The Virtue Of Tolerance

He hath forsaken his covert as the lion,
for the land is laid waste because of the wrath of the dove,
and because of the fierce anger of the Lord.
(Jeremiah 25:38)

What does it mean to be tolerant? What makes tolerance virtuous? Indifference? Not caring about what others think? Jaded apathy to the world? Of course, not.
True tolerance is not passive heartlessness; it is the patient suffering of wrongs for the sake of justice. What is the key difference between callous indifference and the virtue of tolerance? Tolerance requires a code of ethics; the knowledge of right and wrong. Indifference knows neither good nor evil.

 

For example, if I am indifferent to violence, then I don’t care about the abuse of those around me. I don’t desire to change their behavior (Why would I try change the world if I didn’t care about it, and I felt it couldn’t affect me?).
Perhaps I don’t care about the violence around me because I don’t know of its existence. Or, I don’t know because I just don’t care. Afterall, isn’t apathy the greatest ally of ignorance? The two deserve each other.

But where are the tolerant? Where do they stand in the face of violence?
Those who truly tolerate violence are not passively indifferent to its horror. They’ve lost the right to be blissfully ignorant; they’ve made the fall. They, more than anyone else, know the sins of the world. Why? Because they suffer through them every day. True tolerance – like love – is suffering.

The original meaning of the word, “suffer” was “to permit,” “to allow,” or “let” (as in those famous words of Christ, “Suffer little children to come unto me,” in the King James translation of this passage from Luke 18:16. This original meaning was replaced in the seventeenth-century by the current understanding of “suffering” – to undergo pain or cruelty.

Blind eyes and deaf ears are the broken satellites of the wicked heart; but the tolerant cannot look away.

But what good is there in just looking on? Doing nothing is exhausting after all. What are they tolerant waiting for? Justice? Reason? Love? God? All of these are just another word for salvation I suppose, but who’s being saved?

Maybe the tolerant suffer for the sake of something greater than themselves. In the Crito, Socrates suffered the injustice of his trial – not because he was indifferent to injustice – but because he believed his suffering was a small price for the preservation of a just and law-abiding society.

It’s quite possible that the tolerant seek to be saved. But from who? Why themselves of course! Is there a greater enemy? As Nietzsche warned “fight not with monsters lest ye become a monster; for if one gazes into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you.”

But let us stop to consider the possibility that the truly tolerant suffer for the sake of those who trouble them. Parents, teachers, and lovers are too familiar with patently suffering for the sake of others in the hopes that they’ll change.
It’s important to say that you don’t tolerate the entirety of the one you love, rather you tolerate the sins of the one you love. Could you imagine if a husband asked his wife “Do you love me?” and the wife responded “Well… I tolerate every part of your totality and suffer through your very presence.” That’s not love – that’s a stockade.

Someone who loves you doesn’t tolerate you so much as they tolerate your defects – because hopefully there’s more to you than that.

But those who love others do tolerate the unsavory aspects of their nature, and that requires strength, patience, kindness, and the ability to look beyond the ugliness of the immediate. True beauty is found by tolerating skin-deep faults and seeing the transcendent aesthetics hidden in all things.

Why do we tolerate the ones we love? Because it gives the other a chance to be reconciled; it is the path of forgiveness. Tolerance gives the unreasonable the chance to see reason; the hateful a chance to love by being loved.

When we are intolerant of the trespasses of others, we cast the abysmal around us into further darkness. But when we show tolerance through the open arms of hospitality or in the guidance of a helping hand, then we offer the stability that the other so desperately lacks.

But is tolerance practical? Why not force people to cut off their offense’s cold turkey? I tell you now that nothing is more impractical than a firm belief in the draconian.

The word, draconian, comes from the story of the Athenian lawgiver Dracon, a ruler who assigned the death penalty as a punishment for most of the minor offenses committed by the citizenry. Plutarch writes how “Dracon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones.”

The idea that one can remedy the offenses of a society through intolerance is not a novel idea. Did it work? What became of Dracon? He was exiled and his laws were immediately repealed!

What renders the draconian state a useless enterprise? That fact that the state does not, should not, and more importantly cannot control everything that happens among the citizenry. Most of the economic, political, social, intellectual, and cultural decision-making has always existed in the hands of the citizenry. The unwritten laws and social norms of the people has always outnumbered and outweighed the written laws of the state in both power and magnitude.

Thus, when someone uses hard-power to force reformation instead of tolerating the growing pains connected with the mobilization of soft-power and liberality, the result is most always tyranny.

History shows time and time again that “getting tough on crime” is nothing more than a myth for fake news to print and saber-rattling demagogues to howl.

Want to end homelessness? Then show tolerance by sharing what you have, not hunting those who have nothing.

Want to end drug addiction? Then show tolerance by providing users with needles and clean doses.

Want to end alcoholism? Show tolerance by providing a space where people can get a drink and talk about their addiction.

