Francis Berger's Blog, page 54
January 10, 2023
Some Stray Comments on Comments
I welcome comments on this blog, but I also moderate them.
Why?
Well, a friend and correspondent recently shared a guideline concerning his own blog comment policy -- overall, he only publishes comments that add to or preserve the "feel" of the post, which he regards as primary.
The guideline resonates with me because it addresses motivation -- and motivation is key. All bloggers are driven by certain motivations when they sit down to write a post. Likewise, everyone who comments on a post also harbors their own set of motivations.
In my experience, the best comments are those that align with the overall motivation of the post in question. This does not entail that the comment must be "nice" or agree with the views, ideas, or content expressed in the post, but the motivation behind the disagreement should strive to add to or, at the very least, maintain the "feel" or atmosphere of the post.
For example, if I write a post about some aspect of Jesus or his teaching, I open to hearing from those who may hold different interpretations -- sometimes quite passionately.
I am not open to hearing from those who snidely accuse me of worshiping a "dead kike on a stick." The former may add something insightful, meaningful, or valuable to my post and adhere to the overall atmosphere of the blog; the latter will do none of these things.
Nevertheless, I have, on occasion, published some snarky, hostile, or poisonous comments. Sometimes I failed to detect or misinterpreted the snark or hostility. Sometimes I simply wanted to hear the person out. At other times, I wanted to respond to the hostile comment with a little hostility of my own. Whatever the case, publishing such comments has never led to anything good, and I always regret it afterwards.
From a broader perspective, the matter of comments is directly connected to the ultimate motivation and purpose of a given blog. In my particular case, I have come to the realization that this blog -- which started out as a halfhearted means through which to promote my novel -- has become a sort of open journal through which I attempt to log some of my spiritual learning.
More than that, it has become a way for me to share this learning with those who may be interested. The blog also allows me to connect, communicate, and relate to others who hold or may hold similar motivations, all without having to wade into the dreadful and often poisonous world of "mass" social media.
Furthermore, I tend to regard blogs as extensions of thinking. Anyone who has read this blog knows I regard thinking to be man's most important activity because thinking is ultimately reality. Of course, the thinking expressed on this blog via posts and comments is already once-removed from reality -- but I console myself with the idea that the expressions are at least pointing in the right direction.
And that's what comments boil down to for me. They have to -- at the very least -- point in the right direction. If they don't, they're not real. And if they're not real, I'm not interested.
Why?
Well, a friend and correspondent recently shared a guideline concerning his own blog comment policy -- overall, he only publishes comments that add to or preserve the "feel" of the post, which he regards as primary.
The guideline resonates with me because it addresses motivation -- and motivation is key. All bloggers are driven by certain motivations when they sit down to write a post. Likewise, everyone who comments on a post also harbors their own set of motivations.
In my experience, the best comments are those that align with the overall motivation of the post in question. This does not entail that the comment must be "nice" or agree with the views, ideas, or content expressed in the post, but the motivation behind the disagreement should strive to add to or, at the very least, maintain the "feel" or atmosphere of the post.
For example, if I write a post about some aspect of Jesus or his teaching, I open to hearing from those who may hold different interpretations -- sometimes quite passionately.
I am not open to hearing from those who snidely accuse me of worshiping a "dead kike on a stick." The former may add something insightful, meaningful, or valuable to my post and adhere to the overall atmosphere of the blog; the latter will do none of these things.
Nevertheless, I have, on occasion, published some snarky, hostile, or poisonous comments. Sometimes I failed to detect or misinterpreted the snark or hostility. Sometimes I simply wanted to hear the person out. At other times, I wanted to respond to the hostile comment with a little hostility of my own. Whatever the case, publishing such comments has never led to anything good, and I always regret it afterwards.
From a broader perspective, the matter of comments is directly connected to the ultimate motivation and purpose of a given blog. In my particular case, I have come to the realization that this blog -- which started out as a halfhearted means through which to promote my novel -- has become a sort of open journal through which I attempt to log some of my spiritual learning.
More than that, it has become a way for me to share this learning with those who may be interested. The blog also allows me to connect, communicate, and relate to others who hold or may hold similar motivations, all without having to wade into the dreadful and often poisonous world of "mass" social media.
Furthermore, I tend to regard blogs as extensions of thinking. Anyone who has read this blog knows I regard thinking to be man's most important activity because thinking is ultimately reality. Of course, the thinking expressed on this blog via posts and comments is already once-removed from reality -- but I console myself with the idea that the expressions are at least pointing in the right direction.
And that's what comments boil down to for me. They have to -- at the very least -- point in the right direction. If they don't, they're not real. And if they're not real, I'm not interested.
January 8, 2023
The Tradition The Prince of Lies Does Not Know
If there's a glaring fault in tradition, it's in the belief that tradition is a "finished product." More precisely, that everything that needed to be learned and said has been learned and said. Nothing new needs to be added. All the individual has to do is learn the tradition and obey it.
This external attitude toward tradition, especially in Christianity, lies in the conceptualization of truth as an eternal criterion -- truth as a mooring anchor; fixed and static; immovable as it holds everything in place.
The problem with this approach to tradition is it enforces an artificial stasis onto God and Creation, which are inherently dynamic. In this sense, Christians have chosen fixation over creativity. Choosing a condition without positive movement or change leads to a variety of difficulties.
To begin with, a tradition that has stopped moving forward can be easily studied and dissected. Inertia and inactivity on the part of traditionalists invites activity and energy from those who seek to destroy tradition. A fixed, immobile, stubborn tradition is easy prey for opportunistic predators who have all the time in the world to analyze its victim, discover its weak points, and gnaw away at them.
The only course available to tradition then is reaction to action. It raises its defenses and attempts to shield truth from the attacks. The reactions do little more than encourage further action on the part of the predators, who turn their attention to devising new strategies and tactics to breach the defenses once and for all.
Satan has an easy time with a fixed and static tradition. Since there is no new "material" forthcoming, he can content himself with learning the old material inside-out until he knows it off-by-heart. If there is one thing traditionalists must not delude themselves about, it is this -- no being in this world understands or will ever understand a fixed, static conceptualization of tradition better than the Prince of Lies.
Those who abide by the fixed and static conceptualization of tradition do so primarily because of the belief in truth as an eternal criterion. This conceptualization is incomplete rather than blatantly wrong. The criterion of truth is eternal, but it is not fixed, static, and external, but dynamic.
