Lauding Death On Earth Day: The Left's Blindness And Our Repentance

Perhaps I will be forgiven the sin of writing the headline to this essay. Perhaps not. Maybe I will at least be forgiven for extending this grace: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. They really don't.

In anticipation of today's Earth Day celebration, The Keene (NH) Sentinel, where I (happily) used to work as a photojournalist, published an in-house editorial with a rather shocking title. Please note that the gist of both the headline and the editorial are perfectly representative of what I warned about in my Contratimes post "Save Us! Unite Us! (A Savior Draws Near?)", that is, that this current Covid-19 crisis will be offered as a perfect reason to save the planet from climate change, as the massive human shutdown that is upon us is good for the planet. Please take notice of what the Sentinel claims:

Earth Day: What ails us seems good for the planet, at least for now

I know, I know. It's incomprehensible ... and reprehensible. How, we might ask, can anyone be so callous?

The lede itself is enough to weep over:

For environmental advocates, we might say of Wednesday’s 50th Earth Day, with apologies to Dickens: “It was the worst of times; it was the best of times.”

The best of times? For death, suffering; horrors?

[...] it’s the best of times to be arguing the science of human-caused greenhouse gases and global warming. The past couple of months have shown indisputably that human activity — vehicle traffic, factories, power plants, etc., are a prime culprit in creating hazy skies and murky waters. Since the bulk of human commerce ceased in places like China, Italy and the U.S., the planet has quickly recovered — at least, at a surface level. Beijing and Los Angeles have been visibly smogless in satellite and aerial views for the first time in decades. The canals of Venice have cleared. Estimates place the reduction of emissions in China at 25 percent in February alone.

The proof, then, is there for all to see. We, as a species, are bad for the planet, as long as we persist in emitting greenhouse gases and polluting air, sea and land. In this respect, then, both the temporary cleansing of the air and water is a welcome Earth Day coincidence. And the lessons to be gleaned may be key to advancing the cause once the heights of the coronavirus crisis have passed.

There is so much that is disturbing here it is hard to know precisely where to begin constructing a counter-argument. Perhaps I could start with the writer's claim the canals of Venice have cleared, which they have, but not because they are less polluted but because boats are no longer coursing through those canals, the very boats which stir up silt from the sea bottom. Such sediment is not, as experts have noted, necessarily pollution. After all, a lot of clear water is clear because of pollution, while a lot of dirty water is harmlessly dirty. (National Geographic, which noted the settled silt in Venice, also cleared up the viral news that dolphins, shown in a video, had "returned" to Venice. They had not. The NatGeo video of the dolphins was taken hundreds of miles away in waters where dolphins normally live. So, too, news of the "return" of swans to Venice: they had never left.)

In the course of my intellectual life I formed (if you will) an argument that, when I have shared it with my progressive interlocutors, has always left them rather peeved and aggravated. It goes something like this:

When we begin, as atheists and evolutionists do, with the idea that there is ONLY the natural world; that there is no God or Being or Force outside the universe; that there is NOTHING but THIS life, this universe, this cosmos; then it is necessarily the case that there is no SUPER nature. ANY idea of the supernatural is laughable, absurd; an obvious delusion, as there is ONLY this natural reality in which we find ourselves. To paraphrase Holy Scripture, in NATURE alone do "we live, move, and have our being."

Thus the problem, especially for the writer of the editorial: there is NOTHING that one can describe as UNNATURAL. Everything is natural -- EVERYTHING. With the force of evolution, chance, and the blind predestination that must obey the laws of chance-driven physics, all that we see, hear, taste, touch, smell; all that is and ever will be, is natural, is the result of nature's unfolding. Gasoline? Natural. Pollution? Natural. Poisons made in labs? Natural. Climate change? Natural. Genetically modified organisms? Thoroughly natural.

All things -- ALL THINGS -- are created by nature, including what the editorial writer describes as a blight on the planet: humans. No matter how destructive or toxic, humans are, by evolution's blind logic, natural. Thus, toxic humans are thoroughly normal.

