Social Justice NewSpeak?

Social Justice.  It sounds like something very good!  How can any reasonable person not want something as noble sounding as “social justice“?  We are social animals, and we all love justice, right?

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?  . . . Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”  – George Owell, 1984

Social Justice is comprised of two Newspeak words that mean the opposite of what they actually mean. In practice, Social here means antisocial, and Justice means retribution.

When a Christian uses the word “social,” it means “interpersonal, relations within society. “Justice” means “fairness, impartiality, objectivity, lack of prejudice, and equality of application to any and all individuals.”  In essence, “All men are created equal.”

When a court of human law uses “social,” it means “living in community, whether intentional or not; the whole of society.”  “Justice” in law means the same principles as those listed for Christian Justice, with emphasis on “equity and impartiality, ‘without distinction or prejudice’.”  In essence, “the same, without mitigation.”

In “social justice,” “social” means “collective groups of racial, sexual, religious, financially or geographically isolated, or political groups.”  “Justice” means equality of results, redistribution, collective prejudice, disregard for the individual, and unearned reward.”  In essence, “mutual outcome.”

To a Christian, that should suggest either “We’re all going to heaven,” or “nobody is going to heaven.”  No distinction.  No individual right or reward.  Just groups.

Christians find “justice” as a translation of the Hebrew word, “tzedek.” Tzedek means righteousness (justice, to do right), as in Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”  In fact, the most closely related word to tzedek is tzedekah, or “charity.” That is the Christian view.  Jesus is just.  Jesus is our justice.

The origin of judicial “justice” is just that.  “To do right.”  Equality to all individuals; “impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” (Webster)  Notice the word, “merited.”  that word is insignificant to Social Justice.

Social justice calls for an “egalitarian society.”  Egalitarian means “human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs of groups, without individual right or claims of merit or circumstance.”

And again, “social justice” is antisocial injustice.  Newspeak.  Make no mistake: there is no charity or individual right in social justice.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  So-called Social Justice is prejudicial, unfair, inequitable, destructive, and leads to bigotry, war, isolation, individual and collective losses, and the breakdown of society, reason, and justice.  It robs society of ambition, reason, purpose, and righteousness and reward.

Orwell coined NewSpeak to reflect the will of the controlling Party. The “Party” chooses which antonym of a word to use. By choosing which words we can use, The Party chooses how to shift thought in a more positive or negative direction to suit their will and their needs.  Is Social Justice the will of The Party?  You decide.

Truth and Something Timeless

Words are our servants, not our masters. For different purposes we find it convenient to use words in different senses.“- Richard Dawkins

This quote often crosses my computer screen, generally unattributed, and it irritates me almost every time.  Dawkins dedicated his life to battling a deity that he doesn’t believe exists, and made remarkable headway in reinventing and redefining truth. Much of it at his servants’ (his own words’) expense.  You can, in fact, create exciting delusions by using the wrong word the wrong way. The game of Mad Libs is great fun, but it’s a poor way to develop theology or engineer structures.

Dawkins is not the first guilty one, of course.  Satan asked Eve in the Garden, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” in order to conveniently tempt the first woman.  Satan said the same essential thing several thousand years before Dawkins thought of it.  Bill Clinton sought to excuse himself by conveniently challenging the meaning of the verb to be: “it depends what your definition of ‘is‘ is,” might last longer than Dawkins effort, as the quintessential abuse of language.

The biggest problem is, you cannot reinvent something by redefining it, no matter how hard you believe it.  For a few brief instants, Dawkins will say perceptive things about God that exceed Dawkins’ understanding.  “A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right.”

Absolutely!  And I can assure you, Mr. Dawkins, that your failings and inabilities prevent you from becoming a god. Your inadequacies (and mine) never prevent God from being God, or God becoming man.

Perhaps the finest professor in my own education was Dr. David Goldsmith at the humble Northern Michigan University.  He said, “Remember, the more precise your language and definitions, you closer you must be to reality. So, if you want to make your own world, stick entirely with reality and only focus on just one convincing lie.  Once the audience is hooked — only then can you add another. By the end of the book — if you’re J.R.R. Tolkien — they’ll believe anything.”

Precision words. Honest detail. Small lies.  Words are only masters when they represent the truth.

Summarizing Dawkins larger effort reduced to its most honest language: “God is an excuse,” he says, and “We can and will understand it all because it is rational and we can figure it out.”  From a Christian perspective, you are inexcusable, and if you think you can understand here and now you’re a fool. The Bible declares wisdom and knowledge incredible powers, tools, and things to be actively sought “day and night.” God is never an excuse.