Want to end hate speech? Then tolerate it through free speech because you’ll never end racism, homophobia, and sexism through coerced speech, or speech that must conform. We’ve tried it before, and it never works.

Want to end barbarism? Show tolerance through civility.

Want to end intolerance and hate? Show tolerance and love even if it kills you.

As the Christian apologist Tertullian writes, “That’s why you can’t just exterminate us; the more you kill the more we are. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. Your praise those who endured pain and death – so long as they aren’t Christians! Your cruelties merely prove our innocence of the crimes you charge against us … And you frustrate your purpose. Because those who see us die wonder why we do, for we die like men you revere, not like slaves or criminals. And as they find out, they join us.”

Tolerance is the heart that beats on in a world of heartless indifference.

 

The photo shows, “The Return of the Prodigal Son,” by  Nikolay Losev, painted in 1882.

What Is The Christian Family?

The picturesque “traditional nuclear family” is not synonymous to a “Christian family.” Family in the Christian mindset transcends the nuclear family.

Christianity doesn’t preach total acceptance and obedience to “traditional family values.” Furthermore, to the Christian, family is something that transcends immediate family and encompasses the world.

There are those among us who toss around the phrase “traditional family values,” and assume that people in the past thought of family as defined by blood and total obedience to family roles. Ironically, at least in the Christian tradition, this conception of family isn’t very traditional and has very little to do with the Christian conception of family.

For example, if Christianity were nothing more than the blind acceptance of traditional family values then why would Christ say something like this: “Do not imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-lawn against her mother-in-law. Your enemies be right in your own household!”

This is in striking contrast to guidance set forth by Confucius when he commanded sons to listen fathers. Unlike Confucius, Christ is not telling his followers to simply obey their parents. On the contrary, he claims that he is aware of the violence that he will create in encouragement of social upheaval.

But why would Christ tell his followers to speak out against their family? For the same reasons Christians have always been encouraged to speak out; for the sake justice, truth, love, and etc.

No family is perfect. Sometimes our families are unjust, dishonest, and downright hateful. When this happens, we must take a stand against them in the name of values we hold dear (although doing so does not mean we stop loving them).

To the Christian, to love Christ is to love justice, truth, and love itself. Christ warns his followers against prioritizing their families above these transcendent virtues. He continues to say that, “If you love your father or mother more than you love me, you are not worthy of being mine; or if you love your son or daughter more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. If you refuse to take up your cross and follow me, you are not worth of being mine. If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it.”

The message is clear – Christ recognized that there are things (like love itself) that we must treasure beyond our immediate family.

Christian Theology Understands Family as Transcending the Nuclear Family. Who do Christian’s consider as part of their family? To the Christian, everyone who is follows Christ is part their family. “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

This is part of the reason why Christian’s call each other “brother” and “sister.” To the Christian all those who seek justice, truth, and love are part of your family (I.e. everyone is part of your family).

It is for this reason that Christians have stressed caring for widows and orphans. Such an act is totally illogical to someone who only valued “the traditional nuclear family.”

But to the Christian, orphans and widows are just deserving of being called family as one’s own children. After all “worship that is pure and not defiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

The nuclear family looks like a husband, wife, and two kids – but the Christian family looks like a widow running an orphanage of children who aren’t her own supported by a Christian village.

 

The photo shows, “Harvest Rest,” by George Cole, painted in 1865.

 

Dialogos: Dr. Widdowson on Exposing the Aboriginal Industry

The controversial Dr. Frances Widdowson joins us in a talk about exposing the “Aboriginal Industry” in Canada.

The interview touches on her book “Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation,” Ontario school’s push to teach “Indigenous Ways of Knowing,” and Dr. Widdowson’s most recent controversial presentation, “Does University Indigenization Threaten Open Inquiry,” at Wilfrid Laurier University.

Dr. Widdowson is a professor from Mount Royal University in Calgary. She was recently invited to Lindsay Shepherd‘s Laurier’s Society of Free Speech and Open Inquiry to give a talk on Indigenization.  In addition, Widdowson runs her own blog, “Offended by Offense,” and is a coordinator for the Society of Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS).

 

 

 

The photo shows, “Onigoheriago,” one of the Mohawk Kings who visited Queen Anne. Painted in 1710, by John Verelst.

Nazis Vs. Jehovah’s Witnesses

“We have no interest in political affairs, but are wholly devoted to God’s Kingdom under Christ as King. We will do no injury or harm to anyone. We would delight to dwell in peace and do good will to all men as we have opportunity, but since your government and its officers continue in the attempt to force us to disobey the highest law of the universe, we are compelled to now give the notice that we will, by His Grace, obey Jehovah-God and fully trust Him to deliver us from all oppression and oppressors.”

~Statement of Principles by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to the Nazis, Oct 7th 1934

 

“Those sowing seed with tears will reap even with a joyful cry. How great the joy will be, when we see all of us again, although it is not easy now to overcome all this, but through belief and hope in the King and His Kingdom we conquer the worst.”

