The State Ruling the Church

My article on the subject from American Thinker:

A second article on the subject will appear in American Thinker tomorrow.

This entry was posted in Stuff by FVoshell. Bookmark the permalink.

About FVoshell

Fay Voshell is a cum laude graduate of the U. of D., where she receved an award for her knowledge of the arts and sciences. She also has an M.Div. degree from Princeton Theolgocal Seminary, where she received the Charles Hodge award for excellence in systematic theology. She was one of the Delaware GOP's "Winning Women," Class of 2008.

75 thoughts on “The State Ruling the Church

  1. Of course that could not be the case here since Obama is a socialist and socialists would never cowtow to big pharma or wealthy financial interests.

    It’s not kowtowing, they view it as the use of special interests in the service of an agenda:

    An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme, meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state. The Economics of Fascism

    He’s not “kowtowing” to special interests, he probably thinks that he’s using them when it suits him. The only people he literally kowtows to are foreign leaders who overtly tend toward dictatorship, communism, socialism or fascism while generally snubbing those who do not. He literally kowtows, see: (How low will he go? Obama gives Japan’s Emperor Akihito a wow bow LA Times) Etc.

    “The kowtow was a significant issue for diplomats, since it was required to come into the presence of the Emperor of China, but it meant submission before him.
    ….its meaning soon shifted to describe any abject submission or grovelling.

    I’d imagine that the memes in his head recognize their superiors? Anyway, a Leftist is literally kowtowing before your eyes and instead of seeking the truth all you can do is look to the Right seeking error.

    I continue to be amused (amazed) that the significant effort to paint Obama as a socialist…

    You need to do away with your fixation on condemning the Right long enough to seek the truth. Obama could be establishing a new form of fascism in front of your eyes and you’d still be going on ad naseum about how the Right is full of stupid rubes who believe simplistic memes but you’re knowledgeable and intelligent. We get it, you like to imagine yourself as intelligent and so on. Now what about the truth of things?

  2. Wow, so Reagan was a socialist for bailing out Chrysler the first time.

    More kowtowing: Iacocca bows before Jimmy Carter after getting bailed out by Washington.

    Questions about whether a quick federal fix is right—and will be enough The Carter Administration decided last week that now was the time to come to the aid of the nation’s most beleaguered major company. After weeks of rising pressure for a federal fix for the multiplying problems of Chrysler Corp., Treasury Secretary G. William Miller produced—and Jimmy Carter approved —a Government bailout. It was designed to prevent the nation’s No. 3 automaker (1978 sales: $13.6 billion) from sliding into a bankruptcy that could have put many thousands out of work and sent a shudder through U.S. financial markets.
    ….the Administration “recognizes that there is a public interest in sustaining [its] jobs and maintaining a strong and competitive national automotive industry.”Time

    If you want an unlimited source of money* and to establish yourself as “too big to fail” then all you have to do is frame your business as fitting into nationalism in some way while kowtowing to corrupt politicians.

    *Although it will be increasingly worthless due to the corruption of the economic language of the people. Then the power shifts to those who have resources in the real world and not scraps of paper based on a declining type of faith/credibility which trace back to the decline of American civilization. And interesting aspect of it is that when the government bails out rail roads, car companies and so on there is typically a return on the “investment” to the government. Although if they were allowed to fail the returns to the companies that would have taken their place would probably have been much larger as the market would have created knowledge much faster. But in contrast, when they bail out the financial services industry the money generally seems to disappear into a morass of corruption.

  3. “We get it, you like to imagine yourself as intelligent and so on. Now what about the truth of things?”

    I am intelligent, and so on. And the truth of things follows:

    The nation’s leadership (Bush followed by Obama and others before them both) decided that shoring up certain industries (auto, farming, et al) was in the nations best interest. Were they right? I think it’s a mixed bag. Almost a damned if you, damned if you don’t. Jobs are saved, but government (and hence the people) pay the cost. If the auto industry failed, America loses more manufacturing capability, which affects our national security. However, other auto manufacturers were/are doing quite well without government props. The workers whose jobs were saved, continue to get a paycheck and continue to spend, thus supporting economic growth. But the nation is further in debt, which must be service, etc. …….