The Prince of Lies knows this, which is why he uses "progress" to attack tradition. The progress he employs is directly opposed to God and Creation; thus, it proclaims to draw on the tradition to further its cause, but instead actively works against it. Thus, the progress Satan demands and institutes is destructive rather than creative.
Those who defend tradition see the destruction for what it is and retreat further behind their defenses. However, by doing so, they also retreat from the possibility of true creativity -- from the potential and long overdue continuation of tradition via creativity.
Hence, the Prince of Lies is able to accomplish two objectives at once -- keep tradition fixed and static where it remains an easy target to faux and destructive "progress", and turn traditionalists away from the potential of true creativity, through which tradition could continue to evolve by becoming what it has always been and what is was always meant to be -- a dynamic unfolding in time.
As stated above, a fixed and static tradition offers no significant challenge to the Prince of Lies and his legions. They have been studying it, analyzing it, and attacking it for centuries. To them, the war against the fixed and static tradition is little more than a war of attrition. They have the upper hand. They know it's only a matter of time.
But if they had to deal with a vigorous, energetic tradition that embraced dynamism and creativity because it embraced the obvious truth that the Holy Spirit is dynamic, not static; if they were faced with Christians who understood that God, Creation, Christianity, and man are not "finished products" -- well, I daresay they would find themselves on the back foot, scattered and confused in territory they could have never imagined, let alone studied and learned.
This external attitude toward tradition, especially in Christianity, lies in the conceptualization of truth as an eternal criterion -- truth as a mooring anchor; fixed and static; immovable as it holds everything in place.
The problem with this approach to tradition is it enforces an artificial stasis onto God and Creation, which are inherently dynamic. In this sense, Christians have chosen fixation over creativity. Choosing a condition without positive movement or change leads to a variety of difficulties.
To begin with, a tradition that has stopped moving forward can be easily studied and dissected. Inertia and inactivity on the part of traditionalists invites activity and energy from those who seek to destroy tradition. A fixed, immobile, stubborn tradition is easy prey for opportunistic predators who have all the time in the world to analyze its victim, discover its weak points, and gnaw away at them.
The only course available to tradition then is reaction to action. It raises its defenses and attempts to shield truth from the attacks. The reactions do little more than encourage further action on the part of the predators, who turn their attention to devising new strategies and tactics to breach the defenses once and for all.
Satan has an easy time with a fixed and static tradition. Since there is no new "material" forthcoming, he can content himself with learning the old material inside-out until he knows it off-by-heart. If there is one thing traditionalists must not delude themselves about, it is this -- no being in this world understands or will ever understand a fixed, static conceptualization of tradition better than the Prince of Lies.
Those who abide by the fixed and static conceptualization of tradition do so primarily because of the belief in truth as an eternal criterion. This conceptualization is incomplete rather than blatantly wrong. The criterion of truth is eternal, but it is not fixed, static, and external, but dynamic.
The Prince of Lies knows this, which is why he uses "progress" to attack tradition. The progress he employs is directly opposed to God and Creation; thus, it proclaims to draw on the tradition to further its cause, but instead actively works against it. Thus, the progress Satan demands and institutes is destructive rather than creative.
Those who defend tradition see the destruction for what it is and retreat further behind their defenses. However, by doing so, they also retreat from the possibility of true creativity -- from the potential and long overdue continuation of tradition via creativity.
Hence, the Prince of Lies is able to accomplish two objectives at once -- keep tradition fixed and static where it remains an easy target to faux and destructive "progress", and turn traditionalists away from the potential of true creativity, through which tradition could continue to evolve by becoming what it has always been and what is was always meant to be -- a dynamic unfolding in time.
As stated above, a fixed and static tradition offers no significant challenge to the Prince of Lies and his legions. They have been studying it, analyzing it, and attacking it for centuries. To them, the war against the fixed and static tradition is little more than a war of attrition. They have the upper hand. They know it's only a matter of time.
But if they had to deal with a vigorous, energetic tradition that embraced dynamism and creativity because it embraced the obvious truth that the Holy Spirit is dynamic, not static; if they were faced with Christians who understood that God, Creation, Christianity, and man are not "finished products" -- well, I daresay they would find themselves on the back foot, scattered and confused in territory they could have never imagined, let alone studied and learned.
January 7, 2023
Women Dancing In a Circle Warning Each Other About Men
A little something to lift the mood on a Saturday night . . .
Kárikázó is a traditional Hungarian folk dance performed by women in 4/4 time to a capella rather than music.
Kárikázós were usually performed during weddings or other communal occasions and involved women forming a ring or circle by either holding hands or wrapping their arms around each other's waists.
The themes within the songs the girls/women sing revolve around attraction, courtship, love, or heartbreak.
The best lyric I have encountered thus far: "When he takes your hand in his, a hundred devils fill his heart".
Kárikázó is a traditional Hungarian folk dance performed by women in 4/4 time to a capella rather than music.
Kárikázós were usually performed during weddings or other communal occasions and involved women forming a ring or circle by either holding hands or wrapping their arms around each other's waists.
The themes within the songs the girls/women sing revolve around attraction, courtship, love, or heartbreak.
The best lyric I have encountered thus far: "When he takes your hand in his, a hundred devils fill his heart".
January 5, 2023
If There's Tragedy in Nietzsche, It Lies in the Fact That He Almost Got It
Slightly edited from a response to Anti-Gnostic via this post:
I do not dispute the merits of Nietzsche's arguments against what he observed to be Christianity. On the contrary I affirm them. The legalistic concept of Christianity and God Nietzsche knew needs to be "grown out of" because it no longer suits the current stage of man's evolving consciousness.
As Nietzsche noted, that sort of Christianity -- a Christianity that is inseparable from mundane middle class values replete with all of its hypocrisies, lies, and resentments -- needed to be overcome. Unfortunately, Nietzsche thought it impossible to move beyond this conception of Christianity. Consequently, he discarded Christianity altogether.
Having said that, I also affirm Nietzsche's search for positive values beyond the legalistic, mainstream, external conceptualization of Christianity. An upsurge of creative being that inspires man toward life and higher values is desperately needed.
Where I differ from Nietzsche is Christ. Nietzsche believed all of this was only possible without Christ. I, on the other hand, believe it is impossible without Christ.
Nietzsche's diagnosis is correct, and the general thrust of his potential cure points in the right direction, but his philosophy ultimately fails because it removes Christ from the equation.
