Virtues & Vices of Social Security (pt.3) by M.H. DeYoung

VIRTUES (teleology) and VICES (deontology) of

PART III A footnote to the 2001 CPI verified this cost-inflation statement: what cost $ 1.00 in 1935, cost $12.90 in 2001.

An ‘Equal Right,’ which fundamentally constitutionally is necessary therefore, an economic principle, requires that the inflation endemism in SS benefit costs, is reimbursed from the general taxation of profits that are taken from both economic growth and economic inflation endemism. And with this‘ fundamental Equal Right’ redressed, universal health insurance then becomes an affordable political social option. This political anthology’s selections and analysis, section 250.3 (SS, Part III), confirms and elucidates SS, Parts I & II.

SS: PART III, TOPICAL GUIDE FOREWORD Confirmations Fiat money The CPI Wage-based INCOME DISTRIBUTION GDP and GNP: ECONOMIC DEFINITIONS insidiously pernicious inflation endemism Those who are a cause of inflation should pay for it! SS Contributions (in millions) constitutional roles are complicated by dogma (what the king does . . .) The Federalist Agenda

sovereign immunity ‘antecedent’ principle of ‘States Rights,’ private economy is not private, private is myth The Whig party . . .. Prosecuting ‘war on terrorism’ And, maybe others percepts are more critical PSALMS 2

Treason, Categorical Imperative Islam, Economics is not value free, Truths of economics are . . . contingent . . .. . . . from . . . the Constitution . . . a torpedo

M. H. DeYoung

doctrine of economic determinism a mechanistic science [as deduced from dogma] . . . only by criticism . . .

Our troubles are due to dogma and deduction

Summarizing Kant’s ‘criticism’ the long-term rate of inflation is 3 percent classical inflation policies favor ‘unearned income’ classical mercantilist notion of rights

4 6 6 7 8 9-10 11 14 19 19 19 20 21 25 26 26 33 33 36 37 37 38 45 45 46 48 49 53 53 57 58 58 59

SS: PART III, TOPICAL GUIDE so, what . . . justified government’s paternalism?

Elucidations Al Franken challenges . . . patriotism Concupiscence ‘when your politics isn’t ‘right,’ A Prologue: about the fiducial nature of Truth noumenal pertinence ‘Broad power’ interpretation of the Constitution Tautology Notes on emotion ‘beneficence’ LOVE ‘Positivism’ PLATO’S DIVIDED LINE . . . line between reason and opinion mechanism . . .teleology Desiderata (C.) Thomas untransferable sovereignty wisdom is free Sinderesis critical reason How to face paradox those who benefit from inflation ENDNOTES

4 63 72 72 72 77 81 81 85 87 100 105 106 106 107 108 108 109 108 114 116 116 117 119 119 120

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

FOREWORD If a principle is logically ‘necessary,’ definition compels coherent ‘trueness.’ Whenever logical ‘coherence’ fails, asserted principles are ‘forged’ truthfulness (of false predicate value): politely, these asserted principles are ‘fallacious,’ impolitely but truly, they are ‘false.’ Fallacies, despite popular belief, are irrationally deceitful, and perniciously, they are lies, the nature of which are either a denial of logical necessity (ignoring or saying no to it) or affirmed necessity that is not necessary. After dissecting and isolating class-privileges and fallacious mechanist dogma-principled politics, which sponsored and sustain them, the 1984 SS contribution-tax law is then recognized as the greatest ever general revenue tax increase: which taxation is the most regressive ever devised. Because it conscripts only low end wage-earners to pay for SS retirees’ inflated benefits, while, to subsist themselves, wage-earner’s must also pay, from wages their employers’ paid for their skills and services in producing ‘goods,’ to consume the ‘goods’ (and services),which they had produced but legally do not own. Legally, mechanistically, wage-earners must pay the SS tax along with all conventional mechanist inflation endemism.' By cost accounting inflation’s endemism to ‘consumer goods’ (and services) consumed, which endemically conventionally the mechanist employer’s legally ‘own,’ wage-earners pay doubly for inflation’s endemism: first when paying SS taxes: first to subsist themselves, then also when they pay for SS benefits, which inflation caused to increase, which neither static circular flowing SS contributions’ nor they caused inflation, which was sanctioned only by mechanist politics. Parrington called this sanctioned Political Economy, 1

a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among those who supervised the milking. 2 This fact evidently only shows at the economic bottom line: increases in

Anything with ‘a quality of being endemic’: dogma, inflation, idealism . .

FOREWORD

GDP during the twentieth century averaged 4 percent. Inflation averaged 3 percent (while routine profit taking exceeded the sum of inflation and growth). So, at this bottom line, it is evident why consumed inflation endemism is cost accounted to consumer ‘goods’ (and services)? Otherwise, is not overtly evident: those who are made to pay for it are never recompensed! Inflation’s endemism, Whatever inordinately is endemic to increases in the static ‘circular flow’ of goods-services exchanged for wages is a cause of inflation. Adam Smith indicted business’ monopoly. Roger Sherman sued a commonwealth for his financial loss caused by fluctuating bills of credit. President Eisenhower warned about price increases due to effects of the military-industrial complex. And George P. Brockway cited the Bankers’ COLA, as inflation’s primary cause. Forbes’ list of the nation’s richest, celebrates mechanist capitalists whose accumulated income hoards derive not at all from wages-earned but from capital-based income which in part is acquired from inflation’s myriad causes: this select group pay nothing to economically reimburse inflation’s endemic cost. Asserting that capital-based income prospers economy, mechanist conservatives arranged accounting codification, which mechanistically assigns inflation to consumers cost rather than to business owners’ returning capital. 3

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. Political economy confiscates monetary value from wage-earners by awarding capitalists an antecedent right to take profit from capital that

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

returns from consumption. Brockway contests this economic convention: rights’ that are granted to capitalists, he argues, wage-earners can equally claim. And, while, President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s accumulated hoards might not qualify for Forbes’ rich and powerful list, their 2003 assets respectively were declared as $21 and $38 million. Comparatively, their ‘hoards’ are only average among the growing beneficiaries of inflation’s endemism: their stock holdings were nominally priced when they acquired it. Then, when publicly traded, it grew reflective of inflation’s endemism, which acts silently in exchanges that fluctuate? Confirmations Government constitutionally prints Fiat money to serve teleological economic utilities, which intend to ease exchanges of consumer goods and services (Money’s creation was never justified as the equivalent of property value, which ownership has made it into, and more preferred). G. P. Brockway, in my view, distinguished money’s economic value as nominal, in the sense of a number’s ordinal value, 4 which, I suppose, he considered money’s economic value of consequential importance to the cardinal essential economic value of property, as an adjective is of secondary importance to the noun it describes. As, when investment bankers creatively misuse their public trust by using money’s nominal economic value for to effect leveraged buyouts of corporate business entities, as in recent years quite routinely they do, not only do they abuse the nation’s nominal economic utility intent, they also abuse their public trust: this corporate buyout process metamorphosed corporate capital accumulations into private money hoards (the accumulated corporate capital of candidates for buyouts always has far greater nominal economic value than the lesser money borrowing by investment banking consortiums required to effect the buyouts: and what other economic segments can compete with investment banking consortiums for to utilize fiat money to metamorphose corporate capital into private money

Confirmations hoards?). And, although because no laws are broken (no historical legal basis), this process adds insults to injury to constitutional law and order. The new owners of corporate stock (investment banker consortiums are somewhere in the mix) magically thereby reap great privatized profits after having repaid their short term loans: which process greatly feeds the mechanized inflation’s endemism that mechanistically is consumed by wage-earners at the retail level: like the Robber Barons, investment bankers are a new breed of economic burglars, perpetrating in net effect as devious economic procedure as illegal money laundering and counterfeiting does, which, knowingly or not, also is rampant banking chicanery, which happens from within the legal government’s functional grant to banking (including government’s paternal grant of what Brockway called the Banker’s COLA), is difficult to distinguish whether legal or illegal: privatized cash troves greatly add to inflation’s endemism. These investment bankers, like ball players on steroids, represent a new breed of criminality! The CPI shows that the consumer goods-services’ cost rose from .539 in 1945 to 5.291 in 2001. 5 ' Each SS tax dollar in 1945, requires $9.82 in 2002. Average family wages in 1959 were $5,660, and in 1975, $14,094 (an increase of only one third of the contribution’s tax increase). If these wages were indexed to CPI inflation, as measured in 2000, they respectively would have been $33,760, and $46,260. And, since wages have not even kept pace with inflation, infer that wages, including all merit and incentive increases are restricted, if not controlled, by government’s paternalist mechanist ‘iron cage.’ While supply, and demand is blamed? , Profit-taking, however, as similarly like the bankers’ COLA is government granted despite constitutionally intended equality. Median income in 2000 6 for males was $28,272 and for females

CPIs base was reset in 1967: $.30 in 1915 ($ .41 in 1935), has a CPI value of $ 5.29 in 2001, i.e., what cost $1.00 in 1935, cost $12.90 in 2001.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

$16,190, confirming that two incomes are required in 2000 to achieve the median family income standard set in 1975. (And both pay the inflation sensitive SS contributions’ taxes.) Individually, average wages from 1959 to 2000 grew only 5.96 times (Wages and Salaries shown in the Income Distribution), while ‘net personal income,’ as measured by U.S. GDP from 1960 to 2001, grew 20.3 times: ‘Corp. profits’ grew 17.7 times. And, ‘dividend income’ grew 13.8 times. (‘Corporate profits’ taken as a percentage of ‘Gross ' National income’ were: 11.6 percent in 1960, 8.97 in 1970, 8.04 in 1980, 8.47 in 1990, and 10.98 percent in 2000.) Aggregated ‘National income’ grew 18.78 times, while ‘Personal income’ (which is not wageearned) grew 20.3 times. ‘Personal income’ was lower than ‘National income’ until 1980. Then, because ‘interest income,’ ‘dividend income,’ and ‘transfer payments to persons’ grew inordinately, ‘Personal income’ was then larger, comprising in 2000 84% of GNP. Inflation is intrinsic of these accountings of GDP & GNP. The above graph of ‘Personal income’ shows only earned wages and salaries; profit-based (unearned) income listed as Proprietors’ income is not included, and inflation endemism only overtly enures as returning business capital following

GNP less ‘consumption of fixed capital, indirect business tax and nontax liability, in total almost 20% of GNP.

Confirmations

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

consumption; earned income only shares leftover GNP income after business owners (which includes personal owners of corporate stock) have taken their profit. 7 Source: bureau of Economic Analysis,

Analysis of U.S. National Income by Type of Income Source: bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. (Billions of Current dollars)

U.S. Department of Commerce. (Billions of Current dollars)

1999

2000

$7,462.1

$ 7,980.9

Compensation of employees

5,310.7

5,715.2

Wages and salaries

4,477.4

4,837.2

724.3

768.4

3,753.1

4,068.8

Supplements to wages and salaries

833.4

878.0

Employer contributions to social ins.

323.6

343.8

Other labor income

509.7

534.2

672.0

715.0

1999

2000

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

$ 9,268.6

$ 9,872.9

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

9,261.8

9,860.8

Less: consumption of fixed capital

1,151.4

1,241.3

Equals: Net national Product

8,110.4

8,619.5

713.1

762.7

41.3

43.9

-72.7

-130.4

33.3

37.6

7,462.1

7,980.9

Proprietorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; income with adjustments

825.2

876.4

Rental income of persons

147.7

141.6

Net interest

506.5

532.7

Corp. profits with inventory adj.

825.2

876.4

Contrib. to Social insurance

660.7

701.5

Corp. profits before tax

776.3

845.4

5.2

Corp. profits tax liability

253.0

271.5

Personal interest income

950.0

1,000.6

Corp. profits after tax

523.3

573.9

Personal dividend income

343.1

379.2

Dividends

343.5

379.6

Govt. transfer payments . . .

988.4

1,036.0

Undistributed profits

179.8

194.3

Business transfer payments

31.1

33.1

Net Interest

506.5

532.7

7,777.3

8,319.2

Less: Indirect business tax . . . Business transfer payments Stattistical discrepancy Plus: Subsidies . . . Equals: National income Less: Corporate profits . . .

Wage accruals Plus:

Equals: PERSONAL INCOME

NATIONAL INCOME *

Government Other

* National income is the aggregate of labor and property earnings that arises in the production of goods and services. It is the sum of employee

Confirmations

compensation, proprietors’ income, rental income, adjusted corporate profits, and net interest.

Business efficiencies and growth produced in exchange for salaries and wages earned, resulted in profits taken individually by capitalists, ' that, on average, are greater by many times the individual salaries and wages paid. Inflations’ endemism is insidious and pernicious, amplifying this mechanist result: inflation occurs covertly under sponsorship of government paternalism, which not only allows but officially rewards capitalists by myriad mechanist granting of rights and privileges, which are political economy negotiated and administered. Whigs, when in charge of government, perfected if they did not effect these mechanist rights granted officially by the shroud of Political Economy. Franklin had perceived mechanist importations as,8

either political blunders, or jobs obtained by artful men for private advantage, under pretense of public good. Andrew Gamble provided this comment:9

The 'economy' came to mean the market order, the sphere of exchanges between individuals, a sphere possessed of its own internal principles of order and its own internal momentum, governed by specific laws. The [political] state retained only residual functions. By his reference to specific laws, I expect, Gamble perceived a form of “natural law and order” as Adam Smith had presumed. Smith, however, had presumed that society’s culture would assure a constant presence of ethical governing determination which Smith called moral approbation. Clearly, Smith did not intend to sponsor artful men armed with mechanists “for profit” corporations and unlimited sources of capitalization (as, for instance, stock and bond issues as purchased from financing from central

This considers that the count of wage-earners exceeds the count of capitalists by more than one hundred times.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

banks issued fiat money). These artful men achieved to form a “master group” with far different designs in mind than to sustain the whole of society, which was Smith’s purpose. These artful men created a “fictitious state” of “fictitious person” corporations which has grown to dominate not only in America but the International political economy, as well. Gamble’s comments continue:10

Liberal political economy as it emerged in the nineteenth century was organized around the concept of a market order. Whereas Adam Smith's advice to the statesmen had been cautious and contingent, liberal political economy proclaimed universal laws of economic behavior which could not be transgressed without serious consequences. [But, by doing this, they irrationally deliberately chose to ignore naturally necessary principles] Many politicians of the liberal political economy movement were Classical liberals whom now might more accurately call themselves orthodox conservatives, which since 1974, progressively became dominated by a more extreme neo conservatism? Noted, is that conservative policy shifted away from Smith’s universal economic utility.

The preservation of the market order itself became the main object for policy. Policy was not concerned with the aims and outcomes of market exchanges but only with the framework of rules that governed them. [In this, mechanist Conservatives shifted from teleological purposes with expedient favor to deontological duties,] In this mechanist context, inflation’s economic endemism is like an economic disease, which was politically mechanized in a way that only consumer-wage-earners are exclusively infected to suffer from the consequential economic sickness burden. G. P. Brockway wrote this: 11

In the early 1980s, when upwards of 14 million men and women in the United States were unemployed, and there was much debate

Confirmations

about whether we were in a recession or a depression and how to end it whatever it was, public attention was lavished on statistics supposed to indicate when recovery was finally under way. Among the “indicators,” the rate of unemployment was understandably included. But this rate was, curiously, a “lagging” indicator. That is to say, contemporary economics held that something entitled to be called ‘a recovery’ could be achieved leaving 6 to 8 or even 10 percent of our fellow citizens unemployed. Furthermore, it was widely insisted that 4 to 6 percent of us must always be unemployed if inflation was to be controlled. About the Index of Leading Economic Indicators, this note from ‘the Conference Board’ introduced the table of U.S. Gross Domestic Product, Gross National Product, Net National Product, National Income, and Personal Income: 12

The index of leading economic indicators is used to project the U.S. economy’s performance. The index is made up of 10 measurements of economic activity that tend to change direction in advance of the overall economy. The index has predicted economic downturns from 8 to 20 months in advance and recoveries from 1 to 10 months in advance, however, it can be inconsistent, and has accasionally shown “false signals” of recessions. [note the lead time difference and the fact of inconsistency] Because, the G. W. Bush administration claimed in 2000 to have inherited a recession, a critical inspection of these leading economic indicators that had changed direction is important? Bush’s credibility, as presented in the February 16, 2004 Time magazine, applies here as well. The credibility of the recession claim in 2001 should be carefully inspected for undue hype. However, this diverges from the intent here and with this comment was abandoned. SS taxation of first dollar wages is mostly now an inflation tax.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

And, since wage-earners neither caused nor have any control on either economy or inflation, they are not logically liable to pay for it: only those whose unearned income is a mechanist reward derived from an inflation’s cause, should logically be liable to pay for all inflation’s cost that politically government assigned to SS benefits that are funded exclusively by the SS contributions’ tax! Mechanistically, inflation’s endemism is cost accounted to goods and services, which wageearners consume to subsist (And, wage-earned income represents about two thirds of GNP.). Politically inflation’s cost that accumulates over multiple years is also assigned to SS benefits, which are paid for by SS contribution taxes. However, because all consumed inflation endemism legally enures 13 to return from retail level consumption as business owners’ capital, all produced inflation’s economic effects, as consumed, is mechanistically logically a business owners’ economic obligation and should be government’s obligation to collect an appropriate tax from unearned business capital to pay for inflations’ cost in SS benefits. If the Humphrey-Hawkins law had been enforced, ‘setting the standards of trade,’ as the Constitution clearly instructs, inflation endemism wouldn’t be of concern to SS contributions’ taxation. However, until government constitutionally does its duty with ‘setting the standards of trade, those required by government to pay the SS tax must consider their constitutional equal rights as regards inflation endemism, which has the cost effect as measured by CPI, but returns as business owned capital: What cost $ 1.00 in 1935, cost $12.90 in 2001?

Politically, wage-earners’ rights, which constitutionally are equal to those whose income is not wage-earned, must be lawfully recognized for taxation redress to be reached: constitutional equal rights require that inflation’s cost is paid by those who derive income benefit from inflation. As set by classical accounting standards, ‘discretionary incomes’ (wages that transcends subsistence requirements) and ‘unearned income’ as rents and profits, are extra fairly treated, i.e., is classically considered as the equal of wage-earned income on which SS contribution tax law has made only wage-earners’ bear inflation’s accumulated cost burden: in the

Confirmations

mechanist classical continuing economic circular flow, wage-earners discretionary income, which mechanistically is the absolute systemic minimum income class in capitalism (generally derives no income from inflation caused sources), ultimately lawfully government has made the primary bearers of inflation’s economic cost. With classical political economy’s extra fair accounting treatments, profits, taken as an absolute business owner right, in recent years, have exceeded 10 percent of the ‘gross personal income (or ‘Gross National income,’ which is about equal). And, this government sanctioned business owner right, during last century’s average economic growth and inflation, rewarded capital owners with exponential growth, while wages grew at rates lower than inflation. Increases in GDP during the twentieth century averaged 4 percent while inflation averaged 3 percent. 14 The classical practice of cost accounting inflation’ endemism to consumption, which then, at points of sale (consumption) then legally enured to return as capital (i.e., ignored wage-earners who had actually produced the products and services): while ‘National income’ increased, covertly and legally, the production cycle ended with inflation’s economic cost exclusively put onto consumption, then all production costs, with inflation cost included, returned as enured capital, to business owners. The average 4 percent rise in GDP, and the 3 percent average inflation’s rise in consumer cost, both then are legally enured to return as business owned capital. Government’s legalized enuring covertly has awarded upwards of 10 percent profits to be taken from U.S. National Income,’ as classically, mechanistically accounted and taken from business’ capital accounts. For instance, Corp. profits in 2000 were 10.98 percent of national income. Inflation’s cost burden (economy’s negative impact) was covertly mechanistically born only by consumers. Maybe said more novelly, if the 3 percent inflation effect had not been granted by government to business owners for to take profit from GDP, any percent greater than the 4 percent economic growth would holistically necessarily require a greater depressed offset taken from wages earned [which wages and salaries are listed

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

separately in the Analysis of U.S. National Income by Type of Income (see page 10) for Parrington’s “Paul’s” ‘personal income’ 15 )]. Analysis of U.S. National Income by Type of Income Source: bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. (Billions of Current dollars) 1999

2000

$7,462.1

$ 7,980.9

Compensation of employees

5,310.7

5,715.2

Wages and salaries

4,477.4

4,837.2

724.3

768.4

3,753.1

4,068.8

Supplements to wages and salaries

833.4

878.0

Employer contributions to social ins.

323.6

343.8

Other labor income

509.7

534.2

Proprietors’ income with adjustments

672.0

715.0

Rental income of persons

147.7

141.6

Corp. profits with inventory adj.

825.2

876.4

Corp. profits before tax

776.3

845.4

Corp. profits tax liability

253.0

271.5

Corp. profits after tax

523.3

573.9

Dividends

343.5

379.6

Undistributed profits

179.8

194.3

Net Interest

506.5

532.7

NATIONAL INCOME *

Government Other

Confirmations

* National income is the aggregate of labor and property earnings that arises in the production of goods and services. It is the sum of employee compensation, proprietors’ income, rental income, adjusted corporate profits, and net interest.

Continuing the thought which preceded the above repeated display of National Income, “Paul’s” ‘iron cage’ of wages and salaries would then be more restricted by capitalists’ legalized profit based income grants.16

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. The inflation cost put onto SS contribution’ tax is represented by the CPI. In 2001, for instance, the CPI was at 9.82, however, the CPI was reset in 1967.' ' Consumer goods that once cost $1.00 (in 1935) now (in 2001) cost $12.90, as a footnote to the 2001 CPI verified this cost increase: what cost $ 1.00 in 1935, cost $12.90 in 2001.

