayBack Machine. So I'll repost it again today. Were I to rewrite it today I'd think I write it more to the point, and I'd make sure to explicitly link the Precautionary Principle to the adversaries of the heart of Christianity and Judaism. But I'll let it stand as it is, awkward wording and all.

Saturday, 5 August 2006.

At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What Animates Its Critics Enemies

By Pascal Fervor

Judaism and Christianity have one very important thing in common. They are life-affirming religions.

Natural Law Consequence

While I remain agnostic in a manner that very few understand -- "I think it means something different than you think it means" -- there is the question I've posed to the faithful.

"If God has given us free choice, is it possible that Revelation tells us what MUST come to pass?"

I know the answer to this question. Dear faithful -- can you say it?

What I find so very sad is how many who claim to be faithful have chosen the path of inevitable fate.

Tide, Mudflats, and Quicksand

Le Mont-Saint-Michel, France

There are places where the tide pulls so far out one finds it hard to believe it will ever return. All that lays revealed may only be mud, yet that mud proves its allure every day.

Still the tide inevitably returns,often swiftly. It's so easy to be stranded out there. And that is even if one is not trapped in the insidiously numerous pockets of quicksand.

I have put together a slide show of  about 65 stills that were shot over about 12 hours.  Frames 25-30 were shot seconds apart to show the speed of the advance. Because wave action is miles away,  the advance is steady and relentless as it surrounds and cuts off higher mud.

It and a few explanatory notes (plus another man's art show I added late) are below the break.

History Wordplay

History to me is His story.

From the beginning of creation up until now, the spool of time has been unwinding. Thus, if you believe in God the Creator, well history is His story. Yet even believers will rarely get the history correct, because there are so many different ways to believe in Him. Or not at all. Belief in men, or a man, or in other forms of life or concepts, they will all look to history to validate their view.

So we have come to this current time with variations on history, many which claim they are the right, or correct history, depending on which axe they're grinding. (One of my favorites is how archeologists keep finding stuff that are hundreds of years out of sync. The mental gymnastics required for historians to save face on all the apparently incorrect sequences they'd concocted really ought to be in the Olympics. It's world class sophistry.)

And as global Statism grows, the variations of history will be contested only up to that point that it serves the State. For as Orwell warns us

"He who controls the present controls the past; and he who controls the past controls the future."

And in that world: 
"We are at war with capitalists; we always have been at war with capitalists."
And so that will be one thread of history. It will be like many others as the need arises. But in this special instance, since Communism (or socialism or whatever our rulers wanna call it) doesn't work, then when it is right for the all knowing all powerful State to hit the restart button, it will be:
"We are at war with communists; we always have been at war with communists."

But the reality, if you grok that God can also be a concept (even if He exists, He's done His best to leave each of us with our own concept of Him no matter what high holy men tell us), then every thing that really happens IS history. We may not know it, but it is. Like that proverbial tree that falls in the forest, it does indeed make a sound whether or not we sense it ourselves, since there are no forests in vacuums, and the laws of the universe tell us that it will resound.

So yes, history may come to us from honest wise scribes, or it has been altered by fools or charlatans. But what we must continue to seek is the most accurate accounting so that we can come to know and understand what is.

And maybe become truly wise in the process.

See? It is His Story.

----------
Unexpectedly related but timely example from Wabbit:

• Breyer: 'Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns'

Are They Still Jews?

Are they still Jews when they take up against God? 
Or have they fallen to the worldly side of Isaac, where they indulge in the world like Esau, or come to hate the world because it’s God’s creation as did Amalek?

So asks Spotter in the conclusion to his a comment at the provocatively titled The Death Wish of the Jewish Intellectual Left by Barry Rubin.

Spotter explores the reasoning to the conclusion of his comment in a manner that I approve, but using less words than I (sigh) would.

If you disagree, let me hear it. Typically the "Jewish" left will try to hide behind their Jewish origins, and will berate such distinctions as made here as antisemitic on its face.

