Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

    There was a rumor going around that something terrible was going to happen on September 23, and whatever it was it was supposed to usher in the end times. [1]It turns out the rumor was wrong, but the debunkers who argue that there is no threat because Planet X does not exist are not helping matters. They reason that if the planet were real and if it were headed toward the earth we could see it. The truth is somewhere in between. Planet X may exist although no one has seen it yet. And it is not going to hit the earth.

    We’ve seen events that look very much like signs of the end of times—wars, earthquakes, hurricanes–so it’s natural for believers to wonder if the predictions about the end of the world found in the Book of Revelation are coming true. This is not just a quaint curiosity. If Revelation is not a prediction of the violent end of the world what is it talking about? If it has no meaning for our time what is it doing in the Bible? I plan to begin a discussion of Revelation in the next post, but to make a long story short it’s impossible to say whether Planet X is the cause of increased seismic and volcanic activity on Earth because the planet’s existence is more of a prediction than a sighting.

    Planet X is not the first planet to be predicted before it could be seen. Neptune was found after Alexis Bouvard noted irregularities in the orbit of Uranus in 1820. Bouvard theorized that an unseen planet might be influencing Uranus’s orbit. His observations were repeated in the following decades, and led to a prediction of Neptune by French mathematician, Urbain Le Verrier. With the help of Le Verrier’s prediction, German astronomer Johann Gelle sighted Neptune on a single night of searching. Since that amazing demonstration of celestial mechanics astronomers have been intrigued by the possibility of a ninth planet. However the search has been a roller coaster of excitement and disappointment.

    By 1910 conflicting predictions had been made for Planet Nine (Planet X). Edward C. Pickering and Percival Lowell led two unsuccessful searches for the planet, but predictions and searches continued until 1993. That’s the date when data from the Voyager spacecraft seemed to show that there were no positional anomalies in the solar system, implying that there is no Planet Nine. However this ‘proof’ was called into question almost immediately by ongoing discoveries in the Kuiper Belt.   The following account is from Mike Brown, leader of the team who announced the discovery of Planet Nine in early 2016. [2]

    At nearly the exact moment that Planet X was being put to rest, astronomers found the first new object beyond Neptune since the accidental discovery of Pluto (during a search for Planet X). As discoveries mounted, planetary scientists quickly realized that this population of objects in what we now call the Kuiper Belt is vast. To many of us who had begun to study this newest known collection of objects in the solar system, another thing became obvious: There was no chance that Pluto was going to be the only large object in the Kuiper Belt.

    By 1998 Brown began a large survey of the sky from Palomar Observatory. The goal was to detect these large objects, but there was also the hope of finding something new beyond the Kuiper Belt. Astronomers Chad Trujillo and David Rabinowitz joined him five years later. They soon discovered a new object, now called Sedna, on an elongated 10,000-year orbit around the Sun. The closest approach of Sedna’s orbit to the Sun (its perihelia) was not in the Kuiper Belt, as it is for other Kuiper Belt objects with elongated orbits, and they concluded that something massive is, or was, tugging on Sedna’s orbit. Then it was found that the orbit of another Kuiper Belt object discovered three years earlier, 2000 CR105, was being pulled in the same direction.

    Subsequently there have been many corroborating discoveries by astronomers in the U.S. and Brazil, and Brown says the odds that the similar alignment of these objects was due to coincidence are 0.007.

    …we realized that everything we were seeing could be explained by a planet a little less massive than Neptune on an eccentric orbit that takes it from around 200 AU at its perihelion out to 1,200 AU at its aphelion—its further point from the Sun—over an approximately 20,000-year orbital period. Such a planet would capture Kuiper Belt objects with distant elongated orbits into stable orbits elongated in the opposite direction from the planet.

    Moreover, it would pull the perihelia of these Kuiper Belt objects away from the Kuiper Belt…

    With the many effects that Planet Nine is having on the outer solar system, we can infer many things about its properties. In practice, because the solar system is a complicated place, understanding these properties has involved massive amounts of computer simulation. We simulate a slightly larger planet, a slightly closer planet, a slightly more inclined planet, and each time we compare the results of our simulations with observations of the solar system that we know.

    From these constraints we have determined that Planet Nine is about 10 times the mass of Earth, that its orbit is inclined by approximately 30 degrees to the plane of the planets, that it has an average distance of something like 600 AU from the Sun, and that when it is at its most distant point from the Sun, it lies toward the outstretched arm of the constellation Orion.

