BREAKING NEWS FROM THE TRADISPHERE!
We interrupt today's post to bring you an important update to our April 8 analysis (click here). In the newly released April 2017 pesthouse newsletter (click here), Tradzilla ended all doubts about the fates of Melbourne and Toady. The Aussies'll get Beanpole for their "priest," thus paying back Pivvy for his spectacular triumph in Arizona. At the same time, the Toadster, pulled by a gam of pampered priory princesses, will migrate westward to California. "Ordained" on June 29, 2016, Beanpole has been a "priest" for less than a year! (Doesn't sound prudent.) At least the Australians'll have someone who can speak English fluently, and the Donster'll have fewer ravenous mouths to feed. Now back to our regular programming...
.. remember the hardship of tearful children. Teachers drive them hard with curses and orders to repeat and repeat. When the children return home in the evening, they can hardly walk. Kim-Il-sung
Since Tradistan's General Secretary was shown the door by Our Lady of the Sun, the "clergy" have redoubled efforts to entice families to pull up stakes and head on out for the humid swamp. If brainwashed Arizonan moms and dads read this post, they may be able to change their plans before it's too late for their kids —and their savings. While our cultologists analyze the document in detail for future exposés, we want to share with these misguided Catholics our immediate thoughts before the window of opportunity to avert a family catastrophe closes.
The document's formatting is a classic illustration of amateurish pomposity — "Play-Church" in all its cockeyed glory. It's meant to trick the unwary into thinking "the Academy" (LOL) is a Catholic school run by Catholic men and women. (That unaccredited penal colony isn't like any school old-time Catholics we know ever attended.) The whole, messy exercise in tomfoolery, written in stilted, impenetrable pseudo-legalese, is divided into elaborately decimalized sections with Titles, on the model of old theological manuals. Each specific rule under a Title is followed by a notation of the demerits incurred or the punishment due for violation. Take, for example, this bit of arrant pettifoggery:
3.6.46. Title 16: CONDUCT AT HOME, ON DAYS OFF AND ON VACATION
16. On days off, weekends, and vacation periods, even throughout the summer, the students of the Academy shall observe all the general norms of Catholic conduct, as described in the General Norms of Conduct. In addition they must observe (1) all the norms concerning dress and grooming, mentioned in Title 8, unless there is specific mention in the rule that it applies to uniform, school property, or school hour; (2) all the norms concerning culture, mentioned in Title 5. He is furthermore bound to the following rules:
Given their obtuseness, it's obvious these rules, or "norms" as they're bombastically styled, are designed both to force violations and to give the enforcers wiggle room to excuse relatives and other élite offenders. What parents or school children are going to master the intricacies of Tradzilla's "norms" with their cross-referenced exceptions and convoluted sentences? (N.B. "PENAL CODE" is the actual caption for Section VI in this document! Can you believe it? )....16.12 Students may not watch broadcast or cable television programming. It is not forbidden to watch decent videos or even decent programs recorded from broadcast or cable television, provided all objectionable material is removed from them (e.g., commercials). [15 FOR INDIVIDUAL VIOLATIONS; EXPULSION AFTER UNHEEDED WRITTEN WARNING FOR REPEATED VIOLATIONS]
Deeply problematic is the intrusiveness. For instance, who determines what's "decent" or "objectionable" at home? Parents? Or the cult "clergy" and "religious"? An even more serious question is: Who will monitor the observance of these "norms" outside the "school" setting? Do the kids have to turn in their parents, as in a police state? Do parents have to denounce their own children? Must parents drop a dime on others' children? Are the children's playmates supposed to rat them out to the "authorities"? And just what kind of evidence against an offender is probative? Solely the testimony of a tattletale informant, who may have a grudge?
Then, if you're ever down in the swamp, ask what happened to a very well-connected "student" who snatched a math test out of the trash and copied it for distribution to members in her clique in order to prepare for an exam. Was she expelled? (Don't be naïve.) And while you're down there slumming, ask anyone where this model student is today. Nothing can be kept a secret in a small compound, and there are plenty of people who'll tell you.
It won't come as a surprise to learn that élite parents also appear to enjoy the same loose application of the "norms" as do their offspring. For instance, one of the recurring themes among the Eternal Chairman's "norms" is insistence on showing respect and obedience to priests, religious, and teachers. Indeed, there are two titles dedicated to these topics (3.6.32. Title 2 and 3.6.33. Title 3). Moreover, 3.6.14 reads in part:
It is extremely disconcerting to the administration of the Academy when parents speak ill against the teachers, talk to other parents about their complaints, and presume malice in the teachers of their children. Those who give their lives for the Catholic education of the youth are doing a spiritual work of mercy, whether they are paid or not, and must not be verbally abused by those to whom they do so much good.Although competent rule-making avoids writing cry-baby self-justifications like this — it's a rule, not an essay or letter to the editor, for Pete's sake! — PL can see how this paragraph is consistent with the document's overall objective to manipulate the cultlings's psyches. But if the "norms" forbid the use of "foul, vulgar, or impure language" (and they do, see 4.1 under 3.4.4. Title 4: MODESTY, CHASTITY, AND DECENCY), then why did the authorities suffer two of the élite families to curse at a lay teacher in front of students?