~ Wolfgang Kusserow, a twenty-year old Jehovah’s Witness, executed for refusing military service. The day before his death he wrote his famiy a last letter, translated here. March 28th, 1942,

 

One of the strangest chapters of Holocaust history is the Nazi persecution of the Jehovah’s witnesses. As the Nazi machine sets the course for world power it chances upon a humble yet resilient adversary.

 

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a Christian sect started in the 1870’s in Pittsburgh. Unlike most major churches, they are non-trinitarians. As Restorationists, they seek to restore Christianity to the lessons of the early Apostolic Church. Lastly, the Witnesses preach Millenarianism, the belief that the current rulers of society are unjust and corrupted and will be torn asunder by powerful forces.

 

The Witnesses take on their faith by adopting certain life practices. They emphasize distribution of literature for evangelicalism. Because the Witnesses recognize God’s kingdom as the only real kingdom, they do not vote nor conduct military service for earthly kings.

 

But they are far from some violent anti-state anarchists. Citing Romans 13, they believe that they are obligated to follow laws of a nation as long as they do not directly conflict with God’s laws. In other words, when in Rome do as the Romans do as long as it isn’t a sin.

 

Furthermore, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the least likely to take up arms and throw a violent revolution. They abhor violence and are strict believers in the using words over brute force of any kind.

 

Yet, they do not consider themselves as “pacifists.” Jehovah’s understand themselves as soldiers in God’s army. They will be called on the Last Days and are ever-vigilant against the forces of Satan.

 

As you might have guessed, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Nazis don’t see eye to eye on a number of things. Nazis think that the German Volk holds the ultimate supremacy of authority, but of course the Witnesses think that it is God who is the master of all things, including the German people.

 

Eventually the Nazis’ nationalism and militarism was set on a collision course with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ non-violent adherence to God’s Kingdom.

 

The Jehovah’s Witnesses were never well liked in the Weimar Republic. Believe  it or not, a minority against voting and military service isn’t the most popular. They were looked down upon by the state and other major churches. On the other hand, they did reasonably well under the Weimar’s Liberal legal structure.

 

Problems began in the 1920’s in Catholic Bavaria, the Nazi party’s ground zero. In this time Witnesses were hassled about the “illegal peddling” of literature but were often acquitted. Nonetheless, critics considered them to be heretics and a tool of political subversion for “Communists” and “Anarchists.”

 

In 1922, accusations arose that the Witnesses were agents of the Jew and enemies of German culture. Publications of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in 1923, even mention the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

Because of the increased harassment, the Witnesses felt obliged to issue a statement. In June 1933, they wrote the Declaration of Facts, and sent it to every high-ranking government officer.

 

In the Declaration, they describe their harassment, emphasize the lawful nature of their members, and deny ties to Freemasonry, Jewry, and Communism. The document tries to appease the Nazis by condemning the League of Nations, and points to the other “parallel goals” the Witnesses shared with the Nazis.

 

Sadly, their appeals to neutrality backfired. The Declaration caused the Witnesses to stand out as “Traitors.” The S.A. subjected the Witnesses to lynch-justice, leaving homes and businesses without police protection. All of this was pretty bad, but it was about to get a lot worse…

 

When the elections were held in 12th November 1933, the Witnesses refused to vote. Of course, not voting for the Fuhrer’s leadership resulted in a mass persecution of the faithful. Humiliation and physical violence followed the Witnesses. Gallows were built “as a warning” to captured prisoners. Deaths in jail were reported as “suicides” and the Witnesses, like the Jews, had lost all civil rights.

 

In addition, the Nazi’s escalated their attempt to stop the distribution of the Witnesses’ literature. The Nazi’s were bothered by the Witnesses’ literature, claiming that the blood covered sword often displayed on their documents was “offensive.” The Nazis allowed the Witnesses’ publishing house to only publish literature that did not mention the Jehovah’s Witnesses or their work. Following the letter of the law, the Witnesses published anyway. They continued to push the envelope with what they could get away with.

 

In June 1934, the Nazis began to purge the government of any Jehovah’s Witnesses. Civil servants were dismissed for their refusal to vote and give the proper Hitler salute greeting. In this way, the Nazis mobilized the population to further alienate and persecute the Witnesses.

 

So far, the Nazis had tactically danced around the legal system. They made a point of keeping up appearances of legality.

 

But none of this stopped the faithful from continuing their mission in the face of persecution. The Jehovah’s Witnesses responded with new literature that dropped any sign of appeasement. The Nazis were quick to double down. In 1935, The ban on Witnesses literature was re-issued with an increase in arrests and police surveillance. But once again, the Witnesses remained undeterred.

 

With the war on literature proving to be a quagmire, the Nazis directed their assault on a new target held dear by every Jehovah’s Witness; their families. Marriage to one of the faithful became grounds for divorce, and children were taken away because the state deemed parents unfit because of their faith.  Their children were banned from school or adopted by parents who could raise them as proper National Socialists.  But still, the Witnesses refused to yield.