Therefore, the proportion of wage-earners SS contributions’ tax cost, that inflation caused in 2000, is conservatively calculated by the inflation ratio (base: inflation), i.e., 1:9.82, meaning that for each SS contribution tax dollar in 2000, $9.82 is inflation’s cost, which causally has nothing to do with SS, but mechanistically, and irrationally, to cover inflation affected SS benefit outlays, was politically, legislatively and legally defined to be put only onto SS contribution taxes, as the mechanist legality of capital returns from goods consumed, had defined as “enured capital,” which provided business owner rights to economic growth and inflation. Logically inflation endemism’s cost causally belongs to high ''

CPIs base was reset in 1967: $.30 in 1915 ($ .41 in 1935), has a CPI value of $ 5.29 in 2001, i.e., what cost $1.00 in 1935, cost $12.90 in 2001.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

end general revenue taxation (specifically to income which is not wage-earned), and not at all to SS contribution taxes. For 1980, the inflation’s endemism ratio was 1: 4.62. And for 1995, 1: 8.47. As the twentieth century ended, unearned income, as business profit-based income for instance, grew exponentially faster, by the cumulative multi year inflation effect, than the average rate of wage-earned income, which, in comparison, is held in a mechanist “iron cage,” also lagged even the rate of inflation. SS insurance contribution taxes paid by businesses are routinely cost accounted to goods and services that, at consumer points of sale, are then recovered as returning enured business capital. Wage-earner-consumers, in the end, are the only source of this returning enured capital. And because SS contribution taxes politically, mechanistically and effectively are saddled to CPI inflation, inflation’s cost in rising SS benefit outlays’ is also paid only by wage-earners. * * You protest? Employers pay an equal share of the SS contribution taxes! But, unlike wage-earners, employers are accounting codification entitled to cost account their SS taxes to ‘goods and services’ produced, and, therefore, recover their SS contribution’s cost when the goods and services are consumed. Consumers, ultimately wage-earners that are not entitled to cost account their consumption cost, therefore, fully pay for inflation endemism in the SS benefits’ cost. Wage-earned income is by mechanist economy design, essentially spent on subsistence consumption. The government’s moral debt to SS contributions’ funding (taking from Paul to grant entitlements to Peter) exceeds $1.5 trillion for the decade of the ‘80s, $3 trillion for the decade of the ‘90s and will far exceed $4 trillion for the first decade of the Twenty First century. When added to accumulating SS surplus contributions,’ since 1984, which were spent as general revenue, and which arguably will not be needed for any reasonable purposes of the SS system, which further morally obligates government to wage-earner Pauls, will easily exceed $10 trillion by 2010. And while political economy as administered by government was the transmission for

Confirmations

taking from wage-earners (Paul) that which government granted as profits to capitalists (Peter), paying for this contributions’ tax debt, morally, rightfully belongs exclusively to those that benefitted from inflation: essentially those who deliberately, irrationally were given tax returns in 1981, 2001, and 2003 (as 2006 ended, is scheduled to run for four more years). Which effectively was a mechanist ploy to bankrupt SS? SS Contributions including Inflation (in millions) 17 YEAR

CONTRIB.

RATIO

INFLATION

1970

$30,256

---

$22,692

1980

103,456

1: 4.62

80,903

1990

267,530

1: 7.26

230,680

1996

321,557

1: 8.47

283,863

1997

349,946

---

308,360

1998

371,207

---

327,381

1999

396,352

---

349,558

2000

421,391

1: 9.82

378,480

Dogma, fallaciously justified by traditional monarchical fascism’s predicate values, has politically complicated the U.S. Government’s constitutional roles: ‘divine right’ dogma (all that the king does, he has the right to do), Alexander Hamilton freely justified as idealism presented to the Constitutional Convention, which Federalism perpetuates:18

[Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat has never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast!” -- was characteristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian prejudices [idealistically, irrationally, Hamilton asserted

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

consequents that politically fit with dogmatic plebeian biases], and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . . . He was frankly a monarchist, and he urged the [fallacious] monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent will.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415] The only effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds, Hamilton was convinced, lay in the erection of a powerful chief magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power, . . .. “ [Hamilton] devoted himself to the business of providing all possible checks upon the power of the democracy. . . .. As the creative organizer of a political state answering the needs of capitalism -destined to grow stronger as imperialistic ambitions mount -- he seems the most modern and the most American of our eighteenth-century leaders, one to whom our industrialism owes a very great debt, but from whom our democratic liberalism has received nothing.” In explaining State Rights doctrine, the Federalist inclined Judiciary commonly applied ‘divine right’ dogma as doctrinal policy. In this, the Judiciary perpetuated Hamilton’s idealist irrationalism instead of applying realist constitutional rationalism. As when Treasury Secretary Hamilton fallaciously asserted nomos-based ‘broad power’ doctrine to justify his vision of government’s Constitutional economic dimension, government’s Judiciary was overtly apolitical (neutral) in Hamilton’s debate with Jefferson, but clearly was politically aligned with Hamilton’s assertion of The Federalist Agenda as then was fallaciously, but legally administered as policy. However, not until 1819, in McCulloc vs.Maryland, did the

Confirmations

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Judiciary uphold ‘Broad power’ doctrine, which logical ‘consequent,’ of the Constitution’s ‘ambiguity,’ then fallaciously was the ‘antecedent’ principle of ‘States Rights,’ as deductively asserted from which, further deductively, States now routinely legally license fictitious person corporations, which to great extent set the nation’s political economic agenda (particularly as regards Foreign Policy)? Nomos-based (manmade) ‘broad power’ doctrine (which is Hobbist Leviathan-based-power), is paradoxical to consented constitutional authorities of ‘we, the people,’ and this mystical ‘vapor-like’ illogic became the legal cornerstone of separation between the U.S. government’s official Political Economy [of seeking and accepting campaign donations (i.e., bribes) for to gain elected positions, and the ear marked legislation, in which ‘pork barrel’ grants became the privatized rewards of the political exchange: as routinely negotiated and made lawful by Congressional and Administrative powers], and privatized Political Economy [of private business entities (which legally are licensed on the same mystical ‘broad power’ cornerstone doctrine)]. Candidly, however, ‘private economy’ and ‘States Rights’ are based on myth, not fact. While privatized Political Economy was made legal, the privatization is as fictitious as ‘for profit’ corporate entities that States routinely license to act, with the rights and sovereignty of humans? Government’s legal immunity from liability. Also, was directly taken from the Hobbes Leviathan-based sovereign immunity doctrine, [organic philosophy defines Hobbes Leviathan as absolute idealism, from which fascism (including monarchy and capitalism), and communism derives]: 19

away) the governments’ organic Broad Power. Idealism makes government the ‘antecedent’ to the U.S. sovereign, ‘we the people,’ which constitutionally and logically represents pure fallacy. Still, the nomos(materialist, mechanists) persuaded, U.S. Judiciary persists idealistically to legally assert that the U.S. government has the kings’ rights, which nullify the natural antecedent rights of human ‘cardinal sovereignty.’ Irrationalism routinely annihilates Rationalism. And this idealists’ irrationalism’s cultural nomos also have fallaciously, dogmatically ‘asserted’ classical mercantilism and mechanism as complementary principles of the U.S. materialist persuaded political economy. '

Sovereign immunity. The [irrationally asserted] principle that the federal and state governments cannot be sued without their consent. [is] based on the idea that the king can do no wrong?

From [English Independency] came the revolutionary doctrine of natural rights, clarified by a notable succession of thinkers from

For this sovereign immunity to be a logically necessary constitutional principle, irrationally infers an idealist government acts as the ‘antecedent king,’ in which a unitary materialist god had designated this government to be the antecedent of nature. Idealists prefer this view to the realist view, in which only human cardinal sovereign consent provides for (and can take

Our U. S. government now in the name of patriotism has reacted to terrorism by enacting law to preemptively act as a ‘fictitious king.’ As the department of ‘Homeland Security,’ now affirms to deny its employees’ their cardinal sovereign rights. But, as Locke had argued: ‘taking freedom, in any manner, is designed to take all freedom.’ About American bequests and rejections, Parrington wrote this:20

What this Federalist irrationalism expresses is what the European Principal Idealists had searched for: a unitary explanation of reality, which was later found to have conflated the natural human spiritual nature and had resulted in a form of communism’s dialectical materialism. (My Research Section 210, about Truth and Synergism, is more detailed about this.)

Confirmations

Roger Williams to John Locke, a doctrine that destroyed the philosophical sanction of divine right [but somehow the Judiciary failed to understand this rational doctrine], substituted for the traditional absolutism the conception of a democratic church in a democratic state, and found exemplification in the commonwealths of Rhode Island and Connecticut. But unfortunately the liberal doctrine of natural rights was entangled in New England with an absolutist theology that conceived the human nature as inherently evil, that postulated a divine sovereignty absolute and arbitrary, and protected caste divisions into eternity -- a body of dogmas that it needed two hundred years’ experience in America to disintegrate [But, has the dogma disintegrated?] John Locke’s reasoning of self is germane to any reflective analysis of human sovereignty and love. Locke reasoned that each human being is a sovereign individual with his own property of person.21

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

It is a 'right,' a possession of each individual which must be protected together with his other freedoms, protected from others who are in a 'State of War' against the individual . . . He that in the State of Nature, 'would take away the Freedom,' that belongs to anyone in that State, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that 'Freedom' being the foundation of all the rest. . . . Parrington noted the mechanist political sophistry of Hamilton’s absolutist Federalist agenda, which he ‘truly’ irrationally believed:

“There ought to be a principle in government, capable of resisting the popular current.” [And, isn’t this ‘conservative’ believed Federalist proclivity today just as absolutist and dogmatic?] Hamilton’s dogmatic belief, however, tautologically shows his absolutely conflated belief in unitary materialism-based mechanism, which had impaired his cognitive reason. Only in dogmatic obfuscation (of denying tautological principle), did Parrington observe fundamental differences between Federalists and Whigs: necessity, antecedence, and coherence describe nature’s predicates of ‘true’ principles. In dogmatic ‘divine rights’ belief, however, Hamilton fallaciously asserted unitary materialism’s (mechanism’s) antecedence to natural principles either by denying the naturally necessarily ‘true’ antecedents of government, or simply saying no to them. Hamilton’s fallacy, while maybe the more consistent, led straight to Whigs’ American Political Economy. For instance, post hoc, ergo propter hoc illogical fallacy was applied to inflation’s endemism, when mechanistically SS benefits required inflation adjustments and wage-earners were required to pay these adjusted SS contributions to cover the benefits: and this logical fallacy represents a covert lie by government administration!

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. ‘After this, therefore because of this.’ Strictly, the fallacy of inferring that one event is caused by another merely because it comes after it. More loosely, the fallacy

Confirmations

(characteristic of superstitious beliefs) of assuming too readily that an event that follows another is caused by it without considering factors such as counter-evidence or the possibility of a common cause. (Causality.) The name appears to derive from Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1401 29-34). P.J.M. (Dr Penelope Mackie, Univ. of Birmingham) By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. 22 Also among the fallacies of the Federalist Agenda, ‘Broad interpretation of constitutional Power’s Doctrine’ is maybe the more egregious, only finding truth in irrational Federalist legal idealism: 23 For instance, as previously mentioned, when as U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton asserted the ‘broad power’ doctrine to justify his vision of government’s Constitutional economic dimension, the U.S. Judiciary was overtly apolitically neutral in Hamilton’s debate with Jefferson, but clearly covertly either supported or allowed Hamilton’s fallacious Federalist Agenda as legally administered. Not until 1819, in McCulloc vs.Maryland, did the Judiciary uphold ‘Broad power’ doctrine, which logical ‘consequent,’ of the Constitution’s ‘ambiguity,’ then fallaciously, as the ‘antecedent’ principle of ‘States Rights, was in fact deductively asserted,’ from which, further deductively, States now routinely legally license fictitious person corporations, which to great extent set the nation’s political economic agenda (particularly as regards Foreign Policy)? Nomos-based (manmade) ‘broad power’ doctrine (which is Hobbesian Leviathan-based-power), is

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

paradoxical to consented constitutional authorities of ‘we, the people,’ and this mystical ‘vapor-like’ illogic became the legal cornerstone of separation between the U.S. government’s official Political Economy [of seeking and accepting campaign donations (i.e., bribes) for to gain elected positions, and the ear marked legislation, in which ‘pork barrel’ grants became the privatized rewards of the political exchange: as routinely negotiated and made lawful by the Congress and Administration], and privatized Political Economy [of private business entities (which legally are licensed on the same mystical ‘broad power’ cornerstone doctrine)]. Candidly, however, ‘private economy’ and ‘States Rights’ are based on myth, ' not fact (and Whigs’ unitary materialist realism had sponsored this imaginary figment of thought). Political Economy, while idealistically made legally, is as fictitious as the corporations that States now routinely, in all things excepting jail ' ' time, have licensed to act as humans? About the differences of Whigs and Federalists, Parrington wrote this:24

In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt. Parrington also wrote this about government’s banking practices:25 “The great desideratum . . .,” [Andrew Jackson] said in his message to the twenty fourth Congress, “is an efficient check upon the power of

Private economy (and corporate entities licensed to act as persons) is a figment of thought that issued deductively from dogmatic ‘positivism,’ which in this case of ‘Broad Power’ was expedient for the idealistically perceived economic advantages: ‘positivism,’ usually deals only with positive facts and phenomena, rejecting abstract speculation (World Book Dictionary, 1965). ''

And if they could (it is not a real possibility), they undoubtedly would also impose jail time.

Confirmations

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

banks, preventing that excessive issue of paper, whence arise those fluctuations in the standard of value which render uncertain the rewards of labor.”

with a nation-state (rationalization that defined English ‘conservatism’ is similar with the new nation of America, which affirmed it as doxy-based mechanist economic materialism). 28

And while Andrew Jackson was on the track laid by Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice,’ neither had, logical factual information that is now available and justifies their argument. 26 Change, according to [the Idealist G. W. F.] Hegel, was the rule of

. . . to be precise, not even Germany but prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the collectivity he terms the state.

life. Every idea, every force, irrepressibly bred its opposite, and the two merged into a “unity” that in turn produced its own contradiction. History, was nothing but the expression of this flux of conflicting and resolving ideas and forces. [Hegel

Craig Thomas also wrote about those who influenced Hegel’s unitary materialist view (Hegel said he wasn’t a materialist!):

was the principal European Idealist, the unitary materialism of which had conflated Kant’s dual reality to a cultural unitary materialist reality] About this irrational unitary materialist reality, Craig Thomas observed that Kant failed to recapture metaphysics from dogmatic materialism: 27 Kant . . . had failed to recapture metaphysics that ‘queen of the sciences,’ as a truly valid -- indeed, as the most valid -- branch of philosophy. [A romanticism had] judged his work as incomplete and as manifesting the Cartesian dualism in another form by his distinction of the ‘noumenal’ and ‘phenomenal’ realities of the world [The Nicene Creed’s unitary materialist reality had conflated cultural belief to noumenon’s ubiquitousness: irrational ‘three in one’ doctrine was unimpeachable and not challenged?]. G. W. F. Hegel’s dialectical materialism, with others of phenomenonbased belief (nihilism, positivism, French Romanticism and Enlightenment, Prussian Idealistic ‘power-state,’ . . .), provided to Marx his philosophic foundation to communism, which Leninist politics then impressed on Russia. And, the dogmatic, inconsistently fallacious rationalization stands out. This fallacy called ‘materialism’ is at the core of dogmatized predicates that intrinsically deny the source of pure truth: Craig Thomas referred to the shift in personal identification with ‘divinity’ to the identity

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist] systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of that dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato, Descartes, or Christ] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. ' As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or

In this, the principal idealists even conflated God’s noumenal antecedence, to which Nietzsche, when realizing this, cried out, “we have killed God!”.

Confirmations

‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . . Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced. Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority. [Note how dogmatic ‘Idealists,‘ as Fichte and Schelling, are blameworthy for conservatism’s philosophical underpinning of unitary materialist Hobbesian philosophy] Human behavior’s antecedence (of prescription) is an admixture: empirical determinism of natural energy and forces and the rational libertarianism of the prescriptive human free will.29

essence and substance are both contained in any thing, but the substance is the same in all kinds of things while essence is the special nature that makes each kind of thing different. Ralph Manheim translated Martin Heidegger’s, ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics. Explaining Heidegger, he ‘coined a word: “essent,” “essents,” “the essent,” based on the fiction that “essens,” “essentis” is the present participle of sum.’ The dictionary, which was used here confirms Manheim’s meaning of ‘sum.’ 30

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

sum 6. The essence or gist of anything; pith; “That the Sermon on the Mount contains the ‘sum and substance’ of Christianity (F. W. Robertson).” [Essence is truth’s domain, Heidegger said: 31 consequential of this, truthful predicate values of human intelligence are of sum’s essence, pith, or gist as confirmed by the predicate’s noun synonyms] Respectively, therefore, the ‘sum’ and ‘substance’ of truth are ‘prescriptive logos’ and ‘fact.’ [The ‘substance ’ (‘fact’) is often called the object of truth; then, only when human logos (‘sum’) are coherent with God’s LOGOS, do human posits of fact (truth objects) cohere with nature’s pure truth objects] As Craig Thomas noted, ‘the decline of the empirical tradition of natural law theory may be

dated from the first decades of the nineteenth century’: as unitary materialism became celebrated religiously, as dogma, relegating human essence to consequential temporal status. This idealist inculcation sponsored mechanist causality along with mechanisms’ tyrannous paradoxes. We can better appreciate Jefferson’s reasonable opposition to tyranny by contemplating his thoughts about the cultural effects of slavery. Jefferson, in 1782, said statesmen should condemn economic mechanisms, which, by tyranny, exacerbate caste divides: 32

With what execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part and ‘amor patriae’ [recipe for goodwill] of the other? [Apropos of Psalms 2?] At bottom line, Psalms 2 admonishes that all human logos be attuned to the Lord’s LOGOS. It arises, therefore, that the ‘heathen’ better fulfills

Confirmations

this requirement than do organic potentates and their sycophants. (Organizations that practice fascism, in fact, practice monarchical unitary materialist predicate values rather than those of nature: God’s LOGOS). Jefferson’s quote continues: “The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust”

It is difficult to determine on the standard by which a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to the grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of his wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose rein to the worst of passions and thus nursed, educated and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

morals of the one part and ‘amor patriae’ of the other. ' For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment [disappearance] of the human race or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry is also destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make another labor for him. This is so true that, of the proprietors of slaves, a very small proportion are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of forture, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! '

Enron’s bankruptcy confirms Jefferson’s analysis of statesmanship. When Enron, the seventh largest corporation, was failing and the corporate potentates sold stock to secure their personal wealth, they told employees and the public that Enron was never stronger. In result, employees and the public were unaware of financial problems until they lost their investments amounting to more than $80 billion (City Group lost $170 million). The Bush administration’s statesmanship appeared aligned with the potentates of Enron rather than with the employees and investors: the government did nothing to mollify the disastrous and tyrannous financial result. In so doing, the corporate officers’ tyrannous design was allowed to happen. To G. W. Bush’s election, Enron had contributed $ millions (73% Rep., 27% Demo.).

Confirmations

[Do Jefferson’s coments explain Psalms 2?]

The Almighty has not attributes which can take side with us in such a contest. But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will once their way into everyone’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way, I hope, preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation; and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation. Thomas Jefferson Prosecuting ‘war on terrorism’ because we are powerful, and can, also tears at democratic benevolent standards for integrity (human rights that are of sovereign essence). ‘Terrorists’ see and feel our strength and fathom our justified retaliation. But our benevolent democratic standards ‘to insure domestic tranquility’ suffer. When prosecuting ‘the war’ compromises the nation’s internal benevolence, and the cost becomes too great for society to endure, other than mechanist percepts become more critically pertinent than contemporary unitary materialist biases? 33

JAKARTA, Indonesia -- Spend a few days in Indonesia and you’ll find many people asking you a question you weren’t prepared for: Is America’s war on terrorism going to become a war against democracy? As Indonesians see it, for decades after World War II America sided with dictators, like their own President Suharto, because its war on Communism. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, America began to press more vigorously for democracy and human rights in countries like Indonesia, as the United States shifted from containing Communism to enlarging the sphere of democratic states.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Indonesians were listening, and in 1998 they toppled Suharto and erected their first electoral democracy. Today Indonesians are still listening, and they’re worried they’re hearing America shift again -- from a war for democracy to a war on terrorism, in which the United States will judge which nations are with it or against it not by the integrity of their elections or the justice of their courts, but by the vigor with which their army and police combat al-Quaida. For Indonesia, where democracy is still a fragile flower, anything that encourages a comeback by the long-feared, but now slightly defanged, army and police -- the tools of Suharto’s long repression -- is not good news. “Indonesian democrats have always depended on America as a point of reference that we could count on to support us,” said the prominent Indonesian commentator Wilmar Witoelar. “If we see you waffling, whom do we turn to? It is like the sun disappearing from the sky and everything starts to freeze here again.” There is a broad feeling among Indonesian elites that while some of their more authoritarian neighbors, like Malaysia or Pakistan, have suddenly become new darlings of Washington as a result of the war on terrorism, Indonesia is being orphaned because it is a messy, but real, democracy. We sometimes fear that America’s democratization agenda also got blown up with the World Trade Center,” says the Indonesian writer Andreas Harsono. “Since Sept. 11 there have been so many free riders on this American antiterrorism campaign, countries that want to use it to suppress their media and press freedom and turn back the clock. Indonesia, instead being seen as a weak democracy that needs support, gets looked at as a weak country that pro tects terrorists, and Malaysia is seen as superior because it arrests more terrorists than we do.”

