Sorosian Liberation Philanthropy

By david arthur walters

Anyone to the left of right is a leftist as far as a right-wing ideologue is concerned; therefore, everything the so-called leftist does, no matter how philanthropic, must be part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to rob rightists of their rights and impose upon them a communistic regime where everyone is actually equal instead of ideally so somewhere in their hidden nature. Communists are naturally dirt poor leftists who are jealous of the selfish way of life of the right wing, whose wealthy elite the leftists would fain rob by virtue of liberal or involuntary charity instead of getting down on their knees like good Christians and begging for compassionate conservatism or voluntary charity. Of course leftists would pave the road to hell by investing the extorted proceeds in the most foolhardy of all causes, the absolute elimination of poverty through the imposition of total utopia on Earth. Indeed, in the final leftist analysis, everyone should be moderately wealthy. Starting with the current food supply, there would be plenty for everybody if only it were evenly distributed. Until then, anyone who is rich is somehow filthy rich. He is no doubt a private capitalist if he started with little or nothing. He got his hands filthy getting rich; he will stand out like a sore thumb no matter what hand he is on

One glaring example on the left hand is zillionaire George Soros, the self-made private statesman who rose from rags to riches to become a prominent member of the global power elite. When he calls, heads of states hurry to answer the phone. A goodly portion of his gains are ill-gotten if gambling is really a sin. His conscience or native sense of social justice has reportedly moved him from contempt for hypocritical philanthropy to the contribution of hundreds of millions of dollars to liberation philanthropy. He and his foundations are involved in the establishment and support of liberal democracies and international liberal alliances; the advancement of health, education, arts and culture, the establishment and support of independent media and communications; the reform of the criminal justice and public administration systems; the expansion of human rights such as immigrant rights, women’s rights including abortion, and the right to die as one chooses.

Mr. Soros, who in his youth disguised himself as a Christian and survived the battle of fascists and communists over Budapest, has first of all dedicated himself and his fortune to breaking up political monopolies, the closed systems associated with totalitarianism, so that social injustice might be alleviated, for example, with fair compensation. Communists believe the state will wither away altogether, while fascists believe the corporation should be the state. Fascism is the perfection of unbridled capitalism, which espouses the central tenet of free-market fundamentalism; to wit, business unrestrained by government, its mere running dog or side cabinet, so that competitors can be wiped out or bought out until globular Totalitaria monopolizes the globe. Mr. Soros, somewhat of a moderate despite the hypocritally hateful ranting of fundamentalist preachers of love to the contrary, seems to prefer a tolerant, mixed government. He believes the government of the United States has gone too far to the right, towards fascism; therefore, in addition to his efforts to dissolve the political constructs of leftist monopolies and their fascist successors overseas, he devoted many millions of dollars to help depose the right-wing authoritarian neoconservatives who seized the government of the United States. He quite naturally supported the presidential candidacy of Barrack Hussein Obama.

Mr. Obama, as we know only too well, was scandalized during the presidential campaign by the publication of the enthusiastic rants of his longtime, black liberation theology pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and that eventually led Mr. Obama to do the politically correct thing, to divorce himself from his family’s beloved church and to denounce Mr. Wright’s purportedly extremist perspective. In 2003 Reverend Wright had begged God to damn America for oppressing blacks: "No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people." Super-patriotic Americans were naturally appalled by the reverend’s un-American exclamations and immediately announced that Mr. Obama must be in complete agreement with his pastor’s bitter denunciation. Never mind the fact that, if Reverend Wright’s prayer were answered, he and his black church would be damned as well, and that such provocative expressions of self-contempt are a traditional Judeo-Christian virtue, supposed to motivate virtuous reforms.