 

As Germany mobilized for war, new laws for mandatory military service were passed. Three days later, the Jehovah’s Witnesses responded by not only refusing to participate in military service, but all labour services that directly aided the war effort. These actions triggered more imprisonment and their exclusion from the Labour Front, ensuring almost complete unemployment and poverty. Yet once again, the faithful pressed on.

 

The appearance of legality began to slip from the Nazi’s hands. Germans began to argue about the whether the actions against the Jehovah’s Witnesses were justified.

 

Those in favor of the ban claimed that the freedom of the individual wasn’t affected because people could still choose to be Jehovah’s Witnesses (regardless of whether or not they endured persecution as a result of doing so). Accusations that the religion was nothing more than a safe harbour for Communism and Marxists shock troops stoked the fears kindled against the Witnesses. This was said regardless of the fact that a government memo released on June 11, 1934,  denied that any of the evidence gathered from police raids against the Witnesses supported such accusations.

 

In spite of theses allegations, the judges from lower courts began to refuse upholding the ban against the Witnesses. As a consequence, in 1940, the Nazis began to siphon the Witnesses into secret courts. Double jeopardy was the norm as the faithful were shepherded from courthouses and prison halls into secret courts where they were tried en mass. The pseudo-justification for their convictions would be published in the Tuesday Book of Reich Justice, explaining to the public why prisoners were now in the “protective custody” of the Gestapo.

 

Afterwards, these lambs were locked away in concentration camps like Dachau and Morigen, regardless of whether they were found guilty or innocent. But the underground network of literature distribution raged on, and the Witnesses kept faith.

 

The Witness’s literature became more and more anti-Nazi as their oppression increased. They compared Hitler to the biblical “beast of prey,” and the German nation as an evil regime which corrupted the youth. As early as 1937, they wrote about the “satanic” nature of Reich and the hope of a new kingdom that was to come. They prophesied Hitler’s defeat by the hands of the Allies, hallowing the biblical “King of the North’s” defeat by the “King of the South.”  Pamphlets mocked Hitler and foretold the dawn of a new age that would strike down the corrupted.

 

“Stand Fast!” was a popular tune of resistance sung by the Jehovah’s Witness at the time their persecution. It called for the faithful to endure the tribulations found in the “land of the enemy.”

 

The Nazi government was unable to stop the spread of these documents. The teachings were spread to military officials, bureaucrats, and the citizenry within the German nation as well as to others abroad. In addition, the Witnesses found innovative ways to spread their ideology. For example, some opened medical practices as chiropodists and osteopaths in order to pass on their teachings in the guise of medical care.

 

At times, the literature of the witnesses would reach thousands. In December 12th, 1937, 300,000 pamphlets were distributed in a very coordinated underground campaign. Producing literature was so important to the Witnesses, that even within the concentration camps, it was a top priority.

 

In the concentration camps, the Witnesses endured “initiation rituals,” daily violence, and abuse from guards. Many of Witnesses were fellow Germans, so all they had to do was sign a declaration against their beliefs to be liberated. Almost all refused.

 

Signified by a violet triangle, they began to make the adjustments to their new lives in the camps. The Witnesses were reported to be model prisoners. They wouldn’t make attempts to escape and refused to use violent with their oppressors. Ironically, as a result, they were often employed by S.S. as servants. One officer mentions how they could be trusted to shave gaurds with razors. This of course led many of them to be despised by fellow prisoners.

 

Life carried on for the Witnesses. They kept on with the old routine, meeting together, praying together, producing literature, and of course making converts from fellow prisoners (even some of the guards). Also, in Buchenwald, they set up and entire underground printing press. After the war, they went on to convert fellow survivors and did so in great number.

 

But why didn’t the Witnesses crack? One expects a psychological breakdown when analyzing the conditions of the camps. The answer is that the Witnesses could make sense of the camps and the suffering around them. Not being able to make order out of chaos is reported to be one of the greatest reason for the psychological breakdown of Holocaust victims.

 

But to the faithful, this great tragedy was just God’s greatest test. The end was neigh! And the Witnesses always believed that it wouldn’t be pretty, but at the same time not an ounce of suffering would be forgotten by the Lord. The day of judgement was at hand, for them and their oppressors.

 

About one out of every two Jehovah’s Witness was imprisoned. About one out of four lost their lives as a result of the Nazi terror, each of them with their own stories.

 

But who won? Some 20,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses (their total number) or the Nazi state?

 

If we judge the Witnesses and the Nazis by the goals they set themselves. The Witnesses won hands down.

 

Not only did the Nazis fail to stop half of the Witnesses, they failed to stop the spread of their ideas. Not to mention they failed to do this at the expense of a great deal of time, energy, and resources.

 

Meanwhile, the Jehovah’s Witnesses understood themselves as lambs who would be shepherded by God. Both the Nazis and the Witnesses preached of a thousand-year Reich to come, it’s just that one believed it to be God’s instead of Hitler’s. The Witnesses believed that any tyrannical kingdom of hate and despotism would face collapse when the great day of judgement came. Great and apocalyptic forces would come, and truth would have its reckoning. All they had to do was hold firm in the faith in order to not lose themselves in the process.