Confirmations

Indeed, many people here believe that retrograde elements in the army and police have helped stir up recent sectarian clashes in Aceh and Maluku islands to spur Parliament to give the security services some of their old powers back. Says Jusuf Wanundi, who who heads a key strategic studies center here: “I just spoke with some senior military people who said to me: ‘Why doesent the government give up all this human rights stuff and leave (the problem) to us?’ They said the the Americans should normalize relations again with the Indonesian Army) ‘and we’ll do the job for them.’ That is not the right approach, because because we do not trust yet that the reforms of the military here have been adequate.” In fairness, the Bush team has kept aid for Indonesia at $130 million and made it the official policy in all diplomatic contacts that Indonesia should continue fighting its war for democracy, while contributing what it can to the war on terrorism. (It’s not clear if there are any al-Quaida cells here.) Nevertheless, some top Pentagon officials are definitely pushing to let the Indonesian military make a comeback and to restore ties with the Indonesian military that were suspended after the army ran amok in East Timor in 1999. Indonesia is just beginning to try military officers involved in those killings. If there is any hope of senior army officers being held accountable for East Timor, it will certainly be lost if America signals that all it cares about now is the new antiterrorism laws being debated by the Indonesian Parliament to give the army anything it wants. America needs to be aware of how its war in terrorism is read in other countries, especially those in transition. Indonesia is the world’s biggest Muslim country. Its greatest contribution to us would be to show the Arab Muslim states that it is possible to

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

develop a successful Muslim democracy, with a modern economy and a moderate religious outlook. Setting that example is a lot more in America’s long-term interest than arresting a few stray alQuaida fighters in the jungles of Borneo. PSALMS 2

Why Do the Heathen Rage Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto me, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Confirmations

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Is America culturally retrogressing into a monarchical unitary materialist view of terrorism? (Disclosures of our practice to torture prisoners held by us confirm this.) And does Psalms 2 bear on our war?

Treason,34 once meant disloyalty to a sovereign ruler, such as a king. A person who criticized the ruler’s policies and actions might find himself convicted of treason. But today, the meaning of treason has changed, The people in a democratic country are expected to criticize the government, and to work as freely as they like for the election of a new government. The United States Constitution clearly defines treason as: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” This definition protects the right of citizens to oppose the actions of their government in all reasonable ways. No one can be punished for treason until he has been convicted in the courts, or by court-martial in time of war. . . . That Categorical Imperative is a philosophy of all human cultures, the world over, is consistent with a constant God. This account of Islam is an excerpt from my research called, Ethereal Gold. It clearly shows that classical dogma fraudulently has usurped rational human sovereignty. Not only has dogma transformed the American Categorical Imperative to appear as fascism, it threatens to make fascism permanent. And it has done the same to the Categorical Imperative of Islam, and

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

globally, to other societies. H. G. Wells Islam (His pages are shown in parentheses): 35 (7) The objections made[to Wells’ Outline of History] concern the

relative prominence given to this part or that. A certain type of classical scholar rages at the comparative neglect of Homer and aesthetic side of Greek life, though the account of Greek science is full, and though the intellectual development of Greece is treated as a cardinal phase in human development. Another large body of opinion sees the world through Latin forms and is exasperated even by the simple statement of the comparative extent, duration and influence of, for instance, the Byzantine, Persian and Chinese systems.. . . . Dogmatic Freethinkers, again, consider the acceptance of Jesus as a real person insupportable; adherents of Islam cry out against the too familar handling of their prophet. . . . Many people, with a rather materialistic theology in their minds, have been disagreeably impressed by the massed and accumulating evidences of man’s animal descent. Even if that be true they think it highly demoralizing. . . .' There was no way of evading or satisfying these demands. . . . (104) A queer development of the later Palaeolithic and Neolithic Ages was self-mutilation. Men began to cut themselves about, to excise noses, ears, fingers, teeth and the like, and to attach all sorts of superstitious ideas to these acts. . . . This, too, has left its trace in the rite of circumcision, upon the religions of Judaism and Islam. . . .

Wells expresses concern that materialism conflated the natural human dualism (of substance and spirit), which Plato expressed of Greek origin, Descartes found rationally in his analysis of life, and Kant described as noumena and phenomena.

Confirmations

(328) for some time Buddhism flourished in India. But Brahminism, with its many gods and its endless variety of cults, always flourished by its side, and the organization of the Brahmins grew more powerful, until at last they were able to turn upon this cast-denying cult and oust it from India altogether. . . . By the eleventh century, except for Orissa, Buddhist teaching was extinct in India. Much of its gentleness and charity had, however, become incorporated with Brahminism. . . . With the loss of India the Aryan Way ceased to rule the lives of any Aryan peoples. It is curious to note that while the one great Aryan religion is now almost exclusively confined to Mongolian peoples, the Aryans themselves are under the sway of two religions, Christianity and Islam, which are, as we shall see, essentially Semitic. And Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity alike wear garments of ritual and formula that seem to be derived through Hellenistic channels from that land of temples and priestcraft, Egypt, and from the more primitive and fundamental mentality of the brown Hamitic peoples. . . . (426-7) Consider the tone of this extract from the writings of a Chinaman, Mo Ti, who lived somewhen in the fourth century B.C., when the doctrines of Confucius and of Lao Tse prevailed in China, before the advent of Buddhism to that country, and note how Nazareneâ&#x20AC;? it is. 36 The mutual attacks of state on state; the mutual usurpations of family on family; the mutual robberies of man on man; the want of kindness on the part of the sovereign and of loyalty on the part of the minister; the want of tenderness and filial duty between father and son -- these and such as these, are the things injurious to the empire. All this has arisen from want of mutual love. If but that one virtue could be made universal, the princes loving one

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

another would have no battle-fields; the chiefs of families would attempt no usurpations. Men would commit no robberies; rulers and ministers would be gracious and loyal; fathers and sons would be kind and filial; brothers would be harmonious and easily reconciled. Men in general loving one another, the strong would not make prey of the weak; the many would not plunder the few, the rich would not insult the poor, the noble would not be insolent to the mean; and the deceitful would not impose upon the simple. This is extraordinarily like the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth cast into political terms. The thoughts of MoTi came close to the [Christian Categorical Imperative of the] Kingdom of Heaven. This essential identity is the most important historical aspect of these great world religions. They were in their beginnings quite unlike the priest, altar and temple cults, those cults for the worship of definite gods that played so great and so essential a part in the earlier stages of manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development between 15,000 B. C. These new world religions, from 600 B.C., onward, were essentially religions of the heart and of the universal sky. They swept away all those various and limited gods that had served the turn of human needs since the first communities were welded together by fear and hope. And presently when we come to Islam we shall find that for a third time the same fundamental new doctrine of the need of a universal devotion of all men to one Will reappears. Warned by the experiences of Christianity, Muhammad was very emphatic in insisting that he himself was merely a man, and so saved his teaching from corruption and misrepresentation. . . .But to the white truth in each [rival religion] being burnt free from its dross, and becoming manifestly the same truth -namely, that the hearts of men, and therewith all the lives and

Confirmations

institutions of men, must be subdued to one common Will ruling them all. “St. Paul,” says Dean Inge in one of his ‘Outspoken Essays,’ “understood what most Christians never realize, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is not a religion, but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.” . . . [like Islam’s, Christ restates Categorical Imperative and also gave a personal example of living it.]

(466) . . . Take the case of the Greeks, the whole swing of their mental vigor falls into the period between the sixth century B.C., and the decay of the Alexandrian Museum under the late Ptolemies in the second century B.C. . . . Again, the mind of the Arabs, as we shall presently tell, blazed out like a star for half a dozen generations after Islam appeared . . . . (477) It was in Mecca about the year A.D. 570 that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was born. He was born of considerable poverty and even by the standards of the desert he was uneducated; it is doubtful if he ever learnt to write. He was for some years a shepherd’s boy; then he became the servant of a certain Kadija the widow of a rich merchant. Probably he had to look after her camels or help in her trading operations; and he is said to have travelled with caravans to the Yemen and to Syria. He does not seem to have been a very useful trader, but he had the good fortune to find favour in the lady’s eyes and she married him, to the great annoyance of her family. He was then only twenty-five years old. . . . His wife was much older . . . The Jews had perhaps converted him to a belief in the One True God. . . . He produced certain verses, which he declared had been revealed to him by an angel. They involved an assertion of the unity of God and some acceptable generalizations about righteousness. [with favor to Wells’ comments about socio-economic results, his unfavorable

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

comments are skipped] (484) But the personal quality of Muhammad is one thing and the quality of Islam, the religion he founded, is quite another. Muhammad was not pitted against Jesus or Mani, . . .[still classical dogma had its way as no Constitution protects the cultural Civitas of Islam’s Categorical Imperative] (493) Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic peoples robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated, and unorganized, and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest, and cleanest political idea that had yet come into actual activity in the world, and it offered better terms than any other to the mass of mankind. The capitalistic and slaveholding system of the Roman Empire and the literature and culture and social tradition of Europe had altogether decayed and broken down before Islam arose [fulfilling scripture?]. (498) Because it was a fine language, and because it was the language of the Koran [Muhammad spoke but did not write it], Arabic continued to spread until it had replaced Greek and become the language of educated men throughout the whole Moslem world. (500) For some generations before Muhammad, the Arab mind had been, as it were smouldering, it had been producing poetry and much religious discussion; under the stimulus of the national and racial successes, it presently blazed out with a brilliance second only to that of the Greeks during their best period. It revived the human pursuit of science. If the Greek was the father, then the Arab was the foster father of the scientific method. Through the Arabs it was, and not by the Latin route, that the

Confirmations

modern world received that gift of light and power. (501) It is difficult to say, in the case of this Arabic culture, where the Jew ends and the Arab begins, so important and essential were its Jewish factors. Moreover, there was a third source of inspiration, more particularly in mathematical science, to which at present it is difficult to do justice -- India, was in close and effective contact with Sanskrit literature and with Indo-Persian physical science. . . . And a century or so in advance of the West, there grew up in the Moslem world at a number of centres, at Basra, at Kufa, at Bagdad and Cairo, and (502) at Cordoba, out of what were at first religious schools dependent on mosques, a series of great universities. The light of these universities shown far beyond the Moslem world, and drew students to them from east and west. At Cordoba in particular there were great numbers of Christian students, and the influence of Arab philosophy coming by way of Spain upon the universities of Paris, Oxford, and North Italy, and upon Western European thought generally, was very considerable indeed. The name of Averroes (Ibnrushd) of Cordoba (1126-1198) stands out as the culminating influence of Arab philosophy upon European thought [and by way of Franklin and Jefferson’s embasidorial contact with France, upon America]. He developed the teachings of Aristotle upon lines that made a sharp division between religious and scientific truth, and so prepared the way for the liberation of scientific research from the theological dogmatism that restrained it both under Christianity and under Islam ' . . . '

H. G. Wells, by specifying the competing cultural tracks, clarifies his previous illusions to materialist cultural conflations of the essential eternal human spirit. .

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

“In mathematics,” say Thatcher and Schwill, 37 “The Arabs built on the Greek mathematicians’ foundations. The origin of the so-called Arabic numerals is oscure. Under Theodoric the Great, Bo.thius made use of certain signs which were in part very like the nine digits which we now use.” . . . But the zero, it is stated, was unknown until the ninth century, when zero was invented by a Muslem mathematician named Muhammad-Ibn-Musa, who also was the first to use the decimal notation, and who gave the digits the value of position [was’t number’s ordinal value India’s contribution? (algebra was virtually Islam’s, as contributions in geometry, trigonometry, physics, and astronomy are also)] In medicine they made great advances over the work of the Greeks. . . . At the time in Europe the practice of medicine was forbidden by the Church, which expected cures to be effected by religious rites performed by the clergy, the Arabs had a real science of medicine. Public TV recently aired H. G. Well’s history of Islam. Important is that a constant ubiquitous noumenal intelligence, we call God, has variously portrayed the same scientifically logical message to all humans: Christ’s example of Categorically Imperative, as Dean Inge in one of his ‘Outspoken Essays’ observed, is universally intended for all humans, but unfortunately is conflated by forms of unitary materialism and by a ‘positive’ temporal dogmatic cultural influence. The strongly implied message of God’s dual track (of revelation and faith, or science and logic) as is applicable to individual sovereignty, infers that human fallaciously instilled dogmatic belief arises to contest universal principle truths (both as found by the scientific method or faith-based revelation). Now, comes Schumperter’s circular flow analysis, which by way of tautology, shows G. P. Brockway’s inciting definitions and analysis of the American political economy, confirming egregious fallacies in the

Confirmations

name of dogmatic belief, have been made. And, that mitigating counter economic systems are necessarily, desperately needed. These Brockway’s candid observations are recommended: (a) Economics is not value free, and no amount of abstraction can make it value free. 38

As distance and time are fundamental physical concepts, money, goods, and services are fundamental economic concepts. . . . Mass, force, and velocity have no moral implications because the laws describing them have no alternatives. The vocabulary of economics abounds in ethical terms. It is impossible to define “good,” “service,” or even “utility” without making ethical judgements. Kant and Hume provided dialogue about naturally ‘necessary’ and unnaturally ‘contingent’ truth. But, G. W. von Leibnitz, of shared mathematical distinction with Isaac Newton (The Calculus), wrote:39

There are two kinds of truths; those of reasoning and those of fact. The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible [even probable]. Truths of economics, therefore, are factually contingent and probably paradoxical. Therefore, before concluding that we learn more about ‘necessary’ truth from philosophy than from political economics, for instance, we might prosper by using Plato’s Divided-Line-Forms to systematize pertinence of learning about the various forms of truth. For this, Kant’s following statement from The Critique is repeated to emphasize the critical difference between ‘pure rational thought’ and ‘dogmatic belief’: dogmatists eschew deliberate criticisms of their dogma, and ‘absolute belief’ historically has been little more than belief in ‘absolutely false doctrine’ about unknown, unproved metaphysical theory. Dogmatic politics, usually conservative in nature, has a field day, willfully manipulating with impunity, society’s popular sycophantic opinions.

This (‘Critique of Pure Reason’) can never become popular and,

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

indeed, has no occasion to be so; for finespun arguments in favor of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of speculative reason and, thus, to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses. Clearly, Plato’s Visible Realm, Form D is the lowest empirical-based form of truth [where neither are ‘opinions’ critically anchored (correspond) to temporal reality nor are they based on critical principles of deliberate reason]: dealing only in ‘opinions’ is activity variously described as belonging to the ‘denizens of the barnyard.’ * *Those who carried Parrington’s work to his conclusion wrote this:40

From the beginning -- the scholars discovered -- democracy and property had been at bitter odds; the struggle invaded the Constitutional Convention, it gave form to a party alignment between Hamilton and Jefferson, Jackson and Clay, and then during the slavery struggle, sinking underground like a lost river, it nevertheless had determined party conflicts down to the present. In this ceaseless conflict between man and the dollar, between democracy and property, the reasons for persistent triumph of property were sought in the provisions of the organic law, and from a critical study of the Constitution came the discovery that struck home like a submarine torpedo -- the discovery that the drift toward plutocracy [the rule of wealth] was not a drift away from the spirit of the Constitution, but an inevitable unfolding from its premises; that instead of having been conceived by the fathers as a democratic

Confirmations

instrument, it had been conceived in a spirit designedly hostile to democracy; that it was, in fact, a carefully formulated expression of eighteenth-century consciousness, erected as a defense against the democratic spirit that had got out of hand during the Revolution [as was only later expressed and adopted in the Declaration of Independence], and that the much-praised system of checks and balances was designed and intended for no other end than a check on the [agrarian] political power of the majority -- a power acutely feared by the property consciousness of the times. It was a startling discovery that profoundly stirred the liberal mind of the early years of the century; yet the really surprising thing is that it should have come as a surprise. It is not easy to understand today why since Civil War days intelligent Americans should so strangely have confused the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and have come to accept them as complementary statements of the democratic purpose of America. Their unlikeness is unmistakable: the one a classical statement of French humanitarian democracy, the other an organic law designed to safeguard the minority under republican rule. . . . When the fierce slavery struggle fell into the past, whatever honest realism had risen from the passions of the times was buried with the dead issue. The militant attacks on the Constitution, so common in Abolitionist circles after 1835, and the criticism of the Declaration that was a part of the Southern argument, were both forgotten, and with the Union reestablished by force of arms, the idealistic cult of the fundamental law entered upon a second youth [in the name of Whiggery]. In the blowsy Gilded Age the old myths walked the land again, wrapped in battle-torn flags and appealing to the blood shed on southern battlefields. It was not till the advent of a generation

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

unblinded by the passions of civil war that the Constitution again was examined critically, and the earlier charge of the Abolitionists that it was designed to serve property rather than men, was heard once more. But this time with far more weight of evidence behind it. As the historians dug amongst the contemporary records they came upon a mass of fact the Abolitionists had been aware of. The evidence was written so plainly, in such explicit and incontrovertible words -- not only in Elliottâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Debates, but in the minutes of the several State[s] and pamphlets and polite literature -- that it seemed incredible that honest men could have erred so greatly in confusing the Constitution with the Declaration. With the clarification of its philosophy the inflowing waters of liberalism reached flood-tide; the movement would either recede or pass over into radicalism. . . . it followed the later course, and the years immediately preceding 1917 were years when American intellectuals were immersing themselves in European collectivistic philosophies -- in Marxianism, Fabianism, Syndicalism, Guild Socialism. ' New leaders were rising, philosophical analysts like Thorstein Veblen who were mordant critics of American economics. The influence of socialism was fast sweeping away the last shreds of political and social romanticism that so long had confused American thinking. The doctrine of economic determinism was spreading widely, and in the light of that doctrine the deep significance of the industrial revolution was revealing itself for the first time to thoughtful Americans. In its reaction to industrialism America had reached the point Chartist England had reached in the eighteen-

Which, materialist effects had conflated the dualist human nature to dogmatic unitary forms of materialism.

Confirmations

forties and Marxian Germany in the eighteen-seventies. That was before a mechanistic science [built on dogma] had laid its heavy discouragements on the drafters of democratic programs. Accepting the principle of economic determinism, liberalism still clung to its older democratic teleology, convinced that somehow economic determinism would turn out to be a fairy godmother to the proletariat and that from the imperious drift of industrial expansion must eventually issue social justice. Armed with this faith liberalism threw itself into the work of cleaning the Augean stables, and its reward came in the achievements of President Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first administration. Then the war intervened and the green fields shriveled in an afternoon. With the cynicism that came with post-war days the democratic liberalism of 1917 was thrown away like an empty whisky-flask. Clever young men began to make merry over democracy. It was preposterous, they said, to concern oneself about social justice; nobody wants social justice. The first want of every man, as John Adams remarked a hundred years ago, is his dinner, and the second his girl. Out of the muck of the war had come a great discovery -- as it was reported -- the discovery that psychology as well as economics has its word to say on politics. From the army intelligence tests the moron emerged as a singular commentary on our American democracy, and with the discovery of the moron the democratic principle was in for a slashing attack. Almost overnight an army of enemies was marshaled against it. The euginist with his isolated germ theory flouted the perfectional psychology of John Locke, with its emphasis on environment as the determining factor in social evolution -- a psychology on which the whole idealistic interpretation was founded; the beardless

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

philosopher discovered Nietzsche and in his pages found the fit master of the moron -- the biological aristocrat who is the flower that every civilization struggles to produce; the satirist discovered the flatulent reality that is middle-class America and was eager to thrust his jibes at the complacent denizens of the Valley of democracy. Only the behaviorist, with his insistence on the plasticity of the new-born child, offers some shreds of comfort to the democrat; but he quickly takes them away again with his simplification of conduct to imperious drives that stamp men as primitive animals. If the mass -- the raw materials of democracy -never rises much above sex appeals and belly needs, surely it is poor stuff to try to work up into an excellent civilization, and the dreams of the social idealist who forecasts a glorious democratic future are about as substantial as moonshine. It is a discouraging essay. Yet it is perhaps conceivable that our current philosophy -the brilliant coruscations of our younger intelligentsia -- may indeed not prove to be the last word in social philosophy. Perhaps . . . when our youngest liberals have themselves come to the armchair age they will be smiled at in turn by sons who are still cleverer and who will find their wisdom as foolish as the wisdom of 1917 seems to them today. But that lies on the knees of the gods. [But, now in the twenty first century, greater realist answers are now surely available!] Variously, Brahminist cognizance, as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Hamilton, . . ., described Platoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Truth Forms C & D by this opinionated fallacious truth predicate, that John Adams used:41

The mass of men are naturally indolent, selfish, given to luxury, shortsighted, jealous, tending to faction and all mischievous intrigue. Never does he find them given to virtue, choosing wisdom,

Confirmations

seeking justice. They cannot endure that others should be superior in virtue, or rank, or power; but driven by ambition they strive to pull down their superiors in order themselves to rise. The men in any society who possess suficient virtue to set justice above selfinterest, are few and count for little in the scale against the selfish many. (“Defense of the Constitution . . .,” in Works, Vol. VI, p 9, 57, 97). This Calvinistic doctrine that “human nature is not fit to be trusted,” and that “men are never good but through necessity,” being accepted -- and John Adams was as clearly satisfied of its truth “as of any demonstration of Euclid” -- he proceeded to translate it into political terms, and examine the bearing of it upon systems of government. Like ‘denizens of the barnyard,’ the sycophantic mass of men is easily led to subscribe and follow dogma. Dogma has proved its effectiveness to persuade opinions of the non reasoning crowd to remain within casts restricted by the unitary materialist conflations of dogma. As Kant observed, the potential of man is far greater than, because restricted, is in evidence from the lowest forms of Plato’s truth (Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ beheld dogma as chaining human minds to the cave’s walls: only shadows of reality persuaded human intelligence whose truths are believed illusions).42

