Why I want an elite, or the case for hierarchy

 Most people who pay attention have a profound disgust at what passes for the elite of the Western World, for good reason. I'm not going to mention the worst stuff because it is gross, but we are ruled by people who regularly sell out to the highest bidder, and who appear to have a predilection for producing blackmail material against themselves. Again, if you want to profoundly scandalize your visual palette, go Google these people. Nevertheless, I think some form of elite is absolutely necessary for a civilization worth living in.

The reason for this is that us humans do not have to understand something perfectly to do it right. For instance, most of us, this author included, could not fully explain when a car needs an oil change, and why it needs a particular kind of engine oil. Nevertheless, if we change the oil at appropriate intervals and use the correct grade of oil, our cars last longer, and they work better. We know when to change what oil into our cars because someone else told us, either in the vehicle manual or on the internet somewhere. Someone else, who knows car engines way better than we do, tells us how to make them work better. This someone would be the elite of car maintenance.

I believe that this applies to most, maybe all areas of life. The instructor or coach is the elite of the sport you do, and you do what they say for better results. David The Good is one of the elites of gardening, for instance. Ideally, our rulers would be the elites of managing countries, but they appear to not be. If they knew how to run the economy and the military and other things, we would enjoy an amazing standard of living. As a matter of fact, we still enjoy an amazing standard of living, even if the political elites worthy of the title are mostly gone now. In my estimation, because of the quality of past political elites, we are still riding on the momentum of a truly excellent civilization.

Going back to the oil change, tens of millions of cars the world over work better, because a few dozen experts have figured out the exact specifications of what a particular engine needs and when it needs replacement. An actual elite can raise the standard of living of many many more people, if those people do as the elite advises, even if they do not understand it entirely.

This argument requires that the elite are actually better than the average person in their area of expertise. Unfortunately, this is not universally a given. Nevertheless, when this is the case, many people can enjoy, and function, at a level beyond their understanding.

Therefore, I think an elite is necessary for a civilization. You do not want everyone independently figuring out their sanitary systems, for an extreme example. It is also necessary that the leaders are of an actual elite, but even an elite class with maybe half of them actually knowing stuff is better than nothing.

TL;DR: People can do stuff without fully understanding it, so they can do stuff in a way that's more intelligent than they are. Hence an elite to ideally provide more intelligent ways.

Why usury is bad, if you don't like maths

There are many arguments against usury, but most of them are highly mathematical in nature. As it happens, most people do not find inflationary pressures and exponential functions nearly as fun as I do, but usury is still bad, even if seeing a lower-case 'e' with a number in its top right-hand corner makes you sick. Hence, allow yours truly to demonstrate that usury is a sin, even when you don't like maths.

First, a definition of usury is required. Usury describes the practice of loaning money with interest. The percentage on your student loans, credit cards, or mortgages, that's usury. The percent number on your savings account is also usury, even though it is admittedly pretty fun to watch your money 'grow'.

Now onto the main point, why usury is bad. As promised, there will be no exponential functions. As a matter of fact, there will only be two numbers, ten and twelve. If you can tell ten and twelve apart, then congratulations, this proof will work for you!

Let's say there are two people, Jimmy and Alex. Jimmy has ten coins, and Alex has no money at all. Between Jimmy and Alex, there are only ten coins. Now, Alex wants to borrow those ten coins to buy stuff. Jimmy says that he can borrow the ten coins, if Alex pays him back with interest. The total with interest is twelve coins. Eventually, Alex pays Jimmy the twelve coins. All's well that ends well, right? Unfortunately not.

Here's the problem. There used to be ten coins between Jimmy and Alex. Now, due to the usury, there are twelve coins. And a coin has value, because you can buy stuff with it. This is where usury becomes sin. Jimmy and Alex just created value out of thin air. They went from the value of ten coins to the value of twelve coins. And humans cannot create anything out of thin air. Only God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth can do that. But we sure can pretend to create value out of thin air through usury. We can pretend to be God. And you do not want to try to be God, ever, because that is what the original temptation was, see Genesis 3:5: "And ye shall be as Gods".
There it is, that's why usury is a sin. Its participants try to pretend to be God by creating value out of thin air. Creatio ex nihilo, if you want to impress someone with some Latin.
Thanks for reading, and please comment any questions that you have. Usury happens to be a bit of an obsession for me, so I'd be happy to help out.

