A Webzine of Meaningful Contrasts

March-April 2017

Site Map

"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 out."

- 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 the discouragement.

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 Richey 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 nonetheless. 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:

The imagination.

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 pondered.

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 their subjects?

 

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 irrationality is 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 unbiased.

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 guilty of ::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 chose." Really?

Who says?

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 thoughtful.

"We're not having all this explained to us the way it should."

No shit.

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 actually righteous 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 Aslan.

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 cannot succeed.

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).

 For despair there is Ginger the tomcat, who takes the narrative the ape started and cleverly 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.

Preeminent System megaphone-holder 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 fold they are so good, damn good.

Yes, it does so well what it is supposed to do.

Make people deafer and dumber.

And blinder.

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 sin remains."

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 word. They 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 close. It 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 you."

- Jesus, 12th chapter of Matthew, 28th verse

***

Notes:

  • A page with links to noteworthy Tupper Saussy items is here.

  • Click The New York Times ad frame above and get to the commercial on Youtube. Note how stringing a series of sentences next to each "The truth is..." the Times is declaring those are items you must think about and you must listen to them regarding what you're supposed to think about those items. Again, that's its job as an important branch of Cain's legacy.

  • Some may still take issue with my esteem of C.S. Lewis, and I am aware of many of the critiques of his work. One of which is in The Last Battle itself about whether a man finds favor in God's eyes after spending his life dutifully serving another god but doing so with the same righteous commitment if the object of his devotion were Christ . I do grasp the valid points on both sides of the argument, but again a few questionable theological issues don't detract from the meaningful impact of Lewis' more robustly sound analogies cited here.

  • A webpage describing the reality of the different ideological perspectives is here. A home page piece about the rationality of things is here.

  • A list of many of the many Jesuses people worship is here. How churches become Other Jesus Propagators is here. A rough sketch of the Culture War is here.

  • There are actually legitimate tests to see if a thing is true or not. I wrote a few of them down here. But again, for the individual who simply insists on seeing, he or she can't see this.

  • A place in the New Testament where the words from the sixth chapter of Isaiah are repeated is in the 13th chapter of Matthew.

  • For exposition about how people living in The City haven't a clue about who this God fellow is, check out the fourth chapter of Genesis. You'll see the formation of the grand spectacle for which The New York Times is the premier show promoter.

  • Some thoughts about The One Who Is Truth are here.

***

Site map for more features, articles, and links.

Your Own Jesus

The Catholicist Nation

A Letter to a College Student   |  A Letter to a Church Pastor

To best identify the characteristics of the church attached to the Catholicist Nation and to understand Christ's response to it, please read carefully both of Paul's letters to the Corinthians.

Scripture

Previous home page (January-February 2017) |   Archives   |   Wonderful Matters

The Latest in the Webzine (March 2017): I try to put up at least a post every month in my blog Wonderul Matters. My "Tupper Saussy" group on Facebook allows for some vibrant interaction with like-minded ROEders. I recently added a piece I'd added to my journaling about all this, from August of 2003 - What ROE Teaches Us. I'd love to expand the breadth of this webzine, so if you know of someone who is well-versed in computer systems, web design, or web marketing, please let me know. Here is my email address - if you share some of my vision, would love to hear from you. Thanks!

About   |   Contact*

(*Important note about contact email: My web email is not functioning properly. Please use this email address to contact me. Thank you!)

Top of Page

The website The Catholicist Nation at  yourownjesus.net was originally uploaded by David Beck on August 3, 2004

The home page essay above was written by David Beck and was posted on this site on February 27, 2017