    See how nuanced this all is? Isn’t this better than “Obama’s A Socialist” Maybe he and Bush’s decisions were wrong. History might tell us that someday, but you notice we could have a great discussion if we were not limited to “Obama’s a socialist. No, he’s not. Yes he is. Is not. Is so. Your mama”.

  4. SussexAnon wrote in #49: “Wow, so Reagan was a socialist for bailing out Chrysler the first time. Who da thunk?”

    As my post made clear, the issue is Obama CONTROLLING GM and Chrysler, including breaking the normal rules of the bankruptcy court to engineer an outcome dictated by the White House.

    The bailout of Chrysler in the 1980′s was controversial, but the rebuliding of Chrysler was led by the very strong figure Lee Iaococca — not by the White House. The US Congress when Reagan was President loaned I think $5 billion to Chrysler, if I recall, but then LEFT CHRYSLER ALONE to be responsible to rebuild and pay back the loan.

    Furthermore, we do have divided government. When Ronald Reagan was fighting with a Democrat-dominated Congress and Mitt Romney was fighting with a Democrat-dominated Massachusetts legislature, the result of the sausage factory may not be pretty nor truly represent the political philosophy of Reagan or Romney.

    The difference is which direction are people HEADING in, what are they PUSHING FOR? Ronald Reagan was trying to herd cats away from socialism and toward the greatness of America’s economic system based on freedom. Barack Obama and most Democrats (conservative Democrats now becoming extinct) ARE TRYING TO GO IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. It is not that Obama is being forced to accept some socialist-leaning progams or votes. Obama IS the force for socialism, dragging the Republican Congress in the direction of socialism.

    So there is no comparison between a Reagan, or a Bush, or a Romney trying to pul lthe Democrats away from their addiction to “THE DARK SIDE” being socialism, and having to occasionally compromise.

    In a system of divided government, you have to look at which direction a politician is pushing the agenda… not at individual compromises that are unavoidable in a power-sharing government.

  5. Apologies to mynym in #51:

    I made the classic mistake of accepting the PREMISE of a liberal’s argument without CHECKING THE FACTS FIRST. It is astonishing how often when you check the facts, the premise of a liberal argument is factually untrue.

    It was Jimmy Carter, not Ronald Reagan, who loaned $5 billion to Chrysler. But, again, all the attention was on Lee Iococca as a VERY strong leader, becoming almost a cult leader (more respected than Donald Trump recently). There was even talk of Lee Iococca running for President, because his leadership — not Washington — turned Chrysler around.

    To Dave in #53: I think we would agree, for once, that if government had not so badly damaged America’s manufacturing sector over many decades, the government would not be faced with the dilemma of having to prop up the companies that the government so badly damaged. Washington faces a no-win dichotomy as a result of decades of bad economic policy.

  6. Jobs are saved, but government (and hence the people) pay the cost. If the auto industry failed, America loses more manufacturing capability, which affects our national security.

    Not necessarily, industries have failed in the past and there is evidence that they have to fail in order for the market to create knowledge. I doubt that fascist economics works. In a sense it may “work” and did work in Nazi Germany. But in undermining the character and free spirit of a people by shifting them to labor based on a mixture of coercion and propaganda and away from labor based on liberty it is exponentially expensive. What economic model “works” depends on what type of life people want. If you want a society that is progressively based on coercion or “incentives” and military expansion that creates jobs based on militarism and so on then fascism works.

    I would note that it doesn’t seem to work in the financial services industry at all.

    However, other auto manufacturers were/are doing quite well without government props.

    Not to mention that we do not know how much wealth would have been created or how fast the markets’ search for knowledge would have taken place without government intervention. I suspect that the real reason that people will not have jobs in the end is that their economic language has been destroyed by corrupt politicians and not because a “too big to fail” industry was allowed to go out of business. After all, the latter creates opportunity while the former destroys it. We’ve been on the “too big to fail” path for a while.

