Protesting Pagans

Today is October thirty-first two thousand and twelve Ano Domini (A.D./year of he whom has dominion over us). The reactionary efforts of secular political correctness police have been successful in wounding the meaning of Easter and Christmas breaks. Our system of dating has also been infected by the same line of reasoning.

Before Christ(B.C.) and Ano Domini have been replaced with Before Common Era(BCE) and Common Era(CE). If they want a different schema, then they should pick a different point in time to base our system of dating on. Instead of that aggressive aggressive approach, which would be the honest route, they seek the covert art of shrouding terms with euphemisms. This helps to serve the passive aggressive agenda of those whom detest the truth and reason. Vagueness is their ally. Sunshine and precise language would expose the falsehood of their way of life. The claim of Christianity is knowledge of the truth, while the BCE crowd is composed of; polylogists, postmodernists, deconstructionists, perspectivalists, positivists and the litany of foes I felled in my Logic and Language post. Gerard Casey, in his new primer Libertarian Anarchy: against the state, illuminates

there is also a self-referential constraint on theories, namely that theories must not render impossible the conditions of their own statement or the conditions of their being maintained. If they do so, they are theoretically self-stultifying.

 These self-stultifiers have given us Spring and Winter break. As if the holy days of the Anointed One's(Kristos) birth and of his resurrection are not the underlying cause of vacation during those periods of the year. They desire a world in which we all gather around a warm campfire and sing kumbaya my lords, instead of kumbaya my lord. The lords being themselves. When they discredit the one true God they do not free themselves of masters. Human beings are always subject to a master. Whether that master be the flesh and earthly desires or God and an eternal plan. The detesting of truth empowers the self-stultifiers. It gives them reign, sovereignty, ownership and dominion. By saying no one is right and there should be acceptance of all ideas, people can get away with whatever subjective whims pop into their conscience.

Ceding to caprices is the essence of hedonism. The idolatrous worship and supplication of earthly pleasures. Today is Halloween, a supposed holiday. It is in fact a day, but there is nothing holy(set apart) about it. Halloween is a remnant of Celtic pagan heritage and ceding to earthly pleasures remains a central tenet thereof. Thankfully I do not know anyone today who still wears demonic clothing in order to repel unwanted spirits that have seeped into our world. That aspect of the pagan celebration is antithetical to self-stultifiers and Christians alike. For the self-stultifiers are just complicated atheists, and atheists oppose paganism too. The piece of paganism that has stayed with us, besides the mixed heritage of jack-o-lanterns, is overindulging, binging and impersonating evil. Candy overdose should not be celebrated, let alone candy overdose on the day of a pagan holiday. While festive dressing up might not be problematic, impersonating evil figures is. Even if you are not doing so to ward off other malevolent beings. I have sinned in this regard for more than two decades. Henceforth, I shall not. Christians heed my words.

Glory be to the father, glory be to the son and glory be to the holy spirit, one God
Oh arbiter of arbiters, purity incarnate, light of light,
forgive me my past transgressions,
rid me of as many imperfections as thy will allow,
through supplication, I humbly attempt to follow thine inerrant guidance,
by loving my sisters and brothers of humanity,
thy word will be kept forever and ever.
In the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit, one God AMAYN.


Post Scriptum: Halloween is especially suspect to Orthodox Christians this year. This year Halloween falls on a Wednesday. In the orthodoxy Wednesday is a fasting day, in remembrance of Judas' betrayal of Kristos. The irony of binge eating on a day of fasting is poignant.

Henotheism

Terms are useful, because they help categorize ideas in our head. Post-modernists detest labels because they do not appreciate being bound or trapped within these labels. I have heard these arguments extended to abolish labels. This is going too far. However, the kritik is well taken. Labels are restrictive at times, and so I will refrain from lending them as much trust as I put in axioms.
 
I am an orthodox christian. I believe in the one true God. He is the father, the son and the holy spirit. The son is both fully human and fully divine without confusion, without separation and without alteration. Some sects of what is called "liberal" christianity deny some or part of these propositions. Liberal in this sense denotes a loose interpretation of the bible. Loose being a more lucid term, I will use it more as a referent.
 