The book of proverbs is full of exciting quotes about learning and wisdom.  I would suggest starting right at the beginning of Proverbs (1:7): “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

In my life, “I don’t need help.  I can figure this out for myself,” is selfish, self-centered, self-serving, and often leads to another unpublished book. Dawkins wrote 18 (and published) that I know of.

Finally, Who first said, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High’?”  If you guessed “Dawkins,” you’re wrong. It was Satan.  Again, Dawkins is just following and plagiarizing the leader . . .

Whom he also doesn’t believe in, but quotes.

Dawkins knows virtually for certain that random chance and any amount of time would never produce life, so his reductio ad absurdum is that some really advanced alien species may have planted life here. Not God, mind you.  Aliens?  Where’d they come from?

ET, phone home.  Quick.

14th Amendment Outcomes, Illustrated

“Personal rights . . . are a species of rights of the most sacred kind.  [Anyone who would use his wealth] or presume upon the influence it would give him, to dispossess or rob another of his property or rights, uses that pecuniary property as he would use fire-arms, and merits to have it taken from him.” – Thomas Paine, 1795

Using money and its influence is now “business as usual” for most of our United States and State and local governments.  With sufficient wealth, you can buy low taxes and new assessments, accept stolen property, dispossess whole neighborhoods of their homes and small businesses, force code changes and escape regulations, compel your competitors out of business, and a great number of other abuses.

You can also purchase the right of Personhood for your corporation, creating a straw man cum scape goat for your personal and corporate evils.  It is very little wealth and a great deal of influence used to bury the rights of individuals with the shovel of willing government.

Outside of purely illegal miscarriages of absent justice without challenges, almost all of these pecuniary “rights” can be attributed to the 14th Amendment.  (Usually in conjunction with the commerce clause, but 500 words is the goal for article length.)  After one of the judicial horrors (Citizens United vs FEC, a case worthy of its own article and special attention for its convoluted and stupid reasoning at another time) Justice John Paul Stevens was so incensed by the 5-4 decision that he read part of his dissent from the bench to reprimand his fellow Justices.

Stevens declared from the bench that the inexcusable majority opinion in this case “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” Our nation and government, he stated, “cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

Bought and sold indeed!  The most distressing and disgusting aspect of this case, though, has little to do with the decision itself. It was rejected by Stevens, but his dissent was joined only by Breyer, Ginsberg, and Sotomayor — the three most liberal partisans on the court and the most eager to kill the case.  Its support came from the Conservatives, though the case has the most un-conservative nonsense written into it.  It includes bench legislation, insufferable stupidity, ignorance of their own established law, and as much irrational and circular logic as any case in the history of the Court.

It also covered two sets of facts: one set offered in Court, the second argued only by the Justices in their decision (wrongly.)  It was such a bad decision that Chief Justice Roberts felt obliged to write a second opinion to defend the majority opinion and explain the bad reasoning.

Nobody, but nobody, argued for legitimate reasons, and the express constitutional justifications were utterly and inexcusably ignored in favor of further partisan perversion of our sacred document by a thoroughly corrupt court.

We have since lost Stevens, a great and honest man, impartial Juror, and perhaps the last truly fair and decent Justice who will ever serve on that now disgusting body of cheap legal opinion.  Much worse, however, is that his replacement was the partisan who argued badly for the losing side: Elena Kagan.

Venezuela Today

A brief comment on the government of Venezuela is in order. Due to the biases of our “News,” understanding today’s “crisis” can be quite complicated. In reality, to decide who should be in power is quite simple.

On the “existing government” side is Socialist dictator, Nicolas Maduro. He was appointed to the Presidency by Hugo Chavez. “Elections” are so corrupt that only 36% of eligible voters bothered to turn out this spring. The EU, US, the South American “Lima Group,” and virtually all human rights groups denounced the presidential election as “rigged and fraudulent.”

The “coup” leader, popularly elected National Assembly leader Juan Guaido, backed by the Assembly, assert that he is the highest ranking elected official, and therefore the most legitimate temporary President.

It may sound highly contested on the world stage, but the reality is that China, Russia, and Columbia represent almost all the support for Maduro while the remainder of the world, Australia and all of free Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South and North America, Europe, and Britain, support the “coup.” (Of course there are a few little despotic Communist countries that go against the continental averages, but it is hard find most of them even in bold red highlights.) In other words, Communists like Maduro and the starving Venezuelans under Chavez’s ideology and Maduro’s despotism. Nobody else does.

