I got a sick sort of amusement this past week as I read several different and independent online articles about employment. These were mostly lists and rankings, with short captions, detailing job prospects for the immediate future. Some of them talked about which fields are hiring and which are not, others were more concerned with the college majors to take or avoid given the current job market. All of them, to the article, included the “liberal arts,” and especially philosophy, at the top of their “don’t waste your time” lists. As a philosopher, or lover of wisdom, by birth and by training, I’m sure you can understand the paradoxical nature of my emotions at the time.
On the one hand, this is what every philosopher would expect such a list to say; a wisdom-lover of any merit learns early on not to rely on someone’s paycheck to survive. This is a practical world, and on a ship where everybody rows, nobody – especially the Captains and owners of those ships – wants to hear arguments about the best way to row, or whether or not people should bother rowing at all. On this giant ship of fools, comprised largely of herd animals predictable and easily startled, such a questioner and thinker can even be seen as dangerous.
These job outlook articles thereby amused me in that their conclusions were exactly as one would expect, given the state of our society. In a world of specialists rewarded for in-depth knowledge of one single thing – outside of which they thereby become useless and lost invalids – the value of someone whose goal it is to learn at least a little about as much as possible is negligible. “Free thought” itself can be dangerous to the existing order of things, and when thoughts are controlled by the media and the public “education,” as is the case today, philosophers become seen as usurpers. Philosophy is a meta-discipline in that it serves as a “check” on the science and social sciences once borne of its loins. Because it is a critic of society, history, politics, and the sciences philosophy is, therefore, a consistent threat to all these fields of expertise. Philosophers have been trained to think critically, to draw from all disciplines whatever they have to offer, and they also have enough knowledge of history to expose many of Man’s follies from that perspective.
On the other hand, these articles made me sick, I mean literally where I get this sort of nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach, just below my rib cage, in the area of the solar plexus. They make me sick because, while these reports are true, there is really no protest, or ever any indication as to why philosophy, or for that matter any of the “liberal arts” (a very bad name) just might be useful, or even necessary to a healthy society. Maybe it is true that philosophy should not be a paid position, after all, philosophers must remain objective. Politicians and judges should not be on any payroll for the same reason, when doing the job of politician or judge. Representing only one side of a debate, or having an axe to grind, is the field of the Sophist, or as we call them today, attorneys, who can and will argue for whichever position or side they are being paid to represent.
And, as many philosophers have said, philosophy makes one able and ready to do nearly any job. Authentic philosophers, not necessarily those who merely spent 8 or more years in college, have the critical thinking tools to get even the most difficult job done. You can hire a freshly minted oh, account executive, or marketing team member, or personal assistant, or CPA, trained especially for those tasks. As the turnover rate shows, that doesn’t necessarily mean you have hired a good employee, or even someone who can do the best job. You could also, however, hire a philosopher for any of those positions, and with a little bit of the specific training necessary to do that job, the real philosopher should be able to master the position in short time.
But this post is not a treatise defending philosophy. That is for another time. This post is to tell you that all these signs of the elimination of philosophy and the liberal arts – and the removal of religion from all public aspects of society – are setting up the modern science on a pedestal. The Big Bang theory, Macroevolution, conjecture about dating methods, DNA, many of the scientific theories we have been discussing, will soon have no one outside of their field to challenge them. If there are no philosophers, that would mean all change in these ways of thinking will have to come from the inside, so to speak. Theories that support or challenge the validity of, for example, Macroevolution, will then have to come from the Macroevolutionists themselves, or a very related field, which will make any scientific revolution necessarily inbred. An analog can be found in political conspiracy theories, like the JFK assassination, or the 9-11 Twin Towers implosions. When these “official” stories are questioned by independent investigators, the problems are addressed by “Committees” composed of people from the very same groups and agencies alleged to be involved in the conspiracies! So, you get robbed, and the only people you can appeal to are all friends of the robber. Academically, this is where we are heading, I cannot stress this enough. Those who do not agree with “Scientific Consensus” are considered to be charlatans, troublemakers, ignorant, or heretics, and too often this namecalling is the entire body of evidence againt the disagreement. Science is, as we have stated several times in our search for the Origin of Man, the new religion. All that stops this new Scholasticism from being Universal Law are the records of history, which themselves are being rewritten as we speak , ostensibly to accommodate modern agendas.
For one nice, controversial example, there is that “Holocaust” situation. When I grew up, it was presumed and taught to me that Hitler and the Nazi party were examples of all that is evil in the world. That for no reason these bad guys started rounding up Jewish people and executing them, mostly in gas chambers and ovens, until the Allies came in their white shining armor to rescue the world from the Nazi scourge. This all changed for me during a graduate seminar in, well, philosophy, and continues to this day, after much travel abroad and reading more history. My Jewish professor, who must have seen a picture of Freud as a child, because he fit every “professor” stereotype one could think of – he walked and talked slowly, grew his grey beard, smoked a pipe, etc. – made the mistake of repeating a phrase I have grown to loathe, and that is the “We Are All Responsible” for whatever happened to the Jews during WWII. Worse than that, he insisted in front of the class, that we are not only responsible, but that we all owe the Jews for what happened.
