Fairness Doctrine Quotes

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.

Your job then, should you choose to accept it, is to keep searching for the metaphors, rituals and teachers that will help you move ever closer to divinity. The Yogic scriptures say that God responds to the sacred prayers and efforts of human beings in any way whatsoever that mortals choose to worship—just so long as those prayers are sincere. I think you have every right to cherry-pick when it comes to moving your spirit and finding peace in God. I think you are free to search for any metaphor whatsoever which will take you across the worldly divide whenever you need to be transported or comforted. It's nothing to be embarrassed about. It's the history of mankind's search for holiness. If humanity never evolved in its exploration of the divine, a lot of us would still be worshipping golden Egyptian statues of cats. And this evolution of religious thinking does involve a fair bit of cherry-picking. You take whatever works from wherever you can find it, and you keep moving toward the light. The Hopi Indians thought that the world's religions each contained one spiritual thread, and that these threads are always seeking each other, wanting to join. When all the threads are finally woven together they will form a rope that will pull us out of this dark cycle of history and into the next realm. More contemporarily, the Dalai Lama has repeated the same idea, assuring his Western students repeatedly that they needn't become Tibetan Buddhists in order to be his pupils. He welcomes them to take whatever ideas they like out of Tibetan Buddhism and integrate these ideas into their own religious practices. Even in the most unlikely and conservative of places, you can find sometimes this glimmering idea that God might be bigger than our limited religious doctrines have taught us. In 1954, Pope Pius XI, of all people, sent some Vatican delegates on a trip to Libya with these written instructions: "Do NOT think that you are going among Infidels. Muslims attain salvation, too. The ways of Providence are infinite." But doesn't that make sense? That the infinite would be, indeed ... infinite? That even the most holy amongst us would only be able to see scattered pieces of the eternal picture at any given time? And that maybe if we could collect those pieces and compare them, a story about God would begin to emerge that resembles and includes everyone? And isn't our individual longing for transcendence all just part of this larger human search for divinity? Don't we each have the right to not stop seeking until we get as close to the source of wonder as possible? Even if it means coming to India and kissing trees in the moonlight for a while? That's me in the corner, in other words. That's me in the spotlight. Choosing my religion.

The broader problem is that a great deal of popular preaching and teaching uses the bible as a pegboard on which to hang a fair bit of Christianized pop psychology or moralizing encouragement, with very little effort to teach the faithful, from the Bible, the massive doctrines of historic confessional Christianity.

I confess [Election] is a hard doctrine, running contrary to our earthly ideas of fair play, but I can see no way around it. Read I Corinthians 6:13 and II Timothy 1:9,10. Also I Peter 1:2,19,20 and Romans 11:7. There you have it. It was good for Paul and Silas and it is good enough for me. It is good enough for you too.

Those who are esteemed umpires of taste, are often persons who have acquired some knowledge of admired pictures or sculptures, and have an inclination for whatever is elegant; but if you inquire whether they are beautiful souls, and whether their own acts are like fair pictures, you learn that they are selfish and sensual. Their cultivation is local, as if you should rub a log of dry wood in one spot to produce fire, all the rest remaining cold. Their knowledge of the fine arts is some study of rules and particulars, or some limited judgment of color or form which is exercised for amusement or for show. It is a proof of the shallowness of the doctrine of beauty, as it lies in the minds of our amateurs, that men seem to have lost the perception of the instant dependence of form upon soul.

We are Turks with the affections of our women; and have made them subscribe to our doctrine too. We let their bodies go abroad liberally enough, with smiles and ringlets and pink bonnets to disguise them instead of veils and yakmaks. But their souls must be seen by only one man, and they obey not unwillingly, and consent to remain at home as our slaves—ministering to us and doing drudgery for us.

The doctrine of laisser-faire will not work in the material world.

In 1987, under President Ronald Reagan, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) abolished the Fairness Doctrine. In place since 1949, it had stipulated equal airtime for differing points of view. In this environment where media outlets felt less compelled to present balanced political debate, AM radio stations in particular started to switch to a lucrative form of programming best exemplified by Rush Limbaugh—right-wing talk radio. For hours on end, Limbaugh, and others who followed his lead, would present their view of the world without rebuttal, fact-checking, or any of the other standards in place at most journalistic outlets. Often their commentary included bashing any media coverage that conflicted with the talk-radio narrative.

[T]he Federal Communications Commission should reestablish two principles that formerly served this country well: the public service requirement and the fairness doctrine. Every television and radio station should once again be required to devote a meaningful percentage of its programming to public service broadcasting. The public, after all, owns the airwaves through which signals are broadcast, and the rights-of-way in which cables are strung. And every television and radio station should once again have to follow the fairness doctrine: those with opposing views should have the right to respond to viewpoints expressed on the station.

The occupation with scholarship, when it is not guided and limited by any higher educational maxim, but instead is increasingly unfettered, adhering to the principle “the more the better,” is certainly just as pernicious for the scholar as the economic doctrine of laissez-faire is for the morality of entire nations.

If I have so far argued that Foucault is a kind of closet liberal and thus deeply modern, I need to be equally critical of evangelical (and especially American) Christianity's modernity and its appropriation of Enlightenment notions of the autonomous self. Indeed, many otherwise orthodox Christians, who recoil at the notion of theological liberalism, have unwittingly adopted notions of freedom and autonomy that are liberal to the core. Averse to hierarchies and control, contemporary evangelicalism thrives on autonomy: the autonomy of the nondenominational church, at a macrocosmic level, and the autonomy of the individual Christian, at the microcosmic level. And it does not seem to me that the emerging church has changed much on this score; indeed, some elements of emergent spirituality are intensifications of this affirmation of autonomy and a laissez-faire attitude with respect to institutions.

With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, a new American laissez-faire had been officially declared. If lots more incorrect and preposterous assertions circulated in our most massive mass media, that was a price of freedom. If splenetic commentators could now, as never before, keep believers perpetually riled up and feeling the excitement of being in a mob, so be it.

When we pay attention to this history,  a pattern emerges: first,  the Redeemers attacked voting rights. Then they attacked public education, labor, fair tax policies, and progressive leaders. Then they took over the state and federal courts, so they could be used to render rulings that would undermine the hope of a new America. This effort culminated in the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring segregation of public facilities under the doctrine "separate but equal." And then they made sure that certain elements had guns so that they could return the South back to the status quo ante, according to their deconstructive immoral philosophy.

Not Locke, nor Hume, nor Smith, nor Burke, could ever have argued, as Bentham did, that “every law is an evil for every law is an infraction of liberty.” Their argument was never a complete laissez faire argument, which, as the very words show, is also part of the French rationalist tradition and in its literal sense was never defended by any of the English classical economists. They knew better than most of their later critics that it was not some sort of magic but the evolution of “well-constructed institutions,” where the “rules and principles of contending interests and compromised advantages” would be reconciled, that had successfully channeled individual efforts to socially beneficial aims. In fact, their argument was never antistate as such, or anarchistic, which is the logical outcome of the laissez faire doctrine; it was an argument that accounted both for the proper functions of the state and for the limits of state action.

The book was Shelley, and it opened at a passage that he had cherished greatly two years before, and marked as “very good.” “I never was attached to that great sect, Whose doctrine is, that each one should select Out of the crowd a mistress or a friend, And all the rest, though fair and wise, commend To cold oblivion, though it is in the code Of modern morals, and the beaten road Which those poor slaves with weary footsteps tread, Who travel to their home among the dead By the broad highway of the world, and so With one chained friend, perhaps a jealous foe, The dreariest and the longest journey go.

Is the economy fair? Does economics increase the quality of life? Does the economy waste human capacity? Does the economy create enough security? Does the economy waste the world’s resources? Does the economy create enough opportunities for meaningful work? None of those questions can be asked within today’s dominant economic doctrines.

The tired intellectual sums up the deformities and the vices of a world adrift. He does not act, he suffers; if he favors the notion of tolerance, he does not find in it the stimulant he needs. Tyranny furnishes that, as do the doctrines of which it is the outcome. If he is the first of its victims, he will not complain: only the strength that grinds him into the dust seduces him. To want to be free is to want to be oneself; but he is tired of being himself, of blazing a trail into uncertainty, of stumbling through truths. “Bind me with the chains of Illusion,” he sighs, even as he says farewell to the peregrinations of Knowledge. Thus he will fling himself, eyes closed, into any mythology which will assure him the protection and the peace of the yoke. Declining the honor of assuming his own anxieties, he will engage in enterprises from which he anticipates sensations he could not derive from himself, so that the excesses of his lassitude will confirm the tyrannies. Churches, ideologies, police—seek out their origin in the horror he feels for his own lucidity, rather than in the stupidity of the masses. This weakling transforms himself, in the name of a know-nothing utopia, into a gravedigger of the intellect; convinced of doing something useful, he prostitutes Pascal’s old “abêtissezvous,” the Solitary’s tragic device. A routed iconoclast, disillusioned with paradox and provocation, in search of impersonality and routine, half prostrated, ripe for the stereotype, the tired intellectual abdicates his singularity and rejoins the rabble. Nothing more to overturn, if not himself: the last idol to smash … His own debris lures him on. While he contemplates it, he shapes the idol of new gods or restores the old ones by baptizing them with new names. Unable to sustain the dignity of being fastidious, less and less inclined to winnow truths, he is content with those he is offered. By-product of his ego, he proceeds—a wrecker gone to seed—to crawl before the altars, or before what takes their place. In the temple or on the tribunal, his place is where there is singing, or shouting—no longer a chance to hear one’s own voice. A parody of belief? It matters little to him, since all he aspires to is to desist from himself. All his philosophy has concluded in a refrain, all his pride foundered on a Hosanna! Let us be fair: as things stand now, what else could he do? Europe’s charm, her originality resided in the acuity of her critical spirit, in her militant, aggressive skepticism; this skepticism has had its day. Hence the intellectual, frustrated in his doubts, seeks out the compensations of dogma. Having reached the confines of analysis, struck down by the void he discovers there, he turns on his heel and attempts to seize the first certainty to come along; but he lacks the naiveté to hold onto it; henceforth, a fanatic without convictions, he is no more than an ideologist, a hybrid thinker, such as we find in all transitional periods. Participating in two different styles, he is, by the form of his intelligence, a tributary of the one of the one which is vanishing, and by the ideas he defends, of the one which is appearing. To understand him better, let us imagine an Augustine half-converted, drifting and tacking, and borrowing from Christianity only its hatred of the ancient world. Are we not in a period symmetrical with the one which saw the birth of The City of God? It is difficult to conceive of a book more timely. Today as then, men’s minds need a simple truth, an answer which delivers them from their questions, a gospel, a tomb.

Men had urges, in those days; they were numerous, these urges; they lived underground in the dark nooks and crannies of a man’s being, and once in a while they would gather strength and sally forth, like a plague of rats. They were so cunning and strong, how could any real man be expected to prevail against them? This was the doctrine according to Winifred, and – to be fair – to lots of other people as well.

Men had urges, in those days; they were numerous, these urges; they lived underground in the dark nooks and crannies of a man's being, and once in a while they would gather strength and sally forth, like a plague of rats. They were so cunning and strong, how could any real man be expected to prevail against them? This was the doctrine according to Winifred, and - to be fair - to lots of other people as well.