Dostoevsky, Nietzsche's contemporary, also criticized the legalistic, external forms of Christianity, but unlike Nietzsche, he did not fall into the error of rejecting Christianity outright.
Dostoevsky understood why Christ is essential (and he also understood why it is so difficult for people to follow Christ). The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor chapter in the Brothers Karamazov lays it out well.
In the passage below, the Grand Inquisitor rebukes Christ for burdening man with freedom and the duty of value creation (bold added):
"Instead of taking mastery of people's freedom, you augmented it and saddled the spiritual kingdom of man with it for ever. You desired that man's love should be free, that he should follow you freely, enticed and captivated by you.
Henceforth, in place of the old, firm law, man was himself to decide with a free heart what is good and what is evil, with only your image before him to guide him—but surely you never dreamed that he would at last reject and call into question even your image and your truth were he to be oppressed by so terrible a burden as freedom of choice?
They will exclaim at last that the truth is not in you, for it would have been impossible to leave them in more confusion and torment than you did when you left them so many worries and unsolvable problems."
Note added: Nietzsche admired and respected the historical person of Jesus and praises him as an example of "master morality" -- of a person who was able to create and live by their own values -- but he ultimately could not accept the truth Jesus offered because he could not separate this truth from what he defined as the Christ abstraction -- the implementation of slavish values and slave morality in this world for the sake of redemption and the promise of life everlasting life in the next.
I do not dispute the merits of Nietzsche's arguments against what he observed to be Christianity. On the contrary I affirm them. The legalistic concept of Christianity and God Nietzsche knew needs to be "grown out of" because it no longer suits the current stage of man's evolving consciousness.
As Nietzsche noted, that sort of Christianity -- a Christianity that is inseparable from mundane middle class values replete with all of its hypocrisies, lies, and resentments -- needed to be overcome. Unfortunately, Nietzsche thought it impossible to move beyond this conception of Christianity. Consequently, he discarded Christianity altogether.
Having said that, I also affirm Nietzsche's search for positive values beyond the legalistic, mainstream, external conceptualization of Christianity. An upsurge of creative being that inspires man toward life and higher values is desperately needed.
Where I differ from Nietzsche is Christ. Nietzsche believed all of this was only possible without Christ. I, on the other hand, believe it is impossible without Christ.
Nietzsche's diagnosis is correct, and the general thrust of his potential cure points in the right direction, but his philosophy ultimately fails because it removes Christ from the equation.
Dostoevsky, Nietzsche's contemporary, also criticized the legalistic, external forms of Christianity, but unlike Nietzsche, he did not fall into the error of rejecting Christianity outright.
Dostoevsky understood why Christ is essential (and he also understood why it is so difficult for people to follow Christ). The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor chapter in the Brothers Karamazov lays it out well.
In the passage below, the Grand Inquisitor rebukes Christ for burdening man with freedom and the duty of value creation (bold added):
"Instead of taking mastery of people's freedom, you augmented it and saddled the spiritual kingdom of man with it for ever. You desired that man's love should be free, that he should follow you freely, enticed and captivated by you.
Henceforth, in place of the old, firm law, man was himself to decide with a free heart what is good and what is evil, with only your image before him to guide him—but surely you never dreamed that he would at last reject and call into question even your image and your truth were he to be oppressed by so terrible a burden as freedom of choice?
They will exclaim at last that the truth is not in you, for it would have been impossible to leave them in more confusion and torment than you did when you left them so many worries and unsolvable problems."
Note added: Nietzsche admired and respected the historical person of Jesus and praises him as an example of "master morality" -- of a person who was able to create and live by their own values -- but he ultimately could not accept the truth Jesus offered because he could not separate this truth from what he defined as the Christ abstraction -- the implementation of slavish values and slave morality in this world for the sake of redemption and the promise of life everlasting life in the next.
January 4, 2023
Love Has Been Inverted, But Christians Cannot Abandon Love
The inversion of love is one of the most devastating weapons wielded by forces opposed to God and Creation. Hardly a secret.
At the same time, barely anyone in the modern world appears immune to evil’s uncanny ability to turn the true meaning of love inside out. Christians – the vast majority of whom subscribe to some syrupy and perverted principle or the moral practice of altruism – are no exception here. Ask the average Christian to define love and you will find the definition differs only slightly from mainstream leftist interpretations, presuming it differs at all.
Categorizing the abject failure to comprehend and practice true love under the "spiritual catastrophe" column seems insufficient. Apocalyptic is a more fitting way to describe it. Of course, not all are blind to the demonic inversions of love and the disastrous consequences the inversions inflict. Fittingly enough, many are revolted by the inversions. Unfortunately, this revulsion tends to bleed into love itself. Utterly repulsed by the anti-love the forces opposed to God and Creation promulgate as love, those who discern the inversion often fall into the trap of abandoning love altogether.
The impetus to turn one’s back on love most likely stems from an erroneous conception of love as a weak, frail, enervated force susceptible to constant and continuous manipulation and degradation. From this perspective, love is a weakness rather than a strength – a force that diminishes and disempowers rather than a force that fortifies and empowers.
From this point of view, love only renders individuals vulnerable, pliable, impressionable, compliant, and yielding. After all, tough times call for tough men with tough demeanors, not sickly-sweet, saccharine cornballs waxing on about love. Especially not when the demonic Establishment waxes on about loving mankind via diversity, inclusivity, equality, and keeping everyone safe.
Whenever I write about love on this blog, I inevitably attract the attention of tough guys who are quick to equate my insistence on the fundamental necessity of love with the Establishment’s inversions of love. As far as the tough guys are concerned, love is the last thing the world needs, particularly when modern notions of love include the destruction of one’s people and homeland, the active encouragement and advancement of sexual perversions, the willing embracing of totalitarianism, etc.
Tough guys, listen – I know where you are coming from, and I tip my hat to your uncanny ability to see through the lies of modern inverted love. I’m with you as far as turning your backs on inverted love goes, but I part ways with you when you advocate for the abandonment of love altogether, particularly when you claim to be a Christian.
Like it or not, love is the fundamental nature of reality – the metaphysical foundation of Creation. Moreover, you cannot actively oppose love if you profess to be a follower of Christ. Learning about love and learning to love are the primary purposes of our mortal lives in this world.
Figuring out that inverted love is not love is barely one-tenth of the battle. Turning your back on love entirely because of inverted love means you’ve lost the battle.