I couldn’t take it any more at that point. Because he was talking to everyone in the class, I challenged him in front of the class. I told him my father came to this country in poverty, and had to work his tail off with physical labor to make something of himself, never harmed a Jew, and I should add, had to even earn the right to become a citizen. I pointed to all the people in the class, and told him how these students were not even alive then, and so could not have done anything to the Jews. I insisted, matching his own obvious vehemence, that people are not responsible for the sins of their fathers, in any case. We debated at least 20 minutes past the end of class time, and not one person in the room left early. It only ended when another seminar was scheduled to use the room, and its students began coming in. He asked that I meet him in his office, when he more or less tried to strong-arm me into changing majors, saying I really didn’t want to do philosophy, and this all because I challenged his mantra.
I refer to this story because since that time I have been spurned to do more research into the actual events preceding World War II, and the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis at that time. I learned things like the Jewish declaration of war on Germany years before Hitler came to power. I learned about what the Jewish Bolsheviks did in and to Russia, [see bad rebuttal view here] and the Russian-Jew plan under the regime of Trotsky, Lenin, and the rest, to systematically rape millions of German women. I read the Talmud, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the history of the Diary of Anne Frank. I found out about what was going on in Poland, and how Germany was treated after World War I, and the Jewish/Zionist banking cartels still alive today (The Zion Mafia) that only really got upset when Hitler divorced himself and Germany from these banks and began printing his own carefully controlled money:
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.
At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates. Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits (source here).
I found out, too that what were an alleged several million dead at Auschwitz became changed by the curators of the now Auschwitz museum itself by millions, with no corresponding change in the total reported dead, which I read that, by some estimations, exceeded the amount of Jews living in Eastern Europe at the time. I read about how the Nuremberg trials were against all prior protocols of war, presided over by the image of the Star of David, prosecuted by mostly Jews, and their relying for the most part on false, forced or forged testimony. Never mind that I also found out there may never have been any gas chambers, despite the claims of people who claim to have escaped it – even numerous times. This, I hear, from thousands of alleged “survivors” who, were they to be killed as the alleged program claims, would not be here to tell the story. In fact, I learned since the days of Professor Judaica, the German prison camps were run like most wartime prison camps until Allied forces inhumanely cut off the supplies of food and medicine to and through Germany. I wonder why we hear about the millions of Jews at a daily rate (“never forget”…) but never about those even more millions of massacred Russians and Germans, or enemies of the Khmer Rouge, which did not benefit by representatives of their ilk having tons of banker cash. I’ve even been exposed to theories citing a Zionist kabal, allegedly present in education, Hollywood and the media, entertainment, politics, banking and economics, insurance, NASA, the Department of Homeland Security, and all the biggest of businesses in the world. If this all sounds too sweeping or even crazy to you, then you need to really see who is in charge at all these institutions.
Now what’s true and what’s false about the Zionist history this Professor drove me to investigate further is also a matter for another post, to come soon enough. My point here is that the history being taught now is not true history, it is accepted history, and just a snapshot of the whole picture, the angle that makes a certain history look the best. For Russians they have a different view of the Cold War as do Americans. For our example here of the truth about the history of the “holocaust,” what is known fact is that revisionists and other people who question the established history are not only excommunicated from the Church of Standing History, but in some cases are even prosecuted by law and put in prison for challenging the accepted versions. Mainstream publishing will not even consider any re-investigation of this holocaust history. If this is not EXACTLY the same type of injustices as happened to scientists during the reign of crazed religious zealotry, I don’t know what is.
Like the standing science of laughable Macroevolution and The Big Bang, which are accepted as facts, there is a standing or “accepted by scholars” history, and it is a selective and incomplete history, with many pieces being phased out – and others added in – as time moves along. Like The Big Bang and Macroevolution, the lack of proof and false premises of the popular positions about history does not thereby stop these opinions from monopolizing education and the media – and without the use of asterisks. Just like in the Middle Ages, when there was not much popular protest about the beheading or stoning of heretics, the masses have been indoctrinated into a whole mess of lies they are forced to believe as truth. Never mind that it would be decidedly un-Christian to kill even a non-Christian according to the very books on which Christianity based. In times like these, and of stonings, the average lay person rarely picks up the actual New Testament. Rather, and so like today in History, Science, and so on, people who considered themselves knowledgeable instead relied on the opinions of those in authority to determine what they should believe and do.
Those in power like it that way. It is the practical philosophy of John Dewey and behaviorist psychology of Skinner and Watson that is responsible for this style of education that emphasizes practical use over the search for truth. Rather than teach people to think, this system teaches them just enough to know how to regurgitate and follow instructions. It preaches free thinking, but only so long as that thinking is in line with the majority opinion. The goal of this public education and media programming is not to make a person wise, but to train him like a Pavlovian dog to do a certain task – at the bell.