    All of this relatively detailed knowledge might make it seem like we could, like Le Verrier, simply say to the world, “Go look; it will be THERE!” But we can’t. Le Verrier had the advantage of being able to analyze the full orbit of Uranus around the Sun to see its deviations. If we waited 10,000 years to fully track Sedna around its orbit, we, too, would be able to pinpoint Planet Nine.

    Instead, though, we have only a snapshot of the orbits of a variety of different objects, and we must infer what should have happened in the past. In practical terms, that means that although we know the orbital path of Planet Nine through the sky, we don’t know where it is in its orbit. We no longer have to search the entire sky to find Planet Nine, but there’s still a lot of work to do.

    The team is using the 8-meter Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea and they expect other astronomers to join the search. As of June, 2016, Brown thought it was likely that someone in the world would spot the planet during the next five years.

     

    [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/09/20/the-christian-numerologist-whose-biblical-doomsday-claim-has-some-nervously-eyeing-sept-23/?utm_term=.51fe7109988f

    [2] Mike Brown, How we discovered Planet Nine, Astronomy, June 2016)

  • Reading Time: 3 minutes

    I think I’ve finally figured out why it’s so hard to describe what happened in the 2016 election. Judging by the comments about Hillary’s Clinton’s book tour the entire election was a demand by establishment Democrats that we recognize them as ultimate authorities. That’s why they don’t hesitate to say things that everyone knows are patently false. They’re trying to force obeisance to their authority. If HRC is as mad as her critics say she is there is a method to her madness. Her post-election rhetoric has stopped just short of gloating over the outcome. Her book says, “Don’t believe your own eyes. Don’t believe your own hearts. Believe me!”

     

    Didn’t she want to be president? It’s probably true that powerful players usurped the Trump candidacy, but was that a complete surprise? Didn’t Bill have a meeting with Trump before he announced his candidacy? Didn’t the corporate media build Trump up during the primary race? Didn’t Hillary ignore the Rust Belt during the general election? One way or the other, it stands to reason that the Clinton Foundation would need to operate. The Clintons still owe their donors after all. But how do we endure the false narrative of the 2016 election? I’m going to propose an alternative to Hillary’s interpretation:

     

    The establishment didn’t think anyone on the left could challenge them, but Bernie’s supporters sent them scrambling. Now their sacred altar has been torn down and they’re desperately trying to shore it up. The question Hillary is trying to answer is whether the entire edifice is going to crumble, and whether the rebellious voters are going to get in line?

     

    Which brings me to the most curious part of this election. Bernie Sanders is not an anti-globalist so what exactly was so dangerous about his challenge relative to the challenge of Donald Trump? It makes me wonder if maybe the new order is not powered entirely by invisible, impersonal forces behind the throne, or by political alternatives like democratic socialism. Maybe it’s personal. That is the scariest thought I have had in a long time–that control of this global order is still up for grabs.

     

    Maybe a literary analogy will lighten the mood. The DNC’s claim that they could have picked the candidate in a smoke-filled room was vintage Clinton. The Clintons believe that’s the way the world works and they’re fine with it. Of course this implies that they either failed to resist this system or they helped to create it. But ignoring that for now, the Clinton belief that that is how the world works reminds me of the movie, Babe.

     

    Farmer Hoggett wins a piglet in a raffle. The piglet, Babe, feels insecure about his position in the farmyard so he decides to become a sheepdog, or rather a sheep-pig. Farmer Hoggett recognizes his talent and encourages him. However, the night before Babe’s competition at the fair Babe has the following conversation with Duchess the cat:

     

    Narrator: “There are many perfectly nice cats in the world, but every barrel has its bad apples, and it’s well to heed the old adage, “Beware the bad cat bearing a grudge.”

     

    Cat:     Oh, do forgive me for scratching you, dear. I got a bit carried away. It’s a cat thing.

     

    Babe:  [laughs] Oh, well, but…

     

    Cat:     Feeling good about tomorrow, are you?

     

    Babe:  Um-hmm, it should be alright I think.

     

    Cat:     You know, I probably shouldn’t say this but I’m not sure if you realize how much the other animals are laughing at you for this sheepdog business.

     

    Babe:  Why would they do that?

     

    Cat:     Well, they say that you’ve forgotten that you’re a pig. Isn’t that silly? And they even said that you don’t know what pigs are for.