Which, as you can see, leaves us with the problem that every problem is normal, natural. In fact, there are no problems, really, when we set them inside nature, precisely because there is nowhere else to set them; just as there is no other reference point from which they can be perceived and judged.

To write quasi-poetically, with subtle irony, as the editorial writer did, that a pandemic is a moral and ontological good, is hard to justify, particularly when progressivism, the tradition in which the editorial stands, is allegedly sensitive about language that abuses those who suffer. But no: what AILS us is GOOD for the planet. Death, dying, suffering, are each and all gifts to the planet. (For the good of the many, no doubt.)

Had I written an editorial suggesting the Covid-19 crisis was God's punishment on humanity for, I don't know, immorality, I would receive swift and vicious rebuke. But if I write that Covid-19 is punishment for being a polluting human, or for denying climate "science," or for not being sufficiently progressive in politics; or that this virus is a punishment for xenophobia or lack of "inclusion," I should hardly expect a single criticism from progressives. We know this to be true precisely because of this editorial: humans are bad, and what ails us -- the worst of times -- is really the best of times. After all, or so we are told, the greatest health crisis facing us is climate change.

Which leads to this awful and very real conclusion: since humans are causing climate change, the greatest health crisis facing humanity is a particular SET OF HUMANS. And to what does this sort of conclusion generally lead? I will let you guess, but think genocide.

The recklessness of the editorial is obvious. One cannot honestly deny the cruelty of it all, irrespective of the possibility the cruelty might be accidental, couched in an editorial hastily written by someone who might have needed an Earth Day essay merely to fill space. Nevertheless, the sentiments and ideas expressed therein, slovenly as they are, remain consistent with the worldview of the progressive left.

But I will extend grace: The writer was momentarily lazy, distracted from intellectual discipline because of this Age of Covidity. He is in fact a victim of covidity. He knows not what he does.

So we forgive this happy Earth Day, in the Name of the Holy Earth, repenting for our being ... natural .. and very much of the Earth.

©Contratimes/2020. All rights reserved. 

Following The Folly?

I must share a couple of things in the days after my recent essay -- "Save Us! Unite Us! (The Savior Draws Near?)" -- published April 10. Recall that I said I was sensing, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, a temptation luring some people toward collectivism. Also recall my concern that we were surrendering ourselves to "the System," by which I meant a seemingly benign and omniscient system of technology, something like a hybridization of Google, Amazon, Facebook and the like, that will, perhaps, be offered as a form of totalitarian and, of course egalitarian, governance.

This article from 2017, "How East and West think in profoundly different ways", has several very interesting points that we need to consider, I believe, as we see this push toward globalism/collectivism. The points are likely not what you expect them to be. This is not, at least not overtly, a political piece. You should read it.

Also, in regards to surrendering ourselves to "the System," specifically (as I mentioned 10 days ago), the impact such a system could have on "the greatest public health threat of all: climate change," please note that NASCAR, the truly American-born competitive car racing system, has begun to broadcast "virtual races" where real drivers race virtual cars, from home on computer consoles, around a virtual track. Understand: these are REAL NASCAR drivers "driving" entirely computer-generated vehicles around a simulated track in a simulated race and shown on national TV, with even REAL people (like NASCAR great Jeff Gordon) doing LIVE ANALYSIS and play-by-play. (One popular driver, Kyle Larson, was even fired from NASCAR after his use of a racial slur while communicating with his "crew members" via his headset during the race.)

Alas, and alleluia! Virtual car racing, pitting software against itself, is, at least for the moment, making the earth cleaner, better, safer. And those horrific race car crashes? Gone!

See? The System is not just benign, it's good!

©Contratimes/2020. All Rights Reserved. 