- En fait, la doctrine du ciel n'est pas figée. C'est vrai qu'ils ont eu des penchants égalitaristes. Mais tout a changé avec l'arrivée de Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, et quantité d'apôtres de la déréglementation qui ont commencé à faire leur propagande ici même. - Vous voulez dire qu'aujourd'hui... - Je veux dire qu'aujourd'hui, sous leur influence, le ciel est devenu carrément néo-libéral.

The traditional arguments for the existence of God have been fairly thoroughly criticised by philosophers. But the theologian can, if he wishes, accept this criticism. He can admit that no rational proof of God's existence is possible. And he can still retain all that is essential to his position, by holding that God's existence is known in some other, non-rational way. I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the traditional problem of evil. Here it can be shown, not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational, that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another, so that the theologian can maintain his position as a whole only by a much more extreme rejection of reason than in the former case. He must now be prepared to believe, not merely what cannot be proved, but what can be disproved from other beliefs that he also holds.

I never was attached to that great sect, Whose doctrine is, that each one should select Out of the crowd a mistress or a friend, And all the rest, though fair and wise, commend To cold oblivion, though it is in the code Of modern morals, and the beaten road Which those poor slaves with weary footsteps tread, Who travel to their home among the dead By the broad highway of the world, and so With one chained friend, perhaps a jealous foe, The dreariest and the longest journey go. - Epipsychidion

Francis might rightly be regarded as the patron saint of fools. He offers us a surprising, if uneasy, Christian virtue between two foolish vices. The very core of Christianity appears foolish to the world. Take, for instance, the idea that God would become human. At the heart of Christian faith stands the radical idea that the all-powerful God would bow low to enter creation as a vulnerable infant. Or take the doctrine of the Trinity; mathematically, the claim that God is at the same time one and yet three divine persons appears laughable to many.

So long as the sufferers by the bad law do not invoke assistance from other communities, I cannot admit that persons entirely unconnected with them ought to step in and require that a condition of things with which all who are directly interested appear to be satisfied, should be put an end because it is a scandal to persons some thousands of miles distant, who have no part of concern in it. Let them send missionaries, if they please, to preach against it; and let them, by any fair means (of which silencing the teachers is not one) oppose the progress of similar doctrines among their own people.

Du reste, la majorité des orientalistes ne sont et ne veulent être que des érudits ; tant qu’ils se bornent à des travaux historiques ou philologiques, cela n’a pas grande importance ; il est évident que des ouvrages de ce genre ne peuvent servir de rien pour atteindre le but que nous envisageons ici, mais leur seul danger, en somme, est celui qui est commun à tous les abus de l’érudition, nous voulons dire la propagation de cette « myopie intellectuelle » qui borne tout savoir à des recherches de détail, et le gaspillage d’efforts qui pourraient être mieux employés dans bien des cas. Mais ce qui est beaucoup plus grave à nos yeux, c’est l’action exercée par ceux des orientalistes qui ont la prétention de comprendre et d’interpréter les doctrines, et qui les travestissent de la façon la plus incroyable, tout en assurant parfois qu’ils les comprennent mieux que les Orientaux eux-mêmes (comme Leibnitz s’imaginait avoir retrouvé le vrai sens des caractères de Fo-hi), et sans jamais songer à prendre l’avis des représentants autorisés des civilisations qu’ils veulent étudier, ce qui serait pourtant la première chose à faire, au lieu de se comporter comme s’il s’agirait de reconstituer des civilisations disparues.

L'homme qui se juge supérieur, inférieur ou égal à un autre ne comprend pas la réalité. Cette idée-là n'a peut-être de sens que dans le cadre d'une doctrine qui considère le "moi" comme une illusion et, à moins d'y adhérer, mille contre-exemples se pressent, tout notre système de pensée repose sur une hiérarchie des mérites selon laquelle, disons, le Mahatma Gandhi est une figure humaine plus haute que le tueur pédophile Marc Dutroux. Je prends à dessein un exemple peu contestable, beaucoup de cas se discutent, les critères varient, par ailleurs les bouddhistes eux-mêmes insistent sur la nécessité de distinguer, dans la conduite de la vie, l'homme intègre du dépravé. Pourtant, et bien que je passe mon temps à établir de telles hiérarchies, bien que comme Limonov je ne puisse pas rencontrer un de mes semblables sans me demander plus ou moins consciemment si je suis au-dessus ou au-dessous de lui et en tirer soulagement ou mortification, je pense que cette idée - je répète : "L'homme qui se juge supérieur, inférieur ou égal à un autre, ne comprends pas la réalité" est le sommet de la sagesse et qu'une vie ne suffit pas à s'en imprégner, à la digérer, à se l'incorporer, en sorte qu'elle cesse d'être une idée pour informer le regard et l'action en toutes circonstances. Faire ce livre, pour moi, est une façon bizarre d'y travailler. (p. 227-228)

According to your holy book, every single Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, follower of various minor traditions or sects, those who do not affiliate themselves with a religious tradition and the approximately 2.74 billion humans who have never had the 'privilege' of hearing the word of your Messiah will be sentenced to eternal damnation in a lake of fire—regardless of moral standings or positive worldly accomplishments. If this sounds like a fair proposition to you, then I bite my tongue—but I honestly believe that the majority of Christians do not agree with these doctrinal assertions, and instead categorize themselves as 'Christians' out of cultural familiarity or perhaps out of complete ignorance in regards to the topic.

Qu’est-ce qui peut seul être notre doctrine ? — Que personne ne donne à l’homme ses qualités, ni Dieu, ni la société, ni ses parents et ses ancêtres, ni lui-même (— le non-sens de l’« idée », réfuté en dernier lieu, a été enseigné, sous le nom de « liberté intelligible par Kant et peut-être déjà par Platon).Personne n’est responsable du fait que l’homme existe, qu’il est conformé de telle ou telle façon, qu’il se trouve dans telles conditions, dans tel milieu. La fatalité de son être n’est pas à séparer de la fatalité de tout ce qui fut et de tout ce qui sera. L’homme n’est pas la conséquence d’une intention propre, d’une volonté, d’un but ; avec lui on ne fait pas d’essai pour atteindre un « idéal d’humanité », un « idéal de bonheur », ou bien un « idéal de moralité », — il est absurde de vouloir faire dévier son être vers un but quelconque. Nous avons inventé l’idée de « but » : dans la réalité le « but » manque… On est nécessaire, on est un morceau de destinée, on fait partie du tout, on est dans le tout, — il n’y a rien qui pourrait juger, mesurer, comparer, condamner notre existence, car ce serait là juger, mesurer, comparer et condamner le tout…Mais il n’y a rien en dehors du tout ! — Personne ne peut plus être rendu responsable, les catégories de l’être ne peuvent plus être ramenées à une cause première, le monde n’est plus une unité, ni comme monde sensible, ni comme « esprit » : cela seul est la grande délivrance, — par là l’innocence du devenir est rétablie… L’idée de « Dieu » fut jusqu’à présent la plus grande objection contre l’existence… Nous nions Dieu, nous nions la responsabilité en Dieu : par là seulement nous sauvons le monde.

Qu'un homme vienne nous tenir ce langage : Mortels, je vous annonce la volonté du Très-Haut ; reconnaissez à ma voix celui qui m'envoie ; j'ordonne au soleil de changer sa course, aux étoiles de former un autre arrangement, aux montagnes de s'aplanir, aux flots de s'élever, à la terre de prendre un autre aspect. À ces merveilles, qui ne reconnaîtra pas à l'instant le maître de la nature ! Elle n'obéit point aux imposteurs ; leurs miracles se font dans des carrefours, dans des déserts, dans des chambres ; et c'est là qu'ils ont bon marché d'un petit nombre de spectateurs déjà disposés à tout croire. Qui est-ce qui m'osera dire combien il faut de témoins oculaires pour rendre un prodige digne de foi ? Si vos miracles, faits pour prouver votre doctrine, ont eux-mêmes besoin d'être prouvés, de quoi servent-ils ? autant valait n'en point faire.

If, for instance, a Presbyterian pastor begins: “Methodists teach that a true believer may totally and finally fall away from a state of grace: this I shall now refute,” every person of that persuasion in the house will naturally feel as though he were personally assailed. But had this pastor advanced the opposite doctrine, so explained as to free it from odious misconceptions, in a didactic mode and temper, making only a respectful general reference to an honest difference of judgment upon it among the recognized followers of Christ, every fair-minded adherent of Wesley would have listened without offence, and would have come away with the pleasing impression that Christians were not so far asunder upon this vexed question as he had supposed. It is very much due to the observance of this simple rule that wise pastors (without infidelity to truth) preserve pleasant relations with other communions, hold their own ground triumphantly against encroachments, and even win accessions, without awakening denominational strife And it is usually the rash contempt of this easy caution which plunges others into unseemly and mischievous rivalries.

FORGET FERES DOCTRINE And the military has immunity! Yes! The feres doctrine! It states “the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service” (U.S. Supreme Court 1950). Federal law and our Supreme Court shield acts of rape and sexual brutality in the military as proven by its subsequent ruling on a 2001 case that denied a plaintiffs right to file a civil suit against her accusers. Yet when women report the crime, it is handled internally Commanders are given the discretion to resolve complaints. The report may not go beyond his office. Many times he's part of the problem or a sympathizer with the offender. This certainly was my case! Our Supreme Court ruled as recently as 2001 that rape is an injury incident to the course of activity in the service! THE HEINOUS CRIME OF RAPE IS ACCEPTABLE AND CONDONED BY OUR SUPREME COURT! WOMEN ARE FAIR GAME FOR RAPE AND HARRASSMENT, ACCORDING TO OUR SUPREME COURT! CONGRESS IS NO BETTER! NO LAWS ARE PASSED TO PROTECT US IN THE MILITARY AGAINST THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR THE FELONY OF RAPE!

Being naturally of a serious turn, my attention was directed to the solid advantages derivable from a residence here, rather than to the effervescent pleasures which are the grand object with too many visitants. The Christian reader, if he have had no accounts of the city later than Bunyan's time, will be surprised to hear that almost every street has its church, and that the reverend clergy are nowhere held in higher respect than at Vanity Fair. And well do they deserve such honorable estimation; for the maxims of wisdom and virtue which fall from their lips come from as deep a spiritual source, and tend to as lofty a religious aim, as those of the sagest philosophers of old. In justification of this high praise I need only mention the names of the Rev. Mr. Shallow-deep, the Rev. Mr. Stumble-at-truth, that fine old clerical character the Rev. Mr. This-today, who expects shortly to resign his pulpit to the Rev. Mr. That-tomorrow; together with the Rev. Mr. Bewilderment, the Rev. Mr. Clog-the-spirit, and, last and greatest, the Rev. Dr. Wind-of-doctrine. The labors of these eminent divines are aided by those of innumerable lecturers, who diffuse such a various profundity, in all subjects of human or celestial science, that any man may acquire an omnigenous erudition without the trouble of even learning to read.

