Saturday, November 22, 2014

Time is not money. And money is not time.

Money passes through time. So what. It is intrinsically connected with time because we ourselves operate in time. So what. We schedule all sorts of things according to time in addition to work hours. So what. The notion itself of a "work hour" is as much an abstract product of our minds as money, all the way down to our measurements of minutes and seconds and milliseconds. So what. We produce calendars of linear sequences and cycles which in themselves are not time, and which are not even us dividing time, or making sense of time, or categorizing time; rather, they are the representations of the projected stamp of our activities taking on the assumption of time as reflected in the rotation of the spheres. That's what the yearly calendar is: representing time within time. And this is perfectly natural, beautiful and not at all a fiction. Even Heaven itself respects it. It is vitally connected with the real. So what. When one says "money is time" or "time is money" one is not saying anything. But one is indeed compounding the fiction so desperately feared and consequently exacerbated by those trying to pop it. For just as we accrete a calendar as a human representation, of time as time receiving and being shaped by our respective activities going forward as a means of mirroring back to ourselves a stability to our activities (which because it has to do with real time is not at all fictional) so we accrete representation to wealth. So what.

All what any of this proves is that we were made for order and not chaos. Or more truthfully, that order was and is intrinsic in our creation, in our being made. And creation is hierarchical.

The difference between the two is this: whereas the formulation of a calendar is concerned with what is to come, being worked into our present, or our present going forward in anticipation of what is to come, after which we cast away our old calendars with their boxes all crossed off or our digital calendars are instantly replaced with the new one, and we say, "the best laid plans of mice and men", the formulation of money in its proper and most natural sense is concerned with what has already been completed, which then extends a stable proximity for the beginning of another activity going forward. The activities in the case of money are transactions.

Money only and ever comes into existence through a transaction of some kind. The way money circulates from party to party and from hand to hand is like to the way money comes into existence. The way money comes into existence can either be good or it can be evil, continuing to incentivize one or the other. For the sound issuance of money, one can say it no simpler than this: the parties involved in a transaction must have completed the transaction both in terms of no one coming away from it deprived of what was agreed upon, but also nothing added on and extended from that transaction afterwards, which is projected onto the transaction beforehand. Which could generally be called speculation and derivatives, and for that matter, fractional reserve lending and government bonds (which are two sides of the same - ahem - coin). Nothing added on and nothing subtracted from: this is what constitutes the completion of a transaction - and thus the evidencing of wealth.

Money is not accreted to a commodity, or the production of a commodity, or the potential for the production of a commodity; rather, money is accreted to any number of future transactions as evidence of a prior transaction completed.

It is when we get away from this completion beforehand that we encounter economic woe. Derivatives, speculation, fractional reserve lending and government bonds (all of which are connected): these are at the heart of our economic problems.

In other words...usury. The making of money from money. But today it is specialized: usury is not today just a practice done by shady loan sharks. It lies at the very heart, or fountainhead if you will, of the issuance of money - the way money comes into existence. It has poisoned the well.

 "Rapacious usury has increased the evil which, more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different form but in the same way, practiced by avaricious and grasping men." --Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum

And it is an argument about what constitutes the well that people are actually arguing about.

People are obsessed with the attempt to make money into something so full proof and so permanently real, so obsessed with making it de facto before it is de jure (when it is the other way around) that they are willing to render the priceless things of man into commodities in order to support this historically novel hysteria of theirs - this obnoxious hammering upon some absolute qualified conception of money, like it will part the Red Sea.

It never occurs to any of these people, these blind objectivists, that when they are talking about what money is - and then conceptualizing a healthy economy from the definition - that what they are actually talking about is governance. It would not occur to them in a thousand years.


Friday, November 21, 2014

Hell is Universalism

"On the other hand, despite the protests of those who imagine a world without absolutes, the knowledge of the existence of hell has moved more men to repentance than many good sermons. The mere thought of an everlasting abyss of sorrow and suffering has been enough for some to deny an hour’s pleasure in lieu of an eternity of pain. Hell exists as the last teacher, the final signpost to save sinners from a horrific plunge from their Creator. Since every human soul is eternal, when we leave this earthly plane, we live on. But it is here that we must choose where we will live forever." --Mark Mallett, Hell is for Real

Imbibing Universalism is like drinking a bucket of insipid snot that coats and clings around every grace and gift and mercy that gives life.