Some loose christians positively affirm their belief in Kristos, but do not deny the existence of other gods. I used to think that this was a passive form of atheism via  pluralism. Introduction to new terms has helped me to understand that this not some fresh development in thought. It is as an idea as old as the pentateuch. It is idolatry, it is wagering and it is false doctrine.

Monotheists say there is one God and only one God. Henotheists kneel and pray to one God, but do not rebuke others' deities. This comes from a polytheistic era where pagans prayed to their local deities , thinking that different jurisdictions were the dominion of different deities. These humans sought a higher power for guidance, but did not believe that their higher power was alone able to aid them. The concept of one being with jurisdiction over all of creation is a radical idea. It is Christianity. Submit wisely.

Post Scriptum: Special thanks to the orthodox wiki.

Peace Poem

I was taught to love my enemy

but my enemy is war,

I've been racking up L's

but who's keeping score?

the serenity of deserted islands

is what I seek in nonviolence,

a view from my lens.

peace is my purpose,

prayer is my pistol,

his breath is my bullet,

I've got my finger on the trigger

and I'm fittin to pull it.

Logic and Language

Gerard Casey, professor at University College Dublin and at Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom, speaks on two views of logic's relation to language. There are those who believe that language must conform to the boundaries of logic, and those that believe that logic must cede to language when it is "appropriate". To hear about that and receive a free lesson in logic go here.

I find that anyone who wants logic to cede to language misunderstands the human role. There are immovable bylaws that exist independently of humans. This causes problems for relativists who want to  make up their own rules for every aspect of life. In thinking that they can evade these truths, they wallow in the filth of contradiction. No matter how edgy, unique, spiritual, down to earth or post-modern you are, arithmetic and geometry are true. 9 x 8 = 72. The whole is greater than the part. These should not be controversial claims, but there are those who do not believe in objective truth. These statements unequivocally rebuke those anathema to the truth. Whether humans flourish or perish, these truths reign will not end.

Radio station KPCC 89.3 has a slogan plastered on billboards in Los Angeles. It reads "Ideas...not ideology". Statements such as this indicate a relativist worldview, that is not comfortable swallowing the reality of objective truth. The dictionary says that ideology is "the body of belief that guides an individual, social movement, institution or large group". The point they are trying to make is that those who seek to apply an axiom to guide their views are blinded by that axiom. To KPCC and those of like minds, each issue should be analyzed contextually and there is no one axiom that is applicable to every issue. Therefore solutions to problems should be drawn from eclectic sources. This is as charitable a presentation as I believe I can give, and perhaps it is in a more succinct fashion than they could present their own thoughts.

They say that there should not be a body of belief that guides an individual, or an axiom that one believes in. The problem is that KPCC has an axiom that they are applying in this advertisement. Their axiom states that no axioms should be followed. This is a contradiction. KPCC errs in trying to bolster their argument through use of powerful rhetoric. It might sound aesthetically pleasing to say ideas, not ideology, but that does not make the proposition factual. Their conclusion is not entirely unpromising. Here is my effort to remedy their garbling. Studying viewpoints that are not your own may benefit intellectual discourse, and quicken our finding of solutions to problems.

Philosopher of religion Ronald Nash, God bless his soul, wrote a book that systematically disassembles and disintegrates arguments for world-views that fail to pass the test of logic. It is appropriately entitled "Life's Ultimate Questions". If you are interested in what views host contradictions, then I implore your to read his book. Until then let us continue our dissection and sewing up of false statements.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, everything in moderation. But I say unto you, that this aphorism faces the same contradiction we saw before. Self-reflexive absurdity. When applying the aphorism to itself the absurdity of its claim becomes apparent. This ladies and gentlemen is a reductio ad absurdum. If everything is to be taken in moderation, then we must take this claim in moderation as well. Here in lies the contradiction. When taking the aphorism to its extremity we are both breaking and following it. And now the remedy. But I say unto you, that certain situations require an application of moderation. Now the statement has less rhetorical power, but it is not contradictory.