After all, America as a nation has been guilty as sin of racism and bigotry and other forms of oppression. Just as Martin Luther called the onslaught of Muslims in his day “the iron rod of God” brought down on Europe for its sins, a few Christian fundamentalists dared to publicly say that Americans bore some responsibility for Islamist attacks on their lifestyle; but they were shouted down by super-patriots and metaphorically crucified. Martin Luther had been a Catholic himself, and was a witness to the nationalistic or particularistic uprising against the universal church. Such an uprising against the universal was bound to be punished. Patriotism under Christianity was not the religion that we make of it today: nowadays nations are idolized churches, institutions “under God” as political ministers are fain proclaim in congress. Today’s neo-barbarian nations remind us of the defeated barbarian tribes of old when alien Christianity was thrown off from time to time: the tribal idol was dragged through the village, and anyone who did not cheer was dispatched on the spot.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “May God damn American” simply meant, may God condemn America for its waywardness from righteousness, for its injustice. And it is for that waywardness that the city on the hill has been most recently condemned by the surround that expects it to be a stellar example. The righteous indignation aroused by black reverends is intended to provoke constructive action instead of the white man’s pious lip service. Yet dare not any black liberation preacher beseech God to damn America for black oppression, or for any sort of oppression at all for that matter! Candidate Obama had to transcend black-and-white thinking and take the universal or catholic view, at least for appearances sake. Still, people who think that color is symbolically more than skin deep worry that his white side sides too much with his black side, because he has said that he considers himself a black man, and because he has apparently associated with more black people than white people. Wherefore it is advantageous for white people, including President Obama’s philanthropic benefactor Mr. Soros, to understand what constitutes black liberation theology, the religious institution of black power..

Black liberation theology is about siding with the underdog that happens to be black. The God of Justice is the God of the Underdog. It is about having black skin, or at least being symbolically black, meaning that one must be oppressed and enslaved to fully understand the gravity of God. That understanding cannot be had in a lily-white church. White Christianity is associated with individualism, separation of church from state, of Sunday belief from daily practice, with the freedom only in the other world but with slavery in this one; hence this kind of whiteness is the epitome of the hypocrisy early Christians bitterly derided. White worshippers cannot have the faintest idea of what black worship is like until they metaphorically paint themselves black and worship in a black church.

Mind you that black liberation theologian James Cone, in A Black Theology of Liberation, pointed out that “the focus on blackness does not mean that only blacks suffer as victims in a racist society, but that blackness is an ontological symbol and a visible reality which best describes what oppression means in America,” Mr. Cone believes Jesus came to fight Satan. Of course today's Satan is a racist hence the white man is Satan's agent: "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.' The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by demonic forces... About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death." The criminal justice system is demonic. All that Black theologians are asking for with this strong language is freedom and justice, not special rights for blacks.

Black theology is a theology of liberating works instead of faithful lip-service to love. It is the Black Power of the Black Book. Black liberation theology celebrates the God of Black Existence instead of the God of White Oppression, so that everyone may actually be equal on this Earth in the sight of God. Although God is many things to many people, God is Power to all, regardless of their color and form. Power must be justly distributed. Luke’s book best expresses the Gospel of Liberation spread by Paul, a Gospel good for all oppressed people: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” (Luke 4:18-19)

Black liberation theology is a theology of oppressed particulars: the theology of the poor in particular, versus the universal theology of the universal wealthy god; the theology of the female, in particular, as opposed to the theology of the universal male god; the theology of blacks, in particular, in contrast to the universal theology of the white god. It is a Black Logos, a Black Canon for the Oppressed, a Theology of Victimology, and a Language of Liberation. And yes, the Gospel of Liberation is, first and foremost, for Slaves; one must first be slavish to be liberated! Oppressed people are not all black, but blacks can liberate all, so the white person might like to become, in this special sense, a wigger to be liberated, and then he and she will not be surprised to know that only a wise mulatto can liberate America. White enslaved black so black could save white.

Certainly liberation philanthropist George Soros, who was himself the recipient of charity during his London school days, can understand that white charity is sentimental, condescending, denigrating. "Authentic love is not 'help,'" Mr. Cone stated, "not giving Christmas baskets, but working for political, social, and economic justice, which always means a redistribution of power. It is the kind of power which enables blacks to fight their own battles and thus keep their dignity."