So turn your tough-minded self back around and start learning about what love means and what it really is, and when you’re ready, begin loving. Consider it your duty.
Turning your back on love or refusing to love does little more than play into the enemy’s hands. After all, the enemy desires nothing more than a world of death peopled by the unloved and the unloving.
Why do you think the enemy worked so hard to invert love in the first place?
Huh, tough guy?
Note added: Love was central to Jesus's mission, and as far as I'm concerned, Jesus was the toughest guy the world has ever known. Something to think about.
At the same time, barely anyone in the modern world appears immune to evil’s uncanny ability to turn the true meaning of love inside out. Christians – the vast majority of whom subscribe to some syrupy and perverted principle or the moral practice of altruism – are no exception here. Ask the average Christian to define love and you will find the definition differs only slightly from mainstream leftist interpretations, presuming it differs at all.
Categorizing the abject failure to comprehend and practice true love under the "spiritual catastrophe" column seems insufficient. Apocalyptic is a more fitting way to describe it. Of course, not all are blind to the demonic inversions of love and the disastrous consequences the inversions inflict. Fittingly enough, many are revolted by the inversions. Unfortunately, this revulsion tends to bleed into love itself. Utterly repulsed by the anti-love the forces opposed to God and Creation promulgate as love, those who discern the inversion often fall into the trap of abandoning love altogether.
The impetus to turn one’s back on love most likely stems from an erroneous conception of love as a weak, frail, enervated force susceptible to constant and continuous manipulation and degradation. From this perspective, love is a weakness rather than a strength – a force that diminishes and disempowers rather than a force that fortifies and empowers.
From this point of view, love only renders individuals vulnerable, pliable, impressionable, compliant, and yielding. After all, tough times call for tough men with tough demeanors, not sickly-sweet, saccharine cornballs waxing on about love. Especially not when the demonic Establishment waxes on about loving mankind via diversity, inclusivity, equality, and keeping everyone safe.
Whenever I write about love on this blog, I inevitably attract the attention of tough guys who are quick to equate my insistence on the fundamental necessity of love with the Establishment’s inversions of love. As far as the tough guys are concerned, love is the last thing the world needs, particularly when modern notions of love include the destruction of one’s people and homeland, the active encouragement and advancement of sexual perversions, the willing embracing of totalitarianism, etc.
Tough guys, listen – I know where you are coming from, and I tip my hat to your uncanny ability to see through the lies of modern inverted love. I’m with you as far as turning your backs on inverted love goes, but I part ways with you when you advocate for the abandonment of love altogether, particularly when you claim to be a Christian.
Like it or not, love is the fundamental nature of reality – the metaphysical foundation of Creation. Moreover, you cannot actively oppose love if you profess to be a follower of Christ. Learning about love and learning to love are the primary purposes of our mortal lives in this world.
Figuring out that inverted love is not love is barely one-tenth of the battle. Turning your back on love entirely because of inverted love means you’ve lost the battle.
So turn your tough-minded self back around and start learning about what love means and what it really is, and when you’re ready, begin loving. Consider it your duty.
Turning your back on love or refusing to love does little more than play into the enemy’s hands. After all, the enemy desires nothing more than a world of death peopled by the unloved and the unloving.
Why do you think the enemy worked so hard to invert love in the first place?
Huh, tough guy?
Note added: Love was central to Jesus's mission, and as far as I'm concerned, Jesus was the toughest guy the world has ever known. Something to think about.
January 2, 2023
Zamboni: The Baroque Composer, Not the Inventor of the Ice Resurfacer
Having grown up in Canada, I understood Zamboni as one thing and one thing only -- a bulky cuboid vehicle used to resurface ice at rinks and hockey arenas. 
Named after its inventor, Frank Zamboni, the Zamboni ice resurfacer marked a major innovation in ice-resurfacing technology. How? Well, before Zamboni rolled out his Zamboni in 1949, ice at rinks and arenas was resurfaced with manual hand flooders like this: 
I had a love-hate attitude about Zambonis when I played hockey as a kid in Canada. On the one hand, it was always somewhat magical to watch that large machine turn ice that resembled a lunar surface into something more akin to a mirror. And it was always wonderful to step onto that pristine ice and feel your skate blades glide on the nearly immaculate surface.
On the other hand, waiting for the Zamboni to complete its work required the patience of Job. Though the ice-resurfacing usually took no more than five-to-ten minutes, to me -- dressed full equipment and eager to get on the ice -- it felt like hours, particularly when I was forced to wait behind teammates that never aired out their hockey equipment.
Ah, I can still recall the pungent aroma of mildew and some revolting, unpronounceable French mold-ripened cheese wafting in the air. Sometimes it was thick enough to make me dizzy. No kidding. On occasions like that, the Zamboni seemed to move about as fast as a lame brontosaurus giving a Tyrannosaurus Rex a piggyback ride.
All the same, it was still better than the manual hand flooder. I have no idea how long it took to clean the ice prior to 1949, but I imagine it was considerably longer than it took a Zamboni to resurface it, which means my exposure to the noxious fumes my teammates' equipment emitted would have also been considerably longer -- long enough to cause permanent damage to my olfactory system.
With this in mind, I express my gratitude to Frank Zamboni for inventing the Zamboni, but that Zamboni is not the Zamboni to which I ultimately wish to draw everyone's attention in this post.
The Zamboni I want to draw everyone's attention to is the Italian Baroque composer Giovanni Zamboni (c. 1664-1721), of whom little is known.
Fortunately, many of Zamboni's compositions have survived, such as these pleasing lute compositions, played here by Yavor Genov, who also played on the Neusidler lute link I left on this blog a couple of months ago.
Enjoy!
Named after its inventor, Frank Zamboni, the Zamboni ice resurfacer marked a major innovation in ice-resurfacing technology. How? Well, before Zamboni rolled out his Zamboni in 1949, ice at rinks and arenas was resurfaced with manual hand flooders like this: I had a love-hate attitude about Zambonis when I played hockey as a kid in Canada. On the one hand, it was always somewhat magical to watch that large machine turn ice that resembled a lunar surface into something more akin to a mirror. And it was always wonderful to step onto that pristine ice and feel your skate blades glide on the nearly immaculate surface. On the other hand, waiting for the Zamboni to complete its work required the patience of Job. Though the ice-resurfacing usually took no more than five-to-ten minutes, to me -- dressed full equipment and eager to get on the ice -- it felt like hours, particularly when I was forced to wait behind teammates that never aired out their hockey equipment.