It hath been said, things are never as they seem. If things are never as they seem, then this statement is not as it seems. This double negative leads us to the conclusion that things are as they seem. To say that both are correct in the same time and place is to spout a contradiction. After such a bloodied incision I must remove the venomous contradiction and sew the argument up. But I say unto you, that whosoever shall be appeared to, can be deceived by said seeming.

Again, ye hath heard that it hath been said by them of old time, in galaxies far, far away, only sith deal in absolutes. These words of George Lucas were spoken by the character Obi-wan Kenobi, a supposed jedi. Given his proclivity to jediness this statement is self-reflexively absurd. To say that solely sith view the world in axioms, is axiomatic. This would lead to the conclusion of Kenobi's sithitude. Jediness and sithitude being contrary in nature, this axiom is a contradiction. Fortunately surgery is still an option on the table. But I say unto you, sometimes picking a middle ground on issues may benefit you, Anakin. Or put differently "studying viewpoints that are not your own may benefit intellectual discourse, and speed up our finding of solutions to problems."

Two words,
two cents,
truth matters.

Post Scriptum: I don't expect every link I provide to be read by each reader, but "Life's Ultimate Questions" is critical to critical understanding. Most links I provide are free learning resources, but the link to Nash's book is not. It is however, well worth the cost. The most impressive part of this work is its accessibility to the lay reader. It is used as an introductory book to philosophy, and its lucidity helped push me along my journey of scholastic rigor.

Tyler The Creator - Messenger of Relativism

I wrote the following piece in May of 2011. I had forgotten about it for a time, but revisiting the topic of relativism jogged my memory. Writing soothes me when I feel stressed, and it is an excellent tool to guide conversation. It saves time, so that I need not repeat myself to different groups as often as I would had I not written on a subject. It catalogues my thoughts at a certain point, which can then be built upon at a later date. I hope you enjoy the voice of a slightly younger me.

Philosophical Critique

Music critics often judge the quality of songs or artists by different means.  Some test whether or not an artists' message is positive and uplifting or demeaning and denigrating to society.  Others will judge on the basis of the sound or instruments. This basis can be whether a song is personally pleasing or pleasing to the masses.  Rarely if ever is there a critic who writes about the philosophic consequences of an artist's work.  Today that is my task.

Anti-Establishment

Tyler the Creator is the leader of a large music (I do not want to trap him in a genre as per his requests in interviews) group called Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All, or OFWGKTA for short.  I have not heard their entire musical compilation, but I have extensively listened to Tyler's two solo projects as well as some selected works from Domo Genesis, Frank Ocean, Mike G, Earl Sweatshirt and MellowHype.  Tyler and his merry band have been gaining a lot of notoriety lately for their consistent disregard for police, teachers, women, hip-hop blogs and the establishment in general.  Tyler speaks of raping and slapping women, burning objects, disregarding a college education, killing his father and crashing B.o.B's airplane.  The sheer boldness of his claims and confidence in his affirmations seems to have pumped the intuitions of many youth who view the establishment as at least suspect. 

Relativism

Tyler's excuse for his selected topics of discussion is that he is an atheist.  Not only does he speak profanities and openly discuss rape, but in addition he has no problem contradicting himself.  In the popular song Yonkers, cosigned by Kanye West on his blog, Tyler says "green paper, gold teeth and pregnant gold retrievers, is all i want, fuck money, diamonds and bitches, i don't need em".  This is an embrace of relativism as I have never prior to heard in such a public forum.  Relativism is the belief that there is no truth.  For those who have yet to see the problem in this claim one needs only to suppose that Relativism is the belief that there is truth.  In the eye of the relativists' both of these claims about relativism are to be taken as correct. The term correct in this sense becomes problematic, and one can see where relativism fails to meet its own criteria. It plainly disregards its own definition.

Why Listen to OFWGKTA?

There are many hip hop artists, painters, composers and other thinkers that are hesitant to acknowledge the truth that there is a God, and that the truth exists.  Post-modernist is usually the title they use, but they do not really appreciate titles because they box them in.  If relativism is correct (I realize how problematic this sounds), there is no reason not to act in accordance with what Tyler says.  If we are here by chance and there is no truth, then who is one person to tell another not to kill, cannibalize, rape, steal, disrespect or otherwise harass thy neighbor.  On the other hand if there exists truth and, dare I say it, God exists, then there is an appropriate course of action aligned with His will that we must follow. And it has to do with love, not with the aforementioned consequences of relativism.  Tyler offers a chance for those hesitant to acknowledge the truth, and those who openly mock it, to imagine a world in which relativism is correct.  A world in which words and actions have no meanings.

