The Most Important Commandments

Cutting and Christ, by Tod Bolsinger, It Takes A Church…, 19 May 2005, (from By Dawn’s Early Light)

While talking youths physically injuring themselves to ease mental plain, Paster Bolsinger writes

In my book, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian, I quote extensively from Emil Brunner’s book, The Misunderstanding of the Church. This book written over half-century ago remains the most profound theological work on what the church is and how we have relegated to nothing more than a “means of grace”. What is in fact, the very presence of God on earth has become for many of us a “helpful” yet optional part of the Christian life.

Brunner writes, The “togetherness of Christians is…not secondary or contingent: it is integral to their life just as is their abiding in Christ.” Did you get that? “JUST AS IS their abiding in Christ.” “The fellowship of Christians is just as much an end in itself as is their fellowship with Christ. “ Did you get that? “JUST AS MUCH an end in itself…”

Brunner is pointing to the biblical notion that if we are IN FACT, the body of Christ with Jesus as our head, then BEING the church and loving, caring and forgiving each other is just as important as the way that a healthy person takes care of his body.

I wrote earlier about religions and loneliness. As I wrote then, the two themes of the New Testament are Follow Christ and Love Your Neighbor The early Church was combining the two most powerful messages in the world: We can do it. You can help and I love you.

An ideological network that effectively combines both messages is almost impossible. That is a major reason for the success of Christianity.

Expelling North Korea From the Orbit of the World (Earth as an Atom)

Peace of Westphalia,” Wikipedia, 31 December 2004,

Electrons,” by Larry Dunbar, tdaxp, 22 May 2005,

Commenting on my post about neural networks and Fourth Generation movements, Larry compares states to electrons

I am glad to see you have the basic principles of an electron down. The very existence of an electron is behind the reason I think some of the ideas of Dr. Barnett’s are so wacky.

An electron exists where it is because the frequencies involved are non-destructive. When an atom has 6 electrons in an orbit they exist because the frequency of each don’t cancel each other out. When energy is increased or decreased, negative or positive acceleration, the frequency changes so the electrons have to “move” out or “move” in, for them to exist.

In other words, a stable world would be like an element in a vacuum: nothing changes the energy of the states so there are no disruptions. But…

Because I feel society act like an electron, particle wave, or lightwave, I also feel they can’t exists when their frequency are destructive to each other. If you replace implicit laws, which make a society exist, with frequency then you are able to understand what I mean.

I feel the frequency of our society produce a destructive frequency with China. China and North Korea produce a non-destructive frequency so without any modification to their frequency, they can exist. I simply don’t feel Dr. Barnett has factored frequency into his equation.

Larry correctly notes that increased American connectivity and communication with the Chinese people undermines Chinese society and government. He also correctly notes that same does not work in reverse, and Chinese norms do not threaten American culture.

For centuries, the system that allowed every state to go its own way was The Peace of Westphalia. I think in his deference to the stability of states, Larry would disagree with the NATO Secretary General, the German foreign Minister, and the al Qaeda statement:

In 1998 on a Symposium on the Political Relevance of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, then NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said that “humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order” and criticized that “the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration.” [1]

In 2001, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: “The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions.” [2]

In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, the terrorist network al-Qaida also declared that “the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state”. [3] Also, it is often claimed that globalization is bringing an evolution of the international system past the sovereign Westphalian state.

We could firewall the Gap and rely on deterrence to create many worlds — a free, connected Core that includes the North America, Europe, Japan, and some others, along with many national cultures cut off from the wider world and its freedoms.

When we connect with China, we give China the activation it needs to change its orbit. Globalization gives energy to peoples to throw off old ways and begin new ones Globalization creates disorder. Globalization is a process of creative destruction that trades stability in the short-term for a safer and better world in the long-term.

The North Korean government cannot share in this future. It is too dangerous and to evil to exist. The other states will return to stability in Globalization — will will share constructive frequencies. But not North Korea. We must expel North Korea from the atom of the world. We must Kill Kim.

Anti-Virtue Puritans

Hector,” Wikipedia, 12 May 2005,

Communists, feminists oppose naked sushi,” by Gaijinbiker, Riding Sun, 22 May 2005,

The words we translate as “virtue” — the Latin virtu and the Greek arete — are better translated as “Rightness” or even “Rightful Manliness.” It is a state of inner superiority. A virtuous man follows a morally right internal rule set against a wrong external rule set. His implicit controls are stronger than his explicit controls.

Eagles are seen as virtuous animals. They soar into the clouds. An eagle’s desire for loftiness overpowers his mass’s attraction to the Earth. The earliest written example of virtue — Manly Rightness — is the character of Hector, the Trojan Prince who fought against an overwhelming foe

Hector provides a stark contrast for Achilles, who was from first to last a man of war. Hector represents Troy and what it stood for. Some modern scholars have even suggested that he, not Achilles, is the true hero of the Iliad. Hector was fighting, not for personal glory, but in defense of his homeland. His rebuke to Poludamas, “Fight for your country – that is the first and only omen” became a proverb to patriotic Greeks. Through him we can see glimpses of what life in Troy and elsewhere in the Bronze Age Mediterranean civilization depicted by Homer might have been like in more peaceful times. The scene where he bids farewell to his wife Andromache and his infant son is one of the more moving scenes in the Iliad.