Finding A Scapegoat: The Religious Right, Again

The editors of The New York Times, the so-called paper of record known here as the Opiate of the People, must have understood social distancing to mean they needed to distance themselves not only from sound journalism, but also sound reasoning. How else to explain their approval of a vacuous editorial written by Katherine Stewart – "The Religious Right's Hostility to Science Is Crippling Our Coronavirus Response" – published March 27, 2020? If ever there was an example of a pure sophistry, Ms. Stewart's embarrassing essay is it. Surely such an editorial merited a warning to readers: Danger! Reading This May Be Hazardous To Sanity. (Side effects may include conceit of mind and suicide of thought.) Cognitive Distancing Recommended.

I am not afraid of the charge of hyperbole that might be leveled against my next sentence. There is nary a proposition in Ms. Stewart's essay that is true.

Let us for a moment skip the criminal characters Ms. Stewart lists in her indictment. Instead, let us read her most important sentences, such as they are. Please observe what they suggest (sentences not shown in original sequence):

When a strong centralized response is needed from the federal government, it doesn’t help to have an administration that has never believed in a federal government serving the public good.

When you’re engaged in a struggle between the “party of life” and the “party of death,” as some religious nationalists now frame our political divisions, you don’t need to worry about crafting careful policy based on expert opinion and analysis.

One of the first casualties of fact-free hyper-partisanship is competence in government.

It is fair to point out that the failings of the Trump administration in the current pandemic are at least as attributable to its economic ideology as they are to its religious inclinations.

When the so-called private sector is supposed to have the answer to every problem, it’s hard to deal effectively with the very public problem of a pandemic and its economic consequences. [Bold added for emphasis]

Note what appears above in bold letters and consider what this tells us about Ms. Stewart. She is a collectivist. A totalitarian. A socialist, perhaps even a communist. Her argument with the Trump Administration is not really about science or the denial thereof, nor is it about the Religious Right. It's about political convictions held by millions of Americans that do not conform to a collectivist, totalitarian, socialist "strong centralized response," one born of "expert opinion and analysis" by an empowered "public" sector of a particular "economic ideology." Her big concern is not about the denial of medical science vis-a-vis Covid-19 interventions. Her concern is the denial of theories regarding man-made causes of, and cures for, climate change, as such denial thwarts the collectivist, totalitarian "strong centralized response" leftists like Ms. Stewart adore.

Ms. Stewart's ideals sound eerily reminiscent of what Times columnist Thomas Friedman said during the Obama presidency when he dreamily considered what it would be like if the American democracy embodied in that presidency could just be "China for a day," all so Obama Democrats could impose major social and economic reforms on America.

Ms. Stewart's obvious contempt for the private sector is particularly risible (though her whole piece is risible), since the private sector has clearly shown itself ably capable of answering the Covid-19 problem, with capitalism proving remarkably effective (much to her consternation, no doubt) in creating and delivering essential goods.

As for Ms. Stewart's charge that the Religious Right is "anti-science" and thus culpable in the spread of the coronavirus, one look at her list of criminals shows Ms. Stewart is rather lazy.

• Ms. Stewart derides and dismisses HHS Secretary Alex Azar as anti-science, which is odd, considering Secretary Azar, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, graduated from Dartmouth and Yale, neither one of which is a bastion of "science denialism." It's also odd because the secretary's father was an ophthalmologist, i.e., a man trained in science. 
• She denigrates Dr. Steven Hotze as a mere "anti-LGBT" activist despite the fact he earned an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School, which means, presumably, that he was trained in the scientific method and must continue in that method in order to maintain his medical license. Dr. Hotze, a vitamin enthusiast, may indeed be wrong about the health benefits of vitamins, but I suspect he is not promoting vitamins absent of science.
• Ms. Stewart mocks Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. because he dared to consider the possibility that the media's Covid-19 reaction, which he described as "hype," might be an effort to further impugn President Trump. However, while tossing Falwell in with all of the allegedly dangerous science-denying members of the Religious Right, she ignores the fact that Falwell's school, along with nearly every other Christian college and university, maintain degree programs in the sciences, even the medical sciences (including fully accredited advanced degree programs). 
• Ms. Stewart also chides HUD Secretary Ben Carson, a Seventh-Day Adventist who happens to be a world-renowned neurosurgeon, for his allegedly shameful act of following the science as it was developing: he dared suggest that healthy people need not likely worry about Covid-19 infection. But such a suggestion was perfectly apt considering the science at the time. You know the science I am talking about: masks are not effective, until they are; young adults are unlikely to get infected, until they do; and the like. One might call Ms. Stewart's criticism the 20-20 fallacy, which is another form of the fallacy of anachronism: she's arguing about past ideas based on what is known at present. In fact, this has been an operative fallacy of nearly the entire White House press corps since this health emergency began.