Our search has so far already exposed us to the extent of bad evidence given just in attempt to answer for this one question, the Origin of Man. Certainly at points we, more correctly I, have surely been mistaken. Nevertheless, we have found NO legitimate evidence for Macroevolution. We have found so far NO legitimate evidence for the Big Bang Theory. The more we question, the more we encounter resistance, and this resistance is not necessarily from the theorists themselves. The resistance to criticism levied against the predominant accepted standards in history and science come really from the public, your neighbor, the layman. Even the one who considers himself educated on your block or street is a parrot of faith, hardly ever one who has investigated the source of his beliefs. When it comes to modern-day oppression, it does not come just from the powers-that-be. It comes from your neighbor and fellow citizen, brainwashed by the dictates of his authorities. These common men of blind faith, perhaps through no fault of their own, are the real obstacles to true progress and the Truth. No oppressive regime can last without a squadron of buffoons doing its bidding and repeating its mantras.
Say, for example, you think America, or your country, is in bad shape, and that the best bet would be for you to divorce yourself from your government. This possibility of a revolution of any scale or means is highly unlikely these days for several reasons. Over half of the people in this country, and in the entire Western world, rely in some way on a government check, subsidy, pension, loan, disability payment, etc. Add these dependencies in to those already on the government payrolls, and to those jobs not directly paid by taxpayers but whose employers depend on government contracts, and an argument can be made that we are nearing a communism, or at least socialism, where everyone is dependent on the government, and everyone a ward of the state. Given this scenario, would you expect any of these dogs to bite the hand that feeds them? Do you think your neighbor is willing to give up his monthly stipend in favor of rebellion, or a revolution?
It has been said “I found the enemy, and he is us.” As we’ve searched for the Origin of Man, we have encountered the most common theories and found them wanting. In the mean time we have been doing what I will call the Philosophy Of The Origin Of Man, and that is a loving pursuit in attempt to detect mankind’s origin. This Philosophy ideally should be unbiased, and take into account all, or most of the existing theories about the Origin of Man. We have done this, to some extent, and while an ideal study would be impartial, I plead guilty to pronouncing judgment when necessary. Philosophers like Richard McKeon, polymaths and without many peers as far as depth of knowledge goes, represent for me modern-style philosophers long on information and short on evaluation. They will tell you all the alternatives for any issue, but remain silent when it comes time to choose. Some of us already know the alternatives, what we want to learn is the BEST way, and why it is best. I don’t have a problem finding out the alternatives, I have a problem which too choose, and that is the advice I seek from my life tutors. It is in this spirit that our Philosophy Of The Origin Of Man has progressed, and it is how it will continue. I will not keep you hanging, at least as to what I currently believe.
To recap, we have thus far sought for Man’s origins in archaeology, anthropology, biology, historical dating, language, various religions, and several alternative theories. In my opinion, God has become necessary. Call it a demiurge, logos, Allah, deity, Buddha, Krishna, gods, High Spirit, Ra, Mother Nature, whatever you like. The evidence of design, varied and marvelous as it is, I am convinced necessitates a plan, and a plan necessitates a planner. This Planner you can call God. Far from what mental midgets like Richard Dawkins concluded, I see the same evidence and think God a better and more sensible alternative. This does not mean I am a proponent of any particular religious creed, as my opinion right now is EVERY ONE of them is incomplete, and in a word, wrong. BUT, as that “useless philosopher” Aldous Huxley once did, if you look deep enough into each separate religion, you find common elements that show Man how, and the best ways, to live in this world and with each other. There is, the way I see it, no difference between a pious catholic and a pious Muslim, pious Baptist or pious Hindu. Take away their smell and clothing and skin color and language and they are all the same, pious, or simply righteous men. There is a right way to act, evidenced by the heroic deeds of great men all throughout history, most of who acted as if under the eyes of their Maker. But while I believe in God, for me what a person believes means very little. For me, what a person does is what matters. Physically, morally, even scientifically, every movement and action you perform makes a disturbance in space and is what matters. Between genocide and feeding the hungry, there is no difference outside of action.
What is it you do? That is what you are. What good does it do to say you are a happy person, then cry or complain at every moment? Call yourself an optimist, then always expect the worst? Say you love your significant others, but then treat them worse than strangers? Or for that matter, what good does it do to say you are a peaceful nation, and then proceed to war or stir up war every single day? Talk about how you have no money…and then proceed to waste more on galas, banquets, and further wars and caskets?
You are what you do, and by what you do, you will finally be judged. Your every move, expressed emotion and spoken word makes an impression and has consequences, and I dare say is being recorded. These consequences – good or bad – are to be seen as attributable to not necessarily God directly, and are little more than the way the world operates, and is really let’s say a scientific proposition, like the old logos. Recall our section and discussion about “negative space” and the like a few chapters ago. We could justify it scientifically!
Some of the rabid atheistic ilk like to spew on about how “The God Idea” stifles science and research. Considering that no problems of science or life change merely by the acknowledgment of God’s existence, these seem to me to be the mutterings of idiots.