The three main mediaeval points of view regarding universals are designated by historians as realism, conceptualism, and nominalism. Essentially these same three doctrines reappear in twentieth-century surveys of the philosophy of mathematics under the new names logicism, intuitionism, and formalism. Realism, as the word is used in connection with the mediaeval controversy over universals, is the Platonic doctrine that universals or abstract entities have being independently of the mind; the mind may discover them but cannot create them. Logicism, represented by Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Church, and Carnap, condones the use of bound variables to refer to abstract entities known and unknown, specifiable and unspecifiable, indiscriminately. Conceptualism holds that there are universals but they are mind-made. Intuitionism, espoused in modern times in one form or another by Poincaré, Brouwer, Weyl, and others, countenances the use of bound variables to refer to abstract entities only when those entities are capable of being cooked up individually from ingredients specified in advance. As Fraenkel has put it, logicism holds that classes are discovered while intuitionism holds that they are invented—a fair statement indeed of the old opposition between realism and conceptualism. This opposition is no mere quibble; it makes an essential difference in the amount of classical mathematics to which one is willing to subscribe. Logicists, or realists, are able on their assumptions to get Cantor’s ascending orders of infinity; intuitionists are compelled to stop with the lowest order of infinity, and, as an indirect consequence, to abandon even some of the classical laws of real numbers. The modern controversy between logicism and intuitionism arose, in fact, from disagreements over infinity. Formalism, associated with the name of Hilbert, echoes intuitionism in deploring the logicist’s unbridled recourse to universals. But formalism also finds intuitionism unsatisfactory. This could happen for either of two opposite reasons. The formalist might, like the logicist, object to the crippling of classical mathematics; or he might, like the nominalists of old, object to admitting abstract entities at all, even in the restrained sense of mind-made entities. The upshot is the same: the formalist keeps classical mathematics as a play of insignificant notations. This play of notations can still be of utility—whatever utility it has already shown itself to have as a crutch for physicists and technologists. But utility need not imply significance, in any literal linguistic sense. Nor need the marked success of mathematicians in spinning out theorems, and in finding objective bases for agreement with one another’s results, imply significance. For an adequate basis for agreement among mathematicians can be found simply in the rules which govern the manipulation of the notations—these syntactical rules being, unlike the notations themselves, quite significant and intelligible.

Although Zolla no longer associated with Julius Evola, he nevertheless arranged for me to meet Italy’s most famous crypto-traditionalist writer who was a very controversial figure because of his espousal of the cause of Mussolini during the Second World War. I had already read some of Evola’s works, many of which are now being translated into English and are attracting some attention in philosophical circles. But based on the image I had of him as an expositor of traditional doctrines including Yoga, I was surprised to see him, now crippled as a result of a bomb explosion in 1945, living in the center of Rome in a large old apartment which was severe and fairly dark and without works of traditional art which I had expected to see around him. He had piercing eyes and gazed directly at me as we spoke about knightly initiation, myths and symbols of ancient Persia, traditional alchemy and Hermeticism and similar subjects. While he extolled the ancient Romans and their virtues, he spoke pejoratively about his contemporary Italians. When I asked him what happened to those Roman virtues, he said they traveled north to Germany and we were left with Italian waiters singing o sole mio! He also seemed to have little knowledge or interest in esoteric Christianity and refuse to acknowledge the presence of a sapiental current in Christianity. It was surprising for me to see an Italian sitting a few minutes from the Vatican, with his immense knowledge of various esoteric philosophies from the Greek to the Indian, being so impervious to the inner realities of the tradition so close to his home.

Ses visites étaient la grande distraction de ma tante Léonie qui ne recevait plus guère personne d’autre, en dehors de M. le Curé. Ma tante avait peu à peu évincé tous les autres visiteurs parce qu’ils avaient le tort à ses yeux de rentrer tous dans l’une ou l’autre des deux catégories de gens qu’elle détestait. Les uns, les pires et dont elle s’était débarrassée les premiers, étaient ceux qui lui conseillaient de ne pas « s’écouter » et professaient, fût-ce négativement et en ne la manifestant que par certains silences de désapprobation ou par certains sourires de doute, la doctrine subversive qu’une petite promenade au soleil et un bon bifteck saignant (quand elle gardait quatorze heures sur l’estomac deux méchantes gorgées d’eau de Vichy !) lui feraient plus de bien que son lit et ses médecines. L’autre catégorie se composait des personnes qui avaient l’air de croire qu’elle était plus gravement malade qu’elle ne pensait, qu’elle était aussi gravement malade qu’elle le disait. Aussi, ceux qu’elle avait laissé monter après quelques hésitations et sur les officieuses instances de Françoise et qui, au cours de leur visite, avaient montré combien ils étaient indignes de la faveur qu’on leur faisait en risquant timidement un : « Ne croyez-vous pas que si vous vous secouiez un peu par un beau temps », ou qui, au contraire, quand elle leur avait dit : « Je suis bien bas, bien bas, c’est la fin, mes pauvres amis », lui avaient répondu : « Ah ! quand on n’a pas la santé ! Mais vous pouvez durer encore comme ça », ceux-là, les uns comme les autres, étaient sûrs de ne plus jamais être reçus. Et si Françoise s’amusait de l’air épouvanté de ma tante quand de son lit elle avait aperçu dans la rue du Saint-Esprit une de ces personnes qui avait l’air de venir chez elle ou quand elle avait entendu un coup de sonnette, elle riait encore bien plus, et comme d’un bon tour, des ruses toujours victorieuses de ma tante pour arriver à les faire congédier et de leur mine déconfite en s’en retournant sans l’avoir vue, et, au fond admirait sa maîtresse qu’elle jugeait supérieure à tous ces gens puisqu’elle ne voulait pas les recevoir. En somme, ma tante exigeait à la fois qu’on l’approuvât dans son régime, qu’on la plaignît pour ses souffrances et qu’on la rassurât sur son avenir.

I have come to believe that our culture’s popular understanding of these difficult doctrines is often a caricature of what the Bible actually teaches and what mature Christian theology has historically proclaimed. To Laugh At, To Live By What do I mean by a caricature? A caricature is a cartoonlike drawing of a real person, place, or thing. You’ve probably seen them at street fairs, drawings of popular figures like President Obama, Marilyn Monroe, or your aunt Cindy. Caricatures exaggerate some features, distort some features, and oversimplify some features. The result is a humorous cartoon. In one sense, a caricature bears a striking resemblance to the real thing. That picture really does look like President Obama, Marilyn Monroe, or your aunt Cindy. Features unique to the real person are included and even emphasized, so you can tell it’s a cartoon of that person and not someone else. But in another sense, the caricature looks nothing like the real thing. Salient features have been distorted, oversimplified, or blown way out of proportion. President Obama’s ears are way too big. Aunt Cindy’s grin is way too wide. And Marilyn Monroe . . . well, you get the picture. A caricature would never pass for a photograph. If you were to take your driver’s license, remove the photo, and replace it with a caricature, the police officer pulling you over would either laugh . . . or arrest you. Placed next to a photograph, a caricature looks like a humorous, or even hideous, distortion of the real thing. Similarly, our popular caricatures of these tough doctrines do include features of the original. One doesn’t have to look too far in the biblical story to find that hell has flames, holy war has fighting, and judgment brings us face-to-face with God. But in the caricatures, these features are severely exaggerated, distorted, and oversimplified, resulting in a not-so-humorous cartoon that looks nothing like the original. All we have to do is start asking questions: Where do the flames come from, and what are they doing? Who is doing the fighting, and how are they winning? Why does God judge the world, and what basis does he use for judgment? Questions like these help us quickly realize that our popular caricatures of tough biblical doctrines are like cartoons: good for us to laugh at, but not to live by. But the caricature does help us with something important: it draws our attention to parts of God’s story where our understanding is off. If the caricature makes God look like a sadistic torturer, a coldhearted judge, or a greedy génocidaire, it probably means there are details we need to take a closer look at. The caricatures can alert us to parts of the picture where our vision is distorted.

Le « mythe », comme l’« idole » n’a jamais été qu’un symbole incompris : l’un est dans l’ordre verbal ce que l’autre est dans l’ordre figuratif ; chez les Grecs, la poésie produisit le premier comme l’art produisit la seconde ; mais, chez les peuples à qui, comme les Orientaux, le naturalisme et l’anthropomorphisme sont également étrangers, ni l’un ni l’autre ne pouvaient prendre naissance, et ils ne le purent en effet que dans l’imagination d’Occidentaux qui voulurent se faire les interprètes de ce qu’ils ne comprenaient point. L’interprétation naturaliste renverse proprement les rapports : un phénomène naturel peut, aussi bien que n’importe quoi dans l’ordre sensible, être pris pour symboliser une idée ou un principe, et le symbole n’a de sens et de raison d’être qu’autant qu’il est d’un ordre inférieur à ce qui est symbolisé. De même, c’est sans doute une tendance générale et naturelle à l’homme que d’utiliser la forme humaine dans le symbolisme ; mais cela, qui ne prête pas en soi à plus d’objections que l’emploi d’un schéma géométrique ou de tout autre mode de représentation, ne constitue nullement l’anthropomorphisme, tant que l’homme n’est point dupe de la figuration qu’il a adoptée. En Chine et dans l’Inde, il n’y eut jamais rien d’analogue à ce qui se produisit en Grèce, et les symboles à figure humaine, quoique d’un usage courant, n’y devinrent jamais des « idoles » ; et l’on peut encore noter à ce propos combien le symbolisme s’oppose à la conception occidentale de l’art : rien n’est moins symbolique que l’art grec, et rien ne l’est plus que les arts orientaux ; mais là où l’art n’est en somme qu’un moyen d’expression et comme un véhicule de certaines conceptions intellectuelles, il ne saurait évidemment être regardé comme une fin en soi, ce qui ne peut arriver que chez les peuples à sentimentalité prédominante. C’est à ces mêmes peuples seulement que l’anthropomorphisme est naturel, et il est à remarquer que ce sont ceux chez lesquels, pour la même raison, a pu se constituer le point de vue proprement religieux ; mais, d’ailleurs, la religion s’y est toujours efforcée de réagir contre la tendance anthropomorphique et de la combattre en principe, alors même que sa conception plus ou moins faussée dans l’esprit populaire contribuait parfois au contraire à la développer en fait. Les peuples dits sémitiques, comme les Juifs et les Arabes, sont voisins sous ce rapport des peuples occidentaux : il ne saurait, en effet, y avoir d’autre raison à l’interdiction des symboles à figure humaine, commune au Judaïsme et à l’Islamisme, mais avec cette restriction que, dans ce dernier, elle ne fut jamais appliquée rigoureusement chez les Persans, pour qui l’usage de tels symboles offrait moins de dangers, parce que, plus orientaux que les Arabes, et d’ailleurs d’une tout autre race, ils étaient beaucoup moins portés à l’anthropomorphisme.