Now we have credited George Soros’ contributions to liberation philanthropy instead of liberation theology because he is a noncommunist, secular Jewish intellectual and philosopher who preaches Open Society liberation from Closed Society enslavement. If only the Judeo-Christian one-god were at the center of his universal or catholic activism, he might pass for a liberation theologian worthy of scrutiny by the Catholic Inquisition – the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Inquisition is bound to question the faith of any doctrinaire who confesses the one and only God yet seemingly puts particularistic politics ahead of the one-God, and whose theology therefore is no longer the Logos of Theos but is rather an ideology or logic of a particular set of ideas. It might be proper to call the support that Mr. Soros provides to liberal causes philanthropy to the extent that he loves man, but his man-centered philanthropy is hardly charity in the Judeo-Christian sense, even when it is tax deductible, because its humanism is not based on showy love for a deity above all, to whom all works, not matter how various, must be devoted..

Mr. Soros, like liberation theologians, advocates “social justice” for the world’s poor majority. He believes the victims of unjust political powers should be adequately “compensated” for social injustice, but by that he does not mean to instantiate totalitarian communism. Justice would best be done by liberating the poor from the top-down structural restraints of relatively closed societies and from the predatory colonial-style practices of the First World gang of affluent and relatively free states. What is needed everywhere, including the United States, is not anarchy, or liberation from authoritarian government per se, but liberal democracy, an adequately regulated path to that loosely knit Popperian and Sorosian utopia called the Open Society. To that end Mr. Soros has actively committed himself, donning the robe of a practicing philosopher-king, a role that his philosopher-hero Karl Popper might deplore from the grave because it smacks of Plato’s totalitarian Republic. However, Mr. Soros is too busy with his foundation’s activities lately to give the fallibility of his own philosophical principles enough thought. Perhaps he will give himself cause for doubt, and send his regal robe out for dry cleaning. Thinking ends where action begins, as an astute fascist philosopher once pointed out in his Italian philosophy of the Act as mankind embarked on another killing spree for its moral improvement. Once an action begins it might be halted, but one cannot undo what has been done, and what has been done irrevocably influences what follows. Karl Marx said that the objective of philosophy is not to understand the world but to change it. But philosophy is by nature skeptical; activists have little time or taste for self-contradiction, hence tend to be habitual ideologues to excuse themselves, or “by God” bigots who refer complaints about their contradictions to “God’s mysteries.”

As for the god of godlessness, it is to their own detriment that atheists have abandoned or murdered God and have little to show for it but an idolized pile of dung. At least the deity might have been kept for lip-service, to be wheeled on stage to resolve antinomies and to confound opponents with “God’s mysteries.” Without God to conveniently justify differences, an activist philosopher dealing with the dirty details may find it difficult to keep his hands clean and maintain a meaningful transcendent universal in particular situations necessarily defined by their differences. Somehow faith in the One must be upheld above the multiplicity of works or things will not work out or be reconciled in the end. But faith in justice must always admit and thus unavoidably and unintentionally perpetuate the injustices without which there would be no worldly justice; thus justice needs injustice just as the one-god needs an adversary to sum up the world and rule over its dirty details in order for the one-god to distinguish himself. Whereas pantheism identifies the universe in all its particulars with divinity, monotheism is a dualist system, setting the divinity apart and above the creation. The creator may love the creation as long as the creatures love him over and above themselves. Indeed, they must love him or else be damned by the Dom’s judgment or doom. It is an either/or dualist proposition. One must choose the best s/he can. Some things are relatively better than others, or least harmful to all concerned, but one thing, the universal, stands above all, and precisely what that is cannot be known or said because it is indefinite hence inscrutable and ineffable. Strictly speaking, the liberated devotee, knowing that his judgment is fallible, idolizes no thing in itself, for no thing has intrinsic value: rather, he places his faith in nondenominational Nothing, in which all existents are justified as negations of one another. Nothing is permanent. Nothing is perfect. Liberty! Take a hammer and smash everything in sight: whatever is left is good; in this iconoclastic sphere, the difference between an atheist and theist or pantheist and monotheist is irrelevant.

George Soros, a so-called atheist and secular Jew, appears to have faith in justice, as did his orthodox forefathers. Indeed, a rereading of the ancient scripture might lead us to assume that its authors’ fondest hope is for justice in this world, and that the Hebrew god is, in effect, Justice. That is to say that God’s presence is performed thru justice. Following the famous stages set forth by Auguste Comte, the god of justice has become the metaphysical concept of justice and then has become the positive practice of justice for the benefit of humankind. But conservatives with original sin in mind hew to orthodoxy and cast a suspicious eye on revolutionary deviances from the straight and narrow path, deviances that might upset the applecart hauled out of Eden. Man and his idea of justice is untrustworthy, hence faith must be placed in God, the justification for everything.