Its final end is not the eradication of the fear of hell, but the dwindling of the immensity, the watering down of the intensity, and the trampling down of the unfathomable mercy of God's inviting love.

Universalism is a pig squealing about how God's sanctuary should be his trough and then tramples and gorges God's flesh by saying His love is a failure for pointing out and warning of the butcher, Satan, and his eternal hell.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Monday, November 17, 2014


Beyond this, Thorn also believes that contraception is flat-lining the way men interact with women.
"There is estrogen in the water now. Male fertility has dropped by 50 percent after the pill was introduced, around the world.”

Thorn referred to various studies done on monkeys, which have shown that males are more interested in females who were not contracepting.

She believes that this study applies to humans as well. The way a woman’s body works naturally engages the male, causing him to be more interested and connected, she observed. However, a woman who is chemically altering her body’s natural flux will not engage a male in the same way.

“But we aren't told these things,” she said.

Read full article here.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

This should be interesting to watch


Never ever think that you have someone pegged. The "ever" qualifier in that statement cannot be overdone, because you simply never have anyone pegged - far from it.

It makes me queasy to see the ease with which the orthodox and the conservative brush away the injunctions about not judging people (paired with the edification to listen) - the immediate classification they give to this warning as fuzzy liberal relativism. Is it a good sign when the immediate reaction to "do not judge" is to classify the phrase "do not judge" as fuzzy liberal relativism? It is ironic, that is for sure.

But it is a very real warning and it concerns a grave danger, connected with the gravest sin, pride. Is that something to be taken lightly? Is it a waste of time to contemplate the dangers - personal dangers - of the gravest of sins and its intrinsic occasions? Do you think the Devil is stupid?

Do not think you have someone figured out, or pegged, or that you know where that person is coming from. Are you anyone's creator? It seems to me the creator of people knows people best, and that you and me know only a fragment about the people we judge, and those fragments are intertwined with ourselves, making it even more a blind judgement - and out of the entire narrative of that person's life, you are acquainted with...what exactly?

A person is "a unique and unrepeatable creation". A mystery - an unpeggable mystery.

Not only are you judging someone, you are judging history like you were the God of history. A person claims to be vigorous and intelligent with a strenuous demand for clarity, but there is too often a huge and winding slime trail of lazy-assed, presumed-upon, crusty, half-formed and malformed conceptions and assumptions that precede their super orthodox stand-offs, which, interestingly, often lean toward the flippant.

The dangers of pride: the phrase probably sounds very quaint and old fashioned to some or to many. Who hears sermons about pride? About how it's the corruption of the highest, which means it is the worst corruption and the most poisonous, the most far-reaching, and the most undetectable. Anyone often hear a sermon about this?

One touchstone of pride, one of the foremost telltale signs, is a form of pegging other people. The forms are varied as people are. It is not just making gross mischaracterizations about someone. The injunction to not judge people is not simply a refraining from - as in, well, okay, I won't judge people, check, check, check, now let's get on with it. For not judging people only and ever rests upon the positive commandment to love your neighbour as yourself. So at the heart of this judging, this pegging of other people, is a spiritual deletion of a person's image - that person who is made in the image of God. It is more painful in a manner than physical violence. For this judging does not necessarily constitute looking at a person with a conclusive judgement. It also, and today more often, includes not looking at people at all; so that our sound arguments become conclusive categorizations of people - as in, they become the pinnacle or summation of our regard for our neighbour.

It is precisely in our love for neighbour that we see what they are doing wrong, and in that context speak about it, and do what prudence and courage demand and inspire. We cannot make arguments while neglecting love of neighbour, for even our sound arguments will become dirty.

I'm as guilty as anyone. This post only proves it.