The philosophers who in their treatises of ethics assigned supreme value to justice and applied the yardstick of justice to ali social institutions were not guilty of such deceit. They did not support selfish group concerns by declaring them alone just, fair, and good, and smear ali dissenters by depicting them as the apologists of unfair causes. They were Platonists who believed that a perennial idea of absolute justice exists and that it is the duty of man to organize ali human institutions in conformity with this ideal. Cognition of justice is imparted to man by an inner voice, i.e., by intuition. The champions of this doctrine did not ask what the consequences of realizing the schemes they called just would be. They silently assumed either that these consequences will be beneficiai or that mankind is bound to put up even with very painful consequences of justice. Still less did these teachers of morality pay attention to the fact that people can and really do disagree with regard to the interpretation of the inner voice and that no method of peacefully settling such disagreements can be found. Ali these ethical doctrines have failed to comprehend that there is, outside of social bonds and preceding, temporally or logically, the existence of society, nothing to which the epithet "just" can be given. A hypothetical isolated individual must under the pressure of biological competition look upon ali other people as deadly foes. His only concern is to preserve his own life and health; he does not need to heed the consequences which his own survival has for other men; he has no use for justice. His only solicitudes are hygiene and defense. But in social cooperation with other men the individual is forced to abstain from conduct incompatible with life in society. Only then does the distinction between what is just and what is unjust emerge. It invariably refers to interhuman social relations. What is beneficiai to the individual without affecting his fellows, such as the observance of certain rules in the use of some drugs, remains hygiene. The ultimate yardstick of justice is conduciveness to the preservation of social cooperation. Conduct suited to preserve social cooperation is just, conduct detrimental to the preservation of society is unjust. There cannot be any question of organizing society according to the postulates of an arbitrary preconceived idea of justice. The problem is to organize society for the best possible realization of those ends which men want to attain by social cooperation. Social utility is the only standard of justice. It is the sole guide of legislation. Thus there are no irreconcilable conflicts between selfíshness and altruism, between economics and ethics, between the concerns of the individual and those of society. Utilitarian philosophy and its finest product, economics, reduced these apparent antagonisms to the opposition of shortrun and longrun interests. Society could not have come into existence or been preserved without a harmony of the rightly understood interests of ali its members.

{Excerpt from a message from one of the Cherokee chiefs - Onitositaii, commonly known as Old Tassle} ... 'If, therefore, a bare march, or reconnoitering a country is sufficient reason to ground a claim to it, we shall insist upon transposing the demand, and your relinquishing your settlements on the western waters and removing one hundred miles back towards the east, whither some of our warriors advanced against you in the course of last year's campaign. Let us examine the facts of your present eruption into our country, and we shall discover your pretentions on that ground. What did you do? You marched into our territories with a superior force; our vigilance gave us no timely notice of your manouvres [sic]; your numbers far exceeded us, and we fled to the stronghold of our extensive woods, there to secure our women and children. Thus, you marched into our towns; they were left to your mercy; you killed a few scattered and defenseless individuals, spread fire and desolation wherever you pleased, and returned again to your own habitations. If you meant this, indeed, as a conquest you omitted the most essential point; you should have fortified the junction of the Holstein and Tennessee rivers, and have thereby conquered all the waters above you. But, as all are fair advantages during the existence of a state of war, it is now too late for us to suffer for your mishap of generalship! Again, were we to inquire by what law or authority you set up a claim, I answer, none! Your laws extend not into our country, nor ever did. You talk of the law of nature and the law of nations, and they are both against you. Indeed, much has been advanced on the want of what you term civilization among the Indians; and many proposals have been made to us to adopt your laws, your religion, your manners, and your customs. But, we confess that we do not yet see the propriety, or practicability of such a reformation, and should be better pleased with beholding the good effect of these doctrines in your own practices than with hearing you talk about them, or reading your papers to us upon such subjects. You say: Why do not the Indians till the ground and live as we do? May we not, with equal propriety, ask, Why the white people do not hunt and live as we do? You profess to think it no injustice to warn us not to kill our deer and other game for the mere love of waste; but it is very criminal in our young men if they chance to kill a cow or a hog for their sustenance when they happen to be in your lands. We wish, however, to be at peace with you, and to do as we would be done by. We do not quarrel with you for killing an occasional buffalo, bear or deer on our lands when you need one to eat; but you go much farther; your people hunt to gain a livelihood by it; they kill all our game; our young men resent the injury, and it is followed by bloodshed and war. This is not a mere affected injury; it is a grievance which we equitably complain of and it demands a permanent redress. The Great God of Nature has placed us in different situations. It is true that he has endowed you with many superior advantages; but he has not created us to be your slaves. We are a separate people! He has given each their lands, under distinct considerations and circumstances: he has stocked yours with cows, ours with buffaloe; yours with hogs, ours with bear; yours with sheep, ours with deer. He has indeed given you an advantage in this, that your cattle are tame and domestic while ours are wild and demand not only a larger space for range, but art to hunt and kill them; they are, nevertheless, as much our property as other animals are yours, and ought not to be taken away without consent, or for something equivalent.' Those were the words of the Indians. But they were no binding on these whites, who were living beyond words, claims ...

Wherein do evangelical Churchmen fall short of their great predecessors in the last century I Let us look this question fairly in the face. Let us come to particulars. They fall short in doctrine. They are neither so full nor so distinct, nor so bold, nor so uncompromising. They are afraid of strong statements. They are too ready to fence, and guard, and qualify all their teaching, as if Christ’s gospel was a little baby, and could not be trusted to walk alone. They fall short as preachers. They have neither the fervour, nor fire, nor thought, nor illustration, nor directness, nor holy boldness, nor grand simplicity of language which characterized the last century. Above all, they fall short in life. They are not men of one thing, separate from the world, unmistakable men of God, ministers of Christ everywhere, indifferent to man’s opinion, regardless who is offended, if they only preach truth, always about their Father’s business, as Grimshaw and Fletcher used to be. They do not make the world feel that a prophet is among them, and carry about with them their Master’s presence, as Moses when he came down from the mount. I write these things with sorrow. I desire to take my full share of blame. But I do believe I am speaking the truth.

this picture of future judgment according to works is actually the basis of Paul’s theology of justification by faith.4 The point of justification by faith isn’t that God suddenly ceases to care about good behavior or morality. Justification by faith cannot be collapsed, as so many in the last two centuries tried to do, either into a generalized liberal view of a laissez-faire morality or into the romantic view that what we do outwardly doesn’t matter at all since the only thing that matters is what we’re like inwardly. (Those who overanxiously defend a doctrine from which all mention of works has been rigorously excluded should consider with whom they are colluding at this point!) No: justification by faith is what happens in the present time, anticipating the verdict of the future day when God judges the world. It is God’s advance declaration that when someone believes the gospel, that person is already a member of his family no matter who their parents were, that their sins are forgiven because of Jesus’s death, and that on the future day, as Paul says, “there is now no condemnation” (Romans 8:1).

The reason why Catholic tradition is a tradition,” writes Thomas Merton, “is because there is only one living doctrine in Christianity: there is nothing new to be discovered.” A little bit of death from a thinker who brought the world so much life. Nothing new to be discovered? The minute any human or human institution arrogates to itself a singular knowledge of God, there comes into that knowledge a kind of strychnine pride, and it is as if the most animated and vital creature were instantaneously transformed into a corpse. Any belief that does not recognize and adapt to its own erosions rots from within. Only when doctrine itself is understood to be provisional does doctrine begin to take on a more than provisional significance. Truth inheres not in doctrine itself, but in the spirit with which it is engaged, for the spirit of God is always seeking and creating new forms. (To be fair, Merton himself certainly realized this later in his life, when he became interested in merging ideas from Christianity with Buddhism.)

The billionaire investor George Soros has coined a term to describe this perspective: “free market fundamentalism.” It is the belief not simply that free markets are the best way to run an economic system, but that free markets are the only way that will not ultimately destroy our other freedoms. “The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest,”36 Soros wrote.

Si trop de points restent imprécis, c’est qu’il ne nous est pas possible de faire autrement, et que les circonstances seules permettront par la suite de les élucider peu à peu. Dans tout ce qui n’est pas purement et strictement doctrinal, les contingences interviennent forcément, et c’est d’elles que peuvent être tirés les moyens secondaires de toute réalisation qui suppose une adaptation préalable... Si nous avons dans des questions comme celle-là, le souci de n’en dire trop, ni trop peu, c’est que, d’une part, nous tenons à nous faire comprendre aussi clairement que possible, et que cependant, d’autre part, nous devons toujours réserver des possibilités, actuellement imprévues, que les circonstances peuvent faire apparaître ultérieurement..

A basic argument of this book has been that, from the very beginning, the missionary message of the Christian church incarnated itself in the life and world of those who had embraced it. It is, however, only fairly recently that this essentially contextual nature of the faith has been recognized. For many centuries every deviation from what any group declared to be the orthodox faith was viewed in terms of heterodoxy, even heresy. This was the case particularly after the Christian church became established in the Roman Empire. Arianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and numerous similar movements were all regarded as doctrinally heterodox and their adherents excommunicated, persecuted, or banned. The role of cultural, political, and social factors in the genesis of such movements was not recognized.

Religious people do not get to enjoy taking pride in their own accomplishments because according to their various doctrines all “glory” belongs to their god. They fail to see that this idea that God gets all the glory is like a father whose son does all the hard work on a science fair project and wins first prize, but then his dad comes over and says “Since I put my penis in your mother’s vagina a few years ago and that made you, now everything that you do that is noteworthy and a wonderful accomplishment belongs to me. So hand over the trophy, you little snot-nosed brat.

The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest,”36 Soros wrote. Like its bête noire, Marxism, laissez-faire economics claimed to be scientific, based upon immutable laws of nature, and also like Marxism, it has not stood the test of experience. If it were a scientific theory, it would have long ago been rejected.

Il est arrivé que des Européens reviennent à la foi chrétienne grâce à la lecture de Guénon, en quoi ils ne paraissent pas avoir été dérangés par le fait que lui-même avait adhéré à l’Islam et, au Caire où il passa la fin de sa vie, était devenu le cheikh Abd el-Wahid Yahya. D’autres de ses lecteurs occidentaux, attirés par la spiritualité soufique, devaient accomplir un cheminement semblable, ce qui ne pouvait manquer de leur faire approfondir les valeurs les plus authentiques de l’Islam et le sens de sa mission particulière à la fin du présent cycle cosmique en tant que dernière Révélation venue conclure la tradition procédant d’Abraham (Ibrahim). Car l’un des thèmes majeurs traités par Guénon se rapporte à l’interprétation des « signes des temps » dont il souligne la gravité, ce qui accentue son désaccord avec la mentalité moderne et sa croyance au progrès. Après Guénon, il est devenu plus difficile, même en dehors du cercle de ses lecteurs, de regarder l’Islam comme un monde d’obscurantisme et d’arriération. D’autres publications se rangeant, malgré certaines différences d’accentuation et d’interprétation, dans la même perspective « traditionnelle » sont venues en compléter et en approfondir la compréhension. De celles-ci, la première à citer est Comprendre l’Islam, de Frithjof Schuon, interprète incomparable en notre siècle de la sagesse traditionnelle et des doctrines sacrées d’Orient et d'Occident. Cet ouvrage, souvent accueilli par les musulmans comme un dévoilement, inattendu venant de l’Ouest, des véritables dimensions spirituelles de leur propre religion, aura, plus généralement, apporté la démonstration évidente que l’Islam, en notre temps et à la suite des autres grandes religions révélées, est expression providentielle de la vérité intemporelle et universelle. Cela étant établi, Frithjof Schuon, dans plusieurs de ses autres livres, met en lumière les divers aspects de la piété et de la spiritualité musulmanes et soufiques, mais relève aussi à l’occasion que l’Islam, en face d’un Occident de plus en plus sécularisé et prométhéen, n’échappe pas à la décadence spirituelle qui a envahi le monde entier et fait dégénérer toutes les religions, même s’il en a retardé l’expansion et amorti les effets. Il fournit dès lors des critères décisifs pour juger de la véritable situation de l’Islam dans le monde actuel et de la réalité de ce qui est couramment désigné comme son « réveil ». La connaissance de l’Islam en Occident a encore bénéficié, depuis le milieu du siècle, des contributions remarquables, particulièrement en ce qui concerne la civilisation, les arts et le soufisme, de quelques auteurs se rattachant à la même « école », comme le Suisse Titus Burckhardt, le Britannique Martin Lings ou même l’Iranien Seyyed Hossein Nasr, éminent spécialiste de l’histoire des sciences, dont l’œuvre est largement disponible en langues européennes. Plus proches de la perspective ouverte par Massignon se situent les ouvrages d’écrivains comme Louis Gardet, Henry Corbin ou Vincent Mansour Monteil, fort utiles également à qui souhaite se faire une idée objective de l’Islam et du monde musulman. Tout cela ne pouvait manquer d’exercer, bon gré mal gré, quelque influence sur l’islamologie relevant de l’orientalisme officiel et universitaire qui, depuis une trentaine d’années, semble s’être un peu aérée et débarrassée d’un certain nombre de préjugés et d’idées fixes. En tout cas l’Européen cultivé d’aujourd’hui a incontestablement moins d’excuses que celui des générations précédentes s’il persiste à porter sur tout ce que recouvrent les mots « Islam » et « musulman » des jugements systématiquement dépréciatifs et procédant d’anciens préjugés. [...]