I appeal to the most obstinate dogmatist, whether the proof of the continued existence of the soul after death, derived from the simplicity of its substance; of the freedom of the will in opposition to the general mechanism of nature, drawn from the subtle but impotent distinction of subjective and objective practical necessity; or of the existence of God, deduced from the conception of an “ensrealissimum” -- the contingency of the changeable, and the necessity of a prime mover, has ever been able to pass beyond the limits of schools, to penetrate the public mind, or to exercise the

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

slightest influence on its convictions. It must be admitted that this has not been the case and that, owing to the unfitness of the common understanding for such subtle speculation, it can never be expected to take place. On the contrary, it is plain that “the hope of a future life” arises from the feeling, which exists in the breast of every man, that the temporal is inadequate to meet and satisfy the demands of his nature. In like manner, it cannot be doubted that the clear exhibition of duties in opposition to all the claims of inclination, gives rise to the consciousness of “freedom,” and that the glorious order, beauty, and providential care, everywhere displayed in nature, give rise to belief in a wise and great Author of the Universe. Such is the genesis of these general convictions of mankind, so far as they depend on rational grounds; and the public property not only remains undisturbed, but is even raised to greater importance by the doctrine that schools have no right to arrogate to themselves a more profound insight into a matter of general concernment than that to which the great mass of men, ever held by us in the highest estimation, can without difficulty attain, and that the schools should, therefore, confine themselves to the elaboration of these universally comprehensible and, from a moral point of view, amply satisfactory proofs. The change, therefore, affects only the arrogant pretensions of the schools, which would gladly retain, in their own exclusive possession, the key to the truths they impart to the public. At the same time it does not deprive the speculative philosopher of his just title to be the sole depositor of a science which benefits the public without its knowledge -- I mean, the “Critique of Pure Reason.” This can never become popular and, indeed, has no occasion to be so; for finespun arguments in favor of useful truths make just as little impression on the public mind as the equally subtle objections brought against these truths. On the other

Confirmations

hand, since both inevitably force themselves on every man who rises to the height of speculation, it becomes the manifest duty of the schools to enter upon a thorough investigation of the rights of speculative reason and, thus, to prevent the scandal which metaphysical controversies are sure, sooner or later, to cause even to the masses. It is only by criticism that metaphysicians (and as such theologians too) can be saved from the subsequent perversion of their doctrines. Criticism alone can strike a blow at roots of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which are universally injurious -- as well as of idealism and scepticism, which are dangerous to the schools, but can scarcely pass over to the public. If governments think proper to interfere with the affairs of the learned, it would be more consistent with a wise regard for the interests of science, as well for those of society to favor a criticism of this kind, by which alone the labors of reason can be established on a firm basis, than to support the ridiculous despotism of the schools, which raise a loud cry of danger to the public over the destruction of cobwebs, of which the public has never taken notice, and the loss of which, therefore, it never feels. Summarizing Kant’s ‘criticism’ to the American heritage and politics which persuade it, Parrington observed this: 43

A just and liberal government is an excellent ideal, but it is one for which few amongst the mass of men greatly care; and because America chose to follow its own nose [dogma that was installed to dominate government’s constitutional value predicates], it would not become like the America of its dreams. Still, even while substantially diminished by dogmatic political sophistries and the ‘pork barrel’ of its mechanist organic economy, liberal idealism persists as the sponsor for teleologic democratic principles. Jefferson’s

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

presidency was considered the first political victory for democracy and Jefferson’s predicate values continue to inspire the democratic teleology. Jefferson’s retort to Brahminist dogma-based predicate values, which assert that humanity is naturally unfit to rule, was simple, forceful, and irrefutable. 44

Have we found angles in the form of Kings to rule? Class-conscious pseudo monarchist predicate values of Aristocratic Americans, who, at the time, comprised mostly Federalists, Torys and Whigs, engulfed the Constitutional Convention’s discussion. But, thankfully, they failed to overwhelm the common people. 45

Although Franklin’s origins . . . were narrowly provincial, his mind from early youth to extreme old age was curiously open and free, and to such a mind the intellectual wealth of the world lies open and free. . . . No other man in America and few in Europe had so completely freed themselves from the prejudice of custom. The Calvinism in which he was bred left not the slightest trace upon him; and the middle-class world from which he emerged did not narrow his mind to its petty horizons. He was a free man who went his own way with imperturbable good will and unbiased intelligence; our first social philosopher, the first ambassador of American democracy to the courts of Europe. . . . The conception of a federal union of the several colonies was slowly spreading in America, and no other colonial had done so much to further it; in his well-known Plan of Union he had sketched the outlines of a federal constitution. . . . He was a forerunner of Jefferson, like him firm in the conviction that government was good in the measure that it remained close to the people. In the Constitutional Convention as one of the few democrats, and although he was unable to make headway against the aristocratic majority, he was quite

Confirmations

unconvinced by their rhetoric. When the mass of freedom-conscious colonists refused to ratify the Constitution proposed and explained by Federalists, these American Brahminist sponsors acceded to amend the Constitution to include the democratically rational ‘noumenon essential’ Bill of Rights: only then, with others, were Jefferson and Madison commissioned to formulate this essential addition to the Constitution. Liberal essential realists’ predicate values align with the Greek’s physis-based truth. Conservative unitary materialist Brahminist idealists’ predicate values, which Calvinists, Federalists, and Whigs had subscribed, align with Greek’s nomos -based truth. Class-conscious Brahmin predicate values are more attuned to monarchy than to democracy: witness Nietzsche’s following statement from a literary piece he called ‘Beyond Good and Evil.’46

And in the case of the unique natures of noble origin, if by virtue of superior spirituality they should incline to a more retired and contemplative life, reserving for themselves only the more refined forms of government (over chosen disciples or members of an order), religion itself may be used as a means for obtaining peace from the noise and trouble of managing ‘grosser’ affairs, and for securing immunity from the ‘unavoidable filth’ of all political agitation. The Brahmins, for instance, understood this fact. With the help of a religious organisation, they secured to themselves the power of nominating Kings for the people, while their sentiments prompted them to keep apart and outside, as men with a higher and superregal mission. Evidence of the difference is found in respective predicate values in human logos . The vital differences are inculcated silently, but emotionally, and are expressed in the pros and cons of individual opinions. And when freedom is denied, in expressions of terror.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

The predicate values of the liberal essential truth, as Jefferson and Locke, finds humankind capable, however latent human capability is at birth, to reason purely in matters involving sovereignty; as these innate powers derive from nature’s God, bequeathed to humans, as equal individual ‘inalienable rights.’ Contrarily, Brahmanists’ dogmatic predicate values (represented by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Coke, Hamilton, John Adams, . . .) represents empirical belief, not reason, that generally ‘humanity is incapable to decide in matters of human sovereignty: therefore, to them it is deductively evident, that the Creator appointed kings and intelligent leaders, as themselves, with ‘divine rights’ to rule by dogma and force: to formulate dogma to control and counsel the less endowed humans, or force them to comply. Brahmanists’ truth’s predicate values derive similarly from other dogmas, which, for advantages, they formulate and inculcate: maybe better called ‘superior preemptive sovereignty’? * * The Brahmanist ‘divine right’ is asserted as an antecedent ‘first right’: [to secure, acquire, or take possession of before hand ( World Book’s definition of preempt); But, try at your own peril to act in this manner with regard to contractual matters when mechanists are party to the contract!]. ‘Eastern Brahmanist truth, is often deductively applied rationalization, resulting in Western transmuted dogmas, as ‘materialism,’ ‘mechanism,’ ‘determinism,’ ‘divine rights,’ which in the U.S. has resulted in a myriad of hybrid organic doctrine: Economic Determinism, Imperialism, Dollar Diplomacy, Manifest Destiny, and now Preemptive War. The official classical orthodox economic dogma has artificially settled inflation’s endemism by exacerbating inflation’s symptom (i.e., increasing the Bankers’ COLA). Wage-earner unemployment is increased instead of directly abating inflation, at its causal sources. Also, this Brahmanism usurped inalienable human rights, when empowered by government authority, by acting legally to grant to ‘fictitious person’ corporate entities, the same rights . . . However, the predicate values of this ‘Brahmanist truth’ are ‘contingent’ upon the dogma of belief, therefore, this ‘truth’ fits

Confirmations

Plato’s Opinion (Truth Forms C & D). And, because dogma is never submitted for a reasoned ‘critique,’ (as Kant observed) this truth fails to transcend Plato’s Visible ‘Opinion’ forms to qualify as reasoned truth (Plato’s Forms A & B). About which, Will Durant wrote this: 47

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point, and never think about putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment. Most humans ‘rationalize’ to justify and materialize personal desires. However, few individuals, themselves, establish dogma: cultural edicts as ’the divine right of a king’s authority,’ or ‘Internal Improvement’ of organic ‘economic determinism’ (Whig’s legislative rationalization that resulted in Congress’ legendary ‘pork barrel’). These dogmas require a cohesive influence of a collective mechanism like cabalistic-authoritative’ sovereign power. For instance, Whig’s organic ‘Internal Improvement’ dogma was fallaciously rationalized to justify and install the mechanismbased ‘American System of Political Economy’ with its authoritative political intrusions of legalized pork barrel bribery. As ‘viruses’ are designed by ‘hackers’ to frustrate normal computer operations, of the modern logic-based world, dogma might be understood as human intelligent ‘viruses’ of design to frustrate or modify the truthful consequents of human logical intelligence. As a thing, supposed to be true (World Book Dictionary’s third definition), dogma is cultural belief that is supposed to be true, the assumed predicate values of which, until proved ‘true, ‘often are as ‘false,’ as the belief in a ‘flat earth,’ for instance. Dogma as Hindu Vedas was designed to channel and restrain from reasoned rebellion conservative culture. Machiavelli had observed the Brahmanist intent to control by dogma the human masses,(dialectical materialism), which is Hegel’s conflated unitary materialism, Marx used to indict religion as being false. History has confirmed Durant’s ‘bag full of cultural paradoxes, which have resulted from belief in dogma: 48

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point, and never think about putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment. Plato’s truth form called ‘opinion,’ for instance, is ‘contingent’ beliefbased truth which ‘goes begging’ for the truth of believed dogma. And, when evaluating dogmatic prescriptive ends, an intriguing kinship with Brahmanist intents, which in fact, ‘tells cultural lies,’ is found. (b) It is sometimes said that the long-term rate of inflation is 3 percent. 49 But even at this acceptable rate by orthodoxy, the consequential cost of living in eight years increases by 26.7 percent. Therefore, politics -- of whichever sort (mechanist or not)-- that maintains this long term inflation rate might act to mitigate it but will never mechanistically solve the rising cost problem, particularly of people whose incomes are low. If solving this problem is a sincere political objective, stemming inflation must be addressed directly at is myriad endemic sources. Many economic scruples against promoting another’s general welfare naturally exist and, therefore, politically rhetorically opposing while also depending on the mitigating insurance aspect of Social Security must surely exist. Still, political opposition to the plight of the elderly or the poor cannot honorably settle inflation by draconian measures, which ignore its effects that particularly hurt the elderly or the poor. In short, the classical adopted inflation policies have overtly favored ‘unearned income’: Keynes, following R. H. Tawney, favored ‘functionless investors’ over ‘those who do the work of the world.’ If political economy ever achieves to sponsor the investment of SS contributions in the ‘functionless investors’ fluctuating markets, then SS surplus will not only be subjected to greater inflation, wage-earners will then have joined the myriad causes of inflation endemism. Better teleology for workers, which mechanistically fully pay for inflation

Confirmations

anyway, is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional charge: and reduce inflation by restricting the Bankers’ COLA both in good economic times and bad.. The ‘golden ratio,’ Phi (N), which the Greeks found was related to population growth, also has natural application to our capitalist democratic economy: to rid it of systemic inflation. Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ 50 in which growth in economy equals growth in population (and consumption is maximized), is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ applies to economic growth. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value of 1.618. ' If Congress accepted its constitutional charge and controlled inflation by restricting its growth to this ‘golden ratio’, investments in production and wage-earning would shift away from the casino futures’ economy into the real consumer-based economy (which even now represents about 60% of GNP). And a dollar earned would retain more of its economic value. (c) G. P. Brockway challenges the classical mercantilist notion of rights: 51

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed by labor. Brockway asserts. Classical authoritative orthodoxy gave by legalized authoritative assertions economic advantages to capitalists: for instance, '

Over the last century, average stock growth was 4%, inflation 3%: stock growth reflects non earned income (mostly from owned shares of corporate profits that enures to the owner investors). Cost accounting causes consumer price inflation, which also legally enures from consumption as returning business capital. Income growth from stock investments enhances affluence, as inflations’ enuring combines with economic growth, while inflations’ growth in consumer prices acts to restrict the value of wages earned: systemically ‘giving to Peter by taking from Paul.’

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

with pay delayed until a work period is completed, capitalists are legally granted an interest free capital consideration (If the wage-earner has an equal constitutional right, why then does the wage-earner not have an interest free capital grant?). Capital required for production’s wageearning is, thereby, freed for other activities, as to advertize and lobby, for instance. And, this legal advantage is deemed as a business right (as speech, for instance). But contrarily, this mechanist orthodoxy has put wage-earners in an ‘iron wage cage’ with no free access to their wagesearned before the pay period’s end, and wage-earners must subsist on the wages they earn. And, about Capitalism’s propensities for growth, R. L. Heilbroner gave this telling analysis of economist, J. Schumperter: 52

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs during government’s Gilded Age officially had installed the American System of Political economy with its pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism]. Schumperter’s book was about another

kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. . . . this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. . . .. Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth. The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state

Confirmations

seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit. More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from. The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with. Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be traced either to the contribution of labor or of resource owners.’ A new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same

Confirmations

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply than less well situated fellow landlords. Again, exactly like the fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent” from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from God-given advantages in location or fertility. It springs from the will and intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit. An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways. This is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group, because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class. Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. Schumperter’s Entrepreneurs did not require government paternalism,

orthodoxy. Schumperter indicted capitalism for spawning a particularly subservient orthodox class: corporate chairman Paul Baran (?) presented this fundamental difference, of public corporate culture with that of individual tycoons, to a forum of business executives some thirty years ago (my notes were focused on the substance, the presenter’s name was a belated concern and surely deserves this, my apology, if it is inaccurate?):

such as granting free capital or Gilded Age ‘internal improvement policies, to accumulate capital. Innovating activity was required however.

With some reluctance, I have chosen to register independent views on . . . the exercise of power by large, often multinational corporations. Deep concern over accountability in the exercise of power, especially as it affects individuals, has been a hallmark of American society. In my view, the Commission (for a National Agenda for The Eighties) should have acknowledged, in the context of the [nineteen] eighties, the historic concern of Americans with the exercise of

So, which part of capitalist orthodoxy justified political government’s paternalism, pork barrel policies, and mercantilism? Answers require political recognition that innovating Entrepreneurs necessarily are unorthodox, therefore, not in any orthodox sense of any particular social class: particularly are neither endorsed nor inculcated by

There are many ways to describe the contrast between the tycoon and modern manager [which position of pseudo aristocracy most in society now aspire for]. The former is the parent of the giant corporation, the later is its child. The tycoon stood outside and above, dominating the corporation. The manager is an insider dominated by it. The loyalty of the one was to himself and his family . . . the loyalty of the other is to the organization to which he belongs and through which he expresses himself. To one the corporation was merely a means to enrichment; to the other the good of the company has become both an economic and ethical end. The one stole from the company, the other steals for it. [Note the organic metamorphism!] Many have raised concerns with fictitious corporations, Thomas C. Jorling’s reluctant concern, stands out prominently in the particular light of contemporary recent acts of terrorism and rioting. 53

Confirmations

power. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many provisions were adopted to constrain and make accountable an agent of power--the federal government. During the past 200 years, new aggregates of power have come into being, especially the large, multinational corporation. Brought into existence by state charter, these institutions were once constrained by limits on size and power, limits rapidly made obsolete by interstate competition. Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.' There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable. The removal by leading industrial states of the limitations upon the size and powers of business corporations appears to have been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of the restrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that it was futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would be circumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed, local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eager for the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removed safeguards from their own incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548, 557.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed to control power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, the corporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source of the exercise of the greatest amount of power in national and global society. Simply put, the large business corporations, separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum power in our society. Power with many dimensions: to shape the form of society, to alter the landscape, to distribute new chemicals, to provide or withhold food, to determine income differentials, to make us dependent upon technology. On and on we could go, but for purposes here it is sufficient to assert that the power once thought of as the exclusive province of government -- to exercise power to control others -- is now held and executed largely by large business corporations. Where government has such power, we establish measures to protect the individual, but not so with the corporation. While government cannot deprive a life experience for the exercise of speech, a corporation can deny employment providing the paycheck essential for survival for such expression. Specific multinational corporations wield power beyond the boundaries of any national jurisdiction. Because granting privilege to some is only half of the governments holistic paternal gift, the other half being the holistic economical result: a natural holistic equal offset that takes what government paternalistically gives to some, from others. And, if politically this unlikely unitary materialistic capitalist unorthodoxy rhetorically still claims that our constitutional nation is democratic, rather than fascist or monarchical, which also philosophically paternalistically divide individual rights with favor only to some, the difference is not evident! Therefore, in democracy, organic privileges granted require beneficent economic redress to the unprivileged: political beneficent sovereign equality requires that economic privilege, as mechanistically organically granted,

Confirmations

must be repaid by those who benefit from governments patrimony. Political Economy’s inordinate capital intensive growth was and is achieved by Federalist legal irrationalism that is greatly enhanced by mechanized economic paternalism. While inflation’s endemism is covertly cost accounted to goods and services and consumed, inflation then is legally metamorphosed, i.e., legally enures to return with production costs as capital, which combined with economic growth has yielded profits that now routinely exceed ten percent of GNP. (And, if the increase in multi million dollars of unearned incomes surprise you, you might reconsider the related concern with inflation that accumulates in SS and medicare benefits: both the unearned income increases and the required benefit increases are indicative of the mechanized economic inflation effect, as a paternal gift and its holistic offset) The mechanist paternalist policy for controlling inflation is to slow economy so to cause wageearning jobs’ reductions. Justifying rhetoric, which claims profits trickle down, invariably begs for answers, as to when? 54

Henry Ward Beecher, the 19th century American clergyman, said 'You cannot sift out the poor from the community. The poor are indispensable to the rich.’ [They are in holistic fact the complement of paternal grants and sinecures] The early-20th century English poet and novelist G.K. Chesterton felt that even when the rich helped out, it was more through acceptance of poverty than a desire to cure it. He wrote: 'If we wish to protect the poor we shall be in favor of fixed rules and clear dogma. The rules of a club are occasionally in favor of the poor member. The drift [the political flux] of a club is always in favor of the rich one. Beecher and Chesterton thoughts are teleologically rational and recognize that granting economic privileges to some, naturally will impugn the economy of others. Politics always has and will favor the rich and powerful. Parrington observed this political irrationalism as giving to

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul’: leaving equally deserving individuals to suffer myriad economic misfortunes caused by government’s business licensing which license grants natural and human resources for exploitation (myriad principles are compromised to accommodate these exploitations 55 ), where growing public debt is tolerated, excused, or ignored, because the cost of economic progress, so called, ultimately mechanistically rests only on wage-earners. (see research section 207 ) For instance, the GDP’s third quarter increase for 2003 was extolled as having exploded to more than 0.7 percent, which annualized is 2.8 percent. This economic drum-beating happened while the annual federal deficit, expected for many future years, had grown to a $ trillion ($500 billion from deficit spending and $500 billion from foreign trade imbalance ). Curiously, the economic stimulus of an unprecedented increase in home sales and refinancing at rates unseen for thirty years or more was ignored, while the 0.7 percent quarterly GDP increase officially was touted as a sign the economy was on the mend. New automobile sales based on zero interest contracts also were not evaluated. Nor was increased consumption based on owners cash out inflated home equities. The inordinate quarterly increase in GDP undoubtedly did not so much result from the $ 1.3 trillion high end tax rebate, as from effects of the Fed discount rate: now barely more than 1 percent, and assured to remain low for years despite empirical fears of long term inflation effects. So ‘hyping’ the ‘good’ prospects for economy because a few components of the GDP increased inordinately while millions of jobs were lost during the first three years of the twenty first century, and with more than forty million now without medical insurance, and the ranks of poverty had swelled to reach past 20 percent of the population. These facts surely are not included in this ‘hyped’ economic focus. Neither Schumperter nor Brockway’s analysis has registered with this spurious analysis of GDP. If Schumperter were to analyze the U.S. economy now a century later, and look at GDP’s components, as defined in 2000, would he not note with shock that profit taking by corporations

Confirmations

had become routine at 10 percent of GDP? Which, if any of these corporations fit his analysis for profit, because they are entrepreneurial? Would he not sternly declare? : ‘this rapacious profit taking is economically unsustainable, and rationally indefensible.’

Wage accruals Plus:

But we must not leave Shumperter with this dismal conclusion. For, he concluded this:

Entrepreneurial capitalism was the beginning of capitalism For convenience of reference, the published GDP definitions for 1999 and 2000 are again displayed here. Source: bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. (Billions of Current dollars) 1999

2000

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

$ 9,268.6

$ 9,872.9

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

9,261.8

9,860.8

Less: consumption of fixed capital

1,151.4

1,241.3

Equals: Net national Product

8,110.4

8,619.5

713.1

762.7

41.3

43.9

-72.7

-130.4

33.3

37.6

7,462.1

7,980.9

825.2

876.4

Net interest

506.5

532.7

Contrib. to Social insurance

660.7

701.5

Less: Indirect business tax . . . Business transfer payments Stistical discrepancy Plus: Subsidies . . . Equals: National income Less: Corporate profits . . .