     

    Babe:  What do you mean, ‘what pigs are for’?

     

    Cat:     You know, why pigs are here.

     

    Babe:  Why are any of us here?

     

    Cat:     Well, the cow’s here to be milked, the dogs are here to help the boss’s husband with the sheep, and I’m here to be beautiful and affectionate to the boss.

     

    Babe:  Yes?

     

    Cat:     [sighs softly] The fact is that pigs don’t have a purpose.

     

    Babe:  [confused] Wh, I-I don’t, uh…

     

    Cat:     Alright, for your own sake, I’ll be blunt. Why do the bosses keep ducks? To eat them. So why do the bosses keep a pig? The fact is that animals that don’t seem to have a purpose really do have a purpose. The bosses have to eat. It’s probably the most noble purpose of all, when you come to think about it.

     

    Babe:  They…eat pigs?

     

    Cat:     Pork they call it. Or bacon. They only call them pigs when they’re alive.

     

    Babe:  But, uh, I’m a sheep-pig.

     

    Cat:     [giggles] The boss’s husband’s just playing a little game with you. Believe me, sooner or later every pig gets eaten. That’s the way the world works… Oh, I haven’t upset you have I? [chuckles softly]

     

    But the cat was wrong about Babe.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    It’s one thing to criticize those who justify a war by using hazy apocalyptic thinking. It’s another thing to act as though the Book of Revelation is not part of the Bible. We have yet to talk about another type of destruction, natural disaster. I can’t say for sure that Revelation is a prediction of natural disaster, but I can’t say it isn’t either. Today there are several known threats capable of causing destruction on an apocalyptic scale. These include two active calderas in the western United States: the Caldera in Yellowstone Park, and the Long Valley Caldera in California; and Planet X, a large planet discovered mathematically after observing its effect on the solar system. If one or both of the Calderas erupts it will cause unheard-of destruction in North America and climate disruption globally. Planet X may bring destruction by way of another phenomenon, a rapid pole-shift in the earth. If you think you can discount the religious aspects of these fears by dismissing the Christian religion forget about it–similar predictions have made by Native Americans.

    But regardless of whether you associate these threats with the Book of Revelation, they are real. So who knows–while we’re busy with our partisan squabbles Planet X might just come along end our illustrious careers. If that thought doesn’t make us humble I don’t know what will.

    So what is to be done? Buy survival gear? Dig bomb shelters? Maybe. But the New Testament has a different take on it.

    Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness…(2Peter 3:11)

    Or:

    But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself? (Luke 12:20)

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    Considering the un-peaceful tendencies in the Christian religion is it logical for a Christian to work for a peaceful future? The belief in the apocalyptic end of the world seems to work in the other direction. Many American Christians supported the Iraq War and justified their support by citing the Book of Revelation. Were they obeying the internal logic of the Christian religion, or were they mistaken? Considering the fact that Christians outside of the United States were not so supportive it’s likely they were mistaken, but we can’t say for sure until we study it further. You might think this question has already been answered. After all, the Iraq War was a disaster, and therefore a mistake. But the morality of Christian support for the war should not hinge on whether the war was a success. It should hinge on whether Christian support for the war was consistent with Christian teachings.

    In the process of writing this article I’ve learned that Christian teachings are not really central to the problem. If the problem were Christian error we might be able to blame it on believers’ mistaken interpretations of scripture, in particular, the Book of Revelation. Then it would make sense to study those scriptures. But now I think the problem is worse than that. To illustrate I’ll use surveys of Christian attitudes about the war.

    The first study is a combination of Gallup surveys conducted in 2005 and early 2006, written up by Frank Newport and published in March of 2006 on Gallup.com. ((http://www.gallup.com/poll/21937/protestants-frequent-churchgoers-most-supportive-iraq-war.aspx)). The second study is written by Joseph L. Cumming and Based on a 2003 Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life ((http://faith.yale.edu/sites/default/files/the_iraq_war_and_christian_faith.pdf)).

    The Statistics

    In the first analysis American religion was divided into categories: Protestant, other Christian, Catholic, other religion, and no religion.  The initial results indicate a difference between denominations in support for the war. The least supportive was the category of other religion and no religion (42% and 38% respectively). At the top of the scale were Protestants and other Christian (55% and 53% respectively). Catholics were less likely than protestants and other Christians to support the war, but only slightly (48%). (The results in graph-form can be found on the Gallup website. Keep in mind that Gallup measured the ‘war is a mistake’ question, so higher numbers on the graphs indicate less support for the war and lower numbers indicate more support for the war.)