Admittedly some of the Covid-19 comments Ms. Steward cites made by certain religious leaders in America are troubling, but they are hardly emblematic of the beliefs of either the Religious Right or the Trump Administration.

Had I been Ms. Stewart's editor, I may have asked her, if only to provoke her to think more carefully, which folks she'd blame for the Italian government's Covid-19 response, Catholics? Would she dare blame Shia Muslims for the Iranian response to the virus? Does she blame faithful and devout Communists – communism is a religion – for the Wuhan outbreak, or would she feel more inclined to blame Confucians, or would that add to her confusion? Taoists, perhaps? Might she want to take a shot at India, where she could blame Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists, if only to add balance to her piece?

I would also ask her about the remarks made by the health commissioner of New York City, Dr. Oxiris Barbot, who, as the virus pressed upon the city, told New Yorkers to continue to live their normal lives and to "take the subway, go out, enjoy life," and that "casual contact" was an unlikely means of transmission. She also said protective N-95 masks were not really effective. Most damning, though, was this tweet from Dr. Oxiris as she echoed NY Mayor Bill DeBlasio's message to New Yorkers (note the date):

Today our city is celebrating the #LunarNewYear parade in Chinatown, a beautiful cultural tradition with a rich history in our city. I want to remind everyone to enjoy the parade and not change any plans due to misinformation spreading about #coronavirus. https://t.co/bwCnIb7j8H

— Commissioner Oxiris Barbot (@NYCHealthCommr) February 9, 2020

Is Dr. Oxiris a member of the Religious Right, Ms. Stewart? Is she a science denier?

Not that I would've had an opportunity to ask Ms. Stewart such questions. I would never edit her. I would only edit good writers.

Two questions remain, I suppose.

First, how is it The New York Times maintains an aura of excellence when it is so drearily mediocre?

Second, how is it that a Times guest columnist like Ms. Stewart, clearly an author and anti-Religious Right activist, has nearly no online footprint? Look for yourself: Ms. Stewart is unknowable, without background or biography. Apparently she doesn't even have an alma mater.

Which may explain why she's so adept at penning mere sophistries.

________________
 ©Bill Gnade/2020

The Right To ________ Is "Non-essential"

It shocks me, to be quite honest, how quickly and easily I've denied my own rights, ones given me by our Creator.

The right to religion and the free exercise thereof? Non-essential. Postponed. On hold.

The right to assemble? Not now, not at the moment. Stay apart.

The right to express myself by being proximal to others, or to walk about without a mask? Put your hands behind your back so we can handcuff you and place you in the backseat of the squad car. Watch your head. 

The right to express myself by worshiping God in the physical presence of my brothers and sisters in Christ? Sorry, sir, but at this time that's like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, though none of us think that will ever happen again since there won't be any crowded theaters in the coming New Normal.

The right to a speedy trial? The right to trial by jury? You can wait in your cell, sir, till we get the go-ahead on that quaint notion.