In the Middle Ages Hector’s legend was held so highly that Jean de Longuyon included him as one of the Nine Worthies. In the Divine Comedy Dante sees the shade of Hector with the other noble Roman and Trojan personages in the portion of Limbo reserved for the most virtuous pagans.

The point is that virtue is an internal quality. Virtue cannot be imposed. If hector was an unwilling conscript and performed the same actions he would not have been virtuous, because the acts would not be an expression of his Rightness. Likewise, eagles are symbols of virtue, and balloons are not, because the eagle chooses the fly while the balloon is lifted up.

The point of all this? To condemn the latest plan of enforced pseudo-virtue from Chinese Communists and American Feminists

China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce issued a notice this weekend banning meals served on naked bodies, officially canceling the service offered by a Japanese restaurant in southwestern China that served sushi on unclothed female university students, a Beijing newspaper reported Sunday.

The Saturday pronouncement forbids the service because it “insults people’s moral quality,” according to the Beijing Times. Serving food on women’s bodies also “spreads commercial activity with poor culture,” the paper said, citing the administration’s notice.

Chinese media reported that the Hefeng Village Huaishi Cuisine Restaurant in Kunming, capital of Yunnan Province, was serving sushi and other Japanese food on two naked university students as they lay on their backs.


Promoters insist it’s performance art. Detractors say women are getting a raw deal.

Whatever the case, the controversy over the Bonzai nightclub serving sushi on nearly naked women isn’t about to fade anytime soon.

“It’s dehumanizing, the manner in which people are buying and selling sushi to be eaten off a woman’s body. It’s dehumanizing to be treated as a plate,” said Cherry Cayabyab, president of the local chapter of National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum.

If the club persists, she and other activists plan to launch a media campaign — apparently the first organized opposition to naked sushi in the United States.

…”It provides a forum to see a human being as an object — and when women are viewed as objects, they are more likely to be violated,” said Norma Timbang, executive director of the Asian and Pacific Islander Women and Family Safety Center.

Post-Script: At least with the Communist/Feminist fellow travelers, it is ironic that the same people who would use police powers against a woman and her body here are the same people who do not lift a finger to stop pre-birth infanticide.

The puritan monsters.

Academic Tenure Is Worth Fighting For (Intellectual Property and the Iraq War)

Lecturer censored in Spanish University (UPV) for defending P2P networks,” by Jorge Cortell, Bitacora (Blog) de Jorge Cortell, 20 May 2005, (from Slashdot).

Earlier, I fisked Victor Hansons’ attack on tenure. While Hanson is right that many academics are politically biased, tenure is too important to give up. Without a healthy system of tenure academics can easily be intimidated by narrow interests against pursuing vital research.

For example, in Spain a lecturer was dismissed for discussing peer-to-peer computer networks.

Jorge Cortell, Dismissed Lecturer

This what happened to me when trying to defend the legal use of P2P networks in Spain.

I have been teaching “Intellectual Property” (although I dislike the term) among other subjects at a Masters Degree in the Polytechnic University of Valencia UPV (Spain) for over 5 years. Two weeks ago I was scheduled (invited by the ETSIA Student Union and Linux Users’ Group for the celebration of “Culture Week”) to give a conference in one of the university’s buildings. During that conference I was to analyze the legal use and benefits of the P2P networks, even when dealing with copyrighted works (according to the Spanish Intellectual Property Law, Private Copy provision, and many research papers, books and court rulings). I was even going to use the network to “prove” that it was legal, since members of the Collecting Society “SGAE” had appeared on TV and newspapers saying that “P2P networks are ilegal” (sic) just like that, and to that extent I even contacted SGAE, National Police, and the Attorney General in advance to inform them about it.

The day before the conference, the Dean (pressured by the Spanish Recording Industry Association “Promusicae” as I found out later, and he recognized himself in a quote to the national newspaper El Pais, and even the Motion Picture Association of America, as another newspaper quotes) tried to stop it by denying permission to use the scheduled venue. So I scheduled a second one, and that was denied again. And a third time. Finally I gave the conference on the university cafeteria, for 5 hours, in front of 150 people.

Later on that day (May 4th, I will never forget), I received a call from the Director of the Masters Degree Program where I was teaching telling me that the Dean had called and had asked him to “make sure I did not teach there again”, and on a second call saying “it’s your choice, but also your responsibility”.

The Director called me and first asked me to remove any link to the university from my website, and also to “hide” the fact that I was teaching there. Then he told me about the pressures and threats he and the Program received (to be subjected to software licenses inspection, copyright violations inspections, or anything that may damage them). Obviously I had to resign to save his job (and everybody else’s at the Masters Program). So I did.

This issue is much bigger than software property rights.

Peer-to-peer networks are everywhere. They are behind the rise of the Christian Right in America. They are behind the anti-Iraqi Insurgency. Knowing how they work is vital to destroying terrorist networks.

The same laws of networks apply, whether the nets in question are technological or social. For instance, recent Macromedia patents on disrupting peer-to-peer computer networks may harm efforts to fight terrorists in Iraq.

The less academics have tenure, the less safe research becomes. The less safe research becomes, the less questions are asked. The less questions are asked, the stupider and slower we are. The stupider and slower we are, the easier it is for our enemies.

Fight terrorism. Protect tenure.

Update: Citizen Journal disagrees