Freedom is Control

"Freedom is when the imposition of discipline from within is substituted for the imposition of discipline from without."

That quote has been bouncing around my head for quite a while now. I could have sworn I read it somewhere, but I cannot find its original source for the life of me. If anyone knows who said that, please please please let me know in the comments, and I will rectify this post.

        I want to give whomever came up with that the proper credit, because it is frankly genius. It perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with the modern perception of freedom. It takes less than twenty words to lay waste to the idea of political libertarianism, or, as would be a more accurate description, political libertinism. Allow me to elucidate: 

        Freedom does not mean that you can simply do what you want. You can always do what you want, subject to the constraints of the laws of physics, of course. That is what free will means, not freedom. The correct meaning of freedom is that you control yourself, and that nobody has to control you. Because there will be control. There will be discipline. There will be order. 

        This is because there is a Creator, namely God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and He has a plan. His plan will be carried out. You get freedom by following His plan. If you deliberately refuse to follow His plan, He will just drag you along, without breaking His stride by even a nanometer per second. 

        God the Father is very much like, well, a Father. Do you remember your childhood walks? You surely remember how, if you wouldn't follow along, your parents would take you by the hand. Back when you were too small to keep up, they moved you around in a pram. A good Father gives his children as much freedom as they can handle. God, being the perfect Father, does this perfectly well, even when we move out from our biological parents' house. 

        Right now, God allows you as much freedom as you can handle. He allows your nation as much freedom as it can handle. If that is not a whole lot of freedom, I would encourage a look in the mirror. Could you really handle more freedom right now? On the national scale, I would encourage a look at your community: can it control itself, or does it need the imposition of discipline from without?

Rhetoric 101, slow learners' edition

As most things, not all rhetoricians are created equal. The God-Emperor and the Big Bear are naturals at rhetoric, whereas yours truly is a lot closer to the Supreme Dark Lord in terms of rhetorical ability. However, there are still some fundamental qualities of a good rhetorical attack. Allow me to identify and elucidate three of them. First, thre must be a modicum of truth. Second, it must be short. Third, it must fit the medium.

The first criterion is rather obvious. The best rhetoric is rooted in the truth. Not in the precise, dialectical truth as much as the general idea is correct. If it points to a truth that is uncomfortable to the target, so much the better. That is why 'racism' works so well against most white people. Deep down, they are a little bit 'racist', because everyone is and there's nothing wrong with it. But they like to think of themselves as anti-racist, so it works. Same thing with calling the Pedophile Left, well, just that. The evidence is overwhelming that they're being weird to kids, and nobody wants to be a pedophile.
Alternatively, it could be something that activates a well established spell. Think putting a star-crossed banner, the seventeenth letter of the alphabet, or WWG1WGA on your Coronu-mask. You have to wear the mask because of the mystery virus that kills nobody, so they cannot say anything.

The second criterion is that the attack must be short, and simple. This is why 'dEmS aRe tHe rEaL rAyCiSs' never worked on anyone, anywhere, in any shape or form whatsoever. It's long, complicated, and requires a detailed historical analysis. I don't care if it's dialectically true, and neither does anybody else. If you unironically used D3R in conversation even once, please run every future attempt at rhetoric past someone else before you use it in public.

Thirdly, like everything else you say or post, the rhetorical attack must fit the medium. Making fun of Creepy Uncle Joe's obvious dementia in your Boomer-laden church group will not work. Pointing out his obvious pedophilia to a single mom will work wonders though.

There it is, the three criteria for good rhetoric, from one dialectician to another. Please comment any other examples of horrible rhetoric, so we can avoid them in the future.

