"Woe to the world because of its
stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that
stumbling blocks come, but woe to that man
through whom the stumbling block comes!"
- Jesus, 18th chapter of Matthew, seventh verse
"You can't pray a lie -- I found that
- Huckleberry Finn, from Mark Twain's book
In March of 2007, ten years ago this
month, F. Tupper Saussy passed away (he's on the right in the photo). They say he died of a heart
attack, but he was only 70 years old, committed to healthy living,
and reinvigorated after just publishing a new album of musical items
he liked a lot. Since very little is public about the circumstances
surrounding his death, I still wonder about it. I'm not entirely
sure he died of natural causes. To be honest, there is a small part
of me that wonders if he is even dead at all.
A crucial part of his seminal work Rulers of Evil was
elucidating the element of invisibility among deepest politics
shapers of a reprobate populace's hearts and minds. The
Jesuits were disestablished in 1773 for the explicit purpose of
doing their work more proficiently. The Superior General at the
time "died" in order to better arrange revolution-minded early
Americans to install a system of government
— a federal republic
— invented by Rome and best suited
to draw Protestants away from pure devotion to Christ and instead to
an obsessive allegience to the World System
ultimately governed from the Vatican.
Really, why wouldn't Saussy have some visceral fascination with such
a brilliant Sun-Tzuan tactic? When he was open and bold about
offering his services to worship assemblies interested in becoming
ungrafted to the System, he had no takers. No wonder
— the modern church is so richly
Catholicized they haven't a clue about what he said, it is the most
vulgar gibberish to them. Having some
modest email correspondence with him up to his death, I could sense
Why not disappear completely from the limelight of crazy
tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy kook and actually find a way to
put himself in a position to effectively minister these truths to
people who actually have Christ ruling their hearts? Somewhere,
somehow, as the Kingdom's professor, much as Laurence
shortly after his supposed death back in 1775 was the System's professor to
the delegates in Philadelphia?
I'm not saying I know for sure about any of this, of course I don't. It is intriguing
Thing is, as great a scholar of history and Scripture as he was,
people who have Christ ruling in their hearts may be just as bold
and articulate in sharing ROE truths as a resurrected Tupper.
They're all there, those truths, in ROE. It is pretty straight-forward. Not any
different than Scripture, really. In fact the principle applies
about Christ. No one wants a book, they want flesh-and-blood
people. You may read Scripture, know Truth, and then be Jesus to others.
Jesus said as much.
And with all due respect to Tupper, every truth and every principle
in ROE is in Scripture. You'd fully understand the
Kingdom-System contrast if you'd just look there. Tupper merely adds
compelling historical and sociological context.
Alas, even Jesus knew why it doesn't happen, why the Kingdom doesn't
advance. He said it a number of times. Paul repeated it a
number of times. Isaiah wrote about it first, but it'd been going on
since Cain set up the city where people can wallow about pretending:
"'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but
never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make
their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with
their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and
turn and be healed."
I've been taken with reading my favorite book from The
Chronicles of Narnia again. Sorry, even though many
Christian-minded folks say C.S. Lewis was an occultist of some sort and must be
rejected, I think they're misguided. Yes, I can see some
questionable items, but no follower of Christ has a pristinely clean
ministry. At least some rough humanity contaminates each of our
efforts to be faithfully immersed in God's service.
Lewis was definitely one of the best, simply because he enlivened an
awesome thing God created that I believe too many
legalistically-spirited evangelicals dismiss:
Yes, the imagination may be a mistress as Victor
Hugo once famously quipped, but you'd have to talk
with Jesus about the use of imagination. He expected
His listeners to use it every time he spoke in
parables, merely so they'd get it. Excuse me, but I need my imagination thriving
— yes, fully devoted to worshipping God in
Spirit and in Truth, that is paramount — but I need God mobilizing
it because this World System and its virulent impact on wounded,
hurting, spiritually destitute people is one ugly bastard.
One particular instance from one of the Narnia books is one
I wanted to address a bit now. It is from The Silver Chair,
and just before the climax of the story two children and a
marshwiggle — Eustace, Jill, and
Puddleglum (with whom I find a profound identification) — have
discovered a long lost prince deep in the cavernous underground of
the Narnian world.
Prince Rilian speaks with eloquence, gentility, and grace but Lewis
does a masterful job of showing the reader that all is not well. His
demeanor is too refined, too boisterous, too gay (in the traditional
sense) — you know, he is someone who
always has a smile on his face but you know it is pasted there, that
there is something going on.
Rilian reveals that every evening he is to sit in a chair, the
silver one, and that while he is restrained there he comes under a
spell from which he spews the most ghastly things. He
implores them to swear off untying this entranced Rilian or acceding to his demands.
They say they will.
Reading this, knowing that the Rilian in the chair is the one who is
actually sound, lucid, and for those brief moments not under the spell, I
What would I do? Would I be lying in promising to firmly disregard the
interjections of the sitting supposedly insane prince?
