It's 3:22am, and I'm working on fixing an issue with one of the factory machines. Ops is taking their time to do things I ask them to do, so I have a few moment to write down my thoughts between actions. It's been a very long time since I wrote a blog while I was this tired. Good nostalgia feelings writing this right now -- takes me back to my high school and college days......

Today a friend asked me to give him an idea for some song lyrics, and all that came to mind was some of my recent musings about oppression. This is a set of ideas I've been cooking for a while now, I suppose. The question at hand is what's lost when a person gives-in to an oppressor. Before that can be answered, we've got to qualify what it means for a person to "give-in", because there are several different ways to do it. 

In a sense, any form of submission at all is a concession, and concession is minor defeat (except submission to Christ, which, counterintuitively, is a victory in every way). I honestly don't know what's conceded in every defeat, but it sure feels like a loss, and that's why the question about "what's lost" is on my mind. Perhaps it's just my expectations that are defied, and the feeling of loss is only the loss of a future which was never mine to begin with.

One option in the face of oppression is to submit entirely, to change yourself into whatever thing the oppressor demands of you, and lose all of whatever you were before. I suppose this isn't a problem if the "thing you were before" was spineless and lacked self-respect or dignity, or if the lack of a tyrant would not bring you more joy.

I've heard of things like outward compliance and inward protest, where a person commits to maintain what would otherwise be lost inwardly while outwardly performing a semblance of conformity to the oppressor's demands. I suppose there are degrees to that, too, where one person might be able to content themselves with being outwardly compliant forever, another might dissemble their compliance at the soonest opportunity. I don't understand that, though, really. It seems like inward rebellion would take a lot of effort, and oppression is exhausting. How can a person maintain it? 

Another grade of submission is to become outwardly compliant by turning-off one's inner world. This is attractive because it advertises cessation of inner conflict, the pain of which is so imminent that it sometimes appears to be the only feeling at all. Neural pathways are a real thing, though. I'd be worried that if I took this rout, I would eventually lose control of my on/off switch, accidentally subjecting it entirely to force of habit, and thereby losing voluntary access to the inner world from which all my joy and creativity seem to manifest.

and now it's 3:53 and I'm going to sleep.

Well, the above was written a few weeks ago. This week, all the time which I would like to have spent on projects has been thoroughly disrupted. Basically, I've been on service calls and meetings until the end of the day each day. And, when it gets down to the last hour or half-hour, I'm hesitant to start on anything else, because I don't feel like I can make any progress on it. I'm very good at focusing on one thing for long periods of time, and making great progress on that one thing (while listening to a good lecture on the side, of course). I think this makes me well suited to the kind of project work and troubleshooting I do, where I have to wrap my mind around a large system and generate holistic solutions to complex technical problems with broad consequences affecting several distinct parts of one or several machines. It takes me about an hour to "get in the zone" working on a project, and distractions (like meetings or service calls) force me to redirect focus ("out of the zone"), so I have to get back into it. Changing gears this way is actually very draining for me. If I change focus too many times in a day, then my attention span drops and I have a hard time paying attention to anything for very long anymore. Well, this whole week was like that: a couple of meetings, a service call or two, and I'm pretty much beat. It's frustrating for me, because I want to work on my project, but I barely pay attention to my work, and my mind keeps dropping out into nothing-land because I'm drained. Is that an intentional thing on my part? Maybe. Maybe it's lack of self control or discipline. Maybe I'm conceding defeat to the tyranny of my own mind

Listening to IV Conerly today:

Following on my prior "late-night" musings about submission, although I don't understand the second form of submission (outward compliance and inward protest), I have engaged in it. Take masks for example: this morning, at a meeting, a lady gave me a stern tone of voice, saying "Zac" and pointing at her mask (I wasn't wearing mine, and a person had just approached to within 6 feet of me to discuss some maintenance project). I put on a mask at that moment, but I think I may not next time. I have good reason to believe that masks are not effective, and that they are instead harmful. This is not due to radical skepticism concerning the news, nor due to any affection for alternative news sources -- I don't habitually consume news media, neither mainstream nor "alternative". I don't listen to the radio anymore. I don't watch TV. I don't regularly follow any news sources. (I have a few news subscriptions, but believe me when I say I have no time for them). What I did instead was, I noticed (from those unavoidable government advertisements and articles spread by word-of-mouth) a strong deference to the CDC and WHO on all matters pertaining to COVID, and a certain measure of controversy surrounding the matter. So, I got on google, searched for the CDC and WHO's self-justifications concerning mask advocacy, and I found pages made by those entities which listed peer reviewed research papers supporting their opinion. I'll admit I didn't completely read every study (some of them are as prolix as my own blog), but I read the abstracts of nearly every article they listed, at least, and read more if it was interesting or confusing. I then also googled things like "masks ineffective" and the like, to find out what arguments opposed masks, and I found articles listing peer reviewed research papers (interestingly: from the same research-paper database used by the WHO and CDC). I read these as well, with the same attentiveness. I found that the CDCs articles presented independent correlations between mask wearing and rates of infection, but (from what I saw) said nothing about the mode of causality ("how are the masks preventing Covid?") except that they filter droplets containing Covid. What I found from the "opposition" was a series of investigations, trying to prove that masks work, using the scientific method to test the mode of causality. As it happens, they found that the proposed mode of causality for masks was not effective; there is no known causal relationship between mask wearing and Covid rates. In addition, they also presented studies, as large as those presented by the CDC, sometimes larger, showing no independent correlation between mask wearing and rates of infection. So, what is the sum of my research? The effectiveness of masks is unsubstantiated, and the means by which masks are supposed to help (filtration, etc) has been effectively debunked. With that in hand, it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that masks are ineffective. And, I can say from experience, that they're uncomfortable and stifling. Governments (school, local, business, state, and national governments) have no business enforcing unsubstantiated and harmful policies.

So why not just wear a mask to keep the peace? Because I am a dad, and I have to model justice for my children. If everyone wears a mask to keep the peace, then we've given power to unreasonable people, and there is no way to tell whether the majority agrees or is just going along with mask wearing, making themselves uncomfortable, to suit the fears of a few loud individuals who are only all the more fearful and all the louder when they see everyone complying with their demands. This is, to borrow a phrase from a sermon I haven't actually listened to yet, the "tyranny of the weaker brother". Appeasement as a primary strategy for keeping the peace in the face of injustice is unmanly and ignominious, and I must be a man of conviction, so that I can raise a son with a backbone, who will stand against tyranny both large and small.

Moreover, I feel an even stronger revulsion to the vaccine. Praise God almighty, my company has not implemented policies of mandatory vaccination, because I will not comply. The vaccines are (a) uncomfortable, (b) unproved [again, a bit of self-guided studying] (c) developed (researched) with human aborted fetal tissue. (a) and (b) are enough to provoke a religious objection on the grounds that tyranny has no place in God's Law, and I am a theonomist, but (c) is the source of my strongest aversion.

Here are the arguments I've heard supporting the vaccine in spite of the dead baby parts being used in their development.

• But the vaccine was only developed using aborted tissue. It's not "in the vaccine", so you're not benefitting directly from the tissue itself.
• The development of this vaccine didn't happen very long ago, and this company is still doing research and development on other vaccines. I won't support the company by getting their vaccine. I won't legitimize their research while I have a choice.
• But it was only the tissue from one dead baby who died a long time ago (in the 70s?). They aren't aborting new babies to make this happen.
• Just because the murder happened a long time ago, that doesn't make it less of a murder. And, let's be honest with ourselves, it's not just one baby. The only reason that baby's parts were obtained in the first place is because there's an industry killing babies by the thousands every day, right now, right down the road from your house.
  
• But you've already received other vaccines. This isn't a legitimate moral objection, because you've already done it.
• Can we sit down and read Leviticus chapters 4 and 5, Ezekiel chapter 33, 2 Chronicles 7:14, 2 Chron 6:11, and every abjuration in scripture where God tells us to repent and turn away from our wicked ways? The whole Bible is about realizing you've sinned against God and then repenting, believing, asking, and receiving forgiveness from God through Jesus Christ! What does it mean to repent, except to stop doing the sin that made you guilty, after you realize that you've done it? Romans 6:1-2, "shall we continue in sin...? By no means!". Just because I did wrong in the past, that doesn't mean it's ok for me to continue doing wrong today.
• But the damage is already done; the vaccine was already developed. Are you going to refuse to benefit from every unjustly gained thing, even though you didn't have any part in the injustice, and the injustice is long past and not ongoing? Would you refuse to use a technology because, at some point in its past, it was developed with the aid of unjust gains -- would you tear down a house and rebuild it if you found out it were built by slaves many years ago?
• Let's process this last objection at length:

Suppose I walk up to my neighbor, in 2020s USA, and he says to me, "Bro, the transatlantic colonial slave trade is really bad. We have to stop kidnapping people from Africa and making them slaves!" And then I say to him, "I totally agree. It's terrible. I've never agreed with it, and I think it's the worst plague affecting the west at this time. It must end.", and then he calls me out, "How can you say that and look me in the eyes, when you are directly benefitting from it at this moment? You own 18 kidnapped African slaves and they're building you a new barn right now!"