But there is nothing antisemitic against calling out pretenders to a very specific ethic even if they don't realize they are pretenders. To be Jewish is much more being a promoter of the ethic from which Jew is derived than being from a race or tribe. Esau and Amalek were from the tribe of Isaac, but it did not make them Jews.

This sort of thing can be found in every Leftist designated group. For example,  blacks who think Jesse Jackson is their leader because the Leftist media calls him that are doing the bidding of the Left, favoring Jackson and not really themselves or society.

Women who let men haters dominate sexual issues, and make a mountain out of a mole hill, will see men not treating them as well as the majority would otherwise. That is because when men find they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, they rather keep their distance.

And so it is here. When other Jews let those among them who've fallen away from the God-centric ethic get away with still identifying with Judaism, they are being useful idiots to the Left which ultimately hates anything to do with God.

Now I know many Jews will be abraded by this post. Many because real antisemites love to make hay out of Jews having a very tough ethical row to hoe and often falling short; so Jews are understandably reflexively anxious about any criticism of any who call themselves Jews. Some because they believe once a Jew always a Jew, and one who has fallen away will be welcomed back. The prodigal son thing. But some who've fallen away will be thinking they're being insulted like a black might be for being called white. But a great deal of it is due to natural stubbornness when not due to more sinister reasons. The bible says you are a stiff necked people, and that is good to a point. Those who stick to the covenant with God, even a little, are doing what He expects. But once you've decided to go away from God, you can be just as stiff necked.

As Spotter points out in a very short space, if you have no need for God, or if you actually hate either Him or even the concept of Him, there are legitimate grounds to ask "are you really Jewish, or merely of Jewish descent."

They Hate God Because They Hate Themselves

Andrew Klavan blogged a reluctant critique today of a Christopher Hitchens review of two books on Anti-Semitism. I say reluctant, because Klavan liked a good deal of Mr. Hitchens' review.

What Mr. Klavan found foolish -- rightly in my lights -- was the other author's insistence on placing the blame for the world's most resilient persecution on religion itself.

I recommend reading the whole thing, but I will excerpt Mr. Klavan's concluding lines: 

"...it seems clear to me that the people who feel they hate Jews actually hate God.

And they hate God because, in the light of His goodness, they hate themselves.”

The God of the universe is the exact opposite of misanthropy. The God of misanthropy is Sustainability.

Press a Greeny a bit and you’ll hear: “This planet has too many people.”

God and his promise and his moral code contradicts all those who believe in the Malthusian moral imperative. They find that intolerable.

By hook or by crook, they are determined to reduce the number of people on this planet. In a world dominated by such pessimists, it is totally logical that all of His people are marked for persecution.


Related posts:

• At the Core of the Judeo-Christian Ethos: What Animates Its Critics
• God Asked Abe to Offer Ike, Nothing More

The Ruling Class' Primitive Urge

Peter Boston observes at the Belmont Club:

The prestige, self-esteem, and emotional payoff of being in control that comes with becoming one of the “shapers” of cultures is an awfully strong motivation for human beings. Perhaps the strongest motivation of all. I believe that the promise of this supreme emotional payoff is the reason that Marxism, and its red-headed stepchild Progressivism, will not go away despite the trail of mangled corpses the shapers must negotiate.

It’s the Adam and Eve story all over again – for a man to live peacefully among other men he must first refuse to be a god. Adam and Eve flunked. 

Emphasis added.


I wrote of this weakness at The Eighth Day. It's reassuring to see others making a strong case of this (reducing the standing that sex is the original sin). Better more of us understand the dangers of unbridled ego with its drive to Lord it over all creation as if one were God.

As the ruling class becomes more fearful and progressively more oppressive, remember the words they simply cannot abide: "You are NOT God."  Their henchmen will hear and be watching. Remember what happened at the Bastille?

Open letter to individual members of the ruling class.

The bulk of you morons are gleefully awaiting the death you have arranged to rain down on all of humanity. Just so long that you sate that primitive urge of yours.