    At first glance this might seem to imply something negative about religion in general and about Protestantism in particular. But we should be so lucky. When all of the results are considered it gradually becomes clear that we’ve been giving religion far too much credit. This suspicion first arises with the significant relationship between religious identification and party identification. Protestants were most likely to be Republicans and Republicans were most likely to support the war. Likewise, the tendency for Catholics to be less supportive of the war could be explained by the fact that a higher percentage of Catholics are Democrats. And finally, those with no religion were significantly less likely to be Republican and more likely to be independents than the general American population. In short, Democrats in each group were highly likely to believe the war was a mistake, Republicans were the least likely, and independents were in the middle.

    Frequency of church attendance was also a significant factor. Here the biggest difference was between those who attend church seldom or never and those who attend monthly or more often (38% and 56% respectively). Other Christians who attend church more often were less supportive of the war however.

    Still, when you consider that those who attend church more often are more likely to be Republican, party affiliation remains the most influential factor. When the three major partisan groups: Republican, independent, and Democrat, are graphed according to church attendance and the belief that the war was a mistake Democrats are highly likely to say the war was a mistake regardless of church attendance, Republicans are highly unlikely to say the war was a mistake, and independents are somewhere in the middle. A modest relationship remains within Republican and independent groups between church attendance and views on the war, but no strong pattern appears related to attendance among Democrats.

    The Influence of Christianity on Moral Decision-Making

    This survey was conducted March 13-16, 2003, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: Joseph L. Cumming, The Iraq War and Christian Faith, April 20, 2004, Based on a 2003 Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life

    The guiding premise of this study was not supported by the facts. The premise was that decisions about war are profoundly moral decisions, and given Christianity’s ‘just war’ theory which limits the circumstances under which a country is justified in going to war, Christian decision-making about war should be shaped by Christian faith. The results again indicate that secular influences predominate. Political convictions seem to be changing Christian beliefs rather than the other way around.

    In the week before the U.S. commenced hostilities in Iraq, only 10% of Americans considered their religious beliefs to be the most important influence in shaping their attitudes about the war. Only one third reported that religious leaders had had at least some influence on their views, and only 11% considered religious leaders to have been highly influential. However 53% said friends and family influenced their views on the war and 43% said political commentators influenced them.  Just before the war Americans favored military action by a nearly 2:1 ratio, despite the fact that high-ranking Christian religious leaders had spoken out publicly about the moral implications of the proposed war. So what happened?

    One response might be to hold the local clergy responsible. Only 14% of them took an anti-war position, seven per cent were publicly in favor of the war, and 75% took no position or did not speak about the war at all. But appearances may be deceiving. Researcher Ralph Premdas attributes the problem to ‘inter-communal antipathies’ present in society at large and reflected in the attitudes of churches and their adherents. He argues that clergy and believers are trapped within the ‘claims of their own ethnic or cultural community’, and he draws the conclusion that American isolation has robbed Christian decision-makers of the full benefit of their faith in making important decisions.

    “…it is only through a multinational, multiethnic universal church that the many-colored wisdom of God can be adequately known, and it is only together with all the saints (from all nations and all ages) that we may fully grasp the multidimensional love of Christ. That is, if we wish to consider these questions in an authentically Christian way, then we must listen to the voices of believers in Christ from other nations—especially believers in the Middle East and in other Islamic nations.”

    Premdas provides a hopeful ending to a disturbing study. Unfortunately American Christianity has always been conjoined with American politics. However I have found an encouraging answer for my question about whether it makes sense for a Christian believer to promote peace. Christian support for the Iraq War had very little to do with the Christian religion.  The bad news would be that the United States is a ship without a rudder.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    There are worse things than losing a primary. Hillary put herself in a very bad place when she shut Bernie out of the primary. Now there are stories that confirm our worst suspicions. Like the one about how her donors threatened to call it quits if she lost Nevada, and her brilliant plan to cheat Bernie in Nevada, because what could go wrong?