We are not surprised to hear that Mr. Soros’ Open Society foundation has extended a charitable hand to liberal Catholic organizations such as The Catholic Alliance for the Common Good. So-called pelvic theologians, or genitalia dispensationalists whose main concern is how people deploy their genitals, have accused him of supporting Catholics For Free Choice, an organization that believes that a woman should have control over her own body, but an officially reported $100,000 contribution to the Catholic Alliance in 2006 troubles them all the more because of its social theology. Although the Open Society is not George Soros incarnated, and although a donation to any one organization does not mean that the contributor believes in everything the organization says or does, the Open Society donation to the Catholic Alliance proves to pelvic theologians that George Soros is sympathetic to the socialist aims of social theologians. Of course for antisocial people “socialist” is a “dirty word” or “black label” intended to sully the reputation of anyone to whom it is applied, in the main those activists who would “spread the wealth” around from the richer to the poorer, especially poor black Americans, since they are the poorest of the poor.

Like George Soros personally, one of the fundamental concerns of the Catholic Alliance is social justice: “We envision a society shaped by the values of social justice, human dignity, and the common good where faithful American Catholics can embrace the fullness of the Church’s social justice teachings when participating in democratic society. As Catholics, we inherit a rich tradition…based on Jesus’ call to love one’s neighbor…and the Hebrew prophetic commitment to justice and righteousness.”

Catholic Alliance socialists still hew to the Catholic teaching of the transcendence of God over black-and-white issues. Members of the Alliance also ally themselves with the Catholic preference for the poor, because “society is only as strong as its weakest members. The only way to foster the common good is to work together to radically improve the situation of society’s poor and most vulnerable members. We are called to base both our individual choices and public policy decisions on how they affect the poor.” No doubt “every human has a fundamental right food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, education and employment. Only by achieving these…on a collective scale…can society fully promote human dignity.” And of course “government, or the state, has as its core a positive moral function. It’s an instrument to promote human dignity, human rights and the common good.”

Furthermore, the Catholic Alliance works to realize the “economic justice” that is supposed to be furthered by the Church. Pope Paul II is quoted as an exemplary authority: “There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. It is the task of the state and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that should be done.”

As for social injustice in the United States, the 1986 U.S. Catholic Bishops Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy is quoted by the Catholic Alliance: “The ultimate injustice is for a person or group to be treated actively or abandoned passively as if the were nonmembers of the human race.”

It appears that people who believe in God may believe in almost anything else as long as they keep God in mind; hence great religions are split along political lines at the front, so that only God may determine who is right enough to win the bloody war of who loves Him most of all. The liberal activist platform of liberal theology black or white is frighteningly familiar to its conservative opponents, many of whom are Catholics and were duly horrified by the campaign rhetoric of presidential candidate Barrack Hussein Obama and his Catholic running mate Joe Biden. Naturally, liberation philanthropist George Soros was a generous supporter of the campaign, although he does not entirely agree with the agenda of the Democratic Party.

Since the “god-fearing socialist” and “black church liberationist” Candidate Obama will probably be elected president today, and since he may be advised by his Catholic running mate and by the white atheist philosopher and liberal philanthropist George Soros, it would behoove the student of liberation philanthropy to brush up on white liberation theology in addition to black liberation theology – they have their common root in 1960’s Latin America. Again, liberation theology is the theology of the underdog whatever the color of the dog, a theology of works that expects liberation here and now instead of in the afterlife. The historical Church has often taught its heretics not only the vices but the virtues of its enemies by its formal denouncements – the inimical works were often destroyed. Of course the Church has no such power of total censorship today, so we can hear the words from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, and we can find thousands of liberation theology tracts at our fingertips on the Internet. Still, with the religious activists’ protests against oppression in mind, it is to our advantage to listen to the authority that places its faith in the universal over the fleeting particulars of existence, for dynamic activism is nothing without a static hypothesis, just as relativism is inconceivable but against a stable background.

