If one knows what one is up against, one may prepare to deal with it.
My dear Prof Marvel,
This is what you would call commentary. The People who are trying to turn us against our government choose their words very cleverly and subtly. And since words are what make up laws, by altering the meaning of a word, you can alter the force of a law. When I become aware of the alteration, I can track the meaning back to the original and see what was intended when the law was written and how the new reading is used to hoodwink you and your fellows. Do you remember military jargon and lingo from your days afloat? Some of it was based on common words used in new ways. How about “Off Limits” as an example. Remember that? What does it mean in Liz’ English and what in Military argot? How about that time your girlfriend got “in the family way”? Driving a motor vehicle vs. traveling by automobile… Line ’em up.
How do you effect the separation of the People from their government? Divide and rule would be a good way to start…you could assume control of the Professors and work outwards from there. You wouldn’t bag all of them but, with some good bait, you could catch most of them…incrementally.
Now for a quote from Washington (George, not D.C.).
October 24, 1798
Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.
George Washington Snyder
Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into. It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc. 6 [Sounds like something a professor of my acquaintance might have said. —Ed.]
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes [useful idiots] usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. In other words, “If you hate the Republicans and love the Democrats, the Democrats can advance the will of the enemies of liberty and you will [enthusiastically] help them…” [Cite]
Ever your ob’t ser.,
DrP. etc., etc.
My dear Prof Marvel,
Atheism is all very well and good if it suits one’s temperament, but in the end, one is forced to believe things just as surely as if one were a Southern Baptist or a Cathar. If the whole thing were left to me, I would decree that everyone has to be an Agnostic unless he can prove otherwise to a Concatenation of His Peers. It would be sort of like a Factory Settings option. I am weary of the Atheist Philosophy because its adherents are such active evangelists and what do they want me to believe in? Nothing, that’s what! Sorry, Charlie, you will never shake my belief in the goodness of Man and the sacredness of Life. [P.C. Notice: By “man” I do not mean “men”, what I mean is Humanity. And, I do not single out Man for special attention at the expense of say, healthy rats with no health insurance, but just as a matter of staking out the territory and saying “no negativity here,” if you please. Leave it at the door and you can retrieve it when you go if you still want it. And, please tip the girl as she is putting her Grandmother through Junior College.] At convenient times, mainly when children are present, I firmly believe in the Easter Bunny and the Sandman. But I digress.
When antibiotics were first introduced, the inventor himself predicted that, if they should be overused, eventually they would become ineffective because so resourceful are the somatids that they will soon figure out how to get around these invented defenses against disease. When Monsanto began to introduce the patented seeds that resisted herbicides and produced their own insecticides, some people wondered what would happen as new strains of pests learned how to evade our most sophisticated designs. Now, we are finding out, as the corn-root-borers are making a comeback in the American Midwest and elsewhere in the World and the pernicious weeds are reestablishing their old digs among the plants that make money for us. What has this to do with Atheism? Just this: when we become certain that we know everything and it makes us proud, we had better be looking around to see who or what is ready to prove us wrong again. As you know, I am addicted to quoting the many geniuses out there who survived the wars (although some didn’t) and say things so much better than I ever could and so I offer a quote from one of Darwin’s mentors who wondered if Chuck hadn’t gone off the deep end and was in danger of leading a pack of duplicitous fools over the precipice of certainty and into the gloomy abyss of “I told you so…” I might add here that when Darwin’s disciple, Herbert Spencer, arrived in Chicago to make a speech, he was lionized as the bearer of a new Social Order. Even Spencer, though he appreciated the enthusiasm of the business community, doubted that it was a productive development and sincerely hoped it would evolve in the direction of more benign patterns as time went by.
Here are the words of Darwin’s sage old geology teacher, the Rt. Rev. Adam Sedgwick, late of Cambridge University:
Source: Nietzsche, Spencer, and the Ethics of Evolution
1972- Gregory Moore
From: The Journal of Nietzsche Studies
Issue 23, Spring 2002
pp. 1-20 | 10.1353/nie.2002.0005
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies 23 (2002) 1-20
After receiving from Charles Darwin a copy of The Origin of Species and reading it with mounting horror, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, professor of geology at Cambridge, wrote to his former pupil to admonish him:
There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. ‘Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it does through final cause link material and moral [. . .] You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it.
Unsurprisingly, Darwin bitterly resented this stinging rebuke from his erstwhile mentor, yet for many later commentators Sedgwick’s objections seem wholly justified. Darwin may not, as Sedgwick assumed, have actively sought to divest nature of ulterior moral purpose and deprive human ethics of a firm foundation, but this is nevertheless precisely what the revolution that he set in motion accomplished. And its consequences were indeed potentially “brutalising.” For if humanity was merely one species of animal among others, subject to the same ceaseless struggle for life in a world bereft of the guiding hand of Providence, then selfishness had been bred into the very marrow of its being. Victorian decorum was only a thin veneer beneath which lurked a savage beast bent only on individual advantage. This, Gertrude Himmelfarb has concluded, was the “traumatic effect” of Darwinism: it “de-moralized man” by displacing “man by nature, moral man by amoral nature.” But how accurate an assessment is this of the shift in human self-understanding occasioned by the rise of evolutionary theory? To be sure, there were many in the nineteenth century who, like one dispirited young man after reading The Origin of Species at the age of sixteen, found themselves haunted by “a feeling of utter insignificance in face of the unapprehended processes of nature [. . .] a sense of being aimlessly adrift in the vast universe of consciousness, among an infinity of other atoms, all struggling desperately to assert their own existence at the expense of all the others.” But, as Robert J. Richards has exhaustively demonstrated, many—if not most—nineteenth-century evolutionists took a rather different view of the ramifications of Darwinism for human affairs. Their object was not to wrench apart the “material and moral”; on the contrary, they believed that they were able to knit these two worlds more closely together. Life could be reinfused with ethical significance by enlisting biology itself to legitimate and sustain the inherited values of Judeo-Christian civilization. For example, Ernst Haeckel, the leading apostle of Darwinism in Germany, dismissed in typically robust fashion the notion that evolution might entail “a subversion of all accepted moral law and a destructive emancipation of Egoism”; rather, he, like a whole host of scientists and philosophers, sought to formulate “a system of Ethics erected upon the indestructible foundation of unchanging natural law.” A moral sense could no longer be regarded as the sole prerogative of Man, for all social animals appeared to demonstrate a “sense of duty,” a willingness to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of their community. Nonhuman systems of ethics represented merely a stage in the gradual refinement of those noble instincts and patterns of cooperative behavior that provided the best adaptive response to the demands of a given environment. In short, evolution was envisaged as a moral process—the progressive development toward ever more perfect expressions of altruism, compassion, and love. FIN