    Try as she might, Hillary won’t be able to undo the outcome of the election. True, there may be more to the Trump-Russia narrative than the pundits give her credit for, however she knew about his ties with Russia from the beginning, and they were only indirectly related to the election. Worse for her, Trump can’t be impeached for his Russia ties because the actions in question took place before he was president. It’s all in Geoff Gilson’s Book, Maggie’s Hammer. Or you can watch Ed Opperman’s interview here. Gilson’s part ends at about 48:00:

    Hillary Clinton’s behavior in this election has handed Donald Trump a blank check signed by the United States of America. That will be her legacy.

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    The circus of the 2016 election was too weird to be explained by ambition. I suspected one of three motives. Keep in mind that I may have been in a state of paranoia:

    The geopolitical situation is so precarious that the oligarchs are afraid they’ll lose their hold on world domination if they give up power for four years.

    The establishment planned actions on specific dates determined by numerology and astrology and they have to be in control to carry them out.

    Any new president will find out what they’ve been up to and neither Party could take a chance on that new president being Bernie Sanders.

    But then I learned of a forth motive. An article in the June issue of Harper’s reveals the stranglehold that un-elected individuals in the intelligence and security establishment have on international policy. Apparently, whatever may have been going on during the election, we are now witnessing a fight to the death between competing intelligence interests. Trump’s firing of James Comey was part of this fight. However, this is not a fight between Republican and Democrat. You and I are not even in the game.

    This is the video that made me decide to write about this today. Before I go on it’s important to mention that this is definitely not the time to get bogged down in partisan politics, nor is it the time to demonize figures on the ‘other’ side because that will never give you a complete picture of what’s really going on. The video’s focus is an article on Circa by John Solomon and Sara A. Carter concerning the establishment’s frantic effort to hide evidence of illegal information gathering and surveillance of the American population. This activity was also revealed in George Web’s videos, but the article in Circa claims that evidence of it was presented to James Comey and that he failed to act on it. (http://circa.com/politics/accountability/james-comey-sued-by-intelligence-contractor-dennis-montgomery-over-spying-on-americans)
    https://youtu.be/0nRooYMzCgI

    But the problem is much bigger than the current actors. In the Harper’s article Michael J. Glennon describes its history:

    “A defacto directorate of several hundred managers, sitting atop dozens of military, diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, from the Department of Homeland Security to the National Reconnaissance Office, has come to dominate national security policy, displacing the authority not only of Congress but of the courts and the presidency as well. The precise sizes of the agencies’ budgets and workforces are classified in many cases, but the numbers are indisputably enormous—a total annual outlay of around $1 trillion, and employees numbering in the millions.”

    It began with the policy of containment of the Soviet Union. Harry Truman centralized national security decision-making, supposedly to end the ‘internecine warfare’ between U. S. armed services after World War II. Then Congress created the modern Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, and the National Security Council. Truman established the National Security Agency personally, through a secret order. Liberals generally approved of these actions, but conservatives feared it was a threat to democratic institutions and civilian control of the military. And they were right in this case.

    Power has gradually been transferred from elected officials to bureaucrats. In order to maintain the legitimacy of our democratic institutions, the illusion is perpetuated that national security is controlled by our constitutionally established democratic institutions. To this end, successive presidents projected an image of unity between themselves and the security directorate. Obama is a good example of this.

    “When the Pentagon advocated a troop surge in Afghanistan, Obama kept his disagreement largely out of the public eye. When NSA mass surveillance became a public embarrassment, Obama stuck with the organization. When his director of national intelligence, James Clapper, lied about it to Congress, Obama did nothing. And when the Senate Intelligence Committee’s torture report sparked calls to punish the torturers and their bosses, Obama came to their defense. No one was prosecuted.”

    However, after the NSA’s eavesdropping on Angela Merkel the facade began to crumble: Obama’s national security advisor claimed the president knew nothing about it (Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that some of these programs were on automatic pilot); the courts used ‘ringing rule-of-law rhetoric’ in high-profile disputes about national security but not so much when it came to unlawful war-making, torture, surveillance, and kidnapping; and Congress’s role in defining national security became more and more ceremonial.

    By the time Donald Trump appeared on the scene, the bureaucracy’s dominance was out in the open. Early in the campaign Trump criticized the military’s top brass and the intelligence community. Then after the election he refused to attend security briefings, which have become agenda-setting meetings where the agency lays out the framework for thinking about international developments.  (There is an activist internationalist nature of these briefings, which Glennon criticizes for taking precedence over domestic priorities, but of course domestic priorities are not high on Donald Trump’s list either.)