The doctrine set forth by the inquisitor Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is instructive, although it hedges somewhat to defend orthodoxy. For instance, we turn to his ‘Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, given at Rome, for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on March 22, 1986. He avers that the godly truth that shall set us free is centered in Christ on the redeeming Cross, “the root and rule of freedom,” and it is this truth that is “at the heart of the mystery of faith.” The liberal movement seeks to set man free from superstition and domination by man. Its progress is undeniable; however, serious ambiguities plague the movement. Its individualistic ideology favors the unequal distribution of wealth, so that workers came to be denied the fruits of their work, and their “just demands” have “led to new forms of servitude, being inspired by concepts which ignored the transcendental vocation of the human person.”

Wherefore the liberal movement has fostered inequality amongst individuals and nations, and through its technological advances, it has resulted in totalitarian systems and other forms of tyranny including terrorism. The movement has blamed faith in God for man’s enslavement, not understanding that man’s independence from God alienates him from his source of freedom. “Escaping the measuring rod of truth, he falls prey to the arbitrary; fraternal relations between people are abolished and give place to terror, hatred and fear. Because it has been contaminated by deadly errors about man’s condition and his freedom, the deeply rooted modern liberation movement remains ambiguous. It is laden with promises of freedom and threats of deadly forms of bondage.”

Now because the Church has intervened in the name of Christ, she is accused of setting herself as an obstacle in the path to liberation and it is said that her enmity to freedom is demonstrated by her own hierarchical structure. But real freedom has always been known to the Church through its faithful, “especially among the little ones and the poor. In their faith, these latter know that they are the object of God’s infinite love.” In fact it is the poor who understand “that the most radical liberation…is the liberation accomplished by the Death and Resurrection of Christ.” The just and poor endure persecution, martyrdom and death; but they live in hope of deliverance. Above all, they place their trust in God. The Son of God by appearing on Earth made himself poor to save us, therefore he wishes to be recognized in the poor. The Church then gives preference to the poor, and engages in countless acts of charity.

The Grand Inquisitor informs us that freedom must be ethically employed, to save man from the evils of individualistic disobedience to God’s will. Each man must learn to “unite his will to the others for the sake of true good” so that his will is “in harmony with the exigencies of human nature.” This unison or justification and correspondence of God’s will with man’s free will is in fact the criterion of truth. “Freedom is not the liberty to do anything whatsoever. It is the freedom to do good.” That is to say that freedom is not freedom: it is voluntary obedience to law. “Authentic freedom is the service of justice while the choice of disobedience and evil is the slavery of sin.” Man becomes free only to the extent that he knows this and acts accordingly, justifying his behavior with God’s commands. Real freedom is ethical inasmuch as it chooses moral good over immorality. This shared freedom “confirms the loftiest insights of human thought.”

Sin, says the Grand Inquisitor, is the root of human alienation from God, in whose image man was created. “By sinning, man lies to himself and separates himself from his own truth.” By “seeking total autonomy and self-sufficiency, he denies God and denies himself. Alienation from the truth of his being as a creature loved by God is the root of all other forms of alienation.” The modern liberation movement, with its individualism and predominating interest in created things, has given itself over to idolatry. The “worship of created things falsifies the relationship between individuals and brings with it various kinds of oppression. Again, “by sinning, man seeks to free himself from God. In reality he makes himself a slave.” For him, divine law is intolerable. The sinful man has become his own center; he “tends to assert himself and to satisfy his desire for the infinite use of things: wealth, power and pleasure, despising other people and robbing them unjustly and treating them as instruments.”

It might seem from the above that the Grand Inquisitor is a communist. He might admit to spiritual or theological or catholic communism, but earthly or political communism is anathema – the Church of course is purportedly apolitical. Cardinal Ratzinger’s “fundamental principles” attempt to reconcile the antagonism between individualism and collectivism “Intimately linked with the foundation, which is man’s dignity, are the principle of solidarity and the principle of subsidiarity. By virtue of the first, man with his brothers is obliged to contribute to the common good of society at all its levels. Hence the Church’s doctrine is opposed to all forms of social or political individualism. By virtue of the second, neither the state nor any society must ever substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediate communities… Hence the Church’s social doctrine is opposed to all forms of collectivism.”