    History might tell us that someday, but you notice we could have a great discussion if we were not limited to “Obama’s a socialist. No, he’s not. Yes he is. Is not. Is so. Your mama”.

    I’m not limited to that but we all need some entertainment sometimes. We already have a history of fascist economics. Although any “economic model” depends on people, their character and the nature of their spirit. So what works for Germany may not work in Greece. Something that the central planners of the European Union should have noticed…. but planners seldom recognize the most important things in life. So even if history shows that “serve the national interest” fascism supposedly works as an economic model in one instance and you begin planning for it, it may not work for Americans. Not to mention that fascism may become a part of changes in their spiritual condition which causes economic changes that “bubble” to the surface until the economy collapses due to lack of credibility/credit/faith.

    The main thing to look at first in order to clear the ground and begin to search for knowledge is that the “fiscal only” concept that generally looks at people as cogs in an economic machine that can be tinkered with is rooted in ignorance.

  7. That is to say that no sooner have you touched the economy/”machine” to tinker with it based on coercion then it comes alive and moves in an unexpected direction and so on. So it is important to look to history or focus on experimental economics based on evidence in the real world while realizing that even then you won’t really have enough knowledge to plan for things because there is overwhelming evidence that people in the real world are living, knowing, creative beings. (Note that fascism in the past was linked to Darwinian creation myths which reduce people to blind, ignorant processes.)

    For example, if prophecies of famine and so on were true in the real world and it was a certain form of science/scientia/knowledge then Al Gore could make a fortune on it. But instead he apparently makes his fortune by entertaining people with the idea that they’re preventing imaginary catastrophes in the future or selling them indulgences.

  8. One of the key lessons I learned about economics in college was that macro economics is difficult to impossible to model accurately. The reason was very simple. There are too many variables that must be factored in order to arrive at a high fidelity model. Economic theory may work well in a local environment (think the home) because you can, to a high degree, control things like capital, labor, demand, etc. to make your economic model work.

    My general outlook on economic machinations by governments, industry groups, etc. is that it is mostly trial and error and what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow. So the question is, how much should our government attempt to influence the economy? It’s not an all or nothing, but to a greater or lesser extent. I believe that in desperate circumstances, such as a depression, the government must attempt some action, even though I recognize that the the outcome is chancey. In such circumstances, doing nothing is not an option. But how much is too much, too little, or just plain wrong are excellent topics of discussion and debate.

    Agriculture is important to Delaware. The government spends money to subsidize farmers and ensure the continued viability of the industry. How much of that government “stimulus” is necessary? Is this a proper role for government? If left alone would agriculture do well enough on it’s own? Do we need fair trade pricing on agricultural products? Do price controls do what they intended? For us in Delaware these are important questions and many Delaware farmers probably would take the view that the nation needs food, but the automobile industry should stand on it’s own – sink or swim. So where do we draw the line?

  9. So the question is, how much should our government attempt to influence the economy?

    Socialist-Democrats’ attempts ‘to influence the economy’ are really programs to increase the percentage of Americans reliant on largesse from the public treasury. Essentially, cash for votes. This explains why the ever-growing parasite class votes exclusively Socialist-Democrat.

  10. Dave wrote in #59:

    One of the key lessons I learned about economics in college was that macro economics is difficult to impossible to model accurately. The reason was very simple. There are too many variables that must be factored in order to arrive at a high fidelity model.

    This is exactly why, as Frederick Hayek proves convincingly, goverment management of the economy is impossible. Centralized manaement of the economy is impossible, because the volume and pace of information is astronomical and impossible for any system to process. The government is always too late and behind the curve, even if it could grasp any sizable piece of the data at all.

    The decentralized economy of individual actors motivated by their own self-interest is not only morally superior but the only workable model, because centralized planning is fundamentally impossible, according to Hayek.