    In response, intelligence officials have allegedly withheld sensitive information from Trump and refused to give security clearance to one of his NSC officials who reportedly had been critical of the CIA. However the leak has been the Bureaucracy’s weapon of choice.

    Finally, the Democrats’ approach is not better than that of the president or the bureaucracy. The Democrats have apparently been using the security bureaucracy as their best hope ever since its disclosure of Russian interference in the election. They seem to believe that the Security directorate can act as a check on presidential policies, however this would actually represent an ‘entirely new form of government’ in which institutionalized, bureaucratic autocracy would displace democratic accountability. We have already seen the abuses of unchecked security forces in the United States. The bureaucracy was never intended to be a coequal of Congress, the courts, and the president.

    Glennon warns of serious consequences as a result of both strategies–the White House and the intelligence bureaucracy–and argues that they are not really working for either side. They cast doubt on the soundness of Trump’s security decisions and undermine his authority, because regardless of what Trump thinks of the bureaucracy he needs intelligence to make good decisions. And they also hamstring the intelligence community whose credibility is derived from the public’s belief that it is controlled by elected officials.

    Again, lest you think this is an argument for Donald Trump, savior, Glennon suggests an even darker scenario:

    Trump’s adversaries assume the security bureaucracy will fight him to the death, but the White House does have power in such a fight. What if the result were the desertion of some factions within the bureaucracy who approve of many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance?

    “Undoubtedly, some officials will leave when faced with Trump’s sticks. But plenty, I suspect, will overcome their qualms, accept Trump’s carrots, and do his bidding. I have witnessed this dynamic firsthand. In 1978, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was interested in what steps American law enforcement and countrintelligence officials were taking (or not taking) to stop the intelligence services of repressive ‘allies,’ such as Pinochet’s Chile, the shah’s Iran, and Marcos’s Philippines, from harassing, surveilling, and intimidating opponents within the United States. In Langley, Fort Meade, and elsewhere, my colleagues and I took the (still classified) statements of dozens of security officials. Some of them described conduct they found deeply repugnant. But we encountered no one who had objected, and identified no official who had resigned in disagreement. Everyone stayed.”(Michael J. Glennon, Security Breach: Trump’s tussle with the bureaucratic state. Harper’s, June 2017)

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    First shot across the bow of the security state:
    https://youtu.be/Ses_qfxTqLs

    Then watch:
    https://youtu.be/S43hft-jJhw

    And:
    https://youtu.be/ipufl_-2rVA

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    I’m forcing myself to read The Republic. It’s painful. It is disturbing that apologists have been accepting Plato’s lies without hesitation for 2500 years and they would like to continue for another 2500 years.  In my opinion, we should expunge Plato and his student Aristotle from history.

    The Republic

    In this article I’ll talk about Melissa Lane’s 2007 introduction for the Penguin Classics edition. She begins with Karl Popper’s conviction that Plato is to blame for Western society’s totalitarian ideas of fascism and communism. That’s a good start to my way of thinking. But sometimes I think she gives Plato more of a positive spin than he deserves. Fortunately, she still leaves room for dissent. As it turns out the introduction is full of ammunition for critics of Plato.

    Thirty years before Plato wrote The Republic, his city-state, Athens, had been conquered by Sparta, a militaristic oligarchy. The coup occurred in 404 BC. In 399 BC the restored democracy executed Plato’s teacher, Socrates.

    It seems to me the Athenians knew what they were doing.  However Lane states that this series of events taught Plato something else entirely. They taught him that neither democracy nor oligarchy nor any other existing order, could achieve happiness or political stability for its citizens. All of them were founded on the inherently corrupting desire for power.

    Plato the Gaslighter

    It is difficult to see how Plato arrived at this conclusion from the execution of his teacher. Socrates was executed for treason. As his student, Plato would have known that Socrates favored Sparta and that he was teaching the youth of Athens to do the same. How does Socrates’ death condemn Athenian democracy?

    After the defeat by Sparta the democracy of Athens was restored and it flourished for seventy years more. During this period, Plato wrote The Republic. Athenian democracy finally ended with the conquests of Alexander the Great. Alexander was taught by Plato’s student, Aristotle.

    It seems that from the time of Socrates this cadre of men never wavered in its enmity toward Athens.  This puts The Republic in its proper perspective.

    Plato’s Politics

    In his treatise, Plato argued that a system where every citizen had the right to speak brought tension between the few rich and the many poor. His sympathies were obviously with the rich. He was one of them. He claimed that since the common people were numerically and ideologically dominant it generated ‘tension with the elite’. In addition, he blamed Athenian democracy for the establishment of an empire abroad.