What's wrong with that conversation? The conversation takes place in the 21st century. There's no transatlantic colonial slave trade in America right now (I'm exclusively talking about the kind of slavery which is commonly associated with early America). I don't own any slaves, and neither does anyone I know.

Now suppose my neighbor comes to me, also in 2020s USA, and says, "Bro, abortion is really bad. We have to stop killing babies, and instead force dads to take responsibility for their actions!" Then I say to him, "I totally agree. It's terrible. (etc etc etc)". And then he calls me out, "How can you say that and look me in the eyes when you are directly benefitting from it at this moment? You got the vaccine which was developed using a dead baby, and they're continuing to develop vaccines with dead babies, and you're on your way to get a booster right now!"

This is a more plausible conversation, because the objection, (abortion occurring today; vaccines, benefitting from it; etc), is relevant to actual things happening immediately around us.

But maybe I haven't made my point. Why are these two scenarios different? Maybe let me try another scenario to drive home the distinction. Suppose someone lives in a house which was built by African slaves 300 years ago. Do we have to tear down the house and rebuild it? What's the difference between that and the vaccine?

The difference is that we all agree that the slave trade was wrong, and we aren't using slaves to build our houses anymore. We're (as a society, as per our intentions) ethically sourcing labor to build houses.

We, as a nation are in the midst of national repentance (there will always be racists out there, and the sanctification associated with repentance can take a long time, but it's happening. Proof? There are no auction blocks in my neighborhood.). We're really trying to remove every vestige of racism from society. In that context, if a home exists which was built by slaves, and has a whipping post out front, then both the home and the post can remain standing as terrible reminders of our wicked past, so that history will not be repeated. Would it be better to tear down the house and build a monument to the slaves in its place? Maybe, maybe not. There is a lot that can be learned from the stones touched by enslaved hands: their skills; the angle of their tooling strokes; their blood, sweat, and tears staining the mortar; each stacked brick a monument in itself. The person who lives in that home should know, and find themselves more full of conviction against racism than any of their neighbors. There are people who, today, deny that the holocaust ever happened, and they're anti-Semites! It is good to have tangible reminders of our past atrocities, so that we don't repeat them.

Abortion is still happening today. We are not in the midst of repentance; we're in the midst of the atrocity. There's no solemn reminder in the vaccine. We're still murdering people. We can't say, "it's sad that it had to be this way, but we're working to make sure that this will never happen again, and we maintain this cell line and method of research as a monument to the metric tons of infant blood staining our very own hands." Other vaccines have been made without aborted tissue, and there are donors out there willing to voluntarily give the cells from their own bodies, or from the bodies of their children who have naturally died, but those are not taken. It would be easy to switch to ethically sourced fetal tissue! But we don't, because we're not in repentance, and they don't care that they're using parts from a murdered person to conduct their research. They won't bury what's been preserved of that person, nor choose instead to use gains which are gotten in good conscience.

This is a big deal. 

I also have another religious duty from God, relevant to this issue. I'm a dad. I must be a man who models for my son the things which I believe are important, noble, manly, and true. When I die, even if my son disagrees with me, I hope that he sees me as a man of conviction. More: a man who acted in a way which is true to my convictions, even though it may cost me dearly.

What's the slippery slope argument here? There is a possibility that they take away my ability to get a job and provide for my family. (This is no slippery slope, because Biden has already said he desires for it to happen, and I see it happening to others around me.). What will I do under those circumstances? God forbid that this should happen to me and my family, simply because we refuse an inoculation. Naturally, my family must eat, and I cannot exchange my convictions for food. I would be forced to provide in another way. The best option, I think, is to gather with other theonomists and establish ourselves together.

Last item for this post: At work, all youtube videos featuring Christian hip hop and rap (as far as I can tell -- these include Dream Junkies, Propaganda, IV Conerly, Bizzle, LeCrae, and a several others others) are now blocked, as well as all videos by Ray Comfort, Apologia Studios, Alpha Omega Ministries, and affiliates, and a few other non-rap Christian bands. However, it looks like popular secular rap songs (even the ones with explicit lyrics, which openly degrade women and people of other races) are available for my listening pleasure. I guess the ideology in power at YouTube can only sustain itself when surrounded by intellects conditioned by this quality of material.

"Make a soy wojak edit of them"