  11. Remember when the British government decided to consolidate the auto industry, under the badge ‘British Leyland?’ The ‘government’ was the majority ‘owner’ of MG, Triumph, Morris, Rover and Land Rover, Daimler, Jaguar and so on.

    Jaguar and Land Rover were sold-off to pay accumulating debts- and they survive today. Where are MG, Triumph, etc?

    Sort of like our government ‘business’ failures, the USPS and AMTRAK. Can the government do anything right?

  12. The bitter ironies of those who sit at the top of governmental pyramid schemes aborting the generation of wealth: China’s Ghost Cities and Malls

    “Things may not be as rosy as they seem.” …based on illusions generated by coercion, the sacrifice of the poor and an abortion of the creation and generation of real wealth.

    Consider that even observing things changes reality, let alone trying to plan it. Not to mention that economic schemes based on coercion change the character of the people who create and the product of whose labor is “the economy.” For all the talk of change and progress on the Left, it doesn’t seem like they understand much about progress. For example, notice how the NYT (i.e. journalists/imbeciles) were taken in by illusions* rooted in coercion to the point that they wrote that China was going to shift toward an economy based more on people at the bottom beginning to consume wealth. No… so far, only those at the top of the pyramid scheme have Ipads and so on. Apparently this is so that they can better organize their sacrifices of the poor in their schemes.**

    *Not that this is saying much. It would be like a journalist/imbecile at the News Journal believing that when people abort their babies it provides care for poor women and a better life for all in general. The illusion or meme doesn’t even have to be that powerful, in the mind of an imbecile it may as well be the equivalent of reality. And as long as it lasts until they’re dead, well.

  13. **

    According to Reuters, China’s Communist Party members can now carry the RedPad Number One, which among other things comes bundled with software that allows up-and-coming commissars to monitor both the news and the journalists who report it.
    For Chinese communists, only RedPad, not iPad, will do CNet

  14. Centralized manaement of the economy is impossible, because the volume and pace of information is astronomical and impossible for any system to process.

    Notice the link between “closed system” Darwinian creation myths promulgated by the state and socialism, it’s ironic because Darwinism was and is the projection of capitalism onto nature.

    The link of Darwin to Malthus has been recognized and accorded proper importance from the start, if only because Darwin himself had explicitly noted and honored this impetus. But if Darwin required Malthus to grasp the central role of continuous and severe struggle for existence, then he needed the related school of Scottish economists…to formulate the even more fundamental principle of natural selection itself.
    In fact, I would advance the even stronger claim that the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith’s economics transferred to nature. (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould :122)

    You might say that Leftists are dumb enough to believe that capitalism created progress as we know it (not to mention every other organism that exists) on the one hand while rejecting it on the other.

    Meanwhile, back in reality, empirical observations in biology do not always comport with the ideas of capitalism being projected onto it. In contrast:

    …the anthropological fable is a work of imagination, a historical scenario, yet offered as an explanation of one or another social phenomenon of either that time or our own. It is a kind of reverse science fiction*, situated in the past rather than in the future. …
    What claim can this kind of historical fiction make to be scientific? It simply cannot, even in the loosest sense of science. It is just that the anthropological fable appeals to ideas of competition, struggle, selection, etc., ideas of Darwinian biology–or rather, socio-economic ideas that Darwinism borrowed and naturalized, thus giving them scientific backing. Returned to the sociology from whence they came, they are endowed with a kind of scientific aura, and their use in anthropological fables confers on the latter a dignity to which they have no right.
    The problem is that Darwinism, properly speaking, resorts to just this kind of historical scenario in its explanation of the origin of species. The simplest of these scenarios, in its modern form, sees a certain characteristic as appearing by chance mutation and, once shown to be favourable to its individual bearer, being preserved by natural selection. This basic model can be given added sophistication, mathematical for example, but the fact remains that the Darwinian explanation still consists in imagining a historical scenario… To criticize the explanatory principle that the anthropological model provides in social Darwinism is equally to criticize the Darwinian principle that explains the evolution of species by reconstructing historical scenarios. It thus amounts to an attack on science (since Darwinism is deemed scientific, at least among biologists)….
    (The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot :47-49)

    *Notice this pattern of socialists imagining things about the past (Ironically based on projecting capitalism onto it.) or imagining things about about the disastrous consequences of capitalism in the future are unified in this, they generally generate and sustain illusions of knowledge about progress based on imaginary events.