What To Do

Listen to Tyler and the rest of Odd Future so you can have help understanding the folly of relativism, and the extent of its consequences if it were to be true.  If you do not view this as a folly, then i urge you to go express your beliefs to your friends and family.  Explain to them that there is no truth and that no ones' life has any meaning. Golf Wang.

P.S.- Absolute claims that generalize are another pet peeve of mine. Sometimes they can bite back.

(Episode 3 of Star Wars)-Obi-wan to Anakin

Obi-wan: Only sith deal in absolutes! (oops. does that make you a sith Mr.Kenobi?)

Words have meanings, So your vocab needs some cleaning

Just the two cents, Of a brotha sick with nuissance

-Enoch Elijah

Feel free to tag any Odd Future fan, relativist, philosopher, or open minded individual.

AAA verus DMV

The American Automobile Association (AAA) and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) are in the automotive industry. The former is a private institution, and the latter is a protrusion from one of the myriad tentacles of Leviathan. Their roles do not line up identically, but their services are similar enough for me to deliver an accurate kritik.

As an adolescent addressing an acquisition of an automobile, I arrived at the American Automobile Association. It was not my original intention to do so. Thus, I rebuke those who tell the youth that they should stick with their first answers, in preparation for standardized examinations or life in general. I spoke with my compatriot, with whom I desired voluntary exchange, about options for legal transferring of a vehicle. Alas in an unhampered free market society, our peaceful transaction could have been completed without any worries of armed tsars and their seemingly unending stream of legislative garble. But ours is an hampered society.

My first plan was to head to the Department of Motor Vehicles and exchange the property rights title to the car. Thankfully another comrade alerted me about the AAA's ability to complete this task for me. And so I decided to deal with them instead.

First and foremost the DMV in California is not open on Saturdays. This stems from budget shortfalls. Without the system of profits and losses, it is no surprise that they are failing. Fired employees, smaller benefit packages and reduction of hours/days are results of this failure. I work Monday-Friday, and thus this issue was a no brainer. AAA wins.

Jeffrey Tucker opines that when the average American actually has to deal with governmental bureaucracy they do not leave that situation with glee. To the contrary, these scenarios give the bitter taste of the State as a parting gift. There utter inefficiency is on full display when people deal with them.  The Transportation and Security Administration (TSA) is an exemplar. However, this is a recent example. One more settled in the minds of people is the DMV. Anyone who has had to wait in DMV lines knows what I am talking about. I have had to make appointments weeks or months in advance only to be subjected to a line upon arrival at the DMV. In contrast, I strolled in to AAA without an appointment and met with an agent within 15 minutes. The procedure ran smoothly and I was surprised at how little documentation I needed to supply. The DMV has hassled me about what forms of identification it accepts, and its employees are sticklers to these rules. In these categories AAA wins.

Finally, an understanding of the fundamental difference between the two organizations. Every loss suffered by the DMV is on my tab, as a taxpayer. The losses suffered by AAA are theirs alone to bear. This last one is the kicker. AAA wins on this account as well.

I do not work for or get paid by AAA, but I promote private enterprise in place of its governmental counterpart. The State's attempt at business merely impedes business. Without its economic intrusion I am sure that AAA's service and prices would be able to satisfy my wants more efficiently. The only monopoly to be prejudiced against is State monopoly. The DMV is one of the State's many monopolies. I am prejudiced against it.

For those interested in the State's schemes for improving efficiency at the DMV, please consult this.

English versus English

The American people oft speak the English language. Hmmm how insightful. The English also speak English. The variations between countries are as of yet not enough to constitute a change in the title of one. The mutual intelligibility is greater than that shared with Patois or any pidgin English found around the globe. Nonetheless some sayings are intelligible but might strike a bell of unfamiliarity in the listener's thought processes.

My bias is that I am an American, and these are my observations.