When I think about religion in this inherently free country and how immediately insurmountable the so-called wall of separation between the State and Church has become, I am, to put it mildly, rather dismayed, particularly by myself. Should my church, like many churches in America, care for its neighbors by providing space and staff for AA meetings, food pantries and soup kitchens; for housing and clothing for the homeless and counseling for the poor and ill, particularly the mental ill, let it be known that the State has told me such exercises of my faith are presently unnecessary. Such exercises the State declares non-essential today amount to a mere flourish of moral action; an extravagance; a frivolity, like mascara on a goat.

Evangelism? Non-essential, I hear, and I comply, wishing to be the good Christian who obeys his earthly authorities, as St. Paul and St. Peter tell the flock. In the moment of my acquiescence, I become a good citizen of the world, submissive to civil authority. Add to my obedience the honor of becoming a true believer "in science," and I find my joy complete, the abundant life overflowing my cup. For the good of all.

Eucharist? Dangerous. Not a vector of grace but of plague, as the chalice and paten are full of contaminants. Please step back from the chancel, sir, and watch from your computer screen. Home fellowship in a whole new, underground way.

Visit the shut-ins, the prisoner, the local nursing home? Not necessary.

Will any Faith ever be considered essential in the future – when things return to "normal" and are "at ease" – if Faith is deemed unnecessary right now, when the Angel of Death roams the streets?

An orthodox Jew recently spoke of the Seder and what it shows, namely, that the center of Judaism has never been the synagogue but the family. And yet, Seders have been celebrated this week in isolation, alone; with family members kept apart, denied by the State the free exercise of the faith. Break bread and share it with – yourself.

How about expressing your free-speech right – to protect yourself – by claiming the right to keep and bear arms is itself a form of expression, of speech; and that you'd like to express yourself by purchasing a handgun, a rifle, some ammunition? Amazingly, this, too, is under attack and limited, at least in some jurisdictions, particularly those jurisdictions where police forces have been told to limit arrests for all sorts of crimes in an effort to keep germs from collecting in jails. (Unless the crime is gathering in the name of Christ at church, and then pastors and priests can be incarcerated, for the good of all, I suppose.) Protecting yourself in the absence of a police presence is, well, non-essential. Move along, folks. 

Alas, at least one bright spot: The Kentucky governor, I believe, who stated that license plates would be recorded of those attending church Easter Sunday, was rebuffed by a judge, who announced the governor could do no such thing. Think of how nearly every attempt by President Trump to control immigration was overturned or rebuffed by a judge somewhere; and yet now, when rights are being denied left and right, we hardly hear a thing from the judiciary. Curious? Maybe not.

I remain dismayed: how quickly I have relinquished not just my God-given rights but the essential essence of my faith: To love. But perhaps I have it all wrong. It's not that love is essential, it's that in the time of germs, love is not love.

The New Paradox. Love stays away.

©Contratimes/2020

Save Us! Unite Us! (The Savior Draws Near?)

This is, as you know, a rather crazy time. It is a time, if you will, of mass COVIDITY. A virus has spread like panic, one dressed in pandemic. Contrary to the great preoccupation with presenting one's authentic and true self, this time demands one repress that ambition by obeying the requirement that masks, long thought false, be donned in public.

And anxiety is the new normal.

What do we know about the anxious?

If there is one thing that links all anxious minds it is the quiet plea, or vociferous cry, for security. One could march through history and conclude that every human effort is an attempt to, well, secure security; to ensure one is safe and sound in a place where survival is guaranteed. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene comes to mind, suggestive as it is of a primal drive to protect the Self from extinction. It should be accepted that all political activism is motivated by a need to palliate anxiety through the legislation of security.

Surely this is a time when the systems we have trusted have not entirely proven themselves suitably fit to protect us. Undeniably those who have, perchance, placed their trust in Something outside the immanence that seems to threaten our bodies at this moment are not necessarily tempted to panic, to run to some authority or system to save them. They have God, faith, prayer; they feel themselves protected and blessed by an Advocate, one with a plan, a strategy: they sense Someone outside of all of this Who is in control. But there are likely countless others not so lucky. While theists trusting in God may very well be deluding themselves with a false confidence, as some might suggest, this hardly matters, because theists are not necessarily given to an anxiety that leadeth them into temptation. But to those outside the protections faith provides, the temptation seems entirely normal, being all that they have to choose in the matter at hand.