Furthermore, how often do we submit to the mandates put upon us by
those who appear to know quite a bit, indeed are particularly
strident about their requests, much because they are quite
emotionally vested in it? How often do we believe with all presumed
conviction that we do know precisely what they are saying and will
act accordingly, even though ultimately, veritably it keeps
us from the embrace of our Lord and Savior?
How much is this accomplished by World Operatives to corral
I share this because while Saussy's Rulers of Evil is not a
bestseller and, really, generally registers a blip on the horizon of
meaningful truth considerations, books about behavioral economics
fly off the shelves. Behavioral economics is a relatively new field
of study and it is marauding through the mainstream as very
very very truthful things to know.
A new book out by über-author Michael Lewis is The Undoing
Project, and it is a paean of sorts to the two gentlemen who
started it all, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. A number of years
ago they started going
whole hog with research about all of our biases, you know,
the ways we behave irrationally whenever we make decisions about
things. The idea is that far too often we choose the least beneficial
option simply because of the way it was presented or the way our
brains do dumb things.
Kahneman actually wrote a wildly popular book called Thinking
Fast and Slow, which asserts that sometimes we must think
fast about things and sometimes we must think slow about things and
most times we don't know the difference, and, well, he put the mix a
lot of fancy psychological jargon and scholarly sounding theories,
and, well, there ya go. That's pretty much it
— even so Kahneman got the Nobel in Economics for his earlier
work (Tversky would've gotten it too but he passed away a few
years earlier and by rule the Nobel isn't awarded posthumously.)
Lots of other prominent behavioral economists are out and about,
Steven Leavitt of Freakonomics fame, there's Nassim Talib,
George Akerlof (who happens to be married to Fed Chair Janet Yellen,
that's rich), to some extent there's Tyler Cowen, Dan Ariely, Malcolm Gladwell, and there are Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, they're really
out there — I'm sure there're others who'd
be offended I didn't mention them here, the best academics get
offended easily — but they all essentially do the same thing:
Listen to me now, listen, this is the truth no matter what that
silly person tied to the silver chair says, this is the truth,
really it is, make sure you promise not to believe anything else:
Here are the things that are irrational, and you must fight
with me against them by continuing to listen to the ways you are
irrational and the ways my rationality will save you.
That sounds so righteous, it really does, except
that their claim that there is such a thing as
unrighteous. It is rational, it truly is, as is
everything else anyone does.
Everything — totally, completely, fully rational.
All these scholastically addicted dudes simply can't get this truth
because they know nothing of God. Kahneman and Tversky both
proudly confessed they were atheists. I don't know about the faith
claims of the others but I'd venture to say that fully entranced by
the Jesuit-plowed academia, they consider God merely a
fanciful idea for the, shall we say, less cerebral among us.
And because of that they plow into the earthen works of society the
asinine idea that there is such a thing as irrationality. No, again,
if you look closely, you'll discover that everything is rational.
The key is that is may just not be righteous.
I'd love to provide example after example, and my vision (when I
have time!) is to put up a page of the myriad claims of biases these
guys take to the mat, and articulate the problems with each one. I
will tell you I did some of this already in
this home page piece
from a few years ago,
as well as this one.
Real quick, one of the best ones in their mind is
confirmation bias, the idea that when we have an idea of
what we think is true in our minds, and we find something that
confirms it, we say "Hey! Confirmation!" when neither the idea or
the confirming "truth" is veritable merely because most of
us common folk just don't have faculties to be authentically
The extraordinarily simple problem with this is not that there is some
confirmation or that we seek confirmations to ideas we have,
that's rational and natural and normal. The problem is with
the idea — is it truthful or not? If
a claim is truthful then any confirmation merely adds to its veracity. If
it is not truthful then the righteous thing to do is to
discover the truth! To stay in the deception because it is quite
comfortable is perfectly rational!
It may not be righteous, however, simply because the untruthfulness of a
thing may indeed harm somebody. Confirmation bias means nothing. Whatever it is that is
actually truthful is everything.
What of the behavioral economists? Since everything is, in fact,
rational, wouldn't insisting a thing irrational and trying to
fit things into that theory to make it seem true make one
::gulp:: confirmation bias? Could you, behavioral economics
guru, be guilty of behavioral economics bias?
These people have the appalling temerity to claim to
know exactly what the standard is for The Rational in order
to proclaim how people are messing it up —
it is a necessary part of their work. Look carefully at how many
presumptions are made about what people should be deciding. "You'd
have been better off with that instead of the thing you
If they don't trust in a God who's already set the standards for
goodness, beauty, truth, righteousness, justice, fulfillment,
contentment, ethics, mercy, charity, respect, and a dozen other
objective standards that can only come from a teleologically
transcendent source, then why should we listen to them?
Ah, I know.
I teach young 17 year-olds who've spent their entire short
lives having their psyches filled to the brim with a shitload of the
behavioral economics idiocy shoved in there by mandarins sworn to
keep them from Christ as adroitly as they can.