You will read all sorts of idiotic comments, pretended morality, along with the always hateful “America sucks” crowd and their revisionism and contempt, but the choice is remarkably clear: you either support free elections and a chance of escape from devastating poverty and despair, or you are so strongly Socialist that the complete destruction of a once thriving and wonderful nation is worthwhile to your Communist cause and goals.

How Very Bad

Every so often, we might take an honest look in the mirror and think, “What is wrong with me?  What evil have I done?  How terrible I can be!”  This shocking awareness happens to a moderately wise person often.  We know it is true for others, and a general concept to provoke most of us throughout life.  Only the
truly insane, can say, “No wrong have I done. No evil shall I ever do.”

Even with good counsel — sometimes because of it  — we still manage to make mistakes.  We always hope our errors will not be fatal, but we realize there are times we are poorly self-governed.  In fact, among the ironies of our human situation, it is often our own mistakes that mean the most in learning to ask, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?” – Thomas Jefferson 

We show a special kind of stupid when we ask others to rule over us, or dictate their ideas . . . especially of right and wrong.  

“God, please don’t make me responsible for damaging or destroying the lives of 320,000,000 of my countrymen.  And please, please, please don’t let any liars, legislators, and lawyers in Washington govern and gamble with my conscience, our nation’s honor, or our grandchildren’s future.  Especially not just to get a leg up on the other Party.  Amen, and Amen.”

Incredible Archaeology

We are limited in our understanding, but not so limited that we think we can know much.  Each new discovery and determination brings worlds of new unknowns, yet we still know virtually nothing about our own history, land, and seas.  We are smarter than our ancestors, right?

We remain excited and amazed as we learn — or simply stumble across — bits and pieces of earth’s and man’s history.  New finds push technologies, architecture, and civilization deeper into the past, and we marvel at things we have no idea how to duplicate.

How, for instance can we rationalize the great stones of Baalbek, aka Heliopolis?  The three primary foundation stones, individual megaliths of limestone, weigh 3,000,000 pounds each!  We can barely move such huge objects today.

The almost universal ancient building technology put forward today is that whole cities of men pulled such gigantic structures into place with ropes.  The limits seem to be the “primitive” aspect of the builders. But where and how would you fasten 500 two-inch diameter hemp ropes?

How did the earliest architecture of Machu Picchu and Ollantaytambo, peru include such beautiful precision?  How did the builders get such a precise fit on complicated angles?  What are the knobs on most of the larger blocks?  Who built these fantastic structures, and how did they collapse?

You can read and hear that Machu Picchu is an Inca structure to house the aristocracy after the Spanish invasion.  Among the problems associated with that, South American Indians say they didn’t build it, and rebuilt crude and obvious repairs around the time archaeologists say the Incans built it.  If it actually was built around 1500, who did the labor after the Spanish annihilation, and what cataclysm could have possibly knocked it down when older, delicate builds in the neighboring mountains remain standing?

I might add that explanations include space aliens, giants, mastodons, and million-year-old advanced cultures providing the labor and know how.

But archaeology seldom announces any form of clever engineering by “such primitive people” to the open public.  If we try hard enough, we can believe we advanced way beyond those savage brutes.  The realities of moving things by sliding them on ice, lifting with kites and parafoils, using leverage and pulleys are proof of advanced culture.

Yes, Egyptians recorded images of something that appear as kites lifting stones.  Our predecessors clearly knew the means of motion.  Ancients knew a lot of the same things we do.  Did they know more?

Nabataeans used concrete about 8,500 years ago.  They even developed hydraulic cement.  Maybe ancient Peruvians built with it, too?  Greece, China, and Rome all had forms of concrete from 2500 to 4500 years ago, but we all know that Portland cement was invented in 1824.

The Pantheon is still standing with the concrete walls and roof intact after more than 2000 years, but Portland cement will last well over 100 years.

The real point of all this is that archaeologists do a fantastic job of finding and cataloging history.  They really do know and understand what they do!  The average reader, or teacher, or politician, however — somebody! — seems to want the dumb version.  I think a lot of it depends on vanity.

The idea that we lack the basic skills of our ancestors is embarrassing.  It would also mean that maybe we are not evolving.

Not About God

Let’s start with the will of man.  What do men choose when left to their own devices? Men like to make things up, including artificial religions like much of our pseudoscience.