  15. One thing about what amounts to the emergence of literal monuments to Leftist pyramid schemes in China is that at least it leaves something behind. But it’s likely that if America begins to shift toward an “economy” based on coercion/taxes and continues to do away with liberty based labor and so on we probably won’t even get to wonder about the results in a literal sense. Instead, when the illusions and so on being used to shift the values of people disappear they will just evaporate into intangible things like an education bubble bursting or another failed “bail out” for the financial services industry. If those who sit in ivory towers are any measure then we probably won’t even get actual towers of babble to wonder about.

    If that’s the case then there won’t even be a monument to ignorance left. Imagine that….

    Of course, it may not happen.

  16. Interesting analysis, but you overlook an important distinction: We don’t control nature, but we can control the economy and society — not much, but at least to some degree. We do not have to accept letting the losers die.

    Unfortunately, the analyses you cite have simplified the theory of evolution to the point of meaninglessness (which might explain why you don’t understand it very well). Humans, like many other species, do not exist in nature as individuals but in groups. Those groups have increased in size and sophistication as time has gone on (sorry, I don’t know how to explain this progression other than to call it “progress,” though I suppose you would disagree, as you apparently don’t believe that humanity has “progressed” anywhere). As a result, individuals who might otherwise die on their own survive as members of a group.

  17. Once the government has stolen all there is left to steal, the producers will-by the necessity of self-preservation- flee. Then, the propagandized majority will see just how competent and just how benevolent their Socialist-Democrat masters really are.

    “Stealing from one man to feed and house another is Theft”

  18. “liberty based labor”

    Shouldn’t that be capitalized, you know, similar to Left Wing Socialist Fascist? What the heck is “liberty based labor?” I’m an at will employeed of a company. I continue to work there at there and my will. Is that liberty based labor? Or is LBL labor where I vote Republican?

  19. Is that liberty based labor?

    Probably, although almost everything is progressively being undermined by corruption and the lose of a distinction between liberty and coercion, to the point that people now speak of the government “saving and creating” labor.

    Another example, the very economic language by which people are at liberty to value your labor is itself being corrupted and shifted toward coercion. And coercion tends to destroy the creation of wealth…. not to mention the irony that corrupting the economic language of the people redistributes wealth toward the top of the pyramid scheme where the demagogues sit.

    Or is LBL labor where I vote Republican?

    What do you think?

  20. We don’t control nature, but we can control the economy and society — not much, but at least to some degree. We do not have to accept letting the losers die.

    To the extent that there ever was a Darwinian “theory” of evolution it did predict survival of the fittest.* Given that Darwinism is generally based on imagining things it depends on what the proponent of “evolution” sees in the Rorschach test typical to hypotheses of evolution.

    *Here is what Darwin saw as a scientific fact that people would probably have to resign themselves to:

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
    (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882, p. 156)

    Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.
    (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905, p. 286)

    Notice how certain he was, about as certain as those who use pseudo-scientific ideas to predict environmental catastrophes in an imaginary future today. Apparently at some point people no longer realize that they are imagining things or begin treating their own imaginations as the epistemic equivalent of empirical or scientific evidence.

    Apparently you see evolution differently than Darwin because you like to imagine things about evolution differently. Given that evolution, whatever it is, is often imagined to support one observation as well as its exact opposite that’s probably fine. Ironically, Darwin would have liked to see things differently but couldn’t due to the pseudo-scientific memes of his day that he helped to create.