People of the U.K. use the word rubbish where we would say trash or more appropriately litter. They say trainers when we would say sneakers. They say lift when we would say elevator. They say tele when we would say tv. They say snigger when we would say snicker. Seriously. 

Minimum Wage Dysfunction

Pheeeeeeeew. Sometimes I get so caught up in the hubbub of Liberal economic theory that I forget that I have progressed at a different rate than others. Make no mistake that after a given period, the perpetual failure of Statism will usher the multitudes into Liberalism. I am not bold enough to say when, but I have stated that and not if, the congregation of coercion's days are numbered. This abstraction may be slightly elusive, and so I move on to the minimum wage. People still believe that it promotes the welfare of low income wage earners. While it is not my duty to remedy the incorrect thoughts of all humans, it is my duty to reach the remnant.

There are employers and employees. Employees seek to get hired by employers in the terms of either a temporary or lasting contract, under terms of mutual agreement. In an unhampered free market economy, there are no infringements upon this peaceful trade between adults. The status quo of an interventionist spirit in the United States takes the typical paternalistic route in this scenario. It assumes that the lives and property of all, are under the dominion of the State. As wards of the State, the State is the resolute arbiter of what constitutes a "fair" trade. The consent of adults is not sufficient grounds for "fairness" in the eyes of the State.

Instead an arbitrary figure is calculated and selected as appropriate for the basic expenditures that humans "need". This statistic lacks the conclusiveness of hard mathematics. It is more akin to the realm of tarot reading, ouija board playing, 8-ball shaking, Zoltan questioning idolatry. A random shot in the dark, with no target. Geometry and arithmetic, on the other hand, have unforgiving bylaws that cannot be bent by the fantastical dreams of bureaurecrats. To be a triangle, a polygon necessarily has angles whose sum is 180 degrees. The third side of a triangle cannot be less in length than the difference between the other two sides, nor can it be greater in length than the sum of the other two sides. 1 + 1 = 2. 1 x 1 = 1. The fault of the statisticians is that they believe human action is not subject to the similarly unforgiving bylaws of economics.

A and B attempt voluntary exchange. B seeks employment under A. C decides that unless they do so at the price determined by C, armed goons will be sent to incarcerate A and B. A would have hired B under terms considered without the use of force, but the price chosen by C does not suit A. B loses a chance at gainful employment. C plunders the income of A and B, in order to maintain C's monopoly business of violence.

It is not the case that every case will lead to the unemployment of B, but in a world of voluntary exchange more employment will exist than in one of compulsion. This is because the acceptance of mutual terms would not be intervened upon by a social apparatus of coercion. The sheer randomness of the State's price determination will preclude exclusion of groups that are willing to work for less wages.

Who loses the most in the status quo? Those of the lowest socio-economic status. Those with the least amount of marketable skills. They are the B's that are willing to work, but are threatened into unemployment by C. Given time and the opportunity of initial employment, they have the capability of earning inexorably rising wages. It is not capitalism that holds them back, but nearly systematic interventionism. If you care about the unemployment figures, end the minimum wage. Who would be aided by such action? Blacks, Latinos, teenagers, ex-cons, undocumented workers immediately and in due course the entire market economy.

Who wins in the status quo? Jealous special interests and politicians that get reelected by preaching this devilish (peep the etymology) doctrine as an evangel. Even their gain is but cursory. Damning the process of peaceful exchange is a piss poor policy. Interventionism, Incursionism, Invasionism, Interferencism, Infringementism, Coercionism, Compulsionism, war, statolatry,  the minimum wage, call it by any name and its predicted positive effects will fail nonetheless.

Post Scriptum: The contradictions of minimum wage advocates can be seen in asking them, what price would be sufficient? If we can counteract economic law, why not have a million dollar minimum wage? Why are "interns" allowed to work for the lowest non-negative rate, $0/hr? Why can those working on stipends choose a salary below minimum wage?

If you are more of an auditory learner here are some links:
Walter "The Moderate" Block, George "Pepperdine Emeritus" Reisman, Robert "The Master" Murphy, Walter E. Williams, Milton Friedman, John Stossel, and Tom Woods with elaboration on multiple "do-gooder" policies.