One time recently I had finished sharing with a classroom of these
impressionable people the way things really work against what they
are told all the time. A particularly bright gal who is always vocal
about things but I know is deeply wounded inside and whose world
view has been molded by these people said something rather
"We're not having all this explained to us the way it should."
For people who are hammered with the lie that there is such a thing
as anything irrational, there is only the rational/irrational
dichotomy to govern how to think about things
— the idea of anything righteous has no place in a city
outside of the presence of The Standard.
It is much like another instance from the Narnia books I'd like to close
with, this one in The Last Battle. It is the last of Lewis'
books in the series, and it is phenomenal
— another marvelous Biblical allegory in the set. It
perfectly describes what Saussy spoke about in ROE, and what The
Catholicist Nation premise is all about.
A nefarious ape has employed a dimwitted donkey named Puzzle to
disguise himself as the Christ character, a lion named Aslan. The
entire land of Narnia has been seduced by the things the ape has
been saying in his name.
After Jill rescues Puzzle from being used as "Aslan" to
compel obedience to a wickedly autocratic agenda, Prince Tirian believes by
exposing the ruse and proving its verity to those captivated by it,
he will successfully draw people's attention to truth, to grace, to what is
— to the true Son of God.
He comes across a cohort of dwarves who've been emboldened to
protect their own domain from anyone's attempt to take over Narnia, and Tirian enthusiastically
attempts to disabuse the dwarves of their inaccurate conception of
It fails miserably simply because to the dwarves, Tirian is simply
trying to sell them on yet another Aslan. Their exceedingly
jaded skepticism aggravates Tirian so much that he realizes he
What a phenomenal analogy of today's world.
So many Jesuses, and as such so much despair among those
who consider there is no real way to know the Real One.
There is hope.
From the story there is Poggin the dwarf, who is someone who
genuinely wants truth. He seeks, and he finds
— richly encountering great joy entering into
valiant service among good friends for the purpose of advancing the
Kingdom in the best interests of people (as well as animals and
fanciful creatures all of whom Aslan loves).
there is Ginger the tomcat, who takes the narrative the ape started and
exploits everything in the System's favor. In a brazen
attempt to show off his intellectual prowess he confronts his lord and
Becomes deaf and dumb.
Sounds a lot like modern academia, like modern media...
Like modern economic theory.
Now I like economics, I myself am an economics instructor. It is a science, it is about examining truthful things
— mostly related to how things are valued and what goes into the
decisions people make, very behavioral indeed. And it isn't
really that difficult, this endeavor of examining truthful things truthfully.
The New York Times recently put out a rare television
advertisement and they want you to
believe the truth is hard, among a lot of other things they say they
know about this thing truth.
Interesting, their take on truth. I can almost hear
Cain in the distance, "Whadd? You want me to be my
brother's keeper? Okay, I'll be my brother's keeper,
just watch. That city I'll build, I can
make truth the citizens will believe in..." The New York Times is saying
nothing other than "Let us be your truth. Look at how
industrious we are at getting it and sharing it and
being it, trust us."
Its handlers and its scribes employ the most
sophisticated sophistry to keep the faithful in the
— they are so good, damn good.
Yes, it does so well what it is supposed to do.
Make people deafer and dumber.
Jesus said so. He did. Kind of amazing all the things Jesus
said about this. You may see it, right there at the
tail end of the ninth chapter of John's gospel. He
says He is around for judgment (wait, I thought
Jesus was supposed to be all non-judgmental,
what's with that?!), "that those who do not
see may see, and those who see may become blind." Of
course the authorities dismissed all this silly
talk, "Hrrumph, certainly we're not blind
too, are we?"
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would
have no sin, but now since you say 'We see', your
For the clamorous and all those hypnotized by them,
the truth isn't just hard, it's impossible.
Look how loudly they feel they must blare the
haven't a clue
— the worst is not that it is impossible, it
is that it scares them to death.
Ironically, that's His name, right there in
gargantuan font on their building. High above all they're
unwittingly proclaiming the name of
The One Who Is Truth. If they'd give up the insipid
pretense, recognize their blindness and let Him
make them see, they'd get it. They'd get they are in
great need of a Savior who loves each one of them
with His life.
This truth is not hard, not even
may be complicated and it may be overwhelming,
but it is not unfathomable. Sadly one of the most weighty
truths of all of them is from the fourteenth Psalm —
it really isn't hard, this truth: The fool says in his heart there is no God. When you have no idea who Truth is, when you are a million light
years from Him and the Kingdom, when you are doing things at the devil's behest and are rewarded
handsomely for it, I'd say that is tremendously rational.
It is just righteous to turn to the Son.
And see, and hear, and know, and understand.
Then they would be healed.
"If I cast out demons by the Spirit of
God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon
- Jesus, 12th chapter of Matthew, 28th verse