What is that temptation? It is the temptation to demand, to expect; to petition and supplicate; even to pray to some earth-bound man-made leader, set of leaders, or System to deliver the anxious from their anxiety. There must be a savior of sorts, a great Intervention. At the very least, there must be a System that can protect, restore and resurrect us; a System that can safely and securely get us back on our feet.

Why am I writing this now, after years away from this blog? Because the temptation that is upon us is great, real; it is a grave threat to all that is free, human.

THE SYSTEM THAT SAVES

I am not suggesting a conspiracy. I am not, for certain, presenting a case that COVID-19 was spread intentionally. I am not even suggesting that what is upon us -- this temptation to accept any kind of solution that saves us -- is imminent. But what I am suggesting is that one can see how easily such a change can take place. For surely we now see, for example, how germ warfare may seem wildly interesting. Sundry enemies of humanity, or simply the so-called West, now see how easily a virus can bring down nations. You want revolution? Look at germs as a proper and effective tool.

But enough with the vagueness of my position, my prognostication. Let me be specific: the world is nearly ready, if not entirely so, for a totalitarian system that is utterly benign, even benevolent; one that is non-partisan or even multi-partisan: it is the System of Artificial Intelligence.

The Chinese Communists, as you know, have been utterly fascinated by the power of a platform like Google; Google developers even helped China develop its own platform to better monitor, shape, organize, and yes, protect, in a complete and total way, the "people of the party." Such a System of AI is entirely reasonable within communism; it is a broad, and seemingly fair, unifying force. It is a system that binds. It is a system that cares.

It is a System that protects.

Let's look right now at some facts that are obvious as individuals "quarantine" for the sake of the Whole. Newspapers are about to die, with readers getting their news through the System of AI. Don't you see how newspapers, hard copies made of paper, carry germs? Besides, within the System, newspapers can be, I don't know, more fully vetted, controlled; you know, to protect us and keep us secure from "fake news." Bookstores are struggling; who wants germ-carrying books? Libraries have asked us not to return books we've borrowed because of the public health threat they pose. Why have books that carry such germs, and wouldn't you rather have online works that are open to all, perhaps even open to the benign and omniscient editor that is the System?

Note how much we've already embraced the System. Education is happening in the System. Type into your search bar the term Google and you'll see Google Classroom pop up as a second choice. Tele-commuting, tele-meetings, tele-medicine, tele-law (yes, court proceedings through the System) are becoming rudimentary, normal. The System is upon us, keeping us safe.

Money, you know, cash? Credit cards? Why keep them? They are filthy, rife with plague. Did not Bill Gates himself, one of the great architects of the System, recently recommend the abolition of cash and credit cards? Has he not commended to us the benefits of an embedded microchip? Surely this System is thoughtful, kind, clean. Surely it will keep us safe from germs, and even safe from identity thieves. Who would not want that? Nothing protects like the System! The System is so kind and sanitary.

And what threat is deemed by many (who likely already adore the System) to be the biggest threat to human health on the planet? That's right: climate change. Just note how the System protects our health by protecting the planet! Surely our carbon footprint can be drastically reduced! Think now of all the empty school buildings and campuses that don't need to be illuminated, cooled, or heated. Think about all the buses sitting haplessly dormant. Think about the cars that are not moving, the trains that have stopped rolling, the jets that are no longer jetting. How clean and safe this all can be with the System! What, do you think reasonable people would oppose this Great Security?