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES 5.2

Personal interest income

950.0

1,000.6

Personal dividend income

343.1

379.2

Govt. transfer payments . . .

988.4

1,036.0

Business transfer payments

31.1

33.1

7,777.3

8,319.2

Equals: PERSONAL INCOME

“The [U.S. economic] model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism [to the extent that profits were limited to Entrepreneurial activities]. Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the [only true] source of profit in the capitalist system. [Which is not the routine way of U.S. legalized practice!] Wouldn’t Schumperter also cite the listing ‘Contrib. to Social insurance,’ as having no more accounting pertinence than the aggregate of private sector insurance premiums, which GDP does not specify? And since ‘Govt. transfer payments’ (10 percent of GDP) are related to the inflation infected ‘Contrib. to Social insurance,’ which, in fact, have nothing to do with inflation except reflect it, as private insurance pay outs also do (In both instances, increases reflect endemic inflation. ' ): wouldn’t Schumperter have this removed except to identify the SS surplus contributions that government had wrongly spent as general revenue (Which is nowhere found in this GDP review?). Citing equal ‘rights,’

This budgetary inclusion obfuscates the surplus SS tax contributions that government collected and routinely spent as general revenue.

Confirmations

doesn’t Brockway favor Schumperter? :

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed by labor. While the expedient Fed actions to hold discount interest low, continues, ‘personal interest income’ is also held low. And with ‘transfer payments’ removed, and the net personal income divided among the 130 million wage earners, yielded an average personal income of $ 56,000: whereas in 2000 less than half that much, $28,272 (M), and $16,190 (F) was reported. If Categorical Imperative applies to ‘rights,’ as constitutionally, it should, shows clearly at economy’s bottom line that because economy grew over the last century at an average 4 percent while systemic inflation averaged 3 percent, three of every four growth dollars should be reclaimed for to offset inflation’s legal but irrational cost effect, which burdens only wageearner’s subsistence (That which government paternalism gave in profits to ‘Peter’ by taking what was given from wages-earned by ‘Paul’): which quite clearly infers that, to mitigate inflations multiple taxation on wageearning, the highest general revenue rate of taxation must be greater than 75%: (1) because the ‘iron cage’ of wages irrationally denies keeping pace with inflation, (2) SS taxes apply only to wages-earned. An ‘Equal Right’ that is necessary requires that inflation is paid for from the general taxation of profits. And with this ‘Equal Right’ redressed, universal health insurance then becomes a far greater affordable political social option. If inflation did not infect SS contribution taxes, as rights wise it should not, and inflation’s portion of the SS retirement benefit is paid from general revenue taxes, the greater portion of a necessary SS tax is then wiped out: SS then does not need to be fixed, and SS is not the ponzi scheme that political accounting illogic has made it into. Anyway, SS contribution taxes have mitigated economic inflation effects rather than cause them. Median wages must be raised as Brockway concluded: while lowest wages must be raised and

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

maintained, at least, at a reasonable subsistence level. As Federal Chairman Greenspan reported to Congress, the nation clearly is now confronted by effects caused by the nation’s choice to administer economy in accord with classical economic dogma. (See research section 207 for more details on this.) Elucidations (d) Al Franken challenges orthodox patriotism: Two events diverted my research focus away from Brockway’s comments on inflation. The first was a dinner conversation with close friends. The other, about a birthday greeting with a multi page commentary. First, Concupiscence ' Why is this dinner topic of discussion important, and why is pride commonly asserted as sin, is as virtuous? Acting for Plato, I asked: ‘what is sin?’ The response came without hesitation. Sin, is as in 1 John 5: 17, the transgression of God’s laws. Other Scripture was cited to reinforce this affirmation. Unimpressed, since pride’s meaning, sinful and not, remained paradoxical, I pondered and researched to verify that exclusively and commonly, always ‘Pride is a sin.’ My conclusion is based on mine and others’ notes about truth: Contemporary philosophers and scientists as Fred Wolf (a quantum physicist), in his book ‘The Spiritual Universe, confirm Plato’s view of temporal truth’s dual predicate: tracking with ‘pure intelligence’ that is the antecedent of, and separated from, ‘belief-based experience,’ that is often

Latin: Com + cupere (intensive desire)

Elucidations

fallacious. ' Etienne Henry Gilson (1884-1978), also a philosopher, explained why great men as Alexander Hamilton, for instance, routinely failed to employ ‘pure thought,’ Plato’s Form of ‘intelligent truth.’ And while Hamilton applied deliberate, deductive reason, as based on orthodox dogmatic experience, he failed to employ his natural ‘pure intelligent’ faculties. 56 Plato’s Pure Truth Form, which Plato called ‘pure thought,’ inferentially transcends dogmatic experience to reach the metaphysical realms where the pure predicate values of God’s pure truth is, where pure thought, pure truth and justice are found. '' Hamilton’s experience-based dogmatic predicate values, fail to track with Plato’s truth Form, which temporally is commonly called ‘reason.’ Therefore, in Plato’s reasoning, Hamilton’ failed to transcend to God’s pure intelligence. Expounding on St John’s first Epistle, Gilson wrote:57

“Love not the World, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world in the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life [prideful human intelligence that willfully denies slights, or disrespects God’s intelligence];

which is not of the Father, but is of the world.

'''

And the world

The predicate of words, as pride, also has many meanings, the spectrum of which spans from ‘good’ to ‘bad.’ The critical meaning intended here is: basis, core, essence, or heart. ''

When evaluating this statement, weigh the fact that Plato was not a Christian and that Moses Ten Commandments’ dogma had little influence on Greek culture 400 years before Christ. Greeks did have a rational sense of democratic Categorical Imperative, however.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God abideth forever.” Bossuet recalls these words of the first Epistle of John at the end of his ‘treatise on Concupiscence’ and he adds to them this brief but pithy commentary: “The last words of this Apostle show us that the world, of which he is here speaking, is those who prefer visible and transient things to those invisible and everlasting.” Allow me to add simply in my turn that, if we attain to an understanding of the meaning of this definition, the mighty problem we have to examine together will resolve itself. ... What is true of nature is eminently true of the intelligence, the crown of nature. In the evening of creation, God looked at his work and He judged, says the scripture, that all that was, was very good. But what was the best in His work was man, created to His image and likeness; and if we seek the basis of this divine likeness, we find it, says St. Augustine, ‘en mente’: in thought [as Plato, the critical reasoning heretic of Greek culture, had found by reasonable inference].' Let us go further, still following the same doctor: we

find that this likeness is in that part of thought which is, so to speak, the summit, that by which, in contact with the divine light of which it is a sort of reflection, it conceives truth. To seize truth here below by the intelligence, be it an obscure and partial manner, while waiting to see it in its complete splendor -- such is man’s destiny according to Christianity. Indeed far from scorning knowledge, it cherishes it: ‘intellectum valde ama’ [love intelligence intensely]. The dictionary supports unitary affirmations that Pride is sin: 58

A high opinion of one’s own worth or possessions . . . Too high

'''

God’s intelligence is axiomatic that cannot be contingently restricted or qualified in any way.

Parentheticals, not in italics, are mine.

Elucidations

opinion of oneself; conceit: ‘Pride goes before a fall.’ However, this unitary definition, which clearly is ‘en mente’ (thoughtful error or sin), also explains why generally a sequence of concupiscence tucked pride in between. However, in ‘en mente’: in thought, this definition does not always apply. It fails! Searching for reasons ‘why’ paradox should exist, I searched scriptures to confirm that temporal sinful pride was intelligence related: sinful because reason was allowed or willed to be insubordinate to temporal viscera: in the light that God clearly instructed that faith insubordination would not be tolerated (see Deut. 5: 7, Ex. 20: 3, 32: 4-8.). With this answer as to ‘why,’ my review of scriptures that had listed human pride as a sin was concluded. The word pride is not sinful? Reason must conclude that words are not incarnate, and without cognizance, therefore, cannot sin. Without qualifying prejudice, pride’s meaning, i.e., the predicated human quality of mind, spans ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ It is fallacy,therefore, to conclude, that pride connotes only sin.’ Without similar qualification, it also is fallacious to argue that in many places scripture confirms that ‘pride is a sin’: Pro. 16: 18 (Pride goeth before destruction), I Jn. 2: 16 (For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, are not of the Father, but is of the world), I Tim. 3: 6 (Theft, covetousness, wickedness, lasciviousness, deceit, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within, and defile a man), Mk. 7: 22 (pride of drunkards?). Despite the qualifying and sinful predicate that applied to each scripture, and that translators have taken liberty to impose their choice of words to accord with their understanding (pride and proud became the common temporal depiction for evil conduct in life). However, diabolical meanings to those listed as the Bible’s intent are also evident. And, because the word pride is now diabolical, I suspect, is why pride was not listed in the Bible Dictionary. For instance, a computerized thesaurus lists synonyms of pride as both a noun, and as a verb. Surely preen dignifies pride since believers in Christ should not be ashamed of their faith in him. And, maybe if it were not for this, wouldn’t

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Christians dress like many religion’s advocate: dress in sack cloth, adorn with ashes, woefully chant publicly, and self. flagellate I have emboldened meanings that in my mind are not sin: PRIDE AS A NOUN PRIDE AS A VERB dignity boast self-esteem glory in self-respect preen arrogance (antonym of being ashamed) conceit groom (egoism, hubris, immodesty) primp vanity bask in condescension exult in disdain. take pride in In which of the Bibles’ listings, is pride [meaning dignity, selfesteem, self respect, preen (bask in, exult in, or glory in)] found? If these uplifting meanings are important and do not connote sin, as predicated in the above scriptural quotes, then it’s inappropriate to paint pride’s meaning with the broad accusative brush: pride is sinful? Isn’t it more appropriate to qualify sin’s meaning to fit these scriptures’ predicated intent, as applicable to humans’ thought, rather than to pride, the word’s meaning? How often is pride [meaning dignity, self-esteem, self respect, preen (bask in, exult in, or glory in)] as scriptures connote as God’s glory and pleasure? For instance, ‘This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased’ has the same predicate as pride (meaning take pride in), does it not? The Bible’s predicated intent is unchanged when the word please is substituted for pride: the Bibles’ meanings of please, like pride, are determined by human predicate values, which values humans are free to choose. The Diaglott, an early Greek original, had substituted pomp for pride. The new international version (NYIBS) excised pride and pomp from St. John’s text:

Elucidations

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world --the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does -- comes not from the Father but from the world. The closer translators get to the original text, the better is the translation. Translators confirm that translating from a Greek original is best (this assertion was taken from the Preface to the New International Version). Therefore, I suspect the traditional King James Bible is OK as it is: with words less important than context whence predicates that are clearly stated. Since the above dinner discussion and my review of it, a book that contrasted the extremes of political pride was given to me. Political Pride abounds in Ann Coulter’s book ‘Slander.’ Al Franken, in his chapter “Liberals Who Hate America,” attests that, ‘when your politics isn’t ‘right,’ your service to the country is all wrong’:

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Stalin “Uncle Joe.” She’s tough on Democrats and “their beloved Soviet Union.”Ronald Reagan, however, “singlehandedly won the Cold War.” In fact, Reagan “won the Cold War” on page 33 (the same page on which Bush graduated from Yale College and Harvard Business School), on page 34, on page 124, then again on 130, 131, 134, and finally again on page 197. If Ann Coulter were genuinely interested in finding out who singlehandedly won the Cold War, she should have called my old friend Marshal Viktor Kulikov, the former Warsaw Pact commander. In 1992 Kulikov told the U.S. News and World Report that “Reagan was a logical extension of what started with Truman, a concentrated effort to weaken and intimidate the Soviet Union.” Other people give credit for ending the Cold War to the Polish pope, John Paul II; to Lech Walesa and his independent trade union, Solidarity; to Jimmy Carter, who put pressure on Moscow to respect the human rights of its people; and to the Soviet Union itself, which was collapsing under the crushing weight of its own failed system. Reagan, of course did put the medium-range missiles in Europe and began the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to today? So credit where credit is due. Viktor told me that Reagan’s aggressive posture unquestionably hastened the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days. Personally, I believe it was the Beatles who set the whole thing in motion. Once ‘The White Album’ made it over the border hidden in the false bottom of an Aeroflot pilot’s briefcase, it was only a matter of time. Traveling on USO tours. John Glenn and I flew to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, to

Elucidations

Aviano Air Base in Italy, to the ‘Truman‘ somewhere in the Mediterranean, and to Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, Camp Able Sentry in Macedonia, and Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. At each stop, I entertained the troops with anti-American jokes. I got to spend a lot of time with Senator Glenn and his wife, Annie. I’d kid him a lot. Whenever we were just taking off in some cargo plane or helicopter, I’d say, “So, John, you nervous?” He’d laugh. And as I, a fellow Democrat, began to gain his trust, Glen opened up to me about just how much he hates America. I mean by Coulter’s standards, he had been an extremely liberal senator: prounion, pro-choice, pro-Social Security, Pro-Medicare. You know, all those anti-American things. On the flight from Europe back to Andrews Air Force Base, I asked him, “John, tell me. Are you kind of embarrassed about the fifty-nine missions you flew as a Marine pilot in World War II? And the ninety combat missions you flew in Korea? And the five Distinguished Flying Crosses and nineteen Air Medals you earned? “Yeah,” he cringed, “I’d just as soon not be reminded of all that.” How about being the first American to orbit Earth? “It makes me ashamed just to think about it,” he said, bowing his head as we touched down at Andrews. Whenever I think back to that day and Glenn’s slumped, heaving shoulders, Annie vainly trying to comfort him, I am always amazed at just how large a burden one man can bear for all the things he has done for the country he hates. There is great contrast in shallow boastful political pride, and pride that is private, honest, and humbly held: both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ of pride depicts Scriptural meaning.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Pride is the ape of charity, in show not much unlike, but somewhat fuller of action. They are two parallels, never but asunder; charity feeds the poor, so does pride; charity builds an hospital, so does pride. In this they differ: charity gives her glory to God; pride takes her glory from man. Quarles If we were as keen as Plato was, the difference is quickly evident.

As Plato entertained some friends in a room where there was a couch richly ornamented, Diogenes came in very dirty, as usual, and getting upon the couch, and trampling on it, said, “I trample upon the pride of Plato.” Plato mildly answered, “But with greater pride, Diogenes! Erasmus Plato observed “evil” character.59

Did you never observe the narrow intelligence flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue -- how eager he is, how clearly his paltry soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness? Plato Pride, like ambition, is sometimes virtous and sometimes vicious, according to the character in which it is found, and the object to which it is directed. As a principle, it is the parent of almost every virtue and every vice -- everything that pleases and displeases in mankind; and as the effects are so very different, nothing is more easy to discover, even to ourselves, whether the pride that produces them is virtuous or vicious: the first object of virtuous pride is rectitude, and the next independence. Greville Men are sometimes accused of pride merely because their accusers would be proud themselves if they were in their places. Shenstone

Elucidations

From a Prologue about the fiducial nature of Truth: Factual truth’s predicate value is deliberately decided by an objective evaluation of the fact: whether it is ‘true,’ or ‘false?’ [Mathemeticians traced] the presence of paradoxes to the use of

indirect proofs, or more precisely to what is called in logic ‘the law of the excluded middle.’ H. W. Turnbull The fiducial nature of deciding truth, therefore, is critically pertinent to the objectiveness of a human being’s noumena . This Social Security research is also about noumenal pertinence:60

noumenon: 2. A thing in itself; something that remains of an object of thought after all the categories of understanding, such as space, time, etc., have been removed from it Einstein’s formula is a sample of creative noumenal prescription:61 G:< [gravity (:<)]= 8BT:< [light (:<)]. When scientists review this stellar noumenal ‘Relativity’ achievement, they attribute it to ‘reading God’s prescriptive mind.’ Einstein, who claims no religion, provided substantial evidence of natural LOGOS-based cosmic order, and transcending all religious belief, or not, he vindicates phrases ‘under God,’ ‘in God we trust,’ . . ., underpinning religious faith hope and charity, and our nation’s pledge, and money. Truth without natural fiducial anchorage is adrift. For instance, ‘time’ without natural phenomenal definition has no precise meaning. ‘Time,’ respective to the life span of a human, has no meaning without reckoning the earth’s rotations relative to the sun and stars. Similarly, without deliberately reasoned fiducial anchors to the predicate values of nature’s LOGOS, truth, about human life, likewise, spurns logical definition. Individual inferential reasoning of the pure values in nature’s charter-LOGOS variously has recorded faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise as the necessary fiducial values of truth that possesses coherence. 62

Fiducial anchors, Correspondence and Coherence, are ‘necessary’ restrictions of commonly understood truth: For instance, truth, which lacks

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

fiducial anchorage to factual phenomena, has no corresponding reliability. And truth, which lacks fiducial anchors to natural noumena, inevitably fuels controversy as whose subjective perception coheres with natural noumenal reality (has the predicate value ‘is true’ that coheres with nature’s charter values)? And in situations of paradoxes, logical tautology provides the necessary logical veracity test of truth. Unanchored, therefore, unreasoned, deficient, truth is the quintessence of politics, which too often not only lacks commonly understood definition, it begs for the natural axiomatic principles of noumenon: increasingly is anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to axiomatic principles of reasoned-noumenon, when it is nothing more than logic-deficient rhetoric, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to sycophantic belief in a myriad of dogma-afflicted Science look-a-likes, 63

Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and judicial officers particularly] -- have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’ Richard Rorty Because truth is a perceptive faculty of natural human essence, this prologue is presented as the capstone to the sections of ESSENCE (which is an essential root of the word, predicate). Pure philosophical truth : about forms of government Both aspects of human being (material and spiritual) are ‘necessary’ natural philosophic antecedent principles of a democratic ‘state’: Hamilton provided for the material side, Jefferson the spiritual side. Purely, ‘Rational empiricism,’ which philosophically defines democracy, fiducially has only reason-based antecedents. All other government forms are pseudo philosophic, ‘nihilistic’ or ‘positive,’ because illogically, therefore fallaciously, they deny that natural antecedent principles of the human logos are of natural noumenon, which reflects God’s Logos: the

Elucidations

supreme noumenal predicate values. When fiction is illogically asserted as the antecedent tenet of the philosophic pseudo state’s definition, human ‘reason’ is saddled to a fundamental undefined form of dogma; the human naturally axiomatic sovereign aspect is not only thereby saddled. It is controlled! : the only naturally legitimate ‘absolute reality’ is denied! : God, the Creator’s ultimate natural reasonable noumenal sovereignty is denied. Only irrationalism then prevails! Until belief in dogma sponsors individual deliberate reasoning that seeks to understand the axiomatic values of the supreme intelligent noumenon (the Creator’s Logos), sycophantic belief in dogma, as ‘divine right’ for instance, supplants the only natural source of humans’ understanding of axiomatic fiducial values. The values of a human’s belief in dogma supplant truth’s natural axiomatic parameters. Like Baals (White Rabbits, as in Alice’s wonderland), Brahmanists, who formulate the supplanting dogma, make the values of dogma the main object of an intelligent address. And Brahmanists are then positioned to manipulate politically, the so-called Pavlovian sycophantic ‘belief-based’ intelligence. Thereby, Dogma is deliberately made to dominate the inalienable cardinal sovereign human aspects which naturally reflect axiomatic values: of ‘truth,’ ‘philosophy,’ ‘morality,’ ‘justice,’ . . . As Nietzsche observed about dogmatic belief: ‘we have killed God’! Unfortunately for unsuspecting ‘believers,’ unitary materialist dogma intends only to sponsor real, i.e., positive fact-based experiences: real images of mind, which Plato concluded, are grist of ‘opinion’ (‘belief’ and ‘illusion’) but not ‘reason.’ In real dogmatic belief, the inculcation of intelligently reasoned pure truth values, as truth, ethical morality, justice, . . . , is considered a punishable heresy: and effectively, unitary materialist dogma denies individual intelligence, which, rational reflecting of nature’s supreme noumenon’s necessary fiducial values, which human’s naturally are capable, if willful and diligent, to understand the pure-value-parameters of God’s Logos. Einstein’s relativity is maybe the most cogent example

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

of such unequaled pure truth-based cardinally sovereign reason. Ludowich Allison introduced with these comments the Bible’s translation arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates.64

. . . Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. [His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else. (both acts resulted values that tautologically were of illogical ‘Affirmation’ or ‘Denial’)]: . . . the great covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel [and Islam] with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ. That message reverberates on many different levels throughout Western thought. It enables us to comprehend the mystery of life as a part of a larger story of sin and redemption. Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else.) This is the great Biblical motif that runs from Genesis and the Fall through the impieties and failures of Israel to the final consummation of the Old Testament in the New. It is the tension [antinomy] between man’s aspirations and man’s inadequacies, and it gives rise to the idea of hope. The Bible tells us man’s stories are more than fables, and his oldest myths are more than legends; they are intricately inlaid into the very foundation of the cosmos, and further-more, into a cosmology that plays itself out in the processes of each individual soul. In this, the Bible is the definitive epic of the West. King David had been dead two hundred years when the great Homeric verses of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ were first set down. The Biblical epic of which he is a central character was only halfway to completion. This epic moves us from Exodus to Job, from the tribal and collective experience to the individual, which in its singularity is

