The death of community organizations

(i’m taking it easy on the weekend.  chill on)

20 years ago, pretty much everyone belonged to a social club. Be it the Legion, or the Lions club, people had things to do on any given night.

Now, these organizatons are dying. People are losing interest in them. Its easier to sit at home in your comfortable cucoon, and get your social interaction from the TV or the internet.

There are lots of good people out there doing good things for the community. But, there are not nearly enough of them. We need to pay attention to things beyond our four walls.

Its a good thing to get involved. You meet new people, get to experience things you’d never be able to otherwise. Just last year I was planning an event with a budget of half a million dollars – how many people get to say that?

So, anyone who reads this, please – pick up the phone, go to a meeting of Habitat for Humanity, or a local political group – whatever tickles your fancy. And trust me, you will be rewarded in ways you cannot imagine!

Mountains and cavalry and Israel, oh my.

“23 The servants of the king of Aram said to him, “Their gods are gods of the hills, and so they were stronger than we; but let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. 24 Also do this: remove the kings, each from his post, and put commanders in place of them; 25 and muster an army like the army that you have lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot; then we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they.” He heeded their voice, and did so.” 1 Kings 20:23-27
This little quote has long been puzzling, and intriguing. It is very revealing, because it is one of the few times that the Bible actually shows the perspective of people other than the ancient Israelites, and it details how they are perceived in the other lands of the ancient world. While the text itself describes the victory of a small Israelite army over a much greater Aramean forces, there is so much more we can learn by examining it in greater detail, along with the other facets listed in the Bible.
It is particularly illuminating when one remembers how frequently it is mentioned that the kings who did what was wicked in the eyes of the Lord built mountain shrines to the “abominations” Omri is noted for building his city, Samaria, on the side of a hill, and for his wickedness, which was only outdone by his son Ahab, in the same hillside city. But, it is notable that the Bible specifically notes that Israel built its new capitol on a hill. Similarly, the tribes of Judah retained Jerusalem, which is known as the city of seven hills. The reality of elevation in the lives of the ancient Hebrew tribes seems fairly evident.
We also know that when the Lord gave his commandments to the people of Israel, he chose a mountain (mount Sinai, current location unknown) from which to issue his summons, and appear amongst his chosen flock. Elijah returned to Sinai (Mount Horeb) during his flight from a wicked king of Israel, again, taking strength from his proximity to an elevated position. A mountain is naturally impressive, rising above everything around it. Certainly, if the people of Israel were noticed honoring their rituals on mountaintops, it would be natural for those around them to conclude that their deit(ies) were associated with mountains, and would be powerless in the plains. Whether faithful to their monotheistic scruples or not, mountainous places were conspicuously important to the ancient Israelites, so much so as to be commented on by their neighbours in more way than one. We shall see more about this when we examine the Persian coin.
It is also very intriguing to note how this passage emphasises that the Israelite forces were small in number, and that they were using mountainous territory. It is no surprise that the country of Israel would be hilly, given that it lies at the intersection of two great continents (Africa and Eurasia) The people of the Levant would be naturally accustomed to this, as they were frequently pictured as pastoralists in the Bible. Genesis celebrates Abraham and his flocks, and Leviticus carefully details the amount of meat that must be offered in sacrificial offerings. As a matter of fact, herding animals were vital to the early Israelites, and they were bound to follow their furry flocks into the hills. Mountains are where goats and lambs flourish, and naturally, the ancients were bound to follow.
As Pastoralists, the Israelites would have had relatively low population densities compared to the greater farming populations around them. Only a few mature warriors would have been available at any moment, the rest of the population being diverted into tasks such as shearing, slaughtering, preparation, etc. Goat herding is a demanding life, and does not have the relative quiet seasons that farmers do, which may account for why David was taken to task by the Lord for imprudently having numbered his warriors. Not because it was an affront to God, necessarily, but, because it was a waste of time. Having to leave your flocks and travel to some “polling station” would waste at least a day, if not more, and this may explain the sudden pestilence of Chronicles after he numbered them. Unattended people and animals get sick. It is far better to trust in the providence of the almighty in the tactics that gave you the throne, than invite divine wrath for an inspection of the troops.
Goat herding and small scale warfare would favour mountain ambush tactics, and perhaps this is one reason why David was so successful earlier as a warrior and as a king. Our own modern forces have difficulty containing insurgents and terrorists, no matter how well armed they are, as the Soviets and the USA both found out in the hilly country of Afghanistan. If David were able to successfully conduct ambushes and coordinate strikes as a mobile cavalry unit, then no wonder he was able to conduct his forces with such grandeur. If we can postulate he was capable of ambushing rival commanders, and had an eye for terrain, his forces would be fighting with the heights at their back, a naturally commanding position. If we allow David one more fact from his sons reign, he might have had a superior advantage indeed.
There is a particular coin, known as a Yehud coin, that appears to have startling characteristics. Although coined by a Persian administration, it is sometimes interpreted to hold an image of the Israelite deity. He sits, proudly enshrined, an Eagle in his hand (Eagles naturally being the symbol of mountains) and a winged wheel beneath him. As an Archetype, wings can denote speed, as well as flight, in the ancient mind, as well as our own. So we can see that from the coinage of the 4th century, the Israelite God is shown as possessing attributes of the mountains (the Eagle, consistent with the Aramean and modern perspective) as well as swift wheels, which could carry him as fast as the eagle flew – a very fast speed indeed for people who were limited to around 25 mph on a horse. But, talismanicaly, it shows that even centuries after the events of Kings, the Persians still perceived the divinity of Israel as a God of the mountains.