    In any case, neither your view or Darwin’s view of things in the Rorschach test of evolution is based on a rigorous form of science. Shifting around between numerous hypotheses is a long way from specifying the theory of natural selection or any “theory of evolution” in the language of mathematics to the point that it can be used to predict trajectories of adaptation in groups of organisms. Apparently too many people are too busy with pseudo-science and imagining things about the past to focus on science here and now….

  21. We’re also a long way from sound economic theories that are verifiable based on experience or experiments as well. For example:“We can always print money.”

    Notice his absolute certainty and claim to knowledge based on a “faith based” illusion, it’s the material of satire and will almost certainly be burned if history and experience in reality are any measure. And the very specification that you might be led to imagine exists, whether it’s a specified “theory” of evolution or a specified monetary system, actually has no structure that can be verified or falsified in reality. It can be specified in a different way or inflated and deflated at the will of its proponents. This leads to corruption to the point that proponents of vaporous hypotheses do not even realize that they and what they imagine of themselves is corrupt.* After all, corruption itself entails a knowledge of integrity that relies on some form of specification. But note their statements of certainty about knowledge created mainly in their own imaginations, even as evidence in reality surrounds them.

    *Perhaps the correction to vaporous or unfalsifiable hypotheses is necessarily iconoclastic and satiric as the critic themselves must drawn something out of it all the babble criticize:

    The author assumes an iconoclastic and sometimes sarcastic stance from the outset, and this tone persists throughout the book. This alone may discourage some of his potential readers, most unfortunately, for here is a book that all evolutionary biologists should read. [...]
    In the end, one is left convinced that the author’s criticisms and suggestions are, for the most part, correct. He hits hard at the innumerable “falsifications” (as he calls them), that have wrongly attempted to enshrine Darwin and natural selection. He concludes that “Darwinism was refuted from the moment it was conceived” (pp. ix, 404) and that … as a biologist and thinker Darwin was not a genius. He was not the ‘Newton of Biology’.. . . I would rather. . . bestow the latter epithet on Lamarck” (p. 421).
    The book abounds with unique and pithy thoughts, but numerous other authors have subscribed to his fundamental theses… The list of people to whom the book is dedicated gives a clue to the free-thinking company sharing many of his views….
    (Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth by Søren Løvtrup
    Review author: Hobart M. Smith
    Evolution, Vol. 43, No. 3. (May, 1989), :699-700)

    One thing is certain, if people had half the knowledge and certainty that they claim to have then they’d be exponentially wealthier than they are.

  22. The specification or distinction between debt and assets, liberty and coercion… and more irony:Ron Paul questions Greenspan

    Meanwhile, Delawareans are still scratching their heads over the distinction between government creating labor based on taxes or debt and labor based on liberty? Apparently that’s a distinction that is too hard to grasp these days.

  23. Dave, if you were as you wish to think of yourself, an open-minded and economic oriented independent, you would be keenly sensitive to the distinction between a command and control economy and the American system of free enterprise. Of course, my objection is not that you desire the wrong things, but I see you as more a captive of deeply-ingrained propaganda and assumptions than you realize.

    I have never heard the term “Liberty based labor” but it is obvious enough that there is a gigantic difference in the world view of the Statists who believe the government should dominate society and those who beleive in individualism and the value of he individual making his or her own decisions about their lives.

    The American economic philosophy (recognized by no less than the US Supreme Court in reviewing economic regulation, and upholding open competition as the core of our economy) is that the free choices of individuals, left alone from government interference to the maximum extent possible (i.e., without harming others) adds up to the overall value of the economic system and the success of the society.

    America’s success does not come from central planners presuming to act as PHILOSOPHER KINGS, who know better than the poor slovenly masses whom the central planners keep as something close to pets. There is a term that few take seriously: Public SERVANTS. Government bureaucrats sees themselves as our masters, when they are meant to be our servant.

    The distinction between a world view of government planning versus a society based on individualism and individual choices, I would have thought, would have been something Dave would be keenly sensitive to.

Comments are closed.