I knew of you before most of you knew yourself. For but a momentary thrill you will try and kill billions of people and cast the remnant into a very dark age. God will deal with you as He sees fit. I pray for you that you awaken from your trance and sabotage the schemes of others of your cadre. God will grant you dispensation by you showing how you truly have repented.

I'd take the offer while you still are in a position to thwart those who seek to force the Hand of God. Your opportunities to demonstrate contrition will become scarcer as the top-most become fearful of you.

Dennis Prager = Rodney King

Statism doesn’t need to control all its leading opponents. It seeks out a few who have a handle or two and -- when the moment is ripe -- twists.

Yesterday morning I heard Dennis Prager interviewing William Voegeli, author of "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State."

Dennis of all people should have made the connection I’m about to make. But he didn’t.

This is the old story of losing our paradise because of “evil forces” playing on human weaknesses. We were misled down this path, weren’t we? We Americans who are so trusting of those in government and on the Left, confident that they are simple and decent honest human beings like ourselves, and so are incapable of treachery and worse. /s

From that radio interview it was clear that “Never Enough” parallels my exegesis of the Eden story.

We had everything we could want materially. But we could not withstand God’s simple test of our control of our ego.

When Eve fell or was pushed against the forbidden tree and saw that touching it didn’t kill her (as she mistakenly thought was the bar), she then listened to the voice that said that “God’s selfishness for His knowledge and power was why He barred her from eating of it” (targeting her sense of trust and undermining her obeisance and gratitude). Furthermore, she succumbed to coveting all that was His: "if you eat of it, all that is His could be yours."

Ambition is good, but unbridled ambition is costly (what do you say now welfare state lovers?)

And then, once she ate of it, she couldn’t be alone in her sin, she felt the need to have company in sin. And so it goes.

When God later confronted Adam, he complained it was “the woman whom YOU gavest to me” was the fault — like he didn’t see it in the salad she provided. “It’s not my responsibility!”

Back to the current dilemma: It’s not YOUR responsibility conservative Americans? 

Back to Eden: When quizzed, can’t you just imagine Adam explaining to God how he was totally misled by the woman? Right Adam, nothing willful in your being misled was there? It never occurred to you that you could give into temptation and blame someone else for the consequences, did it? Right? “No — not Me. Never. I swear.” God’s omniscience is a pisser ain’t it?

Back to Now: Like we were misled by the “Progressives” into believing we could borrow until the cows came home and not worry? Mr. Prager: You want us to believe that there was no willful misleading maybe by you or any of your colleagues. Nor even that you have willingly permitted yourself to be misled. Do you Mr. Prager? When will you recognize how much bilge you are pumping?

As Doug at BC noted:

The whole time he was prattling on about liberals not having an evil bone (“proof” being that he loves them) in their bodies, I was reliving my behaviors and the feelings I carried in my guts after college gave me multiple rationales to take out my unresolved issues and hostilities on others in pursuit of utopia.

Wishing for a World Devoid of Evil does not make it so.

I swear, I can hardly stand listening to Dennis Prager because of all the “ultimate issues" he knows so well how to skirt. He’s worse than any hypocrite. He’s an enabler of the Statist advance.

It was Doug's words which prompted me to the title of this post.

Dennis Prager is a Rodney King who wants us to believe we can all just get along so he doesn’t have to confront his complicity in the disaster unfolding around him -- and us.

The Eighth Day

I see it as at odds with fundamentals that people could ever say "God lied."

That, to a rational mind, is unthinkable. For the Concept of God is about truth, whether we like it or not. The universe would not work were The Author of natural law a liar.

I had started another post that is yet to be completed. It is about us humans not liking, hating, shunning, imagining all sorts of alternative meanings, to things we do not want to hear or believe. Conservatives often joke about liberals wishing that life were fair when it is not, but many conservatives will do the same thing when it comes to anything that threatens their status quo. They'd rather not believe there's something they've worked hard to acquire that will need be sacrificed. So they are inclined to forestall the inevitable until such time that they will lose even more and maybe all.