It is probably an artifact of Aramean and Persian consciousness that they were trying to look for characteristics of the Israelite monotheistic God. Monotheism was difficult for the ancient mind to comprehend, somewhat akin to how we moderns perceive atheism. An ancient talking about a God would describe their attributes, powers, where they were perceived to live, etc (as is well documented in Roman, Greek, and Chinese mythology) The Arameans and Persians were simply trying to put the enigmatic Hebrew God into a category that they could comprehend. No doubt, the Israelites faced the same problem, which is why they persisted worshipping the “abominations” on the hills, even after the Lord had repeated his shows of miracles, and deliverances. Humans need to be able to relate to one another, and putting a “face” on the divine is a natural feature of the subconscious. Pareidolia is just one means in which this manifests itself. However, we are naturally an inquisitive species, and are arguably the only self-examining species on the planet. Thus, it is only natural for the ancient mind, Israelite and non-Israelite, to wonder about the characteristics of their omnipotent, omnipresent God. They found it, in familiar terms, Eagles, Mountainous Heights, and Wheels.
Fast speeds, round wheels, and, eventually, chariots. Chariots are notably lacking in Genesis, and indeed, have little real presence in any part of the narrative until late in the Bible. Abraham moves about on Camels, befitting the image of a desert nomad (which we will examine in a later entry), most notably when he rescues Lot from the war of the Kings (Genesis 14). This “nomad” is suddenly able to mount 80 men on Camels, to form a formidable strike force in the ancient Levant. While Camels make ideal mounted cavalry in the vast stretches of desert, Chariots are even more so. King Darius III, of a much later time, would place so much faith in his Chariot forces, he thought they alone could defeat the Macedonian army of the west. Egyptians were depicted as mighty chariot riders, and they were depicted on stela and carvings in many of their battle scenes astride their wheeled creations. Solomon is the first ruler, in fact, the first person, in the bible to be mentioned with vast Chariot forces, so it appears that the ancient Israelites became familiar with the advantages of chariot warfare during their time in, and living alongside Egypt. Solomons vast mobile forces give us a key to understanding his fathers military prowess.
This is the missing piece that makes the David story compelling. Surely Solomon was not the first to notice the Chariot, and indeed, his chariot forces were probably built up over time. It is mentioned that Solomons’ time in Israel enjoyed unprecedented peace, while Davids time was one of intermittent and continuous struggle. So, we can presume that his father, David, was the one who either pioneered chariot warfare, or certainly advanced it to be central in the Israelite arsenal. There is little need for chariot forces in times of peace, but, during the lifetime of David, chariot forces would have been welcome indeed. Imagine having a chariot group pre-deployed to an elevated position. Although it might be inferior in numbers, a division hurtling down a mountainside, building up blinding speed, would no doubt slice through its enemies. It would be as great of a shock as a heavy cavalry charge by middle aged knights, and not duplicated or surpassed until over two millennia later. The presence of an elite mountain chariot force would also explain David’s extraordinary fortune. By following the signs of his God, and emulating his characteristics of swift action from above, David would have been a formidable warrior on the ancient battlefield, every bit as unbeatable as his reputation suggests.
This would also explain the later victory over the Aramean forces. Even though Israel’s standing army might have been tiny in comparison to the superior Aramean numbers, if they were accompanied by a small number of shock chariot troops, the mounted forces would have been able to cut their enemy into ribbons, with a mountain behind them, or without. Being the elite, far more manoeuvrable than the infantry they faced, and capable of unleashing an assault, and fading away before their opponents could react, few armies could have opposed them. Chariots are so effective, that even when cavalry came into its own, they were still being used thousands of years after their invention. The reasons are multifold – a chariot is a stable position, from which you can shoot an arrow, or throw a spear. They are powerful (usually having two horses yoked to them) and versatile – they can be deployed anywhere there is open terrain. The Egyptians grasped this, and having a mostly desert country to defend, understood that chariots were vital to their war effort. Surely, the Israelites, being immediate neighbours, would have heeded their example, and learned to exploit this ancient wonder weapon to their terrain. Deployed over mountains and valleys, they were a terror to face, as noted by the Arameans.
So, as we have seen, just a glimpse of another’s perspective into the ancient Israelite’s warfare tactics provides a brilliant payoff in understanding how they were capable of achieving so much. The fact that the Arameans gave such note to Israelite customs means they were desperate to find a weakness, knowing they could not beat them on a pitched battle of their choosing. However, in doing so, they opened a window on history and battle tactics that we would not otherwise have had. Examining all the angles is vital when you embark on a journey of understanding, and it is foolish not to take note of the observations of people around you. Even the most trivial observation might hold a key to great insight. The Bible is so jam packed with information, it has taken millennia to even begin to explore it all, but, the beauty of it is that it is a never ending fountain of information, of debate, and of insight.
As a final note, yes, it is well noted that the lives of David and Solomon are not attested in the Archaeological record, nor are they verified in any source outside of the Bible. That being said, they still can provide insights on how the ancient Israelites perceived themselves, their kingdom, and how it was established, and are no less of an important source than Homer is for understanding Troy and the ancient Greek world.