Elucidations

universal in a way the narrowly tribal cannot be. And while this revelation is unfolding, another is moving parallel in the opposite direction: the great [Categorical] Covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel [and Islam] with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ, so that we move from the individual [of cardinal sovereignty] through the tribe to the universal. [Natural antinomy is exacerbated by revelation’s organized dogmatic religious tugs of revelation (nomos) and Christ’s anti-nomos but logical pull on individual faculties of reason.] ‘Divine rights’ dogma was traced to Babylon (Hammurabi) in about 2000 B.C. (Shamash, the sun god, is pictographically portrayed as handing authority to Hammurabi). It is also traceable to the Brahman caste of Hinduism. These instances of a human usurping authority by rationalizing to make himself a god, confirms Allison’s comment. The manmade source of enforced hierarchical authority is found. ‘Divine right’ is dogma that fallaciously supplants God, the ultimate axiom of life, which for obvious human contrivances, supplants the first principles of LOGOS upon which human free will is based. Belief in ‘divine right’ dogma, transgresses human sovereignty at its natural source: And transgressions of the great commandments in the name of dogmatic belief, leaves humans bare of Jehovah’s promises. Philosophically, both communist (‘Dialectical materialism’) and fascist (‘Absolute idealism’) departs starkly from democratic (‘Rational

empiricism’); both represent unitary materialist conceptions of reality that are based on the ‘absolute’ positive idealism of unitary materialist '

The principal idealists reacted to Kant’s dual reality, by attempting to define human life’s reality as unitary materialism, which Hegel called dialectical materialism: Lenin used this definition to install communism in the USSR.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

dogma and, therefore, both are sponsor-advocates of dogmatic, tenet values, which by inference nihilistically deny the existence of natural noumenon, i.e, the ‘eternal reality’ of the human soul. Worse, they deny God, the ultimate noumenon! Both are of cabalism forms! Why? Because, classical illogical mysticism is secreted dogmatic doctrine of the nomos-based cabala of belief, which affirms by inference consequents, rather than antecedents, and thereby denies naturally antecedent cardinal sovereignty: all inferentially is intrinsic to the classical orthodox beliefbased dogma. As John Adams reasoned, humans are coeval of government because government’s sovereignty is ‘truly’ ordinally suffrage derived (by consented tallies of individuals’ cardinal sovereignty): individual cardinal sovereignty constitutionally is ‘truly’ the antecedent value. Hamilton’s ‘broad power’ interpretation of the Constitution in determining the powers of government, is upheld in the Supreme Court’s ‘States Rights’ doctrine: Ammendment 10 founds both doctrines. But, did they of this court decision, forget ‘the people’?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [Don’t forget ‘people.’] Initiative and referendum actions necessarily ensure that which cardinal sovereignty finds is of commonweal interest. And, maybe, the greatest commonweal should concern tautological fallacy embroilments of Government’s Judiciary: of the people, for the people, and by the people must be responsible to the people for its actions. And, how can this be accomplished, unless we each are responsible to interpret constitutional rights and show our initiative to protect them? And, because cardinal sovereignty has never consented to the authorities of kingdoms, nor to ‘divine rights’ dogma, this is my initiative, which contests in this instance, the judiciary’s acts that tautologically dogmatically asserted unitary materialist positive Consequents’, rather than naturally reasoned ‘Antecedents’, as the premise for defining government’s ‘sovereign

Tautology

immunity’ and ‘due process grants to fictitious corporate entities.’ The natural antecedent inalienable value of government’s ‘sovereign immunity’ and ‘due process’ is not a king’s right and more certainly not a right of fiction to decide: instead, only human cardinal sovereignty as consented to government’s ordinal sovereignty, as a living compact (government is for the living and not for the dead), and decidedly not as a binding contract effecting past or future generations. And, this judicial act as was fallaciously justified as a king’s divine right-based authorities (whether this king be the U.S. Constitution or government’s enactment) rather than on the living ordinal sovereignty, was and is clearly fallacious because irrational. Until such fictions are naturally real, as natural creations, ‘due process’, as specified in the Bill of Rights, should apply only to living humans with naturally cardinal rights, coeval of government. About U.S. cardinal sovereignty, of We the People, no nation of people has sovereign rights that equals constitutional cardinal sovereignty in the U.S., which is,because inalienable, I reason, our nation’s Ethereal Gold. And an active Cardinal sovereignty is the only measure and assurance that our nation is democratic. So, let’s exercise it as John Adam’s had entrusted Liberty and Knowledge to us:

Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government. . . . Let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing. Tautology Tautology is a byproduct of mathematical logic that commonly and officially is still largely unknown: briefly mentioned in the 1965 dictionary and not at all in the Encyclopedia, to nineteenth century Federalists, Whigs, and Republican mechanists, tautology clearly was unknown. 65

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle and more on property -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive selfseeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. And so, master of the looms and a growing home market, New England industrialism regarded genially the great western movement, fostered by a benevolent paternalism confident of extending its markets with every mile of westward expansion. To encourage the development of the West and South by a Federal policy of internal improvement became, therefore, common business foresight, provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against local agrarianism and the menace of particularism. By the year 1830 both dangers lay black against the political horizon. The triumph of Jackson had enthroned the agrarian menace at Washington and produced such a scrambling of frightened interests -- such a rattling among the old bones of Federalism and scurrying among the young limbs of industrialism -as the country had not seen for many a year. Henry Clay appealed to his followers in the West, and Webster marshaled his adherents of the East, and from the coalescing of these incongruous elements emerged the Whig party to do battle with Old Hickory. . . . In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt. Considering the dogmatic roots in American culture, the struggle for liberty of mind agitates constantly. And the dogmatic foundations of

Tautology

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

divine right-based determinist doctrine clarify the foundation of the unitary materialism-based deterministism upon which American Federalists, politically converted expediently to Whigs, then installed Political Economy (‘The mechanism based American System’) and thereby returned our fledgling independent democratic culture to ‘the seventeenth century from which the eighteenth was a reaction.’ Parrington wrote:

‘economic wage-earning slaves’ represent their god’s disfavored caste? In such crass belief, instead of ‘blaming Canada’ (as the new spoof goes), Whig ‘conservatives’ put blame onto their economic mechanism, as patterned on Calvinism, for the plight of those caught by systemic economic deterministic designs (as John C. Calhoun had argued as the Whigs conservative philosophic basis of democratic economic slavery).

Harriet Beecher Stowe suggested in ‘Poganuc People’ that the Puritan immigrants were the children of two different centuries; that from the sixteenth century they got their theology, and from the seventeenth their politics, with the result that an older absolutist dogma snuggled down side by side in their minds with a later democratic conception of the state and society.

Parrington also records the events and circumstances that allowed the Whigs to mold the Republican Party’s economic determinism into the ‘Fairy Godmother to business.’ Parrington wrote this:66

Also, Parrington’s account of religious history confirms that liberals are ‘seekers’ of pure truth, conservatives are mechanist‘believers’ of materialist dogma or Brahmanist ‘sophists’ who exploit dogmatic belief to install absolute fences protective of conservative orthodoxy: ‘truth’ is thereby limited to what the conservative Brahmanists want. And Captains of exploitation, politically within the divine right-based blessings of orthodoxy, it appears, both denigrate the values upon which the religious dogma is based and Christ’s principles of love and charity upon which the American concept of liberty and distributive justice, as based on beneficence, depends. Logically, therefore, liberal ‘seekers of pure truth’ are far more entitled by ‘divine right-based standards to central sovereign power, than are mechanist idealists and captains of exploitation. Plato called their schemes, of ‘belief’ and ‘opinion,’ evil. Their idealistic mechanism-based economic system of political enterprise was deterministically made into a mechanized economic tool to both aggrandize and violate human rights: making ‘economic slaves’ of all wage-earners affected by the dogmatic mechanist Webb. And after all, because lacking any ‘predetermined’ privilege before any natural creation by their ‘conservative’ god (Mammonism), do they ‘believe’ that the

Democrat and Whig no longer faced each other conscious of the different ends they sought. The great party of Jefferson and Jackson was prostrate, borne down by the odium of slavery and secession . . . The Whig Republican was still Hamiltonian paternalistic, and the Democrat Republican was still Jeffersonian laissez faire, and until it was determined which wing should control the party councils there would be only confusion. The politicians were fertile in compromises but in nominating Lincoln and Johnson the party ventured to get astride two horses that would not run together. To attempt to make yoke-fellows of democratic leveling and capitalistic paternalism was prophetic of rifts and schisms that only the passions of reconstruction days could hold in check. In 1865 the Republican party [the GOP] was no other than a war machine that had accomplished its purpose. It was a political mongrel, without logical cohesion, and it seemed doomed to break up as the Whig Party had broken up and the Federalist Party had broken up. But fate was now on the side of the Whigs as it had not been earlier. The democratic forces had lost strength from the war, and democratic principles were in ill repute. The drift to centralization, the enormous development of capitalism, the spirit of

Tautology

exploitation, were prophetic of a changing temper that was preparing to exalt the doctrine of manifest destiny 67 which the Whig party stood sponsor for. The practical problem of the moment was to transform the mongrel Republican party into a strong cohesive instrument, and to accomplish that it was necessary to hold the loyalty of its Democratic voters amongst the farmers and workingclasses whilst putting into effect its Whig program. Under normal conditions the thing would have been impossible, but the times were wrought up and blindly passionate and the politicians skillful [in words that Plato would use, ‘their truth -- if truth at all -- was of ‘opinion,’ not ‘reason’]. . . The rebellion of the Independent Republicans under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought to nothing by the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the party passed definitely under the control of capitalism, and became such an instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but could not perfect. Under the nominal leadership of the easy-going Grant a loose rein was given to Whiggish ambitions and the Republican party became a political instrument worthy of the Gilded Age. From their respective postures, each party argues that they can best serve the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, though, little thought, and less dedication, is given to solving the problems of our macro-economy that constitutionally holistically intends to serve all but grants favor to only some. Our politics, in fact, is an enterprise as E. Hoffer observed:68

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases to be a movement and becomes an enterprise.

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

And prominently, our macro-economy is ignored because the political desires of affluence are to sustain American System paternalism that now has government opening up international markets to private business and protecting this foreign business by the standing U.S. army: simply an ever expanding dimension of American System paternalism which emanated from the Gilded Age but remains a political economic determinism that leaves those on the sidelines of our economic ‘poker game,’ and many losers still in it, without government’s representation, which is a definite political tyranny of the masses. ‘American System’ refers to Whig ideas credited to Henry Clay of the Jacksonian era. Parrington wrote this:69

The spirit of Henry Clay survived his death and his followers were everywhere in the land. The plain citizen who wanted a slice of the rich prairie land of Iowa or Kansas, with a railway convenient to his homestead, had learned to look to the government for a gift, and if he got his quarter section and his transportation he was careless about what the other fellow got. A little more or less could make no difference to a country inexhaustible in resources [This, we can no longer afford to believe]. America belonged to the American people and not to the government, and resources in private hands paid taxes and increased the national wealth. Parrington had previously described how political philosophy was adapted to sponsor business interests and as Eric Hoffer has observed, to make politics an enterprise:70

Citizens had saved the government in the trying days that were past; it was only fair in return that government should aid the patriotic citizen in the necessary work of developing national resources. It was paternalism as understood by speculators and subsidy-hunters, but was it not a part of the great American System that was to make

Tautology

the country rich and self-sufficient? The American System had been talked of for forty years; it had slowly got on its feet in pre-war days despite the stubborn planter opposition; now at last it had fairly come into it own. The time was ripe for the Republican party to become a fairy godmother to the millions of Beriah Sellerses throughout the North and the West. Despite the evolution which gave our nation paternalism via ‘The American System of Economy,’ truth about ‘shadows instead of reality’ dogmatically remains, as Parrington reported:

However attractive the disguises it may assume, it is in essence the logical creed of the profit philosophy. It is the expression in politics of the acquisitive instinct and it assumes as the greatest good the shaping of public policy to promote private interests. It asserts [fallaciously] that it is a duty of the state to help its citizens to make money, and it conceives of the political state as a useful instrument for effective exploitation. How otherwise? The public good cannot be served apart from business interests for business interests are the public good and in serving business the state is serving society. Everybodys eggs are in the basket and they must not be broken. For a capitalistic society Whiggery is the only rational politics, for it exalts the profit-motive as the sole object of parliamentary concern. Government has only to wave its wand and fairy gifts descend upon business like the golden sands of Pactolus. It graciously bestows its tariffs and subsidies, and streams of wealth flow into private wells. [Introducing this thought, Parrington wrote, Whiggery springs up as naturally as pigweed in a garden.]

[a fly in the Whiggish honey] But unhappily there is a fly in the Whiggish honey. In a

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

competitive order, government is forced to make its choices. It cannot serve both Peter and Paul. If it gives with one hand it must take away with the other. And so the persuasive ideal of paternalism in the common interest degenerates in practice into legalized favoritism. Governmental gifts go to the largest investments. Lesser interests are sacrificed to greater interests and Whiggery comes finally to serve the lords of the earth without whose good will the wheels of business will not turn. To him that hath shall be given. If the few do not prosper the many will starve, and if the many have bread who would begrudge the few their abundance? In Whiggery [which now officially is no longer only found on the GOP side of politics] is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. And, if not for continual mathematical refinement in its attempts to make its logic language applicable, thereby, broadening general understanding, tautology would not now be available for veracity testing of truth. John N. Fujii gave this reason-based veracity test.71

By a tautology we mean a statement, which has the truth value ‘true’ for all possible truth values of its components. [definition requires that each P and Q is a statement that when written in the ‘if,’ ‘then’ format, the ‘if’ statement represents the logical antecedent, and the ‘then’ statement is the consequent. * * God’s intelligence, as the supreme noumenon, is, therefore, the axiomatic antecedent to all that is. Whenever human pride, if only in belief or thought, is asserted as the antecedent of God or if God’s authority and power is denied, then tautologically the fallacy shows as the sin of blasphemy.

Compound statements with all truth values ‘true’ are called tautologies and represent valid argument forms. The implication formed by the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent and

Tautology

the conclusion as the consequent that form a valid argument form, will always result in a tautology. Testing compound statements to see whether they are tautologies is thus equivalent to testing an argument for validity. By definition, each P and Q is a statement that when written in the “if” “then,” compound statement format, the “if” statement is the antecedent, and the “then” statement is the consequent. J. N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (P = compound premises, Q = consequent, - = denial, = therefore): (a) Modus ponens

(b) modus tollens (c) hypothetical syllogism

P6Q

-Q

Q6R

- P

P6R

classical invalid argument:

and classical invalid argument:

(d) P 6 Q

(e)

P6Q

-P -Q

(d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, Fujii warned, are invalid argument forms. With all forms of ‘hypothesizing a tautological argument,’ the invalid argument form (d) Affirming the Consequent is mostly applied. Political fallacies of ‘Affirming Consequents’ of nomos, is a particular Sophist pseudo philosophic proclivity intrinsic of nomos-based dogmatic belief. The Federalist Agenda, as Parrington noted provides an example of this sophistry.72

[Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

has never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast! - was charactoristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian prejudices, and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . . . He was frankly a monarchist, and he urged the [fallacious] monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent ‘will.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415] The only effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds, Hamilton was convinced, lay in the erection of a powerful chief magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power, . . .. “ He devoted himself to the business of providing all possible checks upon the power of the democracy.” This Federalist agenda continues. Parrington cited the Federalist-Whigg bend to ‘deny antecedents’ and ‘affirm consequents’:73

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle [physis] and more on property [nomos] -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against . . .the menace of particularism

Tautology

[antinomy, i.e., Greek anti + nomos]. . . . In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.. . . aside from petty antagonism to Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-being of the American people was dependent on governmental patronage; the belief that each economic group and section must receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper. Of this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction -- the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party to our political history. Clearly, classical dogma fraudulently usurps rational sovereignty (not only from man but from God also). It has not only transformed the Christian Categorical Imperative of American democracy to appear as fascism. It threatens to make fascism permanent. And it has done the same to Islam’s Categorical Imperative , and globally to other democratic societies. About Moses’ pride, see Exodus 19: 13-20.

Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God. Clearly, while pride is man’s most common mechanist glory, it was, Moses’ sin! ... Since this discussion and review, a book that contrasted the extremes of political pride was given to me. Ann Coulter’s book ‘Slander’ abounds with sinful pride Al Franken attests that when your politics isn’t ‘right,’ your service to the country is all wrong: in his chapter, “Liberals

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Who Hate America.” This contrast with John Glen is repeated:

With John Glenn on the second of three USO tours I’ve done because I hate America. We had just choppered onto the deck of the USS Harry Truman, named for our thirty-third president, a liberal American-hater of the worst sort. There’s just one reference to Truman in ‘Slander:’ “Truman got the Country into Korea and couldn’t get us out for two and half years.” Thats it. No Truman Doctrine, no Marshall Plan, no NATO. John F. Kennedy receives a similarly fleeting mention. “Kennedy got the country into a war in Vietnam after the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion and then sat passively by while the Russians built the Berlin Wall.” FDR gets whacked around a bit because he “spent eight years failing to get the country out of the Depression but then had the skill and foresight to allow the nation to be taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor.” Thats all we get on Roosevelt except that he called Stalin “Uncle Joe.” She’s tough on Democrats and “their beloved Soviet Union.” Ronald Reagan, however, “singlehandedly won the Cold War.” In fact, Reagan “won the Cold War” on page 33 (the same page on which Bush graduated from Yale College and Harvard Business School), on page 34, on page 124, then again on 130, 131, 134, and finally again on page 197. If Ann Coulter were genuinely interested in finding out who singlehandedly won the Cold War, she should have called my old friend Marshal Viktor Kulikov, the former Warsaw Pact commander. In 1992 Kulikov told the U.S. News and World Report that “Reagan was a logical extension of what started with Truman, a concentrated effort to weaken and intimidate the Soviet Union.”

Tautology

Other people give credit for ending the Cold War to the Polish pope, John Paul II; to Lech Walesa and his independent trade union, Solidarity; to Jimmy Carter, who put pressure on Moscow to respect the human rights of its people; and to the Soviet Union itself, which was collapsing under the crushing weight of its own failed system. Reagan, of course did put the medium-range missiles in Europe and began the Rube Goldberg Star Wars missile defense system which protects us to today. So credit where credit is due. Viktor told me that Reagan’s aggressive posture unquestionably hastened the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union by a week to ten days. Personally, I believe it was the Beatles who set the whole thing in motion. Once ‘The White Album’ made it over the border hidden in the false bottom of and Aeroflot pilot’s briefcase, it was only a matter of time. Traveling on USO tours. John Glenn and I flew to Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany, to Aviano Air Base in Italy, to the ‘Truman‘ somewhere in the Mediterranean, and to Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, Camp Able Sentry in Macedonia, and Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. At each stop, I entertained the troops with anti-American jokes. I got to spend a lot of time with Senator Glenn and his wife, Annie. I’d kid him a lot. Whenever we were just taking off in some cargo plane or helicopter, I’s say, “So, John, you nervous?” He’s laugh. And as I, a fellow Democrat, began to gain hsi trust, Glen opened up to me about just how much he hates America. I mean by Coulter’s standards, he had been an extremely liberal senator: pro-union, pro-choice, pro-Social Security, Pro-Medicare. You know, all those anti-American things. On the flight from Europe back to Andrews Air Force Base, I

100

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

asked him, “John, tell me. Are you kind of embarrassed about the fifty nine missions you flew as a Maarine pilot in World War II? And the ninety combat missions you flew in Korea? And the five Distinguished Flying Crosses and nineteen Air Medals you earned? “Yeah,” he cringed, “I’d just as soon not be reminded of all that.” How about being the first American to orbit Earth?” It makes me ashamed just to think about it,” he said, bowing his head as we touched down at Andrews. Whenever I think back to that day and Glenn’s slumped, heaving shoulders, Annie vainly trying to comfort him, I am always amazed at just how large a burden one man can bear for all the things he has done for the country he hates. There is great contrast between political pride that contrives for position and power, and pride that is private, honest, and humbly held: Each, kind, however, is depicted in Scriptural predicate meanings. Intellectually contriving pride is more damaging than concupiscent attractiveness, which is a naturally instinctive visceral condition in all temporal life forms. Human Brahman intellectual culture has over reached the Creator’s temporal instinctive design when indicting sexual discretions for being blasphemous pride of the worst kind. The more serious but common tautological denial of God happens intellectually whenever fallacies of irrationalism prevail in our consciousness. Notes on emotion, from research section 211 B. Gilbert gave this cause for impulsive wanderlust.74

Many reports, both ancient and modern, suggest that looking for and then contemplating natural wonders is the principal reason we travel for pleasure. Objectively, this is a rather odd cause for wanderlust since wherever one is, there are many more curiosities -- animal, vegetable, and mineral -- than can be considered in a lifetime. As

Tautology

101

poets are supposed to, Walt Whitman once pondered this truism and then wrote, ‘A mouse is miracle enough to stagger sextillions of infidels.’ It is also true that most of us need novel and exotic things to jump-start our imaginations, to sharpen our appreciation of the wonders of creation. With sufficient poetic insight, a gray mouse or even a drop of water should serve as well. But being what we are, we go off to marvel at, say, gray whales or magnificent frigate birds in the Sea of Cortex, or the river cut gorges of the Copper Canyon. Emotion, etymologically, is human reactive arousal to sensual experience. It is of the genre of unalienable human qualities that Emanuel Kant considered when he observed the human mind as a blank sheet upon which experience writes. And expert pedagogues will find novel ways to arouse students to learn. But Kant also observed that emotion sometimes arose in response to thoughts or reasons that were not experience-based, i.e., before experience, and particularly, he thought that an intuitive ontologism existed naturally that was the resurgent source of human probity. Whatever it is that connects human viscera to intelligence, which Kant said was noumenon (Which might be as St. John’s testimony of Christ’s promise for God’s abiding presence with those who walk in His Light). ontologism functions bidirectionally. By this intellectual connectivity, both experience and reason are registered as values on memory tablets of the mind, and logos -based values prescriptively convert into action: we emote thoughts feelings and actions, which are posited as facts. Both good and bad. And, only good is valued for being ‘true.’