    Plato’s uncle, Critias, and his cousin, Charmides, were would-be oligarchs who thought oligarchy was the solution. In fact, it was Critias who connived with the Spartans in 404 BC to install himself and his cronies as a junta called ‘the Thirty’. While in power they used their power to murder and expropriate. This effort excluded the vast majority of Athenians from citizenship.

    Plato: The Kinder, Gentler Oligarch

    Naturally, the ever philosophical Plato begged to differ with them, at least on paper. Oh, he also thought Athens should be an oligarchy, but he invented a form of it that no one had ever seen up until that time. And no one has seen it since. He invented an oligarchy governed by philosopher kings! And surprise of surprises—he pictured it very much like Sparta.

    “In Sparta, however, where oligarchical rule was longer-lasting and ingrained in the customs and way of life, Plato did find one clue to political health. This was the unity of the Spartan ruling class, maintained through strict discipline, including common meals, demanding military training and what we have come to call a ‘spartan’ (materially austere) lifestyle. But the Spartan elite used the power of their unity to oppress and terrorize the ‘helots’ – the serfs who did all their manual labour – and they were notoriously hostile to culture and philosophy. Nevertheless, the Republic adapts a version of the Spartan idea of a ruling class unified through austerity and collective living. By choosing only philosophers as rulers, it seeks to ensure that the power of the ruling elite will be used not to oppress (as in Sparta) but to benefit the common people, so establishing the regime of expertise, unity and happiness that Plato found wanting in the polities of his own day.”

    One would assume Plato didn’t advertise this plan in the market square. He would most certainly have shared the fate of Socrates.

    Plato’s Psychobabble Phase

    And now begins Plato’s foray into psychobabble—a perpetual wheedling away at the sensibilities of the common people. For example, there is his claim that only psychic justice is self-sustaining. Psychic justice is, of course, beyond the capabilities of most people because even when they perform just actions they do it for the wrong reasons. So they are not really ‘just’ at all! Wisdom is a matter of expertise.

    Restructuring Education and Culture

    Plato was directly contradicting Athenian democratic principles when he taught that people need to be ruled. Only through surrogates could the common people have access to reason. This naturally led to the necessity for a radical surgery on existing methods and content of Greek education and culture.

    Reinventing Human Psychology

    In addition he challenged existing understandings of human psychology. The Athenians exalted indignation and anger as key to the demand for legitimate equality of respect.  But the Republic is all about restraining indignation and anger.

    A New Radical Account of the Soul

    Plato was also developing a new, radical account of the soul, made possible by articulating a parallel account of the city. Among other things, this allowed him to posit that souls have parts, like cities. Or rather, like Plato’s definition of cities.

    Division of Labor

    In Plato’s time it was controversial as to which elements a city should have. There were rich and poor but the rich had financial obligations to the poor and there was no separate ruling elite or military caste. All male citizens could occupy the major positions of power, speak in Assembly, and speak and vote in the law court. And they all fought in the city’s battles. Socrates, however, proposed a division of political labor.

    At first the division depends merely on a specialization of roles. He began by saying that there should be a class of guards to protect luxury. But then he slipped in a crucial move: he subdivided the guards into two parts: the younger guards would be military supporters or auxiliaries; the older guards would be ruling ‘guardians’ who would later be Identified as philosophers. And again, he claimed this division had a parallel with the soul: The guardians represent reason; the auxiliaries represent indignation and anger; and the workers, merchants and doctors represent bodily appetites.

    What Will Deter the Abuses of the Rulers?

    You are probably wondering what there is to deter the abuses of the rulers. According to Plato, Socrates envisioned an institutional deterrent, like the one found among Sparta’s elite.  But Athens’ would have an additional deterrent. Athens’ rulers would be natural philosophers who had no material desires.  Other than that, the ideal city had all the Spartan high points: girls exercising naked with boys; qualified women as warriors and guardians; deprivation of property, for guardians that is, meaning that the common people would have to support them; families and children held in common; and selective breeding.

    No Social Mobility

    Socrates/Plato felt that education is important but it will never make a philosopher out of a common man. Philosophers are born, not made.

    Not only is this a direct contradiction of Athenian democracy, it is a direct contradiction of religion—especially the Christian religion. Strange isn’t it, how some versions of Christianity have virtually enshrined the Greek philosophers as founding fathers of the religion?