Reconsidering socialism.

Socialism is one of the most controversial subjects in the modern economic age.  Many people freely point to the poor conditions experienced in the more autocratic areas of Soviet Russia, and Communist china, and point out the success the western world has had in combating these same problems without the wholescale denial of freedom and secret police necessary to maintain order in those countries.  These are valid criticisms, however, it is not the fault of socialism or communism, but, rather in the implementation of what was perceived as an idealistic state.

Let us briefly examine true socialism, which we may define as common work for the common good.  Communism is a virtually impossible state for humanity to exist in – true equality would require all of us to be genetically equal, as Winston Churchill so notably mentioned in his comparison between communism and the society of the ant.  There will always be differences between humans, so we must recognize that some of them will always be more capable than others.  Some people are better at sprinting and catching a ball, others are better at quadratic equations and field theory.  So, human nature forces us to admit there are differences between us all, so a true communist society is impossible.

It also is noteworthy that both the Soviet and Chinese states were early on hijacked by authoritarianism.  The Soviets inherited a country devastated by war, and an aggressive and furious German army knocking at its front door.  The State had only barely emerged from Tsarist rule (which was aggressively authoritarian) and now was forced to re-adopt many of the same institutions in order to prevent what it perceived as the cradle of a workers paradise in being destroyed by its capitalist enemies.  The outside world did the Soviets no favours when they sponsored the white Russians and the many armies that ran amok inside Soviet borders during the 1920s, in fact, they only proved that in order to survive, the Soviets had to use an iron hand, because of the hostility of the world towards them.

The Chinese too were reeling from a civil war that had been raging for decades, and fierce outside exploitation from far flung western empires.  It has been argued (falsely) that the Chinese were accustomed to a harsh yolk, in accordance with the Emperors rule, but, I think this is inherently false.  There were a few emperors who were able to rule with absolute authority, but, true monopoly on power is a rare trait, employed by a select few who are ruthless enough to employ it.  The Chinese and Russians both had their imperial strongmen, but, in the early 20^th century, both were little more than a memory, and it seems somehow racist to say that the Chinese are in any way inferior to other people around the world, particularly with all their successes throughout history and the modern world.

In fact, the Chinese and Soviet Russians faced much the same problem.  Their land masses and populations are huge, with geographic, ethnic, and religious differences besetting them on all sides.  How do you take a group of individuals, who are very accustomed to their lifestyle, their point of view, and their animosities, and suddenly lump them together into a community that did not exist before?  The only possible way is by trying to eradicate differences.  It is surprising that more atrocities did not take place when the two primary examples of communism for the 20^th century were formed.