emote v.i., 1. to act, especially in an exaggerated manner. 2. to show emotion: ‘You must ‘emote’ in this music, unabashedly (Harpers). Human expression, called emotion, is of assorted variety as Joy, Anger, Love, Fear, Grief, . . ., and the intensity of each has its own descriptive nouns, verbs, and adjectives (for instance, anger can be

102

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

described as irritated, annoyed and rage). 1925 Webster’s listed, mental

agitation; excited feeling; passion as meanings of emotion. The desiderata of emotion add legions of dimensions to Plato’s spectrum of truth and particularly to the definition of predicate adjectives which describe a prescriptive logos. Virtue and vice originate here: Common understanding of truth’s meaning also do (as when telling ‘the truth,’ for instance, we swear to accurately tell about our perceptions of facts). And in the organic sense, it greatly affects Roger Williams Dictum:75

Every lawful Magistrate whether succeeding or elective, is not only the minister of God, but the Minister or servant of the people also (what people or nation soever they be all the world over), and the Minister or Magistrate goes beyond his commission who intermeddles with that which cannot be given him in commission from the people. [“The Bloudy Tenent Yet More Bloudy,” in Narragansett Club Publications, Vol. IV, p. 187] Without natural human agencies, organizations cannot exist. The noumenal aspects (as intelligence, truth and morality) of an organization, therefore, do not and cannot exist apart from the unalienable agencies (the natural noumenon ) provided by human constituents of the organization. This dictum considers the only indigenous organic authority source. The fallacy of supplanting unalienable indigenous authority with mechanist dogmas of human design and purposes, too often, has resulted in transgressions of Williams’ dictum: whenever noumenal birthrights are traded for phenomenal pottage, a form of indentured slavery has resulted. The prescriptive predicate values of logos, as human will is allowed to chose, can either be ‘true’ or ‘false’: facts as posited are naturally correlative and inferentially traceable. Perjury, the crime, for instance, can only be inductively proved since it is a crime which intrinsically is of noumenon. The intent of a crime is similar. Unlike factual evidence, as DNA for instance, intent is only proved by indirect

Tautology

103

argument. Russell offered this analysis. Note the separation of the subject and the object and that knowledge has requirements that are independently permanent, i.e., eternal: as Russell observed, 76

[With all perceptions] we cannot go beyond "probably”, since we know that people sometimes see [things] that are not there, for instance in dreams. The statement -- it is true -- is most often made to assert that it (the perception of the object of truth) agrees with fact, or it (the perceptive predicate value of the perception which posited the object, which mostly is the perception of another) is not false. In this resolute dual meaning of trueness, Truth is easily misrepresented. In courts of law for instance, the trueness of allegations of facts is the target of legal pursuit. Proving that the intent (prescriptive perception which is alleged to have posited it, the fact) is truthful, i.e., has the value ‘is true,’ is an ambiguous problem that seemingly is laced with a diabolism. Truth is an analytically critical perceptive quality in correspondence to its noun (the object) in which the object is accurately perceived, regardless whether the predicate value of the person’s logos that posited the object is perceived as being ‘is true’ or not. When dealing with ‘intent’, as to perjury (in which the statement is predicated on a lie, i.e., ‘is not true’), for instance, the predicate adjective has the truth value ‘is false’: the predicate adjective which describes the prescriptive noumenon , logos, or intelligence that posited the fact also ‘is false.’ But was criminal intent involved? Unless a fact exists in correspondence to the prescriptive perception (logos) which posited it, perjurious intent cannot legally or constitutionally be considered or adjudged without a legal trial and judgement as decided by an unbiased jury of ones peers. Plato’s spectrum of Truth applies to all forms of human emotion: only ‘pure thought’ and ‘deliberate reason’ are sure bets that the truth value ‘is true’ existed in prescriptive logos which posited a fact. As the

104

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

spectrum of ‘is true’ and ‘is false’ reaches emotion’s negative extremes, where the prescriptive predicate value absolutely ‘is false,’ the ‘most deadly sins’ are confronted: law must remain unemotional and the courts purposes’ prescriptive values must remain ‘beneficial,’ or the court’s judgements are often as ‘false’ as the person being tried is. Take, for instance Martha Stewart’s legal situation. An agency of government had leaked information that spread quickly. And this leak defined the ‘insider information’ for which she was indicted. Legal attempts to find or prosecute the leakage did not happen because of Government’s ‘legal immunity’ that is based on the divine right dogma. And, legal agents of the SEC’s regulation,’ in this instance,cited Martha Stewart for selling her stock at a small profit: reported as less than $5,000. This situation created by the leak entrapped Stewart since her stock would have no market value following the FDA’s decision to not approve the drug to be marketed. However, some months later, when the trial of Stewart was underway, the FDA did approve the drug and this fact was legally irrelevant. The insider trading issue was far greater than just Stewart’s individual situation, which prompted her to sell. Schumperter cited this issue when he observed that ‘a bull market is a disaster.’ And, as with this the case, the Stock Market is neither a valid economic barometer nor a just binding contract between a seller and buyer, as legally is regulated by government. 77 [when a market fails to exist], i.e., when money leaves the market in a

crash, as in 1987, it simply disappears. If it went into cash, we’d see an instant doubling and redoubling of M1. If it went into productive new investment, we’d see a sharp rise in output. If it went into the bond or money market, we’d see a sharp fall in interest rates. If it went into commodities or real estate, we’d see sharp rises in those markets. If it went into consumption, we’d see a sharp rise in retail sales . . .. The money vanishes [because, in a bull market, the stock price always grows faster than the real economy].

Tautology

105

Yet the macroeconomic effect seems to have been slight. From this it is reasonable to infer that given the way the producing economy is organized -- especially the way rewards are distributed - it had no use of those hundreds of billions of dollars. At the very least, we can say that the producing economy did not actually have the use of those hundreds of billions . . .. Philosophically, according to Aristotle’s virtue, ‘beneficence’ is the positive extreme of virtuous legal ‘merit’ or ‘deserts.’ While Judaic ‘retribution’ (an eye for an eye) is at the negative extreme, which while paradoxical is still dogmatically called justice. In democracy, the legal standard is the reasonable middle of these extremes and is called ‘distributive justice,’ meaning ‘equal’, i.e., no preferential treatment under law is given. And since the truth value, ‘is true’, can only apply consistently to beneficence, laws must always beg for beneficent results from ‘distributive justice’ representation, and stand firmly as a sponsor of beneficence: for instance, a ‘presumption of innocence’ is of critical necessity but seldom heeded, particularly outside the courts. And the threshold for proving guilt must be held high. Otherwise, the exercise of ‘distributive justice’ disgraces democracy. And when the exercise of law is a sham, its predicate is as false as is the predicate for having committed crimes. About obligations of morality, Portia said this to Shylock: 78

And earthly power doth then show likest God’s, when mercy seasons justice. And, on this, law professor Frankena proffered this wisdom:

What does the principle of beneficence say? Four things, I think: 1. One ought not to inflict evil or harm (what is bad). 2. One ought to prevent evil or harm. 3. One ought to remove evil. 4. One ought to do or promote good. Beneficent mercy does not rob justice. But instead, magnifies what the Greeks called ‘Civitas.’ "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask

106

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

what you can do for your country," was President Kennedy's appeal for 'Civitas.' And when he challenged the nation to put a man of the moon in the decade of his presidency, he provided a beneficent goal for the nation's private sector 'Civitas.' Without ‘Civitas’ a court is without heart or truth. To maintain the integrity of the court in adjudicating law, John Adams opined something along these lines: “I would rather see ten guilty men acquitted of crime than see one innocent man convicted.” So why, when Cain slew Abel, did God not order that the death penalty should apply? Did God’s pure ‘beneficence’ forbid this extreme penalty? 211 About TRUTH and LOVE LOVE is the beneficence-based discriminating preference of persons for objects of their affection: and when the preference turns to passion and object is a person, visceral emotion entails. But a child’s love for its parents is ontologically pure. It is pure since neither reason nor opinion (of ontological intelligence), has affected it. In this pure sense of naturally inherent cosmic noumenon, love is the beneficent natural catalyst of both human emotion and cogito (and falsehoods are of truth, as hate is of love). While, love commonly discriminates emotionally rather than rationally, pure love is as consistent and ‘necessary’ as is the Sinderesis 79 aspect of LOGOS. And, therefore, is integral to pure truth’s nature: it is rational and probity describes it. Pure Truth (which about Plato’s Divided Line C. H. Monson, Jr. suggests is ‘intelligible reality’ 80 ) is found in the cognitive realms of reason while politics is found in the material-related ‘visible’ realms of emotion, called experience. Love embraces all forms of Plato’s reality. However, Monson reminds that to Plato, ‘intelligible reality’ was most important. ‘Positivism’ (dogma designed to serve Plato’s ‘Visible’ Realm of reality) dishonors Pure Love, as it does pure truth: Popularly crowned ‘materialism’ dogma reigns over faith-based ‘belief’ in God’s LOGOS. And a unitary materialist, dogmatic ‘mechanist’, ‘belief’ sponsored the unitary materialist‘back view’ of Kant’s dilemma, of which

211

About TRUTH and LOVE

107

he called a synthetic a priori. ‘Mechanism,’81 the dogmatic orthodox ‘back view,’ which organically was conceived as an absolute and necessary condition of life was made into the antecedent to the human ‘free will.’ ‘Mechanism’ dogma, also called ‘economic determinism,’ which had spawned dogma called ‘mercantilism,’ is of ‘back view’ deductive reasoning in which ‘mechanism’ idealistically is assumed as the logical axiomatic antecedent to free will.(Continued, following this from Plato) PLATO’S DIVIDED LINE ‘PHYSIS’ - - COSMIC: ‘Eternal Good’ Ascending order of truth (and love) GOD’S LOGOS82 PURE KNOWLEDGE (The predicate of God’s LOGOS is PURE LOVE: Faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, promise: Jehovah’s Covenant. Lao-tse said this is Sinderesis,83 i.e., God is impartially constant) INTELLIGIBLE REALM knowledge FORMS: A -pure thought B -reason The human cogito connects ‘NOMOS’ to ‘PHYSIS,’ values

108

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

B. Spinoza was maybe the first to explain clearly the pervasive dilemma of paradoxes which were spawned irrationally by the ‘back door’ view. He explained how front end teleologies were both companion and charter of ontologism in the creation of physical nature. His explanation required the complete distinction of Kantian duality, of noumenon from phenomenons. Then, considering that this distinct noumenon is integral of God’s noumenon, Spinoza introduced Pantheism (God is the axiomatic metaphysical universe and through ontologism includes the human logos and its materiality). Spinoza, the convert to Christianity, believed, that God’s LOGOS (noumenal spirit) permeated all materality. Spinoza’s explanation of Kants dual reality is critical to explaining cogently, the natural importance of the human ‘free will.’ And it explains why Plato’s conceptual line between reason and opinion turned out to be about this essential metaphysical distinction, which showed that manmade dogmatic opinion had been supplanted for reason, which, unfortunately resulted in cultural conflations of nounenon to forms of unitary materialism, and that with the natural predicates of nature’s LOGOS, Plato’s divided line makes an important distinction that clearly is pervasively evident in natural paradoxes: love-hate, truth-falsehood, ‘right hand’ and ‘left hand’ mechanics, weather patterns, water flows, ‘north pole’ and ‘south pole’ magnetics, the (+) and (-) of electricity, . . . The unitary materialist dogma, which is an economic principle: 84

‘NOMOS’ WORLD: ONTOLOGICAL ‘temporal’ HUMAN logos: as imbued with ontologism . [Human logos is naturally corrupted by lifes’ material aspects and by upbraiding materialist dogma: PURE LOVE is corrupted by visceral emotivity, as love-hate-greed]

Mechanism is one of the two great philosophical theories of cause and effect in the universe. Opposed to the theory of mechanism is the theory of teleology. Any thing that grows and develops can be explained in two ways. Mechanism explains it from behind, in terms of its [temporal] origins. Teleology explains it from the front, in terms of the goal it is seeking.

VISIBLE REALM FORMS: C D

Besides ‘back’ and ‘front’ views, as Spinoza observed, are as naturally opposite as those observed above: teleology appears to oppose mechanism theory when in fact nature’s LOGOS designed or at least understood and organized, if the supreme LOGOS did not sponsor,

of logos (cogito) to the values of LOGOS (Ontologism)?

Opinion ---

belief illusion

211

About TRUTH and LOVE

109

naturally paradoxical materialist determinism. The ‘front view,’ the Creator’s view, is the designing, organizing, controlling view and by noumenal ontologism was exclusively inalienably extended to human intelligence, if only we will to use it logically? The Creator, whom St. John called LOGOS, has choice and by ontologism humans’ have choice also. This choice is called the human free will. How this human ‘will’ plays out in the scenario of Plato’s divided line, is the question that puzzles humanity? Desiderata, the prose, aptly summarized the puzzles of life. Is our sovereign consciousness inward-turned (of Desiderata) or outward-turned (of logical ontologism)? Is it disciplined (unselfish and benevolent) or undisciplined (selfish and retributive)? Tautologically, is it ‘true’ or ‘false’? 85

Desideratum n., something desired or needed: health, security, affection, . . . Desiderium n., something once possessed and now missed; a painful sense of loss. Our first love and last love is self-love.

Bovee

Love is the most terrible, and also the most generous of the passions; it is the only one that includes in its dreams the happiness of some one else. J. A. Karr Passion may be blind; but to say that love is blind is a libel and a lie. --Nothing is so sharp-sighted or sensitive than true love, in discerning, as by an instinct the feelings of another. W. H. Davis Must love be ever treated with profaneness as a

110

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

mere illusion? Or with the coarseness as a mere impulse? Or with fear as a mere disease? Or with levity as a mere accident? Whereas it is a great mystery and a great necessity, lying at the foundation of human existence, morality and happiness, --mysterious, universal, inevitable as death. Harriet Martineau The Bible speaks of a mysterious sin for which there is no forgiveness; this great unpardonable sin is the murder of the ‘love-life’ in a human being. Ibsen Corporeal charms may indeed gain admirers, but there must be mental ones to retain them. In peace, love tunes the shepherd’s reed; in war, he mounts the warrior’s steed; in halls, in gay attire is seen; in hamlets, dances on the green. Love rules the court, the camp, the grove, and men below and saints above; for love is heaven, and heaven is love.

Colton

Walter Scott

The desire to be beloved is ever restless and unsatisfied; but the love that flows out upon others is a perpetual well-spring from on high. L. M. Child

211

About TRUTH and LOVE

111

Desiderata (prose that introduced Part I) was left in a church along the East Coast of early Colonial America. The author, wishing anonymity, had, in beneficent love, donated it for the benefit of humanity. This prose about human inalienable sovereign aspects with finding tranquility in life provides a window to understand the wholesome discipline, worthy of pure love, of early American culture: about sovereign needs and responsibilities to effectively deal with schemes, treacheries and hazards of life, all while not yielding this pure love. Before Roger Williams and John Locke, early Americans commonly understood the natural aspects of sovereignty: human needs of soul and self disciplined love to, in deliberate acts of civilization (socialization and cooperation), deal effectively with the material and moral needs of all members of society. This uniquely American physisbased culture underpinned inalienable human sovereignty, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Parrington wrote this:86

I have examined with some care the bequests of seventeenth and eighteenth-century Europe to the colonial settlements, and in particular the transplanting to America of old-world liberalisms. In the main those liberalisms derived from two primary sources, English independency and French romantic theory, supplemented by certain contributions from English Whiggery. From [English Independency] came the revolutionary doctrine of natural rights, clarified by a notable succession of thinkers from Roger Williams to John Locke, a doctrine that destroyed the philosophical sanction of divine right, substituted for the traditional absolutism the conception of a democratic church in a democratic state, and found exemplification in the commonwealths of Rhode Island and Connecticut. But unfortunately the liberal doctrine of natural rights was entangled in New England with an absolutist [unitary materialism-

112

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

based] theology that conceived the human nature as inherently evil,

that postulated a divine sovereignty absolute and arbitrary, and protected caste divisions into eternity -- a body of dogmas that it needed two hundred yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience in America to disintegrate . . . [However, this dogma has not disintegrated?] John Lockeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reasoning of self is germane to any reflective analysis of sovereignty and love. Locke reasoned that each human being is a sovereign with his own exclusive property of person.87

Every Man has a 'Property' in his own 'Person.' . . . Men living together 'according to reason' are properly in the State of Nature.' The right to property is defined as an essential or basic right for the purpose of defining the sovereignty of the individual and the necessity to guarantee his rights and property 'against' others, 'not' so as to allow him to acquire, to control, to achieve domination through landed property [or other forms of wealth]. No individual has a [natural] right or power over the life of another. . . . Force without Right, upon a man's person, makes a State of War. . . . It is a 'right,' a possession of each individual which must be protected together with his other freedoms, protected from others who are in a 'State of War' against the individual . . . He that in the State of Nature, 'would take away the Freedom,' that belongs to anyone in that State, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that 'Freedom' being the foundation of all the rest. . . . Locke deliberately employs the idea of the 'state of Nature' rather than the 'law of Nature.' He insists not upon uncovering any 'laws' of nature (i.e., human nature) but rather upon the capacity of human 'reason' to promulgate a code of civil law that is the

211

About TRUTH and LOVE

113

'constitution' of a just political society. . . . Human reason alone was 'universal' among human beings, and by its application would men be able to develop a concept of equivalence linked to necessary justice. . . . The 'State of Nature' is that which is governed by a 'natural' law or 'right Rule of Reason' (i.e., the admission of the equivalence of others). . . . Locke is not out to prove the existence of any law of nature but to 'assert it in the contemporary,' to radically 'claim' that it is true by the admission of any individual that his or her requirements of liberty and freedom must be admitted to others, 'unless' the form of political society under which they live is unjust. John Locke clearly explained the common understanding about human needs. Locke’s ethical principle about each human being (property rights of the soul and body) became a strategic part of the Constitution as specified by the Bill Of Rights. Then, about nomos that also existed prior to the new American democracy, customs and traditions which Americans had fled from had not been left behind. Religion, particularly, inculcated rationalized mechanistic doctrine that perpetuated the dogmatized unitary materialist belief that only our souls [are] equal. This dogma, according to Craig Thomas, represents the effective reversal of humanism's divorce of the secular from the theological. Thomas reminds us that religion acquiesced in the nomos-based rationalization which tore at Locke’s physis-based truth, i.e., each person is in body as well as soul a sovereign individual with his own exclusive property of person. The rationalization, because only our souls are free, mere individuals are not only unsuited, they are incapable to act for themselves, as etched in oligarchical tradition, inculcates, which is ‘back door’ Hobbesean theory! This nomos-based rationalization, adopted as dogma, strengthens all organic religious groups’ oligarchical sovereign power. Each religious group’s sovereign leader derives far greater leverage over individuals of the religious flock and they wield this leverage skillfully. In doing this, however, they abuse

114

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

individual sovereignty to quash love and instil ‘an organic master morality form.’ Thomas commented as follows about the rationalization which not only allowed but perpetuates the doctrine that only our souls [are] equal: 88

What, finally, is being insisted upon by the Levelers is the continuing and untransferable sovereignty of the people, the necessitous protection of individual rights and liberties, the requirement that political society be founded upon consent and ‘justly’ and equally so, and the significance of suffrage to undermine entrenched and especially landed interests. [John] Wildman's may therefore be the final word from them when he remarks that ‘a just subjection ought to be founded upon an assent of the people to their governors' power . . . how governors shall derive a just power from the people but by an assent of the people, I understand not.’ They are the inheritors, whether entirely consciously in all cases, of the tradition of natural law theory, together with (most importantly in the instance of those who may so easily be characterized as radical only in religion, and religious in all their opinions of the sublunary sphere of government) humanism's divorce of the secular from the theological -- the rescue of natural law theory from its theological constraints, which allowed the perpetration of feudalism, of hierarchy and enslavement on the one hand and the aggrandizement of property on the other simply because [they subscribed the dogma that] ‘only our souls were equal.’ [The American Plan of Political Economy clearly represents inculcated materialist nomos which deterministically abuses the ontological constitutional strategy.] Thomas,’ observation, I believe, provides compelling evidence of deterministic rationalization (Spinoza’s ‘back door’ view of truth) for the greatest resurgent intrusion of fundamental religion in American partypolitics. It may return to eventually become the cause to deny longtime

211

About TRUTH and LOVE

115

116

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

constitutional privileges (organic freedom from secular taxation for instance) which was conditionally based on strict separation of church from state.

knowledge of God and that this knowledge is the basis of all other knowledge.

Plato’s Divided Line was not drawn between noumenon (spiritual) and

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.

phenomena (material) as naturally posited, but between ontologismbased reason and manmade opinion. Plato’s divide is between logical ‘necessity’ (antecedence) and ‘contingency’ (‘consequents’) of truth about Metaphysical divisions of cosmos (of God’s universe) and temporal ontology (in which God’s noumenon is logically extended to human logos ) in contrast with manmade posits (which are of truth and falsehood, love and hate, which includes emotions as passion, pride, humility that envelopes love, fear, anger or grief 89 ). Natural dutiful moral values or human obligation inherent of ontology is called deontology, thereby, distinguishing it from purposeful teleology. And since both concepts are metaphysical, they are a natural noumenal part of human cogito and, therefore, must be considered by humans as the only legitimate source of unalienable ethical morality. Manmade dogma called ‘positivism,’ which denies the importance of the metaphysical aspects of life, abominates this natural morality. Also, we should not confuse noumenon with ontology (a conflation of the spiritual reality by preferences with material reality ' ) as Craig Thomas suggested, religious dogmatists did this when they concluded that only the human soul is free (By inculcating belief in this dogma, unitary materialism-based ‘conservatism’ supplanted natural ontologism with the dogma-based ‘back door’ view of unitary materialismbased ‘mechanism’: ‘Only the human soul is free.’). Dogmas of belief now dominate the cultural orthodoxy of society: Manmade dogma controls law and history. And, this‘Conservatism’ usually rules ontologism. 90

ontologism n. The doctrine that human beings have an intuitive '

This was previously suggested by the trading of heritage for pottage.