Ah, I can still recall the pungent aroma of mildew and some revolting, unpronounceable French mold-ripened cheese wafting in the air. Sometimes it was thick enough to make me dizzy. No kidding. On occasions like that, the Zamboni seemed to move about as fast as a lame brontosaurus giving a Tyrannosaurus Rex a piggyback ride.
All the same, it was still better than the manual hand flooder. I have no idea how long it took to clean the ice prior to 1949, but I imagine it was considerably longer than it took a Zamboni to resurface it, which means my exposure to the noxious fumes my teammates' equipment emitted would have also been considerably longer -- long enough to cause permanent damage to my olfactory system.
With this in mind, I express my gratitude to Frank Zamboni for inventing the Zamboni, but that Zamboni is not the Zamboni to which I ultimately wish to draw everyone's attention in this post.
The Zamboni I want to draw everyone's attention to is the Italian Baroque composer Giovanni Zamboni (c. 1664-1721), of whom little is known.
Fortunately, many of Zamboni's compositions have survived, such as these pleasing lute compositions, played here by Yavor Genov, who also played on the Neusidler lute link I left on this blog a couple of months ago.
Enjoy!
December 31, 2022
Resolution? How About Working on Consciousness?
After we've resolved to quit smoking, eat fewer carbs, be nicer to our mother-in-laws, and lose that "extra" ten pounds that's been making us feel blue all year, we may want to consider working on consciousness -- not as some kind of flimsy resolution aiming for superficial self-improvement, but as an active choice for God and Creation.
Teenagers can physically become adults but still remain teenagers in their hearts and minds when it comes to how they think about, understand, and relate to themselves, other beings, the world, and God. Thus, becoming an adult is not merely about maturing physically. An active choice for adulthood must also be made. It must come from within rather than from outwith.
The same applies to consciousness and spirituality. How we think about, understand, and relate to ourselves, other beings, the world, and God should emanate from within rather than from outwith. Testing our current state of consciousness is as easy (actually, quite difficult) as stripping away everything external from how we think about, understand, and relate to God.
Try it.
What are you left with once you remove tradition, churches, doctrines, customs, and all the rest of it? Start from wherever you end up, and then continue working inward rather than outward after that. Begin working externally once you know you have reached a solid point from which to proceed internally.
Why bother?
Because mature religious consciousness doesn't just happen; it must be chosen. The real work begins after the choice, and the work is not easy, but it is the only way to overcome the alienation, objectification, and externalization that plagues the world.
Note: Working on consciousness should not be construed as self-improvement or becoming a better person. It is more a matter of discovering the self and becoming a person.
Some thoughts to start the process from Berdyaev' Slavery and Freedom:
“The theological doctrine that God created man for His own glory and praise is degrading to man, and degrading to God also…. God as personality does not desire a man over whom He can rule, and who ought to praise Him, but man as personality who answers His call and with whom communion of love is possible.”
“Consciousness which exteriorizes and alienates is always slavish consciousness. God the Master, man the slave; the church the master, man the slave; the family the master, man the slave; Nature the master, man the slave; object the master, man-subject the slave. The source of slavery is always objectification, that is to say exteriorization, alienation.”
“Man can be a slave to public opinion, a slave to custom, to morals, to judgments and opinions which are imposed by society. It is difficult to overestimate the violence which is perpetrated by the press in our time. The average man of our day holds the opinions and forms the judgments of the newspaper which he reads every morning: it exercises psychological compulsion upon him. And in view of the falsehood and venality of the press, the effects are very terrible as seen in the enslavement of man and his deprivation of freedom of conscience and judgment.”
Teenagers can physically become adults but still remain teenagers in their hearts and minds when it comes to how they think about, understand, and relate to themselves, other beings, the world, and God. Thus, becoming an adult is not merely about maturing physically. An active choice for adulthood must also be made. It must come from within rather than from outwith.
The same applies to consciousness and spirituality. How we think about, understand, and relate to ourselves, other beings, the world, and God should emanate from within rather than from outwith. Testing our current state of consciousness is as easy (actually, quite difficult) as stripping away everything external from how we think about, understand, and relate to God.
Try it.
What are you left with once you remove tradition, churches, doctrines, customs, and all the rest of it? Start from wherever you end up, and then continue working inward rather than outward after that. Begin working externally once you know you have reached a solid point from which to proceed internally.
Why bother?
Because mature religious consciousness doesn't just happen; it must be chosen. The real work begins after the choice, and the work is not easy, but it is the only way to overcome the alienation, objectification, and externalization that plagues the world.
Note: Working on consciousness should not be construed as self-improvement or becoming a better person. It is more a matter of discovering the self and becoming a person.
Some thoughts to start the process from Berdyaev' Slavery and Freedom:
“The theological doctrine that God created man for His own glory and praise is degrading to man, and degrading to God also…. God as personality does not desire a man over whom He can rule, and who ought to praise Him, but man as personality who answers His call and with whom communion of love is possible.”
“Consciousness which exteriorizes and alienates is always slavish consciousness. God the Master, man the slave; the church the master, man the slave; the family the master, man the slave; Nature the master, man the slave; object the master, man-subject the slave. The source of slavery is always objectification, that is to say exteriorization, alienation.”
“Man can be a slave to public opinion, a slave to custom, to morals, to judgments and opinions which are imposed by society. It is difficult to overestimate the violence which is perpetrated by the press in our time. The average man of our day holds the opinions and forms the judgments of the newspaper which he reads every morning: it exercises psychological compulsion upon him. And in view of the falsehood and venality of the press, the effects are very terrible as seen in the enslavement of man and his deprivation of freedom of conscience and judgment.”
December 30, 2022
My British-Italian Pianist-Composer Namesake
Francesco Berger (1834 - 1933) was a pianist, composer, teacher, professor, and Philharmonic Society member. Born in England to an Italian father - a naturalized British citizen - and a Bavarian mother, Berger had his first opera performed in Trieste, Italy when he was just seventeen. He was educated mostly in Central Europe, but spent the bulk of his life in London where formed a long-lasting friendship with Charles Dickens. I had never heard of this namesake until today. History claims that he was a prolific composer, but I found only a few audio recordings of his compositions online, suggesting that Berger's music was very likely "of its time" and has more or less remained locked in the Victorian Era. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but that's what the lack of online material seems to indicate.