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    We’re all aware of the conflict in the Catholic Church between those who want the Church to be more modern and those who want it to maintain traditional discipline and forms of worship. For those of us on the outside, the public comments have been so cryptic and contradictory it’s impossible to know which way it is headed. That’s probably why a recent news story on Crux Now took me by surprise. The writer congratulated the pro-life faction on the election of Donald Trump because Trump plans to cut funding to Family Planning. This was published shortly after the bombs were dropped on Syria and Afghanistan. Apparently the Church is fine with Trump’s military brutality even as it applauds his pro-life agenda. This is very disappointing.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the pro-life claim that protecting life in the womb will assure world peace. I would argue instead that the frantic determination to conquer the womb is the root cause of disorder in our society. For forty years conservatives in the United States have been using the abortion issue to attack our democracy. One of their most effective strategies has been electing presidents who will appoint Scalia-type justices to the Supreme Court. Now we can see where this has led us. Their persistent efforts have finally brought our republic to its knees.

  • Reading Time: 3 minutes

    The political process is important and necessary but we’re long past the point where anything worthwhile can be said about this election. All that’s left to us is bad theater played by bad actors. At some point you have to let it go–just tell the truth about it and move on. In Thursday’s town hall the lead actor would be Senator Jeff Flake. However I think the cast also includes grandstanding members of the opposition and the bloodthirsty media whose job it is to make a partisan mountain out of every molehill.

    It’s been reported that Senator Flake bravely withstood a drubbing by a liberal audience, which sort of discounts the audience’s responses in my opinion.  However, it must also be said that Senator Flake gave as good as he got, both during the meeting and in the interminable years leading up to it. After postponing this inevitable confrontation with his cuckolded constituents as long as he possibly could, he arrived at the arena armed only with his trusty list of non-answers and his famous smile. It’s not surprising that this smile was perceived by said long-suffering constituents as disrespectful rather than jovial. As one man explained when it was finally his turn at the mic, everything of importance has already been said, so he commented instead that the senator seemed to be smiling an awfully lot.  All things considered, serious self-reflection would be more appropriate.

    Of course, serious self-reflection had no part in Mr. Flake’s battle plan on Thursday. His sole purpose seemed to be sticking to his guns regardless of what the bad people did to him, and stick to his guns he did. Some in the media counted the public’s outrage a victory of some kind. I have a different take on it. If Jeff Flake’s goal was to deliver a lesson in futility to the unruly masses, the evening was a smashing success–for him.

    I’m not denying that the masses were gloriously unruly. I’m just saying the Senator was going through the motions. He was there because of the petition that was signed by his constituents.  He’s still the same guy who spent his career ignoring their wishes. So naturally the smiling delivery of his all too familiar non-answers worked like a knife in the heart and the people responded by the only means at their disposal—howls, cat-calls and chants. None of it had any effect on the good senator however, who often ended his responses by stating, “I disagree,” which is patently absurd coming from a representative of said masses.

    Somewhere in the middle of this standoff things got really…interesting. A young girl stepped up and delivered her line with the timing of a vaudeville straight man, “I’m a sixteen-year-old girl of color and you’re a white man of privilege,” or something to that effect, at which point I suddenly lost my concentration.  I can’t quote her exactly—find a clip of it on the web. But the gist of her comment was, Jeff Flake is a powerful bully who ignores the needs of the underprivileged. Unfortunately for her this turned out to be a perfect setup, because it allowed the senator to wryly muse about being the middle child of eleven children, implying that he grew up in a poor family.

    An awed silence fell over the crowd as scenes from The Grapes of Wrath flashed before our eyes. We were so stunned it didn’t occur to us that eleven children is not a natural disaster like an earthquake or the weather; nor is it a national disaster, like a depression. Last but not least, being born into a poor family with eleven children is not even a social handicap–not in Mormon country. Dang! This guy is good!

    I left feeling sorry for the town component of this town hall. I still do, even after learning about the Democratic establishment’s email instructing people to ‘put Jeff Flake in their grill’. That pretty much describes what happened but this was no victory for the people. Jeff Flake and the Democratic establishment got what they wanted—the continuation of the status quo–but the people who continue to languish under the policies of Senator Flake and his cronies, got zip. I’m sorry Senator, but that is the very definition of privilege.

error: Content is protected !!