 

Were they wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

Stalin Wasn’t Alone

Do dictators ever stand alone? A dictator is defined as a one who has total power over country, but is that even possible? Can one man ever have total control of a nation, even if he wields, say, Stalin’s iron fist?

When we think of Stalin’s USSR, we tend to imagine a totalitarian world that resembles Orwell’s 1984. At the head of the state is Stalin. Directly below him is a hierarchy of mindless henchmen. And of course, below them is the constantly terrorized multitude which is under constant watch by the regime. This narrative is a myth of history.

This narrative completely deprives anybody any agency besides Stalin. Like many myths of history, it is an oversimplification which meets a political agenda. The truth is far more complicated.

I am not doubting the brutality of the Stalinist Regime. The historiography on the Stalinist era is riddled with horrors (often down-played by contemporary leftists). There was the mass famine created during collectivization in the Ukraine that killed at least 3.3 million people.

Mass paranoia and accusations swept across the land in the Great Purges of the 1930s. After show trials in kangaroo courts, the accused would be evicted from their homes and exiled to Siberian Gulags, if lucky – and immediately shot, if not.

None of these horrors are in doubt. There is a lot of bloodshed and violence to be accounted for, but was it all done at the behest of one man alone?

There is a lot of bloodshed and violence to be accounted for, but was it all done at the behest of one man alone?

Stalinism went beyond Stalin. The historiography shows that large portion of the population was more than willing to participate in Stalinism. There is a lesson to be learned here, if we wish to fight the dictatorships of the present.

Collectivization was big task. Such economic reform was the push to get citizens of the USSR to nationalize their possessions, farmland, and estates into a single collective.  Many Ukrainians refused to yield to be part of collective farms.

In fact, “activists” and others aided the state in the forced collectivization of the countryside.

Hundreds of devoted communists came down from the cities to terrorize the peasantry.

These “progressives” were aided by peasants who believed in the creation of the collective farms for political and personal gain. Those under Stalin acted on their own initiative in this very anarchic part of Ukrainian history.

Collectivization couldn’t have happened without the mass support of communists on the ground.

Where did these communist supporters, the communards, come from? Before Stalin even took power, there was a massive push by students to form collectives and inspire workers and peasants to do the same. The seeds of communism were grassroots before they blossomed into atrocities.

The Great Purge is another example of a Soviet catastrophe that transcends Stalin’s “total” power, fueled by an active engagement of the population.

Starting with Stalin eliminating right-wingers in his inner circle, the purge spirals off into a nationwide frenzy.

Colleague purged colleague, co-worker purged co-worker, and neighbour purged neighbour in a chaotic slew of accusations.

People on the ground had much to gain from participating in the witch-hunt, including wealth, power, and fame. Worst of all, many believed that purging those around them was an act of patriotism.

The blood of these victims is shared by the citizens of the USSR.

If we say that Stalin had all the power, then we deprive the accusers and activists of any agency. And if the accusers had no agency over their actions, then how can they share in the guilt of these heinous deeds?

If Stalin was a totalitarian (meaning that he wielded total power), then we deprive the citizenry of the Soviet Union any agency. The fact is, the Soviet citizenry hosted Stalinism, or at least participated in it.

How could they be guilt-free from the atrocities of the Stalinist regime? To believe so would be an injustice to victims of famine who died in collectivization, and the victims silenced and exiled by the purge.

Well then what is Stalin’s dictatorship? If it’s not total power, then what is it? Stalinism was the true enemy of the people, not Stalin himself. Dictatorship is the control of information. It is the

manipulation of minds though coercion and deceit. Dictatorship is a belief, not a person. Insomuch as people use force, they are believers in dictatorship. Insomuch as people pollute the air with their own dishonesty, they are believers in dictatorship. It’s not Stalin you have to worry about, it’s the Stalinists.

The historiography reveals a great sense of belief in Stalinism amongst the people. Diaries reveal how a great deal of their authors were “progressives” who were repulsed by “backwards” conservatives.

Sons of kulaks (nebulous term for farmers who were deemed unprogressive) would join the State in the witch-hunt against their own kinsmen, so that they could fit in to the new social order by doing away with the old.

The citizenry constantly engaged with the state to settle personal problems, from marriage advice to bad blood between friends (these were all former functions of the Russian Orthodox Church). Stalinism was, in fact, a secular theocracy, full of ardent believers.

There are some lessons to be learned from understanding the nature of dictatorship. When you hear about a dictator on the news, don’t assume that his people are all plotting against him. Shockingly, the opposite is more likely to be true. Also, most professors and students at universities aren’t against the dictatorship of their nation either, they’re just rebels without a clue.

Most importantly, when your neighbours start charging each other with meaningless accusations, know that a purge is knocking at the door. And if you survive the witch-hunts, console yourself with the knowledge that the madness can’t last forever, not if we take a stand.