What is wrong with Boomers?

 Everybody knows that Boomers are lazy, selfish, and incapable of introspection. While it is extremely fun to hate on them over at VP, I am curious as to how a generation of genetically normal human beings turned out like this. What do you think? Any and all serious theories are appreciated.

The differences between physical and spiritual warfare

SocialGalactician Lord Mountebanks asked if we know anything about spiritual warfare. And when a 'Lord' asks something, a Delta is somewhat obliged to do what he can. Unfortunately, I am not (yet) a veteran of spiritual warfare. Right now I'm kind of not a threat to El Diablo, so he does not bother with me. If and when I get my spiritual house in order, the prince of this World might start to take interest in me. But that's neither here nor there. What is here is what I know about spiritual conflicts, in the hope that it helps the reader. So, in no particular order, here are the major differences between physical and spiritual warfare.

First, there is your identity in the conflict. What I mean is that, in any physical battle, from a scuffle with your brother to the Battle of Kursk and everything in between, you are a party to the hostilities. There is also the object of interest, and it's not you. For example, when scuffling with your brother, both you and your brother are parties to the conflict. The object of interest is the TV remote, or the toy car, or whatever. In physical/material warfare, there is usually a territory that is fought over. In short, there is something that gets fought over, and it's not you.
In spiritual warfare, you are the object of interest. Well, your soul is. You are the battlefield. The parties to the conflict are God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth versus whomever the devil decided to field. To an extent, you can be a party to the conflict, through prayer. But the battle is fundamentally about you, you're not one of the fighters. Yes, you have Free Will, but what you do with that Free Will is what the spiritual conflict is about. It is kind of confusing, because confusing you is part of El Diablo's Battle Plan.

Second, there is the will to win. In a physical conflict, your will to achieve whatever you consider a victory is one hundred percent certain. Going back to the previous examples, you want the remote, or the toy car, or control of the Kursk Salient. Granted, there are all manners of decisions that have to be made over the course of the battle, but the general objective is clear and present.
In the spiritual realm, the objective is not clear. Again, this is due to the confusion that the prince of this World likes to sow, but it is also because you are the battleground. The remote, the toy car, and the Kursk Salient did not themselves pursue a particular objective, and neither do you. Yes, we all say that we want Jesus to win the spiritual battles in our souls, but some of us, such as the ticket takers, clearly do not want Jesus to win with all their heart, all their mind, and all their soul.

Third, there are the sides. In a physical/material conflict, there is one side and the other side. While there are some exceptions, it is generally the case that you are on a particular side with a particular objective. No matter the physical battle, you are on your side and you are pursuing your objective. You want the remote, the toy car, or the Kursk Salient.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the spiritual realm is very different. Being the battlefield, you are both the ally and the enemy, sometimes more of one than the other, but never entirely one. Original Sin guarantees that part of you was, is, and always will be, the enemy, while God's Grace guarantees that part of you will always be an ally.

Fourth, there is the condition of the battle. There is a clearly defined victory, and you can usually observe how close you are to victory or defeat. You can tell who has the remote, the toy car, or whether or not your tank got hit in the firefight. In other words, there are clearly defined objectives and parameters of success.
On the other hand, the spiritual war affords us no such luxury. We only know when our participation in the spiritual war ends, namely when we die. But it is only then that we find out how well we did. Before that point, the precise status of the battle for our souls is anyone's guess.

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. That is what I can confidently tell you about the spiritual battles. As they say, knowing is half the battle. I pray that this adds to your understanding of the spiritual battle and helps you win!
In most ways, you are the battlefield in the spiritual war. However, you do have a choice in the matter. Either you take the ticket or you do not.

TLDR: In the spiritual war, you are the battlefield that is fought over. This makes a lot of things really confusing. Good luck!

Defining Justice

 SocialGalactician 'Bigfoot' posted a seemingly obvious question:

"Why is justice needed? Is justice part of the good/beautiful/truth?"