Anyway, I did find this playful, charming little piece called Titania (A Dance Measure), played here by YouTube pianist Phillip Sear.
Enjoy!
December 29, 2022
What Can Christian Parents Do to Protect Their Children?
I am exploring this question because I occasionally get some indirect criticism concerning my apparent lack of concern about the fate of my child and Christian children in general.
The criticism is connected to salvation. The thrust of the criticism is the individual, personal choice for salvation on the part of Christian parents and how this does little to help their children who, it is assumed, will be left to fend for themselves in an increasingly hellish world once the parents depart from mortal life.
I suppose I could get into the problems of framing the matter in such a way or approaching the subject from the perspective of anxiety, but I won't.
Instead, I will touch upon some basic metaphysical assumptions I hold. When approached superficially, these metaphysical assumptions may provide little comfort to anxious Christian parents concerned about the well-being of their children in a world that grows darker by the day, but I hope that said anxious Christian parents will engage the assumptions I have outlined regardless.
The first assumption is that my child is God’s child first. That God knows him and loves him as much as I do – and more. God allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place because He understands that the experience offers my child the opportunity to reap immense spiritual benefits accessed only through the experience of mortal life. He would not have allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place if the opportunity for such benefits were inaccessible or impossible. Because God loves my child, He has faith that my child possesses -- or can access -- what is needed to make the choice for salvation and will work actively to guide my child toward this choice.
The second assumption centers on my understanding that mortal life in this world is inevitably and unavoidably entropic. Entropy continuously chips away at the temporary order we sometimes experience. Every person who embarks on the journey of mortal life dies. Some die young, some tragically, and some violently. Others live long, extended lives filled with vitality and vigor, but even they ultimately succumb to the forces of sickness, age, and decay. Thus, the material aliveness of individual beings in this world is temporary. Nothing “material” in this world lasts forever. Barring sudden accidents or illnesses, we will grow old, wither, and die like our great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents. Our children, my child, will do the same. However, the entropic state of the world also allows for the possibility of creativity. Our worldly creations are not free from entropy, but the creative acts themselves live on eternally.
The third assumption accepts the reality of suffering in this mortal life. The continuous onslaught of disorder on temporary order ensures varying degrees of suffering, primarily physical. Yet physical suffering also induces psychological and spiritual suffering. A big part of our experience in this mortal life involves “dealing with” suffering, including my child’s suffering.
The fourth assumption concerns Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Although we inhabit an entropic world of unavoidable suffering and death, we can choose to overcome this world by believing on Jesus and following Him into everlasting life. This gift of salvation and eternal life is also available to my child who, like us, is an eternal spiritual being. I, as a parent, must accept that my child existed before he came into this world as my son. Moreover, my child’s experience in this entropic world of suffering and death is the only knowable means through which he can accept Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Without this experience, my son would likely not have the opportunity to follow Jesus into Heaven.
The fifth assumption – a fact rather than an assumption – stems from the understanding that the choice for salvation and Heaven is deeply individual and personal. As a Christian parent, I may succeed in providing my child with the best possible material and spiritual conditions in this entropic world. I may even succeed in protecting him from much of the evil infesting the world; however, in the end, nothing I do as a parent protects him completely (nor should it) or guarantees his salvation for the simple reason that his salvation is entirely up to him, in the same way that my salvation is entirely up to me. I can guide, nurture, and assist my son toward choosing salvation and Heaven, but I cannot decide for him. I cannot ensure his salvation. Nor can I force him into salvation and Heaven. I must accept that my child may – despite my best intentions and actions – reject Jesus’s offer.
I could go on, but I think the above suffice to paint a fairly clear picture of my basic assumptions concerning protecting children and ensuring their salvation. These assumptions do not entail that there is a set formula for raising children in this world and protecting them from evil, but they do provide a basis – at least for me. Having said that, all parents must do their best within the conditions of their own individual circumstances.
So, with all that in mind, what have I done to protect my child and guide him toward salvation?
In terms of externals, my wife and I took the opportunity to move away from the Anglo world and settle in a rural part of Hungary. We hoped the move would shield my son from some of the blatant evil that permeates the Anglo-West, particularly in education. However, Hungary is very far from immune from the evils that plague the West proper. Nonetheless, we believe the move has managed to spare our son from some of the most obvious harm.
It helps that nearly all of the families in the village we live in are cohesive and Christian-oriented. Divorces and “dysfunctional” families are the exceptions rather than the rule. Living in a small community of six hundred has also allowed my son to nurture relationships he may not have nurtured in larger, urban settings. The pastoral surroundings have also imbued him with a closer connection to nature, but the entropic nature of the world is still there, chipping away.
Being able to purchase a home debt-free has alleviated some of the financial stresses and struggles that sometimes taint family life.
Attending the small Roman Catholic Church in the village and the Roman Catholic school in a nearby town provides my son with a sense of community and some of the externals of Christianity, which I believe are helpful for children. Thankfully, the Catholic faith here has not been completely poisoned by leftism, but it is still very much aligned with the System. Three years ago, my son made the personal choice to serve as an altar boy and continues to do so to this day. Though I hope my son eventually becomes a Romantic Christian, I know that Romantic Christianity is an adult choice. For now, it is enough for him to understand basic Christian beliefs about salvation and Heaven “as a child”.
When it comes to Christian “teaching” at home, my wife and I have chosen to employ a light touch. Though I sometimes speak about general Christian matters, my wife and I have intuitively decided upon a “show rather than tell” approach. When my son is older, I hope to be able to discuss Christianity with him in a more direct manner.
In terms of media, my wife and I make efforts to shield our son from noxious material, particularly online, but we do not expressly forbid him from exploring secular media, for the simple reason that we know such prohibition would likely only increase curiosity and generate rebellion.
These external choices have served us well thus far, but they have their obvious limits. There really is no “place” you can go to protect your child. Some places may be better than others, but no place is “safe”. Furthermore, there's only so much you can do to protect your child and being overprotective probably does more harm than good.
For example, our current location puts us fairly close to the raging proxy war in the east and another potential conflict simmering just to the south. As far as countries go, Hungary is still firmly within the EU and the System. It has a tragic history, mostly because of its location, and that inherent historical tragedy is still unfolding today. Many Hungarians are no better than their atheistic, leftist counterparts in the West. The culture is predominately secular and materialistic. Furthermore, even if I could provide my son with the ideal “place” to grow up, that ideal place will change, or he may decide to move away to a less ideal place one day.