However, the Chinese civil war was marked by atrocities on both sides.  After the climactic battle, when the communist forces raised their heads in victory, they stood with an uncertain population in hand, little industrialized machinery available, and massive amounts of farmland.  Unfortunately the Russians and Chinese came to the same decision.  The only way to enforce equality between such diverse and far flung people was to institute authoritarianism.  Centralized control would ensure equality in advancement, in compensation, and give a structure to the world.  This unfortunately has been a valid model for many societies, from the ancient Romans to Nazi Germany (with varying levels of results)

So, “Communism”, as defined by its 20^th century incarnations, was really a veneer of economic appeal to the lowest common denominator, with a militant authoritarianism grafted on top of it.  The Soviet Union spent a huge percentage of its budget on military matters, and the Chinese are currently pursuing the dream of a blue water navy that can stand with the worlds elite powers (and they will probably achieve it)  However, please note, the key word is “militant” – instead of a workers paradise, the fashionable phrase in the ideological arsenal of the 19^th century socialist, there was a military paradise, where the primary objective of the worker became to produce arms and goods to serve the state, rather than the community.

This is where communism lost its way, and socialism got dragged down with it.  When powerful ideas are rendered subservient to the states needs, inevitably the individual finds himself crushed.  In the west, in the past, the greatest prosperity existed when powerful trade unions were capable of disrupting the production of the mega corporations.  Unions, of course, are a socialist ideal, theoretically being all for one and one for all.  The proletariat counter to bourgeoise power.  While the unions were able to back the workers with credible threats, prosperity increased.

Unfortunately, in the late 1980s, there was a powerful undercurrent, which swept both Soviet Russia and the unions aside.  Union breaking was popular, and the Soviet system was bankrupting itself because its primary export (oil) was becoming cheaper and cheaper.  When the unions and the Soviets lost their power, they were ostracised, and ridiculed.  While this did make the world a bit safer from the threat of nuclear annihilation, it also contributed to the modern age where we find the middle class disappearing, and the ideal of a community antiquated.

When the unions were destroyed, manufacturing jobs were moved overseas, wages were slashed, and people left on the streets.  While admittedly, there was a lot of waste in the past, and streamlining a process is always good, this had a very unfortunate effect.  There was a time when people could get out of high school, get a factory job, and expect to live a reasonable existence.  They might not be buying luxuries, but, if they were frugal enough, they could afford a decent car, a small house (or a nice apartment) and they were able to contribute to the economy by purchasing luxury items.

What has turned the world on its head is the fact that the people with disposable income have been marginalized, and have become fewer and fewer in number.  Most people are struggling to buy the bare basics, which is why we find the big box department stores chasing away the mom and pop stores.  If you only have $20 to spend, and 3 kids to feed, you need to fill your grocery cart with cheap stuff, and multinationals with worldwide reach are able to find the cheapest deals and deliver them to you.

This has been an excellent 30 years for investors, because corporate profits keep going up and up (of course with occasional market corrections)  However, it has not been good for the average person, who winds up either graduating high school and making minimum wage, or else going into debt for a degree which may or may not put them on a career path to making the same wages their parents did a generation ago.  This is ultimately what is hurting our economy.  Economics don’t trickle down, they filter up.  If no one at the bottom has the money to buy your product, no matter how much money you pump into the top, there will still not be a market for them.  Witness the electric cars – while they are excellent, and serve a great purpose, they will be a market flop until the technology improves because people do not have the money to buy and maintain them.  Gas is still cheaper, and more reliable, and finding electrical boosting stations is a huge problem.  So, without the working class and middle class, the product becomes unsustainable.

So, again, let us turn to the example of communism and socialism.  Communism had at its heart the idea that it wasn’t fair that wealth was concentrated in the hands of such a tiny few.  In this, it was attempting to show a heart – a heart that was cut out of it by militarism, invasion, etc.  The economic principles remain sound though.  We need a mechanism to counter the increasing power of multinational corporations, something that will stand on the side of the people.  Traditionally those have been the government and unions, but, both of those safeguards have been removed.

Instead, perhaps what is necessary is to return to some 19^th century activism.  Instead of grumbling about how unfair things are, perhaps it is better if we stage a demonstration.  Perhaps the way forward is to remind our political leaders that while it may be the campaign contributions that fund their way to power, and that finance their public relations, there is still power to be felt in the masses of people motivated to do the right thing.  “Occupy wall street” was an interesting start, although it did unfortunately peter out.  However, the activists from a century ago had another lesson to teach us:  One demonstration does not win votes, only repeated demonstrations, willpower, and a sense of community.

That is another problem that is lacking in our modern world.  In the past, people who were fighting for rights were also noted humanitarians.  Think of the Pankhursts and their efforts to visit others, and set up social safety nets on their own.  They were making a society within a society that stuck up for one another, that even visited each other in jail, and that was the bond that held them together.  They were willing to protest and strike for years, if necessary, to ensure fairness in the vote, in economics, in everything.