We must continually counter tyranny, with the greater assertion of our freedom.

 

The photo shows, “The Glorification of Stalin,” or “Stalin Among the Workers,” by Yuri Kugach, painted ca. 1950.

Organic Food Is A Myth

Organic food is a myth. When people talk about “organic” food, they believe that “organic” food is free of pesticides and chemicals – or worse, that it is wonderful for the environment. They could not be more wrong.

Organic food uses pesticides and chemicals – and it harms also harms the environment.

Although it’s true, organic farming does restrict the use of some pesticides, however it does allow others. Therefore, this does not make organic food particularly better than food grown on a “conventional” farm. After all, the organic food program doesn’t address food safety.

Thanks to the environmentalist movements of the 1960’s, farmers have had to update their chemical pesticides – thus leaving a negligible difference in the pesticides used in “organic” food and “conventional” food. For example, the pesticide Rotenone has danced in and out of being a legally “organic.”

As a general pesticide, it kills more organisms then the intended pest causing a great deal of collateral ecological damage. Worse of all, Rotenone is linked with the development of Parkinson’s in human beings and other vertebrates.

It’s important to remember that just because a pesticide is naturally occurring doesn’t mean that it’s not toxic and harmful. Tobacco is natural, but is far from healthy.

But then why is it called organic food? If these “conventional” foods are so good, then why don’t they get certified as “organic” food, seeing that they’re of equal quality?

The answer is the soil.

The popular alternative to organic food by “conventional” farmers is bombarding their crops with man-made fertilizer. When artificial fertilizer is applied, many of the microbes in the soil get killed off. This lowers soil fertility, but we compensate by just dumping more nutrients.  It is important to understand that crop yield is greater under the artificial system.

But this system is also far from perfect.

The problem with this is that, meanwhile, contemporary organic farms are inefficient – very inefficient. So, to compensate we rapidly expand our “organic” farmland by tearing down forests, draining wetlands, and clearing other ecosystems.

In fact, organic farms leave a larger carbon footprint. Not only because we tear down more ecosystems to compensate for their smaller yields, but because we need cattle dung to nourish organic farms. Those microbes love natural fertilizer (i.e. dung). As you may have guessed, we get that dung from cows. As any vegan will tell you, cows make a lot of carbon. Thus, organic farms not only chop down forests that would get rid of CO2, but they also require CO2 producing animals.

There isn’t any easy answer as to how we solve our agriculture problems, but one thing is certain. When the label says organic, it’s not talking about the apple. Organic foods are not that much healthier, and they are arguably worse for the environment.

 

The photo shows, “The Collective Farm Market,” by Fedot Vasilievich Sychkov, painted in 1936.

Soft Power – The Best Weapon

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
Sun Tzu, Art of War

 

Let’s be real – in a world threatened by nukes and guerilla warfare – we don’t need guys with guns in the military. We should fire them, send them to school, and then rehire them as either intelligence officers, medics, R&D workers, or anything else that’s actually useful.

The world is divided into two groups: countries with nukes, and countries without nukes. When we pick a fight with another nation (for God knows what reason), we are either going to be fighting a nation with nukes, or without nukes.

Lord help us if we fight a country with nukes. Nuclear war is not fought with soldiers. More importantly, nobody wins. After a nuclear winter, radiated food supplies, mutated children, and the destruction of every major city owned by the combatants – there won’t really be much to fight over afterwards.

Think about it…are the guys with the guns going to stop this from happening? Do you think they will protect you after a nuclear strike? Think again.

Well, if we can’t pick on people our own size, then what about invading the little guys who don’t have any nukes? You know, countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and then maybe Afghanistan again.  Invading countries – knowing beforehand that you’re going to withdraw your military afterwards – makes no sense.

How many times has America (and its allies) fallen into this cycle?

Step One: We find a country that isn’t doing what we want. It could be that it’s adopting an undesirable ideology. Maybe it’s just not giving us access to its resources and markets. It doesn’t matter. The cycle has already been started.

Step Two: We unleash the wrath of God on that nation. We invade them with the greatest military power that the world has ever known. Rape, murder, and theft spread like wild fire as anarchy ignites in the aftermath of the destabilizing invasion.

Step Three: A band of guerrillas arises. Maybe they are united by some anti-American ideology. Maybe it’s one faction fighting another.

Step Four: To combat the sabotage, insurgency, and other guerilla activities, we use our guns to snuff them out. Guys with guns, or big planes with bombs to destroy the most elusive and indestructible enemy in all of history i.e. an idea.

Step Five: It turns out that guys with guns and planes with bombs are expensive commodities. Unlike the guerillas, we don’t have time on our side. Bullets start to make a poor excuse for the words that are needed to sway the natives. We start to realize that statecraft is a long term and expensive investment that we don’t want to make.

Step Six: We leave. The guerrillas come out of the woodwork and take over the nation. Bullets didn’t win any hearts and minds. So, then why do we have the bullets again? If we came for business, the common man never sees a penny of what we sacked from the nation we invaded, and the guerrillas take whatever was left behind.