From a “scientific” secular viewpoint, God is strictly a necessity; a sort of “place marker” for things we still have no hope of understanding.  To the troubled world, God appears with names like “Black Energy,” “Black Matter,” “Anomaly,” “Idiopathy,” “Infinity,” or “Extent.”  These are things we can only see by their absence and inexplicable nature: “Acts of God” being a favorite for explaining big, bad things.

Among the answers to this and following objections, each arise from faith, consists of faith, and exists based on faith.  The real history of science largely depends on the guidance of Godly faith.  Is the earth a fixed point?  Not if you begin, for instance, with Job’s explanation and Galileo’s premise that God, “. . . hangs the earth on nothing.”

Reading the Bible for understanding and clarity is precisely how modern science began.  Theologians (such as Newton) and monks (like Mendel) found their answers in the Bible, and set about proving God’s Word with direct observation.

The other extreme suggests that the First Cause rules so far above (ontologically, or in the “levels of being”) that, “It could never communicate with us.”  To such people, it compares with humans trying to speak to mosquitoes or flatworms.

The idea of a “First Cause” being too high for us actually seems funny.  The First Cause gave simple life forms specific instruction and guidance for living their lives.  If we are limited in our communication with a nervous system, or even a hind brain, where do we fall on the list of incompetency?  Yet these same people readily admit that a long history of expedient errors fit the bill entirely — we just don’t know how yet.

A relative newcomer (to me) in the theology realm relates to an idea that “any understanding of God must be personal and private.”  It is, most likely built on the idea that “once it is written down, it is limited and incomplete.”  Its expression is, “My God won’t fit in your tiny god box.  It is much too big for that!”

The only sufficient answer to that is, “Where is your personal god box, built on your limited understanding?” What separates your godhead from schizophrenia or a bad trip?  Again, how can we verify or replicate the general concepts of your possible delusion?

These ideas are bound tightly to the will and whim of the owner, without outside interference.  These theologies are practical atheism, willful ignorance, or  self-centered justification, yet each allows the holder to contemplate what he or she does not want to meet, and to account for what the holder fears.

The fourth form of practical atheism comes from religion.  It is very easy to worship works, ritual, structure, tradition, and pageantry.  It persists in the form of a book of prayers, an order of worship, or a blessing from a priest.  None of these are bad things, but at best they are to God what a suit and tie are to a gentleman.

The reality of God is abundant in His creation.  No denial erases the truth.  The enormity of our secular and scientific history demonstrate incomparable proofs of the veracity of the Bible in every sense from aesthetics to zoology, yet it remains “primitive mythology and fiction” for those who refuse it.

The End . . .

but here are some 17th Century scientists who used the Bible in their research, or were inspired to look in specific areas because of evidence found in the Bible.  Most were persecuted for rocking the boat, shaking religious dogma, or turning “settled science” on its ear.  Bear in mind that these (and hundreds more) scientists of the “enlightenment” were all outspoken Christians, and erupted at roughly the same time as the first sanctioned printing of the Bible in the English language and made available to laymen (all began and completed their major works between 1611 and 1700):

Francis Bacon formulated the scientific method;

Galileo Galilei popularized the sun-centered solar system, proved Kepler’s Laws, and advanced physics in both gravity and displacement;

Johann Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion, established the science of celestial mechanics, fist publisher of tables for tracking stars, major contributor to science of calculus;

William Harvey discovered the circulation of the blood based on Leviticus 17:11, “For the life of a creature is in the blood;”

Blaise Pascal, mathematician who laid the foundations for conic sections, differential calculus & probability theory, invented the barometer, and essentially “founded” hydro static and hydro dynamic engineering;

Robert Boyle, one of the first chemists, and an active opponent of alchemy, who discovered many gas laws, chemical properties, and invented the match among many other things;

John Ray, the leading authority on (and “father” of) botany and zoology, and co-founder of the Royal Society;

Christian Huygens, astronomer, mathematician, physicist, introduced the pendulum clock and developed the formula for pendulum periods, discovered the nature of Saturn’s rings, and proposed the wave theory of light.

And then there was Isaac Newton, but he lived and worked until 1727.

The Progress of Kavanaugh

The abuse by Democrats continues.  It was never enough to drag a good judge behind their wagon.  Rational people forget that the flag of Democrats flies against all things traditional, reasonable, rational, and Constitutional.  Democrats in the real world seldom recognize what their Party does, simply being swept along by the current of “change” against the “Party of hate.”

Is change itself bad?  Of course not, but change by itself is terrible.