And think of it as a form of government. Right now we have congressional members in the US who would like to have remote voting, so they need not come to Washington DC to convene; to vote. How is that not better than practices of the past; now representatives can vote via the System! Why go to Washington at all? And that's only part of it: the System could just represent everyone on the planet! It's nearly omniscient; it will likely become so, at least in an entirely mundane, immanent way. Surely it can lead us; protect our rights; create just laws and rules and regulations with the WHOLE PLANET in mind (so to speak). Surely the System can be our government, saving us from campaigns and elections, parties and platforms. Surely then we can be united, bringing a great end to partisan politics. How cool and glorious is that -- to have a System that need not be elected?

Heck, through our phones, or Bill Gates' microchip, we can even have the System monitor our health, keeping us safe and secure, with apps that keep us from the unclean and with sensors that call 911 when we collapse at home. Who would not want that?

And let us not forget the angels of the System itself, the satellites, drones, and robots that will watch over us, serving us, saving us. Heck, we even already pray to the System, with petitions and supplications. We no longer need ask God for answers, we merely need to type our requests into the System's search bar or, if we are truly devout, merely say the prayer in the right name: "Alexa, who was Jesus and why would anyone pray in His Name?"

WHAT AI ULTIMATELY MEANS, NO?

The late-Marshall McLuhan, the visionary of the 1950s and 60s, said at the dawn of the electronic media age that a "global village" like what we see now means "the end of nature." I will not explore this fully -- who could? -- but McLuhan at least meant that the normal physical realities of the world, what we consider the natural limits, have been made subject to mankind; that humanity has subdued the thorns and thistles and has escaped into a new world, a new garden, that unites us differently than Nature itself would allow.

However, if I am an evolutionist, believing there is no God but chance; that all organisms, even humans, evolve from so-called lower forms to so-called higher forms, then I would go one step further than McLuhan: the System stops human evolution. Perhaps one example will suffice to prove my point. Should my neighbor tell me his automobile is broken and he wishes he could fix it, I will likely tell him that he ought to "Google it" or "YouTube it." This advice seems sound enough; it is surely kind of me to tell him where he will find answers. But should he follow my advice he will be find an answer to his query that is a singular answer; he will imitate what he is told, and he will repeat the steps. But if, like myriad souls before him who could not "Google it," he had merely tried to fix the car on his own, really tried, he may not only have fixed it but found an EVEN BETTER WAY to fix it than what he was shown on Google or YouTube. In short, he, and humanity with him, would have evolved. As it stands now, we are even externalizing our memories by uploading them to the System via Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and "The Cloud." This, all day long via our phones that ping back to the System, is how we are "evolving," by yielding what has traditionally defined our humanity -- the biological and physical and the limits these possess -- to what is animated (sort of) by a binary logic encoded in machinery.

But in the global village, particularly that village we commonly call communism, evolution and the innovation evolution demands come to a near if not total stop. In short, we end nature. We end what it means to be human. We have a System that answers for us.

Oh, yes, we will still have people uploading new insights to the System; the System will even already have likely purloined them for itself. After all, it is for the benefit of All that the System takes everything into itself. The System is not, nor can it be, about the individual, but the collective. Besides, it's likely the individual's fault so many have been infected by COVID-19, or by the other viruses that will surely come our way. And perhaps, at least to the System, the individual's innovation, his or her claim to having created something, is a profound virus of a different sort, with individual pride elevating itself above the communal need. Remember, you have heard this elsewhere: You did not build that.

So at this time of great anxiety, note the language, the reportage; watch the headlines. You will see and hear things about our aching need for a savior, an intervention; a protector and guide; a System of justice, health, fairness, equity, security. (Years ago in this very blog I called this impulse Hosanna Politics, entirely because Hosanna means "save us.") Who among us dares not want the System to heal us, our planet, and unite us finally over our great divides?

You will also hear arguments for the abolition of family, private property, private associations, capitalism, and even Christianity, as it is blamed for family, privacy, and capitalism.

The theists, those allegedly gross individualists with their selfish faith in God, may very well call the System that finally unites us The Beast. The highest creation of humanity. A new Adam, placed in a new Garden.

The theists, now that I think about it, may very well be anxious -- for entirely different reasons.

©Contratimes/2020