Socialism and unions have been forced under the pressure of social engineering as boogeymen, but, in their pure form, they are saviors.  They were only corrupted after intense pressure and decades.  If there were to be a future Socialism, we would have to make a new economic model, one that would make sense for everyone.

In that economic model, we would have to recognize there is a difference between capitalism, and social institutions.  Capitalism is very effective.  Corporations are wonderful machines, perfectly constructed to maximize profit while minimizing expense.  This is laudable, and should be encouraged – waste not, want not, as the old saying goes.  And there should be rewards for people who possess the extra spark of genius, or who work harder to benefit society, and create jobs for all.  Because ultimately, without them, we are just a group of tribes who will fight over the first gazelle that crosses their path.

That being said, while capitalism and reward for excellence are superb goals, we must recognize our need to care for our fellow man.  Every day, people go hungry, they are left destitute, hurting, in pain.  It is disturbing that people walk into an institution like a hospital and attempt to make it conform to capitalist models.  In essence, the only way to do that would be to “eliminate” those who cannot pay, or who are too far gone to save.  Such things should not be left up to economic models, but, rather to humanitarian models.  Yes, a very good argument can be made for making health care exclusive, but, an equally good one can be made for ensuring finding adequate health care does not bankrupt the individual.

There are too many cases where a person suffering has to sacrifice their life savings, their home, etc, to find health care for an illness they did not expect.  In all good conscience, it cannot be said that it is in any way altruistic to force these people not to get the care they need because of economic factors.  This is also true of food.  People starve to death daily for various reasons, and this is a tragedy.  Surely in a race of people that has managed to climb to the top of the food chain and send probes outside the solar system, we can find a way to at least provide everyone with the basics of nutrition.

This all sounds very vague, but, perhaps if I could propose a basic modification that would make sense.  Insurance companies are reviled for their lawsuits, their incredible byzantine beurocracy, their premiums, and their profits.  Imagine if, for a moment, we could institute a compromise that would allow insurance companies to still be a valid economic entity, while ensuring people were taken care of.  In this model, you would allow insurance companies to insure an automobile against accidents.  However, instead of the insurance company then seeking damages on behalf of their claimant and taking those damages for themselves and their lawyers (no offense lawyers, you do excellent work, please don’t take this as a criticism of your jobs) the insurance company would only be responsible for the physical car and the damage it caused.  The health and welfare of the individual would be looked after by a different organization.  Since there is no current organization other than the state that is capable of this, I temporarily nominate the state, until something better can be proposed.  Under this model, insurance companies could still be profitable, they could still serve a valid role within society, but, they would be relieved of the long term care implications of their client, while the agency dedicated to looking after the individuals well being would process and determine their claim and its merits.

This may sound radical, or paradisical, but, it is one way in which capitalism and socialism would be able to work together.  Grain farmers get government subsidies, but, frequently find themselves living in poverty.  This situation is unacceptable because it only puts our bread basket in the control of oligarchies who’s sole preoccupation is with profit.  Instead, we have to consider ways to get the grain to the people who need it.  And, if every mouth is fed locally, we need to think nationally, even internationally, because there is a worldwide need for food.  It is selfish to hoard our own when there are people who cannot even make bread.

Now, the problem becomes how to reward excellence.  This will be dealt with in a later article.  However, these are the points which are meant to be considered.  How can we put a more humane, and more personable face on a society that greedily pursues material possessions above all else?  We must learn to do this, if we are to advance as a species.  For selfishness will only result in mutual destruction,  as the old platitude states “If I can’t have it, no one else can” – so we must dedicate ourselves to making ourselves a less selfish and more altruistic people, not just here, not just locally, but, globally.

Corporate Charity

One of the most irksome repeated diatribes of the modern age is the platitude that we must give tax breaks to corporations, or else they will either move their jobs overseas, or go bankrupt.  The second most irksome is the protestation that corporations somehow donate to charity out of a sense to the community, or an innate goodness.  Nothing could be further from the truth on both counts.