Christ taught that wisdom is free to all humanity.91

Differences between faith and belief are important. 92 Ontological argument or proof, the contention that since our idea of God is that of a perfect being and since existence is part of perfection, our idea of God is an idea of a necessarily existent being. This argument, used by Anselm and Descartes, is repeated by Thomas Aquinas and most of the theologians.

Deontology93 n. The science of duty or moral obligation . [<Greek de’on, -ontos duty + English -logy] Spinoza concluded that agreement of belief and opinion could only be found by reasonable people (in the Forms of truth and love that transcends to the ‘front’ view of Plato’s Divided Line). Spinoza contemplated ‘necessary’ predicate values of human logos to live with ‘moral ethics;’ his focus narrows to the division of truth and love where ‘consistency’ and ‘necessity’ are found:94 Lao-tse found this in his Sinderesis, 600 B.C.

28. The highest good of the mind is the knowledge of God, and the highest virtue is to know God. 35. So far as men live in conformity with the guidance of reason, in so far only do they always necessarily agree in nature. 36. The highest good of those who follow after virtue is common to all and all may equally enjoy it. 37. The good which every one who follows after virtue seeks for himself he will desire for other men; and his desire on their behalf will be greater in proportion as he has a greater knowledge in God.

211

About TRUTH and LOVE

117

40 Whatever conduces to the universal fellowship of men, that is to say, whatever causes men to live in harmony with one another, is profitable, and, on the contrary, whatever brings discord into the state is evil. Spinoza also wrote about pure truth (Without pure truth, and knowledge, human logos digresses into the ‘mechanist’ view):95

Perfect truth is possible only with knowledge, and in knowledge the whole essence of the thing operates on the soul and is joined essentially to it. Spinoza saw that human reason transcended Plato’s Divided Line and the physical world of opinion in which mechanist determinism rules natural ontology. But in order for human thought to transcend via the noumenal quality precedent of reason, it must follow the great mathematician Rene Descartes: It must engage ‘critical reason.’ And the truthful effects of critical reason can be and often are truly called revelation, since its source is of the noumenon from which revelation emanates. Descartes’ disciplined thought lifted humanity from the Dark Ages.96

First to accept nothing until we can see its truth ‘clearly and distinctly.’ We must divide any difficult problem into smaller and smaller parts until we come to some proposition so simple that we see its self-evident truth. We can then build on this sure basis always proceeding by small, self-evident steps. The origin of this existential truth, Descartes suggested, is,

[the] certainty of [ones] own existence. It was possible to doubt everything else, but not one’s own existence. As soon as you try to doubt your existence, you see that you must exist as the doubter. You cannot doubt that which you are doubting. From this line of reasoning, Descartes proved as truth the existence of God. [proved to himself, which is the ultimate and

118

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

exclusive essential of reasoned' ontological truth] Kant engaged this natural dilemma by suggesting that a different approach to truth is required when transcending Plato’s Divided line. The fiducial standard of this seeming opposite to worldly truth, is found in emulating values from the predicate of God’s logos: pure truth is of ‘necessity’ logically tautological. Love’s meanings are variable similarly as truth’s meanings. What Plato observed about grades of truth, applies to cognitive grades of love. Pure love, of which pure truth is integral, is surely only found by soaring in the highest realms of thought for what Plato called ‘Good.’ Of the nine dictionary definitions, only the 8th meaning fits here. 97

8. The kindly feeling or benevolence of God for His creatures, or the reverent devotion due from them to God, or the kindly affection they should have for each other. About the meaning of popular orthodox usage this meaning is just ahead of ‘no score’: no score for a player or side in tennis. Most popular is ‘passionate affection’ which is farthest from pure enduring and consistent love. In correlation to Plato’s truth line, the most popular meaning of love (passionate affection) is found in the truth Form called ‘illusion.’ Most sentiments about love are written with this in mind and to be sure. Love, whether carnal or not, is of visceral experience. Here is one that I fancy,98

It is in love as in war, we are often more indebted for success to the weakness of the defense, than to the energy of the attack; for mere idleness has ruined more women than passion; vanity more than idleness, and credulity more than either. Colton In this category is found the greatest applicability of the most common paradox: the hedonistic paradox, 99

the apparent contradiction arising from the doctrine that pleasure is

Plato’s ‘reason,’ is critical. Values of probity must be its predicates.

about most common paradoxes

119

the only thing worth seeking and the fact that whenever one seeks pleasure, it is not found. Pleasure normally arises as an accompaniment of satisfaction of desire whenever one reaches one's goal. And the liar paradox seems still more applicable: 100

liar paradox. Semantic paradox, known in antiquity, focus of much recent work. Jack says ‘I am now speaking falsely’, referring to the words he is then uttering. If Jack speaks truly when he says he is speaking falsely, he is speaking falsely. If he is speaking falsely when this is what he says is going on, he is speaking truly. So what he says is true if, and only if, it is false: which seems absurd. One response claims that Jack says nothing true and nothing false. But a variant makes trouble: Jill says ‘I am now not speaking truly’. If Jill is not speaking truly when this is what she says she is up to, she is speaking truly. If she is speaking truly, then she must be doing what she says, that is, not speaking truly. So, it seems, what she says is true if, and only if, it is not true. Prof. Mark Sainsbury, King’s College, London about other most common paradoxes

How to face these paradoxes is an urgent problem Herbert Western Turnbull wrote about the contributions of mathematicians to ‘necessary’ truth and knowledge. His book, The Great Mathematicians, is lucidly concise. He wrote:101

These ideas have had an enormous influence on the trend of recent and contemporary thought; it is enough to say here that they exhibit in diverse ways the more mathematical side of that philosophical search into the principles of our subject which has marked the most recent stage of its history. For mathematics had now reached a state in which it was possible to do for the whole what Euclid tried to do for Geometry, by disclosing the underlying axioms or primitive

120

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

propositions, as Peano called them: and the most patient investigation has been made -- notably in our own land by Whitehead and Russell -- first of the subject-matter itself and next of the very ideas that govern the subject-matter. As all this was conceived on a sublimely universal scale, it is hardly remarkable that certain paradoxes have come to light. How to face these paradoxes is an urgent problem, and there are at present two or three schools of thought employed upon this. . . . They trace the presence of paradoxes to the use of indirect proofs, or more precisely to what is called in logic the law of the excluded middle. Emerson perceived the effects of cultural paradox:

That which we are we are all the while teaching, not voluntarily, but involuntarily. Ralph Waldo Emerson L. P. Pojman explained the philosophical difference between Determinism (mechanism) and Free Will (teleology).102 THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM OF THE WILL and determinism is one

of the most intriguing and difficult in the whole of philosophy. It constitutes a paradox. If we look at ourselves, at our ability to deliberate and make choices, it seems obvious that we are free. On the other hand, if we look at what we believe about causality (i.e., that every event and thing must have a cause), then it appears that we do not have free wills but are determined. . . . Determinism is the theory that everything in the universe is governed by causal laws (including things of mind). . . . The outline of the argument for determinism goes something like this: ---Every event (or state of affairs) must have a cause. ---Human actions (as well as the agent who gives rise to those actions) are events (or state of affairs). ---Therefore, every human action (including the agent himself)

about most common paradoxes

121

is caused. ---Hence determinism is true. . . . Immanuel Kant first suggested that the principle of universal causality is a synthetic ‘a priori’ -- i.e., an assumption that we cannot prove by experience but simply cannot conceive not to be the case. . . . The necessary idea of causality [as asserted] is part and parcel of our noetic structure. We are programmed to read our experience in the causal script. [Spinoza said this was a ‘back door view’] Kant saw that there was a powerful incentive to believe in determinism, but he also thought that the notion of morality provided a powerful incentive to believe in freedom of the will. Hence Kant’s dilemma. [Our Legal System of Justice is dogma-based ‘conservatism’ (based on mechanism’s ‘back door’ view of causality) in which economic hierarchies of influence and power receive paternalistic favor that often is called ‘corporate welfare; diabolically, however, this dogma-based justice requires of humans without ‘standing,’ i.e., without paternalistic favor, strict ‘front door causal,’ i.e., teleological free willbased, responsibility, that must, of course, be strictly meted by classical rules of law. ' ] To assert economic growth is necessary, is an ‘apple pie’ kind of fallacy. It is apolitically popular when the causal mechanisms’ dogmatic economic determinism is overlooked. And, as A. Smith warned, this asserted determinism is not politically neutral:103 ‘in the mercantile system, the interest of the [wage-earner] consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer.’

Our legal system is as fickle as Kant’s dilemma! In the first instance, it believes firmly in hard determinism. In the later instance it believes equally passionately but only partially in actionable justice in matters of human free will infractions of the law. It proves, however, that determinism is fallacious legal doctrine.

122

250-260 SS VIRTUES and VICES

Mechanisms, by definition, are replete with dogmatic determinest edicts and rules as profits must only reward the capital side of economy. Heaven forbid that it should ever reward ‘labor,’ which produces ‘goods’ for consumption. In this, mechanisms’ edicts and rules represent chicanery that hides pernicious laissez faire dealing that goes on behind profits that are cost accounted to ‘goods’ and services produced. When ‘goods’ are sold (consumed), the accounted ‘good’ cost has been augmented by half again to include wholesale and retail profit-taking activities. When ‘goods’ cost (including profits taken) are traced, production cost (including profit) is about half the retail cost that wage-earner-consumers must pay from their minor share of the mechanist monetary economic value to consume the goods that their work had produced to deliver to the market? In situations of economic growth, profits’ inflation endemism, in ‘good’ related ‘value,’ is nearly double the monetary value of wages paid to deliver ‘goods.’ Which, therefore, are inflation intensive? Is it labor, or is it profits’ inflation endemism? It is a ‘Da.,’ no brainer government choice that assigns the total cause of inflation to wages while it allows profits to go unscathed by inflation’s effects. And don’t forget, the combined determining processes of profits necessarily involve chicanery that is as rampant as government’s pork barrel politics is. Nature has provided the only honest way for economic growth, as Benjamin Franklin observed. Anyway, because wages and SS benefits did not cause inflation, those that benefit from inflation are reasonably responsible for inflation’s economic cost that fallaciously is put onto SS contribution taxes, Medicare . . .. Brockway noted the effects of politics on wage-earning: 104

But even at that rate, the consequence in eight years would be 26.7 percent increase in the cost of living. Politics . . . that bring inflation down to its long term [3 percent] rate may mitigate but cannot solve the problem of people who live on fixed incomes. If solving those problems is a sinsere objective of a politics, they must be addressed directly . . ..

about most common paradoxes

123

Of course, many have scruples against promoting the general welfare and so want to emphasize the insurance aspect of Social Security. They cannot then honorably use the plight of the elderly as their reason for supporting draconian measures against inflation, because the draconian measures hurt the elderly along with everyone else. . . .. In short, the policies actually adopted have favored unearned income over earned income, that is, those whom Keynes, following R. H. Tawney, called functionless investors over those who do the work of the world. Compounding interest during the amortization of home mortgages, for instance, routinely repay more than twice the principal owed. Wageearners are most of those who require a mortgage to buy a home. Wageearners, therefore, will usually repay far more than the mortgaged value of their homes. And, because home values have increased due to inflation, home owning wage-earners, many if not most will require mortgages throughout their adult years, are able, on paper at least, appear to gain from innflation’s effects, but never personally materialize this value, which requires that they sell their home. It transfers to their heirs. Home owning is the primary source of wage-earners’ gains from mechanized inflation. Otherwise, they seldom enjoy unearned income as mechanistically enures to those, who by grants of license, use money created as a utility of exchange, to issue mortgages for to collect as business capital, repayments, which more than twice surpasses the mortgage principal (Which Brockway reasoned was the primary source of endemic inflation). Brockway noted the Brahman castes ‘Cost of Living’ measure of income that intends to keep average wage-earning in an “iron cage,” while granting wage increases, that almost keep pace with inflation. The Brahman standard for wage-earning measurement is the empirically monitored ‘Cost of Living’ standard instead of comparing wages-earned to the unearned income of ‘National Income, which is many times higher.

124

ENDNOTES

1 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Volume Two, Introduction (Harcourt Brace, 1930) viii

2 see G. Anders, Merchants of Debt (Basic Books, 1992): greatly aided by fiat money infusions, during the 1980s, investment bankers became corporate takeover pirates, taking $ billions (maybe $trillions) of legalized booty.

3 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920 4 J. Fuji, . . .the elements of MATHEMATICS (Wiley, 1961) 19 5 World Almanac 2002, 103 6 World Almanac 2002, 145 7 World Almanac 2002, 105 8 Parrington, Vol. I, 170-73 9 Barry Jones, 66 10 Barry Jones, 66 11 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man ( ) 2 12 World Almanac 2002, 105 13 World Book Dictionary, 658 14 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every $4 accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century represented inflation. Real net growth was only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemism was directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods and services. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners of inflation. All unearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. And organic profits (which were greater than the sum of inflation and growth) were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

ENDNOTES

125

126

ENDNOTES

15 Parrington astutely recognized that government’s paternalist grants to

32 Commentary, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, November 26,

“Peter” required the equal taking from “Paul.” (See quote on p 86-87)

2001: T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (first published in France in 1785), an excerpt from 1782

16 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920 33 T. Friedman, Aiding military dictatorships could come back to hurt 17 World Almanac 2002, 739

U.S., Las Vegas Sun, May 12, 2002

18 Parrington, Vol. I, 300-301

34 World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 18

19 Readers Digest, Family Legal Guide (1981) 920

35 H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) pgs as in text

20 V. L. Parrington, Vol. I, Introduction, p iv

36 Hirth, The Ancient History of China, chap. Viii

21 There to Here, Craig Thomas, Harper Perennial, 1991, p 82-85, 89, 91

37 A General History of Europe

22 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920

38 G. P Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Harper Colins, 1991) 2829

23 M. DeYoung, Ethereal Gold (an unpublished, personal research document).

39 Quoted by S. West, What happens After Death? (Abbott Macdonnell Winchester, 1977) 62

24 Parrington, Vol. II, 298 40 Main Currents . . ., Vol III, Parrington, p. 410-13 25 Parrington, Vol. II, 150 41 V. L Parrington, Vol. I. 312 26 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, (Touchstone, 1986) 142 42 I. Kant, The Critique, Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 39 27 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991) 250

(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991) 10-12

28 Thomas, 264-265

43 Refers to Edwin Lawrence Godkin's idealism, Parrington, Vol. III, 167

29 World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 6, 287

44 D. Ravitch, Editor, The American Reader (Harper Perennial, 1990) 43

30 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1956

45 Parrington, Vol. I, 164-177

31 M. Heidegger, Metahhysics (Doubeday, 1961) 86-87

46 J. Pelikan, editor, Modern Religious Thought (Little Brown,1990) 68 47 The New Dictionary of Thoughts (Standard Book, 1955) 665

ENDNOTES

127

128

ENDNOTES

48 The New Dictionary of Thoughts (Standard Book, 1955) 665

61 PBS TV, NOVA’s Einstein revealed

49 G. Brockway, 194-195

62 DT. 32. 1-4 (truth is the modern translation for troth: the meanings of a troth aptly apply)

50 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115 63 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s 51 G. Brockway, 127

Press,1989), 6

52 R. L. Heilbroner, 293

64 Arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates, with updated

53 Excerpted from An Additional View to the Report of the President's

Scholarship and a New Introduction by Lodowick Allison, The Bible (Simon & Schuster, 1993) xii

Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties.

65 Parrington, Vol. II, 298 54 Excerpted from a United Press article carried by the Daily Spectrum, St. George, Utah; Oct.2, 1988.

66 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 - 23

55 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

67 Belief in inevitable territorial expansion to encompass all of North

56 About the transition from Federalist doctrine to Whig doctrine, V. L. Parrington wrote in Volume II, 298:

In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt. 57 E. H. Gilson, The Intelligence in the Service of Christ [from, J. Pelikan, editor, The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought (Little Brown, 1990) 218-219]

58 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1541 59 Edited by C. H. Monson, Jr., The Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave, Philosophy Religion and Science (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963) 167 (From Plato’s The Republic, 2nd ed., translated by Benjamin Jowett. New York: Oxford University Press, 1891, Books VI and VII, 510-519.)

60 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1324

America. This was first argued in the 1840s and was revived during and after the Spanish-American War. It is of the same philosophic family as Dollar Diplomacy upon which Captains of American enterprise expanded their exploitations beyond the nation’s borders: driving the expansion of the nation’s Foreign Policy. Preemption is also of this family.

68 Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (As furnished by Shelby Steele in his essay The New ty), Harpers Magazine, July, 1992

69 Parrington, Vol. III, 22 70 Parrington, Vol. III, 21 71 J. N. Fugii, Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (J. Wiley & Sons, 1961) 45

72 Parrington, Vol. I, 300-301 73 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Volume Two, Winds . . . (Harcourt Brace, 1930) 298

ENDNOTES

129

74 B. Gilbert, Exploring Mexico’s Wild Side, September/October issue of

130

ENDNOTES

89 World Book Encydlopedia, Vol. 6, 210

VIA (California State Automobile Association, 2000) 54

90 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 1353 75 An except from ‘About Truth and Organization,’ (Not yet published) 91 James 1:5 76 B. Russell, 121-22 92 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 1353 77 Brockway, 110 93 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 532 78 See L. J. Pojman, Philosophy, the quest for truth (Wadsworth, 1989) William Frankena, Reconciliation of Two Systems of Ethics, 361-369

94 B. Spinoza, Great Books, Vol. 28, 607-676

79 Lao-tse (see C. H. Monson, Jr., Philosophy Religion and Science, 268)

95 The New Dictionary of Thoughts (Standard Book Co., 1955), 665

80 C. H. Monson, Jr., Philosophy Religion and Science (Chs. Scribner’s

96 World Book, Vol. V, 130

Sons, 1961), 161

97 World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1154 81 Mechanist, World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 13 (1965), 298 98 New Dictionary, 353 82 St. John gave the name LOGOS to God, the Creator (Vatican Manuscript in original Greek. John 1:1, translation to English called the Emphatic Diaglott).

83 Edited by C. H. Monson, Jr., LAO-TSE, Philosophy Religion and

99 L. P. Pojman, 474 100 T. Honderich, editor, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford, 1995), 483

Science (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963) 268.

84 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1202

101 H. W. Turnbull, The Great Mathematicians, (Barnes & Noble, 1993) 141

85 World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1965, p 539

102 Pojman, 254-56

86 Main Currents in American Thought, Volume One, Introduction,

103 Brockway, 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6)

Vernon Louis Parrington, Harcourt Brace, 1930, p iv

87 There to Here, Craig Thomas, Harper Perennial, 1991, p 82-85, 89, 91 88 There to Here, Craig Thomas, Harper Perennial, 1991, p 69

104 G. Brockway, 194-195

100

200

CONTENTS of OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN and ETHEREAL-GOLD (the shaded titles) FOREWORD Quintessential Foundations (An Introduction) 101 Security: our Heritage 102 Insurance: our Heritage 103 Political Economy: the foundation of our Heritage (introduces 205) 104 Exercising Sovereignty: a responsibility of Heritage (introduces 208) 109 Truth’s Fiducial Gauges (introduces 209) Substantial Quintessence (Virtuous Knowledge) 201 Life’s enigma and the essential need for philosophy 202 Perceptions of reality and illusions 203 The requirements of self in finding truth 204 Politics for what it is 205 Political Economy 205 Appendix, Petitioning ‘Civitas’ 206 Liberal and Conservative 207 Our "Captains of Industry" 208 Sovereignty 209.1 Truth: The value predicate divisions of 209.2 Truth: The Fiducial Gauges of 210 Truth: Postscript about Organizations 211 Truth: Postscript about Emotion 212 Truth: Postscript about Faith 220 Truth: Postscript about Paradoxes 230 Truth: Postscript about Paradox and Mechanism 240 Truth: Postscript about Deontology sans Teleology 250 Virtues of Social Security and Vices of organization

In 2000, wage-earners have a $2 trillion (+) stake in the Economy. Teleologically, this $2 trillion stake (with interest) should have been repaid before the top 20 percent of income earners (who did not contribute to SS) were given a revenue tax refund (top income earners got tax refunds, common wage-earners did not). ABOUT ETHEREAL-GOLD

“It is the uniqueness of individuals, as they are encouraged to develop responsibly, into which the beauties of nations bloom. The American heritage is ETHEREAL-GOLD. The unalienable qualities of individuals are not compatible with anything that we produce, particularly on production lines.” From Petitioning‘Civitas,’ the Appendix to 205 The American System of Political Economy is a mechanism that opposes teleology: It divides the economy and upsets the ethical flux in culture. Our Political Economy locks Americans of the REAL ECONOMY between Americans of the SURREAL ECONOMY and Americans of the NON ECONOMY. Tyrannous Determinism results to compromise the human rights bequeathed by the Constitution. --Are we losing our unique AMERICAN HERITAGE? ---

Do we allow Mechanism to gamble with Teleology?

Increased in 1967 to provide for Medicare, Congress increased Social Security contribution-taxes again in 1984 to fund OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN for SS (Then spent the money) and (as reported in NEWSWEEK, May 13, 1991, p. 35) "the centrists [in Congress] say the deficit-ridden government needs the money." All attempts to cut SS taxes have failed. Political Economy, however, now calls for general tax reductions. The Administration of 2001 anointed this political objective.