The deception of the vested interest.

Are you disappointed that someone you believed in, that the doctrine s/he espoused, the stand taken, all crumbled before their new understanding? The most recent crumbling of the edifice, at least for us Christians, is Josh Harris, he of l Kissed Dating Goodbye fame. I have nothing to say about Josh, nor to him, nor about him specifically. I will leave that to my betters. He’s apparently changed his mind about some vital things, maybe has some new understandings. We have known people like that, he’s hardly unique, every democrat politician, at least those running for any kind of office, can proudly debate their new understandings. I don’t know about Josh, but politicians, especially Democrats, seem to get new understandings whenever their wet fingers sense a change in the wind.

Few things blind and deceive us more than the vested interest. That’s the crux of the problem of trusting in your own understanding. I think of the case of a conservative pastor who led a church in San Francisco. His message was so uncompromising, “truth is not a matter of what the majority wants to be true, but what scripture says is true,” that many people were attracted to it by that idea. His vested interest was building a congregation. Did he promote the gospel? Yes. Could that have been his primary goal? It could have, if his message survived a change in vested interest. One day, his eldest son confessed to his homosexuality. It wasn’t long before the truth message of the church changed. It became, “what the majority wants to be true is the truth, regardless of what scripture says.” What happened? His new vested interest was protecting his son from having to repent.

What if the vested interest deception were responsible for race hating? What if White Christians who were slave “owners” (though no one can own anyone else), or worse, slave traders, really knew that the melanin content of a person’s skin couldn’t possibly be related to intelligence, or industriousness, or morality, but took up their stupid and ignorant beliefs about negroes because slavery was in their vested interest, and they could not continue in it if they believed otherwise? Or if they believed the Bible. Or if they believed, “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator….” Obviously all men are not created equal, but since their rights are endowed by their Creator, their rights are created equal. Could any decent and intelligent person justify “owning” another human being, or trading in their lives, unless they deceived themselves about the humanity of their captives?

When protecting yourself and your family from the tyranny of the Nazis was your vested interest, could you stand against Hitler and his minions? When protecting your privilege and perks is your vested interest, could you stand against the communist party? When avoiding the gulag, the labor camp, the re-education camps, could you stand against Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung? It might be argued persuasively that the vested interest deception is responsible for more evil, and going along with evil, than any specific person or philosophy in history. Maybe it’s the root of evil, along with pride. Maybe it’s another name for pride.

So beware these “new understandings.” The Old understandings were either true or the product of the vested interest deception. The new understandings are the same. Only something that doesn’t change, the Lord himself, is true understanding.

The consumer, not the court, is the ultimate judge of wokeness.

The “smirk” and the jerk (with the drum)

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman dismissed Nick Sandmann’s $250 million defamation suit against The Washington Postfor its stories about a mythical racist hate-crime allegedly committed by Sandmann, a Catholic schoolboy, against fake war hero and “Indigenous Person” Nathan Phillips. Ann Coulter. 8/1/2019. This is a brilliant piece by Coulter, a must read. Here’s the link.

“However, P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year, P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.” Reuters news. A net loss of that much money must mean that those who do shave have abandoned Gillette en masse, even though Reuters interprets as “P&G chalked the billions in dollars lost up to foreign exchange fluctuations, increased competition and a contracting market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently.” How does Reuters know that consumers shave less frequently?

Gillette’s commercial that blanketed the male gender with the accusation of “toxic masculinity” while using feminist buzzwords and clips of hard-left news organizations was one of the most hated commercials of the past decade. As P&G continued to see profits go up for all of their brands, Gillette began suffering profit drops that were revealed last April. Perhaps P&G isn’t willing to come forward yet with the fact that they made a monumental error in assuming men would take the “toxic masculinity” commercial well, but they should soon. The brand is damaged enough to lose billions, and men aren’t coming back, especially with cheaper alternatives embracing men for who they are and not assuming the worst about them. I personally go out of my way to not buy Gillette products. I switched to Harry’s razors, which are infinitely better than Gillette’s, though I still use Gillette Edge, most of my shaving is with an electric. I avoid all Gillette grooming products.

The lesson for me here is that corporations need feedback to help them make good decisions. Feedback from consumers is way more effective than feedback from courts, and less hypocritical, especially when a biased judge, rather than a jury, gets to decide who was being dishonest.