Lets examine the first falsehood:  That corporations need tax breaks.  This is a shocking revelation, and your mind will surely rebel at it, because you have been taught the opposite for your whole life.  Corporations and businesses are tax free.  After the indignation dies down, think carefully about the situation:  A businesses revenue stream is generated by the money the consumers pay to it.  A business is designed to turn a profit.  So, therefore, every tax that is leveled on a business results in the cost being passed on to the consumer (in one way or another) and the business merely winds up collecting and administering that consumers money for the government.  Successful businesses employ expert accountants to use every portion of tax law in order to find whatever loopholes and dodges they can, so they are already taxed at the lowest rate – what was the quote from a recent US presidential candidate about him as an individual paying less tax than his secretary did?  This holds true across the business sector.  A business that does not pass tax costs onto its consumers is not going to survive long.  So perhaps we should get away from the rhetoric of calling them “business taxes” since that is not what they are at all, but, rather, consumer taxes.  Put more succinctly, when you get your bill from the local store, you can see the tax clearly totaled separately from the rest of your purchases.  For hidden taxes, the same is true, the price “per unit” already has the hidden taxes built in.  So, don’t worry about business paying taxes, worry about the consumer.

The other mistruth is of corporate charity.  Now, I will acknowledge there are probably many local business owners who have a passion to help a local foundation, and to you, apologies are offered in advance.  This is really not meant for the sole proprietor of a business, or a well meaning entrepreneur.  This is more targeted against the huge multinational conglomerates.  The ones where when you finish your purchase, have a perky young cashier (who is doing her job, and probably has only been told the corporate propaganda) if you would like to donate X amount of dollars to charity Y.  They are hoping peer pressure will kick in, so you will feel obligated to give.

However, look at your bill next time – the “donation” has been added to the receipt, which means you have surrendered your money to the corporation.  They in turn “match it” and their CEO, or other important officer, gets to attend some sort of dinner or awards ceremony, where they present an oversized cheque to the charity in question.  All fine and good, but, what you should get indignant about is that your dollar or two which is being added to the corporations dollar or two is in fact, going to be written off in the company ledger as one whole unit – most notably, for the charitable tax exemption that they will get.  Thats right, multinational corporations are getting a tax writeoff on your dime, and using the name of those charities in order to milk additional opportunities out of their consumers.  This is just another shenanigan that the multinationals have developed in order to further their profitability.

If you notice the overwhelming theme of this article is that the consumer ultimately pays for everything in the corporate world, you are correct.  Consumers forget this, and drink the waters of the Styx, buying into the propaganda that the business model is good.  Well, the business model is good for what it was designed for – making money.  Corporations are evolved perfectly to serve their purpose, which is to generate a profit for the shareholders.  Make no mistake, they are not ideal constructs or anything else.  They will use every advantage they can to gain a competitive edge, whether it is bullying a government into lowering the consumer tax that they administer (so they can lay of administration staff) or whether it is to bilk their consumers out of money that will be used as a charitable tax deduction.

I believe the most fitting expression at this point would be a slight alteration on an old one.  “Buyer beware” – because you have no idea what is going on behind the scenes with your money.

Bronies and Furries.

I have frequently been puzzled by these two groups of people.  I confess, I have not given a great deal of effort into studying their culture, but, I have had the opportunity to get to know a few of them (and yes, I know they prefer the term Animorphs) However, to me, these two groups of characters remind me of Jung’s observation that the culture of an age is strongest in the archetypes the age itself is weakest in.  So, examining these two groups of people would apparently be useful in studying humanity, in our current age, at least from the perspective of those two groups.

The buzzword for Bronies is “Friendship is magic” – and indeed, we live within an increasingly de-personalized world.  We communicate through voice mail and email, are always hurrying to our next destination, and some people even claim to have no friends.  So, when some isolated young men come across a TV show which preaches the value of relationships, and encouraging them to bond with other people, it is no wonder they would use it as a rallying cry.  Yes, the rest of the world may be cruel and unfriendly, but, these poor tortured souls have come up with the next best thing – a bond through a cartoon.  While some people would decry this as a mental illness, look at it from a different point of view.  They organize meet ups, and events, where like minded people are allowed to speak, and act out, in the name of encouraging friendship.  Are these not laudable goals?  One wishes more people would embrace the message (although not necessarily to the extreme) and spend more time with friends and family.  As the old saying goes, no one goes to their deathbed wishing they had spent more time at the office, and this is embodied in Brony culture.  Its just a group of guys trying to reach out and find common ground with one another.

Furries (Animorphs) also fall into this category.  While I am not intimately familiar with the exact harmonics of their culture, I can say that their desire to embody animal characteristics into their personality is quite in harmony with the general back to earth movement.  They share a feeling of isolation with the Bronies, although they define themselves differently.  Instead of surrendering to our endless plants filled with mechanical monsters assembling the latest super fast phone, they choose to manipulate themselves (through costume and dress) and adopt a more friendly, organic, wholesome image to the world.  Really they are just a development of the old masquerade, except, instead of hiding who you are, Furries choose to put their soft furry selves on the outside, and show they are living, breathing, feeling creatures, who still have a sense of adventure and excitement at the outside world.  They are the backlash against the cold edge of technology – they are not afraid of it, and they know how to use it, but, they are also able to express themselves through their own devices, despite the continuing onslaught of social media and computer technology in every aspect of their life.