It’s time to use brains over brawn. We should fire soldiers, send them to school, and then rehire them as either intelligence officers, medics, R&D workers.
There are plenty of reasons to invest in our intelligence services. International intelligence organizations specialize in understanding political climate of enemy nations. They focus on directing the internal forces within other nations, seeking to organically shape favourable ideologies, policies, and governments within that nation. Furthermore, they shed light on information kept secret by foreign nations. These are some, but not all, of the tasks intelligence services perform, and they perform them more efficiently than the troops on the ground could ever hope to.

It is intelligence that specializes in manipulating the internal forces of foreign nations, not the infantry. When the government wants to create or support grassroots movements in enemy nations, they employ intelligence officers.

When the government wants to find insurgents hiding in caves, forests, or jungles, they employ intelligence officers.

When the government wants to shut down nuclear programs in enemy nations, they employ intelligence officers.

When the government wants to counter or launch a cyber attack, start a coup, stop guerillas from getting funding, or launch a propaganda campaign in another nation, they – you guessed it – employ intelligence officers.

These guys are our best hope in changing the ideologies of other nations, especially when they work tactfully with politicians and diplomats.

If we are to truly defend our democracy, then we need to invest in intelligence.  This way we can win hearts and minds, while protecting our own domestic hearts and minds.

Medics would be another critical tool in the military of this new soft power state. Medics are key in giving foreign aid. They can be mobilized to stimulate research through investment in the latest medical technology, and medics can be mobilized to counter spreading epidemics caused naturally or by bio-terrorism.

It turns out the there are a lot of sick people in the world. It also just so happens that governments of foreign nations can’t always handle the sick of their nations. Part of foreign aid, which is a very powerful diplomatic tool, is medical aid. Investments in medics would strengthen foreign aid.

When we invest in medical technology, we invest in our own health also. Investments in medical technology stimulate medical research outside of the government.

For example, the epi-pen was designed by the military to quickly administer medicine to soldiers on the battlefield. Now civilians use it to quickly administer medicine in medical emergencies. Investing in military medicine in an investment in our own health.

Lastly, military medics are our best way to counter foreign diseases across the world. When an epidemic breaks out in Africa, South America, or Southeast Asia, do you think the government mobilizes civilian doctors to counter it? Of course not. They send the Army.

So, when the next plague hits, don’t you want to be ready for it? In fact, the next Black Plague may well be started artificially.

The final major investment we need to make is in research and development, good old R&D.  This is the way we can keep ahead of the curb. R&D is responsible for new ideas and the best technology. It stimulates the economy when innovations are shared, while allowing our military to be one step ahead.

Something almost universally agreed upon by the “Left” and the “Right” (if those terms are still even valid in the twenty-first century) is that R&D stimulates economic growth.

Remember, it was the space program – which was funded by the military – that is responsible for kick-starting everything from the microchip to the memory foam mattress. Even the internet was funded by public tax dollars as part of R&D and then released to the public. These technological advancements not only stimulated the economy but led to a new age!

In reality, contemporary armies just don’t cut it anymore. We need to use mind over matter and that means investing in intelligence officers, medics, and R&D to a name a few of the better alternatives. We’re like the ancient Greeks at Troy. We know we can’t just muscle our way though, so then why not think our way through – and come up with ways of taking apart our enemies from within? That way lies sanity in our age of conflict.

 

The photo shows, “The Building of the Trojan Horse,” by Giandomenico Tiepolo, painted ca. 1773-1774.

Are Vegetarians Truly Ethical?

Can you be a vegetarian for ethical reasons, and then be fine with getting an abortion?

I’m not against pro-choice. As a libertarian I endorse it. But after you’ve chosen, why is there often also hypocrisy?

Does being pro-life really exclude being pro-choice?  After all, I can be against smoking being illegal, but that doesn’t mean I want people to start smoking!

As a vegetarian, I admire my fellow vegetarians for aligning food with ethics. There is a great need for this sort of approach to the way we live.

I approached vegetarianism as a pacifist, I value all form of life and want to cause as little destruction to the world as possible.

So, there are many vegetarians who refuse to eat meat because they object to killing animals, which is a perfectly viable stance to have.

Yet, these same vegetarians, in their politics, are liberals, who don’t mind, or even object to abortion. Can you truly despise eating pork chops, but see nothing wrong with destroying human life, in the place where it is supposed to be the safest – the human womb?

This is high hypocrisy, to be an ethical, human-rights vegetarian, and then see nothing wrong with killing a prenatal child.

After all, if you are a vegetarian because of a desire to preserve life and consciousness, then wouldn’t you want to defend the life of one of the most conscious animals alive – the human being?

If you are a pacifist vegetarian who wishes to stop violence, then wouldn’t you be averse to the killing or destruction of life in all forms, a fetus included?