Gen 2-17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Let's break away here and ask "While they resided in Eden, did they even know what die means?" [See below the break as I examine this tangential thought.]*

At Gen 3.4 we see Eve addressing a mischievous inclination that God permitted her the freedom to consider.

She says: God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 

Consider this. We have no record of God actually speaking to her yet as He did to Adam earlier. So one can easily imagine that Adam informed her of the rules.

She asked: "Why?"
Adam responded "Because He said so. Look, don't even touch it."

Have you ever heard a parent tell something like that to a child? How about to a naif? Adam may have been the one to add the extra measure. He (or she if that were the case) would not be the last man to add to God's laws.

Next imagine that a snake happens by Eve when she is near the tree of forbidden fruit. It startles her as any fast and sudden moving object might do to one of us today. And she bumps up against the tree. And low and behold nothing happens!

Here would be the first lesson: there be danger in adding any words to the words of God. For what do we hear next? We hear the mischievous voice, playing with her logical doubts, saying to Eve:

Gen 3-4: ...Ye shall not surely die: After all, she touched it and lived.
Gen 3-5: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

One of our blessed human gifts is ego. That ego can easily be bruised, like when you believe someone in whom you trusted has lied to you. You harbor resentment and it can easily grow if an explanation is not readily apparent. Or if you were looking for an excuse to begin with -- you were aching to indulge your ego. The ego unbridled: where will unbridled ego lead us?

Gen 3-6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

He may have trusted in his wife; but did he not already know every animal in the garden? It's hard to believe he didn't know all the fruits too -- especially that one. God did not tell him not to look at it.

The remainder of Gen 3 is about the consequences of indulging that ego and the many ways we are apt to deflect blame and make matters worse.

The upshot was that man was kicked out of paradise where we had all we could rightfully desire, but it simply was not enough. Our ingratitude to God was shown in that we wished to be as God.

This would be the very first recorded instance and consequence of coveting that which is not ours nor ever would be or should be. I always believed that the Ten Commandments were perfectly balanced due to this. The first Commandment, in observance, is about loving to get close to God. The violation of the last Commandment would push Him as far away as is possible.

More; it's about achieving happiness. Any man who would be a god will subject other men and restrict them. That is something God himself will not do. Here is the difference between good and evil up close. God grants free will. History is replete with other men seeking to be proclaimed gods in order to restrict other men. Even unto granting them the right to reproduce as well as allowing them to continue to live according to the despot's whim.

And thus ended God's Day 7. He did NOT lie.

In that day began the moment man ate the forbidden fruit: Welcome to the Eighth day, the day in which thou shalt surely die -- as He warned us would happen.

The Most Dangerous Envy of All

Those who claim there is no God will nevertheless covet the worship mankind bestows upon Him.

I suspect their anger becomes greatest when it comes to gratitude. Although gratitude is widely acknowledged as the weakest of emotions, there is no tyrant on Earth, big or small, who does not covet any small symbol of gratitude granted the God they disparage publicly as Your Invisible Friend.

I've observed before the apparently brilliant balance of the Ten Commandments.

• The first Commandment is about wishing to be as close to God as possible: your nearest Neighbor, your surest Source of solace, of happiness.
  
• The last Commandment warns about coveting anything that is your neighbors. 

What surer way to convince your neighbor to distance himself from you than for you to discomfort him by openly coveting what is his? In a way, are you not actively distancing yourself from him? Then extend that thought to those that distance themselves from Him.

And in a larger sense, is happiness what the covetous seeks, or is it the power to deny happiness to another?

When I say there are men who deny God exists, but nevertheless make war on this God that does not exist, what I'm seeing are men who would do battle with a concept outside of their knowledge simply for the purpose of denying to Him (just in case He exists) the happiness He wishes for His Creation.

Be ready to battle anti-theists and their sponsors, for they are determined to destroy any who stand by Him or defend those who do.