So, two groups, two approaches, each embodying the desire to reach out to one’s fellow man (and woman) in an increasingly cold and distant world.  Make no mistake, these are acts of rebellion, but instead of the rebellions of the past, with strikers, police confrontations, and tear gas, these people have decided they can rebel safely, quietly, and inconvenience no one.  You don’t see them suicide bombing, or spraypainting people who don’t agree with them, their message is one of acceptance and enlightenment.  (and certainly their costumes are head turners)  One would hope that there would be more groups like this in the future.  But, they carry a message with them.  Humanity is riding a ragged edge, one where we could fall off into the abyss of a perfectly impersonal world, and they strive to drive back this unpleasant possibility, to be the candle that holds back the night.  They are few in numbers, but, one would hope that they would be able to at least encourage everyone else to embrace that which is weak within us all, to make ourselves more tolerant and understanding of our fellow man, even when they may be visually different.

Those, are the goals that are worth understanding, worth studying, and worth applying in each and every one of our lives.

Money and heaven

They say that money is the root of all evil, but, that is not true. Money itself is nothing more than symbolic representations of wealth, reified by the common agreement. There is no real difference between a $20 and a $50 bill, aside from the design used on it, it is just a piece of treasury paper, with an official logo stamped on it. Yet, we base our lives around such meaningless things. People make the pursuit of money into an all encompassing passtime, instead of simply using it like any other medium. 

Yes, it would be hard to live without money in the modern world, although not impossible. Sure, a lot of luxuries would have to be done without, but, you could still survive. I’m not sure what the point would be to pursue such an ascetic existence, but, it is fully possible. 

Money itself varies in value from person to person. If I offered you $1 million dollars, but, in return, you could never speak to your spouse again, some of you would jump at the money, others would never take it, no matter how many times I offered it. So, if the same figure produces such variable results, how can we take it seriously as a denominator for our own personal worth?

Yes, it would be nice to have a new car, a custom designed house, etc, but, it is more important to be content with what you have. My grandmother lived property rich but money poor for years. She got by in the same way she did in the 1930s – looking for deals, saving up, and she was one of the happiest people you ever met. 

So the important thing in life is to make sure you are happy, not that you are filling your perceived needs and wants. Modern society would like us to treat bankruptcy as though it were a moral failing, rather than the financial situation that it is. People are made to feel like lepers by collection agencies, debtors, and the like (include the famous “creative rudeness” commercial by a local debt collector) when it should just be noted that you are either over extended financially, or you are not organizing your life correctly.

Live simply, be happy, and try to appreciate the world for what it is. Don’t crave your next big purchase. Don’t mortgage the future for some trinket that will only temporarily satiate our inner desire to acquire things. Instead, find meaning in non-monetary means. A sunset is no less beautiful when you are poor. You might even have time to appreciate its beauty even more. When you appreciate the beauty of the world, you live better than a rich man, because you will be in a form of heaven. And, in heaven, there is no evil.