From the Father Brown story, The Miracle of Moon Crescent, by G.K. Chesterton:

Fenner laughed and then looked puzzled. 'I don't understand one thing,' he said. 'If it was Wilson, how did Wynd come to have a man like that on such intimate terms? How did he come to be killed by a man he'd seen every day for years? He was famous as being a judge of men.'
Father Brown thumped his umbrella on the ground with an emphasis he rarely showed.
'Yes,' he said, almost fiercely; 'that was how he came to be killed. He was killed for just that. He was killed for being a judge of men.'
They all stared at him, but he went on, almost as if they were not there.
'What is any man that he should be a judge of men?' he demanded. 'These three were the tramps that once stood before him and were dismissed rapidly right and left to one place or another; as if for them there were no cloak of courtesy, no stages of intimacy, no free-will in friendship. And twenty years has not exhausted the indignation born of that unfathomable insult in that moment when he dared to know them at a glance.'

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

A New Generation

Would you have life patented
if it meant the end of wickedness,
suffering, poverty and distress?
No one believes in the world to come;
this manifests in every portion.
Wits, body, will, genitals,
transacted as commodities:
each person owns himself
and no one is his own;
sycophants and psychopaths,
knowing all facets down to bone;
what you do with yourself is up to you
and everything you do,
decided before you.

"We do not belong to anyone" they say,
"and so to the devil in chains."

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Year by Year

Good to post Annum per Annum by Arvo Pärt on this day.

" this work there is a reflection of the idea that year in and year out the ancient rites of the church are celebrated in the same places."

O God, who year by year renews the day of the consecration of this Your Holy Temple, and ever bring us again in safety to the holy mysteries, hear the prayers of Your people, and grant that whoever enters this temple to seek blessings may rejoice to obtain all that he seeks. Through our Lord…

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Don't be stupid

One of the stupidest things a person can do - and I mean stupidest as in S - T - U - P - I - D, as in there are a hundred other stupid things one could begin with that would look smart beside it - one of the stupidest things a person can do is attempt to "gauge" where the Holy Father stands by who he "demotes" and who he "promotes". It's stupid on so many levels as to be perfectly blind. Not only for what it positively is (the stupidity of presuming an infallible scale of veracity in deciding what makes a promotion a promotion and what makes a demotion a demotion and what makes a position too worthy for such and such a character), but for what it necessarily negates. And what it necessarily negates is that whole, you know, Catholic thing. (Not definitively Catholic thing, but what is assumed in being Catholic thing.) Like, hello creeping Protestantism.

Yet this is what we see the majors and the p.h.d.'s and the widely-read Catholic writers doing. It's amazing. It makes those who should know better into blind guides (like LifeSiteNews). People flock to their favourite oracle Fr. Zuhlsdorf where he drops little nuggets of his seemingly let-slip thoughts for his readers to pick up and they hold on to them like the pearl of great price; with a few off-handed-seeming musing words of his in red he can hold them in throes of sudden despair. It's a sickening disgrace.

How about objectively trusting the Holy Father? He's not there for you to "give him the benefit of the doubt". It's amazing how the know-it-alls are being confounded in their conceit left and right as they attempt to decode Bergoglio.

“I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
for although you have hidden these things
from the wise and the learned
you have revealed them to little ones.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father.
No one knows the Son except the Father,
and no one knows the Father except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.”

I mean, I'm just really trying to figure out this puzzling Bergoglio! He's such an enigma!

“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened,
and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,
for I am meek and humble of heart;
and you will find rest for yourselves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” --Mt 11:25-30

Anyhow, if a Catholic convert starts casting aspersions on the Holy Father, attempting to illuminate his past as cardinal, bishop, priest and seminarian and earlier as a means of determining what sort of pope we have, then is one allowed to cast aspersions on their former Protestantism as tainting them with a subtly entrenched anti-papist bent?

Whether that writer is a former Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist or otherwise, as one reads their words online is one allowed to say, "Well, no matter how many Catholic t's you cross and Catholic i's you dot, that yeast sure knows how to assimilate it all and come through in the end; for strong and stubborn is the leaven of Protestantism indeed!"

Is one allowed? Don't answer that. LOL.

I need to imbed new code in my template to figure this one out.

My computer crashed! An enigma within an enigma!

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Aphorism IV

There's a daring in waiting.