Change has a wonderful history.  Used as a means to a better society it can bring many joyful improvements, but change is a dreadful goal all by itself.  The Democrats of today use “change” as an end rather than a means.  You can see that ambition in titles of Democrat organizations:  Move On, Our Revolution, and Swing Left, for instance, large Socialist organizations, representing actions without goals.  Even “Progressive” means nothing but motion without a destination.

The progress of Progressives is change.  Sometimes they acknowledge that their Revolution is an effort to alter every institution, standard, ideal, foundation and tradition of Western society, but they are hard pressed to explain why.  “Change is inevitable,” they say, “change is good.  We need to change.”  If pushed harder, they list problems. “Change is important because violence, rape, theft, murder, exclusivity, racism, sexism, capitalism, colonialism, imperialism, corporatism, fascism, oppression, suppression and Trump are bad!

The Kavanaugh nomination was going handsomely.  No problems.  So Democrats took a play from their history: an unsubstantiated sex abuse claim.  How can anybody say that sex abuse is good, after all?  To the new testament of Progressives, an accusation could damn him.  After all, how can anyone dismiss such a sexist, violent charge?  It should not matter if he actually did it or not, because we need change — we need to honor Blasey-Ford for coming forward!

To Progressives, you see, the charge is really sufficient.  It really has no bearing whether Kavanaugh did anything, because he represents all the bad in stable, conventional society.  His personal guilt has nothing to do with it.  Men are evil.  Especially Republican men, because they are all patriarchal and hateful.  Guilt by much more than association.  He is, after all, one of them.  So the Progressive thinking goes.  If he has been accused, there is simply no way he can really be innocent, because it is men who rape and savage women, and he’s a man.  An Accused man.

Add to the Progressive mindset a short list of new “movements,” arrayed to unseat Trump, impeach and/or murder Kavanaugh and Rand Paul, and bring about “change,” including Antifa mobs (of course there are one or two bad apples, but mostly they’re caring kids.) CNN running segments on Trump’s penis, 92% negative coverage for the President, and comparing Kavanaugh to Apartheid.  It keeps getting more Progressive.  Yet it’s done to oppose hate.

Naturally.  After all, only hateful people are accused of rape.  Except Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, Gary Condit, Al Franken, John Conyers, Eliot Spitzer, and the Weiner, to name a few, but most of those were just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and what difference does it make now?

What will we see next?  It’s happening.  Now.  All around us.  And they call it Progress.

 

When Passions are Most Inflamed

I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.  Certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them.  In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.”

Maine’s middle of the road Senator, Susan Collins, gave this summary in her speech that should become an enduring part of America’s history.  Even if only remembered for this summary, she used the courage of her office and character to rediscover the differences between feelings, facts, and fairness.

And so it went.  Mr. Kavanaugh, welcome to your well deserved appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Climate Changers

The climate is changing.  Man and his actions have an impact on climate.  There, I said it.  I do not deny it.

The climate constantly changes, and there are at least a million factors involved.  Outside influences on our long term weather include the sun, moon and other gravitational and radiation factors, magnetism, space dust, and stuff we do not yet know.  Here on earth, water vapor, geological events and heat cycles from the planet’s core head the list of primary, secondary, and tertiary causes.

Perhaps ironically, the climate is next on the list of climate influences, and then there is the biome — all the trees, plants and animals, birds and fish, worms, algae, fungi, bacteria, and whatever lives undiscovered in the air, depths and recesses of earth, including mankind.

Man does vast and remarkable things to affect climate change, ranging from eating, pooping, breeding, breathing and living indoors, to cutting down and planting forests, recycling dead things like coal, natural gas, and oil.

Factories can be nasty little things, but their influence is actually quite small, especially considering the great stuff that comes out of them.  We drive too much, perhaps, but the influence of even that is rather small, especially considering the wonderful benefits of travel and distribution.

The biggest problem is when we utterly destroy without rebuilding.  Losing forests is dreadful, for dozens of reasons worse than climate change, but that might be important, too.  We need our forests.  Trees are vital.

Thankfully that is not an issue for our States.  We have vast and maintained forests coming along.  Yes, we abused them in the past.  A useful vent for Liberal aggression and hatred is to go to Brazil, Central Africa, Southern Asia, and Australia and force them to stop destroying forests.

Sadly, though, that Liberal aggression is not based on climate change or reason, but simple hatred directed against the US and Europe.  They want factories to go out of business paying carbon credits to our supersized government.

Save your breath.  I know Liberals want to “Save the Rainforests.” They even have plastic bumper stickers that say so on their plastic and steel Subarus.

And yes, destroying forests is really and truly a very, very, very bad thing to do.