The current economic environment ensures that whatever financial freedom we have enjoyed as a family is steadily being encroached upon and eroded away via inflation and various “global crises.”
Attending church and a religious school offers no protection against anything, including rejecting God. On the contrary, such experiences often breed passivity or System conformity or, sometimes, fortify the choice against God and Creation. Modeling and infusing Christian living at home likewise guarantees nothing. Avoiding or criticizing leftist media and culture also offers no safeguard against the media and culture.
And none of what I have outlined above addresses unforeseen challenges, misfortunes, and tragedies in the form of accidents, illnesses, war, economic collapse, or what have you.
When all is said and done, I view family life in this world as an ideal. It is an ideal that I must approach with the right motivations and into which I invest a great deal of effort. Naturally, I wish to protect my son from evil and guide him toward salvation. However, despite my best intentions and motivations, I know I cannot fully protect my son, nor can I ensure his salvation.
I can do my best to make the world a positive, nurturing, loving place, but I have to accept that the world often works in the opposite direction. I also have to accept that this is "the best that can be done".
Also, I can do my best to make my son aware of Jesus’s offer and encourage him to accept it, but I cannot, as a parent, make that choice for him. Neither can Christ. The choice is his. Such is the nature of freedom. Such is the nature of his personal agency and "power."
All I can do after I have honestly done my best is have faith – faith that my son will align with Truth on his own. Faith that I will be able to help my son should I depart this world before him. Faith that my time with my son will not be restricted to our time together in this world.
There are a thousand more things I could say or should say, but I'll leave it there for now.
The criticism is connected to salvation. The thrust of the criticism is the individual, personal choice for salvation on the part of Christian parents and how this does little to help their children who, it is assumed, will be left to fend for themselves in an increasingly hellish world once the parents depart from mortal life.
I suppose I could get into the problems of framing the matter in such a way or approaching the subject from the perspective of anxiety, but I won't.
Instead, I will touch upon some basic metaphysical assumptions I hold. When approached superficially, these metaphysical assumptions may provide little comfort to anxious Christian parents concerned about the well-being of their children in a world that grows darker by the day, but I hope that said anxious Christian parents will engage the assumptions I have outlined regardless.
The first assumption is that my child is God’s child first. That God knows him and loves him as much as I do – and more. God allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place because He understands that the experience offers my child the opportunity to reap immense spiritual benefits accessed only through the experience of mortal life. He would not have allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place if the opportunity for such benefits were inaccessible or impossible. Because God loves my child, He has faith that my child possesses -- or can access -- what is needed to make the choice for salvation and will work actively to guide my child toward this choice.
The second assumption centers on my understanding that mortal life in this world is inevitably and unavoidably entropic. Entropy continuously chips away at the temporary order we sometimes experience. Every person who embarks on the journey of mortal life dies. Some die young, some tragically, and some violently. Others live long, extended lives filled with vitality and vigor, but even they ultimately succumb to the forces of sickness, age, and decay. Thus, the material aliveness of individual beings in this world is temporary. Nothing “material” in this world lasts forever. Barring sudden accidents or illnesses, we will grow old, wither, and die like our great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents. Our children, my child, will do the same. However, the entropic state of the world also allows for the possibility of creativity. Our worldly creations are not free from entropy, but the creative acts themselves live on eternally.
The third assumption accepts the reality of suffering in this mortal life. The continuous onslaught of disorder on temporary order ensures varying degrees of suffering, primarily physical. Yet physical suffering also induces psychological and spiritual suffering. A big part of our experience in this mortal life involves “dealing with” suffering, including my child’s suffering.
The fourth assumption concerns Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Although we inhabit an entropic world of unavoidable suffering and death, we can choose to overcome this world by believing on Jesus and following Him into everlasting life. This gift of salvation and eternal life is also available to my child who, like us, is an eternal spiritual being. I, as a parent, must accept that my child existed before he came into this world as my son. Moreover, my child’s experience in this entropic world of suffering and death is the only knowable means through which he can accept Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Without this experience, my son would likely not have the opportunity to follow Jesus into Heaven.
The fifth assumption – a fact rather than an assumption – stems from the understanding that the choice for salvation and Heaven is deeply individual and personal. As a Christian parent, I may succeed in providing my child with the best possible material and spiritual conditions in this entropic world. I may even succeed in protecting him from much of the evil infesting the world; however, in the end, nothing I do as a parent protects him completely (nor should it) or guarantees his salvation for the simple reason that his salvation is entirely up to him, in the same way that my salvation is entirely up to me. I can guide, nurture, and assist my son toward choosing salvation and Heaven, but I cannot decide for him. I cannot ensure his salvation. Nor can I force him into salvation and Heaven. I must accept that my child may – despite my best intentions and actions – reject Jesus’s offer.
I could go on, but I think the above suffice to paint a fairly clear picture of my basic assumptions concerning protecting children and ensuring their salvation. These assumptions do not entail that there is a set formula for raising children in this world and protecting them from evil, but they do provide a basis – at least for me. Having said that, all parents must do their best within the conditions of their own individual circumstances.
So, with all that in mind, what have I done to protect my child and guide him toward salvation?
In terms of externals, my wife and I took the opportunity to move away from the Anglo world and settle in a rural part of Hungary. We hoped the move would shield my son from some of the blatant evil that permeates the Anglo-West, particularly in education. However, Hungary is very far from immune from the evils that plague the West proper. Nonetheless, we believe the move has managed to spare our son from some of the most obvious harm.
It helps that nearly all of the families in the village we live in are cohesive and Christian-oriented. Divorces and “dysfunctional” families are the exceptions rather than the rule. Living in a small community of six hundred has also allowed my son to nurture relationships he may not have nurtured in larger, urban settings. The pastoral surroundings have also imbued him with a closer connection to nature, but the entropic nature of the world is still there, chipping away.
Being able to purchase a home debt-free has alleviated some of the financial stresses and struggles that sometimes taint family life.
Attending the small Roman Catholic Church in the village and the Roman Catholic school in a nearby town provides my son with a sense of community and some of the externals of Christianity, which I believe are helpful for children. Thankfully, the Catholic faith here has not been completely poisoned by leftism, but it is still very much aligned with the System. Three years ago, my son made the personal choice to serve as an altar boy and continues to do so to this day. Though I hope my son eventually becomes a Romantic Christian, I know that Romantic Christianity is an adult choice. For now, it is enough for him to understand basic Christian beliefs about salvation and Heaven “as a child”.