Le fondement du « subjectivisme logique » des croyants est dans ce que nous pourrions appeler le « solipsisme religieux » ; et celui-ci est inévitable pour deux raisons majeures. Premièrement, tout Message religieux est un Message d'Absolu ; ce caractère d’Absolu pénètre tout le Message et lui confère sa qualité d’unicité. Dieu parle pour l'Intérieur et ne se préoccupe pas de l’extérieur en tant que tel ; Il proclame « la Religion » sous une forme adaptée à telles possibilités humaines ; Il ne fait pas de « religion comparée ». Deuxièmement, l'homme moyen n’est pas disposé à saisir ce caractère d'Absolu si on ne le lui suggère pas par l'unicité de l'expression ; et Dieu n'entend pas compromettre cette compréhension par des précisions soulignant l'aspect extérieur de rela­tivité, donc étrangères à ce qui est la raison d'être du Message. Mais ceci ne saurait lier l'ésotérisme : d’une part parce qu'il n'est pas un Message religieux et qu’il relève de l’Intellect plutôt que de la Révélation, et d’autre part parce qu’il s'adresse à des hommes qui n'ont pas besoin d'une suggestion d'unicité et d'exclusivité, sur le plan de l'expression, pour saisir le caractère d’Absolu dans les énonciations sacrées. Tout ceci est propre à faire comprendre que nous sommes aussi loin que possible d'approuver un « œcumé­nisme » gratuit et sentimentaliste, qui ne distingue pas entre la vérité et l'erreur et dont le résultat est l’indiffé­rence religieuse et le culte de l'homme. Ce qu'il s’agit d’entendre en réalité, c’est que la présence indéniable de la vérité transcendante, du sacré et du surnaturel sous des formes autres que celle de notre religion d’ori­gine, devrait nous amener, non le moins du monde à mettre en doute le caractère d’Absolu propre à notre religion, mais simplement à admettre l'inhérence de l’Absolu à un symbolisme doctrinal et sacramentel qui par définition le manifeste et le communique, mais qui également par définition — puisqu’il est d’ordre formel — est relatif et limité malgré son allure d’unicité. Allure nécessaire, nous l’avons dit, en tant que témoignage de l’Absolu, mais simplement indicative au point de vue de l’Absolu en soi, lequel se manifeste nécessairement par l’unicité et tout aussi nécessairement — en vertu de son Infinitude — par la diversité des formes. [...] Les divergences religieuses nous font penser aux contradictions entre les visions des mystiques, bien qu’il n’y ait là aucune commune mesure, sauf qu’il y a dans les deux cas une vérité intrinsèque sous-jacente : tel mystique brosse du purgatoire un tableau plutôt désespérant, tel autre insiste sur une joie d’espérance qui y règne, chaque perspective se trouvant appuyée par une imagerie qui la concrétise ; le symbolisme se combine avec un frag-mentarisme isolant et un sentimentalisme biaisant. Comme dans le cas des religions, les contradictions formelles des imageries mystiques n’infirment pas la vérité intégrale dont elles rehaussent des aspects en fonction de telle perspective de crainte ou d’amour ; mais nous n’avons pas besoin ici de recourir à l’ésotérisme pour dégager la vérité ; la théologie y pourvoit en distinguant d’emblée entre les contenus de la croyance, suivant qu’ils sont nécessaires ou recommandés, ou simplement possibles.

Quand il s’agit de se défendre contre un danger quelconque, on ne perd généralement pas son temps à rechercher des responsabilités ; si donc certaines opinions sont dangereuses intellectuellement, et nous pensons que c’est le cas ici [celles des orientalistes], on devra s’efforcer de les détruire sans se préoccuper de ceux qui les ont émises ou qui les défendent, et dont l’honorabilité n’est nullement en cause. Les considérations de personnes, qui sont bien peu de chose en regard des idées, ne sauraient légitimement empêcher de combattre les théories qui font obstacle à certaines réalisations ; d’ailleurs, comme ces réalisations, sur lesquelles nous reviendrons dans notre conclusion, ne sont point immédiatement possibles, et que tout souci de propagande nous est interdit, le moyen le plus efficace de combattre les théories en question n’est pas de discuter indéfiniment sur le terrain où elles se placent, mais de faire apparaître les raisons de leur fausseté tout en rétablissant la vérité pure et simple, qui seule importe essentiellement à ceux qui peuvent la comprendre. Là est la grande différence, sur laquelle il n’y a pas d’accord possible avec les spécialistes de l’érudition : quand nous parlons de vérité, nous n’entendons pas simplement par là une vérité de fait, qui a sans doute son importance, mais secondaire et contingente ; ce qui nous intéresse dans une doctrine, c’est la vérité, au sens absolu du mot, de ce qui y est exprimé. Au contraire, ceux qui se placent au point de vue de l’érudition ne se préoccupent aucunement de la vérité des idées ; au fond, ils ne savent pas ce que c’est, ni même si cela existe, et ils ne se le demandent point ; la vérité n’est rien pour eux, à part le cas très spécial où il s’agit exclusivement de vérité historique.

not hard to imagine a network neutrality law as the first step toward a Web fairness doctrine, with government trying to micromanage traffic flows to secure “equal treatment” of opposing viewpoints

Broadcast operated under the FCC’s fairness doctrine, whose core requirements were that broadcasters cover matters of public importance and that they do so fairly, mostly in the sense that they air competing positions.

The 1987 FCC decision to stop enforcing the fairness doctrine supercharged conservative media into a billion-dollar industry.

I dislike secrecy intensely... It is deceit, and it deserves no place among the honest and honourable doctrines of Fair War. Secrets are volatile and unstable. They are never stored safely. When they emerge, the mere fact of them can damage the friends and brothers around us.’ - Primarch Dorn

© INCARNATES I recommend that you should read these books too. ‘Minecraft Ninja’ series tells about the adventures of Steve and ‘Minecraft Agent’ series tells about the adventures of Jack. As this book is a clash of both these series, you will relate better tothe characters. It will help.☺ NINJA SERIES If you haven’t read the first FOUR books, grab THEM before starting this one. Otherwise, you’ll be confused. GRAB THEM FREE WITH KINDLE UNLIMITED SUBSCRIPTION OTHER SERIES BY ME AGENT SERIES GRAB THEM FREE WITH KINDLE UNLIMITED SUBSCRIPTION!! All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any informational storage and retrieval system, without the prior permission of the publisher. This book is in no way authorized by, endorsed by, or affiliated with Minecraft or its subsidiaries. All references to Minecraft and other trademarked properties are used in accordance with the Fair use of Doctrine and are not meant to imply that this book is a Minecraft product for advertising or other commercial purposes. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – History Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 DON’T WAIT ONE WORD Chapter 1 – History Before you go any further,Just to say thank you for purchasing this book, I want to give you a FREE gift, a great, adventurous and an action pack book for you.

Christianity embodied all the moral instincts of our race, such as our concepts of personal honor, of personal self-respect and integrity, of fair play, of pity for the unfortunate, of loyalty- all of which seem preposterous to other races, at least in the form and application that we give to them. They simply lack our instincts. We think that it makes a great difference whether we kill a man in a fair fight or by treacherously stabbing him in the back or by putting poison in the cup that he accepts from our friendly hand; to at least one other race, we are simply childish and irrational: if you are to kill a man, kill him in the safest and most convenient way. Again, we, whether Christians or atheists, have an instinct for truth, so that if we lie, we have physical reactions that can be detected by a sphygmomanometer (often called a polygraph or "lie detector"). When officers of American military intelligence tried to use that device in the interrogation of prisoners during the Korean War, they discovered that Koreans and Chinese have no reaction that the instrument can detect, no matter how outrageous the lies they tell. We and they are differently constituted. We can no longer be so obtuse as to ignore the vast differences in mentality and instinct that separate us from all other races - not merely from savages, but from highly civilized races. The differences are innate, and to attempt to change their way of thinking with argument, generosity, or holy water is as absurd as attempting to change the color of their skins. That is a fact that we must accept. However, one may relate that fact to Christian doctrine, if we, a small minority among the teeming and terribly fecund populations of the globe, call all other peoples perverse or wicked, we merely confuse ourselves. If we are to think objectively and rationally, we must do so in the terms used by Maurice Samuel, who, after his discerning and admirably candid study of the "unbridgeable gulf' that separates Indo-Europeans from Jews, had to conclude that "This difference in behavior and reaction springs from something more earnest and significant than a difference of beliefs: it springs from a difference in our biologic equipment.

There is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make an error into truth, and truth can be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation

This, though excusable, is scarcely fair, since the artist does not see life as a problem to be solved, but as a medium for creation. He is asked to settle the common man’s affairs for him; but he is well aware that creation settles nothing. The thing that is settled is finished and dead, and his concern is not with death but with life: “that ye may have life and have it more abundantly.” True, the artist can, out of his own experience, tell the common man a great deal about the fulfillment of man’s nature in living; but he can produce only the most unsatisfactory kind of reply if he is persistently asked the wrong question. And an incapacity for asking the right question has grown, in our time and country, to the proportions of an endemic disease. The

army of people paid to “gaslight” the public into thinking they are protected. Chapter 23, page 132. Trick #17 for Farming Humans is using stock markets to launder taxpayer backed, Fed created money to those who control the Fed. Chapter 25, page 136. Trick #18 for Farming Humans is the use of fake information to ensure that society never knows what is true and what is false. Elections, wars, headlines etc. Chapter 26, page 141. Trick #19 for Farming Humans is stimulation and distraction. This emotional hacking of humans is Trick #19 for Farming Humans. See Social Engineering: The Art of Human Hacking Book by Christopher J. Hadnagy Trick #20 for Farming Humans is the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and 83 media regulations, including requirement for “honest, equitable and balanced”. Chapter 28, page 153. Trick #21 for Farming Humans is governments as handmaidens to corporations, not people. Chapter 29, page 157. Trick #22 for Farming Humans is in the invisible connections between government, professionals and corporations. Chapter 31, page 162. Laws, lobby groups, lawyers. Trick #23 for Farming Humans is a militarized police used to serve and protect power instead of people. Chapter 32, page 170. World Trade Organization, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, etc. Trick #24 for Farming Humans is virtually zero enforcement of crime above a certain level of money or power. Invisible friends and powerful people cannot be prosecuted. Chapter 33, page 175. Trick #25 for Farming Humans is cooking the financial books. Chapter 34, page 180. Valeant Pharmaceutical, IFRS vs GAP accounting standards, audit numbers rigged. Trick #26 for Farming Humans is printing infinite money to exchange for finite goods…”let me handle that for you.” Chapter 35, page 184. Trick #27 for Farming Humans is public servants spying on the public, and not on the public servants. Chapter 36, page 188.