A true pacifist seeks to end a problem using solutions that are alternatives to violence. Thus, wouldn’t you seek to end the systemic reasons behind abortion, such as poverty, as opposed to participating in the violence, by not objecting to it?

I acknowledge that someone could be a vegetarian for other reasons (having a more efficient food supply, health reasons, to name a few).

But then that person can’t really claim that his/her vegetarianism is rooted in some moral ground – if they see the prenatal child as of no value, while in the womb.

Could it be that for most vegetarians, who cling to liberal politics, their show of ethical food consumption is nothing other than virtue signalling, to win cultural and peer approval?

Should ethics touch all of one’s life, and guide all actions?

 

 

The photo shows, “Still Life With Candle,” by Ivan Khrutsky, painted in the 1830s.

Atheists: The Newest True Believers

Listen, Parfyon. You asked me a question just now. Here is my answer. The essence of religious feeling does not come under any sort of reasoning or atheism, and has nothing to do with any crimes or misdemeanors. There is something else here, and there will always be something else – something that the atheists will for ever slur over; they will always be talking of something else. Dostoevsky, The Idiot

Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. (2 Peter 2:15)

 

We deserve better atheists than Sam Harris and the other “Four Horsemen.” These disciples of progress hold more faith than the Liberal Christians that sired them. Atheism, what have they done to you?

Atheism used to be the haven of the faithless. “God is dead!” echoes still from Nietzsche’s prophetic tongue. But have these words lost their meaning? Has atheism forgotten the face of the God it sought to destroy?

In the Christian mind, God is ultimate love. He is the singular logic, the Logos, the Word behind the universe, from which one can derive morality. Those who have faith in its existence are believers.

The idea that science and better technology will lead to humanity’s happiness is a belief, not a fact

True atheism seeks to destroy this belief. When Nietzsche spoke of God’s decomposition, he wasn’t declaring the death of some bogyman in the sky. To Nietzsche, progress was dying. The world of light was fading. There was no ultimate logic, no benevolent force from which man could derive his purpose. In the ruins of God’s colossal wreck, individuals were left to build their own personal fate, their own personal meaning.

But now there is heresy in the temple of Atheism. Believers have sneaked in amongst the faithless. Believers in Progress. Believers in Objective Morality. These atheists have more faith than their Liberal Christian forefathers.

Liberal Christians, sadly, still attempt to juggle the Christian faith with a multiculturalism rooted in moral relativism.

They are Christians who believe that they have found absolute truth; the path to save the mortal souls of not only themselves, but of all those who walk amongst them. Yet, these are the same Christians who keep their faith to themselves because talking about the ultimate Savior of the universe would be, well, rude.

These people actually call themselves believers!

Liberal Christians, sadly, still attempt to juggle the Christian faith with multiculturalism

In fact, Liberal Atheists are the real crusaders. With an undying belief in progress, they march on. They call for political change, dispute legislation, and even make objective moral claims!

Among the “atheists” known as the “Four Horsemen,” Sam Harris is the most devout, for he is an atheist who believes that science and progress will lead to humanity’s happiness.

Yet his greatest sin is the belief that one can derive an objective morality from science, a moral beacon that will lead mankind into a world of peace and love. Forgive them Atheism, for they know not what they do.

Does Harris not realize that it is this very idea of Progress that Nietzsche sought to destroy?

greatest sin is the belief that one can derive an objective morality from science

The creator of this idea was the liberal German idealist Hegel, who believed that such an historical progress was the will of God. The belief in progress does not undermine theism. Progress is evidence for the existence of God, not his death.

Worst of all is the insistence of these Atheists on an objective morality.

Contrary to the a-moralist Nietzsche, Harris believes that one can scientifically prove that there are better moral systems than others. That morality can be derived from the laws of the universe. Is this not the ultimate pillar of theism?

These new Liberal Atheists pretend to be pragmatists. They understand themselves to be thinkers who are above opinionated ideology, but they are ideology at its purest.

They are believers in grand theories that cannot be proven by facts alone.

The idea that science and better technology will lead to humanity’s happiness is a belief, not a fact. The future has yet to be. One can have faith that Xanax, atom bombs, and other wonderful gifts of science will lead us to a better future, since one can never know for certain.

How much do we give to the world?

The Christian believes that we are all ruled by love. The Atheist shakes his head in disbelief.

But Harris – he takes the belief that man should love one another as a basic assumption. Talk about blind faith.

He never fights the battle atheists actually have to face, the horrible question that plagued thinkers like Dostoevsky. Why should we love? To what end should we love? How much do we give to the world? The sacrifice of a few dollars, or do we give up ourselves even if it means our own crucifixion?

Can Harris even contribute to this true struggle of Atheism, or will he still be chasing away some man in the sky?

Maybe this is why Nietzsche shouted, “God is dead” to the non-believers as opposed to Christians. Maybe the Christians already knew, and it was the Atheists who needed to realize and confront the death of their faith.

 

[The photo shows, “The Pythagoreans” by Fyodor Bronnikov, painted in 1869].