Ingenuity by Common Humans: Discounted by Our Demigods

Late today I encountered a frank new commenter at Belmont Club. It was on Wretchard's latest exploration of the AGW fraudulence.

Here is the comment "Bear" posted:

We should all be aware of who wants to pick the winners and losers.

Civilization as we know it is confronted with serious issues. It just so happens some think they can determine the outcome. These are not ignorant people, and carbon is a vehicle to the solution in their eyes. The problem is that they equate survival as a species with a socialist (we all know where that ends) state.
relentless growth is unsustainable.

Climate change propanganda is the vehicle to get there, since stating the obvious issues would generate even more populist resistance.

The myth that technology can solve everything is patently false.

this will end badly.

Bear, I’ve been battling with this concept a very long time. Few are willing to state it as you have.

There is redundancy in your assertion “The myth that technology can solve everything is patently false.” It sounds like you want to believe your line so much that you had to call technological solutions both a myth and patently false.

Dare you battle with me over it?

He responded:

You're Not Surprised 2

The last time you were not surprised, I casually compared Obama's self-important "We are God's partners in matters of Life and Death" to that of Nimrod of the Bible. Since then I've had the delight to be enlightened, supplemented and reinforced a number of times about my observation. The following is a digest of all of it.

The bulk of this came from Og (and his best line has the link).

Nimrod’s error may best be described this way: “He was a great hunter. As his stature grew to where he claimed the power of death over all of God’s creation, so too did his impression that he was godlike himself. (Not realizing it was the ability to endow LIFE, and not DEATH, that made one a God).”

The following is lifted entirely from commenter ahad ha'amoratsim at Klavan's blog:

In Jewish tradition, Nimrod was called a mighty hunter (the Hebrew actually translates more accurately as “trapper”) because he trapped men with his smooth talk and manipulated them with words into making him absolute ruler over them. Nimrod in Jewish tradition is also the one who threw the youth Abraham into a furnace for destroying Terach’s idols.

Hmm, hubris, glib, talks people into giving him unchecked power despite his being no more fit for it than they are — good pick[cf. for Obama]! [emphasis added]

You see? Nimrod in his hubris assessed that he and God should be able to speak eye-to-eye, as equals do. He convinced his people to help him build the great Tower. You may know how that turned out.

The sort of foolishness that reaches so high has forever been associated with Nimrod, and babbling nonsense has forever been associated with mankind whenever it follows men such as he.
The last observation come from a Dicentra left at the Protein Wisdom Pub.

In other words, Obama is a Nimrod.

I can get used to that.

LOL I swear, I hadn't thought of that old schoolyard taunt when I made the connection initially. But given that the dictionary says nimrod means fool, I guess now that we know the etymology of the word, we can tell the difference from a mindless slur and factual application.

Given the nature of the man and the nature of the people who adore him: WOW!

I swear, I am not that good a wordsmith, I stumbled upon this vision, and I doubt I could have done it alone.
I have many friends to thank, and if I missed anyone, please let me know -- or quick, go and hide!

*********Update***********

Sdferr's image of Obama doing his Nimrod imitation.

You're Not Surprised

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death." -- B.Obama

Is that the royal or divine "we" Barack?*
Please show us G_d's signature on your partnership papers Barry.



Readers of this blog and of the archives of PascalFervor.com cannot be surprised by this declaration.

Hear the words of Nimrod in that line folks. Can We's Tower of Babel be far off?

Oh, by the way "partner": you cannot CREATE life. All you can do is intrude your hand in matters related to death. Your pride is showing.

********** UPDATED HERE *************

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The same people who oohed and ahhed at Obama's "oratory skills that exceed Lincoln's" will be the first ones who'll deny he implied any blasphemy here. Great orators are always aware of the ambiguities of speech, and will include them or omit them at their leisure. Obama's sycophants will be disingenuous when they apologize for him, and he'll be worse than disingenuous for letting them.