Selfishness has as much value as the physiological value of him who possesses it. Each individual represents the whole course of Evolution, and he is not, as morals teach, something that begins at his birth. If he re present the ascent of the line of mankind, his value is, in fact, very great; and the concern about his maintenance and the promoting of his growth may even be extreme. (It is the concern about the promise of the future in him which gives the well-constituted individual such an extraordinary right to egoism.) If he represent descending development, decay, chronic sickening, he has little worth: and the greatest fairness would have him take as little room, strength, and sunshine as possible from the well-constituted. In this case society's duty is to suppress egoism (for the latter may sometimes manifest itself in an absurd, morbid, and seditious manner): whether it be a question of the decline and pining away of single individuals or of whole classes of mankind. A morality and a religion of "love," the curbing of the self-affirming spirit, and a doctrine encouraging patience, resignation, helpfulness, and co-operation in word and deed may be of the highest value within the confines of such classes, even in the eyes of their rulers: for it restrains the feelings of rivalry, of resentment, and of envy, feelings which are only too natural in the bungled and the botched, and it even deifies them under the ideal of humility, of obedience, of slave-life, of being ruled, of poverty, of illness, and of lowliness. This explains why the ruling classes (or races) and individuals of all ages have always upheld the cult of unselfishness, the gospel of the lowly and of "God on the Cross".

Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrine in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

The unsuspicious testimony of Bishop Hay leaves no doubt on this point: "It" [the water kept in the baptismal font], says he, "is blessed on the eve of Pentecost, because it is the Holy Ghost who gives to the waters of baptism the power and efficacy of sanctifying our souls, and because the baptism of Christ is 'with the Holy Ghost, and with fire' (Matt. iii. 11). In blessing the waters, a LIGHTED TORCH is put into the font." Here, then, it is manifest that the baptismal regenerating water of Rome is consecrated just as the regenerating and purifying water of the Pagans was. Of what avail is it for Bishop Hay to say, with the view of sanctifying superstition and "making apostasy plausibly," that this is due "to represent the fire of Divine love, which is communicated to the soul by baptism, and the light of good example, which all who are baptised ought to give." This is the fair face put on the matter; but the fact still remains that while the Romish doctrine in regard to baptism is purely Pagan, in the ceremonies connected with the Papal baptism one of the essential rites of the ancient fire-worship is still practised at this day, just as it was practised by the worshippers of Bacchus, the Babylonian Messiah.

But the principles of laissez-faire have had other allies besides economic textbooks. It must be admitted that they have been confirmed in the minds of sound thinkers and the reasonable public by the poor quality of the opponent proposals - protectionism on one hand, and Marxian socialism on the other. Yet these doctrines are both characterised, not only or chiefly by their infringing the general presumption in favour of laissez-faire, but by mere logical fallacy. Both are examples of poor thinking, of inability to analyse a process and follow it out to its conclusion. The arguments against them, though reinforced by the principle of laissez-faire, do not strictly require it. Of the two, protectionism is at least plausible, and the forces making for its popularity are nothing to wonder at. But Marxian socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of opinion - how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men and, through them, the events of history. At any rate, the obvious scientific deficiencies of these two schools greatly contributed to the prestige and authority of nineteenth-century laissez-faire.

For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is--limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death--he [God] had the honesty and the courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not already exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile.

A great deal of the talk about laissez faire [in the nineteenth century] must be discounted, or at least put into its proper context. In many cases the argument concealed an admission that a problem was insoluble, or that it must be endured, because no one could think of any method of solving it. From this point of view, the policy of laissez faire was not the result of a new and optimistic belief in the progress of society through private enterprise. It was rather an acknowledgement that the fund of skill and experience at the service of society was limited, and that, in the management of their common a airs, men would not be able to find the elasticity and adaptiveness [sic] which individuals showed in devising schemes for their own self-interest. e treatment of social and economic questions was more haphazard and empirical than Englishmen were ready to acknowledge. If a practical solution suggested itself, if a tentative experiment could be made, the doctrine of laissez faire would be thrust aside, only to be used again after another failure to discover the way out of a difficulty (Woodward, [1938] 1962 , p. 16).

Il est donc nécessaire que les uns et les autres se mettent eux-mêmes à l'épreuve, les uns pour savoir s'ils sont dignes de prêcher et de laisser des écrits ; les autres pour savoir s'ils sont dignes d'écouter et de lire. C'est ainsi qu'après avoir, selon la coutume, rompu le pain de l'Eucharistie, on permet à chaque fidèle d'en prendre une part; car, pour choisir ou pour rejeter avec raison, la conscience est le meilleur juge. Or, la règle certaine d'une bonne conscience est une vie droite, jointe à une saine doctrine : suivre l'exemple de ceux qui ont été déjà éprouvés, et qui se sont conduits avec droiture, c'est la voie la plus sûre pour atteindre à l'intelligence de la vérité, et à l'observance des préceptes. Quiconque mangera le pain et boira le calice du Seigneur indignement, se rendra coupable du corps et du sang du Seigneur. Que l'homme donc s'éprouve soi-même, et qu'après cela il mange de ce pain et boive de cette coupe. Il faut donc que celui qui entreprend de prêcher aux autres s'examine pour savoir s'il a en vue l'utilité du prochain; si ce n'est point avec présomption, et par esprit de rivalité ou par amour de la gloire, qu'il répand la sainte parole ; s'il se propose pour unique récompense le salut de ses auditeurs, et s'il n'en flatte aucun ; et enfin s'il évite toute occasion qui pourrait le faire accuser de vénalité.

D’autre part, nous avons eu aussi l’occasion de faire remarquer la faiblesse, pour ne pas dire plus, de l’attitude qu’on est convenu d’appeler « apologétique », et qui consiste à vouloir défendre une tradition contre des attaques telles que celles de la science moderne en discutant les arguments de celle-ci sur son propre terrain, ce qui ne va presque jamais sans entraîner des concessions plus ou moins fâcheuses, et ce qui implique en tout cas une méconnaissance du caractère transcendant de la doctrine traditionnelle. Cette attitude est habituellement celle d’exotéristes, et l’on peut penser que, bien souvent, ils sont surtout poussés par la crainte qu’un plus ou moins grand nombre d’adhérents de leur tradition ne s’en laissent détourner par les objections scientifiques ou soi-disant telles qui sont formulées contre elle ; mais, outre que cette considération « quantitative » est elle-même d’un ordre assez profane, ces objections méritent d’autant moins qu’on y attache une telle importance que la science dont elles s’inspirent change continuellement, ce qui devrait suffire à prouver leur peu de solidité. Quand on voit, par exemple, des théologiens se préoccuper d’« accorder la Bible avec la science », il n’est que trop facile de constater combien un tel travail est illusoire, puisqu’il est constamment à refaire à mesure que les théories scientifiques se modifient, sans compter qu’il a toujours l’inconvénient de paraître solidariser la tradition avec l’état présent de la science profane, c’est-à-dire avec des théories qui ne seront peut-être plus admises par personne au bout de quelques années, si même elles ne sont pas déjà abandonnées par les savants, car cela aussi peut arriver, les objections qu’on s’attache à combattre ainsi étant plutôt ordinairement le fait des vulgarisateurs que celui des savants eux-mêmes. Au lieu d’abaisser maladroitement les Écritures sacrées à un pareil niveau, ces théologiens feraient assurément beaucoup mieux de chercher à en approfondir autant que possible le véritable sens, et de l’exposer purement et simplement pour le bénéfice de ceux qui sont capables de le comprendre, et qui, s’ils le comprenaient effectivement, ne seraient plus tentés par là même de se laisser influencer par les hypothèses de la Science profane, non plus d’ailleurs que par la « critique » dissolvante d’une exégèse moderniste et rationaliste, c’est-à-dire essentiellement anti-traditionnelle, dont les prétendus résultats n’ont pas davantage à être pris en considération par ceux qui ont conscience de ce qu’est réellement la tradition. [La science profane devant les doctrines traditionnelles]

Boxing Day 2012 Continuation of my Message to Andy (part 3)   You already know, Andy, many S. E. Asian countries, with the exception of countries within the Golden Triangle and Japan (which are predominantly Buddhist), are fairly priggish about homosexuality. Since the emergence of Europeans, Western ideology – especially that of Christian doctrines – has penetrated the East, making what was once sociologically acceptable nefariously immoral.

C'est ainsi que si l'on tentait de traduire ses ouvrages de doctrine générale en n'importe quelle langue de civilisation orientale, la traduction devrait s'accompagner d'un commentaire spécial idéologique et terminologique, variable avec chacune de ces langues. L'orthodoxie du sens profond des idées ne suffirait pas à elle seule, avec une traduction littérale - si toutefois cela était toujours possible - pour faire reconnaître partout dans ces ouvrages de doctrine générale, à un Oriental non prévenu et qui ne connaîtrait que sa propre forme traditionnelle, le même fond doctrinal que dans celle-ci. La difficulté serait même plus accentuée quand il s'agirait de traduction dans la langue d'une civilisation de forme religieuse, pour la raison que René Guénon a pensé et s'est exprimé dans des modes appartenant à ce qu'on pourrait appeler une « spiritualité sapientiale », modes spécifiquement différents de ceux qui sont régulièrement pratiqués dans les traités de doctrine à base de « religion révélée ».

Mais la relation entre l’œuvre de René Guénon- et sa source « fonctionnelle » islamique, d’après les quelques données que nous venons de faire connaitrc, ou tout simplement de rappeler, pourra paraître, malgré tout, seulement virtuelle, sinon accidentelle. Et même si, à part cela, les livres et les articles de René Guénon contiennent de fréquentes références aux doctrines islamiques, ces références ne prouvent pas nécessairement une procession islamique du développement général et final de toute son œuvre ; du reste, lui-même ne s'est jamais présenté spécialement au nom de l’Islam, mais au nom de la conscience traditionnelle et initiatique d’une façon universelle. Ce n’est pas nous non plus qui pourrions envisager de restreindre ce large privilège de son message ", et si nous disons qu'il y a une relation autrement sure entre cette œuvre universelle et l’Islam, c’est, tout d’abord, que. en raison d’une cohérence naturelle entre toutes les forces de la tradition, tout ce qu’on peut trouver du côté islamique comme étant intervenu dans la genèse et le développement du travail de René Guenon ne pouvait que s'accorder avec ce qui était auguré et soutenu en même temps par des forces traditionnelles orientales autres qu’islamiques.