Compounding the gravity of the violation, "norm" 2.13 commands, "it is forbidden for students to discuss among themselves what they perceive to be the 'faults' of priests, religious, teachers or adults." Now, from our reading of the "norms," parents are also regulated by them, as we see in 3.6.14, which orders parents to abide by the "principles and rules of the preceding paragraph [viz, 3.6.13, Ed.]" under pain of having "to remove the children from the Academy."
Those "principles and rules" state in part:
...where the parent feels that he must make an appeal in favor of his child, he should do so most discreetly and respectfully, first approaching the child's teachern for an explanation of the incident. The child should not even know of the intervention in his behalf. The parent should presume good will in the teacher, even if he thinks he has made a mistake. Furthermore, if it concerns a minor problem, the parent should have the wisdom to forget about it, being mindful of the greater good of the general accomplishments of the academy for their children.So, then, why didn't these élite parents obey Kim Jong-Don? Is cursing a teacher a means of "discreetly and respectfully... approaching the teacher for an explanation of the incident"? They and their children must certainly have discussed among themselves perceived faults of the teacher. Why didn't the parents do as they were commanded and just "forget about it" instead of exposing students to "foul, vulgar, or impure language"? More to the point, why were they allowed to breach the fourth article of the "Pledge of Decency" they had to "declare, resolve and pledge" and sign? Said article reads, "I will refrain from the public criticism of the priests, teachers, and other administrators of the school, and will resolve my differences with them in a discreet and respectful manner." Oath-breaking is a very serious offense under every "PENAL CODE," so why not in this case?
The Supreme Leader's "norms" make it clear that "hurtful teasing and mockery" constitute one of the "Infractions against charity" (3.6.19, punishable by 20 demerits). How, then, does this square with PL's reports of May 2016? You remember: the one allegation where classmates viciously teased a girl about her weight, while the "priest" in charge did nothing (click here, long essay #1); and the other, where a boy suffering from ADD was made to stand in the hallway in his boxer shorts after he was unable to change his clothes within three minutes after recess (click here, multiple choice #1).
But what do children learn from the capricious administration of the Swampland's "norms"? Above all, we suspect, they learn cynicism. Rules are just for show; fidelity, consistency, and clarity count for nothing. Any rule, it seems, is meant to be broken or at least bent, as long as you've got money and influence. It wouldn't amount to too much of a stretch to infer the rules' authors regard them chiefly as a means of mind control. The game, then, is not to acquire virtue by observing the rules, allowing them to inform one's life, but rather to survive them by means of a weary detachment directed at dodging the white-hot, punishment-happy rage of the Shining Sun of the People's Republic of Tradistan.
From the perspective of game theory, that's probably a useful strategy in such a disordered place: eventually the youngsters will be emancipated and on their own. Withholding assent undoubtedly helps unhappy kids get through each miserable, soul-crushing day. But in the long run, disengaged gamesmanship is mortally dangerous to the soul. When acquired in childhood and adolescence, practiced indifference to the moral, intellectual, and supernatural virtues does not dispose the future adult to order his life in accordance with right reason to God, others, and himself.
If we're lucky, the Arizona parents who're uprooting their families to move to the Swampland will read this post and reconsider. The great trek from the desert to the Hermit Kingdom hasn't yet begun, so we're told. If they don't get the message, however, their children are as good as doomed: The "norms" may have become more oppressive since we acquired our copy. For others who may still be contemplating relocation to the swamp, we'll revisit in depth other "norms" in upcoming posts. Some parents' hesitancy today suggests they have doubts about dismal tomorrows in the dark heart of Tradistan. They may still be able to act to
*Just read this vile example of Catch-22 gobbledygook:
3.1. Students must obey the commands of their priests, religious, teachers unless (a) the command is clearly contrary to a higher law; (b) the command is clearly outside or beyond their limits of authority. Whenever doubt should exist about (a) or (b), the presumption is in favor of the superior, and the command must be obeyed.But if there's no doubt on the child's part and s/he disobeys in good conscience, what happens then? Or does "norm" 3 of 3.6.33. Title 3: OBEDIENCE override any exceptions: "Prompt obedience must be shown to all priests, religious, teachers in all that pertains to their respective competence [5 FOR MINOR DISOBEDIENCE; 10 TO 25 FOR GRAVE]?
BTW, good luck to any cornered kid or frazzled mom trying to figure out what "respective competence" means.