Thanks for your “DEDICATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGES.”
A great deal of my life in academics was spent in getting to know the greatest thinkers the world has ever known, such as the prophets and evangelists, such as Augustine and Aquinas on the one hand, as well as, on the other, the fakers who become flavors of the day for self-congratulators, such as Erasmus and Luther, Rahner and de Chardin, Mohammed and Cardinal […].
What I’ve discovered about so very many of the analysts of those personages and so many others is that it’s all just about another effort in self-congratulation unless they take the time and effort (laziness and fear of the reality of oneself is the problem) to read everything that person has read, unless they go back in time as well as one might so as to insert oneself in the languages and mores and the times in which that person lived, shedding anachronisms of what we know or think we know and whatever we would want to see for whatever selfish reasons. You know the exclamation by a great orator: “O tempora! O mores!” That blistering sarcasm presumes a comparison with other times and other ways of doing things, condemning the idiocy of our own day, whatever day that happens to be in which pride of self covers over reality. But this protestation falls on deaf ears. The game among most academics is to ensure that no one does real research so that the comfort of self-congratulation can continue unabated: “Let’s all read ourselves into whatever and whoever, just don’t confuse us with the facts!”
Now, I just wonder – just wondering, mind you – whether or not a few of those who set policy for intelligence communities these days have set about reducing acquisition of knowledge, of actionable intelligence, to the lowest common denominator that is so low and so common that, really, if someone knows how to play this game, he or she can escape being thrust outside the ultra-broad parameters of tolerance of normalcy by encoders of algorithms, thus remaining undetected, the tradecraft of avoiding tradecraft, making it appear that one is not avoiding detection. Doing this is as easy as knowing the dumbed-downness of one’s partner in the “game.” If the political correctness of analysts has been brought to the point of having analysts never delving deeply into motivation (a predictor of action), the policy has provided a licence to terrorists to kill. Such policy would be the arrogance of a false humility, the imposition of what one expects of one’s ideological instead of real self, a reading of the mere shell of oneself into the target, the actual reality of the target being brushed aside as irrelevant, making the suspect no longer suspect. If it’s irrelevant for me then it must be irrelevant for him, right? Wrong. This is precisely not the humility of which I wrote regarding Kryptos. (See: Solving Kryptos – Crux stat dum volvitur orbis.) This is precisely the way to let terrorism happen.
So, let me be more specific. Is there a politically correct denial of natural law, even though it is cited continuously and somewhat speciously, you know, the old “integrity which knows how to work in gray areas” diatribe? What is the basis for integrity if not natural law, such as in “Don’t murder the innocent,” that kind of thing? Rejection of some of the natural law is rejection of all of it, weakening the accomplishment of the mission because of the dimming of the vision of analysts. If they can’t see what they are doing, what can one expect?
O.K., let me be even more specific. If there is such a backing away from natural law, there follows lockstep a confounding of real religion with fake religion. True religion, to be such, must be consonant with natural law. Fake religion always compromises natural law. If true religion is irrelevant to the analyst, he or she won’t be able to assess the importance of fake religion as a primary motivator in terrorist attacks. This is ideological insanity (wildly not consonant with reality) and forces analysts to be nervous enough to exaggerate their merely secular analyses, as if that were enough. “We can do it! We can do it!” Yes, UBL was had that way, but so much more can be done. Fake religion is the primary motivator in terrorism. That must be taken into account. If not, expect the worst, like Kasi, like the Tsarnaevs, like…
So, what is the crux of religion? It’s not as Kryptos as you think, if you’re honest.
Anyway, something to think about even before mid-late January when the swamps along the Potomac will be drained. Let’s gear up for something good, shall we? For my part, I think I should start publishing a bit more on real vs. fake religion. Stay tuned.