My first reaction was to scoff at the mere thought. Of course Justice is good! How can anyone not understand this? Then it slowly dawned on me. Like everything to do with Christianity, the wizards and their boss, the prince of this World, have had their crooked little hands all over the concept of Justice. Allow me to elaborate on two things: first, what Justice is, ie what God the Father of Jesus Christ of Nazareth made it to be, this will be capital J Justice. Second, I will investigate some of the perversions of God's Justice, and how they warp our minds into confusing fake justice for proper Justice. The perverted justice will be accordingly denoted with a small j.

Alright, let's look at Justice the way it should be. Zechariah 7:9 commands us to 'judge ye true judgment'. A translation into less Victorian English reads 'judge with true justice'. A short read of the context tells us that these are words that God Himself spoke to Zechariah.
Similarly, Psalm 105:3 reads as follows: 'Blessed are they that keep judgment, and do justice at all times'.
So what is this 'Justice'? It is, in short, the way things should be. It is Justice that that God be loved with all our heart, mind, and soul. It is Justice that we love our neighbor as ourselves. It is justice that a child abuser goes for a swim with a millstone for a necklace.
Specifically addressing Bigfoot's question, this does relate to the Good, the Beatiful, and the True. If we more closely examine the Millstone Pool Party, we read our Blessed Lord making the connection to the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. He says that it 'would be better' for the child abuser to never make landfall again. This is how it ties in. Increasing Justice and fighting Injustice creates more Good. Justice is what is best for everyone. For example: it is justice for a starving person to be fed through voluntary charity. It is justice for those of us with surplus to give to those in need. Not only is the person in need better off ( I hear not starving is one heck of a time ), but the person with surplus receives proof of their surplus ( they gave something away without suffering themselves ), which helps with the temptations of greed/avarice.
I would go so far as to argue that any amount of Goodness necessitates that Justice be restored and maintained with respect to the subject at hand.

Now for the annoying fake justice that confuses us, especially if we do not watch out for it. This comes in many forms, some more obvious than others. Nevertheless, all of them are sown by the prince of this world to prevent Justice from happening.
One of the most obvious examples of fake justice is the concept of social/racial justice. This idea of justice is nothing but institutional envy. This form of justice revolves around the idea that if someone else has more than you, that somehow makes them evil. If this sounds Marxist, that's because it is. Proponents of this perversion of morality will argue that we are all equal, and that, if someone somewhere somehow manages to be above this mythical equality, they must have gone there by being evil. Granted, it is possible to have more than your neighbor by being evil, namely by comitting theft. But it is the action of the theft that goes against Justice, whereas the having more stuff only goes against social justice.
Another, more insidious form of worldly justice is that of the state. For example, all law enforcement in the US goes through the Department of justice. Similarly, it goes through the Justizministerium in Germany. Similarly, the highest instance of the judiciary in the European Union is the European Court of justice. All of these institutions have justice in their name, even though they have increasingly little to do with Justice. Granted, they make a perfunctory effort to enforce Justice, with laws against theft, murder, and some other obvious ones. But then they also start enacting random laws that are at best external to Justice, such as divorce law, affirmative action, et cetera.
This perversion is really hard to detect, because it is not entirely a perversion. A large amount of the most basic laws are entirely in line with what Jesus preached. Most of the rest are fundamentally good ideas as well. Sure, nowhere in the Bible does anyone talk about running red lights, but anarchy on the roads is in nobody's best interest. If in doubt, I would encourage the reader to go for a drive in Rio De Janeiro, Istanbul, Mumbai, or another large city where traffic laws are mostly opinions.
All of this stuff is smoke and mirrors though. The same state that gave us safe high-speed travel with the DMV and FAA also gives us Churchianity, by bribing religious leaders with the golden carrot of 501c3 tax exemptions.

Those are the only two I can think of right now. Thanks to BigFoot for the prompt, and thanks to Cyrus for the Scripture references.

TLDR: Justice is necessary to Goodness, but there is a lot of fake justice out there.