The problem of Wisdom

Wisdom is revered by the sages, and it has been held as a shining example for us all to aspire to. The image of the hermit in the wilderness possessing otherworldly insights is common to many cultures. Yet, somehow, in the biblical tradition, wisdom does not equal respect. There is, in fact, distinct evidence that it has a deleterious effect on one’s health. We will examine a few cases here, Methuselah, the oldest man that ever lived, and Solomon, the wisest man of all time, and take instruction from their examples.
The antediluvian world has always been one of mystery. The record life spans listed for the Patriarchs seem well nigh impossible by modern standards. However, they become even more mysterious when we examine their proximity to the flood of Noah. Specifically we will first be looking at Genesis chapters 5 to 7 where the end of the first age of man is detailed, and the onset of the flood sent by the Lord.
Methuselah has long been associated with wisdom and knowledge, and his exemplary life span of 969 years has been noted by many. However, if we examine carefully the context of his life, we may see that there is one more mystery that has not been explored. If we examine the text, we find that Methuselah lived 187 years before having Lamech as his son. That would leave 782 years left in his life cycle. Lamech lives 182 years before having Noah, leaving precisely 600 years left in Methuselah’s life cycle.
Lamech is recorded as living 777 years, meaning he died approximately 5 years before the flood (From Noahs birth to the flood is 600 years, and Lamech would have lived 595 years) So Lamech was spared seeing the devastation to humanity. Methuselah however, lives exactly the 600 years that the Bible insists, in Genesis 7.6 was exactly the time from Noah’s birth to the time of the flood.
We must ask ourselves, what was it that caused Methuselah’s death? He is not listed as being on board the Ark, and the bible seems to list his death as natural, listing it in the same format as so many others in the first few verses of Genesis. “All the days of Methuselah came to 969 years; then he died” (Genesis 5.27) This would at first imply a natural death, as it is a formulaic description presented for the entire line from Seth to Noah, but, it is still highly coincidental that Methuselah would perish in the flood that was designed to purge the earth of the corrupt flesh that had driven God to send the cleansing waters.
So, one is forced to wonder, did Methuselah get to die naturally, or was he part of the purgatory process? Was there something Methuselah had done or participated in that prevented his salvation from the divine waters?
If we look a little further into the Bible, we can see that wisdom is not always a good thing. The legendary King Solomon was endowed with great wisdom, as acknowledged in Kings 3.12 “ I grant you a wise and discerning mind; there has never been anyone like you before, nor will anyone like you arise again” King Solomon was granted the very wisdom, the very font of knowledge from the Godhead, and yet he too was led astray.
Kings 11 tells us the story of Solomon falling prey to his wives, and building temples for alien Gods. God himself voices his displeasure with his errant leader, yet one is forced to ponder – how is it that the very man who was directly inspired by the divine, and given the wisdom to discern good and evil, engage judicious affairs, and even have the Temple to the Lord erected under his aegis, led so far astray by anyone. More curious is the assertation that it was King Solomon’s wives and concubines that were the instruments of his conversion.
For the wisest man ever, before or since, one wonders what powers might have swayed him away from the one true god, who revealed wisdom. Surely there was no trickery strong enough he could not have used his remarkable powers of deduction and intuition to see through. Surely after being visited by the one true God in a dream (which was the typical means of interacting with the divinity in the ancient world) he had accessed the very spirit of the divine. And yet, he was corrupted, just as the earth had been corrupted and needed destruction in Methuselah’s time.
Solomon reigned Israel for 40 years (as recounted in Kings 11.42) which is an uncommonly long rule, both in the bible, and in real life. The modern Queens Victoria and Elizabeth are noted for their astonishingly long reigns at 60 years, and remember that Solomon refers to himself as a young lad upon his ascention to the throne. However, this may have been merely a grammatical device, as Solomon did have older brothers, and was almost certainly old enough for King David to have trusted him with the throne during the conspiracies of his brother. However, he shares a rather long life (for his time period) with Methuselah.
The primary difference between the two is that very little information about Methuselah is recorded, aside from his birth, his issue, and his life span. Solomon is a central focus during the time when the first Temple of Israel is built. However, both are reputed as being great fountains of wisdom, and both met their end in very dubious circumstances.
The Torah celebrates knowledge. The Song of Solomon (if its authorship can be accepted as fact) is one of the most beautiful and striking pieces of work. Methuselah is the son of the enigmatic Enoch, who’s own apocrhyphal book shows him inheriting the wisdom of the lord. Since Enoch only was on earth 365 years, and was 65 years old when he sired Methuselah, that means Noah’s birth was still 69 years away when Enoch ascended to the skies, with the Lord. So, the only transmission of divine knowledge from the Lord, and perhaps the guiding hand in Noah’s life after the death of his father Lamech would have come from his grandfather Methuselah.
The book of Enoch tells us that Enoch was instructed to pass on his wisdom to his Sons, and Methuselah, being the first born and most venerable of them, would have been the conduit to pass this knowledge on to Noah, the savior of humanity. There is no record of Solomon passing on his wisdom, in fact, his sons seem to be a significant step down from the majesty of his reign (although it is implied that this is due to the Lords punishment for Solomon’s own wicked deeds)
The fact remains, even if both men were allowed to die naturally, they died conveniently before their worlds were torn apart. Methuselah, by the flood, and Solomon, by his kingdom being divided in two and losing the support of the majority of the Israelite tribes. Their wisdom was rewarded, to a certain extent, by peace in their time, but, overall, they died in most peculiar circumstances, and one must wonder what incredible insights they had access to that were required to be suppressed, and that could lead to such corruption. Corruption of God’s holy people in Solomon’s case, and corruption of the entire earth, in Methuselah’s case.