[…] D’autre part, la thèse de René Guénon sur l’unité fondamentale des formes traditionnelles n’apparaîtra pas comme tout à fait nouvelle en Islam, car il y a quelques précédents précieux, tout d’abord avec le Cheikh al-Akbar [Ibn `Arabî] dont l’enseignement ne pouvait pourtant pas être aussi explicite que celui de René Guénon en raison des réserves qu’impose tout milieu traditionnel particulier ; il y aura quand même intérêt à s’y reporter. Ce que nous venons de signaler comme points critiques et solutions à envisager lorsqu’il s’agira de juger de l’orthodoxie islamique de l’enseignement de René Guénon, aussi bien que de son orthodoxie d’une façon générale, ne doit pas faire oublier que ce qui est requis sous ce rapport de tout Oriental ou Occidental qui voudrait en juger, ce sont non seulement des qualités intellectuelles de jugement, mais aussi la connaissance étendue et profonde des doctrines qui doivent être évoquées en l’occurrence. La méthode facile et expéditive des citations tronquées et retranchées de leurs relations conceptuelles d’ensemble, aggravée peut-être encore par des méprises terminologiques ne saurait avoir ici aucune excuse, car René Guénon ne parle pas au nom ni dans les termes d’une théologie ou d’une doctrine particulière dont les références seraient immédiates. De toutes façons, une des choses les plus absurdes serait de demander à des « autorités » exotériques, qu’elles soient d’Orient ou d’Occident, d’apprécier le degré de cette orthodoxie, soit d’une façon générale, soit par rapport à quelque tradition particulière. Ces « autorités », en tant qu’exotériques, et quelles que puissent être leurs prétentions de compétence, sincères ou non, n’ont déjà aucune qualité pour porter un jugement sur les doctrines ésotériques et métaphysiques de leurs propres traditions. L’histoire est là du reste pour prouver à tout homme intelligent et de bonne foi, que chaque fois que de telles ingérences se sont produites, qu’elles aient été provoquées par de simples imprudences ou par des fautes graves, soit d’un côté soit de l’autre, il en est résulté un amoindrissement de spiritualité et la tradition dans son ensemble a eu à souffrir par la suite. (É. T. n° 305 Janv.-Fév. 1953, p. 14)

Pour illustrer ceci et mieux faire comprendre ce que nous voulons dire, le meilleur exemple nous paraît être celui des Principes du calcul infinitésimal, ouvrage dont on parle peu et qui, bien qu’il ait été publié après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, est typique de l’inspiration première et de la méthode de René Guénon. On aurait d’ailleurs tort de le considérer comme un écrit d’importance secondaire car il contient, notamment dans les considérations développées sur la notion d’« intégration », un enseignement essentiel dont on ne trouve pas l’équivalent dans le reste de l’oeuvre guénonienne. Cet enseignement s ’appuie conjointement sur un examen critique des théories avancées par Leibniz pour justifier la méthode infinitésimale, de sorte que la lumière de l’Intellect primordial est projetée ici, non pas sur une doctrine ou un symbole traditionnel, mais bien sur les thèses d’un philosophe « semi-profane ». On juge mieux, par cet exemple, comment certaines méprises ont pu naître au sujet de la portée exacte de la doctrine exposée par Guénon : s’il est bien évident qu’aucune organisation initiatique n’a jamais fondé sa méthode spirituelle sur la lecture de Leibniz, la compréhension parfaite du symbolisme mathématique exposé au chapitre XVIII du Symbolisme de la Croix implique, en revanche, une connaissance approfondie de la méthode différentielle et du calcul intégral.

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the authors and publisher. This story is a work of fiction, pulled together from the imaginations of the Interactive Stories team. It has been created under the "Fair Use" doctrine pursuant to United States copyright law. References to real people, events, establishments, organizations, or locales are intended only to provide a sense of authenticity, and are used fictitiously. Minecraft is a trademark of Mojang AB, Stockholm. The author and publisher of this book are not associated with the makers of Minecraft or Mojang AB or any of its subsidiaries. Nothing in this book is meant to imply that it is a Minecraft product for advertising or other commercial purposes.

authors and publisher. This story is a work of fiction, pulled together from the imaginations of the Interactive Stories team. It has been created under the "Fair Use" doctrine pursuant to United States copyright law. References to real people, events, establishments, organizations, or locales are intended only to provide a sense of authenticity, and are used fictitiously. Minecraft is a trademark of Mojang AB, Stockholm. The author and publisher of this book are not associated with the makers of Minecraft or Mojang AB or any of its subsidiaries. Nothing in this book is meant to imply that it is a Minecraft product for advertising or other commercial purposes.

En fait, la doctrine du ciel n'est pas figée. C'est vrai qu'ils ont eu des penchants égalitaristes. Mais tout a changé avec l'arrivée des Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, et quantité d'apôtres de la déréglementation qui ont commencé à faire leur propagande ici-même. - Vous voulez dire qu'aujourd'hui... - Je veux dire qu'aujourd'hui, sous leur influence, le ciel est devenu carrément néo-libéral.

This is the only real "burden" of atheism. It calls for one to take full responsibility for their actions. There is no guiding hand to lay the blame upon and no "divine" plan that relieves us of our obligation to act humanely and justly to all people. But it's a "burden" and a "blessing" as well, because it also means that we get to own all the pride in our own achievements as well. There is no guilt associated with that pride for us because we know there is no “sin” to trouble our mind. Religious people do not get to enjoy taking pride in their own accomplishments because according to their various doctrines all “glory” belongs to their god. They fail to see that this idea that God gets all the glory is like a father whose son does all the hard work on a science fair project and wins first prize, but then his dad comes over and says “Since I put my penis in your mother’s vagina a few years ago

Mussolini never conceded the absolute authority of the state to dictate the course of the economy. By the early 1930s he had found it necessary to start putting Fascist ideology down on paper. Before then, it was much more ad hoc. But when he did get around to writing it out, doctrinal Fascist economics looked fairly recognizable as just another left-wing campaign to nationalize industry, or regulate it to the point where the distinction was hardly a difference. These policies fell under the rubric of what was called corporatism, and not only were they admired in America at the time, but they are unknowingly emulated to a staggering degree today.

They were persecuted at Philippi, as already noticed, and generally found the Jews to be their most inveterate enemies. These would raise tumults, inflame the minds of the gentiles against them, and follow them from place to place, doing them all the mischief in their power. This was the case especially at Thessalonica, Berea, and Corinth. But amidst all their persecutions God was with them, and strengthened them in various ways. At Berea they were candidly received, and their doctrine fairly tried by the Holy Scriptures; and therefore, it is said, many of them believed. At other places, though they affected to despise the apostle, yet some clave unto him. At Corinth opposition rose to a great height; but the Lord appeared to his servant in a vision, saying, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace, for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this city. And the promise was abundantly made good in the spirit discovered by Gallio, the proconsul, who turned a deaf ear to the accusations of the jews, and nobly declined interfering in matters beside his province.

Certains des problèmes que se pose habituellement la pensée philosophique apparaissent même comme dépourvus, non seulement de toute importance, mais de toute signification; il y a là une foule de questions qui ne reposent que sur une équivoque, sur une confusion de points de vue, qui n’existent au fond que parce qu’elles sont mal posées, et qui n’auraient aucunement lieu de se poser vraiment; il suffirait donc, dans bien des cas, d’en mettre l’énoncé au point pour les faire disparaître purement et simplement, si la philosophie n’avait au contraire le plus grand intérêt à les conserver, parce qu’elle vit surtout d’équivoques.

But I also think the doctrine of laissez faire, carried to its extreme, is equally repugnant. Too many capitalists use laissez faire as an excuse to gouge the public and exploit the poor.

Leftists in the developing world have long argued that genuine democracy, with fair rules preventing corporations from buying elections, would necessarily result in governments committed to the redistribution of wealth. The logic is simple enough: in these countries, there are far more poor people than rich ones. Policies that directly redistribute land and raise wages, not trickle-down economics, are in the clear self-interest of a poor majority. Give all citizens the vote and a reasonably fair process, and they will elect the politicians who appear most likely to deliver jobs and land, not more free-market promises.

It is precisely because the dream of economic equality is so popular, and so difficult to defeat in a fair fight, that the shock doctrine was embraced in the first place.

Copyright ©2014 by Geniuz Gamer All rights reserved worldwide. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted or stored in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval, without express written permission from the author. In creation of this book all references and other trademark properties are used in accordance with the ‘’Fair Use’’ doctrine pursuant to US copyright law and the equivalent in other jurisdictions.

Copyright ©2014 by Geniuz Gamer All rights reserved worldwide. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted or stored in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval, without express written permission from the author. In creation of this book all references and other trademark properties are used in accordance with the ‘’Fair Use’’ doctrine pursuant to US copyright law and the equivalent in other jurisdictions. Product names and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All

We’ve noted how the notion of balance was enshrined in the Fairness Doctrine, and it may make sense for political news in a two-party system (although not in a multiparty system). But it doesn’t reflect the way science works. In an active scientific debate, there can be many sides. But once a scientific issue is closed, there’s only one “side.” Imagine providing “balance” to the issue of whether the Earth orbits the Sun, whether continents move,

Il est un faux œcuménisme, sentimental et vague à souhait, qui abolit pratiquement les doctrines ; pour réconcilier deux adversaires, on les étrangle tous deux, ce qui est assurément le meilleur moyen de faire la paix. [...] L’objectivité à l’égard des perspectives ou voies étrangères est trop souvent le fait d’un indifférentisme philosophique ou d’un universalisme sentimental, et dans ce cas, il n’y a nulle raison de lui rendre hommage, et on peut même se demander s’il peut s’agir alors pleinement d’objectivité ; le saint chrétien qui combat les Musulmans est plus proche de la sainteté islamique que le philosophe qui admet tout et ne pratique rien.

And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented abefore this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been bburned in that great city Zarahemla. 25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city aMoronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.

16 And my soul was rent with aanguish, because of the slain of my people, and I cried: 17 aO ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you! 18 Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I amourn your loss. 19 O ye afair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have bfallen! 20 But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return. 21 And the day soon cometh that your mortal must put on immortality, and these bodies which are now moldering in corruption must soon become aincorruptible bodies; and then ye must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, to be judged according to your works; and if it so be that ye are righteous, then are ye blessed with your fathers who have gone before you. 22 O that ye had repented before this great adestruction had come upon you. But behold, ye are gone, and the Father, yea, the Eternal Father of heaven, bknoweth your state; and he doeth with you according to his cjustice and dmercy

Plato sees the rot setting in and cries out like a prophet to his people to repent while there is yet time. He sees that the theater audience is in fact looking to the theater for nothing but amusement and entertainment, that their energies are, in fact, frittering themselves away in spurious emotion— sob stuff and sensation, and senseless laughter, phantasy and daydreaming, and admiration for the merely smart and slick and clever and amusing. And there is an ominous likeness between his age and ours. We too have audiences and critics and newspapers assessing every play and book and novel in terms of its entertainment value, and a whole generation of young men and women who dream over novels and wallow in daydreaming at the cinema, and who seemed to be in a fair way of doping themselves into complete irresponsibility over the conduct of life until war came, as it did to Greece, to jerk them back to reality.

Par contre, nous serons toujours reconnaissant à ceux qui nous signaleront des points sur lesquels il leur paraîtra souhaitable d’avoir de plus amples éclaircissements, et nous nous efforcerons de leur donner satisfaction par la suite ; mais qu’ils veuillent bien attendre que nous ayons la possibilité de le faire, qu’ils ne se hâtent point de conclure sur des données insuffisantes, et, surtout, qu’ils se gardent de rendre aucune doctrine responsable des imperfections ou des lacunes de notre exposé.