How is justice to be done according to logical contradictions? Love is sufficient justification. The mission of the Church, states the Prefect of the Sacred Congress for the Doctrine of the Faith, involves the promotion of justice, but she must not be preoccupied with particular worldly orders but with divine unity, the good of the whole. “The salvific dimension of liberation cannot be reduced to the socio-ethical dimension, which is a consequence of it. By restoring man’s true freedom, the radical liberation brought about by Christ assigns to him a task: Christian practice, which is the putting into practice of the great commandment of love.”

For a fairer view of Cardinal Ratzinger’s notion of justice, we turn to his previous pronouncements, ‘Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation’, given by the Prefect at Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on August 6, 1984. “The warning against the serious deviations of some ‘theologies of liberation’ must not be taken as some kind of approval, even indirect, of those who keep the poor in misery, who profit from that misery, who notice it while doing nothing about it, or who remain indifferent to it. The Church, guided by the Gospel of mercy and by the love for mankind, hears the cry for justice and intends to respond to it with all her might…. the Church, which wants to be the Church of the poor throughout the world, intends to come to the aid of the noble struggle for truth and justice. She addresses each person, and for that reason, every person. She is the universal Church, the Church of the Incarnation. She is not the Church of one class or another…. An effective defense of justice needs to be based on the truth of mankind, created in the image of God and called to the grace of divine sonship. The recognition of the true relationship of human beings to God constitutes the foundation of justice to the extent that it rules the relationships between people. That is why the fight for the rights of man, which the Church does not cease to affirm, constitutes the authentic fight for justice… The acute need for radical reforms of the structures which conceal poverty and which are themselves forms of violence should not let us lose sight of the fact that the source of injustice is in the hearts of men. Therefore it is only by making an appeal to the 'moral potential' of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about which will be truly in the service of man….”

Liberals and conservatives alike can enjoy liberation rhetoric to a certain extent because everyone likes the idea of freedom; but they might disagree on the degree and kind of order necessary for freedom to be enjoyed. The rhetoric is ambiguous because we are divided between freedom and order within. Everyone is a liberal to the extent that he or she wants to be liberated from some evil or another, howsoever defined. That evil must have been within before it was let loose on the world. In addition to the cry for social change at this crucial turning point, we do need to hear as well more fervent moral appeals for inner change from liberal philanthropists and liberal theologians and liberal politicians – especially from the B&W messiah who has arisen in America to take the pulpit, and from the books and testimony of his billionaire hedge fund manager and philosopher.

We were adjured to “welcome change” during the Dot.com Revolution because “change is inevitable”, but we certainly did not want to be welcome mats for someone else’s sort of change. We were afraid of change; we balked; the Regresivos seized our government and we are in a sorry state indeed. Enter the Progresivos to legislate more external changes. Ironically, the Regresivos and Progresivos have much in common; both parties are Rotativos, rotating pragmatically, one after another, around the public feeding trough, and to what end? To gradual reform, to a tinkering of the machine so business as usual could be perpetuated ad infinitum? We are tired of the vicious circle, so we cry out for change and the pendulum swings back and forth and round and around.

Ironically, the nervously milling crowd lowing for change does not like big CHANGE, but never mind. Our civilization will no doubt change whether any one faction likes it or not. Civilization is a technical matter, and rapid technological progress has lifted all boats. Mechanization allows us to produce more and more goods and to spread more of the surplus around. Moral progress is another matter altogether, lagging so far behind technology that we might coin the motto High Technology, Low Morality. But we have had considerable moral improvements realized along the lines laid out by the ancients, in part because scientific and technologically advances have allowed us to better afford the material aspect of moral conduct - sharing. As Lyndon Johnson put it, everyone will get what they have coming at table and the surplus will be passed around. But material sharing will be for naught in the end unless spiritual change is wrought so that love for the universal may reconcile the strife of particulars. May three equal one, in the name of the subject, object, and relation, as one. We all ready have white, and black, and their relationship in one person. We ask for nothing less than the ultimate concrete universal. We ask for a miracle.

XYX