When it comes to Christian “teaching” at home, my wife and I have chosen to employ a light touch. Though I sometimes speak about general Christian matters, my wife and I have intuitively decided upon a “show rather than tell” approach. When my son is older, I hope to be able to discuss Christianity with him in a more direct manner.
In terms of media, my wife and I make efforts to shield our son from noxious material, particularly online, but we do not expressly forbid him from exploring secular media, for the simple reason that we know such prohibition would likely only increase curiosity and generate rebellion.
These external choices have served us well thus far, but they have their obvious limits. There really is no “place” you can go to protect your child. Some places may be better than others, but no place is “safe”. Furthermore, there's only so much you can do to protect your child and being overprotective probably does more harm than good.
For example, our current location puts us fairly close to the raging proxy war in the east and another potential conflict simmering just to the south. As far as countries go, Hungary is still firmly within the EU and the System. It has a tragic history, mostly because of its location, and that inherent historical tragedy is still unfolding today. Many Hungarians are no better than their atheistic, leftist counterparts in the West. The culture is predominately secular and materialistic. Furthermore, even if I could provide my son with the ideal “place” to grow up, that ideal place will change, or he may decide to move away to a less ideal place one day.
The current economic environment ensures that whatever financial freedom we have enjoyed as a family is steadily being encroached upon and eroded away via inflation and various “global crises.”
Attending church and a religious school offers no protection against anything, including rejecting God. On the contrary, such experiences often breed passivity or System conformity or, sometimes, fortify the choice against God and Creation. Modeling and infusing Christian living at home likewise guarantees nothing. Avoiding or criticizing leftist media and culture also offers no safeguard against the media and culture.
And none of what I have outlined above addresses unforeseen challenges, misfortunes, and tragedies in the form of accidents, illnesses, war, economic collapse, or what have you.
When all is said and done, I view family life in this world as an ideal. It is an ideal that I must approach with the right motivations and into which I invest a great deal of effort. Naturally, I wish to protect my son from evil and guide him toward salvation. However, despite my best intentions and motivations, I know I cannot fully protect my son, nor can I ensure his salvation.
I can do my best to make the world a positive, nurturing, loving place, but I have to accept that the world often works in the opposite direction. I also have to accept that this is "the best that can be done".
Also, I can do my best to make my son aware of Jesus’s offer and encourage him to accept it, but I cannot, as a parent, make that choice for him. Neither can Christ. The choice is his. Such is the nature of freedom. Such is the nature of his personal agency and "power."
All I can do after I have honestly done my best is have faith – faith that my son will align with Truth on his own. Faith that I will be able to help my son should I depart this world before him. Faith that my time with my son will not be restricted to our time together in this world.
There are a thousand more things I could say or should say, but I'll leave it there for now.
December 26, 2022
Remember, They're the Good Guys
As 2022 draws to a close, the fine folks over at the WEF have taken the opportunity to remind the world about how wonderful the Davos Crew and its Davos Manifesto are:
The 'Davos Manifesto', created in 1973 and renewed in 2020, lays out the principles of stakeholder capitalism - or a system of shared goals for businesses - such as those outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.
Ah, yes -- nothing says goodness like globalism and the UN's SDGs.
At the same time, the WEF is more than a little perturbed by the criticism that has been leveled against it:
Davos has nevertheless weathered criticism as a gathering of elites and in recent years the Forum has been targeted by disinformation campaigns.
But the LSE suggests the stereotype of the so-called 'Davos Man' is less relevant today as "issues of social inclusion and environmentalism" have taken precedence: "In sum, the WEF now has a larger modus operandi: It not only builds consensus through dialogue, but also identifies leaders and galvanizes them to take action."
Despite criticism that suggests the contrary, Davos Man or Davos Woman or Davos Trans or Davos whatever are all on the side of good. So, who are these people that meet in Davos, Switzerland every year?
Chief executives and chairs of the Forum 1,000 Partner companies actively engaged in initiatives and communities such as the International Business Council, Community of Chairpersons and Industry Governors.Public figures from across the world including G7 and G20 countries, as well as heads of international organizations.Leaders from the foremost civil society, labour and media organizations as well as top thinkers and academics.Members of the Global Innovators and Technology Pioneers community, the Community of Global Shapers, the Forum of Young Global Leaders and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship.
That's just about everyone and everything in the System.
Well, as we approach 2023, I wish the Davos Crew and the nefarious figures that lurk behind the WEF the best of luck. They still seem smugly confident about their supposed control over the destruction they have unleashed and appear equally arrogant and self-assured about the destruction they continue to foment.
Although they claim to be good, I see them, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one.
The 'Davos Manifesto', created in 1973 and renewed in 2020, lays out the principles of stakeholder capitalism - or a system of shared goals for businesses - such as those outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.
Ah, yes -- nothing says goodness like globalism and the UN's SDGs.
At the same time, the WEF is more than a little perturbed by the criticism that has been leveled against it:
Davos has nevertheless weathered criticism as a gathering of elites and in recent years the Forum has been targeted by disinformation campaigns.
But the LSE suggests the stereotype of the so-called 'Davos Man' is less relevant today as "issues of social inclusion and environmentalism" have taken precedence: "In sum, the WEF now has a larger modus operandi: It not only builds consensus through dialogue, but also identifies leaders and galvanizes them to take action."
Despite criticism that suggests the contrary, Davos Man or Davos Woman or Davos Trans or Davos whatever are all on the side of good. So, who are these people that meet in Davos, Switzerland every year?
Chief executives and chairs of the Forum 1,000 Partner companies actively engaged in initiatives and communities such as the International Business Council, Community of Chairpersons and Industry Governors.Public figures from across the world including G7 and G20 countries, as well as heads of international organizations.Leaders from the foremost civil society, labour and media organizations as well as top thinkers and academics.Members of the Global Innovators and Technology Pioneers community, the Community of Global Shapers, the Forum of Young Global Leaders and the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship.
That's just about everyone and everything in the System.
Well, as we approach 2023, I wish the Davos Crew and the nefarious figures that lurk behind the WEF the best of luck. They still seem smugly confident about their supposed control over the destruction they have unleashed and appear equally arrogant and self-assured about the destruction they continue to foment.
Although they claim to be good, I see them, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one.