To the impartial observer it is plain that the Greeks, from the intellectual point of view at least, really borrowed very largely from the Orientals, as they themselves frequently admitted ; however unveracious they may have been at times, on this point at least they cannot have lied, for they had no possible interest in doing so, indeed quite the contrary. As we said before, their originality principally lay in their manner of expressing things, by means of a faculty for adaptation one cannot deny them, but which was necessarily limited by the extent of their comprehension ; briefly, their originality was of a purely dialectical order. Actually, since Greeks and Orientals differed in their characteristic ways of thinking, there were necessarily corresponding differences in the modes of reasoning which they employed ; this must always be borne in mind when pointing out certain analogies, real though they be, such as for instance the analogy between the Greek syllogism and what has fairly correctly been called the Hindu syllogism. It cannot even be said that Greek reasoning is distinguished by an ^exceptional strictness ; it only appears stricter than other methods of reasoning to people who are themselves in the habit of employing it exclusively, and this illusion is due solely to the fact that it is restricted to a narrower and more limited field and is therefore more easily defined. On the contrary, the faculty most truly characteristic of the Greeks, but which is little to their advantage, is a certain dialectical subtlety, of which the dialogues of Plato provide numerous examples ; there is an apparent desire to examine each question interminably, under all its aspects and in minutest detail, m order to arrive finally at a rather insignificant conclusion; it would appear that in the West the moderns are not the first people to have been afflicted with “ intellectual myopia.” Perhaps, after all, the Greeks should not be blamed too severely for restricting the field of human thought as they have done ; on the one hand this was an inevitable result of their mental constitution, for which they cannot be held responsible, and on the other hand they did at least in this way bring within reach of a large part of humanity certain kinds of knowledge which were otherwise in danger of remaining completely foreign to it. It is easy to realise the truth of this if one considers what Westerners are capable of to-day, when they happen to come into direct contact with certain Oriental conceptions and set about interpreting them in a manner conforming to their own particular mentality : anything which they cannot connect with the “classical” idiom escapes them completely and whatever can be made to tally with it, by hook or by crook, is so disfigured in the process that it becomes almost unrecognizable. »

Quant à la religion proprement dite, ou plus généralement à la partie extérieure de toute tradition, elle doit assurément être telle que chacun puisse en comprendre quelque chose, suivant la mesure de ses capacités, et c’est en ce sens qu’elle s’adresse à tous ; mais ce n’est pas à dire pour cela qu’elle doive se réduire à ce minimum que le plus ignorant (nous ne l’entendons pas sous le rapport de l’instruction profane, qui n’importe aucunement ici) ou le moins intelligent peut en saisir ; bien au contraire, il doit y avoir en elle quelque chose qui soit pour ainsi dire au niveau des possibilités de tous les individus, si élevées qu’elles soient, et ce n’est d’ailleurs que par là qu’elle peut fournir un « support » approprié à l’aspect intérieur qui, dans toute tradition non mutilée, en est le complément nécessaire, et qui relève de l’ordre proprement initiatique. Mais les « modernistes », rejetant précisément l’ésotérisme et l’initiation, nient par là même que les doctrines religieuses portent en elles-mêmes aucune signification profonde ; et ainsi, tout en prétendant « spiritualiser » la religion, ils tombent au contraire dans le « littéralisme » le plus étroit et le plus grossier, dans celui dont l’esprit est le plus complètement absent, montrant ainsi, par un exemple frappant, qu’il n’est souvent que trop vrai que, comme le disait Pascal, « qui veut faire l’ange fait la bête » !

In 1987, the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, a 1949 policy that had required broadcast networks to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was—in the FCC’s view—fair and balanced. Republicans successfully argued

La Gazette continuera à plaider la grande cause du beau, si justement placé par Victor Cousin à côté du vrai en du bien; elle travaillera à faire triompher dans l'enseignement les doctrines les plus généreuses et les plus capables à aider à reconstituer par les Arts la grandeur économique, intellectuelle et morale la France.

The term “unbegotten” (agen[n]ētos) was to carry much of the weight of this newfound clarity on the radical difference between God and the world. This development constituted an agitation or break within the flow of Christian experience inasmuch as it needed to be creatively integrated with another fundamental principle of Christian experience, the primacy of Jesus as Lord. According to everyone’s understanding of Scripture, even the preexistent Christ was begotten, caused by the Father. Moreover, although Creator, he was also closely associated with creation, as its paradigm, “the beginning of God’s works” (Prov. 8:22; cf. Col. 1:17). In a fairly standard interpretation of the latter scriptural phrase, Origen explains that “in this very subsistence of wisdom there was implicit every capacity and form of the creation that was to be.”[95] How then to reconcile the primacy of Christ, closely bound with his double relation to both God and creation, with this newly maximized sense of divine primacy—the radical difference between God and world and God’s absolute priority and freedom from any kind of posteriority (or being caused)? In the tensions evoked by these questions, a reexamination and reintegration of the elements of Christian experience was being called forth.

TIMOTHY AND THE PAROUSIA. 1 TIM. 6:14: - [I give thee charge] ‘that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in his times he shall show,’ etc. This implies that Timothy might expect to live until that event took place. The apostle does not say, ‘Keep this commandment as long as you live;’ nor, ‘Keep it until death;’ but ‘until the appearing of Jesus Christ.’ These expressions are by no means equivalent. The ‘appearing’ [έπιφάνωια] is identical with the Parousia, an event which St. Paul and Timothy alike believed to be at hand. Alford’s note on this verse is eminently unsatisfactory. After quoting Bengel’s remark ‘that the faithful in the apostolic age were accustomed to look forward to the day of Christ as approaching; whereas we are accustomed to look forward to the day of death in like manner,’ he goes on to observe: - ‘We may fairly say that whatever impression is betrayed by the words that the coming of the Lord would be in Timotheus’s life-time, is chastened and corrected by the καιρόις ίδίοις [his own times] of the next verse.’ dldl In other words, the erroneous opinion of one sentence is corrected by the cautious vagueness of the next! Is it possible to accept such a statement? Is there anything in καιρόις ίδίοις to justify such a comment? or is such an estimate of the apostle’s language compatible with a belief in his inspiration? It was no ‘impression’ that the apostle ‘betrayed,’ but a conviction and an assurance founded on the express promises of Christ and the revelations of His Spirit. No less exceptionable is the concluding reflection: - ‘From such passages as this we see that the apostolic age maintained that which ought to be the attitude of all ages, - constant expectation of the Lord’s return.’ But if this expectation was nothing more than a false impression, is not their attitude rather a caution than an example? We now see (assuming that the Parousia never took place) that they cherished a vain hope, and lived in the belief of a delusion. And if they were mistaken in this, the most confident and cherished of their convictions, how can we have any reliance on their other opinions? To regard the apostles and primitive Christians as all involved in an egregious delusion on a subject which had a foremost place in their faith and hope, is to strike a fatal blow at the inspiration and authority of the New Testament. When St. Paul declared, again and again, ‘The Lord is at hand,’ he did not give utterance to his private opinion, but spoke with authority as an organ of the Holy Ghost. Dean Alford’s observations may be best answered in the words of his own rejoinder to Professor Jowett: - ‘Was the apostle or was he not writing in the power of a spirit higher than his own? Have we, in any sense, God speaking in the Bible, or have we not? If we have, then of all passages it is in these which treat so confidently of futurity that we must recognise His voice: if we have it not in these passages, then where are we to listen for it at all?

Should the old federal broadcast rules have been abolished? Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, cable TV was making them iffy and the Internet was just about to start rendering them moot. In any case, when the Washington gatekeepers decided to get rid of that regulatory gate, it was a pivotal moment, practically and symbolically. For most of the twentieth century, national news media had felt obliged to pursue and present some rough approximation of the truth rather than to promote a truth, let alone fictions. With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, a new American laissez-faire had been officially declared. If lots more incorrect and preposterous assertions circulated in our most massive mass media, that was a price of freedom. If splenetic commentators could now, as never before, keep believers perpetually riled up and feeling the excitement of being in a mob, so be it.

La doctrine de l’identité et de l’unité est plus développée en l’Islam qu’ailleurs. Sa précieuse qualité d’ésotéro-exotérique provient surtout de sa conception de la réalité collective comme agent indispensable à la transformation de la réalité personnelle en Universalité humaine ou réalité prophétique. Le Christianisme et le Bouddhisme rejettent la réalité collective avec horreur ou mépris pour faire l’Homme universel dans une petite quiétude. Ils diffèrent donc de l’Islam qualitativement et psychologiquement. L’Islam se distingue du Brahmanisme ésotérique quantitativement, car il est plus vaste. Le Brahmanisme n’est que local, au moins au point de vue pratique, tandis que l’Islam est universel. Il diffère du positivisme antidoctrinaire au point de vue formaliste et métaphysique. Il est en opposition directe avec la philosophie allemande, laquelle, par sa confusion de la féodalité avec l’aristocratie, a complètement faussé l’idée de gouvernement.

L'ordre, par malheur, exige rarement de faire le bien. Le pur dynamisme doctrinal ne peut se diriger vers le bien, mais seulement vers l'efficacité.

Urbain VIII fit alors envoyer par l'ambassade une note destinée à l'inquisiteur et à Galilée, répétant les conditions auxquelles le livre devait répondre pour que l'imprimatur lui soit octroyé. J'ai reproduit cette note autrefois. Elle est remarquable. Dans l'état des connaissances du temps, un scientifique d'aujourd'hui ne pourrait donner de meilleurs conseils. En voici l'essentiel: « L'inquisiteur pouvait permettre la publication à Florence, s'il s'agissait de considérations purement mathématiques sur le système de Copernic. En aucun cas, ce livre ne pourrait admettre d'allégations absolues, mais il devait se maintenir dans les limites de l'hypothèse; surtout il n'y serait pas question de l'Écriture Sainte. « Il ne doit pas avoir pour titre et pour sujet le flux et le reflux de la mer ... mais l'examen mathématique de l'hypothèse copernicienne relative au mouvement de la Terre, en vue de prouver que (la rélévation divine et la doctrine sacrée étant réservées) cene hypothèse se concilie avec les phénomènes apparents et n'est pas détruite par les arguments contraires qui peuvent être empruntés à l'expérience et à la philosophie péripatéticienne» (c'est-à-dire celle d'Aristote et de Ptolémée)." « Le but de l'ouvrage doit être surtout de faire voir que I'on connaît toutes les raisons qui peuvent être invoquées en faveur de la doctrine» (copernicienne - c'est moi qui souligne), et que ce n'est pas pour les avoir ignorées qu'a été promulgué à Rome le décret (de 1616) «auquel l'ouvrage devra se conformer dans son commencement et dans sa fin, qui seront envoyés à l'inquisiteur ... Après ces précautions, le livre ne rencontrera aucun obstacle à Rome et l'inquisiteur pourra donner satisfaction à l'auteur ... ». Quand on lit sans parti pris ces directives du pape, écrit Aubanel, «on ne peut qu'être frappé de sa sagesse et de la liberté qu'il donne à Galilée. Que lui demande-t-on ? De ne pas enseigner comme une vérité absolue une théorie gu'il n'appuie que sur des probabilités; de laisser de côté l'Ecriture Sainte; de ne point faire dépendre toute la question de sa preuve fameuse - et fausse - du flux et du reflux. Il a même la permission - et ceci est à retenir - de combattre Aristote et de montrer l'impuissance de sa philosophie à démentir la doctrine qu'il préconise. Où donc trouver dans ces lignes la moindre entrave à la science? Il n'yen a aucune ».